DJM wish list thread

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think one thing we need to be mindful of in making suggestions is the matter of financial liquidity for a small company.  I suspect it isn't much cheaper to develop a coach than it is to develop a loco but in order to achieve a return it has to then sell at what many folk would regard as 'a high price' but the only way to recover the investment is then buy selling in volume - which a high price could mitigate against.  All well and good if a company has a broader base or a track record (and therefore has built up some financial security/bankability) but doing coaching stock in early days, or even dmus, looks like a financially risky way of going unless it is something esoteric and quirky and will therefore work in the market area where folk are not only prepared to spend money but actually have it to spend.  And that market probably amounts to what - maybe only 1,000 or so units (as in unit of production).

 

So in early days carefully chosen locos where sales of 1,000 or 1,500 units can be made at c£100 - 120+ would seem to represent a more viable business model, to me at any rate (unless of course tooling is shared with variants when a wider range of variants could probably be viable in smaller individual numbers).

To back up this view, it is noticeable that some of the new-wave European producers (e.g. LS Modeles) have tended to supply their coaches in sets until they were well established.

[Joseph_Pestell]

A lot of requests here for the J15. Something of a personal favourite although I have never modelled Great Eastern. From a manufacturer viewpoint, it shared a lot of components with the E4 so, with clever design, perhaps the possibility of two locos for less investment cost.

 

PS: I rather thought one of the firms had already put down a marker on the J15 in OO

Edited November 18, 2013 by Joseph_Pestell

[bike2steam]

 I rather thought one of the firms had already put down a marker on the J15 in OO

Who ??

[Bending01]

How about some new "super creep" chassis to fit the Dapol N 14XX, 45XX & M7? - the bodies were great but let down by the chassis both in looks and performance.

 

Otherwise best of luck with whatever you produce - it all helps the hobby really.

 

Tony

[zigzag]

Given such an open goal by Dave Id better have a shot, OO stuff for me.

 

Firstly Ill look at what I think might make good sales for DJM, some long lived pregrouping Scottish locos and careful choice could give some beautiful pregroup livery right through to BR and would fill in an area of neglect in current rtr, secondly the GW railmotor could sell well given the popularity of the real life one and this may be a bandwagon to be jumped on in the near future to maximise sales, another area of neglect would be the ac electric locos, probably the cl87 with a wide choice of liveries to produce, would the already announced J94 chassis lend itself readily to another industrial type with mionr modifications - could be worth exploring, next up an Ivatt Atlantic, quirky but coudl be in demand from both ECML modellers and those who just like the look of it, as could my final choice a venture into pre-group locos, again as with the Scottish proposal careful choice could lead to a varity of liveroies and sales of the 'oooh I do like that even though it doesnt fit in with the rest of my stuff'. No coaches as I think these are more of a slow burner longer time frame sale than a loco and so would tie up cash in a developing buisness which isnt really good practice. Its been shown that attractive, niche, locos will sell, and there are still may prototypes there waiting to be ticked off.

 

Secondly, my wish list and I would buy these

Adams Radial

Cl  124 Transpennine

K1

Mk 2D coaches

Ivatt Altantic

[Mike Storey]

To back up this view, it is noticeable that some of the new-wave European producers (e.g. LS Modeles) have tended to supply their coaches in sets until they were well established.

 

True, but LS are comparatively high-end price-wise. That has been the debate here and elsewhere - would the UK market support high price quality in sufficient volume to be viable, especially for a small producer? It is noticeable that 0 gauge, once the preserve of very high price RTR (and dominated equally by highly skilled scratch and kit builders) is now heading down a lower price, arguably lower quality, RTR market to encourage volume.

[stewartingram]

A lot of requests here for the J15. Something of a personal favourite although I have never modelled Great Eastern. From a manufacturer viewpoint, it shared a lot of components with the E4 so, with clever design, perhaps the possibility of two locos for less investment cost.

 

PS: I rather thought one of the firms had already put down a marker on the J15 in OO

Would be interesting if someone has this lined up!

 

Though I'm not into model manufacture or design, could I add my tuppence worth on this old chestnut of commonality of parts and their relevance to models?

 

I agree that in the world of the big railway, parts were (and indeed still are) shared. A LNER 100A boiler for instance, used on at least B1,B2,B17, & O1 locos.

BUT this is of little consequence to the manufacture of locos from the likes of Hornby.

 

In the old Triang days of design, there were 2 building blocks in the models - the chassis, andy the body. A lot of us still mentally think along those terms.

