Model Rail 226 September 2016

[Modelrail]

Published August 25

 

HOW TO BUILD THE WATERMAN WAY

 

Layouts: Leamington Spa (O) Hatch End (N)

 

Reviews: Hornby Class 71, Adams 4-4-2T, Bachmann Ivatt '2MT' 2-6-2T, Oxford Rail and TMC wagons

 

Features/Leamington-inspired topics: How to model power station cooling towers, Make your own track, Make your own trees, Build a JLTRT kit, Create custom buildings.

 

Features: N Gauge show preview, Weather an N gauge diesel, Build a power station layout, Make Noch's new trees

 

16pp supplement: Beginners Guide to DCC. 

[grahame]

One of the best issues for ages. Great range - layouts, modelling, inspiration and reviews - and nice detailed 'asides' to them.

 

One thing though - I couldn't find the TINGS preview unless the two page standard advert for it is being counted as editorial content.

 

G.

[Modelrail]

One of the best issues for ages. Great range - layouts, modelling, inspiration and reviews - and nice detailed 'asides' to them.

 

One thing though - I couldn't find the TINGS preview unless the two page standard advert for it is being counted as editorial content.

 

G.

 

Yes, it is editorial content, just looks like an ad, plus the Hatch End layout article. (CJL)

[caradoc]

Excellent article on Leamington Spa, and great photos, but a trackplan would have been really useful.

[Butler Henderson]

Review ratings Hornby Adams Radial = Bachmann Ivatt 262T = Hornby Class 71 = overall 90%

 

Take off the VfM rating and the radial stays at 90% and the other two go up to 92.5%

 

Looks alone; Hornby Class 71 95%,  Hornby Adams Radial 90%,  Bachmann Ivatt 262T  85%

 

The Radial has negative features highlighted as rear truck design and dcc decoder fitting but nothing in the article mentions the latter.

The Ivatt scores top marks on decoration and performance while the Class 71 managed top marks for decoration but presumably the "self-destructing pantograph" does not feature in the ratings. Maybe a Build Quality rating should be added,

[tarifa]

Good magazine, good read and it's less than four quid with no sales gimmicks such as a "free DVD"

 

Mike

[grahame]

Yes, it is editorial content, just looks like an ad,

Yep, it certainly looks like an advert. It looks like the ones produced by Meridienne Exhibitions and carried by all the other magazines.

 

G.

[dibber25]

Yep, it certainly looks like an advert. It looks like the ones produced by Meridienne Exhibitions and carried by all the other magazines.

 

G.

Model Rail is a sponsor of the event, hence their publicity is included as editorial. (CJL)

[dibber25]

Review ratings Hornby Adams Radial = Bachmann Ivatt 262T = Hornby Class 71 = overall 90%

 

Take off the VfM rating and the radial stays at 90% and the other two go up to 92.5%

 

Looks alone; Hornby Class 71 95%,  Hornby Adams Radial 90%,  Bachmann Ivatt 262T  85%

 

The Radial has negative features highlighted as rear truck design and dcc decoder fitting but nothing in the article mentions the latter.

The Ivatt scores top marks on decoration and performance while the Class 71 managed top marks for decoration but presumably the "self-destructing pantograph" does not feature in the ratings. Maybe a Build Quality rating should be added,

I have thought about suggesting a 'build quality' rating but their are two factors against it. Firstly, any change in the system renders all the previous ratings obsolete and, from a personal viewpoint I dislike the rating system such that I would never suggest anything that might prolong its use. (CJL)

[rue_d_etropal]

Good magazine this month. Although I am unlikely to want to build a power station, I think I will find myself having a look at those flower pots in Wilkinson next time I am in there.

Briefly read though magazine.Hand building track  is no interest, but i can understand why some do like it. Yet another special about DCC, I think this subject has been covered enough, and I am not convinced most prefer it. Odd thing is I can remember the day I decided to stop using it(although I did have a couple of plays with DCC sound afterwards). With the LYDCC group being local, and having exghibited at their exhibitions, I built one layout intending to run it DCC(why, considering it was just one continuous track and a couple of sidings?) , well it worked OK at our club rooms, but was eratic when I set it up at exhibition, so I switched over to analogue and it ran far far better. :locos were still chipped, but subsequently these were removed.

Now what I would like to see is a special on 3D printing and laser cutting, but more on design , not on actual mechanical process. I believe a lot more could get involved and there are big advantages to being able to design something and get a real model only a couple of weeks later. Even if a model is superb, is it worth waiting 4 years, as many change their plans in that time!

