GWR Toplights Poll

[St Enodoc]

I was surprised to see this at Kidderminster yesterday.

 

IMG_1353.JPG

They'd better do something about that roof or all the work producing such a lovely finish on the sides (and, presumably, the interior) will have been wasted.

[Clearwater]

On the Locomotion models thread, Stationmaster Mike made the following suggestion. Rather than reply there, I thought best to add a response here. For reference, pertinent quote from Mike's post below:

 

"Possibly a group of modellers could get together in the same way as Revolution Trains came into being and get a Toplight project off the ground and I wonder if that approach might well be the only route to getting some Toplights? Say 250 takers at about £1,000 each might manage three vehicles with a common(ish) underframe, a single style of bogie, and possibly even allowance for some minor bodywork variations to cover a wider period? And obviously the more takers there are (perhaps even including some retailers?) the lower the cost per head."

 

I think this type of idea might have legs albeit I think there are a few problems that need to be solved. Firstly, it needs a coordinator. Someone who's:

A) both trusted and well known enough for a reasonable number of people to be prepared to part with a reasonable amount of cash

B) either has the skills themselves or the skill to manage somebody to produce the CADs, design etc, so as something sensible is produced and ultimately be able to manage the negotiations, shipping and delivery from the factory

C) is prepared to take the decisions about which diagrams to make, produce a prospectus to say what is being made and why (and probably explain the consequences) and be thick skinned enough to ignore the inevitable complaints/moans about the compromises and why aren't you making diagram Y in condition X (which will inevitably be one of the diagrams with least actually built and at a date that clearly doesn't suit many people).

D) has access to some form of distribution channel to be able to sell surplus stock / and or stock not taken up by the subscribers

E) the capacity to produce a "business plan" that is credible and doesn't leave the "crowdfunders" in the unenviable position of having to fork out extra cash down the line. I'd want to understand the budget by stage and the marketing plan. I'd want an expert view on how many are pre-ordered at each stage of development. Whilst its dangerous to draw on anecdotes, enough threads here seem to suggest that there are bursts of ordering activity whenever models reach CAD, engineering sample, livery sample etc stage and the plan needs to both capitalise on that and ensure that early funders get a better position than those who join the party late reflecting the differing risks they've taken.

F) I'd also want to understand how the individual / manager was incentivised to ensure timely delivery and execution.

 

No doubt others have views as well as to the type of person/institution who'd be suitable but I thought helpful to set out a starter for 10 as to the type of qualities required.

 

Any business plan needs to account for people dropping out, people wishing to join later, people wishing to sell part of their entitlement (eg £1000 could buy 10-15 coaches if an RRP of say £75 was targeted) - I doubt all would want that. In addition to costs, there's the vexed question of who the IP belongs to and hence if there was a second run using the same tools, who would be benefiting? Personally, if it were a commercial venture, I'd want my share of the profit having taken the risk of funding the first few coaches.

 

One way around some of these commercial conundrums might be for the project to be (partially) sponsored by one of the preservation societies with any profits after costs accruing to the society. Personally, I'd have less of an issue about some Intellectual Property I'd help create going to benefit a society/orgnanisation I'd support. I suspect others may feel the same and it may be easier to raise the money to get to the tooling stage. It may also prove an easier ask to say "support this, get your new toy and help this society" than "support this, get your new toy and Joe gets to make a pile of cash" . One additional point that might help, although I don't have the expertise myself to be able to answer, is whether such a venture with a charitable body could be structured such that the subscriber's contributions qualify for gift aid. It may be a tax efficient way of reducing the overall budget (assuming it's both possible and that the subscribers are UK tax payers.). If it were simple, someone would already have done it!

