Hornby secure £18 million loan

[dibber25]

I do think the above line will lead to the bottom line.

Too many entrants are tooling up.

There’s only so many little black tank engines the market will bear.

Similarly replacing reasonably adequate tooling from the mid90’s will see less benefit than older toolings... but that gene pool is less and less.

 

Similarly prices are up quite high.

 

If someone suggested tooling a new Manor, or a new N2.. many will celebrate, but at £200 will baulk at the price.

I’d love an L& Y A class, with all 3 liveries it brings, all of them black, but at £200 I might buy 1, at £150 I might buy 2.. but then my fleet is full... so 3000 people share my love of the A class to buy 2, or 6000 people to buy 1 ?

 

The unfulfilled gaps in the market I see are Industrials, Black 0-6-0’s, very old 4-4-0’s, Non-3rd rail EMUs, Local transport (Tube,Tram etc), the latter two carry higher cost or lower sales risks.

Otherwise it’s the arms race for replacing what’s left.. with smaller spoils.

 

To get through this it will need to be like a phoenix... but less about duplicating old ashes and obscure coal burners and more about creative reinvention that moves the hobby forwards.

 

The old adage "there may be a gap in the market, but is there a market in the gap?" I see very little chance of anyone going seriously into those gaps, particularly as the best pickings have already been taken from both the 0-6-0s and the 4-4-0s. Yes, there are one or two obvious targets among those wheel arrangements, which are likely to be hit in the next couple of years. If you face a company accountant or a manager with no railway interest or knowledge, and you put forward another pretty 4-4-0 or another black 0-6-0, they'll ask you why you want to do it. "We already do a black 0-6-0".

"Ah but this one has bigger wheels, or a different cab, or a different chimney".

"Yes but we've got XXX that looks almost exactly the same, and the tools are paid for. Why don't we just run it again with a different number?"

"Because there's already hundreds in the warehouse sitting unsold"

"So remind me again, why are we even considering doing another black 0-6-0?"

Larger concerns need to produce in volume. The market currently has a number of much smaller concerns which are succeeding because they can get by on very small quantities. For some of these concerns, 500 of a particular livery is a large number - some are down below 250. While a small producer might be able to do that, if you have the overheads of a warehouse, accounts and admin staff, sales reps etc, you cannot fund that operation off a couple of hundred sales on a tooling that has cost a six figure sum, even if you push the sale price to the absolute limit. Even if Hornby goes for the enthusiast/collector market, it is still going to need to find some subjects which will sell in real volume at prices which bring a good margin. (CJL)

[adb968008]

The old adage "there may be a gap in the market, but is there a market in the gap?" I see very little chance of anyone going seriously into those gaps, particularly as the best pickings have already been taken from both the 0-6-0s and the 4-4-0s. Yes, there are one or two obvious targets among those wheel arrangements, which are likely to be hit in the next couple of years. If you face a company accountant or a manager with no railway interest or knowledge, and you put forward another pretty 4-4-0 or another black 0-6-0, they'll ask you why you want to do it. "We already do a black 0-6-0".

"Ah but this one has bigger wheels, or a different cab, or a different chimney".

"Yes but we've got XXX that looks almost exactly the same, and the tools are paid for. Why don't we just run it again with a different number?"

"Because there's already hundreds in the warehouse sitting unsold"

"So remind me again, why are we even considering doing another black 0-6-0?"

Larger concerns need to produce in volume. The market currently has a number of much smaller concerns which are succeeding because they can get by on very small quantities. For some of these concerns, 500 of a particular livery is a large number - some are down below 250. While a small producer might be able to do that, if you have the overheads of a warehouse, accounts and admin staff, sales reps etc, you cannot fund that operation off a couple of hundred sales on a tooling that has cost a six figure sum, even if you push the sale price to the absolute limit. Even if Hornby goes for the enthusiast/collector market, it is still going to need to find some subjects which will sell in real volume at prices which bring a good margin. (CJL)

I think you missed the first lines of my post..

 

I don’t think there is any future in little black 0-6-0’s, 4-4-0’s, remakes of old tools, and I already stated there’s higher risk In EMUs and regional transit.

 

In short i’m saying right now the game is up.

 

If they stick with current target they may as well klf the £18mn and make nothing.

