Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[Miss Prism]

Surely at least one of the class had the riveted firebox

 

The riveted plate toward the bottom of the firebox was a post-1935 patch, applied to many but not all the survivors.

[Edwardian]

I think that this matter is getting too complex with a string of minor faults to the Dean, none of which appear very serious except the firebox, which seems to have been corrected a bit.

 

The matter of whether a particular loco had particular features is important, but not to most buyers of RTR 00 locomotives.

 

The question to ask Oxford is where they got the information and drawings from.

 

I suspect that in this case drawings were used, plus a scan, and the differences averaged out.

 

The GWR were a minefields for exact details on locos, Swindon built locos, outside contractors built locos and Wolverhampton serviced them to their ideas.

 

We obviously have members here who can state that the number used matches no known prototype, but unless Oxford have dreamt up their own design features, it must match a known drawing, or come from the scan.

 

With good grace, I would have expected Oxford to have connected the Museums and Societies involved and got advice on the variations that are well known to the expert modellers.

 

But it has grown out of all proportion to expect the details to match just the locos that interest your tastes, it is far more concern that basic flaws are corrected like the firebox and the lining being oversize.

 

Surely at least one of the class had the riveted firebox, I expect with a feature that does not match the model, but you cannot commercially make all the variants that the GWR had.

 

We must distinguish between basis design errors and detail variants within the class, and as it stands the new loco covers most types at various points in their history.

 

Oxford have not helped with the claims made for the whole range as to standards and accuracy, perhaps they should consider better contact with modellers before new projects, to sort this out.

 

As they are working with the National Museum now, on a Dean release, hopefully such mistake risks will be reduced on future models.

 

What staggers me is that Hornby missed the boat completely in using the old model they had inherited, and not up dating it several years ago. I hope that the lack of interest by them was not due to lack of interest in the Dean Goods generally, and that the Oxford sells well.

 

Manufacturers have to move away from the well trodden choices to make and move on, there is still a large number of modellers who want early steam locos and coaches. I had hoped Oxford would be such a maker but so far a duplication and a loco that has problems.

 

Stephen

 

Forgive me, but can I just correct you there.

 

No one, so far as I recall, has complained that the tooling did not match a variant in which they were interested.

 

The criticism has been twofold:

 

- The tooling does not match the prototypes that Oxford claims it represents - e.g. 2309 (early Lot with curved steps and narrow frames)

 

- There are features that are inaccurate for all, and features inaccurate for almost all, members of the class, including those chosen by Oxford.

 

Thus, no one has yet found a member of the class at any stage of its history for which the Oxford tooling is a match.

 

For instance, there were a few class members with B4 boilers that nevertheless had a narrow strip between the cab cut-out and the roof line (their numbers quoted by Quarryscapes, if I recall).  This was atypical of the post WW1 B4 look of the class and is wrong for each of the numbers Oxford seek to represent (including Locomotion's).

 

I believe there may be a Swindon GA drawing in existence that does show this rare narrow distance between cut-out and roof variant.  Perhaps this misled Oxford.  Any number of other drawings and photographs, not to mention looking at 2516 herself at STEAM, would have put Oxford right on that one, so, who knows how they managed to make such a complete Horlicks of this feature.  Airfix/Mainline didn't, and this was 35 years ago, when, as Douglas Adams pointed out, we still thought digital watches were cool.

 

So, while the tooling may relatively speaking favour some class members over others, the tooling is not accurate for any class member in any condition.     

 

To make any basically accurate B4 Dean from this model is going to take some surgery, relatively minor to pretty drastic, depending upon the example chosen.

 

Which brings me to the handrails.  Are they mounted radially?  It doesn't look to me as if they are.  If they are mounted horizontally and the same knob holes are used when they are changed to radial, the handrail will be above the upper washout plugs.  While not as absurd as the handrail masking the plugs, it would be just as inaccurate, because the rail would have moved above the plugs, whereas it should be below them.

