Hornby TT Easter announcement 2024

[PaulRhB]

1 hour ago, Porfuera said:

Heljan and Gaugemaster could have continued but they chose not to

Mainly because of the then managements aggressive protection by announcing the same thing and after the Terriers (Rails), 66 & Genesis coaches(Hattons) and 91 (Cavalex) similar gazumping who would blame them at the time for saying this isn’t worth it if Hornby rush a more basic model ahead of us? 
https://railsofsheffield.com/blogs/news/from-Heljan-tt-120-update

 

[PaulRhB]

Hornby started that silliness and we said at the time it would damage their brand, so many like me who bought into the brand quality and ‘coziness’ got fed up with their childishness and now they need to rebuild that trust.
I had to modify the APT to get it right and not liable to blow a hole in the NDM roof and the 91 is still a dog over pointwork so I don’t think I’m overly cynical after that. 
The range strategy? just goes against what clearly works in most retail sectors I’ve had direct experience of including model railways. I’m also hoping the recent new advisor doesn’t end up doing what new investors control did to LGB in pushing the price purely on brand name not quality. Or getting distracted doing premium stuff at three times the price like ‘LGB High End’. 

[frobisher]

19 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

So, Graham Farish were wasting their time making both the 57XX and 64XX in N Gauge then?

 

The 64XX is modern tooling and targeted because Dapol produced a 57XX, the Farish 57XX was in Noah's trainset and not in current production since they have something filling the small GWR pannier tank slot for them...

 

 

[John Isherwood]

13 hours ago, froobyone said:

Trains are blue.

 

I'm afraid that the introduction of BR blue spelled the end of my interest in the current railway scene - nothing in that colour will ever disgrace my model railway.

 

CJI.

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, frobisher said:

 

The 64XX is modern tooling and targeted because Dapol produced a 57XX, the Farish 57XX was in Noah's trainset and not in current production since they have something filling the small GWR pannier tank slot for them...

 

 

 

Not my point though.

 

My point was they didn't have to make either going by the logic of some people. Just a vague shape of a Pannier Tank would do as to some people they were all exactly the same....

 

If people modelling in N Gauge can tell the difference between a 57xx and 64xx they why can't those "modelling" in a bigger scale tell them apart?

 

As I said it would be pointless making an auto trailer for a 57XX as they didn't often pull them.

 

 

Me, sitting here with a station, signal box and goods shed with absolutely nothing to go with them. Can't even finish them until I know what era/livery anything they do make will arrive in....

 

 

Jason

[andrewshimmin]

For many of us having some things half finished without the rest of what we'd envisaged to go with them is just our whole modelling life...

[ianmianmianm]

Not and never have been a TT modeller but I have variously looked at 1:120 scale with N gauge track for a European metre gauge prototype (finding scenics a challenge) and then settled on 1:87 scale with 12mm gauge track instead (better scenics, chassis challenges).

 

I did see a TT 120 layout at the weekend (operating an A4, and a French diesel I think) and my main interest is in the use of the chassis. Economically, could Hornby have propped up the economic potential of the full RTR products by making the chassis available? Or even gone into this with some partnering of experienced 3D print producers to help develop 3rd party ranges that use some of the Hornby chassis (even selecting Hornby's choices with a strong influence on the potential to partner up). I am sure they spoke at length with Peco and Gaugemadter on the outset of this. 

 

I know little to nothing about the commercial aspects of this but have used many many 9mm Kato tram chassis and feel sure the profits from selling these far outweigh the sales of actual Kato trams.

 

FInally - if I am diving into a new layout or project, you aren't going to get me buying a loco with nothing for it to drag. Even in cottage industry niche metre gauge Portuguese we've managed to get our supplier providing carriages and loco in the same year.....

 

 

 

Edited April 3 by ianmianmianm

[Dunsignalling]

19 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Not my point though.

 

My point was they didn't have to make either going by the logic of some people. Just a vague shape of a Pannier Tank would do as to some people they were all exactly the same....

 

If people modelling in N Gauge can tell the difference between a 57xx and 64xx they why can't those "modelling" in a bigger scale tell them apart?

 

As I said it would be pointless making an auto trailer for a 57XX as they didn't often pull them.

 

 

Me, sitting here with a station, signal box and goods shed with absolutely nothing to go with them. Can't even finish them until I know what era/livery anything they do make will arrive in....

 

 

Jason

 

I think the point being made was that TT:120 is aimed at train-setters and Rule One merchants who, even if they can spot the differences, often don't care.