 

I think they need to not focus on locos. But focus on the basics (scenery, kits, track, wagons, coaches etc) that always tend sell and use their channel to promote commissioners rather than risking their own capital, maybe promote greater use of limited productions of their existing toolings and spend R&D towards new technology that gives the hobby more relevance.

 

If next year they announce more black goods engines, a remake of a 4-6-0 and a tram then i’d Imag8ne it would be good for an initial run but question it’s long term return.

Edited June 10, 2018 by adb968008

[Clearwater]

To Chris’ point on profitability. The new CEO/MD, Davies, comes from a small company background. I’d suspect one of the things he is looking at is how much of that “big company” infrastructure Hornby really needs. Scaletrix may well be a product that it’s own management team might fancy buying out the brand rights from Hornby and running it on a much leaner cost base.

 

However, if they price properly, don’t overproduce, there’s no inherent reason why they can’t make a profit. Overall, it wouldn’t surprise me if in two years’ time, Hornby was turning over on the c£25m and making around £1.5-2m profit.

[The Stationmaster]

I think you missed the first lines of my post..

 

I don’t think there is any future in little black 0-6-0’s, 4-4-0’s, remakes of old tools, and I already stated there’s higher risk In EMUs and regional transit.

 

In short i’m saying right now the game is up.

 

If they stick with current target they may as well klf the £18mn and make nothing.

 

I think they need to not focus on locos. But focus on the basics (scenery, kits, track, wagons, coaches etc) that always tend sell and use their channel to promote commissioners rather than risking their own capital, maybe promote greater use of limited productions of their existing toolings and spend R&D towards new technology that gives the hobby more relevance.

 

If next year they announce more black goods engines, a remake of a 4-6-0 and a tram then i’d Imag8ne it would be good for an initial run but question it’s long term return.

 

Quite agree about commissioning but what fun at Hornby Towers as the new regime reverses its previous decision to reverse their predecessors' decision to actively seek commissioned model work.  Talk about deciding to be indecisive, and how much guaranteed risk-free guaranteed income will they have chucked away in the meanwhile?  And will anybody actually trust them to be consistent about a decision when they weren't previously consistent about implementing their reversal of it?

 

But then leads to another fascinating question - if Hornby decide to go back to accepting commissions. could those who retailers who previously sought commissions then claim intellectual property in respect of the models they previously put up as commissions (and researched) in order to stop Hornby producing them on its own account?  (And that question isn't actually as hypothetical as some people might think ).

[Mike Storey]

Quite agree about commissioning but what fun at Hornby Towers as the new regime reverses its previous decision to reverse their predecessors' decision to actively seek commissioned model work.  Talk about deciding to be indecisive, and how much guaranteed risk-free guaranteed income will they have chucked away in the meanwhile?  And will anybody actually trust them to be consistent about a decision when they weren't previously consistent about implementing their reversal of it?

 

 

Yes, Minister?

 

But seriously folks - is there even a large market in third party commissioning anymore, when folk like Cornwall and Hattoffs have found a direct route to design and production. And then folk from across the puddle are even doing their own CAD work, shock, horror, surely that can't work anymore??? I think the last mentioned is perhaps the one innovation (given they still have their design team in Kent and that they would now appear to have a secure production line courtesy of Oxford's nimble footwork) that might both reduce production timescales, perhaps costs and most probably obviate some silly errors or faults. It may also give them better costs predictability, and thus their business plans might have more credibility (assuming they choose the right product range, retailer incentives and pricing policy). 

 

But Product Range is key. I have no idea what that should be. But when I see them do the Hi-Tech stuff so well with Scalextric, but simply not making much, if any, profit, perhaps that is one area they should avoid? But when I see peeps like DCC Concepts produce stuff which clearly does the biz in terms of simplifying the inexplicable, but is beginning to make my head spin as I cease to understand less and less of what you need to go with what, at prices which make me gasp, maybe there is money to be made? Or is Hornby Elite as far as they are prepared to go?

 

When the market has become nearly saturated, you need a USP. 

[jjb1970]

And to deliver that type of technology product involves cost. Lots of it...

 

Railway modellers seem to be a rather conservative lot technologically. Analogue control techniques are as old as the hills and DCC is an antiquated technology yet there seems to be little real interest in moving on from DCC. Some might say that we don't need to because DCC provides all the functionality modellers want or need but I would disagree. I think there have been opportunities to move the hobby on from DCC for quite a few years now.

