Hornby APPOINTS NEW CEO

[Edwardian]

As directors salaries go, £273k isn’t that much and I doubt this is a pleasant job, little security, battering by the markets, creditors, customers and suppliers .... I

 

 

Well, I'd swop jobs with him.

[The Stationmaster]

Well, I'd swop jobs with him.

 

I'd even give up retirement for that sort of money!

 

One does wonder exactly what a person delivers to the company's bottom line and its share price in order to merit that sort of salary?  And it's going to be very interesting to find out next year how much they are paying LCD - I have a feeling it might be somewhat less as a salary and a lot more linkage to company performance with a bonus which might actually relate to sales and profit even.

 

Incidentally you'll find elsewhere that the total paid to Ames in his final year, including 'compensation' for getting the boot, was £487,540.

[The Stationmaster]

Here's another bit of interesting stuff - Mr Bharat Ahir was paid £206,000 in the year ending 31.3.17 for managing Hornby's Asian sourcing.  A person of a cynical inclination might be inclined to ask if payment is related to the timely delivery of models against the originally published delivery dates?

 

http://www.28one.com

[Clearwater]

Feels to me that there’s probably more of a collector/high fidelity market to exploit. Whether that’s Hornby and whether their brand fits that market is a different question.

 

Looking at collectors, one would expect them to be more price insensitive - if they have to have it, they want it. They like a sense of ‘exclusivity’ - small runs favour them. They have the standard stuff so favour more unusual items. They want the highest fidelity etc. Looking at what’s been done, it’s covered the major classes. There might be a strategy for high fidelity classes/coaches targeting short runs (say 500). I appreciate that amortising tooling costs over that number will be harder and items will be more expensive but if you’re not targeting the modeller /train set market does that matter? Hence why I don’t think it works with Hornby’s brand and perception in the market.

 

Eg Could you sell 500 silver jubilee sets at £500? Could you sell 500 quad arts at say £400? Etc etc (not wishlisting) but hopefully you get the idea as to where someone could make money).

 

However, confusing a strategy for that market with producing robust models for layouts is a recipe for disaster.

[Legend]

Well, I'd swop jobs with him.

Absolutely! Get in the queue . That's more than the PM is paid as a point of reference.

 

It does come back to the point Stationmaster made. Hornby thinks it is a big company but the reality is it's really quite small and has got directors fees way out of kilter with its size. And who knows what other costs there are.........that's why it needs a new broom to sweep clean

[chris p bacon]

Absolutely! Get in the queue . That's more than the PM is paid as a point of reference.

 

Slightly off topic. 

 

I don't like using the PM's salary as a good point of ref. Just as an example the Chief exec of Central Beds unitary authority gets 50% more than the PM.  Public sector pay has never been a good yardstick to measure by.

 

Back on topic.

 

​For the recent performance of the company I think it is a ridiculous salary, they're using debt to pay themselves. 

[Legend]

How is that off topic? It's a direct comparison between directors in Hornby and what the PM gets paid. You may feel that's not typical but it's still a point of comparison

[BG John]

Well, I'd swop jobs with him.

I'll happily take it on, and look forward to the big payoff to get rid of me after 3 months, when I prove to be totally incompetent .

[No Decorum]

I'll happily take it on, and look forward to the big payoff to get rid of me after 3 months, when I prove to be totally incompetent .

Why not indeed? The sort of money ladled out to some of those people would spell security for many of us. Hornby cannot afford top dollar, so pays less to get the less successful. There has been a tendency to confuse someone with lots of radical ideas with someone who knows the right thing to do. Sadly, we come across that sort of thing far too often in all fields of activity.

 

Let’s hope someone has seen the light at last and can make the most of the talented people that there are in Hornby.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Are there any official figures that say old railway modelers are dying off faster than new entrants are coming in. I mean, when we kick the bucket, do our relatives have to tick a box which denotes we are no longer extant, have been withdrawn and scrapped, so that someone in Whitehall or Hornby can cross our name from the model railway enthusiast census...

 What I have seen among my near contemporaries suggests to me that there is still at least a decade - and probably longer - from which a stream of 'new recruits' may be depended on as the baby boom post WWII moves through to retirement. The train set was still very much available through the 1970s, and that's for children born in the 1960s, some of whom are still looking at twenty years before state retirement age. What I have seen is chaps nearing retirement and deciding that they need an indoor interest aganst the day that they are no longer into the office regularly; and alternatives like fooling around with a golf bat, sailing dinghy, old car or whatever doesn't look so appealing, especially during the cooler half of the year.

