34theletterbetweenB&D

I think Bunnings may have opened a store in St Albans, from what I read of an advert on the back of a bus motoring off into the distance, seen during this morning's amble. Shall have to take a look sometime. Gone for a well heeled locale, but with much competition already in place.

Saw a driver get flagged down by a PC this morning for going across a Zebra crossing while occupied by pedestrians. Although not so much of a problem on Zebra crossings, I perceive a rising trend to go through reds on light controlled crossings if they are not occupied, or the lane ahead of the driver is not occupied. And off the motorways and trunk A roads, it's the potholes and lifting tarmac that induces quite a lot of faulty road placement. One location near my home where there is considerable dificulty in keeping on the correct side of the road while also phoning and calming down baby in the back seat. That's why they need Discos, Ranges, and similar: the tyres don't deflate on those due to a damaged rim whether from hitting the pothole edge this side, or accidentally mounting the kerb the other side. Of course if they knew where the car's wheels were and could straddle, all this expense could be avoided...

The Lima mechanism was marginal too, as already mentioned above. There was plenty of online complaint about its less than stellar reliability and robustness if you actually dared run it. I had at least three of the Hornby versions from the Lima tooling to 'doctor' into reasonable running order, all of them owned by the young. Presumably there were the sales at the time to support a retool to correct these and the other deficiencies.

Heljan's standard cosmetic bogie sideframe technique would accomodate this easily, as they slide on horizontally onto pegs in the same alignment as any axle ends; which could then protrude through holes in the sideframe. If Dapol use a similar system then really it is that simple. But it is an inconvenience with Bach's standard one piece clip on cosmetic bogie frames moulding, The main piece would need slots to allow the axle ends in, and then cosmetic overlays applied to supply outside detail covering the access slots, minimum of three pieces instead of one: design, production and assembly cost increment. (The Bach centre motor mechanism template is a stripped down to minimum part count and simple assembly unit, compared to the competitor designs I have looked at.) Do North American HO models typically have exposed and rotating axle ends when appropriate to the prototype? Long time since I went for a look at HO. Actually I feel it is a little more nuanced than that. The more recent small black locos from Hornby that I have purchased are not as comprehensively detailed as some of their past efforts. But what has been left off or done more economically has been better selected, so it's not calling attention to itself.

Yes, if you really want to look for it on a slow run past: the balance weight positions for example if viewing side on with your eye at track level. But in truth it is in the 'icing the cake' category for me, along with brake rodding, small painted detail in cabs and underframes and water scoops under solid side framed tenders: stuff you don't typically see at all on an operating loco. Having once fiddled around to make a correctly 'thirded' mechanism in 4mm I rest content that it can be done, but isn't worth the effort in final effect for an operating model. Better spending the time on detail and finish that can be seen, or working on the next model from the near endless list. And regarding the Stanier model that's the subject of this thread, I am in the camp that would fall on this model with delight if it was one my operation needed. Like all RTR, has its compromises: but a good starting point to 'make perfect' to one's own standard, and so much easier than building it yourself.

At the present precision of assembly of RTR OO, 'quartering' is sufficiently tolerant of the small dimensional and assembly errors in the chassis to work reliably. Pressing the wheels on 'thirded' (120 degrees) is technically not a problem, but as soon as you start coupling these wheelsets in the chassis the dimensional and assembly errors will result in a lot of defects. (Try it for yourself on a RTR model, or a kit built mechanism, you can do quartering by eye with a little practice; 'thirding' you need a good jig to press the wheels on very consistently, just for a start.) Since 'we' clearly don't welcome the higher price that the necessary superior precision that 'thirding' would demand, the RTR manufacturers do well to stick with quartering for its far greater tolerance. A question that interests me, do Golden Age's 3 cylinder productions or the Dapol BL A4 boast 'thirding'? The money asked should make it possible...

Quite so; and I would observe that there's no end of 'hot buttons' that trigger the 'no purchase' choices of individual potential customers. Mine kicks in when there is some aspect of appearance that I just cannot see a way to rectify, usually in what is otherwise a satisfactory or better model. When the general standard is good, an error that might sneak under the radar on a poorer model is a real irritant.

That made the Crocodile something of a bargain. Very few 4mm models at all I should think, and it would be surprising if this wasn't the best example from what have been made, based on its appearance.

