34theletterbetweenB&D

Once a country or region has the majority of its population educated in school to age 18, with a competent technical management team, light industry can be introduced and brought up to full output in three years is the established rule. (This will even work in the UK once the global economy is uniform, but that's several lifetimes away... )

I am pretty certain that this will be achieved with an ultrasonic nebuliser, widely applied to make mist and fog effects for a range of purposes.

I am likely not the only one redistributing the bogies on the recent Thompson coaches around the inherited LNER stock working on my version of BR(ER) to this end. And there will be more of the same around my BR mk1s with the most welcome range expansion there.

Definitely so! All previous versions have been significantly lacking in the vital matter of being an overall convincing model. This new introduction 'gets it' sufficiently well to be worth purchasing and going to work on it, for an ordinary filthy LMR workhorse.

Thus it isn't going to happen any time in my lifetime, was the conclusion I reached in 1999. Up to that time I had been planning my 'last grand project' using HO, North American flavour, for the reasons you describe, enabled by crossing the pond very regularly. But I really wanted BR(ER) in the final decade of steam. And then Bachmann started with scale models of two absolute essentials, the WD 2-8-0 and BR 16T minerals, produced to the standard of a competent kit builder. Not as sophisticated as RTR HO, but good enough for me, since it it integrated well with my DIY UK models various. And the situation has been generally rosy since, but quite often two steps forward, one step back occurs... Those retrograde moves have to be corrected and/or campaigned against.

Properly engineered isn't present in respect of these devices in RTR OO, on the evidence to date. Now, by your own admission you are not interested in RTR OO; but I am and thus feel quite justified in twaddling on. You can probably avoid seeing my future wastes of words by a user selectable setting. 😎

A reverend gent came up with the DUFA corporation, whose product was the holes for toothbrushes; seems as good an option as any...

That's very mild, coming from one of us, what was the charge 'Internet Taliban' 😉

I have briefly had a RN dirk that was most likely produced when George V was on the throne, (inherited, I'm not that old!) given that the great uncle concerned passed out of Dartmouth in 1929, and the top of the hilt has a hairline crack. It's in the 'mazak/zamac' alloy family (I had access to two tons of laboratory XRD when it came into my possession) and isn't lead contaminated, nor is there evidence of impact damage. But there it is, with a crack, cause unknown. (It's in Oz now, with the cousin named for its original owner, as that seemed right when we had the 'great family memorabilia sort out'.) The RN dirk my FiL passed on to his daughter (reader, I married her) probably circa 1940 manufacture, is lead contaminated and the hilt has split full length, but still in one piece. So even the Senior Service didn't always get it right... Having spent a significant part of my career in novel and exotic materials work, I am perhaps sensitised to claims for longevity of such things, for which there can as yet be no reliable data. I have been regularly surprised at how many people are concerned that novel materials arising from invention to deliver current technologies, may not keep on working indefinitely.

What impresses me in keeping up with scheduled operation, is how briskly the 'local' moves (inner sub terminus, two branchline with both passenger and freight, goods yards on up and down side with tripping to rail served industries, loco shed for all the local work, had to be executed, around both the non-stop and stopping through traffic. It looked busy enough in reality (even though you couldn't see the whole scene) when I watched it, doubtless copious tea required.

It was inspirational on first reading of this lovely layout. Each to their own. It took me fifteen years to fully grasp that operation is absolutely 'where it's at' as the reason for having any model railway gear. If someone else will do the construction that's great. A French friend many years ago gave me a name for my layouts: 'trainodrome'. There's the track formation per prototype layout, and ballasting in the on-scene sections because I like the noise it provides. Nothing else scenic provided, cannot form trains of buildings, shunt road vehicles or operate trees to timetable, etc. no point having them.

Ho ho ho. DCC took off when the option for most with a model railway was soldering in wired decoders to convert their existing locos. As far as the UK was concerned, the modeller with experience of a club or private layout wired up with cab controlled sections, running kit or scratch built locos, was fully equipped for this task; and having begun on it was a rapid convert to the many resulting benefits. The commercial imperatives that have led to where we are now, have to be accepted. On a positive note Mr Ripitout has thus far had no serious trouble altering RTR OO models to conform to his (wholly correct) ideas of best practise.

The constructional plan has already altered as Bachmann's mk1 range has expanded, to no ill effect. As the late Mr Rice observed, consistency in modelling standard is key. Thus what I liked from the get go with Bachmann's blue riband releases: they were an all-around good match for a competent kit or scratch build, and anything that needed adjustment was thereby within my capability. Judging from the way most of the first decade's releases flew off the shelves I wasn't alone. 'Gashy' is rather strong ('ghastly', 'hideous') all they really need is the cosmetic surgery to remove the mountainous roof ribs, and a coating of BR(ER) coach roof standard filth. Which reminds me, now the sun is appearing I have a few more cheap acquisitions to be given the treatment; always in good daylight to ensure a clean job...

Operating? Does anyone try to run a realistic sequence? Why else would anyone build a layout?

