Ravenser

In extremis - slap on a graffiti transfer....

You are assuming that the 2022 range has actually been made and been shipped .... Hasn't there been a lot of complaint that Hornby haven't delivered the items announced yet? If they haven't arrived it's hardly surprising they haven't sold out. The "narrative" that Hornby are making a lot of stuff that no-body wants to buy and they are slowly being crushed by an ever-growing mountain of over-priced tat sitting in a warehouse in Kent seems to have taken on a life of its own One place that stocks could be building up is at the other end, in China . I don't know Hornby's exact terms but they will be buying either FOB ("Free on board" - title passes "at the ship's rail") or ex works. If it's ex works, then the goods become Hornby's at the factory , once they've been made. The WB Far East trade does not run on CIF terms If you can't ship stuff , and you have product piling up at the factory , or in containers waiting for someone to gice you space on a vessel - then that is also stock you are holding and it would show up in the accounts . (That this has happened seems inherently likely given the state of the world) If you decide "Just In Time" logistics are no longer workable and decide to go back to the old fashioned approach of holding a decent buffer stock in your warehouse (which seems to be indicated by Hornby's comments) that too will show up as increased stock in the accounts. (There is also the interesting question of how Hornby are handling EU distribution. Is that causing them to hold increased stocks? Most comment on Hornby seems to assume that OO model railways in the UK is at least 75% of Hornby Hobbies and everything else - Airfix, Corgi , Scalextrix, Hornby International in HO, N and TT - amounts to no more than about 25% of the business and can be ignored... Jouef, Elettrotren, Rivarossi and Arnold are fairly significant brands in a much bigger EU market, and Airfix is also a significant EU brand) Finally if you only sell to the retail trade then you largely off-load the stock holding onto the model shops. If you start selling direct then you need to hold stocks in your own warehouse - and just as every model shop has old stock hanging around on its shelves so will you Because you are now a shop, too. Just like Kernow, Hattons or Rails you will have to shift the remnants now and then by a clearance sale. Bargains at the box sellers are not evidence that the box sellers have ordered the wrong stuff - they are a normal part of the retail business All those things have a cost, and they aren't positive for Hornby , even though they may be practically necessary. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of inability to sell the stuff Hornby makes What we do know is that TT track has been sitting in the warehouse for some months until the train sets arrived, and that TT trainsets and Drax Biomass wagons are flying out of the warehouse as fast as they come in.

See here: Drax Biomass frenzy Blink and you'll miss 'em The pricing seems extraordinarily sharp

1. The Titfield Thunderbolt is a completely different situation, because licencing rights are concerned, and there is a legal restraint. But Hornby have announced that Lion and the Loriot will be produced and released, so the underlying project continues. They have scrapped one of the releases for the new models not the development project and the models 2. With the Terrier it's very speculative that Hornby had definitely decided they would not progress a new Terrier (whether as a design project they had inherited, or which they had continued but stopped) , but then changed their mind because of Rails. All we can really say is that Hornby had a retooled Terrier project within their development pipeline, and decided to prioritise it in order to counter Rails . (There's a difference between dropping a project , and feeling that you still have a few years in the old model before this one needs to come to market. Whoops! we need this out smartish) While the production slots will have come from something else, bringing the Terrier might equally free up production slots down the line. We can also argue that the slots might have come from a Year 2 run of a model that would have ended up in bargain bins (Logically that's exactly where you might look for the production slots...) 3. Historically , Hornby and Bachmann were happy to overproduce and see quite large amounts of the tail end of production end up in the bargain bin. That was part of the business model 10-15 years ago. Lynton Davies (and his counterparts elsewhere) decided this was the wrong approach and reined it vback. What we don't know is whether Hornby are still willing to take a risk and accept that some of the Year 2 run on some models will need to be remaindered, or whether it is genuinely miscalculation and error. (You can argue that accepting you will take a hit on part of some Year 2 runs is the wrong call, but it could still be a deliberate call. To do a longer production run from new tools as standard ,spreading tooling /development costs across more units, and accept that the last bit of the run on some models will be done at production/development/tooling cost only. Bachmann are in a different situation: at current price point they can sell more than they can buy production slots for. They re therefore rationing production capacity, and "stopping short" is necvessary) 4. An interesting one is the current Hornby re-run of the Drax Biomass wagons, selling at £50 for a pack of two, whereas I think the original limited edition via Hattons was £83 a wagon? Two issues come to mind: - Where did Hornby find the production slots for this? What did they "bump" to do it? - The huge price drop suggests the entire development/tooling cost went against the first run , which I think was billed as a one time "these will never be made again" exercise by Drax... That the wagons could crash from £166 for two to £50 for two and yet it still be worth Hornby's while to make them suggests the development/tooling charge against the first batch must have been enormous. If this is a glimpse of the difference in all up costs betwen running a new tooling model and producing from tooling that is fully paid for, it is quite staggering ..... And also - given the perception of Hornby as a company desperate to gouge every last penny out of its customers in a frantic attempt to keep its head above water - the fact that they were willing and able to torch the price like this, and switched capacity to do it , is astonishing Rails were advertising Drax Biomass twin packs in N from Revolution in July at £80 a pack. Revolution's JNA in N is £43 retail . Given that some retailers are advertising the Hornby wagons on ebay at well above the RRP, Hornby could have got away with charging a lot more than £50 a twin pack But they haven't The wagons are selling like hot cakes - cheap hot cakes in a famine... Drax Biomass frenzy

