Jump to content
Grimleygrid

All new RTR Class 91 and Mark 4 carriages

Recommended Posts

I suspect that Hornby have a number of projects that are being worked on  at any one time . Some see the light of day, others don't .  If you look at their old book of trains (1979) it shows a Snowdon Mountain Railway train and a TEE unit . I think V2s , N7s Claytons have been mentioned in Pat Hammonds books . The J36 was first proposed in 1980. All got to proving models but were not continued. We know from Hornby that the 91 was first looked at in 2016. But there is a big difference between looking at it and advancing to become a production model . My thoughts are that in March/April 2019 Hornby had a go/ no go decision to make and they decided to defend their turf and advance the 91 so that it would be included in the 2020 range.  The lack of mk4s is possibly because they were waiting to see the reaction without going to the expense of tooling up a new range of coaches . whether they will now do this , or bring out their old coaches to match remains to be seen.  

 

Would you like to take a bet on the 91 appearing in 2020?

Edited by Legend
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Legend said:

I suspect that Hornby have a number of projects that are being worked on  at any one time . Some see the light of day, others don't .  If you look at their old book of trains (1979) it shows a Snowdon Mountain Railway train and a TEE unit . I think V2s , N7s Claytons have been mentioned in Pat Hammonds books . The J36 was first proposed in 1980. All got to proving models but were not continued. We know from Hornby that the 91 was first looked at in 2016. But there is a big difference between looking at it and advancing to become a production model . My thoughts are that in March/April 2019 Hornby had a go/ no go decision to make and they decided to defend their turf and advance the 91 so that it would be included in the 2020 range.  The lack of mk4s is possibly because they were waiting to see the reaction without going to the expense of tooling up a new range of coaches . whether they will now do this , or bring out their old coaches to match remains to be seen.  

 

Would you like to take a bet on the 91 appearing in 2020?

 

I suspect they might have been short on design or production slots time to produce both a 91 and Mk4s so they decided to concentrate on the loco itself in 2020.

 

But I wouldn't expect to see it in 2020, if they're still on 3D prints rather than tweaking an EP

  • Agree 4

Share this post


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

 

But I wouldn't expect to see it in 2020, if they're still on 3D prints rather than tweaking an EP

 

 

Why? We saw the Princess Coronation go from 3D print to EP in a month... September to October IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, KDG said:

 How about IHA (Sfhimmns) bogie curtain steel wagons, or an up to date warwell wagon with warrior cradle etc?

 

Love the BBA's.


Really think the IHA would be a massive seller. One of the last steel carrying wagons that hasn't been produced. Been around years and still running today!

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steven B said:

 

I'd love to see proof of the numerous comments that Hornby have deliberately "spoilt" Cavalex's class 91.

 

The Cavalex project was anounced in March 2019. Given that Hornby are currently listing a December 2020 release date I would imagine that Hornby had their new model planned before Cavalex's was anounced.

 

Steven B.

 

The thing is, the Terrier and 66 have rightly or wrongly given them a reputation.

Share this post


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

 

The thing is, the Terrier and 66 have rightly or wrongly given them a reputation.

I’m sorry but I still don’t see the connection you are trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Steven B said:

 

I'd love to see proof of the numerous comments that Hornby have deliberately "spoilt" Cavalex's class 91.

 

The Cavalex project was anounced in March 2019. Given that Hornby are currently listing a December 2020 release date I would imagine that Hornby had their new model planned before Cavalex's was anounced.

 

Steven B.


There is no proof, plain and simple.

 

There's a very simple explanation to the whole thing, it's just a build up of events...sometime ago on the James May TV show IIRC (or maybe another), Simon Kohler stated that they did the Terrier as they felt it was "their territory". Whether that was just for the cameras or whether Hornby really felt like that is unknown. However it's a free market and if Hornby have produced certain iconic models for years, then yes they can say it has a connection to the brand and they have every right to re-tool it as and when they please. To make matters worse Hornby have over the years also done models that other manufacturers have done eg: Cl. 08, B1, Cl. 71, Adams Radial, Terrier and possibly a few more. Whilst some of these are actual duplication cases like the Cl. 08 and B1 (both cases Hornby did a far better job), in other cases it was quite clearly a case of two manufacturers working on a model at approximately the same time. Howver no one wants to believe it because there's a simple trend of "Hornby bashing" going on. So no matter what happens people are quick to jump in and blame Hornby. Then came the Cl.66 drama, more drama created by people on here than anything else. The Hornby Cl.66 is aimed at the younger market and the market on a budget, the Hatton's one is aimed at the rivet counter, two completely different prices and aimed at two different markets. The Hornby released flew off the shelves, the Haton's one I believe is selling quite well. But yes, with a lack of common sense amongst many, it was seen as "evil Hornby" attacking "innocent Hattons". Once again more drama here than anywhere else.

