Railroad

[The Johnster]

I've banged on about this before.  Just had a browse through Hornby's online catalogue, steam locomotives, and I am a bit confused as to what Railroad actually is, which is of no consequence, as apparently are Hornby, which isn't.  The concept as I understand it is to use older, less detailed, and redacted toolings to provide a budget entry level range for train sets and starters in the hobby; very laudable and sensible, and of benefit to serious modellers who can access cheap stuff in the range and work it up or convert it to other prototypes.  But there doesn't seem to be any consistency.  

 

For example, the J83, now a very dated tooling with boiler skirts to hide the motor, is what I would have thought of as the archetypical Railroad model, but isn't.  It's price is low by modern standards for an 0-6-0T, which reflects the lo-fi state of the model.  Then you have the Railroad Tornado and P2, big locos for the money and fairly recent toolings; this makes a bit more sense.  But why does a Railroad FS cost £20 more?  

 

Then there are the 9Fs.  These are AFAIK tender drive models not much changed since the 'Silver Seal' Evening Star of the early 80s, and to my mind natural Railroad fodder, but not in the range.  Again, a lot of loco for the money and I'm not complaining about the pricing but the marketing is confusing.  There are tender drive Railroad locos, the Compound, D49, and Schools, priced accordingly; what's different about the 9Fs.  The Crosti was until recently a Railroad item but is now in the main range, complete with it's pre NEM couplers and tender drive, and a good bit more expensive than the LNER pacifics, though you do get a weathered finish for your money.  A 'special feature' of the Compound is that the tender has an NEM coupling, but not presumably the loco.

 

It doesn't make sense to my poor old confused little brain.  It's a bit academic, of course; few of these items are ones I am interested in and the bottom line is that if I want a loco the only question I ask is 'can I afford it, have I got the money', and the online catalogue gives me that information; I need little more (actually, I would like to know if a loco is tender drive or not, and what sort of couplings are fitted).  So in that sense it doesn't matter, but it creates an impression of a company which is not clear in it's aims and policies, and I worry that this will mitigate against Hornby's success.  Of course, Hornby must live or die by the immutable laws of supply and demand like everyone else, but they are an iconic name in our hobby and it is of general benefit to that hobby, I contend, that they do well.  And this is a business world, red in toof and clore, where image is important to investors, and Hornby need solid backing from their investors as they haven't quite dug themselves out of the profit hole they dug themselves into over the last 40 years yet.

 

I worry about the main competition in blue boxes as well.  They have merciless overlords to satisfy and have dug themselves into a lead time hole which is going to be very tough to get out of.  The hobby needs it's big names and reliable supply of models.  I am lucky in that I have most of the stock I need (there is an item on the shopping list which I won't mention here, partly because everybody's fed up with me banging on about it and partly because it's nowt to do with Hornby), but it won't really make much difference to me personally if both the main players go bankrupt.  But it won'd do the hobby any good at all; failures of this sort will be publicised and it will look as if the hobby itself is failing and outdated.  Perhaps it is but this ancient curmudgeon can identify with that!!!

[Coppercap]

The 9F is now loco drive, and has been for a few years. I think the Compound and Schools and D49 are too (certainly the County 4-4-0 is loco drive).

[APOLLO]

The Railroad 9F is indeed loco drive and is a damn fine model - I  bought a couple at around £50 from Hattons a few years ago. One has seized tender wheels (old Mazac tender drive chassis used)  - sorted with a file and WD40. I also have a Railroad crosti 9F which again is a great model.

 

By and large Hornby Railroad is (was ?) value for money if your not too fussy over fine detail.

 

Brit15

 

 

[Harlequin]

I agree with TJ. The RailRoad range is messy, confusing and many items are too expensive for entry-level customers

 

One dealer told me that the lack of clear differentiation in pricing makes it difficult for him to stock them because he doesn't know if they will sell or not.

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Harlequin

[andyman7]

15 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

Then there are the 9Fs.  These are AFAIK tender drive models not much changed since the 'Silver Seal' Evening Star of the early 80s, and to my mind natural Railroad fodder, but not in the range.  Again, a lot of loco for the money and I'm not complaining about the pricing but the marketing is confusing.  There are tender drive Railroad locos, the Compound, D49, and Schools, priced accordingly; what's different about the 9Fs.  The Crosti was until recently a Railroad item but is now in the main range, complete with it's pre NEM couplers and tender drive, and a good bit more expensive than the LNER pacifics, though you do get a weathered finish for your money.  A 'special feature' of the Compound is that the tender has an NEM coupling, but not presumably the loco.

 

 

The Railroad range is a little inconsistent but none of the locos are tender drive - many are from tooling that used to be tender drive but all have been amended to modern loco drive can motors. 

A lot of the inconsistencies emerge from whether a Railroad model is made from old (ex-Margate) tooling; from ex-Lima tools; or from new tooling specifically designed to fit within the Railroad range. The latter items will generally have NEM couplings as a default, but for items based on older tooling it will depend on whether it has been adapted.

