Edwardian

Agree, except, of course, it's not our wonderful railway. it's God's And He might just smite Mr Oxford if he doesn't sort that firebox out!

Oh, no, another case of "Premier Line Complex" "Nurse! Nurse! Over here!"

Well, if he is I am sure that some kind friends have provided him with a false passport and smuggled him over the border to safety. I don't want to have a go at the guy. His intentions seem to have been the best. Unfortunately, we all know what that means in terms of where the paved road leads. If he won't even acknowledge a potential customer .... I'd be inclined to help him, but we don't really know the position, though that's just the point; we don't know. Communicating with one's public can go a long way. Sadly, I think we have to assume that most of these cherished ranges are gone for good.

I'm afraid that line of argument won't do at all in these circumstances, and I do not think such a 'defence' actually does poor Mr Coopercraft any favours, as it's hardly our fault that we can't get service: - Mr Coopercraft does not, so far as I have noticed, advertise his real name on the website. No reason why he should. No reason why I should know it's Paul Dunn. That is a name that means nothing to me as a returnee to the hobby. - We are not all members of the Ancient Order of Crusty Old Modellers who all know each other by sight and unique body odour. Some of us are just Joe Public. The company has a website and contact details for people like us. Why should I travel the country trying to track him down at a show? Put another way, why can't he answer an email? - In this day and age, if you are a B2C business with an e-commerce website but you can't "cope" with internet orders (or, seemingly, email), really you need to hire someone who can or just give up. - I am not about to congratulate anyone in business for doing his inadequate best. Strictly, I don't have to accept that cottage industry incompetents are a special case. If they set themselves up in business they should deliver what they say they sell. In practice I believe we should extend considerable leeway. Such suppliers are hobbyists too and don't exactly do it to become millionaires! However, this company has a very bad record of some standing and it maintains a website showing everything yet appears to supply almost nothing. That suggests Mr Coopercraft should be looking for buyers or investors (my original point) because however much he is trying, he is clearly not succeeding. I can have all the sympathy in the world for him as an individual, but if he does not supply the product or even answer queries, naturally that will lead to frustration on the part of would-be customers.

Yes, but the effect is still Jezza on the Beeb, which makes the Beeb's stance look ridiculous.

Yes, he is. He has a genuine knowledge and love of his subject and is a good journalist. He is also a very good presenter. I don't have to feel comfortable with all sides of his, doubtless, complex personality, or agree with everything he says on or off camera, to have enjoyed his performance, along with that of his co-presenters, on TG for many years. Also, I have to say, I do not accept the logic of the Beeb's position. His TG contract has gone, but they give him other jobs. I don't want to re-open a can of worms, but I would have thought that no-Clarkson-on-anything for a period, say a year, as part of whatever disciplinary/settlement would have been better. What is the logic of a position that says "we disapprove of what Clarkson has done and we cannot be associated with it, so he will no longer present TG, but we will, of course, hire him to present HIGNFY"? I would have thought some sort of meaningful across the board suspension followed by repentant rehabilitation, e.g. Jonathan Ross. Frankly I found the latter's act of calculated cruelty more egregious than Clarkson's petulant out-burst, bad though that was. More's to the point, I think with this new TG series, the public has been punished enough!

