New video - Did Accurascale just announce a HAA?

[lyneux]

9 minutes ago, Legend said:

It’s a difficult one . I don’t think you can share information as it’s technically illegal . 

 

How is it illegal? Revolution and Accurascale have obviously shared information with one another (just look at the 2mm stuff that Revolution do that Accurascale have announced in 4mm and vice versa - Cemflo, KUA, PFA etc).

 

Industry collaboration is not unusual but normally you would set up a joint venture as the commerical vehicle for this (think Mendip Rail for Yeoman and ARC). That said, some degree of collaboration is not forbidden by any law that I'm aware of.

 

Guy

 

 

[TomScrut]

1 minute ago, lyneux said:

How is it illegal?

 

Colluding behind closed doors as to who is going to do what to benefit the businesses involved and remove competition from the marketplace I believe is what they are getting at.

 

Working together on projects is a completely different thing.

[woodenhead]

17 minutes ago, lyneux said:

 

How is it illegal? Revolution and Accurascale have obviously shared information with one another (just look at the 2mm stuff that Revolution do that Accurascale have announced in 4mm and vice versa - Cemflo, KUA, PFA etc).

 

Industry collaboration is not unusual but normally you would set up a joint venture as the commerical vehicle for this (think Mendip Rail for Yeoman and ARC). That said, some degree of collaboration is not forbidden by any law that I'm aware of.

 

Guy

 

 

Accurascale are quite happy in the OO and O scales - even mentioned in the latest note in this thread from Fran.

 

Working with RevolutioN allows N gauge modellers access to some interesting models that would never see the light of day without them collaborating.  Doesn't mean everything RevolutioN do in N will be done by Accurascale or vice versa.

[lyneux]

Slaps forehead!

 

The last two replies show that you have not read the message that  I was responding to. This was the suggestion (in jest) by JSpencer of a centralised wish list / project database.

 

There is nothing illegal about this. It is not illegal for one manufacturer to declare to another what they are working on or to declare this in a public forum. It is then a manufacturer's decision on whether they proceed given the knowledge that they have about what other manufacturer's are doing.

 

Does it happen? Yes, all the bloomin' time! After all, both Cavalex and Accurascale have made the decision to go ahead with producing a duplicate precisely because they think that they can do it better/faster/cheaper than the existing market offerings from Hornby. Cavalex decided not to produce a 91 as Hornby stated their plan to re-tool theirs. This is all perfectly legal and rational based on information in the public domain.

 

What is illegal is price fixing, bid rigging and cartels. Sharing data in a public space is not the modus operandi of a cartel!

 

Guy

[Roy Langridge]

Whilst an unfortunate duplication, it was bound to happen at some point with both Accurascale and Cavalex producing fine models of such stock. I have some Cavalex HAAs on order and will order some Accurascale ones as well. After all, I was one of those beating the HAA drum for some time...

 

Roy

[Revolution Mike]

15 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Working with RevolutioN allows N gauge modellers access to some interesting models that would never see the light of day without them collaborating.  Doesn't mean everything RevolutioN do in N will be done by Accurascale or vice versa.

 

Indeed and that has worked to the benefit of all both ways (ie the opposite has also been true)!

 

Competition law restricts some very obvious things like price fixing, bid rigging, dominant player abuse as well as doing away with retail price maintenance.

 

I'm guessing that the issue that most people are referring to here is potential market sharing which is illegal and mainly focuses on geographical market sharing or dividing up which customers will be supplied. However there are exemptions for co-operation where the benefits to customers outweigh any reduction in competition, for example cheaper and faster development of products.

 

Co-operation comes in many forms as well ie one business may purchase or commission services/goods from another to the benefit of both parties.

 

As Guy says individual companies still have to make their own decisions about what is in their best interests and providing they are not colluding to restrict price or supply then there is no issue.

 

Cheers Mike

[TomScrut]

33 minutes ago, lyneux said:

The last two replies show that you have not read the message that  I was responding to. This was the suggestion (in jest) by JSpencer of a centralised wish list / project database.

 

Well that is not the post you quoted. I replied based on the response you gave to the post you quoted. I thought Legend's post was in response to the thread subject rather than the post about the database.

 

I did not interpret the post as being about sharing info in the public forum given I don't think anybody would ever think that would be illegal. If the industry heads got together once a year, shared their plans and drew straws/made agreements as to who was going to make what so they didn't compete with each other  (and therefore potentially increase the amount they can get away with charging) then that would (AFAIK) be illegal,  that is how interpreted the post regarding sharing of information and therefore why I replied as I did.

Edited October 12, 2020 by TomScrut

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, Legend said:

It’s a difficult one . I don’t think you can share information as it’s technically illegal .

