Samples have arrived of the Class 37/4 '37410 Aluminium 100' in BR large logo blue livery with Scottie motifs (32-382) and the BR Class 9F 2-10-0 as '92006' with early decals (32-854).

Also received are two sets from Hornby. These are the premier digital Venice Simplon-Orient-Express British Pullman train set (R1073) and the new Eurostar set (R1071). Also released are Class N15 'Excalibur' looking splendid in Southern Railway livery (R2580) and the Mk3 sleeper in First ScotRail 'Caledonian Sleeper' livery as '10523' (R4307).

There is also a great deal of excellent footage of the relevant era on the DVD The Railways Of Scotland, Volume 8 - Dundee & the Tay Bridge'.

The Southern modeller appears to have been well served of late, and this has drawn out some expressions of disappointment from those whose tastes lie to the north of the Thames.

Our good friends at Margate must have invested several hundred thousand pounds to produce M7s, King Arthurs, and Maunsell coaching stock. It is reasonable that they will wish to recover this outlay and it is reasonable for me, as a willing customer, to attempt to steer them in my direction.

To date, the liveries of the Hornby M7, King Arthurs and the first release of Maunsell coaches are all either pre-war or post-Nationalisation. There was a period in between, which has been addressed with the Q1 and the streamlined West Country models on which the Bulleid livery prevailed.

My view is that the Bulleid liveries create a market which might usefully be further tapped; models in these liveries would certainly squeeze a willing penny or three out of my purse.

But I also wish to stick my neck out. There are rumours from the camp barber (at RAF Much Binding) that preparations for a T9 are well advanced, not a million miles from Margate, and that these preparations might allow a 2008 launch. What a stroke of genius it would be if the first T9 batch should include Bulleid liveries (narrow cab, 8 wheel watercart tender, please).

Oh yes, and whilst I think of it, a brake composite with high windows.

I would also like a K10. Do you think that Hornby realise that, in model terms, much of the T9 tooling could be used to provide an L12, and only small changes to produce an S11?

Sweet dreams.

Peter Bedding

In response to Terry Gees request about 00 scale cars he might like to look at Oxford Diecast at www.oxforddiecast.co.uk they appear to be going to produce some cars that might fit the era he is interested in.

Chris Morgan

In response to Terry Gee's cry for help, I too have experienced the same problem. Fortunately Oxford Diecast seems to be on the case, as their recently-introduced Morris Minor van proves. It's not a car per se, but at least it's a start.

Look here for more info... http://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/76/index.htm

Let's hope it's the first of many earlier period cars in 00 scale.

-----

Terry Gee was asking in today's MREmag about 00 scale cars that would suit the 1950s/1960s period.

Both Corgi (Trackside) and Oxford Diecast are adding 00 scale cars to their range during 2007. For the benefit of Terry and other readers, I have summarised the releases below:

1) Corgi Trackside http://www.corgi.biz/collectables.html

Cars - Morris Minor 1000, Ford Anglia 105E and Vauxhall Viva HA.

Car-based vans - Ford Anglia, Bedford HA and Morris 1000 van.

Small vans - Ford Transit Mk1, Bedford CA, Morris LD and Austin J2.

2) Oxford Diecast http://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/

Cars - Humber Super Snipe, Vauxhall Cresta, Ford Zephyr and Ford Anglia 105E.

Car-based vans - Ford Anglia, Morris Minor, Mini and Ford Anglia ice-cream van.

The main difference between the 2 ranges is that Oxford Diecast models have registration numbers, whilst the Trackside releases (to date anyway) do not.

I hope this information proves helpful, I am certainly looking forward to adding all of these releases to my layout.

David Crozier, Nicosia, Cyprus

I should like to commiserate with the Paul and Graham Plowman on the bad experience they report at the hands of their fellow modellers in the matter of their track poll.

I have used polls a few times over the years, sometimes to spark discussion of a subject in a forum, sometimes as a barometer of current interests of participating forum members and every single time I’ve been snarled at by people objecting to the lack of nuance my questions permitted them when responding. It seems to go with the territory.

One trap I never fall into any more is setting polls for other people: any poll I set is designed to sort people out according to criteria useful to me and me alone. Even when this is explained up front there will always be a crowd of idiots who feel that I have single-handedly brought democracy low by setting the poll.

Unfortunately, the Plowman Poll was specifically tasked with coming up with a suggested course of action on behalf of the respondents. This is a formula for trouble. I have no doubt that Paul and Graham have found that there are a thousand people willing to tell them why they got it wrong, but no-one willing to step up to the plate and "fix" things because the truth is it is always easier to complain than act.

Disputing, even heatedly, conclusions drawn from a poll is an entirely different beast, of course. Such discussion allows refinement of the data collection process and increase understanding of the subject under discussion.

Steve Mann

by Chris Tooth

I am not sure if the following releases have escaped your magazine. I spotted them on the Rural Railways stand at the last Sutton Coldfield show:

RC444 Redoored Lamprey.

RC445 Crab

RC446 20T Lamprey Ballast D1/570

RC447 20T Mineral D1386

RC448 20T Tunny Ballast D1771

RC449 15T Ling Ballast D1773

They are all 4mm scale plastic kits and a departure from the manufacturers existing 2mm kits. I've made up examples of the last three and can highly recommend them as a high quality well thought out kit. They go together as well as, if not better than, Parkside kits and include white metal buffers, brass coupling hook, wm vacuum cylinder (Tunny) and brass wire for the brake-gear. There is also a plastic coupling mount suitable for the Bachmann 36027 Mk2 NEM coupling. I feel £6 a kit is very reasonable.

There are no details regarding the type of wheel required given on the packet and this is very useful when purchasing kits. Also, prototype information is very sparse and the builder is assumed to have access to Volume 4 of An Illustrated History of Southern Wagons. I have this but I'm not sure all his buyers will.

By Brian Macdermott

If the British manufacturers can confirm that they do indeed install the coupling pockets on their rolling stock as per the NEM, then the problem would appear to be the tension-lock couplings themselves. The question then is, can the tension-lock coupling be altered so as to allow full functioning when installed in NEM pockets?

If not, then is it time to make a radical change away from the tension-lock coupling? Fleischmann made this change so why not Hornby, Bachmann, etc.? Of course, it costs money, but so does any change and without change there is no progress.

Although Fleischmann introduced a new type of coupling, which allows rolling stock to be coupled much closer, they still produce the old TL type coupling as an alternative for those who wish to use it. Both types are fitted with the shank to enable them to be installed in NEM pockets. The change takes about 10 seconds and the only tool required is a pair of tweezers for removal of the unwanted coupling head.

Hornby are moving in the right direction with their version of the Roco close coupling, but we have not yet arrived at the point of full compatability between rolling stock of various manufacturers in the same way as the Europeans have done. When rolling stock from Hornby, Bachmann, Dapol, etc. can be operated together, then we will have reached that point.

Many thanks to Nick Quinn for his very informative reply to my question about these decals. I will pass it on to my friend.

Bob Hart

Braid Anderson raises an interesting question when he asks whether outside-cylinder steam engines with very large piston thrusts help the adhesion. I'm not sure of the answer but have noted something similar in models. Older Tri-ang locos like the Jinty, Hall and B12 will pull well up hills while slipping continuously but a recent Hornby Grange gives up as soon as it starts to slip. I wondered if the eccentricity or roughness of the wheels may have something to do with it.

Curiously enough, a similar effect has been observed in motorcycle racing. 4-cylinder 4-stroke engines normally produce a fairly even torque over the wheel's revolution and when a driven wheel starts to slip, it tends to slip further still which makes it difficult to control. One racing team found that changing the crankshaft to put all the firing impulses close together gave a wheel time to recover from a slip and grip again. This allowed a rider to ride the bike with the rear wheel continually on the edge of slipping. Due to the characteristic sound made by the engine this was known as a 'big bang' engine and proved so successful that other teams were forced to copy it.

The usual explanation given is that the dynamic coefficient of friction (i.e. while slipping) is less than the static coefficient of friction (before slipping) and that uneven firing pulses allow the wheel to slow significantly on each rotation to grip again, increasing average adhesion.

Most 2- or 4-cylinder steam engines produce 4 power impulses per revolution (the theoretical maximum of 8 for a 4-cylinder loco was not common) and a 3-cylinder engine would be expected to produce six which should give a smaller cyclic variation. However, I suspect that the physics is rather more complex in both bikes and locos. On the steam locos, at least, it will be affected by the degree of balancing of reciprocating masses (piston and rods) that the designer choose to include in the driving wheel balance weights. The cut-off setting will influence the duration of the piston thrusts and springing of the trailing truck and the tender attachment might be important too.

The tendency of Bulleid's Pacifics to slip suddenly and badly has been noted many times and is generally attributed to the trailing axle, which loads up and reduces the adhesive weight on the driving wheels. Churchward's 4-6-0s were generally reckoned superior in adhesion for their weight, but they could slip too!

I recently watched one video of a Castle pulling out of Paddington with a long train and it is noticeable that the loco slipped repeatedly and almost continuously until it left the platform, but that the slipping was slight and controlled the whole time rather than brief and excessive. The driver didn't appear to shut off to correct it. Why the difference? Is it in the cylinders, the wheels or the steam circuit?

Anthony New

A friend is considering building a 00 scale model layout of this, set in a 1950s/1960s era, may I request any information or contact with your readers who have modelled this or have any knowledge of this period. We have found lots of websites, mostly on the first and original bridge disaster, but seek more information.

Can anyone help? Please email me direct at: richardwallace04@yahoo.co.uk.

Richard Wallace

If the volume required of the under-layout sound system is derailing the trains and deranging the neighbours, the obvious answer would be for the operators to wear headphones, a solution not practical when on-train sound is used.

Yes, I am serious. Under layout sound systems offer a wealth of possibilities for industrial layouts above and beyond the 'vroom vroom' of a diesel or 'chuff-chuff' of a steam loco. I’m talking about the sounds of the industries themselves. Coal treatment plants, steel mills, electricity generation plants, gasworks, dockyards and so on are all noisy places to be. The ambient sounds that come from them are a big part of the industrial railway soundscape.

Then there are those shunting/marshalling yards. Even a small one can be made to seem much larger and busier if there are the sounds of unseen train operations. Move the layout to close-to-eye level and the illusion becomes even more pronounced. Many US layouts are designed to be viewed this way, rather than from a blackbird’s eye view, and the increase in the illusion of size is not to be casually dismissed.

Then there are the other sounds, the ones not directly associated with the railway. That nearby town shouldn’t be silent and that dockside is being washed by water in motion after all.

Someone made a good point about reverberation recently, but missed the rather obvious point that the reverberated sound comes not from the locomotive itself but from the surrounding geography. The horn on the diesel should not reverberate on the diesel but from all around it. The obvious solution is under-layout sound reproduction.

Final point. For those situations where the public is supposed to hear the sound in all its glory, perhaps not mounting the speakers on the baseboard itself but on the floor under it would alleviate the derailment issue?

I did vote and applaud the efforts of the pollsters to try and determine if there is some kind of agreement. I personally have never fancied building track (although I have friends who love doing just that) so I suspect I am like many others out there who would buy better ready-built track if it was available. Or, maybe I wouldn't because my layout is already built.

If I was to build another, I might buy the improved track if it was readily available, but only if my large collection of existing 00 stock would run on it!

This is probably the nub of the discussion. I know P4 is more accurate than any improved version of 00 but the work involved in getting there is beyond what I want to do (even assuming I was capable).

So, in the words of the computer buffs, any new better 00 track has to be able to cope with the legacy systems of existing 00 locos and rolling stock. Otherwise, not many people are likely to buy it!

Rob Melvin, Canberra, Australia

The latest bulletin from Bachmann informs us that the new Class 37, Ivatt 2-6-0 and the Class 47 are all moving forward to the production stage. On the N gauge front, livery samples of the Class 60 have been received and the new Jubilee Class locomotive sample has undergone running trials on the test track.

Development work on the Graham Farish Class 150 and the Bachmann 00 model is now proceeding apace following completion of the drawings. The N gauge Class 101 needs a new chassis and samples should be available towards the end of the year.

Thanks for the kind words about the Montys range of figures from Dart Castings. As the master sculptor of the range, also the older Pheonix 0 scale and my own Trackpass range at http://,www.trackpass.net , plus many others over the decades, it's always good to get feedback.

I find hands and feet very difficult to produce in this scale without making them a bit thick as the material the masters are made from is brittle if unsupported - so I use wire to support them. The master has to endure a hot vulcanised mould. The ideal way to make them thinner would involve making an initial metal submaster and then fettling the offending items down and recasting which, on small figures, makes as many problems as it solves - especially cost and time wise, as well as shrinkage.

Of course, this can be easily done by the customer with a scalpel blade and file if deemed important. Plastic figures are produced from much larger masters (about 75 mm usually) and then reduced when making the mould.

4 mm faces tend to disappear under a thick coat of paint and can then be painted if the features need refining. I would prefer to just have a blank face with a nose but I do make an attempt at producing a reasonable face. It can then be painted as required. It is tricky at that size, especially for attractive girls!

