Oxford Rail announces - OO gauge GWR Dean Goods

[Miss Prism]

To return this thread to the topic and to possibly help if and when I have to review the Dean Goods, I wonder if we can separate and simplify the list of alleged faults into two categories. I would be the first to admit I'm not a Dean Goods expert - they were a large and complex class dating from before my period of personal interest, and I suspect, a minefield for any manufacturer.

My preference would be to split the niggles down into two groups:

Those which relate specifically to the number chosen for the locomotive (ie the wrong smokebox length)

Those which affect all members of the class (i.e. splasher size)

 

Chris - I haven't read through this thread for quite a long time, and I'm not sure what Oxford is now presenting as its production versions, nor has it ever been clear what Oxford was intending to portray in the first place, which has greatly confused the process, but I think the checklist goes something like this:

 

All versions: splashers too big, wheels too big, ashpan missing, incorrect firebox washout plugs (or handrail at the incorrect height), whistles still the wrong way round?

 

2309: incorrect footplate width, incorrect footplate steps, incorrect smokebox front, incorrect smokebox door, incorrect smokebox wrapper, incorrect firebox plating, incorrect cab sides, front and roof, incorrect rivets on splasher sides and tops, incorrect chimney, chimney in wrong place (I haven't checked), incorrect buffers, incorrect wheels

 

2475: incorrect firebox plating for pre-1935, incorrect cab sides, front and roof, incorrect rivets on splasher sides and tops, probably incorrect buffers

 

The tender is nice.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Miss Prism

[KGV]

Those which relate specifically to the number chosen for the locomotive (ie the wrong smokebox length)

Those which affect all members of the class (i.e. splasher size)

 

 

From my point of view, which is mainly cosmetic as I am no expert, these are the issues that are preventing me from buying the 2309 version which I would otherwise really like to own:

 

- dome does not look like polished brass

- copper capped chimney does not look like copper

- lining around cab runs under numberplate

- handrail around smokebox should be black

- boiler washout plugs on firebox hidden by handrail

 

The first one ruins the look completely for me as this makes this class so distinctive in their early days.

[Hilux5972]

 

Chris - I haven't read through this thread for quite a long time, and I'm not sure what Oxford is now presenting as its production versions, nor has it ever been clear what Oxford was intending to portray in the first place, which has greatly confused the process, but I think the checklist goes something like this:

 

All versions: splashers too big, wheels too big, ashpan missing, incorrect firebox washout plugs (or handrail at the incorrect height), whistles still the wrong way round?

 

2309: incorrect footplate width, incorrect footplate steps, incorrect smokebox front, incorrect smokebox door, incorrect smokebox wrapper, incorrect firebox plating, incorrect cab sides, front and roof, incorrect rivets on splasher sides and tops, chimney in wrong place (I haven't checked), incorrect buffers, incorrect wheels

 

2475: incorrect firebox plating for pre-1935, incorrect cab sides, front and roof, incorrect rivets on splasher sides and tops, probably incorrect buffers

 

The tender is nice.

Wow that's a hell of a list.

[dibber25]

 

Chris - I haven't read through this thread for quite a long time, and I'm not sure what Oxford is now presenting as its production versions, nor has it ever been clear what Oxford was intending to portray in the first place, which has greatly confused the process, but I think the checklist goes something like this:

 

All versions: splashers too big, wheels too big, ashpan missing, incorrect firebox washout plugs (or handrail at the incorrect height), whistles still the wrong way round?

 

2309: incorrect footplate width, incorrect footplate steps, incorrect smokebox front, incorrect smokebox door, incorrect smokebox wrapper, incorrect firebox plating, incorrect cab sides, front and roof, incorrect rivets on splasher sides and tops, chimney in wrong place (I haven't checked), incorrect buffers, incorrect wheels

 

2475: incorrect firebox plating for pre-1935, incorrect cab sides, front and roof, incorrect rivets on splasher sides and tops, probably incorrect buffers

 

The tender is nice.

