Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[Ian Hargrave]

And judging by a photo which has appeared elsewhere today it would appear the NRM version might be at livery sample stage - which is at least one stage later.

 Which assumption is correct.

[melmerby]

A few pics from the NRM stand at Warley

 

 

A close up of the area of concern:

 

 

 

IMHO it looks quite good.

 

Keith

 

 

[woodenhead]

Ooh, I missed that one, saw the BR Black one on the Oxford stand.

 

Looks very nice doesn't it.

[Edwardian]

OK, so, based on the premise that there were so many detail variations over the life of this class that Oxford's chance of matching its tooling to at least one class member, if only by accident, has to be reasonable ...

 

I have spotted 2 or 3 B4 Deans which do have a very narrow strip between cut-out and cab roof.

 

Now, I am not saying that Oxford's cut-out shape or roof curvature of is a match for these few prototype engines - and the overwhelming majority of photos of B4 Deans show the deeper band separating roof line and roof - but some seem to have sported a narrow band in conjunction with a Belpaire.

 

One that certainly seemed to was 2313, pictured in 1939.  This locomotive features a curved centre step, so does not match the Oxford straight-step version.

 

The most hopeful one was the loco that lasted almost as long as 2516; 2538.  She was frequently photographed in her last days, and I have seen one picture from the 1930s. Further, she has similar rivet detail to Oxford model.

 

This really does not help Locomotion justifying the 2516 identity, but perhaps is a better identity for the standard range 2409 (BR) or 2475 (GW)?

 

It would be something that there is at least one class member the model might represent.

 

There remains, however, the clear problem of the handrails running straight across the upper wash out plugs, which the Warley photographs clearly confirm.

[melmerby]

Ooh, I missed that one, saw the BR Black one on the Oxford stand.

 

Looks very nice doesn't it.

I took some shots of the Oxford stand one but the lighting wasn't as good and it doesn't show it off very well.

 

Keith

[Clearwater]

@keith

 

Your pictures are better than the ones I took but agree the lighting was dire on the Oxford stand. Comparing the two, i thought the locomotion one oooed better than the lined version on the Oxford stand

 

David

[bgman]

I'm posting these whilst travelling back to Devon on an extremely delayed service.

Bad lighting as said previously but they may help ?

Oxford say it's unlikely to be before February for release.

 

 

 

 

Lots of rivets to hang your lamps off on the smoke box !

[Clearwater]

Should the lining really sit on the cab like that? I don't think the lining helps with the potential fire box taper issue

[melmerby]

I'm posting these whilst travelling back to Devon on an extremely delayed service.

Bad lighting as said previously but they may help ?

Oxford say it's unlikely to be before February for release.

 

IMG_2465.PNG

 

IMG_2464.PNG

 

IMG_2463.PNG

 

Lots of rivets to hang your lamps off on the smoke box !

The problem with the lining is that it looks waaay too wide. from 1906 it was 2¼" wide in total, the Oxford one looks about 6"!

 

On a picture of 2467 in 1910 the cab lining does not appear to have quite such a sharp end above the cut out, apart from that the Oxford model follows the curves more or less correctly.

 

Keith

Edited November 27, 2016 by melmerby

[bgman]

Should the lining really sit on the cab like that? I don't think the lining helps with the potential fire box taper issueimage.jpegimage.jpegimage.jpeg

Have they employed the young lad in your third photograph to hold the locos number in place til the glue sets ?

 

Yours

E.Poxxie

[bertiedog]

Oxford seem to have altered the firebox a bit, but it still leaves other issues, the lining looks over size, the number plate too large on the cab side, (it should not cut over the lining as far as I was aware), and the handrails cover the washout plugs, and are fitted with cranked knobs.

 

The issue of whether the number matches a particular type or not is really neither here nor there, it can be altered to taste, and if all the details did fit one prototype it would offend more people than making a generic middle of the road version that is not correct for anybody, as from experience in selling models i would say that 80%+ neither care or know about the details relevant to a particular numbered loco, they just want a good sound model that looks right on the track..

 

Minor variations are nothing to getting things plain wrong, but Oxford have put right most, but they must also ensure the next model is not plagued by small but obvious errors.

 

We now see to have the situation of dilution of supply with an NRM version, which may arrive first, perhaps Oxford should consider the patient pre-orders customers have made to the general market first, before special editions. But then the marketing is up to them in the end.

 

No comment has been made on the dome finish, is this really the best they can do to represent polished brass? Even Hornby got it better on the Lord of The Isles, with plated plastic. I hope the darn thing comes off easily to be fitted with a brass replacement, same with the safety valve bonnet. In the overall cost of the loco surely a turned brass one would be better, might add a few pennies or more to the costs, but worth it.

 

Stephen

[bertiedog]

The problem with the lining is that it looks waaay too wide. from 1906 it was 2¼" wide in total, the Oxford one looks about 6"!

 

On a picture of 2467 in 1910 the cab lining does not appear to have quite such a sharp end above the cut out, apart from that the Oxford model follows the curves more or less correctly.

 

Keith

The pictures seem from closer examination and measurement by comparison in Photoshop to be about 2mm wide, min 1.8 which would place the lining at 6 inches wide at 4mm scale. As I have not go the GWR spec to hand I cannot quote an exact figures but 2.5 inches sounds about right.

There must be a practical limit to accuracy but this is oversize by nearly 100% if we take 3 inches as practical.

 

Oxford have really got to pull themselves together and check these things. It does not make or break a model, again a lot of people will not be too concerned, but it is a pointer to how Oxford operate.

