Loco duplication

[MoonM]

How about this for a thought... 

 

Hornby and bachman competing against each other - most cases both probably lose. Both are mature companies with high operational costs. Hence why they charge more as they need a higher gross margin to cover these costs. They need to sell a lot of units at high price to cover all the costs of the many people they employ. 

 

Upstarts like accurascale and cavalex and rapidi competing vs Hornby/bachman - new entrants likely win as they are producing higher quality and detailed models at lower cost. Presume the operational costs (people, property, rates etc) are lower for new entrants. New entrants therefore will likely win. However, weakness of new entrants is that it may take longer to get to market and gives established competition more chance to react. Eg. Bachman reacting to accurascale's 31. If the new entrant is much later to market than Hornby/accurscale, the older firm may win. This might explain why accurscale are now announcing later in the production cycle,but had the unfortunate reason of now duplicating the class 60 with cavalex. 

 

New entrants (Eg accurscale, rapid, cavalex) competing with one another. They both lose and maybe the younger of the two suffers more as business operations and purchasing power not as established. 

 

What about Dapol? Sadly I think they generally lose if duplicating. I like the company and I admire the innovation they strive for and their pricing seems reasonable. However their pricing is no more reasonable than a new entrant like accurascale and Dapol have a history of blunders (such as poor colour matching) so cannot quite meeting quality/detail targets set now by new entrants. I think they seem to struggle vs the big names of Hornby and bachman too as I personally do not think they have the brand value. Dapol needs to really carefully strive to be unique with models to survive and focus on tooling that can work for N, OO and I to scale it's business. 

 

What about Heljan? I'm not sure. Similar to Dapol in that it is mid size and also developes in O gauge. Admittedly I struggle to see how Heljan survives as their pricing is high and they often make basic blunders (Eg proportions on class 44 and 47). Not sure how profitable they are but I presume they have to focus on unique models that no one else makes and the buyer purchases as no real alternative. 

 

What are the exceptions to these rules? Most obvious is Hornby. Non enthusiasts know Hornby. Hornby can make a flying scotsman that is objectively worse than any new competition (price or quality) but Hornby will outperform because the general public recognise the brand. As such there are a few locos that competitors should not compete with as Hornby will win. And we (admittedly) need Hornby to survive for the benefit of the whole hobby, so maybe should allow Hornby this free pass on just a few locos. However I do not think this includes the HST anymore as there is space for a more detailed and cheaper alternative and I hope accurscale are tooling something. Hornby perhaps are better suited to a 'railroad' spec and price HST. Not sure how appealing an HST is for a kid these days though as no longer modern and cutting edge. 

[Hal Nail]

Duplication Is inevitable but I suspect rarely intended. As I said elsewhere, what we dont really know the financial impact where there is duplication. For example will all 3 recent 25s do well enough? If the answer is yes then duplication clearly isnt a problem.

 

I doubt it though. O gauge stuff is being massively discounted on a regular basis at the moment (14xx for £125 now) - which could be an indication that now the obvious good sellers have been done, it's getting harder to shift repeat runs or new but less popular models.

 

For obvious reasons each manufacturer looks at the popular classes as likely sellers but in the majority of cases I suspect they are hoping for a clear field, on a sort of rotational upgrade basis, not everyone going for the same new one at the same time. Which as has been pointed out is why some things (class 40) don't get done because they all think (or know) someone else is.

 

Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol have all branched into new scales recently (narrow gauge etc) - I suspect they just dont think there is enough market for all of them as well as the newcomers, to be relying on the same OO diesels

 

As to prototypes that haven't been done, if anyone thought they would make money they would have done them. I come back to my main point - there is only so much consumer spend to go round and I very much doubt that runs to multiples of everything.

[Hal Nail]

13 minutes ago, MoonM said:

Admittedly I struggle to see how Heljan survives as their pricing is high and they often make basic blunders

All your thoughts spot on for me.

 

I have a theory, certainly in O, that Heljan go for high early margin and make their money from those that seem happy to wade in regardless. I have wondered if Heljan then fund the (inevitable) discounts later or if the retailers are taking all the hit.

 

Heljan seem to have devoted buyers as well - I saw one person say words to the effect the 47 was on their wishlist so they bought one regardless of it looking wrong. I'm not sure if all manufacturers have a core support that gets them through duplication rather than people buying on each models merits?   

 

Our perception of value can be distorted as well - eg an O gauge 73 at £450 now suddenly seems more tempting having come down from £625 but there may still be room for margin in that!

[Andy Hayter]

58 minutes ago, MoonM said:

People often have a bias for the period of time where they were a child or young adult.

