34theletterbetweenB&D

One simple aspect to test. The tender top comes off very easily, just the two underside screws to remove. There are three plugs into the board, make sure they are all 'home' and also lift out and replace the DCC socket blanking plug I would suggest. The board is only secured with double sided tape and there is ample slack in the wiring, so it is easiest to extract it from its location and work on it 'free floating'.

Small mod to the tender underframe tooling. The moulded boss under the tender into which the rear securing screw for the loco to tender drawbar locates. Were this moulding extended rearwards and a second hole put in set for scale spacing that would 'ice the cake' for me. Good as the O2 model looks, as with any tender loco it looks that bit better when loco and tender are at scale separation. Eager anticipation of the O2/1 and O2/2 following this very satisfactory first release.

Drew back the study curtains this morning and there was a charm of goldfinches with members zipping about the garden from a group I would estimate as about ten sitting in the shrubs growing through the top of the pergola. Twenty years in our present home to see this. A bare three hundred yards away, just half an hour will spot you a goldfinch most days. But in our garden only the very occasional solitary specimen. Strange how tightly they confine themselves, as the whiole area is uniformly one time old woodland margin onto ploughland with houses and gardens put up circa 1960, most of the trees and hedgelines maintained.

That's what my intended O2/1 purchase is hopefully going to metamorphose into, despite the small resulting inaccuracies. Swapping the crank axle wheelset to no3 leaving the gear on no2 axle, carving of footplating, cuboid form steam pipe casings, and letting in a modified cylinder block from B1 or 8F and a motion parts assemblage from same, should achieve a reasonable facsimile.

Keep fighting the good fight people, best to all with their health. My very favourite style. Because firstly it is easy to make swift and readily apparent improvements if 'parachuted in' to initiate restoration of order; and secondly it's usually easy to encourage those responsible to walk of their own accord, rather than grind through the LTWTL process of disciplinaries etc..

Best to all those suffering and recovering. Anxiously awaiting the mental health unit's statement for my Pa's continuing healthcare needs, as he was recently diagnosed with vascular dementia which appears to be progressing at quite a pace. Presently engaged in picking up the threads of his financial affairs: it's all a little cryptic, and quite a few key questions get answers on the lines of 'Did I do that?' or 'I cannot recall'. Hmmm. DIY In-flight catering too: the only time I have been alarmed by passenger activity on a commercial flight was folk on a Garuda flight operating charcoal stoves in the cabin.

You will want to measure the axle centres to see whether they match the Hornby rods. The prototype was symmetric 5'5" spacing between axle centres, Hornby's is 22+21+21+22 mm. So the prototype's overall 21'8" coupled wb is reasonably well represented by the 86mm overall wb of the Hornby model, but the axle spacings are not uniform. (Bachmann manage uniform spacing, but of 22mm, for a net wb of 88mm whch is of course slightly overscale.)

What radius curve do you want it to go around? With four flanged wheelsets, it will need a radius something North of 4 feet, would be my (educated) guess. I'm all for trying things, but if a practical running model is your intent this one is a case of 'if you want to go there, don't start from here'. In my opinion of course... Editied to add: the highlighted red is the significant aspect. I read that as there are no instructions beyond 'purchaser uses the Airfix kit parts and sources all other components required to complete, deciding exactly how this is to be done'. This is entirely normal for a sixties/seventies 'build aid' kit, with such groovy features as not having the frames long enough to carry the bufferbeam, cylinders or drag box, to make it a real test of skill and determination.

That's very proper indeed. I like the diaphragm plate representation, a very significant absent detail on the RTR alternatives.

I think that might be the 'Millholme Models' product going by appearance. But whoever produced it, any instructions really are irrelevant now, as the parts specified to complete it are probably no longer available. But no matter, better parts may now be used: for example a fold up gearbox and can motor will fit neatly on the fourth axle for a fully concealed drive inside the firebox, which the parts available contemporary with this kit would not easily have achieved. BUT - and as you can see it is a big but - I would test very carefully whether this item will make a satisfactory mechanism before spending any more cash. Just for a start, with the assumption that it is all square and true running, those three sets of flangeless drivers are a hostage to fortune. If they run on the railhead and your layout curves are of sufficiently small radius that any of them can go off the railhead, then your track laying has to be of near perfect flatness to avoid regular derailments. Having built an etched chassis for a 9F in the long ago, I'll repeat here what I have posted before. The Bachmann 9F mechanism alone is worth the asking price if wanting a full brake gear fitted 9F intended to run on an OO small radius layout. Ditto the Hornby mech if a 'less detail' option is acceptable. (Or obtain an old 'push along' Hornby 9F chassis and modify the block to drop in a fold up gearbox and it will cost you less than working on this kit.)