That is informative. My understanding is that Hattons went direct to the factory with their Barclays and 66, as have Kernow with a number of things , Certainly Hattons is the only branding on the Barclay's box

If they'd dropped the project , the development costs would have had to be written off. If much of the development work was done by Oxford Rail , then that intellectual property was an asset purchased and the accountants would have insisted on a write-down charge. Abandoning a product under development is not a nil-cost decision If at this point they've incurred a loss on the Terrier project , then it may well have been less than the potential write down from abandoning the project. They do now have new tooling for a Terrier , which is an asset. But Hornby made the call to carry on knowing they faced competition, so they must have been convinced at that point that the numbers on their side would look ok. The key issue will have been "if we make these models, can we sell the production run ?" Clearly they did sell it. When Bachmann and Hornby went head to head on the Standard 4 , both models ended up in the bargain bins for some considerable time. As far as I'm aware that didn't happen with the Terriers. From Hornby's point of view , it looks like they sold all the Terriers they expected to sell. From RoS's point of view it looks like they sold all the Terriers they planned to do I assume Dapol would have had them made in a Chinese factory? If the RoS Terriers had been manufactured at Chirk I'm sure we'd have had endless threads on here about returning production of model railways to the UK - "Dapol have just shown it can be done" Whether Rails went direct to China or Dapol acted as intermediary, if production slots aren't available in China, and at a price which makes the numbers stack up , they won't re-run their Terrier. The same applies to anyone else. Bachmann have admitted they are struggling to buy enough production capacity at Kadar to make as much as they want: hence the EFE Rail venture. It seems likely that one reason they've only released their modern state-of-the-art 4F a few times is a lack of production capacity, and a decision that other things are better bets There's a hidden variable here - price. Bachmann can't afford to bid higher and buy more production slots because the market price for the product would mean they wouldn't recover the money. Bachmann are already a bit more expensive than Hornby (in OO) and Dapol (in N) A further dimension to the premium models v affordable models/Design Clever discussion: a complex highly detailed model requires more capacity at the factory to make. Not only does it cost more to make the premium model, if capacity is finite and limited , you get fewer models out of your production capacity. Much comment about the likes of Rapido and Accurascale assumes they have no capacity constraints, and so can grow as large as they want . They can simply go to China and get more production capacity at the factories. That might have been true 10 years ago: it isn't true now. If they can't get more slots , they can make new and different models , but they can't make more models per year. This is the essence of the batch system : a large bank of tooling , only a part of which is being used this year. Annual announcements then become more about which of our existing tools we will be running this year, not so much about brand new tooling The RRP for a Bachmann Mk1 is currently £55. For an autotrailer from brand new tooling the RRP it's £80. For a Hornby railroad Mk1 RRP is £43. We can have all sorts of special pleading about why it's better to buy an £80 model than an equivalent model discounted below £30 , but at the end of the day those kind of price differentials will have an effect in the marketplace There are a lot of "moving parts " here, and our usual assumptions about competition/duplication don't take account of many of them

