Jump to content
Grimleygrid

All new RTR Class 91 and Mark 4 carriages

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

The first few 91s ran with test trains & were then put into service before the Mk4s were ready, working with converted HST sets with an HST DVT at the other end.

The vehicles to make the HST formation are all in Hornby's 2020 range.

Oh yes of course, I know. The point I was making from my own perspective was about what they have worked with the bulk of their lives and has been 'standard' as such.

 

We'll get there in the end no doubt... one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

The first few 91s ran with test trains & were then put into service before the Mk4s were ready, working with converted HST sets with an HST DVT at the other end.

The vehicles to make the HST formation are all in Hornby's 2020 range.

 

were the DVT HST power cars not in Intercity Executive livery when used with 91s? The Hornby 2020 ones are Swallow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, GordonC said:

 

were the DVT HST power cars not in Intercity Executive livery when used with 91s? The Hornby 2020 ones are Swallow

I am pretty sure some were in Swallow. It is hard to tell from photos because few will show the whole train. Swallow livery was introduced on the 90s & many HSTs got repainted quite quickly.

I think 6 were converted (13/14/65/67/68/123)

The livery Hornby is producing them in is not quite correct for this period because they had full yellow ends back then. I found this rather appealing in an unattractive sort of way.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Not familiar with the law, but in many places there are sections of the law that deal with a dominant player attempting to prevent competition by essentially putting a new entrant or weaker competitor out of business. 

 

The easiest examples would be in the computer/tech field, both the 1998 Microsoft anti-trust case, decades prior to that IBM, and more currently the rumblings from the EU regarding Google/Apple and the app stores.

 

The problem is a combination of many governments being no longer interested in taking on such cases, which is in part because it is so difficult to actually prove such cases. 

 

I think that in this case, it might not be too difficult to prove. But "they" may think that model railways is not a sufficiently important market to merit investigation.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

The first few 91s ran with test trains & were then put into service before the Mk4s were ready, working with converted HST sets with an HST DVT at the other end.

The vehicles to make the HST formation are all in Hornby's 2020 range.

 

I never travelled on one of these hybrid trains. But I remember an article in Modern Railways where Roger Ford was very impressed with the acceleration off Kings Cross. I think these "tests" lasted about a year, so not a bad idea. It is of course the reason why some HSTs including the Measurement Train have buffers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Not familiar with the law, but in many places there are sections of the law that deal with a dominant player attempting to prevent competition by essentially putting a new entrant or weaker competitor out of business. 

 

But Hornby isn’t a dominant player able to control the market. Hornby has a strong brand and that’s completely different. The law only gets interested when they use their position to limit the others sales by interference with retailers or direct attacks on the other party without good evidence. Hornby have purely put out a competing product and it would be seen as a sensible move by any company looking to protect its market from new entrants. 
Hornby have done nothing wrong, the timing may not be very nice but that’s business. Alex & Cav could have taken the Rails approach and competed but they felt the risk was too great for their situation and after the DJM debacle I think they are to be admired for taking the safer choice especially as they are the ones who have actually lost out financially already. 
Remember that in the future if someone questions their morals. 
 

Edited by PaulRhB
  • Like 2
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

But Hornby isn’t a dominant player able to control the market.

 

One one side we have a stock market listed company able to withstand losing somewhere around £35 million in the last 5 or so years, with available credit in the millions of pounds.

 

On the other side we have a small 2 person company using deposits to finance each new model.

 

I wonder what exactly you would call a dominant player.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

One one side we have a stock market listed company able to withstand losing somewhere around £35 million in the last 5 or so years, with available credit in the millions of pounds.

 

On the other side we have a small 2 person company using deposits to finance each new model.

 

I wonder what exactly you would call a dominant player.

