@GWR_fan: I can't comment upon the accuracy of the model because I don't know enough. There doesn't seem to be a lot of detailed information about the gated stock easily available, so it could be a slightly obscure prototype that only a few people have detailed knowledge of. My modelling standards are low enough to tolerate a higher level of discrepancies than some others, though.
What I have noticed, was that one of Adrian's criticisms of the Oxford Rail wagons was that some of the liveries were inaccurate. Since then, other people on a certain other forum have mentioned inaccuracies in some of the liveries. I didn't notice whether or not these were the same liveries that Adrian mentioned, but the issues sounded similar to me (wrong body colours and 1906 liveries that would never have appeared on the prototypes of the OR models). Don't ask me whether the criticisms are valid; I really don't know. The fact that more than one person who seems considerably more knowledgeable than myself leads me to suspect that there may well be issues.
What does seem sparse in the extreme, is anyone actually disproving Adrian's criticisms of models.
Richard,
inaccurate liveries are taken for granted these days as manufacturers churn out a basic body style with multiple liveries. It is business economics. Remember the Hornby Mk1 LMS liveried coaches and the Great Western Mk1 cars. Manufacturers are in the game to make money not just to put smiles on our faces. It does not take someone of Adrians obvious experience to know a livery is incorrect, so one wonders why he takes time out of his work schedule to constantly berate other manufacturers for perceived inaccuracies. No doubt the gate stock coaches do have flaws but Adrian finds flaws in everything. He is a perfectionist to a tee. My son is a perfectionist who builds and details military kits and his perfection is a real pain in the butt to live with. Words like pedantic, anal retentive, obsessive, pighheaded come to mind. I see these traits in our critic.
I believe that Adrian showed little interest in this forum previously and when he was silenced he looked to other sites to continue his campaign of criticising other manufacturers. Read through his posts to date on this site and the basic premise of his postings is to criticise other manufacturers. How has he made a contribution to the site? He came with blood on his hands and wants to shed more blood here. All he is after is an audience to express his views. Yes, he may be possibly correct in all his detail faults found to date. As you stated the gate stock are an obscure prototype and information not readily available. When Adrian could not get traction through his friends with the manufacturer he started his campaign, particularly after alienating Kernows with his criticisms of the 02.
If Adrian had simply set out in a logical manner his list of faults in the proposed model then perhaps some would have listened. The problem is that he has a history of criticising others and even manufacturers will not now listen to him. Which manufacturer has he not yet criticised? He still wants his fifteen minutes of fame, plus no doubt the last and final word on the topic until he finds another product to lamblast.
The best course of action is to obviously ignore him but it really gets under my skin that he is using this site, not for the benefit of others with his long experience in the hobby, but merely as a soapbox to spread dissent. He says that he is educating us so that we may make up our minds as to whether or not we want to purchase a supposedly flawed model. Most do not want to know if the model is flawed or not, they simply want a model of a set of cars that has not before been released ready to run. For those who really do want a highly detailed scale model, well, if you know the flaws with the cars then correct them yourselves or commission a highly detailed set from a master model maker. I guarantee that you will not get the cars for GBP99.00 though.
GWR_fan: Have to agree that the manner of his posts does not always trigger positive feelings. Yes, I have noticed that he doesn't seem to have been very active here much before he got banned from a certain other forum. As others have said (with considerably more authority than I ever could) ready to run models do tend have a certain level of inaccuracy; I agree that they would be often be prohibitively expensive for most people (including myself) if they didn't. That is one reason that I accept models that have inaccuracies.
On the other hand, the dreaded 'rivet-counters' can be very useful for the hobby by pointing out errors and encouraging both manufacturers and people who do a bit of building for themselves towards greater accuracy. Details that you don't know about can be difficult to get right.
I certainly think that he could have put his criticisms in a what would be a more comfortable way for me. For instance, how noticeable and how important is the inaccuracy? Are there more or less inaccuracies for the new model than existing equivalent models? How much evidence, and where, for the criticisms? I believe that the larger the scale the more noticeable inaccuracies are. Is a particular problem borderline for the particular scale, or will it stand out a mile? On the other hand, he is a free agent, and, subject to the board rules and the judgement of the moderators, can post in what ever way he chooses.
On the whole, it is very often a good idea to ignore someone if they get under your skin.
Richard, your final comment is very true. Perhaps I should remind everyone that the board actually provides a mechanism (in the UCP) to automatically ignore someone.