I was repeating someone elses recent quoted figures on here (201 Pacifics / 184 V2s ) The 201 Pacifics almost certainly includes BR built A1s, and A2s. As were talking 1950s ECML , and relative potentials , it's probably near the mark. I was being sloppy saying LNER Pacifics, though if you told someone A1s weren't LNER Pacifics they might raise an eyebrow - BR Pacifics implies Britannias to most folk As far as Mk1s are concerned , the HMRS Parkin Vol 1 has a photo of Bradford Forster Square carriage sidings , with just 3 blood/custard visible : "By the autumn of 1958 the original red and cream liveried coaches were becoming rarer..." says the caption I would expect Mk1s in ECML sets to be the latest most recently delivered Mk1s the ER/NEReg had - therefore disproprtionately maroon. Cascading of coaching stock has been standard practice on the ECML for generations. I am going to stick my neck out wildly and suggest 3 maroon to 1 b/custard on the ECML by 1958/9 , with the B/c being skewed towards the older Gresley stock. Parkin again - "crimson and cream lasted well on little used stock....isolated examples still being noted in 1964" He has a b/w photo from 1955 of a Mk1 displaying "rampant corrosion" on B/C paintwork "only three years after building" ECML express sets were NOT little used stock... For what it's worth - Blacklade's "funny trains" kettles are nominally set in 1958, so I'm sensitive to the issue, though quite a bit of the "funny trains" sets are in fact non-corridor stock. I have so far managed to duck doing blood and custard myself. Maroon yes (the dratted Tourist Bk 3rd ) plain crimson yes, but the only two b/c are a Hornby Gresley BCK and a detailed CKD Dapol Stanier CK. My two Ratio LNWR corridors are in plain LNER brown cos I didn't fancy attempting B/C on them (They are ex M&GN - a very slight stretch for 1958 - but the GE Section kept all pregrouping vehicles in brown and never applied BR liveries on them) Blacklade's 2 car sets are a very much lower grade duty than ECML expresses (And the Southern were expert at revarnishing to keep old paintwork going. Contemporary observers were able to compare the new 1956 green directly against revarnished malachite because the SReg managed not to repaint quite a lot of vehicles during the B/C era. That wasn't the case on other Regions)

The LNER had 201 Pacifics and 2 streamlined B17s, which were de-streamlined after the war The Pacifics were used over about 750 route miles., serving London , 5 major provincial conurbations and 7-8 medium sized cities. The streamlined B17s operated over 112 route miles serving London , one medium sized city and one large county town. Streamlined B17s haven't even been done in OO.....

The experts will respond, but I think blood & custard would have been getting pretty rare by 1960. And the ECML sets should have been getting the latest newest coaches on the ER/NEReg anyway Again the experts will correct me - but I think 1959 is when Class 40s were brought onto the ECML expresses? The Brush 2s came onto GN surburban duties in 1958-9 Tony Wright would know all the details - I think Little Bytham is set in 1958 (the year the station closed)? Not a lot of blood and custard in his sets from memory of his posts. Also if things snowball, and Worsley Works shoot down their 3mm Mk1 etched sides to TT120 as seems likely - reworking Hornby CKs into other types of Mk1 would be simpler if you are dealing with a single colour livery . Even I fancy my chances of doing a reasonable job with plain maroon and a spray can in 4mm. As a P4 modeller it ought to manageable for you in 1:120...

