PMP

I find myself wondering if some of the responses are from people whom have actually got one or properly looked at one. There are pictures here of the model including the chassis as well as in the instructions parts list https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/hattons-djm-14xx-review-h1410/ The chassis is rigid. The chassis (my example) sits square on a glass surface. I can't even get a feeler gauge of three thousandths of an inch to slide under either main or pony truck wheelset. The electrical pickup is split axle on all three axles and shows no variation in effectiveness. The rear axle slides laterally and if I recall correctly Bachmann do the same with the L&Y 2-4-2T chassis. Ps @ melmerby, your post #1600, what technique/method did you use to determine weight over axles please? Edit to add last sentence

I've had an opportunity to have a better look and I think you are pretty much correct. Taking the rods off, running under power (DC gaugemaster W) no change. Close observation indicates four binds per revolution. De-couple the chassis (inc gear train from motor) and rolling under gravity, the chassis rolls unhindered.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4m73Ykr_JQ So with the J94 having similar running properties downhill under load, I wonder if the 13xx will show similar characteristics, the EP's already share the oval crank pin hole judging by the one I looked at recently.

I've had and still got similar reservations to yourself Tim. I've got an H1410 and have written about it here, hattons-djm-14xx-review-h1410/ including the dismantling of the chassis/body assembly. I'm already working on the cab, as the double skinned front to the cab gives a very thick appearance and I'll change the galzing. Its a relatively easy modification and I'm opening up the vents too to let more light in. Apart from the brake gear pull rod and ashpan omissions I think its a pretty good model as I outline in my review. The wheel/splasher over size and overall look actually work, but the dismantling of them if a motor fails for example would be difficult for someone not attuned to 'breaking and entering' as the rear injector pipes are glued from chassis to rear steps. Front sand pipes and the vac pipes also hinder an easy removal. As far as running quality goes for me the Jury is still out. With no upward movement on any of the wheelsets the centre drivers can lift off on uneven track and gradient transitions reducing traction. Mine runs well on flat track, but its not as good as other contemporary steam outline releases with traditional drive trains. The coupling rods don't always sit level due to the slots for the crankpins and when moving slowly you can see them move around the crankpin. I've followed Larry's example and removed the paint from the rods and I've noticed a little bit of an improvements afterwards with the slow running. I've noticed a particular problem with this type of drive train which is magnified by descending gradients. If reducing speed the locomotive will 'hunt/cog' due to the backlash in the gear train, this is accentuated with a load behind it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73UU1bh6MY when you remove the load and the loco runs freely, apply a following load and it immediately recurs. Its more pronounced on the DJM j94 https://www.youtube. and is also evident to a far lesser degree on the Heljan Class 14. The gradient here is the Woodland Scenics 3% gradient. This for me is a real disappointment and one of the mods I'm going to try is a coupling rod replacement to see if some of the backlash can be removed. If not I may remove one of the drive train gears to adapt it to a 'conventional' drive and put a bit more weight into it for traction. The quartering on my example is spot on, the chassis runs freely by itself, so hopefully this will fine tune it to the performance I want.

It is good and bad news, good that C&L products will still be available and obviously bad news for those made redundant. Small consolation but I would like to thank Pete and his staff, particularly the stand staff for the service they have given at shows over the years. I hope both the new owner and the staff do well in the future.

One of the good starter kits we used to recommend at Kings Cross, even for steam modellers was the Craftsman 02. A relatively simple kit, that fitted together, many 70's/80's kits lacked that fundamental feature, but this one, you could get all the components in one stop and then end up with a really attractive little engine, and have learnt a good bit along the way. Sadly a route to learning which is getting more difficult to do these days, but Judith Edge has a couple of similar kits suitable for starters. After this I've three JE kits to do, 2 x LMS jackshaft, and the GWR 15001.

Masokits screw coupling build on here https://albionyard.wordpress.com/fifteen-minute-heroes/ Good value with seven sets per sheet. For three link I use Ambis links and smiths links. In 7mm scale I use Slaters or Just like the real thing for screw couplings.

That would appear to be the solution on the Kernow 13xx chassis if the EP I've handled is indicative of the final product. That means then the original design is poor if you have to design a further compromise into the mechanism to make it work effectively. Slotted coupling rods? I do hope not, particularly when the German products (as far as I'm aware) that use as similar design work effectively without the need to slot the rods. My 58xx has arrived and I'm pleased with the overall look of it, so now off to play trains.

