Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge 4-plank wagons

[lofty1966]

Without wishing to denigrate Mr ABS , is there anything in r-t-r , he has ever been impressed with ?

Edited June 14, 2016 by lofty1966

[No Decorum]

The Hornby 4-plank perhaps?

[Dunsignalling]

Well, it's a Scottish prototype, for which there has been a fair bit of on-line clamour.

 

It's pre-Grouping, for which there has also been a fair bit of on-line clamour.  

 

Once these models are in the shops, sales will reveal if all the clamour has been coming from the same dozen people.............

 

John

[BG John]

Well, it's a Scottish prototype, for which there has been a fair bit of on-line clamour.

 

It's pre-Grouping, for which there has also been a fair bit of on-line clamour.  

 

Once these models are in the shops, sales will reveal if all the clamour has been coming from the same dozen people.............

 

John

Scottish is good.

Pre-grouping is good

Errors and inaccuracies are bad

A Scottish pre-grouping coal wagon is bad, as it's unlikely to be found in much of Britain until pooling

A non coal, Scottish, pre-grouping wagon or van would have been good, as could have appeared anywhere (including my layout!)

[Dunsignalling]

I would agree that none of these wagons would have been seen in the Southern reaches of the withered arm before pooling. But when the 4 plank PO wagons were pooled say from 1940-8 would they have been seen in the sunny South?  Are there any photographic references? I model 1947 so the BR repaints and ex-PO markings are not really my interest. 

 

I don't expect OR to be that sophisticated to cater to my personal taste but would like some references to postwar pre-BR photo's of the wagons.

 

I would love to have the MOT pre BR version of PO markings available. White lettering with the PO owners name, location and the owners wagon number to go on the lower left bottom 3 planks. 

How far they spread would largely depend on whether these wagons conformed to RCH standards. Can someone who knows advise?

 

Those that didn't (e.g. LBSCR designs) generally stayed close to their home turf where the prompt availability of non-RCH spares would enable repairs to be made without undue delay.

 

I'd also think that, by the post-war period, small capacity wagons such as these would have been gravitating fairly rapidly into colliery internal use in the case of PO ones and departmental ballast/spent ballast traffic if in railway company ownership. 

 

John

Edited June 14, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Edwardian]

Well, it's a Scottish prototype, for which there has been a fair bit of on-line clamour.

 

It's pre-Grouping, for which there has also been a fair bit of on-line clamour.  

 

Once these models are in the shops, sales will reveal if all the clamour has been coming from the same dozen people.............

 

John

 

I suspect buyers may be placed in 3 broad categories (an imperfect exercise productive of controversy, I know!):

 

1. The Collector and Run-What-I-Like modeller.  They may be presumed to buy almost anything if it is attractive and takes their particular  fancy.  Nothing wrong with that, but I suggest that buyers in this category will not be overly concerned by accuracy.

 

2. The more discerning, who would generally like to think the models they buy are accurate, but who may, nevertheless 'tolerate' inaccuracy up to a point, or, who may buy because they are genuinely ignorant of the inaccuracy.

 

3. Those with the knowledge and discernment to insist upon a high degree of accuracy.

 

I would not want to guess at percentages, but I would suggest it likely that 1-3 are listed in descending order of sales volumes and ascending order of vocal criticism.

 

In the interests of full and frank disclosure, I'd say I am probably somewhere within Category 2 aspiring to be Category 3!

 

So, sales-wise, a manufacturer might be able to afford to ignore Category 3, and a, perhaps growing, number of Cat 2s.  And they do, e.g. every time they put a pre-Grouping livery on a 1923 RCH wagon. 

 

That is not wise.  The vocal nature of Cat 3 ultimately erodes reputation and a growing number of Cat 2s may be 'turned'.  It is these floating voters in the middle who are always decisive in the end, and the trend is that over time they have become more discerning and more vocal.

 

So, the trick of it is, presumably, to make a model to a sufficiently exacting standard to satisfy most of the Cat 3s (you could invent a machine that goes back in time and that shrinks prototypes to 1:76 scale and the results would still not satisfy some Cat 3s!), but that is shiny enough to tempt most Cat 1s.  Cat 2s are satisfied in the process.  

 

No one said that would be easy.

 

Of course, that's all pure speculation on my part!

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Hi All,

 

Lots and lots of interesting comments - I am only on weekly alerts for this Thread, so cant keep up!

 

But to answer but two comments...

In the case of some of it very easily (e.g whistles wrong and the wrong way round). But on some things it does depend on the angle of view and comparing the model pictures (as processed by digital photography plus the settings and quality of your 'puter monitor but sometimes things will stand out like a sore thumb to those familiar with the whatever is being modelled.

