 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / December 2009Boats and Ships
Anyone have a good ldea where I can get Boats and Ships in OO/HO for a Dawlish wall scene? > Anyone have a good ldea where I can get Boats and Ships in OO/HO for a > Dawlish wall scene? Why not try Gordon Brown -- you could make a bid for what he has left of the Andrew! In message <c8ac77aa-199e-4677-b923-41efb99cb2e1@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Rob Kemp <robkemp2080@gmail.com> writes >Anyone have a good ldea where I can get Boats and Ships in OO/HO for a >Dawlish wall scene? Hi Rob Harburn Hobbies do a small selection of inshore fishing boats but the biggest selection is probably Langley Miniature Models. Have a look at: http://www.langleymodels.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_Boats__Ships__Ar titec___Langley__35.html Regards  SignatureBill Campbell : Anyone have a good ldea where I can get Boats and Ships in OO/HO for a : Dawlish wall scene? 4mm ship (even a small one), you have PLENTY of space then? > Anyone have a good ldea where I can get Boats and Ships in OO/HO for a > Dawlish wall scene? Airfix (or might have been Revell) used to do a lovely 'costal tanker' in 1/72. Just the right size for a small harbour. Sadly mine was used for target practice.... Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb : > Anyone have a good ldea where I can get Boats and Ships in OO/HO for a : > Dawlish wall scene? : : Airfix (or might have been Revell) used to do a lovely 'costal tanker' in : 1/72. Just the right size for a small harbour. Sadly mine was used for : target practice.... How about a RNLI life boat or perhaps a (decommissioned and adapted...) Vosper Motor Torpedo Boat, both Airfix, or perhaps a 1:72 Sunseeker "Predator 108" Yacht by Revell, depending on the era of the layout? >> Anyone have a good ldea where I can get Boats and Ships in OO/HO for a >> Dawlish wall scene? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Cheers >Richard Are you sure that it was 1/72? and not 1/130. The description sounds like the FROG models SHELL WELDER which was often used as you say in harbour scenes sometimes kit bashed a bit. FROG has long gone but the model has lived on in various forms and ISTR that Revell did have their name on it at one time. Latest incarnation seems to be from the Russian Novo brand as described here. http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/nov/kit_nov_shell.shtml G.Harman On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:07:49 +0000, damduck-egg wrote: >>> Anyone have a good ldea where I can get Boats and Ships in OO/HO for a >>> Dawlish wall scene? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > G.Harman Your right, it was the Frog (now there's a blast from the past!) 'Shell Welder' - was it really 1/130! Younger eyes...... ;-) Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb <snip> : Your right, it was the Frog (now there's a blast from the past!) Once owned by Rovex IIRC, or was it who ever owned (Triang-)Hornby Railways after the Rovex collapse, distinctly remember the range being included in back of a (Triang-)Hornby catalogue in the mid '70s. >> Anyone have a good ldea where I can get Boats and Ships in OO/HO for a >> Dawlish wall scene? > > Airfix (or might have been Revell) used to do a lovely 'costal tanker' in > 1/72. Just the right size for a small harbour. Sadly mine was used for > target practice.... You sure about that? Ships are really really big - even small ones. Artitec have some HO models http://www.langley-models.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_Boats__Ships__Artitec_ __Langley__35.html "Large Coastal Freighter": 558mm long and 93mm wide There is the Shell Welder kit, but that's 1:130. Ship models often seem to be random scales - maybe to fit the box? http://www.rus-sell.com/item4510.html Revell do some ships in 1:72, but they might not be appropriate: http://www.shipmodels.co.uk/561_1.html There is the Airfix lifeboat, though I've heard it is a pain to build (not done mine yet). SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK >There is the Shell Welder kit, but that's 1:130. Ship models often seem >to be random scales - maybe to fit the box? The late Peter Swan who modelled O-scale used to be a director at Matchbox, and he said that was why their models were a mixture of scales. Having only one size of box kept costs down keeping the product inside a pocket money budget. > Having only one size of box kept costs down keeping the product inside a pocket money budget. Someone wants to remind Hornby, and to a lesser extent Bachmann, that a universal box size keeps costs down & allows retailers to display models more easily. John. : > Having only one size of box kept costs down keeping the : product inside a pocket money budget. : : Someone wants to remind Hornby, and to a lesser extent Bachmann, that a : universal box size keeps costs down & allows retailers to display models : more easily. But the reverse can also be the case John, for example a scale 70ft coach takes up more space than a scale 57ft coach, the difference can add up, maybe even to allowing for an extra wagon or even coach to be exhibited on the shelf. The same arguments apply, and probably more critically to, warehousing and transportation, the space saved in a ISO shipping container by not transporting fresh air or packing foam can mean the difference between a second container being needed or not. No manufacture is going to go away from a 'standard' box size unless there is a cost saving. No > manufacture is going to go away from a 'standard' box size unless > there is a cost saving. Consider if you would the Hornby 'Skaledale' range, reduced in size to suit N-scale and renamed 'Lyddle End'. A quick examination of our shelves shows at least a dozen differing box sizes. Now to me any potential saving in volume by such variable sizing must be offset ten fold by the cost of producing so many different boxes. Looking at the 'new' Bachmann packaging for locos. Each of the three different size boxes used (and I can see the logic here as the varience in loco size is considerable) is supplied with an outer sleeve, each individually printed with the loco class. I wonder who is meeting the extra cost incurred in this extravagence, compared with a standard sleeve. John. : No : > manufacture is going to go away from a 'standard' box size unless [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : volume by such variable sizing must be offset ten fold by the cost of : producing so many