Railroad Crosti 9F

[gismorail]

Well I think I will rest my case 

[Dunsignalling]

. An RTR Polybulk for £60 anyone?  :-))

                                                                 Cheers, Brian.

Or a CKD one for £59, your choice.

 

John

[Pandora]

During the week that the Crosti was released (or at least received many mentions of "in stock at xxx" on here), I was on shift, working just across the road from IA Waterloo. I was hoping to pick one up but none appeared. When I mentioned this to the manager, he said they had been in stock for a few days, but they hadn't received the invoice so couldn't yet put them out for sale. A week later I returned, still none on display - I assumed that they had either sold them all or still not yet received the invoice.But as I picked mine up from T4U, I wsn't bothered. Still have received a reply back from Hornby about the faulty gearwheel though.

 

Stewart

Ian Allan Waterloo had two on display in the glass cabinet and received a batch of 10 on Monday.  Price is competitive too.

[Downer]

I have to say that I think this thread has been remarkably low on criticism of the Hornby Railroad Crosti.....and I feel that there has been an acceptance that this was a Railroad model, and just right for the more expert amongst us to take the tool kit to.

 

But would I be right in thinking that the majority of folk might just be very happy to accept the model for what it is, and not make any amendments, perhaps other than having it weathered.??

 

I would never normally have bought a Railroad model, preferring to have a much more detailed model for the extra money.  But I think we all agree that this model is not of the very basic Railroad type, and makes a passable appearance for a decent model in its own right. 

 

I'm not going to take a tool kit to my model.....I will have it professionally weathered, but not much else.....but that's a personal thing, others I know will differ.

 

Bob

 

As someone who has wavered on whether or not to buy this loco at its' Railroad-plus price, I agree it's pretty damn good.  But... while I could just about live with the lack of brake shoes, the dreadful pony truck is enough to put me off what would be an essentially impulse buy.  That said, a future Brassmasters detailing kit would probably change my mind.  

[Brian Kirby]

Or a CKD one for £59, your choice.

 

John

I can't understand why some people are so anti and dismissive of the CKD concept? My previously quoted full price of a RTR Bachmann Polybulk at £60 (well it's £59.95 actually) is based on fact, your "CKD" figure is just provocatively plucked out of the sky with no solid evidence. In the real world of commercial pricing and market forces, i would expect the "build-your-own version" to be offered at at least 20% to 33% cheaper, or maybe even less. I am not suggesting that any manufacturer goes over to doing everything in CKD, just a handful of selected items each year. If CKD locos or stock became available, i can foresee a thriving future market of spare component swapping between modellers. Surely anything that gets us away from compulsive RTR acquisition (most probably ends up in cupboards) and back to real modelling is a good thing?

                                                                   Cheers, Brian.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I can't understand why some people are so anti and dismissive of the CKD concept? My previously quoted full price of a RTR Bachmann Polybulk at £60 (well it's £59.95 actually) is based on fact, your "CKD" figure is just provocatively plucked out of the sky with no solid evidence...

Brian,

 

There is solid evidence for proposing that a 'CKD' would be priced exactly as the assembled model, and it has already been stated.

 

When T-H produced 'CKD' the price reduction was exactly the assembled retail price, less the purchase tax due on an assembled item. That was where the price reduction came from, there was a loophole in the law which enabled the retail price to be reduced by eliminating the purchase tax. So the Inland Revenue got nothing on the sale, but manufacturer and retailer derived identical income from the sale. That tax loophole no longer exists. These are facts.

 

Why would a manufacturer choose to sell their product for less than the assembled item can achieve at retail? That's what you have to explain to make your position credible.

 

Don't get me wrong, CKD is an attractive prospect for me in a number of ways and there is product that I would like to buy this way if offered, for all the good old 'modeller' reasons. But I have been in engineering development, manufacturing, service and customer support ops; and have some appreciation of what the problems are with such a product offering.  The 'kitting' is demanding, and must be designed in from the tooling development stage onwards - that's an incremental cost over design for factory assembly- and there is a foreseeable need to run a support operation for lost/damaged components once the product is in the hands of the customer - again incremental cost -  and there is also a risk to reputation, such that the CKD versions would need an indelible identifier such that there is no risk of a CKD item being passed off as a factory assembled version.

