Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Duplication of Models: A Discussion


Recommended Posts

Read this:

 

21 hours ago, Corbs said:

Thinking about product duplication, there's been quite a lot of this going on recently. The ones I can think of are:

 

GWR King

DJM - Hornby

 

Adams Radial

Oxford - Hornby

 

Terrier

Rails - Hornby

 

Class 92

Accurascale - DJM

 

Class 71

DJM - Hornby

 

Class 66

Bachmann - Hornby - Hattons

 

GWR 0-6-0ST

DJM - Heljan

 

I understand the more competition is better, supposedly for prices.  In reality though...

 

I also understand the Hornby 66 and Hattons 66 will serve different price points.  The Bachmann one is fairly old now, so hats off to Hattons for remaking it to the latest standards in modeling.

 

Lastly, I understand the law against collusion but I'm not really sure how enforcable that is.

 

But are we seeing a growing trend of companies trying to out do each other instead of bring something new to the market?  That specifically the aim is to out do their competitors?

 

I've said it before (and while I'd have no interest in them) the Class 375/376/377/378/379 family could be done fairly easily and I suspect quickly.  Yes there's differences between the units but the main CAD work would be done, so it's just small additions here and there.

 

But the fact we're now seeing a lot more models duplicated means there's less choice surely?

 

Musings indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
24 minutes ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

Lastly, I understand the law against collusion but I'm not really sure how enforcable that is.

 

Very !

 

Which is one reason why they don't really talk to each other about future product.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two, or more companies can independently (legal) come to the same conclusion without collusion (illegal) on a new model. 

Company A has produced a model of loco C for years. It is a popular prototype and sells well. It is now getting a little long in the tooth and sales are declining. Company A decides to retool to bring it up to date with regards to detail.

Company B simultaneously sees the popularity of loco C and the sales figures of Company A's offering. Notes that it is out of date and poorly detailed by todays standards and tools up for their better version.

Result: Both Company A and Company B announce a new loco C at the same time.

 

Company A and Company B both commission their own market research and/or read a wish list poll in RMWeb and find that loco D is a popular prototype for which there is strong demand, but for which no model exists.

Result: Company A and B come out with loco D at the same time.

Edited by Mim
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chris p bacon said:

Very !

 

Which is one reason why they don't really talk to each other about future product.


Really though?

A conversation down the pub to say what each other is producing isn't going to be picked up on.

 

I'm coming from the approach that it isn't about collusion, but about not wanting to pour hundreds of thousands of pounds into a model only to make a marginal profit because someone else is already producing it to a very similar standard.

 

I seriously can't see there will be blinding differences between the Hornby and Rails' Terriers.  Both will be more than up to scratch with todays models, so surely it is a bit of a waste of money/resources, when it could have been put towards something else - like a high detail 37, 47, or a completely new loco/unit.


Yes, both companies are likely to make a profit from the model, but I bet not as much if they'd chosen something a little more unique.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's capitalism I'm afraid. There can be a tremendous amount of wasteage and duplication of effort and resources. The anti cartel and anti monopoly laws are there to keep them slightly more honest. Without, we would see dividing up of the market, little chance of new manufacturers coming in and mediocre models.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Regrettably I think duplication will become a bigger problem rather than a reducing one.  Not just where somebody sets out to 'compete' with a previously announced item because they consider that it 'belongs' to them but because of what seems to be an increasing reliance on wishlist poll results for new ideas rather than any sort of product plan to a particular theme or carefully considered programme based on original thought.

 

I think too that the 'upgraders' providing new models against ageing less detailed ones also add to the situation. But we should remember that in their case they aren't always selling into the wider marketplace but are targetting a particular part of the market which might be quite small (although we simply don't know the numbers of models which are produced).

