Kernow commission ex LSWR Gate Stock Pull Push Sets

[olivegreen]

As Shakespeare said,  'much ado about nothing'.  

 

For anyone to get so worked up about photographs that (as was clearly stated) do not represent the finished product says rather more about the person than the product.

[Dunsignalling]

Mr Swain has a wide-ranging fund of knowledge but, shall we say, doesn't exactly share it in a convivial manner and gets some people's backs up as a result.

 

What worries me is his categorical statements about items of rolling stock that had been modified and repaired on numerous occasions over their working lives. The modern term for this is "Trigger's broom".  Moreover, they were already very much "third division" coaches by the time some of the changes were applied and they would have been slotted in between more pressing work on front-line stock.

 

The work would have been done using drawings that had been altered as many times as the coaches to reflect changes applied to other coaches earlier on. There is no guarantee that the drawings reflected all the changes applied to all the coaches or indeed that "old hands" didn't do what they identified as necessary (especially when making repairs) without reference to them. If this happened, certain vehicles would incorporate features that did the job but might not exactly match the official record. 

 

We can undoubtedly rely on the provenance of any information in Mr Swain's possession but, without knowing the full extent of it, I'd be very cautious in accepting that his statements can be taken as absolutely correct in relation to every coach, even if he has the works drawings.

 

That said, he will own or have access to (through Mike King) more information than most of us could dream of. It's just that, in relation to vehicles such as these, even the "Gospel" may not be completely comprehensive.   

 

As for the models, that detail differences between sets are being reflected at all in r-t-r products is a situation we could not have imagined a decade ago. None of them can do more than represent the chosen set at particular moments when various photographers pressed the shutter and hopefully noted down the date correctly. 

 

I don't think we should come down too firmly on either side of this argument. simply because whatever information is "out there" in relation to relatively obscure prototypes inevitably has gaps, and maybe even errors.

 

The samples of the models appear to capture the flavour of these coaches very well, though the bogies don't look entirely right to me (the wheels seem a bit too "visible"). I might be vaguely disappointed if mine turn up with a few bits of exposed panelling that should really be sheeted over, but I'm not going to tear out my remaining hair over it. Nearly right beats the hell out of a generic model in four different liveries for me.

 

John

Edited March 23, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Edwardian]

A few of us found some humour in the situation, but certainly did not get worked up.  Graham Muz's response was measured and dignified, and, so I don't think he was worked up, either.

 

Certainly the intention was not to bash the product, and I naturally regret these situations in case any offence was caused. 

 

If I understand Graham, there is room for any necessary corrections and I note that it has been conceded by a forum member that there is room for constructive criticism, as, indeed, there should be.

 

I have looked at the criticisms made in the Model Rail post, I have looked carefully at the prototype pictures on the Kernow website and I have consulted the relevant Weddell volume, which has an excellent drawing and some more photographs.  I don't have the SR Push-Pull volume and I am certainly not professing expertise.  I have queries, yes, but make no statements of "fact".

 

However, rather than post my thoughts here, and risk a further unnecessary rise in temperature, I have PM'd Graham with a list of potential issues, and invited him to comment.  I have invited him to post both my queries and his answers here, when he has had a chance to consider them and give reasoned responses.  This is an opportunity either to confirm the accuracy of the model in certain respects, and/or consider any necessary corrections.

 

I hope project well-wishers and pre-orderers can see this as a reasonable and reasoned position, and not become cross about it.

 

For my part, it would be great to have an accurate model as a basis for a back-dating conversion, and, for everyone else, I wish them as accurate an RTR Gatestock set as can reasonably be achieved.

 

The only other thing I would add is that I think, as I often find, John (Dunsignalling), makes some thoughtful points.  Had he seen them, I hope he would agree that my comments to Graham are very much consistent with his caution concerning "categorical statements", and his words are a useful caveat to this post in that he does acknowledge limits to what we should expect of RTR models, particularly when catering for multiple variants.  

 

And, yes, I too am struck by the fact that these models do seem to capture the look of the prototype rather well, which is really most important.

