34theletterbetweenB&D

Even on some of the latest introductions which are clearly modeller oriented, the arrangement of the link that sets the loco to tender spacing isn't fully thought through in my opinion. The overall very good D16/3, J15 and K1 have all needed revision to the 'as supplied' arrangements. New links made for 2 of these. Considering that all other aspects of the model far exceed what my clumsy mitts can achieve, putting two holes in a brass strip isn't too much of a task for the resulting fine appearance of the scale spaced loco and tender ensemble. Hopefully one day Hornby will look at the settable slide spacing that Bachmann are now using and will copy that! I was happy to see in the latest Rapido information on their progress with the Stirling single (oh frabjous day!) that they have incorporated this very thing in their design.

In terms of 'first went on sale' my recollections are: A1 2001, A2 2010, N class 2000, Crab 2003, K3 2004, Jinty 2005, Fairburn 2006. The V1/V3 and J39 were announced and went on sale in the 1990s, as also I suspect the 56XX and 57XX which used body tooling from the old Mainline brand. Regarding first catalogue appearances, the N class was announced at the same time as the WD 2-8-0, late 1995/early 1996. Again with the significant gap between 'announced' and 'on sale'? The only reason I know this of the N and WD is that a onetime - and most excellent - colleague sent me a Bachmann catalogue in the office internal mail, with some information about what the Barwell team were intending in terms of introducing better OO models to the UK market; he was a friend of one of those involved. That's the only Bachmann catalogue I possess!

Looks like a no-brainer for rationalisation, eliminating the permanent difficulties and hazards associated with active erosion features, which is what cliffs are. Cue howling of local residents.

You will need to make an explicit definition of 'new tooling' for your tabulation. Maybe you can follow another compiler's precedent in this matter, or decide for yourself. All of these mentioned in your post: Bulleid Light Pacifics, B12, A3, B17, Fowler 2P, Jinty; have been present in the Triang/Triang-Hornby/Hornby range made from tooling created in the UK from the 1950s on. The current Jinty and B12 still contain elements defined by their first tooling in the 50s and 60s respectively. Some of these subjects: Bulleid's light pacific, A3, B17, have since been completely new tooled since Hornby went to Chinese production, no relation whatsoever to the earlier tooling. The B12 has been announced for just such an 'all-new' tooling in 2016. Items like the Fowler 4F, J94, N2, 61XX, Terrier, L&Y Pug, were tooled originally by completely different businesses and subsequently absorbed, largely unchanged, into Hornby's range, well before they moved to China. Some have received alterations since acquisition by Hornby, but there is still previous manufacturer origin tooling in their make up. Then there's the D16/3: that's an all new tooling of a subject that Hornby had never previously offered, announced 2014, available 2015. The Bachmann V2, Patriot, Ivatt 2MT, well predate 2000, introduced on split chassis mechs between 1991 and 1995 I would guess. They have had revisions since, but original elements of the tooling remain, they are not 'all-new'. First release City of Truro 2009, C1 2015, H2 not yet!, Midland Compound 2011, Jubilee 2008, BR 9F 2006, 5MT 2000, BR 4MT 2-6-4T 2001, BR 3MT 2009. That's on the basis of memory, so I might be a little out on one or two. Personally I think you would do better to go with the year items went on retail sale, rather than first appearance in a catalogue, as there have been - and are - some long durations between catalogue announcement and availability. For example Bachmann's WD 2-8-0 was announced I think in late 1995, went on sale late 1999.

The small birds put on a terrific show today, emptied the large sunflower seed feeder twice over. My wife always complains that they know when it is birdwatch weekend - a month away - and go into hiding at that time. Peregrine did in a flying tree rat too, about 50 yards behind our back fence, champion! Given the well known traditional use of the canary as a toxic gas / depleted oxygen indicator in deep mining, I imagine that alcohols will have much the same deleterious effect on their metabolism as on ours. But with the rate small bird metabolism runs at, they will probably go from sozzled to hungover to all clear in minutes. There'll doubtless be some cruel sob somewhere who has done the experiment.

But then again the Triang system was a pure toy, and the clearance under the buffer beam for the huge coupling hook allowed for operation onto the step change to a 1 in 15 gradient as produced by their pier system! The best element of the old B12 was the tender body, a neatly moulded near scale item worth working on. By sawing out the 2mm of extra frame above the spring hangers, and reattaching the body a good model resulted, ready to be combined with a B17 or other appropriate Stratford design.

Clearly a manufacturing fault. Bachmann service will help with that if you want it restored to 'new' condition.

The Glenlivet for me. Although I do occasionally join my other half in her preference, Balvenie, and there's always Laphroaig on standby. Medical science may not be able to beat the common cold, but I am convinced that this last can.

Quick comment: the 57XX is the one required for this in any case, has the same 7'3"+8'3" wheelbase. The J50 is potentially very useful for the later Doncaster 0-6-0s, such as the J6, and existing models with lacklustre mechs like the N2. This will require rewheeling of course in addition to whatever surgery is necessary. Have saws and hammer...