 

The interesting thing about all this is how what we think we are seeing differs from what those who approved the CADs thought they were seeing because the CAD will be visible in far greater detail and from far more angles than any view we are likely to get of the model. But that does of course assume that care was taken when looking at the CADs - where it isn't all that difficult to miss things hence you ideally need several people doing it independently and it also assumes you have got all the prototype information at your fingers tips with masses of photos and drawings at your disposal. It also then assumes that having got the CADs right the various 3-d prints and EPs and test shots etc prove that the model is following what was approved on the CADs. If any of those stages are skimped or rushed then the result could be a dismal failure in whatever areas you didn't pay attention to.

There is also a problem with some Chinese factories-not sure where OR manufacture-'interpreting' drawings and CAD. One factory manufactures for three companies, two keep a tight rein on their models and the factory also comes up with 'thinking outside of the box solutions' and with designer and manufacturer working in true partnership, wonderful RTR models are the output. The other manufacturer? They have a 'design and construct philosophy' ie let the factory (on the other side of the world) do it all, and thus the factory works whilst the 'designer sleeps' (in more ways than one, before they awoke - pun intended - to these facts) and thus mediocre RTR models were the output. Any outsourced supplier needs to be managed, perhaps, it can be argued, more than in-house, and such management includes really tight T&Cs, Specs. etc.

 

Eg. The Chimney on the Dean Goods, with TF versions, is in the wrong place - the factory seem to want to centralise it. TBF, IMHO, the CAD should be pretty much correct before the rapid-prototype (3D) is produced, the RP is the final rubber stamp....

 

As you mention, more haste=less speed, also this applies to a lack of research too.

 

I wonder what OR's 'mission statement' is, or where they want to be in a - currently, but for how long - crowded market-place? One would have thought that manufacturing a really good RTR Dean Goods in 7mm, at a VFM price, with longer lead times (and thus more time to get it right), may have been a better strategy?

 

IMHO, SME's in this day and age have no excuse not to have accurate info to hand.

Without wishing to denigrate Mr ABS , is there anything in r-t-r , he has ever been impressed with ?

Yes I have seen him running RTR stock and or 'kit-bashing' such, when I have bumped into Adrian at shows or Guild garden railway meets!

 

Thinking through 'Edwardian's' comments, there is no reason why all three 'categories' cant be reasonably satisfied, delighted even. As I have said before, if a manufacturer makes a good VFM RTR model that has enough detail on to satisfy Cats 1&2 and make it dimensionally accurate etc. so that the Cat 3 'Modeller' can super-detail with cottage industry parts and/or re-gauge to eg. EM or P4, maybe like Dapol used to do, ie the manufacturer supplies the constituent parts for the purist to detail and re-chassis/super-detail, ala Iain Rice's work with wagon modelling. Personally I enjoy wagon modelling from kits etc, yet I still buy decent RTR and/or super-detail as long as the basics are correct, in some cases the RTR is better than some kits, almost layout ready, and costs the same but comes built and painted - a win/win?! In MRJ No. 247 (pp 123-127) Gerry Beale makes a superb job of super-detailing the Hornby 57' Collett bow-ended corridor coaches, why? Because they were a very, very good starting point and with fettling; '.....that would easily stand comparison with the finest with the best kit-built coaches...' .

 

I am, as I say, very tolerant of all models and modellers' work, finding that there is something to be learnt from everyone and railway modelling is, thankfully, a broad-church, I have to say I am NOT a rivet counter, I wouldn't say that the likes of Messrs Swain, Finney, Rice et al are either. What I feel compelled to say is that I am finding that certain factions, who dont want - cant model? - to model to certain standards, yet denigrate those that do/who wish to, unfair and ungentlemanly in the extreme. We all enjoy a good joke and a laugh, which is the fun part of the hobby, yet the above mentioned approach is every bit as unattractive, to my mind, as those who feel superior because of the - fine - scale and gauge that they model in (one could say snobbery vs inverted snobbery - both are very off putting).

 

In terms of manufacturers, if folk purchase dross from a manufacturer then, like a puppy or a kitten that does its business on the carpet, it only, apparently encourages them, the manufacturer to turn out more of the same dross or.....errr puppy do, does!? As everyone these days feels that a capitalist economy, ie the so called free-market, is the be all and end all, by rights poor quality goods and services should fail, but apparently in the world of model-railways there appears to be a parallel universe, thus strange dichotomy that defies normal market forces?