Ever since Simon Kohler was quoted saying there's certain models that are seen as Hornby territory, people will jump to that excuse at every chance they've get. So now that Hornby have announced a Cl.91, all hell has broken loose and Hornby is now the bad one. People have seemingly forgotten that when Hornby announced their Cl. 87, they clearly mentioned that the Cl. 91 was on the table. It was just a matter of time before they announced it. It's not rocket science to understand that that's a clear sign that a manufacturer has it's intentions to do a model. If I was a manufacturer looking for a model to do, I'd avoid the Cl. 91 based on that, if it wasn't done in a 5-6 year period after that, I'd then take a shot at it assuming it's safe. Hornby may have started their basic ground work on the model in 2016, and yes things do get delayed as each and every new tooling project progresses at various paces.

Added to this is the lack of Mk4 coaches and a DVT to go along with the Hornby Cl.91, yes it's an odd thing, it obviously is. But maybe the Mk4 coaches are still in early development and we may just see them being announced in June 2020 or January 2021, if not then maybe Cavalex can do it.

 

It's just a combination of factors and some real unwanted anger that's given rise to some amazing theories, also to the point of someone actually suggesting legal action. As a collector of both OO gauge and N gauge models, I had supported Cavalex and I supported their OO gauge project as I felt the N gauge one wouldn't have had much interest, in the end before Cavalex announced that they're abandoning their OO gauge Class 91, I would've had a Class 91 in OO from both and also the N gauge one.

We all know that internally (functionality wise) the Cavalex model would've been superior in terms of DCC stuff and maybe a servo-controlled pantograph. However externally both company's renders looked really good and it's a well known fact that etched detail isn't always making something look better. So whether Cavalex had more etched parts or not is irrelevant. Both company's CAD renders captured the shape very well. And whether you like it or not, you know Hornby does have the capability to produce a good model.

To sum up, it's a shame that Cavalex have cancelled theirs, apparently people voted with their wallets and Cavalex was a clear winner in terms of functionality. There's definitely an army out to support them though. I hope they manage to succeed with the N gauge version.

Edited by MGR Hooper!
  • Like 4
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, scumcat said:

I’m sorry but I still don’t see the connection you are trying to make.

 

See MGR Hooper!'s post.

 

I aren't saying I agree with the speculation, just saying that's where it seems to have come from

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

There is no proof, plain and simple.

 

Followed by a massive bout of guesswork, much of it based on the idea that a TV documentary can be taken as verbatim and wasn't edited for effect (it was). 

 

2 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

To sum up, it's a shame that Cavalex have cancelled theirs, apparently people voted with their wallets and Cavalex was a clear winner.

 

Are you privy to sales figures from both firms to back this up? 

 

This is a tricky enough situation without pages of speculation and guesswork masquerading as facts. Can wind it in a bit please. 

  • Agree 6

Share this post


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


Followed by a massive bout of guesswork, much of it based on the idea that a TV documentary can be taken as verbatim and wasn't edited for effect (it was). 


Are you privy to sales figures from both firms to back this up? This is a tricky enough situation without pages of speculation and guesswork masquerading as facts.

Can wind it in a bit please. 
 


Exactly my point, the documentary has been taken too seriously by too many.

Going by what Cavalex themselves stated, sales were good and encouraging in the very short time period from when the opened the order book until Hornby announced theirs. And post Hornby's 2020 announcement, there was a surge in sales again stated somewhere in this thread. It was also quite clear by the hoards of people both on rmweb and other social media channels that they'd move to Cavalex citing many reasons ranging from a better model to a full rake of coaches, just honouring a pre-order, supporting the smaller company, supporting the modellers, boycotting Hornby etc etc. Note my use of the word "apparently", therefore I didn't say that that particular statement was an absolute fact.

Clearly a number of posts here need that same advice...

Edited by MGR Hooper!
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

 

Followed by a massive bout of guesswork, much of it based on the idea that a TV documentary can be taken as verbatim and wasn't edited for effect (it was). 

