34theletterbetweenB&D

I suspect that the presence of RTR may still be beneficial to you, by this argument. When I as a young person wanted a model railway to represent the very interesting operations on the real thing, it was inevitably RTR. Having been 'recruited', and sometime later (1960s) having come to an appreciation that what could be purchased RTR did not cover most of the subjects I really wanted, a move toward kit and scratch building came next. So I became a purchaser of the 'kits and bits'. While the volume of new recruits via RTR may be smaller nowadays, there are still people being recruited to the hobby and a proportion of them 'moving on' in that way: some of which has been in evidence on this site over the years it has operated. It is possible that these new customers for 'kits and bits' have made the difference in sales volume to keep the surviving supplying businesses viable.

We solve this problem when it comes along to bite us! For now we just keep doing what works for this quarter's results...

Getting the driven wheel tyres properly polished up ( I would imagine by removing manufacturing residues) by running is a real effect: this also applies to the rails. New track is less grippy than well used. Primary factor is always weight on the driven wheels. Of currently sold RTR OO loco drive steam models with no traction tyres, the Bachmann 9F is highly effective, second place goes to the Heljan O2. (The Hattons/Heljan Garratt now I think only available S/H will do more than either, if both motors keep running.) None of these are as effective as the RTR centre motor twin bogie models, some of which weigh in excess of 600g and all of it - or nearly all - on driven wheels in two subchassis. Quite apart from being heavier than steam models, this gives them a degree of immunity to loss of adhesion on features like pointwork and gradient transitions. The first such on the UK market was Bach's 'Peak' back in 1992, and this item was immediately on introduction the best RTR OO loco for traction, not dependent on traction tyres. (I was outdoors at the time, and traction tyres had proved useless in this environment, weight was required, lots of weight.)

... 61xx. These other two - from the same stable - could do with being 'railroaded' too. The benefit of a more stable mechanism in model form makes them more suitable for the young too.

I would argue that expansion of choice in a market is generally a good thing, indicating healthy demand. With a good RTR option there could be an expansion of interest in such things. I am a case in point: stayed with 4mm instead of going HO, as a result of Bachmann 17 years ago commencing supply of RTR OO models to an acceptable quality standard, which made the reasonably extensive model that I was after possible. Without this RTR, I would have gone HO, resulting sales of UK OO kits and bits zero. As it is, I buy UK kits and bits as a means of obtaining those character items that I guess will never get a RTR model.

Well quite, what with the expectation raising that Bachmann in particular have generally brought to the OO RTR party since about 2001. (I have not counted but would instinctively bet that their range of 'decently accurate' OO wagon models totals more than the sum of all the present competitors' activity, and overwhelmingly so if weighted for the time they have been available. Sixteen years and counting unopposed in offering the dia 1/108 16T mineral, only the most numerous wagon built by BR.) But leaving that aside: if the options are a vehicle that fails to conform to any prototype in a fictional livery scheme, or a model that only represents one side of the vehicle reasonably accurately; which to choose? I cannot throw any stones due to a glasshouse of my own construction. I have BR coaches carrying different liveries either side, very handy for making up 'different' formations dependent on which side they are viewed from: facilitated by the neat clip together construction of said coaches. I can only view one side at a time...

As a complete heretic, I'd invoke the operational necessity of a tender and the doings of a hard-pressed shedmaster making a loco fit for traffic at need, to explain the alternative tender on the Schools. It simply looks so good, that it would be a crime not to do it. I occasionally put eight wheel tenders behind my BR(ER) V2s on the same basis, for which there is not a single solitary shred of evidence.

