Time to bring back design clever?

[The Stationmaster]

I think the simple problem which Hornby (railways) face is to what extent a 'cheap' Railroad range would abstract sales from the hi-fi range.  Judging by the extent of some 'shouting' here on RMweb they might be excused for thinking such an approach would cost them money, and possibly they would be right?    The only way lower priced products can improve company income is by increasing volume of sales to such an extent that the nett profit on the lower priced item exceeds the nett profit on the higher priced item - in other, very simplistic, words the 'low fat 'Duke of Gloucester' would have to sell substantially more examples to overtake the nett profit obtained from sales of the 'full fat' version.

 

Two other factors obviously come into play as well - firstly the comparative cost of production and secondly the far more difficult to judge size of the market and the extent to which a low price version will attract additional sales compared with marketing only a high cost version.  Hornby probably have some past data from which they can draw lessons, if it is consistent, and that might have guided their past thinking.  It also might explain the current pricing strategy (if it is a strategy?) for Railroad branded items.  But all of that of course assumes their marketing and product differentiation is sufficiently clear in their own minds when it comes to the Railroad brand.  And various past comments tend to indicate that isn't necessarily the case with the Railroad brand having been used (example the Crosti 9F) as a sort of halfway house because of concern that the market wouldn't accept a hi-fi version at a hi-fi price but not absolutely reducing the product to what many would regard as a Railroad brand standard and price point.

 

As long as Hornby has fears about abstraction (which may well be justifiable?) they are not likely to put Railroad into a consistent market position.  If - again - 'someone' decides to use the brand to excuse a lack of detail/finish or to avoid a hi-fi price point (back to the Crosti, and the most recent 'Hall') then they still won't deliver a consistent brand image for Railroad.  Possibly the answer might be - as others have suggested - to go for a three tier situation but that poses a number of questions, viz -

 

1. do they think they can afford any abstraction that might result?,

2. is the UK market actually large enough to profitably support such an idea?,

3. do they have the design and manufacturing capability to support such an idea?,

and

4. are their marketing and sales organisations really sufficiently sophisticated and in touch with retailers and the end customers to understand and profitably implement something that sophisticated?

 

And, just to spell it out, would they increase their sales volume and make a bigger profit on model railways if they did adopt such an idea - because in business terms that would be the only justification for it.  Based on their past form I seriously wonder if they're up to it, although possibly with new MD's ideas on pricing they might try something of a halfway house - but it will only last if it has the positive impact on sales volume and profits. 

[dibber25]

We were told several times, at the Broadstairs press briefings that the introduction of a more expensive full-fat model by another manufacturer boosted demand for Hornby's cheaper equivalent. Example (from memory) the return to the catalogue of the Railroad 'Hymek' after Heljan's model was released. You can see this play through time and time again, most recently with the '14xx' after the Hatton's/DJM model. The thinking was that the more expensive model raised the profile of the prototype and a half-decent cheaper model would appeal to those who couldn't run to the more expensive version (particularly younger modellers pestering Dad). It must have worked or they wouldn't have kept on doing it. 

The next logical step was to have both ends of the market, and hence Tornado and the 'one tooling fits all' approach. Initially it seemed to be felt that the differentiation between the two price points would be in the amount of decoration, this being the most labour-intensive, time-consuming and expensive aspect of assembly. 

From then on, one is into conjecture, but it is reasonable to assume that the more finicky bits of assembly such as fitting separate handrails then became the next most expensive aspect and subsequently it was felt that vulnerable details such smokebox door handles, and minor handrails such as those on cab sides, plus of course the roof vents on the SR EMUs, could be moulded on.

One wonders how much of a deal-breaker these were for Hornby's 'average' customer. Apparently the roof vents were not much of an issue as a second batch of 2-BILs and then the very similar 2-HAL followed quite quickly. That, however, betrayed over-optimism about the actual demand ( and a complete reversal of the earlier "3rd rail EMUs don't sell" approach which was the legacy of the Networker). That lives on in a reluctance of manufacturers in general, to touch commuter trains with a long barge-pole. 

