Jump to content
 

Hornby 2022 Black 5 new tooling


MoonM
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
24 minutes ago, maico said:

 

It's called a straight through review, no knocking copy. So, 'a wealth of detail, runs fine on our layout', and other hackneyed Cliché.

Our intrepid reviewers then decamp to the pub basking in the glow of a job well done...🍺

 

And not at all fair or informative for potential purchasers who don't read the likes of RMWeb, or watch U-tube reviews.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
51 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Reviewed in this months Hornby Mag. None of the concerns we have voiced mentioned at all. Only hint of a criticism is haulage where it would only haul 6 Bachmann Mk1 'due to their rolling resistance', it did however haul 12 Hornby Mk1s and 12 Accurascale Mk2's for comparison.

 

They're not reviews, are they? They merely bring to the readers' attention a new product, in a way that will not upset their advertiser.

 

As such, in these days of instant information technology, they serve little or no function.

 

CJI.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, maico said:

 

It's called a straight through review, no knocking copy. So, 'a wealth of detail, runs fine on our layout', and other hackneyed Cliché.

Our intrepid reviewers then decamp to the pub basking in the glow of a job well done...🍺

 

 

Exactly why I cancelled my subscription. Too many reviews summed up with HM's 'Excellent and available now' catchphrase, for models which had already been displaying common defects. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
35 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

They're not reviews, are they? They merely bring to the readers' attention a new product, in a way that will not upset their advertiser.

 

As such, in these days of instant information technology, they serve little or no function.

 

CJI.

Although all 4 of the main magazines were negative (to varying degrees) about the new Heljan Brush Type 4/Class 47 despite 2 of them having limited editions for sale from the tooling

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Although all 4 of the main magazines were negative (to varying degrees) about the new Heljan Brush Type 4/Class 47 despite 2 of them having limited editions for sale from the tooling

 

Surprising, I agree - though nowadays I only subscribe to MRJ.

 

CJI.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
39 minutes ago, zr2498 said:

And not at all fair or informative for potential purchasers who don't read the likes of RMWeb, or watch U-tube reviews.


Well…as I’ve already posted….having viewed it for a few minutes working on one of Hornby’s demo roundies……I have the benefit of my own observation. On the positive side,it appears to work.Will I buy ? No. Any further but honest posted assessment on this forum might lead to a mod’s suspension. 

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

Any further but honest posted assessment on this forum might lead to a mod’s suspension. 

 

Presumably, because there has been no criticism of the model so far on this thread...

  • Funny 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maico said:

It's called a straight through review, no knocking copy. So, 'a wealth of detail, runs fine on our layout', and other hackneyed Cliché.

 

In HM mag's defence, they are reviewing it for the people they see as their readers (the people who buy the mag), not a group (who probably don't buy any mag) desperate for a good slagging off of any model. Despite reservations on here, there will be people who are perfectly happy with the model - or don't they count?

 

1 hour ago, spamcan61 said:

It'll be interesting to read the RM review, as they seem to have the pickiest reviews these days.

 

I suspect @AY Mod might have something to say about this!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
8 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

I suspect @AY Mod might have something to say about this!

 

You'll be getting me a bad worse reputation.

  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

In HM mag's defence, they are reviewing it for the people they see as their readers (the people who buy the mag), not a group (who probably don't buy any mag) desperate for a good slagging off of any model. Despite reservations on here, there will be people who are perfectly happy with the model - or don't they count?

 

 

I suspect @AY Mod might have something to say about this!

 

I find that slant on the subject to be a bit disingenuous. A genuine review SHOULD be simply that - an unbiased commentary on the pros and cons of a product, by a person with sufficient knowledge of the subject to make a judgement.

 

I can see no justification for 'slanting' the comments for a perceived audience - the readership is capable of making its own judgement as to whether they should purchase from the facts presented.

 

Of course, with any 'review' being published in periodicals which rely on advertising revenue from the product producers, any adverse comments will inevitably be omitted, or at least 'softened', so as not to prejudice future advertising revenue.

