Time to bring back design clever?

[manna]

G'day Folks

 

100 quid for a 0-4-0 Peckett.........Naw. 75 quid for a P2 2-8-2........... Yeah.

 

150 quid+ for a Full fat Pacific.......Naw. 50 quid for Tornado..............Yeah.

 

Says it all, don't it.

 

manna

[jjb1970]

I'm not sure that a second tier Railroad range necessarily results in lower sales for full fat models. I accept it may work like that, but the zero sum assumption is quite problematic as it is also possible that a range targeted at a different audience could grow the market and generate new sales. Clearly those companies that pursue a multi-tiered approach see it as a worthwhile strategy. The UK model train market isn't as big as Germany or the USA but neither is it some sort of insignificant cottage industry, supporting as it does a diverse range of RTR manufacturers and commissioners.

[Dunsignalling]

G'day Folks

 

100 quid for a 0-4-0 Peckett.........Naw. 75 quid for a P2 2-8-2........... Yeah.

 

150 quid+ for a Full fat Pacific.......Naw. 50 quid for Tornado..............Yeah.

 

Says it all, don't it.

 

manna

£250 for two models, £125 for two toys - says at least as much............ 

 

A mate of mine got a P2 for £59 and a Tornado for £39 incidentally, just right to use in the garden.

 

You've made your choices; I've made mine and none of my 33 Pacifics (32 Bulleids and a Britannia) set me back more than £135, and two Pecketts (highest price paid, £80) are there to back my position. (and no, I wouldn't use them in the garden!)

 

Who's done more to keep Hornby in business, I wonder?

 

John

Edited February 25, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[JSpencer]

I'm not sure that a second tier Railroad range necessarily results in lower sales for full fat models. I accept it may work like that, but the zero sum assumption is quite problematic as it is also possible that a range targeted at a different audience could grow the market and generate new sales. Clearly those companies that pursue a multi-tiered approach see it as a worthwhile strategy. The UK model train market isn't as big as Germany or the USA but neither is it some sort of insignificant cottage industry, supporting as it does a diverse range of RTR manufacturers and commissioners.

There are strong signs that it is now bigger than the USA market. Not sure about Germany, some suggest it is bigger! some smaller. All of these markets are small compared to Japan.

[jjb1970]

There are strong signs that it is now bigger than the USA market. Not sure about Germany, some suggest it is bigger! some smaller. All of these markets are small compared to Japan.

 

The Japanese model market is huge, and is pretty much it's own self contained little world in the same way as UK trains. Whether the UK is bigger or smaller than Germany and the US I don't know, I'd always assumed it was a bit smaller based on those countries being bigger and with very well established manufacturers and the hobby being well established.

[adb968008]

There are strong signs that it is now bigger than the USA market. Not sure about Germany, some suggest it is bigger! some smaller. All of these markets are small compared to Japan.

UK may not be bigger, but the groundswell of cornershops starting their own commissions could well indicate the UK is tooling up more than other countries....

The concern is this may be sign of a trending passing fashion (aka bubble) rather than a long term healthy market.. implosions may follow, indeed i’m partially of mind behind close doors the first signs of this may already be in motion.... otherwise on base on the qty of commissions the UK should be the biggest market.. and I suspect it isn’t.

Edited February 25, 2018 by adb968008

[jjb1970]

I suspect that the established manufacturers and some of the commissioners are making hay while the sun shines and they'll worry about the future when they get to that bridge.

 

I keep thinking of Piko. If anything the big German HO producers have been a bigger mess than Hornby in financial terms yet Piko has been thriving, and they seem to have thrived either in spite of, or because of (depending on point of view) ignoring much conventional wisdom and accepted truisms. And their business model is indeed to target ranges at particular price points including entry level models and mid-high price enthusiast models as well as their premium range. And the growth of their mid tier Piko Expert range (perhaps pitched somewhere between Hornby Railroad and full fat) indicates that they're found a real sweet spot in the market.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... It amazes me that stores are falling over each other to buy secondhand models. It shows there must be a market that's bigger than one might think. (It's curious, because there's allegedly no market whatever for secondhand railway books)...

