Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[57xx]

My concern at this point is that Oxford might have boxes of Dean Goods in their warehouse that they are embarrased to let onto the market 

 

Really?? They let that cattle wagon onto the market and should have been very embarrassed at that but that didn't stop it being released.

[Hroth]

Really?? They let that cattle wagon onto the market and should have been very embarrassed at that but that didn't stop it being released.

Cattle wagons are, well, just cattle wagons, the wheelbase might be a few mm out and some details might not be accurate, but in a rake of miscellaneous vehicles, no one will really notice.  Especially if they've been dirtied up a little.

 

But a dodgy loco is in another order of Oops....

[4069]

It might be of interest to take a look at the "traffic" on this forum and indeed the website for SLW and his Class 24 model.No "badge" here.Doesn't even merit its own thread.

Huh? So what's this?

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/105551-suttons-locomotive-works-class-24/

[bertiedog]

Are Oxford showing the loco at York? is there any news of delivery? time is rapidly passing this year for releases. or are they concentrating on the separate NRM release at the expense of general sales.....

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

Hattons still say April 2017, and here we are half way through the month and no date.

[Ian Hargrave]

Huh? So what's this?

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/105551-suttons-locomotive-works-class-24/

But not listed under Trade and Products as Hattons Kernow and all other mainstream manufacturers are.The topic you refer to was started by a forum member separately.Must admit it's a situation I find rather odd.

[Willie Whizz]

It might be of interest to take a look at the "traffic" on this forum and indeed the website for SLW and his Class 24 model.No "badge" here.Doesn't even merit its own thread.Ask around and see what you think because this is not in a conventional pigeonhole...except that it sells for one reason.I leave it to your judgement to guess what that is....

 

Most impressive.  But the chances are that, as with so many small businesses, the profit from Job 1 funds Job 2 (or, at best, they can just about start funding development of Job 3 while awaiting receipt of the proceeds of Job 1, but what does he live on meanwhile ... so either way any significant delay puts the business in 'deep doo-doo').  Quite possibly therefore he only has to get one "wrong" just to the extent it doesn't meet its sales target and timescale ... and, sadly, he may be gone.  Oxford (and to some extent DJ Models) have not been without 'issues' regarding their early output, but it appears they have sufficient depth of pockets (and/or sufficient customers willing to overlook the deficiencies) to give them time to progress up the learning curve.

[JSpencer]

Oxford has an awful lot more resources than DJM or SLW. They have steady program and - judging from delays - hopefully taking notes of feedback so far to avoid/reduce faults in the next model. We railway modelers are more unforgiving than the average die cast person it would seem.

 

Of course if delay equals same faulty model, you can be certain there will be plenty of flak here.

 

Oxfordrail have to potential to become number 3 in the UK market within a short time, but only if they are acting on feedback.

They are also IMHO, the only company capable of eventually breaking into the traditional toy market with trains.

 

Competition has not only come from expected quarters ( the traditional big boys) but also unexpected quarters, (retailers have woken up and discovered they can engage Chinese manufacturers themselves - which affects DJM and Rapido as well).

[Edwardian]

Oxford has an awful lot more resources than DJM or SLW. They have steady program and - judging from delays - hopefully taking notes of feedback so far to avoid/reduce faults in the next model. We railway modelers are more unforgiving than the average die cast person it would seem.

 

Of course if delay equals same faulty model, you can be certain there will be plenty of flak here.

 

Oxfordrail have to potential to become number 3 in the UK market within a short time, but only if they are acting on feedback.

They are also IMHO, the only company capable of eventually breaking into the traditional toy market with trains.

 

Competition has not only come from expected quarters ( the traditional big boys) but also unexpected quarters, (retailers have woken up and discovered they can engage Chinese manufacturers themselves - which affects DJM and Rapido as well).

 

Oxford should take care to get its models right.  It is no more expensive to make an accurate model than it is to make an inaccurate one; same tooling and material costs.  The financial pain comes when you have to correct mistakes with new tooling. Oxford, I suspect, is better able to absorb the cost of correcting mistakes and, thus, maintaining and building a reputation for accuracy and quality, than smaller manufacturers and retail commissioners who do not have such a margin for error and feel obliged to go to market with mistakes uncorrected and second-rate products as a result.  