 

 

In this case size is only relevant to the financial muscle behind going with two competing products. Hornby have done nothing to inhibit Cavalex apart from a competing product. They did it with the 71, Radial, Lord Nelson, Terrier and 66 where others had a competing product. They have a dominant brand because of years of work but that’s it, they do not control the market. 
Apart from hard nosed business, which we saw with Bachmann vs Heljan and the Blue Pullman, they haven’t done anything wrong at all. 
Emotion means people are upset for Cavalex, myself included as I’ve operated a layout alongside Alex and know him to be a really nice guy, but these suggestions of wrongdoing are not legal issues at all purely competition. We live in a capitalist system, there is no protection, if Hornby roll over and let everyone take their previous models then they won’t exist for long. Cavalex is much smaller and able to react faster as it doesn’t have shareholders to answer to but equally it doesn’t have the backup to play games without risking others money too. Alex and Cav have been very brave in that because they don’t want to risk all the other projects. This is undoubtedly a setback for them but doesn’t put the business or reputation at risk with all the other projects. A few years down the line with several projects and more reputation Cavalex may well be in a position to go head to head. Bachmann came from a similar position to sit equal in modellers eyes but still isn’t known outside of model railways as a brand. 
Hornby has that brand and to be honest it’s all that got them through design clever etc but they also have a lot more jobs at risk if they let themselves get swamped. 
Hornby have little option but to compete and they’ve kept that iconic brand intact because it can make a difference when the chips are down. 

Edited by PaulRhB
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

In this case size is only relevant to the financial muscle behind going with two competing products. Hornby have done nothing to inhibit Cavalex apart from a competing product. They did it with the 71, Radial, Lord Nelson, Terrier and 66 where others had a competing product. They have a dominant brand because of years of work but that’s it, they do not control the market. 
Apart from hard nosed business, which we saw with Bachmann vs Heljan and the Blue Pullman, they haven’t done anything wrong at all. 
Emotion means people are upset for Cavalex, myself included as I’ve operated a layout alongside Alex and know him to be a really nice guy, but these suggestions of wrongdoing are not legal issues at all purely competition. We live in a capitalist system, there is no protection, if Hornby roll over and let everyone take their previous models then they won’t exist for long. Cavalex is much smaller and able to react faster as it doesn’t have shareholders to answer to but equally it doesn’t have the backup to play games without risking others money too. Alex and Cav have been very brave in that because they don’t want to risk all the other projects. This is undoubtedly a setback for them but doesn’t put the business or reputation at risk with all the other projects. A few years down the line with several projects and more reputation Cavalex may well be in a position to go head to head. Bachmann came from a similar position to sit equal in modellers eyes but still isn’t known outside of model railways as a brand. 
Hornby has that brand and to be honest it’s all they got them through design clever etc but they also have a lot more jobs at risk if they let themselves get swamped. 
Hornby have little option but to compete. 

 

I wouldn't say controlling the market but let's just look at the 91.

 

Probably not a big enough market for two players of similar price/quality. 

Hornby could probably afford to do this at a loss alongside Cavalex's model just to try and run them down.

The fact is, reputations aside, is that Hornby are probably in a position where they could put their cards down on this and see what Cavalex would do, and even if they lost would still be ok. Cavalex folded as (I think) as they couldn't afford to lose.

 

Basically using their size and ability to absorb loss as a way of removing competition. Normal business practices really it's just it's a bit more personal when people are keen for a newcomer (who has presence on here) to do well and the Hornby model stinks of "me too, don't forget we can make this model (despite leaving as is for 30 years)"

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I am pretty sure some were in Swallow. It is hard to tell from photos because few will show the whole train. Swallow livery was introduced on the 90s & many HSTs got repainted quite quickly.

I think 6 were converted (13/14/65/67/68/123)

The livery Hornby is producing them in is not quite correct for this period because they had full yellow ends back then. I found this rather appealing in an unattractive sort of way.

 

Most were swallow, only a couple were executive I think (this was covered a week or two ago in another thread, I think the Hornby 2020 one). The issue with the cars this year is that they are both named and as far as I am aware neither would be when running with 91s.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

Most were swallow, only a couple were executive I think (this was covered a week or two ago in another thread, I think the Hornby 2020 one). The issue with the cars this year is that they are both named and as far as I am aware neither would be when running with 91s.

