34theletterbetweenB&D

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.

The existing product stays the same surely? Rebrandings are typically a disaster, and whether code 75 or 100, it can all have OO and HO operate on it. So for that matter can the new bullhead rail 'better OO' product. That's where the new name is required I would suggest, drop the 'Streamline' and use a new name specific to the OO Bullhead range. BrOOtish Bullhead, Bullstream 75, Bullhead code 75, OO 75, Bullcode 75; someone must be able to come up with a clear and euphonious identifier for the new item.

The only thing to add is that it may be 'tacked' with paint or cement, but never yet seen one fail to release cleanly. Just in case, the class 20 has the same arrangement.

Very like the old Mainline in the most important respect: split chassis; and the mechanism completely fills the body including the cab up to the side openings. The top half of the cab is empty though, the major improvement in appearance over the Mainline version. The quiet and reliable mechanism is the other gain, Bachmann use an open frame three pole motor with worm drive. Decent longevity as it is light, doesn't wear away the plating too quickly. The way the mechanism fills the void inside the body limits use for motorising anything smaller. Lots of sawing off of metal to cut it down with no guarantee of a robust result as the years go on. It is a fair option for the related GER J67-69 classes with their taller side tanks but otherwise similar proportions, thanks to the Worsdell Brothers design family connection between the GER and NER.

If the droplights are a little red, the weathering of the cream will surely mute it. Colour pictures from the 1930's of expresses - even those behind Kings and Castles - show that no two coaches would normally have matching cream, and the cream varied all the way from ex-paintshop/well cleaned to a match with the chocolate below. I shall have to prevent my wife from gaining knowledge of these, as one grandpappy spent his entire career at Swindon on carriage work, from apprentice joiner to foreman, 1905 - 1956.

This is exactly the kind of model we have not yet got in OO RTR, a really light loco intended for industrial and contractor use. Think you might have to look at the HO ranges for a suitable RTR mechanism, something with an 1100mm wheel comes in at the right sort of 13mm dia in 3.5mm/ft.

Leen, Woodcock 29, These hints and tips are much appreciated, filed away for when I can get at mine. FWIW my inclination would be to make this a pragmatic decision rather than to a dimension, scale or not; as long as it looks right enough and works reliably, that'll do!

I feel a GBL league table coming on! Having only bought a couple of the types from the range as 'useful for modelling' feedstock, I was impressed with both the D11s and A2s. The fact that I was already well equipped with all the other LNER group tackle that was included in the GBL selection is what precluded more purchases, not the quality on offer. I have seen the LMS 3F 'Jinty' body made into a runner, and considered as a body to replace an old and warped Triang original it was a clear step forward; and that was before the owner further enhanced it to match a mechanism which had been handbuilt long ago. The resulting model is very good. Of the two I have I would rate the A2 top of the pile, leading from a value for money basis, then rarity, etc. 1. Straight up, it's a lot of loco, and the tender mouldings alone - near Jinty size! - would represent VFM offered at £8.99 2. Even the castings offer potential for a running model as the Cartazzi framing is a good repro. 3. As a fairly recent release, cheap Bachmann A2s are as near as doesn't matter just not available. 4. Despite some errors, all the really difficult bodywork elements are done well, leaving the modeller the less problematic elements to correct or alter as required. 5. Offers at least as much direct rebuild potential into related classes as any of the GBL choices, thanks to the Thompson A2/ 1,2,3 parts 6. It's a near top of the pile looker among UK 'big engines'.

Or even the LMS open and van designs which would not only suit the Dean Goods, but the entire UK, as they were about 40% of the entire common user fleet, and these are a long term 'hole' in RTR provision. The 'why' of subject choices is baffling. The LNER standard 6 plank is a good choice at no 3 in the common user wagon table, but there are already other LNER standard vans and opens available. Why not 'strike for the top' of the no 1 and no 2 spots? The lack of good RTR models of these makes this an open goal in my view. Some object that they are 'dull' as subjects, but it seems to me that Bachmann must have mightily cleaned up on the BR 16T mineral designs, than which nothing is duller. The LNER cattle van is a mystery, presumably eye-candy sales? These were relatively rare vehicles and spent most of the time waiting for their traffic as far as I can see, or being redeployed into fruit and veg transport to meet seasonal peaks.

Present circumstances prevent doing very much on the model railway - I haven't operated for four days and am in cold turkey - but I would truly appreciate a description of the 'how to' and what you find in performing the close coupling. My first look at the drawbar had me thinking "ah, sturdy enough left as is, probably fragile if I muck around with the arrangements" and you have rather confirmed that thought. I have to say that the immediate need on the model for my taste is close coupling and the addition of a fall plate. The freight engine filth will pretty much do the trick elsewhere...