 

In an ideal world, funding to restore of one of the surviving prototype carriages would have resonance. I note the GWS owns an unrestored C35 (http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/coaches/3963/3963.html). Might that be a suitable vehicle to base a campaign around? I could see how a material sum could be contributed to the society's funds if the scheme could be made to work albeit it will need a lot of hard work, with some of it on a donated time basis, to make it work. I'm sure some of the other ex-GWR preserved railways, eg the SVR, also have unrestored toplights that could make useful starting points. My reason for suggesting the GWS is that many us here have benefited from the tours Castle has organised where we've visited the bowels of the carriage shed with some fascinating unrestored prototypes. It'd be great to be able to help their work and support Castle and his colleagues given the time they've given up for us. However, I recognise that this is not necessarily something the GWS would wish to get involved with.

 

From the crowdfunders perspective, they still get something they want and likely sooner than any commercial enterprise would produce. Depending on how the payments are structured, they probably still earn a decent return on their money (ie they purchase a coach at a discount to RRP and the discount is greater than the interest they'd have got if they'd left the money in the bank) plus they get a warm and fuzzy feeling from helping out an institution that they almost certainly support.

 

From my quick analysis I think the C35 was the fifth most numerous third produced (the most numerous is the 57' C31 followed by the C32 which is available via Geen/Slaters). Miss P's gwr.org.uk listings suggests that the C35 has not been produced by others in kit form which is a slight advantage. The most numerous brake third (D56) is, I believe, the same length (available from kit manufacturers). I don't think there is a composite of the same length which may necessitate a compromise. Given the Didcot example finished up as a camping coach, there's scope for an unusual variation that you'd think would be a seller.

 

This is a complex topic given the permutations and budgeting required. Instinctively I feel that a brake third, composite and third is required in each of late 1920s livery and crimson/cream as a minimum. I'd feel that earlier liveries, whilst pretty, are probably too bespoke for the mainstream and a late 20s livery could plausibly survive on secondary stock through the 30s and similarly an early BR livery may well have seen most of the stock out to scrapping. As I said above, a camping coach could be an attractive model to a number of people, not least collectors. I'm sure other views are available! I don't think the range needs to be specified to the extraordinary detail of Rails dynamometer car but closer to the Bachmann birdcages, Thompsons or Hornby bow-ended Collett's.

 

Happy to discuss further and if any such scheme gets off the ground, I'd be happy to help albeit my skills are financial and analytical rather than CAD based!

 

David

[drduncan]

I would add a brake composite to the list as they could (and did) travel far and wide across the GW system as well as others.

DrDuncan

Edited June 17, 2018 by drduncan

[Neal Ball]

David,

 

Very interesting point and very well made.

 

Your price suggestions £1000 and £75 are also interesting and probably realistic to getting such a project off the ground as a crowdfunded proposition. But at £75 suggestion price for a carriage, only 7% of respondents said they would pay that amount. However, its a more realistic price point. 42% want it under £50

 

It's such a complex subject and your sort of costs are therefore more than likely reasonable, but I wonder at that level whether it would get off the ground.

 

Plus of course £1000 is a chunk of cash - maybe paid as 4 instalments as the project progresses.

 

Who has the ability to move such a project forward. I would suggest progress and a book of investors would need to be secured first before you could gain any interest from (say) Rapido Trains.

 

Food for thought though.

[Clearwater]

Thanks Neal. I’d taken the £1000 from Mike’s post. I agree a staged payment system is likely to help although it introduces a new risk that founders fail to follow through on their promises.

 

I take your point on pricing/rrp equivalent. I’m sure something sub £40 rrp equivalent could be delivered however that would likely be at the ‘single moulding’ level of quality. If people want a high quality product, it’s not going to price low. I’m thinking that the Bachmann birdcages/autotrailer provide a comparison. However, thats where someone who understands the costs needs to be involved. Your poll could then be tailored to say at price point a with quality x, would you buy? Given the alternative is no rtr toplights, I think the market may prove more susceptible to higher prices.

 

David

[BMacdermott]

From my quick analysis I think the C35 was the fifth most numerous third produced (the most numerous is the 57' C31 followed by the C32 which is available via Geen/Slaters). Miss P's gwr.org.uk listings suggests that the C35 has not been produced by others in kit form which is a slight advantage. The most numerous brake third (D56) is, I believe, the same length (available from kit manufacturers). I don't think there is a composite of the same length which may necessitate a compromise. Given the Didcot example finished up as a camping coach, there's scope for an unusual variation that you'd think would be a seller.

