Jump to content
Grimleygrid

All new RTR Class 91 and Mark 4 carriages

Recommended Posts

7 hours 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

See another example here

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

John

 

Yes that's the point of the discussion!

 

Simply put the discussion was the suitability of the new IC Swallow HSTs from Hornby to work with the 91. Whilst Flickr proves that there was a mix of executive and swallow liveries they all seemed to have the full yellow front when running as DVTs. The point being the search needs to include DVT or you end up with loads of stuff that's irrelevant (i.e. not running as a DVT with a 91) even if you add buffers to the search.

 

So whilst the swallow livery is relevant, the lack of a yellow front in Hornby's pack mean they aren't 100% suitable for the proposed pre mk4 hybrid train. One of the two (rather than both) is named too which complicates things furthermore.

Edited by TomScrut
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
5 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

 

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. 

Which mirrors the Terrier saga as shown on TV earlier last year.

Hornby's Terrier was old so Rails announced an updated one. Hornby were seen on TV describing the Terrier as 'their model' & rushed it into production. Whether or not they were already planning it before Rail's announcement was unclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GWR-fan said:
Edited by PaulRhB
Edit posted as a new post!

Share this post


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

 

Simply put the discussion was the suitability of the new IC Swallow HSTs from Hornby to work with the 91. Whilst Flickr proves that there was a mix of executive and swallow liveries they all seemed to have the full yellow front when running as DVTs. The point being the search needs to include DVT or you end up with loads of stuff that's irrelevant (i.e. not running as a DVT with a 91) even if you add buffers to the search.

 

So whilst the swallow livery is relevant, the lack of a yellow front in Hornby's pack mean they aren't 100% suitable for the proposed pre mk4 hybrid train. One of the two (rather than both) is named too which complicates things furthermore.

HST DVTs all had the full yellow end around that time. They lost the extra yellow a few years later, after they finished their duties with class 91s. Buffers were never removed, so they could (& did) also run as standard HST power cars. The other oddity was that some TGS coaches had a set of buffers at the guard's end.

The power cars did look a bit weird with full yellow ends so I think this would lessen their general appeal.

If recent Hornby models are a guideline, the nameplates can easily be removed with some T cut, then some varnish applied to blend in the shiny patch this leaves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

 

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. 

But there is no collusion between a Hornby and others to stop Cavalex or using their 91 as a loss maker! The 91 is priced in line with all their other items. There is no comparison apart from pure competition and whatever you think about the reason it is normal and legal. 
It has been pointed out there are multiple cases of duplication, Hornby have had several of ‘their’ range duplicated, gone head to head on new models twice, with the 71 and Radial, taken a Bachmann model in the Nelson and refreshed the APT soon after the demise of the DJ one. 
So would you rather they sat back and let everyone else refresh their range and Hornby quietly fail? 
I ordered the Cavalex model post Hornby’s announcement, they didn’t take any money waiting until it was viable with minimal risk to the end customer and certainly won the popular sympathy for their response. 
Cavalex have taken it on the chin with dignity and Hornby can’t expect any quarter in return if anyone ever says poor old Hornby everyone goes after their models. 
Apple dominate the brand image in smartphones but it doesn’t stop many other identical products which are no different in specification levels than the ones Cavalex offered over Hornby. People still buy Apple because the brand has power and desirability, that’s not an accident that’s been built up over time and a lot of money used to establish it. If you throw brand out of the window by saying it’s illegal to use brand power you destroy the point of marketing and miss the reason why humans respond to emotions. If there were two I’d have bought the Cavalex one as I believed it was better and worth the extra, those with less information will often go for the safer known option because the brand reduces perceived risk. Cavalex have started to build a reputation amongst those in the know but it’s not got the huge brand power. I don’t know if the numbers hadn’t got there or it was so tight the decision to drop out was because their risk was in the usual pre order percentage drop out. I suspect the latter but only the guys know and like they had to go quiet around Warley, as Hornby were known to have been around a 91, they will probably keep that info confidential because it affects what they do in future regarding announcements timing. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

 

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.  

