Right Away

Yes, another vote for the Hornby 700 class. It is doubtful whether such "non Railroad" locos such as these will be available at those sort of prices in the future.

Agreed, pre-ordering is becoming even more essential if disappointment is to be avoided. The dilemma is whether to do so until any potential uncertainties in quality have been addressed. Product reviews, both in magazines and online can be extremely useful to a would-be purchaser of a brand new model, which has never before been released in any guise, especially those containing traction power. It is only natural that personal opinions may vary and can be prejudicial but any glaring defect will soon become apparent by the number of negative reports of such. But! the shelves may be almost empty by the time any reviews become available. Given the limitations of production runs, it is even more essential that problematic issues, whether of an aesthetic nature or running quality be "ironed out" before they reach our shores, so that pre-ordering can be done with confidence.

Not had a problem (yet) with a Next 18, but a 21 pin decoder caused me grief by repeatedly working loose in the socket. Got fed up with having to gain access and re-seat the 21 pin decoder, so I hard wired an 8 wire (without pins) decoder. Just glad it wasn't on an EMU/DMU; all that repeated body removal and it could well have been confined to the scrap bin. Whilst on the subject of fitting decoders in multiple units, B and H might do well to devise an easily removable part of the underframe, held by screws which would give good access to the wiring and socket. Such a removable "panel" would by necessity have to incorporate some underbody mouldings. No more "baited breath" syndrome working on your £400+ brand new 4CEP whilst waiting for the body lugs to shear off or the glazing to craze over!

These types of books are ageless - unlike me! I have lost count of the number of times that I have re-read the ones which I have; almost as if my old Dad was recounting his career on the footplate over again.

I have read that the British Transport Commission in 1959 announced that passenger carrying railway vehicles over 30 years old should be withdrawn from service in the interests of safety; crash worthiness and fire risk in electrified areas being the main concerns. Considering many coaches and multiple units ran well past 30 years, does anyone know when this directive actually came into being and with what regard to certain vehicles eg wooden bodied etc? Thanks

There is a Peter Handford (ex Argo Transacord) "Southern Steam" audio recording from 1958 of No 30317 piloting a West Country out of St Davids up to Central. The train was assisted in the rear by one of the E1/R bankers. There is no mention of the origin of the train - Okehampton or Barnstaple lines. The 700 may well have been attached for pathing convenience rather than work LE back to 72A. The WC sounded in fine fettle and the 1 in 37 gradient would have posed little problem for even one of these notoriously "slippery" engines, given the load and a good shove in the rear by No 32124.

The figure refers to the inside diameter of the cylinder; the piston being 3/4" less to accommodate the rolling ring. The area available is approximately that bounded by the cross-sectional centre line of the rolling ring.

A large wheel flange profile on some older models can cause momentary "shorting" as they traverse modern pointwork, giving the effect of a bad contact. The rail joints, though small, could be closed up a tad; a very slight imbalance to the loco can cause a diametrically opposite wheel to the one passing over the gap (which momentarily drops) to lift and lose contact.

Yes, the memorable sounds of clanging buffers in the yards. Noisy? Maybe, but the (to me) melodious ringing was wonderful. In the evenings, together with the intermittent chuffs of the shunter (not the bloke with the pole!), it had an almost soporific effect on a youngster as the shades lengthened. Very nostalgic sounds. Once heard, never to be forgotten. Almost akin to the relaxing, lazy "buzz" of hand pushed cylinder lawn mowers on a Sunday afternoon. Oops, sorry, going WAY off topic.

The 4 LAVs, apart from 2954 and 2955 had Metropolitan Vickers cab mounted equipment (power resistances contactors etc). Much heat emanated in these cabs and I would think these roof appendages were ventilators for cooling. Later SR muliple units had (English Electric) underframe mounted equipment with the noticeable large resistance grids clearly visible beneath the motor coaches. The first ten 2 BIL units also had cab mounted equipment but if I am not mistaken, only had two of these ventilators. The cable from the power jumper connection block (not the receptacle) on units with cab mounted equipment runs upwards past the RH cab window to the roof, whereas on units with underframe mounted equipment, it runs downwards from the jumper connection block. In both cases it feeds the Power (positive) Junction Box via the jumper line fuse. fromthe power

Indeed. Motormen brought up on the Westinghouse brake were well aware of the time it took for the triple valves to operate on lengthy formations to avert situations such as which occurred. Instructions stated "to ensure that the triple valves will subsequently release the brakes, particularly on the rear coaches, do not make any brake application of less than 15psi of train pipe pressure on trains of 8 or more cars. They were also advised not to release any brake application when nearing a dead end (buffers) as there may be insufficient time for the triple valves to reverse to allow a re-application. It was better to stop short of the mark and then pull forward when safe. This all tends to show the degree of skill demanded by that brake. After the last 4 Subs were withdrawn, new drivers were expected to demonstrate their ability to still use the Westinghouse brake (later referred to as "Auto brake") by switching off the EP brake on EP stock, indeed the running brake test was carried using the "Westinghouse position". Regarding the incident mentioned, it is not certain whether the coupling parted between units or within a unit. Perhaps the coupling, subjected to snatching in the past, had been weakened.

