OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

[adb968008]

I think Sams review is a bit ott on the Hornby model, Hornbys model is not bad by any means.
But I do think overall he is right.. to me the Dapol one looks nicer, I appreciate the wheels much more than Hornbys 1980’s rims. There is subtle details that look better, firebox glow, opening cab etc.

 

it seems from the review the weight is an advantage, the motor is better but something is letting it down when it comes to running ?

 

Maybe Hornby's aimed more at a toy market, Dapols more at a modellers market ?

 

Eitherway I think i ‘m going to go for a Dapol one, I have one Hornby one already as for Sam, I wonder if he will find himself edited out of next weeks Hornby broadcast ?

Edited December 2, 2021 by adb968008

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, scumcat said:

Sam did a video on the Hornby one as well, the one he got was utter rubbish, pieces hanging off and a very poor runner.  I like a review that is warts and all it’s a bit of fresh air I don’t mind him running on the carpet because I remember when I did.

also what is wrong with just liking model trains and not necessarily the full size.

The problem with Sam is that he is subjective, not objective.

He started the review with the opinion Dapol = Good, Hornby = Bad, before he had even handled the loco and gushed on about Dapol not being in it for the money, just to get it right. What utter tosh.

He never commented, unless I missed it, on the awful slidebar/crosshead/coupling rods*. And that polished brass bedknob for a safety valve bonnet?

 

* I thought after the Mogul fiacso we were getting an upgrade to the chassis, seems not

 

I don't mind warts and all if it is objective but but Sam definitely ain't.

IMHO Nowt wrong with his carpet as long as it is short pile with hard underlay

[Steamport Southport]

I think people need to start looking at the real things rather than comparing to another model. Hornby's version looks like a GWR Large Prairie, the Dapol version doesn't quite capture the looks IMO. Look at the front end in the photos a couple of pages back. They should be identical apart from some minor differences, they're not. So one is wrong, or both are wrong. Chimney looks well out in the Dapol version as well as the often mentioned motion.

 

Make your own mind up on which is your preferred choice.

 

Pony wheels wrong? Buy some Gibsons they improve the look no end.

 

 

 

Hornby's version beat the Dapol model by a fair amount of time. How Hornby can be seen as being "thwarted" when they've had the model in the shops for well over a year and will almost certainly outsell the opposition model is baffling. Just seems to be a feeble attempt at Hornby bashing.

 

I'm afraid I want my reviews done by people who know what a locomotive is. It's like having a review of a Ferrari by a plumber. "Nice car, it can go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds, but I can't fit my tools in the boot so it's rubbish".

 

Seems to me people are being drawn in by the gimmicks rather than whether the actual model is correct. Flickering fireboxes, sound, easy to fit DCC,  etc. All very nice, but irrelevant to me.

 

Personally I'm sticking with my old ones for now, some of which were detailed back in the day and have had replacement chassis, whilst waiting to see what the PDK version is like. Straight framed 51XX and 31XX versions? Yes please.

 

 

Jason

[spamcan61]

41 minutes ago, melmerby said:

The problem with Sam is that he is subjective, not objective.

 

That applies to about 90% of all review content of pretty much any product (not just toy trains), unless you're going to stick to measured dimensions and drawbar pull (which to his credit Sam actually measures, unlike the vast majority of reviews) then there's always a lot of qualitative rather than quantitative information. Such is the nature of the beast.

 

Having said that some people's subjective opinion is 'worth' more than others.

Edited December 2, 2021 by spamcan61

[57xx]

On 28/11/2021 at 14:06, adb968008 said:

Looking at the pictures, Dapols wheels look far more realistic.

Thats a big plus right there, that rides way and above nit picky areas.

 

They do look much more like the chunky rims of the prototype. The Hornby ones look just like what they are, extremely thin tyres on a plastic centre. I think people have just got too used to looking at incorrect wheels and are comparing with past failures to get them looking accurate.

[Pmorgancym]

17 hours ago, melmerby said:

The problem with Sam is that he is subjective, not objective.

 

Also the fact he never seems to advocate 'send it back'.  He just shrugs writes what ever he's got as a bad model.  