[Horsetan]

.....CKD is an attractive prospect for me in a number of ways and there is product that I would like to buy this way if offered, for all the good old 'modeller' reasons. But I have been in engineering development, manufacturing, service and customer support ops; and have some appreciation of what the problems are with such a product offering.  The 'kitting' is demanding, and must be designed in from the tooling development stage onwards - that's an incremental cost over design for factory assembly- and there is a foreseeable need to run a support operation for lost/damaged components once the product is in the hands of the customer - again incremental cost -  and there is also a risk to reputation, such that the CKD versions would need an indelible identifier such that there is no risk of a CKD item being passed off as a factory assembled version.

 

To some extent HO US-outline diesels, and some Euro HO, come as PKD (partially knocked-down). You get a running, painted shell, plus sprues containing the detail bits. Up to you whether you use some or all of them.

 

The recent Hornby explanations and photos of their J50 engineering samples being assembled showed that, theoretically, CKD/PKD-format was possible. It's a neat idea but it's down to the manufacturer; if not set up to supply models in this way, then it may well cost extra to modify the usual procedures.

 

....and a great many (the majority?) modellers prefer to pay as little as possible for fully-assembled RTR anyway.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 

To some extent HO US-outline diesels, and some Euro HO, come as PKD (partially knocked-down). You get a running, painted shell, plus sprues containing the detail bits. Up to you whether you use some or all of them...

Significantly this style of product is a single mode of operation: there's no fully assembled alternative from the manufacturer, the detail parts are supplied in a form that makes the kitting as simple as possible by having them on sprues. Exactly as the miniature text in your post which made me laugh, this isn't a universally popular option; most folks want all the detail fitted  - for free - and there's regular griping about the small quantity of optional detail offered in this style with some Heljan products .

[Brian Kirby]

Hi again 34BD,

    Dapol sell their "OO" LMS Corridor Coaches (from 30 year Airfix moulds) ready-to-run for £17.70. (Dapol full price) They sell a pre-painted CKD kit of the same type for £12.30.

   Dapol also sell the non-corridor coaches ready-to-run for £16.60, or as a pre-painted CKD kit for £10.70. The price differences are in the region of 25%-33% less for the CKD option. All of these coaches were only available as only RTR for the first twenty years, can you explain to me how the CKD can be so much cheaper? Your engineering theory seems to have fallen apart at the first hurdle?

 

Hi Ivan, 

     I well ready the American Athearn "CKD" locos and box cars, etc. we sold at MRM (King's Cross Models) in the 1970s/80s, the CKD versions were significantly cheaper, especially the wagons. No tax saving after 1970/1, they "sold like hot cakes", the CKDs would always sell out before the RTR completed versions.

                                                     Cheers, Brian.

[bike2steam]

I have a few Stanier coach rakes made from the Dapol kits, and for cheap coaches they don't look too bad, once detailed, addition of metal wheels, smaller couplings, flush glazing, and weathered finish. The kits are probably cheaper than rtr 'cause you don't have to pay someone to put 'em together.

Now- these Crusties, when are Hornby gonna bring out the converted ( to proper running) version ??

Edited September 10, 2015 by bike2steam

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Dapol sell their "OO" LMS Corridor Coaches (from 30 year Airfix moulds) ready-to-run for £17.70. (Dapol full price) They sell a pre-painted CKD kit of the same type for £12.30.

   Dapol also sell the non-corridor coaches ready-to-run for £16.60, or as a pre-painted CKD kit for £10.70. The price differences are in the region of 25%-33% less for the CKD option. All of these coaches were only available as only RTR for the first twenty years, can you explain to me how the CKD can be so much cheaper? Your engineering theory seems to have fallen apart at the first hurdle?...

The answer is right there in your post: not a current standard model by a country mile. With tooling cost long ago amortised, and a relatively small parts count making it cheap to manufacture and pack, it's an exploitation of old tooling. (I might even guess that they are manufactured as kits, with some getting assembled to take up what would otherwise be slack time in an operation.) Fine if that's the class of product you are interested in, but I didn't imagine that is what we were discussing.

 

If this is such a good way of doing business, ask yourself why Dapol do not offer this option on every newly tooled introduction to their range? You must know the investment model in this line of business: the new introductions recover the development and tooling cost over the initial sales, which is ploughed back as investment in the next new introductions. Nobody is up for giving that away!

