Are reviews of new models independent or not?

[Yarravalleymodeller]

1 minute ago, AY Mod said:

 

Well done on being patronising, we do know what we're doing. A basic Google image search won't give you a lot before it heads off on alternatives; it's better to know the sites that are likely to have the type of images you need and a wide slelection e.g. Paul Bartlett's wagon shots for that era where better detail is captured rather than the cursory stuff you'll find on a basic search.

Yes, and your first point of call to find those sites is probably a sniff around and a look at what sites the results google spits out come from. Then as you say once you gain some familiarity with the regular likely places you can check them first then go looking further if needed. Point being it isn't quite the 6 month research assignment to the archives It's made out to be, it's just a pleasant afternoon with a cuppa and some understanding of how to go about it. 

 

It is a model review mind, not saying you could research the model this way to produce it, but it will put you in a good place to say if there are any glaring errors or not.

[Legend]

57 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Truth is, I suspect, the photos have a dispraportionate influence amoung average modellers who basicaly decide if they like the look of a model, and if they do, buy it.

 

 I think thats very true . I saw the new Heljan 86/0 in a Hornby Mag review and decided I liked the look of it, went out and ordered one  directly because of the pictures in that review .   And thats why I still like Magazine reviews supplemented by YouTube

[AY Mod]

Just now, Yarravalleymodeller said:

not saying you could research the model this way to produce it, but it will put you in a good place to say if there are any glaring errors or not.

 

Patronising comment No. 2

[37114]

15 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

There was a little more to "Blood on their hands". At that point there were two rival OO models of the 37 being announced. One was Bachmann's Mk3 Class 37. It was widely whispered that a member of the REM team had been an advisor for the rival model (though I never heard any hard evidence either way...)

 

 

That was the Mk1 Bachmann Class 37 and it would have been REM. Whether Bachmann's action was specifically against the review, or whether it was simply the straw that broke the camel's back is another matter. There was a sense at the time that the review was simply the latest incident in a sustained campaign against Bachmann and its products by a number of people, originally entirely online . However there was a sense that with REM reviewing , one or two of the online critics had now found a print outlet

 

(It wasn't just Bachmann either. I remember one year where there were 6-7 major releases in the couple of months around Warley and leading up to Christmas . And every single one went down in a hail of bullets from the "electricnose" site... These were new models to a standard we had never seen before, recieving a level of hostile criticism and invective never previously seen in the hobby)

 

So by the time of "blood on their hands" there was a strong perception of long term bad blood between at least one manufacturer and several reviewers (online and in print). Potentially, vested interests could give rise to hatchet jobs as well as shill reviews , and there was a suspicion of that hovering over the whole business

 

It was in that context that the whole trope about magazine reviews being in the pocket of the manufacturers, and of magazine reviews glossing over blatent faults to protect their advertising revenues first arose. The online critics did present themselves as being independant and objective reviewers and it was implied online that those who gave more favourable views of models did so because they were compromised. It seems this one has never quite been expunged since then.

 

When people pointed to the reviews in REM as one of the major stengths of the magazine , the implicatuion was that REM offered the only honest rigourous and independent reviews in town. I am not convinced that such a claim was valid.

 

I do feel that some D+E reviewing in that era had lapsed into a kind of "spectator blood-sport" , and I don't think that was a healthy development . Personally when I buy a magazine I want to read about someone's model-making or layout , or deepen my understanding of what the prototype was about. I am not much interested in pages of stuff about last month's new releases , especially when they are just existing models in new paintwork.

 

(And I have to admit that my views about manufacturer bashing , manufacturer X taking down manufacturer Y's model, and the fight for "the definitive Class 37" were forged in those particular fires over about 8-`10 years)

 

It's worth considering the sequel. 

 

- The Bachmann Mk3 Class 37 remained in production until last year. I think that's over a decade of steady sales

- But its rival didn't exactly crash and burn. It remained on sale in quite a few model shops for 5 years or so , until the manufacturer seems to have lost interest

 

I remember that review and the model (1st Edition Bachmann 37) well, and for me is a good example to build from. REx laid into the model when other magazines gave it a lot of praise; to context here was a class 37 with a mechanism that was light years ahead of the Hornby/Lima pancakes that had gone before but sadly the body was wrong in many areas (I know because I spent many hours adding bits of other manufacturers class 37 in to a body to try and get something half correct). REx focussed on the body, others skipped over it bar a few details. The REx review was right to call it out but was vitriolic in the way it did it; whether this was due to some individual conflict of interests or merely the writers style is obviously not known but there were reviews of other manufacturers products (eg Heljan 33) by REx at the time which were far from favourable. My expectation is a reviewer shouldn't be afraid to call out things that are not right but equally should do so in a factual way that stands scrutiny.

