J C Fenton

Sensible suggestions from micklner and edwardian; if Model Rail wants to do things on a strictly commercial no risk basis, it needs to do what it can to go find customers. Good to see this prototype in RTR, but I, too was surprised not to see it in GE blue n' brown. I don't really buy the "GER modellers won't want the loco if they can't have the coach" conclusion. Sounds like a suspect interpretation. Did those folks really write in to say they'd only buy the engine if they could have the coach too? Passenger service went on to 1927, so the point equally effects early (lined) LNER, but we are having one of those. Since they worked plenty of places other than W&UT, a coach is not essential to go with any version, including the GE. Shame about the coach, but I would still like a GE livery J70. Thanks

Injection moulded coach kits are the only way that many of us will get prototypical variety in stock, and the best way to make kits that are reasonably priced and reasonably easy to construct, though I appreciate the investment necessary is significant. We need more, not less (as present) in this field.

Or they could just get it right for us first time. I imagine an error-free model costs about the same as an error-strewn one. Would Hatton's 14XX cost more if they'd remembered to include the ash pan? Would Oxford's Dean Goods cost more if they hadn't mistakenly added rivets to the splasher sides? Expect better.

If I understand correctly, Ian Kirk range included the short GE section coaches. Seems bizarre to me that we lose these at a time when so many RTR locos for the GE section come out. Or do most people just not care enough about appropriate stock to bother with kits?

Good news, so far as I am concerned, provided Oxford doesn't b*lls it up. Put me down for the GE and LNE versions. GE grey will be a RTR first. Mind you, any GE livery would be a first. What a refreshing change.

Yes, please! Though not sure that Oxford is the right one to tackle it. The Dean Goods showed that they did not know what they were doing. They did not understand the prototype, the CADs were misunderstood and they failed to check the results in time. Result? Egg on face, and I don't think we have to accept any mistakes Oxford does not consider it commercially viable to correct. No excuse for a bad model in this day and age. Not going to spend my money on someone's inadequate best effort, I'm afraid. Let them prove they can faithfully render a pre-Grouping loco, then I'll happily change my mind and wish away. Much of that is about caring enough to get it right. I just don't see that in anything from Oxford's steam-aged repertoire so far. Not until then, though.

I hope so to, but now that Andy Y has all but branded Edwardian a troll (and the Usual Suspects have rushed to 'Agree') I wouldn't bank on it. The site would be the poorer if he and others of his ilk felt they can no longer post here. Anyway well said, it is the Season to be Jolly, Goodwill to all Modellers! Let's hope the New Year stays that way! Happy Christmas!

Really good so far. You have the Fens in a nutshell. Look forward to more posts.

2309 Warley sample - blimey, please do not adjust your sets! Rivets on steroids and lining a mile wide - 2309 now looks like an angry caterpillar. I am sure this atrocious decoration can be amended - BUT ..... To any remaining C0ck-up Deniers out there, the pictures of 2309 in the lined livery underscore the inaccuracies - Rivets on the splasher front, which OR has had to line over! Wrong curve on the cab cutout, which the lining merely emphasises Over-sized splashers, even allowing for motorway wide lining, why do you think the number plate will not fit within the lining? Unfortunately these are basic detail and dimensional errors. I suspect that OR would need to go right back to the drawing board in order to produce a decent model. Probably right back to the issue of wheel size, 'cos those splashers through everything out. This would be commercially hard for them. BUT .... the alternative is that OR lacks credibility. We simply won't be able to trust any of its releases in the future. This infects the National Collection in Miniature, if it goes ahead with 2516. I think OR should suck this up. If it is going to start taking more care, doing sufficient research and checking its CADs and EPs properly, IMHO it would do itself, Locomotion, and all of us a favour by starting with a re-think of this release. They could make a cracking Dean Goods. If they want to.

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!

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!

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!

Great atmosphere and some lovely weathering

Look forward to seeing how the clerestories are turning out.

Nice coach in progress. It is a good generic style, but not too dissimilar from GE coaches when you put the arc roof on it, like the ones D&S used to do. A bit early for me, but very nice. How are you going to paint it?

Not likely to model the LSWR, if I'm honest, but this is a fascinating thread and I feel I'm learning summat! One for the GE?

I love these locomotives, but I've come a bit late to the party. The originals (Y14s) had 2 cab styles. I believe a batch of the later ones had a larger, lower scoop out of the cab sheets. Am I right in thinking that Hornby produced both? Also, LNER raised the cab roofs. Do all the Hornby versions have this feature? Would some kind person mind re-capping what variants Hornby has so far produced and what it has announced?

I agree with Edwardian, this is most impressive. Somehow much more impressive and convincing that the platform mounted buildings we're used to! I look forward to seeing how you tackle the other architectural details.

Honestly, did you think you were calming the situation down by dragging this up again? Andy Y said 'leave it'. Please can we stay on topic? I was enjoying this thread till the playground comments came from nowhere.

Looks good in green!

Yawn. This is what happens when people infect a really excellent thread with unnecessary and off-topic negative comments (it's about buildings not "what railway company I despise most"), which had not been a problem before, and now you round on the guy who points this out. We had a nice thing going with everyone saying constructive, supportive and appreciative things about each other's architectural modelling. We should get right back to that NOW! F-- it, I'm a GE/LNER fan myself, like Orford, but that doesn't make me a GW-detractor. Perfectly happy with my choices and content to leave others to enjoy theirs. Axes to grind should be left at the door of this topic so far as I am concerned.

Well said those men! I, and other 40-Somethings I know, do not remember BR steam, and have no affinity for the period. But I love steam outline. It's all history as opposed to memory for me and as for history, well, with wall to wall Mono-Period layouts, its interesting to look at something fresh. It's a colourful and varied scene, and RTR needs to take off its dirty British Railways googles and look beyond its current horizons.

Well I knew what he meant, so I guess I'm bilingual

Except that the T19 drivers are at 8' 9" centres, so a 1mm out. There might not be any better RTR donor chassis match, however.

To be honest, it would be a lot of work. The cab and everything above the footplate is wrong if you want the original version as pictured in you post . It would no doubt help if the footplate could be retained, but there you have the problem of the lower section of the original between the drivers. The question is whether it's worth it treating this release as just a motorised chassis. Mousa have a kit in progress, which is good for GE days, but it is for the 1902-3 batches. You would still need to replace the boiler, but could keep the cab. I would be tempted to run both the LNER version and one of the 1902-3 GE versions. I, too, would like to know how much room the motor takes up in the Hornby model. Yet another pre-Grouping locomotive with no pre-Grouping version; we're getting pretty used to this state of affairs!