Designing a Ready-To-Run Model - A / A1 / A1X Terrier

[Ian J.]

In a follow up to my brief musing in the Kernow LSWR Gate Stock thread, I am wondering at some of the processes and costs associated with commissioning a model.

 

One I would like to see is a good quality A / A1 / A1X Terrier. So using that purely as an example, I would like to find out what is involved in producing a RTR Injection Plastic Moulded model and what the costs are. My current thinking is as follows:

 

1. Research - Going to the likes of the NRM and the preservation lines to get plans, measure up, and/or laser scan prototypes. Also gather as many photographs of the prototypes from since they were introduced for comparison of variations.

 

2. Development - These days I imagine most design work would be done in CAD, so what software packages would be used, and how long would it take a competent CAD professional to come up with decent files? Then also an estimate of the cost of their time.

 

3. Tool Cutting - What's involved, and what are the costs.

 

4. Parts Supply - For items 'off the shelf' so to speak, things like motor, gearbox, etc., and also production of parts to be fitted separately that aren't tooled for moulding (handrail knobs, etc). What is the best small motor bar none? I personally like the old Portescap design, like the RG4, would a license be required to produce those as I imagine they're patented.

 

5. Production - At the moment I gather China is still the cheapest/most experienced place to get the moulding done. Assembly could be done there too, though part of me likes the idea of getting some jobs back into this country. Should painting, printing of logos, lining, etc, be done there too? Costs?

 

6. Packaging - Costs of tooling up a plastic holding tray and getting a box made.

 

7. Resale - Work only with shops like Bachmann, or deal purely direct via internet? Combination of both sounds reasonable, but I don't like to take business away from retailers.

 

NB: This is purely theoretical, and if my experience of the projects I start is anything to go by, something (not the least of which would be the financing) will get in the way and kill the idea stone dead before I get anywhere.

 

TIA,

 

Ian

[The Stationmaster]

I can't give exact figures, and they are undoubtedly rising, but with all the research done for nothing (or swallowed into normal business costs) you would be looking at starting at £100,000+ for the Chinese end of the job. So taking that figure (which is probably now too low) you would have to sell 1,000 items at £100 each just to cover the factory cost. Once you start to factor in transport, packaging, overheads, and trade discounts for selling through shops you are looking to either make a lot more locos and/or raise the RRP. And that's a very back of envelope starting point.

 

Incidentally I asked a toolmaker about 25 years ago about the costs of toolmaking for a Southern mogul (engine & tender but just the toolmaking cost) and he reckoned it would be about £60,000. Inflate that by UK wage increases over the last 25 years and you can see why the manufacturers have gone to China.

 

And amusing end tale - a year or so back someone wrote to a commissioner and suggested that they commission a particular pattern of Mk1 coach however the proposer clearly realised this would cost money so he was prepared to offer some financial help towards the project and he was sure that others would do the same; his offer was less than £1 Now think how many folk putting in even a tenner would be needed to finance a single small loco - it would seem better to ask for a few grand a head as a minimum.

[Ian J.]

In the case of the A1/A1X, there are quite a lot of variations and liveries to continue production with so while the initial cost would seem high there are plenty of opportunities for recovery of the initial investment, and some modest additional profit. Of course in the Terrier's specific case, another manufacturer might already be working on it which would scupper this specific idea in a single move.

[t-b-g]

At the time these special commission models first started appearing, some enquiries were made about doing a Robinson O4. At the time, the minimum production run Bachmann would consider was between 500 & 600 but I can't remember the exact number (it wasn't something obvious such as 550, it was more like 556). It never went ahead for obvious reasons.....they were doing one anyway!

 

As for supplying parts, motors etc. I recall that Bachmann see to all that, as well as the design work for the model. They know their own processes and limitations thereof far better than us "outsiders" so we would be far more likely to design a part that can't be made!

 

The easiest way to answer your question might be to contact Bachmann/Dapol/Hornby and ask them direct. Even if the project is one that might never happen, I am sure they would be happy to deal with you as an initial enquiry.

