Kernow/Dapol LSWR Gated push pull stock.

[Richard Lee]

Hi All Already someone is trying to discredit my comments on the B/Bs.

Hello Adrian,

Not really. I confess that I wanted to see for myself, partly because I wanted to make sure that I had understood you correctly, and partly to see whether the battery boxes on the model would annoy me or not.

Sorry if I gave gave you the impression that I was trying to discredit your comments; it was certainly not intentional. I do believe that it would be rather ambitious for me to attempt to disprove your comments, given what I understand about your level of expertise.

From what I understand, one photograph may not prove things one way or the other, because there may have been modifications during the life of the vehicle.

However, thank you for mentioning the books. I will keep an eye open for them next time I visit Britain. I try to fit in a model railway show when I do, and sometimes there is a good bookstall there.

[adrianbs]

Hi Richard, OK, but as you did not find any other errors I assumed you were only looking to try and prove me wrong. Alas both books are either unobtainable or very expensive unless you happen to be very lucky. Amazon only have one of the two and the cheapest is £99. If you look at the colour pictures on the Google site of set 373 headed by an O2 you should be able to spot at least 3 of the other errors but I admit at that angle it is impossible to see the battery box error, only the consequences that it has caused. When the stock was converted to electric light no further changes seem to have appeared and all 3 units remained the same below the solebars. I would post pictures but they are copyright, however Mike king will still sell you copies of his drawings of these coaches. If you wish I will organise this for you but obviously I would need your address which you can send me at my business email address adrian39@talktalk.net

[Richard Lee]

Thanks for the offer, Adrian, but I am still a bit of a novice modeller. It would probably be better to send them to a more experienced modeller, rather than go to all the hassle of international postage. I don't expect things to be perfect in my models, but am trying to get used to looking at sources and learning to spot things. You probably take things like that for granted, but I have to learn to do that more and more for railways.

I am still making basic errors. For example, when I made a set of the Smallbrook Studio Stroudley 4-wheeled coaches as if they were in 1900ish condition, I cut the battery boxes off (as I should have) but left the shallow 'V' shaped bits (I think that they might be called 'trussing') that supported the battery boxes in real life. I also found out later that I should have done a very simple and easy to do alteration to the guards' duckets (the bits that stuck out so that they could see what was happening). I even had a sheet of suitable plasticard in the house at the time.

My experiences as a wargamer lead me to see the benefits of doing a bit of basic research, which, for wargaming, might include reading, looking for pictures and, if possible, poking my nose into museums. It can give you a sense of when you could do with going in deeper, or whether you can get away with trusting what is presented to you on a plate. I imagine that ready to run stock is analogous to ancient and medieval army lists; sometimes you can trust the author, sometimes you are wise to form your own opinion. (One of the advantages of model railways is that the primary language tends to be English, so you don't have to worry about how accurate the translation is.)

[adrianbs]

Hi Richard, If you do buy these coaches and would like this sheet of drawings, just email me and I will send them at my expense (tax deductible !!) There is the faint possibility, of course, that all the errors will be corrected, so watch this space for details.

[Pennine MC]

... I don't know who does their CAD work or whether it is China or the UK but the same sort of errors have followed Dave Jones from Dapol to Kernow and appear to be getting worse. .

This is an interesting point, with wider relevance if the mods are OK with going a bit off topic (I wont mention supermarkets ) .

There are two model shops working with DJ on commissioned models, at least one of which has made a point of introducing its own designer to the world, and yet the commonly held impression is that DJ is the actual designer. Yet when a few folk on the big forum had trouble getting the bodies off their O2s, the recourse of DJ was to 'speak to China'. The reply duly came back, that the body of the model was not designed to be easily removed as it would involve cutting factory fitted pipework and invalidate the warranty. I'll say that again - the body was not designed to be easily removed.

Now quite apart from the matter of whether it should be designed that way or not, it begs the question of why, or how, it was designed that way. Has someone in the UK actually specified it that way, is it just the way the Chinese factory thought it best and nobody in the UK even thought to question it, or what? Now I freely admit I'm more cynical than many, but it seems to me that the folk involved with these projects in the UK are quick to step up to the mark and take credit when plaudits are being chucked around, yet when something less than brilliant comes to light, the delightful and ancient sport of passing the buck comes to the fore.

