All-new Heljan 47 in 00 gauge

[phil-b259]

19 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

I remember thinking that Hornby’s acquisition of out-of-date Lima tooling was money wasted. Many years later and in unforeseen circumstances, it has turned out to be a very good investment indeed and Hornby has been very clever in exploiting it. Improved mechanisms, superb decoration and offered at just the right time when competitors are offering newly tooled, high-spec models at high prices and interest is high.

 

And presumably Hornby could do so again with the ex Lima class 47 tooling they own. Its a technique none of the other manufactures can pull off though.

[adb968008]

47 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And presumably Hornby could do so again with the ex Lima class 47 tooling they own. Its a technique none of the other manufactures can pull off though.

They already have this year, they've taken the lead offering the GBRF 47’s in 3 different liveries, including Caledonian Sleeper.

 

I’m guessing another cheap shot next year on DRS37’s.

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Perhaps there's a "rich elite" of modellers who sing the praises of these models and can afford to buy them at the (currently) high prices. Maybe they are on "final salary" pensions? It's a mystery to me. Given the (cough) "aging demographics" of those that can afford it, is this not a bubble waiting to burst?

 

What "aging demographics"?

 

The hobby remains, as it always has, dominated by those from about 45 to 65 who have the additional income and space now that the kids have grown up.

 

 

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, spamcan61 said:

Some 21st century modellers , we don't all (literally) buy into the ever upwards fine detail / price spiral. 

 

More likely most - the manufacturers are chasing where the market, and hence money and profits, are.

 

As has been stated by others if the market truly was demanding £100 locos then the manufacturers would be providing that (or going out of business if it wasn't possible to do so and make a profit).

 

Yes, it sucks when you start to get priced out of buying the newest and greatest.  But that also has been happening since the hobby began.

[mdvle]

On 09/11/2020 at 04:01, Ouroborus said:

I'd have more truck with D&E 'having' to be £200+ if Bachmann hadn't dropped their prices for the 66 and 45 in response to competition or the forthcoming Hornby 91 being 25% cheaper than a ten year old Class 57.

 

Hornby, who are losing money, aren't the best to be using as an example on pricing.

 

But let's also use some real numbers and not made up numbers.

 

The Bachmann just announced release of Class 57 has a list price of £204.95

 

So a 25% cheaper loco is the same as saying it costs 75% of the more expensive - which means you are claiming that the Hornby Class 91 has a list price of £153.71.  But it doesn't, the Hornby Class 91 list price was at announcement £169.99, so only 17% cheaper.

 

But it is now worse, as a visit to the Hornby website shows that the Class 91 has had a price increase - Hornby now list it at £10 more for £179.99, so now the Class 91 is actually only 12% cheaper using late 2020 pricing.

 

Perhaps that's because there is no longer any competing Class 91, but more likely it is a reflection that yet again costs from China are increasing.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by mdvle

[stovepipe]

Another aspect is that with Bachmann, the UK company is competing for space in the factory owned by Bachmann Group, which also produces models for the other markets they operate in. This factory doesn't want to sell it's production capacity for less than it needs to, so Bachmann UK prices are rising towards the EU/US norms, even though this is likely to constrain demand in the UK to a certain extent.

 

If you can sell your factory capacity at a higher price you would do so, especially if Bachmann Group does not want to expand their factory capacity, or use an additional factory which they do not have direct control.

 

Obviously there are some nuances in there - with evidently some room for manouvre for Bachmann UK when there is a competing product - class 45, class 66, Deltic etc, but balancing this out, may be why some other models in the UK stable seem to leap ahead in price much further, like the class 57......and where one leads, other suppliers are bound to follow..... 

 

I imagine demand is holding up quite well in the UK, with people having more time on their hands, and maybe a few new entrants having a dabble for the first time. And maybe if your main pastimes were say, fine dining, or buying a sporting season ticket, then maybe upwards of £150 for a first loco isn't the disincentive it might appear to be.

