Quote from: mark100 on June 06, 2015, 12:06:52 PM

Quote from: DesertHound on June 05, 2015, 01:48:26 PM

Quote from: mark100 on June 05, 2015, 01:00:26 PM

Quote from: Dr Al on June 05, 2015, 12:58:18 PM

Quote from: mark100 on June 05, 2015, 12:55:43 PM
Lima types both in N and OO gauge as an economy range. 1 motor bogie and a feed coming from the trailing bogie to the motor bogie.

Please no! Those were truly dire - we do not need a return to that, it would be terrible for N!!

Cheers,
Alan

Maybe for some, but possibly not for those who have limited budgets and would be just happy with a N Gauge loco that just ran forwards and backwards.

I think the crux of Mark's point here is less on the actual mechanism (maybe I'm wrong Mark, so feel free to say so), and more on getting something to market that's simple and cheap - hence making the models more affordable to those who can't / won't pay the going rate for the super detailed stuff. And even if it's not the crux of Mark's point, to my mind it's the crux of the debate.

I see your point Al about Bachmann not wishing to "go backwards". That said, if you own a stable of brands, there's no reason you can't introduce a "lower budget" brand which doesn't in any way tarnish the superior brands in your stable. New entrants to the hobby wouldn't know, or associate, Graham Farish with a lower budget brand, even if that said lower budget brand was owned by Bachmann, so long as Graham Farish didn't go down that route themselves.

I really do hear both sides of the debate on this one. It's a difficult call (maybe not to the manufacturers who have studied it and decided against it, since they have all of the info) but I'd like to think something will come along one day at the more "entry level". On the other hand, forging forward technically is also desirable, I just hope we don't price people out of the market (or should that be, I hope we don't restrict the size of the market). Perhaps we always have done.

Dan

Bang on, this is what im trying to get at, the original Poole toolings on a basic economy chassis, not the previous China twin flywheel type but something more basic even if it was a plastic housing with white metal weights to help gain traction.
People are saying the market is not big enough, but when Bachmann bring a new BR Green/Blue diesel out in the Farish range, they sell out pretty quick and there is a demand for more and people end up paying higher prices on ebay for them, i understood they made 504 of each model but have been corrected it is 1008
Dapol BR Blue stuff sells out very quick to.
I apologise to the steam enthusiasts but I don't have a clue as to what steamers & liveries are popular
In my opinion it's not that the hobby is not big enough, its the era people are modelling that depict sales, it seems some eras are more popular than others.
Mark.

Having owned and run Lima models I can agree with Alan that it is certainly NOT the way to go. That would attract and retain nobody, the models are a throwback to another time.

The idea of a "cheap" chassis with extra weights ignores a number of points: -

1) Tooling - separate components all need to be tooled and all those extra components assembled there is a cost to all of that and as has already been said it is unlikely any real savings will result.
2) Cost of a duplicate range (I repeat) is surely unattractive to ANY mainstream manufacturer, the only way I could ever see it happening is if someone like Hornby stepped in with a competing range based around a different demographic. This I think unlikely.

I do think an element of "design clever" thinking is a realistic prospect going forward as the labour (and therefore assembly) cost element of a loco increases. On the current BachFarish range there are numerous added fittings like (e.g.) tender steps which could surely be moulded as part of the tender underframe?

Roy

Quote from: sparky on June 06, 2015, 12:21:36 PM
I really can see an argument both ways but are we really saying £100 for a super detailed DCC ready loco is not a fair price ?.
For me the deatiling level is now excellent and any further improvements need to be concentrated in reliable out of the box running requiring no "fettling" and I would happily contnue to pay £100 if the locos reliability both from electrics and mechanics were improved. For some I understand the fun of repairing the less complex older style locos but for me it would be a backward step. I am sure we have some petrol heads on the forum who love playing about with car engines etc.. but I would rather the reliability of a newer car even though they are now very complex and almost impossible for a fettler to repair if anything goes wrong....but it should not go wrong at £100 a throw!

That's not what I'm actually saying, some people cannot simply afford to build a fleet up with rolling stock at the current prices.
Bachmann farish have 2 different toolings for the following (All diesel again as i know nothing about the steam)
class 08
class 20
class 31
class 37
class 40 as of next year
class 47
Class 55

Dapol have duplicated class 33, 50 (?) 52, 56

If i have missed any other classes, it's not really that relevant for the perfectionists.

