Edwardian

I agree,and have long since concluded that the two best places to model for maximum variety were Carlisle and Addison Road! Neither noted rural idylls, however. And if you think I'm hand-building the point work for a major city station ............ [snorting noises ensue]!!!!!! Ox & Berks is interesting - LNWR to Oxford, GC & GW Joint, LSWR to Windsor and SECR with LSWR to Reading. I have no notion of the geography in these parts, which are quite foreign to me as a 50% Midland-50% Northern chap, but I imagine that there are all sorts of reasons against extending the GW Henley on Thames branch north, via Watlington, now a junction and also linked to Wallingford, while we're about it, and up to join a line to Oxford, or for LNWR, SECR, LSWR and GCR to use it as well! Perhaps the Midland and the GNR would like to find a way to work through from Luton and the GER from Hertford whilst we're about it! There is a limit to our ability to render the implausible plausible!

I suspect that yours is a premature judgment and I would hope that it would not be proved correct. What you suggest is obvious is, I'm afraid, not obvious to me, but, of course, I may be missing something here. There are, no doubt, some strange obsessives out there whom we refer to by the much kinder appellation of "collectors", but I don't think we are talking about Oxford Rail customers as people who might want everyone of a hundred different liveried 1960s Bedford Ice Cream Vans, or whatever. On the whole I think Oxford Rail customers will likely prove to be no different from Blue Box and Red Box customers, with varying degrees of need for prototype fidelity. Much as I deplore, and increasingly come to resent, money-spinning 'fast ones' like squeezing a stream of inappropriate wagon liveries out of your groaning RCH 1923 7 Plank toolings, everyone does this. No one says, as a result, "don't buy Blue Box or Red Box because they have no regard for accuracy" (well, some people might, but you know what I mean!). Making a toy train range doesn't make sense for Oxford or for anyone else. I am not sure the market particularly need a second Railroad range (much as this range has its uses). There is also no point in making model railway locomotives if they are to be model locomotives, only not quite good enough compared with the opposition. I am bound to assume, therefore, that Oxford are making every reasonable effort to produce accurate models of good quality. If you have spotted an inaccuracy on an early sample or image of the Southern Radial, I would encourage you to contact Oxford about it. In the case of the Dean Goods, there is one criticism that it appears possible to discount, that of the of the willy-nilly application of every conceivable livery to the same tooling, because Oxford has stated that the tooling "suite" will allow for variants. I take that to mean physical differences, as opposed to livery changes. Of course, Oxford might not get the combination right every time, but provided that a given model looked like a particular Dean Goods at some time in its life, you can go out and buy the right etched number plates. And those who can't be bothered to research a match will presumably content with any variant the manufacturer offers them. If there are any queries or points of concern about the Dean, really I think it is best for all concerned to raise them asap with Oxford. Otherwise, as has been said before, and not just by me, I suspect we really need to wait and see before passing judgment. Sounds like a Honda with a hole in its exhaust

I suspect buyers may be placed in 3 broad categories (an imperfect exercise productive of controversy, I know!): 1. The Collector and Run-What-I-Like modeller. They may be presumed to buy almost anything if it is attractive and takes their particular fancy. Nothing wrong with that, but I suggest that buyers in this category will not be overly concerned by accuracy. 2. The more discerning, who would generally like to think the models they buy are accurate, but who may, nevertheless 'tolerate' inaccuracy up to a point, or, who may buy because they are genuinely ignorant of the inaccuracy. 3. Those with the knowledge and discernment to insist upon a high degree of accuracy. I would not want to guess at percentages, but I would suggest it likely that 1-3 are listed in descending order of sales volumes and ascending order of vocal criticism. In the interests of full and frank disclosure, I'd say I am probably somewhere within Category 2 aspiring to be Category 3! So, sales-wise, a manufacturer might be able to afford to ignore Category 3, and a, perhaps growing, number of Cat 2s. And they do, e.g. every time they put a pre-Grouping livery on a 1923 RCH wagon. That is not wise. The vocal nature of Cat 3 ultimately erodes reputation and a growing number of Cat 2s may be 'turned'. It is these floating voters in the middle who are always decisive in the end, and the trend is that over time they have become more discerning and more vocal. So, the trick of it is, presumably, to make a model to a sufficiently exacting standard to satisfy most of the Cat 3s (you could invent a machine that goes back in time and that shrinks prototypes to 1:76 scale and the results would still not satisfy some Cat 3s!), but that is shiny enough to tempt most Cat 1s. Cat 2s are satisfied in the process. No one said that would be easy. Of course, that's all pure speculation on my part!

