Collett Goods loco

[spikey]

What's the difference between 32-301 and 32-301A? In particular, might one be expected to run quieter/more smoothly than the other on DC?

Edited March 22, 2018 by spikey

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The 'A' suffix to a catalogue number means the same model as issued previously, but with a different running number.

 

There will be no difference in the on track performance signified by this, the model can be expected to fall somewhere within the normal range of product performance, whichever is purchased.

 

Edited to add: had no idea that the 'A' suffix model is a release about 18 years after the original release, and that does make a difference.

Edited March 22, 2018 by 34theletterbetweenB&D

[MatthewCarty]

What's the difference between 32-301 and 32-301A? In particular, might one be expected to run quieter/more smoothly than the other on DC?

32-301 was a very early release (I think before 2000), running number 2260, not dcc fitted, and the probably less fine application of the printed detail. 32-301A was released last year, running number 3212 and dcc fitted. I don't know if Bachmann have changed the motor between the two releases as I don't have the early release. This is the only difference I can think of that might affect the running quality on dc. Hope this helps!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

32-301 was a very early release (I think before 2000), running number 2260, not dcc fitted, and the probably less fine application of the printed detail. 32-301A was released last year, running number 3212 and dcc fitted. I don't know if Bachmann have changed the motor between the two releases as I don't have the early release. This is the only difference I can think of that might affect the running quality on dc.

 Glad you knew that! The earlier model has the very sweet running Buhler five pole motor unit, the current release Bach's standard in-house design of three pole motor.

 

In my experience based on the WD 2-8-0, the Buhler motor is superior to the Bachmann three pole design. However, it isn't available new at retail now, which means a s/h purchase with all that goes with that.

[No Decorum]

 Glad you knew that! The earlier model has the very sweet running Buhler five pole motor unit, the current release Bach's standard in-house design of three pole motor.

 

In my experience based on the WD 2-8-0, the Buhler motor is superior to the Bachmann three pole design. However, it isn't available new at retail now, which means a s/h purchase with all that goes with that.

That is interesting. My experience of Bachmann for years was nervousness in case I got a poor runner. I’m sure I shall jinx myself by saying so but in recent years I have found that running quality is more consistently good. I haven’t noticed any difference between a good old one and a new one but that might be because I wasn’t looking for it.

 

Just as a matter of interest, I dug out an old South Wales tank to compare to the newer version. It ran like a bunch of spanners. The poor thing had been neglected. Some careful lubrication transformed it. It is not quite as quiet or smooth as the new one but it is, post servicing, remarkably good for something so old and not disgraced by the new one. How old is it? So old I don’t know because I didn’t record the dates of locomotives I bought before the mid 1980s. It’s Mainline, of course, but the Bachmann one uses the same body tooling.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 My experience of Bachmann for years was nervousness in case I got a poor runner. I’m sure I shall jinx myself by saying so but in recent years I have found that running quality is more consistently good. I haven’t noticed any difference between a good old one and a new one but that might be because I wasn’t looking for it...

 I could drone on for hours on this subject, concerning the Blue Riband steam models (the split chassis mechanisms of Mainline/Bachmann origin are a whole other story, not for today).

 

It was Bachmann's WD 2-8-0 that as far as I was concerned was the first time I had purchased a truly satisfactory RTR OO loco model, a good match to what a skilled kit builder might achieve. They ran beautifully straight out of the box, wipers properly adjusted and two sprung driven axles made pick up rock solid, and carried pretty much all the practical detail in 4mm (just the fire iron rack missing, probably because of its finger puncturing propensity). That was the first RTR OO model I felt able to put on my continental relative's HO layouts without apology.

 

I sampled the other interesting available items, the N class,  BR std 4MT tank, A1 pacific, BR std class 5MT, 57xx et al, K3, Ivatt 4MT, 9F as they became available.

The N class, apart from the ill advised loco to tender coupling and an overly stiff tender wheelbase - both easily corrected - also had the Buhler motor unit and the loco alone was a rock solid runner as an out of the box mechanism, and the model looked good.

