RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted October 10, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 10, 2012 Hornby are still responsible in terms of the customer, they should be either covered by insurance or they will look for redress from the shipper if it was poor handling in transit or their manufacturer if they weren't packed correctly. I think the model is very good, not perfect but more than acceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matabiau Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Hornby just replied to my email regarding the damaged Class 67's. They said that the damage occured in transit and when they passed QC everything was fine. I do believe this is the case because if QC were to blame their other models like ''Clive of India'' & ''Crewekerne'' would have not been checked properly at QC but they turned up fine in the next batch! So I guess the damage to the Class 67's may have occured in transit. Anyone elses views on this? And just a lil question if the models were damaged in transit who was responsible for trying to repair them? Looking at my two models the damage does appear to have occured in transit (torn boxes, slightly bent buffer, worn paintwork on one corner). Having said that it is surprising that Hornby didn't check the consignments more thouroughly upon arrival in the UK, the damaged boxes should have aroused some suspiscion. As an end consumer any defect or damage to the product should be raised though the retailer who must ensure either a repair, replacement or a refund. The retailer may direct you to the manufacturer as in the case of batch problems he may alredy have a solution availbale, but at the end of the day it is the retailer's responsability to enure his obligations to the customer are satisfied. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 From the OFT website rules for retailers "you (not the manufacturer or supplier) are legally obliged to resolve the matter with the customer at any time for up to six years from the date of purchase, or in Scotland for up to five years from the discovery of the problem. Any refund, repair or replacement you arrange with your customer relating to faulty goods must not cause them too much inconvenience and you will have to pay for other costs, for example, collection or delivery. If you disagree with a customer's claim, you can ask if they are willing for you to send the item to a third party or the manufacturer for inspection. If the customer agrees you can do this, it is important to remember that the goods must not be damaged during this process." Rail exclusives have highlighted the problem so they clearly agree there's a problem Seems pretty clear to me Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridwatcher Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Mine is fine...................... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Hornby just replied to my email regarding the damaged Class 67's. They said that the damage occured in transit and when they passed QC everything was fine. I do believe this is the case because if QC were to blame their other models like ''Clive of India'' & ''Crewekerne'' would have not been checked properly at QC but they turned up fine in the next batch! So I guess the damage to the Class 67's may have occured in transit. Anyone elses views on this? And just a lil question if the models were damaged in transit who was responsible for trying to repair them? My question would be - if the damage to the bodyshells occurred in transit, then at what point was the glue and varnish used in the REX photographs to fix these models - which supposedly passed their QC? I feel like it's almost picking on Hornby to speak up, but looking from the outside in, what they have said to you in their email doesn't seem to match up with the story REX are putting out. If the models were all damaged in transit then logic dictates that they had passed the QC stage with no problems, but "50% of our stock exhibits these problems" from REX - hmm. One side or the other must be wrong. It cannot be that all of the 67s passed QC with cracked bodyshells, partially fixed with glue and paint, in this way - unless we are now suggesting Hornby's QC isn't good enough, which has allowed this state of affairs to occur with REX? I have noticed that Model Rail's sample in their latest review, exhibits at least two of the problems that were manifesting themselves on the REX samples - the bodyshell doesn't fit correctly at one end, and it has been touched up with some paint on the bodyshell in very small amounts (extremely minor compared to the REX samples). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted October 10, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2012 An 'inconvenient' observation----but then,the truth often is. S.A.C---The 'Watchdog ' of RM Web---hero of 4-VEP saga----rides again! Good for you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 You are assuming its Hornby that bodged the fix. I wonder if any other retailers have reported a bodge fix? Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 You are assuming its Hornby that bodged the fix. I wonder if any other retailers have reported a bodge fix? Cheers Jim Absolutely Jim, a fair point. I simply feel it's worth pointing out that the models and their damage, and bodges, don't seem to add up to what appears to be the story on either side of the issue. Perhaps I am coming at this from a more Hornby centric angle, but if we accept the damage to the boxes happened in transit, then it follows that the "fixes" have happened either at the QC stage, before or after, or after delivery (which you have to admit, doesn't seem to be a fair conclusion as it intimates REX did the bodges - highly unlikely I'd have thought!) Either way I'm afraid something doesn't add up somewhere. Saying "over 50% of our stock is unsellable" sounds like a very incredible QC issue or damaged in transit - that's such a high figure for a retailer to report (but again, in the interests of balance, I don't know what the total number of REX models that is). