34theletterbetweenB&D

49 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

You just need to think in terms of industrial turnouts...

Completely unintentionally, I spent most of career based on and around sites which formerly had extensive rail served industries, the evidence of which regularly 'surfaced' when new construction was underway. Top marks for temptation...

24 minutes ago, ColinB said:

As to traction tyres I hate the things, they compromise conductivity with the rails

That's the biggest strike against traction tyres, for all of us 'power via the rails' operators: it is desireable that all the powered wheels should be available for current collection, as they are the most effective for this purpose. 

2 minutes ago, ColinB said:

I think you will find that rubber will rot much quicker than anything else. It either rots or goes hard

However, the materials choices long available include much superior options; thus my over fifty year old Rivarossi model with original translucent traction tyres, (which I only spotted after near three decades of ownership!) still as good as ever. And Hornby now own Rivarossi, so they have that 'better shot in the locker'!

Had Hornby or Lima offered such a high grade traction tyre to the UK market forty-some years ago, instead of their death spiral contest for the cheapest and nastiest mechanism they could foist on RTR OO, we might be having a different conversation now.

Personally I am very happy with loco drive and weight on metal wheels for traction. That Spaceship on a heavy drag makes noise on the track discernably different from the little Humpy shunting a single wagon in the yard, just the way the real locos did...

12 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Interestingly  neither proximity to a large local population or connection to the national rail network, contribute greatly to the number of passengers carried on a preserved railway.

That's not been the opinion of the KWVR team I have spoken to (now a decade past admittedly). I live roughly 24 miles North of Trafalgar Square, and the KWVR is my conveniently accessible preservation outfit: ten minute walk to station, pick up an IC225, St Evengage - Leeds, local train to Keighley, KWVR to Oxenhope, three minute walk to my late parent's door: and return. The best of the current network at the time, and steam traction, for a grand day out.

Not a shed, but an unheated single skin brick, mineral felt roof outbuilding in SE England, same climate as Oxford. Largely RTR OO on commercial nickel-silver rail track, and it works completely reliably. Untreated steel tools will rust but nothing horrific, all the steel components in the models have been trouble free these past twenty odd years, including the mild steel tyres on MGW wheelsets. However, I wouldn't venture mild steel rail, as an old length of tinned steel rail flexi track I found a few years ago was in a bad way. 

In the same location, madam's garden shed, all timber, felted roof, on a concrete base, uninsulated, ventilation under the eaves overhang, never any condensation. Given half a chance I would extend the model railway into that with confidence, but the horticultural expert firmly expresses a different opinion on this proposal.

The GNR's Hatfield Luton and Dunstable would be a gem. Really attractive countryside running through an SSSI woodland and along the Lea valley via the Parks of Brocket Hall and Luton Hoo; with mainline connections to the ECML and MML, (and potentially the WCML if the LNWR branch from Leighton to an end on junction at Dunstable was also preserved). Present day, close proximity to the M25, M1 and A1M, and an international airport, in an area seriously short of preserved steam railway operation, and abundantly equipped with a population possessed of money to burn on entertainment.

5 hours ago, MikuMatt81 said:

...I feel the code 100 insulfrog points whilst OK, obviously aren't ideal for photography...

Then again Hornby have yet to notice how even their best models have the shine taken off them when advertised standing on their own dreadful set track.

Here's someone who has done the very thing you propose.

https://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic.php?t=57802&hilit=copperclad+set+track+points

23 hours ago, Hroth said:

But why is he slaying her pet dragon? You can clearly see its on a lead, being taken for a walk!

Usual thing with artists, daubings bear no relation to writings. That's why they have given up on realism and gone all random...

5 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

... Hornby Britannias ... with the fixed trucks and flanged wheels will go round 3' radii, presumably because of the copious sideplay in the driving wheelbase.

 

Did you first have to cut clearnace into the interior of the Brit rear truck casting to allow the wheels in at all, or have Hornby corrected that? (My two are first releases from 2006.) Mine will manage down to 30" centreline radius.

5 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

where ... LNER types are concerned...

Hornby's A3 and A4 pacific mechanism has (or possibly had as mine are all as released in 2004/5 and Hornby do tend to tinker) a very useful feature, the moulded Cartazzi truck frames are made in a flexible plastic. Once the crude 'post' for the wheelset has been reduced in width to allow sufficent sideplay for the loco to negotiate something a little under 36" radius without the frames fitted, the frame moulding can be split at the rear and once excavated internally by removal of the moulded ribs, the wheelset will 'nudge' and thus flex the inside frame on a curve less than 36" radius. No idea what the final limit on minmum centreline radius might be, 36" is the safe choice.

The W1 and P2 are definitely 36" minimum radius without more hacking than I am confident undertaking.

That's a worn mechanism generating vibration in the audible frequency range. The body provides a lot of extra surface area to more efficiently couple the vibration to the air mass, so you can hear the racket properly. The cure is to refurbish or replace the worn parts or find a replacement mechanism in better condition. (It is usually difficult to isolate RTR bodies sufficiently from the mechanism to have much effect.)

