Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[PMP99]

Google is no better.

 

I have just typed 'Peco basing' in as a search  (as in their new basing glue) and Google has asked if I meant '-bashing'!!

[6892 Oakhill Grange]

Does smut mean that fireboxgate is over. I almost said waistgate but that word is a little charged.

[Hilux5972]

Someone, intended to say "firebox" on the Castle Aching topic, but mistakenly posted "firebomb". I swear my computer slowed down for 2-3 days while the Spooks crawled all over it.

 

Damn, I've done it again!

And Castle Aching is meant to be Castle Arriving I'm guessing?

[frobisher]

But it would make a nice collective noun for rivets, which to the best of my knowledge don't enjoy one. We only have to use it enough, and it will get into the OED.

No no no, the collective noun is "an incorrect number"

[Hroth]

 The curse of predictive text? It is usually possible to work out the intended word, but I confess myself stuck here.

 

But it would make a nice collective noun for rivets, which to the best of my knowledge don't enjoy one. We only have to use it enough, and it will get into the OED.

So many rivets suggests a sandpaper of rivets might make an appropriate collective noun.  And prompts the thought that, provided the plastic isn't too tough, an emery board and some dirty black paint would cure the superfluity of carbuncles already present.

 

Given the other criticisms levelled at the model, perhaps it should be renamed the Dean "Great Wen" - see, back to lumps and carbuncles again...... 

[bertiedog]

Better a few rivets too large or even too many than none at all, but really again, and again, I must make the point that it should be accurate in this day and age. Oxford are new to Railways but long experience with models, and just need to fine tune the relationship of accuracy with practical engineering.

Hopefully they will be showing at Warley the samples and will be able to fiels questions about the firebox and the rivets, although to my mind the rivet question pails away against the firebox shape. the shots implying correction are still not a match to the preserved loco, but maybe Oxford can show shots of other Deans with the strange shape. It may well turn out to be related to the old Swindon Wolverhampton rivalry, and one or the other did the cladding in a different way after a service. There are certainly differences in the strengthening plate at the base on the real locos firebox, this was added to take the wear due to expansion and contraction of the boiler.

If it is partially corrected or evidence exists it is right, then I will order again, mine was mainly for display anyway, not serious use. If they do the round top, then very interested. But far more in say an Abedare..........or any outside frame GWR.

Stephen

[Adams442T]

Might l be as bold as to suggest that a good collective noun for rivets might be a 'Clatter'.  Anyone who has been near a traditional rivetter, or even the later 'guns', and escaped with hearing intact might well agree....................

[Dunsignalling]

Better a few rivets too large or even too many than none at all, but really again, and again, I must make the point that it should be accurate in this day and age. Oxford are new to Railways but long experience with models, and just need to fine tune the relationship of accuracy with practical engineering.

Hopefully they will be showing at Warley the samples and will be able to fiels questions about the firebox and the rivets, although to my mind the rivet question pails away against the firebox shape. the shots implying correction are still not a match to the preserved loco, but maybe Oxford can show shots of other Deans with the strange shape. It may well turn out to be related to the old Swindon Wolverhampton rivalry, and one or the other did the cladding in a different way after a service. There are certainly differences in the strengthening plate at the base on the real locos firebox, this was added to take the wear due to expansion and contraction of the boiler.

If it is partially corrected or evidence exists it is right, then I will order again, mine was mainly for display anyway, not serious use. If they do the round top, then very interested. But far more in say an Abedare..........or any outside frame GWR.

Stephen

I think we can be fairly certain that noticeable variations would have crept into such a long-lived class (especially late survivors thereof) in just the same way as the boilers changed. Your point about overhauls done at different works is a very good one.

 

The cladding in the photo in Post 425 clearly exhibits greater "turn-under", closer to that of Oxford's latest sample in Post 420, than either do to that in the first photo of the same post.

 

I think the model still overstates the feature a little, but I hesitate to take that view purely from a photo taken under fairly powerful artificial lighting. My own feeling is that Oxford's latest iteration is probably quite close for some of these locos at certain periods in their careers and seriously adrift for others. However, if that is so, it would also apply to any other combination of features Oxford might have come up with.

 

They, and we, will need to pick our numbers carefully if we want a close match to a particular loco at a particular time.

 

John

Edited October 31, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[bgman]

Should anyone be interested this may be a very useful go to book for some excellent photographs and history regarding the Dean Goods plus other Dean locomotives

 

 

It is certainly a very welcome addition to my library.

