Dogmatix

Anyone know how reliable the Dapol online store is? As I said, I ordered a Terrier (to be sent to my son's address in the UK), they promptly took payment from my credit card, but have received no e-mail confirmation and more importantly, no Terrier has arrived.

Thanks. Ordered a lined Southern one.

I'm a bit late to the game on this, and Rails now have no sound versions available, only DCC-fitted and DCC-not-fitted versions, and as far as I can tell, no sound retro-fit kits. Has anyone retro-fitted a DCC-not-fitted Rails Terrier for sound, and if so, which DCC sound chip and speaker are recommendable? I see that the inteface is NEXT-18; there can't be too many decoders to choose from. I'm not even sure that there is a suitable ESU LokSound unit. The other problem, of course, is getting hold of suitable sound data, and getting this data onto the decoder. I have the ESU programmer, but that only works with ESU decoders.

I have seen a few Routemasters in Berlin and Hamburg (as well as the odd RT and Bristol Lodekka). Often, they are open-toppers or have had the roof lowered, because of the height restrictions you mention. Berlin is one of the few cities in drive-on-the-right countries which makes major use of double decker city buses; the usual height is 4m but there have been exceptions at 4.06m or even 4.12m, which is still low compared to the Routemaster's 4'6" (4.42m). Bridge heights are usually only posted if they are 4m or less, so drivers of full-height Routemasters here need special maps showing the height of all bridges.

I use Roco couplers on all my stock. Having experience with Roco and other brands' HO stock, I find that close coupling works very well and looks good. It has been around for some 40 years, but only relatively recently is it fitted to some UK OO scale items. The Bachmann MK1s were "early adopters", but of course, Bachmann got it wrong, because the pockets are too far back and a bit too high for NEM standards. They're also a bit loose. The slimline Roco coupling heads are available in three types: the original Roco ones, the slightly longer Hornby-branded ones, and the Roco height-adjustable ones (cat. no. 40287), which are similar in length to the Hornby ones. I have found that for the Bachmann Mk1 coaches, the Hornby type work well within a rake, and the Roco height-adjustable ones are good for the ends of a rake. For some other coaches, using a mixture of 'short' and 'long' couplers can work; you just have to take care when assembling a rake.

Comparison to a Tomica Routemaster (re-wheeled) which is quite close to HO.

HO meets OO Routemaster on tour to Berlin... ... Hong Kong... and Hamburg.

Sorry about the focus!

Brekina's 1:87 scale Routemaster buses are now available. Two models have been produced for general sale - a London Transport red version, and a Green Line green version. There will also be an open-top sightseeing version produced exclusively for a German model company. I have received my red and green versions. They both look fine, although a small gap is visible between the upper and lower deck moulds. Interestingly, there is also a slight, but prototypical, gap on the bonnet lid. The red one is on route 15 to Tower Hill - one of the last Routemaster routes. The green one, however, is wrong. It is a standard RM Routemaster - standard length, single headlights, open rear platform. It is finished in Green Line dark green with a light green cantrail, but no light green window trimming. As far as I am aware, Green Line did not operate standard Routemasters, only the coach versions RMC and RCL (although London Country Routemasters were sometimes running on Green Line routes). The registration on the Brekina Routemaster is 482 CLT, which belonged to RMC 1482. Brekina's Routemaster is numbered RMC 1432, but Routemaster 1432 was a standard RM, not an RMC, and was registered 432 CLT. How Brekina managed to mess this up I don't know. They'd have been better off making it a London Country RM. Possibly Brekina might later re-issue a red Routemaster with a different route, and a green London Country one. The sightseeing open-topper might also appear in different cities as souvenir models. However, I doubt if they will bother with the RML, RMC, RCL, RMA, RMF or the relatively recent ERM and RME rebuilds (the last two aren't even available in OO scale). I hope to add some pictures in the next days.

Just received "Cossack". I am a bit puzzled about one thing: I was somehow under the impression that Kernow's Warship was fitted with close coupling, i.e. the couplings extending on curves. Instead, I find that the NEM pocket is fitted to a simple pivot, and situated to far forward, resulting in large buffer gaps. Was it always thus on this model, or have Kernow changed the specs?

Anyone know if the latest incarnation of "Hogwarts Castle" has an NEM pocket on the tender, and if so, how it is mounted? I don't expect a full close-coupling kinematic mount on this model, but pivoted at least?

Any pictures from underneath?

I have checked with Dapol about how the NEM pocket is mounted. It will be mounted on a simple single-screw pivot on the chassis underside, in the same manner as their Class 22. This is not as good as on the Warship they make for Kernow, but much better than on their Class 73 (pocket moulded into bogie frame, completely unusable for close-couplers, and no room to fit a cam device).

Any word yet on how the NEM coupling pockets are attached - i.e. on close-coupling cams (excellent), on simple pivots (oh, well) or unmovably fixed to the frame (disaster)?

This was a very interesting, very well-made and quite well researched mini-series, with a bit of humour from James May. Just one thing (well, two): The impression was given that Hornby did the first RTR (ready-to-run) Terrier, and have always had a Terrier in their catalogue. This is, of course, not true. The first RTR Terriers appeared in the late 80's - not from Hornby, but from Dapol. Hornby bought the Terrier (together with a lot of other models) from Dapol in the 90's. It's about time that the Terrier was updated, and the joke is that it is again Hornby and Dapol (for Rails of Sheffield, in Sheffield) who are making them. But to suggest that the Terrier has always been a Horny mainstay is, as Bernard Woolley put it, a consignment of geriatric shoe manufacturers. Also, why did May mispronounce Dapol? The name comes from David and Pauline Boyle, and is pronounced 'day-pol'. I can understand the English being unable to pronounce the 'ch in 'Bachmann' properly, but 'dappol' is in the same league as 'pie-ko' for the German company Piko.

