National Collection in Miniature Dean Goods Class No 2516

[Roy Langridge]

Your post, Edwardian, sums up the situation nicely and also addresses why I get so fed up. An OO model will always be a compromise yet what is acceptable to one is not to another. It is why we get such vociferous comments from some who either do not see the need for compromise, or that the compromise is not where they think it should be.

 

Go and look at a real loco, diesel, steam or electric and look at what is really there. Then think about how that can be replicated in OO, in many cases it can't. I can't get my fingers between the drivers of a 9F and the frames, yet it goes round a corner? How can that be? The frames flex. Can we recreate that in mainstream RTR OO model? No. Some of the metalwork is only 1/2" or 3/4" thick, roughly 0.2mm in OO, that will never work, but as soon as it is made thicker something else is out or proportion.

 

So what do we do? Somehow we have to accept that a model will never be 100% accurate (and therefore my previous statement that alarmed some that there is no point trying to achieve that) and accept that from day 1 of the design the manufacturers will know the constraints that they have to work within. From then on it is, as you say, a balancing act between compromises.

 

What we do need is to be more tolerant of these compromises and, perhaps, be more coordinated in our approach to what compromises we are prepared to accept? Your splasher / subsequent wheel diameter is a good example. If we could have consensus amongst ourselves as to which was more important to be right or that half/half was what we want, that may help us get it. At the moment for every person that complains the splasher is to big, there will be one that wants the wheels at the right diameter.

 

Roy

[Edwardian]

Your post, Edwardian, sums up the situation nicely and also addresses why I get so fed up. An OO model will always be a compromise yet what is acceptable to one is not to another. It is why we get such vociferous comments from some who either do not see the need for compromise, or that the compromise is not where they think it should be.

 

Go and look at a real loco, diesel, steam or electric and look at what is really there. Then think about how that can be replicated in OO, in many cases it can't. I can't get my fingers between the drivers of a 9F and the frames, yet it goes round a corner? How can that be? The frames flex. Can we recreate that in mainstream RTR OO model? No. Some of the metalwork is only 1/2" or 3/4" thick, roughly 0.2mm in OO, that will never work, but as soon as it is made thicker something else is out or proportion.

 

So what do we do? Somehow we have to accept that a model will never be 100% accurate (and therefore my previous statement that alarmed some that there is no point trying to achieve that) and accept that from day 1 of the design the manufacturers will know the constraints that they have to work within. From then on it is, as you say, a balancing act between compromises.

 

What we do need is to be more tolerant of these compromises and, perhaps, be more coordinated in our approach to what compromises we are prepared to accept? Your splasher / subsequent wheel diameter is a good example. If we could have consensus amongst ourselves as to which was more important to be right or that half/half was what we want, that may help us get it. At the moment for every person that complains the splasher is to big, there will be one that wants the wheels at the right diameter.

 

Roy

 

Thanks, Roy.

 

I believe this is a genuine conundrum, probably without a perfect solution, and it will be interesting to see how it is tackled.  I'm glad that came across in my post.

[57xx]

I note the following on the Locomotion website:

 

12/5/17 Update on Progress with Dean Goods Model

The design changes we have requested are underway and we have now seen the first pictures of the newly tooled cab with the correct profile, and new improved detail. Further work is still ongoing ....

 

http://www.locomotionmodels.com/update.htm

 

That is good news.  As anyone following the main Oxford Dean Goods topic will know, there was an awful lot wrong with the model aside from the completely off cab, so curing everything is a "big ask", yet we can but, and should, hope for the best.

 

Portraying 2516 for the period 1928-34, as I believe was the intention, has its own challenges. In any event, we may yet get a decent generic inter-war DG out of this process.  If we do, I suspect that will be down to the NRM; Oxford had seemingly pulled the shutters down in the face of criticism and, of course, critiquing RTR models can be something of a death wish round here .... ! 

 

Still, if we get a good result, that will be the main thing.

 

Sounds like NRM may have give the swift kick up the jacksy that Oxford needed to get their act together. Looking forward to seeing the results.

[The Black Hat]

Thanks, Roy.

 

I believe this is a genuine conundrum, probably without a perfect solution, and it will be interesting to see how it is tackled.  I'm glad that came across in my post.

 

Never fear! I'm here to help.

