Bachmann 2018 mid-year update

[mevaman]

Simple maths:

 

Trade price £5, Retail price £10. Retailer buys 10 of them. He pays £50.

To break even, he must sell 5 of them at £10 each.

If he sells 6, he makes £10 profit. 7, he makes £20, and so on.

If he sells the last one at £1, he has made £41 profit in total.

Did he actually sell number 10 at a loss?

 

Stewart

Yep!

 

I am an accountant and this is dangerous thinking as you will need to make a certain gross margin to cover your operating costs, some of which are fixed (such as business rates, shop rent, wages that are not zero hours etc.).

 

So the last item you sell, you still will have fixed costs to enable you to process the sale.

 

The risk with selling excess stock at a loss is that you risk running out of cash if you wipe out the profit that you made on the earlier sales.

 

Andrew

[locoholic]

Re: age groups and popular eras, this poll was run a while ago as there was a lot of debate at the time about what people model and why, it by no means gives a definitive answer, but the results are interesting =)

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/129998-unscientific-not-guaranteed-to-be-representative-age-versus-modelled-era-poll/page-1

So... I am a typical modeller in every respect!!

[wombatofludham]

At the risk of repeating myself, there is a flaw in using a poll conducted on this forum to ascertain modelling interests, in that it represents a vanishingly small percentage of the active modelling world.  I have six friends who are active modellers, ranging from early 30s to my age, mid 50s.  Only two of us are members of this forum.  All are modelling periods (post steam) connected with their youth, in fact I'm the only one with any intention of building a steam era layout (LMS 1930s) as well as one focussed on my main interest, the late 1960s and 70s AC Electrics.  Even amongst the Dolgellau model railway group, I'm the only one who is a member of this forum.  

Fortunately it appears Bachmann have a better fix on their market than some imagine and their balanced range, including some nice kettles and a strong range of post-kettle types, plus it seems a canny eye for spotting new market opportunities (I'm not just thinking Southern milk-floats and trains with coathangers but narrow gauge RTR as well) suggests to me they are playing a long game, compared to Hornby who do seem to be chasing every last grey pound with myriad steam types (many of which incidentally have been remaindered by the big box shifters, so does that mean the clarion calls around here for more little black 0-6-0s and pretty 4-4-0s have been wrong as they seemingly don't sell if some of the discounts are to be believed?  Or does that rule only apply to anything non-steam?).

That said Hornby have come up in my estimation and lifted north of 600 Sovs off me with their droolworthy 87.  If they back that up with an 86 I might even forgive their Pullman and kettle fetish.

[Mike Storey]

If people in their 60s are the largest single group of modellers (and that sounds as if it could well be right), I am among them, bucking a lifelong trend of being the odd man out...

 

The nostalgia for an idealised railway of my youth, green diesels, maroon coaches, ferrets and dartboards is a strong pull, but I have resisted it; it also represents a time of decay for steam to me that I do not really want to reproduce in 4mm scale.  I have, instead, opted for the railway I just missed out on, the one of my very early childhood memory; pre-diesel, unicycling lions, and crimson and cream stock, crimson away from the main line.  I did this as a conscious effort to include the various Big 4 and very early BR liveries, and my original time frame was set at 1948-1963.  It has evolved, if you can use that term for something that goes backwards, to 1948-1958, and I am in the process of repainting my lined green locos and lined maroon coaches into earlier liveries.  I could not say if this is an expression of a further attempt to psychologically distance myself from the dying years of steam, and, the layout being set in South Wales, it may well be a hankering for the look and atmosphere of childhood visits to various rellies that lived in the Rhonddas, Fach and Fawr, which I remember with great fondness.  But even these memories date from the late 50s or early 60s rather than the period I am increasingly drawn to on the layout.

 

What information of any use to RTR manufacturers doing market research for liveries there is in this rambling screed is anyone's guess, but they are welcome to use it as they will.  More postwar and austerity liveries, please, especially on rolling stock!

