Manor Announced for 00

[AY Mod]

1 hour ago, Gopher said:

This may not give you the reassurance you are after, just my personal and simplistic view on the situation, and no criticism intended of anyone who holds a different view.

 

Don't bother trying, it was a troll trying to stir things up judging by the communication sent to Dapol from another bogus ID 

[No Decorum]

21 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

I know it’s a bus and I know it’s Rapido but here’s a picture from the latter’s latest newsletter.

 

[Les1952]

11 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Location and number of washout plugs did/do vary, possibly between boilers constructed for the GWR and BR-built batches of Manors. Photographic evidence of one loco having both types will be an indication of it having received a different boiler at overhaul. 

 

 

John

 

 

 

One of the RCTS guides to GWR 2-cylinder tender classes states quite clearly that firebox sides were routinely replaced at heavy overhaul where the boiler remained in the frames. (my italics).  This has the potential for locos to change the position of washout plugs without a change of boiler, and also for locos to have different washout plugs on opposing sides of the same loco.

 

A Bylines article I read by a GW fitter also said that washout plugs were  drilled on a repaired boiler after the new patch had been fitted.  Not a Swindon fitter I think, but interesting, nonetheless.  Show me a fitter who can drill inch perfect when perched up a ladder......

 

Les

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Les1952

[Miss Prism]

The basic two patterns of firebox were discussed in the Accurascale thread.

 

[mdvle]

On 26/05/2022 at 18:40, jamieb said:

If I was a manufacturer,I'd avoid these kind of forums like the plague as very little constructive criticism comes back,and as Dapol found out,it can actually get nasty 

 

Actually, I would argue the opposite.

 

If you spend enough time on RMweb you learn who the actual experts are and who are posting questionable stuff.  Those who do know their stuff post a lot of very useful information.

 

The thing with being a manufacturer is that you can't know everything.  This means if your goal is to create an accurate model then you need to welcome outside input into your project (on the the other hand, if you only want to create a model that resembles the prototype - and to be clear there isn't nothing wrong with that even if it isn't what I want - then that is reasonable and you can ignore outside sources of help).

 

There is also the danger that you become too close to the project and human nature means you see what was intended and not what is actually in the drawing/sample (this is for example why a 3rd party is a much better proofreader of text than the person who writes it).  So outside input can also help spot errors that you can't see.

 

As noted on this thread, and it is often true on other threads for other manufactures as well, these issues were pointed out early in the process and because Dapol chooses to ignore RMweb (and that don't need to necessarily participate as such - merely reading and evaluating the comments would be enough) those issues have apparently remained into the production models.

 

On 27/05/2022 at 00:26, David Stannard said:

I can remember the absolute panning that Oxford received over the Dean's Goods, the Manor's are a small class with 30 built over a 12 year period with some changes that were made standard across the whole class and were only in service for about 25 years, the Dean on the other hand had 260 built over a 16 year period with some lasting up to 60 years with a host of changes made during that time.

 

Not a very fair example as Oxford Rail walked into that and essentially encouraged it.

 

They promised accuracy - it's on their boxes - "in pursuit of excellence" - as well as promising everything people wanted (look at what they promised with their Mk3's and the CAD image they posted showing all the versions they would do, all of which never happened even before Hornby entered the picture).  They then delivered products with errors.

 

Oxford Rail wanted to make a product to a price (again, nothing wrong with that, there is certainly a market for it) but promised something entirely different.

 

If Oxford Rail had been honest and clear about their intentions from the beginning then almost all of that criticism would have never happened.

 

[jamieb]

14 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Actually, I would argue the opposite.

 

If you spend enough time on RMweb you learn who the actual experts are and who are posting questionable stuff.  Those who do know their stuff post a lot of very useful information.

