Time to bring back design clever?

[MikeParkin65]

If Hornby or Bachmann are reading this, they must wonder, why they bother ! 

 

In the 70s & 80's when Hornby just had the Mk1 range and a "generic" range of big four coaches, modellers were asking for detailed specific models.....moving on today you have a fantastic range of coaches from both Hornby & Bachmann, and what are you asking for...a basic coach, separate detailing packs or somebody else to do aftermaket add on pack(s).......

 

i accept we all have different opinions, but design clever was'nt one of Hornby's better Ideas.

 

Gary 

Superdetail wasnt invented by Bachmann and Hornby, it was available to those with either the skills or the money to employ those with the skills to make it.

 

When Hornby went super detail it was because a) that was what the market wanted and b) it could be made at a price the market could afford. Unfortunately we are now moving away from (b) - manufacturing costs have risen whilst the buyer is feeling a squeeze on disposable income.

 

Hornby needs to sell models in reasonable quantities and this means not pricing the majority out of the market. Those who want and can afford super detail are still  catered for, Bachmann, Sutton LW and Accurascale are all aiming squarely at the  modeller who wants more detail as are various of the shops commissioning models (Rails, Hattons, Kernow etc).

[tomparryharry]

I'd guess that Skalextric sells more than model railways. That, I'd guess is your biggest problem, as the demographic continues to shift.

 

"We'd make more, but we're waiting for the old bu**ers to die". Not me, you understand, just what I overheard at Tesco's superstore in Westwood Cross....

 

 

The Gr1m Reaper.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Why compromise for the sake of a few pennies per model? A completely detailed underframe, interior, grab handles, rails, steps can all be added in the factory for a tiny fraction of the overall model cost... 

 I would prefer the saving every time on anything I cannot see with the model operating on the layout, because there is no compromise to appearance when in operation. I take it as read that with the various RTR manufacturers tooling underframe detail which is fully concealed when in operation - such as the frame bracing, buffer and drawbar springs and the like on wagons - that this must be in response to expressed customer demand, and have to accept this. But it doesn't make the model one whit superior in operation.

 

The visible detail that is seen when in operation, now that is very much wanted and appreciated, and that should be without compromise as far as technique permits. I simply won't buy crudities like moulded on handrails with a web between rail and body side where there should be an airgap. There are well proven techiques using wire and castings that can produce accurate representation: that's the one to use even if more expensive.

[Nearholmer]

Someone earlier in this thread asked about the % of children in what used to be the prime age range for toy trains, crossing over into model railways, who are “into” this hobby.

 

No science here, but I’d bet money on what I’m about to type: <1%.

 

My son is in that age range, has zero interest in the topic (put-off by my obsession?), has very many friends through school and his multiple sports interests, of whom 1 is building a layout (guided by his dad, but the boy is genuinely ‘into’ it), and 1 more who shows a bit of interest in my layout (he is into model aircraft, so ‘gets’ modelling). My daughter is a bit younger, and is a bit more interested in what I do, because she is into crafts and has good imagination, but neither she, nor a single one of her many pals (mostly, but by no means all girls) is ever going to build a layout.

 

So, markets?

 

1) The under c7yo, bought a trainset to succeed Brio etc. It needs to cost less than £100, be easy for small hands, and fairly bomb-proof. Personally I don’t think 00 cuts it, because it’s too fiddly and unreliable as a carpet toy.

 

2) mature adults, not all as old as some comments suggest, who have “grown into” model railways, and who are very picky about detail, fidelity etc, so demand a “fine” product.

 

I don’t see a viable market for less than top-notch models. The cash-strapped adult modellers who it is assumed want a lower spec product have an ocean of secondhand material in which to fish, and will “save up their pocket money” to buy their dream new items, and, they will do what cash-strapped modellers have always done: develop their skills and adapt what they can afford.

 

It is very noticeable indeed that the small firms that are now “commissioners” of products from China don’t pitch their offerings to some supposed middle-ground ...... because, if they did, they would make a thumping loss, with the pickier, better-off people not buying them, and the cash-strapped buying too few.

 

“Budget” offerings work in mass markets (sliced bread; training shoes; cars even), but I honestly can’t see them working in niche markets, because there isn’t the volume. There was c1955, when a model train set was the object of desire of every right-thinking boy, but there isn’t a mass market now.