 

Conversely, whilst I remember the maroon and green of my young days, I also remember how exciting the new Blue and Grey livery was, and how this represented hope for the railway (after the dingy decline you noted), but then how even that apparent renaissance led to a just as dingy a decline and neglect, when the money was just drip fed. Those became my formative years, bizarrely, as I was one of the many that tried to cope with it, as a young employee.

 

We all have our reasons!

[Covkid]

I'm not sure it's fair to discount a model just because it's a limited edition, although I agree a GSYP with Sercks should warrant a standard release.

 

But a question if I may. I have the Kernow D1670 but haven't noticed anything "wrong", so are the Shawplan boiler grilles to enhance what's there or to correct an "error" for the boiler type you want to model?

 

Nothing wrong with the model as is, but I wanted an LMR Western lines example principally for freight work but also for passenger work. The batch I chose were Stones boilers which need a change of boiler roof grille.  Might take a very gentle swipe at the buffer beam footsteps with a small file too, then a bit of patching in and muckying up.  

[Coryton]

If your sat on a mountain of stock, it doesn’t mean your rich or profitable, probably the opposite.

 

Quite.

 

If you buy 100 somethings in one year and there are, say, 50 left over at the end of the (financial) year, you can probably count the 50 left as stock at the price you paid and thus offset the money you paid for them so that they don't appear in the profit and loss. 

 

Now roll on a few years. You have 20 left and they're not selling. Accountants are very conservative, so at some point they're likely to argue that they may never sell and you can't justify keeping them on the books as stock, i.e. they need to be written off. At this point the purchase price becomes a loss, even though you might sell them one day.

 

So at that point if you sell them at any price, you've reduced your losses on them compared to leaving them on the shelf.

 

Profit and loss is an extremely subjective concept, hence all the argument over how much corporation tax that companies owe.

 

(Cashflow is not subjective, and that's the another reason for selling slow moving stock at a knock-down price - it's no good holding out for that person prepared to pay full price in 5 years time if you need the money now to pay the bills, or buy something that you hope will sell more quickly and make you some money. And of course holding stocks generally costs money because it's taking up space, either on a shelf or somewhere "out the back").

 

.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 ...Fortunately it appears Bachmann have a better fix on their market than some imagine and their balanced range, including some nice kettles and a strong range of post-kettle types, plus it seems a canny eye for spotting new market opportunities (I'm not just thinking Southern milk-floats and trains with coathangers but narrow gauge RTR as well) suggests to me they are playing a long game ...

It has been the balance in their range that has been so notable since they got going with the OO Blue Riband product. Here are items that a large proportion of the prospective market are likely to find really useful, most never previously available. Duplication confined to only when the existing model is well off the pace in some respect(s). Good spread around the country and time span from big four to present.

 

If I was to be critical, they have fumbled the ball twice, once by omission, the other by commission.

 

No LMS design general merchandise wagons. Why not the same good coverage afforded the LNER equivalents? Large potential just as with the 16T mineral from big four well into the D+E period.

 

Succumbing to the self selected polling of the Blue Pullman. Fine model though it is, I should have thought the same scale of investment into the HST done to the same standard would have provided a far richer return. All those liveries and revisions to exploit with several we have not yet seen still to come, and a substandard model from Hornby the sole competition.

[The Johnster]

There's an LMS ventilated van, but I agree about opens.  There are precious few GW opens on the RTR spectrum either.  And the big gap, GW non-gangwayed compartment stock that isn't B sets; it seems on the face of it to make little sense to ignore these, but all RTR companies have since the 00 Graham Farish generics from the early 60s.  The reason is that they do not have a standard length underframe that can be shared between the different types of coach; presumably the extra cost that this generates that has to be passed to the customer makes them less than viable.

