New GWR release with Rails of Sheffield?

[BMacdermott]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

I'm sure they are aware of and influenced by our wishlist polls, but we would be deluded to assume that such polls are the only or even necessarily the major factor in what gets produced.

 

Hello Johnster

 

Exactly right!

 

The 00 Poll Team has tried to make it clear on many occasions that the results are an indication of how a relatively wide range of modellers are thinking. This may - or may not - correspond with what market research makers obtain themselves via letters, email, texts, Whatsapp, Facebook and face-to-face chats at shows.

 

The makers won't divulge their market research to us (except, perhaps, at the moment of announcement) so The 00 Poll is a reasonable method of visualising our collective thoughts.

 

Again, we have often said that even if an item were to regularly garner, say, 10000 votes, that item will never be made unless a maker can see a probable return on investment.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[SteamingWales]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

 

But that is not as much in our interests as it might sound, and is in fact illegal cartelery, market rigging, and monopoly behaviour, and the Fraud Squad will be interested in it.  In that sense, duplication is an inevitable and bad consequence of what is overall A Good Thing, Trading Regulations and Laws.

 

There is obviously some communication that goes on based on the Rapido newsletter from March 2022:

 

Most manufacturers, particularly smaller ones such as ourselves, talk to each other. We have a rough idea of the areas we are all working on and things we would each like to do in the future. We make phone calls to ask others if we might tread on toes and likewise also receive calls. We have certainly avoided clashes on several wagon projects and one locomotive project this way in recent months.

 

Sometimes it works to the advantage of another project. A call in late January resulted in us dropping plans for one 0-6-0T locomotive which enabled us to accelerated the LBSCR ‘E1’ into the now empty slot in our schedule.

 

At what point do Trading Regulations come into play? Is it when saying "We'll do this, if you do that", rather than the above quote from the newsletter with "we are thinking of doing this" and getting a reply of "might be worth steering clear"

 

I think we would all be interested though to find out which manufactures are on the above "speaking terms"

[Hal Nail]

30 minutes ago, SteamingWales said:

At what point do Trading Regulations come into play?

Like many things the legality is only relevant if you get caught.

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

 

Hello Jason

 

The 00 Poll Team would stop running The 00 Wishlist Poll immediately if it was proven to us that The Poll causes duplication. 

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

 

I mean virtually every thread on here and other forums rather than "The Wishlist".

 

Every single thread ends up with "Why make that? I want X, Y or Z!". Then ten pages of discussion about something not even relevant to the thread.

 

And it's usually something which is already available.

 

There was something like 400 classes that made it to Nationalisation that have never been available RTR. Yet people are asking for things such as 2251, Granges and Kings that are perfectly acceptable and recent.

 

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

Well, monopoly legislation and commercial confidentiality have inevitable grey areas and overlaps, and there is an ever-present temptation for the profit motive to trump sensible morality and practice, especially when overheads are high to service bail-out loans and big personalities are involved (no names no pack drill, names withheld to protect the guilty).   Model Railways in the UK are a fairly small world where company MDs all know each other on first name terms and behave, at least on the surface, in a fairly gentlemanly manner amongst each other.  It would be more than reasonable to expect that they converse with each other at shows and trade events, and we are (rightly) not party to such conversations much as we’d love to be, interfering self-interested busybodies that we are.  And if any of us are party to privileged information, which I am fairly sure some of our website gurus are, then it is not reasonable to expect such individuals to spill the beans, much as we’d love them to, inquisitive self-interested gossips that we are, which would end any further privilege for that individual whoever he or she may or may not be/have been. 
 

We rely on those managing and employed by RTR companies to  control such shared conversational information before it becomes detrimental to the operation of the free market and to our interests as customers, and this is mostly ensured by common-sense and the aforementioned generally gentlemanly zeitgeist.  But it will be better ensured by vigilance and concern on our part.  
 

