Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[The Johnster]

Which is entirely fair. 

 

My own modelling takes many liberties. 

 

It's our choice.

 

After all, you are not trying to charge people for a 2721.

 

It's just that some people appear to object to having an informed choice and I have seen them fight for the right to be left in ignorance!  Every time that happens my head just unscrews and clatters to the floor. 

 

But Hornby were.

[PhilH]

Which is entirely fair. 

 

My own modelling takes many liberties. 

 

It's our choice.

 

After all, you are not trying to charge people for a 2721.

 

It's just that some people appear to object to having an informed choice and I have seen them fight for the right to be left in ignorance!  Every time that happens my head just unscrews and clatters to the floor.

 

Wouldn't it be fair to say though that there is a difference between posting enough information to give people that informed choice and banging on and on and on and on about it and, in some cases, getting somewhat defamatory about the organisations behind these models. In my opinion that's when polarisation sets in and the 'fighting' begins.

 

I think you know what I'm talking about here.....

[amdaley]

 "Those who advised Oxford"......and who might they be,do you think? A good question,considering that occasionally members of this forum have ably assisted r-t-r manufacturers to the benefit of all. Not this time though ......at least it seems likely not .But really was any assistance sought ? It would appear not to be the case...no one is putting their hand up. Mind you If that's the case it is understandable in the circumstances .

 

Little information is forthcoming from Oxford. I imagine they have gone to ground after (on this forum at least ) a critical mauling. I have a degree of sympathy.I know from a short conversation I had on the Oxford stand at the NEC last November they were defensive on the issue. Possibly a lack of experience ? Or maybe the Dean Goods is the wrong choice and is a can of worms to model convincingly and accurately in shape ,design and chronologically appropriate manner......at a price acceptable to most.

 

 

Its hard to say who advised them or what they intended to do.

Perhaps it would have been best if they chose a variant of the Deans Goods in a period where the details were relatively stable ?

Now it appears that some of the details are wrong for all the variants. That is just plain wrong advice, information, research or whatever or the lack off.

No one ever expects 100% accuracy but when a manufacturer fails to get even the basic look right.

 

As I said in an earlier post "To the majority of Oxfords intended customer base its fine"

This is just a forum discussion.

The world won't stand or fall on what we say here so no need for people to get upset.

 

This is a quote from Oxford Rails CEO Lyndon Davies at the launch of Oxford Rail in 2015.

 

"I, along with my development team, have for several years been closely monitoring the model railway field, especially in the UK. I now believe that the time is right for Oxford Rail to enter the market, but I am not interested in just introducing the occasional locomotive model.

"We have a rolling planned introduction program based on extensive market research, as well as talking to (and listening to) railway modellers. I am determined that Oxford Rail will be judged on the integrity and the quality of our models that we will be offering. Our first exciting model is the Adams Radial, Class 415 designed by William Adams in 1882 for the London and South Western Railway. It continued in service with the Southern Railway and British Railways. Although the intention was to withdraw these locos by 1929, three remained in service on the Lyme Regis branch line until 1962, and one survived on the Bluebell Railway.

More new model railway items will be announced in the near future, not all of them locomotives. First shots of the  Adams radial will be available in the first quarter of 2015".

 

I think something must have got lost in translation along the way or else they couldn't find any railway modellers ?

Maybe they just looked on Youtube   

[Edwardian]

Wouldn't it be fair to say though that there is a difference between posting enough information to give people that informed choice and banging on and on and on and on about it and, in some cases, getting somewhat defamatory about the organisations behind these models. In my opinion that's when polarisation sets in and the 'fighting' begins.

 

I think you know what I'm talking about here.....

 

I try to avoid pejorative terms like "banging on"

 

Most posts tend to respond to news or to other posts.  So, for example, some people have suggested that the Locomotion changes have addressed, or will address, all the defects.  There is an issue to discuss right there.   

