Hornby APPOINTS NEW CEO

[Dunsignalling]

True. But the 'add-on' rolling stock of similar quality is generally Railroad branded.

 

If the Hornby brand was for top-end models and Oxford Rail for the lower "train-set" quality models, it would seem somewhat perverse to include train sets in the Hornby brand.

 

They then have to explain that when someone wants to look to expand their train set, they shouldn't be put off by the high prices for Hornby models - they need to look for Oxford Rail models instead.

 

Doesn't make any sense to me (for whatever that is worth).

Hornby's branding for their Budget/Obsolete range has never involved logic before. Why should we expect anything better now.

[Clearwater]

I don’t see the logic in not using Hornby as your “train set” brand. That’s what they’re known for. It would be perverse not to seek to exploit your main asset. I cant imagine walking into Hamleys and seeing a lack of red boxes.

 

In terms of premium rail models, I think it’s more complex. There is some evidence, from retailer comments on rmweb, that some customers will only buy Hornby even when presented with a better mode from eg Bachman. That illustrates how strong their brand is in the people who go into model shops world never mind the mom/pop shopper. If they were to seek to distribute under another brand, they’d still need to use Hornby somewhere in the title to not lose those customers. I’m sure Davies is shrewd enough to understand that - if I was him, I’d not be precious about keeping the Oxford Rail brand - whether you like the models or not, it’s hard to argue it’s an established name.

[wombatofludham]

It's all well and good saying that the Collett coaches and the Peckett are decent models if you have no need for them.  The point is the big manufacturers continue to make mistakes.  I understand the recent Bachmann Stanier Crab has faults/compromises, and that's not been the result of "design clever" or the "Oxford effect" and is a recent model.

 

Also, I wonder just how many real people who don't inhabit this forum have really been put off buying a Dean Goods, for example, by the criticism made here and elsewhere?  One retailer who does inhabit this space has said all his Deans have sold out and they could sell more.  That suggests to me that this forum is not representative of a large number of model rail buyers.  I know eight active modellers personally (i.e. those who are building or have a layout) and only two of us are regular here.  Six are not involved in any online modelling forums.  That split does make me wonder just how representative any online surveys or critiques are.

[Legend]

Trainsets have got to be Hornby. Its the brand that Joe Public recognise when shopping at Argos. They may well type in Hornby in the search function , 99.99% certain it won't be Oxford

 

I do think there needs to be clear space between brands but it could be as simple as Hornby and Hornby elite or Black Label or even Silver Seal!

 

It is unfortunate that Oxford seem to have had models with some defects on them , but I'm getting a bit fed up with them being described as Railroad. This may because of the cheaper price , but don't confuse price with accuracy. It should be possible to produce accurate models at reasonable cost, Oxford have nearly got there , just not quite!

 

So Id see reasonably accurate models without lights sprung buffers etc for the lower end of market and High fidelity Rapido style models for those that have got to have everything incorporated at the top end. Good decoration and dimensionally accurate models should be universal though

[No Decorum]

I'm way out of my depth in this thread, but have one thought about any future marketing of names/brands. Hornby is historically a toy manufacturer, and nothing wrong with that. But with all the connotations that "Oxford" brings internationally, I could see that sitting well as a collectors bramd.

 

 

Dave

For those who know their Onions, no doubt.

[Edwardian]

It's all well and good saying that the Collett coaches and the Peckett are decent models if you have no need for them.  The point is the big manufacturers continue to make mistakes.  I understand the recent Bachmann Stanier Crab has faults/compromises, and that's not been the result of "design clever" or the "Oxford effect" and is a recent model.

 

Also, I wonder just how many real people who don't inhabit this forum have really been put off buying a Dean Goods, for example, by the criticism made here and elsewhere?  One retailer who does inhabit this space has said all his Deans have sold out and they could sell more.  That suggests to me that this forum is not representative of a large number of model rail buyers.  I know eight active modellers personally (i.e. those who are building or have a layout) and only two of us are regular here.  Six are not involved in any online modelling forums.  That split does make me wonder just how representative any online surveys or critiques are.

 

Ryan Air is profitable.  Monarch was not.

