Oxford N7

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Did any roundtop versions appear in Lined LNER Black? I'm struggling to tell from photos...

 They were rated for it as passenger tank locos, but I don't have a picture that is clear enough to be sure.

 

I'll be removing the rod and crank on LHS,of smokebox on non-condensor equipped. That's the linkage for the diverter to condensing mode.

Edited May 14, 2018 by 34theletterbetweenB&D

[Bucoops]

Did any roundtop versions appear in Lined LNER Black? I'm struggling to tell from photos.

Alex

 

Page 26 of Yeadons show 2600 (so an N7/3 LTV - round top boiler from new) in lined photographic grey. I haven't found any subsequent pictures to see if it retained the lining when painted black.

[adb968008]

That looks good.

I’d been somewhat reticent due to the lack of a BR lined one (it was confused some listing it as E9621.

 

Dan (Derails) if your listening I guess i’ll add that to the shopping list tomorrow :-)

[Downer]

Wouldn’t it be nice if Oxford Rail gave us a proper heads-up on which versions they intend to produce and when?

[NXEA!]

Wow! This is going to be an absolute corker from Oxford by the looks of it. 

[Market65]

It really looks to be the model that, hopefully, will make rather than break Oxford Rail. I’m most eager to purchase both the LNER and BR examples. I have articulated Gresley ‘Sit Up And Beg’ carriages waiting.

 

Regards,

 

Rob.

[Jammy2305]

GER one for me definitely!

 

Edit: I feel I must however ask, is it me, or do those NEM couplings protrude way too far? Especially the front one?

Edited May 14, 2018 by jamesC37LG

[Market65]

The NEM couplings are protruding much too far, but if that is to be the only fault with this model, then that is a big plus and so easily corrected.

[Dunsignalling]

If the photos are to be believed, and they do look like the real thing (unmanipulated), Oxford seem to be getting the hang of this railway lark.

 

John

Edited May 15, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Norton Wood]

Talking about the NEM couplings, if someone has the Adams Radial Tank, if they do, are the NEM Couplings and Pockets removable?

 

The reason I ask is simply that I am sure a modeler would be able to convert those couplings. Even using 3 links or screw links, which I certainly plan to do.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Norton Wood

[Edwardian]

Third time lucky

[Dunsignalling]

Going to the NEM couplings, if someone has the Adams Radial Tank, if they do, are the NEM Couplings and Pockets removable?

 

The reason I ask is simply that I am sure a modeler would be able to convert those couplings. Even using 3 links or screw links, which I certainly plan to do.

All NEM pockets are "removable", but some require the use of techniques that won't allow them to be refitted.   

[Dunsignalling]

Third time lucky

Or "improving with practice" if one occupies the glass-half-full camp.

 

John

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... is it me, or do those NEM couplings protrude way too far? Especially the front one?

 The front coupler pocket looks to be positioned well off standard, too far forward; rear one a little better, may even conform to the NEM spec in terms of set back behind the buffer heads. The effect of this not helped by Oxford's unnecessarily long version of the miniature tension lock. But all fixable by those with a mind to.

 

 

Going to the NEM couplings, if someone has the Adams Radial Tank, if they do, are the NEM Couplings and Pockets removable?.

 My recollection - only had the Radial to tinker with -  is that the couplings unclipped as usual but the pockets were moulded integral with the keeper plate (rear) and bogie frame (front). All easy enough to cut off and cement in replacements as required, or 'do completely differently' according to taste. (On almost every coupler pocket equipped model I own, something has had to be modified so to me this is business as usual. It should always be kept in mind that this system was designed for use on continental HO, and wasn't exactly thoughtfully ntrodiced on OO. But it is easier to adjust than moulded on or screwed on overall, so be grateful for the small progress is my view.)

[Edwardian]

Or "improving with practice" if one occupies the glass-half-full camp.

 

John

 

I was a natural born optimist until I met Oxford Rail!

 

Let us simply say that from a base of unprecedentedly low expectations, I'm looking forward to being pleasantly surprised!

 

Credit where credit is due and I hope this one proves to be a decent release worthy of celebration.

