Simon Says

[Dunsignalling]

Other model railway companies do this.  Atlas comes to mind with Master, Classic and Trainman:

 

 

I think it is an unnecessary complication for Hornby. You are right that it might help them solve the confusion they create with the RailRoad brand which largely covers the Atlas Classic/Trainman divisions, but Hornby has not committed to making a distinction in their ranges. A serious branding issue is that they have the same tooling in both the main and "RailRoad" range. I think would only get worse with three levels.

 

And we'd end up arguing whether something belonged in "RailRoad Classic" or "RailRoad Fun".

Hornby already make a three-tier range, they just don't admit it. However, the principles upon which models are apportioned to each tier must be clear-cut or there is no gain.

 

The top of the range (equivalent to Atlas Master) should be no-holds-barred fully detailed within practical limits, with premium quality drive-trains and prices to match. Just as Hornby's "Main Range" models always should have been. Watering down those principles has caused much of the confusion and argument in recent times. This is where metal handrails and sprung buffers really belong and can provide a clearly visible delineation of premium products.

 

I had been thinking of Hornby Gold, Silver and Bronze ranges but I rather like the idea of "Railroad Classic" and "Railroad Fun". Differentiating between the three should not be difficult.

 

To cite some recent/current examples; the versions of the P2 and Duke of Gloucester previously sold as Main Range should appear as "Railroad Classic" and the ones with simplified livery/lining as "Railroad Fun". The Hall Class locos would follow a similar split. There is no possibility of simplifying the livery on the Crosti 9F and it does have certain premium features (sprung buffers) so it would "look right" in "Railroad Classic".

 

John 

[Hilux5972]

I for one completely agree with the idea of a 3 tier range. Railroad fun would be a great way for kids to spend their pocket money, Railroad classic is a great next step to get into more detailed models, then a Fully Fledged ultra detail range for the modellers that want it, myself included in that particular range.

[Dunsignalling]

....... I do want separate handrails but I don't want masses of separately fitted details and detailed cabs. You can't see them at 4 or 5 feet distance.

 

 

I can't be certain whether a loco has any handrails at all from 4-5 feet away.

 

Just been peering at one of my Bachmann 9Fs to verify that!

 

John

[Legend]

I can't be certain whether a loco has any handrails at all from 4-5 feet away.

 

Just been peering at one of my Bachmann 9Fs to verify that!

 

John

Should have gone to Specsavers! Actually that is true having looked at my Hornby 9f and Bachmann one. All I would say is that the Bachmann one appears more sharp at a distance, but you can't pick out individual details, which it suppose was the thrust of what I was saying. I think having got this far the modelling community would not accept reversion to moulded handrails , however.

[Dunsignalling]

Should have gone to Specsavers! Actually that is true having looked at my Hornby 9f and Bachmann one. All I would say is that the Bachmann one appears more sharp at a distance, but you can't pick out individual details, which it suppose was the thrust of what I was saying. I think having got this far the modelling community would not accept reversion to moulded handrails , however.

I've already been! Funny thing is, I can see the handrails from that distance easily on my clean green 'Evening Star' but they disappear completely on my weathered black 92006.

 

I certainly wouldn't advocate Tri-ang style handrails moulded in relief on any but the lowest tier (to provide the robustness needed for junior users) but it has already been demonstrated that stand-off moulded handrails would be feasible for a middle tier. Unlike the blobby sort, replacing these with metal is fairly straightforward for those who want to save money and "do a bit of modelling".

 

The problem with any tiering of products is that people will always want features from the premium models to be incorporated in the cheaper ones when, if they all were, the premium range wouldn't be a premium range.

 

John

[Ozexpatriate]

To cite some recent/current examples; the versions of the P2 and Duke of Gloucester previously sold as Main Range should appear as "Railroad Classic" and the ones with simplified livery/lining as "Railroad Fun". The Hall Class locos would follow a similar split. There is no possibility of simplifying the livery on the Crosti 9F and it does have certain premium features (sprung buffers) so it would "look right" in "Railroad Classic".

John,  I like your thinking here. It could work well for Hornby.

 

The real question is one of whether Hornby has the self discipline to make the distinction.

 

Hornby didn't appear to make the hard decisions to fully rationalize the range, though most of the anomalies with old tooling seem to have been resolved over time.

 

For several years models that should have been RailRoad (like the L&Y pug) bounced around in the main range. I can remember one year a GWR pannier was a main range item and found itself in Railroad the next - without any apparent difference in build or decoration. (RailRoad was the right place for this venerable model, dating as it does to 1981. I think it is retired now.)

