Time to bring back design clever?

[Ouroborus]

That will be worrying for those on here who agonise about the long-term future of the hobby. It will change, it may shrink but I don't think it will ever die. Even if it did, the manufacturers should be savvy enough to bail out and do something else.

 

I don't see any point in worrying about things outside my control, I just enjoy what I'm doing, while I can still do it. At some time in the (hopefully distant) future, my executor will either sell my stuff carefully for a small fortune, to Hatton's for convenience and a smaller one, or bung it all in a skip 'cos it's become worthless. My nephews and niece should do OK whatever. 

 

On a brighter note, what used to float your lads' boats may well do so again in later life, once they gain the self-assurance that puts peer pressure into perspective and they begin to perceive the emptiness of most of the interaction that takes place on "social" media. 

 

Middle age is liberating because most of the mistakes one will ever make have been made and learned from, and what anybody else thinks starts to matter less, if at all.

 

That "Fifty" and "Freedom" start with the same letter is no coincidence.........

 

John

 

^ THIS!  Absolutely! 

 

At the danger of wandering off topic, this nails it for me.  On another forum a chap asked about designing a model railway that his son would enjoy as well as him.  The majority of the advice he had was to design it for himself and if his son like it, consider it a bonus.  Like you said, enjoy it for yourself, they may join you later on.  They may not.  Forcing the issue will end in tears.  And by "Fifty" and "Freedom", please can we add "Forty"?

[009 micro modeller]

I suspect even if there are changes it will probably be alright in the end. You can always tell if concerns about something's demise are exaggerated if people were saying similar things 5 or 10 years ago.

[adb968008]

Those who predict the end of the world will always be correct, eventually.

The trouble is they never seem able to predict when or where the world will end.

 

Still it’s easier than trying to predict the beggining, no one knows if we’ve begun, or if it’s the end of the beginning, beginning of the end or if the race has even started.

[Robin Brasher]

Hornby is far from dead yet.

 

On page 79 of Britain's Model Trains 2018 the writer is impressed with the design clever Hornby 'Hall' 4-6-0 giving it a 92% rating. One advantage of this over their 'Duchess of Atholl' in the main range is that the 'Hall' stays on the track.

[Dunsignalling]

Hornby is far from dead yet.

 

On page 79 of Britain's Model Trains 2018 the writer is impressed with the design clever Hornby 'Hall' 4-6-0 giving it a 92% rating. One advantage of this over their 'Duchess of Atholl' in the main range is that the 'Hall' stays on the track.

Can, or should, we really expect large, higher-end 21st century model locomotives to behave themselves on sectional track that hasn't improved significantly since the introduction of Hornby Dublo 2-rail, and is often laid less-than-meticulously on dubious foundations?

 

Perhaps a better idea would be for Hornby to designate their current PWay as Railroad and market something more appropriate to go with their premium products?

 

Whoops, we're back to the "all-things-to-all-men" dilemma, again.....

 

John

Edited March 10, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Robin Brasher]

My Merchant Navy and A4s stay on our Peco streamline track laid on a well made plywood baseboard on our club layout so a Duchess should do as well. I accept that the track is not perfect but it is the best we can do where there are large extremes of temperature.

 

I did ask Peco and Hornby to make some 4th radius track when their representatives gave talks to our club and they have done so. I don't know if I had any input on this decision I would like to see some large radius sectional points for large locomotives because I think the Hornby points are less than 17 1/2" radius in some places.

[ruggedpeak]

Design Clever was a logical if not 100% successful attempt to improve Hornby's business. As with many changes it didn't go quite to plan, but that's life and business - you keep trying things and most will fail to some degree. I'm sure they learnt things from it, and as we've subsequently with epic detailed models like the Peckett, doing something in full detail really well seems to be a better business model.

