34theletterbetweenB&D

Did you first have to cut clearnace into the interior of the Brit rear truck casting to allow the wheels in at all, or have Hornby corrected that? (My two are first releases from 2006.) Mine will manage down to 30" centreline radius. Hornby's A3 and A4 pacific mechanism has (or possibly had as mine are all as released in 2004/5 and Hornby do tend to tinker) a very useful feature, the moulded Cartazzi truck frames are made in a flexible plastic. Once the crude 'post' for the wheelset has been reduced in width to allow sufficent sideplay for the loco to negotiate something a little under 36" radius without the frames fitted, the frame moulding can be split at the rear and once excavated internally by removal of the moulded ribs, the wheelset will 'nudge' and thus flex the inside frame on a curve less than 36" radius. No idea what the final limit on minmum centreline radius might be, 36" is the safe choice. The W1 and P2 are definitely 36" minimum radius without more hacking than I am confident undertaking.

That's a worn mechanism generating vibration in the audible frequency range. The body provides a lot of extra surface area to more efficiently couple the vibration to the air mass, so you can hear the racket properly. The cure is to refurbish or replace the worn parts or find a replacement mechanism in better condition. (It is usually difficult to isolate RTR bodies sufficiently from the mechanism to have much effect.)

I shall celebrate in traditional fashion with Satay on a lance, then Basmati rice accompanied by Rendang, Gado-gado, Loompia Semarang and other Indonesian delights, all washed down with Weissbier, followed by Peach Melba. I should have fairly authentic dragon breath after that lot, but if not some slivovitz can be brought into play.

Start with the cheapest bodyshell (or two) you can find typical of classes you want to repaint from whatever are your target brands, and practice until confident of your technique delivering a result you like.

Good news for me, if there are many of the same opinion, there should be good availability when an 'extemely ordinary' all black late BR version appears... My questions about any new product are: 'Could I produce a model equally good by DIY for that price?' and since Bachmann's WD 2-8-0 of 1999 the answer has typically been 'no way!'. And following on from that, 'Is this model good enough as a starting point for the usual work required to bring RTR OO product up to the standard of appearance and performance I require?', and this is the first RTR Black 5 model I have seen that provisionally puts a tick in that box. I had hoped for a metal loco body which works to such good effect on Hornby's B12/3, would some kind soul care to weigh the Black 5 loco alone please? At very least the lights and loco to tender linkage are coming off, weight is probably going in the loco body, and filth shall be liberally applied for that 'final decade of LMR steam' appearance.

The G5 is a gem, I take my hat off to you. Plenty of low hanging fruit just begging for this superior arrangement. 😄

Five minutes inspection of Bachmann's construction plan on their two 0-4-4T's will reveal how it should be done: all metal construction above the driven wheels, lightweight tackle (coreless motor, DCC socket) and all plastic construction to the rear of the coupled wheelbase. Result: centre of gravity within the coupled wheelbase, resulting in stable traction pushing or pulling, uphill or down. (I am a little surprised there hasn't been more noise about this from the Southernistas.)

I would take that up with Dapol if you want an explanation, as it is a combination of their product offerings.

Hornby have almost institutionalised diving down rabbit holes in pursuit of increasing profit*. 'Live steam' (when DCC was very obviously the coming thing). 'Railroad' (which for a moment looked sensible but quickly deteriorated into a mess). 'Design Clever' (which looked anything but to the majority of folks online). 'Themed releases' (typically released too late, Olympics, Steampunk). And that's alongside producing good product for the past 20 years, some of which happens to orient well with this modeller's preferences. But there is no way of knowing whether the next announcement that's of interest will actually be from the 'good product' drawer: it might be a rabbit hole special. The only thing to do is relax, and wait until you can get eyes and hands on, and assess whether it can be knocked into the desired shape; or whether it's as near perfect for purpose as one could imagine, such as their B12/3, LNER non-gangwayed coaches, Trout ballast hopper. Of course aiming at that standard could all end tomorrow, and if that's what they choose to do, it's a case of thanks for your previous useful output, and farewell. FWIW, with a black 5 that is actually of convincing appearance 'the bones' look good enough to chance a purchase. It's only an assembled kit, I can take off anything that isn't required and fill it with lead for traction, been adapting RTR OO in this way 'forever'.. * Call me naive, but I have always assumed that the profit imperative is still the guiding principle behond this operation's doings.

Your choice, but my practise is to keep a log book for all the traction incidents of this sort. Just in case it recurs... The rewiring of the shunting layout begs two questions: Was the jinty the only loco used on this layout? Was the jinty tried on the main layout after the problem was detected?

What this requires is a picture of a beefy male nurse, ideally from the RAMC.

See quote below; Rev Awdry's 'James' was based on the inside cylinder 2-6-0s developed from 0-6-0's, a design scheme much associated with the railways of Scotland.

I haven't a single 'stay alive' installed in my all DCC operation. I use the electronically simulated inertia provision standard in all but the most basic DCC decoders for well over 20 years. An eight or ten coupled freighter dragging a maximum load unbraked freight will be set up to coast from circa 20mph for getting on three minutes until it comes to rest, when set to speed step zero. This is way more effective than any flywheel system can achieve and looks wonderful.

