Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[Mikkel]

In answer to this, which was raised at various times in the thread:
 

Do you think it is possable to convert the Mainline body to fit the Oxford chassis.

 
Yes, it is possible. It does require some fairly drastic interventions, but getting to this point took didn't take much more than an hour. More time would be needed to improve the fit further, deal with the underside of the boiler, and repair various sacrifices that have to be made.
 

[Quarryscapes]

In answer to this, which was raised at various times in the thread:

 

 

Yes, it is possible. It does require some fairly drastic interventions, but getting to this point took didn't take much more than an hour. More time would be needed to improve the fit further, deal with the underside of the boiler, and repair various sacrifices that have to be made.

 

 

Looks nice and neat to me! The thought of trying to cut the bottom of the boiler out leaving a perfect straight join line in a visible area is putting me right off doing the same! Does the big moulded lump under the dome need to go?

[brian777999]

What will you do for a dome ? Why didn't you keep the Mainline dome ?

[Mikkel]

Looks nice and neat to me! The thought of trying to cut the bottom of the boiler out leaving a perfect straight join line in a visible area is putting me right off doing the same!

 

I agree that this is a challenge. I certainly didn't get a straight line when i cut it, and the subsequent filing to clear out space for the motor made the walls thin towards the bottom.

 

Add to that another issue: The Mainline boiler is 1.8 mm across, the Oxford one is 1.9 mm.

 

 

 

This means that the Mainline boiler actually sits a little inward of the Oxford boiler section - although note that it is not pushed down fully in this picture (as you can see over the r/h splasher):

 

 

 

If I was doing a Belpaire version, I would try to solve it by gently opening out the Mainline boiler a little. The material is not ideal for this, but it might be possible. I would then work on the edges with a putty of sorts, to create a straight edge.

 

 

Does the big moulded lump under the dome need to go?

 

Yes I would say the lump has to go - I certainly removed it. There is actually more room around the motor than I thought there would be, but you need all the space you can get to make the footplate align perfectly with the tender.

 

 

[coachmann]

Is the body is sat correctly on the chassis? There is an amazing amount of space between the top of the wheel flange and splasher top in that lower picture...

Edited July 6, 2017 by coachmann

[Horsetan]

Is the body is sat correctly on the chassis? There is an amazing amount of space between the top of the wheel flange and splasher top in that lower picture..

 

Conversely, are the Mainline splashers too big?

[coachmann]

Conversely, are the Mainline splashers too big?

It can be taken they are too large ~ typical on plastic RTR. But I was thinking they look hyper large in that picture and that there is lots of room for more accurate ones.

 

Mind you, where does one stop?  Fitting smaller diameter splashers would be better allied to a completely new running plate, angle and steps in metal.

Edited July 6, 2017 by coachmann

[Mikkel]

What will you do for a dome ? Why didn't you keep the Mainline dome ?

 

If you're doing a Belpaire version there's no need to remove the Mainline dome really. I took it off some time ago just to see what was underneath it.

 

Just to avoid confusion, I'm not actually doing a Belpaire version myself. I only experimented with it yesterday to see if it was possible. For my roundtop boilered S4 version I'll be using a dome I had in the spares box (I think it might be from Finney actually). Here it is on the Oxford boiler (I cut off the Oxford dome), with the Mainline footplate. I won't be using the Oxford boiler, just trying it all out to see how it looks.

 

 

 

Is the body is sat correctly on the chassis? There is an amazing amount of space between the top of the wheel flange and splasher top in that lower picture..

 

The frames are bending up and out a bit due to my attack on the footplate - so this adds to the effect. Even so, I was quite surprised myself how much room there is.

 

 

Conversely, are the Mainline splashers too big?

 

But not as oversize as the Oxford ones, hence my experiments with the Mainline footplate.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Mikkel

[Edwardian]

If you're doing a Belpaire version there's no need to remove the Mainline dome really. I took it off some time ago just to see what was underneath it.

