34theletterbetweenB&D

My all green body Airfix Brush 2's, long ago flush glazed, are now running on Hornby mazak rotted mechanisms, got very cheap s/h. Both look right and run beautifully. Not quite as cheap as some, because they are on their third drives, first double motored with the original Airfix coffee-grinders on the metal wheels taken from the pick up bogies, then on Athearn PA1 mechs, both these running outdoors until they wore out. The present combo is the benchmark which the Bach and Acc introductions have to beat. Look at those properly recessed cabside windows, with the distinctive step out to full body width to rear of the cab doors; essential to the character of this class. Mine won't be withdrawn from service any time soon, even if one of the newcomers is satisfactory.

Never having really dug into the magnetic circuit of such 'ringfield' arrangements, what if the bonded ferrite (or whatever they are made from?) magnet is broken? And are these magnets vulnerable to loss of field over time even if undamaged? Asking because I joyfully abandoned 'unpower' bogies when Athearn HO centre motor mechanisms became available, so really know very little of these: other than the original effective Fleischmann design which Hornby obtained under licence around 1970, and then progessively degraded in their race to the bottom with Lima...

Well, that's going to rule it out for nearly all BR's big steam engines except Bulleid's. Lack of forward thinking there...

Don't attempt using the Bachmann Std 5MT arrangement. (Bachmann only applied this to the BR stds, 4MT tank and 5MT, and wisely dropped it from models tooled thereafter, due to its aptitude for making smooth running mechanisms into three legged dogs, the first time the body had to be taken off the mechanism. Patient fiddling required to get the drive crank perfectly realigned with the axle centre.) Far the better way is to have a rigid representation of the mechanism from the footplate underside to outside the wheel centre, with no connection to the axle. (Hornby have done it in this style on the LNER P2, very effective.)

So the motor has been significantly dismantled and reassembled. Do the magnets significantly lose field stength while the armature isn't present to complete the magnetic circuit?

I have 'stuffed' several older RTR OO diesel model bodyshells with superior modern mechanisms, though never looked at a 73; the bottom line is that provided both models were made to scale it's relatively easy. You likely will have to cut clearance for the old body to fit on the new mechanism, and you may have to make your own mountings so that the body sits in correct position and stays put. Perhaps I am just a jammy git, but all four combos I have done, having cleared the old body shells of interior obstructions, and done some minimal mechanism block shaping, they all fitted snuggly enough over the new centre motor mechanisms to stay put. (Lima 40 onto an early Bachmann Peak mechanism, Airfix 30 and Lima 31 onto mazak rotted Hornby mechs. ,Hornby 21/29 onto Bachmann 24 mech. )

Not uncommon with RTR OO product, and you are going to have to make your own decisions about necessary modification. Before going any further, do these vehicles get around the troublesome curve(s) individually? If they will, then that points at an interaction between the couplings as the root cause of the problem. Not having seen these models yet*, I cannot advise, but Heljan have shown a tendency to have the coupler mountings less than ideally placed. If they still derail operated individually, then you are looking at making clearance for more bogie swing, ideally out of sight on the inside of the fixed structure on the model in the location(s) you have identified. Sometimes a better option is to cut off a detail piece and mount it further outboard, which of course needs consideration of fouling fixed layout structure, and that the part can be strongly re-attached - though we are well equipped with good plastic solvent cemnents nowadays. *(I am waiting for the Bachmann release to make a comparison before purchase.)

And to round out further alternatives, the aperture to take the bearing oversize, or the bearing OD undersize for the aperture. What may help those posting suggestions is to be told what exactly were the: that led to the need for bearing replacement?

My 'quick, cheap and dirty' method is to put a railjoiner on the code 100 rail ends and crush the protruding half flat and remove from the rail, cut the code 75 rail joiner in half (razor saw, cutting disc) solder atop the crushed part of the code 100 railjoiner. A litle downward kink in the code 100 rail joiner crushed section adjusts for code 83 rail This enables the track pieces to be readily separated and is self aligning for both rail top and curves down to my 30 inch minimum radius, with no requirement for packing under the sleeper base: handy for off-scene areas like fiddle yards, which I bet I am not alone in regularly rearranging...

Nickel silver wheelsets , and very good too on the 15, 16, 23 and 26/0 I operate, all of which came out by the time these were fitted as standard. No difference in reliability of pick up to the assorted Bachmann, Dapol, Hornby, centre motor bogie drives on the layout, all good.

That's the one! All this attention to scenery. Can't operate it in timetabled trains, shunt it, etc. ; my layouts are the track formation on wood, anything else is an irrelevant distraction from THE TRAINS.

Except the DMU's. Only identified some obscure fruit machine, ignored the ubiquitous BR bogcarts which were far more numerous, widely distributed and longer in service than the likes of BTH and NBL diesels. (I realise that T-H (and Lima?) likely had some available circa 1980 but RTR OO was off my radar at the time.)

? Do coreless motors use less energy than a conventional motor? Yes, regarded as 'stand alone'. Sir Isaac's mechanics tells you that reduced mass to accelerate brings this benefit. But installed in a model, the overall much greater mass of which has to be accelerated, any saving comes to diddly-squat.