 

Hallo,

Did a quick YouTube search and only found this Swallow DVT with a 'more yellow end'

Starts at 13min38

 

es grüßt 

pc

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Padishar Creel said:

 

Hallo,

Did a quick YouTube search and only found this Swallow DVT with a 'more yellow end'

Starts at 13min38

 

es grüßt 

pc

 

 

 

If you search Flickr for class 43 DVT most of the results are Swallow rather than executive, although as you say with the yellow going up and over onto the cab roof. So the naming isn't the only issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Andy Mac said:


From memory when I placed my expressions of interest, it was the modellers who would have been putting up 50% as a deposit and the other 50% before production would commence,  So as far as I could see, we the modellers would have been financing the majority of this project.

Exactly. I said on page 16 of this thread on the 8th January that this model will go to tool when 50% of the funds had been raised. The 3d print has been around for a while now. The model announced in March 2019, it got loads of free publicity off Dean Park station (I suspect it was free) yet still no announcement (even before Hornby ) that it had achieved the required amount of pre orders. it had never been announced that the whole project was viable and tooling had started.

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Andy Mac said:


From memory when I placed my expressions of interest, it was the modellers who would have been putting up 50% as a deposit and the other 50% before production would commence,  So as far as I could see, we the modellers would have been financing the majority of this project.

Exactly. I said on page 16 of this thread on the 8th January that this model will go to tool when 50% of the funds had been raised. The 3d print has been around for a while now. The model announced in March 2019, it got loads of free publicity off Dean Park station (I suspect it was free) yet still no announcement (even before Hornby ) that it had achieved the required amount of pre orders. it had never been announced that the whole project was viable and tooling had started.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst completely understandable, it is a shame it's been cancelled in OO and I hope this doesn't discourage you in the future from producing further locomotives with the level of detail displayed on the 91.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s the right decision, it would be nice to have a Cavalex 91, but it might be their last product if they did.

 

Much better they focus on areas less likely to get attention from the major manufacturers.

 

my personal preference.... when it comes to passenger stock built post privatisation, world is their oyster right now, and as we’ve seen some toc’s are willing to offer “exclusive” of a gauge to a company, that would offer some level of competitive protection too.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

my personal preference.... when it comes to passenger stock built post privatisation, world is their oyster right now, and as we’ve seen some toc’s are willing to offer “exclusive” of a gauge to a company, that would offer some level of competitive protection too.

 

Why do I now have a vision of some manufacturers running around the UK scooping up rights to make modern trains with no intention of actually making models, or as a maybe make this model sometime in the next decade so better get the rights now...

Edited by mdvle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Why do I now have a vision of some manufacturers running around the UK scooping up rights to make modern trains with no intention of actually making models, or as a maybe make this model sometime in the next decade so better get the rights now...

I believe that’s why expiration dates are relevant.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TomScrut said:

 

If you search Flickr for class 43 DVT most of the results are Swallow rather than executive, although as you say with the yellow going up and over onto the cab roof. So the naming isn't the only issue.

Sorry to be pedantic but I believe that Class 43 DVT is a Class 43 HST acting as a surrogate DVT

See another example here

https://merlin46.zenfolio.com/p681789229/h1B4928F5#h1b4928f5

John

Edited by John ks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, John ks said:

Sorry to be pedantic but I believe that Class 43 DVT is a Class 43 HST acting as a surrogate DVT

 

You're correct, They were still a HST power car but utilised as a DVT.

 

When first used they were set to idle during the journey to provide some power but problems were created in doing so, they were then run at power when acting as a DVT which gave some pretty smart acceleration.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years ago several international airlines treated the North Atlantic route as their exclusive territory and there seemed to be collusion between them as despite the intensity of air traffic the density was not reflected in the ticket price.  Along came Freddy Laker with Laker Airlines who put the cat amongst the pigeons with cut price tickets.  The big international players decided to destroy the new upstart and seriously undercut the prices that Laker was charging,  leading to Freddy eventually declaring bankruptcy.  Not to be defeated Laker Airlines sued the big players and was handsomely rewarded.

