34theletterbetweenB&D

The damaged wiring is another 'intersting' aspect to sort out. Personally I would renew with a revised arrangement to prevent any chance of the wires being heated by a light. (Being of the school of cheap and dirty solutions this would be achieved by 'no light'.) Whatever it is, it is a long way from their past customer service reputation. What is it they say of reputation? Years to build, may be lost in an instant.

They initially refused to provide service support for their own - effectively exclusive - product? Way to build customer confidence guys...

Exactly so. Once I was old enough to get access to the London model shops like Kings Cross, then it all became much easier. They were clearly in good standing with the manufacturers, and 'everything' could be readily obtained.

One way is to generate a reasonably objective rating, using a scheme designed to discriminate. Having devised such things for commercial purposes, I operate one for my own amusement on RTR and it 'shakes out' the best from the rest pretty neatly. With an LNER and BR/ER steam habit, the best UK RTR steam loco I own is Hornby's B1, by a fairly short head over a group containing their K1, L1, O1, M7, 28xx, Britannia, and the Bachmann C1 and 9F. (Plenty of models from both ranges I haven't looked at; let alone evaluated, which requires ownership to enable the full rating scheme to be applied.)

Ah well, it's a moderately addictive activity. I know plenty of folk who down a bottle or two of something decent (insert choice of alternative substance or activity here) every night of the week, and at the end of the week have nothing to show for it. Fact of the matter is that RTR is simply an assembled kit: and remains cheaper than buying the parts separately as kit components.

While totally agreeing about the inspiration to 'make it yourself' either by copying the author's method directly, or by seeing how the technique might be redeployed to a different starting point with a different end product in view; I do feel compelled to mention the slight 'economy with the truth' present in so many such articles. It seemed that the authors could obtain with no difficulty a RTR mechanism of this type, a body from here, a tender from there; and then let the bashing commence to produce the desired end product. But this impoverished teen got laughed out of the 1960s model shop when requesting such pieces as individual purchases (the shop name was of course 'Blunt' and that covered their mode of expression on this matter quite adequately). Complete RTR models were what was on offer, nothing else. That delayed my getting started quite significantly!

The motors in my two J50s, and the similar construction motors in the J15 and D16, have all been exemplary. I'd tend to the 'duffer' hypothesis. It doesn't take much, for a degraded 'dead slow' performance as described, just one of the windings with higher impedance will do it. Dry soldered joint, a flaw in the wire of the winding, that kind of thing.

Many favourites already mentioned. I'll add, anything by Vivien Thompson, the Diggle and Halebarns saga, and the Rev Samuel's 'Bude'; to this day I feel the perfect expression of the BLT

That's classic for either of loss of supply of track power to the decoder, or failure of the connection to the motor. I'd start from pushing all the connectors on the board fully home. Wanting to use a more economical decoder than silver 21pin, my O2 is now hardwired with a Lenz Standard in the tender. OK, it's a sample of one, but given the motor problems on the Garratt I have been pounding mine, it's now accrued twenty hours running. Good so far...

It is reasonable to extrapolate from present performance to the future. Past 15 years of 'Chinese' OO manufacture have seen production batches of the Bachmann N, Heljan 47, Hornby Brush 2 and T9, definitely have a significant number of failures ascribable to mazak rot. That's from how many production batches of castings for runs of models various? (I don't have a way to estimate, not knowing how much mazak is typically melted for a production batch of castings.) If the past rate of production batches is maintained, it would be reasonable to expect 1 to 2 incidents in the 2016 - 2020 period. Wet finger estimate, a below 0.1% risk of any particular model having mazak rot. (And perhaps they are all going to be SR prototype steamers and Brush diesels?)

Always worth thinking about selling 'as is', because the key part - the loco - is fine. Possibly sell just the loco, dump the tender in the scrap bin. Purchasers are unpredictable. I once got a better price for a loco alone, than loco with the tender; because the purchaser was looking for a body plus drive only, was 'unable to break up a complete loco plus tender'.

You can answer the first question by just sighting along the rails. It is easy to see on the standard R2 set track point that the diverging road through the crossing is a sum of straightish and curved sections, averaging R2 between the two connectors so that the piece substitutes for a constant radius R2 curved piece. Not owning a curved set track point I cannot do this for myself, but I'm betcha 'twill be much the same. The Peco version will very similar because it has to adhere to the substition radius to work; but they may have chosen a different 'mix' to get there.

At last! Someone who owns one, and has experienced a failure, and has enough curiosity to get out a screwdriver and look inside. That motor has failed while turning on the visual evidence, quickly became too hot for the materials used in the commutator construction. (The even conical shape of the commutator is the giveaway for it rotating as it fails, it has effectively been 'turned' while melting.) If that is typical, then it isn't a 'lock up' of the valve gear causing the failure, and the owner confirms that the mechanism seems free running with the motor out. Owners unite, and request a fix! You have nothing to lose but future burnouts...

Quite a few of us do. The RTR here centres on UK prototype models, so apart from wartime imports like the USATC Porter 0-6-0T (a model which is soon to be released) you'll not see many in this section. But there's a dedicated section in 'modelling' for the North American interest. I was smitten from the first sight of a 'Niagara' in a photo reproduced in a 1950's copy of 'Mechanix Illustrated'.

