Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[The Fatadder]

Without going back through all 81 pages, was there ever a summary posted of which locos actually match the design features of the Oxford model?  If so I dont suppose someone could link it please?

 

I have just acquired one that is in a pretty sorry looking state via ebay, and want to see my options for renumbering (ideally to a loco which was in Bristol in 1947)  While I dont mind having to change the chimney, tender details, and other bits like that I would prefer to try and find a suitable loco with the right cab with and a cut out that matches the model.

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, The Fatadder said:

Without going back through all 81 pages, was there ever a summary posted of which locos actually match the design features of the Oxford model? 

 

It is the wider footplate version, 2451 onwards, as rebuilt. But none of them had the super-sized splashers...

[Quarryscapes]

On 07/09/2021 at 13:25, The Fatadder said:

Without going back through all 81 pages, was there ever a summary posted of which locos actually match the design features of the Oxford model?  If so I dont suppose someone could link it please?

 

I have just acquired one that is in a pretty sorry looking state via ebay, and want to see my options for renumbering (ideally to a loco which was in Bristol in 1947)  While I dont mind having to change the chimney, tender details, and other bits like that I would prefer to try and find a suitable loco with the right cab with and a cut out that matches the model.

 

 

On 07/09/2021 at 14:44, Compound2632 said:

 

It is the wider footplate version, 2451 onwards, as rebuilt. But none of them had the super-sized splashers...

 

The lined GWR version also features the thin cab top which was only carried by a few locos, 2538 being the most obvious. It also has the top feed which was again rare and a poor rendition of the dished smokebox door, which was quite common up to the 40s or so. 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Quarryscapes said:

The lined GWR version also features the thin cab top which was only carried by a few locos, 2538 being the most obvious. 

 

Was that simply a case of failing to carry out the usual modification of raising the cab roof on fitting the Belpaire boiler? Recanted. See @Miss Prism below.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Compound2632

[Miss Prism]

The cab roof height was not related to Belpaire fitting.

 

[sjrixon]

Can someone help?  I've taken my Dean appart, the motor appears to be sticking. Even stripped back this far, sometimes I need to nudge the flywheel to start it running. 

 

 

Had been running fine....

[Harlequin]

22 minutes ago, sjrixon said:

Can someone help?  I've taken my Dean appart, the motor appears to be sticking. Even stripped back this far, sometimes I need to nudge the flywheel to start it running. 

 

 

Had been running fine....

Could be that one of the coils has burnt out. That happened to one of mine with similar symptoms.

[sjrixon]

Thanks... Did you find a replacement motor? 

 

Sounds highly probable, I've just started reading back through this thread, certainly a story with this loco! 

[BWsTrains]

That's bad news, sorry to hear.

 

With the config as shown it looks promising to the untrained eye to stick a better motor in it's place rather than replace like for like.

 

Colin

[Harlequin]

12 hours ago, sjrixon said:

Thanks... Did you find a replacement motor? 

 

Sounds highly probable, I've just started reading back through this thread, certainly a story with this loco! 

Yes, but it was within warranty so I got a direct replacement.

 

The first motors were superior but they were in a flawed body. The later ones with the body corrections have these smaller motors with a plastic cradle to make them up to the right shape to fit in the casting.

 

I avoid "Sam's Trains" as far as possible but he does have a video showing how to make a new cradle and fit a new motor to the Dean Goods.

 

This model has had a chequered history. It's a shame because it could have been so good!

 

[Mikkel]

Interesting. Turns out that Sam is a hands-on person.

 

 

[jjb1970]

14 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Interesting. Turns out that Sam is a hands-on person.

 

 

 

I know many hate him, but he does seem to be quite an accomplished modeller. Some of his projects are very impressive. I find his obsession with price and equating quality with weight to be a bit grating but I actually enjoy his videos. He's an engaging presenter and he does provide useful information such as opening up models and showing the mechanism and running issues. 

[No Decorum]

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

I know many hate him, but he does seem to be quite an accomplished modeller. Some of his projects are very impressive. I find his obsession with price and equating quality with weight to be a bit grating but I actually enjoy his videos. He's an engaging presenter and he does provide useful information such as opening up models and showing the mechanism and running issues. 

Like many reviewers, he tends to drag things out rather too much for my taste. However, his postings are neatly arranged into chapters, which makes it easy to skip a lot of it and watch the interesting bits.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

...I find his obsession with price and equating quality with weight to be a bit grating...

Perhaps I should start looking at his output? 

 

I'll pay the price for a good model, but a flaw in RTR OO steam models which has long grated with me can be summarised as: 'looks good, but between motor, drive train reduction ratio and weight on the driven wheels, inadequate to take on the full trainload such a loco hauled, up to scale for maximum speed'.

 

After some occasional early successes (Bach's 9F, Hornby's Brit.) it would be unjust not to acknowledge significant improvement in this aspect over the last decade, my honour role now:

Bachmann, G5, V2

Heljan, O2

Hornby, B12/3. D16/3, J15, J36, J50, K1, P2, W1

Oxford Rail, N7

Planet industrials, Victory!

