Hornby P2

[great northern]

Nice review of mock up P2 in the latest BRM magazine. Tony Wright has given a good review but he is far to kind to Hornby on the detail changes made to a current Loco compared to previous Hornby Models due to saving money.

 

The Loco uses the non corridor type Tender whilst a superb version of this Tender already exists , Hornby have gone to expense of creating a new version with Moulded handrails. I can see no logic in this whatsoever. Perhaps the moulds have been withheld from Hornbys current factory who knows? The costing on this bears no comparison to the saving of producing the model with a few small straight moulded handrails. But is only mentioned in passing by Tony.

 

 

The review however is spolit by the following  comments in the text  relating to and I quote

 

" Despite ignorant speculation by some of those who inhabit  the (sometimes) twilight world of websites" this comment simply relates to the use  of  moulded handrails on the model !!.

He then continues. "No doubt some will wring their hands but are they prepared to go the whole way and add say £30.00 to the cost of the model?

He then mentions that he could be accused of nepotism that he should make such comments (why has he got too?) to defend Hornbys decision relating to cost cutting. He then mentions the Backhead which whilst nicely detailed is not detail printed theron and the lack of the oil drive as used on the current Hornby A4's and even on the Railroad version  "

 

Whilst not personally bothering me in the slightest.  I did find them to be most strange and unecessary comments to be made and published in the context of a review of a mock up Locomotive model.

 

Who knows some of the lacking features may even be on the production model anyway ?

I'm afraid this once again illustrates the dangers of passing comment without being in full possession of the facts. You have stated in bold type that the model Tony reviewed is a "mock up". It is not,  it is the first production model off the line. All that is missing is the bag of "add on" bits. Thus there is no speculation at all in the review, though there was in the post above. I have seen and handled the model, and watched it run. It is exactly what will be available to purchase in due course.

 

There is one other observation I feel compelled to make. Tony made reference to the (sometimes) twilight world of websites. Mick quoted him correctly, but subsequent posters have chosen to omit the word "sometimes". The media may choose to edit in this way to achieve their own ends, but I would hope that we could avoid so doing on here, and respond to what was actually said, rather than just to part of it. And with due respect to Mick, the words or abbreviation of "in my opinion" should surely preface the statement that "he is far too kind to Hornby". He clearly thinks that, but others may not. Statements of opinion should not be given as if they were incontravertable fact.

 

Tony will be responding in more detail in due course, and will deal with some of the other points Mick has raised.

[jwealleans]

Gilbert has beaten me to picking up the 'mock up' point.  I was also at Tony's that weekend, saw and handled the model and formed my own opinion.  I had been agnostic, but I ordered one on the following Monday morning.  I thought the review was informed, informative, balanced and fair.  Having seen the subject myself, I also agreed with it entirely.

[micklner]

Further to my earlier post

 

When the article contains the following comments with reference to the relevant article  pages below.

 

Page 91

 

the only one available for inspection a "running" prototype so to speak.

 

Neither does it have all the additions which the production model will surely have- (then a list of parts).

 

Page 93 general comment on how the Tender maybe attached and how perhaps where the DCC provision maybe fitted, then if  the Loco copies recent offerings the decoder might be fitted in the tender as well as pickups.

 

Next column will it be provided with etched nameplates.

 

 

To me none of this says a production version but in my words a "mock up" and I still hold that opinion. I think every review of preproduction models huge amounts of unecessary froth and I have no idea why people cannot wait for the actual model before commenting .

 

I will also repeat none of what Tony said has personally bothered me. But I still hold the opinion that the other mentioned comments, in a published article where unecessary and spoilt a good review of the model Tony had in his possesion.

[micklner]

I'm afraid this once again illustrates the dangers of passing comment without being in full possession of the facts. You have stated in bold type that the model Tony reviewed is a "mock up". It is not,  it is the first production model off the line. All that is missing is the bag of "add on" bits. Thus there is no speculation at all in the review, though there was in the post above. I have seen and handled the model, and watched it run. It is exactly what will be available to purchase in due course.

 

There is one other observation I feel compelled to make. Tony made reference to the (sometimes) twilight world of websites. Mick quoted him correctly, but subsequent posters have chosen to omit the word "sometimes". The media may choose to edit in this way to achieve their own ends, but I would hope that we could avoid so doing on here, and respond to what was actually said, rather than just to part of it. And with due respect to Mick, the words or abbreviation of "in my opinion" should surely preface the statement that "he is far too kind to Hornby". He clearly thinks that, but others may not. Statements of opinion should not be given as if they were incontravertable fact.

