Jump to content
 

Comparison reviews. Why not?


steve1
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

 

As you say, there is a thriving pre-owned market too, so those reviews can also set you off trying to track down a model. If you have access to a magazine, such as this one, you can look back and read contemporary reviews when eyeing up second-hand models.

 

They could - but equally so would a fresh review a published  few years down the line. Naturally this would work best where more than one manufacturer produces a particular prototype (e.g. the class 66) because as well as offering an easy way of people being able to compare the features and level of detail / accuracy it could also offer the opportunity for 'reliability' type ratings (much like Which collates feedback from owners about their cars).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

They could - but equally so would a fresh review a published  few years down the line. Naturally this would work best where more than one manufacturer produces a particular prototype (e.g. the class 66) because as well as offering an easy way of people being able to compare the features and level of detail / accuracy it could also offer the opportunity for 'reliability' type ratings (much like Which collates feedback from owners about their cars).

Two things.

1/ How do you really compare between 2 models of the same prototype, manufactured several years apart, even 4 or 5. Should you compare a new model to say a Hornby Dublo/Wrenn model made 40 years ago? At what point do you draw a line?

2/ The difference with 'reliability' ratings for cars, is that they are items costing many 1000s of pounds, not 200-300.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
11 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

They could - but equally so would a fresh review a published  few years down the line. Naturally this would work best where more than one manufacturer produces a particular prototype (e.g. the class 66) because as well as offering an easy way of people being able to compare the features and level of detail / accuracy it could also offer the opportunity for 'reliability' type ratings (much like Which collates feedback from owners about their cars).

 

Surely all that does is prove newer models are better than old ones. So out comes a new Class 37, we review it and say it's better than the Hornby 1960s version - and the audience says "No s**t Sherlock". The number of pages in a magazine is finite, every month a decision has to be taken as to what we include and filling up space with reviews of old models isn't going to sell many issues.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
24 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

Surely all that does is prove newer models are better than old ones. So out comes a new Class 37, we review it and say it's better than the Hornby 1960s version - and the audience says "No s**t Sherlock". The number of pages in a magazine is finite, every month a decision has to be taken as to what we include and filling up space with reviews of old models isn't going to sell many issues.

 

I forget what I may have said previously. The key comparison is with the prototype.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Surely all that does is prove newer models are better than old ones. So out comes a new Class 37, we review it and say it's better than the Hornby 1960s version - and the audience says "No s**t Sherlock". The number of pages in a magazine is finite, every month a decision has to be taken as to what we include and filling up space with reviews of old models isn't going to sell many issues.

 

 


Define ‘better’

 

If you are buying with a view to kids playing or perhaps someone who enjoys customising items with then robustness / a lack of sperateky fitted detail may be a ‘better’ choice that the very latest model.

 

Equally if on a tight budget and browsing the second hand market which of the manny 66s out there is going to be ‘better’ value for money.

 

Perhaps you are someone looking to future proof your models for easy upgrades later when cash or circumstances allow - which model is ‘better’

 

As I said earlier I wouldn’t envisage it being a monthly feature, but an occasional piece which takes the reader through the history of a particular model then compares different manufacturers past products on price, detail, reliability, upgradeability, etc has the potential to make for an interesting and informative piece.

 

While not quite the same thing ‘then and now’ pictures - even just ones shared between family members are usually a source of interest. ‘Look at that hair / what were we thinking’ might seem like casual comments, but it betrays an underlying curiosity as to what went before and how things change over the years.

 

Think of it as a combination of the ‘practice and performance’ articles with a dash of which style Best Buys thrown in. As I said earlier obviously it needs careful thought and the key is to make it a interesting read. Naturally it won’t work for all models - but for things like the class 66 where there are multiple options for buyers such a feature has merit.
 


 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I forget what I may have said previously. The key comparison is with the prototype.


Obsensably yes - to give a extreme example, quite clearly painting up a class 47 body as per a class 66 doesn’t make it a model of a class 66!