 

Thus I suspect we might see potential widening of the market by innovation and original thinking giving place to having a multiple choice of the same old thing.  And part of that will inevitably, I think, lead to under-researched. hastily produced. models being put into the market thus queering the pitch for ones which are better - or hopefully properly - researched.  It is often said that wider choice improves what is available to the consumer and supermarkets are frequently quoted as a prime example of this.  But in reality the only choice supermarkets offer is what they have chosen, not what the customer might necessarily want or prefer.  

 

Equally while different supermarkets are, like some model railway 'manufacturers', good at different things price also comes into the equation and what might be 'best' will suffer because 'cheapest' will draw away customers.  Supermarkets might well be big enough to withstand that to at least some extent but in a relatively small market like model railways things are very different and duplication could well kill off some manufacturers unless they innovate into new areas.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, Sir TophamHatt said:


Really though?

A conversation down the pub to say what each other is producing isn't going to be picked up on.

 

 

 

Don't you believe it.

 

DG VI responsible for competition law and its enforcement has before now concluded that "something" was going on from peoples' diaries where they were in the same city at the same time (note city not pub) and from there the rabbits start running and before long there are dawn raids.  Documents are seized, emails copied, phone numbers rung are recorded, lots of difficult questions posed - so just why did you decide to terminate work in this area?  Nothing seems to be minuted in your records.  (Absence of evidence can be as damning as clear evidence.)

 

If found guilty then the price to pay is up to 10% world turnover (turnover and not profit).  Things like Nuremberg Spielware exhibition will be closely watched - and for all I know UK exhibitions like Warley.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
24 minutes ago, Sir TophamHatt said:


Really though?

A conversation down the pub to say what each other is producing isn't going to be picked up on.

 

 

Its a bit more subtle than that...

 

For example there are a number of folk on here who manufacturers turn to for informal advice in particular areas - For Southern items they may consult Graham Muz, while GWR items may see them consult with The Stationmaster or Ms Prism.

 

If these individuals get approached by two companies both proposing to make the same model, then said unofficial consultants can, through the careful choice of words indicate to manufacturer X that another manufacturer is also 'on the case' as it were and that manufacturer X would be strongly advised to look at an alternative product that is not yet on anyones radar. Of course there is no obligation for manufacture X to listen to what the unofficial consultant may recommend - particularly as the conversation is ostensibly about the grater desirability of an alternative prototype than the one manufacturer X original had planned.

 

Of course it helps that we do get duplication on occasion - it sort of reassures the competition regulators that collusion / cartels are not emerging....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

Don't you believe it.

 

DG VI responsible for competition law and its enforcement has before now concluded that "something" was going on from peoples' diaries where they were in the same city at the same time (note city not pub) and from there the rabbits start running and before long there are dawn raids.  Documents are seized, emails copied, phone numbers rung are recorded, lots of difficult questions posed - so just why did you decide to terminate work in this area?  Nothing seems to be minuted in your records.  (Absence of evidence can be as damning as clear evidence.)

 

If found guilty then the price to pay is up to 10% world turnover (turnover and not profit).  Things like Nuremberg Spielware exhibition will be closely watched - and for all I know UK exhibitions like Warley.  

 

And just to add:

 

The absence of duplicates would be taken as evidence of collusion.

What Phil suggests above is however quite legal so long as firm A does not say to the impartial intermediary that he should make sure firm B is informed.

What often happens however is that the intermediaries (who might be for example the owner of the 1:1 item) are sworn to secrecy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duplication is bound to happen as "popular " prototypes run out leaving the more esoteroic and possibly far fewer liveries left .its a matter or personal choice buy the company and is often based on their own preferences .i will buy a Hornby Terrier as i will pop down to Great Eastern models and buy it .The Rails version may well be better but what is  better really .I dont go accuracy sniffing .If it looks like the real one  from a few feet  and runs well then its fine .I just like nice models .In the model car business where I spent far too long  every company on the planet made Ferrari and Porsche at least until the licensing ruined it all .They did it as they sold well and indeed still do .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

What often happens however is that the intermediaries (who might be for example the owner of the 1:1 item) are sworn to secrecy.

