Tiptonian

Unfortunately, I have erased episode 2 now so cannot check, but I get the feeling we have been fed a few dummies. For example, I am sure at one stage the narrator referred to a C14 class, rather than a B4, and there was a large drawing of a Nellie/Polly/Connie lying on a bench. Reference has been made to the old plastic 0-4-0 chassis, but don't forget the other 0-4-0 chassis, that of Bill and Ben, and that one is adaptable to an 0-6-0, Toby. This underused chassis could be the starting point for the new 0-4-0. I sincerely hope the new 0-4-0 is not yet another stretched overscale hybrid. I am sure many five-year-olds got annoyed when Bill and Ben demolished all their lineside furniture. Also, five-year-olds are quite capable of handling small objects (it is us 60-somethings with a tremor that are not!). However, I doubt if a five-year-old will wax lyrical over wood grain planking on the cab floor! The body could be simple, low-detail, yet still dimensionally to scale, capable of fitting to two chassis, one a basic budget 33mm wheelbase, and the other a scale chassis. For the serious modeller, the body could then be detailed "to taste". The resulting model could thus cater for all markets. My suggestion for this loco would be the LMS Kitson-Stanier 47000 0-4-0ST, though I should imagine it is all too late by now.

For the 0-4-0T, a question needs to be asked. The points appear to be a relatively large radius (631mm), so what is the length of the dead section at the frog? In 00, the Peckett 0-4-0ST cannot run reliably over curved and express points. In TT120, a large 0-4-0T to scale (eg LMS Stanier /Kitson 47xxx) would have a 19.05mm wheelbase. If the dead section of the points is greater than this figure, the loco would not run reliably through any of its points or diamond crossings.

I think it is all down to the quality and power of the hardware. In theory, IR remote control does require line of sight, but my television remote control seems to be able to bounce the signal off the walls; it will operate from anywhere in the lounge pointing in almost any direction, whereas my (cheap) freesat receiver remote has to be pointed directly at the receiver itself or it will not work. @Mike Storey I would envisage any more refined IR system being basically for toys for girls and boys age 5 to 130 and older (!), or adapted to small home layouts for people who like the simplicity. The Ultima is complex, but not all that expensive as DCC goes, so maybe the remote side is where money was saved. Perhaps the remote side should have been Bluetooth, assuming a high-enough spec Bluetooth was available at that time. As it is, it shows the biggest weakness of IR without the biggest advantage, which is the simplicity, low cost and the potential for on-board power. @No Decorum I can certainly understand the instinct to point the remote controller at the loco instead of the base unit!

Please excuse me if I've missed it, but is this system infra-red? If so, it will be interesting to see (way into the future) if Hornby take the control system further and develop it for higher age groups. A few years back, I started to build an 0 gauge industrial shunting layout. Instead of using track power, I used on-board PP3 batteries and the Lego Power Functions infra red control system. Applied to railways, it worked like the most basic DCC system. 8 trains could run at the same time, but unlike DCC, as the controller was a twin unit, two locos could be controlled at the same time. There were 7 forward and 7 reverse speed steps, perfectly adequate for a shunting plank. Furthermore, the controller and receivers were very inexpensive. I do not recall serious modellers taking any notice of it at the time; I think people felt doubt about using infra red or that 7 speed steps was not enough. I thought it was absolutely brilliant! Maybe its day has finally come!

If I remember correctly, there was a Hornby diesel shunter with auto-uncoupling based on a B12 chassis (29mm+29mm) but with Jinty wheels. That is about as close as you will get, but, of course, you will not get the characteristic uneven wheelbase.

I believe, looking at service sheet 85, that the Ivatt 2-6-0 also used a version of the B12 chassis.

This is well worth a try. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU4FOlPqMu4 I have tried it with one of mine and it works, but mine hauls light loads, (about 10 vans). Under stall conditions (don't ask!), the gears did disengage, but under normal conditions, it is fine.

Beware of over-generalization! Kitpw did say WD40 Cutting Fluid. WD40 make a range of fluids, some of which may find a use in railway modelling, (e.g. silicone lubricant). Usual disclaimers etc.. https://www.screwfix.com/c/auto-cleaning/lubricants/cat810058?brand=wd_40

I do, but I still like eating salmon! Oh, dear. This could go on and on.

Toby and Bill and Ben do share the same chassis, but with different bits added. See Hornby service sheets SS 250 and SS 265 and all will become clear.

I would have thought a deliberate error to avoid copies would not achieve anything. Did "Great British Locomotives" have the original manufacturers' blessing?

.....which begs the question, who is going to be the first "basher" on here to come up with a wide-firebox GWR Atlantic?

The Yellow Pages bus is a good representation of a Northern Counties body, but going by the engine cover detail, it is a Daimler Fleetline, not a Leyland Atlantean.

Is the Peckett W4 (and most small 0-4-0Ts) a "cab forward" when going backwards? Yes, I know. Coat.

Triang TT locos used 1/8" axles, so standard Romford, Markits, and Alan Gibson are suitable.