3 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

St George's Day today...

I shall celebrate in traditional fashion with Satay on a lance, then Basmati rice accompanied by Rendang, Gado-gado, Loompia Semarang and other Indonesian delights, all washed down with Weissbier, followed by Peach Melba. I should have fairly authentic dragon breath after that lot, but if not some slivovitz can be brought into play.

Start with the cheapest bodyshell (or two)  you can find  typical of  classes you want to repaint from whatever are your target brands, and practice until confident of your technique delivering a result you like.

On 21/04/2024 at 18:47, steve45 said:

...I'm not going to replace my previous versions...

Good news for me, if there are many of the same opinion, there should be good availability when an 'extemely ordinary' all black late BR version appears...

On 21/04/2024 at 18:47, steve45 said:

I just don't think its worth over £200. It needs reworking (lights and tender coupling) to make it into a state where it is a marginal improvement over it's predecessor.

My questions about any new product are:

'Could I produce a model equally good by DIY for that price?' and since Bachmann's WD 2-8-0 of 1999 the answer has typically been 'no way!'.

And following on from that, 

'Is this model good enough as a starting point for the usual work required to bring RTR OO product up to the standard of appearance and performance I require?', and this is the first RTR Black 5 model I have seen that provisionally puts a tick in that box.

I had hoped for a metal loco body which works to such good effect on Hornby's B12/3, would some kind soul care to weigh the Black 5 loco alone please?

At very least the lights and loco to tender linkage are coming off, weight is probably going in the loco body, and filth shall be liberally applied for that 'final decade of LMR steam' appearance. 

1 hour ago, Steve Purves said:

As the engineer behind the aforementioned 0-4-4t's in my previous life, I should think any Accurascale 0-4-2t (or 0-4-4t for that matter) should be more than capable!

The G5 is a gem, I take my hat off to you. Plenty of low hanging fruit just begging for this superior arrangement. 😄

On 06/04/2024 at 19:20, atom3624 said:

...14xx, a 'latest standards' version would be brilliant...

Five minutes inspection of Bachmann's construction plan on their two 0-4-4T's will reveal how it should be done: all metal construction above the driven wheels, lightweight tackle (coreless motor, DCC socket) and all plastic construction to the rear of the coupled wheelbase. Result: centre of gravity within the coupled wheelbase, resulting in stable traction pushing or pulling, uphill or down. (I  am a little surprised there hasn't been more noise about this from the Southernistas.)

2 hours ago, AndrueC said:

Anyway I don't understand why nothing I do with the CVs is having any affect on speed so can anyone explain?

I would take that up with Dapol if you want an explanation, as it is a combination of their product offerings.

32 minutes ago, zr2498 said:

I guess it is difficut for the likes of Hornby. They need to sell more locos, and the lamps / steam will attract many customers, but this could have an adverse response from modellers who were looking forward to a newly tooled, potentially more detailed loco until it is seen that the play value additions compromise the detailing and peformance.

Hornby have almost institutionalised diving down rabbit holes in pursuit of increasing profit*.

'Live steam' (when DCC was very obviously the coming thing).

'Railroad' (which for a moment looked sensible but quickly deteriorated into a mess).

'Design Clever' (which looked anything but to the majority of folks online).

'Themed releases' (typically released too late, Olympics, Steampunk).

And that's alongside producing good product for the past 20 years, some of which happens to orient well with this modeller's preferences. But there is no way of knowing whether the next announcement that's of interest will actually be from the 'good product' drawer: it might be a rabbit hole special. The only thing to do is relax, and wait until you can get eyes and hands on, and assess whether it can be knocked into the desired shape; or whether it's as near perfect for purpose as one could imagine, such as their B12/3, LNER non-gangwayed coaches, Trout ballast hopper. Of course aiming at that standard could all end tomorrow, and if that's what they choose to do, it's a case of thanks for your previous useful output, and farewell.

FWIW, with a black 5 that is actually of convincing appearance 'the bones' look good enough to chance a purchase. It's only an assembled kit, I can take off anything that isn't required and fill it with lead for traction, been adapting RTR OO in this way 'forever'..

* Call me naive, but I have always assumed that the profit imperative is still the guiding principle behond this operation's doings.

On 20/04/2024 at 16:36, MattR said:

It seems for the moment that the issue has resolved itself.

Your choice, but my practise is to keep a log book for all the traction incidents of this sort. Just in case it recurs...

The rewiring of the shunting layout begs two questions:

Was the jinty the only loco used on this layout?

Was the jinty tried on the main layout after the problem was detected?

2 hours ago, Ramrig said:

Try putting this on the front 😉

 

What this requires is a picture of a beefy male nurse, ideally from the RAMC.

13 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

If it's by Rev Awdry, he was quite a decent modeller for his era. Does seem a bizarre prototype to make a model of though.