 

 

Which does not prevent intermediaries from suggesting alternatives.

 

If its a heritage railway, they can say to a manufacturer - how about doing loco X instead of loco Y. Obviously with a gaging order in place the railway cannot say 'because loco Y has already scanned / inspected by model company A - but through the careful use of language its possible to indicate that loco X is already spoken for. Of course officially the line will be that loco X is just as deserving of being reproduced in model form as loco Y....

 

As with many things language wise, what you DON'T say can be just as revealing as what you do - and a sufficiently astute researcher working for Hornby / Bachmann / Dapol / etc should easily be able to work out what is going on.

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Duplication is not a good thing for anyone; from the manufacturer’s viewpoint it deprives both producers of some sales, and from our viewpoint means that items we may be waiting for are deferred while production facilities are blocked by duplicants. 

 

But it it is, from our viewpoint perhaps a price worth paying if it prevents collaboration, cartels, and other monopolistic practices.  Capitalism requires regulating, and this is one of the reasons!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were running a for-profit manufacturer that aimed to be as big as Bachmann or Hornby then certain loco's would have to be made, regardless of whether they are already available. For diesels the 37,47, and 66 are definately on that list. I don't have any stats, but these 3 must account for a large minority of diesel sales to UK outline modellers, and more sales means more profit. 

 

The duplication that frustrates me is when 2 manufacturers produce exactly the same model.

 

For example, I have a Dapol N Gauge EWS 66, 66111. The latest Farish EWS liveried option is also 66111. I won't be buying the Farish version unless I desperately need a spare chassis to rebody, or until it gets re-released with a new running number.

 

Regards,

 

John P

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

And long may it continue.

 

If there wasn't competition and duplication we would just be getting fobbed off with poorer quality models and you would never get newer versions as there are still many people think "that'll do, it looks like a Class XYZ. Who cares that it was first made in the 1960s by Triang?".

 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

While duplication can be frustrating it does stop manufacturers announcing models as a place holder as an example there seems to be a flurry of activity on the djm class 92 since the accurascale version was announced where previously the progress was almost going backwards! At least now I am guaranteed to get my class 92 from one source or another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

And just to add:

 

The absence of duplicates would be taken as evidence of collusion.

What Phil suggests above is however quite legal so long as firm A does not say to the impartial intermediary that he should make sure firm B is informed.

What often happens however is that the intermediaries (who might be for example the owner of the 1:1 item) are sworn to secrecy.

I don't know about this example, but in many other businesses, non-disclosure agreements would be in place in such a situation. Not something you would want to have to defend in court as in individual, or small society, if you let slip to a competitor a companies new product, even if you managed to win. It is quite possible for the a third party to be doing work for two competeing companies in product research, tooling, manufacture, or whatever. Their credibility and future business relies on them being able to keep quiet and not allow information to leak.

In a small industry like this it is likely that anyone senior is going  to know the senior people at their competitors. They may even be friends, or ex colleagues from earlier in their careers. The risk of letting important information slip by accident is real and something they would be on guard for. Occasionally managers in such situations are tempted to form cartels, thinking that nothing is wrong with it. If discovered, they are stomped on hard by the authorities. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
33 minutes ago, Mim said:

I don't know about this example, but in many other businesses, non-disclosure agreements would be in place in such a situation. Not something you would want to have to defend in court as in individual, or small society, if you let slip to a competitor a companies new product, even if you managed to win. It is quite possible for the a third party to be doing work for two competeing companies in product research, tooling, manufacture, or whatever. Their credibility and future business relies on them being able to keep quiet and not allow information to leak.

In a small industry like this it is likely that anyone senior is going  to know the senior people at their competitors. They may even be friends, or ex colleagues from earlier in their careers. The risk of letting important information slip by accident is real and something they would be on guard for. Occasionally managers in such situations are tempted to form cartels, thinking that nothing is wrong with it. If discovered, they are stomped on hard by the authorities. 

