34theletterbetweenB&D

Best to contact your retailer for next steps advice. Personally I wouldn't have got as far as the third install: old rule 'one such event, could be chance; two events just the same, stop and fully investigate'. If I wee the dealer I woul ask two opening questions. Did these locos all run normally on DC ahead of decoder fitting, did the decoders set up normally accepting a new address on programme track? Assuming that the class 47 runs identically in both directions when operated by the Gaugemaster controller alone, there's an unavoidable consequent conclusion about the track cleaner and layout system. The class 47 has a DC motor in it, and will not run on an AC. Therefore the track cleaner output must either have a significant DC component, or something on the layout at least partially rectifies the track cleaner output to provide DC on the rails. If it is the first of these I would guess that the track cleaner isn't in the best of health, as these devices are typically designed to be symmetrical AC to avoid the very problem you have encountered. The second possibility, one place to look: is the track cleaner powered by an independent mains supply, or by an auxiliary output from the DC controller? Why only this loco? It may just have a very efficient motor in it that turns on a breath of current.

The 215 feet long structure was the original dead end shed according to G&H. What was there to be seen at the end of steam was a different structure with one through road, one dead end; which the plan dated 1947 in G&H estimates at 130 feet (2 chains), and accords with my fading memory and photographs. Roughly three of the 'N's inside under cover on the through road, and two on the dead end. The allocation at Hatfield peaked at circa 30, mainly N2 and N7, and was still 20 as the diesels and DMU's substantially began to work the traffic in 1959. As the 'country end' inner suburban loco servicing point, and supplier of traction for most of the work on the three Hatfield branches it was a busy little place.

Now, I am 100% confident that Hornby can and will go off-plot on liveries for this loco, and don't mind in the least so long as they are sufficently well judged to earn profit. Pretty sure they will continue to produce more authentic liveries too.

Your experience is based on the road system operated in the current mode. When truck drivers go overtaking at next to no speed differential on two lane carriageways, the backing up of traffic behind them slows every vehicle, including other trucks; because.of the surging and bunching that typically develops in the resulting queueing. Better by far for speed regulated traffic to move at near constant speed within 90% of the permitted maximum, better for fuel economy, better for safety, better for predictable and achievable journey times.

Functionally it will make no net difference whatsoever to delivery times, and would improve road safety. Consult any specialist in traffic flow and they will confirm.

Certainly pretty enough to be a very successful livery horse for them. What's the most improbable livery it can carry: Jacob's Cracker Bicentennial Edition? Platinum plated QEII 70th Anniversary?

A matter that rather exercised me today. On a two lane dual carriageway, should there be restrictions on overtaking applicable to speed regulated vehicles? As in, do not overtake when travelling at 90% or more of regulated maximum speed. Repeated instances of a pair of trucks alongside each other, the one in the overtaking lane with a speed advantage of under 0.1%. The worst example required 3 minutes to complete an overtake of a single forty footer.

This is an attractive prospect as my thoughts for these tankers is as 'very new to traffic vehicles' for my circa 1956 onwards scenario, to contrast with the worn/stained/liberally coated with spillage earlier designs. I have in mind a particularly sparkling example seen near KX which may have been branded for Mobil who appeared to have the BR diesel fuel supply contract at around that time.

Call me cruel, but one of my great summertime entertainments has just occurred. About two hundred yards from a primary school, and the windows are open for the breeze. Kids all out in the playground for lunchbreak. And it very abruptly starts to rain hard. "Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!" Effective windspeed is about 2mph, as the rain started for me at 3 minutes after "Eee!".

Unless something has changed very radically, costly they may be, but the classy new introductions are what sustain the 'golden glow' of the brand. Ceasing to refresh the range with headline items that get attention is an exit strategy, intentional or accidental. Where are Vitrains now in the UK market, after the mighty hurrah around the second of their two offerings in particular? I would anticipate a reduced rate of new introductions, simply by financial constraint (fortunately the competiton isn't running full tilt either). Very careful subject selections, and the avoidance of duplications (conforming to their principal competitor's position made very clear over the past several years) as far as possible. Maybe it is time for some cooperative ventures, if any of the competitors are willing to play? One set of tools in joint ownership, finished and sold in the house styles of the brands concerned.

Pasting these two elements of posts together; watching what is 'dropped' should give some clues to what 'more focus on the hobby market' looks like from Hornby's perspective. I could see Hornby attempting to sell off definable chunks of the range: their TTTE tooling for example, and that would mark an exit from a specific part of what is clearly the toy market in my perception. But that's just my perception: Hornby might have data that says there's strong demand in what they classify as the 'TTTE hobby'. Interesting times.

The actual facts: the NBR ran the tests, the 28xx slipped to a stand and could not restart the train. (Blame the weather if you must, most point at the outdated gravity sanding that the 28xx had.)

