34theletterbetweenB&D

To supplement a Bullfinch pair this morning - first sighting of 2017 - I have just had a very non-garden bird, the scruffiest female Merlin I have ever seen. She perched six feet away on a pergola outside the window so identification was easy. Wondering if she has been roughed up by the local rooks from the woodland behind our garden, but none are in evidence, presumably away feeding out on the arable fields outside the town.

Very typical for these series: they are run until the sales begin to sag away, then the next subject 'ready in the pipeline' is run. In time any subject exhausts the market, and then the next one is brought on: what goes around, comes around in time. Cars, diggers, boats, planes, Armour, trucks, warbirds, trains. I take that as read: always going to get the half dozen 'perennials' that are known to the public at large as a minimum, the essential 'hook' to attract as many purchasers as possible..

The frames should extend to the rear of the bufferbeam as part of the construction of a stiff box structure, able to take the drawhook mounting and the traction loads. It's a fault on a lot of models that there is airspace where very solid frames should be present...

Anyone else think that the continuing stream of new introductions might in a couple more years make 'Round 2' a reasonable prospect? There's some new 'big stuff' in the way of DoG, P2, Crosti 9F, Beyer Garratt; and the original condition Bulleid MN and final Ivatt versions of the Princess Coronation to come. Some pregroup express classes, one - maybe two - Atlantics, Stirling Single, Star. Mixed traffic types like the Stanier Crab, S15, K1; likewise freight eight coupleds 42XX, 47xx, S&DJR 7F, O2, Q6, and then the smaller 0-6-0s, 700, J15. A plenitude of tank locos: 1F, class 5, coal tank, 64XX, 1361, 415, O2, H, USA, J50, N7. That's 30 available or announced from steam alone from memory, so there's likely several I forgot. Several from that list that would be invaluable as carve up material, from my perspective.

On the 57XX with the body off the mechanism, there's two crosshead screws under the bunker, into a lump of cast ballast which is the main anchorage for the cab onto the footplate. Remove those screws, then lever under the cab doors to start flexing and breaking the fairly weak cement bond between cab front and the boiler and tanks.As it flexes release the handrails from the knobs just in friont of the cabside cut outs, if they are not free. Odd alarming cracking noise, but none I have tackled have taken any permanent damage. This pattern is typical of Bachmann, applies ot many other models, so the 64XX may well be of similar construction. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to make a 'lift' in a bunker to enable loose coal on top to rise and fall? What with the centre motor diesel traction for items like modern bogie hoppers having ample tractive performance, while with a coal fired friend we tried a train of 15 HTA loaded with loose coal, and there was no trouble with moving what must have been a scale payload of about 5lbs of coal. (The hardest part of the job was first busting up the coal to make it small enough!)

Useless trivia time, the name of the 2-6-6-6 wheel arrangement is Allegheny. It is striking to realise that - in common with some other final generation US steam superpower of which this was the superpowerfullest example - the loaded tender alone is significantly heavier than the largest loco operated in the UK. Rather akin to our 9F, the working life of the class was only twelve years from introduction to withdrawal; that's if my memory functioned correctly during the ghasting of flabber while looking over the preserved monster.

A capacitor for suppression purposes. Bachmann started with this larger capacitor in the tender some time ago, first model I saw it on was the J11 0-6-0.

I think you would have to search very hard for better value than picking up a 14mm wheeled 34mm w/b bogie BoBo with centre motor drive by Bachmann or Heljan, at whatever is the best price available. You get two drive bogies and transmission lines, and a motor with two drive couplers, so the purchase of an additional motor furnishes two single bogie drives. (And there's a whole heap of spares from the model to use, or sell on to further reduce the expense.)

The LMS isn't short of attractive pre-group tank loco designs, and IMO heading the pack alongside the LT&SR 4-4-2T is the Caley 0-4-4T group. These two classes 'have it all', numerous in their areas of operation, decent longevity well into the BR period, gorgeous livery possibilities, and such handsome machines; and never previously a RTR model for either.

