Hornby Tier System- An Update.

[Pmorgancym]

Not so sure, now we're in the arena of short run specialist models and with 'early bird' price incentives.  People will still take a chance.

[Matt]

1 hour ago, Pmorgancym said:

Get told it constantly here when I say magazines should be more critical :)

 

I think reviewing is dead really, pre order culture means stuff is sold out mostly prior to review so it has no use from a consumer perspective, beyond simply allowing those of us who missed to boat or didn't have the £££ to enjoy the models vicariously through the reviewer. 

 

Personally I always enjoy the reviews section in all mags bar one - whilst I may have my mitts on the model already I usually find out more about the prototype and also what deficiencies the model may have that I could improve. 

[Dunsignalling]

If Hornby don't supply review samples, don't review Hornby products. Simple.

 

When they stopped doing so I recall at least one mag stating that new Hornby items would only get reviewed if a staffer had bought one for their own use. Did that actually happen?

 

TBH, though, what are the odds of being able to buy most Hornby locos if you wait to read a magazine review before ordering one? Pretty poor unless the thing is a flop, I'd think.

 

John

Edited May 7, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Roy Langridge]

3 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

If Hornby don't supply review samples, don't review Hornby products. Simple.

 

When they stopped doing so I recall at least one mag stating that new Hornby items would only get reviewed if a staffer had bought one for their own use. Did that actually happen?

 

TBH, though, what are the odds of being able to buy most Hornby locos if you wait to read a magazine review before ordering one? Pretty poor unless the thing is a flop, I'd think.

 

John

@dibber25has commented that he has bought models so that he can review them. Seems a pity that it has gone that way as I enjoy reading the reviews, even for models that I don’t intend to purchase. 
 

Roy

[boxbrownie]

53 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

@dibber25has commented that he has bought models so that he can review them. Seems a pity that it has gone that way as I enjoy reading the reviews, even for models that I don’t intend to purchase. 
 

Roy

You have to question the reason behind not giving samples to review, it just points to one reason only.

[Phil Parker]

2 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

You have to question the reason behind not giving samples to review, it just points to one reason only.

 

It was very complicated and there were lots of reasons. A change of management has altered the situation a bit.

[eldomtom2]

6 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Well, stop listening to whoever told you that, because they are talking rubbish about this, and probably everything else they say.

 

Samples have never been dependent on favourable reviews. Nor has advertising. After all, it's not like any of the manufacturers takes much advertising anyway. We might get moans in private but the value of several large pages of photos, even with a review picking up niggles, outweighs everything else.

 

 

It certainly has happened in other fields. Whether or not it happens in model railway magazines I cannot say.

[Roy Langridge]

6 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

It was very complicated and there were lots of reasons. A change of management has altered the situation a bit.

Do you see a difference in the attitude of manufacturers in the larger scales i providing models for review?
 

Whenever I pick up Garden Rail magazine it seems to have a lot of reviews, and there are generally less new releases in those scales. 
 

Roy

[Phil Parker]

5 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

It certainly has happened in other fields. Whether or not it happens in model railway magazines I cannot say.

 

I can, and I did. I'm sure it happens in other fields, but here we talk toy trains.

[Pmorgancym]

26 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

Do you see a difference in the attitude of manufacturers in the larger scales i providing models for review?
 

Whenever I pick up Garden Rail magazine it seems to have a lot of reviews, and there are generally less new releases in those scales. 
 

Roy

And also they tend to be reviews of stuff you can buy.  Roundhouse usually let their prototype be reviewed by both Garden Rail and the 16mm society mag.  But it's  a very different market, you can get a decent secondhand car for the cost of a live steamer, there's a much closer relationship between customer and manufacturer. 

I once broke a roundhouse loco through nothing more than ham-fisted stupidity, I rang them, and they fixed it, the only cost to me was the postage!  Can't see Hornby doing that?  And whilst Roundhouse are a much smaller entity than Hornby, I suspect there's more black ink on their bank statements than Hornby's 

[boxbrownie]

40 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

It was very complicated and there were lots of reasons. A change of management has altered the situation a bit.

I am sure there are reasons that make sense to somebody, but it’s doesn’t look good regardless.

[boxbrownie]

33 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

I can, and I did. I'm sure it happens in other fields, but here we talk toy trains.

Toy Trains……Toy Trains?  Go sit in the corner and think about what you just said.

 

We won’t mention the tax man though, he does us a favour 😉

[dibber25]

38 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

You have to question the reason behind not giving samples to review, it just points to one reason only.

One reason? I can think of several and they vary from one manufacturer to another. I would stress, since I am being quoted here, that I have bought models for review only if it was a model I wanted anyway. The most recent is the EFE tube train. There are legal implications around items that are not supplied freely for review but those on certain internet reviewing platforms don't seem aware of that (CJL)

[G-BOAF]

1 hour ago, dibber25 said:

There are legal implications around items that are not supplied freely for review but those on certain internet reviewing platforms don't seem aware of that (CJL)

Can you elaborate - is that there are implications where items are provided free (i.e. potentially seeking favourable reviews) or issues with taking a purchase and reviewing it on a commercial platform?