 

Then there has been some discussion of dimensions, which has only become possible following the release and measurement of the model, e.g. footplate width and splasher size.   

 

CJL actually asked for comprehensive feedback.  I and others did not burden the forum by repeating previous points, but responded by PM.  There was, however, a discussion on the issue of faults-lists, and some points arose from that.

 

It is the natural flow of debate, with people responding to new information and new points.

 

I don't see any of this as gratuitously "banging on".  People are free to challenge the information posted, if they happen to know better.  If they are simply not interested in the information, the logical response is to ignore it.

 

Dismissing it as "banging on" would seem to be the least satisfactory response available.

 

Anyway, I fear we are on the verge of a sterile debate of false equivalences and that is not of interest to me, so forgive me if I ignore it. 

 

 

But Hornby were.

 

 

 And I would have critiqued it accordingly! 

 

I might still have bought one, had I a spare Bachmann Pannier chassis to stick underneath it, that is!

 

The point is, you do what suits you without needing to get others to buy into it.

[tomparryharry]

In fairness to Oxford Rail, they appear to have set their desired standards quite high. Sometimes, getting 'shot at' is a difficult subject to cover, especially with so many slight variations, over a considerable lifespan. Communication is the keyword here. Discussing from the problems encountered with a wider audience helps to widen the appeal, especially if the viewpoint is from 'getting it right'. It still appears that Oxford Rail still engender a lot of goodwill, and I'm fairly sure the Dean goods has a wide appeal. 

 

What won't happen, however, is preaching to a manufacturer to 'do this', or 'do that'. Suggesting to a maker to show what you'd like to see, in terms of the product, will help go a long way. The reality of development cost overrun is a very real situation where product  is concerned, and I've seen developments in the real world go in the bin, because a client is acting outside their sphere of influence. There are quite a few parallels drawn here. 

 

Help & guide by all means. Exemplarise also. I'd guess we can help Oxford Rail over this, if they wish.

 

Ian

[JSpencer]

With their Warwells and EKR radial (no 5 left the EKR in 1946), Ocfordrail could do a WD liveried Dean goods.

 

The following were recorded on the EKR in 1944:

93 (also seen 1943)

95

96

97

175

 

The following were recorded with condensing gear

177

179 (1943 only)

197

 

The following was recorded in 1940 and 1941 towing an AA train and was later named Betty.

171

 

The last is too early for Warwells but I think 93 would make a good stable mate for EKR 5.

[Compound2632]

A very great deal has changed in the world of 00 gauge RTR since the Hornby 2721 first saw the light of day in 1980. Oxford's Dean Goods should be compared with the Bachmann C or 3F/4F, or the Hornby 700 Class, all low-footplate 0-6-0s which present similar challenges to the designer.

[Ryde-on-time]

Wouldn't it be fair to say though that there is a difference between posting enough information to give people that informed choice and banging on and on and on and on about it and, in some cases, getting somewhat defamatory about the organisations behind these models. In my opinion that's when polarisation sets in and the 'fighting' begins.

I think you know what I'm talking about here.....

I know there have been other threads like that but I do feel this one has on ballance been constructive

 

Since the model has been released, errors have been repeated but alongside some proper modelling with people attempting in a constructive manner to see what can be done to make improvements which I have found of great interest. I am grateful to those that have taken the time to answer questions about the model and provide photos

[Roy Langridge]

I think Oxford rather placed themselves upon a pedestal that they are now on the verge of teetering from. Their ambition is to be applauded, their performance at the current time is rightly being criticised. Every model has significant failings, even their new building range has errors that should not be there, and surely these are simpler models to design and build?

 

As noted above, what is really needed now is a two way communication channel whereby both sides can contribute to the improvement in Oxfords performance. DJ does it, Dapol have their digest, Hornby have started liaising. I imagine these three, and others, don't do it for no reason.

