34theletterbetweenB&D

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?

As applied to bogie carriages it is fine, because the angular movement of the bogies relative to the long carriage body drives the camming action, restoring the vehicles to straight ahead alignment on eixiting curves. I was happy to see this feature introduced to RTR OO, having long seen it applied to good effect on my continental cousin's HO model railways, But there are no such bogies available on RTR OO steam locos, and even a bogie on eight wheel tenders - a relative rarity in UK practise - will do little to drive the required camming action, because the tender is so short so the angular movement of the bogie relative to the body is small. The only restoring action available is by means of a spring, which leads to your question: I would suggest that the answer is inappropriate application of this type of mechanism. (Lacking significant angular movement of bogies on both vehicles there is too little restoring force available. Attempting to overcome this with a spring is inadequate, as the tension has to match the train load to be effective. Apply sufficient tension to match the maximum load the loco can haul will result in derailment of the loco or tender when running with no load.) Thus my 'KISS' suggestion to Bachmann. What Bachmann have demonstrated with a rigid drawbar mounted in the loco on a pivot, engaging a pin on a concealed screw locked slide under the tender, enables user loco to tender spacing adjustment to suit the layout's minimum radius curve. Simple and proven to perform well in my experience of all their locos with this arrangement.

Done, it's been submitted 'down below' in 'Modelling musings' for the moderator to ponder if it is worthy of admission. And it has been approved so please make input there. Strike one, failure to resume the straight ahead alignment on coming off curves, and the heavier the train load the worse the effect. Strike two, spacing overscale, so falls short of optimum appearance even if it could be made to function adequately.

First seen on the Bachmann N class over 20 years ago and rapidly abandoned. and now making a reappearance on Bachmann, Hornby and (I am informed) Dapol product. If it worked as effectively as the camming close coupling mechanisms on Bachmann and Hornby carriages all would be well. But the simple fact is that it does not, the loco and tender remain skewed on straight track after exiting curves, and the more train load there is behind the tender the worse this effect becomes. Quite simply there isn't an adequate mechanism on a loco and tender to provide the required force to resume the straight ahead alignment; unlike carriages which have the bogie rotation relative to the carriage to actuate the camming action. I have written to Bachmann suggesting they ditch this 'feature' and revert to their neat rigid drawbar with a screw locked adjustment of loco to tender spacing, the best linkage in RTR OO to date. If any here feel the same pleas make your opinion known to the brand managements, or we will be stuck with this device...

No, the USA. The wide firebox began its development there well before M. Chapelon was pushed out of the womb. And in the UK context, the GNR. The introduction of the Ivatt large atlantic was the announcement here of the obselescence of the narrow firebox for maximum power steam traction. (Churchward clearly understood this, but ran out of road before his own response could be sufficiently developed.) While Col. Rogers does well, the yet greater eye opener is M. Chapelon's 'La Locomotive a Vapeur'; try your library service for access, unless you can find the English translation at a reasonable price. It's one of a very small number of regular bedtime reading books that I miss so much when away from home...

Yes, since Bachmann started using that in about 2010 it has been the benchmark. I wrote to Bachmann last July regarding the V2, suggesting they revert with immediate effect to this method. Polite reply received, and I would encourage others to similarly contact Bachmann.

Now you have provided the bigger picture, I undrstand why the vintage team could not supply a satisfactory answer.I am a long term mechanism tinkerer, and as soon as this path is taken you are effectively on your own, unless you can find others using exactly the same modifications, track system, and all the rest. That's product from decades ago, with plastic axles which were not resistant to all the potential lubricants that might be applied, among other problems. It might supply useful guidance, but then again it might not. What you have to do is characterise the wheelset for tyre and flange profile and dimensions, the most critical of these, from flange root one side to wheelback the other side which is the gauge for correct action of the check rails on the wheelsets, and is thus referred to as 'check gauge'. The famous 'back to back' is the more easily obtained 'substitution measurement', but it can only provide reliable information if the tyre and flange profile are to the same standard when comparing wheelsets. Since you have current RTR OO product what will best suit is a check gauge of 15mm: the back to back on RP25 conforming tyre profiles will be 14.5mm, but potentially 'something else' on non-conforming profiles, which you can determine pragmatically by test on your layout. (I find that keeping notes is helpful for future guidance...)

Surely not the same 21 pin lokpilot v1 that Bachmann badged as 36-554, long time past? The problem with the motor control was that it was optimised for a large motor with a heavy flywheel or two, and thus it worked very well in centre motor twin bogie diesels, I have quite a number deployed thus to this day, good value for the £8 - £12 asking price when all other good decoders started from £25. However, applied to steam models with smaller motors and limited or no flywheel mass there just wasn't the necessary control refinement. With CV2 turned down to zero, CV's 3 and 4 at maximum, you could tinker all the day long with the sampling and feedback settings without ever eliminating a lack of smooth starting and 'granularity free' low speed running. Back then it was necessary to spend much more (Lenz Silver 21pin) for the desired refinement from 'plug and play', or alternatively to hardwire a Lenz Standard for a £10 saving. Then Zimo came to the rescue, their MX638D price competitive with the Lenz standard eliminated the need to modify - until that went unavailable... A friend bought one of these to go in his ROD, purchased because it was the 21pin decoder the retailer had in the shop. He brought the ensemble to me to see if I could optimise its performance. It just about achieved 'rough and ready'... But that's a comparison on the McD vs BK level; when what we want is ribeye steak minimum.

