Jump to content

Gerald Henriksen

Members
  • Content Count

    738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

217 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I have been participating on the Internet now for over 26 years, and I have never in that time been accused of pursuing personal vendettas, plotting something sinister, or behaving like a child. Thus it would seem I am no longer welcome here.
  2. I didn't express myself clearly. When I said current manufacturer I meant the only manufacturer to consistently release inaccurate models over the current period, which would be about the last 5 years (and obviously older tooling doesn't count as they are re-releases, often in the Railroad range, and often known to be problematic models from a different era). And yes, in the last 5 years there have been models with problems - but, unlike Oxford, it hasn't been every single model. Yes, Heljan have had a on and off record, but just as they have had bad models like the Class 86 they have
  3. It is, regrettably, a blanket dismissal, in a large part because it means my hope of being able to model the HST are out the window. That sort of error on a modern model is unacceptable. It is not a case of either omitting a detail or molding on instead of a separate part for cost savings, it is plain and simple wrong, and follows the pattern of Oxford just not caring enough to get things correct. And when you add things to a model that don't exist on the prototype, you can no longer consider the model to be a high quality accurate model, which by default therefore means it is a Rail
  4. I find that insulting. I don't have "rose tinted hobby glasses", and try to base everything on facts. Fact: Oxford Rail makes inaccurate/incorrect models Fact: Oxford Rail makes cheap (or affordable depending on your view) models The fact that many people don't care about those inaccuracies doesn't change the fact that they exist, and that Oxford Rail is easily the only current manufacturer to consistently release models with often significant errors on them. It also doesn't make business sense to take a brand name, known for cheap models, and then try to turn it into a brand
  5. I think it is very insulting of you to imply the only people interested highly detailed models are collectors. Most of the people on RMweb who are pushing for the detailed, accurate models are doing so because they want them to operate on their layouts, because having a detailed, accurate model means that the time previously spent improving models can be spent elsewhere on the layout. It also ignores that there is a sizeable number of people who collect Hornby period, regardless of whether it is a high end model or the cheapest of the Railroad models. I also highly doubt the existi
  6. Oxford Rail are known (by their track record) for producing cheap, inaccurate railway models. Why would you want to move the highly detailed, accurate Hornby models to a company with that reputation? Why would you want to move the product line that is helping to save the company to a competitor? (*) Why would you want to saddle Hornby with a struggling division(**), which after getting rid of the profitable parts, would likely further deteriorate the Hornby financial situation? * from the Hornby 2017 Annual Report: ** again, 2017 Annual Report: We don't know, bec
  7. So company A can sell with a profit margin of £10 and they will shift 300 units, so a profit of £300. Alternately A can sell with a profit margin of £20 and only shift 200 units, but have a profit of £400. Volume does not equal profit. I doubt retailers really know what is causing the changes, but it can be pretty much guaranteed that it is not a single issue. Childhood budgets (and even teens/early 20's) aren't just available for trains but also now need to cover phones, apps, laptops, and all sorts of other things that didn't exist as necessities 20 years ago.
  8. The design of the models is at the whim of the CEO. You have a new CEO who has learned that our hobby will purchase anything put in front of them as long as it is cheap regardless of accuracy let alone detail (on the assumption that Oxford Rail as a division of Oxford Diecast is profitable). You also have a new CEO who has been brought in to turn around the financial fortunes of the company, and will need to be at least seen to be doing something to accomplish that. While we can't predict what he will do, the somewhat standard MBA response is to cut staff (as, regardless of the lon
  9. C) Get the basics of a model correct, and sell even more than in B), and thus make even more money. It continues to amaze me how people in this hobby will justify almost any mistake as being okay. While I am not familiar with the Oxford Diecast line up I have to assume that they aren't making the same mistakes in the design and production of those vehicles. Would Oxford Diecast be the success it is if their vehicles had sides wrong, or other equivalents to the multitude of errors that are deemed acceptable in their rail models? Tooling is a very significant expense. and in tha
  10. 1) Oxford Rail is Railroad quality at best (I am assuming that Hornby's Railroad level products are more accurate than Oxford's offerings). 2) our hobby is no where near big enough to support a 3 level product line
  11. Some small layout ideas from a 3rd party blog First up are Teeswater and Walkerton, Ontario. Both CPR branchline terminus: http://hedley-junction.blogspot.ca/2017/09/teeswater-walkerton-in-ho-scale.html If you wanted to model the CPR then Rapido in the next couple of years will have the D10 in steam, or you could use the arriving soon SW1200RS from Rapido for the early diesel years. He also came up with a plan for a paper mill, prototype in East Angus, Quebec: http://hedley-junction.blogspot.ca/2017/09/east-angus-quebec-compact-paper-mill.html http://hedley-junction.bl
  12. Well, given that the talk of the new CEO is somewhat off-topic given it has its own thread, I thought I would return to the other favorite off-topic thread - that the hobby is dying and needs to be cheap to get younger people involved. A Modelers Life podcast (*) in episode 83 had a discussion with Charlie Getz, the President of the NMRA, and a few interesting tidbits came out: 1) he agrees that there are a lot of younger people in the hobby, but they (the NMRA) are finding it difficult trying to get a count of them given the online nature of their participation. 2) the hobby is bo
  13. Why would Hornby want the Oxford Mk3 tooling?
  14. There is nothing wrong with preferring a value end of the market, just as there is nothing wrong with a manufacturer serving that end of the market whether it be using a particular product line (aka railroad) or the entire focus. I just don't believe that Oxford was that company, given the multitude of errors that plague their models, often for no reason other than the fact that they just don't seem to care. In many cases, if the errors had been caught in the CAD stage, it would have cost nothing to fix and resulted in a model that would have been acceptable to a far greater number of peo
  15. My take, from reading between the lines when Mr. Kohler had his blog, is that his ability to make decisions was in many ways more illusion than reality thanks to either interference or lack of approvals from the higher ups running Hornby. As such I think it is difficult to read too much into what happened once Hornby started struggling and placing the blame entirely on Mr. Kohler. The danger here of course is that the new management above Mr. Kohler may be more of the same given the mismatch between what Oxford promised - "in pursuit of excellence" - and what they consistently delivere
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.