SamTom

Dunsignalling writes:

The problem is purely mathematical. The further back one goes, the more railway companies there are and the greater the risk that, if a manufacturer does pick on a particular coach type, a big chunk of the potential market will decide it's not the one they want... (etc.)

I'm afraid that Dunsignalling writes nothing more or less than good sense...

But: I believe mine is a drum still worth beating. The conditions of supply being fixed, for now at least, the maths mentioned above dictate that (we) look to the demand more closely.

The key, in my opinion, is selecting carriage types that were still in use in early BR days (up to, say, the mid to late fifties). Kernow's Gateway and Bachmann's Birdcage stock are going to be the proof of that particular pudding.

Or: selecting carriages that are run on popular preserved railways, or in special settings, that the 'toy train' public as well as more serious modellers have seen, become familiar with and (at least sometimes) become especially fond of. Exactly what has been done with the locomotives, I suggest, including the Single.

Loco hauled Met/LT stock?

Re G-BOAF's video, above, for which thanks...

I should have realised that the sound of the engine would have been as outstanding as the engineering of that wheel. Now I've got to wonder if I can afford to update my reservation to include dcc sound... and then update my layout control... then dcc my other stock... The sounds are as pretty as a big one cylinder bike, or steam narrowboat; how much can I risk beggaring myself? Sleepless nights ahead!

I won't think about the smoke. I won't!

My only reservation about the video: how much more magic if the Single had been hauling Victorian stock? Back to beating a drum which I mean to continue on: carriages to match engines!

All those beautiful pregrouping engines in glorious liveries that we've seen; but there is for sale (rtr and/or at a price most of us can even dream of affording) notone realistic rake of pregrouping passenger stock. And I haven't the skills to make them.

Maybe the mistake is to use the word 'pregrouping': is it perhaps a slightly vague, dismissive, almost demeaning word?

Who's for some rtr Edwardian or even Victorian stock? Or are some of us condemned just to reminisce with pretty but, in the context of our layouts, depurposed engines?

G-BOAF; now I'm wondering what sort of aircraft... I wonder if I can find it on search...

Ronny writes (above):

I'm pretty sure all you said was that you don't like "speculators" because you don't like "speculators". And the Chinese REALLY don't like "speculators".

 

I also think you popped in a claim that "speculators" could or would prevent modellers from buying this latest offering.

 

I suspect your problem is with a hypothetical scenario something like where Rapido offers a never to be repeated limited edition which are all bought up by an unscrupulous individual who resells them for a huge profit i.e. totally different to what is actually happening.

"Speculators"? Why the inverted commas? People who invest other than in capital or infrastructure, in the hope of speculative profit... And who seek a restricted market where none is pre-existing... No inverted commas needed, I think!

The suggestion in your final paragraph is an Aunt Sally, with no bearing on anything I said.

I should have made it clearer that I was reacting to a particular post, and perhaps I should have explained which one. I didn't do so because I wanted to avoid being personal, as far as possible. The poster quoted does make it clear that (s)he'd like to see the market restricted - which is fair enough, even if some of us can't agree. But then goes on to say that it is Not really good enough and a politician type answer that a commitment to such a restriction is or is not being made. It is at this point that my response becomes valid.

I quote the post concerned below.

(Break for a moment due to spoilt dog demanding attention. Weimaraner: boy do they demand!)

I'm afraid that was as clear as mud as to the format of the offer. Pre-orders, quantity limits, re-runs etc.

 

Mr Greenwood said at 8 mins in: "decision not yet taken". To be honest, for those considering purchase as an investment (don't criticise me for that, money's good as anyone's) it really needs to be a clear and concise offer at launch. Not really good enough and a politician type answer. My purchasing decision 'will not yet be taken' until we get clarification. I don't want to get stung again, as I said before.

The APT is clear. Why not this one? Just say one way or the other. To mind this means there will be reruns but they don't want to say too loudly in case it slows or devalues the initial demand. So why not just say this is not limited on the website instead of being vague?

Back again...

As for the accusation of circularity: If I have failed to argue not only that speculation 'isn't liked', but that there is extremely good, and not at all circular reason why it's *more than disliked*, then that is my failing as an advocate within the limited space available. (I question whether I failed altogether - the post did get some measure of support.)

Sorry about the dog.

Edit: * I have toned down a phrase because it was a bit immoderate. The new wording is between asterisks.

Speculation. A divisive subject.

Political rant follows. To avoid it, jump to *** below or skip this post!

Under certain circumstances of imperfect markets, it can be argued that a degree of arbitrage is helpful in oiling the wheels. Again under certain circumstances, futures speculations can even out market fluctuations. But, even then, a high price is or can be paid by those not privy to the market. In extreme cases it leads to the starvation and food riots across the developing world as we've seen in the past couple of years.

In general, spivs and profiteers, who are people who rely on or even generate imperfect markets, are despised, for good reason (particularly but not only if the goods involved, such as food, are more critical than model engines). In many countries, especially but by no means only in war time, it's a death sentence.

We live in a liberal, or neo-liberal, society: speculation is permitted, under considerable protest. However; restricting a market to help speculators (as opposed to, say, protecting patents) is almost universally a civil or criminal offence in most ordered countries. Again, in China, it can be punished by death. That, living in a neo-liberal society, we suffer an increasingly insoucient, divided and economically inefficient society, may have come to your notice; some of the more left-politically driven amongst us may feel aware of an unhealthy link between a neo-liberal government (which claims to be deristricting the economy) and precisely those speculators benefitting from restrictions, including speculatory, which remain untouched.

