Oxford Deans Goods - Readers' feedback for BRM

[Andy Y]

Oxford Rail's Deans Goods has hit the desk too late to do a review for BRM September so I thought we'd adopt a different approach and provide readers with detailed photographs of the model (which may have relevance to other discussions) and to offer an opportunity for readers, as this model has attracted various levels of criticism to give your feedback.

 

You can rate the model in four key areas from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) and you can also add your comments in posts for inclusion in a reader's feedback review in the following month's BRM. If you do make comments could you please keep them concise (bullet point form would be good), accurate and with qualification or reference if appropriate. It's an opportunity to comment on positive aspects too rather than just negatives and the intent is to turn these into a digest for readers who may not have the same levels of detailed knowledge who would appreciate the input with higher levels of knowledge. Therefore if you would like to post comments please also make reference to something positive.

 

If someone has already posted a relevant comment it's not necessary to repeat the same or similar unless you can add more knowledge or reference to it.

 

Let's see how it goes but it could be, potentially, an interesting exercise for some products in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cravensdmufan]

I do not model steam so I can't comment on accuracy.

 

But I love the look of this model - I think if I were a GWR enthusiast I would be absolutely delighted, especially at the price!

[tomparryharry]

Without being negative, or pre-judging the out come, may I respectfully ask to see the 2 awaited liveries on offer? In addition to this, it might appear that Locomotion Models might ask for improvements to the DG. This could well turn the model from curate's egg, to a little cracker. On a personal level, I'm awaiting the plain green version, before I part with the readies.

 

Ian.

[bgman]

FYI

 

A notification email received yesterday from Locomotion states that " due to further quality improvements on the last sample we have received from the manufacture there will be a delay in delivering to the UK".

"We are aware this may cause frustration, however we are working with the manufacturer to maintain high quality production".

 

I feel that too much prejudgment causes negativity and I will await with interest the release of Locomotions versions which will hopefully address and comments / concerns made about this model.

[217 RIVER FLESK]

Whilst pushing things for my modelled period & time frame, I'd dearly like one & from the above photos, it does look a lovely model (putting to one side all the issues that have been high lighted).

 

However, knowing that Locomotion are having their models adjusted, I won't be splashing any cash until I see how theirs turns out & if theirs has had a number of the issues dealt with, then some money is likely to be coming their way. 

 

If I'm spending that amount of dosh, I'd rather spend a few quid extra & get something that is largely there, rather than something that still needs a good bit of work doing to it.

 

All this is a real shame if it does run as smoothly as some people say.

 

& just for the record, I'm after one in BR black

Edited July 25, 2017 by 217 RIVER FLESK

[4.50 from paddington]

I help out in a model shop 1 or 2 days a week. The first issue of the model arrived and were tested and seem to run well, but one customer reported smoke coming from underneath the loco and a smell of burning. He took it off the track,but he hasn't contacted us since. We have now received a sound version of this last loco. I tested this loco using a b'mann basic e-z command controller. Switched everyone on but nothing happened, cleaned track and tried again, sound came on loco moved slightly then went dead. Took loco off track and cleaned wheels with isopropyl alcohol and cotton bud. This seemed to cure the problem, could it be that this loco is overlubricated?

[Edwardian]

2309

 

NB: Where measurements of the model are quoted, these are taken from posts by Quarryscapes.  

 

Sources:

 

The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, Part 1: Preliminary Survey, The Railway Correspondence and Travel Society (“RCTS 1”)

 

The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, Part 4: Six-Wheeled Tender Engines, The Railway Correspondence and Travel Society (“RCTS 4”)

 

William Dean, the Greatest of them All, Jeremy Clements, Noodle Books, 2012 (“Clements”)

 

GWR General Arrangement, Swindon, April 1940 (“GA”)

 

EDIT: Historic Locomotive Drawings in 4mm Scale, F J Roche, Ian Allen ("Roche")

 

• 2309 was built in Lot 61 in 1883 with a dome-less S0 boiler.  She received the B4 Belpaire firebox boiler in June 1910 (RCTS 4)

