Jump to content
 

Hornby - New tooling - Large Prairie


Andy Y
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Manufacturing the models we love presumably requires a lot of electricity. How is it generated? By burning coal or by more sustainable means?

 

 

Is that a Troll question?

 

The only logical and ultimate conclusion to the "sustainable means" is that we all carve our own models from wood we grew in our own gardens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tarifa said:

Unless one has paid up front and given a delivery date for said goods, why would you expect a blow by blow account of the manufacturing process or even a delivery date from Hornby or anyone else.

 

It's more of the "Rivet Police" miltant tendency. The manufacturer must be criticised at every available opportunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Is that a Troll question?

No. Just pointing out that the environmental impact is more than transport costs.

 

2 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

The only logical and ultimate conclusion to the "sustainable means" is that we all carve our own models from wood we grew in our own gardens.

 

 

No, it's just something we have to factor in when considering the true costs of producing models.

 

Making models from trees: Possibly, but we have better technology than the whittling knife. We might be able to produce a plastic like material from tree cellulose at home and use it in a high-resolution 3D printer.

 

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, melmerby said:

On what evidence do you base that statement?

No doubt on what actually happened?   The Crosti 9F is a good example as we have a past comment from a former Hornby employee that because of the reduced standard of detail because 'design clever' had been used to produce it that meant it could not be offered as main range and had to be designated Railroad.  So it would appear to have been intended as main range but somebody in Hornby decided it would not be at all clever to market it that way.

 

Similarly the GWR 8 coupled tanks incorporated various design clever features - some of which were abandoned subsequently when the chassis was partially upgraded because of market reaction.  Don't forget how light these were. So pretty clear from this example alone that design clever was not going down well and somthing similar happened with the EMUs as well.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Making models from trees: Possibly, but we have better technology than the whittling knife. We might be able to produce a plastic like material from tree cellulose at home and use it in a high-resolution 3D printer.

 

I like that idea! 

 

Just yesterday I was watching a video on how to make plastic components in a Home Lab, using (believe it or not) milk, tea and spent laser toner.

The same person (Robert Murray-Smith) shows how to make batteries at home using hemp, cooked to produce activated carbon or graphite.

Here's a link to his YouTube Channel with loads of his videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4AkVj-qnJxNtKuz3rkq16A

The supercapacitors look even better than batteries for some applications.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
51 minutes ago, tarifa said:

Unless one has paid up front and given a delivery date for said goods, why would you expect a blow by blow account of the manufacturing process or even a delivery date from Hornby or anyone else.

I don't need a blow-by-blow account but equally I respect reasonably accurate information - after all even a non-manufacturing 'manufacturer' such as Hornby must have a handle on what its contracted factories are producing for it and when when they will be producing and shipping the goods because if nothing else they need to know where and when their investment money will be spent.  If they can't get production and distribution planning right or within a pretty clearly known tolerance how on earth are they going to beb able to plan the extremely important (to them) money numbers?   And of course they have had that problem for while and they call it 'supply chain difficulties'.

 

But even with 'supply chain difficulties' surely they ought to be able to make some reasonably accurate assessments of when product will arrive and, perhaps more importantly, set priorities in relation to which products will arrive when.  A succession of moving dates for a product well advanced in development (and in fact up to livery sample standard in this case) would imply to me either a lack of control, or a missed production slot and no real idea of when a new one will be secured, or the use of available slots for other products (for whatever reason).

 

Yes we all know, and I think can reasonably understand and accept that dates slip but let's not overlook the fact that us, and more critically retailers, are also working to financial plans (aka a budget) which can be thrown awry by all sorts of things.  Moreover once dates start to slip there is obviously a reason for it so why not say so?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The word on the street is that there is a worldwide shortage of NEM coupling arms. The coupling themselves are OK; but the little hole at the bottom of the arm is causing the problem. The hole is caused by the use of a press, to accurately punch through the hole. Once making the hole, who pays for it?  What is the price of the hole?

 

These sorts of problems do indeed stop world trade. Right now, the problem is being caused by the hole, and Hornby are looking into it......

 

Anon.

  • Like 2
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
56 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

No doubt on what actually happened?   The Crosti 9F is a good example as we have a past comment from a former Hornby employee that because of the reduced standard of detail because 'design clever' had been used to produce it that meant it could not be offered as main range and had to be designated Railroad.  So it would appear to have been intended as main range but somebody in Hornby decided it would not be at all clever to market it that way.

 

Similarly the GWR 8 coupled tanks incorporated various design clever features - some of which were abandoned subsequently when the chassis was partially upgraded because of market reaction.  Don't forget how light these were. So pretty clear from this example alone that design clever was not going down well and somthing similar happened with the EMUs as well.