 

CJI.

Edited by cctransuk
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
3 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Of course, with any 'review' being published in periodicals which rely on advertising revenue from the product producers, any adverse comments will inevitably be omitted, or at least 'softened', so as not to prejudice future advertising revenue.

 

Say that to my face and I will give a very, very honest answer - and you won't like it. Before stating something like that as a fact it would be wise to see if you are standing on qualified ground (which you are not).

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

I find that slant on the subject to be a bit disingenuous. A genuine review SHOULD be simply that - an unbiased commentary on the pros and cons of a product, by a person with sufficient knowledge of the subject to make a judgement.

 

I can see no justification for 'slanting' the comments for a perceived audience - the readership is capable of making its own judgement as to whether they should purchase from the facts presented.

 

Every single model can be criticised to death. It's the wrong gauge, the body isn't made of metal, the prime mover is an electric motor. Should all those be mentioned loudly? Why not?

 

If that's too common, how about bolt heads - lined up or at different angles? I know two different manufacturers who have differing opinions on this, driven by comments from customers. Now you can argue that the reviewer should check this detail out against prototype images from a known date, but that's going to take a lot of time and push the cost of the review up. And you are still competing against internet reviewers who do no research and just scream abuse.

 

"by a person with sufficient knowledge of the subject to make a judgement." - why only one? Because the chances are if you wait for the "experts" to all agree, the review would never go out.

 

Maybe there needs to be no words. Just photos as "the readership is capable of making its own judgement as to whether they should purchase from the facts presented."

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Every single model can be criticised to death. It's the wrong gauge, the body isn't made of metal, the prime mover is an electric motor. Should all those be mentioned loudly? Why not?

 

If that's too common, how about bolt heads - lined up or at different angles? I know two different manufacturers who have differing opinions on this, driven by comments from customers. Now you can argue that the reviewer should check this detail out against prototype images from a known date, but that's going to take a lot of time and push the cost of the review up. And you are still competing against internet reviewers who do no research and just scream abuse.

 

"by a person with sufficient knowledge of the subject to make a judgement." - why only one? Because the chances are if you wait for the "experts" to all agree, the review would never go out.

 

Maybe there needs to be no words. Just photos as "the readership is capable of making its own judgement as to whether they should purchase from the facts presented."

But surely a fair review will include facts as discussed here - the lamps are over scale, the loco tender gap is large and fixed, the tail lamp is fixed and is unprototypical for the majority of modelled scenarios. The lamps are said by the manufacturer to be removeable - are they? . And then alert the reader to the fact that light bleed will be visible.  None of this is nit picking. I very much want a Black Five to the standard of the Accurascale Manor and I was hoping we had one coming from Hornby. Sadly the model has been compromised to the extent that it no longer meets my expectations. 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 3
  • Round of applause 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Any review is subjective as we each have our own criteria for what is acceptable in terms of fidelity to prototype and detail, where we draw a line for the compromise between cost and detail/features and how we weight whether a model just looks right. And that's before the whole vexed issue about memory and the tricks it plays, especially pertinent to colour. Not to mention scaling effect of colour. We all carry opinions and prejudices, conscious or unconscious, which will influence reviews. Personally I like metal construction and have a thing about paint finish (I like a deep semi-gloss satin lustre) and also about glazing (I hate prismatic distortion). So opinions I have on models are liable to be more influenced by those aspects, but they may be irrelevant for others. If you know a reviewers bias/preferences you can compensate and still get a lot from a review. Or even if it is a bit of a bonkers review it can still convey useful information. For the most part I find most model reviews well intentioned, I may not agree with the opinions and conclusions but that doesn't necessarily mean I don't value the review.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

But surely a fair review will include facts as discussed here - the lamps are over scale, the loco tender gap is large and fixed, the tail lamp is fixed and is unprototypical for the majority of modelled scenarios. The lamps are said by the manufacturer to be removeable - are they? . And then alert the reader to the fact that light bleed will be visible.  None of this is nit picking. I very much want a Black Five to the standard of the Accurascale Manor and I was hoping we had one coming from Hornby. Sadly the model has been compromised to the extent that it no longer meets my expectations. 

