34theletterbetweenB&D

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.

Not having the slightest idea whether OR are aware of this, but in tooling up a Dean goods they will have in CAD a mechanism design for 'the other' broadly adopted set of UK 0-6-0 dimensions, originating from Ramsbottom's time at Crewe: 7'3"+8'3" and with a nominal 5'2" wheel. (Bachmann dropped the ball on this, their 2251 having 18mm drivers). With appropriate changes to wheels and other detail fittings that mechanism layout is equally suited to an LNWR Cauliflower and GNR Stirling 0-6-0s (later LNER J3/J4) and not a few others from elsewhere.

Smooth operation is vital, as conveying the high mass of a train. But I like 'true speed' too. If a layout is a genuinely main line full speed location, such as 'Stoke Bank' was, then run them fast at the correct scale representation of typical speeds in such locations. The contrast with the loose coupled freight, brakes pinned down creeping down grade is very satisfying. (There will be plenty of 'Little Doing' branchlines at a typical show where nothing is capable of exceeding 10mph, for those who like it sluggish.)

No plastic bodied OO RTR that I can recall. A bit of searching might turn up a thread on here in which someone was contemplating a 'bash' using the Bachmann N class as the basis for a 'W'.

1960, in company with the Midland compound 1000 for a couple of spotter's specials organised by Ian Allan, KX-Doncaster and return. Truro failed and had to be taken off near Peterborough, 1000 completing the up run unassisted; CoT and was unrepairable for the second planned run, the last B12 61572 was used instead. (It is believed that 1000 was the last four coupled engine to work a train on the Southern half of the ECML in the BR period.)

Top marks to today's Police officers in pursuit of clearly speeding miscreant. They stuck to 30mph recognising that the several turns ahead would 'derail' speeding man, especially with the black ice and no gritting thoughtfully provided by Hertfordshire...

Any C20th or later standard gauge subject you can think of will be complementary to some existing models already in production, so I'd go right along with the 'look for gaps and fill them' approach. There are 'gaps' everywhere you look: despite endless production of LNER pacifics, there isn't a 'native' 0-6-0 for the ECML would be my leading example on the steam loco front. In steam era wagons, the LMS general merchandise opens are, well, 'open'. And I could drone on! But it does have its limits, and the selection of mk3s - which I see as a sensible gap filling choice, there definitely are no current standard RTR products available, and for a numerous and long in service type with a huge livery selection it affords many exploitation opportunities - we come up against one of these. The loco hauled types, the traction livery doesn't have to match perfectly, or in some cases at all. But if moving on to the HST set mk3s, then I believe there will be a market expectation of 'complete set' availability, vehicles and traction all in matching livery. Or perhaps I am alone on this?

The parallel to books and CD/DVD media is in businesses moving away from distribution of hardware, toward downloads. (The download model is flawed from a customer perspective: once you buy a download it should be permanently available for whatever platform you are using throughout the purchaser's lifetime.) Our stuff is intrinsically hardware, and in small volumes too with the costs associated with that, and no way of moving to a streamed software distribution in any of our lifetimes. I would encourage those who value the small and local shop to support it, but with this in mind: expect no loyalty from the retailer, once he or she has made enough dough to retire to The Maldives, the shop can 'go' just like that. It's a purely commercial relationship at all times.

Based on one effectively accidental purchase of a Bachmann steel strip wagon, and all the Bachmann HTA's I own, pretty confident that a Bachmann wagon would have their EZmate coupler fitted, a Kadee clone. Cannot speak for its reliability interoperated with Kadee, but used in a set of all EZmate couplers - a train of many HTA's with an EZmate installed through the bufferbeam of the 66 - it has proved completely reliable.

It's a very small pool for the loco hauled mk3 traction choice. With my 'Mr Rational' hat on, I'd think of the class that could carry the largest range of liveries. Unless of course one of the alternatives is known to have a cult following, with the true believers required to purchase every model that is produced. And even less wise to quintiplicate, if the Vi product - which many like - is still in production capable mode. Let's face it though. Whenever Oxford wish to add a BR or later mainline diesel subject to their range, most likely something has to be duplicated, because all the classes that saw extended service in large numbers well distributed across the UK are 'taken'.

Was Hammy past his peak when he failed to win all those world championships after his first? Not a bit of it, and neither is Vettel. To be really frank, that's ageist! I mix with the survivors of my parent's generation, now 90+ and may assure you the 'attitudes' of these people are just what you might expect from people some of whom were racing cars before the war, had mates killed and injured in sport and combat, and kept a stiff upper lip throughout.

Sorry if you don't like it, but it is the nickname in common currency. It's a man's world, motor sport...

What else would you expect from Davros' daughter? That's a sobriquet that I'll remember for at least this season.

The grammatical error and the failure to mention all other road users rather than simply drivers says otherwise to me. But as ever, YMMV.

Have posts 3003 to 3005 given you a clue that your understanding is significantly defective on this point?

