Will Recent Models Ever Be Updated?

[Sir TophamHatt]

I've been thinking about the Class 156 recently.

 

The old model is pretty basic in comparison.

 

If whoever makes the new 156 expanded their livery list, would it ever get replaced by a more up to date model? I don't think so as I can't think it would get more accurate than what it is.

 

Made me think about the Class 170. It's pretty good. I know Bachmann are re-tooling it, but I can't honestly see how they can give it a major update.

 

The Class 68 - it's near on perfect.

 

So I guess as model toold become available, the less likely the model will get a re-tool in X amount of years.

 

Agree/disagree?

[Andy Y]

Why even ask the question when Realtrack have just produced a very good Class 156?

 

Eventually everything may get replaced or 'duplicated' with something better.

[Classsix T]

Yes. Next!

 

C6T.

[woodenhead]

Better Chassis, better DCC connections, better lighting, speaker spaces, no visible engines in units, better shape in some cases.

 

Every tooling eventually wears out and as long as a market exists then a new model will always be welcomed.

[The Johnster]

Nothing lasts for ever, and moulds wear, though some have been in use successfully for a very long time.  Hornby are still churning out the original 08 body with the Jinty chassis, which I think dates back to 1955 (they have a modern 'hi-fi' 08 as well).

 

Older models get updated for various reasons, even if they were perfect in the original form.  Cheaper methods of production, material changes (for example the 'banning' of lead in 'toys'), space required for DCC, sound, etc.  

[HonestTom]

I think it partly depends on the model. Some classes will always be popular. We'll probably keep seeing upgraded A4s, Duchesses, Class 66s etc every couple of decades for as long as technology continues to advance. Prototypes with a less universal appeal like, say, the 1361 or the Janus will probably not get upgrades.

 

I have visions of the RMweb of 2050 when people are complaining because the animatronic footplate crew fitted to the updated Hornby GT3 has the incorrect dialect.

[Zomboid]

I have visions of the RMweb of 2050 when people are complaining because the animatronic footplate crew fitted to the updated Hornby GT3 has the incorrect dialect.

But the wheels will still be too close together...

[BernardTPM]

Hornby are still churning out the original 08 body with the Jinty chassis, which I think dates back to 1955 (they have a modern 'hi-fi' 08 as well).

No - new body tooled in 1976 and the current chassis is an update of the SSPP chassis of 1987. Mind, the old 08 body was modified for use in the TTTE range. Probably the oldest model complete loco made in the last decade was the Lord of the Isles, dating from 1961 (though even that had technical updates: new motor, finer wheels etc.)

Edited September 6, 2018 by BernardTPM

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 

So I guess as model tools become available, the less likely the model will get a re-tool in X amount of years...

 

One major factor you are forgetting, and that is alterations to the prototype designs. When the glazing starts falling out of the 800s, and the class 68s keep exploding their engines*, they will receive significant in service upgrades changing their appearance, and thus require new models.

 

*Hypothetical events leading to alterations in appearance are purely fictional and not to be taken seriously.

 

...visions of the RMweb of 2050

Collective consciousness upgrade to RMBOOrg anticipated in 2041.

But the wheels will still be too close together...

We are the BOOrg. Prepare for OO-assimilation. Resistance is futile.

[jjb1970]

Yes, we will see recent models updated. Whether the improvements (assuming they are indeed improved) justify buying them to replace still good existing models is another question.

[bike2steam]

Why even ask the question when Realtrack have just produced a very good Class 156?

 

Eventually everything may get replaced or 'duplicated' with something better.

 

Which often means more detail, which means more cost - then listen to the whinge!!!

[Dunsignalling]

Taking your question word-for-word, the answer is probably no, though the Class 156 has already been ticked off your list.

 

However, in the fullness of time, everything ceases to be "recent", and it becomes a very different matter.

 

Elderly models of popular prototypes will always provide temptation, for existing competitors and newcomers alike. Standards continually evolve and, if the current maker leaves their model unimproved for too long, another will eventually jump on it. Anything that's remained substantially unaltered for 10-15 years or been out of production for five will already have at least one set of sights trained on it.

 

Salutary examples of "leaving it too long" abound; topical OO steam-outline ones being the Lord Nelson, Dean Goods, Terrier, GWR Mogul and Large Prairie. That list will very likely expand to include a Manor, if Bachmann don't announce one themselves in the next year or two.

 

Turnover for popular diesel locos is even faster, as there are far fewer to choose from. Almost all the "mainstream" types, other than the newest prototypes, will have soon been done at least twice, and it won't stop there.

 

John   

Edited September 7, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

Which often means more detail, which means more cost - then listen to the ###### whinge!!!

And them as don't like it will have a wide selection of second-hand examples of the previous one to choose from.

 

John

[Sir TophamHatt]

The 156 for example is pretty good. I have read little wrong with it.

 

So even in 10 years time, surely there won't be any updates as the model is as good as it can be?

Same with the Class 68.