 

Actually it is at best half of us have this bias.  At least half of us model older or younger periods - based on Andy York's surveys over a number of years.  However it is true to say that the most popular periods are steam diesel (gradually declining) through to the start of privatisation (also decreasing).   The question is however how representative we as a group are compared with the hobby as a whole.   Hornby, Bachmann et al will have a better view of this than we have.   I could well believe that the "average" modeller is attracted to bright liveries and in that respect the modern models will be attractive - as perversely would many pre-grouping models.  

 

So we are back to duplication in the most popular modelling periods (as far as we can measure it).  

Looking at Rails site for a few of the diesel locos and I think I begin to see a pattern.  New or soon to be released Bachmann and Hornby models are generally discounted by 15% - which I think is the maximum allowed for the few weeks after issue.   However when an Accurascale model is present or on pre-order, discounting is rather more, which means someone's margins are being squeezed.   As I posted earlier, good short term for the modeller but may not be for the longer term.  

[Vanguard 5374]

Decided to go through everything with a Class No. in OO and see what has/hasn't been done today.

 

Please note this list may have errors, may be incomplete and is not a definitive guide. Drop me a PM and I'll amend it.

 

BR Class 01: 

 

No RTR Models Exist!

 

BR Class 02: 

 

2024 - Heljan (1st Model)

 

BR Class 03: 

 

1982 - Mainline (1st Model)

2010 - Bachmann (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2017 - Bachmann (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)

 

BR Class 04:

 

1997 - Bachmann (1st Model)
2013 - Bachmann (1st Model, Revised Tooling)

 

BR Class 05:

 

2015 - Heljan (1st Model)

 

BR Class 06:

 

1988 - Hornby (1st Model)

 

BR Class 07:

 

2018 - Heljan (1st Model)

 

BR Class 08/09:

 

1956 - Tri-ang (1st Model)
1961 - Hornby Dublo (2nd Model)
1975 - Wrenn (2nd Model, ex Dublo tooling)
1976 - Hornby (3rd Model, New Tooling)
1978 - Lima (4th Model, New Tooling)
2000 - Bachmann (5th Model, New Tooling)
2005 - Hornby (6th Model, New Tooling)
2005 - Bachmann (5th Model, Revised Tooling)
2010 - Hornby (6th Model, Revised Tooling)
2024 - Bachmann (7th Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 10:

 

No RTR Models Exist

 

BR Class 11/12:

 

2023 - Model Rail Magazine/Heljan (1st Model)

 

BR Class 13:

 

No RTR Models Exist

 

BR Class 14:

 

2009 - Heljan (1st Model)

 

BR Class 15:

 

2010 - Heljan (1st Model)

 

BR Class 16:

 

2013 - Heljan (1st Model)

 

BR Class 17:

 

2009 - Heljan (1st Model)

 

BR Class 18:

 

2024 - Revolution Trains  (1st Model)

 

BR Class 20:

 

1958 - Hornby Dublo (1st Model)
1977 - Wrenn (1st Model, ex Dublo Tooling)
1984 - Lima (2nd Model)
2004 - Bachmann (3rd Model)
2008 - Hornby (2nd Model, ex Lima Tooling)
2008 - Bachmann (3rd Model, Revised Tooling)
2021 - Bachmann (4th Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 21:

 

2020 - Dapol (1st Model)

 

BR Class 22:

 

2012 - Dapol (1st Model)

 

BR Class 23:

 

2011 - Heljan (1st Model)

 

BR Class 24:

 

2001 - Bachmann (1st Model)
2002 - Bachmann (1st Model, Revised Tooling)
2008 - Bachmann (1st Model, Revised Tooling)
2017 - Sutton Locomotive Works (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2020 - Bachmann (3rd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 25:

 

1977 - Hornby (1st Model)
2001 - Bachmann (2nd Model)
2003 - Bachmann (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)
2006 - Bachmann (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)
2021 - Heljan (3rd Model, New Tooling)
2023 - Bachmann (4th Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 26:

 

1989 - Lima (1st Model)
2006 - Heljan (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2024 - Heljan (3rd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 27:

 

1989 - Lima (1st Model)
2006 - Heljan (2nd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 28:

 

1961 - Hornby Dublo (1st Model)
2011 - Heljan (2nd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 29:

 

1978 - Hornby (1st Model)
2020 - Dapol (2nd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 31:

 

1962 - Hornby (1st Model)
1977 - Airfix GMR (2nd Model, New Tooling)
1989 - Lima (3rd Model, New Tooling)
2005 - Hornby (4th Model, New Tooling)
2012 - Hornby (3rd Model, ex Lima Tooling)
2023 - Hornby (4th Model, Revised Tooling)
2023 - Accurascale (5th Model, New Tooling)
2023 - Bachmann (6th Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 33:

 

1977 - Lima (1st Model)
2005 - Heljan (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2006 - Heljan (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)
2010 - Hornby (1st Model, ex Lima Tooling)
2014 - Heljan (3rd Model, New Tooling)
2019 - Heljan (3rd Model, Revised Tooling)
2023 - Heljan (2nd Model Revised Tooling)

 

BR Class 35:

 

1967 - Hornby (1st Model)
1978 - Hornby (1st Model, Revised Tooling)
2004 - Heljan (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2004 - Hornby (1st Model, Revised Tooling)
2022 - Heljan (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)

 

BR Class 37:

 

1966 - Hornby (1st Model)
1980 - Hornby (1st Model, Revised Tooling)
1987 - Lima (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2003 - Bachmann (3rd Model, New Tooling)
2004 - Bachmann (3rd Model, Revised Tooling)
2006 - Bachmann (3rd Model, Revised Tooling)
2007 - ViTrains (4nd Model, New Tooling)
2008 - Bachmann (3rd Model, Revised Tooling)
2008 - Hornby (2nd Model, ex Lima Tooling)
2010 - Bachmann (3rd Model, Revised Tooling)
2011 - Bachmann (3rd Model, Revised Tooling)
2014 - Bachmann (3rd Model, Revised Tooling)
2023 - Bachmann (4th Model, New Tooling)
2023 - Accurascale (5th Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 40:

 

1977 - Jouef (1st Model)
1988 - Lima (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2003 - Bachmann (3rd Model, New Tooling)
2010 - Hornby (2nd Model, ex Lima Tooling)
2014 - Bachmann (4th Model, New Tooling)
2023 - Bachmann (4th Model, Revised Tooling)
2024 - KR Models (5th Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 41:

 

2019 - Kernow Models (1st Model)

 

BR Class 42/43:

 

1960 - Trix (1st Model)
1979 - Mainline (2nd Model, New Tooling)
1980 - Lima (3rd Model, New Tooling)
1998 - Bachmann (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)
2010 - Bachmann (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)
2012 - Hornby (3rd Model, Revised Tooling)
2015 - Bachmann (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)

 

BR Class 44:

 

2009 - Bachmann (1st Model)
2024 - Heljan (2nd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 45:

 

1976 - Mainline (1st Model)
2004 - Bachmann (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2009 - Bachmann (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)
2022 - Heljan (3rd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 46:

 

1994 - Bachmann (1st Model)
2003 - Bachmann (1st Model, Revised Tooling)
2009 - Bachmann (1st Model, Revised Tooling)

 

BR Class 47:

 

1975 - Hornby (1st Model)
1983 - Hornby (1st Model, Revised Tooling)
1987 - Lima (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2002 - Heljan (3rd Model, New Tooling)
2006 - Hornby (2nd Model, ex Lima Tooling)
2007 - Bachmann (4th Model, New Tooling)
2009 - ViTrains (5th Model, New Tooling)
2021 - Bachmann (6th Model, New Tooling)
2024 - Heljan (7th Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 48:

 

2023 - Heljan (1st Model)

 

BR Class 50:

 

1984 - Lima (1st Model)
2004 - Hornby (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2023 - Hornby (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)
2024 - Accurascale (3rd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 52:

 

1979 - Lima (1st Model)
1980 - Hornby (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2005 - Heljan (3rd Model, New Tooling)
2005 - Hornby (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)
2013 - Dapol (4th Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 53:

 

2008 - Heljan (1st Model)

 

BR Class 55:

 

1960 - Hornby Dublo (1st Model)
1977 - Lima (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2003 - Bachmann (3rd Model, New Tooling)
2007 - Hornby (2nd Model, ex Lima Tooling)
2008 - Bachmann (3rd Model, Revised Tooling)
2022 - Accurascale (4th Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 56:

 

1983 - Mainline (1st Model)
XXXX - Dapol (1st Model, No Changes?)
1998 - Hornby (1st Model, No Changes?)
2007 - Hornby (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2022 - Hornby (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)
2023 - Cavalex (3rd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 57:

 

1999 - Lima (1st Model)
2005 - Bachmann (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2005 - Heljan (3rd Model, New Tooling)
2009 - Bachmann (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)
2019 - Hornby (1st Model, ex Lima Tooling)
2024 - Heljan/Gaugemaster (3rd Model, Revised Tooling)

 

BR Class 58:

 

1982 - Hornby (1st Model)
2008 - Heljan (2nd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 59:

 

1994 - Lima (1st Model)
2007 - Hornby (1st Model, ex Lima Tooling)
2022 - Dapol (2nd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 60:

 

