# New RhB Passenger Car by LGB has started to ship



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

LGB/Marklin started to ship the new green RhB passenger car B 2221 late last month in Germany.
First feedback from people who have received it is that this turned out to be a beautiful model, carefully constructed and assembled.
Details are in the Large Scale database - if you click on the picture you will get a larger version of the photograph. 

http://www.gbdb.info/details.php?image_id=952


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

That sure is a beautiful car...let's hope that is a sign of things to come. 

Keith


----------



## rkapuaala (Jan 3, 2008)

That really is a fine looking car.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

That is VERY nice. Look closely at the door handle for example....


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Spule 4 on 01 Nov 2010 04:01 PM 
That is VERY nice. Look closely at the door handle for example.... Garrett - please pm me - I need to send you a picture of a Hungarian NG passenger car so that you can tell me what colour it is!

Best

tac
www.ovgrs.org
Supporter of the Cape Meares Lighthouse Restoration Fund


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Better than PM tac, e-mail sent!


----------



## LebenswichtigeGartenBahn (Oct 23, 2010)

That is a nice 9x window (per side) coach. As they note, they have "retooled" to "accurately represent the windows". It is still aparently based on the 660mm coach that was offered as the LGB31520 and LGB31523. As I'll explain, those coaches fell about 2.75-3" short of their prototypical length in 1:22.5 scale. Unfortunately, so does this one. The B2221/B2232 prototypes were 15.93m and should be 708mm long as well and not 660mm. That's just under 2" too short. Less noticeable than the others, but still irritating at these prices. 

I recently decided to attempt to match some of my LGB RhB locos and coaches in H0m scale with BEMO and got a real eye-full of different RhB coach protoypes; WAY MORE than the LGB offering. It also drew my attention to how much Lehmann and Fa. Märklin relied on a very limited number of moulds. 

I found that all the 3067 series coaches are based on a single RhB A1271/A1272 EW III series protoype! Grrrr! Only the prototypes A1271/A1272 have the correct window numbers and placements matching the coach represented by LGB with the matching numbers. Coaches like the RhB A1253, A1255, AB1543, B2460 and FO D4214 , A4065 all come up at least one window per-side short, if not having an altogether different combination of large and small windows. 

Even my beloved LGB 3068 series restaurant cars, which are supposed to represent the WR3815 comes up 1x large window and some length short of the prototype. Although the original WR3815 was platformed from an EW III series coach, it was not the short-bodied A1271 or A1272 but the B2462 which is 1x full-sized window longer. 
As a result LGB's interpretation had to have 1x less window to match the shorter coach they sourced for their version. 

For the uninitiated, a rake of LGB's red (or green) RhB A1271/A1272-based coaches behind a Ge 4/4 II or Ge 4/4 III locomotive look varied enough in paint scheme details not to inspire making a closer comparison with their prototypes. Still, it is a shame that Lehmann chose to clone "interpretive" variations based on the short-bodied versions for their $300+ "deluxe coaches". Had they chosen the only slightly longer RhB B2462 instead of the A1271 as their platform, they could much more easily produced other variants within that length range (including a more accurate Restaurant Car). As it is RhB only ever had the 2x coaches (originally A 1271 and A1272) which have since been rebuilt and re-numbered as A531 01 and A531 02, that ever matched LGB's entire 3067-series of RhB / FO / MOB coaches. 

I can only hope that Märklin will do a better job with this B2221 and not repeat the Lehmann pattern of trying to get a dozen different variants out of the same mould, by simply varying the paint schemes, even if they don't match the most obvious physical details! 

It was already Märklin when LGB released their version of A1215. Like the B2221 version being offered now, it was very closely based on the prototype's window pattern and count. They also decide to release a 2008 Club Model (LGB 31520) as a B2284. The orignal prototypes were 16.44m long from buffer-to-buffer which should work out to almost 29" (731mm) in G-scale. However, as offered at 660mm (26"), it proves to be too short and made the windows look disproportionately large. The coach body looks "stubby" compared to the actual coach. Apparently Fa. Märklin assumed their customers would be more thrilled at the new offer of variety more than concerned with a few "technical details". 

