Castle Aching

[Hroth]

I imagine a different chassis would require modification to the resin body, and that the splashers would have to be adjusted to a more prototypical position, but it does seem that the Oxford chassis is a significantly better match.  Overall the wheelbase is the same, with one inch out between wheels. 

 

One the other hand, it would appear that the Jinty chassis is ideal for a slightly wheel worn McDonnell NER 0-6-0 (always wanted one of those!).

 

Perhaps Turbosnail might consider supplementing his loco kit range with a loco body range?

 

 

 

I think this may be the single most comprehensive list anyone here has been allowed to post, even so, I am conscious that it is far from exhaustive: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/124764-oxford-deans-goods-readers-feedback-for-brm/?p=2797596

 

Among the (many) points I failed to mention were the misalignment of the tender and cab steps and the inclusion of ATC piping on the pre-Grouping version. It's almost as if Oxford Rail didn't know what it was doing.  In fact, I suspect, it simply didn't care.

 

You could go on forever with this one!

 

As I recall, we did...

 

I also remember that various parties tried to draw Oxford Rails attention to the various problems and found that due to the lack of response that it was like shouting into a Black Hole.

 

I think the best that can be said about the loco is that it goes well with a layout consisting of class 2721 and class 3031 locos together with Triang shortie clerestories!

[Regularity]

I picked up a 1974 backnumber of Railway Modeller last night. CJF had produced a (very representational and basic) idea for an 00 layout based on Euston-Watford in a standard 16’ x 8’ garage, and commented that the rather than pestering manufacturers for more models, maybe we should be making better use of what is already there! I think he was thinking of kits more than RTR, but nowadays the quality of so much of the latter is outstanding. (Personally I always preferred LE Carrol’s 5 platform Victoria-inspired layout.)

 

And this, I think, is the result of the finescale “movement” asking for better models and for the hobby to be taken as an adult pastime rather than a kids’ toy.

 

For all that, I do love seeing Triang and Hornby Dublo displays at exhibitions!

[Edwardian]

As I recall, we did...

 

I also remember that various parties tried to draw Oxford Rails attention to the various problems and found that due to the lack of response that it was like shouting into a Black Hole.

 

I think the best that can be said about the loco is that it goes well with a layout consisting of class 2721 and class 3031 locos together with Triang shortie clerestories!

 

I think you're underselling the Triang shorty clerestories there (though I notice that this year Hornby won't be)!

 

Every so often in life one comes across something that one knows one will never, ever stop being angry about, like BREXIT or the Oxford Rail "Dean Goods".

 

Time for my medication .... Nurse!

Edited January 11, 2019 by Edwardian

[Regularity]

It's easy with brick-papers and so forth, but I am continually having to tone down anything painted in order to allow for scale and viewing distance.

 

I think Peter Denny was onto something by scoring in the horizontal courses. Not sure if he weathered the papers afterwards, but I am inspired to go back to some experiments I was making back in the early 00s.

[TurboSnail]

One the other hand, it would appear that the Jinty chassis is ideal for a slightly wheel worn McDonnell NER 0-6-0 (always wanted one of those!).

 

Perhaps Turbosnail might consider supplementing his loco kit range with a loco body range?

 

  

That would be simply marvellous!

 

He has lost one potential competitor and gained a potential customer at any rate!

Plans are afoot in that direction, none of the prototypes mentioned though. Maybe when I have a bit more free time!

[Hroth]

I think you're underselling the Triang shorty clerestories there (though I notice that this year, Hornby won't be)!

 

I've some of the "teak" "LNER" ones.....

 

They could be worse, they could be like the 4-wheelers!

[Regularity]

I've some of the "teak" "LNER" ones.....

 

They could be worse, they could be like the 4-wheelers!

IIRC, they served as the basis for some pretty good “cut and shut” conversions back in the 60s and 70s (talking of the clerestories, not the 4 wheelers!): although on more than one occasion it might have been easier from scratch! Edited January 11, 2019 by Regularity

[Edwardian]

  

Plans are afoot in that direction, none of the prototypes mentioned though. Maybe when I have a bit more free time!

 

Or if a suitable bribe can be arranged?

 

While you're at it:

 

Bulldog body for Bachmann Earl

 

Stroudley boiler for Bachmann E4

 

Original cab/bunker for L&B Manning Wardle

 

NER 398, C(1) and B(1) and LSWR 395 bodies for Bachmann SE&CR C Class chassis

 

, 

[Shadow]

 

Don't worry, when it wears down a bit it will fit better.

[TurboSnail]

Or if a suitable bribe can be arranged?

