RMweb Gold Hroth Posted June 27, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 27, 2017 But as its an aircraft operated by Railway Air Services (in which the GWR held shares), its a natural mistake to make.,... Prior to the formation of RAS, the GWR ran air services in conjunction with Imperial Airways, the Wessex aircraft they chartered was painted in GWR Chocolate and Cream. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted June 27, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 27, 2017 I don't know these wing spars look a bit thick to me and I'm not sure we've captured the lines around the cockpit........................ The intercom pop studs are about 0.075mm too much to the left, and the co-pilot has a mole on his chin. think I'll give it a miss. Did I mention the models had ginger hair....? Mother used to work at De Haviland, and mentioned the wrong grade of spark plugs. That magneto is the wrong way round as well. Got to go now. There's a chap from Oxford Diecast Something about "shoving an airscrew where the sun don't shine...." Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Edwardian Posted June 27, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 27, 2017 Having seen some pictures of the production model, on reflection I am not at all sure why I have made such a fuss about this release. It looks like a perfectly accurate model of railway equipment to me ...... I don't know these wing spars look a bit thick to me and I'm not sure we've captured the lines around the cockpit........................ The intercom pop studs are about 0.075mm too much to the left, and the co-pilot has a mole on his chin. think I'll give it a miss. Did I mention the models had ginger hair....? Mother used to work at De Haviland, and mentioned the wrong grade of spark plugs. That magneto is the wrong way round as well. Got to go now. There's a chap from Oxford Diecast Something about "shoving an airscrew where the sun don't shine...." Ian Well I thought it "captured the look of the prototype" fairly well, so I'm pretty cross with all these folks pointing out loads of faults! One question, though, I notice that the propellers are slanted at opposing angles; is that because they have to be "quartered"? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Hroth Posted June 27, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 27, 2017 Well I thought it "captured the look of the prototype" fairly well, so I'm pretty cross with all these folks pointing out loads of faults! One question, though, I notice that the propellers are slanted at opposing angles; is that because they have to be "quartered"? Hung, drawn and, I believe...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted June 27, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 27, 2017 Hung, drawn and, I believe...... Which is a pet hate of mine as it so often misquoted... A picture is hung, a person hanged. Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted June 27, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 27, 2017 Well I thought it "captured the look of the prototype" fairly well, so I'm pretty cross with all these folks pointing out loads of faults! One question, though, I notice that the propellers are slanted at opposing angles; is that because they have to be "quartered"? Well, they were quartered, as you mentioned... It was the outside cranks, however.... Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted June 27, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 27, 2017 The intercom pop studs are about 0.075mm too much to the left, and the co-pilot has a mole on his chin. think I'll give it a miss. Did I mention the models had ginger hair....? Mother used to work at De Haviland, and mentioned the wrong grade of spark plugs. That magneto is the wrong way round as well. Oh please, any real modeller would be able to fix those errors in a jiffy. You RTF* people really make me sick expecting everything to be perfect! *Ready To Fly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quarryscapes Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Edwardian - I do have a 2500 gallon railed tender top available, other bits will no doubt follow too. I had thought of the dished door too, I do one for the mainline model, but as Oxford have put it in the wrong place I haven't yet done one. There is scope to move it down by about 0.3mm which is a step in the right direction but it will always be wrong without a new boiler. I think my tender top might just work on the OR chassis unmodified. https://www.shapeways.com/product/M32UVZBVY/gwr-dean-2500g-tender-body-with-coal-rails <- Tender https://www.shapeways.com/product/CSN33C7SS/dean-goods-smokebox-door-4mm-oxford-rail <-smokebox door https://www.shapeways.com/product/4H8XJAB64/dean-goods-taper-chimney-4mm-for-oxford-rail <- taper chimney Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Hung, drawn and, I believe...... Which is a pet hate of mine as it so often misquoted... A picture is hung, a person hanged. Either way, it's looking well hung by now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amdaley Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 The intercom pop studs are about 0.075mm too much to the left, and the co-pilot has