So How about a Class 88 Dapol?

[mdvle]

20 hours ago, Legend said:

I’d rather have it without servo and at a more reasonable price . I think DCC and DC markets could well diverge here as DCCers want increasingly high spec models eg pantographs that operate whereas DCers are having all these functions and cost built in , and we don’t really need them 

 

And at least some on DC will want the extra features in case/because they are planning to go DCC in the future, or to allow a better selling price in the future.  And with perhaps a few exceptions, most models won't sell in sufficient numbers to justify tooling different parts for DC and DCC.

 

17 hours ago, Kaput said:

Considering Dapol require enough pre orders to confirm if a single livery Class 68 run is feasible when it requires nothing other than name/number changes I think the chances of an 88 are close to none.

 

The issues are minimum production quantities in China and the very recent release of the first batch of models.

 

Note there are 2 minimums that need to be met - the minimum for a livery (likely easy to be met, this can be in the low to mid hundreds), and the more difficult one - the minimum to produce in total that justifies running the molds through the injection machines, which is likely in the low to mid thousands.  In other words, could another run sell 500 units in the now-in-demand-livery?  Probably.  Can it sell say 2000 units given that a bunch were already sold in the last 12 months?  Time will tell, but obviously Dapol are uncertain.

 

[mdvle]

3 hours ago, No Decorum said:

Dapol is bringing a lot of new stuff to the market now and is probably a bit too busy to work on an 88; especially as a servo-operated panto would require a lot of thought. Perhaps the 88 wouldn’t sell as well as the 68 (I have six 68s but can’t imagine myself buying as many 88s) but I think the excitement factor should help it sell. With 21s, 29s and 59s out of the way, we might get our wishes granted.

 

Remember Dapol isn't the only option for a model - anyone else can also do it.

 

Dapol may have an advantage if the 68 tooling was designed to allow for the 88, but a smaller operator with lower costs selling direct, or a retailer doing it as a commission, may find the financial side of a model with only 10 units/1 livery easier to satisfy.

 

The 93 may make an 88 easier, but it all depends on if the 93 ever gets made - all the information online all dates back to a year ago and the reported delivery date is 6 months in the past leaving one to wonder if it actually got ordered.

[Roy Langridge]

2 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Remember Dapol isn't the only option for a model - anyone else can also do it.

It was reported that Dapol had the exclusive rights to the 68 & 88, whether that was true or just a myth I don’t know. 
 

Roy

[TomScrut]

5 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

It was reported that Dapol had the exclusive rights to the 68 & 88, whether that was true or just a myth I don’t know. 
 

Roy

You'd think they would designed the 68 tooling with the 88 in mind in that case. Not necessarily that you could make the 88 using the same tooling but how the thing goes together could be optimised to allow different sub tools to be made to reduce the investment for doing an 88.

[mdvle]

9 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

It was reported that Dapol had the exclusive rights to the 68 & 88, whether that was true or just a myth I don’t know.

 

Back in 2013 Dave Jones commented (in the 68 thread soon after it was announced, links below to the 2 relevant posts) regarding the issue as he was the one who negotiated with DRS for Dapol.

 

DRS did not include the 88, though it is possible that things have changed since then. 

 

On the other hand, while Dapol only know, the current availability of Class 68 models at retailers would seem to indicate it may not be as popular as some on here would like to think, with an argument to be made the only reason the TPE livery sold out was thanks to the Accurascale Mk5 announcement.  If that's the case, then the viability of an 88 with only 1 livery and few uses would seem to be poor.

 

 

 

 

 

[Roy Langridge]

12 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

You'd think they would designed the 68 tooling with the 88 in mind in that case. Not necessarily that you could make the 88 using the same tooling but how the thing goes together could be optimised to allow different sub tools to be made to reduce the investment for doing an 88.

There is very little in common between the 68 and 88, the body, roof and underframe detail are all completely different. What may be reused is the ancillary parts that are attached. 
 

Roy

[TomScrut]

Just now, Roy Langridge said:

There is very little in common between the 68 and 88, the body, roof and underframe detail are all completely different. What may be reused is the ancillary parts that are attached. 
 

Roy

 

Yes but given the ancillary parts and internals probably account for 50% of the work and cost (as a guess) that's a lot better than being completely different!

 

And being an everyday user of 3D CAD myself I know that a lot of time could be saved on that side of things with them being similar in shape.