 

The biggest issue now is with relatively new tooling that exists as a main range item and simultaneously as a RailRoad item. This causes no end of confusion to people.

[Fenman]

... The biggest issue now is with relatively new tooling that exists as a main range item and simultaneously as a RailRoad item. This causes no end of confusion to people.

Does it really though?

 

I'm genuinely curious: I can see how it isn't neat and tidy, but are many of us on here, for example, confused by this?

 

Paul

[Ozexpatriate]

Does it really though?

 

I'm genuinely curious: I can see how it isn't neat and tidy, but are many of us on here, for example, confused by this?

Yes. I think it does confuse people.

 

Not so much in terms of knowing what product costs what, the price list is clear, but there's an awful lot of posts along the lines of "I don't see the value for the extra money" when people compare something in the main range with the same tooling from the RailRoad range.

[The Blue Streak]

Hornby already make a three-tier range, they just don't admit it. However, the principles upon which models are apportioned to each tier must be clear-cut or there is no gain.

 

 

I have to agree.

Right now I'm sitting here looking at 3 A4's all from the last year. (Sorry about coming back to a4's but thats the only engine where I have 3 distinct current variations in detail).

 

The First is a Full on Hornby "premium" with the high detail tender, glazing, cab detail, speedo drive and Lubricator arm,some finer detail tampo and tender  pick ups with a 4 pin plug. DCC socket is in tender. It's a great loco and cost accordingly.

 

Secondly there is the Green "Railroad" Mallard that was DCC fitted with the latest 4 pin tender base with the old ringfield body, this is an excellent loco, just missing the finer tampo detail and things like speedo drive, lubricator, glazing and cab detail. It has Pickups on the tender wheels. DCC  socket is in tender. (I suppose this would fit into the upper end of the railroad range)

 

Finally there is the LNER Blue Golden Shuttle "railroad model" with similiar detail to the above railroad mallard with the latest tender base (less the plug socket and wiring), older ringfield top, obviously no tender pick ups due to no plug socket or wiring, and no wiring or plug on loco for the purpose of wiring to tender. Not even the old style prong and brass strip set up like the old Railroad Falcon. (That seems to be totally gone now). DCC plug is in the loco. (I suppose though not overly toy like and passable from the old 3 foot test this would be at the lower level of railroad, although that's probably a little harsh)

 

So yes I can see how there is confusion even in the Railroad range and these two are a prime example for a two tier railroad range because although there was a price difference but it was quite small. I really was expecting Golden Shuttle to be closer to the Green Mallard in terms of bang for buck - and it just isn't. That's not saying that Golden Shuttle was too expensive ( more like that the green Mallard was great value) but that I was a bit confused as to where my tender pickups and wiring had gone!

 

Also within reach is the older railroad loco drive Mallard and Falcon from a few years ago, with old Ringfield tender base and top (with no motor), single prong connector from tender to loco, tender pickups, similar simplified tampo, no speedo drive, although Falcon does have a lubricator arm. These really were fantastic value from just before the chinese bubble burst. But that's a pretty moot point as that was then and this is now, I bought them up however as another indicator as to the varitions that occur within the railroad range.

 

What's got me confused is the Crosti 9f, yes it's a new mould etc. but how can you call it "Railroad" it's not exactly a budget model is it ? But with it's partly moulded detail - is it good enough to be premium ?????  It's not really one or the other when it's labelled a railroad but with a premium price.

[WDP4D]

What's got me confused is the Crosti 9f, yes it's a new mould etc. but how can you call it "Railroad" it's not exactly a budget model is it ? But with it's partly moulded detail - is it good enough to be premium ?????

I think it's been covered before....

 

The Franco-Crosti 9F was a model that came out of a time when Hornby used the Design-Clever methods (something I supported). At that point in time it was probably meant for both the main range and RailRoad range just like the DoG, P2, Hall etc. However seeing that many people complained about that Hornby probably decided to keep it in one range rather than two. With features like sprung buffers, more wire handrails and a 5-pole motor I think it qualifies.

 

Hypothetically the Franco-Crosti 9F sits in what would be a mid range. IMO it is perfectly fine for the premium range but that's not necessarily an opinion shared by many. At the end of the day I thank Hornby for introducing models like the P2, DoG and Franco-Crosti 9F. Thanks to Design-Clever the cost of these models was such that many could afford it in some way or the other. I could imagine the number of people who couldn't afford it if it were a full spec model.

