Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[The Johnster]

Read any sycophantic 'guess who's pocket's we're in' magazine review of a new car, motorbike, camera, or hi fi equipment, and you will very rapidly realise that the model railway media are spectacularly fair and unbiased, and free to express their findings and opinions in a way that allows their readers to make informed decisions about the accuracy or any other aspect of the general desirability of a model.  

 

This may or may not be modified by modellers' opinions expressed on sites such as this one.  I doubt I would have been aware of the rivets or drain plugs issues without them having been pointed out to me, and thus feel a little reluctant to criticise something I would otherwise not have known about.  But the brass coloured copper cap chimney, very odd painted brass dome, and copper coloured brass safety valve cover on the examples I've seen in the shops bother me a lot; I think I will be happier with plain liveried examples!

[phil_sutters]

Somehow all the brass, brassy/copper and lining seem to be inappropriate on a goods engine, although the prototype clearly was decorated in such a fashion. The biggest disappointment in the appearance is the cab side lining. It seems far too wide and doesn't follow the lines of the cab side. The yellow seems disproportionately wide. The corners seem too rounded.

As with the post above, should I need one, the plainer versions are likely to look better. I am aware that these comments overlook the appropriateness of the livery for a particular period and the many detail differences between individual locos and groups of locos. I haven't a clue which version our K's white-metal was in the 1960s - it was just a Dean goods, which we painted plain green and ran, rather stiffly, on our 1930 layout!

[dibber25]

It's a more than fair point to remind us that over the years umpteen models have had their faults but Oxford has managed at least one thing never, I'm sure, achieved previously  in their Dean Goods and that is misreading the results of and data from a scan of the prototype and ending up with rivets where there were none.  OK so such rivets can, at the cost of paint damage, probably be removed should a purchaser so incline but to me it's a sign of a simple and rather amateurish mistake which could, and should, have been corrected in any review of CADs which implies a rather slapdash, or maybe 'quickie', approach to development.  

 

And it goes along with the overall impression of 'something from here' and 'a bit from there' - which can be an inevitable outcome if a subject, especially a Dean Goods, is not adequately researched and model development is not carefully controlled.  If you were going to pick any GW loco as one of your early models the last you would probably tackle is a Dean Goods - because of their complex history and years of detail changes.  So net result is you come up with something which overall looks like a Dean Goods but has detail shortcomings although with careful matching to particular running numbers the impact could be probably be lessened - which again needs careful research and not just a scan and a pile of ill-matched photos.  So I think the MR review is pretty fair as they have judged it within the contemporary market place and have supported that approach in their editorial in order to make very clear where they have come from.

 

But don't forget that in the same issue MR gave Oxford's Carflat very good marks and a positive review which I read as meaning that Oxford can do it when they try (and hopefully the Carflat isn't a fluke).  Overall I remain very much in favour of MR's reviewing policy - occasional errors/shortcomings aside  - because they verge very much towards the objective.  The BRM approach however has to be commended for trying something different and I see nothing wrong with, and a lot to be said for, gathering a range of views as long as careful editorial control is applied to weed out the extremists and sycophants.

 

Having now seen, handled, and ultimately reduced an Oxford Dean goods to component parts in order to turn it into an MSWJR 2-4-0, I can honestly say that the row of misinterpreted rivets is not something that troubles me in the least. They are hardly noticeable and if you really mean to get rid of them it should be pretty simple, given that the splashers are plastic mouldings, individually attached to a metal running plate, along with separate sandboxes, wire cab handrails etc. The fact that most of these parts are separate fittings would be unlikely to be obvious to any reviewer and I only discovered it when I took a hacksaw to the model. What I find truly remarkable is that Oxford managed to produce a model with so many individually fitted parts for a very keen final price. (CJL)

Edited September 24, 2017 by dibber25

[dibber25]

Having now seen, handled, and ultimately reduced an Oxford Dean goods to component parts in order to turn it into an MSWJR 2-4-0, I can honestly say that the row of misinterpreted rivets is not something that troubles me in the least. They are hardly noticeable and if you really mean to get rid of them it should be pretty simple, given that the splashers are plastic mouldings, individually attached to a metal running plate, along with separate sandboxes, wire cab handrails etc. The fact that most of these parts are separate fittings would be unlikely to be obvious to any reviewer and I only discovered it when I took a hacksaw to the model. What I find truly remarkable is that Oxford managed to produce a model with so many individually fitted parts for a very keen final price. (CJL)

