Oxford Diecast diversifies into railway models

[manna]

G'day Gents

If it looks like a wagon and it runs like a wagon etc etc !!!!!!

And, would it even be noticed amongst 40 other wagons

manna

[Cullercoats]

There seems to be an element of nastiness creeping into the forum which I suggest would be better posted on the dark side site where such input seems endemic.

[Kestrel]

Excuse my ignorance but there are several references on this site to the 'dark side' site. What is that?

[Manxman1831]

Dark Side is a backhanded reference to the site formerly known as RMWeb, is/was now BRMWeb. Also known as the Andy York appreciation society by some people, among other names for it.

[D2100]

There seems to be an element of nastiness creeping into the forum which I suggest would be better posted on the dark side site where such input seems endemic.

Bemused by this. Where exactly is this 'nastiness', Cullercoats? If you look back to the first page of the thread, you'll see that Graeme and Richard took the sensible step of setting some loose terms of reference for comments on this model. I don't want to speak for them, but I personally don't see anything too untoward (yet...).

[Bill Bedford]

... They say the tooling is complete so only very minor mods like adding a bolt head seem possible now...

The impression they put over is an aim to immediately be in the first rank for production of plastic moulded RTR OO models.

Except it is not a plastic moulding -- the example in the photos on the mremag site is obviously diecast. And a close look at the underneath should the the tooling is not yet finished -- there is a section of the floor that has no detailing on. I think that this is a test shot that was rushed out to make it to the toy fair.

Given that it is diecast and with the limitations of that process, I would very much doubt that Oxford Rail would see their market as being anywhere close to the nitpicking, rivet counters that that have been so prominent in their criticism here and in other places.

[mick b]

Can you make a die cast model from the same tooling as a plastic version ? I have no idea !!

If not, why would they waste money making a diecast version ?

It is strange that they have painted the coupling body silver ? perhaps thats metal as well ? even more bizarre if it is !!

The other comment in the article, re the body bowing slightly because it had hadn't cooled enough, surely that indicates plastic ?

As to criticisms that what forums are for ? to discuss matters with plus and minus points.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Bill - are you sure the whole wagon is die cast? The wagon body looks to be plastic. I have never seen a die cast model with bowed sides like that - they even make mention of it bowing because of being too warm coming out of the machine. There is a comment that it is not a 3D print but is a proper moulding. That surely indicates it is a plastic RTR wagon?

They have painted the prototype silver because silver, rather than the material colour or black, photographs better on white backgrounds and the eye can pick up on details better when examining for potential pitfalls of the tooling. This is nothing new in the development of products throughout history and it is notable that there are stages we have seen of Hornby's RTR models which have been treated similarly.

[teaky]

It looks like plastic sprayed silver to me too.

[Atso]

I have to agree that the body looks like a plastic moulding that has been painted silver. Look around the NEM boxes for example, the paint has chipped revealing the plastic (also note that the silver looks to be an identical shade to the body and chassis). Obviously I don't model in 4mm, but wouldn't a diecast body/chassis make this wagon rather heavy?

I contacted Oxrail about the possibility of producing models in N, the response was basically not at the moment but never say never (not a direct quote by any means!).

[earlswood nob]

G'day all

There seems to be a lot of talk about the accuracy of the wagon produced.

I am all in favour of more producers switching to model railway items. The more choice the better.
If I don't consider the model accurate enough, then I won't buy it.
The models that I now build/convert are now more accurate than those from my first attempts at Railway Modelling. However, I got pleasure from those first models, and they sowed the seeds for my present(retirement) interest in railway modelling.
Someone remarked (was it Peter Denny?) that if you can't spot the detail from two feet, then it's not worth adding.

Encourage as many suppliers to make models railway items. Perhaps, those who produce inaccurate models will progress to better things.

Earlswood nob

[2512silverfox]

I seem to remember that it was David Jenkinson who said that if it was not visible from about 24", then it was unlikely to be noticed. This particularly applied to track since from a normal viewing distance and level he defied anyone to tell whether a working model was OO, EM or even P4!

[D2100]

Someone remarked (was it Peter Denny?) that if you can't spot the detail from two feet, then it's not worth adding.