David

 

Hello David

 

Thanks for your posting (abridged above). The Wishlist Poll Team discussed the Toplights at great length some years ago. Within The Guide that we provide with The Poll, we have suggested that the C35 Third, D56 Brake Third and E98 or E103 Composite might suit many modellers. 

 

Neal kindly added them to his Poll here but - if my memory serves me correctly - they were a 'late addition' and many may have already voted.

 

Brian (on behalf of The Poll Team)

[drduncan]

Some thoughts:

1. Liveries. Top lights would have been seen in the following liveries:

1912-1922 Lake

1922-27 Chocolate/cream, Black mouldings (including faux mouldings on flush sided stock) with garter crest

1927-34 chocolate/cream, shields and limited lining.

1934-43? Chocolate/cream, shirt button

1943?-48 Hawksworth great crest western livery

1948 onwards BR crimson/cream

So 6 in all.

When repainting programmes are considered there would be considerable overlap, decreasing the further from the livery introduction date ie if someone was modelling the early grouping period you could expect a mix of lake and chocolate/cream garter crest stock, but with the proportion of lake decreasing the further away from 1922.

 

2. What to make. Underframes for toplights come in 3 batches - bars 1, bars 2 and multibar. So for simplicity the coaches not only need the same length but the same under frame. Using the GW modelling websites lists (I’m away so don’t have my books to hand) this could give us the following combos:

Bars 1 all 57ft

D45 brake 3rd

C28 or C31 all third

E88 composite

E83 brake composite

 

Bars 2 all 57ft

D49 or D53 brake 3rd

No all third

No composite

E95 brake composite

 

Multi-bar all 57ft

D56 or D67 brake 3rd

C32 all third

E98 composite

No brake composite

 

This suggests that the bars 1 batch is the one to go for (I admit I may have missed some out without refs to check against).

DrDuncan

Edited June 18, 2018 by drduncan

[Clearwater]

@DrDuncan

I'd previously taken the data in Harris' GWR coach book, from memory I made some exclusions (eg first). Grouping the data by diagram, you can produce a 'league' table of the most common types:

 

It shows, not unsurprisingly, considerable overlap with what the kit builders have made:

 

 

Any typos or transcription errors my fault!

 

On liveries, I assume that for any livery, the more complex and ornate, the higher the cost. If cost is a factor, I'd suggest the 1922-27 livery might not be cost effective compared to the 1927-34 livery. Personally, I like the idea of a crimson lake rake to bowl along behind an ornate Saint/Star!

 

David

Edited June 18, 2018 by Clearwater

[The Great Bear]

Some thoughts:

1. Liveries. Top lights would have been seen in the following liveries:

1912-1922 Lake

1922-27 Chocolate/cream, Black mouldings (including faux mouldings on flush sided stock) with garter crest

1927-34 chocolate/cream, shields and limited lining.

1934-43? Chocolate/cream, shirt button

1943?-48 Hawksworth great crest western livery

1948 onwards BR crimson/cream

So 6 in all.

When repainting programmes are considered there would be considerable overlap, decreasing the further from the livery introduction date ie if someone was modelling the early grouping period you could expect a mix of lake and chocolate/cream garter crest stock, but with the proportion of lake decreasing the further away from 1922.

 

2. What to make. Underframes for toplights come in 3 batches - bars 1, bars 2 and multibar. So for simplicity the coaches not only need the same length but the same under frame. Using the GW modelling websites lists (I’m away so don’t have my books to hand) this could give us the following combos:

Bars 1 all 57ft

D45 brake 3rd

C28 or C31 all third

E88 composite

E83 brake composite

 

Bars 2 all 57ft

D49 or D53 brake 3rd

No all third

No composite

E95 brake composite

 

Multi-bar all 57ft

D56 or D67 brake 3rd

C32 all third

E98 composite

No brake composite

 

This suggests that the bars 1 batch is the one to go for (I admit I may have missed some out without refs to check against).