1990 - Lima (1st Model)
2006 - Hornby (2nd Model)
2022 - Hornby (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)
2024 - Cavalex (3rd Model, New Tooling)
2024 - Accurascale (4th Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 66:

 

1999 - Lima (1st Model)
2005 - Bachmann (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2007 - Hornby (1st Model, ex Lima Tooling)
2007 - Bachmann (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)
2019 - Hattons (3rd Model, New Tooling)
2023 - Hornby (1st Model, Revised Tooling)
2024 - Accurascale (3rd Model, Revised Hattons Tooling)

 

BR Class 67:

 

2002 - Lima (1st Model)
2006 - Hornby (1st Model, ex Lima Tooling)
2012 - Hornby (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2023 - Hornby (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)

 

BR Class 68:

 

2017 - Dapol (1st Model)

 

BR Class 69

 

2024 - Bachmann (1st Model)

 

BR Class 70:

 

2011 - Bachmann (1st Model)

 

BR Class 70 (Booster):

 

2023 - EFE (1st Model)

 

BR Class 71:

 

2016 - Hornby (1st Model)
2017 - DJ Models (2nd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 73:

 

1986 - Lima (1st Model)
2007 - Hornby (1st Model, ex Lima Tooling)
2016 - Dapol (2nd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 76 EM1:

 

1959 - Trix (1st Model)
2011 - Heljan (2nd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 77 EM2:

 

1961 - Tri-ang (1st Model)
2013 - Heljan (2nd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 80:

 

2023 - Heljan (1st Model)

 

BR Class 81:

 

1962 - Trix (1st Model)
1964 - Hornby Dublo (2nd Model, New Tooling)
1966 - Tri-ang (3rd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 82/83/84:

 

No RTR Models Exist!

 

BR Class 85:

 

2012 - Bachmann (1st Model)

 

BR Class 86:

 

1981 - Hornby (1st Model)
2004 - Hornby (1st Model, Revised Tooling)
2010 - Heljan (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2011 - Hornby (1st Model, Revised Tooling)
2021 - Heljan (3rd Model, New Tooling)
2024 - Heljan (3rd Model, Revised Tooling)

 

BR Class 87:

 

1979 - Lima (1st Model)
2009 - Hornby (1st Model, ex Lima Tooling)
2018 - Hornby (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2023 - Hornby (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)

 

BR Class 88:

 

2024 - Dapol (1st Model)

 

BR Class 89:

 

2023 - Accurascale (1st Model)

 

BR Class 90:

 

1988 - Hornby (1st Model)
2004 - Hornby (1st Model, Revised Tooling)
2008 - Hornby (1st Model, Revised Tooling)
2019 - Bachmann (2nd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 91:

 

1990 - Hornby (1st Model)
2013 - Hornby (1st Model, Revised Tooling)
2022 - Hornby (2nd Model, New Tooling)

 

BR Class 92:

 

1994 - Lima (1st Model)
1995 - Hornby (2nd Model, New Tooling)
2011 - Hornby (2nd Model, Revised Tooling)
2022 - Accurascale (3rd Model, New Tooling)
 

BR Class 93:

 

2024 - Revolution Trains (1st Model)

Edited June 15 by Vanguard 5374

[richscylla]

Could an independent trade organisation be set up who would confidentially hold the status of projects that any signed up manufacturer is working on? As an example, Company X completes their research on a new project and before the spending money on CADs, they register their project and find out if there are any clashes and what stage they are at (CAD, Tooling, Samples, Decorated Samples etc.). The name of the company could be kept confidential but the project and stage would be made available. 

There would be nothing to stop two companies doing the same project, but it would potentially stop duplication on projects where maybe the market can't sustain two manufacturers, or maybe a new entrant to the market who can't take on the big boys head to head. 

To add to that, if two manufacturers did go head to head, then it would stop all the sniping around who started their project first and who copied who.

An arrangement like this wouldn't stop anyone making any model, but might protect companies against duplication that neither want, if neither want it. 

[The Johnster]

Sailing very close to the wind of cartel behaviour that would undermine fair and legitimate competition, though.  Market-led production in a competitive environment is risky, which is why we reward our producers by allowing them to sell us stuff for more than it cost to make and distribute, and why we are happy to leave it to them and avoid going into business ourselves.  
 

Duplication is largely unavoidable in a free market in which market research comes to similar conclusions for different producers, and is A Bad Thing, but there are some advantages for consumers, as different versions of items in different liveries can be produced simultaneously.  And there are a lot of these for the numerically larger classes!