 

• From about 1913, 40 of the class with belpaire boilers carried top-feed (RCTS 4), which state the Oxford model depicts

 

• 2309 was pictured in this condition at Snow Hill in January 1914 (Clements, p50, and below)

 

• Lots 61-92 inclusive had footplates of 7’3" width, which is 29.mm in 4mm scale.  Subsequent Lots, 99 onward, were 7’8” wide over the footplate (GA).  The Oxford tooling is 30.85mm over the footplate, so represents one of the later Lots, rather than 2309, and is 1.85mm too wide for 2309.  NB: Initially I had read the GA measurement as 7'5", not 7'3".  The writing on the GA is not the clearest.  It looked like a '5' to me, but could be '3' with the inch mark (") making it look like '5'.  The point is not made in the RCTS volume, so reading off the GA was the only option here.  I have been advised that the correct measurement is 7'3" and that the narrow footplates in the Finney/Brassmasters' kit scale out at 7'3".  

 

• 2309 was built with curved profiles to the front step, and the photograph in Clements clearly show this.  Oxford’s model features a straight sided step, which is incorrect.

 

• 2309’s cab was raised in conjunction with the fitting of a belpaire firebox.  This led to a deeper area between the top of the cab cut-out and the roof eaves. On 2309, the increased depth is clearly evident in the Clements photograph.  Such was typical of the class, including the preserved 2516, where the weld-line can still be seen.  The area is far shallower on the Oxford model.  This explains why the National Collection in Miniature version will have a re-tooled cab.

 

• Oxford’s splashers are significantly over-scale, at 6mm tall and 21mm long at the base.  In contrast, on the preserved 2516 the height of the splashers, to the nearest 1/16" is 14 1/2" (4.83mm in 4mm scale).  

 

• Oxford’s splashers have rivets along the lower face of the splasher.  No class member had these. The Clements photograph confirms that 2309 did not have them.

 

• There is a problem with the wash-out plugs, height and positioning, and they conflict with the handrails, which should run below them, rather than masking them (GA, Clements). The handrails should be mounted radially to the boiler, which on the Oxford model they are not.

 

• The reinforcing plate to the firebox at the base of the footplate on Oxford's model presumably represents a later feature and does not resemble the firebox on the real 2309 in the condition depicted (Clements)

 

• Oxford has chosen to depict a polished brass dome. From 1908 the regulation was to paint them green (http://www.gwr.org.u...esloco1906.html), though exceptions are claimed. According to RCTS 1, p58, steel domes were fitted from 1904, which were always painted.  As 2309 was re-boilered in 1910, the likelihood must be that she emerged with a painted dome. The 1914 picture (Clements) appears to show the dome painted, though it is difficult to be certain.  EDIT: I am grateful to receive clarification that the reference to 1908 was to photographic evidence that painted domes were common by this date, rather than to a particular instruction issued that year.  This would appear to reflect the implementation of the policy RCTS identifies as commencing in 1904; the introduction of painted steel covers and the gradual repainting of brass ones.  The conclusion, that 2309 had a painted dome in 1914, and probably at least since her re-boilering in 1910, remains valid.  

 

• EDIT:  Oxford's dome is somewhat over-scale.  Its diameter is 12.07mm diameter.  The GA gives the dimensions of the dome, not the cover, and I have not attempted to scale off the drawing.   Roche contains detailed drawings of some GW fittings, with the prototype dimensions.  There is a drawing of the large Dean dome of the kind fitted to the 3031 or Achilles Class (the 'Singles'), 3252/Dukes, and S4/B4 Dean Goods.

   

  The Roche drawing fives the following dimensions:

   

  Height (from top of boiler to top of dome): 3'  (12mm)

   

  Diameter (above the boiler where the sides are parallel): 2' 111/2"  (11.84mm)

   

  Assuming my maths to be correct, based upon the measurements in Roche, Oxford's dome is something like 0.25mm, which, to be fair, is not a vast disparity. 

