Why do Hornby make such odd choices?

[spamcan61]

On 13/10/2023 at 13:16, ColinB said:

Oh yes the drawbar arrangement is totally different on the P2 to the W1, explain that.

Could be different factory and/or design team 

[Halvarras]

3 hours ago, john new said:

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. 

 

 

Many years ago I picked up a cheap spare body for this model with a view to possibly creating one of those Blue Circle bagged cement vans on a TTA chassis, as they shared the same design of sliding doors. It never happened, partly because the darn thing is too tall, by some margin, and I couldn't see an easy fix. Compared to a photo of a real one the top edge of the top door runners (use of a standard chassis means it has no lower runners of course) should be aligned with the top edge of the topmost end corrugation. It almost appears that the runners were added as an afterthought and the ends extended upwards beyond the vent and curved rivet lines to cope. The height issue is then compounded by a thick roof moulding (which on mine was black - did Hornby ever do the sensible thing and mould them in grey plastic?)

 

Back in the 1980s/90s I had some fun mounting Mainline and Dapol bodies on Airfix chassis - not possible with this since it's too short, as well as too tall. Nicely moulded but sadly irredeemable. More recent versions were even mounted on chassis with 'wooden' solebars - words fail me.

 

Not really an odd choice, just very poorly executed, like so many of their products from that era..........

[BachelorBoy]

7 hours ago, john new said:

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the "2ft rule", please?

[john new]

7 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the "2ft rule", please?

If you can’t make it out (wording) or see it clearly (a fitting) from 2ft away I.e. a normal viewing distance on the layout then is it needed to be fully accurate? In the case of the vanwide the letters VAN are incorrect but from viewing distance you have to be concentrating hard on them to notice. They will be under some grime too after weathering so even less obviously wrong.

 

Whether it is kept long term will depend if the height issue that @Halvarras has mentioned makes it look too out of place amongst other stock that is better proportioned.

[ColinB]

23 hours ago, spamcan61 said:

Could be different factory and/or design team 

I did wonder if it was a cost save, but seeing as they both use a similar tender before the hand fitted items are added you would think they would make them the same, it saves on parts. From my experience of design, you give your design to the factory and they make it to the design given to them.

[HExpressD]

On 13/10/2023 at 13:16, ColinB said:

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.

If it was 'meant' to have the new drawbar design, it would

[spamcan61]

10 minutes ago, ColinB said:

I did wonder if it was a cost save, but seeing as they both use a similar tender before the hand fitted items are added you would think they would make them the same, it saves on parts. From my experience of design, you give your design to the factory and they make it to the design given to them.

It's always intrigued me as to at what point Hornby hand over the design to the actual manufacturer. The telly series didn't shed much light, SK dismissed the actual design process as 'sent for tooling' I don't know if Hornby hand over once they've captured the 1:1 scale item in 3D CAD to their satisfaction, or do they design down to every last rivet/pickup in Margate. It's been stated before that they don't use common parts across different models, even if they had the same tender. 

[ColinB]

1 hour ago, HExpressD said:

If it was 'meant' to have the new drawbar design, it would

To me the whole lot of the Turbo is a bodge. I don't know if the design took all the money but here are a few simple observations. They put the decoder in the loco to obviously make powering the lights easier so why didn't they do what most of the other manufacturers do, make the firebox glow dcc controllable, or do they assume everyone is running DC. Even then Dapol and the rest manage firebox glow on DC but also controllable on DCC. Then you have the rear light as I said before it looks a bit tacky and then you have the added complication of the circuit to switch it on. Then there are the missing instructions on how to get the tender apart, Sam pointed out even more errors. I suspect the reason they didn't use their new drawbar is because it is a Stanier tender so they haven't got round to designing the new drawbar to fit. Now seeing as this is supposedly their way forward you would have a designer that works out a design that fits all. We are paying top price for Hornby models whereas the likes of Dapol and Accurascale are achieving more on cheaper models.

Someone on the Hornby Forum was wondering why the new HM7000 would not power all the lights on a new Accurascale class 37, then I realised very few Hornby Diesels have more than one function for lights. On many of their Diesel/Electric models if they have lights (a lot don't) generally the cab lights are not independent, they come on with the front and back lights. They definitely haven't got to the point where the cab lights only come on when the loco is stationary and in the right direction. If you take a class 87 this is definitely the case and you are asked to pay top dollar for this wonderful loco. 

Another interesting fact, while I was trying to figure out the HM7000 driving the Accurascale class 37. To add sound using HM7000, it is about £70 for HM7000, £16.00 for the Powerbank to go with it, for very little more (about £9.00) you can buy the loco fully fitted with sound, decent sound tailored for that model plus brilliant "stay alive" and the cab lights work properly.

[papagolfjuliet]

On 15/10/2023 at 18:03, john new said:

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. 