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

Decorated pre-production samples are now showing on Hattons website (don't think it's been mentioned on this thread thus far).  The BR black version looks stunning to me though I'm certainly no authority on the Dean Goods. The images have a footnote confirming that they are pre-production samples and saying that some amendments are to be made.....

[Hroth]

Decorated pre-production samples are now showing on Hattons website (don't think it's been mentioned on this thread thus far).  The BR black version looks stunning to me though I'm certainly no authority on the Dean Goods. The images have a footnote confirming that they are pre-production samples and saying that some amendments are to be made.....

Interesting.

 

They look like standard Hattons product shots, complete with the steel rule!  Perhaps someone from Oxford Rail popped into the shop with samples of 2309 and 2409?

 

The firebox crease only looks noticable in the "broadside from above" image and is less apparent in the others.  Ammendments (sic) may refer to the unfinished portion of the underboiler area - its also interesting to note that this unpainted area appears to align with the firebox "crease" and so may be an artefact of the moulding process...

 

I also see that Hattons give a "December" delivery indication for 2309 (and that the project section suggests that the models are in production). 2409 (BR Black ec) and 2473 (GWR unlined green) are still indicating as Jan/Feb 2017.

[Dunsignalling]

Decorated pre-production samples are now showing on Hattons website (don't think it's been mentioned on this thread thus far).  The BR black version looks stunning to me though I'm certainly no authority on the Dean Goods. The images have a footnote confirming that they are pre-production samples and saying that some amendments are to be made.....

Thanks for the heads-up on this.

 

The "crease" or "turn under" in the firebox cladding appears to be a lot less pronounced than it looked in earlier sample photos and now looks reasonably close to the curvature seen in the prototype photo in Post #425.

 

That said, in pictures of some other prototype locos, the cladding appears to be virtually flat-sided with just a slight slope inwards toward the bottom.

 

For me, the shape of the model looks much more subtle than before and I think it now constitutes a decent representation of some examples of the class.

 

It won't suit everyone who wants a model of a specific loco at a particular stage in its working life but that caveat would apply to any combination of features selected for a model of such a long-lived and fairly numerous type.

 

I reckon I'll be having one of these.........

 

John

Edited November 13, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

Thanks gents. You'll notice I very deliberately limited my comments to the BR black version. I really only "know" the Dean Goods through photos in my Bradford Barton Albums dating from the 50s. The BR black version "passes muster" in my eyes and conveniently I intend to model the 50s period! I'm sure the pre-war GWR modellers are somewhat frustrated by the lack of authentic "period" features on the lined green version....

[Edwardian]

Let us not forget, there are a good number of issues with the lined Dean Goods.  There is a lot more than the firebox to trouble the scrupulous.

 

Some of these issues may well stem from the failure to tool for this batch and condition of loco, and, therefore, perhaps do not affect the post WW2 models.  While I welcome the interest in producing an earlier condition loco, that is not what Oxford has done in this case.

 

There are a number of actual or potential issues, focussed on the pre-WW1 lined depiction of No. 2309.  As has been noted, the inclusion of the top feed means that the model must depict 2309 from 1913, and I would guess that the model is based upon a photograph of 2309 at Birmingham in April 1914 (below).

 

Contributors to this topic have, between them, spotted the following issues:

 

- The side step, between the front 2 splashers should be curved, not straight-sided for 2309.  So, this involves modifying or replacing the step and re-lining to match.

 

- The dome of 2309 at the period depicted appears to be painted, as per the then regulations, not polished brass.

 

- The chimney should be parallel and slightly taller rather than using the later cast iron taper type.  Whereas, the chimney on the model appears to be a later cast iron chimney with capuchon but painted to represent a copper top. The chimney top, but not the capuchon, should be copper (not brass). In summary, the chimney is the wrong shape and too short. New chimney or shank.

 

- The whistles are currently mounted the wrong way round!  Easy fix, but is just one of those nagging instances of a lack of attention, or care, in getting thing right on this "Deans Goods"

 

- The prototype lacks the visible plating to the firebox base in the form shown on the model.  The lower wash-out plugs are poor and the spacing is wrong.  Not an easy fix and would compromise the paint finish.

 

- The smokebox door should be the early type with the raised ring around the edge whilst the model seems to have the later one but it's a bit difficult to tell from the angle of the photo.  Potentially need to replace.

