The Golden Pup

['CHARD]

Ian, I think the grassy knoll makes it even worse - assuming that isn't a Serving Suggestion

 

My problem with it, is that even at 8 smackers it's 10p more than a van from the normal range, and the moulding in resin is less well rendered than a stock van. So if you've a layout with 12T vans running on it, one of these will stick out like a sore thumb.

 

As for the open doors, they're something like a scale 9" thick. So, for that reason I won't be investing, and I'm out.

[Jason T]

Just a short defence of the "Heartbeat" models nominated for the award. The exterior shots of "Aidensfield" were mostly filmed in Goathland, and last time I was there the garage among other buildings still had all the signage from the filming, so while people may love or loathe the TV show, the model garage is accurate as far as this goes. If you want to model the NYMR in the recent past or today, and include any of Goathland village, that's the way it looks.

I assume the locals are leaving things as the TV crew left them for the benefit of tourists.

 

True, and I did say that it was a decent rendition of the garage BUT it is signed up as Aidensfield and a lot of people will leave it like that. It was more of a dig at both Bachmann Scenecraft and Hornby Skaledale really, and the way they love to adorn their business-type buildings with place names rather than leave them as generic. For instance, you can (probably) buy a Skaledale Laundrette, shops, factory, etc., all with Sklaledale written on them somewhere. I don't want to call the town / village on my layout Skaledale, and I'm sure a lot of other people don't either.

 

Doesn't really affect me because I won't be buying any Skaledale or Scenecraft products anyway, as they are a lot of money for buildings that I reckon I can build better myself for a fraction of the cost, but there are a lot of people out there who will buy RTP buildings and won't change the signage on the buildings.

 

Golden pup contenders? No, of course not; I was attempting to be humorous and have a dig at Heartbeat, but I reckon that the point about buildings with generic signage being better is valid

[Dagworth]

For instance, you can (probably) buy a Skaledale Laundrette, shops, factory, etc., all with Skaledale written on them somewhere. I don't want to call the town / village on my layout Skaledale, and I'm sure a lot of other people don't either.

They aren't aimed at us, they are aimed at the table top trainset layout as seen in the Hornby adverts.

 

Those of us that want to use them are far more than capable of relabling them to suit their own needs.

 

Andi

[Guest Belgian]

I think the VEP has to win, as it is a model of a prototype which would have won such an award back in the 1960s if one had existed: the VEPs were the worst EMUs of their day, draughty, cramped, noisy and ugly. I endured far too many unpleasant rides in them when they had been put on a REP/TC diagram for some odd reason.

 

JE

[Andy W]

I do take Sandside's point about the place names on buildings in the Scalescene and Skaledale ranges, but also agree with Dagworth. I'd always change the signs anyway partly to help differentiate my model street from anyone else's, but also because a few minutes work with a computer and printer can help to set a model in the appropriate place and period and the finish that can be achieved is as good as the factory one.

Perhaps an area we could all agree on is ficticious place names on model road vehicles.

Luckily so far most of the models marked Skaledale Dairies or whatever have equivalents with more usable names or no name at all in other people's ranges (or are in fact bought-in from the other ranges to start with). Those that aren't must be a real pain to deal with - unlike a building you can't just stick something over the names in many cases because you'd need to match the body paint colour, so the names have to come off and be replaced by transfers. These might need to be home-brewed as well for the type of vehicles used by small businesses.

[Bernard Lamb]

Doesn't really affect me because I won't be buying any Skaledale or Scenecraft products anyway, as they are a lot of money for buildings that I reckon I can build better myself for a fraction of the cost,

 

For around £30 I found the 1930s bus garage excellent value for use as a display for model buses. Several of the stone buildings have been used on well known exhibition layouts. If you can knock something up half as good in a couple of hours then I would love to see it. I accept that they might not be to every ones taste, but a canditate for this award? No way.

Bernard

[Pennine MC]

I

Perhaps an area we could all agree on is ficticious place names on model road vehicles.

Luckily so far most of the models marked Skaledale Dairies or whatever have equivalents with more usable names or no name at all in other people's ranges (or are in fact bought-in from the other ranges to start with). Those that aren't must be a real pain to deal with - unlike a building you can't just stick something over the names in many cases because you'd need to match the body paint colour, so the names have to come off and be replaced by transfers. These might need to be home-brewed as well for the type of vehicles used by small businesses.

 

A quick fix might be to just patch paint over the business name. In the days before vinyls, it wasnt uncommon to see that, when a vehicle had been moved on to a less image conscious owner.

[Jason T]

To be fair, I did say "Golden pup contenders? No, of course not; I was attempting to be humorous and have a dig at Heartbeat, but I reckon that the point about buildings with generic signage being better is valid" and I also, in my original post, said that the building was nicely done (as are all of them, otherwise nobody would buy them).

 

And no, I couldn't knock up something better in a couple of hours; I doubt anyone could. I nearly took up the challenge though

[Jason T]

If you can knock something up half as good in a couple of hours then I would love to see it.

Bernard

 

I tried. I failed

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/49911-the-skaledale-2-hour-challenge/

[darren01]

HI

My vote is for the R stove (00) one , 30 pounds for a coach that would not run on any track and need loads of work to get it to run,still not got my one to run without falling off the track.

[stewartingram]

HI

My vote is for the R stove (00) one , 30 pounds for a coach that would not run on any track and need loads of work to get it to run,still not got my one to run without falling off the track.