Ah, you see, I know better than to call them 'trap points' and thought I was on safe ballast with 'catch points', but, then, as I hope never to be guilty of underestimating my own ignorance, I assumed that "watch points" was some especially correct pre-Grouping terminology. If it had been 1 April, you could have got away with it entirely!

Thank you, Simon. Yes, turntable, I will sort that out among the hurly-burly of the day/evening. Sorry not to be more intelligent about watch points, but in my ignorance I will happily adopt the submissions of m'learned friend, as I was once apt to say. And, yes, the role of modelling is curious. The best is when I am enthused and optimistic. There is also the more compulsive escapist type of motivation. They are both enjoyable, but the latter inevitably eventually gives way to Black Dog, as worsening reality intrudes. if modelling persists at this point, the joy turns to ashes in the mouth. After a bit of a lacuna, one then, of course, picks oneself up and dusts one oneself down and, in the approved manner of the song, starts all over again. Having had a somewhat mentally febrile, creatively sterile, couple of weeks, I am regaining motivation, so, bar a further kick in the teeth by an Unkind Fate, I hope to back in production by the weekend. You are quite correct that the way is smoothed by friends (amongst whom I seem to have fallen here), family and armchair modelling, and, not to lay anything on anyone here, I have found, by the kindness of strangers.

One day, Oxford will doubtless produce a round-top firebox version in Indian Red frames, Resistance at that point becomes futile!

Please don't stop work on CA! As I mentioned a whole lot of things have to happen before Next Project (House sale, solvency, dedicated shed construction, remnants of exhibition layout retrieved from storage, but, first and foremost, the completion and enjoyment of CA). I was merely looking ahead, and explaining why, ultimately, Cambrian Railways kits might end up being of use to someone currently modelling Norfolk!. Yes, 17 years in the armchair, not all of it on our uppers by any means, has led to a surprising amount of stuff. Next Project is actually conceived as the most efficient means of combining it all! Yes, I am very manic at the moment. The alternative is worse, however.

