Why do Hornby make such odd choices?

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Which market are they listening to though ?

 

Consumers, modellers, retailers, amazon ?

 

Hornby has traditionally existed in a different world to other model railway manufacturers, if they stay in that world, but turn on their speakers, theres potential they go even further from us modellers than they are currently.

 

 

Yes - exactly my thoughts.  For new investment one of their best guides is likely to be retailers but only retailers who really know what they are talking about and understand their.  But markets may vary between retailers for all sorts of reasons.

 

Note that I'm talking new investment although that could conceivably include re-runs - which is the only point at which Amazon might give a clue.  But any auction demand - and that is exactly what Amazon is - can be very misleading because ultimately the market is going to be limited to two of any item - the one who gets it and the under-bidder (unless lots of people keep in there until the end).

 

Overall I'm more of the view that what they mean is the decisions will no longer be made on whim and repeat runs that then sit in the warehouse for years eon't happen (e.g Class 71 and J15) because either the market was sated or they didn't offer sufficient differences from the first run and demand was misread.  Still not easy but if they can avoid the Year 2 trap that will be a big leap forward.

 

12 hours ago, Covkid said:

 

Whilst it probably isn't the absolute definitive piece of work, Mr McDermott and the team go to great lengths every two years to create a poll of what people would like to see in 2mm 4mm and 7mm. . Is that not a pretty good list to follow ?    

 There's already plenty of 'poll chasing' going on from one quarter in particular.  But I don't think - with deepest respect to Brian and co's superb efforts - that polls are necessarily the be all and end all of gauging the market.  Some really good stuff has come from various sources based more on original thoughts rather than looking at the top of the poll lists.

[G-BOAF]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes - exactly my thoughts.  For new investment one of their best guides is likely to be retailers but only retailers who really know what they are talking about and understand their.  But markets may vary between retailers for all sorts of reasons.

 

Note that I'm talking new investment although that could conceivably include re-runs - which is the only point at which Amazon might give a clue.  But any auction demand - and that is exactly what Amazon is - can be very misleading because ultimately the market is going to be limited to two of any item - the one who gets it and the under-bidder (unless lots of people keep in there until the end).

 

Overall I'm more of the view that what they mean is the decisions will no longer be made on whim and repeat runs that then sit in the warehouse for years eon't happen (e.g Class 71 and J15) because either the market was sated or they didn't offer sufficient differences from the first run and demand was misread.  Still not easy but if they can avoid the Year 2 trap that will be a big leap forward.

 

 There's already plenty of 'poll chasing' going on from one quarter in particular.  But I don't think - with deepest respect to Brian and co's superb efforts - that polls are necessarily the be all and end all of gauging the market.  Some really good stuff has come from various sources based more on original thoughts rather than looking at the top of the poll lists.

Do you mean Amazon or Ebay?

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, G-BOAF said:

Do you mean Amazon or Ebay?

Boils down to the same in some respects although I suppose Amazon is more of what thesellewr perceive as a market price rather than Ebay which is a transient market price set by the buyers.

[Right Away]

Reverting briefly to the OP’s title, Hornby has not been alone in selecting individual choices that some might find questionable.

Back in the 1980s, among Graham Farish steam locomotives released at the same time were Nos 46242 and 34066. Many will be aware that these engines were, under the prevailing conditions of poor visibility, primarily culpable in two of the most destructive accidents on Britain’s Nationalised railway, hastening the call for the introduction of AWS.

Other manufactures’ examples produced can be attributed to mishaps, but the two mentioned above, released together, did stand out.

 

[VIA185]

Precedent was the primary driver of choices for many years - If it sold well before, you repeated it (LNER Pacifics) if it didn't sell well, you didn't go near it again (Networker - hence a long time before there was another SR EMU (VEP) and the process repeats itself. Whether that's still the case, I don't know but it certainly used to be.

[adb968008]

i think 101 was the oddest loco Hornby made, time and history had completely bypassed and forgotten this thing. I can only assume one random “oh look at this” moment of viewing the archives saw it emerge as a model.

 

Oddly Hornby‘s County 4-4-0, half cab pannier and GWR 3031 class would mean it wasnt all alone in its era.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by adb968008

[melmoth]

34 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

Oddly Hornby‘s County 4-4-0, half cab pannier and GWR 3031 class would mean it wasnt all alone in its era.

