Fat Lieutenant

I am entitled to an opinion you know; mine being that it was very poor form.

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:

1. The underframes may be correct or may be fundamentally wrong, but the man with all the research won't say.
2. The panel lines on the ends don't match up with the panels on the sides (duh!)
3. 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
4. Redundant gas fitting and questionable vents
5. 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 ...

http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/pg/117/LSWR_Gate_Stock

 

In colour.  All very pretty, but I wonder if the passengers will be issued with portable ladders, or, perhaps, with parachutes?

 

Doesn't anyone check anything before going public these days?!? 

 

Well, apart from The Donald, who clearly doesn't.

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 .... !

Indeed, I recall leading my Troop from Lancashire to Wiltshire on a long-range comms exercise so that I could turn up to a house party to which I had been invited but otherwise would have missed.  But that, as they say, is another story.  My point is that it is possible that Camp is held in the grounds of Aching Hall.

 

 

What can I say? I was a young subaltern; it was a lifetime ago and a world away! 

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!

Locomotion's email suggested that changes are being made on the Dean Goods...

 

Quote:

We take on board all the comments we receive and try our best to make amendments where we can. There were a few things that needed changing like the livery and the cab for instance, and how can we forget the smoke box door!

We know you will be pleasantly surprised with the changes we have made to enhance the model.

Due to these changes the Dean Goods may be a few weeks later than planned getting here but it will be worth it in the end!

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!

I do find it perplexing that on the very day the first 14xxs have arrived in the UK and are on sale at Hattons premises (which I take to be at least circumstantial evidence that they are capable of delivering an RTR model) you are questioning their capabilities to deliver a King. That seems a counter-rational conclusion to reach given the evidence.

 

I have no doubt they are *capable* of delivering an RTR King that is satisfactory (to most of us). Capability isn't the issue. Market forces and projected demand may well be.

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!

Hi all,

 

To cover a few points that have been discussed over the last few days.

 

Bunker steps. Contrary to what has been discussed, it would have been a lot more than 'another cab side' to include these. The tooling currently has four different cabs to accommodate differences with top feed connections etc and another two (at least, depending on which locomotives you choose) to accomodate the 'as built' version. During the R&D stage we discussed the inclusion and omission of a number of detail options (including some of the others highlighted above) however once tooling options are added the production cost shoots up dramatically and we have to make a decision on what to include. With bunker-fitted steps fitted to examples of all the liveries we wanted to portray, we chose to not include a stepless model to reduce the production cost and therefore retail cost.  As said a few months back, in a perfect world we'd personally love to create every minor variation and example in every project we do but we have to balance our modeller heads with commercial heads, although we do understand that this can cause some disappointment.

 

For reference, we didn't laser scan the 14xx. Our research has involved (but not limited to!) a full measurement and photo survey of No.1466 at Didcot with contributions from the three other surviving locomotives, as well as drawings and hundreds of archive photographs and not forgetting the contributions made by users on here (and 3rd party support elsewhere). As a volunteer on a heritage railway vehicle restoration myself, we're aware of the various pitfalls that can be in place with works modifications, unofficial 'bodges' and post-preservation amendments which can individualise pretty much every loco, coach or wagon of the same type so we're eagle eyed on watching out for such occurrences.

 

Regarding release, we've had confirmation that the first two should leave China on Friday and will be air freighted to the UK which should take around a week. These releases will be H1404 and H1409. The remaining models will then arrive with us in two batches early in the New Year and as soon as dates arrive, I'll ensure they're available on here. The first batch will be the remaining clean locomotives, with the weathered examples following these.

 

Ahead of the main batch, we've had a couple of the production run of the first two locos sent through, which are currently clocking up the miles on my desktop rolling road - but not before putting them through our photo studio...

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

H1404_H1409_2.jpg

H1404_H1409_4.jpg

H1404_H1409_5.jpg

H1404_H1409_6.jpg

H1409_autocoach.jpg

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?

We keep coming back to this, don't we?

 

The decision, I strongly suspect, came down to "Do we really want to invest in an extra set of expensive tool slides, and thus raise the price of all of the models, in order to satisfy a small minority group of pre-grouping modellers who will probably not purchase in total even our minimum run of that particular variant, so that we end up selling them off at a discount? Modifying our later period model to as-built condition would be, after all, a very simple task".

