Hornby's Warley Announcements.

[Unknown Warrior]

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...

I am a bit bemused by the Stanier 0-4-4T. It was a bit like the "Wild Bunch" came to late and stayed too long! I always think it is a bit rough to blame Stanier for it. They were already on the stocks when he arrived. I have seen Lemon credited (blamed!) for them which is probably more accurate! The Johnson Midland 0-4-4T would be much better, many more of them, more widely spread and lived much longer. Anyway Hornby will hopefully do the push pull version of the Suburbans so it will be needed to go with them. Otherwise I might have to get round to building my two Craftsman Kits!

 

On the subject of two more vintage small tanks at the same time, it hasn't stopped Bachmann: the E5 and the 64XX are both due next spring and judging by the samples at Warley they will be very acceptable!

[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.

 

 

 

I was not being nasty, just basing my views on what happened with certain manufacturers of kits in 7mm scale in the 1980's who did just the same as DJM in announcing a whole raft of models (140 to 150 models with livery variants in DJM catalogue) that they were going to produce publicly only to find that other manufacturers came along and cherry picked from their list, none of those kit manufacturers are around today except the careful ones.  The moral of the story is only announce the items you intend to bring to market quickly.

Hornby have a J94 which could very cheaply be revamped at minimum tooling cost compared to the tooling cost of the DJM version and in a quicker time.  They also have a bigger development team available than DJM.

As for inaccurate information, I think not as that would apply to everyone on this topic, none of us know what Hornby intend for 2015 except for the Adams Radial Tank.

 

Loconuts

[Ravenser]

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...

 

The Stanier 0-4-4T was essentially the Johnson 0-4-4T dressed up with current boiler fittings - much to the disgust of the LMS design people. The only missing LMS suburban type would be the 2-6-2Ts . Bachmann have done the 1F and Coal Tank in successive years

 

My point was that with the Adams Radial in the 2015 range, it's very unlikely that there will be a second small vintage tank in 2015. And if there were, the G5 or even a GE 2-4-2T would be a better bet than an LMS 0-4-4T . I'd be surprised if someone doesn't do the G5 in the next 5 years

[Gerald Henriksen]

I was not being nasty, just basing my views on what happened with certain manufacturers of kits in 7mm scale in the 1980's who did just the same as DJM in announcing a whole raft of models (140 to 150 models with livery variants in DJM catalogue)

 

DJ Models has announced 13 models in their catalog, and trying to claim each livery variant as a "model" is, in my opinion, a deliberate attempt to denigrate DJ Models.

 

There is a further model (class 71) which is something of a hybrid because while it is a DJM product it is being directly funded by the people paying for it in advance.

 

Which brings us to a total of 14 models.

 

All of the other items are other people/companies products that DJM is being contracted to manufacture, and hence DJ Models has no control as to when the models have been announced.

 

The moral of the story is only announce the items you intend to bring to market quickly.

 

I guess you hold everyone else in equal contempt then?  Because all of the existing companies involved - Bachmann, Hornby, Heljan, and Dapol announce products well in advance.  The cost of tooling is such that while someone occasionally will bring a surprise product to market it is a very big financial gamble.

 

Hornby have a J94 which could very cheaply be revamped at minimum tooling cost compared to the tooling cost of the DJM version and in a quicker time.

 

I think you are mistaken if you think anyone could "revamp" existing tooling at a minimal cost into a top of the line model.

 

They also have a bigger development team available than DJM.

Which also means they have higher costs which need to be recovered in the price of the product.

[Dunsignalling]

I was not being nasty, just basing my views on what happened with certain manufacturers of kits in 7mm scale in the 1980's who did just the same as DJM in announcing a whole raft of models (140 to 150 models with livery variants in DJM catalogue) that they were going to produce publicly only to find that other manufacturers came along and cherry picked from their list, none of those kit manufacturers are around today except the careful ones.  The moral of the story is only announce the items you intend to bring to market quickly.