I don't envy Hornby the task at all. In the end, what to do and how to do it is based on past experience, instinct, gut-feeling, how much you are willing to risk, and a massive dose of optimism that your customers will like what you're doing and buy it. (CJL)

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

We were told several times, at the Broadstairs press briefings that the introduction of a more expensive full-fat model by another manufacturer boosted demand for Hornby's cheaper equivalent. ...The thinking was that the more expensive model raised the profile of the prototype and a half-decent cheaper model would appeal to those who couldn't run to the more expensive version (particularly younger modellers pestering Dad). It must have worked or they wouldn't have kept on doing it... 

And doubtless this underpins the continuing demand for the Limby diesels and the like.

 

... The next logical step was to have both ends of the market, and hence Tornado and the 'one tooling fits all' approach...

But in the case of Tornado, the implementation was flawed. What is required is to tool 'full fat', then leave off the expensive features and substitute cheaper elements to produce the Railroad product.

 

Strange as Hornby do know how to do this. They got it very right with the Hornby and Railroad A4s as an example, where there is clear water between the two products without compromise to the main range model. They are in a position to repeat the trick with the Duchess if they wish to, still have all the old Duchess tooling on their shelves.

 

 

...My own suspicion is that most of the heat in the criticism of rising r-t-r price levels comes from those who (like me) enjoyed the early fruits of Hornby off-shoring production. Unlike me, some don't seem able to accept that reality moves on. Being able to buy massively-improved locos for little more than cost of Tri-ang level Margate output was heady stuff...

There's another factor playing too in my opinion. Low prices are still with us, selectively. Both new product heavily discounted, and s/h that comes onto the market. My modelling needs the class 105, and I have just picked another one up - unused to the evidence of my eyes - for £60. Ultimately, a large proportion of the last twenty years production will return to the market, and 80% of it unused if I am any judge. That will force the manufacturing on toward the next low wage destination, if any are still wanting to stay in the business!

[Andy Hayter]

Two excellent posts from Mike and Chris. (#226 and #227) 

 

Chris's examples are having a cheap version of someone else's model and if sales have been cannibalised they have come from a competitor.  A loss of sales of the full fat version has done Hornby no harm at all.

 

The key point that comes out of these discussions, and I point it directly at all of those who have strongly supported a cheap range, where will the extra sales come from if there is a cheap range in parallel with the full fat one?

 

And, unless you are putting your modelling budget away in a war chest, the answer is not, "me".  Those that complain they cannot afford the high price of models today but are still spending their modelling budget cannot provide extra sales (in terms of spend) for cheap versions.  All they can do is divert their budget from one set of models to another, where they end up with more models but the manufacturer probably ends up with no additional profit and possibly less profit.

 

Will cheap models attract more newcomers?  From the young I doubt it.  They are more interested in their instachat programs on their eyefones.  So it comes down to would cheaper model attract more newcomers from the adult population?  It is a question I cannot definitively answer but I doubt if there would suddenly be a flood of latent railway modellers.  

 

Mike writes   

And, just to spell it out, would they increase their sales volume and make a bigger profit on model railways if they did adopt such an idea - because in business terms that would be the only justification for it.  Based on their past form I seriously wonder if they're up to it, although.........

 

and this is the one point where we slightly disagree.  I don't think it is down to whether Hornby can manage such a double range, but rather down to whether the UK Market is able to support such diversification.  That lack of Market size is I think one reason why Hornby have had mixed messages and have reacted with hindsight inappropriately and created the muddle that Railroad now seems to be.

 

So I repeat my question to the pro-Railroaders in a slightly different way.  If Railroad models became more numerous, how much more would you spend per year?

Unless the answer is at least twice as much, then the argument for more Railroad models is less than strong.

[adb968008]

(My emphasis.)

 

I make no argument with your comments about relative market size but you make very sweeping generalizations about "standardization" in the US that I don't think hold a lot of merit.

 

While there were periods of standardization - like the USRA during the late part of the first world war, US railroads in the early 20^th century had anything but 'standardized' designs, even if smaller roads were supplied by the likes of Baldwin, Alco or Lima. There were many, many more companies, and the larger roads built their own equipment.  It is certainly true that once the last gasp of steam experiments faded in the 1950s there were only a few remaining locomotive manufacturers, but conflating the whole of the model railway experience in the US to your generalities is misleading.  Even after the mega mergers the variety of livery versions is pretty extensive. (This is well represented by the Norfolk Southern heritage locomotives liveries and I presume this the sort of thing that you mean in terms of 'standardization' but these are not preservation attempts.)