[mdvle]

12 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

Yes but given the ancillary parts and internals probably account for 50% of the work and cost (as a guess) that's a lot better than being completely different!

 

And being an everyday user of 3D CAD myself I know that a lot of time could be saved on that side of things with them being similar in shape.

 

The largest cost in making a model is tooling, with no proof often quoted as around $100,000 for a loco.

 

If you have to tool a new body, roof, and underframe you are essentially tooling an entirely new model (the drive/internals of a model is a very low percentage of the cost)

 

I haven't look closely, but if the overall shape is the same, with just doors/windows/vents being different, then perhaps the tooling could be shared if designed for it from the start - but if you aren't sure of the market for an 88, or even getting the license, then do you pay extra for tooling that allows for hypothetical future variations?

[TomScrut]

1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

The largest cost in making a model is tooling, with no proof often quoted as around $100,000 for a loco.

 

If you have to tool a new body, roof, and underframe you are essentially tooling an entirely new model (the drive/internals of a model is a very low percentage of the cost)

 

I haven't look closely, but if the overall shape is the same, with just doors/windows/vents being different, then perhaps the tooling could be shared if designed for it from the start - but if you aren't sure of the market for an 88, or even getting the license, then do you pay extra for tooling that allows for hypothetical future variations?

 

I was mainly responding to the statement a few posts back that supposedly Dapol do have the license for both 68 and 88. If that was the case then surely having already invested in the license there would at least be some thought put into the 68 design to facilitate the 88, it doesn't mean they have committed to tooling, or even compromised the 68 but I know whenever I design anything involving tooling for my work I consider flexibility and adaptability of it doesn't compromise the function or cost of the main objective. Say if it's 100k tooling there is still a significant amount (as in not to be sniffed at) of that in ancillaries I would expect. Windscreens, lights, windscreen wipers, buffers etc. and that's even before we consider that the body tool could be modular to accommodate the difference in grilles and doors. The grilles may even be separate parts (I don't have a 68 at the moment, will in a few days) and therefore the holes could be a trimming difference or mould insert, although injection moulding isn't my area of expertise so I aren't sure.

 

And the development of the CAD will probably be in the 10s of thousands in people's time and getting information from the prototype (3D scans etc.), so again if half of that is done it's a good start.

 

I aren't saying it's going to be easy or cheap for them to do, I am saying they have (or could have) got a head start on it if it has been thought about from the start. If the cost is 75% of a brand new model it still makes a big difference to the viability I would expect.

 

It's also probably worth noting despite there being 68s hanging around in shops, these are from the third batch as far as I am aware and all three batches have been all of very similar liveries other than the last batch having TPE in the mix. This doesn't seem to be the normal model with new tooling where they do so much so quickly?

Edited January 1, 2020 by TomScrut

[Kaput]

Do remember that while 68's of some varieties are hanging around in shops there has been 3 separate runs in 00 already and some of the models in the second run at least were pretty much the same ones as the first run just with some issues corrected (not including the livery error that was corrected with replacement bodyshells).

[TomScrut]

2 hours ago, Kaput said:

Do remember that while 68's of some varieties are hanging around in shops there has been 3 separate runs in 00 already and some of the models in the second run at least were pretty much the same ones as the first run just with some issues corrected (not including the livery error that was corrected with replacement bodyshells).

 

Whilst the Chiltern ones were only in the first two batches, there were two locos per batch. But I would hazard a guess the Chiltern ones aren't particularly desirable (compared to say TPE):

 

1. Subjectively the livery isn't fantastic

2. No readily available rolling stock to go with it

3. The route isn't exactly great in terms of regional interest as far as giving excuses to put one on a layout

 

But bringing things back onto the 88, it doesn't suffer the issues above in my opinion:

 

1. Nice livery

2. Loads of stuff to run them with. A quick look on Flickr shows IKAs, FNAs and MRAs to start with.

3. Run up and down the country on two main lines and so will have a lot of regional interest

 

I do appreciate though that the Chiltern 68s are far less of an undertaking given the DRS ones would be the main sellers compared to tooling up the 88

Edited January 2, 2020 by TomScrut

[TravisM]

I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this already but I spoke to Dapol’s higher management at The Great Electric Trains Show and he stated that Dapol didn’t have a license for the Class 88 because when they got into discussions with DRS, the Class 88 wasn’t even thought of at the time.  
 

