Jump to content

Manor Announced for 00


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

There is still a cost saving in tooling though.

Not if you want to be producing more than one model with the same components at the same time there isn't.  This, I suspect, is why Dapol are not releasing their Mogul and their Prairie simultaneously; the chassis toolings will be needed for Mogul production and cannot be used for Prairie (and then presumably Manor) production runs until the first Mogul run is complete.  Otherwise 3 sets of identical tooling will be needed, and that isn't cost effective; you've just tripled the tooling costs for those components!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Not if you want to be producing more than one model with the same components at the same time there isn't.  This, I suspect, is why Dapol are not releasing their Mogul and their Prairie simultaneously; the chassis toolings will be needed for Mogul production and cannot be used for Prairie (and then presumably Manor) production runs until the first Mogul run is complete. 

 

How long would Dapol (or anyone) stay in business if they suddenly offered 3 brand new GWR locos all at the same time, so all 3 locos were fighting with each other to find enough sales from the GWR customer base to cover their tooling costs?

 

Ideally you want to sell enough items in the first run of a newly tooled item to cover the development costs (and then additional runs can be profit if you don't manage any profit on the first run).  That's hard to do if you have tripled your development costs for the same market by making 3 models at the same time.

 

Looking at almost any project schedule like the Mogul, Prairie, Manor and you can pretty much guess the schedule is being determined by the cash flow requirements/consequences of the cost of development and production.

Edited by mdvle
changed tone
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Doubtful. 

 

They are likely tooling up a new chassis because a) the chassis is a relatively cheap part of the tooling costs and b) that way every piece of tooling for a Manor can be kept together, just as every piece of tooling for the Mogul can be kept together, etc.  so that when they go to do a second run they don't have to scramble to find all the tooling (bear in mind, the Manor could be made in factory A while the Mogul was done in factory B, while in 2 years when another run of the Mogul is done factory B has since gone out of business so it's tooling has been moved to factory C, etc...)

 

The GWR used the same patterns to make those full sized bits that were standard to various locos. Modern design/tooling technology moves that interchangeability back one stage in the production sequence.

 

Hence, the commonality of some parts between the various models under development can (and no doubt will) be exploited to create more than one set of tools off the design work where applicable.

 

In the longer term, provided a company retains ownership of (and, probably more to the point, access to) all the digital stuff, any "lost" tooling can be readily replicated.  

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

In any event, these new locos from Dapol, must mean the day is coming soon for a new range of GWR carriages as well..... 

 

Extra carriages in the Hornby Collet range would be good.... full brake and restaurant carriage for starters....

 

Hopefully Bachmann are tooling something up at the moment....

 

Back on topic, I was going to say Henley on Thames for a location the Manors hadn’t visited, until Mike aka @The Stationmaster reminded us about the visit to Henley of a dirty Manor in BR days. Certainly I would say in GWR days they would have been unlikely. Reading shed didn’t have an allocation in 1938/40

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

How long would Dapol (or anyone) stay in business if they suddenly offered 3 brand new GWR locos all at the same time, so all 3 locos were fighting with each other to find enough sales from the GWR customer base to cover their tooling costs?

 

Ideally you want to sell enough items in the first run of a newly tooled item to cover the development costs (and then additional runs can be profit if you don't manage any profit on the first run).  That's hard to do if you have tripled your development costs for the same market by making 3 models at the same time.

 

Looking at almost any project schedule like the Mogul, Prairie, Manor and you can pretty much guess the schedule is being determined by the cash flow requirements/consequences of the cost of development and production.

The announcement does state that the Manor isn't scheduled for release until 2021, and that could well mean late 2021, by which time the first run of Moguls (and possibly Prairies, from whatever sources) should have already sold through.

 

However, the credence we can put on any projected release dates, given the prevailing circumstances, must be open to serious doubt. If they persist for too long, a few late delivery issues may be the smallest worries on manufacturers' minds.

 

I'm reckoning, even at the current state of play, that pretty much everything will go back at least six months from existing promises, whatever colour box we expect it to come in.