I could do with a truly good model of Black Five and would consider the Hornby one when the right mix of various detail add-on parts comes to market.  But I am put off by the lamps (I have a scalpel which might be better than tugging things off?) and some of the other comments on here give me the impression that for what is clearly meant to be a long tooling life model it is over-priced (I could still afford it but then we come to my perception of value for my money).

 

I'll bide my time and see what transpires as it matures in manufacturing terms.

  • Like 8
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
18 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Say that to my face and I will give a very, very honest answer - and you won't like it. Before stating something like that as a fact it would be wise to see if you are standing on qualified ground (which you are not).

 

Firstly, I would point out that current postings in this thread relate to the value of published reviews in general - you seem to be taking comments personally.

 

My statement is based on reading model railway reviews in magazines for well over sixty years. In that time, I have read many, many reviews of dire products which studiously chose to omit the obvious deficiencies.

 

How can it be that, over all that time, that I have never read an adverse review of a product from a producer who advertised in that magazine?

 

Now I will concede that I cannot 'prove' that protection of advertising revenue is a factor at play, but I think that the volume of evidence available to me justifies the conclusion to which I have come.

 

Finally, aggressive reactions such as your opening remark belong in the playground; and they did not intimidate me then, either!

 

CJI.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
28 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Every single model can be criticised to death. It's the wrong gauge, the body isn't made of metal, the prime mover is an electric motor. Should all those be mentioned loudly? Why not?

 

If that's too common, how about bolt heads - lined up or at different angles? I know two different manufacturers who have differing opinions on this, driven by comments from customers. Now you can argue that the reviewer should check this detail out against prototype images from a known date, but that's going to take a lot of time and push the cost of the review up. And you are still competing against internet reviewers who do no research and just scream abuse.

 

"by a person with sufficient knowledge of the subject to make a judgement." - why only one? Because the chances are if you wait for the "experts" to all agree, the review would never go out.

 

Maybe there needs to be no words. Just photos as "the readership is capable of making its own judgement as to whether they should purchase from the facts presented."

 

Not unexpectedly, you have responded to a personal viewpoint with totally 'over the top' extrapolations of what I actually posted.

 

I suggested that a useful review should confine itself to reporting basic facts about the subject that would assist most potential purchasers. I made no reference to ridiculous minutae such as the orientation of boltheads - please point out where I suggested any such thing.

 

Most members here realise that our moderators have a personal interest in publishing, but should that preclude any form of indirect criticism of that profession?

 

As a local government engineer, I was regularly criticised in both the local and national press, including TV, for the perceived deficiences of my work, but that comes with the territory. Try arriving at your place of work to find your effigy hanging from a lampost!

 

Please - a little less personal sensitivity!

 

CJI.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

But surely a fair review will include facts as discussed here - the lamps are over scale, the loco tender gap is large and fixed, the tail lamp is fixed and is unprototypical for the majority of modelled scenarios. The lamps are said by the manufacturer to be removeable - are they? . And then alert the reader to the fact that light bleed will be visible.  None of this is nit picking. I very much want a Black Five to the standard of the Accurascale Manor and I was hoping we had one coming from Hornby. Sadly the model has been compromised to the extent that it no longer meets my expectations. 

