Pennine MC

I do agree, but as has been said elsewhere recently, perception is a powerful phenomenon. Only a fraction of modellers read this site and only a fraction of that fraction will be following this thread; and despite the efforts of many here to analyse matters and put a realistic spin on the OP, word will inevitably spread through the hobby that 'Hornby are not interested in scale models now'. If their business in that part of their market suffers, they'll largely only have themselves to blame. Although if it does, that will probably still turn back and bite us...

Bump, to say that David Larkin's new book Civil Engineers Wagons Volume 1- British Railways: 1948-1967 has a section on these wagons, with four pics and numbering details (including for the LMS wagons).

Oi

I do find this sort of indiscriminate tarring of previous posters as 'rivet counters' quite irksome. But anyway Brian, please tell me - because I for one am genuinely interested in your thought process - just what is the substance behind this trite old argument? Is it that because the gauge is out by 2.33mm, therefore an error of up to 2.33mm - plus or minus - anywhere else on a model should be acceptable as well? If manufacturers used that as a yardstick, there'd be some pretty odd looking models about... Once again, I'll say it - rational discussion of dimensional errors is not a crime. And bizarrely enough, some people (they're called EM or P4 modellers, by the way) are happy to work on models to eliminate that error in the gauge; if they're also prepared to amend any other errors, then they need to talk about those errors first. I probably have ten or a dozen HJ locos myself; none of them (bar perhaps the Hymek) are perfect and I dont expect them to be. Some things I can live with, others I shall be doing something about. Some of the improvements I've decided on myself, some are based on the thoughts of others - but if nobody had talked about these things, I'd not be able to make that choice.

I dont think you are 'the one' Trevor, I think you're quite typical of your ilk and you further illustrate the point I was trying to get across earlier. You've listed fifteen actual or potential errors, which you've decided that you can either live with or do something about yourself. So, that's objective analysis, constructive criticism, sensible decision making and actual modelling (which we 're always being exhorted to do as soon as we say something's not quite right). Seems like a pretty good all round result to me

Understood Lloyd, in this case we know that respected forum members have had input but we also know that such input (for whatever reason) doesnt always make it to the final model. It's also made worse by the Internet tendency for folk to make posts before they've actually done any objective appraisal Yeah, that kinda illustrates my point really Ninja. You draw a distinction between 'slight discrepancies' and 'major issues', yet with all due respect, it isnt for you (or I for that matter) to decide what is and isnt significant. At the risk of labouring the point, if the fullest information is made available - down to a millimetre if necessary, which can in some cases noticeably alter proportions - then the buyer can make a more informed choice.

Not sure of the relevance of that, but hey ho. Slightly more understanding of why folk get so twitchy when errors are pointed out in a model they like, I suppose it's natural to feel defensive of a buying decision. My outlook is simple. If any given model is wrong (and I'm not necessarily saying the BD is or isnt), then it's wrong, and to say as much is just a factual observation, not necessarily a damning criticism. Even if it's only a millimetre out, it's still demonstrably wrong. Now then, whether that *matters* to an individual is a completely different issue IMO. We can all make our own choices and as Lloyd (BD) says, in this case there is an option available to improve things - but if commentators are initimidated into keeping schtum because some dont like faults being pointed out, then the freedom of making that choice is arbitrarily denied.

Meh, sort of what I meant I'd aim for nigh on 100% of where I want to be, because if I dont, I'm not doing my best. But where I *want* to be is a target that's set by a realisation of what I can realistically achieve, and what (as you say) is either going to be significantly unenjoyable or is going to swallow up more resource than I can justify. As for the rolling stock thing, what I'm meaning is that I dont expect others to necessarily work to the standards of anorak-authenticity that I set myself. Lest that sounds elitist, I'd add that by the same token, there will be areas of my overall modelling in which I'm not so interested, and will therefore be content with lower standards (of authenticity, if not actual finish) than someone whose specialism it is.

You'd probably know better than me Coach, but I reckon a lot of modellers use stone ballast in sidings and other applications where the prototype would have been ash ballasted back in steam days Quite so, but whilst not wanting to undermine the point of the thread, there's a need for perspective. There's a point at which a given specialism can become just too, um, specialised and it would take an inordinate amount of time to get absolutely right, whereas the hypothetical triple grey Hymek would look wrong to anyone with even basic diesel knowledge. Even in the relatively plebian world of freight stock in which my consciousness often resides, I long since gave up mentally picking fault with other folk's wagons because they had an incorrect number for the brakegear or whatnot; left unchecked, it would just have ended up spoiling my own enjoyment.