He also commented that with only ten loco’s and all in the same livery, it’s hard to justify the expense of tooling up a new model.  I said that there seems to be a high demand for it but he said that we modellers are very fickle and they have to be sure that the model will sell, not just keep retailers shelves warm.

[TomScrut]

7 hours ago, jools1959 said:

I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this already but I spoke to Dapol’s higher management at The Great Electric Trains Show and he stated that Dapol didn’t have a license for the Class 88 because when they got into discussions with DRS, the Class 88 wasn’t even thought of at the time.  
 

He also commented that with only ten loco’s and all in the same livery, it’s hard to justify the expense of tooling up a new model.  I said that there seems to be a high demand for it but he said that we modellers are very fickle and they have to be sure that the model will sell, not just keep retailers shelves warm.

 

I think the main issue with this discussion is some people are saying Dapol have said they haven't got it, some are saying they have read they have! What year was it you heard this? I.e. if it was 2019 then it's likely to be up to date info!

[TravisM]

27 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

I think the main issue with this discussion is some people are saying Dapol have said they haven't got it, some are saying they have read they have! What year was it you heard this? I.e. if it was 2019 then it's likely to be up to date info!

It was at last years (2019) Great Electric Train Show in Milton Keynes 

[TomScrut]

1 hour ago, jools1959 said:

It was at last years (2019) Great Electric Train Show in Milton Keynes 

 

Ok so it does look as if the idea they have the license already is actually just a rumour!

[No Decorum]

9 hours ago, jools1959 said:

I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this already but I spoke to Dapol’s higher management at The Great Electric Trains Show and he stated that Dapol didn’t have a license for the Class 88 because when they got into discussions with DRS, the Class 88 wasn’t even thought of at the time.  
 

He also commented that with only ten loco’s and all in the same livery, it’s hard to justify the expense of tooling up a new model.  I said that there seems to be a high demand for it but he said that we modellers are very fickle and they have to be sure that the model will sell, not just keep retailers shelves warm.

I can see his point of view. Just because a lot of us on here rather desperately want an 88 or two, it doesn’t mean that there will be enough purchases to make the tooling viable. I did think that Dapol’s intention to produce every single 68 was over ambitious. Very few people are going to buy the whole fleet and the rest would probably be satisfied with a couple in a particular livery or even in each livery. Deep discounting of models made by all manufacturers does seem to indicate production exceeding demand. There are exceptions, of course, where manufacturers wish they had produced more.

 

The 88 has the advantage of novelty. There isn’t an existing RTR model. There is a widespread tendency to produce a new tooling for models which already exist. Some are, I think, well chosen. Examples which come to mind are the 21/29, 57 and 92 where the existing models are rather woeful. Others are not so clear cut, where the existing model has its critics but is hardly awful. Despite the enthusiasm greeting new 37s, 55s and 66s (and perhaps more muted enthusiasm greeting a new 40), I think it’s a risky undertaking.

 

Some new models are undoubtedly breathtaking* but we tend to forget the high sales of Hornby’s cunningly timed warmed-up ex-Lima models.

 

*In appearance, performance, features and price.

[adb968008]

How many class 68’s have you got ?

 

6..  1x Chiltern, 3x DRS, 1 X Scr, 2x TPE

  Future.. 6.. I will sell 1 TPE to replace with 1 other TPE 

 

How many class 88’s would I have..

2.. DRS

 

if I am an average 68 modeller... then sales of an 88 would be 3x less than a 68.

(unless theres new liveries theres no point, and theres only 10 of them in reality).

Dapol could save in an 88 by reusing the 68 internals, but they would need a new body, bogies and underframe.. plus pantographs.

 

From geography, 88s are a bit limited to the upper north WCML areas. The 68 covers a much wider area.

 

To me its a bit risky to make a class 88 today.. but the class has decades still to run.. just something as simple as adding 1 new livery could change the quantity of potential sales...
 

I think the class 88’s could be a suitable Sleeper fleet someday, if that happened it would literally change the demand dynamic overnight.

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by adb968008

[TomScrut]

There are quite a lot of pics on Flickr of 88s parked up in York (area I model hence the interest here) although I don't know what they are doing there. Also plenty of pics of them running Doncaster to Edinburgh on Network Rail stuff

 

I'll have 2 68s if Dapol do the next TPE run. I'd prefer an 88 to a third 68 (I'd run an 88 with a DRS 68 for nuclear flasks, which I know don't go near York but they are cool). So 50% for me. If they get about more long term maybe more.

