Hornby Magazine/Dapol Stove R .

[Bob Reid]

Whether someone was measiring 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.

 

In addition to the text Larry has quoted Craig, the drawing in Volume III of both Lots (1091 & 1262) of the Diagram 2000 vehicles shows an Over Body dimension of 8'-6", as does the earlier Diagram 1796 Lots (664 & 669) - though that drawing is also annotated with an "Over Projections" size of 9'-0".

 

Interesting note in the text though (for me at least) that the Stoves were not fitted until during WWII.

[spamcan61]

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

 

The designer :-

[/i]

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.

 

 

Larry Goddard

 

It is maybe interesting to compare the original public domain CAD views of the N gauge Dapol model with what is now imminent in terms of the OO model. I can't quickly find those on this site, on MRF they're here:-

 

http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10332

 

The footboard length is different to the OO pre-pro, the wheels look less underscale, and the brake blocks are closer to being in line with the wheels.

 

I fully appreciate that they couldn't just scale up the N CAD, but it is odd that these significant differences are evident between the two.

[Pennine MC]

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".

 

Reading between the (probably unintended) lines of that statement, I wonder if wider duckets were fitted to the later diagram? That wouldnt negate the correctness of the body width dimension given, and would tie in (or roundabouts) with the similar widening of duckets on Stanier goods brakes (D1919/D2036 IIRC)

 

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...

 

 

A very significant point, IMHO, although probably tempered by the thought that HM isnt the most critical of reviewers.

[Preservation Modeller]

I think this has been asked already, but I can't seem to find it (damn reflective Laptop screens make things hard to see) so I do apologise if I annoy anyone by asking:

 

Was it only those who expressed their interest in the magazine that will be able to order, or will iy be an open to readers order at all? I wasn't reading the Hornby mag until after this announcement so heard nothing of it until too late....

[spamcan61]

I think this has been asked already, but I can't seem to find it (damn reflective Laptop screens make things hard to see) so I do apologise if I annoy anyone by asking:

 

Was it only those who expressed their interest in the magazine that will be able to order, or will iy be an open to readers order at all? I wasn't reading the Hornby mag until after this announcement so heard nothing of it until too late....

 

Anyone will be able to buy them; without trawling back through this thread I'm fairly sure there will be an order form/details in next month's (i.e. December cover date) Hornby Magazine at least.

[craigwelsh]

In addition to the text Larry has quoted Craig, the drawing in Volume III of both Lots (1091 & 1262) of the Diagram 2000 vehicles shows an Over Body dimension of 8'-6", as does the earlier Diagram 1796 Lots (664 & 669) - though that drawing is also annotated with an "Over Projections" size of 9'-0".

 

Interesting note in the text though (for me at least) that the Stoves were not fitted until during WWII.

Thanks for that, i've only got a combined volume which I assume is an earlier copy.

 

I did look back at the CAD to check some of the points couldn't have been picked up earlier before also realising they were the N gauge drawings!

[finelines]

I stood in the middle of Blackburn Exhibition and said to my son, “This is not what I wantâ€. I know what I was talking about, he didn’t.

 

I loved my Hornby Dublo train set. I particularly loved my Southern Utility, my Passenger Fruit Van and my Stove R on my parcels train. Ever since I have striven to recreate that train, but better, somehow the Stove R eluded me. As a result I was delighted when an RTR model was proposed.

 

My being a 24/7 carer becomes truer day by day, so although I think I could be the railway modeller I would like to be, I have to rely considerably on rtr equipment to take me a bit down the road. There have been more recent postings that go a long to describing my disappointment, probably better than I put it.

 

Which really brings me back to my quote. I feel very let down, if the model’s good enough for you fair enough. I have never, from memory, criticised any other product in this way. But this is not what I want, so I’m out of here.

 

Now to deal with some other things I don't want!

 

 

Roger

[Guest dilbert]

Well, things do seem to go round in viscious circles very quickly in the 4mm world - however the resultant mire is more like a viscous sludge with the duplication of the more popular "requests" and yet there are complementary gaps that remain to be developed... it benefits no-one overall and is about as much fun as cycling thru treacle.

