34theletterbetweenB&D

Slightly different in detail to the motor in the Airfix GMR N2, but functionally appears to be the same unit. It's performance was outstanding, despite the coffee grinder racket. I salvaged one from a very busted Airfix N2 got cheaply and put it in a heavily modified s/h Triang Hornby 9F weighted to 800g for operation outdoors pulling 60 wagon freights. It did this very successfully until it shifted two wheels on the axles and mangled the rods. Thirty years on it is still waiting reassignment, the GBL Pepp A2 body would be a good fit if the mechanism was altered to 2-8-2.

Twenty-two Krugerrands will do both, adjustable in troy ounce increments. And if you are ever in need of negotiable specie in a desperate situation, you have it covered.

Copydex has been the sole alternative in the 20 odd years since I have been interested in 'better than PVA' for the purpose. Scarier to apply as it looks like an industrial waste spill, but otherwise all to like. For completeness, PVA was the 'better than Cascamite' option.

That's all good news, I suspect it has had design revisions since the earlier batches: the only one on exterior view on your example is the absence of the speedo drive. And go to the current diagram and it is also evident that the large plastic box forward on the chassis in the original version is now also absent. The handwritten jotting of 'Terry' in 2008 may indicate when this was looked at. https://Bachmann-spares.co.uk/file/5mt.PDF Mine were purchased 2001 - 2004 and all alike poor for traction and maximum speed as supplied. Of members on ur- RMweb whom I recollect worked on the originals, Tim Easter is still around. Once adjusted they performed well, nothing wrong with the drive train, just the lack of weight on the coupled wheels to make use of it on those early versions.

40:1 reduction, and not enough weight on the coupled wheels for traction due to poor weight distribution and excess springing on the bogie, so it slips even without a load, means that it isn't able to achieve express speed. All fixable and much discussed on this and other sites in time past, a google search will turn up the 'how to'. My own beef relates to this; as first released - and it may still be so - a third hand is helpful when replacing the mechanism in the body; one each to hold body and mechanism, and the third to hold flexible detail on the body underside 'open' to allow the body in... But all the above resulted in some very large discounts, and I hacked several mechanisms to power ancient V2 bodies which had worn out their split chassis mechanisms. (With a load of weight balanced above the centre of the coupled wheelbase these performed, nothing wrong with the motor.)

The yellow compound is almostcertainly a nickel salt. One or more of the liquids in the ballasting process must be fairly acidic, and it won't be the hard water, top suspect the PVA. I'd experiment to find a PVA that doesn't cause this effect. Nickel salts are water soluble and can sensitise the skin long term leading to 'nickel itch'. Individual sensitivity is very variable, some will be completely unaffected despite regular exposure, others very readily. Once sensitised the last opinion I heard (40 years ago) was that it lasts indefinitely and will flare up when in contact with nickel in alloys and as plating. Could be quite an inconvenience considering the general use of nickel in model railway product. (The common complaint back in the day was inability to wear jeans in skin contact due to the nickel plated studs.)

It will be fine.

[tangent] Do Vi deliberately mould the gears in the Italian flag colours? [/tangent]

Butanone doesn't 'go off' chemically, the only thing that will happen if the cap is left off is that it evaporates, and atmospheric water may condense in it, that will inhibit its solvent action. Specifically, the paint is going to make the ply sleepers largely impervious to the butanone and the chair material dissolved in it, which is what is required to bond plastic to a porous material using a solvent. Replacing the sleepers with fresh ply would be best.

I have been getting this feeling regularly over the past 15 years : 'surely they are going to come unstuck with this, and lose customer confidence'. But... That magic name they own, that's the charm. Seen it again and again when in the shops of retailer's various: "I really like that Bamboozlix class model from <other brand>, don't Hornby do one? And if they purchase, it isn't the model just asked after, but something from Hornby. Bachmann steadily and continuously supplying the UK RTR OO market these past thirty odd years haven't managed to put much of a dent in that - yet... Then again, when Hornby get it right, they get it very right, and the 'golden glow' from their best product shines over the whole range. So their 8F is not what it could be: the Thompson O1 2-8-0 demonstrates that Hornby know how it should be done, and it is far from alone.

The 2251 was introduced with a Buhler five pole motor, as also the N class and WD 2-8-0. If you have one it can be recognised by the name Buhler on the motor casing. (In other 'five polery' on steam models some of their A1's got a Mashima 1430 when a fault in the armature wire caused recall of the early A1 releases, until the problem was sorted. I have a model from the faulty production run, the motor on which never showed any sign of trouble, runs well to this day.) I would take a look at what the screw is located in. If there is no split in the plastic, the next size up self tapper would be my choice. If there's a split, than cement and fill, drill out and gently replace the original screw.

Your evidence? A friend bought the initial rebuilt MN release 'Clan Line' in 2000 and the screw securing the inept motor mount had a tag under it with a wire to a motor terminal. That's the sign peculiar of a live chassis block. It has likely been upgraded since, when it became clear to Hornby this was NBG for DCC.

Definitely so. I have model railway items with that label colour and print on from the shop that once was on Okehampton platform, and several others, possibly Frizinghall among them, yet never have purchased anything from Cheltenham.

A cousin who nursed in the hospital of that name always referred to it as 'mild may'. Since she was Dutch, it's safe to assume she picked that up from locals. (She made me aware of the crazyness of 'Ornsey and 'Arringay, yet 'Hislington' locations on her journey to visit us in Hertfordshire.)

Too slow. An electro-mechanical network should be capable of resolving root cause much more swiftly. Half an hour at most. Need to eliminate shouty folk on phones and do it by AI.

