No, it doesn't. In fact, IMHO, it explains why they did use B-L and not Hornby.
I'm sure this has been explained before, as this is the most 'roundy roundy' topic I think I've ever read, but I'll have one more go at it.
As I suggested above, the brief for this development, it seems, was to target a new market; make it fun, "out there", and different; and, prudently, keep the at-risk expenditure as low as reasonably possible.
So:
Hornby is not new, and it is not different. It would not serve to differentiate the current from this new market exercise.
B-L, is new (to most people), and certainly to most if not all of the new target market, and it is definitely different.
The name "Basset Lowke has a distinctly "Victorian" feel to it, so is eminently suitable for these products.
Creating a totally new brand, registering it, protecting it, etc., etc., as very expensive. But the Hornby Co. already own B-L, so, surely, it becomes a no-brainer to just use what you have. A "two-for-one" deal: a new brand, at minimal cost, fully differentiated from the existing, and a great fit with the stated goals.
There is still, of course, some benefit from the reputation that the Hornby brand carries, in terms of distribution networks, product quality (I know - I'm going to regret that one :-) ) and so forth. Hence, if you check the images of the B-L branded advertising material on Andy's first post in this topic, the Hornby name, logo, address, etc. DOES still appear, but B-L is clearly the more prominent focus. It is a sub-brand in fact, a common and very useful marketing concept.
This is all just basic marketing principles. It can be found in any basic marketing text book. It really isn't that hard to figure out, surely?