Rising Standards

Not quite the answer you were looking for as it's not a direct plug decoder, but I put a tiny Zimo MX616R decoder in my H. The DP2X-UK was the only decoder I'd seen mentioned as being suitable too, but I wasn't keen to order one specially as from previous experience they suit some locos better than others (my Hornby 700 didn't run smoothly when fitted with the only one I've bought so far, whereas my King Arthur is perfectly happy with it). I've standardised on Zimo for all new decoders, and ideally wanted a solution that would allow the body to be easily re-fitted and removed without any hassle with tucking wires away. After a bit of measuring, I reasoned that the MX616R would sit neatly under the DCC socket, which it just about does, and the wires are the right length to coil up around the socket quite neatly. You do have to unscrew the socket from its mounting posts to fit the decoder there, and it's worth making sure that none of the wires going into the PCB are long enough to obstruct the decoder too. The description in the packaging also recommends that you don't use the decoder to run the loco on DC, and at £32 it was as much as I'd want to spend on a non-sound decoder. The performance is just what I'd hoped for though, and makes it all worthwhile.

Interesting stuff today from Hattons. I'm inclined to agree with the earlier comments about this approach likely being the only way to make coaches of this style that will achieve a worthwhile return on tooling costs. I also can't see much reason for kit companies offering a means of producing specific vehicles to those that want a completely accurate end result to lose sleep. Much as these did briefly make me consider whether I really do want to part with my SECR C, I decided a couple of years back that I'd focus on the first 10-15 years of nationalisation, so a rake of these won't be joining my fleet. However, if a full brake in BR crimson was offered that would certainly catch my interest as a potential milk brake, especially as I understand the times some milk trains ran at might justify working lighting.

Right by the roadside section of the SVR's car park. Here's a rough snip from a well known online map service.

My understanding from my very limited knowledge is that the weight did indeed have to be taken off the door by way of man and shovel before it could be dropped in relative safety for removing the bulk of the load. I forget the source, but I believe I saw this mentioned in an article that showed a (probably 7 plank) wagon with a dropped section taken out of the top plank over the doors, the reason for the notch's presence being claimed to be that a chap shovelling a load over a height greater than that of the notch was entitled to a higher wage.

Yes indeed. If the retailer it came from doesn't have any stock left, return it for refund and order elsewhere. As frustrating as it is to receive a defective model and have to return it, I now take the view that locos cost too much to accept unsatisfactory examples of them, and time spent investigating what's wrong with a new loco's mechanism can be better spent in other ways. More importantly, if model shops don't get duff ones sent back and grumble about it to the manufacturer's sales rep, there's no incentive for them to improve quality control for future releases and avoid us getting a repeat instance next time. Having now had my example of Westminster apart for DCC fitment, I can report that the socket and blanking plug are just taped together rather than wrapped in heatshrink - much more sensible, so I'll retract my earlier rant about that! A Zimo MX616N does indeed fit, and could probably go at the front of the chassis where Hornby intended a decoder to go, but I put insulation tape down the side of the motor and body (where the instructions show the plug and socket) and tucked it into there. Irrespective of control method, the loco runs nicely on the whole, although current collection is less reliable than I'd expected. I think cleaning the back of the wheels and pickups should do the trick as they're very greasy (in fact, the whole mechanism seems to have been very heavily lubricated; on removing the motor mount to apply the insulation tape, the worm was effectively sat in the middle of a box of grease that had presumably been thrown outwards during running in). I should then be even happier with it. I thought the proportions of it looked a bit odd from the rendered images at the time of announcement, but the finished article is a nice purposeful looking machine and an excellent companion to previous industrial releases like the W4 and Barclay.

If the socket was in the place indicated in the instructions, the Zimo alternative to the harness-type Hornby decoder would be the MX617F which I've deployed in the Terrier. That was what I was expecting to need when I find time to collect my Westminster. As it isn't, I imagine an MX616N would be most likely to fit within the space under the socket. While I'm frustrated at facing the higher cost of that (£30+ rather than £20), at least it'll save the hassle of trying to get a bundle of wires tucked away under the body. That said, whether the different socket location was Hornby's intention or not, having the socket and blanking plug heatshrink-wrapped together is clearly a special kind of daft. Of course, the ideal situation would be for Hornby not to assume that everyone using DCC will be happy using their own decoder, and instead put the socket in a place that gives a suitably sized void to accommodate a conventional direct plug 6 pin decoder. That would then enable straightforward fitment of the owner's preference of a myriad of ordinary 6 pin decoders like the MX617N in around 5 minutes, as the design of some other manufacturers' locos have permitted for a number of years now. This loco's chassis is clearly derived from that of the W4, and The Engine Shed said as much when it was announced, but there's no reason why this couldn't have been considered in the design process anyway.

A Zimo MX617F uses the same 6-pin on harness arrangement as the Hornby decoder, and likely offers better performance at a lower cost. Mine has one and trundles about very nicely indeed over pointwork. Fitting was a bit of a pain in that the decoder has to go over the socket and then have the wires shaped over the top to fit within the remaining boiler void space, but it does go in and I imagine the Hornby decoder would be no better in this regard either.