[brushman47544]

It seems odd, to me, that there should be so much resistance to feedback that is concerned with ensuring that a RTR release is as accurate as it reasonably can be, and that avoidable and unnecessary mistakes are avoided.  Logically, it seems to me, that to object to such feedback, one must be of the view that "wow, that's so pretty, and, if it's pretty enough, the accuracy can hang!".  Well, that is certainly a point of view, and I respect that.  What I don't see is much respect for the view that holds "hang on, chaps, if we could just avoid this inaccuracy or that, this good model could be a great one".  Sadly, I don't see much respect on RMWeb for the people who hold that view, either.

 

Provided feedback is provided in a calm, timely and constructive way, it should be welcomed if it can improve the accuracy of a model. Sometimes, the points made can be addressed and others not, which may be for a variety of reasons. What is usually "missing" is a response to such comments, such as that it would be uneconomic at this stage, or the like. There's also a big difference between having to accept compromises because its a model and correcting simple errors that can be put down to the skill, or lack of it, of the toolmaker.

[aussiebrfan]

Hi there,

Does anyone know if the size and font of the Set number is one of the things to be reviewed?

As when comparing the model of Set 373 for example to the photos on the Kernow site they look totally different.

Cheers G

[Graham_Muz]

Hi there,

Does anyone know if the size and font of the Set number is one of the things to be reviewed?

As when comparing the model of Set 373 for example to the photos on the Kernow site they look totally different.

Cheers G

 

Hi yes this has been advised to Kernow along with a few other comments

[Graham_Muz]

A few of us found some humour in the situation, but certainly did not get worked up.  Graham Muz's response was measured and dignified, and, so I don't think he was worked up, either.

 

Certainly the intention was not to bash the product, and I naturally regret these situations in case any offence was caused. 

 

If I understand Graham, there is room for any necessary corrections and I note that it has been conceded by a forum member that there is room for constructive criticism, as, indeed, there should be.

 

I have looked at the criticisms made in the Model Rail post, I have looked carefully at the prototype pictures on the Kernow website and I have consulted the relevant Weddell volume, which has an excellent drawing and some more photographs.  I don't have the SR Push-Pull volume and I am certainly not professing expertise.  I have queries, yes, but make no statements of "fact".

 

However, rather than post my thoughts here, and risk a further unnecessary rise in temperature, I have PM'd Graham with a list of potential issues, and invited him to comment.  I have invited him to post both my queries and his answers here, when he has had a chance to consider them and give reasoned responses.  This is an opportunity either to confirm the accuracy of the model in certain respects, and/or consider any necessary corrections.

 

Snip

 

Firstly, the idea of sending a PM and then posting in a thread about same PM kind of defeats the object of the PM.

 

Secondly, I do not work for Kernow Model Rail Centre on a commercial basis I just assist as and when I can  ( as I try to do with other manufacturers that ask for any assistance), neither am I a spokesperson for Kernow Model Rail Centre.

 

Thirdly, with respect to the tooling goes there are as far as I am aware no planned further changes as the models and therefore they are what they are and now at the livery artwork stage and there for any changes (other than correct assembly of the correct chassis on the correct carriage and getting them the right way round) will be to the livery aspects only.

 

Therefore any decision to purchase is down to any individual. Details within the Weddell volume should not be the only source of reference alone as these sets were rebuilt but the SR from the early 1930's  

[Edwardian]

Well, there we are.  Naturally I am disappointed that Graham has chosen not to address the matters raised, though I am glad that he was at least given the opportunity to do so. 

 

For the record, then, here is my PM in full, with the queries I raised:

 

Graham,

 

I thought it might be best to deal with the matter by PM, as almost anything that can be construed as remotely critical tends to get leapt upon, not by you or Dave Jones, but by well-wishes. Unfortunately the temperature soon rises, so nothing sensible is achieved.

 

I will try to clear the air. First, I wasn't Kernow or DJM bashing; clearly it would have been better if even livery samples were correctly assembled before photography and publication. That was the point, and, to be fair to you, you seem to have acknowledged as much.

 

Second, I have expressed disappointment at the decision not to tool for pre-Grouping condition. That is the commissioner's decision, but I do not see anything wrong in calling for more support for earlier periods. The calls will either be answered or they will not, but I make no apologies for making the call. It is sad that it seemingly aggravates some people, but I do not think that is a reasonable reaction.  For present purposes, the point is that I am not biased against Kernow or again this product as a result.  Rather, I do retain some interest in it as the basis of a possible conversion, which is why accuracy issues are of some interest to me.

