Steamport Southport Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I'll just leave this here......... http://www.mainlinerailways.org.uk/Print.htm Jason 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adams442T Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I'll just leave this here......... http://www.mainlinerailways.org.uk/Print.htm Jason Rearrange these into a well known phrase or saying: 'Oxford Cocked Hat Rail's Knocks Goods Dean Into A' 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted November 24, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 24, 2016 Rearrange these into a well known phrase or saying: 'Oxford Cocked Hat Rail's Knocks Goods Dean Into A' I note the photo was taken from its good side, the one without the open-air gearbox. The loco looks fine but the last time I saw a tender that bad, it had "Southern" and "795" on the side of it. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Yes. But you're looking at it with 2016 eyes. That model was vastly superior to anything else available at the time even with the tender drive underframe which is it's downfall. Should have been retooled years ago which is a missed opportunity. Hornby were still releasing locomotives with massive skirts on their boilers when this came out. Jason 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted November 25, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 25, 2016 (edited) Yes. But you're looking at it with 2016 eyes. That model was vastly superior to anything else available at the time even with the tender drive underframe which is it's downfall. Should have been retooled years ago which is a missed opportunity. Hornby were still releasing locomotives with massive skirts on their boilers when this came out. Jason A sizeable chunk of opinion on here has concluded that the Mainline loco body is better proportioned than the samples of the Oxford Rail model, and they may well be right. However, an ugly mess of a tender is an ugly mess of a tender whenever it was made but I do acknowledge the role played by Airfix and Mainline/Bachmann in dragging Hornby kicking and screaming into the final quarter of the 20th century. Nostalgia, as ever, ain't what it used to be and if Hornby had upgraded it, it would have unique. Nothing else from the long inventory of basically good tooling with potential for updating, originally developed by Airfix/Mainline/Dapol/Lima, has received any real attention. All we've seen is a better motor bogie for the ex-Lima diesels and loco-drive for the LMS 2P and 4F. I presume the Dean didn't get the same treatment because it would have needed a complete new tender. John Edited November 25, 2016 by Dunsignalling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 (edited) Yes. But you're looking at it with 2016 eyes. That model was vastly superior to anything else available at the time even with the tender drive underframe which is it's downfall. Should have been retooled years ago which is a missed opportunity. Hornby were still releasing locomotives with massive skirts on their boilers when this came out. Jason Yes, indeed, we have come a long way and this model was a revelation in late 1983. Have you seen the beautifully executed "P4" (think it's actually said to be EM) Dean Goods using a High Level chassis (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117209-p4-dean-goods/)? Though there have been upgraded fittings, the body is Mainline's because it captures the look of the original so well. The RM review in December '83: The Mainline model appears in GWR livery as the preserved 2516 ... The model scales extremely well from the drawings, the cab detailing being possibly the best we have seen in a proprietary model. I can see the very same Mainline advert in my October '83 RM, from whose pages I can verify that this was Hornby's idea of a Great Western engine at the time: Edited November 25, 2016 by Edwardian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted November 25, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 25, 2016 Well, I sympathise with your concerns, I really do, because we all want this model, this manufacturer and this hobby to get support, but I am afraid your post comes dangerously close to a celebration of mediocrity. Not all of us will get to Warley, despite the way it's treated as the be all and end all of the hobby, and it is already perfectly clear what the faults are. In this thread there was some holding back on criticism of the cab shape when it was raised because,it was tactfully said to be hard to judge from the photographs, but we have now seen Oxford's line drawings, which confirm what people have said - it's wrong. Mainline was a huge step forward when I was a lad. Ironic, then, that Oxford has in the appearance of this model, taken a step back. If I were a GW fan, I'd be gutted. As it is, I won't buy it and I won't weep, but I won't defend an ill-conceived model, either! And until we actually SEE it we can neither celebrate nor condemn your attribution of mediocrity.I would have no concerns at your absence from the NEC.Images from the Oxford Rail stand will be posted for your appraisal I'm quite sure.I am equally sure that more than one member of this forum will raise the issue with whomsoever is on their stand.Then perhaps all of us will be in a better position to discover whether this is still a work in progress or whether it's a case of what you see is what you get. In which case ...be my guest and rush to judgement. "Gutted ?" Let's maybe say a little disappointed perhaps. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted November 25, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 25, 2016 Yes, indeed, we have come a long way and this model was a revelation in late 1983. Have you seen the beautifully executed "P4" (think it's actually said to be EM) Dean Goods using a High Level chassis (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117209-p4-dean-goods/)? Though there have been upgraded fittings, the body is Mainline's because it captures the look of the original so well. The RM review in December '83: The Mainline model appears in GWR livery as the preserved 2516 ... The model scales extremely well from the drawings, the cab detailing being possibly the best we have seen in a proprietary model. I can see the very same Mainline advert in my October '83 RM, from whose pages I can verify that this was Hornby's idea of a Great Western engine at the time: Did they make any comment at all about the tender? Or was it one of those traditional RM "praise what's good and keep schtum about anything dodgy" reviews they were noted for back then? John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J C Fenton Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 And until we actually SEE it we can neither celebrate nor condemn your attribution of mediocrity.I would have no concerns at your absence from the NEC.Images from the Oxford Rail stand will be posted for your appraisal I'm quite sure.I am equally sure that more than one member of this forum will raise the issue with whomsoever is on their stand.Then perhaps all of us will be in a better position to discover whether this is still a work in progress or whether it's a case of what you see is what you get. In which case ...be my guest and rush to judgement. "Gutted ?" Let's maybe say a little disappointed perhaps. In theory, never a judge a model until it is seen in the flesh. But I think it is clear enough already that this one's a dud for accuracy. Saying otherwise is like waiting until the polar ice-cap is a tepid pool before admitting climate change exists. By the time you are able to make a definitive judgment - it's too bl00dy late! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted November 25, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 25, 2016 In theory, never a judge a model until it is seen in the flesh. But I think it is clear enough already that this one's a dud for accuracy. Saying otherwise is like waiting until the polar ice-cap is a tepid pool before admitting climate change exists. By the time you are able to make a definitive judgment - it's too bl00dy late! My my the dialogue on this thread really does get florid doesn't it ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Did they make any comment at all about the tender? Or was it one of those traditional RM "praise what's good and keep schtum about anything dodgy" reviews they were noted for back then? John Yes: The tender power unit is fitted with six traction tyres, giving enormous pulling power and very smooth operation. Having the motor in the tender also means that you can see daylight under the boiler, and we wonder who will be the first to fit inside motion to this very charming model. (RRP £28.73). 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 In theory, never a judge a model until it is seen in the flesh. But I think it is clear enough already that this one's a dud for accuracy. Saying otherwise is like waiting until the polar ice-cap is a tepid pool before admitting climate change exists. By the time you are able to make a definitive judgment - it's too bl00dy late! My my the dialogue on this thread really does get florid doesn't it ? A plea for calm .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted November 25, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 25, 2016 (edited) Yes: The tender power unit is fitted with six traction tyres, giving enormous pulling power and very smooth operation. Having the motor in the tender also means that you can see daylight under the boiler, and we wonder who will be the first to fit inside motion to this very charming model. (RRP £28.73). Nothing about the charming non-prototypical working "motion" visible under the tender then. Edited November 25, 2016 by Dunsignalling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Nothing about the charming non-prototypical working "motion" visible under the tender then. Perhaps they were only shown a photograph of the right-hand side!?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Yes, indeed, we have come a long way and this model was a revelation in late 1983. Have you seen the beautifully executed "P4" (think it's actually said to be EM) Dean Goods using a High Level chassis (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117209-p4-dean-goods/)? Though there have been upgraded fittings, the body is Mainline's because it captures the look of the original so well. The RM review in December '83: The Mainline model appears in GWR livery as the preserved 2516 ... The model scales extremely well from the drawings, the cab detailing being possibly the best we have seen in a proprietary model. I can see the very same Mainline advert in my October '83 RM, from whose pages I can verify that this was Hornby's idea of a Great Western engine at the time: Yes I've just seen the Dean in the other thread. Just shows what you can do with an older model. I'll probably be doing something similar with mine when the mechanism gives up. Possibly a bit harsh slating Hornby over the Hall. It was a very old model by then and I think it was then removed from the range and retooled into the very poor Saint. I've still got my Kneller Hall which is one I won't touch apart from an occasional run as it has too much sentimental value. I was mostly referring to the Duchess and the Queen (the King had terrible skirts until it was retooled). Hornby had started to take great stride towards scale models when they had competition from Mainline and Airfix, but then they both imploded and Hornby went stagnant again until Bachmann came on the scene. What's this got to do with Oxford? Well I for one thought they were going to be one of those manufacturers to give the "big boys" a big kick up the rear end. Jason 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgman Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 A plea for calm ....Sorted ...... 