Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[4069]

You've obviously not seen the title of the other DG thread!

 

 

It appears to be what is printed on the box

Edited July 26, 2017 by 4069

[Danemouth]

Saw one at Lord & Butler today, fitted with DCC sound and a smoke unit - haven't seen that feature since goodness knows when. I will admit it had a certain play value but is not something I would wish for my own layout.

 

I wasn't impressed by the brass dome either, I should imagine these locos spent most of their lives being more than a little grubby, so for me on the model it stood out like a sore thumb.

 

Dave

[Edwardian]

Saw one at Lord & Butler today, fitted with DCC sound and a smoke unit - haven't seen that feature since goodness knows when. I will admit it had a certain play value but is not something I would wish for my own layout.

 

I wasn't impressed by the brass dome either, I should imagine these locos spent most of their lives being more than a little grubby, so for me on the model it stood out like a sore thumb.

 

Dave

 

I think part, at least, of the problem with that dome is that it is hard to reproduce brass convincingly with a paint finish.

 

I believe it was an unnecessary attempt, as, by 1913-4, the date the model apparently depicts, even if the dome were brass and not steel, it would very likely have been painted green.

[The Johnster]

The best, and IMHO the only sensible, thing to make brass domes out of is brass; you can then polish them up or dirty them down to your own satisfaction.  We are told by Ahrons and the like that the pre-WW! era was a semi mythical golden age of highly polished and immaculately turned out locos, allocated to drivers who cared for them (not pool/common user) and who brought the missus down to the shed on Sunday afternoons to have a go at the brasswork, and many photos of the era do show very highly polished locos, even goods and shunting engines, so I am quite happy to go along with Ox that 2309 had a brass dome while she was in the pre-war Indian Red frame livery, and, as the inestimable Ms P says, probably had it painted over in 'late Churchward' times when a tapered chimney was fitted.

[Edwardian]

The best, and IMHO the only sensible, thing to make brass domes out of is brass; you can then polish them up or dirty them down to your own satisfaction.  We are told by Ahrons and the like that the pre-WW! era was a semi mythical golden age of highly polished and immaculately turned out locos, allocated to drivers who cared for them (not pool/common user) and who brought the missus down to the shed on Sunday afternoons to have a go at the brasswork, and many photos of the era do show very highly polished locos, even goods and shunting engines, so I am quite happy to go along with Ox that 2309 had a brass dome while she was in the pre-war Indian Red frame livery, and, as the inestimable Ms P says, probably had it painted over in 'late Churchward' times when a tapered chimney was fitted.

 

Regulation was to paint them green from 1908. Steel domes, fitted from 1904, were always painted.  2309 received her B4 boiler in 1910.  2309 is depicted with a top-feed, so circa 1914, at which point she is photographed.

 

It is likely, therefore, that she was out-shopped with a painted dome in 1910, if she hadn't a green one before, and the photograph appears to show the dome painted.

 

I agree, a brass dome is the best way to represent a brass dome. 

 

EDIT:  I am grateful to receive clarification that the reference to 1908 on the gwr.org site was to photographic evidence that painted domes were common by this date, rather than to a particular instruction issued that year.  This would appear to reflect the implementation of the policy RCTS identifies as commencing in 1904; the introduction of painted steel covers and the gradual repainting of brass ones.  The conclusion, that 2309 had a painted dome in 1914, and probably at least since her re-boilering in 1910, remains valid

Edited July 27, 2017 by Edwardian

[The Johnster]

In that case the first thing to do is paint it green and not worry about how much like brass it doesn't look.

[The Johnster]

Gone a bit quiet over here now Andy's opened the new poll thread for the comments to be posted on, hasn't it?

[Edwardian]

Gone a bit quiet over here now Andy's opened the new poll thread for the comments to be posted on, hasn't it?

 

Just read yours and the Stationmaster's posts over on t'other thread. As the knives are already out there for the "moaners" - whoever they are! - I will free up a bit of space on Andy Y's thread and continue here.

 

I have just read the article linked by Mike the Stationmaster, which quotes Lyndon Davies as saying:

 

"I am determined that Oxford Rail will be judged on the integrity and the quality of our models that we will be offering".

 

Well, it certainly has.