I think there's some confusion here between 'response' and 'action'. If Hornby acknowledge that something is awry with this model (or at least with a significant proportion of the batch) and decide to re-engineer it, then that would be action. It would be an undertaking that would obviously take time (although if they do acknowledge there's a problem, it's obviously in their own interests to get on with it, before the current interest in DC EMUs goes off the boil). What Simon and various interested observers are wanting at this time, in terms of 'response', is (at the minimum) a simple acknowledgement from Hornby. As I've already said in this now tiresomely repetitive thread, this could be non-committal and issued without prejudice, siimply worded to the effect that they are aware that some customers have concerns about the VEP, and that those concerns will be looked into in due course. It's not exactly cutting edge in terms of customer service, it occurs routinely in other fields of commerce. We know from another thread that Mr Kohler reads RMweb, if Simon goes beyond that month without some sort of contact, then that IMHO will have been a major PR blunder on their part.

Mmm. It's obviously good that Venator is happy with his unit, but as I think I said before, I really dont think the 'I can't see a problem, therefore there isn't one' attitude is helpful.

The reported instances of some models being incorrectly boxed (DCC instead of DC, and vice versa) might not help that particular endeavour... then again, they might be trying to get a handle on that issue as well.

It's subjective of course, but running is a more exaggerated motion than walking, thus it looks more artificial when frozen. A moving car and a stationary car look much the same in a 'still', in reality the only visible moving part is the wheels, which dont flail about like the arms and legs of a running person

Well at least nobody can accuse you of being someone who just opens boxes

Well that's very useful critique, isnt it Are you saying they're the same as the original releases, or have new errors been introduced?

Are you trying to tell us there's a pre-Group 4-6-0 on the way B)

Grahame, a thousand thanks for that, I've recently been lamenting the loss of your 26 images in particular

I didnt say you hadnt read it, I expressed doubt that you'd fully absorbed what had been said. As one example, you say that the traction tyre issue is based simply on dislike; it isnt. More than one post asserts that the tyres, along with the inside bearings, have an adverse effect on smooth running and trackholding I dont see how anybody can 'shout loudest' on the Internet, in my experience those who claim to be 'shouted down' are simply finding themselves outmanouevred by better-reasoned arguments. I dont want to make this too personal but your own entry to the thread was pretty forthright, I dont think you can really complain when people re-assert themselves in return. And again, I'm afraid you havent read it properly, if that's your considered summary of the matter. Again as an example, there's a perceptible feeling that the principal concern is the model's running, not so much its appearance. Quite so Rick, it's about having an informed choice and that's a principle I strongly believe in. If a potential buyer is presented with the maximum of info, with findings like those set out here, he can at least make up his own mind how much of an issue *he personally* feels they are. With all due respect to Venator, that potential buyer learns little from a post saying 'my standards are not that high, but I like it' I wouldnt worry too much Simon. The regulars here know you're not a habitual manufacturer-basher, I for one can sense your frustration with this model and you've kept faith with it longer than I would have.

Talking of convincing arguments, I really can't ignore the screaming contradiction in those two passages...if they're selling that well, why wouldnt they do further models? Possibly the most telling comment you've made, Simon. Even now, the pro-VEP attitude seems to be coming across as pretty blinkered; the fact that some buyers seem to have trouble-free models shouldn't be allowed to invalidate the complaints by those who don't. And that applies regardless of whatever the proportion of each camp is. I appreciate this is a very long thread but - as ever in such cases - I do have to wonder if the more recent entrants have fully digested its earlier content

Thanks Rod. What's more, he seems to have accepted that with good grace, and also that others have equally strong views to his own. I think that's all most of us ask for really, just a bit of tolerance

i dont think anybody has any issues with your choosing your own standards, whatever they may be, but surely the term 'professional' implies someone who gets paid for his modelling. That said, the folk raising issues here are just individual model buyers, who happen to have different standards or expectations to yours; I'm not sure that that warrants labelling them as 'professional' (or anything else for that matter).

Out of interest Venator, whom amongst the respondents to this thread do you see as a 'professional' modeller?

It does. I recreated that on my Lima 27 upgrade of the last century, and the later HJ 27s have a moulded impression of the 'gap' around it.

Certainly looks that way: http://www.Hornby.com/shop/rolling-stock/wagon-packs/r6512-zfozfp-trout-ballast-hopper-three-wagon-pack-weathered/ (that's Hornby's own site, but a random Google for 'Hornby Trout' produces loads of retailers listing them on the same basis)