Time to bring back design clever?

[Legend]

I think there is a confusion between design clever and position in market place . The Crosti typifies this .

 

Design Clever should be a continuous improvement program to make models , or enable variations of models , more efficiently . Its about efficiency , lowering costs to increase margin or to pass onto customers where there is a feeling they wont accept more by way of price increases. This should be going on in the background anyway.

 

Then there's position in market place.

 

There is the top level (in normal RTR not brass) where modellers want as much detail as possible and are prepared to pay for it. Definitely no moulded handrails or smokebox darts!

 

There is a second level, perhaps the more casual purchaser, who still wants a nice looking train but wants it at a more accessible price

 

I would argue that at the moment nearly everybody is at the top level. Bachmann, Heljan, Dapol, DJ, Kernow, Hattons and now Rails and TMC. Its getting very crowded.

 

Who is competing at lower end? Hornby through its Railroad brand and maybe Oxford? Possibly the real competition is second hand .

 

Clearly Hornby have the design capability to do both . Fantastic models like the H or MN , on the other hand I'm quite happy with my Railroad Hall. So they should compete in both with clearly differentiated ranges, never the same model but with different decoration. Yes go for the top end lower volumes , higher margins but there is still an opportunity at lower end higher volumes and slightly lower margins . Hornby have to adapt to the new market place and change their cost structure to suit. I know we all think we know better than Hornby, so I'm joining that club. That's what I would do. Oh and secure your manufacturing base, whether that's taking an interest in one of its suppliers or buying one . And make sure you've got QC in place.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Legend

[Dunsignalling]

I think there is a confusion between design clever and position in market place . The Crosti typifies this .

 

Design Clever should be a continuous improvement program to make models , or enable variations of models , more efficiently . Its about efficiency , lowering costs to increase margin or to pass onto customers where there is a feeling they wont accept more by way of price increases. This should be going on in the background anyway.

 

Then there's position in market place.

 

There is the top level (in normal RTR not brass) where modellers want as much detail as possible and are prepared to pay for it.

 

There is a second level, perhaps the more casual purchaser, who still wants a nice looking train but wants it at a more accessible price

 

I would argue that at the moment nearly everybody is at the top level. Bachmann, Heljan, Dapol, DJ, Kernow, Hattons and now Rails and TMC. Its getting very crowded.

 

Who is competing at lower end? Hornby through its Railroad brand and maybe Oxford? Possibly the real competition is second hand .

 

Clearly Hornby have the design capability to do both . Fantastic models like the H or MN , on the other hand I'm quite happy with my Railroad Hall. So they should compete in both with clearly differentiated ranges, never the same model but with different decoration. Yes go for the top end lower volumes , higher margins but there is still an opportunity at lower end higher volumes and slightly lower margins .

 

The striking thing is that most new entrants are coming in at the higher end, with just Oxford targeting the budget market. 

 

Full commissioning, as practiced by Kernow and Hattons, has lately begun to move towards them dealing directly with factories in China, as practiced by Rapido Trains. The emergence of what might be more of a collaborative approach with Rails and TMC, may represent a defensive strategy on the part of Bachmann, aimed at keeping themselves "in the loop".

 

Hornby's involvement in commissioning is much more limited and their real dilemma remains the long-standing one of trying to balance their Premium and Budget activities without falling down the hole between them. It will be interesting to see to what synergy, if any, will develop between the Oxford and Hornby ranges under the new management regime.

 

My hope (and to some degree, expectation) is that we may at last see a proper, coherent definition of "Railroad" emerge from what is going on at present.

 

John

Edited February 26, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Neil]

....., 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 think this would apply to both high and low spec models. It's a most interesting question in its own right but in terms of the current discussion I'd like to cite the Hornby vs Bachmann 25. From an appearance point of view the Hornby 25 trumps the Bachmann model as the shape and proportions are better. That's not to say that it doesn't have its faults but it's a much better base to work from. I'm not so sure that the simple formula of 'more detail = better model' works.

[brushman47544]

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.

 

Hasn't Hornby said that it now moves its tooling around between factories as necessary, in which case they could match the A3 tender and P2 body if they thought it worthwhile.