 

 

In fairness that is the original 1979 release, although the model has appeared in plenty of not-quite-prototypical liveries since then. One in BR departmental red seemed to be in every single Hornby train set during the Nineties, and the VEA banana van also hung around for a while.

Edited October 25, 2023 by papagolfjuliet

[papagolfjuliet]

On 30/09/2023 at 09:49, 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.

 

 

 

According to Pat Hammond's book, the Holden tank and Caley pug were chosen as prototypes for Hornby's baseline starter set locos in 1979/1980 because they had open backed cabs which were felt to be more attractive to children.

[Fat Controller]

On 15/10/2023 at 18:03, john new said:

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. 

 

There are precedents for white/ light coloured roofs on relatively recent wagons.

Firstly, a batch of Vanwides were built with translucent glass-fibre roofs.  The material was 'honey-coloured', though rapidly becoming dirty.

Secondly, a number of VDA were given white-painted roofs for traffic from Rowntree's chocolate traffic from York and Gosforth to depots nationwide. Someone misread the painting instruction, and painted a solitary wagon in all-over white...

Looking at your photo, I've just noticed the brake lever is at the wrong end..

Such a pity that they make such a fine job of things such as those securing chains  on the doors, only to make a pig's ear of other things

[john new]

1 minute ago, Fat Controller said:

There are precedents for white/ light coloured roofs on relatively recent wagons.

Firstly, a batch of Vanwides were built with translucent glass-fibre roofs.  The material was 'honey-coloured', though rapidly becoming dirty.

Secondly, a number of VDA were given white-painted roofs for traffic from Rowntree's chocolate traffic from York and Gosforth to depots nationwide. Someone misread the painting instruction, and painted a solitary wagon in all-over white...

Looking at your photo, I've just noticed the brake lever is at the wrong end..

Such a pity that they make such a fine job of things such as those securing chains  on the doors, only to make a pig's ear of other things

Thanks also for confirming the white Rowntrees van roofs. I lived in York at the time and looking back recently at some old prints I thought it was my photography making the vans in the train at Burton Lane Junc  look to have a paler than normal roof colour. 

[papagolfjuliet]

Hornby have in fact produced a clear roofed VDA - without a clear roof!

[Fat Controller]

28 minutes ago, papagolfjuliet said:

Hornby have in fact produced a clear roofed VDA - without a clear roof!

The real thing wasn't very clear after a couple of months in service......The underframe leaves a little to be desired. 

[wombatofludham]

For me - and I admit to being not a Hornby fanboy although their 87 is nice, apart from the need to unscrew the PCB to fit a 21 pin DCC chip in the latest releases, which absolutely should not be necessary today - their stewardship of the HST model is indicative of the rather odd choices and lack of attention to non-steam ranges.  Personally, I would have thought that a complete BR era Cross Country rake would potentially have a wider sales potential, having worked from Scotland to Cornwall, and crucially, from the North West to the Southern, the only HST sets really to penetrate the land of the stabiliser rail.  However, all we see are models of the guard's van fitted power cars in BR blue and Inter City, and complete rakes of London formation (2x 1st class and a Restaurant First) trailers.  Given the geographic spread of the Cross Country sets in BR days (not the post Privatisation sliding door sets which seem to be bargain bin fodder) I would have thought an HST with the later power cars, and a single first plus buffet second, ought to be something many modellers of the non-steam, BR blue/sector era could justify.  

As for the entirely fictional Platinum Jubilee HST, I do wonder if the project development meeting on that was fuelled by "Brownies" flavoured with Marrakesh Oxo.

[Coldgunner]

Is there any common loco's not yet available via Hornby or any other RTR manufacturer? Are we at a point where most of the big stuff has been produced at some point and now we're getting the oddities?

 

That said, I do like some of the daft stuff like the xmas wagon, cola vans and stuff as to me its interesting. The Fools and Horses wagons, albeit expensive, were interesting.

[wombatofludham]

2 hours ago, Coldgunner said:

Is there any common loco's not yet available via Hornby or any other RTR manufacturer? Are we at a point where most of the big stuff has been produced at some point and now we're getting the oddities?

 

Class 81, which was once both a Hornby Dublo and Triang product.  Given they have done the 87 and 91 they are not party to the corny old trope "electrics don't sell", and given their aggressive defence of their acquired range of tea urns from competition claiming them as "their territory", you'd have thought the AL1/81, having been in both the Dublo and Triang ranges, would have been a shoo-in for a model.

 

If anyone from Hornby is reading this, if it helps, they were also prone to setting fire to themselves, so you could pretend it's a kettle.

[Halvarras]

7 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

The underframe leaves a little to be desired. 

 

"A LITTLE" ?!?!?! 😲😜

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, Coldgunner said:

Is there any common loco's not yet available via Hornby or any other RTR manufacturer? Are we at a point where most of the big stuff has been produced at some point and now we're getting the oddities?