 

While you're at it:

 

Bulldog body for Bachmann Earl

 

Stroudley boiler for Bachmann E4

 

Original cab/bunker for L&B Manning Wardle

 

NER 398, C(1) and B(1) and LSWR 395 bodies for Bachmann SE&CR C Class chassis

 

, 

 

'While you're at it' - as if I didn't have enough to do already! I try not to promise too much so I don't end up with a list as long as my arm...

[Martin S-C]

 

You could go on forever with this one!

Well, certainly as long as the next shiny off-topic subject peaks our interest!

Edited January 11, 2019 by Martin S-C

[Martin S-C]

 

I think the best that can be said about the loco is that it goes well with a layout consisting of class 2721 and class 3031 locos together with Triang shortie clerestories!

My strategy may be the most effective. The NM&GSR will have purchased a second hand Dean Goods and modified it in their own workshops with a wider footplate, bigger splashers, added rivets to the splashers and smokebox, altered cab profile and whatever else needed doing to result in a 100% accurate historically correct loco in my fictional world.

 

Freelancing (and I know James, you have a different intepretation of that word to me - and yours has my fullest respects) does have its advantages.

[Talltim]

I picked up a 1974 backnumber of Railway Modeller last night. CJF had produced a (very representational and basic) idea for an 00 layout based on Euston-Watford in a standard 16’ x 8’ garage, and commented that the rather than pestering manufacturers for more models, maybe we should be making better use of what is already there! I think he was thinking of kits more than RTR, but nowadays the quality of so much of the latter is outstanding. (Personally I always preferred LE Carrol’s 5 platform Victoria-inspired layout.)

 

And this, I think, is the result of the finescale “movement” asking for better models and for the hobby to be taken as an adult pastime rather than a kids’ toy.

 

For all that, I do love seeing Triang and Hornby Dublo displays at exhibitions!

Is it sad that I can picture that plan in my head? IIRC the whole plan is printed in blue rather than black?

Edited January 11, 2019 by Talltim

[Edwardian]

My strategy may be the most effective. The NM&GSR will have purchased a second hand Dean Goods and modified it in their own workshops with a wider footplate, bigger splashers, added rivets to the splashers and smokebox, altered cab profile and whatever else needed doing to result in a 100% accurate historically correct loco in my fictional world.

 

Freelancing (and I know James, you have a different intepretation of that word to me - and yours has my fullest respects) does have its advantages.

 

Credibility is a concept to ponder here.

 

Many of the issues are less problematic in the context of a freelance job.  Perhaps you are post-Great War and your Deans were ones that the GW declined to take back from the ROD? 

 

Such a history might excuse a multitude of sins. 

 

So, there is much here that need not worry you.  I would, however, file off those rivets on the slasher faces. What is behind that thin sheet of steel that is the splasher face? Answer, the wheel.  So what is the splaher face being riveted to?

 

The inclusion of these rivets was due to misinterpreting the reflection of running plate rivets seen on the splasher face.  It's not simply an error, it's a solecism and shows that the Chinese CAD designer, and Oxford who should have checked his work, were illiterate in terms of the subject matter of the model.

 

As you are repainting the models, why not file them off?

 

The other suggestion is to remove the ATC pipes from the valance, unless, of course, your freelance railway company has adopted ATC!

[Martin S-C]

Thanks James, those are valid points and I will do as you suggest. The lack of the typical Dean smoke box door rim bugs me as well.

[Edwardian]

Thanks James, those are valid points and I will do as you suggest. The lack of the typical Dean smoke box door rim bugs me as well.

 

You can go to Coastline Models Shapeways shop (Quarryscapes of this parish) and procure a replacement smokebox door and, indeed, the correct Dean chimney, which you may choose to mount in the correct position!

[Martin S-C]

I have seen a diffrent tender filler cap and dome on Shapeways as well.

[Edwardian]

I have seen a diffrent tender filler cap and dome on Shapeways as well.

 

Well, of you want a guide to back dating, and have the necessary 3-4 years to spare .....

[Martin S-C]

Coastline no longer seem to offer the Dean smokebox door though I am sure I've seen one elsewhere on Shapeways in recent months *scurries off to rummage about*

A simpler fix may be to get hold of a plastic pipe of the correct diameter, cut a slice and fettle it down to the right depth. I may be a  freelancer of the more freelancing-than-you fraternity but I do like to see a nice rimmed dished Dean smoke box door now and then. They have that certain extra elegance of Victorian styling that you just don't get in the brash economic grinding 1930s.

[Caley Jim]

Quite.

At most, model wheels should be no more than scale maximum diameter over the flanges, and even then, this can be a bit tight where the prototype has very small gaps between newly fitted wheels, e.g. GNR atlantics.

The HR Jones Goods is a particular case in point. The driving wheels are flangless and there is only an inch or so between them and the flange of the leading coupled wheels.

