Salmon Wagon updates

[The Fatadder]

You would think they are going to have to say something soon, given that surely at least one of the magazines is going to have a review in the next issue.  

[cctransuk]

44 minutes ago, Eddie R v2.0 said:

Said review arrived this morning in the latest issue of Hornby Magazine. No mention of the length issue, however, they did notice that the early versions have ratchet strap equipment when they shouldn’t have. 

 

Just shows how thorough magazine reviews are !!

 

John Isherwood.

[Phil Bullock]

So sleepers per wagon length of track ....

 

Peco Bullhead 23
Peco flat bottom conco 32

 

Hadnt got flat bottom wooden to hand but suspect is between the two. 
 

Our loads will be FB wooden will cut and remove webs and space sleepers to get 24 per length

 

[rob D2]

3 hours ago, Eddie R v2.0 said:

Said review arrived this morning in the latest issue of Hornby Magazine. No mention of the length issue, however, they did notice that the early versions have ratchet strap equipment when they shouldn’t have. 

That’s odd, there’s no mention of the wagon in the online version 

[rob D2]

72/3 in online is about the real 20/3,

must have been a stop press 

[spamcan61]

14 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

72/3 in online is about the real 20/3,

must have been a stop press 

The 20/3 article is on pages 72/73 of February edition, I assume "latest" must mean March, not seen that yet.

[rob D2]

Oh right,

must up to date online version is Feb one 

[Phil Parker]

4 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Just shows how thorough magazine reviews are !!

 

John Isherwood.

 

SOME reviews. Or can we assume all etched kits are as bad as the worst example too?

[Opelsi]

The silence is deafening - and somewhat disappointing!

[andythebud]

I wouldn't of noticed had I not seen this thread to see the response to the release so unless someone   is looking at their new purchase with detail I'm sure there will be many who will not notice or be aware. I'm keeping the one that I've got. Although disappointed to learn that it is shorter than it should be, I still think it is a nice model, it looks good in amongst the rest of my civil engineers stock. I was never going to buy more than one due to my layout size. Many of our models are produced with inaccuracies. I think it will be a case of those who do not notice, those who do but still see past it and happy that it represents the wagon and those who like their accuracy and what they are willing or not willing to accept.

 

Maybe one day we will find out what happened but I've never heard of a company saying we got it wrong, send them all back and I wouldn't be holding out for a partial refund or we are going to re-tool and we'll send you a new one due to the costs involved. If you like it then keep it. If not, then send it back but I wouldn't hold out for a statement. 

 

[adb968008]

sadly it was there to see, but I didn't see it.

When the box arrived, the box length looked right, in the box something didn't quite look right but I couldn't figure it out.

 

Once the length issue was posted, it becomes easy to see... its short and it looks short, I didn't even need to remove it from the box at that point, just hold it next to anything close and its out.

 

Had it been only a few mm I wouldn't have minded, 2cm is too much. I wonder if the scaling was based on overall length vs frame length, the buffers not being taken into account in the overall length when scaled.

 

its really well detailed and painted, the weight felt like it would be comparable to some of the rolling abilities of my HO stock. Tbh if this was a £20 wagon i’d put up with it, at £50 its just no.
 

If I kept it, i’d be constantly reminding myself of how much I willingly paid for an inaccurate wagon, rather than enjoying it.

Mine went back today.

 

 

[griffgriff]

15 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

SOME reviews. Or can we assume all etched kits are as bad as the worst example too?

Steady on. You’d think that the measurements might have been scrutinised on an item marketed as a scale model.

 

Griff

[MGR Hooper!]

14 minutes ago, griffgriff said:

Steady on. You’d think that the measurements might have been scrutinised on an item marketed as a scale model.

 

Griff

At the same time, you don't really expect everyone reviewing a model to have to measure it. That's the job of a manufacturer.

[Wolf27]

52 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

At the same time, you don't really expect everyone reviewing a model to have to measure it. That's the job of a manufacturer.

Is it not an expectation of a reviewer to check the basics? Shape, size, colour, details? What’s the point of a review if it doesn’t pick up the basics? It also helps if the review is undertaken by someone that knows what they are reviewing. I can’t vouch for whoever did the Hornby mag review as I have not seen it, or who did it, but if you don’t know what you are looking at it is meaningless. like the class 90 grille?
 

likewise it is the prerogative of a purchaser to undertake their own review when they have paid for their model. Or should we just sit back and accept what we are given?

Edited February 2, 2021 by Wolf27
spelling

[KDG]

36 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

At the same time, you don't really expect everyone reviewing a model to have to measure it. That's the job of a manufacturer.

Pretty much every review compares basic dimensions of the model with the correct scale size doesnt it?  But you are correct though, in 2021 we expect manufacturers to get these basics right, it's not like it's a model of a prototype that no longer exists either on the networks or in preservation is it?

