Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[GWR8700]

This has been uploaded today 

[Horsetan]

Wow, that shade of green is very bright! 

[GeoffBird]

Wow, that shade of green is very bright! 

 

#And aren't the cab numberplates a bit wonky?

[bertiedog]

Colour is betwix and between the eye of the viewer and the digital camera, but the firebox being so obviously wrong the shape is not, they have a very serious problem on their hands.

 

A mistake like this might have slipped by a few years ago with Hornby, perhaps forced on them by the mechanism standards, but Oxford are getting a growing reputation for oddities creeping in, like the Adams boiler underside, which suggests a lack of expertise in the company design dept.

 

They are progressing well for a new company in the area, but surely cannot risk errors like this mistake with the Dean boiler to occur. The side view of the loco simply looks wrong, It stands out badly, and GWR modellers are noted as exacting as to details.

 

The Video is barely a full review, but I trust they did notice the problem, and decided for time reasons not to mention it. Or perhaps they too have not yet realised that there is a serious error.

 

We are slipping away in time from people who really knew these locos in every day use, and have to rely on memory and photo / drawing details for models. There is often too much trust placed in digital scanning, which must be interpreted with very great care, the results are only as good as the programmer, and laser scanning is still a bit of a black art.

 

Stephen

[David Bigcheeseplant]

Why is the top of tender green not black? I think the old Airfix model is still better in shape than the Oxford model, I guess the Oxford model is better as it is not tender driven and has a 2500 gallon tender, but I would have expected something better between a 35 year old model and a new one.

 

The Finney one is the best Dean Good Goods model out there still

[Edwardian]

The thing is, that firebox shape is not an easy fix.  Cosmetically it means starting from scratch. 

 

This is a sufficiently fundamental error to warrant going back to the drawing board to fix.  

 

If Oxford shy away from fixing this, they will still have many sales.  They will not have as many and, worse, I think it gives their credibility a big ding.

 

I am excited and enthused about Oxford Rail.  They are new.  They deserve some leeway. I am slow to sound a negative note, because I want the company, and this product in particular, to be a success.   

 

But, how many bloopers before the cumulative effect is an erosion of confidence that will affect sales of future models and consign Oxford to something resembling Hornby in the '70s and '80s, but with better paint jobs (or, put another way, the Railroad range of today)?

 

I confess that for the first time I am starting to feel discouraged about this company's capabilities and I am willing it to prove my nascent fears groundless. 

 

I can only go on my own reactions to the little flaws I have become aware of:

 

• Radial?  Didn't buy one.  Why? Reputed pizza cutter flanges and no daylight under the boiler.  This decision did not affect me too badly, it was, after all, Oxford's first loco, I let it pass, consoling myself with the thought that I didn't want a preserved or a nationalised loco and Hornby was about to have a try. 
• 7 Planks?  Didn't buy one.  Why? Apparently there are accuracy issues with the wagon and the chosen liveries are not appropriate for the1923 RCH subject.  I felt this was a real shame, but none of the subjects were that appropriate to any Grouping era layout I am likely to realise. 

None of this discouraged me or lowered expectations.  Surely, I thought, Oxford have noted the feedback on their first generation releases and realised that they have to get the next big release right?

 

Well, the Dean Goods affects me personally.  Both pre and post Grouping versions are models I would buy.  I had thought to buy up to 4.  If Oxford produce this model, no other RTR manufacturer will touch it in this scale for the next 40 years.  So if Oxford f- this one up,  they ruin it for all of us for a generation and more.   

 

I have realised in recent years that depending upon the RTR market can be a quick route to disappointment as often as it is to joy, and RTR is no substitute for the kit and scratch-building ability that I must eventually acquire.  having said that, i'd be a fool not to be thrilled if a class I'd like several versions of becomes available and means that I have 4 fewer kits to try to build before I die!

 

I would have thought that Oxford would gain more respect and engender more confidence if they delayed release to fix this problem, even if it meant another year.   I am willing Oxford to get this one right.

