RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted February 28, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 28, 2015 If a company has been working on a product and gets an indication that a competitor is working on the same model (and I think most of us know that the world is made up of a lot of small worlds where there are lots of rumours) then they have every right to let the market know that they have the model in the pipeline. Assuming (and I'd stress at the moment this whole thread is speculation) that both Hornby and Bachmann are working on an air smoothed merchant navy then if Hornby wait until December then everybody will cry copycat, why are they doing that, why can't they do their own decision making etc etc. If they let people know they're working on it now they're still accused of copying and also accused of playing silly games and pretty much accused of bullying competitors which is absurd in my opinion. People are saying Hornby had ten years to make this (actually they had a lot more) so they'll buy a Bachmann model (assuming Bachmann are doing it). well yes but Bachmann have also had all that time too. To say Hornby had a long time to make a model but didn't (and considering Hornby have done a lot more for SR modellers than most) so we like another company that also didn't make it but had the idea at the same time seems rather odd to me. I do not see that Hornby are playing silly games nor doing anything wrong if this scenario is true, just letting the market know they also have a project underweigh and that they are not copying anybody. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
locoholic Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Where is the "Disagree" button when you need it most?! I get the impression that some of the people commenting on this thread would happily buy an Air-Smoothed MN even if it was made by child slave labour in North Korea, so long as it was an accurate model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Where is the "Disagree" button when you need it most?! I get the impression that some of the people commenting on this thread would happily buy an Air-Smoothed MN even if it was made by child slave labour in North Korea, so long as it was an accurate model. What a ridiculous comment... Put "Hornby" in the title of any topic, light the blue touchpaper, retire to a safe distance and wait for the fireworks... Edited February 28, 2015 by Pete 75C 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Vistisen Posted February 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2015 Where is the "Disagree" button when you need it most?! I get the impression that some of the people commenting on this thread would happily buy an Air-Smoothed MN even if it was made by child slave labour in North Korea, so long as it was an accurate model. No one has talked about the working conditions at either companies factories ( which happens to be in the same country and until recently the same factory). I assume that as this is important to you the you have no smartphone, computer, tv, radio, cheap clothes, or indeed almost anything made of plastic that less than 10 years old in your home Unless you can answer yes to ALL of the above, you have no right to make unfounded claims about other people morality. Never been so close to clicking on the report button before 2 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 (edited) What a ridiculous comment... About time we rediscovered a sense of proportion on this topic.I agree emphatically with posts 55 and 56. Edited February 28, 2015 by Ian Hargrave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Never been so close to clicking on the report button before Already done it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
locoholic Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Well, people on this thread are apparently entitled to say that model manufacturers are "entitled to do what they want", and it has "no bearing upon whether it is a good model", and put "NO" in capital letters against quotes from other people's posts, and defend spoiler tactics on Facebook that would be more appropriate to the General Election campaign, but not anything that "bashes" Hornby or questions the "good model at any cost" mentality. Bachmann don't mess around prior to Hornby's announcements, and I think that reflects well on Bachmann. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reevesthecat Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 It would be hilarious if Bachmann didn't announce it! Mark 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) If a Hornby are worried that Bachmann are about to announce one, then they have every right advance their own plans and let people know they are working on one too and are pretty well advanced. I have no problems with that, in fact I am very happy that finally someone is going to do an Air Smooth Merchant Navy. The argument that we have waited 10 years for this is like saying we have waited 15 years for a Maunsell U class from Bachmann... Now which members of the class and colours would you prefer? For me, one from the first batch of 10 in early BR would be lovely starting point, then one from each of the later batches. I would say Portline BR Blue of the last batch but I am already got plans lined up to do my Crownline kit as such (everything is brought ready to go). Edited February 28, 2015 by JSpencer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted February 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2015 What would be really funny is.... Whilst idly doodling, a project engineer in Margate does a CAD of a 'pacific' chassis..... "I wonder what that would fit under....." Sez he.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil gollin Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 . So IF it comes to pass that we get two air-smoothed Merchant Navys announced this year will all those "pro-choice" people above be happy that the duplication means a "loss" of a production slot and, presumably, lesser profits for both companies ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Bachmann would probably back down assuming the MN was part of their announcement. They have bitter experience of duplicates in the past and it is has left a bitter aftertaste. Bachmann tend to announce things once inititial research and costing is done, so would assume that if they do have one as part of Mondays announcement, it will probably not be at the CAD stage yet. And if they had plans, then Hornby have probably done them a favour by showing part of their 2016 program right away before Bachmann tie up resources into it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Already done it. Thanks, Said member will now be unable to access this topic and all his future posts will be checked by the admin team before they appear in public. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