 

What Design Clever highlights, as do comments on here, is that hardly anyone has a real grasp of the model railway market, it's size, trends, niches etc. A zillion opinions but little hard data. The vertical integration of some retailers (e.g. Hattons who have their own model range) plus an influx of new manufacturers (either directly or providing contract manufacturing etc), rapidly growing niches (e.g. O and OO9) and a huge range of new models currently being released in core markets like OO, strongly suggests this is a growing and resilient market that people are willing to invest in. We've seen new businesses supplying ancillary parts for models, driven to significant degree by DCC (itself driving spend) thrive and expand. Reports of railway modelling's demise are greatly exaggerated. What no one seems to properly understand is the segmentation in the market between super-detail and 'railroad' train set. Notice how none of the commissioned models are railroad style?

 

I live in small town with no model club or shop. A commercial model railway show was held here recently for the first time. There are plenty of clubs and shows in the wider area so there is no shortage of local activity. Attendance was double what was predicted. I don't know any other modellers in the town but perhaps it is full of them! Reinforces the view that there is unexplored potential out there.

 

Hornby's previous management screwed up because they simplistically applied consumer marketing and business techniques to a specialist market. Design Clever was one such wheeze. These techniques can be applied successfully, but only when you fully understand your customers and the market. Arguably railway modelling needs some in depth research and study, but that costs money. Many industries do collectively fund research as it can grow the entire market, and I think this is where everyone needs to think about whether this might be beneficial as modelling competes with other hobbies.

[Legend]

Can, or should, we really expect large, higher-end 21st century model locomotives to behave themselves on sectional track that hasn't improved significantly since the introduction of Hornby Dublo 2-rail, and is often laid less-than-meticulously on dubious foundations?

 

Perhaps a better idea would be for Hornby to designate their current PWay as Railroad and market something more appropriate to go with their premium products?

 

Whoops, we're back to the "all-things-to-all-men" dilemma, again.....

 

John

Yes. If you don’t you are really cutting your market down . And I say , with the IET 800 specifically in mind, it should be capable of going round second radius curves and negotiating some variations in track . Not everyone , has perfectly laid track. If not people will just give up with frustration. Railroad or Main Range Edited March 10, 2018 by Legend

[Dunsignalling]

Yes. If you don’t you are really cutting your market down . And I say , with the IET 800 specifically in mind, it should be capable of going round second radius curves and negotiating some variations in track . Not everyone , has perfectly laid track. If not people will just give up with frustration. Railroad or Main Range

No, but equally, Hornby shouldn't get the blame if it's not laid to a reasonable standard. If one or two of your locos come off regularly, it's usually the loco. If half your fleet do so, the track and/or baseboard need seeing to. Hornby can't be expected to dumb their locos down to suit their most inept customers. That's who Brio is made for.

 

I'm actually a bit surprised that Robin has had any more problems with one of the new Duchesses than the other locos he mentions. I've seen example of all three run and they seemed fine on (decently laid) Setrack despite my prejudices against the stuff. My guess is that there is something slightly out-of-whack on his particular example.

 

After checking the back-to-backs, the next most likely culprit is the bogie support bracket having been bent slightly out of true, which is actually very easy to do but quite hard to see.

 

John

Edited March 10, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[dibber25]

The problem with the demand that the IET 'SHOULD' go round 2nd radius curves is really about geometry and expectations.

Geometry: We are asking the near impossible to get vehicles of this exceptional length, with huge end overhangs, round 'dockyard' curves. That they have to do so, both pulling and pushing - and the coaches have to close up tight together on straight track, has necessitated a coupling system which manages to do all that but can't readily cope with the added complication of uneven track or sudden gradients. 

Expectation: If the manufacturer has stated that it will negotiate a certain radius, then it should do so, provided that the track is laid to the manufacturer's recommended standard. If it doesn't, then it needs to be returned for rectification unless the modeller is competent to investigate and resolve the issue. After all, we are asked by at least one manufacturer to check the wheel back-to-backs and adjust if necessary and to check that underframe fittings are not interfering with free movement of bogies etc. (CJL)

[ruggedpeak]

Can, or should, we really expect large, higher-end 21st century model locomotives to behave themselves on sectional track that hasn't improved significantly since the introduction of Hornby Dublo 2-rail, and is often laid less-than-meticulously on dubious foundations?

