There are some interesting CE duties some are being used for as well, although again, hardly mainstream.

I would suggest not producing the HTA and HHA coal hoppers, not only are they likely from Bachmann at some point but they are also one-scheme and one-railroad models, produce an HTA and you still have nothing to hang behind your GBRF shed for example, so how about the following:

Autoballaster sets – sell as 5 car sets in multiple liveries. Pick any colour shed to pull it. Even top & tail it down your G*R branch line!

FKA/IKA Megafret flat, EWS and AAE liveries, in use with FL, DRS and EWS. (I’m told there are detail differences between the two types, but I suspect that’s not quite such an issue in N) Might be an engineering challenge to get low enough.

2nd choice for an intermodal flat? GBRF/DRS FEA twin sets, two operators, use in Intermodal or Gypsum service.

Most of the other intermodal standouts are available (KFA, KTA, FFA/FGA) or are very specific to certain operators (FAA, FCA, FLA, FIA, FSA/FTA). Although the FIA and FSA/FTA share plenty of components, so if the manufacturer was aware enough they could be a possibility, and would get you an EWS tunnel staple plus the backbones of the FL fleet.

The Cargowaggon is a very good call. One would be nice in OO as well!

About the only obvious thing I could do with the Dapol 73 would be the large logo one on a mid-80s Willesden-Tolworth/Chessington trip hauling half a dozen Farish HEAs.

The other option would be a pair top-and-tailing the Wembley-Dover TPO. Except the Farish TPOs are long discontinued….

To be honest, I had nothing specific in mind to partner a 66, as the field is wide open. As long as there was *something* to go with it, something that would open up layout building opportunities and generate multiple sales, rather than just one for the collection.

I think manufacturers should think in terms of layouts rather than discrete items, and with a 66 this has to be freight flows obviously. Coal is the main contender, but as the HAA is covered, and the HTA and HHA might reasonably be expected from Bachmann (if we live long enough) perhaps that’s less appealing.

Aggregate traffic presents opportunities (especially with what’s already available/threatened) and petrochemicals traffic embraces a wide variety of tank designs with only a pitiful few actually available, Then there’s the automotive industry, intermodal traffic and the much neglected steel/ore flows.

So many opportunities – it’s a matter of picking one and getting a few products out there and establishing a beach-head. So modellers can start building layouts and using the new products – as has happened with the 14xx/45xx/Autocoach/B-set/Siphon G/Siphon H/Colletts. Compare that list with “Class 73 in one-off livery” and ponder which sector they’re taking seriously.

And it was the Class 73 I was think of, really, I only drew the 66 in to illustrate the point that the joined-up thinking doesn’t include D&E at Dapol as yet.

Had Dapol partnered the 73 (in a mainstream livery) with an EMU it would have changed the world. Or at least the N bit of it

Off the top of my head, I can think of:

* HTA Coal hoppers
* 1:148 bogie cargowaggon
* Intermodal flats (Not the 60s freightliner one modelled by Bachmann)
* Those side tipping bogie ballast wagons in the picture on this post (can’t remember the TOPS code)

And yes, it’s true that the absence of EMU stock blights Southern layout building opportunities tremendously. But the vehicles you mention, with the possible exception of the Peco HAA (itself blighted by the looming spectre of the Bachmann version for people like me holding onto their credit cards) don’t provide you with the basic framework of a big-picture/mainline style of layout either.

Whichever way you jump, 66 or 73, you’ve got to be selective and go for a dimished sub-set kind of layout, modelling a corner of the network that fits available stock. All very do-able, of course, but each restriction and obstacle reduces the sale potential. The complete opposite of the almost layout-in-a-box-with-all-the-right-liveries that Dapol have bestowed upon the GWR enthusiast.

None of this diminishes my enthusiasm for the 66 or 73 personally, which is why I’ve been buying a lot of N in the last 6 months. But I am getting mightily fed up of Dapol bleating about the lack of D&E sales when the situation is entirely of their making. Exactly how many one-off SWT liveried 73s do they expect me to buy? Whichever way you cut it, they’ve taken a far more holistic approach to their olde-worlde range and are thus able to reap the benefits in that area – and that area alone.

They need to extend their joined-up thinking to their D&E range if they’re seriously thinking of joining up with my wallet

Anyway, I’m off to watch some videos. Just sat rivetted to Locomaster Profiles Tape of the Year for 1995 – EDs but no Sheds. Was it really 10 years ago?

The big problem with the 73 is that you can’t model their main area of operation without a lot of other stuff that’s not available RtR, specifically SR EMUs. An RtR 4VEP or 4CIG (or a relatively simple kit) would open up a lot of possibilities there.

I firmly believe that the other point you mention is by far the most critical one – Dapol have initially treated the D&E N market as a collector one and released the obscure liveries, inna Lima Stylee, which is something they presumably have faith in through their special edition 4mm PO wagon lines. That the 66 will initially be released in the most mainstream livery shows they have, thankfully, realised their error.

I’d say another factor is that the Steam and D&E markets are completely different. The steam market in N is largely completely undiscerning, “we’ll buy anything even if it’s got boiler skirts and awful wheels” folk – they’re just so desperate for product that the “well done Dapol” and “excellent product, should be a winner” cries go up before the thing actually exists. I think there’s an element of desperation in the D&E camp, too, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as bad. Folk will ignore the 73 because they’re modelling the highlands, for example, and I think many will ignore the 66 because they’re modelling earlier eras. I don’t see the latter being a problem, ultimately, as the D&E market is *potentially* much, much bigger once the products are there. But I do see the D&E market as more discerning, more aware of what stock belongs together and all that jazz.

Other bitty factors include Dapol releasing B-sets, autocoaches and siphons which show joined up thinking and open up layout opportunities which will maximise sales of a 14xx. There is no such strategy with the 73 unless you count the solitary CCT. How much different would the sales have been if we’d seen a corporate blue 73 first and a couple of other parcels vans or wagons? Or even an EMU? A 73 on it’s own says collector rather than layout-builder, one-off rather than volume sales. This is Dapol’s doing, not that of the consumers they’re trying to blame. They still don’t seem to be fully aware of this – a 66 on it’s own isn’t going to sell as well as a 66 with some supporting stock. They’re not putting the same effort into D&E as they are into the GWR and the key supporting stock for 66s lies in the Bachmann vapourware list.

Finally, something else the 14xx has going for it is that it drops neatly into the two classic 1960s style layout scenarios: the GWR BLT and the GWR junction station with branch bay platform. You don’t have to study the N gauge steam market too long before you notice most of the modellers belong to that school of thought, but ultimately they’re never going to buy as many 14XXs as the wider market would buy multiple performers like the 66, especially over time as the N market evolves.

No, Dapol are creating their own GWR niche market with a product line that shows joined up thinking in that direction only. It’s no good them berating the consumer for not buying their D&E products when they haven’t produced a similar product line for them to actually buy. I suspect they will increasingly focus on this niche of their own making, instead of carving themselves a D&E niche as well. A good way to recoup their development costs in the short term, I’m sure, but ultimately damaging if they don’t break out into the ever-widening post-steam market.

Crikey! I went on a bit there – should have made it an OMWB