 

Is there a reliable reference drawing? My experience of 'modellers' drawings' over the years has been so bad that I don't trust any of them. Do we have sources for this info - published dimensions, for instance? I'm not questioning it's accuracy, I'm just starting to get my wagons in a circle. I'm presuming that any scans or other info taken from the preserved example at STEAM would be a loco in final BR condition (ie the loco has not been restored by Swindon other than cosmetically)? Having looked at the loco, I think we can discount rivet numbers/positions, as it's clearly been done 'by eye' and there are few straight rows of rivets! (CJL)

[Miss Prism]

Is there a reliable reference drawing?

 

A few, but all need degrees of 'interpretation'.

 

A good GA is in GWRJ 13.

 

A good Martin Finney 1992 version of an unsuperheated:

http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/Downloads/2301%20Instructions%20Parts%20List%20Diagrams.pdf

 

A Lee Marsh drawing of a late-period superheated version:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0229/4449/files/Line_drawing_dean_goods_02_747de365-b311-466a-930c-fb3aae08767e_grande.jpg?v=1484649327

 

The Maskelyne drawing of 2516 in the Jim Russell GWR Engines book is good, and shows as in final condition.

[Legend]

Wow that's a hell of a list.

And yet ,I must admit not having that level of knowledge ,it kind of looks like a Deans Goods . Sounds like that's a bit of a miracle!

[57xx]

 

Chris - I haven't read through this thread for quite a long time, and I'm not sure what Oxford is now presenting as its production versions, nor has it ever been clear what Oxford was intending to portray in the first place, which has greatly confused the process, but I think the checklist goes something like this:

 

All versions: splashers too big, wheels too big, ashpan missing, incorrect firebox washout plugs (or handrail at the incorrect height), whistles still the wrong way round?

 

2309: incorrect footplate width, incorrect footplate steps, incorrect smokebox front, incorrect smokebox door, incorrect smokebox wrapper, incorrect firebox plating, incorrect cab sides, front and roof, incorrect rivets on splasher sides and tops, chimney in wrong place (I haven't checked), incorrect buffers, incorrect wheels

 

2475: incorrect firebox plating for pre-1935, incorrect cab sides, front and roof, incorrect rivets on splasher sides and tops, probably incorrect buffers

 

The tender is nice.

 

 

Under all versions, you can add that the curve of the cab side cut out is wrong, that is a separate issue from the height which NRM got sorted on their version, but still appears to retain the wrong curvature. The curvature is something very distinctive of the class and sticks out like a sore thumb. 

 

I believe from what I've read on here the whistles were swapped to the correct sides.

Edited July 7, 2017 by 57xx

[bertiedog]

Much more to the point, as Oxford have not corrected fully what was pointed out to them, so what will be the state of play with the NRM version, where claims where made to corrections, in the publicity releases.

The model still has blunders, not mistakes, like the lining size, plates over lines and handrail knobs that are pure fantasy. Are the purchasers of the basic Oxford version getting a version that has the bad parts and the NRM corrected details?

[tomparryharry]

Great news!

 

Oxford has finally announced a new product designed to solve the problems identified with its Dean Goods:

 " Hello Mr. Greengrocer, can I have a pound of lintels, please?"

 

"Don't you mean lentils?"

 

"Oh! So that's the difference!"

 

Ian

[Edwardian]

To return this thread to the topic and to possibly help if and when I have to review the Dean Goods, I wonder if we can separate and simplify the list of alleged faults into two categories. I would be the first to admit I'm not a Dean Goods expert - they were a large and complex class dating from before my period of personal interest, and I suspect, a minefield for any manufacturer.

My preference would be to split the niggles down into two groups:

Those which relate specifically to the number chosen for the locomotive (ie the wrong smokebox length)

Those which affect all members of the class (i.e. splasher size)

This allows the reviewer to moderate his comments on the basis that the manufacturer has selected to do one or more 'generic' models but to apply a variety of numbers, or to point out that the tooling variants could have allowed him to offer the correct number/detail combination. (I grew up in the era of Hornby-Dublo and 'Bristol Castle' - a choice of one, and if you wanted an alternative name you bought etched plates and fitted them, even if the boiler fittings, tender type etc were wrong for your chosen engine). I therefore don't consider it a crime to use a number/detail combination that doesn't match, but it is always helpful to know and to be able to review accordingly. (CJL)

 

You have a PM

[Hroth]

Much more to the point, as Oxford have not corrected fully what was pointed out to them, so what will be the state of play with the NRM version, where claims where made to corrections, in the publicity releases.