That nicely leeds on to the other interesting subject in magazine and that is perspective building. More could be done, even r2r in 4mm/ft, 3.5mm/ft and 3mm/ft could be added to give perspective. In 7mm/ft,  28mm(5.5mm/ft) wargaming models could be used effectively. To create any other perspective in 3D, I would recommend 3D printing. I am currently working on buildings myself, and if I wanted to it would be veyr easy to resize any model building. One other benefit is that the buldings get cheaper as they get smaller!. It would be a challenge but I am also thinking it might be possible to design buildings with inbuilt perspective, a row of terraced houses getting smaller as they go further back.

I am a great fan of Jack Nelson and his railway dioramas. I have a 1940 sissue of MRN when Jack possibly first starts talking about using different levels in layouts, rather than a flat board, then more common. He recommended using a raised road area at back toforce eye upward, albeit in same scale(and he tended to model in 3.5mm/ft) . It is for this reason that I have created a shop as part of a hillside  terraced row for an  British HO project and named that shop 'Jack Nelson Models'.

[GordonC]

Excellent article on Leamington Spa, and great photos, but a trackplan would have been really useful.

 

and a few more photos showing areas that have been done and what they're still planning on doing.

 

Otherwise I thought it was one of the poorest Model Rails I've seen for quite some time. I 'read' through it in a day and struggled to find much to capture my attention and generally finding it very repetitive

[Butler Henderson]

I know Rly Modeller has a stock pile of articles and I wondered whether the same occurs with Model Rail - the Peco PL11 is hardly a recent introduction unless its being compared time wise with the PL10.

[cravensdmufan]

I really enjoyed this latest edition.

 

Waterman's layout never ceases to amaze, and lots of other good stuff too.  I don't think another DCC Beginners Guide is a bad thing from time to time, as digital continues to evolve.

 

Thanks for reviewing the Hornby items - presumabely magazine staff's own models as Hornby are no longer supplying samples.  Very useful information.

[dibber25]

I really enjoyed this latest edition.

 

Waterman's layout never ceases to amaze, and lots of other good stuff too.  I don't think another DCC Beginners Guide is a bad thing from time to time, as digital continues to evolve.

 

Thanks for reviewing the Hornby items - presumabely magazine staff's own models as Hornby are no longer supplying samples.  Very useful information.

Yes, the Adams and the 71 are mine. I also have the Hornby LSWR coaches but I think it is unlikely they will get reviewed. No Q6 review, either, as no one on the staff bought one. (CJL)

[cravensdmufan]

Yes, the Adams and the 71 are mine. I also have the Hornby LSWR coaches but I think it is unlikely they will get reviewed. No Q6 review, either, as no one on the staff bought one. (CJL)

Hornby are producing excellent models - it's a wonder they won't even lend them out to magazines.  You'd think they would go all out to showcase them.  

[ardbealach]

Yes, the Adams and the 71 are mine. I also have the Hornby LSWR coaches but I think it is unlikely they will get reviewed. No Q6 review, either, as no one on the staff bought one. (CJL)

 

It has been discussed in other postings on RMWeb regarding Hornby's policy of not sending out models for review to the model press.  We on RMWeb have expressed our view on the Hornby shortsightness at length.  But we now have to live with it.

 

From reading the Model Rail since its early days, one of the good reads for me in Model Rail has always been the detailed reviews of new releases.  And equally highlighting defects with appropriate criticisms.  Since it would appear from CJL's post that neither the Hornby LSWR coaches or the Hornby Q6 will be reviewed in Model Rail - for understandable reasons - we now have no way of judging these models if we are intending to purchase them.  It is appreciated that Model Rail does not have a bottomless cash box to buy and review everything. Which is why I believe the models should be made available to the model press by the likes of Hornby  - even on loan or as a test drive.   The topic, I know, has been heavily aired on RMWeb already.

 

If we are now to see Model Rail limiting their reviewing with only the editorial  'favourites' being purchased, then modellers are not going to have a full round of what is available in detail.  We therefore will rely on the retail trade websites, or other model magazines.  There won't be the detailed review of the new which Model Rail expertly gives us.

 

I will now certainly be reconsidering my subscription to the magazine if Model Rail is heading this way with limited reviews.  It seems to me the magazine is going more and more towards becoming an outlet for the particular interests of the editorial staff and not for the broader interests of modellers.  

 

For me, model railway magazines are there to show us modellers the new products coming on the market, with appropriate reviews and criticisms. Magazines should be there to advise, educate, illustrate and even entertain modellers.  For me, as a subscriber from the early days of Model Rail, it is losing its way.   I continue to live in hope that there will be a turnaround in its content.  Sadly I learnt nothing new from the latest issue MR226, to the point of being disappointed in its content, and for me it was not value for money.  Had I flicked through it on a shop shelf as a potential purchase, I would have put back without making the purchase. 