 

Let's hope that Oxford is still "examining the possibilities of producing accurate and detailed models" and that the N7 will allow us to form a more positive judgement in due course.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Edwardian

[JSpencer]

Though I find both of these threads informative and useful. I will say that while some errors should have been easily avoided others (as Coachman said) will be the result of having to make generic choices to cover a large class across a wide period. Steam locos, especially those built nearer to start of the previous century are somewhat rustic machines than anything manufactured today. Bachmann found City of Truro was not perfectly symmetric for example...

 

I remember the 1980s when one RTR make happily used a generic model to cover two very different but similar looking classes and these models still fetch stupid money today despite there being far better more recent RTR equivalents.

 

Oxford did some silly errors cert, but the model has then come in for some really close scrutiny which as has been correctly pointed out, not seen elsewhere. This has me in two thoughts, on the positive side it is actually very nice to know these errors so anyone wishing to do so can put them right and it would be nice to have such scrutiny elsewhere. On the negative side, having been spotted for some silly errors, the model seems to have come in for a lot of extra focus, perhaps too much. It reminds me of someone making a big mistake at work, and then being closely watch on every single little error they make, punished for it even though their colleagues make similar regular errors.,

On the other thread for example, I have seen the suggestion that Oxford should have used an actual brass dome to ensure an actual brass colour. This is a nice idea however when Bachmann did their C class with its painted brass colour, I don,t remember seeing similar suggestions at the time.

 

The point is, we know that tooling up variations increases cost. Models of the 1980s rarely offered any variations. The 1990s barely saw different chimneys, domes and smoke deflectors.

It seems that Oxfords model is better suited grouping and BR days, yet given the choice of a Dean goods in pre grouping GWR colours or no model then what is preferred?

Edited July 29, 2017 by JSpencer

[Compound2632]

I would defend the Oxmoaners. The situation is very different to that of a third of a century and more ago when Hornby were making robust mass-market toys and Airfix and Mainline were just starting to raise the bar on accuracy. The market is very different - it may be that it's the same folk buying (!) but our expectations have risen (in response to what the manufacturers have shown themselves capable of), we are, by-and-large, able to pay for higher standards, and, perhaps most significantly, the whole process of product development is exposed to public scrutiny. Accurate information about the prototype is much more readily available to us the customers as well as to the manufacturers. Oxford Rail has explicitly pitched itself at that contemporary high end and so it is reasonable to measure its products against that standard. Of course there are compromises in producing an OO model - the concept is a compromise in itself - just as one recognises that there are compromises in building a P4 locomotive that will go round 3' curves - but there's a difference between such necessary compromises and plain errors. As one commentator has succinctly put it, Oxford have produced a model which does not represent accurately any member of the class at any stage in its career. To my mind, by our modern standards, a model that is identifiably universally wrong is rather different to a 'generic model'.

 

Magazine reviewers will necessarily be cautious in their criticism - their jobs depend on continued advertising revenue. Those who have commented on here from a position of detailed knowledge of the prototype are not subject to such constraints and hence can and have offered reasoned criticism which should be respected. In our Information Society we have such easy access to both truth and falsehood; it is our responsibility to sift the one from the other and respect truth when we meet it.

[Edwardian]

The word "generic" is possibly misleading here.  I have read the word "pastiche" here today, and that is closer to the mark here.

 

It was quite possible to devise a tooling that could represent some of the class some of the time.  What we have instead is a model that represents no class member at any time; pick any year and running number you choose and the Oxford Dean will be wrong!

 

If that's what's meant these days by a "good generic model", I'll pass, thank you. 

 

[i can moan about Brexit, too, if you like!]

[amdaley]

I would defend the Oxmoaners. The situation is very different to that of a third of a century and more ago when Hornby were making robust mass-market toys and Airfix and Mainline were just starting to raise the bar on accuracy. The market is very different - it may be that it's the same folk buying (!) but our expectations have risen (in response to what the manufacturers have shown themselves capable of), we are, by-and-large, able to pay for higher standards, and, perhaps most significantly, the whole process of product development is exposed to public scrutiny. Accurate information about the prototype is much more readily available to us the customers as well as to the manufacturers. Oxford Rail has explicitly pitched itself at that contemporary high end and so it is reasonable to measure its products against that standard. Of course there are compromises in producing an OO model - the concept is a compromise in itself - just as one recognises that there are compromises in building a P4 locomotive that will go round 3' curves - but there's a difference between such necessary compromises and plain errors. As one commentator has succinctly put it, Oxford have produced a model which does not represent accurately any member of the class at any stage in its career. To my mind, by our modern standards, a model that is identifiably universally wrong is rather different to a 'generic model'.