[The Stationmaster]

There is no excuse at all for a modern r-t-r 'manufacturer' to make serious errors such as the firebox on the Dean Goods or what seemingly might be a somewhat peculiar version of GWR livery (but this is presumably nota  decoration sample so that could be rectified.  I understand that allowance has to be made for production methods and the way in which tooling works and so on but the firebox error would seem not to relate to either of those and might suggest corner cutting or rushing at the research/CAD approval stages - it would certainly be likely to involve major tooling changes to put it right at this point in the development process.  The numberplate positioning might just be a bit of sloppiness in putting together a powered sample and again could be sorted (depending on the nature of cab side mouldings) at the decoration stage but it would surely have been better to have used an unliveried model for power train testing/demonstration and left livery samples to be dealt with separately?

 

 

Apart from treading on some of Hornby's toes I can't really fathom Oxford's marketing strategy - clearly keen pricing is there to help build market share but in the 21st century market they are facing are less forgiving lot of end customers than those who Lima went for in 'bargain basement' pricing mode and those customers are expecting a  lot, even from cheap models.  The telling item will possibly be the Carflats but more likely the Mk3 coaches where there will be a keen and highly discriminating audience looking on as the vehicles gradually appear - if Oxford can't get them right, whatever the price, they are likely to be regarded as no more than a firm which sells 'cheapies' and has little interest in the more discerning market.

 

As it happens I have no real need for a(nother) Dean Goods but if I did I'm afraid this effort would not really appeal judging by what I have seen of it to date, I just hope that old K's motor (in one) and the Airfix tender drive (behind the other) hold up and save me having to knock on Comet's (or similar) door.

Edited June 9, 2016 by The Stationmaster

[BG John]

I'm thinking more seriously about carrying on with my Mainline conversion that stalled 30 years ago. I've got all the bits for the body, but it needs a lot of work. Maybe rather than spending £100 on the Oxford one, that will need some changes and repainting, I might spend a bit on motorising the Mainline loco, maybe even splashing out on the Perseverance chassis. But a Dean Goods isn't my top priority at the moment, as I'm not sure one would have been too likely to turn up at my sleepy BLT in 1905, when presumably they were only just being replaced by bigger goods engines on main line work.

[Horsetan]

...The Finney one is the best Dean Goods model out there still

...and there are almost enough parts in it to build two engines.

[The Stationmaster]

I'm thinking more seriously about carrying on with my Mainline conversion that stalled 30 years ago. I've got all the bits for the body, but it needs a lot of work. Maybe rather than spending £100 on the Oxford one, that will need some changes and repainting, I might spend a bit on motorising the Mainline loco, maybe even splashing out on the Perseverance chassis. But a Dean Goods isn't my top priority at the moment, as I'm not sure one would have been too likely to turn up at my sleepy BLT in 1905, when presumably they were only just being replaced by bigger goods engines on main line work.

 

Definitely still very much on mainline work in 1905 judging by published photos.

[BG John]

Definitely still very much on mainline work in 1905 judging by published photos.

The local Lord of the Manor has his foot in the door in the boardroom at Paddington, and has arranged through passenger workings from the main line, so bigger engines than normal are likely to appear. He doesn't like his guests to have to change trains, especially to some puny 4-wheel coaches ambling along stopping at every station, or even more importantly, doesn't like his staff wasting his time waiting to change trains when he sends them on errands to the city. With influence like that, a main line goods engine putting in an appearance might be excusable, to help speed the products of his Lordships business interests on their way .

[Hroth]

Oh come on chaps.

 

The shape of the firebox has been clearly visible since the photos of the engineering prototypes were published (see posts 5, 49 and 50) back in late January.  No one commented on the shape then but but many contributors seemed more concerned about the angle of the handrail stanchions.  Having seen the photos of the preserved example, yes there is a considerable difference but it needs to be remembered that "as preserved" isn't the same as "in service", though I must admit that the only Dean Goods photo I have to hand at present (captioned as Oswestry based 2424 and undated other than it was withdrawn in 1946) does show a smooth curve to the lower firebox.

