009 Society Members Forum

Hi Folks
I was wondering what loco most people would like to see as a RTR.

That's a very interesting question.  From a personal point of view, I would like to see a 009 Tralee & Dingle 2-6-2T since I want two for my railway and they aren't available commercially.

From a business point of view, I suppose you would have to choose something that was widely used on layouts and flexible in its application, an 0-4-0 quarry locomotive or an 0-6-0 goods engine.  Paul Windle produces a wide selection of ready to run locomotives built to order which he has presumably chosen on the basis of what sells best.

Hi Rhobat.

The T&D locos are around as kits.

The OOn3 kit is still (as far as I know) available from Branchlines and can be built to 009 - I think that Andrew Mullins (former proprietor of Branchiles) used to do a set of extra parts to make it outside framed and there was a photo of one so built in 009 News some time ago made by one of our Japenese members (Yuji Niwa I think? - perhaps someone else can confirm and post details, please).

In addition Chivers Finelines did a HO scale body kit to fit on a Farish Hall chassis.  It may not be currently available, but if you contacted Matt Chivers direct (or through the NGRM Forum) as he now looks after the Chivers 4mm scale range he may be able to help assuming thet the moulds are still useable.  One came up on eBay recently and though the bidding has finished there may still be a photo to see if you search for item number 260847955518.

Personally I have thought that a cobination of the Chivers body kit, an new farish 08 chassis and a set of cylinders from RT models would make a nice loco...

With respect to Paul Windle, he actually decides on what locos to build based on what chassis he can get. His skill lies in 'massaging' a scale drawing or photo of a loco to fit an available chassis and getting something beliveable as a result.  The beauty of him building to order is that he is not restricted to 'what sells well'.  I doubt when Paul built the first 2-8-0+0-8-2 Sierra Leone garrat on a pair of Bachmann 2-8-0 chassis that he would have ended up building at least 6 of the things - more than the real railway ever had!

Comming back to Ed's question I think that the main attraction of 009 is that there is no ready to run.  If there where then 009 would become much the same as many other branches of the model railway hobby, i.e. more than a little bland (otherwise known as 'Oh look, another GWR branch line terminus based on Ashburton').

Many thanks for the information on the T & D loco.  I'm still learning to put plastic cattle vans together so I'm not quite ready for loco building but it's good to know that it will be possible when the time arrives.

As for RTR availability, I agree that one of the great things about the 009 world is the variety of ideas found in layouts and the imagination and inventiveness used in producing models of such high quality and that give such pleasure.  However as a beginner, the idea that one can't have a 009 layout until one has learned to build loco kits is quite an inhibiting one.  In order to make the gauge accessible, it would do no harm to have some RTR models available to get people started.  Paul Windle fills this gap beautifully making very credible models for a very reasonable price, given the work involved.

If an RTR model was to be successful, it would have to have newcomer appeal.  My own personal example is the Eggerbahn steam railcar which I fell in love with as a child.  In fact it was coming across it in a model railway shop (as an adult) and buying it that reawakened my interest in 009.  But it would also have to be capable of being modified by the more experienced modeller for their purposes.  I believe that some people are already doing this with the Minitrains 0-4-0 loco. 

Once people have made a start with RTR, they can move up to the more challenging models as their confidence and interest develops.

This photo may be of interest to you, in view of the fact the T&D locos cropped up:
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.009dutch.nl%2Fcdr%2Fmain%2Ffoto%2Frollingstock%2Fgoods%2Fpc267533.jpg&hash=227673dca1b3ef18d94d262cde2fac9970024c81)
It compares the 3.5mm scale Chivers T&D Hunslet mentioned above, to a 4mm scale Parkside T&D van, and a T&D brake van about 1:80 scale. The loco runs on a Farish 4MT tank chassis which has slightly larger wheels so it sits a bit higher on the track. The cab has been made taller by about 2mm. The van of course is unchanged. In real life the locos were taller than the vans. The brake van was made using a card 'kit' designed by Paul Titmuss. This I scaled down to something halfway 3.5 and 4mm scales, so it wouldn't tower over the engine.

The T&D loco by Chivers isn't a ready to run model, but it goes together well and it fits on the Farish chassis without a problem. It's an easy kit to build. The most difficult thing was fitting a fixed coupling on an extension to the pony truck and through the cowcatcher.

Why 3D? well, D as in 'Dunalistair'...  ;D

Returning to Eddie's question about an RTR loco, with the Minitrains RTR loco available, perhaps a bigger loco would be a good choice for an RTR model. Something suitable both for industry and main line NG work. Perhaps an 0-6-0 or an 0-6-2, or a T&D look-alike.

And apart from Paul Windle's work, let's not forget the 3D printing range marketed by Chris Ward (http://www.chrisjward.co.uk/ (http://www.chrisjward.co.uk/)) - this is the next best thing to RTR. I'm told they still need a bit of work to clean up the surface, but perhaps the resolution will improve, and someone will market a scale body that can be fitted on any suitable N gauge chassis!

Thanks everyone. I was also thinking along the lines of an 0-4-0 or an 0-6-0. I have to agree that the fun of 009 is the fact that we get to build what we want but to a newcomer or someone who would like to add a narrow gauge line to a 00 layout it can be a bit off putting. I have no problem with building engines or rolling stock but all this takes time which very few of us have to spare nowadays so a decent model that runs right out of the box would be an advantage. The other thing is that a RTR model would be able to have a chassis where the motor could be hidden instead of showing in the cab which we have to put up with on a lot of kits.

Yes Ted, I've seen your T & D loco on your website and it is much admired.  When I get to that loco kit building ability stage, I shall be on the forum again.  Until then, it remains a source of inspiration.

Given the existence of the Minitrains 0-4-0T already, perhaps an 0-6-0T, and as Ted suggests a bigger loco as well, would be a good place to start since it would be offering the great 009 public a new option.  Personally I think it is the dearth of chassises that is a problem.  I understand that N-Drive productions are beginning to address the shortage of suitable products.  But when I had to purchase a Farish 2-6-2 chassis for my Leek & Manifold loco, which cost a fortune and is entirely dependent on whether they choose to sell them or not, I felt the need for a reliable market in 009 chassises which would offer a considerable advantage to and enhanced convenience for the modeller.  I think this is where your point about having a chassis that could be hidden rather than showing in the cab is a very pertinent one.

Unfortunately there is just no market for a mass produced 009 RTR loco.

However RTR 009 locos are available from Paul Windle, but these are hand built.

For the larger manufactures there would be no point producing a 009 loco when a HOe continental or US outline loco sell well in the UK anyway and have a far larger potential overall customer base.

So while we can all dream of a mass produced RTR 009 loco because of the economics it will probably never happen.

Anyway as a choice of the best thing to produce it would have to be a Port class Hunslet with outside frames and a short vertical motor in the cab. In other words a chassis with the maximum potential for use in other locos!

Brian Meldon

That raises the question of what exactly the economics of it are.  And if a continental or US loco can sell outside its indigenous market, that same opportunity should be available to a British profile, if the right loco is chosen.

Brian. Judging by your response and that of the others who have answered my question we must have a market. I take it, that if a loco was available to buy you and the others would buy it and I,m sure many other members would too.

I think the key issue is "if the right loco is chosen".

Ask a hundred 009 Society members what they would like to see as a ready to run loco and you'll get 100 different answers - actually you may get more than that as people change their minds as the project goes along.  What may seem like a popular choice, say a Port class Hunslet as suggested by Brian, to many may not be welcomed by others who would rather see such efforts go into something that was built in larger numbers and saw greater service worldwide, like a Hudswell Clarke or Barclay 0-6-0 (that would probably be more reliable with 6 wheel pick up).

Essentially RTR locos are available - just look at the number of HOe Lilliput 0-6-2s and Roco 0-6-0s (and others) that appear on 009 layouts - it must be said with varying degrees of success.

Equally, whilst I am sure that "if a loco was available to buy you and the others would buy it and I,m sure many other members would too" there is no guarentee of this, as I would find it hard to spend £100+ on a RTR Port class Hunslet when for the same ammount of money I can have Paul Windle build me something that I'd actually want to run on my layout.  And I can't be the only one, if only because the majority of 009 modellers would baulk at spending £100 or more on a RTR loco, no matter what it was...

Quote from: Rhobat Bryn on September 15, 2011, 14:38
That raises the question of what exactly the economics of it are.  And if a continental or US loco can sell outside its indigenous market, that same opportunity should be available to a British profile, if the right loco is chosen.

I don't believe this is the case. The US and Europe model to HO, as does most of the rest of the world. Britain is effectively the only place where 4mm scale is used. Generally British NG is small, and maybe could be used in HO (although the doors are too high). This suggests that the "right loco" would need to be small, so as not to look out of scale in a 3.5mm layout, but the smaller locos were not those typically exported. In a sweeping statement, I might say that most of the British NG locos exported tended to be larger than those which ran in the UK. OK, perhaps that is a generalization ... but an OO model of small locos which were exported become not-a-small loco when placed against HO narrow gauge.

Some years I ago I seriously considered the Backwoods Fowler diesel for the Dutton Bay, as these were used in Australia, but rejected the idea because it was so just too much bigger than my other HO scale models. In this case it was even worse, because the Fowler was an Australian (and Fiji) prototype and not even a British loco.

Speculation is such good fun! :D

I think there are two big hurdles (1) the economics (2) agreeing on a prototype to model.

As "serious" modellers are probably going to want very specific models, then selecting a prototype is going to be hard. Beginners and freelance modellers are likely to be rather less fussy.

My thoughts then are that a freelance Brittish-looking bodyshell on an existing chassis is the most likely to succeed.  Given that the Dapols, Farishes and overseas manufacturers have not already seen this as a "business opportunity" suggests to me that even this is a non-starter - unfortunately.

It is a pity because we are so close - just look at the Tomix Percy conversions. If ever there was path of least resistance/effort to an RTR model then this looks like a good candidate.

It is interesting by contrast to note that someone thought that there was a big enough market to re-engineer the Minitrains locos based presumably on the notion of middle-aged men with cash to spare wanting to buy the models they saw advertised in their youth. It seduced me!  :D. So there is a big enough market for old designs of uncertain proportion, origin and pedigree but apparently not for an accurate 4 mm  scale model of a UK prototype. I think it shows what a minority we are.

As I say, pure speculation......

I don't think choice of prototype is that difficult, it's been discussed on NGRM in the past and one opinion that several agreed with was to produce RTR models of catalogue items that manufacturers would send out in larger numbers.

One such item was something akin to a Barclay, Jung or O&K, all of which are similar and could all be modelled with only some minor variations all from the same basic shell.

All hypothetical, however, as that doesn't overcome the economics.  I've heard that at least

Quote from: invercloy on September 16, 2011, 16:41
I don't think choice of prototype is that difficult, it's been discussed on NGRM in the past and one opinion that several agreed with was to produce RTR models of catalogue items that manufacturers would send out in larger numbers.

While perfectly logical, I'm not sure that basing the choice of model on the number of prototypes produced, bears any relation to what would sell in economic numbers. I think that is wishful thinking and a "committee decision" by the participants in the discussion that resulted in a decision that offended least number of people. Possibly they had the unspoken ulterior motive that such a model could be adapted into representations of other prototypes.

If the model is going to end up being modified and repainted anyway, it comes back to what would sell is a kit and not an RTR model. I wonder what the viability of an injection moulded kit to fit a commercial chassis is? A stumbling block for beginners is assembling whitemetal or brass kits wheras anyone can glue a plastic kit together (or more importantly think they can)  (and possibly to their fingers, the kitchen table.....  ;D )

All this is hypothetical  :D

There are a number of points that have arisen which give food for thought.

