Time to bring back design clever?

[Oldddudders]

 

Needless to say I have four BIL/HAL units, but no 'Design Clever ' steam loco's.

 

So do I. I had quite forgotten that they were Design Clever, despite also having an awful lot of steam-hauled Maunsells which are not. So the differences are by no means enormous in every model's case. I also felt the pricing of the Bil/Hal sets was more than competitive with other RTR EMUs from elsewhere. 

[Ron Ron Ron]

Here is a high fidelity RTR Class 66 in H0.....

 

https://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/produkt/ESU/29-4-004001-260138-0-0-0-6-10-3-0-gatt-gb-p-0/ein_produkt.html

 

€400 is approximately £355

 

 

Ron

[jjb1970]

Design clever should never have been advertised and it should have been implemented better than it was.

 

The underlying concept of designing in ease of manufacture and value engineering isn’t only correct, it is crazy to imagine that manufacturers shouldn’t be doing it. The aspiration is to reduce costs where doing so won’t be noticed by the consumer and where it will not adversely affect product performance. Designing in ease of manufacture is a pretty important part of manufacturing, and one that some companies are better at than others. Adding a lot of hours and processes to making something which adds nothing to the end product is daft. So the concept of design clever should’ve been a statement of the obvious to describe what they should already have been doing. Other manufacturers do it without shouting about it to the world (you can see it in some of Bachmann’s models which make selective use of moulded detail, their traditional use of flywheel fitted 3 pole motors etc).

 

Where it went wrong in Hornby’s case was the attempt to combine a single set of tooling to provide premium line models and railroad models which resulted in some superb railroad models but some visibly compromised main range models and a merging of two ranges which should have been separate and distinct. A moulded dart on a railroad model is fair enough, but it is not going to cut the mustard on a main range model for example. However, I really thought that the SR EMUs showed that the basic idea of using moulded details where appropriate and trying to suppress inflation could work well if properly executed.

 

As others have pointed out, I tend to think that the large company baggage being carried by Hornby is not helping in terms of what they need to charge to make an acceptable return. On the other hand, the Princess Coronation is a beautiful model of arguably the most impressive steamer made for British rails and I’d not begrudge the price of the Hornby model. I think price comparisons need to be used with caution, as ultimately the only prices that matter are prices of products which you want. I collect American and Japanese brass, the fact that those models aren’t cheap is irrelevant to the vast majority of modellers as it is a niche interest that many won’t even know exists never mind ever having taken an interest in. Equally, if cheaper models are available but are not of a quality that people would want then the fact that they’re cheap isn’t much help. Life is about choices, if people want the best then it comes with a price. If that price is more than they can afford then there are alternatives such as second hand, kits, railroad, or of course adjusting spending and saving. If people are happy with good railroad models (and I think the new generation railroad tooling is excellent, filling an important niche) then there is nothing wrong with that, I can see that to operators these models have a lot of merit in being not only cheaper but more robust thanks to losing some of the added detail finery.

[Dunsignalling]

But that neatly takes us full circle.

The models in many cases have not been selling, hence the panic fire sales and the reported sales figures show that what they are doing is not generating a worth while profit.

Hence this topic as a suggestion of an idea about a change of direction.

Very big or very small seems to be attractive. Coronations and Pecketts. The middle ground seems to be the dodgy area. 

Bernard

A major factor in the panic discounting issues with locos like the S15, K1 and other mid-size prototypes was that Hornby rushed out follow up models barely three months after the initial releases, some versions of which were still readily available and beginning to be discounted themselves.

 

My third S15, which I hadn't intended to buy at all, was therefore purchased at a discount of over 25% the week it was released.

 

This is one error Hornby should have no difficulty in planning out and Year Two now generally means exactly that.

 

John

Edited February 19, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[bike2steam]

Mmm, I wonder if it's time to return production to this country.  Many greedy companies saw dollar signs in their eyes when they transferred production to China a few decades ago, now have come unstuck. The circumstances have changed, the ever increasing cost of living in China, the revaluation of the Yuan a few years ago, forced on them by the US to prevent, sorry - trying to prevent, unfair competition, and the drop in the value of the pound because of the uncertainty over Brexit. But are they tied by international industrial contracts ?? 

[G-BOAF]

Doing this doesn't tend to reduce prices though does it?  We ended up with sub-par models like the 42xx/5205 locos at normal prices.

This is so true!

 

I'm actually very annoyed with this thread - because in a year's time we could start getting lower spec models form Hornby with the justification 'we have listened to our customers'.