a mole on his chin. think I'll give it a miss. Did I mention the models had ginger hair....? Mother used to work at De Haviland, and mentioned the wrong grade of spark plugs. That magneto is the wrong way round as well. Got to go now. There's a chap from Oxford Diecast Something about "shoving an airscrew where the sun don't shine...." Ian At least there's someone from Oxford paying attention Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Edwardian Posted June 27, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 27, 2017 Edwardian - I do have a 2500 gallon railed tender top available, other bits will no doubt follow too. I had thought of the dished door too, I do one for the mainline model, but as Oxford have put it in the wrong place I haven't yet done one. There is scope to move it down by about 0.3mm which is a step in the right direction but it will always be wrong without a new boiler. I think my tender top might just work on the OR chassis unmodified. https://www.shapeways.com/product/M32UVZBVY/gwr-dean-2500g-tender-body-with-coal-rails <- Tender https://www.shapeways.com/product/CSN33C7SS/dean-goods-smokebox-door-4mm-oxford-rail <-smokebox door https://www.shapeways.com/product/4H8XJAB64/dean-goods-taper-chimney-4mm-for-oxford-rail <- taper chimney That is all good news, thank you. I could be on the way to planning my perfect Dean! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amdaley Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Edwardian - I do have a 2500 gallon railed tender top available, other bits will no doubt follow too. I had thought of the dished door too, I do one for the mainline model, but as Oxford have put it in the wrong place I haven't yet done one. There is scope to move it down by about 0.3mm which is a step in the right direction but it will always be wrong without a new boiler. I think my tender top might just work on the OR chassis unmodified. https://www.shapeways.com/product/M32UVZBVY/gwr-dean-2500g-tender-body-with-coal-rails <- Tender https://www.shapeways.com/product/CSN33C7SS/dean-goods-smokebox-door-4mm-oxford-rail <-smokebox door https://www.shapeways.com/product/4H8XJAB64/dean-goods-taper-chimney-4mm-for-oxford-rail <- taper chimney I wonder if you could investigate if scale size splashers would fit with the flanges behind and not touching, bearing in mind they are not part of the footplate casting as expected. With wheels at 14.5mm back to back would they touch scale sized and positioned splashers ? Tony. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Hroth Posted June 28, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 28, 2017 Which is a pet hate of mine as it so often misquoted... A picture is hung, a person hanged. Roy Properly pronounced "hangedd". Whats your position on Union Jacks? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quarryscapes Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 I wonder if you could investigate if scale size splashers would fit with the flanges behind and not touching, bearing in mind they are not part of the footplate casting as expected. With wheels at 14.5mm back to back would they touch scale sized and positioned splashers ? Tony. Only if they are made of scale sized material and you don't mind the holes left in the footplate. The wheels are the correct diameter so there is no room to play with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted June 28, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) Properly pronounced "hangedd". Whats your position on Union Jacks? Does this suit your taste?: http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1718075.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/ger%20brits.jpg Keith Edited June 28, 2017 by melmerby 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil gollin Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 . ... Whats your position on Union Jacks? Sorry to intervene, but the modern trend by ill-informed pedants who have successfully, if wrongly, got the normal terminology to "Union Flag" is incorrect as The Admiralty in the early 1900s stated that although a "Jack" was a flag standard on a ship, or a flag flown from same, the term "Union Jack" was perfectly acceptable. So "Union Jack" is perfectly acceptable. . 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted June 28, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 28, 2017 OK, having had some fun at Oxford's expense, I thought I'd look at the Oxford web pages. I must admit I haven't seem a DG in the flesh, so the final arbiter for me will be the look of the thing. Will it 'look' right? There's a lot of comments about dimensionally inaccurate flaws. Some will bar the models, some may accept them. Caveat Emptor. The surface mounted splasher rivets bear mute testimony to a locomotive going 'off the road', and having all 6 drivers in the dirt. The consequence of this is a botched repair, where the drivers have come up through the running plate. The only 'cheap repair' is the hammering in the bent splashers, and rivetting them down. I'd guess, at a glance, that it's a snapshot in time. Same photo, 2 years earlier, and the splasher rivets don't show, as the locomotive mishap hadn't occurred. Having seen the black, later example caught