 

Tony will be responding in more detail in due course, and will deal with some of the other points Mick has raised.

GN

 

I agree re your comment relating to mock up and have amended my posting to reflect this.

[jwealleans]

I've just been asked to post the following from Tony Wright:

 

 

I note some comments on Hornby's P2 thread with my current review in BRM. Perhaps a few points might clarify the situation.

 

Regarding Micklner's post, I can assure him that the model I had for review is not a pre-production one at all, but the first off the production line. The only things missing were the add-on bits which will be on the locos for sale.

His point about the tender is wide of the mark I'm afraid, though his reference to who knows what is well observed. The tender was derived from the A3 one, which has all the separate handrails, but it's still cheaper to 'modify' the tooling or produce a new master (the prototype research and preparatory work already have been done) to include moulded-on handrails rather than add the eventual cost of an individual worker fitting separate handrails on a production line. That is why the Hornby A3 tender was not used as it is. If everything were fitted/painted - separate handrails all round, lubricator drive (what's an oil drive?), fully-painted backhead or what you will on this P2 - I'm sure the cost would be nearer £200.00. Perhaps some folk would be prepared to pay this but, I assume, because I'm not privy to everything, Hornby's target market is aimed at a lower price (and I see it's advertised already at under £100.00). As to why I wrote some of the other things, he's entitled to his opinion and I respect that.

I'm glad he included my qualification (sometimes) with regard to my comments about a 'twilight world' of websites, because some subsequent commentators seemed to have missed that point; it would seem their believing that I meant everyone who posts. But, some 'ignorant' (meaning not knowing about something) comments based on nothing more than supposition can be damaging to potential sales, and this has a lot more to do than just moulded-on handrails. I think that some exception is taken by manufacturers by the anonymity of it all. On many occasions I've given talks, demonstrations, lectures and presentations to a wide range of clubs and societies and there's always been the opportunity for a face-to-face discussion (or disagreement) afterwards. That said, many of the comments made on websites (even if you don't know by whom they're made) are intelligent, enlightening and informative, hence my qualification of 'sometimes'. I 'sometimes' wish folk would read exactly what I've written and realise the context. 

But, to return to the P2, though some might find I've been too kind, I reviewed it for what it is, not for what some folk might like it to be. That is, built to a budget but still a very fine model. If you wish to see it working, visit BRM's MRL soon where there'll be a few minutes' presentation of it pulling 23 carriages (half brass kit-builds). It does in model form what a P2 did in reality, and more. If you can see the moulded-on handrails, then well done!

 

 

Posted on behalf of Tony Wright by Jonathan Wealleans

[micklner]

       Good reply from Tony, which has highlighted the paragraph I was questioning in the first place. This is relating to it being a published comment in a magazine. Not everybody is on the internet and or/on this Forum and will not see this reply. They will only read the magazine and read as written.

       It is a shame that Tony never wrote in the article that this IS a production model and would have saved a lot of unecessary speculation.

       I have no idea of the economies of model production but if it cheaper to retool a model instead of paying someone to fix four handrails on a model then that is crazy (bearing in mind how few ? Hornby will probably make as well) . Shame they just didnt leave the handrails  in a bag in the first place and then we might have had some production P2's running on layouts months ago.

 

 

    I look forward to seeing the video in due course.

[jwealleans]

One further comment from Tony:

 

 

Further to what's been posted, some of my comments in the review might be considered speculative, the possibility of tender pick-up for instance. My reasons for mentioning things like this were to point out that the (potential) provision for tender pick-up is built in and, yes, the rest of the models might have it, or might not. However, I don't see this as materially affecting my conclusions (though some might) and at least it lets people know. But, essentially, what I reviewed is what you'll get when the things are on sale. This actual model will be going to the other magazines as well and it's already been with one - perhaps the others will wait for one 'off the shelf' to fully pass comment. And, if folk think that my comments were disingenuous in any way or reflected a bias of favouritism towards a product, they are entitled to their own opinion, which I respect. But, even at the full price asked (£122.99), how am I being too favourable towards Hornby?

 

 

Posted on behalf of Tony Wright by Jonathan Wealleans

[coachmann]

It seems a trifle odd to me that we are discussing Hornby, its moulded handrails, why they are there now and not before, and how their locos might cost £200.00 if real handles were there, as if this was the only model manufacturer in town. Surely no one could fail to have noticed that Bachmann continues to fit separate fittings most of the time, does not appear to be cost-cutting and its locos are nowhere close to £200.00.

