Locomotionmodels.com NEW RELEASES...

[The Black Hat]

25 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Just to point out the Locomotion didn't choose what to make, it is a Rails of Sheffield project with (I assume) help from Locomotion.

 

Locomotion can't tell the retailers or manufacturers what to make, and one of the ways to get any NER stuff made is vote in the annual poll to show their is a market for said models.

 

It might be a rails of Sheffield project, but they have gained access to and are funding the project of what previously was - the National Collection in Miniature - that Locomotion Models used as a reason for getting started. For every project they do, its one less that Locomotion could be doing, although I suspect that the capital needed for such projects is the reason why this happens (even if profitable) and thus the reason why they are being outsourced to others.

 

Yes that might mean that models are being made, but it also means that full funding from profits doesn't go back to repaying the capital of investment or being funded back into the NRM. I can see why as the work for such efforts might be less than anticipated. However, I can see the range being more balanced if it were solely the NRM in miniature rather than sent to others like Rails.

[truffy]

4 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

I can see the range being more balanced if it were solely the NRM in miniature rather than sent to others like Rails.

The range might be more balanced, but it would also be more restricted as NRM seems to focus on 'as preserved', rather than the wealth of liveries that other commissioners bring to the market. And that would very much restrict interest.

[D9020 Nimbus]

Some ex-NER engines are now in (or coming to) various mainstream ranges—the G5, J27 and Q6 for example. Also the re-done J72 (though the livery it bears in NER form is almost certainly fictional). Of the NER engines surviving, I'd say the J21 would be by far the most useful (although its condition isn't a credit to the museum).

The D17 is an historic engine, of course, but I'd rather have a D20 (not from Locomotion, though).

The reason for the presence of a number of East Coast locos in the collection is that the original York Museum was established by the NER who donated appropriate locos to it. The LNER followed suit (hence the Ivatt Atlantic). The LNWR could have done something similar—but it didn't. Am I correct in thinking that Hardwicke is the only surviving LNWR example not to have been modelled yet?

[The Black Hat]

16 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Some ex-NER engines are now in (or coming to) various mainstream ranges—the G5, J27 and Q6 for example. Also the re-done J72 (though the livery it bears in NER form is almost certainly fictional). Of the NER engines surviving, I'd say the J21 would be by far the most useful (although its condition isn't a credit to the museum).

The D17 is an historic engine, of course, but I'd rather have a D20 (not from Locomotion, though).

The reason for the presence of a number of East Coast locos in the collection is that the original York Museum was established by the NER who donated appropriate locos to it. The LNER followed suit (hence the Ivatt Atlantic). The LNWR could have done something similar—but it didn't. Am I correct in thinking that Hardwicke is the only surviving LNWR example not to have been modelled yet?

 

J21 isn't a part of the National Collection or NRM. Its been allowed to be stored there pending overhaul which is now taking place.
 

D17 / M1 is in the National Collection hence my suggestion for it being in the NCiM. A D20 might be more use and has been in polls some are suggesting, for modellers - but in terms of a release for Locomotion models, then D17 is perfect. Your right about the heritage of the NRM being something from the NER (again proving how forward thinking the company was). I'm just glad that NELPG was around as when the National Collection was formed, NER lost out as there already was a lot of early NER machines in the collection - but that's another issue.

 

NER has grown in popularity as companies realise there is a great swathe of territory there that has viable alternatives to secondary choices for other regions that have been popular to date. That's all great, but such areas like NER and LNWR need selection. I just think its more than a great pity that the region that has the legacy and forbearer of the NRM isn't included so far and isn't likely to for a while yet.

Edited October 15, 2019 by The Black Hat

[AY Mod]

20 hours ago, The Black Hat said:

It might be a rails of Sheffield project, but they have gained access to and are funding the project of what previously was - the National Collection in Miniature - that Locomotion Models used as a reason for getting started. For every project they do, its one less that Locomotion could be doing, although I suspect that the capital needed for such projects is the reason why this happens (even if profitable) and thus the reason why they are being outsourced to others.

 

Yes that might mean that models are being made, but it also means that full funding from profits doesn't go back to repaying the capital of investment or being funded back into the NRM. I can see why as the work for such efforts might be less than anticipated. However, I can see the range being more balanced if it were solely the NRM in miniature rather than sent to others like Rails.

