dibber25 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Coming in the March issue, published February 12. Reviews: Hornby 'K1' 2-6-0 Bachmann 64XX' 0-6-0PT Hornby Railroad 'Olton Hall' 4-6-0 Farish '4F' 0-6-0 Hornby 21t hopper Hornby Mk2E coaches Dapol 'N' engineers wagons Hornby LMS horsebox Layouts: Old Elms Road (OO) Wheal Elizabeth (P4) Dovey Valley (OO9) Workbench: Supertest ballast glues Build a finescale greenhouse Build an easy station Build your own points Rails in the Road All the regulars, Q&A, Show & Tell, Backscene. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Sounds exciting Chris. I look forward to my copy arriving. Paddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 Sounds exciting Chris. I look forward to my copy arriving. Paddy It's been hectic! Two of the three locos have been with us for less than a week - one arrived yesterday, got photographed yesterday afternoon, reviewed this morning, on the page this afternoon and off to the printer tomorrow! CHRIS LEIGH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Any of them N gauge Chris? Paddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 Any of them N gauge Chris? Paddy Not the three I was thinking of, but now you mention it, there may actually be a fourth loco that came in earlier, which is 'N' gauge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Thanks Chris. Speaking purely as an N gauge modeller it would be really useful to have good reviews of Dapols recent re-releases of their M7, 2MT, 9F, Brittania etc. to see if/where any improvements may be found. Paddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 Thanks Chris. Speaking purely as an N gauge modeller it would be really useful to have good reviews of Dapols recent re-releases of their M7, 2MT, 9F, Brittania etc. to see if/where any improvements may be found. Paddy We've got a couple of modern engineers wagons from Dapol and a new Farish 4F 0-6-0. We don't usually receive re-releases for review. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 We've got a couple of modern engineers wagons from Dapol and a new Farish 4F 0-6-0. We don't usually receive re-releases for review. That is a shame Chris. As you probably know the original releases of these locos have had their issues - poor haulage, axels, nameplates and so on. Fully accept some people have not had issues. Not trying to start an argument or go Dapol bashing. Paddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisG Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 That is a shame Chris. As you probably know the original releases of these locos have had their issues - poor haulage, axels, nameplates and so on. Fully accept some people have not had issues. Not trying to start an argument or go Dapol bashing. Paddy My copy has just arrived and the "advertising feature" on building track roused my ire to the extent that I wrote a strongly-worded letter to the magazine. There's loose talk about OO "SF" Finescale without saying what that means (in the context of there being at least 3 established OO gauge standards). The article suggests that the introduction of pre-cut and pre-tinned sleepers is going to transform the job of handbuilding track (which it isn't because crossings, vees and point blades still need to be manufactured and fitted), and there's an incomprehensible sentence about how to attach the tiebars, I could go on. An "advertising feature" which has copy authored by a staff writer on the magazine, that makes no attempt to provide a fair assessment of the products against those already on the market does not strike me as ethical and makes me wonder whether I should keep my subscription. Chris G Alton, Hampshire Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffnut Thorston Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Hi all. My copy arrived today... Gaugemaster “Fordhampton” kits. The “Fordhampton” kits were indeed previously available “in Red Boxes” from Hornby Railways. (As noted in the article) At the time I thought most Hornby kits were made by POLA, though it seems that the Gaugemaster “Fordhampton” kits are made by FALLER. The Station kit was based on the station building at Dunster, on the GWR branch to Minehead (The West Somerset Railway nowadays…) and was originally sold with “self-adhesive” labels in a Stone finish only. I seem to remember these being plain “peel-and-stick” labels, and it was a bit fraught getting them in the right place first time! http://dunsterstation.co.uk/TheStation.html The Signal Box is a “standard” GWR wooden ‘box, and was sold by Hornby complete with the Level Crossing. This is also based on the Signal Box installed at Dunster (West Crossing) in 1933, and moved to Minehead by the WSR. So, it is a model of at least 2 signal boxes! The level crossing at Dunster is no longer a Gated crossing, unlike the kit! http://www.signalbox.org/branches/kw/minehead.htm Gaugemaster have split these up into 2 kits. (Similar to the Airfix Lowmac AND JCB kit, now sold as 2 kits by Dapol….) The Footbridge is the GWR footbridge from Hagley in Worcestershire, as recently made for the Hornby Skaledale range… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-17666659 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Hi all. My copy arrived today... Gaugemaster “Fordhampton” kits. The “Fordhampton” kits were indeed previously available “in Red Boxes” from Hornby Railways. (As noted in the article) At the time I thought most Hornby kits were made by POLA, though it seems that the Gaugemaster “Fordhampton” kits are made