Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[bertiedog]

I think it is very wrong of Oxford not to have issued the correct cab for the German one, questions should be asked..........heads must roll......... Can't have them supplying locos that are not able to morth into any variety.....mind you the firebox profile does look like the one on the Oxford!

Oh Dear Oh dear, dragging the German example into the "Great Debate".........

 

Stephen

[adb968008]

Those are very helpful pictures. Do you know how to identify the models that have the newer (right hand) chassis?

 

 

Obviously I am thinking in terms of second hand.

This is for comparing the Bachmann 57xx (inc 77xx, 87xx, 96xx & LT ) panniers versions

1. Look at the wheel rims, the older ones have silver rims. (If it's been painted black.. well that's a give away too, as the newer ones don't need painting).

2. look at the couplings, the older ones have the old mainline style wide loop couplings, the newer ones have the narrower ones with an NEM pocket.

3. the newer panniers have proper hooks for fire irons on the bunker, the earlier ones do not.

4. Another hint is the newer ones being DCC ready, the older ones were not. (Though some initial 32-xxx were not all apparently DCC ready)

 

It's harder to ID the older mainline /replica ones from the Bachmann chassis (apart from knowing which numbers were modelled, as the visible chassis is very similar, to the early Bachmann ones only the printed name and position of the gear valence on the under frame gives it away), plus the use of pins (mainline/replica) instead of bolts (Bachmann) on the coupling rods.

Edited December 6, 2016 by adb968008

[kandc_au]

On the subject of the handrails covering the washout plugs, there is a great photo here:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152723848716342&set=oa.579012228902312&type=3&theater

showing this to be the case.

I cannot remember what the outcome was but there was some debate on how correct it was.

I have written to the person who posted it for permission to put here, and am awaiting a reply.

 

To access the pic you will need to join the group: The Cambrian railways Central wales division.
There have been some great pics posted there and well worth joining.

 

Khris

[Edwardian]

On the subject of the handrails covering the washout plugs, there is a great photo here:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152723848716342&set=oa.579012228902312&type=3&theater

showing this to be the case.

I cannot remember what the outcome was but there was some debate on how correct it was.

I have written to the person who posted it for permission to put here, and am awaiting a reply.

 

To access the pic you will need to join the group: The Cambrian railways Central wales division.

There have been some great pics posted there and well worth joining.

 

Khris

 

Sorry, don't do Facetube.  What does the picture show?

[Quarryscapes]

Sorry, don't do Facetube.  What does the picture show?

 

2516 and an auto coach on the Mid Wales line, the handrails partly (barely!) covering the wash out plugs, which looks to be purely a function of camera angle. Viewed side on the plugs would be above, but they do appear to be lower than usual - on the other side they appear higher. 

[Quarryscapes]

Incidentally linked in the comments is a good shot of 2543 showing a good match for the OR model, ignoring the firebox of course, which appears a bit different to most of the class in that it doesn't appear to have any return at the bottom of the wrapper. It also has some interesting brackets behind the splashers - could it have volute springs above the axles? 

[The Stationmaster]

The more I read this (excellent and informative) thread the more I wonder if Oxford Rail wish they hadn't (announced a Dean Goods).

[Edwardian]

The more I read this (excellent and informative) thread the more I wonder if Oxford Rail wish they hadn't (announced a Dean Goods).

 

They may wish they had checked the CADs and EPs more thoroughly and done so in a more timely fashion, because now it seems as if Locomotion will not be offered the option of a fully corrected production model (reading between the lines,there).

 

Certainly Oxford, and Locomotion (whether some of its supporters like it or not) face a quandary.  I have sympathy for them both, though rather more for Locomotion. My fear is that a commercially acceptable compromise will still result in a model that is inaccurate; either inaccurate for 2516 or generally, for any class member. 

 

I hope that these fears will not be realised. 

 

Frankly, if we are offered a basically accurate Dean, I am not that concerned over detail differences between class members.  No one tooling is going to get you all the class members, even in the post WW1 condition, where a degree of basic uniformity was apparent compared with the pre-War variations.  I can 'badge' the loco to suit Oxford's tooling or make alterations to the model.

 

Apart from the washout plug/handrail and non-radial handrail issues, the big issue for me is the cab.  Sure, Locomotion's should have rivets on the side, like Mainline's, but I gather not all the class did, so I don't mind the omission that much.