 

And for some of these, when they see that rather good RTR models are available, the old hobby is remembered. Since the population both grew very significantly post war and got a whole heap wealthier, it also means that potentially a smaller proportion of the total population will suffice to maintain demand. 

[Ron Ron Ron]

....It does come back to the point Stationmaster made.

Hornby thinks it is a big company but the reality is it's really quite small and has got directors fees way out of kilter with its size.

And who knows what other costs there are.........that's why it needs a new broom to sweep clean

 

 

A few questions for those who will have a better idea on this (e.g. Clearwater and others).....

 

Is the fact that Hornby is listed and there are too many shares in ownership, an impediment to the sort of radical re-structuring, or 'downsizing" that many feel needs to happen for Hornby to adjust to the current and likely future marketplace?

 

Would it require something like a collapse in the share price and taking the company private, before progress can be made?

 

Is the debt and financial conditions imposed by the banks, itself a restriction on the board's ability to take such measures?

 

 

Yours curiously

Ron

 

 

.

[Clearwater]

Ron

 

In short, I don’t think so in this case. Hornby is a closed company and 70% odd (from memory) owned by Phoenix. However, a radical restructure is a reason companies are sometimes taken private.

 

Phoenix can do pretty well what they want with the company albeit the directors, particularly any independents, may feel they owe a particularly duty to small shareholders in addition to their broader fiduciary duties as plc directors. My beef is the extra admin cost being listed entails to profitability

 

David

[Fenman]

How is that off topic? It's a direct comparison between directors in Hornby and what the PM gets paid. You may feel that's not typical but it's still a point of comparison

It's a ridiculous comparison because as well as the base salary the PM has free housing in a desirable central London address, free use of a palatial stately home (all servants and costs included), free chauffeur-driven limos (these are not taxable benefits either - all exempted), and a veritable army of private staff to cater for their every need.

 

If you add up the costs of that lot, I'm pretty sure you'll conclude that, relatively, Hornby directors are paid a pittance.

 

Perhaps it would make more sense to compare remuneration of Hornby directors to - I dunno - how about directors of other similarly-sized and similarly complex companies?

 

Paul

[ruggedpeak]

It's a ridiculous comparison because as well as the base salary the PM has free housing in a desirable central London address, free use of a palatial stately home (all servants and costs included), free chauffeur-driven limos (these are not taxable benefits either - all exempted), and a veritable army of private staff to cater for their every need.

If you add up the costs of that lot, I'm pretty sure you'll conclude that, relatively, Hornby directors are paid a pittance.

Perhaps it would make more sense to compare remuneration of Hornby directors to - I dunno - how about directors of other similarly-sized and similarly complex companies?

Paul

 

If you compare it to your average Premier League footballer it's a pittance too!

 

Anyway here's some data https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/insights/industries/aim/bdo-aim-directors-remuneration-report

[Clearwater]

The PM also needs constant security. To be fair, I suspect if Hornby produce another model with as many spurious rivets as the Oxford Dean Goods, then their CEO may well need security!

[RJS1977]

 What I have seen among my near contemporaries suggests to me that there is still at least a decade - and probably longer - from which a stream of 'new recruits' may be depended on as the baby boom post WWII moves through to retirement. The train set was still very much available through the 1970s, and that's for children born in the 1960s, some of whom are still looking at twenty years before state retirement age. What I have seen is chaps nearing retirement and deciding that they need an indoor interest aganst the day that they are no longer into the office regularly; and alternatives like fooling around with a golf bat, sailing dinghy, old car or whatever doesn't look so appealing, especially during the cooler half of the year.

 

And for some of these, when they see that rather good RTR models are available, the old hobby is remembered. Since the population both grew very significantly post war and got a whole heap wealthier, it also means that potentially a smaller proportion of the total population will suffice to maintain demand. 

 

On the other hand, it's the people who stuck with the hobby right through marriage, children, etc (introduced their own children), learnt how to do things for themselves, enjoy converting/repainting stock, can use a little imagination to see past a few missing rivets etc who are amongst those now feeling left behind by the relatively rapid price increases in recent years.

