Hornby's Warley Announcements.

[Dunsignalling]

Does anyone know when the LMS horsebox announced at Warley, is due?

 

Stewart

Also, has there been any information released on liveries?  

 

The catalogue references on KMRC's website imply two similar models with different numbers but don't mention whether they are in LMS or BR livery. 

 

John

[Guest Belgian]

So all of these posts say,in effect,there is no major obstacle other than cost in the tooling and manufacture of an airsmoothed MN in OO..

 

So,if Bachmann have done one in N,then they can progress to produce one in OO...or even two .

I think they will and Hornby will at the same time due to its failure to act timely and we'll end up with another lot of stupid duplication, this time between two behemoths of the model railway world rather than one mammoth trying to crush a minnow (or whatever metaphor floats your boat) . . .

 

JE

[Ian Hargrave]

I think they will and Hornby will at the same time due to its failure to act timely and we'll end up with another lot of stupid duplication, this time between two behemoths of the model railway world rather than one mammoth trying to crush a minnow (or whatever metaphor floats your boat) . . .

 

JE

 

Having handled one of Bachmann/Farish  MN's a while back,them Barwell appear to be spot on with it.....so we live in hope.I personally do not believe there would be a  Blue/Red clash on this.The history recently is that one or the other will step back.Not the case with the "new kids on the block" like DJM & Oxford however,as you say.

[Hilux5972]

It would seem incredibly ridiculous to me, if Hornby did not complete their family of SR Pacifics. WC and Rebuilt WC, BoB and Rebuilt BoB, Rebuilt MN. It's a glaring omission. Regardless of the variety of detail variations. Perhaps if one currently in preservation was backdated as with Duchess of Hamilton then they may reconsider it.

[Graham_Muz]

So all of these posts say,in effect,there is no major obstacle other than cost in the tooling and manufacture of an airsmoothed MN in OO..

So,if Bachmann have done one in N,then they can progress to produce one in OO...or even two .

It should be noted that Farish have only so far tooled for the third series Merchant Navy's which limits them to post 1948 and no full Southern version, therefore shying away from the issues of all the possible variations in the earlier two series's.

[31A]

Also, has there been any information released on liveries?  

 

The catalogue references on KMRC's website imply two similar models with different numbers but don't mention whether they are in LMS or BR livery. 

 

John

The samples displayed at Warley carried both LMS and BR liveries.

[Dunsignalling]

It would seem incredibly ridiculous to me, if Hornby did not complete their family of SR Pacifics. WC and Rebuilt WC, BoB and Rebuilt BoB, Rebuilt MN. It's a glaring omission. Regardless of the variety of detail variations. Perhaps if one currently in preservation was backdated as with Duchess of Hamilton then they may reconsider it.

Yes but......

 

It's only a glaring omission if you model the Southern Region before the last two (35006 and 35028) were rebuilt in 1959.

 

I try to ensure my models fit a defined area (ex-LSWR lines) in a five year period (approximately 1958-62). Even given those quite accommodating parameters, only 35006 really fits the bill as 'Clan Line' wasn't transferred 'down west' until after rebuilding.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd love one but it would have to be the right one (or I'd have to modify it accordingly).

 

Graham_Muz describes the N Gauge situation in post 483 above; if Bachmann ever do make one in OO, they'll probably stick to what they have already researched for N which is a pity but probably understandable, even those of us who know a bit about the beasts double check references! 

 

John

[dibber25]

Please Chris,

We've been through this many times.

 

Series 2 and 3, that's twenty out of thirty locos, were the same apart from the two tender types.

Hornby has so far only done Series 2 and 3 rebuilt MNs and has done pretty well out of those, hasn't it?

No one is asking for every variation.We would be happy with the standard (yes) Series 2 and 3 BR body form and those wanting Series 1 or earlier experimental forms would enjoy having a go at doing the modifications needed.

I agree. I doubt anyone wants an original 'MN' more than me, and while I would be willing to forgive the wrong details in order to have the name/number that I wanted, it is clear from the posts on RMweb that there are many who expect perfection in every detail. That was the point I was trying to make - I wasn't intending yet another re-run of the detail differences. I happen to think that most of the names that will appeal to modellers are in the early batches and if Hornby had the audacity to put those names on a series 2 or 3 model there would be uproar.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Loconuts]

I would not be surprised to see the J94 in the catalogue in lots of private owner liveries, bye bye DJModels.

 

Loconuts

[Legend]

I would not be surprised to see the J94 in the catalogue in lots of private owner liveries, bye bye DJModels.

 

Loconuts

 

As I understand it over on various DJ threads the J94 is due very soon. For Hornby to put out a spoiler they would need to do it in several different liveries in relatively small quantities. Its not their business model and I don't think they have the manufacturing capacity to do it.  If there are any further new releases for 2015 then I think we may be talking Eurotunnel Velaro. Lets face it , this is more up traditional Hornbys street! High profile, big, shiny   or maybe an IEP (although that's more likely next year I think)

[wombatofludham]

I would not be surprised to see the J94 in the catalogue in lots of private owner liveries, bye bye DJModels.