Martin Feldwick

We have recently had a call for more scope in 00 scale little people but I would like to put in a request for 1950s' and 1960s' 00 scale cars.

At the moment we have quite a large amount of trucks, vans and buses on offer for this period, but the balance needs addressing. I am in the middle of building a new BR(S) 00 scale layout set in the late '50s, thanks to all my lovely new Hornby Southern locos, but period cars for this era are few and far between.

So, how about it someone? The list is almost endless Vauxhall (Cresta and Wyvern), Morris (Oxford and Minor), Austin (Cambridge, A30 and A40), MG (MGA and MGB), Hillman (Minx), Sunbeam (Rapier) and Ford (Zephyr, Zodiac and Popular) - to name but a few.

Terry Gee

My thanks to Paul Stallard. Within minutes of reading his response, I had accessed the Modelmaster Decals site, found the plates for 7912 and placed an order.

Very satisfactory.

Geoff Baxter

I have just watched the video of the 'Kingston Regis' layout on The Railway Channel - as brought to my attention in Tuesday's editorial of MRE.

Not long ago, I posted a contribution to this magazine stating that I believed the scenic modelling and buildings of Allan Downes to be genuine three dimensional art. John and Jane Jacobs, creators of this wonderful layout 'Kingston Regis' are right up there with him. The atmosphere was so strong I felt I wanted to live there, in that time, which was conveyed so brilliantly by attention to every small detail.

Like many great examples of two dimensional art, the success of this layout seems to have a lot to do with that artistic sense of being able to create an overall harmony from the perfect blending of small details. Watching the video, the beauty within the big picture is made up of countless individual miniature items - each a highlight on its own but each in harmony with those around it - an exploration of emotions which is probably the core test of any form of art.

I would love to know what the title of the classical music on the video was. Just like everything else it seemed to complement the layout perfectly.

In any case, thank you so much to all involved for bringing it to me. It really has been a pleasure to watch.

Richard Whitmore

Sadly Rob Melvin is seeking a solution to a problem resulting from yet another case of lack of standardisation.

I know that most knuckle couplers, particularly the Kadees, are designed for H0 scale. I and many others use them in 00 because of the benefits they confer. There is a supposed compromise with mounting height, which has to be below the 00 buffer beam if optimum automatic operation is to be achieved.

The old argument that they are unprototypical for British outline doesn't cut any ice with me. Very few modellers use prototypical three or screw link couplings. For those who want reliable close coupling, efficient automatic operation and less of a non-prototypical eyesore than the tension-lock coupler, the Kadee is a great option. Sadly the tension-lock couplers of the different manufacturers (and even the same manufacturers - but different eras and patterns) are not noted for their reliable inter-operation.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the manufacturers of British outline 00 ready-to-run models could consistently set their NEM pocket heights at the optimum height. It's all been rather hit and miss in the past. There are even examples of locomotive where the pocket height at the front and the rear are different.

I suspect that British outline 00 and it's pocket height aberrations represent a small niche market. It is doubtful that it would be a viable proposition for coupling manufacturers to set up for the production of over and under shanked NEM pocket couplers to compensate for the past inability of 00 ready-to-run stock manufacturers to set their NEM pockets at the correct height.

I'm pleased to note that there has been a marked improvement in the last year or so and replacement of an NEM tension-lock usually involves a straight swap with a Kadee. As a rule of thumb, if a tension-lock NEM coupling has a straight shank, the pocket is set at the optimum height for a straight shanked NEM Kadee. If the NEM tension-lock coupling is stepped up or down, the NEM pocket is set too low or too high respectively.

How about we lobby the Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan, et al, to ensure that, in future, they continue to set their NEM pocket heights at the standard for optimum Kadee operation. In the meantime, we'll probably have to continue to improvise with items of non-standard stock.

Adrian Kops, Melbourne, Australia

I just feel the real need to say that couplings, on most of today's ready-to-run British outline stock, are a complete and utter disaster!

Scenario 1 - A Bachmann loco (any of the recent releases) gently backs onto new Hornby coaches, moves train forward, the coaches stay where they are and the loco disappears into the mist without coaches.

Scenario 2 - A Heljan loco backs onto Bachmann Mk1 coaches, the loco coupling dives under the coach coupling and lulls you into a false sense of security when you pull off. The coaches run for 3 inches then cut loose as the coupling on the loco is at a different height.

I say this to all the manufacturers of British outline stock I know that we somehow still seem to be in love with the old hook and bar used by Tri-ang, Hornby and Lima and, yes, it was ugly but at least it worked and you didn't lose your train halfway through it's journey. Isn't it time we ditched the hook and bar and moved into the 21st century? How about using the couplings used on the Bachmann Turbostar DMUs and Sprinters? they never uncouple!

Rant over... just sort it please.

This coming weekend, 26^th & 27^th May, Railex Aylesbury takes place at Stoke Mandeville Stadium, Harvey Road, Aylesbury, Bucks HP21 9PP.

Over the past few years, Railex has become a 'must visit' show for the railway modeller. There are over 20 of the very best layouts currently to be seen - from steam era layouts up to the current contemporary scene.

Railex in contained within a massive 20,000 square foot light and spacious venue that is fully wheelchair assessable. Due to the size of the exhibition, many large layouts are attending, as well as many that are rarely exhibited; so this maybe the only chance to see some for quite a while.

Although a massive show, Railex has a very relaxed feel about it, even when busy, allowing easy access and easy viewing of all exhibits and demonstrations.

Layouts confirmed include: 'Aldbury Town' 4mm scale P4, 'Alton' 4mm scale 00, 'Burwell Fen' 2mm, 'Cascade Yard' 7mm scale American narrow gauge, 'Cement Quay' 4mm scale 00, 'Dinas Ddu' 7mm scale narrow gauge, 'East Street Wharf' 4mm scale EM, 'Ellis Road' 7mm scale 0 gauge, 'Halifax King Cross' 4mm scale P4, 'Hamilton' American N, 'Happisburgh' 7mm scale 0 gauge, 'Hoath Hill Halt' 3mm scale,'Midland Sidings' 4mm scale P4, 'Mill Street Goods' 7mm scale 0 gauge, 'Mostyn' 4mm scale P4, 'Morse Junction' H0, 'Oldshaw' 4mm scale EM, 'Sykes Bridge Shed' 7mm scale 0 gauge, 'Vine Street' 7mm scale 0 gauge and 'Wibdenshaw' 4mm scale EM.

There are also the following demonstrations: Gordon and Maggie Gravett will be in attendance and will be bringing along one or two boards of their new French layout, Phillip Hall with 'weathering', Mike Peascod with Plasticard modelling, Brian Daniels with diesel modelling, Simon and Terry Bendall modelling the contemporary scene and Tim Venton using computers to design model railways.

The Bluebell Railway - Last Days of Normandy

This music and sound film looks at the last working day of the small tank engine Normandy before she retired.

Wednesday 23rd May

NEW SERIES! Narrow Gauge In The Garden with Ian Stock - EXCLUSIVE TO TRC!

Ian Stock is striving for realism in his railway modelling and this has taken him to the great outdoors. In this fabulous six part series we get to see some magnificent garden railways and episode one introduces us to the lower Bryandale Railway, of which Ian is General Manager, and the Pimlico Tramway - a delightful railway squeezed into a back garden.

Thursday 24th May

The Club - Beckenham and West Wickham

Horton will please modern image fans, a layout with full signalling created by off duty, well, signallers. Some people just can't get enough

Friday 25th May

From The Footplate - Welshpool & Llanfair Part Two

The second part of our trip along this wonderful railway - today it's from Golfa to Castle Caerinion

Saturday & Sunday 26th & 27th May

Something For The Weekend - The Bodmin and Wenford

Great steam action for you on this Bank Holiday weekend and the small engine in charge of proceedings has some stiff gradients to climb!

Monday 28th May

Miniature Pleasures with Giles Favell - The Hilton Valley Railway

By Brian Macdermott

Bob Hart was asking who makes G scale decals for US and Canadian prototypes; MG Decals do. I have dealt directly with them via their website (for HO) and found them to have a quality product and good customer service. The website address is at: http://www.mgdecals.com/homepage.htm

Nick Quinn

In most descriptions of the NBR Atlantics I have come across, they are described as being very heavy on coal. No doubt, when comparing them with Atlantics elsewhere, the writers did not take into consideration the comparatively arduous conditions under which they worked. On both the Waverley route and the Edinburgh-Aberdeen main line, the gradients and curvature were more severe than experienced by most of their English counterparts. The small number of cut-off positions, and low grade coal, wouldn't have helped either.

Tests carried out by the LNER in October 1923 seem to have thrown new light on this subject, when GNR C1 Atlantic '1447' and NBR Atlantic '878' made a Newcastle-Edinburgh round trip each, on consecutive days, with the same 406 ton train and using the same coal, coal consumption was GNR - 50.7lb/mile and NBR - 45.9lb/mile.

Another comparison, with the NER C7 Atlantics, has given me great food for thought over the years. The C7s were 3-cylinder machines and were said to run 'as smooth as a Rolls Royce'. The NBR Atlantics, on the other hand, were notoriously rough riders, with continuous oscillation generated by 2 massive 21" outside cylinders. Initially the NBR civil engineer complained bitterly about the Atlantics spreading his rails. To the point where a 55mph limit was slapped on them, until one highly-qualified Director queried whether the fault lay with the locomotives or the permanent way.

The NER C7 Atlantics were very poor starters and hill climbers. It was said of them that they could smell a bank before they came to it. The NBR Atlantics were the very opposite, and excelled at starting away and climbing the hills. Yet, the NER Atlantics had less tractive effort and slightly more adhesive weight than their NBR counterparts. Theoretically the former should therefore have had less tendency to slip.

It has occurred to me that maybe the marked difference in riding qualities was actually the reason for their comparative abilities. The NER Atlantics, with their smooth straight-line action, depended for traction entirely on the vertical weight bearing on the rails via the tyres. The NBR Atlantics, on the other hand, probably scored much extra 'grip' from those oscillations that spread Mr Bell's track. Imagine the thrust of those large outside cylinders skewing the short wheelbase first one way, then the other, pressing the insides of diagonally opposite flanges onto the inside of the rails.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of the interaction of wheels and rails can correct me, or otherwise?

Braid Anderson

With reference to Geoff Baxter’s email request for details for renaming/renumbering his Bachmann Hall Class loco, he can do no wrong in looking to Modelmaster decals. Under their Jackson Evans section they have the complete etched brass plaques and are complete with the following:

GWR nameplate sets include cabside numbers and BR smokebox number (if applicable) and are finished in black. Numberplate sets also include BR smokebox number (if applicable). All in for £6.30p plus postage and packing.

I have no connection with the company other than a very satisfied customer!

Paul Stallard

Commenting in detail on Bill Francis' post would not be conducive to Pat wanting short, readable articles!

Suffice to say, I am not convinced of the efficacy of sound speakers being mounted under a layout, even in conjunction with on board sound. We have had quite a few attempts in the past. DC had it's sound programmes. All seem to have fallen by the wayside. Reasons given, by those who have tried, vary from not sounding right to complaints from the neighbours and including derailments caused by the vibration!! I still maintain that listening to steam engines working on a recording is not directly related, pleasure wise or sound wise, to getting on board chips sounding right for you and your layout.

As to which chips do what, ESU is the king of readily re-programmable sound chips which, by virtue of it's complexity, few have ventured far into. In steam, at least, I suspect that most people are waiting for pre-recorded sound sets and, until then, the standard sounds will do. CT and Tsunami are good out of the box but with the Tsunami, not being reprogrammable at all and CT being reprogrammable with great difficulty, if at all. Digitrax make a good sound only decoder which is very easily reprogrammed to give fair results quickly and cheaply, particularly where an existing decoder is installed.

As to the two minute ESU chip, two minutes of sound is quite adequate, as long as the sounds are readily repeated. The previous standard 1 minute Loksound 3.5 Damplok 2/4 cylinder contains no less than 103 sound files including no less than 25 different chuffs, nearly all of which are in use. I think that two minutes sound is of crucial use to the diesel men giving more time for the long notching files that big diesels need. I drive largish diesels all day and they take a while to build up revs but it takes only about a minute to go from a standing start to full speed including gear changes. Five seconds of whistle or horn on the real railway would earn a reprimand.

As to sound quality, this is constrained by the smallness of speakers and the difficulty of using sound boxes. It is generally accepted that chip sound quality is generally poor. Over manipulation of sound files tends to make them crackly. I agree that a good source (such as Steamsounds) gives appreciably better results after conversion to a much lower quality as needed by the chip.

I shall correct myself on two points. I have stated in the past that the standard is 11KHz 8 bit. I notice that my latest ESU software needs 16KHz 8 bit. Ho hum - more sound downloads to rework. All my sound fragments are in the former and won't play in my ESU chip!! I have also stated that Digitrax are the only sound chip software to have a decoder test facility. Not so. ESU also have a decoder running facility called Virtual Cab.