[CloggyDog]

31 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

At the same time, you don't really expect everyone reviewing a model to have to measure it. That's the job of a manufacturer.

 

It used to be the case that certain magazines' reviews included comparison data against the prototype's key dimensions. 

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, griffgriff said:

Steady on. You’d think that the measurements might have been scrutinised on an item marketed as a scale model.

 

1 hour ago, MGR Hooper! said:

At the same time, you don't really expect everyone reviewing a model to have to measure it. That's the job of a manufacturer.

 

My point was a reaction to someone, yet again, using this forum to attack magazines. Andy did spot the error when he came to review the model, hence kicking off the discussions with the maker. To say, as the poster did, that ALL magazines had missed this is inaccurate and (deliberately) inflammatory.

 

Moving on, it's interesting that this wagon appears fine to many people UNTIL they put a ruler on it or read about the error. I'm not sure what that says, not that inaccurate models are good, but there is probably a philosophical discussion for another thread around the idea that if something looks right, it is right.

[rob D2]

16 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

 

My point was a reaction to someone, yet again, using this forum to attack magazines. Andy did spot the error when he came to review the model, hence kicking off the discussions with the maker. To say, as the poster did, that ALL magazines had missed this is inaccurate and (deliberately) inflammatory.

 

Moving on, it's interesting that this wagon appears fine to many people UNTIL they put a ruler on it or read about the error. I'm not sure what that says, not that inaccurate models are good, but there is probably a philosophical discussion for another thread around the idea that if something looks right, it is right.

Well that’s why we have reviews isn’t it ?

So that I can make an informed purchase decision based on expert analysis of the product ? If not then what is the point - just put up a picture of the product and write “ here it is “.

 

Regardless , these are still on their website , still available for sale , 

 

this is what I find a tad troubling 

[griffgriff]

8 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

 

My point was a reaction to someone, yet again, using this forum to attack magazines. Andy did spot the error when he came to review the model, hence kicking off the discussions with the maker. To say, as the poster did, that ALL magazines had missed this is inaccurate and (deliberately) inflammatory.

 

Moving on, it's interesting that this wagon appears fine to many people UNTIL they put a ruler on it or read about the error. I'm not sure what that says, not that inaccurate models are good, but there is probably a philosophical discussion for another thread around the idea that if something looks right, it is right.

Attack? No, but perhaps e a lesson in observing the basics by some*?  I remember, in much less enlightened times, Hornby's, Lima's, Mainline's etc products having their dimensions compared with the prototypes in many contemporary magazines. Perhaps we have got too blase?  I don't purchase much without referring to fair and critical appraisals first.  I'm glad somebody got a ruler out before I got my wallet out.

 

*including me

 

Griff

 

[PMP]

22 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Just shows how thorough magazine reviews are !!

 

John Isherwood.

No it doesn’t. It shows this particular review missed the mark, and I have some sympathy with the reviewer. When you get a sample for review full ‘data’ often isn’t available. I’d like to think if I was sent this example for review I’d have noticed the discrepancy, but I can’t say for certain I would have. If you sent me a class 68 to review I’d have a real challenge, I’ve not seen a real one, and have no data in my ‘library’ that I could refer to. I’d probably say I can’t do this one. A full time editorial member doesn’t have that luxury. So some reviews will be better than others for a range of circumstances.

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by PMP
Spelling

[cctransuk]

44 minutes ago, PMP said:

No it doesn’t. It shows this particular review missed the mark, and I have some sympathy with the reviewer. When you get a sample for review full ‘data’ often isn’t available. I’d like to think if I was sent this example for review I’d have noticed the discrepancy, but I can’t say for certain I would have. If you sent me a class 68 to review I’d have a real challenge, I’ve not seen a real one, and have no data in my ‘library’ that I could refer to. I’d probably say I can’t do this one. A full time editorial member doesn’t have that luxury. So some reviews will be better than others for a range of circumstances.

 

 

In which case, the review should state that the model has not been checked for dimensional accuracy; when the model has been so checked the review invariably indicates the fact.

 

As to the subject wagon of this thread, a quick online visit to http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/Prototype.html

would have revealed the inaccuracy.

 

I cannot accept that the reviewer in this case made more than a token effort to do the job he / she was being paid for; and the review is valueless.

 

John Isherwood.

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

Moving on, it's interesting that this wagon appears fine to many people UNTIL they put a ruler on it or read about the error. I'm not sure what that says, not that inaccurate models are good, but there is probably a philosophical discussion for another thread around the idea that if something looks right, it is right.

Last year I bought some Piko PKP Intercity stock looked nice, was £25 a piece.

