Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[bertiedog]

Ohh I give up,....... the other older shots  have the handrails fitted with the same non radial fitting knobs that Hornby have used. I assume therefore the boiler is die cast.

 

This is just not acceptable on modern RTR, but it does raise the question of why Magazine editors, readers, and the RM web have not spotted these things earlier and contacted Oxford to comment about it.

 

If these slips go through where will it end?  It also looks as if the die cast boiler top sits on a separate plastic or metal bottom, leaving the ghastly and unsightly split along the lower side of the boiler that the LNER J14 from Hornby has. It smacks of the same Chinese designers at work on both frankly..........not their fault they don't know the prototype, but the split and knobs are simply things that should not be there......

 

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

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

Purely experience over the years I am afraid, I built models commercially and sold them, and such mistakes would not be tolerated then. They were tolerated on Tri-ang and Hornby, they were only toys after all, but times have changed, and 50 years of improvements to UK models are in danger of slipping backwards.

 

In the past the main reason people went to US Nmra HO was the accuracy of the models offered, at least most of them! and modellers here left the Princesses of Tri-ang well alone. It is little to do with cost, we get modern locos pretty cheap in comparison to weekly wages these days, and a few more pounds to get the details right would enhance the reputation of the designers.

 

But the designers have sold their commercial soul to the Chinese and the chickens are coming home to roost now.

 

After all of this I would still buy one, but it needs correction and a total re-paint, not because of the colour, the work to the boiler requires it.

 

Stephen.

Edited June 10, 2016 by bertiedog

[NHY 581]

Oxford are shooting themselves in the foot.

 

Take the Adams radial. For me this is a long time favourite engine. So when I saw that both Oxford and Hornby were to produce examples, I looked at both. Oxford had my attention initially due to cost. Yes I was wary of a new manufacturer but give them a chance. However when I saw the badly prepared examples put out to the press and the lack of daylight under the boiler that was that. I would have bought one each of the British Railways examples and a couple of Southern jobbies but not now. I await Hornbys offerings.

 

 

Now, back to the Dean goods. I like this prototype. Not too keen on the GWR but I would have had one of these. However once again we have a lack of pride in the information going out to the press. Common sense would have said to avoid the issues around the release of the Radial and get this one right. The fact they haven't tells me one of two things, either it is sheer ineptitude or they simply don't care that much and will press on regardless.

 

Hornby make mistakes, as do Bachmann but Oxford are new to the game. Research should have shown the type of mistakes the big manufacturers make and how important it is not to repeat them.

 

A good accurate couple of models would have cemented Oxfords reputation for affordable, good quality, prototypical models.

 

It appears that neither the Radial or the Dean goods has managed this so far.

 

Instead we have cheap, erroneous models which I find easier to avoid than go out of my way to purchase......

 

 

Rob.

[BG John]

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!

I've got all the parts, including number plates, for a Belpaire version. I started fitting new wheels to the tender drive, but am thinking now that I may spend far less than I would on the Oxford one on a loco drive chassis for it.

[Edwardian]

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!

 

Agree.  That will be my approach.  If the Oxford chassis is good enough it can be used for more or less drastic plastic-surgery efforts to achieve various round-top firebox versions.

 

I do not see why the Mainline locomotive body should not be used for the belpaire versions.

 

I was planning on the round-top surgery anyway, so my "loss" is two RTR versions - a pre-1914 belpaire and a Grouping era belpaire, both of which would now need Mainline bodies, adding £80-100 to the overall costs as I will need to buy two second-hand Mainline models to correct Oxford's mistakes.  It's do-able, but I think I am nonetheless entitled to feel frustrated that it should be necessary.

 

Oxford, is that what you want?  Articles online and in magazines about "How I replaced my Oxford Rail Dean Goods body with a 35-year old moulding of the same variant because Oxford got its so badly wrong"?

 

Anyway, round-tops, in both pre and post 1906 livery are an attractive and varied subject.  Let's hope Oxford gets the chassis right.:

[KGV]

The round-top variant looks extremely elegant, and also very different from most GWR engines.

I'd definitely buy one of them if Oxford produced one in their next batch.

