poisonjunction

Try 2 https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/131/messages/AL7QghIfweoTYGnh5wqySDM nWMM?.intl=uk&.lang=en-

Sandy River relied a lot on the Forney which Bachmann produced in 1/48. Long discontinued but with a growing audience perhaps a rerun may be due . . after all the 2-6-0 reappears annually in different guises. But last year - 2021 - ebay eventually gave me the opportunity to acquire one. as UK owners traded them in! The Youtube film captured by Periscope is also available with live sound and in a slightly different format . . . hope this makes it . . . fingers Xed

Controller issues This may have been circulated before, and may not be your answer - input the u/m : https://www.locosnstuff.com/News.php then roll down to 'Controller Issues' .

Post your reply to Robin Brasher AFTER your read my 582 properly!! Peter

nhy581 Post your message to Robin Brasher AFTER you read my post 582 properly!

olivegreen . . . . try reading MY post then apologise! Peter

Robin If you are replying to my post, it would be polite to mention it, or me! You haven't, but as it followed mine, and you've drawn comments from it, I take it in fact that you are! However the topic that you airily spend time explaining in depth . . . . 'daylight over the radial wheels ' . . . . as though it was my topic, was NOT mentioned by me at all, nor was it in fact the subject of my post! If you're satisfaction derives only from performance, there are other videos of the Oxford example pulling far, far greater loads than you mention. More confusingly although in your trial you 'allow' the performance deficit by the Oxford model on the poor running of Hornby coach's, you still chose Hornby over the Oxford, hardly consistent? Other Hornby radial owners however are more interested in design and have made strong criticisms here of the Oxford radial not conforming to the prototype, my post merely draws a more serious Hornby design failing to attention. You either don't know what I wrote or totally ignored it, you certainly didn't address it?. My topic was the 'rear buffer beam', do you know what a buffer beam is, what it's purpose is, and the need for integral support on the 'prototype' ie, the actual locomotive on which these models are supposedly based? Peter

I just posted more or less the following on the Hornby Adams Radial page. Much criticism of Oxfords minimalist space under the boiler, apro po Hornby's version, but little praise - if any - for Oxfords radial's, chassis supported rear buffer beam, v images of the Hornby radial unsupported beam with daylight showing behind it! Daylight where there shouldn't be? Which is correct supported or apparently unsupported, and does it matter? Peter

I'm a very new RMmember so must tread the floor carefully, but living as I do in an EKR village, its unsurprising that the Adams radial tank has been on my list since Wrenn featured it in their catalogue for several years, at a time before many here were into modelling! I waited in vain, and eventually bit the bullet years ago and bought a Ks kit now painted in black as EKR 5, and yes I've now an Oxford version in green livery also 'EKR 5'! There's been much criticism of the Oxford's radial's apro po the Hornby version, centring mainly on daylight under the boiler! Well, there is daylight under Oxfords version, not a lot I know, but there has been far less comment, in fact I haven't read any, praising the Oxford's version rear buffer beam being 'properly' supported by the chassis, by comparison with images of Hornby's version with clear daylight behind the apparently unsupported rear buffer beam? Which is correct? Oxfords supported beam or Hornby's apparently unsupported one, and does it matter? Peter