I confess that my thoughts are tending this way. That said, there would be quite a number of issues to navigate. First, does the gentleman want to accept outside investment and control, or to sell, and, if he does would he be realistic about the terms? Owner-managed businesses often have an unrealistic expectation concerning their worth. This one, sadly, appears to have both a broken machine and a broken reputation. The Coopercraft kits may be worth saving, but the business of that name cannot really have any goodwill left. The owner may still entertain hopes of being able to run the thing. Realistically, however, it is unlikely that anyone investing significant sums to get these ranges going would see a role for the present owner. It is not beyond the wit of the talents here to evolve a business plan that could work. All sorts of decisions would need to be made. I would suggest the existing website would have to be scrapped and the offering re-branded with a site that starts off featuring only the products that can be supplied. Fairly unsentimental decisions would have to be taken as to what is produced first and whether some things can be produced at all, though the eventual aim must be to re-introduce as much of the ranges as possible. The alternative is a takeover by a larger company, and I tend to agree that Parkside would seem an excellent choice. Their products I have found to be truly excellent, they have remained committed to new product releases and they seem to be a friendly and efficient bunch. I suspect most of us would feel that the 'lost' Coopercraft, Kirk and Slaters ranges would be in good hands with Parkside. That said, there are a number of reasons why Parkside might not want to take on the range. It may not make commercial sense. They also would doubtless bear in mind that some of these kits, e.g. wagon kits, area little dated and perhaps not quite to the standard of their own. Having said that, they have been willing to take on 'legacy' narrow gauge ranges, of differing vintages, media and sophistication and to run them in harness with their own. Why not do so with the 4mm and 7mm standard gauge ranges? But, I agree that it behoves the modelling community to show willing and to be pro-active, rather than complacently await a white knight, whether from Kirkcaldy, the Heights of Beer, or wherever. For my part, I can bring the necessary legals and marketing to the table, but, I am afraid, not a lot else at present. Anyone with anything to offer, now would be a good time to step forward.

A "Ms" in 1947? Surely the Monstrous Regiment was not on the march that early? Barely lacing up its boots, I would have thought?

Ah, the ability of our Continental cousins to render the clean, elegant British outline design ugly! Still, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if you can live with that firebox faux pas (which is French, see what I did there?), then best of British Luck to you!

John, I assume these are the Ian Kirk LNER kits (4mm). I would imagine there loss must be felt quite keenly by LNER modellers, of whom I used to be envious in that regard. My particular interest like you is in Coopercraft GW wagons. I wish I had a couple of those old 4-planks with the cast plates! The Slaters coach range and, particularly, their spares, was quite a valuable resource.

So, possibly still in business. But it seems to me that the business has allowed its credibility to be destroyed. Completely failing to acknowledge a potential customer's attempts to communicate doesn't help with that and I suspect few will be brave like Clearwater and place an order. Frankly these ranges deserve more than a guy who turns up to the odd show with a few boxes. There is an e-commerce site that holds out the entire range as being available, and that is misleading to say the least. For whatever reason, the owner cannot deliver and the suspicion is that he has bitten off much more than he can chew. He does need to recognise the reality of this and sell. Bottom line is I would like Coopercraft and 4mm Slaters wagons and Slaters coaches and I cannot get them.

I wanted to know what the current position was; I found an existing topic on this business, but it had been locked sometime ago. Over the last 12 months I have noticed many derisive comments on RMWeb, suggesting that the business is now pretty much regarded as a joke. So, I thought I would give Mr Coopercraft the benefit of the doubt and give him a chance to respond to a query. Unfortunately, my attempts to contact this business have been completely ignored, so I thought it worth a post to say that, so far as I can tell, the business is moribund. It is frustrating, to say the least, to return to the hobby to find that so many of the important kit ranges have been collected together by a single business that either cannot or will not make the products available. These ranges are privately owned, but in another sense they are the legacy of the hobby as a whole. Mr Coopercraft has evidently failed in whatever he set out to achieve and, for the sake of the modelling community, he should sell on to someone who is willing to make these products available. We have lost too many good ranges through, death, illness, retirement or what have you. Mr Coopercraft's failure has accelerated these losses to a substantial extent.