 

I think you may not understand the form of the relationship between Locomotion and Rails, as a contributing corporate partner they do have access which may not be available to non-partners - something which Rails invest in.

 

Without this form of partnership with a broadened range of versions of products made available through partnership retail channels to reach a wider audience some projects, due to initial investment levels, may not happen. So it's a positive thing for the Museum with model retail adding over a £1m to museum funding in several years.

[Denbridge]

20 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Some ex-NER engines are now in (or coming to) various mainstream ranges—the G5, J27 and Q6 for example. Also the re-done J72 (though the livery it bears in NER form is almost certainly fictional). Of the NER engines surviving, I'd say the J21 would be by far the most useful (although its condition isn't a credit to the museum).

The D17 is an historic engine, of course, but I'd rather have a D20 (not from Locomotion, though).

The reason for the presence of a number of East Coast locos in the collection is that the original York Museum was established by the NER who donated appropriate locos to it. The LNER followed suit (hence the Ivatt Atlantic). The LNWR could have done something similar—but it didn't. Am I correct in thinking that Hardwicke is the only surviving LNWR example not to have been modelled yet?

Cornwall, Columbine?

[big jim]

Simple request from me, how about a model this loco

 

https://www.railbusinessdaily.com/gb-railfreight-celebrates-locomotions-15th-anniversary-with-class-66-naming/

[R Marshall]

Hardwicke and 1621 (M1/D17) have strong claims to be modelled through their performances in the Race to the North in 1895.

 

Obviously, I'm heavily biased, but 1621 is as elegant a contender as you'll find anywhere.

[R Marshall]

[The Stationmaster]

7 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

I think you may not understand the form of the relationship between Locomotion and Rails, as a contributing corporate partner they do have access which may not be available to non-partners - something which Rails invest in.

 

Without this form of partnership with a broadened range of versions of products made available through partnership retail channels to reach a wider audience some projects, due to initial investment levels, may not happen. So it's a positive thing for the Museum with model retail adding over a £1m to museum funding in several years.

Absolutely agree.   While you and I have the advantage of having listened on Tuesday to what was said about the NRM/Rails partnership in model development and what it has meant I think it needs to be more widely circulated that it is a positive development from the point of view of the NRM/Locomotion/National Collection in Miniature.  it was made very clear at the introductory presentation of the SE&CR Class D that this partnership is in effect making capital more readily available for the development and production of models representing items in the National Collection.  It was explained that the Dynamometer Car would most likely never have appeared if it had to rely solely on Science Museum funding for development and tooling because involving outside funding is a simpler, and basically far easier, way of  finding the money as it is subject solely to commercial criteria rather than the various controls which sit across what is in many respects public spending with far more hoops to jump through and competition from other demands for the money.  

 

And model development funding will proceed any income by as much as a couple of years and again this can sit uneasily in restricted financial conditions within what amounts to an adjunct to the state system because the Science Museum has to publicly account for every penny it spends.   A very different sort of financial environment from the one where, say, a model commissioner is investing in anticipation (hope?) of profit further down the line.

 

Going further than something Andy has said in the above post it was fascinating, and a little surprising to me, to learn that the arrangement between the NRM and Rails has also greatly expanded the market for models in the joint range compared with the size of market being tapped by the original Locomotion project.   However what it also means - no different from the previous Locomotion approach - is that every development will be subject to the production of a positive  business case on the part of both Rails and the NRM.  This in reality is not different from the way things were in the past but it has that advantage of access to a wider market and having increased commercial freedom coupled with reduced risk to public funds.  That won't necessarily make every possible potential subject more likely than it was in the 'pure' Locomotion approach but it could help teh case for some and, critically, I didn't get the impression that it would make any subject less likely.

[truffy]

28 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

it was fascinating, and a little surprising to me, to learn that the arrangement between the NRM and Rails has also greatly expanded the market for models in the joint range compared with the size of market being tapped by the original Locomotion project.

 

It's not surprising to me.

 

LM seems to focus on locomotives in the 'as preserved' state. That satisfies many people, I'm sure.

 

But there are others, myself included, who want alternative/in-use liveries. And it is just this market segment that the likes of Rails satisfy.

 

Look at the LM announcement for the Terrier, compared to Rails', for example.

