'Genesis' 4 & 6 wheel coaches in OO Gauge - New Announcement

[Graham_Muz]

Just now, Compound2632 said:

 

It's what someone attempted to do earlier today, upthread.

 

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Which is why it is disingenuous to claim that saying the first statement is untrue does not imply that you are saying the second statement is true!

Not so, it was disingenuous for someone to imply the second statement was / had to be  "deliberate" 

[Schooner]

We...

...seem to have passed...

...and I fear...

...lies ahead.

 

Points made, shall we have a reset, gents?

 

[Colin_McLeod]

27 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Whatever has happened, one of the following must be true:

 

Either the factory have not supplied the number of items ordered; 

Or Hattons have taken more pre-orders than they have ordered from the factory.

 

There are no other possibilities that I can think of. 

 

 

Maybe they ordered too many light bulbs! 😀

[gr.king]

I'm happy to be completely wrong, but it occurs to me that the following may apply:

The factory is only willing to produce each variant in quantities of say 100, 200, 300 units etc etc, and not in intermediate amounts because of set up costs for each variant.

The commissioning retailer therefore has to know how many guaranteed sales are required in order to break even on an order the first hundred, and each additional hundred.

If pre-orders by a "final decision date" have not exceeded the break-even number for at least a batch of 100, or for further hundreds, and the known profit from sales of other variants isn't sufficient to cover loss-making batches (even to preserve goodwill) then a decision to leave some customer pre-orders un-fulfilled may be an economic necessity, no matter how upsetting that may be to the prospective customer. The fact that some of those orders may be very long-standing ones won't alter the economics of the matter. Maybe some of the variants haven't been popular enough to justify being produced at all...

Unless the customers' orders were all accepted on the basis that supply of the item was guaranteed (unlikely I would think) then it's all part of the inevitably highly speculative process of pre-ordering.

[Dunsignalling]

Speculative or not, most of these that I have on pre-order (not from early batches) constitute a complete train that I want for a particular (albeit somewhat whimsical) purpose.

 

If informed I wasn't getting one of them I'd probably cancel the rest.

 

John

[Tim Hall]

24 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Speculative or not, most of these that I have on pre-order (not from early batches) constitute a complete train that I want for a particular (albeit somewhat whimsical) purpose.

 

If informed I wasn't getting one of them I'd probably cancel the rest.

 

John

Indeed, I was on the verge of preordering one (or possibly two) four coach rakes. I'll wait until they're in stock now. If I can't get exactly what I want, I'll give it a miss completely.

[Willie Whizz]

1 hour ago, gr.king said:

I'm happy to be completely wrong, but it occurs to me that the following may apply:

The factory is only willing to produce each variant in quantities of say 100, 200, 300 units etc etc, and not in intermediate amounts because of set up costs for each variant.

The commissioning retailer therefore has to know how many guaranteed sales are required in order to break even on an order the first hundred, and each additional hundred.

If pre-orders by a "final decision date" have not exceeded the break-even number for at least a batch of 100, or for further hundreds, and the known profit from sales of other variants isn't sufficient to cover loss-making batches (even to preserve goodwill) then a decision to leave some customer pre-orders un-fulfilled may be an economic necessity, no matter how upsetting that may be to the prospective customer. The fact that some of those orders may be very long-standing ones won't alter the economics of the matter. Maybe some of the variants haven't been popular enough to justify being produced at all...

Unless the customers' orders were all accepted on the basis that supply of the item was guaranteed (unlikely I would think) then it's all part of the inevitably highly speculative process of pre-ordering.

Entirely possible - but if that is indeed the explanation they should have the common decency to say so. “Sorry but we simply didn’t receive enough pre-orders to justify producing this variant” - see, not hard and no reputational damage as a result. Which, while the current… shall we just say, ambiguity… persists, remains a distinct risk. 

[Compound2632]

9 hours ago, Matt C said:

Could you please also supply your evidence that the Factory have under supplied ?

 

Apologies for missing this previously; a very reasonable question. I think the idea that the factories might have undersupplied originated with someone else but the line of reasoning would run as follows: Hattons are a reputable firm; it is not in their commercial interest for them to accept pre-orders that they have no intention of supplying. Therefore the problem must lie not with them but with their supplier. This, it should be noted, is an argument based not on evidence but on inference from the known facts: the fact of under-supply to customers, and the fact of Hattons being a reputable firm. 

