Nothing for me I'm afraid, no FGW/GWR 158 or Mk3 sleepers. For some reason they are producing a Class 57 GWR which is a waste of time with no coaches to go with it. They did the same when they produced the FGW version, the only good side to that was they did not sell very well and I got one brand new from a box shifter for £55. If the same thing happens again I will buy one, if not my money is going on the Dapol DRS 68 and GWR HST.

Geoff

I suppose if I was going to be totally self indulgent and extravagant , I could be tempted by the reissued "blue pullman", even a used one in original Nanking blue.  When I started on the Western in 1971 I used to see them in this new livery.  However I have already splashed out on Voyagers in Virgin and Cross Country.  And built up an HST in the short lived Virgin 2+5 Cross Country format.  Minimal use for them but I like them.  There are more important and useful things like the promised Thompson coaches I really do want.  And if the Mk 3 sleepers came out in current livery along with the MK 2s to match and a Class 73, all to go with the Dapol 67 on new style, that really would grab me.  Along with a Cravens (105) in green for Portpatrick Town.  In my dreams.

Agree the GWR 57 seems an odd choice given the complete lack of complementary rolling stock. Trying to milk the tooling I guess, as there aren't many other variants of the non-Delner fitted 57s.

Given Dapol haven't done the tooling for the SLEP variant I'm surprised Farish haven't tapped into that market. I'm sure there's a market for newer Caledonian Sleeper liveries (the blue "First" one and the newest teal livery) as well as Dynamic Lines FGW or GWR ones. Given how much the older purple Caledonian Sleeper ones seem to go for, and the fact they've got the mk2 in their arsenal as well I'd have thought that would have been a winner.

Still perplexed by their calling the 450 a new tooling. I did wonder if they'd sorted electrical continuity between coaches, but they're calling the First TPE one a re-livery, so I'd presume it's exactly the same product. I'm not convinced the removal of the pantograph justifies a "new tooling" moniker.

Quote from: njee20 on January 08, 2018, 10:49:28 AM
Still perplexed by their calling the 450 a new tooling. I did wonder if they'd sorted electrical continuity between coaches, but they're calling the First TPE one a re-livery, so I'd presume it's exactly the same product. I'm not convinced the removal of the pantograph justifies a "new tooling" moniker.

It may be that they are changing the chassis tooling to accept Next18?

Cheers,
Alan

It's possible. Would be an odd choice though. IMO one of the reasons the 350 didn't sell better was that you need 3 decoders to convert it to DCC.

Changing to Next18 actually worsens that due to a lack of cheaper Next18 decoders.

What would be good would be developing some sort of electrical connectivity between coaches (perhaps in conjunction with Next18 and a speaker slot) to enable you to convert one with a single decoder. Given the amount of space in the motor coach it's an obvious candidate for a sound conversion, particularly given the distinctive noise they make.

However... surely if you're doing that you do the TPE one as well as the SWT 450, however they're calling the 450 a "new tooling" and the TPE one a "re-livery", which suggests to me they're whipping the pantograph off the 450, filling a few tiny holes in the pantograph well and calling it a new tooling!

At >£230 I predict a bit of a lemon, sadly, which really isn't what is needed.

Quote from: njee20 on January 08, 2018, 11:51:27 AM
What would be good would be developing some sort of electrical connectivity between coaches (perhaps in conjunction with Next18 and a speaker slot) to enable you to convert one with a single decoder.

In an ideal world - but the additional cost of tooling might make the unit more expensive than buying an extra cheap decoder or 2, so it's swings and roundabouts.

They do clearly want to move as much to DCC sound and Next 18 compatable as possible - clearly DCC sound is the next cash cow for them. Just hope they don't ruin the 47 and 31 chassis for it.

