Mad Carew Too

I think most if not all has already been said. 2309 is, to my mind, clearly a write off. I post because someone quite rightly took me to task in a PM about a comment I made effectively writing off Oxford. He pointed out that, after a series of inaccurate releases, the LNER 6-plank was a credible entry, and that this suggests to me is that Oxford can make an accurate model; it just needs time and practice. Well, Oxford bashing is not what this exercise should be about, and, so I said in reply that I didn't doubt he was right. It was very much my view. Others have said likewise. I said that I was sure Oxford, whether they cure the problems with the Dean Goods or not, will be more careful next time. They have the potential to make great models and I don't doubt that they will. I don't suppose anyone likes to give Oxford a hard time (I'd hope not, anyway) but I suspect they are right to in this case. Miss Prism seems to know his/her stuff and makes the points without comment. Those who do comment tend to be constructive, for instance Quarryscapes and Edwardian seem to me to have made sincere attempts to evaluate both the good and bad points and see if it can be 'saved', modified etc. What I don't think does anyone any favours is the sort of low level bullying of people who offer reasoned criticism. I also believe that a manufacturer needs to hear reasonable and reasoned criticism so that it can do better. The solicitous restauranter whose diners are too polite to point out that their food was bad will never know to serve anything better. This model is a seriously inaccurate model. IMHO it should not be released as it is. It probably will be. That is not a good situation. I hope that it will not happen again! But I hope that despite the difficult issues RTR releases throw up form time to time, I and others can continue to co-exist in this happy place with the minimum of friction! So, I was wrong to make a flippant comment to dismiss Oxford Rail. They will get there, I'm sure, though, sadly, not this time.

Great news. To have some Peco engineered track that will look the part and complement the high quality steam outline releases of Bachmann, Hornby, Heljan and DJM. Good news indeed.

I'm with you there! Lovely, lovely Stirling Single, but pretty much a complete revision of the Oxford Dean Goods would be necessary before I'd touch that one with a bargepole, and, sadly, that applies both to the National Collection as well as the 3 catalogue releases. I am afraid that I, too, will transfer my affections (and the contents of my wallet) to the Bachmann Brighton Atlantic (if they do the early condition version in 1911-2 umber livery, that is!!!) I am very buoyed at the prospect of the Single. Like Bachmann, Rapido is a manufacturer that inspires a good deal of confidence. Over used word, but it is an icon, and how wonderful to have some 1870s Victorian steam in pretty much 'as built' condition? Can we have Hardwicke next? If so, please ask Rapido. Bachmann could probably do it, but they seem to have a back-log, and Rapido will have learnt so much about producing a Victorian express locomotive. Please don't ask Oxford!!!

Seems a shame to alter your kit. Could you not sell it and buy Bachhy's Maunsell version?

Please do not forget that, as I believe the photographs conclusively show, the hand rail runs right in front of the upper washout plugs! Not only is this incorrect for 2516 (see Edwardian's very clear photograph), but is an obvious absurdity! Mistakes in minor detail we can take or leave, but this issue creates an engineering impossibility; an engine built with inaccessible washout plugs! I am glad to hear that it is not too late for tweaks; best of luck with them!

I hate to appear critical - these initiatives are very much to be welcomed and encouraged - but I too would hope that Locomotion and Oxford take time to get this right. There might have been a Dean Goods or two that had such a cab profile, but it is neither representative of the class as a whole in this condition, nor is it correct for 2516. This is a Grouping era release,so, should give Oxford fewer problems. Frankly, I've given up on UK outline pre-Grouping, as it's simply not supported and Oxford's tooling is really no good for trying to represent the lined out 2309. It seems that adherents of earlier periods are expected to put up with anything a manufacturer cares to produce, however wrong, or sent away to build something themselves. Imagine if BR modellers were still given that stark choice. It would be like living in the 1970s again! Anyhoo .... Oxford's tooling caters for the Grouping era Dean, and from what I gather 2516 would have resembled this condition by the mid 1930s. It ought to be the case, then, that Locomotion has the basis of an accurate model. It seems clear from the various photographs that, sadly, they don't! What a very great pity. I do hope Locomotion and Oxford can get their heads together to sort this out! The other National Collection in Miniature releases I have seen have been superb, and an RTR model of the Dean Goods would be A Very Good Thing - but only if they get it right!!!!

