What do you think will or should be the next development in detailing of RTR models?

[HonestTom]

30 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

They were used very successfully as bankers between Exeter St.David's and Central.  This illustrates an issue with modelling heavy marshalling yard shunting locos, though; very few of us have the space to model such environments and recreating the loose shunting or hump shunting of wagons running under their own momentum for considerable distances is next to impossible; physics doesn't scale down by x76.  Such locomorives, which included NER and GCR 4-8-0s and 0-8-4s, and Barry Railway Cooke 0-8-2s (specialists for a very short haul transfer traffic between yards at Cadoxton) were one trick ponies, and not much use in general traffic, so difficult to justify on most layouts. 

 

That said, the same argument could be invoked against Adams Radials or Beattie Well Tanks in their later years, as the places they worked were very precise and well known, so their use on layouts not directly representing the Lyme Regis or Wenford Bridge is incorrect.  Huge numbers of modellers have purchased them under the authority of Rule 1 and ignored this. 

 

And any South Wales LNWR layout should include a cameo involving a derailed Beames 0-8-4T in the sidings with the rails spread under it...

 

My list wasn't intended to be exhuastive, so I'd be quite happy to have the U included; I'd simply not thought of it in my GWcentric world.  There are no doubt a good number of locos in the LMS and LNER abs/const worlds as well that should have been included; there must be plenty of L&Y, G&SW, GN, H&B, and GC examples of numerous long lived types that might be worthy of consideration. 

Space issues are what I think precludes a number of obvious unproduced prototypes - no doubt modern image modellers are gnashing their teeth that we kettle fans have or will have such unlikely prototypes as the J70, the 1361 and the Small England RTR, while huge classes of multiple units suitable for several regions go unrepresented.

 

Personally, I justify my Beattie well tank on the grounds that the real things did railtours...

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, SD85 said:

 

 

And why did a 466 Networker EMU get made as far back as the late 90s, yet no one has done the 4-car 465 variant?

 

 

 

Because a 2 car unit is shorter (thus more easily accommodated on layouts) cheaper to make and can sell for a lower RRP!

 

Please remember the 466 is pretty old tooling (early to mid 1990s and not late 1990s IIRC) and was designed well before Hornby overhauled their philosophy around the year 2000 with the introduction of hilly detailed Chinese models.

 

The 466 was, to Hornby, ideologically speaking, the Southern Regions Pacer and envisaged to fill a similar role on trainsets of people who lived (or wanted to pretend they lived) in the SE of England as the Pacer did for people in the north of England.

 

Thats why its crude by todays standards, lacked working couplings so as to couple two units together and was never expanded on to create the 4 car variant.

 

Its far removed from things like Bachmanns EPB, Desiro, CEPs and Hornbys HALs and 2BILs for that matter - all of which are considerably better detailed and were created with a very different agenda in mind.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

I see several folk are effectively using this thread as wish lists....

 

While a U class mogul, a GWR - 54xx, etc might be welcomed by many, they would NOT represent a significant 'Development' in RTR model railways.

 

A significant development in detailing of RTR would be something novel and employing a technique or feature not seen in mass production RTR, or to be precise UK RTR.

 

Examples of this would be remotely controlled opening / closing carriage doors, pick up shoes on 3rd rail motive power that raise and lower, remotely operated couplings (i.e. a working Scharfenberg or Dellner coupler) that facilitates the realistic hands off joining and splitting of units, retractable / expandable nose cone doors which could expose or cover up the couplings on the likes of the 800s, working PIDS, working on track plant (cranes RRVs, etc)

[phil-b259]

21 hours ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

I can see automatic pantographs becoming the new standard, but just the same of what many others have said...  window wipers, opening doors, real smoke... potentially heading into diesel fumes too.

The problem I have with development like this is it means it'll be the same units or locos being re-made... yet again.

 

There needs to be a push to create un-modelled units and locos - there's still a large amount of DMUs and EMUs that simply aren't around, but could be fairly easily.

 

RTR manufacturers exist primarily to make the maximum profits they can for Shareholders - they do not exist as an exercise to produce models of every railway loco / unit ever produced in the UK.

 

Thats something a lot of modellers seem to ignore!

 

As such the decisions over what subjects a manufacturer will produce is mostly governed by how many they can sell (and at what price). Things like a competitor producing the same (or similar) model, plus lifespan, 'celebrity status' and livery options will therefore the key factors and a loco which is perceived to score poorly (or take resources away from more profitable projects) will not be seen to be maximising shareholder returns and as such is a poor choice however much of a 'obvious gap' it represents in a modellers mind.

