34theletterbetweenB&D

The eye is deceived by the very long smokebox. The superheater header cover - visible as the rectangular pad to the rear of the chimney - is on the smokebox. The boiler is exactly as on the Pepp A1 and A2, 17 foot barrel between tubeplates, and the steam production is 'adequate'.

I believe this to be a humorously intended reference to a slightly contentious national vote outcome.

Obvious now you mention it, how could I have overlooked that?

The curse of predictive text? It is usually possible to work out the intended word, but I confess myself stuck here. But it would make a nice collective noun for rivets, which to the best of my knowledge don't enjoy one. We only have to use it enough, and it will get into the OED.

You and me both! The first useful product for my interest was the LNER design general merchandise open (only the LMS design general merchandise opens and vans would have exceeded it on my personal list of 'potentially most useful RTR product') and happily this one they have got 'right enough'. Its errors certainly no worse than their established and much more experienced competitors have managed recently: exhibit one, Bachmann BR std cattle wagon, foot wrong in overall length, exhibit two, Hornby's Blue Spot fish with incorrect roof radius. I do feel that some allowance has to be made for the start point of the learning curve that Oxford are moving along. The loud hurrahs for Bachmann, Hornby, Heljan as they lead the transition to OO RTR models from about sixteen years ago, was by comparison with the previous very low standard of OO RTR product. What Oxford have produced so far, I would suggest taken overall exceeds the standard of the Lima / Margate Hornby product group. That they are not yet consistently matching what the best of their current competitors offer does not surprise. There is plenty to learn in achieving that standard. When they get there we then see if the will to excel by further advancing standards kicks in. There's plenty of headroom opportunity for superior RTR.

Drop anchor within sight of land, convenient for shore supply, and probably go aground on the steady stream of borscht jars and other gash heaved over the side.

It's one thing as the livery horse wagon type with the eye candy sales appeal of the bolder and more colourful possibilites among private owner liveries. But in the simple BR grey livery styles I suspect the influence of a long available, more accurate and varied RTR competitor; which has enjoyed a 16 year uncontested run to harvest whatever the sales potential was.

The secret apparently is to have the 'shed' on a different site from the shared home, so that she can claim 'not to know' about it. That way it is off the radar as far as the locally applicable union of all womanhood regulations are concerned, and she can relax as she will not be judged on it.

The bigger risk in normal service was pieces falling off a loco in motion if there was a kick or lurch. Brake force was typically insufficient to disturb the coal heap. In case of collisions, then there are reports of injured loco crew trapped in cabs and in the worst cases crushed against the boiler backhead by unrestrained coal from the tender having moved into the cab by its own momentum. This was a sufficiently common occurence that after the Castlecary collision the Investigator noted that the high all steel front of the tender of the A3 had prevented such injury to the footplate crew, despite an estimated 60mph impact.

Different strokes for different folks: I model through time, on a cycle. So as BR gradually re-equips with new locos and stock It arrives on a goods (if that is how they were moved to their working location) and some time later it will be seen operating (while other items are steadily withdrawn and thus 'disappear').

I would be more optimistic than that. Considered overall as a package with a (hopefully) superior and quiet loco drive and a more accurate rendition of the tender, it will be better than the previous RTR Dean Goods.Though it will not be as much better as was possible, it remains significantly better. My direct parallel would be with A4s. Hornby's circa 2005 introduction was far from perfect, with several very visible deviations from prototype. But better than anything previous in RTR? Oh yes, and on multiple counts. The good stuff in 'the package' made it a no-brainer as the choice for a working model, and the deficiencies could be rectified.

How were they delivered? (Flat pack, ho ho ho.) As a load on something like a Lowmac, that solves the crew problem.

The marketing side, just come straight out with 'In response to sustained calls for a superior OO track system' and take it from there. A good explanation of the compromise on the inside chair shape to enable its use with the typical wheel standards from Maker/date would help their case. Best to be direct and say that such as Ye Olde Triang, she will not work, simply incompatible with the better appearance that was requested. Illustrate with the best looking current locos and stock on ballasted lengths, set up to match comparison prototype photos; that should be persuasive. I will put my hand up to feeling that Peco have overlong dragged their feet on this, and that they should now be directing resources at getting the first matching points out pronto, because these are the critical barrier to volume potential uptake of the product. On the positive side, the proven robustness of their past product can be exploited to their advantage; assuming they have done the job right they can go big on 'All the demonstrated reliability that Peco track is so well known for...' .

