Jump to content

34theletterbetweenB&D

Members
  • Content Count

    11,226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

34theletterbetweenB&D last won the day on December 20 2011

34theletterbetweenB&D had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,661 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Or even a trainload? A hundred built as Banana vans by the LNER immediately following grouping; and then a significant number of LNER Banana vans were temporarily transferred to the SR in the 1920s, when some proportion of the traffic switched to landing at Southampton. (All this from the usually reliable Tatlow volumes, apparently the transferred vehicles carried SR livery until they came home.) Whether some of the transferred vans were of this type is a whole other question.
  2. I can see it from three feet on the layout. The point for me is that this feature can be provided for in OO RTR, has been demonstrated. Going backwards holds no appeal. If the producers are aiming for fidelity, then it is a feature that should be on the table. I appreciate it won't be for all, but if something can be done - and the possibility of using the class 37 bogies with scale diameter wheels as a solution certainly suggests a way forward - it will be welcome. Of one thing I am certain. Not asking will ensure nothing happens.
  3. Depends if you know what the prototype looked like. The top of the wheel rims emerge above the top of the bogie frame and are inside the lower edge of the bodyshell. It won't be an accurate model if that appearance cannot be replicated on the model. (I have fiddled with the Bachmann 55 to obtain this, very simple to achieve.) I am glad to see that some thought is being given this by Accurascale. The solution of having the 37 bogies with scale diameter wheelsets as alternatives to the undersize wheelset bogies strikes me as having potential. There needs to be enough clearance available within the bodyshell if this substitution is to be possible: trying to cut clearance for the tops of the flanges if the tungsten alloy block comes down to the body shell exterior edge will be pretty much no go. Such an option will require curves of about 34" minimum radius in OO. Time for those of us liking the overall look of this model and having sufficiently large layout curves to make ourselves known?
  4. Very pleased with it for the same reasons. The basics all done right, and thereby a good canvas from which to start for a 'personalised' representation of a specific in service loco. First ever Dapol loco purchase for me, and 'just right'. Much as with the old steam era oil lamps, there isn't an ideal solution. The problem that is thrown up by the good renditions of the prototype that we now receive, is that such detail needs to be consistent with the level of refinement on the model overall. (Windscreen wipers are another such small detail that require attention.) Currently havering (swithering if preferred) on this...
  5. This really needs retailer input. I am sure Hornby are aware of the larger competitors doings, and will gauge the market reaction by what the retailers tell them. So Bachmann have been using 21 pin in much of their product for over a decade, how does that work for the retailer? What about the 6 pin and Next18? Meanwhile Heljan too have been generally using 8 pin; although I see that has changed recently, they appear to be shifting to 21 pin. (I was totally unaware that Hornby had a 21pin decoder in the range, they really promoted that; and I do visit a specialist model railway dealer's premises, well stuffed with Hornby amongst other RTR OO...) ...and the final flourish of 'comfort first' train travel from the indigenous product on the contemporary railway. Gone, but never to be forgotten. It was enjoyable, every time without exception.
  6. I would suggest that the answer is most likely because the large majority of Hornby end users that also use DCC are satisfied with the capability that comes with an 8 pin socket. I often remove sockets of any description from models ( any maker) and make four soldered joints to get the one DCC capability I truly require, the excellent independent motor control. Lights, sounds, operating doo-dads, meh. The acquisition cost of introducing 21 pin decoder sockets to the range isn't negligible for Hornby. There would have to be at least one Hornby 21 pin decoder product added to the range. While this would be a modest cost in truth, unless their customer - the retailers - tell them that they are losing significant sales over this, why take that cost?
  7. Noise. There's direct conduction of the motor chatter and gear noise via the chassis block to the axles and thus wheels, and so to the rails. If the rails are well coupled to the baseboard (pinned or glued down), this acts like the loudspeaker cone of a wind up phonograph, the large area providing quite efficient coupling to the air mass. (Run it on flying leads and compare how the noise output is very much reduced when you pick it up. All that vibration you can now feel in your hand is converted fairly efficiently into sound by any coupling of the track to the base board.) Directional preference. Most models spend a lot more time going forwards than in reverse. More wear on the gears for the forward direction; and if it has really had a lot of use, also on the axle and crankpin bearing surfaces. Seen plenty of old examples with the axle and crankpin holes worn oval.
  8. Hornby will listen to their customer, the retailers. Look at the price sensitivity of the general RTR OO market. Hornby have undoubtedly succeeded with their TTS product. That's the ticket, modest capability upgrade for a modest price. Paying significantly more for a better exploitation of DCC capability is very much a minority sport; leave that to the boutique brands for now, see if a significant proportion of the customers start making 'want' noises for particular features which they might pay a little extra for.
  9. Pragmatically, that's the way ahead. Try what has been suggested and ideas of your own to find what works best for this specific construction. My particular suggestions. Check around first with a magnet to locate any steel rail, I wouldn't bother with it. Generally just cut off rail ends with soldered on joiners. It's only on the Peco points that I would bother with (careful) unsoldering 'reclamation' as these provide significant savings if reuseable.
  10. I already own three quite recently released metal bodied steam models from Hornby (J15, D16/3, B12/3) the last of which taken overall is one of the best RTR OO steam models I own. Hornby have strangely neither promoted this aspect, or charged a noticeably premium price for it...
  11. Scotland's principal trade and traffic hub is Glasgow. So the historic rewrite to enable your Central line to take control of the Edinburgh and Glasgow opens the road to everything else. This company just 'follows the money' and creates its own route toward the major English industrial conurbations in the North-West, then in the new century snaps up the Great Central after that line has near bankrupted itself with the London Extension; and absorbs the Midland at the grouping, when the Big Five are created. Could you have some fun with that?
  12. Sjoerd, Are you using the Hornby design couplers that come installed on the coaches? This is the 'traditional' OO coupler, but it is not truly compatible with the close coupling mechanism and will tangle and cause derailments. Best advice is to replace with a superior NEM coupler that forms a rigid bar between the mechanisms, Roco and Fleischmann seem to be the favoured products.
  13. I don't doubt Hornby's ability to make a good model of the traction unit, but it is the whole 225 set I want to a consistent matching standard, or nothing. Hornby have the capability, their QoS Pullman cars are a good indicator. Question is, will they? Sadly it looks like a Deltic on mk1s is going to remain my example of post-steam ECML express traction as I don't find the Ambiguous Puzuma set that attractive... The information in the public domain terminally trumps yours and is brief enough to need no explanation: it isn't going to happen as a RTR OO model. The audience here can recall such as Ixion N gauge, DJM, Little Loco Company: all have fallen by the wayside for differing reasons. Probably the kindest non-judgemental evaluation is that of the old proverb: 'there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip'. It's difficult in short, and 'stuff happens' to interfere with honest intention.
  14. Freight was the problem, with his wagons. Much past a dozen wagons and it couldn't reliably start without excessive slipping. Compared to his small whitemetal locos very poor indeed. Weight fixed it. (It would have been possible to fit the wagon fleet with pinpoints, but that would have cost money, he had near 200 kit and scratch built wagons with round ended Jacksons in Peco's no roll bearings. My hacking and bashing lead was free.)
  15. Very lightfooted indeed! I mucked about with one for a friend to impart the traction he wanted, when this was a recent introduction. A general mazakectomy to make space for denser lead in brief. (I have significantly upweighted most of Bachmann and Hornby's steam models to obtain the traction which their drivelines can deliver, with no ill effect to date. Careful attention to lubrication of the exposed working parts is the sole requirement. Coming up to 20 years on the oldest which are the WD 2-8-0s.)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.