my eye, which noted that the example was due to be revised. It would seem that either Oxford, or associates would be somewhere in a rectification process. On that basis, I'd like o wait & see, and see what comes out as the finished article. If the brickbats are well deserved, then so be it. If, however, Oxford are striving to turn out quality kit, then good for them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Edwardian Posted June 28, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) I wonder if you could investigate if scale size splashers would fit with the flanges behind and not touching, bearing in mind they are not part of the footplate casting as expected. With wheels at 14.5mm back to back would they touch scale sized and positioned splashers ? Tony. Ideally, and before committing to a build, I'd want to explore the possibility of scale splashers available as an after-market 3D-Print option. With the flanges set back, I am not sure I understand Quarryscapes when he says this would not be possible. Again, I refer to the Mainline model, which did manage to include significantly smaller splashers, albeit not scale. Surely significantly smaller splashers could be produced here, even if still not quite to scale? While embodying only the necessary degree of compromise, such a solution would significantly improve the appearance of the model. Given that the cab is wrong for the vast majority of belpaire locomotives (including all of those Oxford has chosen to represent), as well as being unsuitable for round-top firebox engines, the need to replace the cab in order to achieve smaller rear splashers is really no loss. I am wondering if Oxford have needlessly made the splashers too big and that they could have made them at least as small as Mainline's? Then again, Locomotion has clearly failed to persuade Oxford to replace the splashers on its re-tooled version (even down to the bizarre situation of re-tooling to correct the cab only to reproduce the error of rivets on the splasher face). Incidentally, now we know the splashers are not integral, why is Locomotion not getting splashers free of the incorrect rivets? This could be done even if the same over-scale splashers were to be maintained. Given that the front splashers are not integral to the metal footplate (and the Locomotion cab/rear splasher assembly is being replaced anyway) that strikes me as odd, and I wonder if Oxford has so configured things that their super-large splashers are the only ones that will fit over the wheels? Just don't understand how that is possible, though, given what Mainline achieved and the fact that the flanges are set inboard of the splashers. Yours Confused of Castle Aching. Edited June 28, 2017 by Edwardian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 28, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) Ideally, and before committing to a build, I'd want to explore the possibility of scale splashers available as an after-market 3D-Print option. With the flanges set back, I am not sure I understand Quarryscapes when he says this would not be possible. Again, I refer to the Mainline model, which did manage to include significantly smaller splashers, albeit not scale. Surely significantly smaller splashers could be produced here, even if still not quite to scale? While embodying only the necessary degree of compromise, such a solution would significantly improve the appearance of the model. Given that the cab is wrong for the vast majority of belpaire locomotives (including all of those Oxford has chosen to represent), as well as being unsuitable for round-top firebox engines, the need to replace the cab in order to achieve smaller rear splashers is really no loss. I am wondering if Oxford have needlessly made the splashers too big and that they could have made them at least as small as Mainline's? Then again, Locomotion has clearly failed to persuade Oxford to replace the splashers on its re-tooled version (even down to the bizarre situation of re-tooling to correct the cab only to reproduce the error of rivets on the splasher face). Incidentally, now we know the splashers are not integral, why is Locomotion not getting splashers free of the incorrect rivets? This could be done even if the same over-scale splashers were to be maintained. Given that the front splashers are not integral to the metal footplate (and the Locomotion cab/rear splasher assembly is being replaced anyway) that strikes me as odd, and I wonder if Oxford has so configured things that their super-large splashers are the only ones that will fit over the wheels? Just don't understand how that is possible, though, given what Mainline achieved and the fact that the flanges are set inboard of the splashers. Yours Confused of Castle Aching. There is a very simple problem with retooling to eliminate 'rivets' on a moulded model. The 'rivets' are formed by making a small depression in the tool and once you have done that is is well nigh impossible to go back and fill in the depressions with any sort of reliability or guarantee of accuracy. Thus the only way to reliably eliminate the rivets is to create a new tool and I've no doubt that even if they are separate components they will have been included in a tool which is used for