Hornby Magazine/Dapol Stove R .

[Enterprisingwestern]

For anybody who seriously objects to the rtr version, there are at least 2 etched brass kits which can be built, and hopefully a plastic kit, (Puts hands together and prays!!)

[Stormbringer]

Plus, it certainly passes the Captain's 'Black 5' test - 'if it looks like a Black 5, the chances are it is a Black 5'... this model certainly looks like a Stove 'R'....

 

My sentiments exactly

 

Pete

[dcroz]

Evening all,

 

Interesting thread so far to say the least, and lots of strong views.

 

I didn't even know that there were Stove Rs existed until this model was announced, but liked the "quirkiness" of a 6 wheeled coach for my preserved line's fleet.

 

However, given that it's a model designed for 00 track I was disappointed with the decision on the positioning of the brake gear, and will not be buying - if 00 is 90%+ of the market, the position will be "wrong" for 90% of buyers, including me!

 

David

[darren01]

HI all

 

I do not understand why the RTR can not get it right, look at this way if their was no example about to work from I can understand mistake could creep in to the model.

 

But when you have an example still about why are silly mistakes still made?

 

Roof profile wrong under frames wrong ECT, wheels and brakes not right on the stove R, but we go “Ho dear†and still buy the model and try to correct it ourselves, I am not bashing the RTR company’s, they have brought to the RTR market some stunning models, but if they got it right in the first place then there would not be people out their who pull the model to bits, over things that are not right about it.

 

Example if you asked all of the big RTR companies to make a class 33 I bet each one would not be the same as the others; each would have a right and wrong bits.

 

Some people will be very happy with this model and others will not be, we all at the end of the day a choice to buy or not buy.

 

But when you are paying £20-£30 for am model then I want it to be right in the first place.

 

I will still be getting my Stove R ,but I will be replacing the wheels and cutting off the brake shoes and replacing them with brass ones .

 

Darren

 

 

[Taz]

Darren,

 

My guess is that the Stove R undergubbins are 'wrong' not through mistake, but through design.

We already know that the position of the brake gear was a consious descision. I would think that someone (probably at Dapol) would have decided that using 12mm wheels was the best compromise to get this 6w chassis to negotiate trainset curves (which I'm sure wasn't a straight forward task).

Obviously many people here disagree with that design compromise but I bet the vast majority of customers would be none the wiser that it is incorrect.

[RedgateModels]

Darren,

 

My guess is that the Stove R undergubbins are 'wrong' not through mistake, but through design.

We already know that the position of the brake gear was a consious descision. I would think that someone (probably at Dapol) would have decided that using 12mm wheels was the best compromise to get this 6w chassis to negotiate trainset curves (which I'm sure wasn't a straight forward task).

Obviously many people here disagree with that design compromise but I bet the vast majority of customers would be none the wiser that it is incorrect.

 

Absolutely, producing an OO gauge mass market item of rolling stock will always be a compromise, as there is the requirement to get it round curves that are tighter than the prototype, by a large margin. My beautifully crafted 2-8-2 cab rear sheeting had to be severely modifed when I found the tender coal chute clashed with it when testing on R2 curves, it was that or increase the cab to tender gap - compromise ......

 

My thoughts are

 

1. The need for pivoting "bogies" lead to a 12mm wheel diameter choice
   
2. The smaller the wheel the easier it will negotiate tight radius curves - there's less flange to get in the way
   

[spamcan61]

HI all

 

I do not understand why the RTR can not get it right, look at this way if their was no example about to work from I can understand mistake could creep in to the model.

 

But when you have an example still about why are silly mistakes still made?

 

 

A few reasons:-

 

1)As already pointed out, these 'mistakes' are often deliberate design decisions in order to make a commercially viable product.

 

2) Every modeller / train set owner / box collector has a slightly different set of criteria for buying or not buying a model,so , to coin a well worn cliche, the manufacturers are never going to keep everybody happy all the time.

 

3) EVERY model will have some degree of compromise, 1:1 scale and 1:76 models are constructed in very different ways and manufacturing tolerances don't scale down anyway. Without wishing to appear flippant, I've yet to see, for example, a model of an A3 pacific powered by an accurate firebox, boiler and smokebox. There is compromise in all everything.

 

 

EDIT:

Having said all that, with specific reference to the Stove R then I am personally disappointed that a model described as "a model which is fully correct for 4mm scale." contains the current level of errors/compromises.

[Barry Ten]

I have become totally bored with all the carping critical remarks about not only the Stove R but also many other models. If those who are so critical (and often rude) can produce a better model to sell at a similar price to those of us who can't make one ourselves let them do so.

As for me, my order is in the post.

