Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[Willie Whizz]

Oxford Diecast Ltd accounts to Y/E 31 December 2015 are filed at CH, for anyone who is interested.  As at that point, Oxford was balance sheet solvent, i.e. with assets in excess of liabilities, though not current assets (stock, trade debtors, cash at bank).  It was solvent by virtue of its fixed assets.  Some of the indebtedness may be long-term, e.g. borrowing. There is nothing that might indicate a cash-flow issue, and, where a company can pay its debts as and when they fall due, it can generally show itself solvent. The accounts give, therefore, a limited picture, at least to my lay perception, but I do not see any basis for concern.  Clearly, the information is almost a year out of date, so should be treated with caution in any case. I don't see Oxford's finances as a factor in this debate.

 

I believe Oxford Diecast Ltd. is a Private Limited Company, and therefore it is likely the Accounts filed at Companies House will contain just the bare minimum of information required by Law, unlike Public Limited Companies such as Hornby, where anyone can be a shareholder and is then entitled to - and receives - a great deal more information about the finances, from which then effectively being in the 'public domain' a great deal more can be deduced.  But even then, not down to the level of individual brands within the group, let alone specific projects.

 

What I was suggesting is that, irrespective of marketing slogans, OR may be unable or unwilling in practice to allocate sufficient resources to develop models (in multiple variations) to the standard the greater part of the readership of RMWeb demands as routine these days.  I understand the argument that - in theory at least - it should nowadays be as easy to get a model right as wrong from the outset; but there is ample experience from other manufacturers to know how unsustainable that argument is in practice - if it was that easy they'd all be achieving it, and they aren't!  Where the difference may lie is that as far as OR are concerned, the possibilities may include, among others:

 

• They aren't particularly interested in fine-tuning the models and producing multiple variations to the standards RMWebbers would like, because they think they can get sufficient sales at a relatively modest price from the mass market with a 'near enough is good enough' approach.  That seems to have worked for them in model buses ...

   

• They meant to do better but failed.  They know it, but now there isn't enough money in the project budget to remedy the errors in full, and they can't afford to put more in the pot, so everybody who really doesn't like it will just have to lump it; and everybody else will (if even that) say "oh well, pity - but 'near enough is, indeed, good enough' ", and buy it anyway.

Either of these could be completely wrong of course, but my point is that finances are always a factor; and if they or something along these lines is correct, then the decision to proceed with production 'warts and all' is a commercial one for OR to make.  Another alternative would be to scrap the project altogether and write-off the development costs but at least save the production costs - which brings me back to my "stopped clock" analogy in my first post.  Would that be more satisfying to some?

 

I reiterate: we simply don't have enough information to properly judge.  All manner of hypotheses are therefore running, including mine, and they are all speculation.  Are some of the people making all the noise on here actually asking OR directly what's going on?  What answers are you getting?

Edited December 5, 2016 by Willie Whizz

[farren]

With the greatest respect to all, can we please keep this on the models. And not at best a load of, what if's maybes and could be's. About the accounts of the company. Which none of us have excess to. If Going round in circles is your thing can I point you to the, Hornby profit warning topic. Which as sent me dizzy.

 

I apologize again to anyone who's feathers I might have ruffled.

Edited December 5, 2016 by farren

[Willie Whizz]

With the greatest respect to all, can we please keep this on the models. And not at best a load of, what if's maybes and could be's. About the accounts of the company. Which none of us have excess to. If Going round in circles is your thing can I point you to the, Hornby profit warning topic. Which as sent me dizzy.

 

I apologize again to anyone who's feathers I might have ruffled.

 

No feathers ruffled here.  But there are no models, yet - only the prototypes, which is what everybody is getting so worked-up about!

 

I offered two more hypotheses to illustrate a different perspective.  The finances might be relevant.  They might not.  We don't know.  But everyone seems to be dead set on trashing Oxford Rail on the basis that they're (a) incompetent (b) uncaring  [c]  not listening to modellers who (it is claimed) have the correct information to make this locomotive better before it goes into production.

 

Look, this is a business.  A real one, not just a cottage industry offering a few niche products to a specialised market.  It's a business we know very little about, in terms of its research and manufacturing capabilities, philosophy, and - yes - finances (in the sense of the financial capacity to provide products we want, at the desired standard, several times a year).