 

 

 

If I wished to be pedantic (which, self-evidently, I do) the half-cab pannier would probably have been a saddletank during 101's brief lifespan.

[Halvarras]

3 hours ago, Right Away said:

Reverting briefly to the OP’s title, Hornby has not been alone in selecting individual choices that some might find questionable.

Back in the 1980s, among Graham Farish steam locomotives released at the same time were Nos 46242 and 34066. Many will be aware that these engines were, under the prevailing conditions of poor visibility, primarily culpable in two of the most destructive accidents on Britain’s Nationalised railway, hastening the call for the introduction of AWS.

Other manufactures’ examples produced can be attributed to mishaps, but the two mentioned above, released together, did stand out.

 

Agreed, not alone - Heljan only ever produced four of its original Class 47s with the early 3-part fixed radiator grilles and the two green ones represented two of the four real examples which never made it to TOPS - 1562 (withdrawn July 1971 with serious engine failure) got close but D1734 only lasted in traffic for less than 9 months before being written off in a collision. With so many locos to choose from this was surely deliberate - but why?

[Pint of Adnams]

On 21/09/2023 at 22:52, 1E BoY said:

 

I believe Bachmann had agreements in place with the M&GNR Society and the North Norfolk Railway to produce the J15 and were due to contribute to its restoration. The late Merl Evans and a colleague measured and photographed it well before the Hornby model appeared under the radar. As the only J15 has been in North Norfolk since it left BR service and no one from Hornby had asked or been given access to it, it can only be assumed, therefore, that Hornby had perhaps researched it many years previously and had sat on the information or had sourced it from elsewhere. There were two pictures of Merl Evans on top of the locomotive at Weybourne which were published in the Bachmann Collectors Club magazine (Spring 2014 Page 5) in conjunction with his retirement from Bachmann. Although it does not say which locomotive Merl is on top of, it does mention the photographs were taken on the North Norfolk Railway, the front cab windows giving the game away that it was the J15 to those familiar with the prototype. These were taken just before the locomotive entered Weybourne Works.

 

Obviously the Hornby announcement brought such plans to a swift halt. The research and design work was, I understand, all that was wasted.

I can answer some of the points raised. Although I cannot give an exact date, Simon Kohler approached me (as editor of the LNER Society Newsletter and Journal and a GER Society member) for information about the J15 class. As it happened the class had been recently described in detail in the GERS Journal with all its many variations. Accordingly I directed him to Lyn Brooks, the GERS Locomotive Coordinator, who had prepared all of the CADs and the text. I understand from Paul Goldsmith of the GERS and this Parish that he was similarly approached. So the source of the information was the GERS. As I recall, it was only later that Bachmann's intentions became known. It would be pure conjecture to suggest a 'spoiler', but it did result in a burst of non-Pacific LNER locos and rolling stock appearing - the Claud was also based on Lyn Brooks researches, whilst with lessons learnt from the Gresley main line coaches, Mike Trice offered to act as consultant on the so called 'suburban' (i.e. non-gangwayed) coaches. One of the problems with the J15 production was the very visible error with the boiler handrails, another was not maximising the tooling for obvious variations in the type and promoting those produced as such. I think that this was around the time of 'design clever' but memory plays tricks.

[BachelorBoy]

"Why do Hornby make such odd choices?"

 

Because it is very good at finding people who are gullible enough to keep supplying it with capital.

 

Which it then destroys. 

[The Stationmaster]

6 hours ago, melmoth said:

 

If I wished to be pedantic (which, self-evidently, I do) the half-cab pannier would probably have been a saddletank during 101's brief lifespan.

In the interests of pedantic exactitude a couple of 2721s were fitted with pannier tanks in 1909 with a few more following in 1910.  101 was withdrawn and scrapped in 1911.

[melmoth]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

In the interests of pedantic exactitude a couple of 2721s were fitted with pannier tanks in 1909 with a few more following in 1910.  101 was withdrawn and scrapped in 1911.

