Large Scale Central

"Bashing" or "Critique"..?

General Discussion
#1

Hi all,

Perhaps we need a new thread on this, having it buried in the “Holy crap. LGB files…” thread is not the right place.

OK from what I read criticism is readily termed “bashing” depending on the source, correct?

And we are supposed to go out and buy more, irrespective of the manufacturer??

Since Ron Wenger thinks that some of the other mfgs could also be in trouble (I won’t comment on that) I have a good example of how that comes about. Many of us know that Ron has been fairly closely associated with Aristo for some time, so for a change of pace I take Aristo as the example.

Several years ago KISS http://www.kiss-modellbahnen.de/ decided to enter the plastic end of the LS market and since they knew that there is a reasonably large LS segment that models RhB (Rhaetian Railways) they targeted that. They know that segment because they also produce brass models in LS for that segment.
Since they didn’t intend to reinvent the wheel, they sourced the wheelsets and the couplers from Aristo and somewhere along the line Aristo was designated as the Northamerican importer. Now this is where it got interesting!
While the models were displayed at a few shows it quickly became evident that not only did Aristo have not the slightest inkling what the prototype was about - European railways are a different kettle of fish! - it also was soon obvious that the dealers weren’t ordering any because they weren’t aware that Aristo carried/distributed the line. Yep, I actually inquired with a few dealers. :wink:
Then to put the icing on the cake LGB produced an identical “model”. I reviewed the two RhB Gbk-v in the “Big Train Operator” magazine (#116), while neither car is “perfect”, the KISS car is the better version. Could I at that time have told the readers where to get the KISS product? No, not unless I wanted to look like a fool!

KISS came up with a neat way to produce those models and I thought (hoped) that would really fly.

So where did I get mine? In Europe!
Why not buy in Northamerica? Because getting information where to obtain the product was ridiculous! And who was the Canadian distributor? I still don’t know, despite asking more than once.
Is that a way to sell more product? I don’t think so!

Of course I was most apprehensive when I found out that BRAWA and Aristo were cooperating in some respects on the BRAWA G4/5 engines. Luckily we have a local (relative term) BRAWA dealer who sources directly in Europe, I wasn’t looking forward to yet another KISS experience.

So much on the “go out and buy something!” Oh yeah, I have a few parcels in the mail to me, not huge dollars but enough to add what I like to my railway.

Now to the “bashing”! I used to get into long drawn out discussions with the RBB (Red Box Brigade) about the relative merit of LGB product. Then one day, instead of applying my time typing replies, I decided that doing it the European way - measure the product, compare to the prototype, compile the list and publish - was much easier. A typical example would be wheelsets, well if they wobble why not mention how much they wobble and what the consequences are.
Or as I did with an Aristo wide turnout, measure the complete turnout and show the deviations in a drawing. At which point someone asked “How dare you!?!”. Easy there were lots of complaints and I wanted to find out what’s at the root of this (“generous” tolerances!).

Well doing reviews that incorporate those tables/lists certainly is better! I have yet to hear from anyone that I measured incorrectly. There have been some RBBers who find my grading criteria too strict and there have been others who thought I wasn’t strict enough, which to me means the criteria does the job.

Has anyone hollered “bashing”? Sure they have (including here on LSC), after all there are other aspects to a mfgs performance apart from the product that is delivered. And the rabidly loyal to any given manufacturer will always cry foul when the hard facts are dished up. However the most curious part is the convenience to hide behind the “it will hurt the hobby” bull roar. It will like h-e-l-l, what hurts the hobby is stuff that gets out there which isn’t what it is proclaimed to be. That applies from scale right through to shoddy materials and sloppy production. I frankly don’t care which make it is, if it isn’t what’s advertised then the hobby has a problem!

Of course this is, like always, strictly my opinion. :wink: :slight_smile: :wink:

PS do I have days when production isn’t up to snuff? Yes, then I just relax for a while and get back to it later.

#2

Like anything - its not the message but how you say it…

#3
Stephen Podwojski said:
Like anything - its not the message but how you say it....
Yes Pod,

Is there a problem with straight forward, precise, concise English? Ahhhhhhhh that is the question !!!

Part of that Germlish you posted over on MLS has been properly translated and posted here, where applicable complete with the original for better comparison, by yours truly some time ago. :wink: :slight_smile:
There is plenty more where that came from. And those on MLS who profess they didn’t know about it, well my peripheral vision isn’t all that hot either, if I have to wear blinders.

