mdvle

A posting on the Class 11/12 thread indicates they aren't scheduled to arrive until 2022/2023 thus there would appear to be lots of space for the E1 to fit in after the 16XX.

The irony of the person posting the link to the story not even reading the story:

And Kernow pulled the plug on it because, perhaps amongst other reasons, 2 1/2 years on it had made no progress because of insufficient interest. Like anything in this hobby when it comes to making models we don't have all the details, but if one assumes DJModels was correct with the statement that the Class 71 tooling was done such that a Class 74 could be done as well with a small(?) amount of additional tooling, and if there were insufficient orders given the then lower necessary threshold to make the project viable, then the idea of Hornby doing a Class 74 would seem to be remote. Perhaps in the future, when Hornby's finances are healthier, they may revisit the idea but I suspect for now anyone wanting a Class 74 is looking at a kit or a kitbash.

Walthers has several announcements, including the return of their Steel Making series of buildings and rolling stock https://www.walthers.com/blog/national-train-show-2019/

ScaleTrains.com has announced the Thrall-Trinity 42' Coil Steel Car, preorders due August 12th eta next year. 3 different base cars, several different hoods NS, Conrail, CSX, Indiana Harbor Belt, Chicago Heights Terminal, CP https://www.scaletrains.com/collections/rivet-counter-ho-scale-thrall-trinity-42-coil-steel-car

I wonder if one of the issues is that the models have been designed to be produced in the UK, thus limiting interest from those who are more familiar / interested with the now expected Chinese production?

PWRS / North American Railcar have announced the National Steel Car 5431 3-Bay Hopper, this new hopper has been ordered in large numbers last year by CP (5,900 over 4 years) and CN (1,000 over 2 years) to replace the iconic Canadian grain hoppers. https://www.pwrs.ca/announcements/view.php?ID=15501

I suspect each railroad has it's own standards for track, though my understanding is that tie spacing can vary as you say based on lightly used track / max. speed and probably weight. GO Transit (commuter Rail in Toronto area) has their standards online and their standard is 20 3/8" on centre on mainline, or 21 1/4" on centre for yard, spurs, etc. (see section 9.1 - http://www.gosite.ca/engineering_public/GO Track Standards/GO Transit Track Standards Revision 01.pdf )

Spring Creek Model Trains (a hobby shop) are according to Rapido going to do an exclusive run of the "missing" Ski Train coaches that Rapido didn't announce last month to allow people to model a complete 14 car train. Nothing on their website yet - https://www.springcreekmodeltrains.com/ but announced in the Rapido video about the Ski Train released today.

Rapido showing off the Ski Train - note they have a link to a hobby shop that is exclusively doing the 3 cars that Rapido didn't announce for those who want a complete 14 car train

Broadway Limited has NYC Niagara 4-8-4 models arriving in August, now with Paragon3 Sound, $500 https://www.broadway-limited.com/paragon3nycniagara4-8-4.aspx

Just note that the end of the announcement indicates 2021 for the first release, so anyone needing anything sooner will need to look elsewhere...

Alternately, it gives Hattons a head start in getting the sale if anyone (well, at least anyone who deals with Hattons/retailers in general) announces one as Hattons can quickly send out a specific email to you. Sort of like how with some items you search for on Amazon they instead offer a button to "inform you if the item becomes available in the future".

It is doubtful that the OO market could really support 2 modern Class 92 models, and pretty much guaranteed that the much smaller N market cannot.

