Simon Says

[JSpencer]

I quite agree but then Hornby also does the opposite by imposing some strict conditions, including possible loss of supply, on late payers.

 

However the point is that what Hornby has actually done is shift almost all of the risk at the distribution and retail end onto its customers by giving them a pitiful trade discount which it has drastically reduced over the past three years and now at a rate where it is far from easy to profitably sell their products.  And it then competes with them by selling stuff directly at less than its trade price (ok, not a lot of stuff but it might not need much).

 

The other interesting thing is that some bad payers - who are well known in the trade - have in the past been allowed to run up huge debts with Hornby but are still being supplied, weird.

I agree with the above.

 

The fact that bad payers have been allowed to build big depts hints that they don't have a large credit control team (for reasons I stated in point 3 previously - it really is a horrible job!). Process issues should sort that out, red letter, cut off supply, removed from Hornby stockist and finally legal action. If there is a serious big threat, then bad shops will fall in line. 

 

I was in Canada recently where their traffic fines are 20km over the limits = 1 point & 100$, 30km = 2 points & 200$, 40km = 4 points & 300$, 50km = remove license, 10000$ & car taken away. I saw no one speeding on their highways....

[Kal]

Cash flow... the main reason for a business to fail.

Many companies fail with a full order book simply because they cannot get the money in.

 

Do not take my word for it... a quick internet search on your preferred search engine ( mine is now Duckduckgo) will tell you more than you ever wanted to know.

[Hroth]

Not sure if you are suggesting a "Discworld" model train or a "Discworld" LEGO train? From a LEGO standpoint this is something the AFOL (Adult fans of LEGO) community can easily do and recommend to LEGO through their "Ideas" process, but the appeal of "Discworld" is, I suspect, too limited for LEGO to be interested.

 

I think the same is true for model railways. It is the domain of "modelling" like bridgiesimon's very charming Hobbiton End.

I was thinking that Hornby could have looked at a Discworld train tie in for "Raising Steam",  something along the lines of whipping the face off an ex-Thomas loco, a jazzy livery and a stick on nameplate or two?  After all, they did a "Hogwarts Express" set for a pretty incidental aspect of the HP books.  Too late now, of course!

[brushman47544]

Based on Hornby's track record with tie-ins, Harry Potter excepted, I think they would be on much safer ground if they try and place the Hornby brand into other franchises rather than bring out more themed Hornby models. Not least because if successful they would be getting kids interested in the main brands from the outset rather than into something they will grow out of. How many of us still have (and bring out occasionally) our childhood Hornby models? Would that still be the case if they were, say, Hornby Toy Story 2 models?

[robmcg]

Interesting questions asked by Simon in his column, 3rd October, 

 

http://www.Hornby.com/news/simonsays/be-careful-what-you-wish-for/

 

as in having doubts about the viability of current new model volumes and profit potential. 

 

I don't know the answer to his questions, which are at the end of his piece. He suspects (I think) that profits at current levels might leave future investment at a lower level than that of the 2000s for 00 RTR , and says he would like to be proven wrong. At least I think that is the gist of it all.

 

Perhaps he was thinking out loud that continued new models like those in recent limited production and sale and those planned and presumably in production right now are not necessarily at volumes which can make enough money to encourage new investment, bearing in mind that Hornby has a large overdraft right now?

 

The volumes sold up to and over Christmas, presuming existing planned deliveries are timely, will have a big influence on the future plans for Hornby? Rhetorical perhaps, but interesting times.

 

So I went and bought a 1960 DoG.... just out of kindness you understand,  and I like the look of the separate deflector handrails in black ... 

 

I wonder if I could claim it back on tax as charitable.... ?

 

edit; Simon makes good points about the quality of recent RTR compared to the 70s and 80s.

 

Rob

[Ozexpatriate]

Mr. Kohler's "Be careful what you wish for!" column is interesting as always.

The rather baleful tone he sets here is, in my opinion, entirely misplaced.

Whatever happens I can honestly see a massive over stock bubble increasing in size that will inevitably burst which could destroy many of those that have created the situation and if that happens then where will the UK model railway hobby be? Maybe, just maybe it is time that all of us, modellers, retailers and manufacturers should take a step back and ask ourselves the question, “Isn’t it time that we were careful about what we wish for?” I feel this is something worth remembering prior to being asked over the next week or so to complete the annual MRE/RMWeb Wish List Pole [sic].

The problem Simon is concerned about (over production) has NOTHING to do with the outcome of polls, it has to do with production, demand and the scheduling of new product introductions.