You know some time ago the RBB took issue with my translation of the “Genesis” review in the GARTENBAHNprofi, or rather they took issue with one word in the caption of one picture. There was nothing to squabble about but the word “rudimentary” and the definition thereof. :wink: :slight_smile: :smiley:

I thought it was absolutely riotous, all these “brilliant” and “articulate” RBBers reduced to dissecting one lonely word. Priceless!

If you or anyone else expects nice fluffy snowjobs don’t look to me, but I can give you a recommendation on which magazines to read. :wink: :slight_smile:

#4

A good example of “bashing” occurred a while back with Italaeri . A continuous stream of unfavourable reviews or “bashings” by “experts” led to the company “going to the wall” just like LGB .
And just like LGB will be , it was resurrected , albeit under the name Italeri because customers started to demand that the kits that they had been using as a basis for conversions to other variants were made available once more . This time , the manufacturer listened to the customer and Italeri now produce some very fine kits .
Alongside the “crap” that had been dismissed by the “cognescenti” .
I know of other examples , the current one being Airfix , I do not pretend to know what name it will emerge under , but emerge it will .
Good job someone invented the Phoenix .
An interesting aside , reference Kiss .
It is marketed in Europe as a combination of “off the shelf” very limited to special dealers who thus charge the earth , and “special order only”
which is quite sensible . Because they know they have a customer to pick up the loco at the end , and are not left with an expensive lump of investment on the shelf . And regrettably , the “exclusivity” deals mean that unless you go to a lot of shows , you don’t get to see the models offered . And of course , none of us want to rely on “bashing” reviews or “glowing” ones either , because the average customer does not trust someone who has an axe to grind to give a fair picture . Any fool can find fault with any model , even if it’s only innuendo --which is often the case .
LGB fell foul of the system of manufacture for invisible but hoped for markets with their “high cost” range .
For example , the Garratt , a lovely model , very correct , in fact too correct because people wanted it in original colours and not a preserved version . Thus a technically good model was hard to shift and I know of two in this country still sat on the shelves of dealers who have knocked the price down to try to shift them and the huge boxes they come in to make room for stuff that will sell .
So even producing correct models is not the answer either .
Whatever , “bashing” does no good to the hobby , and it should be discouraged .
There is nothing wrong with genuine criticism , but it should be contained to a set of parameters set down by the reviewer .
Absolute scale accuracy ? Define it . I dare you to try . And I do not think we want it .
Fitness for purpose ? Difficult to review unless you have a crystal ball . So this is where the "bashers"reign supreme , They take the sum total of the experience of a lot of modellers and seemingly knock or bash the model .
Dave Goodson falls into this category , but for and with good reason . He sees the results more than most because he offers a repair service , if he sees a recurring fault , he will say so . That is not “bashing” , it is telling the truth . I do believe that feedback from Dave’s efforts have produced results . Not in all cases , which is a pity . So what some see as bashing can have a beneficial effect .
So next time you want to bash a basher , think who he is , what he is up to , and sort the dependable from the shrill .
Mike

#5

Ah, il Maestro!

First question: have you ever written a review that was published in a magazine (not online!)?

As far as scale is concerned; let’s start with this: the overall length, the overall width and the overall height are to one uniform scale that is stipulated by the ratio of the model track to the prototype track. A typical example would be models patterned after the RhB which would be 1:22.5
The absolutely correct scale would be 1:22.222, but 1:22.5 is close enough. Especially since it conforms to the NEM-MOROP standards.

From there we progress to proper number of windows with the correct dimensions for the openings, on to correct trucks. Those are just three very simple things. Nothing to do with detailing or fancy-schmancy this and that, just the basics.

Did you buy and measure the SchBB Garratt? How do you know that it is accurate? Do you mean to tell us that because Aster produced the product for LGB that it must be accurate?

Of course we could also look at 1:29, that hybrid of a scale/gauge ratio. Once we discount the obvious gauge error where do we stand??
Again overall length, width, height, etc. etc.
If it is supposed to be 1:29 let’s have 1:29 - not 1:25 through 1:32 in the same “model” and some fancy-schmancy “explanation” that the height is off because they measured when the fuel and water tanks were empty. Give me a break! All poor excuses swallowed line, hook and sinker by the “faithful congregation”.
I’d like to see a real loco mfg who doesn’t give the “real” measurements.

