All new RTR Class 91 and Mark 4 carriages

[Stuart A]

37 minutes ago, justin1985 said:

I went to go and place a pre-order for a Calvalex cl.91 set, to show support, but alas still no pre-order option for N / 2mm!

 

Presumably the CAD for the externals of the models is the only commonality between the OO and N projects, and if that is already done, there is no reason not to progress the N gauge model, even if the OO one has been gotcha'ed? You'd think, anyway ... 

 

 

Same here.  Even if it's a couple of years away.  Ideally it would be great to be able to set up a DD for £25 a month or whatever and start funding it.  That would be more attractive than a 50% deposit option for me, but there are probably reasons why it isn't like this.

[Jack374]

I spoke to Cav, Alex and Will at Warley and I don’t think there will be much competition in terms of detail and functionality between CavAlex's models and the new announcement. From speaking to them and seeing the sample 3D print on display, this model will provide yet another step change for modern RTR models, with more functionality and attention to detail than anything currently on the market. Cav certainly has some cracking visions for the models, which I’m sure we’ll see during future updates, yet we have already seen the level of finesse on forthcoming and current products such as the PGA and upcoming BBA.

 

I don’t think anyone realistically expected Hornby to take the class 91 announcement lying down, and as has been mentioned elsewhere today, their example has already been some time in the making. Having witnessed the outcome when they had the chance to produce a brand new class 87 however, I think the lads at CavAlex won’t fail to produce a masterpiece which will hold the top end of the class 91 market.

 

Keep at it guys.
Jack.

[Revolution Mike]

1 hour ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

Incorrect, when they announced the Class 87 2-3 years ago, they clearly said they were looking at doing the Class 91 as well.  They also said that they chose the Class 87 first as it was only a single unit to tool up for and that was favourable for their financial situation back then. The Class 91 has been on the cards for a long time. 

 

How is Hornby at fault for duplication? Clearly the Hornby Class 91 is at a more advanced stage, they've been working on it longer (see Paul Isles' post). Nothing is being done intentionally. Hornby have passed a point where their investments into new models has been high. If they turn back it's their loss. AFAIK Cavalex do their CAD work in-house and that means they've spent much less than Hornby so far in terms of R&D. Once again the same scenario applies to the Class 71, A1/A1X Terrier, Adams Radial and so on.

There is a lot of guesswork and taking things at face value in that ;-)

 

Paul's post said that he'd looked back at research files which showed that Hornby had been looking at the 91 since May 2016 - many of us will have research that dates back several years before an announcement is made but that doesn't mean a commitment has been made. There are models that we haven't announced yet - do I just say we're looking at doing a long list of things and does that cover me from all cries of duplication?

 

We don't know when Hornby made the decision to press ahead with a retooled 91. Nor do we know what stage of development Hornby are currently at ie have they started cutting metal? Just because Cavalex do their own CAD doesn't make it any less of a "cost" to them - for a small company the lost opportunity cost is massive and in many ways can be as important as cash.  For example if you're doing research or CAD in your spare time the limiting factor to the company's ability to produce new models is often your time.  Hornby should have much greater ability to absorb some costs. 

 

Having said which let's not be naïve, why would Hornby have spent XX £1,000s retooling a 91 if they had no prospect of competition?

 

Cheers Mike

[TomE]

1 hour ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Incorrect, when they announced the Class 87 2-3 years ago, they clearly said they were looking at doing the Class 91 as well.  They also said that they chose the Class 87 first as it was only a single unit to tool up for and that was favourable for their financial situation back then. The Class 91 has been on the cards for a long time. Hornby never announces anything prematurely, they always announce something when it's well along it's development cycle. So you can't say they've shown interest when others come along. The same applied to the A1/A1X Terrier and the Class 71. These were all much more advanced than their competitors.

 

With Hornby ignoring N Gauge I don't tend to pay much attention to what they are doing, so I hadn't seen that comment about the 91. However, we saw a 3D print of the Cavalex 91 at Warley and we're only seeing a 3D print of the Hornby one now, suggesting the projects are roughly at the same stage. I would put money on Hornby only seriously revisiting the 91 on the back of the Cavalex announcement, otherwise I think it would be much further along if they'd really been looking at it 2-3 years ago. I'm also skeptical about that release date. How many months late was the 87? 