 

I agree that Oxford has the potential to become no.3.  If it takes care and learns from past mistakes, that could be good for us all.

 

While I have not spared the Dean Goods so far, I hope it is significantly improved before release and that future models attain higher standards. 

 

At the moment, and from what I have seen, I am sceptical of anything that does not come in a Red or a Blue box.  Oxford has the potential to change that.  We'll see.

[The Johnster]

I'm pretty sceptical of some stuff that comes in red boxes; when they are good they are very very good but when they are bad...

 

It does seem a little unfair to me that Ox are slated for issues with their cattle wagons and minor details lets be honest on pre-production Dean Goods', and Hornby get away with selling 7-plank and steel mineral wagons with a visibly wrong wheelbase that seriously affects the overall look of the models, then compound the issue (admittedly not for 'serious' modellers, whatever they are) by making railroad 7 plank 'troublesome trucks' with even longer wheelbases.  Where is the outcry on this forum?

 

What I consider to be my best rtr coal wagon (I model South Wales so they are important to me) is a Hornby 21T hopper, superbly detailed including the interior and excellently finished.  But an Oxford 7-plank runs it a very close second; better than Baccy's attempt for having buffer spring detail and a separate rail over the end doors.  I would not consider buying any short wheelbase mineral wagon from Hornby or Dapol; they are too wrong for even my rather basic standards.

 

Criticism where justified, but credit where due, chaps!

[mikeharvey22]

Oxfordrail have to potential to become number 3 in the UK market within a short time, but only if they are acting on feedback.

They are also IMHO, the only company capable of eventually breaking into the traditional toy market with trains.

Interesting to read that Oxford has introduced its ranges to selected Edinburgh Woollen Mills stores, which might be a sign of how serious they are about expanding their exposure.

 

http://twitter.com/OxfordDiecastUK/status/795991556255784960

[micklner]

I'm pretty sceptical of some stuff that comes in red boxes; when they are good they are very very good but when they are bad...

 

It does seem a little unfair to me that Ox are slated for issues with their cattle wagons and minor details lets be honest on pre-production Dean Goods', and Hornby get away with selling 7-plank and steel mineral wagons with a visibly wrong wheelbase that seriously affects the overall look of the models, then compound the issue (admittedly not for 'serious' modellers, whatever they are) by making railroad 7 plank 'troublesome trucks' with even longer wheelbases.  Where is the outcry on this forum?

 

What I consider to be my best rtr coal wagon (I model South Wales so they are important to me) is a Hornby 21T hopper, superbly detailed including the interior and excellently finished.  But an Oxford 7-plank runs it a very close second; better than Baccy's attempt for having buffer spring detail and a separate rail over the end doors.  I would not consider buying any short wheelbase mineral wagon from Hornby or Dapol; they are too wrong for even my rather basic standards.

 

Criticism where justified, but credit where due, chaps!

 

The problem starts with their advertising slogan   " In pursuit of excellence".

 

There are sadly numerous faults on their models so far , all of which have already been on other Oxford threads, most of the faults could have easily been cured before they were made and appear to be a result of very poor research or a breakdown of communications at the factories. They are are sold at a good price , most people I would imagine happily pay the bit extra for a correct model.

 

I see no comparison with the Hornby and Dapol wagons , they are very old toolings you refer too, which are very obvious as to what you get for the money. Neither company pretend they are anything but basic models. 

[Edwardian]

I'm pretty sceptical of some stuff that comes in red boxes; when they are good they are very very good but when they are bad...

 

It does seem a little unfair to me that Ox are slated for issues with their cattle wagons and minor details lets be honest on pre-production Dean Goods', and Hornby get away with selling 7-plank and steel mineral wagons with a visibly wrong wheelbase that seriously affects the overall look of the models, then compound the issue (admittedly not for 'serious' modellers, whatever they are) by making railroad 7 plank 'troublesome trucks' with even longer wheelbases.  Where is the outcry on this forum?

