34theletterbetweenB&D

No, but I recently participated in a thread on the LNER forum on this very subject, and Jim gave this system a whirl with positive results plus photos, No Lima class 117 was involved however. https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14650

Hard ball time: failure to deliver both to the appropriate standard and on time at agreed price a working job; return my goods, there will be no payment, sue me, please do. Threat of the broadest possible naming and shaming unless there is swift compliance, like tomorrow. You are the person out of pocket.

I enjoyed this hobby when there was no worthwhile RTR OO, and am perfectly capable of doing so again. My late Pa started me on model railway wehn I was four, and was a little annoyed when in my early teens I resisted moving on to aeromodelling and radio control; what with him being an avionics design specialist with some of the products he had worked on flying aroundout of DH's... (Which business had an associated MRC which survives to this day.) Relax, and see where it goes...

Deprivation of modelling material opportunities due to persistent good health... Humph!

Google 'M B Klein Maryland'. Site updated in 2024, active product listings, so appears to be a going concern.

No dispute there. In fact I am rather hoping that once the P2 is running, and then swiftly gets a rebuild to incorpoarate the Bugatti streeamlining, (the LNER engineering team were competent and didn't spend money - ever in short supply - on that for no reason) that Hornby will briskly release it in the BR lined green that is one of the liveries it is bound to carry . 😁

That might make a few hearts skip a beat, but it's a 9F masquerading as Black Prince, and the ER Brit is the decidedly less interesting Lord Hurcomb.

The first shoal of Hornby Trout swam away before I had a fly out of the box, and I was restricted to obtaining a few s/h as they popped up. One of the best wagon models Hornby have ever offered: this time I am ready, and I'll use maggots for bait, all very unsporting I know.

Yay! Trout!

The term I associate with this is 'Mickey Mouse; courtesy of our friends in Scotland: 'Disnae Work'. It's an annoyance, when so much of the model shows evidence of careful thought, and then you have to get busy on a DIY mod to correct what could have been done so much better. Hornby are not alone in this. Bachmann's simpler correctly located drawbar which goes through the drag box openings [good so far] might be supplied with spacings for very distant and distant [2006 9F release) or setrack capable and potentially scale distance but the moulded on intermediate buffers make use impossible [BR std 4MT 2-6-0]. Then came improvement, drawbar still correctly located, but now with a screw locked adjustable slide under the tender. First saw this on the O4/ROD 2-8-0. Perfection! This remains the benchmark in RTR OO, although the next release so featured was the LMS 3F 0-6-0, and the adjustable slide range was inadequate, but easily fixed; everything since with this fitting as it should be. But this was abandoned for the new V2 tooling: for a camming link, back to Disnae Work. The BR 7MT Brit as first released had the drawbar correctly located through the dragbox apertures, and the supplied shorter position resulted in the combined wheelbase of loco and tender at scale length, that was a pleasant happening. Along with other design and construction refinements, I though 'Aha, Hornby have got the message, seen Bachmann's advances and are responding to their superior technique'. It was a one off in this specific respect. Perhaps the workable closer spacing option will stick this time - but I'll not hold my breath... But to be fair there is much to like in what Hornby have done in steam locos, including more metal for mass, and especially the cast loco bodies on smaller tender locos: which development has gone unannounced since the V 4-4-0 (Schools class) first had this beneficial construction; and which now includes J15, Drummond 700, B16/3, B12/3, J36 BR std2MT, resulting in superior traction compared to plastic bodied equivalents. (There may be more, I don't get to see everything, and other brands with decent mass in steam models include Bachmann (9F, latest version V2, 1P and G5 0-4-4T - thanks to a superior constructional layout) Heljan (O2) Oxford Rail (N7), Sonic (A5).

Stiil holding off Bachmann, you have only taken 33.3% of the cash on offer...

I suspect most owners of Bachmann steam tender locos have fiddled around with the simple drawbar and peg under the tender job. Most of mine have had the peg removed, and a hole drilled to take a suitably postioned self tapper. (Sometimes this requires the screw secured tender weight to be released so that the self tapper can engage properly.) It would be good if they got around to upgrading earlier models using the more recent drawbar engaging a longer peg on a screw locked slide arrangement, best thing of its type in RTR OO - which was sadly not employed on the new V2. Same here. Something that is possible is to fill the well between the square axle locators with cast in place whitemetal (from old K's kit parts received too mangled to ever make a good model). I did this experimentally on an A1 and WD 2-8-0 over 20 years ago after upweighting them. No discernable benefit compared to the untreated mechanisms, also upweighted .

Show her your 1000 items of rolling stock, to help her understand that it's about much more than locos.