 

 

The problem is that Hornby allowed those few comments to be aired in the documentary. If they didn't want people to form the impression that they were taking a more aggressive stance towards competitors treading on what they think of as their territory then they should either have a) kept their mouth shut or b) not allowed those comments or footage to be shown. When you have the MD of the largest model shop in the country calling Hornby "spiteful" on national television, what exactly did they expect people were going to think. 

 

Edited for effect or not, the perception of Hornby, it's currently strategy and the subsequent discussions around it are a product entirely of Hornby's own making. 

 

Tom.  

Edited by TomE
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TomE said:

 

The problem is that Hornby allowed those few comments to be aired in the documentary.

 

 When you have the MD of the largest model shop in the country calling Hornby "spiteful" on national television, what exactly did they expect people were going to think.   

 

Hornby wouldn't have been able to pick and choose what went into the final cut, and it was obviously cut and edited for maximum effect.

 

Is this the same Hattons that lost their Bachmann stock when they went into competition ? I'd take a guess they're actually rather happy to still be dealing with Hornby, at least they get to sell the Hornby 66 and make money off of it.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Hornby wouldn't have been able to pick and choose what went into the final cut, and it was obviously cut and edited for maximum effect.

 

Even if Hornby had no choice as to what made the cut or not, the comments originated from them. Editing for effect is a given, it's how TV works, which is why the, perhaps unguarded, comments are all the more surprising.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

which is why the, perhaps unguarded, comments are all the more surprising.

 

Or they were deliberately sending out a message of intent to others, that they wouldn't sit back and watch them cherry pick from their back catalogue.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the Cavalex 91 thread right???...ok good and I'm pretty sure there is a Hornby 91 thread where story's can be posted behind their upcoming 91.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, classy52 said:

This is the Cavalex 91 thread right???...ok good and I'm pretty sure there is a Hornby 91 thread where story's can be posted behind their upcoming 91.

 

It is, but they're not producing one now so it's called thread drift.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


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

 

It is, but they're not producing one now so it's called thread drift.

 

They're still planning on producing the N Gauge version, provided N Gauge modellers come out and support it.

 

If successful it will make modelling the contemporary ECML in N Gauge a realistic prospect alongside Kato's upcoming Class 800 and Dapol's HST.

 

Tom.  

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

 

Hornby wouldn't have been able to pick and choose what went into the final cut, and it was obviously cut and edited for maximum effect.

 

Is this the same Hattons that lost their Bachmann stock when they went into competition ? I'd take a guess they're actually rather happy to still be dealing with Hornby, at least they get to sell the Hornby 66 and make money off of it.

 

 

Does the exact wording in the documentary really matter???? I'm perfectly aware how the media can edit things to drum up a story or some drama so I tend to take these things with a pinch of salt anyway. So I'd rather base my opinion on the actions taken since and there have been too many instances where Hornby have announced duplicating products after another, smaller, company has for it to be a co-incidence. Dont tell me it was all a typo and they meant to produce an '81' instead of a '91'

 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, enough - leave the speculative thoughts out of the topic, along with content relating to the Hornby 91, documentaries and Terriers etc and let this get back to Cavalex's N gauge project at least.

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry didn’t see the request I was replying to being quoted in a post. I will leave now. CAVALEX good luck with the project

Edited by scumcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

OK, enough

 

Apologies for the drift, I'd completely forgotten about the N gauge version.  

 

I hope it succeeds, I model the ECML and looked at changing to N gauge 20 years ago, but I decided against it as there just wasn't enough rtr to either use or bodge into a specific era.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/01/2020 at 08:56, RBE said:

 

Again I would refer you to my post a few pages back. We do not take money until the project is 100% going ahead. Hence why no money had yet been taken for project 225. Had we asked for money it would have been produced.

 

With all respect to our community I would politely ask that people posting on social media regarding the potential losses of money when dealing with Cavalex to please make themselves conversant with how we operate before doing so so as not to give others who are not in the know the impression of a high risk of financial loss.

 

As a small company consising of a couple of modellers who do this in their spare time between their main jobs, I don't think it too much to ask that the return of all of the hard work an time put into projects upto the point of cutting tools be rewarded by some form of commitment by customers that the models being produced will be sold and thus allow us to carry on producing models for the community moving forward.

