Forester Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 The number of possible variations makes absolute duplication unlikely. Agree entirely. The chances of both manufacturers making the same series MN in the same configuration are pretty remote, so both could well be winners here. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 One of each will be fine.The more the merrier.Why quibble when you get something you've dreamed about for years.So,one from 21C1 to 9 and the other 35011 to 35030? That would be a 'best of both worlds' scenario. The question is one of whether Hornby might presume that Bachmann will do something in the 3502x range and make the conscious decision not to duplicate that. Will "Murphy's Law" apply here one way or another? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
locoholic Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Why quibble when you get something you've dreamed about for years.So,one from 21C1 to 9 and the other 35011 to 35030? Why quibble? Hornby have had the basic chassis for years but ignored the opportunity. Bachmann (Farish) did the MN a couple of years ago and still Hornby didn't make their move. Now there's the potential for yet another duplication, which uses up development capital which could have been used for another loco. Even if Hornby & Bachmann did different versions, that's still two chassis tooling when one would have done, in a trading market where we are told that even a 3-car DMU is too expensive to produce at a profit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1023 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 In fairness though the Bachmann/Farish N gauge one is still to hit the shops and if Bachmann wanted it that much they could have announced a OO version last summer or in 2013 - it works both ways - lets not forget Bachmann did the same with Blue Pullman and (maybe if memory serves me correct) the LMS twin diesels that Rails had an involvement in when other people were looking to produce them and I have often wondered if the N gauge class 31 (not announced at the traditional time) was announced to throw Dapol off the scent (no proof - just idle speculation on my part). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RFS Posted February 27, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2015 It's the light pacifics that have the irregular wheel spacing - 7'6" + 7'3". Hornby already have the rebuilt MN chassis. To produce an unmodified one, isn't it just a question of replacing the valve gear? They have already produced original and rebuilt light pacifics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted February 27, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 27, 2015 If Hornby are really doing an air smoothed Merchant Navy then it is the best new release news I've heard for a long time. If Bachmann also announce it then I won't complain. There is enough variation for two manufacturers to co-exist and even if they go for the same version the very fact that there are two models will act to ensure they do their homework to get them right and keep prices competitive I suspect. Of course, it is all speculation for both Hornby and Bachmann. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted February 27, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Why quibble? Hornby have had the basic chassis for years but ignored the opportunity. Bachmann (Farish) did the MN a couple of years ago and still Hornby didn't make their move. Now there's the potential for yet another duplication, which uses up development capital which could have been used for another loco. Even if Hornby & Bachmann did different versions, that's still two chassis tooling when one would have done, in a trading market where we are told that even a 3-car DMU is too expensive to produce at a profit. Ah, but 3-car DMUs aren't big, green and named so probably only appeal to modellers, whereas the MN (variations notwithstanding) is the most numerous class of large passenger loco not yet covered in OO scale r-t-r form and should also appeal (especially in the striking as-built form of 21C1 and 21C2) to the collecting fraternity. Bachmann have, historically, displayed a general aversion to Southern subjects but it amazes me that Hornby didn't do it a decade ago. Once the MN ceases to be the elephant in the room (whoever produces it) the Thompson fans might, at last, get a look in. John Edited February 27, 2015 by Dunsignalling 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Yes this is excellent news that it looks like they are on the verge of announcing an un rebuilt Merchant Navy. I hope locos from the original batch of 10 are included. I would agree with others here that maybe they are showing this as they are a little worried about what Bachmann will announce on Monday. Certainly they had lots of recent experience of many of their new releases being duplicated elsewhere and maybe want to get ahead of the game for a change. Of course I can see LMS fans gnashing their teeth..... I personally am growing tied of seeing double in SR locos. After all these years waiting for an rnrebuilt MN, I hope Bachmann annouce a U class... (And dam, I still have not built my Crownline kit yet!) Edited February 28, 2015 by JSpencer 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 It's the light pacifics that have the irregular wheel spacing - 7'6" + 7'3". Hornby already have the rebuilt MN chassis. To produce an unmodified one, isn't it just a question of replacing the valve gear? They have already produced original and rebuilt light pacifics. I asked SK about this years ago when the rebuilt MN first came out but it's not just the valve gear - the wheels also need retooling to get over the balance weight differences. He said that it was pretty much policy to tool from new each time otherwise some tools were used more than others and wore out at different times. There were lots of variations in the original MNs - cabs, tenders and even the bodysides, some of the second batch having bodies that were clad in an asbestos derivative and had a horizontal strengthening rib prominent along both sides. Lots to go at and lots of different tools needed if they are to satisfy the demand for detail appropriate to locomotive number. CHRIS LEIGH 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium New Haven Neil Posted February 27, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 27, 2015 So could have Bachmann. So I will be buying the red box. I'll just buy the best one. it could come in brown paper for all I care. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted February 27, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2015 Why quibble? Hornby have had the basic chassis for years but ignored the opportunity. Bachmann (Farish) did the MN a couple of years ago and still Hornby didn't make their move. Now there's the potential for yet another duplication, which uses up development capital which could have been used for another loco. Even if Hornby & Bachmann did different versions, that's still two chassis tooling when one would have done, in a trading market where we are told that even a 3-car DMU is too expensive to produce at a profit. I take it you're not in the market then. Does it matter who does what or when? I'll take what the market presents me with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Hornby playing games again, trying to overshadow Bachmann's announcements next week. Same technique used for the Oxfordrails Adams Radial tank. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted February 27, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2015 Does it matter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Duplication? Who cares. Gives me an excuse to buy one from both companies."Well yes I do have an Original Merchant Navy by Hornby. But I could do with a Bachmann one as well just for comparison" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted February 27, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 27, 2015 Hornby playing games again, trying to overshadow Bachmann's announcements next week. Same technique used for the Oxfordrails Adams Radial tank. And the Hattons King Class. Seems petty behaviour from such a big company Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