 

Perhaps a better idea would be for Hornby to designate their current PWay as Railroad and market something more appropriate to go with their premium products?

 

Whoops, we're back to the "all-things-to-all-men" dilemma, again.....

I think this is a key to a number of issues in the hobby.

 

Look at control, we've gone from 12v DC and one loco per line to DCC where individual lights and sounds can be controlled and locos can run anywhere.

Look at locos, we've gone from pancake motors and 2 axles out of 6 driving to all axles driven via single efficient motors with flywheels and excellent slow speed control, and metal chassis for haulage performance.

Look at detail on all locos and rolling stock from 20 years ago....

 

Now look at permanent way. The same sectional track comprising metal track on plastic HO scale sleepers held together by fishplates. Fragile, requires nailing or gluing to a dedicated baseboard, still suffers electrical issues, complex around points and crossings etc.

 

There has been little innovation or development in model railway track in recent decades when every other aspect of modelling has been transformed. Track is falling behind and constraining the rest of the hobby. Recent developments (bullhead etc) provide greater modelling accuracy but do nothing for actual train operating performance, which is still largely dependent upon the competence of the modeller.

 

My point - track is the weakest link in modelling, and in relation to Design Clever and the expansion of the trainset/Railroad sector (which would drive the more detailed sectors) is holding it back. It needs some serious innovation to help support the rest of the hobby. We need an evolution beyond Setrack and similar.

 

I use Roco Geoline to allow long distance running as I only have a micro layout. It is robust, quick and easy to lay on the living room carpet and provides a reliable running track for all my locos, even on carpet. Sectional track requiring a baseboard and pinning down etc to get decent running is so 1970's - fine for modellers who want that, but I'd argue it's excluding many potential modellers. If we want to make model railways more relevant to a wider audience new ideas on track provide robust, functional and flexible systems are required.

 

Back to the 800 - with a choice between detailed sectional track which requires a baseboard and some skill, or a robust next gen version of Geoline, models can be tailored to the sectors. Expensive highly detailed 800 models can be non-2nd radius curve compliant, railroad versions or other cheaper models can run on smaller, tighter layouts. The new Hornby Junior is the wrong answer to the question (but worthwhile in its own right). People need more useful, practical and relevant to their lifestyles PW options to run the main model range. That is IMHO how more people will get into the hobby.

[Robin Brasher]

No, but equally, Hornby shouldn't get the blame if it's not laid to a reasonable standard. If one or two of your locos come off regularly, it's usually the loco. If half your fleet do so, the track and/or baseboard need seeing to. Hornby can't be expected to dumb their locos down to suit their most inept customers. That's who Brio is made for.

 

I'm actually a bit surprised that Robin has had any more problems with one of the new Duchesses than the other locos he mentions. I've seen example of all three run and they seemed fine on (decently laid) Setrack despite my prejudices against the stuff. My guess is that there is something slightly out-of-whack on his particular example.

 

After checking the back-to-backs, the next most likely culprit is the bogie support bracket having been bent slightly out of true, which is actually very easy to do but quite hard to see.

 

If you look at page 108 of Britain's Model Trains 2018 you will see that the author's 'Duchess of Atholl' has the same problem as mine. Under performance it states "Sadly, our sample had a problematic coupling and persistently derailed." I presume that they laid their track properly and had reasonable radius curves. Our track at the barn at Godlingston Manor is not perfect but it is better than it would have been if I had laid it. For instance one member ran a Railroad Warship with a rake of Bachmann coaches. He started it up and then walked out of the room for an hour while he did some scenic work on the 0 gauge section. Another member said that he did not see the point in watching a train going round and round but there was even less point in having the train going round and round and then walking out of the room. With the 'Duchess of Atholl' I have to keep my eye on it all the time. Sometimes I can leave it for half an hour and it will stay one the track: sometimes it derails. I would prefer to have a design clever 'Hall' that is reputed to stay on the track although it has not got a fully detailed cab and separate handrails on the tender rather than a 'Duchess' that looks excellent but does not stay on the track.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

 

No, but equally, Hornby shouldn't get the blame if it's not laid to a reasonable standard. If one or two of your locos come off regularly, it's usually the loco. If half your fleet do so, the track and/or baseboard need seeing to. Hornby can't be expected to dumb their locos down to suit their most inept customers. That's who Brio is made for.