 

In any event, the GWR fans haven't had much new to spend their hard-earned on for some while, other than Hornby coaches. Many should therefore have nice little war-chests burning holes in their pockets. 

 

John

 

 

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
24 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The announcement does state that the Manor isn't scheduled for release until 2021, and that could well mean late 2021, by which time the first run of Moguls (and possibly Prairies, from whatever sources) should have already sold through.

 

However, the credence we can put on any projected release dates, given the prevailing circumstances, must be open to serious doubt. If they persist for too long, a few late delivery issues may be the smallest worries on manufacturers' minds.

 

I'm reckoning, even at the current state of play, that pretty much everything will go back at least six months from existing promises, whatever colour box we expect it to come in.

 

In any event, the GWR fans haven't had much new to spend their hard-earned on for some while, other than Hornby coaches. Many should therefore have nice little war-chests burning holes in their pockets. 

 

John

 

 


I wanted to give you a like and a funny emotion for that @Dunsignalling - funny as I like the idea of a war chest to spend on the next GWR items :D

 

How about some new GWR tank engines for my war chest? Lol

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Not if you want to be producing more than one model with the same components at the same time there isn't.  This, I suspect, is why Dapol are not releasing their Mogul and their Prairie simultaneously; the chassis toolings will be needed for Mogul production and cannot be used for Prairie (and then presumably Manor) production runs until the first Mogul run is complete.  Otherwise 3 sets of identical tooling will be needed, and that isn't cost effective; you've just tripled the tooling costs for those components!

 

Hmmm. The mechanical 'bits' are pretty much standard across the 3 models (thank you, Mr. Churchward) but each of the 3 models will have different tooling. Even the tenders are different. The possible only standard items would be the NEM sockets, and the screws that hold it all together. 

 

I wouldn't think Dapol are as daft as releasing all 3 models together: The prospect of asking around £600 in one hit is a bit too much. Sure, there will be people who will have them at any cost, but not, perhaps, the average modeller. Something would have to give, and it's lost sales for Dapol, IMHO.  Then, there would be the loss of perceived anticipation by the public at large. 

 

We might see the Mogul this year, and the large prairie in 2021. Going on Dapols performance, which is fairly in line with what they actually say, would be about 2023. Of course, owing to the demand for the Manor, my money is on Dapol actually swopping the Manor & Prairie about, and the release being the Mogul, and the Manor. 

 

What? The large Prairie?  With absolute deference to Dapol, I'm not sure that we'll ever see the Prairie from them. Sure, they've said that Dapol will make one, and I have no reason to doubt them. But! if Hornby do actually turn out a corker, then it might prove foolhardy to go head to head with an excellent model, from a well-proven manufacturer.  I would anticipate that if Dapol make good on their promise, then that would be around 2025. One of the first things about business, is keeping things flexible, so we shouldn't get too worked up if it doesn't actually happen.

 

There is an upside to all of this, honestly! Being that we've all been very good boys & girls , then we can ask-petition Dapol to make to make something else. The wishlist poll (thank you, Mr. McDermott & team) turn out a very accurate poll on a regular basis, enough to make Dapol & others to take notice. 

 

Some bloke with a big mouth said Large Metro, but I don't know where he got that idea from.

 

Happy modelling,

Ian.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

 

Hmmm. The mechanical 'bits' are pretty much standard across the 3 models (thank you, Mr. Churchward) but each of the 3 models will have different tooling. Even the tenders are different. The possible only standard items would be the NEM sockets, and the screws that hold it all together. 

 

I wouldn't think Dapol are as daft as releasing all 3 models together: The prospect of asking around £600 in one hit is a bit too much. Sure, there will be people who will have them at any cost, but not, perhaps, the average modeller. Something would have to give, and it's lost sales for Dapol, IMHO.  Then, there would be the loss of perceived anticipation by the public at large. 

 

We might see the Mogul this year, and the large prairie in 2021. Going on Dapols performance, which is fairly in line with what they actually say, would be about 2023. Of course, owing to the demand for the Manor, my money is on Dapol actually swopping the Manor & Prairie about, and the release being the Mogul, and the Manor. 