The prototype coaches A1215 and B2284 do have a similar window arrangement but are too short. Now even KISS offered their RhB coaches in a full-length and a "shortened" version but, given the lengths of LGB's Amfleet and DB standard gauge coaches and their ability to negotiate even an R1 radius, why would Märklin choose to shorten their newly moulded RhB coaches when not quite 3" would have made them correctly proportioned? BTW, the Amfleet coaches are just under 32" (800mm) long. So obviously a 29" vs. 26" length shouldn't present a functional issue. 

It also bears noting that even though Märklin chose to represent the A1215/B2284 actual 16.44m at 660mm, the prtotypical length for the A1271/A1272 that the LGB3067 coaches are modeled on was also 16.45m! The LGB3067 A1271-based series was about 24" (620mm) long. This means that Lehmann chose to shorten their RhB coaches by about 5" and the later Märklin interpretation of that same length was about 2" longer than the earlier Lehmann ones. I can only guess that Märklin assumed that correct-scaled length RhB A1215/B2284 coaches at 5" longer than their protypically nearly-identical lengthed counterparts of the Lehmann-era A1271/A1272 would tend to dramatize their reduced length too much and compromised to allow "old" and "new" to better harmonize when combined in a single train? 

I for one would like to see Märklin give their Scale IIm / G the same consideration of their Scale I or even H0 when it comes to, not only correctly detailing but, following the prototypical lengths and proportions relative to scale. Why should a $400+ coach not reflect the proper proportions of its prototype at least as much as >$100 H0m (D+R or BEMO) version? The fact that they are using an existing 660mm coach platform in hopes that we won't miss the nearly 2" of additional length it takes to be accurately proportioned, suggests that little has changed for this scale - We will continue to get retooled variations of the same moulds, producing models that are more interpretations than true-to-scale representations. (A valid criticism that has plagued our scale from modelers of other scales.) If that's all we'll be offered, why not simply express our own creativity and airbrush and renumber a few basic coaches ourselves to represent a whole host of moderately simiilar-at-a-casual-glance RhB rolling stock? 

If this is all about economic viability, my question would be, "How much is it going to cost to produce some coaches that are not several inches off in length from their proper dimensions?" Further, is it really too much to ask at $400 a coach to make them the right length as well as put the right number of windows in them? Obviously, what's past with Lehmann is past, but I don't see Märklin taking any huge leaps here either. 

Am I asking too much, missing something, or what is the problem? 

Thoughts?


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

The previous standard diviation from the prototypical length has caused a few problems as far as related to "look and feel" compatability. Therefore others, e.g. Kiss (or even previously LEBU) shortened their cars to match the existing LGB rolling stock. We wold more shortened Mitteleinstiegswagen then the protypical length and the new Panorma cars are also shortened to match LGB rolling stock.

Secondly most layout can't afford to have prototypical curves and stations in there, hence a train with only 3 cars instead of 5 may look awkward and therefore poeple keep on buying the deviations from the correct measurements. A recently released ProLine depressed center container car does barely make it around R3 (unless you cut the back edges of the truck) as a result of its 100% prototypical desgin.

We have decided that we avouid this problem in the upcoming ProLine 4-axle passenger cars and adapt to the look and feel of the LGB rolling stock hence shortening by about 1".

Also please keep in mind that the mold machines may not be available to LGB. The longer the molds the more expensive these machines become (disproportinally more expensive due to lower volume in sales) so you might pay for that car now 800 - 900 instead of the current price.


----------



## LebenswichtigeGartenBahn (Oct 23, 2010)

Axel,

Thanks for adding you insights to my query. I had not considered the hought of having to shorten a train because of the overall length of the coaches. For someone with an indoor layout, trying to fit G-scale in a single room. I have an extensive H0 layout in my indoor space (14 x16) and would never have dreamed of attempting to large scale indoors in such a small space. Besides, while I don't think there is anything "wrong" with G-scaling indoors, I thought the original Lehmann premise was that the construction was purposely intended to support outdoor use. Shortening rolling stock to accomodate indoor space constraints suggests that more G-scale is modelled indoor than out. Is that true?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