GWR_fan wrote:I just read the nine pages (204 replies) relating to the Gate Stock coaches on the other site and given their propensity to rivet counting there was only two dissenting posts not in agreeance with the model. No mention of the incorrect placement of detail items, only in relation to the couplers fitted. Now on this site we have just four pages of postings and it would seem a fair number of the posts, all from one source, constantly deride the quality of the expected model with numerous claimed, but not authenticated inaccuracies. Now I am sure that there are some on that other site with a reasonable knowledge of the prototype and yet no one on that site is criticising the quality of the model.
.
Sorry Tim, have to disagree again. The 'other site' is not particularly a home to rivet counters, any more than any other; in fact for several years there's been a growing culture there of shouting down anyone who dares mention anything less than perfect in a model. In many cases it's not even a criticism - sometimes it's just been folk musing about detail differences in the prototype between batches, and wanting to learn more about them. I'd suggest the lack of criticism there, as regards this and many other models connected with Mr Jones, is not due to lack of knowledge on the part of those reading, but more from an expectation that such comments will either be met with a barrage of defensive nonsense from the resident fanboys and/or will be marginalized by the admin. It's largely that that led myself and others with knowledge to cease posting there.
Richard Lee wrote:...On the other hand, the dreaded 'rivet-counters' can be very useful for the hobby by pointing out errors and encouraging both manufacturers and people who do a bit of building for themselves towards greater accuracy. Details that you don't know about can be difficult to get right.
I certainly think that he could have put his criticisms in a what would be a more comfortable way for me. For instance, how noticeable and how important is the inaccuracy? Are there more or less inaccuracies for the new model than existing equivalent models? How much evidence, and where, for the criticisms? ...
Richard, I agree that criticism are best if put within a little context, but judgment of how important they are ultimately has to be a decision for the individual. Hence my oft-aired contention that if information is arbitrarily withheld, it hinders that decision and can in some cases mean that somebody is (however unintentionally) making the decision that 'it's good enough for me, so it should be good enough for everybody'.
Hi All I am amazed anyone expects to have "Positive" feelings reading my comments about inaccuracies. They are not intended to give you that "Glowing feeling" but to make you think about just what is an acceptable standard. If pre 1970s standards are your thing, the current Gate stock is for you. If GWR_fan read my posts properly he would know why there is no criticism of the Gate stock on RMweb. RMweb banned me Dec 2014 followed by MRE, an associate site, Others have also been banned or have given up posting as RMweb have an apparent preference not to publish anything critical before release and most models are sold. None of you are aware how my private emails to manufacturers are worded so it is rather presumptuous to criticise their content. If you would like to tell me exactly how you wish to see my lists of errors presented I will endeavour to rejig the others on the Gate stock to suit. As has been pointed out, people are now coming out of the woodwork and slating Oxfordrail wagons and it is probably correct that, to date, none of the 12 carry a livery correct for a '23 7 plank mineral even if the base model were correct.
Modellers lacking the necessary information to check models themselves does not mean it does not exist or that the manufacturers have been denied full access. That is why I point out errors modellers do not have the means to discover. They could spend their £9 and obtain a full set of gate stock drawings and challenge my findings. I fervently hope that Kernow retool the Gate stock and upgrade it even if it means dropping the two versions of set 373 and substituting two others which can be made with less retooling. Inaccurate liveries are hardly taken for granted these days and I suggest that GWR_fan reads some of the uncomplimentary comments on the Dapol Class 73 site as just one example. Had Kernow checked the CADs properly the models would not become prohibitively expensive due to retooling. Richard Lee is only too right about people not disproving my comments, only one typo has been mentioned to date ! There are plenty posting fawning adulation, even before having anything to look at, I see no point in adding to that as I have little enough time to post my critiques.
Hi All Forgot this !! Bearing in mind what GWR_fan says about the RMweb Gate Stock site and Dave Jones' comments, I suggest GWR_fan or someone who is NOT banned on RMweb post a little question to Dave Jones querying the number and position of the Battery boxes on the Driving trailer. His reply, if you get the benefit of one, would be most interesting, especially in view of all the claims he makes about his involvement and and the accuracy of the models he produces for his commissioners. You could at the same time get an answer as to when further pre-pros will be seen with the already announced "Small tweaks" Be prepared for some interesting comments, I will be watching with bated breath I can assure you. I don't think you are likely to be banned immediately but the post might not appear or you may be warned.
GWR_fan wrote:
Of note on the other thread on that site is a response on posting number 157, on page 7, in which 'DJM Dave' gives a definition of 'vapourware'. On reading the posting it becomes very obvious exactly who the posting is referring to.
