34theletterbetweenB&D

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.

The screw seured bracket that the bogie pivots on is clearly loose by your description, and may well be bent as well. The slack in the screw securing the bracket could be rectified with washers, so that it is firmly clamped. Then if the end of the bracket where the bogie pivot locates isn't horizontal, that should be corrected.

In this drive arrangement, because both worms are driven from a common motor shaft, if one worm is not rotating but the other bogie runs as you describe, something is either slipping in the drive line to the stationary worm, or a component such as the cardan shaft is disengaged or broken.

If one worm gear isn't turning but the other worm gear is, the most common problem cause is one of the plastic drive couplers slipping, within the flywheel, or on the worm shaft. A little superglue rectifies. These centre motor drives typically have ample traction with both bogies driven to race along with 30 to 40 carriages. The Bachmann drive in their BR DMU's such as the class 105 and 108 are of the centre motor type but with only one bogie driven and will haul over a dozen carriages, so a small train of HST carriages is not going to be a problem.

Such things happened in dear old Blighty of which I have had direct experience, and doubtless everywhere else in the world with any significant manufacturing. In many ways it is easier in really large operations, more appropriately skilled people among whom to find the 'recruits' to put in the extra hours, turn a blind eye, and perform other essential roles. Sorry if this sounds cynical, but I have had training in this field.

Never mind all the underside clutter, the major aspect to first make right 'down there' is the height between rail top and peak of the roof of 50mm (12'6"). That done you test the vehicle on the layout minimum radius curve, and then remove any fouling mouldings on the underside. Now you can put the fiddly stuff on, carefully checking placement for unimpeded bogie swing...

I always forget to put in a smilie. There's a determined dissident fringe minority 'good enough for grandad is good enough for me' element in the UK population. More preserved ancient stuff per virgate than anywhere else...

Nothing to lose time! If you have a good worm puller, with the worm removed it is possible to straighten the can 'fingers' that retain the brush assembly, and then to withdraw the entire armature, still correctly positioned in the brush assembly (this matters!) in order to inpect for some random crap within, or whatever else is the cause of the problem. Only done this once, by strange coincidence on the motor from a Bach Jinty (same unit as in the 57xx) and the trouble with that proved to be a magnet not properly glued in place (fixed with Evostick and still a runner). Symptoms were nothing like yours, rattled in one direction, no go in the other. Do tell if you find a resolution.