 The s/h market is all down to me ;-). By money laid out I have purchased far more s/h than new these last two years. Not because I prefer s/h, but because the RTR manufacturers aren't making the products that fit my modelling, while useful past productions keep popping up s/h at sensible prices. Hornby for example could have sold me two new black B1s. But nothing appeared new, while two very tidy s/h have now been acquired. Same is true in coaches and wagons. There's a mountain of past sales 'somewhere' out there, and one s/h purchase of a total of 48 Bachmann wagons, all of them came in the 4 up cardboard shipping packs...

 

(Books now, I love books, but between myself and the wife being a librarian and even bigger bibliophile yet, the shelves are FULL!)

 

The “design clever” 2BIL had crappy moulded grab handles, more like bumps. Similar Maunsell carriages of the same time had separately applied handles, or at least moulded so that you can see daylight between the handle and the carriage side. The overall effect is to make the 2BIL look comparatively cheap.

 This illustrates an aspect that I feel many modellers will use when they appraise product. It was well summarised by Iain Rice many years ago: aim for consistency in your modelling. A good model railway does not have to be 'perfect' to provide a convincing impression of the modelled scene, but it does need to be of a consistent standard if there are not to be jarring mismatches that plainly do not represent reality. Have a trot of wagons all to much the same standard and even with a commercial coupler in use the eye just passes over the scene. But line up say half a dozen of Bach's 16T minerals and put any other RTR 16T in the group. Yuk.

 

Hornby having (happily) discovered that their customers like superior models of overall accuracy with pretty much all the commercially practical detail in 4mm/ft applied, are now 'nailed' to that standard. At least, that's if they want to retain the customers they first attracted with the superior models...

[Dunsignalling]

UK may not be bigger, but the groundswell of cornershops starting their own commissions could well indicate the UK is tooling up more than other countries....

The concern is this may be sign of a trending passing fashion (aka bubble) rather than a long term healthy market.. implosions may follow, indeed i’m partially of mind behind close doors the first signs of this may already be in motion.... otherwise on base on the qty of commissions the UK should be the biggest market.. and I suspect it isn’t.

I think the commissioners have just latched on to a business model that works for now.

 

Whether they, or indeed the larger players like Hornby, expect the industry to continue at its present level of activity for more than another decade is, however, highly unlikely IMHO.

 

My guess is that they are all anticipating, and gearing up for, a smaller, higher added-value industry evolving in that sort of timescale, with a near demise of anything resembling a mass market running parallel.

 

Now that commissioners are switching to doing their own R&D (or buying it in) and dealing with the factories direct, the importance of Hornby, Bachmann et al can be expected to wane somewhat anyway.

 

John

Edited February 26, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Ozexpatriate]

The UK model train market isn't as big as Germany or the USA but neither is it some sort of insignificant cottage industry, supporting as it does a diverse range of RTR manufacturers and commissioners.

There are strong signs that it is now bigger than the USA market. Not sure about Germany, some suggest it is bigger! some smaller..

Whether the UK is bigger or smaller than Germany and the US I don't know, I'd always assumed it was a bit smaller based on those countries being bigger and with very well established manufacturers and the hobby being well established.

UK may not be bigger, but the groundswell of cornershops starting their own commissions could well indicate the UK is tooling up more than other countries....

UK manufacturers maintain larger catalogues than most US manufacturers, but there are more US manufacturers.  Getting revenue numbers for the US suppliers (who are privately held) is not very easy. There is also a wider range of specialty US manufacturers like InterMountain or Fox Valley Models.

 

I think it's fair to say that on a per-capita basis, there are likely to be relatively more UK enthusiasts. Whether this offsets the 5:1 population difference is hard to say.

 

Getting direct comparison statistics for market size is tricky.

 

A very imprecise but still interesting measure might be to consider hobby shops. There are at least 124 US hobby shops that advertise in Model Railroader. I wonder how many advertise in the larger UK magazines?

 

Hornby advertises 373 UK 'stockists' on their website, but many of these are evidently toy shops and steam preservation museum gift shops so this is probably not a relevant comparison.

 

Of course counting shops does not factor in the differences in volumes from box-shifters like Hattons or Trainworld (in New York) so it's probably not a useful comparison.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Ozexpatriate

[Dunsignalling]

I think it is true that most modellers cannot afford to build the layout they would like - it certainly applies to me and I would count myself as probably better off than many modellers.  Hornby. nor any other manufacturer big or small is a charity designed to allow me to build the layouts I want.