[Dunsignalling]

I think this would apply to both high and low spec models. It's a most interesting question in its own right but in terms of the current discussion I'd like to cite the Hornby vs Bachmann 25. From an appearance point of view the Hornby 25 trumps the Bachmann model as the shape and proportions are better. That's not to say that it doesn't have its faults but it's a much better base to work from. I'm not so sure that the simple formula of 'more detail = better model' works.

I think the question of whether a particular model (from any market segment) captures the essence of the prototype better or worse than another elsewhere, is a whole other can of worms. Even between the Hornby ranges, there are many who consider the Railroad (ex-Lima) Class 31 to do so better than the newer "full fat" version.

 

The discussion over comparative levels of detail has contained an unspoken assumption of "all other things being equal" in terms of a basic level of fidelity.

 

John

Edited February 26, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[159220]

Time for me to stumble into the discussion with two points I have wanted to make since the OP.

 

Regarding the OP mention of the new 800/0... sorry, but “design clever” is still here. It may not be called out, but all manufacturers have spent a lot of time being more clever about the tooling design to reduce both design, tooling and production costs. The new 800/0 is inspected in terms of manafacturing is very well thought, using the minimal amount of additional detail to reduce labour. Even the roof detailing (especially the wires) are moulded then printed. On the chassis, everything is moulded, rather than separate etched grills. Even the pantograph is cheap plastic rather than a decent etch. Sorry, design clever is here and every where. Go explore. It is surprising what you shall find when you put your design hat on. And importantly, nothing wrong with more moulded detail as the skill and technology now often makes the need to etch unnecessary. Perfect example is the Bachmann 90, the moulded hand rails are far more true to the prototype than what etching could deliver. Every one is designing their tooling and production under the aims of the poor press presenter design clever.

 

A more general point, when we had new locomotives etc for £60. We all were demanding ever higher levels of detail, remaining adament that hand rails continued to be separately fitted and buffers sprung (etc). These price though wonderful for the modeller, were utterly unsustainable for the manufacturer (especially the globally owned) and the prices we now have are more reflective of the detail we have demanded in line with global modelling standards. What is amusing, there is now a call for new, less detailed and thus cheaper models. Really do see the irony here. We had this 10-15 years ago!

 

Why not do as ViTrains did, leave all the detailing bits to be fitted by the modeller, and thus keep cost of labour down? Maybe even reduced levels of tampo printing, instead leaving the modeller to source decals. Instantly the same tooling would look a lot more basic and the price would no doubt appeal. But let’s be very clear, the market isn’t going back to low detail, low price.

Edited February 26, 2018 by 159220

[brushman47544]

Why not do as ViTrains did, leave all the detailing bits to be fitted by the modeller, and thus keep cost of labour down? Maybe even reduced levels of tampo printing, instead leaving the modeller to source decals. Instantly the same tooling would look a lot more basic and the price would no doubt appeal. But let’s be very clear, the market isn’t going back to low detail, low price.

 

No way do I want even more detail to fit myself. I can accept buffer beam details where that detail needs to be left off to fit an NEM coupling, but otherwise I want detailing bits factory fitted. I'm not getting any younger and my eyesight already hates close up detail under artificial light, so if I want details added I'm as likely to have to pay someone to do it for me. And on that I think I'd prefer it done by the factory.

 

As I've already posted I'm happy to accept some moulded detailing, which has now got much finer than it used to be, and I think the manufacturers just need to find a reasonable balance between what to mould on and what to have as separate fittings.

Edited February 26, 2018 by brushman47544

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... I'm not so sure that the simple formula of 'more detail = better model' works.

I agree but would be more emphatic That's 'necessary but not sufficient' as a condition. The most superbly executed and detailed nine pound note will always be a fake.

 

Fundamental: form (shape) has to be correct. You can stick the most exquisite detail and paint finish on a flawed form and as earlier pointed out, it remains a pig in a dress. If the error is severe, it isn't a model at all. Exhibit 1, Hornby's main range Brush 2. Their Limby item is the better model of the class...

 

Unfortunately, a very large proportion of the market likes 'detail' ahead of overall accuracy. In my opinion, and not humble in the least.

[adb968008]

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

If a collector would be happy to look at it in its box, but the costs of full fat are prohibitive, consider what parts the modeller could self attach, but a collector look at and be happy.. then mould on the rest.

 

There’s nothing wrong with Hornbys 90second to assemble mk1’s, except detail differences they could chose at some point to represent. Hornbys railroad (Lima) 31 is by all accounts more popular than its full fat version, despite its paint job.

