The Shape of Things To Come

[Dave777]

I've been trying to come up with a decent justification for the Class 28 Co-Bo.

 

It's such a hideous looking thing that over the years I've come to like it more and more simply on the basis that it is indeed hideous looking. I just like the way there was seemingly no attempt whatsoever to make it look pretty - it's just total function over style, and the utter lack of symmetry just adds to the appeal (even the cab doors are in different places at each end).

 

But a model of it? Well I've managed to get it to 6-6 in the scoring...

 

Reasons for a manufacturer to build it:

1) No current model to modern standards so you're not competing with anyone

2) Three livery variations so there's at least some scope on that front

3) Two different cabs although I'd be surprised if anyone went to the trouble of doing the original wraparound window version as I think only the pre-yellow warning panel livery was applied on that (correct?) so that's a lot of faffing about with another tooling and a body that can take different cabs for just a single livery.

4) The prototype frequently operated in pairs, so an opportunity to release 'power loco+dummy loco' sets for a bit more profit.

5) There's an example around that can be measured and photographed

6) Operated on both passenger and freight services

 

And the reasons against it:

1) Only three livery variations (it's not many, but I guess that didn't stop Kestrel/Prototype Deltic)

2) Two toolings required for the bogies

3) Overall design may need to accommodate the fitting of two different cab toolings so that complicates things a bit.

4) The prototype didn't exactly have the widest of operational areas

5) No RTR converted plate wagon (as far as I know?) with which to reproduce their most famous operating job, the Condor service. Are there suitable containers either?

6) Likely to only appeal to enthusiasts because of its ugliness (it's never going to appear in a trainset - the potential litigation for child trauma could be huge after Little Johnny opens his trainset on Chrimbo morning and the Co-Bo face looms out at him from between the wrapping). It's probably not the sort of thing that's going to attract the more casual, trainset-in-the-loft types unlike, say, an A4 or 9F.

 

 

A few years ago I would have said there's no chance of a model of a Class 28 being produced, but Bachmann's Prototype Deltic and, more significantly, Heljan's efforts in seemingly hoovering up all the oddities does now open up the possibility of one. I just wonder if it has enough widespread appeal though.

 

 

[60B]

I've been thinking of these locos that didn't stray far or short lifes: EM1, EM2, Beattie WT, S&D 7F and 28. Short runs is really the only way to go. Because of the small area of operation, small runs suits them. I can imagine Heljan taking on the D&E types with Kernow most probably taking up the 7F. As the classes that got far with a decent worklife are done, I envisage a 2 tier system of models:

 

Tier 1

 

The big players with popular classes: Hornby and Bachmann.

 

Tier 2

 

Small (500-1000) runs of obscure prototypes of locos/ rolling stock that H and B wouldn't touch.

 

I see tier 2 with potential to be dictated by modellers: a voting system which dictates the next new run.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I have been advancing the theory that Heljan are working through the unsuccessful BR diesel classes 'worst first'. They have got the class 17 (completely hopeless) out of the way, and made the interesting discovery that modellers don't want a realisitic representation of the prototype's mechanical shortcomings; and the class 15 (seriously unreliable and near indistiguishable from the even worse class 16) coming. So the recently announced class 23 (very unreliable, even following rebuild) will work much better than the real thing. If 'worst first' is correct then the class 28 (unreliable) will follow, and then class 21 (unreliable but still considered good enough for a production batch, and for a re-engine experiment) after that, provided nobody else has got there first. (Has to be a possibility that Dapol spin off their class 22 work into a class 21.)

... No RTR converted plate wagon (as far as I know?) with which to reproduce their most famous operating job, the Condor service. Are there suitable containers either? ...

I reckon the 15ft w/b plate/twin bolster family (with much conversion potential for the chassis such as the condor conflat) is a significant hole in the RTR wagon fleet, if only to supply the trains for all these RTR 37s that are produced in such profusion. Weren't the containers the standard A and B size?

