Hornby 2019 Speculation

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Definitely flanged in the second photo on here.

 

https://hrlocomotives.livejournal.com/2070.html

 

 

Pretty sure the Jones Goods started out with a flangeless centre driver. Quite possible that as confidence grew in such a large six coupled loco as a 4-6-0, that what had started out as a flangeless centre driver, was subsequently flanged. Needs someone who knows the full development of the design in service. And then if that was the case, does a model get produced 'as introduced' or 'as subsequently developed'?

 

Whatever the case, don't see this as a show stopper for a 4mm model. By producing the Ivatt atlantic with the driving wheel tyres in maximum wear condition, the very closely grouped drivers are able to be correctly spaced. (There was real nervousness among designers about length of wheelbase of faster locomotives, as power demands forced them into development of designs larger than the long proven 4-4-0 layout.)

[Hroth]

Flangeless centre drivers were successful for Triang for years, Hornby should feel at home with them!

[Joseph_Pestell]

Flangeless centre drivers were successful for Triang for years, Hornby should feel at home with them!

 

And for H-D. The 8F had four of them.

[The Johnster]

And for Riddles on the 9F.

[adb968008]

A steam outline camera locomotive,  detachable  smokebox door as the lens cover,  mobile phone camera modules are low cost items,  reattach the smokebox door to return the loco to a contemporary model

With sound, and wifi, with an app so you can watch it real time... with wifi you wont need DCC... one last step... put a battery in it.

[The Johnster]

This will need fully compensated chassis to ensure the image doesn't wobble too much!

[rembrow]

More than 2 years ago, Hornby Club members were asked to complete a survey about Hornby Railways and their products. Part of the survey covered some models in development and a number of questions about each. We were asked not to disclose details of the models identified and I have not seen the three that I was given details of, disclosed. I don't intend to disclose, as some may have been red herrings, however one I can confirm was the J36, which is part of the 2018 range. The other two make absolute sense as fitting into Hornby's range and one, a steamer from south of the Thames, is on my wish list

[Mallard60022]

Further coaches of various designs and from across the regions, in 4mm and to the same standard as the Maunsells and those Eastern suburban things that look really good but I don't know what they are. Gresleys and Thompsons (thanks Cutler, dear boy). I have a couple of the latter, one Hornby, one Comet Kit, as I have a picture of one Lav Composite as the first coach on an otherwise set of almost all Mk1s (think the other coach or two were gangway Thompsons?) on the Summer SO Cleethorpes/Sidmouth, Exmouth working around '61/'62. It made the 11th coach and thus the train was DH over the S & DJR to Templecombe; providing some First Class and having accessible 'facilities' of course.

P

Edited December 19, 2018 by Mallard60022

['CHARD]

 always happens sometimes

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmm..........  

[Steamport Southport]

Pretty sure the Jones Goods started out with a flangeless centre driver. Quite possible that as confidence grew in such a large six coupled loco as a 4-6-0, that what had started out as a flangeless centre driver, was subsequently flanged. Needs someone who knows the full development of the design in service. And then if that was the case, does a model get produced 'as introduced' or 'as subsequently developed'?

 

Whatever the case, don't see this as a show stopper for a 4mm model. By producing the Ivatt atlantic with the driving wheel tyres in maximum wear condition, the very closely grouped drivers are able to be correctly spaced. (There was real nervousness among designers about length of wheelbase of faster locomotives, as power demands forced them into development of designs larger than the long proven 4-4-0 layout.)

 

I'll dig out the RCTS book later and see if it's mentioned. It's out of reach at the moment.

 

 

 

 

Jason

[mdvle]

I'd have thought a 94xx would be more likely than a Prairie . We know they measured one up some time ago . If they were a bit fleet of foot it wouldn't be hard to beat Bachmann getting one out . The Bachy one is probably still 2 years away. First one on the market would reap the rewards

 

Bachmann put their 94xx into tooling in September, possible there could be EP shots in the next 3 months depending on when Bachmann next decides to do some publicity.

