GWR-fan

Just prior to Christmas I sold two items using the auction format. One was a Lima chassis powered by a circular low voltage motor. The other was a set of five old Mainline BR Stannier coaches that were accurately described as having playwear marking as well as providing detailed images of the items. The Lima class 43 chassis was bid up to $90.00. Now given that I have a conscience and knowing the true value of the item was less than $40.00, I refunded the buyer almost $50.00 and even paid the postage cost as well. Well, the buyer never even responded to my generosity or even supplied feedback. A few days later along came the auction for the five coaches. For some inexplicable reason a bidding war broke out and the coaches sold for $180.00. Feeling a little miffed from my previous refund experience I decided that the buyer must know what he is doing and did not discount that sale. Given that at the same time I was selling new unused condition Hornby and Bachmann super detail coaches for under $30.00 each I am still scratching my head why there was such interest in old marked Mainline coaches.

As stated the eBay policy as regards an item described as new is that the item is unused and unopened in original packaging. Now given that if an item is removed for photographing then technically is it still a new item as the packaging has been opened? I fail to see how a private individual (not a store who has purchased a new item for resale) can offer an item as new. As soon as the original buyer has purchased the item it becomes secondhand or pre-owned goods and as such it is used, as the private, original purchaser is unable to offer the manufacturer's warranty on the item as in general the warranty is cancelled when the original purchaser sells the item. I always listed my items as used, pre-owned condition even though in most circumstances the items had not been used and many not even removed from their packaging.

I received an email today highlighting changes to eBay policy as regards an item not received dispute opened by a buyer. The following is an excerpt from the email and while specific for Australian eBay no doubt the details are applicable for other countries. Quote: "If you use an untracked postage service (e.g. Australia Post Domestic Regular Letter Untracked): Your listings may show longer Estimated Delivery Dates to manage buyer expectations Your listings may be placed lower in search results If a buyer opens an ‘Item Not Received’ request, we will close any unresolved requests and refund the buyer 3 business days after the request is opened and you will be required to reimburse us for the amount" (end quote) In effect, if a seller uses an untracked service then eBay will automatically find in favour with the buyer and refund the buyer within 3 business days and charge the seller the refund amount (no doubt including the postage cost). In other words it seems that the seller has no recourse to a resolution process. I count my blessings that I am effectively finished as a seller on eBay as I have disposed of most of what I had intended to sell over the past few years. In Australia basically every package is sent with tracking at no additional cost and only items such as envelopes and letters are sent untracked. If tracking was needed then the letter or envelope could be registered at additional cost. Thus an untracked item as specified in the eBay policy would be a small relatively inexpensive item, however, a buyer with knowledge of eBay policies could easily manipulate the system. As regards closing the case I have never had to deal with an item not received request as a seller but as a buyer have been involved several times. From memory in the past one would open an item not received request after the time allowed by eBay for an item to be shipped to you has elapsed. You would then communicate with the seller with eBay allowing at least four business days to elapse to allow the seller to respond. If after the four days then eBay would nominate a further delay before settlement took place. It seems now that three days after a dispute is raised that eBay will automatically find in favour of the buyer and then invoice the seller for the amount of the refund.

I do not understand this statement although the argument is used by most retailers who increase the price of all stock onhand when a price increase is announced on that stock. To sell at the pre-price rise cost the retailer is still making the same percentage markup intended before the rise. By raising the price on old stock he is increasing his profit margin at no cost to himself. By stating that if he did not raise the price on old stock then he would need more money to purchase new stock over the old wholesale price, thus implying that he would be "losing" money selling at the "old" price. The seller still needs to purchase stock regardless of a price rise or not. In effect a retailer is financing his new stock purchases by increasing the price of old stock still onhand. This is a standard practice but I do not believe it is ethical. When selling the new stock he is still making the profit markup percentage prior the increase, so in effect by selling old stock at new prices his percentage markup has increased without additional cost. Quote: "...... if prices are not put up, you lose your selling margin on replacing the stock just sold. ........................." How is the "selling margin" less on old stock sold at the pre-price rise when replacing stock? The retailer is still making the same markup on old stock sold at the old price to new stock sold at the higher price. The old stock was purchased at a lower wholesale price. When replacing stock the wholesale cost will be higher than that paid for the onhand stock but how does the price of old stock directly impact the selling margin other than the retailer would be making a greater profit margin by raising his price? The new stock is not relative to the old stock onhand. The retailer knowing a price increase was intended could withdraw stock from sale until after the price rise thus increasing his profit margin. Using the analogy of a loss in selling margin, then any onhand stock sold prior the price increase is losing the retailer money as he knows that replacement stock after a price rise will be higher.