Neil, I have sent you an email with everything I have on this class. Thanks for your kind comments, by the way, and please stick around. Otherplanet, welcome and thank you for your kind comments. This last week or two has been a bit dire and the usual 'hiding from reality with my trains' ploy has not really been an option, so I have neglected CA and its topic. You make a very good point about back-dating. As with everything, I suspect detailed research would be amply rewarded. That tip on the B Type may come in particularly useful should I acquire one. At least one project likely to be commenced in the next couple of years (touch wood) is post 1910. Both a thrashing set and a ploughing set on the move would make magnificent set pieces. Perhaps my next project should be multi-seasonal so that I can have both! Thank you for the links. From an initial look, there both look to be veritable mines of information and I am grateful to you for putting them our way.

Yes, really quite dark

I'm afraid I think you're wrong in this instance. I have been amazed and dismayed by some of, what to me, seems like nit-picking. I found this, for instance, on the Hatton 4800 topic. I have also been frustrated and depressed by the amount of "belly-aching" and running down of manufacturers. It is always best to be positive. I bought the Locomotion GNR Atlantic, despite the mistake over the splasher tops. I was disappointed by compromises on the pre-ordered STEAM Star, but I still bought the general release version. I don't expect perfection and I am glad that these locomotives were modelled, and generally modelled well, rather than not. I can choose to fix or to ignore the relatively minor mistakes or compromises, and hope that they are not repeated in other models. There is a point at which the problems tip the balance against a model, and there is a degree of subjectivity in terms of what tips the balance for a given modeller. From what we have been shown so far, I fear that, for me, the balance is tipping against the Oxford Dean Goods. It evidently isn't for you, but then again, you were not going to buy it anyway as its the wrong scale and "region" for you, so, really, why should I, who am a potential customer, care that you are not persuaded that it is inaccurate to a problematic extent? If there is something equally bad as the blanket negativity of know-it-all rivet counters, it is a manufacturer expecting me to buy its inadequate best effort.

I don't disagree with any of that. I don't shy from the idea of attempting a round-top conversion (and the results are entirely at my own risk!). I don't shy away from work to correct or replace the belpaire body shell. I don't, as a consequence, shy away from the need to repaint and/or re-line. What I object to is a manufacturer offering (1) a lined green pre-WW1 version and (2) an inter-war version, neither of which are acceptable and that will need surgery and a re-paint before they resemble the prototypes they claim to be. That is simply not good enough. We have enough of a problem with abysmal hangers own, still being hawked and re-tooled, e.g. the Hornby Terrier, but we accept these old unacceptable models take time to replace. There is no excuse for such inaccuracies in a new model, however.

I agree. The firebox issue may be a 'lost in translation' error. Nevertheless, it is an error and should be corrected. You can't just say "Oh well, never mind, but otherwise it looks pretty good!". Get it right if you want our praise and our hard-earned. Much as I welcome Oxford's move into 4mm RTR, I can't afford to make sympathy purchases to help a wayward newbie offering. The issue of radial hand-rails is poor. Hornby has been vocally criticised for this in relation to two models as far as I am aware. Simply to ignore that reaction and be content to replicate the error suggests that Oxford is just not trying. Find a way of achieving the necessary weight without compromising accuracy in this way. That's your job, I'm afraid, Oxford, and "it was easier to do it this way" just isn't good enough in relation to this issue. Public opinion has already decided against Hornby on that one. I'd much rather Oxford spent a further year sorting these issues out and producing a proper model at the end of it. The indiscriminate Collector may buy a version with all the imperfections so far spotted, but it will not be usable by a modeller without significant work. I am going on a bit, I know, but I am starting to feel let down that Oxford is failing to live up to its early promise. So far, this model is looking like a criminal waste of an opportunity. Furthermore, and regardless of Oxford's boasts about the accuracy they would achieve, I think that we are entitled to expect a new RTR model to reach certain pretty well defined standards of accuracy, detail and production quality. Yes, if we want a round-top version, we will have to convert; no one is complaining about that. And, yes, if we want to stick with a belpaire version, we can bash this Oxford model it to something we would not be ashamed to run on a layout, but the point is, why should we have to? Why have to go to all that effort just to get it to correct the inaccuracies necessary to get to a reasonable representation of the "as advertised" version? Why should we not expect the announced versions to be adequate? People here, myself included, are talking about the feasibility of replacing the brand new body whole-sale with one from a 40-year old tooling! That's crazy. We might expect to do a bit of super-detailing and customising, but do you really want to buy a brand new RTR model that is only any good as a scratch-aid?

