Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[Edwardian]

.5mm out there .1 mm out here

 

If only!

[BWsTrains]

My father picked up one of the DCC fitted models from Rails on sale. tested on Analouge it ran fine. Fitted a Blanking plug ran even better.

Lovely little Loco and runs very smooth.

 

With all the negative comments you here .5mm out there .1 mm out here If people were to remember that 4mm will always be a compromise, you can get past it and start enjoying what you have.

 

Nice Job on this Oxford.

 

Cheers Trailrage 

 

 

Yes, any RTR model is going to be a compromise, the idea of which might just, before release:

 

Please some of the people all of the time

All of the people some of the time

 

But after release, at least if you believe what they post on here:

 

Please none of the people none of the time! 

 

It does make you laugh, but if you have a sense of humour, as well as a sense of proportion you can just forget it all, enjoy your model, get on and enjoy your hobby.

Firstly, if Trailrage's father bought 2309 he got a good deal as that was the 2 flywheel version with no reported major running issues, otherwise read on, all below relates to the later 1 flywheel releases.

 

Just as one swallow does not a summer make, read my post (#1841) regarding a tale of a kangaroo masquerading as a RTR locomotive. These reports of totally faulty models being supplied to various retailers and then sold are not phantom but backed by observations, you can't enjoy your hobby if what you buy is a £160 pile of inoperable rubbish. To dismiss this as the aptly named Dick Turpin has done shows a rather polarised and unconstructive POV

 

For your information, I have it on very good authority from the first supplier that several models were unboxed, tested and dismissed as unacceptable before they selected one for me.

Now I'm looking to other retailers and guess what, they're also struggling to find a good 2475 with Sound for me among the many they have available in stock. I'm still waiting 2+ weeks later.

 

Note: this is not me being picky but the sellers finding many poor runners supplied to them, I'm glad TR's Dad got a good one but as Melmerby so succinctly put it (#1812)

 

"Reading all that has gone before, it seems that Oxford have again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory"

Edited June 13, 2018 by BWsTrains

[Edwardian]

Firstly, if Trailrage's father bought 2309 he got a good deal as that was the 2 flywheel version with no reported major running issues, otherwise read on, all below relates to the later 1 flywheel releases.

 

 

 

Mechanically, it seems, yes. 

 

2309 is otherwise very much the worst of the bunch.  Not only does it suffer from all the maddeningly unnecessary errors, many quite substantial, common to the initial release (only some of which were corrected for subsequent releases), but it is essentially tooling for a late condition wide footplate series loco being forced to represent a pre-Great war condition narrow footplate series loco.

 

Of course, I get that Trailrage and others don't mind any of this, and that's fine, though others, of course, do mind. 

 

What I find particularly fallacious, however, is the old chesnut that, just because a gauge of 16.5mm represents an inherent compromise, it really doesn't matter how inaccurate a model is. 

 

Then again, I am from the generation that has grown up having ever greater prototype fidelity drummed into him as the ultimate Good.  This seems to neglect the fact that, for many people, this aspect of a model isn't actually that important.  I might find that fact mildly astonishing, but it is a fact nonetheless. 

 

Given that does the Oxford Dean Goods in all its, for me, egregious ingloriousness, actually expose a fundamental division in the 4mm scale hobby? 

 

If so, the division isn't necessarily that between gauges and it is not even that between finescale and not-so-finescale approaches.  These old definitions are not quite adequate for what I am sensing may be the case here.  It's more like the difference between Coarse Scale O Gauge and any other 7mm scale modelling, be it O gauge or Scale 7.  The latter may be to different sets of standards, but they have a common approach in favour of realism, in which prototype fidelity or accuracy plays a part to a greater or lesser extent.

 

In contrast, the Coarse O Gaugers are free from such prescriptive concerns and constraints, and their approach represents a vibrant, refreshing and attractive side to the hobby.  I am known for enjoying and appreciating coarse scale O gauge content.  