 

With air travel, apparently, people wanted cheap ahead of anything else.  I don't know what the majority of RTR purchasers want, but they clearly want some things (value for money? reliability? DCC sound? shiny new-ness? Collectability? standard of detail or finish?) ahead of accuracy. 

 

In business terms, where you exist to sell stuff and don't exist if you don't, you cannot say the customers who vote for your product with their wallets are wrong, even if you're Gerald Ratner and you know it's tat (the only mistake he made was saying that out loud).  

 

This trend might make certain products less appealing or useful to those modellers who possess greater prototype knowledge or who have set their standards at certain levels and so will not overlook perceived imperfections, but, then again, they might still buy them to have a hack-about.  One thing seems clear, you are surely right to suggest that the buying power of the more discerning modeller is a drop in the ocean when it comes to sales.  

 

I cannot say I find that a conclusion to be particularly happy about, after all, without customers insisting upon high standards of accuracy, there is not much incentive for manufacturers to provide it where it increases costs. But, that seems to be where we are in the current market; whether through ignorance, indifference or simply as a result of different priorities concerning what a product should offer, accuracy is not the be all and end all for the customer in the RTR market.  It probably never has been.  Some of us fooled ourselves into thinking that the market was progressing in that direction, but, really, the plain truth is that we have seen enough examples to assume that a model does not need to be particularly accurate in order to sell well.

 

Lyndon Davies appears to know what sells well. While I hope that he will bring that magic to bear on Hornby without sacrificing accuracy in the process, our opinions here will make no difference.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Edwardian

[jjb1970]

Trainsets have got to be Hornby. Its the brand that Joe Public recognise when shopping at Argos. They may well type in Hornby in the search function , 99.99% certain it won't be Oxford

 

I do think there needs to be clear space between brands but it could be as simple as Hornby and Hornby elite or Black Label or even Silver Seal!

 

It is unfortunate that Oxford seem to have had models with some defects on them , but I'm getting a bit fed up with them being described as Railroad. This may because of the cheaper price , but don't confuse price with accuracy. It should be possible to produce accurate models at reasonable cost, Oxford have nearly got there , just not quite!

 

So Id see reasonably accurate models without lights sprung buffers etc for the lower end of market and High fidelity Rapido style models for those that have got to have everything incorporated at the top end. Good decoration and dimensionally accurate models should be universal though

I think the only reason the railroad moniker has pejorative connotations is because Hornby have never really figured out what it should be. Railroad is two separate product ranges:

 

1 - Modern, newly tooled models such as the P2, Hall, Tornado and their Mk.1 coaches which are accurate and well finished models with superb running qualities. They lose detail but are very good models and good enough for many modellers

 

2 - Pre-China Lima and Hornby basic models which are very dated but which can still fill a useful purpose as cheap entry level models for the train set market and as donors for conversion and detailing projects

 

I don’t see that there is anything negative about these models, and in the case of the former not only do I think they fill a valuable space but I’d love to see them continue developing the range. And I honestly think that Oxford are closer to the newly tooled railroad range, such as the Hall, than they are to top end models. That’s not because of mistakes or errors but deliberate market positioning and I think it is a positive decision as it is filling a space which seems to be of little interest to other producers and I suspect that the models are indeed good enough for far more modellers than we might suspect if only reading RMWeb. This is not just trains, the Oxford diecast range seems to have found its own niche somewhere below high end producers like Minichamps, AutoArt and Hobby Master in offering lower spec but good models at a lower price point and it has clearly worked very well for them. If looking at diecast aircraft for example you have a choice between higher spec models made by companies such as Hobby Master or going for the cheaper but still good enough Oxford models. And that can only be good to have such a choice. I think if Hornby/Oxford did put the new generation railroad models and the Oxford rail range into a middle tier range to offer good quality models without some of the finery of the full fat range (perhaps equivalent to Piko Expert) it’d be a very positive move, with the lesser railroad models going into a bottom tier range.

[BG John]

Oh for the good olde days, when you could convert a Tri-ang Jinty into just about any 0-6-0 tank, and the 3F into things like a Dean Goods, and get an article on it published in a magazine . Life was so much simpler!

Edited October 5, 2017 by BG John

[Edwardian]

Oh for the good olde days, when you could convert a Tri-ang Jinty into just about any 0-6-0 tank, and the 3F into things like a Dean Goods, and get an article on it published in a magazine . Life was so much simpler!

