Hornby latest 8F

[ColinB]

16 minutes ago, Downer said:

They shouldn’t, but the model is out there now, and moaning won’t get it fixed.

 

 

As far as I know, smokebox door handles are available from a number of sources.

I don't think anyone was moaning just trying to understand why Hornby would make such a mistake. I think someone needs to highlight these issues, if someone pays a lot of money for a product and it is not what they expected, the company loses far more than the sale of that product. The other point, is there is a choice, you can buy the previous iteration of the model secondhand which it appears is better and probably cheaper. So if you particularly wanted this model, you would be better off looking for R3565, the previous iteration.

[andyman7]

I'm still not quite sure what the motivation is behind some of these circular discussions. It is extremely useful when considering a purchase to have the information about the model spec - this is marketed at a full superdetail price point yet is an older model that doesn't even match up to the spec of previously-issued versions.

 

What I'm less sure about is the debate about the motives. Anyone that has bought or been aware of Hornby products will know that due to their enormous back tooling bank, their brand position and their longstanding inconsistency of pricing and use of sub-brands like Railroad, you cannot assume that expensive = high end and cheap = low quality. The recently re-issued ex-Lima GUV was put in the main range at a price north of £40 yet for under £100 there are some fairly decent diesel models in the Railroad range right now. The retooled VEPs come in at 25% less than Bachmann 4 car EMUs and in my opinion are (at last) really very good models for the price. So frankly rather than assuming some specifically malevolent intent I would just treat this as business as usual 'for Hornby' and take the information we have as a clear message that if you want an 8F buying a previous issue secondhand is a much better bet than paying 'new issue' money for this one. The feedback has been passed back to Hornby, if they choose to ignore it than so be it. The field is still wide open for a newly-tooled 8F, I'm sure it won't have gone un-noticed!

[MikeParkin65]

11 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

I'm still not quite sure what the motivation is behind some of these circular discussions. It is extremely useful when considering a purchase to have the information about the model spec - this is marketed at a full superdetail price point yet is an older model that doesn't even match up to the spec of previously-issued versions.

 

What I'm less sure about is the debate about the motives. Anyone that has bought or been aware of Hornby products will know that due to their enormous back tooling bank, their brand position and their longstanding inconsistency of pricing and use of sub-brands like Railroad, you cannot assume that expensive = high end and cheap = low quality. The recently re-issued ex-Lima GUV was put in the main range at a price north of £40 yet for under £100 there are some fairly decent diesel models in the Railroad range right now. The retooled VEPs come in at 25% less than Bachmann 4 car EMUs and in my opinion are (at last) really very good models for the price. So frankly rather than assuming some specifically malevolent intent I would just treat this as business as usual 'for Hornby' and take the information we have as a clear message that if you want an 8F buying a previous issue secondhand is a much better bet than paying 'new issue' money for this one. The feedback has been passed back to Hornby, if they choose to ignore it than so be it. The field is still wide open for a newly-tooled 8F, I'm sure it won't have gone un-noticed!

Agree it’s a cock up rather than a conspiracy. It would cost money to change the door tool which I’m sure would take years to recoup from the labour saved in fitting the handle and the lamp bracket.  This suggests to their having been a cock up somewhere along the line, be that in specifying the model, something happening to the correct tool, something at the factory - who knows.  

[Black 5 Bear]

2 hours ago, Downer said:

They shouldn’t, but the model is out there now, and moaning won’t get it fixed.

 

 

As far as I know, smokebox door handles are available from a number of sources.

Who's moaning exactly?

Not me as I won't be buying and will wait for one of the new manufacturers to produce a better representation of the 8F.

I'm just pointing out the obvious!

Edited February 18 by Black 5 Bear

[micklner]

3 hours ago, Downer said:

They shouldn’t, but the model is out there now, and moaning won’t get it fixed.

 

 

As far as I know, smokebox door handles are available from a number of sources.

No one is moaning its called a discussion.

 

Hornby cannot claim now they are not aware of the faults on the 8F. They either reduce the price of  the 8F  to around the Railroad pricing level and hope they still sell, or lose lots of money sending them all back to China for correction.

Edited February 18 by micklner

[frobisher]

2 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

It would cost money to change the door tool which I’m sure would take years to recoup from the labour saved in fitting the handle and the lamp bracket.

 

You might be surprised.  That's a handle and lamp bracket you don't have to manufacture and assemble as well.  So you've very possibly just removed 2-3 people from the assembly line by  doing this effectively.  Tooling modification would be in the low 10's of thousand $ or less I would have thought, probably a lot less if a simple modification to existing tooling rather than a new tooling.

[frobisher]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

Hornby cannot claim now they are not aware of the faults on the 8F. They either reduce the price of  the 8F  to around the Railroad pricing level and hope they still sell, or lose lots of money sending them all back to China for correction.

 

Or, just sell them as are, and people will buy them like they always do.  Once they're at the retailer, they're not Hornby's problem any more.