 

For generations, the manufacturers of models for the US market produced inaccurate liveries on a small set of base models with an enormous number of examples of 'never ran in this condition' models. While some of that still goes on, much of what has happened in the 21st century is accurate models in relatively accurate livery combinations. 

 

If you picked a small, but high-profile example of streamlined express steam passenger locomotives in the 1930s/1940s, in Britain there were essentially about a half dozen or so designs (if you include  'air smoothed'), most of which have been recently modeled in RTR. In the US I suspect that number is well over two dozen, most of which have been modeled in RTR and several of these were 'one offs'.

 

But Paint is paint.

 

A catalog purchase is a catalog purchase.. with paint attached.

 

That is the point I was making..

 

A GP7/9/15/20 etc is exactly that with minimal variation... except colour.

For a model railway manufacturer extra paint is an extra sale.. but an extra bonnet, hood, even just an array of rivets is a several thousand $ additional tooling cost... when you look at the 305xx  4-4-2ts in the UK.. 3 locos has around 6 variations to the tooling (probably more)... where as 2600 GP7s is probably has a handful at most, and in many cases, theres enough standard ones to mean you can ignore the odd one out and do a different one in that same livery...thats the economic benefits of modelling US prototypes brings...

 

The UK is full of designs, which had extended life, in classes of 10 or less examples... it persisted right up to the 1980's (89001 ). The US is somewhat less like this, except of specific non-service prototypes.

Edited February 24, 2018 by adb968008

[jjb1970]

At one time the NA plastic RTR suppliers made generic diesel models, you got for example a basic Sd40 and if you wanted an operator specific model you either did your own work to make it so or you bought brass. Nowadays the market expects road specific details but in an example of design cleverness tooling is designed to provide maximum flexibility in terms of these details.

[Dunsignalling]

Two excellent posts from Mike and Chris. (#226 and #227) 

 

Chris's examples are having a cheap version of someone else's model and if sales have been cannibalised they have come from a competitor.  A loss of sales of the full fat version has done Hornby no harm at all.

 

The key point that comes out of these discussions, and I point it directly at all of those who have strongly supported a cheap range, where will the extra sales come from if there is a cheap range in parallel with the full fat one?

 

And, unless you are putting your modelling budget away in a war chest, the answer is not, "me".  Those that complain they cannot afford the high price of models today but are still spending their modelling budget cannot provide extra sales (in terms of spend) for cheap versions.  All they can do is divert their budget from one set of models to another, where they end up with more models but the manufacturer probably ends up with no additional profit and possibly less profit.

 

Will cheap models attract more newcomers?  From the young I doubt it.  They are more interested in their instachat programs on their eyefones.  So it comes down to would cheaper model attract more newcomers from the adult population?  It is a question I cannot definitively answer but I doubt if there would suddenly be a flood of latent railway modellers.  

 

Mike writes   

And, just to spell it out, would they increase their sales volume and make a bigger profit on model railways if they did adopt such an idea - because in business terms that would be the only justification for it.  Based on their past form I seriously wonder if they're up to it, although.........

 

and this is the one point where we slightly disagree.  I don't think it is down to whether Hornby can manage such a double range, but rather down to whether the UK Market is able to support such diversification.  That lack of Market size is I think one reason why Hornby have had mixed messages and have reacted with hindsight inappropriately and created the muddle that Railroad now seems to be.

 

So I repeat my question to the pro-Railroaders in a slightly different way.  If Railroad models became more numerous, how much more would you spend per year?

Unless the answer is at least twice as much, then the argument for more Railroad models is less than strong.

 

The commercial rationale for Railroad is, it seems to me, to extend the earning span of old tooling. Expecting Hornby not to charge whatever they can get away with for the results is a mistake. 

 

What Railroad should categorically not do is detract from sales of Hornby's flagship range; i.e. it should generate revenue from customers who would not be in the market for the "full fat" models at all. Whether that arises for reasons of expense, complication or fragility matters not.

 

There are hazards arising from the very existence of the Railroad concept which, for Hornby's well-being, need to be controlled. 

 

Wherever the same prototype is covered in both ranges, every sale of a Railroad version potentially equals a lost sale of a main range example.  

 

That can be borne when the Railroad version is made from obsolete tooling that has paid for itself because, if the comparative prices are set correctly, both models should generate approximately equal profit per sale. If that is achieved, sales cannibalisation does no direct harm.

