Right Away

Oh yes, a "three-valver", come on Bachmann, hot cakes wouldn't stand a chance!

I have no words which are printable which describe the type of human sub-species who seek delight in engaging in such thoughtless, heartless actions. No penalty or indeed, insurance claim can ever compensate for such a loss; full marks to those who have been able to contribute. It's small wonder many of us prefer to keep our own railways quite private affairs, which is a shame.

For the members’ info, here’s another (sorry, poorly scanned photo of a set on the Central Section (Heathfield). (NB the exact “H” is modelled by Hornby) .... and finally a set on the Western Section.

"Off the Beaten Track?" As the 59 footers were generally associated with the Western Section (ex LSWR) routes, this poorly scanned picture of a 3 set shortie on a Central Section working in the early 60's (at Ashurst) might give some credence to those wishing to extend their range of operation in model form - when they become available.

Am I missing something here? I never use flux for electrical work these days and have used the solder in the attached photo (in lieu of silver solder) with a 40W (non-temperature controlled) Antex iron on my outbuilding located N/S track with no problems for some years. Essential pointers: WEAR EYESHIELDS Thoroughly clean rail side (or underside) with glass fibre pen - BE CAREFUL not to inhale closely as the tiny fibres can get anywhere, in your skin, eyes and mouth. Wipe tip of iron on damp sponge Tin tip of soldering iron Apply dab of solder to rail Tin end of wire Briefly wipe iron tip on sponge and tin tip again Hold wire against the solder on the rail and apply iron to both Apologies if all that is "egg sucking".

It's getting rather draughty of late for the fireman on one of my Hornby S15s since a spectacle glass went astray. I believe there is a liquid product that emulates glass and might be suitable. Does any member know of such a product and just how easy (or not) it is to apply and if it would be a viable replacement solution? Thank you

A "Nondescript" brake perhaps?

£80, they can keep them.

Reference to a photograph (attached) in the 1959 ABC Combined Volume shows "Rodney" at what is most certainly Oxford with the early crest, water treatment triangle and no power classification on the cabside. (Note the term "shortened smokebox" might be better stating "orginal" as it was never shortened as such, but never lengthened as the loco retained its original Maunsell cylinders with 8" valves.) It would appear Hornby have generally got it "spot on" with their rendition of the livery. Not certain of any addition made to the tender tops of Nelsons fitted with the water treatment but the model has such an impressive presence, I can happily live without any.

Thanks Jwealleans. It's definitely mechanical. If pressure is applied to the top of the motor, the worm meshes with the gear wheel but the fixing screw alone is not having any effect. I suspect this is a wear issue and the solution will be replacement parts.

I have a Hornby T9 class R3107 (No 30313) whose running (which has never been exactly quiet and smooth) has deteriorated to such an extent that I was compelled to investigate further. I removed the motor, retaining bracket and rear piece and both show no apparent signs of distortion or damage due to Mazak rot. On reassembly, the motor worm fails to engage satisfactorily with the intermediate gear wheel; hence the source of the rough running. It is as if the single fixing screw at the rear of the assembly and the two locating lugs at the front are insufficient to keep the motor aligned and that further support is needed to keep the worm engaged. The gear wheel (cog/pinion) is in good order with no teeth missing. Replacement bracket pieces are available from Peter's Spares but as the originals appear OK I don't see the need to replace them. Any helpful suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

The design of the Schools has been well documented in many publications and like almost every steam locomotive built, will continue to fuel interesting arguments. The alignment of the London to Hastings road was predominant in the decision to have a short wheelbase and a 4 coupled arrangement. However whether the engines would have fared better wth their 21 ton axle loading over smaller driving wheels* , eg maybe 6' 0", will forever be another subject to muse. The increase in nominal tractive effort would not have necessarily reduced any slipping propensity; indeed it can make things worse. It was stated many years ago by an eminent locomotive engineer that an engine's capacity to boil water is tantamount to its success or failure and in that respect the Schools excelled. Throughout their working lives, testaments from footplatemen have generally shown favour to the design (with the exception perhaps of the lower cabside cutouts of the first ten and the bruised heads that could result!) Fortunate to have travelled behind several examples - both small chimney and Lemâitre fitted, in the late '50s and early '60s, they always appeared capable with 10 or so bogies on the excursion traffic to the South Coast. Oh, to have experienced them in Kent or on the Pompey and Bournemouth roads when in their prime. * The solitary Nelson with 6' 3" drivers by all accounts made little difference compared to the other class members and was deemed in some quarters to be less popular with the crews.

