Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[PMP]

I apologise if I have offended against your professionalism. I don't know which magazine you review for - possibly not the particular one I had in mind. I presume, however, that the criticism you offer in your reviews is more temperate than your criticism of my comment.

 

You can hardly blame Chris for being annoyed because you've trotted out an old cliché, never borne out in practise. If you are so sure that your statement is factual, which companies have threatened which magazines with pulling advertising due to poor/unsympathetic reviews, over which review, and when?

[PMP]

You forgot the Class 101 then? Or the C class and 3F with their gearboxes sticking out in front of the firebox which was the only fault with the Oxford Radial. SR EMU/DEMU's with the dragster look, SR brake vans, 8T Cattle wagon. I wouldn't trust Bachmann implicitly.

 Or the 47 with 57 windows, the 57 with 47 tanks? The too long BR standard cattle wagon, the 16t'ers with incorrect brake gear, the 64xx which only represents one post preservation example?

 

All manufacturers make mistakes and compromises. 

[Compound2632]

You can hardly blame Chris for being annoyed because you've trotted out an old cliché, never borne out in practise. If you are so sure that your statement is factual, which companies have threatened which magazines with pulling advertising due to poor/unsympathetic reviews, over which review, and when?

 

I was evidently too hasty with a generalisation, for which I apologise. I had in mind one of the popular magazines, the anodyne reviews in which I find particularly frustrating - about the only thing one can take from them is that such-and-such a model is now available. It is entirely my inference that this arises from a reluctance to offend the manufacturer. I recall that many years ago Bachmann stopped talking to the Model Railway Journal after an article criticising some detail of the door panels on the 08 - apologies if I haven't remembered the facts quite correctly.

 

Perhaps I'm looking for the wrong thing in magazine reviews - I want to be told how good a representation of the prototype the model is and, ideally, what can be done to improve it or to remedy any defects. I feel I have that information in abundance thanks to contributions on here and am still tempted to set to on one. (Sale to Oxford...)

 

 Or the 47 with 57 windows, the 57 with 47 tanks? The too long BR standard cattle wagon, the 16t'ers with incorrect brake gear, the 64xx which only represents one post preservation example?

 

All manufacturers make mistakes and compromises. 

 

... as do all modellers.

[dibber25]

I've always believed that accurate description and good photos are the key to successful magazine reviews. I used to hate reviews based on manufacturers' press releases, or 'look in the box' kit reviews, which were not unusual back in the 1970s/80s. When we started to develop Model Rail, I was asked to state my policy on reviews. "if it's a kit we'll build it. If it isn't we'll take it apart" was my response. All kits look great in the box - but you can't tell if they fit together, or look right unless you build them. RTR models need, at least to have an illustration of the 'innards'. The latter has become more difficult with some models being difficult to get into. Doing it in the subdued light of a photo studio is a challenge and has meant that, generally, it's not wise to go beyond taking the body off. 

Reviewers don't have encyclopaedic knowledge of every prototype. They do, however, usually have some level of personal contact with the manufacturer, an understanding of the laws of libel, and an understanding of the commercial and manufacturing realities of making models. Foremost among the latter is the understanding that once a grey plastic prototype appears in public, it's likely to already be too late to make significant changes without torpedoing the viability of the whole project.

There's always someone out there who has specialised in that particular class but that does not necessarily qualify them to write a good review. It just qualifies them to critique the detail accuracy. Heavy-handed criticism is far more risky to one's job than loss of advertising revenue. Sitting in a day's libel course (wise Editors have a refresher once a year) makes one much more careful about how one presents criticisms. (CJL)

[JSpencer]

The dome is also the wrong size and that stands out like the proverbial dog's genitals. They could have made it so that their dome could be easily removed and replaced by something better but as it is, you have to cut a huge hole in the boiler to get rid of it. If it been the correct size, a few coats of gloss brass paint might also have improved the appearance.

I can live with the other inaccuracies but the dome is such an important part of the overall appearance of the prototype that it cannot be ignored ; your eye is immediately drawn to it when looking at photos or models.