 

It can be further mitigated by not releasing the Railroad model for some time (a full year, at least) after the new main range one is launched.

 

Design Clever was a bad idea because it negated pretty much all the inter-range balancing that can be exercised by the above practices.

 

Two models, both produced using the same new investment, will be competing with one another for sales. Now, using just one example, had Design Clever done what it was supposed to do, the main range Duke of Gloucester would have been sufficiently superior to the Railroad one  to justify a 60% price differential and the cost of making the simpler one would have been commensurately lower, resulting in (more-or-less) equal profitability per sale. 

 

What actually happened is that the difference was largely confined to a better paint job on what was promoted as the "main range" loco and a price differential of around 20% was all that could be justified because it was only 20% "better" in reality.

 

I don't believe that parallel ranges based on the Design Clever concept can ever achieve the quality/price spread necessary to make it work without inflating the selling price of the upmarket model to subsidise the production cost of the cheaper one and deliberately compromising the cheaper model to provide justification for splashing out on the dearer/better one.

 

Main Range and Railroad really have to be two distinct models if either is to properly serve its target purchasers. However much some may dislike it, that means the new investment has to go on the good stuff with Railroad getting the trickle-down as and when main range models are upgraded.

 

John

Edited February 24, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[dibber25]

And doubtless this underpins the continuing demand for the Limby diesels and the like.

 

But in the case of Tornado, the implementation was flawed. What is required is to tool 'full fat', then leave off the expensive features and substitute cheaper elements to produce the Railroad product.

 

Strange as Hornby do know how to do this. They got it very right with the Hornby and Railroad A4s as an example, where there is clear water between the two products without compromise to the main range model. They are in a position to repeat the trick with the Duchess if they wish to, still have all the old Duchess tooling on their shelves.

 

 

There's another factor playing too in my opinion. Low prices are still with us, selectively. Both new product heavily discounted, and s/h that comes onto the market. My modelling needs the class 105, and I have just picked another one up - unused to the evidence of my eyes - for £60. Ultimately, a large proportion of the last twenty years production will return to the market, and 80% of it unused if I am any judge. That will force the manufacturing on toward the next low wage destination, if any are still wanting to stay in the business!

 

I think the launch of Railroad with 'Tornado' was flawed because too much faith was placed in the different levels of decoration. I recall how this was stressed repeatedly at Broadstairs and some members of the press asked some pretty searching questions about what other 'economies' there might be in the lower range model (cheaper motors, for instance). But, no, it was all down to the decoration.

I think you are absolutely right, particularly with your final paragraph. It amazes me that stores are falling over each other to buy secondhand models. It shows there must be a market that's bigger than one might think. It's curious, because there's allegedly no market whatever for secondhand railway books - you can't give them away. So the generation that's buying the models doesn't want to learn about the real thing. Don't tell me they get all their info from the internet because if they do, they'll be ill-informed. Much of what's available is inaccurate or lacks depth and you still need the very specific tomes of the last century to provide sufficient background to, say, model a particular location accurately. (CJL). 

[Dunsignalling]

  I confess, but the situation with second-hand books seems to have come about relatively recently.

 

The root of the issue is probably increased supply and reduced demand arising from "demographic reasons" (nice euphemism); just like declining Hornby Dublo values.

 

The definitive reference volumes do still have a value albeit one a good deal softer than even four or five years back. I've picked up several long-wanted titles in the past year for £15 or so that would have cost four or five times that not very long ago.

 

Also, I've started filling in the gaps in my collection of the better colour albums (by the likes of Peter W. Gray and Hugh Ballantyne) very cheaply since Christmas, often for little more than the price of a magazine.

 

John  

Edited February 24, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[jjb1970]

I find that many of the books I want are still quite pricey to get hold of a good, clean, hard back copy, although my taste in books is maybe not that representative as I like technical works and business history type books on rail subjects.

[Ozexpatriate]

The next logical step was to have both ends of the market, and hence Tornado and the 'one tooling fits all' approach. Initially it seemed to be felt that the differentiation between the two price points would be in the amount of decoration, this being the most labour-intensive, time-consuming and expensive aspect of assembly.

