Hornby 2018 Announcements

[Chamby]

Co-operation between competitors happens all the time, especially in the area of developing common standards and formats. This produces a better marketplace for consumers and reduces costs for manufacturers. It even has a name - co-opertition. Look it up - Wikipedia gives some great examples of how it works, and our hobby would be an ideal environment for it to work.

 

There is a lot of duplication within our hobby of late. Stuff like Adams radials, warwells, carflats... all produced within remarkably similar timescales - this shows that there is not enough collaboration between the manufacturers in our hobby. It must be proving costly and wasteful for all parties involved.

 

I would much rather have two completely different products, rather than two versions of the same thing. That would benefit both manufacturers and consumers alike. I hope that this tit-for-tat undermining of each other’s portfolio stops soon, or we will end up with a ‘last man standing’ scenario... and he will probably be seriously wounded as well. There are enough prototypes out there for every manufacturer to thrive together, surely!

Edited December 23, 2017 by Chamby

[Clearwater]

@charmby

 

Cooperation around standards - fine, collaboration on what products to produce per ADB’s post - illegal. We as consumers benefit as a) each product has to be better than the oppositions b) they can’t charge more. If they are caught doing that, they will face large fines.

 

If two manufacturers agreed to not both produce item a, then they could reduce the spec and maintain/increase the price. We lose out as consumers on both counts. Hence why it is illegal.

 

See cleaning company I linked to above where they agreed how to carve up the market leading to million plus fines.

[phil-b259]

Why do companies exist in the first place? - answer to make money for their owners. True some owners may then chose to be philanthropists and give it away but to do that you need to make it in the first place.

 

How do you make more money? - Well you could raise prices but if you have strong competition then consumers will tend to go elsewhere. If on the other hand you force your competitors out of business then there is no alternative to go to and you can milk your 'customers for as much as you like. Alternatively you all get together and carve up the market between.

 

True capitalism demands that company X will try and put all its competitors out of business (either through lower prices or better products) as that then gives them a larger slice of the pie. If Ford was the only manufacturer of small cars, BMW the only manufacturer of large cars, VW only made vans, Samsung only of flat screen TVs, Only Apple made Smart phones, etc then customers would have no choice but to pay whatever the company demanded.

 

In that respect true capitalism is actually not much different to true true communism (i.e. choice / competition is unnecessary / unprofitable / a waste of resources depending on you political agenda).

 

This is not some airy fairy theorising - any decent study off Capitalism will show this has happened to various degrees on numerous occasions in the past (the USA has some particularly good examples in its history) with Government regulation eventually having to be put in place to keep companies in check.

 

Just imagine what would happen if we had no regulators for our utilities companies......

[adb968008]

Co-operation between competitors happens all the time, especially in the area of developing common standards and formats. This produces a better marketplace for consumers and reduces costs for manufacturers. It even has a name - co-opertition. Look it up - Wikipedia gives some great examples of how it works, and our hobby would be an ideal environment for it to work.

There is a lot of duplication within our hobby of late. Stuff like Adams radials, warwells, carflats... all produced within remarkably similar timescales - this shows that there is not enough collaboration between the manufacturers in our hobby. It must be proving costly and wasteful for all parties involved.

I would much rather have two completely different products, rather than two versions of the same thing. That would benefit both manufacturers and consumers alike. I hope that this tit-for-tat undermining of each other’s portfolio stops soon, or we will end up with a ‘last man standing’ scenario... and he will probably be seriously wounded as well. There are enough prototypes out there for every manufacturer to thrive together, surely!

Cooperation ok, collaboration on slicing up the market not ok.

If two people make an Adams radial it’s their choice, if one saw / heard the other doing it, did the math and found it won’t work and decided to cancel, it’s also ok. But if one met with another and said you do the xyz and I’ll do the abc is not ok as it’s reducing competition.