 

As your from the land of the Prince Bishops too you can go and get yourself a nice Hornby Q6! Its a classic engine, locally suited and will be able to out haul your Dean goods any day of the week. Failing that it could be a banker and push Western train and engine if needed with no fuss.

 

Then Locomotion and their NCiM can get on with ordering a Q7...

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...What we do need is to be more tolerant of these compromises and, perhaps, be more coordinated in our approach to what compromises we are prepared to accept? Your splasher / subsequent wheel diameter is a good example. If we could have consensus amongst ourselves as to which was more important to be right or that half/half was what we want, that may help us get it. At the moment for every person that complains the splasher is to big, there will be one that wants the wheels at the right diameter...

 Something of a pipe dream of mine that, some accepted guiding principles to deliver consistency between makers on the necessary compromises applied. Sadly the UK has never managed to win acceptance for such ideas from the crucial businesses that make RTR product. The compromises on wheel diameter and overscale flanges to enable the model wheelset to fit within externally constant scale appearance body work, is a key area where it would be helpful to have a consistent approach; as different approaches result in consequent effects that make models visually incompatible. (A good example the different body shell overall shape of the Bachmann class 55 and Heljan DP2:: EE built DP2 within a production class 55 body shell so in external overall shape they should be identical within manufacturing tolerances.)

[Edwardian]

Never fear! I'm here to help.

 

As your from the land of the Prince Bishops too you can go and get yourself a nice Hornby Q6! Its a classic engine, locally suited and will be able to out haul your Dean goods any day of the week. Failing that it could be a banker and push Western train and engine if needed with no fuss.

 

Then Locomotion and their NCiM can get on with ordering a Q7...

 

Fair point.  I think many NE prototypes are overdue for RTR consideration.

 

I was glad to see that GE has done well in recent years, but it is now surely the NER's turn.

 

As for a Q6, or T2, it's a tad modern for me, but if the National Collection would care to produce the Tennant 2-4-0 ... they will have at least one guaranteed sale!

[drduncan]

Perhaps the problem with working out what are acceptable compromises for manufacturers is the lack of a single voice representing us and that could convene working groups to come up with a heretic list of acceptable areas for compromise- assuming such a thing is possible. We do not have an equivalent to the US NMRA which has done so much to enforce standards on producers. One cannot help compare this with the dissipation of impact over here with each scale/gauge combination having its own specialist society with a resulting reduction in ability to speak for even one scale, for example 4mm, let alone the whole UK hobby.

 

As a 4mm scale finescale modeller it is a pipe dream of mine that one day we will have just one 4mm finescale society that represents all working to such holistic standards irrespective of what gauge they use. Finescale is after all an approach, a state of mind, not a track gauge.

drduncan

[LocomotionatShildon]

Website now updated with latest pics of our dean goods model

http://www.locomotionmodels.com

[Edwardian]

Website now updated with latest pics of our dean goods model

http://www.locomotionmodels.com

 

Well, it would help if the chimney was on the right way around.

 

Though at least the whistles are now the right way around.

 

It is difficult to judge certain things from this unnaturally elevated angle, but it does look as if the handrail now sits below the firebox wash-out plugs, so that's one tick.

 

From this angle it is hard to judge the relative size of the splashers, so the jury is still out on that one, but doesn't this sample still have rivets on the face of the splashers?  If it does, this is wrong. 

 

Not at all sure about that moulded number plate and its proximity to the rear splasher.

 

The most obvious change is the cab.  Even from this angle it is clear that the cut-out scoop is very different.  Pleasingly, we can clearly see the extra depth between the top of the cut-out and the roof, a result of raising the roof when the belpaire firebox was added.

 

EDIT:  I note the comment "Photo for reference only the model will not represent No.2516 in this condition"

Edited May 26, 2017 by Edwardian

[57xx]

Website now updated with latest pics of our dean goods model

http://www.locomotionmodels.com

 

Any chance of a lower level side on shot?

[No Decorum]

The handrail stanchions still appear to be horizontal.

[bertiedog]

Retooling? and they can't even bother to put the handrail knobs on radially ........

[Coppercap]

Chimney's on back to front too! 