The first one is that most of the rest of the world models in HO whereas 009 is mainly confined to the UK.  This is an extremely pertinent point (and I have to say one that I was not aware of) and raises questions about the real size of the market.  To market 009 locos abroad would involve having to sell the idea of 009 in the first place in a market where HO is already established before beginning to sell the product itself.  This is not a good place to start when launching a new product.  Established markets are a far easier prospect.

Secondly, the point made by GraemeD, that basing a production decision on people's opinions is rarely reliable, is an extremely important one.  I work as a Welsh tutor and we have asked customers what kind of courses they would like to see run, organised them only to have them poorly attended.  Production decisions need to be based on market behaviour, i.e. what people actually buy and what is selling well now, offering the customer the benefit of not having to build it, thus enabling them to spend their time on other things.

Thirdly, the point made about modification is also a valid one.  The product would have to be something that people would want to run as it was offered, since modification begins to drift back towards kit building and the whole point of RTR is that you do not need those skills to have a railway.  As for repainting however, I'm not sure that's the same obstacle since people like to have layouts which look original.  Being able to repaint a locomotive is a way of making it your own without getting into crafting skills.

So what are the signs in the market that there is demand for a RTR product?  Well as already mentioned, modellers in the UK are buying HO Minitrains and painting them according to their particular needs.  Paul Windle has already discovered that there is a market for this and produces RTR for a reasonable price, given the labour involved, even if it is carried out on a commission basis.  Also Chris Ward is halfway there by producing a single body which is then fitted onto a chassis, again admittedly on a commission basis.

As to product, again Paul Windle produces a general range of 0-4-0Ts and 0-6-0Ts, among others, which enables the modeller to choose from a range of variations, but all of which has a sufficiently standard appearance so as to not represent any particular railway, except for the cognoscenti who can draw on their specialist knowledge.

The other crucial factor would be price.  If we take Invercloy

In my humble opinion, RTR locos  and other stock would encourage new participants in narrow guage modelling.
The world must contain large numbers of people that enjoy the look of narrow guage and have an interest in its adoption as a layout format due to its potential space saving virtues, unfortunately they drop the subject when faced with the question of available stock. Not everyone wants to have to build everything.
I have not been modeling 009 long and thouroughly enjoy my meagre dabblings but i have questioned my choice of format directly as a result of the difficulty of acquiring chassis/locos/stock.

Regards to all Mike.

I have recently aquired two Chris Ward 3D printed loco bodies.
They fitted Kato '103' chassis immediately.

Whilst the digital resolution leaves a visibly stepped surface,
this is readily burnished to give a very acceptable finish.

HEY!!!
I think that Chris Ward and his ilk, can print from 3rd party drawings, probably
to fit a given chassis.

If the society, as a whole, could agree on a body and chassis ------ ?
Maybe an RTR could materialise.

regards richard

This issue rolls on and on. The only RTR models that would have a chance of success are models of locomotives that run on the FR/RhE. Simply, there are enough people going through the doors to have a reasonable chance of impulse buying. Roco's vaunted double Fairlie came to nothing however. This should be a clue.

When looking at the undoubted quality of new RTR models in 00 scale, it would be a requirement that any 009 RTR model would be built to the same standards.

I came to a different conclusion to pilotfriend but that may be because we are talking about different markets.  There is the newcomer to railway modelling who wants to get started but doesn't feel confident about their modelling skills and then there is the 009 train set market which I assume the previous poster was referring to.

As stated in previous posts, I do not believe a loco that is too easily identifiable as belonging to a particular railway would appeal to the first market since I think most modellers want their layout to have its own identity; the FR brand is so strongly identified by its locomotives that it is difficult to think of any other railway when seeing those engines, though this has not prevented the use of Beyer-Garratts on several narrow gauge layouts.

The figure of

I was actually referring to locos rather than train sets.

I suppose my point is that RTR in H0 and 00 has reached such a high standard, I wonder if an inferior 009 product is acceptable. 009 as a scale still carries an image, among some, as 'cheap' and toylike. This is, IMO, very sad indeed.

Actually, those modelling in this scale have never had it so good. Yes, more real modelling is required and IMO, that is actually a good thing. Narrow gauge modelling represents a branch of modelling where instant gratification straight out of the box is not much of an option.

Looking at Germany, where vast amounts of money are spent of model railways, the trend there is to buy everything ready made, open the boxes and tip it onto a baseboard. Come to think of it, you can even purchase your entire railway ready made.

Modelling is a skill, IMO, and not something like Lego.

Thank you for the clarification regarding 'train sets'.  And your point regarding the standard of any 009 product is an important one which deserves to be the subject of its own thread, as could the subject of how to improve the number involved in quality modelling; both of which are important issues.

However the question of the availability of RTR locos is more to do with widening accessibility to the 009 world.  If someone sees a high quality layout, they may be inspired to take up modelling themselves or improve the quality of what they do already.  But there may be others, who are not modellers or would like to be but do not have the confidence, who would like to be able to set up a 009 layout without the impediment of having to acquire kit building skills.  Thus they can have the pleasure of enjoying their own 009 world, even if that does not meet with the approval of others.

I'm not sure I see it as an 'either/or' question.  Surely 'both/and' is the best and most inclusive way forward.  I doubt whether any serious modeller started at the top of the ladder, unless they were particularly gifted, but like everyone else had to start at the bottom.  The point being made, certainly by myself, is that the bottom of the ladder is not as inclusive as it could be and RTR locos would go some way to lowering the barriers of entry to the hobby.  The question of the quality of what is offered at the top of the ladder is another question in itself.

I do not see someone suddenly beginning 009 modelling before they have seen what is available in other scales. One look at some of the new 00 Bachmann products ( the S&D 2-8-0 for instance) and I could just see them shy away from some crude little undetailed 'starter loco' in 009.

I think that this has been a prime factor why so many people have moved to larger scales.

The truth is that much of 009 has fallen more and more behind the RTR standards found elsewhere.

OK for kids though if it works reliably, which is not a given.
JdF

I think the OO9 following, as has been mentioned, isn't large enough to support a profitable manufacturing run. Now bearing in mind most OO9 loco's are built from a chassis and a body kit, perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Maybe it would be easier to approach a manufacturer with a view to producing some N gauge locos which had suitable chassis's with outside frames etc for kit conversion to OO9. That way its less of a gamble for them as there is already a steady market for their products, and there are probably more than enough body kits to satisfy most OO9 needs.
Perhaps not an ideal solution but it would go some way to satisfy a smaller market whilst maintaining profitability.
TTFN

Already we have 3 good outside frame chassis. Farish class 08, Lilliput 0-4-0 and Bemo.

Didn't know about the Farish 08, I've got one of the older ones which is inside frame. Had a look at some of the 'larger' Bemos. Glad I was sitting down!

Several of my locos are based on the Farish N scale class 08. They have all run many actual miles.

One of my L&B locos is based on a Bemo diesel outside frame chassis (even second hand was

There are some things of interest in the history of 009/HOe to consider when talking about 009 RTR production.

The only 'mass produced' 009 model

Firstly the only ever attempt to produce a RTR train set and marketed as 009 was the Jeouf/Playcraft pre-formed layout. The Jouef loco and V tip wagons are actually over scale for 009, but back in 1967 were close enough. This did not sell at all well, even with several model shops displaying the layout in the window it took them some time to sell the layouts.

Previous

Thank you Brian. Well said.These days, though, I do think that many enter into narrow gauge after travelling on the preserved railways. Many, I think would love to model their favourite prototypes if there was an easy solution. I actually think that this is potentially the biggest chance of entry into 009 if some guidance and kits were offered which would afford the newcomer to a reasonable chance of success.

The La Meuse kit is an example of what can be done with the 08 chassis, although in that case, I think the valve gear could be described as 'advanced'. The solutions are there and all it needs is a kit manufacturer to see the potential.

The advantage of 009 over larger scales is that the landscape can be modelled.

I don't mean to be rude but the original question was, which loco would people like to see as RTR. A friend and myself are in talks with a major player and I just need to know which would be the most popular choice. I have my own prefrence but would it sell? Come on folks we may be able to make a start..........

Hi Ed,
Go for it I'll buy one.
I'm still building coach kits, painting Minitrains and 3D locos.
A real RTR loco will be most refreshing.
richard

As a 'Newbie' I'm not fully up to speed with narrow gauge loco types etc, however some of the smaller 0-4-0 are perhaps easier to build for the beginner, the larger Fairlie and Garrat style perhaps more of a limited market to be realistic.
I would be looking for something mid range along the lines of 2-6-0 or 0-6-2  (or 2-4-0/0-4-2) which would be equally at home pulling freight or passenger stock. It would make a good start for 'general running'.
It might not be a bad idea for the manufacturer to have a chat with the 'body kit' community with a view to designing their chassis dimensions to fit inside existing kits. That way someone looking for a 'generic' loco can buy off the shelf whereas the 'kit bashers' (sorry couldn't think of a better phrase) would have a good basis for something more prototypical. Either way its a sale. 
Hope you are successful whatever the end product may be.
TTFN
Martin

Quote from: EDGOZ2WAR on September 19, 2011, 21:14
I don't mean to be rude but the original question was, which loco would people like to see as RTR. A friend and myself are in talks with a major player and I just need to know which would be the most popular choice. I have my own prefrence but would it sell? Come on folks we may be able to make a start..........

But we will all probably want something different!  :D

Sorry, I'm not sure it to ask just which prototype is really the best question. It leaves out what sort things like what degree of compromise in terms of accuracy is acceptable, its price, DCC compatibility and a host of other things. As all of us here are already 009 modellers our answers may be highly skewed....

Ahem, just a passing thought, but if you are seriously thinking of producing such a model, you wouldn't, hum, consider say selling the chassis by itself would you by any chance???

... for example.

Actually that's not a bad idea Graeme. Perhaps even a modular chassis which used the same drive and pony wheels where a selection of wheel arrangements could be produced reasonably cheaply. Interesting valve gear too please.

Many thanks, Brian for sharing your knowledge of the history of this subject and helping to inform the debate.  I think your point about Liliput's intended production of a W&Ll loco was most instructive.  The lesson seems to be that while US and continental models sell in this country, the market doesn't work the other way round.  Therefore the same economies of scale aren't available.

Not knowing what the figures are makes it very difficult to make any comment that helps to move things on.  Therefore could I presume upon your knowledge and experience to pass comment on a couple of points.

I made the point in a previous post that, if

Give or take, to produce a COACH,

May I thank you all for your posts. I have decided that an 0-4-0 Hunslet may have to be the loco of choice which will give us a variety of body styles. I like the idea of having the chassis available as a separate item. I look forward to keeping you all upto date.

Quote from: EDGOZ2WAR on September 19, 2011, 21:14
I don't mean to be rude but the original question was, which loco would people like to see as RTR. A friend and myself are in talks with a major player and I just need to know which would be the most popular choice. I have my own prefrence but would it sell? Come on folks we may be able to make a start..........

Ed, i tried to start a petition a while ago, look here for further details: http://invercloylocoworks.webs.com/rtrnarrowgauge.htm  Ignore the rest of the site though, it has been superseded by another project, details of which will become available soon.

Can I point out that someone else is working on a quarry Hunslet kit at the moment which is of a very high quality and looks to run superbly.  Also Parkside already make a Hunslet kit with RTR chassis, albeit a bit bigger.  I think to have maximum impact it would have to be something different to the quarry hunslet, nice and quaint as it is.

If I were to suggest a prototype loco for consideration it would be Russell on the WHHR, or a Darjeeling B class.

Quote from: EDGOZ2WAR on September 20, 2011, 18:21
I have decided that an 0-4-0 Hunslet may have to be the loco of choice which will give us a variety of body styles.

Here's hoping your plans come to fruition and prove a success.

Quote from: invercloy on September 20, 2011, 18:26

Ed, i tried to start a petition a while ago, look here for further details: http://invercloylocoworks.webs.com/rtrnarrowgauge.htm

I visited your website and was more than happy to sign the petition.  I notice that it started some 3 years ago.  If it's not too intrusive a question, may I ask what became of the project?

