Hornby's 2013 Announcements

[Legend]

I also take Tonys point we've never had it so good. However in terms of value for money I don't agree that comparing a bespoke kit built loco to Tonys high standards can have any comparison to a mass produced loco, even though they may be approaching the same finished standard. Pricing is completely different. Clearly the market doesn't think so either. Hornby would not be going down the lower cost /specification route had they not been experiencing significant push back on their prices.

 

But again,I reiterate if Simon Kohler would outline in detail the specs that individual models are finally going to appear in, we could save a lot of postings. And this is important , as following the quick sales of the SE&CR C I suspect many people would be ordering in advance, but are holding back, because they don't quite know what they'll get

[Dunsignalling]

Having read all the above posts I'm still concerned that the basic moulding of the front of the "Duke" is not as good/effective/realistic as that on the "Brit". This has nothing to do with separate parts/design clever or whatever.

 

It just doesn't look right; to me at any rate.

Launching the new way of doing things with a model of a locomotive that bears such a close family resemblance to the Britannia is surely asking for trouble.

 

The first thing everybody will do is place the new DoG next to one of Hornby's superb Brits to see how it compares and, unless the 'Main Range' model looks significantly better than that pictured on the cover of Hornby's 2013 catalogue, the comparison cannot be favourable.

 

Might it be wiser to try out 'Design Clever' on a 'plainer' prototype such as an air-smoothed MN first?

[Ian J.]

'We've never had it so good' - note the stress on had - because if DoG with moulded pipework is the future (for the time being at least) then it is a step backwards from where we had reached. Same is true of the moulded hand grabs on the side of the 2BIL. I know many here bemoan the fragility of such detail and would happily do without. Fine, but for me it is still a step backwards and not keeping par or getting better.

 

I also know that many here would rather have poorer detail cheaper. All I can say to that is please can we separate these two markets properly, low-fi properly separate from mid or hi-fi! Hornby can do as they please, and if they wish to go the low-fi only route because they feel that's what they need to stay in business then so be it, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But please, lets not kid ourselves that the DoG planned is going to be to mid-fi standards, it isn't and that's pretty obvious.

 

This all of course still totally ignores the hi-fi market sector. What I say next applies not just to Hornby but Bachmann, Dapol and Heljan: if handbuilt models to current best RTR standards are around £1,000 upwards, then I cannot see why an RTR model to a hi-fi standard with good wheel/track standards can't come in for around a quarter or less of that.

[Nimbus]

I feel strongly that in the case of the P2, that if it was handled in a similar manner to that described, I would seriously reconsider my purchase of a main range model. It would make little sense to me to buy that grade of model if the intention (as it would be with me) was to carve off moulded details left, right and centre to bring it up to a similar standard set by the excellent Hornby L1, B1, B17 and O1 models recently released. 

 

In addition to this, which is a good statement of my own feelings, I'm beginning to begrudge the idea of paying for any livery I've then got to re-spray and re-line after removing offending moulded detail. Better for Hornby to go the whole hog and revert to self-coloured plastic, methinks! My 1960s Tri-Angs weren't that objectionable, colour-wise, last time I looked. No defence offered in respect of lining and numbering, though!

 

 

Cheers,

The Nim

[Cor-onGRT4]

I completely agree with Ian J , it is a step back, i have made a topic about these discussions under

Hornby topics named "prices versus detailing" you can read it there,but for here i want to say if

people who want to have the super detailed models and design clever means you get a railroad moulding

with an ad on detailingpack for 40 pounds more and a do it yourself project not many of those people

want to pay 120 pound for such a model.

Compare the Railroad Tornado with the so caled highly detailed range and you see what i mean nothing much more than a upgreaded Railroad basic for much more money. 

And when such a model have many  moulded on details basically , then a detailing pack wil not put the model to the high standards we are expected of, and many people wil let it pass and not buy either of them.

I have collected for the past 6 years 70+  loco's [ Hornby/ Bachmann] and 140+ coaches only Hornby[ Bachmann do not reach the newly moulded Hornby coaches detail] , but I would not have any of them if Hornby /Bachmann still produced them moulded as 15 years before.

