Are reviews of new models independent or not?

[Steamport Southport]

10 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

 

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

 

 

Please don't patronise me.

 

Maybe look at your post earlier in the thread for defamation. You are virtually accusing magazines of being in the pockets of the advertisers.

 

12 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

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.

 

 

 

As I said I won't discuss the Womble any further and anyone watching his videos should be aware that his account is monetised. Fact.

[rogerzilla]

14 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

 

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

 

My understanding is that he buys them all with his own money.  After the way he's laid into Hornby, Bachmann and (especially) Heljan, none of those would be likely to give him the steam off their, well, you know.

Edited January 7, 2023 by rogerzilla
typo

[Phil Parker]

3 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

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

 

 

Jason

No, that is your opinion. I doubt very much if it would stand up in a court, which is where potentially libelous statements such as this, could lead you.

[jjb1970]

There's a fundamental difference between holding an opinion we disagree with and being corrupt or abusing a position. It'd be a dull and boring world if we all thought the same and nobody ever disagreed.

[fulton]

Reviews, independant or otherwise, are only a guide, make your own judgement, a model I want I will probably buy even with a poor review, a model with a fantastic review, which I do not want I will not buy. Once having bought a new car, I later read a review which basically said it was rubbish, had that car for seven years and was very pleased with it.

[JDW]

I do think sometimes reading some of the posts on RMWeb, some people seem a bit quick to want to assume malice or intention where it's likely there is none, or at least not the the extent imagined. But who doesn't love a good conspiracy?! 

 

I fully appreciate the difficulties of reviewing products, and in my own job have similar difficulties sometimes, i.e. trying to say that something isn't as good as it could be, without upsetting our advertisers. It's a difficult balance, but there are ways and means of saying things, and we can usually get the message across. Likewise, some good points made about the time and resources available. I tend to ask the manufacturer to review a text for accuracy before we print a piece, partly because they know the product best and will spot inaccuracies (and to my mind, what I write is both an interesting feature but also a historical record, whether I intend it to be or not) so they are best placed for that. In such a niche field (possibly more so that railway modelling), finding others with the expertise to proofread both grammar and content is very difficult - although my colleagues in the office who deal with the commercial side of our business often say they'll help if ever it's needed, it's pointless to an extent as they might know good English, but not the technical or operational subject matter at hand.

 

I do think we forget that RMWeb is probably skewed towards the 'high' or 'discerning' end of the market sometimes. For many people, a model that looks substantially like the real thing is perfectly fine, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think we often confuse the issue of whether something is good enough to please the mass market with whether the manufacturer could have made it better, although at the same time, the two questions are often intrinsically linked, especially where obvious design errors (let's use the KR Fell's roof as an example) crop up. 

 

Someone mentioned DMUs a few pages back, and I think that's a good point. I just "accidentally" bought another Bachmann WYPTE 158, the old version. No doubt, it's not as shiny as the new model, and I can spot a few faults - the bulbous LED lights, the knuckle-style dummy coupling, exhaust stack that ends level with the lower bodyside, wrong roof detail for some liveries... if it were a loco, heaven help us a 37 or 47, people would have been slating the manufacturer the day it was released 20-odd years ago. Does it run well? Yes, excellently (well, in general, I haven't tested the new one yet!). Does it look largely like what it should look like? Yes. Would most people be happy with it? I imagine so. And I think in a lot of cases, it's the same. People moan about prices, yet initiatives (I won't go into specific models or whether it could have been done better) like "Design Clever" which aim to reduce cost and deliver models that are perfectly adequate for many are mocked or knocked while prices for things with detail to the nth degree go ever higher. There are a lot of generally good models out there - I'd say most things produced in the last 20 years would pass the 'three feet' test for most people - but from some threads you'd never know it. Of course, that doesn't excuse sloppy design, and I'd say the water filler port or whatever it is being at the wrong end of the roof on the KR Fell probably falls into that category, but we could probably have a hundred pages on where to draw the line between what is and isn't acceptable as a compromise in manufacturing and reach no consensus. 

[D9020 Nimbus]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

As I said I won't discuss the Womble any further and anyone watching his videos should be aware that his account is monetised. Fact.

All accounts on YouTube where Google adverts are shown are monetised. This includes mostly every channel with sufficient subscribers. The only exceptions I can think of are manufacturer channels—Hornby, Bachmann, PECO—and Hornby Magazine which carries adverts for model shops but not Google ads.

 

AFAIK Sam buys all the trains with his own moneY. Where there is any other sponsorship involved — for example "affiliate links” — it's always made clear. Given he never covers 009 or N, they're not generally of much use to me. It is, however, one of the few places where you can find reviews of Model Rail specials, for example.

