34theletterbetweenB&D

lttle douce coupe, you don't

If you ease off the front keeper plate screw a couple of turns, the lower keeper plate which retains the pony truck will move enough to allow you to unclip it: then you can apply all the force required wth no risk of collateral damage. Even ignoring that the B-G was a Hattons commission to that business' specification, I reckon if you were to ask the typical B-G owner - I know two - or the typical O2 owner (me for example) what they feel about the product, you would find them smiling. It's rather early to consider a track record on the basis that the O2 definitely isn't perfect. Because that applies to all the models I own. In the LNER 2-80 stakes the Hornby O1 has their daft camming pony truck, ugly cut outs in the cylinder fronts, isn't quite heavy enough to pull a full load, and has a visibly out of position loco to tender coupling; the Bachmann O4 an overlong widened section of the footplate over the cylinders, the piston axis pointing below the centre of the crank axle, and isn't heavy enough to pull a full load. What the Heljan O2 definitely has is plenty of weight for traction, and a mechanism to adequately exploit that weight: that happens to be what floats my boat once the basic 'looks like the subject' criterion is met. My assessment then, a very promising start.

This morning's highlight a Willow tit, a bird I have only positively seen once before at our present home. This one perched two feet away on a wisteria branch outside the window while dealing with a reluctant to be eaten grub of some sort.

The new B17 model's strangely depressed superheater header covers are the one significant blot that my eye is always drawn toward. Easy to correct thankfully. With the small GER pattern tender to make it a 'Sandy', the charm of this model is redoubled. You may want to hold a little madness in reserve for the GN cab and tender O2 versions. Very characterful. That we should have three native LNER design eight coupleds, (with another to come) and a generous helping of the rest of the UK's eight coupled types available RTR is not something I ever expected.

The O4/8 does it for me, and the freight loco grot* just redoubles the appeal in my eyes. Were it not that I have all the bits and pieces in hand for a DIY job to occupy some future winter evenings... * I have a little debate going on over just which of the heavy freight types is going to represent the recently ex-works specimen. I remember this as quite startling, you saw the machine in an entirely new light. Waiting until the O2/2 is seen before making the decision, suspect it wll be the O2/2, a final blaze of glory for the old carthorse. Brian Haresnape obliges with a picture of 8602M with an Austerity tender at Euston in 1948, in the 'Stanier Locomotives' volume of his pictorial history survey.

Could be systematic - slight assymetry in the positioning of the coupler mechanisms relative to the ends of the vehicle for example - or just the stack up of dimensional variation in the many parts that make up the assembly of both the coupler mechanism and the vehicle end. I have noticed this same effect on a couple of Bachmann mk1 coaches, and casually put it down to variation stack up, rather than go and investigate further.

Also lack of buyer confidence is a major factor. Most are pretty cautious about anything they are not familiar with. Really basic questions like compatability with RTR track and other product, and attaching the RTR coupler of choice. And then if there is a problem with it, can I get it fixed or obtain spares?

What you need above all else is the large coastal conurbation of Ilfrabudestaple, developed after the Bristol Channel completely silted up. What was Halwill Junc. has been restyled (over local protests) as 'Ilfrabudestaple Parkway' and the significant freight yard is always busy with traffic in supplies for the immense Cornish Pasty business, with its global export trade ('you be aving froies withat, moi duck?').

Generally, the test with a meter will be fine. That's because the model is static, and intermittent contact (which is all the problem can be as it ran on DC) is near impossible to detect that way. The less 'scientific' looking for sparks as a clue to problem location while the mechanism runs on live track is typically more productive in my experience.

Just in case it is of interest, there have been fireless types in HO ranges. The appearance of most UK fireless types I have seen is not unlike that of their continental cousins. Out of interest, is that the fireless hooked up to the High Presure Hot Water supply for a refill? Very UK industrial practise as I first saw it. Some 'convenient' location where the poor old driver has to scramble up a ladder by the looks of it. Imagine that with the rain teeming down.

This also applies to the tinplate. It is all too easy if running outdoors to end up with condensation on models even f they are never directly exposed to rain. This never seemed much of a problem on locos - maybe the motor heat was enought to help dry them off - but corrosion appeared on the mazak and tinplate of H-D vehicles in time. I scrapped a goodly number of tinplate wagons by regular use outdoors - all of them in short!

First thing to think about is how much actual movement? Scaled down it becomes near invisible. Make your track poor enough to generate enough movement, and then all vehicles need suspension/compensation to stay on the rails. I have a very poor 'humped' track profile in one location on the test track, thanks to a long ago roof leak. Bachmann's rather neat hinging fallplates can be seen to work over this; but you have to get up close and watch intently. It's a track profile that would only be found on temporary quarry lines in standard gauge operation in the UK.

Live chassis is a hostage to fortune in DCC, and doubly so in a metal bodied loco. Momentary shorts that DC tolerates, are not compatible with DCC. What you have in essence is the whole loco including the body connected to one rail, other than a set of tyres on the insulated side on the other rail. It is contact between the insulated tyres and any other part of the loco that is the fundamental problem. You have to fix this on the mechanism first, then fix it when the body encloses the mechanism, then fix it for the pony truck. Easy enough on the mechanism, just look for sparks around the insulated tyres while running on DC in low light. PITA inside the dummy frames with the loco body on. Assess what clearance you have and look for any evidence of contact, especially between insulated side flanges and the whitemetal. Been there, got this sweat soaked T shirt. Good luck!