 

One thing that slightly bothers me is the brass dome and safety valve bonnet - the pictures and video of the model show a dull plastic finish rather than the stunning brilliance that it was.

Edited June 10, 2016 by KGV

[Edwardian]

Purely experience over the years I am afraid, I built models commercially and sold them, and such mistakes would not be tolerated then. They were tolerated on Tri-ang and Hornby, they were only toys after all, but times have changed, and 50 years of improvements to UK models are in danger of slipping backwards.

 

In the past the main reason people went to US Nmra HO was the accuracy of the models offered, at least most of them! and modellers here left the Princesses of Tri-ang well alone. It is little to do with cost, we get modern locos pretty cheap in comparison to weekly wages these days, and a few more pounds to get the details right would enhance the reputation of the designers.

 

But the designers have sold their commercial soul to the Chinese and the chickens are coming home to roost now.

 

After all of this I would still buy one, but it needs correction and a total re-paint, not because of the colour, the work to the boiler requires it.

 

Stephen.

 

I agree.  The firebox issue may be a 'lost in translation' error.  Nevertheless, it is an error and should be corrected. You can't just say "Oh well, never mind, but otherwise it looks pretty good!".  Get it right if you want our praise and our hard-earned.  Much as I welcome Oxford's move into 4mm RTR,  I can't afford to make sympathy purchases to help a wayward newbie offering.

 

The issue of radial hand-rails is poor.  Hornby has been vocally criticised for this in relation to two models as far as I am aware.  Simply to ignore that reaction and be content to replicate the error suggests that Oxford is just not trying. Find a way of achieving the necessary weight without compromising accuracy in this way. That's your job, I'm afraid, Oxford, and "it was easier to do it this way" just isn't good enough in relation to this issue. Public opinion has already decided against Hornby on that one.

 

I'd much rather Oxford spent a further year sorting these issues out and producing a proper model at the end of it.  The indiscriminate Collector may buy a version with all the imperfections so far spotted, but it will not be usable by a modeller without significant work. 

 

I am going on a bit, I know, but I am starting to feel let down that Oxford is failing to live up to its early promise.  So far, this model is looking like a criminal waste of an opportunity.

 

Furthermore, and regardless of Oxford's boasts about the accuracy they would achieve, I think that we are entitled to expect a new RTR model to reach certain pretty well defined standards of accuracy, detail and production quality.

 

Yes, if we want a round-top version, we will have to convert; no one is complaining about that.  And, yes, if we want to stick with a belpaire version, we can bash this Oxford model it to something we would not be ashamed to run on a layout, but the point is, why should we have to?  Why have to go to all that effort just to get it to correct the inaccuracies necessary to get to a reasonable representation of the "as advertised" version?

 

Why should we not expect the announced versions to be adequate?  People here, myself included, are talking about the feasibility of replacing the brand new body whole-sale with one from a 40-year old tooling!  That's crazy.  We might expect to do a bit of super-detailing and customising, but do you really want to buy a brand new RTR model that is only any good as a scratch-aid?

[coachmann]

Motor clearance will determine whether a round top Dean Goods model is possible or not. The wide church of talent is evident when some folk say the waisted firebox side cannot easily be altered while others proclaim they will chop it into a round top. We'll have to see what come out in the wash. Hornby Mag has jumped in with its sales pitch video so I wonder just how thorough it's review will be. For my part I will definitely be buying a Dean goods (now where's me Milliput?    )...

Edited June 10, 2016 by coachmann

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... It also looks as if the die cast boiler top sits on a separate plastic or metal bottom, leaving the ghastly and unsightly split along the lower side of the boiler that the LNER J15 from Hornby has...

 Whether or not this will apply to the Oxford Rail product or not we will have to see, but the construction on the Hornby J15 is exceeding neat, and very easy to adjust. Just a small amount of material removed from the two 'landings' where body and mechanism come into contact; and 'just like that' all evidence of a break line disappears. It does mean that the flanges now run very close to the insides of the splasher castings, with the risk of a short that this may entail at some future time once the mechanism has worn a little.