I agree and as I said before Oxford overlooked some silly errors but let's hope they review feedback and improve. They picking noted prototypes and have potential but could do better when it comes to detail.

 

I have mixed feelings on removable domes on RTR models, on one hand I agree they are easier to remove and of course allow different types of domes to be modelled where applicable. On the other hand previous experience where models do have them as separate fittings, there have been issues of fitting and a somewhat overly thick lip where it meets the boiler. The result can be a bit like opening smokebox doors. If the class being made has no need for different domes, then it becomes an extra cost if it is to be a separate part.

 

Speaking of brass domes, I actually have a spare one in spares box, brought originally to do a Dukedog, which was dropped after Bachmann did theirs.

Edited July 30, 2017 by JSpencer

[melmerby]

Latest pictures on the NRM thread:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117156-national-collection-in-miniature-dean-goods-class-no-2516/page-7&do=findComment&comment=2805352

 

Keith

[Freightliner Class 66]

there are a number of really nice looking models out at the mo that i would love to get but cant justify on a freightliner depot layout. i really like the lined version of the dean goods.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Freightliner Class 66

[wombatofludham]

Andy's interview with Locomotion regarding the changes being made to the NRM edition was interesting.  Looks like some of the issues with the standard model are being corrected, kudos to the NRM and to be fair Oxford for working together to get it right.

 

Of course, it's only getting it right for that particular as preserved example!

[amdaley]

Andy's interview with Locomotion regarding the changes being made to the NRM edition was interesting.  Looks like some of the issues with the standard model are being corrected, kudos to the NRM and to be fair Oxford for working together to get it right.

 

Of course, it's only getting it right for that particular as preserved example!

 

NRM didn't have a choice.

They couldn't sell the model as it was & retain any kind of credibility.

[Hilux5972]

It will be very interesting to see how many of the changes, if any, Oxford carry over to their own future models.

[Black 5 Bear]

The NRM version looks stunning. This is how it should have been produced at the outset.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Black 5 Bear

[Legend]

Yes but I think I'd like to see both side by side. Both look like Dean Goods to me and , of course, one is £35 more expensive than other. Let's wait to see what the plain green Oxford one looks like

[Gary013]

Just a short video (link) of the Dean with a  ESU factory sound decoder.

I replaced the factory speaker with a high base unit and changed some of the cv's to improve running.

I now pretty happy with the loco, great slow runner.

Gary

 

https://youtu.be/_6q1KO7qJTQ

[Coppercap]

Just a short video (link) of the Dean with a  ESU factory sound decoder.

I replaced the factory speaker with a high base unit and changed some of the cv's to improve running.

I now pretty happy with the loco, great slow runner.

Gary

 

https://youtu.be/_6q1KO7qJTQ

Surely, shouldn't the 'chuffing' start almost immediately the loco moves, not umpteen yards down the track? If there's a load on it won't 'coast' a few yards before the first exhaust barks, which would also be more pronounced until well under way. (Sorry it's not just yours, and I feel the same way about all of them, but I find these 'loco sounds' totally unconvincing.)

Off topic - those traction engines, are they 4mm scale? They don't look it as they are seriously out-of-gauge! Also, where's the driver gone?

[tomparryharry]

I like the look of the model, but I'd like to see the model 'in the flesh'.

 

Not being picky but is that a 3-cylinder locomotive?

 

I do like those jubilees.....

 

Ian.

[Downer]

Just a short video (link) of the Dean with a  ESU factory sound decoder.

I replaced the factory speaker with a high base unit and changed some of the cv's to improve running.

I now pretty happy with the loco, great slow runner.

Gary

 

https://youtu.be/_6q1KO7qJTQ

 

 

What a splendid church in the background.

[runs as required]

What a splendid church in the background.

Agree -twin Rheinische spires if I'm not mistaken - plus a William Tite looking LSWR station also in view. And was there an HO Newhaven diesel to the right of the curve?..

Looks a fine 'Imaginary' layout (see an adjacent contemporary thread)

Like

 

dh

[Sir Hadyn]

Off topic - those traction engines, are they 4mm scale? They don't look it as they are seriously out-of-gauge! Also, where's the driver gone?

