GER 10T Goods Van announced!

[Guy Rixon]

13 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Who draws these things - do they know anything about wagon brakegear? (Apparently not) !

 

It's clear that the designers have no understanding of the workings of what they are trying to reproduce - one can only blame their employers; ( ..... though it is, after all, akin to the blind leading the blind).

 

I'm just glad that I will not be around to see what will be churned out in years to come, when real modellers are no longer around to point out the plethora of errors.

 

John Isherwood.

 

 

It's likely that the designer is employed by the company making the tools and physically moulding the models. Such as person knows how to design for making moulds, but they would know nothing about brakes on extinct, foreign wagons.

 

The commissioner of the model should be checking the CAD for things like this. We don't know if they've checked and missed this, or if the CAD has been put onto social media before checking. Of course, getting it snarked at here may be the checking process. Has anybody informed Oxford that they have a problem?

[MarkSG]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

No - RTR was pretty dire by today's standards

 

Indeed it was. I'm glad you spotted that little joke of mine. The history of RTR shows pretty much continual improvement, overall. So what makes you think it's going to reverse that direction of travel and get worse again after you're gone?

[Darryl Tooley]

Just now, billbedford said:

The 19ft3in vans built 1903-10 were fitted with 2 shoe single sided brakes with one lever. There was only one v-hanger, a vertical strut held inner end of the shaft.

I should have known that.

 

Just now, billbedford said:

 

Since the AVB vans had 8 shoe clasp brakes it is almost certain that none of the vans ran with 4 shoe brakes.

There's one on page two of this thread, though whether that dates from its service life, or was something that was done afterwards,  I don't know.  Scarcely likely to have been born that way.

 

D

[Wickham Green]

28 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 

....... The history of RTR shows pretty much continual improvement, overall. So what makes you think it's going to reverse that direction of travel and get worse again .........

Hasn't a well-known manufacturer - not totally unconnected with Oxford - announced some tinplate stuff ??!? ........................ improvement that ain't !

[cctransuk]

34 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 So what makes you think it's going to reverse that direction of travel and get worse again after you're gone?

 

Merely the evidence of my own eyes - some of the howlers that have made it onto the shelves of model shops of late do not exhibit "continual improvement" by certain producers.

 

The mould designer must have been provided with some inappropriate research material in order to have included features that the prototype in question never carried.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Jammy2305]

Seems Oxford are aware and are correcting it. Fair play to them! 

 

[MarkSG]

2 hours ago, jamesC37LG said:

Seems Oxford are aware and are correcting it. Fair play to them! 

 

 

 

That's an excellent example of how a simple comment directly to the organisation concerned is a much better course of action than flying off the handle on a web forum. If they already know there's an issue they can tell you that, and if they don't then you have the opportunity to explain the problem.

 

Early CAD drafts and hand-decorated samples often contain errors. I can recall seeing them on the Stirling Single and the J70, for example. In many cases, it will be corrected as the model goes through the revision process anyway. But if you are genuinely concerned that the manufacturer might not spot something that your specific knowledge allows you to, then a friendly note to them explaining the issue may well be all it takes to get it changed for the next draft.  Going into full-on rant mode on the web, on the other hand, usually achieves nothing.

[Wickham Green]

While there is absolutely no point in adopting full-on rant mode at this stage, a public airing of one's concerns can prompt others to mention different issues that the manufacturer can/probably ought to address. The time for full-on rant mode is when the manufacturer puts a model - or whatever - on the shelves without listening to the outside world ................. hopefully there will be no need. 

[cctransuk]

On 27/02/2020 at 10:49, jamesC37LG said:

Seems Oxford are aware and are correcting it. Fair play to them! 

 

 

Then the logical thing to do is not to post CAD images with known errors - or at least to accompany them with a note to the effect that the error is known.

 

Otherwise, one is inclined to suspect that the 'known error' was only 'known' after a viewer pointed it out !

 

Just a little common sense can avoid the accusation of 'ranting' - it is frustrating when such basic errors are published without any acknowledgement.

 

John Isherwood.