Which immediately raises a further problem; if, say as a result of my comments on this post, we turn into a gestapo of paranoid informers scrutinising every RTR company move (not my intention at all, btw, please don’t do this, it will end in tears snd be to nobody’s benefit), bearing in mind that successful modellers are at least a bit obsessional and obsession can lead in extreme circumstances lead to genuine paranoia.  The current system works, by and large, though it can no doubt stand some improvement, and so could I, and, probably, so could you; this is the real world and nothing is perfect in it; personally I prefer it like that!

 

So, unfortunately, duplication is a fact of life, and worth putting up with for the benefits of a free market,  and as it doesn’t seem to worry other modellers how many Spitfires or Titanics there are out there, and American RTR companies probably all make a GP40, so maybe we should chillax a bit and adopt a similar approach

[melmerby]

On 29/04/2023 at 11:21, BVMR21 said:

Not to my knowledge, think there was a run with DCC provision but not many were produced, not to mention they haven’t been available for quite some time and the mechanism isn’t the best.

Bachmann never produced the ex-Mainline version of the 2251. They produced a newly tooled model as part of the Blue Riband designation.

 

DCC ready ones were available for some time, I've got two of them and they run extremely well, as do the previous ones

The biggest drawback was Bachmann putting the decoder in the loco and ditching a lot of the mass to do so.

I have converted mine to a tender socket and put pickups there as well, also added some lead to replace the missing chassis block metal.

[The Johnster]

Early retooled Bachmann locos can be very good value for money; I have a 43xx which retains the split chassis format of the ML model but has a can motor and worm & idler gear drive.  It is a much better runner than the ML version, and so far at least seems perfectly reliable, but I'm courting disaster by stating that!  It was bought as a donor chassis for a 5101, but occasionally gets an outing in it's original form on an incoming parcels or a pigeon special.  It cost me £30 a few months ago on the Bay of E, and that's not bad at all for a well detailed, nice running, and silent 43xx.  DCC users might have a different viewpoint of course, but it suits my needs quite well.

 

The retooled 2251 can no doubt be regarded in the same light.

Edited May 16, 2023 by The Johnster

[adb968008]

Lets not forget only a few years ago, 2017, duplication was mitigated by early announcements.

it meant a longer wait as the announcement was early in the process.

 

But then suddenly one company started openly stalking “competitors” and duplicate models suddenly appeared faster, and often less accurate, and slightly cheaper than the others…but claimed they started first.

 

since then manufacturer announcements appear to have gone to ground and emerge much later, inadvertently risking duplication much later in the process.

 

The way I see it is the only winner in duplication wars, is the Chinese tool shop, and if the UK front company goes under, the toolshop wins again. The Chinese domestic model railway market is even more cut throat.

 

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by adb968008

[adb968008]

On 16/05/2023 at 17:55, Steamport Southport said:

There was something like 400 classes that made it to Nationalisation that have never been available RTR. Yet people are asking for things such as 2251, Granges and Kings that are perfectly acceptable and recent.

 

Much of the 400 may never be made as perhaps not enough people want it.

 

I also suspect those advocating duplicate, may also be down to frustration of not getting the livery, version or number they want from the incumbent model. If the current manufacturer picked up on that, its possible they could head off competition just by turning on the taps. However in a competitive world, not turning on the taps until the competitor has committed cash, could also be damaging.. The mitigation of course is a better model at a competitive price.. which leaves the incumbent somewhat second place.

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by adb968008

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Lets not forget only a few years ago, 2017, duplication was mitigated by early announcements.

it meant a longer wait as the announcement was early in the process.

 

But then suddenly one company started openly stalking “competitors” and duplicate models suddenly appeared faster, and often less accurate, and slightly cheaper than the others…but claimed they started first.

 

since then manufacturer announcements appear to have gone to ground and emerge much later, inadvertently risking duplication much later in the process.

 

The way I see it is the only winner in duplication wars, is the Chinese tool shop, and if the UK front company goes under, the toolshop wins again. The Chinese domestic model railway market is even more cut throat.

