Oxford Rail Wish List?

[Craig1989]

How about something a bit modern that hasn't been done like a railhead treatment train to go with the Bachmann mpv

[south]

I would like to see the scorpian light tank and the fox armoured car of the 1970s and 80s as not much military stuff produced. These vehicles both fit on the railway gauge of the uk and sore a train load of these going through woking station in 1982. The train was very long and was porring with rain. The time was about 1800 hrs and the station was very very busy. The thing that sticks in my mind was everyone on all the platforms just stopped what they were doing just to watch the train go through. Was an amazing site

[brian777999]

Brunel broad gauge train set complete with loco, coaches and track. I doubt that they would get any competition from Bachmann or Hornby on that one !

[it's-er]

On its Facebook page, BRM has first photos of ODs Mk 3 coaches (unpainted) and the Deans Goods, and notes " Look out for more new announcements and releases from Oxford Rail in the next few days." So we don't have long to wait for some news!

 

John

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Seeing that Oxford Rail (on the basis of two models) are nibbling around the edges of pre-grouping locomotives in a clockwise manner,...

 Ooh I can play that game. Bit perverse of them starting from 6 o' clock (Eastleigh)

7 Swindon Dean goods

8 Crewe Cauliflower

9 Gorton N5

10 Horwich class 27

11 St Rollox Jumbo

12 Cowlairs J36

1 Darlington J21

2 Doncaster J6 or C12

3 Stratford N7

4 Ashford L1

5 Brighton C2X

[PhilJ W]

 Ooh I can play that game. Bit perverse of them starting from 6 o' clock (Eastleigh)

7 Swindon Dean goods

8 Crewe Cauliflower

9 Gorton N5

10 Horwich class 27

11 St Rollox Jumbo

12 Cowlairs J36

1 Darlington J21

2 Doncaster J6 or C12

3 Stratford N7

4 Ashford L1

5 Brighton C2X

Definitely the N7

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It is only a little fun, but I do hope that it shows that there plenty of pretty numerous pre-group classes that would make attractive models likely to be of significant interest, without stepping on the toes of other maker's ranges. There's plenty more where that came from too, someone else could easily do a similar circuit around their choice of the UK's works, and nominate ten completely different numerous pre-group classes of equal attractiveness.

[Hroth]

 Ooh I can play that game. Bit perverse of them starting from 6 o' clock (Eastleigh)

7 Swindon Dean goods

8 Crewe Cauliflower

9 Gorton N5

10 Horwich class 27

11 St Rollox Jumbo

12 Cowlairs J36

1 Darlington J21

2 Doncaster J6 or C12

3 Stratford N7

4 Ashford L1

5 Brighton C2X

Well, they have to start somewhere.  At least 6 o'clock is a cardinal point, and its a loco with lots of visual appeal.  You couldn't start at 12 o'clock, while a J36 will have great interest for Scottish modellers, it might have ended up as Oxford Rails one and only model loco...

 

Personally speaking, I feel that although a Cauliflower is a perfectly good suggestion, they could push the boat out for something like one of the pre Great War Crewe 4-6-0s.  Certainly no competition on the horizon from anyone else there!

[PhilJ W]

Even more desirable IMHO from Stratford would be an E4 or an F4 tank.

[Edwardian]

I'd settle for an accurate Dean Goods

[Keith George]

What about a class 41 Warship.??

[Edwardian]

I realise that I rashly commenced this thread in a flurry of optimism, very much taking Oxford at its PR word, but I am now wondering if I should wish anything!

 

Looking at the various topics on the various steam-age releases, it seems that the mixed bag is turning out to be more of a curate's egg.  We all have our personal benchmark in terms of what we will or will not accept, so I will emphasise that this is a personal and subjective response to everything I have seen and read so far, having thought long and hard and having done what research I can, but:

 

- RCH 7-plank.  Inaccuracies, fake liveries and other people do them better.  Adds little to the party.  Won't be buying

- NBR 4-plank.  Accuracy has been debated, and some PO liveries are suspect for the vehicle, but in its NB guise, this model seems pretty accurate so far as I can tell.  Will be buying 

- LNER Cattle wagon.  Some fundamental flaws, not all easy to correct.  Won't be buying  

- LNER 6-plank.  Again, suggested inaccuracies, but it seems to me pretty close.  The LNER-liveried version, I will be buying. 