 

Of course Hornby can produce whatever they like, it's a free market, but there is no doubt that in their attempt to turn things around they are being particularly aggressive in response to other companies producing models they think of as 'theirs'. In this case it could have adverse consequences for a scale they barely even acknowledge in the UK market, depending of course on how Cavalex decide to proceed.

 

Tom.  

[bart2day]

Isn’t it just lovely that we have two manufacturers here fighting over making one train when there are so many locos/units out there which have never even made it to model form.

[classy52]

26 minutes ago, bart2day said:

Isn’t it just lovely that we have two manufacturers here fighting over making one train when there are so many locos/units out there which have never even made it to model form.

 

Absolutely which is why I stand by my earlier comments in regards to Hornby unnecessarily duplicating the Class 91 way past the Cavalex announcement and 'red death' summed it up perfectly IMO.

I'll be supporting Cavalex & others can go the Hornby route, it is a free market after all.

[Bucoops]

My expression of interest remains with Cavalex.

 

But I will also try and work out how to afford an APT!

[oleander]

Looking at the photo on the Hornby website . I would seam they have up dated it. Given they are both about the same price. I think it will be a case of who comes to market first will take the big share of the market.
My self I think the Cavalex model is better. More features and better value given on the info avaible at the moment .
I for One are sticking with Cavalex.
Do we know if the Cavalex have enough orders yet to make this project a go.
John

[Guest MM1991]

3 hours ago, classy52 said:

 

Absolutely which is why I stand by my earlier comments in regards to Hornby unnecessarily duplicating the Class 91 way past the Cavalex announcement and 'red death' summed it up perfectly IMO.

I'll be supporting Cavalex & others can go the Hornby route, it is a free market after all.

There is a duplication here, and no one can blame Hornby for retooling the 91 to current standards, but I think Cavalex and Hornby serve rather different markets.

 

I don't think Hornbys' announcement will affect Cavalex too much, Hornby are mass-market, a household name, known worldwide, catering from 3 to 103 year olds.  Cavalex' market is (I imagine) more targeted - ie those of us who seek out a finely rendered, highly detailed product, designed to replicate prototypical detail differences and lighting, with space for a decoder and speakers for those who run sound.

 

There is no doubt Hornby will provide a detailed, well finished loco, however my money is on Cavalex producing a much finer 91.

 

I don't have a 91 on order from neither Cavalex or Hornby as it doesnt fit into my preferred modelling area.  If I wanted one, Cavalex would be my go to supplier.

[adb968008]

I’m going to against the grain here, but I think its better to be honest about it.

 

Models are made in China, the quality today is exceptional. CAD drawings are expert. Hornby’s class 87 is fantastic, Bachmanns 90 is just as good.

I have no reason to doubt Cavalex can make a great 91.

However todate its not off far off the ground, I have no money is down.

Ive no reason to doubt Hornby cannot make an equally good class 91.

 

But Hornbys has a price tag, which with discount is £20+ less, and an estimate date (which could be +/-), theyve commited, and to be fair.. they have a proven track record on locomotives.

Weve seen what happens when you go head to head with Hornby.. class 71. The Dj class 92 was also a drama that died when Accurascale presented theres.. not to mention the Dj APT.

This is the perils of duplication, which as a collector is frustrating... an 89 would have been so much safer, but thats not my decision.

 

I’m sorry to say but my money will be on Hornbys model... I have a couple of expressions in for the 91, and whilst Hornby hasnt announced those liveries,they surely will. Its better to say it now, than pretend I’ll stay faithful then not put up cash later, its a less risky course for a model which I think will have very little difference to pick from, and if were being honest I bet i’m not the only one thinking the same.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by adb968008

[sanspareil]

Apparently Hornby have been asked today about the prospects on doing updated MK4's. They wont commit ether way which is a little strange as given they are doing the loco there is nothing of commercial sensitivity to lose, only to gain in cornering more of the market. I know a jorno in the Hobby has speculated that possibly Hornby are being cautious here, wanting to test the water and see how this all pans out (as in sales of their offering and if Cavalex pull theirs say which for sure would be green lights for Hornby). Not sure if Hornby will want to commit now to all new MK4's in case their 91 sales are low. But on the flip side many will now stick with Cavalex and hold off on the Hornby offering if theres no commitment now on future MK4's if you follow!