Because as fitted between loco and tender on RTR OO, none of them come even vaguely close to 'better things' already long available in RTR OO! For optimum appearance on any OO layout, the mechanical link should accomplish five things, all of which have been frequently demonstrated by Bachmann, and at least once by Hornby. A simple rigid metal drawbar of near scale appearance mounted through the dragboxes. Spacing adjustment provided from scale to sufficient for specified minimum radius curvature. No appreciable slack between loco and tender. Cab and tender front always correctly aligned, no skewing on straight track. Any model 'tackle' to enable this fully concealed, all you see is the drawbar between loco and tender dragboxes in a side on view. Per a response above, Bachmann have triumphed since circa 2010 with the drawbar in the right location combined with an adjustable screw locked spacing slide concealed behind the tender frames, perfection. Hornby just once TTBoMK, on the 2006 Britannia/Clan, with just two fixed spacings, and easily rpelaced with a DIY replacement to adjust spacing if the owner requires (caveat, I haven't looked at all their product.) And finally, there is no general need for camming connections on UK steam models: few real monster steam loco prototypes, and short tenders. A RTR OO 9F as an example can go round 24" radius with a simple scale spacing metal link, give it slightly overscale spacing and it's good for R2; the BR standards and other late grouping steam designs really benefit in appearance by using a simple drawbar, because so much is on view. KISS. As for electrical connections, a small plug on thin wires engaging in a concealed socket, as the wires can be dressed to look like the hose connections dangling beneath the drawbar. (I would be quite happy to 'prune out' any excess over the four which is the maximum I require should the decoder be best placed in tender, the wires make this an easy owner option. KISS.

Strictly, that is an invalid statement. No one has the data to support it, because this is a relatively new alloy. On the evidence to date it appears to be stable for the upper end of a human lifetime, (which to my mind is good enough for the classes of goods made using it) but that's no guarantee of permanently free from degradation.

Not really, it was retired when the Bachmann 9F became available and is now with a friend, and outside the UK.

Usually there is sufficient of the factory grease to tack the driveshft in place to ease reassembly. Without this assistance my arthiritic fingers would be in trouble.

There's a long term pattern of model railway production migration to the next low cost location. No reason to believe China will be any different, it's not if, but when.

I would gently suggest that the engineering challenge of such a mechanism is making the inadvisable into a working proposition. It was very noticeable that diesels with a pair of worm drive bogies for improved traction, wore out far more rapidly than a pair of spur gear drives used in the same way. And those paired worm drives were not directly mechanically coupled... The Bachmann 9F is a proven workhorse as your benchmark. My small fleet is coming up 18 years in service, carrying extra lead ballast, and totally trouble free, will exert 85g force, which was required for a reliable restart with a total 3kg train entirely on a 1 in 80 rising gradient. (I have now revised the gradient to 1 in 160, so nothing like this force is required, but have yet to remove the added ballast on these and other locos, since they are all performing without complaint.)

This was one of Bachmann's products from their initial probe into the UK OO market. The mechanism is a low cost construction with numerous weaknesses, well documented by a good many postings here and elsewhere. That said, the lighter locos - of which this is one - do tend to greater longevity. I'd suggest not going overboard on it, just a decoder to make it a runner, with the proviso that first you open it up to make the modifications essential to isolate the the motor terminals completely from both chassis halves. It is not necessary to take the outside rods off the coupled wheelsets, just take the glued on cylinders off the chassis block stubs and then drop the complete assembly out once the keeper plate has been removed. What you will find inside is hard to predict, it may all be in good condition, or alternatively the many essential plastic components that provide the isolating function between the chassis halves may be failing. And test and test again on reassembly to be certain that both motor conections are fully isolated from the chassis halves I successfuly converted a good number of the LNE group models to DCC about 20 years ago, and they lasted four to six years in intensive operation, with much swapping of any parts with life left in them until I had worn through the plating on all the wheelsets; one exception, a particularly good early A4 mechanism with much heavier plating that still runs, long ago fitted with a Hornby A3 body, that mechanism and body combo is now coming up 30 years old. The motors in all these were good, they appear 'unburstable', and I also salvaged bodies, bogie and trucks, etc. for repurposing, so not a total loss.

Pourquoi? Just in case it is relevant, when I wanted a 9F with real loco traction for outdoor use, I lobbed an Airfix GMR motor from an N2 (five pole job clearly based on the MW 005 motor design) into an early Hornby push along 9F chassis, that had a chassis block with the shaped section to allow an XO4 to drive on the unflanged wheelset. That combination would still slip the wheels when made up to 800g and held back on the track. And after some years very effective service - neither trainload, nor rain, nor adverse gradient, nor headwind, or any combination of same, ever stopped a train it was hauling - it hurled itself off the track. Two wheels had slipped on the axles and the coupling rods were very bent. There would appear to be a limit to how much torque RTR OO friction fit driven wheels will stand, if worked hard for long enough. (The motor and driveline to the axle were all absolutely fine and the mechanism had all damaged parts replaced, it now lives indoors with a regular plastic body and has given no trouble since.)

Also possible, one of the plastic couplers = 'drivecup' that the dogbone ='driveshaft' engages, is slipping, or alternatively a gear in the drive train is either missing, or out of alignment sufficiently that it isn't engaging the gears either side. The driveshaft not present or properly engaged is most likely, exactly as Darius suggests. The items in quotes are Bachmann's terms, and you will find them in the attached spares list. https://Bachmann-spares.co.uk/category/1-branchline-diesel-parts/class108dmu/chassis?page=1&sortby=5&numper=100

The Gresley and Thompson types available from Hornby were secondary service stock; rather than inner suburban stock for which at the southern end of the LNER there were articulated high capacity sets, see below*. Otherwise it is kits at present, other than the dated BR mk1s from Bachmann. Coming soon: *The very very exciting announcement of (GNR/LNER) Quad Arts from Ellis Clark. BR mk1s, from Accurascale, with the very necessary lav compo in addition to BS and S.

Story of my life, two, each in their own way desireable, present themselves. Happily there's no law against bigamy in model railway.