The model still has blunders, not mistakes, like the lining size, plates over lines and handrail knobs that are pure fantasy. Are the purchasers of the basic Oxford version getting a version that has the bad parts and the NRM corrected details?

Given that the first production of the Dean Goods was supposed to be on its way from China when the NRM decided they wanted one (without most of the more eyecatching errors), I suppose they couldn't return the incoming consignment for "reworking" and decided to release the Mk1 version (ie 2309) as is and not let it go to waste.  If that's the case, there might be a bit of a wait for the other variants as Oxford attempt to rectify the problems that make the Goods unlike the NRM loco.  Once the NRM are happy, I should expect to see the Mk2 Goods emerge, that is the other liveries apart from 2903, which will probably not be repeated once the current stock is exhausted.

 

Of course, all my "just supposing" may be well wide of the mark and any changes made for the NRM won't be transferred to the mainstream models.

 

We'll just have to wait and see if the NRM will accept Oxfords efforts!

[bertiedog]

If the two models are identical, then the NRM will have failed on this model to deliver a decent Deans Goods, but if they are different then where does it place the current buyers with a clearly inferior product? By inferior I mean not to prototype, nothing to do with quality.

One scenario is that Oxford have done a few corrections, (but where?), to the existing Chinese productions in the first production runs, but will do more later on for the NRM versions.

 

Quite frankly this is just not on, it is an odd way to do business, but I suspect that they have few options left. A warehouse of unsaleable models would be ruinous to Oxford.

 

After all, to many, the model is fully acceptable as it is, and will sell anyway. The faults are quite minor. but there are too many for one model.

 

It is not the actual faults, but the principle that is at stake, of delivering a sound detailed model that pleases the majority, and Oxford are on the brink of not doing that.

 

There is also the future flack coming the way to the NRM if the version they commissioned still suffers from basic errors, their reputation may suffer if Oxford fail to deliver the loco corrected.

 

Stephen

Edited July 7, 2017 by bertiedog

[Edwardian]

If the two models are identical, then the NRM will have failed on this model to deliver a decent Deans Goods, but if they are different then where does it place the current buyers with a clearly inferior product? By inferior I mean not to prototype, nothing to do with quality.

One scenario is that Oxford have done a few corrections, (but where?), to the existing Chinese productions in the first production runs, but will do more later on for the NRM versions.

 

Quite frankly this is just not on, it is an odd way to do business, but I suspect that they have few options left. A warehouse of unsaleable models would be ruinous to Oxford.

 

After all, to many, the model is fully acceptable as it is, and will sell anyway. The faults are quite minor. but there are too many for one model.

 

It is not the actual faults, but the principle that is at stake, of delivering a sound detailed model that pleases the majority, and Oxford are on the brink of not doing that.

 

There is also the future flack coming the way to the NRM if the version they commissioned still suffers from basic errors, their reputation may suffer if Oxford fail to deliver the loco corrected.

 

Stephen

 

As running on the Old (Oxford) Worse (the only partially corrected Locomotion version) and Worse (the entirely unimproved standard version)!

 

Judging from the picture so far released, the Locomotion version retains the original splashers (way over-scale and with bonkers rivets on their face), whereas the standard version does not benefit from the revised cab made for Locomotion.  The only correction to the standard model is to swop the whistles round. 

 

So, yes, two differently bad models!

[Quarryscapes]

As running on the Old (Oxford) Worse (the only partially corrected Locomotion version) and Worse (the entirely unimproved standard version)!

 

Judging from the picture so far released, the Locomotion version retains the original splashers (way over-scale and with bonkers rivets on their face), whereas the standard version does not benefit from the revised cab made for Locomotion.  The only correction to the standard model is to swop the whistles round. 

 

So, yes, two differently bad models!

 

Locomotion also stated that there are more corrections to be done, the model pictured is just a 2309 with the new cab, so yes it would have the inaccuracies of 2309 in the pic. They are in no way indicative of the final 2516 model's features. 

