Jump to content

What locomotives and rolling stock should be produced first?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

With Heljan's Class 31 coming in at £200, and with it being a small market without the volume of sales of OO, I don't think we will see anything at the £100 range.

 

yes, I thought I might be pushing my luck.  Although Kernow have the 31 for £170 (at the moment).

 

https://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/c/1352/Diesel-Locomotives

 

 

Edited by Tim Dubya
update linkage with price
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The Q has always attracted manufacturers for this reason, although TBH there weren’t that many of them. It’s also good because it can share a chassis with a 4F.

 

But not wheels ........

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Derek 19B said:

How about a Merchant Navy in original condition with three green mk1’s. Perhaps say No 28 Clan Line . I’d by one bring back a lot of memory’s.

I Have Clan Line in OO in original condition but it would be nice to have small one sat on the shelf.

What else did I have back then?

Britannia, 3ft shunting tank as my railway man uncle called them never a Jinty that was the 1f, a diesel shutter (08)

and the DMU that Trang did. Also a spare 3ft body ,so could have two .

 

derek

 

 

 

 

I'd consider a Merchant Navy in general but would jump on Canadian Pacific

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
23 minutes ago, mdvle said:

So as much as it may make some people (hopefully short term) unhappy better off focusing on a single railway an offer at least 2 different locos plus the rolling stock required for a complete layout - which in this case because Peco has already led the way likely means going GWR.

 

But my personal guess is that the steam stuff will follow more slowly.  Given that we are effectively 60 years from the end of steam, the flexibility of BR era diesel (locos and DMUs) means to me the best option for the first several years will be BR diesels and rolling stock.

 

I think it's the other way round: Peco's video strongly suggest they believe there's GWR steam coming quite soon.  The locos and stock are the heavy investment that's going to drive the direction of TT120 as an rtr scale.

 

The question is (assuming Peco are right), how quickly will the range grow to the extent that makes a small layout a satisfying possibility.  I think that's at least one loco, a passenger train and a goods train and preferably two locos, one for the goods and one for the passenger.  That's the sort of range we saw appear quite quickly when Mainline and Airfix came on the 00 scene 40 od years ago but would likely be too big an investment for a manufacturer to do all at once these days.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

With Heljan's Class 31 coming in at £200, and with it being a small market without the volume of sales of OO, I don't think we will see anything at the £100 range.

 

Today’s edition of the weekly World of Railways email newsletter has a very good interview with Ben Jones of Heljan ( @61661 ) following the Class 31 announcement.  Price is discussed, and the point is very reasonably made that this is a start-up venture with commercial risk; but if TT:120 gets established there might be a favourable price differential v new r-t-r OO down the line (my words, no puns intended).  This is not a promise, but makes good commercial sense to me.

 

Elsewhere I know I’ve made my own observation that, while design and tooling is a big part of the cost equation (esp. for small batch runs), there may be some small long-term benefits from less use of materials - particularly for packaging - plus maybe a volume saving on shipping (though more relevant for big batches).  These may not make items much cheaper, but may help avoid some of the price rises.

 

Heljan’s experience with r-t-r UK O-Scale diesels will have given them insights in developing new markets, and I’m pleased to see them in TT:120 for that reason too.  Their r-t-r 009 partnership with Peco also gets a mention in the video as another example (a bit different as 009 wasn’t new and can use OO accessories, though more mainstream r-t-r has perhaps only now taken off).

 

Interestingly, the July BRM Editorial suggests pre-ordering as one way to help ourselves, retailers and manufacturers.  Consumers may get a lower price, retailers get guaranteed business and manufacturers may see a clearer picture of demand.  The merits or otherwise of this for smaller retailers are outside the scope of this Forum, but I could pre-order a Class 31 and have time to save up before it’s due.  At the moment I’m wondering if something comes out with regards to coaches before I commit, given the choice of liveries.

 

Just some thoughts, Keith.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

With Heljan's Class 31 coming in at £200, and with it being a small market without the volume of sales of OO, I don't think we will see anything at the £100 range.

 

Based on the 31 being pitched at £200 (which is reasonable - if at the higher end - for a comparable Continental engine, e.g. a new issue Roco M62 is about £170) and using prices for Continental stock from biggest producer Tillig as a guideline, I'd expect goods wagons to be in the £20-£40 range (higher end for bogie wagons), and passenger stock to be £50-£60.

 

Examples of MSRP for steam locomotives are around £260 for a BR44/BR50/BR52 2-10-0 from Tillig, £290 for a BR58 2-10-0 from Arnold, down to £80 for a Roco BR80 0-6-0T and around £195 for a BR55 0-8-0 from Piko (somewhat more for the same model in Hungarian, Czechoslovak, or Polish livery). So I'd venture to say one should expect similar or slightly higher prices, but not lower, for comparable British outline steam.