Judgement by results alone people. Best MD I ever worked for couldn't consecutively spell a six or more letters word the same twice, and the concept of 'the sentence' had totally escaped him. But his grasp of what the customers wanted, and the direction of how to achieve it were consistently solid gold.That's what Hornby needs right now, and nobody will care whether it comes with polish or not.

The progress report on the B12 had passed me by, but prompted by this thread went for a look and that is truly 'wow'. Perfection of th UK 4-6-0 type. Good to read Nat still projecting confidence, hope he's proved right. Now me, I really like them on locos. Enables the coupling distance to be set very close with the inside buffer compressing on curves, matching the effect of using the close coupling mechs on coaches. Not a deal breaker for me one way or the other, but nice to have.

I doubt it. The commonalities of the O1 with the B1 in reality, do not really help overmuch with a model, other than perhaps having the dimensions of the 100A boiler on file. It's subtly different 'everywhere' from the B1, and has a GCR design tender which Hornby didn't have in their range. (With Bachmann having already tooled up all the GCR design tender locos of any longevity in service in good numbers, there's little prospect for Hornby being able to re-use that tender for other models either.) As I posted before, the O1 struck me as something of an odd choice. The O2 with a far greater time span in operation, more variations, pre-group liveries and all; and a tender eminently suited to other GNR design locos would have been a better bet in my opinion. But Heljan have now done the business there and rather nice it is too.

This is very true. I regard all RTR as potential feedstock, mainly as a shortcut for making other things. But conversely it is why I am very happy about a Dean Goods. Not that I want anything from Swindon polluting the Right side: but the necessarily compact mechanism on a Ramsbottom wheelbase is very useful indeed as the basis for other classes.

I have been reading, but refraining from posting over the last few months for fear of drowning the thread with tales of our parental units and their contemporaries for whom my wife and I are the nearest relatives able to offer support. Suffice it to say that all six are still in life, although at an 83% serious malfunction rate. But only 50% are now 'bed-blocking' like champions, a significant improvement on the recent 100% status. (One of them did escape from a hospital along the way, but having learned and successfully practised this art during the only part of his life he now remembers at 70-odd years distance - and not being dissuaded at that time by the armed guards - I don't think the present NHS offered that much of a challenge.) What I have learned along the way is that despite the glooming and dooming in some sectors of the press, actually the NHS and social care systems work pretty well in providing assistance to people who by reason of age and decay of faculties can no longer fully manage their own lives. As a bonus I even got to meet a psychiatrist who enjoys railway modelling: in his opinion, we are the only sane people on the planet.

Here's one solution then. http://www.ehattons.com/148851/Hornby_R3088_U_Thompson_Class_O1_steam_locomotive_2_8_0_LNER_3755_DCC_Ready_Pre_owned_imperf/StockDetail.aspx It is a fine model, and the acclaim was well deserved. Only the retailers and Hornby know what the commercial result was, and whether there is sufficient market demand for a follow on release. Personally I found it a surprising subject choice. If it had to be an Eastern 2-8-0, the GNR/LNER 02 class was larger on a numbers in service basis, and offers distinctively different variations from the pre-group period and right through the LNER's existence into BR service. The yet better option for an LNER goods would have been the J6, a real 'missing link' in the ability to model the Southern half of the ECML using RTR items. I have bought an O1, a relative rarity among the WD's and 9Fs that dominated BR period heavy freight on the ECML. and that's it, just one. I have more O4s, and will have more O2s because of their variations.The J6, I will buy half a dozen should we ever be lucky enough to see one RTR: a very useful loco indeed for someone interested in the former GNR and its continuation within the LNER and BR(ER).

My O2/3 is imminently going into works to correct its major appearance shortcoming, the loco to tender spacing and lack of a fallplate. I have decided to run it with a Bachmann LNER GS tender model. This brings no fewer than four benefits: eliminates the excessive mass of the Heljan tender; fixes the incorrect tender hand rail problem at a stroke; makes it easier to arrange scale loco to tender coupling distance without modifying the drawbar; allows me to dismantle and experiment with chopping out the mazak as practise for dealing with the GN pattern tenders when the O2/1 and O2/2 versions arrive. On the last, this proved to be piece of cake, the huge lump of metal is retained by only two screws.

