Richard Lee

If I confine myself to buying new Dapol and Bachmann stock with NEM pockets then I should not have any dramas should I ? Do Hornby use NEM pockets on their new stock ? I can leave modifications of old stock till later.

I found the Dapol wagons that I have (which all came with NEM pockets) a doddle to convert to Kadees.  The NEM pockets have all been the correct height, and, because the pockets have been the correct size and shape for Kadees, there has been no need to wedge or glue.

The Bachmann wagons that I have, and also the E4 were not too bad to do.  Because they were fairly recent, I have not had too many problems with NEM pocket height.  Sometimes, to keep the Kadee from drooping because the internal height of the NEM pocket is a tiny bit generous,  I have had to put a sliver of either thin card or plasti-card underneath the part of the Kadee in the pocket, or use a very small dab of glue on the top.

As 34theletterbetweenB&D has said, the new Hornby stuff has NEM pockets, and incidentally, is very easy to convert.  Examples of Hornby that comes with NEM pockets includes M7s and Maunsell coaches.  Examples of Hornby that doesn't comer with NEM pockets includes Terriers, the Railroad Jinty, and a lot of their 4 wheel wagons.  You can usually do things like unscrew the coupling, drill a hole though the stem of one of the NEM Kadees and screw the Kadee in instead of the tension lock.  (I used number 18s for the Terriers and 20s for the Jinty chassis I used for the E2.)

The only OxfordRail item I have is a wagon.  Again, easy to convert.

In a day or so I should be able to report on how to convert a Kernow/DJM O2.  It looks easy, but I am still running it in.

So far, I find the "electronic track cleaner" very useful.  I have not noticed pitting, or other damage.  What I do believe is that although it reduces cleaning, you do still need to do the track from time to time, for instance, with half a wine cork followed by a lint-free rag dampened with surgical spirit, cheap vodka or isopropyl alcohol.  When the indicator starts to come on more than a very small amount, it is a good idea to schedule a track cleaning session.  Oh, a quick clean of wheels is a good idea, as well.

Sorry about leading people off-topic; my post number 1343 was intended to be of use to people who used these what are described by the manufacturers as "electronic track cleaners", were unused to coreless motors but were expecting an O2, or something similar. I hadn't intended to spark a discussion on these devices.

Kernow sent me an email on the 22nd December that leads me to expect a nice, green present very soon.

Some people on RMWeb have suggested that electronic track cleaners do not go well with coreless motors.  Others (on another forum) have suggested that their experience leads them to suppose that there is no problem.  I don't know which to believe, but am unwilling to take a risk; I  fitted an on-off switch in one of the 16 volt AC wires between my controller and my Gaugemaster HF1 track cleaner, on the main layout.  Without the 16v AC coming in, the Gaugemaster track cleaner just sends the DC voltage from the controller without trying to clean the track.

This was easy enough to test without a locomotive, but with the controller plugged in.  With the switch on (to use the track cleaner) the indicator light of the track cleaner comes on. (It goes off if there is a loco on a non-isolated section.)  With the switch in the 'off' position, no indicator light whether or not a loco is on the track.  The controller moves trains with or without the track cleaner.

I think that you will always get the occasional new loco that arrives dead.  The advantage of buying new is that you can return it if it doesn't work properly.  Recently I bought a Hornby Railroad Jinty via Amazon because I needed the chassis.  There was no movement, and the transformer of the control started to hum.  Returned it, and the replacement that they sent was fine. 

I find that I have used 17s, 18s, 19s and 20s  It all depends upon layout specific things like your minimum curve radius, though.

Edit: Did a quick count of my current stock:

9 vehicles use number 17s both ends

21 vehicles use number 18s

3 vehicles use number 20s

2 brake 3rd coaches use number 19s on the outer ends of the rake, and 17s on the ends which couple to other coaches.

At the Worthing show earlier this year, I happened to approach the Kernow stall twice.  Once was to buy a discounted wagon really cheap, the other was to ask about the Gated Stock.  I was told March 2016 at the very earliest, quite possibly later.

I know and share the frustration of "Where is it?  I have been waiting ages!".  On the other hand, they have been accumulating orders over several years.  I doubt whether many organisations in the world could get them all out as soon as they arrive in the shop.  I have never been to their premises, but I imagine them as a small but growing business, with not too many staff.  Great if I see my green mainland O2 by the end of the Christmas and New Year period, but I don't think that it will harm me if I don't.