 

While Hornby has not done anything legally wrong, the business ethics are suspect.  Hornby is in business to make money but why does it take competition to force Hornby to drag itself away from its outdated heritage stock?  Would Hornby still have the little 5-pole motor bogies in its diesels not for Bachmann with their centre mounted motors? The class 91 was around for thirty years with the only real change an apology for a  motor bogie.  Will Hornby now place the project on the backburner?

 

On further reading there seems to be some optimism for a retooled Mk4 coach.  Given Hornby's highly ambitious tooling programme for 2020,  possibly extending into 2021, is a retooled Mk4 likely in the next two years?  Apart from livery change how has Hornby updated their elderly existing range?  The Virgin "coke bottle swirl" coaches were limited to a train pack with just two coaches released.  Given the high demand for the Mk3 coaches in this livery there would certainly have been a high demand for matching Mk4 coaches to extend the train pack.  Effectively the pack became more a collector piece than a desire to update the Hornby range.  I will not be holding my breath awaiting a newly tooled Mk4,  unless another manufacturer announces a release and then Hornby will be straight on to it.  

Edited by GWR-fan
Further info
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/01/2020 at 00:24, Hal Nail said:

Whilst the 91 is perhaps slightly niche, can any smaller manufacturer really afford to invest in any new model given the likely reaction?

 

Yes, because there are plenty of modern trains that have never been modelled before and the chances of Hornby/Bachmann picking them up anytime soon is very small. Taking a train from another manufacturers range and retooling it always carries some risk, as the 66, Terrier and 91 situations make clear.

Edited by bart2day
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, GWR-fan said:

The big international players decided to destroy the new upstart and seriously undercut the prices that Laker was charging,  leading to Freddy eventually declaring bankruptcy.  Not to be defeated Laker Airlines sued the big players and was handsomely rewarded.

 

The problem with using analogies such as this is that it doesn't fit the scenario.

 

 Laker went bust for many more reasons than unfair competition with the main one being he just didn't have enough money and had over stretched the company with purchases of new planes and debts of £200+ million.  As for being handsomely rewarded,  the monies he received from the major carriers were directed to pay his personal debts.

 

24 minutes ago, GWR-fan said:

While Hornby has not done anything legally wrong, the business ethics are suspect

I don't see why they're suspect at all, it's just business and competition.

If Cavalex had achieved the requsite numbers for funding it would be going ahead. As it has been cancelled the numbers couldn't have been there and therefore the risk on the shortfall is too much for them.  It also provides some evidence that the market wasn't looking for the sort of product they were offering. (possibly cost?)

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

The problem with using analogies such as this is that it doesn't fit the scenario.

 

 Laker went bust for many more reasons than unfair competition with the main one being he just didn't have enough money and had over stretched the company with purchases of new planes and debts of £200+ million.  As for being handsomely rewarded,  the monies he received from the major carriers were directed to pay his personal debts.....................................................

 

 

 

It is unfair competition when your competitors decide to undercut you on price knowing that they are making a loss on every ticket sold on the route.  The big players could afford to offset the losses against profits on other routes.  Whether Freddy was underfinanced or not,  he was the victim of unfair business practices implemented purely to force him out of business and the courts agreed with him.    The business may have been viable if the other airlines played according to the rules.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

................................................I don't see why they're suspect at all, it's just business and competition.

If Cavalex had achieved the requisite numbers for funding it would be going ahead. As it has been cancelled the numbers couldn't have been there and therefore the risk on the shortfall is too much for them.  It also provides some evidence that the market wasn't looking for the sort of product they were offering. (possibly cost?)

 

The Cavalex model was to introduce an updated class 91 fit for the times.  Whether or not Hornby had already approached retooling a class 91 is unknown,  but highly suspect when a competitor is announced and Hornby release plans of  its new model.  When the competition was a thirty year old tooling with a mediocre motor bogie then Cavalex had a good chance of reaching its projected target.  Obviously,  with two uprated models in the market now planned then production numbers are most likely not there to support two manufacturers and with the Hornby model fully self financed then there is no potential risk associated,  not that there was a risk with the Cavalex model.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.