 

I feel that perhaps Model Rail is now aimed at those considering model railways as a hobby as the content of MR226 reflected this rather than addressing the interests of the more expert modeller.  Then again maybe I have been reading model railway magazines for far too long and am tiring of old articles being rehashed and redressed as something new.  

[Butler Henderson]

Theres always the possibility of a shop loaning a model - its happened previously.

[cravensdmufan]

Theres always the possibility of a shop loaning a model - its happened previously.

Indeed.  I  seem to recall "model kindly lent for review  by...." in publications in the past. The goodwill gesture would be a nice bit of advertising for the shop too.  Maybe an approach to Trains 4U?

[dibber25]

Indeed.  I  seem to recall "model kindly lent for review  by...." in publications in the past. The goodwill gesture would be a nice bit of advertising for the shop too.  Maybe an approach to Trains 4U?

Even when Hornby was supplying review samples, they were often erratic, and we frequently had to make our arrangements because we didn't receive a sample. We do borrow review models from time to time - T4U are very generous in offering to loan items - but I'm reluctant to do so as it means that, somewhere down the line, a customer buys a model which has been used - however carefully - and is therefore not 'mint'. We go out of our way to review new Hornby releases as a service to readers but our editorial view is that it has to be two-way thing as far as manufacturers are concerned. In advertising space terms, five pages in a magazine like Model Rail would cost many, many times the full retail value of the model, but not only has Hornby stopped the supply of samples, it has also stopped advertising in the specialist press. We have the double-whammy of loss of ad revenue and having to fork out for review samples. It just happens that the two most recent models are both SR prototypes that I would have bought anyway. The timing of LSWR coaches was awkward in that we couldn't fit them in the current issue and it was felt that by the time we could accommodate them they would have lost their topicality.  (CJL)

[Legend]

We do borrow review models from time to time - T4U are very generous in offering to loan items - but I'm reluctant to do so as it means that, somewhere down the line, a customer buys a model which has been used - however carefully - and is therefore not 'mint'. We go out of our way to review new Hornby releases as a service to readers but our editorial view is that it has to be two-way thing as far as manufacturers are concerned. In advertising space terms, five pages in a magazine like Model Rail would cost many, many times the full retail value of the model, but not only has Hornby stopped the supply of samples, it has also stopped advertising in the specialist press. We have the double-whammy of loss of ad revenue and having to fork out for review samples. It just happens that the two most recent models are both SR prototypes that I would have bought anyway. The timing of LSWR coaches was awkward in that we couldn't fit them in the current issue and it was felt that by the time we could accommodate them they would have lost their topicality.  (CJL)

I'm sure it's a bit like buying a pre registered car. Mags could either borrow or buy models from their local model shop then resell them through same shop. I'm sure there are loads of people who would buy the latest reviewed model at a slightly reduced price. That limits the costs to the mags and possibly increase footfall at the local model railway shop once known that that's where the models were sourced and that a bargain of an ex reviewed model could be had. At least folks would know it works from the box.

 

Just an idea!

 

I think the issue with not supplying models was that Hornby formed the conclusion that the mags needed the reviews more than they did. Certainly with most of us looking at on line reviews , we are not short of information. Interestingly I think Hornby has an arrangement with IC82 who has a YouTube channel showing some items.

[jjb1970]

A good issue, I thought the reviews of the Class 71 and radial were fair and balanced. The stuff on power stations was interesting, they're one of those features that have been a big part of railway history but the scale of even a small power station makes incorporating them in a model railway layout difficult. I know some of the German kit suppliers have offered power plant kits but they are so compressed that they just look toy like.

[ardbealach]

The situation of Model Rail (and other magazines) is appreciated regarding models and reviews.  I would have no problem purchasing a locomotive / item of rolling stock after it had been in the hands of a magazine.  Who knows the model's value might go up if its provenance is certified as having been handled by CJL!  

[gismorail]

Excellent edition this month plenty to inspire in my view. 

Excellent workbench section this month and Chris Nevard's piece about Building your own Track is top class stuff. More sense displayed in this small article about this complex subject than all the forum threads on RM web put together and easy to follow without the ' I'm an expert' input that we have to put up with on here ........

[daftbovine]

I think Model Rail's reviews are excellent and although feedback about new models is available from online forums they give a much fuller picture of what the model is like, especially as the photographs are always very good.

 

Some of the other magazine's 'reviews' are more like press releases from the manufacturers and really don't help much at all.

[Legend]

I think Model Rail's reviews are excellent and although feedback about new models is available from online forums they give a much fuller picture of what the model is like, especially as the photographs are always very good.

Some of the other magazine's 'reviews' are more like press releases from the manufacturers and really don't help much at all.

Certainly they are the only one of the printed media to pick up on the coreless motor in the Ivatt tank, although they have failed to explore the consequences of this. Are people with electronic track cleaners or feedback controllers that rare?