 

Kindest to all,

 

CME

Edited June 14, 2016 by CME and Bottlewasher

[Garethp8873]

Having read the comments from Mr ABS, I personally feel that they're rather harsh and abit melodramtic if I must admit.

 

Unless he's actually seen one of these wagons in the flesh regardless of livery, got up close with it and compared it to the numerous photographs/drawings we can see of these wagons, then I'll not pay any attention to his comments. I can easily ignore some minor issues at the end of the day. A missing rivet isn't going to kill...!!

 

At the end of the day, I'm just grateful that a company has finally decided to start the ball rolling in regards introducing more Scottish theme models to the RTR scene. It's been a long time coming and kudos to Oxford Rail for having the balls to do it...!!

[JohnR]

Having read the comments from Mr ABS, I personally feel that they're rather harsh and abit melodramtic if I must admit.

 

Unless he's actually seen one of these wagons in the flesh regardless of livery, got up close with it and compared it to the numerous photographs/drawings we can see of these wagons, then I'll not pay any attention to his comments. I can easily ignore some minor issues at the end of the day. A missing rivet isn't going to kill...!!

 

At the end of the day, I'm just grateful that a company has finally decided to start the ball rolling in regards introducing more Scottish theme models to the RTR scene. It's been a long time coming and kudos to Oxford Rail for having the balls to do it...!!

 

Quite agree. All we have see is some low-res pictures of what is presumably an early prototype. How anyone can complain about the location of rivets (literally!) from that just shows how much regard should be given to his remarks.

 

I'll wait until we can see something in closer detail.

[stewartingram]

As for wrong number of bolts or there relative positions, bear in mind they were not built on a modern day production line. This was a time of handbuilding, yes there would be overall specs but the guy doing the job would be the one deciding exactly where to put the bolts.

Think of today, 2 labourers working inside 2 attached semis. I bet the internal stud walls they build, though supposedly mirror images, are not identical.

 

Stewart

Edited June 15, 2016 by stewartingram

[Willie Whizz]

Quite agree. All we have see is some low-res pictures of what is presumably an early prototype. How anyone can complain about the location of rivets (literally!) from that just shows how much regard should be given to his remarks.

 

I'll wait until we can see something in closer detail.

A fair point, up to a point ... because by the time you do, it will probably be too late, the thing will be in production and can't materially be changed.

 

I thought the poster who identified the 'three categories' of purchaser had it just about right, but I'd add the point that to fully - or even 90% - satisfy the Category 3 modeller is likely to mean that almost every wagon released would have to be a one-off in virtually every aspect except wheels and couplings, therefore giving a manufacturer very little by way of 'economies of scale' and so significantly increasing the price of every model. That is probably justifiable on locomotives and coaches, but I'm not convinced enough people would pay, say, twice or more the going rate for a wagon that was 100% accurate rather than (acceptable to most) 90%.  Though I'd also agree that once wagon accuracy drops below, say, 80% even the Category 2 modeller is starting to get wary these days.

[Garethp8873]

When it comes to accuracy, RTR locomotive and carriage accuracy take a low priority for me. When it comes to RTR wagons though, the priority is about 90%. I've come to accept now that not every wagon a RTR company makes will be 100% accurate these days and I can live with that easily. I'm not going to worry about a few missing bolts etc. As previously said not all the wagons built 100 years ago would've been the same. There was always the odd one out so to speak. Kitbuilt wagons are another matter though which I won't go into...

 

Quite agree. All we have see is some low-res pictures of what is presumably an early prototype. How anyone can complain about the location of rivets (literally!) from that just shows how much regard should be given to his remarks.

 

I'll wait until we can see something in closer detail.

 

All I will do when I get the North British version of the 4 Plank are the following steps:

1. Get my copy of LNER Wagons Vol 3 - Scottish Area.
2. Go to P.22 where the wagon drawing of the NB 16B is done to the OO gauge.
3. Take wagon out of box.
4. Lay it on top of the wagon drawing.
5. If it fits perfectly on top of the drawing then I will be happy with the wagon FULL STOP...!!
6. Place wagon into a rake of goods vehicles and enjoy.

Whilst I may not be an expert on all things North British wagon related, I've looked at the photos of the prototype and electronically painted ones and I'm comfortable with me thinking it's right. As you say we won't know until the wagons appear next month but considering Oxford's accuracy when it comes to their diecast range, I'm sure the same time and effort is going into their expanding OO range!!

 

Finally, this is the last thing I will say in regards to Mr ABS. He can be at least "happy" that the Lothian Coal Ltd Newbattle livery is correct as this wagon is in Mr Tatlow's LNER Wagons Vol. 3 which I previously mentioned on P.127. Looks like OR can get their hands on a copy after all...