Edited October 16, 2019 by truffy

[Clearwater]

The development of the relationship between Rails and Locomotion is interesting.  I can fully see why it’s beneficial to both parties but I’d wonder if there’s an intention to broaden the partnership.  As has been observed, sometimes the Locomotion operation is markedly less slick than other retailers (eg the Stirling thread.).  Would it make sense for Locomotion to outsource their online presence and delivery to Rails?  Similar, I think, to the way Model Rail commissions are handled by Kernow on their behalf, a ‘white label’ service so as Locomotion can retain its branding.   Locomotion’s Retail shop could be stocked via Rails.  Whilst it may reduce Locomotions’s overall take, I’m sure it would simplify the management of the operation from Locomotion’s perspective and reduce their problems in fulfilling large, lumpy orders such as those that arise when a commission arrives.  It would also mean that they no longer need to invest in the IT required to keep the website up to date.

 

David

[Ian Hargrave]

I think it fair to say that the current relationship has evolved rather than there has been as it were a conscious effort to develop a concrete commercial relationship .The NRM management structure has changed since the establishment of. Locomotion Models. Personnel have either moved on....or indeed across into other roles,taking their ideals, knowledge and management skills with them. This is essentially how the Rails/NRM partnership has developed over the last two years.Basically it’s serendipity or happenstance.Professional relationships developed on an informal basis over the years have now been cemented on a formal basis.It’s all about connections.

 

[The Black Hat]

22 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

I think you may not understand the form of the relationship between Locomotion and Rails, as a contributing corporate partner they do have access which may not be available to non-partners - something which Rails invest in.

 

Without this form of partnership with a broadened range of versions of products made available through partnership retail channels to reach a wider audience some projects, due to initial investment levels, may not happen. So it's a positive thing for the Museum with model retail adding over a £1m to museum funding in several years.

 

14 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Absolutely agree.   While you and I have the advantage of having listened on Tuesday to what was said about the NRM/Rails partnership in model development and what it has meant I think it needs to be more widely circulated that it is a positive development from the point of view of the NRM/Locomotion/National Collection in Miniature.  it was made very clear at the introductory presentation of the SE&CR Class D that this partnership is in effect making capital more readily available for the development and production of models representing items in the National Collection.  It was explained that the Dynamometer Car would most likely never have appeared if it had to rely solely on Science Museum funding for development and tooling because involving outside funding is a simpler, and basically far easier, way of  finding the money as it is subject solely to commercial criteria rather than the various controls which sit across what is in many respects public spending with far more hoops to jump through and competition from other demands for the money.  

 

And model development funding will proceed any income by as much as a couple of years and again this can sit uneasily in restricted financial conditions within what amounts to an adjunct to the state system because the Science Museum has to publicly account for every penny it spends.   A very different sort of financial environment from the one where, say, a model commissioner is investing in anticipation (hope?) of profit further down the line.

 

Going further than something Andy has said in the above post it was fascinating, and a little surprising to me, to learn that the arrangement between the NRM and Rails has also greatly expanded the market for models in the joint range compared with the size of market being tapped by the original Locomotion project.   However what it also means - no different from the previous Locomotion approach - is that every development will be subject to the production of a positive  business case on the part of both Rails and the NRM.  This in reality is not different from the way things were in the past but it has that advantage of access to a wider market and having increased commercial freedom coupled with reduced risk to public funds.  That won't necessarily make every possible potential subject more likely than it was in the 'pure' Locomotion approach but it could help teh case for some and, critically, I didn't get the impression that it would make any subject less likely.

 

Thanks for the above replies, but have selected the above two as they raise the main points. Yes, I am aware of the relationship that Rails and Locomotion now have and that it has evolved over the years as events, people and relationships have changed. While I understand that this has broadened the range and the options available, I just think its a shame that the NCiM range being solely the operation and part of Locomotion was not pushed and completed, as was the desire from the outset.

 

My writing was slightly more vague as I do not wish to be overtly critical of the way that events have panned out. There have been many benefits of the range being expanded and various choices being brought forwards. Obviously, Rails will be taking a part of the profit, which would not have happened had it been a solely Locomotion operation and that I guess is the point perhaps is most regrettable. However, with more projects and capital, its clear that overall even with Rails involvement the monies the NRM would get would be greater as there is more being made. Like I said, its a development of what has happened and what is taking place. I would be interested to know or see information as to where the +£1m has been arrived at - as that's the kind of income stream you expect would get some PR. This is a relationship and development that has been successful and that I have praised before. It is one that can certainly be leading more to success, but I just hope that future selections for the NCiM prove to be varied across all areas, eras and regions.