 

Graham has presented the counter-evidence that, in his experience as someone in the business*, the factories do not under-supply.

 

As has been pointed out, logically, one of these statements must be untrue. However, it is possible that the true situation is a combination of circumstances, or some sort of cock-up; without a statement from Hattons, we don't know.

 

*In exactly what capacity is not known to me; I'm simply taking his word.

[longchap]

5 hours ago, Schooner said:

Points made, shall we have a reset, gents?

 

Please can we now just stop this no evidence based pointless waste of time before the moderators have to do so?

 

[GWR-fan]

It is always a case of shoot the messenger.  When Hornby under supplied pre-orders to its dealer base,  it seems that Hattons was the store that received the most flak.  At the time Hornby came in for little criticism over its actions.  As has been stated,  is a pre-order a guarantee of supply?  In these times simply getting a new product to its customers is fraught with problems.  Since the initial announcement of a delivery date it has been stalled several times.  Obviously,  all is not well in the model railway business as supply relies on a supplier being able to deliver the goods as planned.   If a miscalculation has been made or a supply issue,  then in reality,  these are merely toys.  As yet I have not received the email,  but understand that there are bigger problems in the world than me not receiving what I want.  I do not need them but consider them a nice to have.

 

Like others I based my order on full rakes of coaches.  If some are not supplied then I will make do with what I actually receive.  We really do need to lighten up the rhetoric and enjoy the hobby rather than calling for apologies and laying blame.

 

 

[andyman7]

Pre-orders of this type, where the person pre-ordering is not required to pay any deposit and has the option the cancel at any point, are by their very nature non-binding. It's a shame where it cannot be fulfilled but there really is no comeback in those circumstances. Given that Hattons are the sole seller in this case, it's not even possible to complain that one would have pre-ordered elsewhere. 

[jjb1970]

13 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Thank you, that is as far as I am concerned adequate evidence in support of your assertion.

 

 

But those posters who inferred from the previously available evidence that the case might be otherwise did so in good faith without the benefit of your knowledge and experience.

 

If you had simply made the statement that in your experience, as someone involved in the business, no Chinese factory had underdelivered, you would no have run the risk of appearing rude. The description of other posts as "nonsense" was unnecessary in the context.

 

I think the reason some people find the China connection sensitive is because it always seems to be a convenient escape clause to blame China, when in reality the Chinese factories for the most part deliver what they've been contracted to provide to the agreed acceptance standard. There was one producer who made a bit of a name for himself blaming China for all sorts of nefarious practices when he was frankly incompetent to run a business and a train wreck in slow motion. No doubt the factories do make mistakes, some models do have quality issues as with any other manufacturing but for the most part I find most of the criticism directed at the factories misdirected and there is something unpleasant about some of it. Not accusing you of this, just making a general point.

[jjb1970]

On 24/08/2022 at 16:49, Dunsignalling said:

Given that only a minority of the boxes carried by the very largest container vessels wil be destined for the UK, its doubtful that creating or enlarging a UK terminal to handle them is either necessary or a commercial proposition. 

 

John

 

The problem isn't that UK ports cannot handle the largest container ships. There are UK terminals which can handle the largest container ships in the world (24,000TEU) and such ships do call at UK ports.

[Oldddudders]

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Graham has presented the counter-evidence that, in his experience as someone in the business*, the factories do not under-supply.

 

 

SNIP

 

 

*In exactly what capacity is not known to me; I'm simply taking his word.

I find that mildly surprising. For as long as I have been on RMweb, I have been aware that, like one or two others, Graham has acted as confidential adviser to a number of mainstream manufacturers in their product development processes. It would be reasonable to infer that since he has worked with more than one such firm without compromising anyone's plans, his integrity is unquestioned in the trade.

 

His current, more overt role, is with Kernow Model Centre, and RMweb has hosted videos in which he outlined specific models and future plans. His Canute Quay module thread regularly showcases new models, and his linked blog gives detailed reviews of new products, particularly those of interest to Southern followers. 

 

Disclosure : Because of a suggestion I made in the development of Canute Quay, Graham made me the honorary landlord of the public house in the backscene. Neither money nor alcohol has changed hands for this privilege. 