 

Why is is that other industires through co-operation/development agreements using standards based developed formats and/or governance set ups can do forward product planning that is not necessarily anti-competitive, and yet in this hobby the excuse is that it would contravene competitive commercial law - obviously I am missing something here.... or is there something else that I haven't taken into account ?

 

Can you someone (legal eagle?) set the record straight for me ? I find this type of situation ridiculous ...dilbert

[Bob Reid]

Maybe I'm being naive (or just not enough in the know) here Dilbert, but where was the duplication in this model? Was there another manufacturer that had (publicly) announced the Stove R that was duly announced by Hornby Magazine.... The reason I ask - I wasn't aware of one, but that may mean nothing.

[Pinkmouse]

Just read through this thread, and I have to ask - why all the angst? If you don't like it, then don't buy it, simple. This is only a pastime, not the end of the world.

[Bob Reid]

Just read through this thread, and I have to ask - why all the angst? If you don't like it, then don't buy it, simple. This is only a pastime, not the end of the world.

 

Don't tell me Pinkmouse - the angst is too long - sheesh what next!

[darren01]

HI All

Did anyone else get the email sent to them asking for you to send full payment for the model, would not mind ,but i would like to see a finished model first.

Darren

[Trevellan]

Yes Darren, and I shall be honouring my commitment to buy. I can understand people's frustration at such a fundamental error as wheel diameter, but my Stove R is destined for a parcels train as a I recall them - a real mish-mash of stock. The pre-production shots look good so I won't be losing any sleep over 2mm.

[JZ]

Yes Darren, and I shall be honouring my commitment to buy. I can understand people's frustration at such a fundamental error as wheel diameter, but my Stove R is destined for a parcels train as a I recall them - a real mish-mash of stock. The pre-production shots look good so I won't be losing any sleep over 2mm.

 

 

I agree. Mine will dissappear into a parcels train, extra luggage space on a north/south excursion or at the back of a milk train. To me it adds a bit more variety, I don't know enough about the prototype to worry, as long as the general layout of the thing is OK. And, to be quite honest, who is going to put a vernier against it as it runs around the track.

 

I think Hornby Magazine should be congratulated for taking the plunge and hope we might see a few more runs like this. How about a Mk1 horse box.

 

As an aside. I have 5 Lima CCTs. One has been converted to 14mm wheels. Put them in a train and it is, at first glance, difficult to see which one.

[amdaley]

Just read through this thread, and I have to ask - why all the angst? If you don't like it, then don't buy it, simple. This is only a pastime, not the end of the world.

 

I agree with you but that shouldn't stifle debate. I am talking about debate here not abuse. Some people seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the two.

 

I agree. Mine will dissappear into a parcels train, extra luggage space on a north/south excursion or at the back of a milk train. To me it adds a bit more variety, I don't know enough about the prototype to worry, as long as the general layout of the thing is OK. And, to be quite honest, who is going to put a vernier against it as it runs around the track.

 

I think Hornby Magazine should be congratulated for taking the plunge and hope we might see a few more runs like this. How about a Mk1 horse box.

As an aside. I have 5 Lima CCTs. One has been converted to 14mm wheels. Put them in a train and it is, at first glance, difficult to see which one.

 

Absolutely I hope we see more models from this magazine but to be a success they must iron out the basic mistakes that occurred with the Stove R.We are talking about a scale model here not a run around the table child's toy.

[Pinkmouse]

 

I agree with you but that shouldn't stifle debate. I am talking about debate here not abuse. Some people seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the two.

 

Indeed, and it goes back to the whole philosophy of railway modelling. Personally, if I really wanted one, I'd be looking at it as a fun challenge to adapt to what I wanted it to look like, for me there is no fun in just buying something to plonk on the layout with no personal input. I appreciate others may differ though.

 

Absolutely I hope we see more models from this magazine but to be a success they must iron out the basic mistakes that occurred with the Stove R.We are talking about a scale model here not a run around the table child's toy.

 

But are we? Most of these will be sold to people who want to run these around first radius curves on underscale track, so design compromises will have to be made to suit them. You have to remember, active participants on forums like RMweb are a tiny proportion of people in the hobby, and much as we value our opinions, they are those of a minority, (mine likely even more so! ).