Don't begin to worry on that score would be my feeling. Oxford are listing round top boiler versions as part of their programme, which implies a mechanism designed to suit. Tangential, but I had the Bach G2A/Super D apart for a friend shortly after release to assess the mechanism's 'round top' possibility. Easy fit, Bachmann place about a 3mm depth of wiring and components on top of the motor, rearrangement of the wiring is all that is required for clearance inside a round top firebox. What dissuaded the owner from proceeding was the rather nice casting of the Belpaire back head integral to the body construction, which either had to be severely mutilated, or completely discarded and replaced, to enable a round topped firebox cladding to be fitted.

Yet they must have been adequate to the purpose or 'something would have been done'. The Stanier boilered version was definitely better on one piece of evidence. The NLR services out of Broad Street which ran onto the LNER. including the ex-GN main line was a traction problem for the LMS, with the ancient NLR 4-4-0T's in need of replacement. The Fowler 2-6-2T among others was trialled and 'couldn't', reglularly running short on steam the identified problem. The replacement traction settled on was the 3F 0-6-0T which were flogged along very effectively and generally stood up to the work very well. The final few years of operation before the outbreak of war in 1939 saw some Stanier 2-6-2T brought in alongside the 3Fs, and these by accounts I have heard 'performed'; presumably the new boiler would steam freely enough to overcome the less than stellar valve events. The 2-6-2T enabled an increase of load to seven non-gangwayed and had gradients of 1 in 60 to deal with between Broad Street and the main line, plus the ruling gradient of 1 in 200 on the main line where brisk running was required between the many stops out to Potters Bar. That suggests that while they may not have possessed the reserve of power over their work that the 2-6-4T's displayed and which made them so well liked by crews, they were up to their class 3P rating.

Indeed so, and generally suggested as the reason why no significant improvement was obtained. Requires different detail parts to adapt the mechanism to the two classes though. (Past information has suggested that there isn't a massive saving in having a shared mechanism layout, the expense is in tooling the detail parts to provide the correct exterior appearance.) IF Oxford are doing the reasonable thing in 'going the rounds' of the groups, and IF they have an eye on the most significant gap in RTR model provision for the LMS, then it stands out as the rational choice. Couple of hundred in total over both classes, and very widely distributed around the system. Counts against: the well liked LMS 2-6-4T family, and with two good models and one dated available; the five other LMS passenger tanks available/announced; the BR std 3 and 4MT tanks for the LMR steam period; I make that ten alternatives to purchasing a 'breadvan'. How would it fare against such delights as an LT&SR Whitelegg 4-4-2T or a CR McIntosh 0-4-4T? Example available to measure or scan, elegance and very lovely pre-group livery options...

'Make it up as you go along' does actually save money in development to be fair, but then it isn't a model, and won't sell to the sector of the market which expects a model; which I suspect is becoming an ever larger proportion. (And Hornby have a 'lock' on such dire 'make it up as you go along' creations, mostly based on their ancient and surely fully amortised 0-4-0T mechanism, and I suspect that saturation was long ago achieved there.) Perhaps I am unduly optimistic, but Oxford's display of understanding the 'parts' of the class as it developed from GER prototype to LNER standard is encouraging in my opinion. http://www.oxfordrail.com/76/OR76N7.htm That's the right start, recognising that it has distinct variations; a reliable basis for research into the correct configurations for each class part. Transfer that knowledge accurately to the tooling, and we are cooking with gas. In fairness to Oxford, I do think one has to recognise that this is not an easy task; and I could cite examples of other RTR OO manufacturer's bloopers that occurred when they were going up their learning curves to deliver significantly more accurate models than had previously come from their shop. There was less wailing over such things in the past: when the product overall was day over night superior to what had gone before, shape errors, spurious features and mechanism infelicities were tolerated. Oxford are having to enter against a rather higher standard of expectation, that has built over fifteen years of general improvement.

I learned today that one railway company instead of up and down slow lines, instead operated up and down relief lines, and sprayed my coffee all over the keyboard. Doubtless these serviced the red light districts of London and Bristol.

