James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

This forum is for the discussion of railway modelling of the LNER and its constituent companies.

Moderators: 52D, Tom F, Rlangham, Atlantic 3279, Blink Bonny, Saint Johnstoun, richard

Trestrol
GCR D11 4-4-0 'Improved Director'
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:48 pm
Location: Earsdon Grange signal box

Re: James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

Post by Trestrol »

I had no sympathy with Rail or Hattons over the models. Hornby had produced these models previously so why should they not produce them again. The most common diesel locos on today’s railway is the class 66s so lots of people want them. Would Rails and Hattons share their future models ideas with Hornby I think not so why should Hornby. Glad to see Simon getting a grip on things and getting the basics right. I fail to see the logic of moving the offices from a building they own in Margate to a shiny modern one they have to pay rent on. Was this shear vanity on the previous management?
65447
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 1743
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Overlooking the GEML

Re: James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

Post by 65447 »

Trestrol wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:36 pm I fail to see the logic of moving the offices from a building they own in Margate to a shiny modern one they have to pay rent on. Was this shear vanity on the previous management?
I think that the intention of the previous management was to out-source goods inwards and shipping/distribution, which was already in progress, and sell off the old Rovex site. The new distribution model was not without its 'challenges' and, the property market being what it now is, the old Margate site was not likely to sell.
Bunkerbarge
LNER Thompson L1 2-6-4T
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:21 pm

Re: James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

Post by Bunkerbarge »

I think the most interesting aspect of the Rails/Hattons discussions were that they both complained that Hornby had not shared with them the fact that they were developing these models. What they seemed to completely miss was the fact that they had not shared their intentions with Hornby!!

Hornby have every right to produce what they want and developing and improving well proven models from their past catalogues is a responsible path.
If that is a problem to Rail/Hattons maybe they should go back to making staggering amounts of money from simply selling model railway items rather than be even more greedy by trying to start manufacturing.

I wonder how many people in the UK would be employed by Rails/Hattons if they developed their manufacturing aspirations?

As for earlier comments as regards Airfix kits, the standard of fit and finish nowadays matches that of Tamiya and Hasegawa. Anyone who continues to promote the myth that a modern new tooling Airfix kit has fit challenges is only passing on third party gossip.
User avatar
richard
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 3385
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas
Contact:

Re: James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

Post by richard »

Being overseas, I haven't seen this program; but discussions between manufacturers about models in development would constitute a cartel in most jurisdictions. "You do X, and we'll do Y" etc
Richard Marsden
LNER Encyclopedia
RayS
NBR J36 0-6-0
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:18 pm

Re: James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

Post by RayS »

If the manufacturers discussed pricing that would certainly be a cartel, but if their association - surely there is one? - had a neutral secretary who could reply to the question - has anybody lodged a project to build a J69 for example - with a simple yes or no without further identification - would that fall foul of legislation?
exile
LNER N2 0-6-2T
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:58 pm
Location: France

Re: James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

Post by exile »

Yes

carving up of markets by mutual agreement is forbidden as anti-competitive. The more obvious one is if you take the markets South of the Wash/Bristol line we will take the North. You take LNER and we take LMS, etc..

Edited to add and to make it clearer: You take the J69 and we'll have the J72 - except that we aren't Bachmann, we are (say) Fulgurex. No quibbles about the quality of the models "we" make, but your J72 is now going to cost something North of £300. So if you are a low paid ex-NER supporter, you are excluded from the J72. Competition is supposed to stop this sort of thing. It may be detrimental in a small market environment like model railways when two (sometimes more) producers make the same model, but overall it does protect us as consumers.
RayS
NBR J36 0-6-0
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:18 pm

Re: James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

Post by RayS »

Take your point exile, but duplication still seems a pity when so many locos remain not done. Don't off the record chats still happen...?

Looking at manufacturers' programmes there seems to be a preponderance this year of modern multi-coloured diesels - just boring boxes on wheels to me, being 75+. Is this because younger modellers don't have a feeling for steam, or because the tooling and mechanics for a diesel are simpler - central can motor, gear tower at each end, plenty of room inside for a decoder and speaker?

Another question - how to keep the interest of youngsters when they grow out of Thomas etc - add-ons for birthdays and Christmas go so far but one day they realise real trains don't have faces - then what? Junk the lot and start again? it's a good introduction but a bit of a dead end and the interest is lost - computer games take over. In any case Awdry's original charming stories have been hideously commercialised - female engines - aaargh!!