 

As I said, it's an incorrect analogy as Hornby have not colluded with others to undercut on price.  Don't forget with re-tooling the price for the Hornby one will be not far off the Cavalex proposal. 

Just to correct you on a point, The courts did not actually agree with him, it was an out of court settlement so was never put to law. The settlement that BA reached was due to the ongoing privatisation of the airline and the case would affect the share price, essentially it was cheaper to settle than to admit any liability.  

 

6 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

 

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.  

 

The Cavalex model has been in the public domain for something like 12 months, if after this time it hasn't reached the required numbers or is a bit 'touch and go' then there isn't enough confidence from joe public to invest in them.  This isn't the fault of Hornby who don't announce what they're working on in advance, but more likely the DJM saga which has put a lot of people off advance funding/crowdfunding.  

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4

Share this post


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

HST DVTs all had the full yellow end around that time. They lost the extra yellow a few years later, after they finished their duties with class 91s. Buffers were never removed, so they could (& did) also run as standard HST power cars. The other oddity was that some TGS coaches had a set of buffers at the guard's end.

The power cars did look a bit weird with full yellow ends so I think this would lessen their general appeal.

If recent Hornby models are a guideline, the nameplates can easily be removed with some T cut, then some varnish applied to blend in the shiny patch this leaves.

 

I prefer the yellow ends as it did make them look more distinctive. I have a pair of swallow power cars so a buffer fitted pair is less appealing in exactly the same livery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are getting off topic with the Laker analogy but my point was that the bigger airlines were content at keeping the status quo until they were undercut on price and then they retaliated.  If you read the whole story of the collapse then it was more than just losing money on seat sales to destroy the company.  As regards Hornby and that was my point,  they were content to offer us a thirty year old outdated model until a competitor stepped up.   I stated initially that Hornby has not done anything illegal as it is just business whether moral or not.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

But there is no collusion between a Hornby and others to stop Cavalex or using their 91 as a loss maker! The 91 is priced in line with all their other items. There is no comparison apart from pure competition and whatever you think about the reason it is normal and legal. 
It has been pointed out there are multiple cases of duplication, Hornby have had several of ‘their’ range duplicated, gone head to head on new models twice, with the 71 and Radial, taken a Bachmann model in the Nelson and refreshed the APT soon after the demise of the DJ one. 
So would you rather they sat back and let everyone else refresh their range and Hornby quietly fail? 
I ordered the Cavalex model post Hornby’s announcement, they didn’t take any money waiting until it was viable with minimal risk to the end customer and certainly won the popular sympathy for their response. 
Cavalex have taken it on the chin with dignity and Hornby can’t expect any quarter in return if anyone ever says poor old Hornby everyone goes after their models. 
Apple dominate the brand image in smartphones but it doesn’t stop many other identical products which are no different in specification levels than the ones Cavalex offered over Hornby. People still buy Apple because the brand has power and desirability, that’s not an accident that’s been built up over time and a lot of money used to establish it. If you throw brand out of the window by saying it’s illegal to use brand power you destroy the point of marketing and miss the reason why humans respond to emotions. If there were two I’d have bought the Cavalex one as I believed it was better and worth the extra, those with less information will often go for the safer known option because the brand reduces perceived risk. Cavalex have started to build a reputation amongst those in the know but it’s not got the huge brand power. I don’t know if the numbers hadn’t got there or it was so tight the decision to drop out was because their risk was in the usual pre order percentage drop out. I suspect the latter but only the guys know and like they had to go quiet around Warley, as Hornby were known to have been around a 91, they will probably keep that info confidential because it affects what they do in future regarding announcements timing. 