 

They arrived, and they turned out to be the infamous Eastern European underscaled coaches that Piko knocks out in their railroad range. As it was my error I immediately offloaded them at my cost, that I still remember it means I am still sore and out of pocket.., theur replacements cost £45, so I ended up somewhere like £35 a piece above what I originally expected to pay.

 

I dont have underscale Hornby mk3’s, even though they are a tenner a piece on ebay,

Had it not been pointed out, I would have looked at them puzzled, until I figured it out, but I would have eventually figured it out.. unfortunately at that point I would be both annoyed and stuck unable to return them, that is the thanks and benefit this forum brings.

 

its not about cost. its about trust, trust that accuracy will be there, because if it isnt I dont want it, just as much as I dont really want generic carriages. Generics have their place and price, and are sold and marketed as such. Accepting the Salmon, means the next step is accepting a generic £200 GWR 4-6-0 next, instead of a separate Hall, Manor and a Grange.   If I want models to go back to the 1980’s, I’ll just buy 1980’s models on ebay at 1980’s prices.
 

I have a separate plan B now instead of the salmon... brills.. similar price on ebay, but I trust them to be accurate.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

19 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

In which case, the review should state that the model has not been checked for dimensional accuracy; when the model has been so checked the review invariably indicates the fact.

 

As to the subject wagon of this thread, a quick online visit to http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/Prototype.html

would have revealed the inaccuracy.

 

I cannot accept that the reviewer in this case made more than a token effort to do the job he / she was being paid for; and the review is valueless.

 

John Isherwood.

It has been the case in model railway magazines for as long as I can remember that the quality and nature of reviews has varied between different publications.  Going back a very long way 'Model Railway Constructor'  tended to produce accurate reviews with critiques of shortcomings, emphasis of good points and usually a check on dimensions while, for example 'Railway Modeller' seemed to regurgitate manufacturers press handouts.

 

Things have changed enormously over the years (contemporary 'Railway Modeller' reviews for example are a world apart from the magazine's long past efforts) but it is still the case that the nature, degree of detail, and objectivity of reviews tends to vary between magazines.  And even between individual reviewers within their own 'house style'.    We are all free to form our own opinions of such reviews and reviewers and it would no doubt be unfair, if not much worse, to go into that in a public arena but I know which ones I can trust and also know which ones I needn't bother with (if I bother to read printed magazines at all).

[PMP]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

In which case, the review should state that the model has not been checked for dimensional accuracy; when the model has been so checked the review invariably indicates the fact.

 

As to the subject wagon of this thread, a quick online visit to http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/Prototype.html

would have revealed the inaccuracy.

 

I cannot accept that the reviewer in this case made more than a token effort to do the job he / she was being paid for; and the review is valueless.

 

John Isherwood.

 

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.

[Phil Parker]

49 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

It has been the case in model railway magazines for as long as I can remember that the quality and nature of reviews has varied between different publications.  Going back a very long way 'Model Railway Constructor'  tended to produce accurate reviews with critiques of shortcomings, emphasis of good points and usually a check on dimensions while, for example 'Railway Modeller' seemed to regurgitate manufacturers press handouts.

 

Things have changed enormously over the years (contemporary 'Railway Modeller' reviews for example are a world apart from the magazine's long past efforts) but it is still the case that the nature, degree of detail, and objectivity of reviews tends to vary between magazines.  And even between individual reviewers within their own 'house style'.    We are all free to form our own opinions of such reviews and reviewers and it would no doubt be unfair, if not much worse, to go into that in a public arena but I know which ones I can trust and also know which ones I needn't bother with (if I bother to read printed magazines at all).

 

It's also worth remembering that there are plenty on here who tell us that YouTube "reviews" are better than magazine ones, even when the video is little more than out of focus shots of the box and squealing. What they mean is - I didn't have to pay for it, and that alone makes it better than something properly researched that costs me money.

 

In theory, every model would be handed to an expert in the field and they would be given many months to put together a full assessment of the item to be turned into a multi-page piece going over it in great detail.

 

In reality, reviews have to be carried out at the last minute because, with a couple of honourable exceptions, we don't to see a model before it hits the shops. In a window of 1-2 days and among lots of other work, the reviewer has to photograph, research (no, there's often no advance warning of what will arrive so that can't be pre-prepared) and write a couple of pages. All this is aimed at the average reader, not the "expert" who has lived their life for a particular prototype but couldn't tell you anything about any other prototype. Despite that, those same "experts" enjoy doling out the abuse (they were probably bullied as a child and enjoy dishing it out to people they think can't bite back) to someone who is doing the best they can, and probably doing enough for most of the people who buy the publication - something the "experts" consider themselves too important to do.

 

As for old reviews - I've looked at old RM and MRC magazines. The one that sticks in my mind is the APT in MRC, an information-free piece with a single small photo that even your average YouTuber could better.

 

And yes, that is an off-topic rant.