We take a look at a recent release by Trumpeter, the Schwere Plattformwagen Type 80. It can transport heavy tanks!

Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!

Thanks, Jim, this one looks quite interesting, though I have some questions about it:

1.) the "guide posts" on the sides are not shown in any photos I've seen. I'd love to know where Trumpeter came up with them;

2.) the "bumpers" look out-of-scale (too big). This isn't a serious problem, since RBModel makes several bumpers for rail cars.

The car also looks a bit light on detailing. I have the Tank Workshop kit in my stash, and I will circle back when I build that.

These car and the 4-axel one offered by Dragon where also used post WWII by the german Bundeswehr well into the 1980s, this one carrying Leopard-2 and similar vehicles while the SSys would carry Leo1 etc .

The included ramp looks similar to one used by the Bundeswehr as well. Those where used one per train at the end (as speculated above) with the tanks slowly running along the train (seen with SSYs and KaJaPa). Trumpeters BR52 pulling a few M47 or the diesel engine pulling even later tanks won't be out of place.

Oh and it seems the GDR (DDR) used some too (either 4 or 6 axels)

Bill , if you mean the posts shown in image 5 & 9 , they are not guide posts . They are stantions to help keep a pipe or steel beam load on the flat car. They are removable ( on some types of cars they were hinged to fold down)

This one looks exactly like a twin brother of the TWS SSyms released earlier. Or its perfect copy with all the mistakes. This has nothing to do with SSyms wagon how it used to look like. As Bill said, starting with extra big buffers, over wrong flat springs, wrong size wheels, funny looking hoses with kinda sci-fi valves........finishing with wrong marking in decals provided. Probably not that important for regular modeller, but very annoying for any rolling stock enthusiast - for this money to get something like that. SSy from Dragon is also simple kit - but over all it looks much better and believeable than this. Times when Trumpeter did relatively good quality models like Leopold rail gun or carriers for Karl Morser - these times passed long time ago.
Libor

Looks like a nice kit but i STILL reckon that it`s overpriced by £20,i just brought Dragons Flatcar WITH a Panzer MK. III for £40 !! - Kinda makes Trumpeter`s offering look a bit flat does`nt it !!!. (No pun Intended).

Hmm, if Libor is right... what should we say about this review???

" starting with extra big buffers, over wrong flat springs, wrong size wheels, funny looking hoses with kinda sci-fi valves........finishing with wrong marking in decals provided. "

I can't find any of this information in the text... shouldn't we pay more attention to details when reviewing? Reviewing for reviewing is not the way to go.

"Just get this kit, it's a great one!!"

hmm a bit too straight ... don't you think?

my 3 cents

spit

I'm sorry Pawel... I guess I wasted my time (hours) taking photos and preparing what impressions and information I could give in an informative way to let modelers like you make up your own mind. What you obviously see as a worthless review I actually see as way for people to have discussions like these. If you read the review (or just the first few sentences) you will note I clearly state I am not an expert on German rail cars. Nor did I at any point make ANY claims about the kits accuracy.

If you don't like the review please feel free to write your own.

Jim

I was waiting this kind of answer.

Your work is good Jim. Shouldn't it be just called an overview or quick vu or preview instead of review? I think this would me more adequate. What I personally expect for a REVIEW is a complete point,accuracy issues included, I think I'm not alone. In your "/review " you just advertise the kit a a very solid release. IMHO it is a bit misleading taking under consideration all remarks I see.
BTW I won't write any review (at least for now) as I find I should concentrate on things I know how to do.

spit

Pawel,
I am fairly sure that there are many sites where reviews are published in which the reviewer is not an expert (or pretends to be) on the item in question. However if you feel that all the reviews you read MUST be critical reviews dealing with issues like accuracy, etc, then there is one site that publishes such reviews on the net. Of course that site is run by one person who is not a super-human and currently can only do a handful of these types of reviews per month.