Blimey, you don't hang about! Sorry, I haven't really got any photos from the build process, but I'll try and get you a few from mine as it is now at the start of next week, including body mounting arrangements.

It's been a while since I did it, but if I remember rightly the back of the body on the Hall fits into a horizontal slot at the back of the chassis and the front screws in under the smokebox. I took the same approach, using the same slot at the back of the shortened chassis and building up strips of plastic to get the one that would sit in the slot at the right height. At the front I glued another piece of plastic underneath the smokebox and glued a small nut to the top of it, then passed a bolt up through the original screw hole to tighten into the nut. If the nut ever comes unstuck I'll have a problem! The connecting rods are from the Hall, but had to be thinned down at the back to allow the Grange crankpins to be fully tightened and let the wheels turn freely. I have a feeling the coupling rods are the Grange ones, as the crankpin arrangements for the Hall wheels are different.

Yep, the final drive gear on the Grange axle is the same as the Hall's. When removing the bearings it was necessary to slightly score the inside of the wheels where they meet the axle to create a line that could be matched back up afterwards, keeping the quartering correct. If I was mad enough to do another I'd perhaps try Large Prairie wheels, which should also be the right diameter and don't have bearings fitted.

Apologies, I should have clarified that the recipe is Manor body + Hall chassis/mechanism + Grange driving wheels. Post amended accordingly.

Posts pointing out that Manors are not mandatory for modelling most GWR routes make a reasonable point, but aren't really answering Neil's question. He would like a Manor, and can you blame him? If you can't bring yourself to carve up Hornby's excellent Grange as a chassis donor for a Mainline/Bachmann Manor body, but you can land on a cheap example of their decidedly lower quality Hall: Fitting Grange wheelsets with the brass bearings removed Cutting away the front of the chassis block Cutting a section out at the back to bring the tender drawbar screw under the cab Filing around the bogie to give it clearance on curves ...is the bulk of what's involved to get you the result in the attached images. If it sounds less than simple that's because it isn't, at least with my bodging abilities. I now have a 28XX tender in place of the one from the Hall which further improves the look. It could do with some better boiler fittings next, then a crash course for me in learning to paint, and finally the fictional identity Drayton Manor so that I still want to keep using it when the inevitable super detail Manor is announced.

I would be less confident of the NRM agreeing to that due to the statement in the plan that "Vehicles will not be returned to working order purely to meet the needs of external stakeholders." I wonder whether this might relate in some way to past situations like Pete Waterman funding the super D's overhaul? The bit I'm disappointed about is that there's no mention of 3-cylinder Stanier tank 2500 returning to steam, which I'm sure I once read was being considered for after Scotsman entered traffic. That would be an interesting machine to see in action.

I don't know whether it's one that left the factory right or your own modification, Aaron, but your photos of 32655 with the smokebox handrail at the right length reinforce my determination to shorten the overly long and non-symmetrical rail on mine, which otherwise seems to be a good example. Has anyone got any better ideas than a very small set of side cutters for doing this?

I'd all but forgotten the hassle that I went through getting a decoder into my 43106 until now. It has a Gaugemaster DCC22 stuck to the back of the smokebox door and the wires coiled up in the limited space available. No changes were needed to the weight or socket for this, but getting the body back on with so many wires to conceal and pipes to put back into place was not a 5 minute job to say the least. The Standard 4MT mogul has the same daft socket arrangement, and mine has the same decoder too, but is much better thought out with regards to where pipe runs attach. Low speed performance with the Gaugemaster (actually a rebranded Digitrax DZ126PS, or more likely DZ125PS at the time) is not quite what I'd ideally like compared to the Lenz and Zimo decoders I've standardised on since, but it's acceptable enough, and I'm not going through the hassle of replacing these particular locos' decoders unless I'm forced to by a failure! There's probably further improvement available if I can commit another couple of hours to deciphering the Digitrax manual again. I haven't tried it so can't say for definite, but if I was fitting them now, a quick comparison of dimensions suggests that the Zimo MX617R might be suitable.

The second photo on this page shows the style of lining carried by the Hornby model. I won't personally be particularly troubled by exactly when it carried this style, but it's nice to know it did at some stage while in early crest form. On seeing the photo you found and this one, the length of the smokebox handrail is a bit disappointing, but it is as per the render shown at the time of announcement. I'll see how much it bothers me when I actually get the model.

That's the loco's power classification in the system adopted by BR from the LMS (and prior to that the Midland Railway, I believe).

