My ideas for needed models

In message , ":Jerry:" writes

In that case, don't make one of these ancient 4-4-0s at all. There are other ex-GW locos that could be made, of which more than a few were in use in the 50s and 60s.

Your point being what? Wouldn't that also achieve what I'm worried about above, a few well known or well used prototypes - anyone want yet another "Black Five" and another "Flying Scotsman"?...

Yes, but the other ones all looked the same ;)

It's the red fleece, thank you..

Why?

These old 4-4-0s are right for any layout from the turn of the century to BR days, and as such have a wider market than engines built in the

They're also more suitable for the typical layout - we don't all have room for a Castle and ten carriages. One of these or a mogul plus three or four makes a prototypical train .

They make a perfect companion for the Dean Goods.

And as I've pointed out, two sets of body tooling and one of chassis provides at least four different engines. More with minor additional parts.

In message , ":Jerry:" writes

My point being, let's have a 2-8-0T and, possibly, a 2-8-2T.

What relevance does my method of posting have?

That's just silly!

That's basically what I said.

Do you think there is no hand building in mass produced RTR? Do you think that they are not made from a selection of individual parts? What's the difference, other than one is never offered to the public as a box of bits?

MBQ

Errrr......

Triang CKD anybody?

What relevance does my method of posting have?

That's just silly!

Not at all, I'm just throwing your (ill)logic back in your face, everything is basically a kit of parts, other than single cell organisms that reproduce themselves asexually!

That's basically what I said.

Do you think there is no hand building in mass produced RTR? Do you think that they are not made from a selection of individual parts? What's the difference, other than one is never offered to the public as a box of bits?

You are obviously clueless as to the savings that mass production gives and the possible quality differences between an injection moulded parts and a resin cast parts.

Finally, to answer your first question, because it's breaking the standard nntp follow up formatting, as you might have noticed my comments become merged with comments that you have made which makes things very confusing - especially if the reader doesn't understand the finer points of how to distinguish between who said what.

What? I'm perfectly clueued up about the savings that can be made through mass production, thank you. The only difference between Bachmann, Hornby, etc., (the mass market RTR) and a Silver Fox RTR model is the economies of scale due to differing manufacturing methods. They are *all* put together *by hand* from component pieces (i.e., taken to the extreme, a "kit of parts"). One is high volume low cost labour, the other (to the best of my knowledge) low volume high cost labour.

Quality difference can occur, regardless of the materials or manufacturing methods.

No one else seems to have a problem in quoting my posts correctly.

MBQ

Ok so people like you would buy the one example, those who would buy a Dukedog and it's variants could well buy two or more as that is what would have been seen, how many City of Truro's have you seen passing in the station?...

I do think there is a fundamental difference between a product designed to be assembled in a factory, and one designed to be sold as a kit - except, as pointed out by someone else, CKD (which applies to Land Rovers as well as Hornby!).

Cheers Richard

I'm sure any M/R marketting person will tell you that the packaging of the individual parts of the kit and special box costs almost as much as assembling the model and placing it in a standard box. That presumes that the assembly line and finished model packaging already exists. OTOH, the cottage industry creating a kit doesn't produce parts ready to snap together nor do they have a production line and staff sitting waiting for productive work.

Regards, Greg.P.

Not even then, as a look at certain car parts catalogues, there are often differences between factory assembled vehicles and those designed for CKD, and it's not just due to different markets/assembly methods.

Several possibiliyies there:

- Some markets don't want the cigarette lighter/motorway overdrive/cocktail cabinet options on their Landrovers.

- Some manufacturers put different numbers/colour schemes/detail options on their kits/RTR to tempt customers to buy one of each.

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote

If you mean that abortion churned out by Hornby, then I'd want a different Dean Goods to go with any proposed 4-4-0.

John.

Obviously I can't say about others, but Land Rover are identical, except that some additional part numbers for sub-assemblies that are applicable to CKD which make no sense for the factory

Cheers Richard

"Dean" or "Dean's"?

I always understood it to be the "Goods" designed by Dean.

Greg.P.

How old is it now, originally an Airfix model, must be more than 20 years old by now?...

Seen it in Gloucester with a rake of raspberry ripple mark 1s

Traveled behind it on SVR, and the GWR Videoed it double heading with Defiant on the GWR

Seen it at Toddington most recently