Cooper craft - Cautionary notes for customers - Its fate and thoughts on an alternative

[melmoth]

I might have missed it (not unlikely in this thread) but are there a couple of basic questions to ask, viz -

 

1. Are the former Coopercraft tools actually usable or do they show signs of deterioration, and 

 

 The last Coopercraft kit (off a  secondhand stall) I added to my small stockpile showed considerably more flash than the early runs of these kits had - so are the tools still fully usable?

 

Mike, I've quoted you selectively, but I bought the Provender wagon kit and the GWR bench kit (pretty much as for nostalgia's sake as anything)  from either Coopercraft (at Railwells) or from Pecorama last year, and there's more flash than moulding on both.

[modelpara]

Brilliant....

 

So what you are saying to all the people who keeping the cottage industry alive by doing new and innovative work that they should not bother because you want the cheap plastic kits that weren't particularly good when they were introduced 30-40 years ago?

Where did I say that?

 

I'm saying that I don't intend for it to line my pockets or fund a retirement nest egg for myself but rather be a social business and any profits from its work be reinvested back into the business to help develop new products, replace old and worn out tooling, update the tooling to newer standards etc.

 

Yes it will (in time) employ people to develop these ranges, yes they will get a wage. No we won't duplicate people's existing work or seek to dominate the cottage industry.

 

In fact why are you ignoring the reference by me several times of improving things?

[Steamport Southport]

Yes but the ones that do sell have a world-wide appeal, and are not depended on small number of customers on a small off-shore island.

 

 

One with a population of over 60 million.

 

 

What I'm saying is why are those people buying those kits rather than buying a model railway kit? It's not price as many plastic kits cost more than an RTR locomotive.

 

 

And why are people buying RTR rather than buying a kit?

 

 

It's an established fact there is a large market for model railways and there is a large market for kits. Then why isn't there a large market for model railway kits?

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

I don't think that is what happened. As far as I can make out there was a deal where by both CC and Slater's were to produce there own mouldings but CC were to market the Slater's 4mm kits and Slater's  market the CC 7mm kits. Unfortunately the deal fell through, presumably because CC couldn't supply the kits Slater's were expecting.

 

That's a very interesting statement that's at variance with a lot of what's been stated or assumed on here but does tie in with the story that there were legal issues. The implication appears to be that the manufacturing capability for the Slater's 4 mm kits remains with Slater's and so if they thought it would be worth their while reintroducing them and any legal issues could be resolved, they could do so. However, I note that Slater's offer the Coopercraft 7 mm kits on their website, I'm confident they wouldn't be doing so if they couldn't supply, and so they must be making them themselves as I don't imagine they'd be getting them fro Coopercraft...

 

Brilliant....

 

So what you are saying to all the people who keeping the cottage industry alive by doing new and innovative work that they should not bother because you want the cheap plastic kits that weren't particularly good when they were introduced 30-40 years ago?

 

That's precisely the point I tried to make early on before this thread snowballed. Injection-moulded plastic kits are the technology of the 1970s and 80s, they have their limitations and in particular, rely on volume sales. On a relative scale, those volume sales do exist for early BR through to modern image (cf Parkside and Cambrian) but there are not so many D299 obsessives around. We have to recognise that for minority interests in a minority hobby, technological advances have made small-scale production viable. The resulting kits are / can be / should be better in many respects than their injection-moulded forebears - easier to assemble and also based on better research - thanks to the wealth of information either published or held by the various line societies that has become available in the last twenty years. Bill's business model does seem to me to be the way forward; we are paying twice the price but in my view for something that's twice as good. The price comparison to make might be with whitemetal kits...

 

I also think that the satisfaction of making something for oneself, gradually building up the skills, is something that will become more popular again - maybe not traditional scratchbuilding a la Peter Denny but exploiting new technology, in the spirit of the Makerspace movement which I see as the modern substitute for model engineering societies. They prove that there is interest in our sort of hobby. I'm not a pessimist: things can't go on as before; they will flourish differently.  

