Predictions for the new year model releases?

Some might already know what's afoot, and I would not expect them to break any non-disclosure agreements, but what are peoples expectations, wishes or pipe dreams for the coming modelling year?

Reply to
:::Jerry::::
Loading thread data ...

I would really like N gauge traction to come DCC ready to avoid the necessary poxing around fitting decoders. Nothing fancy, no lights necessarily, just a plain old motor decoder!!!

Luke

Reply to
Luke Briner

I'm crossing my fingers for Bachmann to produce Super GUVs, and for someone to give us a good 67 and 87.

Reply to
Rich Mackin

I would. Why do Rail Express any favours?

(kim)

Reply to
kim

You offering to take their place in any legal proceeding then, just because Rail Express either gets away with it or have authority to do so it does not mean that others would.

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

I'll second that, especially if they do one in N as well, but I think we'll be lucky to even see them release their standard GUV's in 2006. There is a chance that another company will release all three items in OO though. :)

Fred X

Reply to
Fred X

Hornby doing either a brand-new 37 or 47.................

Hornby doing a 101.

Somebody please to do a RTR 150.

Cheers, Mick

Reply to
Mick Bryan

I have heard from different sources that Hornby will definatley be doing a

  1. It would not be a bad move for them to do the 73 before bachmann does!!

Steam wise its King arther and rebuilt spam can + maunsell coaches.

Reply to
Piemanlarger

47 would just replicate both Heljan and Bachmann - and if the Bach 57 is anything to go by, the 47 will be something very special indeed...

Yes please to both of those! The most easily-recognisable symbols of BR DMUs.

Reply to
Rich Mackin

I thought the EMU's were a certainty? Am I wrong? Rob

Reply to
Rob Kemp

"Rich Mackin" wrote

That wouldn't stop Hornby doing one, even though there are numerous other gaps in the market they could fill.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

"Rob Kemp" wrote

Ironically, despite all the hype on here that an emu is a certainly, I've never heard *any* suggestion direct from either main manufacturer that they are considering one.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

Surely they would be replacing their existing dated model as they have done for the 08/09 already not replicating.

What would be what they did last year and replace one existing model and release two new ones.

Chris

Reply to
Chris

I still long for classes 14, 15 and 17!! Badger.

Reply to
Badger

them to

year?

Well if their Brush type2 is anyything to go on I don't think they need to crib anymore....

If you are still referring to Hornby, they already produce a rebuild 'Spam Can', perhaps you mean a rebuilt WC/BB class Bulleid, hope so, but fear they might drop the MN - (it would be nice to have an un rebuild MN though!

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

publicity? After

No, I'm not talking about a magazine but the retail trade, remember that any manufacture could stop supplying a trader who broke their ND agreement...

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

certainly, I've

My pipe-dream, other than a load of pre 1945 SR EMU's [1], is for a class 23 and 29 although I agree that a 15 would be nice (in both powered and un-powered versions.

[1] such as 2Bil, 4Cor, 6Pan / Pul / City and not forgetting the 5Bel! )
Reply to
:::Jerry::::

In message , ":::Jerry::::" writes

That could be interesting with reference to EU competition legislation.

Reply to
Jane Sullivan

,

remember

legislation.

IANAL but if the trader had broke the T&C of any contract I doubt the trader would have a leg to stand on.

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

Huh? EU competition legislation, AFAIK, is about *nations* not stealing a march on each other with open or hidden *government* subsidies to strategic industries such as airlines or the steel industry. I don't think it applies to model railway companies and their distribution policies.

You might be thinking of civil cases concerning restraint of trade.

Cheers, Steve

Reply to
Steve W

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.