 

What I mind is the dodgy cab-cut-out profile and the atypically narrow strip at the top.  Without a new and improved cab, the model is useless for 2516, and for Oxford's chosen identities, and for the vast majority of the rest of the class.  So, one of the big questions for me will be whether Locomotion manage to talk Oxford into a new cab.

 

Fingers crossed!

Edited December 7, 2016 by Edwardian

[brian777999]

It does make me wonder how many people are involved when it comes to producing a new model locomotive  : might it be a case of too many cooks ?

[Fat Lieutenant]

They may wish they had checked the CADs and EPs more thoroughly and done so in a more timely fashion, because now it seems as if Locomotion will not be offered the option of a fully corrected production model (reading between the lines,there).

 

Certainly Oxford, and Locomotion (whether some of its supporters like it or not) face a quandary.  I have sympathy for them both, though rather more for Locomotion. My fear is that a commercially acceptable compromise will still result in a model that is inaccurate; either inaccurate for 2516 or generally, for any class member. 

 

I hope that these fears will not be realised. 

 

Frankly, if we are offered a basically accurate Dean, I am not that concerned over detail differences between class members.  No one tooling is going to get you all the class members, even in the post WW1 condition, where a degree of basic uniformity was apparent compared with the pre-War variations.  I can 'badge' the loco to suit Oxford's tooling or make alterations to the model.

 

Apart from the washout plug/handrail and non-radial handrail issues, the big issue for me is the cab.  Sure, Locomotion's should have rivets on the side, like Mainline's, but I gather not all the class did, so I don't mind the omission that much.

 

What I mind is the dodgy cab-cut-out profile and the atypically narrow strip at the top.  Without a new and improved cab, the model is useless for 2516, and for Oxford's chosen identities, and for the vast majority of the rest of the class.  So, one of the big questions for me will be whether Locomotion manage to talk Oxford into a new cab.

 

Fingers crossed!

 

A new cab could make the model visually tolerable, but one thing I am sure they won't be curing will be the over-sized splashers.

 

Necessary compromise?  Not really - slightly smaller wheels would have done the trick.  Too late, now to get this feature in scale.

[Fat Lieutenant]

On the subject of the handrails covering the washout plugs, there is a great photo here:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152723848716342&set=oa.579012228902312&type=3&theater

showing this to be the case.

I cannot remember what the outcome was but there was some debate on how correct it was.

I have written to the person who posted it for permission to put here, and am awaiting a reply.

 

To access the pic you will need to join the group: The Cambrian railways Central wales division.

There have been some great pics posted there and well worth joining.

 

Khris

 

 

Incidentally linked in the comments is a good shot of 2543 showing a good match for the OR model, ignoring the firebox of course, which appears a bit different to most of the class in that it doesn't appear to have any return at the bottom of the wrapper. It also has some interesting brackets behind the splashers - could it have volute springs above the axles? 

 

So, not really then.

 

A mistake is a mistake is a mistake!

[kandc_au]

 

 

Necessary compromise?  Not really - slightly smaller wheels would have done the trick. 

 

For all the carrying on about inaccuracies, now you are suggesting smaller wheels to make the splashers smaller........really scratching my head with this one!

[bertiedog]

Are we now suggesting the Dean splashers are oversized, is this from actual measurement of the samples? or merely from the photos. To check it it would require the O/D of the wheel over tyre to be checked, the O/D over the flange and the internal radius of the splasher, plus the thickness of the material. But please read on carefully.

 

In most cases on British outline a scale size wheel just about fits into the splasher, but very tightly.

 

In the past the way to deal with it was indeed an undersized tyre, but the O/D over the flange would be approx right.

In whitemetal kits the O/D over tyre was usually correct with the wheel a bit under sized, especially as the sizes of commercial wheels were compromises.

 

In toy/model types the undersized wheel was normal, the splasher remain scale. In brass kits the splasher is usually scale, and a P4 scale wheel should fit properly, Usually it means the 00 wheel sets are undersized a tiny bit, or the flange on a scale tyre will almost touch the splashers.

 

I would expect the Oxford to have scale sized wheels over the tyre, so over size over the flange, and the splasher to be made as thin as possible, or made a small amount over size, and it would only be about .5 of a millimetre, not a huge or noticeable amount.

