Edwardian

Indeed, I jested! You are right, apart from certain notorious, and, I assume inadvertent, duplications, once someone has produced an RTR model, even if pretty mediocre, that tends to discourage anyone else from tackling the subject for a generation! When we consider a new RTR model, its often not simply any deficiencies that matter, its more about the better model that no one will now make!

More excellent pictures of an excellent layout for us to indulge in! Thanks, and keep 'em coming!

One of the great things about RMWeb is that, however long you're here, there is yet more wonderful stuff to discover. Very much enjoyed discovering this topic. Great modelling.

Tha Thanks for that. Looks superb. I note the comment "However, we believe that the most difficult days are now behind us", which is encouraging. I feel sure that Rapido will do a first class job. Can Locomotion/NRM ask Rapido to do Hardwicke, Gladstone, the SE&CR D Class No. 737 and, dare I suggest, Dean Goods No. 2516?!? With the Hattons/DJH King and the Stirling Single, 2017 is looking like a very expensive year!

As I have myself conceded, we each will have our own tolerances in relation to what will or will not put us off. I entirely respect the fact that you have made your own decision. For me, it is not about the ultimate Dean Goods. A Dean Goods without basic, eminently avoidable, errors would do for me. There are a number of little issues that I believe that I could overlook, but I suspect that the problems with the cab will not be ones that I can overlook, because it means that the model fails to capture the essential look of the prototype. For me, that is. Others are free to make their own choice. Given the various contributions on the two topics, I believe this is a more informed choice than might otherwise have been the case. I was thinking as I drove home, we do need to avoid raised temperatures. It really is not necessary. As soon as we start to become partisan, for or against a given model, we will lose objectivity and miss the point. This is supposed to be an informed and intelligent critique, not a slanging match.

I believe I am in the happy position of agreeing entirely with both Mike and Mad Carew. It is an 'as preserved' model, but it appears to use exactly the same tooling as the standard range Grouping era model (no. 2475). The differences appear to be the number, the brass safety valve bonnet (and possibly the beading on the cab front). So far as the errors concerning the cab-side and the wash-out plug location are concerned, the tooling does not represent either 2516 or 2475 accurately. Considering they had 2516 to work from, and the special edition was vetted by the "NRM curators", it is surprising that the model will apparently not resemble the prototype in these respects. Yes, and if anyone here was making an unjustified criticism, you might have a point! Locomotion should be jealous of the quality of its commissions. It should be alive to the need for a reasonable degree of accuracy. Oxford, which has, to date had every single one of its steam age releases criticised, mainly for their inaccuracy, should, frankly, have learnt to take more care. Frankly, I'm surprised that Locomotion did not do proper due diligence on Oxford. You can view the process of 'pre-reviewing' a model based upon the released data negatively if you will, but I think that providing information to support a manufacturer and encourage the production of more accurate (or less inaccurate!) models is a good thing. Let us assume that manufacturers think that there are only two extremes of modellers; RTR ignoramuses who will uncritically accept anything put before them, and finescale fanatics who won't accept anything because they're building it in P4. To the extent they are correct, they should crack on and give us mere approximations of the prototype. Most of us, I suspect, are somewhere between the two and we care about the accuracy of RTR. RTR is more detailed, better engineered, better painted and more expensive than ever before. Why should it not be accurate, where such accuracy is readily achievable? What is the point of engineering models to this standard if you are going to plague them with avoidable cosmetic mistakes? We cannot own or read all the data on every class we might like to run on a layout. I certainly rely upon information and pointers given by others, so that I can make an informed choice. I cannot do so where contributors are bullied or harangued into silence because of some misguided notion that manufacturers will take offence and cease all production in favour of manufacturing deck chairs or potato peelers.

Well, John, I'm pretty sure that not saying anything won't lead to us being offered anything better! Pointing out mistakes pre-release in the hope that they might be corrected, or, at least, not perpetuated, is a reasonable thing to do. At the very least, the potential purchaser may make a more informed choice. Or would you prefer a less well-informed consumer? We all want to see this manufacturer do better. That is all.