Not seen this trouble myself, on the streamline mediums and curved I have in use - but the curved are negotiated trailing direction only because I didn't find them wholly reliable on test in leading direction, with a very wide range of stock, kit and RTR which was otherwise trouble free. I don't recall this observation previously on this thread, but if I repeat someone else' input, apologies. If there is one mechanism feature I would criticise on this model on the grounds of 'there's a lot of knowledge that suggests this isn't the best idea', it is the three leading coupled axles all flanged and coupled by one rod. Apt to make for some reluctance in those axles to shift laterally for curves, with consequent derailments, especially on pointwork. This is apt to be 'tweaky' in behaviour: most models probably never troubled by it, and especially if curves are 30" radius and up.

Does this class have a nickname yet? To me it suggests white goods - 'twin tub' is the persistent thought that goes through what passes for my mind.

Easiest mod to the tender underside for closer coupling. Find a longer self tapper, drill hole in tender underside behind the existing bush for desired spacing. Remove weight (two screws centre line underside) and either discard (waaaay heavier than it needs to be) or drill clearance hole in weight for self tapper. This is all very easy to do, especially as the board is only held on by double sided tape and there's ample neatly dressed wire slack, good job by Heljan there.

Or, might I propose, 'the rods and gear require the very careful handling that has always been necessary when components as near to scale as practically possible are used'? Many decades ago, when under the tuition of the sage modellers of lovely EM things, the basic instruction was minimum handling, and no fingers anywhere near that (the rods and gear) preferably the model goes on track and stays there. Are Heljan are making a mistake in going this fine on mechanism components? For my money, not so. I have the feeling that the majority of purchasers like what they see, despite the 'handling care' penalty that it comes with.

Very appropriate test, as a final and well known allocation of the real locos was on branches serving ironstone quarry lines, abounding in rather silly gradients on which their grunt was much appreciated. Heljan have done the job right in respect of traction; of UK tender models it's right up there with Hornby's Britannia which is supplied at a similar weight. Only outdone by the Bachmann 9F which is yet heavier: now this is all good stuff, with a little coordination might we in future get locos appropriately weighted proportional to their actual tractive rating?

I still feel that for operational models, Bachmann really 'hit the spot' with their WD. Just two significant details missing, the tool rack which you have neatly added (I imagine Bach left this off due to the finger lacerating potential) and no fallplate. Solidly constructed, nothing falls off; and an excellent mechanism with two sprung driven axles which just runs and runs. The best of their subsequent steam releases have matched this model, but never bettered it.

From memory the valve gear was off the lay shaft that the cylinders directly drove, there was then gear drive from the lay shaft to an axle. Very early design of which a long deceased American colleague had an engineering mag drawing. It was of a generic type known in the USA as a 'crab' if I recall correctly.

From which we may divine that it had rigid (one piece) coupling rods. Four or more rigidly coupled in the vertical plane will work directly opposed (180 degrees). There may well be some harsh action at dead centres, and a good chance of something breaking if attempted full size; which is why it isn't done even though there are potential advantages in mechanical balance. I believe it was attempted on at least one early eight coupled US design: the engine was quartered as usual for self starting, just the side rods directly opposed. It worked well until it abruptly didn't!

Your choice, but from a careful inspection of two Garratts (owned by friends) and my own O2 I see no fundamental problems with design or execution of the mechanisms. Given a proper degree of care in handling and appropriate lubrication I don't expect to have any significant issues. My O2 has been given an extended running test to flush out any early life problems, and has proved good for all of smooth and quiet operation, trackholding and tractive performance; overall I would rate it the best RTR OO 2-8-0 I have yet received by a very short head from Bach's WD ( 8F, O4, O1 the other competitors). Waiting impatiently for versions with the GNR style cab and tender! When comparing different manufacturers design and construction, there's always a difference in 'the mix' of approach and characteristics from one to another. The Heljan is a clear leader for the loco weight essential for good traction, and the wheelsets and gear; these are very well done and I would call particular attention to the enhanced appearance of the small diameter pony truck wheelset thanks to the very fine flanges. Weakest elements in my opinion the pony truck frame representation, lack of a fallplate and a rather basic loco to tender coupling with no provision for adjusting the spacing to scale. Already dealt with the latter pair, and now giving thought to a better pony truck frame.

The thought prompted by the pictures was 'that isn't coming in with a narrow gauged price is it?' . At least with NG you typically don't need that much stock for a realistic operation. (That will provoke a reply from someone with plans to model 'everything' from forward supply depot to front line at Cuinchy or wherever.) The couplers look as though they could be easily modified by eliminating the hinging loops and the hooks, and going for the manual method of inserting drawbars with wire pins to secure them in the sockets.

One of my employers was wont to have me hang around at trade fairs to field these queries. I always found it best to relate the answer to cars whenever possible. So when told that some sophistimacated piece of kit was grossly overpriced for something the size of a washing machine, I would explain that it bore the same relationship to a washing machine, as their car's tyres did to the solid tyres on a fork truck. That had quite a lot to do with my initial choice of commercial standard HO when I decided it was possible to resume model railwaying. (Then Bachmann waved a beautiful WD and sixteen tonners around and a rapid diversion into OO occurred.) I don't now recall the name of the guy who had five goes at a Royal Scot mechanism in P4 before succeeding with a model that could run reliably at full chat all day long without the sudden horrible lurch of the waggly stuff screwing itself into a ball. (That was a 120 degree cranks job, and very fine too.)