[Fenman]

Yes. I think it does confuse people.

 

Not so much in terms of knowing what product costs what, the price list is clear ...

Isn't that true of all manufacturers? Bachmann's Lord Nelson class, to take one example, strikes me as being pretty "Railroad" - or even their "upgraded" V2. Some of their old coaching stock (the Bulleids with the deep-recessed windows, for instance) is similarly 20th rather than 21st century. Yet no-one seems to be agitating for segmentation of Bachmann's "Blue Riband" models on the grounds of confusion, let alone splitting the range into three (eg, Railroad basics with split chassis; Railroad premium with DCC-ready chassis; Blue Riband?).

 

Rather than further segmentation of their offering, maybe Hornby would be better off copying Bachmann and calling everything "Blue Riband"?

 

Paul

[The Blue Streak]

Please don't get the impression I'm Hornby bashing or having a whinge. I'm just agreeing with the point that there are already different levels of fit / finish / equipment within the railroad range. Using the a4's as a comparison that this occurs between similar models. I still think they are great bang for buck.

As for my comment regarding the crosti 9f I accept the point that the design clever idea did blur the lines somewhat, although I am sure there are many like me who cross over between the two ranges anyway. But when I do pay the premium price I do expect to get the premium product. If I pay less, then I expect less detail etc.

Overall I have a mix of the ranges from Bachmann and Hornby and are generally pretty happy with both. Sorry for any confusion my last post may have caused.

[WDP4D]

Please don't get the impression I'm Hornby bashing or having a whinge. I'm just agreeing with the point that there are already different levels of fit / finish / equipment within the railroad range. Using the a4's as a comparison that this occurs between similar models. I still think they are great bang for buck.

As for my comment regarding the crosti 9f I accept the point that the design clever idea did blur the lines somewhat, although I am sure there are many like me who cross over between the two ranges anyway. But when I do pay the premium price I do expect to get the premium product. If I pay less, then I expect less detail etc.

Overall I have a mix of the ranges from Bachmann and Hornby and are generally pretty happy with both. Sorry for any confusion my last post may have caused.

I don't think anyone thinks you're bashing Hornby, but Paul does have a valid point.

 

Take for instance my case. I'm brand new to the hobby with only 1 set and 2 locos. So I took to the forums to learn up more and more. I never even heard of brands like Bachmann, DJM, Heljan, etc. But I do sped many hours a day reading through topics one by one and manufacturer by manufacturer. But what I see is rather displeasing. In simple words Bachmann like all other manufacturers makes mistakes but as a new comer it is so clearly visible that Hornby gets rather too much of un-necessary bashing whereas Bachmann seems to be let loose quite a bit.

 

That does make one think. I think Paul was just trying to prevent this from turning into another bashing thread. I've read posts on here where there is no connection to the model (eg: how the EXETER reason is brought up too much) and sometimes even with Hornby (eg: in a Marklin TGV thread) but some members offer to bring up the topic turning it into a bashing thread.

 

[The Stationmaster]

I think it's been covered before....

 

The Franco-Crosti 9F was a model that came out of a time when Hornby used the Design-Clever methods (something I supported). At that point in time it was probably meant for both the main range and RailRoad range just like the DoG, P2, Hall etc. However seeing that many people complained about that Hornby probably decided to keep it in one range rather than two. With features like sprung buffers, more wire handrails and a 5-pole motor I think it qualifies.

 

Hypothetically the Franco-Crosti 9F sits in what would be a mid range. IMO it is perfectly fine for the premium range but that's not necessarily an opinion shared by many. At the end of the day I thank Hornby for introducing models like the P2, DoG and Franco-Crosti 9F. Thanks to Design-Clever the cost of these models was such that many could afford it in some way or the other. I could imagine the number of people who couldn't afford it if it were a full spec model.

One look at the injector area pipework on the Crosti 9F is more than enough to squeeze it out of the top range and into the Railroad category.  It probably was a consequence of the bid to contain manufacturing costs but things have moved on and it simply could not now be offered as main range alongside the standard that Hornby seems to have returned to for that range.

 

The price is of course something of an inconvenience when it comes to giving it the Railroad label but what was the alternative?  Heaps of opprobrium if it had been offered as main range alongside other recent releases or just chuck it in the bin and write off £100,000+ in development and tooling costs - I seriously doubt Hornby could afford to do either hence they are in this case fairly firmly hoist upon their own petard, or rather caught by the consequences of a past decision which has been overtaken by events before the model gets to market.

