Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[kandc_au]

 

 

 

The whole idea with YouTube is that the content is generated by the users themselves.  Therefore, if you think this particular content is rubbish, it's no good whatever complaining here on RMWeb - you yourself have to do better-quality YouTube Reviews than this Sam bloke, and then you have to promote them better than he does - and then and only then you might just get several hundred or several thousand followers yourself who think you're the bees knees of model railway reviews.

 

I don't see it as complaining about the Youtube clip, but rather bringing to attention for those who do read these threads, that not all reviews are balanced or thought out!

Much like some responses we get here in some threads.

You drink in all the information and discard what doesn't appear to be backed up.

 

khris

[JSpencer]

Wasn't that Jouef centre can motor fitted in Playcraft Bo Bo diesels coreless? IIRC it had the most wonderful minute ball bearing races at each end.

 

Maybe, but they have been out of production for 40 years and I'm not sure if they qualify as a "model"! I saw one once, the gearing design on this split drive allowed you to turn turn the wheels by hand. A portescap gearbox also allowed you to turn wheels by hand thanks to using a bevel gear instead of a worm. I am surprised no make does that these days, as it allows the model to coast easier if power is removed or as the model goes down hills. It also means that the mass of the loco can be used as a flywheel, as its forwards motion can be transmitted back to the motor to allow for better back emf. With a worm, it simply locks unless there is some mass in the motor or flywheels to keep the worm spinning (the DJM 14xx and J94 are notorious for locking going down steep inclines with a small load, partly due - I believe to the too small coreless motor and lack of flywheel).

 

Going back OT - one thing I notice about Oxford's flywheels on this Dean is that they are same both ends and said set up could be used for a split drive in a small diesel.

[Compound2632]

You vandal......

 

 

No, he is very sensibly correcting the errors around the firebox, boiler, cab and probably splashers by discarding these parts of the model. I am expecting to see the tender meeting the razor saw too. (Compare the thread on what constitutes a rebuild...)

 

He's also correcting Swindon's error in disfiguring what started out as a typically elegant late-Victorian engine by the application of a Belpaire boiler... never a good idea.

[melmerby]

Coreless motors by their very nature do not run as well at low revs due to the lack of "flywheel" action mentioned by Stephen.

The only reason I can think of for using the "legendary" Portescap is the quality of the components, the motor itself is a professional class item, not a hobby class and I assume the gears are also top-notch.

High quality multipole conventional DC motors may well have been at least as expensive. The usual model train motors at the time were hardly inspiring but usually, by necessity robust which coreless aren't

 

I encountered coreless motors professionally (usually 12v, 12 - 16mm diameter Canon or similar) in the 1990s and they certainly weren't chosen for any claimed low speed performance but rather the low inertia and hence quick reponse to change.

You will encounter them in such devices as X-Y plotters where low reaction time to change is essential.

 

In reality the BLDC motor (brushless DC) is a myth as no DC motor can run without brushes, commutation (switching) is necessary to operate them.

The Floppy drives use a switched waveform to operate them even though the supply is DC.

 

Keith

 

EDIT

Wish I had kept the box of spare coreless motors, someone might have liked to purchase them!

Edited July 4, 2017 by melmerby

[The Johnster]

As far as I am aware all DC coreless motors have brushgear, silver blade or carbon etc. The coreless is electrically exactly the same as a conventional motor, it has poles, 3,5,7 or more, and are often star wound. The only missing bit is the core of iron plate that is present on the armature of a conventional motor.

 

The lack of iron means that more wire turns can be used to generate more torque or get higher revs for the same voltage. The coils usually rotate as conventional, but you can also find moving magnet designs.

 

The problems are very minor, the motors are better at generating back EMF than ordinary motors. and this can fool the feedback circuits on some controllers. Also any jitters at all in the supply voltage will reflect on the motor speed instantly, meaning pulse control makes them noisy.

 

The iron armature in a normal motor acts as a magnetic store, and a flywheel, and smooths out the jitters.

 

So the best way to run a coreless motor is with a flywheel, which stops the ability to instantly alter speed etc.