 

I'm actually a bit surprised that Robin has had any more problems with one of the new Duchesses than the other locos he mentions. I've seen example of all three run and they seemed fine on (decently laid) Setrack despite my prejudices against the stuff. My guess is that there is something slightly out-of-whack on his particular example.

 

After checking the back-to-backs, the next most likely culprit is the bogie support bracket having been bent slightly out of true, which is actually very easy to do but quite hard to see.

 

John

 

If you look at page 108 of Britain's Model Trains 2018 you will see that the author's 'Duchess of Atholl' has the same problem as mine. Under performance it states "Sadly, our sample had a problematic coupling and persistently derailed." I presume that they laid their track properly and had reasonable radius curves. Our track at the barn at Godlingston Manor is not perfect but it is better than it would have been if I had laid it. For instance one member ran a Railroad Warship with a rake of Bachmann coaches. He started it up and then walked out of the room for an hour while he did some scenic work on the 0 gauge section. Another member said that he did not see the point in watching a train going round and round but there was even less point in having the train going round and round and then walking out of the room. With the 'Duchess of Atholl' I have to keep my eye on it all the time. Sometimes I can leave it for half an hour and it will stay one the track: sometimes it derails. I would prefer to have a design clever 'Hall' that is reputed to stay on the track although it has not got a fully detailed cab and separate handrails on the tender rather than a 'Duchess' that looks excellent but does not stay on the track.

 

 

 

 

There's no reason why the loco tested won't have the same fault as yours or equally that you couldn't go out and buy five more at random that work perfectly. Neither indicates defective design, both point to inadequate assembly/inspection/testing or a combination thereof.

 

Your comments on the Duchess of Atholl model imply that, because two examples that you know of display the same fault, they must all be like it. Also, that because you haven't heard about any duff Railroad Halls, none exist....... The former is patently no more true than if I were to assert that all Duchesses will inevitably be as good as the one I've seen running. It is equally unlikely that all Railroad Halls will be excellent runners unless Hornby have suddenly got very lucky indeed.

 

It is a sad fact of modern manufacturing that those who do it nowadays claim the process to be so consistent that it is unnecessary to check each item (Quality Control) so they inspect one in every fifty, one in every two hundred or whatever (it varies) and so long as consecutive inspected items are OK, they assume all those produced in between are, too (Quality Assurance). It has very little to do with quality and much more to do with cost-saving. It can supposedly be demonstrated statistically that it works, but I am yet to be convinced that the practice doesn't include a large element of "winging it".

 

Unfortunately, the only remedy for the purchaser of the under-par loco (unless he can identify the fault and fix it for himself) seems to be "keep sending them back till you get a good one".

 

John

Edited March 11, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[frobisher]

I would like to see some large radius sectional points for large locomotives because I think the Hornby points are less than 17 1/2" radius in some places.

Well Hornby and Bachmann both have such in their set track ranges...

[Andy Hayter]

 

No, but equally, Hornby shouldn't get the blame if it's not laid to a reasonable standard. If one or two of your locos come off regularly, it's usually the loco. If half your fleet do so, the track and/or baseboard need seeing to. Hornby can't be expected to dumb their locos down to suit their most inept customers. That's who Brio is made for.

 

I'm actually a bit surprised that Robin has had any more problems with one of the new Duchesses than the other locos he mentions. I've seen example of all three run and they seemed fine on (decently laid) Setrack despite my prejudices against the stuff. My guess is that there is something slightly out-of-whack on his particular example.

 

After checking the back-to-backs, the next most likely culprit is the bogie support bracket having been bent slightly out of true, which is actually very easy to do but quite hard to see.