Quote from: Rhobat Bryn on September 20, 2011, 23:05
If it's not too intrusive a question, may I ask what became of the project?

Simple answer... nothing.

I've been waiting for more people to sign up, i've mentioned it several times online, maybe a short letter to the News is in order.

It's just to prove to a manufacturer that there's some support for a product, perhaps it's best on the main Society website instead?

Forget about a 009 RTR model that will be affordable. This entire thread has been quite clear no manufacturer will take up any petition. I think the answer will be a 3D printing project, which produces a complete loco body to fit on a suitable chassis. All it takes is cleaning up and a bit of paint, which I think isn't too much to ask even of an inexperienced modeller. This lowers the entry level to the hobby considerably. I think it would pay to ask someone like Chris Ward for models of specific prototypes instead of freelance models. I am a freelance modeller myself, but I think there is a market for near-scale models produced with this technique.

3d printing is not the only option.
Shortly before the Bachmann 0-4-0 went out of production a serious plan was developed for a single piece resin cast 009 body based on a Brazil class. When the chassis became unavailable the project was dropped. There was also a simple outside frame conversion kit in preparation for the same chassis that would have included new wheel centres with extended cranks and dummy outside frames, again in resin. (There was even some discussions about producing a

I agree Brian

3d printing is just not there yet and high quality resin casts can be excellent.

Using the right resin, yes I'd agree, John. I came back from Hungary with one of these which is made from resin. However the manufacturer said that they'd tried about 5 different types before settling on the one this is made from... Others were too brittle, too flexible, etc. the quality is streets ahead of the Shapeways ones, though no doubt they'll get better... In the meantime I paid the extra for the quality...

(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6157%2F6177418942_e9a431248d.jpg&hash=8ca7c403a4585ea6d41a148e26fbb6da0b6e7423)

I rest my case. Thanks Hobby

There have been some very important points to consider raised in this thread, and I think everyone has some valid comments (good to see thought going into it all, not just wading in with the 'I'm right listen to me' attitude!) and long may it continue!

I know there are many issues for a manufacturer or prospective designer to consider, and all of them are fraught with financial and market related pitfalls, however the model railway industry over the last few years has shown us that there are people willing to throw caution to the wind and take those risks.  Who would have thought, for example that we'd see a range of RTR prototype diesels from a variety of manufacturers (Bachmann's DP1, and the Heljan Falcon, Kestrel and forthcoming DP2), or the Dapol/Kernow well tanks and  the selection of items from the likes of Golden Age Models, in various scales at a premium price.  Many of these models have a very limited appeal, but more appear on the future releases lists, showing that there must be something in models which until recently were the domain of kit building or modifying what was already about.

Obviously UK outline narrow gauge is a smaller spectrum, and there are very few locomotives which could be mass produced with little detail variation but still having livery choices, especially if the detail standards are to be anything near what many people would expect. 

The humble and ubiquitous small quarry hunslet immediately springs to mind, there are variations in detail of course such as cab styles, boiler fittings and such, but the basic outline appears to be pretty standard (ducks to avoid corrections being thrown!), and if ths is indeed the case then as an RTR project, it could be considered viable.  Many still exist, they are recognisable, plenty of livery variations, names, enough detail differences to encourage more than one on a layout with it looking swamped and the detail differences wouldnt require too much extra tooling, just 'plug in' bits (dapol square splashers on one well tank spring to mind)

The L&B Manning Wardles again, to the casual observer are very similar in outline (but again with some structural differences ahich are workable around), and now, thanks to LYD, there is the BR black option available too.

As a third option, a simplex 'tin turtle' could be considered as it's fairly iconic and there's also the roof off option to consider, and it doesnt involve too much exterior detail and therefore the patterns/moulds wouldnt have to be too complex.

A range of rolling stock to accompany any loco would probably be needed in some form, but standard designs are again hard to find, especially ones not already easily obtainable from Parkside and the like.  The Hudson V tippers are pretty common, but Parkside produce them but there are other wagons which use that chassis, and a free rolling small wheelbase chassis would, I believe be a cert.  Yes, there are the useful Peco chassis, but they are pretty solid, and not open like most visible wagon chassis.

Well, that was going to be my five penneth worth, but it's more like a couple of quid at least!

Cheers

J

An L&B loco would probably be very popular and if designed correctly could provide a choice of cabs as well.  The chassis might also be useful for those of us who still have loads of Chivers 2-6-2 kits in stock.  (I'm now in that nasty dilemma of "do I build the kits and use up the chassis I laid in for the purpose and still have in stock or do I not build the kits and keep the chassis to replace the ones I've already got in service under existing Chivers locos when they expire"!)  On the other hand, a W&LLR loco would probably prove equally popular and might be a little more flexible, chassis-wise.  A Festiniog Fairlie would be extremely popular but only with a few people (if that makes sense...)  I still like the Eggerbahn Decauville locos anyway!

Quote from: Tigger on October 03, 2011, 12:23
An L&B loco would probably be very popular and if designed correctly could provide a choice of cabs as well.  The chassis might also be useful for those of us who still have loads of Chivers 2-6-2 kits in stock.  (I'm now in that nasty dilemma of "do I build the kits and use up the chassis I laid in for the purpose and still have in stock or do I not build the kits and keep the chassis to replace the ones I've already got in service under existing Chivers locos when they expire"!)  On the other hand, a W&LLR loco would probably prove equally popular and might be a little more flexible, chassis-wise.  A Festiniog Fairlie would be extremely popular but only with a few people (if that makes sense...)  I still like the Eggerbahn Decauville locos anyway!

Unfortunately as has been said before, the economics of producing a R-T-R 009 Uk outline locos just do not add up.
Paul Windle has been making R-T-R 009 locos for many years now and I do not think he has sold more than about 1,200 in all that time and he has had many different types available over the years.
So the expected sales of just one type of UK outline loco would be far too small to cover the design and production costs.
The HOe locos have an international appeal not just in the UK, and why should anyone make a UK outline loco when the US and European outline R-T-R locos sell ok in the UK anyway?

I have been told that the UK amounts to about 5% of the sales of H0e R-T-R, and that N gauge (standard gauge) out sells 009 in the Uk by about 50 to one, but these figures could be inaccurate.


Brian Meldon

I think a genuine RTR model would be a different kettle of fish to a Windle build though.  Not wishing to belittle Paul's efforts, far from it, I want to order something from him soon, If (hypothetically) Roco had produced the double fairlie it would have been sat on shelves in boxes ready for people to take away as opposed to having to wait for one.  That, in my opinion, would make it much more appealing to buyers, and likely to sell in higher numbers.  How much higher though is the $1m question!

Brian's absolutely right, of course and this has been debated many times over the years.

Tom - please remember not to try tunnelling out of your cardboard replica...

For all those that think that a R-T-R 009 loco would be a viable proposition all you need to do is contact Kader Industrial Company Limited at Dongguan in China. They will happily price up a production run of any R-T-R locomotive. They can just handle the production or the entire design process.
They will even take an old 1960

Quote from: invercloy on November 15, 2011, 17:30
I think a genuine RTR model would be a different kettle of fish to a Windle build though.  Not wishing to belittle Paul's efforts, far from it, I want to order something from him soon, If (hypothetically) Roco had produced the double fairlie it would have been sat on shelves in boxes ready for people to take away as opposed to having to wait for one.  That, in my opinion, would make it much more appealing to buyers, and likely to sell in higher numbers.  How much higher though is the $1m question!

Quote from: B.Meldon on November 16, 2011, 12:50
For all those that think that a R-T-R 009 loco would be a viable proposition all you need to do is contact Kader Industrial Company Limited at Dongguan in China. They will happily price up a production run of any R-T-R locomotive. They can just handle the production or the entire design process.
They will even take an old 1960’s R-T-R H0e loco and produce a modern copy with better motors and gearing if you like. All you need to do is put up the money for the production run of say 2000 units. Perhaps you could take out a loan or up the mortgage on your house.
If they sell as well you think they will you will make a quick profit on your investment.
However if they do not sell well and you are left will 1500 unsold locos you may lose your home!
In short, put your money where your mouth is!

Brian Meldon

Having participated in this discussion before, I'm reluctant to contribute again for fear of repeating myself.  In principle, I agree with Invercloy that a readily available model is better than one that one has to wait for.  I too am also a Paul Windle fan and already have two of his locos on my wishlist.  The first rule of economics is that the customer prefers their product today rather than tomorrow.  There are of course issues of quality and price in order to establish the market.  This is something that, in the medium term, I am considering doing myself.  However given the difficult history of this issue, outlined very eloquently elsewhere by Brian Meldon, one would have to have a market strategy for establishing RTR models as a going concern as as well as a product strategy for the particular model that is produced.  Given the sums involved, I don't think taking a punt and hoping for the best is likely to succeed, a strategy more suited to a low-cost product in an already established market.

If my memory serves me correctly, someone is already in the process of producing a RTR Hunslet 0-4-0 quarry loco which, if the price and quality are attractive, would suit me as a combined goods yard shunter and station pilot.  It would be interesting to see what the economics of such a project will be, if those involved would be willing to share such commercially confidential information.

In business however the best financial rule is putting someone else's money where your mouth is, in this case the banks.  It requires the production of a credible business plan since if you can't convince someone else that it's a good idea, its likley to be a risky venture for your own money.

I would be very pleased to find that an 009 RTR loco was available, but like others I have my doubts. I am trying to imagine what sort of business model could make it a reality. I keep coming back to the "Paul Windle" model, or the Japanese "Garage Kit" manufacturer approach of selling brass kits but also producing assembled and painted models.

Who ever it is who is planning to produce 009 RTR locos has my admiration and got me intrigued!

When I jokingly asked the man from Ixion models if they would do their On30 'coffee-pot' in 009, he answered, quite seriously, that if I had got about

Quote from: B.Meldon on November 16, 2011, 12:50
For all those that think that a R-T-R 009 loco would be a viable proposition all you need to do is contact Kader Industrial Company Limited at Dongguan in China. They will happily price up a production run of any R-T-R locomotive. They can just handle the production or the entire design process.
They will even take an old 1960's R-T-R H0e loco and produce a modern copy with better motors and gearing if you like.

I agree, look at the Ixion Models coffee pot, that is just such a venture, all someone has to do is stump up the cash.  Although if it were me I can think of many things I'd rather have before a repro 1960s model.

Quote from: CharlieI on November 16, 2011, 21:56
When I jokingly asked the man from Ixion models if they would do their On30 'coffee-pot' in 009, he answered, quite seriously, that if I had got about

Quote from: Rhobat Bryn on November 16, 2011, 22:38

Quote from: CharlieI on November 16, 2011, 21:56
When I jokingly asked the man from Ixion models if they would do their On30 'coffee-pot' in 009, he answered, quite seriously, that if I had got about

Quote from: CharlieI on November 17, 2011, 14:44


Shifting  1000 units is a big ask.  I suspect the costs for doing the Minitrains locos were lower beacuse some of the original tooling could be used?

I agree Charlie.  Although I don't have any figures for the size of the market, I think a 1000 units would be impossible to shift, even over a prolonged period.  I think it would be necessary to keep the price under

Quote from: CharlieI on November 17, 2011, 14:44Shifting  1000 units is a big ask.  I suspect the costs for doing the Minitrains locos were lower beacuse some of the original tooling could be used?

Indeed it is, but in the case of Minitrains there's a world-wide market. Many (perhaps most) are being sold into the US (which is hardly surprising given the prototype of the original two locos). I would be surprised if more than a handful of British 009 locos would be sold there.

I'm surprised that people seem to be accepting that

Quote from: Hobby on November 18, 2011, 09:26
I'm surprised that people seem to be accepting that

Ultimately, it's why I find these 'what rtr 009 loco would you like' discussions - which crop up quite often, rather pointless - it is not going to happen.

