34theletterbetweenB&D

It sort of is, but. I dimly recall a write up in the 1960s, and the end result was pretty good for appearance. The only largely unchanged component from the B12 was the mazak block, and this had been bushed and rewheeled for 26mm drivers. The body almost toally disappeared, all that was left in the end was part of the smokebox saddle and front platform to the buffer beam! When the shape of the 903 is analysed it's so simple as to suggest a scratchbuild is the way. Flat sheet for the running plate, tube above for boiler and smokebox, linked by two cuboids for the cab and smokebox saddle.

It'll be a rare observer coming frsh to the finished model who ever guesses what you started from for this end result. That's class 1 bashing. You do realise that you are performing the magic spell that informs a manufacturer that here's a good subject that would make a really characterful RTR model?

Oh, I don't know, I rather feel the numbering makes it look like it could have come from Binns Road. Whatever, a very useful and interesting post altogether. The treatment of your scenic three rail track is really successful, very rare to see this done so well.

After the experience of several of their bogie diesel models, all truly excellent runners; and the most recent the Baby Deltic one of best models available in my view, not a bit. The BG is deeply realistic, crummy in reality... The O2 2-8-0 will be the proof of the pudding, one way or the other, and I am not in the least averse to a purchase of this model whatever the BG problems may have been. Wet finger estimate, you'll have between a third and a quarter of the traction of it running in two motor form. See below for explanation. It's significantly different I would suggest, in two ways: the linkage is near rigid, and it is all the time. I 'doubled up' several diesel models back in the bad old 'power bogie' days for outdoor operation without traction tyres, and made two discoveries both of which were a surprise. Compared to the loco with single power bogie running on metal tyres and leading, adding a second power bogie was worth near four times the traction from the resulting loco. The horrible ringpiece motors did better doubled up than the otherwise superior worm drive bogies, which chewed up their axle gears quite regualrly despite careful lubrication attention. My conclusion was that the push along capability of the spur gears of ringpiece motors made them more tolerant of inevitable small speed mismatches between the motors, than the non-reversibility of the worm gear drive power bogies. I feel that the error Hattons/Heljan made in the BG design was not going for a centre motor shaft drive to both bogies arrangement, well proven in US type steam articulated models, and a great many diesel and electric traction models.

Actually it had Walschaerts gear, in the Swindon adaption for inside the frames as generally implemented on the Star following the eye-opening experience of the Walshaerts gear valve events on 'The Frenchmen', (and which would subsequently be deployed on the Castle and King). The steam distribution in the engine was not the problem, Swindon had the best multicylinder valve events in the UK for the twenty years following their adoption of Walschaerts gear. The primary troubles were in the boiler, superheater, and grate. The boiler tubes were too long, designed before the combustion chamber innovation solved this problem satisfactorily; but even without this in conjunction with the development of a satisfactory superheater arrangement with changes to the tubing, this was largely overcome in the first few years of the Bear's existence, as the design received development attention. But the grate was another matter, the only one of its kind on the GWR; with fifty percent more area than a Star and requiring a completely different firing technique as Churchward himself acknowledged. (The situation quite closely parallels BR's DoG near fifty years later, a single loco on the LMR requiring different firing from the Stanier pacifics, and as a result generally disliked: yet it could and did perform when fired correctly.The Gresley pacific with near identical grate area to the Bear, had no such problem at introduction; the top link crews had long experience developed on the wide grate of the large Atlantic, then twenty years in service.) The First World War was badly timed for the Bear, without it Churchward might have had more of the class built, and increased the operational experience of the crews; he was 'nearly there'. That's the path to a whole 'Neverwazza' development line, changes everything subsequently at Swindon, Crewe and then BR. As for the cab, there's a wonderful story of how the slightly longer roof alone was disliked: some protesting fireman demonstrating how it cramped his style by getting a fire iron wedged between the roof and the fallplate. It seems strange to us now, but practically all the UK's railways yield tales of enginemen resisting the introduction of any enclosure of the footplate, beginning with the first simple weather boards. (Rather akin to the protests of car drivers over the introduction of seat belts: they abhored being 'trapped', preferring the chance of being 'thrown clear' - doubtless shouting as they whizzed through the air at 60mph "I'm fine, see!".)

Have you cut 'wheelarches' in the underside of the floor to clear the tops of the flanges?That's usually the trouble. I was well impressed with this model's traction, even before it got a little more weight.

Got to ask. Is 'backyard off' simply an idiom I have never previously encountered, or the result of a predictive text style 'spelling correction'? I was amused earlier this week by an urban development presentation that included 'flanneling' which was obviously not intended, but either of flattering or flattening might have fitted the context. Pretty sure that the 'buddleia zone' was intended to be a 'buffer zone' as there was no obvious place in the paving for plantings. Without the author present, it was difficult to divine.Seeing more and more of this leaking into print.