Sorry, I'd meant to come back to this as well. I dont believe that's aimed at Adrian, at least not specifically. It's aimed generally at anyone who views DJM with scepticism; another favourite saying is 'naysayers'. Personally, I feel the vapourware tag has been fully vindicated by the Q6 - announced, initially as a Kickstarter, then as a normal production run, and now cancelled. The 59, although not actually 'officially' canned, is also looking pretty unlikely in the continuing absence of livery permissions.
Last edited by Pennine MC on Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Adrian,
no one is doubting the facts of your statements in your criticisms, but it is the combative nature of how you make the reader aware that these facts exist. Most are aware that manufacturers take liberties with their models, such as the livery applied not matching either the original livery or the actual design of the rolling stock, e.g., 1907 livery on a 1923 waggon. Similarly with Hornby and their fictional liveries on their clerestory coaches. The old Hornby class 29 with the nose access doors still moulded even though the model has a headcode box. Also, the Hornby Star class with the incorrect number of spokes on the pony truck wheels. No douby Hornby went to their existing parts box rather than designing a new wheel for the locomotive. For most of us though is this sort of nitpicking really necessary.
It seems though that you like to criticially examine every new item produced. This does inform the reader that issues exist with the model, but while accurate is it constructive criticism? While we like to think that our models are accurate and to scale, for the majority of the modellers is this criticism really necessary? The purist will immediately see any inaccuracies and set about correcting them. However, I do not feel that we all need to be informed unless the fault is glaringly obvious, such as the mistooled Bachmann Hall class and the Hornby "B" suburban coach with B4 bogies. The fact that the box shifters had no trouble onselling these items supports my claim that the majority of 'enthusiasts' do not really care (or in reality do not want to know). I recall one box shifter specifically stating that they would not be returning the faulty Hornby stock to the manufacturer as they were having no problems selling the item.
I feel that the majority of consumers prefer the model to resemble the prototype but do not really believe it to be an exact scale model of the type (well, they like to pretend it is for modelling purposes). I can understand your desire for models to be scale accurate, but the majority would not wear the price tag this accuracy would entail. We want a decent model but at an economical price. For those discerning few who demand scale accuracy then there are specialist manufacturers who cater for this niche market.
I can understand one of the 'major' criticisms with the Adams Radial in that a modeller has shown that with a little engineering solution applied the motor/flywheel could have been redesigned such that there was 'air' under the boiler. I believe that the manufacturer specifically chose the production method used for ease of assembly and economics of production. No amount of negative comment is going to change this design aspect of the model. It is one thing to design an accurate model, but a manufacturer must also look at how the model is going to be made. Compromises become necessary on the assembly line for ease of production.
I locked this yesterday in a fit of peak, but didn't have time to say why.
This has gone around & around for many pages. It will be what it will be,
and faults, known, or unknown are the responsibility of the purchaser.
This web site cannot advise, or change whatever other commercial
organisations choose to make, or release. Once certain suggested
deficiencies are pointed out it become simply in the hands of our
members to buy, or reject.
This thread is now unlocked. Under NO circumstances respond in any way to comments posted by adrianbs
Now opened for civilised exchanges of information regarding these products.
Had a chat to Kernow/Chris last weekend at Alexandra Palace.
Most of what has been mentioned here is in hand to be changed, I think there is some newsletter coming out from Kernow in the coming weeks highlighting the changes to toolings ect..end of the day none of us really know to what progress or changes are being made, unless we are told.
So best to wait and see, or hear until it's been said.
So basically they have listened, but taken the eminently sensible and pragmatic decision not to make a great fuss about it. Once a production run is started, it is wise business practise not to announce new versions until this run has filtered down to the bottom of the food chain. After all it is in our best interest that manufacturers do what is necessary to remain in business. It may seem tough on the purchasers that a better version comes along, but that is the way of the world, a risk that the early adopter/purchaser takes. If a first model is truly awful some less knowledgeable retailers may get less than they had hoped for, but they will sell at a price that purchasers will pay.
They knew of certain things to be resolved, some of which were not spotted until the first tool came out, some of which the person who shall not be named didn't spot either, as they were more interested in the under frames, but they were aware of that any how.
Although I agree Bufferstop.. and that is the way Oxford Rail are working, they wait till a model is tooled prior to announcing that certainly showed up with their Radials (lack of development / testing). Others announce and show progress as it goes.
I find that most will listen if someone spots something a miss.. and that comes down to how we go about saying it, or showing it. I remember Dapol / Dave showing CADs of the Bulleid's in N and they were improved by public observations and input... sadly not sure where they got to since.
But either way there are revisions to the push pull set, which apparently will be in a newsletter.
