Collett Goods loco

[coachmann]

Having read through, I think I gather that the 2251 is another half-hearted DCC Ready loco from Bachmann.  Not good for those who fit sound if the decoder goes in the loco.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

What size should the wheels be on these locos.

 

The wheels on mine look like they should be on a tank loco or rolling stock instead of on a loco.

 Nominally 5'2" tyre diameter. In service, once the tyre was down to about 5' in diameter due to wear and turning to reprofile, it would be replaced with a new maximum diameter tyre. The smart RTR model maker compensates for the overscale flange on RTR wheels by modelling the tyre very close to the minimum permitted diameter - that would be circa 20mm for this class as an OO model - because then the diameter over the overscale flanges ends up pretty close to scale for the diameter over flanges of a new tyre on the protoype: and the eye perceives this compromise as 'right', also the wheel can then fit inside a scale or nearly so splasher, to the general benefit of the model's appearance.

 

(For comparison the contemporary 57xx 0-6-0T had a nominal 4' 7.5" tyre diameter, a very typical figure for shunting classes, and also found on heavy mineral locos, both six and eight coupled, such as 56xx, 72xx, 28/38xx. Those 0-6-0 classes with tyre diameters well exceeding five feet - up to 5'8" on some designs - were intended for faster running than the slow slog of mineral traffic.)

[eastglosmog]

What size should the wheels be on these locos.

 

The wheels on mine look like they should be on a tank loco or rolling stock instead of on a loco.

5ft 2in, (20.7mm) - they are 4ft 10.5in (19.5mm) on the model.

[7007GreatWestern]

Having read through, I think I gather that the 2251 is another half-hearted DCC Ready loco from Bachmann.  Not good for those who fit sound if the decoder goes in the loco.

 

You can call it half-hearted......I think that's being polite. It's a very crude, dated model, and before anyone asks 'yes' I have bought one of them. If you look inside the cab of the loco you will see two roughly box shaped objects on either side of the footplate underneath the cab side windows. They are complete works of fiction bearing no resemblance to reality. Bachmann have form in this regard, the area under the smokebox and between the frames also being a complete work of fiction on the 'Modified Hall'. Like that 'Modified Hall' the Collett Goods is similarly lacking in ambition from the Bachmann designers: no tender pickups, no sensible relocation of the decoder socket to the tender. This model at an asking price of £97 makes the Heljan 47xx look like fabulous value for money at £154!

 

Why did I buy it? Because I wanted a '2251' and it's the only show in town and Mainline's original tooling wasn't entirely without merit. Just don't expect me to say "Gee Bachmann, thanks for a wonderful piece of model engineering!" 'cos it ain't.

 

Andy.

[coachmann]

I am wondering, in the hope that some kind person will oblige, if a photo could be posted of the location of the decoder please. Is it in a box under the cab floor as in the Hall?  

Edited May 4, 2018 by coachmann

[The Great Bear]

No photo but it's in the boiler barrell, top half of the metal weight removed if I recall correctly

[john dew]

No photo but it's in the boiler barrell, top half of the metal weight removed if I recall correctly

The reduced weight makes the haulage capacity pretty mediocre

 

I replaced the weight, added tender pick ups and hard wired the decoder into the tender ......makes a huge difference to performance.

[Silver Sidelines]

Hello Larry

 

I am wondering, in the hope that some kind person will oblige, if a photo could be posted of the location of the decoder please. Is it in a box under the cab floor as in the Hall?  

 

There are some pictures and measured weights in a Blog Post I wrote back in 2013.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/880/entry-11544-not-so-heavy-goods-engines-the-Bachmann-2251-class/

 

Regards

 

Ray

[coachmann]

Thanks for the link Ray. I have just read your interesting article.

[57xx]

I am sure the Bachmann driving wheels are under size and the running plate too low, it looks plain daft double heading with the Hattons 14XX which should have the same size wheels and same height running plate.

 

I wouldn't use the Hattons 14xx as your yardstick as the wheels are 1mm oversize.

[melmerby]

I am wondering, in the hope that some kind person will oblige, if a photo could be posted of the location of the decoder please. Is it in a box under the cab floor as in the Hall?  

Doesn't the Hall just have the socket under the cab floor?

I mounted my decoder in the cradle in the middle of the boiler where it's supposed to go.

I replaced the mazak weight with some lead and the decoder and lead fit in the cradle without losing overall weight.

 

Keith

[GWR8700]

Has anyone fitted scale size wheels to these?

Edited May 18, 2018 by GWR8700

[melmerby]

I don't know whether it could apply to later variants but my 32-300 almost came to a standstill today.

When I checked the wheels seemed stiff with no side play.

Time to dismantle. I found it was stuffed with a vaseline type grease which had almost solidified

It was everywhere, the sprung centre axle wasn't sprung anymore and the motor worm was totally enclosed with this grease. The axles were caked in it as well.

 

It took some time to removed all this muck with IPA (100% proof!) which unusually didn't work very well as a solvent.

 

Once clean a light oil and away she goes, much better than before.

 

Keith

[Chuffed 1]

Here's one that's probably been covered before but I've only just noticed. 32-310, Collett 3217 in GWR green with ROD tender is surely a wrong livery.  Though technically built on the last day of the GWR's existence, 3217 wasn't allocated (to Shrewsbury) until the end of January. It would also be surprising if the loco was paired with a ROD rather than a Collett tender as well, though it may well have picked up a different tender at its first General.

A review by another website when it was released in 2012 in describing this loco added, "...any GWR modeller MUST have one of these..."

 

Well, maybe not!

[BWsTrains]

32-300 (GWR Green, number 3202) is definitely not DCC ready.

I had to mill out a small depression on top of the boiler plug so that I could fit a Lenz Silver + mini.