 

I fear that unless people on RMWeb have some inside knowledge that the answers may be a bit speculative.

[Catkins]

I can see where you are coming from with this thread, and I would like to offer some "food for thought" -

 

1 - The A1/A1X Terrier has been done by Dapol, which was considered well detailed when it was introduced, and now Hornby.

2 - Most commision runs seem go for 500 to 1000 units, per variant.

3 - In line with your wish to bring jobs back to the UK, would it be possible to do resin casting - which could reduce costs and required production run.

4- Motors in N guage models have increased in quality, and there is another option.

[Ian J.]

1 - The A1/A1X Terrier has been done by Dapol, which was considered well detailed when it was introduced, and now Hornby.

Dapol's model (now made by Hornby, and used as a basis for the current Dapol N gauge Terrier) has some significant errors and is certainly not up to the standard of models produced in the last decade. To my mind that is a good enough reason to look at a better version. But my reasoning also considers Kernow doing the O2 as the Terrier is a natural companion for IoW themed layouts. Also, Bachmann are doing the C and Dukedog from the Bluebell, so a Terrier could easily go alongside those. Add to that the NRM models being done by Bachmann (and in the case of the Compound a duplication of a previous model but to a better standard) and then A1 Boxhill comes into scope.

 

The predominant issue then becomes just how many of us here and railway modellers in general would consider buying a better version of a Terrier. What would the sales potential be?

[Oldddudders]

The Terrier is an interesting example, as you say it has already had a long time in the 4mm market-place, so the casual buyer may already be quite happy. Southern is not the most popular of the Big 4, and the Brighton is not the most popular of the 3 constituent companies from before 1923. Thus the market for a super-detailed Terrier in 4mm is distinctly finite. It will tend to appeal to more discerning/demanding modellers - the very people who are most likely to be interested in EM/P4 standards, rather than OO.

[JohnR]

Looking at the commission models which have been done so far, is the Terrier the best loco? I would argue that an Adams Radial is more likely to sell - certainly at least as well as the BWTs.

[Ian J.]

The Terrier is an interesting example, as you say it has already had a long time in the 4mm market-place, so the casual buyer may already be quite happy. Southern is not the most popular of the Big 4, and the Brighton is not the most popular of the 3 constituent companies from before 1923. Thus the market for a super-detailed Terrier in 4mm is distinctly finite. It will tend to appeal to more discerning/demanding modellers - the very people who are most likely to be interested in EM/P4 standards, rather than OO.

Hmmm. There's no reason (other than overly-aggressive cost cutting) why a model like the Terrier that doesn't have outside valve gear couldn't be made in such a way as to allow all three main gauges to be producable. However the market for RTR releases in EM and P4 is utterly unknown and as such very risky. Best would be to design an OO model that could be easily converted to EM/P4, which 'just' requires an 'innovative' and careful design of chassis.

 

Edit: Also, the length in the tooth of the Dapol/Hornby model shouldn't be seen as a barrier. The B1 and B17 Hornby are doing are of similar age, the Bachmann/NRM Compound I've already mentioned, plus Bachmann are willing to retool some of their similar age models to a better standard, and all to some degree fit similar arguments against them like you've outlined for the Terrier. So I think the question perhaps should be 'Why not the Terrier?'

[Ian J.]

Looking at the commission models which have been done so far, is the Terrier the best loco? I would argue that an Adams Radial is more likely to sell - certainly at least as well as the BWTs.

I would be very surprised if the Adams Radial wasn't already being considered by another commissioner and/or one of the major manufacturers. For a 'new' start-up, the risk needs to be more quantifiable and I think the Terrier is that more than the Radial.

[Karhedron]

Just to chuck in some real figures, £100,000 is about right for a R&D of a modern steam locomotive. A tank engine is simpler than a tender engine and the Terrier does not have complex valve gear or bogies to worry about so you may be able to shave a bit off that price but it is certainly the right ballpark.

[Torn-on-the-platform]

I'm surprised about the negativity of producing a new terrier, but as it seems to no longer acceptable for a model to be produced without accounting for the small variations between members, and the terriers varied quite obviously, whoever took up the challenge would have to put a lot behind the project!

