34theletterbetweenB&D

The service sheet remains as it was when I first downloaded it, and uncontaminated by any of old Adam; exclusively Doncasterish as it should be.

Hey, no picking on the Chinese. I have organised the hanging of notices, provision of overalls and all the rest, to 'create' a manufacturing facility for a particular brand name here in jolly old England. Today a household appliance maker, next week a motor company. It's not necessarily just the end product that goes out of the factory that is 'manufactured'. I expect it is a lot cheaper now with digital photography and photoshop type facilities

That's interesting. First thought that crossed my mind on seeing the prototype pictures as part of the model announcement was what fun it was going to be getting a complex livery scheme to look right when applied over all that compound curvature on the ends; which were clearly designed by a minimum of three committees, all under the influence of something. It will be impressive if all the livery schemes look equally good when rendered in model form. However good the enabling tech., the interpretation for small scale reproduction will require some artistry.

But even more amazingly, it appears that gluing in the steps has caused all the bolt head detail on the centre panel of the bufferbeam to retract. Is this the first in a new line of variable geometry models?

That's a non-problem in my DCC experience. DCC works with significantly higher reliability than I have ever seen achieved with DC, which was for me a qualifying requirement before I adopted it coming up 13 years ago. Not prepared to spend any money on 'going backwards'; any new system has to match at minimum the demonstrated capabilities already available, while presenting new capability to justify the change. DCC will be my benchmark for evaluating any wireless system. DCC represents quite a challenge to any new entrant: cheap, stable and trouble free, and with my reliability engineering hat on looking good for lifetime serviceability.

And it shows, in the right way. Most RTR - and even some otherwise good kits - the cylinders are just a bit 'undernourished', missing a millimetre or so in length and height; all in the interests of easier clearances around curves. But these are properly big and beefy, and get the look of these locos , on which the cylinder blocks were very prominent.

It was the size of the centre crankpin hole - with the resulting very thin wall section - in the rod that caught my eye. As it appears to also be slack on the crankpin with the spacer not present, I wouldn't give much for its longevity; current motor and gear trains will tear through that if there is any bind, and then there's wear. The lack of the outward flare of the spokes to the protruding hub boss, as noted by Coachmann above, really is a shame. Such a fine feature which enhances Hornby's Castle and D16/3.

Not just Bluetooth, any wireless comms methodology. It has to have a dead rail capability (my ideal small on board cell pack, recharging from plain track sections only; with other cell pack options and charging methods such as larger capacity with physical plug in or contactless recharge) fully integrated from the off to be of interest. If as appears this system's in-loco decoder is roughly four times the price of a good DCC decoder, the economy advantage in not having to buy a DCC system completely runs out of gas in under a dozen loco installs.

How much force does the point mechanism need? A single motor will move a pair of code 75 kit points arranged as a crossover - four continuous n/s point blades to bend - and that's running the motor on a supply regulated well below 12V so it runs slowly and queitly.

Yeow, I'd bush that crankpin hole right away if that were my model. Or apply to Hornby for a spare. That's way too sloppy, and a short time from wear out in my opinion.

Your 782 is coming up as a lovely characterful model. Never mind what's inside, this is what the phrase 'a coat of paint hides a multitude of tins' was coined for; back in the day when tinplate was a cheap raw material with which to attempt some modelling. Keep bashing away! I still believe that a well chosen selection of the most handsome Scottish prototypes would do the business in RTR. Artistry in exterior design, some lovely livery choices, top of the pile in the eye-candy stakes.

But this is the way the law works chaps. What was perfectly acceptable yesterday: we'll hang Johnny Scruff by the neck for snatching this lady's watch, Mr Soberly-Dignified was perfectly entitled to insert his pistol up the housebreaker's posterior orifice and pull the trigger; turns out to be unacceptable to the later thinking of the majority, even though that all seems perfectly reasonable to me. And the only way of assessing where the public opinion lies is by trial unfortunately. I had to endure the weary grind of this some years ago: two people, each believing they were aiding the other, succeeded in falling over, with quite a nasty injury to one party resulting due to impact with a low wall. A valiant attempt was made to implicate architectural features of centuries standing in the heinous infliction of this injury. Presiding magistrate threw it out. If the facts are as represented, then - while it is stressful for the guard - he will be exonerated, and at most the TOC or some other superior body quailified to look at this matter will be required to review whether procedural change or the like can afford yet better protection against passenger error.

