34theletterbetweenB&D

Candidate for most Easterly B4 in BR operation, 30086 at Guildford as shed pilot? To be displaced in time, for the second time, by a USA tank too... I raise you the Stirling Single Sir! Of 4-4-0 designs, the Wainwright D takes the palm alright: I am surprised that the NRM has not yet got around to a model of this delightful machine. The benefit is that unlike the T9 and Schools marred by traction tyres, both B&H can now make a tractively competent 4-4-0 without such encumbrances. 'Tis an ill wind...

But do we measure 'geographical coverage' in territorial area, route mileage, population, or spending power? I very much hope that models like the Q6 and Coal tank sell in such quantity that the retailers realise the sadly neglected potential of the NER and LNWR to the extent of influencing the RTR business' subject choices: and maybe enough to suggest the 'joined together thinking' that these lines led on to Scotland...

Don't get excited, I am not in possession of the item you want, and quite possibly no-one is, To explain... What Heljan typically provide with the model is a diagram of the component parts, but no instructions on how to assemble these parts. Earlier products have the parts drawn in plan, as if laid on a table top somewhat grouped to indicate which goes with which; recently they have moved to an exploded diagram layout which makes the relationships between the parts much clearer and removes some of the guesswork. You can help yourself in this request by editing the post to add 'O Gauge' in the title: Heljan produce an OO class 26/27, and I only took a look in case the class number in the title was a typo for one of these....

Be sure to test every design you are thinking of using. Characteristics vary widely between designs, and that's before taking any account of manufacturing variation within production of a design. Some motors used in current OO will run very slowly on PWM maximum output from 7.4V input, and if they happen to be coupled to a high ratio gear train you may see a scale 1 or 2mph: creeping along rather than slow in other words.

Charing Cross, Cannon Street. Both small terminii - by London standards. ;-) What with the GER being built on a marsh, there must be an example in East Anglia. (One of the coastal loco depots had tidal ebb and flow in the loco inspection pits...) Take a look at Snape which is practically on top the R Alde. or Melton and Woodbridge a litle further South on the R Deben.

As a tryout, a simple wire link from bogie to bogie (small hole in bogie moudling ends, piece of wire formed as a very broad staple) will let you test how it works. The power units in these early MU's like the 170 are more than adequate for much greater loads than the 3 car formation. You could disconnect power to the motor of one unit and remove the axle gears to make it undriven if they are to be permanently coupled. No potential problems speed matching two drives that way, and fully reversible at any time.

From those dimensions the nearest very widely used 0-6-0 wheelbase is 7'3"+8'3", the 'Ramsbottom' dimensions standardised at Crewe at the dawn of the railway age, and taken up by many other design shops including the GWR's. (The alternative very common dimensions are Derby's 8'+8'6". I have never counted it up, but it is probable that following the end of new construction of the Stephenson 'long boiler' 0-6-0 type, the majority of UK 0-6-0s built thereafter were Ramsbottom or Derby wheelbase.) Since Eames offered a chassis kit for the 57XX - which is on a 7'3"+8'3" wheelbase - then that part of it seems to me settled. Wheel diameter now, since we don't know what the original owner intended, it could well have been a freelance try out for an industrial type which wasn't followed through? There simply wasn't much choice in mechanisms when these kits were current, very much a case of use the nearest available item and do your best with it, until full scratchbuilder skills had been acquired. (Never mind current arguments about 'Are you a modeller if you only use RTR?', back then it was 'Are you a scratchbuilder if you buy your wheels instead of making them?'.)