 

[truffy]

1 hour ago, The Black Hat said:

Obviously, Rails will be taking a part of the profit, which would not have happened had it been a solely Locomotion operation and that I guess is the point perhaps is most regrettable.

 

Why is that regrettable? As I've noted elsewhere, Locomotion tends to offer models from the NCIM in 'as preserved' state, while Rails caters for a broader church. So while NRM might get a smaller percentage of the take than if they ran it themselves, it will be of a larger pot.

 

If Rails were to announce a joint venture for the J21, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't find that regrettable, would you?

[Ian Hargrave]

15 minutes ago, truffy said:

 

Why is that regrettable? As I've noted elsewhere, Locomotion tends to offer models from the NCIM in 'as preserved' state, while Rails caters for a broader church. So while NRM might get a smaller percentage of the take than if they ran it themselves, it will be of a larger pot.

 

If Rails were to announce a joint venture for the J21, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't find that regrettable, would you?

 

Rails bring the obvious benefit of a sound,expanding financial trading organisation to the party which can only benefit both the NRM and Locomotion.....which is a minnow in trading terms.

[The Black Hat]

24 minutes ago, truffy said:

 

Why is that regrettable? As I've noted elsewhere, Locomotion tends to offer models from the NCIM in 'as preserved' state, while Rails caters for a broader church. So while NRM might get a smaller percentage of the take than if they ran it themselves, it will be of a larger pot.

 

If Rails were to announce a joint venture for the J21, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't find that regrettable, would you?

 

True, but the original goal of Locomotion was that all profit would be ploughed back into the NRM. With Rails they take some, but given the volume of projects the NRM would get more, which as I said above is good too and also agree with what you say. So the relationship has been a good development its just a shame that NRM didn't do it solo. Getting Rails on board has helped a great deal in getting this to develop more quickly with people that understand the projects, market and retail.

If Rails were to announce a J21 it would be good, but it wouldn't be part of the NCiM as the J21 isn't. Hence my suggestion for the D17. Its important to note though, that Locomotion are still working with other manufactures and that there will be other projects coming from these relationships that have also been working for some time.

[Legend]

12 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

 

True, but the original goal of Locomotion was that all profit would be ploughed back into the NRM. With Rails they take some, but given the volume of projects the NRM would get more, which as I said above is good too and also agree with what you say. So the relationship has been a good development its just a shame that NRM didn't do it solo. Getting Rails on board has helped a great deal in getting this to develop more quickly with people that understand the projects, market and retail.

If Rails were to announce a J21 it would be good, but it wouldn't be part of the NCiM as the J21 isn't. Hence my suggestion for the D17. Its important to note though, that Locomotion are still working with other manufactures and that there will be other projects coming from these relationships that have also been working for some time.

 

I think it’s all about spreading the risk of investment too. Generally the more the partners spreading the risk the better . You are correct that if it were a Locomotion project only , they’d obviously get more of the profit . But it also means they have to invest more to get initial tooling . This might be seen to be too risky for a museum. By getting Rails or another retailer involved they spread development costs and risks . 

 

Im hoping Rails/ Dapol will look beyond the preserved locos in the NRM though . Love to see a NBR Glen for instance , but that’s preserved in the Glasgow Riverside museum. 

[Steamport Southport]

7 minutes ago, Legend said:

 

Im hoping Rails/ Dapol will look beyond the preserved locos in the NRM though . Love to see a NBR Glen for instance , but that’s preserved in the Glasgow Riverside museum. 

 

Why would you want Rails or Dapol to do a Glen when Hornby already have many of the parts already in the J36?

 

 

 

Jason

[Legend]

 

Not really fussed who does it Jason. Although initial euphoria over the Caley 812 dissipated when I knew it was Bachmann that was doing it. I thought it would take years to get here and be expensive! Sadly that’s proving to be the case . 18 months in (the original estimated time) I think we are still some way away and it’s coming up to £200. Not sure if Rails will stick with that price or there will be further increases. 

 

I suppose what I’d say is that I can see some benefits of a museum/manufacturer/retailer joint venture to make and sell these models .

 

also while I note Hornby have the J36 in Range, i have two of them, i thought theses days they design the loco from scratch even though there may be common parts elsewhere in the range. So just because they make a J36 I don’t think that makes a Glen any more likely from Hornby , even though I’d be thrilled if they announce one. 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Legend

[truffy]

44 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

its just a shame that NRM didn't do it solo.