 

From then on, one is into conjecture, but it is reasonable to assume that the more finicky bits of assembly such as fitting separate handrails then became the next most expensive aspect and subsequently it was felt that vulnerable details such smokebox door handles, and minor handrails such as those on cab sides, plus of course the roof vents on the SR EMUs, could be moulded on.

(my emphasis)

 

Chris, I have no way of knowing the specifics, but I wonder if in fact it is the other way around and that small detail assembly might exceed the time and cost of applying a livery - depending of course on how many details are added and how complex the livery application might be.

 

Your description is certainly correct in terms of the positioning originally used by Hornby to delineate regular versus Railroad models based on the same tooling. It is clear to me (based on what I see other manufacturers doing) that different tooling needs to be employed to distinguish one range from another, unless the separately fitted details and liveries between the two are dramatically and visibly different.

 

What Hornby never did is define a "craftsman"/prestige range versus the Railroad range. Nor did they consistently extend the Railroad branding to trainsets many, if not most, of which still use Railroad components in the set.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Ozexpatriate

[Ozexpatriate]

...

A GP7/9/15/20 etc is exactly that with minimal variation... except colour.

For a model railway manufacturer extra paint is an extra sale.. but an extra bonnet, hood, even just an array of rivets is a several thousand $ additional tooling cost... when you look at the 305xx  4-4-2ts in the UK.. 3 locos has around 6 variations to the tooling (probably more)... where as 2600 GP7s is probably has a handful at most, and in many cases, theres enough standard ones to mean you can ignore the odd one out and do a different one in that same livery...thats the economic benefits of modelling US prototypes brings...

...

Reducing US outline modelling to post-1960s diesels is does not represent all US model railroad manufacturing in the the 21^st century. Certainly it is a factor but the steam and transition eras are rich and varied and represent a big portion of models offered by manufacturers.

[MGR Hooper!]

Just my two cents worth:-

 

- The name "Design-Clever" never bothered me
- I really had no issue with the way models were designed during that era (except leaving out brass bearings out)
- Do I miss it? Yes at times I do.
- What would I really like to see - I'd like to see locos done to a full spec and coaches to the level of "Designs-Clever".

[JSpencer]

I think you are absolutely right, particularly with your final paragraph. It amazes me that stores are falling over each other to buy secondhand models. It shows there must be a market that's bigger than one might think. It's curious, because there's allegedly no market whatever for secondhand railway books - you can't give them away. So the generation that's buying the models doesn't want to learn about the real thing. Don't tell me they get all their info from the internet because if they do, they'll be ill-informed. Much of what's available is inaccurate or lacks depth and you still need the very specific tomes of the last century to provide sufficient background to, say, model a particular location accurately. (CJL).

 

IF (and a big if) the best tomes of railway books were generally all published in the last century, then that could explain why the railway book market died out. If there have been far and few publications since, then there is nothing stimulate the market, people loose interest and take up some other hobby.

Model railways have been highly stimulated by contrast.

 

I,m into naval history as well as railway history, there is stark contrast in the style of books. Naval history publishers have focused on highly definitive tomes. Researched from archives often from a few countries, contain detailed drawings of the ships, not only based on original plans, but also from carefully studied photos so that they contain all modifications the ship obtained while building. There are then additional drawings throughout the ship's lives showing modifications after refits etc. I can pick up one definitive book and use that as the source for a model. The market is kept alive by additional definitive books on other ship classes/types coming out each year.

 

Now I have also two very good books on SECR coaches. Unfortunately there are not drawings of all coach types nor drawings of various under frame and other details. Additional personal research will be required to fill in all the missing details. In many cases this may not be possible. For example I live outside the UK. I can quote that case on many good railway book I own. I am sure the authors knew a lot more and probably wanted to include more, I do know that publishers often restrict the size of the real estate they are allowed to use. They have probably been too restrictive. At the same time manufacturers are releasing models based on great research, surpassing what has actually been published on the type. For me, Bachmann's birdcages have filled in some missing gaps.

 

A book published today should be definitive, about 300 pages in a large hand format containing large photos, clear drawings and detailed text. A detailed section on source data should be provided at the end (this tends to stimulate research, as the reader can go off and look through the same source data for extra details if required). It should contain everything I need to know to make a model.

 

Today's models have a lot of research done on them and I would not be surprised if people really do buy them as a means to learn more about the prototypes.

[JSpencer]

Design clever had two or three very different approaches to the problem of rising costs.