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

Well, if per Oxford's drawing, it is certainly wrong. Pictured below is the fire-box on 2309 (the lined supposedly pre-WW1 version). Here it is, perhaps, unclear whether, when viewed on the level, the wash-out plugs would disappear behind the hand rail. The full length profile picture was taken from Oxford's website, and is of their standard/card-board box range inter-war version. I confess, I cannot make out the upper plugs. Finally, here is a picture of Mainline's version of No. 2516. It is in some regards more accurate than Oxford's!!!! Not only are the wash out plugs above the handrail, but look at the distance between the cab roof line and the cut-out. Much closer to the photographs of the original. Not bad for a 40-year old tooling. But, (don't tell Mike) the whistles on the Mainline model are also the wrong way round! Odd that both manufacturers should get that wrong, given that they are the correct way round on the original. EDIT: Picture of the real thing (with intervening child ruthlessly cropped!) in case anyone should doubt that, on the real thing, the wash out plugs were, in fact, accessible!

Fair enough, and if you're right and I'm wrong about standards in general, that is a happy situation. I think for me the nub of this Dean Goods issue is that the model is plagued by avoidable mistakes (ones that in my subjective view, render the model too "off" to be considered for purchase) and that this seems due to a want of care in the process of translating research into tooling. It is up to others if they want to spend their hard-earned cash subsidising a 6-year learning curve for Oxford! Heaven forbid I should seem to be telling anyone what to do. For my part, however, I won't add to my bank manager's concerns for the sake of this model!

Now that we have drawings, as opposed to just photographs, of the Oxford Dean, what I think someone could usefully do, and I'd do it if I had the IT skills, is lay a 4mm scale drawing of a 'twixt the wars Dean over the Oxford drawing in order to demonstrate the extent to which the cab planned by Oxford differs from the prototype. I think the photos make it clear enough, especially as Miss P presented the evidence, but this is a measurable discrepancy and, perhaps it might be as well to measure it? There will always be some difficulty with the cab sides, as I expect that over-size splashers are a necessary compromise. I would expect comparison of the drawings to demonstrate this issue, too, though, again, I think it is already evident from the various pictures posted. This is one compromise that it may be necessary to live with. It does not prevent getting the cut-out correct however. We have to accept compromise, but there is no necessary compromise affecting the cut-out; it isn't a compromise, but a mistake. Further, IMHO, it is a mistake that goes to the character of the prototype, and the model will lack the class's characteristic appearance as a result. I will happily approach Locomotion, as I approached Oxford. Much thanks I'll doubtless get! In fairness to Oxford, the firebox profile does appear to have been changed. By the time the other issues with 2309 were brought to Oxford's attention, it appears to have been too late from Oxford's point of view. Had people identified the flaws and come forward sooner, we might have a more accurate model as a result, but it would be unfair to blame the discriminating consumer. Had Oxford's research and its care over what the designers were sending it been what it should, it would not have been necessary for this communal effort to identify and point out the mistakes. Oxford and Locomotion still have a choice. It is doubtless a commercially unattractive choice, but they have been given the information necessary to correct mistakes that, frankly, could have been avoided in the first place. If, or rather, when, an inaccurate model is released against this background, don't shoot the messengers!

Well, you say that, but the 'new' Modified Hall still has an incorrect front end, there are, I believe, issues with Kernow's O2, to name but two, and, of course, there is Oxford .... For the record, I have never complained that no one made a pre-Grouping round-top Dean Goods. I understand what backdating them would entail. What I, and others, have pointed out is that Oxford's purported pre-Grouping Dean Goods is inaccurate in quite a number of ways. Announce a BR steam locomotive with that many errors and inaccuracies and we'd never hear the end of it! The Oxford tooling is much more suited to the inter war condition, but, there still seems to be a flaw with the cab-sides. This affects Groupers and Nationalisers just as much as pre-Groupers. Now, what was I saying earlier about grumpy posters running a fellow down just because he points out some errors .....?