 

I haven't seen any reviews of TT yet. Sam said he was covering it, but hasn't yet done so. It would at least tell me how the loco performed with a decent controller — the unboxing videos using the Hornby train set controller aren't much use in that respect. The other thing I'd like to know is what compromises have been made, especially given the difficulty in other scales of getting the width correct, particularly in a loco with splashers and NEM flanges. That will have to await a magazine review—but I haven’t seen any yet. Are Hornby actually sending out samples? They do have a past history of not doing so, after all.

[AY Mod]

8 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Are Hornby actually sending out samples? They do have a past history of not doing so, after all.

 

We haven't received anything for review at BRM.

[Nearholmer]

I do wonder what people want a review to tell them, or put another way, what criteria should a reviewer use?

 

Much of this thread is about the minutiae of cosmetic details, but my first question would be something along the lines “Does it work properly?”, which I suppose decomposes into things like:

 

- response to controller;

- ability to haul loads commensurate with the prototype over stated gradients;

- ability to negotiate stated curves and pointwork without getting in a tangle, stalling etc;

- ideally something about reliability, or failing that then at least robustness and quality of finish of mechanism by inspection;

- …… that sort of thing.

 

After that “Does it look like the prototype?”, which again can be decomposed into things such as;

 

- scale accuracy of leading dimensions;

- replication of difficult/complex/subtle shapes, which has often caught out designers even recently;

- extent, accuracy, and robustness of fine detailing;

- quality of application of livery, including colour boundaries;

- accuracy of colouring, lettering, insignia etc;

- ….. etc.

 

And finally “How much will this set me back?”.

 

If a review tells me those things honestly, and the longer ones in RM and BRM for instance generally get pretty close although IMO there is a tendency to sometimes under-do the “Does it work properly?” bit, then to me it seems useful.

 

I don’t think a review should ever comment on value for money because , like beauty, that is in the eye of the beholder.

 

As a PS, I’d say that you chaps who buy r-t-r 00 and “fine scale” 0 are spoiled, because you get reviews to read. Those of us that pursue the obscure niche of r-t-r Coarse-0 get none! Conversely, the commissioners of things for our niche are all known individuals, and boy do they get direct feedback if they bring a dud to market (one commissioner/maker quit the niche in part because of robust feedback about terrible QC on their loco mechanisms).

 

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Jol Wilkinson]

I don't buy RTR models (I model the LNWR in P4 so there has been very little that fits my needs) and rarely read the "mainstream magazines as they have little of interest to me.

 

Where I have, I found new product reviews very positive with little or no objective criticism. Some were quite sycophantic and full of praise. So it wouldn't be difficult to assume that there was a cosy relationship between the magazines and the manufacturers. That may be well wide of the mark and would be effectively discredited if something was genuinely and objectively criticised occasionally. Of course it may be that the review models were absolutely perfect.

 

Now that some new releases include pre-group models, it would be good to read a review that covered the possibility of converting to EM/P4 and replacing the tension lock couplings with something less obtrusive, fitting sprung buffers, etc. to further upgrade these excellent models. I noticed with some recent wagon releases the photos, presumably supplied by the manufacturers, had no couplings or had 3 link instanters, although the text did refer to tension locks.

[Phil Parker]

8 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Where I have, I found new product reviews very positive with little or no objective criticism. Some were quite sycophantic and full of praise. So it wouldn't be difficult to assume that there was a cosy relationship between the magazines and the manufacturers. That may be well wide of the mark and would be effectively discredited if something was genuinely and objectively criticised occasionally. Of course it may be that the review models were absolutely perfect.

 

There have been several examples of this already on this thread.

 

8 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Now that some new releases include pre-group models, it would be good to read a review that covered the possibility of converting to EM/P4 and replacing the tension lock couplings with something less obtrusive, fitting sprung buffers, etc. to further upgrade these excellent models.

 

Because EM/P4 modellers only model pre-grouping? Odd, I'm sure I've photographed some P4 layout that were set in the BR period. I must be mistaken.

 

Coupling replacement, other than pulling things out of the NEM pocket, replacing buffers and other modifications, isn't a review, it's a seperate project. We often hang on to models to do just that as a follow-up. Ultimatly though, mainstream magazine reviews are aimed at average modellers, not a small minority who "rarely read the "mainstream magazines as they have little of interest to me" and there's only so much page space for all the models that appear as it is.

[Robin Brasher]

24 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I do wonder what people want a review to tell them, or put another way, what criteria should a reviewer use?

