Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[melmerby]

I have a Mainline Dean Goods, bought in the late '80s. It was never a good runner and despite taking the motor and gears to task it has always squealed and run poorly. I was considering converting it (as per 'Knobhead' of this parish) using a 4F tender drive unit, but I have decided that life is too short and ordered an Oxford Rail model last week.

If the 4F tender drive is also the Airfix version I can't see what difference it is going to make, they're the same motor.

The Hornby versions of the 4F and Dean Goods also use the same motor, similar although not AFAIK identical to the Airfix ones.

 

Keith

Edited February 2, 2016 by melmerby

[lofty1966]

I had two Jackson Evans 39xx kits.

Wish I had never been persuaded to part with them. Grrrrr

Edited February 2, 2016 by lofty1966

[Craigw]

Somebody like Oxford Rail, perhaps?

 

They could convert the Dean Goods into a 3900 tank if they built a new mechanism. The coupled wheel base on the 3900 is actually 7' + 7' as against the 7'3" + 8' 3" of the Dean Goods. Once again, Swindon "standardisation" is not so standard after all.

 

Craig W

[Dunsignalling]

They could convert the Dean Goods into a 3900 tank if they built a new mechanism. The coupled wheel base on the 3900 is actually 7' + 7' as against the 7'3" + 8' 3" of the Dean Goods. Once again, Swindon "standardisation" is not so standard after all.

 

Craig W

So, Swindon just re-used the wheels and boiler in otherwise new engines, presumably?

 

Rather like the early Patriots and some of the Urie/Maunsell "rebuilds" of Drummond 4-6-0s!

 

John

Edited February 2, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[DavidR]

If the 4F tender drive is also the Airfix version I can't see what difference it is going to make, they're the same motor.

The Hornby versions of the 4F and Dean Goods also use the same motor, similar although not AFAIK identical to the Airfix ones.

 

Keith

The 4F motor runs pretty quietly, hence the idea of a swop.

[The Stationmaster]

So, Swindon just re-used the wheels and boiler in otherwise new engines, presumably?

 

Rather like the early Patriots and some of the Urie/Maunsell "rebuilds" of Drummond 4-6-0s!

 

John

They re-used the wheels, cylinders and some motion parts but not much else as the 3901 tanks had a taper boiler (same as the 45XX) from new.  So to make one out of r-t-r locos you would need the Dean Goods wheel (assuming they are accurate for size) and a 45XX boiler and the rest would need to be fabricated - probably quicker, and definitely cheaper, to build one from scratch.

 

Simply part of the GWR needing some new suburban tank engines and getting shot of unwanted 0-6-0 tender engines, the latter being a type the company was forever reducing in numbers/percentage as part of its loco fleet.

[Steve Purves]

To judge from photos the knobs on the real thing were almost horizontal. I still think this is a technical issue - models with cast boilers have horizontal handrail knobs, models with plastic boilers have them at the correct angle. Presumably it's connected to the fact that injection moulds can open in a much more complex way than metal moulds. (CJL)

 

The Farish 04 in N gauge has a cast body and handrails at an angle...

[melmerby]

The 4F motor runs pretty quietly, hence the idea of a swop.

But if they are the same motor and one is noisy and one isn't the one that is noisy must need some TLC!

There is no reason the Dean Goods should be any noisier than the 4F.

 

BTW although my Hornby one is fairly quiet I just don't like the cheapo ringfield motors IMHO they don't seem to have particularly good response to throttle settings.

 

Keith

[ady77014]

R.E. 3900 conversion, In the books by Russell, comparing the two diagrams, they both indeed seem to have different wheel bases. However Russell says the main frames were reused. Was he wrong? Maybe he meant cylinder block?

[melmerby]

R.E. 3900 conversion, In the books by Russell, comparing the two diagrams, they both indeed seem to have different wheel bases. However Russell says the main frames were reused. Was he wrong? Maybe he meant cylinder block?

RCTS part 5 has the coupled wheelbase as 7' 0" + 7' 0". In fact the pony and trailing wheels were also 7' 0" spaced making for quite a compact loco!

It states that new frames were used together with the cylinders, rods, motion & wheels from the 2301s, and using a standard No.5 group 41 (45XX) boiler. I assume the rods were the inside connecting rods.

 

Keith

Edited February 2, 2016 by melmerby

[J C Fenton]

There are never enough 0-6-0 goods engine types modelled.  There are too many prototypes for that!  So I am pleased and fascinated at the idea that a number of variants of this class, and prototypes from other railways can now be produced using a loco-drive donor model to modern standards.

 

This is probably going to prove not only one of the most appreciated, endearing and attractive release in years, but also one of the most versatile.

 

Oxford are to be congratulated and I only hope that it comes to fruition, comes soon and is as good as its promise.

[Welchester]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but Hattons are showing delivery dates of April/June for the early GWR and July/September for the later GWR and BR versions.