And Y usefully edited the Locomotion announcement post to add outline drawings. I think this is useful because it shows what we suspected from the photographs of the standard range samples, the cab-side is wrong. In short, the cab appears to be designed to be the full height of the raised cabs, but retains the narrow gap between the tip of the side cut-out and the roof line that the class had before the roofs were raised. This has the effect of stretching the cut-out vertically, thus softening the curve towards the roof. The point is best illustrated by Miss Prism (post #18: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117156-national-collection-in-miniature-dean-goods-class-no-2516/ ): This implication is that there is no new tooling. To the extent it ever will be, the fire-box crease has been fixed already for the standard range models, though this has not been openly admitted, so far as I am aware, but allows Locomotion to claim their model has the correct fire-box. Other issues that I pointed out to Oxford have simply been ignored. The inclusion of the drawing of 2516 suggests that it will use the standard range tooling and, so, reproduce the cab-side faults. Given that Oxford has already announced a plain green Dean in this livery in the standard range (2475), as Fat Lieutenant points out, the Locomotion model offers the same degree of accuracy/inaccuracy, the same livery, the same 'twixt the wars condition, and, so, what you get for the extra cost is a high gloss finish, a wooden box, and the satisfaction of supporting our national preservation effort. Oh, I forgot, and a certificate. You will probably be no nearer to an accurate Dean Goods, however. I'd like a Dean Goods and I like to support Locomotion, so I hope Locomotion calls time and insists on a re-tool, otherwise, I could not in all conscience support this release. If we supinely accept, or even encourage, poor models, that is all we will ever get. Is it just me, or has there been something of a falling off since the heights of ultra-realistic RTR models that the manufacturers touched just a few years ago?

Hmm. I confess that I posted my first post on this topic before Mr Y had added the line drawings/or I had noticed he had. These drawings resemble the standard Oxford Dean. It seems to me that a number of the 'howlers' that afflict the attempt to represent the pre-WW1 2309 with this tooling are not issues with these inter-war versions. I am grateful to Fat Lieutenant for the picture of 2474. I note that, in common with 2516, the rivets run round the smoke-box as they do on the Oxford model. The straight step is appropriate for these models, as is the chimney. This left two major issues with the Oxford tooling that rendered it just wrong for, dare I say, pretty much the whole class. The first was the horrible firebox crease, which does seem to have been improved. When I emailed Oxford about this, they claimed to have been unaware of the issue. They do seem to have made changes, however. This suggests to me that Oxford is not checking these issues carefully enough, and in the past had uncritically accepted the interpretation of the data by the designer/Chinese factory. I hope their processes will improve. More care - much more care - is needed in order to avoid such unnecessary mistakes. The second major inaccuracy is that illustrated best by Miss Prism. The gap between the cab cut-out and roof is far too narrow. This appears to result in the cut-out being too high, or, rather, stretched vertically, which softens the severity of the return curve towards the roof. If it were not for this mistake with the cab, I think the Oxford Dean might pass muster for some of the inter war Deans at various points, but I do not believe that any class member had a cabside that resembled this profile, and the subject of Locomotion's model certainly does not. With a couple of books (neither of which I have - I just relied on Russell and my own 2014 snaps of the prototype) , or, simply, a Google image search, we can all of us check and see that the cab is wrong. Really, I cannot think what the "NRM Curators" were doing when they passed this. Locomotion could do itself and the rest of us a signal service if it were to insist upon a re-tooling of the cab. If it did, we would not only have an accurate limited edition model, but Oxford could save its Grouping and BR era standard range models. Then I could buy one! We can only hope! I really want the National Collection in Miniature range to thrive and expand. I really want Oxford to get its act together and be the new manufacturer it could be, with interesting releases that fill up useful gaps. I think it is really in the best interests of both, however, not to push a sub-standard and inaccurate model onto the public. I have read several posts excusing Oxford's inaccurate models by referring to their 'Railroad' range pricing. My own view is that this is no excuse as it would have cost no more to make an accurate model in these instances than it did to make an inaccurate one. However, this excuse clearly falls down in the case of a premium priced limited edition. Please, please, can Locomotion pause and insist upon Oxford getting this right?

