Jump to content

GER 10T Goods Van announced!


Garethp8873
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 24/01/2020 at 16:13, Londoner said:

........ They're clearly targeting a mass market and not specialists who demand perfection whatever the cost. ...............

But they are significantly reducing the likelihood that any other manufacturer is going to produce the same vehicle, without silly mistakes, at any time in the foreseeable future.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

But they are significantly reducing the likelihood that any other manufacturer is going to produce the same vehicle, without silly mistakes, at any time in the foreseeable future.

That's true, but is it really relevant? Surely it's unreasonable for modellers working to exact detail to expect the vast majority to pay the major extra cost of producing exact, fine scale models just to suite a minority. Just like any manufacturer, Oxford are going to target the market segment that suits them, one where the balance between sales volume and their costs gives them the volume and profit margin they require. It's like saying the Ford shouldn't produce a sports car because it makes it less likely that Aston Martin will.

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

But they are significantly reducing the likelihood that any other manufacturer is going to produce the same vehicle, without silly mistakes, at any time in the foreseeable future.

That's true, but is it really relevant? Surely it's unreasonable for modellers working to exact detail to expect the vast majority to pay the major extra cost of producing exact, fine scale models just to suite a minority. Just like any manufacturer, Oxford are going to target the market segment that suits them, one where the balance between sales volume and their costs gives them the volume and profit margin they require. It's like saying the Ford shouldn't produce a sports car because it makes it less likely that Aston Martin will.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the silly mistakes Oxford have made on their wagon models - I have no experience of any others - would have cost nothing more to produce correctly - and some would probably have been cheaper ( planked door instead of a spurious window and omission of unnecessary lamp irons on the brakevans ) .................... if Oxford are really aiming at the TOY market, why do they bother producing anything even remotely more realistic than troublesome trucks ?

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

But they are significantly reducing the likelihood that any other manufacturer is going to produce the same vehicle, without silly mistakes, at any time in the foreseeable future.

 

But if you are a serious modeller, and you care about those errors, you can fix them. And you'll have a relatively inexpensive model to use as the basis for your customisation. Meanwhile, those who don't really care about the errors will just be happy with a relatively inexpensive model. Sounds like a win-win, to me.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

But they are significantly reducing the likelihood that any other manufacturer is going to produce the same vehicle, without silly mistakes, at any time in the foreseeable future.

That's true, but is it really relevant? Surely it's unreasonable for modellers working to exact detail to expect the vast majority to pay the major extra cost of producing exact, fine scale models just to suite a minority. Just like any manufacturer, Oxford are going to target the market segment that suits them, one where the balance between sales volume and their costs gives them the volume and profit margin they require. It's like saying the Ford shouldn't produce a sports car because it makes it less likely that Aston Martin will.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 

But if you are a serious modeller, and you care about those errors, you can fix them. And you'll have a relatively inexpensive model to use as the basis for your customisation. Meanwhile, those who don't really care about the errors will just be happy with a relatively inexpensive model. Sounds like a win-win, to me.

Yes, I consider that I AM a serious modeller and I HAVE fixed the errors on my GWR brake van and on the LNER opens and on the NBR mineral and I'll get round to finishing the LNER cattle one day ....................... but I have an awful lot of other projects that would have benefited from me spending that time on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wickham Green said:

Yes, I consider that I AM a serious modeller and I HAVE fixed the errors on my GWR brake van and on the LNER opens and on the NBR mineral and I'll get round to finishing the LNER cattle one day ....................... but I have an awful lot of other projects that would have benefited from me spending that time on.

 

Then spend your time on those projects, and don't waste it moaning on RMweb about things that are of no relevance to you.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarkSG said:

 

But if you are a serious modeller, and you care about those errors, you can fix them. And you'll have a relatively inexpensive model to use as the basis for your customisation. Meanwhile, those who don't really care about the errors will just be happy with a relatively inexpensive model. Sounds like a win-win, to me.

 

Alternately, as has already been suggested, Oxford an simply not make the errors in the first place and still deliver a cheap model - much more of a win-win because it means those put off by the errors who don't have the capability of fixing them will also buy the model. 

 

Perhaps then we could actually call it a win-win-win?

 

Nobody here is suggesting Oxford do anything that drives up the price of the model - we aren't asking for a super-detailed model - but rather simply get things right in the first place.

Edited by mdvle
  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently worked up a Bachmann LMS cattle wagon, which has far worse issues than anything Ox have ever made; the entire chassis is the wrong length and any improvements I’ve made to it will always be compromised by this.  It’ll ‘do’ until the acquisition (nobody expects the Spanish Acquisition!) of a round tuit provokes a Parkside.  Moreover, it originally carried a completely wrong LNER livery. 
 