 

The poll is a useful tool (and not the only tool) to predict what models enthusiasts would like to purchase - one day. It does not specify when they should arrive. It is up to the manufacturer to decide what they will produce and when. This has nothing to do with polls.

 

I interpret what Simon has written as a non-specifically voiced, concern that small batched (commissioned) items that people really want will sell better than models that sit in the catalogue every year and that big marquee toy companies selling model trains with 100% outsourced tool development and manufacturing are very vulnerable to smaller operators with lower overheads.

 

The free market should decide this one.

 

I need to have a word to Brian MacDermott about that 'pole' of his. (Not the first time Simon's run afoul of a nefarious spell checker.)

[Legend]

Thoroughly enjoyed reading Simons blog, not least for the nostalgia . I would love doing that stockcount!  It might be an age thing but to me Hornbys golden period was 1973 through to 1982. In the early stages there were perhaps only 1 or 2 new loco introductions, latterly as he points out there was the "year of the locomotive" that had several new introductions - 7?  However there was also a coherent policy of producing a range of locos for each of the major railway companies from tanks to express , and coaching stock. The new major railway company coaches being introduced in 1977, before that all we had were Mk1s painted in LMS and Great Western colours. Yes of course the locos were simpler than we have now, but somehow it seemed more exciting. Now there is a plethora of new loco introductions , but no coherent plan. Often locos are produced without requisite rolling stock- even HSTs where this is kind of critical.   There is also , I think , an over reliance on wishlists . In the old Triang Hornby days locos were produced because they were attractive and generated their own market, now we seem to follow the market , and I really do wonder if some locos produced from wishlists will ever reach sufficient numbers to be profitable. I'd give the forthcoming Bachmann Stanier 2-6-0 as an example. In the wish list because there wasnt one available,an obvious gap,so everyone votes for it, but will we all nip out and buy one?

 

I think he is also correct. There is a new loco bubble here, and post recession there is only so much money going around, so inevitably spending is going to be spread over a much larger base . However the reason we have these new entrants I think is not due to wishlists, but rather Hornbys failure to supply over the past few years . Prices also went up year after year without much effect on demand. So to some extent I think it was Hornbys bubble that burst 5 years ago, where prices escalated to the point people simply wouldnt pay and the recession hit in full. Hornby misjudged it and had a knee jerk reaction in "design clever" to try and get prices down. They seem only now to be recovering. I think ironically  Bachmann are now following suit with huge price increases (have a look at todays MREmag for some examples) which will choke off demand. So there is a gap for the new entrant . After all they are exactly the same as Hornby and Bachmann in commisioning models from suppliers in China. Some might be a bit more fleet of foot, and are certainly more internet savvy, using the forum for feedback. So good luck to them . I just hope no one catches a cold, or worse terminal pneumonia!

[JSpencer]

Simon has of course lived through new manuafacturers suddenly appearing and too many new models suddenly appearing which could not be supported by the market.

There is some truth in that and history can repeat itself if lessons are not learned.

 

If 10 models come out, most will buy the one or two they really want and then buy the third or forth - which is nice to have - later. 

Of course if the following year introduces 10 models then the nice to have will be postponed again and again if the following year has 10 models.

 

Some people can and do buy everything. I could afford everything but seriously limit myself to what I can realistically run. 

For example - The shortage of models at the start of the year had me buying models which were not even on a list and brought only because of the excellent reviews.

Now there seems to be a flood of items coming out - most are not items I am particulary interested in and I only brought those I really want. Likewise someone atticipating stuff being released over 2 years may find themselves buying everything in 2 months.

 

Of course, in Hornby's and Bachmann's case, the models are there. Bachmann is playing safe, keeping releases to a realistic number, Hornby seems to be exploiting their newly found production powers. But I cannot see them doing 5 new models every year!

 

Therefore I feel that eventually, as we delve into more obscure prototypes, more and more people will really ask "do I actually want it?". So the market can only evolve to mainstream models on one hand and more and more kits being replaced by expensive short run niche models produced using short lived cheap steel tools (the latter I guess will not be produced unless orders are sufficiently large).

 

I will also agree that duplication should be avoided and only loosers will come out of that game. Not only both manufacturers involved in the duplication but also us end customers since the said manufacturers will have less resources to invest in new subjects. I myself already lost as I don't want a King nor a 1366 and would have preferred an un-rebuilt Merchant Navy and a Adams 4-4-0T radial! Doubtless others will have other preferences to duplicated models too.