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

The problem isn't that UK ports cannot handle the largest container ships. There are UK terminals which can handle the largest container ships in the world (24,000TEU) and such ships do call at UK ports.

Indeed, Evergreen's largest ships are regulars at Felixstowe

Ever Alp (just shy of 24000TEU) is tied up right now and Ever Apex, a similar size, is waiting it's turn to dock.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

Disclosure : Because of a suggestion I made in the development of Canute Quay, Graham made me the honorary landlord of the public house in the backscene.

 

That's worthy of celebration.

Any chance of honorary drinks on the house ?

[Graham_Muz]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

That's worthy of celebration.

Any chance of honorary drinks on the house ?

 

You will need especially small fingers to hold the 4mm scale pint glasses...

[Pteremy]

Out of interest was it really necessary to cancel the 'excess' preorders, rather than just defer fulfilment? This would still have been a disappointment to those concerned, but the 'excess' is a measure of demand and could have been satisfied in a future batch of releases? 

[Iskra]

20 minutes ago, Pteremy said:

Out of interest was it really necessary to cancel the 'excess' preorders, rather than just defer fulfilment? This would still have been a disappointment to those concerned, but the 'excess' is a measure of demand and could have been satisfied in a future batch of releases? 

Personally, I think they should have deferred any cancellations until after the payment phase; with the amount of time that has passed I suspect a few will bounce and end up getting cancelled, with people having forgotten all about them or now having other financial priorities due to the cost of living squeeze. It's probable that they have disappointed some customers now that they will end up having stock for.

[Oldddudders]

27 minutes ago, Pteremy said:

Out of interest was it really necessary to cancel the 'excess' preorders, rather than just defer fulfilment? This would still have been a disappointment to those concerned, but the 'excess' is a measure of demand and could have been satisfied in a future batch of releases? 

I believe in recent years a number of manufacturers have re-ordered a popular/oversold model, only to find that demand has slipped away after the initial batch, and the second release ends up remaindered. 

[Michael Hodgson]

26 minutes ago, Pteremy said:

Out of interest was it really necessary to cancel the 'excess' preorders, rather than just defer fulfilment? This would still have been a disappointment to those concerned, but the 'excess' is a measure of demand and could have been satisfied in a future batch of releases? 

If it is indeed a failure by the factory to produce the quantity ordered or if some are not of acceptable quality, I would normally expect the contract with the factory to require production of the missing ones, albeit delayed even further.

[PhilJ W]

6 minutes ago, Iskra said:

Personally, I think they should have deferred any cancellations until after the payment phase; with the amount of time that has passed I suspect a few will bounce and end up getting cancelled, with people having forgotten all about them or now having other financial priorities due to the cost of living squeeze. It's probable that they have disappointed some customers now that they will end up having stock for.

It might have been a good idea to ask customers with pre-orders if they wished to cancel the pre-orders first when it was known that delays due to Covid were happening.

[Dunsignalling]

6 hours ago, Pteremy said:

Out of interest was it really necessary to cancel the 'excess' preorders, rather than just defer fulfilment? This would still have been a disappointment to those concerned, but the 'excess' is a measure of demand and could have been satisfied in a future batch of releases? 

Given the announced release sequence, over three years, of these coaches, any such "deferment", would presumably be until that sequence has been completed, so up to another four years.

 

One presumes that all coach types in the same livery are being produced in a common production sequence, but there may not be excess demand for all of them, which further complicates any planning for "top-up" repeats.

 

Of course, Dapol Hatton's could decide to additionally "defer" liveries slated for later release to make room, but that's probably a can of worms they'd be very reluctant to open.

 

John 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Dunsignalling
Typo

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, Pteremy said:

Out of interest was it really necessary to cancel the 'excess' preorders, rather than just defer fulfilment? This would still have been a disappointment to those concerned, but the 'excess' is a measure of demand and could have been satisfied in a future batch of releases? 

10001, 66, P, Barclay, Snowplough, RHTT… none have produced further repeat runs after what was originally announced.

Edited September 5, 2022 by adb968008

[Michael Hodgson]

4 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

10001, 66, P, Barclay, Snowplough, RHTT… none have produced further repeat runs after what was originally announced.

 

...so far.  It implies they forecast their order quantities rather better for those models than for some others.

The interesting question in that case is whether or not there will nevertheless be fresh demand in several years time from those who missed out or are new to modelling