Hornby have a J94 which could very cheaply be revamped at minimum tooling cost compared to the tooling cost of the DJM version and in a quicker time.  They also have a bigger development team available than DJM.

As for inaccurate information, I think not as that would apply to everyone on this topic, none of us know what Hornby intend for 2015 except for the Adams Radial Tank.

 

Loconuts

The Hornby and DJM J94s are very different animals and anybody who wants a Hornby one has had donkey's years to satisfy his cravings. 

 

The mechanical spec Dave Jones has laid down for his locos exceeds anything yet produced by Hornby and is, I suggest, why his plans have been so widely welcomed.

 

Hornby's J94 was a very good model at the time it was launched (originally by Dapol). Hornby haven't really advanced it beyond improving the paintwork and revamping theirs to match DJM's would effectively mean a completely new model.

 

That would leave Hornby needing to undercut DJM's prices which would run counter to Hornby's "pile it low sell it dear" strategy. 

 

Duplication is generally a situation that is forced upon manufacturers, very seldom will any of them knowingly choose to do it unless the model involved is a "must have" for any mainstream range (A4, Tornado, Class 08 etc.) the J94 is not such a model, otherwise Hornby would have needed to improve theirs years ago.

 

John

[Roy P]

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

Some good points well made but in terms of Hornby's ability or willingness to tackle such matters, I wonder if we can draw any comparisons to the Brittannia/Clan models in respect of "two different body shells" ( the Duke may have shared the basic chassis but for other well versed issues).

Is the concept of an as built "Channel Packet" model very different from the "Cock O' the North" in the sense of a single stand alone model (pending 2007 Prince of Wales)?

A Merchant Navy is long overdue and plenty would buy them under rule one. I think it a bit more important at this time, IF Hornby were to consider at least the 2nd or 3rd series types, that they were produced to the standard of the Britannia and not the Duke. Hopefully the signs are that period has past and Hornby are getting back to better things - at a price which some said they were prepared to pay.

The J15, Black Motor, D16 and (dare I mention it?) the Adams Tank are all smallish locos that will test those who price their models £ per inch. The new King (leaving aside any comparisons to the alternative product) will show Hornby's intentions regarding the bigger stuff. I hope the the P2, Duke and Star were just in the wrong place at the wrong time (hap'orth of tar) and there are better days ahead.

Hornby should have it in them to produce MNs even those from the 1st series (remember the detail differences on their 1470 Great Northern?), it's just whether it fits their strategy and bearing mind their production/distribution problems, each new model from a new factory puts them in a similar position to many other concerns despite the history of their brand. 

They must tread carefully.

As for a "spoiler" J94; one might be generous and say that rather than a spoiler they just want to wring the last out of the model before it's too late.

 

RP

[Mark Dickerson]

The Stanier 0-4-4T was essentially the Johnson 0-4-4T dressed up with current boiler fittings - much to the disgust of the LMS design people. The only missing LMS suburban type would be the 2-6-2Ts . Bachmann have done the 1F and Coal Tank in successive years

 

My point was that with the Adams Radial in the 2015 range, it's very unlikely that there will be a second small vintage tank in 2015. And if there were, the G5 or even a GE 2-4-2T would be a better bet than an LMS 0-4-4T . I'd be surprised if someone doesn't do the G5 in the next 5 years

Yes, I can see someone doing a G5 - although with their previous range I'd be looking at either a new Hornby N2 or (keeping the N2 for Railroad) N7. I just get the impression that the Adams Radial announcement is much a strategic broadside against rivals as part of a definite plan, so we could see anything. Hornby doesn't have anything higher-spec for small LMs steam at the moment.

[Ozexpatriate]

Is the concept of an as built "Channel Packet" model very different from the "Cock O' the North" in the sense of a single stand alone model (pending 2007 Prince of Wales)?

Not a bit. Arguably the market for "Cock O' the North" might be bigger since it's a bit more different than everything else than a Bulleid Light Pacific.

 

A Merchant Navy is long overdue and plenty would buy them under rule one.

Yes they would.