 

If you look at page 108 of Britain's Model Trains 2018 you will see that the author's 'Duchess of Atholl' has the same problem as mine. Under performance it states "Sadly, our sample had a problematic coupling and persistently derailed." I presume that they laid their track properly and had reasonable radius curves. Our track at the barn at Godlingston Manor is not perfect but it is better than it would have been if I had laid it. For instance one member ran a Railroad Warship with a rake of Bachmann coaches. He started it up and then walked out of the room for an hour while he did some scenic work on the 0 gauge section. Another member said that he did not see the point in watching a train going round and round but there was even less point in having the train going round and round and then walking out of the room. With the 'Duchess of Atholl' I have to keep my eye on it all the time. Sometimes I can leave it for half an hour and it will stay one the track: sometimes it derails. I would prefer to have a design clever 'Hall' that is reputed to stay on the track although it has not got a fully detailed cab and separate handrails on the tender rather than a 'Duchess' that looks excellent but does not stay on the track.

 

John

 

 

Robin

 

I think you could still have problems with your track.

 

Remember this:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81251-Bachmann-e4/page-14

[Pteremy]

I remember being really impressed by the elder brother of a girl in my class at infant school who laid his Hornby/Triang track on the floor from his bedroom, along the landing and into a another bedroom. Points, a tunnel and all sorts of stuff. Lots of play fun in that. I just had a simple oval of track that sat on the dining table, when it was clear enough to use.

[Robin Brasher]

Robin

 

I think you could still have problems with your track.

 

Remember this:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81251-Bachmann-e4/page-14

It is not the same layout.

[Francis deWeck]

Hmm, design clever....when it means EMUs with motors in passenger areas, no route direction lighting (1950's model did), one design fits all Pacifics, etc. No I don't think so, when Hornby can turn out more than half decent freight locos and fine coaches. In truth, design clever is making the most of 'old' assets and a poorly scoped design for new runs. I thought I saw a model which was fitted with a new chassis and old body, so a compromise there. Railroad is fine as a starting point to clear the old stock, but to apply its principles to new models will inevitably be a mistake.

 

As far as EMU, or DMU, power units are concerned, I would have thought the motorized chassis design as sold by Replica Railways would be the norm for design features. Now that's design clever. One design feature that should be taken up, where coaches are concerned, is to get rid of the clip on feature and replace it by screws. It would make life a lot easier when populating or fitting lights, for instance. I appreciate that some might say that  this would involve extra costs, but coach prices have increased so some extra allowed for these changes would be worth it.

[G-BOAF]

Hornby is far from dead yet.

 

On page 79 of Britain's Model Trains 2018 the writer is impressed with the design clever Hornby 'Hall' 4-6-0 giving it a 92% rating. One advantage of this over their 'Duchess of Atholl' in the main range is that the 'Hall' stays on the track.

This is nothing to do with the design, and everything to do with the quality of manufacture. So because Hornby's contractors can't manufacture a chassis that sits true, we all have to put up with design clever?

[Robin Brasher]

It is design clever to build a model that stays on the track. If you look at the posts on the Duchess locomotives you will see that if you put a new Hornby Duchess on a sheet of glass it is possible to slide a sheet of paper under the front driving wheels. If the front driving wheels are not touching the track it only takes a small error of perhaps 1/2 millimetre to cause a derailment. This appears to be an inherent design fault rather than a fault with an individual model. If the track is perfectly laid the Duchess will not derail but man people are not able to lay track to such fine tolerances.

 

My design clever emus run perfectly on our club layout and my design clever Hall has just arrived so I will soon be able to test it. The reviews I have seen show the Hall running perfectly and I regard running properly more important than checking handrails and the representation of controls in the cab.

 

Ideally a locomotive should be perfect in every detail and be derailment free but I am happy with a design clever locomotive as long as it runs properly.

[Legend]

My design clever Halls run perfectly . I got the Hogwarts Olton Hall for £47 direct from Hornby in 2015 . It had been my intention to get it and repaint it BR green, but I was so impressed that I bought the main range green one when it was reduced £75? at Christmas 2015. Both lovely smooth runners . Design clever at its best, just they should never have had one in main range , it should always have been Railroad. Muddled marketing again.

