Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[coachmann]

....And Tender-drive has long been popular among scratch builders of locos when pre-grouping small-boiler locos with large driving wheels precluded the fitting of loco-drives. Another work-around was also the prop-shaft drive from the tender to the loco.

Edited August 3, 2017 by coachmann

[dibber25]

....And Tender-drive has long been popular among scratch builders of locos when pre-grouping small-boiler locos with large driving wheels precluded the fitting of loco-drives. Another work-around was also the prop-shaft drive from the tender to the loco.

I have a Pocher-built American 4-4-0 with the prop-shaft arrangement. It was reviewed in Model Railway Constructor some time before I joined (so pre-November 1963). It still runs very nicely over 50 years later. (CJL)

[coachmann]

I have a Pocher-built American 4-4-0 with the prop-shaft arrangement. It was reviewed in Model Railway Constructor some time before I joined (so pre-November 1963). It still runs very nicely over 50 years later. (CJL)

You have certainly been in the game a good many years. I took to Model Railway Constructor in the earlier 1960's because editor 'Steve'-Stratten and I were also interested in commercial vehicles (buses with me). We eventually met up at the chippy on the Trans-Pennine rally.  

Edited August 3, 2017 by coachmann

[The Johnster]

A tender drive that convinces me would have to have some sort of coupling arrangement to the loco in which there is no play whatsoever visible, some sort of spring loaded thing presumably.  As soon as the tender moves off even a fraction of a millimetre while the loco is standing still, the illusion is destroyed, and I have always looked for that first movement, on real and model locos, the momentary thrill of seeing the loco take up the load and, against all that your senses are telling you about steel on steel footprints on rail an inch or two wide, actually move a train without slipping, or, better, slipping a little bit.  Not saying it can't be done, never seen a Roco S160, but I've never seen it done.

 

As for traction tyres, they are never a good thing in my experience of nearly 60 years.  Magnahesion was better.  The trade has never IMHO fully understood that a plastic bodied locomotve needs to have every conceivable space inside it ballasted as heavily as possible, and I have always been able to improve the traction, pickup, and slow running of my locos by putting extra weight into them.  Traction tyres are a tacit admission of this failing, and, simply, don't work if you want good running; moreover, if you are running the sort of loads that benefit from them, they wear quickly and need replacing, which involves a degree of dismantling that not everyone is capable of.

 

I am sure a shaft drive from tender to loco works well, as has been proven.  I have no tender locos these days and the matter has become academic, but I will voice my opinion that Ox are absolutely correct to make their Dean Goods with loco drive.

Edited August 3, 2017 by The Johnster

[Black 5 Bear]

If you want to see tender drive done properly then look at Roco's S160. I can't recall what the old Mainline Dean cost but I bet it was a bit under £350!

Nevertheless, the Roco proves that it can be done, that traction tyres don't need to stand proud of the wheel tread and that smooth running and easy starts can be achieved. What's more, you'll see no sign that the loco wheels aren't doing the work. The continentals have always done tender drives OK - at a price. It's just us that can't do them, partly because we want to use a motor bogie so that we need just one mechanism across an entire steam and diesel fleet. Took years of relentless criticism in magazine reviews (long before any on-line forums) to get manufacturers to give up on the idea and create a bespoke chassis for each new loco - at a price, of course. (CJL)

Chris,

When you mention the Roco loco it puts things into perspective. I remember picking up two of these mainline deans from Railmart in Watford for about £10 each. They didn't run very well from new, but we're a vast improvement on the then Hornby products. If memory serves me right, would have been about 1983/4.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Black 5 Bear

[tomparryharry]

I'd guess you need a spring between locomotive & tender. Say, a light commutator/brush spring. The fallplate should cover it. Failing that, put the drawbar all the way through the tender headstock, and put the spring under the tender, but in compression. The locomotive should 'take up' without any prompting from the tender.

 

That said folks, I'm a tank locomotive end user over here. The Ox DG has to be something special to make me want to own & run one. In it's defence, I haven't seen one just yet, though I might change my mind when I see one.

