How Far Has Hornby and other RTR 00 Come Since 2000?

[MatthewCarty]

I can't comment on the MN (as I've never owned one), but certainly a lot of the LMS models from the early 2000s are a definite step down from what we would expect today. I'm talking about the Black 5, 8f, Princess, as built and rebuilt Coronation, Fowler 4P from the top of my head. I think the LNER modellers got it slightly better a couple of years later when Hornby did the A1, A3 and A4s.

 

We have already seen Hornby redo the Coronation class, how long before we see the other listed locos get new top quality models? With the exception of the 4P, I think the market could take new versions, and with no new Princess' for a number of years now could that be the first?

[Dunsignalling]

The Rebuilt MN of 2000/1 was Hornby's statement that they weren't going to roll over in the face of improving standards elsewhere in in the marketplace.

 

Whilst it still holds up very well for a model of its vintage, more recent SR introductions clearly exhibit further significant advancement. I would especially cite the Rebuilt Light Pacifics and the King Arthurs, both of which are worthy claimants to the title of "Best Hornby Model So Far" in my book, and we haven't seen the Lord Nelson yet. The Britannia, too is an absolute corker, and most recently, the S15 continued the onward march. 

 

The excellence of less high-profile prototypes, especially the little ex-GER J15, LNER K1, J50 and B12 show progress is not confined to either SR types or large passenger locomotives  The little Peckett is a sheer delight on every level and the attention paid to detail variations on the Adams Radials is superb - has Hornby (or anyone else) gone to the trouble of making different patterns of the same size bogie wheels for alternative models of the same class before?

 

I have seen very little of the air-smoothed MN or recent large LNER and LMS models but magazine reviews suggest similar standards are spread across the range.

 

Better than the Hornby models of 2000? Definitely, but we should surely expect that.

 

However, not as dramatic a difference as the superiority that their 2000 models display over those of the preceding two decades.

 

John

Edited November 25, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Steamport Southport]

For the 8F, not much longer, see Bachmann EP pictures from Warley - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/139705-Bachmann-stand-at-warley-show/&do=findComment&comment=3376960

 

That's N Gauge...

 

 

 

 

Jason

[mdvle]

That's N Gauge...

 

To which then to echo other comments, what's it doing in an OO forum.

[The Johnster]

When Hornby are still trying to sell this and similar tat for £35 then the answer at times sadly not very far. 

 

1 gwr.jpg

 

 

Hornby need to decide, are they a toy seller (they don't make anything any more) or high level model seller. The toy side should be totally separate range from a high level range, the railroad name isn't enough of a divide. They need to decide what range is actually selling and making serious money for them otherwise they will de doomed before long. Short runs of high level models is doing them no good, as I doubt it is bringing anything like enough cash into the company

 

 

 

I'd have to agree that this, and it's various spurious liveried equivalents, are tat and probably overpriced, but H are clearly trying to keep a foot in each camp, to have a presence in the 'serious modeller' market and maintain contact with their traditional train set world.  My opinion, which is only worth what you think it is and probably less, is that this is a mistake and doing them no good at all.  Railroad needs a complete rebranding away from the main range and avoiding the Hornby name, not to mention a serious reconsideration of what it is.  If it is Smokey Joe with no brake detail, fine, but what is the Crosti 9F or 37 doing in it at main range prices.  

 

But I do not and never have run an RTR manufacturing business that has ever been successful, or even unsuccessful, so I would understand if Hornby are not particularly influenced by my rantings!  Presumably 101, Smokey Joe, and so on make money for the shareholders or there'd be no point in producing them.  

Edited November 26, 2018 by The Johnster

[robmcg]

But your heading asks 'How far has RTR come?' that implies  a lot more than just the looks of the model. You refer to 'gimmickry' and 'abomination' (DCC sound) thereby dismissing major technical developments which are a key part of how far RTR has come, just because you don't like them. If the question is "are today's locos better-looking than they were 20 years ago?" the answer is a simply "yes." But you asked how far RTR has come. The real success story for Hornby and the rest is the degree to which they have managed to incorporate significant technical innovations into models whilst also improving the fidelity to prototype appearance. That's how far RTR has come. (CJL)

 

Mea culpa. Loose use of language on my part.