5Bel Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 What would be really funny is.... Whilst idly doodling, a project engineer in Margate does a CAD of a 'pacific' chassis..... "I wonder what that would fit under....." Sez he.... Maybe he's been down the road to New Romney and had a look at Dr Syn and Winston Churchill, to get a more accurate re-tooling of Hiawatha. Cheers for now, Ian 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 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. What objection? I've made no objection. I've been asking Hornby to do an original MN since they first brought out the rebuilt. Whilst I'll be quite happy with any MN, to suggests that NO ONE expects all the variations to be produced is a pretty big assumption when you look at posts on this forum about most loco classes. CHRIS LEIGH 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Much as I dislike duplication - and always have done - I would have to admit that it is inevitable as the number of choices of prototype that will command a big enough market gets ever-smaller. We don't yet know what Bachmann will announce next week but, of course, they have said in the past that they would like to cover the same classes in N as OO, and they do have an N Merchant Navy close to completion. Frankly, the MN has been an obvious choice for Hornby for years with the only question mark being over its restricted area of operations and whether there are enough Bulleid fans and not too many Bulleid-haters. (This will be even more of a question when it comes to Thompson Pacifics) Bearing in mind Hornby's predeliction for doing models of locos that worked in the south east, the MN and the Class 71 were obvious choices. In other areas, too, such as the Adams Radial, cherry-picking off wish-lists would inevitably cause potential duplications. Modellers have been pressing Hornby for years to revamp the King once more, so why is there surprise when Hornby chooses to do so? To somehow paint Hornby as villains in these duplications is unfair, inaccurate and wide of the mark. It is a British trait to support the little guy but unless you know the whole story it's a mistake to assume he's always right and the big guy is always wrong. CHRIS LEIGH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2015 As people from factories in China talk to each other it need hardly come as a surprise that A knows a little about what B is doing, it need also not comes as a surprise that C lets drop a hint that he is doing it just to test the water. Hornby now buy stuff through a multiplicity of factories, at least one of which has some ex Kader folk working for it; some factories are known to be making models for several (widely different) concerns which happen to have 'a presence' of some sort or other in the British market so it is hardly surprising that word might get around. If Hornby happened to have a concern that - not for the first time - a competitor is working on something which they are also working on it strikes me as good business sense to 'let slip' hints about what they are doing and where they have got to with their version. Hornby have had a vast amount of panning on here in the past (some of it from me) about not responding to what many of us consider they should be doing or what 'the market' wants (or what we think it wants). Recently they have been taking positive steps to indicate where some of their future developments are heading - and let me see, that's exactly what many folk on here have been asking for! Hornby are changing - their approach to our section of the market seems to be changing, positively in my view, and that can only be a good thing. Some might not like 'marketing speak' answers to questions put to representatives of the company but I get the impression that currently at least some of their actions are speaking far louder than 'marketing speak' words and that they have their eye on the ball. So if the market gets two big spamcans just go out & buy them, otherwise those actions will tail off and the hobby will be the worst for it. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mow Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Produce and be damned...to misquote the Iron Duke. Duplication is a business risk, but are they aiming at the same segment of the market? Let modellers decide which one is the one they want to buy. It is possible that Hornby can design a great model, but can they supply the customers with them at the right quantity, at the right time at the right price. Their recent record has been disappointing both in the reliability of assembly and the continuity of supply. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multiple identity account Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Their recent record has been disappointing both in the reliability of assembly and the continuity of supply. Their most recent record however proves otherwise. Yes some things run out of stock soon, but are quickly replenished (TTS Class 37, Royal Class 67, Arnold 5BEL etc.).... And I think their quality has improved alot (K1, J15 etc.). These plus points have grown in number in all recent reviews of Hornby items online and in magazines. Jeff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Agree, Hornby got a big panning when they announced their King although they clearly had been working on for a long time. They then got a panning for announcing a Radial and a 71. There is lot of debate and speculation over when they started work on the 71 etc etc, but they had clearly done a lot of work on the Radial. It should be remembered that Kernow were suggesting Radial on their Facebook page for a few weeks when suddenly Oxfordrail announced theirs (and were fairly advanced too), followed only a couple of weeks later by Hornby. In the mid 90s, there were only 3 main players out there. Lima stuck to diesels and the only duplicate was the class 92, Bachmann filled the mid range steam loco motive power gap and Hornby stuck to the famous names. There was little risk of duplication... (Dapol was too small to worry about). The past two years have seen more players coming onto the market than we used to get new models in a year. Many of the most wanted items are now covered, multiple players, specific loco type demands equates to a very high risk of duplication. The solution is to be more open about your plans. So... Which early Merchant Navies do we want? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forester Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Much as I dislike duplication - You can't have it both ways, Chris! You can't say there were too many variations and the community would expect them all to be made .... then call it duplication! There is plenty of room for two manufacturers to do this particular loco - if they choose different periods, for example, or one concentrates on the earlier variations of Series One and the other on the two later series, in final form. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted February 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2015 So... Which early Merchant Navies do we want? A lot of people (me included) want locos they can run alongside rebuilt examples they already have so will prefer those that lasted longest in air-smoothed form. 35006 'Peninsular & Oriental S.N. Co' as running out of Salisbury shed in the Summer of 1959 would be my top choice. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forester Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 A lot of people (me included) want locos they can run alongside rebuilt examples they already have so will prefer those that lasted longest in air-smoothed form. 35006 'Peninsular & Oriental S.N. Co' as running out of Salisbury shed in the Summer of 1959 would be my top choice. John 35028 Clan Line, the only one to get a late crest (which beautifully matched the shape of the nameplate), would be another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 There's an awful lot of 'ifs' in this issue. 1. If it's correct that Hornby intend to do an MN (I believe that may be the case as it's been talked about for quite a while as within their conventional territory). 2. If it's correct that Bachmann intend to announce an MN (I have no indication other than a reasonable assumption they would at some point as soon as the N gauge version was announced - and some Bulleid coaching stock to match up with it on the same principle (although the end costs of coaching stock look a lot more questionable today than when that 'reasonable assumption' was first made)). If statements 1 and 2 are correct then it's a question of what variants may be catered for. If 2 is correct it's reasonable to assume that it will be the later variant to match the N gauge version, Bachmann tend not to build in as many slides for variations but instead do the homework as to what can be produced from a specific variant. If 1 is correct Hornby do have a history of building in variant slides so it's possible there could be an overlap if not at first then at some point in the future but have historically failed to produce some permutations of variant and livery to the frustration of some. It could be fair to say that if true work on said models could have been proceeding for a comparable period of time behind closed doors. It's perfectly understandable that companies will look at the same products as the potential field narrows, especially for what makes a viable product. Viability is an important element to all this, an MN could be viable for either party but is probably not if both were to do it. Where duplication occurs within a comparably short period of time e.g. Standard 4, B1 (and even more in N gauge) it's evident that the market is split and some products hang around a little before substantial discounting either from the importer or the retailer to shift stock. Demand and appetite for subsequent releases becomes suppressed and then nobody scores and potentially a duplicated MN could similarly suffer where there's insufficient market for the variants in the future to see the light of day. I'm sure we can imagine a Venn diagram where some will only want an early model, some a late model and some who sit in the overlap who would buy either. If only one company were to produce an MN it's the middle portion that gets split and that's the difference between it being a success or a failure; whether they produce differing variants or not. Anyway; none of that is a revelation so I then look at the timing of said Facebook and Monday's pre-determined event. Is it a coincidence? I think not. Within a fairly small community (for that's what this hobby is) is it gentlemanly to do so? I know my thoughts but yours may differ. It's not the first time that we've seen similar approaches over the last six months and there appears to be a combative approach (I'll stick up for the 'underdog' here and say that I don't see Bachmann adopting such methods) with accelerated development of certain products announced. I know that Bachmann have re-scheduled intended plans based on competition and duplication before today but the timing of this 'disruptor' could be too late to change a plan if that is indeed what they intended to do. Of course it's worth accelerating something that's duplicated if you can get to market first but we are living in the world of model railways rather than mobile telecoms for instance. If statements 1 and 2 are correct maybe there would have been more kudos in holding back until after any announcements to say "We are also working on the same project and are at (roughly) this stage in development with an anticipated delivery date of xxxx" rather than leaving a lot of questions unresolved in potential buyers' minds. It's that confusion or disruption to the process that causes some damage to one or both parties with the possibility of less customers pre-ordering from retailers (and hence retailers pre-ordering from their supplier) which potentially deflates initial demand hence causing questions for the supplier as to how many they manufacturer in tranche 1 etc. If statement 2 is correct then part of that venn diagram may not pre-order a model until they know if statement 1 is correct. Anyway; think what you will and the market votes with its wallet but it doesn't mean I have to like what I see could be an outcome if both statements are true*. Be careful what you wish for seems to be appropriate again here. * I haven't got a clue if they are! 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted February 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) You can't have it both ways, Chris! You can't say there were too many variations and the community would expect them all to be made .... then call it duplication! There is plenty of room for two manufacturers to do this particular loco - if they choose different periods, for example, or one concentrates on the earlier variations of Series One and the other on the two later series, in final form. Four each of the first and last ten lasted into 1959 in air-smoothed form. However, half of the final ten were rebuilt by the end of 1957, against three of the first ten, the imbalance being redressed during 1958. Given that Hornby have already 'done' most of the last ten in rebuilt form, concentrating on the earlier locos seems the more logical course. The 'Limpet board' locos, 35003 - 35010, as running from c1951 to rebuilding were pretty uniform in appearance (including first-series tenders) so offer the most options for the least difficulty. Of course, 21C1 - 2, in their flashier early guise are the attention grabbers but greater repeat sales should be generated by the more mundane version. John Edited February 28, 2015 by Dunsignalling 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