 

Cheers,

Ian

[dibber25]

A tender drive that convinces me would have to have some sort of coupling arrangement to the loco in which there is no play whatsoever visible, some sort of spring loaded thing presumably.  As soon as the tender moves off even a fraction of a millimetre while the loco is standing still, the illusion is destroyed, and I have always looked for that first movement, on real and model locos, the momentary thrill of seeing the loco take up the load and, against all that your senses are telling you about steel on steel footprints on rail an inch or two wide, actually move a train without slipping, or, better, slipping a little bit.  Not saying it can't be done, never seen a Roco S160, but I've never seen it done.

 

As for traction tyres, they are never a good thing in my experience of nearly 60 years.  Magnahesion was better.  The trade has never IMHO fully understood that a plastic bodied locomotve needs to have every conceivable space inside it ballasted as heavily as possible, and I have always been able to improve the traction, pickup, and slow running of my locos by putting extra weight into them.  Traction tyres are a tacit admission of this failing, and, simply, don't work if you want good running; moreover, if you are running the sort of loads that benefit from them, they wear quickly and need replacing, which involves a degree of dismantling that not everyone is capable of.

 

I am sure a shaft drive from tender to loco works well, as has been proven.  I have no tender locos these days and the matter has become academic, but I will voice my opinion that Ox are absolutely correct to make their Dean Goods with loco drive.

From memory, the S160 had a rigid tender coupling and loco and tender were permanently coupled. I think four of the eight tender wheels had traction tyres. The trade does, I think, understand a lot more than you think with regard to weight. However, it is sometimes impossible to balance all the requirements (space for decoders etc and the actual balance of the loco - weight needs to be in the right place or it's useless) with the fact that available metals for castings are not particularly heavy. Lead-based metals are banned because models are classified as toys and come under toy regulations. The gradual move away from plastic, to more and more mazak cast parts is because of the need to get more weight into smaller locomotives. Magnadhesion relied on having track with steel rails, which was, frankly, awful. The continentals tend not to use rubber for their traction tyres. I think the material is called Neoprene. It is much longer-lasting than the traction tyres we are accustomed to and I'm not sure how replaceable they are, having never needed to replace any. I certainly agree that the Dean is right to have loco drive. I never owned a Mainline one because I couldn't stand that pyramid in the tender! (CJL)

[dibber25]

You have certainly been in the game a good many years. I took to Model Railway Constructor in the earlier 1960's because editor 'Steve'-Stratten and I were also interested in commercial vehicles (buses with me). We eventually met up at the chippy on the Trans-Pennine rally.  

It was good to work with Steve because I, too, have a modest interest in road vehicles (mainly buses with me, too). I had a share in a Thames Valley Bristol LWL6B for a while back in the 1970s. I still wish your chocolate and cream HST (for GWR150?) had been a reality. The picture you sent to the mag was a cracker - looked so much better than the more recent liveries, though the dark green looks very smart on a sunny day. (CJL)

[The Johnster]

From memory, the S160 had a rigid tender coupling and loco and tender were permanently coupled. I think four of the eight tender wheels had traction tyres. The trade does, I think, understand a lot more than you think with regard to weight. However, it is sometimes impossible to balance all the requirements (space for decoders etc and the actual balance of the loco - weight needs to be in the right place or it's useless) with the fact that available metals for castings are not particularly heavy. Lead-based metals are banned because models are classified as toys and come under toy regulations. The gradual move away from plastic, to more and more mazak cast parts is because of the need to get more weight into smaller locomotives. Magnadhesion relied on having track with steel rails, which was, frankly, awful. The continentals tend not to use rubber for their traction tyres. I think the material is called Neoprene. It is much longer-lasting than the traction tyres we are accustomed to and I'm not sure how replaceable they are, having never needed to replace any. I certainly agree that the Dean is right to have loco drive. I never owned a Mainline one because I couldn't stand that pyramid in the tender! (CJL)

 

Yes, absolutely, steel rail for Magnadhesion was awful and I was not in any way arguing for it's re-introduction, nickel silver was the correct path to take and I for one am grateful for it.  But the Triang Brush Type 2 with Magnadhesion was a superb runner and a very good model for it's day, perhaps the one which made plastic moulded bodies acceptable to the 'scale sensitive' enthusiast.  I remain personally unconvinced by neoprene, though it is clearly better than rubber; however good it is it is a potential traction improver it is still denying current pickup at that point and potentially a profile problem.  Maybe a neoprene wheel is preferable to a tyre, but pickup is still affected.