We therefore must wait and see how the new design clever is develloping,about the Lode Star, I can say if the pictures of the model are what we are going to get it seems OK for me and i'm willing to pay without doubt 150 poud for it,I don't believe this is a design clever model,  but if the P2 is only a Railroad versions with a DIY detailing pack, I will let it pass and so on for others to come.

I am collecting the GRT4 models and never complaning what is comming, whatever they bring i buy it if it is good, but i cannot understand why Hornby is releasing a Evening Star in limited edition for high pricing with the old mouldings from decades ago named in the catalogue high level of decoration and

etched nameplates [ maybe the nameplates does it for 40 pound more]               

[Guest Belgian]

One thing Hornby could (may!) do with the 'DoG' is to have separate mouldings for the Railroad and Mainstream(?) models' deflectors: the Railroad one with moulded on handrails and the mainstream one with separate ones. Maybe even etched ones for the latter. 

 

The side-on view appears to show the model with separate handrails at the back of the cab, separate ladders on the back of the tender and full pipework etc on the front bufferbeam: indeed, this picture appears to show a DoG to the same standards as the 'Britannias'. The comparison CADs of a 'Brit' and 'DoG' appears to show the DoG with lower firebox sides and ashpans with moulded-on details but there might be a second such moulding with separately-applied pipework which can be fitted by the buyer, without moulded-on detail. Now that's what I would call a 'clever design'!

 

Should we perhaps wait and see?

 

JE

[Removed a/c]

I keeping hearing this "we have never had it so good" like we are supposed to be grateful !! We are the driving force and showing what we want with our hard earn cash. Hornby certainly aren't giving away all this "fantastic" detail guys.

 

I just recently got back into the hobby and have bought Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan and ViTrains and to be honest Hornby have seriously underwhelmed me. I think the "never had it so good" does not apply in Hornbys case as the detail does not marry with the price.

[James]

Should we perhaps wait and see?

 

A bit of a radical thought there!

[bluebottle]

Should we perhaps wait and see?

 

I'm waiting to see the P2, and if Hornby produce a detailed model to their best standards I shall buy one. If not, then not.

 

There - that'll shake 'em!

 

Gordon

['CHARD]

I keeping hearing this "we have never had it so good" like we are supposed to be grateful !! We are the driving force and showing what we want with our hard earn cash. Hornby certainly aren't giving away all this "fantastic" detail guys.

 

I just recently got back into the hobby and have bought Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan and ViTrains and to be honest Hornby have seriously underwhelmed me. I think the "never had it so good" does not apply in Hornbys case as the detail does not marry with the price.

 

I realise that we have many benefits in the UK (compared to Ontario) when it comes to taking advantage of special offers and fire-sales.  Therefore the actual price point that we're debating is a moving feast.  However, and I say this as a relatively recent Hornby convert (I had no locos in red boxes in 2008), having been introduced to the quality of their recent product I have subsequently kept my eyes open for locos at prices I am prepared to pay, which is simply about pursuing a hobby within a budget.

 

Where I used to be underwhelmed by tender drives and overall finesse, the B1, Britannia, Doncaster Pacifics, Patriot, Class 50, Black 5, Clan and so on demonstrate an almost filigree attention to detail that now I couldn't imagine not having these available.  I note that you're modelling the '80s, so there's probably not the range of locos available from Hornby to suit your needs.  I consider myself fortunate that through my presence on RMWeb, I wound back the clock from modelling the late seventies to the Transition Period.  And this period is certainly one where Hornby excels in its steam offering.

[coachmann]

Speaking with a three score and ten years perspective, I can assure you RTR models were never so good and we never 'ad it so good as regards variety of models.  Lanky 2-4-2T, Dukedog, O1, 04, S&DJR 7F, Compound, 'C' Class 0-6-0 just for starters not to mention so many of the diesel classes and some electrics. Those who think otherwise should trot down memory lane with a few 10 - 20 year model railway magazines then come back bowed low....

[Michael Delamar]

for me about 10-15 years ago, one of the signs of a good layout was the loco's on it, and all would have to be kitbuilt, or detailed rtr bodies on brass chassis,

 

nothing in the Hornby catalogue could be plonked straight onto a good quality exhibiton layout. especially steam locos.

[Guest Max Stafford]

What Larry's saying to my mind is that to appreciate where we are, you need to know where we've come from. As someone who's enjoyed this hobby since 1977 and whose first experiences of the hobby were models of essentially 1950s and 60s standards I fully concur with this. That's why I personally would be rather disappointed at any attempt to dumb down the hard-won standards of the last decade's releases on shallow cost grounds.

