tender Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I can't believe what i have just read in the Model Rail (issue 163) review of rolling roads (Hornby R8211). Quote 'Power must be taken from an external controller, which is easily connected to the spring terminals at one end. CURRENT IS SUPPLIED TO THE TRACK SECTION ONLY, THE ROLLERS BEING INSULATED. The Hornby unit is fairly limited, as only certain locomotives are suitable with power collection from tender wheels' etc. This is totally wrong. All the rollers are powered. I know this as i've just been running in my Beattie Well Tank (2-4-0) with all the wheels just sitting on just the rollers and not the track section. The review gives a totally unfair appraisal of the curent product. I note that the reviewer's own unit has 'seen plenty of use over the last six years', and can only assume the the review is based on a six year old product. Maybe he should get the current version to review before putting pen to paper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted November 3, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 3, 2011 Sounds like the reviewer was describing the original model R8203:- http://www.anticsonline.co.uk/1243_1_1184320.html Rather than the current version with powered rollers, R8211 http://www.Hornby.com/shop/power-and-control/r8211-rolling-road/?Tab=Reviews This does sound more than a tad misleading, I don't think R8203 is even available to buy new these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tender Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 Sounds like the reviewer was describing the original model R8203:- http://www.anticsonl..._1_1184320.html Rather than the current version with powered rollers, R8211 http://www.Hornby.co...ad/?Tab=Reviews This does sound more than a tad misleading, I don't think R8203 is even available to buy new these days. That makes it worse, the review specifies R8211 in the product listing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted November 3, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 3, 2011 That makes it worse, the review specifies R8211 in the product listing. I'm fairly sure that's the one with powered rollers, can't be 100% sure from the product description. For sure R8203 has non powered rollers. EDIT: DCCsupplies confirm the R8211 is the one with 'live' rollers :- http://www.dccsupplies.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=1209 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I can't believe what i have just read in the Model Rail (issue 163) review of rolling roads (Hornby R8211). Quote 'Power must be taken from an external controller, which is easily connected to the spring terminals at one end. CURRENT IS SUPPLIED TO THE TRACK SECTION ONLY, THE ROLLERS BEING INSULATED. The Hornby unit is fairly limited, as only certain locomotives are suitable with power collection from tender wheels' etc. This is totally wrong. All the rollers are powered. I know this as i've just been running in my Beattie Well Tank (2-4-0) with all the wheels just sitting on just the rollers and not the track section. The review gives a totally unfair appraisal of the curent product. I note that the reviewer's own unit has 'seen plenty of use over the last six years', and can only assume the the review is based on a six year old product. Maybe he should get the current version to review before putting pen to paper. Can I suggest a word with the reviewer before posting provocative headlines like this? Might have been useful to allow the reviewer to correct his slip. CHRIS LEIGH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Yes but how is that going to happen who have bought the magazine and dont go on the internet ?. A belated apology is not a lot of good to someone who on reading the reviews goes and buys a much dearer version. I was also surprised at the 6/10 rating I have used my powered version for at leat three years works every time and dead easy to use without any gimmicks . I give Hornby version 9/10 and a good price tooo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tender Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 I agree with MickLNER, had i been in the market for a rolling road i would have definatly been swayed away from the Hornby product as a result of this review. I own both the Hornby (R8211) and the DCCconcepts products and although different, would rate them equally. It is the magazines duty to ensure that reviews like these are fair and unbiased, this clearly isn't the case for this review. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godders Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Can I suggest a word with the reviewer before posting provocative headlines like this? Might have been useful to allow the reviewer to correct his slip. CHRIS LEIGH With all due respect Chris I did this with a previous "Super Test" of couplings a couple of months ago. I emailed the reviewer and editor and my email was not even acknowledged. Godders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickL2008 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Ill agree that not knowing of the product, reading an incorrect review would make me avoid the product mentioned if what seemed to be a review giving details about limited functionality was written. Seems unlike Model Rail to get a review wrong though? every review ive read since being a reader since the late 1990s has been pretty good a thourough and if anything MRs' reviews have been further improved with the recently introduced annotated diagrams which show features as well NL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Chambers Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 With all due respect Chris I did this