Cantongoat

Just received an email confirmation from Oxford that the model will employ diecast / metal construction. "diecast and metal - heavy pulling". Although they didn't specify, I'm assuming (or hoping) that this includes the loco body. If so ... yay a dream come true for those of us fed up with plastic - It's going to trump Hornby's offering on construction materials alone.

Hi, they look / are sized like modern retail cabinets made by various shopping fitting manufacturers for those selling collectibles / glassware / jewelry / models etc, albeit customised for a Hornby display. They are probably worth about the same as any other similar s/h retail cabinet (ie next to nothing to about

It would be nice if it is actually die cast, or at least partly. A sort of updated Wrenn range made from metal with a quality feel, rather than the flimsy (albeit 'super-detailed') plasticy offerings we have at the moment that have bits that jump off as soon as you put them on the track. Given that OO Gauge looks faintly ridiculous on narrow gauge HO track, does it really need to be that detailed given that one of the most basic dimensions is terminally flawed. I'd certainly be in the market for less detailed but more usable OO items made out of sturdy metal, provided that they 'look' alright from normal viewing distance. It seems that most of todays railway models are made for static photographical use rather than actually playing with the things. I might be in the minority on this

I don't disagree Adrian, but satisfaction is relative to what your main areas of interest are, together with the amount of skill & time you have available. You have to take account of the fact that not everyone is into building rolling stock, some people just like running trains or building scenery - and gain their satisfaction that way. It doesn't really matter that the wagons are not 100% accurate as long as they 'look right' in the overall scene. And in terms of accuracy, where do you draw the line? You could quite literally go insane attempting to take prototypical accuracy to the nth degree: Do they have the correct number of springs? Are they working springs? Are they fitted with a vacuum reservoir? Do they have working vacuum brakes fitted? Are they built from steel and lined with real glass? Do they have cow milk inside them? It is all relative. A metal kit would undoubtedly be more visually accurate, but to what degree does this represent prototypical accuracy compared to the full size prototype? As an example, take Ace Trains coarse-scale tinplate BR Mk1 coaches. Visually, these are inaccurate compared to finescale kit built ones. However, the Ace Trains coaches feature prototypically sprung commonwealth bogies. Does that make them more or less accurate than a kit build bogie that is visually more accurate, but does not feature working springs? I don't know, I guess it depends where your priorities are. Notwithstanding that, if your kit-building skills are limited, you're not going to be very satisfied with a part-built / shoddily made milk tanker that you lashed up yourself. And I doubt many new converts from the smaller gauges to O Gauge, who may be inexperienced kit builders, are going to want to start with a £40+ kit that they are likely to bodge. The availability of new RTR O Gauge models is what is drawing people into the gauge. I don't see these as replacing kits, they are complimentary to them. In due course, purchasers may want more detailed and visually accurate rolling stock, so turn to kit building these. However, the initial momentum may be from the purchase of say an RTR loco, then some rolling stock just to get things running. I don't see that as a bad thing. On the contrary it is to be encouraged.

Just bought a rake of these. They look great behind my Hymek. I don't think you can really compare them to a sheet of brass / pile of plastic bits that you assemble yourself. It's like buying a house. If you need one, it's easier to go out and buy one already constructed than buy a plot of land, bricks, mortar. Of course a kit built one is going to look infinitely superior if you peruse it in fine detail, but nobody is going to notice any of that when it's being hauled around a layout (or garden). And it's all very well saying a kit-built one costs less, but what about the Value of Time? If you're retired, you might value your time at £0+ per hour. However, a busy professional (Accountant, Civil Engineer, Doctor etc) who might want some rolling stock for their hobby is going to value their spare time at something like £100+ per hour. How many hundreds of pounds would it cost them to build a kit?

Thanks. I might have a blast at a short rake of milk tanks. I suspect the Cambrian WW 7plank is based on a 9' prototype, so is never going to look great on a BR chassis, but I think it looks better than the original mainline underframe.

As I do not currently possess an airbrush, I decided to purchase some Humbrol Acrylic Spray and make an attempt at attacking some wagons. I firstly mounted the 'Mainline' Cambrian wagon on a doner Bachmann chassis, then renumbered it. It has been weathered soley with Humbrol Dark Brown No 29 with matt varnish added. The Dapol 6 wheel milk tanker has been done in the same way, with a bit of Carr's weathering powder added. As a first attempt I don't think they look too bad.