[JSpencer]

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

I personally am not a great fan of 2C1C as built and would be happy to see her as she was with her later sisters.

 

Hornby did go with at least 2 distinct body shells (and I can even think there were 3 if we cater for Narrow cabs too) for the original light pacific, so that could be an eventual possibility for an original merchant navy. I think it would be too costly to go for every variation though.

[Guest Belgian]

. . . 

 

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

Not necessarily: 9mm/N gauge quantities are probably 25% or less of 4mm/OO gauge quantities in terms of sales potential. Therefore I would argue that where it it is only economic to do one version in N gauge, three or four versions in 4mm/OO would probably be even more economic.

 

JE

[Guest Belgian]

Reputedly Hornby had made fewer 2 BILs in the original batch that Bachmann had made Blue Pullmans, and they didn't announce it until after production had been completed.  The popularity of the 2 BIL took them by surpsie despite the fact that the trade had been on at them for some years to make one.

But the 2 BILs are being discounted pretty heavily these days . . .

 

JE

[Ian Hargrave]

Well I won't be quibbling if they settle on two distinct body shapes with three distinct liveries.Surely a consensus can be reached on ONE of the first batch? All models are a compromise anyway.

Before I make my final journey to the "withdrawn" line at Eastleigh,I would like the opportunity of recreating in miniature a return journey remembered from a summer Saturday in August 1958 from Yeovil Junction to Salisbury behind Exmouth Junction's 35003.I can still hear her now....

[Dunsignalling]

Is the concept of an as built "Channel Packet" model very different from the "Cock O' the North" in the sense of a single stand alone model (pending 2007 Prince of Wales)? (1)

 

A Merchant Navy is long overdue and plenty would buy them under rule one. I think it a bit more important at this time, IF Hornby were to consider at least the 2nd or 3rd series types, that they were produced to the standard of the Britannia and not the Duke. Hopefully the signs are that period has past and Hornby are getting back to better things - at a price which some said they were prepared to pay. (2)

 

The J15, Black Motor, D16 and (dare I mention it?) the Adams Tank are all smallish locos that will test those who price their models £ per inch. The new King (leaving aside any comparisons to the alternative product) will show Hornby's intentions regarding the bigger stuff. I hope the the P2, Duke and Star were just in the wrong place at the wrong time (hap'orth of tar) and there are better days ahead. (3)

 

Hornby should have it in them to produce MNs even those from the 1st series (remember the detail differences on their 1470 Great Northern?), it's just whether it fits their strategy and bearing mind their production/distribution problems, each new model from a new factory puts them in a similar position to many other concerns despite the history of their brand. 

They must tread carefully. (4)

 

As for a "spoiler" J94; one might be generous and say that rather than a spoiler they just want to wring the last out of the model before it's too late. (5)

 

RP

Hi Roy,

 

I've taken the liberty of numbering your points in order to clarify my responses, hope you don't mind.

 

(1) Very similar. Hornby will get a second bite of the P2 cherry by re-numbering their CotN to represent the new-build loco and they could equally follow up 21C1 with 21C2.

 

(2) I utterly agree that an air-smoothed MN is long overdue but they really need to focus on First Series locos to avoid duplicating names they have already covered with their Rebuilts. The tooling issue (for models other than the first few in very early condition) is by no means insurmountable so long as they stick to representing locos in post-1952(ish) condition when their appearance had become more uniform (and more like their later brethren). 

 

(3) Those who equate value-for-money with pounds-per-inch won't have been happy for a while and I don't see much on the horizon to cheer them up!

 

(4) The degree of variation that can be incorporated into modern tooling is amazing but what I was getting at (perhaps a little clumsily) in my earler post is that there are limits; if Hornby were to launch only a 1941 MN or only a post-1952 version it might upset almost as many as it would delight. However, I think they could get away with it so long as they emphasized at the outset that there was a wider range of models to come.

 

(5) I don't think a J94 "spoiler" is at all likely. If Hornby were to announce yet another duplicated model this year, it would indicate that they are terrified by their new competitors and are trying to stifle them. They might want to do the latter but admitting the former would destroy their 'market leader' image!