 

None of this means intermediaries cannot try and steer manufacturers onto other prototypes. If you come to a railway to measure / scan a particular loco - but the railway representative keeps trying to steer you towards doing another one, then any savvy researcher would twig something was up. Provided the railway takes the 'I can neither deny nor confirm anything which may or may not have happened with respect to loco X - but we really think you should look at loco Y because its a popular engine with our members' line then no collusion has procured and the competition authorities would have no grounds to take action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how does it work when company A goes to the acknowledged XYZ railway expert and signs them up as researcher for their new Class B 060 model. Then company B comes along asking the same expert about the same loco. The researcher either says no, and company B think ‘ah, someone else is doing it’, or they say yes and get paid twice for one lot of research.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

None of this means intermediaries cannot try and steer manufacturers onto other prototypes. If you come to a railway to measure / scan a particular loco - but the railway representative keeps trying to steer you towards doing another one, then any savvy researcher would twig something was up. Provided the railway takes the 'I can neither deny nor confirm anything which may or may not have happened with respect to loco X - but we really think you should look at loco Y because its a popular engine with our members' line then no collusion has procured and the competition authorities would have no grounds to take action.

 

Phil

I accept that it could happen but frankly if a producer arrives at a location to measure/scan/photograph say a C class 0-6-0, I doubt they are going to accept doing the same to a WD 2-8-0 instead.  Firstly, the team will have no management authorisation to do so, and secondly all of the research work up to that point will have been on the C.  A WD in full SECR livery might be a sight to behold but...……….

 

Tim

How it works depends on what is agreed.

If there is a non-disclosure agreement alone then our expert could legitimately work for both companies without problem*.  There may however also be an exclusivity agreement, in which case the expert would be obliged to tell the second company that unfortunately they cannot help them.  Second company could read into this what they will - too busy, doesn't like us, already working on this for someone else...

 

Edit to add:  * while they could work for both companies, that is not to say that some, many or all experts might consider it to be bad form to do so.

Edited by Andy Hayter
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

Phil

I accept that it could happen but frankly if a producer arrives at a location to measure/scan/photograph say a C class 0-6-0, I doubt they are going to accept doing the same to a WD 2-8-0 instead.  Firstly, the team will have no management authorisation to do so, and secondly all of the research work up to that point will have been on the C.  A WD in full SECR livery might be a sight to behold but...……….

 

 

 

But model manufactures don't just 'rock up' like an ordinary punter to do detailed measuring of a prototype loco do they? When its time for detailed examination of the prototype to happen (which will be well before any tooling is made) then the manufacturer will need to make contact with the railway / owner to ensure the item will be available for detailed inspection (and not out hauling trains for example). If, for example Hornby were ringing up the Bluebell trying to arrange a date to inspect the C class (before Bachmann went public with theirs) then you would think the fact that the Bluebell were continually suggesting an alternative or are making it difficult to gain  access to the C lass, might make you stop and think as to why exactly....

 

Also if say somebody else had started making enquiries at the Bluebell after Bachmann did (but before Bachmann went public) looking to make a model of the C class - then rather than point the manufacturer to a WD 2-8-0 (which the Bluebell don't have) then its entirely possible that said second manufacture could be encouraged to look at the O1 0-6-0 instead!  Both locos carried the ornate SECR livery, were used for the same sorts of work, were used in the same area etc...

 

Model railway history is littered with examples of manufactures who pulled the plug on designs because a rival got there first. Bachmann for example dropped doing a 00 S15 after Hornby announced theirs and at one stage 4 separate manufactures were seriously looking at releasing an Adams radial.