Edited January 2, 2020 by TomScrut

[Ed-farms]

Not sure if its been posted on here or not but at the Dapol open day in September last year they were asked at the product presentation about the 88 and they said they have 2 or 3 liveries - the compass logo is different on some as the map coveres different areas (Crewe and Carlisle most likely) but whatever the total is they need one more livery option to make it happen.

 

So yes they do plan it but need something like TPE or Chiltern or whoever to take some on

[TomScrut]

1 minute ago, Ed-farms said:

Not sure if its been posted on here or not but at the Dapol open day in September last year they were asked at the product presentation about the 88 and they said they have 2 or 3 liveries - the compass logo is different on some as the map coveres different areas (Crewe and Carlisle most likely) but whatever the total is they need one more livery option to make it happen.

 

So yes they do plan it but need something like TPE or Chiltern or whoever to take some on

 

If the diesel mode was a bit more potent (such as with the 93) then they'd be ideal for TPE when the route between Manchester and Leeds is electrified.

[mdvle]

6 hours ago, TomScrut said:

 

I think the main issue with this discussion is some people are saying Dapol have said they haven't got it, some are saying they have read they have! What year was it you heard this? I.e. if it was 2019 then it's likely to be up to date info!

 

Those saying Dapol have the agreement/license have always been wrong (whether it was based on assumptions, wishful thinking, or repeating what others incorrectly said).

 

Dave Jones said the 88 agreement wasn't on offer by DRS when Dapol won the contest to do the 68, stated back in 2013 when Dapol announced the model 68.

 

And Dapol have reiterated this fact as recently as 2019.

 

[LaGrange]

18 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Back in 2013 Dave Jones commented (in the 68 thread soon after it was announced, links below to the 2 relevant posts) regarding the issue as he was the one who negotiated with DRS for Dapol.

 

Dave Jones is now toast yet people are still believing him....

[TomScrut]

22 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Those saying Dapol have the agreement/license have always been wrong (whether it was based on assumptions, wishful thinking, or repeating what others incorrectly said).

 

Dave Jones said the 88 agreement wasn't on offer by DRS when Dapol won the contest to do the 68, stated back in 2013 when Dapol announced the model 68.

 

And Dapol have reiterated this fact as recently as 2019.

 

In fairness the comments from 6 years ago aren't really that relevant are they (other than confirming they didn't get it then)? The one from last year on the other hand, is.

 

Why on earth wouldn't they have wanted to make it available? Unless they were waiting for it to be a better sell/manufacturers weren't willing to offer enough given the issues we are discussing here?

Edited January 2, 2020 by TomScrut

[mdvle]

4 minutes ago, LaGrange said:

Dave Jones is now toast yet people are still believing him....

 

A couple of points.

 

Back in 2013 Dave Jones commented about the Dapol Class 68, and his comments were civil and complementary to Dapol about the model, and reflected that he was a Dapol employee at the time the agreement with DRS was done.

 

Second, while I agree since that time Dave (sadly) didn't always act in a way that reflects well on him it doesn't change that he provided a lot of good feedback, particularly during his time with Dapol, to the members of RMweb.

 

I will also respect him for doing what essentially none of us on here are willing to do - he put his financial well being on the line and started a company to make model trains.  Was he over ambitious?  Yes.  Did he do the proverbial "bite off more than he could chew"?  Likely (we don't know the full story).  Did he behave on RMweb in a proper manner as his business struggled?  No.  Did the failure of DJM leave a lot of people out of pocket?  I suspect yes, but didn't follow the fall-out to see how many were able to get refunds vs those unable.

 

But I will differentiate between what he started out as, and how things ended up.

[mdvle]

8 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

Why on earth wouldn't they have wanted to make it available? Unless they were waiting for it to be a better sell?

 

Perhaps they wanted to see what Dapol (or whoever they ended up choosing) could deliver?

 

Back when the 68 was negotiated this was really new ground - DRS wouldn't have had previous experience in dealing with a model manufacturer, and it was also a new experience for the manufacturers as previously getting agreements wasn't a necessary part of designing a new model (though it is possible post-privatization it has become part of doing specific liveries, and certainly makers of model car kits have long had this issue).