Chamby

Has anyone with a Hattons pre-order for Bachmann's new releases made enquiries over the 'phone yet? It would help others to know the official response being given by their customer facing staff. During last year's stock control issues at Hattons, I developed a respect for the frontline staff who were always honest with me... even though they were not perhaps able to share all the dirty washing in public.

You got me there Clive, it's on my 'round tuit' list. Steve's solution above looks good. I don't like what Hornby have done with the L1 and P2 pony trucks. Not only does it look silly, but they are prone to shorting out PECO unifrog points by not running true. But I have found that in the meantime, if you run the locomotive bunker first, the pony truck crabs much less and the problems disappear. Something to do with the pivot point changing over when the pony is pulled rather than pushed round a curve. Phil.

Is that the bizarre front pony truck that has two pivots and 'crabs' round corners? Sounds like a good opportunity to re-engineer it, Clive!

There’s a common view among DCC sound users that it Better suits diesel and electric locomotives, partly because the sounds are less complex, but also because speakers are usually easier to install in the body... the right location. With steam, both the sounds and the install is more complex. Tender speaker installs are fine for an exhibition environment, or if you are at a normal operating distance from the loco on a medium or large layout. It starts to sound wrong closer up, which is when a two speaker install works better. It is the higher frequency sounds that are more directionally sensitive, which is why a home cinema installation uses ‘tweeters’ for the surround sound and a single ‘sub-woofer’ for the deeper, low frequency tones. A small, high frequency speaker near the cylinders and a larger, lower frequency speaker in the tender deceives the ears in a similar way. Yes, many of the earlier steam sound programmes do sound synthetic to the attuned ear. Some of the more recent ones however are becoming very good indeed, when paired with a good speaker install. When done well, DCC sound can be enthralling. But it’s just like any other aspect of the hobby... there are a lot of turkeys out there!

It was on the news here in the UK that Bunnings sold off its UK chain for just £1 this summer. It was described st the time as “the most disastrous retail acquisition in the UK ever”. They completely misunderstood the UK market and found out the hard way that they couldn’t just plonk their Ozzie product mix over here. Ikea should do home deliveries... at least they do in the UK!

Manufacturers now place the decoder sockets in the tenders, where available, for a number of reasons. Because most models are supplied “DCC Ready”, they are normally sold for DC use but with a pre-wired socket provided for a chip to be plugged in, should the user desire. The socket, plug and chip all take up space, and with the advent of sound chips... well, speakers just add to the problem (generally, the bigger the speaker, the better the sound, so users like a decent space for them, which the tender offers). Locating the chip in the tender also means that weights can still be used in the locomotive body, and not least from the manufacturers perspective it means that Joe public only needs to fiddle about with the tender innards where they can do less damage than inside the boiler! For a simple install, this methodology generally works well. I can understand how the additional wires between tender and locomotive are undesirable (unnecessary, even) for some users, particularly with Analogue control, but it’s a compromise that works for most people. Difficulties start for DCC users when they wish to use some of the additional functionality of the chip, for example working lights, or smokebox flicker effects. These all require additional wires from the chip to the locomotive body, but for some reason the manufacturers only provide four wires, two for the pickups, and two for motor control. With a more advanced install then, either more wires are needed from the tender to the loco (as has been done by Rapido with the Stirling Single) OR the chip needs to be relocated in the locomotive. In order to fit everything into the locomotive, it is best to simply ‘hardwire’ the chip and dispense with a bulky plug and socket arrangement. My optimum install therefore has a sound chip in the locomotive body, wired to lamps and smokebox glow (orange LED) and a small sugar-cube speaker in the smokebox to provide cylinder hiss noises from the right end of the loco. The chip is directly wired into the motor and pick-ups of course. The four available wires to the tender are used to link the chip to tender pick-ups and a larger speaker for the more bass sounds which are less directionally critical. One development I think we will see, now that smaller 21~ and 18~pin chips are available that don’t need connecting wires from the chip to a plug, will mean that you will be able to clip in a chip without having to dismantle anything... just lift up the coalload, or open the smokebox door, and pop in a chip. Job done! Phil

Yes. Pre-assembled components are never the cheapest option, but they are more convenient which is why there’s a market for them. Phil.