 

As a reader I use the reviews not to garner the objective opinion but more so to help me spot things I may have missed myself when considering purchasing a model (eg have they spotted that the model is only suitable for 37xxx to 37yyy because of the presence of this or that on the roof) that means I need to do some work or see errors I have missed and more importantly when known about help me decide if I can live with them? As a point in question the Heljan class 37 has some issues with the bodyside detail in the wrong place but I only clocked it when I read the review. I looked at alternatives, decided in the round that the Heljan model was the best base and either accepted errors or corrected them.

 

I have to say as well, generally reviews seem pretty balanced these days across the mags I read regularly (Hornby/Model Rail/BRM)

[Ravenser]

20 minutes ago, Yarravalleymodeller said:

Realistically you don't even need to go to the NRM, there's this thing called google images, seriously stuffed with plenty of images to get a very reasonable understanding of what you are looking at on the desk vs what existed at a given time. 

 

 

Back in the day , there was an obsession among D+E modellers that photos were the only valid form of evidence and scale drawings wewre all wrong worthless and should not be used...

 

For me , the reducto ad absurdam came when someone emailed one site to declare that he and his mates had spent the afternoon looking at photos of Class 40s (or whatever) and they were now convinced that Bachmann's new model was the wrong length.  

 

The length of a Class 40 in feet and inches was normally included in the dimensions quoted in spotters' books. Rulers marked in millimeters are easy to find. The maths is not difficult. But they'd wasted an entire afternoon looking at 3/4 angle photos and guessing (to the detriment of the model of course, because Bachmann were a whipping boy in those days)

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

 

But you won't be the average modeller that most reviews are aimed at. I remember once commenting in MREmag editorial, that the Hornby Class 31 was a good model and the next day recieved a very long list of its faults, from some who pretty much lived for the class (Apparently, the old Airfix version with fake centre wheels was a much better model). If you live for a particular prototype, you certainly will care deeply about anything you consider an error, taking each one very personally. However, unless your review is aimed at this very, very tiny readership/viewership, then going into the nth degree of detail isn't that helpful.

 

Truth is, I suspect, the photos have a disproportionate influence amoung average modellers who basically decide if they like the look of a model, and if they do, buy it.

 

While the Airfix body is good, the Hornby mechanism is very much better . The Hornby model has lights (arguably over the top for a Modernisation Plan loco) NEM sockets, finer wheels, all wheel pickup.  A good deal of detailing work needs to be done on an Airfix body before it can sit comfortably next to the Hornby loco, which has a good deal of finesse.  As Sam's Trains would say "the detail is there!" The question is whether the detail is exactly right...

 

Another issue is that the Airfix body models a headcode box loco in original condition. Quite a bit of awkward work would be needed to do a second batch 31/4 or a 31/5 from it (Since the later 31/4s went straight to IM for Transpennine South duties I have an interest to declare). The bodyside band on a Hornby 31 is tampo printed and too low relief. But it's a great deal easier to do a refurb without the band and with sealed nose from  it. Hornby have done a "skinhead" without headcode box . Airfix - start carving,filing and heavy filling.

 

Apart from the bodyside band - which you don't want in later condition - and a question mark about how far the cab side windows are inset, I don't actually know what is allegedly wrong with the Hornby model. (And I have a modest interest in 31s). But the vague impression that "The Hornby 31 wasn't well recieved / got quite a lot of criticism" floats around . Whether this amounts to a need for a better 31 to be tooled up is another matter. 

 

In the mean time Hornby themselves seem to find it is a better commercial proposition selling the ex Lima Railroad 31 , which is generally regarded as a decent body , more often than they offer their "full-fat" 31 . Since they have the figures to compare, it seems they regard the demand for "affordable" 31s as stronger than for "premium model" 31s

 

(If anyone wants to argue that what is really needed is an Airfix body on a Hornby mechanism - well. I have a mazak rot Hornby 31 stored, and a small stash of Airfix bodies, so I would welcome some practical comments on how it is to be done. )

 

Hornby left/upper , Airfix detailed right/ lower. The Hornby is more or less as bought, very slight extra weathering

[Phil Parker]

45 minutes ago, 37114 said:

sadly the body was wrong in many areas

 

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.

[Oldddudders]

2 minutes 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.