 

If you viewed Oxford's 2309 as a OO gauge equivalent of O Gauge Coarse Scale, the dimensional inaccuracies and incorrect details fall away, and you are left with something  attractive in which reposes much of the character of a Dean Goods.

 

For me, though, I am unlikely to build a deliberately coarse scale layout, so would simply be left with a Dean Goods that's no bloody use as a scale model.       

[BWsTrains]

What I find particularly fallacious, however, is the old chesnut that, just because a gauge of 16.5mm represents an inherent compromise, it really doesn't matter how inaccurate a model is. 

 

Then again, I am from the generation that has grown up having ever greater prototype fidelity drummed into him as the ultimate Good.  This seems to neglect the fact that, for many people, this aspect of a model isn't actually that important.  I might find that fact mildly astonishing, but it is a fact nonetheless. 

 

Given that does the Oxford Dean Goods in all its, for me, egregious ingloriousness, actually expose a fundamental division in the 4mm scale hobby? 

 

If so, the division isn't necessarily that between gauges and it is not even that between finescale and not-so-finescale approaches.  These old definitions are not quite adequate for what I am sensing may be the case here.  It's more like the difference between Coarse Scale O Gauge and any other 7mm scale modelling, be it O gauge or Scale 7.  The latter may be to different sets of standards, but they have a common approach in favour of realism, in which prototype fidelity or accuracy plays a part to a greater or lesser extent.

 

Edwardian,

 

Now that is a fine thought when elsewhere we read of the issues confronting Hornby, struggling to find a way forward in the "OO" World with diverse changes all around.

 

What is the state of the 4mm modelling market? How many ways can it be logically divided these days? Sounds like a fine topic for debate but this is not the spot. Do you start it? wouldn't want to steal your thunder,

 

Colin 

[Craigw]

 

 

 

 

 

 

For me, though, I am unlikely to build a deliberately coarse scale layout, so would simply be left with a Dean Goods that's no bloody use as a scale model.       

 

The end point for me is that if Oxford had made an accurate Dean goods in the first place they could have satisfied both camps.

 

I am not bothered if someone does not have a concern about dimensional accuracy - each to their own. what I do not appreciate is someone suggesting I should not have such concerns  and should sit back, shut up and be grateful for whatever is dished up.

 

Craig W

[Compound2632]

Back in the days of Triang and then Triang-Hornby, all 00 RTR was coarse scale and modellers who wanted to work to finer standards accepted that and simply got on with it. We know that there are still some coarse scale items in the Hornby catalogue (and elsewhere); the discerning eye takes note and moves on. Oxford haven't been advertising their products as coarse scale but have set themselves up as on a par with the best current Hornby and Bachmann - and we've seen the research that goes into those. That's at the root of E's frustration.

[coachmann]

To me its simple. RTR has always been there for the taking and if it has a use, then buy. If it hasn't, then pass by.  

[NHY 581]

Anyone who enters the OO Rtr market these days has to accept that their models have to be on a par with the existing standards in terms of detail and finish. These are higher now than at any other time. I would venture that price comes second to fidelity.

 

The Oxford Dean goods looks fine to me but my knowledge of the prototype is not good. To some it is flawed and as such they would not buy it.

 

However, the rise in standards brings with it an increased expectation and when a model has issues it stands out.

 

Oxford are making very basic errors and their researchers must take some of the blame. There is an apparent lack of knowledge of the prototype creeping in on their models which just grates at times. Not only that they seem unaware of the expectations of their potential customers as well.

 

The Toads with their extra windows.....the new station modelled without chimneys.

 

 

If the prototype is something you really want then things like this will most likely be a big issue so I can see Edwardians point of view.

 

I didn't entertain the Oxford radial due to the issues with that model and have three Hornby examples as a result.

 

However, should you be not so worried by such things then Oxford produce very presentable cost effective models........

 

 

Rob.

