Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[Dunsignalling]

What it can be made into applies equally to the older, cheaper model too - so which is a better buy on that basis? 

By the time one adds up the cost of loco and tender chassis kits, wheels, motor and gearbox needed to update the old model, the most cost effective solution looks like being the Oxford model with your old Mainline loco body swapped onto it. 

 

John

[Edwardian]

By the time one adds up the cost of loco and tender chassis kits, wheels, motor and gearbox needed to update the old model, the most cost effective solution looks like being the Oxford model with your old Mainline loco body swapped onto it. 

 

John

 

For a B4 belpaire version, I expect that would prove to be correct, yes.

[Miss Prism]

I have spotted 2 or 3 B4 Deans which do have a very narrow strip between cut-out and cab roof.

 

Dean Goods cabs are a bit of a minefield. There were at least 4 different fronts, and probably 4 different styles of sides. Locos in service might feature uncommon combinations of front, side, and roof. Swindon had a pile of parts, and assembled them according to what made most sense to the erecting shop at the time.

[Miss Prism]

As I have not go the GWR spec to hand I cannot quote an exact figures but 2.5 inches sounds about right.

 

The 1" black was flanked with 0.5" (body) green, and then 0.125" orange. (A total of 2.25".)

 

[bertiedog]

The 1" black was flanked with 0.5" (body) green, and then 0.125" orange. (A total of 2.25".)

Given those sizes, the Oxford livery lines are far too big, my estimate from comparison with other dimensions would be about 2mm and therefore 6 inches. The boiler bands seem closer at about 4 inches.

Not too concerned as I prefer the unlined Livery, looks better for such a working goods loco, and the dome is green.

Other makes are also oversized, but not this far, so why are Oxford so far out?

Stephen

[Mikkel]

I have taken the liberty of using melmerby's photo to compare the Oxford cabside (on the right) with my Mainline dean goods cabside, which is disassembled on my workbench and waiting to see if the Oxford chassis will go beneath it.  

 

Note that this is a style comparison - not a size comparison as I have no known dimensions of the Oxford cab.

 

 

 

 

 

[Fat Lieutenant]

I have taken the liberty of using melmerby's photo to compare the Oxford cabside (on the right) with my Mainline dean goods cabside, which is disassembled on my workbench and waiting to see if the Oxford chassis will go beneath it.  

 

Note that this is a style comparison - not a size comparison as I have no known dimensions of the Oxford cab.

 

cab profiles.jpg

 

Oh look, on the Oxford/Locomotion cab, all the rivets have leapt off the side and paraded neatly along the front of the splasher!

 

3 guesses which one is right.

[adb968008]

From someone else's post earlier In the thread.,

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_06_2016/post-19974-0-23332000-1464869709.jpg

Edited November 28, 2016 by adb968008

[Brinkly]

Oh look, on the Oxford/Locomotion cab, all the rivets have leapt off the side and paraded neatly along the front of the splasher!

 

3 guesses which one is right.

When Iain Rice was designing my track plan, he commented (this was long before the Oxford model's announcement) that the Mainline model, with a little work, could be made into a very good, convincing model of the prototype.

 

There do seem to be a few near misses with this model, I hope Oxford don't loose sales over it.

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.

[bertiedog]

RM web seems to have lost a post, I made a correction to the lining sizes due to a better photograph, and although definitely over size, not by 100%. The lining on the cab side is about 1.6mm or so about 2.66 inch size or a tad bigger.

 

Stephen

[J C Fenton]

I'm posting these whilst travelling back to Devon on an extremely delayed service.

Bad lighting as said previously but they may help ?

Oxford say it's unlikely to be before February for release.

 

IMG_2465.PNG

 

IMG_2464.PNG

 

IMG_2463.PNG

 

Lots of rivets to hang your lamps off on the smoke box !

 

2309 Warley sample - blimey, please do not adjust your sets!

 

Rivets on steroids and lining a mile wide - 2309 now looks like an angry caterpillar.

 

I am sure this atrocious decoration can be amended  - BUT .....

 

To  any remaining C0ck-up Deniers out there, the pictures of 2309 in the lined livery underscore the inaccuracies -

 

• Rivets on the splasher front, which OR has had to line over!
• Wrong curve on the cab cutout, which the lining merely emphasises
• Over-sized splashers, even allowing for motorway wide lining, why do you think the number plate will not fit within the lining? 

Unfortunately these are basic detail and dimensional errors.

 

I suspect that OR would need to go right back to the drawing board in order to produce a decent model.  Probably right back to the issue of wheel size, 'cos those splashers through everything out.  This would be commercially hard for them.

 

BUT .... the alternative is that OR lacks credibility.  We simply won't be able to trust any of its releases in the future. 

 

This infects the National Collection in Miniature, if it goes ahead with 2516.