I seem to remember that it was David Jenkinson who said that if it was not visible from about 24", then it was unlikely to be noticed.

Well whichever one it was - and fine gentlemen though they both were - it's still only one man's opinion, based on his chosen style of modelling in a period when the hobby was very different. The 'two foot rule' (or sometimes it's three foot) is often trotted out but does tend to assume we're all in this hobby for the same thing. Some of us enjoy detail for its own sake, whether it's bought as such or self-applied, and the tendency, in the mags and elsewhere, has been increasingly to show both individual models and parts of layouts at very close range. So whilst I'd agree that many details are imperceptible at that distance, especially on a moving train, that's no argument to say that those details shouldn't be there.

This particularly applied to track since from a normal viewing distance and level he defied anyone to tell whether a working model was OO, EM or even P4!

Now this I agree with very much, in that if a 4mm layout that I'm drawn to has finescale track (i.e. not Streamline), I dont even think about the gauge. I wouldnt go so far as to say that I'd defy anyone to tell the difference though, because I accept that others may have keener eyes and higher expectations than me.

[65447]

Observations on the forthcoming Oxfordrail 7 Plank PO Wagon
1 Very few if any POWs had the clips holding the capping strip in place until post-war/B.R. days. Bachmann have this feature and it is very annoying as it is very difficult to remove them and reinstate the paintwork. They would have been one up on Bachmann had they left them off. When these were added the wagons had been pooled and the liveries would have been far from pristine after the war so the smart as built paintwork is somewhat incongruous
2 What have they done with the corner plate?? I have never seen a single picture with the bottom plank held on with a separate small corner plate. This must be a very unusual, if not unique, repair and totally unwarranted on a standard version of this model.
3 The buffer bodies seem too long and the spindles too short.
4 The outer row of bolts on the corner plate seems to be too near the end and would not be possible to fit.
5 The outer Vee hanger is far too thick although the Bachmann model has a similar problem, theirs was designed to fit slots in the solebar thus disguising its over scale thickness. It is clearly assembled badly as it is too low.
6 The detail at the top of the door end diagonal is not correct, the door goes the full height but the hinge position is that for wagons which have a narrow top plank to the doors.
7 The wood end stanchions have too little, if any, taper towards the top
8 The three end door vertical straps should go almost to the top of the door.They only reach as high as they would if there was a narrow top plank.
9 The door end coupler pocket has no upward extension over the floor plank
10 There is a “plank groove” halfway up each buffer beam, why ??
All Items bar Nunber 1 are where Oxford’s product fails to come up to the standard of the Bachmann equivalent. Regrettably it seems that there has been a mix up by the designer of the two variants of this RCH design
In my opinion a 1907 design RCH coal wagon would have been a far better bet, only some, as yet, being available in kit form. Many of these lasted into the early BR period and only got scrapped in the general annihilation of all wood underframe 9’wb wagons. Unless you are planning to produce a large range of heavily distressed wagons, still in PO livery, these give a further 16 year coverage of modeling from 1907 to 1941 as opposed to 1923 to 1941. This is almost twice as long for the PO livery to be suitable in reasonable condition in some cases.
I am very much afraid their claim of “ A new level of detail for the most discerning of railway modelers” does not stand scrutiny. This model is well below the standard of kits AND a competitors RTR model and since many of the latter are available on ebay at prices below £8-95 the price advantage is hardly a selling point at the present time and may soon force down ebay prices further once Oxford’s become available.
Quite a large number of LNER 7 Pank wagons had wooden end stanchions although Tatlow is not specific as to whether all the contractor built wagons were so fitted. They did NOT all have narrow top plank end doors like the standard LNER version. adrianbs

There are far fewer sources for modellers to refer to than there were builders of this type of mineral wagon to the RCH 1923 specification, which in itself provided for a number of alternatives or variations. On the other hand it was too rigid to provide for evolution, hence the struggle that Bulleid had on behalf of the LNER to be able to construct a welded version of the underframe that would still be compliant. Although there was one standard GA drawing with a number of permitted alternatives, the individual builders had their own preferences for any number of minor components, of which end stanchions, buffers, washer plate (strapping) profiles, latches for end and bottom doors, door bangers and so on were but a few of the more obvious ones. Even the different LNER wagon works could not build the LNER version of the 1923 wagon to a consistent standard. To illustrate:

1. Absolutely correct and a point well made;
2. Corner plates could finish at the level of the bottom of the planking/top of the floor or slightly lower, while there are photographs of wagons with a short corner plate that is just for the corner of the floor;
3. Buffers projected 18" from the headstock and had a 13" dia. head, although different patterns were acceptable including self-contained (those with internal springing within the buffer stock) whilst rib patterns varied, with the top rib often shorter than the other three to provide for the shunter's pole to rest on as a pivot when coupling/uncoupling;
4. Agree fully, the bolts would almost need to be coach bolts screwing into the end planks;
5. This applies to all of the underframe metal components including axleguards and brake rodding and is a consequence of producing cast or moulded parts for models which can only be overcome by substituting (e.g. Exactoscale or similar) etched parts;
6. This is one of those areas of difference according to builder's or customer's preference. Doors could either stop short of the top of the side plank or be equal in height. The hinge arrangement needs to be consistent with the alternative being modelled. Even then there could be minor variations in the ironwork, depending on where it was sourced;
7. End stanchions were shown as steel sections on the main GA but timber was an alternative. However it would be very rare to come across a stanchion that did not have a taper either full height or in the top part, simply because it was wasteful of timber, added weight, and was not required for structural strength. LNER wagons of this type typically had steel section stanchions and those built at Faverdale had a different taper at the top to those built at Doncaster, but later on in the 1920s the taper was extended much further down;
8. Agree;
9. This is essential for retaining the floor planking in place when end tipping, so is only required for end door wagons at that end. The buffer stocks also had nibs projecting above the body that performed the same function - hence the headstock fittings differed between fixed ends and door ends;
10. Don't know, unless the mould maker has misinterpreted the line representing the top and bottom of the floor...

Mineral wagons either had side doors only or also a combination of an end and/or two doors in the floor. The sample is probably a work in progress given the blank section of floor planking. As has been mentioned, some resemblance of the monkey tail release/locking mechanism should be visible under each solebar if bottom doors are fitted.

[adrianbs]

Hi All, In reply to 65447 who appears to agree with my findings more or less entirely although maybe one or two points need clarifying. i would like to amplify my original findings.
2 I have found no evidence anywhere of new build wagons with the additional small corner plate on the bottom plank. The only examples are occasional repairs to wagons at the very end of their lives and internal user wagons such as the NCB where anything goes to keep the wagon in service. I would appreciate any photo of, or reference to, a new build like the model.
3 The buffers do seem to be slightly overlength but more importantly I felt the body was too long in relation to the visible spindle. One of the 23 other faults I have on my list relates to the buffer body designs, none of which seem to mirror that of the model.
5 Mould design and material strength does limit the ability to produce scale thickness open safety loops, vees etc and unlike a W/M kit this design cannot have chamfered edges to the W irons etc to disguise thickness without more complicated tooling. However Oxford have made no attempt to recess the Vee hanger into the solebar as has been done by Bachmann resulting in it appearing very clumsy. I do not consider that an RTR wagon can be expected to have these dimensions correct without recourse to, for example 3D printing, which may soon be commercially viable but very fragile.
6 I think we agree here that Oxford have mixed up the two designs of end door pivot arrangement having most features of the narrow top plank version but, in fact, using a wide top plank. This may exist on a bodge repair in a few cases but I have seen no new builds like this.
8 In agreement as previously although my GAs shows the wood stanchions and only LNER and LMS drawings having steel apart from wagons with steel underframes which also exist in smaller numbers. The LNER wagons can have wood stanchions and contractor built vehicles for the LNER used wood as it was their standard version.
9 Another of my 23 points does state that apart from the "Plank Groove" across the headstock the buffers are all set much to low and although the end door buffers actually have the normal lugs they do not actually cover the end floor plank hardly at all and would be of little good for their intended use.
If I may be permitted I feel it would be useful if my other findings could be published as some are quite pertinent.