 

However if manufacturers agreed that A’s tooling for the Churchward tender, and B’s paint samples are the defacto standard, and they made it openly available to competitors to use, then we have a market standard tender, all of our models have the same shade of Green.. as consumers we benefit.... this how things like http and html revolutionised the web... indeed it’s a pity that there isn’t more standardisation on livery and standard designs of some locos, especially tenders, wheels, paint .. it’s frustrating to see two identical tenders from two different manufacturers of the same prototype looking nothing like each other in livery and design... the other option is OEM’ing parts, think of the size, shape, ring pull of a 330ml can of coke, Pepsi, Vimto...

 

Rather than cash in on potential tooling savings in these ways, manufacturers are, quite legitimately, using these as barriers to entry...costs go up.

 

We some standardisation already, but I think this is driven more by China, in things like ba nuts used on rods, the motors used and or course DCC, though this is starting to diverge, and I think ultimately will soon be past sellby and replaced. For example I wish Bachmann would share their square wheel/axle pin design to make quartering simple all round...they won’t even let Peters spares use it, largely consigning the 90’s generation of nylon splitting axle locos to the bin.

 

I don’t think the issue is the anti-competition rules.

 

I think the issue is the gestation period for a model. When it takes 3-5 years to research, spec, draw up, scan, design, prototype, cut tooling then produce a model, the designers may start with 100 ideas and ultimately see it through to 2-3 models that actually cross the finish line. Only when considerable money is spent getting to the point of design it gets close to the point of no return, then it’s time to announce it to the public.

 

Unfortunately it’s the case that the pool of prototypes to model is shrinking, that companies are overlapping the same Ideas in similar timescales and so reach the point of no return at a similar time.. so they have to continue and commit, or waste a considerable chunk of money, with little or no researched alternative to replace it with., putting them months if not years behind.

 

Getting everyone to open their R&D books won’t work either. It’s highly likely they will be 50-70% identical brimming with ideas, that is probably similar to a wish list on here, all at an early stage of evolution..and of course agreeing you do this i’ll do that isn’t allowed, and we as modellers “want it now” anyway, waiting even more years following announcement gets everyone’s goat.

 

One solution, I think we’ve seen is the leaning towards more obscure prototypes, I think Heljan started the trend with prototype diesels knowing that whilst it’s a risk they will recoup the investment, it was unlikely anyone else was thinking of doing them, as such they opened up the market and made a success of it. The Peckett was another market opener for industrials. It’s anti-competition rules that encourages this kind of innovative thinking and of course..no one here is complaining of the outcome.

 

Personally I hope the success of NRM prototypes opens a door for “should have been preserved” types; Victorian 4-4-0’s and early 20th century steam an L&Y Dreadnought and some L&Y coaches in L&Y

LMS http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/192f9451e1ea45e78646cec109da27e1/lancashire-and-yorkshire-railway-designed-4-6-0-lms-no10464-waits-fr0w2g.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/LMSR-and-BRM/LYR-locomotives/i-BX5LtFT/0/a8e895cf/S/M_LMSR_10435_SRA150911_28662-S.jpg

and BR

http://www.manlocosoc.co.uk/dreadnought2.jpg

liveries would be fantastic, such types are obscure, unlikely to be duplicated, but lower risk given how popular older types are demonstrating themselves. However Cecil Paget’s locomotive may prove difficult and a limited market...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_Railway_Paget_locomotive

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/paget/paget2a.gif

Edited December 24, 2017 by adb968008

[robmcg]

While interested in and reading recent posts, I also became aware of why Hornby may not produce an original saturated 1899-1928 T9.

 

There are many detail differences on the smokebox front and engine generally, mostly the old-style LSWR lamp holders, also the boiler feed pipe is different, quite apart from anything else I might have mentioned or indeed missed, so it is not just a matter of moving the smokebox back and fitting a new chimney.

 

Still, with editing...

 

 

will remove if required, colour version in 'best ever' thread,

 

cheers

[jjb1970]

There is an old Spanish adage that there is no such thing as being half pregnant. Market manipulation and collusion is illegal and wrong, you can't say that it should be allowed for model makers because we like model companies and it'd be sensible just so long as those bad big guys can't do it. 