 

Loconuts

 

What a nasty and inaccurate posting, you appear to have a wasp up your gusset about DJM.

 

Even if Hornby do re-release their ancient J94 this time around they won't be releasing a lot of liveries, whereas Hattons have just announced 10 commissioned liveries of the DJM model on top of the multiple liveries already planned.  The DJM loco has already had test models shown at shows and will be far more detailed and have multiple variants modelled.  I'm sure Hornby will release one or at most two liveries (certainly not 10) and they will sell to those who are happy with Hornby's offering but I suspect the majority on here will go with DJM. 

 

Bye bye DJM?  No chance.

 

 

 

[Fat Controller]

As I understand it over on various DJ threads the J94 is due very soon. For Hornby to put out a spoiler they would need to do it in several different liveries in relatively small quantities. Its not their business model and I don't think they have the manufacturing capacity to do it.  If there are any further new releases for 2015 then I think we may be talking Eurotunnel Velaro. Lets face it , this is more up traditional Hornbys street! High profile, big, shiny   or maybe an IEP (although that's more likely next year I think)

'We 'aven't got any Velaros..'

It's a long piece of work; gives the impression of actually being longer than the current stock, even if it isn't.

[Legend]

'We 'aven't got any Velaros..'

It's a long piece of work; gives the impression of actually being longer than the current stock, even if it isn't.

I thought it was a Velaro, but if not, one of these shiny new Eurotunnel units. As well as ones on order they have just ordered more , so this is going to be their unit of the future. I know they are long, but this hasn't stopped Hornby before with 5 car APT and 4 car Eurotunnel trains

[Fat Controller]

I thought it was a Velaro, but if not, one of these shiny new Eurotunnel units. As well as ones on order they have just ordered more , so this is going to be their unit of the future. I know they are long, but this hasn't stopped Hornby before with 5 car APT and 4 car Eurotunnel trains

Eurotunnel is the outfit with fat silver trains that can't go beyond Cheriton or Coquelles; Eurostar has the shiny (well, sometimes..) white and yellow Eurostar trains.

[The Stationmaster]

I thought it was a Velaro, but if not, one of these shiny new Eurotunnel units. As well as ones on order they have just ordered more , so this is going to be their unit of the future. I know they are long, but this hasn't stopped Hornby before with 5 car APT and 4 car Eurotunnel trains

Alas I thinks there's a confusion of Eurotunnel with Eurostar going on here.  Eurostar  operates passenger trains from London to Paris and Brussel, plus various other places, and are getting Velaro; Eurotunnel runs vehicle shuttles through the Channel Tunnel.

[Fat Controller]

Alas I thinks there's a confusion of Eurotunnel with Eurostar going on here.  Eurostar  operates passenger trains from London to Paris and Brussel, plus various other places, and are getting Velaro; Eurotunnel runs vehicle shuttles through the Channel Tunnel.

And seem to reverting to the 'Le Shuttle' branding, perhaps in the hope of reducing this sort of confusion...

[Legend]

Cheers guys . Sorry got my tunnels and stars confused!

[Forester]

I agree. I doubt anyone wants an original 'MN' more than me, and while I would be willing to forgive the wrong details in order to have the name/number that I wanted, it is clear from the posts on RMweb that there are many who expect perfection in every detail. That was the point I was trying to make - I wasn't intending yet another re-run of the detail differences. I happen to think that most of the names that will appeal to modellers are in the early batches and if Hornby had the audacity to put those names on a series 2 or 3 model there would be uproar.

CHRIS LEIGH

 

I too am a fan of the shipping lines named in the first Merchant Navy series but the fact remains that it could be argued that modern Hornby production is founded upon the terrific success of their rebuilt MN and none of them carried a first series name. So why should an unrebuilt MN be hampered by a lack of  a first series body (much as I would like one)?

Clearly (and I fully accept it, although I don't entirely understand it) the vast majority of buyers are not that bothered by which individual names are carried by the larger named Hornby locos.

I have often argued that a loco would sell better if a more well-known name had been chosen for a release than the one selected but not only do Hornby marketing people disagree with me about this - they are probably right in the light of their experience!

 

Edit: 

I should add here I'm not saying it would be acceptable to put a first series name on a third series body, merely that the lack of any first series locos at all would not affect in any way the success of an original MN based on second and third series, just as it did not limit the rebuilt version.

[Dunsignalling]

I too am a fan of the shipping lines named in the first Merchant Navy series but the fact remains that it could be argued that modern Hornby production is founded upon the terrific success of their rebuilt MN and none of them carried a first series name. So why should an unrebuilt MN be hampered by a lack of  a first series body (much as I would like one)?

Clearly (and I fully accept it, although I don't entirely understand it) the vast majority of buyers are not that bothered by which individual names are carried by the larger named Hornby locos.

I have often argued that a loco would sell better if a more well-known name had been chosen for a release than the one selected but not only do Hornby marketing people disagree with me about this - they are probably right in the light of their experience!

 

Edit: 

I should add here I'm not saying it would be acceptable to put a first series name on a third series body, merely that the lack of any first series locos at all would not affect in any way the success of an original MN based on second and third series, just as it did not limit the rebuilt version.