Several points to consider: a) simply because a prototype loco will haul a given weight up a 2% gradient does not infer that a scale model will perform the same. The prototype discovered that doubleheading or banking was a solution to traction issues. b) the radius of a model helix is not going to represent the prototype so frictional losses need to be accounted for. c) when approaching a helix I notice that it seems that everyone enters the helix from a flat surface. If there is a straight section before the helix then why not reduce the incline of the helix by having a gradient on the section prior the helix. Any height gain on straight track before the helix would require less gradient on the helix for the same overall height gain. Possibly a slightly greater gradient on the straight track could be used, reducing the gradient needed in the incline to account for additional friction in the helix.

I believe that the recent increase in the spread of covid in the UK and shutdowns has impacted on Royal Mail deliveries. Deliveries were being made several months ago but of late over the Christmas period Hattons advised that RM had stopped international shipping for the time being. Hattons still offer shipping by Royal Mail but I do not believe that your item will be shipped immediately.

Jon, "Recent" covid increases in Royal Mail costs have slightly narrowed the margin. In my most recent package the cost differential would have been GBP14.00. This is with the items purchased placed in two packages rather than a single package with DHL. In the current climate the cost differential is unimportant as I do not know that Royal Mail is actually able to deliver to Australia. Unless a single item weighed in excess of 2 kg., I would always choose to split a package into multiple units and use Royal Mail if available. The service from DHL is always superb, but in "normal" circumstances the cost saving with using RM is more important to me than the time saved with DHL. I have used DHL on multiple occasions when required and have always been impressed with the service received.

My package was between 2-3 kg. which could have been split between two packages, but considering that due the very limited international fights to Australia's east coast, I believe that there are either considerable delays in shipping with Royal Mail or that RM is not currently shipping downunder. In mid-2020 my son purchased a rare kit from a German eBayer with shipping by DHL. However, at the time DHL had banned shipping to Australia on packages of this size sent from Germany. The eBayer agreed to hold onto the item for several months until DHL resumed shipping downunder and then sent it on its way, arriving in perfect condition.

I believe at present that Royal Mail is not really a viable option when having goods shipped from the UK internationally so my latest purchase from Hattons was sent by DHL ondemand delivery. I received the Hattons picking list email stating the items were picked at 1700 hours on the 13/1/21 (UK time). I received the initial pickup email from DHL shortly after with expected delivery to Australia on Friday 22nd. When I opened my door this morning (Monday 18th), to my surprise, the items had been delivered at 0730 am (local time). This is four days ahead of schedule. Excellent service from both Hattons and DHL.

There was a movie (Malcolm) made many years ago in Melbourne that had a 1/24 scale tram layout running throughout the whole house. From memory the track was below eye level. Link to movie. The track layout plus trams are featured throughout the movie. The movie is in English with no subtitles.

The comments on quality control are justified but remember that you get what you pay for. There are very expensive models also sourced from China that do not have quality issues. These though are a lot more expensive than your "basic" 150 pound sterling models. The company specifies the degree of quality control and this is set in the sale price. A typical loco these days has a MSRP around 150 GBP, although of late the price has risen to around 220 GBP. Do not expect a more reliable model simply because the price has increased. It is up to the manufacturer to ensure that the level of QC is adequate. I believe that Rapido actually test run every model, but then Rapido are generally more expensive than your typical Hornby model. Given that both Hornby and Bachmann models seem to be around the same selling price I wonder just why Bachmann seems to have a better reliability reputation. I have purchased literally hundreds of model locomotives and I always breathe a sigh of relief when a Hornby model arrives without detached parts and actually runs reliably out of the box. On the other hand I am surprised when a Bachmann model actually has an issue. As I live half a world away from the UK, any "defective" model is generally fixed inhouse rather than returned for a replacement. The solitary model returned was a Heljan 0-6-0 that proved to be a basket case and due the pandemic the replacement process took four months and cost me the return postage to the UK. Even though I requested that the replacement model be test run prior shipping, the model received was also defective, requiring the hand of God to get it moving plus a lot of fettling. My experiences have altered my views on further new loco purchases as I have no confidence in the quality of the product received.