 

Stop thinking about this as just a modelling accuracy issue.  There are almost certainly other factors in play as well.  A bit of misguided marketing puff over the use of the word 'excellence' has raised expectations for the range that not just may be incapable of fulfilment in practice with the resources ( financial but also research, design capacity etc.) OR are prepared to put-in; but were never intended to be met.  We might be trying to judge something that was only ever meant to be a Daewoo by the standards we'd expect of a Mercedes.

 

Until we get some meaningful statements from/interviews with the Company we shall not know.  Stop fretting.  They are either reading this (or messages reaching them via other routes) or they are not.  They will either address our issues or they won't.  If they don't, and the model turns out as bad as you fear, like I say - just don't buy it.  You'll be no worse off than you would have been if they'd never produced it.

 

OR themselves might be worse off, of course, if the overall market is sophisticated enough to spurn their offerings - but that then becomes their problem.  If so, they might even learn something from the old and new regimes at Hornby about the correct balance between quality, price and profitability.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Willie Whizz

[Mikkel]

That will almost certainly be a removable piece, possibly a cast weight as in Bachmann Collet Goods and 57xx. No big deal. 

 

Like one of these then, I guess (two versions of the Bachmann 57xx/8750 chassis - the one on the right being newer). For me, that's a medium deal :-) 

 

 

 

I realize this may all seem a bit hypothetical. I'm just trying to assess whether to go ahead with an Oxford chassis, or look for an alternative for my christmas project.

[Edwardian]

With the greatest respect to all, can we please keep this on the models. And not at best a load of, what if's maybes and could be's. About the accounts of the company. Which none of us have excess to. If Going round in circles is your thing can I point you to the, Hornby profit warning topic. Which as sent me dizzy.

 

I apologize again to anyone who's feathers I might have ruffled.

 

I wouldn’t worry.  On the Locomotion Dean Goods topic, having stifled any further critical input, they’ve been reduced to discussing something called a “Clan”, so we are scoring relatively high on the Relevancometer.

[Mad Carew Too]

I wouldn’t worry.  On the Locomotion Dean Goods topic, having stifled any further critical input, they’ve been reduced to discussing something called a “Clan”, so we are scoring relatively high on the Relevancometer.

 

I have a strange sense of deja vu

[Edwardian]

I have a strange sense of deja vu

 

I have a strange censor deja vu.

[Edwardian]

Like one of these then, I guess (two versions of the Bachmann 57xx/8750 chassis - the one on the right being newer). For me, that's a medium deal :-) 

 

 

 

I realize this may all seem a bit hypothetical. I'm just trying to assess whether to go ahead with an Oxford chassis, or look for an alternative for my christmas project.

 

Those are very helpful pictures.  Do you know how to identify the models that have the newer (right hand) chassis?

 

Obviously I am thinking in terms of second hand.

[Mad Carew Too]

I wouldn’t worry.  On the Locomotion Dean Goods topic, having stifled any further critical input, they’ve been reduced to discussing something called a “Clan”, so we are scoring relatively high on the Relevancometer.

 

You're out of date there, they're on to the Third Reich now.

 

Honestly, some people have no sense of irony!

 

Anyway, I, too have contemplating Mikkel's picture.  I was thinking, as I suspect were you, 'that right hand chassis looks as if it could fit under a small wheeled Victorian tender engine"

[Edwardian]

You're out of date there, they're on to the Third Reich now.

 

Honestly, some people have no sense of irony!

 

 

 

Controversial.  Almost as controversial as the OP.

 

"Don't mention the Dean!"

 

"I may have mentioned rivets, but I think I got away with it!"

[Edwardian]

I, too have contemplating Mikkel's picture.  I was thinking, as I suspect were you, 'that right hand chassis looks as if it could fit under a small wheeled Victorian tender engine"

 

P.S. Yes, I was thinking along similar lines, and, also about a Sharp Stewart tank conversion for Castle Aching. 

 

In the meantime, here's hoping for news of positive developments on the Dean front.

[Edwardian]

 not listening to modellers who (it is claimed) have the correct information to make this locomotive better before it goes into production.