 

So to summarise I am not now sure its set in stone that Hornby will do MK4's! 

[mdvle]

5 hours ago, AlexHolt said:

 

Because they know what will sell and what the market is currently buying. At the end of the day these manufacturers are in it to make money, they won't make some obscure class that only a handful of people will buy because it won't make any money. 

 

If only it were that simple.

 

Hornby is on record as stating that they consider certain prototypes to be "Hornby Property", and reading between the lines they will defend those items regardless of the financial consequences.  And while Bachmann haven't said anything publicly, again it is pretty clear that like Hornby they do not like the new competition one bit and do what they can to try and discourage such competition.

 

Yes, Hornby have financial issues at the moment - but they are still likely far healthier in turns of being able to withstand lower than expected revenue from 1 model than Cavelex or some of the other new entrants.

 

Hornby, being the 800lb gorilla in the model train market, will likely take significant sales of the Class 91from Cavelex which could (from a Cavelex perspective) put the project in jeopardy from a financial perspective.  The 91/Mk4s simply aren't a widespread and thus popular prototype and their limited use elsewhere after LNER may not be sufficient to change that demand.

[mdvle]

9 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

The same applied to the A1/A1X Terrier and the Class 71. These were all much more advanced than their competitors.

 

Don't know about the Class 71 and who was first, but in part objective achieved (though admittedly with a lot of help from DJM).  But regardless of who was first, the side effect of the duplication of a niche prototype is that the market likely lost the Class 74.

 

As for the Terrier, the last minute addition to last year's announcement, the indications from the model that it was rushed through the production process, and the comments made after the announcement by Hornby all tend to indicate that it was not initially more advanced than the competition (though we the public will likely never know).

[MGR Hooper!]

6 hours ago, adb968008 said:

I’m going to against the grain here, but I think its better to be honest about it.

 

Models are made in China, the quality today is exceptional. CAD drawings are expert. Hornby’s class 87 is fantastic, Bachmanns 90 is just as good.

I have no reason to doubt Cavalex can make a great 91.

However todate its not off far off the ground, I have no money is down.

Ive no reason to doubt Hornby cannot make an equally good class 91.

 

But Hornbys has a price tag, which with discount is £20+ less, and an estimate date (which could be +/-), theyve commited, and to be fair.. they have a proven track record on locomotives.

Weve seen what happens when you go head to head with Hornby.. class 71. The Dj class 92 was also a drama that died when Accurascale presented theres.. not to mention the Dj APT.

This is the perils of duplication, which as a collector is frustrating... an 89 would have been so much safer, but thats not my decision.

 

I’m sorry to say but my money will be on Hornbys model... I have a couple of expressions in for the 91, and whilst Hornby hasnt announced those liveries,they surely will. Its better to say it now, than pretend I’ll stay faithful then not put up cash later, its a less risky course for a model which I think will have very little difference to pick from, and if were being honest I bet i’m not the only one thinking the same.

 

 

 

 

 

Agree with you!

I've got Class 91s from both companies on order.

[Hilux5972]

For gods sake can we stop the bashing. Hornby said years ago when they were considering the 87 that the 91 would follow. Read back in the thread! 

[GordonC]

7 hours ago, Hilux5972 said:

For gods sake can we stop the bashing. Hornby said years ago when they were considering the 87 that the 91 would follow. Read back in the thread! 

 

Rubbish!!! Where does it say that??? What they said was that they 'looked at' the 91 and Mk4s against the 87 but that the 87 was chosen to proceed with

[GordonC]

2 minutes ago, scumcat said:

And were does it say that. Can you quote this

 

It was in magazine interviews when the Class 87 came out, they were weighing up which to proceed with between the 87 and the 91/Mk4/DVTs and they chose to go for the 87 because it was a single-unit where the 91 would really have needed the Mk4s and DVT to be tooled up so would have required more investment and effort.