Regarding purchase of a complete model to get one or more elements you need from it: such as the mechanism... So far, I haven't come unstuck on such deals. I buy the model to be 'broken up' for the required part(s) as economically as possible, new or s/h. That the manufacturers are no longer stocking or supplying spares to any great extent works for us in selling on the leftovers. There are people out there wanting good bodies: to use on mechanisms built to EM and P4 standards, or to replace the one they dropped the soldering iron on (!), or to alter/weather/repaint without risk to a complete model. It may be necessary to wait patiently for a buyer, but come they do.

Should it come about that Bachmann still haven't got a modern mechanism out for the J39 by the time the split chassis parts disintegrate or wear out all their plating - they do you know, in that very special split chassis way - then an alternative candidate modern mechanism is from Bach's J11. The prototype had a wheel base and wheel diameter within an inch of that of the J39, and it fits very neatly into the original Bachmann J39 body shell after a little interior shaving in the firebox interior, so should be OK in a similarly altered GBL body. The gear train above the centre axle is on show rather more in the larger space between boiler and frames of the J39. There's plenty of space inside to add ballast to get the full 5F traction, which is the split chassis mechanism's party trick thanks to the usefully weighty body filing lump it constitutes.

On screen it looks like an O gauge model. Especially when I use my pinky to obscure the NEM coupler pocket. This is becoming nearly as large a 'blot' in OO as the Rapido coupler is in 'N'. Amid all this progress in appearance, we do need a better RTR coupler solution: designed specifically for OO, and not harvested from HO development.

The 'weathering' simply scraped off the wheels using my mk1 fingernail. (I can send you a clipping if required.) White spirit takes it off no bother. It adheres better on the plastic body work, but covers with the more realistic dark grey-brown mix which I use on locos which have had little cleaning attention

One of the first things I looked out, having fixed the 'step' in the J15 where the lower boiler element didn't quite go 'home' as supplied. No such trouble on my example of the D16, a perfect fit, such that without direct light on the boiler underside the break line is practically invisible. Very neat indeed.

The fiddling about on mine going very nicely. A new drawbar with holes at 11mm centres gives the overall length dimension over buffers suggested on the packet, which both looks right and still sails around the 30" minimum radius I require. (Cautionary note about the dimensions on the packet, three are wrong. The quoted 71m loco wheelbase and 4m overall width one would need to be brain dead to miss, the coupled wheelbase dimensioned for 8' instead of the correct 9', perhaps potentially more misleading.) Tons of space inside for fully concealed lead at the rear end, pretty close to a balance point in the centre of the coupled wheelbase now, with the bogie removed.

Having just gone out this morning to acquire one from KS Models in Stevenage, I agree. Reviewers have biases and preferences of their own, it is always best to make your own mind up. For my money, the best looking OO RTR 4-4-0 available. It'll need a D20 or D34 to stand a chance of toppling this one from the top of the 4-4-0 heap. In my opinion, YMMV. Lots to modify on it too, I'll start the fiddling around later this evening with any luck It runs so very sweetly too, very impressed, on which subject: I think Hornby first offered this feature on the Castle, and it lends an extra touch of authentic character. On the 7' driver of the D16, with the rods slowly swinging around, all very lovely in motion. It's a rarity for my late fifties onwards, end of steam operation on the ECML, but I shall look forward to its appearances jogging along on a short freight or parcels/sundries working.

It's symptomatic of high instability prototype picking obsession.

Which would mean worse than (or perhaps comparable to?) the 1947 and 62/63 winters both of which are well within living memory. Based purely on these precedents, one is bound to come along sooner or later. I expect one or two of our more hysterical newsmongers will soon enough realise that we are going to be invaded by all the world's refugees walking across the frozen English Channel. Could be good news for operators of reliable steam locos, as the entire modern traction fleet wiill be stopped due to the wrong (i.e. any) type of snow.

It is an organisation ultimately deriving from rock and roll: "I want it ALL, I want it NOW," etc..

Oh the joys of other folk's accidents. When my brother still worked for a major insurer he used to compile a 'best of the year' for our Christmas get together. Three that stick in the memory. "When I jumped off the tiled roof onto the flat roof (no, it's not what you think) my belt caught on a gutter bracket, my feet and legs went through the bedroom window, and I was knocked unconcious when my head hit the windowsill." "It rained so hard I couldn't see, and then I hit the stationary car I couldn't see because I was going (aquaplaning) backwards." "My wife thought she would have a bath before we went to the airport, but then the car came early and she didn't turn the taps off." Easily done. Half an inch of rain already this morning. About time, October has been very dry so far. But inconvenient the soil thus becoming soft before the acorn drop has finished. Must have picked up a ton so far, very prolific season. Back into the woodland they all go.