- Adams Radial.  Not aware of any accuracy issues.  Personally I only ever see myself backdating a 488, but that lack of daylight is an issue for me, so, won't be buying.

- Dean Goods.  Too many mistakes and inappropriate details for chosen prototype are already clearly evident.  Having considered this one very carefully, I conclude that the best way to achieve a reasonably accurate Dean Goods is to build a Comet chassis under the Mainline body. Won't be buying.

 

So, those were the releases that I was interested in.  Out of that little lot, I think all but 2 of the wagons are below a standard I would consider acceptable.

 

I sincerely hope that the GW 6-wheel toad will turn out to be a prince, not an amphibian, warts and all. Fingers crossed. 

 

I do not take pleasure in reaching or conveying a less than positive conclusion.  Far, far from it.  I am attempting a balanced assessment of the initial output, albeit to my necessarily subjective standards.  There is a difference between an unforgiving assessment and indiscriminate acceptance.  Further, I realise excuses are made for Oxford, not least the price advantage.  To that point I would say that Oxford is not claiming to be a second Railroad range and it must often cost the same to produce an accurate model as it does an inaccurate one.

 

The Oxford tag line reads "In Pursuit of Excellence"

 

I hope for its sake, as well as for ours, the pursuit ends happily and sooner rather than later.  

 

Oxford must do better.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Edwardian

[BG John]

- NBR 4-plank.  Accuracy has been debated, and some PO liveries are suspect for the vehicle, but in its NB guise, this model seems pretty accurate so far as I can tell.  Will be buying

.....................

- Adams Radial.  Not aware of any accuracy issues.  Personally I only ever see myself backdating a 488, but that lack of daylight is an issue for me, so, won't be buying.

- Dean Goods.  Too many mistakes and inappropriate details for chosen prototype are already clearly evident.  Having considered this one very carefully, I conclude that the best way to achieve a reasonably accurate Dean Goods is to build a Comet chassis under the Mainline body. Won't be buying.

......................

I sincerely hope that the GW 6-wheel toad will turn out to be a prince, not an amphibian, warts and all. Fingers crossed.

 

........................

 

The Oxford tag line reads "In Pursuit of Excellence"

 

I hope for its sake, as well as for ours, the pursuit ends happily and sooner rather than later. 

- I've been tempted by the NBR 4-plank, but don't see how I can justify them appearing the the West Country in 1905 or the 1880s. Otherwise I would buy some, and fit some with dumb buffers.

 

- Having just bought a Radial, the lack of daylight isn't as bad as I thought, but the decision to buy was based on it being cheaper than the Hornby one, and when I eventually convert it to P4 and backdate to as built condition, I can move the motor to sort it. The difference in price will help pay for the new wheels.

 

- I might have been tempted by the Dean Goods, especially as it's only any use to me backdated to as built condition, so the firebox would have to go, and the boiler replaced or altered. So many of the detail errors would be removed or altered anyway. I'd still have the cost of P4 wheels to consider, and it would depend on whether conversion can be done without replacing the chassis. If I didn't have a part backdated Mainline Dean Goods, I'd have to weigh up the cost of buying one, plus a new chassis and all the other bits, and see which came out the cheapest. As it is, I think the Mainline one is the cheapest option.

 

I suppose all the above are related to my personal interests, and whether they're a cost effective starting point for producing something I want. I can remove the worst faults in my conversions, but someone who wants to run them as they are will have different views. None of the other current Oxford products are of any use to me.

 

I've pre-ordered a Toad, but will be watching out for photos and reports on how it's developing. The centre wheels will be coming off, as only a 4-wheeler is of any use to me. Hopefully the rest of the model will be satisfactory. As I've got a part built major hacking of several existing RTR models to produce the same style of van, I think I'd accept some errors in the Oxford model, as I know how difficult it is to get one any other way. The only other option I've found is an etched brass kit at several times the price.

 

I suppose Oxford are pursuing excellence, but it's running a bit fast for them, and is good at eluding capture .

Edited October 21, 2016 by BG John

[Edwardian]

- I've been tempted by the NBR 4-plank, but don't see how I can justify them appearing the the West Country in 1905 or the 1880s. Otherwise I would buy some, and fit some with dumb buffers.