BR std 4MT 2-6-4T, looked great, none too smooth due that speedo linkage, but ran reliably otherwise. With the speedo linkage sorted it wasn't quite as smooth using vanilla DC at dead slow as the two preceeding models: that was my first experience of Bachmann's own design three pole motor. With a good feedback controller, the difference from a five pole was eliminated.

A1 pacific. What a mess, though I never had an unreliable specimen in terms of the mechanism running from the box. But the assembly misalignment between loco and tender and oversprung carrying wheels - both limiting traction - were not that clever. Then it turned out that some of the Bachmann design three pole motors had been wound with faulty wire, which Bachmann sorted short term by use of the Mashima 1430 motor. The Mashima well outperformed the Bachmann design motor in slow speed smoothness and maximum speed attainment.

BR std 5MT. Again with the speedo linkage (which Bachmann thereafter dropped as more trouble than it was worth) too high a gear ratio, poor traction due to weight distribution and oversprung carrying wheels; but the mechanism ran reliably enough out of the box, and could be sorted. Substitution of the Mashima 1426 produced running refinement and appropriate scale maximum speed.

 

 The great divide, went DCC. Now the three pole motor was no longer an issue for slow speed smoothness as a Lenz decoder made the three pole and five pole units indistinguishable in on track performance. Wound up the track voltage for 15V available to motor, to make the sluggards run at scale speed: problems solved!

 

57xx, 56xx, 3MT (purchased for their mechanisms and widely applied to old kit bodies) had a smaller version of the three pole motor, usually needed the pick up wipers adjusting to run reliably, but good once sorted.

K3, return of 'what a mess', the pick up wipers very slack, and the soldering dire (lead free solder used in production I believe). Very unreliable as received and not helped by the loss of the sprung driven axle, present on all the earlier models mentioned. Happily this resulted in Hattons giving them away 'free'. Rewired every single one, worked well ever since.

Ivatt 4MT. Ran superbly out of the box. Couldn't get the bodies off without brute force efforts however.

9F. Back to much the same standard as the WD. RTR out of the box, sprung driven axle, lovely stuff all around except weird choice of loco to tender spacing.

Thereafter, generally good with the standard seen on the 9F maintained, most mechanisms had the pick up wipers properly adjusted, just 'small stuff' to sort out.

[sjrixon]

I've bought the 32-304A that just came out.. Much nicer than my earlier one, easy to just plug in the DCC decoder. The motor is a little noisy, but it's not run in much yet. Nothing I'd complain about.

 

I've also got a really old split chassis one.. 

[spikey]

Thank you gentlemen, this is really useful stuff.

 

My problem is that I have two Hornby J15s and a Bachmann 64XX, all of which run superbly and very quietly too. This means that I'm not going to be happy if the next 0-6-0 I buy runs nowhere near as well. But I quite fancy a Collett Goods, and as it seems possible to pick up a near-new 32-301 for around 40 quid, I'm wondering if it's worth a punt.

 

Would that be split chassis though?

 

Hmmm. Might I actually be better off developing a liking for the Hornby J50 instead?

 

ETA - I'm not DCC and not going to be.

Edited March 22, 2018 by spikey

[The Johnster]

That is interesting. My experience of Bachmann for years was nervousness in case I got a poor runner. I’m sure I shall jinx myself by saying so but in recent years I have found that running quality is more consistently good. I haven’t noticed any difference between a good old one and a new one but that might be because I wasn’t looking for it.

 

Just as a matter of interest, I dug out an old South Wales tank to compare to the newer version. It ran like a bunch of spanners. The poor thing had been neglected. Some careful lubrication transformed it. It is not quite as quiet or smooth as the new one but it is, post servicing, remarkably good for something so old and not disgraced by the new one. How old is it? So old I don’t know because I didn’t record the dates of locomotives I bought before the mid 1980s. It’s Mainline, of course, but the Bachmann one uses the same body tooling.