David White

More railway books have been reviewed and these will be found in the Book Review section which may be accessed by clicking on ‘Books’ to the left of this page and then picking the title that interests you from the index. For quick movement through the index, click on the appropriate letter in the letter index at the head of the column.

If the book interests you, there is a live link at the bottom of each review which will take you to the equivalent page on the Amazon website where you will find comparative prices for new or second-hand examples gathered from booksellers around the country.

I know that the NEM pockets, from different loco and rolling stock manufacturers, are at different heights. What is really needed is variable height Kaydee type couplers. For normal draft box use they already make under-shank, centre-shank and over-shank which enables you to get the correct coupler height (which is the key) regardless of the draft box height.

Unfortunately, neither Kaydee nor Bachmann US, in their Ezymate range, offer variable shank heights on the couplers that plug into NEM pockets.

So, if the train manufacturers can't do it, what about the coupler manufacturers?

Rob Melvin, Canberra, Australia

I need to obtain some late-BR lines for my Tri-ang B12 but most of the decals available do not match the correct shape and colour scheme I need. One side of the cab has a faded set of BR lines and loco number, but it's completely missing on the other side. I've recently spray painted the loco black and so I need to recreate the rest of the livery. I guess I could also completely skip the lines and just add the number but I'd like to add the red details if I could.

I realise that I've lowered the value of this loco by painting it, but it looks really good now! I want to run this loco on my layout and am not concerned about keeping it only as a collectors item.

Could you please let me know if you have any decals or refer me to any companies that might have these?

Rob Robotham

If David Chappell would like realistically proportioned, subtly posed 4mm scale figures he should look at the Monty's Models range sold by www.dartcastings.co.uk. In plastic the Dapol, ex-Airfix, sets still take some beating.

These are vastly superior to the wargame style Campbell figures, that Louis Heath recommended, which are caricatures at best.

Peter Cowan

-----

The recent correspondence concerning populating model railways reminds me that Hornby Dublo produced some superb plastic railway staff and passengers in the early 1960s. Unfortunately the tooling must have vanished because they did not reappear when Wrenn took over production. I have often been amused by comments in reviews over the years that certain ranges of figures were only suitable for HO and undersize for 00. I didn't realise we were all made to a common size, in which case I must be to 00 while my wife is TT!

Frank Spence

-----

In response to David Chappell contribution, 'Little People', I would certainly recommend that David visit web pages for Dart Castings and Aidan Campbell who cast various models in white metal and offer them unpainted.

I find at times that the face, hands and feet of cast white metal figures are poorly reproduced and which can spoil what otherwise are good figures for any layout.

Robert Stalker

Having just moved (to Spain), I have been sorting through some of my magazines. Over the last 40 or so years I have bought RM, CM, MRN & MRC on a fairly regular basis plus others that have had articles of interest. Every now and again I go through them and throw out those that have nothing of long term interest. It is interesting to find that I have retained, among others, Model Railways for September 1974, Engineering in Miniature for March 1985 and Locomotives Large & Small for November 1986.

All three feature articles on the models of an Australian (ex-Enfield) Arthur A Sherwood who constructed and engineered working live steam and electric locomotives in 1/240 scale. He also made an electric powered GNR N2 0-6-2 tank in 1/480 scale - which is half Z gauge! Needless to say, all items, including all drawings and plans, had to be produced and burners, motors and track had to be scratch-built,.

I still read the articles and wonder whether anyone else has produced similar works of art? Even more amazing is the fact that he was into his 60s. When I got to my 60s, I had to give up my Maerklin Z gauge because I was having problems track laying! He is a man who has my admiration.

On a different subject, does anyone know of any model railway clubs and or shops in Murcia, Spain?

Thanks for an essential morning read.

Tony Rimmer

To add to recent queries and comments regarding the working of coaches of this colour scheme on Southern's West of England workings, I can definitely recall (even after 50 years), BR Mk1 stock in this livery worked the route for a while. Waiting departure in the 4.45pm Exeter Central to Exmouth, I regularly saw the 1.0pm Waterloo arrive (making an ideal cross-platform connection) and certain portions would be in this livery.

Some Maunsell corridors would also have been in this livery during the mid-fifties and these were also used on branch services. For example, the rear 2-coach portion of the 5.15pm Exeter Central - Exmouth, which, after detachment at Exmouth, ran on to Tipton St Johns as a Through Portion from Exeter. This was a useful service for schoolboys and commuters.

With Hornby's Maunsells coming, it will be great to recreate these memories. But, dare I mention it, better still with a BCK and an open second!

Stephen Derek

I think it is important to support Pat's comments in his editorial of May 14 regarding the recent track poll carried out by Paul and Graham Plowman. I feel that some of the criticism of them that has occurred across the Internet as a result of them conducting this poll is something that we really don't need in this hobby. I am not talking here about constructive criticism addressing the issues in the poll such as how the questions were framed.

Constructive criticism is always, in my mind, acceptable. Although, in this case, I know that I, at least, could not have started a survey from scratch and come up with a superior approach to what Paul and Graham have done. It is always much harder to create something from the beginning than to fine tune it afterwards and I think that they have done a very good job of it. There has also been the side benefit of also generating some excellent, positive suggestions from other contributors to this magazine.

No, what I am upset about here is the personal attacks that Paul and Graham have obviously suffered over conducting this poll. Let's put things into perspective. Neither Paul or Graham started the debate on the production of a model track system which would more visually represent the real life track in Britain. Regular readers will know that this subject actually originated from consistent praise of the fidelity to prototype of the new products from Hornby and Bachmann, and that their realism now deserved a track system that was also closer to the British prototype than what presently exists. As we know, this discussion about new 'British style' track created a lot of interest in this magazine and continued for quite some time - possibly only DCC has received more subject coverage in correspondence in the time I have been reading MRE.

The matter could have died there except Paul and Graham decided to actually do something about it which, if I recall correctly, was after Peco stated that they would listen to comment on the subject. This means that there was obviously an interest on Peco's part in what their customers were asking for. So, if something were to happen in regard to new track, this was obviously the time to make it happen, and Paul and Graham simply took it on themselves to make this effort in response to what so many modellers said that they were interested in. Most importantly, they didn't merely push their own viewpoints as has been wrongly claimed - they set out a whole range of variables from fine scale to 'train set' options. They invited all of us to participate, with them doing the hard work of collating and apportioning all this information. So, how anyone could even feel that it is legitimate to attack them is totally beyond me.

I am a simple creature who believes that model railways are there for us to enjoy. However, for many modellers, who are far more skilled and creative than I am, part of the enjoyment comes from the pursuit of excellence in their modelling which, of course, is enhanced by realistic track. Just as there is nothing wrong in being a hobbyist who is somewhere between a railway modeller and train set operator, like I am. There is also absolutely nothing wrong in wanting to achieve excellence. After all, isn't excellence something that we are encouraged to attain in all parts of life from the moment we start school, so why should there be something wrong in someone wanting to take the same approach to railway modelling? While a scratch or kit builder, with specific track building skills, can produce excellence, the introduction of a ready made proprietary system, that is closer to scale, will enable more people to achieve their goals.

For the record, I don't know Paul or Graham beyond a single item of correspondence but I do admire them for putting their hands up and doing something positive and consequently making it easier for any potential manufacturer of a British type track to consider the design options available. Of course, without MRE as the platform, to create such interest would not be possible and, as I have said before, it is the courtesy and quality of the vast majority of contributors to this magazine, along with Pat's fair minded editing (this being a case in point), that make MRE stand out. I guess that's why Paul and Graham have chosen to restrict future debate to MRE. In any case, I do hope that if one day British modellers are graced with a closer to scale track system, someone will drop Paul and Graham an email saying "thanks".

Richard Whitmore

Our track poll has clearly been one of the most emotive subjects discussed in MREmag and elsewhere. I would like to thank all those who wrote to both MREmag and to us privately giving their support and constructive comments. I had intended to respond to the issues raised by readers but clearly that would generate another hail of abusive e-mails upon the Editor, which really would not be fair. Pat puts in a lot of time to bring us the MREmag and he should not have to put up with this childish nonsense.

To our critics I would say, we gave it our best shot. We took the time and trouble to develop the software for an on-line polling system, which avoided the need for you to waste time sending e-mails and preserved your privacy, absolutely. Our choice of questions might not have been perfect but then we are only human. If anyone feels they could do better, this is a free world, there is nothing to prevent you from running your own poll on this or any other subject.

We apologise to the Editor for the hail of abuse, which our poll attracted.

Paul Plowman

-----

How sad that some people have decided to be unpleasant regarding the track poll. Come on people, this is a hobby, not a war zone. You may have different views, but most of us, I suspect, are here to enjoy ourselves, not to try and score pseudo clever points off someone else.

I did put in my pennyworth to the poll, although I have to admit I found it a little confusing, I do suspect the Ps have a hidden agenda?

I would like to keep it friendly and simple. Accepting that model making is a compromise and we remain with H0/00 track, to expect the major manufacturers to change would be unrealistic. It is, of course, the sleepers which give the track a Continental look. The width should stay the same as, although it is not 4mm scale, it looks OK. The web should incorporate a wider spacing. This would keep me happy and improve the looks. I know that I can separate the sleepers and get the same effect and I do, but it would be nice to have it done in bought stock.

Keep it friendly chaps - we are not all experts. Speaking personally, I don't understand half of what you say anyway! But I do enjoy reading the Mag each day.

Alan Tewson

-----

Many thanks for selecting the constructive responses to 'that' controversial track poll. Like others, I felt that a claimed impartiality was completely at odds with the statement that 00 should be abandoned in favour of P4. Paul Plowman did himself no favours with this and I guess that he will take a long time to live it down. I deplore the personal abuse that has been directed his way and will take no part in it.

In the event that any of the manufacturers are still with this thread, and have not all left in despair to take up bungee jumping, I wish to state my summary.

I, too, have become a dyed-in-the-wool 00 ready-to-run modeller. I purchase goods to my taste. Despite the purist nonsense sometimes written, I am building a 'roundy-roundy' 'tail-chaser' for 'kettles' and ***** to those who denigrate the cornerstone of our hobby. I long for the day when the British trade adopt a common and viable standard for 00 and, until that day comes, I fully support the DOGA Intermediate Standard as being the best I wish to aim at.

Peter Bedding

-----

Can I start by saying thank you to Paul Plowman for running the Track Poll? Whilst I don’t necessarily agree with some of his interpretations of the results, I do not believe that the poll itself has harmed the debate on improved 00 track and I certainly don’t think that his "actions have very possibly put the whole 'better looking 00 track' stream back 10 years", as David Scanlan has suggested. However, I do have some comments to make.

Starting with Paul’s comment that "22.93% of respondents would prefer the trade to dump 00 altogether", whilst technically correct (he’s referring to the respondents rather than railway modellers as a whole), is a wholly misleading and very biased conclusion. What the result does show is that a significant proportion of those concerned with the accuracy of model railway track have already moved to a wider gauge, or at least finer standards. This is unsurprising as it is dissatisfaction with 00 that creates EM and P4 modellers. However, the vast majority of 00 modellers will not have responded to the poll because they don’t know or care enough about track to vote – it’s just something to run trains on.

As for Paul’s surprise that most respondents want sleepers, bearers, wing and check rails at 4mm scale rather than a compromise, I think that this is possibly because some of us are unsure as to what compromises we are actually willing to accept. Like many others, I think that SMP and C&L track generally looks acceptable, and had I realised that the option for a "compromise scale" meant "something to match C&L track", I may have voted for this instead of 4mm scale. After all, if I’m going to compromise slightly on sleeper length, a slight compromise elsewhere is not an unrealistic expectation. However, I want something much closer to 4mm scale than 3.5mm scale.

Personally, I think that Andy Parr’s comment is spot-on when he says "Someone has to choose a commercially profitable middle ground. I feel that this poll shows just how difficult it is, and perhaps why we've not seen progress on the matter from manufacturers." It does show how difficult it will be to please everyone. I had hoped that modern flat bottom rail and concrete sleepers would have polled higher, but it looks like I’ll have to wait a long time.

However, the poll does indicate that if a manufacturer were to look further at a new track range, a live frog turnout of around four foot radius, possibly with an integrated switch and weathered bullhead rail would probably sell reasonably well and, even if that's not what I really want, I'd probably still buy it if it looked better than the current offerings.

David Laing

-----

It is nice to see a name I normally associate with the Scalefour Society join the debate. Russ, you are more than right - the question is a simple one. The answer must be a big YES.

Clive Mortimore

-----

There has been a lot of reaction to the Plowman poll saga and some not necessarily in the 'right spirit'. I note that on Thursday's edition of MREmag you published some of the emails you had received.

That you have no inclination to edit the more "vitriolic" stuff within the context of MREmag I can understand but, given the circumstances, would it not be for, informational purposes, useful to produce a summary of those mails that perceive the poll as positive, neutral or negative.

Personally, I found the poll structure (I did not vote by the way) and its results do not represent the reality of the current situation concerning requests for better 00 track especially points. I believe a lot of people may have a similar viewpoint.