 

- Having just bought a Radial, the lack of daylight isn't as bad as I thought, but the decision to buy was based on it being cheaper than the Hornby one, and when I eventually convert it to P4 and backdate to as built condition, I can move the motor to sort it. The difference in price will help pay for the new wheels.

 

- I might have been tempted by the Dean Goods, especially as it's only any use to me backdated to as built condition, so the firebox would have to go, and the boiler replaced or altered. So many of the detail errors would be removed or altered anyway. I'd still have the cost of P4 wheels to consider, and it would depend on whether conversion can be done without replacing the chassis. If I didn't have a part backdated Mainline Dean Goods, I'd have to weigh up the cost of buying one, plus a new chassis and all the other bits, and see which came out the cheapest. As it is, I think the Mainline one is the cheapest option.

 

I suppose all the above are related to my personal interests, and whether they're a cost effective starting point for producing something I want. I can remove the worst faults in my conversions, but someone who wants to run them as they are will have different views. None of the other current Oxford products are of any use to me.

 

I've pre-ordered a Toad, but will be watching out for photos and reports on how it's developing. The centre wheels will be coming off, as only a 4-wheeler is of any use to me. Hopefully the rest of the model will be satisfactory. As I've got a part built major hacking of several existing RTR models to produce the same style of van, I think I'd accept some errors in the Oxford model, as I know how difficult it is to get one any other way. The only other option I've found is an etched brass kit at several times the price.

 

I suppose Oxford are pursuing excellence, but it's running a bit fast for them, and is good at eluding capture .

 

That seems a fair approach, and I you and I have overlapping interests, I'd answer:

 

- I don't have an immediate fit either for the NBR 4-plank (presently Norfolk, 1905?), but with my catholic tastes, I am sure I can find some scenario for it.

 

- For the Radial, because I remain a Double-O Caveman, I am thinking of a simple cosmetic back-dating.  Hornby has daylight under the boiler and the coal rail unclips.  Clear winner. 

 

- For a belpaire Dean Goods, I believe Mainline plus Comet has the edge.  It would have been good if Oxford could have supplied a pre-WW1 belpaire Dean, but given the issues with 2309, that is not to be.

 

But, given my Double-O Heresy,  the motorised chassis has an appeal.  Like you, I am principally interested in round-top versions, so we are looking at surgery and repaint any-how.  As you note, this removes many of the inaccuracies; no mis-begotten belpaire, and the chimney would be replaced anyway.  My remaining concern is the cab, which might need to be replaced.  I could lower the roof, reposition the spectacle plates etc, but whether the curve of the side cut-outs would be correct is a matter to be judged with the model in my hand.  You see, with the Mainline body, I know I'd be left with the correct cut-out profile.

 

Does any 3D printing Whiz, or resin Whiz want to produce smoke-box-boiler-fire-box-cab assemblies to fit the Oxford running plate? 

 

Domeless, forward dome and centre dome varieties please.  And, whilst we're about it, a riveted 1,8000 gallon tender with external springs on the tender sides!

 

Then, I could keep buying Deans till the money ran out!

[BG John]

Then, I could keep buying Deans till the money ran out!

One is enough for me. It was a modern main line goods engine in the 1880s, and if I need another narrow gauge goods engine it will have to be something older.

[Dunsignalling]

Without wishing to put a damper on the froth, I think I'd like Oxford to get a bit more practice at this railway lark before they tackle any of my "Most Wanted".

 

John

[sp1]

Without wishing to put a damper on the froth, I think I'd like Oxford to get a bit more practice at this railway lark before they tackle any of my "Most Wanted".

 

John

I agree. Their Adams Radial seems to have been 'close' but 'not quite'. I really hope they haven't messed up the Dean Goods, but am not holding my breath, and the wagons:...well, a certain Mr Swain seems to have, as I recall, pointed out a lot of the errors, got 'shouted down' left the site, and now we still get posts about the inaccuracies in them........

[Dunsignalling]

I agree. Their Adams Radial seems to have been 'close' but 'not quite'. I really hope they haven't messed up the Dean Goods, but am not holding my breath, and the wagons:...well, a certain Mr Swain seems to have, as I recall, pointed out a lot of the errors, got 'shouted down' left the site, and now we still get posts about the inaccuracies in them........

I think Oxford's Radial is pretty darned good for a first foray into r-t-r locos. I intended to buy a couple, but delayed purchase so I could compare the Hornby equivalent. 