 

Just to avoid confusion, I'm not actually doing a Belpaire version myself. I only experimented with it yesterday to see if it was possible. For my roundtop boilered S4 version I'll be using a dome I had in the spares box (I think it might be from Finney actually). Here it is on the Oxford boiler (I cut off the Oxford dome), with the Mainline footplate. I won't be using the Oxford boiler, just trying it all out to see how it looks.

 

DSCN3559.jpg

 

 

 

The frames are bending out a bit due to my attack on the footplate - so this adds to the effect. Even so, I was quite surprised myself how much room there is.

 

 

 

But not as oversize as the Oxford ones, hence my experiments with the Mainline footplate.

 

That is the Oxford boiler on the Mainline footplate on the Oxford chassis, yes?

Edited July 6, 2017 by Edwardian

[Willie Whizz]

 

.... I also despair of a culture, which is not the fault of the youngsters, but which non the less values style and presentation above content, substance and fact.

 

Quite ... but how would one change that culture, unless one engages with it?  'It' will probably not engage with 'one', because 'it' finds enough to satisfy its needs from the channels it is accustomed to, and/or doesn't realise that better might be possible.

 

Of course, one could say "I don't want to engage with these people and to try and educate them into a more sophisticated way of looking at things; I don't have the skills even if I had the time and inclination".  Fine, as far as that goes, but if they are the ones whose purchases largely drive the production of RTR models, please don't then complain if the manufacturers either don't produce what you want, or it turns out a turkey when they do.

[brian777999]

That new dome is a 100% improvement on the Oxford dome.

[Mikkel]

That is the Oxford boiler on the Mainline footplate on the Oxford chassis, yes?

 

Yes    It would be convenient to use the Oxford boiler as it fits the chassis boiler underside thing, but (i) the Oxford boiler doesn't extend far enough back towards the cab when the Belpaire is removed, (ii) the base of the Oxford dome (which I cut off as I prefer polished brass domes) is bigger than the base of my replacement dome, and (iii) the Oxford handrail height could give problems.

 

For a quick conversion these issues could be tolerated though, especially if the Oxford dome was left as supplied. You could also a very quick S2 boiler by turning the Oxford boiler around - although the dome gets to sit 1-2 mms too far back then 

[brian777999]

I think the Oxford dome MUST be replaced ; it just looks wrong. As soon as I saw it I knew there was a problem.

[Willie Whizz]

Like The Sun sells more copies than the Times, because the Sun is top quality journalism? (CJL)

 

Not for me to tell a journalist his job - or is it? - but surely the Sun sells more copies than the Times because it provides its target readership with what they want, presented in an accessible  manner and style for which they are best able and equipped to consume it, at a price they can afford and are willing to pay.

 

If it didn't sell, the advertisers wouldn't support it.  If it didn't make an acceptable profit, the owners would sell it or shut it down.  If the journalism was seriously inaccurate, as opposed to the language being deliberately kept simple and straightforward, the Regulators would be all over it.

 

The Sun has a place in print media like 'ready-to-plant' buildings have a place in model railways.  It isn't for everybody, but it finds a good-sized market that would otherwise go less satisfied or outright unsatisfied.  If the Sun suddenly didn't exist, the chances are that the Times would only attract a couple of percent of its former readership - if that - because it is perceived by them as old-fashioned, elitist and out-of-touch with their lives.  They would get their news and views from other media - as many young people are already starting to, at a lot less quality and reliability unfortunately.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Willie Whizz

[Edwardian]

Yes    It would be convenient to use the Oxford boiler as it fits the chassis boiler underside thing, but (i) the Oxford boiler doesn't extend far enough back towards the cab when the Belpaire is removed, (ii) the base of the Oxford dome (which I cut off as I prefer polished brass domes) is bigger than the base of my replacement dome, and (iii) the Oxford handrail height could give problems.

 

For a quick conversion these issues could be tolerated though, especially if the Oxford dome was left as supplied. You could also a very quick S2 boiler by turning the Oxford boiler around - although the dome gets to sit 1-2 mms too far back then 

 

That all makes perfect sense, thanks. 