 

As it happens I buy relatively few rtr models for the simple reason that relatively few cover my interest an in addition many of those that do (and the ones that I buy) need some form of modification to fit my needs.  

 

I hope therefore that my comments are not centred around personal preferences but around pure commercial arguments.  

So facts are:

Hornby are making a loss and have done so for a number of years - which may not be down entirely to model railways.  However if that continues they will cease to exist in their current form.

Hornby did introduce Design Clever and it has had a mixed response in both terms of quality and price.    

 

Dunsignalling above suggests that use of old moulds is the way for Design Clever and I would not disagree necessarily although it is interesting to note that those models that seem to have sold well (but may not have yielded big profits) are those where new tooling has been used - Crosti, BIL, DoG and maybe the P2.

 

So from a purely commercial viewpoint, I have to repeat, if more Design Clever (aka cheap) models are produced by Hornby, where are the extra sales/margins going to come from to pull Hornby out of a loss making situation.

 

The fact is that Model Railway companies are not like supermarkets.  A two for one offer does not get customers through the doors to spend the rest of their money in the store.

My point is that using old tooling is the only way forward for Railroad. not for Design Clever.

 

Design Clever was a nonsense from the start because it is highly improbable that one set of tooling can be made that is capable of producing one version of a model to sell at a "Railroad" price and another highly-detailed and well-finished enough to warrant a "Main Range" price of £60 or £70 more. 

 

What happened with the idea so far (at least in relation to the P2, DoG and Tornado models) is that the market recognised, correctly, that all that was really on offer was a basic Railroad model and another Railroad model with a fancier paint job. Real-world prices then moved to reflect that.

 

The Crosti 9F created real confusion. Packaged as Railroad but clearly closer to main range quality, and priced accordingly. Ditto the EMU.

 

New locos being launched in both ranges simultaneously is a bad idea commercially. It becomes impossible to tell if the cheaper one takes sales off the premium version or inspires purchases that would otherwise not happen at all.

 

Hornby have enough worries without inventing new ones of their own making.

 

John

Edited February 26, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[bart2day]

I totally agree, to some extent Hornby, and certain other manufacturers seem to be forgetting where there roots are, they seem to be more interested in the "collector" market than the good old "modeller" market. Another issue is with the 3 figure prices of modern models it puts prospective new modellers off, design clever would possibly give those new modellers a starting point.When I started modelling if you wanted super detail you went out and bought detail kits and parts and created your own model, whereas now you just buy a model and stick it on your track or in a cabinet, no personality

Apparently three out of every four sales of Hornby locos is to adult collectors. The other one out of four is to children/casual modellers.

[LBRJ]

 

My guess is that they are all anticipating and gearing up for a smaller, higher added-value industry evolving in that sort of timescale, with a near demise of anything resembling a mass market running parallel.

 

 

There is a feeling, nothing much more, that I have, that tells me that is exactly where we are headed.

Smaller runs of pre-ordered models is already happening, and  I cant see it not being the model (pun!!) to go forward with.

 

It also explains why the large retailers ( I dislike the pejorative "box-shifter") are trying to hoover up the second hand market - These are the models that the "need forty seven different 47s"  amateur collector type people will be left  to play with; unless they are seriously well heeled.

[sem34090]

Hmmm...

 

I think there's one thing being missed by Railroad at the moment: decent small locos! As far as I can tell, the only tank engines in the railroad range are based on the generic 0-6-0 and 0-4-0 chassis that hang over from Tri-ang days, yet we still have the old Austerity and Terrier (Also the currently discontinued L&Y Pug, 2301, N2, 4F and 2P) hanging over from Airfix, Mainline and Dapol which could be easily bundled in the railroad range. Small locos at smaller prices are likely to appeal to both modellers and the beginner market, and all of the aforementioned models are of a half-decent standard and (2301 excepted) have fairly new chassis. So long as they wouldn't wreck the chassis when demoting (I think they may have learnt from the 14xx mess-up). Not many people have room for the layouts that justify pacifics or even 4-6-0's. By all means keep those items in the range, but maybe demote some smaller locos that will perhaps appeal to the 'model-basher' such as myself as well as the beginner market. If the L&Y Pug was reduced, I'd buy several to bash into other things, same with the terrier and austerity.

 

There's also some Triang toolings that it would be nice to see reintroduced: CR 123 and the Dean Single come to mind, both being attractive models and have the bonus of being the only single-wheelers available RTR until the Rapido model comes out, but that would not effect any possible Dean Single or 123 singles.