It's not entirely fair to spotlight Tom-on-the=platform , but he's just neatly spelt out some of the reasons why "If X make a Class 987 Hornby won't be able to compete" doesn't work like that in the marketplace I don't know if Rails of Sheffield intended to do regular runs of their Terrier, or if it was intended to be a one-shot project blazing across the heavens like a meteor. They may always have intended to recover the cost of the tooling from the initial production runs. They might have taken the stance that provided they recovered the production cost + tooling/development costs , plus took their normal retail margin on top , then the project was viable for them for the extra retail sales volume at full markup, plus the marketing and prestige it brought... If Hornby had decided it was unethical to put their own Terrier project into production against Rails , there is no certainty that RoS would have done further runs of their Terrier. They may not be able to get production slots at the factory (or slots at a price that they can work with) in the current environement. And Hornby could still have pumped out a flood of Terriers from their old tooling - as they did with the Limby 66 and Hattons' 66 - and I think everyone would have been just as angry with them. It's not clear anyone would actually have been better off if Hornby had "done the right thing" and ceded the market for OO Terriers to RoS. Hornby would certainly have been worse off; the availability of OO Terriers over the subsequent 10 years might well have been less, and some of those made might well have been the old Hornby Terrier. If Rails thought they could directly challenge an existing Hornby product with a rival in confidence that Hornby would not attempt to defend their market, that was rather naive. There are those who may wish that Hornby would simply "go quietly" and allow competitors to dismantle their business without Hornby putting up a commercial struggle , but that is not real world stuff We are going to have to adjust to the reality of the continuing existance of rival models of the same subject in the marketplace on an ongoing basis, and think through how it works, not assume that one of the models will be bundled out of the market and the perpetrator be given some kind of commercial black eye for their misdeeds I'm afraid a RTR Chesham set is not real word stuff. A 57xx in LT red and a brake van in LT livery sounds more likely to me

But if someone likes TT:120 and the models concerned, and has the set , all that's irrelevant. What matters is that space is a huge problem for doing it in 4mm, and very much less of a problem in TT:120.By the time you've planned the thing and built the boards, a lot more of the stuff will be available (The TT coaches so far are rather nice btw) As a practical issue, ECML layouts don't seem to happen in N , they happen in 4mm - indicating that for some reason the folk who want to model that subject don't want to do it in N. (I'm perfectly well aware of Copenhagen Fields, although strictly speaking its 2mm finescale a slightly different animal) What can you do with a TT:120 trainset? Use it as the core of a simple "watching the trains go by" ECML layout "You shouldn't model the ECML in TT:120 , you should model it in N " is not a sensible response here

I think this is looking in the wrong direction for troubvle.. There's a big unquestioned assumption sticking out of the Stationmaster's post. That assumption is that there is only room for one model of the same subject in OO. Therefore is there no point Hornby investing in new tooling for any wagons , because there will always be someone else offering a model of that wagon. So Hornby won't sell enough to get their money back. That is a very questionable assumption. It's fairly easy to point to a long list of subjects where two rival models have been offered RTR in OO by the manufacturers over a period of a number of years . But it's not necessary to argue the general principle , because LMS vans are perhaps the most spectacular example. 2 different OO models of an LMS van were generated by Airfix and Mainline , 40 odd years ago. Both have been produced on an on-going basis so far as I'm aware and are still around, even though one is significantly flawed Surely you mean "fortunately" ? If Hornby announce an LMS van to one diagram, and Rapido (or anyone else) subsquently announce a rival model of the same diagram, then the late comer is being wilfully provocative... Two maufacturers offering different but accurate LMS vans would be useful and make trains more interesting . There's every reason why both versions should sell. (Rapido might like to consider the LMS steel vans...) Rapido certainly operate on the batch system. They announce a run, they take pre-orders, once they have enough they commit to the production run . Once that's sold, it's sold . They may or may not announce a later run. I presume they use "soft" tooling with a short life, whereas the hard tooling for the Airfix/Mainline vans has lasted over 40 years In the short term there might be a head to head, but in the medium term a Hornby van is likely to be available in many years when Rapido are not making any . Rapido models sell out, and they move onto the next project: Rapido gunpowder vans sold out Rapido SECR opens sold out (I'm aware some of these are still available at the retailers. The point is that Rapido have done their run and they've sold through. "That's yer lot!". By Christmas you won't be able to buy them anywhere, and they may not be made again for a good many years, if ever) The real problem lies elsewhere. The window of opportunity where Chinese tooling and production costs were low enough to make tooling up new wagons work may have almost closed... 18 months ago I decided the wagon fleet for the Boxfile finally needed to have an ex SR wagon. It had become a slightly awkward gap in the correct fleet balance. And the inevitable choice would be a van, I went into the nearest model shop - and the B achmann ex SR van was over £20. They also had a Ratio kit , which sells for £11. Ratio ex SR plywood van I'd been made redundant not long before due to the pandemic , so I bought the kit and built it. Hattons are charging £28 for Rapido's SECR equivalent , while you can get it. Digitrains are charging £36 for a Bachmann van : Weathered Bachmann VEV . I seem to recall someone did an outside framed SECR van as a 3D print and it cost over £40 At these prices it will cost £500-600 to assemble a 25 wagon main line freight train using recent RTR. The picture isn't much different for modern freight trains in N. These prices are already starting to get prohibitive . They will only get worse , year after year, as costs in China rise in real terms... Someone up thread claimed B achmann had spent over a million quid tooling up their new 47s. Tooling up a wagon will be a fraction of that (£150K? £200K?) . But still, that investment has to be recovered, over and above the cost of making and distributing the things . That Bachmann SR van for twenty-odd quid wasn't tooled recently - a lot of the tooling cost must have already been recovered A little maths suggests you will need to sell some tens of thousands of a model wagon to recover your tooling costs from hard tooling . Only then will the project start to generate actual profit for you Meanwhile the people who run 25 wagon trains , either at home or on an exhibition layout are often not that fastidious . They are frequently happy to run trains of out of the box Mainline/Airfix tooled wagons, not always fully waethered. Those things can be found in second hand trays for £8 a pop. Those of us who are more fastidious know that you can pick up a chassis kit for £4-£6 and get an accurate detailed model for no more than £15 total spend. This is a very simple easy entry level modelling project . Meanwhile Dapol are still knocking the things out from fully depreciated tooling... Under these conditions how do you sell the tens of thousands of a newly tooled RTR wagon that you need to make money from the project? And the garotte will tighten, year by year, for the foreseeable future. And the supply of RTR wagons already made, on the second hand table, will grow year after year....

