Hornby TT Easter announcement 2024

[Butler Henderson]

50 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Don't forget that Airfix also offered a pretty fair selection of LMS stuff, though the 2P didn't appear until after the range had passed to Mainline.

Airfix had planned a Compound which was pulled when Hornby announced theres. Maybe work was diverted to the 2P but there was no official announcement of it until Palitoys for Mainline. Same with the 56 so maybe Palitoy were exploring alternative manufacuring to the tie they had with Kader which (speculates) may have been approaching the end of teh original agreement.

 

The J50 with the 08 makes a small mid- late 1950s/early 1960s TT yard layout a possibility.

[Dunsignalling]

22 minutes ago, Porfuera said:

 

That seems an odd question. Just because the well-known staff like SK was 'let go' and Montana left doesn't mean that the ship is rudderless. You could perhaps ask the same about 00 - didn't SK and Montanna deal with both? Projects aren't run by just one or two people.

 

And 'forgotten' isn't the same as 'never knew about' - it just depends where you are looking - social media was awash with froth about the announcements (even RMweb had some noise) but if you're not particularly interested then it will probably pass you by.

I was more thinking of SK and Taff, who were the people with sufficient clout to get what, by any definition, was and is a pretty speculative project, past the board.

 

The question is whether those currently overseeing it share similar levels of commitment, or view it as a sideshow to OO.

 

At some point, possibly already pencilled in, a decision will be made as to  or whether the idea has become a fixture within the group. My hunch is that such a significant investment will have been given at least five years to justify itself, but if there is any doubt, it will need strong advocates within the business.    

 

John

Edited April 2 by Dunsignalling

[Taigatrommel]

2 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Plenty of TT Container & EANS Freight Stock already available from the European Manufactures.

 

There's not anything I'm aware of in terms of container wagons that ran in the UK.

 

Although my desire for a DMU hasn't yet been met, I did think that the J50 was a pretty good choice for a tank engine given that the steam locos that have already made it to customers are LNER designs. Maybe not the most numerous type, but with the additional context of having recently been researched for OO I can see the reasoning behind it.

 

Hornby still seem fairly bullish about TT, I'm cautiously optimistic that in the not too distant future I'll be able to plan a sector era layout sharing the fiddle yard with my German TT.  For now though, my only pre-orders are a 50 and mk2Fs, which in spite of many saying they don't go together certainly could be seen in one train south of Birmingham in the 80s.

 

I do understand how at this point modellers would be reluctant to take the plunge, even though the launch announcements went far beyond what I could have imagined I was still saying to friends that I would guess five years before a really era/location coherent layout could be put together using RTR.  We're not even 18 months down that road!  I'm very interested in TT, but I think realistic in my expectations.

Edited April 2 by Taigatrommel

[Dunsignalling]

12 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said:

Airfix had planned a Compound which was pulled when Hornby announced theres. Maybe work was diverted to the 2P but there was no official announcement of it until Palitoys for Mainline. Same with the 56 so maybe Palitoy were exploring alternative manufacuring to the tie they had with Kader which (speculates) may have been approaching the end of teh original agreement.

 

The J50 with the 08 makes a small mid- late 1950s/early 1960s TT yard layout a possibility.

Whether or not the 2P was 100% ready to go when transferred to Palitoy, its DNA and the shared 4F tender drive unit were pure Airfix. The couplers and the way they were attached bore no resemblance to the way Mainline did things.

 

Airfix were also developing other items that got cancelled along with the Compound, notably an SR Schools. It's also likely that Bachmann's Bulleid and Collett coaches, the Queen Mary brake van, and possibly the Lord Nelson had their earliest roots with Airfix.

Edited April 2 by Dunsignalling

[Porfuera]

32 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I was more thinking of SK and Taff, who were the people with sufficient clout to get what, by any definition, was and is a pretty speculative project, past the board.

 

Do you have any proof that it was speculative? I could equally posit that a sound business plan was put forward and the board and investors jumped at it. Can you prove that they didn't?

 

32 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The question is whether those currently overseeing it shares similar levels of commitment, or regards it as a sideshow to OO.

 

At some point, possibly already pencilled in, a decision will be made as to  or whether the idea has become a fixture within the group. My hunch is that such a significant investment will have been given at least five years to justify itself, but if there is any doubt, it will need strong advocates within the business.