 

These outlines apply to all 00 locos, every one with splashers, so please do not get at Oxford on this issue, unless by precise measurement you can show that they are far worst than dozens of other examples.....00 models are always a pile of compromises on wheel dimensions, they simply cannot match the scale dimensions, it is completely impossible.

 

Also on splashers please  do not get caught out assessing the accuracy of the fit by examining prototype photos, as often the radius from the axle to the outer line of the splasher does not line up.. The reasons are many, some were designed that way!!, some were set to allow the spring movement of the axles from the nominal position, and the nominal position of the axle depends on the loading from the loco, full boiler or in the case of a tank loco the coal and water....plus the age of the springs etc.

 

Roche and others who drew plans for modellers tended to show the axle as the root of the radius of the splasher and body work, so as not to miss lead, when in fact the position of the radius centre of the splasher in real life did not come from the axle centre.

 

Some real designs are easy, older steam engines often had way over sized splashers, mainly to allow for the springing movement, but also just to get a certain style to the design.

 

Designing a model always has compromises, if a loco was made in 00, with scale wheels over the tyres, then adjusted splashers to clear the flanges, and possibly the foot plate altered to compensate, you end up with a steam engine looking as if it's skirts were being held up, with an odd skeletal look under the foot plate.

 

So it is all down to expertise and careful judgement to balance out what you have to live with using 00.... and be mighty careful not to say "what about HO".......where the problem becomes a staggering nightmare for British outline steam loco models.

 

Stephen

Edited December 8, 2016 by bertiedog

[Edwardian]

W

 

Are we now suggesting the Dean splashers are oversized, is this from actual measurement of the samples? or merely from the photos. To check it it would require the O/D of the wheel over tyre to be checked, the O/D over the flange and the internal radius of the splasher, plus the thickness of the material. But please read on carefully.

 

In most cases on British outline a scale size wheel just about fits into the splasher, but very tightly.

 

In the past the way to deal with it was indeed an undersized tyre, but the O/D over the flange would be approx right.

In whitemetal kits the O/D over tyre was usually correct with the wheel a bit under sized, especially as the sizes of commercial wheels were compromises.

 

In toy/model types the undersized wheel was normal, the splasher remain scale. In brass kits the splasher is usually scale, and a P4 scale wheel should fit properly, Usually it means the 00 wheel sets are undersized a tiny bit, or the flange on a scale tyre will almost touch the splashers.

 

I would expect the Oxford to have scale sized wheels over the tyre, so over size over the flange, and the splasher to be made as thin as possible, or made a small amount over size, and it would only be about .5 of a millimetre, not a huge or noticeable amount.

 

These outlines apply to all 00 locos, every one with splashers, so please do not get at Oxford on this issue, unless by precise measurement you can show that they are far worst than dozens of other examples.....00 models are always a pile of compromises on wheel dimensions, they simply cannot match the scale dimensions, it is completely impossible.

 

Also on splashers please  do not get caught out assessing the accuracy of the fit by examining prototype photos, as often the radius from the axle to the outer line of the splasher does not line up.. The reasons are many, some where designed that way!!, some were set to allow the spring movement of the axles from the nominal position, and the nominal position of the axle depends on the loading from the loco, full boiler or in the case of a tank loco the coal and water....plus the age of the springs etc.

 

Roche and others who drew plans for modellers tended to show the axle as the root of the radius of the splasher and body work, so as not to miss lead, when in fact the position of the radius centre of the splasher in real life did not come from the axle centre.

 

Some real designs are easy, older steam engines often had way over sized splashers, mainly to allow for the springing movement, but also just to get a certain style to the design.

 

Designing a model always has compromises, if a loco was made in 00, with scale wheels over the tyres, then adjusted splashers to clear the flanges, and possibly the foot plate altered to compensate, you end up with a steam engine looking as if it's skirts were being held up, with an odd skeletal look under the foot plate.

 

So it is all down to expertise and careful judgement to balance out what you have to live with using 00.... and be mighty careful not to say "what about HO".......where the problem becomes a staggering nightmare for British outline steam loco models.

 

Stephen

 

Well, I have held off concerning the splashers.  For one thing, none of us are in a position to take measurements.

