StuartGWR

Well, after 45 years of trying to put up with the Airfix 14xx which never ran properly, this is amazing. I can't believe that no-one managed to get this loco. running reliably over that huge time span. The DJM looked great but wasn't really a better runner since the chassis was ultra rigid and not quite true, and also impossible to modify. Congratulations Dapol....can't believe my luck, and a 517 too. Wow!

This could be true. But it would involve cutting and stripping tiny wires and waving a soldering iron about in a confined , detailed (expensive!) space -- and then getting all to lie flat and un-noticed. I certainly see the attraction of simply adding on, without cutting into these fragile fittings. It would be interesting to know what voltage the stay-alive works at post-modification, though I doubt whether Mike wants to repeatedly dis-assemble to find out!!

Yes I saw the video, but can't easily see how you dim an LED without making the series resistor bigger (in ohms): you would have to remove the existing one or cut a track to do that. Maybe you are adding a parallel path across the LED/resistor combination to divert some current. This might (a) take current away from the end LEDs and (b) slightly beef up the current for the interior LEDs. What do the copper strips make contact with? I would like to try this, but I don't want to run any risk of damaging this beautiful Railmotor...... The controller question is easily answered. Traditionally a feedback control uses PWM. But it can risk putting 12v pulses of very short duration through the motor. The RMS value of such a waveform is relatively high, and can cause thermal problems. My controllers do incorporate this, but also Voltage Modulation, where the pulse length is always long, and the voltage is the controlled variable. So a loco can start up on about 2 volts, or even 1 volt for the better ones, with controlled fluctuations of this to suit the motor's tendency to suddenly slow down or over-accelerate. The only motor burnouts, or near burnouts I have had go back many years now, to those awful Mainline pancake motors, and also the better motor in the Bachmann WD. These were almost certainly due to putting too much load behind the loco before the brush/commutator interfaces had bedded in, and probably pre-dated my Voltage Modulation idea. Since these controllers also incorporate a Pure DC setting, the internal wiring got very complex, and I would not care to build more of them! Kind regards from Stuart.

Having had a little while to get used to my no. 61 DC Railmotor, I simply must pass on my admiration to Kernow. It is so rare (over the last 35 years) to get any OO locomotive which runs so perfectly as this, let alone one constructed with such watchmaker-like precision. And just to single out one feature: never since the days of Hornby-Dublo has any manufacturer produced a valve gear which moves correctly. Most cannot even get the expansion link moving properly. But here, the radius rod also moves as it should, actuating what looks like a proper valve spindle into the steam-chest. And the scale of these items -- wow! Of course these were so over-scale in Hornby-Dublo days. The whole effect is stunning, and a great credit to you all! One slight disappointment is the very bright leading/tail lamps, and the very dim interior lighting (in normal lighting conditions) - even though this feature is prototypical. I wish there was an easy fix on DC. I am quite good at electronics but my hands weren't designed for surface-mount resistors! (I have built exceptional feedback controllers which even a 14xx fitted with a Portescap 1219 has been happy with over a number of years). To sum up, we have all got used to looks, features and so on moving forward, but wherever you look on this model it is truly exceptional. I don't think the on-line reviewers praised it highly enough. Even the "non-opening" cab vent which Sam marked down actually does move...............

Sorry for this PS: I suspect the flying pin resulted from the excessive throw of the return cranks, which was enough to push some of the expansion links upside down on occasions!! On most models this can be adjusted, e.g. Hornby, which often have zero crank throw, and even the Ellis Clark Black Five seems to be the same!!! About 2mm fore-at travel is mostly OK, but the return cranks on the LMS Garratt seem non-adjustable. If I only knew how they are attached, I could possibly do something to reduce the throw, there is no point in forcing things of course.

