Hornby Magazine/Dapol Stove R .

[spamcan61]

Thank you Mike for clarifying what looks like will be a superb model.

 

 

If the majority now appear model 1960s/BR late crest, as someone said earlier on this thread, it would not be unreasonable for a manufacturer to tool up for that period with a view to maximising sales and let those wanting complete accuracy for other periods to customise as necessary. There are plenty of models already out there where this is already the case. And - in my case trying - to make the changes can be fun/frustrating (delete as applicable)!

 

I agree entirely, look at the Hornby T9 for example, it was much more sensible to model it in superheated form than original form, the latter would've been wrong for most SR and BR modellers, who I strongly suspect outnumber LSWR modellers by a large margin.

[craigwelsh]

I had a feeling the wheel issue couldn't be fixed as the compensation units looked awfully close to the flanges in the initial pictures.

 

With the door handles also moulded in the body alone isn't really worth it so i'll probably do a brass one at some stage when I get around to doing 6-wheel underframes, I have a Chivers Fish van kit that'll need one too .

[DerekEm8]

I wonder what the other magazine reviews will be like ???

[Barry Ten]

I appreciate there are commercial realities here, and it's good of Mike to keep us informed, but the wheel issue is a dealbreaker as far as I'm concerned.

[cctransuk]

I, and I suspect many others, will be more than happy to buy a correct model, even if we do have to assemble and paint it ourselves. (... and I already have one)!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Bob Reid]

Quite frankly if the amount of criticism levelled here translates into a severe loss of sales for HM, you can hardly be surprised if they choose not to release any future "special editions" I doubt very much if 80% (okay perhaps an exageration) of the buying public would have noticed that the wheels should be 2mm smaller or in fact care (clearly the "finescale" buyers are going to rip the underframe off them anyway). Yes, it's a shame that such an otherwise excellent model should have a quite basic mistake so close to it's release however is there any reason to continue to pull apart both HM and Dapol for this to such an extent?

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Quite frankly if the amount of criticism levelled here translates into a severe loss of sales for HM, you can hardly be surprised if they choose not to release any future "special editions" I doubt very much if 80% (okay perhaps an exageration) of the buying public would have noticed that the wheels should be 2mm smaller or in fact care (clearly the "finescale" buyers are going to rip the underframe off them anyway). Yes, it's a shame that such an otherwise excellent model should have a quite basic mistake so close to it's release however is there any reason to continue to pull apart both HM and Dapol for this to such an extent?

 

I do tend to agree with you on that - as I said before the important thing to me is whether it 'looks right' at normal viewing distance (I think it will judging by the pictures although the undersize wheels might be a problem along with the brake blocks) but overall it doesn't look too bad at all and it's probably going to be a lot better than I could achieve with a kit. So I ain't cancelling my order and my judgement will ultimately depend on what comes out of the parcel.

 

The trouble is of course that some mass market manufacturers are spoiling us with remarkably good rolling stock & locos and we are now - rightly or wrongly - expecting that from everyone while ignoring the other factors which are forcing up prices.

[finelines]

If it had been appropriately priced less than £20 I would not have said a word.

 

For this price it should be better than Hornby's BY Utility and that's hard to beat.

 

Roger

[Oldddudders]

Or how about some enterprising soul markets a kit, probably an etch, to right the chassis deficiencies? Could this be designed to make life easier for OO, EM and P4 purchasers alike? If the body is a corker, with good decoration levels, plenty of these vehicles are going to sell. Yes, it drives the total price even higher, but the EM and P4 people would be saved some time, perhaps, to compensate (sorry).

 

Just a thought.

[Mod3]

I see the thread is descending in the quality of the comments - personal attacks on Mike Wild will not be tolerated so can we discuss the model only please, and let's keep the comments sensible, to the admin teams knowledge no-one has been forced to buy the model

[mozzer models]

Or how about some enterprising soul markets a kit, probably an etch, to right the chassis deficiencies? Could this be designed to make life easier for OO, EM and P4 purchasers alike? If the body is a corker, with good decoration levels, plenty of these vehicles are going to sell. Yes, it drives the total price even higher, but the EM and P4 people would be saved some time, perhaps, to compensate (sorry).

 

Just a thought.