Nick Davies

A vast increase in the number of entries this month so thank you to everyone that entered. There were nine entrants who scored the full ten out of ten but the question that caught many out was question 1. You were probably lulled into a false sense of security thinking that the first question was simple and straight forward but it wasn’t (see below).

I would also like to say thank you to those who responded to my request last month for some feedback. I have tried to take account of some of the comments this month and, judging by the number of entries this month, it seems to have had some effect. I would also like to give special thanks to those who encouraged me to go on. However, one responder implied that if he/she didn’t know the answers without looking anything up, he/she couldn’t be bothered. I think it’s a reasonable expectation that some effort has to be put in for £50.

Here are the questions and answers. The Quizmaster’s decision is final.

By Brian Macdermott

Class 9F 2-10-0 No.92122 piloted Peak D7 ‘Ingleborough’ when she failed whilst working an Up Blackpool express on 5 April 1961.

I agree that it is a pity that Bachmann have not retooled their Thompsons yet. But you could upgrade them yourself.

I now have a rake of eight flush glazed 'Blood and Custard' Thompson coaches with Kadee close couplers and with both first class and no-smoking transfers in the windows. I used SE Finecast glazing units and fitted suitable Kadees with draft boxes in the recommended fashion. It did not take long, I was able to upgrade one or two per week. Frankly, I am very pleased with them and they stand up well beside the Bachmann Mk1s.

Have a go, it is well worth the effort.

Louis Heath

Mike Romans

David Chappell raises a good point about figures supporting our model railways. My biggest bugbear is that you see the same few models on every other layout. Wouldn't it be boring at a show if 0-4-2T 1432 and its B set were on every other layout? To over come this with layouts I am involved with, I make the population and Milliput is the medium used. It is a very relaxing way to spend a few evenings. See http://www.rmweb2.co.uk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3589&SearchTerms=figures

Clive Mortimore

Track Poll

Well said re the responses to the track poll. I was disappointed to hear from Paul's feedback that some forums had some pretty nasty comments on them and, again, to hear that you've received some disagreeable responses too.

So, at least in part to compensate, I would like to applaud him and Graham for putting the poll up and you for supporting it and giving a chance for some idea of wishes on the subject to be gathered for those of us interested in better track for 00.

I can't say I agree with all his conclusions, but then I expected that opinion would be diverse on the subject. What annoys me most is that some people (hopefully a small minority) still seem to think that their way of thinking is absolutely right and no-one else's view is in any way valid. This is so patently not the case in our hobby but, as in all pastimes, sports and interests, there are extremes of view which some people feel they just have to inhabit.

Anyway, once again thank you, and also thank you Paul and Graham, for your efforts. Hopefully some good will come from them.

Ian Vale

-----

The Plowmans' OO track poll is certainly interesting and has definitely generated a lot of comment on various Internet forums, not all of it positive. However, there do seem to be some problems with the format of certain of the questions and with Paul Plowman's analyses of the results which rather undercut his conclusions

The biggest problems centre on question 1.

With over 77% of respondents indicating that the product they want is OO track, we can forget about ready made P4 or EM pointwork - the market is not there. The real issues arise with the OO Finescale option, and what it might mean. On one forum, not long after the poll opened, Grahman Plowman stated that: "A new product would have to use one of the existing standards and be compatible with RP25/110 wheels". I wouldn't disagree with that and it was a reasonable assumption that this was what the poll meant by OO Finescale. However, on 20th April, Paul Plowman wrote here that OO Finescale meant something completely incompatible with all existing RTR

Effectively, that meant the poll offered either the status quo or 3 options which were completely incompatible with all RTR. You couldn't vote for a OO track standard finer than current Peco, but which would allow some or all modern RTR to run, because that option wasn't in the poll. Yet the Plowmans themselves had indicated that this was an essential requirement for a viable product and Paul has twice vigorously attacked his own OO Finescale option as unworkable.

I can think of four 16.5mm gauge track standards which are finer than current Peco Streamline and compatible with some or all current production OO RTR: DOGA's OO Intermediate standard, the old BRMSB standard, the Continental NEM standards and the NMRA's S3. There are probably a couple of others I've missed. As even Paul admits, SMP hand-built pointwork is compatible with all current OO RTR stock. Why were none of these options included in the vote? Many letters to MREMag had specifically indicated support for such an option. It is difficult not to feel that Question 1 of the poll was designed to obstruct support for finer OO track . Even so, OO Finescale was the leading option until Paul Plowman's first analysis made a lengthy attack on the concept whilst the poll was still running. This seems to have resulted in an increase in support for both Peco standards and for P4, for which his first analysis amounted to an election broadcast.

This does seem to belie the claims made at the start of the poll that Paul was an impartial neutral on this issue, as he models in P4. To me it seems an object lesson in the reasons why OO standards and the specifications for OO products should be decided by modellers actually working in OO, not by people working in other gauges.

Questions 9 and 10 were flawed by the multiplicity of options offered. With 3 bullhead options but no less than 7 flat-bottom options this was always likely to produce a bullhead option as winner simply by fragmenting the flat-bottom vote . If the options are aggregated, the figures for plain track are 60% bullhead and 40% flat-bottom, which is not fully conclusive.

I'm also surprised by Paul's reference to several responses being "a good result" by which he appears to mean that respondents gave the answers he wanted to hear. If the organisers of the poll had already decided they wanted to see certain outcomes emerge, then they were hardly neutrals as they initially claimed. Paul has himself admitted that the question on radii was wrongly structured and the assumption that only strict prototypical geometry was acceptable and that, therefore, only large radii were permitted, was inappropriate and should have been open to debate.

As a result, I'm afraid both the poll results and their interpretation have been seriously compromised and, in many areas, are open to challenge or doubt. I certainly cannot accept Paul Plowman's analyses of them as valid and nor, I believe, will most OO modellers.

The Double O Gauge Association will continue to work for proper OO track, to a finer standard compatible with modern OO RTR stock, on behalf of OO modellers in the UK and elsewhere. We believe there is very considerable support amongst OO modellers for such a product.

Stephen Siddle,
Treasurer, Double O Gauge Association

-----

I suppose I fit the description of being an "Internet savvy, mostly serious railway modeller" - albeit, one who chose not to take the Plowmans' track poll.

As published earlier in MREmag, I would be delighted to see a manufacturer take up the challenge of 00 pointwork to sensible (DOGA Intermediate?) standards to complement the quality of the latest releases from Bachmann, Heljan and Hornby. However, bearing in mind previous debate in MREmag, I was not sure how the data would be used.

When I read the inference that "22.93% of respondents would prefer the trade to dump OO altogether" (based on the question "What is your preferred model railway track standard?"), I knew I had made the right decision! With a comment like this, why should the poll be taken seriously? Sadly, it is precisely this form of logic that provokes a robust response from certain quarters.

Christopher Rabson

-----

Whilst I can understand you wish to reduce the amount of vitriol published on the site, I do hope that you will allow people to express their active disagreement with the way that the Track Poll was structured (as has been expressed many times on both this site and on other sites), and especially with the results as presented by Paul Plowman. I think that my comments should be taken against a background of my willingness to host a simpler online poll (see MREMag Thursday 22.3.07 - before the GPP poll was announced on 2.4.07).

Unfortunately, simply providing Paul with a vehicle to propose his own (non-mainstream I believe) opinions will not help the hobby advance. In common with many people who have commented on this whole situation, my feeling is that Paul's actions have very possibly put the whole 'better looking OO track' stream back 10 years.

When I reviewed the raw data coming out of the poll, the thing that struck me is that there is a wish for 'better quality' small radius trackwork to be produced in a RTR form. I disagree with his statements about everybody having to either replace their stock, or re-wheel to 'finescale' standards. The results actually seem to scream out that people want OO Intermediate standard track (an option which was not available in the poll). Strangely enough, this would allow for small radius 'finerscale' turnouts to be produced that would run current RTR wheelsets without any problems.

So thus, whilst it is fine for any correspondence to be forwarded to Paul (and possibly his solicitors from the tone of his message announcing the results of the poll), I think it would be beneficial to show your impartiality to publish some of the less destructive emails that you have received on the matter.

David Scanlan

-----

I felt the inclusion of EM and P4 in the poll confused the primary issue being discussed in MREMag, namely 'better 00 track'. Paul Plowman's assertion that "22.93% of respondents would prefer the Trade to dump 00 altogether" is an over simplistic misrepresentation of what many wider gauge adherents feel about the commercial viability of different areas of the hobby. Although not needing 00 track, EM and P4 workers need a healthy 00 sector.

Secondly, and hopefully getting back on MREmag topic, I thought the poll did little to take the current temperature on 00 track and wheel standards. The poll didn't even mention the DOGA Intermediate Standard, whose adoption I would see as a nub of the 00 turnout and timber issue. The poll would have been more useful if it had been directed solely at 00 modellers and its one and only question had been: "Do you want the manufacturers to conform to the DOGA Intermediate Standard - yes or no?"

Russ Elliott

-----

It is very strange that Messer's Plowman and Plowman invited people to enter their poll on other forums but will now only discuss the results on here. How will those people who are not on this forum who voted in their poll know the result of the poll? How can they enter in the post poll debate?

I am still not sure to whom the resulting outcome will be presented.

Clive Mortimore

-----

-----

I don't wish to denigrate someone's obvious hard work, but all this track poll demonstrates is that someone has too much time on their hands.

Whilst lauding efforts to get a more realistic track system, this whole exercise clearly shows serious modellers won't accept a "one size fits all", but with so many variations I can't see how any manufacturer can justify the costs of tooling up for a product that will please no one.

There will always be people who just want setrack and, at the other end, people who will only find hand-built meets their standards. Someone has to choose a commercially profitable middle ground. I feel that this poll shows just how difficult it is, and perhaps why we've not seen progress on the matter from manufacturers.

Andy Parr

-----

I'd just like to thank Paul Plowman for all the obvious time and effort that went in to the track poll. Interesting results, but now I've converted to USA 2 rail O scale, doesn't really bother me any more ! It would be nice to see an improved RTR rack system though - thanks again Paul !

Don Gilham

-----

I'm sure we'd all like to thank Graham and Paul Plowman for the track poll, the results of which I agree are interesting. I suspect that the support for 4mm scale sleepers which surprised Paul may in part be due to 00 modellers wanting sleepers that simply look more like 4mm scale (in width particularly) and that many would not in fact want sleepers of the correct scale length which would necessarily stick out too far beyond the rails. As with all such polls, it is difficult to frame the questions perfectly without the knowledge of the answers that one is going to get!

I am glad Paul agrees about the difficulty in making finescale wheels and track work effectively in a mass-production environment, but I still believe this difficulty is underestimated by some respondents.

As a died-in-the-wool 00 gauge modeller, I am not at all surprised at the demand for points of less than four feet radius. Most of us who try to model main lines in the limited spaces at home are forced to use sharper radii to stand any chance of getting a decent station throat into the space available. Setrack radii are too sharp, even for me, and the curved ones are pretty horrid. So my own preference is for the Peco medium-radius Streamline point and the long curved points.

For me the overall geometry and appearance of the track are far more important than the details. One other thing I should really like, but which Paul didn't raise in the poll, is a curved diamond somewhat shorter than the Peco long one as this is (in my view) one of the biggest limitations in achieving realistic pointwork in complex station throats.

Anthony New

Phil Porter

I used the Model Color acrylic paints manufactured by Acrilico-Vinilico which I was able to buy from a shop supplying military and fantasy figures.

Louis Heath

I have been reading with interest all those E-mails regarding NEM pockets and standards. From my own thoughts, it appears that Hornby have the NEM pocket at the correct height and Bachmann also have them at the correct height, where the straight coupling is fitted in the NEM pocket. However, where Bachmann use the cranked version of the coupling to lower it, this pocket appears to be too high.

Perhaps for next year's wants list, number 1 should be a request that Bachmann issue coaches/wagon/locos with NEM pockets at the correct height. Or the model buying public could all request that Bachmann redesign the various items with NEM pockets at a more correct height.

Still enjoy my morning paper.

I have been reading this topic with some interest. There is only one snag with a motorised van or coach. If you are modelling a branch or main line terminus, you will have to run the train around the locomotive!

Ian Farey

I have recently purchased a Bachmann Hall Class locomotive that I wish to renumber and rename to 7912 'Little Linford Hall'. Before anyone raises it, yes, I am aware that the Bachmann model is not a modified Hall Class, whereas 7912 is. For the purpose I have in mind, it does not matter.

I wonder if anyone can advise me whether anyone makes or offers transfers to renumber and rename this class.

Geoff Baxter

Of course, David White was absolutely correct in his remarks about reprogramming a ESU Loksound decoder. What I was trying to illustrate was the ease with which I can alter or change the sound aspects of a loco not only via software, but 'on the fly' as we say, i.e. in real time. However, I am sure we all agree, the Loksound is one of the few soundchips that can be reprogrammed by the end user, which David commendably does using suitable soundfiles. Can we re-programme a Tsunami? This is not possible at the moment I believe, which is a shame given its 16 bit characteristics. It is of course relatively easy to replace certain sound elements of a Loksound fitted loco providing you have the appropriate software and hardware interface that I believe David processes. But, how easy is it for the majority of users to change the horn on their SWD Class 158s? Unless you have the above, or access to them (and not forgetting a different horn sample), I believe you are stuck with what the vendor has supplied.