At least now RTR OO is available benefitting from many of the advances long time established in HO. And the RTR choice is simple enough, OO for good looking but with underscale gauge, HO for correct gauge but ugly distortion of steam traction, both compromises necessitated by the narrowness of UK protoype. There's a reason for P4 and P87 for any that want better... That's the inherent design flaw of the subject, trying to get a boy to do a man's work. The land of wide fireboxes is the one you should look at.😎

Thus far all my Hornby wide firebox purchases have come with alternative flanged wheelsets. What Hornby haven't done is made any serious provision for mounting these, and in one case they would not fit at all. But with more or less hacking it has been possible to use these wheelsets for a good running result, on my 30" minimum radius layout. However. Bachmann have now demonstrated a much superior technique on their V2, and I expect this standard from now on, or no purchase. (I can safely write that because I have the full squadron of Doncaster wide firebox classes I require, and we are never going to see a RTR P1...)

Perhaps I should start looking at his output? I'll pay the price for a good model, but a flaw in RTR OO steam models which has long grated with me can be summarised as: 'looks good, but between motor, drive train reduction ratio and weight on the driven wheels, inadequate to take on the full trainload such a loco hauled, up to scale for maximum speed'. After some occasional early successes (Bach's 9F, Hornby's Brit.) it would be unjust not to acknowledge significant improvement in this aspect over the last decade, my honour role now: Bachmann, G5, V2 Heljan, O2 Hornby, B12/3. D16/3, J15, J36, J50, K1, P2, W1 Oxford Rail, N7 Planet industrials, Victory! Sonic, A5 Can the Sam app be programmed to start excoriating the inadequate loco to tender close coupling mechanisms which both Bach and Hornby have ill-advisedly begun to apply?

The original 10 K3's, originating on the GNR as class H4, were vacuum brake fitted, as that was the GNR's standard train brake system. Once adopted as an LNER standard most were built with vacuum brake, class part K3/2, some were dual fitted with the Westinghouse air brake in addition to vacuum brake, class part K3/3, to enable operation on lines with air braked stock that were now within the newly formed LNER system. None of the above precludes some or all of the class having a steam brake for the loco! By the time BR came into existence I have the impression that all K3s were solely vacuum train brake fitted. Hopefully other contributors may know more.

Do that raindance! Please...

That's what he did at the front end, though rather more than 'tweak' the steam passages: it was all about enlarged porting in the valves and cylinders, which combined with the much larger entrainment area of the multiple jet ejector exhaust meant that the steam did more work in power delivery instead of overcoming back pressure, and supplied a better smokebox vacuum to draw the fire proportional to the power demand. There had clearly been some doubt about the steam raising of the LN boiler, so he also tried a round top boiler, but with the improved front end that proved unnecessary. (The firebox draughting may have been looked at as well; I haven't read anything about that, but it was a regular bogey haunting UK steam designs.)

They should only go for a railway company with no RTR representation, that built and operated an 0-6-0T that looked like an 'industrial' design. I give you the North London Railway's Park 0-6-0T of 1880; 8" less wheelbase, 3 feet shorter in the frame than the Victory. These latterly achieved some fame on the Cromford and High Peak. Made to the same standard as the Victory - I support all the praise already expressed in this thread - 'twould be a knockout.

ScR was richly equipped with the past 4-4-0 and 0-6-0 designs of the LMS and LNER constituents and added their own designs; and the bridge was a shared route from time of construction. So most probably one of those... It's got quite a tall chimney and dome, from the LNER inheritance it could be a GNoSR 4-4-0, a D40 or D41, well off its usual beat. Was your father interested in railway matters? That might have motivated him to take a picture of an unexpected loco... https://www.lner.info/locos/D/d40.php

As above, there is no one right answer, the parts from which the wheelsets were produced were not high precision, and the other principal factor is the variation in the installed track on your layout. Thus a pragmatic approach of 'what works on my layout' is the path. Typically 'bumping them out a little', then test on the layout is the solution. To avoid disturbing the axle seat, a gentle tap or two applied to a drift placed on the insulated side axle end will do the job. Don't neglect to make adjustment on the unflanged axle if the side play of the mechanism is significantly reduced once the flanged wheelsets have been 'bumped out'.

Pencil lead is well proven, it is graphite mixed with fineclay. When I had a local art shop I could get nice thick 2B. Got about half the life obtained from salvaged 'copper carbon'.

All instantly recognisable, Rubbery Bum viaduct, and then the slightly skewed Great North Road overbridge once over the top of the 'puff, pant,' hill. (The nearby heath boasts sweet chestnut trees which - after a good summer - with some forbidden fire in a quiet location on our part, provided a welcome snack when our little gang were penniless in the autumn.) Then 'whee' downhill far too fast on our bikes when heading home.

https://www.Bachmann.co.uk/page/past-products They don't list an RU in green...

One of the great assets of Bachmann product is that all their models I have had to look at are supplied with tampo print which cleanly detaches with a little application of white spirit or similar solvent using a cotton bud. So their product is effectively supplied 'numberless'. This may be the case with some other brands' products, and I would welcome any information from those who are enthusiasts for modification. Thus far Dapol, Heljan, Hornby, Oxford etc are all in the 'scrape it off' camp, and I haven't needed to have a go at Accurascale's because the range of numbers means no duplicates - yet! Too late now to deal with your other complaint. When the Blue Riband wagons were newly introduced and retailing at around £4, that was the golden moment to 'fill your boots'.

An endurance report would be of interest. Typically motor brushes are based on the 'graphite' allotrope which has a distinct crystalline form conferring long service life; while carbon rod used in batteries is TTBOMK 'amorphous' with a mix of crystalline forms, which I would expect to wear much more rapidly. Blowing out the resulting dust annually might be a good plan.