 

What I consider to be my best rtr coal wagon (I model South Wales so they are important to me) is a Hornby 21T hopper, superbly detailed including the interior and excellently finished.  But an Oxford 7-plank runs it a very close second; better than Baccy's attempt for having buffer spring detail and a separate rail over the end doors.  I would not consider buying any short wheelbase mineral wagon from Hornby or Dapol; they are too wrong for even my rather basic standards.

 

Criticism where justified, but credit where due, chaps!

 

The problem starts with their advertising slogan   " In pursuit of excellence".

 

There are sadly numerous faults on their models so far , all of which have already been on other Oxford threads, most of the faults could have easily been cured before they were made and appear to be a result of very poor research or a breakdown of communications at the factories. They are are sold at a good price , most people I would imagine happily pay the bit extra for a correct model.

 

I see no comparison with the Hornby and Dapol wagons , they are very old toolings you refer too, which are very obvious as to what you get for the money. Neither company pretend they are anything but basic models. 

 

Yes, Red Box is not consistently good, but I think Micklener hits the proverbial nail; Hornby have many 'legacy' models with older tooling.  When you compare the totality of their range with a new manufacturer, you are not comparing like with like. The older stuff has its place in the very useful Railroad range.  Some things linger in the main range for too long.  The old Collett corridors were a prime example, but that is now forgiven and forgotten.

 

If you compare the latest Red Box with Oxford Rail, there you have a comparison.  Fortunately, there was a chance to do just that with the Adams Radial.

 

There are other examples that show current Red and Blue Box in general will surpass the new models from other players. Further, only Oxford is relatively keenly priced.  For other products we are expected to pay premium prices, as much or more than Red or Blue Box prices.  This would, I think, be fine if they were up to Bachmann and Hornby standards.  But that is not always the case. Look at the build quality issues with the Heljan GW dock tanks. Compare that with the Hornby Peckett.  Look at the stunning Hornby 58' ex-LSWR rebuilds and compare that with the car-crash that Kernow's £130 Gate Stock set is shaping up to be.

 

That brings us to criticism pre-release.  With pre-ordering the way of things and with magazine reviews not usually picking up on many accuracy issues and coming out post-release, I think reviewing the EPs etc is a valid exercise.  If early in the process, the manufacturer may be informed and may make some corrections.  If later, well, at least anyone who wants to can form a critical assessment of whether or not they want to buy.  Sometimes we are told that no further tooling changes are contemplated, as we were with the Kernow Gate Stock.  That means there is a high degree of probability that the evident errors will not be cured, so commenting on them cannot, in that instance, be considered premature. Amazingly, as life on RMWeb has taught me, there is a fairly vocal constituency who want to avoid the possibility of an informed choice, but others, I suspect, are glad to have the gaps in their library filled by informed comment, and I am one of the latter.  Sometimes I have to go elsewhere and/or buy the necessary books because detailed discussion of accuracy points is not always possible here.  

Edited April 19, 2017 by Edwardian

[kandc_au]

Yes, Red Box is not consistently good, but I think Micklener hits the proverbial nail; Hornby have many 'legacy' models with older tooling.  When you compare the totality of their range with a new manufacturer, you are not comparing like with like. The older stuff has its place in the very useful Railroad range.  Some things linger in the main range for too long.  The old Collett corridors were a prime example, but that is now forgiven and forgotten.

 

If you compare the latest Red Box with Oxford Rail, there you have a comparison.  Fortunately, there was a chance to do just that with the Adams Radial.

 

There are other examples that show current Red and Blue Box in general will surpass the new models from other players. Further, only Oxford is relatively keenly priced.  For other products we are expected to pay premium prices, as much or more than Red or Blue Box prices.  This would, I think, be fine if they were up to Bachmann and Hornby standards.  But that is not always the case. Look at the build quality issues with the Heljan GW dock tanks. Compare that with the Hornby Peckett.  Look at the stunning Hornby 58' ex-LSWR rebuilds and compare that with the car-crash that Kernow's £130 Gate Stock set is shaping up to be.