 

On one hand, was the fully moulded detail, limited number of parts and simplified paint schemes. We can say Tornado, the Hall, the P2 and Duke of Gloucester full into this category. This was quite successful in getting a cheap loco to the market but look rather crude when given a full fat paint scheme and close to full fat price.

 

On the other hand, there were attempts to reduce costs on full fat models but reducing the number of details to be fitted. The Star and 72xx spring to mind. The result there was an expensive full fat priced model with crude moulded on parts. I feel this failed to reduce costs because even if the parts were reduced from say 300 to 250, the Chinese factory were almost certainly not taking these reductions into account when quoting the costs of manufacture at the start. It is clear that they do not go off and cost the fitting of each and every single part. Instead they probably refer to a similar loco in the recent past and give a ballpark estimate.

 

The third case are HALs and BILs, but while the roof vents had design clever, the roof cables were separate fitting. In any case the price of these are not different to Bachmann EMUs so one could argue that design clever was not really pushed on these models.

 

I feel the market will accept a hi-lo mix. So certain classes can be designed with a high end model and a low end partner. You cannot do that for every case (a small tank loco like an H would be pointless). But should be done for the big popular classes. A high end Duchess and Low end Duchess would work. I don,t think sales of one really hits the other. For example When I brought a schools, I went for the high end model as I could afford it and wanted the extra details. If I could not have afforded it, then the railroad version would have been brought instead. Had the railroad not existed, and had I not been able to afford a full fat schools, then I guess nothing would have been brought.

[Neil]

 

.... The key point that comes out of these discussions, and I point it directly at all of those who have strongly supported a cheap range, where will the extra sales come from if there is a cheap range in parallel with the full fat one?

 

And, unless you are putting your modelling budget away in a war chest, the answer is not, "me".  Those that complain they cannot afford the high price of models today but are still spending their modelling budget cannot provide extra sales (in terms of spend) for cheap versions.  All they can do is divert their budget from one set of models to another, where they end up with more models but the manufacturer probably ends up with no additional profit and possibly less profit. ....

.

 

Some people will simply not be able to afford to build the layout they want using high price high specification models.

 

Some who could afford to do so will feel some reluctance, the  'is it really worth that' or 'do I really want it that much' factor. Bachmann's forthcoming breakdown crane illustrates this neatly.

 

Not everyone has a formalised or even notional modelling budget; some of my friends do, some of my friends don't. In such circumstances a perception of value is more likely to be of importance rather than a mechanistic assessment of affordability.

 

I think in discussions like this we have to be careful not to let our own preferences get in the way of seeing the situation in the round. I'm one of those people who have an instinctive reluctance to paying top dollar for a top quality model but I have friends who are comfortable with this and derive much enjoyment from owning a top of the range high quality product. Recently I've quite a few hours worth of satisfaction improving the cab glazing, opening out the blind chimney and weathering a second hand Railroad 9F, my friend gains equal pleasure from his Bachmann 9F sent of to TMC for a coat of grime. I doubt that any of what we discuss here will have much bearing on the route Hornby or anyone else takes, they will make what they believe will be profitable and we will have to work with that.

[Dunsignalling]

 

 

What Hornby never did is define a "craftsman"/prestige range versus the Railroad range. Nor did they consistently extend the Railroad branding to trainsets many, if not most, of which still use Railroad components in the set.

 

One of the problems with "Design Clever" was that it muddied the waters (more than they were already) and made that even more difficult to do.

 

The locos produced using it turned out as "Railroad" and "Railroad Plus" (the same model with a better paint/print job applied) and the specification of the supposed "main range" version in no way matched the standards set by existing models so designated. The precise branding doesn't really matter to those of us long-established in the hobby as we understand the status quo and will quickly deduce "what's what" when any new item is released.

 

For those outside who are contemplating coming in, model trains and Hornby are synonymous so that's what they should see on the products aimed at them.  From a psychological/marketing perspective some outsiders will find it somewhat condescending to initially be offered products clearly branded  as a "step below" the real thing and which, like it or not, implies a degree of inferiority.

 

Hornby should present their more complex/expensive models, aimed at collectors and modellers, as a step up from entry level, rather than "Railroad" being a step down from what their established customers expect. 