I think it was the illustrious Captain Kernow who said that if it looks like a Black 5, then it's probably a Black 5. Yet he models in finescale 4mm, so is not to be regarded as remotely undiscerning. For many of us, the announcement of an RTR model of an interesting - to us - prototype is a big moment. Unless we subsequently learn that the darned thing doesn't run well or has some other operational limitation, the money is already committed, in effect. Printed reviews seldom offend me, even if they omit reference to the howling error spotted by some cognoscento, which I am prepared to ignore. After all, I might never see a 'better' version in my lifetime. 

[Steamport Southport]

2 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

I think it was the illustrious Captain Kernow who said that if it looks like a Black 5, then it's probably a Black 5. Yet he models in finescale 4mm, so is not to be regarded as remotely undiscerning. For many of us, the announcement of an RTR model of an interesting - to us - prototype is a big moment. Unless we subsequently learn that the darned thing doesn't run well or has some other operational limitation, the money is already committed, in effect. Printed reviews seldom offend me, even if they omit reference to the howling error spotted by some cognoscento, which I am prepared to ignore. After all, I might never see a 'better' version in my lifetime. 

 

One comment that makes a book virtually unreadable to me is the often quoted "Unidentified Black Five" in a caption when it's obviously an 8F or Jubilee. At least one well respected author constantly got it wrong, or was it someone else doing the photo captions?

 

Quick clue to telling the difference between a bog standard* LMS 5MT and an 8F is look at the steam pipes. They're longer on an 8F due to the lower cylinders and running plate. 

 

 

*As opposed to the handful of experimental ones 

 

 

Jason

[melmoth]

8 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Quick clue to telling the difference between a bog standard* LMS 5MT and an 8F is look at the steam pipes. They're longer on an 8F due to the lower cylinders and running plate. 

 

 

I've always found counting the number of coupled wheels more straightforward...

[ColinK]

If I wrote a review of any of my locos it would go something like this …

 

The wheels are set far too close together, a scale equivelent of four feet instead of four feet eight and a half inches.  Instead of being powered by a nice big diesel engine, a tiny electric motor makes it go. It gets it power by sending an electric current through the rails, the health & safety police wouldn’t allow that on the real railway.  The couplings are so so wrong, a big hook and loop instead of three big metal links. I can’t climb inside to release the brakes and open throttle, instead I have to control it with my mobile phone.  The real loco has to be refulled every day, the model never needs any diesel fuel.  The model goes round corners the real loco would get derailed on. The real loco needed a banker to go up the 1 in 37 of Lickey incline with a 8 coach train, the model will haul 10 coaches up 1 in 25.  Come on manufacturers, time you started making models that are just like the real thing…. but it looks like a class xx from three feet and runs well, so I’m happy.

 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is "Mallard".

[jjb1970]

As with anything in life, it's not just what you say, but how you say it. There's a difference between constructive criticism which identifies issues and a hatchet job. There's a communications technique for feedback known as a (naughty word) sandwich. Open with the good bits, then highlight what you don't like in a constructive way and then close on something upbeat. It's a technique many understand instinctively and makes it easier for people to accept criticism without getting defensive. I see a similar approach in model reviews.

[Steamport Southport]

5 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

I've always found counting the number of coupled wheels more straightforward...

 

What if you can't see them? Many photos you can't.

[AY Mod]

8 minutes ago, ColinK said:

If I wrote a review of any of my locos it would go something like this …

 

The wheels are set far too close together, a scale equivelent of four feet instead of four feet eight and a half inches.  Instead of being powered by a nice big diesel engine, a tiny electric motor makes it go. It gets it power by sending an electric current through the rails, the health & safety police wouldn’t allow that on the real railway.  The couplings are so so wrong, a big hook and loop instead of three big metal links. I can’t climb inside to release the brakes and open throttle, instead I have to control it with my mobile phone.  The real loco has to be refulled every day, the model never needs any diesel fuel.  The model goes round corners the real loco would get derailed on. The real loco needed a banker to go up the 1 in 37 of Lickey incline with a 8 coach train, the model will haul 10 coaches up 1 in 25.  Come on manufacturers, time you started making models that are just like the real thing…. but it looks like a class xx from three feet and runs well, so I’m happy.

 

 

[Not Jeremy]

Quote

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is "Mallard".

 

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!

[drduncan]

35 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is "Mallard".

Unless it’s a certain GWR pannier tank…

[melmoth]

37 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

What if you can't see them? Many photos you can't.