 

Either way, either the handrail holes or the plugs or both are at the wrong height.

[Edwardian]

The riveted plate toward the bottom of the firebox was a post-1935 patch, applied to many but not all the survivors.

 

This is an obstacle to Locomotion using the Oxford tooling to represent 2516 in the stated 1928-1934 condition.  I wonder how far post 1935?

 

A more sympathetic 'in service' choice might be 2516 after she was superheated in October 1935, but this is not what Locomotion has said will be the condition represented. 

 

The question of livery is moot unless there is a contemporary photograph, because after super heating she could easily have been paired with a tender that still wore "Great Western" as opposed to the shirtbutton.

 

Which brings us to the question of which tenders she was paired with at any given time?  They got swopped around a lot. 

 

The Oxford tender, which looks pretty decent model, appears to be the shorter w/b version.  All I can tell you is that, in 1935, 2516 was recorded as paired with tender number 961. 

 

EDIT:  Since posting I have checked my email and discovered a kind friend had sent a picture of 2516.  I have, I think, seen it before, but only undated.  My friend states, however, that it dates from 1935.

 

We can see some of the features that make Oxford's tooling suitable for 2516, e.g. the smokebox riveting. 

 

We can also see, as was plain from the earlier condition photo linked to this topic (detail pics below), that Oxford have got the cab all wrong (for 2516 and most of the class).  Looking carefully, I believe I can make out some of the cab-side rivets visible on 2516 today, which were captured on the Mainline cab, but which are omitted from Oxford's 2516 sample.

 

The smokebox door looks to me like the later sort, not the dished variety

 

What do we make of the tender?

Edited December 3, 2016 by Edwardian

[Edwardian]

 

I think I would correct the knobs, that is easy, although they might have to be cranked slightly on each base, and it should not affect the paint.

 

 

Raising the handrail above the washout plugs!

[Quarryscapes]

 

 

The smokebox door looks to me like the later sort, not the dished variety

 

What do we make of the tender?

 

The Oxford drawing shown by locomotion specifically states the correct smokebox door, so I assume that the sample they gave was whatever they had lying around rather than one that was necessarily made to locomotion's spec in it's entirety. I wonder if they'll tool the parallel chimney up to match? 

 

The Oxford tender looks good, the coal load looks crap but at least it's low enough to be covered over! Most Dean Goods ran with this tender which is 2500 gallons - people keep incorrectly referring to it as all manner of capacities - but it is 2500g. I haven't actually seen many ever running with 3000g tenders, Certainly none of the ones I want to model! 

 

On a general note, to give Oxofrd the broadest possible range of variants, I would have suggested the following tooling:

 

Wide footplate and straight steps as they have done. 

Dished or Domed Smokebox doors as they've done

Parallel or Taper chimneys

Cab with correct profile

B4 firebox of correct profile, obviously! 

Parallel or taper Buffers

Tender with D filler or Separate Dome and filler

Optional Top Feed

 

Sure there's more tooling costs involved there, but the variety they could cater for would be immense! 

Edited December 3, 2016 by Quarryscapes

[6892 Oakhill Grange]

This is an obstacle to Locomotion using the Oxford tooling to represent 2516 in the stated 1928-1934 condition.  I wonder how far post 1935?

 

A more sympathetic 'in service' choice might be 2516 after she was superheated in October 1935, but this is not what Locomotion has said will be the condition represented. 

 

The question of livery is moot unless there is a contemporary photograph, because after super heating she could easily have been paired with a tender that still wore "Great Western" as opposed to the shirtbutton.

 

Which brings us to the question of which tenders she was paired with at any given time?  They got swopped around a lot. 

 

The Oxford tender, which looks pretty decent model, appears to be the shorter w/b version.  All I can tell you is that, in 1935, 2516 was recorded as paired with tender number 961. 

 

EDIT:  Since posting I have checked my email and discovered a kind friend had sent a picture of 2516.  I have, I think, seen it before, but only undated.  My friend states, however, that it dates from 1935.

