Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[amdaley]

Thank you for that information Edwardian.

It sounds like there's hope for this model yet.

[Edwardian]

The problem with fixing some of the problems, and being able to do any version, is that having decided to carry on with my Mainline one, will what they release first actually be worth me buying? Or if I do, will they later bring out exactly what I wanted? I could end up with three Dean Goods if I'm not careful, and I don't really need one at all!

 

Thinking ahead to my next broad gauge layout, I wonder if they'll do an as built version that I could convert to P4, to encourage me to complicate the layout by making it mixed gauge!

 

One day, Oxford will doubtless produce a round-top firebox version in Indian Red frames,

 

Resistance at that point becomes futile!

[BG John]

One day, Oxford will doubtless produce a round-top firebox version in Indian Red frames,

 

Resistance at that point becomes futile!

The hope then is that it will have been made in a way that makes it impractical to convert to EM, for an early 1900s version, or P4 for a pre 1892 one!

[Quarryscapes]

 

But a new mould for the boiler would still be a costly option, but I suspect that the existing one could be modified to alter the shape.

 

Stephen.

 

Are we sure that there is anything diecast in the model in the first place? I may have missed it of course but I have seen no mention of the use of metal in the loco's construction?

[bertiedog]

Are we sure that there is anything diecast in the model in the first place? I may have missed it of course but I have seen no mention of the use of metal in the loco's construction?

The clue is the non radial handrails, a plastic boiler does not require the odd fitting method, also others have described the footplate as metal die cast. It is near identical to the Hornby J15 in construction and has the same under boiler method for the splits.

Stephen.

[Loconuts]

I think you guys are missing the point behind the Oxford Rail marketing strategy regarding their models. It is very obvious that they are aiming these models at the collectors market and not at the precision end of the market. they dropped several clangers with the Radial and now are going to do the same with the Dean goods. Oxford Rail are going to use these models as platforms to produce various liveries and the collectors will be happy to buy them, they do not care if the firebox is the wrong shape or if the smokebox door and the cab is wrong as long as the price is right and it comes in various liveries they are happy and yes if it looks roughly like a Dean goods or Radial. I am waiting to see if Oxford Rail are going to produce the Radial in Southern livery with two sets of safety valves on as they have shown in the announcement of the loco.

 

Loconuts

[Horsetan]

I think you guys are missing the point behind the Oxford Rail marketing strategy regarding their models. It is very obvious that they are aiming these models at the collectors market and not at the precision end of the market. ...

 

Why not ask OxfordRail to confirm this?

[Hroth]

I think you guys are missing the point behind the Oxford Rail marketing strategy regarding their models. It is very obvious that they are aiming these models at the collectors market and not at the precision end of the market...

Loconuts

Hmmmm....

 

What sort of collectors?  The sort who buy things like the Great British Locomotives partwork?  Or the sort who want a set of locos in all the liveries they wore when working? Or the sort who collect a precision engineered model because?  Yes, Oxford make diecast models for collectors in other areas, and for people to buy who aren't collectors but want a keepsake of a day out (the IoM loco and tram for example) but those diecast models also have an application in the world of railway modelling and we don't buy model cars just to get a full set of 1:76 Ford Anglias!

 

Collecting is a pretty broad church on its own, and yet is only part of the spectrum of railway modellers in general.  And that just brought to mind another group of "collectors", all those "Rule 1" modellers who buy a loco because they like the appearance, even if it won't have an application for their layout.  Hornby have lived on this group for years, after all how many people really need a CotN or a DoG for their layout?

 

Personally I have the feeling that Oxford Rail are in the market of selling railway models to railway modellers, and it doesn't matter which category you want to pigeonhole yourself.

[coachmann]

If it is aimed at the collectors market, why bother to call it a Dean Goods? Why not A Typical Great British Heritage steam puffer from that fabled industrial unit at Swindon.

[Edwardian]

I think you guys are missing the point behind the Oxford Rail marketing strategy regarding their models. It is very obvious that they are aiming these models at the collectors market and not at the precision end of the market. they dropped several clangers with the Radial and now are going to do the same with the Dean goods. Oxford Rail are going to use these models as platforms to produce various liveries and the collectors will be happy to buy them, they do not care if the firebox is the wrong shape or if the smokebox door and the cab is wrong as long as the price is right and it comes in various liveries they are happy and yes if it looks roughly like a Dean goods or Radial. I am waiting to see if Oxford Rail are going to produce the Radial in Southern livery with two sets of safety valves on as they have shown in the announcement of the loco.

 

Loconuts

 

I suspect that yours is a premature judgment and I would hope that it would not be proved correct.  What you suggest is obvious is, I'm afraid, not obvious to me, but, of course, I may be missing something here.

 

There are, no doubt, some strange obsessives out there whom we refer to by the much kinder appellation of "collectors", but I don't think we are talking about Oxford Rail customers as people who might want everyone of a hundred different liveried 1960s Bedford Ice Cream Vans, or whatever.  On the whole I think Oxford Rail customers will likely prove to be no different from Blue Box and Red Box customers, with varying degrees of need for prototype fidelity.