I'm sorry, if you can't afford so many top spec models, buy fewer, or buy railroad and detail up. (I'm in the fewer category myself - and I survive). Please don't provide ammunition for the rest of us to be left with 42XX style compromises for the forthcoming years.

 

Part of the argument in this thread is a psychological reaction (£200) to a price rise caused by inflation. I bought a Hornby Mallard for £67 in 1994. With inflation that is (appropriately!) £126 today. A top spec A4 can be had today for £109 from discounters. So in fact YOU ARE GETTING MORE FOR LESS. Comparing the detail in models today with what we 'put up with' 25 years ago, £200 is reasonable value. Let’s not lose sight of that please. If you want detail levels of the 1990s, buy railroad. Don’t suggest that all should be brought down to lower standards (and in so doing blocking the market for high spec models as we've seen with Duke of Gloucester).

 

Just be thankful that your food costs, as a proportion of income, is at a near historic low (sorry I can only find US data), so if models are more expensive than 50 years ago, there should (relatively speaking) be room in the budget.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967

Edited February 19, 2018 by G-BOAF

[The Stationmaster]

I find it rather amusing in the OP that a parallel is drawn between share prices falling and Hornby's (by implication) model railway prices rising and identifying the latter as the core of Hornby's financial problems.  In fact we haven't got a clue how profitable Hornby's model railway sales are, or aren't.   All we can ascertain is the extent to which they form part of the group's sales by total value but we don't know to what extent they form part of its costs.    As Ron pointed out Hornby is a small-medium size company and as several of us repeatedly identify, and as JJB has reminded us, Hornby is carrying some large company baggage in its cost base.  Things like that probably have far more influence on Hornby's profits and certainly on its share price than the price levels of its highest fidelity models.

 

Interestingly as I write this post I'm seeing an ad for Accurascale's forthcoming 24.5 ton hopper wagon and therein lies a telling comparison.  A small company new to British outline r-t-r pushing its product with verve and creating interest and listening to the views of those looking at EP examples.  Product quality will perhaps be a bit better than Hornby's latest (although they also listen), and generally extremely good, freight stock and at c.£20 per wagon the Accurascale price is broadly comparable Hornby's latest wagons.  But price comparison is irrelevant without thinking about the company's cost base and overheads because although we are looking at similarly targetted products one is coming from a small company with small overheads while the other is coming from a concern which in its interim Report noted 'underlying overheads' of £10.1 million (and that excluded operating overheads).  Thus a highly detailed wagon from Hornby at c.£20 has to pay a contribution towards that £10 million plus while one from Accurascale no doubt has to contribute towards many tens of thousand of underlying overheads but certainly isn't looking to get anywhere near meeting £1 million's worth.   Then people wonder why Hornby is not making massive profits!

[MikeParkin65]

. However, I really thought that the SR EMUs showed that the basic idea of using moulded details where appropriate and trying to suppress inflation could work well if properly executed.

‘Design clever’ for rolling stock has got a lot of potential. Whilst I might be tempted to pay ‘big money’ for a super detailed top draw model (and I am saying 6256 is about my limit here) I am not so bothered about detail on coaches as they are not my main focus (figuratively or literally). Molded detail on a coach or wagon which is the right shape and is decently finished is preferable to fine detail which gets damaged anyway. Design clever big 4 coaches could be got to market quickly and cheaply and would be sure fire sellers Imho

[Andy Hayter]

But therein lies a problem Mike.  You may be just interested in a top draw steam loco and not in rolling stock.  Others will be the reverse.  Still more will be uninterested in steam but want detailed DMUs and electric locos etc.  and Hornby have to cater for all,

[MikeParkin65]

But therein lies a problem Mike.  You may be just interested in a top draw steam loco and not in rolling stock.  Others will be the reverse.  Still more will be uninterested in steam but want detailed DMUs and electric locos etc.  and Hornby have to cater for all,

Hornby dont have to cater for all - they only have to cater for the biggest sustainable market. I am sure they'll have detailed statistics showing what does and doesnt sell in the numbers needed to make a profit. The current catalogue seems to imply steam sells over most categories and my logic then is that there is a market for reasonably priced stock to run behind it. And if a basic railroad Mk1 can be sold for £25-£35 why not do the same trick with a Thompson, a Bullied, a Collett  and Stanier range? For example. That seems to be the business model Oxford are aiming at too  - pretty decent Mk3's for £35

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It will always be a judgement call for the businesses concerned, and hopefully based on evidence of what their target customer group(s) require. 