[JSpencer]

The Crosti 9F is classed as Railroad, it uses a lot of the railroad 9F after all. A main range super detailed one would have retailed around the £150 mark at least.

 

It might be considered a pricy railroad, but do we expect this to sell more than Evening Star?

 

It's a niche model, us older enthusiasts will know what one is but newcomers might go "Urrrrk what is that ugly thing ? I don,t want that touching my rails".

[Hilux5972]

The Crosti 9F is classed as Railroad, it uses a lot of the railroad 9F after all. A main range super detailed one would have retailed around the £150 mark at least.

 

It might be considered a pricy railroad, but do we expect this to sell more than Evening Star?

 

It's a niche model, us older enthusiasts will know what one is but newcomers might go "Urrrrk what is that ugly thing ? I don,t want that touching my rails".

The crosti uses nothing at all from the previous 9F. Hornby have said time and again that this is completely new tooling.

[WDP4D]

The Crosti 9F is classed as Railroad, it uses a lot of the railroad 9F after all.

 

Newcomers might go "Urrrrk what is that ugly thing ? I don,t want that touching my rails".

As it's being said over and over again, it's 100% new tooling and shares nothing with the RailRoad 9F. Literally the only thing it shares is the word/branding - RAILROAD. No idea why you've been going on about it being the same.

 

And for what it's worth there are many who find this loco good looking and would love to have it. It looks better than a P2.

 

[JSpencer]

Note: I never said I thought it was ugly!

I just remember newcomers looking at at a Q1 at a show once saying just that and assume they would say the same for a Crosti.

 

We,ll see about 100% new tooling when it arrives in a few weeks. (For me, photos show tender and chassis as being the same as the standard 9F, especially the pony truck).

[WDP4D]

Note: I never said I thought it was ugly!

I just remember newcomers looking at at a Q1 at a show once saying just that and assume they would say the same for a Crosti.

 

We,ll see about 100% new tooling when it arrives in a few weeks. (For me, photos show tender and chassis as being the same as the standard 9F, especially the pony truck).

 

 

 

And for what it's worth there are many who find this loco good looking and would love to have it. It looks better than a P2.

Note: I never blamed you or said you called them ugly. I merely made a point that not everyone feels they are ugly.

Also note: The Q1 and Franco-Crosti 9F look totally different. Cannot make such an assumption based on that.

 

And why a few weeks? The Crosti has already been on sale in the UK for the last 2 days via Hornby and very soon via other retailers.

 

If you actually look at photos you will notice the difference in the chassis. The tender is different and the only thing that has the slightest resemblance is the pony truck mounting. 

 

Older tooling Hornby 9F

http://2e7fd430838d304f1516-467f5d9f2ca7b7b12f8a116e60ea9c1d.r77.cf3.rackcdn.com/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/3/r3097_1_.jpg

 

Newer tooling Hornby Franco-Crosti 9F/Updated 9F

http://2e7fd430838d304f1516-467f5d9f2ca7b7b12f8a116e60ea9c1d.r77.cf3.rackcdn.com/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/3/r3274_3_1.jpg

[Hilux5972]

One thing I dont like about the Crosti is the length of the rear coupling. Like the 4MT it looks as though the pocket is mounted too far back on the tender and as such the train being pulled will be miles away from the tender.

[ruggedpeak]

'Design Clever' was an unfortunate response to Hornby trying to manage through their manufacturing crisis, in an attempt to maintain profit levels while facing increasing costs and small volume production slots abroad and price-sensitivity grumbling amongst enthusiasts at home. 

 

I disagree, there was nothing unfortunate about Design Clever. It was a bold and innovative response to serious challenges Hornby was facing on a number of fronts. The key to companies who not only survive but succeed is that they keep innovating and trying, and many innovations will fail, but Hornby are by far and away the biggest innovators in this market, whether it is design clever, TTS or digital control. Who innovated mass market DCC? Hornby with Zero One. It is all very well DJM making slightly better models and others tweaking things, but arguably few if any other companies are experimenting and driving this hobby forward like Hornby. And this despite financial issues. The t-shirts and gift range is another experiment, may not work, but so what. They tried and unlike the Olympics didn't bet the farm doing it!

 

The only unfortunate thing about Design Clever was the opporbrium spewed by the armchair experts. It is clear that Design Clever provided a huge amount of learning for them (and us!) and they are utilising those lessons now. I seriously questioned their strategy late last year, and the lack of info from Nat as there was little info to have confidence in. What is increasingly clear is that they have a plan, and are driving it forward, and are thinking about. All credit to them. And I think Simon Says is the slightly cunning way of explaining what they are doing. It is all making sense now. Far better Simon puts things in context than someone corporate.

