Edwardian Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 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. Fair points, and thank you for making them. There is bound to be an element of compromise to produce an RTR model to OO gauge, and I think we need constantly to bear that in mind and to take a fair approach. As I mentioned before, we each have our own parameters in terms of what we find acceptable, which, in itself, must be a challenge to the poor manufacturer! Having said all that, having looked at what prototype photographs I can, and studied such reading as I can, including a number of learned and informed comments on this topic, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that Oxford has dropped the ball on this one, in what seems to be part of some ghastly pattern afflicting a number of otherwise welcome and promising releases. Oxford just isn't yet at the standard it needs to be, and that's a shame. This model is a prime example of that, and, having owned a Mainline Dean Goods since childhood, I still think a tooling that is almost as old as I am captures the general look of the class in the inter-war period better than Oxford's seems likely to, and that Oxford's pre-WW1 2309 suffers from too many intractable inaccuracies to persuade me to buy one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 If there were that number of inaccuracies in a model of a modern loco, can you imagine the pages of frothing about it? We'd probably be on page 210, rather than page 21, by now. "It's over 100 years old, so no one will be bothered as long as it looks pretty" seems to sum it up pretty well. Anyway, I don't care, as my 1905 layout is too small for tender locos. The next layout will be set in the 1880s, and I want one as built, in P4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted November 17, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) 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. Problems with above-the-running-plate frame width/spacing and splasher sizes are common to all r-t-r models of small locos that actually have splashers. They have to be made wider and/or closer together to accommodate OO wheels and the frames have to be moved inwards to match. Sometimes other things have to be deliberately altered from "scale" to keep the overall appearance in proportion. Many acclaimed Bachmann and Hornby locos have similar issues as does the ex-Mainline Dean loco. Some are equally (and justifiably) criticised over chimneys, too. On the whole, the OO manufacturers do a pretty good job of making models look "right" even when they aren't. Modellers who cannot live with such things will already have moved on to P4. Most purchasers of the Oxford model will want something that looks like a Dean Goods from a couple of feet away when it is running on their layout and relatively few of them will be adherents to the pre-WW1 scene. A high proportion of those who choose the lined-out GWR version will do so because it fits the widely-accepted mythology of how GWR engines are supposed to look, rather than how they often did and the bulled-up brass dome is part of that. In short, ornately liveried models of pretty little engines have always sold well, notwithstanding detail anachronisms and the dimensional compromises that go with the OO territory. It's those customers that Oxford will be aiming to satisfy; not so much avid modellers of the GWR in the early 20th Century and even less the plus-or-minus-nowt brigade whose requirements start from a completely different place. Another (unspoken) part of the project is to bring the retail price in under £100 and every correction applied makes that less attainable. John Edited November 17, 2016 by Dunsignalling 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J C Fenton Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 If there were that number of inaccuracies in a model of a modern loco, can you imagine the pages of frothing about it? We'd probably be on page 210, rather than page 21, by now. "It's over 100 years old, so no one will be bothered as long as it looks pretty" seems to sum it up pretty well. Anyway, I don't care, as my 1905 layout is too small for tender locos. The next layout will be set in the 1880s, and I want one as built, in P4. Good point! Trot out a transition era steamer this inaccurate and there would be howls from across the modelling nation! I have followed this thread with attention, and mugged up as best I can. Some of these problems might be engineering compromises, but others are either inaccuracies in the body tooling (firebox, cab) or details incorrect for the Lot or date represented (steps, chimney, smokebox). These tooling errors are avoidable. If it added £10 to the model but resulted in an accurate model, that would have been a happier outcome. I just don't see the point of developing a new model and making it worse than it reasonably could be. If this is the standard of accuracy we are asked to accept when we do get a pre-Grouping model, truly the RTR modeller of these eras is stuffed! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 17, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 17, 2016 Good point! Trot out a transition era steamer this inaccurate and there would be howls from across the modelling nation! I have followed this thread with attention, and mugged up as best I can. Some of these problems might be engineering compromises, but others are either inaccuracies in the body tooling (firebox, cab) or details incorrect for the Lot or date represented (steps, chimney, smokebox). These tooling errors are avoidable. If it added £10 to the model but resulted in an accurate model, that would have been a happier outcome. I just don't see the point of developing a new model and making it worse than it reasonably could be. If this is the standard of accuracy we are asked to accept when we do get a pre-Grouping model, truly the RTR modeller of these eras is stuffed! Capturing accurately the detail of variants within a