National Collection in Miniature Dean Goods Class No 2516

[Fat Lieutenant]

I imagine it will appear in plain Oxford box in ordinary finish in the not too distant future. This one not for me though.

 

I think we have this model, in effect, in an ordinary Oxford box because we have a plain green inter-war model announced in the form of number 2475: http://www.oxfordrail.com/76/OR76DG003.htm.  . 

 

So, the extra cost of the Locomotion edition gives you the wooden box, the "high gloss finish" and the right to use the 2516 number plate,  Etched plates are available, so, I would guess, you could just as easily make a 2515 from Oxford's cardboard box version?

 

The problem seems to be that the Locomotion 2516 does not have an accurate cab for this prototype.  See the comparison posted by Miss Prism and Edwardian's pictures.  Though not a GW man, tooled up with the right books, I can Google as well as the next man.  The pictures of the class make me think that the standard range 2475 is inaccurate for the same reason.   At least this is so with the previous one in the sequence, 2474, and all the others I have managed to find.

 

Unless the Locomotion model has different tooling from the standard Oxford range, and the drawings in the OP suggest not, the limited edition model will be no more accurate a representation of the class than the standard model.

 

The accuracy issues with various Oxford releases are well documented.   I am not convinced that Oxford is a suitable partner for Locomotion in general, based on the standards it has worked to so far.  This model, in particular, appears to have issues.

 

While up for a 1920s Dean Goods to supplement Premier Line stuff, I do not see Oxford as a good bet.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Fat Lieutenant

[Quarryscapes]

SO it's just another repaint of the poor Oxford model them, wearing a livery that does not match the details. I'm out. If it was actually modelled om it's railtour or as preserved days it would have been much more interesting as it was a GWR green loco with BR smokebox number and shedplate, and a Cambrian stalwart, then I may have been more tempted.  

[Edwardian]

Hmm.  I confess that I posted my first post on this topic before Mr Y had added the line drawings/or I had noticed he had.

 

These drawings resemble the standard Oxford Dean. 

 

It seems to me that a number of the 'howlers' that afflict the attempt to represent the pre-WW1 2309 with this tooling are not issues with these inter-war versions.  I am grateful to Fat Lieutenant for the picture of 2474.  I note that, in common with 2516, the rivets run round the smoke-box as they do on the Oxford model.  The straight step is appropriate for these models, as is the chimney. 

 

This left two major issues with the Oxford tooling that rendered it just wrong for, dare I say, pretty much the whole class.  The first was the horrible firebox crease, which does seem to have been improved.  When I emailed Oxford about this, they claimed to have been unaware of the issue.  They do seem to have made changes, however.  This suggests to me that Oxford is not checking these issues carefully enough, and in the past had uncritically accepted the interpretation of the data by the designer/Chinese factory.  I hope their processes will improve.  More care - much more care - is needed in order to avoid such unnecessary mistakes.

 

The second major inaccuracy is that illustrated best by Miss Prism.  The gap between the cab cut-out and roof is far too narrow.  This appears to result in the cut-out being too high, or, rather, stretched vertically, which softens the severity of the return curve towards the roof.  

 

If it were not for this mistake with the cab, I think the Oxford Dean might pass muster for some of the inter war Deans at various points, but I do not believe that any class member had a cabside that resembled this profile, and the subject of Locomotion's model certainly does not.

 

With a couple of books (neither of which I have - I just relied on Russell and my own 2014 snaps of the prototype) , or, simply, a Google image search,  we can all of us check and see that the cab is wrong. Really, I cannot think what the "NRM Curators" were doing when they passed this.

 

Locomotion could do itself and the rest of us a signal service if it were to insist upon a re-tooling of the cab.  If it did, we would not only have an accurate limited edition model, but Oxford could save its Grouping and BR era standard range models.

 

Then I could buy one!

 

We can only hope!

 

I really want the National Collection in Miniature range to thrive and expand.  I really want Oxford to get its act together and be the new manufacturer it could be, with interesting releases that fill up useful gaps.  I think it is really in the best interests of both, however, not to push a sub-standard and inaccurate model onto the public.  I have read several posts excusing Oxford's inaccurate models by referring to their 'Railroad' range pricing.  My own view is that this is no excuse as it would have cost no more to make an accurate model in these instances than it did to make an inaccurate one.  However, this excuse clearly falls down in the case of a premium priced limited edition.

 

Please, please, can Locomotion pause and insist upon Oxford getting this right? 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Edwardian

[The Stationmaster]

Sandra - if you're still looking in on this thread - note also that on the Oxford model the whistles are the wrong way round.  At least that's a simple one to correct (assuming the holes in the cab roof are the same size).