I have used something very similar from DCC concepts, code DCF-WP12, a pack of 12 wiper pick-ups. (edit: sufficient for 12 axles, both wheels). Available from Hattons and others. I haven't used them for tender pick-ups but they work fine on a brake van, I use them to run a red rear light. They work very well, once you adjust the tension of the wipers so that they maintain contact but still allow the wheels to turn. Phil

Re: banking, my former model railway club had an oval test track with one end higher than the other. Inevitably, some locomotives hauling heavier trains would slip on the gradient, slowing down before coming to a halt. We found that by also running a tank engine with a higher gear ratio on the same circuit, a banking operation would automatically occur. With its front coupling removed, the tank engine would run up behind the stalled train and give it a shove up the incline. Once over the top, the higher geared train would pull away and happily run round the circuit until it next encountered the incline. In the meantime, the tank engine trundled happily on by itself, until it caught up with the stalled train again... Not exactly prototypical running, but entertaining nonetheless. Phil.

. On the contrary, you’re making us feel very superior. Seriously though, some nice stuff being posted all round... much appreciated. Phil.

Good greif! What a fugly looking thing... how on earth can you compare that to a Deltic in full flight? It might perform, but a beauty it most definitely is not. Phil

Do we need to draw a distinction here between ‘original’ work and that which is commercially available? Take, for example, two people building the same commercially available kit. Both complete it to the same high standard, displaying similar modelling skills and ability. But one of the builders also had an input into the kits design. Does that make his construction of the kit merit greater recognition than the person who has only built the kit? In my view, it merits a separate recognition, apart from the kit building skills which are equal. Interestingly though, it tends to be the kit manufacturer that is usually referenced rather than the person who designed it, I guess that is the convention that goes with modelling associated with commercial activity. Phil.

Very prototypical, Tony! Major engineering works taking place during the Christmas holidays... just make sure that the works don’t over-run and services can resume on 2nd January... and don’t forget to model the replacement bus service.

. You have answered your own question there, I suggest. It is the modelling input that is being assessed, irrespective of the ownership. But yes, it doesn’t feel right when it is the owner rather than the modeller(s) who takes the credit. That is why your own policy of crediting key contributors is so important. Credit where credit is due. But, once contributors are acknowledged, Is it any different to a ‘best film’ award at the oscars, or the winner’s trophy at a Grand Prix, where one person receives the award on behalf of the team? Phil

What we DO know: Hattons have not yet got the latest releases of Bachmann stuff. (Eg: Freightliner container flats). Other suppliers have received this stuff, including Rails and Kernow (who like Hattons also commission other stuff from elsewhere). It seems to have initiated around the time that Hattons started dealing with other retailers, but also around the time of their sudden ‘sale of the century’ following a period of less competitive pricing than we had been used to. So there are a number of possible triggers for the situation. .... We are advised that the two parties are in discussion, so the situation has been acknowledged and is ongoing. Clearly something in their working relationship has reached a crunch point, and Hattons customers are being affected by this, so there will be growing awareness and inevitably speculation in the public domain. I would imagine that both parties will be keen to resolve this ASAP. However, given the current hiatus in Bachmann’s manufacturing output, perhaps this is a good time for both parties to confront any issues, with much less impact on customers than would otherwise have been the case if manufacturing output was running at normal levels. As Andy says, we’ll just have to wait for this thing (whatever it may be) to run its course.

Might I suggest that all of us on here are doing the same thing, but to a greater or lesser extent. Has anyone built a layout and all its locomotives and stock by themselves, completely from scratch? Tony makes reference to “acceptable bought in parts such as wheels, motor, turned brass and etchings etc...” and openly acknowledges the work of other people to compile LB. What we all do, to a greater or lesser extent, is bring together pre-prepared, usually purchased or traded components and add to this with our own modifications or original work to produce a composite result: part component, part original work. You only need to draw up a list of the manufacturers names of the components you use to see how much is pre-prepared for us. From Canon to Romford to DJH to HMRS to Hornby... these are all someone else’s work that you are compositing. Of course there is a huge difference between someone building and fettling a kit, compared to simply sticking a crew, lamps and coal on a RTR model, but they are opposite ends of what is a very broad but importantly the same spectrum. We will all have different views about where on this spectrum, a line is drawn about what constitutes ‘proper’ modelling or not. Often this will change over time as ones modelling expertise develops, and judgement becomes more critical as a result. So it is unfair to talk in terms of black and white about what is ‘proper’ or not. We’re all modelling in the same way, just to different degrees. Phil.

And that is exactly the point. At the time the GC was run down, car ownership was still mostly a middle class phenomenon and the railway network was still a necessity for the wider populous. The LM line was retained precisely because it served more communities. The irony is that the future need was for fast, unfettered running between major centres, for which the GC would have been much better suited. Yes, misguided loyalties probably influenced the decision making as well, but they weren’t the first people to misread the future! Phil. Phil.