 

Raising the problem back in January might have had some effect, but even so, I'll still be taking one.  A bit of creative weathering might mask the sharp angle...

[David Bigcheeseplant]

Don't forget High Level Kits produce a finescale chassis for the Mainline/Airfix model which I think I would prefer over the Oxford model.

 

The lined Oxford version looks horrible to my eyes the green completely wrong, the smokebox should have the earlier door parallel chimney and other differences.

 

David

[bertiedog]

Since the coloured example has the same miss placed lop sided positioned number plate I trust it is not moulded into that position! Oxford are doing their advanced sales no good at all at present, surely they care, as the press releases have implied that they are seeking very high standards. Somebody is not doing their quality control job well at Oxford........... the business of the Adams boiler was minor compared to this mistake, which cannot be dismissed so lightly, as it is so blatantly bad.

I wonder if they have actually taken on abandoned projects from other suppliers to the UK, and pressed forward with them regardless, to get to the market quickly.

Stephen.

Edited June 9, 2016 by bertiedog

[Edwardian]

Oh come on chaps.

 

The shape of the firebox has been clearly visible since the photos of the engineering prototypes were published (see posts 5, 49 and 50) back in late January.  No one commented on the shape then but but many contributors seemed more concerned about the angle of the handrail stanchions.  Having seen the photos of the preserved example, yes there is a considerable difference but it needs to be remembered that "as preserved" isn't the same as "in service", though I must admit that the only Dean Goods photo I have to hand at present (captioned as Oswestry based 2424 and undated other than it was withdrawn in 1946) does show a smooth curve to the lower firebox.

 

Raising the problem back in January might have had some effect, but even so, I'll still be taking one.  A bit of creative weathering might mask the sharp angle...

 

It's easy to say this now, but I realise now that something was trying to get my attention even then, but fairly deep in my subconscious.  I feel that this is something that should have been obvious to me, but I never looked at a picture of the model next to a picture of the prototype until Coachman posted the shots.  

 

It is not just, or even mainly, that it is an inaccuracy, but that it looks very wrong and marrs the look of the whole thing, for me,  This, to me, is more serious than the wrong number of spokes and the crappy moulded cab rail on the Hornby Star.  Even that handrail can be cured with a deep breath and a steady hand.  Good luck changing Oxford's firebox.  Seriously, they have to put their hands up to this one and change it.  

[TEAMYAKIMA]

I doubt I will ever be buying anything by Oxford Rail ............... it fear that their only role in this hobby might be to put a nail in Hornby's coffin.

 

If Hornby had produced a model with these problems they would have been ripped apart .....

[melmerby]

I wonder whether the Airfix/Mainline/Hornby body will fit the Oxford chassis?

 

Keith

[Edwardian]

I wonder whether the Airfix/Mainline/Hornby body will fit the Oxford chassis?

 

Keith

 

My thought exactly.  I've always liked the body of that model and I think it captures the look of the class fairly well.

 

My current thought is, provided Oxford manage a reasonable job on the chassis, it might be possible to use it and various body parts for round-top firebox versions.  With variations such as different dome positions and the choice of Indian reed and black frames, it's probably worth attempting 2-3 models.

 

For the belpaire versions, I am thinking that the Mainline/Hornby body is the better bet.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...If Hornby had produced a model with these problems they would have been ripped apart .....

 Take a long hard look at Hornby's Brush 2 (class 30/31) cabside window treatment, or their Gresley ganagwayed coaches side profile, compared to photos of the real thing. Many folks don't realise that the Hornby Jinty and Pannier roll around on a wheelbase incorrect for both: all these sold well enough and so will a Dean goods with a shape challenged firebox. Sad but true.

[The Stationmaster]

Looking closely at the video is appears that the numberplate is a separate moulding which has a 'peg' on the back to locate into a hole in the cab sidesheet.  So if it's not firmly stuck down/simply plugged into the hole it might be simple to remove but if lashings of glue have been used it could well be a different story.