 

Well, I view the Hornby J15 and the Oxford Dean Goods in much the same light.

 

With its w/b and wheel diameter, there must be a number of locomotive classes that the Oxford model could be converted to represent accurately; possibly even a 2301 class.

[Bernard Lamb]

Well, I view the Hornby J15 and the Oxford Dean Goods in much the same light.

 

 

Probably with just about the same number of errors.

Bernard, swiftly ducking under the table.  

.

[adb968008]

I was going to respond to an earlier post but It’s pretty much been definitely answered.

 

I think there is a few clear facts here...

Hornby isn’t a railway modellers charity, it’s a business, it serves multiple markets, and modellers here tend to forget about the High st and overseas brands.

 

1. Hornby is the only high street name most people in the UK could give for a train, and with that implies track, scenery etc etc.

2. Detailed modellers don’t care who’s name is on the box, as long as the model is the most accurate it can possibly be... if Oxfords box was used for a Hornby West Country, I doubt collectors would care... certainly when Mainline Class 56’s came in Dapol boxes no one batted an eye lid, neither did they later when they came in Hornby's, and who knows if they would care if that original tooling ends up in Railroad.

3. Hornby, like it or not, is shrinking, losing money and sucking up additional shareholder funds now for multiple years, regardless which division is making money.. the company is heading downwards.

4. Shareholders don’t care who’s name is on the box, or what product goes in the box, who made the product, or where and how it’s sold.. so long as it costs less to make, than it does to sell, and that what is made is sold, and brings a return on the shareholders investment. (Ethical, legal, moral duties obviously).

 

It’s fair to say the last 5 years our Hornby super detailed models have been subsidised by the shareholders, there hasn’t been stacks of new investment in other ranges, so this must be where the cash went to. Hornby can dance around Sanda Kan, then Bachmans line, the new ERP system, the website, Spain’s operations, Margate’s shutdown.. every year there’s a new excuse, the Olympics was 5 years ago. But we modellers, and retailers have become attuned to a plethora of new expensive toolings being made each year, but 18mths later finding them in the bargain bin...each pound reduced comes from shareholder cash injections.

 

If I were a Hornby shareholder, i’d Be concerned at all Hornby IP, business plans, R&D being exposed to a competitor, but it appears it is Hornby majority shareholder that’s done this... which means they either have an interest in both companies, or see benefits in bringing these two companies together.

That doesn’t necessarily mean one eats the other.

 

 

It could mean a short relationship where they trade skills, resources, management and yes assets.. then at a point down the road, divide their interests once again.

 

It might be that Hornby may buy into Oxfords production line, and gain longer term production stability, but it hasn’t got stacks of cash to do so, without more borrowing, which right now is probably not what Hornby needs.. but it could do some bartering... and if it’s refocussing it’s business they certainly do have a lot of capex tools that are of value to trade, and off load some debt to a more profitable partner at the same time. That could give Hornby some much needed stability, a new focus and possibly a reduced range of products, brands and hopefully.. debts.

 

As I said before.. if there’s nothing in it for Oxford and it’s management... why would they step in to help a competitor ?

Same thing for the majority shareholder.. why would they risk their investment further ?

 

If Hornby simply buys Oxford, i’d be concerned... didn’t some guys mortgage a castle to buy Rover and manage its debts at one point ?

 

I think (hope) it will be a negotiated trade between these businesses, but at the same time I think there will be a refocus at the company and some other brands may be offloaded or run down aside of these two companies.

 

Whatever the plan is, i’m Sure we’ll find out, it will be a solution that benefits the shareholders.. at the end of the day it’s their money.

Edited October 5, 2017 by adb968008

[dibber25]

It's all well and good saying that the Collett coaches and the Peckett are decent models if you have no need for them.  The point is the big manufacturers continue to make mistakes.  I understand the recent Bachmann Stanier Crab has faults/compromises, and that's not been the result of "design clever" or the "Oxford effect" and is a recent model.