different boxes. Only in Guillotine use, the art work still needs to be designed and printed and one might actually find that more (smaller) boxes can be obtained from the same amount of card, IOW the wastage is reduced. : Looking at the 'new' Bachmann packaging for locos. Each of the three : different size boxes used (and I can see the logic here as the varience in : loco size is considerable) is supplied with an outer sleeve, each : individually printed with the loco class. I wonder who is meeting the extra : cost incurred in this extravagence, compared with a standard sleeve. We are, the end user customer, have you asked your customers is they like having such information on the packaging or would prefer the old style self adhesive label stuck to the opening flap on one end of the box? >No >> manufacture is going to go away from a 'standard' box size unless [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >John. The box size was the reason Matchbox toys were such a mixture of scales. It didn't matter for their intended market. The late Peter Swan who was a director of the company told me that this kept the price in the pocket money range. > The box size was the reason Matchbox toys were such a mixture of > scales. It didn't matter for their intended market. The late > Peter Swan who was a director of the company told me that this kept > the price in the pocket money range. Cost of packaging never seems to be an issue with Hornby; maybe that's why the overall price of their products is escalating out of many folks' price range. John. >> The box size was the reason Matchbox toys were such a mixture of >> scales. It didn't matter for their intended market. The late Peter Swan [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > John. I priced up some boxes, with company logo printed on, a while back. At the volumes Hornby would be buying they would achieve little or no benefit from one standard size box. Indeed, if a standard box meant that many boxes were effectively half full of air then transport costs would easily out-weigh any extra cost. A half-pallet to Russia costs £245.00 (plus VAT!), a full pallet costs £395.00 (plus VAT) for example, so sending a pallet half full of air is extremely expensive! Getting the packaging/artwork right can make or break a product, it's part of the whole product strategy, not just an after-thought. I'll also bet that the size of boxes is carefully calculated to get as many as possible (based on their experience of typical orders) into a standard size large shipping cardboard box. I came across this at Royal Doulton. We were unloading thousands of boxes of Czech crystal from containers, re-packing, and putting them back into another container. We were doing this because the 30% more re-packed boxes in the container (going to the US) represented the profit for the whole shipment apparently! Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb > I priced up some boxes, with company logo printed on, a while back. At > the volumes Hornby would be buying they would achieve little or no [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > packaging/artwork right can make or break a product, it's part of the > whole product strategy, not just an after-thought. If sending boxes full of fresh air is so expensive, then perhaps both Hornby & Bachmann ought to look at reducing the sizes of their loco boxes. As for making or breaking the product I don't think either manufacturers latest box offerings actually do very much to help sell the contents. Both fail abysmally to allow you to see what's inside. Shipping to Russia may be expensive, but shipping from China to the UK &/or USA isn't. Think the last I heard a 40' container from China to Southampton was in the very low hundreds, and it would actually cost more to move that container from Southampton to Manchester by road or rail than the sea voyage. John. >> I priced up some boxes, with company logo printed on, a while back. At >> the volumes Hornby would be buying they would achieve little or no [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > manufacturers latest box offerings actually do very much to help sell > the contents. Both fail abysmally to allow you to see what's inside. A as I intimated, packaging design is something of a science in it's own right - Hornby will balance the cost of shipping fresh air against how the box effects sales. As an example, Microsoft used send out OS upgrades in a box something around size of a shoe box. It contained a voucher to arrange for delivery of a set of discs (we're talking 1990 or so here). They did this because if you send out 5 discs in a Jiffy bag people feel ripped-off, even though they know dam well they will bin the box and it's flashy art-work in a day or two. Another example would be Land Rover spares. For years these came in white boxes printed with lots of Land Rover logo's and such. About 3 years ago they went to plain white boxes with a label stuck on with a logo and the part number. This was a disaster - we had customers convinced that they were being conned! They have now reverted to something similar to the old style and the customers are now happy bunny's. The point is that psychology, as well a cost and practicality, plays a large roll packaging design. Personally I don't a damn, but if Hornby came out with an atrocious artwork that made your shelves look untidy (if that's the word) or boring (say plain brown boxes) then there would be an effect on unplanned purchases. There's nowt so queer as folk ;-) > Shipping to Russia may be expensive, but shipping from China to the UK > &/or USA isn't. Think the last I heard a 40' container from China to > Southampton was in the very low hundreds, and it would actually cost > more to move that container from Southampton to Manchester by road or > rail than the sea voyage. £2,000 is nearer the mark (and that's contract). One of our customers exports "antique pine" to the US in containers. Your are right about the cost of getting it to the port though for non-contract shipment (and for a truck that can pick the container up itself), but then a lot of that is the cost of the diesel and the driver hours rules. > John. Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb : > I priced up some boxes, with company logo printed on, a while back. At : > the volumes Hornby would be buying they would achieve little or no [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : offerings actually do very much to help sell the contents. Both fail : abysmally to allow you to see what's inside. How does looking at my computer screen allow me to see into the box sitting on your shelf or counter John, could both Bachmann and Hornby just be recognising the fact that most trade is via the 'postmans' hands that than directly between trader and customer in person - protection is more important than outward looks? : Shipping to Russia may be expensive, but shipping from China to the UK &/or : USA isn't. Think the last I heard a 40' container from China to Southampton : was in the very low hundreds, and it would actually cost more to move that : container from Southampton to Manchester by road or rail than the sea : voyage. ATM, shipping costs (as in ship, not just transportation) is a volatile market place. Also moving the container to/from the docks is part of the total cost which needs to be calculated into the warehouse door price of the product. > How does looking at my computer screen allow me to see into the > box sitting on your shelf or counter John, could both Bachmann > and Hornby just be recognising the fact that most trade is via > the 'postmans' hands that than directly between trader and > customer in person - protection is more important than outward > looks? Not in our case Jerry; about 90% of our trade is through the shop door and as with all sensible retailers we like our customers to be able to see what we're selling, not a picture of what we're selling. Can you imagine Comet or Curry's trying to sell washers by keeping them in a box with just an illustration on the outside? John. : > How does looking at my computer screen allow me to see into the : > box sitting on your shelf or counter John, could both Bachmann [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : Not in our case Jerry; about 90% of our trade is through the shop door and... <snip> ...and my local model railway shop does 90% of it's trade via either telephone orders or their website AIUI and I doubt they are an exception to the trend. I would suggest that there are many more mail-order traders these days than 'traditional'. If there is a trend away from 'windowed' packaging then there must be a good reason, one that is not going to cause people to stop buying the product because they can no longer see the product, these sorts of marketing decisions are not taken on a whim nor lightly. >: > How does looking at my computer screen allow me to see into >the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >: Not in our case Jerry; about 90% of our trade is through the >shop door and... Any chance you could fix your broken software? It isn't handling quoted text properly, which tends to make your responses look unnecessarily messy. ><snip> > >...and my local model railway shop does 90% of it's trade via >either telephone orders or their website AIUI and I doubt they >are an exception to the trend. I would suggest that there are >many more mail-order traders these days than 'traditional'. Given that most online model railway retail websites are utter shite, I'd be very surprised if any of them are a significant source of income for the operator. For Hornby products there are a fair number of online box-shifters (including Amazon, which I suspect is probably the biggest online model railway retailer in terms of units sold), but other than the few big name online vendors such as Hattons, Rails, Gaugemaster and OnTracks (and even those could be a whole lot better), there aren't very many "full range" retailers with even a semi-decent website. >If there is a trend away from 'windowed' packaging then there >must be a good reason, one that is not going to cause people to >stop buying the product because they can no longer see the >product, these sorts of marketing decisions are not taken on a >whim nor lightly. Better protection in transit is certainly a major reason for moving away from windowed packaging, but that's just as much the trip from importer/wholesaler to the shop as it is the journey from the shop to the customer. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk <snip> : Given that most online model railway retail websites are utter shite, : I'd be very surprised if any of them are a significant source of : income for the operator. Mr Goodge get it wrong again then!... ><snip> >: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Mr Goodge get it wrong again then!... You have some figures to show that I'm wrong? Feel free to share them, in that case. You'll note, of course, that I said "most", so providing the figures for just one or two of the better websites doesn't prove anything. I was careful not to state an absolute, merely a generalisation. There are, of course, a few websites which do shift large quantities of stock and constitute a major revenue stream for their operators. However, those are the minority, and my claim is about the majority. I'd be very interested to see any figures which contradict my claim that most model railway retail websites aren't a significant source of income. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk : ><snip> : >: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : : You have some figures to show that I'm wrong? <snip> More to the point, as you are the one whop raised the issue, do **you** have any figures to show that you are correct, that these websites are so bad that no one could possibly trade effectively via them - I would suggest that as some of these companies have either had long web presence, and in some cases a web only presence, that you are far from correct, considering that they are still trading! Of course your opinion wouldn't be based on your wish to rubbish other web authors work and thus promote your own?... >: You have some figures to show that I'm wrong? <snip> > >More to the point, as you are the one whop raised the issue, do >**you** have any figures to show that you are correct, that these >websites are so bad that no one could possibly trade effectively >via them I can easily point out the flaws in any website you care to suggest, yes. And yes, there are statistics available which make it pretty easy to tell whether a retail website is likely to be profitable. Although they're an approximation rather than precise figures, and they only give values for visitors rather than sales, the Alexa rankings are generally a good guide to how popular a site is. So, let's start with a simple test. Google for "buy model railways online" returns these shops on the first page of results: http://www.ehattons.com/ UK Alexa rank: 16,515 http://www.stocktonmodeller.co.uk/ UK Alexa rank: 197,505 http://www.railway-models.co.uk/ UK Alexa rank: 92,986 http://www.simplytrains.com/ UK Alexa rank: 157,229 http://www.sherwoodmodels.co.uk/ UK Alexa rank: too low to be ranked Then a few more that don't show up so well in a search, but that I happen to know about: http://railsofsheffield.com/ UK Alexa rank: 33,077 http://www.gaugemaster.com/ UK Alexa rank: 30,511 http://www.ontracks.co.uk UK Alexa rank: 32,839 http://www.anticsonline.co.uk/ UK Alexa rank: 26,609 Now, unless you've got experience in running an online shop yourself, you're going to have to trust me on this, but on these figures only the eHattons, Rails, Gaugemaster, Antics and OnTracks sites are getting anything like a significant amount of traffic (although railway-models.co.uk is another domain for Antics, so those figures really should be combined). For comparison, one of my own sites (http://www.motorwayservices.info) has a UK ranking of 10,147. I don't sell anything online myself (I leave that to my employers), but as a general rule you need a traffic ranking of at least 50,000 or better to get enough visitors for sales to be significant. So, unless there are a lot of high-ranking model railway retail websites that I'm unaware of, then it's pretty safe to say that not very many of them are making significant money for their owners. > - I would suggest that as some of these companies have >either had long web presence, and in some cases a web only >presence, that you are far from correct, considering that they >are still trading! Well, given that Bachmann won't even sell to web-only retailers, it would be very surprising if there were many, if any, full-range retailers that only sell online. Plenty of Hornby box shifters, yes, but that's not really what I'm on about. >Of course your opinion wouldn't be based on >your wish to rubbish other web authors work and thus promote your >own?... Writing websites is my day job, yes. So it's not surprising that do have a certain amount of experience in the field and an ability to judge what is good and bad, effective and ineffective. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk : >: You have some figures to show that I'm wrong? <snip> : > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : I can easily point out the flaws in any website you care to suggest, That is not what I asked and not what you tried asking me, were is your proof that these websites you imply are so hopeless that they could never be used to run a successful on-line business. <snip> : So, let's start with a simple test. Google for "buy model railways : online" returns these shops on the first page of results: No, lets start with proof that these online sites can't be used as a on-line business, that's what you said, now either back your criticism with facts or retract. Google ranking is not the issue, there are traders (not just in the model railway trade either) who have little or no Google ranking but trade only vie the web, most people know what they are looking for and know were to look, only the non (railway) enthusiasts need to use google to find a trader in the way you are suggesting - this will be a minority of sales in most cases. So come on Mark, some facts and figures to back your accusations up, put-up or shut-up! On Dec 29, 10:56 am, "Jerry" <mapson.sca...@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote: > : On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:02:11 -0000, Jerry put finger to > keyboard and [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > No, lets start with proof that these online sites can't be used > as a on-line business, that's what you said, No. Once again you are twisting peoples words to suit your own agenda. What he actually said was "Given that most online model railway retail websites are utter shite, I'd be very surprised if any of them are a significant source of income for the operator." It's the size od the business that is at issue, not the fact of it's existence. You complain about people being unable to remember what they read 40-50 years ago yet you are unable to remember (or comprehend) what you read a few hours ago. MBQ >On Dec 29, 10:56 am, "Jerry" <mapson.sca...@btinternet.com.INVALID> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >income for the operator." It's the size od the business that is at >issue, not the fact of it's existence. Indeed. And my assertion could very easily be shown to be false by someone with access to the sales figures for a few websites that I'd consider to be shite :-) So, if anyone is really certain that I'm wrong, it ought to be easy for them to demonstrate that I am by producing some hard facts. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk <snip> : So, if anyone is really certain that I'm wrong, it ought to be easy : for them to demonstrate that I am by producing some hard facts. No Mark. you made the claims, you prove your arguments, put up or f.ck off. ><snip> >: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >No Mark. you made the claims, you prove your arguments, put up or >f.ck off. I have provided evidence. It's your turn now. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk <snip> : I have provided evidence. It's your turn now. No you have not, all you have done is list Google ranking, that is not citing company results or other such proof of a companies ability to trade effectively. ><snip> >: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >is not citing company results or other such proof of a companies >ability to trade effectively. <sigh> Please go back and read my post again, since you clearly didn't read it the first time (or, for that matter, the second time, when I previously corrected this mistake). Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk <snip> : <sigh> Please go back and read my post again, since you clearly didn't : read it the first time (or, for that matter, the second time, when I : previously corrected this mistake). In which message did you cite company results in then, please give a message ID number. ><snip> >: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >In which message did you cite company results in then, please >give a message ID number. That's not the mistake I was referring to. I have never claimed to cite company results. But I haven't been citing Google rankings either. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk : ><snip> : >: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : That's not the mistake I was referring to. I have never claimed to : cite company results. Then how can you claim what you calimed, eithert put-up or fck-off : But I haven't been citing Google rankings : either. Weasel words, everyone can see that (in effect) you did post such a list. >: But I haven't been citing Google rankings >: either. > >Weasel words, everyone can see that (in effect) you did post such >a list. No I didn't. Go back and read it. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk : >: But I haven't been citing Google rankings : >: either. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : : No I didn't. Go back and read it. So you didn't post the results of a Google search to "back up" your comments? Oh look what I've found; news:rfgjj515omuoclnde5ubk29gj0e7i0bk4h@news.markshouse.net [quote] So, let's start with a simple test. Google for "buy model railways online" returns these shops on the first page of results: http://www.ehattons.com/ UK Alexa rank: 16,515 http://www.stocktonmodeller.co.uk/ UK Alexa rank: 197,505 http://www.railway-models.co.uk/ UK Alexa rank: 92,986 http://www.simplytrains.com/ UK Alexa rank: 157,229 http://www.sherwoodmodels.co.uk/ UK Alexa rank: too low to be ranked [unquote] So not only are you wrong but you're a blatant liar! Signature"You obviously couldn't get a clue if you rolled in clue musk and performed the clue mating dance in the middle of a field full of horny clues at the height of the clue mating season!" >: On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:36:52 -0000, Jerry put finger to >keyboard and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >So you didn't post the results of a Google search to "back up" >your comments? Yes, I did. But I didn't use Google rankings to back up my assertion. I used Google, plus my own knowledge, to come up with a basic list of some of the more popular model railway retail websites. And then pointed out that only a few of them were getting any significant traffic, based on Alexa rankings. >Oh look what I've found; >news:rfgjj515omuoclnde5ubk29gj0e7i0bk4h@news.markshouse.net [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >So not only are you wrong but you're a blatant liar! No, you still can't read. I could have used Bing or Yahoo to generate that list. It's not the search engine that matters, it's the traffic. And you've just quoted the bit which shows that you didn't read it the first time. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk <snip> : No, you still can't read. : : I could have used Bing or Yahoo to generate that list. You still don't get it do you, search engine ranking is meaningless, the only way you are going to prove anything is to either cite company trading results of their web stats - not a search engine as not everyone goes through a search engines. So Mark,. either put-up or shut-up, quote either company trading results or company web stats. ><snip> >: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >either cite company trading results of their web stats - not a >search engine as not everyone goes through a search engines. Yes, that's why I used publicly available *traffic* stats as evidence to support my claim. Now it's your turn - since you think I'm wrong, you come up with some evidence (maybe some actual sales figures from a site with low traffic stats) that supports your opinion. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk : ><snip> : >: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : : Yes, that's why I used publicly available *traffic* stats as evidence But they support nothing, nothing at all, and you know it... : to support my claim. Now it's your turn - since you think I'm wrong, : you come up with some evidence (maybe some actual sales figures from a : site with low traffic stats) that supports your opinion. No I do not have to, *you* are making assertions - **you prove them**, back them up with facts or shut ***your*** ignorant trap.. >: On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:29:59 -0000, Jerry put finger to >keyboard and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >But they support nothing, nothing at all, and you know it... That's odd, because just a bit further up this thread you said that I needed to cite web stats. And I have. Now you're saying they mean nothing. Ah well. >: to support my claim. Now it's your turn - since you think I'm >wrong, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >them**, back them up with facts or shut ***your*** ignorant >trap.. Ah, now we move on to the abuse stage. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk > <snip> > : [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So Mark,. either put-up or shut-up, quote either company trading > results or company web stats. Think Jerry has a point as there are a number of variables in this situation. The cited stats may be useful to a substantial online company that uses a standard model for its business but when it comes to the cottage industries - which is likely to apply to model railway shops - then the numbers may be too small to be statistically viable. Consider the case where a shop owner has enough computer knowledge to set up his own website, takes card information over the phone only. Costs minimal so doesnt need to generate many sales to make it profitable. Then of course there is the hits to sales ratio - how accurate is this when there are few hits. What about the person whose average sales are of a higher price say at least GBP100 with high margins compared to someone whose average is nearer to GBP20 with low margin. Cheers, Simon >> <snip> >> : [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >least GBP100 with high margins compared to someone whose average is nearer >to GBP20 with low margin. That's a fair point, yes, and I'd agree that a niche retailer is more likely to have a better sales/visitor ratio than a less specialist operation. But, on the other hand, this stuff is what I do for a living, so I do have some idea of what I'm talking about :-) And, as it happens, the two most important ecommerce websites I've worked on are at opposite ends of the scale in terms of average value - one sells products that typically vary from about a fiver up to just over a tenner, while the other mainly sells products that go up to the multiple hundreds with the average being in the high double figures. And yet, in both cases, the Alexa traffic rankings correlated extremely well with sales trends. Obviously, the second site makes considerably more money overall, as it deals in higher value and higher margin products, but the total quantity of sales for both sites has pretty much the same relationship to the Alexa rankings (within the normal margin of error for such stats). So I think I'm on pretty firm ground in asserting that there aren't many model railway retail websites which are significant income generator for the owners. Your second point, though, is definitely true - a website costs very little to set up and run, so any additional sales it generates are a bonus over and above sales through traditional methods. If a shop sells 100 items a day without a website, but 110 a day with a website, then the website is worth having even though it's only contributing a small proportion of sales. The point I was making wasn't that websites dn't contribute anything, or aren't worth having, it was simply that very few of them will be contributing more than a relatively small proportion of total sales. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk <snip> : No. Once again you are twisting peoples words : to suit your own agenda. LOL, "MBQ" looking in the mirror again.... Mr Goodge has made accusations about certain web sites, he is the one who has yet to back HIS words with some facts. ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Mr Goodge has made accusations about certain web sites, he is the >one who has yet to back HIS words with some facts. No, once again you are misreading what I wrote. I have made a claim about the majority of model railway retail websites in general, not about "certain" sites. And I have backed up my claim with readily available statistics. If you want me to comment on any specific site, then suggest one and I'll tell you whether I think it's likely to be generating significant income or not. And then, if I'm wrong, you can show that I am by giving us the actual figures. That's not so hard, is it? Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk >: On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:02:11 -0000, Jerry put finger to >keyboard and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >is your proof that these websites you imply are so hopeless that >they could never be used to run a successful on-line business. I asked you for some figures from sites that you say are successful. You haven't provided any, yet. On the other hand, I've shown evidence that most sites don't get enough traffic to be a significant source of sales. ><snip> >: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >as a on-line business, that's what you said, now either back your >criticism with facts or retract. Google ranking is not the issue, If you had actually read what I wrote, you would have seen that I wasn't referring to Google ranking. I was referring to Alexa ranking, which is a measure of how many visitors a site gets. I'm sure that even you would agree that a site with few visitors will also be a site with few sales. >there are traders (not just in the model railway trade either) >who have little or no Google ranking but trade only vie the web, >most people know what they are looking for and know were to look, >only the non (railway) enthusiasts need to use google to find a >trader in the way you are suggesting - this will be a minority of >sales in most cases. So name such a site. I'm aware of at least one which I know has good sales figures (and has a good Alexa ranking) but isn't all that high in the Google rankings, and that's Rails of Sheffield. Another couple of sites that do well, despite not featuring too highly in Google are OnTracks and Gaugemaster. But these are the minority. Most sites don't get enough traffic to be a significant source of income. Incidentally, you're generally wrong about Google not being a significant source of traffic for successful sites. In my day job (which has nothing to do with model railways, but does have a lot to do with online retailing), I've been responsible for some of the UK's leading ecommerce websites in their respective fields. And, for all of them, Google has been the dominant source of traffic. Sure, some niche sites do well without Google, but selling RTR model railway products almost certainly isn't one of them. >So come on Mark, some facts and figures to back your accusations >up, put-up or shut-up! I did, in my previous post, which you seem to have snipped without reading it. My original statement, since you seem to have forgotten it, was simply that most model railway websites don't generate significant sales income for their operators. I've provided evidence that the majority of sites have low traffic ratings, and my own experience in the world of online retail gives me a very good idea of how much traffic a site needs to get in order to be successful. So, unless all these sites you're referring to are bucking the trend in a very big way, there's no way they can be a major source of income. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk <snip> : >That is not what I asked and not what you tried asking me, were : >is your proof that these websites you imply are so hopeless that : >they could never be used to run a successful on-line business. : : I asked you for some figures from sites that you say are successful. www.companies-house.... look them up yourself! : You haven't provided any, yet. ...and nor have you, even though you are the one making the accusations that these on-line companies are likely to go bust. >: On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:56:00 -0000, Jerry put finger to >keyboard and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >www.companies-house.... look them up yourself! I have. I've already listed the ones that I think are successful. My assertion is that most of the rest are not very successful. If you want to disagree with that, then provide examples of sites that I've said are not successful but where you know that they are. >: You haven't provided any, yet. > >...and nor have you, even though you are the one making the >accusations that these on-line companies are likely to go bust. Feel free to point out where I have made that particular claim. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk <snip> : I have. I've already listed the ones that I think are successful. No you did not, you listed Google ranking, not the same thing at all. ><snip> >: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >No you did not, you listed Google ranking, not the same thing at >all. Saying something doesn't make it true. Especially when anyone can go back and look at my post and see that what you're saying isn't true. There's a well-known saying about holes, digging and the advisability of cessation when inside one of your own creation. I suggest that yu take its advice :-) Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk : ><snip> : >: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : : Saying something doesn't make it true. Exactly! So when are you planning to cite company trading results that prove your 'theory' correct then? : Especially when anyone can go : back and look at my post and see that what you're saying isn't true. Like f.ck they can, but in case you have cited such company trading results perhaps you would be so kind to report them... >: On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:46:25 -0000, Jerry put finger to >keyboard and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Exactly! So when are you planning to cite company trading results >that prove your 'theory' correct then? I've never claimed to be able to cite company results. You're the one who claimed that you have proof that my assertion that most MR retail websites don't generate much income is false. I provided some figures which support that theory. So far, you haven't provided anything to contradict it. >: Especially when anyone can go >: back and look at my post and see that what you're saying isn't >true. > >Like f.ck they can, but in case you have cited such company >trading results perhaps you would be so kind to report them... You're still not reading what I've written. But you're still digging that hole. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk But is thetrainline.com proof that a truly awful site can still generate income. Plus is that the worst site with high visits/sales ? cheers, Simon >But is thetrainline.com proof that a truly awful site can still generate >income. Plus is that the worst site with high visits/sales ? It operates in a near-monopoly, so it could be a lot worse and still get sales! And, actually, it's not too bad - it only gets one particular thing really badly wrong, and that's the requirement to register or log in before making a purchase. Otherwise, the sales process is reasonably straightforward. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk >>But is thetrainline.com proof that a truly awful site can still generate >>income. Plus is that the worst site with high visits/sales ? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Mark youve got to be joking (please). I think of myself as reasonably knowledgable on using websites and complexity of train tickets (being a reader of uk.railway) but get totally confused as to what options are available. One particular confusion is find am about to purchase single tickets when want (and have asked for) returns. Cheers, Simon : >: On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:46:25 -0000, Jerry put finger to : >keyboard and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] : : I've never claimed to be able to cite company results. So how can you claim what you claimed, were is your evidence that (to paraphrase your rant) these traders with 'crap' websites won't do much trade?... You're the one : who claimed that you have proof that my assertion that most MR retail : websites don't generate much income is false. I provided some figures : which support that theory. So far, you haven't provided anything to : contradict it. Sorry, you made the claim, you back your claim up, what you are trying to do here is be prosecution, witness, judge and jury - "I say I'm right because I say I'm correct"!... : >: Especially when anyone can go : >: back and look at my post and see that what you're saying isn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : You're still not reading what I've written. But you're still digging : that hole. But what you write is irrelevant and you know it. >: I've never claimed to be able to cite company results. > >So how can you claim what you claimed, were is your evidence >that (to paraphrase your rant) these traders with 'crap' websites >won't do much trade?... The primary evidence is that they're not getting much traffic. That information is available from public sources. Like any shop, if you're not getting people through the door then you're not going to making many sales. That much is simple common sense. To go into it in a bit more detail requires a knowledge of how traffic generally correlates to sales, something which I do know about as that's an important part of my job. Now, obviously, you don't have to accept that I'm telling the truth about my knowledge and experience (although why would I lie?), but if you're certain that I'm wrong then it would be trivially easy for you to come up with figures which show me to be wrong. >You're the one >: who claimed that you have proof that my assertion that most MR [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >trying to do here is be prosecution, witness, judge and jury - "I >say I'm right because I say I'm correct"!... I say I'm right because of my experience and knowledge, and because of publicly available information which backs up my claim. Obviously, that's not going to convicen you, because you're certain that you're right no matter what evidence is placed in front of you. But it's not you that I'm trying to convince. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk <snip> : The primary evidence is that they're not getting much traffic. So you have access to all **their web stats**?! ><snip> >: >: The primary evidence is that they're not getting much traffic. > >So you have access to all **their web stats**?! Not in detail, no. But I have access to publicly available traffic stats that give a good approximation of actual visitor numbers. Those are the figures I quoted previously. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk : ><snip> : >: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : : Not in detail, no. Thus you can't prove a thing... Thank you, now apologise >: On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:01:45 -0000, Jerry put finger to >keyboard and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Thus you can't prove a thing... Thank you, now apologise Ah, deliberate misrepresentation by means of misleading snippage. Jerry, you really are showing all the signs. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk <snip> : Jerry, you really are showing all the signs. ...of being right and proving that you are bigger in the mouth department than you are in the hat department! ><snip> >: Jerry, you really are showing all the signs. > >...of being right and proving that you are bigger in the mouth >department than you are in the hat department! Tell you what, I bet you a tenner that you can't resist following up to this post. Deal? Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk >> Having only one size of box kept costs down keeping the > product inside a pocket money budget. > > Someone wants to remind Hornby, and to a lesser extent Bachmann, that a > universal box size keeps costs down & allows retailers to display models > more easily. Though making the models to different scales just to fit the box might not be helpful :-) SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > > "Christopher A. Lee" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Though making the models to different scales Didn't Lima or someone used to do that? > just to fit the box might not be helpful :-) Maybe not for that reason though. MBQ On Dec 22, 6:24 pm, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote: <snip> :> Though making the models to different scales : Didn't Lima or someone used to do that? Probably Rovex (Triang), it would have been the sort of thing they would have done! Lima actually got a foot hold into the UK market in the late 1970s because their RTR models were better that the then available (Triang-)Hornby range, hard to believe today though... >>>> Having only one size of box kept costs down keeping the >>> product inside a pocket money budget. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Didn't Lima or someone used to do that? I believe some manufacturers of model ships did... SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > Didn't Lima or someone used to do that? Lima started producing their British range to HO-scale, then when demand was poor started to switch to standard OO-scale. There was a period when they sort of mixed the two - the class 50 & 55 locos were almost to OO-scale but had HO-scale bogies. John. >> Didn't Lima or someone used to do that? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but > had HO-scale bogies. Or in the case of their supposed N scale products they invented a whole new hybrid scale of 1:150ish. Fred X > Or in the case of their supposed N scale products they invented a whole > new hybrid scale of 1:150ish. If only - there was no consistent scale for Lima's N-gauge. You only have to compare their 'Deltic' model with the under-sized Mk1 coaches. John. The message <op.u5h4vejgj3tnem@skynet.wag54gs> from "Fred X" <alexserv@himki.net> contains these words: > Or in the case of their supposed N scale products they invented a whole > new hybrid scale of 1:150ish. Except for the Deltic and the 4F... SignatureDave, Frodsham http://dave-jackson.fotopic.net Arthur Figgis schreef: >>> Anyone have a good ldea where I can get Boats and Ships in OO/HO for a >>> Dawlish wall scene? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > There is the Airfix lifeboat, though I've heard it is a pain to build > (not done mine yet). The frase "Large coastal freighter" made me laugh. This model is 558mm long on H0. Means 48.5m in real life. The model is a typical year 50's small coaster, normally trading around Western Europe. Even in de 50's 50 meter was definitely not large. To all fellow modelers: for our standards ships are huge. An ordinary vessel (nowadays standerds) is 100 meter or more. Big ones are 300m. Even in my scale (Z = 1:220) a 110 meter vessel is half a meter. So unless you have plenty of room, or go to an ancient era, when there were no railroads, it is difficult to work to scale. Ermin > Arthur Figgis schreef: >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > small coaster, normally trading around Western Europe. Even in de 50's > 50 meter was definitely not large. Is there a "Netherlandsmax" size or something which it might be? > To all fellow modelers: for our standards ships are huge. An ordinary > vessel (nowadays standerds) is 100 meter or more. Big ones are 300m. > Even in my scale (Z = 1:220) a 110 meter vessel is half a meter. So > unless you have plenty of room, or go to an ancient era, when there were > no railroads, it is difficult to work to scale. > Ermin SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK Arthur Figgis schreef: >> Arthur Figgis schreef: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Is there a "Netherlandsmax" size or something which it might be? There are several Max's: Panamax, Suezmax, Saimamax, etc. Usually these sizes are defined by canals (Suez) or locks (Panama). To the best of my knowledge there is no Netherlandsmax. In dutch inland shipping there are differend size of locks in use, although hight of fixed bridges is usually maintained on 7 meters above water. You might find more on http://www.schuttevaer.nl/ (in Dutch). >> To all fellow modelers: for our standards ships are huge. An ordinary >> vessel (nowadays standerds) is 100 meter or more. Big ones are 300m. >> Even in my scale (Z = 1:220) a 110 meter vessel is half a meter. So >> unless you have plenty of room, or go to an ancient era, when there >> were no railroads, it is difficult to work to scale. >> Ermin > Arthur Figgis schreef: > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > Artitec have some HO models http://www.langley-models.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_Boats__Ships__Artitec_ __Langley__35.html > > "Large Coastal Freighter": 558mm long and 93mm wide > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > no railroads, it is difficult to work to scale. > Ermin Some people do experience confusion when differentiating between a boat and a ships. Perhaps the easiest way to remember the correct definition is that a ship will carry life boats - a boat won't carry life ships. The strict definitoon used to be - and it may have changed a little - is that any vessel less than 60' long was a boat, anything of 60' or longer in length was a ship, excpet that all submarines have always been referred to as boats, irrespective of their dimensions. Not trying to be pedantic, but hope this helps a little. (When serving some years ago in HMS HERMES I did find it a little irksome when a friend used to refer to her as a "boat" - all 28,000 tons of her!) David Costigan >Some people do experience confusion when differentiating between a boat and >a ships. Perhaps the easiest way to remember the correct definition is that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >David Costigan On the other hand the less sensitive souls in the merchant fleet don't bat an eyelid when the ships of double that tonnage and more that bring our models from China are refered to almost universally as Box Boats. G.Harman |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.