Bachmann 94xx

[The Stationmaster]

Lovely picture.  three firms tried to demolish the viaduct, and went bust whilst failing to work out a safe method.  Then Birds took over, and managed the task by laying a Bailey Bridge on top of the viaduct and removing it piece by piece.  It was a terrible waste of a marvellous asset, but that was the 1960s and the whole country was filled with people destroying the old and laying concrete...

 

Paul

 

You wouldn't have called it much of an asset if you'd travelled over it  by train - slow speed accompanied by much creaking and grinding (of the viaduct).  I suspect it wasn't far off being fairly worn out by the time the line was closed having done many years of service under heavy coal traffic and some fairly large engines.

[Steamport Southport]

The original comment was totally unnecessary,out of context and wherever it came from, wherever it is written remains a cheap soundbite  however  many times it is quoted or misquoted

If you feel I am "rude" because I take exception to this then that is your take on the matter simply because I raise objection to what you post. I totally refute that because I  always try to maintain good manners while posting on this forum without causing hurt or offence either wittingly or unwittingly.My skin is worn by years of tiresome comments such as these .

 

 Your connection is to the tragedy you quote is news to me.

 

 

 

I've had a lovely day in Wales. Rode behind a Black Five all day. Had a few bottles of Spitfire and Bishops Finger. Saw a parade of people who were playing the Eisteddfod.

 

Yet you are still posting nonsense, even though I believe you are an older person, rather than a young troll and I actually said that was the end and leave it at that.

 

 

Isn't it time you grew the F*** Up?  Where is the good manners? You don't even quote my posts properly.

 

 

How many of your posts in this thread are even about Bachmann 94xxs? Or any GWR pannier tanks?

 

 

 

 

Now if anyone could give me a good  reason why the quote I posted is offensive then I WILL apologise. On bended knee and I will give a sizable donation to a Welsh Railway. Unlike the thousands of pounds that I've spent there over the years....

 

 

 

I certainly apologise to Andy York if I've caused any problems. But this guy is making up slights that don't even exist. 

 

 

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

As s proud Welshman myself, I am delighted to hear that you had a Grand Day Out in my country, Jason; anyone who comes here and shows due regard for cutlure, language, and differences, which I am sure you do, is welcome in my book and welcome back any time.  The Llangollen International Eisteddfod is itself rooted in such a concept.  It is easy to take offence when the same thing is brought up repeatedly, though, and while I don't personally agree with him, I can see where Ian is coming from; it's not so much you that's bothered him, it's the many people before you that have worn his patience down and you were just the straw that broke the camel's back.  I get fed up with inferences involving sheep or 'whose coat is that jacket?' in the same way.  Dylan probably didn't mean it anyway; he was an inveterate attention seeker with a savage wit and a faultless delivery, even when he'd had a few, which was most of the time and this quip was trotted out on a more or less nightly basis when he was in London; I don't think it was such a feature of his Swansea drinking...  He was, in many ways, not a nice man, but his feelings about his nationality also include the the comment that to be born Welsh was to be born with a golden spoon in your mouth and a song in your heart, which sounds a bit mawkish to me but I've no reason to believe he didn't mean it, because while he often spouted nonsense in pubs, he wrote this and his clear reverence for the written word suggests that he did mean it.

 

My advice, to both of you, is to draw a line and move on as it has ceased to be amusing to the rest of us; you're never going to be on each other's xmas card list and I suspect you can both live with that.  It's off topic and nowt to do with 94xx, 1282 was a long time ago, and the English have actually been pretty fair to us in general since one of us, Henry VII, gave us equality as citizens (though I think he'd have preferred the word 'subject').  Both nations have benefitted from the Union.

 

It is good to be proud of your origins, but not at the expense of deriding anyone else's!

Edited July 8, 2017 by The Johnster

[Mod4]

My advice, to both of you, is to draw a line and move on as it has ceased to be amusing to the rest of us; you're never going to be on each other's xmas card list and I suspect you can both live with that.  It's off topic and nowt to do with 94xx, 1282 was a long time ago, and the English have actually been pretty fair to us in general since one of us, Henry VII, gave us equality as citizens (though I think he'd have preferred the word 'subject').  Both nations have benefitted from the Union.

 

It is good to be proud of your origins, but not at the expense of deriding anyone else's!

 

Totally agree please keep things civil and on topic of the 94xx. Any further off topic and potentially inflammatory posts will be removed

 

....It’s the people you meet in this job that really get you down....