Put it another way: the 009 society has a membership of about 1200, so everyone of these members - more or less, would need to buy a loco just for the costs to be recovered.  If you actually look at 009 News, 009 events or even the modelling press, there's probably about 200-300 active members - building and exhibiting layouts (and that's probably over optimistic).  The figures simply do not stack up.  End of.

Charlie I

Its been said before, but I suspect that the only chance of getting a rtr 009 model to break even would be by tapping the Thomas market with the loco based on his NG locos and trying to get the various preserved lines to sell 'em... If you could make the model with a "normal" smokebox door and one with a face in the same box you could possibly get the sales... In effect a slightly bigger version of the Tomix stuff...

Quote from: Hobby on November 18, 2011, 21:16
Its been said before, but I suspect that the only chance of getting a rtr 009 model to break even would be by tapping the Thomas market with the loco based on his NG locos and trying to get the various preserved lines to sell 'em... If you could make the model with a "normal" smokebox door and one with a face in the same box you could possibly get the sales... In effect a slightly bigger version of the Tomix stuff...

Given that there are established manufacturers who could make a passable NG 009 locomotive by putting a 4 mm body on one of their N gauge chassis with relative ease suggests they have probably already thought of it and dismissed the idea as unprofitable.

It seems to be implied in this thread that "RTR" means mass produced in the far east. Perhaps the market is already saturated by "make 2 and sell 1" builders, modellers who dispose of their models and Paul Windle but if not, there could be an opening for someone say to have resin shells cast, finished, painted and fitted to commercial chassis in modestly sized runs. I doubt it would ever make them rich though.

In Japan it appears that the small brass kit manufacturers have either their own builders and painters or outsource the work and sell RTR versions of their kits. Indeed Parkside Dundas sell kits with RTR chassis (the site says 3 month delivery) which is (sort of) heading in that direction.

I assume that the 009 market is so insignificant that there are no polystyrene kits for a locomotive. There must be people who build Dapol Pugs and Knightwing diesels in their intended state and one wonders why. Yet the manufacturers presumably sell enough of them to make it worth keeping them in production. I can imagine that should a suitable NG loco kit exist the same sort of people that do limited paint runs on rolling stock might just be willing to make them, paint them and fit a chassis. I can't believe that if this was at all feasible some entrepreneur would not have done it already which comes back to the conclusion that 009 is just too insignificant.

Going off into cloud cuckoo land I wonder what sort of investment would be required to commission a plastic "varikit" type thing???

I think the closest that folks are going to get is Chris Ward's work with his rapid prototyping locos.  These are actually quite excellent and although they'll take a little work to prepare and finish they're well worth the effort.  With the cost of body and chassis, that fact that you get a working loco for

This might be an appropriate time to mention 'Boldventure Works'.

These are made by taking a readily available N gauge chassis (e.g. the Bachmann Plymouth), and with the addition of cast resin parts for part/all of the body a freelance RTR 009 loco is produced.

The last I heard there were plans to expand the range with further locos plus a range of rolling stock.

They can be contacted at World of Model railways, Meadow Street, Mevagissey, Cornwall, PL26 6UL.

Tel 01726 842457

Darren.

Thanks Darren.

I found this: http://www.model-railway.co.uk/model-shop/index.shtml (http://www.model-railway.co.uk/model-shop/index.shtml)

but no mention of "Boldventure Works", though the web site is under construction. Do I understand you correctly in that they assemble and paint (or vice versa) the cast bodies and chassis and sell as RTR or are they another kit maker? If the former, it sounds like a first, at least in the UK. I believe the Mocolova (spelling?) resin kits were available on Bachmann chassis ready to go in the USA at one time.

Quote from: Darren Hedges on November 21, 2011, 21:28
This might be an appropriate time to mention 'Boldventure Works'.

These are made by taking a readily available N gauge chassis (e.g. the Bachmann Plymouth), and with the addition of cast resin parts for part/all of the body a freelance RTR 009 loco is produced.
Darren.

I have mentioned before that a single part resin body for a UK prototype loco was indeed seriously under consideration by one of the 009 kit manufactures a few years ago.
However the chassis that it was going to use, the Bachmann 0-4-0 went out of production. (There was also going to be an outside frame conversion kit for this chassis as well.) This is always a major risk with any body kit designed for an N gauge chassis in that the chassis will go out of production or will be changed in a way that makes it useless for the kit.
This is why many of the 009 kit manufactures are now going for kits with their own chassis.
Personally I would not wish to take the risk of spending time and money developing a body only to find that the chassis is no longer available.

Quote from: GraemeD on November 19, 2011, 15:07
Given that there are established manufacturers who could make a passable NG 009 locomotive by putting a 4 mm body on one of their N gauge chassis with relative ease suggests they have probably already thought of it and dismissed the idea as unprofitable.

Yes that is correct.
Why would any model manufacture spend the time and money designing a UK outline 00 scale NG body for a N gauge chassis in production when a they would sell far more with a European outline HO scale NG body?
There would be little point as the European outline locos sell quite well in the UK anyway!

Brian Meldon

Quote from: B.Meldon on November 22, 2011, 10:51

However the chassis that it was going to use, the Bachmann 0-4-0 went out of production. This is always a major risk with any body kit designed for an N gauge chassis in that the chassis will go out of production or will be changed in a way that makes it useless for the kit.

This merely indicates a lack of communication and coordination between the manufacturers of locomotive bodies and chassises.  Not exactly an insurmountable problem.

I doubt Bachmann would change their plans for the (possible) sale of a couple of hundred chassis... Now if that kit manufacturer was talking in the thousands they may take note... We need to be realistic, the sales of any 009 loco is measured in the hundreds (if we are lucky) compared to the thousands (or tens of in the case on N gauge locos)... We just ain't a commercial proposition for the large manufacturers...

Blair is correct, there is no way a manufacture would continue to produce a chassis just for a few hundred sales of a product that could also be seen to be in direct competition to one of their own NG range. (Bachmann own Liliput.)

There have however been times when chassis have been made specifically for sale separately for the kit market. Graham Fairish did this for many years. But these chassis are also used in N gauge kits that out sell 009 by about ten to one.

The only time N gauge chassis were actually produced specifically for 009 kits was when Ibretren supplied batches of 0-4-0

Quote from: Hobby on November 22, 2011, 12:19
I doubt Bachmann would change their plans for the (possible) sale of a couple of hundred chassis... Now if that kit manufacturer was talking in the thousands they may take note... We need to be realistic, the sales of any 009 loco is measured in the hundreds (if we are lucky) compared to the thousands (or tens of in the case on N gauge locos)... We just ain't a commercial proposition for the large manufacturers...

If large manufacturers are not cooperative, then one needs to look at small-scale manufacturers.  Isn't this what N-Drive Productions is trying to achieve?

OK, so here's a thought.  A collaboration between Neville Kent and Chris Ward.  Discuss...

Quote from: GraemeD on November 22, 2011, 09:14
I found this: http://www.model-railway.co.uk/model-shop/index.shtml (http://www.model-railway.co.uk/model-shop/index.shtml)

but no mention of "Boldventure Works", though the web site is under construction.

Try This http://www.model-railway.co.uk/news/index.shtml

Quote from: GraemeD on November 22, 2011, 09:14
Do I understand you correctly in that they assemble and paint (or vice versa) the cast bodies and chassis and sell as RTR or are they another kit maker? If the former, it sounds like a first, at least in the UK.

They are complete and RTR locos based around a RTR N gauge chassis and body.

Quote from: GraemeD on November 22, 2011, 09:14
I believe the Mocolova (spelling?) resin kits were available on Bachmann chassis ready to go in the USA at one time.

I didn

Quote from: Tigger on November 22, 2011, 20:18
OK, so here's a thought.  A collaboration between Neville Kent and Chris Ward.  Discuss...

Well, if I had money to invest, I'd certainly want to approach both gentlemen to discuss potential business models for such a project, given their reputation and the quality of their work.  If the finance became available, I would want to be able to do just that.

I am sorry to dampen the undoubted enthusiasm that exists for such a project but it's time a touch of pragmatic realism was added to this discussion. Whilst it may be polite to describe Paul Windle, Neville Kent ( N-Drive ) & Chris Ward as small manufacturers, this does perhaps convey the wrong impression. In reality they are better descibed as artisan craftsmen, and there are very real limits on the amount of goods they can produce. This is not conjecture on my part, it is fact. I am fortunate to count all three as personal friends so I can speak with some knowledge. Paul Windle handbuilds loco bodies from plasticard and brass tubing onto commercial N gauge chassis, in much the same way as many of us do, his forte of course, is that he does it so much better than the rest of us. In a good year he can produce about 50 locos many of them special one-off commissions, he neither has the time or resources to increase his production capacity. Similarly Neville Kent is handbuilding his chassis', it is not an automated manufacturing process. In Neville's case it also very much a part-time operation, having to earn a living elsewhere must take priority so again his production capacity is severely limited. He can also be hampered by the vagaries of third party suppliers, which again impacts on his production capacity. Chris Ward's 3D printed loco bodies etc are very much a sideline, to his main business. Chris Ward's 3D printing machine is more efficient if it is run more or less continuously, so the model railway side of the business exists to take up any slack in the system, it is not the core business.
All 3 of these gentlemen are to be much admired for their contributions to 009 modelling, but their efforts should not be confused with production lines in Chinese factories.

Some sense at last from Gary. Locomotives built in quite large numbers for the 00 scale RTR market are of an extraordinary quality these days but cost well over

Quote from: garrywhiting on November 23, 2011, 04:44
I am sorry to dampen the undoubted enthusiasm that exists for such a project but it's time a touch of pragmatic realism was added to this discussion.

One of the purposes of these fora is to connect people who have different perspectives on a question so that we can exchange experiences and ideas, which in my view is all to the good.  How else do we learn?  I fully accept your definition of Paul and Neville as artisan craftsmen and you're right to say that describing them as small-scale manufacturers is a misnomer.  However I am not confusing the idea of small-scale production with the Chinese factories that you mention.  This is a question of market development which is about an accurate analysis of the demand for a product and supply side logistics.  The examples you quote are the currently existing business models for 009 production, i.e. they are manufacturers with another main source of income, production is carried out in their spare time and using the excess capacity of their capital.  My reason for feeling passionate is not just to see the production of a RTR 009 loco that would sell successfully, but because I have yet to hear what the facts and figures are regarding supply and demand and the subsequent business model required to reconcile those two.  It is on that basis that I would make any investment decision.  Opinions are of course important and there are plenty of people who start production on the basis of a hunch and nothing wrong with that.  But I would prefer to make a business case based on a commercial analysis of the market.  The reason this is difficult is that markets are dynamic and thus can be difficult to nail down.  However I see no harm in trying and will continue to raise points and ask questions until such time as a realistic business model emerges.  What is clear is that attempts to find where that market is in practical terms is being tentatively explored by Paul, Neville and Chris.  Maybe we will need to see the longer-term results of their efforts before deciding whether a move up from artisan craftsman model to small-scale production is possible.  Anyway, many thanks for your comments and for sharing your insights.  It has given me additional food for thought in my quest to find an appropriate business model that would move things forward.  It may eventually prove elusive but I won't know unless I try.

Quote from: pilotfriend on November 23, 2011, 10:23
Personally, I prefer this scale to be one where modellers have to learn more skilled building techniques and (shock horror) actually make their own engines and stock from the kits already provided or from scratch! In fact, if a large range of RTR was available, I for one, would change scales!