 

Also, I wonder just how many real people who don't inhabit this forum have really been put off buying a Dean Goods, for example, by the criticism made here and elsewhere?  One retailer who does inhabit this space has said all his Deans have sold out and they could sell more.  That suggests to me that this forum is not representative of a large number of model rail buyers.  I know eight active modellers personally (i.e. those who are building or have a layout) and only two of us are regular here.  Six are not involved in any online modelling forums.  That split does make me wonder just how representative any online surveys or critiques are.

 

ALL models have compromises and most have faults if you look hard enough for them. The compromises are necessary because of:

1 the gauge/scale combination for 'OO' is incorrect

2 The construction is mainly out of plastic which is overcall in thickness compared to steel plate

3 We require the models to negotiate much-sharper-than-scale curves

The 'faults' often stem from the compromises or for cost reasons in order to keep prices at affordable levels. You are quite correct that the majority of purchasers will be happy if the model looks like what they expect it to look like. The odd superfluous row of rivets on a slightly oversized splasher is unlikely to put them off if the overall look is OK. After all, do you have the model, warts and all, or do you not buy it, and in the case of the Dean goods, content yourself with a 30-year-old tender-drive model, or built a kit, or go without? At least there are enough options to suit everyone. (CJL)

[Norton Wood]

From going through this,it does seem to me that there is a lot of healthy & unhealthy opinions, as regards to previous comments just as, ' making engines like J15's , Claud Hamiltons and Peckets haven't helped them' Well that's not entirely fair now is it??

 

Hornby have started a big ball rolling building the little industrial Peckett (I think it's a fantastic model and I own one) So Hattons announced that they will be doing the Andrew Barclay 0-4-0? But Why?? Answer because the 1960's steam industrial scene is very small but has a large following, with space for model railways getting even smaller building 00 layouts which are end to end and have a small fiddle yard with lot's of little industrial's around is becoming quite a large area of interest.

I won't be surprised if soon we start to see 1970/80's Early Heritage railway scenes, with overgrown platforms,  new track being laid in the platforms and rebuilding of the station buildings etc. What engines were used in the early Heritage circuit, that's right industrial's which were painted up made to look very very smart as they were the engine to represent the railway and were always there to run. 

 

Adding onto that; Magazines like Model Rail making or have made models like the Y3 Sentinel & J70 tram? Which I think is a fantastic idea and I have a Y3 & fully intend in getting a J70 Because they are small, easy and they fit the future of model railways,  in small layouts which require a lot of detail in a small area. Bigger layouts are to become club layouts, because let's face it our fantastic hobby is not getting any cheaper so it will become harder to get models and with space being an issue layouts will have to become condensed. Unless a group comes together to build a layout with a specific vision. 

 

As to the comment that Hornby's going down for making the J15 / D16 model, again I don't think that's fair either, I live in East Anglia and have a large interest in where I live (Who doesn't) But the fact is before the new J15, D16 & B12 were made, we had nothing but kits (which are very rare or expensive to buy) or had to convert models. To me that's not the same as having a model which is branded J15 or D16. As a modeler of the GER/GE LNER I count myself lucky and I am very happy to see Eastern models being made, more notable seeing an N7 being made by Oxford rail who again is tapping into the East Anglian modelers market.

 

 

In the end why are so many people reading on this thread; because we all care about this company which has helped forge our love for model railways; I like to think I am one of many which looks forward to seeing what Hornby will be doing, with it's new staff plus seeing Simon Kholar returning to Hornby brings a fun and nice face back to the company. I think Hornby has a bright future, no matter what happens I will always support Hornby in there decisions. 

[Chamby]

The media seem to think that Hornby’s investment in Oxford means buying them out. This makes sense from a business perspective:

 

Lyndon Davies cashes in his company, he’s made his million(s). He also gets a bigger job running Hornby. That’s what I call having your cake and eating it.

 

Hornby’s investors get, in return, Lyndon Davies as CEO and an opportunity to refresh the brand and their portfolio.

 

No conflict of interest here either, once the deal is done.

 

Believe me, they won’t be thinking about Adams radials or mk 3’s yet. What happened yesterday can stay there... it is all about the future now. They will shift existing stock, produce additional runs if the market suggests this might be a quick win, but expect a full ‘ground up’ review of future development. So there may be a slowing down of new products in the short term while the review and its fall-out works its way through. But what comes out in the medium to longer term should be worth the wait.