 

Some buyers are merely reminding Hornby that unilaterally bucking the market brings with it consequences. The 'Cock '0 the North' is just the kind of loco that might never have appeared without some cost-cutting, but wait until Hornby does a run-of-the-mill loco that is not green and is not an express type. It's potential sales will be much reduced if 'scale modellers' are not prepared to pay for 1970's detail. Even without the assistance of Mystic Megs crystal ball, I foresee a stage where people will be hoping their favourite wish-list loco is NOT done by Hornby if they have to replace detail. Only if Bachmann admits it has to follow the same path will I begin to agree with Hornby's stance.

 

EDIT: I should add that my concerns relate to steam outline locos. I have no idea what the state of affairs is on Diesel locos.

Edited November 12, 2013 by coachmann

[Bon Accord]

Well said.

Like many railway modellers, I have my own personal wish list of locos I'd like to see, however the one common theme amongst them all is that I hope none of that wish list is attempted by either Hornby or Heljan, as both seem to find new and ever inventive ways to annoy the people that buy their product and pay their wages.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Bon Accord

[miles73128]

Larry,

Like many railway modellers, I have my own personal wish list of locos I'd like to see, however the one common theme amongst them all is that I hope none of that wish list is attempted by either Hornby or Heljan, as both seem to find new and ever inventive ways to annoy the people that buy their product and pay their wages.

Erm, have you got a Heljan class 16? It's superb

Edited November 12, 2013 by miles73128

[Bon Accord]

Erm, have you got a Heljan class 16? It's superb

 

That's one of those grease driven engines, aint it?

[miles73128]

That's one of those grease driven engines, aint it?

Yes, it's not a kettle.....................

[Bon Accord]

Well there you go, if it had been a proper loco I might have noticed.

[G-BOAF]

 

The 'Cock '0 the North' is just the kind of loco that might never have appeared without some cost-cutting, but wait until Hornby does a run-of-the-mill loco that is not green and is not an express type. It's potential sales will be much reduced if 'scale modellers' are not prepared to pay for 1970's detail. Even without the assistance of Mystic Megs crystal ball, I foresee a stage where people will be hoping their favourite wish-list loco is NOT done by Hornby if they have to replace detail. Only if Bachmann admits it has to follow the same path will I begin to agree with Hornby's stance.

 

I'm not convinced the the argument that 'there's no way a P2 and 8P could have been done at full wack'. We've had the LMS Twins, also odd balls, produced by TWO manufacturers! So really that defeats the argument. Something as iconic as a P2, or indeed the Duke, especially with its preservation record, would have attracted full wack sales.

 

The Duke in particular was my favourate wish-list loco, and I'm totally gutted that Hornby are cutting corners on it. A few years ago I was normally erring towards HRN on new locos because of finish and chassis standards (esp axle bearings) now we've spun 180 degrees. Bachmann certainly mechanically have improved. Personally my only interest with the P2 will be when the A1 trust have built theirs. Hopefully the Trut's association with Bachmann will ensure that Barwell incorporate it into their range at a suitable moment.

 

Either that, or if Hornby release an unpainted version, at a suitable reduction (say £100 off) that will cover the cost of fitting sepearte handrails and getting a professional paint job

[micklner]

One further comment from Tony:

 

 

Further to what's been posted, some of my comments in the review might be considered speculative, the possibility of tender pick-up for instance. My reasons for mentioning things like this were to point out that the (potential) provision for tender pick-up is built in and, yes, the rest of the models might have it, or might not. However, I don't see this as materially affecting my conclusions (though some might) and at least it lets people know. But, essentially, what I reviewed is what you'll get when the things are on sale. This actual model will be going to the other magazines as well and it's already been with one - perhaps the others will wait for one 'off the shelf' to fully pass comment. And, if folk think that my comments were disingenuous in any way or reflected a bias of favouritism towards a product, they are entitled to their own opinion, which I respect. But, even at the full price asked (£122.99), how am I being too favourable towards Hornby?

 

 

Posted on behalf of Tony Wright by Jonathan Wealleans

 

 

    The problem with you thinking that you are showing favourtism towards Hornby is that it reads that way , Your comments come over as giving excuses for the reasons Hornby have decided to make the Loco to a price not a standard. Surely that is for Hornby to justify not an independent reviewer.

 

 

      Either Hornby are producing models to the current expected high standards or not. produing in between standards models are not what people want . They have missed what people want on this loco and others in the future.  They could/should have produced a full fat version and then a basic Railroad version as a alternative. I wonder how many modellers will buy the Railroad version in preference, other than better lining what is the difference between the two versions anyway? As it stands perhaps some will add the extra detail and then respray anyway.