 

Magazine reviewers will necessarily be cautious in their criticism - their jobs depend on continued advertising revenue. Those who have commented on here from a position of detailed knowledge of the prototype are not subject to such constraints and hence can and have offered reasoned criticism which should be respected. In our Information Society we have such easy access to both truth and falsehood; it is our responsibility to sift the one from the other and respect truth when we meet it.

 

Yes agreed but young modellers or those with limited knowledge will often depend on these magazines for guidance on what is wrong or right.

If it becomes common knowledge that a certain magazine is not telling the whole story then that may affect their circulation which will in turn affect jobs.

After all its no good producing a magazine if no one buys it.

I know its a delicate operation presenting the facts good or bad without downright criticism of a model.

Who'd be an magazine editor  

[brian777999]

On the other thread for example, I have seen the suggestion that Oxford should have used an actual brass dome to ensure an actual brass colour. This is a nice idea however when Bachmann did their C class with its painted brass colour, I don,t remember seeing similar suggestions at the time.

 

 

 

The dome is also the wrong size and that stands out like the proverbial dog's genitals. They could have made it so that their dome could be easily removed and replaced by something better but as it is, you have to cut a huge hole in the boiler to get rid of it. If it been the correct size, a few coats of gloss brass paint might also have improved the appearance.

I can live with the other inaccuracies but the dome is such an important part of the overall appearance of the prototype that it cannot be ignored ; your eye is immediately drawn to it when looking at photos or models.

Edited July 30, 2017 by brian777999

[The Johnster]

To set the record straight, I think the painted brass dome on the Baccy C is awful, every bit as bad as Ox's on the Dean and just as inexcusable.  I agree that Ox are being picked on a bit here in a way that another manufacturer may not be, but Ox have yet to prove themselves in terms of locos and Baccy and Hornby already have; Baccy have always turned out a good model and H have improved tremendously in response to them over the last decade.  We trust the established names, and by and large we are justified in this, and while it might not be as fair as it ought to be, a new kid on the block needs to build trust by producing a good product, especially if they are trying to compete on price and are liable to come under scrutiny on quality as we are suspicious of where the savings are being made.  I've said a couple of times now that I support and approve of the Oxford concept, and think their aims to be brave, honest, and noble, but they are starting to wear out their welcome a bit.

 

I have been vociferous and repetitive on this forum in my criticism of Hornby and Dapol's toylike mineral wagons on generic incorrect sized chassis and the contempt for their customers that it implies, and usually quote Ox as an example of best practice in this respect.  I think I have been fair and equable in my criticism and praise of manufacturers where I think that criticism or praise is due; there is nothing wrong with a (current) Hornby toad behind an Oxford mineral wagon pulled by a Baccy pannier, all excellent models at a reasonable price and I've said so, so I have no hesitation in having a go at those companies if I think they are getting things wrong.  Ox aren't the new kid to the extent that I am prepared to make allowances any more.

 

Brands are valuable commodity if they can be relied on to do their best in terms of quality and accuracy.  I trust Bachmann implicitly, never having had a duff model from them.  I trust Hornby as implicitly in as far as their more recent output goes, but they have taken a long time to shake off the Triang image and there are still some dogs in the range.   I trust Dapol's new stuff in the same way, but their dogs are rooted in the Hornby Dublo era which is inexcusable.  I have no opinion about Heljan having no direct experience of their stuff, but it looks good on the shelves and should do at those prices. I trust Oxford's mineral wagons and am waiting to see about their toads, but am losing faith in their locos.  This is not an issue for me unless Ox bring a new loco out that I want, say a 94xx ahead of Baccy's (I am not inviting a discussion on the likelihood of this, just making up an example).  Do I risk the Oxford or wait for the trusted alternative?  There is another sort of trust involved here; I can trust Baccy to turn out a decent model but not to produce one when they say they are going to, as they have repeatedly deferred the 94xx which I seem to remember being originally promised about now; I need to believe their availability dates and, well, I don't.  Oxford's Dean at least turned up around when they said it would!