 

Unless any of us on here are in the legal profession I suspect it is difficult to make accurate blanket statements about what is legal or not - and event those in the legal profession may not be able to hence the need for courts to make decisions.

 

Now add in 2 different countries, with different laws (UK and China), and things get even more complicated.  But it is fair to say based on past history of now former members of this forum (not to mention the large tech companies like Apple) that China doesn't keep secrets well.

 

And yes, not the UK so different laws, but one of the US manufacturers recently commented that they do have informal discussions with other companies (that they trust not to leak or take advantage of) about potential future products - the costs and risks of bad duplication are just too great.

 

Similarly, some of the US companies discuss projects with each other to try and make sure things like paint colours match, or to take advantage of the expertise of certain prototypes that a competitor might have.

 

Such cooperation benefits both the manufacturers and the customers, allowing for models that look good together, can be more accurate, and allow synergies like locos and rolling stock that run together being available at the same time (example, Rapido tools a new commuter loco (F59PH) and Athearn does a run of the commuter cars that those locos pull).

 

2 hours ago, Legend said:

 let’s face it it’s Bachmann  with 6 year gestation periods ( class 90 , 94XX etc) still don’t know if they are producing a new Turbostar or not .  The guys here at least announce something and are working on it . 

 

In fairness to Bachmann, despite your implications they are working on the stuff they announced it just isn't moving as fast as customers or Bachmann would like.

 

 

2 hours ago, TomScrut said:

But when all's said and done there is too much monopolisation on certain classes etc. in this market as it is IMO, where there is a long established model which is good enough for people to buy yet actually everyone thinks it should be better than it is yet tooling anew against it would probably be very difficult.

 

You can't have it both ways - you can't claim there is monopolization of certain classes while at the same time conceding that the tooling costs can't be recovered on a competing model.

 

2 hours ago, TomScrut said:

Hornby's HST for example, I don't think anyone will say it's anywhere near perfect but I think it would be a risky decision tooling a new HST up to compete with it. Unfortunately that means we are left with a shape that's not quite right (IMO) and obsolete lighting functionality. Hornby probably won't upgrade the tooling or lighting if people are buying it, but it's good enough for people to buy as opposed to not having one.

 

It is also a reflection that there is only so much money per year for tooling, and up until recently an abundance of other choices to spend that money on that offered better chances of financial success.

 

That said, I think there likely is enough of a market for a better HST to be released and I suspect as the UK market gets further shaken up with the newer entrants that at some point a better HST will be released.

 

 

 

 

[TomScrut]

2 hours ago, TomScrut said:

I know that the market here in the UK isn't big enough for multiple offerings of every class but having competition does tend to favour the customer.

 

6 minutes ago, mdvle said:

You can't have it both ways - you can't claim there is monopolization of certain classes while at the same time conceding that the tooling costs can't be recovered on a competing model.

 

You mean the entire last paragraph of my post which pretty much says that 

[TomScrut]

8 minutes ago, mdvle said:

That said, I think there likely is enough of a market for a better HST to be released and I suspect as the UK market gets further shaken up with the newer entrants that at some point a better HST will be released.

 

Yes I think they are a good candidate being very widespread over a 40 year period. It's just whether the demand would be there to replace or add to the ones people already have. I suppose Hornby keep shifting them.

[lyneux]

7 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Unless any of us on here are in the legal profession I suspect it is difficult to make accurate blanket statements about what is legal or not -

 

Not at all. The Competition and Markets Authority have a very informative site aimed at business professionals that tells you everything you need to know: https://cheatingorcompeting.campaign.gov.uk/. As a director of a limited company, I include myself in the audience for this document.

 

No need to be a lawyer!

 

Guy

[mdvle]

6 minutes ago, lyneux said:

 

Not at all. The Competition and Markets Authority have a very informative site aimed at business professionals that tells you everything you need to know: https://cheatingorcompeting.campaign.gov.uk/. As a director of a limited company, I include myself in the audience for this document.

 

That is merely one interpretation of what the law says, albeit likely reasonably authoritative.

 

But any court can, as a result of a case presented before them, decide the law says something else.

 

That is why, despite such websites, many companies still consult legal counsel on such matters.

[158722]

Would there be any possibility of one of the manufacturers deciding to bow out now, but not loose out on what preparation they have done so far? Such as using the underframe tooling on something else, such as the HEA/HSA family? The Bachmann one is reasonable model, but must be getting on a bit now and could probably benefit from a new generation model, done to the same spec as both Cavalex and Accurascale have managed with other releases.

[TomScrut]

8 minutes ago, 158722 said:

Would there be any possibility of one of the manufacturers deciding to bow out now, but not loose out on what preparation they have done so far? Such as using the underframe tooling on something else, such as the HEA/HSA family? The Bachmann one is reasonable model, but must be getting on a bit now and could probably benefit from a new generation model, done to the same spec as both Cavalex and Accurascale have managed with other releases.