 

I think one of the biggest problems with economic theorising is that so many assume that it is all a zero sum game. Europe is rich, that means Africa is poor. China is now rich, so we are diminished because of it. If country A has something that means country B can't have it. I'm not sure anybody truly understands economics and I'm not sure you ever could because it strikes me as a constantly evolving concept subject to an almost infinite number of variables but I'll postulate that it is almost like an organic mechanism that can grow and that the zero sum idea is rubbish and something which panders to people of certain political beliefs (both left and right). I tend to think Adam Smith was right about more things than he was wrong and that many of his theories remain true.

 

All companies can co-operate, most industries collaborate to produce standards, shared development programs are common and trade bodies which represent industry in regulatory forums (or as you might say, lobbying) are normal. There are already established laws and regulations which recognise a difference between technical co-operation and collusion. If Hornby, Bachmann and others had some brainwave like a new model train control system, or a modular chassis idea that'd slash development costs, or a new coupling then there is nothing stopping them collaborating to develop such ideas and to agree standards, share R&D costs. If they extended that to agree on who would get what sales and market slices then that would be illegal. And ultimately, customers would not benefit from market collusion. 

[Dunsignalling]

There might not be collusion, but there is clearly a tacit recognition on the part of the big boys as to who is likely to do what and an understandable desire not to duplicate specific items.

 

Examples: Bachmann several GCR prototypes, no GER. Hornby several GER prototypes, no GCR. Hornby Southern heavily slanted toward the ex-LSWR lines, Bachmann Southern anywhere but.

 

Some duplication is inevitable, with certain prototypes being too ubiquitous or iconic for any manufacturer aspiring to a comprehensive range to ignore. Obvious examples include the LNER A4, BR Class 08 and 47 diesels. Sales levels of these are probably sufficient to mitigate the negative effects of duplication but other examples don't.

 

Two examples that spring to mind are the B1 and BR4 4-6-0s. Long-overdue upgrades of existing Bachmann products coincided with Hornby releasing all-new models of both. Each hit sales of the other, though I suspect that it will have taken Hornby longer to repay their investment as it will inevitably have been larger. This at least disproved any suggestion of collusion. 

 

John

Edited December 24, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[The Stationmaster]

There might not be collusion, but there is clearly a tacit recognition on the part of the big boys as to who is likely to do what and an understandable desire not to duplicate specific items.

 

Examples: Bachmann several GCR prototypes, no GER. Hornby several GER prototypes, no GCR. Hornby Southern heavily slanted toward the ex-LSWR lines, Bachmann Southern anywhere but.

 

Some duplication is inevitable, with certain prototypes being too ubiquitous or iconic for any manufacturer aspiring to a comprehensive range to ignore. Obvious examples include the LNER A4, BR Class 08 and 47 diesels. Sales levels of these are probably sufficient to mitigate the negative effects of duplication but other examples don't.

 

Two examples that spring to mind are the B1 and BR4 4-6-0s. Long-overdue upgrades of existing Bachmann products coincided with Hornby releasing all-new models of both. Each hit sales of the other, though I suspect that it will have taken Hornby longer to repay their investment as it will inevitably have been larger. This at least disproved any suggestion of collusion. 

 

John

 

Which leads us to the question of whether or not poll results might carry some of the 'blame' for duplication because some manufacturers are guided by little else?   We seem of late to have seen instances of 'poll result cherry picking' where manufacturers, particularly the smaller concerns, have selected items to model with a strong influence form poll results and little indication of any other sort of originality of thought.

 

Discuss.

[it's-er]

"Discuss" - The Stationmaster's post above.

 

Oh dear - that could merit a separate thread in its own right, woth outpourings from members across the globe! While I am sure the majors plan using poll results, I suggest it is unfair to say they offer no "other sort of originality of thought".

 

Bachmann have been good to modellers of the GCR - hardly a major preoccupation of layouts shown in the national model railway press - with their O4, J11 and D11 Director. The one obvious GCR gap waiting to be filled is the A5 which, as has been pointed out here, also ran elsewhere, such as in NER territory. Hornby have been good to modellers of the Southern, and over the last 10 years the LNER (O1, L1, K1, J15, J50, D16, B12 and Q6).