 

I have posted this opinion before in various forms, and doubtless will again: the detail I desire is what can be seen on the working items on the layout. So exterior detail that can be seen, to the best standard possible please. Interior, beyond very simple representation of fittings like compartment partitions, don't bother. I'd save a pile on manufacturing cost by deletion of all cab interior detail, not required, all vehicle underside detailing that is only visible with the vehicle inverted, not required.

 

We are none of us bothered by the fact that there's a DC motor inside that in no way looks like the real equipment supplying the motive power: what the eye doesn't see and all that, so if it cannot be seen in operation, don't provide it.

[McC]

It will always be a judgement call for the businesses concerned, and hopefully based on evidence of what their target customer group(s) require. 

 

I have posted this opinion before in various forms, and doubtless will again: the detail I desire is what can be seen on the working items on the layout. So exterior detail that can be seen, to the best standard possible please. Interior, beyond very simple representation of fittings like compartment partitions, don't bother. I'd save a pile on manufacturing cost by deletion of all cab interior detail, not required, all vehicle underside detailing that is only visible with the vehicle inverted, not required.

 

We are none of us bothered by the fact that there's a DC motor inside that in no way looks like the real equipment supplying the motive power: what the eye doesn't see and all that, so if it cannot be seen in operation, don't provide it.

 

 

Do such small details really impact the cost to the extent that it makes a material difference tho?

Edited February 19, 2018 by McC

[cheesysmith]

The idea of design clever (god, horrible phrase that someone at Hornby came to regret) is when properly used a good one. The EMUs and re-realised lima stuff like the 101 and bubble car are good examples of using it as such. The only fault I have with these models like the 101 is that they should have retooled the underframe to be more like what the 153 is, a single mould but with better detail, not a solid box with surface relief detailing. 

 

And as to the prices of the top of the range versions, my father has one of the sir bob models, and I have to say I think its worth every penny. The problem is when you have to pay top costs for models with errors in that could have been corrected at the design stage.

 

Also, come on Hornby, you already have these models, how about putting a new body on top of the existing MU underframe for different DMUs. There are a lot more first generation DMUs you can make. 

Edited February 19, 2018 by cheesysmith

[Dunsignalling]

It will always be a judgement call for the businesses concerned, and hopefully based on evidence of what their target customer group(s) require. 

 

I have posted this opinion before in various forms, and doubtless will again: the detail I desire is what can be seen on the working items on the layout. So exterior detail that can be seen, to the best standard possible please. Interior, beyond very simple representation of fittings like compartment partitions, don't bother. I'd save a pile on manufacturing cost by deletion of all cab interior detail, not required, all vehicle underside detailing that is only visible with the vehicle inverted, not required.

 

We are none of us bothered by the fact that there's a DC motor inside that in no way looks like the real equipment supplying the motive power: what the eye doesn't see and all that, so if it cannot be seen in operation, don't provide it.

I agree that cab interiors are a waste of effort in more modern steam locos with enclosed cabs and high-fronted tenders (whatever the price level) but they are something of a must-have on models of types built in times when men were men and far too many of them died young to prove it.

 

Where coaches are concerned, there's no reason why the interiors should be any more complex that those of twenty and thirty years ago. It's no big deal to paint and populate them ourselves, always provided that the coaches can be readily opened up to allow it. 

 

Hornby has already demonstrated its ability to satisfactorily represent carriage grab handles, roof vents etc. without going to the trouble of separate fittings. It's also permissible to me, for underframe detail to be simplified (within reason) leaving me to upgrade it if I so decide.

 

Let's bin the nonsense of sprung buffers, too. They are nearly always over-scale and anyone capable of fitting the sort of couplings that need them is equally able to fit a set themselves. 

 

John

Edited February 19, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[cctransuk]

..come on Hornby, you already have these models, how about putting a new body on top of the existing MU underframe for different DMUs. There are a lot more first generation DMUs you can make. 

 

But did all DMUs have the same underframe?

 

.... or doesn't it matter to you?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Do such small details really impact the cost to the extent that it makes a material difference tho?

Yes, and with ever more impact as wage rates rise. In the research to tooling phase to define and create the parts, probably not that significant within the total cost of these stages.  But the handling, finishing, and fiitting of separate detail parts pushes up assembly cost significantly, it is incremental labour content and time in the assembly process which is something any manufacturing manager wants to squeeze out.