Visit the multi award-winning Kew Bridge Steam Museum on 20th May and see steam power come alive.

Up to a dozen different fire engines, dating from 1914 to the 1980s, will be on display on the day. Organised by the Fire Service Preservation Group, the rally will feature early motorised Dennis fire engines, including the magnificent 1916 petrol driven model from the Royal College of Science complete with student firemen in period dress. There will also be a mix of younger fire appliances including a war-time and 1980s models, as well as appliances which are still in use and fire fighting displays and demonstrations.

By Brian Macdermott

Jeremy English is 'on the mark' with N15 history. I agree that S15 was a 'lesser engine' in suitability for modelling. The N15 was also, in my opinion, more attractive - even than the H15. As far as I can guess, coming from a family of railway people including a top link NZ driver and workshops-people from 1900AD onwards, all three classes shared many parts and production techniques

The Urie 1918 design was affected by WW1 manpower shortage and the subsequent designs varied somewhat in detail as a result of being 'built from plans'. The design was pre-war and Eastleigh had its own ways. It is likely that the main changes from the 1914 H15 to the 1920s' Scots Arthurs were to do with subtleties in material design and breathing. Also from the vagaries of building from plans, as well as experiments by the senior engineers. Several cylinder arrangements were used, with subtle changes in all manufacturing and weights etc. However, this is just a deduction on my part and not proven record. Perhaps we forget how steam engines were living and changing machines. These were not a large class and would have been almost hand-built.

North British, by 1939, could produce superb locomotives from plans. They built 30 outstanding 4-8-2s for New Zealand in just six weeks! Someone might comment on how good they were in 1925 when they built N15s.

Such a fine model by Hornby!

Robbie McGavin [NZ]

If anyone (like Phil Gollin with his 'suggestion of the year’ for example) is interested in the current version of the motorised van, have a look at the website for High Level Models. They produce kits for motor bogies of 34 mm (8ft 6in) and 40mm (10ft) wheelbase. I am sure these could be used to replace loco hauled coach bogies if desired.

Richard Billinge

David Chappell asked: "Can anyone point me to a source of good figures who are not performing the 100 meter race, or waving to invisible friends?". I agree with David, there are too few high-quality figures around. And especially too few high-quality female figures (ahem...).

Mikkel Funder

-----

David Chappell is quite right on the issue of people. I think that this area of modelling is poorly supported by manufacturers. What is needed is a plastic moulding firm to make batches of 'era' people of, say, 50 that can be painted. Kit people, is a possibility. If a body and several arm/leg positions were made then this would give more scope. I think that this is a project for China in order to keep the cost down.

George McKie

As an active train-spotting short-trousered boy on the Eastern section of the Southern in the 1950s, I would like to add to other comments that 'Blood & Custard' Mk1s were certainly used on this section as well. I particularly remember, with childhood fascination, the boat trains labelled "Continental Express - Short Sea Crossing" which included (this was in the days when normal classes were First and Third only) the exotica of Second class Mk1 coaches with large numeral 2 on each door. I think they were just normal First Opens so marked. Interesting and simple to do variation there!

Thanks as ever for a great daily read

Tony Stanford

There are over 1000 lots going under the hammer on Saturday, in this part of the sale. A further 800 lots of mainly diecast models will be sold simultaneously in The JLS Room.

Simon Kohler has asked me to reassure readers that Hornby have produced the correct coaches that make up the Pendolino. That is to say that if you have a Pendolino train set or a train pack and add the solo coaches, you will be able to assemble a correct 9 car train.

I would just like to add my 'two penneth' to Anthony New's thoughts. I run vintage Hornby Dublo 3-rail and, at our monthly running session, this subject came up as an informal discussion.

Hornby Dublo 3-rail track is coated brass and the original Mazac alloy wheels generally give good pulling capacity (up to 12 tinplate coaches). The later 3-rail locomotives, of the 2-rail era, are fitted with nickel silver tyres and these certainly show a lower friction coefficient. Even after 40 something years, this is still apparent at times. In my case, particularly with locos that I purchased in 1964 after production ceased. Some of these were so bad that they had very little use until recently. It now seems that running the locos (with light loads within their capability) improves their performance. A case in point is my diesel shunter which could manage only 3 wagons and can now tackle 14 or 15 with grip to spare. I don't know if the wheels are roughed-up or smoothed during running, but it is my feeling that the wheels are smoothed, giving a larger 'footprint' on the track. The phenomenon is not consistent across the range but exists to some extent.

Incidentally, the 2-rail locos running on Hornby Dublo nickel silver track are much less prone to exhibit the problem.

I know that this does not give answers or suggestions, only observations. There must be someone in MREmag world with sufficient metallurgy experience to analyse the situation

Terry Dyckhoff

-----

Further to Anthony New's post on the 10th May, the coefficient of friction definitely improves with use, as both the driven wheel tyre and railhead polish in the course of extended operation. With commercial 00 models on nickel silver track, from starting values around 0.1, there is usually an improvement to between 0.12 and 0.15. The final value is dependent on the material used for the tyre. If you have a well used layout, you can confirm that the friction improves as the railhead polishes. You can do this by substituting a new and unused length of track and running a load which was just within the capacity of a given loco to start on that length when operating on the well used track. It will slip when attempting a start on the replaced section.

Those making the effort to go the finescale route and using steel for both tyre and rail, enjoy the coefficient of friction of 0.24, 'just like the real thing'. Relating to one of my previous posts, this is one of the reasons why commercial 00 models often need to be made heavier if they are to haul prototype loads. I thought it would be rather amusing for people to research for themselves safe, usable and denser alternatives to lead, expecting replies on the lines of "If I could afford to weight using gold..."

Paul Jansz

I should like to express my thanks to Messrs Stuart Morris, David Rollason, Howard Merrion, Paul Dryden and Dick Flower for their help in identifying the 10 coaches which I recently purchased. As yet, I still haven't identified the 57 foot clerestory coaches but am still pursuing the leads these gentlemen have supplied.

For your benefit, Paul, if you care to reread my request for help posted on Thursday 3^rd May, you will find that my request was primarily for help in identifying these models (not being an expert in the older types of GWR carriage) and, secondly, to try and get some feeling as to whether the substantial 3 figure sum I'd given for the 10 carriages was 'over the odds' or not. I trust this information may help to relieve your sense of sadness. Thanks again for your help.

Many thanks Pat for providing this excellent resource to the likes of myself who are not so knowledgeable as others.

Alan Fryer

My understanding is that WD40 was developed primarily as a water dispellant, hence 'WD', and the formula was reached at the 40th attempt.

Frank Spence

The TCS have had a stand at the Warley MRE exhibition for several years. Initially, we just had a static display of information, the club magazine and TCS member benefits. The year after we had a display cabinet of toy and model trains in an interesting A to Z format, from Airfix to Zenith, via Lima and Trix amongst others.

But many show visitors walked straight past to the next society's table, which had moving trains.

The TCS owns some locos used on the display, a Marklin Z electric outline loco, and a pair of Rivarossi 0 gauge US outline diesels. Other stock is normally provided by TCS members operating the display, or is on loan.

We do advertise that show visitors may try out their locos and over the years we've had the common and the unusual, including the Kitmaster powered van, some Japanese N, the prototype MSL 0 gauge Class 76 and exotic continental Trix. There has been only one non-runner in all that time - a 'repaired' Class 08 diesel shunter bought from a manufacturer's stall normally near the entrance. The purchaser was able to do a swap and the replacement worked perfectly. A Hornby Dublo 0-6-2T set was brought along by another visitor, who wanted to trade it in for some modern equipment. The loco had been in a loft for 30 years, the prospective purchaser was able to see it run, hesitantly at first with plenty of sparking, then after a few minutes, it ran so well, that the vendor actually thought about keeping it.

With the increasing take up of DCC, perhaps we ought to be able to temporarily switch in a DCC command station to any of the tracks. Another option would be to add the new Japanese micro gauge.

See us at the NEC for Warley 07!

Malcolm Pugh

May I have a moan about "little people", please?

I am now getting round to populating my 00 layout after many years of building. I need a good number of passengers waiting for trains on the platforms - it is a summer Saturday in 1954 after all! I have boxes of 'little people', purchased at shops, shows and swapmeets over the years. I had never really studied them closely but I just stored them in boxes marked 'people'. Now, looking at them, and trying to select suitable ones for the layout, I find I am very disappointed. Their poses and demeanour, in many cases, is awful.

I do not like 'action' poses such as walking, running, climbing stairs, waving hands or flags, levering objects, etc. I prefer people standing in certain positions, either on their own (waiting for a train) or 'talking' to another one or two people in a small group. One has to search really hard to find 4mm/ft figures which fit my requirements as about 60% or more show some form of 'movement' as outlined. This applies to the well known ranges of plastic figures, whether purchased unpainted or painted. Do modellers really want their passengers and workers running, walking, waving, etc.? Should not the bulk of figures be stationary with just a few doing something.

It is such a shame, because, for example, one range of plastic figures, which has been around for many years and is now marketed by a company in Wales, is in some ways excellent. Their faces, clothing and general detail, even when looked at with a magnifying glass, are superb examples, but their poses are, in my view, stupid, or at the least odd. I will admit I have not purchased any of the well known HO figures, but looking at the make-up of packets of these on the web, they seem also be have a high proportion of figures 'doing something', even when classed as "standing passengers".

The other problem, chaps, is that there is a shortage of women! Also, children used to travel on trains and there are not many of those about, either. Am I being unreasonable? Can anyone point me to a source of good figures who are not performing the 100 metre race, or waving to invisible friends? Can we have some more lady passengers as well, children also?

David Chappell

I recently had an Australian resident friend call in to see me during his 90 'tax free' days over here and we tried his L&Y 0-6-0T 'Rapid' shunter on my 0 gauge circuit in the garage. At the time, there was evidence of some verdigris on the track, despite good Cornish weather and recent cleaning.

In answer to a query how he dealt with such problems in northern Queensland, he remarked, as an engineer, that a few drops of liquid graphite fed onto the track in several places (he has a quite extensive layout in his garage) which is picked up and spread by the locomotive wheels and seems to overcome the problem. He added, "My biggest problem is a continual battle with Termite ants".

One cannot add more!

Stuart Morris

With regard to the posting from Dick Flower this week. I spoke with Graham Hubbard at a show a while ago and was told that, because of technical problems with flush glazing, these coaches would not be released. I suspect they felt the manufacturing slot in China could be used more profitably with a new product. It is, after all, a commercial decision and whilst new Thompsons would delight me, Bachmann remaining a viable producer in the market place suits me even better.

Derek Betts

-----

At one point the Rails of Sheffield website actually listed retooled Thompsons as a future release. I would buy a rake or two if the NEM coupling boxes were done to the proper NEM specification. Four years of moaning about this (I am not alone but expect all kinds of "get a life" responses) have done very little good.

The Hornby Gresleys seem to be just about the only ready-to-run coaches on which one can simply plug in the Roco/Fleischmann/Marklin close coupler and get proper close coupling. With Hornby Pullmans you have to use one normal Roco and one long one (the adjustable height type), Bachmann Mk1s need both long ones but the Hornby Staniers are hopeless, even with the Keen extended corridor connections, because the buffers lock up.

Just what is the problem with this. I imagine Bachmann Liliput are even made in the same factory and they are perfect. All the TRIX/Marklin/Fleischmann/Roco fit together perfectly, buffer to buffer, corridors touching. They never derail or lock and these manufacturers have been doing this since the early 1990s.

It would be most interesting to have an answer from Hornby and Bachmann as to why this issue has never been taken seriously.

Les Herbert

I must reply to Peter Bedding’s statement about Mk1 coaches in 'Blood & Custard' livery on the SR were confined to Waterloo – Southampton duties. Mk1 4-coach sets 866, 867, 877, 878, 879, 881 to 891 (that’s a total of 64 coaches) were all allocated to Waterloo – Plymouth and Portsmouth – Plymouth workings from their delivery in 1952 right through to the mid 1960s. These sets all consisted of a BSK, CK, SK and BCK and would have been delivered new in 'Blood & Custard' livery. There is plenty of photographic evidence to show some of these coaches, indeed complete sets, still carrying 'Blood & Custard' livery in 1961 and less so in 1962.

Therefore, Peter, your statement that Mk1 coaches in this livery were "rare and short lived on West of England services" does not hold water and I still suggest it’s another option for Bachmann to consider.

Dick Flower

By Brian Macdermott

Sunday 13 May: Travel Channel, 13.00-14.00, Swiss Railway Journeys.

The swapmeet is tomorrow (Saturday) at The Labour Hall, Collingwood Road, Witham, Essex and will be open 10am to 3pm.

Collingwood Road links Maldon Road and Braintree Road to form part of the B1018 through Witham. The Labour Hall backs onto the railway line near the road overbridge at Witham Station.