 

There are still some 'gaps' to be filled. For the GWR the 15xx with its powerful looks and Walschaerts valve gear would surely sell well; for the LMS there was one outstanding model waiting and that was the 0-4-4T announced by Bachmann a year ago; for the GCR there is the A5 already mentioned; I can't see anyone going beyond a J6 for the GNR; for the GER the gap crying out to be filled is the J67/69 0-6-0T. That leaves the NER where Hornby have started with the Q6, and the models that might become rtr are fairly limited - J21, J27, and G5. Then there are possible Scottish models, on which hopes are high that a J36 might be announced for either 2018 or 2019. I don't see many more Scottish models being commercially viable, but there is the graceful D34, and Caledonian 0-6-0 and 0-4-4T which, to my mind, could sell well.

 

Many of these have been reasonably high on wish lists, though I have noticed that the GNR J6 was almost top of the wish list 6 or so years ago, but dropped greatly the next year. So polls aren't entirely consistent.

 

Finally there are the 'outliers'. I don't think anyone guessed that Bachmann would do the L&Y 2-4-2T (a lovely model); and Hornby's Peckett was both a surprise and a sensation. Nor would Hattons SECR P class have been predicted by many. We wait to see if anyone bites on, for example, the LT&SR 4-4-2T.

 

Overall it would be fair to argue that announcements of new models are rational, but that they don't slavishly follow poll results. And with Rapido on the block, it seems fairly clear that their announcements follow the completely random hankerings of their CEO for 'offbeat' models! So who knows what will be announced in 2018!

 

So with such positive thoughts, a Happy Christmas and a wonderful modelling new year (2018) to you all!

 

John Storey

[Steamport Southport]

 

 

Finally there are the 'outliers'. I don't think anyone guessed that Bachmann would do the L&Y 2-4-2T (a lovely model); and Hornby's Peckett was both a surprise and a sensation. Nor would Hattons SECR P class have been predicted by many. 

 

 

John Storey

 

I don't know. There were 310 of the things and they lasted from 1889 to the 1960s, whereas most of the other classes mentioned only a handful were built. I would have thought it was one of the low hanging fruit that we often hear of.

 

 

 

Jason

[Dunsignalling]

Which leads us to the question of whether or not poll results might carry some of the 'blame' for duplication because some manufacturers are guided by little else?   We seem of late to have seen instances of 'poll result cherry picking' where manufacturers, particularly the smaller concerns, have selected items to model with a strong influence form poll results and little indication of any other sort of originality of thought.

 

Discuss.

But if the items in question; in the case of current discussion, GWR Moguls and Large Prairies, have been associated with particular manufacturers who have allowed production to lapse altogether in the former case, and stagnate at an outdated standard in the latter, they become fair game IMHO. Enter Dapol.

 

Both have polled strongly for years but the "incumbents" have shown no interest in improving or replacing them. If Murphy's Law pertains, of course, either or both will have belatedly woken up, in which case things get interesting depending on how far development of the respective models has advanced.

 

If A thinks B is well ahead, the smart thing is for A to back out unless he considers his product will be significantly superior to B's or of comparable quality at a significantly lower price. The difficulty with that, of course, is judging whether potential purchasers have sufficient brand-loyalty to A to make them willing to wait.

 

I don't think we can really blame the manufacturers, especially those newcomers trying to establish a foothold in the market, from taking notice of poll results. After all, what other tangible guide to the potential popularity of a specific model is there?   

 

John

Edited December 24, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Steamysandy]

I've been watching this out of interest.Hornby have brought out a batch of LNER locos - true.But of little use to me for a locally based layout- I e : East Lothian area .I only ever saw a single K1 north of Berwick but Alnmouth had a few including some refugees from Fort William! Otherwise a Q6 might interest me on the basis of seeing some in the Newcastle area. The rest were only photos in a magazine!

[coachmann]

Personally, I would follow my business instincts. People say they want things but seem to always buy on impulse if a model is attractive enough. I have in mind what each 4mm model would look like when put in front of people on RMweb, and so my short list of big return impulse purchases (if asked to advise) would include the following. (I should add that the choices have little to do with considering what historical railway layout builders might require)....