class - up to a certain extent in some cases - is not difficult with modern manufacturing methods as quite subtle differences in detail can be dealt with. But, and it is a very big BUT, that requires research in depth, long and arduous study and review of CADs and then getting any errors corrected, careful review of EP samples to again get any errors sorted and to make sure that the right detail is on the right variants. All of this takes time, it takes care, and it needs access to reliable sources but, again a big BUT, it is not impossible but it does mean it will take time for the model to come to market from start of work and it can potentially add to the retail price. Some things (e.g. overwidth splashers evidenced above by John, Dunsignalling) are nigh impossible to avoid in mass produced 4mm scale models even when they intended for 00 gauge but many details and variations can be captured. It is for example a relatively simple process to design a tender loco to carry two different types of boiler or smokebox door provided their dimensions are similar or to have different smokebox wrappers. All it takes is careful research, equally careful specification, clever tooling design and so on. But we will pay for it in the end product and it won't really be on if you're looking to pile it high and sell it cheap. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Capturing accurately the detail of variants within a class - up to a certain extent in some cases - is not difficult with modern manufacturing methods as quite subtle differences in detail can be dealt with. But, and it is a very big BUT, that requires research in depth, long and arduous study and review of CADs and then getting any errors corrected, careful review of EP samples to again get any errors sorted and to make sure that the right detail is on the right variants. All of this takes time, it takes care, and it needs access to reliable sources but, again a big BUT, it is not impossible but it does mean it will take time for the model to come to market from start of work and it can potentially add to the retail price. Some things (e.g. overwidth splashers evidenced above by John, Dunsignalling) are nigh impossible to avoid in mass produced 4mm scale models even when they intended for 00 gauge but many details and variations can be captured. It is for example a relatively simple process to design a tender loco to carry two different types of boiler or smokebox door provided their dimensions are similar or to have different smokebox wrappers. All it takes is careful research, equally careful specification, clever tooling design and so on. But we will pay for it in the end product and it won't really be on if you're looking to pile it high and sell it cheap. Maybe Oxford think they have a big enough market for a pretty toy version, without having to worry about the opinion of the few who actually seriously model the period. But if that's true, why are they producing versions of the GWR brake van with and without the lower planks sheeted over? Surely that needs two separate body mouldings for something that most people probably won't recognise anyway. And if they're doing that, why not do 4 and 6 wheel versions while they're at it, so I don't have to cut off the middle ones? The unsheeted brake van won't even be contemporary with the Dean Goods in the livery they've announced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 17, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 17, 2016 Maybe Oxford think they have a big enough market for a pretty toy version, without having to worry about the opinion of the few who actually seriously model the period. But if that's true, why are they producing versions of the GWR brake van with and without the lower planks sheeted over? Surely that needs two separate body mouldings for something that most people probably won't recognise anyway. And if they're doing that, why not do 4 and 6 wheel versions while they're at it, so I don't have to cut off the middle ones? The unsheeted brake van won't even be contemporary with the Dean Goods in the livery they've announced. You can probably do the 'sheeting over' with slides in the mould (which could cause problems unless done very carefully) but presumably they chose the 6-wheeler because it looks sufficiently different not to be disnmissed as yet another GWr brakevan. I'm quite sure that someone else will no doubt sometime come along with a much better 4 wheel van than existing offerings but it will no doubt cost more than the Oxford offering. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted November 17, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) You can probably do the 'sheeting over' with slides in the mould (which could cause problems unless done very carefully) but presumably they chose the 6-wheeler because it looks sufficiently different not to be disnmissed as yet another GWr brakevan. I'm quite sure that someone else will no doubt sometime come along with a much better 4 wheel van than existing offerings but it will no doubt cost more than the Oxford offering. Looking at prototype photos, the body style, sheeted or not, doesn't seem to have been unique to the 6-wheel vans. These models will be slightly specialized items and might sell less well if released alongside more commonplace 4-wheelers, though many of us would eagerly snap up both. Although Oxford haven't announced a four-wheeler, there's nothing to stop them doing so later, after they have maximised their sales of the attention grabbing 6-wheelers; thereby getting more 'mileage' out of the body tooling. If Oxford (or anyone else) want to build up a range of models, brake vans are long-term 'stayers' to sell alongside locos as yet unplanned as well as those already in the offing. Bachmann have been doing quite nicely out of their inherited tooling for the later Toads for decades. As we haven't yet seen anything more than CADs of the Oxford Rail brake van, it's anybody's guess what variations the final tooling might allow