As regards multiple power sources I had assumed that providing a loco with both loco and tender drive would increase the haulage capability. As an example I added a Hornby A3 5-pole tender drive to a loco powered Hornby A3 5-pole model and actually achieved no increase in hauling power. The loco was more powerful with just the tender drive only. The Dean single has such poor pulling power that you would be better with just a tender drive mechanism. Ensure the Dean single that you choose does not have traction tyres.

This afternoon I received a substitute motor from China. Three motors cost me a total of $13.00 Aud and delivery downunder less than a week. The motors are an open frame three pole with brass bearings. They are about 3/4 the size of the original Bachmann motor. They are described as 15 mm micro 6v - 12v high speed motors. Dimensions are as follows, length of case 19 mm, height of case 15 mm, thickness 10 mm, shaft length 8.5 mm and shaft diameter 1.5 mm. The seller recommended oiling the end bearings before use. As can be seen in the images the pickup fingers exit on one side. I needed to reposition one finger to the opposite direction to contact the split chassis halves. The pickup proved to be quite fragile but was easily soldered in the right orientation. The case journal is the same diameter as the drive gear end of the Bachmann motor case so I was able to use the original nylon spacer to position the replacement motor. To mount the motor I glued a 0.010" shim to the inside of the motor cavity on the chassis half. The motor was then glued in position to one chassis half making sure the motor rotated freely on the gearset. On the other chassis half a corresponding 0.010" shim was glued so that the motor would be clamped in position when the chassis halves were joined. The chassis was then assembled and test run. The motor is glued to one chassis half only allowing disassembly. Performance was satisfactory and after a runnning in period, hampered by drive wheels that had not been run for a long time so it took a while to get the wheel tread faces shining. Low and relatively high speed performance is adequate with the loco easily hauling eight heavy Wrenn four-wheel vans. The motor is not as powerful as would be a stock Bachmann motor but given the low cost and ease of installation I am quite happy as after finding the original motor heavily arcing and smoking I was content to leave the model as a static dummy. The second image shows a comparison to the original Bachmann motor case.

Many thanks. The wagon was painted in black when received although most of the paint had flaked off. The wagon weighs as much as a decent sized loco.

I had a large outdoor G scale layout in my backyard with 43 remote electric points, fiddleyards, industrial sidings, turntable and two reverse loop sections with the scope for multiple operators. My original plan was to divide the layout into three individually controlled block sections and utilise the Aristocraft Train Engineer wireless control system, thus giving three operators the ability to independently run each allocated section. I found the system cumbersome to use as each transmitter had ten channels with ten selections (frequencies?) on each channel, so if using just one transmitter then it required multiple selections to traverse the layout if more than one loco was in use. The trackplan would have kept multiple operators very happy but alas, I was the only operator and so as a result trains mostly ran continuously on the main continuous route with the majority of the remote controlled switches (points) laying idle. To complicate matters, around half of the trackwork was out of sight of the main part of the layout and as a result these sections were mostly ignored when using a tethered power supply. I rewired the layout to allow digital operation but then found that my chosen control system, a 10 amp wireless NCE setup, did not have the range to operate the complete system (requiring a range extender), plus as parts of the trackwork were out of sight from the main part of the layout, the digital signal was directional and thus when operating trains in the obscured sections the transmitter lost contact. I found that given the fact that I would be a lone operator the complex trackwork was a total waste of both time and money. In essence I would have been far happier (and richer) had I stuck to a more simplified user friendly trackplan. While the layout was indeed impressive, it was basically useless.

Given to me several years ago by a friend who received it in a job lot purchase was this brass and diecast body track cleaner. The operation is very similar to a CMX track cleaner. When received it had no mechanism under the chassis to clean the track so I fabricated something suitable. It is obviously European origin and is very heavy.

PMP, many thanks. Much appreciated. Edit: my non runner class 57XX arrived this afternoon and as I had thought given recent arrivals, the motor was a dud. I applied power and the motor lit up like a firecracker and smoked. After disassembly I applied some contact cleaner to the commutator as it was caked in carbon and there was a continuous path of sparking between the brushes. I then noticed that the brass brush retainers had backed out slightly and reseated them but alas after that the motor would not even spark. I reassembled the drive minus the motor and will contemplate its future.