[Covkid]

And the big gap, GW non-gangwayed compartment stock that isn't B sets; it seems on the face of it to make little sense to ignore these, but all RTR companies have since the 00 Graham Farish generics from the early 60s.  The reason is that they do not have a standard length underframe that can be shared between the different types of coach; presumably the extra cost that this generates that has to be passed to the customer makes them less than viable.

 

Touching on the big mystery for me.

You look at any of the big conurbations on the GWR / BR(WR) and you will find suburban trains formed of non-corridor stock. Pretty much all the steam traction you need to go on the front of these trains is either produced (Hall, Grange, Manor, 45xx,  BR std 2 ,3, 4 etc) or announced (61xx, mogul and 94xx). Although it would be desirable to have a composite, a third and a brake third, the former could be passed over. Have suitable bogies been produced for the more modern designs ? 

[The Johnster]

Suitable bogies are the Collett 7' and 9' passenger bogies, available under RTR from Hornby and Bachmann, as are the more modern Hawksworth 9'.  The problem, for a manufacturer, is the frame lengths, which are paradoxically different because of the GW's policy of standardisation; the compartments were a standard size and the coaches were made up of specific numbers of them, so that the frames were of different lengths between 55 feet and 59' 6".  So, a brake 3rd is a different length to an all 3rd, which is different to a composite, which is different to an all 1st (by the way, I think these latter were only used in the London Area, but am happy to be corrected),  So, the usual economy of scale to be gained from producing one tooling for underframes for all of the coaches and sticking the desired body on top cannot be had, and hence the unit price is high.  

 

I don't know how high, I'm not a manufacturer and have only a vague idea of the processes or costs involved, but the cost has to be passed to the customer, that is, us.  We will then complain that LMS or LNER suburbans cost yea much, and that the GW are £20 a pop more.  I presume (perhaps naively) that the manufacturers have a fair handle on what we want, and what we'll actually buy at a given price; they must know that there are a large number of GW and BR (W) modellers who want these coaches, but cannot supply them at a price we'll pay.

 

South Wales suburban sets were usually 5 coaches plus an occasional strengthener.  London Area sets were 6 coaches; I am less familiar with Bristol and Birmingham area practices, but a 5 coach set of suburbans at, say, £80 a pop (guesswork) is £400 worth, a bit of a jump from a set of 5 Hornby LMS suburbans at £230.  This may well be the reason that the companies are not selling to us.  If you look at Bachmann's birdcages the price is closer, £65 to £75 depending on liver, but these usually ran in two coach branch line trains, so we are talking about £150 tops for the complete train.

 

Here is the key to the long lived success of the model B set, not that it doesn't need updating to modern standards.  2 coaches and there's your complete train, just buy an auto trailer and you've got the non-main line stock covered, haven't you, but, while B sets worked everywhere and could be seen on main line stopping trains as well as branches, they were not as a rule used for suburban traffic.  In such areas, they need to be working the connecting services to the suburban network proper; Porth-Maerdy for instance.  The excess of van space makes them very inefficient for 'proper' suburban commuter work where the game is to cram 'em in and get away from the station as quick as you can.  Proper suburban stock has a minimum of van space for the parcels and internal mail traffic, maybe a pram or two, and the guard's office, and modern stock has dispensed with even this; admit some are going to be standing and give 'em things to hang on to, cram 'em in and pile 'em high...

 

This is why some steam hauled intensive suburban traffic featured articulated or close coupled stock; every inch of train length that could not carry a paying commuter was an overhead to be kept to a minimum.  As I said, the GW's approach was to make up a 'bespoke' underframe for the combination of standard compartments they wanted, and the London Area used close coupled and some articulated stock, as well as the 61xx to pull them, a high pressure variant of large prairie for rapid acceleration away from the stops.  This approach may have been an efficient use of space, but it doesn't play well with RTR market conditions!

Edited September 16, 2018 by The Johnster

[TheSignalEngineer]

There's an LMS ventilated van, but I agree about opens. .........