 

Coreless motors are popular at present as a lot of toy drones and planes use them for efficiency.

 

There is nothing intrinsic wrong with using them on Model Railways, as long as designed for such use.

 

The brushless AC motors used in aircraft are a completely different kettle of fish , a simple multi pole AC motor with very strong magnets, which are usually arranged on the rotor. But they need a sine wave AC voltage to induce the rotating field, quite different to the DC types.

 

There are a few brushless DC motors, most Hard drives have them! They work by the magnet rotating around a core of coils, switched electronically by Hall effect sensors. These are fine for fixed speed motors or motors with a limited range of speeds, but not for Model Railway uses.

 

The other type you will come across is the steeper motor, driven by a stream of pulses, usually under computer control in a feedback system.

 

The only use they have in MR is in turntables. They do have an interesting side issue, if turned, they make very good AC generators , say in a Stuart Turner steam plant.

 

Stephen.

 

Thank you for this most erudite and informative missive, I am happy to stand corrected by your good self and Kieth.  I have a vague idea of what back EMF is, and your explanation of it's effect on corleless motors controlled by feedback controllers makes sense.  I think I am right in saying that the original design criteria for the Portescap was a requirement to run at specific, very precise, and controllable speeds in laboratory conditions, and it was not designed with model railway use particularly in mind; it just happened to be a suitable physical size and ran off 12 volts DC.  I was clearly mistaken in believing coreless motors to be brushless, and they are not the potential 'fit and forget' sealed unit paragons I thought they were.

 

Motors of very good quality are now widely available cheaply enough to be regareded as disposable, and are used in modern rtr, but are increasingly sealed units in themselves and designed to be binned and replaced when the brushes give out; you cannot get at them to clean commutators or lube bearings.  This is not a problem so long as they are cheap and easy to obtain, but I worry at Hornby's current situation in which such replaceable motors are not available as spares.  My Hornby locos come with instruction sheets which state that the motors cannot be user serviced and should be replaced when life-expired (in other words, when the brushes wear out or the commutators get dirty), clearly written before Hornby's po;icy change in this matter.  Sales will not be helped by a perception that you have to bin the loco and replace it when the brushes give up!

[Horsetan]

Maybe, but they have been out of production for 40 years and I'm not sure if they qualify as a "model"! I saw one once, the gearing design on this split drive allowed you to turn turn the wheels by hand. A portescap gearbox also allowed you to turn wheels by hand thanks to using a bevel gear instead of a worm. I am surprised no make does that these days, as it allows the model to coast easier if power is removed or as the model goes down hills. It also means that the mass of the loco can be used as a flywheel, as its forwards motion can be transmitted back to the motor to allow for better back emf. With a worm, it simply locks ....

 

This is exactly why I prefer not to have any drivetrains involving worms. Unfortunately, in the world of P4-converted RTR diesels, they are impossible to avoid.

 

The Jouef drivetrain employed a crown-and-pinion, which is slightly cruder than bevels, but achieves the same back-driving / coasting effect. You can still buy the gears as spares.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Horsetan

[melmerby]

 

This is exactly why I prefer not to have any drivetrains involving worms. Unfortunately, in the world of P4-converted RTR diesels, they are impossible to avoid.

 

 

So that's why you use old Mainline mechanisms?

(which of course will run the motor from the drive wheels but otherwise were cr*p)

 

Keith

[Horsetan]

So that's why you use old Mainline mechanisms? ....

You might; I don't. Haven't had a Mainline mechanism since 1991.

[autocoach]

Does anyone have the exact drive wheel dimensions and spacing for the Oxford DG. Preferably in metric.  Now that I have seen the mechanism in dismantled form it brings to light other ideas.

 

I may have use for the DG loco chassis as a simple way to replace a Mehano Southern Pacific "M-4" like 2-6-0 mechanism if the drivers are not too large.  The Mehano 2-6-0 has a cheap plastic frame, has pizza cutter wheel profile and is poorly wired.  But the two I bought as a future project for my SP side only cost $19.99 on sale.

 

With a new brass SP M series 2-6-0 that is properly wired for DCC going for over $800, I am exploring other alternatives. 