(And yeah the Dapol gushing was embarrassing, especially when the running didn't turn out to be amazing)

Also never comparing the model to the prototype.  So potentially a black 5 with a nicely modelled cast brass GWar safety valve bonnet would be praise as being a really nice feature that looks great.

I have tonsay I like the videos, they give you some consistent good close up shots of new releases, giving a better impression than you would from a magazine page.  But, with models increasingly being almost crowdfunded from pre orders thesedays and very little on the shelf availability once released.  Do we need reviews any more? Are they just annoying those who missed out on a great model or worse annoying those who 'bought of plan' and have a piece of junk.

[boxbrownie]

3 minutes ago, Pmorgancym said:

Do we need reviews any more? Are they just annoying those who missed out on a great model or worse annoying those who 'bought of plan' and have a piece of junk.

You forgot those who bought off plan and lost three or four hundred pounds………all forgotten now it seems.

[Eddie the dog]

I particularly like Sam’s reviews because more often than not they give evidence of the type of mechanism used.

[Eddie the dog]

Can I just ask for a recommended mat varnish to use on the safety valve bonnet ?

Have no idea whether they will react or not with gold finish, brushable please.

[Black 5 Bear]

4 minutes ago, Eddie the dog said:

I particularly like Sam’s reviews because more often than not they give evidence of the type of mechanism used.

Unfortunately, he does have a habit of getting it wrong in quite a few instances.

If you back track on some of his presentations, he actually contradicts himself.

A review on the Bachmann O4 and the GWR ROD 2.8.0, which both share the same motor/mechanism is a prime example.

[Miss Prism]

29 minutes ago, Eddie the dog said:

I particularly like Sam’s reviews because more often than not they give evidence of the type of mechanism used.

 

Yes, to an extent, and it is one of Sam's strengths, but he has blind spots, and his lack of mentioning gear ratio (which is an elementary characteristic of any chassis) is worrying. He'll learn though. That said, the mags don't mention gear ratio either, which is inexcusable in my opinion for a professional context.

 

[The Stationmaster]

23 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 
Sorry,opinions expressed in such a manner can and frequently are damaging and can be commercially hurtful.Yes his expressed opinion of the Hornby model takes no prisoners.He is using a review of a rival product in a competitive manner and loses no opportunity to have a pop at Hornby. Yes,agree with him in whatever you may. I find it both unpleasant and gratuitously unnecessary to use some of the strong terms that he does. So Khris,you and I disagree on the matter . Sorry again for that. 

He also implies (and almost says outright) that the Hornby model was produced to counter the Dapol announcement which is a load of total nonsense because the Hornby model had been in development for well over a year before Dapol announced theirs and showed the atrocious CAD of a 'bitsa' prairie.  Why release of the Hrnby model was delayed i don't know but strangely a Brighton Terrier happened to appear at the time the prairie would have gone into production a little late in Hornby's normal development & production cycle.  The Hornby one very definitely came first but was announced in their then usual way.

 

BTW it might be me or it might be the angle of filming but it looks as if the front footplate dropped section and the buffers on his Dapol model are pointing slightly upwards.  And of course it has a number of detail shortcomings which I have listed elsewhere on RMweb although it's not alone in that respect among r-t-r models.

[Ian Hargrave]

23 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

He also implies (and almost says outright) that the Hornby model was produced to counter the Dapol announcement which is a load of total nonsense because the Hornby model had been in development for well over a year before Dapol announced theirs and showed the atrocious CAD of a 'bitsa' prairie.  Why release of the Hrnby model was delayed i don't know but strangely a Brighton Terrier happened to appear at the time the prairie would have gone into production a little late in Hornby's normal development & production cycle.  The Hornby one very definitely came first but was announced in their then usual way.

 

BTW it might be me or it might be the angle of filming but it looks as if the front footplate dropped section and the buffers on his Dapol model are pointing slightly upwards.  And of course it has a number of detail shortcomings which I have listed elsewhere on RMweb although it's not alone in that respect among r-t-r models.