My G-scale layout is outdoors and covers an area approximtely 18 x 48 it is densely tracked with over 40x points, crossings, and multiple 3-ways. Tracks cover about 35% of the grounds within the layout. I run a phase IV Amtrak with an LGB AMD103 and 5x Amfleet coaches and have never had a problem in an R1 curve or points or passing another train on parallel track (in a curve), nor have I had problems with terrain. My Bernina and Glacier express trains consist of 12x LGB 3067/3068 coaches including 1x WR3825 Restauarant and 2x D4214 Baggage Cars. I usually split them up to be pulled 6x each by my Ge4/4 II and Ge4/4 III locos. My largest radiii are on the outsides at a 10ft rad but all of these longer coaches are required to make an R3 turn and go through some standard LGB R1 points if they travel the full circuit around the perimeter. I do not route them through the switchback S-turns on the innermost routes as they are all double-track R1 because it just doesn't look 'natural". I have 14x four-axle (3060/3061) Bamer coaches, 8x of the LGB 3062-3064 OeBB /RhB type, or any choices of over a dozen two-axle coaches or any combo of 40x short freight cars that run very well on the tighter inner curves. 

IMHO, it should be more a matter of matching one's choices to what your layout will support as far as scales and rolling stock. My yard is not able to accomodate live steam in a 1/6th scale so what good would it do for me to expect someone to make something smaller/lighter instead of my choosing a more compatible scale to match my constraints? I mean USA Trains SD 70 MAC requires an 8ft minimum radius unlike most LGB locos that can manage even a R1_. *If* my layout doesn't have 8ft rad.s to run this loco on, then my choice is simply not to buy it or alter my layout. Shortening an SD 70 until it accepts an R1 was simply not an option._

Two contentions on why not model the coaches scale-length:
1) Full length significantly reduces the number of coaches in a train and therefore the look of authenticity.

I disagree. It's not a question of having to reduce from 5x to 3x.
The 16.5m RhB coaches work out to about 29" in correct proportion. The earlier LGB RhB models were shortened by 5" and the newest ones by 3". This means that 5 coaches in the earlier LGB length would have added 120" behind the loco. Assuming that was the maximum length your layout would allow, you would have 4x coaches in the 29" correct-to-scale length and 4" left to spare at the end. With the new coaches, this becomes even more trivial as adding the missing "3 to 5x coaches_ would only add 15" or a 1/2 a coach length to the train_. 

Frankly, a 120" long train of 4x properly lengthed coaches does not come off as looking any shorter, less authentic or less impressive becasue of a lesser number of spaces between coaches.

2) The cost of moulding in full scale by adding an extra 3-5" would raise costs to $800-900 per coach.

Yeah... I don't think so. No way do I think you could produce actual data to support the dramatic increases in mould costs to add 3-5" to the coach body. This suggests and extra $100 per inch.
At that rate each coach would have been $2,400 -$2,600 to begin with. It also is not reflected in the added 2" in the newer program as the prices did not icrease by $200 a pc. 
Perhaps the 32" long LGB Amfleets would have priced at over $1000 a pc. as they are 32" long! It just doesn't hold water. LGB are not saving us 50% by shortening their coaches by 3".

Also, it may be "special" UV-resistant plastic material used but the moulding process is unlikely to be significantly different from that used in much less expensive products. Aristocraft is marketing 1/29 streamliners even made out of _extruded aluminum_ that are 27 1/2" long for about $250. There is no significant cost impediment to producing these coaches in a proper 29" length. The new "standard gauge" DB coaches (LGB30310/36313-36316 ) are also 31 1/2" long although a fraction "thinner" because of the reduction in scale. None of these longer moulds required to produce these carriages reflects any dramatic variation in price against shorter coaches.



As far as reducig length to improve turning on small layouts etc., I'll accept that to a point. The aforemention Aristcraft (i.e. ART32304) streamliners require a 5ft min. radius. Shortening the coaches to increase sales among buyers with indoor layouts with small radii makes sense commercially. Still, why is USA TRains or Aristocraft not restricting the offering of locos and rolling stock with 5-8ft radius min. requirements if it is economically impractical ? Don't they suffer the loss of sales to those whose layouts won't accomdate the longer models? It wouldn't appear so.


(However, perhaps* the real reason* is more commercial in a different way - in order not to have a nice prototypically long train, *you have to buy MORE coaches to create the proper overall train length! )* 

With Lehmann, I personally always kept in mind that G-scale started as an extension of a toy company as a toy train. Their 3062-3064 coaches being an amalgam of several OeBB and RhB coaches rather than an exact representation of the B4ip series coach it claimed to portray. Early models were clearly less about an accurate large-scale but about being the Big Train- the Train for Outdoors and Indoors. A fair number of liberties were taken with rolling stock.

