Hornby's 2013 Announcements

[papagolfjuliet]

But everything could be made simpler by rebranding RailRoad as Tri-ang - the differentation between hi-spec and the rest of the ranges for a lot of people would be much clearer.

 

Rovex or whatever you want to call it no longer has the right to use that name, which it lost when Lines Brothers broke up in the early Seventies. Tri-ang still exists though, and produces things like bouncy castles and trampolines; here's their catalogue: http://www.triangtoys.com/

 

As to 71000, there's a photo of a pre-production sample on MREmag which fairly clearly indicates that the boiler has wire handrails while those on the smoke deflectors are moulded. So it's swings and roundabouts, and overall the model is a very handsome one.

[Ozexpatriate]

Hornby no longer have the rights to that name, which they lost when Lines Brothers broke up in the early Seventies. Tri-ang still exists though; here's their catalogue: http://www.triangtoys.com/

As can clearly be seen in their catalogue, the Tri-ang Bouncy Castles do not have separately fitted handrails - they are integrally attached.

 

Sadly none of them are offered in middle chrome green and nor do they have any copper or brass accents, though at least one is equipped with a ~750 gallon reservior.

[Andy Y]

Anyone else notice the price difference quoted from two seperate sources for the Steam museum model of Lode Star.

 

On Andys OP the price quoted is RRP £134.99

 

http://www.easycatal...home/steamshop/

 

Is this a postage included off maybe with the £10 difference ?

 

I think there's a discrepancy somewhere as my list from Hornby said £134.99, STEAM's site says £144.95 which we should assume as the correct price as they're selling it. I did try to call Geoff Davies down there today but he was OoO.

[Andy Y]

But as noted by previous posters in the thread, moulded handrails can spoil the normally exquisitely applied liveries. And to have a moulded handrail going along the length of the P2 boiler and onto the handrail - where both the smoke deflector and the boiler fit flush, and are painted accordingly in apple green - would make it very difficult for those who want a bit more fidelity on their P2 to fix.

 

I hope of course, Hornby aren't going down that route, but that would be my concern given the previous Tornado model.

 

Why not ask them?

[James]

As to 71000, there's a photo of a pre-production sample on MREmag which fairly clearly indicates that the boiler has wire handrails while those on the smoke deflectors are moulded. So it's swings and roundabouts, and overall the model is a very handsome one.

 

The photo on Hornby's Facebook page looked quite nice the moulded handrails on the deflectors and the moulded smokebox door handles were very obvious in such a close up however.

 

But say it quietly - these two issues can be solved by doing some modelling! And if the moulded handrails are an issue, the person concerned may well choose to replace the deflectors too and before we know it, new modelling skills being learnt! Seriously though, I strongly suspect that most people in the conext of a layout will not be overly concerned. It's just awkward types like me and many others on here who would be!

[papagolfjuliet]

As can clearly be seen in their catalogue, the Tri-ang Bouncy Castles do not have separately fitted handrails - they are integrally attached.

 

It's a little early for a wish list, I know, but I'd quite like to see Tri-ang produce a bouncy APT in 2014.

[S.A.C Martin]

Why not ask them?

 

I have, as it happens.

[Ian J.]

In reference to my 'starting' the questioning of the Design Clever principle back in reply #22, I wasn't thinking that Hornby might have handrails molded. Even for them that would really be a step too far. What I was mostly concerned with was the two sets of pictures showing the roof vents of the Maunsells and the DoG to Brit pipework. This is the detail that is the advance we had asked for for many years before it was done in the 90s. What appears to be the case from those CAD pictures is such details are now going to be molded instead on BOTH the Railroad AND the main range versions of the model. It's not a case of the Railroad models not getting detail and the buyer being able to apply detail later, the molded detail would have to be cut away on both the Railroad or Main version before better detail could be applied. It's exactly that that I don't want to go back to as I had enough of it in the pre-high detail era, with the consequent bodge up of paint and lining compared to what the manufacturer can do.

 

As for some molded on detail, I'm aware, and accept, that Dapol and Bachmann still have molded detail on their models, and it's not necessarily the case that all detail has to be separate, but what Hornby are proposing to do (particularly with the pipework on DoG) is go backwards.

