Hornby Magazine/Dapol Stove R .

[romley midland]

Maybe HM did originally specify 14mm wheels, but Dapol told them that it then wouldn't go round 2nd radius curves. So they agreed to a compromise that they (mistakenly) thought would be generally accepted.

 

Mark

 

Seeing as the N gauge version is also fitted with wagon sized wheels It would seem that Dapol made this decision?

 

Cheers, Richard

[craigwelsh]

Maybe HM did originally specify 14mm wheels, but Dapol told them that it then wouldn't go round 2nd radius curves. So they agreed to a compromise that they (mistakenly) thought would be generally accepted.

 

Mark

If you go back to the response I got when I originally mentioned the wheel diameter it certainly didn't seem as if 12mm was known to be a compromise..

 

Its up to the person who commissions to come up with an accurate spec and then base their approvals on that. In this case Hornby mag failed to do enough research and putting spin on things like the brake shoe alignment later didn't cover up the early inadequacy in the spec. Hopefully Hornby mag will be more careful next time though they seem to have sold out anyway which is unfortunate for convincing them to do better next time!

 

Dapol should perhaps not publicise their alliances and ask people to put the models in their own box next time as people clearly have negative impressions of them as a result of this. They didn't have any moral obligation to correct something Hornby mag said they were happy with but they might have to watch perceptions from these quick commissions in the future.

 

Now the market for a decent Stove R is scuppered though i'll be going back to brass to complete my parcels train..

[darren01]

HI All

 

I do not understand why they stuck the wrong wheels on it in the first place; and don’t start me over the break shoes!

 

Then to add on top of this Hornby do an article on How to sort out the R stove youself.( We made a cock up but you can fix it)

 

If the model had been done right in the first place, we would not have to spend another £15.00 on top of the model to sort it out in the first place!

 

So to sum it up £27.99 for the R stove, wheels and under frames £19.89 = £47.88.

 

 

The other thing is the way the orders are being done ,I have had one on order from day one of the announcement and have not seen any model yet , phoned Ian Alan last week and was told ,â€sorry sold out of the BR Crimson ones ,and we do not know when we will be getting any more in “

 

To say I am annoyed with how the R stove has been brought to the market is understatement to say the lest.

 

I have now cancelled my order for the R stove and I will get a kit to build, at the price that I have worked out for the Hornby Mag one, making a kit works out cheaper!

 

This could have set the standard for commissioned models for the future, but with so many mistakes, I think people will hold fire in the future.

 

[Andy Y]

Whilst appreciating the genuine concerns held by folk over the accuracy of elements of the model of the Stove R we are starting to move into speculation over where blame should or could be apportioned which isn't always healthy. The parties concerned do read the comments and I know they are aware of what's being said. I can sympathise with different perspectives for different reasons and I think it appropriate to say that different decisions may have been made if cost and time pressures were not present in bringing the project to the market.

 

The model has been analysed to the nth degree but unfortunately probably too late to have been able to influence the outcome. Back in October 2009 the CAD drawings were published on here - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/216-stove-r-project-%E2%80%93-last-chance-to-register/ - and aside from the beading none of the other significant issues were really raised although several are present in the CAD and at that time there was a fair degree of enthusiasm and optimism.

 

All parties are aware of the issues, that should be discussed between them. Lessons will be learned and in the meantime we have to accept the product for what it is and reach our own decisions on purchase or otherwise.

[coachmann]

I assumed at the time those CAD drawings were of the 'N' gauge model (going off axles thickness and wheel flanges) and were being used to garner support for a 4mm model.

 

[darren01]

Hi

In response of what has been said about the R stove, if the CAD drawings where for the R stove (N or 00) and the manufactures read this forum, what I do not understand is why they still made these mistakes with the model?

Why did the manufactures not take on board what was said at the time on here?

Darren

[Andy Y]

I'd checked back on the chronology of comments and points made. Most of the comments started around and after images of the final EP on 11 Oct which is after the tooling had been completed. If the changes had been made at that time there would have been further delays and additional costs would have been inevitable. A decision to proceed and honour order commitments would have had to be made and for those commercial reasons we have the product we do.

 

Some of the errors are evident in the CAD but were not identified at that stage by 'us' (not that there's an obligation on us to do so); some errors e.g. brake positioning seem to be different from the CAD.

[S.A.C Martin]

Hi

In response of what has been said about the R stove, if the CAD drawings where for the R stove (N or 00) and the manufactures read this forum, what I do not understand is why they still made these mistakes with the model?

Why did the manufactures not take on board what was said at the time on here?

Darren

 

Because as Andy Y has stated:

 

Back in October 2009 the CAD drawings were published on here - http://www.rmweb.co....ce-to-register/ - and aside from the beading none of the other significant issues were really raised although several are present in the CAD and at that time there was a fair degree of enthusiasm and optimism.