The implication of what you say is that one cannot be allowed to enjoy having a 009 layout unless one has first mastered the necessary modelling skills.  I for one am not a natural modeller and therefore to get the layout started I am having to ask other people (and pay them) to construct the kits on my behalf.  It doesn't prevent me from having a go at model making myself.  Currently I am attempting to build wagons from plastic kits because if I make a mess of it I haven't wasted a great deal of money which would be the case with a brass kit.  I intend to have my station building built for me but then intend to have a go at building my own roundhouse.  I also intend at some point in the future to attempt building a steam railmotor when I have the necessary skills.  Model making is something that requires confidence as well as ability and that takes time to acquire.  So if I'm already paying out money on having kits constructed, why not pay out good money on a RTR loco?

Your view that you would change scales if RTR became available has left me bemused.  Is it your view that the availability of RTR would somehow water down the quality of the 009 scene?  If that is the case, and I have no desire to put words into your mouth, then I'm not sure that P4 modellers would agree.  Is the quality of their work in any way lessened by the existence of a 4mm version of Thomas the Tank Engine?  Is the quality of your own work on County Gate, which for me is an inspiration, in any way diminished by the existence of a naff version of a pizza layout?  I would argue that it does not.  The quality of the work stands on its merits and does not depend on the surrounding countryside for its prominence.

"I for one am not a natural modeller and therefore to get the layout started I am having to ask other people (and pay them) to construct the kits on my behalf.  "

That is a perfectly acceptable way to go. However, if 009 RTR is available, it would mean that the scale was a common as 00. I would not find the scale challenging at this point as well made RTR is better quality than anything I could build.

If I was younger and this unlikely event happened, I would go for 3mm/ft narrow gauge.

I return to the subject of one of my previous posts about this subject:

Because there is no proven market or any way to prove that a market exists there is no way that a business plan could be made that would be acceptable to any investors.

Rhobat you said:

Quote from: Rhobat Bryn on November 22, 2011, 21:42
Well, if I had money to invest, I'd certainly want to approach both gentlemen

Quote from: B.Meldon on November 23, 2011, 14:12
Because there is no proven market or any way to prove that a market exists there is no way that a business plan could be made that would be acceptable to any investors.

It's not possible to prove in absolute terms that a market exists but it is possible to make an argument for one.  First of all, there would be a discussion about which product to manufacture.  That should be based on the sales figures for the most popular kits.  These are, of course, rightly commercially confidential, but they are available, just not accessible.

Secondly, one can point to the work of Paul Windle, Neville Kent and Chris Ward to show that suppliers are moving in this direction, however tentatively, which suggests that there is a demand for RTR or semi-RTR already there.

These arguments would need to be developed in more detail to persuade other investors but there is a basis for a business case in the points made above.

Quote from: B.Meldon on November 23, 2011, 14:12
So I would assume from this that you do not have the money yourself and as you will never be able to convince anyone to invest without a proven business plan there is no point in you pursuing this idea.
It will just never happen.

You're right in that I don't have the necessary funds to hand to fund such a project at the moment.  I am however expecting to come into some money next year, and at some point in the future, a sum of a considerable size.  Therefore this is not just an exercise in speculation even if the timescale is not yet clear.  At the appropriate time, I would be willing to lead in this matter with my own finance either solely, or as a means of drawing in other investors or of seeking match funding from a financial institution.

If it was my own money alone, I would also consider taking a loss on the first product if it could be shown that such a move could stimulate market momentum.  By producing an actual locomotive, the expectation is created that RTR is possible and that can have the effect of raising market expectations and thereby increasing the size of the market itself.  A subsequent product could then be in a position to cover its production costs and subsequent models to make a small profit.

However the fact that this opportunity will arise at some point in the not too distant future leads me to want to explore this issue now.

For those who enjoy making kits or even scratchbuilding, RTR is never going to replace that pleasure.  but I believe there are people on the margins who are not confident about kit building who might be persuaded into 009, if something ready to hand were available.

Quote from: pilotfriend on November 23, 2011, 14:07

That is a perfectly acceptable way to go. However, if 009 RTR is available, it would mean that the scale was a common as 00. I would not find the scale challenging at this point as well made RTR is better quality than anything I could build.

If I was younger and this unlikely event happened, I would go for 3mm/ft narrow gauge.

I take your point.  And I would also agree with you that I cannot see 009 ever being awash with RTR.  There may be a market for a common loco such as a quarry loco to facilitate entry to the hobby.  But beyond this, as far as I can make out, modellers seem to value the diversity of locos that narrow gauge provides.  These diverse products are unlikely to reach a point where demand would not be satisfied by the kit market and, where necessary, kitbuilding services.  This means that we can still look forward to seeing more County Gates and Cliffhangers in the future.  I hope that, one day, Porth Illtud will be considered good enough to be one of them.

On another note, I see that County Gate is to be retired.  Does this mean that it will not be making an appearance at Warley in 2012 for Lynton & Barnstaple World?

CG will be at Warley next year attached to Cliffhanger. It is not a permanent retirement, just for 3/4 years as it has done all the major shows.

Quote from: pilotfriend on November 23, 2011, 15:36
CG will be at Warley next year attached to Cliffhanger. It is not a permanent retirement, just for 3/4 years as it has done all the major shows.

Thanks for that.  Look forward to seeing them both.

Rhobat,
I think that you may be overestimating the sales of 009 kits somewhat. The differences between the various kits year on year are often in tens rather than hundreds of units and as Garry has explained the numbers of units sold by existing manufactures like Paul Windle and N drive is so low as to make any analysis of sales date meaningless.

Not only that but a particular 009 kit will sell better if the chassis is available and cheap and not so well if the chassis is expensive or out of production. (But they do sell even if the chassis is no longer available!) So the actual prototype does not necessarily affect the sales. Not only that but the standard of the kit and how easy it is to build as well as the price will all influence how well it sells.
So even with all the data it is unlikely that a clear favourite would be apparent. You would be left to make a choice as to what you think would be popular.

I suppose over the last 40 years the best selling 009 kit would be the Peco (Gem) Vari-kit, mainly because it has been available for a long time and has had different versions to fit different chassis, so that would not help you at all as it is a freelance loco! Next would be the Peco James and Jeanette that are actually freelance 3mm scale locos, but again they have been changed to fit different chassis, closely followed by the Peco GVT tram.
You also need to know that some 009 kit manufactures, will often produce a kit for a particular loco just because they like that loco or that it fits in with what they are modelling at the time on their own layout, not because it is going to sell well!

I said before the cheapest way would be to get it built in the factory where all the other R-T-R trains are made in China. They are the ones you should be speaking to about the cost.

As much as I would like to see a 009 R-T-R loco my advise would be not to put your money into making one.

Brian Meldon

Many thanks for your observations, Brian and for your advice which I know is well-informed and well-considered.  Be assured that if I were to proceed with such a project, it would have to make economic sense to do so.  I never allow 'reality' to temper my passions and enthusiasms but I never allow my passions to make my financial decisions.

Quote from: B.Meldon on November 23, 2011, 16:33
I said before the cheapest way would be to get it built in the factory where all the other R-T-R trains are made in China. They are the ones you should be speaking to about the cost.

I wondered if I could prevail upon your knowledge a little further and ask you what is meant by the cheapest way.  Do you mean the lowest cost per unit?  I would be surprised if you meant total capital outlay.

Personally, I prefer this scale to be one where modellers have to learn more skilled building techniques and (shock horror) actually make their own engines and stock from the kits already provided or from scratch! In fact, if a large range of RTR was available, I for one, would change scales!

JdF

Or you could model in HOn3 building all your own 10.5mm gauge track, rolling stock, and locomotives


[/quote]

Quote from: Darren Hedges on November 22, 2011, 20:59
Try This http://www.model-railway.co.uk/news/index.shtml

They are complete and RTR locos based around a RTR N gauge chassis and body.

Apologies Darren.  In all the sound and fury of getting my own thoughts out of my system, I overlooked the significance of your post: an RTR diesel on sale for

Quote from: Rhobat Bryn on November 23, 2011, 23:34

Quote from: Darren Hedges on November 22, 2011, 20:59
Try This http://www.model-railway.co.uk/news/index.shtml
They are complete and RTR locos based around a RTR N gauge chassis and body.

Apologies Darren.  In all the sound and fury of getting my own thoughts out of my system, I overlooked the significance of your post: an RTR diesel on sale for

(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.movements.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2006%2F09%2Fflogging%2520dead%2520horse.jpg&hash=11f29ff9bb894b0e04c76ee31b6217d1ba982405)

 :laugh:  It's the way you tell 'em!

uote author=garrywhiting link=topic=728.msg3197#msg3197 date=1322113695]
But, yet again this is a "micro" cottage industry, with perhaps one or two in stock and any further examples only being built to order, The version of the diesel on the Bachmann chassis could sell out quickly, as a continuous supply of this chassis cannot be sustained.
[/quote]

I agree that this is a micro-cottage industry run by 'artisan craftsmen' as was previously stated.  And if I understand you correctly you imply that this will always be an extremely small niche market with enough occasional purchases for it to emerge only every now and again.  You may well be right.  I have no answer to that point since I have no evidence to the contrary.  However there was a time in the not too distant past when there were no 009 kits to be had.  Someone presumably decided that making a 009 kit would be a good idea because it would be easier for people to have the locos they wanted running on their railway rather than having to scratchbuild them for themselves, since that is a particularly elite skill.

This discussion started because it was felt that not having an RTR model available was a barrier for people wanting to enter the hobby but who didn't possess the necessary modelling skills to do so.  The question therefore was, and still is, is it possible to solve this problem?

However the point you make and was also made by Brian is that 009 modelling is based around the use of existing N gauge chassises.  When the manufacturer decides to cease production of a chassis, 009 kit making of a particular model or models also ceases.  The issue would therefore appear to be the unreliable supply of chassises for 009 modelling.  I have personal experience of this.  My first purchase was a Meridian Models Kitson 2-6-4T.  When I then sought out the Graham Farish chassis to go with it, I discovered that it was not in production.  I had to wait a couple of years before it became available.  The model was eventually built.  Now that I want to purchase another sometime next year, I have found out that Graham Farish are no longer selling chassises separately, though I know that Parkside Dundas are still selling them.

I don't know Neville Ward personally but aren't his products intended to fill just this gap in the market?  I suppose my question would be, accepting your and Brian's remarks, does the problem of an unreliable supply of chassises have to be solved first before considering production of an RTR model?

I can not remember a time when there were no 009 kits available. When was this?

It must have been in the 1960

Quote from: B.Meldon on November 24, 2011, 12:00
I cannot remember a time when there were no 009 kits available.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't one of the remarkable things about the Craig and Mertonford that the locos were all scratchbuilt because of the unavailability of 009 kits at the time?  But my point was not a chronological one but an economic one.  009 kits have not existed forever just as RTR 00 has not existed forever.  At some point someone, and from what you're saying it would be the manufacturer of FR kits and Peco, decided to produce a kit where before none existed.  As a result of that decision and the response from the market, the supply of 009 kits expanded to the size of the market we have today which I would argue is quite considerable, given the number modelling in 009 and interested in narrow gauge.

Quote from: B.Meldon on November 24, 2011, 12:00
You probably know that the Meridian Models Kitson 2-6-4T was originally the Centre Models L&M kit and was originally supplied with a chassis as part of the kit. This proved to be not very popular so the kit was altered to take the Minitrix 2-6-2 chassis. The masters were later sold to Meridian and altered slightly to take the GF chassis and re-released.

Actually I didn't know that so many thanks for the information.  One of the reasons I appreciate the opportunity to read your postings is that they are so educational and valuable to someone like myself who is relatively new to the field.  I doubt there is a man or woman alive who knows more about these subjects than yourself.

Quote from: B.Meldon on November 24, 2011, 12:00
As has been said before the N drive chassis are handmade items and they are made to order. Neville has tried as far as possible to use component that he makes in house, but even he has had problems with the supply of motors at times.

Making a chassis for 009 that uses components such as motors, gears and wheels from various suppliers also causes considerable issues for the 009 kit manufactures with supply problems. As with the N gauge chassis the amount of components used is so small that it is inconsequential to the original component manufacture, so again the production of the chassis is dependent on the suppliers continuing to make the components needed. For example if the motor stops being made then you are in trouble and this can, and has  happened in the past.

