Oxford Rail Annouce 4-Wheel Toad

[cctransuk]

 

I really didn't want to do this checklist, because of the usual consequent accusations of nit-picking, but I guess the mag editors might want such a list anyway, as in the case of the DG, so, in the spirit of, err, "constructively drawing attention to perceived faults":

 

- All: gap in the footboard.

 

- The 'GWR planked late' should have a metal verandah (sides and ends) and should be plated on the rear of the cabin (although we have not seen the rear as yet). (Verandahs were never plated, they were either planked or full metal.)

 

- BR versions: should have a metal verandah end and plated on the rear of the cabin (although we have not seen the rear as yet).

 

- BR versions: unlikely to still have the original footboard with the low vertical kicker (see post earlier in thread).

 

- 'GWR late planked' and the BR versions: would have had bigger boxes, and unlikely to still be at '16T'. (The norm for the AA3s in later life was 20T, with quite a lot at 25T, and I can't find any AA3 with 8 x 4 boxes for that matter. Oxford has merely duplicated the AA1 spring and box characteristics.)

 

- 'GWR planked early': with its post-1920 G W, this would not have had the 'incomplete handrail' style. (It would have been better with 25" G W.) [The incomplete handrail style would however have necessitated different cabin windows.]

 

- 'GWR planked early': 17831 was not an AA3.

 

- 'GWR late planked' and the BR versions: would probably have acquired roof rainstrips.

 

- All: chimney is too short (and should not be black).

 

- 'GWR early planked': depot name in the wrong, at least untypical, panel (can only judge the side we are presented with at the moment).

 

- BR versions: have been fitted with AA23 handrail fixings, which didn't happen to the AA3s.

 

- GWR versions: seem to have been fitted with post-1912 handrail fixings. (There is no evidence for this in the GWR era.)

 

- All: sandpipes and levers not present.

 

Some of the above are significant errors, and some are minor errors. (How one judges or what one expects from a £15 thing is a divergent debate. I do understand Oxford's need to reduce the number of tool slides to an extent, but to put planking on ends of metal verandahs goes beyond acceptability in my view. We have DG syndrome yet again - an attempt to do everything, and the result doesn't portray anything.)

 

I share Mike's reservations about the lettering styles of the BR liveries, but am out of my comfort zone on that aspect.

 

 

I think that is now fair to say, on the evidence of their productions and EPs, that Oxford are not aspiring to be contenders in the market for accurate models.

 

Rather, they seem to be trying to appeal to a market that is happy with 'looks like - sort of' models.

 

I have no doubt that such a market exists - they'll buy different prototypes from those being produced by the Big Two, and are not knowledgeable about or interested in whether the supposed prototype has been reproduced accurately.

 

Maybe the best thing to do, for those of us who do know and care, is to write off Oxford and stop wasting our time pointing out the deficiencies of what they produce.

 

I honestly don't see future productions being any better - they know they can sell poorly researched models to that sector of the market that doesn't know / care.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[BG John]

I think that is now fair to say, on the evidence of their productions and EPs, that Oxford are not aspiring to be contenders in the market for accurate models.

 

Rather, they seem to be trying to appeal to a market that is happy with 'looks like - sort of' models.

 

I have no doubt that such a market exists - they'll buy different prototypes from those being produced by the Big Two, and are not knowledgeable about or interested in whether the supposed prototype has been reproduced accurately.

 

Maybe the best thing to do, for those of us who do know and care, is to write off Oxford and stop wasting our time pointing out the deficiencies of what they produce.

 

I honestly don't see future productions being any better - they know they can sell poorly researched models to that sector of the market that doesn't know / care.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

It makes me wonder why they're producing so many versions in that case. Surely just one version of something different to the other manufacturers would have done. With 4 and 6 wheelers as well, that's a lot of different products, unless they're expecting collectors to buy one of each.

[57xx]

Is there a colour reference for the correct grey please?

 

Mike, this is the dark grey that Phoenix have apparently matched to original colours from Swindon.

 

https://www.phoenix-paints.co.uk/products/precisionrailway/bigfour/gwrbigfour/14p19

[Garethp8873]

Following the LNER Cattle wagon drama, I thought they'd have learn from it and hopefully use it as a learning curve for future models. Obviously they have not learnt from it and are happy to just keep going the way they are... The email reply I posted earlier shows that perfectly and if that's the way they are going to go, then I think questions are going to start to be raised.

