Dominion

Agree with ITG. That plan looks to need at least 6 power feeds to the near rail polarity, and 6 to the far rail polarity, separate from the frog juicer feeds. Perhaps unlike your code 100 layout, these points will not transmit power to either route beyond the frog. Even with that many feeds it would rely on rail joiners to transmit power, which can become unreliable. I now solder a feed to every piece of rail.

This is a B7 OO-SF turnout kit installed now leading to the previous slip. I wanted it to have equalized timbering to match the slip instead of square on to the main road. Wayne's turnout kits so far have square on timbering. However I had a spare heal end of a slip kit which does have equalized timbering from when I built the scissors and needed square on timbering earlier this year. So I was able to use that spare partial base in this turnout. You may be able to see the timbering changes from square on to equalized just at the near end of the check rails. The kits are easy to splice 2 different base parts together. I just used a Templot printout (thank you Martin) to make sure I had the rail geometry right and then I used that to set the spacing between the 2 partial Finetrax base pieces. The transition from square on to equalized is not at the same timber as Templot suggests, but it looks OK to me. Tom

This is one of Wayne’s OO-SF single slips installed. It runs well. It goes together easily and fairly quickly. The single slip beyond was hand built with Exactoscale chairs before Wayne produced 4mm kits and it took for ever in comparison.

I heard back from Hornby on the missing tender cowling on 2003 and 2005 shown at Warley. Apparently the tenders on display were using mixtures of tool inserts, and the production version should be correct.

Mick, is the taller tender in your photos one you have repainted ? It looks good. As I understand it the tenders fitted to the P2s were of 2 types, both dimensionally the same as other LNER Pacific tenders. 2001 and 2002 got New Type non-corridor tenders as fitted to several of the A1s and A3s. 2003-2006 got A4 Streamlined non-corridor tenders. The tender for 2001 was unique in construction being welded but the height of the side sheets to the bead and the height of the front, middle and back plates were all the same as the regular tender New Type tender, at least initially, and its coal capacity was the same. It did have spoked wheels though. The Streamlined non-corridor tenders were taller at the side sheets and front and middle plates, at least initially, had no beading and had a cowl at the front, and the side sheets were almost straight rather than curved in. The A4 type tenders fitted to 2003-6 changed capacity when there front fairings or cowlings were reduced in length. My original comment on the pictures mentioned a page back of 2003 and 2005 were that Hornby had tenders behind them that were missing the cowling, and that I hoped they corrected that for the production models. They should be able to easily as they already have the tooling for it. It would make a visual difference as the correct tender has no beading on the front or top of the side sheets, is higher, does not turn in very much at the front to suit the lack of side sheet curve on the cabs for 2003-2006 and perhaps most visually noticeable has a cowling behind the front plate. This cowling was either tall and long initially, tall but less long later and lower later still, but always with a cowling as far as I can tell. What is a little concerning to me is that the photo shown does appear to have less turn in at the front, correctly, doors on the tender, but no cowling. I cant be sure weather that display tender has a bead or not. This suggests it maybe a new tool rather that usage of existing parts for display, but incorrect as it is missing the cowling. Separately, where Hornby also made it confusing with the original P2 model for you and I and anyone else that wants to mix and match, is that its tender is shorter than their tooling for the super detailed New type non-corridor tenders used on their A1 and A3 models. RCTS states that the heights were the same even though 2001's tender was welded. It certainly looks right behind the 2001, and some people think its height is closer to being correct than the main range one.

Yes but RCTS says its one off welded one looked the same externally as the other new type non corridor tenders, as used behind Hornby’s A3s.

If I am looking at the same pictures the locos look very nice. The tenders however look like the type for 2001 and 2002. 2003-2006 had different tenders. These should both have the streamlined non corridor tenders, with the curved front fairing and no beads along the top of the side sheets. Those photos show both locos with tenders without the curved fairing at the front. Hopefully they will put that right for the production models. They have the tooling already as it is behind several of their A4s. Ironically their model of 60501 (rebuilt from 2001) does have the curved fairing at the front of the tender and it shouldn’t.

Ben, could the end doors open on at least one of the cars in the set so we can recreate this :-) https://blog.railwaymuseum.org.uk/james-bond-007-lets-the-train-take-the-strain/

I have also had no trouble with them, propelling them through facing points and slips. I wonder if there is something up with the chassis or a wheel set on the OPs examples ? A tight back to back on a wheel set could pick up an open point blade perhaps ?

I was imprecise. I was referring to the stretched distance between the wheel splashes on the Hornby body.