 

The truth is that nobody knows and that all seems like pretty pointless glass-half-empty speculation. I'm sure people were saying the same when Dapol went into N and I'm pretty sure they said even worse when they went into 0.

 

I'm aware it might fail but I think I prefer to enjoy it while it lasts, rather than sit back and doom-monger.

 

Edited April 2 by Porfuera

[Les1952]

On the positive side it does mean I can put off the UK outline TT layout for at least a year, and spend the intervening time getting the standard of Bregstadt raised.  The latter goes off this week to its first show without the 08, which has tangled a pickup in its wheels and broken it off.

 

One piece of Hornby failing to look sideways across the group.  I currently have Hornby points in my fiddle yard (because they were shorter than the Peco ones available at the time.  Arnold's Kof won't even look at running through them, yet they are both made by the same group.  

 

At least someone has looked sideways and seen a container wagon they already make....

 

Les

 

[Dunsignalling]

41 minutes ago, Porfuera said:

 

Do you have any proof that it was speculative? I could equally posit that a sound business plan was put forward and the board and investors jumped at it. Can you prove that they didn't?

 

 

The truth is that nobody knows and that all seems like pretty pointless glass-half-empty speculation. I'm sure people were saying the same when Dapol went into N and I'm pretty sure they said even worse when they went into 0.

 

However sound the business plan, any such decision will have specified review points at which performance indicators must be met to ensure continuation. Five years is fairly customary, which is why I think it will have been given at least that long.

 

Whether the glass is half empty or half full, it would be naive in the extreme to assume that Hornby TT:120 (or even Hornby OO as it exists within the current group structure) will still be around ten or twenty years from now. They've previously come close to destruction too often for that!

 

The comparison with Dapol doesn't really hold. They were entering existing markets with quantifiable levels of business of which they needed to either take a slice, create growth, or both. Had they failed, there would have been residual value in tooling etc. recoverable by sale to other players.

 

Hornby's TT:120 is completely different in that it's an attempt to create a new and (so far) exclusive RTR market sector/niche from scratch. If Hornby were to prove unable to succeed, what's the likelihood of anyone else wanting to take it on? 

 

The glass half-full-view of the above scenario, is that it gives Hornby very strong reasons for persevering with TT:120....

 

 

 

Edited April 2 by Dunsignalling

[Porfuera]

42 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

However sound the business plan, any such decision will have specified review points at which performance indicators must be met to ensure continuation. Five years is fairly customary, which is why I think it will have been given at least that long.

 

So maybe now it wasn't as speculative "by any definition" as you made out earlier?

 

42 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The comparison with Dapol doesn't really hold, in that they were entering existing markets with  quantifiable levels of business of which they needed to either take a slice, create growth, or both. Had they failed, there would have been residual value in tooling etc. recoverable by sale to other players.

 

I wasn't saying it was a direct comparison but it didn't stop people wailing and gnashing their teeth when Dapol proposed going into 0 Gauge - after all, O Gauge was finished, etc, etc.

 

42 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Hornby's TT:120 is completely different in that it's an attempt to create a new and (so far) exclusive market sector/niche from scratch. If that were to go wrong, its unlikely that anyone else would want in.

 

I believe TT3 is surviving in one form or another. And some people that know more about TT3 than I do are saying that the TT:120 range is progressing faster than TT3 did at the beginning. I imagine that TT:120 won't disappear entirely and new technologies such as 3D printing will provide support if Hornby don't continue.

 

As I said I prefer to look on the positive side and enjoy it while it is there. I guess not everyone is able do that with new things. I can't see what it is about TT:120 that seems to upset some 00 modellers so much that it either brings out anger or doom-and-gloom.

 

Edited April 2 by Porfuera

[PaulRhB]

5 minutes ago, Porfuera said:

As I said I prefer to look on the positive side and enjoy it while it is there. I guess not everyone is able do that with new things. I can't see what it is about TT:120 that seems to upset some 00 modellers so much that it either brings out anger or doom-and-gloom.

When I worked for a kit manufacturer we always made sure suitable stock was in the storeroom ready for the release of a loco because it drove sales. And if you followed up a few months later with more stock to suit that also was easy to sell. Peco recently did that with the Kato loco and FR bug boxes and then released the bowsiders a while later once people’s wallets had had time to recover. 