for. John Edited November 17, 2016 by Dunsignalling 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Looking at prototype photos, the body style, sheeted or not, doesn't seem to have been unique to the 6-wheel vans. These models will be slightly specialized items and might sell less well if released alongside more commonplace 4-wheelers, though many of us would eagerly snap up both. Although Oxford haven't announced a four-wheeler, there's nothing to stop them doing so later, after they have maximised their sales of the attention grabbing 6-wheelers; thereby getting more 'mileage' out of the body tooling. It's not unique to the 6 wheelers. If it's any good, I'll have bought all I'll ever need, and chopped off the centre wheels, long before a 4 wheel version appears! I want one for 1905, and nice shiny new 1880s one, and maybe another to convert to the one broad gauge example (and give up on the part done Tri-ang/Airfix butchery I've started). Then all future vans will be older designs. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigw Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 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. I certainly do understand the model is not accurate for 2309, Because I appreciated that there are two footplate widths and a number of other variations in the Dean goods. Oxford appear from the photos to have produced a wide footplate type so it can only be a loco in the 2451-2580 range. In addition I would suggest that you should do a little more research before passing judgement on the model because it is fairly obvious that you did not understand this rather fundamental difference either. Oxford should not have chosen 2309 as a number but they can choose a number from the correct range and it would be more suitable for a pre-WW1 loco - especially as they produce a model with out top feed (illustrated on the Hattons site) Alternately, you can buy 2309 and replace the number plates with one from the correct number range. The availability of a brass kit in no way removes the onus from Oxford to do research, but there will be limits that a RTR manufacturer will go to. Regards, Craig W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 In addition I would suggest that you should do a little more research before passing judgement on the model because it is fairly obvious that you did not understand this rather fundamental difference either. And yet I still somehow seem to know more than this manufacturer! Please try to sound a little more gracious when you're agreeing with me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 And yet I still somehow seem to know more than this manufacturer!.... You really should be modelling in P4, then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 You really should be modelling in P4, then No, I am not worthy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgman Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) Could have take a leaf out of Wenlocks ( of this parish ) superb model then maybe we'd all be taking a very different approach to buying a decent Dean Goods ? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1131/entry-12615-dean-goods-part-6-dean-done/#commentsStart Edited November 17, 2016 by bgman 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp1 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Could have take a leaf out of Wenlocks ( of this parish ) superb model then maybe we'd all be taking a very different approach to buying a decent Dean Goods ? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1131/entry-12615-dean-goods-part-6-dean-done/#commentsStart Wow! How did I miss that - what a beautiful model.Am now thinking its a shame that Bachmann or Hornby didn't get in first with the Dean Goods.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigw Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) Could have take a leaf out of Wenlocks ( of this parish ) superb model then maybe we'd all be taking a very different approach to buying a decent Dean Goods ? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1131/entry-12615-dean-goods-part-6-dean-done/#commentsStart This is the 7mm scale version of the Martin Finney kit I mentioned earlier. Fat chance of any interest in that when the notion of doing anything more than removing the loco from a box provokes howls of outrage. Craig W Edited November 18, 2016 by Craigw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 This is the 7mm scale version of the Martin Finney kit I mentioned earlier. Fat chance of any interest in that when the notion of doing anything more than removing the loco from a box provokes howls of outrage. Craig W Given some boxes, getting the model out without losing important parts might be classed as serious modelling...... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 (edited) Do you know, I have never heard anyone howling about that, here or anywhere on RMWeb? A common misconception peddled hereabouts whenever a manufacturer is taken to task over anything, is that those attempting a critique are nothing but a pack of whingers who want everything served to them on a plate. The implication is that they are not proper modellers as a result. Whereas, in fact, these doleful creatures and their moanings seem to exist only in the cussed imaginings of those who repeatedly invoke them as the bogeymen of RMWeb. There seems to be much more pointless frothing about models than there is negativity. That said, I confess I have seen some comments about some models that strike me as straying towards nit-picking, but then, I acknowledge that I am not necessarily the expert in these cases and, for those interested in a particular version of a model, I can understand the disappointment and frustration when mistakes in accuracy are made. I feel it is really not for me to presume criticise people in these circumstances. There is nothing, logically or in reality, inconsistent in a modeller building kits, converting etc and also expecting a reasonable standard