This was a concern noted with regard to the 2309 model. I don't think I explained it very well, but Miss Prism's pictures speak a thousand words. As with 2309, the cab of the prototype seems to have been raised, presumably when the belpaire firebox was fitted. As noted on the main Oxford Dean Goods topic, the cab of the model appears to be the height of the raised version, but the distance from the top of the cab cut-out to the roof line is too narrow, as if the cab had not been raised. This, I worry, has had the effect of distorting the curve of the cab-side cut out (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107457-oxford-rail-announces-oo-gauge-gwr-dean-goods/page-20 - post#490). Though Miss Prism's pictures illustrate the point best, you can see from the OP's picture of the prototype that the cut-out curves in more sharply than it does on the drawings of the model. Below are a couple of cab-side shots of 2516 to further confirm this. What did the NRM curators have to say about this, one wonders? If there is any chance of correcting this apparent fault before release of the Locomotion model, that would be great. Incidentally, if you look at the picture of the real thing, you can clearly see the line marking the original roof line, before it was raised (see arrows).

Alas, I have not, and cannot find for sale, the RCTS volume. William Dean, the Greatest of Them All is on order!

So, first question: When was the top-feed removed from 2516? Also, note how far back the chimney is mounted compared with the preserved locomotive. It would have been useful if STEAM had provided a date for this photograph. http://www.steampicturelibrary.com/dean-goods-no-2516/print/4079975.html This, presumably later, but also undated, picture more closely resembles 2516's preserved state. It's in '40s livery, so I wonder at what stage she achieved this shape? http://www.steampicturelibrary.com/dean-goods-no-2516/print/4079977.html See also: http://www.steampicturelibrary.com/dean-goods-no-2516-merthyr-1956/print/4079979.html So, sometime between wearing the top feed (1913?) long enough to be grubby (and unlined?) and gaining the 1940s livery, 2516 appears to have achieved the appearance she has in preservation and as Oxford will depict.

The correct firebox (and a couple of the cab):

A very attractive structure, and I love the subtle tones of the colouring. Very convincing.

Locomotion is a great place. It houses some wonderful exhibits, and has a good model shop. Everyone should visit (and should take in the nearby Head of Steam at Darlington, too). With the commissioning of the GN Atlantic (which I am very happy to have bought) and the Stirling Single (which I hope to afford!), it has done a great service to the steam age modeller. The modern image modeller has had much to celebrate with the APTE. It is great to see another steam-outline model on the way. I would assume that Oxford scanned 2516, and, so, I hope we can expect that the tooling will allow an accurate model of this prototype to be achieved that avoids the issues that afflict 2309. We shall have to wait and see with our fingers firmly crossed. That said, this is a model of a plain green work-a-day locomotive of the inter-war period. It seems that making it special is largely to be achieved by giving it a wooden box and an "as preserved" gleam. Many serious modellers will have no need of the presentation case and will reach for the dullcoate to tone it down. Thus, I would have vastly preferred the model to have been less glossy in a card-board box and closer to the standard Oxford Dean Goods in price, but no doubt the collectors will like it. We should not mind paying a little more in order to support the preservation effort and I wish this one luck.

Guilty as charged Wonder no longer! A well-spent childhood ...

Not sure how this topic has eluded me hitherto, but very well observed and beautifully modelled. A visual treat indeed.

Builder Plus. It has a distinctly Midland look to me. I wish I still had it! Compound, I thought beer was what your railway was all about! Mullie - big fan of Builder Plus, which used the sort great photo-realistic textures that we now have with downloadable ranges.

Not saying anything. Having lived for 8 years in the Cambridgeshire Fens, who am I to comment on in-breeding? As ever, beautiful modelling.

Yes, but you clearly painted those station buildings