with a previous "Super Test" of couplings a couple of months ago. I emailed the reviewer and editor and my email was not even acknowledged. Godders Not perhaps an isolated incident-I emailed Mr Dent recently politely querying a figure in an article and no response.I'm sure these chaps are busy,but it's a competitive market out there and does MR really want the reputation of "don't care"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I have edited the topic title to something less inflammatory or sensationalist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 5, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 5, 2011 I do hope this thread is not going to turn into another 'my emails weren't answered' fest. I know that is terribly frustrating and what we write is important to us if no one else but equally do we answer every email you receive within, say, 24 hours? Translate that it into busy office or commercial situation and look at other threads and something which often emerges is the difficulty of getting emails answered - surely that tells a story; people are busy! I'm not excusing rudeness and I definitely wouldn't excuse lack of professionalism especially when it impacts on a customer's perception of a business (and don't forget - most printed magazines are also a business). Perhaps it would be more useful if this thread concentrated on editorial shortcomings in reviews and, hopefully, explanations of why they are occurring. Lately MR seems to have come in for some stick in this area which leaves me wondering if it is deadline pressure or lack of resources which is causing a problem, especially as the mag is in sales terms a relatively minor title in the Bauer stable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
multiprinter Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Can I suggest a word with the reviewer before posting provocative headlines like this? Might have been useful to allow the reviewer to correct his slip. CHRIS LEIGH No apology for the blatant error ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tender Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 I have edited the topic title to something less inflammatory or sensationalist. I don't see what's inflammatory or sensationalist about 'Reviewer gets it wrong again', it was just stating a point of fact. I note that Andy's post was liked by 'The Stationmaster' the starter of the thread title 'Hornby's future is cheap toys............' Hmmmm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I don't see what's inflammatory or sensationalist about 'Reviewer gets it wrong again', it was just stating a point of fact. Yes, factually it may be correct, but that doesn't make it polite: the "again" makes it inflammatory and accusatory. I note that Andy's post was liked by 'The Stationmaster' the starter of the thread title 'Hornby's future is cheap toys............' Hmmmm? Irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted November 5, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 5, 2011 I don't see what's inflammatory or sensationalist about 'Reviewer gets it wrong again', it was just stating a point of fact. I note that Andy's post was liked by 'The Stationmaster' the starter of the thread title 'Hornby's future is cheap toys............' Hmmmm? You may not see it, but the Forum Owner does, and that's that - his gaff, his rules. Apparently that suits some of us. Other Forums are available, so I hear. I believe The Stationmaster was quoting verbatim from Hornby, not expressing his own opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tender Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 What's your point? It just looks like a sensationalist headline, so consider my hand well and truly slapped if i got it wrong. Pity MR are not holding their hand out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 5, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 5, 2011 I don't see what's inflammatory or sensationalist about 'Reviewer gets it wrong again', it was just stating a point of fact. I note that Andy's post was liked by 'The Stationmaster' the starter of the thread title 'Hornby's future is cheap toys............' Hmmmm? I don't exactly see the connection to be honest as I was simply quoting and linking to a newspaper article? Maybe it's something to do with different understandings and perceptions of our language? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 If any magazine publishes a review which later proves to be grossly inaccurate or just plain wrong, then it's beholden on them to correct it as soon as possible. This implies in the next issue. So far, there is nothing to suggest this won't happen is there? If the magazine has an online presence, then the errors, once verified, can be altered more quickly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godders Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I do hope this thread is not going to turn into another 'my emails weren't answered' fest......... The point of my reply to Chris Leigh was merely to inform him that having a word with the reviewer is not the answer, if they won't answer emails. It would have been preferable to the alternative which was to stop buying the magazine. Godders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I don't see what's inflammatory or sensationalist about 'Reviewer gets it wrong again', it was just stating a point of fact. I note that Andy's post was liked by 'The Stationmaster' the starter of the thread title 'Hornby's future is cheap toys............' Hmmmm? Irrelevant to the point that I find it quite insulting. The topic is closed, please follow the communication channel suggested by Chris. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.