[jjb1970]

There has been a fundamental change in the supply side of the hobby in that tooling now needs to recover all costs and deliver a profit very quickly, in some cases in a single production run and the old idea of tooling being re-used regularly (if perhaps not quite year on year) for many years delivering a steady return for perhaps decades has gone.

[Mike Storey]

Railway modellers seem to be a rather conservative lot technologically. Analogue control techniques are as old as the hills and DCC is an antiquated technology yet there seems to be little real interest in moving on from DCC. Some might say that we don't need to because DCC provides all the functionality modellers want or need but I would disagree. I think there have been opportunities to move the hobby on from DCC for quite a few years now.

 

Quite possibly. But the trick will be to make them both understandable and readily adopted (as well as perhaps a reasonable backward compatability). I have been watching the self-powered innovations for some time (which we obviously have in 32mm gauge) in the 00 field. It is by no means there yet, given there is so much effort involved just to save a bit of track cleaning, and that the full benefits of DCC just aren't there. 

 

If Hornby are willing and able to plunge into that technology, it will be one heck of a gamble, unless battery technology does make the long-predicted leap into the micro sizes that are needed. O Gauge is where that has greatest promise right now, and Hornby have so far elected not to go there.

[blueeighties]

showing your age there Andy    

or is it a case of the hobby is starting to become unsustainable, at the current prices?

Nail on head.

[jjb1970]

Without wanting to open up the whole thing on pricing, I think that if people are really passionate something they'll find a way to afford to do it (within reason, few of us will ever be able to buy a Spitfire and fly it for example).

 

Many people who enjoy hobbies such as riding horses, playing golf at high end courses, cycling, photography etc spend sums pursuing their hobbies that can make model railways low rent despite being just normal working people. They find a way to afford their hobby because they want to. Model railways was never a cheap hobby and I well remember my own younger days of saving up for things and lusting after stuff that'd take me a long time to be able to afford.

[jjb1970]

Quite possibly. But the trick will be to make them both understandable and readily adopted (as well as perhaps a reasonable backward compatability). I have been watching the self-powered innovations for some time (which we obviously have in 32mm gauge) in the 00 field. It is by no means there yet, given there is so much effort involved just to save a bit of track cleaning, and that the full benefits of DCC just aren't there. 

 

If Hornby are willing and able to plunge into that technology, it will be one heck of a gamble, unless battery technology does make the long-predicted leap into the micro sizes that are needed. O Gauge is where that has greatest promise right now, and Hornby have so far elected not to go there.

 

I don't think Hornby should go there as the risks are too high and I'm not sure the demand is there. Even the European HO suppliers who have been much quicker to exploit the potential of DCC seem reluctant to move past DCC despite it being pretty much antiquated in technology terms. And I think a big part of that is that us railway modellers are quite a conservative lot. My own view is that wireless systems with on-board battery power would be great but I think the only way to do such a system would be to jump feet first and abandon any ideas of backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is a funny thing is, there is a school of thought that says backwards compatibility is important but I tend to believe that if a new technology really does offer a compelling reason to be adopted then not only is backwards compatibility not really necessary, it can be counter-productive as the end result is generally compromised.

[Phil Parker]

As far as Scalextric goes, I visited the British slot car show s couple of weeks ago and if we are looking for hobbies where the participants are likely to die of old age, it's not that one.

 

http://philsworkbench.blogspot.com/2018/06/uk-slot-car-show-2018.html

[Dunsignalling]

There has been a fundamental change in the supply side of the hobby in that tooling now needs to recover all costs and deliver a profit very quickly, in some cases in a single production run and the old idea of tooling being re-used regularly (if perhaps not quite year on year) for many years delivering a steady return for perhaps decades has gone.

I agree with the need to turn a profit with the first runs of new models nowadays, but think demand will always exist for additional releases from people whose interests change and those who couldn't get/afford all they wanted first time around.

 

Where Hornby have gone wrong, several times, is in producing further versions that only differ by the name/number, far too quickly on the heels of the initial releases. 

 

They should leave it for a minimum of two years (and three might be better) IMHO in most cases. However, unexpected successes that can be re-run with significant differences, e.g. the Peckett, would be a special case that could be safely exempted from that.