[The Stationmaster]

It's a ridiculous comparison because as well as the base salary the PM has free housing in a desirable central London address, free use of a palatial stately home (all servants and costs included), free chauffeur-driven limos (these are not taxable benefits either - all exempted), and a veritable army of private staff to cater for their every need.

 

If you add up the costs of that lot, I'm pretty sure you'll conclude that, relatively, Hornby directors are paid a pittance.

 

Perhaps it would make more sense to compare remuneration of Hornby directors to - I dunno - how about directors of other similarly-sized and similarly complex companies?

 

Paul

 

Although not identified by name the highest paid Director of Bachmann Europe  received a salary  of £103,444 in 2016 (up from £94,295 in 2015) plus £5,996 pension contribution in 2016 .  Total Director's remuneration in 2016 was £185,000 plus £10,000 in pension contributions - the company had a total of four Directors of whom at least two are also Directors of Kader.  As per their 2016 data submitted to Companies House Bachmann Europe had a total of 70 staff, including 15 involved in 'development' in 2016 - up by 3 on 2015.

 

Total Bachmann Europe sales in 2016 were £15,056,000 of which £11,411,000 were in the UK  (UK sales in 2015 were higher at £11,738,000).  Bachmann's figures are for the end of the calendar year, Hornby works to the financial year and doesn't breakdown its numbers of sales by product stream - its total external sales for the year to 31.3.17 were £47,420,000 of which £37,720,00 were in the UK (plus in the overall amount a further £6.9 million from what are described as 'segmented sales').  Thus on a pretty rough calculation Hornby's Directors cost a bit over 5 times as much as Bachmann's for total external sales which are about 5 times greater.   However if you simply compare UK sales (which won't represent the entire business picture of course) Hornby Group's entire range of products sold only about three and a half times the value of Bachmann's sales.

 

Hornby's total salary bill (including £599,000 redundancy costs and 'compensation for loss of office') was £10,587,000 for 190 staff (including Directors), Bachmann's total (no redundancy or golden goodbyes there) came to £2,451,000 for its 70 staff indicating on a simple division basis a wide disparity in cost per head employed.  Part of this is explained by a further figure in Hornby's accounts referring to 'key management compensation' which includes Directors but adds 'the individuals involved in major strategic decision making and includes all group and subsidiary directors' this lot cost a total of £2,157,00 (including £241,00 for redundancy etc).  So effectively on top of the cost of its board at £1,006,000 Hornby was paying out almost another £1 million for its senior managers and subsidiary directors.  In other words Hornby's decision making and senior management process alone cost not far short (in reality about chief executive's remuneration short) of Bachmann's entire salaries bill.

 

Oxford does not submit full accounts to the same extent as Hornby and Bachmann but its 2016 turnover was over £4 million while its 'administrative costs'  (obviously a wider area than salaries etc alone) were just over £1 million.  

 

Peco's turnover to 30 April 2016 (the most recent figures at Companies House) show a turnover in that year of £9,066,971 (down from £9,512,559 in 2015) and the company has 5 Directors (including the Company Secretary) and the total wages and salaries was £4,326,347, including Directors remuneration and also including - unusually - in its case a defined benefit pension scheme which cost £431,000 in addition to the company's pension contributions.  The Directors remuneration was £199,571 and the highest paid Director received £89,940 (it had been £91,035 in 2015).   Breaking down the staff numbers is interesting - Production, 87; admin and support, 45; sales 4 (yes, four - but it might mean Pecorama counter perhaps?); other depts, 20 giving a total of 156 including Directors.

So Peco are achieving a turnover of £9million with a total Directors' cost of £199,571 -  thus sales are more or less one fifth of Hornby's and the cost of Directors is also roughly one fifth of Hornby's.  But Peco's overall salary etc cost of £4,326,347 for 156 people compares with Hornby's cost of £10,587,000 for 190 people.  And don't forget Peco also paid £431,000 towards defined benefit pensions take that amount out and it could be said that for an extra 34 people on its books Hornby was paying £6 million (yes, I  know - lies, damed lies and statisrics but it's an interesting comparison).  I accept (almost) that the south east Devon coast might just be a cheaper place to live than the south coast of Kent - but not by very much.

 

My general conclusion from these various numbers is that there is somewhere in Hornby something which is driving up the total staff costs when compared with Bachmann and Peco.  Now assuming, perhaps naively, that the specialised general salary and wage levels across the industry are roughly equal for people doing the same work (although there will be some regional differences for the non-hobby related jobs such as personnel dept) the problem does appear to lie with Hornby's top end costs - not just its Board but the managerial/director level immediately below that.  In other words decisions used to manage Hornby's business are lot more more expensive than those for either Bachmann or Peco and massively different from the far smaller Oxford operation.