You are both quite correct. However ... Most, if not all, of my other layout ideas, fictional or factional, would result in layouts for which I would have to produce stock that fits. Just this once, I want a layout that can accommodate the maximum variety of stock, giving what I have already a home and allowing my somewhat catholic tastes to continue to flourish. So, I would retain the layout's original concept of a GW single-track line linking 2, probably secondary, mainlines. These latter were originally GW and LMS and GW and SR joint lines. I would add that these mainlines also have GW infrastructure. As such, they could be joint lines proper or lines with running powers. Now this, I would say, can be accommodated. The GW-GC joint line, for instance, was very much of GW 20th Century standard style. On the other hand a joint line might be earlier in date and have its own distinct architecture. Increasingly I think of the Great Western as the sum of diverse parts, and not monolithic. Each bit had its separate heritage and own character. It's rather like thinking of London as a series of different villages, all linked together, rather than viewing The Smoke as an homogenous whole. Then, again, a GW-owned line with running powers will feature GW infrastructure. So, it's all GW infrastructure. That means I miss out on other companies' infrastructure, but should thereby increase flexibility. Obviously I am shifting the time backwards to pre-WW1, but I think that I am also focussing it more. The layout tolerated temporal vagueness in its day, not least because it seems to have run a variety of club members' stock. Yes, I might ultimately try to run 2 'periods', say 1905-1906 and 1912-1914, but the aim would be to ensure that there is consistency within each in terms of what is run. In terms of the lineside, it should not be beyond the Wit of Man, or, even, of me, to 'accessorise' in a way that caters for a 10-year period pre-Great War. If I want to be exact, fashionable ladies can be swapped in and out and motor cars can appear and disappear as necessary (there won't be that many of either in the Sticks!). There are, in any case, numerous anachronisms to eradicate, even for an inter-war Grouping setting - Policeman with ties, road makings and 'modern' 1930s road signs that would hardly have reached a small provincial town in such plenitude and, of all solecisms, the liberal use of Western Region Chocolate & Cream for the structures - so, I thought that, after changing this, I would just keep going! The tricky bit will be to keep the geographical setting ambiguous and this is where I predict that I may come unstuck, though geographical vagueness is also very much in the tradition of the original layout. To illustrate the danger, we could end up with, say, a mainline with a distinct Berks & Hants feel, but with LSWR running powers. At the other end of the line, we could, say, end up on the Welsh Marches with a GW-LNWR joint line. That could be disastrous! As you may have gathered, I am not particularly a fan of stripping out detail beyond the fence and turning my back on vernacular architecture. One advantage I have is that I do not need to run everything at once. It can be GW plus different things on different days. There is, then, the possibility of swapping bits of the layout in or out, but that is much more work to produce and in practice I imagine that I could tire of swapping around bits of landscape before I can run such and such. So, I may clip my own wings before I ever start, but the idea is to be try to get away with as much as I sensibly can. Jason, sorry I forgot to mention my aspirations to model ( a ) Welwyn (later Welwyn North) complete with Welwyn/Digswell viaduct and ( b ) the Offord curves. I am clearly quite mad.

I do, thanks Chris. I am one of those modellers always dreaming about the next 100 projects. A number of things have to happen for the next project to be realised, not least of which is completing CA to a reasonable standard. I have, in a fairly dilapidated state, the bones of a once fine exhibition layout of some antiquity and former renown. This layout used to be run as Grouping era (with a fair few anachronisms, it must be admitted!) but was geographically ambiguous. The basic premise was the that layout was a GW line that linked a GW/SR mainline with a GW/LMS mainline. Probably implausible, but my idea is to stick to this concept, restore the layout but also build the junctions with the mainlines at each end. I would keep the geography ambivalent (the opposite of CA, I suppose), but tie the period to pre-Grouping. Most of the "Edwardian" collection would favour the years immediately before WW1, but eventually I'd like to have enough stock suitable for c.1905-1906 running sessions too, so I can have Indian Red frames! Why am I blithering on about this? Well, the idea is to create the perfect Rule No.1 layout, so I can run (though not necessarily all at once) the greater part of the pre-Grouping stuff that interests me. One of the prime candidates for a place in this world is the Cambrian Railways. Others are LNWR, Midland, LSWR, SECR, GCR and, of course, the constant, GWR. Narrow Gauge feeder lines will resemble the GVT and the L&B. As I say, these would not all run at the same time. Mad? A big childish train set? Yes! And sorry if the idea offends, but it's a reasonable way to run anything I want. If I model further layouts after that, they are likely to be prototype locations. I have a wish-list as long as your arm of those (Merstham SECR/LBSC, Wolferton GER, Marple MR/GC, Barnard Castle NER, Chirk GW/GVT, Barnstaple LSWR/L&B, Catterick Bridge NER/CCR, Wisbech GER/W&UT, Craven Arms GW/LNWR/BCR .....). This is not to mention freelance railways, some of which would be a lot bigger than the WNR! Perhaps I'll mange some of these projects, but in the meantime, having a layout upon which I can run more or less anything has to be the answer. So, yes, access to Cambrian Railways subjects would certainly tempt me. Let us see if I can make a reasonable fist of CA first, however!