For those arriving by train (please check if there is any enginnering work is planned) turn left out of the station and walk to the road junction. Cross the road and turn left over the railway bridge following the pavement round to the right. The Labour Hall is on the right a few yards along Collingwood Road.

Recent correspondence brought back an ancient memory. In the summer of 1949, the family was holidaying at Kilmun on the Holy Loch. Out in the Clyde estuary many ships lay at anchor, awaiting scrapping. One day, while out fishing in my borrowed rowing boat, I watched an apparent apparition between me and the anchored ships. A large boat, or small ship, was speeding across the water in a welter of spray and noise, powered by a jet engine!

I too was confused about the names of the Pendolino coaches when Hornby listed them in January. I went to Euston to take photos of both sides of all of the coaches to check. Starting from the first-class end of the nine-coach train, Hornby has so far released numbers 1, 3, 4 and 9 in the boxed sets/packs. Each has a different body. These are the driving motor first, pantograph first, motor first and driving motor standard coaches respectively. There are five more separate coaches to consider:

The standard class pantograph car would be R4271 and has nine windows on one side and eight on the other. This would be coach 7. The trailer standard class coach 5 would be R4272. It has a similar body to coach 4 but is turned around the opposite way. It has its eight windows directly opposite one-another and a blank section on both sides towards the same end of the coach.

The motor first coach 2 would be R4273, and the motor second coaches 6 and 8 would be R4274A and R4274B. The real coaches have a different body from coaches 4 and 5 in that the blank section is on the right hand side when viewed from both sides. Hence only seven of the eight windows on each side are directly opposite one-another. It is not clear to me from illustrations of one side only whether Hornby will use a different body for these.

Robert Stevens

I read with interest that comment from Dick Flower, about Thompson coaches being upgraded. I'd very much like to see them do it, but I think it was cancelled and Bachmann, in preference, chose to model the Mk1 Pullmans.

On the subject of Bachmann coaches, it would be great if they were to supplement the excellent Mk1 range with a BSO, sleeper and kitchen buffet. The current restaurant car is a 'restaurant unclassified'. They are sure to be good sellers.

I live in hope.

I always appreciate the magazine.

David West

Reader Dick Flower commented on the delivery of new Mk1 coaches, to the Southern Region, in 'Blood & Custard' livery. Whilst I should not wish to imply any expertise on my part on this topic, my armchair research with illustrated books suggest that most 'Blood & Custard' liveried stock was confined to the Waterloo-Southampton duties. They appear to have been a rare, short-lived and possibly unwelcome minority on the West of England duties.

Retooled Bachmann Bulleid coaches, in malachite, would be as welcome to this modeller as they may have been in real life.

Peter Bedding

-----

I have to agree with Dick Flower that the release of Mk1 crimson and cream Mk1s with BR(S) running numbers would be welcomed, especially with all the locos that are now available for this region. I also hope that Hornby will release their Maunsell coaches in this livery in 2008.

Bachmann's range of Mk1s is very large and wonder if they would consider releasing them without running numbers allowing us to mix and match regions like the above and BR(W) maroon etc., this could also simplify the blue and grey range for them.

Ian Taylor

A German evening newspaper has reported that negotiations to save the insolvent German G scale model railway manufacturer, Lehmann-Gross-Bahn (LGB), appear to have broken down with the offer by the Nürnberger enterpreneur Hans Rudolf Wöhrl not being accepted.

The insolvency manager Steffen Goede reported on Friday evening that the offer of 7,5M, on Wednesday from Wöhrl's management company 'Intro', for the take-over of Nürnberg's LGB differs "in regards to the purchase price as well as other significant conditions to such a degree from the arrived at 'line of compromise', that an agreement on this basis is not anticipated". Everyone at the meeting at the Ministry of Economics in Munich was moving towards the 'line of compromise', with an agreement described previously as being "within reach".

Wöhrl is strongly contesting that there was ever such a compromise. He said, "That wasn't a mutually agreed to compromise, but rather a demand from the lender banks, to which we never agreed". He added that the renewed offer of May 2nd took account of the bank's demands and he resolutely denied the suggestion that he is responsible for a collapse of the talks. "We submitted several offers prior to that to the banks, without any of them being accepted," he added.

Regardless of who is responsible for the situation, the ones to suffer will most likely be the 130 LGB employees. While the Wöhrl solution would have secured their jobs in Nürnberg, the last remaining contestant in this race is Märklin, now owned by British based Kingsbridge, and according to reports Märklin plans to cut the number of jobs to a minimum and to discontinue production in Nürnberg.

This is this coming weekend at the Leisure Centre, Princes Way, Bletchley, Bedfordshire. The opening time is 10.30am both days with the event closing at 6pm on Saturday and 5pm on Sunday. The entry price is £6 or £4 to EMGS members.

By Brian Macdermott

Just for the record, Derek Lawrence sadly died about three years ago after an innocent fall in the street. Larry Goddard did indeed perform most of the painting for Derek and superb models there were. Ian Willets did a lot of the building work for Derek and, just after Derek died, Ian decided to go into coach building full time under the name Willets Scale Models. Larry still does all the painting although Larry has now decided to go into semi-retirement.

I am fortunate enough to have numerous coaches built for me by Ian, all painted by Larry, and I can’t praise them enough. Superb quality with excellent detail. Despite the increase in quality of ready-to-run coaches, there are still many coach types not available. Of course there is a price to pay for such quality but I look upon them as an investment as well. Ian will build in 4mm using sides or full kits from Comet, Phoenix, 247 Developments etc. and also builds increasingly in 7mm. It is possible that he may be able to build coaches for which kits are currently not available.

Dick Flower

I have two ViTrains Class 37s: 'Sir Murray Morrison' in Mainline livery and 'Glendarroch' in Railfreight livery. Both models suffered from broken horns and worryingly loose front noses but overall these are brilliant models.

Immediately after purchase from D&F Models, with a supply of spare air horns, the two tractors got detailed up, weathered, noses securely glued and slightly modified and they knock spots off the previous Bachmann Class 37/4s. The ViTrains 'Sir Murray Morrison' looks so much better than Bachmann's 'Bullidae' in the same livery and is a much better model.

One point I feel I should make is that, having seen the many pictures of Bachmann's forthcoming and 'third time lucky' 37/4 from various places, it is disappointing that Bachmann have chosen to retain the same bufferbeam detailing. In other words the severe lack of it, the massive plastic representation of the screw coupling, those horrible clumsy bogie mounted snowploughs and NEM sockets. All of this combines to impede any kind of bufferbeam detailing.

At least with the Vi Trains Class 37 I didn't need any other parts other than the ones supplied to make a fully detailed Class 37/4. It is just a shame there are no locating holes for the aerials and the windscreen wipers!

My current Bachmann Class 37/4s, to achieve the proper look of a 37/4, needed new Heljan Class 47 snowploughs, cast air pipes, Craftsman ETH sockets and other bits and pieces. These took several hours and a few pounds to get the right look.

The ViTrains 37/4 has a few minor errors in body shape and the current construction quality is a bit 'iffy' but for £50 it is an absolute bargain! I eagerly look forward to different liveries and new locomotives from the company. However I am more eager to see the Bachmann model and compare them in appearance and on the track. Which one will be the best?

Incidentally, Hornby, thanks for the rerun of the ScotRail Caledonian Sleeper Sleeper Mk3s which have swelled my current stud of them with the new run. But, where are the Mk2 accompanying coaches? (Sorry I couldn't resist that one!)

Steven Ho

-----

I agree with Don Gilham that the S15 had a longer working life than the N15 and, like Don, I would like to see one modelled.

When I worked in a model railway shop, it was a fact that named locomotives outsold all others, especially when it came to what I loosely term as non-modellers.

I suspect named locomotives also open a larger market for Hornby especially in the form of train packs/sets which also appeal to the mail order companies and this I suspect allows them to release locos that appeal more to the modeller - so it has to be a balance.

Ian Taylor

Unsurprisingly, there was general agreement amongst those of us who offered suggestions, mechanical or chemical, for fishplate (rail joiner) cleaning. But, not for the first time, Anthony New seems to let his version of science defeat logic and practical experience.

Anthony objects to use of WD-40 and similar fluids ‘because they are either non-conductive themselves or convert the rust into something non-conductive’, yet he advocates use of Vaseline which has broadly similar properties (in this context) and is far more viscous! Yes, such lubricants/inhibitors are usually non-conductive (which is why I advocated Electrolube) but the thin protective coating they provide inhibits corrosion and, on being displaced by the friction of assembly, exposes a cleaner and more conductive surface. (Correspondence in another magazine about conductivity through lubricated axle bearings makes the same point: it is the relative slop and roughness of the bearing surfaces in our models that allows electrical contact to be maintained despite the intervening lubricant. And, for that reason, cleaning with emery paper or similar abrasive does work; the ‘pits’ it produces can hold an inhibitor rather than moisture or dirt.)

As to the lubricant chemically ‘converting the rust’, if this happens at all (and I am doubtful) it will be nothing more than at the microscopically thin interface with the metal, which is similarly ruptured or displaced on assembly. Yet, Anthony recommends Jenolite (or a similar phosphoric acid solution), which most certainly converts surface rust into ferric phosphate. The latter is an excellent inhibitor against further corrosion (and therefore a good base for painting, the main use for such products) but is not in itself a very good conductor of electricity and I am doubtful that it is so easily removed by the scraping action on assembly.

So, whilst Anthony’s methods are not ‘wrong’, my view is that they work despite his explanations, not because of them. And, as for the use of a retractable glass fibre eraser (as advocated by Jonathan Perkins), this will certainly work (if all fibre remains are blown out afterwards) but the refills are not exactly cheap and will last only a short time.

Nick Stanbury

Lots of people seem to have been having trouble with poor pulling power on new locomotives and, as I think this is a result of low friction rather than low adhesive weight, I've been wondering what it is possible to do to improve things.

Now, I'm not an expert in tribology so, if any readers are and can correct my undoubted errors, I'd be pleased to hear from them or, indeed, anyone else with relevant comments or observations.

My understanding is that, in general, the coefficient of friction between two metallic surfaces depends mostly on the surface roughness, oxidation and lubrication. It is comparatively independent of the metal actually used, at any rate for the range of metals likely to be used in this application. For model loco wheels, the coefficient of friction is probably also very much smaller than the ideal maximum values you can read in engineering tables and (from my home tests) may be 0.1 (10%) or lower.

My guess is that cleaning the rails and wheels reduces the lubrication and this should increase friction slightly. Also, that using an abrasive such as a track rubber will reduce the thickness of the oxidation layer on the rails and also increase friction.

But what about the wheels?

I'm on shakier ground here, but it seems to me that the wheels of most new locos probably leave the manufacturing process with a very smooth finish and therefore have an inherently low friction coefficient. I suspect they may also come with some kind of lubricant on them, either as a release agent from a casting process, a machining lubricant or as a protection film for transit and storage. If this is the case, running the loco off the track while cleaning the wheels with a degreasing liquid might improve things.

I've tried this on a new Hornby loco with some success and I have also noticed some improvement after a lot of running-in. However, the coefficient of friction on the same rails is clearly still about a half to a third of the value on my oldest and very worn Tri-ang Hornby locos. I thought originally that this was a result of the steel used but I suspect it is probably more to do with surface roughness. It is noticeable that, on some old locos, the tractive effort increases with the rate of slip rather than reduces as theory says it should do. These will pull surprising loads while slipping. The wheels of these old locos are certainly less smooth than new locos.

If the surface finish is the key, then perhaps roughening up the wheel surface will improve friction. I have tried this on a new Hornby loco with emery paper and it did make another small improvement. However, I'm not sure that emery paper is necessarily the best solution and there's the question of debris getting into the works. In theory, something like scoring with a knife should be better as it produces raised peaks, rather than sanding which tends to cut the peaks off - if there are any there to start with. I did wonder about using something like a knurling tool but I suspect the forces necessary would be too great. But perhaps running around the track, over rail joints and point blades automatically does something similar. Has anyone noticed a great improvement in pulling power after very long periods of running? Perhaps we should have a 'running-in' track with deliberately roughened surfaces?

Or perhaps chemical etching might work?

Any ideas?

Anthony New

I believe the densest known material is the metallic element Osmium, with Iridium pretty close. Osmiroid pens were so called because they used a coating of Os-Ir alloy on the tips of the nibs (not a lot of people know that). Anthony could start a factory in Newcastle to recycle nib tips into ultra-dense weights, the North-East Weight (N.E.W.)

Once Anthony has had this information for a day or two, we can say that New knew a new New N.E.W. Newcastle business opportunity.

Sorry!

Chris Patrick

In the sixty years that have passed between the frantic dash of clockwork 0 gauge and the near eclipsing of this standard by 00, I have hardly given a thought to model trains. So, the recent purchase of a DCC set-up for my grandchildren has been a pleasurable - even revelatory - experience. Measured, automatic acceleration - wonderful!

Now for some niggles.

The set I purchased is the Hornby DCC R1075 mixed goods. The 'Jinty' loco has given some problems.