 

 

 

This is true, and a good example of how agressive marketing and probably an amount of mendacity is harming the hobby in general, but not, IMHO, the only reason for the shorter lead times between announcing a model and it being on the shelves.  The tardiness of another company in this regard attracted adverse comments, from me among many others, and that company has changed the method by which it announces new models.  Since that change, however, there have been no new models in the sense of prototypes they had not previously produced, only retoolings and new liveries.  There have not even been any retoolings in the case of their steam prototypes.

 

So, one can argue that both long lead times and late-in-development announcements have conspired to enable duplication.  But duplication is, as I've said, a natural result of legal free market trading.  And it always has been; back in the 60s you could buy more or less identical 16ton mineral wagons from Hornby Dublo, Triang, and Trix, all were making mk1 coaches, two of the three were making LMS brake vans, two were producing Britannias, and two were producing 08s (albeit one was a pretty dire toy). 

 

Nobody likes duplication; companies end up sharing the market for a given prototype and we criticise them for wasting resources because they duplicated a prototype instead of using those resources to provide our particular personal wishlist favourite.  But it is moot at best to suggest that a different prototype than the duplicate that would have increased the overall biodiversity would have been produced anyway;  the prototypes the manufacturers produce are chosen by their own methods, no doubt different between each company, and we are not party to the process.

 

There have been some choices that I find a little strange, admittedly, but they have sold well and I have to conclude that the manufacturers know more about what will turn them an honest bob than I do.  Classes that were built in fairly large numbers and survived in those numbers up to 1960 and beyond have been ignored (for example Austin 7s, lord knows how many differnt 4-4-0s, B16s, 3150s) while Beattie Well Tanks and (duplicated) Adams Radials, of which only three of each lasted into BR days, and both were restricted to particular branch lines so you can't even use the rationale that they were mainline rarities that could be seen regularly in service over very large areas (for example the diesel prototypes, W1), have been produced, and have sold well enough to warrant further production runs.  If you wanted to make an RTR Southern loco of which only three existed, wouldn't it make more sense to produce 10101/2/3 or the Raworth 'Boosters' (I realise that the Radials and Well Tanks have more of a 'cute' factor in their favour, of course).

 

Well, what we think makes more sense is not necessarily in line with what makes the best sense to the companies, who have to pay the bills and keep the shareholders happy while making enough to pay themselves a sensible salary.  They don't think in the same way that we do, but it is wonderful when they do things that we find particularly pleasing (another 'well done Dap' from me for the Diagram N autotrailer, something I never thought I'd see in 4mm RTR, and two of them were allox Tondu in 1953).

[adb968008]

I dont think its that hard to pick a winner in the hobby.

The hobby is a hobby, and some classes are quite simply a popularity contest. For others its association with a line or a route.

 

A Beattie, which was a survivor, attracted a short cult towards the end and ran an interesting railtour near London would beat a class 01 that never left Holyhead breakwater and off most enthusiasts radar.

 

The risk is as enthusiasts get older,join the hobby commercially they wax lyrical of their memories and miss the current platform ends.

There was a definite hobby void from 1968-1980, punctuated by the end of the Westerns.
But early 1980’s brought the 60’s kids back, with their kids, which inturn a decade later inspired the “Lima” modern image era of the 1990’s which indured for a decade.

I argue now we have just seen the end of another era between 2016-2022, perhaps to 2024 where its arguably the demise of British Rail stock… This is bringing out enthusiasts in droves, with their parents, and their grandparents.

 

To say its not happening is fallacy.. look at the current flock of diesel galas, especially this weekends SVR gala… a HST, RA 43’s, 56, 57, 60 and 88… thats a lot of modern image, that according to many on this forum, “no one has any interest in”. Similarly the 313 finale two weeks back brought out thousands (apparently tomorrow is their last day), the last day of the 455’s, 317’s, 321’s… all brought out crowds… but no one likes units apparently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by adb968008

[Steamport Southport]

Well. People wanted to preserved the surviving Adams Radial Tank and all three Beattie Well Tanks (one was turned down because it had a dodgy boiler). People put their hands in their pockets and bought them. It was only one that was officially saved .