 

GER Claud or B12 with original slotted frames in GER blue, LNER green and BR lined black.

LMS 5MT Caprotti 'Black Five' low running plate.

GWR 'Manor' 4-6-0

LB&SC 'K' Class 2-6-0

 

If I were testing the Scottish market, I would go for the Caledonian Pickersgill 4-4-0 (1916 - 62)

Edited December 24, 2017 by coachmann

[Chamby]

I think in our enthusiasm for our own particular genre within the hobby, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that period/location modelling is just a small segment of the wider hobby.  

 

Models with a glamour appeal will appeal to a much wider audience, significantly improving their viability.  There are some obvious iconic loco's out there still to be done.  If stuff like the LMS twins, Bullied diesel, Lion, Deltic prototype etc. have all been viable projects to date, then the same should also hold true for other rare but appealing prototypes.  These are much easier products for the marketers to generate wider appeal than yet another everyday 0-6-0.  

 

For example, I bet there are a lot of casual modellers who don't see much difference between a 4F and a J11, and these are not the sort of models that you would imagine a young enthusiast drooling over.  You know, the kind of modeller whose layout consists mostly of A4's, Flying Scotsmen (yes, probably pleural) and the DoG for example.  But a Bulleid Leader now, or Hush Hush, that's something a bit special...  much more drool-worthy!

[Clive Mortimore]

I've been watching this out of interest.Hornby have brought out a batch of LNER locos - true.But of little use to me for a locally based layout- I e : East Lothian area .I only ever saw a single K1 north of Berwick but Alnmouth had a few including some refugees from Fort William! Otherwise a Q6 might interest me on the basis of seeing some in the Newcastle area. The rest were only photos in a magazine!

When I lived in Essex I wanted to have models of my local trains that were around in the 1960s. Class 31s by the bucket load, same with Type 3 and Brush 4s Tri-ang Hornby were great. No chance of a BTH or D84xx, and when a 2000 was made it was so fat I looked slim.

 

MTK were helpful with the DMUs but I couldn't afford the 4 car EMUs and EMUs are still a stable type of train for most Essex lines. 

 

To fulfill my wants I made the missing classes and I still am. BR made 112 AM2s and what is the chance of  a RTR model?

 

I think we all suffer if we want to do something which is locality based with gaps in our likes/needs to portray our desired model railway. I hope Hornby will do a NBR loco, a Caly loco, and a B12 with small boiler for the GNoSR, I know they won't do a Class 305 which would be suitable for North Berwick.

[A Murphy]

.....or a Saint

[Steamport Southport]

I think in our enthusiasm for our own particular genre within the hobby, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that period/location modelling is just a small segment of the wider hobby.  

 

Models with a glamour appeal will appeal to a much wider audience, significantly improving their viability.  There are some obvious iconic loco's out there still to be done.  If stuff like the LMS twins, Bullied diesel, Lion, Deltic prototype etc. have all been viable projects to date, then the same should also hold true for other rare but appealing prototypes.  These are much easier products for the marketers to generate wider appeal than yet another everyday 0-6-0.  

 

For example, I bet there are a lot of casual modellers who don't see much difference between a 4F and a J11, and these are not the sort of models that you would imagine a young enthusiast drooling over.  You know, the kind of modeller whose layout consists mostly of A4's, Flying Scotsmen (yes, probably pleural) and the DoG for example.  But a Bulleid Leader now, or Hush Hush, that's something a bit special...  much more drool-worthy!

 

I don't know. The first locomotive model that I drooled over when seen in a catalogue was the Collett Goods and I was only about 8 at the time.

 

 

 

Jason

[Andy Hayter]

The issue of competition rules and their application is complex (as several including Clearwater have already said).  If I were a belligerent employee of the monopolies commission or DG IV I think I could already put together enough data to bring forward an investigation into the major 00 rtr producers - including maybe some kit manufacturers.

