Model Design Errors

[Ian J.]

6 minutes ago, Mattc6911 said:

How is it irelevant ? One Mans Rolex is another mans Toy train.  This thread is about Model design errors. 

Perfection = no errors  Perfection comes at a much higher price than most are prepared to pay  Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan etc to produce. I feel that as models get ever more accurate, detailed and complex we lose sight of the basics, does it look reasonable, does it actually RUN reliably, at the price I'm paying THATS what I'm looking for, not " are those brake shoes one millimetre out of alignment"  after I've picked it up and plonked it down half a dozen times they have fallen off anyway.  

 

Get the basics right, and make it run well,. Let others add the micro detail as an addon pack if they want 'perfection'

 

But, the problem is that it is a 'basic' that is being done wrong, in the CAD.

 

Fundamentally, the body shape of a model needs to be right. It's not something we as average modellers stand any chance of correcting or doing ourselves from scratch.

 

To quote a recent example: the Rails/Dapol Terrier has an issue with the coal rails for both the A1 and A1X versions. The body is close enough in its dimensions as to be right, but the coal rails for the bunker are patently wrong. However, I can fix the coal rails myself, in theory, and Dapol probably could also fix the way it's done, if they and Rails are so inclined to do so. If they'd made a mistake with the basic dimensions, I wouldn't be able to fix that.

 

I certainly can't fix the overwide body of Heljan's original 4mm 47 (I have one example of such, and wouldn't buy any more), nor can I fix the solebars of Hornby's Mark 2E carriages (I have none). I've voted with my wallet in these examples, but that doesn't change the feeling I have that they could (should) have been better.

 

As for perfection coming at a much higher price, I will challenge that. At CAD stage, it should be possible for a professional designer to get these things right. If they can't, they don't deserve to be paid for their work, or at the very least shouldn't be paid very much compared to someone who can. I will allow for everyone needing to gain experience once they've trained, but that should have oversight so that mistakes are corrected, and the designer learns.

[Markwj]

Do all the model manufacturers produce a 3D print for their models like Hornby seem to have done with the APT, I guess this is the point where the errors are most likely to be found and the cad changed. I had no idea about the Heljan class 45 errors before I read the thread but I was never going to buy one anyway. I suspect there are a lot of people who want a 45 and are not too familiar with the class to spot the errors. 
 

[Matt C]

4 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

 

But, the problem is that it is a 'basic' that is being done wrong, in the CAD.

 

Fundamentally, the body shape of a model needs to be right. It's not something we as average modellers stand any chance of correcting or doing ourselves from scratch.

 

To quote a recent example: the Rails/Dapol Terrier has an issue with the coal rails for both the A1 and A1X versions. The body is close enough in its dimensions as to be right, but the coal rails for the bunker are patently wrong. However, I can fix the coal rails myself, in theory, and Dapol probably could also fix the way it's done, if they and Rails are so inclined to do so. If they'd made a mistake with the basic dimensions, I wouldn't be able to fix that.

 

I certainly can't fix the overwide body of Heljan's original 4mm 47 (I have one example of such, and wouldn't buy any more), nor can I fix the solebars of Hornby's Mark 2E carriages (I have none). I've voted with my wallet in these examples, but that doesn't change the feeling I have that they could (should) have been better.

 

As for perfection coming at a much higher price, I will challenge that. At CAD stage, it should be possible for a professional designer to get these things right. If they can't, they don't deserve to be paid for their work, or at the very least shouldn't be paid very much compared to someone who can. I will allow for everyone needing to gain experience once they've trained, but that should have oversight so that mistakes are corrected, and the designer learns.

 

 

But I still have to argue, at the number of units we are talking about being produced per design, how much TIME do they get to spend on CAD ?  Ever more detail, with less units produced, ever more complex drawings, being tweaked and changed, you change one thing, it throws another out of kilter, Someone says the wheels for that loco were slightly bigger, smaller, you alter the drawing but noone mentions the breakshoes, now they are too close, too far away, furthur down the line someone mentions the breakshoes don't look right so someone goes in to thier copy of the drawing and moves the breakshoes, but they've altered the old drawing and saved it as the newest. Now you have wrong size wheels and wrong placement of break shoes. It happens , and with limited time verses cost of CAD it doesn't get re checked and picked up. 