 

I think you might be taking my comment - and possibly yourself - more seriously than intended

[Willie Whizz]

17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Indeed, making a wrong statement is the most effective route to discovering the truth.

 

But you can see the logic? Why should I give up my hard-won knowledge to someone who is going to use it to get credit for themselves? Better that I reveal it once it gives credit to me and makes them look a fool. Except that that way of carrying on does not in the long run put me in a creditable light.

Plus, if you don’t intend to actually do anything with it yourself and yet won’t share it with anyone else who will (for which, of course, fair credit should be given) then eventually that ‘hard-won knowledge’ will die with you and the entire railway community will be the poorer. So who is the real ‘fool’, one may wonder…
 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Or, at the more personal level, a "PK trying to to be funny, but totally missing the mark" button could be automatically attached to all my contributions...

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

Firstly – and I don’t intend this to sound ‘pompous/elitist’ etc – I tend to not read model railway reviews.

 

The reason is purely that I have been modelling (and trainspotting the real thing) for 65 years and am really ‘a happy bunny’ in that if there is a model I want to buy, it will have been on my ‘wishlist’ since time immemorial and I will have researched it to some – or even great – extent.

 

I don’t ‘impulse buy’.

 

There is a standard mantra in the writing world: Write for your audience.

 

I have just gone back through the recent BRM archive and randomly selected a number of reviews by the range of BRM reviewers. To my mind, they have been written perfectly for the BRM audience. They take a lot of work for not much reward – and I can say that from bitter experience (but clarifying that I haven't ever written any for BRM).

 

It takes the reader maybe a second to read a sentence of the review; but that one sentence may have taken many minutes or hours to confirm as correct/accurate/appropriate. And they have to meet - often tight - deadlines.

 

It’s very easy for someone sitting at home with a massive collection of books, photos and archive material to say: “Ah, but the reviewer didn’t note that the second loco of the class to come out of Doncerton Works in 1883 had the flange sprocket valve defibrillator on the left of the cab!”

 

Or such like!

 

Locos will have a different type of review in a ‘society magazine’; those publications tend to be more focussed on aspects typical modellers might not be interested in. There is such a thing as ‘too much detail’ for many.

 

My disabled wife has a Motability car (I am the driver). The magazine regularly carries ‘reviews’ of cars on their lists – but those reviews are a world away from what you might read in What Car? or Top Gear magazines.

 

Same car; different approach.

 

Mike’s original point was: There has been some discussion recently in another thread about the degree of independence (from a 'manufacturer') of someone who posts reviews online.

 

My view is that our reviewers are trustworthy; independent; and do a darn good job in difficult circumstances.

 

Brian

[PaulRhB]

3 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

 

"waffling cobblers"

 

Msny of us would take that as a complement in certain threads where we do it deliberately 😆

[D9020 Nimbus]

I generally believe that the vast majority of reviews — both magazine and online — are independent of the manufacturer. However, there is an additional potential issue with, say, YouTube reviews. The reviewer is making money not from "free" models but from Google (or the equivalent), and this is based closely on the number of views a video has. This seems on some occasions to lead to models either being regarded as "the best ever" or "a complete rip-off".

 

I remember the reviews in REx from a few years ago. I generally felt that the reviews of OO models were far too harsh, even vitriolic, in the way the criticism was offered. At the same time the N gauge reviews were much more balanced and showed a knowledge of the compromises that are necessary in the construction of any model.

[The Stationmaster]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

There is such a thing as a hierarchy of authority, from primary sources (records, drawings, etc, held in archives such as the NRM, and indeed dated photographs) through secondary sources (chiefly books based on research using primary sources) to tertiary sources (a random sample of unsorted information thrown up by an internet search, or the opinion of one's mate down the pub). As @Phil Parker says, it's unreasonable to expect a reviewer working to magazine deadlines to engage with primary sources but I would hope that they had access to a good range of secondary sources.

 

My view is coloured by being the descendant of librarians. I don't know stuff but I do know how to go about looking stuff up.

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.

 

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'.

 

And will everybody have access to decent/trusted secondary sources - even in an editorial office which might not necessarily be as well blessed as somebody's home bookshelves or archive?  If such ready and reliable access was available would there have been a noticeable dimensional error on a CAD which was quickly noticed when it appeared online, and in consequence was very quickly taken onboard for correction by the company involved?   Secondary source information to avoid that error is sitting on my bookshelf, and no doubt on countless others judging by the reaction to it, but apparently is not so readily available to those who don't have the necessary books.

[melmoth]

18 minutes 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'.

 

 

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.