Not really pertinent to the OP; for the record, Bure Valley's Nelsons are very competitive if you're considering Rodders!

Thanks fellas, for the responses. I had originally noticed the difference a while back with the paler cream on ex GWR Collett coaches which are utilised on some of my inter-regional workings. Bachmann red/cream stock also has the paler cream. The"creamier" coaches - what to do? I could always live with the difference providing the two variations are not in the same ensemble. Mixing them with green vehicles as was often the case is another option. Ultimately, a respray above the waist would be the definitive solution, but ....... all those windows!!!

The "cream" colour of the early BR livery depicted on the latest Hornby Maunsell Open 2nd coach is of a much paler shade than that used on Maunsell coaches of a couple of years ago such as R4343C, R4345C, R4349B for example. Would it be correct to assume this latest offering is nearer that of the prototype than that previously used? Examples on some heritage lines do indeed have a pale cream hue, whereast study of colour photographs of the time show a degree of variation doubtless owing to fading and/or grime not to mention the colour fastness of the films used and their rendering. Nevertheless the difference between the colours on the models is decidedly marked.

Dismantle! Just return it for a replacement, documenting the fault. All good retailers will be happy to oblige.

Try the Bachmann 36-061 short straight coupler; might close the gap up a bit. I use these couplers and where necessary on certain vehicles, shorten the socket by 1 - 2mm to bring the buffers even closer. However, my ruling curvature radii is 48" minimum and this method would not suit all.

Agreed, but the whistles were mounted vertically on the A4 and near vertical on the 7P. I was questioning the initial reasoning of the design team in their not placing the whistle on the 5 in the generally more convenient position above the firebox with its far simpler control.

The earlier batches of BR Standard 5 locomotives where fitted with a chime whistle positioned behind the chimney. In some cases a bell type whistle was used in the same position. On later built engines, whistles were fitted atop the firebox by reason of trouble with the long operating cable. My question: Was the original chimney located position selected as chime whistles will not operate satisfactorily in the horizontal position and could not be fitted vertically above the firebox by reasons of putting the engine out of gauge?

Good "point", Johnster. Has anyone attempted to grind them off with a file, Dremel or similar?

Reverting toward the direction of the original posting, the much maligned Thompson 4-6-2s might be welcomed by modellers of the later LNER and BR eras. Numerically, the A2/1, A2/2 and A2/3 classes were relatively small and together with what some may consider an ungainly appearance, it is quite understandable that manufactures would have shunned the concept of their production in the past. Gresley A1 and A3 locomotives have seemingly been with us forever in model form and for good reason but our diverse tastes could bring a fresh look at the developing RTR scene. Times and tastes move on and I would be very surprised if a Thompson would not meet with the approval of East Coast devotees.

Regarding slipping on starting, another factor peculiar to Pacifics that has been documented elsewhere is a tendency for them to "sit back" and transfer some weight to the trailing truck; uncertain as to actually how this phenomenon was established.

The exit from Nine Elms was on a rising gradient, the trackwork, like that at many depots, consisting of old rails having poor alignment and drainage. These conditions, together with the low factor of adhesion of the SR Pacifics, would contribute to their spectacular antics. Crews would testify that in exceptional circumstances they would set back and "take a run up" when leaving shed. The braking ability could not compare to those of the Maunsell/Urie 4-6-0s with their heavy bogie tenders; coupled to vacuum fitted stock, this was not so much of an issue. Running light, however, could result in some interesting moments when stopping.

You could revert to Plasticard just for the ramps, blending the two with something like Peco's platform edging and filler at the join on the top surface.

With regard to the provision of bicycles, can any member recommend suitable figures in 4mm scale to accompany them both astride and pushing. In addition seated figures for vehicles without roofs, sports cars, tractors etc . Thank you