Salmon Wagon updates

[cctransuk]

5 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

I've not read the review so won't comment on it being valueless. The link you provided is a potential useful source, however utilising that and similar data can only be done if you're aware of its existence.

 

The search for 'data' can be immensely time consuming as a sensible limit needs to be put on that so that other mag tasks can be carried out. Sometimes the theres returning the sample or forwarding it to another reviewer, so whilst easy to point a finger and say should be better, time is rarely on an editorial teams side for a product review, and if you've been in that loop you can see how errors (large and small) can occur.

 

Whilst I can accept that life as a model press writer is hectic - for whom is it not? - I still believe that to undertake to review a model without a drawing, or at least a few basic dimensions, is inexcusable. Also, I find it difficult to believe that any writer who purports to write with any authority on model railways can be unaware of the existence of the primary source for BR weight diagrams.

 

During my career, those with whom I came into contact did not refrain from pointing out my errors - and I was the better for them doing so. In this case, the review writer will be much more cautious in future, and may have learned of a valuable data resource.

 

John Isherwood.

[Gilbert]

I can only assume the model came along a little too late but there is no reference to this particular model wagon in Mr Bendall's recent Key Bookzine  on Engineers' Wagons.

Chris

Edited February 2, 2021 by Gilbert

[PMP]

8 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Whilst I can accept that life as a model press writer is hectic - for whom is it not? - I still believe that to undertake to review a model without a drawing, or at least a few basic dimensions, is inexcusable. Also, I find it difficult to believe that any writer who purports to write with any authority on model railways can be unaware of the existence of the primary source for BR weight diagrams.

 

John Isherwood.

 

The point you're missing is that data is useful if you know that it exists and where it is. Just as a trial I typed in to google

'Salmon Wagon Dimension Data'

This is the result https://www.google.com/search?q=salmon+wagon+dimension+data&oq=&aqs=chrome.1.69i59i450l5.2160578j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

That link isn't there, I'm aware of it but not having had to check any such data for a long while, had completely forgotten it. Typing in 'BR departmental wagons dimensions' likewise doesn't bring it up in the first few pages either. So its not a really easy data source to find,

[woodenhead]

I find it disheartening that a problem with the scale of a model has somehow become the fault of magazine reviewers.

 

Is this simply because the producers of the model have not yet made any statements so some people need someone else to vent at?

 

It's either a mistake from the original signed off tooling, a mistake in production (how if tooling was signed off) or a deliberate compromise (one of the last words from Flangeway were 'And all manufacturers do make compromises... ').

[Dagworth]

4 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

The point you're missing is that data is useful if you know that it exists and where it is. Just as a trial I typed in to google

'Salmon Wagon Dimension Data'

This is the result https://www.google.com/search?q=salmon+wagon+dimension+data&oq=&aqs=chrome.1.69i59i450l5.2160578j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

That link isn't there, I'm aware of it but not having had to check any such data for a long while, had completely forgotten it. Typing in 'BR departmental wagons dimensions' likewise doesn't bring it up in the first few pages either. So its not a really easy data source to find,

Whereas typing "BR wagon diagrams" into google gives the Barrowmore site as first result.

 

Andi

[Clagsniffer]

But if you don’t know the data and/or don’t know where to find the data should you really be doing a review at all? If you don’t even know what a basic dimension such as length should be how can you possibly be in a position to review?

[PMP]

Just now, Dagworth said:

Whereas typing "BR wagon diagrams" into google gives the Barrowmore site as first result.

 

Andi

 Which shows the value of using appropriate wording on your initial searches.

[PMP]

1 minute ago, Clagsniffer said:

But if you don’t know the data and/or don’t know where to find the data should you really be doing a review at all? If you don’t even know what a basic dimension such as length should be how can you possibly be in a position to review?

Well in an ideal world you have someone to hand who has access to the data. or knows a valuable source of it. We don't live in an ideal world, and sometimes you can be asked to review an item that's not in your interest, and you do your best.

[griffgriff]

2 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I find it disheartening that a problem with the scale of a model has somehow become the fault of magazine reviewers.

 

Is this simply because the producers of the model have not yet made any statements so some people need someone else to vent at?

 

It's either a mistake from the original signed off tooling, a mistake in production (how if tooling was signed off) or a deliberate compromise (one of the last words from Flangeway were 'And all manufacturers do make compromises... ').

No body say it it is but manufactures make things and reviewers review things.  Manufacturers sometimes make mistakes and, so it seams, do reviewers. At least nobody died.

 

Griff

[Rivercider]

May be it is my railway upbringing, but I have always known these wagons were built primarily

to carry 60' rails, or 60' track panels. Which is what I assume most people will want to load them with.

A simple google search for 'salmon wagon' quickly shows they were 62' long, and built to carry 60' rails.

 

Now maths was never my strong point, but at 4mm to the foot even I know the bed of the wagon needs to be 240mm minimum. 