 

Of course the trouble really starts down the line when you want to acquire dozens of locos to represent your particular slice of railway life, but by then you're hooked anyway! And if you've got a hardcore habit, then ultimately you're going to pay up for some things, even if it's not everything you might want. And Bachmann might be happy with that, if they've manage to constrain demand to the available factory capacity.

[adb968008]

13 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

It's not exactly yesterday's technology, it is old, but it isn't obsolete. 8-pin DCC sockets are still widely used elsewhere.

I think the whole concept of DCC is obsolete.

[adb968008]

Endless wobble about prices.

i’m agnostic to it, it is what it is and I chose if I care or not.

 

Prices are going to rise, At some point the market will pop.

A decade will pass, the excess soaked up and it will rise again.

 

It happened in the late 70’s, late 90’s, I think only Covid stopped it this year, but its inevitable that constrained personal spend, with over supply of models and an increase in costs, and a change in fashion, will see a bubble form that will pop, followed by a bargain hunt, a rarity feast, followed by a resurrection of interest in a few years.

This year Covid’s brought a bumper harvest, but as we know models live longer than the real thing, what the tide takes, it will bring back... 2021..

 

My 2021 plans feature much more plane tickets than this year, Ive got my fleet, duplication doesnt interest me, so in turn affects my planned spend indeed it might even increase my sale plans to finance my plans and cash out ahead of a pop (ive sold 10% of my collection recently, though admittedly Ive bought another 10%).
 

As long as humans are human our industry will follow a cycle of birth, death and reincarnation.

 

Just remember the one setting the prices, is the one that possesses the tooling... crashing middle men is of little consequence to them, theres always plenty of chancers in the middle to replace them.

High costs and restricted margin is the Middle man’s problem, not the customers. As long as comissioners commision, not manufacturer, they will be in hoc to the manufacturer.

Customer’s only loyalty is the the product and the price tag, too high they will walk past, leaving the middle man holding the baby.

At the end of the day, if you want it, buy it. If you dont, dont, but complaining wont change anything, leave it to Darwin, he’ll sort it out.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by adb968008

[Ouroborus]

53 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Hornby, who are losing money, aren't the best to be using as an example on pricing.

 

But let's also use some real numbers and not made up numbers.

 

The Bachmann just announced release of Class 57 has a list price of £204.95

 

So a 25% cheaper loco is the same as saying it costs 75% of the more expensive - which means you are claiming that the Hornby Class 91 has a list price of £153.71.  But it doesn't, the Hornby Class 91 list price was at announcement £169.99, so only 17% cheaper.

 

But it is now worse, as a visit to the Hornby website shows that the Class 91 has had a price increase - Hornby now list it at £10 more for £179.99, so now the Class 91 is actually only 12% cheaper using late 2020 pricing.

 

Perhaps that's because there is no longer any competing Class 91, but more likely it is a reflection that yet again costs from China are increasing.

 

 

 

 

 

You went to town on my maths, I wonder why you didn't mention the 45 and 66?  Presumably they are also subject to the same increasing China costs, but oddly, Bachmann seem to be able to keep the price of these down, in fact if my memory serves me correctly, didn't the price of both the 45 and the 66 actually go down?

 

I'll gloss over your opening statement, but you may wish to draw in and re-consider the year Hornby had in banging out 66's, 47's, Mk2's and their actual financial performance.

 

I see a lot made about how the new prices reflect the new technology going into new models, yet i don't  often see this with my own eyes.  Sure, there are some,  but elsewhere we see a 108 being released in 2021, 2x8pin, three times the price it was when released in 2005, but otherwise exactly the same.   One would think that if you wanted a 108, you might have bought one in the intervening fifteen years?  

Returning to the Heljan 47, I'm blessed to have the money to be able to buy one, but I'm not parting with £200 without seem some tangible improvement in what it has to offer over a similar model that broke cover in 2008.     Like the 108 referenced above, what will Heljan's 47 have as its USP?  What will it have that will make me think that the Bachmann ones i have look ****** to make me rush out to purchase it?  