Are the later manufactured Bachmann LMS van still vertically challenged? I seem to remember that the old 33-××× series ones were a bit low in the body.

[The Johnster]

Don't think so; I have one of the old ones and 2 of the newer type, and there is about a 1mm difference in height.  The older one was bought as a chassis donor so it doesn't matter; this is the version with roof ventilators.

[Covkid]

Suitable bogies are the Collett 7' and 9' passenger bogies, available under RTR from Hornby and Bachmann, as are the more modern Hawksworth 9'.  The problem, for a manufacturer, is the frame lengths, which are paradoxically different because of the GW's policy of standardisation; the compartments were a standard size and the coaches were made up of specific numbers of them, so that the frames were of different lengths between 55 feet and 59' 6".  So, a brake 3rd is a different length to an all 3rd, which is different to a composite, which is different to an all 1st (by the way, I think these latter were only used in the London Area, but am happy to be corrected),  So, the usual economy of scale to be gained from producing one tooling for underframes for all of the coaches and sticking the desired body on top cannot be had, and hence the unit price is high.  

 

I don't know how high, I'm not a manufacturer and have only a vague idea of the processes or costs involved, but the cost has to be passed to the customer, that is, us.  We will then complain that LMS or LNER suburbans cost yea much, and that the GW are £20 a pop more.  I presume (perhaps naively) that the manufacturers have a fair handle on what we want, and what we'll actually buy at a given price; they must know that there are a large number of GW and BR (W) modellers who want these coaches, but cannot supply them at a price we'll pay.

 

South Wales suburban sets were usually 5 coaches plus an occasional strengthener.  London Area sets were 6 coaches; I am less familiar with Bristol and Birmingham area practices, but a 5 coach set of suburbans at, say, £80 a pop (guesswork) is £400 worth, a bit of a jump from a set of 5 Hornby LMS suburbans at £230.  This may well be the reason that the companies are not selling to us.  If you look at Bachmann's birdcages the price is closer, £65 to £75 depending on liver, but these usually ran in two coach branch line trains, so we are talking about £150 tops for the complete train.

 

Here is the key to the long lived success of the model B set, not that it doesn't need updating to modern standards.  2 coaches and there's your complete train, just buy an auto trailer and you've got the non-main line stock covered, haven't you, but, while B sets worked everywhere and could be seen on main line stopping trains as well as branches, they were not as a rule used for suburban traffic.  In such areas, they need to be working the connecting services to the suburban network proper; Porth-Maerdy for instance.  The excess of van space makes them very inefficient for 'proper' suburban commuter work where the game is to cram 'em in and get away from the station as quick as you can.  Proper suburban stock has a minimum of van space for the parcels and internal mail traffic, maybe a pram or two, and the guard's office, and modern stock has dispensed with even this; admit some are going to be standing and give 'em things to hang on to, cram 'em in and pile 'em high...

 

This is why some steam hauled intensive suburban traffic featured articulated or close coupled stock; every inch of train length that could not carry a paying commuter was an overhead to be kept to a minimum.  As I said, the GW's approach was to make up a 'bespoke' underframe for the combination of standard compartments they wanted, and the London Area used close coupled and some articulated stock, as well as the 61xx to pull them, a high pressure variant of large prairie for rapid acceleration away from the stops.  This approach may have been an efficient use of space, but it doesn't play well with RTR market conditions!

 

I agree with all of that, but surely it is for the purchaser to decide how many vehicles they want to buy, rather than how many they should buy to be prototypical. On that basis I wonder how many people model full length trains.

My ideal BR(WR) non corridor rake would be four or five coaches but I would add either one or two Mk1 non corridors to a rake of three "Swindon" coaches. Exactly the same for my LMR rakes where I have three of the new Hornby LMS non corridors and run a BR mk1 NC in with them, as well as a couple of the older "inter district" lav non corridor conversions on the workbench for a second rake.