Edited October 13, 2017 by The Stationmaster

[Clearwater]

Eyeballing the figures in Mike’s excellent post, if you took the cost/employee on either Bachmann, Peco or Oxford and applied it to the number employed by Hornby and added the difference to their current wage bill back to Hornby’s profit figures, I suspect we’ll find Hornby would be in a profitable position. That still might not address some underlying unprofitable trades but it would be a start!

[Dunsignalling]

On the other hand, it's the people who stuck with the hobby right through marriage, children, etc (introduced their own children), learnt how to do things for themselves, enjoy converting/repainting stock, can use a little imagination to see past a few missing rivets etc who are amongst those now feeling left behind by the relatively rapid price increases in recent years.

But, equally, those acquired abilities mean they don't need to jump on the current price escalator in order to continue enjoying the hobby.

 

Many of the older models that provide the necessary fodder for the inveterate conversion specialist are almost worthless on the second hand market. 

 

John

Edited October 13, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[RJS1977]

But, equally, those acquired abilities mean they don't need to jump on the current price escalator in order to continue enjoying the hobby.

 

Many of the older models that provide the necessary fodder for the inveterate conversion specialist are almost worthless on the second hand market. 

 

John

 

That rather depends what you want to convert/repaint....

 

The new industrials (Peckett and Barclay) are a case in point - Hornby/Hattons will never release these in every livery that they ran in, but at nearly £100, they are (in my book at least) rather expensive to repaint. 

[DonnyRailMan]

Lets hope between the 3 of them they can try to get Hornby back in the black,

[Mike Storey]

Mike I got it from the 2016 information on the Companies House site - not sure if the link will work but there are now even bigger numbers in the 2017 report., page 23

 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01547390/filing-history

 

If the link doesn't work here's a summary for year ended 31.3.17 - with even bigger numbers.   It;'s in the public arena already so presumably no problem with posting it here.

 

March 2107.jpg

 

And yes - there do appear to be two different lots of employee numbers from different sources.

 

The year end figure at 31.3.17 was 60 in operations (+13 on 2016), 100 in sales/marketing/distribution (-39 on 2016, no doubt due to warehouse outsourcing), and 30 on admin (-14 on 2016).  N.B.The changes in numbers are all from the 2017 document.  The totals dropped from 230 to 190 and are for Hornby Group and not the company (where there was also a drop from 7 to 3). 

 

Indeed. The directors' costs are less for 2016 than the original numbers you quoted, apparently from a different source, and have dropped in 2017, although marginally. The staff numbers are higher in 2016, but have reduced significantly, probably for the reason you state, but admin has also gone down, which suggests they are paying attention to such costs. It may be that there is a difference in numbers due to the use of FTE's (Full Time Equivalents) between the figures. Headcount is not necessarily the same as FTE, and the notes reflect the considerable use of part time staff. What fascinates me is that Operations costs have risen, despite the reduction in capital investment (stated in the report as a consequence of product rationalisation) and there is no explanation for this - perhaps it is due to the on-shoring of the European companies' operations? It is also of note that distribution costs have remained nearly stable, despite a reduced product range, but again, I would guess this due to absorption of the European brands into the core system.

 

It is also of note that, alongside the significant reduction in overall staff numbers, overheads are stated to have reduced by around £0.5 million.  I would argue that, whilst Hornby have made pretty immediate cost reductions in capital spend, the reductions in overheads will always lag that, given humans are involved. I think they are aware there cost base is too high and are moving this along.

 

The ratio of 5 directors to a £50m turnover in a publicly quoted company is about average. Whether the individual packages are overpayment is subjective. The average cost per director, including benefits and bonuses,

 

Although not identified by name the highest paid Director of Bachmann Europe  received a salary  of £103,444 in 2016 (up from £94,295 in 2015) plus £5,996 pension contribution in 2016 .  Total Director's remuneration in 2016 was £185,000 plus £10,000 in pension contributions - the company had a total of four Directors of whom at least two are also Directors of Kader.  As per their 2016 data submitted to Companies House Bachmann Europe had a total of 70 staff, including 15 involved in 'development' in 2016 - up by 3 on 2015.