Edited January 23, 2017 by Compound2632

[jonhall]

Also, speaking with my tight Yorkshire mans head on, would it be possible to get someone like DJmodels to make 00 wheelsets to Romford standards in china cheaper that in  the UK?

 

 

So you put Romford out of business then what?

 

Jon

[Edwardian]

My suggestion is that a limited company structure is employed.  If it were to be wholly not-for-profit, I suppose a company limited by guarantee might be adopted, but it might want to pay dividends at some stage, or at least pay them on one class of shares as a means of remuneration for staff, so I assume a company limited by shares.

 

The point about a limited company is limited liability.  Important point.

 

You may want to consider debt financing via loans made to the company by the shareholders, and that the percentage shareholding reflects the amount of the initial loan. This seems to me preferable to raising the funds via share subscriptions.  The shares would be issued at par value in a percentage reflecting the percentage contribution of the loan and need not be paid up, as the finance comes from the loan.  This limits the contributories' exposure on insolvency and leaves them better placed, as creditors of the company.

 

If there is going to be a return, you doubtless would need to consider entrepreneurs relief, but if the principal aim is not to cash in but keep the business going long-term and plough profits back into development, then really all you are likely to want is to payback the loans over time.  The only income for the investors attracting tax would be any interest charged on the loan, as the payments are otherwise simply loan repayments, unless and until dividends are declared. 

 

In such a case you would need a clear dividend policy.  Loan repayment might take priority over dividends, dividends may be limited or non-existent with priority being given to re-investing the surplus.

 

It sounds like potentially a quasi-partnership affair, where shareholder are represented on the Board, though if a large number of investors with small shareholdings, this could become unwieldy, so Board membership might be linked to larger stakes.  In any case, day to day management could be undertaken by whoever is to run the company, not at Board level.

 

In such circumstances you are likely to want a very clear set of rules governing the transfer of shares.  The particular concern is blocks of shares going out of the group to third parties who might have divergent aims.  A typical solution would be to require the Board's consent to a transfer and to give the shareholders pre-emption rights.  

 

For all these reasons, picking up upon Clearwater's point, I believe that a shareholders' agreement is absolutely essentially.  A lot of SME's skip the cost of this.  I earn a living from the consequences of that.

 

The thing is for everyone to know what they want to happen.  Once that is established, it is not rocket science to draw up the paperwork to give reality to it.

[Edwardian]

I think people need to take their model railway heads off and look at the other parts of the model spectrum.

 

 

Plastic kits aren't dead or dying out. In actual fact they are more prevalent than ever. Look in any of the Sci Fi or model shops and you can get a bewildering range of models. Much more than you could get in the heyday of Airfix. They aren't cheap either. But they sell.

 

Airfix are remastering many of their old kits and are now scanning prototypes for new state of the art models after being left behind for years.

 

 

I also don't think that the hobby is dying out because everyone is getting old. I used to go to exhibitions in the 1970s and 1980s, and it was full of old men. I started going again a few years ago and it was full of different old men. In a few years time I will be one of those old men.

 

 

Jason

 

Yes, I was trying to make just that point earlier.

 

Dapol get their aged plastic kits into a lot of shops.  Traditionally cottage industries don't.

 

Some used to, but not so much now.  Now they rely on a small in-the-know audience to a greater or lesser extent. Some have crap websites.  Some have no websites.  Some have limited and convoluted means of relieving us of cash.  Some operate on the "send an SAE for details".  Some even seem to restrict their activities to turning up to the odd show.

 

No criticism intended, because doing otherwise does require yet further investment of time and money and strains the cottage industry model.

 

What I do take from that is that you cannot pronounce the death of injection moulded kits as a medium simply because, in this hobby, it tends to involve a few old men selling a handful of kits to each other.

 

You would need to raise the profile and get the stuff 'out there'.   