[Mallard60022]

[quote name='34theletterbetweenB&D' date='19 November 2009 - 11:10 ' timestamp='1258629040' post='26458']

I have been advancing the theory that Heljan are working through the unsuccessful BR diesel classes 'worst first'. They have got the class 17 (completely hopeless) out of the way, and made the interesting discovery that modellers don't want a realisitic representation of the prototype's mechanical shortcomings. So the recently announced class 23 (very unreliable, even following rebuild) will work much better than the real thing. If 'worst first' is correct then the class 28 (unreliable) will follow, and then class 21 (unreliable but still considered good enough for a production batch, and for a re-engine experiment) after that, provided nobody else has got there first. (Has to be a possibility that Dapol spin off their class 22 work into a class 21.)

 

 

I think this worst first theory is brilliant. Well spotted Hatfield! So we can expect a steam loco from Heljan then? Yup, I'm going to say it, here goes - D of G, and now run for cover. (Unreserved apologies to the brave restorers of the actual D of G; a loco which I have to say is something special).

I had no problems recreating the not very good performance of D of G when I built my DJH version, although it looks quite impressive standing still. :icon_e_confused:

36E

[coachmann]

If an RTR manufacturer was going to make a very small investment in a stationary peice of Caporotti, I'd prefer it be hung it on the BR Standard Class 5.

 

Identical to the Walschaert locos from 73050 onwards, they were allocated to the Western, London Midland and Scottish Regions and would be useful to a wide market of modellers as well as being that bit different for a smallish outlay.

 

LG

[The Stationmaster]

I've been thinking of these locos that didn't stray far or short lifes: EM1, EM2, Beattie WT, S&D 7F and 28. Short runs is really the only way to go. Because of the small area of operation, small runs suits them. I can imagine Heljan taking on the D&E types with Kernow most probably taking up the 7F. As the classes that got far with a decent worklife are done, I envisage a 2 tier system of models:

 

Tier 1

 

The big players with popular classes: Hornby and Bachmann.

 

Tier 2

 

Small (500-1000) runs of obscure prototypes of locos/ rolling stock that H and B wouldn't touch.

 

I see tier 2 with potential to be dictated by modellers: a voting system which dictates the next new run.

 

I think that if it went to a voting system there'd need to be a deposit to go with the vote (once it's agreed for development).

 

The stuff picked so far by retailers for them to bankroll is generally sufficiently 'attractive' or 'unusual' to appeal to quite a wide audience thus it makes commercial sense (well I hope it does - for their sakes). I suspect 'Model Rail's' Sentinel wil follow the same path.

 

But once you start to tread away from that path and look for votes it could get a bit dodgy with it being easy enough to get all your mates to vote for that Garratt that you are prepared to flash the cash for but they will shake their heads at when it comes out at 300 quid. Are there enough folk out there who will buy their way through an entire run of at least 1,000 J21s for example? 500 J21s probably would sell - but they would of necessity be at a much higher price per loco than a run of 1,000.

 

I've already noted (above) one concern with retailer sponsored models; I reckon that if 'democracy' came along on top of that it might be a step too far - unless a goodly deposit is paid upfront (as 'Steam' are doing with their 'Castle' model, and that one's a 23% deposit on the back of an r-t-r development).

[60B]

I think that if it went to a voting system there'd need to be a deposit to go with the vote (once it's agreed for development).

 

The stuff picked so far by retailers for them to bankroll is generally sufficiently 'attractive' or 'unusual' to appeal to quite a wide audience thus it makes commercial sense (well I hope it does - for their sakes). I suspect 'Model Rail's' Sentinel wil follow the same path.

 

But once you start to tread away from that path and look for votes it could get a bit dodgy with it being easy enough to get all your mates to vote for that Garratt that you are prepared to flash the cash for but they will shake their heads at when it comes out at 300 quid. Are there enough folk out there who will buy their way through an entire run of at least 1,000 J21s for example? 500 J21s probably would sell - but they would of necessity be at a much higher price per loco than a run of 1,000.