[GWR8700]

Given the wait, I'm surprised there are still so many errors.  A bit disappointing tbh

[Clearwater]

Splasher detail from my last trip to a much diminished Mecca:

[Clearwater]

To be fair to Locomotion and Oxford, I could live with it not being in "museum condition" if

A) there was not a mannequin stuck to the side

B) there isn't a 10 foot separation to the tender

C) there isn't a plastic sign on the side saying "Please do not climb on this vehicle"

 

David

[Horsetan]

I don't suppose the Adams T3 will be appearing in the NCiM series any time.....

[bertiedog]

It seems the washout plugs are accessible due to the use of the plastic non radial handrail knobs lowering the line slightly, but it beggars the question of whether the basic handrail line is correct or not.

 

This is one of the dead give aways that something is amiss on the whole model, there are not true datum points being used to cross check dimensions, and it comes from the use of CAD programs which appear to do the work for you as they compile the drawings for each view.

It comes  from relying on the corrections in the CAD code that allows for accumulative corrections as scaling happens.

 

Classically the design may have all the tolerances work on one side of the dimension block, and you find that although the CAD says everything is OK, the tolerances total gets added to the total and the model ends up too long.

 

CAD has got better and better, but it needs an experienced machinist to spot the problems before committing to using the CAD files to control CNC cutting out of moulds, where other tolerances also come into play.

 

Somewhere the boiler, smokebox and the fire box do not line up correctly spaced up wards from the footplate, or else , and more likely, the diameter of the smokebox is slightly wrong and places the line of the handrail in the wrong level as it runs down the boiler side. It could be as little as a fraction of a MM out, but it affects things further down the line.

 

I built masters for kits and if the various sums of dimensions from datum points did not tally with the accumulative  totals the alarm bells rang, and it was back to the drawings to re-check the work, There are no computer programs that can replace skill, what ever the computer programmers say.

 

The evidence is clear on the Deans, there are still minor mistakes that indicate reliance on the computer to do dimensioning and shape. The strengthening plates at the base of the firebox are still too thick, the knobs are hopeless, but they seem to have got the cab sorted out.

 

I cannot answer the rivets on the face of the splashers, they must be shown on one of the drawings they have, and the GWR despite being famous for standardisation, also suffered from rival works at Swindon and Wolverhampton, they delighted in altering details on servicing each others work. Also the locos were bought in from outside makers who used the outlines, but did details as they were used to doing.

 

Oxford must be getting more experienced now, surely things like the knobs can be sorted out? I know the reason, it is to save drilling the metal boiler, horizontal holes can be cast in place, radial holes must be a second machining operation.

 

It only cost pence to do, but let them save money in this way and the standards will slip backwards, when they should be moving forwards.

 

The photo also shows the slipshod attitude to showing a sample, in that the chimney is on the wrong way round, and the safety valve bonnet is ll wonky. This not "Honesty" in showing the raw product , it is pure lack of standards and cross checking

 

Nobody wants the sample picture photoshopped to death, but it should be made clear to the staff that the shots should contain no errors!

 

Stephen

[Loconuts]

It seems the washout plugs are accessible due to the use of the plastic non radial handrail knobs lowering the line slightly, but it beggars the question of whether the basic handrail line is correct or not.

 

This is one of the dead give aways that something is amiss on the whole model, there are not true datum points being used to cross check dimensions, and it comes from the use of CAD programs which appear to do the work for you as they compile the drawings for each view.

It comes  from relying on the corrections in the CAD code that allows for accumulative corrections as scaling happens.

 

Classically the design may have all the tolerances work on one side of the dimension block, and you find that although the CAD says everything is OK, the tolerances total gets added to the total and the model ends up too long.

 

CAD has got better and better, but it needs an experienced machinist to spot the problems before committing to using the CAD files to control CNC cutting out of moulds, where other tolerances also come into play.

 

Somewhere the boiler, smokebox and the fire box do not line up correctly spaced up wards from the footplate, or else , and more likely, the diameter of the smokebox is slightly wrong and places the line of the handrail in the wrong level as it runs down the boiler side. It could be as little as a fraction of a MM out, but it affects things further down the line.

 

I built masters for kits and if the various sums of dimensions from datum points did not tally with the accumulative  totals the alarm bells rang, and it was back to the drawings to re-check the work, There are no computer programs that can replace skill, what ever the computer programmers say.

 

The evidence is clear on the Deans, there are still minor mistakes that indicate reliance on the computer to do dimensioning and shape. The strengthening plates at the base of the firebox are still too thick, the knobs are hopeless, but they seem to have got the cab sorted out.