So, as a bystander with no direct knowledge, this comes across as a compromise to try and deal with a problem when the government (as the ultimate funding body) has said no to the best solution, that being a new inland route. Alternately, be interesting from a curiosity point of view if anyone actually approached the government with the idea. As for the proposed solution, based on the limited information available from the linked website I doubt it makes many people happy. In addition to the obvious beach issues, and despite the claim about the importance of the look of the cliffs, there will still be netting applied to the cliffs, whether to the same extent or increased. Further, as it obvious from the images, the look of the cliffs will be forever altered anyway as they intend to create an elevated base for a length of the cliffs, somewhat camouflaged by placing a walkway on top of it. Which brings us to the current discussion, if you aren't maintaining the look of the cliffs then why not just remove the cliffs? The somewhat cynical response would be it's not so much the number of properties involved, but who owns at least one of those said properties. But I suspect NR is being truthful about the disruption issue. It would be a very brave, and perhaps foolish, person to allow trains to continue to operate along the route when we already have one well documented example of the cliffs coming over the tracks. Obviously the respective experts would know better, but it wouldn't surprise me if the risk of further landslips increases significantly once you start disturbing the cliffs both from the increased ability of water to play havoc as well as the risk of disturbing what "structural integrity" there is to the cliff material with removals and heavy equipment moving around. To me the only real question, should this go ahead, is how many years of protection it provides given how climate change seems to be moving faster in many respects than the experts have predicted.

Zooming in using the Google Earth app gives a continuous roof, so perhaps a 153?

But that assumes that there actually is some N Class 92 tooling, which in many ways seems doubtful given that all that was over shown was a 3D printed item that sort of looked like a 92.

Athearn, preorders due July 26th, eta June 2020 Genesis - 4-8-8-4 Big Boy - $679.98 / $769.98 http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/062819/01_GEN_4-8-8-4_BigBoy_062819.pdf Genesis - Trinity 3-Bay Covered Hopper - Data only models ready for your own reporting mark / road numbers - Brown, Grey http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/062819/02_GEN_Trinity_Hopper_062819.pdf RTR - FMC 4700 Covered Hopper - Reading Blue Mountain & Northern, BNSF, BN, C&NW, Rio Grande, Interstate Commodities http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/062819/03_RTR_FMC_4700_Hopper_062819.pdf RTR - 40' Smooth Side Container - Japan Line, YS Line, Atlantic Coast Line, SHOWA, DART, Seatrain, Sealand http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/062819/04_RTR_40ft_Container_062819.pdf RTR - Ford F-850 Grain Truck - White, Blue, Orange, Purina Mills, Barton Family Farms, Cargill, Pool, Tan, Green, Red http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/062819/05_RTR_Ford_850_Grain_Truck_062819.pdf Roundhouse - 40' Wood Reefer - Pacific Fruit Express, Swift, Bangor and Aroostook, Soo Line, Oscar Mayer. Western Fruit Express http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/062819/06_RND_40ft_Wood_Reefer_062819.pdf Roundhouse - 50' Gondola - Southern, Conrail, David J. Joseph, Herzog, TH&B, CB&Q, CSX, Railgon, NS, UP http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/062819/07_RND_50ft_Gondola_062819.pdf

Athearn has 2 this month, preorders due July 26 with an eta of June 2020 4-8-8-4 Big Boy - $399.98 / $499.98 http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/062819/08_N_4-8-8-4_BigBoy_062819.pdf 40' Smooth Side Container - Japan Line, YS Line, Atlantic Coast Line, SHOWA, DART, Sealand, Seatrain http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/062819/09_N_40ft_Container_062819.pdf

