Simon Says

[S.A.C Martin]

Er, I think Simon Kohler's blog, far from justifying the decision, actually says that in that case they got it wrong... 

 

Yes, and in that he states the smokebox door dart - the least of Hornby's concerns for that model, frankly - is the only thing to be retooled.

 

Have they learned nothing? If the chassis of a model is sound then the modellers will follow and will buy. I do not understand what research Hornby undertook that told them removing brass bearings on axles was the way to go, but if your competitors are physically adding this feature to older models, why would you risk PR suicide by removing them?

 

I understand entirely the aesthetic changes with moulded handrails, unsprung buffers and the like which lower the level of manufacturing interaction at the assembly level but to alter the specification of the bits which make the locomotive move so drastically seems to have been thrown in for the sheer hell of it to reduce costs in manufacturing further and without a thought for the potential bad running - and bad press - that might occur.

 

Moulded details can be replaced and improved, but the basic running of a model cannot be improved beyond its design constraints without major modification, and in particular look at DoG as an example of this. With square axle boxes and axles without bearings set into them, the Heavy Tanks and DoG are hopefully a blip on the otherwise excellent record of a company which has produced beautifully running models at all levels for the last two decades. 

 

I think the underlying problem with Hornby is that they picked entirely the wrong moment to alter course with their design ethos when they were already knee deep in problems with the manufacturing capacity and unavailable tooling. To then kick yourself when you yourself are down is incredible!

[Ozexpatriate]

... how many Bachman models have rotating fans or opening smokebox doors? I can't think of a Bachmann example of the former, from what I can remember only Hornby thought they were a good idea..

There certainly are Bachmann models with opening smokebox doors I have one (a GWR City) where one of the hinges wasn't glued on. This is a 'cute' feature. Unless you are modeling a static shed scene, it's not necessary to the appearance of the model.

[pheaton]

There certainly are Bachmann models with opening smokebox doors I have one (a GWR City) where one of the hinges wasn't glued on. This is a 'cute' feature. Unless you are modeling a static shed scene, it's not necessary to the appearance of the model.

and the fans rotate.....if you blow hard enough

[mow]

So when did Hornby discover that all was not well with Sanda Kan's finances? Kent must be wondering how they have missed the fine spinner from Margate.

[MikeParkin65]

If the model runs well most users aren't going to get to the stage of looking to see what the bearings are like - if it ain't broken you don't (usually!) try to 'fix' it. I certainly have no complaints about my Bachmann Fairburn nor 9F, both of which lack separate bearings.

 

If the mechanism doesn't perform well as I understand is the case with GWR tanks and DoG (I have neither) then clearly we do have cause for concern but it is too simplistic to say that lack of brass bearings is inherently bad.

[Legend]

Quite a candid account, as far as it goes. I do wonder if Simon is a bit Poacher turned Gamekeeper here, or probably vice versa actually! As SAC Martin says too much emphasis on the cosmetic parts rather than the mechanics . Still no acknowledgement on the downspecing of the chassis. That really is the critical one . But it seems out of sight out of mind with Hornby., if you can't see it it's ok. But at least we are getting more of the story here. Can't wait for the 4 VEP revelations.

 

The other major thing of course was not having a dual source of supply. So when Sanda Kan went................

[S.A.C Martin]

If the model runs well most users aren't going to get to the stage of looking to see what the bearings are like - if it ain't broken you don't (usually!) try to 'fix' it. I certainly have no complaints about my Bachmann Fairburn nor 9F, both have which lack separate bearings.

 

If the mechanism doesn't perform well as I understand is the case with GWR tanks and DoG (I have neither) then clearly we do have cause for concern but it is too simplistic to say that lack of brass bearings is inherently bad.

 

Yes, perhaps you are right on that point on reflection: however if I may counter: bad running - and particularly bad running - has been reported with DoG, the Stars, and the heavy tanks. The like of which hasn't been seen on those produced before, and within the period where chassis had brass bearings. It cannot be a coincidence and indeed with my modelling it is noticeable that the ones with brass bearings on axles in set into the chassis are the quietest and best running - particularly the Thompson O1 which also has a flywheel added.

[railroadbill]

It seems to me that the chassis on recent  Hornby locos like B1 or rebuilt WC for instance is as good or better than an average kit or scatch built chassis - (leaving aside that some people can of course produce extremely well engineered chassis themselves).  5 pole motors, lower gearing for very slow speed running, tender pickups, - and decent bearings. The sprung rear driving axle of the black 5  is a clever arrangement. It's therefore a shame that a retrogressive lower spec has been introduced on some very recent locos. I think that a decent mechanical spec is worth paying more for. 