For me that is the single most significant sentence in the whole 'O2 not running reliably' saga. For my own purposes no loco is assessed prior to any modification or a decoder installation before it has had an hour or more of running on my test circuit and has settled down to stable performance*. While it is very good to buy a RTR loco that comes out of the box 'RTR'; most need at least an hour to reveal their full potential, and four hours is still not unusual despite clear improvements over the last half dozen years. (The first OO steam loco purchase that I made which I consider fully lived up to the 'RTR' label was Bach's 9F; closely followed by Hornby's Britannia, and this standard has largely been maintained since, though I still do not take it for granted.) *For assessment of 'stable performance' I suggest three characteristics. Traction as the expected proportion of the weight on the coupled wheels. Mechanism quiet in operation at all speeds and through all track formations in both directions. Visibly smooth 'gliding' action at dead slow through all track formations, in both directions I know less about anatomy than model railway mechanisms, but enough to suggest you might see your GP at the earliest opportunity for a better solution.

What I believe you are describing there is draggy rolling stock. The Bachmann B1 is light, but once the tyres are polished up it is easily good for 50 wagons or a dozen Bach mk1s on level track provided they roll freely. Cure the problem, not the symptom! The standard for rollability of stock is that it should at least keep moving once started on a true 1 in 100 - ideally it should roll away and accelerate - and there is no difficulty in achieving this with current RTR with pin point axles. This standard was explained to me in my teens at the model railway club as 'the secret of the railway', why such large loads can be hauled with so little horsepower; and it should apply to our models just as much as the real thing. Most RTR needs several hours running to get up to this standard, as the axle ends improve their location. Honourable exceptions, the metal bearings in Bach's Pullmans and MU trailer cars. Some of these have been good for roll away on a 1 in 300, straight from the box.

I feel decently served by NRM/Locomotion with DP1, C1, and the Stirling single in prospect. Hattons seem to have a Midland focus based on their commissions. What with the SNP now presumably running the Scottish Museums, now might be the moment to mention the model deficit imposed on their proud nation by the machinations of English oriented commercial enterprise?

Greetings all. Hope that those afflicted are bearing up. It's a tense day for me, I have to face the Brownies this evening, reason unknown but 'I will like it'. Not sure whether to construe that as a threat or a promise.

Being of the scientific persuasion (physics) I acquired all the necessary knowledge using the inclined plane from the mechanics element of the O level physics course of the 1960s. Get out there and verify empirically, it's easily tested by experiment. Experience to date. The pacifics of Doncaster design as presently sold in OO RTR form by Bachmann, A1 and A2, Hornby, A3 and A4, have all had the weighting treatment within days after release, and have been running ever since. All are spacious enough internally to allow the desired weight to be installed while achieving balance at the centre of the coupled wheelbase, with the weight fully concealed inside the body. Alterations such as rearranging the wiring layout and removing cast ballast are often necessary. Yet to have a single mechanism failure, and I run the layout every day I am home so they do get a work out. I have systematically bought spare models when cheaply available as 'breakers' for the purposes of eventual repair, and to date have not had to call on any of these! (For comparison, the old split chassis designs from Bachmann lasted between two and six years in service on my operation, with plenty of time in shops to repair their many deficiencies in construction. All worn out and thus scrapped now, though I still have the motors which appear 'unburstable') That said I have seen mechanical failures on current product, but only infant mortality. A split axle gear on a Hornby Q1 (tolerancing issue in my estimation), and a loose motor magnet inside the can on a Bachmann. Perhaps I am just lucky, but that's from about 200 locos seen over the pasty dozen years; about a third mine, the rest owned by friends for whom I was putting in decoders. Plenty of small adjustments and alterations were required to optimise mechanical performance before decoder fitting, although I have yet to see a quartering problem. For the purposes of operating a layout, plastic bodied RTR models are no better or worse than the metal kit builds I own. I might have more of these latter were it not for a hand injury and a sensory deterioration which make small construction much more difficult than once it was. Recently I have confined myself to altering RTR ('bashing') to get prototypes not available in RTR; as a fairly expensive kit not coming out to a good enough standard due to my own deficiencies is rather off-putting. As such I am very grateful for good RTR.

That's your opinion. I am as laissez-faire as they come and take the attitude that Hornby's management are in place to do the best job they can for shareholders, and everything else second. They appear to have a major hit with their new market engagement approach, and if it leaves other commercial operations somewhat out in the cold: well, like it or no, that's fully their decision to make. We can judge in succeeding years whether it was a good or bad decision, on the evidence of trading performance. And there is every prospect of further change as the market environment alters over time. I don't see the present state as 'forever'; and the prizes will go to those who can anticipate what comes next, instead of regretting what was.

The austere aspect of Crewe designs remains a thing of wonder to me. The cheapest thing that will do the job from a highly standardised production outfit; the higher power output designs intended for a short life, scrapping and replacement with something better, funded from the revenue earned. Considering its one time popularity in model form, I am a little surprised that the only RTR model reflecting LNWR practise is the G2A, to be followed by the Coal tank at some future time.