[Fair Oak Junction]

Sadly, that is the most likely outcome. It's the option that costs Hornby the least in time, effort, and money.

[gwrrob]

38 minutes ago, Fair Oak Junction said:

It's the option that costs Hornby the least in time, effort, and money.

 

Not in goodwill though.

[Fair Oak Junction]

Just now, gwrrob said:

Not in goodwill though.

 

That is very true, unfortunately most big companies don't care that much about such matters. Hornby are one of many big companies, across many different hobbies, that have a famous and beloved enough name to weather things like this. They'll ignore it, and after a while people will move on and stop talking about it.

[PeterStiles]

2 hours ago, micklner said:

No one is moaning

Really...

Remind me to check the definition of moaning in the dictionary.

 

There's moaning, accept it.

 

Also accept that no one on Rmweb is likely to buy one of these 8Fs now, but also that's unlikely to affect Hornby's profits this quarter.

[Downer]

2 hours ago, micklner said:

No one is moaning its called a discussion.

 

Hornby cannot claim now they are not aware of the faults on the 8F. They either reduce the price of  the 8F  to around the Railroad pricing level and hope they still sell, or lose lots of money sending them all back to China for correction.

A very repetitive discussion.  And I suspect the chances of Hornby doing either of the things you suggest are infinitesimal.

[ColinB]

16 minutes ago, PeterStiles said:

Really...

Remind me to check the definition of moaning in the dictionary.

 

There's moaning, accept it.

 

Also accept that no one on Rmweb is likely to buy one of these 8Fs now, but also that's unlikely to affect Hornby's profits this quarter.

It might, they are not shifting stuff like they were during the pandemic. The last few locos I have bought, that aren't preorders, have been substantially discounted. When the first HD Duchess of Atholl came out you could not get them for love or money, fast forward to now and Retailers still have HD A4s from the latest batch and many are at least 10% off, which they weren't when they first got released. 

[Buhar]

To add to our woes (moans) it looks like the newly tooled Black 5 tender has not been fitted to this model so we still have a ledge.

 

Alan

[Bernard Lamb]

11 hours ago, Buhar said:

To add to our woes (moans) it looks like the newly tooled Black 5 tender has not been fitted to this model so we still have a ledge.

 

Alan

Quite so. This model is a new issue and not a new model.

Would you like a full on updated version?

I reckon about another £50. 😀

I just find myself unable to take Hornby in a serious way amy more. 

I flip from ' lost the plot '. ' to taking the micky '.

Bernard

[Fireline]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

 

....I just find myself unable to take Hornby in a serious way amy more. 

I flip from ' lost the plot '. ' to taking the micky '.

 

 

I suspect they speak equally highly of you. 🙂

[Enterprisingwestern]

16 minutes ago, Fireline said:

 

I suspect they speak equally highly of you. 🙂

 

They more than likely do as it seems the customer is treated with contempt/disdain in Hornbyland.

 

Mike.

[Buhar]

13 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Quite so. This model is a new issue and not a new model.

Would you like a full on updated version?

I reckon about another £50. 😀

I just find myself unable to take Hornby in a serious way amy more. 

I flip from ' lost the plot '. ' to taking the micky '.

Bernard

Hi Bernard

 

With the right smokebox and a renewed tender (both existing, unless the smokebox tooling is unavailable) it would have passed muster as an "improved" model and the existing price would have been reasonable.

 

I would love Hornby to make the new tender available separately for their older models.  Admittedly, if they did it properly, there would be six liveries needed without the welded, rivetted and part rivetted variations.  Would the underpinning alone be enough to update?

 

Alan

[phil-b259]

On 18/02/2024 at 00:42, sjp23480 said:

Oh dear! 

 

No NEM pocket?

 

 

 

 

No - but that was true of a number of models released around the same time! The 'super detailed' West Country / Battle of Britain locos (in original condition had this setup as did the Black 5 IIRC) and it was intended that you screw one of these R8099s* to the aforementioned 'lump' (which was actually specifically designed to receive it)

 

People need to remember that this is 20 year old tooling (although defiantly not the same as the late 1980s tooling which preceded it) and as such is not up to current standards in many areas, including NEM provision

 

 

*https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hornby-R8099-Assemblies-Couplings-Accessory/dp/B001IYOR2O/ref=asc_df_B001IYOR2O&mcid=e673d5c49bb639e4b895b3d75c858663?tag=bingshoppinga-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80264405731093&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4583863981501401&psc=1

[ColinB]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

No - but that was true of a number of models released around the same time! The 'super detailed' West Country / Battle of Britain locos (in original condition had this setup as did the Black 5 IIRC) and it was intended that you screw one of these R8099s* to the aforementioned 'lump' (which was actually specifically designed to receive it)

 

People need to remember that this is 20 year old tooling (although defiantly not the same as the late 1980s tooling which preceded it) and as such is not up to current standards in many areas, including NEM provision

 

 

*https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hornby-R8099-Assemblies-Couplings-Accessory/dp/B001IYOR2O/ref=asc_df_B001IYOR2O&mcid=e673d5c49bb639e4b895b3d75c858663?tag=bingshoppinga-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80264405731093&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4583863981501401&psc=1

I am not sure this isn't another mess up by Hornby, you would need to look at R3565 to see whether that had it. The Fowler 4P tank engine has the same front pony and they definitely have proper NEM couplings so Hornby could have used that.

