Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[Edwardian]

As someone who simply likes the late Victorian origin small 0-6-0 as a genre, that says 'ker-ching'. It's a useful mechanism - assuming it's accurate and as good a runner as the Adams Radial! - as it has the Ramsbottom dimensions found on early Crewe designs, and copied widely around the UK's loco works as a thoroughly proven layout.

 

Agree with both you and Alan.  The chassis will be a valuable resource.

 

I have hopes of a round-top fire-box Dean Goods conversion using the Oxford model, but, for a Belpaire, I'd go for the Mainline body over Oxford's every time.

 

There must be a number of pre-Group designs with near-enough this wheel size and centres, and I am grateful to learn that Ramsbottom types are among them.

[The Stationmaster]

Fortunately I don't want one but apart from the firebox error I do find it a peculiar mish-mash of details - which might of course simply be a consequence of seeing livery samples on incorrectly detailed bodies.  However overall the lack of attention to getting details right - which I know is not a simple task, especially with GWR engines - betrays something of a slapdash (and possibly hurried or money saving?) approach to design and specification.  But the lined version is pretty (even if the detail is obviously wrong) so no doubt it will appeal to the toy market and if the chassis and tender are any good it might well appeal to a wider market.

Edited September 29, 2016 by The Stationmaster

[JSpencer]

The chassis will be a very valuable source if they can be obtained separately.  But I for one won't be spending out £110 to then dispose of a Dean body and tender.

 

Maybe - someday - when there be a smashed secondhand one....

[Ian Hargrave]

Just thinking out loud....

 

Perhaps they're sorting out the firebox, but to try to keep on "schedule", the final decoration example has been produced on pre-production bodies that are to hand rather than waiting for possible revised firebox samples?

 

Ok, I'm a perennial optimist!

 

But it does look very pretty....

 

Ummm

 

I'm no shedplate guru, but isn't a number/letter combination an LMS/BR fad?  According to listings on "The Great Western Archive" (  http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_gwr_sheds.htm ) 88K was used for Brecon (BCN) from 1961. 

 

I stand to be corrected.

That's a flight of fancy.88K for all practical purposes did not exist.Brecon received no allocation of locos when given the code..Though,when I read this thread,as a Valleys boy ,it did cause a moment's head scratching.I do not recall seeing one anywhere in South Wales.The 88 codes were Cardiff Valleys division until 1960...so I began to count in 88 letters.....no joy there.

[rovex]

Apparently now due November/December 2016 according to an email just received from Hattons.

 

I'm not holding my breath for a rectified fire box

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

That's a flight of fancy.88K for all practical purposes did not exist.Brecon received no allocation of locos when given the code..Though,when I read this thread,as a Valleys boy ,it did cause a moment's head scratching.I do not recall seeing one anywhere in South Wales.The 88 codes were Cardiff Valleys division until 1960...so I began to count in 88 letters.....no joy there.

 

Hello Ian et al,

 

I can't vouch for 88K and Brecon, but according to Mr. John Hodge's "The North & West Route Vol 3B" Dean Goods No. 2385 was allocated to Pontypool Road at an unspecified time in the early 50s. The code for Pontypool Road at that time was 86G. I am probably committing a heresy by asking this, but was Pontypool Road in Wales or England? (grabs coat and heads for exit...).

 

Next question: I'm not that familiar with the Dean goods compared to Collett and Hawksworth machines. There are people on here who are vastly knowledgable. Could someone please tell me what (apart from the firebox) is inaccurate about the model? To my untrained eye it looks pretty good but I am happy to stand corrected.

 

Finally, I have yet to see much evidence that manufacturers are prepared to retool models once the project has passed the EP milestone even in the face of glaring errors. I can think of only one recent example - the 2012 Bachmann "Modified Hall", reintroduced in 2015 and I'm afraid not exactly a happy precedent........

[Hroth]

Hello Ian et al,

 

I can't vouch for 88K and Brecon, but according to Mr. John Hodge's "The North & West Route Vol 3B" Dean Goods No. 2385 was allocated to Pontypool Road at an unspecified time in the early 50s. The code for Pontypool Road at that time was 86G. I am probably committing a heresy by asking this, but was Pontypool Road in Wales or England? (grabs coat and heads for exit...).

 

Next question: I'm not that familiar with the Dean goods compared to Collett and Hawksworth machines. There are people on here who are vastly knowledgable. Could someone please tell me what (apart from the firebox) is inaccurate about the model? To my untrained eye it looks pretty good but I am happy to stand corrected.

 

Finally, I have yet to see much evidence that manufacturers are prepared to retool models once the project has passed the EP milestone even in the face of glaring errors. I can think of only one recent example - the 2012 Bachmann "Modified Hall", reintroduced in 2015 and I'm afraid not exactly a happy precedent........

*chokes*

Ok, there's two miles of river estuary between me and Wales, but I think "Pontypool" is its own answer!  Road, of course, means that its nowhere NEAR the place....  I had a quick google, and Pontypool itself is near Sebastopol.  Make of that what you will.

 

Didn't the recalled 2015 Bachmann Modified Hall fail to please even in its later incarnation? 

