Gerald Henriksen

I am beginning to think someone has it out for the model train makers - the latest GWR livery is problematic and this one looks like it will require extra work with all those stripes.

I should also point out that just as I appreciate the time and effort put in by the knowledgeable experts on RMweb to share their expertise with the rest of us, I also am aware of and appreciate the time, effort, and most importantly the money that the people who are behind the small manufacturers put in.

I have a great deal of respect for the knowledge shared, particularly given that the effort has been made not just to point out the issues but to demonstrate them with visual images and/or references to prototype images which takes more time and effort than just listing a bunch of points. My point wasn't to comment upon the points made by Miss Prism, or the method, but rather to point out that if a manufacturer wants to wait until the model is in production to unveil it then the onus it entirely on the manufacturer to get things right. Suggesting that someone volunteer their expertise doesn't work if no one is aware that such expertise is needed because the entire process is being done in secret.

Speaking in generic terms, not specific to this model or company, it is up to the people/company producing the models (if they are interested in making an accurate model, which is sometimes a big if) to either generate the in house expertise to make an accurate model or to reach out (in private as necessary) to people/organizations that have the required knowledge. It is of no use to volunteer as an error spotter when the item in question is already in production - and in this case a November delivery means if it is not already in production then it is likely days away. It is also, obviously, much cheaper to catch errors in the CAD stage before the expensive tooling is produced, which would have happened many months ago.

I am happy for you (and no, I am not being sarcastic) that you can find enjoyment in a model that is generally speaking the right shape. But for many of us accuracy does matter (not the least of which because, at least until the big money is spent on tooling, it is the cheapest part of the process to get right). If a company expect me to pay £225, or £400 if I want sound, then I expect them to go through the effort at making an accurate model, particularly given how in this day an age there is so much information available to allow them to get it right.

Particularly given the announcement indicates they are about to start tooling, which sounds a bit ominous given the apparent number of easy to find errors.

And why would a West Midlands commuter train be running to Euston? And how woud have your average passenger in the past told the difference between various First group trains that all looked the same regardless of franchise?

Latest newsletter is out: http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Rapido-News-Vol--13---Lucky-for-Brummie-bus-fans-.html?soid=1101318906379&aid=11TWL6AOE-M Pictures of the 3D scan data for the bus, Rails of Sheffield's LNER Dynamometer car, second sample of the Stirling Single, final samples of the Revolution OO TEA tank wagon, and update on a cause of some delays to Revolution Trains products.

Rapido News Vol. 13 with 2 photos of the first sample: http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Rapido-News-Vol--13---Lucky-for-Brummie-bus-fans-.html?soid=1101318906379&aid=11TWL6AOE-M

You can choose to allow/disallow the sharing for information - and you can later change your mind in the preferences section of 360. For those interested Autodesk has a page describing what and why: https://www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/fusion-360-information-about-product-usage Another feature of 360 that might interest some is that a version is also available for Android and iOS, and while I doubt that you can necessarily make models on a phone or tablet it could be useful if you want to go out and compare your creation with the prototype, or to even evaluate and ponder your creation while commuting or on a quick work break.

Why would there be given that it is NOT a Kernow product? As Dave has said in replying on this issue, the Class 74 is a DJM product that is being crowd funded, and as such it is up to DJM to handle all the publicity, etc. Kernow is merely being kind enough to handle the payment taking/holding of money for the project, and harping on about Kernow not doing enough could simply harm future crowd funded models by convincing Kernow that the benefits of helping aren't worth the hassles.

In this time period, what stock would have been used for the fish from Brixham, and for the coal from Kingswear to Hollicombe?