The decision making process is odd and even in the Q&A at 5:15 they say “another loco that’s been asked for a lot is a pannier tank or a terrier, which we will get to but we have to make sure we have the right rolling stock to go with it.” So they at least understand the concept which makes the initial disjointed releases more baffling. The sets are great

 and adding the HST to that is sure to work well but I currently have three out of my 5 locos with no train to go with them! 🤪

[froobyone]

I thought I'd chime in as I'm building a TT layout.

I've eagerly been waiting for today and due to a Red Arrow using my house as an orbit point for about twenty minutes, I arrived at the announcement nice and early. 

*takes deep breath and gathers coherent thoughts*

HST Train Set. +1 Should have started with this. Instead I had to start with an A1 and Pullmans. Maybe it would have sparked an interest in railways that the original Hornby HST did to me in 1979. Not sure how many young modellers know the difference between and A1 and an A3. Luckily, I do. It's the colour isn't it? :P

J50 +1 Not for me, but it opens up lots of smaller builds. A great first step for a new modeller and still has a appeal to the more seasoned. 

Container wagons. +1 Something for the Sheds when they get here. I've personally got nothing against Sheds, apart from the fact that they've took all the fun out of it. You can stick your robust 98% availability for traffic. You'll never get stories of sitting behind a failed Class 40 in December 1982 and slowly freezing to death until a duff comes to rescue your partly frozen corpses. OK, I know sheds don't haul Hull Daily Mail sponsored Christmas trips to London, but it's my hill and I'll die on it!

Kitchen Pullmans. FO. I've got enough Pullmans!

More Oil Wagons. Hornby have been surreptitiously taken over by "big oil" and they are forcing a new narrative. Oil is good mkay? 

Signals. These look really really good -for a train set. I'd have literally sh*t a kitten if I'd have had these as a nine year old. However, I'm 54 and currently have no RTR way of signalling my layout. As others with a great deal more knowledge than I have pointed out, these signals only are good for two regions. Neither of which I'm modelling. I don't know why I'm bothered, it's not like Woodburn could ever expect to be even remotely prototypical, but there's things that you do that you don't know are wrong and things you do knowing that there are wrong. I'm not at the "knowing they are wrong" stage yet. 

Green Gronk. Worst colour ever invented by eyes. Stop it. Trains are blue.

Thoughts concluded.

Best

 

Dan



 

 

[Flying Pig]

12 hours ago, Railpassion said:

Hornby seem determined to miss opportunities and deny themselves sales. The range needs to be coherent. 

 

Flying Scotsman is all very well but nothing steam for GWR or Southern is crazy. A Pannier tank would sell like hot cakes.

 

And then this text describing a home signal on today's announcements 

"The red arms are often seen before signals with yellow arms, which signify 'distant' or 'caution'. A semaphore signal is used as per early GWR and LMS operating days"

 

Are they paying these people?

 

 

Now if they had said "The red arms are often seen in advance of signals with yellow arms, which signify 'distant' or 'caution'" all would have been well.  As it is, the yellow arms signify 'far away' and nobody has any idea what's going on.

[PaulRhB]

12 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

"The red arms are often seen in advance of signals with yellow arms,

The full size railway has changed to beyond as advance was confusing to some though 😁 

To be honest just setting two up in the correct sequence on a piece of track would have been the simplest way to explain it. 

 

56 minutes ago, froobyone said:

these signals only are good for two regions

One region, SR, and not the two Hornby mentioned 😁 You do realise some GWR signalmen have palpitations if you make their signals go up? 🤣

[Dunsignalling]

8 hours ago, Porfuera said:

 

So maybe now it wasn't as speculative "by any definition" as you made out earlier?

 

 

I wasn't saying it was a direct comparison but it didn't stop people wailing and gnashing their teeth when Dapol proposed going into 0 Gauge - after all, O Gauge was finished, etc, etc.

 

 

I believe TT3 is surviving in one form or another. And some people that know more about TT3 than I do are saying that the TT:120 range is progressing faster than TT3 did at the beginning. I imagine that TT:120 won't disappear entirely and new technologies such as 3D printing will provide support if Hornby don't continue.

 

As I said I prefer to look on the positive side and enjoy it while it is there. I guess not everyone is able do that with new things. I can't see what it is about TT:120 that seems to upset some 00 modellers so much that it either brings out anger or doom-and-gloom.