With regard to earlier comments about the differing styles of magazine reviews it is often necessary for the reviewer to decide how best to balance his comments as there is seldom enough space to say everything that one wants to say. Model Rail has three main reviewers and in the case of the Dean goods either Richard or I had the necessary GWR background and research material to conduct the review. For obvious reasons, we did not study, re-interpret or check the accuracy of comments made on this or any other forum. There remains, for magazine reviewers, huge risks attached to re-use of or repetition of comments made on forums or anywhere else for that matter. If such information is used, it needs to be checked first-hand and it's generally easier and more effective to do one's own research. I'm sure that the huge amount of conflicting information which appears on forums is one of the reasons why manufacturers appear to ignore much of the comment that is posted up when EPs or first shots are illustrated on forums. (CJL)

[Butler Henderson]

Having now seen, handled, and ultimately reduced an Oxford Dean goods to component parts in order to turn it into an MSWJR 2-4-0, I can honestly say that the row of misinterpreted rivets is not something that troubles me in the least. They are hardly noticeable and if you really mean to get rid of them it should be pretty simple, given that the splashers are plastic mouldings, individually attached to a metal running plate, along with separate sandboxes, wire cab handrails etc. The fact that most of these parts are separate fittings would be unlikely to be obvious to any reviewer and I only discovered it when I took a hacksaw to the model. What I find truly remarkable is that Oxford managed to produce a model with so many individually fitted parts for a very keen final price. (CJL)

Interesting - could it be that they have tooled up more varieties than thought and the factory have managed to cobble together the wrong bits?

[Quarryscapes]

It's a more than fair point to remind us that over the years umpteen models have had their faults but Oxford has managed at least one thing never, I'm sure, achieved previously  in their Dean Goods and that is misreading the results of and data from a scan of the prototype and ending up with rivets where there were none.  OK so such rivets can, at the cost of paint damage, probably be removed should a purchaser so incline but to me it's a sign of a simple and rather amateurish mistake which could, and should, have been corrected in any review of CADs which implies a rather slapdash, or maybe 'quickie', approach to development.  

 

Why do people keep reiterating this? 2516 has not been 3D scanned. Photographed maybe, but not 3D scanned - if it had, the model would have been accurate! 

[Compound2632]

Why do people keep reiterating this? 2516 has not been 3D scanned. Photographed maybe, but not 3D scanned - if it had, the model would have been accurate! 

 

Non sequitur, I'm afraid. As I've understood the discussion, Mike and others have argued that the egregious rivets are the result of a misinterpretation of a spurious reflection in the scan data. Is it known for certain that the preserved example was not scanned by Oxford?

 

In any case, the point is that 3D scanning does not guarantee an accurate model, even of the prototype example scanned, any more than a full set of works drawings will guarantee 'as built' condition...

 

EDIT: inserted 'not' as intended! Thanks, Miss Prism, for spotting that.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Compound2632

[sjrixon]

The BRM "review" was just a collation of the views expressed on this forum.  Model Rail actually did a review but rather bizarrely apologised for doing it in their editorial.

I've not read the MR review, but the BRM one honestly left me wanting more. I guess if I didn't frequent these parts they the feedback posted in the magazine might have been interesting, but I felt BRM avoided actually reviewing the model themselves. 

 

I'm still buying the plain green one.. So I guess none of it mattered anyway!

[OnTheBranchline]

I'm a firm believer of 'You get what you pay for'. It's a bit surprising that this theory isn't that accepted around here. If a loco only costs 70 pounds, don't expect the level of detail (or even historical accuracy) of a 100 pound loco when you open the 70 pound one.

Edited September 29, 2017 by OnTheBranchline

[The Johnster]

Non sequitur, I'm afraid. As I've understood the discussion, Mike and others have argued that the egregious rivets are the result of a misinterpretation of a spurious reflection in the scan data. Is it known for certain that the preserved example was not scanned by Oxford?

