Jump to content

Oxford Rail GWR Dean Goods...


coachmann
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Yes, the first one they released, with the Edwardian lining. I have a couple, both good runners.

 

I would agree with Mikkel and if you are able to obtain one of the first releases then it would certainly be of benefit.

 

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

So I picked up a Oxford Dean recently, and thought I'd have a go at doing 2579, one of the last working Dean's outside of Wales.  I have all the bits to install ATC and update the tender with a separate hatch and dome.  My assumption from reading through this topic, is that the Dean tenders at this point in time would have had the "coffin" replaced with a hatch and dome.  Is this a bad assumption?

 

2579

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheEngineShed said:

Is this a bad assumption?

 

Probably yes, in respect of 2500g, probably no in respect of 3000g.

 

I think the last livery 2579 carried was lined black (one of two Dean Goods so treated), when it was running with an early Dean 3000g. The Lambourn pic above shows a late Dean 3000g I think. 2579 was pictured at Oxford looking very grubby, hence could be soon before withdrawal (Jan 1954), with what seems to be a late Dean 2500g.
 

Oxford's DG tender is an early 2500g.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Probably yes, in respect of 2500g, probably no in respect of 3000g.

 

I think the last livery 2579 carried was lined black (one of two Dean Goods so treated), when it was running with an early Dean 3000g. The Lambourn pic above shows a late Dean 3000g I think. 2579 was pictured at Oxford looking very grubby, hence could be soon before withdrawal (Jan 1954), with what seems to be a late Dean 2500g.
 

Oxford's DG tender is an early 2500g.

 

 

Thank you, I thought this would be a quickie,  I had collected a half dozen B&W photos, all in what appeared to be grimy black.  Then I discovered a color pic of 2579 in lined black!  Fox only does the lining for the larger locomotives, we shall see how successful I am at splicing something together for the cab side, there may be swearing involved.

 

I'll also have to read through "A Beginner's Guide to GWR Tenders" again, before proceeding...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

For several years I have resisted purchasing a Deans Goods due the "bad press" about running performance and the later I believe coreless motors (or did they go back to standard motors?).   With stock seemingly getting low at my favourite store (Hattons of cause) I decided to purchase an ROD version in khaki to go with my two Bachmann Ambulance Train Pack locomotives for a WW1 theme.  Barely a week later the loco was at my door and it seems that my reluctance to purchase may have been very misplaced.  The loco straight out of the box is one of the smoothest and quietest models that I have ever received.  The performance is amazing.  Unfortunately,  now I need to decide if I want the Great Western version in green as well.  I have an old Mainline version,  however,  while it runs well it sounds like a chaff cutter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

For several years I have resisted purchasing a Deans Goods due the "bad press" about running performance and the later I believe coreless motors (or did they go back to standard motors?).   With stock seemingly getting low at my favourite store (Hattons of cause) I decided to purchase an ROD version in khaki to go with my two Bachmann Ambulance Train Pack locomotives for a WW1 theme.  Barely a week later the loco was at my door and it seems that my reluctance to purchase may have been very misplaced.  The loco straight out of the box is one of the smoothest and quietest models that I have ever received.  The performance is amazing.  Unfortunately,  now I need to decide if I want the Great Western version in green as well.  I have an old Mainline version,  however,  while it runs well it sounds like a chaff cutter.

 

Despite the howls of indignation from the choir of discontent I would have to say that Oxford's version of the Dean Goods is far better than anything else that has been on the market, I retired my Dapol/Mainline chaff cutter as soon as the Oxford version was in my hands.

Edited by David Stannard
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The smooth running and whisper quietness of my ROD version is what tempted me to get an unlined green version to replace the old noisy Mainline version that I have.  The other day I received my new model but only this morning was I able to test it.  It is amazing the difference in running quality between the two Oxford Rail models.  The new loco required the hand of god to get it moving and then some heart stopping erratic operation before it finally would respond to throttle input.  When it comes to noise it is not as loud as a Mainline version but if the ROD version ran like this one then there would not have been a second new Dean Goods purchase.   The ROD version spoiled me into thinking that finally OR had upped their game with the Dean Goods but possibly not.  There will not be another in my stable.  I am tempted by the N7 in grey and the J27 in early "L.&N.E.R." livery but will await the outcome on those before deciding.

 

The model responds well to throttle input with good low and high speeds but it creaks and groans and rattles along much like an old tender drive model.   The model number is OR76DG003.   I do not know if it has the same motor as the ROD version but they are like chalk and cheese. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

I am tempted by the N7 in grey and the J27 in early "L.&N.E.R." livery but will await the outcome on those before deciding.

 

If it's anything to go by, I've got three N7s (all BR versions) and they're all very good, smooth quiet runners.  Probably helped by the fact that a lot of the body is a heavy die casting!  And also the fact that the leading axle is sprung which helps current pick up.  On the most recent one (BR late crest version) I had to 'fettle' the slot in the chassis casting slightly, to allow the sprung leading axle to rise and fall freely, but it wasn't hard to do.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 03/06/2021 at 12:08, David Stannard said:

 

Despite the howls of indignation from the choir of discontent I would have to say that Oxford's version of the Dean Goods is far better than anything else that has been on the market, I retired my Dapol/Mainline chaff cutter as soon as the Oxford version was in my hands.