 

http://www.ehattons.com/173655/Oxford_Rail_OR76DG001_Class_2301_Dean_Goods_0_6_0_2309_in_Great_Western_green/StockDetail.aspx

 

http://www.ehattons.com/173657/Oxford_Rail_OR76DG003_Class_2301_Dean_Goods_0_6_0_2475_in_Great_Western_green/StockDetail.aspx

 

http://www.ehattons.com/173656/Oxford_Rail_OR76DG002_Class_2301_Dean_Goods_0_6_0_2409_in_BR_Black_with_early_emblem/StockDetail.aspx

[melmerby]

There are never enough 0-6-0 goods engine types modelled.  There are too many prototypes for that!  So I am pleased and fascinated at the idea that a number of variants of this class, and prototypes from other railways can now be produced using a loco-drive donor model to modern standards.

 

I agree with the never enough 0-6-0 goods engine types. I would add 0-6-0 tanks to that

The 0-6-0 was the workhorse of the railway and not the "big green engine" which Hornby concentrated on for so long!

The two biggest companies, the LMS & LNER, made their money carrying goods and most were pulled by 0-6-0s.

Even the smaller GWR kept at least a 1000 0-6-0 tank engines in stock

Pure passenger engines were very much a minority species.

 

This is reflected on my model railway, which although sort of mainline in design has more 0-6-0s (tender and tanks) than other types.

 

Keith

[BG John]

This is reflected on my model railway, which although sort of mainline in design has more 0-6-0s (tender and tanks) than other types.

 

Keith

In the period I model, 0-6-0s were only just being replaced by 2-6-0s and 2-8-0s for mainline goods work. If I was modelling a main line, what's available would be woefully inadequate.

[Edwardian]

Yes, I too agree.

 

If we model mainlines, we still need many 0-6-0 goods types to be representative.  If we model secondary lines or branches, we need them instead of, not as well, larger passenger types, and larger goods types.

 

I often reckon that, if for each major pre-grouping company, you had RTR (i) an 0-6-0 Goods, (ii) an 0-6-0T, (ii) a 4-coupled passenger tank, and (iv) a small 4-coupled passenger tender engine (old or mixed traffic 2-4-0, 0-4-2 or 4-4-0), you can model most of the system, including all the stations, prototype or fictional, that the OO modeller is likely to be able to fit into the average railway room.

 

What's more of a problem is if you only have, e.g.  a top-link Atlantic and a passenger tank, as with LBSC and GNR, or a six-coupled goods with nothing else, e.g. SECR, or just a passenger tank, L&Y. 

 

But that's the market.  People would rather buy an obscure diseasel of which 3 were made and which never ran properly and which were scrapped before they could get dirty than actually have a balanced roster of steam locosrepresentative of a particular company.  No use complaining, that's life, but it does mean that when someone does announce something useful, I become VERY, VERY enthusiastic!

Edited February 5, 2016 by Edwardian

[BG John]

I often reckon that, if for each major pre-grouping company, you had RTR (i) an 0-6-0 Goods, (ii) an 0-6-0T, (ii) a 4-coupled passenger tank, and (iv) a small 4-coupled passenger tender engine (old or mixed traffic 2-4-0, 0-4-2 or 4-4-0), you can model most of the system, including all the stations, prototype or fictional, that the OO modeller is likely to be able to fit into the average railway room.

With bodies designed so they can be broken down into components that changed over time, so that even if a version isn't produced for a particular period, parts can be scratchbuilt, or be made available by independent suppliers as 3D prints, resin castings or whatever. For example, if the Dean Goods firebox is separate from the boiler, a round top one might be a viable product. Detachable boiler fittings is another one, but not with huge gaps part way up the chimney!

[coachmann]

If we think of a steam motive power depot as a servicing area and base for an allocation of engines balanced to operate the type of traffic that originated or had to be managed in that area,  then an additional factor was the topography of the surrounding area. 0-6-0 Tender locos might be inadequate if 0-8-0 and 2-8-0 locos are required (crossing the Pennines for instance). The 0-6-0's allocation might however be useful for all-day shunting and short strip workings. These locos need only be small (3F).

Edited February 5, 2016 by coachmann

[57xx]

Hattons are pricing all 3 initial versions at £95 with no riders concerning price estimation. Looks like a bargain.

 

Less than some of the newer tank engines coming out! Oh well, looks like I've spent some of this year's bonus already.

[The Stationmaster]

Yes, I too agree.

 

If we model mainlines, we still need many 0-6-0 goods types to be representative.  If we model secondary lines or branches, we need them instead of, not as well, larger passenger types, and larger goods types.

 

I often reckon that, if for each major pre-grouping company, you had RTR (i) an 0-6-0 Goods, (ii) an 0-6-0T, (ii) a 4-coupled passenger tank, and (iv) a small 4-coupled passenger tender engine (old or mixed traffic 2-4-0, 0-4-2 or 4-4-0), you can model most of the system, including all the stations, prototype or fictional, that the OO modeller is likely to be able to fit into the average railway room.

 

What's more of a problem is if you only have, e.g.  a top-link Atlantic and a passenger tank, as with LBSC and GNR, or a six-coupled goods with nothing else, e.g. SECR, or just a passenger tank, L&Y. 