This is of course just my opinion, but in my experience these higher spec chassis locos do run very smoothly, can run slowly and without hesitation across points etc.

 

As an aside, I should go back to the Star thread but does the Star have the square axle box chassis as well?

[Andy Hayter]

without disagreeing with you at all because i dont know, what is your idea for a realistic price? You cant determine this without knowing the costs which have gone into the design, development, and manufacture and delivery for each model?

 

To be honest that is a very difficult question to answer if you are not in the industry, and the answer will be dependent to a large part on how many models can be supplied and sold.

I think however the results from Kader (4.6m$ loss) and Hornby (coincidentally 4.6m£ loss) says that last years prices are a way away from sustainable.

 

Further, when a large steam tender loco in the EU costs the equivalent of £250, and a similar one from the Bachmann China range (for supply to the Chinese market) costs £225, and when UK modellers expect/demand to get their ones for under £100, then something is wrong and out of balance.

 

I would like to think and indeed I do hope that the current increases take us to a sustainable price - and it is still below comparative prices for similar types elsewhere.

[The Stationmaster]

Maybe, it provides an excuse for the 'bearings' but they didn't have moulded handrails. Would it have cost more to remove the spurious lamp irons or put the rear buffer beam numbers on the right side?

 

Nick

I think your getting very much to the point there Nick.  As I said at the time the GW tanks looked as if the budget had run out partway through development and what hadn't been finished on the body by the time of the cut never was (together with lot of cost cutting on the chassis).  I also said I would have been more than happy to pay an extra £10-20 if they had been done properly (and I would have bought the same quantity of them) and I seem to recall at one stage, before they appeared, I even wondered why their price was so low.

 

It's interesting also to compare your comment here with CJL's comments in Model Rail 198 about internet criticism of new releases.  Apart from having a budget knife run through them the engines included silly errors which would seem to have been down to inadequate research - as it happens I think it's perfectly fair to be critical of such errors although we have to remember that research is also part of the development cost.  But it's here that we see a different approach from some commissioners and new manufacturers (including the new to the UK manufacturer) where models in development are revealed to those who can add information, usually at no cost at all to the manufacturer.  It's a step that Hornby  might do well to take and one they shouldn't be afraid to take.

[Ozexpatriate]

But it's here that we see a different approach from some commissioners and new manufacturers (including the new to the UK manufacturer) where models in development are revealed to those who can add information, usually at no cost at all to the manufacturer.

There's always "a cost" to the manufacturer, even in sharing CAD online. The direct cost is related to time spent producing the data to share, and taking the time to read the feedback, and then trying to corroborate which of the inconsistent feedback is accurate. (Beattie Well Tank chimney shapes anyone?) Other indirect and direct costs relate to possible delays in tooling and additional CAD work to 'get it right'.

 

Nevertheless, if the presumption that 'getting it right' is important and will lead to fewer sales lost due to poorly researched models, and fewer lost recognition opportunities (like Model of the Year), then sharing CAD is a really good idea at a very modest cost.

 

It's a step that Hornby  might do well to take and one they shouldn't be afraid to take.

Indeed so.

[MikeParkin65]

Can't use the quote function for some reason but I agree with SAC Martin railroadbill that chassis from what has previously been described as 'the golden age' are superb runners. However the point is that both for cost reasons and loss of a significant part of a skilled workforce Hornby aren't in a position to deliver models to the same standard as we have become accustomed to. There have been reports on this forum that recent production runs of 'golden age' models have not been up to the same standard as of old - this has affected A4's, Duchess's and Granges so one aspect of 'design clever' needs to be to ensure that the product can be assembled reliably by a less skilled workforce.

[robmcg]

... for cost reasons and loss of a significant part of a skilled workforce Hornby aren't in a position to deliver models to the same standard as we have become accustomed to. There have been reports on this forum that recent production runs of 'golden age' models have not been up to the same standard as of old - this has affected A4's, Duchess's and Granges so one aspect of 'design clever' needs to be to ensure that the product can be assembled reliably by a less skilled workforce.

Yet to be proven, that Hornby cannot do as well as the Sanda Kan days. Certainly some recent models have fallen short in detail issues, like A4 number-placement, and a few in important QC things like DoG pickups and possibly Duchess wheel-gauge tolerance, but others currently manufactured in new factories are right up there with Sanda Kan's best. I don't think the design of the new weathered Grange is significantly simpler than the recent older versions. Forever optimistic, that's me. What I DO enjoy is the ability to buy the excellent models of 2006-2011 at good prices second hand; just bought an as-new 'Resolven Grange' for £80, slight mark on box.