   

  If the height of Oxford's dome is in proportion to its diameter, it is almost certain that it will also prove to be too high.  Brian777999 pointed out that the dome looked too big, and, upon investigation, his judgement proved correct.

   

• Oxford depicts a later pattern tapered chimney.  The cast-iron tapered design was not introduced until 1919 and did not have a copper top.  Oxford have painted the top brass, including the capuchin, which would be black even on copper-topped chimneys. In the pre-Great War period, the standard chimney was a parallel type (RCTS 1, p57), as seen clearly in the photograph in Clements.

 

• Prior to super-heating, chimneys were almost invariably mounted further back on the smoke-box wrapper (RCTS 1, pp54-5) and, again, this can be confirmed in the case of 2309 by reference to the 1914 photograph (Clements). So, Oxford has the wrong chimney in the wrong position for the lined 2309.

 

• The Oxford smoke box wrapper has very many very prominent rivets, many of which were not present on 2309, as is clear from the photograph (Clements)

 

• 2309's smoke box door should be dished, of the Dean type, which featured a pronounced stiffening ring around the outer edge (RCTS  1, p55), as clearly seen in the 1914 photograph (Clements).  Oxford give us a dished, but rimless, type smoke-box door of their own imagining.

 

• Other cosmetic niggles with the Oxford model include the colours on the handrails, the black underside of the boiler barrel and the lining, which appears far too wide on the cab side-sheets.  

 

• Oxford's 2309 does, however, feature the correct 2,500 gallon tender for the period of its depiction, as can be seen in the photograph (Clements)

Edited July 30, 2017 by Edwardian

[Quarryscapes]

 

2309

NB: Where measurements of the model are quoted, these are taken from posts by Quarryscapes.  

 

Sources:

 

The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, Part 1: Preliminary Survey, The Railway Correspondence and Travel Society (“RCTS 1”)

 

The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, Part 4: Six-Wheeled Tender Engines, The Railway Correspondence and Travel Society (“RCTS 4”)

 

William Dean, the Greatest of them All, Jeremy Clements, Noodle Books, 2012 (“Clements”)

 

GWR General Arrangement, Swindon, April 1940 (“GA”)

 

• 2309 was built in Lot 61 in 1883 with a dome-less S0 boiler.  She received the B4 Belpaire firebox boiler in June 1910 (RCTS 4)

 

• From about 1913, 40 of the class with belpaire boilers carried top-feed (RCTS 4), which state the Oxford model depicts

 

• 2309 was pictured in this condition at Snow Hill in January 1914 (Clements, p50, and below)

 

• Lots 61-92 inclusive had footplates of 7’5” width, which is 29.7mm in 4mm scale.  Subsequent Lots, 99 onward, were 7’8” wide over the footplate (GA).  The Oxford tooling is 30.85mm over the footplate, so represents one of the later Lots, rather than 2309.

 

• 2309 was built with curved profiles to the front step, and the photograph in Clements clearly show this.  Oxford’s model features a straight sided step, which is incorrect.

 

• 2309’s cab was raised in conjunction with the fitting of a belpaire firebox.  This led to a deeper area between the top of the cab cut-out and the roof eaves. On 2309, the increased depth is clearly evident in the Clements photograph.  Such was typical of the class, including the preserved 2516, where the weld-line can still be seen.  The area is far shallower on the Oxford model.  This explains why the National Collection in Miniature version will have a re-tooled cab.

 

• Oxford’s splashers are significantly over-scale, at 6mm tall and 21mm long at the base.  In contrast, on the preserved 2516 the height of the splashers, to the nearest 1/16" is 14 1/2" (4.83mm in 4mm scale).  

 

• Oxford’s splashers have rivets along the lower face of the splasher.  No class member had these. The Clements photograph confirms that 2309 did not have them.

 

• There is a problem with the wash-out plugs, height and positioning, and they conflict with the handrails, which should run below them, rather than masking them (GA, Clements). The handrails should be mounted radially to the boiler, which on the Oxford model they are not.