Spare us the “bashing is bad for the hobby” bull roar, since “bashing” seems to be whatever one fraternity or the other doesn’t like when they see a critique of their most favourite producer’s goods, worse even a product which they run on their layout and just can’t believe that it isn’t to scale, even though it looks absolutely gorgeous! Which reminds me…

PS As far as results go, it took two years but the suggested cars which can be built on the same RhB freight chassis appeared from LGB, it just took pointing out on a repeated basis. They have been reading the fora with much interest for years and years, including the RhB Forum that I started when I figured there were enough English speaking people modeling RhB. How would I know? Easy, you just keep track where your “Guests” are coming from (LGBoA and EPL). Apart from that one gets certain feedback from people who visit either SD or Nürnberg.

I’d hate to be groping in the dark, would be even worse wearing blinders!

#6

“Bashing?”

To all:

The term “bashing” appears to be most-oft acclaimed by the supposedly injured - certainly not by those who “do it.”

To “bash” any product or company means, in my understanding, to do so without substance.

EXAMPLE of accusation with substance:
Garden Railways ceased commenting on the scale of a product reviewed once 1:29 was absorbed into readers’ vocabulary as product acceptance. How did that happen? Criticism from the readers and from those who bought advertising. So 1:29 is now the largest product that is accepted by the most manufacturers. 1:32 and 1:20 are now the exceptions. LGB is tried whatever scale that appeared to work with those products that are most purchased.

QUESTION:
Did Garden Railways “Bash” with their continual comments in each product review in the “CON” summary that scale was not accurate?

Do we not agree: 1:20 is THE accurate scale along with 1:32 for the track width. Notice the LARGE print for the word THE.

Now, is this bashing or a parental response emphasizing fact?

Sigh!

Meanwhile, our hobby is likely losing a major Christmas train promotion source – LGB. Hopefully, Bachmann will pick-up the sales and I strongly wish included in each box is data on the hobby called outdoor railroading.

Postcript: Cosco already has Christmas products on display. No trains – yet.

Wendell

#7

Mike-

" A continuous stream of unfavourable reviews or “bashings” by “experts” led to the company “going to the wall” just like LGB .
And just like LGB will be , it was resurrected"

Nobody is bashing LGB with streams of unfavourable reviews.

If you don’t believe that, look at what one is doing with reviews of same in Model Railroader!

"Absolute scale accuracy ? Define it . I dare you to try . And I do not think we want it .
Fitness for purpose ? Difficult to review unless you have a crystal ball . So this is where the "bashers"reign supreme , They take the sum total of the experience of a lot of modellers and seemingly knock or bash the model . "

I certainly don’t ever call for absolute scale accuracy.
Outdoors, you cannot have it.
However:
The big issue with the Kra…err…GERmans has been why make it two feet too short?

If the overall dimensions are correct, one can add details fairly easily.
Whacking it and legthening can be difficult, and if you want all bits to match, will require two of the item to do right.

Done it.

“fitness for purpose” is actually more difficult.

For the toy fanatics, or the petunia-patch railroader, it is immaterial.
Fortuna Flyers spring readily to mind.

My LGB stuff is fit for the purpose.
What isn’t, I don’t buy.

I had a call yesterday from a bloke in the deep south, who had looked at a UINTAH, and commented on the plainness of the motor blocks.

I had to look at mine to see while he was describing the absolute lack of any detail on the block itself, like springs and hangers.

Hell, even the original Bachmann Big-Haulers had spring detail cast into the blocks.

Odd.

Fit?
Yeah, possibly.

#8

Dave, :wink:

Those who get so upset about the “bashing” could, as an alternative to reading fora and magazines, just keep on running their trains, buy more product and keep on running their trains.

After all what does the ostrich see when he sticks his head in the sand? I’m not sure, but most likely nothing since he closes his eyes.

What does the rest of the world note as the most prominent feature on an ostrich with his head stuck in the sand? An a-s-s sticking up in the air.

:wink: :slight_smile: :wink:

#9
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
What does the rest of the world note as the most prominent feature on an ostrich with his head stuck in the sand? An a-s-s sticking up in the air.

:wink: :slight_smile: :wink:


Well,

If somebody sees an a-s-s sticking up in the air, he might think, a Swiss washerwomen, trying to be funny, got up early again today.

