Jump to content
 

Hornby Announce L&MR 0-4-2 "Lion"?


MGR Hooper!
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Just get a mate to announce it as a completely new company with a few flashy photos and lots of info and Hornby will instantly claim  that it's 'their' model (getting that right for once) and theirs will be in the shops in 18 months time and two quid cheaper than yours.   All you need is a flash website, some good photos and the right sort of blurb and you're in business.

 

When Hattons 'announcement bounced Hornby into announcing their revised 'King' there was a similar sort of timescale between the rushed response on Farcebook and the originally intended  announcement date.  In fact i think 'Lion' might actually be a bit nearer to the 2022 date than the  'King was to its original announcement date but the King was rushed to announcement with already worked up design drawings (although we didn't see all of them) and a hastily scrarmbled together (it was rumoured) price tag but as far as 'Lion' is concerned it has just been words, not even a drawing.

 

I don't doubt that Hornby had 'Lion' in their programme and as I've said before I even hinted that it might come for 2021 but the response to Rapido seems to indicate it is nowhere near as advanced as the 'King was in the year before originally planned announcement. 

 

On the other hand, Hornby's Q6 did not get announced until production was well under way (not that the competing product from DJM had progressed anywhere with his though). So their announcements can be from one extreme to the other.

Also when they did release images of the King CAD, instead of Hattons being instantly cancelled (the hoped for effect i suppose), it became a tit-for-tit who has the best CAD war. Eventually Hornby could only sell their kings really cheaply to off load them while Hattons found theirs no longer viable. 

I suspect Hornby had Lion as part of a - say - 5 year program. 

Edited by JSpencer
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Just get a mate to announce it as a completely new company with a few flashy photos and lots of info and Hornby will instantly claim  that it's 'their' model (getting that right for once) and theirs will be in the shops in 18 months time and two quid cheaper than yours.   All you need is a flash website, some good photos and the right sort of blurb and you're in business.

 

When Hattons 'announcement bounced Hornby into announcing their revised 'King' there was a similar sort of timescale between the rushed response on Farcebook and the originally intended  announcement date.  In fact i think 'Lion' might actually be a bit nearer to the 2022 date than the  'King was to its original announcement date but the King was rushed to announcement with already worked up design drawings (although we didn't see all of them) and a hastily scrarmbled together (it was rumoured) price tag but as far as 'Lion' is concerned it has just been words, not even a drawing.

 

I don't doubt that Hornby had 'Lion' in their programme and as I've said before I even hinted that it might come for 2021 but the response to Rapido seems to indicate it is nowhere near as advanced as the 'King was in the year before originally planned announcement. 

 

I suspect it all depends on what is meant by 'in their programme'.  It seems to me that this can cover everything from, 'we have a general intention to produce X at some point'. 

 

I'd bet that was the case with the Terrier. if anyone had done any work on one prior to the Rails announcement, I suspect it was Oxford! 

 

Now with Lion, it was a natural follow-on product once it became clear that the Rocket pack was not to be a one-=off.  I seem to recall hints pointing to a possible Lion at the time the first follow-on product, the blue coaches, were announced.

 

So, here I am inclined to give Hornby the benefit of the doubt that 'inclusion in the programme' was a tangible thing and a definite intention prior to learning what Rapido was up to. 

 

It does not follow, however, that Hornby had already done much, or any, work on this prior to Rapido's announcement. Hornby tends to allow the impression to form that it's further ahead than it is on occasion.

 

My hope is that, if Lion is barely developed, and Hornby rush to beat Rapido to market, it does not lead to the loss in quality that it rushing its fences had with the Terrier and the generic 4 and 6-wheel coaches; these are fair models, but nowhere up to Hornby's best standards, and showed all the signs of being rushed.  

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hornby has always liked 4-4-0 locos, they could always do something like a Precursor, or something Webby, they would go with their LNWR livery six-wheel coaches.... :jester:

 

And then move onto George V, PoW, Claughton classes.