[Quarryscapes]

20.66dia 

 

Does anyone have the exact drive wheel dimensions and spacing for the Oxford DG. Preferably in metric.  Now that I have seen the mechanism in dismantled form it brings to light other ideas.

 

I may have use for the DG loco chassis as a simple way to replace a Mehano Southern Pacific "M-4" like 2-6-0 mechanism if the drivers are not too large.  The Mehano 2-6-0 has a cheap plastic frame, has pizza cutter wheel profile and is poorly wired.  But the two I bought as a future project for my SP side only cost $19.99 on sale.

 

With a new brass SP M series 2-6-0 that is properly wired for DCC going for over $800, I am exploring other alternatives. 

 

 and 20x33mm wheelbase

[Willie Whizz]

Just a few points Willie Whizz. 

 

 

You say that if we think particular YouTube Model Railway content is rubbish we need to do better ourselves. No we don't. Better is already out their and readily available. It's called the model railway press. It's as available to the teenagers of today as it was 35 years ago when I was their age.

 

Back then if you wanted to read a review of the latest model you took your pocket money in your clammy fist down to John Menzies and returned proudly home with your copy of Railway Modeller, Airfix Model Trains or Model Railway Constructor. Today the choices are different (BRM, Hornby Magazine, Model Rail and Railway Modeller) and if anything access is even easier. You don't even have to leave the comfort of your 'sweaty pit' as some of them can be bought as a digital download straight onto your smartphone. And of course there is RMWeb itself which was unimaginable back in the 80s. There is within these august pages a vast range of inspirational projects, tips and advice, all provided for FREE. On top of that there is even some good content on YouTube, for example "Everard Junction" or "Simon's Shed".

 

So, if quality model railway content is more available than it ever was and yet people are choosing to watch "box opening videos" that tells me that quality is not what these people are looking for. God knows what need is being met by watching a bloke remove a mass-produced model from its packaging before subjecting it to an idiotic appraisal, but please let's not pretend that the folks who watch it have no other choices and that we somehow need to provide it for them.

 

You are suggesting that the problem is at the supply end. It isn't. The problem is at the consumption end. It's a cultural problem of dumbed-down passivity, the cult of personality and self promotion and above all the modern view that consumption and criticism are activities more worthy than experimentation, innovation or production.

 

The folks who watch "Sam's Trains" don't need us to save them - they need to learn how to engage their own critical faculties.

 

I think you said in an earlier post that this chap has over 9,000 subscribers?

 

If memory serves, that's getting on for a quarter of the print run of any print mainstream railway modelling magazine, and a much greater proportion than that of those printed magazines which, shall we say, specialise in catering for those to whom accuracy to the scale inch or so is a sine qua non.

 

I don't know what level of subscription the magazines that do digital downloads have for that service, but I'd speculate it's quite a bit less than their print runs, still.  If those (and the reviews on them) are his competition, he's doing well ... in fact, you could argue he had built the proverbial "better mousetrap" and people are beating a path to his door in the way that our "professional"  journalist modellers haven't managed.

 

Yes, as you say, "The folks who watch "Sam's Trains" ... need to learn how to engage their own critical faculties" if the regular quality of his work is really as weak as people on here say.  But to do that, there needs to be an alternative that is not just better, but (a) visible and (b) more attractive to his web-based membership.  If not, then as far as those particular people are concerned, you're only one step away from asking them to write with a quill pen.  Sorry, but 'lecturing' them - in their absence - on here is not going to change anybody's mind.  Their attention can be engaged, but the route to its focus now lies elsewhere (as recent 'political' experience may suggest, if the party that suffered the consequences fails to learn the lesson!). Our modelling experts need to learn new skills that have nothing to do with soldering irons, or even laser-printing!

[bertiedog]

Mention was made of the Jouef motor, and yes it was a coreless design, or at least the armature was the magnet and the coils stationary. (or the other way round). The motor qualifies as coreless as no iron is used in the coils. This type was the Disteler Motor, (not sure of spelling), which had an armature core of iron dust in resin, which was magnetised.  The coils were switched by a commutator as usual. They were incredibly efficient.