[mikeharvey22]

Pontypool Road.

 

http://www.railuk.info/steam/getshed.php?id=611

[Steamport Southport]

Beat me to it.

 

Another very useful site.

 

 

. http://www.brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=main&id=431

 

 

 

Jason

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

*chokes*

Ok, there's two miles of river estuary between me and Wales, but I think "Pontypool" is its own answer!  Road, of course, means that its nowhere NEAR the place....  I had a quick google, and Pontypool itself is near Sebastopol.  Make of that what you will.

 

Didn't the recalled 2015 Bachmann Modified Hall fail to please even in its later incarnation? 

 

 

Re: Pontypool Road - Not as idiotic a question as it first seems! When the the GWR named a station "Road" it was often miles away from the town it purported to serve and I simply don't know where the border lies. Absolutely no intention to offend our Welsh confreres

 

Re: Bachmann Modified Hall - my point precisely.

 

Regards,

 

7007.

[Quarryscapes]

They might redo the firebox, and the chimney, and the smokebox doors, and they might properly position the number plate. We won't know till it's released sadly. Remember the last photos seen of the NBR 4 plank before the real thing arrived were not a great indicator - there was missing strapping and a very curious brake arrangement, but the released model was just fine. I hope they address the issues, but I doubt they will do all of it. 

[bertiedog]

 

 

 

Next question: I'm not that familiar with the Dean goods compared to Collett and Hawksworth machines. There are people on here who are vastly knowledgable. Could someone please tell me what (apart from the firebox) is inaccurate about the model? To my untrained eye it looks pretty good but I am happy to stand corrected.

Apart from the usual, "it is wrong for me as the ****** was not fitted at ***** shed on a Thursday in 1930 ", there is nothing major wrong with the appearance etc, and I expect the dimensions are correct, but the firebox is just not a GWR Belpaire firebox, it is all wrong in shape, with slab sides, and a sudden thinning at the bottom, rather than an elegant tapered waisting down to the strengthening side plates.

 

It seems that such a comment is carping, but would anybody buy a loco with the wrong tender?, or the wrong length footplate, a reduced sized boiler?.. no, of course not.

 

It is a mistake and hopefully the round top version mentioned will come out and get around the issue, but at the moment a new maker is trying to sell a model that simply is wrong in a major way, which simply should not happen these days. The loco exists in the museum, it should have been scanned and measured and hundreds of photos taken. It is a well known design, very full drawings exist at Swindon and at York, so getting it wrong places the ball firmly in Oxford's court.

 

If I built one, ( and I did several) commercially, and made the firebox in the shape they are supplying, then customers would have rightly complained that the wrong shape was fitted. GWR enthusiasts are, bless them, the most pedantic customers for locos and they contain in their ranks many very expert enthusiasts.....I know, I have had lectures from them on such issues as the washout plugs positions, cladding splits on Castles, and do not mention the tops of Pannier tanks!!!

 

In the past you might have forgiven Mr Graham Farish Snr for the King Boiler, a ghastly shape by modern standards, or the dimensions of Hornby Dublo's Castle, due to the huge Ringfield motor.

 

But the standards these days are so much higher, and this whole issue shows how a small slip can affect the whole model. Yes they are going to be many who are satisfied with the model as supplied, but if it was correct it would still appeal to them, plus the more knowledgeable customers.

 

If, as mentioned, the boiler firebox can be changed to the round top, then they have a winner, as it would please all the customers.

 

Stephen.

[Hroth]

I see that Hattons revised arrival time for the Dean Goods in all incarnations is now November - December 2016.

 

7007:  Well, they modified it, so it WAS a Modified Hall!  As for Pontypool, it seems to be about 15 miles from the border, so I wouldn't criticise anyone for circumspection.

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

I see that Hattons revised arrival time for the Dean Goods in all incarnations is now November - December 2016.

 

7007:  Well, they modified it, so it WAS a Modified Hall!  As for Pontypool, it seems to be about 15 miles from the border, so I wouldn't criticise anyone for circumspection.

 

Yes it was indeed Modified, but sadly not quite in the way Mr. Hawksworth intended.....despite not one but two cycles of design and tooling, a lambasting from the press on both releases and a full scale product recall between the two. So I stand by my original point that there is not a lot of precedent for manufacturers making significant revisions to tooling once the EP is done. In the one recent example that springs to mind the second iteration was only slightly better than the first. I will be delighted if Oxford set a new precedent by listening to observations from knowledgable folks on this thread......I simply won't be "betting the farm" on it.

 

We are now going if not off-topic then at least tangential to it.......

[Welchester]

 I am probably committing a heresy by asking this, but was Pontypool Road in Wales or England? (grabs coat and heads for exit...).

 

Neither: it was in Monmouthshire.

[peterfgf]

Beat me to it.

 

Another very useful site.

 

 

. http://www.brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=main&id=431

 

 

 

Jason

This has been a great website which I've used a lot in the past.  Unfortunately the search function (for shed allocations) hasn't been working for some weeks now.  A great pity.

Peterfgf

[Steamport Southport]

Yes there have been some problems with the site recently. Seems to be problems with the site host rather than the person that runs the website.