And imply is enough to land him in serious trouble. That tirade should not have happened. And the assumption that the Hornby model was done in response to Dapol’s,as we both know,is a complete fiction ( I could have used a stronger word ) 

 

[Miss Prism]

5 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

( I could have used a stronger word )

 

Awww, go on Ian, you know you want to say boll*cks, so feel free. But if you feel some of Sam's pronouncements are somewhat lacking in factual basis, you should read some of the comments on his youtube page!!

 

 

 

 

[Ian Hargrave]

Too polite to express myself thus in our exclusive gents club.Thanks for the translation expressing the hidden meaning. I once did trawl through his comments page. Not the best of reads.

[tomparryharry]

Sam is not bad, but a disclaimer on his part might help. If you're doing tests, then provide a 'standard test load' and make sure any haulage tests are either 'minus' test load', or 'plus' test load. Sam described some livery as washed out, seeing as an working example last ran in 1965 (not, I repeat not, a tarted up job; a real one), how would he honestly know? If Sam derides another product without facts to back it up, he might be headed for, as they say, 'Deep Sh1t'. 

 

I think audio visual art carries the same legal penalties as other factual mediums, so choosing ones words should be the guiding principle.   

[rembrow]

2 hours ago, Eddie the dog said:

Can I just ask for a recommended mat varnish to use on the safety valve bonnet ?

Have no idea whether they will react or not with gold finish, brushable please.

I used Testors Dulcote, which although a spray  I regularly use brushed by spraying some into a can lid. It is not sticky like some varnishes, and brushes on easily.

[Eddie the dog]

Thanks Rembrow 

[rembrow]

3 minutes ago, Eddie the dog said:

Thanks Rembrow 

You're welcome. I should also have said that Dulcote leaves an even sheen finish, which can be made more matt by additional coats. I used one coat, which has left a satin sheen comparable with the green and black finish.

[Pacific231G]

On 02/12/2021 at 12:03, melmerby said:

Should be the standard Gill Sans, which is supposedly this:

 

 

BRITISH RAILWAYS

We need to be a bit cautious about this as a digital font, like this TrueType example,  will simply scale itself to any desired size whereas a human designer, like those who worked for British Railways, will optimise the weight and style of a typeface to  produce a specific font for a particular size.  I'd be interested in what any graphic  designers amongst us have to say about this, but the same basic typeface optimised for the printed page will be rather different from a display size font used for painting on the side of a locomotive or tender. 

 

Most of us using computers (starting with Apple) tend to use the terms font and typeface interchangeably but there is a real difference. The  typeface is the design whereas the font (from the French fonte meaning cast in metal) was, in traditional letterpress printing, the specific type at a particular point size.  A computer can take a font in vector form and simply reproduce it at any size you like but it will only be optimal for a small range of sizes when printed or displayed. 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Pacific231G

[Harlequin]

30 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

We need to be a bit cautious about this as a digital font, like this TrueType example,  will simply scale itself to any desired size whereas a human designer, like those who worked for British Railways, will optimise the weight and style of a typeface to  produce a specific font for a particular size.  I'd be interested in what any graphic  designers amongst us have to say about this, but the same basic typeface optimised for the printed page will likely be different from a display size font used for painting on the side of a locomotive or tender. 

Yes I basically agree and note that the tail of the R is more pronounced in the digital font(s) we are using than appears in the period photos of real locos. So this looks like exactly what you are talking about - the signwriter may have decided that the tail is too extreme and adjusted it.

(I say fonts because I have two versions of Gill Sans installed, one of which I paid money for, that's how sad I am!).

 

Some fonts have Alternate versions of letters but I couldn't find an Alternate R in either of my Gill Sans fonts.

 

In my version of the logo I simulated some signwriting features: I tracked the letters, i.e. spaced them out and applied a small line width, which gives the letters a very slightly fatter look than the basic font - both using photos from gwr.org.uk as a guide for the changes. (The "British Railways" lettering might have been transfers, of course, but a signwriter or some equivalent designer would have created the transfers in the first place.)