 

There was absolutely no commitment that they were expecting to continue with the 91 at a later date, just that it was considered and rejected at the time. Perhaps if the 91 had been considered separately then the result might have been different and that may have happened now, but the 91 is quite limited what stock a high-spec loco would normally run with and it'd look pretty odd with the existing basic Hornby Mk4s and DVT so I guess they must have been looking at it as a package with the Mk4s

[GordonC]

2 minutes ago, scumcat said:

 

The guy from Hornby in direct reply to you yesterday stated that he started this project in May 2016, but it is up to you if you want to believe him.

 

yes he did, and I'm quite sure 'something' would have been done in May 2016 as he said, but doubt very much that they will have been working continuously on it from that date.

 

More likely that they did some work or gathered some info and put the file back on the shelf for another 6 months or year before digging it out for the following meeting to discuss prototypes to produce

[truffy]

9 minutes ago, GordonC said:

 

yes he did, and I'm quite sure 'something' would have been done in May 2016 as he said, but doubt very much that they will have been working continuously on it from that date.

 

More likely that they did some work or gathered some info and put the file back on the shelf for another 6 months or year before digging it out for the following meeting to discuss prototypes to produce

But how long does it take to go from research measurements/scanning to market? Two years? Three years?

 

If Hornby's 12-2020 deadline is correct, then they've been at it since at least late 2018, which is well before the announcement at the start of this thread..

[Revolution Mike]

17 minutes ago, scumcat said:

 

The guy from Hornby in direct reply to you yesterday stated that he started this project in May 2016, but it is up to you if you want to believe him.

 

No he said that they had looked at it and May 2016 was when he'd visited the National Archives - if every model company declared every model that they "looked at" then there would be nothing left to produce as everything would have been produced several times over.  "Looking at" a model is not the same as committing to it or producing it...

[GordonC]

10 minutes ago, red death said:

 

No he said that they had looked at it and May 2016 was when he'd visited the National Archives - if every model company declared every model that they "looked at" then there would be nothing left to produce as everything would have been produced several times over.  "Looking at" a model is not the same as committing to it or producing it...

 

There will always be a certain amount of groundwork done before any decision on whether to produce or not is made - no manufacturer is going to get a bolt out the blue and just decide they're going to make say a 'Fell' without some kind of investigation as to whether it would be likely to sell enough to make a profit. That groundwork may be done years before any definite decision is taken to go ahead and make one. Equally a large number of prototypes may have a small amount of investigation done on them with minimal effort spent to avoid wasting time on something that isn't going to make it to market.

 

Looking at a pretty girl walking down the street is not the same as a marriage proposal ... pretty girls cannot be reserved by just a look ...

Edited January 7, 2020 by GordonC

[Andy Mac]

Bottom line as I see it, if Hornby intimate they are doing new mk4 coaches and DVT, then a large number will defect over to Hornby...  can’t see the market being big enough for two manufacturers...  I’m pretty sure that the quality/detail of the new Hornby model will suit 95% of future customers....

[atom3624]

I thought there's a Hornby video somewhere whereby they categorically confirm there's NO Mk.4 mooted for 2020 release? ...

 

It's one of the 'enthusiasts' like Sam and Jenny - but it's not them - interviewing a Hornby employee.

 

Al.

[atom3624]

Basically means Cavalex get their act together, and get the 91 and Mk.4's out, and they should still be in a happy place.

 

If they delay the coaches, as you intimate, Hornby probably won't be that far behind ... but that's only speculation.

 

Al.

[oleander]

The Hornby loco is due out about December ish 2020. By then the 2021 range will be anounced.  If Hornby put in MK4 and DVT in matching liverys they will sell a lot of 91. If they dont Customers might hold off. Time will tell.
With Cavalex they closed there initinal order book. They have Cads and 3D model . We all have to wait and see what they say and If the project gos ahead when the model would be avaible. I for one am wait for a Statment from Cavalex. I sure it will come in time.
I really hope Cavalex win this one. As I very doubth there will be room for 2 Class 91.
John