 

As I will also be considering the OR DG for conversion to round-top fire-box versions, I would want to use a brass dome to represent a polished brass dome.  Thanks to one of your other posts, I am encouraged to think that I could achieve this by buffing up Alan Gibson lost wax cast Dean domes.

 

I was assuming that I would simply replace the boiler barrel, not least because I'd like to have an S2 version, but the cast boiler bottom on the Oxford chassis is an unwelcome complication.

 

EDIT:  Above you helpfully mentioned the respective diameters of the Mainline and Oxford boilers.  Can I take it that you meant 18mm and 19mm?

Edited July 6, 2017 by Edwardian

[dibber25]

On the subject of model reviews.

If I wanted an honest review of a model the last place I would look would be in one of the Model Railway magazines.

Yes a lot of the YouTube reviews are rubbish or at best poor but no poorer than those that regularly appear in the Model Railway press.

So, not in the least bit provocative, then! Please tell us in what respect you consider us dishonest. If I'm being called a liar, I'd like some evidence put forward. I have, after all probably had more reviews of model railway equipment published than any other individual alive today. But then, come to think of it, the last place I'd look for an unbiased opinion is RMweb! (CJL)

[Roy Langridge]

We are immensely privileged to have some of the most experienced modellers there are sharing that knowledge directly with us here on RMWeb - those that are involved in the printed press and those that are not. I know I have learned a great deal and continue to do so.

 

Nobody is being dishonest, opinion is a highly subjective thing and rarely will two individuals opinions agree 100%

 

All that is needed is fair assessments and I can understand the view point that the YouTube video was unfair having not reviewed the workings of the model in accordance with its instructions and that many who view it may be unaware of this. Nonetheless do video reviews have a place? Yes, but so does the printed press.

 

So, please let us not continue down the path of somewhat personal slights against the likes of Dibber25. To lose contributors to this forum would be loss to us all.

 

Roy

[Mikkel]

That all makes perfect sense, thanks. 

 

As I will also be considering the OR DG for conversion to round-top fire-box versions, I would want to use a brass dome to represent a polished brass dome.  Thanks to one of your other posts, I am encouraged to think that I could achieve this by buffing up Alan Gibson lost wax cast Dean domes.

 

I was assuming that I would simply replace the boiler barrel, not least because I'd like to have an S2 version, but the cast boiler bottom on the Oxford chassis is an unwelcome complication.

 

EDIT:  Above you helpfully mentioned the respective diameters of the Mainline and Oxford boilers.  Can I take it that you meant 18mm and 19mm?

 

I can't remember if the Gibson dome is right for the Dean Goods - it would be nice if it was. One thing we don't know is how hard it actually is to remove the Oxford motor and cut down that cast boiler underside. Maybe that's the proper solution. I'll leave it as a last resort for now though.

 

Yes I meant 18 and 19 mm, sorry. However note that (i) I don't have a caliper and (ii) I've just tried both opening out and "squeezing in " the Mainline boiler a bit, and it can be changed about 1mm each way. Which makes me realize that in practice it's not really about the diameter, but about the curvature just where the Mainline boiler meets the chassis section. 

Edited July 6, 2017 by Mikkel

[Hilux5972]

To lose contributors to this forum would be loss to us all.

 

Roy

Especially someone who has been in the model Railway business as long as Chris has. If we lost someone with so much knowledge of the model business, it would be a huge loss to the community.

[Edwardian]

So, not in the least bit provocative, then! Please tell us in what respect you consider us dishonest. If I'm being called a liar, I'd like some evidence put forward. I have, after all probably had more reviews of model railway equipment published than any other individual alive today. But then, come to think of it, the last place I'd look for an unbiased opinion is RMweb! (CJL)

 

Running a magazine must seem a thankless task.  Everyone has an opinion, and it is impossible to satisfy everyone.  A reviewer must face a similar problem.  Especially when everyone's a critic. 

 

And, I'll readily concede, there is a lot of opinion on RMWeb.  And I daresay a good deal of it is quite biased.