[Clearwater]

The media seem to think that Hornby’s investment in Oxford means buying them out. This makes sense from a business perspective:

Lyndon Davies cashes in his company, he’s made his million(s). He also gets a bigger job running Hornby. That’s what I call having your cake and eating it.

Hornby’s investors get, in return, Lyndon Davies as CEO and an opportunity to refresh the brand and their portfolio.

No conflict of interest here either, once the deal is done.it.

I very much doubt that Phoenix is letting Davies cash in at this stage. Hence why I suggested they will do a share exchange deal whereby he ends up with c25% of Hornby. Phoenix will want Davies to have a material investment in the company to ensure he is focused on delivering the value to both parties. If he ends up with Hornby shares, I expect he"ll have some sort of lock-in to prevent him selling.

 

On your second point, that's the key "once the deal is done" and it hasn't been announced yet

 

David

[Clearwater]

Whilst I'm not that surprised, I'd have thought there would have been more discussion about Tim Mulhall's role. Whilst he is a less high profile modelling name than Kohler, I'm intrigued as to what Mulhall will be doing. The announcement says:

 

"Tim Mulhall specialises in building routes to market and strategic sales development. Tim has also spent 20 years as a business entrepreneur in the model and hobby industry, five of which working directly with Hornby through OnTracks, a business which managed the distribution of Hornby international products."

 

What are the routes to market and strategic sales that he'll be focusing on?

 

David

[robmcg]

Whilst I'm not that surprised, I'd have thought there would have been more discussion about Tim Mulhall's role. Whilst he is a less high profile modelling name than Kohler, I'm intrigued as to what Mulhall will be doing. The announcement says:

 

"Tim Mulhall specialises in building routes to market and strategic sales development. Tim has also spent 20 years as a business entrepreneur in the model and hobby industry, five of which working directly with Hornby through OnTracks, a business which managed the distribution of Hornby international products."

 

What are the routes to market and strategic sales that he'll be focusing on?

 

David

 

I too am curious about the future of Hornby International being something of a collector of later (1992-2002) Rivarossi US prototype steam, which now gets very good prices second-hand being hard to find new.  But of course that is not central to the recovery of Hornby, or at least not talked about in company statements.

 

Interesting reading!

[it's-er]

Chamby's and Clearwater's comments immediately above remind me of a discussion I had today. Speaking to a model railway shop, they are absolutely delighted that people who know the model railway trade inside out, and have known it for years, are taking over at Hornby. Over the years I've read various criticisms on threads on here that Hornby was run by accountants and management experts - well, no longer!

 

The view was that the management changes are very positive for Hornby, hopefully also so for Oxford Diecasr and Oxford Rail, and for retailers.

 

John Storey

[Coryton]

I haven't looked at the 0-4-0 racer sets of late, but do Hornby actually use the Railroad brand for sets?

 

 

By the way - the 0-4-0's seem to have been re-motored a few years ago and now have a much more sane top speed and ability to be controlled at lower speeds, so racer no more.

 

And Hornby have even learned how to spell sprightly (i.e. not "spritely" which is how they used to politely refer to the high top speed on the box).

[Dunsignalling]

By the way - the 0-4-0's seem to have been re-motored a few years ago and now have a much more sane top speed and ability to be controlled at lower speeds, so racer no more.

 

And Hornby have even learned how to spell sprightly (i.e. not "spritely" which is how they used to politely refer to the high top speed on the box).

Thanks, I'd like to know from what R numbers that kicked in as I'm thinking of building a couple of freelance locos in O-16.5.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

Whilst I'm not that surprised, I'd have thought there would have been more discussion about Tim Mulhall's role. Whilst he is a less high profile modelling name than Kohler, I'm intrigued as to what Mulhall will be doing. The announcement says:

 

"Tim Mulhall specialises in building routes to market and strategic sales development. Tim has also spent 20 years as a business entrepreneur in the model and hobby industry, five of which working directly with Hornby through OnTracks, a business which managed the distribution of Hornby international products."

 

What are the routes to market and strategic sales that he'll be focusing on?

 

David

Rebuilding bridges with the Hornby dealer network, hopefully.