 

In asking the question I was thinking about the quality of the physical modelling. Including mechanisms, but not in my mind the system of providing instructions to the motor, nor sound effects. 

 

I also meant to compare the best 00 RTR models of each era or year, not the average of models for sale at the time.

 

Of course I have opinions about my preferences. The sub-heading you might note was for discussion.

 

When I think of the quality of a model I think in rather different terms than someone who includes decoders and sound recordings in the definition  of the phrase 'quality of model'.

 

 

Here you are Chris, for discussion, will Rivarossi ever produce a C&O H7.... like this   

 

 

pic derived from Rivarossi H8 and other pictures.  No doubt in the US it would need DCC and sound. Pah! 

 

For RTR finesse I'll have one of these please

 

 

cheers

Edited November 26, 2018 by robmcg

[Allegheny1600]

Here you are Chris, for discussion, will Rivarossi ever produce a C&O H7.... like this   

 

1578_H7_2-8-8-2_portrait1_4abcdef_r1200.jpg

 

pic derived from Rivarossi H8 and other pictures.  No doubt in the US it would need DCC and sound. ####

 

As a former C&O modeller, I snorted at the thought that anyone would produce a H7 RTR but I see that Lionel have done, albeit in crude 0 scale:

https://www.walthers.com/class-h7-2-8-8-2-3-rail-w-legacy-sound-control-smoke-chesapeake-ohio-1578-black-graphite

In H0, who knows?

 

 

robmcg, on 26 Nov 2018 - 01:11, said:

For RTR finesse I'll have one of these please

 

 30915_Schools_portrait30_2abcdef_r1200.jpg

 

Now you're getting close!

Metal cast boiler, plastic fittings and loco drive** - I don't think you can improve on this formula, everything else is details.

 

**With a decent motor, not a "Scalextric" or a "DJM special"

[Joseph_Pestell]

I find this thread interesting because I have been in contact with someone who has rejoined the hobby recently.

 

He is about 50 and has a 12 year old son. He still has a collection of locos from his youth as well as some more recent purchases.

 

In looking at his proposed "layout", I advised avoiding the Setrack/Hornby curved points. As others on here, I have found them a constant source of derailments. He said that he had not had a problem with them - and of course that is probably true. 40 years ago, the locos had much heavier flanges (and flangeless centre wheels). So the issue that we have is improved rolling stock running over the same old track. That incompatibility of wheel standards, old-fashioned track, and the "slop" that there has to be in the chassis all makes for unreliable running and, therefore, disappointment.

 

My friend is of high intellect as is his son. But he is not really interested in a high fidelity model. He wants a train set that runs well (like he had as a child). Hornby, by using just one brand, is causing confusion.

 

Also worth noting that my 50-year-old friend has no real interest in steam. His childhood trains were all diesel/electric. If I were Hornby, I would be focusing my entry-level brand entirely on diesel models and modern stock (current era).

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

One improvement in RTR OO which I wasn't really concious of until quite recently is that Heljan use a significantly finer flange than the other OO  manufacturers that I have sampled*. Much as I enjoyed Heljan's BTH and NBL pilot scheme type 1s and the EE and BRCW pilot scheme type 2s, it was only with the Gresley O2 that the message got home, by the superior resulting appearance of the small diameter (2'6") front truck wheel.

 

Since all these models have been running completely reliably on my gallimaufrey of Streamline code 100 and 75 and kit built track - none of it laid to exemplary standard - here it seems to me is an improvement which could be more widely adopted. Especially as we are now getting track of superior appearance: why not superior wheel appearance too?.

 

* Are there others doing likewise? I have nothing (so far) from Accurascale, Dapol, DJM, Realtrack, SLW to look at.

 

 

 

Regarding the Hornby 8F, probably their weakest model among major LMS classes, and what Bachmann are showing.

That's N Gauge...

 Now, maybe. But Bachmann's declared policy was to cover both scales if there was no effective competition. Hornby will probably see development of a new GF 8F as a warning shot.