 

Alas, due to an awkward health issue, I won't be at the Warley show this weekend and in any case this one doesn't really interest me due to its various errors.  However I suspect a certain item which I guess might be in Bill's luggage could be much more interesting so I look forward to seeing pics  of that appearing on the 'net very soon.

[Miss Prism]

Dear Mr Locomotion

 

The GWR always found it somewhat inconvenient to put washout plugs behind handrails.

 

And I suspect that 2516 might still have its ashpan, but no doubt the expert curators at the NRM can confirm this.

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Miss Prism

[Mad Carew Too]

I hate to appear critical - these initiatives are very much to be welcomed and encouraged - but I too would hope that Locomotion and Oxford take time to get this right.  There might have been a Dean Goods or two that had such a cab profile, but it is neither representative of the class as a whole in this condition, nor is it correct for 2516.

 

This is a Grouping era release,so, should give Oxford fewer problems. Frankly, I've given up on UK outline pre-Grouping, as it's simply not supported and Oxford's tooling is really no good for trying to represent the lined out 2309.  It seems that adherents of earlier periods are expected to put up with anything a manufacturer cares to produce, however wrong, or sent away to build something themselves.  Imagine if BR modellers were still given that stark choice.  It would be like living in the 1970s again!

 

Anyhoo .... Oxford's tooling caters for the Grouping era Dean, and from what I gather 2516 would have resembled this condition by the mid 1930s.  It ought to be the case, then, that Locomotion has the basis of an accurate model. 

 

It seems clear from the various photographs that, sadly, they don't!  What a very great pity.  I do hope Locomotion and Oxford can get their heads together to sort this out!

 

The other National Collection in Miniature releases I have seen have been superb, and an RTR model of the Dean Goods would be A Very Good Thing - but only if they get it right!!!!

[BG John]

At least in the 1970s what was available was cheaper, so much more affordable to do violent bashing to, to produce a reasonable model that looked better than most of what was available. Even kits in those days didn't have luxuries like brake gear and other underframe details, so a reasonably competent modeller had a chance to produce something that looked outstanding. Today, the models that look outstanding seem to be the mass produced ones with all the inaccuracies, and only a highly skilled modeller has a chance to get it right, and match the finish.

[Edwardian]

Dear Mr Locomotion

 

The GWR always found it somewhat inconvenient to put washout plugs behind handrails.

 

And I suspect that 2516 might still have its ashpan, but no doubt the experts curators at the NRM can confirm this.

 

dean-goods-locomotion-washout-plugs.png

 

Well, if per Oxford's drawing, it is certainly wrong.  Pictured below is the fire-box on 2309 (the lined supposedly pre-WW1 version).  Here it is, perhaps, unclear whether, when viewed on the level, the wash-out plugs would disappear behind the hand rail.

 

The full length profile picture was taken from Oxford's website, and is of their standard/card-board box range inter-war version.  I confess, I cannot make out the upper plugs.

 

Finally, here is a picture of Mainline's version of No. 2516.  It is in some regards more accurate than Oxford's!!!!  Not only are the wash out plugs above the handrail, but look at the distance between the cab roof line and the cut-out.  Much closer to the photographs of the original.  Not bad for a 40-year old tooling. 

 

But, (don't tell Mike) the whistles on the Mainline model are also the wrong way round!

 

Odd that both manufacturers should get that wrong, given that they are the correct way round on the original. 

 

EDIT: Picture of the real thing (with intervening child ruthlessly cropped!) in case anyone should doubt that, on the real thing, the wash out plugs were, in fact, accessible! 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Edwardian

[Coppercap]

Well, if per Oxford's drawing, it is certainly wrong. Pictured below is the smoke-box on 2309

 

I always thought the smokebox was the bit at the front, with the round door thingy, under the chimney (as that's where the smoke is emitted from). I'm sure you meant to say firebox. I might be wrong though...

 

; -)

Edited November 24, 2016 by Coppercap

[The Stationmaster]

I hate to appear critical - these initiatives are very much to be welcomed and encouraged - but I too would hope that Locomotion and Oxford take time to get this right.  There might have been a Dean Goods or two that had such a cab profile, but it is neither representative of the class as a whole in this condition, nor is it correct for 2516.

 

This is a Grouping era release,so, should give Oxford fewer problems. Frankly, I've given up on UK outline pre-Grouping, as it's simply not supported and Oxford's tooling is really no good for trying to represent the lined out 2309.  It seems that adherents of earlier periods are expected to put up with anything a manufacturer cares to produce, however wrong, or sent away to build something themselves.  Imagine if BR modellers were still given that stark choice.  It would be like living in the 1970s again!