 

What? The large Prairie?  With absolute deference to Dapol, I'm not sure that we'll ever see the Prairie from them. Sure, they've said that Dapol will make one, and I have no reason to doubt them. But! if Hornby do actually turn out a corker, then it might prove foolhardy to go head to head with an excellent model, from a well-proven manufacturer.  I would anticipate that if Dapol make good on their promise, then that would be around 2025. One of the first things about business, is keeping things flexible, so we shouldn't get too worked up if it doesn't actually happen.

 

There is an upside to all of this, honestly! Being that we've all been very good boys & girls , then we can ask-petition Dapol to make to make something else. The wishlist poll (thank you, Mr. McDermott & team) turn out a very accurate poll on a regular basis, enough to make Dapol & others to take notice. 

 

Some bloke with a big mouth said Large Metro, but I don't know where he got that idea from.

 

Happy modelling,

Ian.

 

I think the most likely scenario is that Dapol will do exactly what they have said they will do in the GWR stream: Mogul followed by Large Prairie followed later by Manor, with stretching timescales.

 

They might be persuaded to do something else but that I guess their capacity is all planned well-ahead and anything new would be slotted in after the Manor unless the plans go horribly wrong.

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

In any event, these new locos from Dapol, must mean the day is coming soon for a new range of GWR carriages as well..... 

 

Extra carriages in the Hornby Collet range would be good.... full brake and restaurant carriage for starters....

 

Hopefully Bachmann are tooling something up at the moment....

 

Back on topic, I was going to say Henley on Thames for a location the Manors hadn’t visited, until Mike aka @The Stationmaster reminded us about the visit to Henley of a dirty Manor in BR days. Certainly I would say in GWR days they would have been unlikely. Reading shed didn’t have an allocation in 1938/40

I can't see anybody but Hornby going for GWR coaching stock including NPCCS - but you never know and stranger things have happened at sea as the old saying goes (and could be seen on BBC 2 last night with a 52ft lifeboat towing over 3,000 tons of freighter out of danger in a rough sea).

 

As far as Henley is concerned I think you're right for earlier days - the most common 4-6-0s at Henley pre-WWII were 'Stars' and 'Saints' (steam railmotors and diesel railcars were even more common at various times of course)

 

9 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

How long would Dapol (or anyone) stay in business if they suddenly offered 3 brand new GWR locos all at the same time, so all 3 locos were fighting with each other to find enough sales from the GWR customer base to cover their tooling costs?

 

Ideally you want to sell enough items in the first run of a newly tooled item to cover the development costs (and then additional runs can be profit if you don't manage any profit on the first run).  That's hard to do if you have tripled your development costs for the same market by making 3 models at the same time.

 

Looking at almost any project schedule like the Mogul, Prairie, Manor and you can pretty much guess the schedule is being determined by the cash flow requirements/consequences of the cost of development and production.

Hence one reason for my earlier comments that Dapol have jumped in because they picked up somewhere that somebody else has been looking at the 'Manor' so they have made an early announcement to stake their claim without even a CAD to go along with the prototype photos.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tomparryharry said:

But! if Hornby do actually turn out a corker, then it might prove foolhardy to go head to head with an excellent model, from a well-proven manufacturer. 

 

Happy modelling,

Ian.

May I whisper, “Hornby GWR green”?

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dapol’s head-to-head with Hornby will make for interesting spectator sport, but I think they will go ahead with it; it would be a serious loss of face to meekly withdraw from the game in the face of Hornby’s model.  I’m sure both locos will sell well enough to provide their companies with a return.    I’d expect the Dap prairie to undercut Hornby for price.  If they can knock out Manors for £135, a prairie might be feasible at the £120 level. 
 

As I’ve been a good boy and girl (eh?), I’d ask/petition Uncle Dave and Auntie Pauline for a Diagram N auto trailer in 00 rather than a Metro...

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/03/2020 at 15:48, Miss Prism said:

I called them 'Collett' because they were outshopped in 1925. Maybe best to just call them 'intermediate'.