See quote below;  Rev Awdry's 'James' was based on the  inside cylinder 2-6-0s developed from

0-6-0's, a design scheme much associated with the railways of Scotland.

1 hour ago, trainman0 said:

Quote from wiki: This model, unlike the character it portrays, is based upon a G&SWR 403 Class locomotive. It didn't work very well, and the motor only worked in one direction. As a result, it was soon replaced with another model of James, and was subsequently repainted into a G&SWR green livery

1 minute ago, Silver Sidelines said:

Yes I had been pondering this issue.  I had come to the conclusion that the provision of suitably large stay alive capacitors does away with the need for fly wheels.

I haven't a single 'stay alive' installed in my all DCC operation. I use the electronically simulated inertia provision standard in all but the most basic DCC decoders for well over 20 years. An eight or ten coupled freighter dragging a maximum load unbraked freight will be set up to coast from circa 20mph for getting on three minutes until it comes to rest, when set to speed step zero. This is way more effective than any flywheel system can achieve and looks wonderful.

2 hours ago, GenericRMWebUsername said:

...The omission of the flywheel is something that impacts all new Hornby Black 5s everywhere...

Universal provision of a DCC decoder socket makes them redundant, now that the majority of those that run their RTR OO purchases do so using DCC.  From a brand perspective look at the benefits, one fewer precision machined component to source and install, one more potential decoder sale, more opportunity to sell DCC systems.

14 minutes ago, Cor-onGRT4 said:

The YouTubers who made reviews are only just a guideline for me.

Couldn't have put it better; they tend to peak at 'the product can be removed from the packaging'.

Thanks for making me smile.

1 hour ago, Kellino Rail said:

I've read a lot of talk above about moulds not being reused. Just a thought, but they can be broken quite easily I understand, and no company wants to admit to that! 🫢

Further factors in this line include tooling wholly or partially mislaid/lost, corroded, with mountings for now obsolete machinery. 

And then there is the competitive position. Bachmann have faced some criticism for continuing to issue models based on tooling decades old; and now there's a tidal wave of new entrants who of necessity are offering very newly tooled models, probably with features absent on the older tooling. Bachmann/Kader's established practise appear to me to be for relatively little revision of tooling for re-releases: that may be having an effect on retailer perceptions of desireability of proposed items.

12 hours ago, Ravenser said:

All those useful medium-sized black kettles that Bachmann got such a reputation for making... They don't seem to have made any of them for years

Never forget, it is their retailers that are the customers. Whatever  Bachmann may propose in terms of a range of re-releases, if the retailers don't come forward with sufficient orders, it won't happen.

Personally, I have had little difficulty obtaining specimens of those 'medium-sized black kettles' in as new condition, from a very effective s/h redistributor. Now they have retired from the fray, perhaps that will change the picture...

2 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

...Or another thing to consider is that maybe the Europeans use a better quality material for their tyres ?

That's long been the case. It took me a while to realise that my now over 50 year old Rivarossi Big Boy has a pair of traction tyres, made in a translucent polymer which causes no appreciable rail dirt, and are still as good as ever after all this time. (The only failing of these traction tyres is ineffectiveness on a wet rail, what with me being the kind of yahoo that once ran his train set in the garden, but that's a common failing of all traction tyres.)

The general point you make is absolutely so: development of European HO has pursued reliable operation for the purchaser using the complete system the brand offers. Good heavens, the brands even explain in detail how to get the best from it; something largely notable by its absence in RTR OO. Every visit to our continental family left me filled with envy back in the 1960s... 

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Traction tyres may have gone out of fashion for the latest locos, but a lot of us still run locos that have been around for a while...

Fully appreciate that this is the case for many.

My approach is different, I ceased buying RTR OO from first exposure to an MRC in my teens, and 'everything' was kit built from then on, until the first hints of HO mechanism  technique enabled by manufacturing in China were seen.

From my perspective the present RTR OO technique has delivered what I always wanted: RTR OO models made to competent kit builder standard enabling me to enjoy my primary interest in timetable operation, with no need to run the loco, carriage and wagon works. Very much a 'horses for courses' picture.

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

...traditional British loose-coupled goods trains, which do pick up one wagon at a time, and also come clanking one at at a time to a halt...

An aspect that I treasure, and accidentally enabled by the miniature tension lock as made to Bachmann's pattern, combined with the NEM coupler pocket. Still looking for an ideal solution for the steam era  fitted freight which should be buffered up, likely compromise, magnetic...

13 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

So are you advocating the modelling of wheelslip? 

Since it happened regularly with steam traction, I like to see it.

No complex solution is required since RTR OO abandoned both tender drives and traction tyres, which for a start ensures no chance of the 'mighty tender' moving before the loco does! With the loco driven wheels powered, a sufficiently heavy load will occasion a half turn or two of wheelslip on starting every now and again, which looks very well.

Assisting this effect are the close coupling systems now fitted to many RTR OO carriages; when optimally adjusted the whole train moves as a single piece. That means the loco has to start the entire trainload from rest, rather than pick up one carriage at a time.