Hornby and Dapol persist in churning out 16ton minerals on the wrong wheelbase and with ‘stretched’ bodies, and everybody provides incorrect liveries on PO wagons with all sorts of incorrect generic details, and we don’t say anything about those!  Maybe we should cut Ox the same degree of slack we happily provide other companies.  I have some of their BR liveried XPO 7 plankers, and am quite happy with them, and a BR liveried 4 wheel GW Toad which I was able to correct the errors on quite easily.  
 

Of course Ox, without the resources of Hornby or Bachmann to devote to research, have made some howlers, but to my mind the Dean Goods’ main visual offence was the odd copper looking dome and safety valve cover, and brass looking chimney cap.  Comparing it to the Airfix/Mainline/Hornby version, it’s not a bad loco; at least the tender does not have an implausible Everest of coal to hide an ineffective pancake motor driving spur gears visible at the side of the chassis.  This was of it’s time of course, but no reason for Hornby not to have given it a new loco driven chassis.  I’m not in the market for a DG, but if I were it would be the Ox every time over the tender drive version!

 

And you can only see one side of an LNER cattle van at a time...

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

Of course Ox, without the resources of Hornby or Bachmann to devote to research, have made some howlers, but to my mind the Dean Goods’ main visual offence was the odd copper looking dome and safety valve cover, and brass looking chimney cap.  Comparing it to the Airfix/Mainline/Hornby version, it’s not a bad loco; at least the tender does not have an implausible Everest of coal to hide an ineffective pancake motor driving spur gears visible at the side of the chassis.  This was of it’s time of course, but no reason for Hornby not to have given it a new loco driven chassis.  I’m not in the market for a DG, but if I were it would be the Ox every time over the tender drive version!

 

And you can only see one side of an LNER cattle van at a time...

 

I don't know why people constantly mention the Mainline Dean Goods coal load. I've previously posted at least a couple of dozen photographs of them with coal loads exactly the same.

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrbsh1785.htm

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/no-tenders.html

 

CBA looking for any more.

 

 

 

Jason

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Hornby and Dapol persist in churning out 16ton minerals on the wrong wheelbase and with ‘stretched’ bodies, and everybody provides incorrect liveries on PO wagons with all sorts of incorrect generic details, and we don’t say anything about those!  Maybe we should cut Ox the same degree of slack we happily provide other companies.  I have some of their BR liveried XPO 7 plankers, and am quite happy with them, and a BR liveried 4 wheel GW Toad which I was able to correct the errors on quite easily.  

 

I suspect if Hornby or Dapol tooled up a new 16ton minerals with those issues the people of RMweb wouldn't be quiet about it - though I also suspect there would be people defending them.

 

The incorrect liveries is an entirely different issue, is about making an easy profit selling items that the 80% who just want trains that they like the look of, which then goes to subsidize the cash flow for the new models most of us crave.

 

But an incorrect livery on a (reasonably) accurate model doesn't necessarily create extra work for the modeller who simply wants an example of that model.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

we aren't asking for a super-detailed model

 

If Oxford Rail hadn't declared that they would be setting new standards in the hobby when they announced the railway range, I'd have more sympathy.   As it is they've dropped a few b0ll0cks and missed a few open goals.  Since they're still expanding the range, it must be selling, so good luck to them.  This is a great choice of vehicle.   That poor choice of marketing nonsense was always going to come back and bite them, though.

 

  • Agree 5
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎23‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 17:13, 57xx said:

Proper research would have given us a LNER 6 plank open with brake shoes on one side only and linked levers...

Now this one falls into the 'cup half full or half empty?' category is my feeling. What I saw was a wagon with a spare set of brake gear 'for free' which with a little unclipping, modding and reassembly looked right, and at a modest price. (Similar errors in brake gear arrangements may be found in other RTR manufacturer's ranges, so I have had plenty of practice at this sort of activity over the years; and since the wagons overall look as good as an expertly finished kit, I'll take that.)

 

Had you mentioned their LNER Cattle wagon: that's a real blooper! Inexperience on show there.

 

But there are no such traps on the GER van, neatly symmetrical, no awkward 'see through to the error problem'.

 

On ‎24‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 16:13, Londoner said:

Poor design, CAD, and/or poor tooling, and/or poor quality control may have been responsible. Without more background information it's impossible to know...

Quite, and much of this down to inexperience I would suggest. The better news is that there has been improvement, on the available evidence the OR model railway team are climbing the learning curve.

 

The N7 - like most current RTR - comfortably beats my kit built N7s overall; and the second of these kit builds is as good as I could achieve. (This was the big thing in the move to China. Now available, RTR OO as good - and typically better - than what an averagely proficient kit builder could achieve. I maintain that a specimen like Bach's 9F is worth the money for the full brake detail alone, anyone doubting, try a kit build to that standard of appearance and reliable running performance.)