 

And this was a Dapol production - considering what the products after this one (eg Sentinel, 22, forthcoming Western) are like, what went wrong? Maybe it shouldn't get the Pup award after all as they learnt from it?

 

Stewart

 

(Not a knock at Dapol btw, just the opposite in fact).

[PLD]

And this was a Dapol production - considering what the products after this one (eg Sentinel, 22, forthcoming Western) are like, what went wrong? Maybe it shouldn't get the Pup award after all as they learnt from it?

 

Stewart

 

(Not a knock at Dapol btw, just the opposite in fact).

Which does add weight to the opinion expressed by many at the time that the flaws were due to the commissioning magazine prioritising delivery schedules over accuracy of the finished model, and signing it off as accepted when it shouldn't have been. The total opposite of what we have seen with other commissioners (eg Kernow) and Dapol's own branded production where release dates have been pushed back in the interest of getting the model right...

 

Paul

[iL Dottore]

OK, I'm going to REALLY go out on a limb here.... (and play Devil's Advocate)

• RTP Models
  

The reason being that with the spread of RTP, the world outside the railway's fence, already often neglected, will become on perhaps too many layouts landscapes of buildings identical to those on the next one over...

 

I also think RTP buildings emphasize the great difference between the "hi-fi" of track and rolling stock and the "lo-fi" of the the surrounding landscape (and, yes, I do know there are many, many layouts that strive for accuracy on both sides of the fence. As said before, I'm playing Devil's Advocate)

 

F

[Stubby47]

RTP buildings have been around for years - just think of all those Hornby Dublo metal buildings.

 

And you can level the same 'repeated buildings' shot at all those layouts of the eighties which had the Superquick low-relief cinema, bank., etc., so that argument isn't new either.

 

Stu

['CHARD]

RTP buildings have been around for years - just think of all those Hornby Dublo metal buildings.

 

And you can level the same 'repeated buildings' shot at all those layouts of the eighties which had the Superquick low-relief cinema, bank., etc., so that argument isn't new either.

 

And in fairness, as stand-alone entities, the vast majority of RTP buildings are very well rendered. We can have a debate over marketing Skale Sauna-Massage and the Aidensfield Arms, but that point's been made elsewhere. They don't have the pup's pedigree where errors, research blunders, mis-selling or false expectations are concerned.

 

(Except Bachmann's grassy knoll with grounded van body.)

[iL Dottore]

...They don't have the pup's pedigree where errors, research blunders, mis-selling or false expectations are concerned....

 

I wouldn't be 100% sure of this. Having built a few buildings from plans drawn up from the prototype (and in the case of the Georgian Terrace Houses, from the architect's plans for the actual building modelled), I can safely say that more than a few of the RTP buildings are far too small for what they are supposed to represent. Furthermore, I also know of least one RTP model whose production run (inaccurate as heck) was very, very different from the pre-production model (fairly accurate).

 

If manufacturers can make errors with rolling stock, why would buildings and other structures be exempt? - especially as a huge percentage of modellers would not know what a grey waste water pipe is, let alone whether or not it should square, round, plain or ornate for the RTP building in question

 

F

[Jason T]

I really should keep out of this after my last post on the subject led to me spending 2 hours trying to build a terraced house, but what that did make me think about was that the layout of something as simple as the Skaledale terrace seems, well, wrong. As mentioned above, they really are diminutive in size, the back door is diagonally opposite the front (and maybe it's just me but I can't think of a single terraced house where that is the case) and there are two upstairs windows at the back, one which would be at the top of the stairs and unless put in as an after-thought by the house owner (and with the exact same dimensions and dressings, e.g. sills and lintels, as the other windows), is highly unlikely. Of course, you never see the front and back at the same time, not unless you are really badly wang-eyed, but accurate?

 

Not a golden pup contender though; they are good enough and serve a purpose.

[rob D2]

Are they doing the grassy knoll this year Chard ? I was hoping they would bring out the texas book depository first.

['CHARD]

I wouldn't be 100% sure of this. Having built a few buildings from plans drawn up from the prototype (and in the case of the Georgian Terrace Houses, from the architect's plans for the actual building modelled), I can safely say that more than a few of the RTP buildings are far too small for what they are supposed to represent. Furthermore, I also know of least one RTP model whose production run (inaccurate as heck) was very, very different from the pre-production model (fairly accurate).

 

If manufacturers can make errors with rolling stock, why would buildings and other structures be exempt? - especially as a huge percentage of modellers would not know what a grey waste water pipe is, let alone whether or not it should square, round, plain or ornate for the RTP building in question.

 

Noted. However, and I say this as someone currently trying my hand at Townstreet's Citadel station building, let's face it we have to approach buildings in a subtly different way where RTR and RTP are concerned, notably our suspension of disbelief.

 

Most of us compromise on prototype train lengths - my Class 1s are reduced from 8 or 9 to 7 bogies, whereas my Class 2s remain load 5 with tail traffic, true to prototype. My station platform length will barely accommodate ten MkIs, whereas the prototype that inspired it would accommodate these with room to spare, for a banking loco and a distance from the loco to the starter signal. My Class 4s run to 30 SLU rather then the 48 typical of the real thing.

 

This selective compression, without compromising the essence of the prototype inspiration, is one thing that I think underpins the success of RTP ranges. Not many of us have the luxury to accommodate full size structures (New Street Station and the Rotunda, Harringworth Viaduct, Whitrope Tunnel, Sonning Cutting), and with a few exceptions I don't believe the manufacturers or retailers try and mislead us that these are what's in the box either.