Why see the old toolings going to waste when they could be popped onto a basic chassis and offered to those who are just happy with a basic model, no DCC ready chassis, no working lights, no bits bag,
the same with the old wagons and coaches.

I agree there is a second hand market on eBay and at shops, but not everyone owns internet or has a model shop nearby that offers second hand. some shops trade old for new then sell the secondhand stuff at exhibitions.

Quote from: mark100 on June 06, 2015, 03:40:58 PM

Quote from: sparky on June 06, 2015, 12:21:36 PM
I really can see an argument both ways but are we really saying £100 for a super detailed DCC ready loco is not a fair price ?.
For me the deatiling level is now excellent and any further improvements need to be concentrated in reliable out of the box running requiring no "fettling" and I would happily contnue to pay £100 if the locos reliability both from electrics and mechanics were improved. For some I understand the fun of repairing the less complex older style locos but for me it would be a backward step. I am sure we have some petrol heads on the forum who love playing about with car engines etc.. but I would rather the reliability of a newer car even though they are now very complex and almost impossible for a fettler to repair if anything goes wrong....but it should not go wrong at £100 a throw!

That's not what I'm actually saying, some people cannot simply afford to build a fleet up with rolling stock at the current prices.
Bachmann farish have 2 different toolings for the following (All diesel again as i know nothing about the steam)
class 08
class 20
class 31
class 37
class 40 as of next year
class 47
Class 55

Dapol have duplicated class 33, 50 (?) 52, 56

If i have missed any other classes, it's not really that relevant for the perfectionists.

Why see the old toolings going to waste when they could be popped onto a basic chassis and offered to those who are just happy with a basic model, no DCC ready chassis, no working lights, no bits bag,
the same with the old wagons and coaches.

I agree there is a second hand market on eBay and at shops, but not everyone owns internet or has a model shop nearby that offers second hand. some shops trade old for new then sell the secondhand stuff at exhibitions.

I think the reason has already been discussed and there is a general consensus as to why reuse of existing older tooling will not happen even if it still exists and remains viable.

Let's take the Class 40 that is we hope to be introduced within the next 18 months. This will have cost probably over £100k to tool. At launch we will see three livery variants, two BR Green and one BR Blue, a total of just over 3000 models to shift. Given the demographic of N Gauge modellers most will expect a "state of the art" model and hopefully not be disappointed. They will have one choice and most will buy it.

What possible commercial attraction would there then be to Bachmann of dusting off the old Class 40 tooling, have to source again the (now redundant) open framed motor and produce this "old" model in direct competition to the new one even IF it could be manufactured and assembled significantly more cheaply which cannot be taken as a given? The answer appears to me very little/none.

Regards

Roy

Quote from: mark100 on June 06, 2015, 12:06:52 PMBang on, this is what im trying to get at, the original Poole toolings on a basic economy chassis, not the previous China twin flywheel type but something more basic even if it was a plastic housing with white metal weights to help gain traction.

But to do as you propose, to introduce a new/different chassis, immediately you need new additional tooling which means around £100k sunk costs before you actually produce anything... To recover that on the limited likely demand for your 'Budget' range, you will probably have to charge a HIGHER retail price than the more popular 'detailed' range.

Designing and creating tools for additional/alternative components to a lower standard simply does not work. It increases costs not reduce them! The only way it is ever going to make sense (and the only reason it works for Hornby) is that they use old existing tools.

Quote from: mark100 on June 06, 2015, 12:06:52 PMPeople are saying the market is not big enough, but when Bachmann bring a new BR Green/Blue diesel out in the Farish range, they sell out pretty quick and there is a demand for more and people end up paying higher prices on ebay for them

While they do often sell out quickly at the big name boxshifters, you can usually still pick them up for only a few pounds more at the smaller less well known retailers for quite a while.
The reality is the naive or lazy panic-buy and over-pay on e-bay...

When models genuinely sell out quickly, Bachmann do produce a new batch relatively quickly (with a different number so with the bonus of selling a second one to collectors!)

Quote from: mark100 on June 06, 2015, 03:40:58 PM
Bachmann farish have 2 different toolings for the following (All diesel again as i know nothing about the steam)
class 08
class 20
class 31
class 37
class 40 as of next year
class 47
Class 55

Why see the old toolings going to waste when they could be popped onto a basic chassis and offered to those who are just happy with a basic model, no DCC ready chassis, no working lights, no bits bag, the same with the old wagons and coaches.

