Are reviews of new models independent or not?

[rogerzilla]

The reviews by the most notorious YouTuber do appear to be independent, although limited in scope and with little interest in, or knowledge of, the prototype.  He certainly slags off the bad models mercilessly.

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

And does it apply to original loco drawings - yes in some cases and that is where the need for corroboration from reliably dated photos comes.  But for some one working against tight deadlines and with other jobs to do as well towards that deadline such research can be difficult.  which is why - it time permits - it can sometimes be useful to 'phone a friend'.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, melmoth said:

 

This reminds me of an article by Stephen Williams in RM in the early 80s where he rebuilt a poorly constructed Wills King kit. Among other things, he corrected the shape of the cabside windows because, although the kit appeared to have been based on Swindon drawings (as reproduced in Russell), the drawings of the windows did not look anything like photos of the windows in real life.

 

 

 

The classic case is the old Hornby Class 29, especially its cab front.

 

I can see no explanation for the weird melange of headcode box and nose doors unless Hornby had access to a drawing of an NBL Type 2 as built on which someone had overdrawn the revised features added during rebuilding to a 29.

 

Having cleaned these up twice (once in one direction to a 29 and once in the other  to a Pilot Batch NBL Type 2 ) it's the only explanation I can thionk of for the state of the bodyshell.

 

In the other direction there is occasional comment that possibly the roof of the Hornby 153 is not right. But in the absence of any drawings for the things in the public domain , no one can measure basic things like height of the sides and total height of the vehicle to see if there is a problem.

 

But as it was an article of faith among D+E modellers that scale drawings are a snare and a delusion, a large class of vehicle has been in widespread service for over 30 years without anyone ever bothering to make basic dimensions available . Consequently nobody really has a clue if anything is wrong : it looks good "and the detail is there!" It's only a unit after all.

 

Which is why we now have a 5th and 6th OO class 37 model since 2000 being released and long vicious feuds have been fought over the subject, but nobody much cares that the Bachmann 101 is flawed in the bodyside and the ex Lima model is somewhat representational (If you try adding a destination blind you soon find that the cab ends are all over the place dimensionally. They are artist's impressions, not accurate models)

 

The contrast between the way models of certain diesel locos have been picked over, and the casual way Bachmann's DMUs (especially the Sprinters and post privatisation units) were simply waved through on trust is stark. I'm not clear why Bachmann have retooled the body of the 158 , because nobody ever seems to have discussed whether the the first version was totally accurate or not. "Looks good, must be right, no need to discuss further!"

[ardbealach]

There are comments on this thread about basic errors with the model of the Fell   I cannot comment on the rights or wrongs of the perceived faults.  I know nothing about this particular model. But surely the test is this. 

 

If it is a must that you must have that model of the Fell on your layout do you still purchase it despite knowing its faults?  And do you take into account the reviews in the model press? Or do you walk on by and not make the purchase because the faults are too much for your sensitivities and you end up not having the model you must have. (Alisdair) 

[andyman7]

9 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

A lot depends on how "wrong" something is. On this very forum, I've read about diesels that "look nothing like a Class XXX" - when they obviously do, or at least they look more like the class than (say) a model of Flying Scotsman. Hyperbole is popular online, but less so in print, as posters queue up to be the most offended.

 

Even this is subjective. It is possible to factually prove the degree to which this or that feature may deviate from the prototype but the conclusion about how acceptable this will be is up to potential purchasers. The first release Heljan Class 86 is a case in point; I have a lifetimes' familiarity with the real thing and whilst Heljan haven't got it quite right, I've been happy to hang on to my version as it is OK for me.

 

12 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

The classic case is the old Hornby Class 29, especially its cab front.

 

I can see no explanation for the weird melange of headcode box and nose doors unless Hornby had access to a drawing of an NBL Type 2 as built on which someone had overdrawn the revised features added during rebuilding to a 29.

 

Having cleaned these up twice (once in one direction to a 29 and once in the other  to a Pilot Batch NBL Type 2 ) it's the only explanation I can thionk of for the state of the bodyshell.

 

In the other direction there is occasional comment that possibly the roof of the Hornby 153 is not right. But in the absence of any drawings for the things in the public domain , no one can measure basic things like height of the sides and total height of the vehicle to see if there is a problem.

 

But as it was an article of faith among D+E modellers that scale drawings are a snare and a delusion, a large class of vehicle has been in widespread service for over 30 years without anyone ever bothering to make basic dimensions available . Consequently nobody really has a clue if anything is wrong : it looks good "and the detail is there!" It's only a unit after all.