 

 

In fairness,I have been on this site for a very long time,and I'm well aware of the amount of expertise on here.Most of the manufacturers quite rightly liaise with these people,they know who the experts are and are happy to engage 

However they engage with them because they are acknowledged sources of information,not because they are members of RMWeb

The problem is,that as with every other online forum,there are the self proclaimed 'experts' whose knowledge comes from other less reliable sources on the internet ,rather than the original source material,and much like Chinese Whispers,the truth becomes highly diluted.I've seen several of these 'Worlds Expert' types come and go over the years and if I was a manufacturer, I wouldn't pay much credence to Fred Blogs on RMWeb telling me the number of washout plugs or anything else is incorrect.Instead I'd ask Bert Smith,who is an acknowledged authority!

If Bert Smith is also on RMWeb,and shares his knowledge,that's a bonus for the rest of us,but please don't think the manufacturers read this site and take everything as gospel, nor should they. 

 

 

[mdvle]

53 minutes ago, jamieb said:

In fairness,I have been on this site for a very long time,and I'm well aware of the amount of expertise on here.Most of the manufacturers quite rightly liaise with these people,they know who the experts are and are happy to engage 

However they engage with them because they are acknowledged sources of information,not because they are members of RMWeb

 

Except your assumption is not entirely correct - while the manufacturers do interact with some of the experts (who may or may not be on RMweb), not all of the knowledgeable people on RMweb are directly interacted with (and if approached may decline simply because they can't devote the time, while a comment or 2 on RMweb by them is doable).

 

And it doesn't even have to be an expert - some of us have brains that simply are better at focusing on errors/discrepancies in a drawing or a photo and can "see" a mistake in a CAD drawing or an early sample that otherwise gets overlooked by everyone else involved in the project.

 

Simply put a manufacturer ignores potential outside expertise at their own peril.

 

 

[AY Mod]

1 hour ago, jamieb said:

please don't think the manufacturers read this site and take everything as gospel, nor should they. 

 

Whilst I don't disagree with elements of what you say there are some manufacturers who rubbish the whole membership whilst actively ignoring evidence based information provided, I can think of a case with a different manufacture that they didn't want to address something highlighted here because it was on here and think of the place as an existential inconvenience.

[Ian Hargrave]

1 hour ago, jamieb said:

In fairness,I have been on this site for a very long time,and I'm well aware of the amount of expertise on here.Most of the manufacturers quite rightly liaise with these people,they know who the experts are and are happy to engage 

However they engage with them because they are acknowledged sources of information,not because they are members of RMWeb

The problem is,that as with every other online forum,there are the self proclaimed 'experts' whose knowledge comes from other less reliable sources on the internet ,rather than the original source material,and much like Chinese Whispers,the truth becomes highly diluted.I've seen several of these 'Worlds Expert' types come and go over the years and if I was a manufacturer, I wouldn't pay much credence to Fred Blogs on RMWeb telling me the number of washout plugs or anything else is incorrect.Instead I'd ask Bert Smith,who is an acknowledged authority!

If Bert Smith is also on RMWeb,and shares his knowledge,that's a bonus for the rest of us,but please don't think the manufacturers read this site and take everything as gospel, nor should they. 

 

 

Then explain why a number of manufacturers and retailers who commission  over the years …..and this does include Dapol……have chosen to have a presence here..? Your statement that they choose whom they trust for assistance is not based upon membership of this forum is,per se,factually incorrect.,I can assure you.How do they find such worthies in the first place if not by researching sources such as this ?  Credit them for possessing sufficient acumen to judge what is a reliable source of knowledge .Yes there are those here who spout spurious nonsense . We all acknowledge that and by and large we recognise unhelpful posts when we read them.

[jamieb]

1 hour ago, Ian Hargrave said:

Then explain why a number of manufacturers and retailers who commission  over the years …..and this does include Dapol……have chosen to have a presence here..? Your statement that they choose whom they trust for assistance is not based upon membership of this forum is,per se,factually incorrect.,I can assure you.How do they find such worthies in the first place if not by researching sources such as this ?  Credit them for possessing sufficient acumen to judge what is a reliable source of knowledge .Yes there are those here who spout spurious nonsense . We all acknowledge that and by and large we recognise unhelpful posts when we read them.