Given I am guessing nobody in the know will comments, some (somewhat educated) guesswork. The first variable is the state of the company. A long established company with in essence a "library" of existing tooling that can provide a steady stream of guaranteed (1) profit can take a different view than a young company with no easy source of revenue. A second variable will be the popularity of the model, not so much in its viability (unless there is lots of competition), but in the amount of secondary runs that can be expected to be successful. The example I would give here would be ScaleTrains.com, who in a podcast to paraphrase their comment called their SD40-2 (2) model a "decade product" because they expect to be able to continue making models with that tooling for at least 10 years. So if you expect to be able to use the tooling extensively, then it might be worth spending a bit more on the tooling quality if that is possible. The perceived rule of thumb is that tooling isn't amortized, that each project is expected to cover its costs and at least break even on the first production run. I suspect that this is true, for there really is no guarantee is this hobby that (with perhaps a few exceptions) you can bank on subsequent runs. I base this guess on several things: a) the obvious example, the new and young companies can't afford to have that much debt hanging over their companies given they don't have the existing models to generate revenue to cover the borrowing costs. b) not every project is going to be a success financially. Whether the market has been misjudged and they don't sell as many as expected, or it turns out someone else is also making a new version and cutting into sales, some projects are going to make a loss at least on the first run. If you aren't aiming to at least break even, then this would simply be even worse, causing more financial issues. c) depending on the model, it may be several to many years before the market can support an additional run. You aren't going to only cover half your costs on a model if you can't make another run for 5 years. As for viability, I suspect the above covers it - someone needs to do some numbers and decide if the number of expected sales will cover the costs in developing the model. But I will point out that an established company, that is financially healthy, can fudge the decision making process in determining the viability of a given project. Again (just because he has been so open over the years), an example is Rapido Trains where the needs for the owner's personal layout or personal interest, combined with the revenue from an established base of models, means there are projects being done where the expectation is that the model won't break even, or that it is a gamble worth taking. (1) this assumes that they are reasonably prudent in their secondary runs and don't produce an amount that leaves them with unsold inventory in the warehouse costing them money (2) for those unfamiliar with US trains, the EMD SD40-2 was such a successful diesel that just under 4,000 were made between 1972 and 1989, and they were so common that you really can't model the mid 70s to mid 90s without having that engine, and more likely lots of them.

To be clear I have no direct involvement, just a model train person, but I will provide a valid source for some of what follows. One of the problems is that most of the companies involved don't really provide much of a view of the "behind the scenes" aspect. The big exception to this is Jason Shron, founder of Rapido Trains, who has from the beginning providing much information on how things work (at least for Rapido Trains). Not everything posted by Rapido is behind the scenes, but if you follow their Facebook page they frequently post factory photos, as well as provided information in their newsletters and YouTube page(*) The research certainly happens in the country of origin, and some companies do a lot of the CAD / drawings in country of origin, but some companies also outsource the CAD to China. Correct that the actual making needs to be in China - this is for several reasons including the (still relatively) low cost of labour but also includes things like the supply chain being next door - the proverbial company making the motors being done the street, the company doing etching being across the road, etc. Think this is a bit unclear. Model trains is a very niche market, and likely considered a rounding error in terms of Chinese manufacturing. But it is typically done in specialized factories that are dedicated to model production - there is a specific skill the workers need. So when a company talks about production slots they are talking about slots in these small, specialized factories and not slots in some big factory that also makes other items. If you look at the videos and photos from Rapido you see what is a (relatively) small space that is set up for making model trains and not much else. What Rapido hasn't shown is the injection process itself which may well be done in places that also do non-train related stuff. Nobody I believe have publicly come out with exact figures, though tooling is often said to be in the $100k mark. One of the few / only specific examples that I am aware of is from Rapido. They announced and tooled a US model (Alco RS-11), and after the tooling was done and the samples were being shown publicly somebody queried the height of the cab... Rapido confirmed that they had made a mistake and tooled the cab too high, and they fixed the error. Whether is was new tooling or modifying existing tooling is unknown, but the cost to fix the tooling was $15k - https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Rapido-News-109---New-freight-cars--new-RS-11-order-date--and-we-re-hiring-.html?soid=1101318906379&aid=g-SzXvHaIjQ As for a break down, my guess is that tooling is the most expensive part and the others start in a distant 2nd place. If I had to guess assembly would come in second - quite a number of people involved and it is all repetitive manual labour - cutting out parts from sprues, painting, pad printing, assembling all those parts takes time. Difficult to know, in part because the models themselves have changed. Those models of 30+ years ago needed far less tooling, and perhaps simpler tooling, as they weren't necessarily as accurate in shape or had as many added parts. As for production numbers, that is complicated. The first thing is are you talking total number of models being made, or the minimum number of one particularly paint scheme? The second aspect is the number of items needed to break even, and that depends on the finances of a given model. Obviously fewer product made means a higher price is needed to cover the costs, whereas if you have a model that sells in large numbers you can get away with selling at a lower price, or making more profit. On June 24th Rapido did a live Facebook video announcing some new Canadian products, and at the end Jason answered some questions that viewers asked. One of the questions was about making some steam era passengers cars, and Jason's answer was that Rapido needed to sell about 5,000 cars to break even. Now that 5,000 could be divided up covering 5 different paint schemes, etc but you would still in the end need 5,000 items sold. On the other hand 5 years ago the Pendolino in N with Revolution/Rapido needed only 1,000 units (**). But that was 5 years ago, with 5 year old Chinese labour costs, and perhaps other financial differences. When it comes to additional production runs, then the number of items comes down to how few the factory is willing to make given the costs and time involved. Common misconception. Scanning, while it can be a help in getting a correct shape, doesn't output a set of CAD drawings. Laser scanning creates what is called a point cloud(**), which is a 3D object made out of thousands/millions of little dots which is the result of the laser beam hitting the prototype and bouncing back, resulting in a "point" or a coordinate in X,Y,Z space repeated across the entire prototype. This point cloud object must then be transformed into traditonal CAD drawings by a human being. You can see an example of a point cloud image in the Cavalex Class 91 thread - https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/142787-all-new-rtr-class-91-and-mark-4-carriages/&do=findComment&comment=3571582 So if a mould has been lost or damaged, a new mould would need to be created. If the CAD already exists then it should be reasonably easy otherwise new CAD drawings would need to be created whether converting from a scan or by doing the more traditional way of using measurements and drawings. * For those interested: Rapido YouTube channel - includes some factory tours - https://www.youtube.com/user/rapidotrains/videos Rapido Newsletter archive (North American) - various newsletters feature factory and other production information - https://www.rapidotrains.com/content/rapido-newsletters ** Pendolino thread, first message gives the 1,000 unit number - https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/92432-n-gauge-class-390-pendolino-post-kickstarter-with-rapido/&tab=comments#comment-1657148