The regular 9F is I would argue quite considerably changed from the old Silver Seal model - the loco drive and separate wire handrails making a big difference. The Crosti 9F, like the Tornado A2, the P2 and the current Flying Scotsman are all new tools that were deliberately engineered to be able to fit in the Railroad range, but which were also offered in the main range with enhanced decoration.

It's probably best to ignore how each Railroad model relates to other Railroad models and instead to look at each specific model as being a budget version of something else, that something else may be a more highly decorated version of the same model in the main range (e.g. the P2); a superdetail model from completely separate tooling in the main range (e.g the Schools); or a superdetail model in another manufacturer's main range (e.g. the Class 47). 

[The Johnster]

Yes, I agree, each model needs to be considered on it's own merits at the price point.  Railroad, where the tooling is to scale in the vital measurements, is a useful source of lower price models which can be worked up into high detail by the owner.  But I am unsure of what is entailed; apparently none are tender drive though a zoomed view of the 9Fs reveals cogs under the tender chassis, perhaps old photos.  Anomalies like the J83 are just confusing; this is a model that is well below current RTR standards and priced accordingly; I doubt any serious modeller would buy it as the boiler skirts make working it up difficult, and the generic Jinty chassis has the older type of riveted tension lock couplings.  Why isn't it a Railroad model?  The same mech on the 2721 was!

 

It's about the impression created of the company, especially among newbies who are less familiar with the history of these items.  Perhaps very lo-fi stuff like LOTI and the shorty clerestories need to be in a different 'retro toy' category.

[JSpencer]

42 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

It doesn't make sense to my poor old confused little brain.  It's a bit academic, of course; few of these items are ones I am interested in and the bottom line is that if I want a loco the only question I ask is 'can I afford it, have I got the money', and the online catalogue gives me that information; I need little more (actually, I would like to know if a loco is tender drive or not, and what sort of couplings are fitted).  So in that sense it doesn't matter, but it creates an impression of a company which is not clear in it's aims and policies, and I worry that this will mitigate against Hornby's success.  

 

Asking where is the line between Railroad and Main range is a bit like asking when does a kitten become a cat?

 

A range is quite evolutive. The Rebuilt Merchant Navy was really a top end super detailed model when first released, now looks basic compared to recently released Duchess or even rebuilt West country. 

Hornby could write rules, it could be "no NEM pockets" on Railroad but do they then avoid tooling up the feature on new models (like Tornado) that can be in both ranges. Such rules would need to evolve and are ultimately pointless.

 

I think it would be un-realistic to have Railroad stick to 1980s tools as you pick these up easily second hand for cheaper. Either it evolves a bit - if costs allow - or it is reduced just to those popular prototypes.

 

Agree they could supply more details online and in catalogues but would it be correct? And wouldn't this forum be a better place to ask?

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by JSpencer

[Legend]

And now we have Railroad Plus...................................

[truffy]

Just now, Legend said:

And now we have Railroad Plus...................................

Yeah, I was really puzzled as to what that's supposed to achieve. 

[Legend]

14 minutes ago, truffy said:

Yeah, I was really puzzled as to what that's supposed to achieve. 

 

Allegedly its a better paint job than on standard Railroad releases .  Sort of like the Hall and P2 , oh hang on these were main range releases .

[APOLLO]

17 minutes ago, Legend said:

And now we have Railroad Plus...................................

 

Plus a few quid ?

 

Brit15

[Robin Brasher]

The concept behind Railroad is that it enabled a younger modeller to expand a train set with cheaper more robust models. For instance  the R1202 Mallard Pullman costs £144 which is less than an A4 in the main range. The set contains a locomotive, two Pullmans, an oval of track with a siding. a controller and a midi mat.

 

Now if the purchaser wants to buy an R4904 Pullman in the main range this would cost £53.50 which is over 1/3 the cost of the trains set so the perceived value would be low. It would not match the other coaches and would be a bit delicate.

 

A Railroad R4312 Pullman Parlour is a reasonable model which would only cost £20 and is more robust and is only 1/7 the cost of the set.

[truffy]

36 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

The concept behind Railroad is that it enabled a younger modeller to expand a train set with cheaper more robust models. For instance  the R1202 Mallard Pullman costs £144 which is less than an A4 in the main range. The set contains a locomotive, two Pullmans, an oval of track with a siding. a controller and a midi mat.

 

Now if the purchaser wants to buy an R4904 Pullman in the main range this would cost £53.50 which is over 1/3 the cost of the trains set so the perceived value would be low. It would not match the other coaches and would be a bit delicate.

 

A Railroad R4312 Pullman Parlour is a reasonable model which would only cost £20 and is more robust and is only 1/7 the cost of the set.

 

That much is understood, at least by me.

 

But what I don't understand is the need to introduce a third tier between the Railroad and Main ranges. Sure, there are quality and price differences between the two, but neither are so huge as to require an intermediate level.

[Amand]

Looking at Hattons, they have in the past sold R3668 J83 which was RailRoad branded, they show the retail box.  With regards to steam, other than Tornado and 9F / Crosti, the RailRoad models use the older chunky Margate coupling rods and valve gear, albeit without the shiny finish. Much more durable than the softer metal used on high end locos. My view is that RailRoad models have long since paid off their original development costs many times over!