 

• The reinforcing plate to the firebox at the base of the footplate on Oxford's model presumably represents a later feature and does not resemble the firebox on the real 2309 in the condition depicted (Clements)

 

• Oxford has chosen to depict a polished brass dome. From 1908 the regulation was to paint them green (http://www.gwr.org.u...esloco1906.html), though exceptions are claimed. According to RCTS 1, p58, steel domes were fitted from 1904, which were always painted.  As 2309 was re-boilered in 1910, the likelihood must be that she emerged with a painted dome. The 1914 picture (Clements) appears to show the dome painted, though it is difficult to be certain.

 

• Oxford depicts a later pattern tapered chimney.  The cast-iron tapered design was not introduced until 1919 and did not have a copper top.  Oxford have painted the top brass, including the capuchin, which would be black even on copper-topped chimneys. In the pre-Great War period, the standard chimney was a parallel type (RCTS 1, p57), as seen clearly in the photograph in Clements.

 

• Prior to super-heating, chimneys were almost invariably mounted further back on the smoke-box wrapper (RCTS 1, pp54-5) and, again, this can be confirmed in the case of 2309 by reference to the 1914 photograph (Clements). So, Oxford has the wrong chimney in the wrong position for the lined 2309.

 

• The Oxford smoke box wrapper has very many very prominent rivets, many of which were not present on 2309, as is clear from the photograph (Clements)

 

• 2309's smoke box door should be dished, of the Dean type, which featured a pronounced stiffening ring around the outer edge (RCTS  1, p55), as clearly seen in the 1914 photograph (Clements).  Oxford give us a later, Churchward, type smoke-box door.

 

• Other cosmetic niggles with the Oxford model include the colours on the handrails, the black underside of the boiler barrel and the lining, which appears far too wide on the cab side-sheets.  

 

• Oxford's 2309 does, however, feature the correct 2,500gallon tender for the period of its depiction, as can be seen in the photograph (Clements)

 

 

The oxford mode does have the dished door, it's just a poor moulding, it's rim is not raised. I replaced mine (as well as the chimney) and thus own to date the only BR black Oxford Dean goods....

 

The lined GWR is all kinds of awful aesthetically, from the inaccuracies in form and decoration. It should be noted that the dome is integral with the boiler, and thus anything other than a painted finish isn't going to happen. The over size splasher and over wide lining conspire to put the cabside number plate over the lining, which is of course incorrect. The plain ones will look better of course as there's a lot less to go wrong, especially the BR black. 

 

The tender coal load is removable, however doing so exposes the top of the electrical connector to the locomotive behind the drawbar. 

 

Mine runs beautifully, by the way, though the wheels do need cleaning before running. 

[eastglosmog]

Andy

Thanks for posting the picture of the underside.  The wires between tender and loco on your model are much longer than those on mine.  Maybe  part of the problems I had with mine derailing were due to the wires fouling the drawbar (it is very difficult to see exactly what is going on in that small space). Haven't voted in the poll yet as I am still considering my position on some matters.

Edit to add:

One major problem is how to vote in the performance/running qualities part, as now I have fixed it, it runs very well, but as supplied it was execrable!

Edited July 25, 2017 by eastglosmog

[Edwardian]

The oxford mode does have the dished door, it's just a poor moulding, it's rim is not raised. I replaced mine (as well as the chimney) and thus own to date the only BR black Oxford Dean goods....

 

The lined GWR is all kinds of awful aesthetically, from the inaccuracies in form and decoration. It should be noted that the dome is integral with the boiler, and thus anything other than a painted finish isn't going to happen. The over size splasher and over wide lining conspire to put the cabside number plate over the lining, which is of course incorrect. The plain ones will look better of course as there's a lot less to go wrong, especially the BR black. 

 

The tender coal load is removable, however doing so exposes the top of the electrical connector to the locomotive behind the drawbar. 

 

Mine runs beautifully, by the way, though the wheels do need cleaning before running. 

