who will take on the class 50 now?

[Smiffy]

I think @GreatBigBlue's comment is more about choosing between a simpler model that's delivered versus a better detailed model that doesn't exist.

I get that, but there are few, if any, examples where I'd buy a basic model over nothing at all. We have a superb range of excellently detailed models, I don't want something that regresses us 30 years. Like I said, I speak only for myself, but to that end I would definite try and dissuade any manufacturer from assuming the market would welcome a 'trainset' model with open arms. I'm lucky I guess in having excellent eyesight, I guess that makes me a rivet counter!

Agree, I really don't want to go back to the dark days.

It would almost certainly cost as much for a basic 50 as for a new detailed one, if Farish were to re-work the front end - new tool - and get a new chassis with lights unless one exists that could be fudged under the new body. 

I suspect Farish will have thought of following the Hornby Railroad model and decided (rightly or wrongly) that the UK N market just won't accept it.

Best

Iain

[Chris Morris]

I am not the least but interested in the old Farish 50, indeed I wasn't interested in N gauge when that was all there was. So it has to be a current standard one for me.
For example I couldn't bring myself to buy an old Farish 47 at an extreme bargain price but I very happily bought the new version at just over £100. Likewise I just wouldn't buy a Farish 52 but have 6 Dapol ones. It's about the shape being correct  and also the fineness of the mouldings and the level of detail.
I would buy a class 50  ade to current standards whether it came from Dapol, Farish or anyone else. I guess I would pay up to £150 for an unchipped one.

[NeMo]

I think @GreatBigBlue's comment is more about choosing between a simpler model that's delivered versus a better detailed model that doesn't exist.

I get that, but there are few, if any, examples where I'd buy a basic model over nothing at all. We have a superb range of excellently detailed models, I don't want something that regresses us 30 years.

Obviously I'm not suggesting we go backwards 30 years! But would you need every tiny detail spot-on? Let's give an example here. I believe that on the Dapol 'Western' you've got pre- and post-Ealing crash battery box clips. These are tiny, sub-mm sized features. It's obviously nice to know @DJM Dave went to the effort here to make sure the 'Western' was right. But variations add to the cost, and really, how many people would notice these if they weren't pointed out to them -- and I totally get that some so-called modellers absolutely live for the moment when they can spot a "basic error" on model nobody else can see.

I'm lucky I guess in having excellent eyesight, I guess that makes me a rivet counter!

Enjoy it while it lasts. Virtually nobody over the age of 40 has the eyesight they had when they were 20. Sooner or later, we all need glasses...

Cheers, NeMo

[Bealman]

Speak for yourself 

[NeMo]

Speak for yourself 

Nope, stats. Unless you're one in a million, a 45-year-old's eyes won't focus on near objects as well as they did when that person was 20. The protein in the lens becomes harder with age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodation_(eye)#/media/File:Duane_(1922)_Fig_4_modified.svg

You'll notice the standard deviation lines above and below the mean line. You'd have to be pretty unusual to fall outside that range! Or, like me, in denial! I'm 46, I don't wear glasses, but sadly can't focus on things closer than, say, 25 cm, which is way off what a teenager can manage.

Cheers, NeMo

[Bealman]

I'm 65 this year but still think I'm NewportNobby's eyes and brain 

[Ben A]

Hello there,

It may be worth considering this from the manufacturer's point of view.

If your aim is, always, to produce the best possible model you can with current technology then while your models may be considered expensive by some, you will have the satisfaction of a job well done.

If you start compromising on details or finesse then you immediately open yourself to criticism and accusations that the model "should have included part X for the money..."

And where do you draw the line on which bits to leave out, and which bits to include?  Do you start from a sale price and work backwards?  Every visible detail you compromise or omit gives a discerning customer a reason not to buy.

For example:  Does your "base" level Class 50 have moulded handrails?  Is the distinctive MU connector pipe moulded or omitted altogether?  Do you mould the body in yellow and just paint the blue sidesand roof?  Whether you choose the original or refurbished version as your "starting point" you'll immediately upset half the market!  What mechanism do you use?  Should you make it DCC ready, or offer a DCC Sound version too?  How many iterations of CAD design will you go through to get it looking "right" - after all computer time needs to be paid for too?

I also think Union Mills is something of a red herring to this discussion.  I am not a steam enthusiast, so I do not own any, but as I am aware they don't feature the more complex outside valve gear used on most of the larger prototypes, and the locomotives offered are largely in plain colours - usually black - requiring little in the way of paint masking or tampo printing which would of course add to the cost.

Cheers

Ben A.

[njee20]

Greatbigblue does seem to mention two things - first of including molded handrails, ditching etched grilles etc, which I would absolutely not want, then doing away with the minute technical variation between classes, which I'd be mildly more happy with, depending on what they were.

Taking the 50 I personally wouldn't want an "unrefurbished" one with the different roof vents masquerading as a later model. I'd accept incorrect bogie detail though (I'm hypothesising, I don't know if they've changed, which is why I don't care!). Some would probably feel the other way round though.

To Ben's point how do you draw the line on what's acceptable? Hornby did the "design clever" thing and it was a universal flop!

I'd want DCC capability, and I'd take finer detail over working lights. Again, people who are on DC wouldn't care about the former, and people have mentioned lights as being a top priority.

[Newportnobby]

I'm 65 this year but still think I'm NewportNobby's eyes and brain 

Whoa, George
Don't drag me into this thread please as I have no interest whatsoever in a Hoover. I am quite happy with my Dyson, thank you.*

Other vacuum cleaners are available

[davidinyork]

doing away with the minute technical variation between classes, which I'd be mildly more happy with, depending on what they were.

This already happens to an extent - e.g. the Dapol HST power cars don't have the correct roof detail for those with Brush cooler groups (currently, that's all of them apart from the FGW fleet, so all current liveries apart from FGW / GWR, and a number of recent liveries too). It's not ideal, and Hornby do model these correctly, but I think it's an acceptable compromise given the smaller market for N gauge.

[Karhedron]

Also I think that the Mk3 coaches have door lights, even when this not correct for the earlier liveries.

[davidinyork]

Also I think that the Mk3 coaches have door lights, even when this not correct for the earlier liveries.

Yes, and the roof detail on them is correct for the Mk3 and Mk3b, but not for the Mk3a.

[njee20]

More obvious with HSTs is the incorrect roof vents on the coaches and the incorrect buffets. I'm ok with that personally. I'd rather they got the livery right, but that's a well trodden path!

[davidinyork]

More obvious with HSTs is the incorrect roof vents on the coaches and the incorrect buffets. I'm ok with that personally. I'd rather they got the livery right, but that's a well trodden path!

The roof details are OK for HSTs - it's Mk3a carriages which they are wrong for.

[njee20]

One or t'other, again, this is why I'm personally not bothered, I don't spot it :-)