[OnTheBranchline]

I've read that one famous engineman reckoned that the 94xx didn't really need to be built for the sake of looking good. All they had to do was clean the 57xx smartly.

 

That was R.S.Potts.

[Barry Ten]

You wouldn't have called it much of an asset if you'd travelled over it  by train - slow speed accompanied by much creaking and grinding (of the viaduct).  I suspect it wasn't far off being fairly worn out by the time the line was closed having done many years of service under heavy coal traffic and some fairly large engines.

 

 

I guess it was the same story with Walnut Tree viaduct as well, but it's hard to drive past the remaining pier (on the A470) and not wish it were still possible to see the structure in its entirety.

 

I went horse-riding with a Dutchman last week, as you do, and by some strange turn we ended up talking about Under Milk Wood and Dylan Thomas. One of my favorite lines is near

the opening: "And the anthracite statues of the horses sleep in the fields", which always send a shiver down this welshman's spine, and brings us neatly back to coal and panniers by

way of Llareggub. Get a recording of UMW if you can, it's really good to listen to on car journeys.

[tomparryharry]

I've read somewhere that the traffic requirement was because of the impending retirement of the remaining pre-grouping locomotive stock. This was mostly about power classification 4F, and numbered about 200 locomotives. Hawksworth quite wisely intended a further run of 8750 class panniers, as some of the earlier 57xx were only just approaching mid-point in their service lives. Instead the class of 94xx came along. I'd guess that if the extra run of 8750 had indeed happened, then far fewer 57xx would have been preserved, as less locomotives made it's way to London Transport.

 

As a resident of Wales since 1968 (my Old Chap was a senior management engineer in the Royal Mint) I have happily lived in both England and Wales. Don't knock it until you've tried it. Some of the Welsh women are stunners, and I can testify to that personally. Perhaps moving past the garden gate helps to broaden your horizons, regardless of your race, colour or creed. Every now & again, I silently thank my parents for the chances to see the horizons, and what can sometimes lie there.

 

I don't know how we drifted off 3408, and Radyr yard, but I'd like to drift back there, if it's OK with you folks.

 

Ian

[The Johnster]

I've read somewhere that the traffic requirement was because of the impending retirement of the remaining pre-grouping locomotive stock. This was mostly about power classification 4F, and numbered about 200 locomotives. Hawksworth quite wisely intended a further run of 8750 class panniers, as some of the earlier 57xx were only just approaching mid-point in their service lives. Instead the class of 94xx came along. I'd guess that if the extra run of 8750 had indeed happened, then far fewer 57xx would have been preserved, as less locomotives made it's way to London Transport.

 

As a resident of Wales since 1968 (my Old Chap was a senior management engineer in the Royal Mint) I have happily lived in both England and Wales. Don't knock it until you've tried it. Some of the Welsh women are stunners, and I can testify to that personally. Perhaps moving past the garden gate helps to broaden your horizons, regardless of your race, colour or creed. Every now & again, I silently thank my parents for the chances to see the horizons, and what can sometimes lie there.

 

I don't know how we drifted off 3408, and Radyr yard, but I'd like to drift back there, if it's OK with you folks.

 

Ian

 

There is much in this; Swindon had dealt with the variety of South Walian museum pieces (and some fairly modern locos) it acquired at the grouping by initially rebuilding the better ones with as many standard part as possible, and replacing those  too far gone (some Barry engines were stopped on site by the Swindon boiler inspector) with the 56xx.  As the rebuilt engines, along with a few unrebuilt survivors were coming to the ends of their useful lives, a new class was designed to replace them, the 94xx, all but the first 10 non-superheated.  They were to replace the likes of TVR 04, and Rhymney R, and while many enginemen regarded them as a modernised 57xx/8750 done for the sake of appearance, they were both heavier and a good bit more powerful.  The idea that they were only introduced to replace Paddington's ecs panniers because they 'looked more modern' is misleading; they were used for that purpose as were the 15xx, because it was thought that an engine with a big dome like a 57xx looked too antiquated (one has to say that the M7s at Waterloo, which really were antiquated, lasted a bit longer), but that was not really the original intention.  I will refrain from commenting on the general wisdom of designing inside cylinder 0-6-0s in the late 1940s, and the wisdom of replacing the 94xx with a diesel version, the D95xx; at least the latter could be sold on to private industrial use!