 

I think OR should suck this up.  If it is going to start taking more care, doing sufficient research and checking its CADs and EPs properly, IMHO it would do itself, Locomotion, and all of us a favour by starting with a re-think of this release.

 

They could make a cracking Dean Goods.  If they want to.

[Hroth]

Perhaps in years to come, 2309 will go down as the textbook example of "How Not To Do It" and will become an ebay hit!

 

As I said earlier, 2309 might be just for nostalgic folk who want a real old-fashioned looking railway engine (of course, they'd call it a train...), the sort who buy those terrible ornaments with revolving Flying Scotsmen.  The later GWR and BR liveries might be the real enthusiasts locos. Its a pity about those washout plugs, rivets, etc.....

 

As for delivery, the Hattons project page still has some (livery unspecified) on the high seas, and list 2309 as December delivery with the others for Jan/Feb 2017.

 

We'll just have to see.

[Mad Carew Too]

I think most if not all has already been said.  2309 is, to my mind, clearly a write off.

 

I post because someone quite rightly took me to task in a PM about a comment I made effectively writing off Oxford.

 

He pointed out that, after a series of inaccurate releases, the LNER 6-plank was a credible entry, and that this suggests to me is that Oxford can make an accurate model; it just needs time and practice.

Well, Oxford bashing is not what this exercise should be about, and, so I said in reply that I didn't doubt he was right.  It was very much my view.  Others have said likewise.

 

I said that I was sure Oxford, whether they cure the problems with the Dean Goods or not, will be more careful next time.  They have the potential to make great models and I don't doubt that they will.

 

I don't suppose anyone likes to give Oxford a hard time (I'd hope not, anyway) but I suspect they are right to in this case.  Miss Prism seems to know his/her stuff and makes the points without comment.  Those who do comment tend to be constructive, for instance Quarryscapes and Edwardian seem to me to have made sincere attempts to evaluate both the good and bad points and see if it can be 'saved', modified etc.  

 

What I don't think does anyone any favours is the sort of low level bullying of people who offer reasoned criticism.  I also believe that a manufacturer needs to hear reasonable and reasoned criticism so that it can do better.  The solicitous restauranter whose diners are too polite to point out that their food was bad will never know to serve anything better.

 

This model is a seriously inaccurate model.  IMHO it should not be released as it is.  It probably will be.  That is not a good situation.  I hope that it will not happen again!

 

But I hope that despite the difficult issues RTR releases throw up form time to time, I and others can continue to co-exist in this happy place with the minimum of friction!

 

So, I was wrong to make a flippant comment to dismiss Oxford Rail.  They will get there, I'm sure, though, sadly, not this time.

[Edwardian]

I think most if not all has already been said.  2309 is, to my mind, clearly a write off.

 

I post because someone quite rightly took me to task in a PM about a comment I made effectively writing off Oxford.

 

He pointed out that, after a series of inaccurate releases, the LNER 6-plank was a credible entry, and that this suggests to me is that Oxford can make an accurate model; it just needs time and practice.

 

Well, Oxford bashing is not what this exercise should be about, and, so I said in reply that I didn't doubt he was right.  It was very much my view.  Others have said likewise.

 

I said that I was sure Oxford, whether they cure the problems with the Dean Goods or not, will be more careful next time.  They have the potential to make great models and I don't doubt that they will.

 

I don't suppose anyone likes to give Oxford a hard time (I'd hope not, anyway) but I suspect they are right to in this case.  Miss Prism seems to know his/her stuff and makes the points without comment.  Those who do comment tend to be constructive, for instance Quarryscapes and Edwardian seem to me to have made sincere attempts to evaluate both the good and bad points and see if it can be 'saved', modified etc.  

 

What I don't think does anyone any favours is the sort of low level bullying of people who offer reasoned criticism.  I also believe that a manufacturer needs to hear reasonable and reasoned criticism so that it can do better.  The solicitous restauranter whose diners are too polite to point out that their food was bad will never know to serve anything better.

 

This model is a seriously inaccurate model.  IMHO it should not be released as it is.  It probably will be.  That is not a good situation.  I hope that it will not happen again!

 

But I hope that despite the difficult issues RTR releases throw up form time to time, I and others can continue to co-exist in this happy place with the minimum of friction!

 

So, I was wrong to make a flippant comment to dismiss Oxford Rail.  They will get there, I'm sure, though, sadly, not this time.

 

 

I could not agree more.  Had someone PM'd me in similar terms, I would have replied in similar terms to you and in the same spirit. 