 

You cannot 'push' a company to lose money - and if the directors did embrace such a notion then its shareholders would swiftly remove them.

 

Yes we have seen plenty of examples of manufactures being 'daring' and taking on what may seem like obscure / one offs over the years - but those labels are NOT the reason the model has been made. Rather the directors / marketeers have decided that the consumer demand is such that a significant profit can be made from said 'oddball' models - and as such they present a good opportunity to generate shareholder revenues.

 

 

 

 

[SD85]

All good points made above. I would be interested in seeing some sort of working auto coupler based on the Scharfenberg/Dellner variety.

[SD85]

10 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

 

Yes we have seen plenty of examples of manufactures being 'daring' and taking on what may seem like obscure / one offs over the years - but those labels are NOT the reason the model has been made. Rather the directors / marketeers have decided that the consumer demand is such that a significant profit can be made from said 'oddball' models - and as such they present a good opportunity to generate shareholder revenues.

 

 

 

 

 

This is definitely the logic behind the large amount of prototype diesels produced by Heljan/Bachmann/Kernow, and KTR's GT3 model and forthcoming Leader. One offs and prototypes have a uniqueness to them which compels a purchase. Same with the Heljan Garratt.

 

That said, my point about the U class being the most obvious gap in the market still stands. They were widely used across the Southern network and most SR modellers would end up buying one.

[Sir TophamHatt]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

retractable / expandable nose cone doors which could expose or cover up the couplings on the likes of the 800s

Oo, this is a good one.

Makes me think the likes of the Class 800 were just rushed out.

[phil-b259]

22 minutes ago, SD85 said:

 

This is definitely the logic behind the large amount of prototype diesels produced by Heljan/Bachmann/Kernow, and KTR's GT3 model and forthcoming Leader. One offs and prototypes have a uniqueness to them which compels a purchase. Same with the Heljan Garratt.

 

That said, my point about the U class being the most obvious gap in the market still stands. They were widely used across the Southern network and most SR modellers would end up buying one.

 

I don't dispute that - BUT it will only arrive in model form when RTR manufacturers judge it will be sufficiently profitable (compared to anything else they might want to make).

 

As such focusing it being a 'gap' in the SR modellers stable, however true a statement that might be has no reverence in terms of encouraging a manufacturer to make one.

Edited November 9, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

9 minutes ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

Oo, this is a good one.

Makes me think the likes of the Class 800 were just rushed out.

 

Retractable nose cones are not the sort of thing you would want to rush if you want them to look realistic and yet work robustly.

 

The same applies to opening doors....

[Jol Wilkinson]

Given that any locomotive the OO gauge RTR manufacturers introduce seems to sell well, anything not yet available could be seen as a gap in the market.

[The Johnster]

I know Andy will not tolertate it, and understand why, but we could perhaps do with a proper wishlisting thread, as a good few that started out with different intentions tend to morph into one. and. being easily distracted (oo, look, a squirrel, he he he he) I will hold my hand up and confess to being as bad an offender as anyone.  We've gone OT.

 

Another thing that might be a worthwhile different direction for future RTR, to get back on T, would be 'period 1' models, say 1830 to 1889, the opening of the Liverpool & Manchester to the 'Lock, Block, and Brakes' legislation following the Armagh tragedy.  The 1890s were a bit of a sea change into 'period 2', 4-4-0s, bogie coaches, early gangwayed stock.

 

'Period 1' means interesting locos and stock, colourful liveries, less 'formal' operating practices, and, the thing that would make it very attractive to manufacturers and customers, you can get a lot in to a limited space.  A 5-car HST equates to a tender loco and perhaps 15 coaches, or 25 goods wagons.  Wheelbases are shorter so curves can be tight, and space savers like traversers and sector plates were not unusual at termini.  Turntables were mostly less than 40' diameter,

 

Motors and gearboxes need to be respectively small and high ratio to give credible performance, and the small boilers would neccessitate working inside motion on some locos.  But it does seem to me that it is a workable and possibly popular approach; if Bachmann can get DCC into a 009 Quarry Hunslet it is physically do-able!

 

I would envisage a 2-tier approach, 'budet' (relatively) generic stock with locos used on several different railways in generic form in different liveries, such as Jennies, Sharpies, Stephenson Long Boilers, Burys and so on, with perhaps some detail omitted for modellers to retrofit, and a more hi-fi level of accurate models, which would inevitably be expensive; this is where your Bloomers, Cornwall, and Cramptons would come in. 

 

Crinolines in 1st class?

