Model Railway Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hornby are knocking out shed loads of rolling stock at the moment - a lot of it being from the toolings aquired from their purchase of Lima.
The choice is great but Hornby are definately skimping on attention to detail. It seems nearly every model has a livery error or some silly mistake which could have been sorted before production had they done their homework properly. It might seem like 'nit-picking' to some but if you are going to produce something and replicate it many times you'd think they would at least try to get it right, surely!?
To get details correct on my rolling stock and layout, I simply look at the many quality pictures on the internet or in magazines and even actually look at the real thing if it is current. If I can do it I'm sure Hornby can too!
And that goes for all manufacturers.
I think most of us can forgive a rivet missing here and there (or maybe some of you can't?!).
But basic 'bread and butter' detail and livery should be looked at and checked before production begins.
Come on Hornby 'Put The Detail Back' - and your quality control - and stop making so many silly mistakes while you are rushing out all these models.
Quantity at the expense of quality is not good. If our models are going to have 'detail' then it should at least be researched properly and be correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Yes they should get things right but hornby did say that they would only be producing these quickly so as to get some return on the lima deal. They were always going to be a Hornby Basic range until they could find time in the production to fully update them.

I am pretty sure that on the detail side of things Hornby have used pictures and most probably 1:1 stock and it just happens that on these examples this is how they looked.

It was the same with the Bachmann Limpet in Dutch livery with the intercity logo that wasn't believed to be true until they released the picture of the wagon with the logo on it.

Ok, some mistakes are made but they are only human after all and they can make mistakes.

Its This kind of criticism that takes the biscuit. We have superb quality r-t-r stock and some people still have the nerve to complain when some little bits of detail are missed off a model, that has been produced for years by another company, and the blame is still tagged on to Hornby even though Lima made the moulds wrong in the first place.

Sorry for the outburst but it is now off my chest.

Its NOT a personal attack on you Keith. Just the straw that broke the camels back so to say.

Alistair
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
QUOTE Its NOT a personal attack on you Keith. Just the straw that broke the camels back so to say.

Alistair

No worries Alistair, I understand what you are saying. Hornby should be applauded for making so many obsolete Lima models available again. Obviously some of these tooling are quite old now so it is probably unfair to heavily critisize detail here. Its just seems unecessary for Hornby (and others) to make mistakes with liveries these days being as there is such a wealth of information and good photos on the net and indeed plenty of people in-the-know they could ask before they put a model into production.
Some model trains are absolute mater peices with some incredibly fine detail. It just seems a shame to spoil them with a poorly researched finish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
QUOTE (alibuchan @ 28 Dec 2006, 01:22) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yes they should get things right but hornby did say that they would only be producing these quickly so as to get some return on the lima deal. They were always going to be a Hornby Basic range until they could find time in the production to fully update them.

I am pretty sure that on the detail side of things Hornby have used pictures and most probably 1:1 stock and it just happens that on these examples this is how they looked.

It was the same with the Bachmann Limpet in Dutch livery with the intercity logo that wasn't believed to be true until they released the picture of the wagon with the logo on it.

Alistair

Alistair, the main difference is that a lot of these models have very silly mistakes - no matter how quickly they were produced. The BR blue 121 - Hornby's photographic evidence was a photograph of a 122! The NSE 121 has incorrect warning flashes and the wrong shade of NSE blue, the class 67 has missing air horn (I think) grilles, whilst the class 73 bodies are on the chassis the wrong way wrong (not to mention the underscale buffers - despite Lima having tooled up correctly-sized larger buffers for the 73/1). These mistakes are pretty inexcusable - how could a design team (or designer) mistake a 122 for a 121, given his or her job? NSE Blue has been correctly replicated by Hornby on the Class 50, so why not on the 121? Lima managed to print the horn grilles on 67, so why not Hornby? Who authorised the 73s for production with the bodies the wrong way round, or, alternatively, why was the opportunity to correct this passed up by the factory? There would have been no need for Hornby to mould anything anew, just to remove and refit the bodyshells.