 

Ive reviewed a number of my purchases on my (non-rev) Youtube chanel (albeit not recently) and never considered it legally dubious 

[Phil Parker]

2 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

Do you see a difference in the attitude of manufacturers in the larger scales i providing models for review?
 

Whenever I pick up Garden Rail magazine it seems to have a lot of reviews, and there are generally less new releases in those scales. 
 

Roy

 

Loco reviews in GR are sometime written by someone who has bought the model for themseves and helps the mag out. Accucraft will loan models for review, as will Roundhouse. The later generally have a waiting list, so it's a useful advert for them.

 

Smaller items are sometimes provided for review, but again, some are bought by contributors who do the review as a sideline. We certainly don't have a budget to buy anything in, and our manufacturers are small, so supplying a kit for review is a more serious comittment than it is for Hornby, Bachmann etc.

[Roy Langridge]

1 minute ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Loco reviews in GR are sometime written by someone who has bought the model for themseves and helps the mag out. Accucraft will loan models for review, as will Roundhouse. The later generally have a waiting list, so it's a useful advert for them.

 

Smaller items are sometimes provided for review, but again, some are bought by contributors who do the review as a sideline. We certainly don't have a budget to buy anything in, and our manufacturers are small, so supplying a kit for review is a more serious comittment than it is for Hornby, Bachmann etc.

Thanks Phil. Interesting to hear the differences and will make me appreciate the reviews all the more knowing the effort people have put in to make those contributions.

Also reminds me to pull my finger out and finish the Lady Anne kit I have!

 

Roy

[andyman7]

9 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Wasn't the 4VEP part of the misguided "design clever" era though?

Jason

No...

9 hours ago, Robin Brasher said:

 My recollection is that the magazines did criticise Hornby for not putting windows in the corridor partition. Hornby Dublo has been putting windows in their corridor partitions since Hornby Dublo stopped making tinplate windows and Tri-ang also put windows in their corridor partitions.  The VEP was also difficult to dismantle.

 

One problem with the tier system is that you do not know what a model is going to be like until it arrives unless magazines give an honest review first.

 

Having said that you can get a refund if the model is not fit for purpose,

The lack of corridor partition windows was an error, it was never intentional. It was corrected for the 2nd run (the Blue Grey ones). It hadn't stopped the secondhand/aftermarket price from spiralling, because guess what - if you want a VEP, it's still the most cost effective way to get one as anyone that wrestled with an MTK kit will tell you.

BTW I never had any problem dismantling them - the body just clips on and off, and the wires are plug fitted. Getting into a Bachmann EMU is much more of a faff.

[boxbrownie]

14 hours ago, dibber25 said:

One reason? I can think of several and they vary from one manufacturer to another. I would stress, since I am being quoted here, that I have bought models for review only if it was a model I wanted anyway. The most recent is the EFE tube train. There are legal implications around items that are not supplied freely for review but those on certain internet reviewing platforms don't seem aware of that (CJL)

You may well be able to think of several, but for the average modeller who relies on these reviews to judge a model before purchase it more or less just points to one, the manufacturer doesn’t think it’ll get a good review, why else not give them up for review?  We are not given other reasons apart from “none were given for review”.

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by boxbrownie

[Oldddudders]

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

You may well be able to think of several, but for the average modeller who relies on these reviews to judge a model before purchase it more or less just points to one, the manufacturer doesn’t think it’ll get a good review, why else not give them up for review?  We are not given other reasons apart from “none were given for review”.

 

Some models are so praised even before appearance that the manufacturer thinks he needn't rely upon a positive review to sell out. And, as has been hinted above, online influencers and 'paid' endorsements in the era of the fanboy can garner a lot of sales among people who never buy the printed press.

 

I am not a likely customer for the 1938 stock train, but when Chris said he'd bought one and was reviewing it, that was enough to convince me to buy that copy of MR. The review was far from superficial. 

[Phil Parker]

4 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

You may well be able to think of several, but for the average modeller who relies on these reviews to judge a model before purchase it more or less just points to one, the manufacturer doesn’t think it’ll get a good review, why else not give

them up for review?  We are not given other reasons apart from “none were given for review”.

 

 

It might "point to one" for you, but those of us who have a better idea of the actual background know it's more complicated than that. As far as I am aware, not being guaranteed a good review has never been a reason models have not been submitted. 

 

FWIW, the real reasons are more cock-up than conspiracy. 

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

 

 

 

FWIW, the real reasons are more cock-up than conspiracy. 

