highpeak Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 There is a ready list of things which can be reported objectively - for example 'Model Railroader' always seems to report about flange depth etc compliance with NMRA standards. So although - for example - we're befuddled with a mix of standards, let alone gauges, in 4mm scale it is probably still realistic to report on flange depth, back-to-back (and consistency thereof) That would indeed be useful and revealing. It was the discovery that back-to-back measurements on RTR UK locomotives were all over the shop that was a major factor in my going back to US outline modelling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcayton Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I'm still waiting to see the accompanying photographs. Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Deltic Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Peer Review. Highlighted in text. "although it was able to pull coal trains of over 300 uncoupled wagons in trials" Once again this reviewer must call attention to an unarguable fabrication, so much in vogue among those of the green wet and rusty party. There is no reliable cited source indicating the successful haulage of any train of uncoupled wagons. It is my recommendation that this paper be withdrawn until the factual content has been checked by at least two suitably qualified external adjudicators. I gave that the benefit of the doubt at when I first read it, thinking he meant 300 'unfitted' wagons and not 300 'uncoupled' wagons, which, as you state, takes some doing. But you are quite right, there should be no doubt in scientific method. FACTS not opinions! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iL Dottore Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 You are all quite right... There are some errors (I did actually mean "unfitted") and in order to make the post not impossibly long, I condensed it and exclude the vital and subjective "does it look like a 92XX to me. I also avoided the minefield of "value for money" (there are some conditions that are TOO hard to treat [let alone cure!]). I wanted to point out how the scientific method could be applied and from the replies received I seem to have "started a dialogue" F Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Never mind the merits or demerits of the reviewing style; how long will it be before somebody produces a model of a Collett 92XX? Or, overlooking the "entirely mythical locomotive" wording in iL Dottore's preamble, demands a Bachby product? I feel tempted to try to sneak an article on the class into Wikipedia... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Slight correction: My "Accuracy in assessing train electronics. A New Era?" Int. Elect. Train Rev., was 46: 21-27 NOT 45: 21- 27! Thanks, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
009matt Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Would like to see an abstract in italics, some data tables with paired t-test (or similar statistical test) on s.e.d. with confidence values (P>0.05) (P>0.01) etc this would give a clear comparison between similar products eg the Hornby vs Bachmann B1 loco (or Dapol vs farish!) Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 19, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 19, 2012 ID, its a thought provoking piece. If the idea is for a magazine/s to produce reviews to this or a similar 'data specification', I can see the perrenial problem of time/vs financial return, and availability of reference material and knowledge amongst the editorial challenges. There will be the occaision when two reviews come to two different conclusions depending on the accuracy of the research data used, and whether the data was provided by a web source using a psueonym or a 'known' of books and mags ... The biggest challenge of course will be the copy deadline for each mag vs the time available to review to this standard. PS not sure how something can be 'uniformly excellent' but let down by a livery error .... I think this problem might resolve itself in the short term. Any publication that consistently produced naff reviews, because they weren't stringent in their "research", would soon find itself ignored. Consumer pressure would tell, I'm sure! Thanks to iD for provoking such an active discussion. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Endacott Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Can we have an LD50 test to find out how long it takes for 50% of the sample to break down? Geoff Endacott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted February 19, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 19, 2012 That approach would be way too dry and soulless for me - but I accept I will probably be in a minority of one in this No, me too; academic anyway because it's never going to happen; the resources - in terms of time and people - to produce this type of review would be huge, hence reviews would appear months after the models appear in the shops, and the price of the magazines would increase because of the extra staff required to do all the research! The fact that no magazine has taken this approach speaks volumes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Can we have an LD50 test to find out how long it takes for 50% of the sample to break down? Exactly what poison do you plan administering? What you want is an estimate of MTBF, mean time between failures. On one of the previous incarnations of RMweb I did suggest that our community - if there were enough interested - could accrue the life testing required for reliability assessment; something that would be prohibitive for the magazine reviewers to undertake. Still willing if there are enough peeps interested enough to do the work of running their sample and forwarding the data. For Chinese produced OO steam models of wiper pick up design used on a DCC system (this is a significant factor) I have MTBF values for 'all Bachmann' and 'all Hornby' in respect of operational failure (defined as 'required repair to restore to reliable running condition') from all