34theletterbetweenB&D

It's a large proportion of RTR OO loco purchasers in my opinion, and here's my basis for this statement: My own second hand purchases that have no evidence of ever being run; and that's once removed from the pristine box it arrived in, still neatly wrapped in the plastic film lining and other pieces to protect it in transit, which can never be reinstated as neatly as the unknown Chinese lady originally managed to place it so tidily. Dealers of my acquaintance that have in quiet moments spoken of (excellent) customers that regularly buy locos, little to no rolling stock, and no track or anything else necessary to actually make an operational layout, and never return anything as faulty. (Comparison to RTR N gauge purchasers; always purchasing 'everything' to make an operable model railway, and regularly with returns. One now retired retailer told me he would drop N gauge tomorrow because of the return rate, were it not that he liked his customers and didn't want to see their consequent disappointment.) The effect of this is twofold: There is an 'invisible subsidy' for those that want to make use of RTR OO on layouts, which has made the production of the large array of models now before us economically feasible. Consequence, the brands don't obtain accurate feedback within the warranty period of the failure rate of their loco product. Something of a 'Supping with the Devil, use a long spoon' situation for those of us that want to operate the RTR OO product, especially if wanting to buy s/h for the cost saving. My 'solution' has been to always buy new from a retailer when something appropriate for my interest is first released, so that it can have an infant mortality test completed within days of purchase; and to read the known reliable 'owner's that operate' findings online, (many on this site). Thus far since 1999, I haven't had an intrinsically duff RTR OO mechanism. I ducked the Heljan Brush 4 and Hornby Brush 2 mazak rot episodes because neither was of accurate appearance in my opinion, so simply not purchased; and the Bachmann K3 - initially released with electrical joints made with lead free solder - the problem was detected online, and immediately corrected in consequence. There's the useful listing on this site, which is an invaluable reference. Due to the ease with which the widely used zinc alloys can be contaminated, this is a risk which simply has to be accepted, since AFAIK there is no economically viable alternative.

Bog roll of the cheapest and cheerful unpatterned variety. (I happen to use Tesco's but that's because it's where we do the bulk shopping, I expect it all comes from the same factories.) Peel it apart to get a single lamination, cut to size, arrange as required, 'dope' with dark brown grey paint to hold in place. Also good for all vehicles that had a canvas doped roof to represent 'long time in service condition' with small creases, tears and patches.

And it is not as though there is no competition, looking for subjects. I would give priority to the A1, which was a very early 'Blue Riband' introduction and easily the best pacific model seen up that time in RTR OO. (The A2 model looks better than the A1, inherent to the protoype design which has neater proportions.)

Coming from a lifelong interest in high fidelity sound reproduction, among the limitations on accurate reproduction of sound is the matter of those who don't want to hear it. I regularly found myself writing to remind others with the bug that before they lashed out on ambitious kit they needed first a detached house, (and should that be impossible, then a large investment in sound insulation) and to ensure approval of the family and any others they resided with. I have to wait for the wife to be lunching with her friends before hearing Liszt's ideas on Faust's plummet into hell, among other works...

Stations with a siding terminating in a loading ramp were a commonplace item from the time that the national rail network was beginning to develop. The initial purpose was to permit the loading of flat wagons attached to passenger trains, which allowed the wealthy to have their road coach travel with them. (There was regular provision of horseboxes too.)

On the evidence that Heljan have signed up to this EFE distribution deal that's probably the case. If you want to get a numerical result for this here is a UK listing: https://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/

So long as they were to dump the malfunctioning camming loco to tender link seen on the V2 a new Pepp A2 should be OK. I would hope that if a new tooling were considered, Bachmann might follow Hornby's lead by giving the one Doncaster pacific they 'own' outright a largely metal loco body. And since they would be adding brass bearings to the drivers, they might as well take just over a millimetre out of the coupled wheelbase, to get as close to scale as Hornby managed on the P2. That might in turn offer the space for a slight increase to scale length of the cylinder block. The user optional sprung flanged wheelset for the Cartazzi truck as executed on the V2 would be good, and finally to couple the tender on, let's have the screw locked slide spacing adjustment that appeared on all the steam tender models released since the A2, only to be abruptly dropped - kerlunk - for the V2's camming link which should only be consigned to the outer darkness at express speed. Opportunity for incremental improvements in short.