 

 

 

It's slightly different from that in that it isn't 'a Grouping era' release but by it's very title 'National Collection In Miniature' is being marketed as a model of something which exists now, as it is now, as part of the National collection.  In the same way the the 'King' represented the engine in its current, museum, condition, this model is representing this particular Dean Goods in its current museum condition - or should be.  Thus, unlike a model of even the Grouped era (let along the Pre-Grouped), we can actually go and stand alongside the real thing and take notes or photos and even post the latter in this thread (as has already been done) to compare what purports to be a model of the engine in its current preserved state with the real thing.  

 

I think we can all reasonably cheerfully accept compromises made to suit manufacturing requirements or to get the right strength etc into a working model and we know that can have an impact on some components and proportions.  But some things need not be dealt with in that way and can be modelled, even for mass production, with quite a high level of fidelity using contemporary methods of capturing detail and dimensions etc and using the electronic tools available to finesse design prior to any tooling taking place.  It's always case that care needs to taken, and much time spent in checking, during that phase of development in order to try to get things right before metal is cut but there is then a further stage available for checking using the early prototypes built from the first runs testing both the tooling and assembly of components.  All of that adds time to the development cycle and it costs money but that is the way to get things right.  And in this particular case if there is any doubt it is simplicity itself to look at the real thing and compare it with what is coming from the factory; it's in a museum so it won't be going anywhere and it is even going to be dismantled for overhaul.

 

I chopped off the end of Mad Carew's post in order to pick up the right quote but he was absolutely right in what he said about earlier 'National Collection in Miniature' releases (of which I too have a number) and they have generally become established as a recognised brand with a particular (good) reputation and market caché.  The market caché might well apply to this model as many prospective purchasers will neither recognise, nor perhaps care about, what some of us see as shortcomings; but will it help maintain the reputation unless those very obvious errors are put right?

Edited November 24, 2016 by The Stationmaster

[Dunsignalling]

Do you guys really think ripping this model to pieces on-line will result in the r-t-r trade rushing to offer the pre-group modeller something better? 

 

If it fails to sell, it may just confirm their prejudices. The next r-t-r pre-group loco may have nothing to criticise, not because it's perfect but because it's nothing......

 

The tender attached to this loco looks much better than the Mainline one (especially by not having huge exposed cogs visible underneath it) and the mechanical aspects will be on a different planet.

 

Wouldn't the logical thing be to get one and fit your preferred Mainline loco body to it?

 

John

Edited November 24, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Edwardian]

I always thought the smokebox was the bit at the front, with the round door thingy, under the chimney (as that's where the smoke is emitted from). I'm sure you meant to say fire box. I might be wrong though...

 

; -)

 

Fair enough.  And apologies for a  fit of mental aberration worthy of an Oxford Rail designer, or, dare I say, a NRM curator?!?

[Edwardian]

Do you guys really think ripping this model to pieces on-line will result in the r-t-r trade rushing to offer the pre-group modeller something better? 

 

If it fails to sell, it may just confirm their prejudices. The next r-t-r pre-group loco may have nothing to criticise, not because it's perfect but because it's nothing......

 

The tender attached to this loco looks much better than the Mainline one (especially by not having huge exposed cogs visible underneath it) and the mechanical aspects will be on a different planet.

 

Wouldn't the logical thing be to get one and fit your preferred Mainline loco body to it?

 

John

 

Well, John, I'm pretty sure that not saying anything won't lead to us being offered anything better!

 

Pointing out mistakes pre-release in the hope that they might be corrected, or, at least, not perpetuated, is a reasonable thing to do.  At the very least, the potential purchaser may make a more informed choice.

 

Or would you prefer a less well-informed consumer?

 

We all want to see this manufacturer do better.  That is all.

[BG John]

Do you guys really think ripping this model to pieces on-line will result in the r-t-r trade rushing to offer the pre-group modeller something better?

The pre-group modellers have given up on it already! The latest round of comments relate to its current condition. Haven't you seen the outcry about errors on other models of locos as they appear now, or in recent years?

[Dunsignalling]

The pre-group modellers have given up on it already! The latest round of comments relate to its current condition. Haven't you seen the outcry about errors on other models of locos as they appear now, or in recent years?

Yes, and more than one diesel model might have been cancelled but for the development costs already incurred following heavy-handed (and not always fully justified) criticism of some Bachmann locos that were bandied around in that area of the hobby.

 

It is noticeable that Hornby have never seriously bothered to challenge Bachmann on any of the commonest non-steam classes apart from the 08. Just not worth the candle?