 

That is quite excellently pedantic (and obviously correct) - and I applaud wholeheartedly - but also refer you to my use of the word 'probably' in my original nit-picking post 😊

[gwrrob]

On 25/09/2023 at 11:45, BachelorBoy said:

Hornby's L&M sheep and horse wagons look pretty awful, and are ridiculously expensive. 

 

Another triumph!

 

 

 

Sam's done a video on these and given them a slating, rightly so when you compare the price with Accurascale's SR banana van as an example.

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, gwrrob said:

 

Sam's done a video on these and given them a slating, rightly so when you compare the price with Accurascale's SR banana van as an example.

Sams made a video slating Hornby ?

 

Well what a surprise.

 

Did they wrong him in someway since they made him into a TV star ?, he’s never had a good word since.

[BachelorBoy]

7 hours ago, gwrrob said:

 

Sam's done a video on these and given them a slating, rightly so when you compare the price with Accurascale's SR banana van as an example.

 

*** WARNING *** WARNING ***

 

SAM'S TRAINS HAS BEEN MENTIONED

 

THREAD DIVERSIONS LIKELY

 

*** WARNING *** WARNING ***

[craneman]

I find Hornby's decision to give its pair of Tyne Dock 9Fs the same pair of running numbers as Bachmann's pair hard to understand. It would, I would have thought, been in the interests of both suppliers to have different numbers. Accident or design, I wonder?  

[64F]

17 minutes ago, craneman said:

I find Hornby's decision to give its pair of Tyne Dock 9Fs the same pair of running numbers as Bachmann's pair hard to understand. It would, I would have thought, been in the interests of both suppliers to have different numbers. Accident or design, I wonder?  

I think the Hornby ones were announced first, so it was Bachmann who decided to duplicate.  See also Bachmann's large-logo 37043, announced after Accurascale had already announced it.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, 64F said:

I think the Hornby ones were announced first, so it was Bachmann who decided to duplicate.  See also Bachmann's large-logo 37043, announced after Accurascale had already announced it.

Announcement dates are meaningless when placed against the timescales for developing models and rvrn motr re so nowadays with production delays.  Bachmann's would almost certainly have been in development before Hornby announced theirs

[Covkid]

On 30/09/2023 at 04:49, adb968008 said:

i think 101 was the oddest loco Hornby made, time and history had completely bypassed and forgotten this thing. I can only assume one random “oh look at this” moment of viewing the archives saw it emerge as a model.

 

Oddly Hornby‘s County 4-4-0, half cab pannier and GWR 3031 class would mean it wasnt all alone in its era.

 

 

 

On 30/09/2023 at 05:25, melmoth said:

 

If I wished to be pedantic (which, self-evidently, I do) the half-cab pannier would probably have been a saddletank during 101's brief lifespan.

Surely 101 was part of Hornby's obsession with producing cheapo 0-4-0s for it's trainsets ? The Bagnall diesel is typical of the half-hearted attempts at this. The Bagnall could have been up there with the Pecketts et al as a super little industrial shunter rather than a misshapen lump of plastic. Designed down to trainset standards 

[ColinB]

On 04/10/2023 at 21:36, adb968008 said:

Sams made a video slating Hornby ?

 

Well what a surprise.

 

Did they wrong him in someway since they made him into a TV star ?, he’s never had a good word since.

Perhaps they didn't pay him or it could be that they used him in the initial instructions for how to use HM7000 forgetting that their QR code pointed to the wrong app. The proper app didn't exist. Funny after they realised their mistake his video disappeared.

It could be because Hornby ask for it. Last night I was putting some real coal into my Princess Royal Turbomotive, read the instructions to find out how to take the tender apart as the glue is dripping through the bunker. Would you believe no instruction, now you are going to say why do they need to, it is easy. Well on this sort of tender Hornby have adopted two techniques for holding the rear of the tender on, on one you pull backwards on the other you pull forwards. Now as the rear is always tight it is important to know wrong technique and you have broken the clip.

[Covkid]

2 hours ago, ColinB said:

Perhaps they didn't pay him or it could be that they used him in the initial instructions for how to use HM7000 forgetting that their QR code pointed to the wrong app. The proper app didn't exist. Funny after they realised their mistake his video disappeared.