Much easier to build an ECML layout in TT:120 than in 4mm, as the space requirement is much less. Tony Wright's Stoke Summit was effectively 4 plain tracks in open countryside, to watch the trains go by, A double track circuit fed by a fiddle yard would do the job (Digswell Viaduct, Welwyn N station and Welwyn S Tunnel??) With A4s and A3s in squadron service , Mk1s and Pullmans you are a fair way to the ECML of the 1950s . Throw in a 9F and a Brush 2 , some Gresley coaches (all promised) and the key missing items become a V2 and an A1

I'll stick my neck out and say: 1. Two Dean clerestories rather than 1930s stock... 2. Catering stock seems to end up in the bargain bin. Not sure Hornby will bite 3. Sounds a very plausible suggestion. Hornby are good at NPCS 4. Think this might be a runner 5. Looks likely , but it's worrying that so many folk seem ready to sit out so many new versions. How high is the bar set by the Bachmann 57xx and when did Bachmann last release it? 6. Seems logical. Better bet surely than going head to head with Rapido on the B set. They can do something different from Bachmann ("Railroad Plus" ?? Sam's Trains is signalling serious price resistance to Bachmann's £80 RRP). 7. May be a very long shot. Not convinced I have a hunch this could be a GW year from Hornby, so you might be pleasantly surprised