Absolute nonsense.

Do you honestly think a manufacturer proposing a new model is going to start their research by asking on here?  Basing £1000s of R&D costs on the word of someone hiding behind a nom-de-plume on an internet forum

Sure,there is a probability that the people they turn to for assistance are members of this forum but that is by accident rather than design.

Yes I know most of the manufacturers engage,which is a good thing, Accurascale seem particularly good at this and I have no doubt it enhances their products.But to think that RMWeb as a total entity ,rather than an expert who happens to be a member on here,is the first port of call is highly unlikely 

 

 

 

 

[AY Mod]

16 minutes ago, jamieb said:

Do you honestly think a manufacturer proposing a new model is going to start their research by asking on here? 

 

Yes; it has happened.

 

16 minutes ago, jamieb said:

that is by accident rather than design

 

Nope, it has happened.

[jamieb]

I'm sure you'd know better than anyone Andy but it seems an arsey versey way of doing research to me! 

I'll bow out now,as I think we've gone away from my original point ,as to why some manufacturers don't choose to engage on here as much as some others do 

[Captain Kernow]

Hope you manage to have a nice, relaxing Saturday evening, Andy, whatever it is you are planning!

 

[AY Mod]

7 minutes ago, jamieb said:

as to why some manufacturers don't choose to engage on here as much as some others do 

 

Some do, some don't but some seem to forget that some people will buy from people they like rather than just based on the product. Engagement can increase sales, it's always been the way.

[Hal Nail]

I was under the impression Dapol make generally decent models at a price that is attractive and sell well.

That is until I read this thread and discovered what a disastrous business model they have apparently developed!

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Hal Nail

[Ian Hargrave]

18 minutes ago, jamieb said:

Absolute nonsense.

Do you honestly think a manufacturer proposing a new model is going to start their research by asking on here?  Basing £1000s of R&D costs on the word of someone hiding behind a nom-de-plume on an internet forum

Sure,there is a probability that the people they turn to for assistance are members of this forum but that is by accident rather than design.

Yes I know most of the manufacturers engage,which is a good thing, Accurascale seem particularly good at this and I have no doubt it enhances their products.But to think that RMWeb as a total entity ,rather than an expert who happens to be a member on here,is the first port of call is highly unlikely 

 

 

 

 

Before using challenging language,I suggest it would be appropriate to re read what I and other members of this forum have posted.Besides which you have no means of knowing what actually happens when research is undertaken,unless of course you are privy to confidential matters that the rest of us have no access to. What I posted is correct.Had it not been,I would not have posted it.Have the grace at least to recognise that Incidentally,I do not hide behind a nom de plume

 

I find your response disappointing and concerned you remain a member of a forum which apparently you regard in some ways as a vehicle for hot air. It is so much more than that.

[Mallard60022]

1 hour ago, jamieb said:

Absolute nonsense.

Do you honestly think a manufacturer proposing a new model is going to start their research by asking on here?  Basing £1000s of R&D costs on the word of someone hiding behind a nom-de-plume on an internet forum

Sure,there is a probability that the people they turn to for assistance are members of this forum but that is by accident rather than design.

Yes I know most of the manufacturers engage,which is a good thing, Accurascale seem particularly good at this and I have no doubt it enhances their products.But to think that RMWeb as a total entity ,rather than an expert who happens to be a member on here,is the first port of call is highly unlikely 

Yup and in fact several members on this forum have been asked to be 'advisors' in the preparation of models. 

Your comment itself could be viewed as  'absolute nonsense', but I think you probably see that now as it is almost self conflicting anyway.

Cheers, from an average modeller.

Phil

[7007GreatWestern]

"Do you honestly think a manufacturer proposing a new model is going to start their research by asking on here?"