 

I've already noted (above) one concern with retailer sponsored models; I reckon that if 'democracy' came along on top of that it might be a step too far - unless a goodly deposit is paid upfront (as 'Steam' are doing with their 'Castle' model, and that one's a 23% deposit on the back of an r-t-r development).

 

Of course I wasn't saying it should or will happen like that, more an educated guess. I have no idea of behind the scenes stuff like that. I'm surprised a deposit wasn't asked by Kernow for the well tank and other "new builds" considering the prices.

[davidw]

Much has been made of the A2 from Bachman. The A2's were also A2/1; A2/2 and A2/3. They are big and green perhaps H or B will grab the nettle on these.

 

Also GWR is very light. A retooled King can't be far. along with the much requested hawksworth coaches

 

Coaching Stock:

I wonder if Bachman would fully up grade their Thompson Stock. Or Hornby were to steal the march and do them. A Gresley full brake is missing and were found all over the system - This and a gresley resturant first would be a good choice whether a layout is ER based or not, I know there are short coming s but let's not pervent Hornby revisiting this range.

 

Bachman still has hole to fill in the mk1 coaching stock Sleepers, RB RBK FO RK and BSO diagrams are still missing the sleeper has to be soon- One body type and 4 diagrams. And they will make a compleae rake nested between BG's.

A TPO has been announced but I can see further diagrams released.

[papagolfjuliet]

I continue to think that Hornby is more likely to produce Collett bow ended 57' stock than Hawksworths, for the simple reason that they have a habit of making like for like replacements of old toolings. A CK, a BCK, a Third, a Restaurant Car and possibly an Ocean Mails van would seem likely. Given Hornby's current interest in luxury dining stock, I wouldn't be surprised if they also announced a Super Saloon at some point.

[Neal Ball]

I continue to think that Hornby is more likely to produce Collett bow ended 57' stock than Hawksworths, for the simple reason that they have a habit of making like for like replacements of old toolings. A CK, a BCK, a Third, a Restaurant Car and possibly an Ocean Mails van would seem likely. Given Hornby's current interest in luxury dining stock, I wouldn't be surprised if they also announced a Super Saloon at some point.

 

 

Maybe even re-tooled Centenary stock to go alongside the new Castle. That would make a lot of sense. Plus fits in with the luxury coaches Hornby have been doing. (Please keep the price sensible though!)

 

For my money the Great Western has been lacking for a number of years now. (Huge change from a few years ago!), so I also reckon the King will be re-tooled. However, the Bachmann collectors calender has pictures of two Kings... maybe they will be releasing one. In which case maybe they will issue some new GWR carriages. I agree that we are likely to see Collet coaches rather than Hawkesworth.

 

But rather than a King (or as well as) for years I have asked both manufacturers to produce a Metro Tank. Huge period of operation, Huge number of variations (sadly not a huge number of Livery changes though). There is a lot of focus on the Big Express engines when the humble tank engines were produced in far more numbers. Then of course it would be nice if we had a new 48xx together with new Autocoaches as well.

 

Food for thought eh!

[Neal Ball]

I think that if it went to a voting system there'd need to be a deposit to go with the vote (once it's agreed for development).

 

The stuff picked so far by retailers for them to bankroll is generally sufficiently 'attractive' or 'unusual' to appeal to quite a wide audience thus it makes commercial sense (well I hope it does - for their sakes). I suspect 'Model Rail's' Sentinel wil follow the same path.

 

But once you start to tread away from that path and look for votes it could get a bit dodgy with it being easy enough to get all your mates to vote for that Garratt that you are prepared to flash the cash for but they will shake their heads at when it comes out at 300 quid. Are there enough folk out there who will buy their way through an entire run of at least 1,000 J21s for example? 500 J21s probably would sell - but they would of necessity be at a much higher price per loco than a run of 1,000.

 

I've already noted (above) one concern with retailer sponsored models; I reckon that if 'democracy' came along on top of that it might be a step too far - unless a goodly deposit is paid upfront (as 'Steam' are doing with their 'Castle' model, and that one's a 23% deposit on the back of an r-t-r development).