 

So far as I am concerned, things became "difficult" mainly on the Locomotion 2516 topic, rather than here.  Sandra and her small team perhaps felt beleaguered.  Locomotion's OP suggested that NRM curators had checked the accuracy of Oxford's tooling, though it transpires that they had not.  The result was that the NRM appeared to share the blame, whereas in fact Sandra et al had been placed in a very difficult position due to the inaccuracy of Oxford's model.  That was unfortunate, and I suspect that protective instincts regarding our National Collection and some misguided chivalry led to escalation.  I took the view that the accuracy points had been made and that I was not going to stick around and risk provoking further negative posts that lacked moderation. 

 

Ultimately we all want the same thing.  Unfortunately we may not get it in this instance, but there is a chance, albeit a small one, that the model can be corrected before release and I am bound to wish for this.  Locomotion did say theirs would be subject to "tweaks".

 

In any case, I am sure Oxford's day will dawn before long.

 

Above all, we must all try our best to understand each other's positions and to maintain the peace.

 

Turning back to the model, I was thinking about amendments/conversions that might still result in a sale or two to me for Oxford:

 

• Quarryscapes helpfully suggested retaining the boiler for round top conversions.  Certainly this would favour S4 examples. This made me look again at the boiler.  Are the handrail knobs radial or horizontal?  If horizontal, they would need to be changed to radial.  Thinking back to the wash-out plug issue, the effect of changing horizontal to radial would surely raise the height of the handrail.  This made me think about whether this would be a potential "tweak".  If so, it might raise the handrail above the wash-out plugs on the B4.  As the upper wash-out plugs are supposed to be below above the handrail, this suggests that the handrail holes might be drilled too high.  Moving them to lower position might be a further task for the converter. 

 

• Could the running plate be used?  Well, in the context of a conversion, trimming off the superfluous rivets would not be an issue.  However, Fat Lieutenant has mentioned splasher/wheel size.  I suspect that he is correct, though this is based on the photographs and I am loath to comment without measurements.  I counted this as one of the inevitable compromises, though, really, it could have been addressed by reducing the wheel size, perhaps to "worn" diameter!  I would have to take a view, because this issue goes to the question of whether the motorised chassis makes a purchase worth it.  I suspect that, even were there to be "tweaks", it would not extend to a re-design with slightly smaller wheels!  Let us hope that this is one of the issues we can live with.

 

• The tender looks really good.  I am very much hoping that tender + working chassis + footplate and boiler could all be utilised to bash an S4 version. 

 

So, it remains to be seen what we will actually get, and, therefore, quite what might be done with it.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Edwardian

[Miss Prism]

As the upper wash-out plugs are supposed to be below the handrail

 

Above (as I'm sure you intended to type!)

[Edwardian]

Above (as I'm sure you intended to type!)

 

Err yes!  As per the picture of the Real Thing:

[Miss Prism]

An S4 would require a new smokebox (pressed-ring fronts were a Churchward-ism, and didn't appear on the Dean Goods until c 1922??), plus new smokebox door and repositioned chimney, new firexbox and safety valve, and a new cab. Plus shaving off 1mm each side of the footplate (and the tender of course) for a narrow-footplate loco (which were the numerical majority of the class). Replacing the splashers with something a bit smaller is probably not advisable for 00 5'2" wheels. Not sure offhand when the front step style changed.

 

Handrail knobs should always be radial.

 

Dean Goods went through 3 different types of wheel and about 5 different styles of rods in their lives.

[Miss Prism]

Btw, I posted most of my comments on the Locomotion thread because it was not evident that Oxford read anything here, and I thought the better route for comment would be via Locomotion. (And, yes, they probably do feel beleaguered and wondering what can of worms they've walked into.)

[Godfrey Glyn]

The following is not a response to any particular contribution to this topic but I sometimes worry that we 'expect' manufacturers to follow each and every topic on this most excellent site. If we really want to influence the manufacturers there is need to establish a one to one relationship with them, demonstrating that we have something to offer in the way of constructive criticism and ensuring that they get the message. If there is no response to a direct approach, then they have no excuse and caustic comments are probably justified.  

 

I cannot imagine that any of them have the time to keep up with a topic and seeing as they are mere mortals like us I would understand if they gave up on what can be, sometimes, a load of contradictory expertise expressed in an antagonistic manner.

 

I really welcome the recent response from the guys at Hornby, Dapol seem to be opening up to contributions through their website, surely Oxford would benefit from adopting a similar approach, they clearly could do with some additional expertise and I am sure all of us on here want them to produce the best possible models, within the normal parameters of manufacturing capability and cost.

 

all the best 

Godfrey

[Ian Hargrave]

Btw, I posted most of my comments on the Locomotion thread because it was not evident that Oxford read anything here, and I thought the better route for comment would be via Locomotion. (And, yes, they probably do feel beleaguered and wondering what can of worms they've walked into.)

 

I believe that is not the case .They are indeed well aware of certain adverse reaction judging from a conversation I had with an Oxford employee on their stand at the NEC last Saturday.