Thank you. It needed weight added as the Hornby J15 weight is in the body. I think it is a tad high at the back, I can remove a bit of the packing there when I add more weight. The J15 wheelbase is longer than a J52 should be, like the Original Hornby one. But the spacing of the front axles is between what it should be for a J52 and the stretched nature of the Hornby body, so in a way I think it is a reasonable compromise. Tom

I wanted to improve the running of my J52 as well, inspired by the projects by 31A and 34theletterbetweenB&D. I didn’t have a 57xx chassis to try. I did have a spare Hornby J15 chassis though, so I decided to try that instead. the wheel spacing and size are not quite right but the running is improved no end. I also removed a little of the body moulding between the front 2 splashers to try to take advantage of the daylight through the Hornby J15 chassis there.

I have a Bachmann version if you want photos or measurements of what they did on their model Steve.

Dear Paul and IIB, many thanks for your replies. I had seen the Zoukei Mura at Hattons but was finding it hard to judge the detail and quality from their photos. You comments are much appreciated. Tom (I am in Canada but Hattons has a great service to here)

I rode on one in 1988. Very impressive. An O series I think, at least that is the shape I think I recognize but it’s a long time ago now. Can anyone recommend a model in HO scale ? I don’t know anything about the relative merits of different Japanese model railway brands. Thanks for any input, Tom

I am sad for The Rapido team that this will lead to unnecessary expense. However I have every confidence that things will be resolved in a reasonable and practical manner, and I am still very much looking forward to receiving the model. I have a lot of Rapido Canadian models and their attitude to fixing occasional issues is really excellent and earns my brand loyalty every time.

I noticed Hatton's has found some more new LNER brown livery 6 wheeled coaches, all lit.

I am still hoping for Thompson coaches in maroon

The version of 4472 I would love them to do would be from 1938 onwards with the Streamlined non-corridor tender in LNER green. Hornby have made that tender in Garter blue, black, BR blue and BR green, but never in LNER green (that I know of). There seemed to be 5 of those amongst the A1s and A3s but they seemed to get around and 12 other A1s or A3s had them in LNER green in addition to Flying Scotsman at different times.

Until that one Johan referred to, Hornby had not actually produced a loco drive modern quality Flying Scotsman in LNER condition. All the previosly released models in LNER green have had various preservation era features. I made this one from a couple of donors. It has the steam dome boiler without super heater covers, and the LNER loading gauge cab and chimney. It can represent 4472 while it had its corridor tender. I also modified the Hornby tender to get back to the lower side sheets and the coal rail, (inspired by Graeme King). Hornby could now make this combination as they have tooled that early version of the corridor tender for the W1.

Assume you mean R3736, the one modelling the GN height cab and chimney, before they were lowered.

I would vote for a B6 turnout in OO-SF. (or which ever combination of switch length and crossing type would give the smoothest running in a number 6 turnout.)

Fabulous, thank you Wayne. Duly ordered. The double slips are all installed and working well. Very much looking forward to these.

Looking at Gay Crusader, I think the steam dome is mounted in the wrong position. From front to back are Hornby's Gay Crusader, Windsor Lad, a Fairway body (from the tender drive tooling) and Sandwich. The front 3 are all 94A boilers while Sandwich has the A4 type 107 boiler. The bodies are lined up with the cabs running plates and wheel bases aligned. Correctly I think, the boiler bands and front of the firebox line up with each other on the three 94A boilers and are a little further forward on the Sandwich boiler. Also correctly I think the steam dome on Sandwich is further forward. However the steam dome on the Gay Crusader is further forward than it should be I think, as though it were on an 107 A4 boiler. Gay Crusader never had an A4 boiler fitted according to the green book, and they didn't start being fitted to A3s until well into BR's time anyway. The inspection ports and wash out plugs and boiler bands are all correct for the 94A boiler Gay Crusader had at the time modelled as far as I can tell. The box art also has the steam dome in the correct position. Do others agree ? I may try to push the dome off from the mounting spigot underneath and see if there is sufficiently little visible glue or paint damage to it move back.

I just lucked into an idea that seems to be working. I have 4 power districts run through DCC specialties PSX circuit breakers. Two of them have a software version recent enough so that I can set them to power up in “off”mode. (CV66=0) I also have 2 NCE mini-panels. I just realized that the mini panels have an “extra” input, 31, that runs when ever the mini panel gets powered up from the cab bus (instead of being run by push button later.) I have programmed that input to have a delay and then power up the PSX boards by sending a 1 to their accessory addresses but with different amounts of delays. Now I have the power districts firing up at intervals instead of all at once. I wouldn’t buy any of this kit just to do that but if you happen to have it as I did it was all spare features I hadn’t been using till now.