DrDuncan

 

In addition to the liveries above, looking at the Russell books, some appear to have received the all over brown WW2 livery eg a few shots of an E88 compo spring to mind.

 

The problem for the fastidious modeller for the pannelled diagrams is that as I'm sure has been mentioned previously in the thread, in their later lives certainly from 1940s onward many had some if not most of the pannels plated over in a random fashion. Then, later on, some had the the toplights plated over too. With the 3d printed ones I've been experimenting with (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/130385-3d-printed-gwr-coaches-d56-completed/?p=3133192) doing this is pretty easy, not that I've printed any like that yet.

[Neal Ball]

I don’t have the expertise to progress this through sadly.

 

I have no knowledge of CAD at all, plus am so busy at work, I don’t gave the spare time. I therefore am therefore standing on the sidelines, hoping it might happen!

 

If I added a few extra questions for crowdfunding, I wonder how many would vote. In order to get maximum exposure across RMWeb, it probably needs to be a new poll.

[mdvle]

Some random thoughts if anyone wants to try and follow through.

 

First, narrow the field.

 

The original poll was interesting only in that it demonstrates there is no obvious coach(s) to make, and so doesn't really provide any useful information for a prospective manufacturer.  Similarly, 70% of voters chose price points that simply won't happen - the Bachmann Mk2f is coming in at £55 and the combination of lead time as well as the complexity of the models means there is no way these models are coming in at under £60.  More on this later.

 

So, someone either needs to do the research or get help from those who already know - started above - but create some lists based on where things can possibly share tooling.  Start with coach length, then work on underframe details, until you can start to group the models into "obvious" collections based on cost sharing/minimizing as opposed to what people may want.

 

Secondly, a similar exercise on liveries.  Each prospective livery is an additional cost, and most manufacturers have a minimum run size given the work involved in setting up the painting and the pad printing.  So ideally the list needs to be narrowed down to maybe 3, at least one being BR if possible for maximum sales potential.

 

With the research done, start considering what models to actually propose.  At this stage it might be worth feeling out some prospective manufacturers not for detailed or accurate costs, but for guesses as to what certain tooling costs might happen.  For example there is an assumption that only one underframe should be considered but if the cost of offering 2 is "cheap enough" the ability to choose different diagram numbers to work into a collection of say 3 coaches may make the offering more attractive than if only choosing from 1 underframe variant.

Once there is a choice as to what to attempt - or alternately what to try and present to manufacturers as an option, maybe start a new poll to see if people really want some toplights or not.  Throw in some more accurate price ranges, or maybe not.

If there is a new poll don't offer any choices - or at best one set of alternatives.  You aren't going to be able to offer what everybody wants, the only goal would be see if there is any willingness to compromise on getting something rather than nothing.

 

If there is a consensus that the chosen few are better than none at all, then someone can approach manufacturers - or maybe even a retailer - to find out what the options are and cost guesses.

 

Finally, if people want to crowd source the research then start new topics so that the discussion doesn't get lost in this thread - also, it may be time to consider locking this thread as the poll has run its course.

[Colin_McLeod]

Lock the thread???

Just as it is getting really interesting.

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

Firstly, I'd like to say how much I enjoyed reading post #212 by mdvle above - plenty of nails being hit firmly and squarely on heads there.

 

Looking at Neal's poll results, the 'trend' seems to be towards:

 

- Less than £50.00 per coach (but this price point is probably unrealistic)

- Eight or more coaches per voter

- 57ft corridor stock

- Focused on Composite, Third, Brake Third and Brake Composite.

- For the main periods of 1920-1939, 1945-1948 and 1948 onwards.

 

I'm no expert on the stock, but even this 'focusing' would need even greater 'focusing' to have any real value and that could really only be done by a thorough case study. My 'gut feelling' is that if someone could work that out, then the stock - given its 'eye candy appeal' if nothing else - should be a winner. Certainly, the results of The Wishlist Poll have seen the Toplights both at the top of the GWR Coaches segment and within The Top 50 since 2012.