 

When I speak to fellow modellers, I find accuracy is one of the most important things we mention. I'm sure Oxford Rail mentioned accuracy when they first appeared on scene, but they are certainly not living up to it if so... At the end of the day, there is plethora of resources Oxford could have used when researching these Toads regardless of diagram...

 

To me the last straw will be the GWR Dean Goods in Plain Green. If that's wrong, I'll have no problem walking away from Oxford Rail. Hornby, Bachmann and kit makers plus my refurbisher can have my money...

 

The only way I can see Oxford doing any successful and accurate products in the future, is if they are in collaboration with other organisations (Hattons ICI Hopper and Shildon GWR 2516) as they will not allow a poor product to go onto the market as their reputation would be damaged...

[coachmann]

I'll bet that even as I type this, you are all busy with fine jewelers saws fretting out parts from sheet brass in readiness for a week of scratch building GWR 'Toads' that will make the Oxford goods brake look like an inexpensive ready-to-run toy.  

Edited August 13, 2017 by coachmann

[Garethp8873]

I'll bet that even as I type this, you are all busy with fine jewelers saws fretting out parts from sheet brass in readiness for a week of scratch building GWR 'Toads' that will make the Oxford goods brake look like an inexpensive ready-to-run toy.  

 

Don't need to too... got one off ebay in 2015!!

[tomparryharry]

I'll bet that even as I type this, you are all busy with fine jewelers saws fretting out parts from sheet brass in readiness for a week of scratch building GWR 'Toads' that will make the Oxford goods brake look like an inexpensive ready-to-run toy.  

And, if you open the door, you will find an exquisite T gauge model of a Dean Single in the coal bunker*

 

*optional broad gauge version, just £5.99 - order now!

 

Only joking folks, honest....

 

Ian.

[coachmann]

Don't need to too... got one off ebay in 2015!!

I am interested in the pink flowering bushes behind the fence Gareth; just the thing for Carrog.  Are they K&M by any chance?

[phil-b259]

 

I really didn't want to do this checklist, because of the usual consequent accusations of nit-picking, but I guess the mag editors might want such a list anyway, as in the case of the DG, so, in the spirit of, err, "constructively drawing attention to perceived faults":

 

- All: gap in the footboard.

 

- The 'GWR planked late' should have a metal verandah (sides and ends) and should be plated on the rear of the cabin (although we have not seen the rear as yet). (Verandahs were never plated, they were either planked or full metal.)

 

- BR versions: should have a metal verandah end and plated on the rear of the cabin (although we have not seen the rear as yet).

 

- BR versions: unlikely to still have the original footboard with the low vertical kicker (see post earlier in thread).

 

- 'GWR late planked' and the BR versions: would have had bigger boxes, and unlikely to still be at '16T'. (The norm for the AA3s in later life was 20T, with quite a lot at 25T, and I can't find any AA3 with 8 x 4 boxes for that matter. Oxford has merely duplicated the AA1 spring and box characteristics.)

 

- 'GWR planked early': with its post-1920 G W, this would not have had the 'incomplete handrail' style. (It would have been better with 25" G W.) [The incomplete handrail style would however have necessitated different cabin windows.]

 

- 'GWR planked early': 17831 was not an AA3.

 

- 'GWR late planked' and the BR versions: would probably have acquired roof rainstrips.

 

- All: chimney is too short (and should not be black).

 

- 'GWR early planked': depot name in the wrong, at least untypical, panel (can only judge the side we are presented with at the moment).

 

- BR versions: have been fitted with AA23 handrail fixings, which didn't happen to the AA3s.

 

- GWR versions: seem to have been fitted with post-1912 handrail fixings. (There is no evidence for this in the GWR era.)

 

- All: sandpipes and levers not present.

 

Some of the above are significant errors, and some are minor errors. (How one judges or what one expects from a £15 thing is a divergent debate. I do understand Oxford's need to reduce the number of tool slides to an extent, but to put planking on ends of metal verandahs goes beyond acceptability in my view. We have DG syndrome yet again - an attempt to do everything, and the result doesn't portray anything.)

 

I share Mike's reservations about the lettering styles of the BR liveries, but am out of my comfort zone on that aspect.

 

 

It would be appreciated by us less knowledgeable folk if you could provide the same critique of Hornby's recent efforts please Miss Prism.

 

Which has the least number of errors out of the two manufacturers?

[Miss Prism]

It would be appreciated by us less knowledgeable folk if you could provide the same critique of Hornby's recent efforts please Miss Prism.