Not really. Making an assumption on how the layout is being operated, but if you "slow" things down and operate locos at scale speeds and observe the rules, pause for the things that in real life take time like coupling and hand throwing switches, allow the time for a person to "walk" to their task and unsurprisingly even a condensed layout can take real amounts of time to operate. So even allowing for the condensing away of the long periods of time where there is no rail traffic moving at all, given only spending an hour or so at a time operating and recreating an entire real day can take several operating sessions and given the need to complete tasks before the next timetabled event it can be fun yet a bit stressful.

Individual modeller budgets can be variable - one can postpone other items to next year or use credit - but at some point that average modeller will have a "cheap" year either to pay of the credit or pay for the other things that are accumulating. But overall if you look at the hobby as an entirely the amount spent per year is going to remain reasonably constant as the averages even out across the population of modellers. But what happens will depend on a specific modellers area of interest, and to a lesser extent the issues surrounding production in China and the challenges it can periodically present. Several months ago I counted and I think I came up with around 30 new items (new tooling) announced last year, plus all the additional runs of existing models. So far this year we have a Class 92, Mk5, Class 91, Mk 4, PFA, PTA/JTA/JUA, TEA (Cavelex), KFA/PFB, SECR Box Van, Hornby had 9 items so that makes at least 18 new items for half of this year. [edit] oops, make that 20 new items, as Hornby also announced the Terrier and Heljan the Class 45 [/edit] [edit2] and Revolution IPA, so 21 new items[/edit2] So the new items are there, though maybe not for your particular interests. It's not so much crowd funding that is causing issues for retailers, but rather the direct Internet / show sale model that is causing an issue as well as exclusive retailer commissions. Which is another way of saying that the retailers need to adapt or die.

Exactrail have announced the Berwick 7440 Boxcars https://exactrail.com/collections/berwick-7440-appliance-boxcar