 

 

[Wheatley]

So I've been to the Heljan 45 thread and had a look. The effect of the cantrail curve starting too high is that the cab front window shape is a bit off and the door doesn't curve in enough at the top. To be honest, if I was in the market for a 45 that wouldn't be show stopping for me, it would most likely come down to price between that and Bachmann, whoever was doing the particular variant I was looking for and whether I could get it locally (I don't buy new locos by mail order unless they're giving them away - too many returns). It is still annoying though for all the reasons Ian has already mentioned - it's a basic shape error, not some obscure detail lost in the shadows somewhere. 

 

It's not that I don't care, but it's an error I can live with, like Bachmann's "a foot too long but otherwise gorgeous" BR cattle wagon. I suspect a lot of the uber-critical potential customers are already putting Penbits chassis under Bachmann bodies anyway. 

[Phil Parker]

2 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

Stop belittling the achievements and skill levels of other modellers,

 

I have never, ever, belittled the abilities of ANY modeller who has produced something. And I take great exception to being insulted with the suggestion that I do. Most of my time is spent, as many will tell you, trying to help people enjoy their hobby more.  I guess I better drop out of this discussion if that's the way things are going to be.

[Enterprisingwestern]

3 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

I have never, ever, belittled the abilities of ANY modeller who has produced something. And I take great exception to being insulted with the suggestion that I do. Most of my time is spent, as many will tell you, trying to help people enjoy their hobby more.  I guess I better drop out of this discussion if that's the way things are going to be.

 

3 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

What is the standard they are sub? I'd suggest that if the model is as good as the layout it will operate on then it will look fine. A mega-model sat on a layout ballasted with pea-gravel doesn't make the layout look better, it makes it look worse in comparison IMHO.

 

However, is a model is really "sub standard", then simply don't buy it. Market forces will then take effect and either the firm will do better or go bust.

 

I'm obviously not reading what you are writing then!

 

Mike.

[Ian J.]

1 hour ago, Mattc6911 said:

But I still have to argue, at the number of units we are talking about being produced per design, how much TIME do they get to spend on CAD ?  Ever more detail, with less units produced, ever more complex drawings, being tweaked and changed, you change one thing, it throws another out of kilter, Someone says the wheels for that loco were slightly bigger, smaller, you alter the drawing but noone mentions the breakshoes, now they are too close, too far away, furthur down the line someone mentions the breakshoes don't look right so someone goes in to thier copy of the drawing and moves the breakshoes, but they've altered the old drawing and saved it as the newest. Now you have wrong size wheels and wrong placement of break shoes. It happens , and with limited time verses cost of CAD it doesn't get re checked and picked up.

 

This kind of sums up the issues in the systematic and systemic - systematic in that checking isn't being done properly, and systemic in that setting the budget too low for CAD leads to acceptance of errors going into tooling. The ultimate problem though is that if the error is in the body shape and GA, and is significant, it gets noticed by potential buyers and sales will be lost. Maybe there are enough who don't care who can cause a first run to sell out, but the potential for further sales in later runs can be lost, and the reputation of the producer drops yet again. Enough of these errors and we lose confidence in the producer entirely (Oxford Rail being an example, Heljan following suit, it seems).

[ejstubbs]

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

I'm obviously not reading what you are writing then!

 

I think you're reading in to it significantly more than is actually there.

 

As to why, that's another question again.

[pirouets]

I guess one of the challenges for the manufactures is what %age of their customers have studied prototype X to the nth degree and where is that line though given the challenge of a price point to hit? Also within the CAD teams, they move from Product to Product, so do they get have the actual knowledge or is that more down to whomever they have to use as reference points to check with?

 

I'm just starting to look in more detail at what I run and why I run it and I know that one of my class 24's being an earlier model doesn't look good. However once I stand up, look at the whole scene would I notice if a body shape was wrong or a brake shoe is to far away, no and not sure I ever will worry. I don't say that to take away from the types of comments being made but my view is its just part of the continual improvement that has gone on in the past and will continue. 

 

Interestingly something i noted on another thread as an example. How many people use fencing with the wire through the post rather than tacked on the front? It was pointed out as something that often gets replicated on layouts even though more often that not, the wire is generally tagged to one edge of a post. 

 

As for Mr Parker however, my sore knee's are ALL his fault. (BRM sample issue - line side variety article and fitting chain link fencing from scale model scenery - can't see the damn stuff unless I fit it from eye level with glasses removed and stare very closely - probably explains why I can't see the faults on a Bachmann Class 25 :-) )

[Matt C]

3 hours ago, Ian J. said:

 

This kind of sums up the issues in the systematic and systemic - systematic in that checking isn't being done properly, and systemic in that setting the budget too low for CAD leads to acceptance of errors going into tooling. The ultimate problem though is that if the error is in the body shape and GA, and is significant, it gets noticed by potential buyers and sales will be lost. Maybe there are enough who don't care who can cause a first run to sell out, but the potential for further sales in later runs can be lost, and the reputation of the producer drops yet again. Enough of these errors and we lose confidence in the producer entirely (Oxford Rail being an example, Heljan following suit, it seems).

