All new RTR Class 91 and Mark 4 carriages

[woodenhead]

If there were no duplications of models then we would be thinking there is some sort of back room shenanigans occurring where companies slice up the models amongst themselves which would be bad for innovation and bad for the hobby.

 

I doubt Cavalex ever considered there would not at some point be a reaction to the model from Hornby, they have form in this scenario and it is playing out again with the 91. 

 

Clearly there will be people who will only buy a Hornby 91, but how many of these are not aware of Calalex and who also may have stuck with their current 91 model unless Hornby brought out a new model.

 

As indicated Hornby's modus operandi will be different to Calalex and will be a different model leading to options for purchasers and it will also be interesting if the matching coaches are not forthcoming which may benefit Cavalex in the long term.

 

If you look at the Hattons 66, whilst there is a of excitement about it's fidelity and features, how many other people are also looking to make hay from the secondhand market being flooded with absolutely fine Bachmann models, or will still buy new Bachmann examples because they are happy with that model.

 

 

[RBE]

4 hours ago, scumcat said:

 

“The allowance for the customer to put his money where his mouth is to bring models to market that the main manufacturers would never look at is a powerful tool and one that seems a perfect fit for our company”

 

just in case you didn’t read Cav’s quote I’ve quoted it again

 

you say  you have no affiliation to Cavalex but know them both personally. Your view is hardly independent then is it.

 

The quote you mention was more regarding our general mission statement and refers to models that aren't necessarily on the larger companies radar due to risk of the unknown or no desire to pursue for whatever reason. It also refers to the quality and detail levels that our method of operation can offer which may be a stretch for a large company to acheive with their inherent overheads and product range. The finer details of the 91 again is not something that we wish to discuss at this time.

 

As for your view on Jack, I feel it is a little presumptious. Jack knows us personally in the respect that he has attended our stands at a few shows, asked questions, discussed our projects in depth and viewed and handled our samples first hand.

 

He has also followed and discussed our modelling projects outside of Cavalex for a while too. Whilst he knows us personally in that respect, it is not in a manner other than that he has put in the time and effort to get to know how we operate and come to appreciate what we do both on our modelling and in our business as Cavalex.

 

Does that make his views biased or simply informed based on his experience?

[Jack374]

4 hours ago, scumcat said:

...just in case you didn’t read Cav’s quote I’ve quoted it again

 

23 minutes ago, RBE said:

The quote you mention was more regarding our general mission statement and refers to models that aren't necessarily on the larger companies radar due to risk of the unknown or no desire to pursue for whatever reason. It also refers to the quality and detail levels that our method of operation can offer which may be a stretch for a large company to acheive...

 

We can both appreciate each other's correct interpretations of a quote, when we are not blinded by our own opinions...

 

As Cav has said (and many thanks for clarifying), I am no more than an appreciative prospective customer of Cav and Alex's superb models. I knew neither of them personally before CavAlex was founded, but I was aware of their RMweb presences and respected their modelling before meeting them personally behind their own stand.

 

That is all, and I reitterate that I wish the guys every success and will continue to support them as manufacturers and modellers.

 

Jack.

[berwicksfinest]

Apart from the limited edition 91110

 

What was the last Class 91 Hornby produced  ??

[classy52]

17 minutes ago, berwicksfinest said:

Apart from the limited edition 91110

 

What was the last Class 91 Hornby produced  ??

 

R3501 Virgin East Coast Train Pack from their 2016 catalogue.

[stovepipe]

RRP of R3501 was £210 on release.

[classy52]

25 minutes ago, scumcat said:

 full fat virgin east coast livery. 

 

As opposed to what?...just curious to why you're using that terminology in regards to livery when it would be more relevant if used to describe the tooling of a model.

I would expect livery to be just that & not full fat, half fat or skinny unless Hornby were skimping out on colour or letters somewhere???

[RBE]

1 hour ago, scumcat said:

You didn’t specify that it was related to the mission statement. You simply said you make models that bigger manufacturers wouldn’t. Hornby have made a class 91 since the late 1980’s they implied in 2016 that they were looking into retooling it. You announce in March you will make it. Hornby announce during their annual announcement that they will produce a new version.

 

these are nothing but the facts of it however based on this many on this forum are reading more into than this. There are no bad guys in this.

 

jack was the one who stated that he knows you personally. I didn’t presume anything maybe he should have made this point clearer.

 

as I have said a few times I wish your project well and I hope your company succeeds this is not a personal issue for me

 

I said we would make models that the bigger companies wouldn't given the desire for the customers to back them. I didn't say we would exclusively release models that the bigger companies wouldn't.