 

Meanwhile...

 

The Oxford firebox sides were clearly intended for the Cambrian Large Belpaire Goods

 

[Edwardian]

Locomotion also stated that there are more corrections to be done, the model pictured is just a 2309 with the new cab, so yes it would have the inaccuracies of 2309 in the pic. They are in no way indicative of the final 2516 model's features. 

 

 

 

While I would like to think you are correct, I am not so sanguine: The replacement cab displayed in the latest update by Locomotion incorporates a new rear splasher that is the same size and bear the same unprotoypical rivet detail as the original Oxford tooling.

 

That suggests to me that a decision has already been taken to retain some of the inaccuracies.  I'd love to be proved wrong, but not hopeful of being so.

[The Stationmaster]

Chris - PM sent.

[Legend]

I see Brockwell lane has uploaded another video on YouTube with some of his modifications and repainting. I know there are a lot of detail issues, but it looks pretty good to me. I might go for the unlined green version when it comes out .

[Mikkel]

I see Brockwell lane has uploaded another video on YouTube with some of his modifications and repainting. I know there are a lot of detail issues, but it looks pretty good to me. I might go for the unlined green version when it comes out .

 

Quite an improvement, I think. Shows what can be done with some well considered detailing and a repaint.

[Quarryscapes]

While I would like to think you are correct, I am not so sanguine: The replacement cab displayed in the latest update by Locomotion incorporates a new rear splasher that is the same size and bear the same unprotoypical rivet detail as the original Oxford tooling.

 

That suggests to me that a decision has already been taken to retain some of the inaccuracies.  I'd love to be proved wrong, but not hopeful of being so.

 

There was no rivet detail on the original Oxford cabside originally. The only  deciding factor will be how deep Locomotion's pockets are as to how many new moulds need to be made. They might of course be modifying the existing moulds which will mean the locomotion changes become the standard loco for future batches from Oxford. Neither company is exactly shouting their plans from the rooftops so we just don't know yet. 

 

Quite an improvement, I think. Shows what can be done with some well considered detailing and a repaint.

 

Isn't it just! 

[coachmann]

I wonder if the chap at Brockwell Lane had researched how long the original type of smokebox door lasted. It is not a question I can answer since having a book clear out.

[Quarryscapes]

I wonder if the chap at Brockwell Lane had researched how long the original type of smokebox door lasted. It is not a question I can answer since having a book clear out.

 

I can't answer it definitively, but it was a lot longer than you'd think. They were being fitted new to Cambrian locos after amalgamation.

[Edwardian]

There was no rivet detail on the original Oxford cabside originally. The only  deciding factor will be how deep Locomotion's pockets are as to how many new moulds need to be made. They might of course be modifying the existing moulds which will mean the locomotion changes become the standard loco for future batches from Oxford. Neither company is exactly shouting their plans from the rooftops so we just don't know yet. 

 

 

 

I beg to differ.  The rivets I was referring to are on the face of the splasher, not the cab side.

 

My point was that the new improved Locomotion cab must fit over - and appears to incorporate - a new rear splasher that is exactly like the old rear splasher, i.e. far too large and with those ridiculous rivets on the face of the splasher. 

 

This suggests to me that the Locomotion model will not see revised front and centre splashers; the Locomotion version seems to have produce new splashers that replicate the inaccuracies of the old.

[brian777999]

They should have made the model with the original round top boiler. I will bet they wish they had !

[tomparryharry]

They should have made the model with the original round top boiler. I will bet they wish they had !

I understand Fred the Office Boy is standing by, file in hand, with a profile gauge....

 

Ian.

[Quarryscapes]

I beg to differ.  The rivets I was referring to are on the face of the splasher, not the cab side.

 

My point was that the new improved Locomotion cab must fit over - and appears to incorporate - a new rear splasher that is exactly like the old rear splasher, i.e. far too large and with those ridiculous rivets on the face of the splasher. 

 

This suggests to me that the Locomotion model will not see revised front and centre splashers; the Locomotion version seems to have produce new splashers that replicate the inaccuracies of the old.

 

Sorry I misunderstood your original comment