 

Would you say that based on different length underframes new British coaching stock is too uneconomic to sell ? Genuine question for debate.      

Edited September 16, 2018 by Covkid

[jimwal]

Are the later manufactured Bachmann LMS van still vertically challenged? I seem to remember that the old 33-××× series ones were a bit low in the body.

 

 

Yes it is still too low and the roof is too shallow. The ex Airfix now Dapol LMS van body is much better. Use it with the current Bachmann chassis, this suits LMS unfitted or with tiebar linking axleguards as BR fitted. 

 

For the wishlist: Plywood version of the Dapol van and corrugated end hyfit open on LMS 8-shoe vac braked chassis. Plus BR 8-shoe vac braked chassis. The Parkside versions are ok but very fragile.

 

Regarding GWR non gangwayed stock I cut and shut some Collet flat ended stock from Farish and Airfix coaches. As mentioned above three different coaches and three different lengths!

 

Jim

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I wonder how many people model full length trains....

 

Would you say that based on different length underframes new British coaching stock is too uneconomic to sell ? Genuine question for debate.      

 Full length passenger train modelling varies from 100% conformance with the likes of single vehicle push-pull to 'not nearly so much' when prototype train length exceeds about three coaches. Most of us are constrained to scale back train lengths proportionally to the longest train the layout will accomodate.

 

At least one major new tool for each different length underframe, plus some variant detail parts like trusses. Didn't stop Hornby on their LNER group of non-gangwayed stock where the Gresley and Thompson types have the slight underframe length difference represented, likewise Bachmann with their Thompson gangwayed group have produced the shorter composite underframe alongside the standard length of the other four vehicles.

 

Perhaps two length variations is the acceptable maximum?

 

Yes it (Bachmann LMS van) is still too low and the roof is too shallow.

 Does it have a prototype (thinking a pregroup design perpetuated by the LMS early on) or is it just an error committed back in the days of Mainline that still requires elimination. Anyone know?

[Dunsignalling]

I think Johnster has pretty well nailed the underlying reason for the lack of r-t-r non-corridor GWR coaching stock.

 

However, I don't quite fathom why making two or three underframes constitutes much greater trouble and expense than Hornby went to in making handed Collett corridor stock.

 

Maybe there is an unspoken limit of two, though, as "34" suggests. After all, Hornby left a gaping hole in their Stanier range by omitting a 60' CK whereas Bachmann didn't. Hornby tooled a 21st century model of the 50' BG where Bachmann leave their mildly-worked-over ex-Mainline one to soldier on. Both thus only invested in two sets of new underframe tooling.  

 

Hornby's treatment of LNER non-corridor stock went above and beyond what most expected, but their gangwayed Gresley range remains the composite-free dog's breakfast it always was.

 

Maybe Bachmann considered (rightly IMHO) that the "odd length" Stanier and Thompson CKs were unavoidable. For less high-profile stock perhaps a "special" underframe is only justifiable if it has other potential applications.

 

I have long noticed how quickly used Airfix B-sets seem to get snapped up so I'm guessing that significant numbers of GW modellers are taking matters (and a razor saw) into their own hands. 

 

John

[The Stationmaster]

I think Johnster has pretty well nailed the underlying reason for the lack of r-t-r non-corridor GWR coaching stock.

 

However, I don't quite fathom why making two or three underframes constitutes much greater trouble and expense than Hornby went to in making handed Collett corridor stock.

 

Maybe there is an unspoken limit of two, though, as "34" suggests. After all, Hornby left a gaping hole in their Stanier range by omitting a 60' CK whereas Bachmann didn't. Hornby tooled a 21st century model of the 50' BG where Bachmann leave their mildly-worked-over ex-Mainline one to soldier on. Both thus only invested in two sets of new underframe tooling.  

 

Hornby's treatment of LNER non-corridor stock went above and beyond what most expected, but their gangwayed Gresley range remains the composite-free dog's breakfast it always was.

