34theletterbetweenB&D

The Oxford product nevertheless remains a good model, and it has one feature definitely superior to the Hornby model in the mounting of the rear carrying wheel. Had it been launched at the same time as Bachmann's first Blue Riband steam models and the Hornby rebuilt MN - none of which were 'perfect' - I have no doubt it would have been seen as overall equivalent to those items But without a doubt, what Oxford have to struggle with is the torrent of steadily improving product we have seen since. It's quite a big hill to climb, matching the standard of the best of what we are now accustomed to. Evaluated against this background, I feel the Radial is a fair first effort: the potential to improve from this point is there.

With CV's 5 and 6 set to zero they are probably at the manufacturer's default settings. I would recommend adjusting CV5 to the maximum speed you want the loco to do - by trial and error - and once satisfied with that set CV6 to about a third the CV5 value, and then see how it does through the speed curve. (I would also suggest a lot more in CV's 3 and 4, try 60. That'll give you some simulated inertia to deal with.)

Shame! When our phormiums flower the scent is quite something, vanilla ice cream with a dash of rum or similar. Attracts a huge range of moths as the scent is strongest at night. They don't take kindly to cold/wet winters, and may just turn their toes up in protest. (Hertfordshire.)

In defence of which position, 'the authorities' in such an incident face dual jeopardy, by incorrectly identifying those who were not present as probable victims. People can be anywhere in the world these days, and some of them possibly 'off the grid' and thus not readily contacted. It takes time to collate all the incoming evidence and assess it for reliability.

Could they actually make their rated 20mph, or did wise crews run them rather slower than that? (Memories of how they used to yaw very visibly when seen approaching head on while out running.) I saw them regularly employed on the 'Welwyn Shunt' between Hatfield and WGC yards in the 1960s, usually with a very modest load: and it was easy to beat them on the ancient single speed Raleigh boneshaker inherited from my Pa, by the road route which was significantly greater in distance, from the 'Red Lion' bridge in Hatfield to the Twentieth mile bridge in WGC.

It's a hard call to make, when unrestricted media coverage exceeds the bounds of decency. The fact is that unfettered media means that very little can be successfully brushed under the carpet, by those whose interest might be of the 'nothing to see here, move along now' persuasion. I believe that keeping this disaster in the public view is in all our interests: the pressure needs to be kept on full strength, to determine very quickly just how many people might be living in a potential funeral pyre. I'll wince at the tasteless intrusions, but would rather that, than risk of any concealment.

The heat is producing results. My wife had heard the strange 'whee waah' calling on Saturday while working in the garden, and on Sunday morning I got five seconds view of a female golden oriole. Just want the rollers now, on a visit from Affrreeecah...

Given that there is a specimen in the NRM - and there's the Buckjumper come to that - I will be surprised if these don't get announced within the next five years. Given that a J69 can carry renditions of the GER blue and LNER green liveries in BR service it is a little surprising that we have never had one RTR in OO.

Although as described and illustrated up thread, a simple modification which took about 30 minutes fixes this completely. Savings for the screw driver brigade! (Essentially remove flywheel, then move motor closer to gear tower, leaving the underboiler space clear.)

Fact check time. Although I have not been directly affected by any of the mazak rot problems, there's been plenty of on line traffic which leads me to believe the following: Bachmann's N class: replacement cast footplates made available to owners with failed models Heljan class 47: replacement drives made available to owners with failed models Hornby class 30/31: replacement drives made available to owners with failed models. If the above is true then manufacturers have addressed consequences. What they are up to in their manufacturing processes is a closed book! Mazak is not in use for this purpose casually. It offers all the properties required at an affordable price, but with a process requirement that lead be rigorously excluded from the melt and diecasting stage. The alternatives carry very sigificant cost implications, sorry to say. And it should be kept in mind that all alloys have their failure mechanisms, many here will have seen what happens to steel and duralamin - to name two very common alloys - if not treated right...