 

Kevin

Edited February 19, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Ron Ron Ron]

....The current catalogue seems to imply steam sells over most categories .....

 

 

That's just looking at Hornby's catalogue though.

It's pretty evident that Hornby has ceded most of the effort in making D&E models to their competitors.

 

Just look at the wide array of D&E models, past and present, from the likes of Bachmann, Dapol, Heljan, DJ Models, Realtrack, Rapido and Sutton Loco Works (....not to mention the brief flurry of models commissioned from ViTrains for the UK marketplace).

 

Basically, despite a period in the middle of the last decade, when they introduced some excellent D&E models ......and a couple of more recent, isolated examples (e.g. Class 800), Hornby have dropped the ball in this sector.

 

 

.

 

 

.

[cctransuk]

No, but a new underframe for the power car, with 2 new bodies, and you can have any of the 1st gen short DMUs. They already have the rest available. 3 new moulds and you have a different prototype model to sell. Minimise new investment to maximise what you already have. With the bubble car, you also have the chance to work at the long DMUs as well. 

 

So - a complete new two car DMU requires what? Two new body moulds and two new underframe moulds.

 

Following your example, it would require two new body moulds and one new underframe mould; (assuming that the trailer car underframe mould from another existing DMU model is exactly the same as the one required - which is most unlikely).

 

It has to be accepted that all new releases will require a complete new set of moulds - there are NO shortcuts!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

PS. You do realise that there were at least two DMU underframe lengths, don't you?

Edited February 19, 2018 by cctransuk

[Legend]

Someone earlier in this thread asked about the % of children in what used to be the prime age range for toy trains, crossing over into model railways, who are “into” this hobby.

 

No science here, but I’d bet money on what I’m about to type: <1%.

 

My son is in that age range, has zero interest in the topic (put-off by my obsession?), has very many friends through school and his multiple sports interests, of whom 1 is building a layout (guided by his dad, but the boy is genuinely ‘into’ it), and 1 more who shows a bit of interest in my layout (he is into model aircraft, so ‘gets’ modelling). My daughter is a bit younger, and is a bit more interested in what I do, because she is into crafts and has good imagination, but neither she, nor a single one of her many pals (mostly, but by no means all girls) is ever going to build a layout.

 

So, markets?

 

1) The under c7yo, bought a trainset to succeed Brio etc. It needs to cost less than £100, be easy for small hands, and fairly bomb-proof. Personally I don’t think 00 cuts it, because it’s too fiddly and unreliable as a carpet toy.

 

2) mature adults, not all as old as some comments suggest, who have “grown into” model railways, and who are very picky about detail, fidelity etc, so demand a “fine” product.

 

I don’t see a viable market for less than top-notch models. The cash-strapped adult modellers who it is assumed want a lower spec product have an ocean of secondhand material in which to fish, and will “save up their pocket money” to buy their dream new items, and, they will do what cash-strapped modellers have always done: develop their skills and adapt what they can afford.

 

It is very noticeable indeed that the small firms that are now “commissioners” of products from China don’t pitch their offerings to some supposed middle-ground ...... because, if they did, they would make a thumping loss, with the pickier, better-off people not buying them, and the cash-strapped buying too few.

 

“Budget” offerings work in mass markets (sliced bread; training shoes; cars even), but I honestly can’t see them working in niche markets, because there isn’t the volume. There was c1955, when a model train set was the object of desire of every right-thinking boy, but there isn’t a mass market now.

 

Kevin

I'm not sure all modellers returning to model railways do want total fidelity . Yes , if we can have it and its a reasonable price , then of course we will have it . In that context its interesting what McC says re costs of adding detail . If it really doesn't cost that much then you might question the need for a Railroad range at all, assuming detailed models can be brought in at reasonable price. However , if you haven't done so already take a look at YouTube and some of the layouts there . There are many by young fathers or people perhaps still weighed down by mortgages or maybe even on zero hours contracts .Maybe its one of several hobbies a person has. Anyway it is clear that cost is still a factor . So I think you are correct in two markets but I think the <7 year old trainset market has largely gone . I 'd say the two markets are Casual Users , adults who enjoy the hobby but have limited income or who are perhaps just not prepared to pay high prices for something which may only be used occasionally , and the second market, the die hard enthusiast who wants as much detail and functionality as possible.