As for what we call the review I think most people can make up their own mind about the way the information is presented on a review they read. The term solid (for me) simply implies that this kit meets all the basic needs of most modelers. It's well made, has good detail, and considering the rarity of rail subjects I still feel (inaccuracies and all) this kit will be one that many rail loving kit makers will seek out. Not every modeler is as concerned about accuracy as others. And some that are actually enjoy fixing inaccurate kits. Certainly a huge portion of the industry is dedicated to producing extra detail, conversions, and fixes for such kits. I am sure at least they are happy that every kit is not 100% perfect in every modelers mind.

Thanks for your input though.

Jim

Easy solution : if you are not an expert on the subject or are not able to consult other modellers knowledgable on the subject and/or cannot study proper references, just call it a preview, and don't give any rating.

My two Euro cents.

Cheers,

Christophe

We already have a designation for 'preview' (which is more universal for the term). Those are reviews that cover kits not yet released, or not yet available globally.

A person who is not an expert on cinema can still write a 'review' of a movie. You aren't really suggesting that only people who have a degree in Medieval Scottish history could write a movie review of Braveheart I hope?

As I thought I stated earlier, there is a clear difference (when reading it) between an inbox review done by an average modeler, and a critical review done by a subject expert. We publish both and we call them both reviews. Call me weird.

Thanks,
Jim

Christophe, I have 2 cents to add to this discussion, since my job at Armorama is both soliciting reviewers for new products AND editing their reviews.

We try to find reviewers who are knowledgeable about a subject, but that's very hard, given all the samples we get in-house. In addition, we encourage reviews by members who have purchased the kit themselves and want to tell the world what they loved or hated about it.

So when samples come in, we try to recruit people who:

1.) are knowledgeable about the subject matter (who's an expert on German electrified barbed wire?);
2.) interested in reviewing a product (kits are easy to give away, accessories harder, books hardest of all);
3.) can write decently or at least well-enough that the editors can make it into readable English

There are usually 15-20 reviews in the queue at any given time, and yet it's still hard to find enough reviewers for all the products. For example, I received 10 decal packs from Decalmania over the weekend for a variety of tanks from around the world, including T-34s in foreign service, EW American tanks, etc. I will need to find someone who has these kits and is interested in perhaps putting them on a model to show how they look, but I will be happy if I can find 8 reviewers with myself taking up the slack.

I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but it's very easy to complain about this or that reviewer not being qualified to write a review. It would be far more helpful to step up and volunteer to write reviews yourself. Failing that, it's helpful to have feedback about kits here, which is why we have these forums: none of us on staff pretends to be experts in everything or even anything, and we have many fine contributions from those of you who are.

Take Gerald Owens or David Byrden, for example, on Tiger tanks. They really add a lot to everyone's collective knowledge by generously sharing what they know. And there are many others, I can't name them all, so if I left you out, please don't take umbrage.

If you or anyone is interested in pitching in and writing a review, PM me. There's always room for one more.

Huh,
guys, what discussion came up here! First of all I think Jim has done a good review of the kit as a modeller - in my opinion Trumpy´s kit is produced on their standard, which is not bad. The problem is they do not care about accuracy of their kits, if they are not kinda main stream filling their valets. Searching right references for any other would be just a waste of money, even in China. It is much easier to take any model already produced in resin by somebody else and use it to make my own in styrene - cheaper, better selling, bla bla bla. Who could compare their kits with BR52, BR86 or W36 released before by CMK would know what I am talking about. I had spent a few months by researching this wagon, so I am able to see things hidden from guys not interested deeply in this kind of subjects. Most of guys will see - a good looking wagon, nice option for dio with tiger loaded - thats enough, how many of as would care about wrong details like buffer size or something else - just a few silly enthusiast like me.
Anyway, as said, Jim´s review is all right in my eyes, and no one really interested in rolling stock would have noticed accuracy issues of the kit. As said even who is not an expert on cinema can still write a 'review' of a movie - and I am sure you will enjoy this review and then the movie as well. Have you seen the Braveheart? YES! Did you like it? SURE - GREAT, JUST LIKE THE REVIEW SAID. All right then - but do you know that this movie is one big nonsence and has nothing to do with true history of Scotland? HM, NO, I DID NOT KNOW THIS - BUT STILL I LIKED IT.
Well, do you get my point? So at the end - this review did even more - it opened the gate for as to see and discuss more about the subject reviewed, to let guys know what is good or bad with the kit - and make easier for them to decide if they want to spend their money on it or not. I see this very positive for everyone - and many thanks to you Jim for writing it. You did not spend your time for nothing, thats for sure.
Cheers
Libor