 

Regards

 

John  

[Adams442T]

 

 

(5) I don't think a J94 "spoiler" is at all likely. If Hornby were to announce yet another duplicated model this year, it would indicate that they are terrified by their new competitors and are trying to stifle them. They might want to do the latter but admitting the former would destroy their 'market leader' image!

 

Regards

 

John  

 

John, You may be interested in the posting I did under DJM's J94 thread on 30th November.  I got somewhat taken to task as a 'Hornby Basher', but as I explained later, having a majority of my loco stable from them, I would like nothing more than to see Hornby back on course.  But for instance if their new Adams Radial, which I look forward to in keen anticipation, is duff I will buy the Oxford one.

 

"Interestingly I see Kernow have just sent out in their newsletter the 'new' Hornby issue of the J94 as NCB loco, Kent coalfields, No 12, in blue.

 

Deliberate spoiler?  Oh, I think so..............

 

As it looks to be the same old spec. Hornby model, poor above and below footplate detail, incorrect balance weight positioning, even though they have it at £73.50, I will be waiting for one of DJM's"

[The Stationmaster]

But the 2 BILs are being discounted pretty heavily these days . . .

 

JE

Quite agree but that is, I think, a consequence of the way Hornby get things wrong.  They produce something, the 2 BILs being the prime example, in relatively limited quantities because they are not entirely sure of the market and it takes off sales wise.  So they make some more, but now the problem they face with 'some more' is judging the size of the unsatisfied part of the original market - make the right judgement and you sell all of what you make, get it wrong and you can be trying to shift the things for several years.  Also pricing influenced the situation with the 2 BILs as there was a 'reserve' of unsold stock at full price while retailers offering reductions had sold out (so change your pricing policy - they have).

 

The same thing has happened with the Hawksworths although clearly not as badly as it did with the 2BILs but it does seem to happen more with coaches then locos (except where they simply repeat a previous running number, which then drastically reduces sales unless it is something exceptional.  Very easy I would think to get it wrong, not necessarily easy to get the numbers right on re-runs.

[ThaneofFife]

seems to be a heavy emphasis commenting on 00 modes which I suppose is kind of instinctive when talking Horny, but maybe the odd disappearance from the Farish website of the N gauge Class 87 and 90 models could provide Hornby with some ideas for their next project in conjunction with Arnold?  

 

The N gauge coaching stock market is well catered for these days with high detail models for the BR and post eras so are the diesels but the electrics far less so.

[papagolfjuliet]

 

"Interestingly I see Kernow have just sent out in their newsletter the 'new' Hornby issue of the J94 as NCB loco, Kent coalfields, No 12, in blue.

 

Deliberate spoiler?  Oh, I think so..............

 

As it looks to be the same old spec. Hornby model, poor above and below footplate detail, incorrect balance weight positioning, even though they have it at £73.50, I will be waiting for one of DJM's"

 

While I'm quite sceptical of Hornby's motives in its choice of new models for next year, this one is pure coincidence. The Tilmanstone Austerity was announced this time last year, well before DJM were known to be producing their version in anything other than LNER and BR liveries.

[Dunsignalling]

John, You may be interested in the posting I did under DJM's J94 thread on 30th November.  I got somewhat taken to task as a 'Hornby Basher', but as I explained later, having a majority of my loco stable from them, I would like nothing more than to see Hornby back on course.  But for instance if their new Adams Radial, which I look forward to in keen anticipation, is duff I will buy the Oxford one.

 

"Interestingly I see Kernow have just sent out in their newsletter the 'new' Hornby issue of the J94 as NCB loco, Kent coalfields, No 12, in blue.

 

Deliberate spoiler?  Oh, I think so..............

 

As it looks to be the same old spec. Hornby model, poor above and below footplate detail, incorrect balance weight positioning, even though they have it at £73.50, I will be waiting for one of DJM's"

I must admit that my requirement is for a BR one and I haven't really kept up with the myriad liveries announced by DJM and Friends. The significance of Hornby's "new" version therefore passed straight over my head!

