Fat Lieutenant

Fair enough to have a view, but for clarity, what was "very poor form"? Edwardian giving GM the chance to consider the point first, out of the public gaze, before posting? Edwardian repeating the queries in public where GM declines to take advantage and answer? Edwardian asking questions at all/daring to question accuracy in relation to another product? If GM replied to the PM, we don't know what he said, so I don't see Edwardian's breached anyone's confidentiality. We've had posts say that constructive criticism is fine, but that people who purport to know all the facts or are negative in the way they make criticisms are not welcome. Don't disagree, but I don't think you could say that here, Ed's queries were polite and respectful. I think people just don't like the questions being asked. So let's not pretend anymore that it's about the way they're ask. They're are entitled to that opinion. Less sure it always excuses the way it is put. If people go "off message" here, they'd best watch out!

I actually bothered to read Edwardian's interesting and unfailingly courteous questions. It's a shame it they didn't get answered. As is so often the case, those without an answer simply ridicule the questioner. Which several of you took evident glee in doing, with the express support of Andy Y, who rated the content. I think that's a shame, but there you go. Takes all sorts to make a forum. To summarise my understanding: The underframes may be correct or may be fundamentally wrong, but the man with all the research won't say. The panel lines on the ends don't match up with the panels on the sides (duh!) Set 373 should have a sheeted blank ends according to Kernow's own pictures, but we are not to be told whether this will be the case on the production model or whether it will be panelled as per livery sample Redundant gas fitting and questionable vents Questionable bogies Some people clearly don't care about such details. Others do. They should not be disrespected for that. The result here? A question mark over accuracy remains. You pays your money ...

Classic! And 24 hours before anyone noticed ! Still, I'm glad Graham Muz admitted that it had been wrongly assembled (presumably by that blindfolded man with the upside down instructions) and was simply an annoying gaff (which I think was more or less all that was being pointed out). Attention to detail, Boys, that's what it's all about! Still, now we've had our laugh, back to awaiting further progress with interest.

Sending out the best men in the worse kit, that's the MoD. Don't get me started .... !

Good skills. Only question: Was she worth it?

I don't see why you cannot sell relatively inexpensive rolling stock kits on the High Street as well as online, at shows etc. Dapol do. Perhaps Dapol do it on the back of RTR. Perhaps would-be injection moulders should consider an RTR option? Why not revisit the Slaters idea of injection moulded loco kits? You could supply a motorised chassis, bogie, etc and than anyone who can build an Airfix Spitfire can build a locomotive. Why not have a tampo-printer that can print coach sides- painting and lining the sides of a coach is the only really difficult/skilled part of the process for many modellers. Otherwise they'd be just like a Ratio coach kit. Give them pre-printed sides and, again, anyone who can build an Airfix Spitfire can build a coach. Getting the money together will be the issue, of course, it always is, but attractive and well-marketed and distributed creative products will sell. I think a dash of imagination and anyone with the money to invest could make it happen. You need to position them as more mainstream, that's all. I'm in, as they say!

Interesting. I certainly hope it is good news. Those of us who kept up with the helpful analysis and prototype information posted on the Oxford Dean Goods thread will know that there is quite a lot wrong with this model, including Locomotion's 2516 commission. Those who only follow the Locomotion 2516 thread may have a more rose tinted view, as the Howlers drove sensible research-based critique off that thread. So, while I hope to be pleasantly surprised, fixing this model is a tall order and there were also comments from Locomotion suggesting that it was too far down the line to make all the corrections commercially possible. Frankly the jury is out and I don't think there is new evidence yet to justify either pessimism or optimism - we simply must wait and see. Where it leaves this and the wish-list topics, in my view, is that Oxford have not yet made a complex pregroup steam outline model that is a winner, so I too feel they have a lot to prove before I start suggesting things for them to make. But if someone made a decent RTR LNWR crested goods or cauliflower, lined and crested that is, I'd be all over it like a rash!

Midland Railway passenger tank, in Midland Railway livery! Presumably this means it will be in MR condition. What a refreshing change! Hurray!

Good on Peco. I eagerly await!