 

 

Please understand, there are a number of demonstrable flaws.  These are not idle claims.  It would be irresponsible to make claims that are not supported by evidence.  Some issues may be debateable, or yet to be proved, but most are clearly demonstrated.

 

That is not a dig, but I want to stand firm against this relativism - one man's inaccuracy is another man's accuracy.  That is simply not the case here.  Objectively, there are inaccuracies.  The subjective element is the extent to which a given modeller will overlook them.  But they are there.  

 

 

 

 

 We might be trying to judge something that was only ever meant to be a Daewoo by the standards we'd expect of a Mercedes.

 

 

You make some fair points, and have the patience to debate them, but if there is another point I would take some issue with, it is the sentence above.

 

So far as I am concerned, I am judging a Dean Goods by the standards of a Dean Goods.  Oh, and by the standard of a 35-year old tooling of the same subject, which, so far, is coming out on top. 

 

It is important, I think, to keep an open mind at this stage.  There will, I'm sure, be some revisions now that Locomotion is in the game, so we shall have to see what we end up with.

 

Fingers crossed.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Edwardian

[Quarryscapes]

Those are very helpful pictures.  Do you know how to identify the models that have the newer (right hand) chassis?

 

Obviously I am thinking in terms of second hand.

 

If it's an 8750 then it will have the newer chassis, but there are 3 incarnations of that - pre DCC: The cast weight is taller. After DCC it was cut down but then there are two different motors and gearboxes. The one shown is the earlier one with the big worm, newer ones are smaller. 

 

For the 57xx look for the nipple on the dome - no nipple = new chassis, nipple = split frame. 

 

Oh, and neither will fit in a Dean Goods. 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Quarryscapes

[Mikkel]

Sorry, I'm leading the thread astray - but just to respond:

 

Those are very helpful pictures.  Do you know how to identify the models that have the newer (right hand) chassis?

 

Obviously I am thinking in terms of second hand.

 

Adding to Q's info above, my old 57xx chassis (on the left in the picture) came with ref 31-900, while the newer one on the right had ref 32-200. Those are just the ref. numbers for my particular versions (GWR liveries) but at least it tells you that 31-900 is best avoided for low or small-boilered conversion jobs, if you bump into it on the secondhand market. 

 

Anyway, I, too have contemplating Mikkel's picture.  I was thinking, as I suspect were you, 'that right hand chassis looks as if it could fit under a small wheeled Victorian tender engine"

 

From my pragmatic perspective, the chassis has good scope for fitting under the earlier GWR 0-6-0 tanks.  E.g. I used 32-200 under my 1854ST. 

 

Now back to the Dean Goods. 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Mikkel

[kandc_au]

If it's an 8750 then it will have the newer chassis, but there are 3 incarnations of that - pre DCC: The cast weight is taller. After DCC it was cut down but then there are two different motors and gearboxes. The one shown is the earlier one with the big worm, newer ones are smaller. 

 

For the 57xx look for the nipple on the dome - no nipple = new chassis, nipple = split frame. 

 

Oh, and neither will fit in a Dean Goods. 

 

Large or small nipples!

[Hroth]

Large or small nipples!

Ye gods.......

 

 

I suppose it all depends on the time of year.  *sigh*

 

 

I've decided.  I may or may not buy a Dean Goods. 

[Quarryscapes]

Large or small nipples!

depends if we're talking in scale dimensions or not!

[bertiedog]

Although interesting to gather up details of a large class of locos with many variations, surely the old Hornby one must have had as many problems due to not matching a particular variant on a particular date or shed.

 

Or is it in the meantime since the older model, expectations have increased to a point where a small number of enthusiastic and knowledgeable modellers are just expecting too much from an RTR model.

 

Most points raised here are of no consequence to the ordinary GWR model rail enthusiast, even the firebox appears better now, and the rest of the model is reasonable for a generic Dean Goods.

 

Most buyers make no alterations to locos, at most altering the plates and numbers, and the Oxford Dean fills that all right. 

 

I do think that Oxford should firmly say what the design is based upon, to place it on record, so that alterations by enthusiasts can be made from a known platform. At present Oxford have not replied on queries as to sources used.

