34theletterbetweenB&D

Use the programme track, it's more sensitive to poor pick up performance than running lines. If like mine the programme track is a dead end piece of track, most locos can be poised with just one pair of wheels on the rails. If the system reads the address, those pick ups are ok.

There's a site that generates randomised deals for bridge, if you don't want to shuffle the cards. http://playbridge.com/ Double the fun, you can use it to both generate the required layout moves, and play a devastating squeeze to obtain a small slam from a game hand.

Only in the contents of our wallets. (Which is fine by me, having spent my career in rude commerce.) But, per earlier replies from modellers: since this model looks encouragingly more like a Black five than anything prior in RTR OO, and they were usually pretty grubby in BR operation; suitable application of filler and filth shall happen. Thus it will look very LMR among Doncaster's finest green liveried beauties, as cared for by Peter Townend.

And how, yesterday's conversation was initiated with a Bach 9F (mine, purchased 2006) which I had brought alone to show a typical example of what is now available, and then mentioned that Hornby had their own fully competitive version. To which the response was 'Why didn't you buy that? Tedious explanation about the 17 year delay while Hornby 'caught up'. Rapido Stirling single next...

But what perception of 'identical' : cheaper from an outfit I have not heard of, or more expensive from a well established brand that has been around for thirty years and which I can look at in my local model shop? Hopefully the pricing decisions reflect a competent marketing approach. There's still folk out there that only want 'Hornby' on the box, and I reduced the count of those that didn't know Hattons had shut down by two, in a conversation yesterday.Different world outside the online hothouse...

Any change in mechanism noise, other than directly related to motor shaft speed? Might be a motor bearing running dry and heating, or could be some protection kicking in on the decoder (assuming one is present as sound is mentioned). Disconnect decoder and run on DC to see if the problem occurs, in which case it is mechanism, if not, decoder is suspect.

Oh yes. Then again it's worked well for me. Once the 'inspirational eejit' has been found out and ejected, there's often an opening for someone with their head screwed on right.

The other factor with Mainline of advanced years is 'gently does it'. I have seen a number of Mainline split chassis mechanisms from locos of smart exterior appearance 'internally deranged' by attempts to get it moving by applying force. Internally gummed up and with poor conduction due to dried lubricant is a commonplace, and if present is typically best tackled by dismantling, cleaning up with IPA and light relubrication when reassembled.

I see DCC as a utility, so want to pay the least cash for the desired performance. For me that's Lenz and Zimo, because I want truly smooth transitions in and out of movement, and accurate speed matching to meet my operational requirements, and it's mostly steam models they are fitted in. Truly, as some of the earlier replies suggest, you need to 'suck it and see' to determine which decoders deliver your requirements when used in combination with the traction you own. Do tell what you find with your latest purchase, from a brand which I have never heard of.

If tender pick ups were truly essential then no total adhesion tank loco would work reliably. Since 0-6-0 tank locos in particular are essential for steam era modeling, the best design principle is to develop expertise in obtaining the necessary pick up from the driven wheels. Bachmann's early wiper pick up steam loco product exemplified this, a very neat short wiper (nearly concealed behind the wheel) reliably delivering effective contact pressure, and the provision of at least one sprung driven axle. (And because the wheels are metal castings there is also conduction between the wheels by the coupling rods, which enables the party trick of their 9F which will run given power to the flangeless wheelset, which has no pick up wipers.) The sole justification for tender pick up is set track points with way oversize dead crossings - but this is a bodge to mitigate the effect of a poor track system.Personally I do away with tender wiper pick ups to reduce the drag these cause: Rapido made a good job of the Stirling single with pick up through the bearings on the tender split axle ends for no incremental drag: that's the superior method that should be employed.

All previous evidence suggests usage defeats 'correctness'. There are no rules for English; slong aswe unnerstan thass gud nuff.

The GPO's 'London Postal Railway' was a practical freight demonstration; and there are now defined routes specifically constructed for driverless passenger rail operation in the UK, starting with the Victoria line. And that's just the UK, bound to be many more. I recall DB proposing wagonfreight distribution by this method, freight terminal to rail served customer location.

If it is a lubrication issue, typically the locked wheels will be in random positions. If it is mechanical fouling causing the lock up, that's typically one or two positions only. Run the model to failure and collect the data is one approach. Or you might prefer to first go after the major vulnerability of outside cylinder steam locos : there is little clearance between the leading wheelset crankpins and the connecting rods. If the lock ups always start on curves per Johnster's suggested testing, that's what I would look for by inspecting while viewing from the underside.

That's the route whereby I acquired mine, on my first time around as a churchwarden. You have to know a good locksmith; wedding certificates among other essential items in a C19th safe...