 

There should be a place for reasoned criticism. I'm not an RTR manufacturer; I don't have a factory or links to Chinese sub-contractors - but I'm surely allowed to observe that the choice of wheels is a disappointing one, especially given that - this being a six-wheeled prototype - the chassis itself is part of the intrinsic allure of the model? I agree that there is no place for rudeness, but we should surely be able to speak out about deficiencies in models, even if we're not personally capable of building a better one. After all I'm not personally capable of playing guitar like Nils Lofgren, but I'm allowed an opinion on the latest Springsteen record...

 

Anyway, I expressed an interest when the Stoves were announced so (despite feeling let down) will order one anyway, but I'll be doing so in the knowledge that I won't be able to live with those undersized wheels...

[cctransuk]

If this is true of the majority of RTR buyers, it must make Hornby and Bachmann wonder why they are trying so hard to get their models spot-on.

 

Complaints have been aired on RMweb about the price of Hornby Stanier coaches even though they are fine RTR models, yet it appears from this thread that the much smaller Stove R with all its innacuracies passes muster even though it will be the same price as a bogie vehicle. When it comes to making spring hangers and axleboxes swivel with the wheels in order to negotiate trainset curves, then that model has been clearly designed as a toy. The fact that the steps on the van end look stubby and unbreakable lends weight to this. The more I look at the initial images, the more I am inclined to think that conversion into a scale model will not come cheaply.

 

Thank you for putting into words my own, and apparently many other modellers', feeling about this item. Many of us have been committing sums of money to exclusive 'oddball' RTR productions that, just a few years ago, would have been deemed commercially non-viable.

 

To date, the quality and accuracy of these items has justified the price - unfortunately on this occasion it does not.

 

This in itself is not a cause for major concern; those who don't worry about such things will buy the model and Model Rail will probably make a profit.

 

The trouble is that I suspect that a very significant proportion of those who have made the whole 'oddball' RTR movement financially viable DO care. Great damage has been done here to Dapol's credibility; and it has to be said that some of us are wary of a company that for so long simply reliveried old RTR and marketted 1960s plastic kits.

 

Nonetheless, I and many others have put this aside and have pre-ordered the exclusive production RTR locos that Dapol have been commissioned to produce by Kernow, amongst others.

 

This STOVE episode has certainly got me worried about exactly what I have ordered. What I can say is that, if any of these productions exhibits the level of inaccuracy evident in the STOVE, then they will be going straight back!

 

Enough said - this isn't simply the picky few wingeing about barely discernable detail, it is about the credibility of a section of the new exclusive production market, which has the the potential to provide us with RTR models of subjects that we had never dared hope to see.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Andy Y]

And still you go on picking without adding anything further from a factual perspective.

 

I know there are issues; most interested parties are now aware of those and I honestly do not see the need for you to keep harping on with the doom-mongering. Please let the matter rest now.

[7013]

Quote

The trouble is that I suspect that a very significant proportion of those who have made the whole 'oddball' RTR movement financially viable DO care. Great damage has been done here to Dapol's credibility; and it has to be said that some of us are wary of a company that for so long simply reliveried old RTR and marketted 1960s plastic kits. Unquote

 

I believe with the above we are going down a road that is can only cause problems. Like Andy Y has said everyone is aware of the problems but 'Great damage done here to Dapol's credibility' are strong words and serve no good whatsoever in this debate. Dapol produce some fine products and this one has been condemned in some quarters before it reaches the market. IMHO if this debate is straying into the credibility of Dapol then it has run its course and should be locked..

[Andy Y]

IMHO if this debate is straying into the credibility of Dapol then it has run its course and should be locked..

 

I honestly agree with your assessment there so I would hope any further contributions are mindful of that as I will lock if deemed appropriate.

 

 

 

[coachmann]

Okay, so what are we going to do with our Stove's when they arrive in the Xmas stocking? I have already touched on milk trains, so here's one with a slight difference. It is a Mirfield-Congleton milk train conveying milk canisters in a SR design Parcels and Miscelaneous Van (PMV) designed by Maunsell, an LMS design 'Stove' Passenger Brake Van, and a SR design 12-ton vacuum-fitted ventilated van (10' wheelbase). The three LMS Stanier non-corridor coaches at the rear were empty stock to be detached at Stockport, and the loco was Forwler 2-6-4T no. 42407.

 

Regarding liveries, the black loco carries a BR smokebox numberplate and BR number on the bunker, but LMS on its tanks. Note the smokebox has received a new coat of protective paint.

 

I presume the SR van is in SR green (could be olive or malachite), the Stove carries LMS lined crimson lake but with a BR painted number, the SR 12ton van would be SR dark brown or BR red oxide, the leading brake third coach is in unlined BR carmine red, while the composite and trailing brake third are in LMS lined maroon with BR numbers in LMS style yellow insignia.

(Photo taken by Jim Davenport, courtesy Brian Green Collection).

Larry G.