Now, I would be amongst the first to admit that Hornby have produced some quality stuff (particularly for SR modellers like myself) but some pf the Limby releases just smack of sloppiness. Perhaps a different factory or design team (novices?
) produced them?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
It does seem strange that Hornby have mucked things up that were originally correct!
For example the air horn grilles on the class 67 - represented by Lima but omitted by Hornby,
correct colour blue seats on the BR blue and grey TGS by Lima but incorrectly made white by Hornby
and the buffers on the class 73 - correct large ones by Lima but incorrect small ones by Hornby.
This is not a budget issue nor nit-picking by so called 'rivet counters'.
This is pure sloppiness on the part of the manufacturer - plain and simple.
All of these items have been seen around the rail network for some years now so there can be no excuses for not having adequate references for research.
If Lima got these things right to start with, why have Hornby messed it up?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
I think the simple fact here is that Hornby are trying to run too fast with this and simply have not allowed for the time and resources needed to ensure accuracy I for one have not got my wallet out for any of the rereleased items and that really is all we can do if attention to detail will improve sales then hornby will eventually get the message
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Hornby 2007 City Freight Set
A green deltic with wipac headlight clusters working a freight train???
What on earth???
Obviously aimed at kids, but please - come on, surely not!?
Isn't it a bit early for April Fools?
Hornby - 'Putting The Detail Back' (LOL)
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
QUOTE (bangerblueed @ 31 Dec 2006, 22:58) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think the simple fact here is that Hornby are trying to run too fast with this and simply have not allowed for the time and resources needed to ensure accuracy I for one have not got my wallet out for any of the rereleased items and that really is all we can do if attention to detail will improve sales then hornby will eventually get the message

Absolutely agree. The blunder list seems to be growing. And before anyone says "Rivet counters", "Nit pickers" or "Manufacturer bashing" all these blunders seem like simple shoddy oversights.
Hornby make some really good accurate models which deservedly get a lot of positive press.
Likewise their recent shoddy efforts deserve critisism.
If the original Lima models were correct then it would be better and cheaper to buy these instead.
The possible above mentioned class 59 is one example?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,614 Posts
on a more constructive note. i wish they would put pictures of a final approval model in the public domain and actually invite comments say 20 days before production so if there any daft mistakes they can be sorted.
The grill on the 67 would have been spotted instantly on a close up shot and people would have complained like crazy!

I remember when they published a picture of the loco. there was a part of the valve gear that looked wrong. i sent a letter to MRE mag and it was published. i provided references to photographs in my letter to reinforce my views and low and behold when the final model came out it was corrected (it could also have been a coincidence! but i like to think it was down to me!!)

it would also be good if they could publish more comparison shots. to this day i have only seen 1 direct comparison picture of a model and the real thing. this was the heljan western. in model rail there was 2 pictures 1 of the model and 1 of the real thing. it showed very clearly the differences in the top of the cab area.

this would be a double edged sword though. it would highlight a wonderfull model but it would also highlight any deficiencies.

I remember there was an issue with the M7 lining. simon kohler said on MRE mag that they had a pic showing the lining exactly how it was on the model.
So no problem. but where is the photo? there is no problem with copyright. they dont have to provide the picture just a reference to it.

I think modellers could be far more constructive in the whole manufacturing process. i think its getting better with dennis lovett and simon kohler using MRE mag as a dialouge. i note that this forum was started with nothing less than a slur on hornby. but did you make any sugesstions. no you just gave them a kicking!
That makes me far more angry than a little vent missing on a model.

And in all honesty they are not major issues (apart from the 59!) if you cant paint seats that you can hardly see or change a coach number or put on a transfer for the horn grill then quite frankly i think you should safely locked in a padded cell. you are a danger to the general public.

Peter
 

·
Chief mouser
Joined
·
11,775 Posts
QUOTE (pedromorgan @ 10 Jan 2007, 13:51) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>on a more constructive note. i wish they would put pictures of a final approval model in the public domain and actually invite comments say 20 days before production so if there any daft mistakes they can be sorted.
The grill on the 67 would have been spotted instantly on a close up shot and people would have complained like crazy! ..................

..............And in all honesty they are not major issues (apart from the 59!) if you cant paint seats that you can hardly see or change a coach number or put on a transfer for the horn grill then quite frankly i think you should safely locked in a padded cell. you are a danger to the general public.