 

The accuracy and the paint finish are more important than what’s moulded on, vs factory or self attached.

 

 

Whether to be Piko or SLW ... depends on volume anticipated... SLW is as good as UK OO gets, but at its premium end..that’s comparatively little to Piko who are also aiming at quality, at a higher volume lower price. The business cases of the two operations are markedly different..Piko wants market share, SLW is not.

 

Similarly whilst Piko have been through a revolution, they have been careful on the water they tread..,they’ve taken a German/Polish niche on modern image types.. in Polish it’s new territory, no one else was really occupying this space (except Schliesenmodelle, who came a cropper against Piko twice).. but notably Piko has stayed away from Steam.. which suggests that their target market is aimed at a price point too.

 

Where Hornby and Piko differ also is in the tooling.., Piko is new modern image, and with few exceptions, what young modellers see outside on the street, at a price they can afford. Hornby is legacy toolings that appeals to Lima diehards, and family trainsets. The modern enthusiast on today’s station looking at EMUs can ill afford £400-600 sets, but a good enough, accurate one with a decent paint job I suspect would be easier to afford. With only the Crosti as a new one in railroad (it puzzles my why).. maybe price..if the crosti came with the super detailed Brit tenders it would be different, but crucially it was accurate, looked good and everyone bought, railroad or not.

Edited February 26, 2018 by adb968008

[jjb1970]

I think two things have become conflated (for which I am as guilty as anybody), the concept of smart design and a lower fidelity and lower cost range to exist alongside the full fat premium range.

 

Smart design should be a given in any manufacturing process. That means designing in ease of manufacture to reduce cost, flexible tooling to accommodate multiple variations at minimum cost, economising where it will not detract from perceived quality, use of standardised components where appropriate etc. Call that design clever, or call not doing it dumb. I think this is clouded a bit by the sort of marketing hyperbole that claims to make things "without compromise", that sounds good in marketing material but it is also a nonsensical statement as any manufactured product is essentially a collection of compromises (whether that be an airliner, a big ship or a model train).

 

The second case of multiple product tiers is a separate and distinct issue which has become intertwined with the idea of smart design thanks to Hornby's design clever experiment at sharing common basic tooling across the Railroad and premium ranges.

 

My own view is that to really make Railroad work as a true hobby enthusiast range (such as Piko Expert) it needs new, dedicated tooling. However I think the tooling has to be designed for the range it will sit in, just hoping to remove bits from a full fat model or putting lipstick on a pig and trying to sell Railroad models in the main range won't work. Those companies who do this well (such as Piko, sorry for sounding like a record with a scratch) clearly delineate their tiers and the products are purpose designed and manufactured for the tier within which they sit. Churning out antiquated pre-China Hornby, Lima and even old Airfix tooling may work for a very low cost entry level but it's not really going to cut the mustard in the way that the Railroad Hall, Mk.1, A1 etc can.

[adb968008]

Agreed, but when Lima as Lima... it wasn’t just cheap to assemble, cheap quality... it was what people saw at the end of the platform... this weeks front cover of Rail magazine was next issues back cover Lima advert.

 

The Hornby/Airfix steam stuff of that same era.. appealed to a market that had the choice of that or a DJH kit.

 

Both markets purchasers have matured with age and are accustomed to spending more for less in better quality.

But today’s market has been largely left behind.

 

Today’s unit centric world is a market gap, which like Piko noticed with PKP ..could be filled with a product aimed at the same peer group as those buying Lima 20 years ago..To make a new class 47 aimed at the railroad market would be a hiding to nothing, if it were then VItrains would be the one best placed to fill the niche.

I really think the only purpose behind the current railroad range was money for old rope, and as the price has considerably increased on the last 2 years think it’s time has come...

£99 for a railroad Deltic, when you can get a Bachmann one second hand at the same price...if anything it’s due a 21st century retooling super detail.

Edited February 26, 2018 by adb968008

[Legend]

Agreed, but when Lima as Lima... it wasn’t just cheap to assemble, cheap quality... it was what people saw at the end of the platform... this weeks front cover of Rail magazine was next issues back cover Lima advert.

The Hornby/Airfix steam stuff of that same era.. appealed to a market that had the choice of that or a DJH kit.

Both markets purchasers have matured with age and are accustomed to spending more for less in better quality.