Many thanks. As yet I have not received the loco. The pre-owned description simply stated non-runner so I need to find out the cause when it arrives. I have successfully repaired several split chassis locomotives, however, of late the non-runners I have purchased have all had faulty motors. The images show the quartering to be correct so possibly not split axle muffs. At present the basic shipping cost of anything shipped by Peters Spares to Australia is GBP40.00 plus the cost of the parts, so obtaining replacement aftermarket parts there would be more than the cost of the loco. I have never dealt with Bachmann Europe for spares so do not know what costs to expect if parts were available. It would seem that the chassis will be a split design as I do not know when the later issue DCC compatible chassis were released.

Many thanks. If unable to get the loco running I had intended fitting the drive from one of my spare 57XX DCC ready chassis and then fit the older inop chassis to the now spare body and use it as a dummy loco.

Recently purchased but as yet not received was a pre-owned non-runner class 57XX "L99" in London Transport livery. I would consider that this is a very early chassis and possibly a split chassis design. I have numerous later release DCC ready locomotives of the 57XX/8750 design and thought to re-chassis the London Transport livery model with a later chassis if unable to get the non-runner operating. I am curious if the later release chassis are a replacement for the earlier split chassis design.

From what I have seen of previous unnumbered models from several manufacturers, the typical hobbyist leaves the model unnumbered or simply lacks the confidence to apply the decals. While numbering a loco may be a basic task for many the end result is not always as well done as by the manufacturer. I have seen numerous "damaged" models on a well known store website where the modeller has totally botched the application of both numbers and nameplates.

I have had several derail and found that more weight is needed over the front of the tender chassis.

As a very occasional buyer, a matter that really boils the blood is sellers who show multiple items in their description image with the number of items corresponding to the number of items they have for sale as individual items. I do not know if this is intentional deceit or inexperience. Say the seller has two items for sale as individual items, however in his description image he shows two items in the listing. His written description does not state that the bid price is for one item only not the two items in the image. As a long time seller I believe that if the listing image shows multiple items then those items are considered to be one lot. Thus if the seller states that say he has two available then that should be double the number of items shown in the listing image. Only by messaging the seller is the true number of items per listing known. Another peeve is a UK hobby shop who may still list on eBay who photographed their listings on a highly reflective glass counter top. The reflection in the glass made it appear that there were two items in a listing whereas close examination of the item image showed that the lower item was actually a reversed mirror image of the item on the counter top. If one was not observant then one could have believed that he was buying two items not just the one item shown in the listing.

Of particular annoyance to me are buyers who are particularly picky in how they want their package prepared for them, outlining in detail that the item must be doubly boxed and the item carefully covered in bubble wrap. Now that is fine if they are paying for the packaging, however, I have found many years ago that the typical buyer will not pay one cent for handling and packaging costs. They somehow believe that the amount paid for postage covers the costs of packaging and handling. I refuse to use the eBay postal label and so all my packages have the post office printed barcode label showing exactly the amount paid, which coincides with the amount that they paid for postage. I am very particular as to how I package my items and with several thousand packages sent I have had only two failures leading to locomotive damage and that was due the original manufacturer packaging causing the damage. Just this year I have posted several hundred packages. Exactly where does the buyer think that I source my packaging and bubblewrap from as it does not grow on trees. Many years ago when selling LGB and other largescale items I added a small handling charge of just a few dollars to my listings and sales dropped to zero. Removing the charge saw sales increase. Also, due most eBay buyers using the eBay mobile phone app for purchases, when making multiple purchases there is no way for the buyer to request a combined invoice prior making payment . Each purchase is regarded as a separate transaction and postage charged accordingly for each purchase. The buyer then requests a combined package and demands a refund on the excess postage paid. EBay applies a roughly 11% postage fee on the total postage cost paid and in Australia then charges an additional 10% GST on that postage cost. This leaves the seller further out of pocket. The approximately 21% surcharge on the cost of postage is non refundable from the buyer as are the costs of packaging. If selling but just a few items a year then sourcing adequate packaging material is relatively simple and basically no cost to the seller. However, when we are talking of hundreds of packages, then who does the buyer think pays for those packages and packaging material to ship his items securely in? The buyer is certainly not paying for materials and actually in my experience refuses to do so.

I do find it amusing that Hornby take such a stance on discounting when in the past they either undersold their retail outlets through their online store and even failed to deliver some items to their retail network while offering those same items online at full retail.