I tend to leave the droppers on, as I might want to use under-track magnets at some time, or on another layout, & they do give an 'impression' of air lines as well. As kadees are also fairly close to looking like the real thing, why would I want to make them less noticable??

One of my layouts is a SR branch line set in 1933, and the smaller one is an LBSCR branch line terminus, about 1900, so most of the prototype couplings would be 3-link/instanter etc.  As I will not be installing magnets, it is worthwhile for me to get rid of the droppers.

On the other hand, particularly if your stock is a bit later or less rural, then there may well be no point at all for you clip the droppers off.  Believe me, I don't think that it should be compulsory.

What if you don't use magnets to uncouple your Kadees??

It means you can cut off the silvery, dangly bit that the magnets use; this makes the couplings less noticable.  

I find that an (unused) toothpick is quite a good thing to uncouple them with.

Very interesting - particularly the option of power from the rails with a back-up battery to take you over non-powered track (points). There are a couple of questions that I would need to know the answer to before I could seriously considered it:

1) Cost. I couldn't find any prices, but new technology frequently does not come cheap;

2) Does it pass the Hornby Terrier test? Can it fit in smaller tank locomotives such as Terriers, O2s and the Adams Radials (when they become available)?

For me, something to be aware of and keep an eye on, rather than to bash on with.

Tractive Effort: A1 - 7,650 ; A1x - 10,695

Based on the tractive effort and weight of an A1 and A1x Terrier, I estimate that on a 1 in100 gradient the Terriers would haul only about 150-200 tonnes at the very greatest. Fully loaded PO wagons could weigh anything from 12 to 22 tonnes, so 5 or 6 fully loaded wagons and brake van would be a prototypical load on a grade.

In 'Branch Line to Hayling' by Vic Mitchell and Keith Smith (ISBN 0906520126) there is a picture dated 25th May 1932 of Terrier B655 pulling a mixed train with a couple of coaches that might be LSWR 47' ones, what looks like 8 open wagons and a goods brake van towards Hayling Island.  I presume that the wagons would have been filled going towards Hayling Island.  It looks to me as if the wagons may have been smaller than the 8-plank wagons that were the prototypes for the Oxford Rail ones.

There is a route diagram earlier on in the book.  The steepest gradient upwards in the Havant to Hayling Island direction was 1:175.  In the other direction there is a 1:89 stretch, rising on the way towards Havant.  There are a couple of pictures of a similar sized mixed train going towards Havant on 14th October 1963.  Presumably, the open wagons were empty on the journey back to Havant.

Their website seems to be up again:

http://www.protocab.com/welcome

For those looking for IOW stock there are currently some kits listed on Ebay item no 271926200332. Look to be manufactured by SmallBrook studio on the island itself. Absolutely no link to the company and I can't make recommendations one way or the other but I may order a set for when my 02 gets here.

 

If you want to see the manufacturer's web page, the link is:-

http://www.smallbrookstudio.co.uk/products/4569521210/4mm-IoW-Southern

I have actually had a go at knocking-up these.  They are resin kits, so expect a little fettling of the parts.  What made it a lot easier to do was a little multitool thingy that I got from Lidl (it says "cordless multigrinder" on the box).

When I made them, I cut off the battery boxes aand painted them mahogany for use with my Stroudley liveried Hornby Terriers.  (I should have cut off the shallow 'V' shaped bits underneath; I might have to sort them out sometime.)

Probably been done to death but if Dapol can produce the O gauge Terrier for approx. 50% more than their OO diesels, why do the O gauge wagons cost 400% more than the OO equivalent? We are often told that materials make up a small percentage of production costs !

If there is to be fresh interest in O gauge modelling, I think this disparity needs to be addressed ..​​

It may be that prices are not quite so out of kilter as they seem to be.  I don't think that that Hornby are offering any of their OO Terriers to the general public at the moment, but I have a feeling that when they last did, the price was something like £60ish.  I bought my first Hornby Terrier for £50 from Hattons just over 3 years ago, and the others for £48 and about £60 from smaller model shops.

I think that requirement only applies for the first 8 weeks that they are on sale.  So, should one pre-order or wait for the fire sale? The Hornby 2-BILs started at £129 but can now be had for as little as £59.

Judging from what happened with my E4, pre-orders would go out at the high price, without emails notifying customers of any price rises.

There might not be a big fire-sale, though.  For example, I haven't come across any significant reduction in the price of E4s yet, certainly not at Hattons.

