RTR Loco

[Graeme Dunbar]

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.

[pilotfriend]

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.

[tedp]

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?

[pilotfriend]

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

[rhobat bryn]

Well, Rhobat, no one can say you give up!

It's not over until the Fat Controller sings.

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'.

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?

[tedp]

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.

[garrywhiting]

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.

[rhobat bryn]

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.

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.

[Hobby]

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...

[garrywhiting]

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.

[tedp]

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.

[rhobat bryn]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[pilotfriend]

[garrywhiting]

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.   

[rhobat bryn]

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

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.

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.