As I recall, Edwardian has withdrawn his comment, so that would suggest it is no longer his view. As I am second to no-one with ill-judged remarks, apparently, and have had what I think of as an interview without coffee with the CO as a result, I may not be the most persuasive advocate here (!), but I do share the concerns about the treatment meted out to some, usually those who least deserve it. If there is such a thing as an Edwardian Preservation Society, put me down as a subscriber! EDIT: Grateful to Clearwater for referring to the Christmas wagon review - wagon #21982 and 'review' #21994, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/69664-a-nod-to-brent/page-880. If everyone concerned exhibited the same degree of humour and self-deprecation, half these spats wouldn't arise. Merry Christmas!

I came back on to apologise for being "abrasive", but am sorry to note the passive-aggressive sniping at the critics has managed to continue even in my absence. I could say that, in tone, I took my cue from these gentlemen and their dismissive attitude to other members. But that would be to make excuses. Honestly, if I have offended, I apologise. I could have put things differently. I guess I should have realised, as a new boy, that we are all equal here, but some are more equal than others, and that there would be pro-manufacturer slant to the site that ultimately determines what we can, or cannot, get away with saying. I don't know why Andy Y thinks he's met me. Unless he served, I doubt it. On the other hand, I experienced a certain deja vu over how these sorts of topics get moderated, so may be that's it. So, I will try to put things less aggressively. Will others extend that courtesy in return? Well, I guess that's up to them. Moving on, there is IMH[umble]O a tendency to confuse what I believe are two distinct points: 1. What some here believe we should all be able to do if we are to call ourselves "modellers", rather than the "box shakers" referred to with a certain contempt, and 2. What others here believe should be expected of a modern RTR release. Put simply, our ability to correct certain issues with an RTR model (e.g. build an ash-pan or clip some handrails) is really beside the point if these are matters that the customer could reasonably have expected the manufacturer to get right on a modern-spec RTR product. I think this was amply illustrated self-defeating question - how hard can it be to add an ash-pan to this model? Well sure, for the guys who measured it on the prototype and who produced a CAD that included it, how hard should it have been? When there are mistakes like this, it is fair to point them out. It is hard not to sound negative in doing so. To seek to dismiss all this as some kind of irritating high-pitch background noise is not necessary and doesn't (IMHO) do this site any favours. It is still a great looking little model. Perhaps some of us could have said that more often. If I am tempted to buy one, I will have to make some changes. But, thanks to the well-informed contributors here, at least I will know what changes to make. They added something informed, constructive and useful to the debate. Does that mean the manufacturer shouldn't have paid more attention and got certain issues right in the first place? I think it should, but I don't want to go to war over it. I apologise for my part in the grumpiness on this topic, but if people with legitimate points are routinely dismissed as white noise creators, it's going to be hard to keep this cheerful!

This proves something I have long suspected, people will "like" any pretty picture. Uncritically. We appear to be near release. It is clear from these pictures that there are outstanding issues. - The ashpan. Where is it? It has been mentioned several times. Why have we had no response from Hattons? We are told simply that 1466 has been carefully measured. Does it not have an ashpan? I think that most steam locomotives tend to need one. Where is yours? The issue of liveries has not really been addressed: - Given that the pre-war liveries appear to pre-date the physical changes that the tooling represents, can Hattons show us the evidence they have of their tooling matching all the livery/identity options announced? - Can Hattons give the dates for these versions? It is all very well saying, "we did not tool for 'as built' because one tooling can support all liveries", but it does not follow that the chosen tooling can support the dates those liveries were applied! If the tooling represents physical changes made in, say, 1942, the model is no more capable of representing an earlier period just because it wears an earlier livery that it may, or may not, still have been wearing in 1942. - It is frankly disingenuous to dismiss the 'as built' condition as "every minor variation". Is it not much more likely that the curious and apparent miss-match of early livery and late condition that Hattons has chosen to model is a "minor variation"? - What about the handrails on the cab? The rail should end at the knob, not stick through it. Obvious from the photographs. Perhaps this can/will be fixed, but given the imminence of the release, perhaps we can ask for an assurance that it will be?

