New range of Thomas the Tank Engine in 2015

[Talltim]

The Bachmann Percy my grandson has runs well though omission of a front coupler was daft .Bachmann are crap . .As I dont run much in the way of UK Bachmann  i acnt really comment

Well, that's clear then.

Selective quoting alert!

[Georgeconna]

Thomas was very popular in the shop over Christmas. I managed to get hold of a few Thomas sets and they sold out within seconds of going on sale. We still have a few items including Gordon, wagons and Gordon's brake coach as we sold the composite coaches yesterday. I do hope Hornby are bringing the Thomas range out in 2015 as i know they will be great sellers in our shop. 

 

i agree that £118 is far to over priced for Gordon, we priced our model at, what we think, is a much more reasonable price and as a result only have one left in stock. 

I worked in a model shop for 3 years, all what sold was mainly the  Thomas sets, Rest of the Range way overpriced and stayed on the Shelf along with many other items in the Hornby range.

[Corbs]

I think my 'Gordon' ended up costing about what a new one from Hornby would be. Mine's a bit different I suppose....

[Multiple identity account]

Well my hopes died down a bit after reading the last sentence of an interview between MREmag and Nat from Hornby. Seems like the old tooling is still to be used. But wonder if there still will be any updates however to the tooling.

[Legend]

Sorry , but I can't resist "I told you so". I wonder if they might move on prices though, as their must be realisation that very few folk are going to fork out £100+ on Gordon, Henry etc,

 

Really they should have designed a new range a la Bachmann with simplified motors , common 4 and 6 wheel chassis

[Adams442T]

Southworth's revelation of 'difficulties with access to the tooling' perhaps indicate not only items as before but possibly delays as well. Feel sorry for our struggling model shops who could probably do with a boost in revenues sooner rather than later.

[Ozexpatriate]

Well my hopes died down a bit after reading the last sentence of an interview between MREmag and Nat from Hornby. Seems like the old tooling is still to be used. But wonder if there still will be any updates however to the tooling. 

"They are sorting out issues with access to the tooling"

 

Sorry , but I can't resist "I told you so".

Without any malice or gloating on my part, indeed so. There was a bit of irrational exuberance in this thread earlier.

 

My suggestion is that the tooling was located at Sanda Kan and essentially hostage to business negotiations. After taking months to move the tooling to a new supplier and ready it for production, the existing range can be reintroduced. If there are worn tools, these could be remade, possibly with some tweaks.

Mr. Kohler alluded to issues with recovering tooling in his most recent "Simon Says" blog.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Ozexpatriate

[Hilux5972]

That is very disappointing

[Hesperus]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hornby have been told to change the range to fit more with HITs guidelines or lose the license,

I would be very surprised if HIT gave a toss what the models looked like so long as Hornby paid up on time. Take a look in any toy shop to see the appallingly twisted shapes that are purporting to be 'models' of Thomas.

[Rexeljet]

I'm still not sure the "issues with access to the tooling" necessarily means that Hornby will be using the original toolings unaltered. "The tooling" could refer to trucks (which are usually pretty good in the Hornby Thomas range, with the exception of those giant troublesome trucks) or engines that aren't really in need of revising (e.g. Oliver, Murdoch et maybe al)

 

If Hornby's "new" range of Thomas is merely the old toolings being dredged up again, then if I may be brutally honest, I think Hornby would have been better off leaving the range discontinued and handing the reins over to Bachmann. And this is coming from someone who likes a fair bit of what Hornby's Thomas range has/had to offer. Many of the characters look good when placed alongside real engine classes, a lot of the trucks and vans are excellent, they're great at capturing the looks of the faces and engines like Murdoch, Oliver and Stepney are fantastic.

 

But here's the thing. The main characters of the franchise such as Thomas, Percy and James, were merchandised by Hornby when the Thomas the Tank Engine brand was in its infancy. Nowadays, HiT has been doing their best to unify all aspects of the Thomas brand to make the modern day, CGI Thomas design as iconic as possible. Kids are going to want a model of Thomas that looks like how he does on TV. They couldn't care less if Hornby's Thomas model is more accurate to his real life basis; they want a Thomas model to capture the design that they see on all other aspects of the brand.

 

And at the end of the day we shouldn't really dismiss this issue with "it's for little kids, they won't know the difference", because a lot of them do. I've always been against the idea that it's okay to produce half-arsed material- whether they be toys, films, comics or otherwise- just because the target audience comprises children. Many are smarter than people give them credit for. A series of models that are relatively thin on detail (so as to reduce costs and the risk of choking) but do a decent job of capturing the looks of the characters is something that Hornby could really do with if they want to bring back the Thomas range.

 

For Thomas, such a tooling already exists. The 0-6-0 clockwork Thomas from the 1990s is a model that has next to no detail but is a fairly good representation of the character. Use the motor/chassis from Toby and Bob's your uncle. Call me a nutcase, but I don't think it'd be too unreasonable to speculate that "issues with access to the tooling" actually refers to this. After all, it's been quite some time since the tooling was last used. It's a very basic model, though no more so than the Percy tooling when you think about it. Give 'em both white footplates plus CGI-styled faces and they'd look quite nice sitting on the shelf of a model shop.

