Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[Mikkel]

 

I have attached two photos

 

 

Thanks Craig for sharing these, which I have not seen before. 2537 looks like an interesting prototype for a round-top modification (or rebuild!) of the Oxford or Mainline body. I'm wondering about the boiler type. I don't suppose the negatives came with any dates of the photos?

[BG John]

2358:

Built 12/1884 with S2 boiler

S4 fitted 02/1905

B4 fitted 07/1908

 

2537:

Built 07/1897 with S4 boiler

S2 fitted ??/1903

S4 fitted 11/1905

B2 fitted 12/1914

 

I think both have S4s in the photos, so 2358 must be 02/1905 and 07/1908, and 2537s tender is lettered in post 1906 livery, so must be 1906-1914.

[Mikkel]

Thanks John!

 

Interestingly, 2537 is also seen in this delightful photo, before the garter crest transfer had been added. The caption says 1905, which leaves the intriguing question: Red or black frames?

http://railphotoprints.uk/p1047678591/h73466BF5#h73466bf5

 

And here she is again with one of the tenders with o/s springs. This photo appears in Russell, who says it's 1908:

http://www.steampicturelibrary.com/dean-goods-no-2537-at-drayton-green/print/1193225.html?pid=80874

 

So the tender is something to keep in mind when choosing a prototype for 1900s modification. 

 

- and here again in a different time and age, now with smokebox "rivets" galore: 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cardiff_Canton_Locomotive_Yard_Dean_Goods_geograph-2933079-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg

[BG John]

I can't get the first photo to load. Anyway, it's all too modern for me now, as I want one as running in the 1880s!

[Mikkel]

I can't get the first photo to load. 

 

Deep link: http://railphotoprints.uk/img/s/v-3/p1933994997-4.jpg

[Miss Prism]

Interestingly, 2537 is also seen in this delightful photo, before the garter crest transfer had been added. The caption says 1905, which leaves the intriguing question: Red or black frames?

http://railphotoprints.uk/p1047678591/h73466BF5#h73466bf5

 

Red was still standard for 1905, Mikkel, even for a humble Dean Goods. Churchward didn't start to put a stop to Dean's frippery until 1906.

[Miss Prism]

Btw, the footplate widths were 7'3" (for narrow) and 7'8" (for wide). As Craig notes, the difference is very noticeable for those that practice looking at such things...

 

The elephant in the loco footplate room is the tenders of course, because the GWR always matched the width of the footplate at the front of the tender to that of the loco. For more detail, see Wenlocks Dean Goods blogs.

[Mikkel]

Red was still standard for 1905, Mikkel, even for a humble Dean Goods. Churchward didn't start to put a stop to Dean's frippery until 1906.

 

Thanks. I was puzzled due to the tender which seems to be in post-1906 livery - yet without the garter crest (experimental livery or just not applied fully yet?).

 

But I had forgotten that the panels were in fact changed in 1905, before the end of the red frames as you say.

[Miss Prism]

(experimental livery or just not applied fully yet?)

 

I would guess they might have been waiting for a spare garter crest. It is even possible the loco was red-framed and the tender was black-framed. Or the picture date is wrong...

 

Note the chunky fluted rods, which were in vogue at the time.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Miss Prism

[Welchester]

Locomotion have announced a special edition 'with the correct firebox':

 

NEW LOCOMOTIONMODELS.COM EXCLUSIVE EDITION MODEL
 
‘National Collection in Miniature’ series
Great Western Railway (GWR) No. 2516 Dean Goods Class
Produced by Oxford Rail
 
Locomotionmodels.com is delighted to announce the release of the latest Exclusive Edition in the ‘National Collection in Miniature’ model railway series – a finely detailed DCC ready or sound fitted model of GWR No. 2516 Dean Goods Class, produced by Oxford Rail.
 
The National Railway Museum’s Dean Goods locomotive no. 2516 is currently housed at STEAM – The Museum of the Great Western Railway in Swindon, Wiltshire. It was made in the same town in 1897, and was one of a class that worked all over the GWR network on light goods and passenger trains.
 
A large number of its classmates were sent abroad in both World Wars, but No. 2516 spent most of its working life in Wales and the Borders. It was taken out of service in May 1956 for preservation, and was the last but one of its type in British Railways service.
 
Restored in the 1960s for display, it currently appears at it would have done in the late 1920s Great Western green livery.
 
This is the first ‘National Collection in Miniature’ series model to be produced by Oxford Rail in an exciting new partnership with Locommotionmodels.com. The CAD design for the model has been fully inspected by NRM Curators, and the model will feature key details such as the correct firebox.
 
The model will have the ever popular high gloss finish, and will be supplied in a beautiful wooden presentation case, with numbered certificate and detailed fittings.
 