May I jump in here with another poser that probably wouldn't have made it into the records? Sometime towards the late '60s a 12 car EMU of "Nelson" stock was working an either Victoria or London Bridge to Littlehampton evening "rush hour" service when, after slowing at Preston Park for the permanent speed restriction to take the Cliftonville Spur towards Hove, the train became divided. Severing of the brake pipes brought both portions to a stand and AFAIK there were no serious injuries. It was assumed in some quarters, but never confirmed, the detachment was the result of the motorman, who was rather more used to driving EP stock in the London suburban area, unfortunately putting his driver's brake valve to the release/running position before allowing sufficient time for the brakes on the entire train to apply before doing so. If this were the case, the delay in the operation of the triple valves of the Westinghouse brake towards the rear of the twelve car formation would have resulted in the brakes on the leading coaches releasing whilst those towards the rear still being applied. The local newspaper, the Evening Argus. published a report on the incident at the time with comments posing questions about the actual age of the train (no pun), which in turn was responded to by readers. Online newspaper archives do not go back as far as the incident. I've checked on the "Blood & Custard" website but the incident doesn't appear there. Would records of these minor incidents be available elsewhere?

More servicing rather than a full blown diesel depot, but check out this site: http://thebrightonmotivepowerdepots.yolasite.com

Thanks 34C. I took down all the rods (which were not binding after all) and removed the drivers for inspection. The slots in which the driving axles sit look fine and the axles and wheels themselves appear OK when rolled - no perceptible wobble. On reassembly, the issue still remains. Next course of action looks to be replacing the wheelsets to rule out any possible minor imperfections in wheel alignment (when I get round to it). Memo to self: Should have returned loco immediately after purchase and within warrantee instead of hoping that future running would eventually smooth things out!

I don't have Decoder Pro, so I probably have no place commenting on this post - indeed I may be talking "out of my hat" and for this I apologise. However, I do appreciate the need for users to be able to see the particular CV which is being addressed without having to "hover" when using these programs. The inability to do so does sound somewhat limiting if/when cross-referencing with other documentation and perhaps seeking assistance from others who are knowledgeable but might only be able to advise on a "CV only" basis. Maybe in the not too distant future all DCC programming will be implemented without reference or knowledge of CVs and their attributes, which would be extremely user friendly for everyone. For the time being I must remain a Luddite and soldier on with my trusty old Lenz system, interspersed with the odd bit of binary.

A "loophole" that needs fixing! It is most disturbing to read of what appears to be the neglect of carrying out, what for well over 100 years, has, and still is one of the most crucial duties in railway operating practice. The industry has had to learn from numerous incidents throughout its history. From the minor to the calamitous, these "lessons" have been key to the introduction of even more safety devices and working practices. In turn, these have been partially or fully automated to alleviate the element of human error. With the degree of on-train monitoring and modern technology available, is it plausible that a means of ensuring a static brake test is implemented, confirmed and recorded might soon be developed? This might also encapsulate a continuous monitoring of the brake integrity throughout the journey.

My compressor will run whenever the airbrush is operated but I can confirm there is no pulsing whatsoever. Following a positive mention in a magazine in 2015 and not wanting to spend a fortune, I purchased it. For the price, I was not expecting a great deal but was pleasantly surprised. I use a 3 metre hose for convenience.

One of these continues to perform flawlessly with my Eclipse CS. I believe it was marketed as an Airco model. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mini-airbrush-compressor-Fengda-AS-18-2/dp/B019CKY4UU/ref=asc_df_B019CKY4UU/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310493449173&hvpos=1o3&hvnetw=g&hvrand=13387272505079960112&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=t&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006565&hvtargid=pla-432282852884&psc=1

Extruded (often blue coloured) polystyrene. It's not at all "squishy", can be layered and easily carved. It accepts filler for "rounding off" any prominent edges.

Agreed, the current large radius Peco point work can be somewhat limiting in some instances. Larger radius RTL turnouts could transform the appearance of many model railways. New projects, especially those with the benefit of space, eg clubs, could take full advantage of even more, prototypical formations. Bogie stock, gliding across from one track to another would look stunning. Space, especially in 4mm scale is the issue when considering higher speed geometry with lengthy transition curves added in; a double junction could well require 4 feet or so for the turnouts alone. This is where N gauge could take advantage of even larger radii and modellers in that scale might well convince Peco (or others) that there is a market for this enhanced trackwork, maybe even a switched diamond thrown in! Many modellers have spent countless hours (not to mention money) on their hobby and to start over would not be an option. To replace what is the fundamental element of any railway, the permanent way, with new geometry might not be so appealing, particularly when it impacts on the scenic aspect and to do so might be considered an "upgrade too far."

Can't answer your immediate question, but you could always try acrylic paint thinned with water.

Agreed; it's the really fine wire that I'm after where the existing wires have broken, leaving little to work with. Much prefer to replace a whole length than faff about with joints where space is minimal.

There's heaps of info on Don Ashtons website; URL below http://www.donashton.co.uk/index.html

I would be grateful if someone could advise on the actual size/description of the fine wires which manufactures use to connect pick-ups and motors in their 00 locomotives.

I should have also mentioned that a coat of the old Johnson's Klear (or equivalent) would not be suitable because of its tendency to settle in finely detailed relief mouldings, door edges etc.