I don't think there is any doubt about that, thanks to a convenient trial. NER T3, LNER Q7. It easily beat the 28XX when trialled by the NBR in 1921. The 28XX slipped to a stand on the bank with a near 700 ton load, and could not restart. The T3 took 750 tons up untroubled, and "could have done more". In later years they were held to perform as well as the 9F for starting the Tyne Dock to Annesley hauls. Slower than the 9F on the run, but no less reliable in maintaining pressure and traction to complete the turn.

What a happy chance that the big O2 didn't arrive. Just think of the joy as the little O2 votes fell into the big O2 basket. (Hippo and Duckling.) You would do best to revise the rule for the future to 'generally available on sale' by the cut off date; i.e as far as can be reasonably determined all retail stockists with placed orders have been supplied, and able to fulfill at least some of their customer orders.

This is very heavily dependent on what the operator wants in my view. I don't want to 'drive' directly as such. What I want is the simulation of the high inertia of trains in response to both power and braking, as seen when watching trains at lineside. As such I just let the DCC decoder do the business, and sit there grinning like a fool as the trains move off smoothly, and come to rest smoothly. Lovely.

I am very happy with the facility to reset CV3 and 4 when the light engine couples on, to reflect the train weight and braking capability. Then you operate, getting it right by making enough allowance for how far the train will run before it stops, and limiting speed, to what is appropriate for the brake capability. With CV4 in the 180 to 240 range for unbraked loose coupled goods (setting dependent on traction and load), you quickly discover why these trains rarely made much speed. As the OP notes, the DCC simulation of the inertia of the train is a real asset, far better than manual control can achieve. From rest the speed step the train is to run at is set, and the decoder takes care of the smooooooth transition from rest to line speed. When the train reaches the braking point, speed step is set to zero, and the train glides predictably to rest in the desired location. I don't actively 'drive' in other words: I want to recreate the lineside experience of watching train movements. All the locos are set up in one of three groups with matching speed curve and maximum speed, and braking points for stop locations are indicated for all classes of operation. There is an emergency stop available on Lenz - and many other similarly specified European made decoders - of F4, which gives direct control should the need arise. More than enough to deal with any situation: if the operator drives properly in the first place. I'll use it half a dozen times a year, and bear in mind I operate daily; last time proved to be an interesting Pupa which had derailed a train.

It was appreciated subjectively by those with a feeling for what the mechanical components might actually be doing when working; and dealt with practically by established custom and practise, such as wire or split pin locking of nuts and conservative dimensional allowances for components under load. Good illustrations of this appreciation may be found in Bill Harvey's 'Sixty Years in Steam'. A fine example is the careful examination of the evidence, by which he was able to 'see' the failure mode which plagued the Doncaster inside big end design, and thus propose the effective solution which was applied. In this same volume his analysis of the various design defects which surfaced on the Britannia class in service is very interesting. You couldn't ask for a better illustration of what those who knew Gresley had to say about his thirst for knowledge. He was after any and all information to improve the output of his engineering team. At an ILE meeting in 1936, he paid a most handsome tribute to a man with the same approach, a certain Mr Churchward; who had acquired this know how about valve events from 'The Frenchmen'. It seems strange now when technical information is very rapidly disseminated and applied: but back then communication was slow, and reliable evidence difficult to obtain.

The interesting aspect of the 2-10-0+0-10-2 model is that the builder really has not grasped the essence of the Beyer-Garratt concept. If we assume an identical engine unit to the 9F on each set of frames - and it would make no sense to have anything smaller on a loco this size - then to fully exploit these engines in continuous steaming near twice the grate area of the 9F is required, inevitably mechanically fired. That grate would be built out to the full width permitted by the loading gauge, with a vast ashpan underneath nearly down to rail level. This is a key element of the design, exploiting the advantage that accrues from the grate draughting not being compromised by the ash in the ashpan or any frames or mechanism. The barrel of this boiler would be shorter and larger in diameter, and untapered. I also suspect that Beyers would at least specify 2-8-2+2-8-2 in preference to the proposed layout, as one chassis is always running in reverse in the sense that coupled wheels are leading, and guidance of the fixed wheelbase element becomes rather important if any sort of speed is attained. Given how fleet the 9F was, the dynamics of a ten coupled leading arrangement might not make for easy riding shall we say.

That the Crabs put in forty years service, argues that operationally there was nothing to worry about. Riddles then visibly repeats the feature on his 9F, a very well regarded traction unit, with a reputation for a smooth ride by steam loco standards, and exceptionally so for a freighter.

Loading up a single power bogie model doesn't work well. To keep the thing reliably on the rails, a substantial proportion of the added weight has to bear on the unpowered bogie, which promptly 'steals' much of the traction the extra weight is adding on the powered end. It came as quite a surprise to me when in my teens, that putting a second power bogie into a diesel model near enough quadrupled the traction, over the (worst case) of single power bogie leading operation in its original condition.