I had my BR set running on the club layout tonight, and was very pleased with them despite the disparity in detail with the crude old Hornby 61XX which spent the most time at the head of them; roll on the new version! The coaches are light and free running, so won't tax the mechanisms of smaller GWR types. The bow ends and brake end windows also give a nice distinctive look to the end of a train moving away from you compared to flatter ended vehicles. I don't think anyone's said about close coupling these yet. If so, those who are interested should note that Roco close couplings are too close, whereas the Hornby ones which are included do a perfectly adequate job of getting coaches together. You may be able to get them practically buffer to buffer with a mix of Roco and Hornby couplings, but then you might run the risk of derailments depending on your curve radii.

It depends what you define as sensible, but it's getting a 6-pin socket and that'll do nicely for me.

I'm not sure about consoles, but in a world where kids now learn to operate touchscreen phones and tablets from a very young age, it's occurred to me that this could be a route to making model railways more relevant to a younger generation. The issue to my mind is that there isn't a solution in the UK market that's suitable for mass adoption: I've been using JMRI on an old PC and the Engine Driver Android app over the last 6 months, and have found it to be brilliant for what I want it to do. Install free software on some old kit, connect up your DCC system and away you go adding locos to your roster so that they appear on your devices. That's the theory, anyway. The learning curve is pretty steep, it's too complicated in both functionality and equipment required for a lot of users (I've barely scratched the surface of what its capabilities are), and with no manufacturer to promote it there's always going to be a limit to how widely used it can become. RailMaster can, I understand, allow control by mobile devices, but I don't recall seeing Hornby push this as a selling point. Also, additional licences have to be purchased to allow this, which is hardly an incentive to adopt it, and it still requires a PC for the software to run on. I don't have any experience of the Roco/Fleischmann Z21 system, but while that seems to be designed to be a full fat model railway control system like JRMI, having the wireless router built into the unit is an excellent idea. With the issues Hornby has at present this may not be a realistic idea for quite some time, but it seems to me that what's needed is a unit that does for model railways what the Scalextric App Race Control system does for slot cars. I'm imagining a starter unit that just handles wireless connections to phones and tablets and a DCC track supply and has a free accompanying app, giving straightforward control functionality along the lines of what you'd get from using the Gaugemaster DCC05 Prodigy WiFi unit with a Prodigy Advance 2 system and Engine Driver app. If you then want extra functionality, you connect a PC to the starter unit and use a modernised version of RailMaster. Developed and marketed properly with the UK's most well known model railway manufacturer's name on it, it might just have the clout needed to make this kind of system a mass market offering.

My bugbear with steam sound is still that on most projects the lower speed chuffs sound very obviously like the same four clips repeated, and that on virtually all of them a loco at speed tries to play distinct chuffs rather than the chatter of the real thing. The Locoman projects are the only ones I've found to be satisfactory so far, though others could be as good if the top end issue could be sorted out.

Recently I've been trying to find out whether a Lowmac of this type would ever have been used to carry a Ruston Bucyrus face shovel of the type produced by Corgi, which I believe is an RB-19. Most mention of this type of machine being transported that I've found online relates to departmental Loriots, but as my particular shovel is in the plain RB green I'd assume it could belong to any customer of the railway wanting to have it moved, and would therefore be loaded onto a revenue earning wagon. I appreciate that a Loriot/Flatrol might well have been preferred on this sort of duty due to the ease of loading/unloading using a pile of sleepers at the side of the wagon, but was the extra depth of these also required to keep the shovel within the loading gauge? The combination of Lowmac and shovel certainly seems tall compared to other wagons!

Yes, I imagine you'll have to be pretty creative as I don't recall much RTR motive power in the photos I've seen from the time period you're after. LNWR afficionados would probably consider me a heretic, as personally I think the last of the LNWR classes looked the best they ever did in BR days with a second handle on the smokebox door instead of a wheel. That and the local connection has resulted in me picking up both of Bachmann's excellent LNWR efforts so far in that form. If in a sudden change of heart you decide that both wall and tenant have to go and you'd like a play with Craven Arms, give me a shout; Craven Arms and District Model Railway Circle have 25-30 or so feet (I forget!) of under refurbishment but operational Craven Arms which I'm sure we could arrange for you to see if you're over this way some time.

Living only a few minutes from the location being discussed, this makes for interesting reading. It had crossed my mind that a fictional N&W station influenced by Marsh Brook (the space seems strange!) like you're planning would make a nice 'railway in the landscape' layout, and that putting said station at Marsh Farm Junction would add interest with traffic to and from Much Wenlock joining or leaving the main line. If such a station had existed, perhaps Marsh Brook never would have. I've put this idea on the backburner for now as I could do with a location more suited to my joint WR/SR focused fleet, but I do hope to return to it one day.

Mine has a Zimo MX622N, partly because at £20 or so these are well priced for their performance, and partly because it can be set to what effectively amounts to a coreless motor mode. Dave Jones recommends turning back EMF off completely with coreless motors, but I can't say my attempts at this with the Zimo or previous Digitrax DZ126 have been satisfactory. It sounds like I've been extremely fortunate to get what seems to be generally a good, reliable performer, to the extent that one of my friends astounded me at an exhibition by shunting with it and not having any pickup issues. I wish I could say the same about my Austerity!