 

What has marked this topic, however, IMHO, apart from the relative lack of heat, for which I am grateful, is the contribution by many folk of verifiable facts in relation to the prototype.  As a result we can safely say that this model is demonstrably inaccurate in very many respects. Fact.

 

Whether that bothers prospective purchasers is an entirely different matter; a matter for them, in fact.

 

The level of detail this topic has achieved in terms of its critique of the model is, in my experience, seldom matched by magazine reviews.  That is not meant as a criticism of magazines, and it is not intended to imply anything untoward, such as the theories we hear concerning the "dark forces" of advertisers influencing objectivity, or, that the reviewers are not sufficiently knowledgeable of the prototype.  I certainly would not imply dishonesty. That is not the right way to characterise any perceived shortcomings in a review. 

 

In passing, I am a subscriber of Model Rail and very happy to be so.  One of the best and most balanced reviews of a RTR loco of interest to me was in MR - that of the Hornby Star.  Despite the misgivings of the reviewer, I chose to buy this model.  In fact, I believe, the very example that was reviewed!  I was happy to make my purchase with eyes wide open, however, thanks to the reviewer's approach, which was balanced but which did not shrink from the negatives.  Sometimes to be fair is to be harsh but fair. 

 

I am also a fan of CJL's involvement in, and contributions to, the magazine.  I grew up on his GW stations books, and that makes him the nearest thing on earth to a manifest deity so far as I am concerned.  He need fear no slander from me!

 

My perception is that reviews in magazines have a particular purpose - to give a general assessment of the model, mechanically as well as cosmetically - and that they have to cover more ground than just accuracy points.

 

I would still like to see the accuracy of models probed a little more searchingly in magazine reviews, but, I suppose, I have learnt that I need to conduct my own research if I want anything like a complete picture.  

 

The model of 2309 has over 30 identifiable and verifiable inaccuracies so far as I am aware (there may well be more!), the majority of which afflict the other two versions as well, many, probably most, of which are fairly substantial errors.  I wonder how many of these will get picked up in magazine reviews. 

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

So, not in the least bit provocative, then! Please tell us in what respect you consider us dishonest. If I'm being called a liar, I'd like some evidence put forward. I have, after all probably had more reviews of model railway equipment published than any other individual alive today. But then, come to think of it, the last place I'd look for an unbiased opinion is RMweb! (CJL)

 

In the same vain Chris, an individual on this forum yesterday suggested that if  the magazines had reviewed the sample Dean Goods model they would have played down the shortcomings of it, thereby misleading their customers.

 

I asked if he had any evidence for that. Strangely he hasn't replied to my question.

 

I'd now like to ask him if he wants to stand by his accusations or retract. 

 

I now realise it was naive of me to ask if he had supporting evidence - people of this ilk aren't interested in supporting evidence. To them it is an un-necessary inconvenience, a mere hindrance to reaching the conclusions they want to reach anyway.

[Compound2632]

I can't remember if the Gibson dome is right for the Dean Goods - it would be nice if it was. One thing we don't know is how hard it actually is to remove the Oxford motor and cut down that cast boiler underside. Maybe that's the proper solution. I'll leave it as a last resort for now though.

 

Yes I meant 18 and 19 mm, sorry. However note that (i) I don't have a caliper and (ii) I've just tried both opening out and "squeezing in " the Mainline boiler a bit, and it can be changed about 1mm each way. Which makes me realize that in practice it's not really about the diameter, but about the curvature just where the Mainline boiler meets the chassis section. 

 

Dome. The early round-topped boiler engines with the dome forward on the front ring, the dome looks a good deal more slender than on the Belpaire engines, or even on later round-topped boilers with the dome on the second ring of the boiler. In a couple of articles from the 1990 Railway Modeller (thanks Mikkel) the author converted Mainline engines into examples of these using a 517 dome (Crownline, I think) - would the current Alan Gibson 517 dome pass muster?