 

One hope that has for me been dashed by Design Clever and this year's announcements was that Hornby might do a really good Mk 1 up to the standard of the Maunsells. Bachmann's one feels it is showing its age in comparison.

 

Edit: minor grandma fixes

[James]

Why not ask them?

 

If you rebuild it as per the prototype, there's an obvious opportunity to replace the offending handrails.

[S.A.C Martin]

It's still wrong! There's too much prototype ignorance amoung enthusiasts in terms of proper terms. The worst is frog.

 

Perhaps for another thread? Though I should point out that people who follow model railways don't necessarily also follow the prototype. I do, so learning I am happy to do, but in the context of making my point, the use of one term which everyone understands was fine.

 

So what's the difference between grab rails on a diesel's roof and those on a steam loco's cab?

 

Size, shape and length for a start. I did quantify my last point by saying:

 

I don't think anyone has any qualms if moulded handrails are designed into models, in a manner appropriate to their specific intended prototype.

 

Moulded grab handles on diesel locomotive's roofs seem to me to fall into that category.

[Pebbles]

If additional are such a problem let the buyer add them.

[Oldddudders]

It's still wrong! There's too much prototype ignorance amoung enthusiasts in terms of proper terms. The worst is frog.

Aw, James - cut us all some slack! There's nothing wrong with frogs - I have several in and around my garden in Summer, croaking away. And, of course all my neighbours are French people. English is a language of usage - actually, they all are - and if Peco talk about insulfrog and electrofrog then the "average enthusiast" (as Peco's Railway Modeller used to define its readership) is gonna go with the flow. My boss in the mid-'80s used to talk about a "cee-vee nine and a quarter" which meant nothing to those of us who weren't MICE (not rodents, but Members of the Institute of Chartered Civil Engineers)! That was apparently a posh engineering term for a common turnout. Points to most of us.

[James]

Perhaps for another thread? Though I should point out that people who follow model railways don't necessarily also follow the prototype. I do, so learning I am happy to do, but in the context of making my point, the use of one term which everyone understands was fine.

 

We should encourage the use of correct terms - it makes reading about the proottype far easier!

 

Size, shape and length for a start. I did quantify my last point by saying:

 

Straight handrails or variations of 'U' shapes.

 

Moulded grab handles on diesel locomotive's roofs seem to me to fall into that category.

 

Only because you're a steam modeller! Think about a diesel, the roof area is an incredibly conspicuous one, so the addition of just a few small details such as seperate handrails can provide an imporvement far beyond the effort or cost of fitting them. I suspect they could have more of an impact overall than steam cab handrails

[Guest dilbert]

Rovex or whatever you want to call it no longer has the right to use that name, which it lost when Lines Brothers broke up in the early Seventies. Tri-ang still exists though, and produces things like bouncy castles and trampolines; here's their catalogue: http://www.triangtoys.com/

 

I thought it was the Tri-ang trademark that had been retained and not the Dublo one - replace Tri-ang with Dublo for Rail Road ?... dilbert

[S.A.C Martin]

Rovex or whatever you want to call it no longer has the right to use that name, which it lost when Lines Brothers broke up in the early Seventies. Tri-ang still exists though, and produces things like bouncy castles and trampolines; here's their catalogue: http://www.triangtoys.com/

 

That is amazing: I had no idea the name was still used.

[BR_Blue_1986]

I saw a list saying consessions exclusive for some models. This applied to the FGW mk3's. What does it mean exactly? Limited edition to shops? If so does anyone know who would get a limited run of FGW mk3's.

 

Edd

[James]

Aw, James - cut us all some slack! There's nothing wrong with frogs - I have several in and around my garden in Summer, croaking away. And, of course all my neighbours are French people. English is a language of usage - actually, they all are - and if Peco talk about insulfrog and electrofrog then the "average enthusiast" (as Peco's Railway Modeller used to define its readership) is gonna go with the flow. My boss in the mid-'80s used to talk about a "cee-vee nine and a quarter" which meant nothing to those of us who weren't MICE (not rodents, but Members of the Institute of Chartered Civil Engineers)! That was apparently a posh engineering term for a common turnout. Points to most of us.