I feel you ought to bear in mind that the materials process control when these were manufactured was not so good. I put a selection of 'good' and 'bad' 1950/60's magnets from open frame motors through the (couple of tons of!) XRD with which the lab group in which I was then employed had been newly equipped in the late seventies. There were significant differences in the crystallography between the 'high field strength, no tendency to lose field when out of magnetic circuit' and the 'flabby, which lost field very readily even when in circuit' groups. (I had to take the expert's word for it, since this is not my field at all. But armed with this XRD kit he was extremely effective in sorting out subtle materials problems that previously caused real difficulties in product engineering; moving us forward in a single leap from 'black art' to quantifiable knowledge, so I am inclined to trust his opinion.) As an FYI: Other analytical work related to model railway, all my own work so I know it is correct... What is the dirt on the rails when there are polymer formulation wheelsets on the layout? Polymer components mostly, some metal oxides. What is the dirt on the rails when there are solely metal wheelsets on the layout? Metal oxides, mainly copper oxide, also nickel, iron, lead, tin oxides,a small organic component, mainly fractions from lubes. So what is happening to the running surfaces of the nickel silver rails and wheels? They become detectably selectively depleted of Copper.

You might edit your first post to retitle the thread to 'Dave Lowery fold out model railway plan'. That's two very specific pieces of information that might catch the eye of someone who remembers this particular item.

The particular screw to adjust on the C class is the one permitting the tender to sit at correct spacing from the cab end of the loco so that the fall plate bridges the gap! On this model and the 3F, the excellent slide concept for this spacing is of slightly flawed execution. But take apart the tender slide mounting and modify lightly for greater travel, and you can make it work the way it should. (It's correctly executed on the eight coupleds I have looked at, and the J11.)

Very much so, and I think this is part of what Bachmann do so very right: their products have typically been good 'canvasses' which are ready to be improved upon with detail work of the owner's choice. (Just the fact that the tampo printing is a simple 'soften with IPA or similar' job to remove, means that all models are effectively supplied un-numbered which is a major asset.) Having perforated my finger tips several times on the (excellent) 247 Products fire iron rack, is my guess at why Bach elected to leave this prominent detail off...

Snap. There was no ducking out of it, solid familial agreement that a major bash would be much too much fun to miss, and anyway they had waited long enough for this excuse to have a walloping great get together. (It was a lot of fun.) I did think of going for the totally tactless, 'you have checked the lady is over 16?'.

I see the Kadee design as the fulfillment of the underlying promise of the Peco Simplex: the good principle developed into a satisfactory solution. (Remains too delicate for children's play though I should think. Our idea of coupling up was a scale 50mph and up...) Odd thing I have about the Kadee, and its clones. Completely happy with it on Pullman gangwayed coaches; what could be better, an efficient autocoupler that looks decently close to what the prototype carried? But on 4W 'steam era' wagons, no go for me. The miniature tension lock not only looks a lot better, but functions in a superior manner for loose coupled stock: when appropriately positioned (not as the mfrs do it!) allowing buffering up when pushing, and pulling out to scale separation between bufferheads.

I do. As a child I had access to both in use on layouts. For all its faults the TL stayed coupled up, the Peco Simplex didn't. In metal form it isn't robust enough to withstand play, and getting it trued up to work reliably was near impossible, and the later plastic type is incompatible with it, if vehicles are expected to autocouple and stay coupled up. An inadequate design. As your observations extracted here demonstrate, if at all possible standardise on a single maker's design. They are not truly compatible if complete reliability is desired, because there is no single standard design in use.

There's their first 2-8-0 as well, the Riddles WD: a not that popular locomotive yet a vital element in the make up of the last twenty years of UK steam, and a subject that I likewise never imagined would get a RTR model. Only surpassed by their dia 1/108 16T mineral; remains the only decently accurate RTR model of the most numerous wagon built for BR. Essential. (These two items convinced me to go with an OO layout, rather than a US HO project.)

Put gloss black enamel on first, then matt. (No idea what the lead soldierati do, but this has worked for me over many years of making locos heavier.)

We are pretty much at 'peak child' (thank you, the late Dr Hans Rosling) now globally. And you are bob on about far more famous outfits tanking. A multibillion dollar revenue business overshooting demand tends to create a hole in the accounts so deep, that there isn't a feasible rescue plan.

But before the long and happy life together there is the assault course that is the wedding. (Unless you can persuade her to make it a lunchtime call to a registry office/church/alternative licenced venue - known two couples who did this, and bioth still hitched and happy.)