My thoughts are tending to a spin off project just to get started while I continue to wrestle with insufficient information and skills to attempt Indian Broad Gauge at the turn of the Century. So, a very modest station (loop and a siding or 2) and just one or 2 locos and a little bit of stock, in 4mm scale, but using 12mm gauge track to represent (a little under scale) metre gauge. The origin of metre gauge is interesting. When narrower gauge feeder lines were being proposed for the Indian Broad Gauge system in the 1870s, there was draft legislation to adopt the metric system for India, so, meter gauge was adopted, but, of course, India retained the Imperial system. Apart from the gauge, all other standards were in Imperial, giving us a prototype precedent for the strange combination that is 4mm to 1 foot! This will allow me to use certain off the shelf elements, including track, wheel sets for stock, NG centre couplings and, perhaps, some plastic kits as a basis for stock conversions. This is a gentler start than hand-built track to 22mm gauge and building all the stock without so much as a axle available! The link to the North West Frontier theme, is, of course, the metre gauge railways of Rajasthan used in the film. There is one major difficulty. I would have to scratch-build outside frame locomotives to 12mm gauge. Allan Gibson supply wheels to the correct diameter, and they supply outside cranks. I suppose I could substitute the axles supplied with rod to the same diameter. However, as a novice, any help or suggestions would be most welcome.

I have continued my researches, fitfully it must be admitted, and came across a piece on the 1959 film, North West Frontier, which must bear the ultimate blame for this topic! There is, I warn you, a certain amount of politically correct breast-beating to endure - and I regard myself as a liberal, a pluralist and a citizen of the world as a say this - because the fact remains that the warlike and untamed tribesmen from either side of the North West Frontier who plagued the Raj were muslim and, as the site acknowledges, the film was made only a few years after Partition, so not to show the massacre would seem like glossing over unpalatable reality, though he is correct to point out that both sides did such things at the time. Anyway, it is interesting in identifying a few more of the Indian locations Here is the link: http://www.willylogan.com/?tag=pakistan

One of the great things about this site is the expertise. It seems to me that the degree to which a lack of detail or an inaccuracy is tolerated is a matter of personal preference. Personally, I wouldn't say that the criticism have been trivial. Lacking the Nth degree of possible detail or making a reasonably necessary compromise on accuracy is one thing. For me, avoidable accuracies are harder to accept. Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that there are too many mistakes and inaccuracies on this model. It would need a lot of attention, some straightforward, some quite serious. Given this and that, for me, the ancient Mainline loco shell captures the shape and look of the prototype, I am pretty unpersuaded by this release. To come in second, cosmetically speaking, to a 40-year old moulding is pretty poor, to be honest. My only question is whether this model - £95 from a box shifter - is worth it for the chassis and tender? The comet chassis is £20 - what do you get for that, just an etch of the loco chassis? With a new tender u/f, wheels, motor, gears etc, I wonder which option is the most economical? Somewhat galling to take a brand new, modern, full-price release only to chuck away a major part of it, and buy a second hand model to canibilise, but might it be the best option? Somehow the Mainline/Comet route appeals more, and feels as if it would lead somehow to a more "honest" model. I cannot explain why I feel that.

Especially as the GE simply disconnected the front drivers instead!

Edwardian made the point at post #6, but a run-down on the different builders' styles and any subsequent changes would be useful.

Superb model, that Corfe Castle. Thanks for posting.

I am glad to see some topics springing up in the special interests section concerning back-dating RTR models to a pre-Grouping state. I hope there will be one devoted to this release (and that it won't get locked again!). Perhaps we can get some thoughtful and positive discussions of these locos in earlier periods.

Can't see a need. With South Eastern Finecast and with spare Wrenn-style plastic bodies available. We can make do with what the manufacturers have dished up!

Do not make the mistake of assuming those who call for more RTR support do not also enjoy building for themselves; the two are not mutually exclusive. Also, Dunsignalling, I don't think anyone is having a go at Transition Era modellers. Pre and early Groupers, as I see it, are not seeking to put BR modellers in the shade; we just want our place in the sun!

Is 247 able to confirm if and when these will be available, and the cost?

We have lost too much already that was of use in the kit and accessory market. It would be good to start with getting these whitemetal bogies back. I don't know what else 247D did, but I add my vote to more accessories, bogies, axlebox-W-irons for 4 and 6 will stock, vents, gas lamps and so forth. There is not enough of this stuff around any more and we can't afford to lose another range!

Fair points by James and the Johns, I feel. Probably those who actually have suggestions for DJ Models might view the recent debate as a diversion, but if people are not making suggestions or have given up on wish-lists, it is, perhaps, relevant to hear why! I don't make suggestions either! If the colour and variety of UK pre-Grouping were better supported, I'd probably be modelling that scene. In fact, I know I would. I do empathise with those who are effectively forced into modelling the fifties and sixties steam because it's all that's supported by the mainstream hobby. I confess, I am one of those who just cannot summon up the enthusiasm for BR steam. My reaction was to take a - pretty daft - left of field decision to look overseas, at the Raj in the Edwardian era. I say 'daft' because I have not been able to advance research, let alone construction, beyond the very initial stages. It does show how far I was prepared to go to avoid so-called mono-period modelling! It does leave me as one of the offbeat marginalised fringe. I needn't have been, and didn't particularly want to be. I could be happy shaking a box with the best of 'em, if only there was something interesting inside! Earlier periods are not only more varied, but can be more practical. When even an express locomotive was a 2-4-0 and an express coach was a thirty something six wheeler, you are far more likely to fit a convincing mainline in your loft/shed/garage, without a jack-knifing Mark I in sight! RTR has reached the standard and sophistication that can motorise smaller locomotives successfully and capture the detail and ornate liveries. Where it does, it can be stunning, e.g Blue Box E4 and C class. Pity it doesn't do it more often. The Stirling Single will be a stunner!