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmay2002 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 My next point will no doubt provoke howls of anguish from certain quarters.That is one of cost.This model even in Locomotion terms is a good deal less costly than models from "mainstream" firms. Like it or not,enthusiasts pockets are shrinking in real terms and a realistic limit has to be set if sales and profit are to be achieved. Making, for example, a cabside the right shape is no more costly than making it to the wrong shape. The weight and cost of the plastic is identical. It's just a question of competence - cost has absolutely nothing to do with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Notwithstanding my criticisms of the loco body, the OR tender looks (at least from what little of it we have seen so far) extremely tasty, and probably the best RTR 2500g to date. I'd buy a couple of tender bodies straight away. I confidently expect the official reviews will give it and its potential usefulness for other locos no more than a passing mention. (Scurries off to ascertain OR's 'spares philosophy'...) 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clearwater Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 I'm not sure the relevance to this specific design, but there are some interesting comments by the Rapido guys on the Stirling Single thread. In it, they explain one of the limiting factors on how thin they can make the cab roof both in terms of tensile strength and the limits of injection moulding. Obviously I can't comment on whether Oxford have had to make similar design compromises here for aspects of the model but non the less I found it interesting that there may be an explanation for some of what we may perceive as errors. Clearly that's not a carte Blanche for all errors! David Ps- if I get chance tomorrow I'll try and take a photo or two! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quarryscapes Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Notwithstanding my criticisms of the loco body, the OR tender looks (at least from what little of it we have seen so far) extremely tasty, and probably the best RTR 2500g to date. I'd buy a couple of tender bodies straight away. I confidently expect the official reviews will give it and its potential usefulness for other locos no more than a passing mention. (Scurries off to ascertain OR's 'spares philosophy'...) The only RTR 2500g Dean tender surely... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Yes! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Making, for example, a cabside the right shape is no more costly than making it to the wrong shape. The weight and cost of the plastic is identical. It's just a question of competence - cost has absolutely nothing to do with it. Well, getting it right first time costs the same, altering it at this stage (or even a couple of stages earlier) costs more Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 26, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2016 Well, getting it right first time costs the same, altering it at this stage (or even a couple of stages earlier) costs more And judging by a photo which has appeared elsewhere today it would appear the NRM version might be at livery sample stage - which is at least one stage later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted November 26, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 26, 2016 I can't help feeling that Oxford made a rod for their own back with some very poor expectation management. If you make an entry by telling the world how tip top you're product will be, set new standards etc etc then peoplewill expect you to meet those claims. And whilst the Oxford releases to date haven't been bad, neither have they been particularly brilliant, ordinarily they may have been welcomed in the "well they're not brilliant, but they're good value and good models" in the way many of us welcome the new generation Hornby railroad tooling. However Oxford didn't market them as good value, good models aimed at the price concious buyer, they threw down a gauntlet to Hornby, Bachmann, Dapol, DJM, Heljan et al with claims that they'd be at the forefront of model detail and quality. And to date, they just aren't. I think this may go back to the time when Oxford launched (or at least announced their launch). At that time Hornby were a bit of a mess being criticised on almost all sides and in the middle of the design clever controversy. I speculate that Oxford looked at Hornby and after considering whether or not they'd survive saw an opening to offer something better than design clever without going to the effort of Bachmann or pre-design clver Hornby. Unfortunately they now find themselves with models that are not as good as the competition. The argument that they're new doesn't really excuse it as they are able to benchmark against multiple competitors and Chinese producers have been making models at the leading edge of detail for a long time now. The scenario is different to the first Hornby Chinese produced models. However, for all that, the Mk.3 coach looks very good and that coach may be the model where Oxford gets it right. And like I say, if it wasn't for Oxford's own hype I believe their models would have been warmly welcomed despite the issues. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted November 26, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2016 According to the person on the Oxford stand,the first examples arrive in January. 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