      What Hornby should do is have two clear ranges of models a High Quality range and a Railroad/Basic starter range and nothing between the two standards . They need have a  change of names for the two ranges making it obvious to a buyer what they are getting for their money. The number of models being produced as toys that children could actually play with are now very few due to level of detail and fragility. Hornby need to decide in a hurry what they are actually selling in the future before it is too late.

      No one wants to buy 1970's style models unless they are to be belting around a small oval for young children to wreck in due course and then get binned.

[davidw]

Careful, if we continue  with this line or we'll have Bachmann annoucing a P2

[Miss Prism]

No one wants to buy 1970's style models unless they are to be belting around a small oval for young children to wreck in due course and then get binned.

 

That'll be approximately 90% of the market, then...

[stewartingram]

I've said this in passing before, and for what it is worth I will repeat it. My opinion only btw, I have no firm proof but only a strong feeling it is true.

 

In days of yore -Triang-Hornby days no less - the company introduced a generic loco every now and again (2 in a year was a good time). When it appeared, you got a representation of a typical member of the class, often with "stores bin" components (wheels, cylinders, bogies for instance). Sometimes the result was pretty good; sometimes not. BUT the important thing here, it was now in the catalogue. And it kept on being produced year in, year out. They budgeted for a sale (to retailers, please note, NOT the general public) of a certain number in a given period, call this quantity X in period Y. Now, every company has R&D costs which have to be recouped, (X in Y covers this) before a profit is made. I'm not privvy to the figures, but I bet that the period Y was something like 2 years sales to the trade. And they still kept producing after that, with NO further redevelopment (no livery changes, no details altered, nor modifications of any sort) so from then on it was all profit after the build costs were taken out.

 

Nowadays, many more locos are introduced, each one a detailed model of an individual loco. Generally a small batch (250 and 512 are figures often quoted) is produced, rarely after that is another batch done without modification. How many DIFFERENT A3 builds have Hornby done? Each one has incurred R&D costs. The point I am making, is that nowadays the R&D cost recovery is over the FULL (but short) run of the model (our quantity X again), with NO follow on of just-for-profit builds thereafter.  Hence the increase in trade (and ultimately, retail) prices. I suspect our fad with wanting accuracy with each loco (not class of loco) has therefore driven the costs up so high. The move to low wage production in China originally helped to disguise this; now the bird is truly coming home to nest, with the better standards of living rapidly happenning over there.

 

Stewart

[Legend]

But isn't it absolutely perplexing that it's less expensive to modify the tender to have handrails rather than having someone hand fit them. I know costs are going up in China.........but really?!? As has been pointed out Bachmann isn't doing this on models retailing around £75. And as the tooling has been modified , does this mean that future A3s will have the same moulded on handrails?. Will the cost come down to the P2 price point......I'll bet not!

[Miss Prism]

The tender was derived from the A3 one, which has all the separate handrails, but it's still cheaper to 'modify' the tooling or produce a new master (the prototype research and preparatory work already have been done) to include moulded-on handrails rather than add the eventual cost of an individual worker fitting separate handrails on a production line.

 

I'd love to be convinced about that. New insert tooling for a tender body would be in the region of a five-figure sum, and generally, old inserts can't be easily modified, particularly for a complicated cavity like a handrail. It really all hinges around whether Hornby has ready access to its old tooling sets and whether they can be run in the same way on new bolsters. In that respect, there may be no option but to start from new tooling, but that is still expensive of course, so Hornby has to recoup that extra cost. Where the number of bits are few, and the tender product volume is only going to be a few hundred at most, there's not a lot of doubt in my mind that moulds from the old tooling (as it was) plus the cost of adding those bits on a production line would be cheaper than new tooling, even with higher labour costs.

 

I think we've seen from the Star and Hall developments there is little if any consistency over the 'separate v added on' handrails in relation to retail price, so I'm beginning to believe 'the handrails issue' is a secondary aspect, at least a simplistic one, in the debate. Rod and valve gear assembly, painting costs, and bearing-less chassis are to my mind more significant cost factors. Btw, I don't buy the notion of having two versions of the same product, one 'Railroad' the other 'fancy' - the market selling volume will be divided, and thus the tooling costs for both will be even more uneconomic, and Stewart's post above is very pertinent. (Railroad is essentially about using old or someone else's tooling investment, viz the HO continental Electroten 0-6-0 sprayed in green and lettered Great Western.)