Diverging slightly, has anyone else noticed the high proportion of Hornby Light Pacifics that have names beginning with 'W'.

 

Wadebridge, Watersmeet, Westward Ho, Wilton, Winston Churchill, Weymouth, Wincanton and even (City of) Wells! Only Whimple and Woolacombe to go.

 

John

[The Stationmaster]

And seem to reverting to the 'Le Shuttle' branding, perhaps in the hope of reducing this sort of confusion...

I dunno Brian - it has been going on for 20 years so I can't really see it stopping anytiime so.  Maybe the answer is for DB to get going on chross-chunnel services then it would all be a lot simpler (some hope alas).

[Ozexpatriate]

GWR enthusiasts have had an embarrassment of riches recently.

Excepting coaching stock, I completely agree.

[Ozexpatriate]

Merchant Navies

 

I'd quote you all but it would take too long.

 

I think it's a matter of time before Bachmann makes a Merchant Navy in 00, unless someone else does it first. As Graham points out it would most likely be a series 3, though they have demonstrated a willingness to create alternative sets of tooling to model variants in the past.

 

I've long 'predicted' a Hornby Merchant Navy. I do so every year out of force of habit since it's the missing big, green and named trophy for their trophy wall.

 

Paraphrasing what many of you have said, the challenge of the Merchant Navy is that there are two sets of customers. Those modelling SR and BR/SR layouts will likely be delighted with series 2 or series 3 models.

 

The other set of customers are those that want a series 1 because they evoke an emotional response - call it wow factor. Along with Chris and I suspect many others I fall into this camp. Nameplates like Channel Packet and Cunard White Star would be popular here. Chris is of course absolutely correct that the details are a minefield, but they are well understood.

 

In this situation you cannot please everyone with one model. A manufacturer can either choose one or build adaptable tooling. It might be the 'right' commercial approach for volume production to focus on series 2 and 3, with perhaps a commission (possibly from a totally different supplier) for a series 1.

 

Someone will announce a Merchant Navy in 00. It's only a matter of time. Whether they even try to please everyone is the question. They don't have to.

[JSpencer]

I agree. I doubt anyone wants an original 'MN' more than me, and while I would be willing to forgive the wrong details in order to have the name/number that I wanted, it is clear from the posts on RMweb that there are many who expect perfection in every detail. That was the point I was trying to make - I wasn't intending yet another re-run of the detail differences. I happen to think that most of the names that will appeal to modellers are in the early batches and if Hornby had the audacity to put those names on a series 2 or 3 model there would be uproar.

CHRIS LEIGH

I agree, I for one would not be seeking minor variations across the first batch and would just happy to have an un rebuilt Merchant navy from the first 10.

 

I think we would be asking a fair amount to do the 3 basic tenders as both high and low sided. But maybe another 1 or 2 would make most happy.

[Mark Dickerson]

So we can expect 1-2 steam locos and possibly a modern traction item to be awaiting announcement. The sensible steam candidates would include a retooled B12 (this must be due to happen soon), a Bugatti front P2, an S15, or possibly a Lord Nelson.  It's very difficult to think of any LMS candidates - the Stanier 0-4-4Ts are ruled out by the presence of the Radial - you won't get more than 1 pretty vintage tank per year -

Don't you mean "Johnson 0-4-4-t"? This would be some strange rule against sort-of-duplication that only applies to "vintage tanks" - and doesn't apply to Bachmann (um, 1F and Coal Tank). Why not add something else to haul the new suburbans (that isn't another Jinty, hopefully).

 

Given previous history, I still wonder if we will see the Electrotren 0-6-0t chassis with a British body. J88? Hornby's looked to Scotland for its smaller prototypes before...

[Dunsignalling]

I agree, I for one would not be seeking minor variations across the first batch and would just happy to have an un rebuilt Merchant navy from the first 10.

 

I think we would be asking a fair amount to do the 3 basic tenders as both high and low sided. But maybe another 1 or 2 would make most happy.

The problem with a phrase such as "un-rebuilt Merchant Navy from the first 10" is one of dating.  

 

Taking 'Channel Packet' as an example (probably the most extreme one, I freely admit) the 1941 appearance of 21C1 bore relatively little relation to the 1952 appearance of 35001. By then, various panels had been trimmed and she had been retro-fitted with most of the altered bits developed on her later classmates. 

 

The problem is that the collectors will clamour for 21C1/2 in as-built condition whereas I suspect most modellers will prefer examples that lasted longest before rebuilding so they can run them alongside their Rebuilt locos without invoking Rule 1.

 

I consider that the differences between the two states (even if the later one is also based on a First Series loco) are likely to be too numerous to accommodate using alternative slides in the moulds so, in order to satisfy both main groups of potential buyers, there really need to be two distinct body shells.

 

Compared to that issue, the need to make two or three new tender bodies (to fit existing underframes) is not that big a deal, especially given that (for instance) a cut-down 5000g one would also enable the range of Rebuilt MNs to be expanded.  

 

John