[Andy Hayter]

28 minutes ago, richscylla said:

Could an independent trade organisation be set up who would confidentially hold the status of projects that any signed up manufacturer is working on? As an example, Company X completes their research on a new project and before the spending money on CADs, they register their project and find out if there are any clashes and what stage they are at (CAD, Tooling, Samples, Decorated Samples etc.). The name of the company could be kept confidential but the project and stage would be made available. 

There would be nothing to stop two companies doing the same project, but it would potentially stop duplication on projects where maybe the market can't sustain two manufacturers, or maybe a new entrant to the market who can't take on the big boys head to head. 

To add to that, if two manufacturers did go head to head, then it would stop all the sniping around who started their project first and who copied who.

An arrangement like this wouldn't stop anyone making any model, but might protect companies against duplication that neither want, if neither want it. 

 

Sailing close to the wind regarding restrictive practises.  So close I think it would be found illegal.  

Also it allows companies to see where their (perhaps unknown) competitor is and potentially then accelerate their own project.  

[woodenhead]

If there was no such thing as duplication there would be no Accurascale as Heljan, Hornby and Bachmann had most of the D/E market sewn up, and don't forget that time that Dave Jones with his Dapol hat on laid claim to just about anything and everything to warn Bachmann and Hornby off doing them - how did that work out for us modellers (and for Dapol for that matter).

 

Each of these companies make business decisions to create a model, no doubt their plans will include the risk of duplication as there are not that many loco classes and none of them can create fantasy locos that never existed.  There is nothing wrong with duplication, if anything it ensures prices for models remain keen, you don't want one company dominating, because then you charge what you like and you develop new lines slower - just look at N gauge or O gauge where one company dominated each for a long period.

 

I get the impression that everyone thinks Hornby might be also announcing an 08 next week and that all along these two announcements so close together meant a duplication.  And everyone also assumes that at some point Accurascale will produce an 08 because you know coal wagons needed shunting.  I get the feeling that the most vocal fan modellers want an Accurascale model and that anything Hornby or Bachmann do is bad and some attempt to outdo Accurascale, this is wrong and unfair, all of these businesses are capable of producing fine models and all should remain free to produce what they think will sell.

 

I know there appears to be a dearth of some types of steam locomotive, perhaps though that represents where the market has gone recently and their absence in some ranges reflects declining sales in that market, whilst other steam areas are still selling well especially in cute little loco of 4 and 6 coupled tanks.  And coaches too to go with those cute little tanks of a GW theme.

 

I model in N, I see all these new models and the massive amount of choice OO modellers now have, bodgers wanting to make their models unique are now finding it more and more likely that the niche models they used to carve from an RTR bog standard model are now themselves available in RTR.  It's daunting the number of models arriving, I wouldn't know where to stop if I was trying to model in OO.

Edited June 15 by woodenhead
added Heljan

[leavesontheline]

My view - Duplication almost always results in a better situation for railway modellers/consumer and therefore the industry as a whole, once the products reach market.

 

If the manufacturers banded together and agreed who would produce what and not to step on each other's toes, this would be akin to price-fixing (I'm sure there is a proper business term for when companies do this and it is generally very much frowned upon!) and we would all be much worse off for it I feel!

[MoonM]

42 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I get the impression that everyone thinks Hornby might be also announcing an 08 next week and that all along these two announcements so close together meant a duplication.  And everyone also assumes that at some point Accurascale will produce an 08 because you know coal wagons needed shunting.  I get the feeling that the most vocal fan modellers want an Accurascale model and that anything Hornby or Bachmann do is bad and some attempt to outdo Accurascale, this is wrong and unfair, all of these businesses are capable of producing fine models and all should remain free to produce what they think will sell.

If I were a manufacturer and just saw a competitor launch a product I was working on (and too far along the development curve to cancel the project), I would bring forward my announcement. This way the punter could choose which manufacturer they wanted to purchase. 

 

I, for one, am in the market for an 08. Bachmann's announcement today looks good and, in the absence of competition, I would buy one. However I would most likely choose a competitor if they had a model out too. For me Bachmann is not ideal due to the fact they traditionally price very high (although class 31 pricing is refreshing due to competition) and I want all the bells and whistles but don't care for sound (and the deluxe option only comes sound fitted). Hornby could be hit and miss because they cherry pick liveries and model quality can be good, bad of middling. I am probably in the camp of 'Accurascale fanboy' right now because I like the pricing, the fact all my prior purchases have worked with no issues, I don't need to buy sound fitted to get the best detail, and there is almost always a good selection of liveries to choose from. I would also likely be a cavalex fanboy too for similar reasons, just not in the market for a 56 or a 60. Would welcome an 08 from them, but think they'd struggle if competing against multiple manufacturers 

[D9020 Nimbus]

There are a few errors in @Vanguard 5374's big list — notably that the class 52 was first modelled by Trix. Also, I believe the Triang class 81 actually used the Hornby Dublo tooling; they had originally planned a class 82 instead. Also, the Rapido 04 was, sadly, cancelled. A pity, I was really looking forward to it.