 

Stephen

[Quarryscapes]

Another 3 with the narrow cab top were 2550, 2555 and 2569. ALl had parallel chimneys though, 2550 and 2555 have parallel buffers, 2569 has a top feed and 2550 has the dished smokebox door. I'm still not 100% convinced by the Oxford body, It may be able to do some surgery to make it passable, but really in this day ad age it should not be required. 

[The Stationmaster]

The problem for anyone making a Dean Goods for the r-t-r market is which one, of a 'standard' class, to actually model or to what extent you use tooling slides and separate parts in order to enable a number of variants to be fairly accurately modelled.  Doing that costs money and if you don't do it you're bound - with the GWR's idea of 'standardisation' when it comes to detail - to get something wrong for some of the running numbers you pick unless you are very careful about the ones you pick.  The Oxford model includes some errors, seemingly whichever one you happen to pick, and errors when representing particular running numbers they have chosen.

 

Not what we are used to nowadays but you get what you pay for and pay for what you get.  If you don't like it or don't think you can do anything with it then don't buy it and save your hard earned for something else.  If you're prepared to accept compromises and errors or are prepared to alter them then buy one; or you can always look for an old Airfix/Hornby one and perform the necessary on that - starting by throwing away the tender

[BG John]

I'm so glad that my plans have evolved so I have no reason to buy any more new RTR locos. I can just sit back and enjoy the entertainment, and throw in the odd comment if I feel like it for a bit of fun .

[melmerby]

with the GWR's idea of 'standardisation'

The GWR did have a system of rigid standardisation.

Boilers, wheels, cylinders, motion, cabs, tenders, chimneys, smokeboxes etc. were all taken fom a pool of standard designs (but of which there were numerous detail variations of each).

However how and where, the bolts, rivets, cladding etc. etc. were put when assembling them seems to have been left to how the works felt on the day the loco was being worked on!

What you end up with are a fleet of locos that superficially all look the same but of which no two are identical

 

Keith

[6892 Oakhill Grange]

Yes. But you're looking at it with 2016 eyes.

 

That model was vastly superior to anything else available at the time even with the tender drive underframe which is it's downfall. Should have been retooled years ago which is a missed opportunity. Hornby were still releasing locomotives with massive skirts on their boilers when this came out.

 

 

Jason

Zoom in and take a look at the boiler washout plugs. Better still buy an Airfix DG and a brand new Bachy Collet Goods and compare the boiler washout plugs.

[6892 Oakhill Grange]

Did they make any comment at all about the tender?

 

Or was it one of those traditional RM "praise what's good and keep schtum about anything dodgy" reviews they were noted for back then? 

 

John

I have just walked to the display cabinet and looked at the tender. What is wrong with it? Once a comet chassis was stuck underneath it it seems fine. Perhaps too much daylight now becuse of no well tank but you can't have everything.

[6892 Oakhill Grange]

The problem for anyone making a Dean Goods for the r-t-r market is which one, of a 'standard' class, to actually model or to what extent you use tooling slides and separate parts in order to enable a number of variants to be fairly accurately modelled.  Doing that costs money and if you don't do it you're bound - with the GWR's idea of 'standardisation' when it comes to detail - to get something wrong for some of the running numbers you pick unless you are very careful about the ones you pick.  The Oxford model includes some errors, seemingly whichever one you happen to pick, and errors when representing particular running numbers they have chosen.

 

Not what we are used to nowadays but you get what you pay for and pay for what you get.  If you don't like it or don't think you can do anything with it then don't buy it and save your hard earned for something else.  If you're prepared to accept compromises and errors or are prepared to alter them then buy one; or you can always look for an old Airfix/Hornby one and perform the necessary on that - starting by throwing away the tender

Which is why I hope no-one ever sets off to produce an 0517 in RTR.

[57xx]

A close up of the area of concern:

Dean detail.jpg

 

 

 

So are the washout plugs too low or the handrails too high...?

[Fat Lieutenant]

So are the washout plugs too low or the handrails too high...?

 

If this is a model of a locomotive, it is a class entirely devised by Oxford and unknown to the annals of locomotive history, so who knows????????

[Talltim]

I have just walked to the display cabinet and looked at the tender. What is wrong with it? Once a comet chassis was stuck underneath it it seems fine. Perhaps too much daylight now becuse of no well tank but you can't have everything.

I think Dunsignalling was referring to the Airfix tender Edited November 28, 2016 by Talltim

[Quarryscapes]

I think Dunsignalling was referring to the Airfix tender

 

And Mr grange was I think referring to his display cabinet containing a mainline loco, not the Oxford one at Warley. (though I read it that way too!) 

 

There is nothing really wrong* with the tender itself, only the mechanism within it. 

 

Progress Report: 3208 by Alan Jones, on Flickr

 

Fitted with a Comet chassis, (note just the actual frames that hold the wheels, not replacing the plastic underframe as the come one is awful) and in this case a few alterations to represent a later tender with separate filler and pickup dome. 

 

 

*There is but one minor fault, and no one I've seen talking about the tender has mentioned it - look at the end of the springs. 

[Dunsignalling]

The Oxford sample being criticised for what it is rather than what it can be made into.

 

I consider it is only fair to evaluate the older model on the same basis.

 

John

[Quarryscapes]

The Oxford sample being criticised for what it is rather than what it can be made into.

 

I consider it is only fair to evaluate the older model on the same basis.

 

John

 

What it can be made into applies equally to the older, cheaper model too - so which is a better buy on that basis?