[The Stationmaster]

Anyone who enters the OO Rtr market these days has to accept that their models have to be on a par with the existing standards in terms of detail and finish. These are higher now than at any other time. I would venture that price comes second to fidelity.

 

The Oxford Dean goods looks fine to me but my knowledge of the prototype is not good. To some it is flawed and as such they would not buy it.

 

However, the rise in standards brings with it an increased expectation and when a model has issues it stands out.

 

Oxford are making very basic errors and their researchers must take some of the blame. There is an apparent lack of knowledge of the prototype creeping in on their models which just grates at times. Not only that they seem unaware of the expectations of their potential customers as well.

 

The Toads with their extra windows.....the new station modelled without chimneys.

 

 

If the prototype is something you really want then things like this will most likely be a big issue so I can see Edwardians point of view.

 

I didn't entertain the Oxford radial due to the issues with that model and have three Hornby examples as a result.

 

However, should you be not so worried by such things then Oxford produce very presentable cost effective models........

 

 

Rob.

 

One error in their Rob where you mention 'their researchers' because it appears very obvious to me that they haven't actually got any researchers.  they simply go along and scan/take photos of whatever takes their fancy or perhaps delve out an old drawing and ship the package off to China where the designer does his best with what he is given and tries to reconcile photos of six different Dean Goods with the scan and whatever drawing he can find and sort of steers a path between all the conflicting information.   Hence you get the oddities in the Dean Goods and the downright nonsense in the brakevans.

 

From what has been said elsewhere and what has appeared it seems as if Oxford can do a fairly good job when they are guided b y a client who actually knows the subject and has done his research an d insists on things being right.  But they lack that knowledge internally and no doubt trust to luck as they work to a 'if it's near enough it's good enough' approach which they can sell on price if nothing else.   So not necessarily a bad business model provided you don't do as they did and advertise it as being something very different and thus raising expectations.  One can but hope that they don't take this attitude with Hornby when they wield the knife and make economies there.

[Edwardian]

Edwardian,

 

Now that is a fine thought when elsewhere we read of the issues confronting Hornby, struggling to find a way forward in the "OO" World with diverse changes all around.

 

What is the state of the 4mm modelling market? How many ways can it be logically divided these days? Sounds like a fine topic for debate but this is not the spot. Do you start it? wouldn't want to steal your thunder,

 

Colin 

 

Well, sorry for the digression.  It's not so much that I seek to divide the hobby or market into further segments, but I see the Oxford DG as a model that has that divisive effect! So, ultimately these thoughts were prompted by the item with which the topic is concerned, but I concede I was waxing a bit philosophical there! 

 

I find I am in agreement with the several insights posted above.  I suspect Oxford felt that, on the basis of its undoubted success as die-cast vehicle producer, it could crack the RTR railway market, but I fear Mike is right in saying that they failed to appreciate the need to employ an adequate research capability.  Perhaps the lesson is now learnt.

 

Aside from the cost of research, it is no more expensive to make an accurate model as it is an inaccurate model, unless that is, you have started making the tool, then, as many have mentioned, corrections become very expensive indeed.  Measure twice, cut once.

 

As for Coach's point, I think that the revised model my be a basis for a decent upgrade, as Coach himself has demonstrated.  I think it is a less promising starting point for those of us wanting a pre-Great War model, but that's really a separate issue. 

[BWsTrains]

Well, sorry for the digression.  It's not so much that I seek to divide the hobby or market into further segments, but I see the Oxford DG as a model that has that divisive effect! So, ultimately these thoughts were prompted by the item with which the topic is concerned, but I concede I was waxing a bit philosophical there! 

 

I find I am in agreement with the several insights posted above.  I suspect Oxford felt that, on the basis of its undoubted success as die-cast vehicle producer, it could crack the RTR railway market, but I fear Mike is right in saying that they failed to appreciate the need to employ an adequate research capability.  Perhaps the lesson is now learnt.