It could be because Hornby ask for it. Last night I was putting some real coal into my Princess Royal Turbomotive, read the instructions to find out how to take the tender apart as the glue is dripping through the bunker. Would you believe no instruction, now you are going to say why do they need to, it is easy. Well on this sort of tender Hornby have adopted two techniques for holding the rear of the tender on, on one you pull backwards on the other you pull forwards. Now as the rear is always tight it is important to know wrong technique and you have broken the clip.

Is that a case of trying to reinvent the wheel ? I would have thought that once a model manufacturer had  paid a designer to create CAD for a Stanier tender, it would be a simple matter to retain the design but simply modify the visible bits - ie 8 ton 9 ton or ten ton, riveted / welded etc etc.

[ColinB]

9 minutes ago, Covkid said:

Is that a case of trying to reinvent the wheel ? I would have thought that once a model manufacturer had  paid a designer to create CAD for a Stanier tender, it would be a simple matter to retain the design but simply modify the visible bits - ie 8 ton 9 ton or ten ton, riveted / welded etc etc.

Hornby do it all the time, I quite often think why did they change that? They changed the fixing screw from one screw to two, which was good as it makes sure the top is lined up correctly but on the Duchess it has a hook at the back on the Princess it is a small hook. Coming from an Engineering environment where change is money, I can never understand it. On the Princess Royal they have that system for switching the light on the tender on or off by squeezing the back, why? If you want to make it switchable do it on DCC. It is like it is a feature for a child to play with but the average child is not going to pay well over £250 for a loco. Oh and looking at that light it just looks so tacky, I am surprised Sam didn't pull them up on that.

Edited October 13, 2023 by ColinB

[Covkid]

5 minutes ago, ColinB said:

Hornby do it all the time, I quite often think why did they change that? They changed the fixing screw from one screw to two, which was good as it makes sure the top is lined up correctly but on the Duchess it has a hook at the back on the Princess it is a small hook. Coming from an Engineering environment where change is money, I can never understand it. On the Princess Royal they have that system for switching the light on the tender on or off by squeezing the back, why? If you want to make it switchable do it on DCC. It is like it is a feature for a child to play with but the average child is not going to pay well over £250 for a loco.

 

Why on earth would you do that ? Touching your models can easily add greasy fingermarks to then, as most of us know.

 

More importantly though, Hornby have been developing a radical ipgrade to DCC with bluetooth control as "Colin B" says. So if your MPD is teen feet away from you, you don't want to have to reach over and squeeze your loco every time it changes direction.

 

Utterly amazed 

[ColinB]

7 minutes ago, Covkid said:

 

Why on earth would you do that ? Touching your models can easily add greasy fingermarks to then, as most of us know.

 

More importantly though, Hornby have been developing a radical ipgrade to DCC with bluetooth control as "Colin B" says. So if your MPD is teen feet away from you, you don't want to have to reach over and squeeze your loco every time it changes direction.

 

Utterly amazed 

Looking at my loco again I can see why. It was meant to have the new Hornby drawbar with the extra connections in but for some unknown reason it doesn't, so as the DCC decoder is in the loco there isn't enough wires in the four way connector to the tender. Then though, you have the P2 with the new drawbar, the slightly modified W1 with the new drawbar so why not on this model. Oh yes the drawbar arrangement is totally different on the P2 to the W1, explain that.

[john new]

Also why make such odd livery choices in wagons etc. I can see why some of the "toy market" liveries are chosen like the Birds Eye van but, as in the example below I bought 2nd hand this week ready for a bit of weathering down, get things stupidly wrong? I think it is supposed to be a BR Vanwide. (Correct me if I am wrong please). One also assumes this is aimed at modellers at the next level up from the pure toy train set, not exact scale modellers but looking for wagons that are closer to what exists/existed. 

 

Whilst I am no expert on wagons the white roof seems an odd choice for a relatively modern wagon as do the decal markings which seem entirely fictional. I can live with the dimensional errors and standard chassis plus the 2ft rule will cover the decals being wrong - what I don't understand though is why they didn't at least give it a grey roof and markings that resemble those of a vanwide. See Paul Bartlett's site. The rain strips also look like they are too far in board of the edge. Getting those things right would not impact on cost as presumably they are specific to this model. 

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by john new