"Hornby Heavy Tanks: In defence of consumerism"

Sometimes I think railway modellers are inclined to look at things through rose tinted spectacles a little too often. 

We live and work in a consumer orientated society. Every single manufacturer in every single market (except ours, apparently) is open to constructive criticism and debate on quality and pricing.

Take for instance, the recent Xbox One news. Consumers and critics alike questioning the specification, the design and the eye watering price, both in comparison to its rivals and in terms of its overall value for money.

This is a healthy debate: consumers are, after all, the target market and its their needs and desires that companies develop their wares for. If a manufacturer gets overly expensive for what is no longer a premium product (for examples look at Nokia and Sony Ericsson phones of years past) then their popularity will decline and they'll come in for justifiable criticism from all angles. 

Sometimes it makes a company pull their socks up and reinvent their own market (see apple) or generally improve their products or lower their prices accordingly.

We are, after all, in a capitalism driven market and capitalism itself is what drives manufacturers like Hornby and Bachmann. They are businesses, they exist to make money and to make profits year on year. Their drive is not to fulfil every single whim of the railway modeller (though it helps, of course, to listen to what your market is telling you) but to make railway models which sell out and generate their own demand year on year.

For all the world recently, though, you'd think that manufacturers like Hornby and Bachmann were put on this earth for a very different reason. To keep this hobby alive, no less, and for that may we all be truly grateful...

It's utter tosh, and a fundamental basic principle of business is being completely overlooked by those who are so very keen to push a particular agenda. The facts are stonewall in this particular issue I am afraid, and it goes a bit like this.

There is a line in the sand where a manufacturer in any market can go too far, whether it is reducing the quality and specification of their wares but at the same time keeping their prices artificially high, or higher. Or, to go the other way and price their wares out of reach of the vast majority of their customers.

We see this all the time elsewhere in the consumer led markets, and magazines, websites and TV shows are not so afraid elsewhere to cast a more critical eye.

Richard Fosters review of the Hornby 42xx Heavy Tank (which should be praised for being balanced and critical where it counts for the consumer) has been unfairly ridiculed, lambasted and described, rather preposterously, as "violent" by Simon Kohler, no less!

The review has been rather heinously described as "Hornby bashing", and anyone who has shown agreement with the point of view have been vilified, to the extent that yours truly was accused of over-egging the point on a certain forum for daring to disagree with the rather silly view that I have no right to voice an opinion which is concerned for future Hornby releases...!

All of these people have missed the point entirely and I'm afraid Simon Kohler's description of Richard Foster's review does him no favours. No, the 42xx Heavy Tank is not a bad model but it is a very average one being sold at a high premium price comparable to this:

Or this:

Or even this:

Last year I praised the Hornby Thompson O1 and the Gresley B17 in particular. 

They are superb models, the O1 for me being the true "model of the year" is an incredible depiction of its prototype, with very, very few minor "flaws" (one being the smokebox door which covers a small proportion of the class, but that is fixable and several very able modellers have done that with some aplomb).

In Hornbys own range it is clear that the 42xx Heavy Tank is a step back in terms of technology (both body shell and chassis) and is available at a price comparable to these much superior models Hornby have produced only a few months ago.

Can you imagine the future iPhone 6 being sold without wifi capability? The next Samsung Galaxy phone sold without a touch screen? Can you imagine your new car coming without power steering and yet being sold at a price comparable to another manufacturers, which does have power steering?

In the real world of other consumer led markets, quality and value for money is key, along with desirability. Hornby are fully capable of hitting all of those targets and have done consistently for some years (with the odd lemon that is the Hornby 4VEP) that but have fallen down here for me.

Does saying that out loud, firmly, and without intent (lest you believe the ridiculous assertions of one webmaster in particular) harm Hornby itself? Only if they do not react to the justified criticism of their latest models. Their models have to continue to improve, or keep the standards high, and if not, should be priced accordant with their quality.

Modellers are having to be more cautious in their spending. Times are hard and lots of expensive railway models are booming increasingly difficult to justify for many people. It is value for money which is most important elsewhere in the real world, and so should it be in our hobby when buying the latest ready to run models.

I'm afraid the reality of this debate is that a few individuals have seen fit to turn a positive of our railway media (constructive debate and criticism) into some form of monster, which neither exists in the form so pompously described by one who should know better as rivet counting, nor is it as unwarranted as they would have you believe.