 

That brings us to criticism pre-release.  With pre-ordering the way of things and with magazine reviews not usually picking up on many accuracy issues and coming out post-release, I think reviewing the EPs etc is a valid exercise.  If early in the process, the manufacturer may be informed and may make some corrections.  If later, well, at least anyone who wants to can form a critical assessment of whether or not they want to buy.  Sometimes we are told that no further tooling changes are contemplated, as we were with the Kernow Gate Stock.  That means there is a high degree of probability that the evident errors will not be cured, so commenting on them cannot, in that instance, be considered premature. Amazingly, as life on RMWeb has taught me, there is a fairly vocal constituency who want to avoid the possibility of an informed choice, but others, I suspect, are glad to have the gaps in their library filled by informed comment, and I am one of the latter.  Sometimes I have to go elsewhere and/or buy the necessary books because detailed discussion of accuracy points is not always possible here.  

Frankly. if a model is being made new , in this day and age I DO expect it to be accurate. Gone are the days of near enough is good enough. A  model made nowadays that is 1 or 2 ft to long isn't good enough.

As for magazines, one does expect their reviews to be accurate to what is presented for review. If the magazine doesn't have someone on staff to accurately review the product than it should be farmed out to someone who is knowledgeable to review.

 

Khris

[The Johnster]

I wasn't so much directly comparing Hornby and Oxford models; of course Hornby has much seriously outdated stock that cannot be replaced overnight, but the difference in the online response to them.  Ox have lessons to learn for sure, but the 'pursuit of excellence' is not in itself a bad thing, especially as in some cases they have caught up with it.   I say again, criticism when it is justified, but praise when it is due; I am delighted with my Ox 7-plank and may well eventually replace my Baccy ones with more Ox, plus of course I need to build a rake of coal empties which will feature more of them; I certainly do not intend buying any more Baccy short wheelbase wooden minerals, Ox have sold me on theirs!

[The Johnster]

Frankly. if a model is being made new , in this day and age I DO expect it to be accurate. Gone are the days of near enough is good enough. A  model made nowadays that is 1 or 2 ft to long isn't good enough.

As for magazines, one does expect their reviews to be accurate to what is presented for review. If the magazine doesn't have someone on staff to accurately review the product than it should be farmed out to someone who is knowledgeable to review.

 

Khris

I have to agree about magazine reviews; there is a danger of them becoming a bit to 'gushy' in their praise of new models and they are too reluctant in my view to directly criticise for fear of offending manufacturers.  One has to interpret the language; something like 'a valuable addition to the range of rtr GW wagons' is not really praise, just sounds like it, while the reviewer has gotten away with being non-committal.

[Edwardian]

Frankly. if a model is being made new , in this day and age I DO expect it to be accurate. Gone are the days of near enough is good enough. A  model made nowadays that is 1 or 2 ft to long isn't good enough.

As for magazines, one does expect their reviews to be accurate to what is presented for review. If the magazine doesn't have someone on staff to accurately review the product than it should be farmed out to someone who is knowledgeable to review.

 

Khris

 

I have to agree about magazine reviews; there is a danger of them becoming a bit to 'gushy' in their praise of new models and they are too reluctant in my view to directly criticise for fear of offending manufacturers.  One has to interpret the language; something like 'a valuable addition to the range of rtr GW wagons' is not really praise, just sounds like it, while the reviewer has gotten away with being non-committal.

 

Very fair points.  I agree.  Yes, I find, increasingly, magazine reviews say too little about flaws and inaccuracies, and say it too late in the world of sell-out pre-orders.  I do no say magazines reviews are getting worse - I suspect they are getting better - but it doesn't take long nosing around a few published sources before you become aware of issues missed by reviewers.  I agree that you have to read between the lines.   

 

 

I wasn't so much directly comparing Hornby and Oxford models; of course Hornby has much seriously outdated stock that cannot be replaced overnight, but the difference in the online response to them.  Ox have lessons to learn for sure, but the 'pursuit of excellence' is not in itself a bad thing, especially as in some cases they have caught up with it.   I say again, criticism when it is justified, but praise when it is due; I am delighted with my Ox 7-plank and may well eventually replace my Baccy ones with more Ox, plus of course I need to build a rake of coal empties which will feature more of them; I certainly do not intend buying any more Baccy short wheelbase wooden minerals, Ox have sold me on theirs!