 

In any case, the point is that 3D scanning does not guarantee an accurate model, even of the prototype example scanned, any more than a full set of works drawings will guarantee 'as built' condition...

 

EDIT: inserted 'not' as intended! Thanks, Miss Prism, for spotting that.

 

 

Weren't Egregious Rivets a band in the 70s?  Pretty certain my mate Spam, who had some odd stuff in his record collection, had their problem 3rd album...

[coachmann]

I'm a firm believer of 'You get what you pay for'. It's a bit surprising that this theory isn't that accepted around here. 

Well said that man.

[bertiedog]

Why do people keep reiterating this? 2516 has not been 3D scanned. Photographed maybe, but not 3D scanned - if it had, the model would have been accurate! 

It was reported by Oxford themselves it was based on scans, but in terms that covered the other products as well, so with respect where does it say no scans were used? How else would the footplate rivets get interpreted as on the splasher face? Our company made scanners optics and used Leica, and the problem of flat surfaces facing upwards and shadowing on to other surfaces is well known.

[No Decorum]

I'm a firm believer of 'You get what you pay for'. It's a bit surprising that this theory isn't that accepted around here. If a loco only costs 70 pounds, don't expect the level of detail (or even historical accuracy) of a 100 pound loco when you open the 70 pound one.

I’m afraid that I disagree with that. It is often but far from universally true. Fortunately, no-one has yet thought of putting “designer” in the description of model train items. To me, “designer” indicates that something is overpriced and is often lacking or defective in some important respect. There is also the curious custom of putting “only” in front of the price of an overpriced item.

 

In our sphere of activity, it is useful to know something about the model under consideration for purchase. There are plenty of examples of items which do not justify the prices asked. The opposite is true as well. Bachmann produces a superb model of the Class 350. I got one recently for £90 (before deduction of loyalty points).

[The Johnster]

Problem with getting what you pay for is that usually you don't.  We live in a capitalist culture with which I have to engage and tolerate, but nobody says I have to agree with it and I don't.  It is in the nature of capitalism to be exploitative and attempt to get the highest price possible for it's products, while trying to convince it's victims, sorry, I mean customers, that the overcharge is justified, an attitude actively condoned and encouraged by it's participants.  As it owns and controls the methods of informing victims, I mean customers, of the worth or value of a product, it is easy for it to maintain a position in which overcharging high prices for low value products is not only normal, but seen as desirable and good business practice.  'The Market' is said to rule all and ensure fair and equable pricing according to the immutable laws of supply, demand, and free trade, but this can only ever be true to the extent that the Market is itself fair and equable and not the tool of those who own it or those they owe money to.

 

Not saying I've got any better ideas about how to run things, by the way, but it looks to me like the more you pay the less you get, and there are no real bargains to be had.  If you accept that 'you get what you pay for', or 'you pays your money and you takes your choice' you must, I contend, also accept that there is no such thing as a free lunch and the principle of caveat empor.

 

RTR model railways is a less mendacious and murky market than many in this regard.  But it is wise to believe nothing and question everything!

 

Sorry, dropped into rant mode for a while, there, feel better now!!!

[Steamport Southport]

I'm a firm believer of 'You get what you pay for'. It's a bit surprising that this theory isn't that accepted around here. If a loco only costs 70 pounds, don't expect the level of detail (or even historical accuracy) of a 100 pound loco when you open the 70 pound one.

 

But it's not a £70 model. It costs £112.95. https://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/products/deans-goods-2475-plain-or76dg003

 

Even at discount it's averaging around about £95. You can get much better models for that price I'm afraid.

 

 

 

Jason

[coachmann]

You get what you pay for with model trains is usually based on mass-produced models being far less expensive than buying and building kits.  To me, RTR is always a snip because I started in the hobby when we built just about everything. I forget sometimes that many years have past and that people have come to expect certain things as the norm or even a right. People who never build anything can only compare RTR with RTR. It is sad really as they have no appreciation of what their money is actually buying them.  If they sat down and tried to produce an alternative to the model they think is too expensive, they might think differently.

[Coach bogie]

But it's not a £70 model. It costs £112.95. https://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/products/deans-goods-2475-plain-or76dg003

 

Even at discount it's averaging around about £95. You can get much better models for that price I'm afraid.