 

Maybe Bachmann considered (rightly IMHO) that the "odd length" Stanier and Thompson CKs were unavoidable. For less high-profile stock perhaps a "special" underframe is only justifiable if it has other potential applications.

 

I have long noticed how quickly used Airfix B-sets seem to get snapped up so I'm guessing that significant numbers of GW modellers are taking matters (and a razor saw) into their own hands. 

 

John

 

GWR non-gangwayed and non-corridor stock covers a multitude of diagrams/vehicles and there are ways of picking out some suitable ones for the r-t-r market which would offer an economic (I hope) tooling and marketing proposition for a big manufacturer,; especially if they offered a suitable engine to go with the stock from, say, the 1930s through to dieselisation. 

 

I think all we need to do is wish hard enough and keep expressing an interest and you never know what might only be just around the next junction.

[The Johnster]

I will happily join in your wishing crusade, Mike.  The only game in town at the moment is B sets, and has been since Airfix introduced their 7' bogie bowenders 40 odd years ago.  One can use these to cut and shut approximations or chop the chassis about for Comet sides, but this is 'impressionist' modelling at best.  They were not bad models in the late 70s, but the bogies do not feature brakes in line with the wheels and underframe detailing is very crude by modern standards; also, IMHO, a trick was missed in not enabling them to be close coupled.  

 

Suitable RTR locos to haul 'proper' rakes of 1930s-dieselisation non-gangwayed non-B set GW coaches have and do exist; the Airfix 61xx prairie was better suited to this than the B set it was sold with in a train set, Halls and other tender locos could be seen hauling them on the outer London and Birmingham services, and the 56xx and BR standard 3MT tank are suitable for South Wales work, along with large prairies.

 

But I don't hold out much hope of Dapol bringing out a range of them to go with their new large prairie.  They've turned up in 0 gauge with another B set, which does not auger well.  I will be happy with them if they put their Diagram N auto trailer through the 4mm shrinking ray, and will not be haranguing them for more.  I wouldn't expect much from Hornby either; they are committed to the old Airfix B set, and may renovate/upgrade it to go with a similarly improved large prairie to replace the existing one which is hobbled by it's Airfix DNA despite the reworked mechs and chassis.  They've already had a Railraod go with the 14xx and A27/30.

 

Oxford could have a shot, but they have no loco whose sales might be boosted by GW suburbans.  The DG would not be harmed by them, but was not typical of the locos used most of the time.  

 

This leaves Blue Box.  They have a 56xx and 82xxx which are ideal, but only in South Wales and arguably a short period very late in the day in the Bristol Area, though 56xx certainly appeared on Birmingham area trains.  I'd like to say that Bachmann are the most likely to go to market with GW suburbans, but my real opinion is better expressed in terms of them being least unlikely of a bunch of very unlikely candidates.  

 

I would particularly like to see all 3rds and brake 3rds suitable for easy conversion to A43/4 type auto trailers, a possible source of a small amount of extra sales for anyone willing to risk it, but this is not an economic climate where risking things promises the high returns that persuade people to have a go.  And the market demographic is ageing...

[Covkid]

I will happily join in your wishing crusade, Mike.  The only game in town at the moment is B sets, and has been since Airfix introduced their 7' bogie bowenders 40 odd years ago.  One can use these to cut and shut approximations or chop the chassis about for Comet sides, but this is 'impressionist' modelling at best.  They were not bad models in the late 70s, but the bogies do not feature brakes in line with the wheels and underframe detailing is very crude by modern standards; also, IMHO, a trick was missed in not enabling them to be close coupled.  

 

Suitable RTR locos to haul 'proper' rakes of 1930s-dieselisation non-gangwayed non-B set GW coaches have and do exist; the Airfix 61xx prairie was better suited to this than the B set it was sold with in a train set, Halls and other tender locos could be seen hauling them on the outer London and Birmingham services, and the 56xx and BR standard 3MT tank are suitable for South Wales work, along with large prairies.