 

Again, very fair.  I agree that Oxford's stated aim is a good one.  I would be fairly confident they will reach it, too. I think, though, that one man's critical appraisal is another man's hair-splitting, and we all have different views on what is acceptable.  I could have added the LNER Cattle Wagon to my 1930s collection, but, for me, the errors are too much.  Compare that to Hornby's SR Cattle Wagon, which I will be buying.  Then again, the Oxford LNER 6 plank, though some have said is also far from perfect, probably will find a place.  Other views are available, and I think it is important that a variety of views are heard, tolerated and respected.

 

I remain hopeful.  I am still waiting for what I think of as the 'break-through' model, that OO RTR loco, coach or wagon made by a smaller manufacturer that in terms of accuracy, finish and running qualities is the equal of the best Hornby and Bachmann produce, and which is comparably priced, too.  None of the recent releases or soon-to-be-with us samples I have seen from Heljan, DJM or Oxford Rail seem quite there, though I daresay some will prove to be closer than others, but I am sure someone will get there sooner or later. Probably Oxford.  Possibly the N7. 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Edwardian

[JSpencer]

Oxford should take care to get its models right.  It is no more expensive to make an accurate model than it is to make an inaccurate one; same tooling and material costs.  The financial pain comes when you have to correct mistakes with new tooling. Oxford, I suspect, is better able to absorb the cost of correcting mistakes and, thus, maintaining and building a reputation for accuracy and quality, than smaller manufacturers and retail commissioners who do not have such a margin for error and feel obliged to go to market with mistakes uncorrected and second-rate products as a result.  

 

 

There is one increased cost and that is research. If the prototype exists quick research can be done but while the model may end like the prototype that is left, it is often incorrect for the prototypes as they ran. You can get - in many cases - original official drawings, but if can get  drawings that show say when  the said loco was designed in say 1925, it almost certainly not correct to how they were actually built.

These days everything goes through CAD drawings, and CAD drawings often exist for - off the shelf - minor parts. If I look at a warship design today, it is clear where each individual sailor will sleep and wash and store his belongings. If you look at a 1930s drawing, there is big space (room) - normally located at the top of the bow saying 150 ratings will sleep here. Fitters (for tables and things) would fit tables and cupboards for these were they felt they could be put (no 2 ships were alike even in the same class), ratings then sorted themselves out for sleeping! The first ship to actually have the space designed was the 1945 Daring class! My point is, the further you go back in the past, the more rustic and different the locos become compared with drawings.

 

So having examined the remaining prototype, got the drawings, you then need to sift through as many known & dated photos as you can. Examining the prototype and getting drawings is fairly quick, but finding then sifting through reliable sources, checking photos and refining CADS accordingly takes an awful amount of time. That research then throws up all sorts of minor details, was it just this loco? or a general feature? more research.... Before finally making a choice on what will be tooled or not.

One can clearly see a research period lasting just a few weeks (quite cheap) to dragging on for a year (and someone must be paid for that) which adds say a good 50K to the price.

 

Thereafter tooling up a poorly researched model is the same cost as deeply researched one although the latter may have additional costs IF additional options are to be included thanks to research. Production costs drop the more you make of one model, but there will again be slight increases if the production line needs to be modified for each batch to adapt to different details (otherwise the end result is the last Bachmann Hall, neither original nor modified but somewhere in between).

Edited April 19, 2017 by JSpencer

[JSpencer]

I remain hopeful.  I am still waiting for what I think of as the 'break-through' model, that OO RTR loco, coach or wagon made by a smaller manufacturer that in terms of accuracy, finish and running qualities is the equal of the best Hornby and Bachmann produce, and which is comparably priced, too.  None of the recent releases or soon-to-be-with us samples I have seen from Heljan, DJM or Oxford Rail seem quite there, though I daresay some will prove to be closer than others, but I am sure someone will get there sooner or later. Probably Oxford.  Possibly the N7. 

 

Maybe Rapido with the Stirling single?

