thegreenhowards

I found time today to have a play with my K3s and they certainly weren’t as good as the A4, but I think they acquitted themselves quite well. The Bachmann K3 is already quite well weighted and there’s no room anywhere for more lead in mine. DC users could make a little more room by removing the decoder socket and hard wiring the engine, but it would not make a huge difference. So I had to test it as it comes, and it couldn’t quite manage my Elizabethan rake (which is pretty heavy). My white metal body on Bachmann chassis version did (just) manage the Elizabethan, but that was about the limit. So I decided to see what they could do on a more typical ECML rake. In this case, I used my 1735 KX- Newcastle rake which is 11 cars and includes the all metal Silver Jubilee triplet. This they both managed fine. I then added 4 cars from my (embyonic) Heart of Midlothian rake and this was about the limit for the standard Bachmann example. (Please excuse the head code - this is just a haulage test!) 15 cars including some heavy ones is a quite creditable performance I think, if not quite matching what the prototype could manage. Clearly a (well built ) white metal kit would manage more, but I think this proves that RTR can manage a long enough train to satisfy 99%+ of all modellers, and even, I would guess, 90%+ of the more discerning kind of modellers found on this thread. Of course the Bachmann K3 has many other issues aside from its haulage capability which dictate that a kit is probably the way to go for this prototype - the SE Finecast kit is superb. Andy

Chris, Many thanks for your compliment, but I don't think you can compare my layout with PN or LB. Both are built to a finer scale than Gresley Jn and are much more complete. If and when I ever complete Gresley Jn. it will still be Peco code 100 and with relatively crude scenery. What I can say is that I try to run full length trains with prototypical formations with the correct motive power. In that respect, PN and LB have been my guiding lights. And it is nearly all my own work - with a little help from eBay! I hope you have enjoyed reading through the thread. Andy

Chris, Many thanks for your kind comments. I hope you enjoy the read/ watch. Andy

Fair question - I did say that A4s are the easiest! I think the answer is probably not, but it would still do a quite respectable job. I may have a play tomorrow if I find time. I do know that the motor in a Bachmann K3 is pretty strong because I have put a white metal body on the Bachmann chassis and it will haul my 45-50 wagon coal train as shown here.

Gordon, You don’t pay for a higher starting price anymore - they did away with that some years ago. A reserve price will cost you whether or not it sells, so as ‘Hayfield’ says, start with the lowest price you are prepared to accept. Alternatively, there is always a large market for new RTR stuff, so if you’re feeling risky you could start at £1 to draw people in. I think this generally works and results in a higher end price. However, it sometimes can fail miserably and leave you selling an item for less than you wanted. So if you’re risk averse start at the minimum you’re prepared to accept. Andy

Hi Tony, Thanks for showing your improved RTR Pacifics. They certainly look the part to me. I assume your Bachmann ‘Boswell’ is based on 60130? If so, I’m not surprised you’re not happy with the haulage. I have generally found the earlier Bachmann A1s to be inferior in haulage terms compared to the later offerings. The ones with the decoder socket in the tender are particularly strong (although I appreciate that will just annoy you - sorry!). My own 60130 and 60123 (based on 60158) are limited to 8-10 coaches. I have been experimenting today, just to make sure that I could back up my claims. I don’t have 14 all metal coaches spread over all my rakes, let alone in one. But I do have 10 metal sided coaches with white metal bogies in my Elizabethan. So I combined that with my Newcastle rake including the all metal Ex silver Jubilee triplet (which you sold me ex Gamston Bank). This made a pretty heavy 22 coach rake. I’ve stuffed my latest A4, 60007 - Sir Nigel himself, with as much lead as possible and tested it out on this rake. It could just about pull the rake out of the fiddle yard (with some wheels slip), but the coaches derailed on my curves, so I had to shorten it to provide a proper test. Here is a video showing Sir Nigel in action on 17 coaches including the 10 Elizabethan Thompsons, the metal triplet and four plastic coaches. I hope most would agree that that is a pretty respectable performance. I appreciate that such information is of little relevance to Little Bytham with your fantastic stud of kit built Pacifics, but I hope that it is reassuring to others who, like me, rely on RTR to bulk out our express steam fleets. A4s are probably the easiest because of the amount of space for lead within the body shell, but other Pacifics can achieve results which are almost as good. Regards Andy