 

As for liveries of the above models, I would propose the following, bearing in mind a BR Crest generally requires 4 colours (Red, Yellow, Silver and White for early - Blue, Yellow, Red and Silver for late):

 

4F - LMS Black (Yellow lettering is simpler than BR Crest - requires only one colour.)

4F - BRITISH RAILWAYS Lettering (Cream lettering - requires only one colour)

2P - LMS Lined Black (Red Lining, Yellow Lettering - requires only two colours.)

L&Y Pug - BRITISH RAILWAYS Lettering (Cream lettering - requires only one colour)

L&Y Pug - LMS Black (Yellow Lettering - requires only one colour.)

Terrier - SR Wartime Black (Yellow Lettering shaded Green - requires only two colours. Green shading could be dispensed with)

Terrier - Marsh Umber (Dark Brown bordering, 'straw' lining, Umber base colour - requires three colours. Could possibly dispense with bordering as per E2)

Austerity - WD Plain Olive Green (White number on tank side - requires only one colour. Livery appeals, especially if marked 'W^D', to military modellers)

Austerity - LMR Lined Blue (Red Lining, Cream Lettering - requires only two colours. Livery appeals through colour)

N2 - LNER Plain Black (Yellow Lettering - requires only one colour)

N2 - BRITISH RAILWAYS lettering (Cream Lettering - requires only one colour)

2301 - GWR Plain Green - GREAT WESTERN (Gold Lettering and numberplate, Black numberplate background - requires only two colours)

2301 - ROD or WD Plain Black (White lettering - requires only one colour. Livery appeals to military modellers)

123 - CR Dark Blue (White lining, Gold lettering - requires only two colours. Crest would increase colours)

123 - LMS Lined Black (Red Lining, Yellow lettering)

Dean Single - GWR Lined Green (Gold Lining and Lettering, Black Numberplate background and lining centre.- requires only two colours. Crest would increase colours)

 

That would be enough to last a number of years, on the basis of only one livery per model being available at a time, and would fill a gap for cheap, usable, small locos for both the modeller and beginner. The above models also have the advantage of not having a main range equivalent, or only have models produced by other firms. The 2301 would be interesting, as with a new loco-drive chassis some might buy it over the slightly flawed Oxford model. 

 

I would imagine the following pricing, based on current railroad RRP's on the Hornby website:

4F - £85 (Based on Midland Compound RRP)

2P - £85 (Based on Midland Compound RRP

L&Y Pug - £40 (Based on standard 0-4-0T RRP)

Terrier - £45 (Based on 1400 RRP)

Austerity - £45 (Based on 1400 RRP)

N2 - £60 (Guess based on the fact that it would be more expensive than an 0-6-0T, but cheaper than a 4-4-0

2301 - £90 (Based on GWR County Pricing)

CR 123 - £60 (Guess based on being a tender loco, but virtually no separately-fitted components.)

Dean Single - £60 (Guess based on being a tender loco, but virtually no separately-fitted components)

 

Just my tuppeny bit's worth...

Edited February 26, 2018 by sem34090

[Irish_R_M]

Design Clever was a nonsense from the start because it is highly improbable that one set of tooling can be made that is capable of producing one version of a model to sell at a "Railroad" price and another highly-detailed and well-finished enough to warrant a "Main Range" price of £60 or £70 more. 

 

Very salient point. Working on a model at the moment, and thinking of all the comments thus far, (as an enthusiast and designer) I'm having severe difficulty in working out how its practically possible to implement this . I'm not saying it can or cannot be done, but it does ask a fundamental question.

 

What bits do you leave off and end up with a reasonable representation of the prototype.

 

RM

[The Blue Streak]

No, it is definitely the decoration which wracks up the cost, not just because it is time-consuming but because of the number of processes involved. It's not like normal printing where four colours go down one after the other in the blink of an eye. Each colour is separately applied and the part removed from the mask. Every change of colour and mask brings the risk of 'spoiling' the part by  a colour being out of register. If a part goes through 7 printing processes, that's 7 opportunities to spoil it. If it is spoiled on the last one, that effort is wasted and pushes the cost up. A spoiled part is scrap and cannot usually be reprinted. I recall having it explained in detail to me by SK when the Hornby 'Schools' came out, because of the number of printing processes involved in just one part - the cab. The higher the potential failure rate, the more expensive the model.