 

Of course, an all black loco livery isn't pretty or eyecatching.

 

I know this is completely off topic for Lion, but there's little in the way of LNWR RtR, it's about time the Premier Line got it's time in the sun! And the L&M was a constituent of the LNWR....

 

(ramble mode off)

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hroth said:

Hornby has always liked 4-4-0 locos, they could always do something like a Precursor, or something Webby, they would go with their LNWR livery six-wheel coaches.... :jester:

 

And then move onto George V, PoW, Claughton classes.

 

Of course, an all black loco livery isn't pretty or eyecatching.

 

I know this is completely off topic for Lion, but there's little in the way of LNWR RtR, it's about time the Premier Line got it's time in the sun! And the L&M was a constituent of the LNWR....

 

(ramble mode off)

 

 

Yes, I sometimes wonder why manufacturers make the choices they do (assuming they are not merely copying others' announcements ;)); a number of lines would benefit from something as sensible and obvious as an 0-6-0 goods; LB&SC, GNR and LNWR among them

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The problem with some of the pre-grouping 0-6-0 designs is that they were "rebuilt" on a number of occasions, so the same tooling might not be usable for pre-grouping and later. I wonder if that's the case with the GNR J6, for example (Hornby did model the ex-LSWR 700 class "Black Motor", but it can't legitimately appear in LSWR livery — and it hasn't). Another problem in some cases can be the lack of a preserved example — manufacturers seem to prefer these, for obvious reasons. There aren't many LNWR classes preserved — most if not all that were preserved have been modelled.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
24 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

The problem with some of the pre-grouping 0-6-0 designs is that they were "rebuilt" on a number of occasions, so the same tooling might not be usable for pre-grouping and later. I wonder if that's the case with the GNR J6, for example (Hornby did model the ex-LSWR 700 class "Black Motor", but it can't legitimately appear in LSWR livery — and it hasn't). 

 

The same can be said for the Holmes Class C, which cannot be produced from the RTR Reid reboilered Class C (LNER J36), and the Wordsell Y14 (LNER J15). And of course the Johnson standard Midland goods engine, which Bachmann have produced - in the form of the 3F rebuild!

 

Not to mention the Dean Goods...

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Yes, I sometimes wonder why manufacturers make the choices they do (assuming they are not merely copying others' announcements ;)); a number of lines would benefit from something as sensible and obvious as an 0-6-0 goods; LB&SC, GNR and LNWR among them

 

 

You seem to be working to the principle that the big RTR players produce models for the benefit of us, 'serious' modellers who know what we want and why we want it.  But we are a minority element in their target market, which includes 'train set' (no insult intended) modellers, collectors, and impulse buyers who want something pretty and interesting looking.  Even us 'serious' (no superiority intended; I'm using terms I don't much like because of editorial laziness) impulse buy pretty things because we like them and want to own them despite their having no place on our 'serious' layouts.

 

Manufacturers choose models to produce based on several factors, only one of which is what they think we want.  They do look at our wishlists and take them into account, but the other parts of the market are taken into account as well.  Very few of 'us' want Flying Scotsmen unless we are modelling the ECML, but it is a consistent feature of Hornby's range and a solid sales performeer.  They also have to take into account the availability of research material, and the familiarity of the market with the prototype, both of which may not be available in the quanttty or quality needed in the case of older Period 1 or 2 locomotives and stock unless there is a preserved example in original condition.  For example, there are no surviving Jenny Linds, the class 47 of their day, and there were very considerable variations in the individual locos built, never mind later alterations.  What, they would need to ascertain, is the market for a generic Jenny (you'd have to call it a gennyjenny).

 

On top of all that, they have to consider the practicalities of designing the model for the best and most cost effective production and assembly, and price the result to be acceptable to the market while retaining a worthwhile profit margin, which will be also dependent on projected number of models built and the rate at which they are sold.  It is no good producing a perfect Jenny in all the possible liveries and variations if it cannot be cost effectively produced and marketed.