Then again, we are now one additional 'traditional appearance steam industrial' better off than only having the Austerity 0-6-0ST available in OO RTR made to current standard. With announcements of the B4 from Dapol and whatever small 0-6-0T it is that DJM proposes, that should be a couple more petite locos to join this group; and to probe what the sustained market interest might be. There will I am sure be shunting puzzleists with excellently schemed layouts capable of representing a range of businesses to suit different locos, liveries and stock, exhibiting two hourly changes, from jam to biscuits to canned goods to beverages. But that is a minority. I suspect much of the demand for a 'small industrial' to operate the siding of a rail served business will be well served by the Peckett, and a couple more examples of similar size will effectively mop up the remainder.

I have a distant memory that the LMS perpetuated the Midland design cattle wagon on the basis that they would only build the 'large' dimension vehicles, and the Midland design was available at grouping. How things come full circle! Bachmann were in the fore, moving RTR wagons from 'any old generic representation will do' to correctly dimensioned bodies and wheelbase; yet here they are exhibiting full on 'bad old days of RTR' behaviour. There is now also a RTR OO LNER cattle wagon - which represents a prototype accurately enough from one side only - by Oxford. (Half a loaf...)

The high current draw, but no suggestion of any short circuit, suggests a weak magnet. That's a cheap fix if it is the cause, if you definitely want to get it running. (Candidly, your thought of putting it on shed as 'scenery' - stopped for boiler wash out or more time consuming fitter attention - is the best scheme. It's way behind the curve in appearance and running.)

Clarification. By 'Old M7' do you mean the Margate production with the open frame motor. (Guessing it is this one as a 1.5A stall current is way too high for the current version with a can motor.)

...Kitmaster tender, vital for post grouping and onward operation, RARE!

Which he knew to be untrue (a Claughton with its brakes on would be immovable by two Stars or whatever) but the limitations of the technical education of his directors precluded the answer he might have liked to have given. Probably something on the lines of "Because in service lifetime power output, twice the power output per pound sterling of initial build cost will be obtained from our design constructed to our standards, compared to the LNWR design of Crewed construction. Which is not to say that GJC's approach was correct: the greater first cost of this approach as compared to cheaper build for a shorter working life, saw the other outfit ultimately in possession of significantly superior equipment...

This DCC operator matches all loco speed curves, and has characterised acceleration and deceleration rates in one of three groups, slow medium, fast. They all match in the bottom quarter of the speed curve for banking purposes and for moves around and on and off shed in 'trots'. (Side question: is 'trot' for two or more engines running coupled up for such moves a generally understood term?) Pilot engine, I consist with train engine, and with the locos speed matched the system takes care of the 'skilled driver' element. Moving the engine that brought in the ecs off the platform behind the departing train, do it manually, Banking, manually, but let the speed matching take care of what actually happens. I only put on a banker (or for that matter add a pilot) if the train engine model cannot move the load unassisted because it exceeds the tractive capability carefully set by appropriate weighting of the model. Consequently when banking the train engine has some proportion of the train with the couplers in tension, and the remainder of the couplers are in compression, so those vehicles are being moved by the banker. The variations in vehicle weights, gradient and rail adhesion see the balance point move about while in motion. The train cannot run away from the banker while the full load is on the bank, and the banking engine is manually 'dropped off' once the train engine is sufficiently off the bank to be able to take the full load.

But was it on a banking turn? Engine plus brake van was common: en route to pick up wagons, returning after dropping off wagons, the leading contenders.

Hornby are going to test it big time with the Duchess. It should be an easy win. The never previously available RTR Ivatt development, and - assuming that they get it right - correction of the slope on the firebox sides with the significant knock on improvement to the cab front appearance, coupled with their first Stanier tender with correctly represented frames; these alone should add up to 'desirable' as they will contribute to a significantly better model than what was previously available. (There are yet more faults in the previous version, lots of lingering 'Margate' content in the running gear which hopefully gets swept away in the new model.) Nobody likes increasing prices, but we do adapt up to whatever budget we may enjoy. Those disaffected from current product on price and/or lack of robustness grounds have - I suspect - largely disembarked already for the alternative joys of about seventy years worth of (mainly UK) RTR productions that are readily available second hand. A dozen years ago I would have bought the new Duchess model without a second thought. Now however there's Thompson coaches, B12, Stirling single, N7s, O2/2, V2, Class 21, relevant to my interest available or announced on my prospective purchase list. 'Visiting locos' to operate railtours, such as an airsmoothed MN and Duchess, have to wait in line however good the model may be. It's the coal tank that tops my 'off region' purchase list: a regular visitor wheezing along with freight or ecs transfer movements. Pretty sure I am not alone in this. The choice now set before us in RTR is becoming significant, and - very welcome too - rather more diverse. Other than the preserved single, everything else on my purchase list tends more to meat and potatoes than glamour.