 

Being offered "Hornby" to begin with then later having the opportunity to move on to Hornby "Expert", "Gold" or whatever would make the range structure easier for the uninitiated to understand and, in marketing terms, would present Hornby in a far more (*cliché warning*) "inclusive"  and "feel-good" way to potential new customers. 

 

John

Edited February 25, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[John Isherwood]

Some people will simply not be able to afford to build the layout they want using high price high specification models.

 

Some people will simply not be able to afford the house / car / holiday they want - so why should model railways be different?

 

We all have to adjust our aspirations to meet the harsh reality of the resources at our disposal.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[brushman47544]

Just my two cents worth:-

 

- The name "Design-Clever" never bothered me

- I really had no issue with the way models were designed during that era (except leaving out brass bearings out)

- Do I miss it? Yes at times I do.

- What would I really like to see - I'd like to see locos done to a full spec and coaches to the level of "Designs-Clever".

I too would be more willing to accept design clever elements on coaches up to a certain point e.g. moulded door handles, but I certainly wouldn’t want to see everything being moulded on. As to locos I suppose if you couldn’t really see it then maybe, but I hope Hornby never goes as far as the moulded steam pipes on its Hall ever again. Edited February 25, 2018 by brushman47544

[Caledonian]

Two excellent posts from Mike and Chris. (#226 and #227) 

 

Chris's examples are having a cheap version of someone else's model and if sales have been cannibalised they have come from a competitor.  A loss of sales of the full fat version has done Hornby no harm at all.

 

The key point that comes out of these discussions, and I point it directly at all of those who have strongly supported a cheap range, where will the extra sales come from if there is a cheap range in parallel with the full fat one?

 

And, unless you are putting your modelling budget away in a war chest, the answer is not, "me".  Those that complain they cannot afford the high price of models today but are still spending their modelling budget cannot provide extra sales (in terms of spend) for cheap versions.  All they can do is divert their budget from one set of models to another, where they end up with more models but the manufacturer probably ends up with no additional profit and possibly less profit.

 

Will cheap models attract more newcomers?  From the young I doubt it.  They are more interested in their instachat programs on their eyefones.  So it comes down to would cheaper model attract more newcomers from the adult population?  It is a question I cannot definitively answer but I doubt if there would suddenly be a flood of latent railway modellers.  

 

Mike writes   

And, just to spell it out, would they increase their sales volume and make a bigger profit on model railways if they did adopt such an idea - because in business terms that would be the only justification for it.  Based on their past form I seriously wonder if they're up to it, although.........

 

and this is the one point where we slightly disagree.  I don't think it is down to whether Hornby can manage such a double range, but rather down to whether the UK Market is able to support such diversification.  That lack of Market size is I think one reason why Hornby have had mixed messages and have reacted with hindsight inappropriately and created the muddle that Railroad now seems to be.

 

So I repeat my question to the pro-Railroaders in a slightly different way.  If Railroad models became more numerous, how much more would you spend per year?

Unless the answer is at least twice as much, then the argument for more Railroad models is less than strong.

 

The short answer is from those who can't afford the full-fat version. Buying a Railroad version isn't depriving Hornby of a sale of the expensive version, its making a sale which they otherwise wouldn't get. In happier times I built up a respectable collection of locomotives, nowadays I wander into the same shop, shake my head at the horrendous price of locomotives and then buy a wagon if its attractive enough.

 

The last loco I bought was a first generation Peckett and I have a Barclay on order, neither breach the £100 mark.

 

As I remarked before, I won't quarrel with those who compare the prices of yesteryear with those of today, but in terms of sales there were far far fewer models about in those days.

[Andy Hayter]

Some people will simply not be able to afford to build the layout they want using high price high specification models.

 

Some who could afford to do so will feel some reluctance, the  'is it really worth that' or 'do I really want it that much' factor. Bachmann's forthcoming breakdown crane illustrates this neatly.

 

Not everyone has a formalised or even notional modelling budget; some of my friends do, some of my friends don't. In such circumstances a perception of value is more likely to be of importance rather than a mechanistic assessment of affordability.