 

John

Edited November 24, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Edwardian]

It's slightly different from that in that it isn't 'a Grouping era' release but by it's very title 'National Collection In Miniature' is being marketed as a model of something which exists now, as it is now, as part of the National collection.  In the same way the the 'King' represented the engine in its current, museum, condition, this model is representing this particular Dean Goods in its current museum condition - or should be.  Thus, unlike a model of even the Grouped era (let along the Pre-Grouped), we can actually go and stand alongside the real thing and take notes or photos and even post the latter in this thread (as has already been done) to compare what purports to be a model of the engine in its current preserved state with the real thing.  

 

I think we can all reasonably cheerfully accept compromises made to suit manufacturing requirements or to get the right strength etc into a working model and we know that can have an impact on some components and proportions.  But some things need not be dealt with in that way and can be modelled, even for mass production, with quite a high level of fidelity using contemporary methods of capturing detail and dimensions etc and using the electronic tools available to finesse design prior to any tooling taking place.  It's always case that care needs to taken, and much time spent in checking, during that phase of development in order to try to get things right before metal is cut but there is then a further stage available for checking using the early prototypes built from the first runs testing both the tooling and assembly of components.  All of that adds time to the development cycle and it costs money but that is the way to get things right.  And in this particular case if there is any doubt it is simplicity itself to look at the real thing and compare it with what is coming from the factory; it's in a museum so it won't be going anywhere and it is even going to be dismantled for overhaul.

 

I chopped off the end of Mad Carew's post in order to pick up the right quote but he was absolutely right in what he said about earlier 'National Collection in Miniature' releases (of which I too have a number) and they have generally become established as a recognised brand with a particular (good) reputation and market caché.  The market caché might well apply to this model as many prospective purchasers will neither recognise, nor perhaps care about, what some of us see as shortcomings; but will it help maintain the reputation unless those very obvious errors are put right?

 

I believe I am in the happy position of agreeing entirely with both Mike and Mad Carew.

 

It is an 'as preserved' model, but it appears to use exactly the same tooling as the standard range Grouping era model (no. 2475).  The differences appear to be the number, the brass safety valve bonnet (and possibly the beading on the cab front). 

 

So far as the errors concerning the cab-side and the wash-out plug location are concerned, the tooling does not represent either 2516 or 2475 accurately.

 

Considering they had 2516 to work from, and the special edition was vetted by the "NRM curators", it is surprising that the model will apparently not resemble the prototype in these respects.

 

 

Yes, and more than one diesel model might have been cancelled but for the development costs already incurred following heavy-handed (and not always fully justified) criticism of some Bachmann locos that were bandied around in that area of the hobby.

 

 

 

Yes, and if anyone here was making an unjustified criticism, you might have a point! 

 

Locomotion should be jealous of the quality of its commissions.  It should be alive to the need for a reasonable degree of accuracy.

 

Oxford, which has, to date had every single one of its steam age releases criticised, mainly for their inaccuracy, should, frankly, have learnt to take more care. 

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that Locomotion did not do proper due diligence on Oxford.  

 

You can view the process of 'pre-reviewing' a model based upon the released data negatively if you will, but I think that providing information to support a manufacturer and encourage the production of more accurate (or less inaccurate!) models is a good thing.

 

Let us assume that manufacturers think that there are only two extremes of modellers; RTR ignoramuses who will uncritically accept anything put before them, and finescale fanatics who won't accept anything because they're building it in P4.  To the extent they are correct, they should crack on and give us mere approximations of the prototype. 

 

Most of us, I suspect, are somewhere between the two and we care about the accuracy of RTR.  RTR is more detailed, better engineered, better painted and more expensive than ever before.  Why should it not be accurate, where such accuracy is readily achievable?  What is the point of engineering models to this standard if you are going to plague them with avoidable cosmetic mistakes?

 

We cannot own or read all the data on every class we might like to run on a layout.  I certainly rely upon information and pointers given by others, so that I can make an informed choice.  I cannot do so where contributors are bullied or harangued into silence because of some misguided notion that manufacturers will take offence and cease all production in favour of manufacturing deck chairs or potato peelers. 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Edwardian

[Legend]

Clearly there are some Deans Goods experts on here. Also agree that manufacturers should get it right. The smokebox issue needs correcting, which I believe Oxford are doing. Can't say there's anything else dramatically putting me off. So I suspect that while there will be a few holding out for the ultimate Deans Goods, lots more of us will be quite happy to buy the model as it is. Do you not think you are in danger of going a wee bit over the top here guys. .