 

However once you get something reasonably 66 like, other factors like amount of cash you have to spend and potential usage will start to rise up the agenda and will eventually become more important to some than slavish attention to detail.

 

Thats why Hornby can still turn out ex Lima 66s and Hattons decided to take on Bachman with their own ‘super super detailed’ model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

There is scope on some models , particularly diesels , for a comparison type article .  At the moment the 66 is the obvious choice . Railroad ,Bachmann, Hattons . Articles should look at availability , versions modelled , lighting options , whats best for DCC , whats best for DC , price .  I get confused with all different 66 options and lighting configurations .It maybe Bachmann best for some variants , Hattons others . Price is always a factor , so if I go Railroad what am I surrendering?  I think also Hornby knocking out some paint schemes that are not correct for body variations (is it 66/9, the low emission one with door in bodyside)  but i dont know which is correct.

 

You can see similar articles for 37s Accurascale/Bachmann/ Railroad , 47s Heljan /Bachmann/Railroad  156s Realtrack/ Railroad .  Struggling a bit with steam locos where there is less duplication , but something that maybe looked at Panniers . Yes I know the GWR purists will object , but I don't know where a 16xx was used versus a 57XX or a 64XX . What are the differences real and model , what are they used on ? 

 

Maybe this leads to more comprehensive articles . As well as the model comparison , what can you run them with?

 

Just a thought 

 

 

Edited by Legend
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Two things.

1/ How do you really compare between 2 models of the same prototype, manufactured several years apart, even 4 or 5. Should you compare a new model to say a Hornby Dublo/Wrenn model made 40 years ago? At what point do you draw a line?


That would depend on the editor!

 

I note that the practice and performance feature in the railway magazine does not have rigid rules about which timing records it includes - one article may feature only runs done in the 1960s, others may mix recent preservation era ones with 1950s records, other articles may compare steam and diesel ones etc.

 

I fully acknowledge that magazines need to make their articles interesting and not just stuffed full of boring figures and appreciate that Phil Parker has vastly more experience in this area - but I still feel it would be possible to craft something suitable which covers they key areas I have highlighted up thread.


 

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

2/ The difference with 'reliability' ratings for cars, is that they are items costing many 1000s of pounds, not 200-300.

 

Agreed - however not every railway modeller is blessed with a large amount of disposable income to spend. They may well be prepared to hunt round for 2nd hand bargain locos so they have money left for rolling stock or scenics say.

 

A comparison of models could well be useful in helping narrow down the decision over which models suit their circumstances.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 23/05/2021 at 08:40, CloggyDog said:

 

 

On that basis, are reviews actually superfluous, aside from informing the pre-owned market? 

Personally I'm much more interested in knowing how well the model runs and rough haulage capacity than whether all the right rivets are in all the right places. One of the tricky aspects of  toy train manufacture / reviewing is the widely different requirements and expectations of potential buyers.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
25 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

Personally I'm much more interested in knowing how well the model runs and rough haulage capacity than whether all the right rivets are in all the right places. One of the tricky aspects of  toy train manufacture / reviewing is the widely different requirements and expectations of potential buyers.

 

Oh definitely - which is why I have tried to keep things generalised in terms of content. Magazine editors will know the 'level' of their audience and no doubt be able to determine which aspects would or wouldn't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:


Define ‘better’

 

If you are buying with a view to kids playing or perhaps someone who enjoys customising items with then robustness / a lack of sperateky fitted detail may be a ‘better’ choice that the very latest model.

 

Equally if on a tight budget and browsing the second hand market which of the manny 66s out there is going to be ‘better’ value for money.

 

Perhaps you are someone looking to future proof your models for easy upgrades later when cash or circumstances allow - which model is ‘better’

 

As I said earlier I wouldn’t envisage it being a monthly feature, but an occasional piece which takes the reader through the history of a particular model then compares different manufacturers past products on price, detail, reliability, upgradeability, etc has the potential to make for an interesting and informative piece.