Cheers,
Alan

But surely the cheapest tooling is to stick with what they have? Although of course changing to Next18 is just a new circuit board, or rather two new circuit boards in the different vehicles. From their perspective of course any change in tooling is more expensive than forcing the customer to buy two additional decoders, but obviously they have to look on a macro scale at the change in the market perception to the model if they undertook the tooling change. Does the Blue Pullman (or CEP or any other MU) have electrical connectivity between coaches?

However, my point was more that any of those things (with the possible exception of modification to include speakers/reduce decoder requirements) is a very tenuous use of "new tooling" and appears not to be being applied to the other 350 they're releasing, which suggests to me they're doing nothing whatsoever, and releasing a product with a history of poor sales at a significantly higher price point, whilst stock of older ones still remains (although one wonders if sales will now pick up).

Basically I'm being a bit of a pedant.

Quote from: njee20 on January 08, 2018, 12:08:21 PM
But surely the cheapest tooling is to stick with what they have? Although of course changing to Next18 is just a new circuit board, or rather two new circuit boards in the different vehicles. From their perspective of course any change in tooling is more expensive than forcing the customer to buy two additional decoders, but obviously they have to look on a macro scale at the change in the market perception to the model if they undertook the tooling change. Does the Blue Pullman (or CEP or any other MU) have electrical connectivity between coaches?

Given that the Next18 decoders seem larger than NEM651, in some cases (particularly like this unit, where the drive needs to be fairly compact not to block out too many windows) the retooling may end up being more significant that just PCBs. It'll be interesting to see what they do with the J72 - my bet will be they won't be able to get a Next18 in it.

It's also what worries me a smidgen about their retooling of 47s and 31s - to get that speaker in as well may mean a complete drive retool, use of the coreless motor? If so these new ones won't run well with older ones if the class 40 top speed is anything to go by. DCC sound is the bandwagon now being jumped on to make more money.

No UK EMU or DMU has through wiring apart from Hornby/Arnold Belle, and the forthcoming Pendolino. For me it's not necessary (not DCC user) as pickup from one car is plenty enough, and if I did ever DCC I guess dual decoders is the only option for most. Given secondhand cheap decoders can be around £10, whilst undesirable, it's not a massive extra expense - worst for Dapol units that have a central power car and therefore need 2 extra decoders for the ends lights. But would a retooled unit to incorporate this cost less than £10 more? Seems doubtful IMHO.

Quote from: njee20 on January 08, 2018, 12:08:21 PM
However, my point was more that any of those things (with the possible exception of modification to include speakers/reduce decoder requirements) is a very tenuous use of "new tooling" and appears not to be being applied to the other 350 they're releasing, which suggests to me they're doing nothing whatsoever, and releasing a product with a history of poor sales at a significantly higher price point, whilst stock of older ones still remains (although one wonders if sales will now pick up).

Undoubtedly - though given that the 450 has no pantographs and 3rd rail collector shoes, I'd expect the tooling here to be different so it didn't leave holes where a pantograph would be, and new bogies to accommodate the shoes. Granted, it's not a massive tooling change, so your point has validity, but it is a change, so technically they are not wrong in their claims. They'd get hammered if they just repainted the 350 and left a load of gaping attachment holes on the roof where the pantograph would have been, and didn't bother with 3rd rail collectors.

Same could be said for some of the versions of diesel locos in the past - when they released the 37/4 it was a 'new tooling' even though that basically meant it was only a modified body tool from the 37/0.

In terms of the 350/450 sales, I don't have much to add, primarily because they aren't units of interest to me. Although perhaps that's the entire point.........!

Cheers,
Alan

They've already got shoe beams on the 350/1 LM variant, so it's literally a handful of holes. I take your point that technically that is a tooling change, but still...

The motor is in one of the centre coaches, so like the Dapol Voyager you do need 2 additional decoders (three in total for a 4-car unit), which I'm sure is a contributory factor in the poor sales. I certainly don't have a real issue with it, I use cheap function only decoders, and have nine 350s. I think. Maybe only 8 now. They come and go. But I know a lot of people have commented on this as a factor, which I can understand.