 

At this point, they have to consider the competition, what the competition is working on, how good it might be, and how well it is likely to sell.  Much as we would like to know what is going on behind the scenes, it is a matter of commercial confidentiality and none of our biz.  Hornby in their current incarnation are in a precarious position of having to satisfy their real customers, the financial backers, who rightly want their pound of flesh and are unlikely to take no for an answer; this has sadly resulted an a very aggressive stance and a proprietorial view by the company's management which is A Bad Thing; it is making them no friends and ratcheting up the level of aggression in the trade as a whole.

 

It ain't easy being an RTR company; if it was we'd all be doing it, and, 'this time next year we'll all be millionaires, Rodney...'.  Personally I'm more than happy to let that be their world, and live the quiet life of a customer, and live with the fact that the models I want them to make for me are very unlikely to ever appear.  I am sometimes surprised and delighted; I never thought there would ever be any non-gangwayed GWR compartment stock that was not a B set for example, so I keep banging on about my desired models occasionally and hope that the message will find it's subliminal way to someone who will do something about it.  I reckon my most likely success will be a 4mm diagram N auto trailer from Dapol; they already know all about the prototype and might yet bite; the market is wide open for panelled auto trailers.

 

Thus endeth this Sunday afternoon's general ramble...

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

You seem to be working to the principle that the big RTR players produce models for the benefit of us, 'serious' modellers who know what we want and why we want it.  But we are a minority element in their target market, which includes 'train set' (no insult intended) modellers, collectors, and impulse buyers who want something pretty and interesting looking.  Even us 'serious' (no superiority intended; I'm using terms I don't much like because of editorial laziness) impulse buy pretty things because we like them and want to own them despite their having no place on our 'serious' layouts.

 

Manufacturers choose models to produce based on several factors, only one of which is what they think we want.  They do look at our wishlists and take them into account, but the other parts of the market are taken into account as well.  Very few of 'us' want Flying Scotsmen unless we are modelling the ECML, but it is a consistent feature of Hornby's range and a solid sales performeer.  They also have to take into account the availability of research material, and the familiarity of the market with the prototype, both of which may not be available in the quanttty or quality needed in the case of older Period 1 or 2 locomotives and stock unless there is a preserved example in original condition.  For example, there are no surviving Jenny Linds, the class 47 of their day, and there were very considerable variations in the individual locos built, never mind later alterations.  What, they would need to ascertain, is the market for a generic Jenny (you'd have to call it a gennyjenny).

 

On top of all that, they have to consider the practicalities of designing the model for the best and most cost effective production and assembly, and price the result to be acceptable to the market while retaining a worthwhile profit margin, which will be also dependent on projected number of models built and the rate at which they are sold.  It is no good producing a perfect Jenny in all the possible liveries and variations if it cannot be cost effectively produced and marketed.

 

At this point, they have to consider the competition, what the competition is working on, how good it might be, and how well it is likely to sell.  Much as we would like to know what is going on behind the scenes, it is a matter of commercial confidentiality and none of our biz.  Hornby in their current incarnation are in a precarious position of having to satisfy their real customers, the financial backers, who rightly want their pound of flesh and are unlikely to take no for an answer; this has sadly resulted an a very aggressive stance and a proprietorial view by the company's management which is A Bad Thing; it is making them no friends and ratcheting up the level of aggression in the trade as a whole.

 

It ain't easy being an RTR company; if it was we'd all be doing it, and, 'this time next year we'll all be millionaires, Rodney...'.  Personally I'm more than happy to let that be their world, and live the quiet life of a customer, and live with the fact that the models I want them to make for me are very unlikely to ever appear.  I am sometimes surprised and delighted; I never thought there would ever be any non-gangwayed GWR compartment stock that was not a B set for example, so I keep banging on about my desired models occasionally and hope that the message will find it's subliminal way to someone who will do something about it.  I reckon my most likely success will be a 4mm diagram N auto trailer from Dapol; they already know all about the prototype and might yet bite; the market is wide open for panelled auto trailers.