 

The first user of a coreless inverted type was Mr Graham Farish, with his unique 2 pole rotating magnet motor, again the motor was remarkably efficient once running......getting it to start was another matter.....in theory it always stopped where it could start again, but life is more complex, and wear and tear plus sticky fingers put paid to an ingenious pioneering design. It was not quite a true coreless as the coils were wound on transformer laminations. The whole thing was an attempt to bypass post war import restrictions, Farish actually wanted Pittman motors, but was forbidden to import, and he turned instead to his old business of electronic parts and dreamt up the design to use things he had in stock.

Edited July 4, 2017 by bertiedog

[Mikkel]

[snip] ... Swindon's error in disfiguring what started out as a typically elegant late-Victorian engine by the application of a Belpaire boiler... never a good idea.

 

I do agree. Taste is a funny thing though. I like Belpaire fireboxes on a dirty engine: http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Railway-Photo-GWR-Dean-Goods-2444-Great-Western-2301-Class-0-6-0-Loco-/142326224623?hash=item21234dd6ef

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

I think you said in an earlier post that this chap has over 9,000 subscribers?

 

If memory serves, that's getting on for a quarter of the print run of any print mainstream railway modelling magazine, and a much greater proportion than that of those printed magazines which, shall we say, specialise in catering for those to whom accuracy to the scale inch or so is a sine qua non.

 

I don't know what level of subscription the magazines that do digital downloads have for that service, but I'd speculate it's quite a bit less than their print runs, still.  If those (and the reviews on them) are his competition, he's doing well ... in fact, you could argue he had built the proverbial "better mousetrap" and people are beating a path to his door in the way that our "professional"  journalist modellers haven't managed.

 

Yes, as you say, "The folks who watch "Sam's Trains" ... need to learn how to engage their own critical faculties" if the regular quality of his work is really as weak as people on here say.  But to do that, there needs to be an alternative that is not just better, but (a) visible and (b) more attractive to his web-based membership.  If not, then as far as those particular people are concerned, you're only one step away from asking them to write with a quill pen.  Sorry, but 'lecturing' them - in their absence - on here is not going to change anybody's mind.  Their attention can be engaged, but the route to its focus now lies elsewhere (as recent 'political' experience may suggest, if the party that suffered the consequences fails to learn the lesson!). Our modelling experts need to learn new skills that have nothing to do with soldering irons, or even laser-printing!

 

 

You know, maybe you have a point. Maybe the professional journals have missed a trick. Maybe it would broaden their reach by producing something along the lines of "Sam's Trains". It could be distributed through the social media channels preferred by youngsters.  It could be paid for by advertising so long as it doesn't undermine sales of the publisher's other products. It could take a light, friendly, not too detailed approach. It could be presented by a young, personable individual....maybe even Sam himself.

 

Great! We agree.

 

There is a problem with our hypothetical new production however.

 

Our new, professionalised Sam isn't going to be able to present them in future in the same way he did the Dean Goods instalment. He ISN'T going to be able to disregard the Instruction Manual. He ISN'T going to be able to write-off a loco based on having seen it run over six feet alone without running it in properly. He ISN'T going to be able question the competence of a manufacturer based on a sample of three products. He ISN'T going to be able to conclude that his review sample has "a strange dodgy motor in there" without first having gone through a logical process of fault finding to eliminate other possibilities.

 

Do you know why he ISN'T going to be able to do the above? 

 

Because all of the above are illogical, unfair and misleading to both the manufacturer AND the viewers.

 

You don't seem to understand that my objections isn't to Sam himself, or his viewers or social media. My objection is to the lack of competence of both his analysis and the conclusions he reached. I also despair of a culture, which is not the fault of the youngsters, but which non the less values style and presentation above content, substance and fact.