The statements are indeed useful. What is more questionable is if they are presented from an angle of 'this is a terrible model because...' - that is a subjective opinion. 
Given that since the 60s models of diesel and electric locos have invariably carried headcode displays which are both fixed and likely as not to be wrong for the train the loco might be hauling, there is a precedent for the displayed lamps to be 'wrong'. And as for the fixed tender tail lamp, the D&E world has been happy to put up with red lights shining from the rear of locos hauling trains for nigh on 20 years - something that only the most recent models allow to be amended. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

The statements are indeed useful. What is more questionable is if they are presented from an angle of 'this is a terrible model because...' - that is a subjective opinion. 
Given that since the 60s models of diesel and electric locos have invariably carried headcode displays which are both fixed and likely as not to be wrong for the train the loco might be hauling, there is a precedent for the displayed lamps to be 'wrong'. And as for the fixed tender tail lamp, the D&E world has been happy to put up with red lights shining from the rear of locos hauling trains for nigh on 20 years - something that only the most recent models allow to be amended. 

None of the above are reasons for steam models to join in with a race to the bottom :)

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, andyman7 said:

Given that since the 60s models of diesel and electric locos have invariably carried headcode displays which are both fixed and likely as not to be wrong for the train the loco might be hauling, there is a precedent for the displayed lamps to be 'wrong'. And as for the fixed tender tail lamp, the D&E world has been happy to put up with red lights shining from the rear of locos hauling trains for nigh on 20 years - something that only the most recent models allow to be amended. 

 

Diesel / electric headcodes - usually easy to amend if so desired; sometimes with provision of alternatives.

 

D/E loco tail lamps - in my experience, where illumination is provided, extinguishing is either switchable of easily achieved.

 

The significant difference here is that the lamps are on a steam locomotive. Where the owners of steam locos bother to fit lamps, they almost invariably wish them to be correct for the train in question - viz. Tony Wright!

 

CJI.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

Finally, aggressive reactions such as your opening remark belong in the playground; and they did not intimidate me then, either!

 

It's there as an illustration how bloody angry your ill-informed tripe made me feel - you probably don't even read any reviews I write so your '60 years of experience' counts for absolutely nothing in that regard. What you are basically saying is my opinion can be bought. News for you - it isn't.

 

It would be best if you apologised to me but you would think that's beneath you - it's not your M.O.

 

I'm sick of it and I will not sit back and let you criticise me (as I am included in your poorly aimed insult) without pulling you up on it.

 

You don't like my robust response but that's often the case with bullies; they don't like being called out on their intentionally malicious comments.

 

Edited by AY Mod
  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Just an observation…

 

its been 13 days, 16 pages since last time we saw a picture from a purchaser of this model (not a youtube review). Even then its only 2 confirmed sightings, and both are on page 28. The thread has had 98k views.

 

Compare to the 2MT which turned up on page 25 of its thread, and had 20 different purchasers images over the next 16 pages, which has had over 125k views.

 

This feels a little underwhelming for a brand new tooled model of a very popular prototype…  

 

Is anyone excited by a new Black 5 ?

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The general model railway magazines are aimed at generalist modellers like myself, they offer tips and tricks to model better but ultimately they are magazines for the masses sharing information to motivate us to do more with our trainsets.

 

If in the case of the Black 5 what is presented to the magazine looks like a Black 5, rolls like a Black 5 and is coloured like a Black 5 then it is a Black 5.  If said model did not display the electrical issues presented in this thread then it's not going to be in the review. 

 

The lights are interesting, personally they are not for me, but it does seem a natural progression from the more modern modeller for lots of controllable lights in and around their models.  They are likely overscale because it's going to be hard to produce a light unit that is both robust and removable for the average modeller like myself.

 

And really how many of us on here wait for a review in any of the mags before making a purchase, typically on here people have pulled apart CADs, looked at EPs and looked for blemishes on painted samples.  By the time it ends up in the shops we know what the model is going to be like and have already made our mind up, the only thing we don't know is how well it will run.

 

Is there a space for someone else to do a Black 5 if the Hornby one does not suit, well it's a must for any Midland or London Midland model railway right up to 1968 and beyond so I guess there could be a gap for a more finer model alongside this Hornby one, Ellis Clark might be best placed from a research perspective but Bachmann, Dapol or Accurascale are all capable if the market is there.

  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...