 

The old Dapol/Hornby model is still reasonable but not up to modern standards, mainly for the reasons I have just outlined. They could also do with an upgrade to the motor. Whilst they are almost prototypical in strength, they are particularly loud.

 

The terrier is a very popular class of locomotive due to its longevity, diminutive character, distinctive bark, involvement in Thomas the tank (Stepney, obviously, but Boxhill is also mentioned!) and the fact that 10 have survived into preservation. It definitely wouldn't just appeal to those of the Brighton fraternity.

 

I think though that it is a valid point that the reasonable quality of the current offering may have flooded the market somewhat - I have 10 or 11. Those who aren't interested in the particular lines that the terriers run on, and already have a few of the Dapol/Hornby A1s, are unlikely to want to replace it for a model that would surely cost towards £100, thus limiting the number of those non-Brighton enthusiasts wanting one, compared to, for example, a H2 (I use this as an example of another popular, long-lived Brighton example). I personally would buy as many new terriers as funds allow, but then, it is a personal favourite.

 

Hornby have just released a new variant of the old model. I would expect that if they were currently considering upgrading it, they would take it off the market for a year or so to let demand build up a little bit.

 

In conclusion, I think that the A1/x with all its modifications would work as an addition to a main range, but wouldn't quite have the selling power to be a limited edition at an inflated price.

 

Consider this though: How many people on the NRM compound thread have claimed to have bought one despite having no justification other than 'it looks nice' - the same goes for the BWT.

[cromptonnut]

I would be very surprised if the Adams Radial wasn't already being considered by another commissioner and/or one of the major manufacturers. For a 'new' start-up, the risk needs to be more quantifiable and I think the Terrier is that more than the Radial.

 

I'd definitely grab an OO Adams Radial - I have plans already sketched out for a model based around Lyme Regis.

[Kris]

Hmmm. There's no reason (other than overly-aggressive cost cutting) why a model like the Terrier that doesn't have outside valve gear couldn't be made in such a way as to allow all three main gauges to be producable. However the market for RTR releases in EM and P4 is utterly unknown and as such very risky.

 

Given how small the market for EM and P4 is I can't see there ever being a market for RTR in these gauges especially once you consider the % of each market that would purchase the completed model.

[Invicta]

The Terrier is an interesting example, as you say it has already had a long time in the 4mm market-place, so the casual buyer may already be quite happy. Southern is not the most popular of the Big 4, and the Brighton is not the most popular of the 3 constituent companies from before 1923. Thus the market for a super-detailed Terrier in 4mm is distinctly finite. It will tend to appeal to more discerning/demanding modellers - the very people who are most likely to be interested in EM/P4 standards, rather than OO.

 

Having said that, practically every modeller I know who owns a Hornby/Dapol Terrier seems to have several of them...(as illustrated by Tom admitting to 10 or 11 a few posts back!), so maybe there's a wider appeal than to just those modellers who 'need' one for prototypical reasons.

 

I'd agree with Ian J about the Adams Radial- Unless the bottom falls out of the commissions market altogether, I'd be amazed if we aren't seeing it appearing on someone's forthcoming releases list in the next couple of years...

[Ian J.]

In conclusion, I think that the A1/x with all its modifications would work as an addition to a main range, but wouldn't quite have the selling power to be a limited edition at an inflated price.

I think the only Terriers I'd do as limited editions would be Boxhill and/or Waddon. The rest might be made in limited quantities, but they wouldn't as such be limited editions.

 

As for the costs, £100,000 is a figure I've been aware of, but I really need the split down so I can fully understand where the costs end up.

[number6]

I think the Terrier is an excellent subject. In my mind many of the negatives given so far are actually the positives.

 

Current model very long in the tooth.

Lots of variation in detail = good [see Beattie Well tank] - if you are going to do a Terrier you HAVE to do all the various detail variations.

Long career = good [suitable for lots of layouts, eras etc.]

Many liveries - which can be very well applied these days. Some of which are near impossible to the mere mortal to do by hand.