 

As mentioned before regarding the class 91 we will make a statement regarding our position next week.

[truffy]

10 hours ago, Tugs said:

Railroad quality models at top-spec price points should not be a thing!

 

 Having been bitten by the 'designed clever' 2-BIL, I cannot agree more!

[GordonC]

3 hours ago, scumcat said:

You didn’t specify that it was related to the mission statement. You simply said you make models that bigger manufacturers wouldn’t. Hornby have made a class 91 since the late 1980’s they implied in 2016 that they were looking into retooling it. You announce in March you will make it. Hornby announce during their annual announcement that they will produce a new version.

 

these are nothing but the facts of it however based on this many on this forum are reading more into than this. There are no bad guys in this.

 

jack was the one who stated that he knows you personally. I didn’t presume anything maybe he should have made this point clearer.

 

as I have said a few times I wish your project well and I hope your company succeeds this is not a personal issue for me

 

Sorry, but you're really not comparing the 30 year old tooling from Hornby with what Cavalex have planned are you? Yes, Hornby have made a Class 91 since the late 80s, but lets be quite honest and even at the time when it was released it was on the poorer end of the model quality scale and the years since haven't done it any favours. Credit where its due, some models from before that time stood up much better - Airfix Mk2 coaches, Mainline Class 56, Lima Mk3 coaches, even the Hornby Class 110 was a decent model at its time so to be trying to fob off buyers now with the old tooling Class 91 for the thick end of £100 is poor so their old tooling I have no interest in whatsoever whether it is available or not so it might as well not exist and the Cavalex guys obviously thought the same.

 

If it had been a one off and this was the first time Hornby had duplicated then I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but there is a pattern of behaviour showing here where they dont take on Bachmann or other larger manufacturers (which are probably more capable of taking a large hit on the sales of one model out of a range) but are duplicating against smaller ones where one poorer selling model could have severe consequences. This isn't Hornby bashing, I want them to be successful, but not where it involves acting monopolistic and trampling all over smaller manufacturers.

[amwells]

On 09/01/2020 at 10:49, adb968008 said:

but to give balance, I can think of a few successful duplications of similar quality toolings...

 

60163 vs 60163

Hornby and Lima HST 

Pendolino (Dapol / Hornby)

Class 08 Lima /Hornby, Hornby & Bachmann

Jinty (Bachmann / Hornby)

A4 (Bachmann & Hornby) 

appreciate this is a bit OT on these specific models, but perhaps relevant for the 91 in terms of duplication success or otherwise. 
 

the models listed where they seem to have been commercially less successful were all duplicated at about the same time and people had a choice, and in some cases were rather niche. 
 

with the list above, there are some subtle differences: 
- the Pendolinos were available at different times, I bought the Dapol one because it was all that was available at the time, including extension coaches. It was not a good model and not a patch on the Hornby one. I got much of my money back on eBay on it at least. Had the two been available at the same time, only the Hornby version would have sold well. Dapol has the benefit of first mover, a willing corporate buyer for some exec toys and short runs

- original mould HST / Jinty / 08 / A4. None of these were better by Hornby but were all undoubted successes due again to first mover advantage and, I think, the brand name. Many of these were successful train set models. 
- Tornado, again Bachmann got first mover advantage but I suspect that Hornby have sold way more

 

theres a risk that the 91 sits in the former list simply because of being available at the same time. 

[chris p bacon]

2 hours ago, GordonC said:

so to be trying to fob off buyers now with the old tooling Class 91 for the thick end of £100 is poor so their old tooling I have no interest in whatsoever whether it is available or not

 

It's a re-tool not the old tooling.

 

2 hours ago, GordonC said:

This isn't Hornby bashing, 

 

Starting to look and sound like it.

 

2 hours ago, GordonC said:

I want them to be successful, but not where it involves acting monopolistic and trampling all over smaller manufacturers.

 

better let them know they should only manufacture and trade on your terms then. 

 

[MGR Hooper!]

5 hours ago, GordonC said:

 

If it had been a one off and this was the first time Hornby had duplicated then I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but there is a pattern of behaviour showing here where they dont take on Bachmann or other larger manufacturers (which are probably more capable of taking a large hit on the sales of one model out of a range) but are duplicating against smaller ones where one poorer selling model could have severe consequences. This isn't Hornby bashing, I want them to be successful, but not where it involves acting monopolistic and trampling all over smaller manufacturers.
 

I'm assuiming that you're talking about models like the Adams Radial (OR), Class 71 (DJM), Class 91 (Cavalex), Q6 (DJM), Terrier (RoS/Dapol) etc.