 

Define ''better''.

 

It might well be better in many ways, such as a modern loco-mounted motor running to modern standard.

 

Nevertheless, the Mainline body, while not perfect, is significantly more dimensionally accurate than Oxford's in several respects. Facts, not, howls, you understand.

 

Some of us recognise that different modellers have different priorities, so there is no need to disapprove of people liking Oxford's 'Deans Goods', or for those modellers to feel defensive.  Indeed, I have several, though for the purposes of converting them to various different prototypes.  One day I hope to have the skills necessary to convert one to a Dean Goods!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Define ''better''.

 

It might well be better in many ways, such as a modern loco-mounted motor running to modern standard.

 

Nevertheless, the Mainline body, while not perfect, is significantly more dimensionally accurate than Oxford's in several respects. Facts, not, howls, you understand.

 

Some of us recognise that different modellers have different priorities, so there is no need to disapprove of people liking Oxford's 'Deans Goods', or for those modellers to feel defensive.  Indeed, I have several, though for the purposes of converting them to various different prototypes.  One day I hope to have the skills necessary to convert one to a Dean Goods!

 

 And there I rest my case!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, David Stannard said:

 

 And there I rest my case!

 

A rather glib way of saying that you prefer performance over accuracy, assuming that, as here, you cannot have both.

 

Fair enough.

 

What I'd read, though, was a blanket criticism of "howlers" and blanket praise of one of the most compromised RTR locos of recent times. That just raised a quizzical eyebrow. 

 

If it were me, I's be finding a way to graft my Mainline body onto the Oxford chassis as soon as I had one in my hands! Each to his own, however.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, David Stannard said:

 

 And there I rest my case!

 

You're wasting your time.

 

I think there is only one person knocking this model and his opinion isn't worth a carrot. 

 

 

 

 

Look at the OP to see what this model is really like. Listen to the experts, not random blokes on the internet, and Larry Goddard is an expert.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/127315-oxford-rail-gwr-dean-goods/#comments

 

 

If you want a definitive Dean Goods try Brassmasters. I doubt anyone will better the Martin Finney version.

 

http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/gwr_2301_dean_goods_0-6-0.htm

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Passive aggressive twaddle.

 

This forum is sadly often the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. For those who have actually bothered to research a prototype, obtain GA drawings and take measurements from the real thing, these sallies are more amusing than frustrating, but claiming accuracy beyond a general approximation for the Oxford model is fake news, I'm afraid. 

 

The Oxford model is dimensionally incorrect and detail illiterate.

 

It does, however, give a reasonable overall impression of the prototype married to a modern chassis that was, at least when it had the twin fly wheel, really very good. The tender is a good model in itself.

 

Yet a curate's egg assessment is clearly too nuanced for some.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 29/06/2021 at 03:54, Steamport Southport said:

 

You're wasting your time.

 

I think there is only one person knocking this model and his opinion isn't worth a carrot. 

 

 

Agree totally, no point trying to argue with a pompous know it all.

 

On 29/06/2021 at 03:54, Steamport Southport said:

 

Look at the OP to see what this model is really like. Listen to the experts, not random blokes on the internet, and Larry Goddard is an expert.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/127315-oxford-rail-gwr-dean-goods/#comments

 

 

If you want a definitive Dean Goods try Brassmasters. I doubt anyone will better the Martin Finney version.

 

http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/gwr_2301_dean_goods_0-6-0.htm

 

 

Jason

 

 That's the point, the Oxford model is a fairly decent representation of the class, to try and make an exact model out of a class of 260 locomotives built over a 16 year period that had number of subtle and not so subtle changes with additional equipment added to some members of the class over it's 70 odd years of service is a veritable minefield. The Martin Finney version is a beautiful model but the costs of getting one in either time to build it or commision someone to do it you could have a fleet of Oxford locomotives, not to mention the Oxford model would be able to operate on far sharper curves that most of us would use.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As opposed to bad mannered know-nothings? Predictably, only the negative part of any assessment is seized on, mischaracterised and parroted back. Choosing to ignore the words actually written, or, indeed, demonstrable facts, is classic troll behaviour, I'm afraid.  Such people ultimately make one's points for one. Thankfully, I have the option to withdraw gracefully to the less fractious and more courteous parts of the community 

Link to post
Share on other sites

While taking suitable precautions!

 

I am going to observe that across multiple subjects on RMweb forums of late I have noted a number of very sad, rude and prickly comments!

 

Surely if we disagree with something posted we can find a way to (a) say nothing (b) politely explain the alternative view point. I mean is this how you would conduct yourself face to face?

 

This is our hobby, a release from the relentless stresses and strains of life, could we at least try to interact with a bit of mutual respect? 

 

image.png.7c3c89d20beac29b53bdb3b469f131d3.png 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, David Stannard said:

 

Agree totally, no point trying to argue with a pompous know it all.