 

Not sure it's exactly the same body tooling.  I have an early issue Bachmann 56xx whose chassis I replaced with a current Bachmann one last year.  The old ML split chassis was still running well, but was on borrowed time as the axle grooves were wearing through to the top of the chassis blocks and I had just lost 2 ML panniers to this issue (one of which is an 8750 which I have retained the body of so as to put on a replacement chassis; the other 57xx has been replaced by a very reasonably priced current s/h Bachmann), so when my local train shop had a second hand current model chassis for sale for not a huge amount of money, I bit!  I am very happy with the new chassis, it is virtually silent running and can be controlled smoothly down to a very slow speed, better performing in these respects than the original, but not by a massive amount.  

 

But it was not a straight swap for the old chassis, and a bit of cutting and filing of the body had to be undertaken before it would fit properly.  This means that there must have been some changes to the tooling (though perhaps not a complete retooling).  I have no direct experience of the current 56xx, but it must be a very good model for the money, especially if it includes the cab backhead detail that is missing because the doughnut motor occupied part of the space on the Mainline version.  The original body tooling is fine on the outside, and I would hesitate to assert that the finish was not superior.  Mine was one of the first issue in BR unicycling lion black, but I long ago repainted to lined ferret & dartboard green!

 

It is my intention to buy a current Baccy 56xx at some time, and this will be in unicycling lion black.  I suspect that part of the current motor's superiority over the old ML doughnut is down to the simple but very efficient worm and gear drive; even back in Triang or Hornby Dublo days the motors, taken as separate items, performed very well indeed.  It has to be said that the new 56xx motor feels as if it is much more powerful than the ML doughnut/ringfield, but this is difficult to quantify on a BLT where a 10 wagon coal train is well within the capacity of all my motive power including the 56xx in ML chassis form!

 

All of my locomotives are now either currently available versions or re-chassised with current, and all bar one perform very well indeed, slow controllable running being very important to me!  The rogue is a Hornby 2721 with current generic 0-6-0 which is dreadful unless it is absolutely spotlessly clean, and seems adept at becoming filthy after about 2 minute's running.  There is a re-issue of this very old model due from H, but it looks to have the same problem chassis.  Mine is reduced to passenger only work due to poor slow running, which is a pity, because, for all it's faults and despite being ballasted to improve running, it is a nice little thing with a lot of character.  But I would replace it like a shot if anyone were to bring out a decent running modern version!

 

Early Bachmann models were generically those inherited from Mainline, whose well intentioned split chassis policy had come unstuck in a big way.  It took Baccy a few years to design out the faults, and if they do not provide the 2251 with a chassis capable of running to modern standards and take the opportunity to provide backhead detail then the re-issue seems a bit pointless.

 

IMHO.

Edited March 22, 2018 by The Johnster

[spikey]

Thanks for the information, gentlemen.

[phil-b259]

Not sure it's exactly the same body tooling.  I have an early issue Bachmann 56xx whose chassis I replaced with a current Bachmann one last year.  The old ML split chassis was still running well, but was on borrowed time as the axle grooves were wearing through to the top of the chassis blocks and I had just lost 2 ML panniers to this issue (one of which is an 8750 which I have retained the body of so as to put on a replacement chassis; the other 57xx has been replaced by a very reasonably priced current s/h Bachmann), so when my local train shop had a second hand current model chassis for sale for not a huge amount of money, I bit!  I am very happy with the new chassis, it is virtually silent running and can be controlled smoothly down to a very slow speed, better performing in these respects than the original, but not by a massive amount.  

 

But it was not a straight swap for the old chassis, and a bit of cutting and filing of the body had to be undertaken before it would fit properly.  This means that there must have been some changes to the tooling (though perhaps not a complete retooling).  I have no direct experience of the current 56xx, but it must be a very good model for the money, especially if it includes the cab backhead detail that is missing because the doughnut motor occupied part of the space on the Mainline version.  The original body tooling is fine on the outside, and I would hesitate to assert that the finish was not superior.  Mine was one of the first issue in BR unicycling lion black, but I long ago repainted to lined ferret & dartboard green!