Many existent locos - as a prototype to work from and all of which could also be able to perhaps benefit in some way through sponsorship or offering credibility to special editions somehow.

 

I'm not sure there are many other small locos with quite the same appeal.

 

Here is an idea of all the bits you'll need: [from the excellent Westward Kit instructions].

 

Regards 6

[Ian J.]

I already have a Westward kit (thanks to a member on here), but the parts of any kit are somewhat different to the way a tool for injection plastic moulding is cut (to the best of my knowledge anyway). Also the chassis has to be thought of in terms of simplicity to assemble, and brass and soldering definitely aren't that.

[woodenhead]

Another thing to consider which for you would be an issue but for other existing commissioners not is marketing your product.

 

Kernow, Hattons and TMC have built up trust with the buying public with earlier commissions, they have access to good market research and have ready made known websites and advertising routes through which to tell those who might be interested what they have to offer which cuts down costs and underwrites the commissioning risk.

 

If you yourself were to commission a model you would need to think how you would first let the buying public know about this super high standard Terrier, how it is better than the Hornby model, how you would warranty the item etc. It is clear DapolDaves use of language on the LSWR models that these coaches are not Dapol per se but Kernow by Dapol; so is any warranty actually with Kernow not Dapol?

 

Once you have let the public know about your product how do you convince them to order, do you want/need payment first model later - tried disastrously with the commission for a Leader I believe as who would pay for something when they cannot see the finished model and they don't know what quality control has been set in place by the commissioner because there is nothing else from them to compare against. If you accept just pre-orders then all the risk remains with you, something Kernow are able to stand because they have experience and probably a good business relationship with Bachmann and Dapol. You would be new to them so I expect they would want costs paid up front so all risk would be on you.

[billbedford]

Also, the length in the tooth of the Dapol/Hornby model shouldn't be seen as a barrier. The B1 and B17 Hornby are doing are of similar age, the Bachmann/NRM Compound I've already mentioned, plus Bachmann are willing to retool some of their similar age models to a better standard, and all to some degree fit similar arguments against them like you've outlined for the Terrier. So I think the question perhaps should be 'Why not the Terrier?'

Because Hornby 'own' it. As soon as anyone else commits themselves to investing in a new model, Hornby is likely to revamp their existing one and kill the market for any competition. There are so many locos that have never been produced as RTR models that I wonder at the lack of imagination of people who can only suggest what has already be done.

[Ian J.]

Another thing to consider which for you would be an issue but for other existing commissioners not is marketing your product.

 

Kernow, Hattons and TMC have built up trust with the buying public with earlier commissions, they have access to good market research and have ready made known websites and advertising routes through which to tell those who might be interested what they have to offer which cuts down costs and underwrites the commissioning risk.

 

If you yourself were to commission a model you would need to think how you would first let the buying public know about this super high standard Terrier, how it is better than the Hornby model, how you would warranty the item etc. It is clear DapolDaves use of language on the LSWR models that these coaches are not Dapol per se but Kernow by Dapol; so is any warranty actually with Kernow not Dapol?

 

Once you have let the public know about your product how do you convince them to order, do you want/need payment first model later - tried disastrously with the commission for a Leader I believe as who would pay for something when they cannot see the finished model and they don't know what quality control has been set in place by the commissioner because there is nothing else from them to compare against. If you accept just pre-orders then all the risk remains with you, something Kernow are able to stand because they have experience and probably a good business relationship with Bachmann and Dapol. You would be new to them so I expect they would want costs paid up front so all risk would be on you.

All good points, and something to chew on for me but here are my initial thoughts.

 

I would not expect anything other than taking on the risk myself, I'm an unknown and certainly I'd expect the likes of Bachmann and Dapol would want to see the colour of money before even starting negotiations about taking on the project.

 

I wouldn't expect the paying punter to put up any money, but pre-orders would be a useful way of assessing market demand.

