Right Away

At work we always used Lindstrøm or Knipex but as mentioned above - they're expensive.

Duplication doesn't always lead to the "better" product winning out.

 

For example, Hornby's BR4 4-6-0 is clearly a more refined model than Bachmann's, but mine stuck out like a sore thumb when stabled alongside my other (Bachmann) Standards.

 

It might be argued that it was, perhaps, too good and, in the end, I decided I had to replace it with a new Bachmann one for the sake of visual harmony.

 

Good news was Hornby had implemented a price rise in the meantime and I didn't lose a penny.

 

John.

I was unfortunately not to be blessed with the opportunity of comparing my Hornby Std4 No 75071 which I purchased new a couple of years ago with anything.

Due to what appeared to be motor meshing issues I returned it for a replacement which arrived promptly, only to find that too had a very similar fault. This was also returned and losing confidence in the loco it was exchanged for a completely different model.

 

Later, I discovered that this particular model appears on the dreaded Mazak Rot list!

Not a question by any means but whilst browsing through some books I came across this photograph taken in 1962 of the erstwhile Rhydymwyn station in North Wales.

 

What struck me was the difficulty presented to passengers when boarding and alighting due to the somewhat excessive step down from carriage footboards to the platform.

Had the track been recently relaid? According to the caption, passenger services finished a few months later; the line remaining open for freight traffic for some years.

I also have my late father's badge - he was firing on the Southern throughout the war years, passing the driving exam in the late Forties.

 

My question is, during the conflict, was it not only footplate, signalling and maintenance grades that were extended Reserved Occupation status?

Thanks for this. Would the same headcode apply for passenger and goods/parcels trains? Surely emus would have a monopoly of the passenger workings from Eastbourne? 

(Pardon my ignorance of Southern headcodes!)

 

Cheers

Trevor

Hi Trevor

Southern Region steam headcodes denoted the route irrespective of which type of train was being hauled, exceptions being Royal specials and the like. Certain changes were implemented over time as lines closed

 

Yes, regular scheduled passenger services as far as Ore (Hastings) were indeed in the hands of HAL and BIL multiple units in 1965 and so as you mention, this would have most probably been a van working.

You can swap cylinders about, and wheels between Rebuilt Bulleids.

I’ve a 35027 Port Line running with a 34088 wheelset. My 34088 itself is running with Rebuilt MN cylinders following an earlier incident, which led to the said spare wheelset. A number of crank pins have been recycled in that time from wheelsets, those screws are a bit nimble to breaking in the thread usually the speedometer crank pin when adding/removing the body, but the centre wheelset has two of them you can reuse.

Not everything can be swapped and sometimes a bit of work is required.

I take your point regarding the swapping of cylinders etc of the originally produced MN which at the time of its release was quite an exceptional model.

However it does raise the question: Should we have to resort to such measures on the currently produced versions which retain the original "faults" of note, yet are priced much the same as newer developed models.

 

Hornby, on the whole have catered extremely well for the discerning modeller with recent releases but they need to take a critical look when chosing to perpetuate an older locomotive.

 

When/if Hornby address these issues I will approach my Chief Civil Engineer apropos the raising of the axle load of my railway; meanwhile the Lightweights reign supreme on the heavier duties - where have we heard that before?

The ' Design Clever ' era by Hornby has once again been mentioned in this thread.

Indeed it is a shame that two iconic loco's were produced using design clever, namely Duke of Gloucester,

and Cock o' the North. But one very acceptable model did emerge at the time, the SR. 2HAL.

Considering that Hornby had nothing to measure or scan, their model is virtually spot on, indeed

I can only find one very small error on the body of the driving trailer.

 

In all the 2 HAL is a very fine model, at least I think so ( two purchased ).

Same here, excellent, useful models.

Just need to snip off the equipment fuse arc shute on the driving trailer.

 

Of consequence is the relative scarcity of BR green versions remaining; glad I grabbed my 2 units when I did.

Hi All,

 

I cite below, a  Bachmann 1999-tooled Bachmann ex-WD 2-8-0 and a Hornby 2000-tooled Merchant Navy.

 

oth pic edited a little. Both models are stunning IMHO. Both then and now. Both are weathered, the MN has recent-model cylinder drains, everything else standard, albeit edited here and there.

 

Of course there are a greater variety of great models now compared to 2000. But are they all that much better? The latest 00 RTR still usually has oversized flanges and of course 'narrow' gauge.

 

The Hornby Merchant Navy has been overshadowed by the release of their modified WC and BB models; in particular the "short" cylinders and that smokebox door, both of which are still present on the latest releases.

 

Very nice photo editing, by the way.

Brighton loco closed the year previously but odd steam workings could still be observed in the area.

 

One that springs to mind was the through train from Brighton to the West which owing to a shortage of ETH vehicles was worked by steam as late as early 1966, hauled, I believe by an Eastleigh or Fratton engine.

 

The headcode carried by the Standard Tank denoted an East coastway route to Eastbourne or Kemp Town (SEMG info).

 

Perhaps she was having a last minute look at her birthplace and having a premonition of her future at Sheffield Park.

The white "X" on the cabsides of certain ex GWR steam locomotives denoted that an overload in excess of the authorised maximum weight was permitted.

 

Does any member know to what degree these loadings applied; how much extra tonnage was permitted by the relevent classes and to which routes they applied. Also, when were these changes introduced.

 

Thanks for any info.

Risky venture or not, Hornby's decision a few years back to produce the BIL and HAL units gave the opportunity in R2R form to incorporate that missing element from the Southern steam era - electrification.

 

Together with the associated infrastructure, the operation of EMUs on a predominantly steam layout can add immensely to the prototypical "feel". Arguably, in reality multiple unit operation would have outnumbered steam workings and there lies a problem.