We were certainly given the impression with Tornado that there would be very little difference between the two price points other than in the much simplified decoration of the Railroad version. I've never examined either version of Tornado because others reviewed it and were better qualified than me to deal with LNER 'Pacifics'. (CJL)

 

 I must admit he Decoration on the "Enhanced" version of the Hornby DC Tornado was / is flawless. When I compared a blue one to a similarly decorated Hornby Main Range Gresley Pacific, there was little to pick between the paint and lining etc.

 

It's just that side by side it was the rest of the model that jarred. In direct side by side comparison the Tornado just looks crude and clunky - especially the tender.

Which is fine if that's how it were priced, but at the time the "enhanced" livery Tornado was getting right up there pricewise with the Main Range pacifics,

 

But as I said earlier - You can put a pretty dress on a Pig, but it's still a pig.

[The Blue Streak]

Very salient point. Working on a model at the moment, and thinking of all the comments thus far, (as an enthusiast and designer) I'm having severe difficulty in working out how its practically possible to implement this . I'm not saying it can or cannot be done, but it does ask a fundamental question.

 

What bits do you leave off and end up with a reasonable representation of the prototype.

 

RM

 

The leaving bit's off was / is less of a problem as Hornby showed when it used the Main Range Tooling as the basis for the Railroad version's tooling on A3 and A4's and ended up with a reasonable representation of Mallard, 4472 etc for the entry level Market., without compromising the main range versions.

 

The problem's arose when they tried to use a lesser quality (DC) tooling for both ranges. Once fine details have been moulded on, rather than separately applied it's hard to upgrade them if you wanted to, without destroying the lovely decoration (which was the only difference between DC Railroad and Main range apart from the price hike).

 

The P2 was especially disappointing and the tender was terrible as a pricey main range / enhanced model (but I would say perfectly acceptable for a railroad version),

Edited February 26, 2018 by The Blue Streak

[Dunsignalling]

The leaving bit's off was / is less of a problem as Hornby showed when it used the Main Range Tooling as the basis for the Railroad version's tooling on A3 and A4's and ended up with a reasonable representation of Mallard, 4472 etc for the entry level Market., without compromising the main range versions.

 

The problem's arose when they tried to use a lesser quality (DC) tooling for both ranges. Once fine details have been moulded on, rather than separately applied it's hard to upgrade them if you wanted to, without destroying the lovely decoration (which was the only difference between DC Railroad and Main range apart from the price hike).

 

The P2 was especially disappointing and the tender was terrible as a pricey main range / enhanced model (but I would say perfectly acceptable for a railroad version),

Exactly, the A3 and A4 are not based on the Design Clever principle but that of re-using superseded main-range tools to produce the budget version. I'm not overly familiar with either, but aren't the handrails (or at least the major ones) applied separately?

 

The old tender is also pretty inaccurate according to those in the know - was the same moulding used for the P2 perhaps? 

 

For me, handrails are the decisive (and divisive) issue arising from Design Clever. The incorporation of moulded ones instantly defines models as Railroad, whatever else might be done to them and however beautiful a finish is applied. I'll cheerfully mess around improving/correcting details on the black parts of a loco but anything that requires me to damage a lined-out finish in doing so means I won't buy one, full stop.

 

Had Design Clever been capable of including a full set of moulded handrails ones as fine as separate ones, with daylight behind them, true main-range versions produced using it would have been conceivable. Until and unless it can be developed to achieve that, Design Clever will remain (for me at least) a footnote in Hornby's chequered history.

 

John

Edited February 26, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[JSpencer]

The old tender is also pretty inaccurate according to those in the know - was the same moulding used for the P2 perhaps? 

 

 

The P2 used a completely new tooling for the tender. Unfortunately it is not made in the same factory as their current full fat A3, otherwise we could have had a fully detailed tender for the more expensive version of the P2.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...What bits do you leave off and end up with a reasonable representation of the prototype....

 I too think Hornby's execution on the Railroad A4 shows the way to go. Leave off much separately applied detail, simplify paint job (these two open to any modelmaker), use the killer advantage of having amortised tooling to produce significant parts of the model, such as the older and simpler outside rods and complete tender from the previous model.