 

While not quite the same thing ‘then and now’ pictures - even just ones shared between family members are usually a source of interest. ‘Look at that hair / what were we thinking’ might seem like casual comments, but it betrays an underlying curiosity as to what went before and how things change over the years.

 

Think of it as a combination of the ‘practice and performance’ articles with a dash of which style Best Buys thrown in. As I said earlier obviously it needs careful thought and the key is to make it a interesting read. Naturally it won’t work for all models - but for things like the class 66 where there are multiple options for buyers such a feature has merit.
 


 

But now you are talking about collector type magazines, of which there are examples. Of which not everyone wants mint boxed.

 

If you really do want models to upgrade or whatever, then the 2nd hand market is for you.

 

Or look in the Vintage/Collectable section.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:


That would depend on the editor!

 

I note that the practice and performance feature in the railway magazine does not have rigid rules about which timing records it includes - one article may feature only runs done in the 1960s, others may mix recent preservation era ones with 1950s records, other articles may compare steam and diesel ones etc.

 

I fully acknowledge that magazines need to make their articles interesting and not just stuffed full of boring figures and appreciate that Phil Parker has vastly more experience in this area - but I still feel it would be possible to craft something suitable which covers they key areas I have highlighted up thread.


 

 

Agreed - however not every railway modeller is blessed with a large amount of disposable income to spend. They may well be prepared to hunt round for 2nd hand bargain locos so they have money left for rolling stock or scenics say.

 

A comparison of models could well be useful in helping narrow down the decision over which models suit their circumstances.

 

 

Absolutely I can relate to a shortage of funds.

Still don't see that current magazines have to clutter up with reviews of old models. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
15 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

 

 

If you really do want models to upgrade or whatever, then the 2nd hand market is for you.

 

 

 

Indeed - but which out of the many class 47 models made over the years and available on the 2nd hand market is the best of the bunch.

 

We are not talking about a collector here - we are talking about those on limited budgets or maybe those that want to 'have a go' at detailing but are fearful of ruining an expensive model.

 

A comparison review could help with making that choice.

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Absolutely I can relate to a shortage of funds.

Still don't see that current magazines have to clutter up with reviews of old models. 

 

I don't think you are understand the idea properly. We are not talking about simply replacing a new model with an older one and following exactly the same reviewing style!

 

It would need to be crafted more in the vein of detailing articles, class history or 'then and now' piece. Its also true that it would only work for selected classes e.g. 66s, 47s, 37s, HSTs, 156 units, etc where multiple attempts have been made over the years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
17 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I don't think you are understand the idea properly. We are not talking about simply replacing a new model with an older one and following exactly the same reviewing style!

 

It would need to be crafted more in the vein of detailing articles, class history or 'then and now' piece. Its also true that it would only work for selected classes e.g. 66s, 47s, 37s, HSTs, 156 units, etc where multiple attempts have been made over the years.

 

You'd still fill a magazine - what you are talking about is more a series of stand-alone Bookazines.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

You'd still fill a magazine - what you are talking about is more a series of stand-alone Bookazines.

 

 

Magazine space or article length is indeed an issue - but could it not be done as a two parter?

 

One month looking at the model history and the chronology of who produced what and when with a second part dealing with recommendations for those on different budgets / goals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I don't read a lot of reviews, no time and it just makes me sad when I see all those Lovely models I can't afford :cray_mini2:. BUT  If I am reading them :- The kind of information I  like to see is " couldn't pull the skin off a rice puddin"  "easy to get the body off and chip". " Couldn't get the body off to chip so we've given it to Andy, he's got a bigger Hammer" " ran on anything, Even Phil's rough track". " Looks great but performance was diabolical and bits kept falling off, Not one for the faint hearted"

 The more practical side of things rather than " that shade of lemon yellow is 1000th of a shade too Orange" That headlight is 0.00000001 thousandth of a sqillimetre too big/ small/ off centre. I know these facts are important to the collectors, but mainly I'm interested in performance, reliability, longevity and a REASONABLE representation of prototype.