 

Upon inspecting both, I consider the latter to be sufficiently "better" in several respects to make it, for me at least, worth the significant price premium. 

 

John

Edited October 22, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Edwardian]

Upon inspecting both, I consider the latter to be sufficiently "better" in several respects to make it, for me at least, worth the significant price premium. 

 

 

 

Interesting, John.  That had been the impression I had formed from photographs, videos, reviews and forum comments. It is interesting that you have formed this view from weighing them up, one in each hand as it were.

[brian777999]

Dunsignalling : Why is the Hornby version better, in your opinion ?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Without wishing to put a damper on the froth, I think I'd like Oxford to get a bit more practice at this railway lark before they tackle any of my "Most Wanted"...

 You and me both! The first useful product for my interest was the LNER design general merchandise open (only the LMS design general merchandise opens and vans would have exceeded it on my personal list of 'potentially most useful RTR product') and happily this one they have got 'right enough'. Its errors certainly no worse than their established and much more experienced competitors have managed recently: exhibit one, Bachmann BR std cattle wagon, foot wrong in overall length, exhibit two, Hornby's Blue Spot fish with incorrect roof radius.

 

I do feel that some allowance has to be made for the start point of the learning curve that Oxford are moving along. The loud hurrahs for Bachmann, Hornby, Heljan as they lead the transition to OO RTR models from about sixteen years ago, was by comparison with the previous very low standard of OO RTR product. What Oxford have produced so far, I would suggest taken overall exceeds the standard of the Lima / Margate Hornby product group. That they are not yet consistently matching what the best of their current competitors offer does not surprise. There is plenty to learn in achieving that standard. When they get there we then see if the will to excel by further advancing standards kicks in. There's plenty of headroom opportunity for superior RTR.

[Dunsignalling]

Dunsignalling : Why is the Hornby version better, in your opinion ?

The obvious one (and for me, the clincher) is the daylight under the boiler, but I don't think Oxford have quite "got" the shape of the dome on a couple of their releases.

 

I also consider that Hornby's wheels look much more convincing. Has anyone else noticed the bogie wheels on their 30582 and 30584 are (correctly) different?

 

Those comparisons apart, nothing else stands out taken in isolation but, to me, the Hornby ones just look more "together" with an overall air of "finesse" that isn't quite there on the Oxford version. To be fair, they've had much more practice so should be good at it.

 

The only niggle I've found (so far) is that some minor aspects of Hornby's 30582 appear to better match it's early crest days so I'll be changing the emblems.

 

As a young (then) native of Axminster who only got to know and enjoy them in their final couple of years, the Radials have a special place in my memories and I doubt I'll be stopping at two (or even three). 

 

John

Edited October 22, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Edwardian]

 You and me both! The first useful product for my interest was the LNER design general merchandise open (only the LMS design general merchandise opens and vans would have exceeded it on my personal list of 'potentially most useful RTR product') and happily this one they have got 'right enough'. Its errors certainly no worse than their established and much more experienced competitors have managed recently: exhibit one, Bachmann BR std cattle wagon, foot wrong in overall length, exhibit two, Hornby's Blue Spot fish with incorrect roof radius.

 

I do feel that some allowance has to be made for the start point of the learning curve that Oxford are moving along. The loud hurrahs for Bachmann, Hornby, Heljan as they lead the transition to OO RTR models from about sixteen years ago, was by comparison with the previous very low standard of OO RTR product. What Oxford have produced so far, I would suggest taken overall exceeds the standard of the Lima / Margate Hornby product group. That they are not yet consistently matching what the best of their current competitors offer does not surprise. There is plenty to learn in achieving that standard. When they get there we then see if the will to excel by further advancing standards kicks in. There's plenty of headroom opportunity for superior RTR.

 

Many fair points, but I cannot afford to subsidise Oxford's learning curve.  I'll save my pennies for when they get something I want right.

[bluesparkdave]

I'did love to see an ex-Caledonian Railway 0-6-0 tender engine such as a Jumbo. Some of these lasted till the early sixties in South-West Scotland.

[MGR Hooper!]

Please Mr. Oxford,

 

Uncle Bachmann has simply wasted time on a Class 158 and Class 90. Why don't you just do it? I'm sure you can get it out 50 years before them. And the Class 90 will match your Mk.3 coaches very well.

 

   

 

(I'm serious)