 

Referring to the pictures of the model, I do see that this is not a Churchward pattern smoke-box door.  It is certainly not the Dean one, either, because it lacks the outer ring.  Often these rings are seen as polished steel, matching the hinges, though judging from photographs, this treatment seems to have been more common on passenger classes.  The rim is dull on the picture of 2309, though still clearly discernable.

 

Yes, one of the problems with the spasher size is that it throws the proportions of the cab side-sheet out still further.  So far the alterations made to the Locomotion edition cab appear to show the original splasher-size retained.  If this is persisted with, it will deny much of the improvement that the re-tooled cab should have conferred. We must see.  

 

It is worth noting that the Mainline body has certain dimensional advantages in that the splashers, while still over-scale, are significantly less so than Oxford's and the cab side-sheet profile is much closer to the typical prototype arrangement, as found on B4 locos, e.g. the preserved 2516 (the rivet patterns on the cab, possibly unique to the preserved 2516, are replicated on the Mainline body).

Edited July 25, 2017 by Edwardian

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The mechanism layout is a good one based on photos posted on RMweb, and this combined with reports of 50:1 ratio gearing and smooth operation, means that I will make an eventual purchase of a cheap example, purely for the loco mechanism which can be used for several other small boilered 0-6-0 prototypes.

[Mikkel]

It's an opportunity to comment on positive aspects too rather than just negatives

 

Some good things:

• It’s a good runner

• Nice detailing of the metal footplate itself (rivets etc)

• It’s a good tender

• It disassembles fairly easily 

 

Keep an eye out for the wiring beneath the cab.  On my model and at least one other that I have seen, there is not enough room for the wires, meaning that the factory has had to screw the chassis on very tightly indeed – which in turn leaves the wires pressed very flat in a rather worrying way. I have tried to remedy this on mine but so far have not solved it.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Mikkel

[MG 7305]

One thing that confuses me is the fact that both the Hatton's 48xx/58xx and this model have decided that the GWR fitted their external pipework with standoffs rather than the actual direct contact clipping to the running plate or boiler clothing which is what the GWR did. It cannot be for ease of assembly so why?

[Andy Y]

One thing that confuses me is the fact that both the Hatton's 48xx/58xx and this model have decided that the GWR fitted their external pipework with standoffs rather than the actual direct contact clipping to the running plate or boiler clothing which is what the GWR did. It cannot be for ease of assembly so why?

 

Can we keep this topic for posts relating to feedback for the review please?

[MG 7305]

My apologies. My intention was to highlight an error with the Dean Goods model for your review whilst also pointing out that Hatton's recent models share the same fault. I should have said that the two pipe runs just below the footplating and the top feed pipes should be snug and not stood off, GWR practice was to use a simple series of clips on the footplating pipes. The pipe run on the driver's side also ends rather abruptly. From memory the fireman's side one is steam heat and the driver' side vacuum, not forgetting GWR locomotives are right hand drive. An additional fault is that the cut out in the valve chest inspection cover designed to clear the front vac pipe is also missing, see photograph earlier in the thread.

 

Best regards

Edited July 26, 2017 by MG 7305

[Miss Prism]

MG7305 - you are correct on all the points you raise.

 

confused.com - yes, the handrail adjacent to the smokebox should be black (for post 1906).

[DCB]

Looks fantastic but what will it pull.  Can I abandon my Ks Chassis Airfix body Dean project and buy an Oxford to pull reasonable length 24 wagon freights?

[Edwardian]

I should, perhaps, give an explanation for rating this release 1 for accuracy. 

 

The reason is that we are asked for review comments on lined 2309, and the Oxford tooling is inapt for this identity for two reasons.

 

First, because the tooling is really intended to be representative of the inter-war super-heated condition, so features like chimney type and position and firebox plating are anachronistic. 

 

Second, because the tooling represents the later Lots, with wider footplates and straight-sided steps.

