What locomotives and rolling stock should be produced first?

[mdvle]

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.

[britishcolumbian]

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.

[mdvle]

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).

[eldomtom2]

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.

[mdvle]

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.

[D9020 Nimbus]

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.

[F-UnitMad]

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.

[D9020 Nimbus]

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).

[britishcolumbian]

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.

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

But not wheels ........

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

[eldomtom2]

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...

[Keith Addenbrooke]

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.

[Nearholmer]

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?

 

 

[Ravenser]

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)

 

 

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 June 17, 2022 by Ravenser

[whart57]

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 

[whart57]

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. 

[newbryford]

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....................

[whart57]

1 minute ago, Tim Dubya said:

 

 

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.

 

I stand corrected. I am afraid I forget the Q ever existed, Cs and O1s sufficed on the lines that interest me. You can't forget the Q1 though once you have seen one. 

[Ravenser]

16 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

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?

 

 

 

In later years they tended to operate in pairs, giving just into Type 4 power with a low axle loading on some of the ropier colliery branches

 

Passenger work was confined to Saturday day trips to Skegness

 

So once you are into the later 70s , a fairly specialised type which wasn't especially high profile.. Heavy coal trains in areas away from the passenger network was their forte. Minimal passenger use, and they didn't actually potter about on trip goods workings

 

(very much ... IM used them on trip workings to Louth, though I'm assured by others that 31s were MUCH more usual  - I'd have said a 40:60 split myself...)

[mdvle]

1 hour ago, eldomtom2 said:

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...

 

But it's not just Dapol, and not just the locos.

 

Add in Heljan and you get the Mogul and Large Prairie to go with the Lionheart Small Prairie and Dapol's 14xx/48xx/58xx and the 57xx and you have 5 GWR locos to choose from.

 

But then add in the Autocoach and B-Set and you have a good basis for a steam era layout in O.

 

The other steam offerings don't (yet) have that complete set of offerings.

 

This is the sort of thing that needs to be offered (whether from a single manufacturer or through multiple manufacturers) for anyone to pursue a branchline or other steam era layout in TT:120 - a variety of locos with suitable rolling stock.

 

It doesn't have to be GWR, though as noted by others is probably will be, but a random collection of steam locos from around the UK make it difficult to create a layout (if one is after recreating a specific type of prototype and not just running anything that one likes).

 

But the above is of course why it is more likely the initial focus will be on the BR period - get a selection of diesels (cheaper to tool than steam), a first generation DMU, and some Mk1 coaches and all sorts of layouts become possible (even if things get stretched a bit in the accuracy to the prototype area).

[Ravenser]

2 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

 

 

 

This is the sort of thing that needs to be offered (whether from a single manufacturer or through multiple manufacturers) for anyone to pursue a branchline or other steam era layout in TT:120 - a variety of locos with suitable rolling stock.

 

It doesn't have to be GWR, though as noted by others is probably will be, but a random collection of steam locos from around the UK make it difficult to create a layout (if one is after recreating a specific type of prototype and not just running anything that one likes).

 

But the above is of course why it is more likely the initial focus will be on the BR period - get a selection of diesels (cheaper to tool than steam), a first generation DMU, and some Mk1 coaches and all sorts of layouts become possible (even if things get stretched a bit in the accuracy to the prototype area).

 

What you really need is a supply of RTR chassis with a wheelbase - and preferably a wheel diameter - shared by a number of classes. 

 

Produce one class RTR , and the others can be offered at "kits" involving a one piece 3D printed body to fit the RTR chassis (Think Silver Fox, but 3D printed, not resin). This is already an approach in scales from 4mm down - Lincoln Locos in 3mm being a fine example, though he uses resin

 

You can't print a loco body in 7mm - it's too big.  But in 1:120  there will be substantial savings in materials and print time against 4mm, and those drive much of the cost of 3D printed models. However you will need a high end industrial-quality printer to deliver the finesse and avoid ridging. Hattons no doubt have one - Peco must surely have one for rapid prototyping. It's probably used only intermittantly

 

That is surely the logic of Peco's 2251 profile article. They could supply a painted finished 3D printed loco on a RTR Pannier chassis , having swapped out the Pannier wheels for larger wheelsets manufactured at Beer

 

The chassis need not even be British - with a common scale you stand a better chance of finding a good match amongst Continental outline TT RTR

 

A side benefit is that you could onshore production, cutting out all the issues of factory slots in China, rising Chinese wage rates, shipping costs, liasing with a foriegn factory. Develop your CAD, plug it into the printer and away you go . Labour costs should not be high because production is automated. 1:120 is small enough to make a one-piece bodyshell adequete

[Nearholmer]

48 minutes ago, whart57 said:

I stand corrected. I am afraid I forget the Q ever existed, Cs and O1s sufficed on the lines that interest me. You can't forget the Q1 though once you have seen one. 