The Bachmann 57xx mechanism is an easy fit, you just line up the leading wheelset with the splasher and arrange the body securing for that alignment. This is simple because the ends of the Bach chassis are plastic so easily modified. My recollection is that the screw attached underboiler representation had to be removed from the mechanism, Weight then had to be added to the ensemble for traction, bags of space for that. Let it be said loud and clear this is about good running, not precise prototype conformance, although the scale for 7'3+8'3" wb mechanism of the pannier model is right for length of the J83 wb, just puts the centre wheelset a scale 3" out of position, and most people will never see that. What an owner chooses to do from this point in de-GWRing is up to them, the horribly coarse outside brake pull rods an obvious target for the razor saw.

The concept is one I like very much. The problem I perceive is 'existing competition'. This is the heap of unused or little used decent RTR mechanisms 'out there', regularly available s/h at reasonable prices with a little patience. Of direct relevance in wheelbase and wheel diameter for use in powering a 94xx body, I have just acquired a Bach 57xx mechanism for a project awaiting such. Now it doesn't have the mechanical refinement of a Mashima on a good 40:1 reduction kit gearbox: but then it doesn't need it because the Lenz standard that is my usual choice will make it perform exquisitely. And at a net cost of £16 for the mechanism - already sold on the body and box to defray expense - that's powerful 'existing competition', and it's a running mechanism, no assembly or finishing required. If the 'original RTR' or some near equivalent is available retail, it would be a real stretch to bring in the fully assembled mechanism kit for a smaller purchase price. The present situation with poor supply of spares from manufacturers 'works for us' in this scenario: buy a complete model for the mechanism, sell on all the unwanted parts. I have been about this during the past fifteen years of competent OO productions, to repower all sorts of models: various kits with worn or poor mechanisms, older RTR with decent/'usable with work' bodies but awful mechs, (the category the Lima 94xx falls in) newer RTR afflicted with the short life split chassis; so I feel have amassed fair experience to make this assessment. I have never yet spent more than £25 to get a RTR 0-6-0 mechanism from RTR models of GW or LMS designs, and usually significantly less, as an idea of the target purchase price to beat...

I will change my online moniker to 'Landfill' - if it is not already taken - if you care to send Bachmann miniature tension locks my way... Think it is worth mentioning an aspect of tension locks, confining this to the presently manufactured miniature pattern versions. Quite apart from their inherent design incompatibility with CCM , (so no point using them in this mounting) there's no complete compatibility between the various manufacturers versions however they may be mounted. Inspect closely and you will find that there are significant differences in the functional parts: and as a result they are not consistently reliable when used together. Use one maker's pattern alone, rigidly mounted or in a flexing NEM pocket installed with the same care in positioning to the Kadee, and they perform.

As you see fit. The bigger retailers typically have selective offers on product they want to shift all through the year, in addition to there usually being a pile of offers in August. No guarantees of any of this happening, and especially not of specific items that you might wish to purchase being reduced! I'd go for the more flexible approach of keeping watch, and buying when you feel the price is right.

