Re: Bachmann wish list

>On 29 Jun 2003 04:40:34 GMT, (AlStirrat) wrote: >
>>>I saw one of the Fleischmann LMS coaches not that long ago, at a train
>>>show approximately 3000 miles west of London. For their time, they were a
>>>heck of a lot better than the stuff coming out of Hornby, and well up to
>>>the standard of the German and Austian manufacturers.
>>Actually, I think you will find it was Rivarossi, not Fleischmann who did >the
>>Royal Scot locomotive and LMS coaches in HO scale. Certainly not a big >seller
>>in Britain. Perhaps partly due to Rivarossi's notoriously poor marketing >>efforts.
>just out of interest, does anyone actually know this? (Mr Hammond?) >
What an extraordinary question, as well as an extremely incoherent one.
Of course I actually know that Rivarossi made the LMS HO models, which is why I
posted it. If that is indeed the question Mr Mutley is asking.
BTW Mr Mutley, the phrase "Actually, I think you will find....." does not mean
"I do not really know but perhaps......"; it is a polite way of telling the
original poster that he has got it wrong.
The LMS stock which Rivarossi offered in HO scale in their 1988 catalogue
Item 1348 4-6-0 locomotive "Royal Scot" LMS No. 6100
Item 1350 4-6-0 locomotive "Hector" LMS No. 6140.
Item 2933 First class compartment and saloon coach LMS
Item 2934 Brake third corridor coach LMS
Item 2935 Third class corridor coach LMS.
Both locomotives were in original, parallel boiler form, Hector having smoke
The coaches were panel sided stock, the 1st class one being identified as 1928
build and all were stated to be used in the "Royal Scot" train formation and
had the early panelled sides, ie Reid, rather than Stanier design.
The first class coach was, perhaps, a stange choice as only 16 coaches of that
seating arrangement were built and not all were identical to the model.
IIRC the items 1348, 2933 and 2934 were introduced first some time before 1988.
By the 1990 catalogue, the item 1348 "Royal Scot" locomotive was no longer
Presumably because production had ceased and this one, being the more popular
name, had sold out.
My reasons for stating that these Rivarossi, Fleischmann and Trix items were
poor sellers is from simple observation. How many featured on contemporary
exhibition layouts or indeed on current swapmeet stalls? How many did other
club members show off at the local model railway club's running nights? Mr
Mutley has obviously never even heard of the Rivarossi ones.
My remark about Rivarossi's poor marketing is from the simple fact that very
few model shops carried them.
The locomotives were described as "English" which is a mistake perhaps
excusable in an Italian company but, of course, the Royal Scots were the most
Scottish of the locomotives built new for the LMS. They were not only named as
a class after a Scottish regiment but were built in Glasgow by the North
British Locomotive Company but even designed for the LMS by that firm's own
drawing office rather than the LMS ones at Derby or Crewe as these were
overloaded with work at the time and the locomotives were urgently required.
The drawings were worked up quickly as they were based on a set of Southern
Railway "Lord Nelson" ones which had been kindly lent to the LMS.
Mr Mutley also stated:-
>assume fleishmann made x amount of models, and i'm also guessing there
>aren't any left in a warehouse anywhere, so did they actually all sell
>out, or did they go for scrap? if they all -did- sell, wouldn't that
>be classed as a success if it was any other model?
As I have already posted, but Mr Mutley chooses pointedly to ignore, these were
not made by Fleischmann.
If he also had even a glimmer of understanding of model economics he would
realise that scrapping a stock of models would be a very desparate measure
indeed as their scrap value is miniscule compared to selling them even very
heavily discounted.
Even if one run of a model eventually sells out that is no criterion of whether
a particular model is a commercial success or not.
By far the major cost in any mass produced model is the development stage
(research, production of tools and dies, sales literature, etc.). These are
once only costs which must be recovered as part of the price of each item sold.
If the quantity of models sold is less than the number estimated when deciding
how much of the development costs each model sold is to carry then that does
NOT amount to a success. As Hornby (the original Meccano one) and British Trix
discocered the hard way.
If a model is planned as a limited run and priced accordingly then that model
run can return a good profit if sales are good. Hence the current popularity of
that style of production.
Also remember that stock which is unsold or sells very slowly incurs costs of
its own, warehousing expenses, bank loan charges etc. It has also occupied
design and manufacturing resources which could have been better employed
elswhere in a better selling item.
The actual making of the model, (casting, injection moulding or whatever,
finishing, assembly, etc.) is a relatively small item and is fairly constant
per item no matter what quantities are sold.
If it were any other model exactly the same economics would apply, despite the
other strange remark from Mr Mutley that implies that somehow different "rules"
apply in this instance. Perhaps he will explain to us what he means.
Alex. W. Stirrat
Reply to
Loading thread data ...

Site Timeline

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.