 

Important part bolded and underlined. I think it's fair to say that the Stove R is still an impressive model, despite its flaws - and to be fair, if Hornby Magazine hadn't had a go, would there be one on the market at all, RTR?

 

I'm not denying there are problems which have some justification, merely asking if the compromises are acceptable given the circumstances, and the outcome.

 

Certainly I've been eying up the pictures in the magazine and I think I might break out the wallet for a BR carmine one myself, and have a go at "correcting" anything I think looks wrong. Took a good few pics of the Bluebell's one, but I might have to ignore the attractive Pullman livery there!

[RedgateModels]

Why did the manufactures not take on board what was said at the time on here?

Darren

 

Darren, the answer to that is in Andy's previous post

 

I think it appropriate to say that different decisions may have been made if cost and time pressures were not present in bringing the project to the market.

 

The model has been analysed to the nth degree but unfortunately probably too late to have been able to influence the outcome.

 

Once issues like the brake shoes came to light it was too late to change the tooling without considerable cost and delays to the project. The 12mm wheels were a deliberate choice to ensure that the coach would run on R2 curves (HM Mag's core market) out of the box.

 

Not directed at you in particular Darren - can we please remember that the people involved in bringing this to the market are human, and some of the more robust comments expressed here have caused a not inconsiderable amount of distress.

 

I'll finish with again quoting Andy's last post

 

Lessons will be learned and in the meantime we have to accept the product for what it is and reach our own decisions on purchase or otherwise.

[darren01]

Hi all

Sorry I stand corrected .

Darren

[Oldddudders]

SNIP - can we please remember that the people involved in bringing this to the market are human, and some of the more robust comments expressed here have caused a not inconsiderable amount of distress.

As I believe I suggested much earlier in this thread, many of those negative comments come from people already proven to be well-capable of taking the brass route to gaining such a vehicle for their layout. Even if there have been slip-ups here, surely all those involved still deserve credit - nay, praise - for bringing a lovely-looking vehicle onto the market in a decidedly dodgy period for optional sales. If they are still available, I'm still half-inclined to order one - but there will be plenty for whom the negative press has stopped them doing so. Other entrepreneurs will be thinking "There but for the Grace of God, go I" and may decide that the serious end of the model-railway market is too shark-infested to be worth the risk. Result, eh?

[spamcan61]

I assumed at the time those CAD drawings were of the 'N' gauge model (going off axles thickness and wheel flanges) and were being used to garner support for a 4mm model.

 

 

That is also my recollection of events, I don't think the CAD for the 4mm version were ever shown in the public domain.

[The Stationmaster]

I agree with much of what Ian has said immediately above. And while I am critical of what appears to be the way the project was handled I've bought two and am awaiting the third. Apart from the wheels and brake block issue - one of which won't be too difficult to deal with - I think it sensible to apply the old Peter Denny criterion for observing detail and think about 'normal viewing distance'. You might still know a few things are 'not quite right' but overall I still think it looks the part

[Tim Hale]

For those who are wondering about the supply situation, I received this response from Margaret Hayes at ian allan publishing:

 

 

If your email is regarding Stove R models, the good news is that the units are now in the UK. We are hoping to be able to start despatching by the end of next week.

 

If your enquiry is urgent please contact my colleagues on 01780 484630.

 

Margaret Hayes

 

I hope that this answers some questions concerning the release of further stocks.Please note that I have no connection other than as a customer.

 

DesA

[craigwelsh]

Some of the errors are evident in the CAD but were not identified at that stage by 'us' (not that there's an obligation on us to do so); some errors e.g. brake positioning seem to be different from the CAD.

The CAD for what was released was never seen online, I was very careful to check before I made my initial comments, all we saw was the N- gauge stuff you linked above when the project was first announced and it had been stated that the N gauge stuff wouldn't be used as the basis for the 4mm model so that CAD was taken only as a placeholder. We never got to see the 4mm CAD until the prototype was shown when it was too late.

 

I agree its time to move on and hope lessons are learnt but no opportunity was missed to comment on the product before tooling.

 

As I believe I suggested much earlier in this thread, many of those negative comments come from people already proven to be well-capable of taking the brass route to gaining such a vehicle for their layout. Even if there have been slip-ups here, surely all those involved still deserve credit - nay, praise - for bringing a lovely-looking vehicle onto the market in a decidedly dodgy period for optional sales. If they are still available, I'm still half-inclined to order one - but there will be plenty for whom the negative press has stopped them doing so. Other entrepreneurs will be thinking "There but for the Grace of God, go I" and may decide that the serious end of the model-railway market is too shark-infested to be worth the risk. Result, eh?