 

Why? They were standard Churchward 3500 gallon tenders simply with the plating on the sides increased in height, mostly, though not all, built to lot A.112 (a couple, including no.2222, were rebuilt from standard tenders). Somewhere, though I can't immediately find it, I've seen a GA of a lot A.112 tender which just shows a standard 3500 gallon tender without any increase in height. The scalloped frames were different (on those built under lot A.112 only) though not of the Collett pattern.

 

I don't want to get too anal and bore everyone to pieces but, I'm sure you'll agree, terminology is important otherwise people just don't know what you're talking about...

 

The fact that they were called' intermediate' was of course a reference to their height which was of an 'intermediate' height between the 3500 gallon tenders and the 4000 gallon tenders. You could easily argue that the Collett 3500 gallon tenders could be refered to as 'intermediate' tenders as well because they were of a similar height to these Churchward ones. If you simply say 'intermediate' people might not know which ones you're talking about.

 

Also the fact that they were built in 1925 has nothing to do with anything. A design isn't attributed to a new CME if it hasn't fundamentally changed, whhhc is the case with these tenders.

 

End of bee in bonnet time.

 

Justin

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jjnewitt said:

 

Why? They were standard Churchward 3500 gallon tenders simply with the plating on the sides increased in height, mostly, though not all, built to lot A.112 (a couple, including no.2222, were rebuilt from standard tenders). Somewhere, though I can't immediately find it, I've seen a GA of a lot A.112 tender which just shows a standard 3500 gallon tender without any increase in height. The scalloped frames were different (on those built under lot A.112 only) though not of the Collett pattern.

 

I don't want to get too anal and bore everyone to pieces but, I'm sure you'll agree, terminology is important otherwise people just don't know what you're talking about...

 

The fact that they were called' intermediate' was of course a reference to their height which was of an 'intermediate' height between the 3500 gallon tenders and the 4000 gallon tenders. You could easily argue that the Collett 3500 gallon tenders could be refered to as 'intermediate' tenders as well because they were of a similar height to these Churchward ones. If you simply say 'intermediate' people might not know which ones you're talking about.

 

Also the fact that they were built in 1925 has nothing to do with anything. A design isn't attributed to a new CME if it hasn't fundamentally changed, whhhc is the case with these tenders.

 

End of bee in bonnet time.

 

Justin

Back when some of them were still in service, I remember them being referred to simply as "Intermediate", presumably as an easy way of differentiating them from both the Collett and original Churchward pattern 3500g tenders. Whether it was enthusiast-speak or what GWR/WR staff called them, I know not.

 

Either way, I understood the term to denote an intermediate design stage between one and the other and it had nothing (AFAIK) to do with their height.

 

John

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mdvle said:

...Looking at almost any project schedule like the Mogul, Prairie, Manor and you can pretty much guess the schedule is being determined by the cash flow requirements/consequences of the cost of development and production.

Quite: it's a continuing process of reinvestment of income from the previous successful tooling(s) into new tooling(s). Also a factor, capacity of each stage of the process. Even if a release was spectacularly successful as to support several rapid repeat runs - manufacturing capacity permitting! - and thus generated enough income to fund a greater number of projects: those projects can only go through at the rate determined by the lowest capacity step - wherever it may be in the process - which may be difficult to significantly quickly expand. (Quite a few businesses have tripped up over a 'rate limiting step' in their operation, when tested by an opportunity for really significant growth.)

 

Not being a dedicated Dapolwatcher I don't know the current demonstrated throughput of new introductions of 'powered models'. If it has been two a year recently, then with class 59, Terrier, D class, Mogul, Prairie, Manor, in the list, that says 2022 for the final pair - all else being equal - perhaps...

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Either way, I understood the term to denote an intermediate design stage between one and the other and it had nothing (AFAIK) to do with their height.

 

I'm not sure there was any intermediate design stage with these things. They were Churchward 3500 gallon tenders with higher plating on the sides and some reinforcement around the spring hangers on most, though not all, that's it. There was no tank flush with the bottom of the body or fenders that wrapped around the ends or anything else that characterised the later 'Collett' designs. If it was an intermediate deisgn stage I would expect some features that apeared later to have been incorporated and as far as I know they weren't. 

