Moaning about new models.

**Don't both the Lima and Hornby class 50 body have faults......the rest of the Hornby model, other than the body, was available many years ago !! **We may have been buying "crap" for the last 18 years (actually it's longer than that) but does that mean that we have to continue to buy "crap", irrespective of the manufacture .... ???

Colin.

Surely one of the reasons that US models are so much better is that they can spend more on tooling etc as they can expect a much higher volume of sales? If someone wants a 100% accurate class 50 either build it yerself or pay someone else to do it!!! Mike H

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, it was written:

In some ways the UK market is better served.

Too many US models are either generic or specific to one line, and painted for the other popular railoads. But it's getting better. Think back to when Wrenn painted the BR standard 2-6-4T for GWR.

And the modellers accept this.

For example, Atlas have announced a pretty little 19th century 2-6-0 in N-gauge. This is actually a Porter mogul built for Japanese 3'6" gauge scaled for 9mm track and is correct in Japan. It looks the right size in standard gauge N, but is incorrect for many if not most of the road names announced as they had Baldwin moguls with parallel boilers while the model has a short-cone taper boiler. It will sell like hot cakes.

The US railroads buy off-the-shelf diseasels from GE and EMD (part of GM) painted accordingly. Which makes it easy for the model manufacturers.

It has taken the British manufacturers a long time to catch up with the quality of US mechanisms.

"jimedvic" wrote

That doesn't explain why Bachmann Europe is more profitable than Bachmann USA does it?

John.

"Christopher A. Lee"

This is not really correct, at least not for diesels.

Admittedly, many North American diesels come with road specific options, and in what fans have come to call "phases", and these are not always accurate for a particular paint scheme or road number as supplied by the model loco manufacturer, but this is easily solved with after market details.

However, North American diesels are very accurate in detail, just maybe not for your favourite road, and will run at a scale 2 or 3 mph right out of the box. This better than most real diesels can do as their minimum speed, light, is around five to six mph.

-- Cheers Roger T.

of the Great Eastern Railway

It's precisely that attitude that gets you the poor quality, compared to North America, models that you so richly deserve.

-- Cheers Roger T.

of the Great Eastern Railway

Whining, eh? Nothing like a little emotive language to start off a reasoned debate. Not.

Explain what you mean by "so called errors". Are you stating that the various discrepancies pointed out by modellers do not, in fact, exist?

Strange, a moment ago these "shortcomings" were "so called errors" - changed your mind and now you're agreeing with us?

I beg to differ. A large number of the "compromises" are not compromises they are due to insufficient and unprofessional research. Producing models with a closer likeness to the prototype takes a little more hard work up front - 99% of the differences have got bug all to do with manufacturing processes - just sloppiness at the design stage.

No one, as far as I have read, is suggesting that the new models are, by and large, unusable. Merely, that given a more dedicated approach to the design a better likeness could have been achieved for the same amount of money! Your logic is flawed anyway. Suggesting that because someone points out some very obvious flaws in something does not mean that they must go off and build their own.

Are you suggesting that companies that take my hard earned money by producing less than excellent products deserve to stay in business? Just look at the successful businesses in the modelling industry today. Are they the ones producing high quality goods or the ones who've been found out and refuse to put money into producing the level of modelling realism found in other parts of the world (bye, bye Lima)?

I haven't seen any review in any mass produced magazine providing "overly bad impressions". My impressions of the modelling press have been quite the reverse. Some models that I found contained very, very obvious problems either received quite bland or glowing reviews. It was left to a few hard core publications to produce an impartial review. Similarly, on the many newsgroups and mail lists that I frequent, the reviews people have given have related to REAL differences between the model and the prototype. Where a subjective discrepancy is involved this has been stated.

Bachmann and Hornby should be "heartily congratulated" for finally listening to what modellers and the model retailers have been telling them for years - if you peddle second rate product the collectors market will not keep you afloat (bye, bye Lima). Hornby only made the realisation after seeing Bachmann take massive strides forward in modelling terms. Suddenly, Hornby found that they had to invest massively or become also rans in a very competitive market.

With commensurate profits if the product is excellent.

I would have thought that with start-up costs like these the manufacturers might actually listen to the modelling experts (of which there are plenty) and put the effort in to get a an excellent product designed in the first place.

->Rob.

In message , Roger T. writes

Come on, Roger, you know better than that.

The minimum speed, for any locomotive, is 0 m.p.h.

And anyone who cannot run a loco at less than 5 to 6 m.p.h. obviously has no idea of how to drive a locomotive.

My 50 still runs as well as my Atlas GP whatever.

I'm still well satified with its performance.

"John Sullivan"

Good one.

Notch one, no brakes applied, five to six mph.

-- Cheers Roger T.

of the Great Eastern Railway

Yes, because you are / have been (18 years since I was last buying models) still buying it. If it costs £20 to produce the current hornby class 50 and £30 to produce one with the correct windows' (etc, same for other models faults) why should manufactueres spend more and cut profits when sales will hardly improve? If we (happy to rn not rivet counting DEMU Modellers!) did not buy the models thay might, but it has never happened and is not going to!