 

But that's the market.  People would rather buy an obscure diseasel of which 3 were made and which never ran properly and which were scrapped before they could get dirty than actually have a balanced roster of steam locosrepresentative of a particular company.  No use complaining, that's life, but it does mean that when someone does announce something useful, I become VERY, VERY enthusiastic!

Oddly if you model then GWR 0-6-0 tender engines formed a very small part of its fleet (c.7% at nationalisation) although their distribution meant they were more obvious in certain areas where they formed a much higher percentage of local shed allocations.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...prototypes from other railways can now be produced using a loco-drive donor model to modern standards.

 

This is probably going to prove not only one of the most appreciated, endearing and attractive release in years, but also one of the most versatile...

 

 Spot on. It has the wheelbase dimensions usually attributed as originating with Ramsbottom at Crewe LNWR, 7'3"+8'3". The 0-6-0 types built at Crewe in such quantity in C19th were copied in this layout all over the UK, so it is a very useful engine indeed considered as a mechanism for redeployment into something else.

 

The GWR is the deviant from regular UK practise, in moving to a final position of operating significantly fewer tender locos than tank locos (numbers immediately prior nationalisation), and thus the 0-6-0 being relatively less common in that group than elsewhere. But nevertheless still a numerous wheel arrangement even on the GW.

[JSpencer]

I am starting to think that I must dig out my childhood Mainline Dean Goods and give it a new lease of life (if it will work!), as it is rather better even than I remembered.  Of course, I would still want several of Oxford.  For me, it is likely to prove the most useful release in years.

 

With 5'2" drivers, spaced, front to rear at 7'3" and 8'3" centres, presumably it could be adapted to many other uses.

 

Staying with the Great Western:

 

 

• If the wheels could be replaced with ones for outside frames, the numerous Armstrong Goods would seem possible (the wheel centres being only an inch out at 7'4" and 8'4"). 

 

• The 6 Cambrian Railways R Stephenson 0-6-0s of 1903 (GW 844 Class), had the same wheel centres as the Dean Goods, and looked rather like in GW rebuilt state.

 

• I wonder if the centre axle will be the driven one on the Oxford model?  Removing the front wheels could create a 2-4-0, though most Great Western 2-4-0s had 8'6" centres to the coupled wheels (generally larger, of course, though the Stella had 5'2" drivers).  If you can live with a millimetre less between wheel centres, and can re-wheel to either larger drivers and/or cranks for outside frames, you can have pretty much any GW 2-40 you like. 

 

• More intriguing, removal and replacement of the rear wheels might produce an 0-4-2.  The 517 tank (the precursor to the 4800/14XX, but much prettier) had 5'2" drivers at 7'4" centres.

 

• A 2-4-0T, Small Metro Tank, had 8'3" centres to the driving wheels.  

 

• Ex-Barry Railway No.s 1322 and 1323 (2-4-2Ts) might also be possible.

Turning to other railways:

 

• SE&CR O Class had 5'2" Drivers at 7'4" and 8'2" centres.

 

Doubtless there are many more conversion candidates.

These are all very good excuses for Oxfordrail to sell the loco chassis alone. It is not like as if I could power a Goldem Arrow O2 using a mainline one and the Hornby 0-6-0T chassis is miles out for that.

[BG John]

These are all very good excuses for Oxfordrail to sell the loco chassis alone. It is not like as if I could power a Goldem Arrow O2 using a mainline one and the Hornby 0-6-0T chassis is miles out for that.

Which raises the question of whether it would be any, or much, cheaper. A source of body parts and chassis to convert it to other locos might be a better option. Then anyone who just wants a chassis can sell the body.

[Adams442T]

Which raises the question of whether it would be any, or much, cheaper. A source of body parts and chassis to convert it to other locos might be a better option. Then anyone who just wants a chassis can sell the body.

 

I think you're right.  I very much doubt, given the logistics of packaging / shipping / setting a low enough price for notoriously parsimonious railway modellers, they would even consider it.

Having IMHO made a dreadful error in not having daylight under the boiler on the Adams, it seems that in this instance they are on track (pun) with a winner.  

 

I was quite frankly disappointed with the Adams Radial, and with their first tranche of PO wagons (how they could have cleaned up with a 1907 RCH wagon and a bit more research), but I find myself heartened with this release, and the potential release of other similar wheelbase models.  I must confess that I find all things GWR an anathema, but who knows....I know Kington had a very modellable station, and I believe, apart from 0-4-2's there must have been a Dean Goods running...............

[BG John]

how they could have cleaned up with a 1907 RCH wagon and a bit more research

Too modern for me, but I think it was based on earlier designs that may well be.

[Mikkel]

 

how they could have cleaned up with a 1907 RCH wagon and a bit more research

 

Too modern for me, but I think it was based on earlier designs that may well be.

 

Don't want to get into RTR wish-listing, but I can't help wondering whether there's an opportunity for Oxford Rail in the demise of Coopercraft. Ie doing quality RTR versions of all those Coopercraft wagon kits that have been stable fare for kit builders for ages, but now look to be disappearing. And to keep it on topic: They could begin with some of the GWR opens and vans, which would complement the Dean Goods well.