 

It is my intention to buy a current Baccy 56xx at some time, and this will be in unicycling lion black.  I suspect that part of the current motor's superiority over the old ML doughnut is down to the simple but very efficient worm and gear drive; even back in Triang or Hornby Dublo days the motors, taken as separate items, performed very well indeed.  It has to be said that the new 56xx motor feels as if it is much more powerful than the ML doughnut/ringfield, but this is difficult to quantify on a BLT where a 10 wagon coal train is well within the capacity of all my motive power including the 56xx in ML chassis form!

 

All of my locomotives are now either currently available versions or re-chassised with current, and all bar one perform very well indeed, slow controllable running being very important to me!  The rogue is a Hornby 2721 with current generic 0-6-0 which is dreadful unless it is absolutely spotlessly clean, and seems adept at becoming filthy after about 2 minute's running.  There is a re-issue of this very old model due from H, but it looks to have the same problem chassis.  Mine is reduced to passenger only work due to poor slow running, which is a pity, because, for all it's faults and despite being ballasted to improve running, it is a nice little thing with a lot of character.  But I would replace it like a shot if anyone were to bring out a decent running modern version!

 

Early Bachmann models were generically those inherited from Mainline, whose well intentioned split chassis policy had come unstuck in a big way.  It took Baccy a few years to design out the faults, and if they do not provide the 2251 with a chassis capable of running to modern standards and take the opportunity to provide backhead detail then the re-issue seems a bit pointless.

 

IMHO.

 

We have had the discussion about the Collett goods before - but it is WRONG to say that the current loco body is the mainline one, regardless of how similar they may look.

 

Back in 1992 Bachmann RETOOLED the body FROM SCRATCH to go with a BRAND NEW chassis unit. As such there is nothing 'ex mainline' about the current loco - although the tenders (with the exception of the ex ROD type and the one just released) were indeed the previous mainline offerings.

 

However people need to remember that back in 1992 DCC did not exist! As such no provision was made in the loco body or on the chassis for a decoder - which is why Bachmann for many years had to say that the loco, while not being of the split chassis type, was unable to be offered as 'DCC Ready / DCC fitted. For avoidance of doubt a similar situation applied to the Southern Railway N class which was also developed before DCC arrived and thus lacked the space to have a decoder socket, etc fitted.

 

Recognising that DCC was however an important part of the market Bachmann took a hacksaw to the tooling of the Collett Goods a few years ago and removed a large chunk of the metal chassis to make room for the decoder socket and chip. As has been documented on another thread this has resulted in a significant reduction in the weight of the loco compared to those released in the first two decades.

 

Were the loco being tooled up from scratch these days then there is no doubt that the decoder would be in the tender, the loco have its weight increased back to what it was in the 1990s, plus be fitted with additional pickups. However as Bachmann have ben able to modify the existing tooling to accommodate DCC, plus the loco bodyshell (like the Southern Railway N class mentioned above) is still pretty accurate (apart from the lack of valve gear that tends to be added as a cosmetic feature on most RTR inside cylindered locos these days) there is no financial justification to either replace it entirely, nor withdraw it from the range.

Edited March 22, 2018 by phil-b259

[woodenhead]

Well that explains why it has an almost Mainline tender coupling - big lump into tiny adjustable metal plate - this loco will be a right pain if I have to regularly lift it, thanks to Peco for the excellent loco lift.

 

Edit: remove unexplained profanity from post!

Edited March 22, 2018 by woodenhead

[phil-b259]

Well that explains why it has an almost Mainline tender coupling - big lump into tiny adjustable metal plate - this loco will be a right pain if I have to regularly lift it, thanks to Peco for the excellent loco lift.

 

Edit: remove unexplained profanity from post!

 

Exactly - the big plastic hook is there because that is what it needed to couple to the ex mainline tender. More recent tender designs are more sophisticated, but until the 'normal' tender (I don't know much about GWR tender designs) is retooled, then the big plastic hook on the loco  has to stay.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

My problem is that I have two Hornby J15s and a Bachmann 64XX, all of which run superbly and very quietly too. This means that I'm not going to be happy if the next 0-6-0 I buy runs nowhere near as well. But I quite fancy a Collett Goods, and as it seems possible to pick up a near-new 32-301 for around 40 quid, I'm wondering if it's worth a punt.