 

Much of this thread is about the minutiae of cosmetic details, but my first question would be something along the lines “Does it work properly?”, which I suppose decomposes into things like:

 

- response to controller;

- ability to haul loads commensurate with the prototype over stated gradients;

- ability to negotiate stated curves and pointwork without getting in a tangle, stalling etc;

- ideally something about reliability, or failing that then at least robustness and quality of finish of mechanism by inspection;

- …… that sort of thing.

 

After that “Does it look like the prototype?”, which again can be decomposed into things such as;

 

- scale accuracy of leading dimensions;

- replication of difficult/complex/subtle shapes, which has often caught out designers even recently;

- extent, accuracy, and robustness of fine detailing;

- quality of application of livery, including colour boundaries;

- accuracy of colouring, lettering, insignia etc;

- ….. etc.

 

And finally “How much will this set me back?”.

 

If a review tells me those things honestly, and the longer ones in RM and BRM for instance generally get pretty close although IMO there is a tendency to sometimes under-do the “Does it work properly?” bit, then to me it seems useful.

 

I don’t think a review should ever comment on value for money because , like beauty, that is in the eye of the beholder.

 

As a PS, I’d say that you chaps who buy r-t-r 00 and “fine scale” 0 are spoiled, because you get reviews to read. Those of us that pursue the obscure niche of r-t-r Coarse-0 get none! Conversely, the commissioners of things for our niche are all known individuals, and boy do they get direct feedback if they bring a dud to market.

 

 

If you want a review of coarse scale O gauge you need to ask the person who owns one, I have got an Ace Q class 0-6-0 and it is brilliant.  It has got the weight and feel of the real thing. I can leave it running all day with 48 Hornby goods wagons. I bought it for around £250 which was about double the price of an 00 gauge goods locomotive at the time but the model owes me nothing and has given me and lots of other people lots of pleasure. Perhaps the magazine reviewers need to use 0 gauge coarse scale models as a yardstick. Most of the 00 gauge locomotives look nice but most are not as robust as traditionally built coarse scale 0 gauge.

[Robin Brasher]

46 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

We haven't received anything for review at BRM.

As Hornby has sold out of the 'Scotsman' set the company does not need to send any out for review. From what I have seen on videos it looks like a good model apart from rogue models of the engine that have appeared with a 'Flying Scotsman' tender or no wheels on the pony truck. No other locomotives have come out yet but I would be interested to read about them in the magazines when they appear.

[AY Mod]

8 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

reviewers need to use 0 gauge coarse scale models as a yardstick.

 

Really?

 

That's the second time in the topic you've suggested we compare a product to something completely irrelevant.

[Jol Wilkinson]

12 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Because EM/P4 modellers only model pre-grouping? Odd, I'm sure I've photographed some P4 layout that were set in the BR period. I must be mistaken.

 

No, but for a long time if you wanted to model pre-group, then RTR had nothing to offer. Likewise, because you had to build what you wanted, then EM and P4 modellers were used to doing that and had no issue with creating what they wanted from scratch or kits.

 

Now that the manufacturers have woken up to that pre-group market opportunity, it would be nice to take advantage of some of the excellent models that are coming onto the market. But I don't fancy investing in a model that can't reasonably be adapted. I might as well spend my money and time buying and building a kit.

 

However, as the market is so heavily and increasingly skewed towards OO and N, so it is unlikely that those who choose to model outside those parameters will have to continue as before.

[AY Mod]

15 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

the company does not need to send any out for review.

 

A job for you on Planet Thanet beckons, that's a logic they use which means that when a second run of a model needs flogging fewer people have a reference to look back at for a view of a model. Ok, in the TT instance stockists are irrelevant but just because they've emptied the warehouse of a normal release it doesn't mean retailers have sold all their shelf stock. Reviews support stockists, not just manufacturers. Bachmann get that.

[Phil Parker]

7 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

As Hornby has sold out of the 'Scotsman' set the company does not need to send any out for review.

 

So, if you see an item being reviewed, your assumption is that no-one's buying it?

 

I'd have expected a TT set to arrive to help build momentum for the scale. For the sake of four sets, a benchmark could have been established that would help sell models further down the line. Every magazine would have made a noise about it, and a whole new group of people would be after TT. There will be plenty who can't see the product at a show, don't do YouTube (and many of the videos haven't been great) but might be in the market, a nice set of photos would tip the balance.

[Nearholmer]

33 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

If you want a review of coarse scale O gauge you need to ask the person who owns one

You’d better ask me then, because I’ve accidentally come to own “more than one”(!). My Q came with overly thick grease in the mechanism, but now that has been cleaned out and replaced with respectable grease it is super-smooth.
 