 

Thus endeth this Sunday afternoon's general ramble...

 

You seem to working on the assumption I'm working to a principle. 

 

Manufacturers, from the perspective of what you term "serious modellers", always have, and always well, produce pretty random junk to no particular pattern.  Some of it is useful.    

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Just as well we only 'seem' to be doing these assumptive things then, Edwardian.  I agree completely with your assesement of what manufacturers deign to provide us with, and am grateful that at least the general standards have improved in the 60+ years I've been in the game...

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

You seem to working on the assumption I'm working to a principle. 

 

Manufacturers, from the perspective of what you term "serious modellers", always have, and always well, produce pretty random junk to no particular pattern.  Some of it is useful.    

Some of the new entrants are clearly striving not to be like that, but recognise it's how the "market leader" works much of the time. Many (though not all) of their chosen prototypes seem to be in categories where they can usefully fill gaps in the random pattern that will mainly appeal to (fairly) serious modellers.

 

It's no real surprise that Hornby find the emergence of (so far) relatively limited but aspirational new competition threatening, though I hesitate to take it as confirmation that they are becoming less random, too.....

 

What I think we may see as a result of what might be termed "late calls" is others keeping things under wraps longer to deter rushed duplications in response to their announcements.  

 

John

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

You seem to be working to the principle that the big RTR players produce models for the benefit of us, 'serious' modellers who know what we want and why we want it.  But we are a minority element in their target market, which includes 'train set' (no insult intended) modellers, collectors, and impulse buyers who want something pretty and interesting looking.  Even us 'serious' (no superiority intended; I'm using terms I don't much like because of editorial laziness) impulse buy pretty things because we like them and want to own them despite their having no place on our 'serious' layouts.

 

Manufacturers choose models to produce based on several factors, only one of which is what they think we want.  They do look at our wishlists and take them into account, but the other parts of the market are taken into account as well.  Very few of 'us' want Flying Scotsmen unless we are modelling the ECML, but it is a consistent feature of Hornby's range and a solid sales performeer.  They also have to take into account the availability of research material, and the familiarity of the market with the prototype, both of which may not be available in the quanttty or quality needed in the case of older Period 1 or 2 locomotives and stock unless there is a preserved example in original condition.  For example, there are no surviving Jenny Linds, the class 47 of their day, and there were very considerable variations in the individual locos built, never mind later alterations.  What, they would need to ascertain, is the market for a generic Jenny (you'd have to call it a gennyjenny).

 

On top of all that, they have to consider the practicalities of designing the model for the best and most cost effective production and assembly, and price the result to be acceptable to the market while retaining a worthwhile profit margin, which will be also dependent on projected number of models built and the rate at which they are sold.  It is no good producing a perfect Jenny in all the possible liveries and variations if it cannot be cost effectively produced and marketed.

 

At this point, they have to consider the competition, what the competition is working on, how good it might be, and how well it is likely to sell.  Much as we would like to know what is going on behind the scenes, it is a matter of commercial confidentiality and none of our biz.  Hornby in their current incarnation are in a precarious position of having to satisfy their real customers, the financial backers, who rightly want their pound of flesh and are unlikely to take no for an answer; this has sadly resulted an a very aggressive stance and a proprietorial view by the company's management which is A Bad Thing; it is making them no friends and ratcheting up the level of aggression in the trade as a whole.

 

It ain't easy being an RTR company; if it was we'd all be doing it, and, 'this time next year we'll all be millionaires, Rodney...'.  Personally I'm more than happy to let that be their world, and live the quiet life of a customer, and live with the fact that the models I want them to make for me are very unlikely to ever appear.  I am sometimes surprised and delighted; I never thought there would ever be any non-gangwayed GWR compartment stock that was not a B set for example, so I keep banging on about my desired models occasionally and hope that the message will find it's subliminal way to someone who will do something about it.  I reckon my most likely success will be a 4mm diagram N auto trailer from Dapol; they already know all about the prototype and might yet bite; the market is wide open for panelled auto trailers.