 

The dome is also the wrong size and that stands out like the proverbial dog's genitals. They could have made it so that their dome could be easily removed and replaced by something better but as it is, you have to cut a huge hole in the boiler to get rid of it. If it been the correct size, a few coats of gloss brass paint might also have improved the appearance.

Gloss brass paint would only ever make it less bad, it'll never improve it.  You need brass plating for that, like Triang did on Lord of the Isles.

Edited July 30, 2017 by The Johnster

[lofty1966]

 

Brands are valuable commodity if they can be relied on to do their best in terms of quality and accuracy.  I trust Bachmann implicitly, never having had a duff model from them.  

Ain't got one of their Modified Halls then?

[kandc_au]

As far as these threads go, (referring back to a comment about faults) MAYBE, just maybe it would be better off with a section up at the start of a thread where Faults could be listed.

It would certainly save the repetition of comments listing the same issues, page after page after page!
We know there are faults with the model. We either accept them or reject them.
Those younger ones and/or those not familiar with the intricacies of the loco can then refer to the list to see what faults there are and the running qualities of said loco WITHOUT having to trawl through 59 pages of nearly the same thing!

 

Just a thought.

Khris

[Ian Hargrave]

Ain't got one of their Modified Halls then?

OK....but that's the exception that proves the rule.You might perhaps be aware that Brassmasters make a modestly priced kit which improves its front.I think The Johnster has a fair point.

[Edwardian]

I often have the Modified Hall raised when I suggest that only a very few manufacturers can really be trusted to get things right.  People will mention Mazak rot, Design Clever and the non-radial handrails that afflict the J15 in the case of Hornby.

 

On the whole, however, releases in recent years have demonstrated that Blue and Red Box are at least capable of getting it right.  Models like the E4, GN Atlantic, the Collett Bow-Ended coaches, and the Peckett etc are superb.  Only if and when Oxford produces something of that standard will it deserve to be mentioned in the same breath ...!

 

Oh, and if you have to represent a brass dome in painted plastic, do whatever Hornby did with its Peckett.

 

Now I'm going to stick up for the Oxford Dean Goods and exclaim "case not proven!"

 

 

The dome is also the wrong size and that stands out like the proverbial dog's genitals.

 

Is it?

 

I have a Roche drawing of this type of dome with measurements.  I haven't seen that anyone has yet measured and posted dimensions for Oxford's dome.  If you have, I'd be grateful to know the measurements, if not, could I ask, how can you be sure the dome is too large?

 

The domes fitted to the S4/B4 DGs were the same as for the Achilles Class 4-2-2, Dean Singles, and were very big domes.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Edwardian

[Quarryscapes]

12.07mm diameter on mine. The G.A. Drawing does not give the diameter of the cover, only the actual dome on the boiler concealed below, which is 2' 7.5" or 10.5mm. Space for a good 2" of lagging all round. 

[dibber25]

I would defend the Oxmoaners. The situation is very different to that of a third of a century and more ago when Hornby were making robust mass-market toys and Airfix and Mainline were just starting to raise the bar on accuracy. The market is very different - it may be that it's the same folk buying (!) but our expectations have risen (in response to what the manufacturers have shown themselves capable of), we are, by-and-large, able to pay for higher standards, and, perhaps most significantly, the whole process of product development is exposed to public scrutiny. Accurate information about the prototype is much more readily available to us the customers as well as to the manufacturers. Oxford Rail has explicitly pitched itself at that contemporary high end and so it is reasonable to measure its products against that standard. Of course there are compromises in producing an OO model - the concept is a compromise in itself - just as one recognises that there are compromises in building a P4 locomotive that will go round 3' curves - but there's a difference between such necessary compromises and plain errors. As one commentator has succinctly put it, Oxford have produced a model which does not represent accurately any member of the class at any stage in its career. To my mind, by our modern standards, a model that is identifiably universally wrong is rather different to a 'generic model'.

 

Magazine reviewers will necessarily be cautious in their criticism - their jobs depend on continued advertising revenue. Those who have commented on here from a position of detailed knowledge of the prototype are not subject to such constraints and hence can and have offered reasoned criticism which should be respected. In our Information Society we have such easy access to both truth and falsehood; it is our responsibility to sift the one from the other and respect truth when we meet it.