Precisely

Design Clever was to be part of the main range but with a cheaper spec to save costs.

It went down like a lead balloon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Precisely

Design Clever was to be part of the main range but with a cheaper spec to save costs.

It went down like a lead balloon.


And yet the Crosti is an excellent model.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Is that a Troll question?

 

The only logical and ultimate conclusion to the "sustainable means" is that we all carve our own models from wood we grew in our own gardens.

Only if you don't burn the leftovers.:diablo_mini:

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

I concur. I've spent many lunchtimes nipping into the Hornby Hobbies outlet in the Great Western Village in Swindon, to see what might be new or on special offer. It confused me at first that the display cases of locos and DMUs are so far apart, it made it difficult to keep one model in mind while you looked at alternative models in another case. It took me a while to realise that the case nearest the front door, with the cheapest/discounted models was mostly the Railroad range. The Super Detailed models (with the higher prices) are at the back of the shop near the sales counter.

 

So, maybe, the "design clever" phase coincided with the introduction of the Railroad range, trying to offer a simpler and cheaper model to lure younger/newer people into the market? Along with the "toy" products like the Thomas The Tank Engine range, and now the Hogwarts range?

 

If I was in Hornby's Marketing Department, I'm pretty sure that's where my primary efforts would be, for sales volumes. The Super Detailed models might be the top-of-the-range elite models, but do they sell as many?

If the premium models make (for instance) five times the profit per model, and they sell only a quarter of the numbers of the cheaper ones, they are still the bigger earner.

 

Volume alone is meaningless. Otherwise Bentley would be trying to out-produce Vauxhall. 

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

If the premium models make (for instance) five times the profit per model, and they sell only a quarter of the numbers of the cheaper ones, they are still the bigger earner.

 

Volume alone is meaningless. Otherwise Bentley would be trying to out-produce Vauxhall. 

 

John

 

That's a very big "if", and it might be a good guess. But how would any of us know anything for sure, unless we are Hornby management or shareholders, or have access to some "insider trading" figures?

 

Also, respecfully, the analogy is rather flawed isn't it? Because both Bentley and Vauxhall are parts of multi-national organisations. Typically, there will be so much paid to the parent organisations (for design licensing, bought-in components, royalties, "intellectual property", etc) that both UK companies will appear to make very little profit. That's what they pay  accountants for, to minimising their UK Corporation Tax liability. Their accountants would be incompetent if they did otherwise - see the Standard Operating Procedures for any large multi-national organisation like Amazon, Microsoft etc

 

Oh, by the way, according to the SMMT published car sales data for 2019, Vauxhall had a 6.92% market share, and Bentley had 0.07%, nearly a ratio of 100:1 

 

I'd love to be driving a Bentley but I can't afford the price, and my Managing Director would not approve either (unless it was a present for her) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, melmerby said:

On what evidence do you base that statement?

 

Whatever year it was, "design clever" was front and centre as being the future of Hornby.  This involved models that were designed down to a price (the GWR tanks, which were later partially fixed on the internal side at least) and if I recall correctly at least one model that one set of tooling was going to do railroad and normal range.

 

By making a big deal out of "design clever" the implication was certainly this was how Hornby was going to be designing models going forward.

 

The following year "design clever" was dead and buried, and model design was back to the normal method.

 

That was clear evidence that "design clever" had failed and thus been abandoned by Hornby.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

That's a very big "if", and it might be a good guess. But how would any of us know anything for sure, unless we are Hornby management or shareholders, or have access to some "insider trading" figures?

 

Also, respecfully, the analogy is rather flawed isn't it? Because both Bentley and Vauxhall are parts of multi-national organisations. Typically, there will be so much paid to the parent organisations (for design licensing, bought-in components, royalties, "intellectual property", etc) that both UK companies will appear to make very little profit. That's what they pay  accountants for, to minimising their UK Corporation Tax liability. Their accountants would be incompetent if they did otherwise - see the Standard Operating Procedures for any large multi-national organisation like Amazon, Microsoft etc

 

Oh, by the way, according to the SMMT published car sales data for 2019, Vauxhall had a 6.92% market share, and Bentley had 0.07%, nearly a ratio of 100:1 

 

I'd love to be driving a Bentley but I can't afford the price, and my Managing Director would not approve either (unless it was a present for her) ;)

So, by the logic of your Railroad assertion, Vauxhall should be making 100 times more profit?

 

Maybe a better analogy would have been Toyota vs Lexus.

 

But, however you crunch the numbers, the only one that matters is the bottom line after removing the effects of any (legal) tax fiddles. Only those on the inside and close to the top of the tree get to see the whole truth. 