 

Wisely timed periodic revivals of models that have had time to regenerate demand will reduce the quantity of all-new releases that need to be developed each year.  

 

John

Edited June 10, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Larger concerns need to produce in volume. The market currently has a number of much smaller concerns which are succeeding because they can get by on very small quantities. For some of these concerns, 500 of a particular livery is a large number - some are down below 250. While a small producer might be able to do that, if you have the overheads of a warehouse, accounts and admin staff, sales reps etc, you cannot fund that operation off a couple of hundred sales on a tooling that has cost a six figure sum...

 There's an obvious way forward, become a smaller concern that the target market volumes will support.

 

 

...I tend to believe that if a new technology really does offer a compelling reason to be adopted then not only is backwards compatibility not really necessary, it can be counter-productive as the end result is generally compromised.

 In consumer goods, the 'analogue grunge - optical disc marvel - downloadable sludge' transitions for recorded entertainment well illustrate. For model railway no such leaps are available. The models still require mechanisms of an appropriate standard to run along carefully aligned rails, so that putting power through those same rails is a natural thing to do. I am attracted to broadcast signal/onboard power as a concept, but the price needs to be no greater than track pick up DCC to be attractive. Tough to do.

 

 

As far as Scalextric goes, I visited the British slot car show a couple of weeks ago and if we are looking for hobbies where the participants are likely to die of old age, it's not that one.

 

 What are they going to die of before reaching old age then? Drugs, accident, infectious diseases, inadvisable dietary choices? We need to be told. ;-)

[adb968008]

I don't think Hornby should go there as the risks are too high and I'm not sure the demand is there. Even the European HO suppliers who have been much quicker to exploit the potential of DCC seem reluctant to move past DCC despite it being pretty much antiquated in technology terms. And I think a big part of that is that us railway modellers are quite a conservative lot. My own view is that wireless systems with on-board battery power would be great but I think the only way to do such a system would be to jump feet first and abandon any ideas of backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is a funny thing is, there is a school of thought that says backwards compatibility is important but I tend to believe that if a new technology really does offer a compelling reason to be adopted then not only is backwards compatibility not really necessary, it can be counter-productive as the end result is generally compromised.

Modellers will drag their knuckles forwards if the benefits of doing so is obvious.

DCC took an eon to become mainstream, even now DC diehards like me are finding workarounds for sound because going AC isn’t as straight forwards as it’s cracked up to be. I would guess today more modellers are still DC than AC.

 

For less than £8, I’ve made a DCC sound irrelevant on my DC layout, and I only need a 2-3 mini speakers to give me all the benefits of DCC sound.. saving me thousands of £ in DCC sound chips...

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134808-bluetooth-sound/

 

Now imagine if it were enhanced to a rtr product and monetised With loads of industry standard components that cost cents into a workable usable product, rather than my crude mock-up. There’s a lot of potential out there with Bluetooth, WiFi, sound, camera, microphone and a CPU to sync it, using RC helicopter batteries (c£2-3 ea retail) with wireless charging to run it, . all controlled by an app and it costs a lot less than a non-industry standard bespoke chip with limited functionality and various patents making it expensive to use. Model railways were mechanically interactive in the past, but is one of the few technologies still not digitally interactive, which is why I believe it has become less relevant in the 21st century. I’m not even going to suggest Augmented reality, some may bust their boilers on here.

 

It should be considered that eventually authorities will deem live metal track, wired by amateurs even on low volts will be deemed unsafe and require competent sign off, as will use of metal track with sharp objects as a child’s toy...indeed i’m Surprised legislation hasn’t gotten it to date. It’s better to be ahead of change and adopt current tech, define the standard, than be forced to adopt it.

 

To me there’s more mileage in that, than yet another remake of a Black 5, 8f, Railroad Class 27 etc etc, more revenue potential in software that works all your fleet, for a lot less cost than another tooling that might sell 5 or 6000 locos if your lucky.

Edited June 10, 2018 by adb968008

[Chamby]

Surely the additional loans will mean more debt, so more interest payments. Add these to the legacy of overheads and day-to-day running costs of an oversized organisation that is down on its fortunes, and it starts to feel more like Icarus than Phoenix...

 

I am sure that Hornby as a stand-alone business can be turned around and made profitable. But can it also carry the amount of additional baggage that it currently has, and continues to build up around its business?