[The Johnster]

Well, you both have a point from where I'm standing.  I was musing (it's alright, I cleaned the mess up afterwards) the other day about entering my second modelling childhood, in the sense that, while 30 years ago I was building layouts to what I called 'better than rtr standard' 00, with SMP chaired track and scale instanter or screw couplings, building whitemetal kits and detailing them, stripping down rtr chassis and fitting Romford motors, gears, wheels along with some Gibson's,  I was actively considering EM for my next layout.  I can no longer do any of that, because some of the components are not available any more and because, even if they were, I lack the quality of vision and steadiness of hand/eye co-ordination needed.  I have become old and feeble, shortsighted and shaky, and have probably had my last major overhaul before withdrawal and scrapping.  So, and because I want to finish the layout and have some time left operate it, I have reverted to my childhood modelling standards; Peco streamline, insulfrog points, tension lock couplings, and, for the moment anyway, 100% rtr stock.  I have more in common with Sam's young and feckless disciples than I like to admit!

Edited July 5, 2017 by The Johnster

[Talltim]

I do agree. Taste is a funny thing though. I like Belpaire fireboxes on a dirty engine: http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Railway-Photo-GWR-Dean-Goods-2444-Great-Western-2301-Class-0-6-0-Loco-/142326224623?hash=item21234dd6ef

Nowt wrong with a bit of Belpaire

[Quarryscapes]

Nowt wrong with a bit of Belpaire

IMG_1325.JPG

Indeed - Cambrian Large Belpaire Goods http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PHOTO-GWR-EX-CAMBRIAN-RLY-LOCO-NO-864-/362020718321?hash=item544a1dc6f1:g:VssAAOSwRLZT-xDV

 

Although it can probably be said that it's predecessor the Large Goods was prettier http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PHOTO-CAMBRIAN-RLY-CLASS-CAM-A15-LOCO-NO-79-GWR-LOCO-NO-889-/192229761727?hash=item2cc1c962bf:g:3pMAAOSw-7RVF7h6

[Legend]

You know, maybe you have a point. Maybe the professional journals have missed a trick. Maybe it would broaden their reach by producing something along the lines of "Sam's Trains". It could be distributed through the social media channels preferred by youngsters. It could be paid for by advertising so long as it doesn't undermine sales of the publisher's other products. It could take a light, friendly, not too detailed approach. It could be presented by a young, personable individual....maybe even Sam himself.

 

Great! We agree.

 

There is a problem with our hypothetical new production however.

 

Our new, professionalised Sam isn't going to be able to present them in future in the same way he did the Dean Goods instalment. He ISN'T going to be able to disregard the Instruction Manual. He ISN'T going to be able to write-off a loco based on having seen it run over six feet alone without running it in properly. He ISN'T going to be able question the competence of a manufacturer based on a sample of three products. He ISN'T going to be able to conclude that his review sample has "a strange dodgy motor in there" without first having gone through a logical process of fault finding to eliminate other possibilities.

 

Do you know why he ISN'T going to be able to do the above?

 

Because all of the above are illogical, unfair and misleading to both the manufacturer AND the viewers.

 

You don't seem to understand that my objections isn't to Sam himself, or his viewers or social media. My objection is to the lack of competence of both his analysis and the conclusions he reached. I also despair of a culture, which is not the fault of the youngsters, but which non the less values style and presentation above content, substance and fact.

You know this post comes across as very patronising . What would have happened if this had been reviewed in a Mag? Probably something like " we encountered a few problems but hope this will disappear with running in" . The model ran like a dog , a three legged one at that. And this YouTube video accurately portrayed that. Now I think this is probably a one off, others on here have posted their models run fine and there is another YouTube video that shows the Deans Goods running smoothly . Hopefully we will find out when the replacement arrives

 

I don't want a "professionalised " Sam, just tell it like it is, which I believe he has done.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Legend

[Compound2632]

Indeed - Cambrian Large Belpaire Goods http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PHOTO-GWR-EX-CAMBRIAN-RLY-LOCO-NO-864-/362020718321?hash=item544a1dc6f1:g:VssAAOSwRLZT-xDV

 

Although it can probably be said that it's predecessor the Large Goods was prettier http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PHOTO-CAMBRIAN-RLY-CLASS-CAM-A15-LOCO-NO-79-GWR-LOCO-NO-889-/192229761727?hash=item2cc1c962bf:g:3pMAAOSw-7RVF7h6

 

My point exactly. If going Belpaire, one has to do the thing thoroughly - a complete break with what's gone before, just as S. W. Johnson did. (I know that's a Compound not a Belpaire but I couldn't find a photo online of a 3/4 view of a Belpaire in original condition to link to.)