Show them the picture (and surely it's a railway line that had a golf course built around it?). Propose a local rule that anyone playing a shot that goes down a locomotive's chimney is considered to have played a round in one, leaves the course immediately for the club house and carries the entire bar bill for the remainder of the day.

Now I am wholly reliant on photographs as far as comparison to prototype is concerned, with all the concerns for possible optical distortion in images. But some pictures of 30853 in company with 30854 in the same picture show '3' to be bent in the footplate department where '4' is pretty much straight. There's one pic of '3' in early crest with gives the impression of a cocked up front buffer too. Tell you what is definitely wrong, that front bufferbeam is far too clean and tidy: pock marked with rust and the paint off around the drawgear on all three was typical, even though they are generally otherwise clean and tidy. These were old engines, and it showed.

I do not - and will not - own this model, but based on what I have seen of this style of construction also employed by Hornby on the J15 and D16/3, there should be a simplefix. As already mentioned the vsisible step is the side of the casting forming the boiler underside and motor cradle. Just such a step was present on my J15. By carefully skimming about 0.5 mm off the two 'landings' on the block where matching surfaces in the body make contact, the mechanism went fully 'home' into the body and the step thereby 'disappeared'. On the D16/3 no such step was visible, the mechanism seated perfectly in the body. Thsi suggests to me that the design intent is such that there is space for the mechanism to go fully home inside the body, resulting in the desired smooth profile. It is probably small manufacturing variations that leave some mechanisms unable to do so, but a little user adjustment to the contacting surfaces will rectify. I know that some are leery of such things, but when the fundamentals are good it is worth going the extra step to ice the cake.

[complete tangent] That's a real education on the sound principle of putting lots of bright young things in close proximity to a lot of books. If there's one vital thing to learn, it is a healthy scepticism toward the most assertively declared 'received truths' of science, both pure and as applied in fields such as engineering. I still consider myself privileged to have experienced a live example in the field of geomorphology. After many years being taught 'orogenic uplift' as a foundational doctrine in the field, it was discarded overnight for 'plate tectonics'. It had only taken 60 years from Alfred Wegener's observational insights to finally overcome the weight of oppostion: mainly from academics whose entire careers were going into the dumpster due to riding a dead horse. If you want closure on the Tay Bridge, the re-discovered failed girder now prominently displayed in Edinburgh at the National Museum of Scotland is most informative. [/complete tangent]

The side elevation photograph generally looks well enough blown up to about gauge 1 scale on my screen. (They acknowledge that the 'paint' is electronically applied to an unpainted item.) A little damage in evidence on the leading cab door handrail; which actually looks quite realistic for an in-service 'ding', for those who like their models in non-showroom condition.

No, just an overactive imagination. ;-) I await this development with interest; if it's an easily replicated arrangement I may well copy it, in the best tradition of 'a good idea shamelessly stolen from elsewhere'. As it is my pacifics modified with a fixed centre line fin as a light blocker are thereby limited to 30" minimum radius or thereabouts. I just have to remember that such treated locos cannot pay a visit to set track based layouts.

Sticking 'Topliss level luffing patent' into Google turned up this link which my primitive browser refused to open. http://www.linkapedia-architecture.com/topics/construction/level-luffing-crane/18028833 There was mention of patent 4606469, which may be the one. It may be quicker just to go to this, because I think the operating principle would have to be made explicit as key to granting the patent.