 

That’s a very big ask.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Chamby

[robmcg]

Hell, I just like scale models, just like I did when I was a boy.   

[LBRJ]

The elephant in the room, or rather, the one stomping all over the house here. is that this is a collector lead hobby at its base.

People who "buy things" simply because they like them, and want to have them, make up probably 75% of "the hobby" industry income.

 

They are the people who have got money (Collecting anything is not cheap) and they are not going to stop just because prices rise.

 

I may well have said this before, but its the I want every loco I want on my 4x2 TMD layout types that are going to suffer.....

Though I do understand the plight, its not them that routinely drop the dollar for new stuff - Its the retired or wealthy blokes with pensions and desire for full shelves on display that matter.

[Clearwater]

Surely the additional loans will mean more debt, so more interest payments. Add these to the legacy of overheads and day-to-day running costs of an oversized organisation that is down on its fortunes, and it starts to feel more like Icarus than Phoenix...

 

I am sure that Hornby as a stand-alone business can be turned around and made profitable. But can it also carry the amount of additional baggage that it currently has, and continues to build up around its business?

 

That’s a very big ask.

Debt is cheaper than equity hence why all companies use it. However, it’s lower prices price comes at the expense to the company of giving it priority ahead of equity on insolvency. Whether the loan is fully drawn or not, and I doubt it would be save in distress, they need working capital. Ie they need to borrow comparatively large sums at short notice ahead of receiving the cash from sales, eg to pay their factories. The like of Kernow have dealt with the same issue by asking for customers to pay up front. The discount offered to those customers is effectively a cost of finance as well (it may not be accounted for as one but in cash flow that’s how it behaves).

 

David

[The Stationmaster]

Yes, Minister?

 

But seriously folks - is there even a large market in third party commissioning anymore, when folk like Cornwall and Hattoffs have found a direct route to design and production. And then folk from across the puddle are even doing their own CAD work, shock, horror, surely that can't work anymore??? I think the last mentioned is perhaps the one innovation (given they still have their design team in Kent and that they would now appear to have a secure production line courtesy of Oxford's nimble footwork) that might both reduce production timescales, perhaps costs and most probably obviate some silly errors or faults. It may also give them better costs predictability, and thus their business plans might have more credibility (assuming they choose the right product range, retailer incentives and pricing policy). 

 

But Product Range is key. I have no idea what that should be. But when I see them do the Hi-Tech stuff so well with Scalextric, but simply not making much, if any, profit, perhaps that is one area they should avoid? But when I see peeps like DCC Concepts produce stuff which clearly does the biz in terms of simplifying the inexplicable, but is beginning to make my head spin as I cease to understand less and less of what you need to go with what, at prices which make me gasp, maybe there is money to be made? Or is Hornby Elite as far as they are prepared to go?

 

When the market has become nearly saturated, you need a USP. 

 

The advantage Hornby have is that there are a large number of tools available, including those for different levels of detailing for many more recent models, where commissioned livery/detail variants are relatively straightforward to produce, especially if the commissioner comes along (including some in the form of those who also happen to commission original models direct from Chinese factories on their own account).   Thus some of what was commissioned last year has actually made its way to the commissioning shops and has appeared in the marketplace.

 

Similarly Bachmann seem to consider this sort of work profitable and, like Hornby, tend to combine the production of retailers' commissions with re-runs of their own label versions of the same model thus keeping down costs.  If Bachmann - and they aren't alone in this of course - seem happy to go into lower risk ventures seeking commissioned work (including even original tooling commissioned work) what have Hornby now got against it and why did they step back from it?  I can understand a potential fear that it might divide their market but on the other hand it could just as easily encourage the market where buying power exists.  

 

For example if you look at the Hornby 'Castle' there has long been a dearth of Collett tender late emblem versions, something from one of the most popular periods with modellers - so would two available a simultaneously divide the market or would they soak up hitherto unsatisfied demand?  I am fairly sure the latter would be the case and whatever occurs if one happened to be a commission produced in parallel with a main range model Hornby will have immediately sold that 500 without having to do anything in terms of advertising or promoting it and very little to do in terms of research because that would be haanded to them ona plate.  And you can lay good money that no commissioning retailer is going to waste his time and money on going for something where he knows the market is sated and there is no or very limited demand.  