[Clearwater]

Edwardian

 

I fully agree that a shareholder's agreement is a prerequisite. From working with private companies with multiple owners, I'd say these can be far from simple. Here, what percentage gives you a board seat, what decisions are board majority relative to shareholder majority, what percentage is needed to block a decision etc etc (I know there are plenty of precedents to draw on).

 

To my mind, this sort of situation is also complicated by emotion. Take a typical decision a board decision which is to approve the budget and business plan. Say two shareholders with a blocking minority want a 4mm K40 to feature but the others want a K22. The two who refuse can paralyse the business unless there is a clear mechanism to resolve / buy them out. Even so, what is the valuation method. A recipe for litigation. Why emotion? Most people seem to be clear this is not a business investment - it's an emotional thing to get a goodie you want. At this point rationality may depart... cf there various disputes in the preservation sector (e.g. The gresley duck , the west Somerset etc)

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not wishing to sound negative here but I think there are many real problems to face in getting such a venture off the ground. Personally, I'd prefer a two/three handed deal of like minded people with a clear business plan

 

David

[Phil Parker]

 

Dapol get their aged plastic kits into a lot of shops.  Traditionally cottage industries don't.

 

 

Ironically, getting kits into model shops USED to be something Coopercraft were very good at.

[Edwardian]

Edwardian

 

I fully agree that a shareholder's agreement is a prerequisite. From working with private companies with multiple owners, I'd say these can be far from simple. Here, what percentage gives you a board seat, what decisions are board majority relative to shareholder majority, what percentage is needed to block a decision etc etc (I know there are plenty of precedents to draw on).

 

To my mind, this sort of situation is also complicated by emotion. Take a typical decision a board decision which is to approve the budget and business plan. Say two shareholders with a blocking minority want a 4mm K40 to feature but the others want a K22. The two who refuse can paralyse the business unless there is a clear mechanism to resolve / buy them out. Even so, what is the valuation method. A recipe for litigation. Why emotion? Most people seem to be clear this is not a business investment - it's an emotional thing to get a goodie you want. At this point rationality may depart... cf there various disputes in the preservation sector (e.g. The gresley duck , the west Somerset etc)

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not wishing to sound negative here but I think there are many real problems to face in getting such a venture off the ground. Personally, I'd prefer a two/three handed deal of like minded people with a clear business plan

 

David

 

Yes, I had initially envisaged fewer people with larger stakes for much these reasons.

 

It would work best as a quasi-partnership with each of the business owners participating in the management.

 

Your point, I think, is that you thus have a smaller group of decision-makers that are more likely to be and remain in sympathy and to achieve cohesion.

 

The paperwork can be complex, but it's like anything, if you know how to do it, it is not a problem.  The main thing is to have a group with a financially sound plan, the necessary funds and agreement on what they want to do and how it will work.  Once you have that, you can draw up the paperwork that reflects this, and everyone knows where they are. Minimises the chances of the relationships going sour and manages the problem and saves the business if they do.

 

I think that if you want smaller financial contributions from larger numbers of people, your better model is some form of deposit or crowd-funding scheme, rather than chopping up the ownership of the company into tiny pieces.  There are other reasons to kick-start or crowd-fund; it reduces your risk and you receive some comfort that there is sufficient demand.

 

Interestingly, wargames companies are now doing this with injection-moulded figure sets.  One recent example is HaT Industrie who manufactured 1/72nd Zulus on the basis of crowd-funding.  Those pre-committing received bonus figures.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi All

 

Two points I would like to make.

 

1, As Bill Bedford pointed out most of the sales of any kit happen when it is new, the rest of the time sales are just a trickle. Having worked in a model railway shop I have experience of this, and to be honest Coopercraft kits did not fly off the shelves compared to other ranges.

