Oxford Deans Goods - Readers' feedback for BRM

[Edwardian]

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.

 

 

As an example of what's out there to consult, the instructions written by Martin Finney for the DG are available to download from the Brassmasters website.  They mention the difference in footplate width between the earlier and later lots, though they do not give the respective measurements. The difference in footplate width is not even mentioned in the RCTS volume, IIRC.

 

The instructions also cite the Swindon GAs referred to, including the one of which I have a copy.

 

The kit also includes different roof radii.  It was clearly well-researched.

 

As someone once said, the truth is out there!

 

It would be uneconomic to tool for all variants and conditions RTR, not even the Finney kit covered all possibilities, but it is possible to tool accurately for a number of class members at a given period, and it is a shame that this was not achieved here.

 

Well, I am informed that the Martin Finney narrow footplate scales at 7'3".  So, 2309 should have a 29mm wide footplate, and Oxford's is 30.85mm.

 

The last EP that broke cover from the Locomotion commission showed quite a lot replaced, including the cab, but the old front and centre splashers, over-scale and with the otiose rivets, were retained and the new cab appeared to have replicated the incorrect splashers (unlike the Mainline body, Oxford's rear splasher is integral to the cab).  It would be a terrible shame if all that effort to correct the cab was gone to only to result in a cab with the proportions still thrown out by such a significantly over-scale splasher.

 

 

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.

 

I am not sure contributors were complaining - you take or leave this release as you like - they were asked for review points and they gave them, positive and negative.

 

I was careful to point out that the list of inaccuracies shortens and the accuracy score goes up when discussing other potential identities for the Dean, but that 2309 was a particularly inapposite choice given Oxford's tooling.

 

But, 2309 was Oxford's own choice and it is the release upon which we were asked to comment. 

 

As a generic representation of the class, I agree, it does do better, but I do not think it is strictly accurate for any of the identities chosen, and is probably not a match for any given member of the class! 

[Gilwell Park]

Hi.  I do not pretend to be an expert on Dean Goods, only having ever seen 2516 originally dumped at Swindon and as later restored.  However all photos I have found appear to show that on the centre line of the boiler, where it joins the firebox, the cladding is the same width. On the model there is a pronounced step from boiler to firebox. Is this another problem or am I being over fussy?  Roger

[Miss Prism]

However all photos I have found appear to show that on the centre line of the boiler, where it joins the firebox, the cladding is the same width. On the model there is a pronounced step from boiler to firebox.

 

Roger - although the contour of the lower section of the Oxford firebox has been rightly criticised (see the other thread) at some length, I think the interface at the centreline is reasonable.

 

 

(Sorry, I couldn't find a 'same angle of view' match.)

 

I do find it ironical, after so many threads and messages concerning this loco, that it has taken Andy's excellent pics to provide a first proper look at the Oxford beast.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Miss Prism

[Edwardian]

 

I do find it ironical, after so many threads and messages concerning this loco, that it has taken Andy's excellent pics to provide a first proper look at the Oxford beast.

 

Yes, but that would have involved buying one - I'm not that public spirited!

 

Seriously, I agree; Andy Y is to be complimented for the pictures, and the subject has benefitted from his large, high-res, professional photographs taken from multiple angles. 

[Quarryscapes]

Roger - although the contour of the lower section of the Oxford firebox has been rightly criticised (see the other thread) at some length, I think the interface at the centreline is reasonable.

 

dg-boiler-centre-to-firebox.jpg

 

(Sorry, I couldn't find a 'same angle of view' match.)

 

On the matter of firebox shapes however, and admittedly digressing somewhat from the main purpose of this thread, there was a distinct change in the front top corner radius of Belpaire boxes, introduced to prevent front end stress cracking (please note these are side elevation sketches, and not end view elevation, where the corner radius was consistently generous):

 

churchward-firebox-front-corner-radius.png

 

I do find it ironical, after so many threads and messages concerning this loco, that it has taken Andy's excellent pics to provide a first proper look at the Oxford beast.

 

Yes, but that would have involved buying one - I'm not that public spirited!

 

Seriously, I agree; Andy Y is to be complimented for the pictures, and the subject has benefitted from his large, high-res, professional photographs taken from multiple angles. 

 

 

What short memories you two have! 

[john flann]

All this negative criticism and comment leaves me cold. And, yes irritated too!

 

Having been modelling for a long time I can recall when I was well satisfied with a Dean cobbled together from a Triang 3F with an Airfix City of Truro. tender.

 

I'll probably be  criticized for this attitude but all I ever attempt is a representation of a railway-and I think my Hintock thread shows I do that quite well-and if the Dean looks "right" in my eyes and runs well I shall be content.

 

In fact I do have an Oxford one in the less ornate GWR livery, on order.

Edited July 27, 2017 by john flann

[Edwardian]

What short memories you two have! 

 

Fair cop

[Bernard Lamb]

All this negative criticism and comment leaves me cold. And, yes irritated too!

 

Having been modelling for a long time I can recall when I was well satisfied with a Dean cobbled together from a Triang 3F with an Airfix City of Truro. tender.