 

Any entry in to an untried market, which UK-outline TT:120 undoubtedly was (and will remain for a good while yet) is, by definition, "highly speculative". 

 

By comparison, entries into established markets, as done by Dapol in N and O, or the numerous new entrants in OO are merely "speculative". 🙂

 

I wish Hornby, and those with unbounded faith in their vision, well with TT:120, but any comparison with the survival of TT-3 as a small niche based around "real modelling" backed up by society and "cottage industry" support, is most definitely not what anybody involved should be drawing at this stage!    

 

No anger, no "doom and gloom", just a realistic judgement that we are still several years away from being able to safely regard TT:120 as a permanent presence in the UK RTR scene.

 

We'll only know for sure when we reach the point at which those who approved the project will have set to establish its commercial success or failure.

 

I have no axe to grind one way or the other. TT:120 represents no threat to OO outside of a diminution of Hornby's involvement in it, and any such reduction is more than balanced by new product from others. OO has provided, and continues to supply, its sector of the hobby with the vast majority of what we want, with plenty of room to grow further. I doubt that TT:120 (or anything that might follow it) can ever  approach that. 

 

TT:120 has (so far) offered not one item of interest to me. It's novelty value and future progress (or otherwise) therefore holds no personal relevance. 

 

John

 

 

 

Edited April 3 by Dunsignalling

[GrumpyPenguin]

10 hours ago, Taigatrommel said:

There's not anything I'm aware of in terms of container wagons that ran in the UK

Possibly, however, a 66 pulling a rake of imposters would look better, IMHO than on it's own or some small 4 wheeled wagons.

 

I'm no fan of Hornby but as far as the modellers market (as opposed to the train set market) is they just don't sem to be able to win.

[irishmail]

2 minutes ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Possibly, however, a 66 pulling a rake of imposters would look better, IMHO than on it's own or some small 4 wheeled wagons.

 

I'm no fan of Hornby but as far as the modellers market (as opposed to the train set market) is they just don't sem to be able to win.

The class 66's pulled/hauled MGR wagons,  ok not in the liverys currently on offer but just apply rule 1 or repaint into EWS livery.

[Porfuera]

8 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

I currently have three out of my 5 locos with no train to go with them! 🤪

 

And I could say the same about my 6 Hornby locos (or 7 locos if you include the Piko BR 223 Eurorunner that arrived last week) - I have very little era-relevant stock to run with most of them. But I shuffle stock around and make the best of it until something better turns up. That's how it will be with TT:120 for the near-to-medium future.

 

The only one I can't do that for is my HST, but even then there were examples of HSTs running on the network without any carriages, which is how my HST will remain until the BG Mk3s arrive in Summer.

[PaulRhB]

21 minutes ago, Porfuera said:

But I shuffle stock around and make the best of it until something better turns up. That's how it will be with TT:120 for the near-to-medium future.

Yep and in OO you can usually model something using other manufacturers stock or the secondhand market. As Hornby went it alone, and got defensive when Heljan announced a 31 making them decide it wasn’t worth the hassle, you don’t have options which makes the release of matching stock more important. 

If I can run complete sets of only a few trains that at least sustains interest but currently I can’t run two East Coast sets seen together unless I buy two exec HST’s. A quick win would have been to release the BG HST set with a different number to tempt us to buy that too to get more stock ;) 

[1andrew1]

12 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

The decision making process is odd and even in the Q&A at 5:15 they say “another loco that’s been asked for a lot is a pannier tank or a terrier, which we will get to but we have to make sure we have the right rolling stock to go with it.” So they at least understand the concept which makes the initial disjointed releases more baffling. The sets are great

 and adding the HST to that is sure to work well but I currently have three out of my 5 locos with no train to go with them! 🤪

There has been a change of management since TT120 was launched. Plus, we don't know what resources Hornby have. eg if a designer targeted to do GWR wagons has left Hornby, then the company may decide to realign its pipeline. 

Edited April 3 by 1andrew1

[Porfuera]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I have no axe to grind one way or the other.

 

TT:120 has (so far) offered not one item of interest to me. It's novelty value and future progress (or otherwise) therefore holds no personal relevance.