 

Just picking up on one point, you say " setting the budget too low for Cad leads to errors going into tooling" I counter that with demanding scale size rivets at exact spacing and perfect shape takes time and pushes the CAD/  design cost way over budget which means you lose sight of the basics. Cut pack on calls for every minute detail in perfect scale etc and push GETTING THE BASICS RIGHT First

 

[Dagworth]

Conspiracy theory time...

 

Take the example of the Heljan 86, it was mechanically a vast improvement over the ancient Hornby model, and sold out (slowly), but looked bloody awful.   

 

(I bought one, decided that I couldn't live with the body so used the chassis to repower a different model and flogged the body (for a pretty good sum!), likewise I then picked up a second chassis to do another repower)

 

Now Heljan are retooling the 86 and presumably a lot of those people who bought the first version will buy the retool to replace their older ones? Do Heljan sell twice as many 86s as they would have. 

 

Ok arguably if Heljan had got the 86 right the first time it would have flown off the shelves rather than crawled and would have supported a second and maybe third production run, but from what I have heard in the past Heljan's tooling is soft and only suitable for short runs anyway.

 

Personally I won't buy a model I don't like even if it does perfectly fit my needs but if it is a good model then I will buy in fleet quantities.

 

Andi

 

 

[Ian J.]

7 hours ago, Mattc6911 said:

 

Just picking up on one point, you say " setting the budget too low for Cad leads to errors going into tooling" I counter that with demanding scale size rivets at exact spacing and perfect shape takes time and pushes the CAD/  design cost way over budget which means you lose sight of the basics. Cut pack on calls for every minute detail in perfect scale etc and push GETTING THE BASICS RIGHT First

 

 

I repeat, I would say that body shape being fundamentally right is a 'basic'.

 

As for detail, these models are sold as finely detailed, scale models. While I don't expect total perfection, I do hope that when being designed there is enough care taken to ensure that application of details is appropriate to prototype - is that not a basic expectation of a scale model?

 

As for getting the basics right first, if we go down your route of cutting back on 'every minute detail' then we'd never have progressed beyond the standard of Triang of the late 60s.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, Ian J. said:

 

I repeat, I would say that body shape being fundamentally right is a 'basic'.

 

As for detail, these models are sold as finely detailed, scale models. While I don't expect total perfection, I do hope that when being designed there is enough care taken to ensure that application of details is appropriate to prototype - is that not a basic expectation of a scale model?

 

As for getting the basics right first, if we go down your route of cutting back on 'every minute detail' then we'd never have progressed beyond the standard of Triang of the late 60s.

Tri-ang models generally sold in vast numbers by today's standards, because they were aimed at the toy market and because there was nothing better in most cases.

[Matt C]

On 22/06/2020 at 07:27, Ian J. said:

 

I repeat, I would say that body shape being fundamentally right is a 'basic'.

 

As for detail, these models are sold as finely detailed, scale models. While I don't expect total perfection, I do hope that when being designed there is enough care taken to ensure that application of details is appropriate to prototype - is that not a basic expectation of a scale model?

 

As for getting the basics right first, if we go down your route of cutting back on 'every minute detail' then we'd never have progressed beyond the standard of Triang of the late 60s.

 

 

I think we will have to agree to disagree. The thread is about design errors. My arguement is that by pushing the manufacturers into ever more complex and detailed 'perfect' models at the price those who want 'perfection' are prepared to pay, something has to give, which is quality control. Out of a run of 2000 models (number picked from the cloud) how many want that 'perfect' display cabinet model and how many want a good representation of the real thing, that looks right, has the right colour scheme and runs well straight out of the box ?  My own  thoughts ( with no factual evidence) is that the former group is smaller but VERY vocal in pushing manufacturers towards that 'Perfect' display case model to the detriment of those who want something that looks right and gets used. My suggestion about less detail isn't a return to Triang, its to make a good '  accurate model with less micro detail ( that falls off, breaks before you get it out of the box or disapears  on the first run out) that sells for a reasonable price to the majority of purchasers ( ball park pie in the sky figure say £150) and then sell an addon detail pack for (again pie in the sky figure) £100 that the end user who wants the display case model, can add themselves, or commission to be added if their skills aren't up to it.  Some manufacturers are all ready including some detail packs in with models, I'm saying take this to the next level. In Hornby's case they could do the basic accurate model run of 2000 and at the design stage commission Airfix to do the detail pack ?