Let's be fair here. There are other manufacturers with locos and little to no matching stock for them to pull. Oxford, with four steam era wagons released after their first loco are ahead of DJM and SLW in this respect, and have announced a range of coaches. Oxford's choice of the LNER design general merchandise open means they have a wagon in their range appropriate to all standard gauge tracks in the UK where there were scheduled freight services from the grouping to BR blue. Peaking at roughly 2% of the steam era freight stock and of common user status, they went and were seen everywhere. Now look at Bachmann and Hornby at a similar point in their trajectory, when first launching models aimed at the adult market. Bachmann staged something of a tour de force with their BR mk1 and 16T steel mineral introductions, and have gone on from that point with steady expansion of both coach ranges and freight stock by majoring on common wagons; Hornby as I recall it had a goodly tranche of the 'newly tooled in China' loco models before us before coaches to a matching standard appeared; the wooden body K type Pullman cars, and these not exactly everyday vehicles. None of this to imply that OR's products are perfect, but credit for the right intentions is only fair: and happily the LNER six plank open is no more flawed than is typical for OO RTR wagons. So for my money their best wagon subject choice so far is also the 'plum'.

Funnily enough - and contrariwise - there's me thinking that Oxford could do a lot worse in carving out their niche, than by adopting a similar approach to Heljan. I thought Heljan's OO diesel selection on their own account rational: which might be characterised as 'we'll try everything for which no centre motor drive competitor model exists or is announced, starting with the more numerous types'. So a 47, 26/27/33, 52, 35, 17. With those done all that was available without competition as Bach, Dapol and Hornby had built up their diesel ranges in parallel, was then a set of pilot scheme 'disaster classes' and prototypes for which there were no models present or announced; 15, 16, 23, Falcon, Lion DP2. There are similar 'no current good competition' zones available to Oxford, in all of steam locos, coaches and wagons, largely down to a combination of old Bachmann and Hornby models lurking in their catalogues (the Dean Goods was a good spot in this respect) and some notable gaps in coverage South of the Trent. That's without even thinking about the humungous hole in coverage to the North. Are OR going to be brave and try the latter?

and D, He, DJM, etc. This suggests to me the response I first heard when acting as best man at a wedding, in response to the groom eulogising the happiness he had found with his new wife. In broadest, loudest and gravelliest bass Scot's tones, (for most of the groom's family hailed from those parts) from the back of the very large room: "Aye laddie, and wish you joy; now get some sea time in."

I have the inestimable advantage of family members who are definitely way better drivers than I am, to keep my limitations in that sphere of activity ever before me. Starts with my wife who has twice avoided valiant attempts by others at head on collisions which I am convinced I could not have achieved, weaved confidently through a rain of falling floor boards being dispensed by some on the M5, and only last year dodged a 'free range' vehicle very adroitly. (Having made it safe off road, the greater problem was locating the owner from among the many possibilities around the sloping hardstanding from which it had rolled.)

Smallish motors in the Garratt, and the failed example that someone was kind enough to dismantle and put a photograph on here had undoubtedly had a meltdown. I rather suspect a sum of contributions, not very special manufacturing quality of the motor, then placed under rather more load than desireable from both mechanism and running as a 'double header', the most likely set of causes. I see an example - just one! - running regularly, and it is fine. We have no clue to the scale of the failures, known to Hattons alone; and their view will be distorted by the 80% sold that have never turned a wheel to any extent.

Since Bachmann dragged RTR OO locos and vehicles from toy to model, there's been a steady growth of both the size and quality of the cake: Hornby, Heljan, Lima, Golden Age, Vi Trains, Dapol, Realtrack, DJM, Oxford Rail, Rapido, SLW, quickly come to mind; and it looks like the same is now happening in OO track. If OR - and indeed others - are smart, there are still plentiful niches to build their slice of the cake. Cleverest OR release for me to date, 6 plank LNER design general merchandise open. Every realistic layout based from 1923 to 1965 should have a few kicking around.

I have just one available pic of the Trestrol C, in 'LNER Wagons, 4B' on p266. Worth a trawl of Paul Bartlett's site; although this SCV was a real rarity, to which my 'build 2 accurate from 3' is an allusion. What I failed to mention is that while underlength for the Trestrol C, this vehicle is very close on length to the clearly related Weltrol P design of 1937 (p282 of same book): a 400% more numerous vehicle. So there we are, better match lengthwise to one SCV design, but with constructional features that clearly relate to another longer SCV design.

True enough, but if the number of prosecutions is as great as reported, I'd be feeling a little leery if that were within my responsibility. That's more than enough people affected to set off a class action looking for any error in the implementation of the scheme. (I have a recollection of a similar event some time ago where a minor procedural error was detected, and an authority had the costs of a failed defence and refunds.)

To which we may add the six wheel bogie 'Trestrol' a very neat model based on the LNER's Trestrol C design of 1938. (As a teen I thought this some kind of US design, as it figured heavily in their Battlesplat! range alongside many of the other Lionel sourced designs.) But as better information has become available I now know that it is based on a UK vehicle, and for all it is roughly 10% underlength it remains comfortably the largest specially constructed vehicle model ever available in OO RTR. (A cut and paste job can produce two scale length vehicles from three, and since the general proportions of the very sharp mouldings are correct, this is well worthwhile.)

Built from accurately scaled parts to the correct dimensional layout of course there isn't a problem. After all the full size parts are all present on the prototype. Follow on question: and what is the minimum radius on which the resulting model runs?