 

I like them, though they are an odd looking thing compared to other panniers and a little ungainly; I have a soft spot for ugly ducklings and they were a significant part of my railway childhood.  Enginemen didn't like them, because they couldn't see the point and the cabs were smaller and harder to work in than the engines they replaced or 57xx/8750; I believe there were question marks over the steaming, as there were about other locos that shared the boiler/firebox combination like 2251, the class of which they were in many ways the tank engine version.

[The Stationmaster]

Right - back to 94XX and here, almost (I pressed the button too early) back 53 years ago is Reading's 9404 on the Down Pilot Line with the panel 'box building lurking behind and by then fitting out.  9404 would have been tripping back from Reading High Level to West Junction yard having no doubt brought up traffic for Low Level, Reading Goods, and possibly the signal works.  Plenty of other things in the picture for those of us who knew the area.  At left is the Signal Works chimney plus part of the postwar extension and hostel visible immediately below it plus behind the lorry parked in front of the panel 'box building.  I think Reading hostel had quite a good reputation and the cafeteria - which could be accessed directly from the private road in front of it (between the works building and the panel 'box) - was serving some very good meals when I began using it regularly about 3 years after I took this picture.

 

I'm not quite sure what the wooden platform extending forward from the dock on the left was for as it was way off Christmas post time of year but maybe back then they used this and left it in place through the year - a few years later the stuff only went up for the Christmas post and I don't think the dock was extended forward by then.  Totally different now and virtually nothing in that view still survives except for the trees visible to the right of the two chimneys towards the right of the picture

 

The 94s were interesting engines in some unusual ways - a design influenced as much as anything by the wishes of the General Manager (to have them look 'more modern' than the 8750s, a class with short lives with some going straight to store when new and having short lives after they came out due to delays in building coupled with loss of traffic.  The small batch of superheated engines had a distinct and rather special advantage over their brethren as they could 'go round Greenford' with a heavy Paddington to Old Oak ecs on one fill of water - something no non-superheated panniers could manage with the heaviest trains.  But they were awkward to drive,especially for the shorter Drivers - one of the Drivers on our branch used to stand on a box so that he could both reach the regulator and look out over the sidesheets - otherwise it was one or the other.  But at at least they didn't have the nasty shinbashing springs in just the wrong place in the cab of the 57XX which left me with the bruises to prove it on occasion of firing a preserved one for a full day (the 8750s were better fortunately).

 

One nice little story about the 94XX is the one that never happened.  The preserved 9466 was selected to appear in the GW150 exhibition at Swindon but it was required to be in GWR livery which meant it had to be renumbered, even if it wasn't a superheated engine.  So I duly exercised my prerogative (or more accurately jumped in first) when we were discussing it at one of the planning meetings and said let's make it 9404 and that was duly accepted (actually I think the only other person who might have nominated a number would have been Eric Mountford and he was quite happy with my choice so it was adopted 'unopposed').  9404 had been a Reading engine and had worked on our branch so what else could I have nominated?  To take the story a stage further when 'someone else' was looking at producing a 94XX model by some strange coincidence one of the selected running numbers was 9404

 

[TheRockingRoadie]

I've always wanted a 94xx, so really excited for the model, whatever the stage of development!

[The Johnster]

I've always wanted a 94xx, so really excited for the model, whatever the stage of development!

 

Patience, Roadie, and don't be tempted by a secondhand Lima, not a terrible moulding but it all goes horribly wrong below the footplate, or a Graham Farish with that odd safety valve cover, but I expect you already realise this!.  Many have been lured by the apparently happy marriage of Lima body on Bachmann 57xx chassis, but this is illusory; the chassis fits ok but the real 94xx frames are more akin to the 2251, which the loco is in many ways a pannier tank version of, and they are a different shape to those of a 57xx or 8750, especially at the front where it is most visible..  It is, IMHO, an essential item for any WR layout based in the steam era, right to the end, and with a region wide spread of allocations.  I am interested in Tondu's loco and have at least 3 to choose from, 8448, 8453, and 9451, so, out of 210 locos produced, I have an approximately 1.6% chance of Baccy producing one of those, less when you include the  86F shedcode plate (yes this is a challenge Mr Kader sir if you are reading this!).  I, too, am looking forward to the eventual release, and think it is a guaranteed seller for Baccy, who should recoup their money fairly quickly on this one.

[tomparryharry]

Should Bachmann finally decide toproduce the 94xx, then I'm up for the faithfull 94xx, especially if I renumber them as Radyr's 3400-3409 batch. Could I stretch them to Llantrisant? Very probably!

 

Ian.