 

The Hornby 8F with its intrusion of a solid lump of gear tower into the underboiler space - garnished with a large spinning gear shaft end! - makes it easily the weakest heavy freight model in OO. The irony of the hammering Oxford Rail got over much less visible mechanism intrusion on their Adams Radial! (All the other Hornby Stanier tender loco designs need renewal on the lines of the Princess Coronation, not least using the - at last - corrected tender underframe.)

['CHARD]

 

Since all these models have been running completely reliably on my gallimaufrey of Streamline code 100 and 75 and kit built track - none of it laid to exemplary standard - here it seems to me is an improvement which could be more widely adopted. Especially as we are now getting track of superior appearance: why not superior wheel appearance too?.

 

gallimaufry 

 

noun

a confused jumble or medley of things

 

Every day is a school day!!! 

[Nearholmer]

“Good” can have many dimensions, but for the purposes of this thread, which starts with digital(?) artwork, I’m assuming that the main criterion is appearance, photo-fidelity to the prototype.

If so, that has long been a subject of diminishing returns on effort/cost. Manufacturers could produce recognisable models of prototypes as early as c1907, when Basset-Lowke employed Greenly to guide German toy makers to do so (see below, Gauge 1 clockwork), and in plastic I seem to remember that the late-1970s’revolution’ sorted the basics. But, once the basics were sorted, visual improvement was bound to slow down, because it is an expensive path to follow, and manufacturers could never be certain whether enough open-wallets would go down it.

It must be a fairly nerve-racking job trying to decide how photo-exact to make a model, to what finesse of detail, given how that must affect price and thereby sales.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Nearholmer

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 

gallimaufry 

 

noun

a confused jumble or medley of things

 

Every day is a school day!!! 

 

 So it is a schoolday, as I learn that the spelling I have always used is now considered obsolete.

[greatcoleswoodhalt]

Also worth noting that my 50-year-old friend has no real interest in steam. His childhood trains were all diesel/electric. If I were Hornby, I would be focusing my entry-level brand entirely on diesel models and modern stock (current era).

 

Whilst this prompts a much wider discussion (admittedly straying from the thread subject), to be so dismissive is quite naive; people young and old are attracted to the hobby for a vast amount of reasons.  Personally, I have no interest in what you suggest should be "entry-level".  To the child gravitating from Thomas the Tank Engine or having seen the Flying Scotsman, Tornado, etc for the first time, where would they turn for an introduction to the hobby?

[Joseph_Pestell]

I can't see that I am being "dismissive". But I do take your point that some younger people will be interested in steam - particularly the likes of Flying Scotsman and Tornado.

 

But should these be in the entry-level range where it tends to lead to a "Design Clever" philosophy? I would suggest that diesel and electric models can function far better on non-scale track and make for more reliable operation as well as being something that they see in real life.

[robmcg]

I should point out that the original question was mine, and perhaps ought to have defined 'realism' as my main interest in today's best 00 RTR models as compared to those of c2000.   

 

When I used 'how far have we come' or whatever I wrote, I was meaning 'are today's models better in terms of quality and realism'.  In quality I would include 'running quality'..

 

Of course it is always an excuse to show off my photos of RTR models (my hobby).

 

cheers  

[The Johnster]

I use the NEM coupler as a very general guide to whether or not it is worth buying an item on 'Bay or similar.  A loco fitted with it will have a current or recent mechanism that will perform to modern standards, and one not fitted with it is taking a bit of a risk.  I am suspicious of 'Bay listings where the couplings are removed or not clearly visible in the photograph.

[classy52]

I'd have to agree that this, and it's various spurious liveried equivalents, are tat and probably overpriced, but H are clearly trying to keep a foot in each camp, to have a presence in the 'serious modeller' market and maintain contact with their traditional train set world.  My opinion, which is only worth what you think it is and probably less, is that this is a mistake and doing them no good at all.  Railroad needs a complete rebranding away from the main range and avoiding the Hornby name, not to mention a serious reconsideration of what it is.  If it is Smokey Joe with no brake detail, fine, but what is the Crosti 9F or 37 doing in it at main range prices.  

 

But I do not and never have run an RTR manufacturing business that has ever been successful, or even unsuccessful, so I would understand if Hornby are not particularly influenced by my rantings!  Presumably 101, Smokey Joe, and so on make money for the shareholders or there'd be no point in producing them.  