Whereas I think the basic point is that both praise and condemnation would be premature, we will have to wait and see, I can at least contribute something of an update, which I feel is somewhat reassuring. It would not be fair, I thought, to criticise, or adopt others' criticisms, without asking Mr Oxford himself to comment. And he has, in a lengthy and cordial email. First, you will be delighted to know that the reference on the website to "Deans Goods" should go. Not that serious railway modellers are the slightest bit pedantic, but I thought they may as well get it right as not. Second, Oxford say that the samples we have seen were first samples and unchecked, but that it appears from some of the subsequent discussion that it has been assumed these are final or approved samples and that magazines have given them full, in depth reviews, none of which is the case. Third, the number plate modification was approved last week. Fourth, the paint colours were something Oxford wanted to change, though they point out that lighting in some studios has affected the real colour quite significantly when viewed on screen. Fifth, the handrails are all hand applied without an assembly jig as the samples are for for livery experiments, and not EP samples. Oxford say they’ll aim to replicate the real thing. Sixth, the moment you've all been waiting for, the firebox profile point, is, apparently, something that is new to my correspondent. It has been passed to the Engineer to check. Finally, and this could be very good news indeed, "the tooling suite has a number of variations built into to accommodate variants in the class from ‘as built’ to ‘withdrawal’". As, I believe, the whole class was built under Dean, between1883 and 1899, so far as I am aware "as built" equals round-top firebox. So, my fingers are firmly crossed on this one. Any other flaws and inaccuracies anyone has clocked but not told Oxford about? I'm back to my books to make my own assessment.

Well, when I get a moment, I will trawl through what data I can find on the class. I have not got the RCTS volume that covers the class, unfortunately. I will try to assess matters better for myself. It worries me that I might be being unfair to Oxford, and that I should have more confidence, both as to the extent they have got things right and to the extent that they can fix things they haven't. I still cannot see that the firebox profile is correct, because the sample images clearly show a different profile from that of every prototype belpaire for the class that I have seen. I would vastly prefer it if this (and the 4-plank) turned out to be good representations of the prototype than not. I take no pleasure at all in picking faults and saying upon release "told you so, rubbish model". With the greatest respect for all the learned contributors here and elsewhere, I think the newbie lesson I have learnt today is that I need to educate myself to the extent necessary to form my own judgment.

Can we tell all that from the photographs and videos of the sample? Genuine question (not trying to make a point)

For me, now, it all depends upon whether Oxford addresses the issues so far identified with the Dean Goods. If it does, I may continue to contribute suggestions to the Oxford Wish List topic. If it doesn't, based upon the premise that a poor RTR model of a given prototype tends to discourage the production of a rival good model, sadly I might have to start a topic listing the models I don't want Oxford to make! I won't write off Oxford yet, by any means. In fact, I am straining every fibre willing them to make a success of the Dean and their other planned releases. My enthusiasm is somewhat tempered, however, in that I am no longer sure that I want to see them making wish list models in preference to Red or Blue Box. If the Dean turns out well, however, I will gladly resume cheers of "Go, Oxford!" Popular subjects are essential for manufacturers, but are taken on at heightened risk; take something as cherished as, say, the Terrier, Dean Goods, or Buckjumper and get it wrong and you will not be forgiven! Let us hope for the best. The Dean Goods, Oxford's second locomotive and a cherished and long-lived pre-Grouping prototype, will be, for me, Oxford's acid test.