 

Comet all ready make one

[Oldddudders]

Comet all ready make one

No doubt. But their's will not be tailored to the body of this model. I'm thinking of an etch that uses all Dapol's mounting points etc. Reduced skill-set required. It's one way of getting the less-confident to dabble in brass and get their feet wet.

[Mod3]

This topic has been temporariy locked pending discussion

[Andy Y]

Further to the earlier locking of this topic I have removed several posts which have nothing really to do with the topic, posts which go beyond what I view as critically acceptable in this case, posts which refer to either of the above and ones that are just plain inflammatory.

 

The topic was locked to enable this to be carried out; I will unlock the topic but would hope that any comments are properly considered, have a reasonable perspective and are communicated in a friendly and non-argumentative fashion.

 

Further escalation may lead to topic/post removal.

[7013]

Well done Andy I fully agree. This type of debate is not new, in fact it rears its head every time a new model comes on the market. Generally there appear to be two camps, those who go over the model with a microscope and have a vast historical library to paw over and compare the model to. Then there are those who take the attitude, if it looks close enough then that will do for me. Obviously there are views that vary within the camps. I have ordered one of the vans and it will be suitably wethered and put in my parcel train which will contain lots of historically incorrect vehicles by some standards and will look like any other parcel train by others, will I be disappointed? no. It is quite a risk for anyone be it Hornby magazine or a retail outlet to take on a ltd. edition/short run (whatever you will call it) like this and we all know that compromises have to be made between prototype and model, so let us agree that for some it will be too expensive, for others it will be too inaccurate and for others it will be OK.

For those who think it is too inaccurate the obvious route is DIY alterations. Well done Hornby Magazine for doing this model.

[craigwelsh]

It is quite a risk for anyone be it Hornby magazine or a retail outlet to take on a ltd. edition/short run (whatever you will call it) like this and we all know that compromises have to be made between prototype and model,

I'd agree with that if they were required compromises, in this case many of the points I talked about appear to have been mistakes as there was no reason to include them in the design. As Mike mentioned though its now unfortunately too late to correct them. It is indeed a risk which is why as much care as possible should be taken with it. Many will be happy as it is of course though and it will still look very good in a rake.

 

Anyway, I look forward to seeing what the printing stage throws up!

 

As well as the Comet kit there was also an etched kit by another manufacturer - 5522 Models though i've not seen one of those in the flesh to rate it. edit: Mind you the maker of that kit has raised some separate points on modelrailforum about errors on the bodyshell http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14925

 

One thing I did mean to ask is what the width is as I understand from the Jenkinson book that they were build to two distinct widths.

[amdaley]

I would have loved to support this venture but the model is inaccurate in some major ways for my liking.Perhaps others will be happy to mod the undercarriage & wheels but I would have expected better.It might be ok for the Lima & Airfix days but not now.

[60B]

As much as the brake blocks may be a problem, its not completly unsurmountable. However, my concern with the smaller wheels is whether other comprimises have been made so that the buffers are at the correct height. I'm not clued up enough to make a judgement on the footboards but it will be one of those "find a photo" situations. I will no doubt buy one and chuck tons of weathering at it.

[Baby Deltic]

I've ordered three Stove R's in Crimson, Maroon and Blue.

[Pennine MC]

As much as the brake blocks may be a problem, its not completly unsurmountable. However, my concern with the smaller wheels is whether other comprimises have been made so that the buffers are at the correct height.

 

I must admit, this is beginning to have all the wrong echoes of the Lima CCT, on which it's difficult to do a simple wheel change without that knocking on to the relationship between other components. I'll probably still buy one and make the best of it and I'm always reluctant to slate a new model, but it is more than a tad disappointing that somebody (apparently) didnt appreciate the significant point that this vehicle was coaching stock, not a wagon, and so wouldnt have had 3'1 wheels. Where the blame for that lies is conjectural of course, but compared to the other manufacturers, it is still a bit hard to take Dapol too seriously

[Guest Max Stafford]

I'll still honour my expression of interest and order the two, but I have and shall retain my Comet kit.

 

A dirtied up RTR one flashing past in the midst of my parcels rake should still pass muster though.

 

Shame about the wheels, but I suspect that point is rather academic now.

 

Dave.

[cctransuk]

THIS POSTING HAS BEEN AMENDED IN LINE WITH THE LIST OWNER'S REQUIREMENTS

 

OK - strictly on the model.

