I've just been reading the NGS journal and newsletter that's popped through the door today.
Apparently the NGS has been trying to canvas opinion on whether to re-run the Stove-R and Snowplough models. Unfortunately they chose the groups.io site to ask this, and got a grand total of 11 responses from 370 members. They're grumbling that there has been a poor response.
Would somebody mind informing them that the groups.io site is probably the reason the response has been poor. I realise that NGS chose that for NGS matters, but if it had been mentioned on the N Gauge Forum, the response would have probably been significantly larger.
I'm not having a dig at the groups.io, just trying to elicit some better feedback for the NGS.
:thankyousign:
Quote from: emjaybee on January 24, 2019, 09:32:51 PM
I've just been reading the NGS journal and newsletter that's popped through the door today.
Apparently the NGS has been trying to canvas opinion on whether to re-run the Stove-R and Snowplough models. Unfortunately they chose the groups.io site to ask this, and got a grand total of 11 responses from 370 members. They're grumbling that there has been a poor response.
Would somebody mind informing them that the groups.io site is probably the reason the response has been poor. I realise that NGS chose that for NGS matters, but if it had been mentioned on the N Gauge Forum, the response would have probably been significantly larger.
I'm not having a dig at the groups.io, just trying to elicit some better feedback for the NGS.
:thankyousign:
I would add another example to my stock
:hmmm: I've always been under the (possibly mis)impression that the groups.io was for discussing constitutional matters and such.
Is it not the ruins of the erstwhile N Gauge Yahoo group ?
I thought I had signed up to the N Gauge io group but I must have been mistaken because I certainly haven't seen anything about it.
believe the bluebell railway has one as does the buckinghamshire railway centre :
https://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/lms_33014.htm (https://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/lms_33014.htm)
If the NGS do re-run the Stove R it should be priced lower than the Farish 50' full brake.
Best regards;
Joe
Quote from: RailGooner on January 24, 2019, 09:44:14 PM
:hmmm: I've always been under the (possibly mis)impression that the groups.io was for discussing constitutional matters and such.
It is to discuss anything related to the N Gauge Society.
Quote from: joe cassidy on January 24, 2019, 09:48:04 PM
Is it not the ruins of the erstwhile N Gauge Yahoo group ?
No. That is a separate group on groups.io
N Gauge Society is NGS
former Yahoo N Gauge group is ngauge
Also the JMRI yahoo group moved to groups.io as is jmriusers
Quote from: Karhedron on January 24, 2019, 09:49:37 PM
I thought I had signed up to the N Gauge io group but I must have been mistaken because I certainly haven't seen anything about it.
It depends on your subscription settings whether you receive anything.
Following on from my o.p. I thought I'd have a look at the original question as asked on the groups.io site.
I did eventually manage to find it, but in doing so realised what a god-awful format that forum is. It's no wonder they got a limited response, I've seen Rubik's cube which are more intuitive to use!
For the sake of the NGS and the Shop Manager, please make representations to him if you'd like a re-run of the Stove-R.
As an aside, please also would the NGS please put surveys like that on here as well, somewhere where a larger number of Society members frequent. Who knows, it could even help swell NGS membership.
I personally hate the format of those forums and have given up on them and stick to here and RMWeb. I think another run would be a good idea along with some chassis for kit builders.
I was registered on the io site but, like already said, it's awful to use and find things as are all io sites. Nothing much of interest anyway so I left the group and concentrate on the more user friendly ones such as this.
Yep, I also found it horrendous and very rarely visit. Bit weird to complain they didn't have the interest without giving it any real publicity, even if that is their chosen forum, they must realise the readership is low.
I actually quite like the groups.io format (remember it is essentially a replacement for what became Yahoo Groups ie it is an email list with website tacked on). Searching is pretty easy and the threads on the web seem to work better than the Yahoo version.
Some interesting stuff on the ngauge group and the ngs group does what it was intended to do ie to take away stuff about the NGS from here or the ngauge list (some people complained about NGS members washing dirty linen in public).
You can't please everybody.
Cheers Mike
Totally agree Mike, and I've no issue with it being used as it is. What is odd is then for the society (or some members thereof) to complain that they didn't get a good response to a question, having publicised something solely in one place. I recall it was a mildly controversial choice to use Groups.io full stop. Seems a bit 'cake and eat it'.