 

Total Bachmann Europe sales in 2016 were £15,056,000 of which £11,411,000 were in the UK  (UK sales in 2015 were higher at £11,738,000).  Bachmann's figures are for the end of the calendar year, Hornby works to the financial year and doesn't breakdown its numbers of sales by product stream - its total external sales for the year to 31.3.17 were £47,420,000 of which £37,720,00 were in the UK (plus in the overall amount a further £6.9 million from what are described as 'segmented sales').  Thus on a pretty rough calculation Hornby's Directors cost a bit over 5 times as much as Bachmann's for total external sales which are about 5 times greater.   However if you simply compare UK sales (which won't represent the entire business picture of course) Hornby Group's entire range of products sold only about three and a half times the value of Bachmann's sales.

 

Hornby's total salary bill (including £599,000 redundancy costs and 'compensation for loss of office') was £10,587,000 for 190 staff (including Directors), Bachmann's total (no redundancy or golden goodbyes there) came to £2,451,000 for its 70 staff indicating on a simple division basis a wide disparity in cost per head employed.  Part of this is explained by a further figure in Hornby's accounts referring to 'key management compensation' which includes Directors but adds 'the individuals involved in major strategic decision making and includes all group and subsidiary directors' this lot cost a total of £2,157,00 (including £241,00 for redundancy etc).  So effectively on top of the cost of its board at £1,006,000 Hornby was paying out almost another £1 million for its senior managers and subsidiary directors.  In other words Hornby's decision making and senior management process alone cost not far short (in reality about chief executive's remuneration short) of Bachmann's entire salaries bill.

 

Oxford does not submit full accounts to the same extent as Hornby and Bachmann but its 2016 turnover was over £4 million while its 'administrative costs'  (obviously a wider area than salaries etc alone) were just over £1 million.  

 

Peco's turnover to 30 April 2016 (the most recent figures at Companies House) show a turnover in that year of £9,066,971 (down from £9,512,559 in 2015) and the company has 5 Directors (including the Company Secretary) and the total wages and salaries was £4,326,347, including Directors remuneration and also including - unusually - in its case a defined benefit pension scheme which cost £431,000 in addition to the company's pension contributions.  The Directors remuneration was £199,571 and the highest paid Director received £89,940 (it had been £91,035 in 2015).   Breaking down the staff numbers is interesting - Production, 87; admin and support, 45; sales 4 (yes, four - but it might mean Pecorama counter perhaps?); other depts, 20 giving a total of 156 including Directors.

So Peco are achieving a turnover of £9million with a total Directors' cost of £199,571 -  thus sales are more or less one fifth of Hornby's and the cost of Directors is also roughly one fifth of Hornby's.  But Peco's overall salary etc cost of £4,326,347 for 156 people compares with Hornby's cost of £10,587,000 for 190 people.  And don't forget Peco also paid £431,000 towards defined benefit pensions take that amount out and it could be said that for an extra 34 people on its books Hornby was paying £6 million (yes, I  know - lies, damed lies and statisrics but it's an interesting comparison).  I accept (almost) that the south east Devon coast might just be a cheaper place to live than the south coast of Kent - but not by very much.

 

My general conclusion from these various numbers is that there is somewhere in Hornby something which is driving up the total staff costs when compared with Bachmann and Peco.  Now assuming, perhaps naively, that the specialised general salary and wage levels across the industry are roughly equal for people doing the same work (although there will be some regional differences for the non-hobby related jobs such as personnel dept) the problem does appear to lie with Hornby's top end costs - not just its Board but the managerial/director level immediately below that.  In other words decisions used to manage Hornby's business are lot more more expensive than those for either Bachmann or Peco and massively different from the far smaller Oxford operation.

 

I would beware of comparisons to Peco in particular, due to its private status, and the fact that at least two of its directors are also directors of at least four other, related companies (not a hierarchical share owning relationship as with Hornby and Phoenix, as far as I can see). I cannot access data for these other companies, so can only surmise that a number of costs, including remunerations, are spread amongst them. The reconstitution of Peco (under its correct full name) in 2001, suggests that this is exactly what has happened, for tax efficiency, and to allow more profitable but distinct acquisitions. Of course, the overall overhead costs will be lower for Peco, for a number of reasons, however it is divided up, but I would surmise it is not as great a difference as appears on the surface. However, having been a director of a private company (and of my own company in parallel), working closely with several other private companies, and in part as a re-seller to a Hong Kong company, that was technically registered in Surrey, but traded on Chinese law and submitted only Chinese accounts, I know how these numbers are so easily moved around. In AIM and FTSE company reporting, the level of detail cannot hide such matters easily.