 

As for non-radial handrail stanchions, if it irritates me sufficiently some cranked jobs will have to be found. Bachmann used them on their class 20.

 

 

This business of two steps forward, one step back, seems a near constant in RTR OO. Bachmann having brought the centre motor drive to UK OO in a  simple and well sorted design seem unable to resist tinkering with it. What's with replacing wipers on wheelbacks of steel axled wheelsets, with split axle pick ups? Stick with what is proven. (Happily it's relatively easy to make wiper pick ups so not a complete disaster, provided there has been good materials choice and design  of the split axle assemblies so that they hold up in service.) As for their dropping the very good arrangement of springing coupled driving wheels on their locos, very sad.

 

Of the ghastliness of Hornby's flangeless wheelset arrangements in pacific rear trucks, and the horrors of their high friction tender wheel arrangements, it is hardly necessary to mention. This seems to have been the price for the gains in accuracy elsewhere on the models. Heigh ho, out tools and modify so that the running performance matches the superior external appearance.

 

Like it or not the majority of the market cares not for such things, and the published material reflects this uncritical approach, and the number of folks on forums who get exercised over such matters is tiny.

[Quarryscapes]

Well at first glance that video makes me want o cancel my pre order - that running loco looked awful as a scale model! 

 

But - it was running nicely wasn't it? An did we also notice the GWR variants had the dished smokebox door not the offset one we're used to (and that is fitted to the BR one)? Did we also notice the top feed on the lined green? 

 

The firebox isn't going to be hard to correct but is going to need a repaint afterwards, no bad thing perhaps. May I remind you that there are now a few round top conversions from mainline bodies about, including my own. If we can do that we can add a slight curve to the Oxford firebox. It looks to be separate from the cab, so probably splits similarly to the mainline version. The reverse curve at the bottom of the oxford one might be better suited to making round tops, the mainline one is too gradual really. 

 

Edited June 10, 2016 by Quarryscapes

[BG John]

I rather like the simplicity of Hornby chassis, or at least the ones I've got my hands on. A lot of the new fancy designs appear to be a nightmare to convert to EM. Drop in wheel replacements, the option to slide wheels out on the existing axles, or maybe turn up new axles for the existing wheels, at least allows for quick and easy conversions, without having to resort to doubling the cost of the loco by building a new chassis. I'm only considering buying a chassis kit for my Mainline Dean Goods because I've already got new wheels for it, bought many years ago when Ultrascales were affordable and readily available.

[No Decorum]

Of the ghastliness of Hornby's flangeless wheelset arrangements in pacific rear trucks, and the horrors of their high friction tender wheel arrangements, it is hardly necessary to mention.

 

Like it or not the majority of the market cares not for such things, and the published material reflects this uncritical approach, and the number of folks on forums who get exercised over such matters is tiny.

Hello, Tiny speaking. Bearing in mind that prices are rising and my budget is not, I have to be selective. Therefore, I look for things which rule out particular models. The two items mentioned and traction tyres come in handy for this.

 

 I might have had a fleet of fine Hornby LNER pacifics but funds have gone elsewhere. The thing is, I got one A4 and looked at the trailing wheel set. It ran in a trailing truck with four large plastic mouldings. Cutting these off allowed considerable sideplay – presumably not enough for second radius or Hornby would have designed the truck without the mouldings. Nevertheless, the flanged wheelset thoughtfully provided by Hornby didn’t make contact with the rail. At that stage, I gave up in disgust but I must get back to it and try a packing piece under the keeper plate to provide some play.

 

Back on topic. The Oxford chassis is a very sweet runner, as mentioned. Perhaps the Janus will turn out well and Oxford might think of producing some diesel shunters so far untouched.

 

[Edited for clarity.]

Edited June 10, 2016 by No Decorum

[No Decorum]

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.

Would those be the Hatton’s/DJ Models Kings and 0-4-2Ts?

[The Stationmaster]

I agree.  The firebox issue may be a 'lost in translation' error.  Nevertheless, it is an error and should be corrected. You can't just say "Oh well, never mind, but otherwise it looks pretty good!".  Get it right if you want our praise and our hard-earned.  Much as I welcome Oxford's move into 4mm RTR,  I can't afford to make sympathy purchases to help a wayward newbie offering.