[Ian Hargrave]

Clearly there are some Deans Goods experts on here. Also agree that manufacturers should get it right. The smokebox issue needs correcting, which I believe Oxford are doing. Can't say there's anything else dramatically putting me off. So I suspect that while there will be a few holding out for the ultimate Deans Goods, lots more of us will be quite happy to buy the model as it is. Do you not think you are in danger of going a wee bit over the top here guys. .

I feel deeply saddened and disturbed by the emotive language I have read here. I posted on the Oxford Rail thread on the matter a little earlier so I won't repeat it .Please tone it down gents.

[Edwardian]

Clearly there are some Deans Goods experts on here. Also agree that manufacturers should get it right. The smokebox issue needs correcting, which I believe Oxford are doing. Can't say there's anything else dramatically putting me off. So I suspect that while there will be a few holding out for the ultimate Deans Goods, lots more of us will be quite happy to buy the model as it is. Do you not think you are in danger of going a wee bit over the top here guys. .

 

As I have myself conceded, we each will have our own tolerances in relation to what will or will not put us off.  I entirely respect the fact that you have made your own decision.  For me, it is not about the ultimate Dean Goods.  A Dean Goods without basic, eminently avoidable, errors would do for me.  There are a number of little issues that I believe that I could overlook, but I suspect that the problems with the cab will not be ones that I can overlook, because it means that the model fails to capture the essential look of the prototype.  For me, that is.  Others are free to make their own choice.  Given the various contributions on the two topics, I believe this is a more informed choice than might otherwise have been the case.

 

 

I feel deeply saddened and disturbed by the emotive language I have read here. I posted on the Oxford Rail thread on the matter a little earlier so I won't repeat it .Please tone it down gents.

 

I was thinking as I drove home, we do need to avoid raised temperatures.  It really is not necessary.  As soon as we start to become partisan, for or against a given model, we will lose objectivity and miss the point.  This is supposed to be an informed and intelligent critique, not a slanging match.

[amdaley]

As I have myself conceded, we each will have our own tolerances in relation to what will or will not put us off.  I entirely respect the fact that you have made your own decision.  For me, it is not about the ultimate Dean Goods.  A Dean Goods without basic, eminently avoidable, errors would do for me.  There are a number of little issues that I believe that I could overlook, but I suspect that the problems with the cab will not be ones that I can overlook, because it means that the model fails to capture the essential look of the prototype.  For me, that is.  Others are free to make their own choice.  Given the various contributions on the two topics, I believe this is a more informed choice than might otherwise have been the case.

 

 

 

I was thinking as I drove home, we do need to avoid raised temperatures.  It really is not necessary.  As soon as we start to become partisan, for or against a given model, we will lose objectivity and miss the point.  This is supposed to be an informed and intelligent critique, not a slanging match.

 

I'm no expert & I'm not after perfection but the highlighted portion above says it all for me. I suspect a large majority of us would be happy with that

[JohnR]

The issue around the cabside completely affects the "look" of the model. As has been said, some errors can be over looked (they are models running on a less than standard guage for instance!), but that is fairly basic!

[LocomotionatShildon]

a busy day today at Warley, hello again to some people I have only written too or spoken to one phone -it's nice to put a face to the name! We had the ep sample of the dean goods in the cabinet and it drew lots of praise and orders to our stand.

 

I'm not a brilliant photographer and the lights weren't good but it looks like this - also please remember it's a sample and samples are made so we get things right. If something needs tweaking it will be tweaked as best as we possibly can.

[bgman]

a busy day today at Warley, hello again to some people I have only written too or spoken to one phone -it's nice to put a face to the name! We had the ep sample of the dean goods in the cabinet and it drew lots of praise and orders to our stand.

I'm not a brilliant photographer and the lights weren't good but it looks like this - also please remember it's a sample and samples are made so we get things right. If something needs tweaking it will be tweaked as best as we possibly can.

Tweet away mon brave ! Please

[Quarryscapes]

Hmm, improvements have been made to the fir ebox and chimney which are most welcome. Get the correct cab profile and correct smokebox door (that one is totally wrong) on there and we may have some converts to the cause, including me.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Quarryscapes

[Mad Carew Too]

Please do not forget that, as I believe the photographs conclusively show, the hand rail runs right in front of the upper washout plugs!   Not only is this incorrect for 2516 (see Edwardian's very clear photograph), but is an obvious absurdity!

 

Mistakes in minor detail we can take or leave, but this issue creates an engineering impossibility; an engine built with inaccessible washout plugs!

 

I am glad to hear that it is not too late for tweaks; best of luck with them!