Paul_sterling

Out of interest, how close is the bottom end of the Ivatt to the 2MT? I'm considering doing what I've done with my 3D print offerings and CAD'ing up the 2MT top to fit the Ivatt. Because the cost and time of the Hornby offering are creating a 'window' shall we say. Thanks Paul.

I'm inclined to agree. I bought an ivatt late last year, having sold a 46521 when the Hornby 2MT was announced, but I'm happy with the black ivatt, so much so, I've cancelled my pre-order. Prices do rise, that's inevitable, over 25%? A bit of a jump to say the least. Not wanting to start a debate, but for me, pre-ordering should be a price promise, I commit to buy (I'd willingly lose the back out) if you commit to honour the price. Paul.

I've found it's running to be amongst the quietest I've ever heard on a loco, ghost like in fact, like the rest of the model for that matter....

I do as well Steve. Having got some time back a class 25 on sound cheaply, it proved to be a lot of fun on dc, and this looks exquisite. So I might be contacting the guys to upgrade it. Paul

Pickups do seem to be an area of trouble, causing a range of symptoms, might worth looking there as it might be pulling them into the wheel spokes.

I was hoping my as built one would arrive today, as payment went out at the weekend, but nothing as yet, eagerly awaiting this one, as I have a bit of a thing for 0-6-0 tender locos haha. Paul

If I'd known it was likely to be now, I'd have held off on an order last week and combined those for postage, better for environment ha. P

I wonder if that's due to these being a ready committed purchase because of the £30 deposit? Either way a notification would have been nice for you. I've not heard anything either way, but it'll come when it comes.

Valid. However delays in the model rail industry are not new, delays in the automotive are. I recall a Nissan platform two years ago being delayed by six weeks internally, and that for Nissan, was a first, and the impact internally will have been massive. Land rover defender on the other hand... Erm....... PS.

No doubt you won't be alone in that thought D9001, sadly there will be others in the hobby and it's ageing demographic that miss out. I've said on a few discussions in respect of delays, if it was any other industry, most of the project leadership would get the boot for delivering a year or more late. I couldn't imagine the reaction if I had told Ford (In my previous job) that their new oil separator was going to be 2023 instead of planned summer 2021.

Chimney was detached on my BR one as well, and as per usual, bent/non contacting pickups all round. Dismal build quality thus far. Paul

I'm glad to see more and more people defending Thompson these days, a number of people have made great efforts to rebuild his reputation. However, no one was making disparaging remarks or hating on Thompson as far as I can see. It's the locos which were being debated. Paul

Certainly in terms of manpower, but they were desperate for working locomotives, and though I wholly agree they'd have been better applied to the southern end of the LNER, my suspicion is that the brute power and size of the components on these engines meant that they would still have had front end issues there too, as did A4's, A3's and most other Gresley conjugated motion locos. And Scotland would have still needed engines too, so without something to put in place, they needed the locos up there, and they needed them available more often. The rebuild 'looks' dramatic, but I don't belive it was too massive, were the frames replaced or modified? Thanks. Paul

I've been pondering the Thompson and Peppercorn engines lately, and I think that the Thompson locos provide more of an important stepping stone from Gresley to Pepp than is often considered. Re 2007, I believe a significant amount of work has gone into finite element analysis to refine the crank design, and avoid the issues of the originals. It won't have conjugated valve gear either, so in principle, the power /torque distribution should be even across the cylinders (within reason, expansion, wear and steam distribution are still variables). Paul.

Even if the rebuilt A2/2's weren't all that good, reputedly their availability was higher than the P2's, and crank axle failure wasn't one of their ailments anymore.

still eagerly waiting on this one. Oxford J27 finally arrived, so thats the oldest/longest waiting Pre order for me, the 2MT and W1 rebuilt is next.

Just checking on my Dj j94 and it has fore and aft slack, nothing up and down so the rods don't rattle like the 48xx did. But nevertheless has some compensation in the motion for the gears. Running without the rods I don't think will make a difference, as I think the cogging is entirely caused within the drive train motor and gearbox rather than the rods interfering. Running with the gearbox simplified and with rods however, I think will improve matters. Thanks. Paul

I know of similar trials Peter, only thing I'd suggest is replacing the coupling rods, as the originals have slack in them to work with the gearing lash, so taking out the gear train will likely expose the slogger in the rods.

I don't blame you. It's incredibly frustrating, especially when you've been hit multiple times by issues. My second J27 has as mentioned a bent drawbar, I've just straightened it, but it's a pain of a job, and to add to it, the tender pin screw thread in the boss is stripped. Unspectacular runner too. The J21 bodied Bachmann C-class is in a different league of smoothness.

Thanks Bernard. I'll take mine apart tonight to straighten the bar. To be honest it drives home my point I've made previous that the fastenings through the bar into each pin are far too inflexible and tight, its a lousy arrangement that's going to break for fun. Paul.

The replacement arrived from rails today, pin not broken, but drawbar was certainly bent, sufficiently that the front wheels would not sit on the track! this could snap a pin if bent any further, and the loco packing pressed down to lock in place. I'll straighten this one myself, I cannot be chewed with another return, not that a customer should have to put right poor components. Paul.

Unusually critical indeed. They may have missed the point though. The model is/could be costed down because it is cheap, it's priced near to railroad locos. The fall plate does make sense that it can cause an issue if widely spaced, a blob of blu tac will keep it up though if its going to spend its life on 2nd rad. The pickups though, that is just how I found them to be as well, a mangled mess. Paul

I was surprised looking under the loco how slim the motor / chassis pocket is, this makes me think they are considering J25 in the mix at some point, I certainly am to be fair. I hit a challenge with the J21/N9/N10 work that the LMS jinty couldn't be used for the J25 due to its wide motor, but the J27 looks like it might yield possibilities, I'll have to check when the replacement arrives. Paul

Potentially yes, though given its very spindly nature, I'm not ruling out it being snapped as it went in the box. Fully understand where you are coming from with persistent resonance damage, but admittedly, I would expect it to need some fairly low temperatures and high frequency in order to smash plastic, and the actual breakage tallies in more with an instantaneous shock load then failure due to resonance. I fed back to someone on Facebook who I believe is part of Oxford Rail, that the root of the spindle lacks a decent radius on it, which is only going to exasperate the vulnerability of such a design. For my part, I find manufacturers obsessions with having loco and tender permanently coupled baffling, it just invites vulnerability. Yes most tender locos now have wires bridging the gap, but there is often enough flex in that to have loco and tender separate when required as per Bachmann C class. The J27 joint is far too tight and rigid. Paul

Indeed. Though there wasn't a single mark or dent on the box. Now if that's the courier, they've got REAL talent.