[Colin]

There are others in the main Hornby range which IMHO definitely belong in yellow Railroad boxes - the J94, 2P and 4F come to mind. All are good models and mine certainly run well but they are not up to current detail standards and don’t really justify their price tags.

[jjb1970]

I don't think Hornby has ever had a coherent strategy for the Railroad range, is it low cost offerings using antiquated tooling for the residual toy and train set segments or a lower cost less highly specified model range? The new generation Railroad items generally offer good models which lose the fine detail of main range models but are nevertheless very good representations of the prototype. These models co-exist with ancient stuff, much of which wasn't very good 30 or 40 years ago let alone today.

I have long thought that Railroad should be split between a "toy" range and a "model" range. Pike offer a multi-tier range very successfully, with each tier having it's own niche and the structure making sense, the way Hornby has approached it feels like a bit of an afterthought to make something cheaper than the main range. Doing value well isn't just about price,  and in some ways it is more difficult than doing high end well.

[Hal Nail]

17 hours ago, The Johnster said:

It's a bit academic, of course

I think you might all be making the classic mistake of wasting any effort whatsoever analysing a marketing department idea!

[No Decorum]

The general consensus seems to be that the Bachmann 9F is superior to the Hornby, with which I concur. The Bachmann doesn’t have it all its own way, though. Putting the gear train in the firebox, as Hornby does, is better than half hiding it behind the motion bracket as Bachmann does. Side by side, the Bachmann is superior but for me, the Horny isn’t disgraced by the Bachmann as would be the case with some Railroad (horrible term) models compared to better alternatives.

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

I think you might all be making the classic mistake of wasting any effort whatsoever analysing a marketing department idea!

I think you might be right!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

23 hours ago, The Johnster said:

...It's about the impression created of the company, especially among newbies who are less familiar with the history of these items.  Perhaps very lo-fi stuff like LOTI and the shorty clerestories need to be in a different 'retro toy' category.

It has been a dozen years now that I have felt Hornby were risking reputation; but they seem to get away with it in general perception. At bottom they have 'the name', (and are redoubling on that advantage this year, aren't they just?) and since the man on the Clapham Omnibus has never heard of Bachpol, Dajan, Hatford, Helnow, Kermann, Oxtons, let alone the more recent entrants; presumably that's all that really matters?

[The Johnster]

Absolutely, 34.  Triang's purchase of the Hornby name from Meccano when that company went under was an incredible bargain, and has been used ruthlessly ever since.  It ensures that there is press coverage when H are in trouble has resulted in goodwill based rescue packages that would not perhaps have been available to Bachpoloxjan et al.

[tomparryharry]

I think, just think, that having the different types of 'house brand' is an accountancy requirement. One funding goes one way, one different 'house' goes another way. It's a bit like accountancy stuff in the real works. using different funds, to do different things. 

 

One will be 'new' product; the next one is 'renewals'. If we take our 1960's Evening Star, it's now on the 'renewals' balance sheet, regardless of the new motor in the locomotive. 

 

At least, that's how I think it works......

 

Ian. 

[eldomtom2]

On 05/03/2020 at 14:00, The Johnster said:

Then there are the 9Fs.  These are AFAIK tender drive models not much changed since the 'Silver Seal' Evening Star of the early 80s, and to my mind natural Railroad fodder, but not in the range.  Again, a lot of loco for the money and I'm not complaining about the pricing but the marketing is confusing.  There are tender drive Railroad locos, the Compound, D49, and Schools, priced accordingly; what's different about the 9Fs.  The Crosti was until recently a Railroad item but is now in the main range, complete with it's pre NEM couplers and tender drive, and a good bit more expensive than the LNER pacifics, though you do get a weathered finish for your money.

You are incorrect on this point; both R3756 and R3942 are marked as Railroad products. Admittedly R3941 isn't but this seems aimed at the collector's market more than anything, and it's the same price anyway.

[melmerby]

On 06/03/2020 at 14:48, The Johnster said:

 Triang's purchase of the Hornby name from Meccano when that company went under was an incredible bargain,

Triang didn't purchase the Hornby name from Meccano, they (in fact Lines Bros) purchased Meccano itself before it went under. (which it would have done without a takeover.)

That included Meccano, Hornby & Dinky brands.

Edited March 12, 2020 by melmerby

[DCB]

On 05/03/2020 at 14:24, APOLLO said:

The Railroad 9F is indeed loco drive and is a damn fine model - I  bought a couple at around £50 from Hattons a few years ago. One has seized tender wheels (old Mazac tender drive chassis used)  - sorted with a file and WD40. I also have a Railroad crosti 9F which again is a great model.

 

By and large Hornby Railroad is (was ?) value for money if your not too fussy over fine detail.

 

Brit15

 

 

You were lucky. Our railroad 9F tender chassis, the tender drive one less motor, crumbled to very small chunks.  Fortunately the old class 47 trailing bogie chassis block is a drop in replacement.