Have Fun

Juergen Zirner

#10

Dave , taking your observations in the order you sent them ,
I got the impression that this site alone was contributing a major bashing to LGB , but , hey , let’s not argue about that , after all , impressions may be misguided .
I regret to say that I do not read Model Railroader , I only take Mainline Modeller . Being a pensioner , and having little taste , I spend my other allowances on Playboy . You should see some of the minimum radius curves in that !
Scale Accuracy–all I said was “define it” . OK , I tried a trick question and it worked . I did not say to whose satisfaction it should be defined–if only to make the point that there can be no real definition of True Scale in the context of our chosen hobby . You gave your answer quoting length . Now . apart from that possibly being a Freudian slip , I could say “Rubbish , colour” .We would both be right . But I bet we’d quickly find several other key objectives to "scale out " if we asked around . So , where do you stop? . I could argue that for true scale you can’t make a thing in plastic , the real thing is steel ,etc . And bloody barmy that would be , too . Mind you , some of the museum models I’ve seen are in steel and so on and the better for it . They also would cost a bit .
Fitness for purpose . Well , I do not entirely disagree with you , but surely the criteria is “do you like it ?” No matter how good the model , if you choose a subject that hardly anyone likes (and who decides that?) then you ain’t going to sell many . Equally , if the model is of a popular subject , and it takes everyone’s fancy , it can have lots of scale defects and it will still sell .
It’s a bugger , innit ? You are damned if you do , etc.
Drwing up a set of acceptable guidelines for reviewers is in itself fraught with as many arguments as the actual reviewing .
So , what’s the answer ?
Can I hope that we are genuinely trying to find one ? Or do we just like the sound of our own voices ?
Suggestions , please , on a ten dollar note to the usual address .
Mike
PS . I do have a large amount of LGB . However , I have far more by other companies . Some in the 5 figure range , some in the three figures .
I do not buy every LGB item as it comes out . Some of it looks daft alongside good stuff .
The only American outline LGB we have is White Pass stuff–not accurate , but we have fun with it . Plus the odd one or two we took a liking
to . We generally ignore the known hysterical reviewers . I do not classify ANYONE on this site as a hysterical reviewer .

#11

Hans ,
Yes , I have done reviews .
You then go on to state the requirement for accurate length/width/height all to be to one scale . I’m sorry , but I think you would have done better to have said "Should be " instead of "Are"in this context . It left a slight doubt as to what you meant . However , I agree with your basics .
My Garratt ? Nah , saw it , liked it , bought it . Didn’t measure it . Not that fussed really .It looks right . Not sure how many rivets there should be , but hey , who’s counting ? Only the pedants .
Now , in your reply , you were doing OK , then started to exaggerate --“bull roar” is not really necessary is it ? So at that point I start to lose interest . But I did read the last sentence and fail to understand it . Sorry , I really did try , but I think you may have chosen a wrong word or two .
But at least you gave a considered courteous answer , thanks for that . I have a feeling that you and I agree on a lot of things but are separated by a bit of a barrier . We shall have to keep trying , and hope that along the way we make others come into the discussion–that is what the site is for .
Gruss Gott ,
Mike

#12
Mike Morgan said:
................................................

But at least you gave a considered courteous answer , thanks for that . I have a feeling that you and I agree on a lot of things but are separated by a bit of a barrier . We shall have to keep trying , and hope that along the way we make others come into the discussion–that is what the site is for .
Gruss Gott ,
Mike


Mike,

You are right.

Frankly I don’t understand what your problem is other than you’re still not over this one.

That was your very own choice.

DING!

#13

Dong

#14
Wendell Hanks said:
"Do we not agree: 1:20 is THE accurate scale along with 1:32 for the track width. Notice the LARGE print for the word THE.
Well, to be a bit pedantic, 1:20 is THE accurate scale only for 36" gauge on 45 mm track. Outside North America, metre (1:22.5/45mm) and 42" (1:24/45mm) are probably (I haven't looked it up) far more common and extensive than all the 36" that was ever laid. (I won't even begin to list the narrower gauges.) As it happens, I find the many varieties of 3'6" railways more interesting than the 3' Colorado lines. Not that I'd refuse to visit Colorado, if ever I could afford it. I sort of understand why 1:29 came along (shades of British 00, TT and N), but it turned me off standard gauge modelling. Just one of those niggling things that bother me (but not others) when there was an accurate scale/gauge combination already in existence. Chacun a son gout. (Incidentally, I belong to that school that maintains 4' 8.5" is narrow gauge.) Viva IKB!
#15