If you are happy with the Bach 64xx, the Collett goods running should be much alike. Bachmann have been using the same general component layout in all their Blue Riband models with similar results throughout the range.

 

And if you can find a good 32-301 example at £40, that would be well worth a punt if it is a good runner.

[rue_d_etropal]

Don't forget that Replica also had a version, and that had an improved body with backhead detail and cab glazing. Still had the old Mainlne chassis though.

 

I still have my original Mainlie version. Unboxed now, but not heavily run, so not worn out. I had waited for a long time for it to be released(nothing changes), even had an order in at a local model shop, but it did not turn up(short supply- nothing changes), and actually bought mine from Hamleys Toyshop in London, as far as I can remember. I have had the Replica version, and the later pre DCC Bachmann version, which were both better looking, with backhead detail and cab glazing. Trouble was they made my original one not look so good, and that had sentimental value, so were sold off. Was tempted by one of the trainsets with a green BR Collett goods, but never got round to buying one before the disappeared.

[woodenhead]

I can still remember the noise my old Mainline Collett made, funny that

Edited March 22, 2018 by woodenhead

[Quarryscapes]

There is no difference in tooling between 301 and 301A. DCC ready/fitted locos have a smaller weight fitted giving space for the decoder and associated wiring. There is also a minor revision in retaining screws, but bodies and chassis are entirely interchangeable between DCC and DC. The motor and worm maybe different between them much the same as on the 57xx/8750 panniers. 

[Butler Henderson]

The Replica models also differed from the Mainline ones (originally released in 1978) in using the tender that had been tooled up for the Manor (a 1980 release). According to Pat Hammond in British Model Trains the last production for Mainline of the Collett Goods was in 1980 so the Replica models were presumably the first to be released with the availability of the later tender tooling. The tender coupling arrangement that continues with the Bachmann model can be problematic. I had three of the Mainline ones, two had tenders that continually derailed on hidden reverse curve; swopped the tenders between the two models and they stopped derailing.

[DCB]

Simply fitting a couple of pickups between chassis and backs of one wheel on each side works wonders for split chassis mainline locos.  I did an 03 chassis twenty years ago which I picked up for £5 as a stop gap when the Bachmann original burned out and its still going strong.  Very little journal wear if any. It is the constant arcing between journal and chassis  which erodes the journal heats the wheel seat and causes all the trouble.  With  pickups fitted  the current path is wheel, coupling rod, wheel, chassis in addition to wheel, chassis.

[Vacuum]

 Glad you knew that! The earlier model has the very sweet running Buhler five pole motor unit, the current release Bach's standard in-house design of three pole motor.

 

In my experience based on the WD 2-8-0, the Buhler motor is superior to the Bachmann three pole design. However, it isn't available new at retail now, which means a s/h purchase with all that goes with that.

 

I have a Buhler motored Collett Goods which needs some maintenance. It was one of the first Blue Riband series of locos produced by Bachmann.

 

Can anyone tell me how to relubricate the motor and axles etc. What are the oiling points and is it necessary to remove the motor from the chassis - to which the motor seems firmly attached? On the first occasion upon which I removed the keeper plate I saw that the axles and gears had been plastered with white grease by the factory. Is that as it should be (I have some Labelle 106 white grease and the instructions state that it should be applied sparingly)? Should any of the motor bearings be lubricated and , if so, how does one get at them given the firm attachment of the motor to the chassis? I also have some Labelle 102 gear oil and 107 multi purpose oil. Which of these lubricants should I use?

 

The instructions which came with the loco contain no useful info. at all.

 

Thanks.

 

Colin

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I have a Buhler motored Collett Goods which needs some maintenance ...The instructions which came with the loco contain no useful info. at all.

 

 What are the symptoms that lead you to believe it requires maintenance would be a first question?

 

I have a pair of WD 2-8-0s of much the same vintage as your model, with the Buhler motor, and have not needed to lubricate the motors yet. I run my models a lot, every day I am home, so they have had a work out over the past 17 years. The motors did start to sound a little graunchy, but another contributor here identified the reason a year or three past, dust from the brushes accumulating inside the motor casing. There are a couple of small holes in the casing and it is possible to blow the black dust out. (Best done outdoors.)

