Bigmet wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 10:43 am
With 'Sonic' chucking their hat into the ring, new entrants in RTR OO has 'slowed' rather than halted. Expect another addition before the end of 2023?
We are nearing the end of Q3 2023, and Ellis-Clark with the Quad-Arts are likely to be it as newcomers to RTR OO by end 2023.
Perhaps there will be another new RTR OO brand putting in an appearance before end 2025, on the back of the Stockton and Darlington bicentenary?
It's been interesting watching Ellis-Clark evolve from a tin-plate-a-like coarse scale O into a finescale O maker, a feat they seem to be managing well without all the expected re-branding marketing nonsense. In terms of OO, I've got them in the 'most likely to succeed long term and not end up being owned by Hornby' category.
Stating the obvious but, you need either very deep pockets or a backer with very deep pockets to bring a new manufacturer to the market place and even then, there's no gaurantee they wont go under within a few years and lose all their money.
Looking at earlier posts in this thread, I dont think any new entrant to the market does so thinking model railways is a money spinner. I think it's the opposite, being a money pit for manufacturers (and modellers) and very, very competitive in the sense of market share and profitability.
centenary wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 10:43 am
... I dont think any new entrant to the market does so thinking model railways is a money spinner. I think it's the opposite, being a money pit for manufacturers (and modellers) and very, very competitive in the sense of market share and profitability.
No way to join the mega-rich, but there has to be enough profit to make it viable, treated as an enthusiast motivated activity: 'This is what I want to do, and as long as there's a living in it, that's sufficient'. It's encouraging that individuals and small groups are still coming forward on this basis in model railway production.
Richard08 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 3:46 pm
... I've got them in the 'most likely to succeed long term and not end up being owned by Hornby' category.
It will be interesting to see the development of such 'shake out' in the medium to long term.
What's impressed me is that everything I have purchased from the 'new entries' over the last half dozen years has been both very good and useful expansion of choice in 'ordinary' items. The only small disappoinment is that Kernow have yet to offer anything I can use, so yet to see any of their product due to the predominantly LMS/LMR and LNER/ER centric interests of friends.
Bigmet wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 2:49 pm
We are nearing the end of Q3 2023, and Ellis-Clark with the Quad-Arts are likely to be it as newcomers to RTR OO by end 2023.
Perhaps there will be another new RTR OO brand putting in an appearance before end 2025, on the back of the Stockton and Darlington bicentenary?
I'd forgotten about them! I think I signed up for a pre order for a set of those.
Mountain wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 11:53 am
And it says they are free. How does he earn any money?
That's been corrected to distinctly unfree! DCC ready, a fiver short of 300 sheets, with delivery 18 months away. Wel'll see, fortunately a loco I really don't have any need for...
But I am in for their Quad-Art set: even more expensive but the first samples look superb, and these are essential for the KX inner sub services from post WWI to 1966. No more densely loaded stock to handle the walking freight has yet been seen on the UK railways. The locals liked them so much that even after they were sidelined, influential commuters had them reinstated, famously to operate 'The Potters Barbarian'.
And they are offering the K type All-steel QoS Pullman cars in 7mm. If they decide to reuse the research and go on to make these in 4mm, that could be painful...
"Loco I don't have a need for"... Think they are most of my fleet!
Think it was my main issue with 00 as I got carried away with the "Ooh look! Another loco I haven't got" syndrome.
Actually thinking my little narrow gauge railway will only need two or thee locos (Actually one!) and I already have around six or seven unbuilt loco kits and four or five built, or partially built locos. I am considering converting three or four locos to radio control and the others will be surplus... But I do like DC controllers as part of the parcel of the hobby I enjoy is the simple clunky toggle switches and the nice old controllers... The feel of them!... So I may stay as I am with 12v DC and have a few extra locos when I build them.
Waggons... I can have an abundance of them! The real railways had plenty! Probably 100 waggons per loco! (Or at least a minimum of 40+ waggons per loco and around two or three coaches per loco depending on the line and if they carried passengers).
Wd tend to forget that real railways were built to move things and/or people, and not for the purpose of running locomotives. If a horse was better for their intended loads they wanted moving they'd use a horse! Mechanized hauling capability was through the convenience of speed and when loads compared to train path space (The number of trains (Be they hauled by horse, human pushed, cable hauled or locomotive hauled or anything else) that could run on a track at a time. If one could take a horse pulling 10-20 waggons where one could then have a little loco hauling 50 waggons (Talking narrow gauge loads), the loco train path would be less blocked than if they used three horses to pull those 50 waggons in three separate trains... So locos pulling long trains of waggons did free up train paths so one could shift greater tonnages per day if one had adequate passing loops and siding space compared to trying to run more trains per day using horses... And a similar thing goes to running larger more powerful and often faster locos compared to smaller ones... Even though they may cost more to run and maintain.
But we do like to have a much larger fleet of locos than our haulage needs! Is why I origionally intended to have just three narrow gauge locos! But I saw yet more lovely inexpensive loco kits and my eyes grew larger than my layout plans...
I wonder what it was like for railway directors trying to plan their improvements but keeping an eye on their bank balance! Knowing they really needed a new loco or a new fleet of additional waggons but not having the funds... And being trapped into not being able to increase earnings per load as various mine and quarry owners they served were struggling as they were... So trying to maintain a service on what they had... Trying to invent new ways to tackle the problems that didn't cost much, or new ways to raise funds... Not easy!
It depends how you go about your modelling. I aim to have 'everything' represented proportionally that ran in my area and time span of interest. (Since this was the finest railway in the UK, I enjoy a huge selection.)
The locos are represented proportionally to the allocation within my chosen steam shed district. The end result is that I have seven times more black engines than lined green express and heavy mixed traffic wide firebox power. The most numerous steam classes on the layout are the N2 and N7 inner suburban traction.
For my principally main line operation, the proportionality requires an express carriage stock of seven vehicles per steam express loco, and four carriages per secondary/suburban service steam loco; while the freight operation needs 40 wagons per freight traction loco. These are sufficient to supply stock for the smaller shunting and transfer locos assigned to ECS, shunting and freight transfers and branchline operations. In both cases a smaller proportion relative to locos than the real railway had, because the steam railway was very inefficient, and lots of rolling stock was grossly under utilised, 'standing stock' rather then 'rolling', and the model railway doesn't have to represent that .
The only practical completely accurate representation is the DMU's. These have perforce the correct ratio of power cars to trailers. Which is what I feel rather marches against MU's popularity as models. If they are too look right then you have to 'have it all', no way one group of carriages can be variously deployed as trains for a wide range of traction, now representing an inner sub service with an N2, L1, B1, Brush 2, NBL DE type 2, BRCW type 2, then an outer sub service with a B1, B17, L1, Std 5MT, pacific or V2, EE Baby Deltic, BRCW type 2, now a branchline train with an N7, EE type 1, Brush 2, now the 'Parly', usually with a pacific or V2, or B1, Brush 2, EE type 3.
So have I bought fourteen Cravens two car sets? No, I make do with seven, that way I can run one six car and two four car sets, which is a fair representation, if no one stops and thinks about it...