I don't suppose BR's team were so considerate as to consider applying the full package to the Clan pacific? It would 'fit' in that the smaller boiler than that of the Brit would enable the Crosti heat exchanger to be accomodated underneath, as on the Crosti 9Fs. With all that heat scavenging and valve event efficiency, full class 7 performance would have resulted, cough, cough. But the real attraction is the name: who could resist a 'Claprosti' pacific?

Just a slight suspicion that the impulse of Hornby's Bulleid projectile may yet wreck the armour plate of fiscal rectitude then. Despite all my resolve, if Hornby make a good job of the finalised form of the BR 8P blue livery, resistance will probably disintegrate chez moi. It may not have proved the best colour choice in terms of wearing quality in service, but of all the 8P classes it looked most at home - very crisp - in the scheme developed for the MN; and quite unique in livery styling for a UK steam loco, looking forward to what would be seen on the later superseding traction.

There are sintering techniques for tungsten, which would probably be the way to go to form a piece such as a chassis block or shaped ballast weight to pack in the maximum mass in a given volume. But this will be expensive in both material and process cost compared to mazak or lead. The fact that we don't see an aftermarket supplier of substitute castings incorporating lead - which is by a very large margin the cheap and easily worked high density metal - for models with known traction limitations, probably indicates how small the market is for 'heavier'. Realistically, I feel that Bachmann's well established practise of making footplates and other body parts of steam models in mazak, and the progress made by current Hornby in casting loco boilers of small protoypes in mazak; are better pointers to where improved technique could get more weight into small and difficult to balance steam models affordably, by increasing the mazak content.

Easy to check if it is diecast, as it will feel cold relative to plastic parts (apply upper lip). I have the impression that every Bachmann loco with a speaker mounting provided in the tender has the 'diecast coal' as a ballast weight: G2A, ROD/O4, 3F, C, J11, C1,for example; and without going to check every one it is usually shown as a separate part on the assembly diagram. If it is so close fitting that it doesn't want to be released from above, removing the tender body and slightly flexing it will break it out.

There is no necessarily intrinsic problem with split chassis / split axle construction compared to alternative constructions, given appropriate design and materials choices. Past designs of commercial rod coupled split axle mechanism construction have proven less robust than comparable commercial steel axled mechanisms with wiper pick up; and experience of this has led many of us to be wary of this constructional principle on commercial models of rod coupled traction. I have seen one modeller's personally constructed 4mm split chassis steamers, which were clearly robust - some nearing thirty years old - and fine performers; engineered to a very good standard indeed. He had chosen the method to avoid the need for any wipers, since the underframe detail he wanted was quite complex enough to attach in the available space. Is that a helpful summary?

Detail differences do not eliminate a shared constructional principle. Bear in mind I am quite happy with split axle construction on solely gear coupled traction, and own satisfactory examples that are demonstrating longevity in service. All past experience suggests that this split axle construction is consistently troublesome in solely rod coupled mechanisms. I suspect it is to eliminate the previously observed weakness in split axle construction on rod coupled models, in which the construction is 'worked' to failure by the torque variation produced by the rod drive. By making the drive to all the axles via gears exactly as a bogie traction model this problem should be eliminated; the side rods have no work to do, and simply 'go along for the ride'. What is undesireable is the manifest appearance of their not actually doing any work, by failing to stay parallel to the rails and other horizontals in close proximity.

I would seek advice whether the wheel material will machine readily, and if it will require replating or other treatment on the machined surface for pick up efficiency in particular. Kit wheelsets are unsuitable, because the model is of split chassis construction.

One piece at a time. UK practise in frame design was that the entire locomotive could be lifted by the lifting holes in the frame ends; and at the time steam locos were designed the factor of safety was six for structural steelwork. As such there would be no structural problem with supporting the cab end on the drag box, provided any intervening tackle had been removed. But it wasn't done that way in photographs I have seen of such operations, the rear wheelset would be on the rails and supporting the back end of the loco. I believe the modelled scene to be a fiction. As the lift commences, the loco must roll forward and if borne on its rear wheels will do so. On the packing it would be static, until the resultant force overcame the friction and the whole loco moved rather abruptly forward, falling off the packing and 'we are in a mess'. Second the angle, from the height it has been raised at the front end. I can immediately cite a couple of good photos in 'Top Shed' by Peter Townend, showing a Stirling single and N2 tank loco both at much the same angle, in order to release driving wheels, p27, 32.