Universal provision of a DCC decoder socket makes them redundant, now that the majority of those that run their RTR OO purchases do so using DCC. From a brand perspective look at the benefits, one fewer precision machined component to source and install, one more potential decoder sale, more opportunity to sell DCC systems. Couldn't have put it better; they tend to peak at 'the product can be removed from the packaging'. Thanks for making me smile.

Further factors in this line include tooling wholly or partially mislaid/lost, corroded, with mountings for now obsolete machinery. And then there is the competitive position. Bachmann have faced some criticism for continuing to issue models based on tooling decades old; and now there's a tidal wave of new entrants who of necessity are offering very newly tooled models, probably with features absent on the older tooling. Bachmann/Kader's established practise appear to me to be for relatively little revision of tooling for re-releases: that may be having an effect on retailer perceptions of desireability of proposed items.

Never forget, it is their retailers that are the customers. Whatever Bachmann may propose in terms of a range of re-releases, if the retailers don't come forward with sufficient orders, it won't happen. Personally, I have had little difficulty obtaining specimens of those 'medium-sized black kettles' in as new condition, from a very effective s/h redistributor. Now they have retired from the fray, perhaps that will change the picture...

That's long been the case. It took me a while to realise that my now over 50 year old Rivarossi Big Boy has a pair of traction tyres, made in a translucent polymer which causes no appreciable rail dirt, and are still as good as ever after all this time. (The only failing of these traction tyres is ineffectiveness on a wet rail, what with me being the kind of yahoo that once ran his train set in the garden, but that's a common failing of all traction tyres.) The general point you make is absolutely so: development of European HO has pursued reliable operation for the purchaser using the complete system the brand offers. Good heavens, the brands even explain in detail how to get the best from it; something largely notable by its absence in RTR OO. Every visit to our continental family left me filled with envy back in the 1960s... Fully appreciate that this is the case for many. My approach is different, I ceased buying RTR OO from first exposure to an MRC in my teens, and 'everything' was kit built from then on, until the first hints of HO mechanism technique enabled by manufacturing in China were seen. From my perspective the present RTR OO technique has delivered what I always wanted: RTR OO models made to competent kit builder standard enabling me to enjoy my primary interest in timetable operation, with no need to run the loco, carriage and wagon works. Very much a 'horses for courses' picture. An aspect that I treasure, and accidentally enabled by the miniature tension lock as made to Bachmann's pattern, combined with the NEM coupler pocket. Still looking for an ideal solution for the steam era fitted freight which should be buffered up, likely compromise, magnetic...

Since it happened regularly with steam traction, I like to see it. No complex solution is required since RTR OO abandoned both tender drives and traction tyres, which for a start ensures no chance of the 'mighty tender' moving before the loco does! With the loco driven wheels powered, a sufficiently heavy load will occasion a half turn or two of wheelslip on starting every now and again, which looks very well. Assisting this effect are the close coupling systems now fitted to many RTR OO carriages; when optimally adjusted the whole train moves as a single piece. That means the loco has to start the entire trainload from rest, rather than pick up one carriage at a time.

Over near 30 years of tinkering, initially with Bach's, and later also Hornby's, twin bogie mechanisms to fit them into bodies they were never intended for, has developed my skill in satisfactory screwless body fit. It's now only the original Bach 47 that needs a couple of screws. Then again what I do is not quite to the standard Dapol demonstrated on the class 21, that's so very neat; but no spare screws. I expect some of the newer brands are similarly proficient, but too late, have all the diseasels I need...

Oh no, they are so very useful for a thousand and one other purposes.

I lean on my layout, but it is 'one that never leaves home' and constructed to stand up to this - and it is mine.

Probably not adjustable. What you observe is the principal reason why I would like them discontinued on steam locos. The point of such mechanisms is to provide scale separation on straight track, with a camming action spacing off the two vehicles on curves, in proportion to the required clearance. This 'feature' will be in the bin shortly after my purchase of one of these, replaced by a simple drawbar.

It took a long time to move the traditional MRC member from 'the hairshirt approach is the only authentic way', and to accept that good quality RTR was 'acceptable'; and DCC simply iced the cake. (First thing I purchased on getting a place of my own was an automatic washing machine. My late mother adhered to a single top loader tub with 'agitator' plus mangle device, and took years to regularly use the stand alone spin drier.) Not so, all your existing knowledge is relevant, it's more akin to moving from stick shift to automatic transmission.

Excellent, and also an excellent opportunity for some of the characteristic weathering of these vehicles in fish traffic, with the scraped off filth on the doors, which I at least find difficult to achieve really neatly by DIY. Now, about the traction to haul them. Yes, it's largely covered, but the ECML South of Doncaster has the gaping hole of a GNR J6 'Knick Knack' 0-6-0, much employed as the 'maid of all work' to move wagons about to off-load points, and marshalling for empty return. Just saying...

Typical of current good quality European design HO for adequate traction, allowing the owner to have it pull long trains on very small radius curves. Is the loco powered? If not there's no possibility of the wheelslip that so regularly accompanied starting under load.