 

If we were asked to comment upon the other versions to be released, the above points would not apply.  Yes, there are still accuracy points in relation to the other versions announced - cab profile, handrail/wash-out plugs, splasher size and rivets etc - but it might be possible to rate the accuracy as a 2 or 3 if later condition versions are being considered.

 

I thought, perhaps,  I should add this in case it was felt that I was being unduly harsh.

 

I did not give credit, as Mikkel did, for reproducing the line of rivets on the footplate, which 2309 clearly had.  I apologise for this, but was influenced by the fact that the footplate is not accurate for 2309 due to width.  There appears to be very little overhang of the footplate over the valance, so I doubt it could be cut back to scale width.

 

I do like the tender, and the chassis (which seems to be a good runner) would make it a useful basis for projects, but if we are to judge it for what it is - a model of 2309 - I feel compelled to rate it low for value for money; while a lack of certain refinements might be justified on a cheaper model, I did not feel that a lower price justified basic dimensional and detail inaccuracies. In short, if it is not a basically accurate representation of what it purports to be, I am unlikely to consider it value for money at any price. 

 

The ratings part of the exercise is necessarily somewhat subjective, and all each of us can do is give our own honest assessment. 

[tomparryharry]

Hello Andy,

 

Do you have an ides when you anticipate closing your poll?

 

As I suggested earlier, I'd like to see the (supposed) new, improved versions before I hopefully buy one. Once purchased, I'd feel I could qualify to pass judgement.

 

Cheers,

Ian

[tanatvalley]

Looking at the upside view photograph what clearance is there for converting to EM and/or P4? The distance between the inside edge of the splashers does not look sufficient. What is this measurement? I notice the axles appear to be 2mm diameter.

[amdaley]

Thanks to Andy York for posting some fantastic photo’s which show the model from all angles. Photographs can be so cruel sometimes.

I look forward to the review in the October edition BRM.

 

To Edwardian & Quarryscapes for the information & list of errors which they have provided & to those brave souls for their bravery in taking the model to pieces & building their own version of the Deans.

I really do marvel at the skills of some of the members of this forum.

 

Some of us have been looking at the Oxford model & have come up with the following additional errors in relation to 2309.

Faults found with Oxford rail Dean Goods 2309 (approx. 40)

That's 26 more I think to add to the 17 by Edwardian but I am sure some are rather picky & wouldn’t be noticed except by the more eagle eyed modellers.

I cannot take credit for quite a few of the highlighted errors because a lot of them I didn’t even see until they were pointed out to me. I’m sure a lot of modellers will be the same but there are also quite a few fundamental errors which should not have appeared at all & that anyone with any interest in the prototype would have spotted.

A lot of the errors are simply due to human error in relation to poor research or accepting incorrect information or incorrect reading of drawings scans etc.

I put this list up just for information purposes & to assist those modellers who may be interested to decide their own opinion of the Oxford model.

F Prefix  are Fundamental errors which appear on no known locos
S Prefix  are specific errors applying to individual components
G Prefix Errors caused by incorrectly using standard parts on all versions.
 

The Photos of 2309 quite clearly shows most of these errors.

G. None of the Oxford planned locos had this low arc roof.
G, Cab cut out shape on 2301-2360 is quite different to that of the model.
F. Profile of firebox is still not correct.
F. Position of RH washout plugs should not mirror the LH side.
F. Position of forward boiler band is too far forward.
F. Position of top feed is also too far forward caused by boiler band error.
F. Top feed pipes have a flanged cover tight against the boiler.
F. Diameter of Deans smokebox door is much smaller than that of Churchward.
F. The Dean door is on the boiler centreline, ie lower than the later door.
F. The footplate may have rivets in front of splashers but not on them.
F. The reversing rod is straight and lower down on first series locos.

S  Riveting on front footplate valance is flush. 