Sonic, A5

 

Can the Sam app be programmed to start excoriating the inadequate loco to tender close coupling mechanisms which both Bach and Hornby have ill-advisedly begun to apply?

 

[cctransuk]

3 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

... the inadequate loco to tender close coupling mechanisms which both Bach and Hornby have ill-advisedly begun to apply?

 

IMHO, the adjustable length, lockable with a screw, drawbar arrangement cannot be bettered.

 

Why on earth do designers insist on trying to fix something that is not broken?!?

 

CJI.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

32 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

IMHO, the adjustable length, lockable with a screw, drawbar arrangement cannot be bettered.

Yes, since Bachmann started using that in about 2010 it has been the benchmark. I wrote to Bachmann last July regarding the V2, suggesting they revert with immediate effect to this method. Polite reply received, and I would encourage others to similarly contact Bachmann.

[melmerby]

37 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

IMHO, the adjustable length, lockable with a screw, drawbar arrangement cannot be bettered.

I disagree

The Bachmann N class has a kinetic coupling between loco and tender meaning it is nicely close on the straight but opens out on a curve in the same way as modern coach models.

[Harlequin]

4 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

Can the Sam app be programmed to start excoriating the inadequate loco to tender close coupling mechanisms which both Bach and Hornby have ill-advisedly begun to apply?

 

 

This is getting wildly off-topic (and it might be worth creating a specific topic if this really is a big issue) but what makes these connections inadequate? I don't think I've seen one yet. Are they copying Dapol's click-fit loco-tender connector?

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

 

This is getting wildly off-topic (and it might be worth creating a specific topic if this really is a big issue) ...

 

Done, it's been submitted 'down below' in 'Modelling musings' for the moderator to ponder if it is worthy of admission.

 

And it has been approved so please make input there.

 

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

...what makes these connections inadequate...

Strike one, failure to resume the straight ahead alignment on coming off curves, and the heavier the train load the worse the effect.

 

Strike two, spacing overscale, so falls short of optimum appearance even if it could be made to function adequately. 

Edited April 10 by 34theletterbetweenB&D
Update

[BWsTrains]

7 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Done, it's been submitted 'down below' in 'Modelling musings' for the moderator to ponder if it is worthy of admission.

 

And it has been approved so please make input there.

 

Great, now we can get back to the serious matter of the 8 year saga of the Dean Goods 😈

 

FWIW after much effort and three goes with shipping across the world I finally received a working model (2475) only to read of the various woes of this release from others on this topic. Then after 11 months of good running, the DCC Sound chip was shorted out by a fault, a loose screw left magnetised against the speaker. OR were very good and replaced the entirety of the DCC kit but by then various reports of motor shorts convinced me it was but a matter of time for events to catch up.

 

The DCC Sound was donated as an "organ transplant" to a more deserving recipient, I popped the cheapest DCC I had into the Dean, then consigned it to lightest of duties available at the time.

 

Roll forward 6 years to a new layout, it will make occasional appearances on light duties only. 

 

In my books it's right up there in the annals of small RTR Steam model "disaster" releases. If they ran management courses on Model design and production this would be paired in a Case Study with the infamous 14xx saga (one I ducked). 

 

Meanwhile I content myself with running my core fleet of the reliable Bachmann 57xx, 64xx, 45xx Classes,  and the Collett Goods.   

Edited April 10 by BWsTrains

[Harlequin]

10 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

 

Great, now we can get back to the serious matter of the 8 year saga of the Dean Goods 😈

 

FWIW after much effort and three goes with shipping across the world I finally received a working model (2475) only to read of the various woes of this release from others on this topic. Then after 11 months of good running, the DCC Sound chip was shorted out by a fault, a loose screw left magnetised against the speaker. OR were very good and replaced the entirety of the DCC kit but by then various reports of motor shorts convinced me it was but a matter of time for events to catch up.

 

The DCC Sound was donated as an "organ transplant" to a more deserving recipient, I popped the cheapest DCC I had into the Dean, then consigned it to lightest of duties available at the time.

 

Roll forward 6 years to a new layout, it will make occasional appearances on light duties only. 

 

In my books it's right up there in the annals of small RTR Steam model "disaster" releases. If they ran management courses on Model design and production this would be paired in a Case Study with the infamous 14xx saga (one I ducked). 

 

Meanwhile I content myself with running my core fleet of the reliable Bachmann 57xx, 64xx, 45xx Classes,  and the Collett Goods.   

 

The Heljan 47xx was a comparable disaster. There are a lot of them sitting on shelves in pieces and there used to be a batch of them on Hattons in various sorry states of disrepair.

 

Edited April 11 by Harlequin

[melmerby]

43 minutes ago, BWsTrains said:

Meanwhile I content myself with running my core fleet of the reliable Bachmann 57xx, 64xx, 45xx Classes,  and the Collett Goods.   

Bachmann ruined the Collett Goods by removing a large amount of metal to install a DCC socket, rather than update the ancient tender and put the decoder there.

It now wont pull the proverbial skin off a rice pudding, the OR DG is better.

I put the metal back and converted the tender instead.(x2)