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

You know this post comes across as very patronising . What would have happened if this had been reviewed in a Mag? Probably something like " we encountered a few problems but hope this will disappear with running in" . The model ran like a dog , a three legged one at that. And this YouTube video accurately portrayed that. Now I think this is probably a one off, others on here have posted their models run fine and there is another YouTube video that shows the Deans Goods running smoothly . Hopefully we will find out when the replacement arrives

 

I don't want a "professionalised " Sam, just tell it like it is, which I believe he has done.

 

 

Are you suggesting that the magazines are misleading their readership in their product reviews? You seem to be suggesting that. Do you have any evidence for that? Are you seriously suggesting that we should eschew the experience of the likes of Chris Leigh, Andy York, Richard Foster et al and rely instead on the insights of "just tell it like it is" Sam? Are you serious?

 

Perhaps you should ask Andy who regularly drops by on this thread if he would have reviewed this product in the way young Sam did, and if not, why not. You might actually learn something from someone who has forgotten more about railway modelling than Sam is ever likely to know,

 

I'll say one thing for you Legend, there's no questioning your loyalty to young Sam but your judgement is another matter altogether. 

 

This correspondence is now closed. You can't reason with someone who will defend the indefensible no matter what.

[Legend]

Quite

[dibber25]

I think you said in an earlier post that this chap has over 9,000 subscribers?

 

If memory serves, that's getting on for a quarter of the print run of any print mainstream railway modelling magazine, and a much greater proportion than that of those printed magazines which, shall we say, specialise in catering for those to whom accuracy to the scale inch or so is a sine qua non.

 

I don't know what level of subscription the magazines that do digital downloads have for that service, but I'd speculate it's quite a bit less than their print runs, still.  If those (and the reviews on them) are his competition, he's doing well ... in fact, you could argue he had built the proverbial "better mousetrap" and people are beating a path to his door in the way that our "professional"  journalist modellers haven't managed.

 

Yes, as you say, "The folks who watch "Sam's Trains" ... need to learn how to engage their own critical faculties" if the regular quality of his work is really as weak as people on here say.  But to do that, there needs to be an alternative that is not just better, but (a) visible and (b) more attractive to his web-based membership.  If not, then as far as those particular people are concerned, you're only one step away from asking them to write with a quill pen.  Sorry, but 'lecturing' them - in their absence - on here is not going to change anybody's mind.  Their attention can be engaged, but the route to its focus now lies elsewhere (as recent 'political' experience may suggest, if the party that suffered the consequences fails to learn the lesson!). Our modelling experts need to learn new skills that have nothing to do with soldering irons, or even laser-printing!

Like The Sun sells more copies than the Times, because the Sun is top quality journalism? (CJL)

[Steamport Southport]

To be honest I realised that those box opening videos weren't for me when I watched one that Hornby had linked to on their Engine Shed page.

 

Lad in his mid twenties playing with a train set on his bedroom floor carpet? Didn't read the instructions then, as that's one of the first things they tell you not to do. 

 

 

They are probably popular because they are free and they talk to youngsters in their own language. The sort of thing that my young nephew watches when he's on his tablet thingy. Seriously, he watches LEGO building videos rather than play with the LEGO he actually has.

 

 

Jason

[amdaley]

On the subject of model reviews.

If I wanted an honest review of a model the last place I would look would be in one of the Model Railway magazines.

Yes a lot of the YouTube reviews are rubbish or at best poor but no poorer than those that regularly appear in the Model Railway press.

[aussiebrfan]

Just watched "the review video". That's 16 minutes of my life I ain't getting back.

Had to laugh tho when on reading through some of the comments I noticed that one of the commenters was an Adrian Swain slagging off the loco and Sam.

 

Regards G.