 

Flak jacket on :victory:

Edited by Matt C
Added Longevity
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
35 minutes ago, Matt C said:

" Couldn't get the body off to chip so we've given it to Andy, he's got a bigger Hammer"

 

Once. Once, that's all it was. But too many people saw me take a fat screwdriver to get the body off a Wickham trolley. :biggrin_mini2:

  • Like 1
  • Funny 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I don't think you are understand the idea properly. We are not talking about simply replacing a new model with an older one and following exactly the same reviewing style!

 

It would need to be crafted more in the vein of detailing articles, class history or 'then and now' piece. Its also true that it would only work for selected classes e.g. 66s, 47s, 37s, HSTs, 156 units, etc where multiple attempts have been made over the years.

 

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

 

You'd still fill a magazine - what you are talking about is more a series of stand-alone Bookazines.

So Modern Locomotives Illustrated really missed a trick as they gave about 2% of content on the models of the locomotives covered in each edition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

Magazine space or article length is indeed an issue - but could it not be done as a two parter?

 

Lovely if you are interested, two magazines with significant amounts of space you consider wasted if not. We get grief all the time from people who want more/less layouts/practicals/reviews/steam/diesels.

 

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

One month looking at the model history and the chronology of who produced what and when with a second part dealing with recommendations for those on different budgets / goals.

 

Class 66

Prototype history 4 pages

Hornby review - 2 pages

Bachmann review - 2 pages

Hattons review - 2 pages

Comparisons and conclusions - 2 pages

 

That's 12, and to be honest, every one of those could be doubled in length, covering all the sub-classes will demand more pages for prototype information. For a Class 24/25, the prototype stuff is, as MLI shows, a complete magazine. HST's would be just as bad. And of course, I'm ignoring N gauge so for the 66, stick a in 2 pages for the Farish model and another 2 for the CJM version. Oh, better do 7mm scale too, and even G gauge.

 

This is for an easy class. When I did Modelling British Railways Diesel Locomotives a few years ago, The Westerns had 13 different models (now more), Class 45 - 10, Class 37 - 15. To comparatively review all those is a can of worms. You could focus a bit, but then someone will moan about a missing model. Even in the Class 24 Heljan thread, someone told us that the 1970s (I think) Hornby model was the best so we can't leave that one out for being geriatric.

 

Then the endless squabbling along the lines of "Why didn't you mention the cab windows are 3 microns out!!!!!!!!!". And others saying "I don't want all those fancy bits!!!!!" while someone else will pitch in with "A coreless motor, it's the end of the world!!!!"

 

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Define ‘better’

 

Precisely. We can't win. We'll always be wrong.

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
49 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Once. Once, that's all it was. But too many people saw me take a fat screwdriver to get the body off a Wickham trolley. :biggrin_mini2:

 

Try escaping toilets...

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
14 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Lovely if you are interested, two magazines with significant amounts of space you consider wasted if not. We get grief all the time from people who want more/less layouts/practicals/reviews/steam/diesels.

 

 

Class 66

Prototype history 4 pages

Hornby review - 2 pages

Bachmann review - 2 pages

Hattons review - 2 pages

Comparisons and conclusions - 2 pages

 

That's 12, and to be honest, every one of those could be doubled in length, covering all the sub-classes will demand more pages for prototype information. For a Class 24/25, the prototype stuff is, as MLI shows, a complete magazine. HST's would be just as bad. And of course, I'm ignoring N gauge so for the 66, stick a in 2 pages for the Farish model and another 2 for the CJM version. Oh, better do 7mm scale too, and even G gauge.

 

This is for an easy class. When I did Modelling British Railways Diesel Locomotives a few years ago, The Westerns had 13 different models (now more), Class 45 - 10, Class 37 - 15. To comparatively review all those is a can of worms. You could focus a bit, but then someone will moan about a missing model. Even in the Class 24 Heljan thread, someone told us that the 1970s (I think) Hornby model was the best so we can't leave that one out for being geriatric.