 

I cannot answer the rivets on the face of the splashers, they must be shown on one of the drawings they have, and the GWR despite being famous for standardisation, also suffered from rival works at Swindon and Wolverhampton, they delighted in altering details on servicing each others work. Also the locos were bought in from outside makers who used the outlines, but did details as they were used to doing.

 

Oxford must be getting more experienced now, surely things like the knobs can be sorted out? I know the reason, it is to save drilling the metal boiler, horizontal holes can be cast in place, radial holes must be a second machining operation.

 

It only cost pence to do, but let them save money in this way and the standards will slip backwards, when they should be moving forwards.

 

The photo also shows the slipshod attitude to showing a sample, in that the chimney is on the wrong way round, and the safety valve bonnet is ll wonky. This not "Honesty" in showing the raw product , it is pure lack of standards and cross checking

 

Nobody wants the sample picture photoshopped to death, but it should be made clear to the staff that the shots should contain no errors!

 

Stephen

 

I agree with the sentiment viewed in this post, but is it not the same with all the 'newbie' manufacturers. Errors abound with their new models because the people designing these models are inexperienced and lack knowledge of the chosen prototypes. They source information from the wrong sources, not very diligent with the information they have.

 

As an ex-designer in manufacturing the time to check things out is at the CAD stage basically as it does not cost much things right, not to do it at the EP stage when everyone is screaming it is wrong. One small supplier I know of got caught out by this, supplying photos of the first EP model which was wrong from top to bottom and did not represent the prototype. They had to go back to China and have it retooled at great cost. The second EP,s have now arrived and it still has errors, why as they had the correct information from the start of the project. The answer is they did not double check the CADS against the information they had, something engineers are trained to do.

 

In my final years of working for a living I came across the CAD Technician, these guys were wizards with CAD packages but were not Engineers, in other words they could draw you pretty pictures but could not engineer them so the item would work. They were also cheap to employ, are these the guys producing the CADS for these small manufacturers?

 

These small manufacturers should use experienced consultants who know their subject, Dapol are using Richard Webster which has resulted in a vast improvement of their newer models. There are plenty of guys around who have retired and are experts in the hobby who would no doubt like to earn a little bit of pin money advising. OK it will cost a little bit extra on the cost of the model but is much cheaper than the cost of retooling, even at Chinese rates.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Loconuts

[Quarryscapes]

Moulded on number plates? really? Yuck. Nice to see they listened about the cab, looks like they've tackled the firebox too. 

[bertiedog]

An example, a cast kit maker I made masters for commented on the lack of visible bolts around the firebox of a loco, and said there must be rivets or bolts to hold the boiler on to the frames. I explained they were not there as the boilers are not bolted to the frames and are fitted on to shelves or sliders at the rear end of the loco, the only firm bolting is at the firebox end, he asked why? ,well it is expansion, the boiler gets bigger as it heats up and the growth is taken up at the loose mounted firebox end.

 

The plate that you see on the bottom section of the Deans firebox is part of the sliding mount that the boiler rested on, and was strengthened over the years, as the day to day expansion etc., wore out the mountings. The constant heat and wet also rusted the parts, and they needed constant attention in servicing. But the plate you see on the model is only the cover pate to keep it neat, and is not as thick as Oxford portray.

 

The CAD scans or measurement read to top surface and the boiler surface and then they assume that there is no void between them and make it a thicker solid, which it is not.

 

A common CAD mistake is to assume all nuts and bolt heads are the same thickness, no, they vary, and may have a four faced bolt head or nut, but the temptation of the computer users is to punch the button that says all match and let te program place them.

 

I saw a scan being done on a loco with Leica equipment and was assured that it captured all the relevant details, but I noticed the initial drawings on the laptop showed the tank top running up hard against the boiler, a solid surface. Now on this tank engine there is a gap of two inches between the top of the water tank top and the boiler, mainly to allow rain and water to drain, but also for expansion etc., but the scan could not see the gap and the programmer assumed a solid surface.

 

In other cases it is obvious the reverse has happened on the top of Pannier tanks, where the GWR fitted covers to the gaps, making it look solid, but the scan sees and edge and makes that the joint, about two inches out of place.