 

Apart from choosing a running number from an inappropriate but adjacent batch (at least from the information I have), and which is a minor cosmetic matter, I can't see any significant mechanical error in the Hornby AA15.

[Dunsignalling]

These clearly aren't going to be perfect out-of-the-box and the comment about Oxford attempting to cover too many variations and ending up with something of a mish-mash is undoubtedly valid. However, the basic dimensions and shape appear to be correct and the faults/inconsistencies appear to be fixable with a bit of not-too-demanding modelling working from a clear photo of the van you actually want a model of.

 

A rummage in my bits box reveals some suitable whitemetal axle-boxes and a length of brass angle that looks about right for replacing the footboards.

 

The most glaring "nasty" appears to be the planked veranda end. That'll be a fairly easy fix with a spot of filler and touching up the paint, all to be disguised with a bit of judicious weathering/rust. I'll have to check out the other end when I see one in the plastic, but I expect a bit of 5 thou Evergreen will do whatever is needed there.

 

I reckon I'm good to go and it will be nice to have some older/different Toads to add a bit of variety. 

 

Moreover, they're cheap enough that, even if I mess up the first one, it won't be the end of the world; and the final results will be my Toads, not just Oxford's. 

 

It could be better, but, for those willing to do a bit of work, they appear to offer a sound basis for making good "layout" models. 

 

John

 

EDITED: to get sentences in a more sensible order.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[BG John]

When will be able to get our hands on them, so we can start fixing the problems?

[Miss Prism]

When will be able to get our hands on them, so we can start fixing the problems?

 

When they've finished putting bits of 5 thou and a lump of Milliput in the boxes.

 

RTM = ready to modify.

[coachmann]

While some mistakes betray clumsiness and a lack of cross-reference, the Oxford 4-wheel goods brake is not as clear cut as some might assume when there are assorted GWR Toads in various stages of restoration or 'preservation' that could easily trip up the unwary modeller and mass-producer. 

 

Modellers and in particular historical modellers need to know what use and where a particular vehicle had been prior to purchase for preservation. The buyer of such a full-size vehicle is unlikely to add or subtract things, but would simply make good any poor timber and metal work before painting it within his or her own knowledge base.  It is easy to spot a Black Five in 1930's livery that wasn't built unitl the 1940's, but less so an elderly goods vehicle that has been repaired, modified, upgraded or sold out of service years before some upgrades took effect. This is partly what makes railway modelling  so absorbing.

[Miss Prism]

The clever men at Oxford

Know all that there is to be knowed.

But they none of them know one half as much

As intelligent Mr Toad!

 

(Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows)

 

 

[BG John]

I e-mailed Hattons this morning, and they're expecting it "before the end of September".

[Garethp8873]

I am interested in the pink flowering bushes behind the fence Gareth; just the thing for Carrog.  Are they K&M by any chance?

 

I don't know I'm afraid Coachmann as the layout belongs to the guy who refurbishes my rolling stock for me...

[Garethp8873]

Just spotted this snap of Didcot's GWR AA3 56400 on google... I'm aiming to visit Didcot on Wednesday as I want to see 813 before the Brunswick Green thing visits... I'm wondering whether they saw this photo as well and took reference from it...

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Garethp8873

[57xx]

Just spotted this snap of Didcot's GWR AA3 56400 on google... I'm aiming to visit Didcot on Wednesday as I want to see 813 before the Brunswick Green thing visits... I'm wondering whether they saw this photo as well and took reference from it...

 

I don't think so, I can't see a TV aerial under Oxford's attempt...

[The Johnster]

I don't think so, I can't see a TV aerial under Oxford's attempt...

 

Another fault, then.  When will Oxford get something right...

[tomparryharry]

I'm not too hasty in condemning the earlier, 4-wheel toad. Sure, I'd agree that there are certain bits I'd like to see done differently, but on the whole, it's not too bad. I'm always reminded that the vans will have a major rebuild or 4 over its working life, and major constituent parts of the van itself will get changed. The Didcot exhibit showed up some interesting bits, such as the 'tub' steel sheeting coming down outside the curb rail, with rivets at the rail. This appears to be a later repair. Much earlier toads appear to lose the verandah horizontal planking, going over to steel sheet.

 

One thing to always bear in mind, is that modifications happened on a van by van basis. One van in one decade will not necessarily bear the same attributes as one of a later time period. Treating one example as 'gospel' will always lead to alternative observations, unless you use an unimpeachable prime source reference.