[MarkSG]

Maybe the error wasn't spotted until after the CAD image was published. Maybe it was pointed out to them by a viewer who got in touch with them to do so. If so, that's an example of a good feedback loop. It's one of the reasons why it can be beneficial to publish preliminary drawings and renderings, so that people can offer their comments.

 

But that only works if people do make the effort to contact them and offer constructive feedback rather than ranting about it on the web. Because if all they get is abuse for showing off an early CAD image, then all that's likely to do is put them off doing it in future. Which would, ironically, increase the probability that the finished model will contain errors, as there will be fewer people in a position to spot them early enough to correct them.

[MarkSG]

4 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

While there is absolutely no point in adopting full-on rant mode at this stage, a public airing of one's concerns can prompt others to mention different issues that the manufacturer can/probably ought to address. The time for full-on rant mode is when the manufacturer puts a model - or whatever - on the shelves without listening to the outside world ................. hopefully there will be no need. 

 

Yes, of course. But it's all about how those concerns are aired.

 

For example:

 

"That brake gear looks the wrong way round to me - does anyone have any contacts at Oxford that they can use to check if they're aware of this and, if not, ask if it can be corrected?" - sensible, constructive and useful.

 

compared with

 

"Who draws these things - do they know anything about wagon brakegear? (Apparently not) !" - not sensible, not constructive, and not useful.

 

But even if an error makes its way through to the manufactured product, a full on rant isn't going to do any good. If it doesn't meet your standards, don't buy it. If you want to explain why, then do so. It's then up to other people to make that decision for themselves, in the light of their own preferences informed by your reasonable, constructive and polite criticism. But if you can't offer a reasonable, constructive and polite critique of a model, then don't bother. Because hardly anyone is going to take any notice anyway.

 

 

 

 

[cctransuk]

21 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 

Yes, of course. But it's all about how those concerns are aired.

 

For example:

 

"That brake gear looks the wrong way round to me - does anyone have any contacts at Oxford that they can use to check if they're aware of this and, if not, ask if it can be corrected?" - sensible, constructive and useful.

 

compared with

 

"Who draws these things - do they know anything about wagon brakegear? (Apparently not) !" - not sensible, not constructive, and not useful.

 

But even if an error makes its way through to the manufactured product, a full on rant isn't going to do any good. If it doesn't meet your standards, don't buy it. If you want to explain why, then do so. It's then up to other people to make that decision for themselves, in the light of their own preferences informed by your reasonable, constructive and polite criticism. But if you can't offer a reasonable, constructive and polite critique of a model, then don't bother. Because hardly anyone is going to take any notice anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

So it's too much bother to accompany the image, either when originally posted or when subsequently pointed out, that the image is known to be incorrect?

 

My 'rant' still stands - if the image was not known to be defective when published, it d*mned well should have been if proper research had been undertaken.

 

If the image was known to be defective when published, why publish? .... or at least why not accompany it with a note to that effect.

 

Either way, it smacks of sloppy thinking and leaves the company wide open to adverse publicity.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

[MarkSG]

3 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Either way, it smacks of sloppy thinking and leaves the company wide open to adverse publicity.

 

On the contrary, I think Oxford have come out of this (so far) looking quite good. They've given us an early CAD drawing to whet our appetite, they've acknowledged that it's not yet perfect, and promised that the next version will incorporate amendments. The only practical alternative to that would have been not to show the early drawing at all.

 

If your expectation is that the first CAD drawing will be perfect right from the outset, then all that does is demonstrate how little you know about the iterative process of product design. That is not a negative reflection on the manufacturer, however much you may rant and rave about it.

[cctransuk]

Just now, MarkSG said:

 

On the contrary, I think Oxford have come out of this (so far) looking quite good. They've given us an early CAD drawing to whet our appetite, they've acknowledged that it's not yet perfect, and promised that the next version will incorporate amendments. The only practical alternative to that would have been not to show the early drawing at all.

 

If your expectation is that the first CAD drawing will be perfect right from the outset, then all that does is demonstrate how little you know about the iterative process of product design. That is not a negative reflection on the manufacturer, however much you may rant and rave about it.

