Hornby's 2013 Announcements

[ScRSG]

Would someone please explain, preferably officially, just exactly, repeat exactly what the differences are between a railroad DoG and the full range version, at some £30 of a difference. If this is not possible can we please wait until they appear?

 

I wonder whether this tendency towards producing models as can still be seen, i.e. "as preserved", which I have commented on in other topics before is a good idea. For example the DoG is being produced with the preserved tender, which has put me off, fair enough,my choice, but it has been stated that the earlier tenders would perhaps be produced "if demand was high enough". Now, I think that the vast majority of potential buyers of this model would wish for the tender as worn in BR days, and that the vast majority of people who see it today wouldn't know the difference whichever tender it was connected to. I am concerned that the fact it is to be produced with the preserved tender will put enough people off buying it in sufficient quantities to create sufficient demand for the original types. The suggestion is that if it sells enough then another version would be produced, where it should almost be the lack of sales, because people want the other version, that it should be produced!

[S.A.C Martin]

I have a feeling that's exactly what Hornby are trying to avoid - two seperate tools will clearly add significantly to their costs - shared research/design but otherwise still two sets of tooling for the body. Not exactly 'design clever'. If going down this route there's no need to publicise the moulded details across the entire range and would allow the top price to be charged for the full fat version if the models were perceived as entirely different.

James, I actually covered that by saying:

 

or, "design clever" by allowing moulded detail for the low end model to be entirely interchangeable with the high end model's finer details

 

I've no problem with one bodyshell, different details. I agree two entirely separate bodyshells would be wasteful tooling. However I must counter that view as Hornby tooled up an all new A4 bodyshell which also shared some parts with their main range model, for their Railroad range. So they have in the past done both and been fully capable of doing so. What was telling in the case of the A4 was the shared chassis.

 

 

Flying Scotsman based products have a different reach within the market so it's easier for two different versions to be fully supported - I doubt two entirely different versions of Thompson's various Pacifics would attract the same kind of volume of sales.

I think you're reading far too much into that I was saying James. I think it goes without saying that I am not expecting a duplication of every single model in the two ranges.

 

 

 

 

Wait and see what happens... And crack on with Ganwick while you're waiting!

I have been behind the scenes quietly developing the layout and will put some photographs out when I am satisfied with the results.

[micklner]

Would someone please explain, preferably officially, just exactly, repeat exactly what the differences are between a railroad DoG and the full range version, at some £30 of a difference. If this is not possible can we please wait until they appear?

 

 

 I wonder if Hornby are reading these comments about "design clever " whatever that actually is ?? I agree what exactly is it ??

 

Hornby have cleverly generated a lot of interest in their products without actually saying much at all!!

 

 Clever marketing at a very minimal cost

[Guest jim s-w]

They have indeed, Simons interview with Andy left more questions than answers as well (Andy said himself he doesnt really know what 'design clever' means despite Simon mentioning it). All this while people should have been drowning in froth over Bachmanns blue pullman too, quite a good bit of work really from Hornby's marketing dept.

 

I wonder if any of it has translated into sales yet though?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[James]

How would "moulded detail for the low end model" actually be "entirely interchangeable with the high end model's finer details"? It's either moulded or it's not?
 

However I must counter that view as Hornby tooled up an all new A4 bodyshell which also shared some parts with their main range model, for their Railroad range. So they have in the past done both and been fully capable of doing so.

The key is the likelihood of the models selling - people will always buy Scotsman and Mallard type products - this level of popularity, much as with Tornado, will hugely affect how much investment can be made in the product. I'm not reading too much into things - it's quite simple. Niche products can only bring a certain number of sales, whereas more mass market products will generate far more sales.
 

[Andy Y]

(Andy said himself he doesnt really know what 'design clever' means despite Simon mentioning it)

Where did I say that?

 

I could see that a number of people were lodging pre-orders with box-shifters on some items just in case there were any short supplies of some items.

[Guest jim s-w]

Where did I say that?

 

There's some intelligent questioning in there Oz and I do agree that some more clarity would be helpful. I'll endeavour to get that for you on the specific points. I did go back to Simon on a few points myself to write the analysis and fill in some blanks that would be there from the straight lists. Aside from Pat Hammond's analysis for MREmag I haven't seen much reference on the 'net to the design considerations other than those which came from the interview with SK but I felt it one of the most relevant aspects of this year's announcements. The acknowledgement of rising prices and the supply chain issues and evidence that things will change is, I feel positive, but, in agreement with your post, we need to know the detail to see what it all really means.