  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The real question that manufacturers need to decide is whether the initial range should be concentrated or scattered. Class 31s in the transition era were pretty much confined to the ER; they didn't make it north of Doncaster even until the mid 1970s. In the blu era they were more readily to be found.

 

What will go with the 31 though is BR-era freight rolling stock — Vanwide, 16t mineral, brake van. Possibly others too—grain wagons, Presflos and the like. As far as East Anglian branches are concerned, DMUs and railbuses covered most passenger workings. Heljan have done the W&M railbus in OO and could possibly downsize it. The best DMU would undoubtedly be the class 101—not as typically East Anglian as the 105 but much more widespread, longer lived, and appeared in lots of liveries.

 

One advantage of the GWR in the steam era is its standardisation. A 14xx + auto trailer, 45xx, B-set and 57xx cover a lot of branch line possibilities. None of the other "Big 4” companies were that standardised. There aren't many branch lines where Jinties were used.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, britishcolumbian said:

Examples of MSRP for steam locomotives are around £260 for a BR44/BR50/BR52 2-10-0 from Tillig, £290 for a BR58 2-10-0 from Arnold, down to £80 for a Roco BR80 0-6-0T and around £195 for a BR55 0-8-0 from Piko (somewhat more for the same model in Hungarian, Czechoslovak, or Polish livery). So I'd venture to say one should expect similar or slightly higher prices, but not lower, for comparable British outline steam.

 

The only caution I would have is that we are comparing prices on "older" tooling vs. 2022 tooling (for example, a quick search indicates that the Roco BR80 was released in 2015).  Further, that Roco BR80 looks more like a Hornby Railroad model than a modern detailed model with it's crude molded on detail.

 

Anything being tooled up for British TT:120 is being done so in the current high inflation era, and thus the resulting prices will reflect those increased costs.  It is doubtful a brand new BR80 (by Roco or anyone else) would come out at that price today.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

The only caution I would have is that we are comparing prices on "older" tooling vs. 2022 tooling (for example, a quick search indicates that the Roco BR80 was released in 2015).  Further, that Roco BR80 looks more like a Hornby Railroad model than a modern detailed model with it's crude molded on detail.

 

Anything being tooled up for British TT:120 is being done so in the current high inflation era, and thus the resulting prices will reflect those increased costs.  It is doubtful a brand new BR80 (by Roco or anyone else) would come out at that price today.

Very valid points, of course. The Piko BR55 and the Tillig BR44 are newer tools, within the last few years, so are likely better guides to look at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Elsewhere I know I’ve made my own observation that, while design and tooling is a big part of the cost equation (esp. for small batch runs), there may be some small long-term benefits from less use of materials - particularly for packaging - plus maybe a volume saving on shipping (though more relevant for big batches).

 

One or more manufacturers have stated that tooling an N item is about 80% of the cost of tooling for HO/OO, so the savings in tooling costs aren't as great as some people think.

 

The size issue for shipping does add up, but over in the Hornby area discussing Hornby's latest financial results someone calculated the price per loco for the container increases and per unit it didn't add up to much - so I don't think the shipping savings will help that much (assuming that posted calculation is correct).

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

The real question that manufacturers need to decide is whether the initial range should be concentrated or scattered.

Judging from past behaviour, they already have their answer, and it is to make a scattered range

7 minutes ago, mdvle said:

One or more manufacturers have stated that tooling an N item is about 80% of the cost of tooling for HO/OO, so the savings in tooling costs aren't as great as some people think.

A 20% cost reduction is quite big when you consider how expensive tooling is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

Judging from past behaviour, they already have their answer, and it is to make a scattered range

 

Is it?

 

My superficial understanding of RTR 7mm/O is that steam is GWR focused with only a handful of non-GWR items (excluding the BR diesel stuff).

 

5 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

A 20% cost reduction is quite big when you consider how expensive tooling is.

 

It is, but that is typically offset by lower potential sales numbers in the smaller scales.

 

The point though of bringing it up is that there is frequently a belief that because N is about 1/2 the size of HO/OO that the costs should also be 1/2 - but they aren't.  Which is one of the reasons why those in N who want every release in the larger scale to be shrink-rayed to N end up disappointed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I was just thinking of Dapol's entry to the N gauge market—at a time when the Farish range seemed almost moribund, the old models having disappeared and the new ones not having arrived. They did:

 

14xx + autotrailer 

B-set

45xx

Collett coaches
Ivatt 2MT 2-6-2T

M7

SR Q1 0-6-0

 

in roughly that order for steam, at first. The 57xx came later — it had been one of the later "old Farish" models, and therefore one of the better ones. There was also a Southern electro-diesel.

 

Actually quite a concentrated range at first—Dapol used to reckon that ex-GWR sold best.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mdvle said:

One or more manufacturers have stated that tooling an N item is about 80% of the cost of tooling for HO/OO, so the savings in tooling costs aren't as great as some people think.