 

If a motor bearing is screeching - gone dry - a tiny amount of light oil (107 will do) onto the motor shaft by the bearing is all that is required. Better too little than too much, excess oil wrecks can motors if it gets to the brushes. It's a long time snce I looked at one of these mechanisms, but I thnk you will be able to get access without needing to remove the motor.

 

Greasing the chassis block axle locations, also check the sprung plunger on the centre axle is free acting. Many of the early Blue Riband productions came full of grease, a light application is all that is required. A little grease on the gear teeth too. On the outside again tiny dabs of the 107 oil on the crankpins. If you can see the oil on the crankpin after application, that ls way too much, dab off with a tissue.

[adb968008]

I’ve had 3 WDs unused for several years completely seize up on me, unresponsive and shorting out the motor.

I removed the keeper plate, and the body, separated the motor from the gears, and the wheels.

 

Then used a cotton bud / tooth pick to clear up the hardened white grease in the gear train.

Post removal I added a drop of oil to the gears and the centres, with some manual turning of the gears I was able to ease them up.

 

Then reassemble, and test, all three returned good as new.

[Vacuum]

 What are the symptoms that lead you to believe it requires maintenance would be a first question?

 

I have a pair of WD 2-8-0s of much the same vintage as your model, with the Buhler motor, and have not needed to lubricate the motors yet. I run my models a lot, every day I am home, so they have had a work out over the past 17 years. The motors did start to sound a little graunchy, but another contributor here identified the reason a year or three past, dust from the brushes accumulating inside the motor casing. There are a couple of small holes in the casing and it is possible to blow the black dust out. (Best done outdoors.)

 

If a motor bearing is screeching - gone dry - a tiny amount of light oil (107 will do) onto the motor shaft by the bearing is all that is required. Better too little than too much, excess oil wrecks can motors if it gets to the brushes. It's a long time snce I looked at one of these mechanisms, but I thnk you will be able to get access without needing to remove the motor.

 

Greasing the chassis block axle locations, also check the sprung plunger on the centre axle is free acting. Many of the early Blue Riband productions came full of grease, a light application is all that is required. A little grease on the gear teeth too. On the outside again tiny dabs of the 107 oil on the crankpins. If you can see the oil on the crankpin after application, that ls way too much, dab off with a tissue.

 

 

 

Many thanks for taking the trouble to reply.

 

The symptoms are merely that the loco is noisier than it was when new. It has spent most of its existence either packed away in its box or, as now, stored on a Peco loco lift (suitably protected against dust). The motor is not squealing, and from your comments it would appear best to avoid lubricating it if not absolutely necessary. I assume therefore that all the gunge slathered on the gears and axles by the manufacturer has now dried out and needs to be cleaned off and those parts re-greased as per your advice. I will also check the plunger and for brush dust, although the latter is presumably unlikely to blame because of the light usage of the model (nevertheless a very useful tip), and re-lubricate the crankpins.

 

Am I correct in assuming that these motors have to be discarded when the brushes have worn out?

 

Colin

[Vacuum]

I’ve had 3 WDs unused for several years completely seize up on me, unresponsive and shorting out the motor.

I removed the keeper plate, and the body, separated the motor from the gears, and the wheels.

 

Then used a cotton bud / tooth pick to clear up the hardened white grease in the gear train.

Post removal I added a drop of oil to the gears and the centres, with some manual turning of the gears I was able to ease them up.

 

Then reassemble, and test, all three returned good as new.

 

Many thanks for troubling to reply and I note your comments.

 

Colin

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Am I correct in assuming that these motors have to be discarded when the brushes have worn out?

 Straightforwardly, I just don't know, because I have not had one wear out yet! On the Mashima pattern motors widely used in both RTR and kit builds, brush replacement is possible, so I would hope that something can also be done for the Buhler type when the need arises.

 

All the best with the degunking of dried on grease: that alone will make the model noisy. Once cleaned out and lightly relubricated you should replicate the experience ADB reports.