 

It is possible that my obsession with pickup is predicated on my choice of dead frog turnouts for Cwmdimbath on wiring simplicity grounds, although my running is pretty much 100% in this regard.  As for weight, I accept that lead is now not acceptable and that modern rtr manufacturers have to allow for DCC, and that by and large they know what they are doing and why, but I am still able to cram more weight into my locos than the manufacturers have and I still think they are improved by it.  I have a Hornby 2721 which is a bit light at the back and am looking for ways of getting more weight, possibly some illegal lead shot, into the bunker to make it sit down properly (the rear axle is sprung and the manual actually suggests trimming the springs to achieve this; bit reluctant to do this unless replacement springs can be sourced in case it doesn't work, and Hornby spares are problematical at the present time).  It is not a bad runner, but could do with a bit of heft to assist pickup for starting; this is proven by a gentle downward 'finger of God" on the bunker to get it under way without an actual forward poke.

 

In a perfect world locos would be ballasted by unobtianium, refined to have a higher specific gravity from black hole anti-matter material, then the bu**ers'd pick up properly...

 

Neoprene is the material used for wet suits, but that's another forum altogether...

Edited August 3, 2017 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

I'd guess you need a spring between locomotive & tender. Say, a light commutator/brush spring. The fallplate should cover it. Failing that, put the drawbar all the way through the tender headstock, and put the spring under the tender, but in compression. The locomotive should 'take up' without any prompting from the tender.

 

That said folks, I'm a tank locomotive end user over here. The Ox DG has to be something special to make me want to own & run one. In it's defence, I haven't seen one just yet, though I might change my mind when I see one.

 

Cheers,

Ian

 

I've seen one at Lord and Butler's and you may well weaken when the plain liveried versions are out, Ian; it isn't a bad looker despite the livery faults with the brass and copper work.  I'd be happy with one if I needed one on the layout.

[tomparryharry]

I've seen one at Lord and Butler's and you may well weaken when the plain liveried versions are out, Ian; it isn't a bad looker despite the livery faults with the brass and copper work.  I'd be happy with one if I needed one on the layout.

Sorry, I'm still experiencing my love affair with panniers, 42's & 72's. Not even a small prairie to grace the rails. I'd guess I'll get there one day, but I'd want to finish 86D first (if ever).

 

Ian

[The Johnster]

Sorry, I'm still experiencing my love affair with panniers, 42's & 72's. Not even a small prairie to grace the rails. I'd guess I'll get there one day, but I'd want to finish 86D first (if ever).

 

Ian

 

I understand.  7739 came home with me from L & B's because she looked at me that way with her cute little brass spectacle plates...

[Roy Langridge]

I understand. 7739 came home with me from L & B's because she looked at me that way with her cute little brass spectacle plates...

You will be claiming it winked at you next.

 

Roy

[dibber25]

Yes, absolutely, steel rail for Magnadhesion was awful and I was not in any way arguing for it's re-introduction, nickel silver was the correct path to take and I for one am grateful for it.  But the Triang Brush Type 2 with Magnadhesion was a superb runner and a very good model for it's day, perhaps the one which made plastic moulded bodies acceptable to the 'scale sensitive' enthusiast.  I remain personally unconvinced by neoprene, though it is clearly better than rubber; however good it is it is a potential traction improver it is still denying current pickup at that point and potentially a profile problem.  Maybe a neoprene wheel is preferable to a tyre, but pickup is still affected.

 

It is possible that my obsession with pickup is predicated on my choice of dead frog turnouts for Cwmdimbath on wiring simplicity grounds, although my running is pretty much 100% in this regard.  As for weight, I accept that lead is now not acceptable and that modern rtr manufacturers have to allow for DCC, and that by and large they know what they are doing and why, but I am still able to cram more weight into my locos than the manufacturers have and I still think they are improved by it.  I have a Hornby 2721 which is a bit light at the back and am looking for ways of getting more weight, possibly some illegal lead shot, into the bunker to make it sit down properly (the rear axle is sprung and the manual actually suggests trimming the springs to achieve this; bit reluctant to do this unless replacement springs can be sourced in case it doesn't work, and Hornby spares are problematical at the present time).  It is not a bad runner, but could do with a bit of heft to assist pickup for starting; this is proven by a gentle downward 'finger of God" on the bunker to get it under way without an actual forward poke.