Lovely to see this. But is Heljan doing anything about the valve gear? I bought one of the second batch, with lovely motors. However on its second/third wheel clean in 3 years (good) one of the 4 the return crank/eccentric rod pins flew out, never to be seen again (bad). I have tied the eccentric rod out of the way while trying to work out a solution. Can I trust the 2-8-8-2 to be any better? I had already placed on order, but don't know whether to proceed with it.

Free at Last should also see my earlier comment. If the wheel flanges, catch on the projections under the floor this would also cause derailments.

In reply to Harlequin on January 28th, I found one or two cab fittings projecting below the floor were catching the leading wheel flanges when the bogie rotated. Tricky to trim, but I managed it! This might be the answer.

Will it have spring(s) and down/up travel on the centre axle? This makes a fantastic difference to slow running, as on Rapido 15xx...... Many reviewers ignore this vital point on 3-axle chassis.

Hurrah! at last a worthy successor to the old Mainline model, which still looks amazing now! The motor/chassis was a different matter of course, and he Bachmann 8750 which came later somehow didn't quite cut it. The wheels were inaccurate, and despite a better motor the chassis did not give great reliability or smoothness. Well done Accurascale - I never expected anyone to better the look of the old Mainline, but I am sure you will!!

I want to congratulate Rapido on this wonderful model. The detail and general appearance are breathtaking, and to see it pulling round a rake of wagons using the supplied screw-link couplings, and rounding my 25" radius curves, making use of the gently-sprung buffers, is an eye-opener in both senses of the term. Are there quality-control issues? Yes. Do they spoil the model? No. Do I wish it was better - yes, of course. There is no steam-lance cock, a bit of a scratch across LHS lining and number plate, and I had to remove some glue from the top of the LH mainframe under the smokebox. The wheels needed truing up (few models don't I find), and I have had to adjust the quartering. The axles are not quite in the centre of the wheels, so there is still some up/down movement at RH rear, but not excessively so, and the adjustments I have made, together with running in, have made a useful improvement to the generally-smooth "out-of-box" running. It is now delightful. I absolutely love this model, it is a feast for the eyes whether stopped or running, and I think Rapido should be very proud of their achievement. The money is very well spent indeed. Perhaps quality control can be tightened a bit, but I am not in the least disappointed with my purchase.

I very much like the 94xx which I have just purchased - it looks amazing, and gives a good account of itself on the track. However there is a niggling (potential) mechanical problem. It looks as if Bachmann have repeated the disastrous design mistake they made in the 1980's/1990's, when all their gear trains were configured to push the driving axle out of the frames when the slightest amount of wear had occurred, and torque was needed. Has anyone tried cleaning the wheels? I found that this historic fault was happening on the new loco, but not, as yet, when running. It may be that inserting packing beneath the keeper plate on the gear side will cure this, as thankfully the loco does have proper bearings.

It has taken me some while to realise that Locomotion has commissioned a Dean Goods. Having made do with the Airfix/Mainline offering for many years, I am really pleased that an updated version is being made available. The positive points are many; the 2017 mechanism, from the reviews I have seen, is light years away from the noisy, unreliable one which I have: the plastic "bearings" have to be oiled regularly, and the wheels and motion are far more to scale in appearance on Oxford's chassis. Also the cab interior is very much better. Even though I converted the Airfix/Mainline tender to Ultrascale wheels and fitted pickups, managing to retain the whole geardrive, my 2516 still needs very frequent wheel cleaning, and the (practically) zero-inertia mechanism makes for somewhat stuttery running even on my feedback controllers (which can handle just about everything). I am really looking forward to having something that runs properly. Having said all that, I hope the detail issues raised by several contributors will not be too much of a handicap. The firebox crease looks all too obvious even on the latest Locomotion pictures, and I certainly can't find any evidence of this in any of my GWR books, which show several Dean Goods locos between the 1930s and 1950s. I can't imagine why Oxford modelled it like that. The cab height appears to have varied over the lifetime of these locos, so I don't worry too much about that. The washout plugs have clearly been put in the wrong place on 2309, but it looks as if these may be slightly better on 2516.