In the case of diesel traction the Railroad range is dominated by ex-Lima bodies, with a better motor bogie by Hornby. Dependent on traction tyres to move any sort of load. All of Bachmann, Dapol, Heljan, Hornby (main range) and SLW have versions of the centre motor flywheel drive to both bogies with at least two axles driving and picking up on each bogie, plain metal tyres, plentiful weight. In all but the narrow bodied types from Heljan a chunky five pole flat can motor is used, an 1830 or 1833 in exterior dimensions*. (I have had one of these running regularly roughly since your departure 25 years ago, in an example of a Bachmann Peak which was first introduction of this type of drive in OO during the early 90s, still as quiet and reliable as ever.) These are a day over night improvement in the drive stakes over every motor bogie ever offered in OO - based on the well proven designs used in North American HO - quiet, smooth and with ample traction. Practically every diesel prototype that has run on BR now has a model available too. Most folks run out of either layout space or vehicles to fully test the haulage of the larger types that weigh in around 600g. These will realistically start and accelerate smoothly up to whatever is a scale maximum speed for the type with a 'full trainload'. (I have tried one such with 40 BR mk1s behind it, and it achieved scale speed for the rated service maximum of 105mph.) Most OO rolling stock is now on metal wheels. Get a look at Bachmann's split axle pinpoint pick up for coaches and MU's, pretty much the ideal low friction pick up. Hornby will insist on axle wipers, better than wheelback but still imposing incremental drag. We are waiting to see what Oxford Rail (relatively new entrant to OO) get up to in their Mk3s. * Edited to correct a small economy with the truth. I haven't actually laid eyes on either the Dapol or SLW motor, but have made the dangerous assumption that they will have something fo the same standard - or better - than B,H&H, all of whose motors I have had out of the mechanism for inspection. Perhaps owners of D&S will comment?

The simple fact is that the steam loco exhaust set up is always a compromise: from a power production perspective the selected arrangement should be the one obtaining the most efficient entrainment of the combustion product for least energy, over the target speed range of the design. ideally a variable exhaust configuration would be used - the 'jumper top' blastpipe fitting is an attempt at this - but the brutal truth was that the smokebox environment was so filthy that no such mechanism remained sufficiently reliable in service while steam was the majority power supplier for rail transport. Modern technology can do it. Read Chapelon and his followers for more.

Unfortunately, those elected typically are out of their depth in any technical or scientific matter. I found myself in front of a Commons select committee in which the problem that quickly emerged was that all those on the committee had a pre-Newtonian grasp of mechanics. Not fit for purpose...

This is a thorny one, and I have a very firm opinion born out of several experiences. Just my opinion, but a small club - essentially no more than a group of friends with a shared interest - is well advised to stay as an unincorporated society. Poicy on minors: the legal guardian joins the club and is present at all times the minor is there. (Essentially as the exhibition model, children are only admitted on the basuis that they are accompanied by parent or responsible legal guardian at all times. Adults with conditions that make them vulnerable in law required to make a full declaration at application to join, and to update by declaration of any subsequently developing condition. Undeclared conditions invalidate membership immediately on detection, they never were a member. (How that stands in law tbd.) (I have had the joy of endless hours of work arising from two members of an organisation wrestling each other to the ground because each believed the other to be falling over and 'went to help'. There was injury to both parties - in one case significant - with no other members present: and then both parties attempted suit against the organisation on the basis that they had 'vulnerable adult' status: completely unknown to the organisation, and not obvious or detectable (just for a start both were drivers and had arrived in their own completely standard motor vehicles).. All this despite the fact that they were present 'on duty' for the organisation, which their claimed vulnerability made them completely unfit for, and if that vulnerability had been known in advance would have seen them barred from performing this duty by policy of the organisation.)