 

Yet you continue to be negative about it without any evidence to back it up,

 

The original TT:120 thread is full of posts from people predicting the imminent demise of Hornby's TT:120 venture at various stages and none of them have come to pass. At least those appear to be tailing off now. But you are no different, questioning the viability of it and whether anyone remains with the commitment to maintain momentum in the project.

 

For something that has no personal relevance to you, you seem to spend a lot of energy talking about it. Maybe you will turn out to be right but in the meantime I prefer to be positive about it and enjoy it while it is there.

 

Edited April 3 by Porfuera

[Porfuera]

11 hours ago, Taigatrommel said:

There's not anything I'm aware of in terms of container wagons that ran in the UK.

 

Doesn't the 'ff' of the Arnold-now-Hornby Sffgmss container wagons at least indicate that those were capable of running in the UK?

[jjb1970]

Setting up a new (to UK RTR) scale was always going to be a long road. As long as I have been a model train enthusiast there has been plenty of demand for models with gauge correct for the scale, and quite a bit of demand for a scale aligned with international norms. Usually this has been with respect to finescale OO (former) or calls for UK HO (both).

 

There have also been plenty of opinions that TT is the perfect scale in balancing compact size and not being too fiddly.

 

Hornby have stepped up and moved into a standard international scale with correct gauge and relaunched UK outline TT, though this time 1/120. Now I am not that worried about the scale/gauge thi g in OO, but do like TT as a concept. I think it's a bold move which should be applauded. Could the range have been planned better? Probably. Could the roll out have been quicker? Possibly. Overall though I see much more to celebrate than criticize. I just ordered a blue/grey HST and will order some coaches.

[Dunsignalling]

23 hours ago, Porfuera said:

 

Yet you continue to be negative about it without any evidence to back it up,

 

The original TT:120 thread is full of posts from people predicting the imminent demise of Hornby's TT:120 venture at various stages and none of them have come to pass. At least those appear to be tailing off now. But you are no different, questioning the viability of it and whether anyone remains with the commitment to maintain momentum in the project.

 

For something that has no personal relevance to you, you seem to spend a lot of energy talking about it. Maybe you will turn out to be right but in the meantime I prefer to be positive about it and enjoy it while it is there.

 

At present, It doesn't have, nor do I anticipate in the short term, any personal relevance, but I may be open to persuasion to a small dabble at some point, just as I have with O Gauge, so I maintain a watching brief.

 

My level of commitment will be too small to register financially, in either case!

 

Whatever happens, TT:120 will have been given a sensible period to prove itself commercially and there's no reason to think it's not doing OK so far. This is a big commitment for Hornby and I reckon that timespan will be at least five years, to which we're not even half way yet, so there's still everything to play for.

 

Simple fact is, though, that what's currently on offer/announced doesn't fit together coherently enough to encourage most folk beyond the trainset community to switch scales as opposed to taking a modest side-interest.

 

Unless that is intentional (to protect Hornby's interests in OO) it needs to be addressed over Years 3 to 5.

 

John

 

Edited April 4 by Dunsignalling

[Porfuera]

43 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Yep and in OO you can usually model something using other manufacturers stock or the secondhand market. As Hornby went it alone, and got defensive when Heljan announced a 31 making them decide it wasn’t worth the hassle, you don’t have options which makes the release of matching stock more important. 

If I can run complete sets of only a few trains that at least sustains interest but currently I can’t run two East Coast sets seen together unless I buy two exec HST’s. A quick win would have been to release the BG HST set with a different number to tempt us to buy that too to get more stock ;) 

 

But then which era should they have concentrated on? Everyone has their own idea - you seem to want to run BG or Exec HSTs, many on the TT:120 thread are keen on grouping-era steam while others here are talking about modern container wagons. Hornby can't do all that in a year, something would have to go - even alternate numbers must take up production slots that would be used for something different. Look how far away the green 08 still is - 18 months later than the original ones.

 

Currently there is a bit of something for everybody (although in some cases only a very little) but with the promise of more to come later. Maybe that's not the best solution but then I don't think Hornby are concerned about 'modellers', they want train set sales to establish interest in the scale and the rest comes later.

 

And I wouldn't say that Hornby chose to go it alone - Heljan and Gaugemaster could have continued but they chose not to. No-one knows how far advanced they were with their projects. I'm sure Hornby like having the field to themselves but there isn't anything stopping someone else from joining in. Hornby haven't announced a Type 2 yet so surely someone could start work on one of those? But other manufacturers are probably waiting to see how it goes before committing to anything at all - even something 'small' like a wagon never mind a loco.