 

The N7, not a class leading model, but a decent effort. Where the inexperience shows clearly is the rather clumsy coupler mountings. There are models from other manufacturers that demonstrate how this might have been better achieved, had the designer been aware of them.

 

9 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

But they are significantly reducing the likelihood that any other manufacturer is going to produce the same vehicle, without silly mistakes, at any time in the foreseeable future.

OTOH it may prove to be a decent effort. It's not as though other manufacturers with rather more experience have an unblemished record on newly tooled steam era wagons, Bachmann BR cattle wagon, scale foot error in length, Hornby's Blue Spot, way incorrect roof radius. (We won't even look at 'perpetuating ancient horrors.')

 

And in 'better news' at the diesel loco end of the spectrum, an off-target model is now becoming a positive invitation to others to do better. Maybe that will spread...

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/01/2020 at 18:48, 57xx said:

 

Practically every model they've made so far. It's evident on many of them that the "accuracy of its execution" is down to poor research.

I suspect not: my guess is that things go wrong between the researcher and the engineer who designs the tooling. I've been in this loop.

 

It's really hard for the engineer to get things right if they don't have a unified set of drawings of the subject, and it's hard for the researcher to spot errors of detail in the engineers work, even when the researcher has the CAD files and tools to display them. If the feedback from the engineer to the researcher is only screenshots of the model, not the 3D model, then seeing errors is even harder. Add a few layers of management and a language barrier and the job becomes nearly infeasible. It's possible to get things right, but it takes commitment and persistence.

 

However, I do agree that gross errors, like getting a roof profile massively wrong, are sloppy work and should not happen.

 

Consider fully describing to a designer a wagon where one doesn't have a full and consistent set of drawings. "Start from this arrangement drawing ... doesn't show all the details clearly, use photo A and photo B and photo C as a guide, 'cept B and C are later than A and (jargon) got swapped for (jargon) and (jargon) wasn't there when (jargon) built the wagon. Now, GA doesn't show the (jargon) and (jargon), so see this other pile of blurry component drawings we scraped from a different source, use those; except not the (jargon), that was different, look at the photos for that, sure you can work it out, OK?. And the component drawings are for a wagon with different (jargon), so the (jargon) needs to be longer to mate with the (jargon) on the GA...". Now consider all that translated into Chinese by and for people who've never seen a real, British wagon. And consider checking all that detail when the screenshots come back from the factory.

 

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Guy Rixon said:

... people who've never seen a real, British wagon...

Substitute 'diesel loco' for wagon. I submit that it was a lot easier for a European team to get all the complex compound curvature of the bodyshells to 'look right', because they were working in their own familiar aesthetic environment and tradition. I understand that there is quite a lot wrong with the famous 'Pagoda' at Kew Gardens, if reference is made to the authentic tradition it is modelled on, and even I can spot that the Brighton Paviliion is a horrible pastiche.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2020 at 10:22, Wickham Green said:

But they are significantly reducing the likelihood that any other manufacturer is going to produce the same vehicle, without silly mistakes, at any time in the foreseeable future.

 

Given Oxford's announcement, just how many people would be interested in an alternative source of one of these vans?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Given Oxford's announcement, just how many people would be interested in an alternative source of one of these vans?

 

I'd certainly be interested in a different variant of a GER van (or a GER open wagon), and if these are successful it could well encourage other manufacturers to mine the GER seam. It's not like it's a market which is particularly well served at the moment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment wasn't directed at these ( GER ) vans which, obviously, haven't appeared yet. Hopefully Oxford have taken heed of adverse comments made about their earlier products and will be designed by someone who understands wagons : I've not been following their more recent - more modern - wagons so cannot comment on Oxford's current quality.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 

I'd certainly be interested in a different variant of a GER van (or a GER open wagon), and if these are successful it could well encourage other manufacturers to mine the GER seam. It's not like it's a market which is particularly well served at the moment.

........... not to mention, a Buckjumper to follow on from the N7 ..............................

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

Given Oxford's announcement, just how many people would be interested in an alternative source of one of these vans?

 

I've got 3 D&S ones but would want some more - so if they were of a better standard than the Oxford ones (and they probably would be) I'd have a few more. I'd rather buy kits than RTR.

Edited by Bucoops
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MarkSG said:

it could well encourage other manufacturers to mine the GER seam. It's not like it's a market which is particularly well served at the moment.

Three RTR OO GER design locos produced and now a van to come: that's in the 'lavish provision' set among pre-group railways! ;)

 

It truly would be good to see some more pre-group models; in this matter Oxford must be among the leaders in UK RTR OO with a high proportion of their range thus far of pregroup design.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...