 

Hornby need two separate divisions because of who they are, there can't be just 'Hornby' therefore bundling adult super detailed products with their kiddy less detailed Railroad, Thomas & Junior ranges which for me creates an identity crisis as they are still perceived as a toy trainset maker.

My suggestion is there needs to be just 'Hornby' (sophisticated super detailed products only) and sold by them online and via Model Railway retailers/shops only, you also have 'Hornby Kids or Junior' (less detailed kids stuff & Railroad product range) for the toy market but they consolidate their 3 current kids brands into 1 and market it as such via the main high street stores/toy shops and online.

Have 2 separate Hornby identities for 2 separate markets...just a suggestion.

 

I came into model railway modelling in 2014 so it's DCC/Sound & current day Diesel for me but have no idea how RTR models have progressed from 2000 but let me say in the past 4-5 years I think are they getting much better especially with the forthcoming Hatton's Class 66 and now Accurascales Class 55 Deltic and not to mention the plethora of really highly detailed wagons coming into the market as well, the fact you are now seeing more players in the market shows there is an appetite for sophisticated RTR models across the spectrum which you didn't see 20 years ago and it can only get better as well as for Steam era models.

Edited November 26, 2018 by classy52

[DCB]

Hornby need two separate divisions because of who they are, there can't be just 'Hornby' therefore bundling adult super detailed products with their kiddy less detailed Railroad, Thomas & Junior ranges which for me creates an identity crisis as they are still perceived as a toy trainset maker.

My suggestion is there needs to be just 'Hornby' (sophisticated super detailed products only) and sold by them online and via Model Railway retailers/shops only, you also have 'Hornby Kids or Junior' (less detailed kids stuff & Railroad product range) for the toy market but they consolidate their 3 current kids brands into 1 and market it as such via the main high street stores/toy shops and online.

Have 2 separate Hornby identities for 2 separate markets...just a suggestion.

 

I came into model railway modelling in 2014 so it's DCC/Sound & current day Diesel for me but have no idea how RTR models have progressed from 2000 but let me say in the past 4-5 years I think are they getting much better especially with the forthcoming Hatton's Class 66 and now Accurascales Class 55 Deltic and not to mention the plethora of really highly detailed wagons coming into the market as well, the fact you are now seeing more players in the market shows there is an appetite for sophisticated RTR models across the spectrum which you didn't see 20 years ago and it can only get better as well as for Steam era models.

Two divsions, one catering for display cabinet modellers with tiny flanges and fiddly detail which crumbles when you pick the model up, and one with bigger flanges and generally more robust construction, maybe sprung axles a la Bachmann WD so they actually pull trains and stay on the track.   As for those awful Smokey Joe and Perky models with non see through wheels surely new wheels and motors and gearing which don't give 200 mph wouldn't break the bank.

[Steamport Southport]

 

gallimaufry 

 

noun

a confused jumble or medley of things

 

Every day is a school day!!! 

 

 

Isn't that Doctor Who's home planet?

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

 

 

robmcg, on 26 Nov 2018 - 01:11, said:

For RTR finesse I'll have one of these please

 

 30915_Schools_portrait30_2abcdef_r1200.jpg

 

Now you're getting close!

Metal cast boiler, plastic fittings and loco drive** - I don't think you can improve on this formula, everything else is details.

 

**With a decent motor, not a "Scalextric" or a "DJM special"

 

Unfortunately it has traction tyres. I would much rather have a "DJM special" than those abominations. The reason I haven't bought any even though they are heavily discounted.

 

 

For the record my DJM O2 0-4-4T is one of the best runners I've seen. Sweet as a daisy.

 

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

 As for those awful Smokey Joe and Perky models with non see through wheels surely new wheels and motors and gearing which don't give 200 mph wouldn't break the bank.

 

Already been done.

 

Anyone thinking that they are the same as they were back in 1980 then they need to have a good play with one. But also needs to realise they are meant to be toys for kids that sell for about £17.

 

 

 

Jason

[adb968008]

I think the shift in the hobby was neither Bachmann nor Hornby, but more further a field.