[Mikkel]

I'm thinking more seriously about carrying on with my Mainline conversion that stalled 30 years ago. I've got all the bits for the body, but it needs a lot of work. Maybe rather than spending £100 on the Oxford one, that will need some changes and repainting, I might spend a bit on motorising the Mainline loco, maybe even splashing out on the Perseverance chassis. But a Dean Goods isn't my top priority at the moment, as I'm not sure one would have been too likely to turn up at my sleepy BLT in 1905, when presumably they were only just being replaced by bigger goods engines on main line work.

 

How about doing a round-topped firebox version? That's my plan, cutting the firebox out and replacing it with curved plastikard. Plus various other bits that will need being removed (and a smaller-diameter boiler if you really want to go to town). For me the attraction of this model is the RTR loco-drive chassis, and a body to modify. The Mainline body is good for a Belpaire version, but those awful grinding gears under the tender... argh!

[Ozexpatriate]

The side view of the loco simply looks wrong, It stands out badly, and GWR modellers are noted as exacting as to details.

Exacting GWR modellers? Why surely not. Hmmm, OK, yes. There are too many of these sort of issue to itemize but the front-end of the Bachmann Modified Hall stands out in memory.

 

The shape of the firebox has been clearly visible since the photos of the engineering prototypes were published (see posts 5, 49 and 50) back in late January.  No one commented on the shape then but but many contributors seemed more concerned about the angle of the handrail stanchions. 

 

EDIT: see:

Thanks to Phil Parker for sending over some useful images of the Dean Goods from the Toy Fair. I'm not well enough qualified to comment on accuracy on this one but the level of detail is looking impressive.

 

Dean Goods1s.jpg

 

Dean Goods3s.jpg

 

That's a fair comment. The indentation is visible in every picture and these are far clearer than other infamous GWR locomotive gaffes like the 12 spoked pilot wheels on the Star. At least this time we've seen it before it went into production.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Ozexpatriate

[Ozexpatriate]

Looking closely at the video is appears that the numberplate is a separate moulding which has a 'peg' on the back to locate into a hole in the cab sidesheet. 

None of the earlier photos show a mounting hole in the cabside, though this may of course have changed - or may have simply been drilled.

 

Can anyone remember which GWR model in development has a moulded indentation for the numberplate? I remember seeing pictures, and I thought it was this one, though reviewing this thread, evidently was not.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Ozexpatriate

[bertiedog]

Things may well have been published in January, at that period I was in hospital, and indeed only returned to Modelling recently to find Oxford as a new maker. The very first picture I saw was about 10 days ago, and instantly it was obvious a major slip up had occurred in understanding the shape of the firebox on a belpaire boilered GWR loco.

 

It is the kind of mistake that is looked for on RTR generally, and Hornby's history is littered with such errors, some for a technical problem reason, some for heritage engineering reasons to allow older track and lineside stuff to work with later models. But there were a few blunders as well.

 

We can turn a blind eye to the Adams boiler, it barely shows, but the firebox on the most famous goods loco on the GWR being the wrong shape is in another league altogether.

 

I think it is down to inexperience at Oxford, as I said before only enthusiasts would spot it, as very few people are around who actually saw the loco in operation. I doubt any staff at Oxford would be such people. It is important to get the basics right, you can forgive minor errors, but this is the basic shape of the loco that is wrong.

 

Would a King with a firebox like this one be accepted these days?.............no..........

 

It may well be that the average buyer will not worry at all, but enthusiasts will know, and the reputation of the brand suffers. It took 40 years to shake Hornby out of their moribund ways with strange engineering and errors, but it has only taken a couple of months for Oxford to clock up two out of two mistakes on locos, although the Adams was hardly a mistake really, just a poor decision in design.

 

The fact the numberplate is attached via a peg also indicates a sad lack of checking with the real thing as to the position of the plate, however the video may be none too clear on the peg locating the plate, so we shall have to wait and see.

 

Stephen

Edited June 10, 2016 by bertiedog

[Ozexpatriate]

The very first picture I saw was about 10 days ago, and instantly it was obvious a major slip up had occurred in understanding the shape of the firebox on a belpaire boilered GWR loco.

Evidently you've a keener eye than the rest of us.