Now with Fa. Märklin at the helm, we saw the introduction of a selection of more realistically rather than interpretively scaled "Standard Gauge" models like the DB V200 and the matching coaches, it is patently clear that the real commercial viability of G-scale tracked trains rests with the expansion of Gauge I or a bridge between it and G/ IIm narrow gauge. It would have been my hope that the new directorship would slowly expand the option for actual scaled meter-gauge European trains and away from when LGB was not actually intended to be a scaled train. 

I agree with the point that Marklin will probably continue to shorten Narrow Gauge coaches in the foreseable future in order to maintain continuity for buyers who want to incorporate old with new. Lehmann was less concerned with being accuaret to scale and shortened their 3067/3068 coaches 5" in order to better comply with their standard that ALL trains be able to effortlessly negotiate the R1 curves. I also suspect that the dramatic shortenng also reduced overall train length enough that it inspired the purchase of extra coaches to compensate.

I suppose, in the end I shouldn't fuss about scales. I have 1/29 scaled USA trains, 1/26 LGB Amtrak, and 1/22.5 LGB all co-existing on the same layout. On an outdoor layout, it was hardly my intention to reproduce all the photo-scaled detail like on my indoor H0 layout anyway. It should be good enough that it's extensive and looks and sounds great, and the grandkids absolutely love it!

I just couldn't help asking, _"What's wrong with giving us the full 29"? Why not?"_


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

L...G...

You're flogging a dead horse.

For one - Marklin isn't going to invest hundreds of thousands of Euros to produce new molds to make the LGB RhB cars the correct prototypical length, the LGB product was always designed to run well outdoors and also on very tight radii indoors, that was more imporatnt that accurate scale dimensions.

Then consider that the typical LGB RhB item tends to be a bit smaller in scale than 1:22.5, typically around 1:24 to 1:25 if you measure the GE 4/4 III's or the RhB EW cars for instance.

Kiss offered the last series of Middle-Entry cars in both prototypically correct length and in the shortened length. Everyone I know who bought those, bought the shorter ones. The new Kiss panorama cars scheduled for IIQ 2011 for delivery will only be available in the shorter length. That should tell you something about market acceptance of prototypically correct cars in 1:22.5 scale.

I have a set of the original Kiss Long middle-entry cars, they are quite a bit longer than typical LGB RhB cars. Not the same car, sure enough, but still:










Or see what they look like going around R1 or an s-curve:



















The Lebu RhB cars were ion a 1:24 scale.

Just assume LGB RhB items are in 1:24 or 1:25 scale and the model will be much closer to scale.

Window treatment and other details are another issue, but again, not really that much of an issue for the Garden Railroad fan.

As another example, take Brawa with their Garden Railroad models.

This ended up as a huge and very expensive flop for them - the engine and cars were very nice and detailed but just couldn't stand up even to very careful operation in a Garden environment.
So eventually Brawa got out of that business. 


If you want to run large scale trains that are true models, then you can either switch to Märklin Gauge I in 1:32 scale or true Gauge II in 1:22.5 scale, but then you're into a totally different price range.



Knut


----------



## stanman (Jan 4, 2008)

Knut - thanks for the practical comment on this, and the photos. The S-curve photo made me say "ouch"!


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

I think Knut is right on the mark--for outdoor garden the market seems to indicate that consumers prefer a robust product that can operate in reasonably constructed layouts where there are practical limits on curve diameters. I really like his idea of just assuming LGB products are closer to 1:24...never thought of it that way. I don't think it's an economic issue for the manufacturers...it shouldn't cost much more to make it the right length...I think they are responding to the market--as witnessed by the upcoming Kiss panos. 
As Axel pointed out too, prototypical length brings with it some issues if the layout was not constructed for that much overhang. I built a Sb car and had to widen railings on my viaduct and do a lot of plant trimming before I could even use it. 

Keith


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Actually, I have had quite a few plastic injection moulding firms and tool and die companies @ work tell me that the cost goes up exponentially as dies get bigger....


----------