 

- There are a quantity of rivets on the smokebox of the model not present on 2309. Would need to be very carefully carved off. So it looks like the smoke box will need a repaint.

 

- The distance between the top of the cabside cut-out and the roof appears too shallow, and does not seem to represent the increased gap resulting from the slight raising of the roof to accommodate the belpaire firebox. Not an easy fix and would compromise the paint finish.

 

- It is hard to judge from the photographs  if the curve of the cabside cut-out is correct. Not an easy fix and would compromise the paint finish.

 

I raised all these matters with Oxford.  Unlike my earlier email pointing out the firebox issue, I have, on this occasion not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement. It is no doubt too late in the day to make changes.

 

From what I have seen, I fear that Oxford's definition of an accurate model is unlikely to agree with mine.  Yes, the smart lining and shiny dome will make it attractive cabinet fodder for the collector, but this is in no way an accurate model of 2309 in the condition represented.  You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.

 

Some won't mind the inaccuracies.  We all have different tolerances and different things bug us.  I hope that at least modellers will have an informed choice concerning this particular model, given the knowledge and time several topic members have contributed in order to assess this announced release. 

 

Some matters are easily cured and some may not be such huge concerns when we see the model in the flesh (or, they could be worse!), but clearly work needs to be done to render this an accurate model of its purported subject and I remain of the view that a better starting point for a pre-WW1 belpaire Dean Goods is the Mainline body on a Comet chassis.  Yes, there would need to be changes to the Mainline body, too, but I would rather do that to a second-hand body shell that captures the lines of the class well, than to a high-spec new model that purports, but fails to, represent the class member concerned. The fact that a 40-year old moulding appears to trump a new release suggests that Oxford is not yet on track.

 

In case anyone is still wondering, I won't be buying one!

Edited November 15, 2016 by Edwardian

[Loconuts]

Let us not forget, there are a good number of issues with the lined Dean Goods.  There is a lot more than the firebox to trouble the scrupulous.

 

Some of these issues may well stem from the failure to tool for this batch and condition of loco, and, therefore, perhaps do not effect the post WW2 models.  While I welcome the interest in producing an earlier condition loco, that is not what Oxford has done in this case.

 

There are a number of actual or potential issues, focussed on the pre-WW1 lined depiction of No. 2309.  As has been noted, the inclusion of the top feed means that the model must depict 2309 from 1913, and I would guess that the model is based upon a photograph of 2309 at Birmingham in April 1914 (below).

 

Contributors to this topic have, between them, spotted the following issues:

 

- The side step, between the front 2 splashers should be curved, not straight-sided for 2309.  So, this involves modifying or replacing the step and re-lining to match.

 

- The dome of 2309 at the period depicted appears to be painted, as per the then regulations, not polished brass.

 

- The chimney should be parallel and slightly taller rather than using the later cast iron taper type.  Whereas, the chimney on the model appears to be a later cast iron chimney with capuchon but painted to represent a copper top. The chimney top, but not the capuchon, should be copper (not brass). In summary, the chimney is the wrong shape and too short. New chimney or shank.

 

- The whistles are currently mounted the wrong way round!  Easy fix, but is just one of those nagging instances of a lack of attention, or care, in getting thing right on this "Deans Goods"

 

- The prototype lacks the visible plating to the firebox base in the form shown on the model.  The lower wash-out plugs are poor and the spacing is wrong.  Not an easy fix and would compromise the paint finish.

 

- The smokebox door should be the early type with the raised ring around the edge whilst the model seems to have the later one but it's a bit difficult to tell from the angle of the photo.  Potentially need to replace.

 

- There are a quantity of rivets on the smokebox of the model not present on 2309. Would need to be very carefully carved off. So it looks like the smoke box will need a repaint.

 

- The distance between the top of the cabside cut-out and the roof appears too shallow, and does not seem to represent the increased gap resulting from the slight raising of the roof to accommodate the belpaire firebox. Not an easy fix and would compromise the paint finish.

 

- It is hard to judge from the photographs  if the curve of the cabside cut-out is correct. Not an easy fix and would compromise the paint finish.

 

I raised all these matters with Oxford.  Unlike my earlier email pointing out the firebox issue, I have, on this occasion not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement. It is no doubt too late in the day to make changes.

 

From what I have seen, I fear that Oxford's definition of an accurate model is unlikely to agree with mine.  Yes, the smart lining and shiny dome will make it attractive cabinet fodder for the collector, but this is in no way an accurate model of 2309 in the condition represented.  You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.