 

About competition — it seems to be only in model railways that it's regarded as a concern; nobody would object to Canon competing with Nikon in the camera market. Also, it's pretty much restricted to the U.K. market — every US manufacturer must have produced an F7 at one point. Even in N there are 4 models of the DBAG class 101 electric, all with different widths and buffer heights…

 

I suspect part of the concern is related to the much larger number of prototypes to choose from; among European countries only France had a number of substantial different companies — and very few of these have been modelled, although many D&E types have been duplicated, or even triplicated. In the U.K.,, the feeling is "if they hadn't duplicated that they could have modelled this instead".

[John Tomlinson]

3 hours ago, MoonM said:

People often have a bias for the period of time where they were a child or young adult. People with a little surplus cash tend to be older and the model railway demographic is biased towards older men. 50s/60s BR has been popular for a while and will always be, however I think this trend explains why BR blue and now sectorisation areas are becoming popular. Eg Charlie Chadwick I think models BR blue because it reminds him of his earlier years photographing locos. I personally find BR blue a little dull but I really like and model sectorisation (despite the NSE liveries being objectively garish!). This is likely because I am slightly younger than Charlie and I remember these colourful trains from my youth and have no real recollection of BR blue before. 

If I was a manufacturer, I'd focus on these areas where greater demand is expected as it should lead to greater profits. We see the same in classic cars. 'modern classics' from the 80s,90s and 00s have shot up in value recently because the people who remember these cars as kids now may have the money to buy them

 

I think there's a lot in this.

 

When I first got into model trains as a schoolboy in the late 60's, any exhibition or magazine was full of stuff pre 1948, particularly Great Western. That was the era that was of interest to many middle-aged modellers at the time, something they'd known in their youth and wanted to recreate.

 

Then by the 80's and 90's BR Transition era became all the rage. After that we've gone to quite a bit of BR blue, and nowadays Sectorisation seems on the rise.

 

I can't quantify this, but I do feel confident that there's a pattern here. In consequence, by the 2020's, interest in pre 1948 has fallen a lot, and the BR Transition era will be next to slide. So expecting manufacturers to take on prototypes yet to be covered, particularly pre 1948, is a pretty big ask, given the likely returns.

 

John.

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, MoonM said:

How about this for a thought... 

 

Hornby and bachman competing against each other - most cases both probably lose. Both are mature companies with high operational costs. Hence why they charge more as they need a higher gross margin to cover these costs. They need to sell a lot of units at high price to cover all the costs of the many people they employ. 

 

Upstarts like accurascale and cavalex and rapidi competing vs Hornby/bachman - new entrants likely win as they are producing higher quality and detailed models at lower cost. Presume the operational costs (people, property, rates etc) are lower for new entrants. New entrants therefore will likely win. However, weakness of new entrants is that it may take longer to get to market and gives established competition more chance to react. Eg. Bachman reacting to accurascale's 31. If the new entrant is much later to market than Hornby/accurscale, the older firm may win. This might explain why accurscale are now announcing later in the production cycle,but had the unfortunate reason of now duplicating the class 60 with cavalex. 

 

New entrants (Eg accurscale, rapid, cavalex) competing with one another. They both lose and maybe the younger of the two suffers more as business operations and purchasing power not as established. 

 

What about Dapol? Sadly I think they generally lose if duplicating. I like the company and I admire the innovation they strive for and their pricing seems reasonable. However their pricing is no more reasonable than a new entrant like accurascale and Dapol have a history of blunders (such as poor colour matching) so cannot quite meeting quality/detail targets set now by new entrants. I think they seem to struggle vs the big names of Hornby and bachman too as I personally do not think they have the brand value. Dapol needs to really carefully strive to be unique with models to survive and focus on tooling that can work for N, OO and I to scale it's business. 

 

What about Heljan? I'm not sure. Similar to Dapol in that it is mid size and also developes in O gauge. Admittedly I struggle to see how Heljan survives as their pricing is high and they often make basic blunders (Eg proportions on class 44 and 47). Not sure how profitable they are but I presume they have to focus on unique models that no one else makes and the buyer purchases as no real alternative. 

 

What are the exceptions to these rules? Most obvious is Hornby. Non enthusiasts know Hornby. Hornby can make a flying scotsman that is objectively worse than any new competition (price or quality) but Hornby will outperform because the general public recognise the brand. As such there are a few locos that competitors should not compete with as Hornby will win. And we (admittedly) need Hornby to survive for the benefit of the whole hobby, so maybe should allow Hornby this free pass on just a few locos. However I do not think this includes the HST anymore as there is space for a more detailed and cheaper alternative and I hope accurscale are tooling something. Hornby perhaps are better suited to a 'railroad' spec and price HST. Not sure how appealing an HST is for a kid these days though as no longer modern and cutting edge. 