Peter

Hard words there Peter, although, having said that I have to totally agree with the sentiment. See also the thread about Hornby Mk3 TGS coaches. Come on people - get back in step with reality, after all, as has been said before, by myself and others small things can easily be corrected, big things, for example the Heljan 33 roof error, can't

Regards

John
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
QUOTE (BRITHO @ 10 Jan 2007, 14:50) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Come on people - get back in step with reality, after all, as has been said before, by myself and others small things can easily be corrected, big things, for example the Heljan 33 roof error, can't

Choosing the correct bodyshell, correct size buffers, moulding seats the correct colour and getting the livery details correct are a simple matter of less slipshod research. (Hornby's ex-Lima class 55/59,73, TGS coach and 'bubblecar' DMU respectively).
There are no major tooling issue here and these errors could have been so easily sorted at the factory in the first place.
It's just a rush job and Hornby being repeatedly careless.

As for the Heljan class 33 (and Western) roof issue, together with the class 47 width error - these are major errors which are very difficult/impossible to correct. The original Bachmann class 37 was another model which suffered mistakes in its dimensions.
Heljan need to pull out the stops with there forthcoming class 17 and 58 locos and possible 'Falcon' release and show that they can get it right. Any repeats of their class 33,47 and 52 failures will do them no favours at all. I think they deserve support for making an effort but they really need to prove their worth this time.

I beleive that all the manufacturers should treat their detailed models as an advert for their own skill and research. Poor models create critisism and a negativity. The whole hobby has really moved on from its 'toy trainset' origins now, particularly say, the last 5-10 years. That being the case then more care should be taken with dimensional accuracy and livery research. There are plenty of experts out there to help and advise manufacturers before production begins, so there shouldn't be any excuses for careless mistakes in this age of information, communication and technology.

According to the above entry I am 'danger to the public' and should be 'locked in a padded cell' for my comments!
Crime statistics for your area must be ultra impressive!
Careful you don't stumble on the wrong internet site next time you visit, you could be mortified! (LOL)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
Quite agree Hornby let down by some slipshod research.

I was looking forward to the new SPT 156. However they've given it a grey roof! There are no 156s (apart from 1 which has a completely diffirent livery called "The Kilmarnock Edition")with grey roofs . They are all quite obviously black. So where did they get the grey from?

The last time there was an SPT 156 which was a limited edition from Harburn/D&F models the livery was absolutely correct. But that was back in the Riko/Lima days. Why can't Hornby get it right now?

Russell
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,614 Posts
ron
i note once again the total lack of anything constructive in your post.

you seem to advocate that lima got things right. could i point out that they NEVER produced a single EWS loco that was the right colour. they didnt even bother to paint parts of their models!

Peter
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
Maybe Hornby and others should include an image of the actual prototype being modelled with the packaging.

And only release models when this is possible and when it is possible to reproduce the prototype whose image is being included in the packaging. And if it is not possible for the model to be accurate for one reason or another for Hornby and others to say that the model is a representation which ultimately all models are anyway.

This seems to be the only solution if there is a genuine issue.

Happy modelling
Gary
 

·
Chief mouser
Joined
·
11,775 Posts
QUOTE (Ron @ 12 Jan 2007, 12:44) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You're so easily offended aren't you, and very childish with your comebacks.......

......Try being more thoughtful next time you have something to say.

But at least Peter, myself and others are not hiding behind anonymity, and no I don't work for Hornby, although I did briefly when I was 18 (30 odd years ago).

Regards

John
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
You can count me in on this as well. My 'wallet vote' for quality has seen the vast majority of purchases coming from the blue riband items in Bachmann's range. The annoying aspect is that Hornby know perfectly well how to make very fine models, but fall down on detail that is difficult to rectify. My prime examples, Gresley coaches: beading position and tumblehome errors, Pullman cars:seriously wrong body colours, Class 31: cabside window position completely wrong. And let's be fair, when they get it right things are very well: the A4, A3 and Britannia are very good for the money. I don't believe it would hurt their profitability an inch, if they put a little more research into getting more of their output correct.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top