 

With clearly defined ranges Hornby could cater and make money out of both . In fact as everyone seems to be heading to the die hard end of the market Bachmann, Heljan, Dapol , Commissions, Hornby could have this first market largely to themselves , which coupled with Brand awareness (everyone knows Hornby) could well work. Their only competitor might be Oxford , but that might not be an issue given the common leadership and the fact that Hornby intend buying a share of Oxford.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Legend

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Hornby dont have to cater for all - they only have to cater for the biggest sustainable market. I am sure they'll have detailed statistics showing what does and doesnt sell in the numbers needed to make a profit. The current catalogue seems to imply steam sells over most categories ...

That's just looking at Hornby's catalogue though...

In the context of Hornby customers where else do you look? It is clearly true for that sector of the market that Hornby choose to cater for - hopefully as Mike states, based on good evidence - which sector seems to be dominated by purchasers not just of steam locos, but of the largest steam express locomotives. (That this group may well also have somewhat different requirements from those wanting D+E models is probable.*)

 

Indicator that this is the case: It's the fairly recently introduced Hornby models of physically smaller 'black' locos that didn't have names or mostly spend their time pulling express passenger trains, that have shown a tendency to stick on the shelves, and this despite the fact that most of them are commendable as models. It's got to be big and named and in a coloured livery, or very small and in a colourful livery, to 'fly' with Hornby's core customers, or so the evidence available suggests to me. Somewhat likewise with the coaches. All those Pullmans! They must sell consistently or Hornby wouldn't have provided near complete coverage for the Grouping to BR steam period of what must have been the rarest collection of passenger service stock operating in the UK. (I have long thought that a mk3 set to the same standard would have been a better bet for the investment, all those liveries, and a good number still to come, but they haven't jumped in.) Whether we like it or not, if this is the product that does the business for Hornby, that's what they are going to go on producing.

 

* I prefer the approach on Bachmann and Heljan diesel products over Hornby's. Exterior visible detail equally well rendered, but no gewgaws like opening driver doors and spinning fans; plain cab interiors with little to no detail, which you cannot see anyway when the model is performing.

[Nearholmer]

“Anyway it is clear that cost is still a factor”

 

Couldn’t agree more. We all go through stages in life where every penny has to be counted at least twice, but I still think that people in that position have a stack of options through secondhand material etc. There will be a glut of secondhand soon, if there isn’t already, as “accumulators” downsize ....... I’m into old-style, ‘tinplate’, 0, and prices there have fallen from a frankly rather mad peak some ten years ago, partly for that very reason.

 

One way to ‘square the circle’ might be to use genuinely common tooling, and effectively leave-off a load of fiddly, expensive to add, bits, then see how well a run of the ‘fiddly-bit-free’ versions sell ..... my prediction would be ‘not very well’, but I could be wrong. What I don’t know is whether genuinely common tooling is a practical proposition.

 

And, a bit of maths: sell one £200 loco at 5% margin, take home £10; sell two £100 Locos at the same margin, still take home £10. Why would you want to bother trying to ship, store, and sell twice as many locos, for the same profit? Now, if it was a mass market, you might be able to flog 100 of the £100 ones, in fact you could juggle with margins and maybe sell 120 of them at 4%, you could game to maximise profit ....... but that was Triang vs Hornby Dublo c1960, it isn’t like that now. (I’m using 1, 2, 100, and 120 A’s ratios, not absolute figures)

 

K

[Jeff Smith]

Without being too generalising most of these type of threads boil down to

 

I want more than I can afford and its not fair

And interesting that some believe they understand the manufacturer's business better than they do, and could obviously turn it round so effectively - if in fact it needs turning around!

 

If you want a Jaguar but can't afford it do you implore Jaguar to save production costs to bring the price down?

[brushman47544]

My son enjoyed Thomas and was interested in the model railway I built for him based on detailing up a Hornby Track Mat. But now he's a few years older, he said that the only way he would play with model trains is if someone made a PS4 game based on them - and I don't think he means running trains as most of us think of. How about Super Mario with trains instead of cars and bikes...

