34theletterbetweenB&D

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.

I'd like it all cleaned up, by the simplest method: legalisation. (Same applies to street narcotics.) That way the drugs are regulated, traceably prepared and thus as safe as possible, and properly administered with an under-age restriction; oh, and taxed to pay for all the immediate regulation and consequences. They would all have the most direct health warnings on the packet: "This will probably hasten your death, with awful side effects for years beforehand. Possibly even worse might happen. Think very carefully before you take this awful stuff.". No big deal, we do it for our legal narcotic and addictive substances with all the well known problems these cause. Then you run the Olympics for amateurs, one entry per lifetime at not significantly older than the age restriction, with a stringent drug test regime: any doubt, out. Pro sport is open; the only offence not declaring all the shit you are using. That way we perhaps get to find out which is best from Runfastalon, Maxpowerdrine or Bursteroid. Will we see the 100m run in under 5 seconds, and do you have to survive until the awards ceremony and get on the podium unassisted to receive Drugold, Substansilver, or Dopobronze to be officially recorded as medallists?

I deleted the 'favourite' and loaded anew, and that seemed to sort it out - mostly. The home page appears to be set to scroll horizontally whether you want it to or not (no control) but the other sections worked OK. And I see in 'Technical' that the OO class 21/29 is in the tool room, due to complete Q3 2017. So, here's hoping there might be first EP's on show at the Q4 2017/Q1 2018 shows that Dapol attend?

You don't need to, the whole cab floor is attached to the mechanism. It's all very close fitting, which is why separating body from mechanism is often slightly sweaty the first time. If you are certain you have the marked securing screws removed, just keep wiggling until they separate.

Still to be tested I feel. Personally I would plump for 'niche model', albeit a significant size niche. The niche that I believe it occupies is, 'example of a well known private engine manufacturer's petite and attractive 'classic' industrial steam loco capable of carrying a range of owner livery schemes and sufficiently typical of the type to have broad appeal among the UK's RTR layout owners (who have until recently had to make do with adaptions of much older and generally inferior models), made to current standard'. Never had anything equivalent to this model considered 'all around' previously offered in OO in short, and I suspect that it will eat 80%+ of the market for 'small and attractive industrial steam loco' for the foreseeable future, especially as it has the field completely to itself at present. Never again can there be a release of a model into this niche that had no effective prior competition. What's left in demand for alternative steam industrials will likely be mopped up by the Dapol B4 and the small 0-6-0T that DJM is proposing, if they are next to market. I would hope to be incorrect in this assessment, but cannot help but feel that this 'niche' has been almost too well filled... The landscape of model railway retail has shifted again, in addition to the discounting which enabled the larger operators to increase their market share; there is now the proliferation of new and smaller manufacturers, exclusives by commissioning or direct production, and potentially crowdfunded products. More competitive pressure on the smaller retailer for the potential customer's spend. There isn't really the Aldi/Lidl option either of simplified stocking to reduce trading cost, (If you want a 5MT, I have the early crest Stanier, my class 5 diesel is a coal sector liveried class 56, etc. - that'll go over - not!) it's got to be about competing on soft stuff like personal service, shop atmosphere, cup of tea or coffee, chat, knowledge, demonstrations and assistance in developing skills and technique.

If I were assessor, I'd have failed him on the question. There's a presumption that influential innovation occurred. Evidence of bias, unsound if research is the purpose of the exercise.

Not just collector shoes. RTR model designers often hang inevitably overscale components off models much nearer rail level than they should be, and without too much consideration for the 'dynamic augment' while the models are running, caused by the deliberately sloppy rail/wheel system, loose bogie mountings, etc, or any thought for what might happen when ride height comes down with wear in long term use. And there's your brake van going wrong road all across the junction, or footstep brackets, life guards, brake rodding outside wheels, fouling for example. The overscale elements may often be well concealed on the underside of the model, but if they are present, hey hey! I have had occasional 'events' on regular two rail points from these causes. That's the practical experience talking alright, and there's no loss to appearance in the view shown. The biggest visual impact I suspect is that the wooden shrouds in platform areas are problematic to represent?

Removal of the springs is the way forward. Think of this as modification - it is fully reversible - so not a 'mutilation'. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the points or the motors or the motor control equipment then.. Now here's the rub, and it is fairly brutal truth time. Logically one or more aspects of what you do to install them must therefore be leading to the sticking. A few 'top suspects': Deforming the point base by pinning down. Double sided tape is 'kinder', but note what comes below. Undersize hole in baseboard to fully clear drive pin action. A half inch dia. hole is good, no fiddly alignment. Once motor is in place and tested, to conceal the hole slide in a strip of thick brown paper with a precut drive pin slot between point base and baseboard, (needs this area clear of double sided tape) and repeat test of full function. Fouling the action of any of the moving components with scenic treatments involving glues, ballast and paint. Test at completion of every stage, and if previously working points fail, you may have to significantly revise the cosmetic treatment applied. A biggie for me with the version of the code 100 of some years ago, the little contact tab formed as part of the point blade pressing. If these are slightly high so they can hit the rail foot at least some of the time, then manual actuation will usually be fine, because the finger generally pushes the tie bar down. Try the troublesome points with a pin through the drive hole (you may have to drill a new one as the point motor actuator will be through the regular drive hole) and if there are 'refusals' there's your problem.