 

That put very clear water between the premium and Railroad product. Which leads me to believe the following is likely true.

My point is that using old tooling is the only way forward for Railroad. ...Design Clever was a nonsense from the start because it is highly improbable that one set of tooling can be made that is capable of producing one version of a model to sell at a "Railroad" price and another highly-detailed and well-finished enough to warrant a "Main Range" price of £60 or £70 more. 

 

Hornby have enough worries without inventing new ones of their own making...

Keep it simple, in short. Major on using the superseded tools with simplified process to make the lower cost models, don't blur the difference between Railroad and main range.

[Dunsignalling]

There is a feeling, nothing much more, that I have, that tells me that is exactly where we are headed.

Smaller runs of pre-ordered models is already happening, and  I cant see it not being the model (pun!!) to go forward with.

 

It also explains why the large retailers ( I dislike the pejorative "box-shifter") are trying to hoover up the second hand market - These are the models that the "need forty seven different 47s"  amateur collector type people will be left  to play with; unless they are seriously well heeled.

I think the price issue is, in large part, a hangover from the early years of off-shored production, when we could suddenly get better models than ever before at prices little changed from what we were accustomed to paying.

 

This inspired many of us to purchase many more locomotives than we "needed" and became a hard-to-break habit. Withdrawal from such an "addiction" becomes necessary as balance is restored and real-money prices rise.

 

Taking a step back to my childhood/teenage years, I never envisaged owning even a tenth of the locos I do now and, but for what ensued following the arrival of Hornby's rebuilt MN, I doubt I would ever have got very far past the two dozen mark. That figure nowadays only represents most of my Bulleid Light Pacifics!

 

I'm always intending to be more selective over what I buy and am getting better at it, I'm only reckoning on buying around eight to ten new locos this year. .

 

John

Edited February 26, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Craigw]

G'day Folks

 

100 quid for a 0-4-0 Peckett.........Naw. 75 quid for a P2 2-8-2........... Yeah.

 

150 quid+ for a Full fat Pacific.......Naw. 50 quid for Tornado..............Yeah.

 

Says it all, don't it.

 

manna

 

But I only want the Peckett, why on earth would I buy any of the others?

 

Quality, not quantity.

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

[G-BOAF]

The Crosti 9F IS Clearly railroad, but is confused - it has moulded major pipework (not a feature of main range models) such as injectors on the boiler and firebox, and moulded smokebox door lamp irons, plus steps incorporated into the pony truck (hangover from tender drive days!) etc. But then it has seperate handrail details for the chimney. So confused, but still railroad.

[Mark Saunders]

Real design clever is to be able to reuse parts on other models!

 

Shame that there is an attitude with many that once you have a model there is no need to produce variations.

 

Hornby have produced a Tope but not the welded 21t hopper on the same chassis, there seems to be the logic that once a LNER riveted one was produced there was no need for any other variations.

 

Likewise with the former Airfix Tank and RCH steel mineral no other variants have been produced but plenty are available.

 

Mark Saunders

[The Stationmaster]

Very salient point. Working on a model at the moment, and thinking of all the comments thus far, (as an enthusiast and designer) I'm having severe difficulty in working out how its practically possible to implement this . I'm not saying it can or cannot be done, but it does ask a fundamental question.

 

What bits do you leave off and end up with a reasonable representation of the prototype.

 

RM

 

I don't think it can readily work the way round you are having to tackle it.   As John ('Dunsignalling') has pointed out Hornby initially created Railroad out of using older, more poorly detailed, tooling rather than specifically tooling two levels of detail on a brand new model.  The only distinction they seem to have achieved is different levels of decoration on one lot of tooling which has helped to confuse the whole idea of where Railroad sits in their range of offers and price points while also helping to show that 'design clever' wasn't actually very clever at all.

 

You know your market intentions far better than we can even guess at and what we've seen so far puts your products up at the top end of r-t-r detailing and fidelity so that is the reputation you are building with potential customers.  Should you wish to run a parallel 'less expensive at the retail point' product line that is for you to decide but that decision depends, as much as anything on whether you can afford to devote resources that would otherwise be used on the high end to trying to grab more sales at the lower end.   I suspect that trying to do both from one basic starting point will really mean no more than some sort detailing kit the customer would add to what would otherwise be a more basic outline model and then you come back to the risk of abstraction from the market for what many in retail would call the 'value added' product.