 

Even then, I still wouldn't put it past Hornby to produce new body toolings for some of the characters. The Toy Story set shows that Hornby can produce brand new body designs for models aimed at kids when they feel that it's a necessity

 

If the new range is just the old tooling, I really do hope that Hornby make some sort of effort to spruce the models up. CGI-styled faces is one thing (and pretty much a given) but white footplates will really do wonders to some of the older toolings. Since the Thomas tooling is never going to be used to make the regular old E2 ever again, they might as well make more changes to the tooling to make it better resemble Thomas. A widened cab and a straightened rear footplate will really make him come to life. The axleboxes on Gordon's tender have got to be sorted out as well. If James' tender has black axleboxes, and Edward's tender has black axleboxes, and all three engines share a tender design, then how can the blue axleboxes on Gordon's tender be seen as anything other than laziness? And other engines have no business ever being brought back again unless they're redesigned completely. The Hornby Edward is an absolute joke, and don't get me started on Emily. 

 

Bit of a noob question, but do Hornby own/have access to the Lima 08 tooling? if so, it seems a bit strange how they're still proceeding to churn out the old Triang 08 in the Thomas and Railroad range if they're not using the superior Lima version as a budget alternative to their super detailed 08 (maybe this is what Nat meant when he mentioned issues with access to the body tooling... OK, I'll shut up now)

 

Sorry if this seems like a rant, but with the Thomas range being quiet since 2011/2012 it would be nice if there were some changes afoot seeing as the news came off as quite ceremonious.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Rexeljet

[Multiple identity account]

Any further news about this?

[Hroth]

If Hornby ARE to retool some "Thomas" models, a more dimensionally accurate representation of a J70 (Toby) might be a good idea as it would have crossover potential for older modellers......

[Adams442T]

If Hornby ARE to retool some "Thomas" models, a more dimensionally accurate representation of a J70 (Toby) might be a good idea as it would have crossover potential for older modellers......

 

If one reads the 'Simon Says' latest blog concerning the difficulties he encountered when taking over responsibilities for the 'Thomas' range one can see that production licences for reproduction of the 'characters' is very dependant on them being signed off by the current licence holders.

 

Dimensional accuracy to prototype is not what is required, but fidelity to the CGI items that are shown on the screen.  Any retooling would presumably be closer to the current images and that makes it, if anything, even further away from its prototypical origins.

[Guest spet0114]

If one reads the 'Simon Says' latest blog concerning the difficulties he encountered when taking over responsibilities for the 'Thomas' range one can see that production licences for reproduction of the 'characters' is very dependant on them being signed off by the current licence holders.

 

Dimensional accuracy to prototype is not what is required, but fidelity to the CGI items that are shown on the screen.  Any retooling would presumably be closer to the current images and that makes it, if anything, even further away from its prototypical origins.

 

Bearing in mind the fact that we're discussing models of fictional locomotives, I'm not sure what the phrase 'prototypical origins' really means. Presumably the 'prototype' Thomas only existed in the Rev. Awdry's head - let's not forget that most of the illustrators for the original books couldn't get it close enough to 'right' to satisfy the Rev's requirements. 

 

Having read Simon's blog, I'm struck most by two things.

 

Firstly, as always, our Simon is basically blameless and all poor decisions were made by his superiors. Business as usual there. Secondly, the passion that Britt Allcroft had for the franchise really comes across. Based on the latter, one has to ask the question - would Britt have signed off on the dreadful lash-up that is the Hornby model of Emily? I think that this particular loco is emblematic of the decline in the stature of the Thomas range, both in Hornby's thinking/game plan and also in the mind of whoever happens to hold the franchise this week. Simon starts his blog with a sideswipe at forum posters who criticise the current (or recent) Thomas range. I tend to think the target of his criticism should be elsewhere - the folk at Hornby who had the gall to suggest that a repainted Lord of the Isles is a passable approximation of a Stirling Single, and the soul-less suits at HiT or whoever that allowed Hornby to get away with this slack attitude and signed off on it. If, as Simon concludes, he was always the primary point of contact with the Thomas franchisee, then maybe he should look a little closer to home before doling out the disparaging remarks?

 

Cheers

Adrian

[Adams442T]

Hroth, on 14 Feb 2015 - 18:42, said:

 

"If Hornby ARE to retool some "Thomas" models, a more dimensionally accurate representation of a J70 (Toby) might be a good idea as it would have crossover potential for older modellers......"

 

Spet0114 yesterday said:

 

"Bearing in mind the fact that we're discussing models of fictional locomotives, I'm not sure what the phrase 'prototypical origins' really means. Presumably the 'prototype' Thomas only existed in the Rev. Awdry's head - let's not forget that most of the illustrators for the original books couldn't get it close enough to 'right' to satisfy the Rev's requirements."