From the interview thread Andy, in response to a question on design clever. TBH im not 100% convinced Hornby actually know what it means either. Its just the model railway version of the active ingredients in shampoo really and as i said earlier in the thread any half decent designer will 'design clever' anyway, a month ago it was just called doing their job

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Bob Reid]

Andy, was the question of 'design clever' raised or included in the last email from Simon? If not would a direct approach to him again perhaps put this one to bed before it gets any bigger an issue - bigger than the actual product announcements themselves....

[Andy Y]

From the interview thread Andy, in response to a question on design clever.

I'd asked the question to solicit an answer ahead of the announcements, not because I didn't know at the time as I was party to the details given in the OP to this topic where the point is illustrated.

 

 

Andy, was the question of 'design clever' raised or included in the last email from Simon? If not would a direct approach to him again perhaps put this one to bed before it gets any bigger an issue - bigger than the actual product announcements themselves....

Not specifically Bob as the concept isn't necessarily a standardised approach across the range but based on the requirements of an individual project; it's more about a way of thinking rather than a way of standardising anything which is why I find it frustrating when someone takes one fact and extrapolates it without knowing the formula.

 

The design clever was discussed at the briefing and I felt that it would be of interest to the readership hence its inclusion (even if it doesn't fully expand upon what it translates into for all forthcoming releases) but given the volume of doom-mongering over unknown facts (a black hole created in the LHC and the end of the world on the 21st December had nothing on this ) I think in hindsight it would have been better to not have included it in my commentary.

[43179]

Ive read most of this topic now, and its given me a headache!

But I have now learned what exactly an LNER P2 is - gorgeous!

 

Jon

[S.A.C Martin]

How would "moulded detail for the low end model" actually be "entirely interchangeable with the high end model's finer details"? It's either moulded or it's not?

Come now James. If the problem is a moulded deflector handrail on a moulded deflector, then a deflector with separately fitted handrails which plugs into the same locating plugs as that one solves that issue.

 

In short, one bodyshell for which the key components which make the difference can be changed.

 

The key is the likelihood of the models selling - people will always buy Scotsman and Mallard type products - this level of popularity, much as with Tornado, will hugely affect how much investment can be made in the product. I'm not reading too much into things - it's quite simple. Niche products can only bring a certain number of sales, whereas more mass market products will generate far more sales.

 

I don't think anyone can disagree with that, but you are misrepresenting the point I have been making quite extensively. If we are saying a Railroad P2 and a main range P2 can survive side by side (by Hornby's own admission in their range announcements) then it stands to reason that the model could be designed around the common chassis and a common bodyshell if they are willing to. I am sure the modeller would accept certain moulded compromises if it meant that certain separate details could be kept.

[S.A.C Martin]

Is that how you read what Simon says? I read it as if theres more profit in the toy market then thats where they will focus. Nothing wrong with that though as they are a business not a charity.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

That was how I interpreted it Jim, though I accept upon re-reading it that your view is equally valid, if not perhaps, on reflection of the wording, moreso.

[Dick Turpin]

James, I actually covered that by saying:

  

I've no problem with one bodyshell, different details. I agree two entirely separate bodyshells would be wasteful tooling. However I must counter that view as Hornby tooled up an all new A4 bodyshell which also shared some parts with their main range model, for their Railroad range. So they have in the past done both and been fully capable of doing so. What was telling in the case of the A4 was the shared chassis.

 

 

I think you're reading far too much into that I was saying James. I think it goes without saying that I am not expecting a duplication of every single model in the two ranges.

 

 

 

 

 

I have been behind the scenes quietly developing the layout and will put some photographs out when I am satisfied with the results.

 

I think James, he's challenging you to a duel on the common at dawn. A bit severe I know, but I am willing to act as second should you accept, believe me I am am a damn good shot sir!

[Bob Reid]

You're wishlisting Simon.  The launch images for the DoG show two different shells one entirely moulded for the railroad range with no separate stuck on moulded bits and another (different) shell for the main range and all the added bits.  It would save no money if you have to stick on extra bits whether they be plastic or brass!

 

Come now James. If the problem is a moulded deflector handrail on a moulded deflector, then a deflector with separately fitted handrails which plugs into the same locating plugs as that one solves that issue.

In short, one bodyshell for which the key components which make the difference can be changed.
 
 

[Guest jim s-w]

I think James, he's challenging you to a duel on the common at dawn. A bit severe I know, but I am willing to act as second should you accept, believe me I am am a damn good shot sir!