 

Which is why we now have a 5th and 6th OO class 37 model since 2000 being released and long vicious feuds have been fought over the subject, but nobody much cares that the Bachmann 101 is flawed in the bodyside and the ex Lima model is somewhat representational (If you try adding a destination blind you soon find that the cab ends are all over the place dimensionally. They are artist's impressions, not accurate models)

 

The contrast between the way models of certain diesel locos have been picked over, and the casual way Bachmann's DMUs (especially the Sprinters and post privatisation units) were simply waved through on trust is stark. I'm not clear why Bachmann have retooled the body of the 158 , because nobody ever seems to have discussed whether the the first version was totally accurate or not. "Looks good, must be right, no need to discuss further!"

A good example - the 1970s-originated Class 29 is a real bodge up; as a toy train set engine acceptable but as anything approaching a scale model it fell way short of prototype fidelity on just about every measure - mixed up ends; not a single version presented in correct livery; roof and bodyside errors. By contrast any debate about the 153 will be on the margins and as an RTR model of the prototype it is a very reasonable effort.

[RichardT]

18 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

 

Or a Wild Swan with issues.....

 

Look, I know this isn't funny or clever, and that it would only makes things more fraught for the great and the good around here, but it would be sooo nice to have a "pontificating nonsense" reaction button thingummy, or "waffling cobblers", or "mind numbingly detailed" or, well you get my drift...

 

Sorry!

I was starting to think that I was the only one who felt that some of the more metaphorical comments in this thread sounded like Jack Dee’s “explanation” of the rules of One Song To The Tune of Another in “I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue”.

 

And if anyone doesn’t know what I’m talking about there, feel free to hit the “waffling cobblers” button. 
 

Waffling Cobblers, of course, being an unplayable stop in Mornington Crescent, but only if you are in nip.

 

RichardT

Edited January 7, 2023 by RichardT
English

[Dagworth]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

but nobody much cares that the Bachmann 101 is flawed in the bodyside

the sole reason I've not bought Bachmann 101s, and I could really do with a few!

 

Andi

[BachelorBoy]

You can judge how independent a publication may be editorially, by 1) looking at the range of advertisers and how much they advertise, and 2) seeing how much competition there is editorially. In other words, how much does the publication need an advertiser, and how much does an advertiser need the publication.

 

In an extreme case, If there's just one advertiser, then that advertiser has enormous power over the publication. If it doesn't like articles/reviews etc then it can withdraw its advertising, and potentially put the publication out of business. 

 

And if there's just one publication in that particular niche, the advertiser may not have much choice but to advertise in that publication.

 

 

[jjb1970]

Something to keep in mind is the change in standards. Not so long ago manufacturers would select a prototype which was a good generic representative of a class and that'd be it. Where there were major visual differences (centre headvcode, split head code box for example) they might do separate tooling but the models were largely still generic and if people really wanted to go down to nitty gritty locomotive specific details then they used an RTR model as a base to do some modelling. Now the market expects (demands) prototype specific details and that models should be a fully accurate replica of a defined vehicle. Not just a class, not just a sub-class but now people want it to represent an actual vehicle. Which must make research and development much more expensive, necessitate much more complex sets of tooling and make reviewing more difficult as how many people can honestly claim to know how a specific class 37 or 47 might differ from other members of the class? Time is another dimension just like length once you demand a specific prototype be accurately reproduced (i.e. at what point in its life do you want it?).

This extends to research. Any long lived complex asset evolves over its life. Drawings and documentation could be 'as designed' or 'as built' (there can be huge differences between those documents) but unless it's a major rebuild the reference documents will probably not reflect minor changes made through life. And it's worth keeping in mind that document packages are primarily there for the benefit of the manufacturers, operators, maintenance departments and in some cases regulatory bodies. What those people need from drawings is not what a model enthusiast needs. If my experience in maritime is anything to go by the drawings which are used and considered useful don't have anything that would be remotely interesting to anyone modelling a ships (piping and instrumentation drawings (P&ID), isometric drawings of pipe systems, single line electrical drawings, mass-elastic drawings, shell plate drawings, alignment drawings showing things like bearing position and offset etc), what the ship looked like was basically irrelevant. And I'm guessing this will be reflected in archives. So making a modelling is part engineering and part art, even with archive research, a scan and drawings if you want an accurate model of a specific vehicle it also needs photographs or access to that actual machine. And that is before going down the rabbit hole of scaling, what compromises are necessary to make a model that both looks accurate and works, colour reproduction etc. So there is always going to be an element of subjectivity.

[Robin Brasher]

10 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

The reviews by the most notorious YouTuber do appear to be independent, although limited in scope and with little interest in, or knowledge of, the prototype.  He certainly slags off the bad models mercilessly.

If I have identified him correctly he has drawn my attention to production faults In models that the magazine reviews I have read have not.

 

Examples are the 00 gauge Bachmann N class derailing at the slightest provocation and the H class motor burning out after it has run in.  Both products have been repaired for me by the manufacturers free of charge. I returned the N class way outside the guarantee period because I thought the fault was caused by my poor tracklaying.