 

Long before CAD, I built a Castle in O gauge for a customer, who bitterly complained that along the top of the boiler there was a seam in the cladding, and that the firebox top appeared to have been made in three pieces, with overlapping joints to the plates. The GWR, I was assured, did not make boiler cladding like that....till I showed him the photos taken of the Castle then in the Science Museum, where from the upper gallery you could see the seams and various plates that made up the cladding. I had even put in the clasps that secured the plates together, all 100% accurate...... he backed down then!

 

The point is a side scan would not show the seams or top plate of the firebox, assumptions would be made in the program that they are smooth surfaces, as the laser is blind to things it cannot reflect on, or see. It needs an experienced model engineer etc to guide the CAD designs, they are simply not perfect., and should only be used to confirm the drawings being compiled to use for the tooling.

 

A further example comes from Oxford, on the Adams radial, where flush rivets on the rim of the steam dome were interpreted as bolt heads by the cad scans. The rivet heads were not quite flush and they were shown as slightly raised, and as they were a pattern somebody made the assumption they must be bolts.

 

Never trust computers, they are limited by the programmers as to what they can do, and engineering is a minefield for bad CAD and CNC work.

 

Another example was an after market set of "castings" for the pair of plates that connect up the Harley Davidson Steering column. They took six months to design, all engraved, well finished and made by CNC from aircraft grade solid duralamin........except the centre lines of the forks did not line up by 1.3 mm. The original had been scanned and somebody had forgotten to correct for parallax in the scan. Thousands had been made that had to be scrapped.

 

The shovel maybe the prefect design, but you find idiots that can mess up even shovelling.

 

I wonder if the fuss about the handrail knobs came from a miss interpreted scan view, after the knob hides the stem from the scan, and a parallel design corresponds with what the laser sees. The radial mount could just show a fraction in the scan, but would be dismissed by the complier of the drawing files. It suits the Chinese to make them parallel as it can be moulded in metal, rather than drilled, and some US designs have parallel knobs anyway, which the Chinese may have seen.

 

But it seems nobody at Oxford is an "expert" (I am not!), when it needs a team to check things, built 4x real size models to see problems that the scans do not see. I think that Oxford do a good job on the die cast stuff they make, they have the expertise, but it is sadly adrift at present on railways.

 

Stephen

[bertiedog]

The shot shows the reality, a cover plate that is about 1/8th inch thick steel plate is portrayed as a solid 1/2 inch thick slab of steel. This plate did vary all over the place after services, but not in thickness, and most models treat it as flush as it would be 1000/8= 125/76 =1.644 thou thick.

 

 

Also the shot shows rivets on the footplate surface near the vertical face of the splasher, and I wonder if the laser interpreted them as on the vertical face as the laser shadow would have been? In other words phantom rivets, only present in the cad files.

 

Stephen

[LocomotionatShildon]

Update on Dean Goods

 

 

The pictures show the latest sample, which was sent July 2017.

Due to further quality improvements on the last samples we have received from the manufacturers there will be a delay in delivering to the UK.
 

The new estimated time of arrival will now be late summer.
We are aware this may cause you a lot of frustration, however we are working with the manufacturer to maintain high quality production. They will in turn keep us updated on the progress and date of release. The Dean Goods is going to be a great model and there is still time to pre-order your very own model via the links below.

We will be in touch with everybody as soon as we have firm update on the delivery.

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by LocomotionatShildon

[Freightliner Class 66]

that looks really beautiful. i can see it being popular.

[Andy Y]

I have had the opportunity to ask Brian Greenwood, Chairman of the Locomotion Management Board, further questions about the development of their exclusive edition of Oxford Rail's Dean Goods locomotive.
 
The pictures you have taken for us of the latest livery sample of the model show that there have been several alterations to the previously seen tooling from Oxford Rail. Can you explain how the alterations have come to be made, please?
 