 

I've seen far too many Maunsell PP sets being shoved around by Ivatt 2MT tanks and even the odd Class 33 to suspect any very many of them of studying their subject...

 

Tri-ang grasped that Britannias could be seen on all the BR Regions except (possibly) the North Eastern, and produced it in both their scales. One should definitely have been an early pick for TT:120, if only to have something legitimate to stick on a rake of the Southern Pullmans....

 

It's no coincidence that Hornby is the only brand for whom train sets form a significant part of the business. There's just a different attitude in operation when it comes to marketing in Margate compared with everywhere else. 

 

John

 

 

Edited April 4 by Dunsignalling

[D9020 Nimbus]

23 hours ago, woodenhead said:

The 57xx was Poole heritage was it not, the 64xx was a modern tooling to go up against a modern tooling Dapol 57xx.

Farish announced a new chassis for the existing Poole-era body, but when Dapol announced an all new 57xx dropped that idea. Perhaps if Dapol hadn't done the 57xx Farish might not have done the 64xx at all. We'll never know (though they do both in OO). The 57xx/8750 is by far the most common, and Dapol have produced many batches of them, never ending up in the bargain bins.

[D9020 Nimbus]

54 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I've seen far too many Maunsell PP sets being shoved around by Ivatt 2MT tanks and even the odd Class 33 to suspect any of them of studying their subject...

Ivatt 2MT tanks were push-pull fitted (or at least some were), presumably a different mechanism to that used by the Maunsell sets?

[Dunsignalling]

35 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Ivatt 2MT tanks were push-pull fitted (or at least some were), presumably a different mechanism to that used by the Maunsell sets?

Yes.

['CHARD]

3 hours ago, andrewshimmin said:

For many of us having some things half finished without the rest of what we'd envisaged to go with them is just our whole modelling life...

 

Fixed that!

[Butler Henderson]

20 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Whether or not the 2P was 100% ready to go when transferred to Palitoy, its DNA and the shared 4F tender drive unit were pure Airfix. The couplers and the way they were attached bore no resemblance to the way Mainline did things.

 

Airfix were also developing other items that got cancelled along with the Compound, notably an SR Schools. It's also likely that Bachmann's Bulleid and Collett coaches, the Queen Mary brake van, and possibly the Lord Nelson had their earliest roots with Airfix.

The cancellation of the Compound was only a few months before Airfix went out of business and both it and the 56 were surprise announcements by Mainline/Palitoy, neither having been mentioned previously. It could have been a case that the agreement with Kader was approaching renewal and Palitoy wanted to explore the other manuafacturing option that had opened up. Tooling the 2P was clearly made than much simpler with the 4F tender available. Pat Hammond in  British Model Trains Catalogue only notes the Stanier all 3rd (subsequently released by Replica in 1990) and the 12 wheel diner (subsequently released by Dapol in 1985) as having had work started on. The Lord Nelson, which Bachmann released in 1992, was being developed by Palitoy, the Bachmann Bullieds of 1993 were planned Airfix who had produced some sample models, the Collett coaches were released by Mainline/Palitoy in 1983 and sold out quickly, Replica having batches made in 1987 and 1989 before they were released in the Bachmann range in 1991. The Queen Mary brake van was planned by Palitoy for 1985 eventually arriving as a Bachmann model  in 1996.

[Butler Henderson]

48 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Ivatt 2MT tanks were push-pull fitted (or at least some were), presumably a different mechanism to that used by the Maunsell sets?

They were used with the push pull sets but only as loco hauled stock with the Ivatt running round.

[John Isherwood]

4 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Not my point though.

 

My point was they didn't have to make either going by the logic of some people. Just a vague shape of a Pannier Tank would do as to some people they were all exactly the same....

 

If people modelling in N Gauge can tell the difference between a 57xx and 64xx they why can't those "modelling" in a bigger scale tell them apart?

 

As I said it would be pointless making an auto trailer for a 57XX as they didn't often pull them.

 

 

Me, sitting here with a station, signal box and goods shed with absolutely nothing to go with them. Can't even finish them until I know what era/livery anything they do make will arrive in....

 

 

Jason

 

Jason,

 

You are (deliberately?) missing the point - the core audience for TT120 is not the same as that for 2mm. scale - it doesn't WANT to know the difference between classes of pannier tanks.

 

You may wish that your fellow purchasers of Hornby's latest scale were more discerning, but they're not!

 

CJI.