I remain an old fogey, I know.
Seagull
GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Between a cheap railway station and a ploughed field

Re: James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

Post by Seagull »

RayS wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:03 pmDon't off the record chats still happen...?
I believe the oil companies have them frequently......

But so far as Hornby goes I suspect their biggest problems are of their own making. That is outsourcing manufacture without thinking through how to ensure they could not only get the goods made at the right price, but also to ensure quality control, repeatability and production flexibility.

Looking at quality control - I have several Flying Foxes queued up to be renamed - I have some Booklaws queued up to be straightened!

For repeatability look at the Gresely teaks. OK the first batch had a silly mistake with the door graining but once that was fixed they disappeared off the shelves faster than you could type on a computer keyboard. (I do believe that Hornby could have got away with pricing the original batch a little higher.)
Now whatever new factory is producing the next batch, the teak looks more like the Fablon fake wood effect you used to be able to buy to stick onto your shelves to 'improve' them and the RRP seems to have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Their tooling costs recently must be approaching stratospheric and yet unlike the Merchant Navy, A1 and A4 toolings, their recent ventures (maybe the Pecketts apart) seem only to arrive in small batches. Maybe they are being held to ransom by their own suppliers over production slots?

I understand that offshore production was considerably cheaper than the UK at the time the decision was made to outsource, but I also believe that they were naive when they went into China and maybe expected the Chinese to behave like English gentlemen and not like Chinese businessmen.

Alan
Playing trains, but trying to get serious
Horsetan
LNER P2 2-8-2
Posts: 959
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:46 pm

Re: James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

Post by Horsetan »

Seagull wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:15 pm....Their tooling costs recently must be approaching stratospheric and yet unlike the Merchant Navy, A1 and A4 toolings, their recent ventures (maybe the Pecketts apart) seem only to arrive in small batches. Maybe they are being held to ransom by their own suppliers over production slots?
I've always wondered why there have been no more BR Standard 6 / Clans.
I understand that offshore production was considerably cheaper than the UK at the time the decision was made to outsource, but I also believe that they were naive when they went into China and maybe expected the Chinese to behave like English gentlemen and not like Chinese businessmen.
Good luck with trying to remove tooling from the factories when the next cheapest country is discovered.....
65447
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 1743
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Overlooking the GEML

Re: James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

Post by 65447 »

Seagull wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:15 pm For repeatability look at the Gresely teaks. OK the first batch had a silly mistake with the door graining but once that was fixed they disappeared off the shelves faster than you could type on a computer keyboard. (I do believe that Hornby could have got away with pricing the original batch a little higher.)
Now whatever new factory is producing the next batch, the teak looks more like the Fablon fake wood effect you used to be able to buy to stick onto your shelves to 'improve' them and the RRP seems to have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Whilst I agree about the more recent poor teak representation you are overlooking the fundamental and avoidable error in the incorrect positioning of the central horizontal bead line, which has perforce been replicated on all subsequent models representing the vestibule (gangwayed) stock. Furthermore, it's never been adequately explained why the width over solebars is unprototypically greater, thus losing the graceful turnunder so characteristic of the Gresley carriage.
Seagull
GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Between a cheap railway station and a ploughed field

Re: James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

Post by Seagull »

65447 wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:52 pm...you are overlooking the fundamental and avoidable error in the incorrect positioning of the central horizontal bead line, which has perforce been replicated on all subsequent models representing the vestibule (gangwayed) stock. Furthermore, it's never been adequately explained why the width over solebars is unprototypically greater, thus losing the graceful turnunder so characteristic of the Gresley carriage.
Aux contraire - as you have said yourself they did successfully repeat the incorrect positioning of the beading and I have no doubt they will also repeat the overwidth solebars. :wink: Though I admit I did miss those points as I was typing after rather a long journey yesterday.

That don't alter the fact that the carriages did sell well and command an over inflated price on a certain auction website.
Probably because they are substantially the correct shape and they do look very much like teak rather than swirly injection moulded plastic.

The point is though why have we waited something like 10 years to see another batch? Are they fighting for production slots - I suspect they are.

Why is the new representation of teak like Fablon fake wood sprayed on! Tampo printing has developed to the point where they can produce legible prints of makers plates with correct numbers and dates and yet it looks like the next batch will look more like something that Triang used to sell.

Alan
Playing trains, but trying to get serious
Post Reply