Re: re-tooling locos to accommodate speakers etc I'd be concerned about loss of mass too. The old (non-DCC friendly) Dapol 66s were great haulers, then they removed a load of material to make way for a decoder and they're now nowhere near as good, indeed verging on inadequate I'd say. No idea what the 47 is like, but would be a shame if they went on to compromise locos like the 60, which can still manage prototypical trains with ease.

Quote from: njee20 on January 08, 2018, 12:48:59 PM
But I know a lot of people have commented on this as a factor, which I can understand.

Unfortunately, folk assume that a retooled model to do this would cost the same as the existing model - which it almost certainly wouldn't, which is where their argument falls down.

Quote from: njee20 on January 08, 2018, 12:48:59 PM
Re: re-tooling locos to accommodate speakers etc I'd be concerned about loss of mass too. The old (non-DCC friendly) Dapol 66s were great haulers, then they removed a load of material to make way for a decoder and they're now nowhere near as good, indeed verging on inadequate I'd say. No idea what the 47 is like, but would be a shame if they went on to compromise locos like the 60, which can still manage prototypical trains with ease.

To be fair, Dapol's retool of the 66 was done poorly - the loss of weight was mostly due to the removal of a mass of metal around the bogie pivots, which did not seem remotely necessary to accommodate DCC (as Farish have demonstrated) - it was just a poor design, much like the plastic chassied class 73s of similar time period.

Cheers,
Alan

Oh wow SWT 450! I was gonna do a small 00 layout just for these, now I don't have to!

New tooling needed for different underframe arrangement i think...

Would be nice to see a 360 at some point - same tooling as 350, just remove gangways and offer 5 car versions!

Quote from: Simondward on January 08, 2018, 01:02:49 PM
Would be nice to see a 360 at some point - same tooling as 350, just remove gangways and offer 5 car versions!

I.e. not the same tooling, as the ends would have to be retooled to remove the gangway. Plus, they'd be unlikely to modify existing tooling for 350 making it unusable, so this would be a full new tool of at least one the end cars.....

Cheers,
Alan

Quote from: Dr Al on January 08, 2018, 12:55:15 PM

Quote from: njee20 on January 08, 2018, 12:48:59 PM
But I know a lot of people have commented on this as a factor, which I can understand.

Unfortunately, folk assume that a retooled model to do this would cost the same as the existing model - which it almost certainly wouldn't, which is where their argument falls down.

My comment wasn't in relation to the new one specifically, just that it was an oft levelled complaint against buying the 'old' one. I think anyone assuming a new model, even with no change to the tooling (as for the TPE variant), was going to be a comparable price was being somewhat naive - Farish prices have all increased markedly in a comparatively short time. £260 RRP for the 350 isn't a bad price in the context of other offerings, but it's a significant step up from the price the market has got used to on the discounted LM ones. Farish have certainly got an uphill battle on their hands.

Agree re: the 360, it's a bit like saying they could 'just' do a 444 by making the coaches 23m and changing to doors at the end of the coaches.

Quote from: njee20 on January 08, 2018, 01:34:05 PM
£260 RRP for the 350 isn't a bad price in the context of other offerings, but it's a significant step up from the price the market has got used to on the discounted LM ones. Farish have certainly got an uphill battle on their hands.

Yes, I agree. Some with more money than care will not be bothered, but they might struggle to shift a large number. Though £260 is RRP, meaning it'll be £221 with the normal 15% discount. Still expensive for a re-run of existing tooling.

Quote from: njee20 on January 08, 2018, 01:34:05 PM
Agree re: the 360, it's a bit like saying they could 'just' do a 444 by making the coaches 23m and changing to doors at the end of the coaches.

Haha, precisely.

Cheers,
Alan

A fairly quiet year for me from Farish but the looks of things. The Maroon Hawksworths will be welcome but that is about it.