 

A classic problem looks like this. I'm restoring an AA23 van, number 35978. Just up the road is 17399, an AA21 type. I've known both vans since the 1970's both here in Swansea, and Pontypridd. Some modifications over the years bear testament to different repairs, at different times. It's still a toad, though! Little wonder that some office boy, who's never even seen a real life brake van , gets the request "can you scan that, please?" Having personally seen both hot rivets & Huck bolts on the same headstock repair tends to play havoc on an historical timeline.

 

Enjoy!

 

Ian.

[The Stationmaster]

While some mistakes betray clumsiness and a lack of cross-reference, the Oxford 4-wheel goods brake is not as clear cut as some might assume when there are assorted GWR Toads in various stages of restoration or 'preservation' that could easily trip up the unwary modeller and mass-producer. 

 

Modellers and in particular historical modellers need to know what use and where a particular vehicle had been prior to purchase for preservation. The buyer of such a full-size vehicle is unlikely to add or subtract things, but would simply make good any poor timber and metal work before painting it within his or her own knowledge base.  It is easy to spot a Black Five in 1930's livery that wasn't built unitl the 1940's, but less so an elderly goods vehicle that has been repaired, modified, upgraded or sold out of service years before some upgrades took effect. This is partly what makes railway modelling  so absorbing.

 

Exactly so and this is why research needs to be done with care and can take a lot of time (and of course money if it is being paid for).   Some manufacturers and commissioners go to considerable trouble to try to get things right or to get the as right as production methods and serving a particular market will allow.  I suppose we pay for it in various ways with either higher prices or a longer time lag between announcement and getting the model in our hands or, most frequently, both but it is what we have come to expect in the 21st century UK model railway market.

 

By way of contrast we have a new entrant who clearly is not so fastidious or thorough when it comes to research but is offering models at a lower price and I suppose we might perhaps say 'we get what we pay for'  (and by implication don't get what we don't pay for).  Which way Oxford will go in future is entirely down to them - either they'll make greater efforts to get it right with 'own account' models where they're not having to comply with the needs of commissioners or they''ll carry on 'as is'.  For them it really probably boils down to simple commercial decision - if they can profitably sell all they make to markets which are not so demanding on standards of fidelity (either because they can do some modelling and retrieve things or they simply don't know or care), or are attracted solely by reasonable levels of pricing or whatever then Oxford will no doubt happily continue on their present course but perhaps, hopefully, aiming for higher standards.  

 

All of that is their decision and, of course ours, but one thing they do - in my view - need to consider is the manner in which they have presented their ambitions in respect of realism etc to the market (i.e. us).  If you over promise and under deliver you will be come a subject of criticism, however that might be presented.  If you deliver what you promise that you will develop a positive reputation which will help cement your reputation and place in the market.  Do that consistently and your reputation will build accordingly.   On the other hand if you continue to make a decent profit on whichever course you have decided then there will possibly be no change.

[coachmann]

It should be obvious to all that Oxford are producing cheap & cheerful and will no doubt find it very profitable. 

Edited August 15, 2017 by coachmann

[Bernard Lamb]

While some mistakes betray clumsiness and a lack of cross-reference, the Oxford 4-wheel goods brake is not as clear cut as some might assume when there are assorted GWR Toads in various stages of restoration or 'preservation' that could easily trip up the unwary modeller and mass-producer. 

 

Modellers and in particular historical modellers need to know what use and where a particular vehicle had been prior to purchase for preservation. The buyer of such a full-size vehicle is unlikely to add or subtract things, but would simply make good any poor timber and metal work before painting it within his or her own knowledge base.  It is easy to spot a Black Five in 1930's livery that wasn't built unitl the 1940's, but less so an elderly goods vehicle that has been repaired, modified, upgraded or sold out of service years before some upgrades took effect. This is partly what makes railway modelling  so absorbing.

Do you mean something like this one?

Wrong company, but it does illustrate the potential traps of making a model from the real thing.

Bernard

[sparaxis]

It should be obvious to all that Oxford are producing cheap & cheerful and will no doubt find it very profitable. 

Cheap and cheerful is fine, but don't make pretentious claims to be otherwise.

 

I bought the Dean goods. It looks nice alongside the Hornby County and clerestories with printed on paneling. It is, truth be told, a better model than the Lord of the Isles...

 

They make up pretty trains to run on the train set.

 

BUT, "Serious modelers" need to look elsewhere. I'm am a pretty serious modeler when it comes to my mainstream interests (DB in Bavaria, 1957-1961), but I am not adverse to letting something less serious (and out of country) escape onto the mainline from time to time.