 

Errrrr, no I'd be horrified if they did! I would expect them to 'start their research' with original drawings and photographs, followed by site visits to preserved examples (where they exist) to take measurements, laser or otherwise. Then I would expect them to go away to produce CADs, which they or may not choose to share with interested parties such as RMWeb. It's at this point a manufacturer could choose to listen to feedback, before they move on to the expense of tooling to produce an Engineering Prototype.

 

It has long seemed to me that some manufacturers simply don't understand that we want to help them produce the most accurate models possible. We are trying to collaborate! Andy's recent posting however confirms what I have suspected for some time:

 

"Whilst I don't disagree with elements of what you say there are some manufacturers who rubbish the whole membership whilst actively ignoring evidence based information provided, I can think of a case with a different manufacture that they didn't want to address something highlighted here because it was on here and think of the place as an existential inconvenience."

 

To these manufacturers I would say : treat us as an existential inconvenience if you like but you are ignoring freely given, well-intended advice that can help you avoid inaccuracies and the resulting adverse effects on sales and reputation! Your choice!!

 

Andy.

Edited May 29, 2022 by 7007GreatWestern
Emphasis

[Neal Ball]

Of course if you would like to look at a GWR Manor in close up detail…..

 

There is a tour around the GWS at Didcot this summer, kindly arranged by @Castle of this parish. It’s on Sunday 14th August, details are here: 

 

It will be a great way to meet some of the faces and voices behind the comments here on RMWeb, it just so happens that we will be in the UK that day….. Book your place on the link above.

 

See you there!

 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, 7007GreatWestern said:

"Do you honestly think a manufacturer proposing a new model is going to start their research by asking on here?"

 

Errrrr, no I'd be horrified if they did! I would expect them to 'start their research' with original drawings and photographs, followed by site visits to preserved examples (where they exist) to take measurements, laser or otherwise. Then I would expect them to go away to produce CADs, which they or may not choose to share with interested parties such as RMWeb. It's at this point a manufacturer could choose to listen to feedback, before they move on to the expense of tooling to produce an Engineering Prototype.

 

snipped

 

Andy.

I would expect them to start their research by carefully looking at the market and then considering very carefully what sort of optimum use they could make of tooling to meet what they see as market opportunities.  At that stage they will need to know something about what they are considering producing and don't forget that even the best experts on one subject area might know very little about another.  So they might also need, in my view, some early contact with someone who can help them with potential options to get maximum use out of tooling for variants so who hopefully might at least also have some basic understanding of how tooling is produced.

 

There can also be an awful lot that needs to be looked at during the development of a CAD and that too can be an area where somebody with the right knowledge can be helpful when it comes to a 'what does that do?' type questions or 'is the drawing right and there really weren't any connections into that pipe anywhere on the vehicle?'.  And never overlook one basic fact that while an original drawing might well have come from the drawing office of the company which built the loco or whatever that doesn't mean that the loco or whatever was built, in detail, precisely as the drawing office intended; I, for one, am always very wary of GWR general arrangement loco drawings especially when it comes to various details.

[MidlandRed]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

And never overlook one basic fact that while an original drawing might well have come from the drawing office of the company which built the loco or whatever that doesn't mean that the loco or whatever was built, in detail, precisely as the drawing office intended; I, for one, am always very wary of GWR general arrangement loco drawings especially when it comes to various details.

Or that the many works visits for maintenance/ overhaul didn’t introduce minor changes across a class, or even embellishments added at sheds. 
 

I don’t have any interest in buying either of these models (Dapol or Acc), however to my (relatively) untrained eye they both look undeniably like a Manor and would be good enough for me if I wanted one.

 

Regarding manufacturers and interface with ‘enthusiast’ forums, I’m reminded of, after researching the histories, buying and having renumbered a class 22 diesel (Dapol) and subsequently having then found and read the entire 60 odd page thread on the model on this very forum, and in which the manufacturer was participating - and the machinations over loco numbering and the many detailed differences (beyond the two batches of locos) which were coming to light. I got the impression the maker was in danger of disappearing up their own backside attempting to produce a set of exactly correct variants - but actually achieved an excellent set of models. Suffice it to say my renumbering is slightly incorrect in that at some stage the loco received a slightly modified end following accident damage - at first I was a bit miffed - later I realised that 

a) every photo I’d ever seen was as per my model

b) if it had a slightly altered front I’ve never seen a photo, or conversely if I had I couldn’t tell the difference

c) I didn’t really care too much

 

However if the overall model had very fundamental errors I may have cared.