[Dunsignalling]

41 minutes ago, Porfuera said:

 

But then which era should they have concentrated on? Everyone has their own idea - you seem to want to run BG or Exec HSTs, many on the TT:120 thread are keen on grouping-era steam while others here are talking about modern container wagons. Hornby can't do all that in a year, something would have to go - even alternate numbers must take up production slots that would be used for something different. Look how far away the green 08 still is - 18 months later than the original ones.

 

Currently there is a bit of something for everybody (although in some cases only a very little) but with the promise of more to come later. Maybe that's not the best solution but then I don't think Hornby are concerned about 'modellers', they want train set sales to establish interest in the scale and the rest comes later.

 

And I wouldn't say that Hornby chose to go it alone - Heljan and Gaugemaster could have continued but they chose not to. No-one knows how far advanced they were with their projects. I'm sure Hornby like having the field to themselves but there isn't anything stopping someone else from joining in. Hornby haven't announced a Type 2 yet so surely someone could start work on one of those? But other manufacturers are probably waiting to see how it goes before committing to anything at all - even something 'small' like a wagon never mind a loco.

 

Being only slightly cynical, the other manufacturers are the reason why Hornby decided to diversify in the first place. The new ones have decided their direction of travel and seem to be doing nicely enough taking over OO volume from Hornby.

 

Hornby's early interaction with Heljan and Gaugemaster makes it unlikely they'll bother with further involvement, and Hornby's reputation for petulant duplication is unlikely to attract others on board. 

Edited April 3 by Dunsignalling

[PaulRhB]

15 minutes ago, Porfuera said:

But then which era should they have concentrated on? Everyone has their own idea - you seem to want to run BG or Exec HSTs, many on the TT:120 thread are keen on grouping-era steam while others here are talking about modern container wagons. Hornby can't do all that in a year,

I’m quite happy with the mix of eras, I’m considering a East Coast Mainline layout from LNER to BR, but as it’s a layout currently I have three pacifics with one set of coaches ,(reality is wrong region), that I can’t duplicate realistically and a HST and 08 for the later period. The 08 and HST powercars both still waiting for appropriate stock too ;) 

The sets are great in providing the start of a complete train but they need supporting stock for the individual locos they sell too. I’ve extended the Pullman set to 8 coaches which is great but as I said before if they’d done the equally attractive teaks I could have bought three sets and still been realistic. 
I totally get it takes time to establish the range and the Easterner set is the only one that is really expandable beyond the set as you have two other BR A4’s and a A3 plus maroon and blood and custard coaches and 4 wheel vans for an express freight.  So that one you could already build a layout with but not really any of the others. The two HST’s wouldn’t run together as the blue one needs deflectors as some of the artwork showed.

 

This is what I mean by disjointed, you can cover multiple eras but by some fairly basic choices you could drive more sales by having things that go together if even for a short period. They did that with the BR eastern steam so why choose a unique rake for the LNER, they may have as well done the Coronation set. Or instead of the LMS Pacific do the Bulleid first so you had two locos to go with the Pullmans. With the HST simply actually do the one they featured in the artwork with the deflector and you can run the BG and exec together. I’m not talking about producing lots of different stuff in one go but choosing to produce stuff that’s complimentary, that caters for the modeller and the trainset market. 😉

A couple of years down the line producing a pannier and a Hall with mainline coaches and an auto coach would similarly give you enough to build a layout with two locos and three to four coach mouldings / liveries so no more than producing the HST set. From that you could have a branch train with auto coach, a local train with tank loco and mainline trains with the tender loco. 
 

Websites often suggest, how about this too?Indeed the Hornby one does as well and I worked in retail for twelve years and it was common then to associate products to drive sales. They used to do it but increasingly in OO they have locos and stock separated by supply chain delays, not such an issue with other ranges available except for the APT. It is a bigger issue with a standalone range and it’s not like it’s a new concept link products as the small model manufacturer I worked for in the early 90’s did it as did the major retail chain I worked for in the late 90’s. Even Planet Industrials commissioned complimentary stock for their Victory tanks and that’s a first model so you can do it at the start.