[BWsTrains]

lots of good ideas here about what Hornby could or should do but surely if it were as simple as just deciding to stick to their strengths and make xxx units of Class YYYY and charge GBP ZZ.zz for each of those, Hornby would have zoomed in and done that, financial troubles resolved.

 

I suspect they've pulled those strings already, based on their flagship toolings and existing designs and the results have been nowhere enough. Now they wonder "what else can we do with all the problems / risks involved in bringing more innovative products to market?".

 

My suspicion is they may not have a handle on what are the genuinely profitable parts of their business when properly and fully accounted for on a unit cost basis. When this situation exists, unprofitable segments continue to be a drain on the overall organization, and yet there can be powerful internal forces arguing for preservation of such market segments, e.g. we can only sell product X because it includes or we also supply items Y. Never mind if Items Y are major consumers of resources and cash negative.

 

Walking away from such business can be very hard indeed and we have not yet seen Hornby walking away from any significant sectors apart from letting some wither in an apparent slow death e.g Humbrol.(corrections to my subjective assertions appreciated)

 

My reason for asserting the above is that if you do know where cash is and isn't being generated, it's negligent and against shareholders interests not to take decisive remedial action, especially when you are looking to raise more equity and then debt. Lack of business clarity on the other hand provides management with the cover of "credible deniability"

 

As someone here has said, maybe only a near insolvency event will bring the required hard focus and decision-making to bear.

[Dunsignalling]

The arguments in favour of Hornby offering their services to commissioners are surely clear.

 

By doing so they are getting a slice of the action without risking their own capital. What's not to like?

 

If they turn their back on such work, the commissioners simply go elsewhere or do it for themselves. When that happens, Hornby not only forego any income from the commissioned model, but also stand to lose sales of their own products where some purchasers buy it in preference to a Hornby release.

 

e.g. In my own case, I decided to acquire a Hatton's Barclay 0-4-0ST rather than ordering a third Hornby Peckett.

 

John

Edited June 11, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Clearwater]

@BWsTrains - I suspect they know where the problems are. Tackling them and closing /selling iconic brands is another thing when doubtless the person in charge of said brand is arguing they’ll be producing cash by the bucket in two years once issue x has been resolved...

[JSpencer]

I don't think Hornby should go there as the risks are too high and I'm not sure the demand is there. Even the European HO suppliers who have been much quicker to exploit the potential of DCC seem reluctant to move past DCC despite it being pretty much antiquated in technology terms. And I think a big part of that is that us railway modellers are quite a conservative lot. My own view is that wireless systems with on-board battery power would be great but I think the only way to do such a system would be to jump feet first and abandon any ideas of backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is a funny thing is, there is a school of thought that says backwards compatibility is important but I tend to believe that if a new technology really does offer a compelling reason to be adopted then not only is backwards compatibility not really necessary, it can be counter-productive as the end result is generally compromised.

 

I'm trying to think why I would want to switch to battery powered trains. Even if you can make them compatible with DC and DCC, there is an awful lot of other stuff on the layout like point motors, signals, house lights, detection units etc for which wiring (even to a single DCC circuit) is much more convenient than having batteries all over the place to power them.

 

The other cruxes, as my kids toys show:

1/ they need to be recharged/replaced - opening a complex model or plugging it into a charger does not appeal to me

2/ even if rechargeable, you need to make sure you remove the batteries while in storage otherwise you may find the thing rotted (or use very expensive batteries - but hey the cost????).

[adb968008]

I'm trying to think why I would want to switch to battery powered trains. Even if you can make them compatible with DC and DCC, there is an awful lot of other stuff on the layout like point motors, signals, house lights, detection units etc for which wiring (even to a single DCC circuit) is much more convenient than having batteries all over the place to power them.

 

The other cruxes, as my kids toys show:

1/ they need to be recharged/replaced - opening a complex model or plugging it into a charger does not appeal to me

2/ even if rechargeable, you need to make sure you remove the batteries while in storage otherwise you may find the thing rotted (or use very expensive batteries - but hey the cost????).

1. Cordless charging, via a mat that’s under the track.

2. Quick look on ebay finds a 7v rechargeable battery under £5 (used in R/c cars, helicopters, drones etc).

 

Of course you could retain D.C. and recharge through the Rails so stuff runs when the power is off. (I have 1 such vehicle that does this currently).

Edited June 11, 2018 by adb968008