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Quite agree. All we have see is some low-res pictures of what is presumably an early prototype. How anyone can complain about the location of rivets (literally!) from that just shows how much regard should be given to his remarks.

 

I'll wait until we can see something in closer detail.

Have a look at Paul Marshall-Potter's site - some clear photos on there IIRC, he also photographed the anomalies on the Cattle wagon too! Google these models there are clearer photos on the web, except of course OR's 'official' blurry offerings.

 

Here's a link to get you started;-

 

https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/2016-british-toy-fair/

 

In addition, a skilled engineer can oft scale dimensions and details even from a poor photo....

 

As for wrong number of bolts or there relative positions, bear in mind they were not built on a modern day production line. This was a time of handbuilding, yes there would be overall specs but the guy doing the job would be the one deciding exactly where to put the bolts.

Think of today, 2 labourers working inside 2 attached semis. I bet the internal stud walls they build, though supposedly mirror images, are not identical.

 

Stewart

Hand-'crafting' 5000 wagons over 10 years - in a botched, make-do-and-mend bespoke way!? 5000 wagons = mass production, with or without power tools, a production line - of sorts - would be required.

 

Having been involved in welding and fabrication and batch production, I doubt very much whether there would be the randomness that you describe! Templates, jigs and basic patterns to assist with building some 5000 wagons would have been required for unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled labour alike, so as to enable them to produce these wagons accurately, consistently and cost effectively, not to mention relatively quickly (ie approx one wagon per day - depending on workforce size and skill base etc?), along with other variants (size wise) to a standardised construction - thus mass production as opposed to 'hand-crafted'. In addition for repairs a certain amount of standardisation would also be required too in terms of replacement parts also (pre) made to standard - even though these vehicles were pre RCH. Thus 'rivets' (BOLTS - as you have written - in point of fact) wouldn't have been put in the wrong place in a quaint 'arts and crafts' kinda way (because the builder felt like it or was having a bad day), not even with in service repairs as eg. the steel strapping would already be in place and the holes drilled to the correct pattern/specification/jig based spacing.

 

The type of construction that you describe, I fear, is only applicable in the mind of the modeller, or a cash starved NG railway in the late 1960's with only three wagons to build - even that's possibly modellers' licence.

 

IMHO, after having some experience of managing works, the building industry is also more shoddy than you think - having said that, 400mm centres springs to mind ie standardisation once again.

 

'Modern day' standardised mass production? Henry Ford? Earlier; Winchester Rifles, earlier still?; Venician ships in the 1100s, the Pyramids!? Take your pick, a 100 yrs ago is quite modern in terms of that little lot - LOL!

 

After having worked on contracts to complete mass/batch production items, standardisation is key and the workers develop a rhythm akin to muscle memory, in completing associated tasks - such cannot be achieved if building each wagon as bespoke or straight from drawings. Even today, with power tools, hand-made does NOT mean hand-crafted (ie bespoke made by skilled craftsmen) as such, its just a low-tech production line - a production line, even in its basic form would have been created for these wagons, there would have been cut lists for timber and steel alike, drilling templates and lists etc etc.

 

Just because OR appear to be making it up as they go along, the builders of the prototype didnt.

 

Hope that helps clarify.

 

Kindest to all.

 

CME

Edited June 15, 2016 by CME and Bottlewasher

[Garethp8873]

North British 4 Plank are in stock with Hattons now

[Quarryscapes]

Mine has just been packed up, looking forward to its arrival! 

[James Harrison]

Mine is apparently on it's way.  Looking forward to seeing it.  I'll be honest, I won't be losing sleep over the odd missing bolt on it. 

[Garethp8873]

Well looking at the photos now up on the Hattons website, the wagon seems to be the correct length but I'll wait til I see one in the flesh and then measure it up then...

Edited July 2, 2016 by Garethp8873

[CME and Bottlewasher]