It is my understanding that most people are just looking for people's honest views on whatever is being reviewed. The Kitmaker Network has a great review system which allows people from the collective community, which is needless to say substantially large, to add their knowledge base to the reviews here through the discussion forums that are linked to them. AFAIK this dynamic system is the best out there for reviewing such a massive amount of material. I would encourage people to constructively ask questions or add their own knowledgeable input when applicable rather than criticizing those who have volunteered their time as being reviewers for not being perfect. This site is about sharing, learning, and having fun. No need to put a damper on that

Personally I own one of these, and while not perfect (a given) I found it a great starting point for detailing and accuratizing to whatever extent you feel comfortable with. It ends of as a great way to display German heavy armour that couldn't otherwise be transported by rail. What else could you want from a kit lie this?

Frank. Why dredge up 30 old review threads? Bored?

No, just using the resource as a reference library and seeing how others commented at the time and seeing if my comments might generate new reactions and insights. I thought that that was a good use of the site -am I wrong? I seem to be generating this kind of response, not sure why...

Why not? This review and the topics are as valid now as when they were published. And not everybody saw this review when it came out years ago.

Hmmm,
There are, when I write this, 2856 pages of threads in the armor/afv forum with something like 25 threads per page.
If we assume that maybe 10% of these are as valid now as they were then we would end up with over seventhousand threads or over 280 pages of revived/resuscitated stuff.
The oldest thread was started in January 2002 so that would mean 2856 pages in 15.5 years or roughly 184 pages per year. Those 280 pages of zombies would see us through 18 months without the need for a single new thread ...

Just thinking (and writing of course but that should be obvious if You are reading this)....

There is stuff in my stash that was possibly reviewed 8-10 years ago. Maybe I should go dredging the depths ....
Bringing up old stuff clutters the channel and obscures the new threads.

Suggestion: Would it be possible to have some kind of zombie-filter so that it is possible to avoid seeing revivals of threads where the original post is more than 2 years old?
Maybe make the age limit configurable.
/ Robin

Perhaps it might help everyone (and avoid semantic disagreements) if there was a simple coding system for the level of examination of a new product. For example;

A = An Announcement of a forthcoming kit – may include box-art, CAD or sprue photos. No editorializing.

P = A Preview of a just-released kit – examination of sprues, comments on quality of mouldings etc., its context in the marketplace.

R = A build log of a just-released kit and full Review as sponsored by Armorama.

Depending on what is commonly accepted as “just-released” (I would suggest 1 or 2 months), finally…

B = A build-log of a kit that’s in general circulation with more personal opinions about the kit – and acceptable as an alternative to the first [R] Review.

I suggest the A, P and R categories should keep personal opinions to a minimum and be as scrupulously objective as possible. Not always easy but that’s why we’re not all Reviewers.

Another issue raised is the author’s degree of expertise. That’s a more difficult thing to standardize because an author’s self-assessment risks turning out to be an understatement or an overstatement compared to the majority of readers’ opinions (!) If I was nominated to do a Review of e.g. a T34/76, I can guarantee 10 members will turn out to have a better or more accurate knowledge than I – does that make me a novice or an expert? Well, I think I have a reasonably good knowledge and enough references on the shelf to back it up. So how about this scale;

1)They threw this at me, I’ve never built one before so I’m just documenting how well it goes together & have no idea if it’s missing details or has errors.

2)I have a reasonable knowledge of the kit subject but “experts” are welcome to challenge.

3)I specialize in kits/subjects like this and will put out a contract on anyone who contradicts me. OK that definition should end at “…this.”

This rating would only be necessary for “R”s i.e. the review is an R1 or R2 or R3 so that readers can decide for themselves how much credence to give the review – and so hopefully they won’t (or shouldn’t need to) bark at a Reviewer, because their credentials have already been stated.

The coding system could be flagged as a special icon at the left of the thread where currently it just says “Review”.