 

cheers

 

 

[richscylla]

I think it shows that not all reviews are equal in many senses. For example, a film or music album review may have elements of fact checking and/or research, but it mostly an individuals opinion on the work. There is very little 'right' or 'wrong' and much more 'good' or 'bad' in the eyes of one person.

However, when it comes to a review of a scale model it's a very different story. At the core, these are scale models of a prototype and as such that is their purpose and a reviewer's job is to evaluate whether the product they have is fit for purpose. I think that the first thing they need to do is cover if the model is a faithful 1:76 (or whichever scale suits) representation of the real thing. 

 

After that look at the quality of the the finish, how well it runs etc. 

[AY Mod]

45 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

I can accept that life as a model press writer is hectic - for whom is it not?

 

*Some people*, that's who.

 

I'm now well into day two on a review that I need to get squared off by a deadline. Now if I discover something that I would like to get clarification on and the contact isn't available before that deadline I will have to go with 'best' information which may not be absolutely correct. With one of the questions I have it's quite likely that there's no-one who can give me an answer so I can't tell a reader whether the model is right or wrong in that respect which obviously makes me a bad reviewer in the eyes of *some people*.

[hmrspaul]

20 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

The point you're missing is that data is useful if you know that it exists and where it is. Just as a trial I typed in to google

'Salmon Wagon Dimension Data'

This is the result https://www.google.com/search?q=salmon+wagon+dimension+data&oq=&aqs=chrome.1.69i59i450l5.2160578j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

That link isn't there, I'm aware of it but not having had to check any such data for a long while, had completely forgotten it. Typing in 'BR departmental wagons dimensions' likewise doesn't bring it up in the first few pages either. So its not a really easy data source to find,

I followed your google search and the very first words were from the LTSV site The 'Salmon' bogie rail wagon was based on an LMS design and was a 62ft long flat wagon fitted with 5 bolsters. 

Surely that was sufficient to ring a few bells? These are not Bogie Bolster Ds (BDA) but it sounds as if the model is closer to their dimensions. 

And a lot of reviewers might have a squint at my site, and I'm now pleased to say the collection of 5ft 6in bogies examples starts with BR Salmons are 62ft. long to carry rail, rail panels etc. and have varying features

When they were doing the MRC reviews half a century ago there were no wagon books to look at but they still appeared to have sufficient knowledge between themselves to come up with some remarkably accurate dimensions with which to compare models - which were frequently found wanting. 

 

Paul

 

[griffgriff]

2 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

I followed your google search and the very first words were from the LTSV site The 'Salmon' bogie rail wagon was based on an LMS design and was a 62ft long flat wagon fitted with 5 bolsters. 

Surely that was sufficient to ring a few bells? These are not Bogie Bolster Ds (BDA) but it sounds as if the model is closer to their dimensions. 

And a lot of reviewers might have a squint at my site, and I'm now pleased to say the collection of 5ft 6in bogies examples starts with BR Salmons are 62ft. long to carry rail, rail panels etc. and have varying features

When they were doing the MRC reviews half a century ago there were no wagon books to look at but they still appeared to have sufficient knowledge between themselves to come up with some remarkably accurate dimensions with which to compare models - which were frequently found wanting. 

 

Paul

 

Neither did they have the internet.

 

Griff

[woodenhead]

41 minutes ago, griffgriff said:

No body say it it is but manufactures make things and reviewers review things.  Manufacturers sometimes make mistakes and, so it seams, do reviewers. At least nobody died.

 

Griff

But the thread is turning away from the actual issue and onto the qualification of magazine reviewers and expectations that they should know everything about the model which is patently absurd.

[PMP]

28 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

I followed your google search and the very first words were from the LTSV site The 'Salmon' bogie rail wagon was based on an LMS design and was a 62ft long flat wagon fitted with 5 bolsters. 

Surely that was sufficient to ring a few bells? These are not Bogie Bolster Ds (BDA) but it sounds as if the model is closer to their dimensions. 

And a lot of reviewers might have a squint at my site, and I'm now pleased to say the collection of 5ft 6in bogies examples starts with BR Salmons are 62ft. long to carry rail, rail panels etc. and have varying features

When they were doing the MRC reviews half a century ago there were no wagon books to look at but they still appeared to have sufficient knowledge between themselves to come up with some remarkably accurate dimensions with which to compare models - which were frequently found wanting. 

 

Paul

 

It’s not my review I don’t know what method they used. It seems a bit odd be singling out a mag review which missed the discrepancy, which should have been caught by the manufacturing process QA system. The images of EP’s here weren’t criticised, or elsewhere (afaia). Customers on here were happy until the discrepancy was pointed out...

 

The  MRC reviews likely had access to friends and colleagues with access to the relevant data. I know at the WGc club in the 60-70’s a few members had very good connections into the model and railway industries to access data. Magazines only had a handful of reviews of RTR equipment per year, didn’t have the communication speed we have today, still a very different, and importantly ’slower’ world to work in.