As far as I can see prices for N & OO are more or less the same for most locos & rolling stock. I may be wrong as I don't model in either, but if TT120 settles down at around the same level of pricing no one should complain.

Interesting article about Peco's new venture in the latest Toddler; the main selling points being used centre around the size of the models and the space available (or not!!) in modern British houses.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

In one of the other threads, somebody speculated how the launch of the track, in particular, would be handled in Continental Modeller. The new July issue doesn't cover it in the editorial at all, but there is a full-page advertisement — immediately before  the "Railway of the Month" article — describing it as a "new British outline scale" (my italics).

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

the main selling points being used centre around the size of the models and the space available (or not!!) in modern British houses.

 

That's pretty well the main selling point of TT scale in general: big enough to be detailed like HO/OO, small enough to save space and allow depth of scene like N.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Is it?

 

My superficial understanding of RTR 7mm/O is that steam is GWR focused with only a handful of non-GWR items (excluding the BR diesel stuff)

I wouldn't call it especially GWR focused (Dapol currently list 3 GWR steam locos and 3 non-GWR steam locos in their O range), and there's always the question of whether that's the manufacturers deliberately focusing on building up the range for a specific area or just GWR stuff selling better...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

One or more manufacturers have stated that tooling an N item is about 80% of the cost of tooling for HO/OO, so the savings in tooling costs aren't as great as some people think.

 

The size issue for shipping does add up, but over in the Hornby area discussing Hornby's latest financial results someone calculated the price per loco for the container increases and per unit it didn't add up to much - so I don't think the shipping savings will help that much (assuming that posted calculation is correct).


Thank you, I had assumed tooling was the big cost, and wouldn’t generate savings, but didn’t have any insight into a percentage.  80% seems realistic, especially for today’s small batch sizes.

 

I don’t know how much is spent on packaging, but I would hope a product line needing less packaging at least saves a bit for the environment when added up across the whole production run.  I certainly know my Narrow Gauge stock box is a lot smaller than my Standard Gauge one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In “what might sell” mode: nobody has mention Class 20, which slightly surprises me.

 

Are they just not much loved, despite their practicality and longevity in reality?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

They are popular, I'll grant you that. The Horsham club had a "Terrier Night" earlier this month to celebrate 150 years of the Stroudley Terrier (no, don't take the hump north of the Border, we do know about the earlier Highland Railway version but hey, we are deep in London and Brighton country)

 

1467310855_TerrierCollection.jpg.5e93291c8c832cfb190f1e08a674b5bd.jpg

 

More than four RTR versions in three scales plus one kit built version in another scale.

 

But popular doesn't mean useful. They were useful to Colonel Stephens but the SECR didn't really get much use out of the one they bought to use on the Sheppey Light Railway. They were replaced on their South London stamping ground because larger engines were needed to handle the growing traffic so spent a lot of their life as works shunters and empty stock trains. Not the stuff of model railway layouts.

 

The most useful Southern tank engine was probably the M7 but given it's an 0-4-4T probably not the easiest for manufacturers. Next would probably be the SECR H, again an 0-4-4T, and then things like the G6. I would really say that for the Southern an 0-6-0 tender engine should be a starting point. The C would be my choice. OK, it didn't get west of Salisbury but nor did the LSWR 0-6-0s get east of Croydon. There isn't an easy choice.

 

 

How about a Q1? No issues with splashers, valve gear or footplate

 

An O2 works for both the West Country and rhe IoW

 

I think a MR/LMS 4F could be a good bet. Leaving the 3D printers to get stuck in with Jinty, 3F 2F , etc etc

 

Edited by Ravenser
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:


Spoke-counting has never been my thing, so I’ll take your word for it. 

 

I'm not a spoke counter either but the Boxpok wheels of the Q1 are rather distinctive 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

How about a Q1? No issues with splashers, valve gear or footplate

 

An O2 works for both the West Country and rhe IoW

 

I think a MR/LMS 4F could be a good bet. Leaving the 3D printers to get stuck in with Jinty, 3F 2F , etc etc

 

 

The problem with a Q1 is that it is a postwar locomotive. If you are going to forget the Grouping years then BR standards would be better. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, whart57 said:

 

I'm not a spoke counter either but the Boxpok wheels of the Q1 are rather distinctive 

 

I think the poster you are referring to mentioned a Q, not a Q1....................

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whart57 said:

The Q has always attracted manufacturers for this reason,

 

3 minutes ago, whart57 said:

I'm not a spoke counter either but the Boxpok wheels of the Q1 are rather distinctive

 

The Maunsell Q and Bulleid Q1 are entirely different beasts, I can understand the confusion.  If I had a choice it would be the Q over the Q1 for me personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...