G. Diameter of driving wheels should have been made 20mm to allow for accurate splashers.

F. Brake shoes are out of position because of wheel diameter
F. Provision for very large ashpan has been ignored.
F. Position of handrail is too high covering washout plugs.
S. Riveting on splasher tops was not on 2309 in photo.
S. ATC pipe run along RH valance is not required as ATC was not fitted
S. Cab footstep arrangement matched tender position on 2309
F. Balance weight on outer drivers is missing.
F. Buffer beam width is wrong as it matches incorrect valance width (was 7' 2")
F. Width over footplate valance is too wide, should be 28mm (7')
F. Beading on front corner of cab should project forward as well as sideways.
F .Footplate Step treads are very undernourished due to over wide valance.
F. Smokebox pipe cover seems rather too short.
F. Deep valance at rear of roof is missing!!
S. Smokebox steam lance should be absent
S. Smokebox side step is missing!!

 

I haven't mentioned the livery because I didn't want people to nod off before reaching the end 

[Edwardian]

Thanks to Andy York for posting some fantastic photo’s which show the model from all angles. Photographs can be so cruel sometimes.

I look forward to the review in the October edition BRM.

 

To Edwardian & Quarryscapes for the information & list of errors which they have provided & to those brave souls for their bravery in taking the model to pieces & building their own version of the Deans.

I really do marvel at the skills of some of the members of this forum.

 

Some of us have been looking at the Oxford model & have come up with the following additional errors in relation to 2309.

 

Faults found with Oxford rail Dean Goods 2309 (approx. 40)

That's 26 more I think to add to the 17 by Edwardian but I am sure some are rather picky & wouldn’t be noticed except by the more eagle eyed modellers.

I cannot take credit for quite a few of the highlighted errors because a lot of them I didn’t even see until they were pointed out to me. I’m sure a lot of modellers will be the same but there are also quite a few fundamental errors which should not have appeared at all & that anyone with any interest in the prototype would have spotted.

A lot of the errors are simply due to human error in relation to poor research or accepting incorrect information or incorrect reading of drawings scans etc.

I put this list up just for information purposes & to assist those modellers who may be interested to decide their own opinion of the Oxford model.

 

F Prefix  are Fundamental errors which appear on no known locos

S Prefix  are specific errors applying to individual components

G Prefix Errors caused by incorrectly using standard parts on all versions.

 

The Photos of 2309 quite clearly shows most of these errors.

 

G. None of the Oxford planned locos had this low arc roof. Agreed. Judging from the photograph, 2309 certainly had a smaller radius/higher arc roof

G, Cab cut out shape on 2301-2360 is quite different to that of the model.  Agreed, though this is inevitably so where the raised cab is modelled without the extra depth below the eaves.

F. Profile of firebox is still not correct. It is hard to say from the photograph of 2309, but I have reservations about this shape

F. Position of RH washout plugs should not mirror the LH side. Agreed

Note the position of the lower wash-out plugs - not a match with the RH of 2309

F. Position of forward boiler band is too far forward. I would prefer to know the measurement from the model, and to compare with the GA

F. Position of top feed is also too far forward caused by boiler band error.

F. Top feed pipes have a flanged cover tight against the boiler.

F. Diameter of Deans smokebox door is much smaller than that of Churchward.

F. The Dean door is on the boiler centreline, ie lower than the later door.

F. The footplate may have rivets in front of splashers but not on them. As noted above

F. The reversing rod is straight and lower down on first series locos. Agreed - as is clear from the 2309 photograph

S  Riveting on front footplate valance is flush. Agreed - clearly visible on photograph

G. Diameter of driving wheels should have been made 20mm to allow for accurate splashers. Also, the wheels were originally 5', made progressively wider with tyres, so they were not necessarily even nominally 5'2" in 1914. 

F. Brake shoes are out of position because of wheel diameter

F. Provision for very large ashpan has been ignored. I am not allowed to use that word!

F. Position of handrail is too high covering washout plugs.  As noted above

S. Riveting on splasher tops was not on 2309 in photo. Present on some locos, but not on 2309, which is clear from the photograph

S. ATC pipe run along RH valance is not required as ATC was not fitted Agreed, and clearly no piping visible on the photograph.