 

Even at best, Sanda Kan weren't perfect. My recent A4 2509 'Silver Link' made in 2010-11 still has those A4 ride-height issues at the cab-tender, only about 1mm but not perfect. Only really only shows up in photos.

 

Oh, ..and the GWR heavy tanks while a bit lacking were and are still very nice models in my opinion when assembled right, and now have separate smokebox handles.

 

My point is that you are basically right, but all is not lost, and Hornby are doing well so far in re-establishing Sanda Kan-like quality. As to the DoG I have several and they are all ok and half the price of similar models in EU markets or even Chinese markets.

[dibber25]

Even if they're poor knock-offs that someone else put their heart and soul into designing.

 

Granted, some people are doing some modelling with them but.....

Well said, Andy. 

[trisonic]

I’m so glad that I model the USA scene........

 

Best, Pete.

[S.A.C Martin]

Well said, Andy.

The inference appears to be that the Great British Locomotive magazine series is drawing sales away from the major manufacturers by virtue of producing cheap plastic knock offs.

 

The further inference is that modellers by association (myself included) are supporting piracy effectively by buying these up and using them for modelling.

 

For my own part, I don't think that's true and I find it interesting that a part work supported by the National Railway Museum and written by a fairly well known railway writer - Tony Streeter - is getting flack in this manner.

 

Let's consider the facts. I'm an LNER modeller and as such require a lot of Pacifics. These Pacifics come in many types and require tenders.

 

Tenders and in particular the eight wheel varieties are not available singly from Hornby so you would buy them on eBay for extortionate amounts or - if the product were actually available from the manufacturer at any given time - buy new models to mix and match.

 

This not being possible you the modeller are forced to buy kits or - as I am doing - buy these cheap models and - shock horror - do some modelling. The results speak for themselves.

 

At a recent gathering of like minded folk, one member of the group commented that these models were likely to induce purchases of RTR models and kits rather than take them away from the industry. In what way? You will still need to find a suitable chassis to motorise them or you'll buy locomotives to go in front of them.

 

That's what's been happening and for me, it's a breath of fresh air to see some actual modelling for a change and find very creative ones at that.

 

You cannot blame modellers of all creeds for taking advantage of something cheap that fills a void left by the major manufacturers.

 

Whilst I understand the piracy argument I'd argue that it can't possibly hinder sales of major manufacturers products if the products they are copying very closely in question are not on the shelves in numbers and at fair prices to purchase.

 

That's not the fault of the modeller but an inherent problem of manufacturing in China at the minute.

 

I therefore find it puzzling that a cheap magazine part work can be considered to be doing damage to a market it complements and enhances by encouraging some modelling when the real damage is, as has been the case for nearly a decade, not enough product to market in not enough numbers to sell to those who'll buy it.

[S.A.C Martin]

Can't use the quote function for some reason but I agree with SAC Martin railroadbill that chassis from what has previously been described as 'the golden age' are superb runners. However the point is that both for cost reasons and loss of a significant part of a skilled workforce Hornby aren't in a position to deliver models to the same standard as we have become accustomed to. There have been reports on this forum that recent production runs of 'golden age' models have not been up to the same standard as of old - this has affected A4's, Duchess's and Granges so one aspect of 'design clever' needs to be to ensure that the product can be assembled reliably by a less skilled workforce.

This is something of a misnomer I think and very misleading. The 2012 Railroad Scotsman chassis is designed to be simpler to manufacture and this can be seen in the bottom plate design and the six singular pickups on the chassis, but by being based on previous models chassis it retains some standardisation of parts and thus uses the same brass bearing axles and wheels as the earlier Railroad Tornado and super detail Pacifics, and assuredly requires no real special treatment to put together.

 

So if an excellent mechanism with some standard parts can be achieved by a new Railroad range tooling, why did Hornby cut corners so much in the main range in 2013? The answer is simple, it thought it could and could also charge a premium for it.

 

That's not, as others might hand you believe, wrong per say, they are a business after all. However it takes years to build up a reputation for quality and just minutes to destroy it and your future too. Seconds even, with the advent of the internet! I'd argue "design clever" and the pushing of that point by model railway pundits online and in magazines have done far more damage to Hornby in conjunction with a few badly timed poor (by comparison with previously high standards) models than a plastic magazine knock off ever could.

[Gerald Henriksen]

To be honest that is a very difficult question to answer if you are not in the industry, and the answer will be dependent to a large part on how many models can be supplied and sold.