 

Aside from the cost of research, it is no more expensive to make an accurate model as it is an inaccurate model, unless that is, you have started making the tool, then, as many have mentioned, corrections become very expensive indeed.  Measure twice, cut once.

 

As for Coach's point, I think that the revised model my be a basis for a decent upgrade, as Coach himself has demonstrated.  I think it is a less promising starting point for those of us wanting a pre-Great War model, but that's really a separate issue. 

Hi Edwardian,

 

please, no need for any apology, I meant what I said about it being a good topic for discussion in its own right. This one has pretty much run its course anyway unless Oxford move to fix the motor / drive issues in the later releases.

Single loco topics seem to go dormant here until someone gives them a kick even years later (as I found with the Bachmann 64xx).

 

I might be bold enough to start it off myself, After all winter has finally set in here so I have more time and I'm very well qualified, bringing to the topic very limited experience and knowledge

 

Colin

Edited June 14, 2018 by BWsTrains

[Compound2632]

I think it is a less promising starting point for those of us wanting a pre-Great War model, but that's really a separate issue. 

 

Well no, as Mikkel has shown, the tender, footplate and sandboxes make a promising starting point.

[Edwardian]

Well no, as Mikkel has shown, the tender, footplate and sandboxes make a promising starting point.

 

All I would say is it's a worse place to start for a pre-Grouping version than for a post-Grouping one.  The tender is the best feature.

 

I won't re-list all the bits that would need to be discarded as either flawed or just unsuitable for earlier condition locos, and focus on the two elements of the loco you advocate as a promising start. Well, with just the footplate and sand boxes, you've not got a lot left!

 

The footplate needs the splashers reduced or replaced.  IIRC, it is not the correct width for either prototype width, but cannot be reduced to the narrower series (e.g. 2309).  The buffer beam width is similarly affected, so probably too wide.  The ATC pipe has to go, as well as the rivets on the valance as appropriate.

 

That leaves the sand boxes.

 

Further, the Oxford wheels presumably represent 5'2" tyred wheels.  Most pre-Grouping examples would have been 5', then subject to wear, of course. 

 

In summary, look at what Coachman has done to upgrade a late condition version compared with the very, very considerable work required if attempting an early condition loco.  Notwithstanding what Mikkel has achieved, I do fear that the latter is straying into silk purse from sow's ear territory.

[locoholic]

One error in their Rob where you mention 'their researchers' because it appears very obvious to me that they haven't actually got any researchers.  they simply go along and scan/take photos of whatever takes their fancy or perhaps delve out an old drawing and ship the package off to China where the designer does his best with what he is given and tries to reconcile photos of six different Dean Goods with the scan and whatever drawing he can find and sort of steers a path between all the conflicting information.   Hence you get the oddities in the Dean Goods and the downright nonsense in the brakevans.

 

From what has been said elsewhere and what has appeared it seems as if Oxford can do a fairly good job when they are guided b y a client who actually knows the subject and has done his research an d insists on things being right.  But they lack that knowledge internally and no doubt trust to luck as they work to a 'if it's near enough it's good enough' approach which they can sell on price if nothing else.   So not necessarily a bad business model provided you don't do as they did and advertise it as being something very different and thus raising expectations.  One can but hope that they don't take this attitude with Hornby when they wield the knife and make economies there.

Do you have ANY evidence for your assertion?

 

Don't try to use the Dean Goods model as evidence, because Hornby and Bachmann have both produced a few turkeys over the years, and no-one would dare to say that they do not employ researchers.

[jjb1970]

Do you have ANY evidence for your assertion?

 

Don't try to use the Dean Goods model as evidence, because Hornby and Bachmann have both produced a few turkeys over the years, and no-one would dare to say that they do not employ researchers.

It's not just the Dean Goods, the Mk.3 coaches are stonking value for money but also slightly disappointing compared to the coach models which Hornby and Bachmann have been producing, the Adams Radial wasn't great and some of the wagons have been a bit disappointing. Given that they haven't made that many model trains it's not an especially impressive record.