 

Stand outs to me are…

 

GWR: Saint, County 

SR: Q, U

LMS: Fowler and Stanier 2-6-2T, Tilbury tank, 6399, Original Scot, LYR060, 

LNER: Henry Oakley

BR: 77xxx, 84xxx and WD2-10-0
class 06, 73/9

modern image: 185, Electrostar, 222, York mk3 EMU (all of 313/4/5/507/508 or 317,318,319,320,321,455,456, 150/0/1/2 all off the same tooling), 442, 444.

 

 

[16csvt]

During the past 20 years they’ve made glaring livery errors on just about every Class 50 they’ve produced, which got me wondering… maybe they do it on purpose!

Allow me to explain my logic. If they were to offer them as they should be people wouldn’t modify them, but being wrong some of us will try to correct them and a good percentage will go ruined, so we’d have to buy replacements, therefore they’d ultimately sell more.

So perhaps its all part of their marketing strategy. I’m probably wrong but just a thought!

Edited October 26, 2023 by 16csvt

[papagolfjuliet]

9 hours ago, Coldgunner said:

Is there any common loco's not yet available via Hornby or any other RTR manufacturer? Are we at a point where most of the big stuff has been produced at some point and now we're getting the oddities?

 

The Parallel Scot is an obvious one, and it is odd that Bachmann never replaced the old Mainline model. The absence of a Lord Nelson and a Saint and a D49 to modern standards are also glaring omissions.

 

Things may have changed under the new regime but given Hornby's fondness for producing models of small and singleton classes of charismatic express passenger engines I'd lay a shade of odds on that company producing 'The Great Bear' or the Raven pacifics or the Thompson 'Great Northern' before any of the aforementioned low hanging fruit. They are after all pretty well the only locos of that size as yet unmodelled.

[No Decorum]

9 hours ago, wombatofludham said:

Class 81, which was once both a Hornby Dublo and Triang product.  Given they have done the 87 and 91 they are not party to the corny old trope "electrics don't sell", and given their aggressive defence of their acquired range of tea urns from competition claiming them as "their territory", you'd have thought the AL1/81, having been in both the Dublo and Triang ranges, would have been a shoo-in for a model.

 

If anyone from Hornby is reading this, if it helps, they were also prone to setting fire to themselves, so you could pretend it's a kettle.

I think it’s strange that we have Classes 85 upwards and a Class 80 (an “oddity”) soon to arrive, yet no 81–84. That is not so much an omission as a yawning gap.

[No Decorum]

2 hours ago, papagolfjuliet said:

 

The Parallel Scot is an obvious one, and it is odd that Bachmann never replaced the old Mainline model. The absence of a Lord Nelson and a Saint and a D49 to modern standards are also glaring omissions.

 

Things may have changed under the new regime but given Hornby's fondness for producing models of small and singleton classes of charismatic express passenger engines I'd lay a shade of odds on that company producing 'The Great Bear' or the Raven pacifics or the Thompson 'Great Northern' before any of the aforementioned low hanging fruit. They are after all pretty well the only locos of that size as yet unmodelled.

Bachmann announced a Parallel Scot some years ago then cancelled it, to my great disappointment. I think I would be content if they were to plonk the existing body on a new chassis, which they have been doing in recent years although I’m sure a lot of people would prefer a total retool. As for the Lord Nelson, Hornby did produce a model which was decent under the skin but the paint job was truly awful. I don’t think it would require much to produce another run with a decent paint job.

[papagolfjuliet]

40 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

 As for the Lord Nelson, Hornby did produce a model which was decent under the skin but the paint job was truly awful. I don’t think it would require much to produce another run with a decent paint job.

 

That was an Arthur, not a Nelson. The most recent Nelson is Bachmann's 1990s split chassis offering.

 

Edited: Oops.

Edited October 26, 2023 by papagolfjuliet

[No Decorum]

9 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Stand outs to me are…

 

GWR: Saint, County 

SR: Q, U

LMS: Fowler and Stanier 2-6-2T, Tilbury tank, 6399, Original Scot, LYR060, 

LNER: Henry Oakley

BR: 77xxx, 84xxx and WD2-10-0
class 06, 73/9

modern image: 185, Electrostar, 222, York mk3 EMU (all of 313/4/5/507/508 or 317,318,319,320,321,455,456, 150/0/1/2 all off the same tooling), 442, 444.

 

 

That’s a good list and I would probably buy every loco on it so long as they didn’t all appear at once. Perhaps add an 01 to complete the TOPS numbers? Curiously, yesterday I happened to be looking at a picture of a pair of Stanier 2-6-2Ts and thought that it would probably require three different body toolings to cover “the Fowler and Stanier 2-6-2T”, which would be expensive. There are only two non-steam locos in the list, which perhaps offers some support for Coldgunner’s point. Probably some manufacturers are working away in secret on some of those steamers. I hope so but they might be a little cautious, bearing in mind the discounting which has been going on recently.