 

Proto 2000 revolutionised US modelling, away from Athearn, and intricacy way ahead of Bachmann, including creep motors, gear box bearings, axle bearings, opening doors, opening vents, DCC chips even separately moulded and sprung axlebox covers on loco bogies (something thats take 19 years to yet reach the UK with Hattons class 66). The finesse of handrails was hithero unseen even on Katos SD40-2.

Proto took the lead on quality and price for a number of years forcing big changes to the industry, largely in seeing production move to china to compete by companies worldwide.

 

 

I remain firmly convinced the lineage of Proto 2000 and Hornbys class 50 are similar, and the class 50 followed shortly after the Proto range, under the hood even today they are very similar in components and design.

 

Its worth remebering the quality standard in year 2000 was set by Roco in Europe, today that standard hasnt advanced anywhere close as the UK outline has improved.

 

If your asking my opinion today whos most advanced, i’d have to say Piko.. they have successfully improved quality whilst maintaining price and developed ranges in competitive and emerging markets suitable to all budgets, something a lot more manufacturers could learn from.

Edited November 27, 2018 by adb968008

[adb968008]

I can't see that I am being "dismissive". But I do take your point that some younger people will be interested in steam - particularly the likes of Flying Scotsman and Tornado.

 

But should these be in the entry-level range where it tends to lead to a "Design Clever" philosophy? I would suggest that diesel and electric models can function far better on non-scale track and make for more reliable operation as well as being something that they see in real life.

For entry level for kids, i think we arent far from the day that running live electric rails from a controller plugged from the mains to tracks with sharp edges is seen as too dangerous / legal liability for kids toys.

 

I’d proffer a future for entry level would be dead rail, powered by rechargable, cordless batteries in the locos so they can run on plastic track, but yet be upscalable with children as they grow and hence work on adult track later. I can buy a remote control helicopter, for around £15, smaller than even a Hornby 0-4-0 with a £2 battery with built in wifi, and make it fly for 20 minutes...so the tech exists and is accepted as toy technology in the industry already... just not in trains.

The next step is an App to manage it, add some AR technology to make it relevent to todays kids.

Edited November 27, 2018 by adb968008

[robmcg]

I think the shift in the hobby was neither Bachmann nor Hornby, but more further a field.

 

Proto 2000 revolutionised US modelling, away from Athearn, and intricacy way ahead of Bachmann, including creep motors, gear box bearings, axle bearings, opening doors, opening vents, DCC chips even separately moulded and sprung axlebox covers on loco bogies (something thats take 19 years to yet reach the UK with Hattons class 66). The finesse of handrails was hithero unseen even on Katos SD40-2.

Proto took the lead on quality and price for a number of years forcing big changes to the industry, largely in seeing production move to china to compete by companies worldwide.

 

..

 

 

A very good point, Proto 2000 steam models are and were outstanding, before 1999 too.

 

Here is a Proto 2000 ex-USRA 2-8-8-2 in a US scene.  I forget when these were made, early-mid 90s I think. Mine bought s/h a few years ago  were DC but some were/are DCC and sound, maybe that was a subsequent offering.  I have a FB page 'US Articulated Steam Locomotives' with a few followers. 

 

.

 

(any excuse,  ) 

 

and here is an H0 Rivarossi C&O H8 from before 2000.  Hornby bought the company after 2000 ?   And made a Virginian version. Both are still around on Ebay I think. 

 

 

Here is an old Hornby standard just to keep the balance.  Thread drift must be banned  curbed!

 

 

 

P2 weathering and detail by James Mower, effects by me.

Edited November 27, 2018 by robmcg

[Right Away]

Hi All,

 

I cite below, a  Bachmann 1999-tooled Bachmann ex-WD 2-8-0 and a Hornby 2000-tooled Merchant Navy.

 

oth pic edited a little. Both models are stunning IMHO. Both then and now. Both are weathered, the MN has recent-model cylinder drains, everything else standard, albeit edited here and there.

 

Of course there are a greater variety of great models now compared to 2000. But are they all that much better? The latest 00 RTR still usually has oversized flanges and of course 'narrow' gauge.

 

The Hornby Merchant Navy has been overshadowed by the release of their modified WC and BB models; in particular the "short" cylinders and that smokebox door, both of which are still present on the latest releases.

 

Very nice photo editing, by the way.