I find this the easiest method matching to a designated 'standard' loco for the particular speed(s); and also find it convenient to temporarily remove the couplers from the loco being adjusted so it cannot couple up accidentally due to this operator's misjudgements. Back in the day, BEMF settings were often worth adjusting to avoid two or more locos visibly 'fighting' when coupled up for double heading or in a 'trot' going on or off shed. But the last fifteen years or thereabouts, all my Lenz and Zimo decoder purchases 'play nicely' applied to a fair variety of both RTR and kit mechanisms. This applies whether a decoder is at factory default BEMF, or one of the small number with adjusted BEMF, for coreless, or an iron core motor with a well off the norm response. Other's experiences?

Someone with a lovely Welsh lilt may now pronounce: 'And let us be very thankful'.

I raise you 4xA3, 3xA4, 2xA1, 2xA2, (and 5xV2, W1, preserved C1, and the ghost of a P2) to cover all the Doncaster wide firebox traction appearing in the final 7 years of steam dominance at the Southern end of the ECML. This for the purpose of having the major variants in exterior appearance covered. I am a feeble slacker compared to such paragons as Mr Wright in the matter of full coverage of the Grand Parade of Flamboyant Velocity that places this line Miles Beevor all others. Same class of loco: potentially loads. Drysiders operate their models, pretty sure it's an article of religion. I have by now worn out more than I currently own. Some of that when young and not fully educated in the necessity for lubrication attention, much of it subsequently outdoors for some years where the going is tougher, and the heavier Bach split chassis did wear out rather swiftly however carefully maintained, indoor or out.

I have most assiduously inspected their entire 'select by' column for the 'Box can be in buried in a dunghill condition for all I care' factor, but it is strangely absent. Perhaps those that only want what's inside the box are not the prime target customers?

Just be aware that a rolling road produces limited information compared to on the rails operation. It cannot tell you anything about track holding on curves, horizontal and vertical transitions and tractive capability, and also cannot fully 'exercise' the mechanism in any of these respects. Further, because a rolling road is a mechanism its limitations will be evident combined with the motion of the loco: it's quite frequently reported that the loco's 'wobbling' on a rolling road is not evident when the loco is operated on the rails. Some swear by them, personally I would always use track for preference, unless I were living in the Japanese pioneered 'capsule hotel'...

Yes, and I feel their operational model has changed very significantly over perhaps the last 18 months, effectively increasing the buyer's risk. Won't stop me looking for useful items at the right price, but I do look as closely as possible for visible damage on any 'non runners' that are of interest. The last three 'non runners' bought over this period had trival causes for their lack of movement.

It didn't, and they were frank about it when I asked on behalf of a friend: unfortunately N wasn't capable of making the required return on all but the most popular subjects. But going in the other direction scalewise is swimming with the tide. On the evidence to date, he swiftly adds.

I regard that as pessimistic, given that Bachmann have managed about 20 BR mk 1 gangwayed diagrams, Hornby have produced or announced the stock for prestige full train formations such as Queen of Scots, Devon Belle, Coronation Scot and Coronation; and the Ellis Clark Quad Art announcement, about the most ordinary stock imaginable, which I think will need five vehicle diagrams to make the eight body full set to burst out of the Hotel curve tunnel into daylight. Not mentioned thus far, will Hornby recognise the danger the Quadart poses to 'their' N2, now a juicy target to be picked off by a competitor? It owes them nothing, tooling from Airfix GMR via Mainline and Dapol; much churned while in Hornby's hands, for the cost of a minor mechanism upgrade. (If any competitor with such thoughts reads this, do please think of following the Airfix construction plan which enables the entire cab roof to be lifted off: this enables the exciting coupe version to be operated if the season is fine, and would look way better with a fully detailed cab interior. And - entirely secondarily - would make adding footplate crew a doddle. Thanks.)

I'd love to meet someone that believes they maintain, operate etc. the atmosphere. The traffic control system for aviation, yes that's costly, analogous to the signalling of a railway. But the huge 'missing' expense in aviation compared to terrestrial transport is no physical infrastructure to maintain for the vehicles to mechanically operate in while in flight between airports.

Actually the LMS, LNER a close second; simply in proportion to the share of the UK's freight they carried. But that's the right idea, all the railway company wagons worked as 'common user' went everywhere, and in most locations LMS and LNER common user vehicles would dominate.

It's the most famous train, so it sells itself, and can be offered in a variety of interpetations of the formation. The vehicles are 'Gresley style' which is what matters. Thinly spread around is a benefit, which in time broadly applied to all the surviving LNER gangwayed stock, which thanks to being fully compatible with BR's mk1, could go anywhere on BR and did. Resistance is futile...

Actually the whole system is very advantageous. It's only the stations, signalling kit and aircraft that have to be built, 'the road' is in place and requires no maintenance at all. If aviation operation can be made genuinely environment degradation neutral, there's a good case for limiting passenger rail to relatively short journeys mostly within urban areas. Better let the French know...(Much the same 'road comes free' applies to maritime operations.)