 

I like Simon's comment about manufacterers in a rush a to annouce models. There are some cases out there of models being announced but with little or no progress after years. Though in many of these cases I am sure that they were due circumstances outside there control. That said, it would be stupid of any manufacturer to annouce models left, right and centre just to prevent someone else from doing them and then not producing anything for years on end because orders were suddenly too slow (too many subjects to buy). The problem with that is that in the end no-one is going to take a manufacturer seriously in the if nothing is produced. Likewise even other manufacturers may look at them in the end and say "ok so they announced this, but will they produce it? I don't think so" and then go off and produce one anyway. (Rapido have been very good here, 1 product moving along very rapidly).

 

Probably the best way for niche players is to do one or two  projects at a time as I doubt the market cannot sustain all these annoucements and I for one will not be paying up front for lots of models (I think 3 is enough for now) especially if there is a big risk that they will not appear for years and years.

[Dunsignalling]

Commissioning has happened for a number of reasons but polls are only one factor.

 

Some commissioners got involved because they wanted models with regional/local interest (e.g. Kernow Models Beattie Well Tanks, subsequently extending into more LSWR items) of which they perceived Hornby would make the odd one every other decade and Bachmann would ignore entirely.

 

Others, e.g TMC (BR Horseboxes), Invicta (BR CCT) and Hattons (10000/1, Garratt, King) jumped on prototypes which would have turned up eventuality but which, in their judgement, deserved a higher priority than either of the big two were giving them. 

 

The magazines started off with livery variations on standard items then branched out into bespoke rolling stock and locos (Stove R and Sentinel with, yet to come, Diesel brake tender and USA tank). These seem (to me) either to fall between the other two scenarios or overlap them. 

 

The common factor is that they all saw gaps in the market which the big operators didn't consider urgent to fill. OK, Bachmann have been playing catch-up with the LMS Diesels and Hornby are doing so with the King, but I think the principle stands.

 

Bachmann and Heljan are fairly comfortable with commissioning as they are, in many cases, the "commissionee". For Hornby, it just represents additional competition because they have consistently refused to become 'part of the solution'. 

 

However, if one considers how railway models are actually produced nowadays, Hornby aren't really much more than commissioners themselves, albeit on a bigger scale and undertaking design functions that are (at least in part) outsourced by most others. Bachmann has always operated this way but Hornby may still have some baggage to deal with from when they were actually manufacturers.

 

John

[jjb1970]

Another interesting blog. Whilst I don't agree with all of SK's opinions his blog is always a well written, interesting piece that is worth reading. On the model market, I agree with him to a point but also think that markets evolve and that there is a degree of self correction. Companies come and companies go but the hobby will remain. At the moment the smaller manufacturers are competing by offering niche products which supplement the offerings of the bigger suppliers and are not a threat at this stage. If they decide a small niche is not enough and want to grow and go more mainstream then their overheads will grow, they'll probably become more risk averse by focusing on mainstream products and the market will even out. That is not to say some might not lose and that those still standing will be the same big players as today but it is how these things generally play out. Then we'll probably see new niche players emerge. 

[Revolution Ben]

Commissioning has happened for a number of reasons but polls are only one factor.

 

Some commissioners got involved because they wanted models with regional/local interest (e.g. Kernow Models Beattie Well Tanks, subsequently extending into more LSWR items) of which they perceived Hornby would make the odd one every other decade and Bachmann would ignore entirely.

 

Others, e.g TMC (BR Horseboxes), Invicta (BR CCT) and Hattons (10000/1, Garratt, King) jumped on prototypes which would have turned up eventuality but which, in their judgement, deserved a higher priority than either of the big two were giving them. 

 

The magazines started off with livery variations on standard items then branched out into bespoke rolling stock and locos (Stove R and Sentinel with, yet to come, Diesel brake tender and USA tank). These seem (to me) either to fall between the other two scenarios or overlap them. 

 

John

 

Hello John,

 

When the N Gauge Society commissions RTR products it's partly for the above reasons but also to see the production of an item that would be unlikely to stand up financially for a manufacturer having to make a profit, but that would nonetheless be of great interest to our members and hopefully provide a boost to the manufacturers themselves and the rest of the N Gauge fraternity.

 

For example, the Stove R is a useful vehicle, but the RTR 6-wheel chassis (never before available) is also useful for numerous kits, scratchbuilds, etc etc - albeit with varying degrees of accuracy!

 

And the LMS inspection saloon gave us a fine model, and Bachmann a correct 50' LMS chassis which was suitable for the 50' BG or some Stanier catering vehicles.  And last year the BG duly arrived.

