Funny, in another thread, we’re lamenting the loss of low-cost locomotives, postulating that the trend towards higher-priced locos is ultimately bad for the hobby. In this one, we’re lamenting that a low-cost alternative to Aster is bad for the hobby? (Or just bad for Aster?)
It doesn’t matter what the locomotive the upstart chose as their first offering is. The mere existence of an inexpensive source of what hopefully turns out to be a line of 1:32 British locomotives is a game changer. Look at what Accucraft has done in the US. Fifteen years ago, if I were to go to a steamup, I’d see Asters and Roundhouses. I was out at the live steam track at the Colorado RR Museum Wednesday morning, and all 7 of the locos there were Accucraft. But Aster and Roundhouse are still in business despite that. They’ve had to adapt, but they’ve-thus far at least–managed to stay around.
Aster will always have its loyal followers because it’s viewed as the Rolls Royce of live steam. They make beautiful models that run very well. But they’ve not been the only game in town for quite some time, and Andrew has had to have realized that by now. I can sympathize with him about the spcific choice of prototype, but it really doesn’t matter. Had it been a Flying Scottsman, Mallard, or any other iconic British loco the effect on people considering Aster’s loco would have been the same. Few “average modelers” would be able to afford both, so they’d choose. Aster affecianados would choose Aster because it’s Aster. Other modelers will choose based on price or fondness for any one prototype or specific features being offered, etc.
I say “bring it on.” Competition is good for the hobby. And if we’re going to argue in one thread that the hobby needs low-cost alternatives to high-priced “boutique” locomotives, then this is a prime example of what the hobby needs.
Later,
K