There were stock parts in the stores inventory, used on many new introductions over the years, especially on the chassis side. On the bodies, it was really limited to the odd item such as buffer heads, as the bodies tended to be (almost) a one-piece assembly. End result was that we got "generic" models, often distorted to fit stock chassis parts.

 

In the post move to China era, we now have models that are designed from scratch each time. The 2-part building block is redundant. An astute designer may well have previous CAD designs which could be easily stretched or shrunk to make a new model (part) thus saving on starting from scratch however The 100A boiler example could be an example of this in Hornby's case, but from a cursory glance of my models I strongly suspect it was not. After all, it was the (inner) boiler that was the same, not the outer  boiler cladding; also on the model different space needs to be provided for motor & gears.

Also I believe the design would also be contracted out to China, so quite possibly a different design team would be involved.

 

So am I right in saying this idea of commonality, in general, can be put to one side?

 

Stewart

Edited November 18, 2013 by stewartingram

[Poor Old Bruce]

Seems to me that a mint "box" can often command a silly price!

Yes if you have the space to store it/them for a few years but I buy my toys to play with, not because I will want to sell them until I have gone to the big sidings in the sky. How many would want to buy a box because it looked pretty and ditch the contents?

[Mike Storey]

I think one thing we need to be mindful of in making suggestions is the matter of financial liquidity for a small company.  I suspect it isn't much cheaper to develop a coach than it is to develop a loco but in order to achieve a return it has to then sell at what many folk would regard as 'a high price' but the only way to recover the investment is then buy selling in volume - which a high price could mitigate against.  All well and good if a company has a broader base or a track record (and therefore has built up some financial security/bankability) but doing coaching stock in early days, or even dmus, looks like a financially risky way of going unless it is something esoteric and quirky and will therefore work in the market area where folk are not only prepared to spend money but actually have it to spend.  And that market probably amounts to what - maybe only 1,000 or so units (as in unit of production).

 

So in early days carefully chosen locos where sales of 1,000 or 1,500 units can be made at c£100 - 120+ would seem to represent a more viable business model, to me at any rate (unless of course tooling is shared with variants when a wider range of variants could probably be viable in smaller individual numbers).

 

I agree with the liquidity issue, which suggests that the link with Kernow is very sensible, but also that a loco may not be the best place to start. A freight wagon or coach with wide geographical and timespan appeal, hence many variants, is likely to be less risky and provide prolonged, although moderate, cash flow, showing a good hand to attract more capital or partners, for successive models. This has been the business model for several other new entrants, although Dave has perhaps considerably more experience and knowledge of the industry than most. The problem for almost everyone else so far, or is becoming so (e.g. Kernow, Rail Exclusive Models), is getting the things made at all, due to all the reasons rehearsed elsewhere. This ties up capital and cash flow, which is when new starters tend to go down the swanee. This is where Dave and Kernow could score better than the competition.

[Mike Storey]

I agree with the liquidity issue, which suggests that the link with Kernow is very sensible, but also that a loco may not be the best place to start. A freight wagon or coach with wide geographical and timespan appeal, hence many variants, is likely to be less risky and provide prolonged, although moderate, cash flow, showing a good hand to attract more capital or partners, for successive models. This has been the business model for several other new entrants, although Dave has perhaps considerably more experience and knowledge of the industry than most. The problem for almost everyone else so far, or is becoming so (e.g. Kernow, Rail Exclusive Models), is getting the things made at all, due to all the reasons rehearsed elsewhere. This ties up capital and ###### cash flow, which is when new starters tend to go down the swanee. This is where Dave and Kernow could score better than the competition.

 

Whoops - I see I have been censored! Didn't think that word was persona non grata! Must try harder.....

[Jol Wilkinson]

I would like to suggest anything not readily available from the UK kit manufacturers. That way some of those who "need" a model for which a kit exists might build one, thus supporting the UK economy. 

[BMacdermott]

Bearing in mind what Joseph Pestell (#285), Stationmaster (#272) and Stewart (#291) said about the viability of coaching stock, there are many ways to view the subject. Whilst I would love a late version Tavern Car set, the number of tools required to produce the range might be off-putting.

 

SR Bulleid Tavern Car Sets (as built 1949)

Crimson & cream with ‘brickwork & beam’ effect.

SR Bulleid Tavern Car Sets (with c.1951 rebuilt Composite Diner)

Crimson & cream at first, then green from c.1957.

SR Bulleid Tavern Car Sets (rebuilt Composite Diner & c.1959 rebuilt Tavern Car)

Green from c.1959 to withdrawal by 1968.