[The Johnster]

Should Bachmann finally decide toproduce the 94xx, then I'm up for the faithfull 94xx, especially if I renumber them as Radyr's 3400-3409 batch. Could I stretch them to Llantrisant? Very probably!

 

Ian.

 Radyr or Canton 94xx running via Waterhall and Creigiau, or even Canton ones main line, but I can't find any trace of 94xx allocated to Llantrisant.  Or one of my Tondu girls might be possible.  Chris F or Stationmaster might be more help!

[Liam]

According to BR Database, some were allocated to Tyseley, Worcester and possibly Stourbridge, so that gives scope for one to operate on Kinlet. But would they find themselves hauling short coal trains?

[Fat Controller]

According to BR Database, some were allocated to Tyseley, Worcester and possibly Stourbridge, so that gives scope for one to operate on Kinlet. But would they find themselves hauling short coal trains?

Why not? They did a lot more than bumble around yards- Landore ones would often work semi-fast services to Carmarthen.

[The Johnster]

Yeah, pull short coal trains with 'em, or even long 'uns.  They were classified as RA red power band D by the GW, and WR, so would be routinely turned out for any job that required an engine of that power and axle load.  BR classed them as 4F, but they were fitted with vacuum brakes and could work passenger trains, including the Cheltenham-Paddington trains as far as Gloucester, express lamps up.  Mineral work was their bread and butter in South Wales.  Pretty sure I've seen photos of them working minerals through Snow Hill, so you'd be well within the bounds of likelihood, never mind possibility, running them like that on Kinlet.  They'd be a bit restricted for range, and kept on fairly local work, but that isn't an issue here, is it?

[Norton961]

Shrewsbury shed had a few and they were seen on freight trains down the ex LNWR Coalport branch in the early 1960s.

[High Level Kits]

Just in case you didn’t know, High Level Kits do a 94xx chassis. It’s highly detailed and involves a fair bit of work (hopefully enjoyable) but it does lift the model to a new level. It’s designed to fit the Lima body, but with the anticipated Bachmann version also taken into account. Tim Shackleton had little bother with the Wills kit, as shown on our website home page.

 

PDF of instructions can be viewed on request.

Edited July 16, 2017 by High Level Kits

[The Johnster]

This, or the well trodden Bachmann/Lima hybrid with is the wrong shape around the front of the frames, is going to be the way to go if the Baccy is going to take a long time, which it looks increasingly as if it is.  I have hit retirement age and realistically only have 2 decades left; 2 years is 10% of that time and I wanna 94xx sooner than that!  Leave it a few months and sort out the existing stock first, but given that I am, if not happy, at least content with a Hornby 2721, hardly a fine scale effort although I have worked it up a bit, I shouldn't be too bothered by a minor discrepancy at the front of the frames; 'highly detailed' and ' a fair bit of work' doesn't sound like playing to my (rather limited) strengths!

 

Thanks for the heads up, though, and I will certainly investigate the kit.  I think Comet do one as well, which I also haven't fully investigated.

 

Auto spell keeps insisting that Hornby is Horny.  I like them, but not in that way...

[tomparryharry]

I've still got a couple of old Lima 94's hanging about. Reasonably, I therefore have a couple of 'stabs' at getting it right. I'm fairly happy with my old Lima/Baccy/Mainline combo as it stands, and I can afford to improve the detail as I see fit. I would suggest that as the possible 'field' of clients continue to shrink through natural wastage (after all, I'm racing to 61 myself), then by the time Bachmann introduce the 94xx, then it's relevance might be greatly diminished. Never mind, they can always paint it red, and bung on a couple of 1501 plates.  After all, no will complain, we're all dead! 

 

Ian

 

PS. No, I'll still come back to haunt you......

[The Johnster]

High Level Kits; that really does look like a really good kit for the price!  But two things worry me; the first is that your gearboxes seem to be designed for the Mashima motor, and apparently availability of these is becoming an issue; I would certainly not be buying the kit without the motor in case one turned up one day, as that will lead nowhere.  Are there alternative motors that can be used with your gearbox, and are they easily obtainable.  The second worry is the working inside motion.  Were I to buy one of your kits (and if I do it might well be the other side of xmas!), this aspect could go two ways.  Firstly, I could leave it out in the interests of simplicity and lack of room between the 00 frames, or I could have a go at it and be successful.  The latter would be a disaster, as I'd want inside motion on all my engines!

 

Despite what I said about it's inaccuracies, it's the Lima/Bachmann hybrid or waif tor the new Bachmann for me I'm afreid!