Railway modellers are consumers too, and it is your right as a consumer to be critical. It is your money, your hobby and the manufacturers are businesses which exist to make money. Nothing more and nothing less.

They must, as other manufacturers in other industries do, sink or swim on the basis of their wares. If their wares are not good enough, they will fail. If you want them to succeed, tell them where they are going wrong in the most constructive manner possible.

Which is exactly what Richard Foster did last month, and I applaud him and Model Rail for their honest and critical review. 

Shame on those reviewers who have forgot the consumers and turned a blind eye to the 42xx's premium price and less than premium overall quality.

Value for money indeed!

"Heavy Tanks & Forum Discussion"

It's quite simple really: Hornby have not quite got universal praise for their latest round of steam outline products, the 42xx and 72xx Great Western Heavy Tanks.

Across the internet, whether it's on MREmag, the New Railway Modellers Forum, Modellers United or similar, there is definitely an undercurrent of disappointment from would be purchasers of these models and future products from Hornby.

Now, it's fair to say that the Heavy Tanks are flawed. Not so flawed that they are absolutely dreadful, but simply not up to the specifications that modellers and collectors have come to expect for their £120-£140 RRP.

Richard Foster's review in last month's Model Rail got it absolutely spot on. They're not good enough for their price, and they are certainly not up to the very high standards Hornby themselves have set. Not the consumer, I hasten to add, but Hornby.

I think the point that Model Rail were making (and I myself amongst others across the internet) is that you cannot continue to push prices up at RRP and put detail standards down without at some point going past an accepted level of "value for money" and thus alienating your core group of consumers.


No one notices sprung buffers, but to tool up a new set of unsprung ones when you have the correct types already tooled up for use on previous GWR models is bizarre.

The Thompson trio of L1, B1 and O1 from Hornby all share certain components, plus some portions of their research and development, so not only do we know it can be done, we know Hornby have done it previously.

A case in point is the Railroad Peppercorn A1 and all the other loco drive LNER Pacifics that Hornby offer. Their chassis in particular are exercises in reusing shared components amongst different models.

The 42xx/72xx feel like they were built down to a price and marked up at RRP to the limit of that the market would stand. Most modellers will tell you that's how it works across the board, and I wouldn't deny that, but the heavy tanks feel like an extreme example.

I feel almost confident that, had the models been at an RRP of £100 instead of in and around £140, reviewers might have been more inclined to overlook things like the door dart, sprung buffers and similar. In terms of price at sale, models have to meet the standards met elsewhere at similar RRPs (like Bachmann's magnificent Midland Compound. For the same RRP, and at similar discounts at the box shifters as the Heavy Tanks, you can have one of these. Not helpful if you really want a Heavy Tank, but it puts the specification versus price debate into perspective).

However couple that with the chassis design (for which I am not convinced the sudden loss of brass bushes set into slots on the chassis will prove a long term gain for Hornby in terms of reliability and running characteristics), the poor paint job and printing (look in particular at the buffer beam numerals and crests) and the whole model just doesn't match up to Hornbys high standards or their competitors.

Richard Foster nailed it in my view. If these had been the first of the new generation, and not the MNs and BoBs/WCs over a decade ago, and at a price suitable to their spec, we'd be extolling their values and praising them to the hilt.

The world has moved on, Hornby has taken a step backwards, Bachmann and Dapol continue to impress and push up their own standards.

Why Hornby have to be so Jekyll and Hyde in their approach to model railways is beyond me. I will tell (and no doubt bore) anyone who'll listen how brilliant their LNER models are.

We can't afford to be blaze in our purchases anymore, money is tight for everyone and its clear people are not going to pay out for everything if it doesn't quite meet their expectations anymore.


So that's my point of view on the 42xx and 72xx discussion. It's shared elsewhere by a good number of people. I can only say (as I always say) that you should treat forum discussion as a sample, but the sheer number of disappointed purchasers and bystanders is surprising.

Now, I am convinced the 42xx and 72xx can be turned into excellent models by changing a few things. Sprung buffers, smokebox dart, a better paint job and some weathering. However, it's the starting point which has changed. The price is higher, the specification is lower. Modellers are a discerning bunch, and they have to be.

There will be modellers looking at Hornby's future products and wondering if they are going to come out like these models. Will they pass on future models if they're not up to scratch? In my view it's best to tell Hornby now how you feel now, be constructive and be upfront and honest, than to stay quiet and wait for the inevitable to happen.