It really is very simple. Great over scale lumps and coarse appearance per 'old reliable' of the H-D/Wrenn/Triang era. Or something far closer to scale dimensions with resulting superior appearance on the model: the penalty being the greatly increased care required. Pays your money, makes your choice. Those of us who choose the latter path quickly learn that not handling the model except in case of real need is the way to go. On the layout, and leave it there.

Go on, close up the loco to tender spacing so the fall plate covers the gap and rests on the tender step. For me this truly makes the most of the better RTR models we get now. You may have to shorten the moulded on intermediate buffers on the tender drag box to enable the ensemble to go round curves. I too like the effect of the NER dome cover.

It's a worthy idea, and with the LNER now - amazingly - relatively well catered for in their designs of standard general merchandise opens (Oxford's six plank, Bachmann's steel high) there's just the three others to cater for. Unfortunately the fact that the manufacturers haven't fallen over each other to produce such things (the only other RTR contender being an Airfix/GMR tooling now with Hornby of a late thirties five plank GMO of a design much like one built by all the Big Four - canny choice) might indicate the problem. We all love things that go chuff chuff, wagons, meh; any old thing will do.

Well, I do agree, but then they were common performers on my 'first twenty miles of the Southern end of the ECML' scenario. Others might advocate with equal persuasiveness for such as the Park 0-6-0T, Caledonian, Midland and North Eastern 0-4-4T, and many, many, more small tank locos besides. The success of the choice of the USA tank as a subject, must at least in part be due to its unusual appearance amongst UK steam equipment. (It would only take a hint that it actually ran in my designated area to persuade me to a purchase.) I wonder whether a crane tank - ideally based on an industrial so 'region free' - might similarly possess broad appeal? He's right you know. Years ago I had a Bachmann Riddles Austerity 2-8-0 in pieces for a friend to evaluate for potential as an S160 mechanism. No representation of bar frames for a start, and the driving wheelsets have to be replaced. More positively the chassis block is fairly 'skinny' so there would be some daylight between frame top and boiler underside, and the motor and gear train would be neatly concealed in the S160 firebox. But it all came out as better to start from a kit.

A fall off in standards if that proves to be the case on the released models. I think Hornby first got to around to reproducing this feature on their Castle, and it is present on the D16/3 wheels, much to the adantage of both these models.

I have long felt that with any form of wireless control, the option of plain track only charging of an onboard battery, with all the points etc. dead and clever power management on board the vehicle is the 'easy winner' on three counts: No need to handle the model or remember to recharge it, (models are most often damaged by handling) Battery can be physically small as it only has to sustain power over relatively short dead rail sections, (suits tiny prototypes) Layout wiring is very simple. (Hurrah) Whichever business gets there first with this package of capabilities well sorted into a plug and play format is in my opinion going to rapidly corner the market in the 'next big advance from DCC' sector. There's a smart RTR track integration oppotunity too, if desiring to fully ice the cake. The point rails may be dead, but there is power continuity provided via the track connector design (insulated rail joiner with a wiper contact to the live track rails) so that there is wired in power to the built in point motors with integrated decoders. The end of fooling around fitting and wiring free-standing point motors with a separate power supply and control gear as present DC and DCC requires. It's all possible, needs a manufacturer with the desire for global conquest to make the investment.

In that book I repetitively recommend 'The Big Four in Colour 1935 - 50' there is B12/3 8537 in 1939 with green axle ends (Colour Rail NE112). Also green axle ends on D16/3 8900 in 1936, (NE128) so I suspect it may have been a Stratford thing. There are further colour photos showing green axle ends on LNER liveried B12s in various states, NE35 for a start, so it is a definite happening.

The 4mm 3H wagon kits with MGW wheelsets were a real leap in quality and affordability when they became available. Wish I had bought more of the LMS general merchandise open in the relatively short time they were on sale. (The 7mm kits may well have been good too.)

There was quite a sport in the glorious summer of 76, trying to ride the last five Gresley buffets then believed to be operating: E9115/28/31/32E and W9135E. Last chance to enjoy the 'springy ride' with ship like creaking when in motion, with a pint or two to enhance the experience.

And I suspect that with Hornby offering the Bulleid MN, that is the last such steam class 'taken' in OO that offers the prospect of near guaranteed sales of every variant offered, over a decade or longer sequence of productions from the tools. We'll see what is 'worth the gamble' from entrants such as Oxford. They will have to 'tread on toes' somewhere to fulfill their intent of developing a range.

The trouble you will have is on curves. No getting away from the fact that the supply wire makes straight tangents to the curve, so if you use typical OO9 radii you will need a positive 'fence' of posts to keep the wire in some believeable relationship with the track and the loco's current collecting gear. And there goes the minimalist charm...

Having moved forward in time with small steam shunty things, are there any diesel shunty things without RTR models?