 

Carving up of markets is expressly forbidden and we have already given many examples of where producers have "specialised" in some areas (regions; motive type - steam, diesel, electric; era etc*) and apparently ignored other areas, which their competitors have gratefully exploited "free of competition".  All of this could be construed as carving up the market, even if we as the end consumer see sense in what they are doing and understand that the next GER loco is more likely to come from Hornby as a way of completing "their" range, than for Bachmann who might be more likely to produce a GCR loco.   And we have no reason to suspect that these companies and others are discussing such issues with one another. 

 

* you might even include gauge/scale

 

The simple fact is that producers of rtr and kits will tend to produce a range of items that fit together.  That fitting together could easily be seen from those outside however as a carving up of the market.

 

Fanciful?  well perhaps.  My first introduction to competition laws was regarding the successful prosecution of salt producers across Europe.  The question posed by the competition authorities was why UK producers did not sell to the South of Europe and why Italian producers did not sell to the North (and not just these two countries).  The answer was blindingly obvious, that at a sales price of £25/t in bulk and a shipping cost of around 33p per mile, there was a finite (and not very big) distance that you could ship before making a loss.  Of no interest to the authorities and the case was found against the producers.  

 

Perhaps we should be a little judicious in even suggesting that that some form of "cooperation" between manufacturers might be a good idea, lest those with ears hear and investigate the current situation where we have no evidence of any collusion whatsoever.

[No Decorum]

.....or a Saint

To my (probably odd) mind, a decent Saint is one of the great missing links.

[Neil]

To my (probably odd) mind, a decent Saint is one of the great missing links.

 

The problem with a Saint is that it looks a bit like a Hall or a Castle. Whilst it would sell to those who wanted a Saint it may not generate sales with those who just want an impressive GWR 4-6-0 or if it does it may just result in one less sale of the aforementioned Hall or Castle.

[No Decorum]

The problem with a Saint is that it looks a bit like a Hall or a Castle. Whilst it would sell to those who wanted a Saint it may not generate sales with those who just want an impressive GWR 4-6-0 or if it does it may just result in one less sale of the aforementioned Hall or Castle.

On the other hand, with a coat of decent green on it, perhaps it would be welcomed.

[Steamport Southport]

I'd give it another two or three years for a Saint.

 

Don't forget we'll be having the new one running about soon and I could see that many people would want a model of it just like they wanted a model of Tornado. Add in the evocative names and what's not to like?

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Clive Mortimore]

The problem with a Saint is that it looks a bit like a Hall or a Castle. Whilst it would sell to those who wanted a Saint it may not generate sales with those who just want an impressive GWR 4-6-0 or if it does it may just result in one less sale of the aforementioned Hall or Castle.

 

Bung a Hall's cylinders and con rods on a Star and Charlie Collet is your uncle. :locomotive: :locomotive:

 

This is a fact there are less differences between a Grange and a Saint than between a BR 350 shunter (class 08/09/10 and them Crossley ones) and a LMS 350 (class 11), and the WR 350s 15101-6 total built 120 LMS locos, 6 WR , plus 14 WD, 100 NR (classes 500 and 600) 16 Victoria Railways and 6 for the State Electricity Commision of Victoria. Will we ever see a class 11 no way it looks like a 08.

[Mallard60022]

Not long to go now before Santa leaves me a note telling me what Hornby and Bachman have up their designers' sleeves. He, of course, knows what is coming and Is always helpful if you have written him a well set out letter, left some Snap and a Dram and promise to be good for the whole of next year.

Phil

[adb968008]

Perhaps we should be a little judicious in even suggesting that that some form of "cooperation" between manufacturers might be a good idea, lest those with ears hear and investigate the current situation where we have no evidence of any collusion whatsoever.

Politics of fear.

I doubt the EC has even heard of the GCR and GER let alone understand them from modelling purposes.

Using that argument Coke should be making burgers, and There should be fish and chip shops under the Mac Donald’s brand.

There is a limit, and there needs to be evidence, it’s not Maphia law.

 

Though if we could use this argument to force Piko to enter the Uk market that may not be a bad thing and much more relevant to your argument.

Edited December 24, 2017 by adb968008