The likelihood that OR are 'doing a round' of the groups in steam locos seems pretty high. The three we know now are pre-group in origin, so maybe that is part of the plan too? On that basis an LT&SR 4-4-2T, NLR 0-6-0T, LNWR 'Cauliflower' 0-6-0T, or a near-endless selection of lovely items from the several constituents which were incorporated in the North, far North, uttermost North and Scottish locations of that group. Something from the Caley like their long lived 0-6-0 or 0-4-4T types would be the 'stand-outs' to me, but really the choice is so large as to make picking the likely one a lottery.

There's so much choice in orthodoxy these days! Having had a little to do with their securing the building, I was invited to one such to celebrate their making progress on elaborating, enhancing, gilding, decorating, painting and varnishing the building interior within an inch of its life, and you might have been excused for thinking it was a solvent abuser's club meet. Somewhat surprising that the plentiful beeswax candles were not burning in many colours. Brings a smile every time I recall it. So she cannot take her fag ends home! Provide a tin as a bin, if a 'tea and sympathy' chat cannot persuade her to kick the weed ASAP?

Rest assured all very much alive, pair of Green Woodpeckers drilling the grass, a Lesser spotted back and forward fairly regularly through the day, and a male Greater spotted late in the afternoon trying out the peanuts; something that usually only occurs when they are feeding young.

Which has ended 'unfortunately' for one Redwing, eaten by a Sparrukipawk earlier today. Should I mail the Mail? 'Tis a strange thing, in twenty some years enjoyment of our present garden and the birds that frequent it, neither of us have sighted a live Redwing here. Four casualties though, two into windows with broken necks, two predated, today's being the second such. Had all the woodpeckers yesterday, bet we don't see a single one tomorrow...

Further to which, 69689 and 69695 retained their Belpaire boilers to withdrawal from service for scrapping, the earliest of the class to be withdrawn.

Not so sure that the Belpaire is quite as restrictive to BR use as is imagined; reboilerings to round top occurred as late as 1956, and several were scrapped in the 57 - 60 period still in Belpaire form as the steam rundown got underway. I imagine the scrapping was occasioned by end of life of the Belpaire boiler. A little surprising that neither Bachmann or Hornby - or Dapol come to that - have not leapt at this. Just put the big headlight on the front of 9F 92079 and job done.

Mine will inevitably have numbers changed appropriate to Hatfield allocated members of the class, as I doubt that any of the relatively few at this shed will be produced. I'll just have to hope that the selections of features Oxford choose are near enough - or readily modifiable - to the right ones for Hatfield.

Or even LSWR Adams, GWR Dean, GER Hill. All from pre-group companies with London terminii, designer surname one letter longer than pre-group company initials. From what ended up in the LMS group: 'NLR Park' is an acceptable answer. Very nice little 0-6-0T also seen on the Cromford and High Peak system. Or an 'LNWR Whale', perhaps a funky Precursor 4-4-0 or a 19" Goods 4-6-0. (Been enjoying 'Only Connect' rather too much as some will probably discern.)

Nah, we're all polite and grateful on the dry side. Anyway it's mostly a big cuboid with plane surfaces, plenty of room to conceal the motor out of sight, no firebox sides on view, what could possibly go wrong? Sensible 'gap filling' subject choice as already remarked on, and with branchline potential too in addition to its principal role on short haul suburban.

He was fortunate to recover so well from the depressed skull fracture sustained in a collision back in 1990. That role, that man, inspired casting. Rust in Peas indeed.

First check would be how carefully the conversion was performed from cine original to video; that said the careless conversions tend to speed up the action. But the slow pace for loose coupled mineral is entirely right for most locations, the crew would always want to be able to stop within sighting of a signal, and not a lot of brake force with 1,000+ tons behind meant slow progress. There's four times the kinetic energy in the train at 25mph, as compared to 12.5mph. The 'fast' mineral train up run from New England (Peterborough) to Ferme Park (London) was pathed for circa 3.5 hours - so averaging 20 mph in round numbers with relatively few and brief stops en route only - and that was with a bogie brick wagon or two to augment the loco's brake force. Without the bogie brick wagons, the run was pathed for 6 to 7 hours; averaging 12 mph when running once allowance is made for the typically longer planned stops.