And that's a subjective view too. But my view is informed by objective comparisons of the mechanisms. The rebuilt MN was way off the pace compared to Bachmann's 'Blue Riband' steam models. Still a lot of bad old Margateness in the mechanism, live chassis block, dire tender electrical coupling, mechanically inept and thus weak motor mount, floppy pick up wipers, bogie loosely waving about on a stick. The MN comfortably outpaced Bach's earlier split chassis models, but those were not the benchmark, because it came out after the WD 2-8-0 (among others) went on sale, which I think you need to look at : isolated chassis block, steel drawbar to tender correctly through the drag boxes, solidly mounted motor, neat shaped pick up wipers fully concealed behind the wheelbacks, sprung leading truck and two sprung coupled wheels. It's streets ahead. In twin bogie D+E traction Bach had the centre motor drive on sale a decade before Hornby, and in their first Blue Riband diesel, the class 24 mechanism leaves the slightly later introduction of the initial Hornby equivalent - 30/31 - in the dust for reliability and longevity. Happily Hornby have worked up to overall lead position in steam since then. Though they need to watch out, Bachmann have mastered the 0-4-4T with MR and NER models which leave all the earlier introductions - good looking though they may be - behind by a country mile. These Bachmann models have a constructional scheme which places the centre of balance within the coupled wheelbase for stable traction; and thus now we can have a range of competent front coupled steam designs.

Lack of systems thinking if they were all caused by the same event , which I think is the case While the messages are all true, it would be better to have the same message for each cancellation, relating to the root cause alone, something like 'line obstructed due to train collision with a fallen tree'. Common sense - which most service users possess - will kick in with an understanding that this is the most significant problem, because there is always going to be at least one human being directly affected.

Contra, put the Bachmann WD 2-8-0 (1999 release) alongside the 8F and see what the available benchmark in best RTR OO steam model was back then. That was the first RTR OO model that I felt was worth showing to my HO modelling continental cousins. (Same comparison applies to Hornby's Fowler 2-6-4T vs Bach's BR std 2-6-4T.) Hornby were trailing badly, and didn't achieve parity with Bachmann until the introduction of the Britannia in 2006. They might have got on sooner with replacement of key classes is my feeling.

You need this thread for discussion of the detail: Broadly, less impact than the major changes to retailing already caused by online selling within the UK.

Me too, some folks very surprised by the amount of hard wiring I do. But this is the cheapest high performance decoder available, just ten minutes with a soldering iron and all done. (I want to run trains and have lights switchable - essentially so they are off - nothing more.) I have never noticed this, but then I never actually use the factory settings! This is because (and this applies to whatever decoder is installed) I immediately redefine the curve to meet my requirements: set the start voltage as low as possible for a reliable start, trim maximum speed to scale maximum, move mid speed to where I want it, and all done. I will have to try a reset on an MX600 and see what the speed curve is like. How Hornby get away with their basic decoder is inexplicable. My encounters have been with their DCC fitted, when that happens to be lowest price for a particular model. Every example, the mechanism with the decoder removed when run on a DC resistance controller, has outperformed the slow speed running with the supplied decoder installed. In short the mechanism with an unsophisticated DC supply outperforms the decoder!

My nostalgic treasure is the H-D 8F. For that alone I envied a schoolfriend's comprehensive 3 rail set, built up by the fortune of his having three older brothers. It was a heavy goods engine and it really worked, as I recall it the best performer of all the locos he had, and the only eight coupled then available. So when finally - not so long ago - the s/h price of H-D properly collapsed I bought one. The body now sits on a modern Hornby mechanism which thereby now possesses effective traction. The resulting machine is clearly a Hornby-Doubly... Future nostalgia, what's making an impression on the young? One young friend who first saw my track around the garden when she was 3 always asks to see a 9F run when she visits...

Completely different business, but as someone who had periodically to organise for the manufacture of batches of spares for earlier products, I can supply potential reasons from oft painful experience. Charges for: interruption to manufacturing of current far more profitable product, Worn tooling requiring reconditioning, and even with that causing high reject rate, Requirement for superseded materials in small and thus expensive quantities, Staff refresher training on now unfamiliar techniques, and far less foolproofing of assembly, Packaging not compatible with new standardised pallet size, 'Someone' in logistics deleted the end product codes from the stock management system so the distribution centres refused delivery, (that was a real favourite of mine when it occurred). There were yet more... The data for all such charges were required for both pricing and to make the case that the product be withdrawn (and the potential saving be used to buy off customer objections).

HO model designers regularly move as near to the OO dimensions in width as required around wheels and mechanism, for a practical working model with whatever wheel standard is required.

Ah, I am not alone! The Bach Std5 had the same arrangement and a few weeks ago I noticed that 73157 was waving the loose ends about having lost some of the middle. Bachmann dropped this feature on subsequent releases, because - as one of their staff told me at a show - it was more trouble than it was worth. If I decide to fix it I will copy what Hornby have done on the P2, and just have a shaped piece of wire hanging off the body, with its end centred on the drive but not physically connected.

It is, builds into a very convincing model. The weight of the whitemetal means that the traction a 6MT rated loco should possess is available. There is a trap for the unwary when it comes to the mechanism: build it with OO wheels anywhere near scale for the 5'8" nominal tyre diameter and the flanges will contact the footplating above. Best to use a 21 or 22mm diameter tyre. (Bachmann used a 21.5mm diameter tyre to enable as much metal as possible in the cast footplating to pack in the weight.)