 

I dont think anyone is suggesting Hornby is doing anything illegal, but it is certainly looking a lot like they are targetting smaller competitors if they release anything which is remotely near Hornbys existing range. As lots of you Hornby-fans are pointing out, there is nothing to stop Hornby from producing a Class 91, but equally in fairness, there should be nothing to stop other companies from producing things that Hornby is not showing interest in doing itself (and you cannot possibly count its 1990s Class 91 as a model to current-day standards). Maybe the question should be asked as to why so many competitors view Hornbys range as 'available'? Perhaps its something to do with Hornby not having much of a track-record in retooling something they already have a (poor) model of.

 

It is noteworthy where they have generally left Bachmann (Class 90 and 101) and Dapol alone (Class 73) but have duplicated with Class 71, Radial, Terrier, Class 66 and now Class 91. Also bear in mind that the APT announced this year will probably have had serious work started on it prior to the demise of DJM.

 

Of course I dont want Hornby to fail, they have a lot to contribute to the hobby and are the main entrance route for new customers and they can produce excellent models when they try, but I also dont want them to succeed at the expense of competitors that have been Bulleid along the way. Some prototypes will withstand competition far better than others where there are lots of liveries or large classes such as Class 08, 37, 47, 66 etc. I would prefer if Hornby let the quality of their models do the talking and improving what they do is a good thing, but where someone like Cavalex have announced an intention, is it really necessary to fend them off from everything? There must surely be other prototypes to pick from that are going to make Hornby more of a return than competing over a more niche one.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

 

I dont think anyone is suggesting Hornby is doing anything illegal, but it is certainly looking a lot like they are targetting smaller competitors if they release anything which is remotely near Hornbys.

 


But getting very close suggesting legal comparisons with Laker, competition law (below) and boycotting it in others posts! ;) 

 

I would like a 91 and it now looks like I only have one option. I’d have chosen the higher spec model based on their attention to details and the wagons produced giving me confidence in that plus having spent half a day operating a layout with Alex. That’s localised confidence but that’s how it builds. 
I will now buy a Hornby 91 because it will be better than my yellowed original, but I won’t bother pre ordering it as it doesn’t need that support that Cavalex did, it’s just a shame I didn’t have the option of higher spec I was prepared to pay for. Much like I left the Oxford Radial waiting for the superior Hornby one to be done in SR olive, I’m still waiting . . . ;) 

I’ve tried to provide a bit of balance to the higher emotions without attacking anyone as I know they are disappointed and it’s just venting, but if unchallenged they turn into internet facts ;) 

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing we haven't discussed is, given Cavalex didn't get enough interest in a year, is the market big enough to justify anybody doing it? Whilst Cavalex not getting the interest could be to do with their brand, the 91 is a bit niche really, only 30 years running up and down one particular line.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be one line, but it is quite a major line, link and is pretty historic.

 

30 years is also quite substantial.

 

I think the 91 certainly merits being modelled.

 

I suppose the question is does it merit several versions - including the old?

 

Al.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GordonC said:

 

.....but I also dont want them to succeed at the expense of competitors that have been Bulleid along the way.

 

 

Oliver Bulleid had nothing to do with it lol ;)

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wish people wouldn't draw comparisons between the Hatton's 66 and Hornby 66.
That's like comparing Bentley and Ford.

 

 

All in all, sad that Cavalex have decided to withdraw.
I'd like to think it was all a rouse to get Hornby to update theirs...

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, atom3624 said:

It may be one line, but it is quite a major line, link and is pretty historic.

 

30 years is also quite substantial.

 

I think the 91 certainly merits being modelled.

 

I suppose the question is does it merit several versions - including the old?

 

Al.

 

Yeah 30 years is a long time I suppose compared to some other classes, or should I say "par for the course".

 

I suppose also the 91 runs on the same route as the 55 did, and so far for 50% more time!

 

I'd also argue the 58, 59, 87, and 92 are all of similar timescale and probably interest level yet they all have decent-ish tooling or tooling on the way.

 

So I have just proved myself wrong I think!