Or is it the case that buying it is retail therapy - a purchase that i don't need or particularly want and offering little improvement over what i already have, just something to cheer me up.  Like buying a new car because you're bored of your two year old Focus.   That sort of mindset was fine when the weather was good, but with an increasingly uncertain world, who knows?

[Phil Mc]

Just caught up the last 2 pages since I last dropped by, must have missed the bit that was to do with the Heljan 47..........

 

Cheers,

Phil.

[mdvle]

1 hour ago, Ouroborus said:

You went to town on my maths, I wonder why you didn't mention the 45 and 66?

 

Not relevant to the maths?

 

The figures were for 2 brand new tooling high spec models, not 2 older items that no longer meet the current standards.

 

Quote

Presumably they are also subject to the same increasing China costs, but oddly, Bachmann seem to be able to keep the price of these down, in fact if my memory serves me correctly, didn't the price of both the 45 and the 66 actually go down?

 

 

The price for production is only one part of the equation.

 

The new Class 47 and the new Class 91 for example need to pay off their expensive tooling costs - current guesses based on comments from a US manufacturer in the $150,000 to $200,000 range (prices for production in China is usually in US$)

 

Now any manufacturer, once that tooling is paid off, doesn't suddenly cut the cost of models - the market much prefers a more consistent pricing structure (look at the frequent complaints about the significant price differences in the Hornby Railroad range) and the additional profits additional runs can have help to cover the costs when a model is a failure.

 

That does however leave room for cutting prices (with the resulting hit to the balance sheet) if a better competing model gets released and thus you can no longer charge full price for your product.

 

Or to put it another way, something is often better than nothing.

 

Quote

I'll gloss over your opening statement, but you may wish to draw in and re-consider the year Hornby had in banging out 66's, 47's, Mk2's and their actual financial performance.

 

Hornby's 2020 financial statement, which mentions Covid, reports a loss of £3.4m, so yes my opening statement stands - they are a company that is losing money and has lost money since at least 2016.

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/hnb/financials

 

Quote

I see a lot made about how the new prices reflect the new technology going into new models, yet i don't  often see this with my own eyes.  Sure, there are some,  but elsewhere we see a 108 being released in 2021, 2x8pin, three times the price it was when released in 2005, but otherwise exactly the same.   One would think that if you wanted a 108, you might have bought one in the intervening fifteen years?

 

Again, pricing is designed to be consistent across a range as well as reflecting what people are willing to pay.

 

And despite what some people in the hobby think there is always new people entering/re-entering the hobby, and at least some of them will want a Class 108 or more.

 

Quote

Returning to the Heljan 47, I'm blessed to have the money to be able to buy one, but I'm not parting with £200 without seem some tangible improvement in what it has to offer over a similar model that broke cover in 2008.     Like the 108 referenced above, what will Heljan's 47 have as its USP?  What will it have that will make me think that the Bachmann ones i have look ****** to make me rush out to purchase it? 

 

We won't know until we see what Heljan offers, but potentially better details and more sub-class specific details.

 

Which isn't to say the model will be for everyone, not everyone is as concerned about that stuff, but some of us are.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by mdvle

[mdvle]

Another point, which could benefit those looking for cheaper products.

 

One of the reasons Heljan is tooling a new Class 47 is to grab a market that will continue to provide revenue for years to come, that if they didn't grab the Class 47 for a brand new model then someone else would have.

 

The UK market is suddenly getting very competitive, with Accurascale and Rapido joining Dapol, Bachmann, Hornby in bringing new products to market - and followed by Hattons, Kernow, Rails of Sheffield and several smaller operations (Realtrack, Cavalex, Revolution, KR Models, Oxford Rail, Planet Industrials).