So making a chassis in small numbers even if you are making it your self does not guarantee it will continue to be a reliable supply unless you make all the parts yourself.

I don

I am by no means an expert on these maters Rhobat. There are others that know a lot more than me.

Small 12v motors are hard to make, very hard in fact. The machine needed to wind the wire on to the commutator is a very expensive bit of kit and the unit numbers of dedicated 009 motors would not be any way close enough to justify the cost of the equipment.

It is true that before the first 009 kits everything was scratch built but the investment needed to produce those early kits was small, I do not even think that they were using a centrifuge to cast the first white metal kits, they were static cast, so only the simple gel mould made in two parts, an old saucepan and a gas hob were needed! The masters would have been made in brass and the gel mould that would last say 50 castings would be made from the masters. Often the kits would have been nothing more than a single modeller wanting to build a few locos of the same type and then marketing the kit to their friends in the society or to sell in the FR shop.

Cost wise, although many will ague this point, I would think that a 009 loco will have to be placed at the same price as the cheapest of the N gauge R-T-R UK outline locos, so under

When I built my 008 layout of the Aberglasyn Pass, the only things available were a few white metal castings and plans for a double Fairley and Prince. There were some wheels but they were useless. My double Fairley was built for me by a watch maker using the motor from the newly released Lone Star 000 gauge.

The other availability was the TT gauge Triang 'Jinty' which could be bashed. Bob Barnard built his early MWs using this and they are still running today.

(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.009.cd2.com%2Falbums%2Fvisitinglocomotives%2Ftawfinishedbeforetransferswereavailablebuiltbybobbarnarditranduringourvisittothecotswolds009exhibition.jpg&hash=bbe40aaad7fc9be9d383a0361bc99e32f24cacdc)

Of course, most people would want a different prototype so one once has produced the first RTR and are left with 99% of production on your hands, you will have to do it all over again.

The Minitrains diesel and steamer were finally sold for $5 in Woolworths and KMart.

Quote from: B.Meldon on November 24, 2011, 15:40
I am by no means an expert on these maters Rhobat. There are others that know a lot more than me.

Well if someone with the range and extent of your knowledge is not an expert, I'd like to meet someone who is.

[/quote]

Quote from: B.Meldon on November 24, 2011, 15:40
Small 12v motors are hard to make, very hard in fact. The machine needed to wind the wire on to the commutator is a very expensive bit of kit and the unit numbers of dedicated 009 motors would not be any way close enough to justify the cost of the equipment.

It is true that before the first 009 kits everything was scratch built but the investment needed to produce those early kits was small, I do not even think that they were using a centrifuge to cast the first white metal kits, they were static cast, so only the simple gel mould made in two parts, an old saucepan and a gas hob were needed! The masters would have been made in brass and the gel mould that would last say 50 castings would be made from the masters. Often the kits would have been nothing more than a single modeller wanting to build a few locos of the same type and then marketing the kit to their friends in the society or to sell in the FR shop.

That aside, With regards the production of motors, I simply do not know enough about the process to comment usefully.  In the normal course of events, I would try to contact Neville Ward to learn more about the process of chassis making but as I don't have the finance in place to make an investment, any such correspondence may be viewed as disingenuous or a waste of his time.

I take the point that the financial costs involved in the early days of kit-making were comparatively low (although the amount of labour time given to these projects must have been quite high) and therefore the risks involved would also have been low.  But the principle of the proper management of risk applies equally to RTR as it does to kit making, if not more so given the higher level of investment involved.  The only difference is one of degree.

Quote from: B.Meldon on November 24, 2011, 15:40
Cost wise, although many will ague this point, I would think tI'm sure hat a 009 loco will have to be placed at the same price as the cheapest of the N gauge R-T-R UK outline locos, so under

Well Liliput did indeed look into producing a RTR Welshpool 0-6-0 in the 1970

That's a very interesting analysis, Brian and, once again, providing much food for thought.

I think your point regarding the initial surge in sales followed by a steep fall is very telling.  It means that market saturation was reached very quickly.  The right business strategy would then be to produce new models in order to sustain demand in the market but, as you say, it's difficult to sustain that level of investment indefinitely.

Although the examples you referred to are some 40 to 50 years ago now, I suspect that the same pattern of demand would emerge if an RTR loco were to be produced today.  I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Brian.  A producer would have to be prepared for promising sales on launch but which would not be sustained much beyond that.  A supplier would have to have a production process that could cover its costs on a limited run only, not an easy thing to achieve.

Would I be right in saying that there is more competition in terms of the range of kits available now than there was then or is that a misunderstanding on my part?

Another point I wanted to raise with you was your opinion on improving 009 production supply.  I hope I'm not characterising your position unfairly if I say that your view appears to be that because any attempts to improve matters have associated difficulties, there is not much prospect of any improvements in the supply of products at all.  Is that the case?

Quote from: Born-Again Modeller on November 23, 2011, 22:03
Or you could model in HOn3 building all your own 10.5mm gauge track, rolling stock, and locomotives

I thought that there was a fair sized market in the US for HOn3? Sure I've seen commercially produced track and kits for stock...

Rhobat

One think you could consider would be to see if one of the N gauge manufacturers would be willing to supply you with a bulk purchase of a suitable small chassis (Tomix Percy?) and for you to get a batch of bodies made up in resin or plastic and then assemble them yourself and sell them as rtr?

In the late 1960s, some wonderful HN03 brass models were available, made in Japan. Sadly, none of them worked properly and many lost thousands. HN03 died.

We have never had it so good for suitable N scale chassis and I really cannot understand what this is all about.

JdF

I think the best compromise would be using readily available N gauge chassis like Kato or Tomix, and designing 3D printed body shells to go with them. I think this has been mentioned already. It would be possible to produce near-scale models or good freelance interpretations of popular prototypes. How about this:

• I think the key to a successful approach would be a short time to market and being able to break even on small series and within a short time.
• 3D printing may be a good approach provided the printing resolution would be fine enough.
• Design is said to be very easy and production can be farmed out or even, if the producer invests in a printer, done in his own workshop.
• Chassis changes can be accommodated within reason. Perhaps a chassis mounting template could be made for popular chassis, to include in each design
• About painting I don't know but a basic finishing spray coat, couplings and lettering transfers could be included.
• As soon as demand falls, production is stopped. Other demands are analysed and met as they seem viable.

In other words what we already have now except for the couplings, Ted!  ;)

In other words, this is just what is happening on the market now. As far as 3D printing is concerned, I think there is a country mile in resolution improvement before this is a possibility. The models on offer right now are nowhere near the finish one can see with resin casting and white metal. The best material for locomtives is still brass/nickel silver and the preparation of frets is quite easy.

I quite fail to see why we should feel we need to coax non modellers into 009 and supply them with crude toys. Some of the best tourist lines are narrow gauge and those who wish to move into that field will be inspired by NG16s etc and not by a toy.

This thread seems to me to be wanting to send 009 back to the 1960s era. Anybody for playing Minitrains on the kitchen table?
JdF

Well, perhaps we already have some (nearly) RTR on those lines, like the Chris Ward range. These are however nothing like near scale, although useful freelance models in themselves.

The resolution question JdF comments on is indeed a problem. But I expect we will see improvements in this area over the next years, just like we saw in 2D resolution (TV screens and photography).

John, I'm afraid I don't agree to what you say about sending 009 back into the 60s. Judging from the amount of attention this thread has had, there is a demand for RTR models. It crops up regularly. The main issue is how realistic they can be made, and I agree there is room for improvement. Both you and I have considerable experience in scratchbuilding and kit construction. We both found our own way into it. I have great respect for what you achieved in this field. But I feel for some newcomers in 009 it is a big step to start constructing their own rolling stock, let alone locomotives.

I would rather see a fresh 009 modeller successfully build a little working layout, using RTR stock, than having him or her wrestle with a kit and give up through inexperience. After all, excellent layouts have been built in H0e, using nothing but RTR stock.

Quote from: pilotfriend on November 25, 2011, 16:23The best material for locomtives is still brass/nickel silver and the preparation of frets is quite easy.

I'm intrigued why you excluded plastic (kits) in that list, John... Whilst it costs more the finish is easily the equal of brass or n/s I'd have thought.

Only because I forgot.......... as long as it is not a bloody Pug! ;D

Please don't get them started on Pugs, John!!!! ;D

Quote from: Hobby on November 25, 2011, 13:40

Quote from: Born-Again Modeller on November 23, 2011, 22:03
Or you could model in HOn3 building all your own 10.5mm gauge track, rolling stock, and locomotives

I thought that there was a fair sized market in the US for HOn3? Sure I've seen commercially produced track and kits for stock...

Blackstone Models produce very fine locos and rolling stock RTR in HOn3.  Perfect, if you are modelling Colorado, although the C19 is a standard Baldwin loco which ran elsewhere.
http://www.blackstonemodels.com/
I have seen examples of these locos and cars here in Australia, as there are probably more people modelling US narrow gauge here than either Australian or British. There are beautiful models, and run like a charm straight out of the box.

There's an interesting comment on the K27 page:
Non-Weathered K-27 locomotives will be listed at $475.00, and Weathered K-27 locomotives will be listed at $530.00. Due to the limited nature of this release, all units will be offered only as sound-equipped models.

So, RTR and fitted with a soundtraxx DCC decoder, but although there is a big market for HOn3 in the US, still costs $475. That's over

Cheap compared with Bemo, and their's aren't even DCC'd!

I am starting to get the feeling that the last thing we want is mass-produced RTR 009 locos. It has echoes of the Monkey's Paw about it.

Should the impossible happen and mass produced models appeared on the shelves and their new owners not have the good sense to keep them to themselves we could well see exhibitions full of clones in the same way as once upon a time you couldn't open a MR magazine without seeing a GWR branch line terminus. We would not see a whole catalogue of models, just a few, perhaps just one.

It is an impossible situation. For the model to have "buy me" written all over it for a newcomer it is probably going to be something very recognizable. For the sanity of the hobby it would be better to have a Cinderella loco that could lurk unnoticed in larger numbers. There is a very good reason why Mallard and the Flying Scotsman have probably never been out of production, but how many "modellers" have the right layout on which to run them? Luckily for the manufacturers it means they can produce and sell other models along with them.

I suspect the people who say we need something like a quarry Hunslet are actually thinking of all the ways they can bash or repaint them as they would not be seen dead using them out of the box like the beginners. I also suspect the people who equate RTR = mass produced in China are really thinking about donor models.

I am not sure there are many new modellers starting out who really would not tolerate an HOe loco on their first layout. If they become so committed and involved in creating a good realistic representation of an actual UK NG railway and don't have the skills to make the models themselves then they will find a way for someone to build them for them. Being historically accurate, said modeller will probably not need a vast fleet of locos. If the "target price" for RTR is

I have actually been approached by three firms enquiring as to the cost of limited batch production. The most popular choice has always been my freelance Mallets.

This is how that particular locomotive breaks down

basic loco unlined and panelled (black or dark green) not fitted with DCC or lights.

donor chassis (2) 

I don't think a Mallet should be the only RTR model people would be after. An articulated is rather a complicated machine which even in standard gauge RTR would be at the top end of the market. What John does is calculating the price of a complicated and beautifully detailed hand built model.

Now consider a 4-wheel tank loco produced with inexpensive techniques and unmodified chassis, that can be run 'as is' without modification or finishing.

New Kato four-wheel chassis - 25 pounds
N-drive chassis - 42 pounds
3d printed and spray painted body shell (estimate) - 20 pounds

Total for a tram type engine - 45 pounds
Total for a rod coupled engine - 62 pounds

Prices tally with the quotes by Chris Ward. They aren't far off the mark compared to basic standard gauge RTR models.
The only remaining problem is the rough surface finish of current 3d prints which need extensive polishing. So it still falls short of the requirement of a RTR loco that needs no attention before it can be put on a layout. I think it is a question of time before that is solved.