 

Range delineation works best where it is absolutely clear what the specification is . I think three ranges is perhaps an over complication , but it might work. But as Oz says it needs to be more than the paint job. What is 3 pole and 5 pole also needs clarity, although frankly I can't tell the difference. Per Simon Kohler when he announced design clever there is £20 in it !

 

What's got me confused is the Crosti 9f, yes it's a new mould etc. but how can you call it "Railroad" it's not exactly a budget model is it ? But with it's partly moulded detail - is it good enough to be premium ?????  It's not really one or the other when it's labelled a railroad but with a premium price.

 

I think that Railroad is a branding for those models which are not the 100% ultra detail, even if some of them are still quite high spec & price. I'm guessing that they will stick with just 2 ranges for now. What is interesting is that the Railroad 9F may have prompted less negative comment than might be expected if it were a non-Railroad model.

 

I don't think the Railroad range is as simple as cheap and cheerful. It will evolve over time and we will see more oddities in the process. I have the Club Dunkerque Railroad model, and it is a great little thing. For £40 (or £20 if you buy with voucher) it has separate handrails and fittings and weathering. Superb little model for the money and ideal for us Rule 1'ers.

[Ozexpatriate]

I disagree, there was nothing unfortunate about Design Clever. It was a bold and innovative response to serious challenges Hornby was facing on a number of fronts.

 

The only unfortunate thing about Design Clever was the opporbrium spewed by the armchair experts.

Each to their own of course. My recollection of "Design Clever" is that it was a glib catch phrase to attempt to dress up short-cuts in the design of premium priced items. (I suspect that as a term, it was rather more intended for Hornby executive management than it was for consumers.)

 

Innovation is great but eliminating brass bearings and replacing handrails with plastic shelves ("Design Clever") was not innovative. Rather it was a step backwards for models that were presented as the cutting edge models in Hornby's range with premium pricing. I refer primarily here to models like the GWR eight coupled tanks and the GWR Star. For me they were long and eagerly anticipated models let down by 'cheapness' in the design and quality of manufacture. If you consider that to be opprobrium, then no worries, but it is how I feel.

 

Simplifying the moulding on the 2BIL worked satisfactorily. It didn't on the Star and spoiled a model commissioned by a museum with a cheap very visible cosmetic flaw. (It is one that is visible from 3' away and even more so from a 45° viewing angle above horizontal.)

 

Given that these kind of short cuts do not appear in the latest offerings from Hornby and the term has been discarded, it appears that "Design Clever" is very much in the rear view mirror for everyone. Happily so in my opinion.

 

But we don't need to agree.

[Hilux5972]

Hopefully the Star's shortcomings will be rectified. The new run of GWR tanks had the smokebox dart changed to a seperate fitting. We can but hope!

[Legend]

The reasons behind design clever were reasonable enough, I just think it was poorly executed.

 

There is a need to reduce manufacturing costs of models .

 

It was a mistake to announce design clever , as that immediately opened it up to scrutiny and people were alert . To me this is a sign of the "we are the biggest and know best" attitude in Hornby . They are full of their own importance and believe us mere mortals will believe everything they say .

 

It was well executed in the 2 Bil

 

A move could have been made to 3 pole motors without a fuss. I cant tell difference, and Bachmann , who make some very smooth running models have been using them for years. If it cuts the cost by £10-£20 why not? (When it was introduced I do remember Simon Kohler saying switching motors saved £20, again was he wise to state this?)

 

Some detail could have been fine moulded eg handles on coaches. Where they went wrong was applying this to smokebox darts , and as Oz says, shelves instead of handrails.

 

So the intention was good , but execution flawed, and marketing it a disaster. But there is still a need for cheaper models

[Dunsignalling]

(Range delineation works best where it is absolutely clear what the specification is . I think three ranges is perhaps an over complication , but it might work. But as Oz says it needs to be more than the paint job. What is 3 pole and 5 pole also needs clarity, although frankly I can't tell the difference.) Per Simon Kohler when he announced design clever there is £20 in it !

 

Back when Hornby were getting into Design Clever, 5-pole Mashima cans were obtainable for under £15 retail.

 

If Simon was right, somebody must have been paying Hornby to take 3-pole motors off their hands. 

 

Even if he was stretching things a bit, would you really want your new £100+ loco to come fitted with motor costing two or three quid?     

 

John