 

The barrier to entering the market, thanks to China, is now in the say $75k to $200k range depending on project.  None of the companies can rely on sitting on existing tooling to generate revenue if there is a chance for someone else to offer and improved version.

 

But all the new tooling will in some cases provide new opportunities for existing models to get a price cut as long as they can still be made for a reasonable cost in China.

Edited November 11, 2020 by mdvle

[wombatofludham]

I wonder what the late Leslie Crowther would have made of this.  "The Price May or May Not be Right" would have been a right mouthful for the continuity announcers.

[Roy Langridge]

13 hours ago, adb968008 said:

I think the whole concept of DCC is obsolete.

I know your views from before, but I think we are a long way from the technology you propose replacing DCC.

 

Batteries are not a “forgettable” resource. Box up a loco for a few years and those batteries will be dead and not rechargeable any more. How many people are going to remember to charge the batteries on every piece of stock that has them every six months, not letting the cell voltage drop below a certain level? And for those batteries to last, that is a long, slow charge, not a plug it in for a fast charge. With over 200 pieces of powered stock, I would certainly rather clean the track. 
 

Battery life is also not sufficient for many people’s needs with sound/lights adding to the power needed to haul a train for any length of time. 
 

DCC has long way to run yet. 
 

Roy

[Phil Bullock]

17 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

 

Supporting West Brom.

 

 

With you on that one!

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, Roy Langridge said:

I know your views from before, but I think we are a long way from the technology you propose replacing DCC.

 

Batteries are not a “forgettable” resource. Box up a loco for a few years and those batteries will be dead and not rechargeable any more. How many people are going to remember to charge the batteries on every piece of stock that has them every six months, not letting the cell voltage drop below a certain level? And for those batteries to last, that is a long, slow charge, not a plug it in for a fast charge. With over 200 pieces of powered stock, I would certainly rather clean the track. 
 

Battery life is also not sufficient for many people’s needs with sound/lights adding to the power needed to haul a train for any length of time. 
 

DCC has long way to run yet. 
 

Roy

You assume every loco has a battery.

i accept it needs one to run, but you don't need one per loco. Not many are going to realistically need more than a dozen at a time active.

 

My mini bluetooth sound system is 3 years old and still manages a 2 hour session on a charge. £5 on amazon, its crude but then I don't have time to develop the software, I very much reckon its viable, if explored.

 

Besides from a cost perspective its around a fiver to have an integrated wifi or bluetooth/battery/speaker set up, vs £100+ per dcc chip a loco.

 

The only reason no ones really innovating is because everyone happy / lazy with the status quo...

 

DCC is 30 year old IT, even IBM would be laughing if they could get away with that.

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by adb968008

[spamcan61]

45 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

You assume every loco has a battery.

i accept it needs one to run, but you don't need one per loco. Not many are going to realistically need more than a dozen at a time active.

 

Personally I would still power most of the track to provide battery charging, just leaving the tricky bits like points and crossovers 'dead' - still no need for track cleaning yay.  Having committed to DCC to the extent of buying a SPROG 3 and looking at sound decoders it does seem an awfully complex and expensive way of providing sounds compared with volume consumer technology  like Bluetooth. Given existing manufacturer's investment in DCC it would take a new player to upset the applecart, as you say it's easier to maintain the status quo.  Shades of 3 rail versus 2 rail I guess.

Edited November 12, 2020 by spamcan61

[Roy Langridge]

50 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

You assume every loco has a battery.

i accept it needs one to run, but you don't need one per loco. Not many are going to realistically need more than a dozen at a time active.

 

My mini bluetooth sound system is 3 years old and still manages a 2 hour session on a charge. £5 on amazon, its crude but then I don't have time to develop the software, I very much reckon its viable, if explored.

 

Besides from a cost perspective its around a fiver to have an integrated wifi or bluetooth/battery/speaker set up, vs £100+ per dcc chip a loco.

 

The only reason no ones really innovating is because everyone happy / lazy with the status quo...