Prices seem to be holding up to me based on what I’ve not won! I think that for every person who’s being careful with money, there’s another who’s bored at home and playing trains. Put a couple on tomorrow while the £1 offer is on and see how it goes. Andy

Good Afternoon Tony, I've no doubt that you need a heavy kit built loco to haul your heaviest rakes, although I would be surprised if a suitably weighted RTR pacific couldn't manage many of your mainly Mark 1 rakes. I thought that you were comparing unweighted RTR with your locos which I think is unfair, but if you weight the RTR first then I agree that's a fair comparison. My main point was really that modern RTR is remarkably good and will pull most prototypical length rakes which are thrown at them. I'm sure that you would admit that your rakes are at the extreme end of the weight spectrum! I would rather we celebrate the magnificent kit built locos which are shown on here for their beauty and the research, creativity, skill and enjoyment which has gone into making them rather than by trying to justify them by putting down the haulage capability of RTR. Just my honest opinion. Andy

I feel compelled to leap to the defence of modern RTR again with regard to haulage capability. In my experience the latest RTR steam locos pull very well and the large ones will easily handle 10-12 RTR coaches out of the box. With the addition of some lead they will generally pull more - easily up to 15+ plastic/ RTR coaches. Surely that is a prototypical load?! I admit that they struggle with a long train of kit built metal coaches but that is hardly a fair comparison. This is particularly true of the newer locos - for example latest Bachmann A1 (E.g. 60117) far out-pulls the earlier ones (e.g. 60158). It’s also true of the latest freight locos - my RTR O1, O2, Q6, WD 2-8-0 and 9F all pull my 50 wagon coal train. Admittedly there’s some wheel slip as they get going, but what’s unprototypical about that? Tony often compares RTR out of the box with his locos which have every available orifice stuffed with lead. That is hardly a fair comparison. If the RTR loco is similarly stuffed, I’m sure it would get closer to kit built locos’ performance. In summary, RTR pulls well enough but a (well built) kit will pull better. Andy

Tony, I hesitate to post this here as I don’t want to stoke the ‘DCC wars’ again! However, I have experienced exactly the problems that you mention so I thought I’d share my experience in case it’s useful for others. I believe that DCC is much less tolerant of poor pick ups than DC and this is what causes a lot of the problems like the one you mention above. I have several locos, both RTR and kit built, which work perfectly on DC and turn into stuttering wrecks on DCC. It’s more common with kit built locos but also applies to RTR. Four example, the Hornby J50 is one example of a RTR loco which works well on DC but horribly on DCC - I have three and all were the same. I cured this by fitting Stayalives, but I don’t understand why it should be necessary. With the stayalives, they run better on DCC than on DC. With kit built locos, I often have to fit tender pick ups or to get acceptable performance on DCC when loco only was OK on DC. I opt for tender pick ups first if practical and a stay alive if not (I’ve never needed both!). I have no idea why this should be. I suspect some decoders are better than others, but I’ve had problems even with non budget decoders. It is certainly a frustration of DCC - but not sufficient to make me change back! I like my sound too much, and when it works it is silky smooth. ATB Andy

I am indeed building a 52F models kit of an A5/1. He also does an A5/2. It’s a beautifully designed kit and it seems far better than either of the old discontinued offerings (from Nucast and Craftsman). There was a discussion about the merits of the different kits in my Gresley Jn thread a few weeks ago starting here: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/149386-gresley-junction/&do=findComment&comment=3885053 I’m building it as my ‘lockdown’ project and it’s making good progress. I hope to be able to post something tangible in the next week. I would caution that the kit is not for beginners. It’s very detailed and fits together very well, but it’s very fiddly and therefore time consuming. I must have spent about 20-30 hours so far and I’ve got some way to go! I would definitely say that a white metal kits goes together more easily and certainly much faster. Andy