 

While deferring to your expertise, and not possessing the SR push-pull book, I do have Weddell's LSWR Coaches in the 20th Century and I have taken note of the content of the, somewhat negative in tone, Model Rail Forum post that was recently mentioned in the RMWeb topic, and which I believe I have identified.

 

As a result, and I hope you don't mind, I do have a few comments/queries.  I could simply post these in the topic, but, based upon recent posts, I fear that the project well-wishers/pre-orderers might wrongly interpret this as moaning or bashing and react accordingly.  I do not think such a reaction would assist either you or I, to be quite frank.  I also thought it fair to give you the opportunity to consider and to respond out of the febrile atmosphere of the topic.  I do hope, however, that you will post your considered responses on the forum, because the points are of general interest.  You are free to post this message, too. I say nothing to you that I would not stand by in public; my reasons for putting the points to you first in private I have already explained.

 

I will say that the models do, to my admittedly untutored eye, capture the look of the prototype, and any list of comments or queries should not detract from that.  What I am looking for is an understanding of whether certain apparent issues are, in fact, not inaccuracies at all, and/or that any genuine snags will be picked up, so as not to detract from and otherwise good model.  

 

Here we go, then:

•Battery boxes - According to Wedell, these were only fitted to the Brake Composites.  The livery samples show them on the Third, leading me to suspect that the reason for misaligned steps is that the bodies have been mated with the wrong u/f in the livery samples.   The EP shows what looks to be the correct position.  Weddell mentions 2 battery boxes.  Your model has 3, so presumably one was added later? The Model Rail post states " Unfortunately they are in completely the wrong positions and the wrong dimensions. As a result the vacuum brake sets are on the wrong side of the coach, even on the trailer which has no battery boxes.  !! There is no charging point on the trailer for the batteries and the dynamo is incorrectly positioned".  Could I please ask you to address this?  The photographs in Weddell seem to show 2 boxes, but in the same place as in the EP.  Ditto dynamo.  The boxes do appear a little smaller than yours, but it is not easy to judge.

•Roof vents.  These do appear to be the taller, LSWR pattern, torpedo vents. This is great for me should I attempt to back-date the model, but is it correct for all the vehicles at the dates depicted?

•There is a gas lamp fitting over the vestibule of each coach.  Weddell states that conversion to electricity in 1919, so surely these would have been removed?  Again, great for me, but I could easily add one, whereas removal would presumably result in re-spraying the roof.

•End panelling.  It seems from the EPs, though even more obvious from the livery sample pictures, that the horizontal waist panelling does not match up between the ends and the sides - they are at different heights.  It seems quite clear from both the drawing and the photographs in Weddell that the beading should be at the same height, as makes logical sense, particularly as I understand the ends were originally painted as per the sides.  Obviously this would be an issue for me in back-dating, but regardless of that, I think the end panelling should be done right for everyone.  Dare I say, this does appear to be an error.  Will it be corrected?

•There appear to be discrepancies between the prototype pictures of set 373 and the pictures of the models, viz (a) the Driving Composite lacks the alarm gear, will this be fitted to the production model? and, (b) the Third Trailer appears to have a sheeted end, not panelled as in the livery sample.  Again, you may have tooled for this sheeted end, but it would be good if you could confirm that set 373 will have the correct ends.

•I note the comment on the Model Rail forum that "Much of the detail on the 4 window driving end is inaccurately positioned".  I confess, I cannot see this comparing the photographs of the prototype with those of the model, so, presumably, the criticism is one of fine measurement, but, as the criticism is 'out there' I would invite you to comment, and, hopefully, reassure.

•Finally, for completeness, could you please comment upon the suggestion in the Model Rail post that on the bogies the "transverse bolster springing is grossly underscale", because if it is possible to give reassurance on that point, it would be helpful.

I hope that you will accept these comments in the constructive spirit in which they are made, by a potential purchaser of these models.

 

Best wishes

 

The two points I would add, if asking Graham again, are:

 

• The Gatestock drawing in Weddell is of the gas-lit configuration, so obviously does not shoe the battery boxes.  Weddell does include other 56' u/fs, with battery boxes, and it appeared to me that these might bear out the first point, that actually all the u/f detail is the wrong way round (!), so it would have been useful to have cleared that up. 