And that certainly wasn't what I intended to suggest was your opinion. Hornby's actions in OO considered overall look commercially sound to me. And from among the other long term competitors, it was Bachmann/TMC that for my money had the standout 2023 steam loco introduction with the G5 0-4-4T. The correct layout to deliver a tractively competent small front coupled tank loco, that enabled them to do away with the traction tyre option on the earlier MR 1P 0-4-4T introduction. That's real progress, makes all previous 0-4-4T and 0-4-2T obsolete. (I don't see anything in the Accurascale Manor that brings any such advance over what Hornby demonstrated with their B12/3.) I will acquire an Accurascale J69, and will be interested to see if it beats the current 0-6-0T mechanism benchmark, which is that on the 1997 Bachmann 57xx, a truly excellent job thanks to its easily user adjustable sprung centre axle and pick up wiper arrangements, to ensure reliable current collection.

And it may interest you to know, that in the late Iain Rice's opinion, as matters then stood in RTR OO in the early 1990s, the Replica B1 was as good a model as could be had in terms of exterior appearance. The mechanism, not so good, dated back to Mainline's practise of the 1970s, all of which product was in the 'looks well, mechanism the weak spot' category. Thirty years on, and after two successive Bachmann mechanism upgrades, this B1remains in their catalogue, despite the introduction of a very much more recent high grade Hornby tooling which is able to represent siginificant variatitions within this class.

Rather the reverse. Look how much product they have listed where they compete, and the proportion of the total vote obtained: and then consider how much more product they have before the customers. Just because it's not 'the very latest' doesn't mean everything to a large proportion of the customer base. (My own example, have just purchased a Hornby product that was introduced ten years ago, and 'squeezed out' at that time by higher priority items that required the budget I adhere to. And it's a corker! Which is how it was assessed at introduction.) Just too many factors in purchaser opinion for this to be meaningful. Now, if we could get independently audited results of speed to - lets say - 95% sell out at full price from date of introduction to market; that would be more telling. No more honest vote than what we are prepared to dig out of our wallet...

The Replica product was produced by Kader for Replica using their Bachmann brand, before they had entered the UK market under that name.

That's the original Replica Railways design mechanism. Worth a look at their site for spares. http://www.replicarailways.co.uk/

Another potential cause is inequity in current supply along the layout from a bunch of factors: Skinny wiriing cores, Insufficent track feeds, Reliance on rail connectors and point blade contact for conduction, Worn switches not making and maintaining positive contact. I had the last one on my original DC switched section layout, some years after going DCC, some of the section switches were simply worn out - that's what comes of enthusiastic operation! Lovely looking layout, hope the problem can be quickly overcome.

Coming late to this, that is a surprise. I was pleased to see your original announcement of these years ago, and it was the plate wagons that were of greatest interest for me, as there were two metal fabrication businesses with rail served premises near my childhood home, (one of which my late Pa was with for a couple of years) and Plate wagons were regularly to be seen at these,and other similar locations, distant from any centre of steel production.

Improving, but for this user on a win10 PC it remains too 'jittery'. Once I have gone to a selection such as '00' 'wagons' 'brand', this customer's expectation is that I will not suddenly find myself 'elsewhere' due to an incautious mouse movement. In short, once the user selection function is employed it is locked in, and the user has to cancel to go elsewhere.

And there is a reason for this, the flawless box is far and away the most important aspect of the product. Are you the target customer? I know I am not; packaging is disposed of once the model has passed my infant mortality test regime and the warranty has expired. (The model is out on the layout and running and thus valueless to collectors.) Last mechanism failure of a retailer purchased Hornby loco was a split axle gear on a Q1 while being tested, coming on 20 years past: replacement wheelset quickly supplied via retailer, all well to date. Near forty Hornby locos in service and no problems: two of the private purchases had declared faults which I knew I could fix, and did; near all of the pre 2007 productions (N2, 8F, Q1, Brush 2, A3, A4, 08, M7, L1) have been significantly modified to eliminate recognised weaknesses in the mechanism designs which experience had shown led to failures various. The 'charmed exception' was the BR 7MT on which in my perception Hornby matched Bachmann for the first time. The 'poor mechanism design aspect' ceased after Sanda Kan were bought out by Kader, followed by a 'shake out' of Kader thereafter: this resulted in much of the technique evident on Bachmann UK product fairly briskly appearing in Hornby's products to good effect, as seen in those that I have (B1, B12/3, B17, D16/3, J15, J36, 700, J50, K1, O1, P2, Q6, W1). Comparison to the two other brands that dominate the layout operation: Bachmann, slightly more traction items, no early test failures, other than a K3 which was manufactured during the fad for lead free solder, and my K3's thus had soldered connections 100% replaced as a precaution. Recent failure of a 20 myear old K3 mechanism when a motion bracket detached, and that's it. (I own an early Pepp A1 which was on the recall list for motor replacement due to a batch of faulty wire used in the armature windings; the motor was perfect and so I didn't return it, still running.) Heljan, ten items, no early test failures, one minor problem which revealed an unexpected design error, pick up attachment on the class 16 not standard with the very sound method employed on all their previous products that I have seen. As for 'all the rest', nine items, all good, the oldest would be the Rapido Stirling single. I would quite like an all metal body A4 from Hornby one of these days, wonder how it will be?