 

I've already traded in my old Hornby J94 in anticipation of the DJM release and I'll be following the same course as you.

 

John

 

.

[surfsup]

seems to be a heavy emphasis commenting on 00 modes which I suppose is kind of instinctive when talking Horny, but maybe the odd disappearance from the Farish website of the N gauge Class 87 and 90 models could provide Hornby with some ideas for their next project in conjunction with Arnold?

Exciting Electrics?

[Forester]

 

if Hornby were to launch only a 1941 MN or only a post-1952 version it might upset almost as many as it would delight.

 

 

With respect I see no evidence for this statement at all.

 

We accept we can't have everything and we work with what we are lucky enough to be given (nothing up to now so far as the original MN is concerned).

The least risky option is Series two and three. Even though I'd like a First Series, I've really waited long enough and time is running out.

[Dunsignalling]

 

The same thing has happened with the Hawksworths although clearly not as badly as it did with the 2BILs but it does seem to happen more with coaches then locos (except where they simply repeat a previous running number, which then drastically reduces sales unless it is something exceptional.  Very easy I would think to get it wrong, not necessarily easy to get the numbers right on re-runs.

They certainly seemed to overdo things with the Hawksworths, leading to some very deep discounting even by retailers who seldom go in for that sort of thing. As a consequence I have a few more than I was originally intending to buy!

 

Coaches present other problems when calculating the size of production runs that will sell out, notably producing similar numbers in two or three colour schemes without (necessarily) considering that some liveries are more popular than others. The classic example of this was the Maunsell range, the BR Green ones sold like hot cakes with some getting re-runs with suffixes up to 'E'. SR Green and BR Crimson/cream versions moved a lot more slowly, with more discounting and quite a few still not hard to find new two or three years after release.

 

I'm mighty glad I'm not the one who has to make the decisions over batch sizes!

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

 

if Hornby were to launch only a 1941 MN or only a post-1952 version it might upset almost as many as it would delight.

 

 

With respect I see no evidence for this statement at all.

 

We accept we can't have everything and we work with what we are lucky enough to be given (nothing up to now so far as the original MN is concerned).

The least risky option is Series two and three. Even though I'd like a First Series, I've really waited long enough and time is running out.

 

I did say "might". To me that implies speculation rather than assertion, at least that's how I intended it to be taken. You also have ignored the context of what went immediately before and after that phrase.  

 

However, I still think the avoidance of repeating names already covered by models of rebuilt Second and Third series locos is desirable. First Series models (as I have pointed out earlier) aren't too daunting so long as you don't go too early (chronologically rather than numerically).

 

In any event, I only really want one and, if I were that bothered, or in a hurry, I'd forego a few r-t-r purchases and get a PDK one built to exactly the spec I want.

 

John   

[Dunsignalling]

Exciting Electrics?

Ooh, err, Matron.

[phil gollin]

Quite agree but that is, I think, a consequence of the way Hornby get things wrong.  They produce something, the 2 BILs being the prime example, in relatively limited quantities because they are not entirely sure of the market and it takes off sales wise.  So they make some more, but now the problem they face with 'some more' is judging the size of the unsatisfied part of the original market - make the right judgement and you sell all of what you make, get it wrong and you can be trying to shift the things for several years.  Also pricing influenced the situation with the 2 BILs as there was a 'reserve' of unsold stock at full price while retailers offering reductions had sold out (so change your pricing policy - they have). ,......................

 

 

.

 

The initial 2-BILs release was a precursor of the Exeter debacle.    Not enough were initially released and pre-orders could not be met, but (surprise, surprise) there were many available on the Hornby website at full price.  There were lots and lots of moans both from buyers and retailers.      Eventually, and unannounced, more of the initial batch turned up (with no explanation).   All in all a mess.

 

And ...........

 

.

[Glorious NSE]

Exciting Electrics?

Somebody's not convinced yet...

 

 

(Don't worry, many years of propaganda to follow...)