 

John

[Les1952]

From going through this,it does seem to me that there is a lot of healthy & unhealthy opinions, as regards to previous comments just as, ' making engines like J15's , Claud Hamiltons and Peckets haven't helped them' Well that's not entirely fair now is it??

 

<SNIP>

I won't be surprised if soon we start to see 1970/80's Early Heritage railway scenes, with overgrown platforms,  new track being laid in the platforms and rebuilding of the station buildings etc. What engines were used in the early Heritage circuit, that's right industrial's which were painted up made to look very very smart as they were the engine to represent the railway and were always there to run.

Ye gods, he's describing my layout. Not "start to see" - No Place has been on the exhibition circuit almost a year now......

 

Les

[Coryton]

Thanks, I'd like to know from what R numbers that kicked in as I'm thinking of building a couple of freelance locos in O-16.5.

 

John

 

Me too. I'm not sure it did correspond to a change in R numbers though, given that they tend to keep the same number when they repeat a batch and they don't seem to consider this a significant enough change to warrant a new number.

 

Likewise I'm don't know that there is any way of distinguishing 'fast' from 'slow' spare motors.

 

So far as I can see the service sheets haven't changed at all.

 

While I can confirm from my own experience that this change has taken place, I have seen very little mention of it anywhere.

 

I know that many people here would have little interest in such things but they do have their uses, and some people must be interested because I've seen various descriptions of methods of taming them (varying from adding resistors and diodes to building new gearboxes), none of which is necessary.

 

I think if you find any "WCR" branded ones you will get the slow ones because so far as I know they only produced these after the change.

 

Likewise the red Bagnall diesel post-dates the change. I think.

 

With models that have been around a while like the Caledonian Railways 0-4-0 or the 06, it's harder to be sure though recent split-from-sets ought to be OK. If someone on ebay has a large batch for sale then that's probably a sign that they are from recent sets.

 

That logic has worked for me, anyway.

 

Edited to add: Just seen a seller on ebay making a point of the fact that they have the new slower-running version. First time I've seen that.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Coryton

[phil-b259]

Ryan Air is profitable.  Monarch was not.

 

 

Define what you mean by 'was'

 

In the 2015 / 2016 financial year Monach generated reasonable profits and there was no reason to assume it would fail.

 

In fact in the period between April 2016 and a few week ago  till they folded Monach actually were carrying even MORE passengers than the previous financial  year.

 

Monach failed because:-

 

(1) Brexit and the massive plunge in the strength of the pound causing fuel costs / plane leasing costs to rocket upwards

(2) Terrorist incidents abroad (Egypt, Tunisa, etc being particularity strong routes for the airline till) causing the airline to cease offering their most profitable products

(3) Massive overcapacity in the short haul / budget airline sector holding down fares - with the loss of its routes to North Africa (see point 2) then Monach had no choice but to operate within this sector of the market.

 

They did not fail by either (i) offering a product nobody wanted (ii) some sort of 'grand plan' that went wrong.

 

In other words Monachs demise was mainly due to factors beyond their control - and critics of Hornby would do well to remember that. Particularly as the Brexit negotiations are stalling, Sterling has not recovered its post Brexit vote falls against the Dollar / Euro, Business is increasingly deferring investment due to Brexit uncertainty, we have a Conservative Government looks that seems worryingly fractured / unstable and you have opposition actively planning for a 'run on the banks' if they get into power and nationalise everything. In short it really doesn't matter that much what Hornby do themselves, there are far grater dangers lurking out there that could decimate them (and indeed all sorts of other businesses) very quickly if those in charge of running the country get it wrong regardless of how well Hornby, etc may be doing at present.

 

There is an old saying "be careful what you wish for" - something far too many Politicians, and indeed Great British electorate have chosen to ignore with potentially lethal effects on the British economy over the next decade.

[Clearwater]

Rebuilding bridges with the Hornby dealer network, hopefully.

 

John

That wasn't the assumption I'd made. I read the comment as something more internet/new economy/new channels rather than traditional model shops.

 

Edit: if it was just dealer networks, wouldn't a) Kohler cover some of that territory anyway, b) Oxford must have their own relationships with dealers c) isn't a board level consultant a bit of overkill? Hence why I think this might be a bit more 'out of the box' type thinking. I could of course be completely wrong!

 

David

Edited October 5, 2017 by Clearwater