• The second point is in response to Graham's comment above, that no further tooling changes will now take place.  Of course, Graham has not explained whether his is because the points raised do not represent errors/inaccuracies, or because it is simply too late.  If the latter, I might ask if, and if so when, these potential issues were raised to Graham's knowledge, and whether the Commissioning retailer was aware of them.

I recognise Graham's right to remain silent on these points, and, indeed, it seems that any answers he could provide would be academic.

 

So, in the circumstances, I think it is for those who want to buy them to go ahead and do so, and anyone who might have doubts to do their own research and reach their own views.

 

On that basis, I for one am content to accept that the matter is closed.

[4630]

Well, there we are.  Naturally I am disappointed that Graham has chosen not to address the matters raised, though I am glad that he was at least given the opportunity to do so. 

 

For the record, then, here is my PM in full, with the queries I raised:

 

 

 

FFS

 

 

 

...

 

On that basis, I for one am content to accept that the matter is closed.

 

 

Thank God for that.

[PhilH]

So it's taken heaven only knows how many pages of stuff to come to the conclusion that if people want them buy them, if they don't want them don't buy them...

 

Brilliant.

[Dunsignalling]

Perusing the relevant bits of Mr King's volume, it becomes clear that the early 1930s changes were not confined to new driving cab ends

 

The ex-LSWR mechanical p-p gear was replaced by the SR air system at the same time. Mr King states 1930 rather than 1933 as quoted earlier in this thread. 

 

Prior to the changes, each coach carried two battery boxes but afterwards the driving car had three and the trailer none, also losing its dynamo in the process.

 

New SR Diagram numbers, 414 for the DTC (129 when downgraded to all-third) and 27 for the trailer third, were issued to reflect the changes. 

 

All this smacks of a definite, planned programme of work so, whatever variations crept in to the bodywork over time, it seems that everything below the floor probably became essentially uniform in 1930 or thereabouts, and would have remained so, at least until the next overhaul/repair............

 

John

Edited March 23, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Fat Lieutenant]

I actually bothered to read Edwardian's interesting and unfailingly courteous questions.  It's a shame it they didn't get answered. 

 

As is so often the case, those without an answer simply ridicule the questioner. Which several of you took evident glee in doing, with the express support of Andy Y, who rated the content.  I think that's a shame, but there you go.  Takes all sorts to make a forum.

 

To summarise my understanding:

 

1. The underframes may be correct or may be fundamentally wrong, but the man with all the research won't say.
2. The panel lines on the ends don't match up with the panels on the sides (duh!)
3. Set 373 should have a sheeted blank ends according to Kernow's own pictures, but we are not to be told whether this will be the case on the production model or whether it will be panelled as per livery sample
4. Redundant gas fitting and questionable vents
5. Questionable bogies

Some people clearly don't care about such details.  Others do.  They should not be disrespected for that. The result here? A question mark over accuracy remains.

 

You pays your money ...

[Andy Y]

Which several of you took evident glee in doing, with the express support of Andy Y, who rated the content. 

 

I am entitled to an opinion you know; mine being that it was very poor form.

[Fat Lieutenant]

I am entitled to an opinion you know; mine being that it was very poor form.

 

Fair enough to have a view, but for clarity, what was "very poor form"?

 

Edwardian giving GM the chance to consider the point first, out of the public gaze, before posting?

 

Edwardian repeating the queries in public where GM declines to take advantage and answer?

 

Edwardian asking questions at all/daring to question accuracy in relation to another product? 

 

If GM replied to the PM, we don't know what he said, so I don't see Edwardian's breached anyone's confidentiality.

 

We've had posts say that constructive criticism is fine, but that people who purport to know all the facts or are negative in the way they make criticisms are not welcome.  Don't disagree, but I don't think you could say that here, Ed's queries were polite and respectful.

 

I think people just don't like the questions being asked.  So let's not pretend anymore that it's about the way they're ask.  They're are entitled to that opinion. Less sure it always excuses the way it is put.

 

If people go "off message" here, they'd best watch out!

[Edwardian]

I did say that the subject was closed for me, and it is.