The first thing I noticed was that it would occasionally stop on the short insulated strip on the points and I wondered why this was so as there are contact wipers on both front and rear wheels, one set of which, at least, should always have had a feed from the track. A little further investigation showed that one of the wipers was in fact tracking along the peripheral junction between the metal tyre and the plastic inner core of the wheel rather than wholly on the metal - hence the intermittent contact. Easily rectified by a slight bending of the copper arm.

A quality control issue here, Hornby!

This led me to a second observation and to a problem I have yet to address. It relates to the sprung rear set of wheels.

I see this sprung arrangement as having two purposes: by allowing some rotational 'wiggle' torsional bending in the track can be taken care of and, similarly, the sprung axle, by always keeping the front and rear wheels of the Jinty in contact with the track, longitudinal track distortion is similarly accommodated. But for this sprung arrangement to function properly (or should I say fully), the spring must be capable of being compressed by the dead weight of the loco to such an extent that allows the centre axle wheels to come into contact with the track. But they do not. The weight of the loco does not cause any compression of the spring whatever; (a further force of 75g applied above the sprung axle line is needed to fully compress the spring). The consequence of this is that the centre, sic., traction wheels, (fitted with rubber inserts), never touch the track and the loco thereby fails to reach its tractive potential.

Come on Mr Hornby, a great set but a little attention to functional detail please.

John Melvin

A few weeks ago, Pat made a comment to the effect that as DCC replaces analogue as the first choice for model railway operation, the resale value of existing DC locomotives will fall, perhaps significantly. Of course he was right, and having dwelt on this point ever since, I wonder if there are not other impacts DCC will have on not just DC models but the whole second-hand market?

You are at a local exhibition and you visit the second-hand stalls. When we had only DC, the only risk you were taking in purchasing was the running qualities of the model. I suppose most dealers would allow you the option of testing it on one of the exhibitor's layouts if you were really concerned about this. I have bought second-hand European locos at exhibitions and have never had any problems with testing them on exhibitors layouts - in fact the layout operators are usually quite interested to see a different model operating.

But now the issues are much more complex, when you make that purchase, and require a lot more product knowledge on the part of the seller and trust in the seller on your part. Is the model DC or DCC? If it is DCC what type of chip is fitted? Was the chip factory fitted or fitted professionally by an authorised dealer, or by a knowledgeable modeller experienced in fitting chips? On the other hand, was it fitted by a novice who really wasn't sure of what they were doing and didn't take the best options? Does the model you are buying have sound (understandably, some modellers who have started using DCC with sound now won't consider any model without sound)? Will the quality and features of the chip enable it to run to the standards of your other locos (e.g. how many functions does it have?). If you have DC and you are told the model you are considering is DCC - will it run on your control system without the dire consequences that at least one contributor to this magazine has recently suffered - through no fault of the manufacturer but simply because the chip from one maker was understandably not designed for a specific product of another manufacturer when used on DC?

None of these issues are 'scare tactics' - I am pro DCC even though I can't afford the conversion of all my stock. These are simply genuine new issues in buying a second-hand locomotive that were not there before, but will become more and more relevant as more DCC fitted locos come onto the second-hand market, as they inevitably will.

These, of course, are not the only issues. If you bought a second-hand Hornby 'King' in DC it would be a pretty fair bet that it would have a Hornby motor in it - the only question you might need to know is how old the motor is and, with the answer to that, plus the general condition of the model and perhaps the rarity on the market of this particular version, you would have the components to determine what you think is a fair price. But, with DCC it's different. How do you know what a fair price is unless you are absolutely certain what type of decoder is fitted and accordingly the value of such?

If you are selling second-hand locos there is much you can take from this. Have as much detail for the purchaser as possible. If you are selling a loco with a factory fitted chip, then it is more important than ever to keep the box, taking away any uncertainty on the buyer's part and probably giving you an advantage over other sellers simply because of this.

If you are buying second-hand models, then it may be preferable to consider buying only from your regular model shop, who will know the model they are selling and to whom you can always take it back to for inspection if you have any unexpected problems. If you are going to buy at exhibitions and fairs, then there is probably more need on your part to test the seller's knowledge of the product, especially avoiding sellers who can't even identify the locomotive class or who have no knowledge of the approximate production period of the model, or who look puzzled when you start bringing up the names of the various manufacturers of chips. In the end of course it's up to you - it's just that there are now seemingly numerous more possibilities in making an unsatisfactory purchase and I think that it is important to at least draw this to the attention of other modellers.

Hornby have released another batch of models which include:

R2619 BR Britannia Class 70037 'Hereward the Wake'

R2618 BR Britannia Class 70045 'Lord Rowallan'

R2582 BR Class N15 30803 'Sir Harry Le Fise Lake'

R2658 LMS Jinty 3F 0-6-0T '7412'

R2657 BR Jinty 3F 0-6-0T '47427'

R4293A BR Suburban B 'W6534W'

R4293B BR Suburban B 'W6535W'

R4283A ScotRail Caledonian Sleeper '10529'

R6364 CCT BR lined maroon 'E94596'

R6319A 14T tank Esso '3065'

R6307A LNER brake van '271943'

The next model train sale at The Benn Hall, Rugby, is next Saturday 12th May, at 10.30am. Viewing will be on Friday between 5pm and 7pm and on Saturday from 8am until 10.30am.

Steve Mann mentions the latest Harry Potter best-sellers but here are some of the titles that did not quite make it to print...

Harry Potter and the Fifty Diesels - Harry is set the baffling task of explaining to the class how fifty models of a diesel were produced and yet the shade of blue was still not right at the end.

Harry Potter and the Missing Driver - Harry and his chums are shocked to find that there is no driver on the Hogwarts Express. Hagrid explains that this is normal and the trains still work just as well!

Harry Potter and the Hidden Birds - Harry breaks into a chamber under the school only to find lots of emus hidden away. Apparently Malfaw has hidden them away so that nobody else can sell them.

Harry Potter and the Annual Wish List - Professor Dumbledore asks all the pupils to nominate their top ten spells and the winners will get to make them come true. Sadly some of the spells get so few votes that nobody notices just how good they could have been.

Harry Potter and the Evil Genius - Harry is despatched south to the Gate of Mar where a powerful muggle has assumed ever greater powers and rules over other muggles by the power of his decisions. Harry must summon all his magical powers to confront him and find out the way to select a single muggle and why some become the elite control muggles. Is this the end for Harry or will the mystery man from Bach open up an underground tunnel for Harry to escape down?

All names and places are of course fictional and no comparison with anyone alive should be inferred!!

Back to the real world now, if I can find it.

Edwin Chappell

I have used Railzip with success but, if you are using any locos fitted with traction tyres, do not run them for at least a week afterwards. While the Railzip lubricant is on the rails, they will not pull their own weight.

With reference my earlier submission regarding traction on steam locos, has anybody actually improved the traction performance on the King Arthur. I have some ideas but was wondering if anyone has achieved or tried something.

John Jeffery

Recent discussion about wobbling locos on uneven track and the effect of piston thrust puts me in mind of another rather amusing phenomena that I recently experienced in Austria. It was on the Schafberg rack railway that rises above St Wolfgang adjacent to the Wolfgangsee near Salzburg.

This railway employs three generations of traction. Firstly the oldest and most popular, the original coal fired steam rack engines, one of which pushes a single carriage up the mountain once a day. Then the next generation is represented by a rather more modern but less popular diesel railcar. Finally, they have the very new oil fired steam engines which handle the bulk of the traffic. These latter push two carriages, twice as quickly up the mountain as the original locos and require a crew of one rather than two. They are also much cleaner and so they beat the old locos hollow on four counts.

But on the day I travelled, the new loco had a drawback. It employs a system of airbraking whereby air is drawn into the cylinders, is compressed and forced out through a restriction. Whether deliberately or due to a fault, I know not, but the braking effect was cyclic. Imagine the astonished and then highly amused (or embarrassed) looks on the faces of my fellow passengers at the strange motion of the train as the uneven braking effect took hold. Our bellies were reciprocating back and forth in time with the pistons of the locomotive and this continued for a full 40 minutes, all the way down to the bottom of the line. Those with the biggest bellies had the biggest wobble. We all just sat there clutching our waistlines and trying our best not to perfume the carriage.

Louis Heath

While I think the idea of Bachmann's eras is sound and helpful to newcomers to the hobby, I was amused to see the current advert for the forthcoming 00 Class 37/4 locos. 37410 carries large logo blue livery and has been placed in era 7 by Bachmann, which the website says is 'Era / Period 7 1971-1982 - British Rail Corporate Blue Post -TOPS'. Now while the loco looks very nice in it's blue livery, it didn't emerge like that from Crewe Works until 1986/7 which puts it slap bang in the middle of era 8 - 'Sectorisation'. I think a little more research may be required by our friends at Bachmann!

Martin Cowgill

In a part of Wikipedia, which does not seem to have been assaulted by humorists yet, the consist of the Virgin Pendolino is stated to be:

1. DMRFO: driving motor: first class open with restaurant;

2. MFOD: intermediate motor: first class open (with disabled seating);

3. PTFO: intermediate trailer with pantograph: first class open;

4. MFO: intermediate motor: first class open;

5. TSO: intermediate trailer: standard class open;

6. MSO: intermediate motor: standard class open (with disabled seating);

7. PTSRMB: intermediate trailer with pantograph: standard class with shop/buffet;

8. MSO: intermediate motor: standard class open (with disabled seating);

9. DMSO: driving motor: standard class open.

That agrees with page 9 of the builder’s brochure: http://www.transport.alstom.com/_eLibrary/brochure/upload_92578.pdf

The 2007 Hornby catalogue is rather vague about which vehicles are on offer but it seems to be (the quotes are the descriptions of the extra coaches from the catalogue):

1. DMRFO: in the train packs (R2467X and R2467);

2. MFOD: extra coach "R4273 PENDOLINO 1ST CLASS OPEN COACH";

3. PTFO: in the train packs (an alternative extra coach with working pantograph is "R4271 PENDOLINO 1ST CLASS OPEN COACH (Working pantograph)";

4. MFO: in the train packs;

5. TSO: extra coach "4272 PENDOLINO TRAILER STANDARD OPEN COACH (TSO)";

6. MSO: extra coach "R4274A/B PENDOLINO STANDARD OPEN COACH";

7. PTSRMB: missing from Hornby’s line-up;

8. MSO: the other extra coach of the pair "R4274A/B PENDOLINO STANDARD OPEN COACH";

9. DMSO: in the train packs.

Some retailers (e.g. Hatton’s and Antics) indicate that the coach in the train packs isn’t 3 but the missing 7 (which would be sensible as it would enable an accurate consist to be made up) but other retailers follow the Hornby catalogue.

Am I missing something? Can anyone shed any light?

Colin Hewitt

Is my memory playing tricks with me? Didn’t Bachmann announce about three years ago that they planned to retool their Thompson coaches? If so, are there still plans to do so and, if so, what about retooling the Bulleids as well? A mixed rake of Maunsells and Bulleids were common in BR days and would look good in model form now that Hornby are producing what look like excellent models of the Maunsells.

I also suspect that mixed rakes of Maunsells, Bulleids and Mk1s were not uncommon, particularly on trains to Devon and Cornwall - although the Mk1s would have probably have been more likely in 'Blood & Custard' livery.

That raises another opportunity for Barwell. Mk1s in 'Blood & Custard' with Southern Region running numbers. The BR(S) took delivery of a lot of Mk1s in the mid fifties before use of BR Stock Green was sanctioned and many retained this livery into the sixties.

Dick Flower

Am I alone or are there others out there who, like me, expectantly look through the Knightwing white metal accessories range at their model shop, or exhibition traders stand, and find something they can use on their model railway. But then, reality kicks in. No instructions, no illustration of what the finished product looks like, just a plastic pack of abstract white metal bits. So no purchase.

Am I alone? Is it me?

Alisdair Macdonald

Can anyone tell me, or direct me to where I can find, all the different Castle Class locos that were made by Airfix before Hornby bought them? Also, I recently bought a weathered version on eBay and was told it was bought that way new. It is obviously not factory weathered, but I was wondering if there was a company that weathered them for retail sales?

Go to www.factorydirecttrains.com and then click on the Union Pacific SD40. The feature list is unbelievable for the price. Broadway locos are manufactured, like most other company’s products, in the Far East. So, if they can do it, why can’t our friends in Margate and Barwell give it some thought. Many modellers may think they have to go DCC to experience the sound factor but it seems that technology has developed to the point that is not necessary.

I’ve thought it strange that the Bachmann DCC and sound fitted products will not generate any sound when operated in DC mode, whereas all American sound fitted locos still provide around 90% of the sound features when in DC mode. Now you can get 100% sound features without the cost of going DCC. Despite all of them using the Far East for manufacturing their products, the US companies seem years ahead of what we are being offered over here, and usually at a much lower price.

Why is this?

I have had a bit of a rest from all things railway the last few months; sometimes there are more important things to worry about! However, this weekend I spent the day at the celebration of Didcot railway shed. My brother served his apprenticeship there as a fitter and my wife enjoys most things railway so we went for the day.