 

And each department and area has their own name and terms for things too!

 

You should have seen the look on the area's Operation Manager when described various items using my familiar p-way terms!

[Mallard60022]

Just wanted to say that the more I see that 2 BIL the more I love it; what a cracking model and will look great on those SR 3rd rail layouts I have seen in the past and on the ones it will inspire (hopefully).

I'm going to get a DOG even if its' pipes/grabs are mouldy.

P

[DriverBob]

Fair play to Hornby for trying to test the market and see what people will accept as regards detailing.

 

Maybe we will end up in a place where more & more push-fit detail is self-assembled.

 

That said, can there be a consensus that any non-recessed handrail greater than 1ft in real life is separately fitted either in factory or by the purchaser?

 

That includes all cab-side and tender-side rails for steam, as well as boiler and smoke deflectors.

[Andy Y]

I saw a list saying consessions exclusive for some models. This applied to the FGW mk3's. What does it mean exactly? Limited edition to shops? If so does anyone know who would get a limited run of FGW mk3's.

 

Return to page #1 post #1 (beneath the Mallard Special edition)

[Brit70053]

.

 

We are seeing more and more launches of smaller and smaller classes - I believe it started with the Q1, and the Blue Pullman also developed this theme as have some of the "specials" commisionnd by the likes of Kernow and Hattons.

 

I'd always thought it was started by Hornby Dublo with the R1 0 - 6 - 0 Tank, a class of (IIRC) 13 locos, of which a number had cabs and boiler fittings cut down for use on restricted clearance routes, with the result that the prototypes represented by Hornby Dublo possibly numbered fewer than ten. This didn't stop many thousands of the model being sold in many guises, mainly fictitious liveries, by Hornby Dublo and later Wrenn.

 

John

 

(Brit70053)

 

 

For those who wonder about the Duke - it fits in with a present day layout as well as the end of steam era, so is likely to sell. I wonder if some enterprising modeller will decide in his or her world that 71000 was a success first time ,---- as it is just about the finest steam loco ever built (now that it's mended).

 

I know that The Duke had performance issues when first built and that the initial restoration, among other things, confirmed faults in the original construction of the ashpan and the fitting of a standard Swindon pattern blastpipe or chimney casting (sorry, memory failing me as to which, please be tolerant).

Does anyone know if differences between either of these two features were apparent under normal viewing circumstances, and if so does anyone know if the model will represent the loco as originally built, or in restored condition?

Obviously I would suspect the latter to be the case, since in reality, that's what's available to be referred to.

 

Nonetheless, I've placed my pre order and will enjoy the anticipation.

 

Regards,

 

John

 

Edit to increase font to distinguish first part of my response to post from that of 45156 - bold appearance not intentional.

[Gilwell Park]

I've not read all 19 pages of this froth discussion, but my thoughts are that the new announcements are just about what we might expect in today's getting saturated marketplace.

 

We are seeing more and more launches of smaller and smaller classes - I believe it started with the Q1, and the Blue Pullman also developed this theme as have some of the "specials" commisionnd by the likes of Kernow and Hattons (other specialist suppliers are also available) it was only a matter of time before the P2 and Standard 8P arrived in the RTR ranges. The 2-BIL and new liveried 5-BEL reflect the increasing interest in RTR 3rd rail traction, and the 60s livery was a logical extension of the existing BEL units.

 

For those who wonder about the Duke - it fits in with a present day layout as well as the end of steam era, so is likely to sell. I wonder if some enterprising modeller will decide in his or her world that 71000 was a success first time round, and as a result, another seven or eight were built, so some nifty renumbering, and a few computer produced number plates, and hey presto, some additional new LMR locos for the imaginary fleet.

 

Me - I think it is a bold and imaginative list coming at a time when money is getting tighter, and I wish Hornby every success with the models. I'm in for a 2-BIL just beacuse of my Southern association, and a Duke, as it is just about the finest steam loco ever built (now that it's mended).

 

Surely it was the Triang Princess, omitting the Turbomotive, only 12 in the class.

 

Roger.