Edited February 20 by ColinB

[andyman7]

2 minutes ago, ColinB said:

I am not sure this isn't another mess up by Hornby, you would need to look at R3565 to see whether that had it. The Stanier 4P tank engine has the same front pony and they definitely have proper NEM couplings so Hornby could have used that.

Unlike the Margate days each loco is allocated its own part numbers fro pretty much everything and the tool sets are spread across different suppliers, so whilst it's a missed opportunity there's no guarantee that the 4P front bogie tool was available for use with the 8F

[Bernard Lamb]

10 hours ago, Buhar said:

Hi Bernard

 

With the right smokebox and a renewed tender (both existing, unless the smokebox tooling is unavailable) it would have passed muster as an "improved" model and the existing price would have been reasonable.

 

I would love Hornby to make the new tender available separately for their older models.  Admittedly, if they did it properly, there would be six liveries needed without the welded, rivetted and part rivetted variations.  Would the underpinning alone be enough to update?

 

Alan

Good morning Alan,

What I find frustrating is that Hornby have the solution readily available in most instances, or if not, quite a simply alteration to make it better.

As a world leader I expect them to be on the ball and to have a QA system that actually includes review meetings to discuss what they are going to make. This model should not have made it into productio. Simples.

Having worked in QA for a world leading company in its field, it probably grates with me rather more than with most people. 

However, putting the clock back around 30 years, with the smoke box dart, should be a sign to most people that all is not well in the Hornby camp. 

To twist a phrase. They cannot be serious.

As I wrote many years ago. We all love Hornby and want them to do well. I do not view this model as progress.

Continuous improvement it certainly is not. I await the next backward step with interest. I am also interested to see the prie they will set for the next fully new steam locomotive. It has to be knocking on the door of £300 going by this model, unless they cut corners again. If they do I can see the ceiling being breached in respect of customer loyalty.

Bernard

[HExpressD]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Good morning Alan,

What I find frustrating is that Hornby have the solution readily available in most instances, or if not, quite a simply alteration to make it better.

As a world leader I expect them to be on the ball and to have a QA system that actually includes review meetings to discuss what they are going to make. This model should not have made it into productio. Simples.

Having worked in QA for a world leading company in its field, it probably grates with me rather more than with most people. 

However, putting the clock back around 30 years, with the smoke box dart, should be a sign to most people that all is not well in the Hornby camp. 

To twist a phrase. They cannot be serious.

As I wrote many years ago. We all love Hornby and want them to do well. I do not view this model as progress.

Continuous improvement it certainly is not. I await the next backward step with interest. I am also interested to see the prie they will set for the next fully new steam locomotive. It has to be knocking on the door of £300 going by this model, unless they cut corners again. If they do I can see the ceiling being breached in respect of customer loyalty.

Bernard

One model is marked as 'Last Few' on the Hornby website and I guess we'll see if the other is close behind it. In terms of 'shouldn't have made it into production' that doesn't look true going off sales of at least one version? 

[ColinB]

8 hours ago, andyman7 said:

Unlike the Margate days each loco is allocated its own part numbers fro pretty much everything and the tool sets are spread across different suppliers, so whilst it's a missed opportunity there's no guarantee that the 4P front bogie tool was available for use with the 8F

Talk about inefficient, if I remember back to the 1970/1980s in the Motor Industry we were given this model of Japanese efficiency and commonisation of parts was key. The more I think about this I do really wonder if this was engineered by Hornby to lower the quality, cheapen up the production costs and wonder if the customer notices..

[spamcan61]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

 

As a world leader I expect them to be on the ball and to have a QA system that actually includes review meetings to discuss what they are going to make. This model should not have made it into productio. Simples.

Having worked in QA for a world leading company in its field, it probably grates with me rather more than with most people. 

However, putting the clock back around 30 years, with the smoke box dart, should be a sign to most people that all is not well in the Hornby camp. 

To twist a phrase. They cannot be serious.

 

Having spent some of my day job as a certified ISO9001 auditor assessing potential suppliers for a global telecoms company, i can relate to what you're saying, but:-

• I don't think Hornby are a 'world leader' in toy train terms, compared with say Kader.; i would expect US outline manufacturers to be far bigger in turnover terms.
• Doubtless they have some sort of QA system but again, as I know from more recent day jobs, outsourced manufacture can be more like cat herding than the old textbook continual quality improvement ethos of classic Japanese companies.
• On top of that toy trains are made in very small volumes by consumer standards and include a huge amount of hand assembly compared with 'normal' consumer products, so more scope for quality variation in the end product.
• As I said earlier in the thread, this is more likely cock-up than conspiracy; and I suspect the majority of buyers won't notice or care anyway.