Jump to content
 

Oxford announce the 5 Plank Wagon


Garethp8873
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oxford have now introduced a 5 Plank wagon into their range. Four have been presented so far.

 

OR76MW5001 T Bowler London No101 5 Plank Mineral Wagon

OR76MW5002 Busbys West Kensingtin No16 5 Plank Mineral Wagon

OR76MW5003 Coppice - Cannock Chase No369 5 Plank Mineral Wagon

OR76MW5004 Wm Barnard - Worcester No23 5 Plank Mineral Wagon

Edited by Garethp8873
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Actually, 1923 RCH still running but a bit dilapidated in the early 50s would suit me very well, and is likely as it will be able to presumably use the 7 plank's chassis, but overall I would prefer to see an increase in biodiversity as far as possible.  But RTR 5 plank minerals are rare, compared to open merchandise wagons, so this is IMHO A Good Thing.  Ox are as safe pair of hands so far as wagons are concerned, and I am happy with the few I already have; cheap, too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is interesting is the designation '5 Plank Mineral Wagon', which suggests to me something altogether older than RCH 1923

 

There were RCH 1923 5-plank minerals, but I associate these with roadstone traffic, and the owners listed in the announcement suggest coal traffic to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

 

Oh dear.

 

Well, judging from these pictures, I'd say the proportions of the wagon are that of at least a 16'6" body.

 

The style is very much 1923 onwards, which doesn't make sense as a coal wagon.  It is closer to an RCH 1923 5-plank or something like the LMS D1666 than anything current at the time 5-planks were used for coal traffic.

 

T Bowler was evidently registered to LSWR, and Wm Barnard  should be an 1896 vehicle, 15'6" in length, and the only similarity between the prototype wagon and that shown on the Oxford web-site seems to be that they both have 5 planks.
 
I don't think the 'learning curve' defence should be available to Oxford any more. They clearly just don't care!
Edited by Edwardian
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh dear.

 

Well, judging from these pictures, I'd say the proportions of the wagon are that of at least a 16'6" body.

 

The style is very much 1923 onwards, which doesn't make sense as a coal wagon.  It is closer to an RCH 1923 5-plank or something like the LMS D1666 than anything current at the time 5-planks were used for coal traffic.

 

T Bowler was evidently registered to LSWR, and Wm Barnard  should be an 1896 vehicle, 15'6" in length, and the only similarity between the prototype wagon and that shown on the Oxford web-site seems to be that they both have 5 planks.
 
I don't think the 'learning curve' defence should be available to Oxford any more. They clearly just don't care!

 

Indeed, in a similar vein the ex-NBR 4-plank Jubilee wagon is being offered in guises based in Leistershire (Mountsorrel) and Derbyshire (Calico Printers, Birch Vale) which seem rather unlikely for a Scottish wagon design!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, in a similar vein the ex-NBR 4-plank Jubilee wagon is being offered in guises based in Leistershire (Mountsorrel) and Derbyshire (Calico Printers, Birch Vale) which seem rather unlikely for a Scottish wagon design!

 

Just waiting for the Oxford Rail range to be merged in Hornby Railroad now there share the same Chair Person.

 

The double sided brake gear on the 5 plank definitely suggest a later type and is very similar to that already offered by both Hornby & Bachmann. Surely there was room for a little original thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You complain, but surely it can't be any worse than what Hornby are churning their 1980's tooling wagons out in, for higher prices than Oxford!

 

If they were more expensive, then I'd be inclined to agree.

 

Yes, but we know Hornby can produce some good stuff in addition to their recycling of older toolings

 

Hornby cascade superannuated models into Railroad Range.  Oxford, on the other hand ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Yes, but we know Hornby can produce some good stuff in addition to their recycling of older toolings

 

Hornby cascade superannuated models into Railroad Range.  Oxford, on the other hand ....

Though the "good stuff" in the Hornby wagon range is heavily outnumbered by "should-have-been-in-Railroad-years-ago" items.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though the "good stuff" in the Hornby wagon range is heavily outnumbered by "should-have-been-in-Railroad-years-ago" items.

 

John

 

You won't find me disagreeing with that!

 

And the winner of the caption competition is:

 

"Well if you tilt it this way, it does look quite a Dean Goods!"

post-25673-0-98573400-1516735576.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear.

 

Well, judging from these pictures, I'd say the proportions of the wagon are that of at least a 16'6" body.

 

The style is very much 1923 onwards, which doesn't make sense as a coal wagon.  It is closer to an RCH 1923 5-plank or something like the LMS D1666 than anything current at the time 5-planks were used for coal traffic.

 

T Bowler was evidently registered to LSWR, and Wm Barnard  should be an 1896 vehicle, 15'6" in length, and the only similarity between the prototype wagon and that shown on the Oxford web-site seems to be that they both have 5 planks.

 

I don't think the 'learning curve' defence should be available to Oxford any more. They clearly just don't care!