But today’s market has been largely left behind.

Today’s unit centric world is a market gap, which like Piko noticed with PKP ..could be filled with a product aimed at the same peer group as those buying Lima 20 years ago..To make a new class 47 aimed at the railroad market would be a hiding to nothing, if it were then VItrains would be the one best placed to fill the niche.

I really think the only purpose behind the current railroad range was money for old rope, and as the price has considerably increased on the last 2 years think it’s time has come...

£99 for a railroad Deltic, when you can get a Bachmann one second hand at the same price...if anything it’s due a 21st century retooling super detail.

The £99 Deltic was a wrong price. You can get them for £65 which is about 60% of a Bachmann one if you can find it. What people don’t realise is that Railroad models have been retooled they are not just old Lima models and mechanisms . So the 47, for instance has a completely new mechanism, as has the Deltic, Warship etc . In the steamers , sure it’s the old Black 5 , but it’s a new loco Mechanism . These are actually very good runners. So there has been investment in the Railroad Range ,possibly necessitated by change of manufacturer, but the investment is there. Arguably it should be better Targeted Edited February 26, 2018 by Legend

[adb968008]

The £99 Deltic was a wrong price. You can get them for £65 which is about 60% of a Bachmann one if you can find it. What people don’t realise is that Railroad models have been retooled they are not just old Lima models and mechanisms . So the 47, for instance has a completely new mechanism, as has the Deltic, Warship etc . In the steamers , sure it’s the old Black 5 , but it’s a new loco Mechanism . These are actually very good runners. So there has been investment in the Railroad Range ,possibly necessitated by change of manufacturer, but the investment is there. Arguably it should be better Targeted

Fully agreed, I was sitting on 60 Lima class 47’s.

I’ve trimmed it to half, and sold all the Lima chassis off from the other half.

Now I’ve 30 bodies sharing 12 47033 chassis.

 

The whole upgrade exercise even made a profit, taking into account original Lima purchase price after I sold off the TTS chips.

 

I was going to repeat with last years 37... but seeing how they missed out on the head code boxes, and added a chunk to the price, I figured it was too high risk ending up being stuck with the Dutch 37 bodies... so they are Lima for now.

Edited February 26, 2018 by adb968008

[Phil Parker]

The point about the differentiation, or lack of it, between the main range and Railroad, came up in a chat I had with Simon K:

 

https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/brm/information/the-big-interview-?utm_source=Communicator&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=buttonLink113&utm_campaign=BRM+goes+behind+the+scenes%e2%80%a6Hornby%e2%80%99s+Trade+Preview&_ccCt=YfY7GmwFByPxUWfm0VEMcSx4LDCKKjjge_pZ640KtvZ9jVQDQF_D5e%7egqpRqXqVn

 

If you were signed up to the free newsletter we send out once a month, you'd have read it already...

 

(Sign up using the Free Newsletter link at the top of the page. Even other RMwebbers seem to like it)

[robmcg]

The point about the differentiation, or lack of it, between the main range and Railroad, came up in a chat I had with Simon K:

 

https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/brm/information/the-big-interview-?utm_source=Communicator&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=buttonLink113&utm_campaign=BRM+goes+behind+the+scenes%e2%80%a6Hornby%e2%80%99s+Trade+Preview&_ccCt=YfY7GmwFByPxUWfm0VEMcSx4LDCKKjjge_pZ640KtvZ9jVQDQF_D5e%7egqpRqXqVn

 

If you were signed up to the free newsletter we send out once a month, you'd have read it already...

 

(Sign up using the Free Newsletter link at the top of the page. Even other RMwebbers seem to like it)

 

Nice chat and enjoyable but I failed to sign up for a newsletter,  it told me my email address was already in use, and when I asked it to find my account, it said it couldn't find it .  website from hell.  no thanks.

[coachmann]

'Design Clever', as it was first mooted, was doomed from the outset because it was based on the premise that a manufacturer could take RTR locos back to the 1970's and 80's and no one would bother. Perhaps Hornby's collective heads were so deep in the sand at the time that they assumed Bachmann and the other RTR manufacturers would follow suit. The final shot in the foot came when dearer models came out with design clever features despite the illustrations on the box lids!