Dont they have to slap each other with gloves first or something?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[S.A.C Martin]

You're wishlisting Simon.  The launch images for the DoG show two different shells one entirely moulded for the railroad range with no separate stuck on moulded bits and another (different) shell for the main range and all the added bits.  It would save no money if you have to stick on extra bits whether they be plastic or brass!

Bob, can you please point me in the direction of those images? Thus far I have only seen the one with moulded handrails. Genuinely surprised as I've not seen this mentioned elsewhere.

 

I think if this had been made clear at the start many people would not have extrapolated several multiple meanings from Hornby's announcements. DoG was the sticking point for a lot of people in this thread as far as I can see.

[S.A.C Martin]

I think James, he's challenging you to a duel on the common at dawn. A bit severe I know, but I am willing to act as second should you accept, believe me I am am a damn good shot sir!

I think I'd prefer a man's sport in the form of fencing. A sabre each, and I can assure you sir, I will not need my own second. You however, may need a third...

[S.A.C Martin]

Dont they have to slap each other with gloves first or something?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Not at Loughborough - height of bad manners to refuse a duel in the club. Great sport with great people in it. But I suspect we've taken this off topic enough.

[Dick Turpin]

Dont they have to slap each other with gloves first or something?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

 

OK yeah that would be a start. Dressing up in drag for the event would also be a sign of determination. We could also sell tickets!

['CHARD]

Ive read most of this topic now, and its given me a headache!

But I have now learned what exactly an LNER P2 is - gorgeous!

 

Jon

 

By the same token I decided to learn more about 71000 "DoG," which I now understand wasn't just some tarted up Britannia GTi as I'd casually dismissed it up to now.  Through wishful ignorance, I might add.

 

So, I think I now understand the thorny problem, that it was every bit a dog as nailed together in the fifties, but in its new cyber-steampunk version on the main line today it's actually delivered its drawing board potential.  So it must be hard for the 8P brigade to know which version they want Hornby to do.  

 

I'm beginning to wish I'd never started reading this thread (but if anyone's interested, it would have to be the 21st Century cyberdog for me).

[Bob Reid]

Bob, can you please point me in the direction of those images? Thus far I have only seen the one with moulded handrails. Genuinely surprised as I've not seen this mentioned elsewhere.

 

I think if this had been made clear at the start many people would not have extrapolated several multiple meanings from Hornby's announcements. DoG was the sticking point for a lot of people in this thread as far as I can see.

 

Halfway down the page here Simon for a start http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/portal/ two clearly different (in many respects) shells for the DoG.  and not my imagination

[Budgie]

Bachmann offer a good service for the virtually all parts including separate Tenders.

Actually, Bachmann do not offer many spare parts at all, apart from some they may have to fix an occasional problem. I would like a couple of fully-assembled chassis for a non-motorised 4CEP DMSO, and the only way I can get them is to buy complete 4CEP coach packs.

[Dick Turpin]

I think I'd prefer a man's sport in the form of fencing. A sabre each, and I can assure you sir, I will not need my own second. You however, may need a third...

 

OK, you have the swords, I'll have the pistols. 

[Guest Phil]

You're wishlisting Simon.  The launch images for the DoG show two different shells one entirely moulded for the railroad range with no separate stuck on moulded bits and another (different) shell for the main range and all the added bits.  It would save no money if you have to stick on extra bits whether they be plastic or brass!

 

So Design clever has been defined. Hornby churn out the same prototype in two different versions of each livery, so that retailers have to finance double the number of red boxes on the shelves in the process, just in case the modeller wants the more expensive, or the less expensive version.

 

 

Hmmm - that really helps those remaining LHSs that are still in business.

 

Do we see Bachmann Dapol or Heljan burdening their traders with two different ranges of model railway stock ? Nah, didn't think so.

Sorry Simon Kohler, your Hornby ethos was spelt out to me in your email to Andy "Vsriety rather than detail". I am guessing your "variety" also applies to couplings on vehicles ?

 

 

After following this thread for the last few days, I've come to the conclusion that "Design Clever" should have been clearly explained as a tangible improvement in the way Hornby produce their models. The traditional product list launch around Christmas time would have provided an excellent showcase for the development, but sadly I haven't picked up on anything other than some hitherto separately added items may be moulded on in future.

[Budgie]

So, I think I now understand the thorny problem, that it was every bit a dog as nailed together in the fifties, but in its new cyber-steampunk version on the main line today it's actually delivered its drawing board potential.  So it must be hard for the 8P brigade to know which version they want Hornby to do.

If I were going to buy one of these (which I'm not because, although it's in my modelling period, it's not in my modelling location) I would like the model to look like the original but work like the preserved version.