 

But then I wonder if when the Class 158 came out, people then thought it was as good as it could be, but as time has gone on, it clearly isn't.

 

Although good point about prototypes changing.

[woodenhead]

The 156 for example is pretty good. I have read little wrong with it.

 

So even in 10 years time, surely there won't be any updates as the model is as good as it can be?

Same with the Class 68.

 

But then I wonder if when the Class 158 came out, people then thought it was as good as it could be, but as time has gone on, it clearly isn't.

 

Although good point about prototypes changing.

The Lima 156 was simply old technology now, the latest ReaTrack 156 is based on current trends and has all the whistles and bells expected of a modern model.

 

The Bachmann 158 was a good shape but lacked features so a decent new chassis, new body will address those issues.

 

The 68 may or may not see another model, it depends how popular it will be in 10 years time.

[tomparryharry]

A bit off-topic, but I can see Peco making an RTR-style P4. 

 

"Oh No! you can never make P4 track, it's all individually made & laid to its unique space & gauge!"

 

Yes, I know & understand. I work in Microns as well. But, with the dearth of suitable sales base, manufacturers will look for something 'new, just to keep your wallets lubricated.  

 

Having navigated the full circle, the circle will be relaid with a different set of expectations, desires & requirements. You'll need all that new, upgraded stock, for starters. It's called 'Retail', folks.  Remember shopping with your supermarket? New! Improved Recipe!  Still basically with the same stuff, but new.. Where's your wallet?

 

20mm is closer than 16.5mm, if you get my drift. We are happily familiar with 00 (or P4) because we have been indoctrinated into it. Your desire for accuracy & realism means nothing to a business shareholder with an eye on the market. 

 

The funny thing is; all of those old Mainline wagons. With the 'new' standards, no longer where the brake blocks dangle in mid-air. Did Palitoy have a future mind-reader?

 

I'm just going to get my noise-cancelling headphones, as 20,000 modellers crash into the collective keyboards with angry indignation. "How very dare you! Letter to The Times! Harumph, Harumph! Never in my day"

 

I speak with some foreboding. I'm sat on a pile of 00 stock which represents a lifetimes collecting..... I can just imagine the meeting at a manufacturer  somewhere in the UK (anywhere for that matter). "No! We can't make that product! Mr .Smith in South Wales has an extensive  collection of stuff he already owns!"

 

Yeah...Right....

 

Happy weekend, everybody,

 

Ian.

 

Edit: If it was me, I'd be marketing the product as 'P5' . One step further upwards from our hallowed (and highly respected) P4.

Edited September 7, 2018 by tomparryharry

[woodenhead]

It's not so much that Peco couldn't produce a P4 track system, they could, but who would buy it?

 

Part of the allure of P4 is to build your own track as you get a prototypical flow especially in complex track arrangements, something that no RTR manufacturer can replicate unless.......you submit a track template to PECO via the interweb and they have a machine that can build it.

[tomparryharry]

It's not so much that Peco couldn't produce a P4 track system, they could, but who would buy it?

 

Part of the allure of P4 is to build your own track as you get a prototypical flow especially in complex track arrangements, something that no RTR manufacturer can replicate unless.......you submit a track template to PECO via the interweb and they have a machine that can build it.

 

You're quite right, and I fully see your point (pun). But, we're talking about commercial sale, and the latest 'must MUST have'. I will respectfully illustrate our business model, the mobile device. Sooner or later, someone will latch onto the sales volume for model trains, and money talks....

[woodenhead]

You're quite right, and I fully see your point (pun). But, we're talking about commercial sale, and the latest 'must MUST have'. I will respectfully illustrate our business model, the mobile device. Sooner or later, someone will latch onto the sales volume for model trains, and money talks....

Not quite sure what you mean?

[The Johnster]

I wonder sometimes, what if a new RTR manufacturer were to arrive on the scene with the intention of producing a complete system, from track and accessories to locos with everything in between to their own exclusive compatible standards (Like Hornby Dublo and Rovex/Triang did back in the day) (alright, HD were working to BRSMB), working with a. completely clean slate and not influenced by the market in it's current 'wedded irrevocably to 00' state.  

 

With current production methods, they could easily go for a scale approach with 18.85 or whatever it is mm gauge track and finer scale flangeways and back to backs.  It would make the development and design of models easier because you could just copy the prototype drawings, without having to adjust splashers, clearances, and so on for 16mm gauge track, though presumably you'd have to design in the ability to run around a set minimum radius, which would determine the design of the couplings and vehicle separation.  Flanges could be finer, and track profile more to scale, and there might even be the odd mm here and there extra for DCC as well.  Win win!

 

That would put the cat amongst the pigeons!  They'd sweep the board overnight, of course, and probably do it getting away with charging more for the 'fine scale' stock as well, though the pricing could be comparable to current RTR; no reason production costs are higher and, as we've seen, R & D is cheaper.  The other players would have to adapt to the new standards or die, and 00 modelling would be no more...