[Edwardian]

Dome. The early round-topped boiler engines with the dome forward on the front ring, the dome looks a good deal more slender than on the Belpaire engines, or even on later round-topped boilers with the dome on the second ring of the boiler. In a couple of articles from the 1990 Railway Modeller (thanks Mikkel) the author converted Mainline engines into examples of these using a 517 dome (Crownline, I think) - would the current Alan Gibson 517 dome pass muster?

 

Chronology is not so simple, as the GW was forever swapping boilers.

 

The initial Lot, which includes 2309 BTW, were built with narrower running plates (by 3" IIRC), and curved front steps (both of which features they retained and neither of which are seen on Oxford's 2309), and were built with domeless boilers.  By a date that escapes me, but probably late 1890s, they received domed boilers.

 

Subsequent Lots were built with domed boilers.  IIRC these would initially have been with domes on the front ring, as you suggest, but the GW then settled down to a period of swapping S2 (front ring dome) and S4, (centre dome) boilers, so it was entirely possible for a DG to receive a front-dome S2 to replace a centre-dome S4.

 

The reason I don't need to remember any dates off the top of my head is because boiler histories are published for the class, e.g. in the William Dean volume that has been referred to here several times.

 

EDIT: I think the Alan Gibson dome is intended inter alia for a 517.  I have one lurking somewhere, but confess I have not had it out for a look.  AG just describes it simply as a Dean dome, IIRC, so the only thing to do is get hold of one and see!

Edited July 6, 2017 by Edwardian

[Willie Whizz]

So, please let us not continue down the path of somewhat personal slights against the likes of Dibber25. To lose contributors to this forum would be loss to us all.

 

Roy

 

I entirely agree.   'Personal slights' would be quite out of order.  What I would add as a general point, though, is that if the 'Gods' - any of those on here -  choose to descend to the level of 'Mere Mortals'  by making rather sarcastic (not even genuinely humorous) comments about perfectly serious posts then they (and those who respect them) can hardly fairly complain if they are, at the very least, answered seriously.

[Compound2632]

Chronology is not so simple, as the GW was forever swapping boilers.

 

The initial Lot, which includes 2309 BTW, were built with narrower running plates (by 3" IIRC), and curved front steps (both of which features they retained and neither of which are seen on Oxford's 2309), and were built with domeless boilers.  By a date that escapes me, but probably late 1890s, they received domed boilers.

 

Subsequent Lots were built with domed boilers.  IIRC these would initially have been with domes on the front ring, as you suggest, but the GW then settled down to a period of swapping S2 (front ring dome) and S4, (centre dome) boilers, so it was entirely possible for a DG to receive a front-dome S2 to replace a centre-dome S4.

 

The reason I don't need to remember any dates off the top of my head is because boiler histories are published for the class, e.g. in the William Dean volume that has been referred to here several times.

 

EDIT: I think the Alan Gibson dome is intended inter alia for a 517.  I have one lurking somewhere, but confess I have not had it out for a look.  AG just describes it simply as a Dean dome, IIRC, so the only thing to do is get hold of one and see!

 

Thanks. The current (Spring 2017) Alan Gibson catalogue lists several domes including: 4M731 '517' dome; 4M729 '633' dome; and 4M761 large dome No. 36 and Dean Single. I believe the first two originated with M&L kits that Alan Gibson took over. What's got me going is a photo of No. 2399 'in original condition', Locomotives Illustrated 157 credited as Photomatic 1632. This is an engine that was shedded at Wolverhampton in January 1902 - good enough coordinates for my purposes. Original condition means: S2 boiler, open coal rails on the tender, and also short smokebox - which would be my point of difference from what Mikkel's out to achieve. I understand the final lot of engines built in 1897-99 had the extended smokebox from new and it was then applied to earlier engines, certainly by 1906 in some cases. 

 

This is at present only a feasibility study and I'm thinking more along Mainline lines than Oxford - at a first pass I'd settle for a static model - but raises numerous questions which I'm not so lazy as to expect folk to answer for me here and now although a pointer in the right direction would be v. useful - for example, is the William Dean book comprehensive at the individual engine history level?