[Brian Kirby]

I wish my mate 34BD would read my earlier posts more carefully, i never suggested that manufacturers should immediately offer new additions to their range in CKD format (his words), only models that had been in the range for some time. I also never suggested that any manufacturer should offer their entire range in CKD, i merely suggested that a few older loco, coach or wagon models could be selected each year and be issued in CKD format. The use of old moulds will cause no price differential between RTR and CKD, both formats will benefit from the depreciation of the moulds, which have hopefully already recovered their original costs. After telling us at great length that there would be no cost difference between producing RTR or CKD, "due to assembly, packaging and quality control inspection", i'm still waiting for 34BD to explain how Dapol and Athearn manage to achieve their significant price difference between RTR and CKD? (I know the answer)

                                                                                    Cheers, Brian.

[Dunsignalling]

I can't understand why some people are so anti and dismissive of the CKD concept? My previously quoted full price of a RTR Bachmann Polybulk at £60 (well it's £59.95 actually) is based on fact, your "CKD" figure is just provocatively plucked out of the sky with no solid evidence. In the real world of commercial pricing and market forces, i would expect the "build-your-own version" to be offered at at least 20% to 33% cheaper, or maybe even less. I am not suggesting that any manufacturer goes over to doing everything in CKD, just a handful of selected items each year. If CKD locos or stock became available, i can foresee a thriving future market of spare component swapping between modellers. Surely anything that gets us away from compulsive RTR acquisition (most probably ends up in cupboards) and back to real modelling is a good thing?

                                                                   Cheers, Brian.

Unfortunately Brian, your last sentence sums up in a nutshell exactly why the manufacturers have nothing to gain from it.

 

There is also a question of models being assembled by amateurs of variable skill levels entering the used market and being passed off as the real thing. That didn't matter much with the original Tri-ang CKD models, which were so simple as to be more-or-less idiot proof, but that would certainly not be the case with today's models. As for a saving on price, those of the Tri-ang CKD items (tax free) weren't any less than those of fully assembled models before tax.

 

It conjectural whether there would be much to be saved from assembly costs on the Bachmann Polybulk if a "knocked-down" version was over 50% built. It's a complex model and that would be necessary if it were not to be beyond the abilities of most of Bachmann's established customers to finish it off to a satisfactory standard. Such savings as were made would be substantially offset by the costs of alternative packaging, putting all the bits into it, and running a different quality control regime which could not be shared with the assembled versions. 

 

There is also the issue of dealing with after-sales enquiries/advice/replacing bits the buyer has damaged, none of which are Bachmann set up for. Their service department is geared to dealing with the expected 4-duds-out-of-every-504-produced under warranty plus helping with customer induced wrecks if they happen to have the bits available.  

 

Assuming that Bachmann took at least as much profit out of CKD as assembled versions (there's nothing in it for them if they didn't), I'd be very surprised if the price difference was as much as even 5%. Given modern accounting methods, depending on the quantities involved, it is not impossible that the CKD model could even turn out more expensive than the built-up one.  

 

"Real modellers" are plentifully catered for by the kit manufacturers. However, many of them aren't exactly thriving and anybody who is really price-conscious can find unwanted, unbuilt kits at prices that the r-t-r companies wouldn't get out of bed for. Part built ones that people have given up on can be got for next-to-nothing. I have an unbuilt Model Loco 9F kit with all the bits still in their original vacuum packaging. Now there is the Bachmann r-t-r one, what's it worth? Maybe 40% of what it cost 30 years ago. I may build it one day, but I suspect not.

 

Many of the people who have joined the hobby since r-t-r got good don't do "real modelling" and many who used to, do a lot less of it. Why? Because they don't need to any more. Some people enjoy modelling for its own sake, others just want to see trains running with the minimum of effort and delay. Those of us with the time and the inclination generally have the skills already, though we're open to acquiring extra ones. 

 

The obvious targets for New-CKD would therefore be two groups, one that doesn't want it and one that doesn't need it; not a recipe for commercial joy.

 

John

Edited September 10, 2015 by Dunsignalling

[frobisher]

  Dapol sell their "OO" LMS Corridor Coaches (from 30 year Airfix moulds) ready-to-run for £17.70. (Dapol full price) They sell a pre-painted CKD kit of the same type for £12.30.

   Dapol also sell the non-corridor coaches ready-to-run for £16.60, or as a pre-painted CKD kit for £10.70. The price differences are in the region of 25%-33% less for the CKD option. All of these coaches were only available as only RTR for the first twenty years, can you explain to me how the CKD can be so much cheaper? Your engineering theory seems to have fallen apart at the first hurdle?

Because these are manufactured in the UK (and can be easily manufactured in the UK still) and have a set of parts that lend themselves to this approach. The production line process will be the same for these up until the point of assembly or not. It will not be operating in the manner that a Chinese production line would, and there are next to no other products competing for that production capacity.