I was making a point about an apparent shift in emphasis at Bachmann- people seem to have read it as a black and white yes/no For 20 years , we've assumed it's new tooling investment to a higher standard in OO , or you're dead. There's so much OO tooling out there now, to a high standard, I don't know if that assumption holds any more. Is it viable to scale back the new investment in OO, move some of the money to other areas with untapped potential (TT120, O, OO9), and operate more by re-running your existing OO tooling bank ? Will that simply result in you being blown away by players offering premium OO models at premium prices from state of the art tooling? Or can you compete with older tooling , lower production cost models and will your OO sales hold up? Clearly several players are betting that the premium models will blow away Hornby. Hornby seem to think that the market is reaching the limit of what it will bear in price, and that they should focus on more affoerdable models. Also, by implication , that they can hold their position in OO without commiting funds to the arms race in premium models We'll see who is right over the next few years. But - relevance to the thread - if that is the way Hornby are going, then we could see relatively limited new tooling in OO announced on 10/1/23 . Not because "the TT-120 adventure is starving the OO range of investment and Hornby are doomed" but because Hornby think the premium model game aint worth the candle and they can find better uses for their investment money. I don't know if that is going to be the right call or not . If Hornby have got it seriously wrong they will be in serious trouble. But I'm not certain they have got it wrong, whereas I think quite a few people here will feel it's blindingly obvious its the wrong call As far as Bachmann are concerned , they do seem to be investing less heavily in new OO tooling, especially for their own account and looking rather more in other directions. In a less clearcut manner than Hornby , and they are still flirting with taking on the premium model challenge in D+E. How far those are old commitments pre-pandemic is another matter. The 47 must have been decided on some years ago, the 158 project is nearly a decade old. Will they keep pushing in the money? One to watch, perhaps But I'm trying to say out that if Hornby chose to scale back their OO new tooling , they aren't necessarily at 180 degrees to the rest of the industry. The concept isn't necessarly crackers. One side or other of the call is going to be wrong. The consequences would be serious for whichever gets it wrong

With respect I didn't say that there were no models produced in the Kadar factory at Bachmann Europe commercial risk. I said that new-tooled OO at Bachmann Europe commercial risk was not so central to their business. A raft of brand new OO toolings announed at the start of the year is no longer the core of the business They are doing re-runs, from their own and other's existing tooling . Their solution to a lack of new subjects in OO has been to develop a OO9 range. The new 158 was announced nearly a decade ago. They are making stuff for Locomotion and the LT Museum at premium prices. Development costs and commercial risk lie with Locomotion/LTM Moving to quarterly announcements avoids the expectation of a big raft of new tooling each year. Yes they are announcing some new tooling , and will no doubt cxontinue to do so. But I do think we are seeing a shift of emphasis starting , a reduction in new tooling and and a much bigger part for re-runs in OO - Bachmann have decided to move some of the tooling investment out of OO into OO9 , (and possibly N) - Hornby have decided to switch the money into TT120. - Dapol have been less focussed on new tooling historically, and have gone for O for tool investment. (Dapol are now operating very much as a re-run operation in N) - So have Heljan, though they are having another go at the 47. The "new boys" are understandably still focussed entirely on new tooling, but the New Year announcements aren't going to be so big anymore

That would normally be done under the airline waybill. A surprising amount of airfreight moving to/from LHR over AMS/CDG/FRA hubs actually travels on a flight using a wing-less aircraft with 4 wheels at an altitude of zero feet. (Same applies to Manchester/ LHR legs)