Have Hornby provided a drawbar position that is sufficiently close to scale that the fall plate can actually reach and rest on the tender step? So far only Bachmann seem to have really mastered this, with a screw secured adjustable slide and very free acting fall plate on the two more recent steam releases I own (J11, C1) to very fine effect. Hornby's J15 and D16/3 which feature correctly modelled cab floor extensions rather than fall plates (this being the way Stratford did things) needed new drawbars making to space loco and tender to scale distance, such that there was then no chasm for the luckless crew to fall down. It cannot be said enough that a loco and tender ensemble look so much better if the layout curves allow scale spacing, with features like fall plates and cab doors as applicable closing off the gaps between the two vehicles.

It's shattered into a gazillion pieces. An inattentive late member of the steampunk platoon deployed it into action before the heaters had any chance to bring the materials from which it was constructed up to ductile temperature; what with Enceladus being a seriously cold environment, this really matters,

There is a reason, but that isn't it. H-D's mechanical parts machining was not to a high degree of precision, sadly very typical of most contemporary British light goods manufacturing at the time. This was overcome - so far as the end product was concerned - by the traditional approach of matching for good fit at assembly from the many, many, well filled parts bins. None of this 'just in time' manufacturing technique, H-D had a huge parts inventory, a contributory factor to their business failure with piles of cash spent on inventory that wouldn't find a place in sold product for a year or three. That parts inventory came into the hands of Wrenn, and was used in production - at a reduced rate compared to H-D - for years to come. The parts were assembled, but the only matching concern in assembly was failure: either 'no go' or 'not functional'. If the parts fitted and the resulting mechanism ran, job done. Same designs and parts, but bung in a few slack and tight fits and suddenly it doesn't run as sweetly as the same mechanism assembled from carefully matched components.

There is a simple way around it though, if it is the boiler shell casting technique forcing the hole alignment. Anyone with a Bachmann class 20 can quickly confirm that the bonnet hand rail knobs are cranked. The visible stanchion is at an angle to the plug in base. Application of this principle would enable non-radial holes to have radial stanchions. I have to admit that despite wanting things to be right, the J15s handrails don't leap out and poke me in the eye. The generally lovely appearance and performance carries my eye past this minor imperfection. And I could do something about it if I ever really wanted to. More important to me was sorting out the excessive loco to tender distance, something which once corrected instantly improves the ensemble.

The 'asset' for accountancy purposes was identified by a build plate; traditionally this was associated with the frame. For expensive classes of loco which needed to be out in service earning revenue, the maintaining works would hold extensive spares, up to and including complete sets of frames and boilers. This to expedite return to service. So long as there were no more build plates out on the line than the number listed in the books, that satisifed the accounting requirement. All the emotion around a specific loco is just that, in reality it is just a commercial asset for operating purposes: and no 1234 coming out of works might well only have the build plate in common with what came in with that identity. By the end of a long service life, none of the metal in a loco might date from its original erection, even build plates could be recast to record alterations. Complete 'Trigger's brooms' in short.

Difficult to test this type of loco with and without carrying wheels. Drag in this location is what I would be looking at. Regarding 0-4-4T, I have just one, an M7 bought from a kind member here some years ago, (and still have to get around to remodelling it into Stirling GNR type). Now it was hopeless for traction as received, and the reason immediately obvious: the bogie wheels not turning to match rail speed. With the bogie wheel wipers backed off to barely grazing the wheelbacks, GT85 in the bogie bearings and graphite on the wheelbacks, this little charmer will now start and move at slow speed a 12 coach set of Bachmann mk1s. On the level only, mucho slipping even on slight (accidental) gradients at one or two locations. If it goes onto a 1 in 80 downhill section with that trainload there is no stopping until back on level track, runaway! The stock all free rolling, my standard is 'gets away unassisted when placed on a true 1 in 100'. As observed above, free rolling stock does discover gradients on what is supposedly level track. I guess it is a matter of taste whether you like stock free rolling or not, but to me this is the 'secret essence' of the railway and I wouldn't have it any other way. RTR stock with dreadful inside bearings just doesn't make the cut; if good enough as a model it gets rebuilt for proper outside bearing pinpoint wheelsets, and then freely rolls away.