[Jamiel]

As someone who has wavered on whether or not to buy this loco at its' Railroad-plus price, I agree it's pretty damn good.  But... while I could just about live with the lack of brake shoes, the dreadful pony truck is enough to put me off what would be an essentially impulse buy.  That said, a future Brassmasters detailing kit would probably change my mind.  

Hi Downer

 

I mentioned the possibility of doing a detailing kit to Brassmasters when ordering a front pony truck etch for my new Crosti 9F, and they replied 'Unfortunately the Crosti is not in our plans'.

 

Maybe approaching DJH might be an idea, as they already have a full kit, so the parts are pretty much there, but an order to a few different manufacturers can put together a nice little set of parts for personal detailing.

 

I have compared a couple of photos and the model (especially the first one that comes up from a Google image search, below), and it does look like the smoke deflector for this one, on this date is slightly different, and an etched version might be an improvement, which is something that isn't easily available. I looks like it might have had two thin panels extended at either end, they can be seen overlapping the running plate slightly. I can't say I noticed until I put two photos side by side to look for possible additions to be made. Not sure if this is something I would attempt to copy when doing any detailing.

 

 

I don't wish to pick apart this model, I think it is great out of the box, but for those like me who plan to detail it a bit more, this is just a little more information to consider when planning extra additions.

 

Jamie

Edited September 10, 2015 by Jamiel

[Brian Kirby]

Good picture, and it's Hornby's 92023 too.   BK

[Brian Kirby]

Because these are manufactured in the UK (and can be easily manufactured in the UK still) and have a set of parts that lend themselves to this approach. The production line process will be the same for these up until the point of assembly or not. It will not be operating in the manner that a Chinese production line would, and there are next to no other products competing for that production capacity.

So couldn't the rested or retired moulds from an older model be brought to the UK, and used here purely as a supply of kit parts, without the extra labour cost of assembly?    BK

[Horsetan]

....Maybe approaching DJH might be an idea, as they already have a full kit, so the parts are pretty much there, ...

Given DJH's traditional aversion to anything innovative, don't be surprised if they give your idea short shrift.

[Hilux5972]

Crosti reviewed in this months Hornby Magazine. A good video as well

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZswgbYwXFn0

Edited September 11, 2015 by Hilux5972

[Dunsignalling]

So couldn't the rested or retired moulds from an older model be brought to the UK, and used here purely as a supply of kit parts, without the extra labour cost of assembly?    BK

Yes, they could, but it's not necessarily that easy for a number of reasons. 

 

(1) Moulds are made to fit particular brands/types/sizes of moulding machine so you need them to match.

 

(2) Hornby almost certainly no longer possess the equipment to do it at all in the UK and Bachmann never have. Why would either sell moulds to a potential or established competitor for the little they are actually worth? 

 

(3) Whoever took it on would have to have confidence that they could make money out of it and that the moulds had enough life left in them to make it worthwhile. All models use several moulds in their production. Once the one in worst condition expires, the rest are useless unless you have the resources to replace it. In an earlier post, you cite the Dapol coaches but there is a big difference between wringing the final dregs of income from what you already own and paying someone else for gear that is, at best, half worn out in an attempt to repeat the exercise. 

 

(4) Any established player has to judge whether such products might cannibalise sales from their finished models rather than creating extra ones? If they did, but generated lower (or even equal) profit per item, or profits for somebody else, why would they bother? There are also issues around company image and reputation.

 

Overall, it's a business proposition, good or bad. If anybody is equipped to do it and thinks it could make enough money, it might happen. If they consider it would incur a lot of effort and risk for not much reward, the moulds will be scrapped once they cease to be of use for normal production.

 

We've seen several examples of established, good quality ranges of kits and bits disappearing once sold on by their original creators; would r-t-r to CKD be any different?

 

John

Edited September 11, 2015 by Dunsignalling

[Horsetan]

Yes, they could, but it's not necessarily that easy for a number of reasons. 

 

(1) Moulds are made to fit particular brands/types/sizes of moulding machine so you need them to match.

 

(2) Hornby almost certainly no longer possess the equipment to do it at all in the UK and Bachmann never have. Why would either sell moulds to a potential or established competitor for the little they are actually worth? 

 

(3) Whoever took it on would have to have confidence that they could make money out of it and that the moulds had enough life left in them to make it worthwhile. All models use several moulds in their production. Once the one in worst condition expires, the rest are useless unless you have the resources to replace it. In an earlier post, you cite the Dapol coaches but there is a big difference between wringing the final dregs of income from what you already own and paying someone else for gear that is, at best, half worn out in an attempt to repeat the exercise. 