 

The prototype was introduced a little too late in the day for me, but I think that the GE version is a 'must'.  At that price I might take a second and see about representing the sole example that appeared in GE blue.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Or "improving with practice" if one occupies the glass-half-full camp.

 In respect of Oxford, I'd read it as glass over three-quarters full, relative to the established competition. Had they released the Radial in 1998, it would have been the best RTR OO loco model on the market. Even with its faults it matches or beats several other models in longer established ranges. (I would cite for comparison the Bachmann 2251 and Super D, Hornby's N2 and 8F as possessed of defective aspects of similar impact.)

 

Definitely improving with practice in my opinion. There's a lot more to get right in model railway compared to diecast, and I suspect the learning curve has been steeper than was perhaps expected. Not only does the model have to look right, it has to work with the existing products of competitors, and to do so must conform with a parcel of ill-defined 'standards' some of which make the job more difficult than they need to be. (Horrible ancient design set track,  NEM coupler pocket, for a start.)

[Edwardian]

 In respect of Oxford, I'd read it as glass over three-quarters full, relative to the established competition. Had they released the Radial in 1998, it would have been the best RTR OO loco model on the market. Even with its faults it matches or beats several other models in longer established ranges. (I would cite for comparison the Bachmann 2251 and Super D, Hornby's N2 and 8F as possessed of defective aspects of similar impact.)

 

Definitely improving with practice in my opinion. There's a lot more to get right in model railway compared to diecast, and I suspect the learning curve has been steeper than was perhaps expected. Not only does the model have to look right, it has to work with the existing products of competitors, and to do so must conform with a parcel of ill-defined 'standards' some of which make the job more difficult than they need to be. (Horrible ancient design set track,  NEM coupler pocket, for a start.)

 

Fair points, but you have been somewhat selective. All the steam-age wagons (except for the Warwell) have been significantly off and/or produced with fake liveries (others do that - doesn't make it right), and this is perpetuated by the latest 5-plank. The GW Toads, well, another inaccurate mess. The Radial is at best redundant given the Hornby option, but I think you overstate its virtues.  I have not looked closely at most versions for accuracy, as I did not ever contemplate buying one, but the EKR livery is an inaccurate mish-mash.  The main point though is that there is no excuse for the wholly egregious Dean Goods.  It has now been partly, but IMHO, not sufficiently, improved, but the original release, the lined version in particular, was a complete travesty.  Past sins can, of course, be forgiven, but it has left me wary of Oxford.  To put this in context, I am wary of the output of three other RTR manufacturers, but none more so than Oxford, based on performance to date.

 

Everyone drops a clanger from time to time.  Bachmann has failed twice with the front end of the Modified Hall, for example. Some fairly recent Hornby models have had some issues - the non-radial handrails on the J15 come to mind, but, then, who is more culpable, Hornby for doing this or Oxford for following suit despite the criticisms of Hornby?  Nevertheless, the latest Bachmann and Hornby stuff is superb - from the humble Peckett to the pre-Grouping Atlantics. Again, compare Oxford's GW Toad to Hornby's new tooling. Oxford can't even mount the steps of their plinth as things are at the moment.

 

But, moving on, I really hope that Oxford turns a corner with the N7.

 

I'd much rather log on to praise Oxford than to bury it, so I am quite excited by the prospect of this model shaping up.  

 

If they get it right, it bodes well.  Dapol, for all its prior experience, is still struggling, IMHO, to gain the necessary standard in 4mm. I hope for the sake of RAILS that they do so with the Terrier.

 

Oxford may yet be the first to pull ahead of the rest of the pack and the N7 might be the horse that comes home for them.  The market post-N7 might look a little different from how it appears now.

 

In the pursuit of excellence, is Oxford, at long last, catching up?

 

I hope so.

[Norton Wood]

 the non-radial handrails on the J15 come to mind, 

 

 

I don't think so, to be honest, it's providing more holes into a manufacturer than needed, granted the Dean Goods had a lot of issues, perhaps a lesson for them as they enter a very small market and we as modelers tend to know a lot more about the locomotive.

 

To some modelers (Like myself) if you get something new which related to the theme of your layout, then isn't that a good thing?