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 10, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2012 Of course it could be the Somali pirates But being a lot more serious several points come through this. Firstly there seems to be doubt about manufacturing quality, I really don't think that a properly assembled and packed model will come apart in transit or somehow suffer miraculous 'repair' subsequently although the box damage, and any damage to the model in that vicinity does suggest transit damage of some sort. Similarly the inconsistent occurrence of damage also indicates it is more likely to be a transit problem but it could possibly be an assembly issue, we just don't know (and, more worryingly, Hornby might not know either). What we do know is that Hornby are using more than one manufacturer to produce model railway items and that - according to them - they have encountered 'supply problems' with a past hint that there were quality issues with a manufacturer they were using for the B17. Perhaps there have also been 'issues' with the manufacturer they are using for the Class 67 but in their present circumstance Hornby are placing their main effort on getting product into the marketplace and might be not paying such great attention to 'other issues'? I hope that isn't the case but I do wonder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I'd presume that the QC was done at the factory and probably not by Hornby staff; If I were Hornby and I hadn't "done the bodge" on receipt of stock, then I know who I'd be having a very stern word with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dubdee1000 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Agree wholeheartedly with SAC Martin. To my untrained eyes, Hornby would give the impression of passing the buck - "its not our fault - its those pesky shipping people", "nothing wrong with our QC" etc. Now, unaccustomed as i am to international freight shipping, i would presume that some sort of middleman is involved between the container landing at the docks and the Rails, Hattons, RE etc getting their hands on them. I certainly don't think that the retailers turn up at the quayside in a transit and load the 67's into the back. I would presume that the models are inspected by Hornby staff upon arrival and than sent on for distribution by Hornby appointed contractors. The affected 67's frequently have damaged boxes. One would presume that if the damage was caused by shipping, the bigger brown cardboard box in which several 67's are packaged would also be damaged. Why was this distributed? Did RE sign for badly damaged boxes? Where i work, we ALWAYS check the contents when packaging is damaged and would reject the delivery if so affected. I would not expect RE/Hattons/Rails/MRD etc to have any less a robust policy, which *may* indicate that there was little visible damage to the outer boxes. If so, someone took the decision to pack damaged 67's into regular boxes. All speculation! But am i not missing something here? - the fractured ends of the loco; the misaligned bodies and frames (as photographed, but not commented on in Model Rail); the repairs and patch-ups that have been carried out - all because of the transit damage?? Really?? Or does this not indicate some sort of design or manufacturing or QC flaw? Just look at the likes of the Keith Heller loco seen on the RE page and tell me thats a 'transit' issue. Someone, somewhere packed that into its carton and judged it to be 'A1'. Thats a QC issue. Hornby can say all they want about damage in transit but few will believe them when it clearly isn't. If Hornby wish to carry on with their stance, then they are only fooling themselves and they can only blame themselves when tougher times beckon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 But am i not missing something here? - the fractured ends of the loco; the misaligned bodies and frames (as photographed, but not commented on in Model Rail); the repairs and patch-ups that have been carried out - all because of the transit damage?? Not sure I appreciate the implication here. In fact the blemishes spotted in the photo are so minor that we missed them when examining the actual model. On re-examining the Shenker model there is, indeed, a slight blemish in the paintwork on one side and the body is not fitting quite flush at one end. Neither of these faults would, in my view, make this particular model unsaleable. I unpacked this model myself and there was no damage to the packaging. Nor did it appear that the model had been removed from the packaging at any time before I did so, whether for QC or any other purpose. CHRIS LEIGH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Not sure I appreciate the implication here. In fact the blemishes spotted in the photo are so minor that we missed them when examining the actual model. On re-examining the Shenker model there is, indeed, a slight blemish in the paintwork on one side and the body is not fitting quite flush at one end. Neither of these faults would, in my view, make this particular model unsaleable. I unpacked this model myself and there was no damage to the packaging. Nor did it appear that the model had been removed from the packaging at any time before I did so, whether for QC or any other purpose. CHRIS LEIGH My I add for my part my apologies Mr Leigh. It was only on careful examination of the article in question that I saw the blemishes and the body not sitting straight. No intention to implicate or otherwise that Model Rail were not doing their job with the class 67, but an observation that the photographs have shown up similar issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted October 10, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2012 The Hornby distributor is AB Gee (Ilkeston,Derbys.) It would be interesting to get their version of 'boxes damaged in transit'. Doubt if we will,though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammy Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Ok then heres a picture of my 2 CLASS 67'S this one at the head of the mangement train Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted October 10, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 10, 2012 Just a thought on this - given the random nature of the damage, could it be that the models in question were damaged in the manufacturing stage and the manufacturer rather than admiting the fact has attempted to disguise the issue by undertaking various bodged repairs so as to prevent it suffering from contractual / financial penalties from Hornby? After all I doubt a Hornby representative actually inspected every single loco at the factory - probably more like a certain percentage of the batch and thus could well be given the impression all is well if the damaged models were hidden from them. This might also explain the 'damaged in transit' statement because if the manufacturer insists all was wel when they left the factory and the Hornby rep hasn't seen any problems tthen the obvious conclusion is 'damaged in transit' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammy Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 That could be a very good theory hide the bashed ones from qc and pretend nothing's happened Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Davison Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Been watching this thread with interest. There is more to this than shipping damage. - I picked my EWS 67 up from my local model shop on Saturday on the way to the Manchester show. Didn't look at it but was assured if there was a problem that it would be swapped. Sure enough, on closer inspection in the evening, it was obvious that someone's QA dept had tried to tidy up the nose end yellow (on one corner) - but with a sharp implement?!? Needless to say it was returned on Monday without question and the next one examined was fine. Whilst the close photo makes this "tidying up" look worse than it does to the naked eye, this shouldn't be done to a new £100 loco. (At least I'll be gentle with it when I renumber it). Happy with my new one, but thought that I would share some evidence. The box was nearly pristeen with a slight scuff. Cheers Jeremy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Removed a/c Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 and the "Y" is missing from railway on your too. Are there others? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mevaman Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I am just wondering whether the criticism of Hornby is getting a little out of hand. I have 3 models and none have demonstated the problems in REs photos. All the stock from the shop in which I purchased them has been inspected and also do not show any of the problems. How many models are out there which are faulty and/or have damaged boxes? What % of the total production does this represent? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Davison Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 and the "Y" is missing from railway on your too. Are there others? Yes I think the "Y" is missing from both sides on all of them. It was like this on my original and also on the replacement. Quite difficult to see though with the naked eye unless you look hard for it. Cheers Jeremy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reevesthecat Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 My Shenker version from hattons displays some of the blotches (approx 5 spots) and paint missing. Also the nameplate dosn't look like its printed straight having said that I can live with these faults. Probably wouldn't have noticed until I saw the rail exclusive report. Personally I feel the criticism is valid if only for the total lack of response from Hornby and I hope an investigation is forthcoming. mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I am just wondering whether the criticism of Hornby is getting a little out of hand. Here we go again. A major retailer reports 50% of their stock is not in a sellable state. They provide photographic evidence and lay their cards on the table. We have several RMwebbers here demonstrating defects with their models. This clearly is not limited to REX. One thing may be true - the models may have suffered damage in transit. We know absolutely that certain of the "fixes" shown cannot have happened except before and after transit. We don't have many conclusions to come to on this one. Whether its the QC before it leaves the factory, the box design in transit, or the possibility these models were "fixed" after transit and before shipping out to retailers, Hornby should be involved at every level prior to it reaching the retailer. The buck stops with Hornby I am afraid. Unless we are saying that Hornby are now exempt from any and all warranted criticism? We all want to support Hornby here - god knows I do, they make amazing ex-LNER models - but we can't just brush under the rug legitimate complaints or criticism. The loss in confidence in Hornby started for me in the 4VEP, and the more I study the class 67, the more I worry for the group as a whole. I do take your point regarding the % of the total made, but it's clear it's a sizeable portion of a paticular retailers models, and clearly from the experiences related here, may affect a sizeable portion of the batch. It's not Hornby bashing to say the above related defects are unacceptable. I do sometimes wonder if railway modellers remember they are consumers too. In what other retail sector would cracks, paint discrepancies, glue marks, damaged boxes and missing artwork be acceptable? If this was one or two - fine, that's more or less what you expect. This isn't one or two. There is clearly a problem. The buck stops with Hornby. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 10, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2012 (snipped to save space) If this was one or two - fine, that's more or less what you expect. This isn't one or two. There is clearly a problem. The buck stops with Hornby. Not entirely sure if I agree with your choice and arrangement of words Simon but I can understand exactly why you have written them and I agree absolutely with your sentiments. Something would seem to be wrong somewhere, or possibly at several somewheres, between the point of moulding and the point of a customer unwrapping his not inexpensive purchase and that is undeniably down the the brand/company which is putting the goods into the marketplace and presenting them to retailers and their customers. It might be directly something in their control but that - in my view - doesn't matter as it is a product bearing their name and it is their brand image which suffers in consequence; they should be concerned for that image if nothing else, investigating the apparent problems and correcting the causes because if they don't it is their brand and sales which will suffer. To be very selfish about this the state of Class 67s doesn't directly concern me but if Hornby deliver in this sort of state the three 8 coupled WR tank engines I shall hopefully be purchasing in coming months I too will not be the happiest bunny on the planet although judging by the samples to date I hopefully won't have that problem. Hornby might only damage their reputation with a limited number of purchasers but the 'net will bring that to the attention of thousands more and those thousands, including me, are currently still a pretty reliable market area which is continuing to put money in their paypackets - Hornby need us as much as we need them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Once again Mike, I can only say that you've put my own thoughts into words much more eloquently than I could or in this case have done. On reflection I don't think the arrangement of my words quite works either but I'm glad the cut of my jibe is clear. I think if problems are exhibited on the O1 in the same vein I might feel rather differently about my confidence in Hornby too. Given the amount of pounds and pennies RTR is costing now, and will cost in years to come, I suspect confidence in the manufacturer to deliver and the quality of their products will become ever more important than recent years where quality was assumed to be a given. Quality is remembered long after the price is forgot and all that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.