 

Ironically our attempt to assess interest in a repaint, rather than an original item, was a very damp squib with not nearly enough interest being expressed for us to proceed!   (To be fair, it may be that the items suggested were all "modern":  Carillion autoballaster; Network Rail or Riviera Trains Mk2, or West Coast Railway Co Mk1 Pullman.)

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

(NGS VP)

[Kal]

The problem with wish lists is when you can wish for everything.

 

If you had to make a choice, which surely you do when it comes to parting with your money, then a wish list might provide a pointer.

 

If I was required to back it up with cash, e.g.. crowd sourcing then even better indication is forthcoming.

 

Maybe Hornby, Bachman et al, should consider that for the models that are more niche.

 

If I just tick every box on the recent poll, what does that tell anyone, other than I am a bit of dreamer? Wish lists always contain more than the majority of people could consume, they are fun of course, but without priority, they are no more enlightening than the list to Santa.

 

 

 

Edit: to correct spelling/Grammar

[JSpencer]

Crowd sourcing can only go so far. From the wish list, I must have selected a good 30 items and these can be split evenly between:

1) Yes I really want one and might build a kit if no one does

2) I would certainly buy it if it existed in RTR

 

Of course if a third of these become crowd sourcing in a short space of time, I am not sure would pay up front for so many items and would become selective (and my faith in the manufacture would play a part in that).

 

Better to focus on a few items a manufacturer knows they can do within 2 years than start a vast program and end up delivering little or nothing - because people will loose faith very quickly believe me.

[The Stationmaster]

I don't necessarily think that wishlists on their own make much difference except perhaps in helping along marketing decisions which are also subject to many other factors.  Far more important is the matter of over-production and adjusting production to the way the market has changed and continues to change and it is here that the niche producers commissioners can - and do - score while the big boys have to either find a new approach (as Bachmann seems to have done) or are left trying to readjust from their old mass market ways to the brave new world (as Hornby might well now be doing after first getting it rather wrong with their emphasis on design clever and major production problems).

 

But in the end what manufacturers will have to recognise is that we're no longer in the old world of everybody buying a Triang Jinty because, if nothing else, it provided a chassis for a kit of something non-LMS enthusiasts really wanted all along.  The modern market seems, more than ever to be keen for variety and will buy it off the first run in sufficient quantity - assuming price and quality are in the right relationship - to cover development etc costs and return a small profit.  Next time round the buyers want something else, not a re-run - and especially not a re-run with the same running number.

 

This sort of market is in reality infinitely elastic - provided what it wants or needs is served up at quality, price, and value that are right the customer will buy if it meets his/her perceived needs.  It all really depends on there being the right number of customers for what is being offered.  And because of economic circumstance or sophistication or whatever a goodly (increasing?) chunk of those customers will buy in that way and not in the older fashion of buying everything new which appears on the retailers' shelves.  That latter category will I suspect increasingly become the preserve of iconic items of motive power and if a manufacturer can identify them (as Hornby seem to have done with the P2 we're back in the old 'indiscriminate purchasing' game; but otherwise that game is dead (or maybe it is only resting until the economic revival reaches more folk in a tangible way?).

 

So, in conclusion not necessarily too many new loco models but more a question of selling the right ones and recognising that umpteen thousand of the same model over x years is not the way many of them will sell.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Crowd sourcing can only go so far. From the wish list, I must have selected a good 30 items and these can be split evenly between:

1) Yes I really want one and might build a kit if no one does

2) I would certainly buy it if it existed in RTR

 

Of course if a third of these become crowd sourcing in a short space of time, I am not sure would pay up front for so many items and would become selective (and my faith in the manufacture would play a part in that).

 

Better to focus on a few items a manufacturer knows they can do within 2 years than start a vast program and end up delivering little or nothing - because people will loose faith very quickly believe me.

But how long should you wait before you build a kit? Some people seem to think that continually wishing for something will bring them a reward.

[Ozexpatriate]

If I just tick every box on the recent poll, what does that tell anyone, other than I am a bit of dreamer? Wish lists always contain more than the majority of people could consume, they are fun of course, but without priority, they are no more enlightening than the list to Santa.

Who would tick every box?

 

Very few people purchase everything. You'd need a warehouse if you did.

 

The point of polls is that, in the end, not everyone votes for the same thing. Prioritization of votes is not required. The items voted for more consistently result in very popular choices - by definition.

 

The total absolute scores are irrelevant - it is relative scores within a single poll that matter.

 

The more people who participate in the poll - the more 'accurate' the results become.