[The Stationmaster]

51 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

*Some people*, that's who.

 

I'm now well into day two on a review that I need to get squared off by a deadline. Now if I discover something that I would like to get clarification on and the contact isn't available before that deadline I will have to go with 'best' information which may not be absolutely correct. With one of the questions I have it's quite likely that there's no-one who can give me an answer so I can't tell a reader whether the model is right or wrong in that respect which obviously makes me a bad reviewer in the eyes of *some people*.

I was recently contacted by someone who asked if I knew where he could find. a scale drawing of a particular item in order that he could check the dimensions of a model. He had searched high and low and so - as it happened - had I (for a different reason) and we had both come up with nothing more than a poor outline diagram.   Maybe not the same as a Salmon, which as a wagon will obviously have a particular minimum length, but just how long do you spend or asking others for information?

[lyneux]

If only there was some kind of society that was a gathering of like-minded people with a drawing exchange service who might be able to help.... oh wait!

 

(Sorry Shane, couldn't resist!)

 

Guy

Edited February 2, 2021 by lyneux

[Bearwood West Yard]

Well this thread has become rather lively since last kept tabs on it half a week ago!

 

Just a notice for all that are considering the Cambrian kit route.

 

I placed an order for 4x C88 Salmons late last week through Eileens Emporium of Gloucester (as I had intended to before this release) and I was emailed the following day that I am over 100 in the queue for that Cambrian product alone. When I ordered, the stock level was 2! 

 

So if anyone has ordered or is planning to order Cambrian Salmons of any product, please be patient with Stockists as Cambrian now have a rather massive work load on, and that is without taking delays through Covid and raw material sourcing into consideration. 

 

Jordan

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

*Some people*, that's who.

 

I'm now well into day two on a review that I need to get squared off by a deadline. Now if I discover something that I would like to get clarification on and the contact isn't available before that deadline I will have to go with 'best' information which may not be absolutely correct. With one of the questions I have it's quite likely that there's no-one who can give me an answer so I can't tell a reader whether the model is right or wrong in that respect which obviously makes me a bad reviewer in the eyes of *some people*.

 

Since your *some people* reference is made in a response to my post, I think that I may be forgiven if my ears burned a little!

 

How do you know whether my life is hectic or not? I am a supplier of niche products which are suddenly in great demand, and I do all in my power to provide a by-return service.

 

In addition - and I make no apology for the fact - I am frantically producing a multitude of buildings for my first and last proper layout.

 

Alongside that, I have builders and other tradesmen busily working to convert our garage into a railway room; supervising those works is also quite demanding.

 

If model railway magazine publishers choose to task writers to produce articles for which they are unqualified, then they deserve the criticism that they receive in consequence.

 

I am fully conversant with the pressures of a busy career, and I was subjected to public criticism in the press and television when *certain people* didn't like how I did my work or what I did.

 

Criticism is a fact of life, whether justified or not.

 

John Isherwood.

[Wolf27]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

I was recently contacted by someone who asked if I knew where he could find. a scale drawing of a particular item in order that he could check the dimensions of a model. He had searched high and low and so - as it happened - had I (for a different reason) and we had both come up with nothing more than a poor outline diagram.   Maybe not the same as a Salmon, which as a wagon will obviously have a particular minimum length, but just how long do you spend or asking others for information?

Perhaps this person wasn't looking in the right place? What was he looking for? 

 

cheers

 

Shane

[AY Mod]

3 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Since your *some people* reference is made in a response to my post, I think that I may be forgiven if my ears burned a little!

 

I wasn't specifically including you in it - it was a response as we're seeing armchair criticisms of whether someone's qualified to be a critic.

[Wolf27]

36 minutes ago, Bearwood West Yard said:

Well this thread has become rather lively since last kept tabs on it half a week ago!

 

Just a notice for all that are considering the Cambrian kit route.

 

I placed an order for 4x C88 Salmons late last week through Eileens Emporium of Gloucester (as I had intended to before this release) and I was emailed the following day that I am over 100 in the queue for that Cambrian product alone. When I ordered, the stock level was 2! 

 

So if anyone has ordered or is planning to order Cambrian Salmons of any product, please be patient with Stockists as Cambrian now have a rather massive work load on, and that is without taking delays through Covid and raw material sourcing into consideration. 

 

Jordan

Well that's a rather bizarre turn of events. Does it take an error by the manufacturer of an RTR product to kick start a kit building revolution?

 

cheers

 

Shane

[cctransuk]

7 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

I wasn't specifically including you in it - it was a response as we're seeing armchair criticisms of whether someone's qualified to be a critic.

 

All I'll say to that is that anyone who sets out to review a model SALMON without obtaining some form of drawing or basic dimensions is fair game in my book.

 

John Isherwood.

[Gilbert]

4 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

All I'll say to that is that anyone who sets out to review a model SALMON without obtaining some form of drawing or basic dimensions is fair game in my book.

 

John Isherwood.

Has Sam done one? I'll get me coat...