 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/115162-brdatabaseinfo/

 

 

 

Jason

[bertiedog]

Hattons seem to have revised the delivery to December approx, for the GWR version, does not mention others in mailshot.

Have any more pre delivery shots been posted in Magazines to show the wrong or right firebox?

 

Stephen

Edited October 17, 2016 by bertiedog

[rembrow]

Hattons seem to have revised the delivery to December approx, for the GWR version, does not mention others in mailshot.

Have any more pre delivery shots been posted in Magazines to show the wrong or right firebox?

 

Stephen

 

November's Hornby Magazine, in the 'Update' Section has a photo of the Dean in GWR green and BR Black, advising that they are final painted samples received by Oxford in September. The photo is taken at an angle, but the BR black version seems to show no change to the lower firebox from the previous samples, but difficult to be certain due to the angle of the photo and what seems to be low lighting used. The article also advises that the production versions are expected to arrive in January 2017.

[Edwardian]

Hmmm.

 

I have just emailed Oxford again, in the following terms:

 

I note that further images of the forthcoming Dean Goods have been released.  While not entirely clear, it does seem to me, and others, that the profile of the firebox remains problematic. Judging from the photograph, it appears that the profile seems to have been softened, but still does not accurately reflect that of the prototype.

 

From previous correspondence I note your comment "firebox is possibly a variation – I’m not sure - as this is a new query to me. But I’ve passed it to our Engineer to check."

 

It seemed like an odd comment at the time - the departure from the lines of the prototype is very marked; it was not a prototype variation, it was a mistake - but I was relieved that the matter was to be looked at.  I believed, and still believe, that checking this point would reveal it to be an obvious error.

 

I wonder if you would mind letting me know whether changes to the firebox profile have or will be made.

 

I post below 3 shots - the prototype profile, the original Oxford photograph (black), and a detail from the latest shot, posted 29 September.  It seems to me that the profile may have changed, but it still doesn't look quite like the prototype!  is it different?  If so, is it better?  I think 'yes' to both, but, is it good enough?

 

EDIT: I add a detail of the Mainline body (green, unlined)

 

 

.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Edwardian

[Hroth]

I fear that we're going to get the creased firebox no matter what is said at this point.  At the end of September, I took the optimistic view that the final decoration models had been done using older bodyshells that were to hand and that modifications to the firebox might be under way prior to production.  However, due to the increasingly vague delivery date, and the fact that Christmas is a money sink for things other than model railways, I withdrew my pre-order and I'll see what actually arrives.

 

If there are any about mid-January, I might reconsider, even with a bent firebox!

[coachmann]

Seeing as photos tend to highlight detail we could otherwise miss, it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that the Dean Goods will be snapped up despite its peculiar firebox profile simply because it's overall appearance is spontifiacolotious.....      

[Edwardian]

Seeing as photos tend to highlight detail we could otherwise miss, it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that the Dean Goods will be snapped up despite its peculiar firebox profile simply because it's overall appearance is spontifiacolotious.....      

 

I think that is probably right.  I think they have changed it and I think there is some improvement, though I don't think it's quite right.  The Mainline one is a better shape.

 

The overall appearance of the lined version, with the darker green and the crisp lining is really very good and I am thinking that the improved-but-not-quite-right firebox profile is something I can live with.

[Dunsignalling]

Hmmm.

 

I have just emailed Oxford again, in the following terms:

 

I note that further images of the forthcoming Dean Goods have been released.  While not entirely clear, it does seem to me, and others, that the profile of the firebox remains problematic. Judging from the photograph, it appears that the profile seems to have been softened, but still does not accurately reflect that of the prototype.

 

From previous correspondence I note your comment "firebox is possibly a variation – I’m not sure - as this is a new query to me. But I’ve passed it to our Engineer to check."

 

It seemed like an odd comment at the time - the departure from the lines of the prototype is very marked; it was not a prototype variation, it was a mistake - but I was relieved that the matter was to be looked at.  I believed, and still believe, that checking this point would reveal it to be an obvious error.

 

I wonder if you would mind letting me know whether changes to the firebox profile have or will be made.

 

I post below 3 shots - the prototype profile, the original Oxford photograph (black), and a detail from the latest shot, posted 29 September.  It seems to me that the profile may have changed, but it still doesn't look quite like the prototype!  is it different?  If so, is it better?  I think 'yes' to both, but, is it good enough?

 

EDIT: I add a detail of the Mainline body (green, unlined)

 

 

.

Looking at those pictures, it seems that Oxford have substantially softened the excessive "turn under" of their initial rendering of the firebox sides.

 

The revised shape still over-emphasizes the subtle curve that is apparent in the prototype photo but they have clearly mproved on their first attempt. That "crease" definitely isn't there on the new one.

 

Interestingly, the Mainline photo exhibits virtually no change of profile and slopes down in a straight line.

 

Overall, I think I prefer the remaining slight exaggeration of Oxford's second try to the somewhat slab-sided look of the older moulding.

 

John  

Edited October 17, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[andania 213]

Found this pic of 2516 dated 1935, have cropped it for comparison with the above.

 

Hope the pic helps