 

The issue of radial hand-rails is poor.  Hornby has been vocally criticised for this in relation to two models as far as I am aware.  Simply to ignore that reaction and be content to replicate the error suggests that Oxford is just not trying. Find a way of achieving the necessary weight without compromising accuracy in this way. That's your job, I'm afraid, Oxford, and "it was easier to do it this way" just isn't good enough in relation to this issue. Public opinion has already decided against Hornby on that one.

 

I'd much rather Oxford spent a further year sorting these issues out and producing a proper model at the end of it.  The indiscriminate Collector may buy a version with all the imperfections so far spotted, but it will not be usable by a modeller without significant work. 

 

I am going on a bit, I know, but I am starting to feel let down that Oxford is failing to live up to its early promise.  So far, this model is looking like a criminal waste of an opportunity.

 

Furthermore, and regardless of Oxford's boasts about the accuracy they would achieve, I think that we are entitled to expect a new RTR model to reach certain pretty well defined standards of accuracy, detail and production quality.

 

Yes, if we want a round-top version, we will have to convert; no one is complaining about that.  And, yes, if we want to stick with a belpaire version, we can bash this Oxford model it to something we would not be ashamed to run on a layout, but the point is, why should we have to?  Why have to go to all that effort just to get it to correct the inaccuracies necessary to get to a reasonable representation of the "as advertised" version?

 

Why should we not expect the announced versions to be adequate?  People here, myself included, are talking about the feasibility of replacing the brand new body whole-sale with one from a 40-year old tooling!  That's crazy.  We might expect to do a bit of super-detailing and customising, but do you really want to buy a brand new RTR model that is only any good as a scratch-aid?

 

I think this post illustrates a particular problem consequential on outsourcing most of the work on a model to a country a very long way away.  My experience (albeit limited) of model development by the Chinese companies is that first of all there are good 'uns and secondly there are not such good ones - but no doubt folk find out the hard way.  But far more important than that is that even the good ones - who can be very good and top notch with their design work when given the right information actually employ human beings and they can - like any other human - make errors.  Equally the folk studying the CADs and EPs when they arrive in Britain can miss things and even the multifude of RMweb can do the same when CADs or EPs are presented to them in the way that some companies are excellent at.

 

All of that reinforces one key point - it is absolutely critical that the factory is given the correct specification in the first place.  Then that time is taken - ideally by several different people who know what they are looking at - when CADs are sent for development comments/confirmation.  And next that EPs are equally carefully studied as well as first shots of the mouldings then the various powered and decoration samples etc.  Ideally - in order to preserve reputation, if nothing else, nothing should be allowed into the public domain as an ostensibly complete or final model unless it is right, but sometimes even that goes wrong and decoration samples should be clearly identified as such.

 

If commissioners (including so called 'manufacturers') don't do this and don't spend the time it takes (which can be considerable) then they have to take the consequences but if they advertise to imply they are working to a particular standard then they should do so - and spend the time and money it takes to get their product to the level they ascribe to it.  Oxford it would appear have yet to get that message and - let's face - they cant even get the common name of this one right on their own website!

[No Decorum]

…they cant even get the common name of this one right on their own website!

It hasn’t even been corrected when the mistake has been pointed out. It hardly requires a major re-tool does it?

[Les1952]

"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."

 

I sometimes wonder if members of this forum want ANY manufacturer to succeed.  How many of those bellyaching about the firebox now didn't look at it then?  If you did, and spotted it but failed to report it that makes the continuation of the error partly your own fault.

 

Oxford have retooled (expensively) models before, and might, with a degree of politeness that has been noticeably lacking in some recent posts, be persuaded that it is in their interests to do so again.  However it will have to wait for a second production run, as I suspect the first run is already being made, or even on the boat.

 

Fortunately there are enough out there who WILL buy it.   Not me because it is the wrong scale and region.  NOT because of rampant negativity expressed on this forum.

 

Les

[Edwardian]

Well at first glance that video makes me want o cancel my pre order - that running loco looked awful as a scale model! 