Well, that would seem to be good news. Let me be frank. I am a returnee. I am not afraid to confess my ignorance. What detailed, as opposed to general, knowledge I have of the prototype is limited to the research undertaken in relation to specific potential projects. So, I know quite a bit about the Great Western in South Devon the 1930s, which might cause me to run the LNER 6-plank or, even, the LNER Cattle Wagon, but I lack the knowledge of that company that I have of the GWR. I have a number of pre-Grouping ideas, and am interested in the possibility of running the NBR 4-plank. I am unlikely, however, to acquire a detailed knowledge of NBR wagons unless I contemplate a project centred on the NBR, and I have not that knowledge yet, at any rate. In other words, like many modellers, I rely upon expert guidance in one form or another. If I felt I could unquestioningly trust Oxford's research and execution of the model, that would be fine, but there have been too many documented inaccuracies in relation to tooling and livery application for me to feel the necessary degree of confidence. The gentleman I quoted seems to know his stuff. His comments are persuasive. If his conclusions are unreliable, if he is wrong, or is right only to the extent of minor inaccuracies reasonably overlooked, then I, for one, would be delighted. I'd rather have this wagon than not. My point is simply that I am not in a position to gainsay him. If I have inadvertently propagated 'duff gen', then I will do my best to make up for that, and apologise publically to Oxford. Truth is, I don't know the answer, so looking at both sides of the debate and a little research for my own part would seem to be the way forward. I hope this is a reasonable representation of its prototype. If it is I will buy it, and celebrate a win for Oxford. EDIT: Apropos of Ken Rockwell, this cautionary advice is something I would doubtless benefit from applying to the world of model railway products: "If you’re a young or new photographer reading this, please read other websites like CameraLabs or DP Review. Most importantly, look at more than one source and do not take anything you read online for granted. Also remember: camera reviews always have a part of personal preference."

Agree. There is a danger here. Look at the Terrier. A new-tooled 4mm model comes out very high in the wish-list polls, but, so far, the crude and hopelessly inaccurate Dapol/Hornby offering has deterred any alternative. Having said that, the Hornby J94 has not deterred DJH, but then, this was a modern locomotive and even the most popular and useful pre-Group designs will get one shot at best in a given generation. Witness no new 4300 or J72 as yet. The industry has its work cut out re-tooling models to out of date standards. New models need to meet present day demands for accuracy and quality. We cannot afford backward steps. It is very important, not just now, but for people entering the hobby thirty years from now, for Oxford to get this right. Come on Oxford, show us you can do it!

Fair point in principle, but here I quoted more or less the full critique, not selectively. please note the earlier disclaimer: "I quoted this gentleman's remarks because he does seem to know what he's talking about, and I leave it to others to decide for themselves if, assuming the criticisms are well-founded, they matter"!

Well, whether any given error is sufficiently egregious to deter a purchase is very much an individual choice, and, yes, from 3' away on a moving train whether it is going to matter is a very different matter. I quoted this gentleman's remarks because he does seem to know what he's talking about, and I leave it to others to decide for themselves if, assuming the criticisms are well-founded, they matter. All I can say is that he knows way more than I do and, apparently, more than Oxford, about these wagons. And not wanting to deny the Junior Messrs Black & Decker's entirely reasonable inclination not to mind the errors, in fairness to the "Rivet Counter General", he did conclude that there was rather more than misplaced bolts in issue; he said, "large numbers of detail and dimensional errors". In fairness to Mr Oxford Rail, I have not decided against this model, but I must confess, a purchase is now less likely than it was. I will have to reach my own view, based on prototype photographs, as to whether the model captures the appearance of the subject sufficiently well. The one point I would offer here as my own opinion is that the errors, born whether of corner-cutting or, in many cases, apparent carelessness, appear to be mounting across this nascent range. There may be commercial imperatives for some compromises on accuracy. Some, though, like the detail on the 4-plank and the misshapen firebox on the Dean Goods are very much "you may as well get them right as get them wrong" issues, which is frustrating. I would like to be able to trust Oxford to get the details right where reasonably possible. Moreover, I like to believe that Oxford cares enough to do so. As things are at the moment, I feel that with anything this company announces or offers I will have to research thoroughly before deciding whether it's "hit or miss". Come on Oxford, you're close, but you need to go all the way!