 

My point was, and still, is that increasing market share (in either segment to the exclusion of the other) won't necessarily improve the bottom line that Hornby depend on for survival and we depend on for a continuing flow of new models.

 

Neither you or I know which of Hornby's product ranges is the more profitable. Your guess is as good as mine, but mine is as good as yours. Logic dictates that both must contribute or they'd be getting the hell out of the one that didn't. That said, logic also dictates that, an entry-level range that made little profit, but fed enough customers toward a higher end with better margins would be tolerated. A relatively unprofitable but aspirational "prestige" range that had the effect of attracting enough trade to a profitable lower end would also be justifiable. One that contributed only to the company's image (or self-image), rather less so.   

 

John

 

:offtopic: Acknowledged.

 

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Manufacturing the models we love presumably requires a lot of electricity. How is it generated? By burning coal or by more sustainable means?

 

Interesting question, and I think there is 2 parts to this question.

 

First, how much energy is required to make our models.  Would be interesting to know, I would guess the injection molding would be the energy intensive part but how much exactly have no idea.  The assembly is done in a climate where there is no climate control - the handful of "cold" days the staff just wear jackets/sweaters as there is no heat given how few days it is cold.  So unless the injection part (and the making of the molds in the first place) is really bad then it likely isn't too bad - a relative phrase admittedly.

 

The second, how generated.  China is still growing economically, and still relies a lot on coal, so likely not great.  On the other hand, even "green" countries like Germany still burn a lot of coal, and other countries are using a lot of natural gas which while better than coal still isn't great.  Most of our "green" technologies aren't as green as we like to think - solar requires mining of raw materials and the energy to make the panels, batteries has similar issues, hydro electric comes into it depends (if it is at a waterfall, then it can be "free", but if you are damming a river then you have to factor in the environmental cost of all that concrete and the frequent ecosystem damage of blocking fish runs).

 

Then, consider few of our leisure activities are green as such.  The Internet consumes vast amounts of energy for example.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

That's a very big "if", and it might be a good guess. But how would any of us know anything for sure, unless we are Hornby management or shareholders, or have access to some "insider trading" figures?

 

If the railroad range was where the money in the market was, then Bachmann, Accurascale, Dapol, etc. would all being churning out models to that part of the market.

 

The fact that Hornby is almost the only one chasing that market, most often using older tooling (or new tooling if they are placing their model in competition with an existing item like the competing Mk1s) tells us all we need to know.

 

It's an important part of the market, but it isn't where most of the money is.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Picking up our comments earlier today about Chinese New Year. I found this of interest on the Rails of Sheffield site about their Terrier tanks. It shows the CNY situation very well:

 

.......coincides with the shut down ready for Chinese New Year (25th January until 8th February). Production will not likely recommence in full until the third week of February and we regret we are unlikely to see these particular versions until April 2020 (possibly late March)......

 

Therefore if the Prairie tank locos are not on board the ship by next week, the production run won’t start until the end of Feb at the earliest. On the basis it’s a 6 week journey from China, maybe we won’t see the Prairie locos until April or May 2020. I would also suggest that @The Stationmaster Mike is spot on that someone messed up the production schedule for these locos.

 

If that’s the case, I wonder why....

 

The Rails article is here: https://railsofsheffield.com/news/articles/3272-terrier-update

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2020/jan/07/cargo-ship-train-rail-to-vancouver-canada-low-carbon-travel-europe

 

Needless to say shipping by boat isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

Clearly the carbon footprint of surface travel is so radically different to flying as to be beyond rational comparison.  But it's not as simple as that; I suspect that the article writer's comparison was made on the basis of the emissions of the ship, train, and aircraft involved.  The surface journey took not far short of 3 weeks during which the carbon cost of the food provided and that of the people who sailed the ship, crewed the train, and sourced and prepared the food must be taken into account as well.  When you've done that, and added to the carbon bill of the surface journey, you must now subtract it from the aircraft journey's carbon bill, less the carbon cost of supplying and preparing the food on the aircraft and services at the airports.

 

I have no idea what these figures are, but reckon they probably level the playing field a bit, and certainly illustrate the complexity of making meaningful comparisons of carbon footprints.  The article is a fascinating insight into the culture and fun of surface travel, but not particularly informative about carbon footprints, and I will not be basing any of my planet saving decisions on it...

 

Actually, come to think of it, I'm 67, been trying all my life to do the right thing by the planet, and continually watched corporate greed, government policy, and following generations worsen the situation while I am mocked for my lifestyle.  Sod the planet, let the kids sort it out, it's not my problem any more...

 

(the last paragraph may or may not have been a miserable old git rant, or possibly tongue in cheek)

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...