 

Only two vehicles, but four tools required to cover the range. If you look at the following (as an example), you get a different perspective…

 

SR Bulleid 10¼in ventilator stock (Loose BCK; 2-sets 63-75; 3-sets 771-793)

All were painted in malachite livery (albeit without ‘Southern’ markings), BR crimson and cream, and BR green liveries. Six coaches but only four tools needed.

 

SR Bulleid 59ft Multi-door 3-sets (1945-1946) (Diags.2121/2316/2121)

Three coaches but only two tools needed.

 

None of this over-rides my desire for the Quad-Arts though!

 

Brian (noting that I have given the above in good faith, although I am not a model engineer)

[Jack]

 

Seems to me that a mint "box" can often command a silly price!

 

Are orange flavoured ones collectable too?

[aussiebrfan]

Are orange flavoured ones collectable too?

 

If its been tangoed then yes!

 

 

Also hows that 700 class Black Motor coming along I suggested earlier?  

 

Regards G.  

 

PS. Do fellow Jones' get preferential treatment??

[gelboy45]

I would love a 4 Sub emu. They are THE iconic SR emu and ran on all divisions. And 'high window' Maunsell steam stock too please.....

 

Gerry

[Joseph_Pestell]

True, but LS are comparatively high-end price-wise. That has been the debate here and elsewhere - would the UK market support high price quality in sufficient volume to be viable, especially for a small producer? It is noticeable that 0 gauge, once the preserve of very high price RTR (and dominated equally by highly skilled scratch and kit builders) is now heading down a lower price, arguably lower quality, RTR market to encourage volume.

 

By mainland European standards, LS are not that expensive. In the UK we were blessed for decades (and stilll are to an extent) with lower prices albeit much higher than US. We also have more "box-shifter" discounters than is common in Europe. Take the list price of some of Hornby's more recent releases and you are pretty much at LS prices allowing for fluctuations in the £/€ exchange rate.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Bearing in mind what Joseph Pestell (#285), Stationmaster (#272) and Stewart (#291) said about the viability of coaching stock, there are many ways to view the subject. Whilst I would love a late version Tavern Car set, the number of tools required to produce the range might be off-putting.

 

SR Bulleid Tavern Car Sets (as built 1949)

Crimson & cream with ‘brickwork & beam’ effect.

SR Bulleid Tavern Car Sets (with c.1951 rebuilt Composite Diner)

Crimson & cream at first, then green from c.1957.

SR Bulleid Tavern Car Sets (rebuilt Composite Diner & c.1959 rebuilt Tavern Car)

Green from c.1959 to withdrawal by 1968.

 

Only two vehicles, but four tools required to cover the range. If you look at the following (as an example), you get a different perspective…

 

SR Bulleid 10¼in ventilator stock (Loose BCK; 2-sets 63-75; 3-sets 771-793)

All were painted in malachite livery (albeit without ‘Southern’ markings), BR crimson and cream, and BR green liveries. Six coaches but only four tools needed.

 

SR Bulleid 59ft Multi-door 3-sets (1945-1946) (Diags.2121/2316/2121)

Three coaches but only two tools needed.

 

None of this over-rides my desire for the Quad-Arts though!

 

Brian (noting that I have given the above in good faith, although I am not a model engineer)

 

This of course is the downside in all of us wanting more detailed and accurate models these days. Only a few years back, Hornby would have thought it perfectly OK to produce different coaches by just changing the sides and interior, not bothering about incorrect underframe, bogies or roof ventilators.

 

I am not that familiar with Tavern Cars but I think it might be possible to do those sets. The clever engineering folk modify the moulds with slides that cover  a lot of variations. I am sure that they would be a popular model even with people who are not SR modellers.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Would be interesting if someone has this lined up!

 

Though I'm not into model manufacture or design, could I add my tuppence worth on this old chestnut of commonality of parts and their relevance to models?

 

I agree that in the world of the big railway, parts were (and indeed still are) shared. A LNER 100A boiler for instance, used on at least B1,B2,B17, & O1 locos.

BUT this is of little consequence to the manufacture of locos from the likes of Hornby.

 

In the old Triang days of design, there were 2 building blocks in the models - the chassis, andy the body. A lot of us still mentally think along those terms.

There were stock parts in the stores inventory, used on many new introductions over the years, especially on the chassis side. On the bodies, it was really limited to the odd item such as buffer heads, as the bodies tended to be (almost) a one-piece assembly. End result was that we got "generic" models, often distorted to fit stock chassis parts.

 

In the post move to China era, we now have models that are designed from scratch each time. The 2-part building block is redundant. An astute designer may well have previous CAD designs which could be easily stretched or shrunk to make a new model (part) thus saving on starting from scratch however The 100A boiler example could be an example of this in Hornby's case, but from a cursory glance of my models I strongly suspect it was not. After all, it was the (inner) boiler that was the same, not the outer  boiler cladding; also on the model different space needs to be provided for motor & gears.