Graham Farish got confused too.

 

His 1950s ‘Formo’ 3-rail range included a decent representation of a Q, but with BFB wheels.

 

I bought one at a jumble sale c1969, and not only were the wheels wrong, the mechanism was a fairly fiendish and recalcitrant thing too. I “fitted” an equally old first-generation Triang Jinty mechanism, from another jumble sale, to it, but the whole thing was more of a learning exercise than a success, which isn’t surprising given how young I was at the time.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

I think ravenser is onto something with what he says.

 

As a new, and initially inevitably niche, scale this could be fertile ground for non-traditional approaches to production.

 

Dapol Pannier, Peco 2251 using basically the same chassis. Don’t Peco make the 2251 in N already? Could emerge as either printed or moulded.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Nearholmer

[eldomtom2]

44 minutes ago, mdvle said:

But it's not just Dapol, and not just the locos.

 

Add in Heljan and you get the Mogul and Large Prairie to go with the Lionheart Small Prairie and Dapol's 14xx/48xx/58xx and the 57xx and you have 5 GWR locos to choose from.

Yes, but does that actually indicate any sort of deliberate strategy on the part of the manufacturers to focus on building up the GWR?

Quote

This is the sort of thing that needs to be offered (whether from a single manufacturer or through multiple manufacturers) for anyone to pursue a branchline or other steam era layout in TT:120 - a variety of locos with suitable rolling stock.

That depends on your personal modelling philosophy. From one perspective all that is needed is one loco and the necessary stock to form an appropriate train.

21 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

Produce one class RTR , and the others can be offered at "kits" involving a one piece 3D printed body to fit the RTR chassis (Think Silver Fox, but 3D printed, not resin). This is already an approach in scales from 4mm down - Lincoln Locos in 3mm being a fine example, though he uses resin

 

You can't print a loco body in 7mm - it's too big.  But in 1:120  there will be substantial savings in materials and print time against 4mm, and those drive much of the cost of 3D printed models. However you will need a high end industrial-quality printer to deliver the finesse and avoid ridging. Hattons no doubt have one - Peco must surely have one for rapid prototyping. It's probably used only intermittantly

 

That is surely the logic of Peco's 2251 profile article. They could supply a painted finished 3D printed loco on a RTR Pannier chassis , having swapped out the Pannier wheels for larger wheelsets manufactured at Beer

 

The chassis need not even be British - with a common scale you stand a better chance of finding a good match amongst Continental outline TT RTR

 

A side benefit is that you could onshore production, cutting out all the issues of factory slots in China, rising Chinese wage rates, shipping costs, liasing with a foriegn factory. Develop your CAD, plug it into the printer and away you go . Labour costs should not be high because production is automated. 1:120 is small enough to make a one-piece bodyshell adequete

People keep saying this but I don't believe it's a practical course of action. Sure you can produce bodyshells and do the actual physical production for the end customer, but that still leaves them with the time-consuming and often fiddly process of painting, transfers, etc. Shapeways etc. have 3D prints available for everything imaginable - but there really isn't that much uptake there; there's a fair bit, of course, but it by no means has made RTR or traditonal kits obsolete.

 

Bear in mind also that a one-piece bodyshell also means moulded handrails etc., which the modern market will not compare favourably to the RTR offerings in N and OO.

[whart57]

26 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

People keep saying this but I don't believe it's a practical course of action. Sure you can produce bodyshells and do the actual physical production for the end customer, but that still leaves them with the time-consuming and often fiddly process of painting, transfers, etc. Shapeways etc. have 3D prints available for everything imaginable - but there really isn't that much uptake there; there's a fair bit, of course, but it by no means has made RTR or traditonal kits obsolete.

 

Forget traditional kits for TT:120. However using a Shapeways printed bodyshell on a RTR chassis is quite practical. Back in the day when OO loco ranges were pretty limited, white metal kits were a popular way of expanding the range. 3D printed body shells is just the 21st century equivalent