Agree. That will be my approach. If the Oxford chassis is good enough it can be used for more or less drastic plastic-surgery efforts to achieve various round-top firebox versions. I do not see why the Mainline locomotive body should not be used for the belpaire versions. I was planning on the round-top surgery anyway, so my "loss" is two RTR versions - a pre-1914 belpaire and a Grouping era belpaire, both of which would now need Mainline bodies, adding £80-100 to the overall costs as I will need to buy two second-hand Mainline models to correct Oxford's mistakes. It's do-able, but I think I am nonetheless entitled to feel frustrated that it should be necessary. Oxford, is that what you want? Articles online and in magazines about "How I replaced my Oxford Rail Dean Goods body with a 35-year old moulding of the same variant because Oxford got its so badly wrong"? Anyway, round-tops, in both pre and post 1906 livery are an attractive and varied subject. Let's hope Oxford gets the chassis right.:

I thought it was filmed in the Mumbles

My thought exactly. I've always liked the body of that model and I think it captures the look of the class fairly well. My current thought is, provided Oxford manage a reasonable job on the chassis, it might be possible to use it and various body parts for round-top firebox versions. With variations such as different dome positions and the choice of Indian reed and black frames, it's probably worth attempting 2-3 models. For the belpaire versions, I am thinking that the Mainline/Hornby body is the better bet.

It's easy to say this now, but I realise now that something was trying to get my attention even then, but fairly deep in my subconscious. I feel that this is something that should have been obvious to me, but I never looked at a picture of the model next to a picture of the prototype until Coachman posted the shots. It is not just, or even mainly, that it is an inaccuracy, but that it looks very wrong and marrs the look of the whole thing, for me, This, to me, is more serious than the wrong number of spokes and the crappy moulded cab rail on the Hornby Star. Even that handrail can be cured with a deep breath and a steady hand. Good luck changing Oxford's firebox. Seriously, they have to put their hands up to this one and change it.

Can I add: A Great Western Dean Goods with a correctly profiled firebox?

The thing is, that firebox shape is not an easy fix. Cosmetically it means starting from scratch. This is a sufficiently fundamental error to warrant going back to the drawing board to fix. If Oxford shy away from fixing this, they will still have many sales. They will not have as many and, worse, I think it gives their credibility a big ding. I am excited and enthused about Oxford Rail. They are new. They deserve some leeway. I am slow to sound a negative note, because I want the company, and this product in particular, to be a success. But, how many bloopers before the cumulative effect is an erosion of confidence that will affect sales of future models and consign Oxford to something resembling Hornby in the '70s and '80s, but with better paint jobs (or, put another way, the Railroad range of today)? I confess that for the first time I am starting to feel discouraged about this company's capabilities and I am willing it to prove my nascent fears groundless. I can only go on my own reactions to the little flaws I have become aware of: Radial? Didn't buy one. Why? Reputed pizza cutter flanges and no daylight under the boiler. This decision did not affect me too badly, it was, after all, Oxford's first loco, I let it pass, consoling myself with the thought that I didn't want a preserved or a nationalised loco and Hornby was about to have a try. 7 Planks? Didn't buy one. Why? Apparently there are accuracy issues with the wagon and the chosen liveries are not appropriate for the1923 RCH subject. I felt this was a real shame, but none of the subjects were that appropriate to any Grouping era layout I am likely to realise. None of this discouraged me or lowered expectations. Surely, I thought, Oxford have noted the feedback on their first generation releases and realised that they have to get the next big release right? Well, the Dean Goods affects me personally. Both pre and post Grouping versions are models I would buy. I had thought to buy up to 4. If Oxford produce this model, no other RTR manufacturer will touch it in this scale for the next 40 years. So if Oxford f- this one up, they ruin it for all of us for a generation and more. I have realised in recent years that depending upon the RTR market can be a quick route to disappointment as often as it is to joy, and RTR is no substitute for the kit and scratch-building ability that I must eventually acquire. having said that, i'd be a fool not to be thrilled if a class I'd like several versions of becomes available and means that I have 4 fewer kits to try to build before I die! I would have thought that Oxford would gain more respect and engender more confidence if they delayed release to fix this problem, even if it meant another year. I am willing Oxford to get this one right.

