Richard Lee

Very pleased with them. I ordered a pair of the new Hornby 58' conversions of the ex-LSWR non-corridor stock on 2nd August, and received them today in the heart of rural Bulgaria. Total cost of the order was very competitive, taking account of the postage cost.

You can use Peco Code 75 rail joiners to connect Peco Code 75 points to SMP flexible track. I have done so on my smaller layout for my Hornby LB&SC Railway liveried Terriers.

You might find that locomotives tended to be about 7 years between full repaints (when they would be likely to get the current livery). I strongly suspect that number 2517 in Maunsell green would not look out of place for World War 2.

I understand that, on gaining independence, Bulgaria went directly from the old Turkish system of measurements to the metric ones. However, certain plumbing fittings are sold under descriptions such as 3/4 etc. These turn out to be the measurement in inches. I suspect that a lot of the people both selling and buying these items are not aware of inches as a unit of measurement.

I am sure that the Exactoscale/C&L Thick Track is very good. Believe me, the problem reported with the Oxford Rail Radial is much more likely to make me avoid buying the OR Adams Radial than the C&L Thick Track. My instinct is that the thicker sleepers would make it easier to lay than the SMP track, which is a little fragile, in my opinion. At the time I was doing my larger layout, I was trying to do better than Peco, but was on a bit of a budget. My original intention was to use the SMP plastic kits for points. That didn't work out, so I stretched my budget for 8 Marcway points. When I bought the SMP flexi-track, a friend was driving to Bulgaria, and able to bring me a couple of boxes. When I started re-doing the smaller (8' by 18") layout, I was going to use Peco Code 75 track for cost reasons. I found that I had enough SMP track left over to use with the Peco points.

SMP is cheaper than C&L (although still dearer than Peco usually is). http://marcway.net/list3.php?col=head&name=SCALEWAY+TRACK The chairs are smaller than C&L track, but more things run on it than C&L without problems. For instance, on the RMWeb Oxford Rail Adams Radial thread, someone reports that the Oxford Radial runs okay on SMP track whereas someone else said that there were problems the wheels running on chairs with C&L track, particularly on curves. I suspect that C&L might look better, but I believe that SMP looks better than Peco's Code 75 HO track. SMP has thin sleepers. If you want to use it with Peco Code 75 points you would probably decide to level it up. (I used thin cardboard under the SMP flexitrack on my smaller layout.) With Marcway points, the levels match.

Be careful with Hattons pre-order prices. When my Bachmann E4 went up in price between my pre-ordering it and being sent out, Hattons didn't let me know that the price had changed. Fortunately, because of postings on RMweb, I was aware of the issue, and still wanted it at the new price. In theory, I could have probably made a bit of a stink about it. Bearing in mind that the price rise was due Bachmann's policy on discounting of new items, the likely result would have been me having to return the locomotive for a full refund, which was not the outcome that I wanted. On the other hand, I don't expect to use their pre-order facility in the future.

Have a feeling that with any locomotive it is pot luck how good the one you end up is. Interestingly, with my O2, the pick-ups on one side of the driving wheels don't seem to work. Because I now use live-frog points (albeit not wonderfully laid), I only noticed it when wheel cleaning, so it doesn't bother me. The pick-ups of both my M7s haven't given trouble, so far. I have had the M7s for a lot longer than either my E4 or O2.

Many thanks to pete_mcfarlane and Nick Holiday, and also to Edwardian for making me aware of the potential issue. It is reassuring to know that the Gated Stock are still a possibility for branch line coaches. My main layout is a fictitious 1933ish SR branch in the Western Division, although I do also have 3 former LB&SC Railway locomotives. The Bachmann Birdcage Stock seem to be a long way off. The nice-looking Hornby 57' rebuilds of LSWR 48' coaches only started to appear in 1936, I believe. I have been considering trying green painted Ratio Midland Railway non-corridor suburban stock as former LB&SC railway coaches, although I try to keep kit-building to the smaller, 1900ish LB&SC layout. (If you saw the results of my attempts at kit building you would know why. )

Have a feeling that it is not a feedback controller. None of the documentation says it is. I would expect them to advertise the fact, if it was. Dave Jones has stressed not to use 'electronic track cleaners' such as the Relco, or Gaugemaster HF1 and HF2 with the O2. He has not made any comment about using the Gaugemaster Combi. I have a feeling that at least one person has mentioned using the Gaugemaster Combi close to, or within posts that he has replied to. However, I am sure that Gaugemaster would respond to a simple technical query by either telephone or email, quickly, efficiently and politely.

If you (or anyone else) happened to find out, I would be interested to know. Thanks in anticipation.