 

My point is scale back on SOME of the detail, get the bloomin basics right, sell at a price the majority are happy with and then add detail for the smaller number who want 'display case' models via addon packs at extra cost.

 

Edit to Add, its almost a case of say Hornby, instead of using the railroad version as they do at the moment ( confused mishmash that no one really understands) make it the 'ready to run' standard version for all new models. . For the majority to purchase then do a 'Delux'  detailed version at the higher price range. Consign all the old tooling runs to a lower priced 'classics' range

Edited June 28, 2020 by Mattc6911

[Talltim]

20 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Your whole argument assumes no-one checks the CADs, this isn't true. Mistakes will still happen though - if you've never worked somewhere where things go wrong despite everyone's best efforts then you work in a pretty unique industry. When you find the mistake, a decision then has to be made about how you deal with it. For the 45, fixing the body shape means (as it says on the thread) a new mould. Cost, tens of thousands of pounds. Would this mean that many extra sales? That's a decision for the person who is paying for it.

But isn't that the point of the thread? FIx things like the before cutting any metal.

[Talltim]

18 hours ago, Mattc6911 said:

Sticking head above parapet.  If you want perfection you buy a Rolex and pay a premium price accordingly

 

If you want a very good watch  you pay a lower price, its a very good watch, but its NOT a Rolex

 

If you want something that just tells the time, you can buy a cheap watch

 

What you are saying is you want  someone to keep on re designing until they produce a Rolex, but at the lower price.  ( The cost of constantly re designing to eliminate every imperfection would mean a loss on every sale leading to quickly going bankrupt)

 

Most are happy with a very good watch, at a lower price, KNOWING. Its not a Rolex and accepting that, but still having a very good watch

 

If you want that perfection, go commission a Rolex

I don't think that simile really works. The job of a watch is to tell the time. A cheap watch (nowadays) tells the time equally as accurately as a Rolex. Durabilty is the only other thing that really matters, and you'd hope that increases with price. Everything else is down to taste.

The job of a model is to look like a scaled down version of the real thing. If it doesn't then its failed it primary role.

[Chris M]

I'm sure all manufacturers do the best job they can within whatever constraints they may have - design time being one of them. All labour time creates costs that have to be recovered from sales. Also there is demand for models that have been announced to be made as soon as possible, while the CAD people are making one model perfect all the others behind it in the pipeline are being delayed. Models will always be a compromise. The quality of models in nowadays is quite astonishing. 

The Dapol class 50 in N got quite a pasting from some but I find it to be quite acceptable, well very good actually, and am happy with my pair. This is a much better model than the old Farish model which on itself was better than their earlier models. It would be nice if models were perfect but I like to appreciate what we have rather than spend my time trying to find fault.

There does seem to be a lot of expertise in this thread. There is nothing stopping anyone getting down to it and designing a perfect model and getting it made. There is no risk as it these experts can be sure it will sell better than the inaccurate models currently on sale.

[Matt C]

8 minutes ago, Talltim said:

I don't think that simile really works. The job of a watch is to tell the time. A cheap watch (nowadays) tells the time equally as accurately as a Rolex. Durabilty is the only other thing that really matters, and you'd hope that increases with price. Everything else is down to taste.

The job of a model is to look like a scaled down version of the real thing. If it doesn't then its failed it primary role.

 

 

Whats the job of a model ? To look good ? Or to work ?  Would you be happy with a watch that sort of kept time, (runs) looks incredibly accurate (detail)  but bits keep falling off ( breaking every time you try to use it)

 

A cheap basic model can run equally as well as a highly detailed expensive one OR just as bad

 

My wish IS a reasonable, accurate representation of the original, that runs well and doesn't shed all that extra expensive detail every time its used.

[Talltim]

18 minutes ago, Mattc6911 said:

 

 

Whats the job of a model ? To look good ? Or to work ?  Would you be happy with a watch that sort of kept time, (runs) looks incredibly accurate (detail)  but bits keep falling off ( breaking every time you try to use it)

 

A cheap basic model can run equally as well as a highly detailed expensive one OR just as bad

 

My wish IS a reasonable, accurate representation of the original, that runs well and doesn't shed all that extra expensive detail every time its used.