[The Blue Streak]

'Design Clever', as it was first mooted, was doomed from the outset because it was based on the premise that a manufacturer could take RTR locos back to the 1970's and 80's and no one would bother. Perhaps Hornby's collective heads were so deep in the sand at the time that they assumed Bachmann and the other RTR manufacturers would follow suit. The final shot in the foot came when dearer models came out with design clever features despite the illustrations on the box lids!

 

There you go, after 12 pages Larry has summed up how many of us felt about Design Clever by Hornby, in four lines!! 

 

The point about the differentiation, or lack of it, between the main range and Railroad, came up in a chat I had with Simon K:

 

https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/brm/information/the-big-interview-?utm_source=Communicator&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=buttonLink113&utm_campaign=BRM+goes+behind+the+scenes%e2%80%a6Hornby%e2%80%99s+Trade+Preview&_ccCt=YfY7GmwFByPxUWfm0VEMcSx4LDCKKjjge_pZ640KtvZ9jVQDQF_D5e%7egqpRqXqVn

 

If you were signed up to the free newsletter we send out once a month, you'd have read it already...

 

(Sign up using the Free Newsletter link at the top of the page. Even other RMwebbers seem to like it)

 

Thanks for that link Phil, I have subscribed to the newsletter (I think), but can We have a few close ups of whats in that cabinet, please ?

[Legend]

'Design Clever', as it was first mooted, was doomed from the outset because it was based on the premise that a manufacturer could take RTR locos back to the 1970's and 80's and no one would bother. Perhaps Hornby's collective heads were so deep in the sand at the time that they assumed Bachmann and the other RTR manufacturers would follow suit. The final shot in the foot came when dearer models came out with design clever features despite the illustrations on the box lids!

The 2 BIL and HAL were widely accepted . But they did get it wrong on the lack of brass barings , moulded loco darts and handrails. However as said before the trick of real design clever is to make models less expensively without consumer knowing . If Bachmann have moulded handrails on their 90, and everyone that’s seen this thinks it’s a good idea , then that’s a good example. It’s not about going back to the 70s and 80s

[coachmann]

The 2 BIL and HAL were widely accepted . But they did get it wrong on the lack of brass barings , moulded loco darts and handrails. However as said before the trick of real design clever is to make models less expensively without consumer knowing . If Bachmann have moulded handrails on their 90, and everyone that’s seen this thinks it’s a good idea , then that’s a good example. It’s not about going back to the 70s and 80s

Really?

[Dunsignalling]

The 2 BIL and HAL were widely accepted . But they did get it wrong on the lack of brass barings , moulded loco darts and handrails. However as said before the trick of real design clever is to make models less expensively without consumer knowing . If Bachmann have moulded handrails on their 90, and everyone that’s seen this thinks it’s a good idea , then that’s a good example. It’s not about going back to the 70s and 80s

Cutting corners by having driving axles running in slots wasn't acceptable at any price point as it will clearly result in the model wearing out sooner.

 

The "dart" thing never bothered me as I eventually get round to fitting metal replacements to nearly all my locos anyway. One only ever has to retouch black paint.

 

However, handrails moulded only in relief precisely evoke the times before Airfix and Mainline dragged UK r-t-r locomotives into the second half of the 20th century. By my reckoning that's 60s and 70s rather than 70s and 80s, though.

 

I don't have any objection whatever to moulded handrails that have daylight behind them, assuming they can be made sufficiently durable.

 

The error at the root of Design Clever (as it turned out in the three big passenger locos, rather than the ideal) was believing that products to satisfy the quality/detail expectations of Hornby's higher-end clientele and simplified versions at two thirds the price for the beginners and those on tight budgets, could be produced from one set of tools.

 

The Crosti did two, apparently contradictory, things. First, it came close (though not close enough) to bucking that. It wasn't drastically off the pace for "main range" and, being plain black, those who wanted to add or improve detail, could do so without ruining the thing. Secondly, it was "too good" and (probably) too expensive for Railroad. A high proportion of owners will have bought them despite the Railroad tag rather than because of it.

 

John

Edited February 28, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think there is a confusion between design clever and position in market place . The Crosti typifies this .

 

Design Clever should be a continuous improvement program to make models , or enable variations of models , more efficiently . Its about efficiency , lowering costs to increase margin or to pass onto customers where there is a feeling they wont accept more by way of price increases. This should be going on in the background anyway.

 

Then there's position in market place.