locoholic Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Does it matter? To me, yes it does. Just like when Heljan messed around with Rail Exclusives and the re-tooled Class 33s. After the J15 was so good, I was just thinking that Hornby had stopped playing silly B#66ers and were concentrating on making good models, and now they're playing childish games on Facebook. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forester Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 There were lots of variations in the original MNs - cabs, tenders and even the bodysides, some of the second batch having bodies that were clad in an asbestos derivative and had a horizontal strengthening rib prominent along both sides. Lots to go at and lots of different tools needed if they are to satisfy the demand for detail appropriate to locomotive number. CHRIS LEIGH We've been through this so many times here, Chris. It's depressing to hear the same old objections time and time again. The great majority of original MNs for the great majority of their lives were identical, with just a few tender variations. No one expects all the odd variations to be produced, just the main loco body style and perhaps a couple of the main tender types. That's all it would take to satisfy most of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil gollin Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 It's only a couple of months since Hornby's annual announcements. If this is an original MN, and Bachmann also announce one next week, I'm afraid I will buy the one in the blue box, just because Hornby could have so easily done this years ago, or even just announced it last December. Sometimes the decisions Hornby make are completely baffling. . I will be P.O.'d IF after years of waiting two manufacturers come up with the same loco - Hornby had their "chance" at Christmas, if we are going to get one or more other manufacturers copying others' announcements we will get into very murky waters. I also wonder IF both manufacturers announce an air-smoothed Merchant Navy how did Hornby know what was coming up ? . . It's only a couple of months since Hornby's annual announcements. If this is an original MN, and Bachmann also announce one next week, I'm afraid I will buy the one in the blue box, just because Hornby could have so easily done this years ago, or even just announced it last December. Sometimes the decisions Hornby make are completely baffling. . I will be P.O.'d IF after years of waiting two manufacturers come up with the same loco - Hornby had their "chance" at Christmas, if we are going to get one or more other manufacturers copying others' announcements we will get into very murky waters. I also wonder IF both manufacturers announce an air-smoothed Merchant Navy how did Hornby know what was coming up ? . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted February 27, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2015 To me, yes it does. Just like when Heljan messed around with Rail Exclusives and the re-tooled Class 33s. After the J15 was so good, I was just thinking that Hornby had stopped playing silly B#66ers and were concentrating on making good models, and now they're playing childish games on Facebook. OK......but does this necessarily have any bearing on the end product,which just might be half a good model ? If any manufacturer produces the goods to my satisfaction they can play any game they wish....if it is,in fact,a "game ".Facebook appears to be their way of self expression.I don't like it any more than you do but that's the way of the world. Let us not pre judge the end product because we are prejudiced against a way of publicising it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapford34102 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Sort of following on from Ian's post aren't the companies involved in model railway production entitled to do what they want when they want ? As far as I'm aware there are no rules governing their actions and the modelling world has changed a lot over the past couple of years. Perhaps they are reacting to that. From the Facebook postings it looks as if the CAD side of things is well in hand. Not that I'm interested, too early for me Stu Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hilux5972 Posted February 27, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 27, 2015 Why is everyone saying that Hornby are being petty trying to muscle out the competition. They are being business sensible. For example Bob is secretly working on an etch plate and has not told anyone at all. Jim is also working on the same etch plate and is about to make an announcement, but Bob does not know it is the same etch plate. Bob announces his. Jim also announces his and finds out that Bobs is more advanced, so he adjusts his and brings out something slightly different. Where is the problem? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Yet Hornby, ....is the company being accused of duplicating. Timing is everything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multiple identity account Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Hornby playing games again And why does that seem to be a problem? They aren't doing anything wrong are they? A little game bothers you so much? Seems petty behaviour from such a big company HELL NO.... now they're playing childish games on Facebook. NO. 3 dedicated Hornby bashers! Edited February 28, 2015 by AJA Models 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted February 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2015 Whoa there ! Time to take a deep breath and step back from an unnecessary spat,gentlemen.This is a model railway forum not PMQ's.across the floor of The Commons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Vistisen Posted February 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2015 so someone producing a teaser line drawing that might be a picture of a chassis for a model, that someone else might be about to announce gets people foaming at the mouth, In the immortal words of William Shatner, 'Get a life' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now