 

In a perfect world locos would be ballasted by unobtianium, refined to have a higher specific gravity from black hole anti-matter material, then the bu**ers'd pick up properly...

 

Neoprene is the material used for wet suits, but that's another forum altogether...

The S160 had, if I recall correctly, pick-up on the other four tender wheels and on the eight coupled wheels, and the tender was built around a substantial metal block. Like I said, it was impossible to fault it, tender drive or not. And I'm one who fought hard with Hornby to get rid of tender drives. (CJL)

[Coach bogie]

I still have my dad's Rivarossi Royal Scot that is shaft drive from the tender, not that you would ever know and my youngest still runs my old Airfix General and Jupiter wild west 4-4-0 that are both tender drive which work fine (provided the track is clean).

 

Meanwhile, back to the Dean Goods........

 

Off to Shildon Show tomorrow where I can see the finished Locomotion version for myself. There will be a gang of us including, a locomotive kit producer. let's see how many more of us sign up for the Locomotion version.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[adb968008]

For those who haven't seen the s160, here's what your missing..

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/80959-roco-2014-catalogue-s160-in-h0/?p=2684986

[Ian Hargrave]

For those who haven't seen the s160, here's what your missing..

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/80959-roco-2014-catalogue-s160-in-h0/?p=2684986

Errr...missing...in what respect ? Presumably you mean to convert those modelling in OO to HO.The Roco S160 is undoubtedly a work of art but both conceptually and financially beyond the reach of all but a select few.

[No Decorum]

For those who haven't seen the s160, here's what your missing..

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/80959-roco-2014-catalogue-s160-in-h0/?p=2684986

Now an S100 (USA Tank) in that grey would be welcome.

[The Johnster]

For those who haven't seen the s160, here's what your missing..

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/80959-roco-2014-catalogue-s160-in-h0/?p=2684986

 

So that's how you cook it...

Edited August 5, 2017 by The Johnster

[Coach bogie]

And if you are still looking for an excuse.......Not with a dean goods so a prairie will have to do.

 

Mike Wiltshire

Edited August 5, 2017 by Coach bogie

[DavidH]

Errr...missing...in what respect ? Presumably you mean to convert those modelling in OO to HO.The Roco S160 is undoubtedly a work of art but both conceptually and financially beyond the reach of all but a select few.

 

Indeed, the ever-present danger of HO radicalisation ...

[Mod4]

This thread is somewhat drifting away from the topic of the Oxford Dean Goods should you wish to discuss other topics such as tender drives etc please feel free to start a new topic(s) and leave this one for the original subject.

 

Many thanks in helping to keep my diodes at bearable levels

[tomparryharry]

This thread is somewhat drifting away from the topic of the Oxford Dean Goods should you wish to discuss other topics such as tender drives etc please feel free to start a new topic(s) and leave this one for the original subject.

 

Many thanks in helping to keep my diodes at bearable levels

Ah! The Oxford Dean Goods is still very much current, isn't there?

 

I'm still awaiting the arrival of the plain green flavour. As I've said, I'd like to look one over, before I pass over the moolah. Reports here are that the movement is pretty good, so it's look like a foregone conclusion. I don't know as yet whether Mr York of this parish is still running his feedback poll. I've deliberately kept away, as I felt passing judgement, without sampling the goods, is somewhat unfair

 

Ian.

[Quarryscapes]

I do wonder what the hold up with the plain livery ones is? It's not like they need extra time in the paint shop vs the lined one. 

[coachmann]

I do wonder what the hold up with the plain livery ones is? It's not like they need extra time in the paint shop vs the lined one. 

Structurally, they differ. So Oxford probably booked a slot for the lined version with its top feed and dished smokebox door.