[Flood]

To follow Coachmann's lead there is a photo of Class 31 241 at Bristol on 21 May 1976 in Modern Diesels in Focus.

 

The parcels train behind it appears to be 2 x SPV, Southern BY, LMS Stove R, Southern PMV, LMS CCT, SPV, LMS BG (probably with no gangways) - this is the end of the photo. The train is stated as being the 4B05 05.05 Paddington - Bristol parcels train which was formed as 4 x GUV for Cardiff but possibly shows the use of 2 x 4 wheeled (or 6 wheeled) vehicles in place of one bogie vehicle.

 

Parkside make a variant of the fish vans converted to SPVs, the Southern PMV and the LMS CCT. Hornby make the BY and either Bachmann or Hornby make the LMS BG. All in all an interesting rake that is relatively easy to model.

[7013]

Lovely photo coachman just goes to show the possibilities for parcels trains are many fold, and most of it is available in kit or rtr

[robertcwp]

Here is a Stove R in a very mixed train at Tonbridge:

 

Stove at Tonbridge

[robertcwp]

Okay, so what are we going to do with our Stove's when they arrive in the Xmas stocking? I have already touched on milk trains, so here's one with a slight difference. It is a Mirfield-Congleton milk train conveying milk canisters in a SR design Parcels and Miscelaneous Van (PMV) designed by Maunsell, an LMS design 'Stove' Passenger Brake Van, and a SR design 12-ton vacuum-fitted ventilated van (10' wheelbase). The three LMS Stanier non-corridor coaches at the rear were empty stock to be detached at Stockport, and the loco was Forwler 2-6-4T no. 42407.

 

Regarding liveries, the black loco carries a BR smokebox numberplate and BR number on the bunker, but LMS on its tanks. Note the smokebox has received a new coat of protective paint.

 

I presume the SR van is in SR green (could be olive or malachite), the Stove carries LMS lined crimson lake but with a BR painted number, the SR 12ton van would be SR dark brown or BR red oxide, the leading brake third coach is in unlined BR carmine red, while the composite and trailing brake third are in LMS lined maroon with BR numbers in LMS style yellow insignia.

(Photo taken by Jim Davenport, courtesy Brian Green Collection).

Larry G.

If the leading passenger vehicle is unlined BR crimson, would that put the date no earlier than 1951, which is when lining was abandoned on crimson?

[Guest Max Stafford]

The Gill Sans - style of the smokebox number certainly suggests post-1949. If this is indeed 1951 then that's a pretty late survivor in LMS livery although as I have seen a Brian Morrison photo of a J39 at Aberdeen with LNER on the tender in 1952-3, I shouldn't be at all surprised. Not much lower down detail evident in the photo which lends the belief that good weathering may cover a good multitude of sins!

 

Dave.

[7013]

Noticed the Fowler has a beautiful shine on its smokebox and steam pipes but the rest is filthy, strange.

[lonesome_whistle]

I'm rather surprised that nobody has mentioned the fact that those wheels that are 2mm too small are actually a tad over 2mm too close together on their axles too. I suppose that, together with the need to get 6-wheeled coaching stock around the sort of curves that you wouldn't chance putting a 9' wheelbase coal wagon around in the real world, mean that there are going to be compromises. It's rather ironic that we have complaints about dimensional inaccuracies whilst, at the same time, some would have the brake gear moved to a position where it ain't supposed to be. it's a funny old world isn't it? B)

[Bob Reid]

I'm not surprised your whistles lonesome - dragging that old cherry up Just when this threads getting back on track!

[robertcwp]

If the leading passenger vehicle is unlined BR crimson, would that put the date no earlier than 1951, which is when lining was abandoned on crimson?

A further date clue would be whether vehicle numbers have suffix letters - these came in for pre-nationalisation designs in 1951. I can't make this out from the small image posted.

[The Stationmaster]

Noticed the Fowler has a beautiful shine on its smokebox and steam pipes but the rest is filthy, strange.

 

The shine is almost certainly new paint - a common sign that some sort of intermediate repair work involving attention in the smokebox, or possibly 'valves & pistons area, has taken place. It always used to fascinate me just how frequently some Region's locos could be seen with this feature as it was not at all common on home ground on the Western. (cue a multitude of picture links showing repainted Western smokeboxes).

[coachmann]

Interesting comments gents. I mentioned the repainted smokebox. It was done routinely at Newton Heath to protect the smokeboxes when the paint either got thin or was just plain burned off. However, the 2-6-4T was a Mirfield engine. Regarding date, I put it at around 1951 too. It looks from the original print that the last two coaches carried LMS style running numbers with an 'M' prefix. On the otherhand, I doubt the Stove was repainted with lining after the war and so it is probably in prewar livery.

[JZ]

Here is a Stove R in a very mixed train at Tonbridge:

 

Stove at Tonbridge

What is the vehicle ahead of the Stove ?