Don't be ridiculous, they'll see the batch sold out anyway but hopefully be a bit more careful at the specification stage. People either commission these things to get one themselves or to make some money. As for making things in brass that is true in my case but I don't have time to do everything, luckily things like the Hornby Van C stop the need to build certain things.

[Stanley Melrose]

Stanley Melrose, on 19 January 2011 - 14:59 , said:

Hi,

 

Has anyone succeeded in removing the roof of one of these? It's not a bad model and apart from the body colour, the footboards, the missing hinge and the chassis mods needed for P4, I think the glazing could be improved but it appears that to get at it (the glazing), the roof must be removed. After removing the chassis, I have pushed the four small prongs towards the centre of the body back into the interior of the body which lifts the roof a smidgeon but it would seem that any more force applied to remove it would result in a handful of bits.

 

Any ideas?

 

Cheers,

 

Stan

 

Hello,

 

I'll answer my own question - with the chassis removed, I cut a rectangular hole the size of the moulded cross on the base of the body. I could then see that the roof is held in place by 8 little lugs and prized 4 on one side away from the body. The roof came away easily and then I was able to remove the glazing (undamaged) which is held in place with modest amounts of glue between the window openings.

 

Now all I have to do is make the mods I intend, including re-positioning the door handles which I omitted from the list in my original post, and decide whether to re-paint it in a lighter shade of crimson lake before putting it all back together again.

 

Stan

[Poor Old Bruce]

................ take the wheels for instance - should HM have been expected to specify 14mm, or should Dapol have been expected to know that NPCCS doesnt generally run on wagon wheels?

This may seem a bit late in the day to say this but surely there must have been official drawings or diagrams of the Stove R passed between commissioner (be that the N Gauge Society or Hornby Magazine) and producer which showed 3ft 6in wheels.

 

Those CAD images show the handles of the right-hand doors at the '5 O'clock' position rather than the '3 O'clock' of the 00 version and they do not suggest that the end wheelsets/axleguards can rotate uncontrolled.

 

Taking regard to the manufacture's performance with wheel profiles in the not too distant past I also wonder why it was decided that the model would not go round train set curves with 14mm wheels and (more particularly) fixed axleguards before even going into production. I assume the Hornby Dublo version must have managed this feat with fixed axleguard some 45 years ago.

[Fat Controller]

This may seem a bit late in the day to say this but surely there must have been official drawings or diagrams of the Stove R passed between commissioner (be that the N Gauge Society or Hornby Magazine) and producer which showed 3ft 6in wheels.

 

Those CAD images show the handles of the right-hand doors at the '5 O'clock' position rather than the '3 O'clock' of the 00 version and they do not show that the end wheelsets/axleguards can rotate uncontrolled.

 

Taking regard to the manufacture's performance with wheel profiles in the not too distant past I also wonder why it was decided that the model would not go round train set curves with 14mm wheels and (more particularly) fixed axleguards before even going into production. I assume the Hornby Dublo version must have managed this feat with fixed axleguard some 45 years ago.

The Hornby-Dublo six-wheel underframes (I should add that I only had the milk tank, not the Stove) relied on flangeless centre wheel-sets (12mm diameter for all stock). They also used a primitive form of compensation, in that the axle-bearing holes were not circular, but elongated in the vertical axis. They weren't fitted with springing to keep wheels in contact with the rail-head, just relying on gravity to keep the wheels down, which caused problems with wheels sticking on occasion. The later SD coach bogies also had a form of 'compensation', with the side being rivetted to the bolster in such a fashion as to allow a rocking motion- again, fine when it worked, but prone to stick after a while.

[craigwelsh]

This may seem a bit late in the day to say this but surely there must have been official drawings or diagrams of the Stove R passed between commissioner (be that the N Gauge Society or Hornby Magazine) and producer which showed 3ft 6in wheels.

They'd have an inaccurate drawing if it did show 3'6 - they should be 3' 7 1/2" which is the pre BR standard and what most finescale model coach wheels are designed against. BR went for 3' 6 on its BR1 bogie. For an 00 model the coarse wheels are normally 14mm so you get some slop against brake shoes in the correct place. All nominal sizes of course but they get smaller, not bigger..

 

I'm pretty sure the info was in the Jenkinson book on the weight diagram though one of the pictures showed a width coachman was saying none of them were probably built to!

[coachmann]

many of those negative comments come from people already proven to be well-capable of taking the brass route

I've heard everything if pointing out faults on RTR models is regarded as negative comment these days.....

[Pennine MC]

I've heard everything if pointing out faults on RTR models is regarded as negative comment these days.....