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

I think the point being made was that TT:120 is aimed at train-setters and Rule One merchants who, even if they can spot the differences, often don't care.

 

I've seen far too many Maunsell PP sets being shoved around by Ivatt 2MT tanks and even the odd Class 33 to suspect any of them of studying their subject...

 

Tri-ang grasped that Britannias could be seen on all the BR Regions except (possibly) the North Eastern, and produced it in both their scales. One should definitely have been an early pick for TT:120, if only to have something legitimate to stick on a rake of the Southern Pullmans....

 

It's no coincidence that Hornby is the only brand for whom train sets form a significant part of the business. There's just a different attitude at in operation when it comes to marketing in Margate compared with everywhere else. 

 

John

 

 

 

Who says? That might be a selling point, but it's extremely disrespectful towards those that aren't in that category who are looking at what is a new scale/gauge and how they can use it.

 

And N Gauge and 00 wasn't aimed at train set buyers?

 

Try and make a N Gauge layout using only what was available RTR in 1975. Also try the same in 00. 

 

Here is Hornby's 1975 catalogue, TT has already got more planned than what was in that catalogue...

 

http://www.hornbyguide.com/year_details.asp?yearid=12

 

 

I can't understand why some are still arguing about things that were dismissed eighteen months ago. Seems some are obsessed by Hornby TT and just want it to fail.

 

 

Jason

[John Isherwood]

1 minute ago, Steamport Southport said:

Try and make a N Gauge layout using only what was available RTR in 1975.

 

PRECISELY - and look at the situation now!

 

RMweb didn't exist then, but I haven't the slightest doubt - in fact, I recall it - that the same complaints that you are making were widespread about N scale at that time.

 

Face it - Rome wasn't built in a day; but I agree that some form of coordination in Hornby's releases wouldn't go amiss!

 

CJI.

[Steamport Southport]

2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Jason,

 

You are (deliberately?) missing the point - the core audience for TT120 is not the same as that for 2mm. scale - it doesn't WANT to know the difference between classes of pannier tanks.

 

You may wish that your fellow purchasers of Hornby's latest scale were more discerning, but they're not!

 

CJI.

 

I'm not missing the point.

 

I would suggest there are plenty of us that do know about railways that are interested in TT

 

If you treat people like fools then they will act as fools. How are they meant to learn if you talk down to them?

 

Why not get these things right from the start or do people want Plymouth Shunters masquerading as BR Diesels and Continental diesels as mock Class 17. As that is what happened with N Gauge. It wasn't until the 1980s that N Gauge was taken seriously by many.

 

 

 

Jason

[John Isherwood]

27 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I'm not missing the point.

 

I would suggest there are plenty of us that do know about railways that are interested in TT

 

If you treat people like fools then they will act as fools. How are they meant to learn if you talk down to them?

 

Why not get these things right from the start or do people want Plymouth Shunters masquerading as BR Diesels and Continental diesels as mock Class 17. As that is what happened with N Gauge. It wasn't until the 1980s that N Gauge was taken seriously by many.

 

 

 

Jason

 

You are trying to redirect Hornby's sales strategy - it won't work!

 

Like it or not, Hornby see a market amongst the 'don't know, don't cares'. They don't, apparently, see the same sales potential amongst the 'do know, do care, might change scales'.

 

You may be correct - but you don't have the business clout to do what they are doing.

 

That is life - we'll have to see who was correct, in due course.

 

CJI.

[gc4946]

With the J50, if you're prepared to accept huge gaps in traction and rolling stock, based on Hornby's current and future intentions (J94, Black 5, classes 31 and 37)  a scenario based in the West Riding of Yorkshire is possible.

I'm already leaning into that possibility.

[spamcan61]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

You are trying to redirect Hornby's sales strategy - it won't work!

 

Like it or not, Hornby see a market amongst the 'don't know, don't cares'. They don't, apparently, see the same sales potential amongst the 'do know, do care, might change scales'.

 

You may be correct - but you don't have the business clout to do what they are doing.

 

That is life - we'll have to see who was correct, in due course.

 

CJI.

Hornby haven't invested millions (I reckon)  in TT:120 in order to cannibalise their own OO sales* ; that would be an epic fail. So I agree they're not aiming at MRJ readers; for sure over on the various TT:120 related  Facebook groups there's a much higher proportion of new starters than other railway modelling groups there.

 

* although that's almost certainly happening to a degree.

Edited April 3 by spamcan61

[Les1952]

9 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I'm afraid that the introduction of BR blue spelled the end of my interest in the current railway scene - nothing in that colour will ever disgrace my model railway.