 

But I don't hold out much hope of Dapol bringing out a range of them to go with their new large prairie.  They've turned up in 0 gauge with another B set, which does not auger well.  I will be happy with them if they put their Diagram N auto trailer through the 4mm shrinking ray, and will not be haranguing them for more.  I wouldn't expect much from Hornby either; they are committed to the old Airfix B set, and may renovate/upgrade it to go with a similarly improved large prairie to replace the existing one which is hobbled by it's Airfix DNA despite the reworked mechs and chassis.  They've already had a Railraod go with the 14xx and A27/30.

 

Oxford could have a shot, but they have no loco whose sales might be boosted by GW suburbans.  The DG would not be harmed by them, but was not typical of the locos used most of the time.  

 

This leaves Blue Box.  They have a 56xx and 82xxx which are ideal, but only in South Wales and arguably a short period very late in the day in the Bristol Area, though 56xx certainly appeared on Birmingham area trains.  I'd like to say that Bachmann are the most likely to go to market with GW suburbans, but my real opinion is better expressed in terms of them being least unlikely of a bunch of very unlikely candidates.  

 

I would particularly like to see all 3rds and brake 3rds suitable for easy conversion to A43/4 type auto trailers, a possible source of a small amount of extra sales for anyone willing to risk it, but this is not an economic climate where risking things promises the high returns that persuade people to have a go.  And the market demographic is ageing...

 

An interesting analysis which I would agree with to a point. Oxford are an unknown quantity IMHO - just because they don't yet produce a copper capped loco suitable for suburban work, doesn't mean they aren't likely to produce the sub's.

 

Re the blue box company, there are certainly more possibilities "johnster" and I would raise you the Modified Hall and the 94xx to add to the list of suitable locos in their catalogue.  

[The Stationmaster]

I will happily join in your wishing crusade, Mike.  The only game in town at the moment is B sets, and has been since Airfix introduced their 7' bogie bowenders 40 odd years ago.  One can use these to cut and shut approximations or chop the chassis about for Comet sides, but this is 'impressionist' modelling at best.  They were not bad models in the late 70s, but the bogies do not feature brakes in line with the wheels and underframe detailing is very crude by modern standards; also, IMHO, a trick was missed in not enabling them to be close coupled.  

 

Suitable RTR locos to haul 'proper' rakes of 1930s-dieselisation non-gangwayed non-B set GW coaches have and do exist; the Airfix 61xx prairie was better suited to this than the B set it was sold with in a train set, Halls and other tender locos could be seen hauling them on the outer London and Birmingham services, and the 56xx and BR standard 3MT tank are suitable for South Wales work, along with large prairies.

 

But I don't hold out much hope of Dapol bringing out a range of them to go with their new large prairie.  They've turned up in 0 gauge with another B set, which does not auger well.  I will be happy with them if they put their Diagram N auto trailer through the 4mm shrinking ray, and will not be haranguing them for more.  I wouldn't expect much from Hornby either; they are committed to the old Airfix B set, and may renovate/upgrade it to go with a similarly improved large prairie to replace the existing one which is hobbled by it's Airfix DNA despite the reworked mechs and chassis.  They've already had a Railraod go with the 14xx and A27/30.

 

Oxford could have a shot, but they have no loco whose sales might be boosted by GW suburbans.  The DG would not be harmed by them, but was not typical of the locos used most of the time.  

 

This leaves Blue Box.  They have a 56xx and 82xxx which are ideal, but only in South Wales and arguably a short period very late in the day in the Bristol Area, though 56xx certainly appeared on Birmingham area trains.  I'd like to say that Bachmann are the most likely to go to market with GW suburbans, but my real opinion is better expressed in terms of them being least unlikely of a bunch of very unlikely candidates.  