 

2, As I said earlier today, all Mr Coopercraft has is a pile of scrap brass not moulds, they are worthless unless they are sold as part of a profitable business and/or the buyer has the correct type of machine to produce them. If it is the type that Ian Kirk says his models were made on then they are quite cheep to purchase second hand. If the situation is, as has been suggested, the moulds have been modified to fit a different type of machine and that didn't work, give Albert Steptoe a call as he might give you a good scrap price.

 

My conculsion, it is very noble to try and resurrect a dead range of kits, but how many are you going to realistically sell?

 

Will the group have the skills and money to make or commission any new kits?

[Roy Langridge]

I love all the enthusiasm here, but you need to bring some reality. I said in an earlier post, if you are in a partnership you must be able to trust these people 100%. Remember, your partners can land you in court, or worse.

 

The concept of people who don't really know each other coming together in a partnership needs much more serious thought. You will have a board of directors, get even one of those appointments wrong and it will cause problems. Getting rid of directors can be a very hard and even more expensive.

 

Lastly, as well placed as these ideas are, as mentioned above, they have the ability to actually end the availability of other ranges who can't or don't operate in a not for profit environment. Is that what you want to achieve.

 

Roy

Edited January 23, 2017 by Roy Langridge

[Dunsignalling]

I think this is right.

 

In the good old days, there were more model shops, of course, I recall they all had little boxes of Coopercraft and Parkside wagons. 

 

The reason why, thank the Lord, I have a couple of Coopercraft O5s, for instance, is because every so often, I'd snap one up.

 

Nowadays, remaining model shops have racks of Dapol, ex-Airfix, kits, but not just model shops; the Art Shop I visit has a rack, too. Hobby Craft stocks Airfix and Revell, it might be persuaded to include other types and lines of plastic kit.

 

If you think about it, Dapol's distribution is quite impressive.

 

I don't see why a rack of Coopercraft, Parkside, Slaters or Cambrian kits could not be sold in this way, a way that means that one remains very much aware of them and that they are available.

 

In addition to the flash website, Amazon, the Ebay store and the stands at shows, having them on the High Street helps, because it advertises them.

 

If it were me, I'd market such products in an attractive box (always half the attraction of an Airfix kit) and include metal wheels, bearing cups, NEM couplings and transfers. And I'd have them everywhere. 

 

But, a lot of investment ...

 

I'd love to know how Dapol gets its products into as many retail outlets as it does.

Everything, of course is dependent upon:

 

[1] The present proprietor being willing to sell at a price that any new owner considers a viable investment.

 

[2] The tooling (or enough of it) still being fit for purpose; recent posts suggest at least some of it is well past its best. If most of the moulds require refurbishment, that will affect what selling price is viable in future.

 

[3]  Any new owner being able to make a commercial return on whatever he may be able to salvage from the wreckage of the ex-Coopercraft, ex-Slater's, ex-Kirk ranges et al.

 

A firm like Dapol (or Peco, which already has the largely comparable Ratio in-house) are what's really needed to rescue ranges like those currently in the custody of Coopercraft and exploit their sales potential within those outlets they already reach. That neither did, when they were previously on the market, probably tells us all we need to know. The assets almost certainly changed hands at prices in excess of what those who knew the business were willing to pay. 

 

Dapol continue to sell the ex-Airfix railway kits because they generate some sort of return from familiar decades-old tooling that, by now, must owe them nothing. Who is to say that they would be remotely interested in doing the same thing with other people's decades-old tooling that is very much an unknown quantity?

 

Personally, I prefer to acquire old kits (unmade) from exhibitions and swapmeets; ones that came out of their moulds when they were much sharper than they are now. Applying similar reasoning, I buy new kits from Cambrian and PD on release.

 

Isn't it time to bid farewell to whatever remains (useable and not) under the Coopercraft banner and leave the way clear for others to come up with superior replacements to modern standards, albeit at superior modern prices?

 

John

Edited January 23, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[chris p bacon]

Isn't it time to bid farewell to whatever remains (useable and not) under the Coopercraft banner and leave the way clear for others to come up with superior replacements to modern standards, albeit at superior modern prices?

