34theletterbetweenB&D

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.

This is where unintended consequences may kick in. Oxford Rail have unintentionally advertised the joys of model railway to their model vehicle collecting customers: some of whom may not have realised just what is available from a very large choice of constant scale models. 99.9%+ of which are made by other businesses...

Thanks, Neil B, really useful. The protruding boss to take the crankpins is as the prototype, though how close to true scale I don't know; looks about right against photos. This maniac, armed wth the information from the photos, is thinking ditch flywheel (not needed with DCC), thereby enabling moving the motor closer to gear train top, thus eliminating protrusion into airspace under the forward section of boiler for the application it might suit. First we wait for the Hornby version to see what its merits might be.

Which list more than shows what a choice of further subjects there were available, when that was first written. There's been a pile of rather good models odf subjects never previoulsy seen since, and that pile is growing all the time. Products like GBL tend to come around in cycles, as other interest sectors temporarily exhaust the 'likely suspects' for featuring in such publications. Whoever it was in the UK that was delivering the print content were decently informed. I could see them proposing another bite at the cherry in some years time; inevitably some repeats of big express types and the 9F, but seasoned with some of the more recent introductions. Wait and see time..

Prompted by that, I went for a quick look see, and couldn't access the relevant section. But what could be read was TWM's contact on the production side reported opinion on any future resumption. In short 'not very likely' as he saw it, the falling sales as the GBL series progressed not helping its case. However, as many of us will know, today's wisdom can readily be overturned as the years pass; all kinds of everything are within the bounds of possibility.

Neat representation of the workstained A4. It was York's allocation of pacifics that were generally regarded as being kept least well. Some were fully up to LMR standards of solid filth, no paint on show if we can help it. Am I the only one thinking that with the rate of releases over the previous two years, and no signs of any reduction in this activity; there's a rapidly growing selection of all-new subjects for "GBL, Round 2"? There seems to be no end to partworks in this general style turning up in WHS etc. so clearly there's money it.

Makes an impressively chunky model. Quite possibly the grey mouldings show more of the bodyform and detail than the all black painted typical appearance will. If it is internally arranged on Bachmann's usual plan for tank locos, then the socket will be positioned roughly above the front wheels, with a void in the upper half of the smokebox to take a decoder. So that would be my guess.

These are possibly the first model that could 'double up' in the range as both a RTR wagon and RTP scenic accessory. I couldn't begin to count how many there must have been on industrial sites various around the UK, often complete on their wheels. Later on bunded with a crude cinderblock or brick wall concealing the running gear after the business had yet again killed all the fish in the river...

I am waiting in hope for this too. Both a mechanism construction description, ideally with a drawing; and its performance from those who have it running.

Use one of the aux contact sets, the moving part of the contact set is wired to frog, the two contacts one to each rail supply, so the frog is powered by one, or the other. The advice on the CLAG page by Russ Elliot was my guide to best exploiting these machines. Personally I think this is the best motor on the market, if economy is the criterion. As it is double ended two points in crossover formation that always move as a pair can be driven by one motor usually located under the crossings and this brings the price per point down to no more than a solenoid clonker. The trade off is engineering the transmission yourself. Miss Prism's illustration in post 6 shows a typical method. My top tip (not original): build point networks on a lift out piece of ply. The whole lot can then be worked on from both sides on the bench and thoroughly tested before installation on the layout. Having seen this in my late teens at a club, I have always done it that way ever since; and until we get plug and play points with actuators and decoders built in, will continue to do so.

That's the way. There's no need to be defensive about the model as it stands, but there is room for some detail improvement. I hope this is going to be a continuing toe-to-toe contest with Rapido for the premier 4mm RTR model crown. If a class 55 is ever offered to this standard, I'll be beating the door down.

Further interesting thought following on from this on the tender. With the tender CAD available, and Hornby already having a B17, will they someday think to ring the changes with a B2 that had an NER design tender?

Am I allowed to drop a turd in the punch bowl? Going back to Iain Rice's maxim that consistency is key, as a model becomes more refined, so small defects which might be passed over on a lesser model stand out. And what is standing out on this one is the side grilles looking like poorly applied aftermarket etched parts. Sorry and all that, but I have seen the prototypes, and the bodyside grilles are significantly more flush. Correct this and the glazing, and it is a complete knockout, instead of 'the best, but'.

There was considerable correspondence about these boiler to tank cover plates, probably about the early 70s in RM, and between several poor photos and the evidence of a chap who had worked on an erecting team at the Crimpsall, this was confirmed. Certainly every clear picture I have seen shows a very clean transition from the plane of the tank top. to the radius of the cladding/smokebox shell. It all seems rather bizarre, putting so much effort into largely out of sight finish, when the tanks would have to be regularly lifted off and replaced for routine firebox water space and stay inspections.