 

The Radial seems to have been more accurate to the preserved loco than the Dean is, but there are dozens more variants with the Dean, Hopefully on any future models the tie in with the Science Museum and Locomotion will give better access to plans and advice in the early stages, but in the end it will never solve variations across a class of locos like the Dean Goods.

 

Just remember, if a particular fitting is important to you and is wrong on the Oxford, the corrected version will be just as wrong to others in many cases, forgetting deliberately any basic mistakes, which affect everybody.

 

Stephen

[jcm@gwr]

You're out of date there, they're on to the Third Reich now.

 

Honestly, some people have no sense of irony!

 

 

To be fair, that 'deviation' is quite relevant, as it suggests that certain class

members sent over during the war, were then used by that regime, and were

probably well documented and photographed by them.

 

On that subject, why aren't OR doing my favourite variation,

the pannier tanked version for desert operation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bernard Lamb]

To be fair, that 'deviation' is quite relevant, as it suggests that certain class

members sent over during the war, were then used by that regime, and were

probably well documented and photographed by them.

 

On that subject, why aren't OR doing my favourite variation,

the pannier tanked version for desert operation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Blame me for the overseas diversion.

Sorry if it upset some folk but I like to give some background information re my interests when I am posting.

At least the pannier/condenser version will not have the problem with the hand rail angle.

Bernard

[Willie Whizz]

  I said: ...  "We might be trying to judge something that was only ever meant to be a Daewoo by the standards we'd expect of a Mercedes."    ...

 

Please understand, there are a number of demonstrable flaws.  These are not idle claims.  It would be irresponsible to make claims that are not supported by evidence.  Some issues may be debateable, or yet to be proved, but most are clearly demonstrated.  That is not a dig, but I want to stand firm against this relativism - one man's inaccuracy is another man's accuracy.  That is simply not the case here.  Objectively, there are inaccuracies.  The subjective element is the extent to which a given modeller will overlook them.  But they are there.  

...

 

So far as I am concerned, I am judging a Dean Goods by the standards of a Dean Goods. ...

 

No argument with the first point above. On the second point, we may have to agree to differ to an extent, then.  But I think most modellers, looking at the recent Hornby offerings (not the re-hashed 30-year old toolings) and comparing to the prototypes that inspired them have had no great difficulty in adjusting their expectations of a new model explicitly designed for the Railroad range compared to one explicitly designed for the Main Range (and priced at say 50% or so higher for a comparable-size model).

 

After all, to pursue my analogy, both Daewoo and Mercedes make cars which perform all the basic core functions one would realistically require of a car; but purchasers do not expect Mercedes levels of design, ride, comfort, space and refinement for that money.  One could easily say Daewoo 'should' make 'better' cars, but they (presumably) actively don't want to; they have made a commercial business decision not to do so, but to design 'down to' a specific price bracket where they feel they can find sufficient customers to meet their business objectives.

 

The problem with Oxford Rail is that we do not yet clearly understand which end of that equivalent spectrum they are pitching their offerings at.  Are they aiming at Railroad (or even below)?  If so, then as I said, in their eyes 'near enough may be good enough' if they think 90% of the market will find it acceptable, and buy.  If they aspire to the 'Mercedes' equivalent of the latest Hornby and Bachmann offerings, as their use of the word 'excellence' implied, then clearly they are not yet succeeding (and may even be going backwards, if they don't correct the Dean Goods flaws now they've been made aware).  But it will be their commercial decision, and they (or at least their presence in the model railway market) will live and die by it..

 

 

[P.S.  Apologies to anyone who drives a Daewoo, by the way.  Just a lower-end brand picked at random - once I'd have said Skoda, but I understand they have upped their game considerably in recent years - so there's always hope!)

Edited December 6, 2016 by Willie Whizz

[Edwardian]

  I said: ...  "We might be trying to judge something that was only ever meant to be a Daewoo by the standards we'd expect of a Mercedes."    ...

 

No argument with the first point above. On the second point, we may have to agree to differ to an extent, then.  But I think most modellers, looking at the recent Hornby offerings (not the re-hashed 30-year old toolings) and comparing to the prototypes that inspired them have had no great difficulty in adjusting their expectations of a new model explicitly designed for the Railroad range compared to one explicitly designed for the Main Range (and priced at say 50% or so higher for a comparable-size model).