 

If anyone thinks the Hornby A3 is worse than anything made by any of the newcomers then a trip to Specsavers is in order....

 

Please tell me what is wrong with this? Even Tony Wright concedes it's better than anything he could build and I think of him as a top notch loco builder.

 

Vastly better than the dogs dinner that Rapido made of the 16XX for example, and I'm more in the market for Pannier Tanks than I am large LNER Pacifics.

Or this....

 

https://www.hattons.co.uk/

 

Hornby have probably sold more A1s and A3s over the years than Accurascale and Rapido have sold models!

 

ISTR it was estimated that the classic 1960s A3 sold well more than a million alone. Look at the bargain bins. You never see any Flying Scotsmen in them, they are full of diesels and electrics though! And I have a feeling that is going to get worse with yet more duplication. 

 

 

Jason

Edited June 15 by Steamport Southport
spellchecker changing words

[Happy Hippo]

2 hours ago, richscylla said:

Could an independent trade organisation be set up who would confidentially hold the status of projects that any signed up manufacturer is working on? As an example, Company X completes their research on a new project and before the spending money on CADs, they register their project and find out if there are any clashes and what stage they are at (CAD, Tooling, Samples, Decorated Samples etc.). The name of the company could be kept confidential but the project and stage would be made available. 

There would be nothing to stop two companies doing the same project, but it would potentially stop duplication on projects where maybe the market can't sustain two manufacturers, or maybe a new entrant to the market who can't take on the big boys head to head. 

To add to that, if two manufacturers did go head to head, then it would stop all the sniping around who started their project first and who copied who.

An arrangement like this wouldn't stop anyone making any model, but might protect companies against duplication that neither want, if neither want it. 

I believe that  is illegal under competition law, in the same way as manufacturer x saying to manufacturer y, you do this one and we'll do that one.

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, GreenGiraffe22 said:

When both Hornby and Rails announced  Terriers, there's sooooo many different ones that could be done I was looking forward to all the different versions that both companies could churn out without duplicating, but both seem to have stagnated... 

 

I believe the last batch of Hornby ones went "missing" and that's why they didn't turn up....

 

This one is due so they haven't given up on them.

 

https://uk.Hornby.com/products/iowcr-class-a1-0-6-0t-no-10-terrier-era-2-web-exclusive-r30356?_br_psugg_q=terrier

 

And there is a Departmental one in stock

 

 

 

Jason

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, davidw said:

I wasn't necessarily referring to Diesels

Agreed, but it gives an example of the problem. Most manufacturers want to create a model with a wide range of sales - which often includes different liveries.

For years no one made a model of the MR/LMS 4F, because it effectively would only be in plain black liveries, with different lettering and numbers.

Entirely different thinking for current manufacturers.

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

Sailing close to the wind regarding restrictive practises.  So close I think it would be found illegal.  

Also it allows companies to see where their (perhaps unknown) competitor is and potentially then accelerate their own project.  

It could also allow the practice of a manufacturer 'reserving' a model, so that no one else could make one.

 

All in all, the idea is bad.

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

 

I model in N, I see all these new models and the massive amount of choice OO modellers now have, bodgers wanting to make their models unique are now finding it more and more likely that the niche models they used to carve from an RTR bog standard model are now themselves available in RTR.  It's daunting the number of models arriving, I wouldn't know where to stop if I was trying to model in OO.

Is that why some manufacturers have gone TT, so effectively they can start their lists again?

[MoonM]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

If anyone thinks the Hornby A3 is worse than anything made by any of the newcomers then a trip to Specsavers is in order....

 

Please tell me what is wrong with this? Even Tony Wright concedes it's better than anything he could build and I think of him as a top notch loco builder.

 

Vastly better than the dogs dinner that Rapido made of the 16XX for example, and I'm more in the market for Pannier Tanks than I am large LNER Pacifics.

Or this....

 

https://www.hattons.co.uk/

 

Hornby have probably sold more A1s and A3s over the years than Accurascale and Rapido have sold models!

 

ISTR it was estimated that the classic 1960s A3 sold well more than a million alone. Look at the bargain bins. You never see any Flying Scotsmen in them, they are full of diesels and electrics though! And I have a feeling that is going to get worse with yet more duplication. 

 

 

Jason

Nothing wrong with it, hence my comment. Hornby will always invest in this model to keep it ahead of the competition. 