 

Semantics I suppose. Strictly speaking and in isolation, it is negative, but that doesnt mean it should always be censured. I dont often agree with much that Steve Jones said, I hope my attitude to RTR is rather more tolerant and constructive, but to use one of his favourite phrases, some of the sentiments herein are IMHO veering into 'manufacturer's apologist' territory. Considering how scathing he was over relatively minor errors and compromises, he would literally have had a field day with this unfortunate model.

 

Collectively, posters in this thread have identified the model's faults and assessed how serious they are. They've investigated ways of correcting them and reported back with their findings. They've enabled others to make a judgement whether they actually want to shell out 30 quid on this model - I'd include myself in that, I'm certainly not frightened of a bit of improvement work for something I want, but in this case I really dont want one enough to justify the outlay and the time commitment.

 

OK, a lot of the peripheral comment along the way has been ill considered to say the least, but the essence of it is as I've just outlined is still the forum at its best where RTR is concerned. Far from being negative, I'd call that process rather positive, and the day it's outlawed or shouted down by folk with lesser expectations is the day I'm out of here.

[Poor Old Bruce]

They'd have an inaccurate drawing if it did show 3'6 - they should be 3' 7 1/2" which is the pre BR standard and what most finescale model coach wheels are designed against. BR went for 3' 6 on its BR1 bogie. For an 00 model the coarse wheels are normally 14mm so you get some slop against brake shoes in the correct place. All nominal sizes of course but they get smaller, not bigger..

 

I'm pretty sure the info was in the Jenkinson book on the weight diagram though one of the pictures showed a width coachman was saying none of them were probably built to!

My intention was that 3ft 6in was indeed the 'nominal' size. 3ft 7.5in was the 'new' size but after unpteen years in traffic and a few re-profilings the wheel diameter could easily end up 1.5in less than 'nominal' (I don't know off hand (or care much for that matter) what the scrapping size was so please don't come back and tell me that it was 3ft 4 5/8in). Personally I would be quite happy with the 'nominal' 3ft 6in for coach wheels and 3ft 0in for wagons (and B4/5s of course). Whatever the actual wheel size quoted on any Stove R drawings or diagrams of the 12in:1ft vehicle, the excise given by Dapol for ignoring it is still a poor one.

 

Fat Coltroller, Should have done a 'Mulitquote' here.

Thank you for the clarification of the HD 'suspension' arrangement, I have only ever handled one or two of their Stove Rs and was not necessarily studying their suspension at the time, just the price! The fact still remains that they could manage train set curves without problem using fixed axleguards, albeit with a bit of vertical slop. HD found no cause to use floaty axleguards which can yaw where they want to without any sort of control. Even Hornby managed a sort of steering system ( I hesitate to risk denigrating the work of Mr. Cleminson by using his name in the text) on their Sausage Van.

[S.A.C Martin]

The other thing is the way the orders are being done ,I have had one on order from day one of the announcement and have not seen any model yet , phoned Ian Alan last week and was told ,â€sorry sold out of the BR Crimson ones ,and we do not know when we will be getting any more in “

 

Just noticed this - may have to ask for my cheque back! As of the last issue it was not sold out, but I guess the time difference between going to press, and the models selling out was probably long enough!

 

Would it be a fairly easy repaint from LMS to BR livery? Would make buying a £30 model to then strip completely seem a little easier to swallow...!

[Captain Kernow]

Having seen the article in the latest Hornby Magazine on 'converting' the wheels up to 14mm, I'm wondering if this might be a bit easier in P4, given the finer flanges?....

[craigwelsh]

My intention was that 3ft 6in was indeed the 'nominal' size. 3ft 7.5in was the 'new' size but after unpteen years in traffic and a few re-profilings the wheel diameter could easily end up 1.5in less than 'nominal' (I don't know off hand (or care much for that matter) what the scrapping size was so please don't come back and tell me that it was 3ft 4 5/8in). Personally I would be quite happy with the 'nominal' 3ft 6in for coach wheels and 3ft 0in for wagons (and B4/5s of course). Whatever the actual wheel size quoted on any Stove R drawings or diagrams of the 12in:1ft vehicle, the excise given by Dapol for ignoring it is still a poor one.

You specifically mentioned drawings and good drawings would always quote 3' 7 1/2 which is why I picked it up and was slightly pedantic on that one. As I said though 00 uses 14mm wheels and that was what would be expected on the model. I'm not particularly sure at what stage a tyre is scrapped on these.

 

I'm in complete agreement agreement on the last point though apart from I think it was a Hornby mag quota of the Dapol reasoning.

 

Wagons incidentally normally have on the drawings 3' 1 1/2 " wheels and that again results in 12mm wheels in 00.

 

Pennine has once again given a rather good overview of the positives the rmweb critical appraisal can bring.