 

DCC is 30 year old IT, even IBM would be laughing if they could get away with that.

 

 

If, however, you are going to swap batteries between locos (as I assume that is what you propose) that flies in the face of not handling locos much, especially those with lots of fine detail. I physically touch my locos once in a blue moon and would not want to do so any more than I do today.

 

As a matter of interest, where do you put the batteries? There is such limited space in so many locos that I struggle with even a decent speaker.

 

The DCC of today is much more sophisticated than that of 30 years ago. Ok, the manner of communications is broadly similar, but that is true of an awful lot of technology in the world. For example, your wifi uses CRC algorithms as part of its protocol and that was invented in 1961.

As for lazy/happy, I would suggest the latter. I admire you for trying something different,  but that does not make it suitable for everybody.

 

Roy

 

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Roy Langridge

[spamcan61]

18 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

As has been explained MANY MANY TIMES, costs - notably labour costs have been increasing for many years and no company can afford to continue to market things at a loss and survive.  Given the products are made overseas the RPI for the UK is meaningless - the figure you really need to make an accurate assessment of prices is the RPI of the Peoples Republic of China!

 

If their RPI figures say that the cost of living has gone up by 5% in two years then thats going to mean wages have gone up by 5% in 2 years, which means factory costs have gone up by 5% in 2 years which means factories charge manufacturers at least 5% more.....etc

 

 

A 5% increase in labour costs is not going to lead to a 5% rise in factory costs unless the labour cost is the only only cost of making a toy train, which it isn't, indeed at UK toy train volumes I would expect the NRE (e.g. tooling) costs to dominate the cost base. 

[pheaton]

1 hour ago, Phil Bullock said:

With you on that one!

and as a doghead/dingle.....I couldn't agree more

 

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

You assume every loco has a battery.

i accept it needs one to run, but you don't need one per loco. Not many are going to realistically need more than a dozen at a time active.

 

My mini bluetooth sound system is 3 years old and still manages a 2 hour session on a charge. £5 on amazon, its crude but then I don't have time to develop the software, I very much reckon its viable, if explored.

 

Besides from a cost perspective its around a fiver to have an integrated wifi or bluetooth/battery/speaker set up, vs £100+ per dcc chip a loco.

 

 

Bluetooth for control is not new Bachmann America were looking at it and have demonstrated it with blue rail but that still uses the track for the power source, it just eliminates the issue with a faulty DCC signal, cause by dirt, and poor conductivity....

 

batteries makes sense for larger scales and have been in place for some time.....but for double OO/HO / N the battery technology doesn't exist for even an hours decent operation at 9v+ you cant compare a bluetooth sound system which draws 10s of milliamps @ 3v to an extremely inefficient motor which draws up to half an amp... then where are you going to put the battery.....keeping this thread vaguely on track....where do Heljan leave space for a battery?

 

Thats before you get to the point of fitting your locos with batteries...which as you rightly say...who uses more than a dozen?...But you have traded off a massive chunk of operational flexibility for reliability...which has current mitigations in place with cleaning, and maintenance and good practices with wiring. But also can be largely eliminated with capacitors. If manufacturers implemented a reasonable size capacitor then operational issues would be greatly reduced...

 

that's leaves the elephant in the room...cost...yeah DCC is grossly overpriced...considering the wholesale cost of the decoders especially sound........but cheaper viable alternatives have come out (Hornby TTS for example).

 

But if DCC isn't pallitable in terms of cost DC has never gone away its still a viable alternative... each system, has pro's and cons.

 

I cant see any loco manufacturer alienating something that has been in place for 60+ years... you might see new manufacturers appear that offer it as a method but......time will tell weather the community accepts it.

 

Is dcc obsolete...no...the carrier of DCC (track) might be obsolete...but where is a protocol which has exceeded the flexibility and operational capabilities of DCC?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by pheaton

[adb968008]

I think were way off topic.