 

There is the top level (in normal RTR not brass) where modellers want as much detail as possible and are prepared to pay for it. Definitely no moulded handrails or smokebox darts!

 

There is a second level, perhaps the more casual purchaser, who still wants a nice looking train but wants it at a more accessible price

 

I would argue that at the moment nearly everybody is at the top level. Bachmann, Heljan, Dapol, DJ, Kernow, Hattons and now Rails and TMC. Its getting very crowded.

 

Who is competing at lower end? Hornby through its Railroad brand and maybe Oxford? Possibly the real competition is second hand .

 

Clearly Hornby have the design capability to do both . Fantastic models like the H or MN , on the other hand I'm quite happy with my Railroad Hall. So they should compete in both with clearly differentiated ranges, never the same model but with different decoration. Yes go for the top end lower volumes , higher margins but there is still an opportunity at lower end higher volumes and slightly lower margins . Hornby have to adapt to the new market place and change their cost structure to suit. I know we all think we know better than Hornby, so I'm joining that club. That's what I would do. Oh and secure your manufacturing base, whether that's taking an interest in one of its suppliers or buying one . And make sure you've got QC in place.

 

The agree button would not do justice to this post. It is spot-on and exactly what I would have written myself.

 

Hornby's problems are all about brand marketing. They have not made a clear enough distinction between Railroad and the high-end stuff.

 

I was involved with them more than 20 years ago and it was just the same then. My involvement concerned Jouef and Lima. In due course, Hornby took over both and the continental ranges have gone into dormancy, especially Rivarossi.

[jjb1970]

Moulded details sometimes get a bad rap. If used well moulded details can work well. The 2BIL and 2HAL as has been pointed out by a few people were well received and in my view found a good balance between moulded and separate detail. I have seen models which use a lot of etchings for things like grills which would have looked better with well done mouldings. On handrails, for coaches moulding can work well, less so locomotives but even on locomotives there are some places where it can work as well as separate parts IMO.

[JSpencer]

Moulded details sometimes get a bad rap. If used well moulded details can work well. The 2BIL and 2HAL as has been pointed out by a few people were well received and in my view found a good balance between moulded and separate detail. I have seen models which use a lot of etchings for things like grills which would have looked better with well done mouldings. On handrails, for coaches moulding can work well, less so locomotives but even on locomotives there are some places where it can work as well as separate parts IMO.

 

There is no difference in the number of parts between the BIL and a Bachmann EPB. For example - the latter uses moulded on roof cables, the former has them as delicate separate fittings.  Hornby over produced the BIL's and HAL's and they can still be picked up as really low prices.

[JSpencer]

I think there is a confusion between design clever and position in market place . The Crosti typifies this .

 

There is the top level (in normal RTR not brass) where modellers want as much detail as possible and are prepared to pay for it. Definitely no moulded handrails or smokebox darts!

 

There is a second level, perhaps the more casual purchaser, who still wants a nice looking train but wants it at a more accessible price

 

 

In practice there was no difference in price (or maybe £10 at best) between the 1st and 2nd level of detailing. Compare a Star (with design clever bits) with a Castle (without). Price only dropped when the parts fell to less than half the number and the decoration level was low too.

 

It is clear that Chinese  manufacturers give prices based on ball park quotes rather than based a detailed bit by bit manufacture and assembly costs. The quote is made a long time before any detailed design or production plans are laid out - an estimate based on similar models in the past. If you state you want less than 100 parts, simple decoration, easy assembly, cheap motors, the quote will shift downwards. By contrast saying a couple of handrails, the doordart will be moulded and buffers un sprung, won't shift the price an iota - they still see a model with around 300 bits and complex paint scheme to do.

[Dunsignalling]

Then there's position in market place.

 

There is the top level (in normal RTR not brass) where modellers want as much detail as possible and are prepared to pay for it. Definitely no moulded handrails or smokebox darts!

 

There is a second level, perhaps the more casual purchaser, who still wants a nice looking train but wants it at a more accessible price

 

 

 

Everything depends on your definitions of "nice looking" and "accessible".

 

If what you really want (as I think many do) is a budget version of a main-range loco that sells for £60 to £70 less but only "looks" twenty quid cheaper, and consider "Design Clever" to be capable of delivering that, (and that Hornby would be daft enough to do so if it could); dream on.

 

John

Edited February 28, 2018 by Dunsignalling