[Roy P]

Right here Royston, but tbh I'm not sure I can help you as I wouldnt know one end of a P2 from the other! Are you mixing me up with another member?

 

Sorry “Thane”.

In the context of the discussion about Hornby’s Gresley P2, I sought to bring attention to the classmates of “Cock of the North”, one of which was No.2005 “Thane of Fife”.

On seeing a reply subsequently appear and then disappear I realised my intention was misunderstood. My apologies for this.

I’m pretty sure that the other names; Earl Marischal, Lord President, Mons Meg and Wolf of Badenoch will also be familiar even to those with no interest in Gresley big green things.

RP

p.s. The last person to call me Royston was a bloke called Steve. When I started calling him Stevenage he reverted to the shorter, correct version. Still, it made a few people grin for second or two.

[298]

If additional are such a problem let the buyer add them.

 

Not that simple, the average buyer wants something finished straight out of the box, which is why un-numbered or part built locos have never been very popular. Bufferbeam details are more tolerated as it was once a choice between them or a coupling, but even then you often hear of models where the owner has lost or bodged these details.

 

I have had quite a few US HO scale boxcar kits that were later released by the manufacturer as ready built items, the assembly being done in a Chinese factory at a bargain labour rate instead of at my modelling table (and the kits I had were sold on). Now these rates are increasing, the price of the end result will also have to follow, or like Hornby, new construction methods sought where alot more details are moulded in situ with the end purchaser having to tolerate a percieved backward step. I can see why they've done it, and can hear the complaints raised to Hornby that their models are too expensive and have too many fine details than can easily be broken off.

 

I think such a backwards step can be a good thing for the hobby, where older models with less detail don't necessarily have to be replaced with newer ones as long as their basic shape is right and the modeller can add selected details where necessary, likewise a new release even to the Railroad standard but designed using 3D scanning ought to be regarded as the better basic model instead of something alot more expensive.

 

I have a long rake of HO Reefer cars that fell foul of my "must have separate ladders" rule but were kept for the rainy day when they could run as a complete train and it really wasn't worth selling the lot as the cost ratio would mean getting rid of 5 or 6 to buy one to the latest standard. But having seen them running on a layout, the cruder details aren't really noticeable. Maybe it's something where Hornby and the British market can lead the rest of the world, instead of the other way round...

[TRAILRAGE]

I look at the negative comments and I sometimes despair, not the comments like I wish they had done this or that, but the type of comment that criticises and berates before the models hit the shelves. Opinion is fine just as long as it is constructive, all this talk about going back to Tri-ang etc. is petty and quite frankly childish.

It has been said though that Hornby are being bold, brave and innovative in their approach and I wholeheartedly agree; so why not design clever? It gives the buyer a choice, because contrary to popular belief there are many modellers out there who do not have a bottomless pit of disposable income to spend on the best of models, so if they can buy a cheaper version with moulded detail ( moulded detail that is far superior to any Tri-ang moulded detail) that is a good thing.

I remember Anthony New a couple of years ago making a good case for exactly this type of duel range; model railways are not an elitist hobby and the minute the 'detail at any cost' fraternity take over that is when the hobby will die. I would rather spend £82 on a Railroad loco for my Grandson than £120 because I know it will be more robust, but in time he will be able to hone his modelling skills detailing it, and that same principle goes for any modeller.

Someone said that the 3 pole motor was a retrograde step, are we to assume that all Bachmann's 3 pole motors are somehow inferior to Hornby's 5 pole motors? There is split opinion on this, however if this were the case then to produce a 3 pole motor with a flywheel is still going to be superior to one without and probably as good as the 5 pole motor but maybe cheaper to produce.

I am happy that this British company has taken the bull by the horns and taken a brave step forward, it may not please everyone but if Hornby keep producing superb models like the B1, B17, O1 and these forthcoming offerings, let us at least make criticism constructive.

We as modellers have seen prices rise sharply over the last few years and it has in many cases meant that some models simply became unaffordable especially when people are loosing their jobs, homes etc. it is the hobby that is often the first thing to go, at least Hornby have taken steps to keep prices down and make these latest offerings available to all, something other manufacturers should consider.

 

HEAR HEAR!