They are 4mm scale Fowler road locomotives, which are very big engines. Most often transported by rail with the chimney hinged down and you wouldn't move a crane engine by rail with the jib up.

[Sandhole]

If this thread goes on any longer, I am going to have to go and get one just to mod it!

 

When I buy a new loco my priorities are somewhat different.

 

The couple that are/have been run in on my line run quietly without fuss. That is all that is of interested me, justifying my order for the plain green version.

 

Cosmetic appearance can be improved with little minimal input, a poor running engine is much more of an effort.

 

I shall now go out to the den and enjoy running a Dean goods rather than reading 59+ pages about whats wrong with it.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

Thanks Mike, I've been saved a rant about Oxford twice now, by you and Ruston.

 Showering so I'll play trains instead of waterproofing the tent!!

                                  Chris.

[Compound2632]

If this thread goes on any longer, I am going to have to go and get one just to mod it!

 

I shall now go out to the den and enjoy running a Dean goods rather than reading 59+ pages about whats wrong with it.

 

I keep wanting to put positive spin on this discussion. Don't think about it as 'what's wrong with it', rather regard it as a fund of information on how it can be improved, if not by Oxford then, as you say yourself, by oneself.

[The Johnster]

Agreed, there seems little that cannot be rectified on this model, but the biggest issue, literally in the dimensional sense, is the overbig dome.  This needs to be carved off, and a replacement sourced and attached, and the join made good, which may be beyond some folks' comfort zone or ability to achieve without damaging the model in the most visible place on it.  My suggestion to such people would be to either a) live with it and not take too much notice of threads like this, and/or b) paint it green which is more correct anyway and will help blend it in and make living with it easier.

 

I suspect that the sort of customer who bought this because of the ornate Edwardian livery which they could never be able to apply or line out themselves will be happy with the model just as it is, and fair enounh; I am in no position to impose my 'standards' of accuracy on anyone else especially since mine are not perfect by a long chalk.

 

Asking the question a different way, is the model value for money, I'd say yes, the price is not unreasonable and almost everybody who buys one should have a loco that they are either happy with, or one that they can work up without too much effort or expense into something that they are happy with, having read this sort of comment/review/opinion thread and made an informed choice.  It is accurate in it's overall dimensions, nobody has yet commented adversely about anything below the footplate, where faults are much harder to rectify, the overall dimensions are accurate and it is by all accounts a good runner.  If 3 out of 5 stars represents a model that is worth buying, my impression is that I'd give this 4.

 

I'd be happier with my Hornby 2721 if it was half as good as this, even after having worked it up a bit; it's hardly comparing like for like but shows how good the Ox Dean is, and it's a much better runner than the only rtr alternative, which is an eBay Airfix/Mainline pushed around by a tender with Mount Everest hiding the motor and cogs showing on one side; the Ox will perform rings around this thing, which is not badly modelled but not up to modern standards of moulding or finish.

[No Decorum]

For me, the solid plastic wheels of the Airfix/Mainline version jarred horribly. I remember thinking at the time that it didn’t sit well with the rest of the Mainline range and perhaps Mainline shouldn’t have bothered.

 

There isn’t anything in the Oxford offering which (to my eyes) looks anything like as bad. As for running, the Airfix was smooth and controllable but sounded as if it was short-circuiting all the time.

[The Johnster]

I'd forgotten about the solid tender wheels, another black mark against it.  Mine was ok running but could not be relied upon to start without a prod or stop smoothly, one of the Airfix tender drive designs (I had a Castle and 4F with the same mech as well) that have left me opposed to the concept of tender drive to this day.  It looks wrong, a tender should not push or pull a locomotive, and, to my view, the knowledge that the driving wheels weren't actually driven meant that I could never believe that they were driving, there wasn't that sort of 'grippy' feel to it, if that makes sense.  A tender drive that picked up and returned current from it's own wheels might have run better, but Airfix's were plastic and had traction tyres.