[Bufferstop]

I think that unless a model locomotive has been designed in such a way that any necessary cleaning and lubrication, and access to a DCC socket, can be achieved without causing any damage or invalidating its warranty it isn't fit for purpose, which could leave retailers with an expensive problem.

[adrianbs]

Hi All Very well said Mr Fleming, in fact the latest post by GrahamMuz seems to be aimed fairly and squarely at me although I think rather UNfairly. He seems to be trying to pass the buck to ME for the errors by implying that my long critical lists of totally valid errors has got Kernow and him so annoyed that they refuse to listen. He says they would rather continue without reading emails or posts that criticise and thus not discover the errors. It is hardly my fault that my list of errors is so long, if they exist and could be corrected, I see no point in ignoring them. Far better to point them all out at once than drip feed them two or three at a time, many are inter-related anyway. I can confirm that although, in my opinion, Mike King is now the best informed authority on LSWR Gate stock ( Apart from myself, of course !!?? ) now that Gordon Weddell is no longer with us, Kernow have never asked him to check the CADs or pre-pros for errors at all. I spoke to him this afternoon, mainly to check his drawings are still available, ( £6-00 + £3-00 P&P and they cover all the variants.) and confirmed he has had no contact apart from volunteering more info at my suggestion, to help with corrections he and I thought vital. Some manufacturers do listen even if you have to be a bit blunt because they are clearly not going to be happy to spend more money on corrections. Sometimes you have to drag them off to show them the evidence, I have done that more than once. Some you find are not so willing to accept they are wrong and stubbornly refuse to listen until it is too late. I can see why Hattons appear to be trying to keep design "in house", although there have already been numerous corrections on the 14xx and more are still needed. Even if the Chinese do the design they cannot be blamed for errors as the QC is not down to them, at least I certainly hope it is not.

[Richard Lee]

Many thanks for your kind offer, Adrian. Let's leave it for now. It is not absolutely guaranteed that I will get these coaches. If they get delayed, for instance, so that Hornby brings out their 57' converted former LSWR 48' coaches first, I would be likely to get some of the Hornby ones instead. (If I did end up with the Hornby ones then I would be keeping my eyes open to see whether it might be possible for me to butcher them into the original 48' coaches.)

[GWR_fan]

The other site had the right idea back in 2014.

[adrianbs]

Dear GWR-fan I presume your last post is yet another snipe at me, if not, perhaps you should elaborate. In a previous post on this Gate stock topic you said, quote " this saga has been dished out ad finitum on another site back in 2014 (and dealt with) and apparently the 'battle' extended to a less frequented site after that, gaining no traction."
I presume you are trying to infer that I made large numbers of critical posts on the RMweb Gate stock site before being banned. If you had taken the trouble to check your facts, ( a trait exhibited to an even greater extent by Kernow ) you would have found I have not posted a single comment on that topic. I made a conscious decision to see what happened when I did what my critics, like you, suggested. "Wait until the models are in production as we are sure Kernow know what they are doing and the errors on the CADs will be corrected before tooling" We can now see just how bad things can be when that policy is followed. On the RMweb site not one of the numerous faults has been raised by other contributors and the only suggestion made, in my opinion a good one, was to fit close coupling at both ends of each coach and even that was rejected in a subsequent post. I am sorry to waste space on this site but I do feel I have the right to reply to accusations which, at best, are economical with the truth.

[Pennine MC]

Hi All Very well said Mr Fleming, in fact the latest post by GrahamMuz seems to be aimed fairly and squarely at me although I think rather UNfairly. He seems to be trying to pass the buck to ME for the errors by implying that my long critical lists of totally valid errors has got Kernow and him so annoyed that they refuse to listen. He says they would rather continue without reading emails or posts that criticise and thus not discover the errors. It is hardly my fault that my list of errors is so long, if they exist and could be corrected, I see no point in ignoring them.

It is an odd point of view, sort of 'cover your ears and it'll go away'. If there are errors there, then surely better for a manufacturer to be aware of them and - whilst not expecting them to correct every little thing - they could make their own appraisal of them and decide what's commercially viable to alter. On the other hand (and I have to say this is a recurring theme, Adrian), you would do well to present your findings in a more easily digested form rather than a long rambly list with no paragraphing.

And then again, I'd have thought that Mr Muz was in an ideal position to do that sorting of the wheat from the chaff; he should surely be aware of such basics as battery box positioning. As, you would imagine, would a UK-based designer, which kinda supports my theory that the design is actually done in China, by people who are no doubt technically adept with the processes they use, but not so good at interpreting the construction of a railway vehicle from a different generation and the other side of the world.