I have both a Bachmann E4 and a Kernow/DJM O2. They both ran a lot better after running in. In fact, they both nearly went back. Now, I would say that they were both, on the whole, good runners. I do have electro-frog points, though. The Bachmann gave trouble at first with the back wheel derailing on points. After running in, it rarely does that now. Earlier in the thread, a couple of people suggested remedies. I copied and saved their posts, but so far have not been provoked into trying their methods out. As you said, there is no pick-up on the rear wheels, which disappointed me a little. There were two main issues with the O2 that I bought. Firstly, like some others, the back-to-back measurements of the driving wheels were not correct. It couldn't even cope with my 30" radius scenic curve. However, on the RMWeb O2 thread, some kind person mentioned it, and explained what needed to be done. Fortunately, I happened to have a back-to-back gauge and was able to follow the suggestion to press the wheels into the gauge so that it was tight, with my fingers. Instant success! The second issue (which was my fault) was that some of my ballasting had been a little clumsy. The O2 didn't like tiny grains of ballast stuck to the insides of the rails, even where my other locomotives didn't even notice them. This was easy for me to sort out with a small screwdriver (I didn't even disturb the track weathering too much). Let me stress that I see it as a fault of the layout, not the locomotive. You might want to be aware of it if you are as cack-handed as me, though. Before running-in and lubricating, the O2 was a bit noisy. Afterwards, it was (and is) smooth and quite. There are a few further that you may want to know about the O2. Firstly, it has a coreless motor and Kernow recommend that you do not use either 'electronic- track cleaners' or pulse-width modulation controllers. Of course, if you a DCC user, that won't affect you. I installed an on-off switch for my Gaugemaster HF1 'electronic track cleaner' for when I am using the O2. Certain knowledgeable people on certain forums believe that the construction is a variant of of the 'split-chassis' type. They have formed an opinion of how well that worked for some Mainline and early Bachmann locomotives. You can't (apparently) open the body easily without damaging factory installed detailing. However, there is provision for the fitting of a decoder, and, I believe, a speaker. I think that the decoder socket is in the smoke box. The smoke-box door is just attached magnetically, so is easy to open. The coal load comes out easily. I didn't look too closely at the DCC possibilities because I don't use it. The cab roof can be taken off so that you can stick some crew in. On the other hand, sticking lead in the body to aid running and haulage might be a bit of a thinking exercise. Ironically, in view of your comments, if anyone needed a locomotive that didn't stall on dead-frog points, I would have suggested the Hornby M7. My first layout had Hornby track, and the M7s didn't mind the Hornby points one bit. On the other hand, they can get a bit troublesome on one set of much better points, going through the curved path from toe to heel forwards. I stuck a bit of lead in them before, but I might have to see where else I can stick it inside them.

I have bought their second hand stuff twice. The first time irritated me to the point that I cancelled some pre-orders with them, and moved them down my list of suppliers. That was a Hornby E2 with minor damage, but not specified as a poor runner. The minor damage to the buffer was minor. Unfortunately, it ran like a pig. I tried wheel cleaning, gunk removal and careful re-lubication, but it still ran poorly. At one point it wasn't working at all. In the end, I got a Hornby Railroad S&DJR Jinty from Amazon so that I could use the chassis. It works a lot better now, and I have the Jinty body on the old chassis in case I ever want to do a Christmas round the tree layout; however, but I wouldn't have paid what I paid for the E2, the Jinty and two lots of overseas postage if I had known. The second time left me a good deal happier, I am pleased to say. The Jinty had given wistful thoughts about LMS through coaches. I saw a couple of Mainline early LMS corridor coaches that were £11 and £11.50 each. These are the ones that Bachmann still makes, from time to time. When Bachmann make them again they are expected to be about £23 to £25 each, depending upon what discount the shop gives you. Even allowing another £9.99 for a packet of Bachmann metal coach wheels I felt that I didn't do too badly, and I didn't have to wait for Bachmann.

Smallbrook Studio do resin kits for 4-wheeled Stroudley coaches in their Isle of Wight condition. http://www.smallbrookstudio.co.uk/products-new/4569521214/lbscr-four-coach-set-of-4-wheel-stroudley-coaches/3738609 I built some for my smaller, 1900ish mainland layout. (I removed the battery boxes and should have removed the truss rods.) The parts do need a little fettling, but go together fairly well. The coaches are reasonably heavy, so if you can find suitable plastic figures for your era to populate them, it is a good idea. I used metal ones because I could only find metal Edwardian passengers. EDIT: During their construction I treated myself to a Parkside cordless multigrinder from the local Lidl. (I am sure that they show up in UK Lidl stores from time to time.) It made fettling the kits a lot easier. These kits were the first rolling stock kits that I attempted. I am sure that more experienced modellers would have Dremels and things like that.

Perhaps most of the customers that might buy Peco's bullhead are the ones who expect to use Peco's points? I am guessing that Peco's bullhead flexible track will be cheaper than C&L's, but it seems that C&L's will be the choice for appearance. If I started making my points from C&L bits and pieces then I am fairly sure that I would stump up the extra for their flexible track, rather than have the plain track look worse than the points. On the other hand, if I were to do another layout with Peco points (either the existing Code 75 or the anticipated bullhead ones), Peco bullhead track should be a reasonable match. I like the appearance of SMP flexible track, despite its thin sleepers. However, raising SMP up to the level of Peco points is a minor chore that I could do without. On the other hand, SMP flexible track is a similar level to Marcway ready-made copper-clad points, and goes well with them.