 

We can see some of the features that make Oxford's tooling suitable for 2516, e.g. the smokebox riveting. 

 

We can also see, as was plain from the earlier condition photo linked to this topic (detail pics below), that Oxford have got the cab all wrong (for 2516 and most of the class).  Looking carefully, I believe I can make out some of the cab-side rivets visible on 2516 today, which were captured on the Mainline cab, but which are omitted from Oxford's 2516 sample.

 

The smokebox door looks to me like the later sort, not the dished variety

 

What do we make of the tender?

961 is / was a 3000 gal tender. Which looks about right from the photo.

[Miss Prism]

Some things to look out for on 2500g tenders

 

 

 

 

[Miss Prism]

What do we make of the tender?

 

You mean the one in your very interesting pic, Edwardian?

[Edwardian]

You mean the one in your very interesting pic, Edwardian?

 

Yes. Pocock and Harrison's book of 1934 allocations has 2516 paired with tender number 961.  The text says that the tender numbers mean those paired with the locomotive at the end of the year.

 

My 1935 register has 2516 also paired with 961, though on the face of the register it is really not clear when during the year the tender number is recorded.  If at the end of the year, it means 2516 retained that tender, even sfter going to the works to be superheated.

 

2516 started 1935 in Oswestry. She was at Stafford works by September and back in service in Wales by November.  So it was whilst at Stafford she was superheated.

 

Tender 961 is listed by Pocock in the 3,000 gallon series of 7'6" + 7'6" w/b, as built 1884-1906. 

Edited December 3, 2016 by Edwardian

[bertiedog]

Raising the handrail above the washout plugs!

Most certainly not, the washouts would have to be raised. but the knob can have an offset base, on the stub side, that fits the hole, with the skirt covering the gap. The offset peg only has to locate the knob, and any slight misfit, could be sealed with an acrylic filler that will not harm the paint. It would level the handrail where it is, and require new washouts to be fitted.

 

In case you cannot follow the idea of the cranked knob, the drawing shows the idea, which I used to completely correct the Hornby examples, but seems beyond their designers to grasp. The top of the knob remains exactly as normal, no crank or bend.

 

 

For home production, grasp the knob in a pin chuck, and saw off the stub, then align the hole with the base to be able to drill a hole in the are at 90 deg to the wire. Drill out with a .5 mm drill and solder in a new stub.

 

For a CNC lathe or machine centre it is done by offset centre as usual.

 

It might be possible to drill out the washouts and plug, and just paint the tiny top area, which would be hidden by the wire somewhat, and just drill and fit new washout castings on the correct line.

 

Stephen

[Mad Carew Too]

Most certainly not, the washouts would have to be raised. but the knob can have an offset base, on the stub side, that fits the hole, with the skirt covering the gap. The offset peg only has to locate the knob, and any slight misfit, could be sealed with an acrylic filler that will not harm the paint. It would level the handrail where it is, and require new washouts to be fitted.

 

In case you cannot follow the idea of the cranked knob, the drawing shows the idea, which I used to completely correct the Hornby examples, but seems beyond their designers to grasp. The top of the knob remains exactly as normal, no crank or bend.

 

Cranked over handrail knob.jpg

 

For home production, grasp the knob in a pin chuck, and saw off the stub, then align the hole with the base to be able to drill a hole in the are at 90 deg to the wire. Drill out with a .5 mm drill and solder in a new stub.

 

For a CNC lathe or machine centre it is done by offset centre as usual.

 

It might be possible to drill out the washouts and plug, and just paint the tiny top area, which would be hidden by the wire somewhat, and just drill and fit new washout castings on the correct line.

 

Stephen

 

Great idea, provided Oxford supply a free lathe with every Dean Goods.

 

Might be cheaper for them than retooling from scratch!

[Quarryscapes]

Yes. Pocock and Harrison's book of 1934 allocations has 2516 paired with tender number 961.  The text says that the tender numbers mean those paired with the locomotive at the end of the year.