 

Advertising would have to be paid for, but setting up a website to deal with in depth details is not a problem. Getting the magazines 'on-side' would be a goal, but again I'd need to show my colours so they would see I'm serious, and until cash is in place to see this through then I hardly expect them to take any interest at all. It's just froth to them otherwise. RMweb itself is also here of course, to show progress. I'd expect to be doing nothing less than keep potential buyers informed the way DapolDave does.

 

Reputation is something that only comes about over time. The shops and the NRM have built up businesses in other areas and then built on that to get their rep. I'd be starting more or less from scratch. About the only rep I have is here on RMweb!

[kevinlms]

I would be very surprised if the Adams Radial wasn't already being considered by another commissioner and/or one of the major manufacturers. For a 'new' start-up, the risk needs to be more quantifiable and I think the Terrier is that more than the Radial.

 

Didn't Wrenn consider this loco at one time?

 

Kevin Martin

[Ian J.]

Because Hornby 'own' it. As soon as anyone else commits themselves to investing in a new model, Hornby is likely to revamp their existing one and kill the market for any competition. There are so many locos that have never been produced as RTR models that I wonder at the lack of imagination of people who can only suggest what has already be done.

Hornby took over the Terrier from Dapol, to the best of my knowledge they have never done any R&D for the Terrier. In line with statements I heard from years ago (I believe from Simon Kohler) it is often easier and cheaper to produce a new model than to improve an existing one so they could very well be starting from scratch too. However, I think Hornby's current strategy is not to invest in new tooling unless it's something brand new to them. They have made (and continue to make) enough money off the Dapol tooling that it's probably not high on their list of things to do. Having said that, I did mention in one of my replies earlier that:

Of course in the Terrier's specific case, another manufacturer might already be working on it which would scupper this specific idea in a single move.

so I'm aware of the risk.

 

As to producing something that has never been done before, while there are plenty of prototypes none is sufficiently well known enough in my eyes to take the risk on now. I am not risk averse however. If the Terrier project were to come about (and that's one mighty big if), then the next thing I'd like to look at would be Bulleid coaches, specifically the 59ft and 64ft multidoor sets. There's plenty of risk in those.

[Ian J.]

Over the last few days I've been ruminating ( ) on the commissioning idea, and specifically on production of a Terrier. I've come to the conclusion that for now at least, rather than commission, I'm going to go it alone.

 

To this end, I am going to start research, although I expect this will take some time. My time is more or less free at the moment, so short of some life event getting in the way, I can spend it 'driving the desk' of this project.

 

I can believe that there are probably a million and one reasons why this will fail. In fact, I'd like people to point them out to me so I can prepare for the worst. But, I want to do this, I want to see a better Terrier. I looked over my Dapol '662' yesterday and compared it to an 8750 and 4575 from Bachmann and saw so many reasons why it should be done anew. They might not be the things that many people would see, but I see them.

 

Now, the biggest risk is of course that one of the other manufacturers will get there before me, the most likely being Hornby. However, they have their announcement at the end of this year, and if a new Terrier isn't on it, then I have a year or so to get going. Even if they (or Bachmann or Dapol) were to announce something next year, the value of acquiring the knowledge while doing the R&D will be useful, as there are other subjects worth looking at.

 

As far as help is concerned, I'm going to need plans, accurate GA would be a good starting point. I expect the Bluebell, KESR, and IoWSR would have something. Even the NRM might have the original LB&SCR drawings. But we all know plans are only the start. Pictures from all sorts of eras are available in books and magazines, no problem there. But any knowledge on little quirks that aren't obvious would be gratefully accepted. Visits to the existing prototypes (with the exception of Waddon) will be essential, even if they are in bits (in fact, especially if they're in bits).

 

To the specification of the model itself. This has to be beyond just being a good model. It has to be something that sitting on a shelf doing nothing would still cause jaws to drop as a thing of beauty. But, it still has to be super smooth and quiet in operation. To that end, the following are my initial (and incomplete) ideas for a spec. Please feel free to criticise them constructively, so I can tune them to stand a chance of reaching my desired goal.

• It has to be able to have variations to cover all major modifications to the class. This includes correct domes, chimneys, boilers, smokeboxes, splashers/sand boxes, bunkers, etc.
  