Oh my prophetic soul! "Hi All Having checked the actual PO liveries on offer at least two have been produced before by Hornby or Bachmann and, as previously, they are not liveries found on this design of wagon. The Hamilton Palace version I cannot source but my suspicions have obviously been aroused which is more than I can say for my enthusiasm towards this 19th century design wagon. Once again they have ignored the potential of accurate pre group or even pre 1907 RCH PO designs in favour of freelance models of even earlier vintage. Edit. The Hamilton Palace livery has now been checked and again is not on a wagon of this design so apart from the NB livery and possible other liveries these PO styles do not apply. If OR had made an accurate model of a different NBR wagon things might have been different. This livery has also been produced on a model by Hornby. So, NOT authentic, NOT accurate and NOT original. "The 3 private owner versions certainly have 4 wheels and buffers, end doors, axleboxes etc in common with the prototypes on which they are based but since they should be Caledonian Railway wagons to diagrams 22 or 46 that is where the similarity ends. "Two new 4 plank PO liveries have been announced by Oxfordrail but alas, like the previous 3, they are no more authentic, neither looking much like the prototypes on which they are based." http://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11368 I can see that Oxford's output is likely, at best, to prove to be something of a Curate's Egg through which we will have to pick very carefully indeed.

Worth quoting in full, I think: "Hi All Sadly, like all the previous models by OR, they seem to have made their own interpretation of the prototype with only an overall passing resemblance to the actual wagons. The finer details such as the positioning of most of the bolts and the end door hinge loop design seem to have been left to the discretion of someone without access to either Mr Hooper's or Mr Tatlow's excellent publications or the General arrangement drawing. The cost of correctly positioning these details can hardly be much more than getting them wrong but fortunately the Wizard Models version appears to be far better, albeit only in kit form. From what has been said by OR there appears to be very little likelihood of any changes so the more enlightened LNER or NBR enthusiast will be back to kit building for the foreseeable future. They will no doubt sell in droves to those who do not worry about the standards of models they buy but just want pretty wagons at low prices. Not really a great step forward for Scottish or pregroup modellers especially as those with such specialised interests are more likely to want models of at least the quality of existing kits." Oh dear. There's more: "Hi All Having completed my research into these 4 OR models. as the pre-pros currently stand, my opinion is that they are all, in the words of another contributor, "A Total Dog" The base model has only a passing resemblance to the NBR Diagram 26 (16b) incorporating, as it does, various features of the NBR diagram 1. The large numbers of detail and dimensional errors have spoilt what would have been an interesting but not important 4mm wagon."

I still think Betamax was a better system ....

Well, I am not going to let the improbability of pre-pooled wagons going anywhere I choose stop me from having the North British ones. The POs I would not have a use for in any event, but could this be Oxford applying liveries to wagons that never wore them again? It would be interesting to get a feel for whether Hornby Train-set levels of integrity are to be expected from Oxford!

And did Broad Gauge in ancient times, Run to the West from Paddington? And were those steeds of fiery mien Through England’s pleasant pastures seen? These days, despite the effort, toil, care and investment, there are no prizes for a 'mainly accurate' locomotive. To some extent I have been reacting to the view, expressed by those with doubtless greater knowledge than I of such things, that the firebox faux pas was something too late to cure without major expense. If Oxford is willing to make the revision, then obviously I would be thrilled and all sins will be forgiven. Mind you, in that case I think Oxford will be responsible for generating what will have been a lot of unnecessary concern over their intentions and their basic competence in this field; one might fairly argue that to post a pre-production version in lime green with a misshapen firebox was brave to the point of foolhardiness! They may yet try to sell us this very thing, however! As you say, we'll just have to wait and see ...

Thanks, Chris. That Brown & May Portable Engine of circa 1860 is rather wonderful.

The one that's an Englishman, obviously

I would not dress it up, or condone it. He behaved badly and needed to suffer consequences. The Beeb, being a public body, cannot really allow an off the record sort it out man to man round the back culture, so there had to be consequences. I just think the Beeb got it wrong. Interestingly, John Prescott's ministerial career was unaffected when he lamped someone. Now that someone provided provocation in the form of a thrown egg, I believe, but, nevertheless, Prescott's act was hardly self defence and was arguably out of proportion. Prescott kept his job. The guy Jezza lamped apparently accepted the apology. And if he can forgive, why not the Beeb? A shorter, sharper, punishment followed by a period of rehabilitation might have been better for everyone. But this is typical Beeb, let all sorts of things slide for years, then suddenly decide it has to act, so loses its head and overreacts.