 

My impression is that as a range sitting between Railroad and full fat models Oxford models are pretty good as they have some nice touches and are cheaper than alternatives. The problem is that Oxford are not marketing themselves as a lower cost complement to full fat models from other producers, if they market themselves as being equivalent to Bachmann, Hornby et al then that's how they'll be judged and to date their models are just not as good as those alternatives.

 

So I must admit, I think the Stationmasters comments are well observed and ones I'd share.

[Compound2632]

 Notwithstanding what Mikkel has achieved, 

 

... he hasn't finished it yet.

[adb968008]

It's not just the Dean Goods, the Mk.3 coaches are stonking value for money but also slightly disappointing compared to the coach models which Hornby and Bachmann have been producing, the Adams Radial wasn't great and some of the wagons have been a bit disappointing. Given that they haven't made that many model trains it's not an especially impressive record.My impression is that as a range sitting between Railroad and full fat models Oxford models are pretty good as they have some nice touches and are cheaper than alternatives. The problem is that Oxford are not marketing themselves as a lower cost complement to full fat models from other producers, if they market themselves as being equivalent to Bachmann, Hornby et al then that's how they'll be judged and to date their models are just not as good as those alternatives.So I must admit, I think the Stationmasters comments are well observed and ones I'd share.

The price point for Oxford is reasonable though.

If the Dean goods were £150 it would be reasonable to expect more from it.

But overall the price point and strategy of Oxford Rail, seems to be a 21st century equivalent of where Hornby used to be in the 1980’s... not the best but not the most expensive.

Edited June 15, 2018 by adb968008

[Compound2632]

The price point for Oxford is reasonable though.

If the Dean goods were £150 it would be reasonable to expect more from it.

But overall the price point and strategy of Oxford Rail, seems to be a 21st century equivalent of where Hornby used to be in the 1980’s... not the best but not the most expensive.

 

This line of argument might be valid if the errors or compromises (call them what you will) were evidently made to simplify and hence cheapen manufacture - like the skirt under the boiler or stretched dimensions to fit a standard chassis on Triang bodies - but as far as I'm aware, they're not. 

[jjb1970]

I thought it was an odd decision of Oxford to start downgrading the mechanisms, especially when that was the bit that was well received.

[The Stationmaster]

Do you have ANY evidence for your assertion?

 

Don't try to use the Dean Goods model as evidence, because Hornby and Bachmann have both produced a few turkeys over the years, and no-one would dare to say that they do not employ researchers.

 

Read what I wrote - as usual you seem keen to doubt the words of others (I have noticed elsewhere on the forum that you often doubt the words of others if they don't agree with your views).  And obviously I wouldn't have written it if it wasn't correct would I;  I happen to know from experience, exactly how they work.

 

Now back to the Dean Goods perhaps?

[Edwardian]

... he hasn't finished it yet.

 

Rather my point!

 

 

Don't try to use the Dean Goods model as evidence, because Hornby and Bachmann have both produced a few turkeys over the years, and no-one would dare to say that they do not employ researchers.

 

What's massively worse than a turkey then?

 

We may need to coin a new word.

[Owd Bob]

 

What's massively worse than a turkey then?

 

We may need to coin a new word.

A  Dodo.

[Edwardian]

A  Dodo.

 

Well, Hornby has produced one of them, though I thought it was a rather brilliant little model! 

[M.I.B]

Has anyone tried removing the logos on the tender yet - T Cut, or glass- fibre brush?  Or decal softener?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Silver Sidelines]

Not made any changes to the decals but I have sorted a couple of other issues.  I have improved the haulage, and looking at the 'rats nest of wiring' beneath the cab I can well imagine why some models run erratically (or not at all)!

 

You can read more on my Blog

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/880-sixties-snapshots-00-scale/

 

Ray