I'm not really comfortable with the 'never had it so good phrase' however as I don't want it to be used as an excuse to justify any back-pedalling on current standards and in any case, McMillan's words are selectively quoted to recall an era of short-lived prosperity that was quickly found to have been built on sand.

 

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/423400.html

 

.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/christopherhowse/3647421/youve_never_had_it_so_good/

 

Dave. 

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Mike

 

Is it fair to draw the conclusion, from what you have posted here, that Hornby have based their market expectations for the future, on the sales of a single item? One which by its celebrity nature could be called atypical? If this is the case then future history will show if design clever might actually be design suicide.

Cheers

Jim

One might not be blamed for drawing such a conclusion Jim.  

 

However we are talking 'report to shareholders' presentation so that inevitably put a particular slant on things but at the same time what we don't know is which version of Hornby's rendering of 'Tornado' got the better sales (I think we can possibly make a good guess).  The more interesting thing to know would be which market sectors bought the 'cooking' version and who bought the 'super-dooper' - and how that might influence Hornby's future strategy.  And of course the point you make about 'Tornado' being atypical could be a very telling one when it comes to less well known steam locos which might not appeal to such a wide market.

So it could well be back to the days of scalpels, needle files, and - in my case - flour paper (not so harsh as wet or dry I think).

[GWRLMSLNER]

There is a great deal of truth in this thread, some of which takes some finding due to the number of entries. On the comments by Tony Wright I fully agree with him and looking at my layout the hardest thing is to model a realistic scene with buildings, scenery et al to reach up to the standard of the current (last ten years) rolling stock. I model in the 1946-8 period and the number of great locomotives available has caused embarrassment to my wallet. Over the last five years I have purchased 13 Hornby and 26 Bachmann steam engines. The balance has as much to do with what fits my railway as to which company produces the best locomotives. If I was s Southern fan, which I am not, Hornby would no doubt have a greater share of my cash. Which are the best? No idea! They all run very well and all look the part. None have disappointed me so it is all about even.

 

Will this continue to be the case? That is the real question. On the evidence, which is a bit thin, at this time the fact is that unless Bachmann join Hornby in the ‘dumbing down’ to a Railroad type range they will get all my business over the next five years. That said, if Hornby can make a bigger profit from the Railroad products then that is where they need to be.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

One thing Hornby could (may!) do with the 'DoG' is to have separate mouldings for the Railroad and Mainstream(?) models' deflectors: the Railroad one with moulded on handrails and the mainstream one with separate ones. Maybe even etched ones for the latter.

 

The side-on view appears to show the model with separate handrails at the back of the cab, separate ladders on the back of the tender and full pipework etc on the front bufferbeam: indeed, this picture appears to show a DoG to the same standards as the 'Britannias'. The comparison CADs of a 'Brit' and 'DoG' appears to show the DoG with lower firebox sides and ashpans with moulded-on details but there might be a second such moulding with separately-applied pipework which can be fitted by the buyer, without moulded-on detail. Now that's what I would call a 'clever design'!

 

Should we perhaps wait and see?

 

JE

The thought has just occurred to me that it might be possible in these days of 3D printing to have a single main body moulding with the detail 'printed' on to produce the Railroad version but accept separately applied detail parts if this stage is skipped. So we could all be right (and wrong) !

[Guest jim s-w]

I dunno, 3d printing is too expensive and the quality isnt good enough for a finished product straight off the bat.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[BlackRat]

It seems then that we (didn't, or perhaps don't want to) pays our money and takes our choice.

 

I'd like to think that Hornby knows and understands it's market a little better than what we do.

 

Perhaps they don't always get it right but perhaps us who post on here ...............are just the tip of a somewhat larger RM iceburg?

 

How many modelers really care if their buffers are sprung or if the motor is a 5 pole or 3 with a flywheel?

 

Detail and whisltles and bells cost money.

 

You pay for what you get, and we know how deep some Railway Modelers purses are don't we!

[ThaneofFife]

Sprung buffers are important to those operating scale coupling distances although if you are happy with standard tension locks then fixed buffers are fine and wouldnt be out of place on cheaper products for those that like to fettle with such things.