 

Thus endeth this Sunday afternoon's general ramble...

Thank you for a considered and accurate view of how mainstream model railway manufacturing works. Were you ever at a Hornby December press conference, I wonder? Very sad that a response to your post disingenuously refers to the manufacture of mainstream ready-to-run models as 'random junk'. In fact, with the market as limited as it now is manufacturers have a wider choice of prototypes than they used to, because it's unlikely that large production runs of anything (except possibly Flying Scotsman) will sell out. Shorter production runs bring a wider variety of less-potentially-popular types into the equation - but only at the expense of much higher prices. (CJL)

  • Like 4
  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

The problem with some of the pre-grouping 0-6-0 designs is that they were "rebuilt" on a number of occasions, so the same tooling might not be usable for pre-grouping and later. I wonder if that's the case with the GNR J6, for example (Hornby did model the ex-LSWR 700 class "Black Motor", but it can't legitimately appear in LSWR livery — and it hasn't). Another problem in some cases can be the lack of a preserved example — manufacturers seem to prefer these, for obvious reasons. There aren't many LNWR classes preserved — most if not all that were preserved have been modelled.

I had a quick look at the web, which says that the LSWR started rebuilding these locos with superheating in 1919. So, assuming that is the form which the Hornby models takes, then at least some of them would have appeared in the last vestige of LSWR livery, which I assume would have been Urie lined black ?

Tried to find a picture to verify, without success. Could someone confirm.

 

Many thanks

Ray

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

According to Bradley (Volume 2) the first Black Motor to be altered was No.316, which entered Eastleigh on 3rd, June, 1920, and returned to traffic on 23rd December.

 

After successful trials, ten more were authorised for conversion in June 1921, but it was early 1924 before that order was completed. 

 

Interestingly, one of those selected, No. 326, which was dealt with in 1922, is mentioned again, further down the page, as having been the last South Western engine to receive Southern Railway (lined black) livery, on 14th March 1929.

 

Clearly, full repainting was not inevitable upon superheating, and the altered boilers, cabs, and frames were presumably painted to match the existing (plain black by then?) LSWR goods livery.

 

I understand that T9s were treated similarly, with a few (superheated) examples retaining LSWR colours up to five years after grouping.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
23 hours ago, Hroth said:

Hornby has always liked 4-4-0 locos, they could always do something like a Precursor, or something Webby, they would go with their LNWR livery six-wheel coaches.... :jester:

 

And then move onto George V, PoW, Claughton classes.

 

Of course, an all black loco livery isn't pretty or eyecatching.

 

I know this is completely off topic for Lion, but there's little in the way of LNWR RtR, it's about time the Premier Line got it's time in the sun! And the L&M was a constituent of the LNWR....

 

(ramble mode off)

 

 

22 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Yes, I sometimes wonder why manufacturers make the choices they do (assuming they are not merely copying others' announcements ;)); a number of lines would benefit from something as sensible and obvious as an 0-6-0 goods; LB&SC, GNR and LNWR among them

 

 


 

cough cough..

 

L&Y 0-6-0s..

 

with the added advantage there is still 3 of them to look at, and in working order, not to mention one was once a Green Dragon...for those of filmset leanings... and LNWR for another.

 

Not to mention of the hundreds of LYR 0-6-0’s.. they outlived LNWR and nearly everyone elses pre1923’s.. last ones at the end of 1962... and a late logo !

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
42 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Not to mention of the hundreds of LYR 0-6-0’s.. they outlived LNWR and nearly everyone elses pre1923’s.. last ones at the end of 1962... and a late logo !