The weak assembly aspect, consistent with experience of my K1. The manufacturing shop used (TEC05) perhaps has a 'Sanda Kan' attitude to cement application, that business was long noted for being a bit sparing with the adhesive! One tender side frame and the rear coal plate very lightly attached on mine. (That said I see this as a fault on the right side, preferable to glued together to a 'never come apart ever again' standard; very easy to add a dab of cement if something is too weakly attached.) There was inept design on the loco to tender link in my opinion: using the closer position was impossible as supplied for a running result, as the drawbar fouled the wires of the plug in link and would have sawn its way through the insulation in very little time. Easy enough to revise for a workable result. But on the 'mojo' question, I would give Hornby near 100% for good intentions. the K1 looks and measures right, the detail fit is to a good standard, sound mechanical design, the running excellent (sensible gear ratio choice) and easy decoder fitting. (Since this release, my Hornby purchases of the J15, D16/3, J50 and QoS K type Pullman cars have been uniformly most satisfying, no assembly issues at all, just the loco to tender drawbar arrangements to revise on the two tender locos.)

I keep looking at the 700, as I was really tempted by the original condition picture posted by Rob in post 108 of this thread, (I really like the pre-group 0-6-0 designs as a type, very 'honest' machines). Anybody tried this, either for the as built LSWR condition, or for one of Drummond's earlier similar classes for the Caley?

The C class is a good puller. It has to be said of Bachmann that the wheel finish varies from very 'slippy' to 'no problem with traction' out of the box. My C class proved to be a 'no problem' job, but for comparison the slightly heavier MR 3F 0-6-0 was utterly hopeless as received, 15 free running wagons tops. After four hours running it has settled down to the sixty wagons that I expected, gauged by the weight on the coupled wheels. The message there is 'give it time'. The loss of the sprung driven axle on Bachmann is something I also lament: I modify the more recent locos to put some sprung movement in on a driven axle wherever possible. The Hornby J15 is yet smaller than the 700, but pulled very well as received, the motor and mechanism layout of the 700 looks very similar to the J15 which should be a good omen. I do find a consistent problem with Hornby pick ups going draggy after some hours running. Doesn't affect the driven wheels as the motor torque is ample to overcome the friction, but on the tender wheels is a complete thief of traction. Known it near stop some locos.

Deviate from the true path of Lenzism like any old revisionist? ;-) But if it performs equivalent to Lenz, and the 21pin option is the same price as the 8pin that will be attractive. For me. the weakness in the Lenz decoder range to date has been no 21pin version of the standard.

I rather got the impression from the early announcements that a 'range to emerge over four or five years' was already planned. Maybe we should just sit back and wait for most of that to appear before making suggestions? I imagine the proprieter will want to see what materialises in sales from these items when placed before the customers, and what by then appears to be trending in a popular direction, to inform future plans. I'd have some questions if 'twere me in the hot seat. Is the SR small tank loco genre now played out? (A1X, M7, BWT, Adams Radial, O2, E4, available; USA tank and B4 to come, did I miss any?) Could the small tank loco mechanism experience gained with the Radial tank be 'recycled' to prototypes 'of interest' with long service into BR days elsewhere in the UK? If the Dean Goods sells well, are there any other late surviving GW locos that lack a good model? If the Dean Goods sells well, can the proven mechanism layout be recycled into other late surviving 0-6-0 types likely to be 'of interest' elsewhere in the UK? Now I am on the radar, what can I make that will excite interest and grab sales, for which there is next to no competition (carving out my own distinctive niche)? While it seems blindingly obvious to me that there are some 'open goals' as gap fillers among what is already available or announced RTR, (MR/LMS 0-4-4T, GNR/LNE 0-6-0, SECR/SR 4-4-0, GER/LNE tank loco, LMS standard opens and vans, for example) and a huge largely unexplored territory North of a line Manchester - York; perhaps there is other imnformation out there that suggests these are unwise propositions.

Think your money is safe enough. Stratford had acquired a few by the end of BR steam operation, but Cambridge, Ipswich and Colchester never appear to have had any regular allocation, the GER tanks of various designs sufficient for the work these might have done.

Retailers in other words. What has crossed my mind as the share price continues its descent, is whether the really big specialist retailer up in the North-West - which has made clear moves over several years toward sourcing its own exclusive supplies - might well have the finance to acquire 'the name'. H by H?

A little perspective on the competition aspect, from within RTR OO. Right back in 2003 there was glooming and downbeat prognostication concerning Heljan's entry to this market. Dog eat dog competition etc. business failures. What we actually got was a large expansion of RTR product choice, with a trend to improving standards of the product. Someone proposing that by 2016 there might be a dozen independent businesses with motorised OO RTR regularly available would have been laughed at. Bachmann, Dapol, DJM, Golden Age, Heljan, Hornby, Murphy's, OOWorks, Oxford, Realtrack, Sutton's LW, ViTrains; and then there are the squad of 'commissioners' too. If 'better OO track' is genuinely wanted by the customer base (I think it is) then the presence of competitors is a positive and likely to spur demand. Best plain track in this respect from company A that I can use for the mainlines, while the yard track can come from company B, and there's a particularly useful point from company C ... Choice between good products is typically welcomed by customers.