As modellers we take our inspiration from '12" to a foot', whatever era we enjoy. Growing up on the Western Region, naturally I like and model GWR/BR. It was good to see so many GWR locos in steam and it was also nice to see the Beattie tank and the Class O2 in attendance. Sadly, the advertised Lord Nelson did not materialise on Saturday.

The weather turned good, we ate a hearty picnic and set off to see the sites. Being a reunion of the folk who worked at Didcot, my brother was soon chatting to all his old mates and catching up with the news. However, he is not into railways at all, model or prototype. Since he retired, he has not shown any interest in the preservation or current scene. But, once a railwayman always a railwayman and, on approaching an old pal who was working on the 'Flying Banana' railcar, they were soon deep in conversation about valves, transmission etc., in abbreviations and terms the likes of me would never understand. His knowledge was still very sharp, he readily identified a particular valve from a DMU and knew exactly what would be required for it to be used in the railcar. I was very impressed.

It transpires that the railcar had been a bad runner for a long time until it was discovered that, during a repair by BR, when a new gear box had been put in, no one had checked the ratios of the gearbox. The railcar had been running with one engine having a high ratio box and the other having a low ratio box! When rectified, the railcar became a good runner.

One of the frustrations of Didcot is that it only has a short run of track and seeing Castles and Kings flexing their muscles only to be brought to a halt by the end of the line always irks. 'Earl Bathurst' was producing some superb feats of acceleration in an effort to upstage its big brother 'King Edward II'. The O2 and 'City of Truro' made and unlikely double header but, when accelerating together, their individual distinctive 'barks' made a pleasing sound.

Currently under construction or refurbishment are three locomotives of real significance. There is the all new 'Saint' 'Lady of Legend' being constructed from a 'Hall' donor. This will be a magnificent loco to see in steam when finished. Next is a 'County' 1014 which includes a donated 8F boiler. Finally, 'Pendennis Castle' is being overhauled. It will be wonderful to see these (hopefully) running on the main line in the future.

There were the usual attractions of the broad gauge 'Fire Fly', the carriage works and a new attraction - namely the 'Science' area which is aimed at young children and schools. This is a superb new innovation which will draw in young people to the world of railways.

Finally, I purchased a new book 'The Didcot Story' which documents the start of the preservation group 40 years ago, right up to February this year. It is a thoroughly good book with excellent photos and a well set out chronology. Anyone who is remotely interested in preservation (whatever region) will find this book fascinating.

Didcot and the GWR has been my inspiration for many years and a day like this has fuelled my fires again. Just leafing through my books, I have photos of GWR, LMS and SR locomotives, all working to or through Didcot. So, I can quite literally have a field day with my layout in terms of what I run. And, when Hornby or Bachmann produce a T9, I can run one of those as I have photographic evidence of one resting by the Provender stores, having brought a train up from Newbury.

Preserved railways like Didcot give us modellers a glimpse into the past and present, be it steam, diesel or modern traction, and inspire us to produce our own snapshots of railways. So, if your enthusiasm is waning or you loose site of why you model, go and enjoy a day at a railway society. It is highly recommended for getting the juices flowing again - except for my brother who could not see what all the fuss was about Bah! humbug!

Andrew Carter

Re David Jenkinsons' request for seated figures, these are available from Gaugemaster, amongst others. A small set, rather than 120, would be ‘Seated passengers for bus and train’ containing 36 unpainted figures. I am not sure of the price but check with www.gaugemaster.co.uk

I hope this helps

Peter Leadley

I won't argue with Bill Francis but there is one inaccuracy in his post.

There is no need to either remove a soundchip or wipe it's memory. One can quite easily re-programme a soundchip just by loading a new project over the old one. There is one exception in that the Digitrax sound-only decoder is capable of being loaded and played without being detached from the computer that is loading it. It is currently unique in that respect. All others require to be run round a track after programming - on a dedicated track. This is time consuming. ESU have recently announced a purpose-built decoder tester, including a motor and speaker. It still doesn't change the fact that it all sounds different in the loco after 'install'.

As to reverb, I have yet to get a sound chip to take such a modified file. In my experience, the sound editing programme uses a special, separate file for storing the data needed for the effect which the sound chip ignores. Again, from experience, it is imperative to obtain a sound file which sounds just right and confine editing to chopping and saving for each sound slot. Much else is lost in the downgrade from CD quality to 11KHz 8bit. The bass is lost in the small speaker but is still acceptably there if enormous care is taken with speaker enclosure and 'install'.

I still maintain that any form of static layout sound, that is not directly related to the position and size of the loco, is not going to sound right enough to justify the expense and difficulty.

I absolutely and totally agree about the Steamsounds CDs. I have one and when I play it through headphones, I go all misty eyed. Makes you forget to listen for that vital chuff sequence that will blow you away once in the chip.

David White

Production samples of a number of Graham Farish models have arrived. The main production has now left China by sea and should be in the shops next month. These include:

371-475A HST 3-car set Midland Mainline (new livery). The motorised power car is '43056', the Mk3 TSO is '42112' and the non-motorised power car is '43178'.

373-628 31T OBA with high ends in EWS livery and numbered '110636'.

373-776 45t TTA Monobloc tank in Esso grey livery and numbered '57575'.

374-379 Mk3 trailer buffet first (TRFB) in InterCity Swallow livery and numbered '40708'.

By Brian Macdermott

Jonathan Perkins

How sad that your correspondent Alan Fryer only wants to establish the monetary value of his collection of coaches. Of course, they are worth what people will pay, which will be a lot for the Larry Goddard example and much less for the others. I spend a lot of time acquiring (mostly unbuilt) GWR kit coaches and bits to put together as this is where I have the greatest enjoyment of railway modelling. They cost too much on eBay, and are often bargains at model railway shows, but then, sometimes that rule is reversed. An unbuilt kit is almost always worth more than a poorly painted one, let alone one which has been badly soldered.

If the three '70 footers' are BSL then they will be South Wales stock, still available from Phoenix. If the Goddard one is not a Concertina or a Dreadnought, and is different, then it is likely to be a Toplight of some description. The others could be anything, but the real 5906 (without my books to hand) sounds like it should be a diagram C67 all third. It should have four doors on the corridor side, eight on the other, and be mounted on 9' bogies and have flat ends. Anyway, have a look at the photos on the Comet models site to compare your BSL '70 footers' with theirs.

Thanks for an excellent morning read,

Paul Dryden

-----

'Goddard and Lawrence' - just like that!! Serendipity indeed, wow! These are two of the finest 4mm coach modellers known, short of Edward Exley.

Lawrence, I believe, has died fairly recently, but Larrie Goddard is still going strong in North Wales, as far as I know and ought to be able to throw a little light on the items.

Potentially these are very valuable, obviously depending on their condition.

Stuart Morris

-----

Without the necessary pictures it is quite difficult to pin down exactly what some of the coaches are. Surely 'D.Lawrence' is the famous detailed kit builder (D.C. Lawrence Scale Models comes to mind) 'L. Goddard' is surely Larry Goddard, scale model painter and railway photographer par excellence.

BSL coaches were sold by Hobbytime of West Wickham in the 70's. I think most of the range has reappeared under the branding of Pheonix Coach Kits of Notts, who have a website.

The whole batch of 10 coaches sounds very desirable, though...........

David Rollason

-----

The GWR had four series of 70' mainline gangwayed coaches - Dreadnoughts, Concertinas, Toplights and 'South Wales' stock. Alan Fryer is sure that his models aren't Dreadnoughts or Concertinas, so they must be either Toplights (identifiable by small extra windows above the main windows) or 'South Wales' stock (Early 1920s, smooth sides).

Howard Merrion

I think the reason there has been so little correspondence regarding the new ViTrains Class 37 is that it is basically an uninspiring and disappointing model. Most modellers have expressed that they will be waiting for the new and improved 37/4 from Bachmann due in the shops this summer. There have been reviews in Model Rail and Railway Modeler magazines and RMWeb.

Julian Saunders

-----

Nick Knibbs asks about ViTrains Class 37s. I have all four and can speak as somebody who "works" his locomotives.

They look good and run well which is important to me. The big winning point over say Bachmann will be the variety of liveries available over time.

My final conclusion: good value for money, lots of variety, nice sturdy box..........keep them coming.

Andrew Wiltshire

-----

I purchased the first release in 'Large Logo' livery, tried to match it with the blue 'Large Logo' Bachmann model which I have and it was not a patch on it!

The positives are: smooth running qualities at slow speeds under DC, nicely detailed, quality printing and paintwork (except bright yellow front end) and replacement horns arrived within a week.

Improvements required:loose nose end, running lights, internal packaging to prevent horn damage and coupling fit system to loco not standard.

I sold on my loco at a loss because I wasn't that impressed, I will wait to see if improvements are made before buying another loco.

Martin Jones

-----

In answer to Nick Knibbs question about ViTrains Class 37, I looked at one at my local model shop when I was visiting the UK. I think they are reasonably good but have one major flaw. If you dim the room lights then the light from the headlights leaches through the plastic on the front of the nose, making it look as though the nose is full of molten lava! The light leaches through the nose end much more so than the sides of the nose.

Otherwise, it ran well and the detailing was, in my opinion, no worse than the Bachmann model and slightly better than the Lima and Hornby models. I think once they correct this it will be a very reasonable model. However, for me it was enough to put me off buying one for the moment!

Simon Gibbs, New Hampshire USA

-----

In response to Nick Knibbs enquiry about these models, I have 37428 in 'works' as we speak and, in my opinion, it is by far the best model yet of a 37. It is powerful (drive to both bogies and with traction tyres), has plenty of weight and a superb tumblehome look. It also has a fitted and revolving roof fan with a fine grill, working directional lights, sprung buffers and one of the best add-on detailing packs to date. It will leave works as 37402 'Oor Wullie'. Please, Vi Trains, can we have an original 'as built' version?

Bob Hart

-----

So Nick Knibbs wants to know if anyone has bought one of the ViTrains Class 37. Well, actually, no I haven't - yet, but I have pre-ordered the Heritage green model due shortly.

I already have two Bachmann versions of this loco and, having only recently disposed of a Hornby 37, I had no intention of adding to my fleet. However, I have recently seen and held one of these new offerings, in the Regional Railways livery, and I was very impressed. It has substantial weight, having a different chassis and motor to the original Lima model. I am assured by my dealer that it runs better than the Bachmann loco and the finish is excellent.

I know some people have issues about the yellow panels on the nose ends and I have some sympathy with this point of view. Also, the presence of traction tyres gives some folk grief, but they are surely not apparent unless you turn the model upside down.

I know people will find fault with it, but I am not a 'nit picker' nor 'rivet counter' and I think that, at the price, the over-ridding impression of this addition to the market is value for money.

Tony Elliott

Looking at the excellent review of the N15s, I am left to wonder how many more sales Hornby would have achieved had they been S15s and not N15s. The S15s had a longer life-span and a much more general use throughout the Southern network. There were also as many variants, if not more. It seems a shame that manufacturers seem to go more for the named classes.

One day, perhaps?

Don Gilham

Does any body out there produce decals and insignia either in waterslide transfer form or Letraset-type rub-on style for American, CN and CP operated locos in G scale?

Bob Hart

I don't think Joe's Detail & Decal Remover is available in the UK (yet) but I'm sure one of the more enterprising retailers will make sure it is before too long - see:

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/350-100 where it says: "Dissolve Decals & Details But Leave The Paint - Gel formula cleanly fades or removes factory applied letters and numbers with minimal or no damage to underlying paint. Allows you to control what detail and how much is removed. Use on plastic, metal or wood. Not suitable for models that use the same ink/paint on both body and details."

David Catton

In response to Roy Bradley's search for good quality, British outline overhead catenary equipment, he will find nothing to better JV for all his structural needs and Sommerfeldt for all his contact wires, tensioning gear, insulators and all manner of detailing spares and parts - all of which I can obtain for him from one of the leading importers of this equipment (see my website: www.bobhart.fotopic.net for contact details).

Bob Hart

I think what Andy Parr is failing to take into consideration with sound chips is that you are never going to get the full range of sounds from the real thing as we currently have only 2 minutes of sound available on the chip and this only for the last 6 months. There is then the time it would take to record all the sounds he hears while driving a real 158 - plus editing. I think SWd would be lucky to get two projects a year on sale. As it is, I know there is great demand for more steam sound and I believe those waiting will soon be happy!

It would seem, at the moment, Andy is asking too much from sound. For me, my 158 is far more like the real thing than his or most others in the country today, as mine makes a noise, just like the real thing!

As for the sound on u-tube, the recordings are not great. They are done on a cheap compact camera, not really designed for capturing sound and motion. The idea behind the clips is that it allows those interested in sound chips to see what they may be getting. The horn sound is OK to me (I have 158s passing the bottom of my garden countless times a day). It is a fact, Andy will have to accept, that the 158 used for recording, sounds different form the ones he has driven. The same for the engine sounds.

Thanks for the tips on how the air release 'sounds' should be worked though, much appreciated and it will be implemented.

Still, sound will progress as the years, if not months, roll on and I am well aware that the what sounds great to me today will seem very basic in 1-3 years time.

Simon Evans