 

My 1935 register has 2516 also paired with 961, though on the face of the register it is really not clear when during the year the tender number is recorded.  If at the end of the year, it means 2516 retained that tender, even sfter going to the works to be superheated.

 

2516 started 1935 in Oswestry. She was at Stafford works by September and back in service in Wales by November.  So it was whilst at Stafford she was superheated.

 

Tender 961 is listed by Pocock in the 3,000 gallon series of 7'6" + 7'6" w/b, as built 1884-1906. 

 

So basically Oxfords model is totally useless as a base for 2516 as Locomotion intend as running prior to 1935:

 

Wrong Tender

Wrong Cab

Wrong Chimney

Wrong Top Feed (lack of)

 

and that's before we get to the smaller, less obvious details! 

Edited December 3, 2016 by Quarryscapes

[amdaley]

I have been following this thread with great interest but I am now totally confused ?

Is the Oxford model a match for the loco at any time during its existence or is it simply a Heinz 57 ?

Edited December 3, 2016 by amdaley

[Quarryscapes]

I have been following this thread with great interest but I am now totally confused ?

Is the Oxford model a match for the loco at any time during its existence or is it simply a Heinz 57 ?

 

The base model is (ish) but guaranteed the liveries and identities they choose to apply will not be for those locomotives.

 

So the initial release is:

 

2309 early lined livery- so unbelievably inaccurate to carry this livery and identity.

2475 - I have no pics or information to hand

2409 BR black - Wrong cab profile, wrong tender filler. 

 

So far the closest I can see to a match is if you got one with the dished door and changed the chimney to a straight one you could make 2301 in 30s guise, but you'd have to ignore the front step and narrow footplate. I'll keep searching. 

Edited December 3, 2016 by Quarryscapes

[bertiedog]

Great idea, provided Oxford supply a free lathe with every Dean Goods.

 

Might be cheaper for them than retooling from scratch!

Does not need a lathe just a file, pin chuck, and a drill, use a commercial brass knob as the basis, changing the others to match the size and appearance. If Oxford wanted to change this the Chinese could do them in a trice, but then Oxford would have to employ British workers to fit them.......

[Quarryscapes]

I've just started listing locos with the narrow cab top... I had 3 and was about to add a fourth, but have lost the original 3!

 

2301 was one, 2540 is another...

 

Add:

 

2543

2549

2322

 

There we go, that's google exhausted. 2543 Actually looks like a good match for the OR model from the tiny image I have seen - No wait 3000g tender! 

Edited December 4, 2016 by Quarryscapes

[Edwardian]

I have been following this thread with great interest but I am now totally confused ?

Is the Oxford model a match for the loco at any time during its existence or is it simply a Heinz 57 ?

 

Whilst it is hard to discount the possibility that the combination of detail elements represented by Oxford's tooling might have matched one or more members of the class at some stage of their careers, it is proving somewhat difficult to find evidence of a match.

 

One of the closest might be 2538.  As the last survivor in ordinary service, she was well-photographed in the '50s and the William Dean book has a 1930s photograph of her.  Crucially, she appears to have the narrow cab top, so another for Alan's list.  Not convinced from the pictures that she had splasher top rivets (which Miss P says were rare), but other details are similar, but I have not made an exhaustive comparison.

 

However, the cabside cut-out scoop still seems far tighter on 2538 than on Oxford's.  I wonder if any Dean had a cut-out quite to the profile of Oxford's.

 

Further, there are inaccuracies common to all class members - handrail and upper washout plug arrangement, apparently non-radial handrail knobs, and rivets along the faces of the splashers.  To be fair, these elements might well be corrected by Oxford prior to production. 

 

If so, this would still leave some really quite stark disparities between the details Oxford have chosen and the 2516 guise Shildon wants to represent, and there is still the question of what identity the tooling might fairly represent in the general range.

 

Then there is the question of whether the tender Oxford has modelled is appropriate for the class member(s) that the tooling might most closely represent.  