[Taz]

Maybe I'm being naive (or just not enough in the know) here Dilbert, but where was the duplication in this model? Was there another manufacturer that had (publicly) announced the Stove R that was duly announced by Hornby Magazine.... The reason I ask - I wasn't aware of one, but that may mean nothing.

 

Bob,

 

No one had announced a rival model but once Hornby mag went public Roger Chivers (finelines) stated that he was in the process of developing a plastic kit, which he has now stopped.

 

Judging by the quality of his exisiting work, I think we could have expected this kit to have produced a top notch model.

I think some people are a bit put out because the Hornby model has put a stop to this whilst also (in their opinion) failing to reach a similar (expected) standard.

 

Whilst I have some sympathy for this view point, I try and take a more pragmatic approach to my modelling.

At this time the Hornby mag model is the cheapest was for me to get a Stove R. Yes, I will have to do some work on the underframe if I want an accurate representation. But I can have a crack at that and probably come up with a better model, for cheaper, than if I tried to build one from a brass kit.

If Roger had continued with his own kit development then maybe I would have been coming to a different conclusion but we are where we are.

[Oldddudders]

I agree with you but that shouldn't stifle debate. I am talking about debate here not abuse. Some people seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the two.

 

Absolutely I hope we see more models from this magazine but to be a success they must iron out the basic mistakes that occurred with the Stove R.We are talking about a scale model here not a run around the table child's toy.

Define success? If the whole run sells out - which it will with these - then it's job done. Wait 'til a handful get onto ebay - how much markup will we see on there? Hot cakes come to mind. These vehicles will have what the motor trade defines as showroom appeal - even if the nature of their sale means they won't often be seen in one new - and their detailed shortcomings will not matter a jot.

 

An opportunity missed? Maybe, but lost sales seem most unlikely.

[PhilJ W]

 

I think Hornby Magazine should be congratulated for taking the plunge and hope we might see a few more runs like this. How about a Mk1 horse box.

 

There is a lot of scope in this one, the engineers/steam heating versions would also be desirable. I am trying to convert the old Hornby/Wrenn to an engineers vehicle and I am not finding it very easy.

 

 

 

[7013]

I am certainly not going to loose any sleep over 2mm difference in wheel size, anyway even if Dapol say they cannot change that now it would be easy for modellers to change the wheels, whether this will throw the buffer/bufferbeam out of alignment with other wagons I dont know, we live with compromises and tbh I would not have known all these 'problems' unless they had been discussed. It is good that those who know inform others like me of the potential discrepancies, it is up to the individual then if they feel they can live (in a modelling sense) with them.

[craigwelsh]

An opportunity missed? Maybe, but lost sales seem most unlikely.

Sadly this is probably the case and we'll see more cockups like this in the future . Hornby or Bachmann could do a mk1 horsebox to a far higher standard than Dapol currently seem capable of in both moulding and printing plus its cheaper as a main run item. I rather hope the magazine doesn't go that way. This Stove R is a bit like the Heljan/Hattons class 14 where a low quality special got to market before a good quality main run item arrived.

 

 

I am certainly not going to loose any sleep over 2mm difference in wheel size, anyway even if Dapol say they cannot change that now it would be easy for modellers to change the wheels, whether this will throw the buffer/bufferbeam out of alignment with other wagons I dont know, we live with compromises and tbh I would not have known all these 'problems' unless they had been discussed. It is good that those who know inform others like me of the potential discrepancies, it is up to the individual then if they feel they can live (in a modelling sense) with them.

Its 2.5mm and if the buffer height is currently correct it means a compromise has been made somewhere to achieve that so you can't just put bigger wheels in. In this case the pivoting axle mechanism also gets in the way so you can't put in bigger wheels which is why Mike cannot change it now.

[Guest dilbert]

Maybe I'm being naive (or just not enough in the know) here Dilbert, but where was the duplication in this model? Was there another manufacturer that had (publicly) announced the Stove R that was duly announced by Hornby Magazine.... The reason I ask - I wasn't aware of one, but that may mean nothing.

 

Taz addresses part of the answer here ...

 

Bob,

 

No one had announced a rival model but once Hornby mag went public Roger Chivers (finelines) stated that he was in the process of developing a plastic kit, which he has now stopped.