Hattons on camera looked quite indignant to see a raft of Hornby 66s being announced due at the same time as their own model. This was coupled with Rails looking indignant about Hornby doing an upgraded Terrier to rival their own. I seem to recall them being filmed standing in the middle of the Hornby stand expressing mutual outrage at Hornby's actions. Both retailers seem to have been assuming that Hornby were under some kind of obligation to give their new models a clear run, and that Hornby had broken normal ethics in the business by chosing to run a competitor model. This despite the fact that both retailers had decided to challenge the major manufacturers by lasunching their own models in direct competition with models already available from Bachmann or Hornby The message of that episode of the show was very clear : Hornby declaring that if you challenge us as a manufacturer by making products that compete directly with ours then we will fight to defend our market and we will compete right back This has been viewed very negatively on here and elsewhere in the hobby , as constituting Hornby bully-boy tactics against the retail trade whom they need to keep sweet and happy. But it seems very naive to me to assume that "we can compete with you - but you are not allowed to compete back against us!" No company can afford to stand passively by while rivals attempt to carve slices off their business. Hornby are under an obligation to shareholders and employees not to smile and simply allow their market position to be dismantled piece by piece by unchallenged competitors . We may feel the tactics used to respond aren't pretty, but it's unrealistic to assume that that Hornby won't push back, hard. The question then becomes - do the Hornby tactics actually work? Historically , the assumption has always been that the market will only support one model in OO, that if two manufacturers go head to head with new models of a subject, at least one will lose their shirt , and possibly both will. The experience has been that the model percieved as weaker doesn't sell and has a short life in the catalogue ; the better regarded model has a long life , and thereafter its maker "owns" that subject Hence duplication of models has always been frowned on , and there has been strong pressure on one of the parties to withdraw and abandon their project. An ethical principle has evolved that "the one who got there first" is the legitimate "owner" of the subject and the one who got there second should withdraw gracefully in the interests of the hobby. It's also percieved that a less detailed less sophisticated model simply will not sell against a better rival, and it will have to be dropped, never to be seen again (A further assumption, underpinning this , is that all the models concerned will be similarly priced, at moderate and affordable levels) None of these assumptions seem to apply in the Continental HO market. it's been routine for decades that more than one manufacturer offers a model of a given subject. Models of different standards are offered , and this is accepted business practice that seems commercially successful . Budget/Intermediate/"Full-Fat" ranges are commonly offered. Prices for the top end are eye-watering. Manufacturers in difficult times have backed away from new tooling , and simply offered re-releases from their very extensive tooling banks. Only a part of each manufacturer's tooling bank is ever in the current catalogue And if we look at Britain, its clear that "obsolete" "superceded" models have in fact remained in production for decades, which should not have happened. It's no longer certain that X has "lost" the Class 987 because Y has announced a more detailed model we can assume : - That production costs in China , like for like , are fairly similar for all RTR companies. There is no radical difference in production costs - That more detailed models with more seperately applied parts cost more to produce than simpler models - That tooling and development costs have risen sharply over the last 15 years along with production costs - That older tooling has recovered most of its costs. We are now seeing quite large price differentials emerging between models in the British market , and some pretty steep prices at the top end. It seems plausible OO moving to something much more like the Continental HO market , with everything significant already done, multiple offerings from multiple manufacturers at different standards (Budget/Intermediate/expert/"museum quality" ) and very different price levels for each, and a focus more on what will be re-run this year rather than on new tooling investment, may be our future Bachmann's EFE Rail project is interesting in this context. It amounts to bulking out the Bachmann range by re-runs from existing tooling owned by others, whose costs must have been largely recovered already. Bachmann have always been heavily into the commissioning market, - limited runs commercially underwritten by someone else, at a premium retail price. New tooling at Bachmann Europe commercial risk, produced in their own factory , no longer seems so central to their business

The interesting question is which 31 will they run? Although the pattern with the 4F production suggests that it's long term Hornby policy to pump out their own existing model before and at the time of a competitor's new release. Therefore the Hattons episode may not have been anything novel for Hornby. Presumably , therefore, they find that when they do this they shift the product and it works for their bottom line. If the great bulk of the sales for the competitor model come from pre-orders made before hitting the button on the production run, then that would not necessarily be vulnerable to competition from a Hornby alternative. but I don't quite see that as compatible with having a model continously available to the market - as has been declared tonight. You can have a "sign up for the next batch" continously open , but at some point that will stick, and it will take a .long time for anything to happen. The assumption that your potential buyers cannot be touched by an alternative model, which may be available in the shops, seems rather bold

These were airfreighted - we were told that . You don't airfreight a full container load 😱 and it's entirely possible they simply airfreighted 1 pallet. Most airfreight moves in belly hold on passenger flights - China being closed to the world must have slashed available airfreight capacity these last 2.5 years I got the distinct impression it was something of a scramble to get space that would get anything into the UK before Xmas

It seems everything they're doing in TT is something they have in the OO range. Except the 57xx they've announced . And the 21Ts are plainly new tooling and look ok. The ex Airfix N32 moulds are long in the tooth now . The Hornby varient is ancient . Norstand was new in the 1975 catalogue. Could this signal a retooled 21T coming in OO??