*** So. What to make of admitted, if not proud, speculators who want to see the output of models trains restricted, so that people who want the models go without in favour of those who want to make a profit? Well, nobody is going to starve or go without necessities as a result, so a death sentence would probably be a bit ott.

But I hope that in my poor way I have demonstrated why I don't find speculators attractive. And I hope that some people, reading my post here, may agree with me that another post, seeking speculative restriction of our little market, has actually been profoundly political, as well as provocative and - frankly, to me - offensive. And, by the way, I didn't like spivs long before I understood why, which is why there are one or two shops I won't touch, even though it means cutting off my nose...

PostScript: it would be quite wrong to take my rant here as in any way seeking to deny anyone's right to have a diametrically opposed opinion to mine, or to try to stop them from expressing it. But, if you express provocative opinions, even unitentionally, you may expect that someone like me will rise to the bait. I hope, of course, that you will either argue your corner or concede. Or you can just ignore me, of course!

Edited for typos.

It'll be a lovly looking loco in sure. The dcc ready price puts me off a little, being the same price as the Heljan Garrett , a bigger loco with two motors.

I resisted, but now I've placed my order. It'll look good on SR!

I only ever saw the Single once, when I was a small child. It was staggering, even when static as it was. I have no memory of the tender, however, so yesterday I saw the (photos of the) tenders with a fresh eye. Purely for myself, the smaller one was completely wrong, out of proportion. Since the preserved engine only ever had a 'wrong' tender because there wasn't a 'right' one available (have I got that right?), I'm certainly not going to buy the less attractive tender because it's technically 'correct' for the era I model. I imagine that, like me, most people will write their own history and buy their tender for aesthetics rather than authenticity in this case.

All that lining, over the driving wheels... And all that front-facing lining... Oh yum yum. Who needs driving wheels by the dozen when for the same price you can have that colour? And the size! But it's the quality, not the quantity, that I'll be paying for!

By the way (and this is a drum I will bang at every opportunity): something (beautifully varnished!) to go behind this engine will have me digging even deeper into my pocket!

A very exciting and welcome choice of subject. I congratulate Locomotion on their choice and RapidoTrains for being selected to manufacture it.

 

Kettle fan that I am, I'm looking forward to my first locomotive made by RapidoTrains.

 

It was only a matter of time for the NRM to commission a model of this iconic piece of British engineering and railway history. It makes me wonder when they will be ready to do the dynamometer coach in plastic (and who will be brave enough to take that on).

 

I can still imagine a "race to the north" presentation set with Hardwicke one day.

Meanwhile, I'll dream...

http://www.vintagecarriagestrust.org/images/2856/2856gnr24.jpg

(This jpg appears in: http://brassgoggles.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=29504.0)

Although... This mention of P4 has led me to take another look at those (magnificent) wheels, and their context; and I'm starting to wonder what sort of compromises are going to be necessary for 00. (Edit:Sorry, missed the earlier post mentioning this.)

Why, oh why, Mr Hornby, after the war when you had a clean slate, did you elect to go back to this rubbish hybrid scale???

Stovepipe;

Thank you! Nothing more I could have asked for. 1st corridor Maunsells are easy to come by - if they're the right diagram. Otherwise I've got a couple of Bulleids that could be upraded...

Or time for a well argued suggestion to one of the Big 2. I've got a piece of paper somewhere.

Thanks again.

Postscript: It seems that the low window FK Maunsell made by Hornby, represented by, for example, R4390, is spot on. All over the place from about £20. (I know that FKs don't sell so well, but what a bargain for such pretty carriages!)

I've always wanted to have a Plum and Split Milk carriage put in at least an appearance on my still im-permanent way. I've finally decided to do something about it. Research (years ago, which led to a copy of Backtrack which I've misplaced) provided a pic (b/w, sadly) of a rake of new Thompsons on show at - iirc - Addison Road / Olympia; but was otherwise, despite my best efforts, unproductive.

I run early BR (SR). I know that SR painted at least one corridor set (Maunsell? I thought newbuilt Bulleid... both?) in this livery. May I therefore ask the following?

1. Can anyone specify the lining that was used with this livery? My best guess was that it was gold and black, to the dimensions later used with crimson and cream: but I've heard a report that there was some red there, too.

2. Was there a plum band below the cantrail?

3. Can anyone suggest which set(s) were so liveried?

Absent better information, I'll run a Thomson liveried coach on an inter-regioal.

It quite surprises me that, while the big two in our hobby will happily ring all sorts of livery changes on the engines they produce, they r remain very conservative when it comes to carriages. Surely, a nice rake of P&SM, on appropriate carriages, would sell a treat.

I assume that this gap may be because H & B have as much problem as I researching this.

Or is it, as I've always felt, that the broader range of our hobby doesn't much care about what coaches they run so long as they're pulled by a pretty steamer?

A beautifully liveried coach is every bit a stunning as a similar engine!

There was an interesting revelation in today's guardian concerning the new 12 sided pound. The pound now resembles an old three penny bit.

 

 

Already being called a George (Osborne).

Too much side, two-faced, and worthless!