Let's focus on the Class 91 - If you were the MD or CEO of Hornby, you know that as a company you announce models when they're well into their R&D cycle, your company has spent thousands of pounds already on the model, you hinted at it way back in 2016 when ground work started, your development work started a few months maybe even a year later once the Class 87 was done, then another small and upcoming manufacturer decides to announce the same model. What would you do knowing that your company was recently in financial trouble, you're just getting out of it and you have a much larger customer base. Do you let your many months of R&D and thousands of pounds go to waste? Or do you announce something and then face the backlash of Hornby bashers (sorry but you already sound like one) go on accusing you of duplicating something that you didn't "actually" duplicate?

It's becoming a trend now on here to accuse Hornby of duplicating a model that's already been worked on by them for many many months or even years. Do you seriously think they're doing it on purpose? Do you think SK or LD just woke up in the middle of the night sometime last year and said "right, let's trample over Cavalex?"

[DaveClass47]

5 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

I'm assuiming that you're talking about models like the Adams Radial (OR), Class 71 (DJM), Class 91 (Cavalex), Q6 (DJM), Terrier (RoS/Dapol) etc.

Let's focus on the Class 91 - If you were the MD or CEO of Hornby, you know that as a company you announce models when they're well into their R&D cycle, your company has spent thousands of pounds already on the model, you hinted at it way back in 2016 when ground work started, your development work started a few months maybe even a year later once the Class 87 was done, then another small and upcoming manufacturer decides to announce the same model. What would you do knowing that your company was recently in financial trouble, you're just getting out of it and you have a much larger customer base. Do you let your many months of R&D and thousands of pounds go to waste? Or do you announce something and then face the backlash of Hornby bashers (sorry but you already sound like one) go on accusing you of duplicating something that you didn't "actually" duplicate?

It's becoming a trend now on here to accuse Hornby of duplicating a model that's already been worked on by them for many many months or even years. Do you seriously think they're doing it on purpose? Do you think SK or LD just woke up in the middle of the night sometime last year and said "right, let's trample over Cavalex?"

Some interesting points there and indeed in this whole thread. Different opinions and respectful debate are good for the hobby. 
 

I am also the author of the ‘who wants a new class 91’ thread on rmweb. So I’ve a passion for this project. I’ve banged the drum for years for someone to do a new 91/mk4 product. 

 

Back in 2016 Hornby said in a magazine interview that the class91 lost out to the class 87. They had ‘considered’ the 91, but decided that the 87 was a more viable option for them to develop. ‘Considered’ the 91.... that’s very different to starting developing a class 91. I spoke to a Hornby guy on their stand in 2017 at Model Rail Scotland were he said “the 91’s future is uncertain and with a limited fleet to model so we decided to go for the 87 instead”. I remember his words. He also highlighted the limited geographical route the 91’s were limited to as a reason for not doing the 91.  He then said the 91 was the “unloved cousin of the AC family”. Hardly words of a company who had ambitions to do a new one?

 

If they had done the R&D work at that time I would like to have thought that 4 years later they would have got further than a simple cad render and more recently a resin 3D printed shell.

 

Again, if they had started their 91 so long ago, why have they not got the mk4 rolling stock to go with the 91?

 

Im not disputing these apparent ‘facts’ that they did do some R&D on the 91 as far back as 2016. However I wonder if suddenly accelerating their design work, with visits to Bounds Green In the late summer was just sheer COINCIDENCE after Cavalex beat them to the announcement of a their laser scanning visit to Bounds Green??! One of the Hornby R&D/design team dropped an image on Twitter of him next to a LNER vehicle.

 

Now I am not Hornby bashing. Hornby produce great models, their HST, 50, 57 and especially the 60 are among the best models EVER produced in OO gauge.  I have a very good association with Hornby products, I have loads of them and I personally enjoy a good relationship with some at Hornby. If they want to do the 91, they are free to do so. Good luck to Hornby in their 100th year. I will never desert the Hornby brand in my modelling. 

 

Im sure Simon did not sit awake at night wondering if they could trample on Cavalex, but since ‘Terrier Gate’ we know how Hornby don’t like to have one of ‘their models’ taken by someone else. (They let Bachmann take the 90 though!)
 

However, the team at Cavalex are onto something special, I truly believe that. Both 91’s will happen. I am putting my £ behind Cavalex. I want the champagne version, not the Presecco one!   

 

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by DaveClass47

[DaveClass47]

7 minutes ago, scumcat said:

There is a lot of that going on at the moment.