33 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

Perhaps the magazine reviewers need to use 0 gauge coarse scale models as a yardstick

 

Definitely.

 

I think most 00 bods, and many 0 fine scale bods would be astounded at how well modern Coarse-0 mechs run. In fact, even 1950s BL ones are very good.

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

24 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

That's the second time in the topic you've suggested we compare a product to something completely irrelevant

In terms of running qualities it’s highly relevant.

[Phil Parker]

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

In terms of running qualities it’s highly relevant.

 

So the review should read "You've never seen a modern coarse scale O gauge loco running, but we can assure you that this N gauge model runs just as well." ? Not sure how that is helpful.

[Nearholmer]

How about a more sensible approach: you try some modern coarse-0 locos, ideally with mechanisms by ETS, then you’ll have a personal benchmark of what good looks like, or put another way the art of the possible, which you can factor into your discussions of the running qualities of other models.

[Phil Parker]

1 minute ago, Nearholmer said:

How about a more sensible approach: you try some modern coarse-0 locos, ideally with mechanisms by ETS, then you’ll have a personal benchmark of what good looks like, or put another way the art of the possible, which you can factor into your discussions of the running qualities of other models.

 

What use is a "personal benchmark" that no-one else knows about? Hardly useful for readers of a review to be told "It's as good asn ETS Class G 7.1" as most of them won't have a clue what that is. We might as well use a hand-built P4 loco assembled by an expert as the benchmark.

 

Even when there is a banchmark, what use is it? "The New Hornby Fell Diesel runs 86.83% as well as an ETS Series 200." - meaningless.

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

I do wonder what people want a review to tell them, or put another way, what criteria should a reviewer use?

 

Much of this thread is about the minutiae of cosmetic details, but my first question would be something along the lines “Does it work properly?”, which I suppose decomposes into things like:

 

- response to controller;

- ability to haul loads commensurate with the prototype over stated gradients;

- ability to negotiate stated curves and pointwork without getting in a tangle, stalling etc;

- ideally something about reliability, or failing that then at least robustness and quality of finish of mechanism by inspection;

- …… that sort of thing.

 

After that “Does it look like the prototype?”, which again can be decomposed into things such as;

 

- scale accuracy of leading dimensions;

- replication of difficult/complex/subtle shapes, which has often caught out designers even recently;

- extent, accuracy, and robustness of fine detailing;

- quality of application of livery, including colour boundaries;

- accuracy of colouring, lettering, insignia etc;

- ….. etc.

 

And finally “How much will this set me back?”.

 

If a review tells me those things honestly, and the longer ones in RM and BRM for instance generally get pretty close although IMO there is a tendency to sometimes under-do the “Does it work properly?” bit, then to me it seems useful.

 

I don’t think a review should ever comment on value for money because , like beauty, that is in the eye of the beholder.

 

As a PS, I’d say that you chaps who buy r-t-r 00 and “fine scale” 0 are spoiled, because you get reviews to read. Those of us that pursue the obscure niche of r-t-r Coarse-0 get none! Conversely, the commissioners of things for our niche are all known individuals, and boy do they get direct feedback if they bring a dud to market (one commissioner/maker quit the niche in part because of robust feedback about terrible QC on their loco mechanisms).

 

 

 

 

Careful now, you are beginning to sound like one of Sam’s Trains potential  viewers😄

[woodenhead]

To me there is a simple reason that magazine reviews are generally positive, the quality of the models themselves is good.

 

There aren’t many cr&p models produced, no-one is in that business any more.

 

What faults that do exist if major will have be picked up and a lot of faults don’t appear straight away but over time or only affect some of the models not all.

 

Possibly people expect too much of a review I think, my mind on purchasing a model is made up when the EP appears.

[MarkSG]

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

I'd have expected a TT set to arrive to help build momentum for the scale. For the sake of four sets, a benchmark could have been established that would help sell models further down the line. Every magazine would have made a noise about it, and a whole new group of people would be after TT. There will be plenty who can't see the product at a show, don't do YouTube (and many of the videos haven't been great) but might be in the market, a nice set of photos would tip the balance.

 

Hornby's marketing for TT:120 does seem to be beating a new path. Direct sales only, not sending out review models. Maybe the latter is simply to do with not actually having any advance samples that could be sent to the media, but maybe it's part of a deliberate strategy. By cutting out the retailers they're already targetting a different market to the, er, average enthusiast (sorry!). Maybe they don't think that their buyers are the people who read magazines.

 

This may be a dim question, but have any of the mags asked for review samples? Do the maggs ever ask for review samples, or do you all just assume they'll be sent without asking?