 

I would particularly like to see all 3rds and brake 3rds suitable for easy conversion to A43/4 type auto trailers, a possible source of a small amount of extra sales for anyone willing to risk it, but this is not an economic climate where risking things promises the high returns that persuade people to have a go.  And the market demographic is ageing...

 

There are other manufacturers of course plus numerous (now) commissioners any of whom might be tempted to enter the fray in one way or another.  There are some useful choices for variation on the B set theme as well as in the land of autotrailers.   However as Bachmann have - thus far announced nothing additional or new in these areas if something is going to arrive before their usual lag between announcement and production (albeit although it looks likely to improve) it won't be materialising in this part of the forum I suspect.  

 

And in the meanwhile the proposed Dapol large prairie fortunately seems to have gone back to the drawing board and some far more accurate study of what such engines actually looked like which - if it will ever appear - pushes it some distance into the future; there is of course a rather good kit in the SEF range.

[dibber25]

There are other manufacturers of course plus numerous (now) commissioners any of whom might be tempted to enter the fray in one way or another.  There are some useful choices for variation on the B set theme as well as in the land of autotrailers.   However as Bachmann have - thus far announced nothing additional or new in these areas if something is going to arrive before their usual lag between announcement and production (albeit although it looks likely to improve) it won't be materialising in this part of the forum I suspect.  

 

And in the meanwhile the proposed Dapol large prairie fortunately seems to have gone back to the drawing board and some far more accurate study of what such engines actually looked like which - if it will ever appear - pushes it some distance into the future; there is of course a rather good kit in the SEF range.

 

The biggest disincentive still is the initial cost of tooling and manufacture. To suit the modern buyer you need high levels of detail and prototype fidelity and that costs money. Its the W&U tramway coach syndrome - the coach would cost nearly as much as a loco to produce but there's price resistance to rolling stock in a way that there isn't (so much) to locomotives. Also, the economy of 'common' underframes is a myth. If you are doing five different coach bodies, 5,000 of each, you can't necessarily expect to use one chassis tool 25,000 times. So a common chassis tool isn't necessarily an economy. It may very well make more sense to have a complete tooling suite for each coach. (CJL)

[The Johnster]

The B set was a uniquely GW thing, but it is significant that broadly similar stock for the Southern, complete branch line trains in only 2 coaches, has attracted RTR attention in the case of the LSWR 'gates', Maunsell push pulls, and Birdcages.  There is no RTR Southern suburban loco hauled stock either, though of course there wasn't that much in reality to be fair, emus doing most of the work in the London area and there being little elsewhere on that railway.

 

Perhaps there is good coverage of LMS and LNER compartment suburbans because these railways did not have B set equivalents to seduce manufacturers aways from making brake 3rds, all 3rds, and composites for proper commuter trains. 

 

Kits are available for a decent large prairie and various suburbans, GW and LNER quad-art, of course, but IMHO not really relevant to the RTR market.  

[brushman47544]

Good to see new stock arriving, in particular the Mk2fs and Motorail carflat, but what's happened to the Mk1 TPO POT, again? They were supposedly manufactured before the Mk2fs and the BCC magazine says (presumably as an expectation written in advance) that they've arrived.

 

I do miss Bachmann's 'Latest arrivals' (in the warehouse) webpage. Even the new 'Availability' page hasn't been updated since 15 August.

[37501]

I emailed Bachmann and was told that the TPO stowage vans were due mid October,

 

John

[Dagworth]

Good to see new stock arriving, in particular the Mk2fs and Motorail carflat, but what's happened to the Mk1 TPO POT, again? They were supposedly manufactured before the Mk2fs and the BCC magazine says (presumably as an expectation written in advance) that they've arrived.

 

I do miss Bachmann's 'Latest arrivals' (in the warehouse) webpage. Even the new 'Availability' page hasn't been updated since 15 August.

Any update on the arrival of the Freightliner flats yet?

 

Andi