There's no real relation of this sort. Coreless motors represent a cost saving is all, largely by material content reduction. DCC represents a significant profit opportunity to model railway manufacturers, due to the currently fashionable additional features it provides that enable the retail price to be anything up to double that of 'DCC ready'. I would suggest that the fact that DCC offers superior safe control of coreless motors is a happy chance, with the benefit for the manufacturers that this probably encourages transition to DCC, and thereby potentially more opportunity to sell fashionable features for enhanced profit. This is true. I'd make a guess that they know that among their end customers are a large proportion with dated DC control gear which might not treat coreless motors kindly.

1948 construction, so BR only. Also these were from a small batch of covered solebar versions, to operate in the complete Scotsman sets with that feature throughout...

Perhaps post your request in the Acc. Deltic topic and see if anyone is willing to give at least a description of DC running, if not make a video?

That is yet more evidence that it is the decoder momentarily losing track supply and applying the time out to the motor. The LED's might flicker, but so briefly that you will rarely if ever see it. This is so characteristic of the momentary loss of supply causing the Lenz decoder to apply the motor timeout. You make no mention of having to restart the loco, give it a push or whatever: it has stopped 'on power' and restarts when the motor timeout has elapsed. If you want a methodical approach, going 'evidence led' will save you a lot of time: first take ten seconds setting CV112 to 0, and seeing if (evidence of) 'the problem' goes away. If it does the clip on wire connections to the circuit board are top suspect. If not, then get busy on cleaning.

Slight deviation from subject, all my Hornby wide firebox fixed rear truck frame models to date - A3, A4, W1,P2 BRstd 7MT- operate with the supplied flanged wheelset(s) installed (following internal carving and other mods as required for a 30" minimum radius layout. Bachmann's V2 arrangement was a very pleasant surprise.

It's 'secured' with double sided tape! Fine for me who doesn't want sound effects - rip, tug, done - likely to be quickly hopping around inside the tender if used to make noises. Alternative proposal, the quality of the Hornby mechanism designs progressively introduced since the move to China, by now overall owes very little to UK predecessor origins, but rather to technique developed to supply North American HO product. Look at the definite remaining Triang heritage mechanisms such as the 'universal' 0-6-0 found in the '08 with no outside frames' : still with the compromise wheelbase dimensions from the 1950s clearly showing its origins. 'Dire', hardly seems sufficiently critical. Yes, that's the penalty of the large legacy tooling, from having been in the RTR OO business longer term and on a larger scale than any other brand. It took quite a while to flush out the bad old Margateness; my assessment is that Hornby began to fully exploit the potential of the technique available with the introduction of the Britannia in 2006. My opinion is that Hornby continue to fumble on introducing clear range segmentation; which would at least introduce clarity to what the end customer is getting. OK, there is now a premium 'Hornby-Dublo' collector oriented range, but beyond that: There's clearly now a large tranche of newer product which could be marketed using a 'Modeller' oriented title. Then 'Railroad', such as the lightly warmed over 8F, the ex Lima, ex Dapol etc.. Then 'Basic', Smokey Joes, 08 shunters with no outside frames etc..

Are you getting a read of the original address when you start the process of attempting an address reset? Long time past I answered a question of exactly this sort: the owner was connecting the decoder black and red wires direct to the programme track outputs, not realising that a motor (typically) must be connected to the decoder.

Covered by the warranty, I'd go back to the retailer to get the decoder checked by Bachmann.

That's most likely very brief loss of power supply to the decoder, because the decoder has a factory set 'timeout' of 0.25 second before it restarts. You can check that by setting CV112 to 0; if the locos then run with no halts, while you haven't fixed the problem, you know the cause. My opinion, this is usually in the wiring connections to the main board which are clipped on. Personally I would go round the whole lot one at a time and solder them on. (If you don't solder, then release each connection in turn and wind the wire end around the tag so it has to make metal to metal contact between wire and plating on the tag.) This has been an instant fix on my own and friend's Bach diesels since Bachmann started this 'clip on' connection technique: great production line expedient for them, not so good for long term reliability...

Either the laptop PSU is faulty as the output you quote is adequate, or possibly the CDU is not compatible with what's probably a switched mode power supply. Just put 16V 1A power supply into a search engine to see what's available.

They have now, there's a good solution on the P2, no connection between the 'drive' from the axle and the connection to the cab speedo drive; body lifts clear, with little risk of fouling on replacement given due care. (Any guesses what will happen with mine the next time the body is replaced, following that confident statement.)

GNR, Stirling and earlier Ivatt 0-6-0 and 0-6-0T, dimensions here: https://www.lner.info/locos/J/j.php GWR, on conversion to standard gauge the Crewe wheelbase was widely used for 0-6-0 and 0-6-0T to the end of steam, Dean goods, Collett 2251, 57xx and its developments. I know those two, because with a GNR/LNER interest obtaining a correct wheelbase for a GNR 0-6-0 model typically meant looking among the GWR model range. (There still hasn't been an LNWR 0-6-0 or 0-6-0T as a RTR model, which is the line on which Ramsbottom originated these dimensions, and which were Crewedly constructed in large numbers...) Elsewhere - such as the ex-NBR J36 - it appears somewhat randomly; and there are plenty more where the dimensions are off by perhaps three inches in total over the wheelbase. And as for the GCR, wheelbase appears to be determined by day of the week and phase of the moon when the design outline was proposed. Unless someone can provide a more rational explanation...