My concern is that if companies like OR produce such models (ie making claims re the quality and uniqueness of their new products - when clearly such are removed from the truth of the matter) and there is a financial down-turn, due to the frothing and propaganda, over Brexit/Bremain etc, then folks' disposable income will be limited (competing and scarce resources) and become more so. Then if one has £5 to spend and its spent with the 'wrong' manufacturer then the likes of Hornby (who are producing by and large, quality models at this time) will loose out. We saw this phenomenon, to a certain extent with Dapol and Lionheart a year or two back in the 7mm market place. Of course at this time, OR dont appear to have gone head to head over specific models....time will tell! Even so if competing models or duplication isnt present then if one's disposable income is limited, when choosing eg a loco (perhaps a considered purchase) then I would hate to think that, judging by the current output of OR, OR 'win' more and more business from 'punters', because the punters are prepared to take second, or should that be third, best. What I am seeing is that although in the world of model railways 'we have never had it so good' there is also a worrying trend of certain manufacturers producing inaccurate models with pretty paint jobs, that, like the emperor's new clothes, fool box collectors and modellers alike, into buying them en masse. As I always say, I make no value judgements on individuals and their likes and dislikes - each to their own - but OR are self proclaimed Subject Matter Experts and are selling products that are NOT, contrary to their hype and branding, 'up to standard' and they are taking money from honest folk for the privilege!

 

If cash becomes ever harder to come by, this would be, of course, due to market forces, to a point (so beloved of the west's, system of monetarism/capitalism, which appears to be, like a serpent feeding from its own tail, disappearing up its own 'slipstream'), AND sadly things seem to be becoming ever more skewed in the world of model-railways as reviews are either made quite some time after a model has been released or lacking in any sort of critique (in certain quarters)! I suspect that there are competing interests when reviewing a model that has been produced by a manufacturer who is also a key advertiser, with a conflict of interest between two customer groups (advertisers and readers) thus this aspect of the matter also presents its problems too.

 

Caveat Emptor (buyer beware)!

Edited July 4, 2016 by CME and Bottlewasher

[Sasquatch]

A few years back before the OO market was swamped with southern and midland/LMS prototypes and before the 20% price rise the LNER/ER modeler had nothing to look forward too.

Now we're seeing the market swamped with LNER/ER products at much elevated prices.

So I say "Hats off to Oxford Rail" for getting new prototypes on the market at sensible prices.

 

 I'm sure the rivet counters of this world will do what they've always done and correct any minor inaccuracies with their modeling skills! 

 

Shaun

Edited July 3, 2016 by Sasquatch

[Quarryscapes]

Mine's here and is a bit disappointing, EM gauge conversion is out of the question. Shame, the wagon itself is lovely. 

 

I've converted it to EM successfully! 

Edited July 4, 2016 by Quarryscapes

[BG John]

EM gauge conversion is out of the question.

Why? Just in case I get the urge to buy one.

[Garethp8873]

Mine's here and is a bit disappointing, EM gauge conversion is out of the question. Shame, the wagon itself is lovely. 

 

Would you be able to give me the length of just the body of the wagon please?

[Quarryscapes]

Why? Just in case I get the urge to buy one.

 

The underframe is a one piece moulding which sits in between the soldebars, which are part of the body. The W irons are very thick and are nearly touching the wheel faces. The wheels have axles which are 24.8mm over pinpoints. I'm not sure I can get the underframe unit out without seriously damaging the body in the process, if I could I'm still not sure there's enough room for conventional etched W irons. 

 

 

Edit to add: between W irons: 21.4mm, between solebars (if the underframe can be removed) 23.4mm. 24.3mm No hope for P4 there, tiniest sliver of hope for EM. 

 

Would you be able to give me the length of just the body of the wagon please?

 

It's a scale 15' over headstoscks and the wheelbase is 8'6". The end door projects over the headstock slightly. 

Edited July 4, 2016 by Quarryscapes

[Quarryscapes]

Oops! 

 

 

Anybody got a drawing of the real thing's W irons and axleboxes? I'm kinda committed now to making proper replacements! 

[BG John]

The underframe is a one piece moulding which sits in between the soldebars, which are part of the body. The W irons are very thick and are nearly touching the wheel faces. The wheels have axles which are 24.8mm over pinpoints. I'm not sure I can get the underframe unit out without seriously damaging the body in the process, if I could I'm still not sure there's enough room for conventional etched W irons. 

 

 

Edit to add: between W irons: 21.4mm, between solebars (if the underframe can be removed) 23.4mm. No hope for P4 there, tiniest sliver of hope for EM. 

 

 

It's a scale 15' over headstoscks and the wheelbase is 8'6". The end door projects over the headstock slightly. 

That's a shame. I've just converted a Bachmann wagon to EM by re-gauging the wheels, and cutting just a small amount of protrusions from the back of the W-irons. And the couplings just unscrewed leaving a nice flat space to fit Spratt & Winkles. It's a shame Oxford didn't do likewise.

 

Your next post is more encouraging though! I'd get another chassis to add to my collection for building O-16.5 bodies on! Is this photo any help? I have a liking for dumb buffers, and if I could would probably have far too many of them!

http://www.buckhaven.info/assets/images/ba_1_b.jpg