 

What is perfectly obvious is that adding the brake pull-rods that shouldn't be there MUST have come from a photo or drawing that did not relate to the prototype in question. Whoever provided that image to the CAD designer cocked-up, and thus the published error was avoidable. If the error was known, the CAD design should have been corrected BEFORE publication.

 

This is the danger of pandering to the 'frothers'' demand for almost daily updates of design progress - much better to publish less updates and make sure that, as far as the design team knows, they are correct in all respects.

 

I am all for the participation of RMweb members in the design process, but it is far from good practice to publish material which contains blatant 'howlers'. To do so is to cast doubt on the competence of the design team; especially when Oxford have 'form' in this respect.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[MarkSG]

26 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

What is perfectly obvious is that adding the brake pull-rods that shouldn't be there MUST have come from a photo or drawing that did not relate to the prototype in question.

 

That's not obvious at all. What's more likely is that the designer was given a photo of the prototype, but assumed (not unreasonably) that the brake gear has rotational symmetry - that is, no matter which side of the wagon you are standing, the handle is always to the same side of you - rather than, as is the actual case here, longitudinal symmetry, where both brake handles are at the same end of the wagon.

 

To get that right from photos, the designer needs to be given photos of different sides of the same wagon - something which, in reality, probably doesn't exist. So it's an understandable mistake, and one which can only be corrected with actual knowledge of the type of gear used on these wagons. Knowledge which the CAD designer almost certainly does not have, and cannot reasonably be expected to have. Which is precisely why the design is an iterative process, with people being able to point out inaccuracies in the early drafts in order to move towards the finalised version.

 

Of course, my assumption may be wrong, too, although I think it's more plausible than your assumption. But, again, your real error here is not making an assumption about what may have gone wrong, but in confidently asserting that you are completely certain about something that, in reality, you have no more insight into than anyone else here. There's nothing wrong with speculating, or assuming, or having an opinion. But asserting that you are definitely right when, to borrow your own phrase, it is perfectly obvious that you lack sufficient information to justifiy that level of certainty simply makes your opinion much less useful than it otherwise would have been.

[Wickham Green]

28 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 

That's not obvious at all. What's more likely is that the designer was given a photo of the prototype, but assumed (not unreasonably) that the brake gear has rotational symmetry - that is, no matter which side of the wagon you are standing, the handle is always to the same side of you - rather than, as is the actual case here, longitudinal symmetry, where both brake handles are at the same end of the wagon. .....

Don't Tell the Railway Clearing House .............

[cctransuk]

25 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 

That's not obvious at all. What's more likely is that the designer was given a photo of the prototype, but assumed (not unreasonably) that the brake gear has rotational symmetry - that is, no matter which side of the wagon you are standing, the handle is always to the same side of you - rather than, as is the actual case here, longitudinal symmetry, where both brake handles are at the same end of the wagon.

 

To get that right from photos, the designer needs to be given photos of different sides of the same wagon - something which, in reality, probably doesn't exist. So it's an understandable mistake, and one which can only be corrected with actual knowledge of the type of gear used on these wagons. Knowledge which the CAD designer almost certainly does not have, and cannot reasonably be expected to have. Which is precisely why the design is an iterative process, with people being able to point out inaccuracies in the early drafts in order to move towards the finalised version.

 

Of course, my assumption may be wrong, too, although I think it's more plausible than your assumption. But, again, your real error here is not making an assumption about what may have gone wrong, but in confidently asserting that you are completely certain about something that, in reality, you have no more insight into than anyone else here. There's nothing wrong with speculating, or assuming, or having an opinion. But asserting that you are definitely right when, to borrow your own phrase, it is perfectly obvious that you lack sufficient information to justifiy that level of certainty simply makes your opinion much less useful than it otherwise would have been.

 

My final comment.

 

You too seem to be confused about what is wrong with the CAD image. The central pull-rod has no place on the model whatsoever - regardless of the brakeshoe and lever configuration; it's only applicable to an eight-shoe brake arrangement.