 

Some won't mind the inaccuracies.  We all have different tolerances and different things bug us.  I hope that at least modellers will have an informed choice concerning this particular model, given the knowledge and time several topic members have contributed in order to assess this announced release. 

 

Some matters are easily cured and some may not be such huge concerns when we see the model in the flesh (or, they could be worse!), but clearly work needs to be done to render this an accurate model of its purported subject and I remain of the view that a better starting point for a pre-WW1 belpaire Dean Goods is the Mainline body on a Comet chassis.  Yes, there would need to be changes to the Mainline body, too, but I would rather do that to a second-hand body shell that captures the lines of the class well, than to a high-spec new model that purports, but fails to, represent the class member concerned. The fact that a 40-year old moulding appears to trump a new release suggests that Oxford is not yet on track.

 

In case anyone is still wondering, I won't be buying one!

 

I totally agree with this post as from someone who modelled the GWR for 30 years.

 

Unfortunately Oxford Rail does not appear to listen to the critics and is totally out of touch with the true modeler and more in keeping with the glass case fodder.

 

They need to do the same as Dapol and get someone on board who knows the subject. (Look at their recent 08)

 

Will the Dean Goods sell, yes on price alone but if they had made a correct model their market share would be bigger. Oxford Rail is going to get a reputation for incorrect models as all their output so far has had inaccuracies and this is not good as the manufacturers are dealing with a dwindling market place which is going to get more competitive.  

[Horsetan]

.....I raised all these matters with Oxford.  Unlike my earlier email pointing out the firebox issue, I have, on this occasion not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement. ....

It may be that they might have had a bruising experience with a certain "adrianbs" (other experts are available) previously which turned them off seeking any sort of feedback - from anyone - in future.

 

....You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.....

As the recent US Presidential Election demonstrated, there will still be sufficient numbers voting for it.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Horsetan

[Dunsignalling]

Let us not forget, there are a good number of issues with the lined Dean Goods.  There is a lot more than the firebox to trouble the scrupulous.

 

Some of these issues may well stem from the failure to tool for this batch and condition of loco, and, therefore, perhaps do not affect the post WW2 models.  While I welcome the interest in producing an earlier condition loco, that is not what Oxford has done in this case.

 

There are a number of actual or potential issues, focussed on the pre-WW1 lined depiction of No. 2309.  As has been noted, the inclusion of the top feed means that the model must depict 2309 from 1913, and I would guess that the model is based upon a photograph of 2309 at Birmingham in April 1914 (below).

 

Contributors to this topic have, between them, spotted the following issues:

 

- The side step, between the front 2 splashers should be curved, not straight-sided for 2309.  So, this involves modifying or replacing the step and re-lining to match.

 

- The dome of 2309 at the period depicted appears to be painted, as per the then regulations, not polished brass.

 

- The chimney should be parallel and slightly taller rather than using the later cast iron taper type.  Whereas, the chimney on the model appears to be a later cast iron chimney with capuchon but painted to represent a copper top. The chimney top, but not the capuchon, should be copper (not brass). In summary, the chimney is the wrong shape and too short. New chimney or shank.

 

- The whistles are currently mounted the wrong way round!  Easy fix, but is just one of those nagging instances of a lack of attention, or care, in getting thing right on this "Deans Goods"

 

- The prototype lacks the visible plating to the firebox base in the form shown on the model.  The lower wash-out plugs are poor and the spacing is wrong.  Not an easy fix and would compromise the paint finish.

 

- The smokebox door should be the early type with the raised ring around the edge whilst the model seems to have the later one but it's a bit difficult to tell from the angle of the photo.  Potentially need to replace.

 

- There are a quantity of rivets on the smokebox of the model not present on 2309. Would need to be very carefully carved off. So it looks like the smoke box will need a repaint.

 

- The distance between the top of the cabside cut-out and the roof appears too shallow, and does not seem to represent the increased gap resulting from the slight raising of the roof to accommodate the belpaire firebox. Not an easy fix and would compromise the paint finish.

 

- It is hard to judge from the photographs  if the curve of the cabside cut-out is correct. Not an easy fix and would compromise the paint finish.

 

I raised all these matters with Oxford.  Unlike my earlier email pointing out the firebox issue, I have, on this occasion not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement. It is no doubt too late in the day to make changes.