Mike, what a wonderful post, and not just for the workmanship. Not only are you going to re-ignite the recent debate about superlatives, but adding the lining will be like igniting a blue touch paper elsewhere on the forum! You’re a braver man than me, in several respects! Phil

I was sorting through some boxes of old stuff this weekend, and came across my first ever kit-build project, I must have been about nineteen when I built it. I wanted something small and easy to build without specialised equipment, and painted it in Great Central green with a great big GC crest on the side. Nothing like the real Y8's ever wore, but it pleased me at the time. It ran backwards because I wired the polarity the wrong way round, but it worked, pulled wagons and gave me a real sense of achievement. I have posed it next to my current project, one of the GC A3's from 1949, because I find the contrast fascinating. This is a Hornby model, (Sorry, Tony) in the process of modification to become a reasonably accurate representation of 60049 Galtee More as in her Leicester days. Although this model is a straightforward modification of R3518 Gay Crusader I have four in total going through the works at the moment, including 111 Enterprise; 60054 Prince of Wales and 60061 Pretty Polly. Blue liveried versions of Sir Frederick Banbury and Prince Palatine will follow. All are subtly different to accurately portray the class member in 1949, including boiler dome shape, tender version, some require the donors to be modified by reducing the cab cut-out and converting to right hand drive. Still to do on Galtee More: Add coal, wiggly wires, weathering, crew and working lamps. I'm also still mulling over whether swopping the front bogie wheels to Markits ones is worthwhile. The reason for prattling on about this is that it highlights the contrast of my modelling between then and now. In my late teens, I was very naive about details such as liveries, locations and detail accuracy in general, mostly I just made stuff as I liked. Fifty years on and I am much more concerned about accuracy, and research is at least as important as the modelling itself. Sure, my modelling is much more accurate as a result... but with that comes a much more critical eye. Rediscovering the little Y8 has reminded me that it is important to not lose sight of the simple joy of modelling, as I pursue ever increasing accuracy! Incidentally, the recent comments about background clutter remind me of why I painted the walls of my railway room sky-blue, it has made a big difference! Phil

There is no definitive view, Tony. You can exclude a model like Pendon from your top ten, because you have set parameters that others... well, they don't draw the same distinction. Unless we all agree a universal definition of layouts that fit the criteria, there will always be disparate views. Problems arise when you try to compare apples with pears, as the saying goes. Not a problem for me though... metaphorically speaking, my own layout is developing into more of a mango, but it works for me! Phil.

The judges on Saturday evening TV singing and dancing competitions certainly seem to have exhausted the entire contents of the OED’s superlatives, with excruciating repetitiveness of late and this seems to have transferred outside of that genre, unfortunately. The best example of superlative-itis has to be Donald Trump’s quote: “We are going to win bigly, believe me!” Epic! (Oops...)

Yes, thanks for those pictures, Tony, a Sunday morning treat indeed. What impresses me on some of the images is the openness... wide open space and a big sky, through which trains can run and be the centre of interest, without being squashed in by other scenic indulgences (as so often happens in miniature realms). Hmmm.....

No doubt this train runs with a 'Cathedral's Express' headboard... and only on Easter Sundays. I'm guessing hauled by a GWR 'Saint' or maybe Welbeck Abbey?

Exactly!

The word contemporaneous comes to mind... things happening around a similar period of time. Perhaps in the case of LB you are looking at a slightly broader period than “The summer of ‘58”, but certainly well within your living memory either side of that date. And why not? I faced similar temporal issues in defining my own layout’s timescale, perhaps we all do. I have settled on mid-1949 to embrace the broad variety of late grouping transitioning through early nationalisation liveries. This is my ‘core’ project which I want to keep as pure as possible, but because my wider interests embrace a rather longer timescale then I will also need to have more liberal interpretation at times. The other area I am agonising over is the station name. At least with LB you have been able to accurately model a specific location, that is undoubtedly LB. I have rather tighter space constraints that forces rather greater compromise on my chosen location of Leicester Central, impacting on some of the track layout and platform length. It won’t fit into the space I have available, but I intend to model as much as I can, as accurately as I can. I have seen many models carrying the name of a particular location, that bear no resemblance to the real location whatsoever... they are unrecognisable. So In my mind I have the question, how divorced from reality can a model be, before it no longer deserves to carry the prototype’s name and falls into the realm of fiction? I would be interested in people’s views on this... Phil.