Thanks Andy for the opportunity to let everyone know what has been going on with the locomotionmodels/Oxford Rail Dean Goods project. First of all, I need to say that we came to this project quite late after I had had a really productive meeting with Lyndon Davies and Tim Mulhall of Oxford Diecast/Rail in York at exactly this time last year. Both sides felt that we had an opportunity to try to do something together and we decided to go first with the Dean Goods (because it is in the National Collection) which Oxford Rail had already announced and had completed the design work for with tooling underway. The only input we had to the model, until they produced a first sample of the specific variant which we had requested, was to approve the livery charts to which they made changes at our request. Tim pulled out all of the stops and managed to get us a first sample literally just in time for Warley last year. That was the first time we had seen anything at all. Following Warley, it was clear that the sample produced had a number of issues which required correction before we felt we could release it under our NCIM brand. That request for changes was met with total professionalism and commitment from Tim and we quickly resolved a plan for an EP2. We realised that this would cause some delay but in the interests of making an even better model we thought that this was worthwhile. We have kept all of our valued customers who have pre-ordered informed of what we are doing and apologised for the delay but hoped they would understand. Almost without exception, they have and we are grateful for that. 

 
 
Specifically, what amendments have been made to your model of 2516 from the 'standard' product?
 

There were a number of issues which we raised, but we recognised that OxfordRail had a generic model of a complex class of locomotive with very many detailed variations. Our own research in the NRMSearch Engine archives of the works cards for 2516 alone, showed just how many times it had been in works and how many changes had been made. However, we wanted a specific version and that was 2516 as it had been preserved to represent the class. All of the issues which we agreed were important to be changed have been done bar one.This involved, inter alia, the complete re-tooling of the cab to reflect the correct cab-side profile, full and accurate rivet detail on the cab sheets, new cab seats in the cab interior, correction to the controls livery and correction to the whistles location. In addition, we asked for improvements to the firebox profile, a new correct smokebox door and changes to the handrail/washout plug relativity. The colour has been changed to an accurate version of GWR mid chrome green post 1928, the smokebox and tender frames have had the gloss finish removed, and the splasher tops have been changed from green to black. 

 
Are there any changes which couldn't be accommodated and, if so, what is the reasoning?
 

Yes - there is one issue which it was not economical for us to fix because it would have meant the total retooling of the body, to maintain reliability of the injection process. This is, of course, the infamous rivets on the bottom of the splashers. This mistake was caused originally by not realising that what was being seen was a reflection of the rivets on the footplate in the bottom of the splashers, rather than a riveted base. We have a limited run of only 500 pieces for the NRM and to take even part of this cost of retooling such a significant component, was totally prohibitive. We have already absorbed a shared part of the cost of re-tooling the cab with the manufacturer and this was just a step too far. It did, however, mean that we had to take the conscious decision to preserve the error on the newly tooled cab splasher so that it was consistent with the front two splashers of the locomotive. But in our view, whilst wrong, it was not so critical as to stop the model and deny all of those people who wanted to see the NRM version produced that opportunity.In any event, other than in high-resolution photographs it is barely noticeable at any reasonable distance.

 

 

Will any of those features find their way into normal production run models from Oxford?
 

That is a question you will have to put to Oxford Rail I’m afraid. I have no jurisdiction there!

 

 
This National Collection in Miniature model has other 'added value' aspects to it; can you confirm what they will be?
 

Yes our version will come in a beautiful presentation polished wooden box, limited edition signed certificate, a booklet about the Dean Goods and museum gloss finish. In actual fact the gloss is a bit more subtle than some of the photographs show which seem to have picked up a bit more reflected light than is evident in the flesh. There is also a sound version. And of course it comes with the museums usual friendly and professional service! Both versions can be pre-ordered on our website at locomtionmodels.com I would be really grateful too if I could remind people that the profits we make from our hugely successful models business is all ploughed back into what we do at Locomotion and in supporting the NRM collection. The latest practical example of that will be seen shortly with the cosmetic restoration of the class 71 by Richard Pearson and his team in the museum workshops. The models contribution has also allowed us to put on displays at Locomotion which otherwise would just not have been affordable.

 

 
When do you now expect the model to be available?
 

I can’t give a definite date on that at the moment as Tim is on holiday and I have not been able to ask him. I do need to point out though that what you are seeng is still only the latest livery sample and I have reported a small number of issues which I still want correcting - and I am confident that they will be.  All of the way through this project Oxford Rail have been responsive and professional in trying to help us to achieve the goal of getting the best possible model out of this, bearing in mind where we started and the point at which we got involved. I can tell you that this is a very well made quality model (and I’ve seen a few now as you know since we started the NCIM series some 14 years ago) and it runs very well indeed. Above all it is also a breakthrough for us and our customers on price and represents tremendous value for money. I am sure our loyal customers will be delighted with it when it finally arrives.