[Dunsignalling]

It is design clever to build a model that stays on the track. If you look at the posts on the Duchess locomotives you will see that if you put a new Hornby Duchess on a sheet of glass it is possible to slide a sheet of paper under the front driving wheels. If the front driving wheels are not touching the track it only takes a small error of perhaps 1/2 millimetre to cause a derailment. This appears to be an inherent design fault rather than a fault with an individual model. If the track is perfectly laid the Duchess will not derail but man people are not able to lay track to such fine tolerances.

 

My design clever emus run perfectly on our club layout and my design clever Hall has just arrived so I will soon be able to test it. The reviews I have seen show the Hall running perfectly and I regard running properly more important than checking handrails and the representation of controls in the cab.

 

Ideally a locomotive should be perfect in every detail and be derailment free but I am happy with a design clever locomotive as long as it runs properly.

Robin

 

If the front drivers aren't touching the track, the problem is likely to lie with the bracket to which the front bogie attaches. These brackets aren't as stiff as they should be and can distort quite easily. I've had this issue with three locos, a King Arthur (s/h) and two Rebuilt Bulleid WCs (one new and one s/h).

 

In my examples, the bogie was lifting the front of the main chassis creating the same running problems you describe.

 

It just needs the bracket bending (or straightening) gently until the drivers contact the track properly, and you should have a properly functioning Duchess. It should pull better too, once all the drivers are doing their job.

 

Easiest to do this with the bracket and bogie off the loco (one, possibly two screws IIRC).

 

Hope this helps

 

John

Edited March 14, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[G-BOAF]

It is design clever to build a model that stays on the track. If you look at the posts on the Duchess locomotives you will see that if you put a new Hornby Duchess on a sheet of glass it is possible to slide a sheet of paper under the front driving wheels. If the front driving wheels are not touching the track it only takes a small error of perhaps 1/2 millimetre to cause a derailment. This appears to be an inherent design fault rather than a fault with an individual model. If the track is perfectly laid the Duchess will not derail but man people are not able to lay track to such fine tolerances.

 

 

 

Robin

 

If the front drivers aren't touching the track, the problem is likely to lie with the bracket to which the front bogie attaches. These brackets aren't as stiff as they should be and can distort quite easily. I've had this issue with three locos, a King Arthur (s/h) and two Rebuilt Bulleid WCs (one new and one s/h).

 

 

 

Not got my Duchess yet, and hope that whatever the issue with the front drivers are have been sorted on this latest batch.

 

I spent many hours messing around with a Britannia (Royal Train pack) where the centre driving wheel axle recess was about 0.1mm too deep. I had to measure/test about 10 plastic bags to get packing the right thickness, but everything is eventually true, allowing for slight wobble of driving wheels (note off-true wheels is another reason for tyre appearing higher, but not consistantly so throughout the wheel revolution).

 

Assuming a similar issue with the front axle on the Duchess, this will be nothing to do with design, and everything to do with quality and tolerances of either the chassis tool or the casting/cooling. The design will have a true chassis. How this is implemented in the factory is the problem (see my post above)

In this instance it will have NOTHING to do with the bogie bracket - this will result in BOTH front drivers lifting , and all weight being concentrated on rear drivers (as has been a problem with other models, degrading haulage). The Duchess problem is ONE  driver on the front axle, meaning the axle is not sitting horizontal.

 

Not an issue of Hornby's spec, unlikely to be an issue at the CAD stage (if it is, then it IS Hornby's fault), but everything to do with manufacturing or tooling, both of which are subcontracted. Yes at the end of the say Hornby's responsibility to ensure standards of their contractors, but not the fault of Hornby's design or specification for models. The errors that led to the Duchess problem could have happened to a design clever model; nothing inherent with the ‘proper’ models.

Of note, it seems that this is not a universal issue with the Duchesses, some sit true, others don’t. See Silver Sidelines’ blog post – his second Hamilton was fine. Based on this evidence, I will certainly be exchanging my ‘Birmingham’ (if it comes with this problem) until I get a good one!

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/880/entry-20177-semi-controlled-quality-Hornby%E2%80%99s-coronation/

Edited March 14, 2018 by G-BOAF