I was clearly insufficiently clear. When I talk of close coupling, I mean the sort of close coupling that has been standard on continental HO models for over thirty years. The system involve mounting NEM pockets on a cam system such that the pocket extends lengthways when pivoted to one side. The purpose of this is that wagons and coaches can be coupled buffer-to-buffer, corridor connection to corridor connection, and yet not lock buffers on the small-radius curves typically found on most model railways. For this system to work, the coupler heads, when coupled, must form a rigid, straight connection. Only such coupling heads can properly action the close-coupling cam. Roco, Fleischmann and others supply such heads, and Hornby supply a slightly longer version of the Roco one. Non-rigid couplers, such as hook-and-bar (tension lock) or Kadee buckeye couplers, cannot. Close coupling cams are now fitted to some OO models, but most modellers seem to ignore them, and use standard tension lock coupler, and put up with (or just not notice) the big gaps between wagons and coaches. It is possible to retro-fit close coupling cams, but can be tricky when space is limited. As it is on the outer ends of Bachmann EMUs. Yes, if your track is dead straight, you can get Kadee couplers to provide buffer-to-buffer coupling. If your buffers and corridor connectors are sprung, you can have very gentle curves. But even such layouts often have sharper curves and points in hidden sections and fiddle yards.

What we need now is a way of fitting close coupling couplers (no; Kadees will not do) to the outer ends of the units (as Bachmann failed to do so) so we can couple units together as well.

Are the 'HO' models really 1:87, or actually 1:76 (but still called HO so as not to confuse US buyers)?

I have use a Z21 (black) for a few years now. When I originally got it, I played around with the app on a 5" Samsung Player (basically a wifi-only Android device), but found that it did not suit me, so disconnected the WLAN router and connected my ESU Mobile Control base and mobiles (the original versions, not the ECoS) and a RouteControl and when my nephews came to visit, a couple of LokMice. When the WLAN MultiMouse came out, I connected the router back up and ditched the ESUs for a pair of wireless MultiMice. This all works pretty well, but programming chips - especially with three or four digit addresses - was no fun at all. So I dug out the Samsung Player, installed the latest version of the app, and use that for programming. But not for running. Apart from the haptic and tactility issues of a touch-screen compared to the physical rotary control, I find the apps - both of them - not very easy to use. I have even tried them on a 7" tablet. Where the MultiMouse wins out is the ability to control locos and set point by numerical address entry. With the apps, there appears to be no feature simply to enter a loco or point address - you have to add locos to the database first (and if you're doing it properly, set up the functions and take a picture), and as for points - I thought at first that having a graphical representation of the layout and being able to tap on the points to set them would be useful, until I tried to 'draw' my layout on the tablet (forget the smaller Player). It is extremely fiddly on both apps, and I gave up after two points and some straights. Just rotating points on the newer app is a nightmare. So my "wish list" for the apps is: 1. Quick 'n easy direct numerical address entry to control locomotives, 2. Quick 'n easy direct numerical address entry to set points (and signals etc.), 3. A way to design or draw a layout on a Windows PC and then export it to the app. 4. And while I'm about it, a way to change (or just get rid of) the background picture on the start screens.

What of course would be really nice would be of Peco would re-jig the rest of the finescale points with continuous blades like the new bullhead points.

A few years ago, Peco announced "extra-long" finescale electrofrog points, which were to have had the same shape and geometry as the US No. 8 points but with UK pattern sleepers. After a couple of years, these were quietly dropped. If you want really long scale Peco-compatible finescale points (and have deep pockets and an understanding financial department, and plenty of room on your layout) check out Weinerts "Mein Gleis" (= "my track") points. They use Peco rail and rail height, with continuous blades, but have German double-sleepers: The main page for Weinert's "Mein Gleis" system is at www.mein-gleis.de; for the flyer, go to https://weinert-modellbau.de/ and click on "Mein-Gleis-Flyer 2017" at the top right. Many accessories also available (like brass check-rail chairs for continuous check rail or embedded track).

Well, strictly speaking, even in these days of hyper-low interest on savings, £150 over two-and-a-half years might have yielded a quid or two. You might also feel a teensy bit miffed if you really wanted a 74 and bought a 71 primarily to help the project along towards a 74, as some people here say they did. Then there is the disappointment at the model you've been looking forward to for over two years being cancelled, but that's just being emotional, it's not being 'had over'.

This is a great pity, and a big disappointment. I have cancelled my orders with Kernow. The minimum bits needed for a 71=>74 conversion would be a roof panel to go where the pantograph isn't, central buffing plates (or whatever they're properly called), some pipework ("bagpipes"?), and new numbers. Possibly this leaves some grills or panels wrong on the sides, but that wouldn't overly bother me. Or are there any more glaring changes to address?

Could one of you proud Birdcage owners please tell me how the NEM pocket is mounted - moulded to bogie, simple pivot, or full-Monty close coupling mechanism?