Oh but it is fully detectable. A simple non-destructive test for the 'poisoning' elements that induce this failure mode is available, and it is not hugely expensive now, a hand held XRD analyser will do it. (When I were a lad, the first very costly commercial instruments were two tons and a three phase power supply + expert analyst to prepare the samples operate it, and interpret the results...) Having said all that, this is for the known and relatively rapid 'zinc pest / mazak rot' usually caused by lead contamination. But mazak is a relatively new alloy formulation, and it may have more than one such failure mode, and the next one we haven't had the alloy around long enough to experience it. Alloys are like that! Then again, the original owner will more than likely be safely dead... Get in there and look for crazing of the paint, and cracks. But I would suggest that there are other causes more likely to produce these symptoms. First, the motor mount on the early Sanda Kan period of construction is a mechanically inept design. The sole securing point is an inch away from where the motor has to be clamped down for the worm to engage the pinion. It can slack off very readily. Adjustment and even glueing the motor in its location have worked for my on the A3/A4 mechanism which has this and the following design flaw on the 2004/5 releases I own. Second the pick up arrangements on the loco are poor, in that the chassis block is used in the conduction path, via a peg cast into the bottom of the block bearing on the pick up strip, A plain face contact like that will go non-conducting if the loco stands for years. All mine altered; peg removed, soldered on wire connection, chassis block thus isolated fro the track, reliable conduction. Thirdly all the other metal surfaces vital for conduction will oxidise: wheel tyre, wheelback, wiper strip contact patch, and there's no pick up as a result. Hornby fixed 1 and 2 with the Britannia and since then have done much better in these respect in succeeding releases

Is it truly vital to strip this right down? Inching on the mech while holding the keeper plate on, remove keeper plate and then wipe all around - and repeat - will soon get excess lube away and allow any dirt to be cleaned off. I had to do it to fix one that had suffered a vertical drop onto paving and had several crushed flanges and so required new wheelsets, the memory this left is 'that was fiddly'. So if it is vital, the pick up assembly was lightly clipped onto the block when I took it apart, (but keep in mind that Hornby do change construction, and I was working on a first batch release).You will need to unplug the two brake detail assemblies, (they were a tight fit) before tackling the pick up assembly, and to allow the wheels to then be removed. But in order to remove the pick up assembly, I had to create slack in the wiring from the decoder socket down to the pick ups. You can pick up the exploded diagram from Hornby's random filing heap if you have the patience: worthwhile to show you what's what in my opinion, but I don't know the number of the diagram: and keep in mind there may be more than one to reflect changes to mechanism design, for which you need to check on the diagram for the model's 'R number'.

That could be fun. When I buy second hand it's typically project fodder, breakers for spares, or stuff I am looking out for on behalf of expat muckers. Nearly every piece of s/h I have purchased from Hattons is now in a significantly different form, and what isn't is no longer in the UK.

Rather than just turn off BEMF there may be adjustments. I don't know what's available on Digitrax decoders in the way of BEMF sampling and applied feedback control. On some decoders it is possible to change sampling interval or duration, and the feedback value, and thus effect very different control capability. If there is capability to tune these values to suit the motor, this might enable a reliable stop on command. Boring I know, but this is a 'read the manual' job, unless a Digitrax user can advise.

It surely is a very useful item, has those 'Ramsbottom/Crewe' running gear dimensions y'see. That's why I will probably be purchasing at some point: there hasn't been a nominal 5' wheel 7'3"+8'3" loco drive produced before. Very useful for a number of other subjects, for an idle type like me who won't build an OO mech if a good RTR option offers. (I'll let youse guys test it to destruction first, before venturing any cash.) Anything GW sells s/h, so no problems selling on any offcuts to defray expense.

Oh for a whole new design coupler mounting point, through the bufferbeam where it ought to be. But what cannot be cured must be endured. I bought a fair mountain of both the Chiver's and Parkside moulded mounting blocks to take the 'dovetail' and it isn't too tedious to cement or screw these on. Either one or the other of the Bachmann or Hornby - tested in depth. The Heljan probably too, not tested exhaustively, and the Dapol and Oxford species look OK too, but not tested. Just use one type and one alone. What with Bachmann going for global conquest in BR steam period wagons I had more of theirs than any other, so that was that decision made. Engaged in a mutally advantageous exchange with a 'Hornby Only Righteous Normative Brotherhood Yesman' charter member, his few Bachmen for my Hornboys... Wasn't I the lucky one, for it is the Bachmann design with a non-ferrous hook that works using the BK method for magnetically actuated uncoupling

The evidence I obtained at 'digital switchover' suggests sigificant dirt reduction on DCC compared to DC.* But the big benefit of the ultra reliable starting due to DCC power being 'full on' at all times, is that signal to noise ratio of the evidence of dirt build up is vastly improved over DC. If a DC loco didn't start, most of the time there was no assignable cause. If a DCC loco doesn't start smoothly but stutters - a very much less frequent event - there is always an assignable cause and usually it is dirt, time to run the rail cleaning drag around. In DC operation I ran the track drag at the end of every operating session, as this had tested as the most effective time to clean track, and it needed cleaning every time after the typical three to four hours of one of my operating sessions. In DCC operation of the very same layout about twenty sessions with no track drag cleaning were required to produce a stutter on starting. So I standardised on operating the track drag after every tenth session, and to date everything always starts smoothly.