 

I appreciate the thought behind Fat Lieutenant's spirited defence, but I do not want to be argued over, please.

 

I reject the comment that I acted in "poor form".  I acted ethically and with complete propriety.  I could simply have posted the issues on the topic to begin with. 

 

As a courtesy to Graham, I thought it would be considerate to ask him first.  As these were merely potential issues (as I made clear), it also struck me that they might be cleared up without any need for a publically expressed question mark over the product.  He did not take the opportunity to post substantive answers to the queries, so the potential issues remained outstanding.     

 

You might dislike what I say, but I took what I saw as the fairest approach in saying it and I breached no-one's privacy.

 

But, I don't think it helps for Andy, Fat Lieutenant, or anyone else to fight over my bleeding corpse!  So please can we avoid unnecessary conflict! 

[Ryde-on-time]

...................................

 

Secondly, I do not work for Kernow Model Rail Centre on a commercial basis I just assist as and when I can  ( as I try to do with other manufacturers that ask for any assistance), neither am I a spokesperson for Kernow Model Rail Centre.

 

 

.............

 

As a courtesy to Graham, I thought it would be considerate to ask him first.  As these were merely potential issues (as I made clear), it also struck me that they might be cleared up without any need for a publically expressed question mark over the product.  He did not take the opportunity to post substantive answers to the queries, so the potential issues remained outstanding.     

 

It is poor form and now again you attack Graham for not commenting, do you feel you have the right to demand such answers?

 

As he so clearly points out, it is not his model and he does not speak for Kernow Models. 

 

The time for relaying concerns about the models to Kernow was many months ago when the first moulding samples were produced

[Andy Y]

If people go "off message" here, they'd best watch out!

 

It's not about 'off message'; as ever it's the way people go about things and I'm not in the mood for people being deliberately irritating. Access to this topic removed.

 

 

 

I reject the comment that I acted in "poor form"....

 

But, I don't think it helps for Andy, Fat Lieutenant, or anyone else to fight over my bleeding corpse! 

 

It is poor form to press for an answer to a PM and then publicly post what hadn't been answered - just for clarity.

 

And I'm not in the mood for martyrdom either.

 

Access to this topic removed.

[dibber25]

Just in case anyone thought otherwise, the Model Rail Forum has no connection with Model Rail magazine. (CJL)

Edited March 23, 2017 by dibber25

[Spannerman]

Maybe it would be best to wait and see what the finished model turns out like.

If it is of an acceptable quality for you personally, purchase it. If not, don't.

 

Nik

[Oldddudders]

Maybe it would be best to wait and see what the finished model turns out like.

If it is of an acceptable quality for you personally, purchase it. If not, don't.

Nik

I am 68 years old. The chances of anyone producing another 4mm RTR model of this prototype in my lifetime are nil. As I said earlier, with the input from Graham Muz and Mike King I am confident the model will be plenty good enough for me.

[Ian Hargrave]

I am 68 years old. The chances of anyone producing another 4mm RTR model of this prototype in my lifetime are nil. As I said earlier, with the input from Graham Muz and Mike King I am confident the model will be plenty good enough for me.

 And from one a good deal longer in the tooth,I endorse that...especially as I already have an SR "fitted" O2 to hand ready.

[olivegreen]

 And from one a good deal longer in the tooth,I endorse that...especially as I already have an SR "fitted" O2 to hand ready.

 

Same here, albeit my teeth are perhaps just a little shorter!

[woodenhead]

 And from one a good deal longer in the tooth,I endorse that...especially as I already have an SR "fitted" O2 to hand ready.

 One of those and a push/pull M7 too, hmm do I need two sets???

[Oldddudders]

One of those and a push/pull M7 too, hmm do I need two sets???

Yes. Next question please.

[rue_d_etropal]

I got one of the push-pull M7 locos just for this set, as always best to get them when they are available. Suspect there will be a lot of interest when these coaches finally arrive.

 

Also I love all this discussion on fine details, especially as everyone seems to be happy to ignore the elephant in the room, namely the the track gauge. I accept that and as long as the model looks right, then I am happy. I also model in HO where the track gauge is closer to scale, and main thing that limits me is availbility of drawings. The comments about changes to actual coaches over the years, just makes it more difficult.