Well, that’s even more comforting then 😆

[Robin Brasher]

On 04/05/2022 at 17:47, Phil Parker said:

 

Then stop doing it.  There is someone called @Robin Brasher who will be upset as he doesn't like thread drift.

 

 

A single model has been damaged in transit. This is sad and annoying, but doesn't speak of a larger problem related to the Tiers system, the subject of this thread. It doesn't matter what Tier the shop you buy from is in, if the model is damaged, you hand it back and they give you a replacement, then send the broken one back to Hornby.

I am not sure that my comments about the damaged R60032 Hornby Conflat Tri-ang Pedigree Prams are off topic.

 

I expect that the Hornby tier system is based on the quality of service that the customer gets from the retailer and Hornby is trying to dissuade customers from shopping at large shops with a mail order business like Hattons.  I have got no evidence, apart from posts on the RM web that Hattons is in tier 3 and it could be in tier 1 for all I know but I do know the shop I bought the Conflat from is in tier 2.  You only find out how good the service is when something goes wrong.

 

My view is that the shop should not have sold me the model in that condition and should have replaced it when I took it back. I took it back on 30 April. Now I have been told that the person who authorises replacements and refunds is on leave for a week so it will not be dealt with until Monday 16 May at the earliest.

 

For this transaction I would have been better off continuing to deal with Hattons, presumably in tier 3, who had the model in stock over a week earlier and have a track record for me of delivering models in marketable condition. The customers may also be better off dealing directly with Hornby which is what Hornby have set up the tier system to achieve.

[Phil Parker]

50 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

I am not sure that my comments about the damaged R60032 Hornby Conflat Tri-ang Pedigree Prams are off topic.

 

I expect that the Hornby tier system is based on the quality of service that the customer gets from the retailer and Hornby is trying to dissuade customers from shopping at large shops with a mail order business like Hattons.  I have got no evidence, apart from posts on the RM web that Hattons is in tier 3 and it could be in tier 1 for all I know but I do know the shop I bought the Conflat from is in tier 2.  You only find out how good the service is when something goes wrong.

 

My view is that the shop should not have sold me the model in that condition and should have replaced it when I took it back. I took it back on 30 April. Now I have been told that the person who authorises replacements and refunds is on leave for a week so it will not be dealt with until Monday 16 May at the earliest.

 

For this transaction I would have been better off continuing to deal with Hattons, presumably in tier 3, who had the model in stock over a week earlier and have a track record for me of delivering models in marketable condition. The customers may also be better off dealing directly with Hornby which is what Hornby have set up the tier system to achieve.

 

At best your problems with a single model are extreemly tenuously connected to the Tiers system, but you are determined to keep posting about it in this thread and others. The best thing you could do is buy from a real shop and when they hand you a battered box, hand it back and ask for a non-battered one. NONE of this is affected by tiers. It is a customer service issue affecting a single shop.

 

Knock it off. We all comiserate about the battered box, but my sympathies are waining.

[adb968008]

On 12/04/2022 at 17:10, Pmorgancym said:

Be interesting to see a designed from from ground up budget range, not simply just old tooling that's too crude to market at full cost (unless there's no obvious opposing model in someone else's range of course ;)).

Wonder what it would looklike?  

Here its been done…

 

 

 

whats more its got dead rail out of the box.

 

[Fireline]

16 hours ago, Robin Brasher said:

I am not sure that my comments about the damaged R60032 Hornby Conflat Tri-ang Pedigree Prams are off topic.

 

I expect that the Hornby tier system is based on the quality of service that the customer gets from the retailer and Hornby is trying to dissuade customers from shopping at large shops with a mail order business like Hattons.  I have got no evidence, apart from posts on the RM web that Hattons is in tier 3 and it could be in tier 1 for all I know but I do know the shop I bought the Conflat from is in tier 2.  You only find out how good the service is when something goes wrong.

 

My view is that the shop should not have sold me the model in that condition and should have replaced it when I took it back. I took it back on 30 April. Now I have been told that the person who authorises replacements and refunds is on leave for a week so it will not be dealt with until Monday 16 May at the earliest.

 

For this transaction I would have been better off continuing to deal with Hattons, presumably in tier 3, who had the model in stock over a week earlier and have a track record for me of delivering models in marketable condition. The customers may also be better off dealing directly with Hornby which is what Hornby have set up the tier system to achieve.

 

15 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

At best your problems with a single model are extreemly tenuously connected to the Tiers system, but you are determined to keep posting about it in this thread and others. The best thing you could do is buy from a real shop and when they hand you a battered box, hand it back and ask for a non-battered one. NONE of this is affected by tiers. It is a customer service issue affecting a single shop.

 

Knock it off. We all comiserate about the battered box, but my sympathies are waining.

 

This reminds me of the fish slapping dance from Monty Python. Right now, Robin, you're slapping someone who has a much bigger fish waiting....