An EP sample of the model and presentation box will be on display at the Locomotionmodels.com stand, D08, at the Warley Model Railway Show on November 26 and 27, 2016, with the model itself due in stock around Easter 2017.

 

http://www.locomotionmodels.com/british-model-railways/oo-gauge-4mm/nrm-exclusive-editions-and-collection/oxfordnrm-exclusive-gwr-dean-goods-dcc-ready-with-gloss-finish.htm

[Miss Prism]

Will the Locomotion one also feature the correct cab?

[Welchester]

There's a separate topic since my earlier post:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117156-national-collection-in-miniature-dean-goods-class-no-2516/

[The Stationmaster]

Will the Locomotion one also feature the correct cab?

 

The press release posted in the RMweb thread says it will have the correct firebox (or that it does on the CAD) so I wonder if it is different tooling?  (and I see that on the illustration in the link below the whistles are still the wrong way round!)

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117156-national-collection-in-miniature-dean-goods-class-no-2516/

[Steamport Southport]

Seening as we have people knowledgeable about Dean Goods on this thread can I ask a quick question about 2516?

 

Looking at photos of it on railtour duty it seems to be still in black wartime livery with GWR on the tender, albeit with smokebox number plates and painted bufferbeam number.

 

 

Is this correct and it never received BR livery? Or is it faded green?

 

 

 

Jason

[Miss Prism]

Jason - the railtour pic at Buildwas Junction is 23 April 1955. The loco looks to be a good external condition, and is BR unlined black, with red-background plates. The tender it is attached to is still in wartime black. The loco was withdrawn a year later.

[Steamport Southport]

Many thanks for clearing that up as it's something I've been wondering about for a while.

 

I didn't know whether they had just added the smokebox and shed plates to a late GWR condition loco or whether it had been to the works in the past 8 years or so. I take it has swapped tender at some point or they've deemed it not worth repainting. Either way black is good enough for me.

 

 

Jason

[Edwardian]

The press release posted in the RMweb thread says it will have the correct firebox (or that it does on the CAD) so I wonder if it is different tooling?  (and I see that on the illustration in the link below the whistles are still the wrong way round!)

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117156-national-collection-in-miniature-dean-goods-class-no-2516/

 

And Y usefully edited the Locomotion announcement post to add outline drawings.

 

I think this is useful because it shows what we suspected from the photographs of the standard range samples, the cab-side is wrong.  In short, the cab appears to be designed to be the full height of the raised cabs, but retains the narrow gap between the tip of the side cut-out and the roof line that the class had before the roofs were raised.  This has the effect of stretching the cut-out vertically, thus softening the curve towards the roof.  The point is best illustrated by Miss Prism (post #18: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117156-national-collection-in-miniature-dean-goods-class-no-2516/ ):

 

This implication is that there is no new tooling.  To the extent it ever will be, the fire-box crease has been fixed already for the standard range models, though this has not been openly admitted, so far as I am aware, but allows Locomotion to claim their model has the correct fire-box.  Other issues that I pointed out to Oxford have simply been ignored.  The inclusion of the drawing of 2516 suggests that it will use the standard range tooling and, so, reproduce the cab-side faults.

 

Given that Oxford has already announced a plain green Dean in this livery in the standard range (2475), as Fat Lieutenant points out, the Locomotion model offers the same degree of accuracy/inaccuracy, the same livery, the same 'twixt the wars condition, and, so, what you get for the extra cost is a high gloss finish, a wooden box, and the satisfaction of supporting our national preservation effort.  Oh, I forgot, and a certificate.

 

You will probably be no nearer to an accurate Dean Goods, however.

 

I'd like a Dean Goods and I like to support Locomotion, so I hope Locomotion calls time and insists on a re-tool, otherwise, I could not in all conscience support this release.  If we supinely accept, or even encourage, poor models, that is all we will ever get.

 

Is it just me, or has there been something of a falling off since the heights of ultra-realistic RTR models that the manufacturers touched just a few years ago?   

[coachmann]

Is it just me, or has there been something of a falling off since the heights of ultra-realistic RTR models that the manufacturers touched just a few years ago?   

It's probably just you ha ha. You want a loco that fits your pre-grouping period, so even if the Dean Goods was supremely accurate, you would still need to do a lot of alteration to backdate it to round-top firebox etc. and repainting it in full GWR pre-1907 finery. Are you capable of doing that work?  

 

As regards a falling off of ultra-realism, I don't think that happened apart from the excursion into moulded detail. Even the Railroad range have darned good chassis and any modeller worthy of the badge can super-detail them easily at little expense. It seems most people are happy with the products simply because they fit the periods most modellers opt to model or collect. It is only in the realms of pre-grouping that one has to be prepared to accept the 'produced for the majority market' and do the necessary alterations oneself. It has always been thus. Obviously not everyone is capable of building etched loco kits even though it is so often the answer for pre-group modellers, so I'm afraid it is a case of like it or lump it.