I would suggest a call or e-mail to Dapol requesting help, with a clear description of the sequence of events and resulting problems as you removed and replaced wheelsets, fitted and then removed the etched inserts, to get to your present situation.

What is intended is that these couplers go in an NEM pocket, and have no sideplay in the pocket. The necessary sideplay for curves is provided by the mounting of the NEM pocket, in two forms: On bogie vehicles, as the bogies swivel the NEM pocket mounting both swings and extends proportionately to give extra clearance for the vehicle ends on the curve; this is the 'close coupling mechanism' mentioned in earlier posts The couplers form a rigid bar between the pockets, and this is necessary to restore the coupling position to centreline as the vehicle moves back onto the straight. On non bogie vehicles, the NEM pocket must have a flexible mounting, allowing side to side swing for curves. (I have not used this coupler system on such vehicles, so no experience to report.) Might be helpful to identify what these are. Any of the coaches newly tooled since Hornby's move to China I believe have the CCM fitted (all the Pullman cars* with lights, Gresley, Stanier, Maunsell, Hawksworth gangwayed; Gresley, Thompson, Stanier, non-gangwayed) and the same applies to Bachmann's mk1 and Mk2 gangwayed coach ranges. (The Bach mk1 non-gangwayed do not have CCM.) The sprung buffers of the Hornby coaches typically need to be retracted for curves below 30" radius if buffer locking is to be avoided when pushing: test and retract them as required. *One small complication, the first of the Pullman cars do not have NEM pockets on the CCM, so DIY required on these. The designers of this coupler system never intended it for the adaption you are proposing, but if you can make it work, that's great.

Packaging is recycled. The stock is bought to run - a lot - every piece altered in some way, no s/h value to speak of: especially the locos which achieve mechanism wear out. My renewal cycles are finding new mechanisms to replace the clapped out. (Once the driving wheel tyres have grooves in them, they are pretty much all done.)

I wish I could cite the title: it was an old tome on economics found in a university library (most likely UCL), read in my youth when I could remember 'everything' and had no need to make notes. (They would probably be long lost now anyway, many relocations later.) The pre-group railway system was a very competitive affair as mentioned above, and the need to offer a differentiated service drove this practise of agents off territory, with corresponding consequences of yard space taken by wagons waiting traffic, and plentiful shunt moves and empty mileage. The economist's rational hope for efficiency gains by a 'common user' scheme of using the nearest available suitable wagon to carry the load was the response to this, and enabled by wartime exigency. Nonetheless, even with the common user scheme implemented a large number of wagon moves 'to collect' remained necessary. Any load requiring any specialisation for transport (from as little specialisation as 'clean ventilated vans' for fruit or vegetables), or for which there was a very variable traffic pattern, would necessarily see appropriate vehicles sent empty to the loading point to collect when the traffic was presented. (Even worse with the private owner wagon, a coal merchant's vehicles from his home yard to the specific pit from which the desired grade of coal had been ordered.)

That's handy, hadn't spotted that they now had a UK distributor.

It's a minority sport is my conclusion. Neither of the OO manufacturers who have for over a dozen years been supplying vehicles fitted with CCM actually promote its use and how to get the best from it! (The only UK business I have seen promoting its use is Keen Systems, whose after-market product enables bogie vehicles without CCM to be built or retrofitted with their equivalent mechanism.) However the postings in this thread from those few of us who are interested provide the essential information. It is necessary to invest a little time and effort in optimising the set up of the CCM systems and couplers, but once this has been done they work very reliably in my accumulated experience - that's well over ten years with trains of up to 12 coaches - and provide far and away the best appearance of gangwayed stock on straight or nearly so track.

A beetle. About half an inch long? As kids we called them bloodsuckers ( on zero evidence!) and they were pretty common, but I haven't seen one in the UK for decades. (Score 1 for pesticides no doubt.) I think it might be one of the 'Soldier beetle' group, but I am no entomologist. You can spend all day using one of the recognition sites available on line, beetles are about most common visible life form here...