Best not to take the risk. A DC loco can suffer very rapid motor burn out on DCC if you are unlucky. I have seen this happen, and it is fully avoidable if you take no chances. Really you need to look inside the locos for a decoder. Depending on exactly what locos you have, the decoder socket may be in the tender. Which is good, typically less fiddly to access than by loco body removal. Look for service sheets in the packaging for information. If you are going to get back into the hobby, partially dismantling models is a pretty necessary skill anyhoo... With the layout built by one 'lately deceased' you are in the dark regarding what has been done, beyond the immediately obvious. You may be able to trace wiring, but unless it all becomes obvious very quickly and is completely reliable, my suggestion would be to remove it and start again.

Zimo's default settings for their decoders have always had relatively small values in CV 3 (acceleration rate) and CV 4 (deceleration rate). So the slightly smoothed response to speed step settings is what I would expect. (Try even larger values for the extended smooth accelerations that go with the high inertia of railway vehicles.) You can set these two CV's to zero for near 'direct drive' to the desired speed step, or you can probably set another CV (see manual) to make F4 cancel the effect of CV's 3 and 4 for direct drive. Further thought: this is a tender drive mechanism with traction tyres. That will be much better with the values Zimo provide in CV's 3 and 4, or yet larger. Traction tyres stretch - and will thus more quickly become ineffectual - with abrupt speed changes. Smoothly does it.

It's a subject that could - with a modern tool suite - cover quite a range of variations, as others above have already observed. But, If a competing model did appear, most likely Hornby would be able to re-issue very price competitively. That could be rather punishing for a commissioner with limited retail visibility, compared to the retail exposure a Hornby release has. (Manufacturer's own release, more probable. Though with plenty of subjects with no RTR model - or only a very poor one - which way would you choose to jump? I feel there have been enough lessons in 'duplication, best avoided' these past half dozen years to make most manufacturers and commissioners more wary.) I would expect these third party commissions with Bachmann to be of subjects with no RTR model; or if there was one, something now way behind the market expectations of a model. Probably at the more modest end of the size range too.

Simplest possibility first and not specific to any particular model, this is typically momentary loss of track power. If the loco apparently runs smoothly on DC at dead slow without decoder but there is any flickering of the lights, that's the problem.

Let's take this in three bites: So these two ran as expected, but the Stanier tank had a physical accident and was then found to have the piston (rod?) out of place? This suggests DCC system running satisfactorily, two reasonably modern models with decoders fitted ditto, before the Stanier tank had some sort of accident. Multiple possibilities, corrosion of soldered joints or progressive failure of dry joints, oxidation of wheel tyres, pick up wiper contact, and internal wiring contacts, would be my leading thoughts. Is the decoder in the Lima set up to run on DC? Quite often setting a decoder to run on DCC only fixes the runaway problem (CV29, consult decoder manual). Corrosion on metal to metal contacts can result in some partial rectification, and some Lima for the UK market is very good at corroding where clip on metal to metal connections are found in the wiring. As for the Wrenn loco, the buzzing motor may be symptomatic of the motor receiving DCC track supply. If that's happening - for some reason to be diagnosed - then the decoder will not respond and will probably not accept an address change either. Alternatively it could be due to the drive being mechanically gummed up due to evaporated lubricant. There's not much power to overcome the stickiness, and the motor probably will buzz as the decoder attempts to drive it. Don't put the loco on DCC power, get the body off and see if the motor turns freely by hand, turning it over so the wheels make a full revolution. If it doesn't then free it up with a little light oil on the gears and bearings until it turns freely, then attempt a DCC retest : I'd start with another address change on programme track. If the motor and drive train turn freely however as soon as you try it, remove the decoder and restore the mechanism to DC running and test on DC. If it runs well on DC, then reinstate the decoder and try an address change on programme track. Blackening suggests probably corrosion leading to copper oxide formation, which is non-conducting. Was it the adhesive, or is there some other corrosive present in your layout location? A metal polish should do the job of cleaning this deposit off. Peco rail is generally very corrosion resistant, so this is a bit out of the ordinary. A little green-blue corrosion outdoors around soldered joints is the worst I have seen.