other parts so they would also have to be retooled - and producing the tools is one of the most expensive parts of the whole process of creating a model of this sort so even if factory capacity were available to produce a new tool there would be a cost arising from the process of producing it and writing-off the old tool. As Oxford sell at comparatively lower prices I suspect retooling would be a poor economic bargain for them. Although it would involve destruction of the livery what seems to me a far simpler alternative for the modeller is to set to and remove the rivets especially if, as it looks to be, a straightforward task to disassemble the model. None of which excuses the stupidity of misreading reflections on the initial scan and getting it wrong in the first place but it isn't a totally insoluble problem and is easier to correct than some of the other faults. Edited June 28, 2017 by The Stationmaster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Edwardian Posted June 28, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 28, 2017 There is a very simple problem with retooling to eliminate 'rivets' on a moulded model. The 'rivets' are formed by making a small depression in the tool and once you have done that is is well nigh impossible to go back and fill in the depressions with any sort of reliability or guarantee of accuracy. Thus the only way to reliably eliminate the rivets is to create a new tool and I've no doubt that even if they are separate components they will have been included in a tool which is used for other parts so they would also have to be retooled - and producing the tools is one of the most expensive parts of the whole process of creating a model of this sort so even if factory capacity were available to produce a new tool there would be a cost arising from the process of producing it and writing-off the old tool. As Oxford sell at comparatively lower prices I suspect retooling would be a poor economic bargain for them. Although it would involve destruction of the livery what seems to me a far simpler alternative for the modeller is to set to and remove the rivets especially if, as it looks to be, a straightforward task to disassemble the model. None of which excuses the stupidity of misreading reflections on the initial scan and getting it wrong in the first place but it isn't a totally insoluble problem and is easier to correct than some of the other faults. Thanks, Mike. That explanation makes sense. I would junk the splashers and the cab on any DG I acquired, so it matters not to me, but I could not understand why purchasers of the premium-priced Locomotion version would still get these inaccurate splasher rivets. I suspect you are quite right. OK, having had some fun at Oxford's expense, Rather that than Oxford makes a joke at mine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeharvey22 Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 There is a very simple problem with retooling to eliminate 'rivets' on a moulded model. The 'rivets' are formed by making a small depression in the tool and once you have done that is is well nigh impossible to go back and fill in the depressions with any sort of reliability or guarantee of accuracy. Thus the only way to reliably eliminate the rivets is to create a new tool and I've no doubt that even if they are separate components they will have been included in a tool which is used for other parts so they would also have to be retooled - and producing the tools is one of the most expensive parts of the whole process of creating a model of this sort so even if factory capacity were available to produce a new tool there would be a cost arising from the process of producing it and writing-off the old tool. As Oxford sell at comparatively lower prices I suspect retooling would be a poor economic bargain for them. There is a blog item here about how Oxford make their moulds for road vehicles, but the same principles apply for the rail items. As Mike surmises the splashers are probably part of a much more comprehensive mould. https://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/blogs/news/moulds-and-what-you-need-to-know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quarryscapes Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Wheel is 2'7" Radius over tread - splasher is 2'9" radius (give or take a bit, I only have a small undimensioned drawing to go off) There simply isn't the clearance for a plastic scale splasher. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted June 28, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 28, 2017 Which is a pet hate of mine as it so often misquoted... A picture is hung, a person hanged. Roy Speak for yourself... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted June 28, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 28, 2017 Speak for yourself... Eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
6892 Oakhill Grange Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Properly pronounced "hangedd". Whats your position on Union Jacks? The position from Edinburgh (temporary summer exile from the heat of Muscat) is the we don't want to remove the blue until at least next year. Oakhill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now