[phil-b259]

Just now, Jol Wilkinson said:

Given that any locomotive the OO gauge RTR manufacturers introduce seems to sell well, anything not yet available could be seen as a gap in the market.

 

Its not as simple as that!

 

If what RTR manufacturers produces sells well the ONLY thing you can say with certainty is they have chosen wisely thus far!

 

As the regulators of financial investments frequently tell us, past performance is not necessarily a guide to the future. Certainly Bachmann are on record saying (around 2010 IIRC) that sales of the then newly re-tooled Jubilee loco were 'disappointing' and thats a major part of the reason they went down the line of 'chassis only upgrades' for things like the Ivatt tank and V3

 

It could also be said that RTR have deliberately not produced certain locos precisely because they believe they would NOT sell well! As any reputable company accountant knows you don't make something on a whim and cross your fingers it will sell - considerable research must be done to prove commercial viability before launching a project. But if the project doesn't get the go-ahead how do the wider public know.... - answer is they don't and the 'everything we sell goes down well' myth is maintained.

[Sir TophamHatt]

13 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Retractable nose cones are not the sort of thing you would want to rush if you want them to look realistic and yet work robustly.

 

The same applies to opening doors....

That's completely not what I said or was getting at :/

If Hornby thought a little more and DIDN'T rush the Class 800 out, perhaps some of these features could have been included (like opening nose cone).

[The Johnster]

51 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

RTR manufacturers exist primarily to make the maximum profits they can for Shareholders - they do not exist as an exercise to produce models of every railway loco / unit ever produced in the UK.

 

Thats something a lot of modellers seem to ignore!

Yes, but why shouldn't we.  We can wishlist and suggest to our hearts' contents, but what the producers of RTR provide us with is, so long has they have paid due regard to our wishes as a niche and minority market, none of our business unless we are shareholders, and it is shareholders who are the real customer that must be satisfied

 

The RTR companies have to provide models for us, the 'train set' trade, and the collectors as well, not to mention collaborations with the NRM and such.  We are, like oranges, not the only fruit...

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, The Johnster said:

I know Andy will not tolertate it, and understand why, but we could perhaps do with a proper wishlisting thread, as a good few that started out with different intentions tend to morph into one. and. being easily distracted (oo, look, a squirrel, he he he he) I will hold my hand up and confess to being as bad an offender as anyone.  We've gone OT.

 

Another thing that might be a worthwhile different direction for future RTR, to get back on T, would be 'period 1' models, say 1830 to 1889, the opening of the Liverpool & Manchester to the 'Lock, Block, and Brakes' legislation following the Armagh tragedy.  The 1890s were a bit of a sea change into 'period 2', 4-4-0s, bogie coaches, early gangwayed stock.

 

'Period 1' means interesting locos and stock, colourful liveries, less 'formal' operating practices, and, the thing that would make it very attractive to manufacturers and customers, you can get a lot in to a limited space.  A 5-car HST equates to a tender loco and perhaps 15 coaches, or 25 goods wagons.  Wheelbases are shorter so curves can be tight, and space savers like traversers and sector plates were not unusual at termini.  Turntables were mostly less than 40' diameter,

 

Motors and gearboxes need to be respectively small and high ratio to give credible performance, and the small boilers would neccessitate working inside motion on some locos.  But it does seem to me that it is a workable and possibly popular approach; if Bachmann can get DCC into a 009 Quarry Hunslet it is physically do-able!

 

I would envisage a 2-tier approach, 'budet' (relatively) generic stock with locos used on several different railways in generic form in different liveries, such as Jennies, Sharpies, Stephenson Long Boilers, Burys and so on, with perhaps some detail omitted for modellers to retrofit, and a more hi-fi level of accurate models, which would inevitably be expensive; this is where your Bloomers, Cornwall, and Cramptons would come in. 

 

Crinolines in 1st class?

 

Whilst we do get thread creep on the forum, it should not allow a very interesting discussion to be sidelined.

 

Only a few months ago there was a lively and rather heated thread which tackled the whole 'budget model' concept in considerable depth. As was stated in that thread IF budget model railway products were such a money spinner then somebody would be making them. The fact that all recent entries into the hobby (manufacturer wise) have deliberately gone for the expensive / collector end of the market speaks volumes about the unviability of 'budget models' as a business model and nothing has changed to make that assertion any less true in the past few months.

 

So can we drop all this wish listing and fantasy model manufacturers stuff (start anew thread if you really want to) and leave this thread to discuss the next development in detailing of RTR models

 

 

[Sir TophamHatt]

58 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

RTR manufacturers exist primarily to make the maximum profits they can for Shareholders - they do not exist as an exercise to produce models of every railway loco / unit ever produced in the UK.

