Hornby digest.

[FlyingScot]

Hi, I'm Flyingscot, and I'm here to show the utter lazyness of Hornby. Don't know what I'm on about? Have a look at this disgrace....


http://www.newmodellersshop.co.uk/images/Trains/steam/r2956_gwr_4-2-2_175_dean_single_train_pack.jpg

Pardon me if I made a link instead of a picture but have a look at the engines couplings. Notice how they are bent over. This has been in practice since the triang years but dropped in the mid nineties. First old thing. Now, look at the engines tender. Instead of having a permanent link, like they have now, it has a removable tender. That also dates from the triang years and has also been dropped in the nineties. All in all, this engine is too old to be released again. The engine in the last single wheeler train pack has the same problem on the couplings and it also has a removable tender. Also, the wheels on the coaches have a white ring around the wheels, which are made of plastic instead of the new metal. As older members may know, these ringed wheels were commonplace in the seventies. Another oldy. And Hornby are releasing the class 101 steam engine as a collectible for the 175 years of the great western railway, which has been recycled for many, many years. And smoky joe is still in the catalog twenty seven years after it was first in the catalog.



The moral of this story is: Hornby, stop making us buy old models again and again.

 

[Doorslammer]

You seem to get very irritated over the silliest of quandaries. But let's have a look at what you say...

First point about the couplings. Yes, indeed that does look a bit out of order, but I assume that was a prototype or pre-production model used primarily for photographic purposes. I doubt it would be a troubling matter on production models that would be expected to be of a higher quality for the customers' satisfaction.

Point two, the tender. OK, another good point again, it's real ugly. But a permanent connection? No way would that be a benefit, especially for those who would be looking at large amounts of running that would require access for maintenance. Would rather they be seperated, but yes, awful look to it.

Seems to be a bit of waffle about the third point, that of recycling models. Remember, it's not a cheap business to be involved in. So if they feel they can extract the most out of a mould or cast without losing too much on realism or extra unnecessary cost, then good on them. That's the aim for any company, to get the most out of their sterling.

Point four, Smokey Joe is still, even after all these years, a popular kids choice to play with. I remember I had one when I was 5, so go figure really. Still being produced, someone obviously still wants it.

You do have valid points, but an angry and over the top approach is the wrong way to go about it. These things have reasons for being so, so let them be...

 

[FlyingScot]

You seem to get very irritated over the silliest of quandaries. But let's have a look at what you say...

First point about the couplings. Yes, indeed that does look a bit out of order, but I assume that was a prototype or pre-production model used primarily for photographic purposes. I doubt it would be a troubling matter on production models that would be expected to be of a higher quality for the customers' satisfaction.

Point two, the tender. OK, another good point again, it's real ugly. But a permanent connection? No way would that be a benefit, especially for those who would be looking at large amounts of running that would require access for maintenance. Would rather they be seperated, but yes, awful look to it.

Seems to be a bit of waffle about the third point, that of recycling models. Remember, it's not a cheap business to be involved in. So if they feel they can extract the most out of a mould or cast without losing too much on realism or extra unnecessary cost, then good on them. That's the aim for any company, to get the most out of their sterling.

Point four, Smokey Joe is still, even after all these years, a popular kids choice to play with. I remember I had one when I was 5, so go figure really. Still being produced, someone obviously still wants it.

You do have valid points, but an angry and over the top approach is the wrong way to go about it. These things have reasons for being so, so let them be...

Listen, I didn't mention I was angry. I am not angry. I am not shouting my head off. And I also have smoky joe. Treasure it like it's a thousand dollars.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Aaaaaah, the Thomas range. Cheerful, colourful and devoid of small parts. Or is it?
Well of course it's cheerful and colourful but I have inspected the Stepney and Oliver locos. Stepney has lots of pipes and detailed parts that can be easily swallowed. I know Hornby has never made a terrier before they took over Dapol but couldn't they have taken off the detail first? Proof if you need it that Really are lazy. And then there's Oliver. Nothing too bad, but he has easily falling off railings as well. Note that they are disturbingly PLANTED IN HIS BRAIN. Now, you may think that they are pre production models but in a model shop I saw a normal terrier under Stepney and they were one and the same apart from the livery differences. And that terrier had all the details. I also saw Oliver and he had the railings on as well.

 

[Fincra5]

The link between the loco and tender doesn't look permenant. Rather you lift the tender up to disconnect it from the loco.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

The link between the loco and tender doesn't look permenant. Rather you lift the tender up to disconnect it from the loco.