And the answer is, 'to make money'.

Fixed it for you ...

Low level in Wales

Hi Rich, Another quick mod on these is to replace the chimney with the Gibson lost wax casting. Rgds

Another fan of Halfords acrylic satin black, both these are full repaints, the second image was a green locomotive to start prior to removing the top feed and pipework. Depending on the temperature on the day I sometimes warm the model with a hairdryer to start, and always use a hairdryer immediately afterwards to help the paint shrink to the surface.

Chris' video is excellent, well worth watching! What setting do you have in mind Steve? Paul Lunn and I used the track plan/footprint to do a couple of variations of it, we may have something you can use for further cogitation..

Dave and Richard are on the money. Geoffs not the only blog writer having had a particular type of 'reader' visit over the past year. Ho hum.

Another Peckett portrait.

For the scenery is was a bit too tight, so I added three inches depth to the back of the board, and another three at the head shunt end. Whilst that added to the head shunt, the underlying reason was to add scenic space. Rgds

Hi Steve, apologies for late reply, this pic shows the track plan for 'Shelfie' https://albionyard.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/img_1188.jpg There is also a bit on it in next months Hornby Mag too brgds

Hi Paul, my understanding is there will be a specific tooling representing the MOD rebuilds of the 1980's as there were significant differences over the original warwells. The way the discussion was I think that means the KWA's are likely to have the newer bogies.

A couple of pics of the Oxford Warwell here https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/notes-from-olympia-1-toy-fair-2017/

Well, I said, the only person thinking they are doing hinged blades is Bertiedog. I recall your post of 29th December 2016 and 6th Jan 2017 No idea why I reached the conclusion that you thought they were going to keep hinged blades. Please accept my unreserved apologies.

I'll take the risk Martin, thanks for your concern though.

On the 7th Jan I posted this, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107569-peco-announces-bullhead-track-for-oo/?p=2565620 I took my own advice and yesterday 12/01/2017 spoke with PECO regarding these products. For consistency I spoke to the same senior manager that I spoke to at Warley 26/11/2016. The observant amongst you will note that I have not subsequently edited or added anything to the post on here, or my linked Facebook post of 26th November 2016 since they were posted, and I have no need to amend them. That's because the information posted on the Facebook page on 26th November, and that I posted here 07/01/2017, linked above, has not changed. Hope that helps cut through the BS that for some reason keeps floating to the top.

Having spoken to Peco yesterday on other subject matters, the info was proffered that these points are at an advanced stage of development. I got the impression that meant this quarter, but don't invest the farm on that info!

Lets be clear, the only person that thinks Peco are going to do jointed blades is Bertiedog. I spoke to one director and one senior manager and two of the magazine staff at Warley https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1163183963758078&id=597088120367668 So for clarity. The prototype shown was described as being as close as possible to the end product as they could provide at that time. It included Unifrog design (I asked) Solid blades (I asked) Compatability with the existing PECO Streamline CD75 geometry (I asked) Compatability with existing PECO point motors and switchgear. (I asked) Availability around second/third quarter of the year 2017 (I asked) First type will be the 'large radius' (streamline) point.( I asked), If successful and well received, further types of point will follow, no indication of which type/radii would be next. (I asked, they didn't say) Hand assembled in the UK, hence (manual labour) part of the price increase over the normal machine assembled ranges. (I asked) No price was suggested apart from they will be priced as competitively as possible. (I asked) Whilst more expensive than the streamline range, they would follow the established PECO quality/value for money values. (They said) The pictures on the facebook link answer a number of red herrings/bs that is being kicked around here. Over this and other threads there have been comments about why make plain track and no points? Anyone whom has followed PECO's track range development will know that is exactly how they do it, and have done for many years. 009 crazy track as it was called at first IIRC, released with no points, CD75 flex track released no points, CD75 concrete sleeper track released, no points, CD83 track released, no points. O gauge streamline released, no points. O gauge set track released, no points, HOe/M track released, no points. I Think Peco know what they are doing, just a hunch mind, I may be wrong and they could have been very, very lucky developing and releasing at least eight ranges in the same way. Perhaps it would help if people want to know what PECO are going to produce they ask the questions direct. I did, and knowing all four staff concerned have no reason to doubt anything they told me.