Because changing tools between production runs adds a massive amount to the cost so it is much cheaper to produce more of one type than a smaller number each of two different types.

The actual difference in materials and assembly cost of the two variants of a model will be a matter of a few £s certainly well under £20. To have two parallel ranges means double the set-up costs for each batch and that has a significant effect on the final price.

As a rough guide you produce 1000 'Detailed' locos with an overall factory gate cost of £50,000. (average cost £50) If you produce 500 'Detailed' and 500 'Budget' models your total factory gate cost will be in the range of £65-70,000 (average £65-70). Therefore to make the same profit as you do now selling at £100 each, you need to sell at an average of £115-120. If the retail price difference truly represents the production cost difference there should be about £20 difference so you have to sell the 'Detailed' model at £125-130 and the 'Budget' model at £105-110. i.e. splitting the production means the 'Budget' Model actually costs the end customer MORE than the 'Detailed' one would be if only the 'detailed' version is made...

Well, I must admit to being a little confused regarding some of the Railroad range & fitting into the larger scheme.  Let me explain ...

Most of the RR range are from the older toolings, and are less detailed (and a lot lower cost); no-one is going to cry if little Jimmy drops it & it shatters (well, apart from Jimmy, that is !  ).  So far, so good; Hornby are making a bit more money out of long-paid for moulds etc, and the budget & child market is being met.  I get that & am OK with it (although don't buy them myself - 20-y-o mouldings are fine on a 20-y-o model, to me, but not a new one  )

Then along comes something like the P2, and the marketing strategy leaves me wondering ...  It's a brand-new model (OK, maybe chunks of the chassis are pulled in from another one, but the body is brand new), and the 'best' version is the TTS release : RRP is £155.  Using the same model, but without the TTS chip, you can have it at RRP £123.  And then you can have the RailRoad version at RRP £83 !!!  OK, it lacks some things (no striping, non-detailed mouldings (eg unpainted rails), lack of lining etc), but as far as I can tell - it's the same chassis as the 'proper' versions, it's the same body moulding, it's purely the detailing level that is minimal.  They've also put it into a set, and it appears to be the middle version (ie fully detailed, no sound chip).

Surely producing this RR model, from the same components as the main range model, is diluting the sales of the more detailed version ?  I can imagine some people wanting to do the detailing themselves (Hornby have made some errors, including one (to me) glaringly obvious one), and they'll go for the RR version ...  £40 will buy a lot of detailing extras & leave money on the table too !  There are also some examples where a brand new model has gone into RailRoad but not the full range    I find the strategy on some of these crazy ... 

Mike

Hi PLD

That's really good info. you've provided there, if indeed your figures are correct, or even close to correct. I do see what you are saying.

I think Mark was talking of using some pre-existing tooling / moulds for the range. Why not even have one/two basic chassis only and just fit bodies onto those?

All that said, I again maintain I'm not saying it's 100% commercially viable! but the discussion we're having is a good one! 

Cheers

Dan

Quote from: Roy L S on June 06, 2015, 04:15:19 PM

What possible commercial attraction would there then be to Bachmann of dusting off the old Class 40 tooling, have to source again the (now redundant) open framed motor and produce this "old" model in direct competition to the new one even IF it could be manufactured and assembled significantly more cheaply which cannot be taken as a given? The answer appears to me very little/none.

Regards

Roy

Roy

I think the idea is not to produce something that directly competes, but something aimed at an entirely new market segment (entry level, younger members). The product would be "inferior enough" so as not to compete with the far more superior models, just like a BMW 318 most probably doesn't compete with a 323 etc. (I'm not a car expert but I know one's an entry level and one's higher up the range).

Those open core motors have been used up until quite recently in the class 20 and I wouldn't be surprised if Bachmann still had a shedload, or could get them produced for not more than they used to.

I think I've exhausted all I have to say on this and I think you guys have put up some compelling reasons as to why this most probably won't happen. I'll still respond in kind to new posts on the topic but I'll try and be mindful not to repeat what we've already said as I can see how we could go around in circles here.

Maybe Mark & I can put in an offer for the Poole tooling, get down to Homebase and buy a garden shed and set up business 

Thanks for all the input and debate from both sides.

MikeDunn thanks also for that analysis of the Hornby RR range. Interesting thoughts

Dan

Quote from: MikeDunn on June 06, 2015, 07:10:55 PM
Well, I must admit to being a little confused regarding some of the Railroad range & fitting into the larger scheme.  Let me explain ...