As Graeme says, the way forward is the cottage industry and small batch built models.
It needn't be expensive. ;D

Quote from: Hobby on November 26, 2011, 09:29
Cheap compared with Bemo, and their's aren't even DCC'd!

True, but seems to me (from the other side of the world) that 009 modellers are not up to spending that amount of money on a locomotive.

Oh how right you are!  ;D

At the end of the day you pay for what you get... At the moment if you want a half decent finish on 3d printing then it seems you need to double the price over the "normal" price, even then the finish isn't up to the standard of plastic/brass... I'd agree with Ted that 3d is the way forward, but not yet as the quality as compared with any plastic rtr model just isn't there... Maybe in a year or two's time...

Quote from: GraemeD on November 26, 2011, 10:21

I am not sure there are many new modellers starting out who really would not tolerate an HOe loco on their first layout.

You make a number of very interesting points Graeme of which this is one.  It raises the question of whether there is a market abroad for British outline HOe models.  I don't know the answer but it's one worth considering.

Quote from: tedp on November 25, 2011, 15:07
I think the best compromise would be using readily available N gauge chassis like Kato or Tomix, and designing 3D printed body shells to go with them. I think this has been mentioned already. It would be possible to produce near-scale models or good freelance interpretations of popular prototypes. How about this:

• I think the key to a successful approach would be a short time to market and being able to break even on small series and within a short time.
• 3D printing may be a good approach provided the printing resolution would be fine enough.
• Design is said to be very easy and production can be farmed out or even, if the producer invests in a printer, done in his own workshop.
• Chassis changes can be accommodated within reason. Perhaps a chassis mounting template could be made for popular chassis, to include in each design
• About painting I don't know but a basic finishing spray coat, couplings and lettering transfers could be included.
• As soon as demand falls, production is stopped. Other demands are analysed and met as they seem viable.

Quote from: GraemeD on November 26, 2011, 10:21
To end on a positive note, I think the way forward is the cottage industry, small batch built models. A difficulty many beginners face is painting their models satisfactorily. For the sake of the hobby it is best that there is variety and given the very small size of the market this would seem to have the potential to fulfil it. Good on the individuals and small businesses that are working towards these aims.

It would appear that a consensus is emerging on building on the small number of artisan craftsmen as the way forward.  These have been identified as Paul Windle, Neville Kent and Chris Ward.

For this to work, the business model would have to include:

The ability to produce short-run batches of locos and cover costs;
A reliable source of chassises;
An improved quality of 3D printing;
Alternative approaches to assembling bodies in the interim;
Either a variety of painting finishes or the ability to customise them.

At present, the second item seems to be the most pressing.  I have already referred to my own experience of the years it took to get a suitable chassis for for my own loco.  But Paul Windle in a letter responding to my request for a catalogue spoke of the difficulties associated with chassis supplies.  It seems bizarre in this day and age that we appear to be incapable of solving this problem.  It's not possible to say anything else that would be useful without understanding the production process.  Therefore chassis production processes will be my next field of research.

Well, Rhobat, no one can say you give up! I earlier listed some excellent chassis that are available already. Why do you want to start another project?

At present, 3d printing has more acne on the surface than a 14 year old teenager. It will be more than a couple of years before things will change here. What the hell is wrong with resin casts?

For those who wish to start NG modelling, they will almost certainly wish to have a model of a prototype. To my knowledge, there are no 'tram' locos working on preserved lines. Tram locos are the preserve of 009 modellers who cannot do cylinders and valve gear and just want to hide a diesel chassis (exception of the GVT, of course)....... lazy modelling, in fact.

I question whether the Neville chassis is sufficiently robust for buyers of toys.

I certainly cannot understand why one would wish to start with a 4 wheel chassis. Less pick-up wheels on the road which will mean far satisfactory operation for the beginner. Enough built in problems to be certain that the modeller will quit.

For those who wish to buy RTR there is already and excellent source of differing models. It is called EBay.

JdF

Quote from: Rhobat Bryn on November 27, 2011, 11:08
But Paul Windle in a letter responding to my request for a catalogue spoke of the difficulties associated with chassis supplies.  It seems bizarre in this day and age that we appear to be incapable of solving this problem. 

I think this is due to the way the mass-produced market operates. I wonder how long a factory in China or wherever actually produces any given RTR loco for? I don't think it is like making cars. I suspect it is batch production and when they are gone, they're gone as they say. Perhaps there are perennial models that a company schedules a second or third run.

With products like the Dapol/Airfix kits it is possibly similar, but they produce smaller batches and cycle round the models until the dies are unusable. We are delighted when the big model shops sell off HOe or N gauge stock at a knock down price but we should be worried. If it is still expensive then it means the manufacturer and retailer are confident that it will continue to sell and will produce some more.

We can't have it both ways, with improving standards of chassis running and reliability on the one hand and the certainty of old chassis being available for as long as we want on the other.

Peco's James and Jeanette kits have been available since the late 1960s but I don't think there are any RTR locos from that era are still available. I'm not sure that anyone would want to buy them if they were on the shelves at a model shop (new that is, not second hand).

The great thing about the Paul Windle's of the world is that while they may not be able to produce a fixed catalogue or a web site with a buy it now button, if a chassis goes out of production but a new one becomes available then in a very short time they will find a way of using it.

Chassis may very well no longer be available and for the most part, a jolly good job too as new N scale chassis are vastly superior. Paul Windle models are very nice indeed but are of Plasticard and therefore less robust than metal.

Right now, the nearest thing to RTR is the Peckett tank by RT models. I am sure a batch production run of finished models could be arranged if someone was prepared to order them

The model is excellent and stands up well to 00 scale RTR. 6 Wheels on the floor with a reliable chassis.

I agree the RT models Peckett looks excellent. Kit version is 48 pounds. How much would a made up version cost do you think? Double that?

I think Paul Windle does excellent work, the nearest to RTR there is. But his work is labout intensive - I wonder how he does it, hand building a styrene loco and selling it for such a ridiculously low price.

On the subject of cast resin vs 3d printed. Cast resin needs masters to be made up which may or may not be more labour intensive than the CAD/CAM approach of 3d printing. I don't know. Although 3d prints today are not yet up to standard, this field develops very quickly in industry. Therefore I think it's a question of time before resolution improves. Adapting a 3d model to a new chassis I think will be easier than making a new master for a cast shell.

Finally, simple mass produced 4 wheel chassis. I run several of them and on my layout they never give any problem. I run them at scale speeds down to an almost invisible crawl, and that on DC, not DCC. What am I doing different from you, John? How much weight do you put into a loco?

You are doing nothing different Ted. The standards needed to get 4 wheels to work are so much higher than 00 gauge; the scale that folks will come from.

For the Peckett, you also need the chassis, around

Quote from: pilotfriend on November 27, 2011, 12:08
Well, Rhobat, no one can say you give up!

It's not over until the Fat Controller sings.

Quote from: pilotfriend on November 27, 2011, 12:08
I earlier listed some excellent chassis that are available already. Why do you want to start another project?

I don't particularly want to start a new project.  Firstly, in order to make informed comments about the supply of chassises, I think it would be helpful to have knowledge and experience of the process, both at an artisan level and at a mass-production level.  I assume that would be more useful than taking an enthusiastic, but fundamentally ignorant, stab in the dark.  Secondly, I hear too many people saying how they would like to finish building a kit if only they could get hold of the appropriate chassis.  And when someone of Paul Windle's reputation cites availability of chassises as an obstacle to the manufacture and provision of his products, that indicates a wider problem of supply not meeting demand.  I assume that Paul Windle is aware of the range of chassises he can use and, as Graeme says, he will adapt to the availability of a new one, should something suitable come along.  My question is simply, why should he have to?  Given that he is manufacturing locomotives on a fairly regular basis, even if it is in low numbers, he should not have to rely on mainstream manufacturers alone for his supply chain.  However, I can say no more on this for the reasons outlined in 'firstly'.

Quote from: tedp on November 27, 2011, 16:44

On the subject of cast resin vs 3d printed. Cast resin needs masters to be made up which may or may not be more labour intensive than the CAD/CAM approach of 3d printing.

I have a question on this.  Is it possible to manufacture a fully formed loco body from cast resin?

I'm not sure how much of a problem chassis availability is to Paul. You should ask him about that. I can imagine it is difficult to get hold of decent steam chassis from mainstream N gauge manufacturers.

Regarding resin casts, I haven't done anything of the sort. But I imagine you need inside and multiple outside moulds that come away cleanly after the resin has cured. The inside mould probably is smooth to enable it to be taken out of the shell. It would need to be tailored to the chassis you want to fit to the shell, unless you're happy with building up chassis supports. It cannot be easy to alter a mould to fit a different chassis.

Quote from: Rhobat Bryn on November 27, 2011, 20:46
I have a question on this.  Is it possible to manufacture a fully formed loco body from cast resin?

I don't see why not, the military modellers have been producing resin tanks and armoured vehicles for years.

Quote from: tedp on November 27, 2011, 21:06
I'm not sure how much of a problem chassis availability is to Paul. You should ask him about that. I can imagine it is difficult to get hold of decent steam chassis from mainstream N gauge manufacturers.

When I wrote to Paul over the summer requesting a catalogue, he wrote to me in August of this year stating that he had not advertised much recently as chassis supplies had been problematic.  He stated that there may be problems manufacturing 4 of his locos because of this.  It may be that he has solved these problems since then and I certainly hope that's the case as a number of them are on my Christmas list for the rest of the decade.  However I believe my point still stands on this.

Quote from: garrywhiting on November 27, 2011, 21:17

I don't see why not, the military modellers have been producing resin tanks and armoured vehicles for years.

That's very interesting.  I think that this is another of those processes that I shall have to find out about in more detail by cornering a generously inclined resin cast manufacturer in a non-threatening way.  But thanks for that; much appreciated.

All you have to do then is decide what loco to produce which will get the biggest sales... 4 wheel or 6 wheel... prototype or freelance... diesel or steam... the list is endless...

Best of British, Rhobat, though I think you are flogging a dead horse as has been said earlier...

We have rtr for those who want it in the form of Roco HOe which is generic enough to run on British layouts, but the true fact of the matter is that 009 has always been a miniscule part of British Railway Modelling and just doesn't justify the investment to make rtr, if it did they'd have done it already and we wouldn't be discussing it...

Quote from: Rhobat Bryn on November 27, 2011, 20:46
I hear too many people saying how they would like to finish building a kit if only they could get hold of the appropriate chassis.  And when someone of Paul Windle's reputation cites availability of chassises as an obstacle to the manufacture and provision of his products, that indicates a wider problem of supply not meeting demand.  I assume that Paul Windle is aware of the range of chassises he can use and, as Graeme says, he will adapt to the availability of a new one, should something suitable come along.  My question is simply, why should he have to?  Given that he is manufacturing locomotives on a fairly regular basis, even if it is in low numbers, he should not have to rely on mainstream manufacturers alone for his supply chain.  However, I can say no more on this for the reasons outlined in 'firstly'.

Quite simply because the world and hobby has changed, but far too few people have woken up to the fact, including too many in the 009 niche. 20 & 30 years ago it appeared that many N gauge locos and therefore the chassis (at that time manufactured "in-house" so to speak in Europe)  many of which were used for 009 whitemetal kits would continue to be available for ever, and hence there was some stability even for the likes of Paul Windle. However 12 to 15 years ago it all began to change.  European in -house production ceased in many cases and manufacture was sub contracted to China. Continuous production of a few thousand a year ceased, to be replaced by batch production of say 50,000 units . When they are sold that's it, they move on to a new project and a new design. It's how the real world is now.
Artisan manufacturers who are often just producing kitchen table models in whatever spare time they have  are regretably unreliable often for reasons beyond their immediate control , so it's a double whammy, mainstream manufacturers producing limited run batches, and artisan manufacturers who cannot cope with demand.