 

What ever happened to the fella on here who claimed to be eliciting votes for a Blue Pullman to be made? - Been quiet for an age now.

 

His idea was exactly as set out my Mike above. Elicit IF the project was viable, take the comments to a manufacturer, get them to produce on a subscription basis. I don't like the idea of subscribing to an individual, but I probably would to a major retailer. Kernow - Fancy doing a BP?

[Ravenser]

A repost update, showing the "scorecard" at close of play on the first day at Warley, with several new items released:

 

The updated "scoreboard" reads:

 

Bumped with update for recent releases and announcements

 

the list of new goodies in 4mm for the next 2 years:

 

Hornby:

2009 - Schools [released], Standard 4MT [released], Castle (around New Year?), Clan [released], 395 Javelin [released at Warley], a wagon or two, Pullmans [observation car released, buffet imminent]

2010 - LNER steam engine , one or two other steam engines, a D+E item?, Mk3 DVT and Mk3 buffet, ZCAs, OTA, ? GW coaches

 

 

Bachmann:

2009 - 150/1 [released], 150/2 [released] 4-CEP [released - at Warley], Standard 3MT tank [just released] A2 (2010?). Class B TEA, autoballaster, cattle wagon

2010 - 04/ROD (early 2010?), - 105, MPV , new 03, TPO, MBA, JPV, IPA

2011 - 2-EPB, Class 70

 

Heljan:

2009 - 17[released], Kestrel [released], no rolling stock

2010 - 14 (*Howes - expected Jan), 15 (test shot seen) , 86, probably no rolling stock

2011 - 23, possibly Lion, 4 wheel Railbuses (3 types)

 

Dapol:

2009 - 22 , multi fret, KQA pocket wagon, MBA [released]. It seems doubtful the outstanding items will make it this year

2010 - Thumper (*Kernow), ?Original Warship(*Kernow), Beattie well tank (*Kernow - Sept?), Sentinel shunter (Y1/Y3 - *Model Rail) ?Stove R (*Hornby) PBA (*Kernow) JIA (*Kernow)

Looking at the size of Dapol's backlog, it seems likely some of it will slip into 2011

 

Vi- Trains:

Don't hold your breath - any new venture would require development from the ground up,

 

Edited for Heljan further indications

[Jim T]

Hello all

 

Not so much from me on exactly what the manufacturers will/should produce, but more about the trade as a whole.

 

I think the current trend for smaller runs is good for all of us, as long as we don't end up in the situation where demand far exceeds supply for certain items. So is the trend towards better production values and higher prices (which means more money in manufacturers' coffers to put back into developing the next product). The 3d scanning used, for example, on the limited edition Deltic prototype model is a welcome development, as long as it doesn't mean the loss of the skills required to produce models of prototypes the preservation movement didn't manage to save, or a lack of attention to back-dating the models to the appropriate time period. Other advances in the last ten years which have made modelling easier would be:

• better drivetrains on locos
  
• huge expansion in the range of model buildings and structures available
  
• ditto for road vehicles
  
• most popular prototypes running in the last sixty years or so (i.e. what today's modellers can remember) have now been produced as proprietarry items;
  
• the standard of these items has generally improved
  
• dcc (although I hesitate to add this), but it does simplify wiring and permit more realistic operation
  
• use of computers for modelling - particularly for graphics items like producing backscenes and buildings
  
• use of computers for networking between modellers, sharing info on technicques and prototypes and inspiration
  

 

I'd be keen to see these trends continue, with the following developments:

• get away from having to power trains through the track. Exactoscale's Red Arrow system was a brave attempt, but the technology is so much better now, particularly in terms of batteries etc. And this could be done in a manner which was compatible with existing two rail systems and layouts if the wheels are isolated or only used to pick up power on a "charging" bay in your fiddleyard
  
• more easily "personalised buildings" and more of the "typical" structures and buildings of the inter- and post-war years (e.g. semis, post war council houses, low rise flats, modular office blocks)
  
• properly weathered road vehicles, and development of the Faller road system (and/or competitors), with contollability or automation
  