by FALLER. The Station kit was based on the station building at Dunster, on the GWR branch to Minehead (The West Somerset Railway nowadays…) and was originally sold with “self-adhesive” labels in a Stone finish only. I seem to remember these being plain “peel-and-stick” labels, and it was a bit fraught getting them in the right place first time! http://dunsterstation.co.uk/TheStation.html The Signal Box is a “standard” GWR wooden ‘box, and was sold by Hornby complete with the Level Crossing. This is also based on the Signal Box installed at Dunster (West Crossing) in 1933, and moved to Minehead by the WSR. So, it is a model of at least 2 signal boxes! The level crossing at Dunster is no longer a Gated crossing, unlike the kit! http://www.signalbox.org/branches/kw/minehead.htm Gaugemaster have split these up into 2 kits. (Similar to the Airfix Lowmac AND JCB kit, now sold as 2 kits by Dapol….) The Footbridge is the GWR footbridge from Hagley in Worcestershire, as recently made for the Hornby Skaledale range… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-17666659 Ah ha - I thought those Gaugemaster kits looked familiar. So I assume Hornby are no longer selling these? Many thanks Paddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffnut Thorston Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Hornby haven't sold these kits for a while, they even used the same buildings for some Skaledale models. Dunster Station and Hagley Footbridge for 2! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffnut Thorston Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Hi Chris. The tramway painting looks very worth while finishing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 My copy has just arrived and the "advertising feature" on building track roused my ire to the extent that I wrote a strongly-worded letter to the magazine. There's loose talk about OO "SF" Finescale without saying what that means (in the context of there being at least 3 established OO gauge standards). The article suggests that the introduction of pre-cut and pre-tinned sleepers is going to transform the job of handbuilding track (which it isn't because crossings, vees and point blades still need to be manufactured and fitted), and there's an incomprehensible sentence about how to attach the tiebars, I could go on. An "advertising feature" which has copy authored by a staff writer on the magazine, that makes no attempt to provide a fair assessment of the products against those already on the market does not strike me as ethical and makes me wonder whether I should keep my subscription. Chris G Alton, Hampshire It is clearly marked as an advertising feature, and as such is paid for by the advertiser. The text is written for the advertiser by one of our writers but it is still an advertisement so there's never going to be an assessment of other, competing, products. Such features should always be regarded as advertisements and that's why they are marked as such. CHRIS LEIGH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rue_d_etropal Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 That clears it up , thank Chris. As I have not seen the magazine yet, I was a bit concerned it was a comment about my dockyard/inset track system. I am looking forward to getting hold of a copy when it is in shops. Always frustrating not being able to see what is being talked about. When I saw those new(?) buildings from Gaugemaster I realised they were the old Pola ones sold through Hornby. Pity the station building has not be upgraded with textured surface. I remember many years ago a semi detached house kit being introduced by a new company. It was again a kit with plain plastic walls and brick paper to stick on. This kit then seemed to get into Hornby range, but with proper brick walls, and a shop version was also produced. They were in Hornby range for a few years, and would be popular if re-introduced now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisG Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 It is clearly marked as an advertising feature, and as such is paid for by the advertiser. The text is written for the advertiser by one of our writers but it is still an advertisement so there's never going to be an assessment of other, competing, products. Such features should always be regarded as advertisements and that's why they are marked as such. CHRIS LEIGH I posted a reply earlier (I thought) but I cannot see it. So apologies if I appear to be repeating myself. I realised it was an advert, but in my view the authorship by the Deputy Editor confuses the issue and may lead some to believe the Magazine is endorsing the product in the process of giving the best and unbiased reviews which it claims on the cover. Anyway - enough said on that, I suspect! A more specific point is that if the templates, gauges, etc. ARE to OO-SF standards then they will not be compatible with Peco Code 75 as the advertisement states. Stock that is adjusted or built to run on OO-SF will not run on Peco and vice-versa. OO "standards" are a minefield and anyone going into handbuilding track needs to be aware of them and to make a conscious decision on which standards to adopt. OO-SF is mildly controversial as it reduces the gauge from 16.5mm to 16.2mm , through the crossings, in order to achieve a more realistic flangeway and traditional OO gauge modellers will find that their stock will not run through such turnouts. Chris G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 It is clearly marked as an advertising feature, and