>

=>

=>"John Sullivan" =>

=>> Come on, Roger, you know better than that. =>>

=>> The minimum speed, for any locomotive, is 0 m.p.h. =>

=>Good one. =>

=>> And anyone who cannot run a loco at less than 5 to 6 m.p.h. obviously =>> has no idea of how to drive a locomotive. =>

=>Notch one, no brakes applied, five to six mph. =>

=>

=>-- =>Cheers =>Roger T.

This is the effect of the idle speed of the diesel engine (--> minimum power output to the traction motors.)

Works the same with a car. My car runs at about 3-4mph when I just let the motor run at idle speed.

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

The guy got it wrong, come on Give him a Job in Bachmann, I mean a break!!!!!!

He will get it right eventually???

"Wolf Kirchmeir"

2%, or 1:50?

-- Cheers Roger T.

of the Great Eastern Railway

=>> Surely one of the reasons that US models are so much better is that they =>can =>> spend more on tooling etc as they can expect a much higher volume of =>sales? =>

=>That doesn't explain why Bachmann Europe is more profitable than Bachmann =>USA does it? =>

=>John. =>

Bachmann is fighting a bad rep. Their quality control was very bad in the 80s or thereabouts - the moldings were quite good by the standards of the time (e.g., main dimensions within a millimetre or so of 100% accurate, not bad when you are looking at a body that's 170mm long). But they ran something awful.

So, although their quality has improved enormously***, I have a hard time selling them, no longer stock them, and will bring them in only on a firm order. My shop is very, very small, but larger shops have the same problem - customers who a leery of spending their dollars on Bachmann.

***I put their latest 4-6-0 on the track last night - smo-o-o-oth running right of the box, excellent response to the controller (a transistorised wave-chopping one), slow speed around 3mph. max speed around 75mph (a little high, but what the hey, the engineer was showing off!) Lovely little engine. I think I'll keep it for myself. :-)

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

=>

=>??? =>

My point was that, with a few egregious exceptions, many "errors" complained of by the nit-pickers are of the kind that most people won't notice unless they are pointed out, and often not even then. Eg, I can't tell the difference between an F7A and an FP7A unless they standing side by side on adjacent tracks. These ar two versions of the once ubiquitous F series diesels built by General Motors' Electromotive Division - their length differs by about 2 ft - about 7mm in HO. Now I _know_ that the FP7 is longer

- but I can't _see_ it unless it stands next to the shorter engine! If I look a little closer, and search for some detail differences, I can tell which is which without this comparison, but most of the time I don't look that closely. Nor, I submit, do most modellers.

IMO, if the model has the correct colour scheme, has major dimensions accurate within about 1%, and has a decent amount of detail of the correct proportions applied in the right places, it's acceptable. It appears that many currently available models in the UK don't meet that standard (I agree with this assessment, BTW.) Lately, some have been offered that do. So what's the problem, really?

Other points (repeated I hope more clearly:)

a) "Correct contours" is a real problem. The sad fact is that correct contours on a model may not look correct simply because we usually don't see the model engine with the same angle of view as we see the real one. And comparisons of photos of model and prototype are no help at all - the effects of lenses' focal lengths and angles of view affect the perceived shape. Such comparison are actually highly misleading. Unless you have proof that the die sinker made a serious error, don't jump to conclusions just because to your eye the contour doesn't look right.

b) "Correct colours" - assuming the coliour scheme is correct, the question of whether the correct hues have been achieved is again a highly subjective one, especially with the subdued hues that most railroads favoured in the past. I listed the factors that affect the apparent colour -- and there are so many, that even if the manufacturer matched the paint to existing colour chips there will be people who complain that it's wrong.

c) "Correct details" - engines are rebuilt, repaired, and serviced, so that after a few years you will be hard put to find two that are exactly alike. So long as the characteristic details are in the right places and in the correct proportions, I'm satisfied. Additional detail can always be applied by the modeller. The question of fineness of detail is, alas, a subjective one. Generally, detail that is too fine will not be seen at normal viewing distances - so why put it on?

d) "Manufacturer's blueprints" -- well, these aren't always correct, either. As designed and as built may be different in quite a few ways. Besides, as rebuilt and repired will be even more differen. Which brings me to:

e) "Preserved examples" as sources of "correct models." If you want model sof those engines -as presreved_, yes, they are a good sources. But what guarantee is there that they represent the run of the mill condition of these classes when in actual service 40, 60, 80 years ago? Not much, if my collection of photos from those years are any guide.

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

electric locomotives of 20 years ago, the body and underframe are excellent plus you get an accurate representation of a pantograph. With our Hornby electric locomotives we can live with the body, underframe and motor is better,though not that wonderful....When it comes to the pantograph which is an essential feature it is awful. It looks crude and would certainly rip any decent catenaries down. It is a bit like the joke in a national newspaper of many years ago. A van has 'DIY furniture' written on the side of it. Then you see some men unloading tree trunks!

All we want is the parity of quality and choice that has been enjoyed by our American and European friends for years. If they are making models for the Western world in China it is difficult to see how tooling costs could be that much greater. Is it a case of what the market will take? Let us now hope that the worm has turned! Steve

Thank you for being so laborious, the comments of which have been duly noted..... ;-)

I was really pointing to the fact(s) that "WE" all have the right to nit-pick when we're paying for goods which are clearly NOT what they could be or even should be.......why make them wrong when they can make them right ??

Colin.

Colin Meredith

In message , Roger T. writes

Have you seen the kind of grades that Americans think are OK on the prototype?