causes. The difference between the brands is statistically significant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 19, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 19, 2012 I'm not so sure Jeff, I'm thinking about assorted prototype caption crimes that occur and punters are still buying those mags and books. The important factor for someone to recognise the error is knowing more, or as much as the 'reviewer'. For those that don't (and that'll possibly be the majority), unless a third party identifies the error for the reader, it'll be considered 'good data'. Clearly this is the same across whichever media type you prefer. Fair point, PMP. For Chinese produced OO steam models of wiper pick up design used on a DCC system (this is a significant factor) I have MTBF values for 'all Bachmann' and 'all Hornby' in respect of operational failure (defined as 'required repair to restore to reliable running condition') from all causes. The difference between the brands is statistically significant. If such data exists, and I'm not doubting your statement, it would be an explosive revelation if there is indeed a statistically significant difference across brands! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iL Dottore Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 There is another extreme unlikelihood in the introduction, on mechanical engineering grounds, if you care to examine the text closely. Do tell! Did I miss something else in my "imagineering"? F Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted February 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 19, 2012 This photo has been smuggled out of Hornmann today : Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iL Dottore Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 Some great comments, indeed. Thanks for the interest. The point about resources is a very good one and it IS unlikely that any model railway magazine would completely take the "scientific journal article" approach. However, there seems to be a consensus emerging from this thread that a core of factual assessments should be a standard part of any model review (plus the subjective does it look/sound/smell/taste "right"?). What also seems to be emerging is (or at least I would argue) that such a set of factual assessments should be done in a standardised way and that data is provided on the how and with what equipment assessments were done. Thus instead of a reviewer saying "it managed 5 coaches on the test layout", the reviewer would write. "it managed all radius curves on the Train-O-Matic test track" and everyone would know that the T-O-M test track uses Code 80 rail with curves down to Radius N (or look up the specs on the Train-O-Matic test track. The hard (and contentious) part will be setting the standards for the testing equipment and defining the "standard" set of parameters to assess. Once that's done, it's a merely a question of putting the model on the testing equipment and ticking off the list... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 19, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 19, 2012 This photo has been smuggled out of Hornmann today : So glad you omitted the "y" Stubby. Having said that, to paraphrase Mark Williams (On the Rails)... "That is a BIG BOY'S engine"!! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 This photo has been smuggled out of Hornmann today : So they're doing the tender version as well as the tank? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted February 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 19, 2012 The hard (and contentious) part will be setting the standards for the testing equipment and defining the "standard" set of parameters to assess. Once that's done, it's a merely a question of putting the model on the testing equipment and ticking off the list... Also, with several reviewers, there will be several test tracks, which will give different results. So, to gain a realistic set of statistics, these reviews would need to be taken together and the salient points selected.... a bit like we all probably do now... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iL Dottore Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 This photo has been smuggled out of Hornmann today : Great rendition of the infamous GWR pink, but Hornmann really really got their locos mixed up. The 92XX is a 4-10-4T. What Hornmann have produced is the equally infamous and short lived 93XX "Emperor" (which as we know was cut down to size and became the GWR King class). F Great photoshopping, sir! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted February 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 19, 2012 So they're doing the tender version as well as the tank? Bu**er ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 19, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 19, 2012 Bu**er ! Blimey! I'd have a job getting that into my goods yard. And I think it would be at least 6th radius! Great work, Stubby. Did Hornmann provide a release date? And, in line with the OP, I sincerely hope you intend to give it a FULL scientific review!! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted February 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 19, 2012 Of course, the original review also missed completely the 92yy version, with the extended water tanks... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Great work, Stubby. Did Hornmann provide a release date? Dont be silly, it's embargoed until the next issue of New Scientist is out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Pardon me for feeling this thread totally underwhelming. Bring back those heady days of REx reviews which were done properly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 19, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 19, 2012 Dont be silly, it's embargoed until the next issue of New Scientist is out. New Scientist? Is that the magazine that is free to subscribers to Sky? Nothing less than Zeit fur Physik or Physical Review for me, Pennine. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.