Finally caught up with the first episode of the new Top Gear. My twopenneth, then. Was I alone in sensing a weirdly forced atmosphere on set? The presenters looked uncomfortable. The audience reacted with an enthusiasm that appeared unnatural and exaggerated, as if the Beeb had handed out amphetamines or had rigged the audience to the Mains, administering a shock every time its auditory enthusiasm fell below the pre-selected level. The success of the new show hinges upon its new lead presenter. The Beeb knows this and has chosen television Midas in the form of Chris Evans. Mr Evans is not to everyone's taste, but, then, neither was Jezza. Certainly Chris Evans is a very able, funny and astute radio presenter, as I have experienced when cadging a lift on the school run, as the family insist upon his morning show. I suspect the problem is not Chris Evans, per se, but the format of the show. My impression was that I was watching, not a new Top Gear, but a Clarkson & Co tribute performance, which was a paler imitation and which inevitably suffered from the comparisons it forced us to draw. The format, often extreme and absurd, worked because it had evolved with Clarkson & Co. Chris Evans has achieved a lot of success in inventing TV formats for himself. This one isn't his. It shows. He is wearing other peoples clothes. They're not his style and they don't fit. As a consequence, his performance was thin, unconvincing, and at times shrieking, bordering on hysterical. For my money Matt Le Blanc carried it off far better, although, he was still performing in imitation of Clarkson et al. I quite enjoyed his bits. The review segments were directed in the usual TG way, but the scripts were also eerily those of Clarkson & chums, which forced unwelcome comparisons and, incidentally, smashed the illusion that the wittily phrased reviews were actually the opinions of the motor-journalists driving the cars. I have seen enough of Clarkson's magazine oeuvre to know that this is how he writes and thinks about the cars he tries out. But, if the review segment scripts for the new show weren't Jezza's, then they were generated by committee of script writers wrting a la Jezza. They did not come to me as the words of either Evans or Le Blanc (save for some of the latter's parting one-liners). I just kept hearing Jezza speak the words over Chris and Matt and I knew I'd rather hear Jezza say them. Le Blanc fared better because, well, he's an actor, so he played an American Clarkson pretty well. There were, of course, changes, but they only made things worse. Does anyone at the Beeb seriously believe that an adequate substitute for Clarkson's badinage with the Star in the reasonably priced car is Evan's asinine 'best first car/current car' performance? The format must evolve into something that better suits its presenters. Perhaps it will, perhaps it already has, but in launching the "new" show with this weak tribute band performance, the Beeb risk viewers simply losing interest and not staying the course. EDIT: I have now read all the previous comments. The overwhelming conclusion seems to be that the old format and the new presenters are not a happy combination. Apologies to all those who had already made points similar to mine, generally more succinctly! Optimism and a sense of fair play might induce me to try further episodes. PS: That German sounded as if she might be a hoot!

That is very interesting. The very slightly undernourished stature of the Ertl Toby would not matter if you, say, posited a freelance tramway. Indeed, both my current freelance scenarios would allow me to getaway with that. I am particularly impressed with your Emily coach conversion, by which I mean that I am both impressed with the potential of this product and with your skilful treatment. I suspect few if any modellers would have guessed the provenance of your model had you not 'fessed up'.