• replacements for some of the earlier or poorer quality models of popular prototypes (ten years ago we'd have said the Black 5, Britannia, 08, 37 and 47 - now we'd be looking at slightly less common variations, or locos with better "old gen" models; say the B1, the 25 and the 40)
  
• continuing improvement in standards for these models (but a move away from gimmicks to things that are more useful, such as remotely operated less obtrusive couplings on locos, built in coach lighting, cheaper sound, more suitable finishes capturing the subtlety of areas that are gloss satin and matt for example)
  
• a big improvement in the ease of use of dcc handsets, and a better system for interfacing traditional control panel / signal box frames into dcc systems and control buses;
  
• development of the use of computers into producing small parts, details etc., using 3d mastering techniques;
  
• another five years of RMweb!!!
  

 

Just my thoughts...

 

Cheers

Jim

[coachmann]

Standard Class 3 2-6-2T actually in shops now (lined black).

 

Intrigued by 2010 Hornby LNER engine.

 

 

[Ravenser]

Standard Class 3 2-6-2T actually in shops now (lined black).

 

Intrigued by 2010 Hornby LNER engine.

 

 

 

Pat Hammond on MREMag was suggesting early this year that there might be a mid year announcement if the production problems cleared, which would be good news for LNER fans. I took that as an LNER loco under development - as the problems were not resolved and there was no announcement, I assume its gone into the 2010 programme

 

I will update for Standard 3 release and Dapol Freightliner announcement once details to hand

[Ravenser]

Bump for update covering further (provisional?) Heljan announcements

 

As a comment we continue to have a steady flow of pre 1968 traction announcements, and the Standard 3MT has set a world record for speed of release of a Bachmann item (only announced in Feb 09...) but announcements of prototypes introduced post 1968 remain more or less confined to wagons, mainly from Dapol

 

The theory that "if it didn't run before the end of steam we probably won't chance it" seems to hold good, though class 70 will of course offer a potential exception

 

 

[Glorious NSE]

The theory that "if it didn't run before the end of steam we probably won't chance it" seems to hold good, though class 70 will of course offer a potential exception

 

Except in the wagon department, where the opposite seems to hold true...

[Jamie]

As a comment we continue to have a steady flow of pre 1968 traction announcements ... but announcements of prototypes introduced post 1968 remain more or less confined to wagons, mainly from Dapol

 

The theory that "if it didn't run before the end of steam we probably won't chance it" seems to hold good...

 

Is the pre '68 vs. post '68 comparison really valid? Can we really expect a never-ending flow of modern image locos?

 

Pre '68 the locomotive fleet was geographically varied. An enormous number of different classes with a few geographically-standard types to tie them all together. The "percentage RtR capture" if you will, of this fleet is very small. The manufacturers have by and large stuck to the more standard and widespread types, understandably. There's still a rich seam of prototypes to model.

 

Post '68 the locomotive fleet becomes much, much more standardised, more so with advancing years. The number of classes is reduced tenfold, hundredfold? Therefore the "percentage RtR capture" is much higher. What's now left, other than electrics, multiple units and the early shunters is generally speaking, one-offs and (dare I say) irrelevances. Isn't it natural that releases should slow, if the purchasing hoardes do not shift focus towards the neglected ACs/units?

[The Stationmaster]

A repost update, showing the "scorecard" at close of play on the first day at Warley, with several new items released:

 

The updated "scoreboard" reads:

 

Bumped with update for recent releases and announcements

 

the list of new goodies in 4mm for the next 2 years:

 

 

Dapol:

2009 - 22 , multi fret, KQA pocket wagon, MBA [released]. It seems doubtful the outstanding items will make it this year

2010 - Thumper (*Kernow), ?Original Warship(*Kernow), Beattie well tank (*Kernow - Sept?), Sentinel shunter (Y1/Y3 - *Model Rail) ?Stove R (*Hornby) PBA (*Kernow) JIA (*Kernow)

Looking at the size of Dapol's backlog, it seems likely some of it will slip into 2011

 

 

I believe you can definitely say 2011 for the D6XX as I understand it is taking time to get the research and drawings together which means it is being overtaken by the other projects sponsored from Cornwall (and definitely intended to be launched in 2010). In fact to be realistic I think it might even be the latter half of 2011 for the NBL 'Warship'.