Right-Ho. Indian Broad gauge locomotives. On its mainlines, e.g. Karachi-Lahore, the NWR ran some lovely 'flyers', 2-4-0 'Mail' Engines from the 1890s, 4-4-0 M Class from 1902 and the Standard Passenger 4-4-0s from 1904. For traffic across the Indus and into the debatable lands of the North West Frontier, I suspect that the abundant small-wheel types would predominate, like the well-known L class 4-6-0s and H class 4-4-0s. Below I list of some of the locomotives that I tentatively suggest might reasonably be included on a fictitious NWF-themed layout. As you can see, I have picked types for which I have at least a photograph and the coupled wheels dimensions, but often I have little else. As these tend to be UK manufactured (sometimes a type would be built by more than one UK builder), I wonder if GAs might still exist in UK archives? Any help or suggestions in obtaining drawings would be must welcome. Passenger & Mixed Traffic Classes NWR KS Class 0-4-2 (ex SPD[1], 1869) 5’6” Drivers Nock (1851-1895) pl.41, Hughes p75, Photos. NWR 2-4-0 (ex SPD) (Dubs, 1884) 5’ Drivers Photo of No.11. Hughes p75 NWR L Class 4-6-0 (Neilson/VF, 1880s) 4’2” Drivers Nock (1851-1895) pl.124. Photo of 448. Hughes p76 NWR HL Class 4-6-0 (Dubs, 1901) 4’3” Drivers Hughes pp76-7 NWR HB Class 4-4-0 (Neilson, 1901) 5’6” Drivers Hughes pp76-7 Goods Classes NWR KR Class 0-6-0 (Vulcan, 1896) 4’7” Drivers at 7’3” centres Vulcan works photo. Bolan Pass Banking Engines NWR Bolan Pass 2-8-2T (Pitts., 1900) 4’3” Drivers Nock (1895-1905) pl.50 3’1” Leading & Trailing ‘Victoria’ BB&CIR A Class 2-4-0T (RS, 1881) 5’ Drivers Photo. ‘Palej’. Hughes p24 [1] ‘Eagle’

Well, to be quite frank, all I have achieved in the meantime is once more to become a victim of two minds. I like modelling in 4mm. Not that I have tried it since the days Yore, but I also have dabbled with 1/76and 1/72 wargames. I just feel comfortable with the scale. I had concluded that the best gauge/scale combination was 3mm using 16.5mm gauge track. 15mm wargames figures should be compatible. The more I looked at this, though, the more it seemed to me that shrinking 4mm scale locos to represent small Victorian engines in 3mm scale wasn't realistic. Having looked at what Edwardian is doing, launching straight into building track for his first layout, can I do less? I would have to cut longer PCB sleepers, and I would have to make a couple of 22mm gauges. Point-work will always be a challenge, but one step at a time. I am wondering if 4mm scale 22mm gauge might be easier after all. That leaves locomotives. Unless the motorised chassis is to be entirely scratch-built, I would have to under-take a re-gauging that would make conversion to EM look like a walk in the park? But, wheel sizes, wheel centres and the overall dimensions of the models themselves in 4mm scale will be a better match than they would be if I were trying to make them represent 3mm scale. Some sort of 2mm rod cut to length for axles would seem to be the answer. Oh, and 4mm scale means I need a bigger room. Oh well.

I suspect I have sinned. I have been away and on my return I found that I could not find a record for password for RMWeb, or for the email account to which the reset is sent, and I found that my verification email address for that email account had been wrongly entered. So, I have had to register again in order to get back here. Now that I am no longer muzzled I am sure some kindly Mod can sort out the tangle in due course! I am sorry to learn of the troubles of Edwardian - It's been a while since we shared info, but I have got nowhere in the meantime, though I found your track making efforts inspirational, and have enjoyed catching up. If I can think of anything interesting to say, I'll try to pop in and keep something going on this excellent topic.

I suspect I have sinned. I have been away and on my return I found that I could not find a record for password for RMWeb, or for the email account to which the reset is sent, and I found that my verification email address for that email account had been wrongly entered. So, I have had to register again in order to get back here. Now that I am no longer muzzled I am sure some kindly Mod can sort out the tangle in due course!