Also I believe the design would also be contracted out to China, so quite possibly a different design team would be involved.

 

So am I right in saying this idea of commonality, in general, can be put to one side?

 

Stewart

 

You may well be right in the majority of cases.

 

But tooling is such a massive part of the costs (especially on some of the short runs we see nowadays), that any opportunity to maximise use of the tooling has to be worth looking at.

 

Take for example the EM2 which shared its bogie design with the D600 Warship. It would be a shame to waste that opportunity.

[bike2steam]

I agree that in the world of the big railway, parts were (and indeed still are) shared. A LNER 100A boiler for instance, used on at least B1,B2,B17, & O1 locos.

BUT this is of little consequence to the manufacture of locos from the likes of Hornby.

 

Stewart

The LNER has always been a minefield for rtr model companies. With the exception of the SR, which compared to the other three pre-nationalization companies was comparatively small when talking steam locos, the LNER didn't standardize to such a degree, leaving a big choice of small to mid range loco classes with their somewhat parochial operating areas, so making it difficult to decide on a sure seller. But leaving personal choice/favourites aside, I would feel that the K1 is a strong contender if someone else hasn't got it on their list. It will be interesting to see how the Heljan (LNER) O2 sells - remake of 'High Dyke' anyone ??.

[stewartingram]

You may well be right in the majority of cases.

 

But tooling is such a massive part of the costs (especially on some of the short runs we see nowadays), that any opportunity to maximise use of the tooling has to be worth looking at.

 

Take for example the EM2 which shared its bogie design with the D600 Warship. It would be a shame to waste that opportunity.

That is the optimistic approach, but try to find examples of it in the ranges today (ignoring old-style models of course).

 

Stewart

[F-UnitMad]

Who cares about the box as long as it protects the goodies (not the television ones) inside?

From this & subsequent posts, I take it the sheer irony of my post about suggestions for the box for RTR models has been completely missed.....

[Steve O.]

Hi Dave,

Back to the wish list...

56t Consett hoppers (would take 18 of them)

PTA bogie tipplers (again, take 18 (or 20?))

Diag 142, 13t steel coal hoppers

LNER N9, N10, G5 in early BR.

Here's hoping...

Cheers, Steve.

[69843]

LNER G5

I think this may have hit the nail on the head, being a small, long lasting 0-4-4T that had a range of liveries and a good number built (110), and the fact there is a new one being built could boost intrest, possibly selling versions through the builder to help raise a bit of revenue for it. I would definitely put down for one.

 

Just a thought...

[BMacdermott]

This of course is the downside in all of us wanting more detailed and accurate models these days. Only a few years back, Hornby would have thought it perfectly OK to produce different coaches by just changing the sides and interior, not bothering about incorrect underframe, bogies or roof ventilators.

 

I am not that familiar with Tavern Cars but I think it might be possible to do those sets. The clever engineering folk modify the moulds with slides that cover  a lot of variations. I am sure that they would be a popular model even with people who are not SR modellers.

 

 

Hello Joseph

 

I have looked at the Mike King drawings of the Tavern Car sets (as built and as re-built). There are some similarities (for example, the ends are the same), but my view – as a non-engineer – is that they really are ‘four different animals’. As you say, the modern need for accuracy overrides the old Hornby method of putting different sides on the same underframe and roof.

 

Although the first Tavern Car sets entered service on the Southern Region in May 1949 on the Atlantic Coast Express, some sets could be seen on the ER (for example, on The Master Cutler and The White Rose). However, they all seem to have been back on the SR by summer 1950.

 

Of course, the main attraction of the Tavern Cars is within the Atlantic Coast Express – and that train really warrants the Bulleid 10¼in ventilator stock (Loose BCK, 2-sets Nos.63-75 and 3-sets Nos.771-793). Somewhat annoyingly, the ‘loose BCK’ is different to that in the 2-sets!

 

And this hasn’t mentioned a single one of the many coaches that are needed for GWR/WR, LMS/LMR and LNER/ER modellers!

 

Brian

[byron]

The one thing missing from models made for the UK market is a good close coupling system based on NEM standards. The close coupling of locomotives to their tenders also seems (sorry about this) a gap in the market.

There is no need to re-invent the wheel, a visit to Roco/Fleischmann or Piko and get a licence to use their system is all that is required.Add a couple of Roco or (better IMHO) Fleischmann couplings in the box, along with a hook & bar and everyone will be happy.

 

Mike