There is a difference between detail(s) and basic shape. I'd be much happier with a model that lacked some details that were add-ons, but had the basic shape right than vice versa. Details can be added (or removed) to suit your requirements/clumsiness level. The basic shape is far harder to change.

[woodenhead]

The Heljan O gauge 37 is a case in point with regards an error in the original tooling and the positioning of grilles on the body.

 

WIth later versions Heljan had the opportunity to correct it but didn't and actually that may have been the best decision.  The issue only becomes apparant with certain liveries and if you stick a prototype alongside it, otherwise it looks like a big class 37.  Had Heljan corrected the grilles on the later versions it would have ruined the original model  as they would have looked odd side by side with the later generations.

 

Phil's point earlier about expectations and reality - he's right for most of us, our model railways are not true scale reproductions which accurately portray a point in time where an exquisite RTR model will not in some way stick out like a sore thumb once it has been tastefully weathered to suit the scene.  My model railway is not perfect, why should I expect my models to be so as well.

 

But I do draw the line with mechanics - be it dodgy electrics or noisy gears in older Dapol N gauge or recent Farish models that still split gears.  In OO how many lovely looking models have been lost to Mazak rot in the past.

 

WIth the Heljan 45 it will come down to how the final models look against Bachmann and the price, I reckon they will still sell in reasonable numbers.

Edited June 22, 2020 by woodenhead
spelling

[The Johnster]

It needs to look good and to work, but it doesn't need to be hyperdetailed.  I would be happier with a model that was as close to scale as 00 will allow in dimensions and shape but was not highly detailed than I would with an all singing all dancing model with inside working motion and posable reversing gear, and gauges in the cab that had needles that moved correctly, and working brakes that was not dimensionally correct and not shaped well.  I can work up the basic model to any degree I want, but the hyperdetailed model is still wrong, and irredeemably so; there is nothing that anyone can do to improve it.

 

Good running is highly important to me, and the better and smoother the slow running is the more I'll forgive in other design faults if the model captures the general 'look' and character of the prototype.  Finish is a major factor in this respect.  To take as an example the awful Triang 8750; no way would I give this house room.  But I saw a photo of one a few months ago that had been very skilfully weathered, in late BR black dirty condition, and was fooled; the incorrect coupling rod not noticed and the loco looking like a worn out 1960s 8750; it captured the 'look'.  However, there is nothing that anyone can do about the Gaiety 57xx; it's just out of proportion and too wrong!

[Andy Reichert]

On 21/06/2020 at 04:22, tomparryharry said:

On 21/06/2020 at 04:39, Ian J. said:

 

The issue of gauge accuracy has (for the most part) no bearing on the accuracy of body shape. Certainly things like body side to roof transition (as is the issue with the Heljan 45); front cab window position (Hornby VEP and Kernow/Bachmann 4TC); cab shape (Heljan Western; Dapol Western); and cab cut out shape (Oxford Dean Goods; Dapol B4) are not affected by the gauge.

 

So if possible I'd like to keep this thread free of the gauge inaccuracy issue.

 

 

Then the thread has the wrong title.

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

On 21/06/2020 at 07:25, Ian J. said:

 

This is what worries me. It seems to be a settling for less profit than could otherwise be made from a model.

 

Surely getting basic body shape right means that a model will have a better chance of selling more and therefore making more money for the producers of said model? Especially so given these days of online communication where when a significant error is noticed such that the buyers cancel their orders?

 

There must be ways of checking a model's CAD against prototype to reduce the risk of error? I suggested in the Accurascale Deltic thread that:

 

 

 

In my actual experience, great marketing hype, even if providing misleading, or actually false information, will make an merely average product highly successful, whereas a "perfect" product, with incompetent marketing will usually be overtaken by the competition.

 

One only has to watch the prolific "unboxing" videos, to see how just important the irrelevant box is perceived.

 

Some of the very best models are produced by the selfless passion of the designer to make such a model exist, with no particular interest in how profitable it might be.  If you really want "perfect" models, I suggest you have a go at designing and manufacturing one yourself. With of course, no later discovered errors.

 

Andy

[tomparryharry]

15 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

Then the thread has the wrong title.

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy,

 

Sorry, I'm a bit confused here. Either you've found the wrong post, or I've found the wrong post. In a highly-charged atmosphere such as this, a few microns can mean the difference between life & death! 

 

Cheers,

Ian.

[Chris M]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

 

WIth the Heljan 45 it will come down to how the final models look against Bachmann and the price, I reckon they will still sell in reasonable numbers.

A choice of class 45s!!! Us poor N gaugers don't have even have one available.