 

As for Bachmann, we are talking of a subsidiary of a seriously major global outfit. The legal, financial and strategic duties of Bachmann Europe's directors will not be as onerous as that of Hornby, where the buck stops for its senior team, to the extent that I would compare Bachmann Europe's directors to more like senior managers, perhaps unfairly. Bachmann, apart from its purchase of EFE, is still pretty much a one trick pony, although a very good one until recently.

 

On salaries, the very useful comparison of AIM directors' salaries, in a link published above, suggests that Hornby's remuneration is not extraordinary, and bar the previous CEO, is actually in the lower half for its directors (depending on which sector you choose is applicable).

 

The key question asked above, is whether Hornby should remain as an AIM listed entity, which entails a higher cost overhead than a private company usually requires. The main reason for going public is to attract much cheaper long term finance than an equivalent private company could obtain outside its immediate shareholders, and to give those investors a decent level of confidence through the greater scrutiny that a public company endures. Whether this is still appropriate for Hornby, I have no idea. Perhaps those who have, could comment?

 

Nonetheless, Hornby has reduced its overheads over the past year, and appears to be intent on further reduction, although detail is naturally scant until the new CEO is embedded. It may be worth reflecting that Hornby's survival was being discussed only a year or two ago, as its ability to get anything out of any factory, on time, on quality and at reasonable cost. Now that they have made huge progress on at least two of those issues, we, on this website, are looking at more fundamentally business management issues, which could be discussed across many other companies. That much is perhaps, good progress.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Mike Storey

[RJS1977]

 

 

 

I would beware of comparisons to Peco in particular, due to its private status, and the fact that at least two of its directors are also directors of at least four other, related companies (not a hierarchical share owning relationship as with Hornby and Phoenix, as far as I can see). I cannot access data for these other companies, so can only surmise that a number of costs, including remunerations, are spread amongst them. The reconstitution of Peco (under its correct full name) in 2001, suggests that this is exactly what has happened, for tax efficiency, and to allow more profitable but distinct acquisitions. Of course, the overall overhead costs will be lower for Peco, for a number of reasons, however it is divided up, but I would surmise it is not as great a difference as appears on the surface. However, having been a director of a private company (and of my own company in parallel), working closely with several other private companies, and in part as a re-seller to a Hong Kong company, that was technically registered in Surrey, but traded on Chinese law and submitted only Chinese accounts, I know how these numbers are so easily moved around. In AIM and FTSE company reporting, the level of detail cannot hide such matters easily.

 

 

The other difference between Peco and Hornby is that Peco's staff include production staff. While Hornby obviously have design and development staff, they don't have any production staff (at least as far as Hornby Railways/Scalextric/Corgi is concerned - I believe Airfix and Humbrol now do some UK production), instead outsourcing it to overseas contractors. So most of those Hornby staffing costs don't actually result in anything coming off the production line.

 

What Peco have shown of course is that it is possible to manufacture certain items in the UK - track, electrical items, possibly even rolling stock (if we assume that the main cost of producing the 009 stock is labour, which is irrespective of scale, and development costs are over a shorter production run) - with control over your production lines, less exposure to currency fluctuations, etc, to a similar (or even better) standard and cost that Hornby are producing equivalent items to in China. 

[Clearwater]

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/180:HK

 

@mike storey

See above. Assuming I’ve got the right entity, I don’t think Kader is a much bigger entity than Hornby

 

David

[Oakydoke]

.....While Hornby obviously have design and development staff, they don't have any production staff (at least as far as Hornby Railways/Scalextric/Corgi is concerned - I believe Airfix and Humbrol now do some UK production)......

 

Hornby don't do any production in the U.K. It's all contracted out to suppliers.

Airfix's UK produced Quick Build range is made by Plastech in Newhaven, East Sussex and not by a Hornby's owned company.

Similarly U.K. production of Humbrol paints is also outsourced. Enamels are made by Rustins (Cricklewood, London) and Acrylics are made in Manchester (not sure by who - possibly by HMG Paints Ltd?)

Edited October 13, 2017 by Oakydoke