So what do we think of this post by Andy York on RMweb?

"The flames seem to have been fanned by some that I wouldn't think would have an interest in the specific product but have used it to register concerns about future potential releases and it seems in some cases that some people have been on an active search to find faults to add to the list. Let's just keep it level-headed, it's beginning to sound like some are calling for blood".

Well yes Andy, that's the point. If the models are not meeting the expectations of their purchasers, or potential future customers of Hornby, why can't people make their viewpoints heard in the most constructive manner?

If you actually bothered read back through your own Heavy Tank thread on RMweb, you won't find people "baying for blood" or actively trying to find the most preposterous faults to devalue the model. 

You'll find a group of modellers actively trying to define their feelings on Hornby's latest steam outline models, and the "design clever" strategy (which, lest we forget, Messers York and RMweb were actively extolling the values of in December last year) with as much reason, careful discussion and genuinely good natured debate as is the norm in the hobby.

What is frustrating is the amount of incomprehensible doublespeak that comes out of the mouths of people who should know better, or who have previously allowed good and positive, constructive discussion to influence the development of some excellent models.

So is this "Hornby bashing" as it's become fashionable to term, by people who can't debate and have no idea how to be constructive? No, of course it's not. We all want Hornby to do well. Anyone who actively wants Hornby to fail is not acting in the best interests of the hobby and future models.

We have to make our voices heard in the most constructive manner. People like myself have done so without resorting to name slanging, or accusations of "fanning flames" and generally being unpleasant and abusing our positions of power. We need to continue to do so without being beaten down by people who try to control news, views, and viewpoints.

Until next time - and apologies for the lack of blogs this month. Have started a new job and time has been at a premium. Normal service will be resumed soon!

"MORE FAMOUS THAN THOMAS!"

The results are in from Locoyard, part of the UK Heritage Hub, in their quest to find the world's most famous steam locomotive...

The results are more than a little surprising...!

With an absolutely stunning 15% of the votes, "our Allen" has narrowly pipped a certain little blue tank engine into third place, behind Australia's no.3801 in second, and the UK's Flying Scotsman in first place.

It is an absolute honour to come third in the poll, and it is a testament to our fans around the world.

Thank you all so much for your support, particularly with the book nearly ready to hit the shelves at long last.

Thanks both to Locoyard and the UK Heritage Hub for setting up the poll, their coverage and their support.

Until next time!

"April blues"

It's been one of those months unfortunately - being made redundant at the end of March has put pressure on the finances, but happily it's affecting my hobby in a positive manner. I have made it my duty to sell off anything and everything absolutely not required. So many things have already gone up on eBay and sold, so the money is coming in at a steady pace and more or less keeping me afloat.

It's difficult to keep the hobby going when there's so much pressure on getting back into work. That has to come first I'm afraid (yes, even ahead of the book at present - which is still on course for being released very, very soon).

So it's been a sparse April, my apologies. Things can and will get better, but there's a few priorities I need to work on first, mostly regarding my better half and a certain holiday abroad we need to take towards the start of the summer...

Until next time, when hopefully things will have picked up for the better.

"News on the book"

It's been a long old road, but we're nearing the finish line with the printing. Delays of all sorts of types have come to try us, but now it's just a case of signing off on the front and back covers, and we're there.

I will be contacting our stockists soon to confirm allocations and delivery dates.

There will be a limited number of books available from our Amazon shop at full RRP with postage and packaging. Pre-orders will soon be invited on the shop, with members of the BRWS Ltd's Facebook group being offered first refusal.

In theory, although our first batch of books has sold out, I have a number of them reserved for magazine and newspaper reviews, and some for friends and family.

A second batch of books may well be printed and delivered before the end of the summer, dependent on funds available.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for their patience, and apologise for the lack of communication recently.

Yours faithfully,

Simon A.C. Martin

"Thompson B3/3: Cab, balance weights..."

Building model locomotives has been my way of letting off steam for a few years now. I can feel the stress and anxieties melt away as I start chopping, filing, gluing and soldering bits and bobs to make new models.

The current project is my Thompson B3/3 build, which is starting to get into its stride and take over just about all my modelling time. I see it on the workbench and I long to get the next bit done. The "next bit" in question this evening, along with the driving wheel balance weights, was sorting the cab.

If you're a Peppercorn A2 fan, best to look away now.