 

Yes if you cancel a model, then  you will have to write off the money spent doing the work up  to that point - which is why there tends to be a cut off. If duplication is discovered before making the tooling starts (which is by far the biggest cost in bringing a model to market) then the manufacturer is likely to call a halt to the project (or in the case of manufacturers like Bachmann who cover two different scales) refocus efforts on the alternative scale. If however tooling is being prepared then its usually better to continue and make as much money back as you can. In the case of the Terrier, Rails have already said they will be looking to make further improvements to address things like the tank top recess, etc which Hornby haven't got quite right in an effort to salvage their investment.

 

More widely tough however it is well recognised in the trade that duplication, particularly where the models are 'close' in detail terms rarely results in optimum results for manufacturers - rather than expanding the market all that usually happens is that the pot of money gets distributed more thinly across all manufacturers. This reality is why stopping work can still work out to be advantageous in the long run - as with all things in retailing it ultimately depends on what the financial numbers say....

 

As ever competition is a double edged sword - in markets where there are lots of consumers, duplication matters a lot less with respect to sales as everyone is able to secure a decent slice of the pie. If however the market you operate in is small (and don't kid yourself, model trains are minnows compared to other retail sectors in terms of the sheer number of potential customers) having too many competitors means that each slice of pie becomes too small to keep them in business resulting in takeovers or closures that can be just as negative for the consumer as any cartel might be.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm not sure duplication is for us to worry about, it's been going on since the early days of the hobby and it'll probably get worse as the low hanging fruit have been picked and in modern image especially we're now seeing companies develop replacements for well detailed models tooled in China. Models like the Bachmann Deltic and Class 66 may not be state of the art but neither are they bad models, certainly they're in the different class to pre-China Lima and Hornby.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Its a bit more subtle than that...

 

For example there are a number of folk on here who manufacturers turn to for informal advice in particular areas - For Southern items they may consult Graham Muz, while GWR items may see them consult with The Stationmaster or Ms Prism.

 

If these individuals get approached by two companies both proposing to make the same model, then said unofficial consultants can, through the careful choice of words indicate to manufacturer X that another manufacturer is also 'on the case' as it were and that manufacturer X would be strongly advised to look at an alternative product that is not yet on anyones radar. Of course there is no obligation for manufacture X to listen to what the unofficial consultant may recommend - particularly as the conversation is ostensibly about the grater desirability of an alternative prototype than the one manufacturer X original had planned.

 

Of course it helps that we do get duplication on occasion - it sort of reassures the competition regulators that collusion / cartels are not emerging....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry Phil but no because I think that giving 'hints' could potentially be seen as collusion.  Giving an answer to an outright question could perhaps be seen in a different light (but does one then have to answer honestly)?  

 

The question of measuring or scanning a subject is also a difficult one so again how does the owner of the object respond?  I think Andy Hayter got the right answer to that as well.   Incidentally there has to my certain knowledge been an instance of duplication where both of the 'manufacturers' involved took details of the subject (be it by measurement or scanning) but the two parties involved got permission to do so from different sources.  Equally there have also been instances of duplication where one of the parties involved has never been anywhere near the prototype engine involved to take or check measurements and have presumably worked only from drawings and photos while the other party actually looked at the loco and took details etc with the permission of the owners.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'm afraid there will always be some duplication - that of the "bread and butter" models that were so numerous they need to be on any layout - the 08, the 47 and yes, Hattons, the 66.

 

Its when the duplication that involves, say the Terrier, or the Adams Radial that hurts the market. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Its a bit more subtle than that...

 

For example there are a number of folk on here who manufacturers turn to for informal advice in particular areas - For Southern items they may consult Graham Muz, while GWR items may see them consult with The Stationmaster or Ms Prism.

 

If these individuals get approached by two companies both proposing to make the same model, then said unofficial consultants can, through the careful choice of words indicate to manufacturer X that another manufacturer is also 'on the case' as it were .......

See the 6th paragraph in this post on the Little Loco Company class 50 for an example of something similar happening. 

 

Edited by JeremyC
Add link
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...