 

 

 

Jason

So you want a better Dean goods

Loco only kit £130.00

Tender only £50.00

Markits wheels set £50.00

Motor/gears £40.00

Total £270.00 + time or extra to pay someone else to build.

 

£270.00 versus £95.00 + some upgrades: I am with Coachman. £95/£112.95 is a snip and the rtr can be improved with minimal effort. That is where I am going and I can build kits.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[The Johnster]

But it's not a £70 model. It costs £112.95. https://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/products/deans-goods-2475-plain-or76dg003

 

Even at discount it's averaging around about £95. You can get much better models for that price I'm afraid.

 

 

 

Jason

 

 

Not of a Dean Goods you can't.

[PMP]

It was reported by Oxford themselves it was based on scans, but in terms that covered the other products as well, so with respect where does it say no scans were used?

.

Where and when did a representative of Oxford make that statement? Please provide a link as it's not in this thread, and I can't recall any of the traditional media (magazines) making the comments either, or senior Oxford staff when I've spoken to them at the 2016 and 2017 toy fairs, or the respective Warley shows.

[Steamport Southport]

Not of a Dean Goods you can't.

 

Maybe not. But you can get equivalent models of a much better quality such as the 3F, C Class, Q1, J11 for less. I don't know why everyone is defending this model because it's "cheap". If you put up with poor quality then that's what you will get.

 

 

For the record I build kits. Some vastly more expensive than 4mm RTR such as a Slater's Compound. Please don't pigeonhole us all as "armchair modellers" it's patronising.

 

 

 

Jason

[Phil Parker]

Maybe not. But you can get equivalent models of a much better quality such as the 3F, C Class, Q1, J11 for less. I don't know why everyone is defending this model because it's "cheap". If you put up with poor quality then that's what you will get.

 

For the record I build kits. Some vastly more expensive than 4mm RTR such as a Slater's Compound. Please don't pigeonhole us all as "armchair modellers" it's patronising.

 

Jason

 

It all depends if you want a Deans Goods or just ANY 0-6-0 tender loco doesn't it?

 

If anything will do, then presumably accuracy of the detail doesn't matter. For those modelling a GWR line then the Oxford model is much more appropriate than any of the other suggestions whatever its failings.

 

And if the price is no object, then there is always the Brassmasters kit. I doubt any RTR model will ever be as good as a well-built metal model.

[coachmann]

Maybe not. But you can get equivalent models of a much better quality such as the  for less. I don't know why everyone is defending this model because it's "cheap". If you put up with poor quality then that's what you will get.

 

 

For the record I build kits. Some vastly more expensive than 4mm RTR such as a Slater's Compound. Please don't pigeonhole us all as "armchair modellers" it's patronising.

This remark is based on the rather narrow assumption that all members of this forum are box openers and collectors who buy and run anything and everything.

 

I may be wrong, but It is probable that those of us who joined RMweb when it was set up are traditional railway modellers and historical modellers. And some of us are still here! If a Dean Goods doesn't match up to our standards, we do not simply buy a similar looking 0-6-0 from a different railway company because it represent better value. In other words, the 3F, C Class, Q1, J11 are a fat lot of use to a GWR modeller needing GWR locos.

[PMP]

But it's not a £70 model. It costs £112.95. https://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/products/deans-goods-2475-plain-or76dg003

 

Even at discount it's averaging around about £95. You can get much better models for that price I'm afraid.

 

 

Jason

There's inconsistency here, this price you quote is the rrp. If you look at the rrp prices for the Bachmann locos in particular they are more expensive than the Dean Goods. They are also existing tooling. so the simple 0-6-0 value comparison is flawed, the Oxford model for better or worse is cheaper.

[rovex]

Do we know when the other versions are going to land. Despite all the brickbats I have one in BE black on order

[County of Yorkshire]

Suprised no one's mentioned today's Oxford Rail 'Release 3 2017' announcements that went out via email today - a WW2 W.D Dean Goods in black was announced in both DCC ready and DCC sound options. Doesn't look like it comes with a Westinghouse brake or pannier tanks fitted though - but the artwork is difficult to make out in the email.

 

Interesting!

 

CoY