If they had, they'd be unlikely to do a SR livery, and I wouldn't be getting one. Like I said, the likes of Rails broaden the interest for those who're modelling working engines rather than preserved ones.

[The Stationmaster]

10 minutes ago, Legend said:

 

I think it’s all about spreading the risk of investment too. Generally the more the partners spreading the risk the better . You are correct that if it were a Locomotion project only , they’d obviously get more of the profit . But it also means they have to invest more to get initial tooling . This might be seen to be too risky for a museum. By getting Rails or another retailer involved they spread development costs and risks . 

 

Im hoping Rails/ Dapol will look beyond the preserved locos in the NRM though . Love to see a NBR Glen for instance , but that’s preserved in the Glasgow Riverside museum. 

You've gone right to the crux of the whole thing (which perhaps I didn't make clear enough in my earlier post?).   Getting the initial investment money is a crucial part of the process and NCIM is competing with other Science Museum funded commercial projects for that investment (they are all handled through a separate Science Museum company to keep the business part separate from the charitable status of the museums in the group).  So tooling money is basically in competition with say a new café at the Science Museum in London or a new retail unit with a wider range of themed stock at the National Science and Media Museum in Bradford.  To us we'd obviously be rooting for, say, a North Eastern 4-4-0 but the commercial imperative for Science Museum Group is to spend money where it will produce the best return at, ideally, the earliest opportunity because the income from what it invests in is ploughed back into the museums.

 

When a long lead item such as a new loco is being compared with a café which will be paying back and bringing in additional revenue much sooner it becomes increasingly difficult to get money for projects with a more distant return and which need ever burgeoning start up sums.  The advantage of the arrangement with Rails is that it moves the investment goal posts onto a totally completely different pitch because it brings in private enterprise money from a business which in increasingly versed in the business aspects of commissioning railway models.  Plus of course it reduces the money which NRM needs to obtain from Science Museum Group for its share of the investment together with reduced risk.

 

The point I made about the affect of the partnership on the market has been slightly misunderstood - probably because i didn't explain it well enough.  What has happened is that the whole operation has moved from solely involving Locomotion/the NRM in the public arena to one involving a well known model railway retailer who people look to in order to purchase railway models.  Thus, say, somebody on the other side of the world might already buy from Rails, or come across their website now finds on that website joint ventures with the NRM - something they wouldn't otherwise have heard of.  And this is exactly what has happened - the dynamometer car, we were told, has sold to a much more widespread and less niche market than the one Locomotion was known to.  Putting it very simply - more people know about the models so more people buy them. 

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, Clearwater said:

The development of the relationship between Rails and Locomotion is interesting.  I can fully see why it’s beneficial to both parties but I’d wonder if there’s an intention to broaden the partnership.  As has been observed, sometimes the Locomotion operation is markedly less slick than other retailers (eg the Stirling thread.).  Would it make sense for Locomotion to outsource their online presence and delivery to Rails?  Similar, I think, to the way Model Rail commissions are handled by Kernow on their behalf, a ‘white label’ service so as Locomotion can retain its branding.   Locomotion’s Retail shop could be stocked via Rails.  Whilst it may reduce Locomotions’s overall take, I’m sure it would simplify the management of the operation from Locomotion’s perspective and reduce their problems in fulfilling large, lumpy orders such as those that arise when a commission arrives.  It would also mean that they no longer need to invest in the IT required to keep the website up to date.

 

David

It might be worth a visit to the NRM David - you know the boys will enjoy it   - because there is already an indication there of the fact that Rails exists and what it does in terms of both selling and buying-in secondhand.

 

But I'm pretty sure that for all sorts of reasons NCIM/NRM commercial preseence in teh marketplace will not go away, they've done pretty well out of it with sales exceeding £1million over several successive years.  The way things work at York and Shildon I can't see them throwing that away.

[Bon Accord]

59 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Why would you want Rails or Dapol to do a Glen when Hornby already have many of the parts already in the J36?

 

 

 

Jason

 

What parts would they be? The only thing common between a J36 and D34 is the gauge of track and maybe the tender wheels.

[Steamport Southport]

12 minutes ago, Bon Accord said:

 

What parts would they be? The only thing common between a J36 and D34 is the gauge of track and maybe the tender wheels.

 

They all look the same to me. 

 

 

 

Jason