Are we over the Golden Age of N Gauge?

[Bingley Hall]

So I get the frustration but are we Railway Modellers or just train set players???

It doesn't really matter whether we are one or the other does it?

I collect and very occasionally play trains. I don't model - does that make me a lesser person?

[exmouthcraig]

So I get the frustration but are we Railway Modellers or just train set players???

It doesn't really matter whether we are one or the other does it?

I collect and very occasionally play trains. I don't model - does that make me a lesser person?

Not at all, my comment refers to either moaning that you can't buy what you want RTR OR attempting to build your own representation to enable you to get what you want.

We build our own boards, lay our own track, wiring, ballast and scenery so to put effort into remembering a model to allow you to buy multiples isn't the end of the world surely??

I'd love to get to play trains, this year for definite!!

[red_death]

What Matt and Craig have said about re-numbering and unnumbered models is without question correct.  If you can apply transfers then having the ability to remove a number as well is not beyond you.  The reality is that whether we like it or not, the vast majority of the market want a fully finished model. I would love to be able to justify producing kits under the Revolution banner, but it won't happen in the short term.

A couple of other thoughts:
- just because something is announced that you don't want, why do people feel the need to tell others (eg not for me / nothing for me here)? Or complain that their particular model is being overlooked? If something isn't for you that's fine, that is actually true of the majority of releases that they won't be suitable for a large chunk of the market!
- rather than comment/complain about what is being made or not being made, why not turn that energy into something positive and set out on a new thread why something should be produced (there have been a number of good and convincing threads on here as examples). It may be that manufacturers are missing a trick or it may reveal that unless there are hidden masses of potential purchasers that the Y74 class in a livery suitable for 1 March 1924 is just not that popular and therefore unlikely to justify spending thousands of pounds on tooling, but it might just convince a kit manufacturer that it is worth them spending their time producing it.

Cheers, Mike

[9C]

What Matt and Craig have said about re-numbering and unnumbered models is without question correct.  If you can apply transfers then having the ability to remove a number as well is not beyond you.  The reality is that whether we like it or not, the vast majority of the market want a fully finished model. I would love to be able to justify producing kits under the Revolution banner, but it won't happen in the short term.

A couple of other thoughts:
- just because something is announced that you don't want, why do people feel the need to tell others (eg not for me / nothing for me here)? Or complain that their particular model is being overlooked? If something isn't for you that's fine, that is actually true of the majority of releases that they won't be suitable for a large chunk of the market!
- rather than comment/complain about what is being made or not being made, why not turn that energy into something positive and set out on a new thread why something should be produced (there have been a number of good and convincing threads on here as examples). It may be that manufacturers are missing a trick or it may reveal that unless there are hidden masses of potential purchasers that the Y74 class in a livery suitable for 1 March 1924 is just not that popular and therefore unlikely to justify spending thousands of pounds on tooling, but it might just convince a kit manufacturer that it is worth them spending their time producing it.

Cheers, Mike

Thank you to everyone who has responded this afternoon, although I feel some may have seen more negativity in my post than I intended.

I believe that we may be about to enter a golden age.

I'm simply aware that I'm not the world's most gifted modeller and wouldn't want to spoil a brand new £150 RTR model trying to renumber it. If its straightforward, then great.

I don't begrudge other modellers the items available to them and don't think this is an either/or situation, but I believe that the lack of suburban large tanks which ran on ²/₃ of the UK network over a 50 year period is a major omission. I doubt I'm the only modeller of BNG who would benefit from their production.

I'm open to new ways of sourcing models. The new 3D printed body of the Fowler 4P, that Simon at Rue d'Étropal is offering, came about because I told him I'd take six.

Livery details changed, but often the underlying paint colour was one of a few basic variations. Maroon, black and green seem to be predominant for at least a century (1865 - 1965). Mike, you state an example of one class on one date, but this is exactly what Bachmann have done with the Fairburn. The LMS version is only valid from August 1945 to May 1948 and the entire life of the class was only 22 years. The original Fowler design was in use for 43 years and the 1934 livery variation could still be seen in early 1948. Surely that would sell more units?

My very last sentence was a comment about promoting British N Gauge and that new modellers could be "locked-in" to other scales if we don't catch their attention. It has no direct connection to my own preference for 1:1 or 1:150 steam. As has been mentioned, there is a good range of recent image diesel stock available and long may that continue.

If that was TL,DR then in summary:

I don't expect every detail of 9C to be available RTR, but think there are some massive gaps in BNG locomotives from 1897 to 1947. I'm prepared to look at alternative production methods, such as a 3D print prototype which I commissioned. I'm not saying chassis instead of full model, nor un-numbered instead of fully finished - I'm suggesting there may be a market for chassis only, painted only and fully finished to be offered in parallel.... Maybe I'm wrong but if I don't ask (as a recent returner after 30 years) then I won't know.

[Paddy]

The NGS say they had to abort their next proposed offering when a manufacturer announced it was going to produce the same model. Now they are rethinking.

More broadly, smaller dwellings surely = more preferences for N gauge. We have more manufacturers already. That tells you they think the best is yet to come.

Hi Buffin,

The size/space argument has been used for decades with regards to N gauge but OO still rules the market.  I do wonder sometimes where all these OO models are going and what they are run on.  Do the majority of OO models sell to Clubs, people with lofts, large sheds, dedicated rooms/dwellings?