 

I'll probably be  criticized for this attitude but all I ever attempt is a representation of a railway-and I think my Hintock thread shows I do that quite well-and if the Dean looks "right" in my eyes and runs well I shall be content.

 

In fact I do have an Oxford one in the less ornate GWR livery, on order.

Nothing wrong with taking that view of things.

However others strive for a more accurate representation.

This particular model is of little interest to me. If it was to 3.5mm scale I would have been very keen.

The photos so far seen do indicate a bit of a mess.

Can I refer readers to the excellent Model Rail review of the Warwell.

You pays your money and you takes your choice regarding that model.

Unfortunately with the Dean Goods there is no choice and the production of the Oxford version might just have killed off any other interested parties.

A shame really.

Bernard

[BG John]

It's obviously a freelance model anyway, as the GWR never had a Deans Goods .

[Edwardian]

Nothing wrong with taking that view of things.

However others strive for a more accurate representation.

This particular model is of little interest to me. If it was to 3.5mm scale I would have been very keen.

The photos so far seen do indicate a bit of a mess.

Can I refer readers to the excellent Model Rail review of the Warwell.

You pays your money and you takes your choice regarding that model.

Unfortunately with the Dean Goods there is no choice and the production of the Oxford version might just have killed off any other interested parties.

A shame really.

Bernard

 

Yep, each to his own.

 

The inaccuracies are objective, demonstrable, fact.  No one should get flak for pointing them out.

 

Whether they bother you is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only person you need to please is yourself; no one should get any flak for that, either.

[Ian Hargrave]

Andy Y started this thread with the best of intentions and with a helpful outcome in mind.The best laid plans of mice etc......

 

We are asked to be constructively critical...instead of which we ramble off in different directions. Is it too much to request that we stick to his brief and contribute in that spirit?

[coachmann]

The Oxford Dean Goods is merely the latest in a long line of plastic ready-to-run locos. It is a generic Dean Goods like a generic 4F or generic Compound, nothing more ~ nothing less, yet I cannot recall any other model coming in for so much scrutiny. I feel very positive about the Oxford Dean Goods and I look forward to carrying out some mods on a black 'un. 

[New Haven Neil]

Roger - although the contour of the lower section of the Oxford firebox has been rightly criticised (see the other thread) at some length, I think the interface at the centreline is reasonable.

 

dg-boiler-centre-to-firebox.jpg

 

(Sorry, I couldn't find a 'same angle of view' match.)

 

On the matter of firebox shapes however, and admittedly digressing somewhat from the main purpose of this thread, there was a distinct change in the front top corner radius of Belpaire boxes, introduced to prevent front end stress cracking (please note these are side elevation sketches, and not end view elevation, where the corner radius was consistently generous):

 

churchward-firebox-front-corner-radius.png

 

I do find it ironical, after so many threads and messages concerning this loco, that it has taken Andy's excellent pics to provide a first proper look at the Oxford beast.

 

I really wonder, if these sort of things refer to the lagging, or the actual firebox.  If the firebox radii changed, which is most likely, the lagging may not have - there's a fair gap (filled with asbestos then)  between the two.  Conversely, as the lagging will have been hand beaten, I bet no two were the same. One may have had a larger radius than the next, regardless of the shape of the firebox shoulder within. Semantics?

Edited July 27, 2017 by New Haven Neil

[UMinion]

The Oxford Dean Goods is merely the latest in a long line of plastic ready-to-run locos. It is a generic Dean Goods like a generic 4F or generic Compound, nothing more ~ nothing less, yet I cannot recall any other model coming in for so much scrutiny. I feel very positive about the Oxford Dean Goods and I look forward to carrying out some mods on a black 'un.

I think the poll might be a good move for feedback for the newer smaller manufacturers. I'm assuming someone at Oxford requested it or was at least consulted first?

 

I look forward to the same poll being applied at all future releases, it could end up a very good, at a glance guide.

 

Edited - although I think we should remember it's just an opinion poll and we don't know how qualified that opinion is.

Edited July 27, 2017 by UMinion

[Edwardian]

Andy Y started this thread with the best of intentions and with a helpful outcome in mind.The best laid plans of mice etc......

 

We are asked to be constructively critical...instead of which we ramble off in different directions. Is it too much to request that we stick to his brief and contribute in that spirit?

 

Sorry, Ian, I'm afraid I seem to have missed your contribution.

 

But in the spirit of constructive criticism, and in the interests of balance, I will stick my neck out and say I think Oxford has made a perfectly accurate safety valve cover.

[Ian Hargrave]

Sorry, Ian, I'm afraid I seem to have missed your contribution.

 

But in the spirit of constructive criticism, and in the interests of balance, I will stick my neck out and say I think Oxford has made a perfectly accurate safety valve cover.

I read this thread to glean knowledge and understanding.I do not possess this model.Thus I refrain from spurious comment.You may stick that part of your anatomy wherever you choose.

[jwd]

Lovely model, superb runner, i personally love this livery, lots of detail, will be purchasing more when they are released as they are such good value for the price..