It seems likely to me that Peco (if and when they produce them) will cater for the people who want similar point geometry to their current Code 75 range. Joseph Pestell has indicated that he will try to get some larger points into production. People who wish to make their own track to higher standards will not be prevented from doing so. Could it be that the vast majority of OO modellers might end up being catered for?

Sorry to go off topic, but you might find your Terrier a little quieter if you run it in, and then lubricate (the instruction sheet tells you which places). I use Peco Powerlube, applied with a needle (the type that you sew shirt buttons back on with). My oldest Terrier runs slightly better and quieter than the newer two. Even with running in and lubrication, they won't be the quietest models, though. By the way, thanks for the information about your Oxford Radial.

If the radius of an A5 in OO is 28.8" then I don't think that I would be keen on using it. I am trying to keep to an absolute minimum of 30" radius curves, let alone points. The 30" scenic curve that takes the track past the corner of the room is where I test whether couplings are too tight. If I had a loco shed, then I might have tighter radius points, where only locomotives would go over.

Nevertheless, I do believe that the new Peco track is a good development. Yes, there is better flexible track available, and also the facility for those who care to to built even more accurate track. On the other hand, I believe that it will make it easier for those modellers who are unlikely to spend a huge amount of time, money and trouble on their track to produce better looking layouts.

As others have said, C&L sleepered thick flexible track is about £6.50 per metre. SMP (according to the Marcway website) is currently £43 for a box of 10 yard lengths, so £4.30 per yard. I understand that if if you visit the Marcway shop in Sheffield, it is sometimes possible to buy odd numbers of lengths. Sadly, that would be difficult for me to test. I was lucky in that a friend was able to buy a couple of boxes on my behalf and bring them over for me. SMP has thin sleepers, of course. It is easier than I imagined to match up height of thick and thin sleepered track, but it is still an extra faff. Is that bit of cardboard that you glued where you want the flexi track to go really dry yet? Is it going to swell up when you ballast? SMP (and also, I presume, the old C&L thin sleepered) match the height of Marcway points well. I didn't need to do any padding underneath when I did my larger layout. If the next layout that I do uses Marcway points, then I would, by preference, use SMP. On the other hand, if I use Peco Code 75 or Code 75 Bullhead points, I would almost certainly prefer the new Peco flexible track. If I was going to try and follow Hayfield in making points from C&L/Exactoscale components then I suspect that I would try to push the boat and and go for C&L flexible track.

It could be that Peco and C&L are addressing different sectors of the demand for bullhead OO track. The ready built C&L turnout that has a thread of its own looks wonderful. However, I imagine that a reasonable proportion of modellers would find the price that C&L has to charge for their ready-made kit-built pointwork unaffordable for the size of layout that they want. We don't know what the new points (assuming that they appear) would look like, but I suspect that they will have the normal Peco hinged switch-rails. I doubt that they would be of interest to those considering building C&L kits, or buying the kits ready built. On the other hand, there are a lot of people with OO layouts who want an improvement over the HO track. In my opinion, sleepers and timbering are two of the most noticeable features of track.

I presume that there will be a premium (at least at first) on the price for the new Peco product compared to their HO flexible track, but I imagine that it will be cheaper than the C&L thick track. (I suspect that the C&L track will still look better when looked at closely.) There is also the postage factor. C&L don't seem to have secured a contract with good prices for international delivery of parcels measuring 1 metre long. With Hattons for instance, parcels with lengths of flexible track only cost a few pounds more for delivery.

I strongly agree with wanting bullhead points. However, you may well find that you don't need special, converter fishplates to join the bullhead flexi-track with flat bottomed rail points. When I re-did my smaller layout with SMP flexi-track and Peco Code 75 points, I found that both Marcway and Peco insulated track joiners (fishplates) did the job. I had enough Marcway plain track joiners to do the bits that didn't need an insulated joiner, and so didn't use the packet of Peco ones that I bought. I strongly suspect that they would have worked just as well, though.

Bachmann Branchline make shorter versions of their small NEM pocket and screw-on tension locks....sometimes. I understand that they can be unavailable for several years at a time. When mixed types of tension locks were beginning to annoy me, I did consider switching to all Bachmann tension locks, and going for the shorter versions where possible. Unavailability put me off. Some of the kit couplings (such as Dinghams) looked interesting to me, but as I have a 30" radius curve, I thought that my main layout might be a bit dicey for kit couplings. Have a feeling that 3-link couplings with OO would be too big a challenge for my dexterity when routinely shunting. I had already decided to try Kadees for my smaller layout where I have to lift stock up to rearrange the train in the fiddle yard. I tried them, liked them (even though some items of stock required a bit of bodging), and decided to go for Kadees throughout. They are a bit dear though, which could be a factor against them for someone with a lot of stock

You might find that that may have changed. A few years ago, I had a similar experience. I wanted to buy some wargames miniatures from an American company that used Paypal to process payments, and had similar difficulties. Their screens couldn't cope with a British credit card and a Bulgarian address. However, a couple of years ago, I found out that they seem to have sorted things out. I now have a Paypal account that I use successfully, that uses the British credit card, and my Bulgarian address. Edit: By the way, thank you for all the useful information on the DCC controller.