 

I am more interested in running my models than counting rivets and most of the new models are accurate representations of the prototype.

 

I also agree with the YouTuber about the excessive prices for certain models whereas the magazines do not seem to comment about this aspect. For instance the production costs of a TT:120 4-6-2 are probably much the same as an 00 gauge model yet the 00 gauge models are considerably more expensive especially if they are 'Hornby Dublo' models

[rogerzilla]

Yes, the magazines usually put the RRP in very small text somewhere and don't talk about value for money.  The real scandal is when very old tooling is used to crank out another batch of models but the price goes up to the same as a freshly-tooled model.  The Bachmann Ivatt 2MT tank is a case in point.

[Robin Brasher]

A well known YouTuber did mention the high price of a new version of the Ivatt 2-6-2T.

 

I wonder how many magazine reviews will comment about the high prices that Hornby will charge for 'City of London' and 'Golden Fleece' when they come out.  The standard response here is you don't have to buy them if you cannot afford them. The problem is that if you want a specific Princess Coronation or A4 there is no alternative yet but to pre-order them from Hornby. I wonder if a smaller manufacturer will produce better quality models at a lower price as it has done with diesels.

[Chris M]

I think the magazine reviews are fine. Most are quite glowing nowadays but then most new models are very good indeed nowadays. I like to see the comparison of dimensions to the real thing and notes about when it was in what condition. It is important that a price is included in reviews but it must be up to the reader to decide if that price represents good value for money as each person will see this differently. Whilst I like to read the reviews I find seeing the actual model is far more important. Sometimes a model will get a right tattering on social media (eg the N gauge Dapol class 50) but when I see it I think it looks fine. I bought three class 50s and still love them. Just occasionally a model will be well received but somehow not look convincing to me and I will leave it. Mind you no model looks convincing until it has had a bit of weathering. Magazine reviews are a useful source of good quality information and social media can also be useful but is more variable in quality. Seeing the actual model with your own eyes is by far the best way of knowing whether it should grace your layout of not. I saw the Sonic large prairie sample and pre-ordered one a few days later, no need to wait for a magazine review but I will still read the reviews with interest when they arrive. If anything most reviews will confirm that pre-ordering an item was a good decision. 

[BMacdermott]

12 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

However, as so often can be the case, unless you happen to know from experience or even from other original source material the provenance of a primary source you can find yourself taking a trip up a garden path.   And in the busy life of many reviewers - as we've read above - it can sometimes be an open trap for the unwary.

 

Hello everyone

 

I had a case of 'primary source' documentation sending me 'up a garden path'. A large, grubby notebook entitled (something like) Bath Shed Coaling Stage Record came into the hands of the S&DRHT and I was asked to look at it.

 

For a while, we thought we had struck gold. There were dates, loco numbers, driver names etc.

 

I started to work a way through it...then anomalies started to accrue. And accrue...

 

It wasn't long before it became evident that some of the entries were spot on while others were - shall we say - hypothetical (some of the locos could be proven to have been miles away or even in works!).

 

Literally no-one in S&D circles - particularly surviving footplate staff of the era - had any knowledge of the book or any system of recording. A total mystery!

 

Just shows that research is as easy as A, B,  C...

 

Assume nothing

Believe nothing

Check everything

 

That's part of the fun but doesn't help a reviewer working against a deadline.

 

Brian

 

 

 

 

[RichardT]

26 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

The problem is that if you want a specific Princess Coronation or A4 there is no alternative

Or buy another model, re-number and re-name.  At the risk of realising that I’ve turned into an old fart, this used to be regarded as the very first baby step from buying rtr into actual railway modelling. When did we become so helpless?

(Apologies Robin - you were just expressing a straight-forward point of view which happened to hit one of my idée fixes. No offence intended.)

 

RichardT

(obviously in need of coffee)

Edited January 7, 2023 by RichardT
Realising I’d been a bit rude.

[Robin Brasher]

12 minutes ago, RichardT said:

Or buy another model, re-number and re-name.  At the risk of realising that I’ve turned into an old fart, this used to be regarded as the very first baby step from buying rtr into actual railway modelling. When did we become so helpless?

(Apologies Robin - you were just expressing a straight-forward point of view which happened to hit one of my idée fixes. No offence intended.)

 

RichardT

(obviously in need of coffee)

12 minutes ago, RichardT said:

Or buy another model, re-number and re-name.  At the risk of realising that I’ve turned into an old fart, this used to be regarded as the very first baby step from buying rtr into actual railway modelling. When did we become so helpless?

 

RichardT

(obviously in need of coffee)

No offence taken.  I don't know much about LMS and LNER Pacifics but I found out out too late that I cannot do this with Southern Pacific locomotive because each one is different. I renamed about five and then found out they had different cabs and tenders. At a meeting with Simon Kohler at Wimborne we did suggest that he produced unnamed locomotives but he said words to the effect that if you have seen the mess people made with locomotives when Hornby did supply three alternative names he would not want to do this.