as such is paid for by the advertiser. The text is written for the advertiser by one of our writers but it is still an advertisement so there's never going to be an assessment of other, competing, products. Such features should always be regarded as advertisements and that's why they are marked as such. CHRIS LEIGH I'm afraid Chris G has a very valid point. I know nothing about magazines as such, but in my profession, if I did something similar, I would be taken to task or sued for 'conflict or interest', as my job is to give impartial advice and design. MR also gives impartial views with its reviews (using its staff and in the same recognisable format) and to effectively sell this same service as a commercial advert, simply with the addition of the words 'advertising feature' on the top of each left hand page, and the substitution of a blue border instead of a grey border (which has no real relevance other than to be different) is worrying. It is hardly a warts-and-all review, with pros and cons, even though it does finish with 'The Verdict'! By all means run informative adverts, but to have your own staff writing them, and to couch them in your own 'House Style' can only undermine your own content in the eyes of your readers. This is intended to be constructive, rather than a bashing - it must be difficult at times to prevent some lines from getting blurred - but whilst the support of the industry is understood and welcomed, the independence and impatiality of the magazines is of importance. Regards, Giles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidH Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 OO-SF is mildly controversial as it reduces the gauge from 16.5mm to 16.2mm , through the crossings, in order to achieve a more realistic flangeway and traditional OO gauge modellers will find that their stock will not run through such turnouts. Chris G That's not true at all, it is perfectly compatible with RTR OO - see the various threads on RMWeb regarding OO-SF. I won't comment further here as the coverage elsewhere makes it unecessary. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Downer Posted February 10, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 10, 2015 Until I read this thread I didn't realise the DCC track article was an advertising feature. To place it in the middle of the Workbench section, and have it authored by George Dent, is, to say the least, misleading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 I'm afraid Chris G has a very valid point. I know nothing about magazines as such, but in my profession, if I did something similar, I would be taken to task or sued for 'conflict or interest', as my job is to give impartial advice and design. MR also gives impartial views with its reviews (using its staff and in the same recognisable format) and to effectively sell this same service as a commercial advert, simply with the addition of the words 'advertising feature' on the top of each left hand page, and the substitution of a blue border instead of a grey border (which has no real relevance other than to be different) is worrying. It is hardly a warts-and-all review, with pros and cons, even though it does finish with 'The Verdict'! By all means run informative adverts, but to have your own staff writing them, and to couch them in your own 'House Style' can only undermine your own content in the eyes of your readers. This is intended to be constructive, rather than a bashing - it must be difficult at times to prevent some lines from getting blurred - but whilst the support of the industry is understood and welcomed, the independence and impatiality of the magazines is of importance. Regards, Giles These comments have been passed on to the persons concerned. CHRIS LEIGH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffnut Thorston Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Until I read this thread I didn't realise the DCC track article was an advertising feature. To place it in the middle of the Workbench section, and have it authored by George Dent, is, to say the least, misleading. To be fair, this is not the first "Advertising Feature" that has been produced for DCC Concepts. There have been a few over the last few months. Including the Cobalt Point motors, switches, etc. It seems that this one has attracted more attention.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Gilbert Posted February 10, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2015 Did anyone else destroy a number of pages as they were all attached at the outer margins? Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Just checked my subscription copy Chris and you are right. About half the pages are joined together at the right hand margins! Chris Leigh - what should we do? Many thanks Paddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidH Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Get a pair of scissors? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffnut Thorston Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 To be fair, this is not the first "Advertising Feature" that has been produced for DCC Concepts. There have been a few over the last few months. Including the Cobalt Point motors, switches, etc. It seems that this one has attracted more attention.... Looking at the cover just now, I have noticed that the "Point Building" is a "cover feature". Is this the first "Advertising Feature" to be so promoted? I haven't found any un-cut pages in my issue, yet!.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.