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' .

 

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

 

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

Peter

 

Robin

 

If you are replying to my post582, 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

 

nhy581

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

Quote by poisonjunction in post 852: 'I'm a very new RMmember so must tread the floor carefully'.

 

I would suggest from the tone of post 854 above that poisonjunction ought perhaps to put on shoes of a far, far lighter weight...

 

Come on, bickering like that gets us nowhere!  Both models have their advantages and disadvantages and banging on endlessly about the latter in particular serves little purpose now that they have been covered thoroughly in these threads and are well established in the market - in the end it comes down to personal choice.

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

Peter

Having waited for 40 years for Wrenn to produce the Adams Radial illustrated in their catalogue and having been unable to complete the Ks kit I am very pleased to see anyone produce a ready to run Adams Radial whether it has got daylight under the boiler or the coal bunker or not.

 

The situation about daylight over the radial truck has just been covered in the Oxfordrail thread. On page 152 of 'A Pictorial Record of Southern Locomotives' by J.H. Russell there is a drawing of Adams Radial 60 and a photograph of a side view of Radial 30583 at Axminster. It is clear from these that there is no daylight above the Radial truck. When making a model that will go round second radius curves Hornby has overcome the problem by mounting the rear wheels on a pony truck leaving a small amount of daylight above it. I don't think that this is worth worrying about but clearly the Oxfordrail model is better in this respect.

 

What is much more important to me is how well the model will run. At the Radial trials at the first floor of the stables at Godlingston Manor, Swanage I tested a Hornby Adams Radial against two Oxfordrail Radials. On a large test track the Hornby LSWR Radial took three laps to catch up with a Southern green Oxfordrail Radial and one and a half laps to catch up with an Oxfordrail Radial. Although all three performed adequately the Hornby Radial can pull far more rolling stock than the Oxfordrail versions and runs more quietly. The LSWR Oxfordrail Radial struggled with two Hornby ex LSWR coaches but theis is more a fault of the coaches as they are the least free running of any modern coaches and I think that the brakes are catching on the wheels.

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