 

So I think whilst it is laudable the lengths that manufacturers go to, and in some cases interface with enthusiasts with a lot of knowledge, say on forums - there can be a point of diminished returns - just look at the current discussion on the SLW class 25 and minor mids to exhaust outlets some locos had!!! None of it will make me change my order for a couple of them - it’s a shame to read some of the comments affecting sales on this very thread. 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by MidlandRed

[Free At Last]

Was it on here where someone pointed out errors in a loco on release after the manufacturer had been showing cads and samples and when asked why they never mentioned it earlier they said they were not getting paid to design it for them.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Free At Last

[adb968008]

On 29/05/2022 at 17:21, Free At Last said:

Was it on here where someone pointed out errors in a loco on release after the manufacturer had been showing cads and samples and when asked why they never mentioned it earlier they said they were not getting paid to design it for them.

Sadly I remember that.

 

Thing is if they wanted that model, they now have the rest of their ownership of it to proudly look at that fault and say “I didnt do anything about that”.
If the intention was to delibrately spite a comissioner its actually the wrong way to do it, as many will have already purchased and the sale is complete.  Pointing out the error earlier is better as its harder for the manufacturer to ignore it, as to do so, risks attention forever being drawn to it once its uncovered. 

 

If all parties treat an EP as aired dirty linen, but accept it is that and report/know its flaws inpassionately, we all benefit down the road if its resolved in the end product. I accept some manufacturers have more care and passion than others, and tbh in our little hobby, I think they seem to be doing better than those who are less so.. but it is a symbiotic relationship.

 

At the end of the day, we are the ones buying and looking at it for the long term, so its only us that benefits an accurate model.

 

we seem to be a long way from Manors.. to drag it back to Dapols specifically… Ive got the 61xx and the 2-6-0, and i’m happy with both (ok one had a pony wheel niggle), Ive spoken with the Dapol guys and felt their passion, indeed they did even go as far as following up a suggestion made on the 2-6-0 some 3 years ago, and ive seen it in the model. Ive full confidence in their model.

 

Ive equally the same in the Accurascale one too, for much the same reasons… but I do wish both companies had gone for more “celebs” of the class.. they both missed this, but no reason they cant come later.

 

So.. anyways Dapol is doing, 7827.. a bit of a shy Manor, most of its time in the deep south west, it has escaped once however…to visit an equally reticent shed queen..7808, which Accurascale is doing.

 

(GWR 175 at Didcot in May 2010).
 

So this line up of the shy ones is one line up you could create*.

 

*with a little bit of extra work

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by adb968008

[SteamingWales]

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

So.. anyways Dapol is doing, 7827.. a bit of a shy Manor, most of its time in the deep south west, it has escaped once however…to visit an equally reticent shed queen..7808, which Accurascale is doing.

(GWR 175 at Didcot in May 2010).
 

So this line up of the shy ones is one line up you could create*.

 

*with a little bit of extra work

 

Did the any of the Manors ever recieve the GWR lined green livery in active service? Or was it exclusive to the top link passenger locos?

 

Obviously it is a inaccurate livery regardless for 7827 being one of the 1950 built batch, but I guess some would like it as a limited edition preservation era model?

[Miss Prism]

1 hour ago, SteamingWales said:

Did the any of the Manors ever recieve the GWR lined green livery in active service? Or was it exclusive to the top link passenger locos?

 

It seems Manors were never regarded as express passenger locos, so didn't qualify for lining in GWR days. Painting practice was not entirely logical in those days though, so there might have been an exception or two.