 

And to be honest I'd like to see it modeled. It was probably my favorite contemporary loco when I was a kid. I wasn't going to buy one as they are being phased out and I model (or intend to when I get everything I am waiting for) present day ECML but would have been good to see nonetheless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RBE said:

 

Hi all, I would just like to politely ask that the propagation of misinformation be stopped regarding Cavalex our 225 project. Our statement on our website illustrates the facts regarding our difficult decision to pull the project for now.

 

We have never said that the project failed due to a lack of support/pre-orders from the community. On the contrary it was very well received indeed.

 

To also clarify dates, we announced that we would be focussing on project 225 last March and scanned 91116 in April. We then worked on the CADs opened our pre order books in September once the CADs were at a point where we had something concrete to show people.

 

Again to state that people have been ordering the loco for a year is not correct. Three months at best, in which time we have been happy with the uptake.

 

We are happy for people to discuss this project and others however please try to make statements that are factual rather than personal opinion as hearsay can easily become perceived fact.

 

Cheers

Cav

 

I'm sorry I should have written it differently so it didn't sound like statement of fact, it wasn't meant to sound that way. I aren't sure why you quoted me when all I was doing was going off what somebody said a few posts up.

 

Regardless of what I have said, what you put on your website or whatever I am pretty certain most people have their idea, rightly or wrongly as to why this has happened so misinformation or not I can't see it making any difference.

 

I will shut my (figurative) mouth and say nothing else on the matter other than I hope your next project doesn't encounter the same circumstances!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't directly aimed at you solely, it was just that your comment was the last one prior to my request, however you have made the point for me in that you were repeating a other comment as if fact that our 91 was stopped because of a lack of interest.

 

These things do make a difference as peoples perception of a company is very much effected by what people say about them and what other people believe.

 

As I said, no offence intended to anyone just a polite request for people to perhaps think twice.

 

Regards

Cav

  • Friendly/supportive 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not at all interested in a class 91 or mk4 coaches but I do think Hornby’s spoiling tactics are a bit underhand.

 

Saying that, I see a big positive - Cavalex now have design capacity and potentially some tool making time and even a pencilled in production date that is now free. I’m almost tempted to wish list but know I’ll get told off. Therefore, I must stay in my ‘Manor’ and be ‘Saint’ly and look for some ‘Top-light’ in a sea of ‘Dreadnoughts’! Just some random thoughts I’ve had in my western wilderness this year!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to wish list!

  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RBE said:

Feel free to wish list!

 

I'd say the Aventura would be a good one to do (although may be a large undertaking) as they will be a fairly common site across a few regions, bang up to date so good life in the model and plenty of classes to go at although I aren't sure about the compatibility of tooling between classes

 

Another one could be the 195 and 331, if they are going to be reasonably prolific in the Northern area it should have widespread appeal and there are some similar going to Wales? Could then lead to a 397 if there is anything in common? I'd be keen on a 195 and possibly a 397.

 

I'd also probably have an 88 if one existed but there is a discussion thread in the Dapol section about that if you want to read it!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

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?)

 

The Cavelex model didn't have the opportunity to achieve the required numbers because (for whatever reason) a competing model by a household name was announced, thus ensuring that few if any further orders would be placed for the Cavelex model.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That simply isn't true.

 

We had secured enough pre orders from the public prior to Hornbys announcment and we also had a significant level of further orders placed directly following the news of Hornbys model.

 

Again we are stating personal theories as if fact.

 

 

  • Friendly/supportive 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

The Cavelex model didn't have the opportunity to achieve the required numbers because (for whatever reason) a competing model by a household name was announced, thus ensuring that few if any further orders would be placed for the Cavelex model.

 

 

Does Cav have to keep restating the position? Please read and understand what he has said, twice.

  • Agree 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask? Is the 91 project totally dead or possibly resurrected when Hornby make a Hash of it. Also with Hornby just mentioning the Class 91 could the Mk4 and DVT still be brought to life ??

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.