 

This is the first time an N7 is being made for the first time in the RTR range... Oxford could easily have designed and upgraded a model which had already been made by another manufacturer.

 

Again I do agree with the NEM coupling problem, as I said earlier in interest if they will be removable, the whole idea of modeling in the first place is to take a model and edit it to suit a particular locomotive that you like the look of, or saw as a child back in the steam era.

 

A bit of optimism would go a long way,  I have to say they look very impressive and having looked at the previous engineering samples I cannot see any major issues with this.

 

On the upside here is what I intend to do with 8011 when it arrives changing it to 8993, please note the black & white image is not my own.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Norton Wood

[Edwardian]

I don't think so, to be honest, it's providing more holes into a manufacturer than needed, granted the Dean Goods had a lot of issues, perhaps a lesson for them as they enter a very small market and we as modelers tend to know a lot more about the locomotive.

 

To some modelers (Like myself) if you get something new which related to the theme of your layout, then isn't that a good thing?

 

This is the first time an N7 is being made for the first time in the RTR range... Oxford could easily have designed and upgraded a model which had already been made by another manufacturer.

 

Again I do agree with the NEM coupling problem, as I said earlier in interest if they will be removable, the whole idea of modeling in the first place is to take a model and edit it to suit a particular locomotive that you like the look of, or saw as a child back in the steam era.

 

A bit of optimism would go a long way,  I have to say they look very impressive and having looked at the previous engineering samples I cannot see any major issues with this.

 

On the upside here is what I intend to do with 8011 when it arrives changing it to 8993, please note the black & white image is not my own.

 

OR76N7002_3287329_Qty1_cat1.jpg

 

Suburban_train_for_Brentwood,_GER_section_of_the_LNER_(CJ_Allen,_Steel_Highway,_1928).jpg

 

Indeed, though if you're going to produce something new, you're as well to get it right.

 

I'm not sure Oxford can command much optimism, having squandered mine over a succession of poor releases, but, for what it's worth, as I say, they have my renewed optimism for the N7. 

 

They are welcome to it, in fact!

[45568]

Great to see 69612 with round-top boiler! Duly pre-ordered and awaited !

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

[Gilwell Park]

It is not 100% clear from the picture but 1002 & 8011 appear to have vacuum pipes in addition to Westinghouse. This is incorrect, the first 12 N7 were Westinghouse air brake only. In latter days this restricted them to Liverpool St suburban duties only, with quint arts. 69612 however is correct as it was built dual fitted.

 

Roger

[Norton Wood]

I was interested to see which types of N7 they are due to bring out, looking into it, Oxford announced that they are bringing out:

 

1. K85 - I would assume this the current GER Grey prototype 1002
    

2. N7/GE - Again I'd assume this is the 8011
    

3. N7/4 -
    

4. N7/3 - 
    

5. N7/5 - This is definitely the 69612 as the preserved N7 69621 is an N7/5

So according to what has been said we could see 2 more versions of the N7 in addition to different liveries, as noted a GER Ultramarine Blue N7 would go down well. 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Norton Wood

[Bucoops]

I was interested to see which types of N7 they are due to bring out, looking into it, Oxford announced that they are bringing out:

 

1. K85 - I would assume this the current GER Grey prototype 1002

    

2. N7/GE - Again I'd assume this is the 8011

    

3. N7/4 -

    

4. N7/3 - 

    

5. N7/5 - This is definitely the 69612 as the preserved N7 69621 is an N7/5

So according to what has been said we could see 2 more versions of the N7 in addition to different liveries, as noted a GER Ultramarine Blue N7 would go down well. 

 

69612 with a round top boiler would make it a /4 as it was one of the original batch? I think...! 

[Norton Wood]

69612 with a round top boiler would make it a /4 as it was one of the original batch? I think...! 

Ah, my mistake...TOO MANY Variations why couldn't the GER/LNER make things simple haha

[Bucoops]

Crazy isn't it! If they had managed to rebuild all the types at once would have been a bit easier - Although why call it /GE instead of a number?!

Edited May 15, 2018 by Bucoops