I was reading the Tamiya Model Magazine , fresh out today ,and in it there was a very long letter about COPYRIGHT .
Oh , dear .
I raised this point before in another context on this site , along with the Union Pacific decision to discourage use of their logo on models .
I raise this here because of its implications on accuracy , and ultimate availability of models .
The letter in the Mag was from Pratt and Whitney of aero engine fame . They threatened in the past to take people to court for modelling their copyright . I know that sounds daft , but that’s what it says , If you ask them nicely , allow them to inspect the finished article for --what exactly?–
they will allow you to do your thing . No mention of money , but I would not think their motives are altruistic .
So now another factor has to be bunged into the equation .
I foresee a time when nobody will bother to manufacture anything except caricatures because of mounting problems with even looking at reality because of the pitfalls .
Who would be a model manufacturer ?
Oh , yes , Airfix has gone to the wall . Couldn’t make decent kits . They made kits aimed at kids , and kids’ pocket money . So the cogniscenti review them as though they are to be museum pieces and BANG , another name gone . For a while anyway . Like I said before , gone to the wall means a lot of different things .
Sad old world , innit ?
Mike

#16

Hmmmmmmmmm,

I’m sticking to the RhB proto for this example.

BEMO started producing HOm models based on that prototype at approx. the same time as LGB started repainting ÖBB cars and declared them RhB cars.

!976 was the year the RhB bug bit me hard and I decided that it was time to start modeling that in a “concentrated” fashion.
Even at that time there was plenty of literature on the prototype, as a matter of fact in the past thirty years I accumulated a nice stack of proto info - some of it original full size blue prints, in other cases detail drawings from the builders of the equipment and … and … and

So, I maintain that anyone who is interested enough to model RhB - as a hobby or on commercial basis - can get the information and do it right. There is no reason to produce caricatures other than being too lazy to do proper research or just not giving a hoot!

#17

It’s no good at all having the drawings if the owner of the copyright of the drawings won’t allow its use without agreement .
Take the example of a model aircraft , everybody can recognise one of them .
The engine in piston powered aircraft is , especially if a radial , quite visible . Radial is as in a Thunderbolt or Corsair , in-line is Spitfire or Mustang .
Some power plants are delivered complete with cowl , even having the manufacturers name on . So , theoretically , you would have to make a Spitfire or Mustang with a “nominal” nose if Rolls Royce got awkward . Or indeed a 747 .
Pratt and Whitney DID get awkward and stopped one poor bloke from trading , his stock of cottage industry engines was suddenly unsaleable .
This happened literally on the spot . One minute the bloke has PW engines in 1/48 scale , then in waltzes the brief who hands the chap a stop it or else notice . So how do you get round that , then ? No good getting the idea that you can build from scratch using the drawings approved by the manufacturer if they cost the earth and do not contain the detail you want .
It is no good trying to sidetrack the argument with LGB doing something in nineteen canteen . The facts argue themselves .
If as seems likely , manufacturers insist on having control over what is released with their name on , caricatures will be the result .
Imagine BEMO 's plight if RhB suddenly stopped them in their tracks . Pay 50 quid extra on a loco or else we send the boys round . So pass the cost on to the customer who may say stick it , or modify the model so that it "looks like " a real engine .
Some of the plastic blobs masquerading as power plants are enough to make a scaly modeller weep .
And how do you run a model union pacific railway with no logo on it and enjoy doing it ?.
Personally , I don’t give a toss , I already have enough models and kits to last my short lifetime . But the answer to the dilemma of copyright is going to get worse before it gets better . Unless you are content with “near scale”
It will go through a greek olive orchard syndrome before long . Modellers have already been approached at shows and asked where they got items from .
Mike

#18

Mike, are you referring to the Vector model engines ? At least one of the US distributors has a note on his website mentioning that the Pratt & Whitney is a registered trademark used under license. I can’t imagine that the license cost them too much or the distributor wouldn’t have bothered !

#19

Mike missed the point like so many times before. The point is if BEMO can produce items that are proper scale with the information available to them then LGB could too.

Except LGB is either too lazy to do the research or they really don’t give a toot

A typical example are the cars that Mike reviewed here on LSC. In that case LGB forgot the roof vents. Dumb, dumb, dumb… especially since garden railroaders get to see things from the bird’s eyeview most of the time.

#20

REAL PITA

Greg