RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted December 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 23, 2014 What this represents http://www.vicsig.net/index.php?page=locomotives&number=42202&class=422&type=Diesel-Electric&orgstate=N Well they both are supposed to have 12 wheels! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted December 23, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 23, 2014 The OP asked for the "most accurate" which is not necessarily to say that any will approach 100%. There are far too many manufacturing compromises that have to be made for anything like 100% to be achievable - even in limited series brass. Easier to get diesels "right" than steam. I would agree that the Hornby 60 was one of the best technically. But sometimes it is about "feel" - what looks right rather than what is right. Details on the Airfix 31 are over-exagerrated but it looks great on a layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 ...Quite a number get a big fat zero. I think that's unfair. Most current rtr loco's are pretty darn good. What would you give zero to? This is a function of the way the scheme I utilise works. The model under assessment starts from a score of 1 in each of six categories. Standardised deductions are made in each category. The resulting numbers are multiplied together for the final score, multiplied by 100 for a percentage. In the category 'overall appearance' anything that fails to look convincingly like the prototype it represents gets a deduction of 1, so a zero score in the category. Multiply anything by zero, and it is still zero. Good examples among reasonably recently tooled models are Hornby's class 30/31 and Heljan's DP2, and of somewhat older origin the Bachmann V2. All fail to look like the prototype due to a major error: inaccurate positioning of the cab side windows in the 30/31, failure to correctly taper the nose in plan on the DP2, completely wrong boiler shape on the V2. In the category 'major dimensions' any principal dimension visibly in error with no need for a ruler or other measuring device gets a deduction of 1, so a zero score. The Limby 'Deltic' is a corker in this respect, visibly short among much else. And so we go on with the other categories, none of which have a deduction of 1, but can still end up with a zero score if they acquire enough deductions from what the scheme describes. This may seem a harsh scheme, but it is designed to provide 'the cut' at which anything scoring above 0 is in the 'satisfactory to be considered a model' category. It then provides a good gradation through the scale so that those models which are definitely 'a cut above' are clearly separated from the rest of the field. Much perferable to a scoring scheme which ends up with practically everything scoring in the 8.5/10 or better zone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Hornby Britannia - 70015 Apollo of course. (not joking, superb model) Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Jol Wilkinson Posted December 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 23, 2014 To measure how "accurate" a model is requires an objective dimensional assessment. As most of us don't have the facility to do that (works drawings, measuring equipment, etc.) then we either rely on others' judgement in that respect (e.g.magazine reviews) or take a subjective view of whether it "looks right". That then is open to considerable debate, relying on familiarity with the real thing, access to photographs, etc. So which measure do you want? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted December 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 23, 2014 The most accurate OO RTR locos ever? Come guys lighten up. This has already turned into the worst 00 model ever and how can it be accurate if its 00. Lets hear what you think is the most accurate model you have. Lets see what we think is good not bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Surely, it's the ones that have been converted to P4...... Even that P4 Thomas I once saw! Porcy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Most accurate OO RTR locos ever? Isn't that an oxymoron? Running and ducking for cover... P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointstaken Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I suspect that the majority of punters aren't really bothered about fine accuracy. If it looks like a realistic copy of the one they saw at a preserved railway that's good enough. So long as there is a sufficient market volume, and a living, for the traders making detailed parts for those modellers who really are interested in the fine detail, then that is also good enough. Dennis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Neil Posted December 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 23, 2014 most accurate OO RTR locos ever? Isn't that an oxymoron? Running and ducking for cover... P [pedant] No it isn't. Oxymoron territory would be 100% accurate 00 loco, most accurate implies that it isn't and therefore the two terms aren't mutually exclusive. [/pedant] Being more constructive, I'm interested in the notion of how we judge models. Though dimensionally compromised I'm always struck by how well the old Hornby SD range of wagons manage to look as though they belong on a real railway, likewise Triang and later Triang Hornby have produced stuff which captures the essence of the real thing. I wonder if the designers and toolmakers back in the fifties, sixties and seventies were more familiar with the prototype than their current counterparts, and this led to the models sense of rightness? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YK 50A Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Sometimes I would genuinely rather not know. My son has a Limby Deltic, it runs fine, there's not much to break, but it looks like something off 'Chugginton'. It's a toy and it fulfils that purpose. At least Hornby got the name and running number right! I was happy with my Bacmann Type 2s until I saw a post about the exhausts on the 25/1s, same with my Peaks but someone showed me what he had done to give them scale fans - much bigger than out of the box and obvious once it was pointed out. In terms of answering the OP, I like my Romanian class 56, I try to avoid reading critiques of the model. Not strictly a locomotive, but my Heljan class 128 DPU takes some beating - currently listed on eBay as I'm moving to the garden. Alun Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegheny1600 Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Heljan Hymek, (agree with above, 128 is brilliant too) Hornby class 60, Bachmann class 66. I disagree about the new Dapol Western, that headcode area still isn't quite right for me. Everything else on it is excellent though. Cheers, John E. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Triang Paul Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 There comes a point when accuracy does not become relevant because you can't see it when it is moving.... . My most accurate loco is a Limby 67 just because its my latest tooling now some 14 years old. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Does it matter? If a model is produced that is of no interest to me, how important is it to me? Not much really, so its all relative. Edit OK so a couple of you don't understand my comments. Take it another way. If the prototype modelled doesn't interest me, does it matter how accurate the end result is, as I probably won't be buying one anyway. I can see where yer coming from. If I like it, I buy it, just don't give a shi* how accurate it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray M Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 I disagree about the new Dapol Western, that headcode area still isn't quite right for me. Everything else on it is excellent though. Cheers, John E Apart from the ones with a limp & the ones with bits missing & the ones that throw themselves of the track at the first sign of a point. Other than that, it looks alright . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 ...I'm interested in the notion of how we judge models...stuff which captures the essence of the real thing. I wonder if the designers and toolmakers back in the fifties, sixties and seventies were more familiar with the prototype than their current counterparts, and this led to the models sense of rightness? I am pretty certain that was a big aid. Not least being contemporary with many of the designs they were reproducing in model form, so they knew the appearance that was being aimed at. A one-time Lone Star toolmaker told me that some of the best liked models were not strictly accurate in some small respects. Made 'accurate' the model looked OK, but with some minor adjustments it looked terrific. You wouldn't readily be able to measure it in his opinion, and anyway since it looked so right you wouldn't care. That's where it starts for me as a model, does it really 'get the subject' ? If it fails on this point and there is no readily applicable correction that's it for its being a model. I don't care about whatever other excellent features it may possess, it isn't adequate to be considered a model. My particular bete noire - as some will already know 'cause I bore on about it frequently - is Hornby's Brush 2. It has a strange BRCW/Brush hybrid appearance in any view where some or all of the loco ends can be seen. So I take the excellent running gear, and put an earlier - less accurate in some respects - body shell on it. I happen to use old worked on Airfix bodies because they are what I had, the Lima body shell would have been equally suitable. And there's a model of a Brush 2, now with the superior running of the excellent centre motor drive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ghost of IKB Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 Another vote here for the Bachmann 10000 and the prototype DELTIC. Both excellent. But am I the only person who thinks the Heljan 128 is poor? Bogie side frames lack detail, far too flat, rides too high and printed on riveting? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 I think the spirit of "Kenton" is living with some on this thread...... Anyway, for it's time I think (as someone else has mentioned above) that the Airfix Class 31 was way ahead of much of the RTR stuff around when it appeared c1977. It was so smooth running and controllable, as well as capturing that Brush Type 2 look. Though overtaken by later models, for its time it was number one in my eyes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted December 26, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 26, 2014 My vote is for the Hornby 60. Despite being around for about 10 years, it still hasn't been surpassed IMO. One barometer that could be used for judging accuracy is the production of detailing parts. Don't think there's that many aftermarket bits to add to a Hornby 60. Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR(S) Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 Another vote from me for the Hornby Class 60. Looks correct with some great detail. In addition to looking correct, it's a good runner, easy to remove the body and easy to fit a decent speaker for sound. About the only thing I can criticise it on is the head and tail light contacts, but even they seem to be behaving themselves now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
47164 Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Class 60 for me followed by dp2 as Heljan really mastered the body/bogie ride height Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Delamar Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Easy way to tell, if the thread about the loco on Rmweb is short, itll be ok, the Heljan Co Bo being one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 40-something Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 For me the most accurate are: Hornby Class 60 Heljan 35 Dapol 52 Heljan 23 (disc headcode variant) Bachmann DP1 Bachmann 10000/1 I own none of them but they do look right! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted December 27, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 27, 2014 Anything from Hornby that still uses the standard 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 chassis, that's got to be an instant zero! Even the GWR 101? It even looks a bit like it! (And that chassis is extremely reliable) Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Easy way to tell, if the thread about the loco on Rmweb is short, itll be ok, the Heljan Co Bo being one. This is the 'online review' aspect I pay most attention to, as it is a broad purchaser experience evaluation. Clearly sorts into three groups in my view. Good all around. (Came out of the box right, needs nothing more than your own weathering or other customisation.) Satisfactory. (Captures the subject successfully, here are some aspects that could use improvement.) Disappointing in one or more major respects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.