• I want the best motor possible. Right now, right or wrong, I feel that's a coreless Portescap-type with the equivalent geartrain. I have such an item in my Wills/SEF H class, and it is a thing of beauty to me. If this is a wrong assumption, please let me know. I know it will cost money, but I never said this model would be cheap.
  
• Fully working sprung buffers. On this class that's a potential problem.
  
• Gauge adjustable chassis. Whether right or wrong, I want this model to be capable of being converted in as straightforward a fashion as possible to the following gauges: OO (coarse); OO (finescale); EM (18.2); P4 (18.83). This will mean chassis sides separated by spacers, rather than a single metal block as it commonly done these days on RTR OO. The model as assembled will have to be OO (coarse), but have an aftermarket selection of extra chassis spacers and potentially wheels & axles for prototype profile to and for EM & P4. I'm thinking that one P4 wheel profile could be suitable for OO (finescale), EM and P4, but I need to know more before deciding on anything.
  
• Minimum radius curve in OO (coarse) would be third radius. In OO (finescale), EM & P4 it would probably be at least three foot radius. Let me know if it needs to be a larger radius.
  
• Footplate to be metal to help with weight.
  
• Brake rodding supplied as separate scale-sized components to be fitted by the buyer.
  

I will need a suitable CAD program to start 'building' in. It needs to be something that can have something like SolidWorks as a program to eventualy migrate to, via other programs if necessary. I'm thinking of DoubleCAD for now as it can work alongside AutoCAD which I gather Solidworks can import files from. The biggest potential issue I can see is that DoubleCAD (at least in its free version) doesn't have 3D capability, and at some point prototype parts will need to be 3D printed so am I looking at the wrong program?

 

So, am I a fool? Possibly. Am I being overly ambitious? Probably. I know the chances of this actually happening are a million-to-one, but right now I've nothing to lose by doing research. Also, I feel that part of my ambition here is to move RTR on to the next generation. It won't be RTR EM or P4, or even RTR OO (finescale), but it will be part of the way there and open up the choice of gauge for the modeller rather than restricting it. I believe in improving quality as time goes on, not reducing it.

 

If this did by some miracle work out, then I have (as previously mentioned in the thread) ideas for coaching stock. Not Terrier-specific, but some multi-door Bulleids, something the majors are unlikely to touch due to restricted operation and low numbers, unless commissioned to do them.

 

Finally, as in all things in life, going it alone is very hard. It can be full of depressing setbacks that can stop work continuing. So, I make a request now that anyone who is even remotely interested in seeing a new, better Terrier, please give me some moral support. Even if ultimately all that happens from this is another company produces it, it will at least get it done (though probably not to the same spec of chassis).

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Thoughts. You are looking at a very expensive chassis block construction there: frames and spacers implies multi-part assembly, which bumps the cost up relative to a cast block as the basis of the chassis. Look at how the chassis and keeper plate/wiper pick up assembly are made on your Bachmann 57xx. Imagine making three different keeper plate units to fit on the same basic narrow cast block, much in the style of the 57xx, but having taller sides representing the frame plates effectively increasing the width of the chassis block from 'OO minimum' to what is required for EM and P4. (in other words the cast chassis block core sits in a plastic 'U' channel moulding.) The advantages with this are that the assembly practise stays the same, all the separate applied components ot the keeper plate like wiper strips can be the same and the only variant part is the keeper plate moulding. Now, if it is possible to split the keeper plate moulding tool along the length of the centreline, and put in a wider spacer for EM, widest spacer for P4, all the detail on the keeper plate tooling is common to all three gauges, cuts cost.

 

This potentially also advances the state of the art in RTR appearance as the frame tops in the under boiler gap would be represented by the keeper plate moulding sides, if the cast core is kept low at this point. Trade off with weight here of course.

 

Weight wise, I feel this kind of model cries out for a largely die cast body, with applied plastic detail variation. Largely metal construction would be a selling point for me, at last a return to the standards of H-D, and much contemporary HO.