 

I'm sure Hornby does know it's market and is trying to maximize revenue from it. Reducing its high general overheads would seem essential, but without shedding key specialist knowledge (about trains not marketing) and in design as new models need to be produced regularly. I also think there needs to be a much clearer distinction between Main Range and Railroad. Anything tooled before the Rebuilt MN or tooling coming from Lima or Dapol should be Railroad and never appear in the Main Range, and a way should be found to keep prices as low as possible, so there is a clear distainction between the two ranges. The Design Clever models should be Railroad only too, except perhaps the 2BIL/2HAL EMUs which probably fit better if categorized as coaches that just happen to have motors rather than as locos.

 

As for what am I, I'm part collector and part modeler. I model WR/SR between around 1960 and the mid 1980s, and buy models to use that fit that period. But I also buy other locos that I like - the streamlined MN, Sir William, A4, Class 55 and pre-grouping steam, for example, which I'm unlikely to run and are currently displayed in a cabinet. I doubt I'm alone in this. Irrespective of the percentage split, I hope Hornby (and the others) continue to cover all bases.

[centraltrains]

I'm sure Hornby does know it's market and is trying to maximize revenue from it. Reducing its high general overheads would seem essential, but without shedding key specialist knowledge (about trains not marketing) and in design as new models need to be produced regularly. I also think there needs to be a much clearer distinction between Main Range and Railroad. Anything tooled before the Rebuilt MN or tooling coming from Lima or Dapol should be Railroad and never appear in the Main Range, and a way should be found to keep prices as low as possible, so there is a clear distainction between the two ranges. The Design Clever models should be Railroad only too, except perhaps the 2BIL/2HAL EMUs which probably fit better if categorized as coaches that just happen to have motors rather than as locos.

 

Isn't there a specification in the railroad range that every wheel has a pickup? Sure I read that on some marketing ages ago....

[tomparryharry]

If those nice Hornby people would re-work a lovely little Great Western pannier or two, that would be a clever design....

 

And now, Potter-like, I'll scurry back under the stairs.....

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[D9020 Nimbus]

I imagine that Hornby will move in the direction of producing Oxford Rail-like models, given where the new CEO is from.

[Butler Henderson]

Why do people persist with this Oxford takeover idea - many firms share Chief Execs etc, but are mutually independent.

[jjb1970]

Interestingly as I write this post I'm seeing an ad for Accurascale's forthcoming 24.5 ton hopper wagon and therein lies a telling comparison.  A small company new to British outline r-t-r pushing its product with verve and creating interest and listening to the views of those looking at EP examples.  Product quality will perhaps be a bit better than Hornby's latest (although they also listen), and generally extremely good, freight stock and at c.£20 per wagon the Accurascale price is broadly comparable Hornby's latest wagons.  But price comparison is irrelevant without thinking about the company's cost base and overheads because although we are looking at similarly targetted products one is coming from a small company with small overheads while the other is coming from a concern which in its interim Report noted 'underlying overheads' of £10.1 million (and that excluded operating overheads).  Thus a highly detailed wagon from Hornby at c.£20 has to pay a contribution towards that £10 million plus while one from Accurascale no doubt has to contribute towards many tens of thousand of underlying overheads but certainly isn't looking to get anywhere near meeting £1 million's worth.   Then people wonder why Hornby is not making massive profits!

 

Indeed, and it isn't just Accurascale. There is now a plethora of relatively recent entrants into the market who are not saddled with the large company baggage of Hornby, who are capable of producing very high quality products at competitive prices and who seem to have a better link with their customers. Some of them are also using concepts such as crowd funding and pre-ordering with deposits to de-risk their projects which must help them to move ahead with projects and further help to control costs. And some of them miss out the middle people of retailers and sell direct (some of them are retailers anyway) which must help with costs. Hornby need to perform better than many of their rivals just to offset their own additional baggage.

[jjb1970]

On super detail, without wanting to take anything away from the stellar improvements made by Bachmann and Hornby from the late 90's and onward, it should be remembered that all they did was close a gap that had grown to a vast chasm in detail and running qualities between OO and HO models. Most of the innovations introduced by the China magic was pretty much the norm in HO from the early - mid 80's. I have Roco models from that time which still cut the mustard today. And if you want to see what some American HO modellers got in the 1970's have a look at the HO New York Central Hudson models made by Microcast Mizuno for Westside, magnificent models which I don't think have been surpassed by any other models of those wonderful locomotives and would still be competitive if released today in detail terms.