 

As mentioned before though who decides who should bow out?

Edited October 12, 2020 by TomScrut

[158722]

11 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

As mentioned before though who decides who should bow out?

The business manager(s) or directors of one or other of the companies - purely commercial decision by them. How many similar duplicate release plans have we had in the last decade - and how many saw both companies release their models? I can think of examples which went both ways.

[BR Blue]

23 minutes ago, 158722 said:

The business manager(s) or directors of one or other of the companies - purely commercial decision by them. How many similar duplicate release plans have we had in the last decade - and how many saw both companies release their models? I can think of examples which went both ways.

True. Also how many cases of potential duplication never made it to the public domain. Company A announces a product and Company B quietly drops their plans for the same thing without it becoming public knowledge. I am sure it happens a lot.

Edited October 12, 2020 by BR Blue
Spelling

[TomScrut]

48 minutes ago, 158722 said:

The business manager(s) or directors of one or other of the companies - purely commercial decision by them. How many similar duplicate release plans have we had in the last decade - and how many saw both companies release their models? I can think of examples which went both ways.

 

Yes, they could decide to do that if they wanted to, but who says either want to? I suppose I maybe misinterpreted your original statement to mean one of them should bow out.

[TomScrut]

27 minutes ago, BR Blue said:

True. Also how many cases of potential duplication never made it to the public domain. Company A announces a product and Company B quietly drops their plans for the same thing without it becoming public knowledge. I am sure it happens a lot.

 

This could well be the most interesting thing from Bachmann's strategy change. If they are going to be announcing brand new tooling at 3 month's notice it could really knock some people's hats off!

[The Stationmaster]

7 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

This could well be the most interesting thing from Bachmann's strategy change. If they are going to be announcing brand new tooling at 3 month's notice it could really knock some people's hats off!

Sorry to go OT in a thread about Accurascale's progress with various new items .

 

But I have heard a whisper, from more than one source, that in the case of Bachmann it might well be a considerably shorter period than 3 months.

[Ouroborus]

Is there a problem?    There seems an assumption that both models cannot survive.  Also, that accurascale will provide the de-facto model.   

 

I wouldn't want to see either manufacturer put themselves at financial risk,  but with such a common prototype, there seems the opportunity for both to exist and if a little bit of healthy competition drives standards upwards, this is surely a good thing?

 

Time will tell, I'm sure both accurscale and cavalex have asked themselves a few questions.  The hobby has been here before and it'll be here again.

[TomScrut]

2 minutes ago, Ouroborus said:

Is there a problem?    There seems an assumption that both models cannot survive.

 

If there is a wagon that can deal with 3 manufacturers it will be these IMO given their period of operation and train lengths.

 

But time will tell!

[newbryford]

1 hour ago, 158722 said:

Would there be any possibility of one of the manufacturers deciding to bow out now, but not loose out on what preparation they have done so far? Such as using the underframe tooling on something else, such as the HEA/HSA family? 

 

The HAA and HEA underframes are very different.

For starters - the wheelbase is about 3' longer on a HAA.

[Mike Bellamy]

19 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

But I have heard a whisper, from more than one source, that in the case of Bachmann it might well be a considerably shorter period than 3 months.

 

Story as best I can remember it shows It can happen - several years ago now, there were photos of a new On30 Railcar which were said to be a Bachmann product. Over in the States their own 'Ask the Bach-Man' forum denied that it was theirs. He had to apologise a couple of days later as it appeared that some of these models had been in a container to their distributor in Japan who had put the models up for sale - the rest of the consignment was still on board a ship heading for the USA where the plan had been to release the model at the NMRA Convention. This model hadn't been announced beforehand and had gone all through the complete production process in secret to be revealed by a bit of a cock-up !

.

 

 

[montyburns56]

 

It is a period of civil war. Rebel manufacturers striking from an Irish base have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. During the battle rebel spies managed to steal plans for the Empire's ultimate weapon the HAA, a high capacity wagon capable of carrying enough coal to destroy an entire planet.

 

Pursued by the Empire sinister spies Fran races home aboard his Toyota Aygo, custodian of the stolen plans that can save his company and restore freedom to the model railway world...... 

[surfsup]

2 hours ago, 158722 said:

Would there be any possibility of one of the manufacturers deciding to bow out now, but not loose out on what preparation they have done so far? Such as using the underframe tooling on something else, such as the HEA/HSA family? The Bachmann one is reasonable model, but must be getting on a bit now and could probably benefit from a new generation model, done to the same spec as both Cavalex and Accurascale have managed with other releases.

 

Could / would it not be better if one produces the HAA / HMA, The other produces the HBA / HFA?