Having run the up pick up good last week, today it’s time for the down pick up. Here we see it arriving across the rack of slips and running through the loop line between platforms 4 & 5. I originally tried filming the whole shunting operation with assistance from my daughter as ‘videomeister’, but it lasted 15 minutes which I thought would be testing everyone’s patience (including mine!), so I have included a few highlights instead. The NB type 1 reversed into platform 6 and then shunted the first five wagons into a siding which will be picked up later for the Dunstable branch goods train. We now see it propelling the rest of the wagons across the other rack of slips back to the down side where the back three will be dropped in a factory. Having dropped the vans, we now see it drawing three empty open wagons out of the factory siding into platform 1 where it reverses. And finally, having run round the remaining wagons, here it is leaving Gresley Junction across the northern rack of slips. For those who prefer still images, here is the NB Type 1 leaving Gresley Jn and joining the down line. I have to admit that I’m using educated guesswork to compose this sequence and I don’t know whether it’s representative of what would have happened. For example, have I broken any operating rules and would the Dunstable branch pick up have been dropped off the main line train,or would it have run separately from, say, Ferme Park. Any comments very welcome. Andy

Love the stock Gilbert - what a wonderful rake.

Tony, Can I ask you a question about which solder to buy? With all my lockdown modelling, I’ve nearly run out of mid temperature solder for brass kits. Rather than buying the normal small packs for £5 or so which don’t last long, I thought I’d buy a big 500gm reel like the one you have. However, I’m not sure which temperature to buy for general purpose brass kit construction. You seem to be able to buy 145C, 179C and 188C solder. I believe 145C is for adding small detail once the main pieces have been soldered together with higher temperature solder. Is that correct? If so, should I go for 179C or 188C? Thanks Andy

I do like the ‘high up’ views Gilbert. They show the layout off well and allow a good view of all/ much of the train. It must make the ‘shopping’ easier too. Andy Andy

Thanks for your honest appraisal - that’s what I was looking for. I certainly agree that the coupling hooks are too small and, on reflection, I can see that the instanter is too big. However, I think the 3 links, at least, are a big improvement on tension locks, so I will go for another batch of them on the basis that I’m never going to fit proposer 3 links to all my mineral wagons. Andy

The next coach through Coulsdon Works is a D.700 Mark 1 Kitchen Car. These were built in 1951 as part of the ‘Festival of Britain’ sets and formed the middle of a three coach catering core. The sides are Comet while the rest of the body shell is Southern Pride with Comet detailing packs for the roof and underframe. Not long to go now and then I’ll be able to put my 1951 ‘Heart of Midlothian’ rake together although I still have to swap my Maroon Bachmann RFO with a friends Crimson / Cream one which can’t happen until after lockdown. Andy

I noticed those when I was looking to put in my new order. I’d be interested in which size you went for and how you got on with them. I’d normally just go for the shortest length (i.e. smallest gap between coaches) on the basis that I have 3 foot min radius curves and that’s about as generous as it gets in ‘OO’. But the min gives 16mm between NEM pockets and I measured the gap between mine at the moment and it’s 19-20mm. I think 16mm would be too tight with the corridor connectors I use. So I was going to try 19 or 20mm. Andy

I hope nobody minds if I change the subject back to one of this thread’s favourites....couplings. I’ve been experimenting with 3 link and instanter couplings from James’ Trains and I think they’re excellent. They give 90% of the visual impact of real 3 links, but are much easier/ quicker to fit, cheaper and most importantly, do not create shunting problems. They simply clip into the NEM pocket on modern RTR stock. Such a pocket can also be retrofitted to older stock or kit built wagons. Here are some pictures of them in use on my stock. Firstly we have the instanter type. Then the 3 link type, these have a ‘dog leg’ in them to raise the coupling from the NEM pocket to the height of the drawbar and have an, almost invisible, representation of a coupling hook at drawbar level. However they need the original coupling hook to be removed. Here is a picture of what you get. Top is a straight instanter without the ‘dog leg’ and coupling hook. Then a 3 link and an instanter with the ‘dog leg’. The 3 links are available rigid (for shunting) or loose for trains which only need to go forward - e.g. a long mineral train. I’d be interested in others views on them. In particular, I’m about to put in a bulk order to fit my long empty mineral rake and I’m dithering on whether to go with the ‘dog leg’ or not. I’m tempted to go with the straight coupling (as on the instanter fruit vans above) as it’s stronger (I have had some breakages with the dog leg) and easier to fit (no need to remove the existing coupling hook). What do people think of the visual impact of the two couplings above? The couplings are described here if anyone is interested (no connection etc.......) https://jamestrainparts.com/shop/couplings/oo-gauge-fixed-link-wagon-couplings/ Andy