Although I am not wildly happy about the price, the Birdcage Stock would still be a reasonable option for me, compared to the Kernow Gated Stock and the Hornby rebuilt ex-LSWR 58' coaches.  I was going to get both the Gated Stock and the Birdcage Stock, but am now considering getting the first option to become available, and forget the late-comers.

Thank you. 

They are still shown as £42.50 each on the eHattons website.  I understand that Bachmann requires retailers not to discount more than 15% of the suggested retail price for new items.  Have a feeling that the price that Hattons charge will rise quite a bit before they are released.

I think that there are quite a lot of programs available for Linux, but have to admit that I haven't tried it myself yet.

Every cloud has a silver lining: such figures are great for S scale...

 

(And please tell me what they are!)

On the packet it says "Mike Pett's Supercast", 12 Chatham Street, Ramsgate, Kent CT11 7PP.  There is a website:

http://modelrailwayfigures00.co.uk/

I bought them at a show in Worthing when I visited the UK last year.  They are noticeably bigger than the Langley Miniatures 00 figures.

We are a funny lot and, and each has his bete noire, not least where model figures are concerned. ...

Mine is that well-known wargaming feature known as "scale-creep", whereby different manufacturers increase the size of their figures to allow more detail and dynamic posses to try to impress buyers.

Trust me, if I buy figures that allegedly are for 4mm to the foot layouts that have all the adult males 26mm tall and all the females 24mm tall, I will be unlikely to buy further packets.  I know that people vary in height, but I doubt that a very high proportion of people in 1900 were significantly taller than the current average heights.  My impression is that average heights have increased during the last 60 years.

Scale-creep is annoying enough for wargamers.  Because of the nature of railway modelling, I find scale-creep for model railway figures even less acceptable.

I think it's time to "call" this nonsensical thread , the number of people building to p4 standards , with compensated chassis and tight tolerance track laying AND then deciding to use 16,5mm HO track is tiny to nonexistence , most of whom are firmly in straitjackets, to suggest that rtr track work would then be modified to allow occasional running of such standards is in the realms of barking looney-ism

 

I've had a good chuckle reading this thread. But I think we need to return to normal programming now

Personally, I don't think that the original poster's proposals go far enough.  If you are going to run two different scales on the same track, why not have a standard for P4 wheels to be used with 9mm track?  You could run a re-wheeled Hornby Flying Scotsman on the same track as an N gauge Dapol Terrier.

Lots of comments regarding this model since it started actually being in people's hands. So far, my impression is the majority are happy with it, no derailing issues, no running issues.

 

With all the vagaries as to track work (I'm not implying poor track work), is it actually reasonable to expect a model to run exactly the same on each and every layout?

 

Have mine ordered from a Canadian dealer.

 

Jim F

Very happy with my E4, although mine needed running in to get rid of the pony truck, and other running issues.  (Running in isn't particularly easy for me because I don't have a continuous run.)  Before running in, I would have said that the E4 either needed work done on it, or replacement.  Afterwards, it was a case of "Problems, what are they?" for me.

Just my experience based upon one example, but  I do suggest running it in, even if you don't always bother to do so with new locomotives.

Lovely bit of modelling, Doug.

The kit has them as sliding doors.  I presumed (after looking at the pictures on the website, and on the pack) that, with the LBSC goods shed, the runners are on the inside of the shed.  (The LSWR goods shed seems to have them on the outside of the shed.)

There are recesses in the platform inside the shed for the doors.  The instructions say:
 

 

10  Insert the doors and office and glue into position.  The doors can be glued open or shut.  The prototype doors hung on runners from the roof, so the doors sit in the recesses supplied in the platform when open.  Remember to allow sufficient room under the end doors to clear the rails.  If fitted, the office would usually be at the non-door end of the platform.

 

In 'Southern Counties Branch Line Steam' by Michael Welch, there is a picture with a goods shed at Baynards that looks suspiciously similar in style, admittedly early 1960s rather turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.  It doesn't look as if the goods shed has been used for a couple of years, but the building is still in a good state of repair.  I can't see any sign of the runners ever being on the outside of this shed.

On the ABM website, the LSBC goods shed is quite a long way down the page.  The LSWR goods shed is a bit further up:

http://www.abmrailcraft.com/product-list---4mm.html

If you have a go at one of their goods sheds, you might find that, because they are based on a prototype, the entrances for the tracks are smaller than with some kits that were designed as generic models.  I had to do a bit of minor surgery on the doors for those entrances so that I can get wagons and goods vans in and out.