 

It's worth noting, perhaps, that the last LNWR 0-6-0s were built in 1902 whereas the LYR along with many other lines was building them practically up to the grouping. So it's on the whole unsurprising that LNWR 0-6-0s did not survive so very long as they were already becoming outmoded in terms of the operation of LNWR lines nearly a generation before the Grouping. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

According to Bradley (Volume 2) the first Black Motor to be altered was No.316, which entered Eastleigh on 3rd, June, 1920, and returned to traffic on 23rd December.

 

After successful trials, ten more were authorised for conversion in June 1921, but it was early 1924 before that order was completed. 

 

Interestingly, one of those selected, No. 326, which was dealt with in 1922, is mentioned again, further down the page, as having been the last South Western engine to receive Southern Railway (lined black) livery, on 14th March 1929.

 

Clearly, full repainting was not inevitable upon superheating, and the altered boilers, cabs, and frames were presumably painted to match the existing (plain black by then?) LSWR goods livery.

 

I understand that T9s were treated similarly, with a few (superheated) examples retaining LSWR colours up to five years after grouping.

 

John

So there is a little scope for Hornby there.

 

Thanks

Ray

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
28 minutes ago, wainwright1 said:

So there is a little scope for Hornby there.

 

Thanks

Ray

Quite a window, but I get the impression that more casual purchasers seem mainly to want locos carrying colourful pre-WW1 passenger liveries.

 

Only committed modellers of the period tend to be be interested in unlined black goods engines. After they were superheated, the 700s changed very little, so it shouldn't be too hard to backdate a BR one to early/mid-1920s condition.

 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 28/03/2021 at 23:09, Dunsignalling said:

It's no real surprise that Hornby find the emergence of (so far) relatively limited but aspirational new competition threatening, though I hesitate to take it as confirmation that they are becoming less random, too.....

 

What I think we may see as a result of what might be termed "late calls" is others keeping things under wraps longer to deter rushed duplications in response to their announcements.  

 

Edited extract below from today's Rapido UK Newsletter, which describes the scenario in which Rapido *were* keeping their plans under wraps, but it was the film studio batting back a second licensing request which [may have] prompted an announcement from elsewhere.

 

(Rapido, note, are careful not to make links between events, or name names, leaving it to the reader to interpret)

 

"I pitched several ideas to Jason and Bill during my first week at Rapido. The Titfield range would be the headline alongside the Hunslet 16in and others. Bill’s wry smile and Richard’s enthusiastic endorsement allowed the project to progress.

 

But we couldn’t do anything without securing permission from STUDIOCANAL, which owns the rights to Ealing Studios' archive. We negotiated for the exclusive rights to produce four items of rolling stock and the Bedford OB.

...

All this research was gathered over the winter of 2020/2021 with the intention that, when the deal was signed with STUDIOCANAL, we could send all the research packages off to China.

 

We signed on the dotted line in early 2021. Our plan was to wait until we had Engineering Prototypes of the various models before we made our big announcement. However, this plan was dashed when the cat was let out of the bag.

 

STUDIOCANAL informed us that, on March 5th, another party had tried to acquire the rights to the film. We’d already signed the deal so the approach was turned down. Then, the following Monday, another manufacturer announced that it was making Lion.

 

Could the two incidents be linked? That left us in a quandary. Do we stay quiet or announce the range?

 

Richard had an idea: why not make an announcement of an announcement? And, just to increase the sense of fun and intrigue, why not make the big reveal on April 1st? After all, it’s just the sort of thing that Jason would suggest.

 

JASON: Am I really that predictable?

 

ANDY: We've had a great time seeing the fallout and reading all the online comments and the correspondence you've sent us. As you can see, our Thunderbolt/Lion is making great progress and the rest of the range is coming together nicely as well. Some models will be ready in 2022 and the rest will come out in time for the 70th anniversary in March 2023."

 

The newsletter also includes CADs (and a hand-painted mockup) of some of the proposed models.  Not sure if Hornby have released similar?

 

Richard T

 

Edited by RichardT
Punctuation
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...