S. Cab footstep arrangement matched tender position on 2309  I take this to mean that the upper rear step on the loco should be at the same height as the upper step on the tender - this was clearly the case. as the photograph shows

F. Balance weight on outer drivers is missing. Agreed.

F. Buffer beam width is wrong as it matches incorrect valance width (was 7' 2")

F. Width over footplate valance is too wide, should be 28mm (7')  This might account for why there is so little overhang of the footplate apparent

F. Beading on front corner of cab should project forward as well as sideways.

F .Footplate Step treads are very undernourished due to over wide valance.

F. Smokebox pipe cover seems rather too short.

F. Deep valance at rear of roof is missing!! Agreed

S. Smokebox steam lance should be absent

S. Smokebox side step is missing!! Agreed - clearly visible on photograph

 

I haven't mentioned the livery because I didn't want people to nod off before reaching the end 

 

Some comments above, in red.

 

Quite a list!

 

I think Oxford would have done itself a favour if it hadn't tried to press the tooling into service to represent an earlier Lot loco in earlier condition than suited its tooling choices. 

 

Plenty of mistakes in all versions, but, even so, there is a long list of errors specific to 2309 that could have been avoided.  I commend the attempt to release a pre-Grouping version, but, without the necessary tooling variations, it is a doomed attempt in this case.  After all, you would not expect the Bachmann E4 in Improved Engine Green, or Hornby's Claud in GE Ultramarine, as they are presently tooled.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Edwardian

[amdaley]

Some comments above, in red.

 

Quite a list!

 

I think Oxford would have done itself a favour if it hadn't tried to press the tooling into service to represent an earlier Lot loco in earlier condition than suited its tooling choices. 

 

Plenty of mistakes in all versions, but, even so, there is a long list of errors specific to 2309 that could have been avoided.  I commend the attempt to release a pre-Grouping version, but, without the necessary tooling variations, it is a doomed attempt in this case.  After all, you would not expect the Bachmann E4 in Improved Engine Green, or Hornby's Claud in GE Ultramarine, as they are presently tooled.

 

It appears that Oxford Rail got out of their depth on this one.

Clearly the information was out there but they either asked the wrong people for advice or else asked the wrong questions.

Hopefully they'll learn for future releases because I think its important for the hobby that they succeed.

 

What's interesting is what are Locomotion going to do ?

Without extensive changes they can't hope to sell their model at a premium price.

Their model is due for a late Summer release at the earliest now.

[bertiedog]

Whilst fully agreeing with Edwardian on the points of accuracy, and practical oddities like the rivets, I think the complaints are a little over the top when a particular numbered loco is chosen to compare. it is a generic representation from a single set of parts of a large class, and no set of parts can cover all the variants. This not exclusive to Oxford, everybody else does it.

Also most modellers will be quite happy with it as it is, although a bit choked if the NRM version is altered.

It is a great runner straight from the box, and the price is very competitive in todays market.

So I think it is positive for Oxford, despite the reservations of exacting detail for a member of the class.

Stephen.

[Izzy]

Looking at the upside view photograph what clearance is there for converting to EM and/or P4? The distance between the inside edge of the splashers does not look sufficient. What is this measurement? I notice the axles appear to be 2mm diameter.

 

I am afraid I haven't being following this saga very closely as GWR locos don't really interest me ( I know - sackcloth and ashes!), but looking at Andy Y's underside shot in conjunction with those posted by Quarryscapes on the other thread I can't but help feel that there is a lot of what could be termed 'common ground' in design between this loco and Hornby's J15, even down to where many of the screws are positioned. Looking at both the stripped down loco and tender shots you could almost believe they came out of the same factory.........but the J15 does seem slightly more refined overall, which may be a mistaken impression on my part.

 

As such it might again be the case that room between the splashers is tight even if the tender doesn't prove too much trouble.  See here to get an idea of how I did it.  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/124592-some-Hornby-j15-alterations/

 

cheers,

 

Izzy