 

I realise that we have to wait and see, but I cannot help but worry that there is quite a lot for Oxford and Locomotion to try to untangle here.

[amdaley]

Whilst it is hard to discount the possibility that the combination of detail elements represented by Oxford's tooling might have matched one or more members of the class at some stage of their careers, it is proving somewhat difficult to find evidence of a match.

 

One of the closest might be 2538.  As the last survivor in ordinary service, she was well-photographed in the '50s and the William Dean book has a 1930s photograph of her.  Crucially, she appears to have the narrow cab top, so another for Alan's list.  Not convinced from the pictures that she had splasher top rivets (which Miss P says were rare), but other details are similar, but I have not made an exhaustive comparison.

 

However, the cabside cut-out scoop still seems far tighter on 2538 than on Oxford's.  I wonder if any Dean had a cut-out quite to the profile of Oxford's.

 

Further, there are inaccuracies common to all class members - handrail and upper washout plug arrangement, apparently non-radial handrail knobs, and rivets along the faces of the splashers.  To be fair, these elements might well be corrected by Oxford prior to production. 

 

If so, this would still leave some really quite stark disparities between the details Oxford have chosen and the 2516 guise Shildon wants to represent, and there is still the question of what identity the tooling might fairly represent in the general range.

 

Then there is the question of whether the tender Oxford has modelled is appropriate for the class member(s) that the tooling might most closely represent.  

 

I realise that we have to wait and see, but I cannot help but worry that there is quite a lot for Oxford and Locomotion to try to untangle here.

 

Thanks Edwardian for that very comprehensive explanation.

I look forward to the general model being released to see exactly whats turns up.

With all the information available from people on here & elsewhere surely there is no reason why a reasonably accurate model can't be produced of some variant of the class?

Then again it may be produced just as a toy train engine & not a scale model at all ?

 

The NRM model should be a totally different animal all together.

There should be no excuses at all there ?

[Quarryscapes]

'Narrow Cab Strip' Dean Goods list:

 

2301

2313

2322

2538

2540

2543

2549

2550

2555

2569

 

So out of 260 locomotives built, that's 10 that can potentially use the OR model as a base, although I haven't compared them to see if they have the right cutout profile, of which there were 2. Now the first 3 in the list should have narrow footplates and curved front steps, so that's them out - so 7 possible locomotives? OR really need to sort that out! 

[Edwardian]

'Narrow Cab Strip' Dean Goods list:

 

2301

2313

2322

2538

2540

2543

2549

2550

2555

2569

 

So out of 260 locomotives built, that's 10 that can potentially use the OR model as a base, although I haven't compared them to see if they have the right cutout profile, of which there were 2. Now the first 3 in the list should have narrow footplates and curved front steps, so that's them out - so 7 possible locomotives? OR really need to sort that out! 

 

Thanks, Alan, that is helpful.

 

The irony is that, if Oxford had only chosen to base its cab upon 2516's surviving example, not only would this have worked for the Locomotion commission, but it would have been representative of the majority of the class in the 1920s-1950s. 

 

If OR replaced the cab wholesale, and fixed the mistakes to the splasher front and handrails, they would be on their way to a usable model.

 

As mentioned above, the choice of tender also restricts the choice of prototype, and, if I get the time, I'll sit down and work out what ran with what in 1934-5.

[Miss Prism]

I think I'm approaching a provisional view that there were three radii for Dean Goods cabroofs. I stress provisional, and I'm still dwelling on the matter.

 

Note the discrepancy between Oxford Rail's graphic and its model.

 

[David Bigcheeseplant]

​If you look at the Finney/Brassmasters instructions for the Dean Goods http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/gwr_2301_dean_goods_0-6-0.htm It does say that there were two types of cab side sheets, and when the engines received belpaire fireboxes the cab roof was raised.