I think however the results from Kader (4.6m$ loss) and Hornby (coincidentally 4.6m£ loss) says that last years prices are a way away from sustainable.

 

 

We need to be careful not to read too much into any given profit/loss unless one wants to do a lot of research.

 

For example, one can argue Hornby is having difficulty not because of prices, but rather because of a lack of product to sell at any price.  Its hard to bring revenue in when there is nothing in the warehouse to ship to retailers.  Furthermore, as is often the case the new management is taking the opportunity to go through the balance sheet and find any and all possible negatives to put on the first statement to "blame" the previous management - write-off on the Italian business, costs of getting rid of the old executives, etc.

 

As for Kader, while they are still losing money in 2013 on their toys/trains business the loss is actually substantially less than in 2012 (HK$55 million vs HK$90 million), though certainly circumstances in China remain a challenge for everybody.

[Gerald Henriksen]

Simon hit it square on the head (and let's face he knows, and is no longer as bound by party line as he used to be).

Don't assume that.

 

Just as Dave Jones has made clear to those asking him, it is unprofessional for a former employee to start publicly talking negatively about their former employer.

 

As a consultant to Hornby (for now) he is still very much bound by the party line (though the new management may be more willing to be more accessible to their customers), and he won't be exposing the details of the past that many would like to know.

 

 

Despite comments 3 month back supporting Bachmann's price rises, planned quality drops and a more "EU orientated market" (ignoring the fact the UK is drifting out of the EU)... The new class 101 is lower quality than the 105, 108 that preceded it and half the price of those (and still available new) , Reaction is decidedly negative towards it..... In terms of Price and Quality... The litmus test will be the speed it sells ..(as of yet I haven't seen an avalanche of Hornby ones in ebay..if anything those prices are going up).

It is an interesting dilemma, and the problem is this.

 

The UK market is big enough that all these models are made available, but at the same time small enough that no one can afford to have much in the way of duplication in their offerings.

 

For example, the Hornby big tanks had serious issues with them, yet I still bought one.  Why?  Because it is unlikely anyone else will release a competing model, so the choice becomes accept the the problems or do without.  Not an ideal situation, and in the end many (like myself) were forced to hold their nose and buy it anyway.

 

Unfortunately the Bachmann Class 101 will likely be the same.  Yes, it has issues, but given that it is unlikely anyone else will release an accurate model anyone who needs a class 101 for their layout is stuck.  As such, I would expect despite the negatives it will sell well for Bachmann because the market doesn't have a choice.  Which is unfortunate because there is no excuse for the failure of the Bachmann product developers to have allowed those errors to have occurred.

 

Which isn't to say Bachmann (and Hornby) shouldn't be concerned with what is happening.

 

Rapido Trains has just made a big splash of an entry into the UK market, and have a proven track record of delivering accurate, highly detailed, quality models at a reasonable price in the North American market.

 

Similarly, Realtrack models made an impressive entrance with their first DMU.

 

DJModels, while he hasn't yet shipped anything, is promising more of the Rapido / Realtrack type of accurate, detailed product.

 

Every £ spent with them is a £ that Hornby / Bachmann aren't getting.

 

And that's not even considering the kickstarter style option...

 

Reputations can be easily lost, with a resulting loss in revenue over time to competitors who listen to their customers.

 

[jjb1970]

A very interesting and candid article. My feeling with design clever wasn't so much with the concept as with the execution on the GWR tanks. I thought it worked well on the 2BIL and reasonably well on the DoG and Star. That said I also think the GWR tanks whilst annoyingly compromised were far from being the total lemons of some reviews and I'm glad I decided to get a couple despite my misgivings on the design clever bit having not been well done. This is a fundamental point, we can have super detailed models designed for the highest standards of fidelity to prototype, or we can have something like design clever models which are down spec compromises to reduce or at least stabilise cost, but we cannot have all of the honey without paying the money. There are clearly modelers who will pay what it takes to get the best, as evidenced by the number of modelers willing to pay for O Gauge or HO where prices can be pretty eye watering but from these boards it is clear there are a lot of modelers who consider OO to be too expensive. The British market has always been very price sensitive to use the polite euphemism, in the 80's and 90's European HO was very popular and at least part of the reason was that the models were so far ahead of UK OO it was embarrassing, albeit at far higher cost. Whilst I think Hornby could have presented the rationale for design clever a bit better I think there has been a whiff of double standards in some quarters from some who savaged Hornby for taking decisions on the issue around rising costs who appear to be waxing lyrical about Bachmann for announcing that they've pretty well arrived at the same conclusion that OO prices are unsustainable and we either have to pay a lot more or accept lesser models. Personally I'd rather pay for better models but I accept I may be a minority and that if Hornby have decided that the market will not pay the prices necessary for the sort of models they were making at their peak then it is probably a sound decision in business terms. At the moment their main issue seems to be just getting stuff made but the underlying issues that led to design clever (and Bachmann's recent announcements on costs) are not going away.