 

A point of interest you didn't mention is what might come from the NRM? I still reckon it will be a 4 coupled tender loco (well a 4-4-0 to be precise ) and of either GWR or GCR ancestry.

[Ravenser]

Is the pre '68 vs. post '68 comparison really valid? Can we really expect a never-ending flow of modern image locos?

 

Pre '68 the locomotive fleet was geographically varied. An enormous number of different classes with a few geographically-standard types to tie them all together. The "percentage RtR capture" if you will, of this fleet is very small. The manufacturers have by and large stuck to the more standard and widespread types, understandably. There's still a rich seam of prototypes to model.

 

Post '68 the locomotive fleet becomes much, much more standardised, more so with advancing years. The number of classes is reduced tenfold, hundredfold? Therefore the "percentage RtR capture" is much higher. What's now left, other than electrics, multiple units and the early shunters is generally speaking, one-offs and (dare I say) irrelevances. Isn't it natural that releases should slow, if the purchasing hoardes do not shift focus towards the neglected ACs/units?

 

A Baby Deltic is pretty esoteric ... It will be interesting to see how long it takes to get a Class 70 compared to an NBL diesel electric, or a first generation A/C electric compared with Lion

[Caledonian]

There was an interesting comment on the Model Railroader thread to the effect that reviews in it were a bit of a waste of space because production runs for the American market were so short and so much of them pre-ordered that it was pretty hopeless looking for anything which appeared in the review pages because it would have already sold out.

 

Now obviously that doesn't hold true for all North American outline models, but it does raise a question as to how things might go over here. We're being told there is a lot of pressure on production slots in China; would it make economic sense for the likes of Hornby to invest in tooling for two exciting new models instead of one, but then produce two half sized runs, and then salt the tooling away for next year or the year after, rather than keep them going continuously for a couple of years with different livery variations as at present.

 

For example the A3s appeared to great acclaim three or four years back, have been produced in umpteen variants but lately tailed off so that only Flying Scotsman is left in the 2009 catalogue. What if they instead abruptly cut off production in 2007 to use those production slots for something else entirely.

 

With the Railroad range available as a base-line, can they afford to be more daring with short runs of hi-fi stuff?

[Vanders]

With the Railroad range available as a base-line, can they afford to be more daring with short runs of hi-fi stuff?

 

Well, it doesn't appear to be a problem for Heljan, even after the Class 17 chassis problem! Nor does it appear to have dampened anyones enthusiasm for E.g. the Baby Deltic, so I'd guess that it isn't going to be a problem for UK modellers.

[Ron Ron Ron]

....would it make economic sense for the likes of Hornby to invest in tooling for two exciting new models instead of one, but then produce two half sized runs, and then salt the tooling away for next year or the year after, rather than keep them going continuously for a couple of years with different livery variations as at present??¦..

 

I??™m not sure what you are saying there?

 

Are you proposing fewer livery variants and fewer of each model produced each year, but a greater choice of subject (two for every one currently) ?

 

Don??™t forget that development and tooling costs are said to be very high. They??™d still have to produce enough to get a return within a reasonably short timescale.

 

In any case, AFAIA continuous production doesn??™t happen as such. Batches are run off and that??™s it. Even different livery variants will be done in the same run (same model, different printing/painting/detailing), but they may not necessarily be released together.

 

Naturally, if a later release of that model is planned in the same or subsequent years, the tooling will be used again at the later date.

However, where a model with the same livery and running number/identity appears again in the following years catalogue, then I suppose it??™s possible that in some cases they??™ve come from the same initial, or earlier batch/batches (i.e. they've been sat in the warehouse all that time for whatever reason).

 

.

 

 

........can they afford to be more daring with short runs of hi-fi stuff?