 

Brian

[Siberian Snooper]

Produce the coaches unpainted and the purchaser can add their own livery, this way you get to choose and you could also blank in panels and top lights as appropriate to your period.

[Clearwater]

@mvdle

 

I agree - your thoughts tally with my approach. I take the view that something is better than nothing but picking one of the more numerous of each of the main classifications with the same length /width (without quibbling about a few inches) and the same under frame system offers a fighting chance of producing something. On Neal’s other poll thread, I’ve posted some numbers. I reckon you’d need to sell a minimum of 4500-5000 or so coaches in total for this to be viable.

 

 

 

David

[Revolution Mike]

 On Neal’s other poll thread, I’ve posted some numbers. I reckon you’d need to sell a minimum of 4500-5000 or so coaches in total for this to be viable.

 

Hi David

 

Can I ask why so many? Because of variants that would need to be produced (different types or liveries)? Or the (possible) need to keep the cost down?

 

Production run is a combination of various factors: size of the market (and willingness of the market to pay a particular price); minimum production run specified by the factory (different minimums in different factories); unit cost and tooling cost.  If the factory will accept reasonably low production figures then the tooling can be amortised over a smaller number of coaches provided that doesn't make the end product too expensive!

 

Cheers, Mike

[mdvle]

Can I ask why so many? Because of variants that would need to be produced (different types or liveries)? Or the (possible) need to keep the cost down?

 

Production run is a combination of various factors: size of the market (and willingness of the market to pay a particular price); minimum production run specified by the factory (different minimums in different factories); unit cost and tooling cost.  If the factory will accept reasonably low production figures then the tooling can be amortised over a smaller number of coaches provided that doesn't make the end product too expensive!

 

My recollection is a general number thrown around in many of these attempts (at crowd funding or otherwise) is a run of at least 1000 items.

 

4 coaches @ 1000 each is 4000.

 

Obviously if it could be done for fewer that would be great, but indications are that these are already going to be on the more costly side so how realistic is it to drop it to say 500 units per coach?

[mdvle]

Lock the thread???

Just as it is getting really interesting.

 

As I said, this conversation really should be taking place in its own thread so that it a) doesn't get lost in the talking about polls, and b) so that people interested in this topic actually see it exists and not overlook it because its in a poll thread.

 

The secondary, and likely more important reason, is to let the poll results fade away as they are harming the cause.

 

For those not aware on another thread the following quote was posted recently when talking about the prospect of a manufacturer doing toplights

 

 

including one who looked very seriously at the possibility of producing them but was not helped by poll results in a thread here on RMweb which gave an extremely, and unattainably, wide spread of what modellers wanted

 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134016-locomotion-models-updates-and-new-coaching-stock/?p=3201891

 

 

Thus the suggestion to come up with a workable group of toplights that could be done, and promote that instead of the current mixed message.

[Revolution Mike]

My recollection is a general number thrown around in many of these attempts (at crowd funding or otherwise) is a run of at least 1000 items.

 

4 coaches @ 1000 each is 4000.

 

Obviously if it could be done for fewer that would be great, but indications are that these are already going to be on the more costly side so how realistic is it to drop it to say 500 units per coach?

 

I think that is a bit of a misunderstanding as it depends on exactly what you are producing and how much tooling is required for each (that is different from each other coach). 

 

For example if you are talking about 4 liveries on the same coach then you can probably get the numbers to work on considerably fewer than 4000, or the other way round is that if you are talking about 4 completely different tooled coaches then you may well need more than 1000 of each to make the price bearable (but there are quite a few variables within that)!