 

From what I have seen, I fear that Oxford's definition of an accurate model is unlikely to agree with mine.  Yes, the smart lining and shiny dome will make it attractive cabinet fodder for the collector, but this is in no way an accurate model of 2309 in the condition represented.  You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.

 

Some won't mind the inaccuracies.  We all have different tolerances and different things bug us.  I hope that at least modellers will have an informed choice concerning this particular model, given the knowledge and time several topic members have contributed in order to assess this announced release. 

 

Some matters are easily cured and some may not be such huge concerns when we see the model in the flesh (or, they could be worse!), but clearly work needs to be done to render this an accurate model of its purported subject and I remain of the view that a better starting point for a pre-WW1 belpaire Dean Goods is the Mainline body on a Comet chassis.  Yes, there would need to be changes to the Mainline body, too, but I would rather do that to a second-hand body shell that captures the lines of the class well, than to a high-spec new model that purports, but fails to, represent the class member concerned. The fact that a 40-year old moulding appears to trump a new release suggests that Oxford is not yet on track.

 

In case anyone is still wondering, I won't be buying one!

It should be borne in mind that, just because one has access to a reliably dated photo of 2309, it certainly wouldn't have looked exactly like that for its entire working life.

 

It is quite feasible that Oxford could have based their model on a different (possibly later) one that isn't in the public domain. If so, maybe they will reveal it in due course.

 

The model certainly doesn't match the picture you cite as a reference and it may well be that it won't be correct for the pre-WW1 era, but AFAIK Oxford haven't claimed that it will. If they ever do, I would expect them to provide evidence to back it up.  

 

Given that some locos seem to have sported polished domes long after Swindon decreed otherwise, I'd say it's very hard to specify exactly what constitutes a "typical" Dean Goods over a century after the event. The only model that can be provably "right" or "wrong" will be one of the preserved example and there's nothing to say that it wasn't restored using parts from withdrawn classmates.

 

I agree that the old Mainline/Airfix/Hornby loco body looks more like "your" 2309 but Oxford's chassis and tender will be a huge improvement on what went before and (assuming you already own one) a hybrid seems the much easier route to a "perfect" representation based on it than building a new chassis and carving up the basic shell of the old tender and replacing the rest of it.   

 

Maybe it would be better for Oxford to market this loco in an un-numbered state, reducing any agonizing over exact detail to a choice of number by the purchaser.

 

 

John

Edited November 15, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Edwardian]

It may be that they might have had a bruising experience with a certain "adrianbs" (other experts are available) previously which turned them off seeking any sort of feedback - from anyone - in future.

 

 

As the recent US Presidential Election demonstrated, there will still be sufficient numbers voting for it.

 

Well, quite!

 

It is the being "turned off" from adequate research and bothering to get a model right that concerns me. 

 

It seems that Oxford only pursues Excellence up to a point before giving up and deciding to put its feet up and have a cup of tea while the Chinese churn out another Oxford Approximation and Excellence gets clean away

 

It should be borne in mind that, just because one has access to a reliably dated photo of 2309, it certainly wouldn't have looked exactly like that for its entire working life.

 

It is quite feasible that Oxford could have based their model on a different (possibly later) one that isn't in the public domain. If so, maybe they will reveal it in due course.

 

The model certainly doesn't match the picture you cite as a reference and it may well be that it won't be correct for the pre-WW1 era, but AFAIK Oxford haven't claimed that it will. If they ever do, I would expect them to provide evidence to back it up.  

 

Given that some locos seem to have sported polished domes long after Swindon decreed otherwise, I'd say it's very hard to specify exactly what constitutes a "typical" Dean Goods over a century after the event. The only model that can be provably "right" or "wrong" will be one of the preserved example and there's nothing to say that it wasn't restored using parts from withdrawn classmates.

 

I agree that the old Mainline/Airfix/Hornby loco body looks more like "your" 2309 but Oxford's chassis and tender will be a huge improvement on what went before and (assuming you already own one) a hybrid seems the much easier route to a "perfect" representation based on it than building a new chassis and carving up the basic shell of the old tender and replacing the rest of it.   

 

Maybe it would be better for Oxford to market this loco in an in-numbered state, reducing any agonizing over exact detail to a choice of number by the purchaser.

 

 

John

 

.

Indeed.  It would be hard to say, and no one has said, that the model of 2309 would not be accurate for any member of the class.   

 

However   ....