 

For another, I, too, don't see this as an area that we can expect to be changed.

 

However, based upon visual comparisons between Oxford's model/drawings, and scale drawings of the class, I strongly suspect that, yes, the splashers will prove to be over scale.  The best illustration of this is to compare the prototype and the model in the area of the rear splasher and its relationship with the cab side.  The problems fitting in the number plate on 2309 is not, I suspect, merely as a result of the lining being too wide; the area appears to have been squeezed by the size of the splasher.

 

These are my assessments based on what we have seen so far, so I don't claim that this is a definitive point.

 

To stick my neck out, I suspect that if you fit full size wheels including tyre width, it might be a push to engineer a correctly sized splasher - this is my theory.  A very modest reduction, say to the extent of depicting worn tyre wheels, might have sufficed to permit a scale splasher.  Again, I am merely theorising here.

 

The worst affected will be those wanting to paint them Indian Red, because this will emphasise any discrepancy.

 

This is why I have always viewed the issue as potentially one of the necessary engineering compromises.  But, strictly speaking, I suspect that fat Lieutenant will be proved correct in suggesting they are over-size.

[kandc_au]

The worst affected will be those wanting to paint them Indian Red, because this will emphasise any discrepancy.

 

This is why I have always viewed the issue as potentially one of the necessary engineering compromises.  But, strictly speaking, I suspect that fat Lieutenant will be proved correct in suggesting they are over-size.

 

He may very well be right. I have no idea. The point I am making though is somewhere there is going to be compromises...either splashers to large or wheels to small.

Either way they are not going to be able to please everyone.

[amdaley]

I think we need to concentrate on the mistakes in the Oxford model & not the compromises of modelling in OO gauge.

People need to remember that in the making of an OO Gauge model compromise is necessary, mistakes are not. 

[Godfrey Glyn]

I think we need to concentrate on the mistakes in the Oxford model & not the compromises of modelling in OO gauge.

People need to remember that in the making of an OO Gauge model compromise is necessary, mistakes are not. 

 

I concur, however I suspect that one person's acceptable compromise is someone else's grave mistake. 

 

all the best

Godfrey

[Edwardian]

Indeed, potentially this was felt to be an engineering compromise.

 

I would not expect a change, so the point might be academic for all it may prove to be correct.

 

IMHO the focus should be on sorting the splasher side rivets, the handrail issues and on a wholesale replacement for the cab.

 

Would I buy it if these things were sorted?

 

Yes

[amdaley]

Indeed, potentially this was felt to be an engineering compromise.

 

I would not expect a change, so the point might be academic for all it may prove to be correct.

 

IMHO the focus should be on sorting the splasher side rivets, the handrail issues and on a wholesale replacement for the cab.

 

Would I buy it if these things were sorted?

 

Yes

 

So would I gladly.

I don't want perfection but I do want a model which is devoid of avoidable mistakes.

[Talltim]

Just make the wheels smaller at the top...

[KGV]

Just make the wheels smaller at the top...

 

Isn't that what Airfix did with their 14xx and why mine runs like a crab?

[Edwardian]

Re wheel size and splashers, I am trying to concentrate on the art of the possible and to bear what imperfections that I can. 

 

For me the cab and the other inaccuracy issues are the thing to focus on because they spoil the look the most and are at least potentially curable.

 

New wheels to get new splashers sounds uncomfortably close to re-starting from scratch. 

 

That said, I understand that there is nothing inherently weird, inaccurate or impractical about Fat Lieutenant's smaller wheels suggestion.

 

I lack the knowledge, experience and expertise to judge such things, but a cogent case for the smaller wheel solution has been put to me, so I thought I should share it because I think the point bears serious consideration:

 

Designers of Finescale model locos have known for well over half a century that it is very often necessary to use smaller than "as new" driving wheels and indeed non driving /rolling stock wheels to get satisfactory clearances with scale size splashers and brakegear. 

 

This does not mean that it is a compromise or that it is inaccurate in any way.  All wheels suffer wear in use and I am sure most modellers have seen photos or films of locomotive wheels on a wheel lathe being turned to correct the profile. This means a reduction in diameter of the tread and a matching reduction in the flange.  All wheels are designed so that a significant amount of metal ca be removed before the wheel or tyre has to be replaced.  Accurate is a relative term. 