 

CJI.

 

I'm seriously considering whether shoving a 30-page chunk of stuff I fail to find interesting into the middle of BRM makes it worthwhile continuing with my subscription for similar reasons.

 

Les

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, spamcan61 said:

Hornby haven't invested millions (I reckon)  in TT:120 in order to cannibalise their own OO sales* ; that would be an epic fail. So I agree they're not aiming at MRJ readers; for sure over on the various TT:120 related  Facebook groups there's a much higher proportion of new starters than other railway modelling groups there.

 

* although that's almost certainly happening to a degree.

 

TBF, Hornby are marketing TT:120 at beginners and the budget-conscious, so the segment most under threat from it will logically be the Railroad range. 

 

They are smart enough to have factored that in, along with a degree of attrition that they will consider tolerable in the short-to-medium term.

 

So long as TT:120 thrives over the longer term, I would expect a point to be reached where Railroad disappears altogether. That will allow Hornby to move OO upmarket with the "full fat" (plastic) range at (by then) around £350-£400 a go for DCC-ready 4-6-0s/2-8-0s and above, with sound/smoke/lit versions and metal-bodied "neo-Dublo" in a spread between there and £600 or so. 

 

John

 

  

Edited April 3 by Dunsignalling

[Robin Brasher]

It costs Hornby roughly the same amount of money to produce a TT:120 model as an 00 model yet their TT:120 Flying Scotsman is considerably cheaper than their 00 model. The TT:120 Flying Scotsman is a high quality model and Hornby are selling it at a low price to entice new entrants into the scale. As TT:120 becomes more popular I expect Hornby will put its prices up and their new HS 125 with just a power car and a dummy trailer costs over £200 which will not appeal to budget-conscious modellers.

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, Robin Brasher said:

It costs Hornby roughly the same amount of money to produce a TT:120 model as an 00 model yet their TT:120 Flying Scotsman is considerably cheaper than their 00 model. The TT:120 Flying Scotsman is a high quality model and Hornby are selling it at a low price to entice new entrants into the scale. As TT:120 becomes more popular I expect Hornby will put its prices up and their new HS 125 with just a power car and a dummy trailer costs over £200 which will not appeal to budget-conscious modellers.

 

I think we need to recognise that the return of above-target inflation has altered the perception of what constitutes a "budget" product. Even Railroad prices in OO would have shocked the market ten years ago. The question we should perhaps ask is "were I considering entry to the hobby now, would the prices make me give up on the idea?"

 

FWIW, I wouldn't be deterred, but would most certainly not approach it in the way my existing participation has evolved. I'd be far more focussed and self-disciplined, and a better modeller for it!

 

It may sound harsh, but as purely discretionary purchases, model trains are luxury goods and the firms supplying  them are in the "affluent leisure" market, just like higher-end restaurants and premier league football clubs. If one doesn't have "spare" money and the motivation to spend it, one doesn't participate. 

 

There is plenty of modestly-priced, good quality, pre-owned equipment out there to cater for those of limited means who want in, and those lacking the inclination to spend what they do have. That applies in most areas of life; if it were not so, almost everybody would be living in detached houses and driving new cars!

 

In essence, like all other businesses, Hornby exists to make money; model trains are just how they do it. Their "budget" ranges, Railroad and TT:120, exist to expand the customer demographic to the slightly less affluent. No businesses beyond suppliers of essentials (or none that survive), ever define the tight or the skint as target markets.   

 

The TT:120 Scotsman is not made to the same standard as Hornby's "full-fat" A3 in OO, though is perhaps a bit better than Railroad-level. The target market is beginners and the "price-sensitive"; those who have money but prefer to hang on to it. I'd argue that most of us are "price-conscious"; my own purchasing decisions have become far sharper than they once were. However tempting, anything likely to end up re-boxed in the cupboard after a spell in the display cabinet, and sold on next year for less than I paid, just doesn't get bought these days. I call it the stock-tray test.... 

 

The critical difference with TT:120 is that, as a completely new range, it will have had economy of production at the core of the design process to ensure a healthy margin despite lower selling prices  

 

The last thing Hornby want, need, or intend is for TT:120 to significantly eat into sales of their main OO range, it's very conception was rooted in the need to compensate for loss of OO sales, real and anticipated, due to dramatically expanding competition. Adding to the problem in-house, is not in the plan! 

 

John

Edited April 5 by Dunsignalling