 

Yet nobody wanted to save a 57XX. Not one came directly from BR. Even the GWS didn't bother and there was still about a dozen of them still at Croes until about 1967. All the survivors came from LT, NCB and Woodhams.

 

So which is the most popular? The locomotives that people saved and travelled long distances to see, or the things that people couldn't even be bothered to take photos of?

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

But as models, Beatties and Adams radials are not correct unless you are modelling Wadebridge or Axminster or their branches; the locos were exclusive to those locations apart from works visits.  Of course, that does not stop modellers using them inappropriately on freelance layouts set in other, imaginary, locations, and nor should it; Rule 1 is a marvellous thing!

 

Just seems a bit weird as a mainstream volume manufacturer’s choice when much larger and more geographically spread classes are available to choose from.  Another example is the Hush-Hush; at least it did a bit of mileage as 60700…

[Steamport Southport]

46 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

But as models, Beatties and Adams radials are not correct unless you are modelling Wadebridge or Axminster or their branches; the locos were exclusive to those locations apart from works visits.  Of course, that does not stop modellers using them inappropriately on freelance layouts set in other, imaginary, locations, and nor should it; Rule 1 is a marvellous thing!

 

Just seems a bit weird as a mainstream volume manufacturer’s choice when much larger and more geographically spread classes are available to choose from.  Another example is the Hush-Hush; at least it did a bit of mileage as 60700…

 

Bluebell, Quainton Road, South Devon, Bodmin & Wenford, York, Shildon, Mid Hants, Swanage, Didcot, Great Central, Dean Forest, Manchester, etc. I'm sure many people have seen one without even trying.

 

Also worked in London for about fifty years if you were to back date them to original condition.

 

The idea that everyone models location X in year Y is a bit of a fallacy I'm afraid. Most people don't.

 

Worth noting they've sold out on numerous occasions.

 

Any different to the 1361s or 1366s though? Or are GWR locomotives exempt from criticism.

 

Or all those Deltics, A4s, LNs and Kings that worked a handful of routes for a short time span.

 

I'm afraid we are getting into the "Why make that as I don't want one, they should make this instead" conversation again.

 

 

Jason

Edited May 18, 2023 by Steamport Southport

[The Johnster]

No, I'd say GW classes such as 1361/6 and 47xx are very much in this category, but a 47xx is excuseable on layouts set on the Bristol, B&E, Plymouth, and Wolverhampton routes, especially if night operation is included.  1361/6s were unknown outside Bristol, Plymouth, and Weymouth, and the 15xx panniers were a bit geographically restricted as well.  Not saying that these locos were obscure to enthusiasts but they seem odd to me as manufacturers' choices; of course, it's not impossible that it is me that is odd!

 

 

[adb968008]

On 18/05/2023 at 11:23, Steamport Southport said:

Well. People wanted to preserved the surviving Adams Radial Tank and all three Beattie Well Tanks (one was turned down because it had a dodgy boiler). People put their hands in their pockets and bought them. It was only one that was officially saved .

 

Yet nobody wanted to save a 57XX. Not one came directly from BR. Even the GWS didn't bother and there was still about a dozen of them still at Croes until about 1967. All the survivors came from LT, NCB and Woodhams.

 

So which is the most popular? The locomotives that people saved and travelled long distances to see, or the things that people couldn't even be bothered to take photos of?

 

 

Jason

Familiarity breeds contempt.

 

A 57xx in the 1960’s was as common as rats on the GWR.

In the 1970’s no one cared for diesels.. D600’s/D6122 even languished until decades end without an interest.

In the 1980’s no one cared for a class 08 either.

in the 1990’s no one cared for a class 142.

roll on today no one cares for 800’s.

 

but once they have gone…. The mind changes.

The problem for todays enthusiasts is there is no Barry or Berries or Boothes…. and a lot more negative naysayers.

Which to me spells oppourtunity, the only way to enjoy todays modern image in the future is via a model.