 

It will be interesting to see the 'market' reaction when the Dean Goods finally reaches box opening time.

Edited November 24, 2016 by coachmann

[Ian Hargrave]

Echoes here of the Bachmann Modified Hall saga when Bachmann modelled it with an entirely wrong front plate etc. Brassmasters now produce a kit to model the loco with the correct front. Dean Goods anyone ? As Edwardian is a near resident of Shildon,maybe a chat with the ladies and gents there might be worth a consideration ?

[Edwardian]

It's probably just you ha ha. You want a loco that fits your pre-grouping period, so even if the Dean Goods was supremely accurate, you would still need to do a lot of alteration to backdate it to round-top firebox etc. and repainting it in full GWR pre-1907 finery. Are you capable of doing that work?  

 

As regards a falling off of ultra-realism, I don't think that happened apart from the excursion into moulded detail. Even the Railroad range have darned good chassis and any modeller worthy of the badge can super-detail them easily at little expense. It seems most people are happy with the products simply because they fit the periods most modellers opt to model or collect. It is only in the realms of pre-grouping that one has to be prepared to accept the 'produced for the majority market' and do the necessary alterations oneself. It has always been thus. Obviously not everyone is capable of building etched loco kits even though it is so often the answer for pre-group modellers, so I'm afraid it is a case of like it or lump it.

 

It will be interesting to see the 'market' reaction when the Dean Goods finally reaches box opening time.

 

Well, you say that, but the 'new' Modified Hall still has an incorrect front end, there are, I believe, issues with Kernow's O2, to name but two, and, of course, there is Oxford ....  

 

For the record, I have never complained that no one made a pre-Grouping round-top Dean Goods.  I understand what backdating them would entail.  What I, and others, have pointed out is that Oxford's purported pre-Grouping Dean Goods is inaccurate in quite a number of ways. Announce a BR steam locomotive with that many errors and inaccuracies and we'd never hear the end of it!

 

The Oxford tooling is much more suited to the inter war condition, but, there still seems to be a flaw with the cab-sides.  This affects Groupers and Nationalisers just as much as pre-Groupers.

 

Now, what was I saying earlier about grumpy posters running a fellow down just because he points out some errors .....?

Edited November 24, 2016 by Edwardian

[Edwardian]

Echoes here of the Bachmann Modified Hall saga when Bachmann modelled it with an entirely wrong front plate etc. Brassmasters now produce a kit to model the loco with the correct front. Dean Goods anyone ? As Edwardian is a near resident of Shildon,maybe a chat with the ladies and gents there might be worth a consideration ?

 

Now that we have drawings, as opposed to just photographs, of the Oxford Dean, what I think someone could usefully do, and I'd do it if I had the IT skills, is lay a 4mm scale drawing of a 'twixt the wars Dean over the Oxford drawing in order to demonstrate the extent to which the cab planned by Oxford differs from the prototype.

 

I think the photos make it clear enough, especially as Miss P presented the evidence, but this is a measurable discrepancy and, perhaps it might be as well to measure it?

 

There will always be some difficulty with the cab sides, as I expect that over-size splashers are a necessary compromise.  I would expect comparison of the drawings to demonstrate this issue, too, though, again, I think it is already evident from the various pictures posted.  This is one compromise that it may be necessary to live with.  It does not prevent getting the cut-out correct however. We have to accept compromise, but there is no necessary compromise affecting the cut-out; it isn't a compromise, but a mistake.  Further, IMHO, it is a mistake that goes to the character of the prototype, and the model will lack the class's characteristic appearance as a result. 

 

I will happily approach Locomotion, as I approached Oxford.  Much thanks I'll doubtless get!  In fairness to Oxford, the firebox profile does appear to have been changed.  By the time the other issues with 2309 were brought to Oxford's attention, it appears to have been too late from Oxford's point of view. 

 

Had people identified the flaws and come forward sooner, we might have a more accurate model as a result, but it would be unfair to blame the discriminating consumer.  Had Oxford's research and its care over what the designers were sending it been what it should, it would not have been necessary for this communal effort to identify and point out the mistakes.

 

Oxford and Locomotion still have a choice.  It is doubtless a commercially unattractive choice, but they have been given the information necessary to correct mistakes that, frankly, could have been avoided in the first place.  If, or rather, when, an inaccurate model is released against this background, don't shoot the messengers!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Is it just me, or has there been something of a falling off since the heights of ultra-realistic RTR models that the manufacturers touched just a few years ago?   

I would suggest not. My purchases of the most recent introductions that serve my interest from Bachmann, Heljan and Hornby - the well established OO RTR producers - are all bob on. As good or superior to the appearance of the Bachmann WD 2-8-0 of 1999; which started the party of OO RTR as good as a kit model that had been assembled and painted by a modeller with skills above the 95th percentile.