 

Much as I deplore, and increasingly come to resent, money-spinning 'fast ones' like squeezing a stream of inappropriate wagon liveries out of your groaning RCH 1923 7 Plank toolings, everyone does this. No one says, as a result, "don't buy Blue Box or Red Box because they have no regard for accuracy" (well, some people might, but you know what I mean!).

 

Making a toy train range doesn't make sense for Oxford or for anyone else.  I am not sure the market particularly need a second Railroad range (much as this range has its uses).  There is also no point in making model railway locomotives if they are to be model locomotives, only not quite good enough compared with the opposition.

 

I am bound to assume, therefore, that Oxford are making every reasonable effort to produce accurate models of good quality.

 

If you have spotted an inaccuracy on an early sample or image of the Southern Radial, I would encourage you to contact Oxford about it.

 

In the case of the Dean Goods, there is one criticism that it appears possible to discount, that of the of the willy-nilly application of every conceivable livery to the same tooling, because Oxford has stated that the tooling "suite" will allow for variants.  I take that to mean physical differences, as opposed to livery changes.  Of course, Oxford might not get the combination right every time, but provided that a given model looked like a particular Dean Goods at some time in its life, you can go out and buy the right etched number plates.  And those who can't be bothered to research a match will presumably content with any variant the manufacturer offers them.

 

If there are any queries or points of concern about the Dean, really I think it is best for all concerned to raise them asap with Oxford.  Otherwise, as has been said before, and not just by me, I suspect we really need to wait and see before passing judgment.

If it is aimed at the collectors market, why bother to call it a Dean Goods? Why not A Typical Great British Heritage steam puffer from that fabled industrial unit at Swindon.

 

Sounds like a Honda with a hole in its exhaust

Edited June 14, 2016 by Edwardian

[PMP]

The clue is the non radial handrails, a plastic boiler does not require the odd fitting method, also others have described the footplate as metal die cast. It is near identical to the Hornby J15 in construction and has the same under boiler method for the splits.

Stephen.

 

The locomotive body and tender body are plastic. https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/2016-british-toy-fair/

[Edwardian]

The locomotive body and tender body are plastic. https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/2016-british-toy-fair/

 

Yes, I forgot to mention this.

 

It seems that the lower segment of the boiler, along with the 2 leading splashers and the running plate may be in metal/mazak or whatnot.  That may have implications for versions that should have a different boiler diameter or lower pitch, but is, obviously, not an issue for the boiler-smoke-box handrail, which Oxford has said were hand fitted to the sample and do not show how they will look when fitted with their jig, and they aim to get this right, they say.

 

So, again, while Oxford may or may not ultimately get this aspect right, it is not possible to conclude that they will not based upon the pictures you have so far seen!

[The Stationmaster]

I am inclined to say - not for the first time with an r-t-r model (and even of some kits) - that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.  The fact that t got to what is being acknowledged to be EP stage with a serious issues with the firebox shape suggests to me lack of care.  It is, I know full well, not the hardest thing in the world to make errors when assessing/reviewing CADs and it shouldn't need an EP to bring major errors to light as it's purpose is mainly to check fit of parts etc and prove the assembly processes for the model.

 

Hence I am waiting to see what actually comes to market (although I have no wish to buy one anyway, but a nice Armstrong Standard [haha] Goods might have tempted me albeit completely out of period for my scenario). 

[BG John]

Hence I am waiting to see what actually comes to market (although I have no wish to buy one anyway, but a nice Armstrong Standard [haha] Goods might have tempted me albeit completely out of period for my scenario). 

Not yet though. The traverser hidden under the train shed on Small, Broad and Totally Pointless is only long enough for a tank engine, and there's no way I could have one of those without converting it to broad gauge!

[rovex]

 

I hope people will forgive me for posting these two photos again but I thought it would be interesting to see them side by side.

 

The first one was published on here on 26 Jan 2016, the second more recently.

 

Now I can't tell much difference between the two boiler profiles, so I find it interesting the invective that has been poured down of Oxford Rails head in the last week over something that was wrong back in January and yet no one seems to have noticed.

 

I'm no expert on Dean Goods boiler profiles, and would probably never have noticed the error (if indeed it is one).

 

Will I still buy one, yes, why - because it looks enough like a Dean goods to fool me and will no doubt run a dxxn sight more smoothly then my old Mainline and Hornby examples.

 

So please, yes it is disappointing that the model isn't perfect, but can we please stop behaving as though Oxford Rail have committed crimes against humanity.

 

Dean

[amdaley]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Oxford have committed any crime.

People are only saying that there is no need for some of the errors as the correct information is there for the asking.

Oxford have already received information from members on here which I hope they will use.

I for one want them to succeed but I want them to do so by producing models which are as correct as possible.

[JSpencer]

I think you guys are missing the point behind the Oxford Rail marketing strategy regarding their models. It is very obvious that they are aiming these models at the collectors market and not at the precision end of the market. they dropped several clangers with the Radial and now are going to do the same with the Dean goods. Oxford Rail are going to use these models as platforms to produce various liveries and the collectors will be happy to buy them, they do not care if the firebox is the wrong shape or if the smokebox door and the cab is wrong as long as the price is right and it comes in various liveries they are happy and yes if it looks roughly like a Dean goods or Radial. I am waiting to see if Oxford Rail are going to produce the Radial in Southern livery with two sets of safety valves on as they have shown in the announcement of the loco.