 

Roy

[The Johnster]

A very great deal has changed in the world of 00 gauge RTR since the Hornby 2721 first saw the light of day in 1980. Oxford's Dean Goods should be compared with the Bachmann C or 3F/4F, or the Hornby 700 Class, all low-footplate 0-6-0s which present similar challenges to the designer.

 

To be fair to it, the Hornby 2721 is not the same toy as it was in 1980, though the heritage shows. It has a current chassis and a much better finish, though cannot escape it's Jinty geeric wheelbase.  Mine runs almost as well as current Baccy 0-6-0s, and is improving with running in (the biggest improvement in running was binning the traction tyre; it can still handle the 10 loaded minerals and a brake van that are my heaviest train).  As I said, the Ox Dean Goods is a superior model in any and every respect, and I was not trying to compare the models, more pointing out my similar attitude to both of them.  Of course, I would prefer a perfect 2721, but I can't have one unless I scratch build it, which I don't have the time or skill for.  It'll do.  I am less bothered by the plastic skirt beneath the boiler than I thought I'd be.

[The Johnster]

I think Oxford rather placed themselves upon a pedestal that they are now on the verge of teetering from. Their ambition is to be applauded, their performance at the current time is rightly being criticised. Every model has significant failings, even their new building range has errors that should not be there, and surely these are simpler models to design and build?

 

As noted above, what is really needed now is a two way communication channel whereby both sides can contribute to the improvement in Oxfords performance. DJ does it, Dapol have their digest, Hornby have started liaising. I imagine these three, and others, don't do it for no reason.

 

Roy

In pursuit of excellence, but not quite caught up with it yet.  Being in pursuit of it is a step in the right direction though, and it may be that your suggested channel of communication will enable them to gain a few steps on the elusive quarry, so long as proposed models are not endlessly delayed by rivet counting.  I am a great supporter of the idea of Oxford; an rtr player with the stated intention of providing quality models at competitive prices is already showing bravery just by saying that, and it keeps the established players on their toes.  

[Edwardian]

It is not enough to offer keen prices.  Your strap line need to be free of any suspicion of hubris.

 

I think the lesson I take from all of this is never to set up as a model railway manufacturer, but, that if I do, simply adopt the slogan "Complacently Average".

[The Johnster]

If I ever set up in competition, I'll use 'Averagely Complacent', which is of course completely different...

[dibber25]

I think Oxford rather placed themselves upon a pedestal that they are now on the verge of teetering from. Their ambition is to be applauded, their performance at the current time is rightly being criticised. Every model has significant failings, even their new building range has errors that should not be there, and surely these are simpler models to design and build?

 

As noted above, what is really needed now is a two way communication channel whereby both sides can contribute to the improvement in Oxfords performance. DJ does it, Dapol have their digest, Hornby have started liaising. I imagine these three, and others, don't do it for no reason.

 

Roy

Sorry, how do we know there are 'errors' in the buildings range? Have we seen any review samples? All I've seen was a miniature example of the packaging. (CJL)

Edited July 10, 2017 by dibber25

[Talltim]

AFAIK know the buildings haven't been seen in the wild yet, so people are going on the photos on the website, of course they may change for the production versions, but...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/123202-oxford-2017-announce-oxford-structures/

http://oxfordrail.com/76/structures.htm

Edited July 10, 2017 by Talltim

[Roy Langridge]

Sorry, how do we know there are 'errors' in the buildings range? Have we seen any review samples? All I've seen was a miniature example of the packaging. (CJL)

Look at the photos they have released and there are many problems. Doors that open into fireplaces, chimneys that end below rooflines, brick pillars where we have never seen pillars, engineering bricks where they are not used, lintels that don't extend beyond the window frames...

 

To be honest their goods shed looks like somebody drew what was needed from a slightly fuzzy memory and didn't quite get it right.

 

http://oxfordrail.com/76/structures.htm

 

Roy

[kandc_au]

I fear no matter what manufacturers do they will always get things wrong for a lot of reasons.