 

No-one made my favourite A4 'Golden Shuttle' in LNER blue so I bought some nameplates and transfers and then Hornby bought out their 'Golden Shuttle' in the Railroad range which I bought a few years ago for around £70. As the prototype did not have much lining this model looks as good to me as a main range model.

 

Trying to get back to topic in a review of all that years models the Railroad A4 had a better review than the more expensive Bachmann A4 so that is an example of a good independent review.

 

Incidentally I have been struggling to write this as there is a huge advertisement of a model locomotive blocking half my screen.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I think Richard (in need of coffee, above) makes a good point. Whatever happened to the "modelling" aspect of model railways? We all want everything now. And we want our particular version of it. Can I have the City of London exactly in the condition when I saw it in 1964, please?

Too much "straight out of the box" and onto the layout. Part of the joy of modelling is adding ones own imprint onto RTR stuff. 

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

Topic drift??

 

Brian

[Robin Brasher]

ok. If a manufacturer made a model of 'Eddystone' which was less well engineered than a Hornby Dublo West Country and charged £250 I expect any magazine would give a glowing review and make no comment about the price.

 

I enclose a picture of a Hornby Dublo 'Barnstaple' that I have ruined its second hand value by renaming it 'Eddystone' which has run on the Swanage Railway that I am modelling.

 

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, Robin Brasher said:

A well known YouTuber did mention the high price of a new version of the Ivatt 2-6-2T.

 

I wonder how many magazine reviews will comment about the high prices that Hornby will charge for 'City of London' and 'Golden Fleece' when they come out.  The standard response here is you don't have to buy them if you cannot afford them. The problem is that if you want a specific Princess Coronation or A4 there is no alternative yet but to pre-order them from Hornby. I wonder if a smaller manufacturer will produce better quality models at a lower price as it has done with diesels.

 

Aren't they limited edition Hornby Dublo models aimed at collectors though?

 

If you want a Hornby A4 or Duchess there are plenty about at half that price. I just bought the Hornby Collectors Club version of Coronation and it was £135 after the 15% Club discount.

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

5 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

Yes, the magazines usually put the RRP in very small text somewhere and don't talk about value for money.  The real scandal is when very old tooling is used to crank out another batch of models but the price goes up to the same as a freshly-tooled model.  The Bachmann Ivatt 2MT tank is a case in point.

 

How often do you pay RRP though?

 

I don't think I've paid RRP on anything apart from things like magazines and newspapers which have set prices for decades.

 

Brand new Ivatt for £140.95.  BTW it got a new chassis recently. 

 

https://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/72381/31-442-Bachmann-LMS-Ivatt-2MT-Tank-1205-LMS-Black-(Revised)

 

 

Take Sam's reviews with a massive pinch of salt as he does hatchet jobs on models he doesn't get for free. He's hardly independent. Bachmann Hall for example. "Worst model ever!", it's not even the worst RTR model of a Hall.....

 

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

2 hours ago, Robin Brasher said:

ok. If a manufacturer made a model of 'Eddystone' which was less well engineered than a Hornby Dublo West Country and charged £250 I expect any magazine would give a glowing review and make no comment about the price.

 

I enclose a picture of a Hornby Dublo 'Barnstaple' that I have ruined its second hand value by renaming it 'Eddystone' which has run on the Swanage Railway that I am modelling.

 

 

The current Hornby WC is on a different planet to that old toy even though it's now dated. I half expect a new one to appear next week, it's only a matter of time.

 

Photo borrowed from Hattons.

 

 

Jason

[BachelorBoy]

31 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Take Sam's reviews with a massive pinch of salt as he does hatchet jobs on models he doesn't get for free. He's hardly independent. 

 

 

Why does that make him "hardly independent"? Surely if he's buying the locos himself, he's completely independent.

 

[eldomtom2]

2 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

He's not though. He's punishing the manufacturers that don't play his game of giving him freebies, by leaving bad reviews of their models. It's a minor form of extortion.

Do you have any actual proof for this claim?

[BachelorBoy]

3 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

He's not though. He's punishing the manufacturers that don't play his game of giving him freebies, by leaving bad reviews of their models. It's a minor form of extortion.

 

Also people that watch his videos are paying as well. Click bait pure and simple. Worth remembering every view of his videos earns him money.

 

But to be honest I can't be bothered discussing the muppet. It's been done to death on here and I don't want the thread locked.

 

 

 

Jason

 

 

Your comments sound defamatory. I'd delete them if I were you.

 

[Steamport Southport]

10 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

Do you have any actual proof for this claim?

 

Watch the videos. That's clear proof. As I said I won't discuss it further.

 

 

Jason