 

Justin

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jjnewitt said:

 

I'm not sure there was any intermediate design stage with these things. They were Churchward 3500 gallon tenders with higher plating on the sides and some reinforcement around the spring hangers on most, though not all, that's it. There was no tank flush with the bottom of the body or fenders that wrapped around the ends or anything else that characterised the later 'Collett' designs. If it was an intermediate deisgn stage I would expect some features that apeared later to have been incorporated and as far as I know they weren't. 

 

Justin

There may well not have been, but it was a convenient way to describe those 3500g tenders that were "neither one thing nor the other" but came along between the other two.

 

The Intermediate tenders were effectively the Churchward design with a few tweaks, but the problem with using the term "Churchward Intermediate" is that it implies the existence of a later (third) pattern of Churchward 3500g tender, when the one that succeeded it was the Collett design.

 

John

 

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

There may well not have been, but it was a convenient way to describe those 3500g tenders that were "neither one thing nor the other" but came along between the other two.

 

The Intermediate tenders were effectively the Churchward design with a few tweaks, but the problem with using the term "Churchward Intermediate" is that it implies the existence of a later pattern of Churchward 3500g tender, when the one that succeeded it was the Collett design.

 

John

 

 

The problem with not using the Churchward preface is that it implies that there was something very different about these tenders from what came before which is misleading, because there wasn’t. 

 

With hindsight perhaps ‘intermediate’ was a really poor choice of term for these tenders and ‘high sided’ would have been a much better and more accurate phrase to use. However as we are stuck with a term that’s at best imperfect adding something that might not make complete logical sense seems to be splitting hairs somewhat.

 

If the accepted term for them is plain ‘intermediate’ then fine, that’s what convention has decided. I can’t imagine that everyone is suddenly going to start calling them Churchward 3500 gallon high sided tenders, though perhaps they should. Don’t be under any illusions though that they weren’t fundamentally a Churchward tender. There wasn’t really anything about them that was an ‘intermediate’ design stage between the standard Churchward and Collett 3500 gallon tenders. 

 

Justin

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

 

I wouldn't think Dapol are as daft as releasing all 3 models together: The prospect of asking around £600 in one hit is a bit too much. Sure, there will be people who will have them at any cost, but not, perhaps, the average modeller. Something would have to give, and it's lost sales for Dapol, IMHO.  Then, there would be the loss of perceived anticipation by the public at large. 

 

 

Unlike Hornby who has just announced three new LNER/BR ER express passenger locomotive classes in one go for about  £200 each then? With about ten different models all together.

 

I can almost guarantee that those who model the LNER/BR ER will be getting more than one and probably more than one Bachmann V2 as well. Some are already "sold out on pre order" at Hattons.

 

Then there is the APTs. How much for a full set of 14? Some of those are sold out at certain retailers as well.

 

Even a bog standard DMU/EMU is now about £100 per car making a four car set nearly £400 with usual discounts.

 

http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/56746/31-491-Bachmann-Class-410-4-Car-4-BEP-EMU-Set-number-7010

 

Yet GWR/WR modellers won't pay £600 for three different models*? Of course they will if they really want them....

 

 

 

*I know that's not the price, but it's quoted in the post above....

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

TBH,I get what you all post....but I get the impression that “controlling the flow” of merchandise from the factory gates in China is a somewhat difficult balancing act.That said we can only really guess the situation,particularly at the present time.As long as the goodies get here is all we can ask,whether in shedloads or penny numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The RCTS master work notes that the 10 tenders built in Lot A112, the final batch of Churchward tenders, 'have been called "intermediate pattern"'.  Which suggests to me that (a) the authors did not themselves find the term helpful but that (b) it was probably a term of long standing and therefore they mentioned it for completeness. 

 

For me the most significant point is that there were only 10 built, with a further 2 rebuilt into this condition. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

TBH,I get what you all post....but I get the impression that “controlling the flow” of merchandise from the factory gates in China is a somewhat difficult balancing act.That said we can only really guess the situation,particularly at the present time.As long as the goodies get here is all we can ask,whether in shedloads or penny numbers.