 

Judging by the quality of his exisiting work, I think we could have expected this kit to have produced a top notch model.

I think some people are a bit put out because the Hornby mag model has put a stop to this whilst also (in their opinion) failing to reach a similar (expected) standard.

 

(bold is my addition to avoid confusion)....

 

 

My comment about duplication was not so much orientated to the Stove R project but to an apparent trend (my view) where there has been a spate of announcements over recent months on models where the duplication is most evident, that B*** P****** stand out quite well.

 

In general, the subject is a model based on a locomotive prototype, and will attract close scrutiny such as detail like the leaf springs on the tender won't fall off in autumn , so when something different comes along and is marred by simple errors (such as wheel size), it make you wonder on how many other projects get canned, because someone was the first to grab the "we're making it" rights.

 

On top of that, there is a bunch of excellent locos that have been developed and relatively little associated stock to the same level of detail/quality et al...dilbert

[2ManySpams]

Sadly this is probably the case and we'll see more cockups like this in the future . Hornby or Bachmann could do a mk1 horsebox to a far higher standard than Dapol currently seem capable of in both moulding and printing plus its cheaper as a main run item. I rather hope the magazine doesn't go that way. This Stove R is a bit like the Heljan/Hattons class 14 where a low quality special got to market before a good quality main run item arrived.

 

 

 

Its 2.5mm and if the buffer height is currently correct it means a compromise has been made somewhere to achieve that so you can't just put bigger wheels in. In this case the pivoting axle mechanism also gets in the way so you can't put in bigger wheels which is why Mike cannot change it now.

 

I can understand the decisions Mike Wild and co have taken, particularly the wheel size. Where the magazine has positioned itself in the modelling market means that the model will be bought by folk who use set track and curves as tight as Radius 1. I can't imagine that a special edition model would be very popular with that audience it it was restricted to run on non-set track curves. There are however modellers that notice the errors AND care enough to want to correct them and I'm sure they will use the model as a good starting point to detail and rework the chassis. Would have producing the model to suit the latter rather than the former have resulting in more or less sales? The bean counters at HM will have taken a view on this i'm sure and gone for what they feel is the least financially risky option. Looking at the model photos i'll certainly be buying one and when it arrives i'll take a view on amending the chassis - it just depends on how obvious the errors are when in a train and how much they bug me

 

Now if only there was someone out there who produces etches for wagon underframes.....Craig!!

 

A different question... If this is the sort of choice that has to be made should perhaps HM have chosen a model that can be produced accurately and run on set track curves?

[iak]

I'm of the view that us finescale types should wait until we have our pinkies on the beastie afore we start getting our claymores too sharp.

Until we see how the underneath has been put together then we can only speculate as to dimensional compromise.

The model was aimed at a market and appears to satisfy that market - if it is not as we fettling types then it some thing which we should be used to.

Are we all getting used to the delights of recent coach developments maybe?

Yes its a let down in some ways but as a first time effort we should be consider that Hornby Mag had to look for maximum return on their outlay.

I am sure in the end all parties will, by one means or other, have Stove R's to satisfy their needs B)

[Free At Last]

From MREmag

 

Thank you for the comments about Hornby Magazine’s ‘OO’ gauge Stove R passenger brake model and I’m pleased to see the generally positive comments which are being sounded following publication of the final CAD/CAM drawings.

 

We had a choice when it came to the brake shoe positions for the Stove R – either way it was likely to meet some expectations and not others!

 

The first option was to mount them in line with the wheels which would appear to be correct for ‘OO’ gauge. However, in terms of scale modelling this is incorrect as the wheel spacing of ‘OO’ gauge rolling stock is incorrect for a true 4mm scale railway. Following the second option we have opted to model the brake shoes in their correct positions – as per the drawings – which means that while they are beyond the extremities of the wheels, they are in fact in the correct positions.

 

I realise that some would have preferred the brake shoes to be mounted in line with the wheels, but with a view towards total accuracy we decided against this in favour of a model which is fully correct for 4mm scale. This question has brought up by several Hornby Magazine readers, including Mr Shaw, and we have addressed the comments with a similar response in the forthcoming September issue.

 

Mike Wild, Editor, Hornby Magazine

 

(My bold)

I imagine that the above also increased peoples expectations.