 

Since Hornby do not feel inclined to clarify any of the above, and there's no reason why it should, we can only guess in an ad hoc manner from our occasional twilight zone, and any statements to the effect that moulded handrails necessarily cost less money or added-on ones cost more remain speculation where historic tooling exists. The killer for Hornby in my view will be reruns of past 'golden-era, high-spec' Sanda Kan, like a Bulleid, and Tony's "nearer £200.00" is probably very applicable to that scenario. P2 aside, if the prices being quoted to Hornby by Kader are considerably in excess to those quoted to Bachmann, there's little Hornby can do except to ponder its predicament or begin to re-establish itself elsewhere. Toy pricing has always been about what the market can afford. Shafting the opposition is a bonus.

 

 

 

[micklner]

Miss P

          Agree with all of your posting. The only reason I mentioned Railroad is simply because Hornby have announced the two versions of the P2 .

         I am not a fan of the range and I presume this range has been a hit with modellers on a budget and  younger modellers and their parents. I also presume Hornby are making some money out of old moulds releases. Presumably not much as no other makers (that I know off) have bothered following their lead on this idea.

[jwealleans]

From Tony Wright:

 

 

In response to Micklner and others, just a couple or so final observations, please.

I'm astonished that Micklner knows what people want. I wish I did. Has he conducted a survey? He also seems to know exactly what Hornby should do. Might I respectfully suggests that he does what I've done in the past (and present) and become an adviser (in a very modest way) to Hornby (and to Bachmann, Heljan and to umpteen kit manufacturers, too)? That way, when things aren't right, the person to blame can be highlighted. 

If I'm perceived by some as favouring Hornby by what I've written, then that's their opinion, and, as I've said, I respect it. 

But, does he suggest that I don't contact a manufacturer before a review is written and learn some of the reasoning behind a new model? I don't have to be an apologist for Hornby (or any manufacturer), I'm merely stating facts. I do exactly the same thing with all the reviews I write. Have I been an apologist with my review of the Graham Farish A1 in the same issue, suggesting that it's as good as it gets in N gauge, despite the 'faults'? I contacted the guys at Barwell before I wrote the review to see what they had to say. 

Hornby has got its manufacturing strategy dead right with the P2 in my opinion and the firm has identified its target market and its target price. At under a 100 quid it'll sell out fast (at RRP, too), most folk will be happy and the company will make a profit. If it's not good enough for 'you' then don't buy it, or use it as a marvellous base for super-detailing. 

I've no wish for this to turn into a slanging match but I do think opinions should not be expressed as 'facts'. I'd trust Hornby (or any other manufacturer) to know its market pretty well - that's why I enquire. If that market is not aimed at 'you' (for whatever reasons), then don't 'shoot' the 'messenger' for bringing you the information.

If my reviews fall below the standards expected of some, then I sincerely apologise. However, some seem to think them fair, so I must be doing the occasional thing right. I certainly don't have all the answers and my future reviews will continue to be viewed with ambivalence at best.      

Posted on behalf of Tony Wright by Jonathan Wealleans

[micklner]

Tony

 

As I have been selected by name .

 

I do not delude myself to think I know what people want and as you said neither do you either. All of my comments are obviously my opinion and nothing else why would anyone think otherwise .

 

I can read the vast majority of comments on here and on other many other similar thread on RM Web and elsewhere relating to Hornbys products .  I can also read the results of published surveys so have no need of conducting one of my own. As to being a advisor I await the PM I look forward to giving  my help !!!.

 

I am (and it would appear many others) are not impressed how Hornby are developing at the moment or perhaps into the future. In a mystical ideal world prices are dirt cheap ,quality is 100% + and everybody is totally happy. The world evolves as it always does and now prices are 100% ++ and everything else is going the other way. Hornby in the case of the P2 will still sell them as its attractive and a bargain price for what you are getting. Yes I will buy one, whether its worth trying to improve its looks remain to be decided on reciept.

But my point all along is for the sake of £20 £30 or whatever price is pulled out of the sky to justify Hornbys pricing for the sake of few quid extra it could have been a model of the year by a country mile.

Why Hornby have set the price is their decison as is the bizarre one of (if they want to save money) to make then make  two versions of a one off Locomotive is their decision and I am still unaware of who they consider their "target market" for either version.  

 

I see no problem in you contacting anybody or company in assessing a model in fact excellent research , well done !!

[Nelson Jackson]

My brother (age 11) wants one now after I showed him these superb photos.

He can't wait, and neither can I

[Nimbus]

Even without the assistance of Mystic Megs crystal ball, I foresee a stage where people will be hoping their favourite wish-list loco is NOT done by Hornby if they have to replace detail. Only if Bachmann admits it has to follow the same path will I begin to agree with Hornby's stance.

 

I already do, where the subject has any degree of tumblehome. Hornby don't do tumblehome.

The Nim.