Not least because the best plastic bodied version while rather good in the body shell department, came out before Hornby had fully hit their stride with Sanda Kan on the mechanism side. And it will be free of Hornby's horrible bodge of a poorly mounted flangeless Cartazzi wheelset. It will be interesting to see what Dapol have come up with, there's no fundamental obstacle to a very solid looking frame and a flanged wheelset with good engineering choices, and especially if it is designed around the typical choice of fine scale minimum radius in OO, circa 36". Surely there's no need for thoughts of set track operation at the asking price? I don't want any of the smoke/lights/sound features junk, and much prefer to fit my own decoder uniform with all the other locos on the layout: so for me it will be wait and see on whether a basic DCC ready version is ever offered.

That'll be practically an eight coupled goods heavy from all the LNER constituents that built them. Anyone going to bet against a H&BR type by 2020? The Q6 makes a very good looking model. I feel sure that this bodes well for more of the handsomeness from Darlington.

That's not necessarily true of correctly headstock mounted couplers. Bachmann have been mounting their Kadee clone in the head stocks of OO models of contemporary freight vehicles for roughly a decade. They come out of the box, couple up on the rails and run faultlessly. And also look better in this respect than any other European RTR I have seen; just as North American stock is enhanced by use of a coupler that at least looks somewhat like the prototype device. http://www.Bachmann.co.uk/image_box.php?image=images1/branchline/37-629.jpg&cat_no=37-629&info=0&width=650&height=262 So I respectfully suggest that since it has been done, it is quite possible as fully RTR, no user difficulties whatsoever where a suitable coupler design can be used. Screw link and three link: now there's a challenge to arrive at a better looking device to do the job! It's a potentially soluble problem is my view, and should someone devise a suitable device, then the argument for a RTR socket fitting in the headstock gains force.

In brief, a coupler socket in the headstock to accept any of a drawhook, knuckle coupler, or functional representations of later prototype coupler designs which in reality are mounted in this location. The socket near designs itself and can be implemented with no detriment to continued provision of an NEM specification coupler pocket on the vehicle. A small price increment for the extra tooling per vehicle. Sales opportunity in the supply of alternative couplers to plug in.

The greater the distance from the wheelface, the greater the bending moment on the crankpin. So it looks like a good plan to keep the piston thrust loads close to the wheelface. But it cuts the other way on a two or more coupled axles loco: if the leading driver on a loco such as this has poor adhesion, but the trailing driver is gripping, then the moment on the crankpin from the coupling rod transmitting the drive to the rear coupled wheels is greater than it would have been if compared to having the coupling rod mounted inside the connecting rod. These problems were solved by the development of a better understanding of materials science and forces.

Well, that's going to do yet more to make my old pair of LNER scratchbuilds look pretty shabby in my 'off the GE section seasonal veg' train, a process started by the BR standard type appearing. Apart from ferry traffic between the UK and Ireland, was there much general cattle traffic on BR circa 1960?

One detail that catches my eye is the protrusion of the crankpins from the wheel face, genuinely a feature of these locos,such that the coupling rod is well clear of the wheelface. Don't recall seeing that on any previous RTR model, (quite possibly because it hasn't been a prototype feature of any previously modelled subject?).

That appears to be generally true of the standard BR blue livery on all the locos it was applied to. It was dropped for 'poor wearing qualities' and from photographic evidence it quickly deteriorated from ex-works elegance with the blue showing every little bit of dirt and then going chalky with repeated cleanings, and the white lining quickly 'disappearing' for the reasons already mentioned by Coachmann. It did look very 'sharp' when freshly applied, for my money the Gresley A3 and Bulleid MN (really attractive scheme) wore it best.

And we are not, because the tech advances that have moved us forward in respect of these and other devices were well developed, and brought immediate and manifest progress. To take one well known example, the CD: it didn't require a moment's thought to junk the dross of vinyl and move to perfect sound forever, (32 years and counting from my oldest purchases) for a vast improvement in sound reproduction, freedom from deterioration, convenience, and much reduced maintenance effort and cost. Don't see this yet from any of the proposed wireless control players, it's all half baked, and much of it from organisations who haven't analysed what they need to benchmark with a view to exceeding what current control technique offers. So, yes, I will be playing that same cracked old record until I see evidence of better thinking. And when that superior product based on better thinking emerges I'll buy it for the extra facilities it offers that I very much want: and so will 'everyone else'. But not before, and there are going to be just as many false starts as there were with digital signals embedded in track power; so expect plenty more cracked record replays.

The service sheet remains as it was when I first downloaded it, and uncontaminated by any of old Adam; exclusively Doncasterish as it should be.