[Ozexpatriate]

I will also agree that duplication should be avoided and only loosers will come out of that game. ...

 

I like Simon's comment about manufacterers in a rush a to annouce models. 

The only antidote to duplication is for manufacturers to announce their intention to do a model as early as possible.

 

Hornby continues to have an old school approach of trying to keep things close to their vest and only announce products for the coming year at the beginning of the year. This causes duplication when a commissioner does not know what Hornby is doing, and causes consumer frustration when delivery falls outside the year anyway.

 

Bachmann started opening up the announcement-to-delivery cycle to 18 months some years ago. (They are now at about 24 months as a practical matter.)

 

The art is in not frustrating customers by forcing them to wait a long time - like three years (as is often the case lately with Hornby's production issues) but not keeping development work so secret that commissioners move in and declare their intent, not knowing what Hornby is doing.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Bachmann started opening up the announcement-to-delivery cycle to 18 months some years ago. (They are now at about 24 months as a practical matter.)

 

Which is also pretty good at screwing up sales of kits well before the RTR product turns up. 

[Ozexpatriate]

Which is also pretty good at screwing up sales of kits well before the RTR product turns up. 

If people are prepared to wait two years for a model rather than buy a kit now, that must say something about the desirability of building kits.

[APOLLO]

Probably has been said before, but what most of us want is also a reliable supply of basic items, thinking the bog standard mineral wagon, most layouts could use a few or more of these, but they are not always available. Hornby track (though not used by many on here) seems to be a problem at the moment, but it's a basic for the newcomer / young enthusiast.

 

As for the poll, I ticked about a dozen items, half of which I would definitely buy, the rest which I think the market needs / would (probably in my view) sell well / I may buy. 

 

Rum old hobby. now run by accountants (the wife !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

 

Brit15

[Revolution Ben]

If people are prepared to wait two years for a model rather than buy a kit now, that must say something about the desirability of building kits.

 

Yes, kits mean different things to different people:  for some a way to simply to fill a gap in the roster on an operational layout, for others an enjoyable facet of the hobby in themselves...

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[Jol Wilkinson]

If people are prepared to wait two years for a model rather than buy a kit now, that must say something about the desirability of building kits.

That's one view, others are available.

[gc4946]

For me, wish lists are only one guide to what manufacturers will produce. I'm sure Hornby takes soundings from retailers and comments made directly to them via various media and from events they attend when deciding what they want to produce.

 

I wasn't expecting Hornby to bring out a P2, however there are two groups actively involved in new build projects to represent examples of the class. Once they reach the stage where visible progress is made, Hornby will then tool up versions for them which will justify the investment made earlier.

 

There will be a more differentiated approach for each loco or item of rolling stock in terms of detailing:

 

1. A popular loco currently seen on the national network e.g. Tornado, Duke of Gloucester, which Hornby wants as many sold as possible, possibly for younger or budget conscious modellers, which Hornby produced with simplified moulding and built to a price.

 

2. Their new GWR King loco announced with a much higher spec, reverting to pre "design clever" standards, with brass bearings on chassis, fully-painted cab fittings, etc. competing at the premium level against the version planned by Hattons/DJ Models.

 

3. If there appears to be no competition to represent a specific loco or unit type, Hornby will then take a middle course, omit details such as sprung buffers, maybe use some moulded rather than separately-fitted parts, but build in sufficient detail to satisfy most expectations from modellers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gc4946]

For me, wish lists are only one guide to what manufacturers will produce. I'm sure Hornby takes soundings from retailers and comments made directly to them via various media and from events they attend when deciding what they want to produce.

 

For models already in their range I assume they keep an eye on auction and other used market websites to see how well they sell and if they notice items selling quickly (possibly also at a premium) also consider whether to commission a re-run of selected stock (e.g. blue/grey and FGW Mk3s) to meet demand.

 

There's also issues of production capacity and manufacturing capability.

Maybe Hornby feels confident now, with at least one of their new suppliers, to offer the King class with the "full fat" spec, so they know they can still offer products that equal or beat their competitors.

We'll have to wait until next year's announcements to see if they'll produce more higher spec models a la King or if they'll continue a more differentiated approach.

[Ozexpatriate]

This week Mr. Kohler reminisces about a project that I imagine was a favourite of his and one I think he can feel duly proud of - Hornby Live Steam.

See "Live Steam Rising".

 

At the beginning Simon makes an observation about reactions to his prior blog: "Be Careful What You Wish For".  I liked the clarification he made in his position regarding the MREmag and RMweb 00 Wishlist Poll.