Past experience suggests to me that you will find the Cleminson arrangement the easy winner. Much better on curves than the alternatives, and the vehicle will visibly ride more like a bogie coach, and since there are quite likely going to be bogie coaches nearby... But don't let that prejudice you in any way. The imminent arrival of a RTR model of the single is making me have thoughts of some GNR stock to replace that which I foolishly sold forty years ago. Even though it probably was a good move, as I don't think they were that good in appearance or accuracy.

But these are all engineering design choices which are made with respect to the work expected, operating conditions, acceptable axle load for the routes the loco must work over, (Neither of these locos had particularly high axle loads, very typical of UK mineral types which had to work on colliery sidings and other locations where the track was not first class). The Q6 and the O4 would run about 17T per driven axle, the Q4 probably much the same once superheated; the Q6 and O4 both had the same RA5 route availability. When the NER develop the Q7 which had as high a nominal TE as any UK eight coupled, they retained the 0-8-0 layout accepting an axle load which must have been 19T, and the route availability became RA7 as a consequence. These too were very successful machines, and well out performed Mr 'Because one of mine will pull two of theirs backwards' expensive 2-8-0s when put to the test of slogging uphill with a large load in foul weather. That was the extra adhesion weight, steam sanding and high nominal tractive effort of the Q7 showing to advantage. The NER was designing for their conditions, as the GWR, GCR and all the others were for theirs.

It's a 'horses for courses' decision for the engineering team. The NER had an enormous freight traffic, principally coal being moved relatively slowly a short distance from pit to point of use or staithes for export. They also had significant gradients to cope with. For this purpose the cheaper option of total adhesion makes sense. The success of the NER 0-8-0 and 0-6-0 designs saw them among the very last pre-group design steam locos withdrawn from service, good evidence that the designs were fit for purpose The NER was an early pioneer of the 4-6-0 as a fast goods loco, for the longer and faster runs of other classes of freight; and had what BR rated a class 6MT unit in service from 1919 to undertake this work. . Contrast to the GCR. with a fair quantity of longer run heavy mineral traffic. The expenditure on a guiding pony truck makes sense for this class of work.

I knew I had read something about LNER container paint colours, but had to wait until I was back with my Tatlow volumes. This states that the generality of LNER containers were always red oxide, appropriate to their intended use on fitted conflats. It was the BK (household removal branded) containers only that went dark blue from 1935, with the stylised 'Zed' branding adopted in concert by the big 4 companies. (Other exceptions, the pressed steel containers finished in aluminium paint, and chilled/insulated types in white.)

It is becoming something of a minor art form in the hobby, planning what to make for yourself what the RTR manufacturers definitely are never going to offer.

Since they went on to a three cylinder 0-8-0 T3/Q7 it suggests not. The policy that developed under the last two NER CME's was total adhesion for their immense slow speed short haul coal and other mineral traffic, and 4-6-0 for faster freight. The final 4-6-0 was the direct equivalent to the three cylinder 0-8-0, and a very successful machine which would doubtless have been greatly multiplied by the LNER had Raven or Stamer obtained the CME's post. As it was the LNER built the last of these to enter traffic while locomotive policy was being devised. (And it is only a very suitable subject for Hornby to venture, should the Q6 do the business for them.)

But do Peco still produce the card jobbies? I went looking when the Bachmann conflat was available in pairs wiothout containers for very little in 2001, and retailers various saith no. Likewise not to be had at Pecorama at about that time. I had found them good in the past, and they served me well on my outdoor line in the 1980s, until they spent a night out in a rain storm...

...and also that the container could belong to 'anyone' and be of any RCH type, this being the whole point of containers.

UK is two oceans away from China, Aus is the same ocean, as a crude indicator of distance to be covered. Then there's the factor of the number of ports of call intermediate between, which with slower inshore navigation and loading and offloading adds very significantly to end-to-end timing.

I might suggest that what with the flying machine making the journey in a day, and the floaty thing taking six weeks, a little arithmetic might suggest a reason. And yes, Hornby's motivation is going to be all about cashflow. Payments that can be invoiced six weeks earlier might make all the difference in fulfilling commitments. It could well be that tight for them as a business; worn that uncomfortable shirt.

It may not have been generally employed, but Bishopsgate yard had what look like cast concrete stop blocks in 'cheese wedge' form. About 8' wide and peaking at about 5' high, side elevation probably a 3/4/5 triangle, with the '4' forming the base; baulk of timber across the buffing face. That's as seen in a couple of 1920s views; the most modern looking items to be seen in the whole yard. Doubtless the GER Society will know more

Heterodox I am afraid. Broad is the path that leads to destruction. But happily they repented, and adopted the narrower orthodoxy of St George. A certain well known clergyman made a very good sermon out of this.

I see your Gaugemaster controller in the picture, and take that as an indication that you are using DC. Three of the direction switches are not in neutral position. Quite possible they are 'leaking' onto track, try with them all set to the mid position.