Bachmann Deltic - yet another missed opportunity!

Just as a matter of interest, John, were the said *facts* authenticated or just stated to be facts....?? To be fair, we could supply information to each other without either of us knowing what may be correct in relation to the information given.

Colin.

"Colin Meredith" wrote

They certainly weren't facts, so I reckon authentication would have been difficult.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I wouldn't attempt to inform you that black was white.

John.

I think I know you better than that....conversly, I would not try to tell you that white was black. It's not easy for A.N. Other to print and/or repeat information which they themselves cannot verify, irrespective of the source and without wishing to doubt the informants integrity.

Colin.

"Colin Meredith" wrote

If the informant is supplying incorrect facts then his integrity is in question in my opinion.

If I wrote *factually* to MREmag, or any other organisation for that matter, I'd be bloody well sure of my facts before commiting them to paper, so to speak.

John.

question in my opinion.

Pat,

I don't normally visit the MREMag site, so I didn't know if you did or not.

In the light of the information that you do, then I would wave two fingers at anyone critising the content. Your correspondent allegedly misquoting the numbers of some class of diesel locomotive is not libellous as far as I can tell, therefore you, as an editor, have little to worry about.. Your critics have a ready way of dealing with the matter by writing to your 'Letters' page with a corrective email..

Jim.

I'm afraid that John is right. There are always people who will stir-up trouble and he would be wide open to criticism if he praised a model. Pat is also right that a manufacturer might get snotty and make it difficult to get stock.

This needs someone: A. Independent B. Knowledgeable and most importantly C. Thick-skinned!

There are too many opinions out there for such a site to avoid flack of the sort that MREmag gets. Simultaneously there will be those that think the reviews are too critical and those that think they are too soft. That's not to say we don't want such a site... but the owner operator would not get an easy ride.

Adrian

Now there's a sensible suggestion....Pat?

I'm not really sure what you mean by "buy for the sake of buying". People buy what they want to buy. They are either prepared or not prepared to part with their cash for a particular model. Some people are clearly prepared to settle for lower standards than others - does that make them sheep? If it does, then you'll have to include me in that category. People will buy a model which to others may be sub-standard for a number of reasons, but the main two are ignorance and the lack of a better alternative. There is no indecision involved. No following the crowd.

I can only speak with any real authority from my own point of view, and whilst I don't take any of your criticisms personally, I believe that I am one of the people responsible for the market in which Bachmann and Hornby operate. Anyone who buys one of their imperfect models is. Having been out yesterday and bought two models which I know are flawed (the 50 and the 55), I am still secure in the knowledge that to me, with my admittedly modest standards, they are both excellent models. The only other option open to me was to *not* buy two models which I would like on my layout. There is no better alternative for either class, and the running qualities are far more important to me than any relatively minor detail discrepancies. There are several Lima models which I have refused to buy because the they neither looked right nor ran well, so even I have standards. Whilst not perfect, the new models are streets ahead in both areas - in my opinion.

Out of interest Colin, have you or will you buy the new Deltic, Hoover or Peak? If you do/have, you will be contributing to the manufacturers' complacency.

At the end of the day, standards are improving at the moment. As long as that is the case, I believe we are *right* to vote with our wallets and buy the models.

Adrian

I'm really quite sorry I started this now. In future I'll just keep quiet. I certainly had no intention of stirring up trouble.

I don't think critisism of Pat's reviews is justified. The sponsorship is clearly stated and the reviews are neutral rather than glowing, confined mainly to facts about the model rather than anything which is open to debate. Whether they are useful or not is a matter for the reader.

I think that the "rivet-counters"/"informed" (I prefer the latter) need to accept that there are a great number of people out there who have far lower standards than themselves and unless it's pointed out to them, many of the errors on models would go un-noticed. I fall into this category. My knowledge of the prototypes is sketchy, and I'm more interested in having a model which will run well and look like the prototype. Presumably John, you would know - what percentage of your sales go to people who would be capapble of spotting - say - the incorrect slope of the Deltic nose (which may be wrong, but doesn't make the model look wrong to my eyes)? If the answer is over 30%, then I'd say that the light-weight reviews on MREmag have their place, as would a more detailed review site.

Adrian

To be fair, I think the D-prefix email is pretty much a one-off. Can anyone think of another case of something being presented as fact rather than being qualified with "as far as I know" or "I'm sure I read somewhere" or whatever? Also, as has already been stated, we fortunately have people like John who can swiftly debunk any duff information which might appear.

The issue of the Intercity livery was different in that respect as it was backed up with photographs (even if the interpretation of those photos was wrong).

We have to assume that anyone who reads an email on MREmag which present incorrect information is also going to see the multiple follow-ups which will point out the error.

Adrian

John.

Will you please email me off-group (avoiding the spam trap)..

Thanks

Adrian

"Adrian" wrote

look like the prototype. Presumably John, you

Oh it's far more than 30%, probably nearer 75 or 80%, but the point is that the remaining 20 or 25% are still a very significant part of the market, and I'd certainly be worried if I lost that proportion of my sales.

One long-standing customer, who must have spent approaching 10K with me in the last couple of years has just cancelled all his future orders for one particular manufacturer's new loco's because he's convinced that they have totally lost the plot in terms of product accuracy.

Now that's a lot of lost business for me (and that manufacturer) which is partly why I personally will crusade for accurate models, apart from the fact that I don't want inaccurate models in my "collection" of loco's.

There - I've used the "collectors" word again! ;-)

John.

But how long have you been "collecting" inaccurate models???

So why stop (or start crusading) now?

John Turner wrote in>Message-id:

John, I'll be round for the tinplate stuff with the van. Just leave it outside the shop in a plastic bag, I don't want to disturb you ;-)

Tommy

"piemanlarger" wrote

Ever since I bought my first pre-war Hornby O-gauge locomotive, but these have no pretence to be anything other than "toys for boys".

I haven't stopped acquiring models - but I would much prefer them to be accurate.

I haven't just started crusading, I've been bashing my head on a brick wall with the likes of Hornby ever since we started trading with them in 1987. I was, for example, pushing for loco (rather than tender) drive way back then.

I also recall posting something on here several years ago saying that Hornby's acquisition of some of the ex-Airfix tooling from Dapol had dragged then *kicking & screaming out of the 1970s* - or something similar!

John.

"Adrian" wrote

The guy who posted the nonsense about the class 50s, started his post by correcting a previous error from memory, but there have been numerous howlers, but I'm sorry I can't remember them.

Plus we had of course the long running incident of the inaccurate livery on

37431, where the manufacturer's position was been supported when photographic evidence proved otherwise.

But what about the poor souls who do not see any follow up and go away believing that the published material is fact?

John.

"Tommy " wrote

Make me a good offer and it's yours! ;-)

Seeing the Speke bit in your email address, I'd better warn you it's not kept in the shop. ;-)

John.

John Turner wrote in>Message-id:

I thought I just had! ;-)

Tommy