 

After all, to pursue my analogy, both Daewoo and Mercedes make cars which perform all the basic core functions one would realistically require of a car; but purchasers do not expect Mercedes levels of design, ride, comfort, space and refinement for that money.  One could easily say Daewoo 'should' make 'better' cars, but they (presumably) actively don't want to; they have made a commercial business decision not to do so, but to design 'down to' a specific price bracket where they feel they can find sufficient customers to meet their business objectives.

 

The problem with Oxford Rail is that we do not yet clearly understand which end of that equivalent spectrum they are pitching their offerings at.  Are they aiming at Railroad (or even below)?  If so, then as I said, in their eyes 'near enough may be good enough' if they think 90% of the market will find it acceptable, and buy.  If they aspire to the 'Mercedes' equivalent of the latest Hornby and Bachmann offerings, as their use of the word 'excellence' implied, then clearly they are not yet succeeding (and may even be going backwards, if they don't correct the Dean Goods flaws now they've been made aware).  But it will be their commercial decision, and they (or at least their presence in the model railway market) will live and die by it..

 

 

[P.S.  Apologies to anyone who drives a Daewoo, by the way.  Just a lower-end brand picked at random - once I'd have said Skoda, but I understand they have upped their game considerably in recent years - so there's always hope!)

 

Fair point. But I still say that a basically accurate Dean to Railroad standards could have been produced and should have been produced!

 

But we will not stress over the relatively narrow issue that divides us!

 

 

Apropos the Dean Goods in the Third Reich discussion over on the Locomotion 2516 topic, let us not forget that it was the Germans who first addressed the issue of the class's cab-side cut-outs.

 

Notice how the German owners of no. 2475, one of the class represented in the Oxford range, have overcome the tooling defects by adding cab-side rivets, removing the splasher-front rivets and effectively disguising the cut-out profile.

 

P.S. Note how even superior German engineers could not overcome the need to have the washout plugs accessible.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Edwardian

[laurenceb]

But with computers, the internet, CAD/CAM, 3D printing, CNC machinery etc.  how could they cock it up ?

To err is human, to really stuff it up you need a computer

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Do you know how to identify the models that have the newer (right hand) chassis?...

 By observation the much higher location of the bottom of the keeper plate is an easy giveaway, thanks to the much better airspace and thus light beneath. You want catalogue numbers starting 32-, but beware the bottom feeders putting a 32- xxx body on an old split chassis mechanism.

 

... 'that right hand chassis looks as if it could fit under a small wheeled Victorian tender engine"

 Small tank engines too! The motor turns through 90 degrees to assist getting it into narrow openings, which made it a snap for fitting into a J52 body, All that has to be done to enable this is to cut away two moulded plastic bumps in the base of the plastic cradle/retainer, which the motor is clipped into.

[Edwardian]

 By observation the much higher location of the bottom of the keeper plate is an easy giveaway, thanks to the much better airspace and thus light beneath. You want catalogue numbers starting 32-, but beware the bottom feeders putting a 32- xxx body on an old split chassis mechanism.

 

 Small tank engines too! The motor turns through 90 degrees to assist getting it into narrow openings, which made it a snap for fitting into a J52 body, All that has to be done to enable this is to cut away two moulded plastic bumps in the base of the plastic cradle/retainer, which the motor is clipped into.

 

That is most helpful, both points, thank you.

 

 

So, the German 2475.  This is one of Oxford's chosen Deans.  There is a point, beyond satire, in posting this picture.  It is commented upon in the William Dean book.  The author points out that the cab scoop has been filled by butt welding a curved piece of steel into place, and that one can see the join.

 

To my eyes, it appears that, even in this state, the cab-side cut-out of one of Oxford's chosen prototypes is different from the one depicted in the model.  In common with the vast majority of photographs I have seen of the class, the curvature of the cut-out is much tighter, especially the return curve to the top, than Oxford has chosen to represent.

 

So, actually, not even in wartime could the characteristic scoop of the cab be fully camouflaged! 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Edwardian