of accuracy from today's sophisticated and pricey RTR offerings. Rather, it is likely that Mr Loco Builder and Mr Discriminating RTR Purchaser are one and the same, as both traits of his personality stem from a wish to get things reasonably right! It is odd, then, that there should be such vehement reaction to often the most reasoned and reasonable critiques of RTR offerings. Whence all the anger? It is as if mentioning the apparent or demonstrable flaws in a product threatens to puncture some Panglossian bubble in which everything made by RTR manufacturers must be accepted as the best model in the best of all possible worlds, so that howls of anger ensue. What is their problem? We must fight for the right to be ignorant of flaws and to accept a manufacturer's inadequate best! Theirs is a nonsense viewpoint, of course. People evidently feel that here they can get away with grumpiness, rudery and, worst of all IMHO, the lack of a logical and reasoned rebuttal, in order to close down any thoughtful and informed critique. And it has been successful; several times I have needed to go off RMWeb in order to read sufficient detail in relation to certain products, where my own knowledge and resources were insufficient. I have not followed slavishly what others have said, but thought about it, done some homework, and reached an independent view. Taking the example of Oxford, I have rejected the LNER cattle wagon as being hopelessly flawed and because my needs are not such that the model is worth the effort of correcting (there is a perfectly sensible kit I can use if I want an LNER cattle wagon). On the other hand, I have decided that Oxford's LNER 6-plank and NBR 4-plank are perfectly acceptable models. I repeat, I could not make that assessment based purely upon RMWeb content as the alt-grumps of this community swung into action to discredit and abuse those giving critiques like climate change deniers on steroids. In this connection, the word "expert" is banded around far too freely, and, I confess, I have used it often (not in relation to myself, I hasten to add!). Unfortunately, "expert" is used here to make cheap shots, such as "who are you to profess to be an expert", or, simply, "you're no expert", or "I think the British people have all had enough of experts" (that last one may have been someone else). Well, I suggest that none of us is an expert concerning much of what has been debated here. Who here was in the Swindon drawing office when the Dean Goods were drawn up in the Nineteenth Century, or when they were fitted with Belpaires? Who drove one in the 1900s or 1920s for that matter? We should bear in mind that we are experts by and large only to the extent that we have read a book or studied a photograph. I have been quite candid concerning the limits of my knowledge in this case and the handicap of not possessing the relevant RCTS volume. In relation to Oxford's purported "2309", I managed to spot the issue with the steps shape, and the distance between the cab cut out and the roof line, and the wash-out plug placing and lower firebox plating, as, doubtless, did others. Many other inaccuracies, both definite and apparent, have been drawn to our attention by others, for which I am grateful. BG John suggested that there might be an element of double standards in relation to the lined 2309. DJH's J94 got a relative caning for minor discrepancies between class members and a very small missing handrail. In fact, I can scarcely recall when a magazine reviewer was that exacting about an RTR release. That should put the multiple and fundamental inaccuracies of the 2309 model into perspective. Clearly, we must try to accentuate the positive. We all depend, to a greater or lesser extent on an industry the core of which is the RTR manufacturers. I support and buy what I can. I also believe it important to make allowances for the necessary compromises imposed by scale and gauge and not to have unrealistic expectations of the level of detail. Basic dimensional errors or avoidable errors in detail are not, however, something it is necessary to tolerate. When this appears to be the case, must we keep stumm and maintain the illusion for the Greater Good, lest manufacturers simply whither and die under our critical gaze? I do not seek to cast Oxford and all its works into the outer darkness. Rather, if I were writing Oxford's school report, I would say that it was a bright pupil with great potential that it is yet to realise and conclude with "must try harder". The Oxford Dean Goods is a prime example of a model that could have been far, far, better if only it had been adequately researched and the necessary care taken over it. Oxford does seem to have acted at least to improve the fire-box crease, but it was clearly too far along with the product to accept the other issues with 2309. Had it researched the prototype better, it would have been able to avoid the release of such an inaccurate model. I am waiting for a sign that Oxford cares enough about getting its models right to stop making careless and unnecessary mistakes with its work. We shall see. I will settle back and await the howling. Edited November 21, 2016 by Edwardian 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Ok, so the pretty one (2309) is inconsistent across a wide range of features. Rather than being completely negative, how more closely do 2409 and 2475 approach their prototypes in terms of dimension, detail and livery? If they are more "accurate", perhaps Oxford is being rather clever here. 2309 is what the general public imagines an old-fashioned Great Western locomotive should look like. It should sell. The other two might be more appropriate for everyone else. Howling and Frothing are fun, but should be committed in moderation...... (btw Wasn't Howling near to Cold Comfort Farm?) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 18, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 18, 2016 I was in two minds about which box to tick in respect of Edwardian's post above (No.519) and eventually chose 'supportive' because I support all that he has said and to me that is a bit more than just 'agree'. Some of us around here are old enough to remember the ubiquitous Triang 0-6-0 chassis which over the years appeared under various pastiches of different prototypes with varying degrees of inaccuracy matched only by the inaccuracy of the bodies sat on top of it. That was 'toy train' railway modelling and it was fruitful ground for parts, a chance to hack and alter and many other ways of not only learning how to do things but also learning about researching the prototype. But 3 decades or more ago the r-t-r part of our hobby began to move away from that approach and to offer more dimensionally accurate models with higher levels of (generally) far more accurate detail in response to both what the market sought and what the hobby's media was asking for. The last big move in that direction was Hornby shifting production to China and upping its game to match the competition. We have become used to models which are far better representations of the prototype than was once the case. Our critique of r-t-r models has ascended, in most cases, to much greater heights because of that change - we take it for granted that the basic shape should - within the limitations of mass production - be pretty accurate and we increasingly comment on matters of detail which are incorrect. Sometimes that criticism applies to productions methods (e.g. the cab handrail on Hornby's 'Star') sometimes it is about very specific and obvious errors of detail (e.g. the chimney on Oxfordrail's 2309). All the manufacturers get such treatment for what we see as their transgressions and some of them no doubt deserve our adverse comments although in some cases it might be unfair in view of the amount of effort they have put into their research etc. Occasionally - and I think this Dean Goods is an example - we are faced with something a bit different, a sort of reversion to the 1960s Triang approach where a livery is applied to something with totally incorrect detail and in fact the detail itself might well also be wrong. Because of our changed perceptions of what we think r-t-r should be we perhaps tend to ignore bargain basement pricing and still seek the standards of the day. But whatever it costs I can see nothing wrong with drawing attention to detail and let's face if somebody can't even get the whistles the right way round one must immediately wonder about their approach to detail. We might well get what we pay for (or we might not) but that's no reason to withhold comment especially is such comment is put forward in a positive manner. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigw Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Ok, so the pretty one (2309) is inconsistent across a wide range of features. Rather than being completely negative, how more closely do 2409 and 2475 approach their prototypes in terms of dimension, detail and livery? If they are more "accurate", perhaps Oxford is being rather clever here. 2309 is what the general public imagines an old-fashioned Great Western locomotive should look like. It should sell. The other two might be more appropriate for everyone else. Howling and Frothing are fun, but should be committed in moderation...... (btw Wasn't Howling near to Cold Comfort Farm?) To me, the model looks like a wide footplate version which means it is a loco numbered 2451 and above. But, plain rods were only used up to 2490. So, allowing for some receiving fluted rods in later years, the Oxford model only accurately represent a loco numbered between 2451 and 2490. Change the rods to fluted and it can be used for any of the later Dean Goods. But the wide footplate precludes the model being used for any loco numbered below 2451. Change the number on 2309 to one in the 2451 - 2490 range and you have some semblance of a pre WW1 GWR loco. Regards, Craig W 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted November 18, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 18, 2016 A thoughtful and well reasoned critique from our learned friend from County Durham.Sanity and sweet reason reign......which is what should drive this forum but so often does not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quarryscapes Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Out of interest what are the 2 footplate widths? I can't tell them apart from photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigw Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Since I seem to be the bunny on this one, I will try to show it. Apologies for not replying earlier, I have been away a few days celebrating my 32nd wedding anniversary with my wife. Some things take a precedence over trains. I have attached two photos, both of round boilered locos (my pleasure Edwardian )The first is 2358 which has the original footplate. You will notice the there is very little overhang of the footplate over the valence - it is almost flush. The second photo is of 2537 and you will notice that the footplate overhangs the valence by a considerable amount. Although not obvious from the photo, it is close to 3" overhang at each side and as a result the footplate appears considerably wider from the angles we usually view things. In 4mm scale, the difference is 29mm vs 31 of the wider footplate. Is it noticeable? To me it is and it is the reason I commented on it. It marked an important change in the design and means the Oxford (and I suspect the ex Mainline) cannot represent one of the earlier locos. The two photos are scans of negatives that i won on Ebay. I would ask that they do not be distributed or published elsewhere. Hope this helps a bit. Regards, Craig W 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Didn't the GWR just standardise everything? Company servants on being photographed, shall assume flat cap, face camera, and stand legs apart and feet splayed out 120 degrees or greater. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now