My first layout was 6'x4' and it was enormous for N gauge.  It was also physically big (size of a double bed) and yet the same space in OO would not allow much.

It is a mystery...

Paddy

[Paddy]

So I get the frustration but are we Railway Modellers or just train set players???

It doesn't really matter whether we are one or the other does it?

I collect and very occasionally play trains. I don't model - does that make me a lesser person?

Not at all - whatever floats your boat.  At the end of the day if you are buying models then you are helping to support and grow the N gauge market.  HOLLERTON JUNCTION is my train set and yes I can be found "playing" on it. :-)

Paddy

[PLD]

Also the old Peco/Rivarossi 5XP came painted but with optional decals for alternate identities. Surely this approach would offer manufacturers a greater chance of repeat sales? I'd buy eight of the above Fowler tanks if I could number them differently, but only one (or maybe none) if I then had to worry about causing damage as I ham-fistedly started removing the supplied running number to substitute alternates. This choice would be even more worthwhile for coaches and wagons. Who wants a coal depot with 30 7-plank wagons all identically numbered 351270?

Then the current Batch Production methods of the big manufacturers, with a new identity for each batch should suit you well...

Just for 1 example, in 30 odd years, Graham Farish produced their 'Black 5' with just two identities (1 LMS, 1 BR). It was 5041 or renumber it yourself... Since the Bachmann takeover, there were at least 2 LMS and 3 BR identities on the original Poole Model and in less than 10 years so far 3 or 4 LMS and 7 or 8 BR identities on the new Blue Ribband spec model.

Livery details changed, but often the underlying paint colour was one of a few basic variations. Maroon, black and green seem to be predominant for at least a century (1865 - 1965). Mike, you state an example of one class on one date, but this is exactly what Bachmann have done with the Fairburn. The LMS version is only valid from August 1945 to May 1948 and the entire life of the class was only 22 years. The original Fowler design was in use for 43 years and the 1934 livery variation could still be seen in early 1948. Surely that would sell more units?

Yes they probably would sell a few more LMS liveried Fowlers than Fairburns, but fact is BR liveried examples would outsell LMS by 2-3:1 on either so any loco that survived long into BR days will always win over one that was extinct before 1948 no matter how long it lasted or how many liveries it carried...

I would not be at all surprised if the Stanier and Fowler versions of the Class 4 tanks do follow at some point, however I suspect the rationale for the Fairburn coming first is 1. they roamed further under BR so potential sales to Southern and North Eastern Region modellers as well as Midland region modellers 2. there are a couple of Preserved examples in existence which aids research & 3. more commonality of parts with the BR Standard 4 tank produced at the same time so some savings in development costs. (In fact it was a pleasant surprise to see the Fairburn hit the shops first.)

[9C]

Thanks, PLD.

That rolling batch system sounds good. Perhaps two or three identities per batch for those classes which numbered in the hundreds. 

The Fowlers lasted almost to the very end of BR steam and the final two were withdrawn only a year before the Fairburns were. 1923 to 1966 compared to 1945 to 1967. I take your point that BR liveries may be more popular, but my main (still unanswered) query is "why favour the (prototype with a) 22 year lifespan over the 43 year one?"

As for the GC => LNER locomotives, some of those built in the late 1890s were still seen on busy branch line services 60+ years later.

[PLD]

my main (still unanswered) query is "why favour the (prototype with a) 22 year lifespan over the 43 year one?"

I suspect the rationale for the Fairburn coming first is 1. they roamed further under BR so potential sales to Southern and North Eastern Region modellers as well as Midland region modellers 2. there are a couple of Preserved examples in existence which aids research & 3. more commonality of parts with the BR Standard 4 tank produced at the same time so some savings in development costs.

[9C]

OK, 2 & 3 I can understand but if you look back to my post at 13:08 GMT today you'll notice that "Fowler 4P tanks could be seen from Thurso to Bournemouth for over 40 years". There's not much of the network that isn't between those extremes.

[exmouthcraig]

Have you tried asking the manufacturers why they don't make your tank engine???

Like Mike @red_death suggested focus your efforts on putting the case too them and see where you go from there. Presumably the answers you've been given dont meet with your approval

[9C]

Craig,

The one manufacturer who has actually taken the time to correspond with me now produces one of the body types I asked for. The sad fact is that without persistence I wouldn't have any answers.

PLD has suggested a couple of plausible reasons, for which I'm grateful, but his third is wildly off the mark.

[njee20]

I wouldn't know a 4P if it ran me over, but there must be a reason neither Farish nor Dapol have produced one, however obvious it may seem to you, and ultimately that must be a commercial decision.

[nookfield]

there must be a reason neither Farish nor Dapol have produced one

Probably because Hornby have produced an OO gauge version recently (2016 I think).

[Train Waiting]

I wouldn't know a 4P if it ran me over...

It would look a bit like this! She is the Fairburn variety and lives with her friend 42085 at Haverthwaite.  Good engines and, as PLD suggests, adopted as a quasi-BR Standard until the BR Standard 4MT 2-6-4Ts were introduced.  On the Southern they were sometimes referred to as class 'P4' which might annoy 'EM' and '00' gauge modellers!



But we are fine as Graham Farish have produced a very fine 'N'!

Apologies for all this nonsense...

John