 

Understand where you're coming from but who are these people that are going to bring replacements to modern standards?

[Roy Langridge]

Understand where you're coming from but who are these people that are going to bring replacements to modern standards?

Perhaps existing manufacturers by crowdfunding a commission from them? Even going half way be going to them with the designs ready to be tooled.

 

Roy

[Clearwater]

I love all the enthusiasm here, but you need to bring some reality. I said in an earlier post, if you are in a partnership you must be able to trust these people 100%. Remember, your partners can land you in court, or worse.

The concept of people who don't really know each other coming together in a partnership needs much more serious thought. You will have a board of directors, get even one of those appointments wrong and it will cause problems. Getting rid of directors can be a very hard and even more expensive.

Lastly, as well placed as these ideas are, as mentioned above, they have the ability to actually end the availability of other ranges who can't or don't operate in a not for profit environment. Is that what you want to achieve.

Roy

Whilst I agree, Roy, I'd also note that going into such ventures can end friendships if there is disagreement. In fact, a contract is probably more important as at the point of disagreement, former trust is likely to be gone

 

David

[Compound2632]

Understand where you're coming from but who are these people that are going to bring replacements to modern standards?

 

Aoplogies for re-quoting myself but they do exist:

 

We have to recognise that for minority interests in a minority hobby, technological advances have made small-scale production viable. The resulting kits are / can be / should be better in many respects than their injection-moulded forebears - easier to assemble and also based on better research - thanks to the wealth of information either published or held by the various line societies that has become available in the last twenty years. Bill's business model does seem to me to be the way forward; we are paying twice the price but in my view for something that's twice as good. The price comparison to make might be with whitemetal kits...

 

[Dunsignalling]

I love all the enthusiasm here, but you need to bring some reality. I said in an earlier post, if you are in a partnership you must be able to trust these people 100%. Remember, your partners can land you in court, or worse.

 

The concept of people who don't really know each other coming together in a partnership needs much more serious thought. You will have a board of directors, get even one of those appointments wrong and it will cause problems. Getting rid of directors can be a very hard and even more expensive.

 

Lastly, as well placed as these ideas are, as mentioned above, they have the ability to actually end the availability of other ranges who can't or don't operate in a not for profit environment. Is that what you want to achieve.

 

Roy

And the big question is not whether the resulting organisation could make a profit (which doesn't seem to be the idea) but whether it could generate sufficient income to maintain and refurbish equipment when required.

 

What has happened suggests that, for whatever reason(s), It hasn't proved possible for "Mr Coopercraft" to do so. 

 

Or is the intention just to get the last dregs out of the old moulds, then call it a day?

 

John  

Edited January 23, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[modelpara]

And the big question is not whether the resulting organisation could make a profit (which doesn't seem to be the idea) but whether it could generate sufficient income to maintain and refurbish equipment when required.

 

What has happened suggests that, for whatever reason(s), It hasn't proved possible for "Mr Coopercraft" to do so. 

 

Or is the intention just to get the last dregs out of the old moulds, then call it a day?

 

John

 

Generate profits yes,

 

Take the profits out of the business,

 

NO

 

Reinvest to improve / update the range on a rolling basis, yes

[Ian Kirk]

Hi,

 

Lots more on here since I last looked. In fact I think it might be time for a new thread about starting businesses. I would advise caution though, whether a viable business could be recovered from the "Coopercraft Empire" or not is a difficult question. Besides deals can only be struck between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. There is nothing I have seen to indicate that Paul is it? at Coopercraft wants to sell. I have still not had a reply to my message last week asking for a refund on my order and at the same time offering advice/help with plastic moulding. You can lead a horse to water... Help can only be given if invited and if he would rather go on independently sinking deeper into the mire that is his choice. I only wish he would remove my stuff from his lists and be done with it. We have to remember that these businesses belong to someone and what they do with it is up to them. On the Gauge O Guild website there was a similar thread bemoaning the loss of various ranges and suggesting that the Guild do something about it. I had to point out that neither the Guild(nor anyone else) can force the issue. If a Trader chooses to retire and close his business without selling it on then that is his perogative. Indeed several years ago an O gauge manufacturer left the instruction in his Will that he wished to have his patterns buried with him. Given the mess that Coopercraft seem to have made with my 4mm coach range that is a tempting possibility.