If there is a CVS on your patch, they should be up to date with the charity commission's requirements and will advise - for free! You may get a meaningful rattle of a donation collection tin though. This is a good outline but missing three crucial pieces, two in front, one behind: First, What is(are) the sole purpose(s) for which the club is formed and which may not be altered except by legitimate vote of members Second, The whole voting process, members qualification to vote, quorum, simple majority or other defined majority, scheme for meetings including the extraordinary type to deal with unexpected situations Lastly, Dispute resolution scheme and provisions for closure. I know this chap who had the joyful task in the previous millenium of aiding in the disentangling of a furious row in a mental health charity, before it finished up in the hands of lawyers with who knows what outcome, and no very large amount of money to speak of, whatever was decided. Joy unbounded, there was a very thorough constitution that crucially covered these three elements mentioned above in great detail. It was quickly found that all but one of the people in the battling parties were not even entitled to participate at all - they had allowed their membership to lapse, in one case for six years - and that the members in good standing were sufficient in number to call an extraordinary meeting, dismiss all the officers and wind it up tout suite with no appeal, donation of the assets (which were what was being fought over) to a national charity. (This sensible party went on to form a new charity for the same purpose, 'unemcumbered': with help provided by the national charity as start up funding, by coincidence of the same value as the donated assets...)

You don't have to pin through the sleepers. A drawing pin (thumbtack) with the pointy bit in the gap between two sleepers and the head bridging the two sleepers holds down very gently and allows side to side adjustment. It can be left like that in non scenic areas, and is readily altered at any time. If ballasting the pins come out after the 'tack down' of the bare track with dilute PVA ahead of ballasting, nothing visible remains and the pins can be reused. Can this work with foam underlay? Unless going for smaller than advisable radii, foam underlay tacked to the track base with either double sided tape or by Thixofix or similar adhesives, is more than adequate to maintain track alignment with code 75 rail. (I was very pleasantly surprised to find that Peco's code 75 does not dogleg on curves of 24" or greater radius, the rail joiner alone maintains the curve smoothly between lengths, much, much easier than code 100.)

In UK commercial railway operation the prevailing asset accounting system with the taxation consequent has been the differentiator between new build and rebuild. As already remarked above, operational locomotives and indeed all working railway assets were not of any romantic significance, but solely gear from which the revenue was earned. It was Maunsell I think who told the directors that naming pieces of machinery wouldn't improve their performance, (so he was deffo an engineer) it simply is equipment built to do the work at lowest cost, and that last consideration includes schemes to maximise tax efficiency . Other sectors have different practise. Non-commercial aviation enthusiasm has always revolved around getting teh old crate going again if there is a surviving rivet from the 'involuntary conversion'. It already had some doggerel when the plane was in its teens; 'The Bold Aviator lay dying' http://beyondthetrenches.co.uk/the-bold-aviator-lay-dying-carefully-contrived-callousness-in-airmens-songs/

Nothing remarkable about this at all. What had informed OVSB's decision to put a machine with a big grate into service for the Southern? Why, it would be the GNR/LNER development of the wide firebox express locomotive, which project was led by Gresley, ably assisted by his Right Hand Man, OVSB. When it came to seeing whether steam could match what an express diesel railcar might achieve on the ECML, the locomotive selected for the first trial was quite deliberately made: an average specimen of an A1, famously 'Flying Scotsman' no 4472. And the first dynamometer car record of 100mph, (and thus the first time such speed had been reliably recorded on UK rails) was obtained using the roughly 1200 ihp that an A1 could be flogged up to, powering an all up 360 ton train weight. An all up train weight of 600 tons, and the very much higher output that an average MN should have been able to exert will whip it along alright.