They are turning out to be just the same as all other rtr manufacturers, maximum return from the cost of the (expensive) tooling and bu**er any pretence of historical accuracy. My only hope is if they do an undecorated run

 

Tim T

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

They are turning out to be just the same as all other rtr manufacturers, maximum return from the cost of the (expensive) tooling and bu**er any pretence of historical accuracy. My only hope is if they do an undecorated run

 

Tim T

Doesn't bother me as any I might buy would end up grey however they started and a Halfords rattle can should do a dozen or more.

 

However, I'm unlikely to bother as my future 5-plank requirements all involve corrugated ends.

 

The CAD images look reasonably OK (in as much as one can tell) so it's just a case of hoping Oxford don't do anything daft in the remaining stages of development.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that I recently bought quite a lot of the 7-plank wagons for my colliery layout project, I would say that the Oxford Wagons I've seen so far are much better than many of those still in the Hornby range! The point still stands that, whilst Hornby should demote most of their wagons to 'railroad' status, they haven't and are currently charging more than Oxford for lower-quality wagons. I get that some of you have a grudge against Oxford for the traversty that was 2309, but some of you seem unwilling to criticise other manufacturers, who have been around much, much, longer and charge much higher prices.

 

Put it this way: the Oxford 0415 4-4-2T was, at RRP, £40-£50 cheaper than Hornby's. For that price, I'm willing to lose a bit of space - unoticeable in service - under the boiler, and willing to accept an early style dome (as opposed to that carried in preservation - images online can prove this). For my purposes, the oxford model was better than the Hornby one: I picked it up for £60, it had an earlier style of dome, and the coal rails were very easy to remove.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that I recently bought quite a lot of the 7-plank wagons for my colliery layout project, I would say that the Oxford Wagons I've seen so far are much better than many of those still in the Hornby range! The point still stands that, whilst Hornby should demote most of their wagons to 'railroad' status, they haven't and are currently charging more than Oxford for lower-quality wagons. I get that some of you have a grudge against Oxford for the traversty that was 2309, but some of you seem unwilling to criticise other manufacturers, who have been around much, much, longer and charge much higher prices.

 

Put it this way: the Oxford 0415 4-4-2T was, at RRP, £40-£50 cheaper than Hornby's. For that price, I'm willing to lose a bit of space - unoticeable in service - under the boiler, and willing to accept an early style dome (as opposed to that carried in preservation - images online can prove this). For my purposes, the oxford model was better than the Hornby one: I picked it up for £60, it had an earlier style of dome, and the coal rails were very easy to remove.

 

Well, I've been banned from more the one topic where I've criticised certain models by other manufacturers - some have more influence than others, perhaps - so, no, I have no grudge against Oxford in particular.  The problem for me is that every steam age release they've announced I have looked forward to and every one has been substandard in accuracy terms, so, naturally, by now expectations are pretty low as a result, but, I keep hoping they'll break the cycle and do something good.

 

Currently, they have a couple of irons in the fire, the N7 and the tank wagon.  So, let's see. I'd much rather have a great model to praise.

 

Naturally, though, I am disappointed to see 5-planks that could have been an interesting release, looking like they'll turn out as Oxford at its worst.  But look, if you what to run a long modern wooden 5-plank in the livery used by a short Victorian 5-plank of very different appearance, do so, and be happy, but don't have a downer on those who point out that the model you cherish is not an historically honest or accurate one.  

 

Hornby, I agree, have some real tat that is not comparable with the best of their main range.  I am not sure that a failure to cull legacy models from a range that has evolved over many years from the toy range it still was in the 1980s quite excuses newly designed models by another manufacturer failing to make the grade in terms of fidelity.  Or is the argument simply that two wrongs somehow make a right?

 

Can Oxford be blamed for livery-milking wagon tooling with inappropriate liveries when Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol all do it?  Well, yes, it would be harsh to insist on a higher standard here for Oxford, but it's an egregious practice, and the fact that others do it doesn't make it any better when Oxford does. 

 

Anyway, the particular point here is it makes no sense whatsoever (to me at any rate) to announce a product that appears to marry a post 1923 design with pre-Grouping or pre-Great War liveries. It's just such an unnecessarily weird thing to do.  Make a RCH 1887 or 1907 5-plank, or a RCH 1923 5-plank, and choose liveries to suit your choice, but why choose such a nonsensical combination?

 

It's almost as if Oxford is trying to see how much it can get away with. Maybe they're just laughing at us?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Well, I've been banned from more the one topic where I've criticised certain models by other manufacturers - some have more influence than others, perhaps - so, no, I have no grudge against Oxford in particular.  The problem for me is that every steam age release they've announced I have looked forward to and every one has been substandard in accuracy terms, so, naturally, by now expectations are pretty low as a result, but, I keep hoping they'll break the cycle and do something good.

 

Currently, they have a couple of irons in the fire, the N7 and the tank wagon.  So, let's see. I'd much rather have a great model to praise.

 

Naturally, though, I am disappointed to see 5-planks that could have been an interesting release, looking like they'll turn out as Oxford at its worst.  But look, if you what to run a long modern wooden 5-plank in the livery used by a short Victorian 5-plank of very different appearance, do so, and be happy, but don't have a downer on those who point out that the model you cherish is not an historically honest or accurate one.  