 

Loconuts

Several clangers? No, a few yes. I was slightly disappointed with the Radial (like I was with the 72XX from Hornby) due to these few clangers and the build quality (slightly curved running plate, like the 72xx). But the model has performed well and they are hopefully learning from it. As a teacher would say "a good start but could do better".

 

I don,t think they are aimed "specifically" at collectors though. More like trying to keep price and the model reasonable.

[dibber25]

I am inclined to say - not for the first time with an r-t-r model (and even of some kits) - that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.  The fact that t got to what is being acknowledged to be EP stage with a serious issues with the firebox shape suggests to me lack of care.  It is, I know full well, not the hardest thing in the world to make errors when assessing/reviewing CADs and it shouldn't need an EP to bring major errors to light as it's purpose is mainly to check fit of parts etc and prove the assembly processes for the model.

 

Hence I am waiting to see what actually comes to market (although I have no wish to buy one anyway, but a nice Armstrong Standard [haha] Goods might have tempted me albeit completely out of period for my scenario). 

It is surely most likely to be the need to accommodate the motor and/or gearbox within the firebox that leads to the firebox shape - the reason why the old Dean goods had the motor in the tender - a narrow lower firebox simply won't accommodate it. (also most likely the reason it couldn't be changed at the EP stage - although (as far as I can recall) I've yet to see any manufacturer make MAJOR changes at EP stage, despite the fact that, in theory, it is possible.  (CJL)

[grahame]

I've yet to see any manufacturer make MAJOR changes at EP stage, despite the fact that, in theory, it is possible.

 

Dapol scrapped their class 33 EPs a few years back and started afresh. Consequently its only just getting to market. And I'm sure other manufacturers have made quite major/significant changes after production of an EP.

 

G

[bertiedog]

Lets hope the handrails being level, not radial, has a quick fix, after all it seems the top is plastic, so there should be no excuses, it is far easier to modify. Lest people forget it took about 50 odd years to get Hornby to put any handrails on models except moulded lines, so reminding Oxford to get them right is just maintaining the current standards and not letting them slip backwards.

Just wish they would do earlier outside frame locos though...........

Stephen

[coachmann]

I'm sure those who care and those who can will alter the shape of the lower firebox to something that looks more acceptable. As it stands, it looks like a man's shirt loosely tucked into his trousers when it should look like a fully fashioned teeshirt on a shapely woman..... Somehow I doubt accommodating a motor has anything to do with it seeing as that same motor has to clear the bottom of the firebox when removing the chassis, but then again who knows....

Edited June 21, 2016 by coachmann

[Edwardian]

I'm sure those who care and those who can will alter the shape of the lower firebox to something that looks more acceptable. As it stands, it looks like a man's shirt loosely tucked into his trousers when it should look like a fully fashioned teeshirt on a shapely woman..... Somehow I doubt accommodating a motor has anything to do with it seeing as that same motor has to clear the bottom of the firebox when removing the chassis, but then again who knows....

 

Put like that, it seems all the more desirable to encourage Oxford to get the shape right! 

[Hroth]

I'm sure those who care and those who can will alter the shape of the lower firebox to something that looks more acceptable. As it stands, it looks like a man's shirt loosely tucked into his trousers when it should look like a fully fashioned teeshirt on a shapely woman..... Somehow I doubt accommodating a motor has anything to do with it seeing as that same motor has to clear the bottom of the firebox when removing the chassis, but then again who knows.....

Yes, that "pinched" appearance, instead of a graceful curve. It actually reminds me more of the start of a beer belly, if you get my drift....

 

As for motor accommodation, bringing out the firebox profile would allow the interior to be eased too, preserving the thickness of the "wall", reducing the possibility of mis-shaping through excessive thickness and leaving more space around the motor!

[rembrow]

Dapol scrapped their class 33 EPs a few years back and started afresh. Consequently its only just getting to market. And I'm sure other manufacturers have made quite major/significant changes after production of an EP.

 

G

 

Agree. I was told by a retailer years ago, when there was a long delay with the production of the initial Bachmann Ivatt 2-6-2 tank, that after the first ep, Bachmann/Kader tried to alter the cab roof profile in the tool and damaged it beyond repair. DJ Models has also recently changed the cab corner profiles of the forthcoming Class71 after the first ep stage, when it was found that the lower profile wasn't correct. 

Edited June 21, 2016 by rembrow

[BG John]

My Dean Goods dilemma is resolved. Not only don't I need one, although I would rather like one, but now tracklaying on my EM layout is progressing well, I've discovered it won't fit! So no new Oxford one, or continuation with my Mainline conversion.

 

I do have long term ideas for the Mainline one, although probably a few years off, when it may be backdated to as built condition in P4, if Oxford haven't produced one by then, but it can stay in it's box of bits for the foreseeable future, and reduce the jobs queuing up to go into the works.