 

But - it was running nicely wasn't it? An did we also notice the GWR variants had the dished smokebox door not the offset one we're used to (and that is fitted to the BR one)? Did we also notice the top feed on the lined green? 

 

The firebox isn't going to be hard to correct but is going to need a repaint afterwards, no bad thing perhaps. May I remind you that there are now a few round top conversions from mainline bodies about, including my own. If we can do that we can add a slight curve to the Oxford firebox. It looks to be separate from the cab, so probably splits similarly to the mainline version. The reverse curve at the bottom of the oxford one might be better suited to making round tops, the mainline one is too gradual really. 

 

P1050129.jpg

 

I don't disagree with any of that.  I don't shy from the idea of attempting a round-top conversion (and the results are entirely at my own risk!).  I don't shy away from work to correct or replace the belpaire body shell.  I don't, as a consequence, shy away from the need to repaint and/or re-line.  

 

What I object to is a manufacturer offering (1) a lined green pre-WW1 version and (2) an inter-war version, neither of which are acceptable and that will need surgery and a re-paint before they resemble the prototypes they claim to be.  That is simply not good enough.

 

We have enough of a problem with abysmal hangers own, still being hawked and re-tooled, e.g. the Hornby Terrier, but we accept these old unacceptable models take time to replace.  There is no excuse for such inaccuracies in a new model, however. 

[bertiedog]

Only time will reveal, but it may be the body is far more complex in design than it seems at first glance.

 

As it appears to be die-cast from the handrail mountings method, it will have the footplate as a separate casting, as per latest Hornby, and it may be the cab, firebox and boiler are separate die castings, to ease a round top option later on.

 

This potentially makes the swap with old version for Airfix more problematic, but it may match up. If the firebox is separate then Oxford have an opportunity for a last minute correction.

 

I have dropped them a line about this by post, and await a response with deep interest. these sort of issues like the handrail knobs are indicative that these models are being built in the same conglomerate Chinese semi nationalised companies, as they have a vast influence on the engineering decisions, having developed in house methods and designs that  are used on the orders from the Western Suppliers.

It is becoming obvious that the Western suppliers no longer have the expertise, staff, or knowledge to be able to design an item from scratch.

 

The lovingly cherished CAD drawings that are shown by UK "makers" are the give away, nobody in a real factory gives a toss about the 3D Drawings, they are simply the base for the development work in the tooling.

 

Hornby are typical, they do not make anything, any experience of a factory to staff these days is thousands of miles away. Most staff in England have never seen a CN C centre or lathe, let alone used one. They are a wholesale warehouse company for FE products, with a research and sales team....

 

Bachmann are a bit different as the Kader group have more experience with the vast US market, and should be more careful in designing new models.

 

Oxford from the evidence so far are being made in the same factories as Hornby or else they are cribbing design methods on the quiet. I suspect the governing factor is Chinese middle managers , who now rule the roost in the production, they are responsible for the whole thing as far as the build is concerned.

 

I have a feeling, which can be disproved by examples if they want, that Hornby, and others, barely design the details on the models, they merely outline the project on a computer spec file, and then leave it to the Chinese to do the donkey work.

 

This is asking for  trouble, as up till recently , the Chinese , and to some extent the Japanese, took a deep pride in delivering exactly what was ordered, complete wit mistakes by the Western maker. Order a cheap product and that's what is delivered. Order a full spec PC with Bells and Whistles and they deliver.

 

Up till now the average middle manager in Shanghai has no idea what western expectations, standards, morals, or tastes are !!!! They were new to the game, and the temptation all UK Business men and the Accountants were being offered were amazing cost savings. It delighted them to get good marketable items at bargain prices. They could then sell the UK factory sites for hard cash, loose staff, and just sit back and watch the products sell.

 

And that's the problem, they got rid of staff, UK personnel who knew both the models and real thing in our case. A dandy CAD program, and a scanner do make a model. It takes weeks to simply go through the scans to correct "invisible" planes on the scan, correct for untrue surfaces, recesses, holes etc, etc., and simply understand the programmers interpretation of  the raw data.