I'm another one who likes the format of groups.io. On the NGS group I get an email with the entry every time (which can be infrequently) a post is made. Saves having to keep logging in and checking on the off chance someone has written something.
My understanding, probably completely wrong, is that that the forum being discussed came alive because people on this forum objected to NGS matters being discussed here.
It is of no matter what the opinion is of N gauge modellers who choose not to join the N Gauge Society is because their products are only available to members. What is more sad is that only a few N Gauge Society members can be bothered to join the specialist forum.
Quote from: red_death on January 25, 2019, 05:03:32 PM
I actually quite like the groups.io format (remember it is essentially a replacement for what became Yahoo Groups ie it is an email list with website tacked on). Searching is pretty easy and the threads on the web seem to work better than the Yahoo version.
Some interesting stuff on the ngauge group and the ngs group does what it was intended to do ie to take away stuff about the NGS from here or the ngauge list (some people complained about NGS members washing dirty linen in public).
You can't please everybody.
Cheers Mike
You are, of course, quite correct. As previously mentioned though, it was set up to deal purely with NGS issues. Fair enough, but if they're looking for a response to a question, then they need to make the effort to put it in front of as many members as possible, and that's unlikely to happen there. Even if they put a notice on here linking to the groups.io that would have probably helped significantly.
Maybe a notice about the question in the journal would have been a good idea. Manufacturers don't just use one 'advert', we all use different media/avenues, but we do all get the journal.
Quote from: zopadooper on January 25, 2019, 06:37:55 PM
My understanding, probably completely wrong, is that that the forum being discussed came alive because people on this forum objected to NGS matters being discussed here.
It is of no matter what the opinion is of N gauge modellers who choose not to join the N Gauge Society is because their products are only available to members. What is more sad is that only a few N Gauge Society members can be bothered to join the specialist forum.
Hi
Many of us at the time mention why we would not be joining that particular group. If you only want to canvas members by that method then that's your choice but don't be surprised by the results.
Cheers
Paul
Quote from: zopadooper on January 25, 2019, 06:37:55 PM
What is more sad is that only a few N Gauge Society members can be bothered to join the specialist forum.
Blimey, that's a sweeping statement from a position of complete ignorance of members personal circumstances!
As I have already stated I was a member of it but the format is hard work and there was nothing on it that wasn't in the journal. I've just done a quick count and I am a member of 14 different forums across my hobbies, you have to draw a line at some point. Many members don't have any kind of online presence so info shouldn't be filtered in to one, small, forum. The Journal is where all members can receive and send info on an equal basis so just asking the question to such a small portion of the membership (if that is, indeed, the case) is wrong.
Please think before insulting 95% of the NGS membership.
Without wishing to stoke any fires about the format of the NGS groups.io presence I thought, as the moderator, it might be useful post the "front page" information that states its purpose. As you can see, it does point people in the direction of the NGF. Groups.io was chosen for a number of reasons. Amongst these are: it doesn't cost the Society anything, it is free of advertising, it doesn't seek to harvest your personal information. Membership of the NGS group is self contained- you don't have to be a member of another forum first. Some people do not wish to be members of the NGF, so making the NGS a sub forum would disenfranchise those people. Personally, and it's only my own view, I find getting the messages delivered straight into my email inbox a convenience. It means I don't have to keep going to the website to see if there is anything new. It does not seek to compete with the NGF.
——
N Gauge Society Members' Discussion Group ngs@groups.io
Group Description
This group is for N Gauge Society (NGS) members, for discussions and queries about NGS projects and the running of the society.
For example
Contents of the NGS web site
Ideas for new NGS kits or RTR
How the model making competition is organised and categories
Queries about events organised by the NGS for members
Questions about the NGS accounts
Discussion of the N Gauge Journal
Information on the society may be posted here, for example about shop products coming back into stock.
Members of the NGS committee who are members of this group may respond directly; if not the moderators will ensure that matters are raised with the NGS committee when necessary. Postings by NGS committee members may not necessarily represent official NGS policy.