 

Speaking from a purely Southern point of view there is not enough variety of EMUs for the steam era unless one has the necessary skills to go down the kit route.

 

As documented by others, the cost of producing multi-carriage units adds considerably to the financial gamble; will modellers be prepared to fork out sums in the region of £300-£500 for what is essentially ONE model in order to fulfill their requirements?

Locomotive construction is well above my remit but if you've that level of skill would not a change of driving wheel on the Bachmann N class given an acceptable representation of a U, providing of course it's not a converted K ("River") tank or indeed an engine with the later frame modifications and/or outside steam pipes.

Thanks Andy

 

Don't quite know what happened there - tablet touchscreen and cold fingers maybe!

Unfortunately sent a duplicate post today at 09.04 in Modelling Tips section.

 

Unable to fathom out how to delete or hide this duplication and so edited it in the meantime.

This might be deemed more appropriate in the Prototype section but its raison d'être is ultimately for the purposes of modelling.

 

Would any member know if there is a source of audio clips available which include sounds of SR multiple units from the 1960s or thereabouts. The stock in question would be preferably but not exclusively, "pre-EP".

 

The sounds would ideally include:

 

• Brake squeal - on stopping

• Air exhausting - brake release and/or brake valve isolating cock operation

• Compressor

• Motor generator - express stock

• Traction motor whine - on starting

• Ambient station sounds eg doors slamming, guards' whistles, station announcements etc

 

As a long shot, perhaps the sounds may have been inadvertently captured whilst awaiting the passage of a steam working.

 

I realise this is somewhat of a tall order as "sparks" were hardly ever at the top of many enthusiasts' priorities; nevertheless, liked or not, they were an integral part in many locations of the Southern Region steam era which many of us attempt to rekindle.

 

Like many of the older guys, I can only rue the fact that sometimes the everyday railway scene was taken for granted in its day, never visualising its importance to us much later.

 

Many thanks

Would any member know of the differences between the Zimo MX621N and the MX622N decoders as regards running qualities.

 

The Lenz Silver Mini has been my previous decoder of choice for small steam locomotives but the attractive price of the MX622N makes it a serious alternative.

My concern is the vast difference in cost of this decoder and the much dearer MX621N; one must assume a trade-off of some respect.

 

Apparently, the cheaper decoder is also available in the guise of a Bachmann 36-568 (made by Zimo). Never having previously been satisfied with the performance of model manufactures' "own" decoders, I worry the MX622N may be produced down to a budget and consequently fail to impress with running and control when compared to other Zimo decoders.

 

Thanks for any guidance and opinions.

My "H", hardwired with Lenz Silver Mini decoder (minus capacitor) runs beautifully.

 

I did however have an initial problem with it stalling for no apparent reason. Pointed in the right direction by RMWeb members, it transpired that the motor housing was a smidge too tight a fit. To eradicate this, a small paper shim was inserted "head gasket fashion" between the motor and bottom of the housing.

I'm wondering if the heat build up in your model is being caused by a similar issue but in your case the motor actual turns but with a lot of resistance.

A few years ago I also faced the decision whether (pun intended) an airbrush and associated equipment would be worth the initial outlay.

 

I took the plunge and never looked back. Mine is mainly used for weathering rather than full paint jobs and has proved invaluable. I find the time factor when weathering a model is roughly around 40% studying the prototype/photographs, 20% masking etc, 5% actual airbrushing and 30% thorough cleaning afterwards.

Thanks Pete

I couldn't fathom them out as there seemed no logical association with the interior (compartments etc) of the coaches.

The GWR Collett "Bow Ended" coaches (as modelled by Hornby) have what appear to be four conduits or pipes on their roofs.

 

I'm sure a heritage/restoration associated member will know the exact purpose of these fittings.

A roll of "Jiffy" foam wrap cut into manageable lengths and laid directly over the layout. It's cheap, very light, easily removed before a running session and replaced afterwards.

Simply indicate the upper side of each sheet by placing a small piece of insulation tape in one corner to ensure it goes back the same way up thus avoiding putting the dusty (if any) side down inadvertantly.

Ah, so the vehicle in question should have vacuum brake hose fittings (and two brake shoes per wheel I think?) The specific RTR ones I have in mind don't.

Those "fitted" wagons with only one brake shoe per wheel incorporated a tie bar between the axle boxes to prevent movement of latter and consequent reduction of brake force.

These tie bars are not always glaringly obvious in photographs and hardly any RTR vehicles have these modelled but it's worth fabricating your own, as once weathered, they add enormous visual appeal to an everyday item of stock.

 

(Edit= finger trouble!)

It all comes down to draughting.

 

If a single chimney/blastpipe configuration produced optimum steaming rates and ejection, there would not be a requirement to investigate further. Where locomotives "fell short" of expectations, a double chimney was one of the remedial strategies that were implemented.

 

It was as mentioned above, quite a science to get things right.

Thanks 34C for your help - again!

 

As the problem is in step with wheel rotation, I'm probably looking at dropping the drivers; not exactly enamoured by that thought, having never had a Bachmann in pieces before.

 

I'll put her back to DC when I have time and work from there. Operating as a "visiting" engine, she only runs occasionally but I am determined to get to the bottom of this.

The T9s have traction tyres, the most fruitful source of rail dirt known to mankind. Retire them, clean the rails, wheels and pick ups of everything else on the layout follwiong the good suggestions above, and see your running problems disappear.

I also have an "iffy" T9 which is not the best of runners.

Never having removed the notorious traction tyres before, will contact still be made with the rail head or do the rear drivers need to be changed?