frobisher

The abundance of competing Class 47 and 37 models would indicate probably yes. Because the 33 was an early Lima model, I think it's more heavily lodged in the modelling psyche than perhaps it should be based on historical geographical distribution.

The biggest problem I can see is that the Hornby wouldn't want to produce a new track range that was aimed solely at the UK market. Their set track range has supplanted all of those of the inherited European ranges now so a "streamline" range would likely still only make sense as H0 track

It's one of the reasons why Kato is very DCC compatible. This I would see as a small exposed piece of PCB underneath the point at a convenient position. Links/clips could be supplied, but it would also give solder points to allow more traditional wiring operation of the point. If I get time today, I'll try and do a diagram of what I have in my mind for this.

What I would like to see is a certain degree of "self containment" in point work almost a la Kato. Not moulded ballast or integral point motors, but the electrical do dads. Live frog pointwork that does not require external switch management, that is implemented in a robust way. In N gauge at least, Kato offer their #5 (I think...) point set up so that you can have it as live frog or dead (the frog is metal, but is insulated from the heel (I think - not 100% au fait with the terminology?) rails that exit the point), it can also set up as power routing (as is the default for Hornby track) or fully live. These settings are made using screws to make links on the bottom of the point.

Presumably you mean 86 rather than 85..? I would really like to see that sorted out, but Heljan haven't had the appetite for even a rerun of the original so far. The 47 they would have to absolutely nail at this point to make it worth while, whereas even with its tubbiness it's a good seller so I can't see them rushing to correct it. The MK1s may be in the realms of "market not quite big enough" in regards the relative effort to correct.

It's the roof profile that's wrong on the 33/0 as I understand it and is correct/better on the 33/1.

Bachmann probably do a bit better per unit on a commission than on a mainstream release as it has a guaranteed market for the entire production batch and a single point of sale/return for that batch. The cash flow situation is also presumably better as well, as there would likely be staged payments from the commissioning party throughout the process whereas with a normal release the entire cost of production is on the manufacturer right up until they start taking money for orders from retailers (who also have a mark up on these remember...).

That's my worry. To raise even £100K you need to be aiming for £120K+ to account for the attendant fees for Kickstarter and Amazon (who process the payments). You then need to factor in the costs of the rewards, and let's face it, people want to get value from their pledges, so you're preselling a loco at £150 a pop say, then you'd need to get in 1000 pledges at that price to raise £150K before deductions. Is £20K (ish) enough to manufacture, finish and ship 1000 locos? Probably not? People would probably recoil if you pushed the loco price to £200.

Whilst I broadly agree, a certain amount of caution is required. There's not a track record (ho ho!) of railway modelling Kickstarters so far and it's very hard to gauge (the puns keep coming...) the likely audience on Kickstarter for a project. Starting small (product wise rather than gauge/scale wise) may be the best bet; Would a £5K goal be "too much" for the market? In raw terms that's 500 £10 pledges or 500 pre-orders of something that you'd expect to pay £5 for under normal circumstances, and £5K would barely pay for tooling production for some simple components, let alone production costs. But it would depend on what is being produced. A first item should be one that is low risk. One that if you had the cash to hand, you'd fund because you'd know there was a return there. It will likely get funded to the required level provided there is enough exposure, and it will bring railway modellers to the Kickstarter way of doing things, which means subsequent, more risky projects become doable.

I'd echo the request for the PEP family EMUs (in as many scales as you dare!), plus similarly the MK3 EMU family. You'd get a lot of mileage out of the shared tooling/CAD for both of those. Maybe some 63ft MK1 suburban/non corridor coaches (mostly in N/0 I was thinking)? They might dovetail into some tooling for some MK1 EMUs as well...

They're not right for that either as they are numbered in the loco hauled stock range and have buffers.

Probably absolutely nothing. It all depends how much work had actually been done on the them, but as RE have been paid back in full as I understand it, they should have no call on that work done and it would be a way for Heljan to offset their loss in this matter. However given that this all came to a head over Heljan taking their own sweet time over things, I'd not necessarily bank on them getting the model out anytime soon, and RE's new manufacturer may be more than motivated to deliver quickly...

DRS will have complete control over the commercial rights to the identity of the DRS Class 68. The manufacturer may have abdicated their rights to DRS in this instance. When/if another operator starts using them, then the DB (for sake of argument) Class 68 would be a separate point of negotiation, even if using the existing tooling.

I think by very definition if there is any destruction of "the environment" cost will have been allocated to actually do the "destruction" unless they are depending upon the good graces of volunteer environmental vandals to construct the route...

Because after all existing railways are only built alongside existing populations they directly serve... edit: To be clear, that was sarcasm... "Upgrading" is not a magic wand. To improve speed you need to straighten lines out which involves annexing adjacent property, to improve capacity you have to add lines which involves annexing adjacent property. Where this happens between the population centres served, you'll be inconveniencing people who will see no direct benefit.

This presumably also opens the door for a Class 88?

Cheers for that Dave, you'll obviously know way better than I what you are and aren't allowed to talk about in a Dapol context, and I wasn't fishing, honest So possibly a case of Heljan finally seeing the potential market then.

My supposition would be that either Dapol (with an N gauge version already being prepared...) or Bachmann have taken up the reins, with Vi Trains a distant outsider but there being a relationship there already. I don't think I'd be unhappy with any of those three doing the job to be honest.

Then as Bachmann you'd have to ask yourself why are we updating a clear "non-seller"..? The question probably answers itself. In the case of the Thompsons, according to Bachmann's site, the existing tooling is no longer available apart from the BG which isn't being updated. So I think my point stands.

Mind you isn't that the retailers' problem and not Bachmann's?

I think the geology is a bit more difficult than the Channel was as well. Whole bunch of stuff here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sea_fixed_crossing). The Hollyhead route would probably make most sense in terms of existing infrastructure.

No, it was merely an example of a job that should be perfectly possible for remote working but practically is not. Other examples exist. I wasn't the one that chose to place that in Birmingham, on minimum wage, commuting via HS2...

With respect, those are gimmicks (and it's not proper 3D either, and isn't going to be anytime soon...), and are not going to bring about a revolution in video conferencing.

Unless you have a Chernobyl like event, major conurbations will continue, so Birmingham will be a more desirable location than Lincoln in future years for mass transit. We're not at the beginning by any means. The technology deployment and usage has been mature now for the past decade and a half and whilst there is extensive use of distributed/home working over all it doesn't really effect the pattern of working for most employers and is never likely to. There are plenty of jobs that can be done remotely, but for many practical reasons they are not. We don't actually need call centres for instance. They are hugely impractical for most of the purposes they are used for apart from one - supervision of employees which cannot adequately be done remotely with the typical staff employed in such places. As it stands, most companies I know use a mixture of conference/video calls and offsite meetings to conduct business with externals, and what electronic communications have done is allow for easier and more convenient communication with remote parties not a substitute for face to face meetings.

The waddle won't be as apparent as the 4-4-0 doesn't have a big booty to shake