No problem, we are entirely accustomed to informing those with insufficent information that they must revise their opinion.

The correct approach starts right there. First task is to determine the origin of any image to assess whether it has been modified in any way. If it has, then it's for the bin in terms of all aspects of modification. And there's much more: 'Preserved' items are a minefield. 'Locomotion' (Railway Museum) makes it quite clear that models derived from their collection specimens are models of 'as preserved'. Much as I enjoy my Stirling single model, I am fully aware that it represents a museum reconstruction of how No1 looked at the end of its regular service. Bang on accurate for final GNR operating condition it cannot be.

No need to be concerned. Any serious research into such starts from the knowledge that colour has no real independent existence, but is only an artefact of the illumination, reflection and absorbtion of light by the subject, and the response of our vision system. Stir in the effect of the gamuts of optics, film or image capture devices, processing and display and it makes the over this matter positively hilarious.

Do any of the sound project providers offer the BR maximum pollution option: never shut off the engine, just leave it chugging away while parked? I look forward to the day when steam projects 'start' with lighting up.

Sounds like a good plan. Using 50mm Kingspan, Celotex and the like (salvaged!) to insulate the roof and walls transformed the single brick skin wall outbuilding that is my layout room into a place of year round comfort. Did the roof first, huge improvement in summer, much cooler; but still chilly in winter. So then did the walls, and losing four inches from the inside dimensions was a very worthwhile compromise, it remains a good big space. You are further ahead with a double skin wall construction allowing insulation to be installed there, so can probably use less or no internal wall insulation. I use no heating, left my floor as painted concrete, and simply dress warm as required, (wearing thermal socks and old walking boots at present ). Just like watching the trains in winter when a youngster, except I now stay warm.

Right question for this circumstance. They work fine as described by the myth buster. (OO perspective) But a dozen years from now and in near daily use there will likely be a different answer. Reliance on small moving parts to maintain reliable electrical contact degrades, heavier locos like the Bach 9F and centre motor diesels can bend the curved switch sufficiently that it looses contact with the stock rail. But that's fine, good long time available to steadily bond stock to switch rails and to power the crossing via a switch - on a motor or a control rod as the owner chooses. What the position is like in N gauge I don't know, no relevant experience

In my experience if it is for pastoral access, a swamp of mud in the winter at the end of the metalled surface, and dry and dusty surface in summer, with the dirt tracked in quantity onto the bridge.

All the Bachmann items I have with the split axle wheelset's pin points running in pressed metal dimples (to enable no incremental friction power collection where required* ) have been trouble free long term in this respect. (Pullman cars, Cravens DMU sets, Thompson carriages.) The odd axle bearing squeak when new, has been eliminated to date by my practise of application of a tiny amount of GT85 to all pipoint bearings. *My annoyance, Bachmann seem to be increasingly responding to pressure to fit tender pick ups. If they have to do this, why not use this method, rather then wipers, which are a proven thief of traction when applied to unpowered wheels? There may also be occasional squeaking in the first couple of hours test running when trains of carriages with the close coupling system (applies to both Bach and Hornby product) is being adjusted and exercised to ensure optimal operation, but once graphite powder has been deployed that is largely eliminated. Once in a while there's a quite realistic 'complaint' from within a train of close coupled coaches, usually as they go through a pointwork ladder; now I like that, happy memories of the regular traverse of KX station throat d'y'see!

Very good for appearance, and operation wise in the top bracket. The well proven close coupling system, when used with a 'rigid bar' coupler performs extremely well, the gangway faceplates in contact on straight track which both looks very well and has the vehicles so coupled move as a single piece, and the cam action spacing them out proportional to the curve radius. The current collection on the metal on metal pinpoints results in very free rolling vehicles. Caveat. You may feel the need to upgrade all your lesser coaching stock as a result...