 

Someone has included a totally inappropriate image or drawing in the research pack handed to the CAD designer - who, as you point out, is highly unlikely to understand the workings of this particular brake.

 

Please could you explain how an inappropriate brakegear element could have been incorporated by the CAD designer UNLESS an inappropriate image had been provided by the researchers?

 

John Isherwood.

[billbedford]

34 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 

That's not obvious at all. What's more likely is that the designer was given a photo of the prototype, but assumed (not unreasonably) that the brake gear has rotational symmetry - that is, no matter which side of the wagon you are standing, the handle is always to the same side of you - rather than, as is the actual case here, longitudinal symmetry, where both brake handles are at the same end of the wagon.

 

 

 

No.

 

What has happened is that the draftsman has drawn the brakes on the near side and rotated a copy of the whole brake assembly to the far side. When what he should have done is either:

1/ drawn the far side lever with Morton cam and not included shoes, if the brakes are single sided. 

or 2/ drawn the far side lever with Morton cam and mirrored the existing right hand brake arrangement to the other side, if there are diagonal shoes.

Edited February 28, 2020 by billbedford

[billbedford]

8 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Please could you explain how an inappropriate brakegear element could have been incorporated by the CAD designer UNLESS an inappropriate image had been provided by the researchers?

 

Because CAD drawings aren't usually started from scratch. The draftsman has started from the drawing of an existing LNER wagon, adjusted the dimensions and drawn a new body. He has just neglected to delete the AVB pull rods. Or it could be that drawings for an AVB version of this van has been prepared and the part not properly separated. 

[Jammy2305]

Surely the important part of all this is Oxford are willing to acknowledge the mistake, correct it and ultimately release an accurate model?

[PaulG]

It depends on what other van Oxford could be planning?

[Bernard Lamb]

3 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

Because CAD drawings aren't usually started from scratch. The draftsman has started from the drawing of an existing LNER wagon, adjusted the dimensions and drawn a new body. 

That was how it was done even back in the dark ages when I was working.

Almost any standard part came from a basic library and was then modified to suit the current subject of the drawing. Even down to the misspelling of certain words being repeated.

If push comes to shove then hacking off a few bits of plastic and replacing them will not be a great hardship. Though it would be nice if the extra work was not needed.

Bernard

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

Don't Tell the Railway Clearing House .............

 

It was the Board of Trade rather than the RCH that issued regulations on brake gear, finally requiring a brake that had the lever at the right hand end whichever side of the wagon one was looking from, and a brake that could only be released from the side from which it had been applied. This was in 1911, applying initially to new construction, with existing vehicles being required to be modified over a lengthy and ultimately elastic time span, up to 1939. This regulation put an end to a fertile period of invention, most of which had been in the direction of a brake that could be applied and released from either side and had the levers at one end of the wagon - the first version of the Dean-Churchward brake, for instance.

 

The RCH was concerned with standardisation; the Board of Trade with regulation in the interest of safety.

[Wickham Green]

On 28/02/2020 at 15:43, billbedford said:

.........

what he should have done is either:

1/ drawn the far side lever with Morton cam and not included shoes, if the brakes are single sided. 

or 2/ drawn the far side lever with Morton cam and mirrored the existing right hand brake arrangement to the other side, if there are diagonal shoes.

Not exactly : looking at that original photo back on page 1 - there are only two shoes operated by Morton gear so the one on the 'near' side works directly with the push rod below the cross shaft and the far one - on the cam side - has the push rod above the cross shaft.

 

... anyway : Board of Trade rather than RCH ! - sorry.

 

Taking another look at the CAD, I hope they can do something about the thickness of the 'W' irons ( Maybe chamfer the back edges ? ) - they look as thick as the axlebox is deep !

[billbedford]

On 02/03/2020 at 10:20, Wickham Green said:

Not exactly : looking at that original photo back on page 1 - there are only two shoes operated by Morton gear so the one on the 'near' side works directly with the push rod below the cross shaft and the far one - on the cam side - has the push rod above the cross shaft.

 

That's what I said...