 

However, even with the accepted differences between the signwriter's art and modern digital typography, our Gill Sans versions are closer to the real thing than Dapol's artwork, IMHO.

 

30 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

A computer can take a font in vector form and simply reproduce it at any size you like but it will only be optimal for a small range of sizes when printed or displayed. 

Any designer worth his or her salt would always apply some tweaks and fine-tuning to make text look "right" at large sizes.

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Harlequin

[Pacific231G]

47 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Yes I basically agree and note that the tail of the R is more pronounced in the digital font(s) we are using than appears in the period photos of real locos. So this looks like exactly what you are talking about - the signwriter may have decided that the tail is too extreme and adjusted it.

(I say fonts I have two versions of Gill Sans installed, one of which I paid money for!).

 

Some fonts some with Alternate versions of letters but I couldn't find an Alternate R in either of my fonts.

 

In my version of the logo I simulated some signwriting features: I tracked the letters, i.e. spaced them out and applied a small line width, which gives the letters a very slightly fatter look than the basic font - both using photos from gwr.org.uk as a guide for the changes.

 

However, even with the accepted differences between the signwriter's art and modern digital typography, our Gill Sans versions are closer to the real thing than Dapol's artwork, IMHO.

 

Any designer worth his or her salt would always apply some tweaks and fine-tuning to make text look "right" at large sizes.

 

I discovered something similar when creating authentic looking station name boards for my French layout. I managed to get hold of a truetype version of SNCF's early official typeface (used for signage and rolling stock lettering that had been mandated for all railways some years before nationalisation) This is a very geometrical "drawing office" typeface but even so I found that it just didn't agree with what I was seeing on the side of actual stations (mostly closed ones so unaffected by modern branding) with Rs and Qs in particular notably different,  or even on images of the lettering on rolling stock. I soon realised that "police SNCF" (police means font in this context) was actually based on the printed fonts that had been used to create things like timetable sheets. The display versions used for larger lettering were significantly different even though following the same basic letterforms.

 

I think this does also echo another question which is whether scaling alone will produce a model that looks convincingly like the real thing. Colour scaling is well known and if you scale a texture the light will strike it differently but does this apply elsewhere and is this where the aesthetic skill of a model designer really comes in?

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Pacific231G

[melmerby]

On 03/12/2021 at 14:52, Harlequin said:

 

I say fonts because I have two versions of Gill Sans installed, one of which I paid money for, that's how sad I am!

Some fonts have Alternate versions of letters but I couldn't find an Alternate R in either of my Gill Sans fonts.

 

 

 

Likewise (actually 3 different versions of basic Gill Sans)

Many of my fonts have come with various paid for programs starting with Windows 3.1 & Coreldraw 3 Then Coreldraw 4, Coredraw 6 & most recently 2014)

Coreldraw included lots.

 

I also found the 'free' disks with mags were a good source, one (I can't remember which) actually gave loads of fonts in small chunks over a period of time.

The free programs on the disks also often had custom fonts, I just stripped them out.

There also used to be foundries selling particular font families but many have disappeared due to the availability of free clones.

 

I now have several thousand, some are almost identical and the total includes bold, compact, italic and various combinations thereof.

Well

This more unusual type is one of a set of 10 Egyptian heiroglyph fonts:

If anyone's interested, they are digitized versions of Gardner's Egyptian typeface.

Edited April 7, 2022 by melmerby

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Likewise (actually 3 different versions of basic Gill Sans)

Many of my fonts have come with various paid for programs starting with Windows 3.1 & Coreldraw 3 Then Coreldraw 4, Coredraw 6 & most recently 2014)

Coreldraw included lots.

Blimey your well up to date, I still have sheets of Letraset of varying sizes and typeface from publishing days………but unfortunately now most sheets just fall into dusty specks when handled!

 

I really must clear some draws out 

[Oldddudders]

37 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Blimey your well up to date, I still have sheets of Letraset of varying sizes and typeface from publishing days………but unfortunately now most sheets just fall into dusty specks when handled!

 

I really must clear some draws out 

Elderly transfers benefit from a spray of varnish before being used - would Letraset respond similarly? Not worth not trying?