[Andy Y]

The inference appears to be that the Great British Locomotive magazine series is drawing sales away from the major manufacturers by virtue of producing cheap plastic knock offs.

 

The further inference is that modellers by association (myself included) are supporting piracy effectively by buying these up and using them for modelling.

With respect to the first comment I haven't given that inference at all, if its affected any sales it's probably of secondhand models of old items but it's worth considering the origin of the model and who did all the groundwork and whether the buyer feels its ethical; apparently and largely we wouldn't condone it if it were a cottage industry - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/86521-resin-copying-an-out-of-production-model/

 

I haven't inferred anything on the second point either but if few had bought the early issues of GBL it's unlikely as many issues would have reached retailers' shelves. My original point related to price v quality but it may as well be about price v morals.

[Ian J.]

I like the fact that Simon raised the question of consumer-fitted detail, even if he knows it's a hard sell to the general market. It at least gives it an airing for those of us interested in keeping prices down and are willing to be modellers, not just collectors.

[S.A.C Martin]

With respect to the first comment I haven't given that inference at all, if its affected any sales it's probably of secondhand models of old items but it's worth considering the origin of the model and who did all the groundwork and whether the buyer feels its ethical; apparently and largely we wouldn't condone it if it were a cottage industry - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/86521-resin-copying-an-out-of-production-model/

 

I haven't inferred anything on the second point either but if few had bought the early issues of GBL it's unlikely as many issues would have reached retailers' shelves. My original point related to price v quality but it may as well be about price v morals.

 

You have used the word ethical there Andy: so what should we take from your post other than you infer that it is unethical to buy into that particular part work?

 

Of course the origin of the models are up for scrutiny, but they are not perfect recreations (count the number of washout plugs on the A4's LHS) and certainly require some work to become working models. They are not directly competing with actual working models (and to be frank, there's no competition: they are on the shelves whilst we are yet to see some of the models copied it seems from Hornby's tooling come back to the shelves in any great number. Some irony there).

 

So is it ethical for the designers of the partwork to base their wares on Hornby's (and Bachmann's)? Of course not. Does it hamper sales of the latter's products? Absolutely not. The harm to Hornby's sales is not going to come from a less than £10 plastic magazine partwork, it's going to come from their own manufacturing capacity (or seeming lack of it).

 

As an LNER modeller I am going to use whatever routes are available to me to make the models I need and as far as I'm concerned it's no worse than buying spares on eBay or producing my own resin casts (which I am going to have to do if I want to be able to model things such as the 1935 corridor tender - rare like hen's teeth).

 

If that in any way makes me unethical, so be it but frankly I don't think mine or anyone else's personal decisions in modelling or their purchases should be under scrutiny for ethics by anyone else. I wonder how many people on this forum buy branded clothes and the like manufactured in sweat shops? All kinds of ethics at work we could raise, but probably shouldn't.

[JohnR]

I think your getting very much to the point there Nick.  As I said at the time the GW tanks looked as if the budget had run out partway through development and what hadn't been finished on the body by the time of the cut never was (together with lot of cost cutting on the chassis).  I also said I would have been more than happy to pay an extra £10-20 if they had been done properly (and I would have bought the same quantity of them) and I seem to recall at one stage, before they appeared, I even wondered why their price was so low.

 

 

 

I think Simon makes the point that changing design philosophy half way through the GW tanks was wrong. I think the key question ANY manufacturer has to ask themselves is exactly that - will (enough) modellers pay that extra £10-£20 fo the extra detail, or will it put them off. Could it be argued that a model to that higher level of detail will sell MORE than a slightly lower spec one?

 

Simon mentions the Tornado, and how it flew off the shelves despite being in the Railroad range. I dont think you can use that as an example, as I doubt, say a lower spec A2, for instance, would do the same - Tornado sold to lots of people because of the original. 

[Andy Y]

So is it ethical for the designers of the partwork to base their wares on Hornby's (and Bachmann's)? Of course not.

So we don't actually disagree on that point. It's then down to the individual what they do but I thought it worth comment for those who may not realise the source and that there are people who will be in the hobby beyond the life of said publication who feel justifiably miffed that someone's copying (and altering) the work.