 

More please Oxford.

[Bernard Lamb]

Lovely model, superb runner, i personally love this livery, lots of detail, will be purchasing more when they are released as they are such good value for the price..

 

More please Oxford.

All very true.

However it is rather like comparing a mongrel rescued from the local dogs home with a pedigree specimen.

Having spent all my working life in an environment where continuous improvement was one of the key points I find this race to the bottom hard to understand.

Lots of detail you say. I can't help adding and most of it wrong. Reminds me of a certain car. Lots of trouble and usually serious.

There must be a place for such models but I fear this thread and the other one, is trying to treat a cheap and cheerful offering as though it were a state of the art model.

Bernard

[mikeharvey22]

I think some commentators missed this part of message #1:- "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.". Hence we have repetition of many of the criticisms from the same people who made them over on the other thread.

 

It seems funny that on RMWeb we can read lots of criticism of designers and manufacturers for not checking details readily available, and allowing errors to go uncorrected. But reading post #1 and using a spell checker before posting do not seem to be routine. How many times do we read:- "Can't be bothered to read what people have said before but here's my insightful take on things"?

 

This thread represents a potentially valuable initiative in understanding consumer attitudes to new items, and it would be a shame for its value to be diminished by "axe-grinders".

Edited July 28, 2017 by mikeharvey22

[Andy Y]

I can see I'll have to do some pruning of content which doesn't tie in with the request at the beginning of the topic to make it a useful reference for any of the mag readers beyond the overview which will appear in print. And it will be an overview as the full content is too extensive to fit within that framework but at least all useful perspectives will have been referenced.
 

I look forward to the same poll being applied at all future releases, it could end up a very good, at a glance guide.

 
It's not necessarily a process which could be applied to all models at the point of review/release. For instance, we may receive a Bachmann model, for example, for review some 4 weeks before the main shop stock arrives; it would be unfair to seek input or judgement from a wider audience who have not had chance to make their own physical evaluations; hence the first question asked in the poll is who has had the chance to make that physical evaluation.
 
In this case we received a review sample too late to make the next issue of the magazine and after several readers have bought and tested it; therefore it was opportune to include their input. For all we know, if we had stuck to the normal scheme of things the model may have been sold out by the time a review appeared.
 
Tht's not to say it wouldn't be worth looking at such a mechanism for future releases for user feedback but not necessarily linked to any printed review because of the different timescales.

[81C]

Is it really worth doing Andy I can see this  type of thread  becoming a platform for the regular moaners you get enough of that in the trade section unless you limit it to one or at most two posts per item per member. 

[coachmann]

Is it really worth doing Andy I can see this  type of thread  becoming a platform for the regular moaners you get enough of that in the trade section unless you limit it to one or at most two posts per item per member. 

They probably thought RMweb stood for Regular Moaners web......   

[brack]

so, to paraphrase that post by Andy Y: If you send the magazine a review sample early, we'll give you the 'traditional' review, otherwise you get what people post on here.

 

I suspect you might be receiving lots more review samples if that becomes policy!

 

[amdaley]

It's obviously a freelance model anyway, as the GWR never had a Deans Goods .

 

Well not one that looked like that anyway 

 

Is it really worth doing Andy I can see this  type of thread  becoming a platform for the regular moaners you get enough of that in the trade section unless you limit it to one or at most two posts per item per member. 

 

If commenting on the accuracy or inaccuracy of a model is being a moaner then we're all guilty I guess 

In any case I'd rather be moaned at than buy something in blissful ignorance. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

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?

Provided the wagons are free rolling that's a safe bet on level track. (As 'Izzy' observes above the mechanism layout suggests much in common with Hornby's J15 which I have found capable of about sixty wagons on level track. On a  total adhesion machine such as an 0-6-0 traction is all down to loco weight and coefficient of friction of the tyre material on the rail, so if the Oxford model is of similar weight and has similarly functioning tyre material, it should do much alike. That is however with the provisos 'once it has accrued some running time'; most RTR models need an hour or two of operation before their full tractive potential is available; and that there isn't excessive drag from the tender, which might need user adjustment.)

 

But if the wagons are 'no roll' H-D or similar, then no.

 

The Oxford Dean Goods is merely the latest in a long line of plastic ready-to-run locos. It is a generic Dean Goods like a generic 4F or generic Compound, nothing more ~ nothing less, yet I cannot recall any other model coming in for so much scrutiny. I feel very positive about the Oxford Dean Goods and I look forward to carrying out some mods on a black 'un. 

To add to which, not least of the reasons for my feeling positive about this release is that it is a small six coupled goods, only the most common type to be built for the UK's railways, and which is under-represented in RTR model form. Oxford are due a hearty cheer for making such a subject selection for only their second loco release. Their next subject choice is a good one too, small black loco from another numerous wheel arrangement group. Such things deserve recognition.

 

Is it really worth doing Andy I can see this  type of thread  becoming a platform for the regular moaners...

So long as the information is of good quality (objective in that it is founded in fact) it is worth having surely?