 

If such detail is very much wanted, supply as a detail parts pack for owners to apply.

[MikeParkin65]

Yes, and with ever more impact as wage rates rise. In the research to tooling phase to define and create the parts, probably not that significant within the total cost of these stages.  But the handling, finishing, and fiitting of separate detail parts pushes up assembly cost significantly, it is incremental labour content and time in the assembly process which is something any manufacturing manager wants to squeeze out.

 

If such detail is very much wanted, supply as a detail parts pack for owners to apply.

Agree. And if the detail is so delicate that it cannot withstand  occasional handling and the odd derailment, so I am thinking about foot boards and plastic grab handles, either make it of a more substantial material, mould it on or leave it to the aftermarket

[G-BOAF]

Here is a high fidelity RTR Class 66 in H0.....

 

https://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/produkt/ESU/29-4-004001-260138-0-0-0-6-10-3-0-gatt-gb-p-0/ein_produkt.html

 

€400 is approximately £355

 

 

Ron

Much better than the Bachmann version? Does this not prove what a good deal in high detail models the UK sector gets. The step down for a 25-40% reduction in price (i.e. design clever) would be HUGE - if in the long-run a price reduction is what happens... (see 72xx example above)

[richard.h]

The other problem now is that a lot of Hornby's production seems to be in limited production runs. I can understand that they don't want to oversupply and be left with unsold stock but if you want a particular model you are now often forced to pre-order to guarantee getting one.

In the past you could wait till the model was released,read the reviews and have a look at it in store before you decided to buy, now you have to buy blind whether it's design clever, railroad or top-of-range.

[McC]

Why compromise for the sake of a few pennies per model? A completely detailed underframe, interior, grab handles, rails, steps can all be added in the factory for a tiny fraction of the overall model cost, and for a fraction of what it would cost to add 'after market'.

 

Bear in mind that while Chinese labour costs have risen, on average, by a factor of 3 over the last decade, they are still a fraction of the equivalent in the UK. A skilled factory worker in China earns less than 600 pounds a month, today. 

[John Tomlinson]

I completely agree with the idea of supplying detail parts as a separate pack, to be attached by the purchaser if they so wish. Once you start carving off unwanted moulded detail you need a respray, and one of the things most of us are paying for in RTR is a decent factory paint finish that will endure.

 

There has to be something in the idea of a segmented market for different aspirations and affordability levels. The problem seems to be that no-one quite knows how to make this work. I do pity the manufacturers here, always damned by someone for something!

 

What however is completely unforgivable is poor QC on premium priced products, but that is another topic.

 

John.

[cheesysmith]

But did all DMUs have the same underframe?

 

.... or doesn't it matter to you?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

No, but a new underframe for the power car, with 2 new bodies, and you can have any of the 1st gen short DMUs. They already have the rest available. 3 new moulds and you have a different prototype model to sell. Minimise new investment to maximise what you already have. With the bubble car, you also have the chance to work at the long DMUs as well. 

[olivegreen]

Accepting that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, I do find that this thread  has turned into yet another 'I can run Hornby better than Hornby management can' tirade, with astonishing naïvety being shown by some regarding how business (in general) operates.

I think LBRJ's post 41 (qv) is worthy of a prize for star comment of the week!

[Cmax]

If Hornby or Bachmann are reading this, they must wonder, why they bother ! 

 

In the 70s & 80's when Hornby just had the Mk1 range and a "generic" range of big four coaches, modellers were asking for detailed specific models.....moving on today you have a fantastic range of coaches from both Hornby & Bachmann, and what are you asking for...a basic coach, separate detailing packs or somebody else to do aftermaket add on pack(s).......

 

i accept we all have different opinions, but design clever was'nt one of Hornby's better Ideas.

 

Gary 

[Andy Hayter]

Hornby dont have to cater for all - they only have to cater for the biggest sustainable market. I am sure they'll have detailed statistics showing what does and doesnt sell in the numbers needed to make a profit. The current catalogue seems to imply steam sells over most categories and my logic then is that there is a market for reasonably priced stock to run behind it. And if a basic railroad Mk1 can be sold for £25-£35 why not do the same trick with a Thompson, a Bullied, a Collett  and Stanier range? For example. That seems to be the business model Oxford are aiming at too  - pretty decent Mk3's for £35

 

Given that Hornby do make steam outline, coaches, wagons, diesel and electric locos, and given that as you say, they have the detailed statistics of what sells, I continue to suggest they have to cater for all of those markets.