 

Regards

Cav

 

Hi Cavalex,

 

I'm going to look at this in a very simplistic way to cut thru the fog and ignore most of the previous posts thus apologies in advance if I've got this all wrong in regards to this project and how it can be financed and completed.

Quoting your previous post above and there was another one (saying you had a lot of support or pre-order commitments) is it still possible to get your Class 91 Project back on the rails (excuse the pun) if you turn this into a crowd funded venture where you obviously set a minimum target amount for tooling to commence and have all your pre-order commitments confirm a 50% deposit to be paid, plus others who get on-board, of the total cost per Loco/DVT and include distribution of this project via Rails of Sheffield (as with your BBA/BLA wagons) also with a monetary commitment thus having a wider reach to potential customers who don't come on here or use social media.

My simple understanding is that if you reach an absolute minimum level with 50% monetary commitment from each customer then the project can proceed, if you don't reach that level then the project is cancelled and all those customers 50% deposits are returned unharmed thus both parties do not lose anything.

You guys have worked so hard up to now and the stage you have reached and it is a great shame to see this shelved, anyway that was my pennies worth in my own simple way.

 

Cheers

Steve

Edited by classy52
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, classy52 said:

 

Hi Cavalex,

 

I'm going to look at this in a very simplistic way to cut thru the fog and ignore most of the previous posts thus apologies in advance if I've got this all wrong in regards to this project and how it can be financed and completed.

Quoting your previous post above and there was another one (saying you had a lot of support or pre-order commitments) is it still possible to get your Class 91 Project back on the rails (excuse the pun) if you turn this into a crowd funded venture where you obviously set a minimum target amount for tooling to commence and have all your pre-order commitments confirm a 50% deposit to be paid, plus others who get on-board, of the total cost per Loco/DVT and include distribution of this project via Rails of Sheffield (as with your BBA/BLA wagons) also with a monetary commitment thus having a wider reach to potential customers who don't come on here or use social media.

My simple understanding is that if you reach an absolute minimum level with 50% monetary commitment from each customer then the project can proceed, if you don't reach that level then the project is cancelled and all those customers 50% deposits are returned unharmed thus both parties do not lose anything.

You guys have worked so hard up to now and the stage you have reached and it is a great shame to see this shelved, anyway that was my pennies worth in my own simple way.

 

Cheers

Steve

I was thinking along the same lines - with the work put into the project so far is it  a total impossibility  to get it over the line ?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, classy52 said:

if you turn this into a crowd funded venture where you obviously set a minimum target amount for tooling to commence and have all your pre-order commitments confirm a 50% deposit to be paid

 

I would have to say that it would have to be fully funded with the monies ring fenced before starting, this avoids the project stalling when the next deposit is due and some change their mind.

 

5 hours ago, classy52 said:

if you don't reach that level then the project is cancelled and all those customers 50% deposits are returned unharmed thus both parties do not lose anything.

 

There would be costs to Cavalex to return monies, the cost would vary depending on the chosen means of payment.

 

Crowdfunding can (and does) work, the difference between this project and previous ones which failed,  is that Cavalex has put their own money up front to get it started and to a print which does give confidence.

Edited by chris p bacon
typo
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


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

 

I would have to say that it would have to be fully funded with the monies ring fenced before starting, this avoids the project stalling when the next deposit is due and some change their mind.

 

 

There would be costs to Cavalex to return monies, the cost would vary depending on the chosen means of payment.

 

Crowdfunding can (and does) work, the difference between this project and previous ones which failed,  is that Cavalex has put their own money up front to get it started and to a print which does give confidence.

 

Yes very good points.

Fully funded from the outset would be a way to complete the project and the finished product into the customer's hands but having prospective customers pay the full price now or within the next couple of months may be a stretch but one thing I didn't mention on the crowd funded 50% deposit route is the absolute minimum level of commitment factors in drop-outs of a certain percentage before proceeding to tooling but if you're shelling out over 90 quid or more deposit on a Class 91 loco (with or without DCC/Sound) I would assume these drop-outs would be at a minimum but like I said factored in.

On returning monies/deposits if the project doesn't go ahead again this would need to be assessed by Cavalex on the cost to them depending on how the customer paid which could be a prohibitive factor which I don't know anything about thus this could get in the way of reinstating this project.

There are a few if's & but's and I'm sure Cavalex have thoroughly thought this thru and weighed everything up before making their decision to withdraw the project but hey never say never...

  • Informative/Useful 1

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.