Oh, boy, do I get fed up with the endless repetition of this nonsense! I've reviewed more models in the past 50+ years than any of these on-line novices and my job has NEVER depended on continued advertising revenue. The implication that model railway journalists sell their souls for an advert is downright wrong and I take great exception to it. I have NEVER refrained from criticism or failed to comment on an error in order to retain advertising revenue. I have been threatened, certainly, and I've had some pretty excruciating phone calls with past bosses of most of the major manufacturers. The difference between professional journalists and some of the people who comment on line, is the manner and degree in which it is done. There's no doubt that there's a great fund of knowledge about this particular class but on-line critics are able to exercise far more latitude in HOW they word their criticism because they know they aren't actually going to have to justify themselves face-to-face with the person who produced the model. 

On a separate topic - using only real brass to represent a brass dome because no other finish will do. I seem to recall one of Pendon's locos - built by Guy Williams, I think - has the plated plastic dome off a Tri-ang Lord of the Isles. If it's good enough for Pendon.... (CJL)

[bigherb]

OK....but that's the exception that proves the rule.You might perhaps be aware that Brassmasters make a modestly priced kit which improves its front.I think The Johnster has a fair point.

You forgot the Class 101 then? Or the C class and 3F with their gearboxes sticking out in front of the firebox which was the only fault with the Oxford Radial. SR EMU/DEMU's with the dragster look, SR brake vans, 8T Cattle wagon. I wouldn't trust Bachmann implicitly.

[Compound2632]

Oh, boy, do I get fed up with the endless repetition of this nonsense! I've reviewed more models in the past 50+ years than any of these on-line novices and my job has NEVER depended on continued advertising revenue. The implication that model railway journalists sell their souls for an advert is downright wrong and I take great exception to it. I have NEVER refrained from criticism or failed to comment on an error in order to retain advertising revenue. I have been threatened, certainly, and I've had some pretty excruciating phone calls with past bosses of most of the major manufacturers. The difference between professional journalists and some of the people who comment on line, is the manner and degree in which it is done. There's no doubt that there's a great fund of knowledge about this particular class but on-line critics are able to exercise far more latitude in HOW they word their criticism because they know they aren't actually going to have to justify themselves face-to-face with the person who produced the model. 

On a separate topic - using only real brass to represent a brass dome because no other finish will do. I seem to recall one of Pendon's locos - built by Guy Williams, I think - has the plated plastic dome off a Tri-ang Lord of the Isles. If it's good enough for Pendon.... (CJL)

 

I apologise if I have offended against your professionalism. I don't know which magazine you review for - possibly not the particular one I had in mind. I presume, however, that the criticism you offer in your reviews is more temperate than your criticism of my comment.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

12.07mm diameter on mine. The G.A. Drawing does not give the diameter of the cover, only the actual dome on the boiler concealed below, which is 2' 7.5" or 10.5mm. Space for a good 2" of lagging all round. 

 

Thanks, Alan.

 

I, too, have the GA, and, as you say, it gives the dimensions of the dome, not the cover, and I have not attempted to scale off the drawing. 

 

The Roche drawing fives the following:

 

Height (from top of boiler to top of dome): 3'  (12mm)

 

Diameter (above the boiler where the sides are parallel): 2' 111/2"  (11.84mm)

 

Assuming my maths to be correct, what looks like an oversized dome is a oversized dome; it's something like 0.25mm too wide, which is perhaps not such a vast difference.

 

It seems likely from this that it will also prove to be too high as well.

 

So, my compliments to Brian777999 for judging matters correctly here.  

Edited July 30, 2017 by Edwardian

[Paul.Uni]

I can trust Baccy to turn out a decent model but not to produce one when they say they are going to, as they have repeatedly deferred the 94xx which I seem to remember being originally promised about now; I need to believe their availability dates and, well, I don't.  Oxford's Dean at least turned up around when they said it would!

Bachmann have never announced a release date for the 94XX. The release date has always been shown on their website as TBA.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Paul.Uni

[Coach bogie]

If this thread goes on any longer, I am going to have to go and get one just to mod it!

 

When I buy a new loco my priorities are somewhat different.

 

The couple that are/have been run in on my line run quietly without fuss. That is all that is of interested me, justifying my order for the plain green version.

 

Cosmetic appearance can be improved with little minimal input, a poor running engine is much more of an effort.

 

I shall now go out to the den and enjoy running a Dean goods rather than reading 59+ pages about whats wrong with it.

 

Mike Wiltshire

Edited July 30, 2017 by Coach bogie