[coachmann]

Reference Harold MacMillans "You never had it so good", he was right. After 1951 we saw the last of the rationing lifted, thousands of council houses built, gradual wage increases and a general feeling of well-being. When I started work in 1957 I could walk in and out of jobs at will, even starting mid-week. When I married in 1961 I started to buy an old Coronation Street type house and had everything to look forward to. But it wouldnt have mattered if Lord God Almighty and his twelve deciples were running the Government. Left-wing thinking was gaining the ascendency fanned on by spurious television programmes and by 1965 the never had it so good times were over. I got out and started from scratch building a new recession-proof life!

 

Politics I know but it does give a personal background to the well-known phrase.

[Nimbus]

 

 

 

BlackRat, on 31 Dec 2012 - 11:35, said:

 

It seems then that we (didn't, or perhaps don't want to) pays our money and takes our choice.

I'd like to think that Hornby knows and understands it's market a little better than what we do.

Perhaps they don't always get it right but perhaps us who post on here ...............are just the tip of a somewhat larger RM iceburg?

 

 

Hornby may have inadvertently provided a test case to determine if/whether we here are representative of profitable customers. 

 

Remember the stick the Gresley gangwayed coaches received on launch, on account of their fundamental moulding shortcomings?

Remember the more recent gobsmacked praise for the Thompson non-gangwayed coaches, and the baying for a believable Maunsell push-pull set?

 

Didn't the relative take-up of these in the wider world correlate rather well with our opinions of them?

 

Cheers,

The Nim

[Guest Phil]

However we are talking 'report to shareholders' presentation so that inevitably put a particular slant on things but at the same time what we don't know is which version of Hornby's rendering of 'Tornado' got the better sales (I think we can possibly make a good guess).  The more interesting thing to know would be which market sectors bought the 'cooking' version and who bought the 'super-dooper' - and how that might influence Hornby's future strategy.  And of course the point you make about 'Tornado' being atypical could be a very telling one when it comes to less well known steam locos which might not appeal to such a wide market.

So it could well be back to the days of scalpels, needle files, and - in my case - flour paper (not so harsh as wet or dry I think).

Interesting you mention shareholders Mike. I wonder how the Shareholders feel about R3151

 

http://www.modelrailwayloft.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/3/r3151_1_.jpg

 

Not sure when Triang originally introduced this, but Hornby superceded it with the scale class 08 shunter with correct outside frames and flycranks. Despite the younger and vastly more accurate interpretation, the geriatric old innacurate diesel with it's jinty chassis has had money invested in it by adding DCC. Fair enough, the model doesn't owe the company anything, but is it really fair in this day and age to encourage the innocent modellers to buy such innacurate tat, just because a DCC chip has been wired to it ?

 

If Hornby had any respect for their consumers, the old inaccurate inside frame 08 would be consigned to the dustbin, with a warm and contented feeling by the shareholders for a model that sold thousands and made the company a pretty penny.

 

That Hornby is what you should be doing - having some respect for your consumers, instesd of taking the mickey with marketing buzzwords, that mean different things to different folk, and don't actually mean anything other than "possibly moulded handrails or roof vents".

[James]

Sprung buffers are important to those operating scale coupling distances although if you are happy with standard tension locks then fixed buffers are fine and wouldnt be out of place on cheaper products for those that like to fettle with such things.

 

No quite true - most sprung buffers are far too stiff to offer any real use in the smaller scales without causing derailments. They can also cause vehicles to bounce off each other in a very unattractive manner too.

 

On wagons I'm currently building I'm just fitting solid buffers as sprung adds to the cost and time required.

[Ian J.]

Also, sprung buffers really only come into their own if they're used as per prototype - that is, with little to no slop in the wheel/track standard and with three link or AJs. The unrealistic curves of trainset OO require the use of a sloppy gauge standard and hence the use of tension locks. Therefore sprung buffers might have use in a hi-fi RTR model, but are a bit pointless in mid or low-fi.

['CHARD]

I wouldn't want to see anyone railroaded into buying an R3151, Phil.

 

 

EDIT: on second thoughts, even the ex-Lima 09026 would be an improvement over this railborne clown.  

 

When I was under ten, the Wrenn 350 showed this looney-tune a clean pair of wheels.