 

A STOVE van from any source will be incredibly useful to the majority of modellers in 4mm. scale. They could be seen in virtually any type of train, including freights.

 

Such a versatile model should have come directly from an RTR producer at a price similar to that of the Hornby Maunsell 4-wheeled brake, or from a kit producer at a lower price.

 

However, before that could happen Hornby Magazine saw the opportunity to get some publicity and make some money - perfectly reasonable on the face of it.

 

Of course, the first 'off the block' tends to spoil the market for other potential producers. Now, if the model that results is top notch then fair enough, though it's a bit tough on those that simply can't afford the premium price.

 

The problem arises when the model is incorrect. There have been identified a number of problems with this particular model; even those supporting the model admit that it will be necessary to bin the chassis if you are concerned about accuracy.

 

This is not a kit, at a kit price, where the finescale brigade routinely replace the chassis with etched components; it is a premium-priced, exclusive model.

 

Those of us who would buy an accurate model, (and I don't accept that this automatically means those that bin the chassis as a matter of course), will now have to hope that a kit producer has the faith to revive a suspended project. That surely is not a satisfactory outcome of all the hype and expenditure that has gone into this project?

 

I say all the above not from the perspective of a bystander, but as a small, albeit amateur producer of model railway transfers. I submit my products to the model press, including Hornby Magazine, and am grateful when they are reviewed.

 

I would expect, indeed hope, that if it transpired that I had made a basic error in the design of a product that the fact would be published. I have no interest in marketing faulty products and would rather not release an item if I could not make it as accurate as possible.

 

It is unfortunate that the model that has resulted in this debate is flawed, but that is the commercial risk that all producers take when they embark upon a project.

 

I cannot accept that it is reasonable for a magazine that comments on the accuracy or otherwise of other producers' products to simply dismiss basic inaccuracies in its own production, no matter what the financial consequences might be.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood,

Cambridge Custom Transfers.

[coachmann]

Speaking with my manufacturers hat on, two points arise concerning the major innacuracies built into the model.

 

Hornby Magazine :-

They will have provided Dapol with a basic specification that would undoubtedly stipulate that the model must be capable of negotiating the sharp curves routinely found in train sets.

The designer :-

It is their job to design a working model. If they design a chassis that entails fitting underscale wheels of 12mm diameter when they should be 14mm, then surely they would have advised Hornby Magazine of this. If they fit footboards that will be incorrect for most of the liveries that HM intend producing, then Dapol have plainly not done their homework. Measuring up a preserved example and looking at photographs of the real thing dating from 1933 to extinction on BR would show up any anomolies. That is a basis that has stood the test of time.

 

The underscale wheels and short footboards appear to have become an issue very late in the day, which is presumably why it has been said it is too costly to make any ammendments. In otherwords, Hornby Magazine did not do their homework either.

 

My own interest arose because it was possible for someone to produce an accurate model that would be 8' 6" wide. The D2000 batch were officially 9' wide but David Jenkinson wrote in his carraige books that they were in fact 8' 6" like the rest. Why does this matter? Well because the suitable extruded roofs we use on kitbuilt coaches only allow models to be 9' wide.

 

The model with its stumpy end steps does give the impression of being manufacturered with the proprietory market in mind, in otherwords a model with no fine detail to break off. With this in mind, Dapol & Hornby are producing a model to a certain specification, leaving it to scale modellers to make any alterations they feel are necessary.

 

I hope this is a fair overview.

 

Larry Goddard

[craigwelsh]

The missing hinge on the guards door is presumably being fixed though as that can be added to the tooling easily enough?

 

In the combined volume it says 8'9 and 9' in the text but the diagram shows 8'6, a bit of a typo on the 8'9 I guess. Do you have the separate volumes Larry as I couldn't read where he says they were all 8'6?

[coachmann]

Do you have the separate volumes Larry as I couldn't read where he says they were all 8'6?

Whether someone was measuring over duckets or not, here is what is written in reference to the official dimensions of 8' 9" and 9'..........."Officially 3" wider than D1796 but both types had standard 8' 6" wide body".

 

The 50' All-Steel and Period III designs were also 8' 6" wide, a fact mirrored in the excellent Hornby model.