But just right for Chigley. The contemporary primary school generation will be retiring fairly soon.

Two more plus points for graphite. Where it might be seen, it looks like authentic railway filth. As well as bogie pivots it keeps close coupling mechanisms functioning smoothly, especially helping moulded gangway faceplates slide smoothly in and out of contact. Screaming wipers or window rubbers, squeaking actuator among the controls, and the like on your wheels? Fixes those. (Of course you discover you need it whan 600 miles from home, but that's life.)

DCC is specified for 22V on track, or at least was the last time I looked. Your choice in making such a decision, but if your locos ever 'go visiting'...

There is proven superior technique in HO for those that must use set track. The wheels are flanged and run in an inside frame truck. The exterior frame re[presentation is a thin piece, hinged and moves out to accomodate the wheelset movement on the inside of the curve by contact with a projection on the truck frame, returning to correct position on straight track by spring action. Also 'wrong' but the best possible compromise I have yet seen.

There's plenty of choice in superior decoders, and not necessarily any more expensive ; all my OO steam models have a Lenz standard or Zimo MX6xx in them and perform beautifully.

K3 61800 -09 The ten from the GNR K3/2 61810 - 69, except 61863 rebuilt to K5 K3/3 61870 -89 K3/2 61890 -61992

Just my distant memory, but on early 1960's BR wagons the 'FIT' suffix only appeared consistently on the BR LOWFIT.

And yet further possibilities, the wire connections to the pick up wipers may have been exchanged by a previous owner, or the motor magnets were installed with poles reversed. .

I model ECML in the final years of steam, and that's what the wide firebox power, pacifics, V2s and BR standards, were regularly seen with; when on freight up to sixty wagons. The carriage and wagon stock is a mix of Bach, Hornby and kit builds, and the maximum train loads weigh about 2.5kg. Great attention is paid to ensuring free running, vehicles are not accepted into operation until they roll away when placed on a true 1 in 100. In this respect, Bachmann are the clear leader in RTR OO carriage stock, with pinpoint axle pick up bogies which will roll away on less than 1 in 200, they regularly detect gradients on notionally level track. Rapido's wagons with brass bearing inserts also, a good match to the 'originals' in 4mm, MGW's wheelsets which set the standard for my free rolling expectations well over 40 years past. The critical criterion for haulage is the capability to reliably start (and stop!) a 2.5kg train with the whole train on a 1 in 160. The Bach and Hornby wide firebox models can manage the load comfortably on level track as supplied, and among the more recent introductions: Hornby's Brit, W1 and P2 and Bachmann's 9F and V2, all will pull these loads on the layout gradients of 1 in 160. The Bach A1 2000 and A2 2010, Hornby A3 2005 and A4 2004 (production dates) have all had weight added as required, plenty of space within! The 2-8-0 models are all too light as supplied, with the sole exception of the Heljan O2, and require added weight. Weight is adjusted on all but a few of the narrow firebox tender locos to confer sufficient traction for their rating; of what I own it has only been Hornby's fairly recent metal body construction releases that do the job they are rated for as supplied. Tank locos are typically more than heavy enough, some could do with weight loss! I should like to sample the products of all the more recent brands now on the market, but they need to get going on dry side main line prototypes; thus far only (very satisfactory) tank locos, and none of the maximum power classes.

The 36-553 (8pin) and 36-554(21pin) were clearly different items from those in your pics. When introduced by Bachmann circa 2008 they were typically identified as badged ESU lokpilot v1 in online discussions. Whether that was a correct description who knows, unless someone commenting at the time can chip in.

I am pretty sure that this is the root cause of the problem in OO. The technique was designed for European HO, and the brand's offering this new capability made it very clear that the old hook and loop couplers had to go, and a rigid link between the coupler pockets was required. No such advice was offered that I can recall when Bachmann and Hornby introduced these mechanisms to OO. Not on the UK product - which may or may not be an optimal idea, but can be made to work very well. With the rigid Roco couplers my mk1s and Pullmans have the gangway faceplatesd in contact on straight track and open out for sufficient clearance on any curve radius that the individual vehicles will negotiate. I want to operate up to 15 coaches, and require scale separation of loco and tender on straight track. Now my recollection of the N class is about 22 years past, a late friend had one, and it regularly derailed its tender to the extent that he lost patience and we put in a plain drawbar - more on this anon. That looks more like the business. Now, when they get around to a B16, D34, J6 or K2 I will be pleased to evaluate that. And the final piece, most UK locos are that small that no camming action is required if the long established curve radii for an OO model railway are utilised. Nothing smaller than 24", and 30" as an absolute minimum if big engines are used, though 36" is what is really required. Surely no one uses set track any more?