 

 

 That's the point, the Oxford model is a fairly decent representation of the class, to try and make an exact model out of a class of 260 locomotives built over a 16 year period that had number of subtle and not so subtle changes with additional equipment added to some members of the class over it's 70 odd years of service is a veritable minefield. The Martin Finney version is a beautiful model but the costs of getting one in either time to build it or commision someone to do it you could have a fleet of Oxford locomotives, not to mention the Oxford model would be able to operate on far sharper curves that most of us would use.

 

 

All of that is probably true but it must be remembered that the Oxford model is one of the wide footplate versions. These were numbered in the 2451 - 2580 range (2491-2510 converted to 3901 class )  It cannot accurately represent a loco in the 2301-2450 range so it only represents half the class - as does the older model.

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
32 minutes ago, mikesndbs said:

While taking suitable precautions!

 

I am going to observe that across multiple subjects on RMweb forums of late I have noted a number of very sad, rude and prickly comments!

 

Surely if we disagree with something posted we can find a way to (a) say nothing (b) politely explain the alternative view point. I mean is this how you would conduct yourself face to face?

 

This is our hobby, a release from the relentless stresses and strains of life, could we at least try to interact with a bit of mutual respect? 

 

image.png.7c3c89d20beac29b53bdb3b469f131d3.png 

 

Oh Mike, what happened? That's a 1918-issue helmet, produced when the American Expeditionary Force  went to France.  You can tell, because the pattern of rivets indicate left-hand drive....

 

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Craigw said:

 

 

All of that is probably true but it must be remembered that the Oxford model is one of the wide footplate versions. These were numbered in the 2451 - 2580 range (2491-2510 converted to 3901 class )  It cannot accurately represent a loco in the 2301-2450 range so it only represents half the class - as does the older model.

 

Regards,

 

Craig W


 That’s why I went with the model of 2475 as I knew from a bit of research as well as the lively debate on this site that it was a wide footplate variant. I will admit that the Mainline version was an attractive model for its day, that said I could never stand the tender drive and its propensity to launch itself off the tracks like an unguided rocket, it certainly was a pig of a runner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I recently picked up a second one of these in the Garter Crest Livery, but I am still trying to figure out where these two parts from the detail pack fit onto. Can anyone shed some light? I understand the steam pipe is most likely for the tender but the step looking piece I've searched all over the model for what looks like two locating holes for it to slot into and I am at a loss.

 

Thanks in Advance

IMG_0956.jpeg

Edited by GWR AZZO
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Interesting, I don't believe the step was included with mine. Looks like the smokebox step, as indicated on the model below.

 

IMG_20200529_220508128_HDR.jpg.1ebcd8fc591c016378663f685aa4dd72.jpg.7cd2814c4901c76b43ba3760a4c8ce37.jpg

 

Edited by Mikkel
  • Like 3
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a fact that the splashers are too large, which significantly affects the look of the model, especially the rear splasher, which takes up too much of the cabside (which has a knock-on effect in compromising the relationship of the lining to the numberplate, on the early-livery version). This isn't especially a criticism of the Oxford Dean Goods since it's a feature shared with other RTR 0-6-0s such as the Bachmann 3F and 4F. I can't altogether convince myself that it is necessarily a compromise forced by the over-scale flanges of the 00 wheels, since these are behind rather than inside the splashers.

 

I'm still wrestling, on and off, with making replacements. My failure to achieve a satisfactory result has more to do with my limited skills and patience than any defect of the model.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 28/07/2021 at 23:11, Compound2632 said:

it's a fact that the splashers are too large, which significantly affects the look of the model, especially the rear splasher, which takes up too much of the cabside (which has a knock-on effect in compromising the relationship of the lining to the numberplate, on the early-livery version). This isn't especially a criticism of the Oxford Dean Goods since it's a feature shared with other RTR 0-6-0s such as the Bachmann 3F and 4F. I can't altogether convince myself that it is necessarily a compromise forced by the over-scale flanges of the 00 wheels, since these are behind rather than inside the splashers.

 

I'm still wrestling, on and off, with making replacements. My failure to achieve a satisfactory result has more to do with my limited skills and patience than any defect of the model.

 

Very much too large.  Mainline's were too, IIRC, but nowhere near to the same extent.

 

Larry, IIRC, simply sanded them down at the base, but, for me, that didn't convince, because it just leaves a shallower segment of the same huge diameter splasher. 

 

It is an advantage that the splashers are removable.  I do think the why to go is to replace them; that's a good after market 3D print opportunity. 

 

That leaves the cabside, but the side sheet is so compromised anyway that I suspect it's best replaced.

 

I do not recall, however, whether the improvements to the cut-out that Locomotion insisted upon led to an improvement for the main range and, if so, which Oxford models benefited from that?

 

It so, are you left with cutting out and replacing the cab splasher and making good, or will it be a case of replacing the whole unit?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

If you want an RTR Dean Goods with RP25 flanges, the sensible starting point is 20mm diameter wheels, not 21mm.

 

 

Certainly the pre-Grouper should beware, because the tyres fitted later increased the nominal diameter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...