Tony, Love the shots of the steel panelled twins. I think the train heading for Spalding will be an East Lincs stopping service. They were used extensively in these. I’m a bit surprised to see the Mk1 CK though. When the purpose built CKs were replaced, I thought that they mainly used Thompson CKs with the twins on the East Lincs with Mk1s being used between Peterborough and King’s Cross. I think the artic twin you wanted identified is a D.214 as built for services out of Marylebone in the late ‘30s. Where is the photo taken? Andy

Another train which didn’t feature during my sequence is the humble pick up goods. The more observant amongst you will have seen a motley line of wagons sitting in a siding with a J15 on the front. Well it’s been there for about two years as it was too much hassle to shunt with the old goods yard and having to reverse out to depart. But with the new track layout it becomes more practical, so here is J15, 65479 on the up pick up goods arriving in the new loop line at Gresley Jn. The old goods yard had horrible old Peco points with the large frogs which made shunting unreliable. However, I found enough new electrofrog points for the relaying so it runs much better. I am also experimenting with Kadees for my pick up which seem to work quite well although I sometimes struggle to get them to couple up without running the next wagon over the magnet and that uncoupling. The solution seems to be to use permanent couplings between groups of two or three wagons so that there’s no chance of uncoupling. I’ve used some Bachmann pipes couplings and lots of the excellent ’James Trains’ 3D printed instanter and 3 link couplings, but I’ve now run out so need to order some more. I’ve prepared 3 short videos today showing the shunting operation. If shunting isn’t your thing then I recommend giving them a miss! The first move is to leave the back of the train on the up slow. These are the wagons that are not being shunted at Gresley Jn. I’m not sure whether it would be acceptable to leave the wagons on the slow line within station limits - comments welcome. The first video shows the three empty coal wagons being collected. The vans are coupled with James Trains instanter couplings to avoid them uncoupling on the Kadee magnet. The second shows the vans being deposited in the goods shed (off screen) and the loaded mineral wagons by the coal staithes. The minerals are Kadees throughout and it took a couple of takes to avoid them uncoupling when dropping off the vans - more work needed! The two open wagons next to the minerals have Bachmann Pipes connectors to avoid unintentional uncoupling. The third video shows the front of the train being reattached to the rear which was left on the up slow and then departing via the new loop line. Looking at the video, I need to control my speed in shunting - sorry! The train will leave via the new third tunnel and there is assumed to be a connection back onto the up slow beyond the tunnel. Any comments welcome - particularly on experience with Kadees. Andy

Clive, I agree that a D.210 and, to a slightly lessor extent, a D.214 would be suitable for Sheffield Exchange. You might have to use rule 1 for the D.244 though! As you say, coach research and building is very interesting and I think I prefer it to locos. Not many people have A D.210/ D.214/ D.244 but locos are pretty common - even ones only available in kit form. It’s certainly more difficult as photos are much rarer and less likely to be identified in the caption and literature is less prolific. We are lucky to have the likes of Robert Carroll, Steve Banks and ‘Headstock’ (amongst many others) with their fantastic knowledge and collections of photos. I also like the fact that once the kit and info is available, a coach is much quicker to build than a loco and I know that I can get it running smoothly. I struggle for ages to get kit built locos running to an acceptable level. I’m currently building the 52F A5 kit. I think Ive put in 12 hours so far and it’s slowly coming together, but there’s lots more to do. A coach (or two) would be finished in that time. Andy

Hi Clive, Do you mean the origins of the model? If so I wrote it up on Coulsdon Works starting here: It stretched over several months, but the sides are Mousa and the rest mainly MJT and 247. I now have a MasterClass Models complete kit to build following a recommendation from ‘Headstock’ of this Parish. As for the prototypes, I think D.210 was similar to D.214, but the latter was GC only whereas the D.210 was used on both GN and GC. Both built in late ‘30s. I don’t know anything about the D.244. Andy

The truth is I just love tinkering. I enjoy track laying much more than scenery so I think I make the changes almost sub-consciously to delay having to start the scenery. I managed to do a fair bit when my daughter was interested, but she’s now more interested in painting her face than the layout!

I look forward to the day I can put it behind me! Your finished control panel is inspiring.....until you showed us the inside when it became very scary