 

The last thing Hornby needs is to do is duplicate a newly tooled model from a competitor that would mean both would likely lose out - even if Hornby was able to get out first there will still be xx% of the market that will choose Bachmann.

[locoholic]

One thing that I wish Hornby would do is 21st century versions of the old Hornby Dublo models, such as the A4 Silver King, Duchess of Atholl, Cardiff Castle and the rebuilt Barnstaple, all done in replica Dublo-style boxes.

[locoholic]

Bachmann put their 94xx into tooling in September, possible there could be EP shots in the next 3 months depending on when Bachmann next decides to do some publicity.

 

The last thing Hornby needs is to do is duplicate a newly tooled model from a competitor that would mean both would likely lose out - even if Hornby was able to get out first there will still be xx% of the market that will choose Bachmann.

If I was a Hornby shareholder I would be wondering why the old Lima 94xx wasn't being used with an updated chassis to steal some of Bachmann's thunder.

[Hroth]

Perhaps Hornby are going to do a fine finer scale re-issue of Lord of The Isles?

[p8kpev]

Looking at the European and US manufacturers, they have a much heavier bias towards current locomotives/rolling stock. Are we in the UK so much more obsessed with the past or would Hornby get more sales by sticking with what younger people see out there on the real railway?

 

There must be some cultural aspect to this.  I suspect that railway history in the UK has a lot to do with it, though.  I'm only a dilettante in UK outline modelling, but I am often struck by how long-lived some of the British locomotive types were.  Into the 1940's and 1950's, there were steam classes of fifty years' vintage still in regular operation.  Larger U.S. railroads by 1950 were looking for ways out of steam traction altogether, and steam locomotive rosters usually were dominated by types built after the mid-1920's or 1930's.  Smaller power from circa 1900-1910 had almost no place on the rosters.  And dieselization came fairly quickly in the U.S.A.  Perhaps that has translated into a railfan and modelling culture in the U.S.A. biased toward the "latest and greatest."

 

There is evidence to support this notion in the finescale marketplace.  Something missing from the U.S. modelling scene is the wonderful profusion of locomotive kits for older prototypes that one finds for British classes.  The market for them simply does not exist (except for me, and no one cares what one modeller or ten wants).  And ready-to-run steam locomotives rarely appear for any locomotive design before the USRA designs of 1917-1920.  It's about as difficult in the U.S.A. to model 1900 on U.S. outline as on British outline.  We who model the period before the First World War live in a world of compromises hacked out of brass and plastic offerings released forty of fifty years ago and one or two ready-to-run models.

[CUTLER2579]

Further coaches of various designs and from across the regions, in 4mm and to the same standard as the Maunsells and those Eastern suburban things that look really good but I don't know what they are.

P

Gresley's  & Thompson's   Ducky.      

[rovex]

It's a shame that there seems to be a fixation on prairies, panniers and 4-6-0 engines when it comes to the GWR. There were other types and the dukedog and the Dean goods (despite its shortcomings) have both been popular.

 

PS I also liked the ROD

Edited December 18, 2018 by rovex

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

If I was a Hornby shareholder I would be wondering why the old Lima 94xx wasn't being used with an updated chassis to steal some of Bachmann's thunder.

Especially as they now have an excellent J50 mechanism layout in CAD to match the distorted dimensions of the Lima body, which was mangled to fit Lima's correct wheelbase J50 mechanism. ;-).

 

Quite possible that Lima may have ditched the tools long before that business came into Hornby's hands, since they gave up on UK steam models very early?

[chris45lsw]

Pretty sure the Jones Goods started out with a flangeless centre driver. Quite possible that as confidence grew in such a large six coupled loco as a 4-6-0, that what had started out as a flangeless centre driver, was subsequently flanged. Needs someone who knows the full development of the design in service. And then if that was the case, does a model get produced 'as introduced' or 'as subsequently developed'?