It is, I have the same model in Royal Sovereign guise. Its not the most detailed model, but it looks like a Dean Single, and the carriages were excellent.

Im tempted to update it, but as its was a limited edition, I think Ill wait till I see one of the old triang ones and rebuild that.

 

[Heinz57]

I think FlyingScot might raise a good point.

Comparing the quality of that with the other locos on todays market. Its like yeah. Maybe that model would be better in the Railroad range where detail is less desired for?

What he says at the end is a good point too. Sure Smokey Joe may have been there since catalouge no 1. I don't mind that being there for that long, I think its great actualy, and it would be a shame to see it go. However, it would be nice to see other locos lasting a longer time, there are many which are only on the market for a couple of years, some may only last a year. Maybe they should be out for a little longer.

FlyingScot, you mention something about detail on the Thomas range? Is it realy getting like that now? A bit silly if you ask me, as you say, lots of small detailed parts that can easily get broke and swallowed. And another point to add, is a small child of 5 years old realy that botherd about the level of detail on a model? I mean come on Hornby!

 

[EM2]

Nobody's making anyone buy anything. If you don't like the model, then don't buy it.

But are you suggesting that Hornby should have two separate toolings for Terriers? Or that the detail should be removed and it only be offered in the Thomas range? They cannot offer the LBSC E2 any more, because that tooling has been altered to make Thomas, so you seem to suggest that they either only offer a less-detailed Stepney OR a fully-detailed 'proper' Terrier but not both.

 

[FlyingScot]

The link between the loco and tender doesn't look permenant. Rather you lift the tender up to disconnect it from the loco.

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that it doesn't look permanent and that modern engines have permanent links and this oldy does not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nobody's making anyone buy anything. If you don't like the model, then don't buy it.

But are you suggesting that Hornby should have two separate toolings for Terriers? Or that the detail should be removed and it only be offered in the Thomas range? They cannot offer the LBSC E2 any more, because that tooling has been altered to make Thomas, so you seem to suggest that they either only offer a less-detailed Stepney OR a fully-detailed 'proper' Terrier but not both.

Here's how I meant it. There should be detailed terriers in the normal range and a same terrier in the thomas range only with all the harmful bits off. A less detailed model in the thomas range shouldn't infringe on the normal range. I'm just trying to suggest a safer stepney for the youngins but a detailed terrier for the real modelers.

 

[EM2]

But that means two sets of tooling, which means Hornby will have to produce a new tool for the 'less detailed' version.

 

[FlyingScot]

But that means two sets of tooling, which means Hornby will have to produce a new tool for the 'less detailed' version.

Ah, but Hornby would rather risk spending a bit on a new tooling than getting sued which would cost them a lot.

 

[Doorslammer]

Ah, but Hornby would rather risk spending a bit on a new tooling than getting sued which would cost them a lot.

Hang on a tick, sued? Why on earth would anyone "sue" them? Please tell me you meant something else...

 

[Heinz57]

Hang on a tick, sued? Why on earth would anyone "sue" them? Please tell me you meant something else...

If a parent bought something for there kid from the Thomas range, which is aimed at kids. And a small detailed part you'd normaly find on a main range product snapped off and the kid chocked on it, they'd sue them. And probably quite right realy.

A product in a range that is aimed at the younger generation shouldn't have fine detail parts that can break off and cause a child to choke on it

 

[FlyingScot]

Hang on a tick, sued? Why on earth would anyone "sue" them? Please tell me you meant something else...

Well you see, if anyone made a loco that my child would choke on then I would be pretty darn angry and as you know all adults today are sueing for their children being choked to death on parts.

 

[Doorslammer]

Lord almighty, that could happen to ANY train, couldn't it? Crap detail aside...

Anyway, you forget there are such things as standards that have to be met before it could be sold. If there was any hint of an impending choking hazard, then BOOM! Straight in with a recall, as any good manufacturer would do.

That's not happened, so not much of a case so far really.

 

[Vulcan]

Well you see, if anyone made a loco that my child would choke on then I would be pretty darn angry and as you know all adults today are sueing for their children being choked to death on parts.

The Hornby Thomas range isn't designed to be given to kids that are young enough to try putting things in their mouth. Try the diecast toys for that.

And you say modern hornby locos have a permanent coupling between loco and tender? - no they don't.