 

Once it becomes clear that wheels in 4mm can be  0.7mm smaller in diameter and still be to scale this means O.35mm more clearance but things can be improved still further as smaller wheels mean lower buffers so the axle centrelines can now be lowered by O.35 mm to correct the buffer height (which is why real loco springs are adjustable as well as for weakening).  The model has now gained O.7mm clearance which is usually sufficient even if the centre drivers happen to be sprung.  After all, the model RP25 wheel profile only has flanges about 0.4mm bigger than dead scale flanges and real locos have clearance for vertical movement of the wheels otherwise they would not have springs.   

 

There is another trick which would work on the Dean goods as OO wheel flanges are inside the width of many scale width splashers and provided the moulding are designed the right way the splashers do not need clearance for the flanges at all.  This may not suit EM and P4 modellers quite so well but certainly gives plenty of clearance for overscale plastic moulding thicknesses.

 

Discuss (!)

 

So, it sounds as if scale size splashers for a 4mm/OO Dean Goods were perfectly acheivable, if you knew how, that is.  Another result of the relative lack of experience of a market entrant, perhaps?

[Mike Riley]

Yesterday I compared the splasher size on a Mainline body with drawings in Russell Vol 1.  The Mainline splashers are just under 1mm higher than on the drawings and 2mm longer measured along the footplate.  On the model, there is a chamfer on the inside of the splashers to cater for the wheel flanges - as Edwardian said, in 00 the flanges are towards the inside of the splashers which are wider than the prototype due to the narrow gauge.

 

Using a rigid chassis and undersize wheels (20mm) I think it should be possible the use scale sized splashers.  Certainly if they were metal, maybe more difficult with plastic.

[bertiedog]

The situation with splashers that are close, (there are designs that are not at all close), used to be simpler with the days of Tri-ang and earlier 00 models, in that the O/d over the flange was about scale, and the overall width from face to face on Tri-ang was near scale as well Taking as an example, The Lord of the Isles can be directly converted to P4 as the clearances for Tri-ang's wheels were close.

This was the original point made pre war in the arguments for H0 verses 00, the reduced gauge allowed the (as they perceived were needed), larger width wheels. HO with splashers and scale wheels is exactly as tight as P4, rendering it useless for normal running toys and models.

The problem with modern 00 models is that the wheels are now nearer scale, but have now got a reduced overall width that shows more when placed under a scale splasher.

Most locos have bit of space to spare in the design over the use of an rp25 type flange, so usually the full size tyre is used, with careful thinning of the splasher material.

The Dean should not have any problems from the Drawings I have to hand, there is at least a mm clearance over a wheel with modern Rp25 tyres. This allows a mm of plastic splasher and viola! they work together.

 

As I said before the splashers do no look oversized to me on the Oxford, it can only be checked by measurement. but the relationship between the wheel and the splasher looks OK in most shots. However at 45Degree angle the splasher will look odd if at the true position, as the wheelset is further in than scale for the reasons above. This can give a definitely odd appearance when compared to shots of the real loco, and make the splashers look too large, all a bit of an optical illusion.

 

The efforts by designers to make the scale wheels fit 00 style, make P4 very frustrating now, as the clearances have diminished as the 00 product has improved. This is a very complex field to explain in these posts, but I hope that the reasons behind adjustments are getting better known.

[bertiedog]

Yesterday I compared the splasher size on a Mainline body with drawings in Russell Vol 1.  The Mainline splashers are just under 1mm higher than on the drawings and 2mm longer measured along the footplate.  On the model, there is a chamfer on the inside of the splashers to cater for the wheel flanges - as Edwardian said, in 00 the flanges are towards the inside of the splashers which are wider than the prototype due to the narrow gauge.

 

Using a rigid chassis and undersize wheels (20mm) I think it should be possible the use scale sized splashers.  Certainly if they were metal, maybe more difficult with plastic.

But the Dean has no issue the real thing has enough clearance to allow for a scale tyre and RP25 flange, unless Oxford have moulded the splashers at over 2.4 mm thickness, which none of us know. I have checked it on a copy of a GWR outline drawing. Mainline would have done the increase because of the huge flanges. I have not got a Mainline to measure the tyre accurately or the O/D, but I suspect it is at best the same as Oxford or worst.