 

Whatever the case, don't see this as a show stopper for a 4mm model. By producing the Ivatt atlantic with the driving wheel tyres in maximum wear condition, the very closely grouped drivers are able to be correctly spaced. (There was real nervousness among designers about length of wheelbase of faster locomotives, as power demands forced them into development of designs larger than the long proven 4-4-0 layout.)

They did indeed start life with flangeless centre drivers.  'Highland Locos' by Peter Tatlow out of M C V Allchin says "some engines were fitted with flanges to the middle wheels...…" but gives no indication as to when.  "Some" implies that some stayed flangeless to the end.

 

Chris KT

[Dunsignalling]

No, it's a failure to anticipate demand, loss of business, and irritating to customers.  Bad business practice despite it being given the best positive spin possible by marketing!  It may not make a loss, but fails to exploit available profit.  It'll always happens sometimes, as it is impossible to accurately predict the market without a crystal ball (and I have a suspicion they don't really work either!), but it's not a success!

That just isn't how it works any more. The commercial reality of offshore batch production dictates that, so long as costs are met, it's better to make (for instance) 500 less than the market wants than be left with 500 it won't absorb. That way you make the return you budgeted for when you embarked on the project. Predictability is king and any extra profit you might have made on a greater quantity, if they all sold quickly with minimal discounting, is pie-in-the-sky.

 

The loss of an unquantifiable potential profit is far less damaging to Hornby and/or retailers than incurring real costs carrying dead stock that sits around unsold for months or years, until it has to be dumped cheaply onto a market that didn't want it at or close to r.r.p. 

 

When it does get dumped, the money spent might have otherwise been directed at newer releases sold with a better margin. 

 

Habitually remaindering models at a loss on the cost of production in order to avoid the cost of carrying the excess damages the prospects for subsequent releases as it discourages both pre-ordering and prompt purchasing by dealers and (some) consumers who won't need much encouragement to expect more of the same. 

 

The alternative is the practice carried on by certain prestige fashion brands which, when an item ceases to sell at full price, destroy the remainder to protect their market position. Better or worse?

 

John

Edited December 18, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[leopardml2341]

I'm gonna speculate that there'll be nothing in it for me.

 

Just sayin'

[Islesy]

Perhaps Hornby are going to do a fine finer scale re-issue of Lord of The Isles?

As yet, I haven’t been 3D scanned...

[Dunsignalling]

I'm gonna speculate that there'll be nothing in it for me.

 

Just sayin'

I get an inkling that you may not be a "glass-half-full" kinda guy...…

Edited December 20, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[miles73128]

I work in manufacturing. This is accurate and correct. Stock turn is critical-cash is king. It’s all about speed of turn, so cash can be reinvested and turned again.

That just isn't how it works any more. The commercial reality of offshore batch production dictates that, so long as costs are met, it's better to make (for instance) 500 less than the market wants than be left with 500 it won't absorb. That way you make the return you budgeted for when you embarked on the project. Predictability is king and any extra profit you might have made on a greater quantity, if they all sold quickly with minimal discounting, is pie-in-the-sky.

 

The loss of an unquantifiable potential profit is far less damaging to Hornby and/or retailers than incurring real costs carrying dead stock that sits around unsold for months or years, until it has to be dumped cheaply onto a market that didn't want it at or close to r.r.p.

 

When it does get dumped, the money spent might have otherwise been directed at newer releases sold with a better margin.

 

Habitually remaindering models at a loss on the cost of production in order to avoid the cost of carrying the excess damages the prospects for subsequent releases as it discourages both pre-ordering and prompt purchasing by dealers and (some) consumers who won't need much encouragement to expect more of the same.

 

The alternative is the practice carried on by certain prestige fashion brands which, when an item ceases to sell at full price, destroy the remainder to protect their market position. Better or worse?

 

John

Edited December 18, 2018 by miles73128

[leopardml2341]

I get an inkling that you may not be a "glass-half-full" kind guy...…

Not necessarily.

 

Once the announcements are made, someone will undoubtedly say it; just thought I'd get in first. Haven't got a clue what they'll be, nor any especial preferences, they'll be what they already are and I ain't gonna lose sleep either way.