General questions about modelling in N gauge are probably better posted on one of the many email groups or forums which have a wider spread of members, for example the N Gauge Forum, the ngauge group on io groups, or RMWeb.
For more information on the N Gauge Society and how to join see http://ngaugesociety.com/NEWWEB/ (http://ngaugesociety.com/NEWWEB/)
Membership of this group is not checked against the list of current members. Instead it relies on your honesty. If you are not currently a member of the NGS please refrain from posting.
———
To go back to the Stove R, I already have 3, including one in Blood and Custard so have no need for more!
I'm not seeing anyone disputing the validity or purpose of the Groups.io board, at all. It definitely makes sense for the NGS to have a 'forum' (in the traditional sense of the word) to discuss society matters, which won't be relevant to a lot of the membership on other forums (in the internet sense!).
What seems to be a bit daft is expecting the membership to all use Groups.io, and thus not publicising things more widely, then complaining that response isnt good.
I've just had a look at the NGS group, probably for the first time in 6 months. There was nothing there whatsoever for me, and there were only a limited number of posters and threads, the same as last time I looked. Again, not a problem inherently, but it isn't going to be representative of the membership at large, and if any decision is sought then surely it makes sense to canvass other sites, potentially including those who aren't members, who could well be interested in a Stove R anyway?
Didn't the Queen Mary brake van make the transition from exclusive NGS to Farish? As njee20 says, there's potentially a lot of people probably interested in a Stove R but don't know about it.
I do hope they reintroduce the snowploughs, though.
For what it's worth, if the NGS would sell to non members, I'd have one in lined BR maroon and at least a couple of chassis...
As for, groups.io; I'm on the n-gauge group and I use the e-mail delivery function which is fine for the type and volume of content there. I only bother with the web interface when I want to search for something in the archives and agree it isn't great compared to a proper forum such as this but is certainly an improvement on the erstwhile yahoo groups...
When canvassing opinion as in this instance, it is entirely reasonable and proper to channel that through one location to avoid skewing the results by double counting individuals who are members of multiple groups/forums. As I understand it, the .io group was the only format the NGS hierarchy would sanction (even that with some resistance) so that is by default the place to collate results, however the suggestion above to signpost members to that group from other fora is eminently sensible to maximise awareness. It is then up to the individual to participate or not but they don't have the excuse they didn't know about it...
Quote from: Bealman on January 25, 2019, 10:27:04 PM
Didn't the Queen Mary brake van make the transition from exclusive NGS to Farish? As njee20 says, there's potentially a lot of people probably interested in a Stove R but don't know about it.
I do hope they reintroduce the snowploughs, though.
The agreement for Dapol products is that NGS own the tooling. With Bachmann NGS gets exclusive use for a period of time (2 years I think)
Quote from: Bealman on January 25, 2019, 10:27:04 PM
Didn't the Queen Mary brake van make the transition from exclusive NGS to Farish? As njee20 says, there's potentially a lot of people probably interested in a Stove R but don't know about it.
My understanding is the relationship with Farish differs to other manufacturers. With Farish, the deal is that Farish own the tooling and the NGS simply has exclusivity for a period of time, after which Farish are free to add to their general range and sell to the wider market. The QM brake and the LMS inspection saloon being examples. The deal with most (all?) other manufacturers including Dapol who made the Stove for the Society is that the Society has ownership of the tools and exclusivity in perpetuity.
Quote from: PLD on January 25, 2019, 10:44:21 PM
When canvassing opinion as in this instance, it is entirely reasonable and proper to channel that through one location to avoid skewing the results by double counting individuals who are members of multiple groups/forums. As I understand it, the .io group was the only format the NGS hierarchy would sanction (even that with some resistance) so that is by default the place to collate results, however the suggestion above to signpost members to that group from other fora is eminently sensible to maximise awareness. It is then up to the individual to participate or not but they don't have the excuse they didn't know about it...
I still find it odd that they use the NGS Journal to bemoan the lack of response, but not use it to canvas an opinion, bearing in mind that it is the only media which is accessible to ALL members.
Quote from: PLD on January 25, 2019, 10:54:31 PM
Quote from: Bealman on January 25, 2019, 10:27:04 PM
Didn't the Queen Mary brake van make the transition from exclusive NGS to Farish? As njee20 says, there's potentially a lot of people probably interested in a Stove R but don't know about it.