Most of the RR range are from the older toolings, and are less detailed (and a lot lower cost); no-one is going to cry if little Jimmy drops it & it shatters (well, apart from Jimmy, that is !  ).  So far, so good; Hornby are making a bit more money out of long-paid for moulds etc, and the budget & child market is being met.  I get that & am OK with it (although don't buy them myself - 20-y-o mouldings are fine on a 20-y-o model, to me, but not a new one  )

Then along comes something like the P2, and the marketing strategy leaves me wondering ...  It's a brand-new model (OK, maybe chunks of the chassis are pulled in from another one, but the body is brand new), and the 'best' version is the TTS release : RRP is £155.  Using the same model, but without the TTS chip, you can have it at RRP £123.  And then you can have the RailRoad version at RRP £83 !!!  OK, it lacks some things (no striping, non-detailed mouldings (eg unpainted rails), lack of lining etc), but as far as I can tell - it's the same chassis as the 'proper' versions, it's the same body moulding, it's purely the detailing level that is minimal.  They've also put it into a set, and it appears to be the middle version (ie fully detailed, no sound chip).

Surely producing this RR model, from the same components as the main range model, is diluting the sales of the more detailed version ?  I can imagine some people wanting to do the detailing themselves (Hornby have made some errors, including one (to me) glaringly obvious one), and they'll go for the RR version ...  £40 will buy a lot of detailing extras & leave money on the table too !  There are also some examples where a brand new model has gone into RailRoad but not the full range    I find the strategy on some of these crazy ... 

Mike

Hi Mike

I think the simple answer is economies of scale in a much bigger Market, but I do agree with you.

The Railroad P2, Duke of Gloucester and A1 were I believe products of the "design clever" period, one which Hornby now seem to be quietly forgetting where various levels of decoration and detail justified different price-points on the same basic model.

It has to be said that not all Railroad is old tooling - the Crosti 9F is brand new and the chassis it goes on, while I believe a carry over from the "standard" Railroad 9F is a new loco-drive unit. Many others like the D49 which was tender drive all those years ago is now loco drive. So yes, extracting maximum value out of the old thoroughly amortised tooling plus tweaking to keep to an acceptable standard too works in 00.

However the 00 market is about four to five times bigger than N, so they have the demand to do this and still find room for the super detail stuff too.

Regards

Roy

Quote from: DesertHound on June 06, 2015, 08:25:06 PM

Quote from: Roy L S on June 06, 2015, 04:15:19 PM

What possible commercial attraction would there then be to Bachmann of dusting off the old Class 40 tooling, have to source again the (now redundant) open framed motor and produce this "old" model in direct competition to the new one even IF it could be manufactured and assembled significantly more cheaply which cannot be taken as a given? The answer appears to me very little/none.

Regards

Roy

Roy

I think the idea is not to produce something that directly competes, but something aimed at an entirely new market segment (entry level, younger members). The product would be "inferior enough" so as not to compete with the far more superior models, just like a BMW 318 most probably doesn't compete with a 323 etc. (I'm not a car expert but I know one's an entry level and one's higher up the range).

Those open core motors have been used up until quite recently in the class 20 and I wouldn't be surprised if Bachmann still had a shedload, or could get them produced for not more than they used to.

I think I've exhausted all I have to say on this and I think you guys have out up so e compelling reasons as to why this most probably won't happen. I'll still respond in kind to new posts on the topic but I'll try and be mindful not to repeat what we've already said as I can see how we could go around in circles here.

Maybe Mark & I can put in an offer for the Poole tooling, get down to Homebase and buy a garden shed and set up business 

Thanks for all the input and debate from both sides.

Dan

Hi Dan

An interesting debate. I think your tongue in cheek suggestion of setting up in competition to potentially target a new market within the scale is the one and only way the idea could ever fly.

Regards

Roy

Quote from: MikeDunn on June 06, 2015, 07:10:55 PM
Then along comes something like the P2, and the marketing strategy leaves me wondering ...

The difference with the Railroad P2 to reissuing the old Poole Farish range as some are suggesting is that it uses exactly the same body tooling and chassis as the main stream detailed version, it just has less passes through the paint shop and some of the hand-fitted details are omitted. What is left off doesn't impact on the economies of scale of the mechanised stages of production. There is only one body moulding tool etc so only one set-up charge for the production run covering both variants...