A cab left over from a Thompson A2/3 conversion (in fact THE Thompson A2/3 conversion: the prototype Graeme King did as a commission for me, and which spawned all of the other Thompson conversions which have come to pass in the last two years) was used as part of a cut and shut. This is because I discovered the Peppercorn A2 cab's side sheets had the windows pitched in exactly the right position, with the right shape, and were (in addition to the width of the side sheets) also the correct length for the B3/3.

I therefore cut them out, and then cut them to size to the existing B1 cab. The side sheets on the B1 cab had to be removed, along with the splashers in the cab.

With the  cab roof was cut along the centre line, and moved back. This gives the correct length cab, and now all of the roof's vents and panels are in the correct locations too. The roof was given a thin plasticard lining to cement it all together, before it was then

I should mention that the original splashers were not deep enough for the larger Royal Scot wheels and consequently a new set will have to be fabricated from plasticard, along with a new cab floor.

Gamesworkshops green putty, along with some Humbrol plastic filler, were used to bring all the pieces together, and also fill in any redundant Peppercorn A2 odds and ends. This will be carefully filed back and sanded down smooth tomorrow after my errands.

The final job for the day was fitting some new plasticard balance weights for the driving wheels. Once these have stuck firmly, I will filed away the Royal Scot balance weights which are just about visible underneath still.

All in all, not a bad day's work on the B3/3, and I even managed to fit in a good hour's running on the rolling road too.

Until next time.

"Thompson B3/3: a tonic for insomnia"

It's amazing sometimes how quickly things seem to go together when it's half two in the morning.

I had another batch of insomnia last night, something which affects me particularly when I am stressed. I cannot switch off. The brain will not be told to go to sleep. It continues unabated, incessantly repeating the worries until I nod off through lack of sleep around 4am before having to get up at 8.30am to go through my usual writing routine, along with job applications, orders for the book and more planning and writing of future books and videos.

So in order to take my mind off things (job prospects, the book being published, sister heading off to Madrid to be in a play, paying for car repairs, girlfriend's teaching career troubles) and all the other little things at present, I decided to get my Isinglass drawings out and see what more could be done to my Thompson B3/3 model. This was just after midnight last night, and I didn't stop until it was actually half two in the morning.

I bought a spare Thompson B1 bogie off eBay last week. This bogie has actually come off the latest Hornby Railroad Flying Scotsman model, which for some reason doesn't use the correct type but re-uses that on their B1 model. This suited me as the spare B1 chassis I bought did not originally come with a bogie.

In a similar vein to the changes I made to 60113 Great Northern's bogie recently, I will chop off and file down the obtrusive NEM pocket when I get a chance.

You will notice the difference in buffer heights. This is the next stage of the build which I have to work through. The B3/3 had the B1 boiler pitched higher than the B1, which necessitated deeper "shoulders" over the cylinders. It also had deeper and longer cab sides to compensate, which I will tackle at the same time.

The next step was to cut off the existing moulded dome from the Bachmann B1 body shell, filing the boiler smooth afterwards. This is so I can fit one of Graeme King's excellent Gorton style domes instead, which the B3/3 was fitted with (being rebuilt in real life at Gorton).

You will notice I've cut and moved the rear steps and running plate away to show where the cab needs to be modified along with the rear curve down. The cab side sheets need to be replaced, and luckily I have worked out a way of doing this so that the correct length and depth to the side sheets, along with the correct window placement can be done. The curve in the running plate will need to be cut and then extended to match.

The rear splasher can be taken care off very easily by retaining the cutout in the existing cab. The difficult bit is adding the small splashers further up the running plate. Holes will be drilled to fit, and then splashers made in plasticard and fitted thereafter.

I'm planning, once the front running plate is cut and shut to the correct depth, and the spare Hornby B1 buffers have been added, to fit a set of false frames over the bogie wheels to give the model less daylight in that area, and preserve the bulky look further.

The next stage is to finish the work on rewiring the model, and adding pickups to the tender to help with the running capabilities. I've been astounded at how smooth the model is on the rolling road, particularly as no modifications have been made to the valve gear or the driving wheels to fit each other. It was a simple drop in replacement for the original B1 driving wheels.

So there you have it. A few bits of cutting and shutting, dome replacement and the addition of a front bogie to push the Thompson B3/3 build a bit further on. It is proving to be the tonic to my sleep problems as I nodded off shortly afterwards, still at my workbench. I am glad I had put the scalpels away by then...!

Until next time.