 

You won't buy on principle; they won't oblige you for sound financial reasons.

 

I'm afraid I know who I side with!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

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.

On the subject of the handrails covering the washout plugs, there is a great photo here:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152723848716342&set=oa.579012228902312&type=3&theater

showing this to be the case.

I cannot remember what the outcome was but there was some debate on how correct it was.

I have written to the person who posted it for permission to put here, and am awaiting a reply.

 

To access the pic you will need to join the group: The Cambrian railways Central wales division.

There have been some great pics posted there and well worth joining.

 

Khris

Incidentally linked in the comments is a good shot of 2543 showing a good match for the OR model, ignoring the firebox of course, which appears a bit different to most of the class in that it doesn't appear to have any return at the bottom of the wrapper. It also has some interesting brackets behind the splashers - could it have volute springs above the axles? 

So, not really then.

A mistake is a mistake is a mistake!

They may wish they had checked the CADs and EPs more thoroughly and done so in a more timely fashion, because now it seems as if Locomotion will not be offered the option of a fully corrected production model (reading between the lines,there).

 

Certainly Oxford, and Locomotion (whether some of its supporters like it or not) face a quandary.  I have sympathy for them both, though rather more for Locomotion. My fear is that a commercially acceptable compromise will still result in a model that is inaccurate; either inaccurate for 2516 or generally, for any class member. 

 

I hope that these fears will not be realised. 

 

Frankly, if we are offered a basically accurate Dean, I am not that concerned over detail differences between class members.  No one tooling is going to get you all the class members, even in the post WW1 condition, where a degree of basic uniformity was apparent compared with the pre-War variations.  I can 'badge' the loco to suit Oxford's tooling or make alterations to the model.

 

Apart from the washout plug/handrail and non-radial handrail issues, the big issue for me is the cab.  Sure, Locomotion's should have rivets on the side, like Mainline's, but I gather not all the class did, so I don't mind the omission that much.

 

What I mind is the dodgy cab-cut-out profile and the atypically narrow strip at the top.  Without a new and improved cab, the model is useless for 2516, and for Oxford's chosen identities, and for the vast majority of the rest of the class.  So, one of the big questions for me will be whether Locomotion manage to talk Oxford into a new cab.

 

Fingers crossed!

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. 

Encouraging.  I note the quote "Both can spot an error a mile off with one eye closed!".

 

I hope they get considerably closer than that.

 

Mind you "a mile off with one eye closed" might well have been Oxford's procedure for checking its EPs.

 

[only joking: inset smiley face here]

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!

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!!!

Top model.

Couldn't resist a Hardwicke though.

I have taken the liberty of using melmerby's photo to compare the Oxford cabside (on the right) with my Mainline dean goods cabside, which is disassembled on my workbench and waiting to see if the Oxford chassis will go beneath it.  

 

Note that this is a style comparison - not a size comparison as I have no known dimensions of the Oxford cab.

 

cab profiles.jpg

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.

No one expects that, but OO modelling is a compromise and 100% accuracy should not be expected at these price levels.

 

 

If such high level of accuracy will be the only level accepted, then you may have to dig much deeper into your pockets.

 

Black label accuracy for around £100 is an unrealistic expectation.

 

As a reality check I met a friend at Warley who has just taken delivery of a 4mm Jubilee.Highly accurate with the only obvious compromise being gauge. The invoice was for a four figure sum and my friend supplied the components!

 

Mike Wiltshire

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 ....

So are the washout plugs too low or the handrails too high...?

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 imagine it will appear in plain Oxford box in ordinary finish in the not too distant future. This one not for me though.

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.

Update - I'm moving house and so not much railway modelling (or pre-war AFVs or 1950s jet prototypes or even 1930s French bombers) for me for a while we get our new house purchased. In the meantime, I'll probably potter about with my various US 'craftsman' kits whilst I'm down in Cardiff - I reckon that the 'Aurora & Pacific RR' shortline and it's associated logging line will be take precedence over the Bolton Loop for a few months until we're ensconsed in Shropshire or Powys. 

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