Time and the changes over the time the vehicle/loco was in service and just human error.
Things are pointed out, and you then have to decide do you still want to buy or not!
That is about the only question here!

 

Khris

[Welchester]

It is not enough to offer keen prices.  Your strap line need to be free of any suspicion of hubris.

 

I rather like the thought of the Dean Goods as nemesis.

[Compound2632]

Things are pointed out, and you then have to decide do you still want to buy or not!

That is about the only question here!

 

The really dangerous thing is that I may be lured into buying one now that I've got interested in correcting its defects, whereas I probably wouldn't have looked at it twice if it had been spot on. Potential sale to Oxford, so no harm done from their point of view!

[Ian Hargrave]

I rather like the thought of the Dean Goods as nemesis.

Gotterdammerung ? Hopefully not. Well the Greeks had a saying..." Those whom the gods wish to destroy,they first make mad ".....

[Edwardian]

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy first receive a model of the Oxford Dean Goods for review.

[Compound2632]

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy first receive a model of the Oxford Dean Goods for review.

 

So schneidet Siegfrieds Schwert! Sorry, Nordic rather than Greek mythology. The true modeller will exercise his free will and not accept the law as handed down by the one-eyed manufacturers.

[The Stationmaster]

 "Those who advised Oxford"......and who might they be,do you think? A good question,considering that occasionally members of this forum have ably assisted r-t-r manufacturers to the benefit of all. Not this time though ......at least it seems likely not .But really was any assistance sought ? It would appear not to be the case...no one is putting their hand up. Mind you If that's the case it is understandable in the circumstances .

 

Little information is forthcoming from Oxford. I imagine they have gone to ground after (on this forum at least ) a critical mauling. I have a degree of sympathy.I know from a short conversation I had on the Oxford stand at the NEC last November they were defensive on the issue. Possibly a lack of experience ? Or maybe the Dean Goods is the wrong choice and is a can of worms to model convincingly and accurately in shape ,design and chronologically appropriate manner......at a price acceptable to most.

 

 

Quite agree - I have more than a suspicion that 'those who advised Oxford' are probably non-existent and always have been.  At least one error on the model makes fairly clear what happened in 'development' and I think it would not be unfair to say that a particular prototype loco was scanned, an assemblage of various photos of it and some others was made, possibly some drawings were found in a book (and weren't necessarily the best ones), and the whole lot was sent off to China where the designer and development engineer worked from that information doing their best to reconcile various things they saw on photos etc.

 

Let's not forget that Oxford are newcomers to the British outline r-t-r scene, that they will probably be working to a budget and business plan for each model, that they are dealing with a very fickle market (i.e. us lot), and they probably don't have any sort of deeper research organisation like Bachmann or Hornby (both of whom also consult people outside their own teams).  Put that lot together and as I said before I do wonder about anybody having the nerve to tackle a Dean Goods unless they start from an idea of doing it on a very basic basis.

[tomparryharry]

I'd like to think there is, or will be, a positive outcome from this. If the manufacturers take flight, or lose nerve, then you can wave newer models such as the DG goodbye. It's not to say that the DG is neither good or bad, or even redeemable. But, to be honest, would you stick your toe in the water?

 

Reminds me of the road map on the M4, as you pass by Swindon: "Beware- here lie demons.....".

 

Ian

[Edwardian]

Sorry, how do we know there are 'errors' in the buildings range? Have we seen any review samples? All I've seen was a miniature example of the packaging. (CJL)

 

We can see them all here: http://oxfordrail.com/76/structures.htm

 

In terms of adherence to GW practice, there might be a few points to be made.  I agree with, I think, The Stationmaster, that the station building might be the best in this regard, but it will get jolly cold in the booking office and waiting rooms come the winter!

 

In fairness ,I believe these might not be finalised yet.  The OR web-page describes the items pictured as "approval samples". 

 

Anyway, we should be discussing it here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/123202-oxford-2017-announce-oxford-structures/