While I cannot match Edwardian's rage, I don't buy this "just be grateful for whatever you get" bilge that is a common theme here. I don't say your post counts among them, but it comes close to it. By the way, though the phrase "You won't buy on principle; they won't oblige you for sound financial reasons" sounds kinda neat, it does not logically mean anything. Should he buy something he doesn't want? Or do you mean a manufacturer won't make product B because he didn't want product A? Someone said, probably in reference to this and/or Oxford's execrable Dean, that the problem with any RTR release is that, absent inadvertent duplication, its introduction generally guarantees no other RTR manufacturer will touch the subject for a generation. So that means no chance of a pre-war 4800 for a generation. Sorry not to be pleased about that. So, as I understand it, there are more WR than GW modellers these days, but, there is still plenty of life in the GW branch line genre if layouts such as Much Murkle and Hintock and the rest are anything to go by. So, Hattons turned its back on the pre-war GW branch line modeller, and in the process, made a pre-war 4800 a dud proposition for anyone else. Edwardian says that's a bad call. I say it lets a whole bunch of folk down. Do you expect them to be happy with that? To reward Hattons' decision with sales? He says he'd rather build a kit. Can't fault him for that.

So, not really then. A mistake is a mistake is a mistake!

A new cab could make the model visually tolerable, but one thing I am sure they won't be curing will be the over-sized splashers. Necessary compromise? Not really - slightly smaller wheels would have done the trick. Too late, now to get this feature in scale.

Well, as amdaley and edwardian have both mentioned, there is an element of 'wait and see' here. We might yet get something reasonable. What I find frankly odd is the suggestion that OR deliberately made a model with this many issues, or that, somehow, doing so enabled it to be a budget model. Also I don't think it is either highly critical or fussy to want a basically accurate DG, one at least as good as a 35-year old predecessor. If I want a novelty Dean Goods to finish off my Flying Scotsman Christmas Village Dam Buster Flyby Railway Cuckoo Clock in the shape of Tutankhamun from the Franklin Mint, I know where to find an approximation of a DG. As it was, I was thinking of building a model railway. I think it is just a case of a manufacturer that lacks the necessary experience and processes to deliver something as complex as an accurate loco model. Practice makes perfect and they'll probably get there in the end, but it is a shame this prototype has been the victim of OR's learning curve. BTW, plenty of DGs had 3,000 gallon tenders, from what I've see.

Well done mate! I hope it was worth being roughed up. It may be that the NRM curators would have taken Oxford to task anyway - but we started posting on the Locomotion thread on the basis that the curators had approved this monstrousity - that's what the OP said. I'm damn sure Oxford wouldn't have listened without the informed and constructive posts of Miss Prism, Quarryscapes, Mad Carew, your good self, and those other brave souls who stood up to have their rivets counted! We shall see what we shall see!

Top model. Couldn't resist a Hardwicke though.

Oh look, on the Oxford/Locomotion cab, all the rivets have leapt off the side and paraded neatly along the front of the splasher! 3 guesses which one is right.

Not at all well said. The inability to produce a perfect scale replica doesn't excuse Oxford failing to make a basically accurate one. In fairness to Edwardian (and few of you have been), I would guess he isn't looking for perfection and would accept a model of a Dean Goods as accurate as, say ....

If this is a model of a locomotive, it is a class entirely devised by Oxford and unknown to the annals of locomotive history, so who knows????????

I think we have this model, in effect, in an ordinary Oxford box because we have a plain green inter-war model announced in the form of number 2475: http://www.oxfordrail.com/76/OR76DG003.htm. . So, the extra cost of the Locomotion edition gives you the wooden box, the "high gloss finish" and the right to use the 2516 number plate, Etched plates are available, so, I would guess, you could just as easily make a 2515 from Oxford's cardboard box version? The problem seems to be that the Locomotion 2516 does not have an accurate cab for this prototype. See the comparison posted by Miss Prism and Edwardian's pictures. Though not a GW man, tooled up with the right books, I can Google as well as the next man. The pictures of the class make me think that the standard range 2475 is inaccurate for the same reason. At least this is so with the previous one in the sequence, 2474, and all the others I have managed to find. Unless the Locomotion model has different tooling from the standard Oxford range, and the drawings in the OP suggest not, the limited edition model will be no more accurate a representation of the class than the standard model. The accuracy issues with various Oxford releases are well documented. I am not convinced that Oxford is a suitable partner for Locomotion in general, based on the standards it has worked to so far. This model, in particular, appears to have issues. While up for a 1920s Dean Goods to supplement Premier Line stuff, I do not see Oxford as a good bet.

Corfe Castle looks like a feat of excellence to me. Thanks for sharing. Must visit.

Wonderful to see a pre-Grouping mainline layout in all its glory. Excellent modelling.

Really enjoyed seeing your work on Mealsgate, and I hope you return to it.