 

Generally the locos were attached to 2500 gallon tenders which Oxford have modelled the old Mainline/Hornby has a 3000 gallon type which some got in later years. As preserved 2516 has the only surviving 2500 gallon type while City of Truro has the only surviving 3000 gallon type. Here is the link to the 2500 tender kit with detailed history. http://brassmasters.co.uk/gwr_dean_2500_gallon_tender.htm

 

Whistles on GWR locos were small one on the right hand side of the loco but the small and large whistles swapped sides I think around 1910-1920.

[Willie Whizz]

The more I read this thread, the more I'm reminded of the old joke that a stopped clock is more accurate than one that loses time, because it is at least right twice a day ...

 

Or to look on the bright side, the Oxford Rail model may not be exactly correct for any single specific loco at any given time ... but it's nearly right for all of them, all the time!

 

Perhaps the critics should take a look at the Hornby threads, where - yet again - some people are complaining about the price of 'accurate and highly-detailed' models and deducing that railway modelling is fast becoming unaffordable because we are becoming too demanding of what R-T-R can provide.  The Dean Goods may well be neither accurate nor highly-detailed, but from a distance and to a non-expert it looks not entirely unlike what it's supposed to be, and the price is reasonable by comparison with some others.  So maybe that's the company's idea; and they simply aren't explaining well enough that they just aren't aiming it at the "demanding, fussy and vocal top 10% of modellers" who perhaps represent a large proportion of RMWeb users; the objective may well be a deliberate equivalent of Hornby's Railroad range - or even slightly below that.  We may not like it, but Oxford might believe it is a viable business strategy ... and if they can sell enough, then from some perspectives they'd be right!

Edited December 4, 2016 by Willie Whizz

[Edwardian]

The more I read this thread, the more I'm reminded of the old joke that a stopped clock is more accurate than one that loses time, because it is at least right twice a day ...

 

Or to look on the bright side, the Oxford Rail model may not be exactly correct for any single specific loco at any given time ... but it's nearly right for all of them, all the time!

 

Perhaps the critics should take a look at the Hornby threads, where - yet again - some people are complaining about the price of 'accurate and highly-detailed' models and deducing that railway modelling is fast becoming unaffordable because we are becoming too demanding of what R-T-R can provide.  The Dean Goods may well be neither accurate nor highly-detailed, but from a distance and to a non-expert it looks not entirely unlike what it's supposed to be, and the price is reasonable by comparison with some others.  So maybe that's the company's idea; and they simply aren't explaining well enough that they just aren't aiming it at the "demanding, fussy and vocal top 10% of modellers" who perhaps represent a large proportion of RMWeb users; the objective may well be a deliberate equivalent of Hornby's Railroad range - or even slightly below that.  We may not like it, but Oxford might believe it is a viable business strategy ... and if they can sell enough, then from some perspectives they'd be right!

 

Again I would point out that the pricing of this model is irrelevant; no one is suggesting that Oxford should have added expensive extra detail.  It would have been no more expensive to tool for an accurate body shell to the chosen standard than it has been to tool for an inaccurate one.

 

The inaccuracies are primarily a function of careless mistakes.  They are not a function of the price tag. 

 

It will cost a lot of money to get right now, but only because of past mistakes.

 

Besides, who said to OR "I know you say you are trying to pursue excellence, but, for the sake of saving £30 me, please could you produce a wholly inaccurate model?"  

 

Personally I don't believe that OR's strategy is "buy our models, they don't bear close inspection, but they're cheap!  Just view them from half a mile away with one eye closed and, so long as you're not an NRM curator, it will look just fine!" 

 

My theory is that they simply c0cked it up.

[Mad Carew Too]

 

Or to look on the bright side, the Oxford Rail model may not be exactly correct for any single specific loco at any given time ... but it's nearly right for all of them, all the time!

 

 

 

I fear you would have us live in a fool's paradise -  these models are nowhere near close enough to portray any class member accurately.  Too many basic mistakes and inconsistency.  Even better documented than climate change, I should think, and, yet, there are still deniers!