Quote from: DesertHound on June 06, 2015, 08:25:06 PM

Quote from: Roy L S on June 06, 2015, 04:15:19 PM

What possible commercial attraction would there then be to Bachmann of dusting off the old Class 40 tooling, have to source again the (now redundant) open framed motor and produce this "old" model in direct competition to the new one even IF it could be manufactured and assembled significantly more cheaply which cannot be taken as a given? The answer appears to me very little/none.

Regards

Roy

Roy

I think the idea is not to produce something that directly competes, but something aimed at an entirely new market segment (entry level, younger members). The product would be "inferior enough" so as not to compete with the far more superior models, just like a BMW 318 most probably doesn't compete with a 323 etc. (I'm not a car expert but I know one's an entry level and one's higher up the range).

Those open core motors have been used up until quite recently in the class 20 and I wouldn't be surprised if Bachmann still had a shedload, or could get them produced for not more than they used to.

I think I've exhausted all I have to say on this and I think you guys have put up some compelling reasons as to why this most probably won't happen. I'll still respond in kind to new posts on the topic but I'll try and be mindful not to repeat what we've already said as I can see how we could go around in circles here.

Maybe Mark & I can put in an offer for the Poole tooling, get down to Homebase and buy a garden shed and set up business 

Thanks for all the input and debate from both sides.

MikeDunn thanks also for that analysis of the Hornby RR range. Interesting thoughts

Dan

Ironically i was discussing this with Gareth tonight whilst having a few jars, and he suggested i create a basic Bo Bo and Co Co chassis housing in resin that would use parts from a life like chassis or similar and fit the existing Farish shells. However
1) I don't think i would have the time to do this and i don't want to give up the family time I have each day.
2) Would people be interested
3) If i was to do this, do i pick specific classes such as 25, 31, 37, 47, 50, 55, which were popular and in large fleets.

Haven't read all the posts now but I would be 100% for a "budget" version these days (I can only comment on diesels):

• I'm priced out of the market now -just can't justify £100 or thereabouts for a loco
  I'm kind of fed up with fancy new loco's with lights which inevitably stop working every now and again, and very fine detail just falling off.  I can live without either for better reliability and durability -you can't see the detail unless close-up anyway

...I wouldn't touch Poole stuff again after a few experiences with them but I'd have no quarms going for a re-run of China models at "say" £60'ish, rather than the new DCC ready versions at £100 or more.  It would at least mean I could buy something new again rather than rely 100% on second hand.  I still think there's a market for unpainted versions of locos and wagons, but everyone says been there done that.  Peco are getting my hard earned pennies these days because I can build a rake of wagons at £3-4 each, if I went for the Dapol / Farish finished ones I could only have a rake of 2 or 3 over any reasonable timescale.

Rich

Unless something changes the economic viability of new releases is questionable as many people are not spending more they will end up buying fewer loco's meaning more unsold stock lying around at Dapol and Grafar which in turn will provide cash-flow issues and reduce their ability to produce new items.
something needs to give.  The high prices are also deterring people from N gauge.

Quote from: Roy L S on June 06, 2015, 08:29:46 PMIt has to be said that not all Railroad is old tooling - the Crosti 9F is brand new and the chassis it goes on, while I believe a carry over from the "standard" Railroad 9F is a new loco-drive unit.

Creating a Crosti 9F always seemed like a no brainer to me and it amazes me it took Hornby or Bachmann this long to release one.  However, when it was announced there were two decisions that surprised me:

1. Why create a Crosti as part of the Railroad "budget" range.  Surely such a class of model is likely to appeal to the serious modeller more.  I am not sure little Johnny even knows what a Crosti was.    This is a big black freight locomotive so does not have the appeal of passenger locos like the Tornado, P2 or Duke.  One can only assume that Hornby were concerned about how many Crostis they would actually sell and opted for the safer, cheaper option of creating a less detailed RR version.

2. However, if you are going for the lower cost, less risky option then why on earth spend money on creating a new chassis.  They have already created a loco drive chassis for the standard 9F - surely this could have been used under the Crosti with only minor tweaks and/or compromises.

Personally, if I was Hornby I would release the Crosti as a fully detailed model with its new chassis and much of the finer fitted detailed such as smokebox door dart, sprung buffers etc.  Still what do I know, I am sure Mr Kohler had very valid reasons for his decisions.  I suppose it could be down to the fact that the mouldings and chassis for the standard 9F are in a different factory from the Crosti 9F.

Interesting topic but rather off the topic of a budget British N gauge range. 

Paddy