[adrianbs]

Hi All Ian, I have tried various tactics even, as mentioned above, getting Mike King to pass the information on. I have tried long lists, drip feeding, direct contact, contacting magazine reviewers but all to no avail. Even Mike King gets little or no feed back and he is a far more restrained person than I normally am so I am at a loss as to how to get any better results. I am afraid that Chris Trerise may have a circle of friends and advisers who are unwilling to criticise or lack the necessary knowledge to be able to. CADs and pre-pros are passed as OK even with the most basic errors. It was abundantly clear that problems on the O2 were not being spotted and most have not been corrected as a result. A case of the three wise monkeys I am afraid. Eventually this may cause Kernow serious financial problems but to be quite honest I have washed my hands of trying to help them. The latest SR O2 is a case in point where the lining has an obvious fault even to the inexperienced eye, not to mention many other lining errors which may go over the heads of the average modeller. I am now concentrating on advising modellers of the deficiencies so that they can make an informed decision as to where to spend their money.
What surprises me is that modellers seem willing to accept faulty products which, in other circumstances, most would return for a refund or replacement.

[Pennine MC]

Hi All Ian, I have tried various tactics even, as mentioned above, getting Mike King to pass the information on. I have tried long lists, drip feeding, direct contact, contacting magazine reviewers but all to no avail. Even Mike King gets little or no feed back and he is a far more restrained person than I normally am so I am at a loss as to how to get any better results. .

That's fair comment then Adrian, imho; I'm prepared to take it at face value and it does put your disquiet over the Muz blog post into context.

[GWR_fan]

Adrian,
you are undoubtedly an excellent modeller as evidenced by the praises received for your line of ABS products and an apparent authority on the gate stock coaches (your claim), however, you voiced your opinion some many, many months ago on other forums and did not get the traction you wanted. You made your point then and not satisfied found this site specifically to further press your argument. Your argument looks more like coercion to force Kernows to bend to your will rather than an informative well thought out plan. This site did not need to become embroiled in your battle with Kernows. You are not posting to inform people of apparent inaccuracies in the coaches but to garner support for your cause. More a vendetta than a cause.

You have made statement after statement about the perceived innaccuracies with the coaches and will never rest until you are no longer able to post your thoughts here. You are not doing your case any good by constantly rehashing the same old information. How many more times do we need to see post after post with the same griping comments? You have a habit of being controversial in your various postings on this site and others. Remember the Hornby 58 ft coaches that you were very critical of because of oversize rivets.

You made your point at the beginning of this thread but continue to argue the same old case. Now your paranoia has kicked in with others (according to you) apparently blaming you for the faults in the cars. You have a proven track record for quality production of component parts and kits so if the gate stock is so important to you and others, in your opinion, are not so excited about producing a scale model then as I said before make your own model. It would mean though spending less time on forums that still allow you to post.

You joined this site not for the benefit of the members, given the amount of information you could pass on, but to firstly attack Oxford Rail, Hattons, Hornby and now Kernows. It seems that nothing except what you manufacture is good enough. I am not a fan of the heavy handed totalitarian moderating style of the other site but given the posts of others responding to your numerous criticisms of other manufacturer's products I can understand the action of the moderator. It seems that you like to be controversial. You heavily criticised a particular manufacturer on the other site and of your fifty or so postings to date since joining this site have continued your criticism of that same manufacturer here on this site. It seems that Kernows is not the only target in your vendetta. Have you ever said anything positive about another manufacturer or can no other manufacturer do as good a job as you apparently can do.?

Reading back through your postings on this site reveals your true motives in joining this site. You are highly critical of others and use others to respond for you when some one is critical of your own manufacturing. Perhaps take a breather and decide if you joined this site for the good of the members (highly unlikely) or merely to continue your criticism of other manufacturers because other sites do not like your abrasive attitude. Even if your criticism of the gate stock cars is correct you will have still lost your argument because you have alienated others, not by the context of your criticism, but by your abrasive attitude.

[GWR_fan]

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.

Now if the rivet counters on that site can only criticise the couplers chosen and yet an apparent expert on this site claims numerous discrepancies, then a sensible person would be lead to believe that either there is a conspiracy afoot on the other site to censor any criticisms of the model or some one has an axe to grind with yet another manufacturer. No manufacturer of RTR products seems immune from criticism.

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.