 

And then I woke up.

[bike2steam]

If you can guarantee demand, someone will make it, or else - dream on !!?? There again a bit of clever marketing could help, there's always the suckers out there, with plenty of money to burn, that'll believe anything - it's happened before. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The 156 for example is pretty good. I have read little wrong with it. So even in 10 years time, surely there won't be any updates as the model is as good as it can be?

It may be true that it is at the limit of what present design and affordable manufacturing technique can deliver. (I have not a clue, as it doesn't interest me.) However, I have yet to see one 4mm plastic bodied model with plentiful glazing that would pass for the prototype if inspected critically. There's still room for improved technique to better it, would be my (uninformed*) suspicion.

 

For my own entertainment, I use an assessment scheme (based on a commercial system I had a part in developing) on 4mm RTR models which delivers a normalised result, and the best of current OO is nudging 0.8 (or 80% if preferred) rating. So still room for significant improvement would be my take on it, and some of that improvement is technique dependent, so technical progress may well see those improvements become economically viable.

 

The running average over the last ten years new introductions that I have looked at hovers just over the 0.6 mark, and there are plenty of models there or thereabouts around that rating which were greeted by less well normalised evaluators as 'near perfect' on introduction. Well, they are not, there are plentiful deviations from ideality which could be corrected. So assuming demand is sufficient, my expectation is that a steady churn of 'upgrade' models will come along in time, however 'good' the model they replace was supposed to be.

 

Caveat time. There is a fly in the ointment, most particularly - but not restricted to - as relating to shapes of prototypes sporting compound curved surfaces. Getting body forms consistently correct is clearly challenging, and to some extent limitations in aesthetic perceptions appear to play a part. There's risk of regression in short, and there are current models which suffer badly from this, to the extent that they fall short of earlier attempts: and it is unlikely they will be the last.

 

 

* I shall have to peer at an example if Mr Petty is at the CMRA show next January, to better inform myself.

[Dunsignalling]

It's not so much that Peco couldn't produce a P4 track system, they could, but who would buy it?

 

Part of the allure of P4 is to build your own track as you get a prototypical flow especially in complex track arrangements, something that no RTR manufacturer can replicate unless.......you submit a track template to PECO via the interweb and they have a machine that can build it.

The problem with P4, for most of us, would be simply finding room for it. I'd guess that the numbers who can might be too small to fit Peco's business model.

 

P4 diesels and electrics have requirements that are little or no greater than for OO, but if one wants a steam era layout any more ambitious than one of the "straight-line working diorama" options of BLT, loco depot, or shunting plank, the room needed for large radius curves to accommodate big engines isn't far off what one can fit coarse scale O into.

 

The choice that faces me, and many (most?) others, is between having track that looks almost 100% prototypical, to the delight those who can tell the difference (and for whom it is of overriding importance) and a layout that permits entire trains to travel from somewhere to somewhere else. 

 

Each to his own, but sacrificing most other aspects of the hobby on the altar of brilliant looking track and wheels is not for me. Limited operating potential and being unable to run models of favourite locos would be too high a price to pay.

 

John

Edited September 7, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[tomparryharry]

Not quite sure what you mean?

 I was just chucking thoughts about... What if?....If you're a  producer, what happens if you start to run dry of new product? What's the next big thing? More important, what's the next 'Desirable Big Thing'?  Where is the hook? Where's the profit margin? How do you keep  the customers coming back for more? That's the sort of things that make the market men work.

 

We know that fidelity & quality in a disposable income market works. For this, you'll be charged more. "How do I make customer A ditch his expensive collection, and buy an even more expensive collection? I know! make it desirable.....!"

 

You're not selling commodities here; it's not bread & milk. Think of the conversation:-  Person A:- "I've got a Sony music centre, which plays my collection of records.... Person B:- I've got a Marantz diamond balanced deck, with a Bang & Olufssen  pre-amp, running with a 32-channel mixer, with 2 Marshall 100-amp speakers. ..."  Crude, but very real. One chap will buy a Skoda, the next a 7-series BMW. They both have petrol tanks......

 

"Roll up!, Roll up! And bring your wallets near! The next new thing is coming up, and selling fast, I fear.....!

 

Happy weekend!

 

Fred Needle -Street.

[polybear]

I've been thinking about the Class 156 recently.

 

The old model is pretty basic in comparison.

 

If whoever makes the new 156 expanded their livery list, would it ever get replaced by a more up to date model? I don't think so as I can't think it would get more accurate than what it is.

 

Made me think about the Class 170. It's pretty good. I know Bachmann are re-tooling it, but I can't honestly see how they can give it a major update.

 

The Class 68 - it's near on perfect.

 

So I guess as model toold become available, the less likely the model will get a re-tool in X amount of years.

 

Agree/disagree?

 

Yes, but only if:

(a) There's a worthwhile need,

and:

(b) There's a market for the finished article which will ensure that all development costs are recouped plus a reasonable profit on top.