I don't disagree. But the issue is the assumption that release of a new higher-spec model - eg a Class 50 or 31 from Accurascale or a Class 156 from Realtrack , or a 4F from Bachmann - torpedos Hornby's existing model . And therefore that Hornby must invest in their own higher spec tooling or "lose" the subject. Everyone has assumed that "nobody will buy the Hornby model now!" . Yet in practice those models seem to keep selling quite well against the new superior model from someone else. We all know that the ex Lima models have stayed in Hornby's catalogue for decades in the face of headshaking, derision and outrage from the online modelling community. They seem to be selling - there are hints they may do better for Hornby than high-spec equivalents. The Hattons / Hornby spat over the 66 was most instructive. You'd have expected Hattons to have laughed off the Hornby action as futile and absurd : after all the Hornby 66 isn't generally regarded as credible competition for the Bachmann 66 , which Hattons were setting themselves up to blow away with trhe "definitive" all singing all-dancing OO Class 66. Yet Hattons were outraged, as if this was a genuine commercial threat, and more to the point Hornby's production seems to have sold through without problems The way we talk, this shouldn't have happened. Hornby should have been left with a pile of 66s nobody wanted to buy while the smart crowd laughed at their humilation . That's not what actually happened in the marketplace. I( found this very instructive: Model 4Fs The way we talk, Bachmann announcing a new modern spec 4F should have sunk the ex Airfix model below the waves, never to be seen again. I assume Bachmann announced at the start of 2010 (haven't checked in detail) . Bachmann's new model was released in 2012, and again in 2015. Hornby ran theirs in 2011, 2015. 2016 and announced it again in the 2022 range - I can't find the relevant thread quickly , but I suspect there were loud groans . Bachmann's superior model clearly hasn't knocked the old Airfix warrior out of the ring Accurascale have pledged to try to keep their stuff in continuous availability : I presume that doesn't include the chaldron wagons - a bold innovative ground-braking project opening up new possibilities , but surely not a "standing dish "? However it's true that the Aussie HO boys, Revolution and others do a project , sign up the num bers for a run - and then that's it . The more popular subjects may get a second bite of the cherry some years down the line, but they don't keep models available on an ongoing basis. More to the point, these days nor do the big boys like Bachmann . The production history of the 4F shows that. So there will inevitably be long gaps where the new model isn't available . (See the blue/grey Mk1 TSO exchange...) It's not a head to head when only the Hornby model is available These are all cases where there is a big gap in standard between the model from tooling Hornby bought , and the newly tooled rival. Yet Hornby still sell the things. Where the gap is relatively small, as it would be with things like the 31 , 50, and 60 , I can't see any reason why Hornby's model would become unsaleable just because someone else has released one. I'd expect Hornby simply to carry on selling them , much as Dapol do with their own 66 in N gauge. Then it will come down to who's offering the particular paint and condition you want

The TT:120 releases imply a retooled 21T mineral in OO some time soon. Might suit you.

He's bought them in the UK, so they must have come through Bachmann Europe as distributer. The other 3 models I personally wouldn't have slammed - there's little or nothing actually wrong with them. Clearly Bachmann is a better brand in europe than in the US But in view of the general feeling here, it's striking that nothing from Hornby comes under Sam's fire, either for being defective or for being over-priced old tat

You're assuming that everyone else shares your assessment of the intolerability of the ex Lima 156. Some won't. (And actually the real comparison is between a Ford Fiesta and a top of the range BMW) But the real problem is that under 3 of your 4 scenarios Realtrack don't make a sale. That doesn't look good for their sales volumes. In the 4th scenario they make a delayed sale , but someone else loses a sale , because the money for that item has been spent with Realtrack. And at the moment , personal modelling budgets can't simply be increased to accomodate whatever the retail prices are. In fact they may need to shrink to accomodate electricity, petrol and food This is how the garotte tightens on RTR . It happened in Continental HO , but not really in US HO because there was no real arms race on detail. Manufacturers were happy to keep knocking out the same good models in every road colour under the star spangled banner. "Good enough" Throw in another variable . What if Charlie Petty hasn't got the livery you require? (I'm in that situation with the Realtrack144. I could use one, though I've managed without ok for years. But I'd need it in the early w Yorks red and white. Only now is Realtrack floating the idea of a run in that. So I've kept my hands out of my pocket.They aren't cheap. On the other hand locos under a hundred quid can be an impulse purchase. When Hattons had a suitable Barclay in the bargains - I pounced. I could have carried on without it, but at £84 it was too tempting... A Peckett W4 and the little Ruston came the same way. What has been the better tooling investment for Hattons: the affordable Barclays or the very high spec Class 66?)