 

Thats something a lot of modellers seem to ignore!

 

Indeed but there's only so much detail you can sling on something.

 

Sure, RTR manufacturers could continue to update older tooling but this may be their downfall.  The likes of the Class 66, 37 and 47 are unlikely to see any other tooling updates as the latest  offering is probably at the limits of what can be made.

 

I asked this a while ago about the Class 800 and whether it was a budget "railroad" model (unusual for a new train) or whether prototypes have less detail.

Less detail means less prestige and thus perhaps a lower RRP (but we'll only know with time).  Add in some opening and closing coupling covers and such and you can ramp that RRP right up again.

[ikcdab]

I still think the next development in detailing should be the provision of footplate crew.

And passengers in coaches

And guards in their domain

And realistic loads in open wagons.

Seems so simple,  really. 

Ian

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

That's completely not what I said or was getting at :/

If Hornby thought a little more and DIDN'T rush the Class 800 out, perhaps some of these features could have been included (like opening nose cone).

 

True, poor wording on my part.

 

Mind you I'm not sure that opening noses is really something Hornby would be able to do well (particularly at the price point they generally aim for), the finesse needed to carry it off is perhaps more suited to Rapido or Accurascale who have no scruples about charging high prices for high detail.

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

 

Indeed but there's only so much detail you can sling on something.

 

Sure, RTR manufacturers could continue to update older tooling but this may be their downfall.  The likes of the Class 66, 37 and 47 are unlikely to see any other tooling updates as the latest  offering is probably at the limits of what can be made.

 

 

What you get is the law of diminishing returns - but that in itself mean people will stop buying your new product.

 

Do you know the biggest issue affecting the picture quality on TVs these days is not the technology - its the human eyeball! Seriously technology has got so good that in many cases a human eye / brain simply cannot detect the actual improvement between subsequent models - yet manufactures continue to release new TVs based on impressive tech stats that most wouldn't actually be able to detect

 

As such its not about whether we can 'see' the improvement, increasingly its a case of do we 'believe' the new version is better. As evangelist preachers know, 'Belief' can be a very powerful (and profitable) tool....

 

 

[phil-b259]

23 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Yes, but why shouldn't we.  We can wishlist and suggest to our hearts' contents, but what the producers of RTR provide us with is, so long has they have paid due regard to our wishes as a niche and minority market, none of our business unless we are shareholders, and it is shareholders who are the real customer that must be satisfied

 

The RTR companies have to provide models for us, the 'train set' trade, and the collectors as well, not to mention collaborations with the NRM and such.  We are, like oranges, not the only fruit...

 

Wishlisting is not a problem as such - the problem is it being done IN THIS THREAD where very interesting and potentially innovative developments in RTR detail are being crowded out by 'I want a xxxx' type comments.

 

Yes I would love a SR U class (and many others if truth be told) to appear in RTR - but thats not relevant to this thread. I on the other hand have no interest in buying a class 800 but am very interested to discuss the viability of a retractable nose cone as a RTR feature for example - which is the type of development what this thread is meant to be about.

 

 

 

[McC]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

Accurascale who have no scruples about charging high prices for high detail.

or even moderate prices for high detail  

[phil-b259]

18 hours ago, McC said:

or even moderate prices for high detail  

 

True - maybe I have been watching too much of a certain You Tube channel where the perceived high prices for 'poor' / 'mediocre' models is a reoccurring theme

[cypherman]

As an aside to cab driving engines i would love for them to make the 0-10-0 Lickey Banker Big Bertha. i cannot for the life of me understand why such an iconic engine has never been made in model form.

[Pandora]

I'll throw my hat into the ring,.   Simple conversion from OO to 18.83 mm gauge,  as per Sutton Loco works, £20 for the option of P4 wheels on the Class 24,  and you keep the OO  wheels too.

[The Johnster]

19 minutes ago, cypherman said:

As an aside to cab driving engines i would love for them to make the 0-10-0 Lickey Banker Big Bertha. i cannot for the life of me understand why such an iconic engine has never been made in model form.

Probably because it would be restricted to models of Bromsgrove, Blackwell, or the 2 miles in between, bit of a one trick pony.  Personally, I think it would sell in viable quantities, but I'm not an RTR producer and have little idea of the issues involved in profitable production, marketing, and distribution.  Geographical restriction has not prevented successful RTR Beattie Well Tanks or Adams Radials being produced, or one offs like the Hush Hush/W1 or DoG.