 

Oxford Rail are new starters to this game. I would suggest a fairer comparison would be to Hornby's first newly tooled releases from China, which were not to the standard they would attain after half a dozen years experience with Sanda Kan. Use the first releases of the Hornby Gresley gangwayed coaches as a comparator: width, body side profile, beading position, simulated teak graining direction, all in error. The quite exquisite rendition of the varnished teak from a multi-layer printing process all gone to rat shit by inaccurate application to an inaccurate substrate.

[Edwardian]

I would suggest not. My purchases of the most recent introductions that serve my interest from Bachmann, Heljan and Hornby - the well established OO RTR producers - are all bob on. As good or superior to the appearance of the Bachmann WD 2-8-0 of 1999; which started the party of OO RTR as good as a kit model that had been assembled and painted by a modeller with skills above the 95th percentile.

 

Oxford Rail are new starters to this game. I would suggest a fairer comparison would be to Hornby's first newly tooled releases from China, which were not to the standard they would attain after half a dozen years experience with Sanda Kan. Use the first releases of the Hornby Gresley gangwayed coaches as a comparator: width, body side profile, beading position, simulated teak graining direction, all in error. The quite exquisite rendition of the varnished teak from a multi-layer printing process all gone to rat shit by inaccurate application to an inaccurate substrate.

 

Fair enough, and if you're right and I'm wrong about standards in general, that is a happy situation.

 

I think for me the nub of this Dean Goods issue is that the model is plagued by avoidable mistakes (ones that in my subjective view, render the model too "off" to be considered for purchase) and that this seems due to a want of care in the process of translating research into tooling.  

 

It is up to others if they want to spend their hard-earned cash subsidising a 6-year learning curve for Oxford!  Heaven forbid I should seem to be telling anyone what to do.  For my part, however, I won't add to my bank manager's concerns for the sake of this model!

Edited November 24, 2016 by Edwardian

[Ian Hargrave]

Is it not best now to wait and see what finally appears "out of the box" rather than perhaps prematurely reaching a conclusion ?  I imagine engineering samples will be available for inspection at the NEC this coming weekend and an opportunity to engage with Oxford Rail on the model.They are new to the game and work on the Mark 3 coaches demonstrates that they are learning fast.

 

My next point will no doubt provoke howls of anguish from certain quarters.That is one of cost.This model even in Locomotion terms is a good deal less costly than models from "mainstream" firms. Like it or not,enthusiasts pockets are shrinking in real terms and a realistic limit has to be set if sales and profit are to be achieved.This is an opportunity for Locomotion to showcase one of the NRM collection....something it's damned good at if you look at its track record....at a reasonable cost.Constructive appropriate criticism is healthy......but hopefully measured too.

 

    Please don't knock too hard.We've come a long way.Some of us have journeyed a lot longer and in the end it's been well worth it but it is still a fragile road.No it ain't perfect but take it from me...it's a damned sight better than it was.

[J C Fenton]

Is it not best now to wait and see what finally appears "out of the box" rather than perhaps prematurely reaching a conclusion ?  I imagine engineering samples will be available for inspection at the NEC this coming weekend and an opportunity to engage with Oxford Rail on the model.They are new to the game and work on the Mark 3 coaches demonstrates that they are learning fast.

 

My next point will no doubt provoke howls of anguish from certain quarters.That is one of cost.This model even in Locomotion terms is a good deal less costly than models from "mainstream" firms. Like it or not,enthusiasts pockets are shrinking in real terms and a realistic limit has to be set if sales and profit are to be achieved.This is an opportunity for Locomotion to showcase one of the NRM collection....something it's damned good at if you look at its track record....at a reasonable cost.Constructive appropriate criticism is healthy......but hopefully measured too.

 

    Please don't knock too hard.We've come a long way.Some of us have journeyed a lot longer and in the end it's been well worth it but it is still a fragile road.No it ain't perfect but take it from me...it's a damned sight better than it was.

 

Well, I sympathise with your concerns, I really do, because we all want this model, this manufacturer and this hobby to get support, but I am afraid your post comes dangerously close to a celebration of mediocrity.

 

Not all of us will get to Warley, despite the way it's treated as the be all and end all of the hobby, and it is already perfectly clear what the faults are.  In this thread there was some holding back on criticism of the cab shape when it was raised because,it was tactfully said to be hard to judge from the photographs, but we have now seen Oxford's line drawings, which confirm what people have said - it's wrong. 

 

Mainline was a huge step forward when I was a lad.  Ironic, then, that Oxford has in the appearance of this model, taken a step back.  If I were a GW fan, I'd be gutted.

 

As it is, I won't buy it and I won't weep, but I won't defend an ill-conceived model, either!