They did on the O2 tender, based on my sample of one! Not tried the pony truck pocket, as I model a railway with working turntables on which the sun always shines. Now maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't consider a pony truck mounted coupler as practical for anything like the load a freight heavy can potentially haul. It's simply an unstable arrangement, and asking for trouble. Better by far to body mount the coupler of choice. The short wheelbase of the two independent engine bogies will make this trouble free even on set track radii. (I don't expect RTR manufacturers to know this stuff, triumph of experience over hope.)

I recall that. Rather too much scenery, very little railway. Pendine, Pigdon, some name like that?

You can persuade the local authority to pay for the vehicle damage relatively easily in my experience, using photographs and any 'history' from sites like Streetview. Show the evidence of persistent failure to maintain the road surface in an adequate condition. Had refunds from Devon and West Yorkshire on this basis, both paid in full without putting up any fight to speak of. I got the impression that both authorities were very happy not to be dealing with an insurance company...

I'd confidently suggest that derives from the dog's breakfast of the exterior styling, both structure and liveries. Technicolour yawn garnished with chunks.

Were I interested in having one of these, my first move would have been to fit a decoder per motor. My usual choice, the very economical Lenz standard, has successfully matched the most disparate motor characteristics among current RTR, all the way through the speed range. (All locos are assigned into one of four groups, three of which groups are speed matched to enable 'any with any' combination for a variety of operating purposes.)

Snap! Rode a Velocette to his place of employment, and the pipe was in use all the day long. He was a schoolmaster. Sadly I had left the joint when he reputedly succeeded in burning a hole in his trews, by placing said pipe in his back pocket. Having commanded his class to silence for some infraction they joyfully watched as rear end combustion became evident. He departed that school's employ that very same year.

Surly, 'Molesworth Rites Agane'? The four original volumes rather well explored the future career options of the gorila of 3b. Pretty sure someone very like him must have been a senior figure in the West Midland Serious Crime Squad debacle. The two-page illustration of Moleworthian directed detective work (probably in 'whizz for atomms') rather indicates that the authors suspected that some police procedure was less refined than might be expected.

Necessarily so, it's lowest common denominator that defines the merge speed. Strangely of course 'zip merging' is exactly the manoeuvre required to join the motorway and many dual carriageways from the slip road. If a ten+ year old Volvo takes the slip road I want ahead of me, and the driver has any or all of a flat cap, pipe or large grey barnet in evidence, I'll execute any safe move available to avoid their braking to 15mph manoeuvre for joining the 70mph traffic stream. This 'zip merge inability' ought to be inspected for regularly between 10am and 2.30pm at motorway on ramps, and the perpetrators unlicensed on the spot.

That's one definite thing one can say about this situation, which I learned early riding a bicycle. The Highway code makes it entirely clear that even if the other participant(s) have broken every rule in the book, if you can avoid the potential accident or take mitigating action, that's what you should do to the fullest extent you are capable of. It could be a problematic decision 'what to do', and there may have been factors for the truck driver that we cannot see that influenced his decision. The police and courts will sort that out in the post match analysis.

An observation that has already been made is that this was a commission by Hattons, with Heljan supplying. (Where the design was specified would be a question to ask.) But whatever the answer to that question, it's Hattons who are responsible to the end customer, and they should be contacted by any who are dissatisfied with this product. I have absolutely no motor design experience, but have been taught by the experience of the past dozen year's OO RTR to accept that well designed three pole can motors of much smaller size than I would have thought a good plan, perform very satisfactorily. My previous prejudices in favour of the largest possible motor, five poles minimum and ideally skew wound, have been overthrown on the evidence. As a specific example from Heljan's own production, the class 15 has a three pole can motor according to the service sheet information. And it is 12mm diameter and 30mm long over the can, (cannot get acess to measure shaft diameter without full disassembly which I have no motivation to perform.) So it would be a reasonable guess that this is the same motor found in the Garratt. In the two class 15 mechanisms I have it has performed completely reliably, DCC control from Lenz standards gives very refined running, a single unit will haul in excess of sixty wagons or a dozen coaches, most satisfactory after several years in service. Nothing fundamentally flawed about that motor design would be my verdict. I believe we may still be looking at an additional factor in the Garratt design that pushes the motor into overheat failure, and will now repeat an earlier observation I made, that I do not think it best to have two motors with worm drive in the same unit. This is from experience operating twin motored power bogie models cooked up by myself from RTR. The twin motor worm drive units had accelerated wear out of the gears. The twin motor spur gear drives lasted much better in service. This was all DC operation, and I surmised at the time that the speed mismatches between motors were the probable cause of this difference: easily taken up in spur gear drives, not so in worm drives. This may be a factor in the Garratt problems. The Garratt troubles do need an owner with an engineer mindset and willing to have a go to get resolution. So far Garry (Golden Fleece 30) seems to be the sole party with the will.

One of the great strengths of this hobby is the range of what you can choose from for the DIY. I have no numbers to back this up, but suspect that most modeller's layouts will have significantly involved that individual in their construction: even if everything that it consists of and is eventually on view in the modelling was bought at retail. I found my outdoor line of once-upon-a-day (no modelling to speak of) immensely satisfying. It was built of fencing timber by a railway navigator (me), and biannually adjusted for a reliably operable rail top profile by the lengthman (me) mostly using a sledge hammer, crowbar and large screwdriver, and operated year round whenever I could find the time. As far removed from most indoor layouts as can be imagined, but immense fun.

Had four classes so far, all over-wintering types: Peacock, Brimstone, Comma, Speckled Wood. Weather performing correctly for month too. Warm sunshine, heavy but brief showers. The ichor is doing its stuff, most of the once bare and dead looking sticks are now covered in splurges and blobs of the green stuff.