The point was IF a manufacturer ever made a better one, the Hornby one would sell very well. This is because the mum, dad, average enthusiast/modeller will want a famous loco (eg flying scotsman) and buy the Hornby one because they recognise the brand, almost irrespective of whether or not Hornby makes the best one

[richscylla]

1 hour ago, Happy Hippo said:

I believe that  is illegal under competition law, in the same way as manufacturer x saying to manufacturer y, you do this one and we'll do that one.

What's illegal about it? This isn't about that, rather announcing what you're working on in the industry without having to let customers know. Nothing about this would stop competition, Hornby could see that Bachmann are doing a loco and decide to do one as well. Just means if Happy Hippo models thinks it would be great to make a new wagon to launch their brand, and find out Hornby are doing the same thing they can make a decision to get out before they spend loads on the tooling. 

[Andy Hayter]

8 minutes ago, richscylla said:

What's illegal about it? This isn't about that, rather announcing what you're working on in the industry without having to let customers know. Nothing about this would stop competition, Hornby could see that Bachmann are doing a loco and decide to do one as well. Just means if Happy Hippo models thinks it would be great to make a new wagon to launch their brand, and find out Hornby are doing the same thing they can make a decision to get out before they spend loads on the tooling. 

 

Competition law 101 - providing mechanisms that reduce competition are illegal and those running them and taking part as companies or individuals are subject to severe sanctions - imprisonment for individuals and fines of up to 10% of world turnover for companies.  Turnover not profit.

 

The very purpose of your idea is to help avoid "unnecessary*"  competition and even though companies might chose to ignore the information, by becoming aware of the information they become liable under the competition laws

 

* which is a term the legislators do not recognise.

[RichardT]

3 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

That was the era that was of interest to many middle-aged modellers at the time, something they'd known in their youth and wanted to recreate.

Which is why no-one buys models of Sopwith Camels or Spitfires anymore, or Napoleonic-era military models, because people only model what they knew in their youth. Oh, hang on…

 

If manufacturers don’t make it, we can’t buy it. My peak train-spotting era was 1974-1980. I enjoy looking at photos from that era but I have no interest in modelling it. What my train spotting made me aware of was that the railway had a long history, and that’s what I’m interested in modelling - the 1890-1940 era when the technology was mature and it was the pre-eminent form of land transport. Of which I have no memories.

 

Richard

Edited June 15 by RichardT
Correction

[Deeps]

I don’t understand the economics behind the decisions of the manufacturers but what does irk me is that whenever a duplication is announced it means that something that hasn’t ever been produced will be bypassed again🙁

[adb968008]

6 hours ago, richscylla said:

Could an independent trade organisation be set up who would confidentially hold the status of projects that any signed up manufacturer is working on? As an example, Company X completes their research on a new project and before the spending money on CADs, they register their project and find out if there are any clashes and what stage they are at (CAD, Tooling, Samples, Decorated Samples etc.). The name of the company could be kept confidential but the project and stage would be made available. 

There would be nothing to stop two companies doing the same project, but it would potentially stop duplication on projects where maybe the market can't sustain two manufacturers, or maybe a new entrant to the market who can't take on the big boys head to head. 

To add to that, if two manufacturers did go head to head, then it would stop all the sniping around who started their project first and who copied who.

An arrangement like this wouldn't stop anyone making any model, but might protect companies against duplication that neither want, if neither want it. 

1. Nothing stops companies today declaring what they want to make, there is no legal requirement for secrecy.

They choose not to.

2. Who would pay for this body, which isnt really anything more than a library of reference. The companies could choose any man walking the street and sign them to an NDA to keep a secret and share the basics, but to what end ?

 

I come back to what I said on an earlier post… chinese whispers… its long been a practice that if someone wanted to soundbite an idea, put out a rumour listen for the reaction… you see it in the wishlists on here.. the last accurascale announcement I counted the “wishes”…

 

Theres no smoke without fire..

 

 

40 (12)  19% 2/1 odds on favourite

08 (12)  19% Evens

Bookies are saying…

67 (8)  12%  bookie says this is Shergar

73 (7) 11% jockeys a rookie watch a later race

42 (6)  9% D-Days on us

HST (5) 8% Started firm, fell into the rough, faded in the last few pages
 

we got a 60 (2 voted for that), but the 40 and the 08 got top votes… that wasnt coincidence and today we got an 08, and i’ll be convinced that someone is soundbiting a 40 from that vote… I reckon a couple of others must be in consideration by some of the other manufacturers. Thats the thing with whispers, keep the secret and everyone guessing, but count the reactions… if no one reacts you can quietly drop it too without loss of face.

 

 

Edited June 15 by adb968008