There remains a fair selection of classes with greater numbers in service than the Stanier 2-6-0 ever had, that were regulars on main lines into BR operation. Whether that makes them mainstream is quite another question. Like it or not, I suspect that those that are not thought to be 'mainstream' will be priced proportionate to the NRM's C1 or Stirling single to reflect the smaller likely sales potential. These 'non-mainstream' subjects will get selected for production as RTR models, as commissioned or regular range items, until such time as the return becomes insufficient to justify the commercial risk. (Doubtless to much grumbling from those 'priced out' from the Flowerdean 'Morris Lodge' that they had always wanted in RTR.) the truth of it is that the RTR manufacturers have a stark choice: revisits to subjects that already have RTR models (and that's looking 'unpromising' unless the previous model is deeply flawed) or offer completely new subjects (hurrah) by whatever seems the best method to derisk the project.

Nothing more than this was the available hobbyist product when this idea first came to the fore, forty odd years ago.

Does anyone know if the current Hornby (ex Airfix/Mainline/Dapol) N2 mechanism is a fit or may be carved to be so? Screw attaching a couple of blocks to the mech to fit inside and support the H-D body would be a snap. Potentially a very cheap and easy way to remotor the body for operating purposes, with no alteration required to original parts.

Worse than that. Neither Bachmann or Hornby really show much evidence of understanding how the close couplng mechanisms (CCM) they put on their coaches are best used. Although you won't need to take a hacksaw to the coaches with CCM, you will have to learn how to get the best from them. A little initial fiddling before they go into service, and choice of appropriate couplers to form a rigid bar between the two NEM pockets. I use a Roco pattern coupler on the Hornby coaches, which have the same head and is compatible with the Hornby R8220 'close coupler' which is overlong to get the best out of Hornby's correctly positioned NEM pockets. This Hornby coupler however, works well with Bachmann coaches that have the coupler pocket too deeply recessed under the coach end to meet the NEM standard! The rightly liked Kadee coupler is not an optimum choice with CCM, I use it on the ends of coach sets only, for its autocoupling performance; in which respect it is the best RTR coupler. As for RTR wagons, the positioning of the NEM coupler pocket is dictated by the requirement to operate on very small radius curves. This is not helpful for close coupling, but a user modification is possible, using the miniature tension lock coupler. By use of a slightly larger minimum radius of 24", it is possible to set the couplers further inboard, so that the wagons buffer up when pushed, and pull out with the coupler slack, spacing the bufferheads about 2mm apart. Pretty decent representation of how loose coupled four wheel wagons operated. That's what I do, using a pair of snips to crop off the pocket fronts and the 'tails' on the couplers, to place the bumper bar in the same plane as the buffer faces. (Quick and easy, fully reversible so long as coupler spares are available.) Bachmann generally make a good job of this. The more recent tender loco introductions have a neat screw locked slide under the tender allowing the closest setting compatible with layout curves, which is an optimal solution. However, the majority of their products come with a 'two hole' drawbar: most well executed, a few not. The worst 'bloopers' I am aware of are the BR std 4MT 2-6-0 and BR std 9F. The former has a scale setting hole provided, but the moulded intermediate buffers on the tender will not allow the hole to engage on the tender peg! A simple chop of the intermediate buffers fixes this. On the 9F, drilling a third hole in the drawbar is the way forward. Hornby main range, a very mixed picture, although again better on their more recent product introductions with a simple two position choice drawbar screwed onto the undersides of loco and tender. I fnd myself making a new drawbar from sheet metal as the simplest option to close couple most of their tender locos. (Their complete triumph was the BR std 7MT which had a 'bob on' close coupling setting. That was introduced just over ten years ago and nothing quite this good from them since!) Did the same 'replacement drawbar job' for the sole Heljan OO tender loco release seen to date, simple drawbar screwed on underneath. Dapol's sole current OO tender loco is a mystery. Haven't seen any discussion online of how loco and tender are attached or if there is spacing adjustment. The Oxford plan is much as Hornby's based on the newly released Dean goods, and we await the Rapido system on the Stirling single with interest. Bear in mind that I have by no means seen all the OO models (locos and rollng stock) currently on sale; you need to ask specific questions relating to the models that interest you. As this by the sound of it already exists, the minimum radius of both the plain track and points may well help others provide specific advice.

The one I have used following advice from an American friend, was the stuff used for bonding glass to make aquariums. Couldn't give you a brand name as I 'borrowed it' from a tropical fish keeping friend who built his own tanks. Does it work and maintain gear mesh? Yes. I have also used Evostick (the full-on glue sniffer approved version) which is equally effective.

Expanding a little on this thought, it seems to me that now most of the obvious 'plums' in steam traction have been picked, one way ahead might be some systematic 'infill' provision to open up areas of the country to modelling, by providing the most common indigenous pre-group types that were an essential character item in the scene. Many of which would be small 0-6-0's, of the same general type as the Dean goods, J11, J15, C, 700, 3F: the maid of all work loco that was so useful that it lasted practically up to the end of steam in its home area. I do wonder if such provision might trigger a surge of interest in producing Scottish steam era layouts, in much the same way that the arrival of RTR classes 26 and 27 did? It wouldn't hurt the cause that the Caley and NBR 0-6-0 designs - and their other numerous classes - are such handsome machines too. Chance for a manufacturer to carve out a territorial niche?