In case you haven't seen it a commentary of a young person's Brixham holiday in 1959, including spottings at Churston on a Summer Saturday: http://www.jaggers-heritage.com/resources/Brixham%2C%20Devon%20holiday%201959.pdf

Lionel Strang, who has a podcast, believes that a lot of what is bringing people into the hobby these days is YouTube, because people can spend hours watching videos on YouTube getting sidetracked onto topics suggested by YouTube. Watching of videos of model trains (or perhaps real ones), can then spark the interest of something to do. As for the cost, while I don't want to dismiss it as irrelevant, its worth noting that any hobby (photography, drones, model cars, golfing, music, etc.) are all expensive and when looked at from that viewpoint model trains aren't unusual.

Companies all the time discard either product ranges, or even entire divisions of the company, because while profitable they don't generate the profit levels wanted. Have to make the numbers look good to please the stock markets. And of course one of the most successful companies in the world, Apple, totally ignore the lower segments of the market. Would you accuse them of not having a good business strategy? It is difficult to apply generalities to business, but just because something is profitable doesn't mean that it would make good business sense for a particular company to pursue it. Still to early to make a statement about Dapol. Dapol is, I think, still dealing with the significant change in staff that occurred (and possibly issues in China). My understanding is that the new staff have a background in O, which would make O a more natural "quick fix" to pursue while dealing with a learning curve on a number of issues when dealing with a new job. While a number of external issues are influencing things, I would be surprised if Dapol didn't eventually continue with new stuff in N given the existing market share they have once things have settled down. [despite what some people would like to believe, a lot of this stuff takes years to learn / straighten out even when you come with existing knowledge]

Is that true, or just an assumption? If, as is clear from the continent, franchises aren't a EU requirement, then why couldn't a government just let a franchise disappear when it ends?

To me the gloss is worse, it looks like a shiny 1970s kids toy, particularly around the cab. Actually, I would like to thank Hornby for reminding me of something I had forgotten. Seeing the actual GWR units had me thinking it might be something to model, but this reminded me of the private message I sent to someone when the GWR livery was introduced pointing out the reliance on paint texture would be problematic to model. Needless to say the idea of a GWR layout has been abandoned as I suspect dealing with the toy plastic look would eliminate the contrasts in the livery.

Not saying the track is in great condition, but its appearance is also greatly exaggerated by the use of a zoom lens on the camera.

I think it is telling that the market seems to be quite content to allow Heljan to own it (with a bit of activity from Dapol). If others believed the O market to be a truly growing market they would be entering it. As for the question of N, again telling that despite a test Hornby have decided to stay out of the market indicating that the market, while certainly healthier than O, isn't as big as some believe (with the flip side being that it has allowed for options like Revolution Trains to fill a demand that the larger operations feel they can't).

Spring Mills Depot announced N&W CF, CG, CH, C2, C10, and C30 Cabooses http://www.springmillsdepot.com/nwmain.htm More information on the links to the right of the announcement, particularly artwork and ordering links.

London Reconnections has an article on the works being done at Waterloo: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/back-future-relengthening-shortening-waterloo/

It looks like the flange of the left wheel is on top of the rail, while the right wheel has fallen inside of its rail. Also don't see any sign of either rail looking out of place, which doesn't rule out the rail falling back into place or it happening in an area not covered by the picture.

I was referring more generally (and it also doesn't always apply to Oxford). Yes, many models have duplication. But there are also many prototypes that will never be popular enough to allow for duplication, in which case a bad model kills off the chance of an accurate model. Or cases where either both or all models have issues meaning an accurate model isn't feasible.

To Oxford, likely not given that this isn't their first model with issues. On the other hand, it can hurt the hobby if by releasing an inaccurate model they remove the market for an accurate model to be made by someone else - for a likely example look at the Mk3 (which in fairness hasn't been released yet, but then again about that track record...)

Wage for Dave? Interest on loans? Travel costs (going to China wont' be cheap)? Advertising? Profit to fund other models? Profit to hedge against a model that fails to meet expectations? Business taxes? Profit margin for the retailer (the retailer isn't paying £105), cost of shipping (not just from China but also to retailers once the models have arrived in the UK), etc, etc. There is a lot of overhead costs involved in making a model, in addition to the direct costs - research, design, production.