[High Level Kits]

Hello The Johnster. It is high priority to find an alternative to Mashimas; at this stage, we’re still considering options, and will change gearbox fixings to suit if needed.

 

I understand that highly detailed models can be intimidating, and your response to the problems you anticipate is not unique. Because we tend to push these particular aspects of the products - this is what a lot of modellers who build chassis tend to like, and the standard of RTR is ever-increasing and we have to keep up with this, plus it looks impressive -  but most of the tricky stuff can be regarded as ‘optional’ as the kits can be assembles in a more basic format. They come with a custom gearbox, so the major headache of finding a gearbox to fit does not exist and so this simplifies matters considerably.

 

Would a basic chassis for 94XX interest you?

Edited July 17, 2017 by High Level Kits

[Budgie]

It would interest me. Must have a DCC socket, though.

[High Level Kits]

Sorry if I've mislead...  just to be clear, a basic chassis means a basic chassis kit?...

[The Johnster]

Yes, High Level, it would (when I get around to it). But I may mean something different to you by 'basic chassis'; I mean a complete chassis, including motor, gears, wheels, pickups, everything needed to build it and a attach it to a locomotive body, place it on the track, and pull trains with it, but not incorporating such detail sa working inside motion or spacers for EM/P4, intended for 'basic' level modellers.  i reckon a 'basic' (in this sense) range of chassis kits, possibly fold-up brass or nickel silver and carrying rivet and spring detail, designed for 00 use as replacement for proprietary chassis, would sell well (even if you branded them as Low Level...), especially with your 'patent' gerarbox.  The internal motion, aprung axleboxs, EM/P4 spacers could be be dispensed with; a sort of 'High Level Light' approach.  I went on Wizard's site yesterday to investigate Comet chassis; the site is a bit dense and difficult to navigate, and I came away little the wiser and having spent nearly an hour of my life that i'll never get back, Perceverance seem to be moribund, and Crownline are not exactly easy to find out about either.  I appreciate the reasons for this and intend no criticism of the people concerned, but I seriously think that there is a market for replacement chassis' for rtr steam outline locos out there.

 

Now, I'm not a marketeer, or a business minded person in general, and may be talking through a hole at the wrong end of myself.  I have no idea what is involved in designing, producing, marketing, or distributing a range of products for a niche market in difficult economic circumstances, and the problem with Mashima motors must be hitting you hard.  But. I consider myself an average modeller, not a good or skilled one, and can, just, cobble a decently designed chassis kit together.  As an example, albeit from some years ago and the loco has since expired, I once built a perfectly good Westward 64xx, which had a fold-up nickel silver chassis and, IIRC, Romford motor and gears, something else which seems to be no longer obtainable.  I appreciate that the supply of model railway motors outside replacements for rtr are a problem these days, and given Hornby's current spares policy, probably inside the rtr world as well; we seem to be moving towards 'disposable' locos with 'no user serviceable parts inside'. This might work to the favour of a small company offering replacement chassis'!

 

But, speaking firstly as a Johnster, and secondly as an 'average modeller', I would be interested in a chassis kit with the following features:-

 

: A fold-up chassis, with rivet and spring detail, or a simple block with brass overlays for the detail

: A gearbox giving better slow running than existing rtr (the Westward 64xx managed it 30 years ago), with a final drive ratio of about 40:1

: Motor, pickups, and wheels included, circumventing possible sourcing problems; the kit must be complete, even if basic

: Clear instructions written (a) by someone whose first language is English, and (b) by someone who has built the kit without guidance from it's designer.  That means I should be able to follow what is going on.

: Screw or nut and bolt assembly as far as possible to avoid solder assembly.  Many of us are a bit hit and miss with soldering, and it is not part of our comfort zone.

: Easy access to wheelsets for occasional lubrication, cleaning, and adjustment of pickups, possibly a keeper plate design, and motor for eventual replacement.

: The availability at a reasonable extra cost, of a finished, built, and running version that can be disassenbled for painting and maintenance; I would expect this to cost not far short of the original rtr loco it is designed for as a replacement available to modellers without the skill to build one, but who wanted to replace a damaged or worn out rtr chassis or upgrade it under an existing loco body which they may have spent some effort in detailing, repainting, or weathering.

 

Not asking for much, am I?  To my mind, the most important points are that the kit is complete with all the components needed to build a running chassis in the packet/box, and that it should be as able as an rtr chassis to provide for cleaning, lubrication, and motor replacement. 

Edited July 17, 2017 by The Johnster