Exactly so.  added to which there is the father important matter of cash flow and any borrowing to fund development on the part of the UK 'manufacturer'/commissioner name.  If you're lashing out over £100K per model even with synergy savings you have to have money coming in to maintain interest payments and keep working capital fluid.  For an example of the way things can go look at Hornby's history over the past decade - very easy to get it wrong and suddenly find yourself ina trough of losses without the capital input to extend as it is spent on standing still.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, Pteremy said:

The RCTS master work notes that the 10 tenders built in Lot A112, the final batch of Churchward tenders, 'have been called "intermediate pattern"'.  Which suggests to me that (a) the authors did not themselves find the term helpful but that (b) it was probably a term of long standing and therefore they mentioned it for completeness. 

 

For me the most significant point is that there were only 10 built, with a further 2 rebuilt into this condition. 

And finding pictures of one behind a 'Manor' is quite a task, definitely a rarity compared with the two basic underframe variants on the 3,500 Churchward tender.  I'll say even less about tender bodies but there lurketh a major, remarkably well hodden, minefield unless you get your starting point right.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Unlike Hornby who has just announced three new LNER/BR ER express passenger locomotive classes in one go for about  £200 each then? With about ten different models all together.

 

I can almost guarantee that those who model the LNER/BR ER will be getting more than one and probably more than one Bachmann V2 as well. Some are already "sold out on pre order" at Hattons.

 

Then there is the APTs. How much for a full set of 14? Some of those are sold out at certain retailers as well.

 

Even a bog standard DMU/EMU is now about £100 per car making a four car set nearly £400 with usual discounts.

 

http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/56746/31-491-Bachmann-Class-410-4-Car-4-BEP-EMU-Set-number-7010

 

Yet GWR/WR modellers won't pay £600 for three different models*? Of course they will if they really want them....

 

 

 

*I know that's not the price, but it's quoted in the post above....

 

 

Jason

 

I can't argue with that, Jason. However, it is the prospect of putting up nearly 600 Sovs that might put some off. I think that I'd rather buy a model, knowing that there is one, somewhere in the future, rather than "That's 'yer lot, chum". Filling up the void after a large release would bring the situation:- "What's next? What's next? What's next? Daaaaaad! What's next? I think you know what I mean....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Unlike Hornby who has just announced three new LNER/BR ER express passenger locomotive classes in one go for about  £200 each then? With about ten different models all together.

 

Don't know Hornby, who are still losing money, are the best example of how to do things.

 

9 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

I can almost guarantee that those who model the LNER/BR ER will be getting more than one and probably more than one Bachmann V2 as well. Some are already "sold out on pre order" at Hattons.

 

The benefit (to Hornby) of offering models of a neglected area, which means lots of pent up demand.

 

9 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Then there is the APTs. How much for a full set of 14? Some of those are sold out at certain retailers as well.

 

There almost always is money for unique items, none of the Mogul/Prairie/Manor are unique.

 

9 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Even a bog standard DMU/EMU is now about £100 per car making a four car set nearly £400 with usual discounts.

 

http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/56746/31-491-Bachmann-Class-410-4-Car-4-BEP-EMU-Set-number-7010

 

Um, don't know that the 410/4-bep can be called bog-standard - my recollection from the discussion around it is that it is a niche model with limited market, hence the price.

 

Which isn't to say the £100/per car isn't here, or far away if not.  And  a segment of the market will pay that price if the model justifies it.

 

On the other hand, if 3 new tooled 4 -car 3rd-rail models of the same era were all released at the same time it is likely one or more of them would struggle to sell.

 

9 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Yet GWR/WR modellers won't pay £600 for three different models*? Of course they will if they really want them....

 

The issue is thus.

 

Many people won't want one of each - they will want 3 of each, or 3 of one and 2 of each of the others, etc.  So it isn't a matter of coming up with £600 but rather say £1,500 or more.

 

While at the same time wanting the Bachmann 94xx and the Model Rail 16xx, and perhaps even some of the Hornby Prairies.

 

So yes, if you are Dapol it is likely wisest to spread out the arrivals so that you can better give each individual model a better chance to make a profit.  Either that, or find an owner willing to keep putting more money into the business.

  • Like 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.