 

I think in discussions like this we have to be careful not to let our own preferences get in the way of seeing the situation in the round. I'm one of those people who have an instinctive reluctance to paying top dollar for a top quality model but I have friends who are comfortable with this and derive much enjoyment from owning a top of the range high quality product. Recently I've quite a few hours worth of satisfaction improving the cab glazing, opening out the blind chimney and weathering a second hand Railroad 9F, my friend gains equal pleasure from his Bachmann 9F sent of to TMC for a coat of grime. I doubt that any of what we discuss here will have much bearing on the route Hornby or anyone else takes, they will make what they believe will be profitable and we will have to work with that.

 

 

I think it is true that most modellers cannot afford to build the layout they would like - it certainly applies to me and I would count myself as probably better off than many modellers.  Hornby. nor any other manufacturer big or small is a charity designed to allow me to build the layouts I want.

 

As it happens I buy relatively few rtr models for the simple reason that relatively few cover my interest an in addition many of those that do (and the ones that I buy) need some form of modification to fit my needs.  

 

I hope therefore that my comments are not centred around personal preferences but around pure commercial arguments.  

So facts are:

Hornby are making a loss and have done so for a number of years - which may not be down entirely to model railways.  However if that continues they will cease to exist in their current form.

Hornby did introduce Design Clever and it has had a mixed response in both terms of quality and price.    

 

Dunsignalling above suggests that use of old moulds is the way for Design Clever and I would not disagree necessarily although it is interesting to note that those models that seem to have sold well (but may not have yielded big profits) are those where new tooling has been used - Crosti, BIL, DoG and maybe the P2.

 

So from a purely commercial viewpoint, I have to repeat, if more Design Clever (aka cheap) models are produced by Hornby, where are the extra sales/margins going to come from to pull Hornby out of a loss making situation.

 

The fact is that Model Railway companies are not like supermarkets.  A two for one offer does not get customers through the doors to spend the rest of their money in the store.

[G-BOAF]

IIRC When 'design clever' was announced, the Maunsell pull-push was cited as an example, I suspect on the basis that the tools were also being used to produce the non-converted items. This is 'intelligent design', and should be welcomed -  we had high quality models, with multiple uses for the same core tooling. It is however a top spec model.

[truffy]

The “design clever” 2BIL had crappy moulded grab handles, more like bumps. Similar Maunsell carriages of the same time had separately applied handles, or at least moulded so that you can see daylight between the handle and the carriage side.

 

The overall effect is to make the 2BIL look comparatively cheap.

Edited February 25, 2018 by truffy

[dibber25]

(my emphasis)

 

Chris, I have no way of knowing the specifics, but I wonder if in fact it is the other way around and that small detail assembly might exceed the time and cost of applying a livery - depending of course on how many details are added and how complex the livery application might be.

 

Your description is certainly correct in terms of the positioning originally used by Hornby to delineate regular versus Railroad models based on the same tooling. It is clear to me (based on what I see other manufacturers doing) that different tooling needs to be employed to distinguish one range from another, unless the separately fitted details and liveries between the two are dramatically and visibly different.

 

What Hornby never did is define a "craftsman"/prestige range versus the Railroad range. Nor did they consistently extend the Railroad branding to trainsets many, if not most, of which still use Railroad components in the set.

 

No, it is definitely the decoration which wracks up the cost, not just because it is time-consuming but because of the number of processes involved. It's not like normal printing where four colours go down one after the other in the blink of an eye. Each colour is separately applied and the part removed from the mask. Every change of colour and mask brings the risk of 'spoiling' the part by  a colour being out of register. If a part goes through 7 printing processes, that's 7 opportunities to spoil it. If it is spoiled on the last one, that effort is wasted and pushes the cost up. A spoiled part is scrap and cannot usually be reprinted. I recall having it explained in detail to me by SK when the Hornby 'Schools' came out, because of the number of printing processes involved in just one part - the cab. The higher the potential failure rate, the more expensive the model.

We were certainly given the impression with Tornado that there would be very little difference between the two price points other than in the much simplified decoration of the Railroad version. I've never examined either version of Tornado because others reviewed it and were better qualified than me to deal with LNER 'Pacifics'. (CJL)

[adb968008]

Personally I used railroad to upgrade chassis on some of my older models.

 

However once the price climbed beyond what I thought is reasonable I reigned it in.

For instance I bought 12 of one class 47.. used the chassis to upgrade my Lima fleet... i’m Sure I wasn’t alone, but when we’re looking at nearly £100 a loco.. all of a sudden i’m not so keen.., when I was paying much less last summer.

Edited February 25, 2018 by adb968008