 

I don't know how much of the development from the CAD is done in house in the UK, after all such work can be done via the net easily now, but it seems the  Chinese are responsible for a lot more input now, and we are seeing certain traits in design creeping in, prove me wrong please, show us the UK development offices and staff......

 

I worked in Scientific Instrument making and optics, and an example was a specialist theodolite used in the Airport industry to set landing lights up. The Company that marketed them told us straight, ours were too expensive, a French company had re-designed it, and were getting a Chinese maker to do it. The Cad showed the same accuracy could be produced +/- nothing, or better. They had samples made, and got them sent direct to us in the UK to show that te quality was OK..... They were junk.....pressed steel where aged castings were used, drilled bearings, no reaming or lapping, slop all over the place, paint in bearings, weak legs made of aluminium extrusions. It failed all accuracy tests.

 

We tore it apart and labelled the troubles and got interesting replies from the Company that they had assumed it would be built to the exact standards set in the CAD program. They sent the files, and yes, if perfection existed then the files would have made good parts, but not in the real world! They replaced the orders with the UK source, us, after trying second time to get the Chinese to make to the CAD files, upon which the company found the parts were not capable of assembly.

 

It needs good old fashioned expertise to make models, and till the makers can prove they have it, the court is in recess!

[Edwardian]

"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."

 

I sometimes wonder if members of this forum want ANY manufacturer to succeed.  How many of those bellyaching about the firebox now didn't look at it then?  If you did, and spotted it but failed to report it that makes the continuation of the error partly your own fault.

 

Oxford have retooled (expensively) models before, and might, with a degree of politeness that has been noticeably lacking in some recent posts, be persuaded that it is in their interests to do so again.  However it will have to wait for a second production run, as I suspect the first run is already being made, or even on the boat.

 

Fortunately there are enough out there who WILL buy it.   Not me because it is the wrong scale and region.  NOT because of rampant negativity expressed on this forum.

 

Les

 

I'm afraid I think you're wrong in this instance.

 

I have been amazed and dismayed by some of, what to me, seems like nit-picking.  I found this, for instance, on the Hatton 4800 topic.

 

I have also been frustrated and depressed by the amount of "belly-aching" and running down of manufacturers.

 

It is always best to be positive.  I bought the Locomotion GNR Atlantic, despite the mistake over the splasher tops.  I was disappointed by compromises on the pre-ordered  STEAM Star, but I still bought the general release version.  I don't expect perfection and I am glad that these locomotives were modelled, and generally modelled well, rather than not.  I can choose to fix or to ignore the relatively minor mistakes or compromises, and hope that they are not repeated in other models.

 

There is a point at which the problems tip the balance against a model, and there is a degree of subjectivity in terms of what tips the balance for a given modeller.  From what we have been shown so far, I fear that, for me, the balance is tipping against the Oxford Dean Goods.  It evidently isn't for you,  but then again, you were not going to buy it anyway as its the wrong scale and "region" for you, so, really, why should I, who am a potential customer, care that you are not persuaded that it is inaccurate to a problematic extent?

 

If there is something equally bad as the blanket negativity of know-it-all rivet counters, it is a manufacturer expecting me to buy its inadequate best effort. 

[bertiedog]

Hmm, rampant negativity on RM web, heaven forfend, do you live in a world of stale bread being sold as fresh, part rotted meat, books with spelling mistakes, three wheeled cars...or dear we did!.. and me saving for a Morgan!

 

We demand seats with four level legs, tables that don't rock, drawers that fit, clothes stitched together correctly, it goes with the game of modern consumerism, you do not have to tug the forelock to a maker, show deference to them, he is doing you no favours, you do not have to buy it, he is not a benefactor to mankind, he is in it to earn a crust, and getting things wrong risks the entire business going belly up.

 

Demand the best and pay the going rate, that is what drives the makers to produce better, they do not do it out of kindness or compassion for you, and you do not have to be non judgemental out of miss placed compassion to them. It is a dog eat dog world out there, and we should defend standards, not put up with slips and blunders.

 

Stephen.

[Adams442T]

I decided on the Hornby Adams Radial when I managed to order one for less than £20 more than the Oxford.  Well worth it in my opinion to avoid a 'cut and shut' on the frame block and a rebuild of the lower boiler and subsequent paint matching.