The hobby is changing and kit building which is only one strand of that is possibly a smaller and more specialised market than it once was. AS far as injection moulding is concerned it is a good medium to work in. HIPS mouldings are easily "cut and carved" and solvent cements are neat and easy to work. I don't know what materials come out of 3D printing or their properties. Resin kits I presume need the right glues but I don't think solvent welds would apply. Injection mouldings can be cheap if the circumstances are right but for small quantities can be prohibitive. With existing tooling I could produce very cheap wagon kits. If people would be happy with "old technology" then I could produce reasonably priced kits. To produce "comparable with current RTR quality the toolmaking cost would price it out of the market. Which is where people like Bill Bedford come in. Not to mention any young entrepreneurs prepared to take up the new technologies.

Over the years I have done quite well out of selling to the Railway Modelling Market. Over 45 years it has kept me and mine, paid the mortgage, put 3 kids through school/university. I even had my own little plane while I was fit enough to fly it and it still supplements my pension. So don't worry about the £17.50 I paid to put an order into Coopercraft. I invested this as I can now freely advise anyone who asks not to order Kirk Coaches from here and explain why. "There is no slander in truth" and I can now prove the truth of my statement.

 

best wishes,

 

Ian

[sp1]

Hi,

 

Lots more on here since I last looked. In fact I think it might be time for a new thread about starting businesses. I would advise caution though, whether a viable business could be recovered from the "Coopercraft Empire" or not is a difficult question. Besides deals can only be struck between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. There is nothing I have seen to indicate that Paul is it? at Coopercraft wants to sell. I have still not had a reply to my message last week asking for a refund on my order and at the same time offering advice/help with plastic moulding. You can lead a horse to water... Help can only be given if invited and if he would rather go on independently sinking deeper into the mire that is his choice. I only wish he would remove my stuff from his lists and be done with it. We have to remember that these businesses belong to someone and what they do with it is up to them. On the Gauge O Guild website there was a similar thread bemoaning the loss of various ranges and suggesting that the Guild do something about it. I had to point out that neither the Guild(nor anyone else) can force the issue. If a Trader chooses to retire and close his business without selling it on then that is his perogative. Indeed several years ago an O gauge manufacturer left the instruction in his Will that he wished to have his patterns buried with him. Given the mess that Coopercraft seem to have made with my 4mm coach range that is a tempting possibility.

The hobby is changing and kit building which is only one strand of that is possibly a smaller and more specialised market than it once was. AS far as injection moulding is concerned it is a good medium to work in. HIPS mouldings are easily "cut and carved" and solvent cements are neat and easy to work. I don't know what materials come out of 3D printing or their properties. Resin kits I presume need the right glues but I don't think solvent welds would apply. Injection mouldings can be cheap if the circumstances are right but for small quantities can be prohibitive. With existing tooling I could produce very cheap wagon kits. If people would be happy with "old technology" then I could produce reasonably priced kits. To produce "comparable with current RTR quality the toolmaking cost would price it out of the market. Which is where people like Bill Bedford come in. Not to mention any young entrepreneurs prepared to take up the new technologies.

Over the years I have done quite well out of selling to the Railway Modelling Market. Over 45 years it has kept me and mine, paid the mortgage, put 3 kids through school/university. I even had my own little plane while I was fit enough to fly it and it still supplements my pension. So don't worry about the £17.50 I paid to put an order into Coopercraft. I invested this as I can now freely advise anyone who asks not to order Kirk Coaches from here and explain why. "There is no slander in truth" and I can now prove the truth of my statement.