 

Concerning the Adams radial, 1st batch had build issues for me (curved running plate, bits that fell off etc) which were gone in later batches. Compared with the Hornby model, I prefer Hornby's front bogie and daylight under the boiler but prefer Oxford's trailing wheel set up. Both run as good as each other although Hornby copes better with undulations and incline changes. That said Oxford resolved a big issue for me which is, how do you fit DCC sound into one? by providing this pre-fitted at a reasonable price (£80 more vs £120 for the big pair with Loksound, though TTS gives Hornby some advantage here, that cannot be fitted into a radial).

Edited April 19, 2017 by JSpencer

[amdaley]

Well according to Hattons the Dean will arrive sometime in May or June.

Be interesting to see what turns up ?

[Edwardian]

Maybe Rapido with the Stirling single?

 

Concerning the Adams radial, 1st batch had build issues for me (curved running plate, bits that fell off etc) which were gone in later batches. Compared with the Hornby model, I prefer Hornby's front bogie and daylight under the boiler but prefer Oxford's trailing wheel set up. Both run as good as each other although Hornby copes better with undulations and incline changes. That said Oxford resolved a big issue for me which is, how do you fit DCC sound into one? by providing this pre-fitted at a reasonable price (£80 more vs £120 for the big pair with Loksound, though TTS gives Hornby some advantage here, that cannot be fitted into a radial).

 

Good point.  You may well be right.  I deliberately left Rapido out of the equation, but, perhaps, wrongly.  The Single and the APTE are exceptional subjects which are necessarily very expensive.  With a modern image track-record in North American subjects, I think they are already ahead of the curve, but that is subject of seeing how they fair with UK steam-age subjects.  An 1870s Single is hardly a typical example.  Perhaps the LNER dynamometer car will be in certain ways a more conventional product upon which to judge in due course?

 

Interesting that the accuracy issues were cured on the Radial and that the performance is comparable.  Perhaps, then, it's down to as little as daylight under the boiler.  In that case it seems Oxford came pretty close with its first loco.   

 

 

Well according to Hattons the Dean will arrive sometime in May or June.

Be interesting to see what turns up ?

 

Indeed.  I am hoping that what comes out will be within my subjective view of what is tolerable or fixable, but we'll see.  I don't hold out much hope for the lined 2309, because it is simply the wrong batch for the variant Oxford has tooled for, and curing the various faults identified won't change that.  But, we might get a decent inter-war and BR version yet. 

 

Fingers crossed.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Edwardian

[amdaley]

Good point.  You may well be right.  I deliberately left Rapido out of the equation, but, perhaps, wrongly.  The Single and the APTE are exceptional subjects which are necessarily very expensive.  With a modern image track-record in North American subjects, I think they are already ahead of the curve, but that is subject of seeing how they fair with UK steam-age subjects.  An 1870s Single is hardly a typical example.  Perhaps the LNER dynamometer car will be in certain ways a more conventional product upon which to judge in due course?

 

Interesting that the accuracy issues were cured on the Radial and that the performance is comparable.  Perhaps, then, it's down to as little as daylight under the boiler.  In that case it seems Oxford came pretty close with its first loco.   

 

 

 

Indeed.  I am hoping that what comes out will be within my subjective view of what is tolerable or fixable, but we'll see.  I don't hope out much hope for the lined 2309, because it is simply the wrong batch for the variant Oxford has tooled for, and curing the various faults identified won't change that.  But, we might get a decent inter-war and BR version yet. 

 

Fingers crossed.

According to Hattons 2309 & 2475 are the ones expected.

[Clearwater]

As a general observation, it seems that there are often more issues with the first batch of any new tooling. It makes you suspect that the QC process picks up faults that are corrected in later batches or simply the assembley process becomes better as the workers get more used to a particular model.

 

On accuracy, I think the key is communication. There almost certainly have to be compromises to keep things affordable or simply make them work in oo gauge. If manufacturers explain why they've made decisions, it's easier to understand and harder to criticise. A good recent example is Hattons O gauge A3. They've said a particular piston will be too long but have done so deliberately as the cost to tool separately was too high and it's easier for someone to snip the rod shorter than add a new one

 

David

[No Decorum]

Maybe Rapido with the Stirling single?