 

Then the endless squabbling along the lines of "Why didn't you mention the cab windows are 3 microns out!!!!!!!!!". And others saying "I don't want all those fancy bits!!!!!" while someone else will pitch in with "A coreless motor, it's the end of the world!!!!"

 

 

Precisely. We can't win. We'll always be wrong.

 

 

Tell you what I really REALLY don't envey you guys your jobs, you are on a hiding to nothing :bye_mini:

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Lovely if you are interested, two magazines with significant amounts of space you consider wasted if not. We get grief all the time from people who want more/less layouts/practicals/reviews/steam/diesels.

 

 

As someone once commented of the BBC - if the right wing are complaining its to biased towards the left and the left are complaining its biased against the right then they must actually being trying to do a reasonable job in not being biased at all.

 

As an editor you are never going to please all readers all of the time, I guess if the  'not enough layouts' complaints are 'balanced  by the 'not enough reviews' or 'not enough tutorials' complaints then you could say you have got things pretty much right.

 

 

Quote

Class 66

Prototype history 4 pages

Hornby review - 2 pages

Bachmann review - 2 pages

Hattons review - 2 pages

Comparisons and conclusions - 2 pages

 

 

 

Just wondering - and you are the expert in such matters, could those reviews not be condensed down a bit with a caveat added that if readers want an in depth article then they could be directed to consult issue XXX issue published on YYY date.

 

While I know some have scoffed at the idea, I refer you to some of the Which articles on, say, 'best coffee machines' where there typically will only be one or too pages that act as a summary of everything out there, key findings / shortcomings and a short best buy table - if folk want the detailed warts and all reviews then they have to seek out separate articles for each individual product.

 

Could a similar ish approach not be adopted for say the class 66?

 

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

 

That's 12, and to be honest, every one of those could be doubled in length, covering all the sub-classes will demand more pages for prototype information. For a Class 24/25, the prototype stuff is, as MLI shows, a complete magazine. HST's would be just as bad. And of course, I'm ignoring N gauge so for the 66, stick a in 2 pages for the Farish model and another 2 for the CJM version. Oh, better do 7mm scale too, and even G gauge.

 

 

 

Naturally you would have to stick with one or two scales per article to make the thing manageable and it also might be necessary to add a 'cut off date' - much in the same way as the wish list poll used to exclude anything tooled up after the year 2000 IIRC. It might well be than some classes need to be sub divided further based on type or era - Lets say class 37s in pre-privatisation liveries to fit within editorial constraints.

 

Again I say the start point of this is say a relative beginner to the hobby looking to make the most of their limited funds or someone looking for a base model to use as a project. Its not there as a warts and all analysis for a collector or to act as an investment guide.

 

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Precisely. We can't win. We'll always be wrong.

 

Indeed, but nothing ventured and nothing gained, etc

 

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Model Railway Constructor compared the Tri-ang Hornby and the Trix Flying Scotsman locomotives around 1968 and I found the article very interesting.

 

If the magazines are not interested in comparing models now there is no reason why we cannot compare models on this site.

 

For instance a few years ago, when the Hornby Duchess of Athol came out,  I compared its performance with a Wrenn City of Liverpool each hauling a rake of about 10 coaches for 30 minutes at the Godlingston trials at Swanage. I think that the performance of the two locomotives was about the same and in forty years time some of us will see if the Hornby Duchess lasts as long as the Wrenn City.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
12 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

For instance a few years ago, when the Hornby Duchess of Athol came out,  I compared its performance with a Wrenn City of Liverpool each hauling a rake of about 10 coaches for 30 minutes at the Godlingston trials at Swanage.

 

Knock yourselves out; we do not have a collection of every model that's ever been made nor the time to play with them all which would be what some seem to want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...