 

No model with traction tyres will ever run satisfactorily to my standards.  They ruin pickup because they stand proud of the wheel surface and lift the vehicle off the rails, and then stretch and slip; they are, as I have remarked on this forum before, Satan's vomit, and the best improvement that you can make to a loco fitted with them is to tear them off and bin them, breaking them first so that you are not tempted to re-use them.  This of course leaves your loco too light to haul anything, the design flaw that led to the tyres being fitted in the first place...  A loco with the traction tyres removed will run better, though, especially if weighted properly, even with the grooves in the tyred wheelset, and better still if the grooved wheel is replaced.  

 

Other opinions about traction tyres are available.

 

The old Airfix/Mainline Dean Goods was a good enough model scale and accuracy wise above the footplate in it's day, but nowadays would be let down by the cab fittings and the moulded smokebox dart.  The unpowered loco chassis wasn't bad either, and looked the part well enough, but the Airfix pickups were crude and visible.  That said, I still run an Airfix loco, albeit one I've worked up a bit, a 61xx large prairie running as a 5101.  It still runs as well as any of my modern rtr, is bombproof reliable, and seems to get smoother with age, like it's owner (yeah, right), and is still noisy but also seems to be getting quieter, or it has finally deafened me and my hearing is going...  I actually rather like it's re-assuring growl and heavy feel (I have crammed weight in everywhere it'll go, as I do to all my locos.

[dibber25]

I'd forgotten about the solid tender wheels, another black mark against it.  Mine was ok running but could not be relied upon to start without a prod or stop smoothly, one of the Airfix tender drive designs (I had a Castle and 4F with the same mech as well) that have left me opposed to the concept of tender drive to this day.  It looks wrong, a tender should not push or pull a locomotive, and, to my view, the knowledge that the driving wheels weren't actually driven meant that I could never believe that they were driving, there wasn't that sort of 'grippy' feel to it, if that makes sense.  A tender drive that picked up and returned current from it's own wheels might have run better, but Airfix's were plastic and had traction tyres.

 

No model with traction tyres will ever run satisfactorily to my standards.  They ruin pickup because they stand proud of the wheel surface and lift the vehicle off the rails, and then stretch and slip; they are, as I have remarked on this forum before, Satan's vomit, and the best improvement that you can make to a loco fitted with them is to tear them off and bin them, breaking them first so that you are not tempted to re-use them.  This of course leaves your loco too light to haul anything, the design flaw that led to the tyres being fitted in the first place...  A loco with the traction tyres removed will run better, though, especially if weighted properly, even with the grooves in the tyred wheelset, and better still if the grooved wheel is replaced.  

 

Other opinions about traction tyres are available.

 

The old Airfix/Mainline Dean Goods was a good enough model scale and accuracy wise above the footplate in it's day, but nowadays would be let down by the cab fittings and the moulded smokebox dart.  The unpowered loco chassis wasn't bad either, and looked the part well enough, but the Airfix pickups were crude and visible.  That said, I still run an Airfix loco, albeit one I've worked up a bit, a 61xx large prairie running as a 5101.  It still runs as well as any of my modern rtr, is bombproof reliable, and seems to get smoother with age, like it's owner (yeah, right), and is still noisy but also seems to be getting quieter, or it has finally deafened me and my hearing is going...  I actually rather like it's re-assuring growl and heavy feel (I have crammed weight in everywhere it'll go, as I do to all my locos.

If you want to see tender drive done properly then look at Roco's S160. I can't recall what the old Mainline Dean cost but I bet it was a bit under £350! Nevertheless, the Roco proves that it can be done, that traction tyres don't need to stand proud of the wheel tread and that smooth running and easy starts can be achieved. What's more, you'll see no sign that the loco wheels aren't doing the work. The continentals have always done tender drives OK - at a price. It's just us that can't do them, partly because we want to use a motor bogie so that we need just one mechanism across an entire steam and diesel fleet. Took years of relentless criticism in magazine reviews (long before any on-line forums) to get manufacturers to give up on the idea and create a bespoke chassis for each new loco - at a price, of course. (CJL)

[Bernard Lamb]

Chris,

You are wasting your energy.

I keep pointing out to disbelievers on here that tender drive works superbly when designed and built correctly.

But then what do you, me, the Germans and Pendon know about such things.

Bernard