[Edwardian]

An S4 would require a new smokebox (pressed-ring fronts were a Churchward-ism, and didn't appear on the Dean Goods until c 1922??), plus new smokebox door and repositioned chimney, new firexbox and safety valve, and a new cab. Plus shaving off 1mm each side of the footplate (and the tender of course) for a narrow-footplate loco (which were the numerical majority of the class). Replacing the splashers with something a bit smaller is probably not advisable for 00 5'2" wheels. Not sure offhand when the front step style changed.

 

Handrail knobs should always be radial.

 

Dean Goods went through 3 different types of wheel and about 5 different styles of rods in their lives.

 

Agree. 

 

New cab, firebox and smoke box are a given.  The chimney would need to be replaced and, of course a safety valve bonnet to fit the round top firebox. I think Alan's suggestion was retaining the boiler barrel, and the dome is on the correct ring for the S4. 

 

I am uneasy about splasher size, especially as I'd want to produce Indian Red frames, which would doubtless emphasise the issue, but loath to re-wheel as this, for me, starts to push us towards the 'why bother, just get a kit instead' conclusion.

 

The footplate width is another such concern.

 

Step shape, I thought, was determined by the Lot, rather than replacements.

 

Yes, handrail knobs should always be radial, but are they on this model?

 

 

The following is not a response to any particular contribution to this topic but I sometimes worry that we 'expect' manufacturers to follow each and every topic on this most excellent site. If we really want to influence the manufacturers there is need to establish a one to one relationship with them, demonstrating that we have something to offer in the way of constructive criticism and ensuring that they get the message. If there is no response to a direct approach, then they have no excuse and caustic comments are probably justified.  

 

I cannot imagine that any of them have the time to keep up with a topic and seeing as they are mere mortals like us I would understand if they gave up on what can be, sometimes, a load of contradictory expertise expressed in an antagonistic manner.

 

I really welcome the recent response from the guys at Hornby, Dapol seem to be opening up to contributions through their website, surely Oxford would benefit from adopting a similar approach, they clearly could do with some additional expertise and I am sure all of us on here want them to produce the best possible models, within the normal parameters of manufacturing capability and cost.

 

all the best 

Godfrey

 

Agree, and thanks.

 

My email concerning the firebox crease received a positive response.  A later email with a rather longer list of issues (and others have been identified since) was, however, completely ignored.

 

Like Miss P, I thought Locomotion ought to know what the issues were and that they might take notice.  What I had not anticipated was the ire of the NRM's gate-keepers! 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Edwardian

[coachmann]

Once someone posts a video on how to open the box, it will sell like hot cakes.... 

[Edwardian]

Once someone posts a video on how to open the box, it will sell like hot cakes.... 

 

Given some of the boxes for locomotives produced in the last few years, that is probably a very good idea.

[Ian Hargrave]

Agree. 

 

New cab, firebox and smoke box are a given.  The chimney would need to be replaced and, of course a safety valve bonnet to fit the round top firebox. I think Alan's suggestion was retaining the boiler barrel, and the dome is on the correct ring for the S4. 

 

I am uneasy about splasher size, especially as I'd want to produce Indian Red frames, which would doubtless emphasise the issue, but loath to re-wheel as this, for me, starts to push us towards the 'why bother, just get a kit instead' conclusion.

 

The footplate width is another such concern.

 

Step shape, I thought, was determined by the Lot, rather than replacements.

 

Yes, handrail knobs should always be radial, but are they on this model?

 

 

 

Agree, and thanks.

 

My email concerning the firebox crease received a positive response.  A later email with a rather longer list of issues (and others have been identified since) was, however, completely ignored.

 

Like Miss P, I thought Locomotion ought to know what the issues were and that they might take notice.  What I had not anticipated was the ire of the NRM's gate-keepers! 

 

Your "irate gatekeeper" wishes you to read Locomotion's latest post on the subject which can be found on their thread.

[Quarryscapes]

An S4 would require a new smokebox (pressed-ring fronts were a Churchward-ism, and didn't appear on the Dean Goods until c 1922??), plus new smokebox door and repositioned chimney, new firexbox and safety valve, and a new cab. Plus shaving off 1mm each side of the footplate (and the tender of course) for a narrow-footplate loco (which were the numerical majority of the class). Replacing the splashers with something a bit smaller is probably not advisable for 00 5'2" wheels. Not sure offhand when the front step style changed.

 

Handrail knobs should always be radial.

 

Dean Goods went through 3 different types of wheel and about 5 different styles of rods in their lives.

 

The smokebox door is OK Oxford have already tooled the dished type (it's on the sample 2516 without the edges painted), it shouldn't be too hard to separate the boiler/firebox/smokebox unit from the model, sand down the rivets, belpaire corners and flatten the smokebox front and then refit. the assembly.