 

My response was in answer to Hroth's comment about a more accurate base model to provide a decent basis for a J70 conversion, and nothing to do with Rev. Awdry's original depictions.  He was however always more interested in prototypical engine movements and situations than perhaps the locomotives themselves.  Though given the period in which he wrote the stories his illustrators were nearer to P4 standards compared with the model railway offerings then available!

 

Having been involved in licencing wrangles within the model industry I know just how difficult it can be and I was pointing up Simon Kohler's comments as an example relating to the model railway field. 

[PaulRhB]

dreadful lash-up that is the Hornby model of Emily? I think that this particular loco is emblematic of the decline in the stature of the Thomas range, both in Hornby's thinking/game plan and also in the mind of whoever happens to hold the franchise this week.

 

Except Emily is in the Bachmann range

The Hornby ones are actually mostly based on the Rev's ideas not the TV series, Thomas included. The fact that Hornby had many of the same or close prototypes in the range already was stated originally as why they got permission to go that way as a Thomas range.

Britt Allcroft later on became far more stringent when the franchise took off but Hornby already had the license. Look at the fun the preserved railways had with them insisting on full crb checks for everyone on duty on Thomas days even if not in contact with the kid, (you can understand why as they wanted to avoid any possible newspaper storm being associated with Thomas).

The Hornby range appealed to those who grew up with the books as more authentic but the Bachmann range closely follows the TV series and films so any modern toy company is going to want that. Sometimes there's a reason for different versions like the current Paddington film where there's a market for the original illustrations version (mini bronzes), 70's TV series, (short and round), and current film but all the new toys are being licensed on the film version.

Simon K may well be venting about the frustrations he's had over the years with senior men who look at the money but at the end of the day it was his job to convince these people he had done his research to justify why they were to take his course. Many of us have to deal with similar frustrations with higher levels because they don't do the job on a daily basis and are removed from the reasons why, much easier when you deal with people who graduated through the job as it's quicker and easier for them to understand you know what you're talking about

Edited February 15, 2015 by PaulRhB

[papagolfjuliet]

Except Emily is in the Bachmann range

 

 

And the Hornby range, in which it is or was the Tri-ang Dean Single with the dome removed.

[PaulRhB]

And the Hornby range, in which it is or was the Tri-ang Dean Single with the dome removed.

Ah never seen that Hornby one maybe that's why, no one who runs at layouts at shows buys it

In that case I'd agree its a duffer but the original range was pretty good.

Edited February 15, 2015 by PaulRhB

[Xerces Fobe2]

Could this be the beginning of the end, yes DOTTTE! with the final engine named Vic? 

 

XF

Edited February 15, 2015 by Xerces Fobe2

[petethemole]

Remember Gertie the gas axe?

[RJS1977]

And the Hornby range, in which it is or was the Tri-ang Dean Single with the dome removed.

 

Never trust domeless engines. They aren't respectable.

[Xerces Fobe2]

The end will come when Vic is buried!

[RJS1977]

Bearing in mind the fact that we're discussing models of fictional locomotives, I'm not sure what the phrase 'prototypical origins' really means. Presumably the 'prototype' Thomas only existed in the Rev. Awdry's head - let's not forget that most of the illustrators for the original books couldn't get it close enough to 'right' to satisfy the Rev's requirements. 

 

 

 

I believe the only artist Awdry took issue with was Dalby (who, like the others, was not a railway artist). As well as the previously mentioned error with Thomas's footplate, Dalby was also inconsistent from one drawing to another in terms of the number of wheels and the shape of buffers (at least one picture has Henry with Gordon's square buffers!), and even in one picture, the support for the loco shed roof growing up from the middle of the track! The issue wasn't that Awdry didn't base his locos on prototypes, as much that Dalby wasn't familiar with them and wasn't prepared to do sufficient research to draw them properly.

 

I always hoped to see a Thomas book illustrated by Cuneo!

[Xerces Fobe2]

Is there a makert for a P4 Thomas The Tank range?

[Ozexpatriate]

I believe the only artist Awdry took issue with was Dalby.

There's an interesting couple of paragraphs on The Railway Series wikipedia page.

 

There were multiple illustrators and Rev. Awdry appears to have clashed with more than one of them. He appears to have been quite particular, unsurprisingly given that he was  a railway enthusiast.

 

The first edition of The Three Railway Engines was illustrated by the artist William Middleton, with whom Awdry was deeply dissatisfied. The second artist to work on the series was Reginald Payne, who illustrated Thomas the Tank Engine in a far more realistic style. Despite an early disagreement as to how Thomas should look, Awdry was ultimately pleased with the pictures produced.

 

Payne proved impossible to contact to illustrate James the Red Engine – he had suffered from a nervous breakdown – and so C. Reginald Dalby was hired. Dalby also illustrated the next eight books in the series. The Three Railway Engines was reprinted with Dalby's artwork replacing William Middleton's and Dalby also touched up Payne's artwork in the second book. Dalby's work on the series proved popular with readers, but not with the author, who repeatedly clashed with him over issues of accuracy and consistency. Dalby resigned from the series in 1956, following an argument over the portrayal of Percy the Small Engine in the book of the same name. ...

Edited February 15, 2015 by Ozexpatriate