 

I initially purchased a Bachmann G2a 0-8-0 hoping to convert it to a round top boiler LNWR version, but the cast block intruding under the Belpaire boiler has so far put me off doing so. If, and I accept it's an 'if', the Oxford Dean Goods has a similar intrusive 'lump' this may prevent an easy adaptation as well.

 

It may be of course that they have anticipated issuing a round top boiler version at some later stage and reduced the casting in anticipation of this.  I do hope so.

 

I don't see deserved criticism of what appears to be a major error as 'rampant negativity'.  The error in the Adams (which I was hoping to support Oxford in by purchasing at least 3) was unfortunate to say the least, following up with a second loco with lesser, but still it would appear significant errors is IMHO foolish in the extreme.

[BG John]

I think a problem with spotting errors early on is that it's not easy to tell if the early pictures we see are of the actual model in it's current stage of development, or something knocked up by the marketing people. Lots of problems were spotted early on, but it wasn't clear what we were actually looking at, and it often seemed to be a quick Photoshop job with things wrong that we couldn't believe would be on the final version. So when we start to see the actual model, with the errors buyers will be stuck with, we'd already spent months discussing errors that may not even have existed on the actual model.

[coachmann]

In the days when Triang made toys, or it might have been Triang/Hornby, I recall an interview with a model magazine. The mag was told that the company could produce perfect scale models if it wanted to but that it was in the toy market where models had to be tough, simple and reliable. After around 2001 Hornby did indeed start to produce really fine models and they just got better (apart from the DesClev dip). But no matter how small or large a company is, it has to have men on board who know their stuff. I'm a one-man producer, but I have eyes! The old adage that before embarking on building and painting a model, one should amass as many photographs as is possible still stands as true as it ever did. If Oxford employs such a man, then he should have been aware of all the Dean Goods subtleties. It matters not that the Belpaire firebox on these loco had two differing profiles so long as an accurate one was chosen.

[bertiedog]

For those who do say that it's nit picking or getting at people, would you then accept the Tri-ang Princess as a scale model? or the original Coronation, with it's non-setting varnish, over a completely wrong body and chassis? With good grace you could forgive Tri-ang, they made toys, not models, but standards have changed dramatically.

 

The  Atlantic Splashers were down to costs in the tooling of the moulds, a redesign was probably to late and costly, and appearance was not really spoilt, but it should be recorded and the consumer should expect no such error next time, unless your a very complacent consumer, the type makers cherish!!! They love no complaints, no problems and compliant easy to please consumers. Trouble is modelling a loco is a nightmare, but they are volunteering to do it, and should expect the flack as well as well earned praise.

 

Stephen.

[Hroth]

Well, Hattons are quoting the non-sound Goods as July - September, so if that holds then we're going to be stuck with a "Rare! Collectable!" (in ebay terms...) model for the first issue, and if everyone suddenly holds back on getting at least one, then there won't be any more.  The Oxford Rail site is very coy about expected delivery dates for OR76DG001-3 so its a bit of a guess where they're up to and how much leeway there is between the painted samples and ok-ing for production.

 

As for the handrails and firebox, the handrails need the fixing holes dropped by a mm or so (less than?) on the CADs and as mentioned above use a slightly angled stanchion. The firebox problem might also be solved by a quick tweak of the CADs and a run through the tooling to adjust the profile, it appears to be just a matter of removing a bit more metal to achieve the correct profile.  Of course, at this stage even getting the tooling off the factory and back to the toolroom might be a bit of a faff!  (This paragraph can be taken as a bit of optimistic handwaving, as I've no idea as to how do-able it would be in a production environment!)

 

The Paint job?  Well recent discussions in MREmag about colour balance problems might throw a (ahem) light on the brightness of the colour on the Dean Goods. It might just be an overenthusiastic digital camera modifying the appearance of the model.  If it actually IS that virulent shade of green, then it might be changed, after all that's  what a decoration sample is for!

 

Finally, is it just me, or is that cabside numberplate, apart from being at a dodgy angle, a tad too large?