 

I am glad you can afford the champagne one must be all that YouTube cash

It’s not the cost... both will be fairly well matched in terms of price. It’s the extra detail I go for. 
 

We have about a year to wait for these models to appear. Plenty of time to save up the extra few £’s (if required) for Champagne :-) 

[Guest MM1991]

I would wager that a large percentage of regular Hornby buyers have never heard of Cavalex, or any of the smaller, newer companies

 

Indeed there are even some posters on this forum who regularly post and froth on Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol threads, but never on this section or Accurascale, Realtrack or RevolutioN threads (for example).  I would wager that they haven't heard of the new entrants in the market.  People can be blinkered and think only the big companies can produce good models, whereas it is usually the opposite.

 

I've said before on this thread, Cavalex are in a different market from Hornby with regards the 91

[Ollie K]

A very enjoyable afternoon at the Stevenage exhibition today, one of the highlights being meeting Cav and Alex, having a good poke around the impressive printed 91 body shell and discussing this duplication business that might have been brought up already. Whether or not you take a side in this model train SCANDAL, think the gents deserve huge credit for their professionalism (and sense of humour) as this continues to play out. And up until now, the updates on the project and general hands-on approach from Cavalex has been mighty refreshing, IMHO.

 

I haven't even heard of Cavalex this time last year, whereas Hornby is the company responsible for getting me interested in model railways 20+ years ago, but I'm excited to honour my pre-order of Cavalex's GNER example, plus a few Mk4s and the DVTs in due course. It'll be an outstanding model. Pity it'll have to wait a while until it's got something better to run on than a 8x4 tail-chaser to do it justice!

Edited January 11, 2020 by OliverBytham
typo

[RBE]

Great to meet you today Oliver.

 

Was a good chat and always a pleasure being able to discuss our models with customers. 

[47164]

Having seen the model yesterday at Stevenage it looks stunning and that is pre any glazing or painting, the pantograph is especially of note, well done guys again, and I do feel their pain of probably having spent two full days discussing the same issue with everyone who stopped for a chat.

[Boleyn Road]

Saw the Cavalex guys at Stevenage today. I must say they were 100% professional and totally committed to making top quality models. The 91 looks superb and we need guys like these to push the level of detail and dcc functionality + sound higher. I'm hoping for a  91111 with biffo sound 

( Champagne model although with my depot layout a full train isn't possible !! ) Although I cant preorder yet, I will definitely order one when it's on their website. 

 I wish them all the very best of luck.

 

 

 

 

[Markwj]

I cannot recall Hornby ever saying they have looked at a model and discounted it until the class 91 so it would not be unreasonable for cavalex to think it would be safe to do. The whole Hornby 'it's our model thing' is ridiculous it seems they only think it applies to them in their favour.

Am looking forward to both 91 models but would suggest the 89 as an alternative if appropriate.

[delticfan]

I would swop guises to either Class 89 or HST prototype, both would have the wow factor and Hornby wouldn’t do these. Silly to try and take on Hornby as irritating as it may be with the 91.

[adb968008]

On 11/01/2020 at 03:41, MGR Hooper! said:

Do you think SK or LD just woke up in the middle of the night sometime last year and said "right, let's trample over Cavalex?"

Maybe not in such detail, but i’d be surprised if they didn't sit in the board room and discuss how to deal with the competitive threat of independent small start up commissions threatening their brand.

 

Theres many ways to do it, its not just about making something that wins, it can also be about making sure your competitor loses.

 

Weaknesses of new tooling is lots of cash, so duplicating a tool would hurt the start up more than it hurts Hornby as it will also weaken future demand (the hobby is only so big). Once the threat is gone their tooling is a sound investment for the future (who’s going to buy the 71 tooling and make dj 71’s in the future ?)

 

The one I don't get personally is Hornby tooling the APT... I don't see a competitive threat, or a long term future demand for it, i’m sure theres other models with a greater ROI, unless they know something about the real APT that we dont know.

Edited January 13, 2020 by adb968008

[MGR Hooper!]

39 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

The one I don't get personally is Hornby tooling the APT... I don't see a competitive threat, or a long term future demand for it, i’m sure theres other models with a greater ROI, unless they know something about the real APT that we dont know.
 

Centenary Year ---> Special Year ---> APT-P an iconic model that Hornby once made ---> There's demand for it ---> They are making it!

Edited January 13, 2020 by MGR Hooper!

[Grimleygrid]

We just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone that dropped by our stand over the weekend at the Stevenage show to have a chat and talk about our projects, thank you we really appreciate it.

 

Thanks for all the support.