 

ive umpteen recordings of Units… someday someone might need a recording of a 313, 317, 442, 456 or a 455/8 with EE traction motors and theres no more coming from where they came from, and they dont all sound the same.

 

No one cared for a 57xx at the time because they were mundane, but once they had gone… they were snapped up from hence where ever they could be found… This wasnt just an enthusiasts problem, it was a National problem too.

 

The National Collection failed to recognise contemporary mundane in the 1960’s, and being mostly of South London descent, disproportionately acquired aging London area relics… the lack of an 8f, Jubilee (Or Royal Scot itself), Jinty etc.. but yet 3x GWR 4-6-0’s and a collection of SR prototypes (inc Schools, Nelson, N15, WC, MN) is quite telling. Similarly failing to preserve a 24 or 25 is an odd omission amongst two Deltics and 3x Type 3’s. Scotland is a bit overlooked in the collection too…

 

I hope a 158 makes it to York someday… the only class of unit to truly cover both extreme ends, and all compass points of the country and most of inbetween… potentially even further north than an 08 or 47 ! - i smell the seething of contempt already.

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by adb968008

[Steamport Southport]

Including piles of junk from Mountain Ash....

 

I'd prefer the Wickham DMU personally.

 

 

Jason

[OnTheBranchline]

On 18/05/2023 at 06:23, Steamport Southport said:

Well. People wanted to preserved the surviving Adams Radial Tank and all three Beattie Well Tanks (one was turned down because it had a dodgy boiler). People put their hands in their pockets and bought them. It was only one that was officially saved .

 

Yet nobody wanted to save a 57XX. Not one came directly from BR. Even the GWS didn't bother and there was still about a dozen of them still at Croes until about 1967. All the survivors came from LT, NCB and Woodhams.

 

So which is the most popular? The locomotives that people saved and travelled long distances to see, or the things that people couldn't even be bothered to take photos of?

 

 

Jason

 

Nobody wanted to save a Grange either - instead of an umpteenth Castle.

[Gordieb01]

Personally if a new GWR prototype was to be produced in 4mm,  I'll like to see a 3232 class 2-4-0,  lovely engines,  who cares if

they didn't make it to Nationalization?    Otherwise one of the inherited South Wales 0-6-2's from the Rhymney or Taff Vale would be an

interesting alternative to the 56xx especially those who model that area.

[The Johnster]

Agreed about the South Wales engines, and I reckon a Dean Single to modern RTR standards would fly off the shelves!

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Agreed about the South Wales engines, and I reckon a Dean Single to modern RTR standards would fly off the shelves!

I hope there's somebody there to catch it when it does!

[Steamport Southport]

13 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

 

Nobody wanted to save a Grange either - instead of an umpteenth Castle.

 

Ah, but they did. The GWS tried to save one but it was hauled away before they could raise the money.

 

Might be worth looking up what they did try to save at the time. Stories like 46243 City Of Lancaster being bought only for the new owner to go to pay for it and seeing it in pieces and owners finding that valve gear had been cut on locomotives stored at Carnforth (including the last named Black Five). They really didn't want people having them.

 

As for "umpteenth Castle" there would have been only three, one in the Science museum (4073) and two in private hands (4079 and 7029). One of which was saved as it was the last working GWR designed express locomotive and was in excellent condition as it had ran a few railtours.

 

I'm afraid all the others would have been razor blades if it wasn't for Dai Woodham.

 

 

Jason

[didcot]

Didn't Tyseley try to save a Grange? I seem to remember a Saint or Court was saved but the lorry couldn't get through the gates of the Stately Home and it was returned for scraping.

 

[didcot]

3 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

The GWS tried to save one but it was hauled away before they could raise the money.

Perhaps Dapol will use the old Castle tooling to produce a 47xx. Hat, coat door....

[BVMR21]

14 hours ago, didcot said:

Perhaps Dapol will use the old Castle tooling to produce a 47xx. Hat, coat door....

That got sold to Hornby in the 1990s alongside most of Dapol's old 00 toolings.