 

Concerning the Adams radial, 1st batch had build issues for me (curved running plate, bits that fell off etc) which were gone in later batches. Compared with the Hornby model, I prefer Hornby's front bogie and daylight under the boiler but prefer Oxford's trailing wheel set up. Both run as good as each other although Hornby copes better with undulations and incline changes. That said Oxford resolved a big issue for me which is, how do you fit DCC sound into one? by providing this pre-fitted at a reasonable price (£80 more vs £120 for the big pair with Loksound, though TTS gives Hornby some advantage here, that cannot be fitted into a radial).

Perhaps the Oxford Janus? As for the Oxford Radial, my main concern was the running quality. Once I had sorted the NEM pocket fouling the buffer beam, it was a beautiful runner. Daylight under the boiler would have been better but it doesn”t look as bad as I suspected. Not even my usual curiosity prompted me to get a Hornby version and now that full-fat sound at a reasonable price is on offer, I’m sniffing round another Oxford one. The price of TTS is a stunning achievement by Hornby but, whilst it’s all right for diesels, I don’t like it at all for a steamer. The trouble is, the back of the sofa is now empty thanks to a Janus with sound! I wish I’d found enough down there for another Janus.

[The Stationmaster]

Well according to Hattons the Dean will arrive sometime in May or June.

Be interesting to see what turns up ?

 

I am aware that some 'reworking' is underway on the Dean Goods but I don't know the extent of it - or when the results will come to market and if they extend to all versions; as ever we can but wait & see.

 

The matter of 'research' and 'reviews' (plus comment on web sites such as this) is an interesting one.  The biggest problem with anything - even if an example still exists - is finding out what is most representative of the class being modelled and once/if you can actually manage that deciding which period you will tool for, what variations you can afford to allow for and how you will present the model as representing whatever you intend it to represent or how far you're prepared to accept a bit of deviation from what you think is strict accuracy for some variants.  At the back of all that there lurks one particular god - called 'money'.  

 

Thus a manufacturer might compromise (and might or might not admit it) or might get it as right as their research allows but find out too late that 'someone' knows more than they did - result some people who really do understand the subject might complain.  But the other side of the coin is that the thing is as right as mass production and tooling (and costs) will allow but then 'someone' might moan about it being wrong because their own 'research' is wrong.  An example (and I only use it because it is recent)  of this was a criticism of the re-announced NRM GWR 'City' where it was compared with a prototype photo which it did not match therefore it 'wasn't correct'.  Only problem was the prototype photo very definitely wasn't of a new build 'City' and was probably either an 'Atbara' or 3405 'Mauritius' which was rebuilt as the prototype for the 'Cities'.  Clearly the prototype photo - of an engine in works grey - had been doctored (by the GWR!) and was obviously not a photo of what the number suggested it to be.  Fortunately this 'error in personal research' was easily and quickly corrected - and it's just another item of many on a website.  

 

But what if it was a magazine?  In one recent issue a magazine said of a review example of a loco that the main difference between the various prototype examples in that class was variation in a particular fitting while in reality that fitting was the same on the entire class from at least the 1930s onwards whereas various others (such as two different chimneys, two different tanks and various sundry items such as buffers and tank fillers varied between engines and over time.  So that review misled - for those who cared to take note of it - in the wrong direction by saying something might be wrong when it wasn't.

 

Which in turn leads back to the whole question of sources - secondary sources can often be prone to error and even primary sources sometimes needed to be treated with care and a degree of circumspection - for example on one original works drawing I saw not long ago there were essential features, i.e. ones without which a loco would not function without potentially wrecking itself, missing from the original works drawing and with no indication  of the necessary parts to which they had to be connected.  While the old maxim about photos never lying can be an even bigger trap with incorrect dates - sometimes patently obvious to those who know what to look for - or, as already mentioned. alterations made by the original photographer or owner of the negative; computer images (or the equivalent) in model railway catalogues clearly had their origins on real railways over a century ago.

 

So great care is need when making a critique; and one must always ask who had the most reliable source, you or the designer of the model?  Mind you there is one truism in all of this - if research is rushed and not carried out by those who have at least some knowledge of the subject then errors are probably inevitable - taking us back to right where we started.

Edited April 19, 2017 by The Stationmaster