 

best wishes,

 

Ian

Ian

Given all the 'cutting & shutting' possible with your (former) LNER coach range that have appeared in various articles and on this forum I am surprised that no one has thought of producing the 'panels' needed to do this as a seperate product. It is surely cheaper to do this (in terms of producing moulds etc) than producing full length coach sides - a sort of 'mix & match' coach kit, or am I missing something?

[Horsetan]

....There is nothing I have seen to indicate that Paul is it? at Coopercraft wants to sell. I have still not had a reply to my message last week asking for a refund on my order and at the same time offering advice/help with plastic moulding....

That's probably because he doesn't really answer e-mails. He only responds to telephone calls and answerphone messages.....and even those apparently selectively.

 

You can lead a horse to water.....

....but you can't make it think.

[kandc_au]

Hi,

 

Lots more on here since I last looked. In fact I think it might be time for a new thread about starting businesses.

 

Ian,

I said this a while back!

 

Everyone seems to be so busy with ideas a lot don't seem to realise this has been gone through before in ANOTHER thread on Coopercraft.

IF, and I do say IF, there is a thought here, to try to resurrect the Coopercraft Range, surely the FIRST thing to do is see if He is in the market to sell in the first instance.

 

Para mentioned, (if I read correctly) he was looking at another range that may be on the market in the not to distant future.

That would seem to be the most viable starting point for a new venture to move forward with rather one that "appears" to be languishing in the doldrums.

 

Edwardians idea of about 3 as a management, seems the most logical with anyone else interested being like shareholders (not necessarily paid with a financial dividend but discounts).

 

One question to all.......Would this preclude overseas investors/modellers??

 

Khris

[modelpara]

I have sent Andy a pm to this effect so just awaiting his permission to create such a thread.

[Junctionmad]

While I wish any project well . I shudder to think of the business outcomes that could result. Oh and when the lawyers tell you shareholders agreements are neccessary , I shudder again. I've successfully been involved in two startups and when you have to bang a shareholders agreement on the table and or enforce it in the courts, the business will be long dead. Private people , especially in a hobby business will quite happily shout " sue me " and continue to be difficult

 

I personally think there is too much emphasis on the acquiring of moulds , the talk about injection moulding machines. The world is full of contract manufactures , people who , like , actually know how to run these things. It really matter not that it's produced in Bombay or Bognor in reality. The issue isn't Brexit or anything else , the U.K. Along with the developed world , simply isn't the place to make cheap stuff in a lockup , it's a place to make high quality dear stuff.

 

If people can source capital within their group, surely the key is to commission new CAD , commission tooling and simply reissue some of these designs to modern standards . An example is what happened in recent years in Irish outline 00 modelling , where a whole host of small suppliers now exist , both new rtr locos , new finescale rtr wagons , along side etched kits , resin etc, all serving a very niche market indeed all at the premium end of the market ( there's not a 15 quid wagon to be seen )

 

Hence my view that the idea of buying life expired moulds , and loading them into , life expired 2nd hand machines, seems utterly daft to me. It's in effect repeating exactly what CC tried ( what did Einstein say about insanity )

 

Money men should stick to providing money , use it to fund the creation and production of new detailed kits , if it doesn't stack up , it doesn't stack up.

 

Distribution into bricks and mortar establishments is old hat. The world has gone online, nor can you easily have both distributions strategies , as Hornby found out. Today a kit business should have a good website , modern payment. Processes , auto email updates, shipping updates etc. Etc. , all doable for reasonable money. Keep the retail margin in the production unit. Forget about retailer distribution. ( because you will give away 30-50'% of your margin and you will generate horrible channel conflict )

 

The issue is to prevent the disappearance of kits , not neccessaryily the maintenance of old moulds and machine run by some lad that will work in a lockup for tuppemce.

 

Do it right, sell them at the expensive end of the market , the evidence is there are plenty that will pay.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Junctionmad