 

(4) Any established player has to judge whether such products might cannibalise sales from their finished models rather than creating extra ones? If they did, but generated lower (or even equal) profit per item, why would they bother? There are also issues around company image and reputation.

 

Overall, it's a business proposition, good or bad. If anybody thinks it could make enough money, it might happen. If they consider it would incur a lot of effort and risk for not much reward, the moulds will be scrapped once they cease to be of use to their current owners.

 

We've seen several examples of established, good quality ranges of kits and bits disappearing once sold on by their original creators; would r-t-r to CKD be any different?

I wonder if Coopercraft could take this on?....oh wait.....hang on.....

[toboldlygo]

Hi Downer

 

I mentioned the possibility of doing a detailing kit to Brassmasters when ordering a front pony truck etch for my new Crosti 9F, and they replied 'Unfortunately the Crosti is not in our plans'.

 

Maybe approaching DJH might be an idea, as they already have a full kit, so the parts are pretty much there, but an order to a few different manufacturers can put together a nice little set of parts for personal detailing.

 

I have compared a couple of photos and the model (especially the first one that comes up from a Google image search, below), and it does look like the smoke deflector for this one, on this date is slightly different, and an etched version might be an improvement, which is something that isn't easily available. I looks like it might have had two thin panels extended at either end, they can be seen overlapping the running plate slightly. I can't say I noticed until I put two photos side by side to look for possible additions to be made. Not sure if this is something I would attempt to copy when doing any detailing.

 

 

I don't wish to pick apart this model, I think it is great out of the box, but for those like me who plan to detail it a bit more, this is just a little more information to consider when planning extra additions.

 

Jamie

 

92023's deflector is different to the rest of it's classmates. It's quicker to renumber and recrest, than to alter the deflector.

 

On a more important note the Evening Star/9F gear set (X9909) is a suitable replacement - however you must use the pins from the Crosti, as one is stepped to aid location of one of the gears (it isn't on Evening Star, etc)

[RedgateModels]

92023's deflector is different to the rest of it's classmates. It's quicker to renumber and recrest, than to alter the deflector.

 

On a more important note the Evening Star/9F gear set (X9909) is a suitable replacement - however you must use the pins from the Crosti, as one is stepped to aid location of one of the gears (it isn't on Evening Star, etc)

 

I've been saying this ever since Hornby announced that they were doing '023. '021 would have been a much better option, as that is also the only one where there is hard photographic evidence of it carrying the late crest before rebuilding ....

 

my '023 on the other hand ....

 

 

[dibber25]

I can't understand why some people are so anti and dismissive of the CKD concept? My previously quoted full price of a RTR Bachmann Polybulk at £60 (well it's £59.95 actually) is based on fact, your "CKD" figure is just provocatively plucked out of the sky with no solid evidence. In the real world of commercial pricing and market forces, i would expect the "build-your-own version" to be offered at at least 20% to 33% cheaper, or maybe even less. I am not suggesting that any manufacturer goes over to doing everything in CKD, just a handful of selected items each year. If CKD locos or stock became available, i can foresee a thriving future market of spare component swapping between modellers. Surely anything that gets us away from compulsive RTR acquisition (most probably ends up in cupboards) and back to real modelling is a good thing?

                                                                   Cheers, Brian.

In the past, I asked SK about this on several occasions. It was very obvious that there were two main objections - 1 It didn't reduce the cost by much because it required new packaging, instructions etc. 2 It resulted in the hobby being awash with poorly-built examples of Hornby product which the company felt did its reputation no good.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Brian Kirby]

 

 

(2) Hornby almost certainly no longer possess the equipment to do it at all in the UK and Bachmann never have. Why would either sell moulds to a potential or established competitor for the little they are actually worth? 

 

(3) Whoever took it on would have to have confidence that they could make money out of it and that the moulds had enough life left in them to make it worthwhile. 

 

John

Whoever suggested selling old moulds to a third party? The big manufacturers could employ moulding firms in the UK, so long as the moulds are compatible. Are Airfix kits moulded in the UK? Didn't Bachmann have a large batch of couplings made in the UK, when there was a sudden shortage a few years back? Alternatively parts could be made in China, be bundled together, then arranged into kits in the UK? You can't assume all old moulds are badly worn, it depends how good a seller the model has been, unless there's a fault in the mould?    

                                                                                                 Cheers, Brian.