34theletterbetweenB&D

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...

Spot on. It has the wheelbase dimensions usually attributed as originating with Ramsbottom at Crewe LNWR, 7'3"+8'3". The 0-6-0 types built at Crewe in such quantity in C19th were copied in this layout all over the UK, so it is a very useful engine indeed considered as a mechanism for redeployment into something else. The GWR is the deviant from regular UK practise, in moving to a final position of operating significantly fewer tender locos than tank locos (numbers immediately prior nationalisation), and thus the 0-6-0 being relatively less common in that group than elsewhere. But nevertheless still a numerous wheel arrangement even on the GW.

Here's something Peco could decide to do, if the business case looks good: they could go for a hybrid. Stick with the present geometry for smaller radius points, introduce new design larger types using prototype arrangements. There does seem to be an element of 'no compromise' in folks minds; but a more nuanced approach is possible. Provided the business case stacks up...

Since there is no 'standard wagon' why not think about using mass - which is well characterised - and gravity, which works well everywhere. I do a simple lift test: loco on straight and level track lifts a weight box by means of a thread running over a pinpoint axle in a fold up W-iron (from a compensated wagon set). This can be used to estimate both drawbar pull as a force and the force required to start any given sample of vehicles. Results: Now the difference between the Hornby O1 and the Heljan O2 of 8g force, would lead me to estimate that the O2 will pull 24 more wagons, as my wagon fleet averages 'three per gram force' to start. For such a simple characterisation, a close estimate to the '20 wagon' difference that Tony Wright reports in post 301 above.

The class 24/25 are 28' bogie centres, 8'6" bogie w/b; 21/29 differs only in having 28'6" bogie centres. Near ideal powerplant if it can be 'dressed' with the external parts to represent classes 21 and 29

Exactly. All the existing code 75 product will still work, and the flexible tracks of the systems mean that all sorts of things can be connected irrespective of 'geometries'. I have two makes of code 100 off scene, and code 75 in four flavours on scene, it really isn't difficult... A 'better OO' FB track equivalent, once the BH is available? There surely isn't the slightest demand for that, as you cannot see the track in most modern image layouts: since they are solid with either Duffs and Tractors, or Sheds, Skips and Donuts? ;-)

Of course not. But I would guess at what Coachmann may be driving at. Ever since I got involved in trying to put all the visible detail on locos using decently scaled parts, it has been a fact that the resulting model has to be handled and stored with care; and troubleshooting exactly what slightly displaced or damaged component was making the mechanism run like a limping dog, or not at all, became an essential skill. An abiding frustration of mine with this hobby, is so often the lack of decently disciplined problem analysis. We still don't know for sure if the Hattons/Heljan B-G has a fundamental design flaw in the mechanism, or if the problem reports only apply to the normal small proportion of any OO production. Having given my O2 an aggreagate six hours running following receipt, I'd say it is fundamentally sound as a mechanism design - fit for purpose. Doesn't mean it is immune from infant mortalities and other failures, but that it has the bones of a good job.

As I posted recently in another context, this thread clearly illustrates what a broad church the railway interest is. I share with Martyn Wynne the enjoyment of the engineered railway formation in the landscape with the structures various required. And I like to see trains running on this formation. The track? Just background, like birdsong, and the tasty pub lunch I enjoyed midway through the day. It would be very boring indeed if we were all uniform in our interests.

And ditto SMP, which I have purchased and used, and very well it looks too. But neither of these businesses look likely to produce a range of plastic base RTP points of the proven robustness of Streamline and at a non-stratospheric price,,,

My assumption about the 'reception' Peco are looking for, is orders from retailers. Having long believed that a decent - not perfect - representation of typical UK steam era track to the long established standard for handbuilt OO track from copperclad, and as robust and reliable as the current Streamline 75 product is something the hobby will welcome and benefit from; my order for a boxful will go to my retailer when I can get through on the phone. And I will wait in hope for the points to follow.

If the geared axle is 'tight' compared to the other coupled axles, that's the symptom of a gear train lock up, which is the most usual type when there is nothng to see as a cause.

The mechanism is a real sweeetie on this model, really quiet and creamy smooth through the speed range (on vanilla DC from an H&M controller) now its had near six hours steady trundling forward and reverse. That's put to bed any question about drive longevity for me, it's well out of the infant mortality zone now. Traction unchanged, but plenty adequate, it does some neat rhythmic grunting when the load changes as a heavy train gets onto a curve (the Bach 9F does this too.) Top speed scales 65mph on my example so a good gear ratio choice, and nearly as fast as a current Bachmann V2. I know which driveline better represents prototype capability. Three different GNR origin classes within a twelvemonth, that's left me all overcome and needing a lie down. There is a slight hole in the power ratings though isn't there, A more modest GN goods loco that's going to end up in BR power class three perhaps: now that Heljan have shown they have the knack for UK steam?

And the issue of that specification instantly eliminated any yellow lettering and numbering already applied I suppose? Come on...

A book I endlessly recommend 'The Big Four in Colour 1935 - 50' contains enough evidence to settle the argument. BR undoubtedly had locos with yellow cabside numbers and BRITISH RAILWAYS on the tender in its earliest years. Where visible the smokebox numbers were white/cream. There is even a photo of two locos adjacent top p190, one with yellow numbers and lettering the other cream numbers: in the same light, on the same film stock; BR used two different colours for cabside numbers.

I expect the models to do as the prototype which for an 8F rating means 750 tons on 1 in 80 (that's the ruling gradient I use). My operation requires a guaranteed start with the loco and 60 wagon mineral train length all standing on the 1 in 80: that would be an easy empties load for an 8F. This requires about 45g force from the loco, and the O2 is the first OO 2-8-0 model to achieve this, 48g on my weight lift test. It may improve further, models often do as the tyres polish up with extended running. The Hornby O1 was next best of RTR 2-8-0s I have tried, 40g force. Not quite enough, though with the flywheel out and lead in for an extra 50g of weight over 'as supplied' it is now fine. (Other freight heavies: Bachmann WD 34g, Hornby 8F 30g, Bachmann O4 28g, Bachmann 9F 58g, estimated BG at circa 80g.) I am sure the H-D 8F would do the job, but the day of a lumpen bodied 2-4-0 (those ghastly unflanged drivers!) is long past.

It is, and I refuse to believe that Peco don't fully know that! One piece point blades and an all metal crossing, prototype crossing angle and curvature that's a near equivalent to their current large rad point, same robustness as their code 75 product, regular OO gauging and flangeways: that'll fly off the shelves.

Oh yes, a very satisfactory 63954 (O2/3) is now in my possession, and in my opinion is top of the tree in heavy freight, jointly with Bach's 9F. It's heavy you see, performs to its rated 8F capability, and is the first OO RTR 2-8-0 to do so. Runs beautifully, good from the box, gear noise quieted noticeably over the first 30 minutes and now the loudest sound is the wheels on the rails. I especially commend the fine flanges and motion parts. I should think the latter are dead scale. All detail firmly and neatly attached, the chimney profile neat and smooth in all respects. It is going to need careful handling to avoid damage, but that's always been true of finely detailed models. The shiny metal will be dealt with by the dusty grey brown coat of muck compulsory for all heavy freighters. I do have a criticism. Some thought required on closing up the loco to tender spacing to scale - about 2mm closer - because the drawbar has the wiring glued (?) to it. If anyone else has already tackled this, please share. And it needs a fallplate attaching to the cab floor too, once closed up; and I can fix the firedoor while messing about with that. Now I am really looking forward to the O2/1 and O2/2 with the earlier Doncaster GNR pattern cab and tender.