[jjb1970]

Here is a high fidelity RTR Class 66 in H0.....

 

https://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/produkt/ESU/29-4-004001-260138-0-0-0-6-10-3-0-gatt-gb-p-0/ein_produkt.html

 

€400 is approximately £355

 

 

Ron

 

If I wanted a sound equipped 66 I'd consider the ESU model to be better value than a sound equipped Bachmann model as the ESU has a lot more functionality (OK, I think stuff like smoke generators is a gimmick but some obviously like it), it is a noticeably superior model in terms of detail and finish and I like the feel of metal models. I have an ESU Br151 electric and although that wasn't cheap I really don't feel short changed and would rather spend the money on such a model.

[Colin_McLeod]

Here is a high fidelity RTR Class 66 in H0.....

https://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/produkt/ESU/29-4-004001-260138-0-0-0-6-10-3-0-gatt-gb-p-0/ein_produkt.html

€400 is approximately £355

Ron

That is some spec.

[Ron Ron Ron]

That is some spec.

 

 

It also has all the pipework detail that the very decent Bachmann model doesn't have.

 

 

[Colin_McLeod]

Indeed, and it isn't just Accurascale. There is now a plethora of relatively recent entrants into the market who are not saddled with the large company baggage of Hornby, who are capable of producing very high quality products at competitive prices and who seem to have a better link with their customers. Some of them are also using concepts such as crowd funding and pre-ordering with deposits to de-risk their projects which must help them to move ahead with projects and further help to control costs. And some of them miss out the middle people of retailers and sell direct (some of them are retailers anyway) which must help with costs. Hornby need to perform better than many of their rivals just to offset their own additional baggage.

Since Hornby and other big players contract out manufacture to factories in China it is only a small step to realise anyone with the funding can do the same, hence the emergence of the small companies such as Accurascale entering the scene with small production runs of quality items.

[Colin_McLeod]

I'm not sure all modellers returning to model railways do want total fidelity ..

I agree. If it wasn't for all this talk of fidelity and minor details then perhaps Bachmann would have introduced a two coach pack to enable people like me to run an eight car Blue Pullman.

[p8kpev]

Whoever wrote earlier abut Hornby's problems stemming from its big-company background probably has it right.  "Design clever" doesn't mean too much when the enterprise as a whole is struggling.  A few efficiencies in manufacture probably don't make the difference.  Among the European manufacturers, the same struggle to serve a changing market while serving all segments of it plagues historic brands, just as it plagues Hornby.  Maerklin is an obvious parallel.  The firm has a long history and during some periods dominated its home market for model trains.  But like Hornby, it suffers quality problems and has trouble suiting the rivet-counter crowd because of compromises it makes to serve many segments of a diverse and demanding market and stock a large number of items.

 

I hope that Hornby finds a way forward, but there is no magical, single initiative that will restore it to profit.  Hornby management has to make educated guesses about what to produce and at what price points, just like every other maker.

[wombatofludham]

Apropos the younger generation, not everything has to be started with a Thomas train set. My niece, age 5, hasn't got into Thomas but asked for a train set this Christmas, completely out of the blue.

 

 

Size, durability and play value (i.e lots of farm animals and Playmobil size) plus battery operation were the key purchase requirements but it is strange she has developed an interest in trains seemingly out of the ether.

[Ouroborus]

THIS!  Absolutely.  And just wait until they start getting into phones.  Forget it.  I have three - not one smidge of interest.  WhatsApp is a different story

 

Someone earlier in this thread asked about the % of children in what used to be the prime age range for toy trains, crossing over into model railways, who are “into” this hobby.

No science here, but I’d bet money on what I’m about to type: <1%.

My son is in that age range, has zero interest in the topic (put-off by my obsession?), has very many friends through school and his multiple sports interests, of whom 1 is building a layout (guided by his dad, but the boy is genuinely ‘into’ it), and 1 more who shows a bit of interest in my layout (he is into model aircraft, so ‘gets’ modelling). My daughter is a bit younger, and is a bit more interested in what I do, because she is into crafts and has good imagination, but neither she, nor a single one of her many pals (mostly, but by no means all girls) is ever going to build a layout