That is where the flexibility of 3d printing may come in. Pre-production costs should be much less than those of making masters for a cast body or even a cast kit. It will also be easier to change to a new kind of chassis as soon as one crops up that can replace an older one.

I expect better resolution and the avoidance of the printing ridges and blemishes we see in present-day 3d printing will improve the results of the process within a year or so. I'm not saying we will say goodbye to etched brass or cast whitemetal kits, but this process definitely has the future.

Quote from: Hobby on November 27, 2011, 21:35
All you have to do then is decide what loco to produce which will get the biggest sales... 4 wheel or 6 wheel... prototype or freelance... diesel or steam... the list is endless...

To a large extent, this is what Paul Windle is doing already.  He currently has 18 models on offer which are sold RTR, subject to chassis availability.  He would have an idea of which of his models are the most popular.

Quote from: Hobby on November 27, 2011, 21:35

Best of British, Rhobat, though I think you are flogging a dead horse as has been said earlier...

Many thanks for your good wishes, Hobby and you may be right; I may simply be heading up a blind alley.  My question is that, given that 009 is over-dependant on the production plans of mainstream manufacturers, is it possible to supply appropriate chassises by other means which would facilitate the building of kits and the manufacture of RTR on a cottage industry basis?  the answer is that I don't know and will not know until I know more about the details of the manufacturing process.

Quote from: Hobby on November 27, 2011, 21:35

We have rtr for those who want it in the form of Roco HOe which is generic enough to run on British layouts

I think Graeme was right before when he said that a newcomer to the hobby would be willing to tolerate aHOe loco in order to get things started.  As far as I can make out from the Roco website, the models appear to be quite continental in outline, rather than British.  However as Brian Meldon pointed out before, plans have been considered by the mainstream manufacturers to produce such a model and have fallen foul of the insufficient return to justify the investment principle.

Quote from: Hobby on November 27, 2011, 21:35
but the true fact of the matter is that 009 has always been a miniscule part of British Railway Modelling and just doesn't justify the investment to make rtr, if it did they'd have done it already and we wouldn't be discussing it...

The 009 market is not sufficiently large to justify an investment on a mass manufacture basis, which is why the general consensus appears to be emerging in favour of a limited run small-scale production approach.  I believe the reason that we are discussing it is that there is an interest in this project (eg 976 hits on this topic and counting) but that interest, if not demand, has not been met, as you say, by the mass-manufacturers.  Hence the work being done by Paul WIndle, Neville Kent and Chris Ward.

(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.009.cd2.com%2Fheadbanger.gif&hash=e7722d9349d8a49df615aa27030a077b00081688)

Quote from: Rhobat Bryn on November 27, 2011, 23:05

Quote from: Hobby on November 27, 2011, 21:35
All you have to do then is decide what loco to produce which will get the biggest sales... 4 wheel or 6 wheel... prototype or freelance... diesel or steam... the list is endless...

To a large extent, this is what Paul Windle is doing already.  He currently has 18 models on offer which are sold RTR, subject to chassis availability.  He would have an idea of which of his models are the most popular.

No, no, no. That shows a total misunderstanding of what Paul has been producing. His work has never been protoype led.  It's always been chassis led, and determined by cost, because so many in the 009 niche show extreme reluctance to pay for a high quality chassis. So when a cheap chassis has been avaiable, for example, the Bachmann 0-4-0 steam switcher, Paul has then searched for prototypes with close-enough wheel size and spacing that could utilise the chassis. He would then produce a pilot model, advertise it in 009 News and await customer reaction. Some were commercial failures, with less than 10 being ordered, and even the most popular never exceeded 50 units, despite being available over a number of years. A number of his recent steam locos have again been designed around the Lifelike 0-6-0 steam switcher, again a cheap utilitarian chassis, which again because of Chinese batch production is no longer available, but none of the models Paul has produced have attracted many orders. As I have said before, Paul produces about 50 locos a year, at least a third of which are special commissions ie locos not in his list. The other two-thirds are from the listed models which is approximately two of each per year, but in practise it doesn't quite work like that, as some are always more popular than others.

Narrow gauge modelling is very much a minority, and 009 is only a part of that minority and although you may wish it otherwise there just are not enough potential purchasers to tempt a mainstream manufacturer into our part of the hobby.  As regards N gauge chassis production, consider this, I predict that within 20 years there will be no ( or very few at best ) steam outline models available. It's simple demographics, as the generation that recall steam operation fades away, and that will make 009 modelling as we know it today very difficult.   

Quote from: pilotfriend on November 28, 2011, 07:17
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.009.cd2.com%2Fheadbanger.gif&hash=e7722d9349d8a49df615aa27030a077b00081688)

I didn't realise I made you feel that way, John.

Quote from: garrywhiting on November 28, 2011, 07:32

His work has ...always been chassis led, and determined by cost, because so many in the 009 niche show extreme reluctance to pay for a high quality chassis. He would then produce a pilot model, advertise it in 009 News and await customer reaction. Some were commercial failures, with less than 10 being ordered, and even the most popular never exceeded 50 units, despite being available over a number of years. A number of his recent steam locos have again been designed around the Lifelike 0-6-0 steam switcher, again a cheap utilitarian chassis, which again because of Chinese batch production is no longer available, but none of the models Paul has produced have attracted many orders. As I have said before, Paul produces about 50 locos a year, at least a third of which are special commissions ie locos not in his list. The other two-thirds are from the listed models which is approximately two of each per year, but in practise it doesn't quite work like that, as some are always more popular than others.
   

Your point about the market being reluctant to pay for a high quality chassis is a very telling one.  That definitely places a severe limitation on what it is possible to supply.  I was intending to contact Paul at some point regarding his experience of producing for the 009 market but your post has saved me the need to do so since it contains the necessary commercial figures.  For an artisan set-up, I would have thought that a demand for 50 units would be quite high but again without understanding the production processes and their accompanying costs, I can't really comment usefully any further.  However you have set out the context in which current production takes place and that is very helpful in understanding the current state of the market.  So many thanks to you for that.

Quote from: garrywhiting on November 28, 2011, 07:32
Narrow gauge modelling is very much a minority, and 009 is only a part of that minority and although you may wish it otherwise there just are not enough potential purchasers to tempt a mainstream manufacturer into our part of the hobby.  As regards N gauge chassis production, consider this, I predict that within 20 years there will be no ( or very few at best ) steam outline models available. It's simple demographics, as the generation that recall steam operation fades away, and that will make 009 modelling as we know it today very difficult.   

Your prediction about the future of N-gauge steam is an interesting one.  You could add to that the increasing range of leisure and entertainment opportunities there are these days, including computer games.  I wonder to what extent that might be compensated for by the interest there is in heritage steam railways, including narrow gauge.  As regards the potential customers for 009, the question has to be whether there is realistic potential for growth in the hobby.  I don't know the answer to that and your prediction suggests a move in quite the opposite direction.  But I believe that demand can be influenced by what is available in terms of supply.

Quote from: garrywhiting on November 28, 2011, 07:32
...  As regards N gauge chassis production, consider this, I predict that within 20 years there will be no ( or very few at best ) steam outline models available. It's simple demographics, as the generation that recall steam operation fades away, and that will make 009 modelling as we know it today very difficult.   

That is an interesting and sobering thought, Garry. I wonder what it means for 009 modelling and the obvious interest in RTR models expressed in this thread. We may be reduced to a small group of specialists building their own chassis, or etched chassis kits. The market for RTR 009 models will be reduced even more. Then how about entry level modellers, now and in the future?

I'm not sure about you or any others, but I started with RTR Egger and Jouef which I repainted in Festiniog livery and cut about till they were rubbish. A pugbash was my step up to building my own. My first successful models therefore were due to the availability of simple kits and N gauge chassis. If N gauge steam chassis become unavailable except for dodgy second-hand ones, we will need the likes of Neville Kent for RTR chassis. Otherwise the step from mainstream modelling to 009 will become a very big one.

We are really talking about economics of production here. How simple and inexpensive can anyone make the pre-production process and actual production costs to break even at only a few units put in the market? Despite the fact patience in some of the replies is wearing a bit thin ;D I think this is a valid discussion.

If you were beginning now, you have a fine choice of RTR in H0e. Yes more expensive but so is everything else. Nothing has changed.

Rhobat thinks chassis should be available because some have siad they cannot source a chassis for a particular kit. That is because they have a vintage kit.

If anyone wants to use a vintage kit I think he should be prepared to adapt it to whatever present-day chassis is available. Many of us do so. This has nothing to do with RTR models however.

H0e offers a good range of RTR indeed, as you say. But it is essentially non-British and converting one to British outline is about as difficult as converting a vintage kit to a present day chassis. It won't attract an inexperienced British outline modeller to 009.

It's the size of the market, and perhaps the unwillingness to pay more, which limits the scope for British outline RTR. I may be wrong, but I feel there is only one way to get anywhere near it which is what I tried to show in my earlier posts.

I'm convinced this will work if it is set up by two or three 'cottage' manufacturers producing components that are tailored to each other. It hasn't worked very well in the past, but perhaps with modern CAD/CAM technology, development and production costs can be reduced. It isn't like black magic. I wonder what any small producers who may be on this forum have to say about it.

Ted, while you continue to talk about 3d printing, it is much further away than two years. Hi Res printing is enormously expensive and will remain so for quite some time.

Quote from: tedp on November 28, 2011, 10:45
A pugbash was my step up to building my own.

Likewise!  Never underestimate the humble Pug!! ;D

I have a little more to add to this as I have been dong some research following a conversation with someone in the plastics trade.

Basically the cost of making injection moulding dies has reduced considerably in recent years with the advent of computerised tool making systems, improved polymer and low pressure moulding techniques that now allow

Quote from: pilotfriend on November 28, 2011, 12:29
Ted, while you continue to talk about 3d printing, it is much further away than two years. Hi Res printing is enormously expensive and will remain so for quite some time.

I have recently seen some present-day Shapeways prints in another material called Fine Ultra Detail (FUD) that look much better than the standard White, Strong & Flexible (WSF) stuff. I'm not sure about the price though. Still investigating my source.

Meanwhile, Brian's explanation is food for thought. There may be more ways than one. I'm glad some serious investigating is being done.

Finally, nice pug, Dave! Much better than mine.   ;D

Quite a bit more (about 30%), Ted, I got one of those Harz 2-10-2s in it, however its still not brilliant and its very brittle, I tend to say the same as John, its going to be a year or two yet before they get the same finish as brass or plastic... Having said that, for certain uses, I'd still use it!

Will you be coming to Wigan? I'd like to see your Harz 2-10-2.

I have a certain sympathy with JdF here - we are never going to see anything like mass-produced 009 at the sort of prices 009ers seem to expect.  End of.  Move on.  I'm puzzled by the 10 pages of discussion here - shouldn't we all be modelling?

Small batch-built examples, where an 'artizan' produced body - in resin (either cast or injection moulded) or printed plastic might be viable, but at a cost and the evidence seems to suggest that at much over

The whole thread is circular. Indeed, it would appear that many 009ers will not pay reasonable money for a product. On the other hand, many of the same people tell me that they have 70 + locomotives.... (probably most, utterly useless). This is often given as a reason why they are not going DCC!

For the

I'm afraid is is utterly useless to try and discuss a perfectly normal case in the face of so much opposition. I rest my case.  ;)

Quote from: tedp on November 28, 2011, 15:50
Will you be coming to Wigan? I'd like to see your Harz 2-10-2.

Don't know at the moment, Ted.

This topic has now run its course, and is now locked. Any attempt to restart in a different guise will be viewed with disfavour.