Or even the Heljan class 23 at £59, various retailers. Quite why Heljan decided to make their model of this notoriously unreliable class a 615g haulage titan I don't know. This has the most grunt as supplied of all the OO RTR I own, was good for 90g force practically straight from the box.

Unfortunately most RTR steam models are too light for the job. In addition to the Garratt, the Bachmann 9F will just about do it. That's because it has about a pound weight / 450g on the driven wheels. A pound and a quarter / 600g centre motor drive BoBo or CoCo model is a better choice. (Determined by experiment on a friend's layout after he acquired one of these.) In respect of the two classes mentioned, the ROD won't do it, and it would be touch and go whether taking the ballast out of the boiler and stuffing it solid with lead would make it heavy enough - I doubt it as the larger WD 2-8-0 which starts out heavier can only just be got to 450g with fully concealed ballasting. The 2-8-2T won't do the job either as supplied, but it comes with the asset of a large body volume thanks to nicely cuboid side tanks, and the front and rear overhang gives options for placing the extra weight to keep the balance point in the middle of the coupled wheelbase. I don't know this model at all, but that would be the one to look at in my opinion if you want lots of weight for tractive purposes in a GWR steam model.

Not strange at all. Thompson was deviating from a globally well-proven constructional layout, with the mounting of the two outside cylinders benefitting from the stiffening effect on the frames of the immediately adjacent cross-frame structure on which the bogie is mounted. The bogie's side control is thereby also best placed to damp out the yawing effect induced by the off centreline forces. This latter point well illustrated by yawing problems initially experienced on the Peppercorn A1s: by increasing the side control pressure on the bogie, this was brought under control. The most fundamental criticism possible of the outside cylinder placement of the LMS Princess Royals is that service experience led to a clean sheet frame design for the next tranche of LMS pacifics. And there are the outside cylinders, where they should be. The Princess Royals had a lifetime problem with the outside cylinders working loose; Crewe added buttress strips to the frames in an attempt to improve the cylinder mounting.(AJ Powell's 'Living with London Midland Locomotives' is very revealing on the consequences of this aspect of the design.) The construction was probably adequate for the smaller net power output in regular service of a 4-6-0. For any design and weight of construction there is a limit to what load it will regularly accept without failure. Stay below that and all is well. Regularly exceed it and expect failure. Pacifics were not built trivially, that larger grate, boiler and superheater and double the coal capacity are there to yield higher power outputs than the 4-6-0 can sustain. The increase in power output for traction is also working the frame construction harder in the same degree. Considering connecting rod length alone, there is a trade off between minimising the angularity, vs the weight of construction required to maintain stiffness as the rod length increases. There is no necessity for equal lengths in connecting rods on a machine as out of balance as a reciprocating steam loco. Thompson should have known that on the evidence of the Gresley pacifics twenty years of operation with the inside connecting rod shorter than the outside two. It works, no need to mess with it.

As the manufacturer information quotes performance up to 4V supply, my inclination would be a motor in both car and trailer, wired in series. It is only going to be driven slowly, so provided the controller provides a small output at low settings all should be well electrically; and a driven axle on both vehicles should overcome any pick up drag.

Ooh. this is prompting thoughts of a technique for a Ped-I-Cure. There must be much measuring.

Why bother? It's academic now. But roughly two years from the decision that it is to be produced to the model going on sale, (if the intended release date is achieved) feels like brisk progress. Seen plenty of models undoubtedly in development by evidence of 3D prints and the like, for three, and four, and more, years. Although, given the introduction rate demonstrated by Hornby over the past eighteen months, there is a 'warning shot' in there. Consider that there will very likely have been a matching decision point in mid 2015 for the 2017 range introductions, and mostly likely in six months time another decision point for the 2018 range introductions; in order to keep the new introduction 'pipeline' filled. Hornby have pretty certainly been looking at the wishlisting - or it is an amazing coincidence just how many of the consistently most heavily voted for subjects are turning up in their range! - so for any competitor looking at a much requested subject, there's an indication of the speed required to get any potential duplicate out before Hornby have it on sale.

Roche drawing, S/L/104, quotes height: to boiler centreline 7'0", over cab roof peak 11'10", chimney top 13' 2.75"; width: over platform and cylinders 8'6", over tanks 7'8". Wheelbase of 7'+6'5"+8'6"+7'6". Usual caveats about the Roche drawings, but quoted dimensions are typically correct. The facing page has the Drummond M7, about fifteen years later in design date and noticeably more compact, as an interesting comparison of design progress.

Just had a quick lunchbreak listen to Dinah Washington's lovely voicing of 'Mad about the Boy', my wife having challenged me to sing the opening line this morning. (Failed miserably.) That put me in the mood for an orchestral arrangement of 'Night on a Bare Mountain for some reason.