Well, it doesn't appear to be a problem for Heljan, even after the Class 17 chassis problem! Nor does it appear to have dampened anyone??™s enthusiasm for E.g. the Baby Deltic, so I'd guess that it isn't going to be a problem for UK modellers.

 

Hornby??™s approach may be very different to that of Heljan, who are geared to the economics of smaller production runs.

In general, Hornby are appealing to a wider audience, especially with the train-set and Railroad ranges and their production quantities will be geared accordingly.

 

I suspect they already produce smaller runs of some of the more specialised ???hi-fi stuff???, as you put it; as opposed to more popular lines. For example, you can??™t really see them churning out the same number of T9??™s or Class 60??™s as train-set Flying Scotsman??™s and Pendolino??™s.

 

However a small run for Hornby may be a lot bigger than a small run for Heljan or even Bachmann. In which case it will probably require a seed change in the way they operate, if they were to go down the same route of limited runs and commissioned models.

 

Who knows, if the adult model railway market starts to shrink in a few years, as some have predicted, then Hornby may well have to change its business model to adapt to the changing conditions.

Anyway, they probably have enough on their hands coping with the current situation, rather than worrying about that.

 

.

 

 

 

[Caledonian]

Alright, to clarify... Hornby's current policy appears to be to tool up a model and then flog it to death in successive batches, with different liveries and sometimes differences in detail such as double chimneys or variant tenders. Thus we've seen successive (different) batches of A1/A3, King Arthur etc etc. What I'm curious about is the practicality of just doing one batch, then moving on to something else before rather than after sales drop off. While the tooling cost is indeed a significant element, its all bankable in that they can always re-use it for a subsequent batch at a later date.

 

In theory it could work, but I wonder how significant the staff training element might be; with more and more detail being added it must take a bit of time to train those nimble fingers to put all the bits in the right place.

[The Stationmaster]

Alright, to clarify... Hornby's current policy appears to be to tool up a model and then flog it to death in successive batches, with different liveries and sometimes differences in detail such as double chimneys or variant tenders. Thus we've seen successive (different) batches of A1/A3, King Arthur etc etc. What I'm curious about is the practicality of just doing one batch, then moving on to something else before rather than after sales drop off. While the tooling cost is indeed a significant element, its all bankable in that they can always re-use it for a subsequent batch at a later date.

 

In theory it could work, but I wonder how significant the staff training element might be; with more and more detail being added it must take a bit of time to train those nimble fingers to put all the bits in the right place.

 

 

I think the significant element is going to be the initial research and tooling cost - that is an unavoidable overhead cost whatever is being made and presumably one which manufacturers will wish to get back into their coffers as quickly as possible. Now they might be prepared, and financially able, to carry an element of it for, say, an extra year. As I understand things with a 'medium size loco' on traditional tooling development we are talking about costs of at least ??70,000 (perhaps up to ??100,000 by now?) although equally the use of CAD and scanning the subject would presumably reduce costs by quite a hefty amount once the technology has been amortised.

 

But - for the sake of simplicity - let's assume a development cost of ??50,000; that means on an initial run of 1,000 models the company has got to either recover ??50 per model or carry the interest on any money it doesn't recover at that stage. But once the tooling cost has been recovered that ??50 per model turns into pure profit - so any subsequent runs during the life of the tools carry only a production and distribution cost.

 

In other words making more A3s or 'King Arthurs' (minor tooling variations apart of course) makes the manufacturer a greater profit assuming a similar wholesale price. And that profit is also available to fund the development of new models.

 

On the other hand forever tooling completely new models means forever investing in development and tooling costs which either means carrying what could be ever increasing interest charges or recovering the investment off short productions runs, which might well increase prices and lose market share.

 

Don't forget too that in the case of Hornby we are talking about about a public company with an incresasingly wide product base and shareholders whose main interest is the value of their shares - not how many different locos can be conjured up in the next 5 years. The company's marketeers have to support their product development with profits on what they came up with last year or the year before - or they can forget either the opportunity to expand the range or a future salary, or both.