 

(1) Most models can only try to represent a specific locomotive for a relatively short period of service.  As others have pointed out, the top-feed means that it cannot be earlier than 1913, so the model must attempt to represent 2309 at some point between the fitting of the top feed and its next repaint, which would probably have been in unlined green.   If it had a painted dome by April 1914, the period in which it could have run with a polished dome in combination with a top-feed would be very short indeed, if it ever did.

 

(2) There are physical discrepancies between the model and the photograph that mean the model cannot be accurate unless Oxford would have us believe that 2309 ran for a time before (or after April 1914) without a raised cab (a modification generally associated with the fitting of a belpaire box), with a different smoke box and smoke box door, without the curved steps originally fitted, and with an anachronistic chimney. 

 

(3) Given these issues, it must be unlikely that the model is in anyway representative of the condition of any Dean Goods before the Great War. 

 

I suspect that arguing for this model to be regarded as accurate would be rather like listening to Mr Blair justifying the Iraq War, though obviously infinitely more trivial and far less depressing.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Edwardian

[coachmann]

Speaking with my old world hat on I would simply say this, it is a r-t-r GWR Dean Goods. A railway modeller would look at it and consider whether it is of any use to him, or could it be modified.  It is how railway modellers always viewed RTR.  End of story.

[Edwardian]

Speaking with my old world hat on I would simply say this, it is a r-t-r GWR Dean Goods. A railway modeller would look at it and consider whether it is of any use to him, or could it be modified.  It is how railway modellers always viewed RTR.  End of story.

 

Indeed, with that in mind, as I mentioned earlier, I would not view it as the preferred basis for a belpaire Dean.  I would think the Mainline body with a new chassis to be a better bet.

 

Where I see the Oxford Fail Dean Goods as of potential use is in providing a motorised chassis for more drastic treatments, round top fire-boxes, domeless boilers etc.  OOB it's useless. 

[Craigw]

If the Oxford Rail model is based on 2516, then it is scarcely suprising that it is not accurate for a model of 2309. To break things down from the instructions of the Martin Finney kit (available to download on the Brassmasters site):

 

2301-2450 - narrow footplate

2451-2580 - wide footplate

 

2301-2360 - Different cab cut out and different front and upper rear steps. Straight reversing rod with 2381-2580 having a curved one.

 

2491-2580 - fluted rods, with 2301 - 2490 having plain rods.

 

As you can see, it is impossible to represent 2309 in any condition - or any loco numbered below 2451 at all if the model is based on 2516.

 

If you want complete accuracy, or to represent a wider range of locos, then build the Brassmasters kit.

 

The Oxford rail model is not useless, you are asking it to be something it isn't

 

Regards,

 

Craig  W

[Edwardian]

 

The Oxford rail model is not useless, you are asking it to be something it isn't

 

 

 

No, Oxford is asking it's tooling to be something it isn't.

 

If Oxford wants to be a credible model, not toy, manufacturer, it should produce accurate models.

 

Clearly you understand that the model is inaccurate, so quite why you take issue here is unclear. Are you saying that you want an inaccurate model?  Or that an inaccurate model is a good thing?

 

Or are you perhaps suggesting that the market should simply accept an inaccurate model?  Your stance seems unclear. 

 

So, again, no: I am merely asking the model to be what it purports to be; the "2309" model simply does not do what it says on the tin, so, save as a basis for butchery, it is useless, though other issues like frame widths and what appear to be over-sized splashers might make it beyond the skill of even the surgeons to save.

 

Why the availability of a brass kit should relieve Oxford of any need to have regard to the accuracy of its models, or to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the details match the locomotive it purports to represent, is unclear.  I don't think it does.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Edwardian

[Horsetan]

*makes mental note to add Finney Dean Goods to kit collection*

[Mikkel]

My bet is that 2309 is just any old number, picked from the number range at random.

[JSpencer]

 

 

 

 it is useless, though other issues like frame widths and what appear to be over-sized splashers might make it beyond the skill of even the surgeons to save.

 

.

 

Though I follow most of what you say, I will say that oversized splashers and (narrow) frame widths are a function necessity in order to get the model to run on OO gauge trackwork which is closer spaced and uses tighter curves than the real world.

 

All manufacturers are forced into this functional compromise and it tends to stand out a lot more on the smaller, tighter, more ornate pre-grouping designs. I know Rapido are having to be extremely creative for the Stirling single. 

 

The only way around that is for people to build exact scale track work, made to extremely high standards matching exactly the tolerances of the real world scaled down! Very few people are capable of that and I'm not one of them nor intend to push my skills to that point.