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

I take my hat off to Mikkel and Compound for taking on this sow's ear, but it's a good example of the adage, "if that's where you want to get to, I wouldn't start from here".

 

... ah but that's the challenge!

 

At this point I wonder if a table for some six-coupled types might be useful (items in red represent types for which a proprietary chassis exists):

 

Diameter         Wheelbase       Locomotive(s)

4’7 ½”               7’3” + 8’           GWR 5600 0-6-2T

4’7 ½”               7’9” + 8’           NER P Class (LNER J24) 0-6-0

4’7 ½”               8’ + 8’6”           NER P1/P2/P3 Class (LNER J25/J26/J27) 0-6-0

4’11”                 7’7” + 8’6”        GER Y14 Class (LNER J15) 0-6-0; GER N31 Class (LNER J14) 0-6-0

5’                      7’9” + 7’6”        LB&SCR E4 Class 0-6-2T

5’                      7’9” + 8’3”        LCDR Kirtley 0-6-0

5’                      8’ + 8’               LB&SCR C2/C2X Class 0-6-0

5’                      7’3” + 8’3”        GWR Dean Goods 0-6-0; Cambrian 844 Class 0-6-0; H&BR Class B (LNER J23) 0-6-0

5’                      8’ + 8’6”           NER 398 Class 0-6-0 (standard dimensions at Grouping)

5’1”                  8’ + 8’6”           LSWR 395 Class 0-6-0; SR Q/Q1 Class 0-6-0

5’1”                  7’9” + 8’3”        NER McDonnell 5’1” Class (LNER J22) 0-6-0

5’1½”               8’ + 8’6”           NER C Class

5’1¼”               8’ + 8’6”           NER B/B1 Class 0-6-2T

5’1¾”               7’6” + 8’3         GS&WR 101 Class (J15) 0-6-0 (5’3” Gauge)

5’2”                  7’3” + 8’3”        GWR Dean (with thicker tyres) and Collett Goods 0-6-0; GNR J4/J5 (LNER J3/J4) Class 0-6-0  

5’2”                  7’4” + 8’2”        SER O/O1 Class 0-6-0

5’2”                  8’1” + 9’           GCR 9J Class (LNER J11) 0-6-0

5’2”                  8’ + 8’6”           SE&CR C Class 0-6-0

5’2½”               7’3” + 8’3”        LNWR DX 0-6-0

5’6”                  8’ + 8’6”           SE&CR J Class 0-6-4T

 

I would be happy if anyone is able to add to or correct the above.

 

There are some rather nice engines in that list, including a number of quite numerous classes - one, of course, the most numerous of all British classes. But how could you possibly omit:

 

5’2½”       8'0" + 8'6"            MR Kirtley Goods (several classes, principally 480 and 700) - 806 built

4’10½”     8'0" + 8'6"            MR Johnson Mineral (1142 and 1698 Classes) - 180 built

5’2½”       8'0" + 8'6"            MR Johnson Standard Goods (1357, Neilson, J and M Classes) - 711 built, including those for the S&DJR and M&GNJR.

 

A SER Class O in original condition would be a rather nice thing too. The SER in the late 1890s would be simplicity to model - over three-quarters of the locomotive stock consisted of just three classes, the Class O 0-6-0 (122 engines), Class F 4-4-0 (88 engines), and Class Q 0-4-4T (118 engines).

[Compound2632]

I've some of the "teak" "LNER" ones.....

 

The plastic in which these are molded is much pleasanter to work than the rather brittle material used in the original Triang carriages.

[Compound2632]

Recently posted in the LNWR Society's Facebook group and reposted here in the persuit of academic eggcellence, harking back to a relatively recent discussion about the activities of the NPOS, here's the London & North Western Railway's Egg & Poultry Demonstration Train at Corwen, 24 April 1913:

 

 

Rather grander than the Great Western version, which I don't think included a dining carriage!

[Regularity]

Is it sad that I can picture that plan in my head? IIRC the whole plan is printed in blue rather than black?

With some magenta, yes.

[Regularity]

Is it sad that I can picture that plan in my head? IIRC the whole plan is printed in blue rather than black?

With some magenta, yes.

My strategy may be the most effective. The NM&GSR will have purchased a second hand Dean Goods and modified it in their own workshops with a wider footplate, bigger splashers, added rivets to the splashers and smokebox, altered cab profile and whatever else needed doing to result in a 100% accurate historically correct loco in my fictional world.

Freelancing (and I know James, you have a different intepretation of that word to me - and yours has my fullest respects) does have its advantages.

The Manchester and Milford Railway had three 2301 class locos on loan from the GWR from 1906 until takeover. There is a degree of precedent there.