My understanding is the relationship with Farish differs to other manufacturers. With Farish, the deal is that Farish own the tooling and the NGS simply has exclusivity for a period of time, after which Farish are free to add to their general range and sell to the wider market. The QM brake and the LMS inspection saloon being examples. The deal with most (all?) other manufacturers including Dapol who made the Stove for the Society is that the Society has ownership of the tools and exclusivity in perpetuity.
Ah, thanks for that! Explains things a bit. I own both the inspection saloon and stove, and forgot the boxes were different!
Quote from: emjaybee on January 25, 2019, 11:16:01 PM
Quote from: PLD on January 25, 2019, 10:44:21 PM
I still find it odd that they use the NGS Journal to bemoan the lack of response, but not use it to canvas an opinion, bearing in mind that it is the only media which is accessible to ALL members.
Here here!! If the Society wants to canvas the opinion of members, they should always ask via the Journal, available to ALL members, and then perhaps direct them to a poll on the Society website. Using the website alone to receive responses would also make it possible to direct people from Goroups.io (I'm not a user and in fact had never heard of it!) or from this forum or elsewhere, thus avoiding double counting and removing the opinions of non-members.
The whole issue is an outrage! I think the relevant authorities should be informed immediately.
From what I could see it's not actually a poll or anything, they were requesting an email specifying which liveries people would like. So risk of double counting should be zero, even if they'd advertised everywhere.
I agree that if they want to ensure they've reached all of the membership then the journal is the obvious place to advertise.
Quote from: njee20 on January 26, 2019, 07:58:41 AM
From what I could see it's not actually a poll or anything, they were requesting an email specifying which liveries people would like. So risk of double counting should be zero, even if they'd advertised everywhere.
I agree that if they want to ensure they've reached all of the membership then the journal is the obvious place to advertise.
No quite correct. Adrian (NGS Shopkeeper) was asking which liveries members thought would be popular if a rerun was commissioned, not necessarily would they would buy.
Personally I would buy a Blue liveried Stove R but have no idea whether it would be popular with other members so did not reply (I would guess that very few members would have any information on what would be popular). The question was probably not the correct one to ask
As far as I am aware the whole question of a re run of Stove R's came about because the society has now run out of the chassis, the only way NGS can get more chassis produced is alongside a rerun of the Stove R with a minimum order of 1000 Stove R units which can be spread across 4 liveries
I'd order one in blood & custard. Am happy to order in advance if that helps?
Quote from: nookfield on January 26, 2019, 10:05:30 AM
No quite correct. Adrian (NGS Shopkeeper) was asking which liveries members thought would be popular if a rerun was commissioned, not necessarily would they would buy.
Splitting hairs, they're trying to canvass opinion on potential sales (or popularity, they're essentially synonymous here) using one source. It's self defeating. As I said, the risk of double counting votes was essentially non existent because it wasn't an online poll, they were simply inviting 'expressions of interest' via email, therefore surely you publicise it as widely as possible, with the journal being the most obvious place. The one source you know all members have access to.
:hellosign:
Does anyone know whether the Stove R will negotiate 9¾" radius curves please?
I think I need to know the minimum radius before I can decide whether to buy one or not.
:thankyousign:
Quote from: ten0G on May 03, 2019, 08:35:19 PM
:hellosign:
Does anyone know whether the Stove R will negotiate 9¾" radius curves please?
I think I need to know the minimum radius before I can decide whether to buy one or not.
:thankyousign:
I have a few of the chassis and they happily trundle round my 10" radius test track if that helps.
Quote from: ten0G on May 03, 2019, 08:35:19 PM
:hellosign:
Does anyone know whether the Stove R will negotiate 9¾" radius curves please?
I think I need to know the minimum radius before I can decide whether to buy one or not.
:thankyousign:
I have a couple of very tight curves on my layout and the Stove-R is fine on them.
Although the Stove-R itself is a little late for my modelling era, the chassis certainly is useful. If I could get hold of any more S&D carriages for reasonable prices them I'd be using more Stove-R chassis like this:
(http://www.ngauge.historyfiles.co.uk/images/rollingstock/S&DCarriage038.jpg)