 

I know nothing about GWR Toplights but I have a fair idea of what it takes to run a crowdfunded model production.  I would start with:

- what would ideally be produced (and how similar or dissimilar are they)

- how large is the likely market

- considering the first two points what is likely to be feasible to produce (that is the point of being realistic or admitting that you may not know at this stage what is feasible)

- sound out a few companies to see whether they would be interested in producing the models and what they would need to get you a quote

 

Cheers

Mike

[mdvle]

I think that is a bit of a misunderstanding as it depends on exactly what you are producing and how much tooling is required for each (that is different from each other coach). 

 

For example if you are talking about 4 liveries on the same coach then you can probably get the numbers to work on considerably fewer than 4000, or the other way round is that if you are talking about 4 completely different tooled coaches then you may well need more than 1000 of each to make the price bearable (but there are quite a few variables within that)!

 

 

 

The working assumption so far appears to be going for 4 different coaches - perhaps a combination of Composite, Third, Brake Third and Brake Composite as suggested by Brian - with a suggestion from me to narrow it down to say 3 liveries per coach to keep each livery at a minimum level.

 

I also am not familiar with toplights but from what I have read the differences are such that tooling would be on the more expensive side of things

[Clearwater]

@mike

Assuming a tooling and production cost (inc profits) of say £250k, at £60/ unit you need 4000+ units

 

David

[Steamport Southport]

The working assumption so far appears to be going for 4 different coaches - perhaps a combination of Composite, Third, Brake Third and Brake Composite as suggested by Brian - with a suggestion from me to narrow it down to say 3 liveries per coach to keep each livery at a minimum level.

 

I also am not familiar with toplights but from what I have read the differences are such that tooling would be on the more expensive side of things

 

I would definitely include the K22.

 

NPCCS sell to those that don't necessarily model a particular railway/region.

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Revolution Mike]

Assuming a tooling and production cost (inc profits) of say £250k, at £60/ unit you need 4000+ units

 

 

My point is that there are many variables in that at the moment - you don't have an idea what the tooling cost will be as you don't know what is going to be produced.  Production costs are largely a function of quantity (vs minimum order requirements) so I don't think you can start with an estimated tooling and production cost and derive the number of units, it needs to be the other way round!

 

Have a good idea of what you are trying to produce (and preferably what (if any) tooling can be shared) and then you can start to work out estimates of costs and quantities. If you can decide what to produce (having gone through some sort of sanity/feasibility check first) then you can get rough estimates of costs. Without that you are a bit stuck.

 

Cheers, Mike 

[Coach bogie]

T

 

I would definitely include the K22.

 

NPCCS sell to those that don't necessarily model a particular railway/region.

 

 

 

 

Jason

This is the most sensible suggestion so far in my opinion as the K22 went everywhere and all regional modelers can give some justification for one, and this has the possibility of hitting the 4,000 production run suggested. I would be interested to know what the final production run of the N gauge society GWR brake van reached for a comparison.

 

As for the others, is 4,000 units likely to be shifted, with so many variables?

 

As I have said before, many of the modelers I know, may not be that interested as they have been acquiring kit built ones for years, to ensure they get the period/livery they want. For the 1930's typical long distance train, I  work on the 3:2:1 rule. 3 steel sides : 2 paneled  : 1 clerestory.

 

Personally it is gaps in clerestories I am working on at the moment.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Clearwater]

My point is that there are many variables in that at the moment - you don't have an idea what the tooling cost will be as you don't know what is going to be produced.  Production costs are largely a function of quantity (vs minimum order requirements) so I don't think you can start with an estimated tooling and production cost and derive the number of units, it needs to be the other way round!

 

Have a good idea of what you are trying to produce (and preferably what (if any) tooling can be shared) and then you can start to work out estimates of costs and quantities. If you can decide what to produce (having gone through some sort of sanity/feasibility check first) then you can get rough estimates of costs. Without that you are a bit stuck.

 

Cheers, Mike

 

Mike

 

Suggest you read my longer posts where I make exactly those points about what we don’t know.

 

However, simplistically, there are two ways of approaching any production problem. One, bottom up, cost everything and solve for price. Broadly the approach you suggest. The alternative is to work out how much revenue you can earn and work out what you can deliver for that. The answer lies somewhere in between.

 

David