 

i’ll sign off by saying non of the arguments presented are either new or unsurmountable, or discussed elsewhere.

 

technology will only change when people want it to, usually that requires demonstrable benefits “under their noses” in order to accept its a good thing.

 

The other way is legislation, and dont underestimate that potential either. Ask someone 20 years ago that shutting a door was unsafe no one would believe you..today slam door stock has gone. Its not beyond reason that layout wiring may someday need independent certification before use.

 

back to 47.

Edited November 12, 2020 by adb968008

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, spamcan61 said:

A 5% increase in labour costs is not going to lead to a 5% rise in factory costs unless the labour cost is the only only cost of making a toy train, which it isn't, indeed at UK toy train volumes I would expect the NRE (e.g. tooling) costs to dominate the cost base. 

 

I've talked to more than one manufacturer who says the labour cost is the biggest share of the manufacturing price. All our models are hand built, and we keep demanding more and more fiddly bits be attached.

[rob D2]

16 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

I've talked to more than one manufacturer who says the labour cost is the biggest share of the manufacturing price. All our models are hand built, and we keep demanding more and more fiddly bits be attached.

And some companies aren’t very good at making the fiddly bits stay on !

[rob D2]

19 hours ago, No Decorum said:

I remember thinking that Hornby’s acquisition of out-of-date Lima tooling was money wasted. Many years later and in unforeseen circumstances, it has turned out to be a very good investment indeed and Hornby has been very clever in exploiting it. Improved mechanisms, superb decoration and offered at just the right time when competitors are offering newly tooled, high-spec models at high prices and interest is high.

I’m with you on that .

I was all for the “ why they putting out that rubbish “ , thinking .

 

however it seems it is the new Lima - due to modern companies continually respraying the real thing ， little Johnny can get a replica for £65-75 .

 

he doesn’t care , that the detail is awful and the running indifferent 

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, spamcan61 said:

 

A 5% increase in labour costs is not going to lead to a 5% rise in factory costs unless the labour cost is the only only cost of making a toy train, which it isn't, indeed at UK toy train volumes I would expect the NRE (e.g. tooling) costs to dominate the cost base. 

 

Then how exactly is the factory going to find the extra cash to pay the workers if it doesn't raise prices to compensate?

 

I am under no illusions that the excellent pay deals the RMT have obtained for me and other rail workers have come at the cost of higher ticket prices.

 

Similarly if staff in the NHS get a well deserved pay rise then taxes we pay will have to go up by at least the same amount to compensate.

 

Its typical Conservative party nonsense to assume that you can magic up money from reorganisations / efficiencies / outsourcing or any of the other strategies they have pushed over the years. For the most part increases in staff costs have to be met by the customer paying more, particularly where the main cost is people and if they don't people suffer. Its why we have cleaners struggling to get by on minimum wage / zero hours contracts because the 'outsourcing specialists' who have been awarded these contracts have no other way of saving cash than making their staff take the hit.

 

You don't get something from nothing and if your workers want a big pay rise then you have to charge your customers more. Granted an increase in raw materials or energy costs will do the same but in a labour intensive industry (which model trains most definitely are thanks to all that separately fitted super detail modellers demand) its staff costs that dominate.

 

Tooling, although significant is actually minor in the overall scheme of things when it comes to model railways. The biggest cost associated with that is actually in the CAD design (which involves paying people) that creates the tooling. With CNC machining and suchlike the actual business of cutting metal is not that costly by comparison. The reason it is a significant part of the process is more down to the fact that once the tooling has been made, any alterations are awkward to do plus it takes up space (unlike a CAD file) may only fit a certain type of machine, etc.

 

The other thing to remember is that tooling up for a model is a one off cost - and these days most manufacturers have a policy of recouping that in the first run of models. If tooling was such a critical component and staffing costs trivial then we would see the opportunity for lower prices on later runs. If however the biggest costs are by far staffing ones - principally associated with assembly then prices will stay high to cover this cost