 

Hornby, I agree, have some real tat that is not comparable with the best of their main range.  I am not sure that a failure to cull legacy models from a range that has evolved over many years from the toy range it still was in the 1980s quite excuses newly designed models by another manufacturer failing to make the grade in terms of fidelity.  Or is the argument simply that two wrongs somehow make a right?

 

Can Oxford be blamed for livery-milking wagon tooling with inappropriate liveries when Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol all do it?  Well, yes, it would be harsh to insist on a higher standard here for Oxford, but it's an egregious practice, and the fact that others do it doesn't make it any better when Oxford does. 

 

Anyway, the particular point here is it makes no sense whatsoever (to me at any rate) to announce a product that appears to marry a post 1923 design with pre-Grouping or pre-Great War liveries. It's just such an unnecessarily weird thing to do.  Make a RCH 1887 or 1907 5-plank, or a RCH 1923 5-plank, and choose liveries to suit your choice, but why choose such a nonsensical combination?

 

It's almost as if Oxford is trying to see how much it can get away with. Maybe they're just laughing at us?

Many r-t-r PO wagons aren't much more than a joke; especially anything derived from the old Airfix tooling, which damns Hornby and Dapol. Ironically, Hornby's crude old 9-footers are probably the most authentic early PO wagons obtainable.

 

Bachmann are more conscientious and most of theirs are credible 1920s/30s examples; with their heavily-distressed B.R ex-PO coal and coke wagons being especially praiseworthy from my personal modelling viewpoint. However, even they aren't above applying 1907 or earlier liveries to 1923 pattern wagons. The presence of 8-ton or 10-ton markings on wagons that should have been rated two tons higher, are a dead giveaway.

 

Commissioned wagons are the biggest minefield of all with "liveries" taken from somebody's horse-drawn cart, motor lorry or just the sign above the shop often being extrapolated to railway vehicles that the alleged owners never possessed, if indeed, they had any railway wagons at all.

 

Unfortunately, attractive colours and fancy lettering, are enough to separate many otherwise rational souls from their hard-earned and "the market" repeatedly demonstrates its willingness to encourage what is largely a dog's breakfast from the established suppliers. 

 

Much as I'd love somebody to break the spiral, can we reasonably expect a budget newcomer like Oxford to do any more than jump on the lucrative bandwagon constructed by others?

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Absolutely agree, John, pretty wagons which appeal to the sort of people influenced by that sort of thing.  As a fellow 1950s modeller there is some mileage in weathering them so heavily that the livery cannot be seen; contemporary photos show some pretty far gone examples running fully loaded in main line trains!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, you could (because I believe I have seen some evidence that this goes on) be a pre-1948 modeller.

 

If so, unless you have reasonable knowledge gleaned from a considerable number of, somewhat random, volumes on private owner wagons, you risk investing in a lot of inaccurate wagons. 

 

For this reason, I tend to stick to kits, where there is often not a perfect match between tooling and the prototype in the case of a pre-printed livery, but at least something quite close is achieved.    

 

It has always struck me as weird that colourful private owners are such a staple of the market, because they really do not fit with the pre-dominantly BR steam and later nature of the rest of RTR output.  If only we had more RTR coaches contemporary with many of these private owner releases!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I freely admit I am a sucker for 'pretty' plank wagons, particularly form London & Southern regions, bonus points if they're from Brighton & Hove, purely because I'm a Brighton boy! I have no idea if any of them are remotely accurate or even real but they look the part and that's good enough for me, bare in mind my untrained eye still can not see what is wrong with Oxford Rail's Dean Goods :P

 

 

post-29051-0-54385300-1516880002_thumb.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Absolutely agree, John, pretty wagons which appeal to the sort of people influenced by that sort of thing.  As a fellow 1950s modeller there is some mileage in weathering them so heavily that the livery cannot be seen; contemporary photos show some pretty far gone examples running fully loaded in main line trains!

I think it's more interesting if I can just work out the name of the original owners, though (if only on one side).

 

As you say, some in pictures look so bad you wonder if they made it to the end of the journey..........

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Or, you could (because I believe I have seen some evidence that this goes on) be a pre-1948 modeller.

 

If so, unless you have reasonable knowledge gleaned from a considerable number of, somewhat random, volumes on private owner wagons, you risk investing in a lot of inaccurate wagons. 

 

For this reason, I tend to stick to kits, where there is often not a perfect match between tooling and the prototype in the case of a pre-printed livery, but at least something quite close is achieved.    

 

It has always struck me as weird that colourful private owners are such a staple of the market, because they really do not fit with the pre-dominantly BR steam and later nature of the rest of RTR output.  If only we had more RTR coaches contemporary with many of these private owner releases!

Having witnessed too many layouts (some at exhibitions) over the years that treated their viewers to the spectacle of unholy mixtures of (mainly) imaginary PO wagons being hauled at a scale 70mph or more by banger-blue diesels, and nary a brake van in sight, I'm no longer surprised by much. 

 

What people do in private is their own business, but it really shouldn't happen in church halls and leisure centres. :jester:

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
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...