They won't go away. Our locals follow me into the fruit cage when I open a door to do the watering. Once they associate your activity with making food supply accessible, they won't give up.

Ah, but, they set themselves up for a fall by their market entry announcements. My summary of the pitch would be: there would be no extended delays, models only announced when well advanced in tooling; well experienced model making shop under their own control meant the capacity was in place; aiming at immediate parity in model quality with estabished competitors. There will be a fair range of interpretation of just how well they have brought this off to date. It would be interesting to hear the company principal's take on 'the journey so far', perhaps once the Dean Goods and mk3 coaches are out. I feel they have done a reasonable job climbing the learning curve, but have found it considerably steeper and more extended than anticipated. I would propose that model railway product is for complexity an order of magnitude ahead of same scale diecast road vehicles. The externally visible form has to be correct on both, but in the railway item this must be achieved within the constraints of matching a standard for the working parts and any necessary mechanisms, to ensure correct operation within a system by those purchasers intent on using the item on a layout. (I imagine the most severe test of operation of diecast road vehicles is an owner wheeling it 'brm, brm brm' to its permanent shelf position.)

Back to basics, did it run reliably on DC ahead of decoder fitting? The failure to start may be nothing more than unreliable power pick up, many models need an hours running to get tyres and wiper tracks all nicely polished for the rock solid power collection that good DCC performance depends on.

I think you will find that practically any decoder will require CV adjustments to get the best from a coreless motor. Decoders are supplied with factory settings for the most commonly used iron core design motors. Really it is down to Hattons/DJM in choosing to 'deviate' onto the coreless path to perhaps suggest the optimal CV settings for commonly used decoders, so that users don't have to scratch around for themselves? But whatever, first obtain a mechanism that runs smoothly on DC.

With this being such a recent release, would it be fair to assume that the model has not yet been run that much? These types of mechanism design, with a goodly dollop of grease in both gear towers, are often fairly draggy and will often loosen up and thus run faster as most of the grease is moved off the contacting faces of the gears. Alternatively the process can be speeded by a little degreasing and the addition of a light oil if the owner chooses. No guarantee that it works in every case, but quite often a circa 25% speed increase over 'out of the box' may be obtained.

To save a bit of time. my posting from that thread: "The more you look, and compare to the 1923 RCH drawing and photographs, the more you see. They are very nice and crisp, but some features are flat out wrong. The most visible are the clips for the capping strip which immediately dates them post the 'new PO livery' period, it's wartime and BR service appropriate; and the hinge bar and end door arrangement is incorrect for 1923, it's the arrangement on the wartime build steel underframe type I think. What's that horizontal groove doing across the face of the bufferbeams? The reinforcing plate at the bottom of the cornerplates, only one drop door where it should be either two or none... At this point the buzzer goes BEEP! nul points.... This is shaping up to be like Hornby's Brush type 2, to pick on a similar problem child. Very neatly moulded, splendid detail, great paint finish and applied lettering etc. : but no amount of quality in the execution compensates for fundamental errors in the appearance. A three pound coin is always wrong, even if produced to the standards of the Royal Mint. Oxford would do well to start again on this one if they really are pitching at the top slot." In BR livery, naturally enough there's no concern about the clips to the capping strip, those are now appropriate. Bachmann have offered scads of BR grey liveried 7 and 8 plank, fixed end and end door, with and without bottom doors; and this back in the day when they were bowling them out at a fiver. That must have mopped up a lot of the demand.

One tight rivet in the linkages - expansion link/radius rod/combination lever/connecting link - is all that's required to produce these kind of effects.

There was a knock at the door about an hour past, and two chaps on the doorstep who asked if they could come in as they were pretty certain there was a firecrest at the rear of our garden. There was too, and it obliged by working its way through a group of evergreens.. Very smug, not a bird I ever expected to see (especially with no more effort than looking through the binos out of the dining room window) although I do see goldcrests reasonably regularly.

Thanks for the photos, unfortunately cannot find an excuse for one in the KX inner sub area in the last six years of steam, but If I could there's two 'tinkerings' to attend to. It looks to have the reinforcing plates for the front frame lifting holes present, just needs the holes drilling out. I'd also want to experiment with very slightly lowering the cylinders, they look a mite high to me. If it's Bach's usual construction, this would be a doddle and fully reversible. (It probably is correct, but fiddle, fiddle, fiddle, until convinced.)