 

Bachmann never put the Mainline version into their range as the body was not considered up to standard.

IIRC They designed a new body to fit a new Bachmann style split chassis, with in-line can motor instead of the transverse pancake type found in Mainline's models.

Strike that.

I cannot find a Collett earlier than 32-300 in Bachmann's list so it looks like it was solid chassis from the start.

 

Keith

 

Edited content

According to www.modelraildatabase.com

 

Bachman released no. 3203; model no 31-925 in 1997; the database goes back further for other models so presumably this was their first

 

Colin

[brushman47544]

When Bachmann first introduced its Blue Riband locos, they were numbered in the 32-xxx series to distinguish them from their earlier locos that were in the 31-xxx range. The Collett 0-6-0 was the first Blue Riband loco produced by Bachmann, so any numbered 31-xxx will effectively be the older Mainline version and there will be quite a difference between those and the Blue Riband 32-xxx versions.

[89A]

31-925,31-926 and 31-927 appeared as such in the 1997 Bachmann catalogue but by the time of release in late 1998 the catalogue numbers had changed to 32-300,32-301 and 32-302 and an additional 32-303 was added.

[Dunsignalling]

Here's one that's probably been covered before but I've only just noticed. 32-310, Collett 3217 in GWR green with ROD tender is surely a wrong livery.  Though technically built on the last day of the GWR's existence, 3217 wasn't allocated (to Shrewsbury) until the end of January. It would also be surprising if the loco was paired with a ROD rather than a Collett tender as well, though it may well have picked up a different tender at its first General.

A review by another website when it was released in 2012 in describing this loco added, "...any GWR modeller MUST have one of these..."

 

Well, maybe not!

Bear in mind that the GWR had lots of redundant but still-serviceable tenders and many of the Collett 0-6-0s were deliberately built without new ones to use them up.

 

Not just ex-RODs but from locos of their own design (e.g. Granges) that were given larger ones after entering service.

 

John  

Edited May 30, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[DCB]

I wouldn't use the Hattons 14xx as your yardstick as the wheels are 1mm oversize.

 

Do the Hattons wheels fit the Bachmann 2251?   Are they available as spares?   It would certainly make a big difference and the extra 1mm would emphasise that the 2251 has larger wheels than 45XX/ 57XX etc.   The real 2251 looks graceful like a young lady in a smart miniskirt. showing off her shapely legs.  Bachmann looks like her granny with a long skirt to hide her varicose veins,  

[Dunsignalling]

After my questions last month about the average load these locos hauled and correct driving wheel size, I forgot to ask the most important question.

 

Is there any way at all to add enough extra weight to these little tender locos to give them sufficient traction to haul decent length trains of around 20 to 30 wagons or around 6 to 8 coaches without destroying the motor and the plastic gear cog.

Not what the GWR built them for. They were designed primarily to replace worn out Dean Goods on light branch and secondary main line pick-up work.

 

As for passenger work, I doubt the real thing would have been expected to handle more than three or four coaches under normal circumstances. The preserved one certainly wasn't up to the summer loadings of seven when it was on the WSR. IIRC it was reasonably OK with five, though.

 

The Bachmann model slips like mad when new but does improve greatly once you wear the shine off the wheels. Mine handles 15-18 wagons, and a few more if the curves don't go below 3' radius, which I consider looks prototypical, but it's done a fair lot of miles.

 

There's precious little room inside for any extra weight anyway.

 

John

Edited May 30, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Is there any way at all to add enough extra weight to these little tender locos to give them sufficient traction to haul decent length trains of around 20 to 30 wagons or around 6 to 8 coaches without destroying the motor and the plastic gear cog.

Yes, but I cannot give you precise instructions since I don't have one, and last looked at an example about a dozen years ago.

 

In brief, remove all mazak ballast inside the plastic body shell - typically screw secured on the boiler underside  - and replace in lead. Bachmann rarely fully fill interior voids with ballast, and lead has significantly greater density than mazak; as an example on the WD 2-8-0 Just over 3 oz of mazak removed permitted over 8oz of carefully shaped lead to go in.

 

The cab can take lead sheet on the floor, and a shaped piece of thin lead sheet up in the cab roof, the rear edge of which can be shaped to represent a weather sheet.

 

There may be space for thin lead sheet around or above the motor, but my recollection is of things being a little tight there.

[Steamport Southport]

Bear in mind that the GWR had lots of redundant but still-serviceable tenders and many of the Collett 0-6-0s were deliberately built without new ones to use them up.

 

Not just ex-RODs but from locos of their own design (e.g. Granges) that were given larger ones after entering service.

 

John  

 

I think there were five that entered traffic with the ROD tenders and others acquired them pretty quickly as the Aberdares were withdrawn. Something like twelve Aberdares were withdrawn in 1948 as well as the RODs themselves. They had 100 of them at one point.

 

Anyone interested in GWR tenders then this is a useful guide.

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/no-tenders.html

 

 

 

Jason

[Coach bogie]

After my questions last month about the average load these locos hauled and correct driving wheel size, I forgot to ask the most important question.

 

Is there any way at all to add enough extra weight to these little tender locos to give them sufficient traction to haul decent length trains of around 20 to 30 wagons or around 6 to 8 coaches without destroying the motor and the plastic gear cog.

I replaced the tender with a white metal one and sat the tender on the back of the Bachmann 2251 which improves haulage. I get around 30 wagons on the flat.

 

The wheels still bug me and I use my late fathers ex Wills 2251 with 21mm wheels more often these days, which will haul anything I put behind it.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[DCB]

I think there were five that entered traffic with the ROD tenders and others acquired them pretty quickly as the Aberdares were withdrawn. Something like twelve Aberdares were withdrawn in 1948 as well as the RODs themselves. They had 100 of them at one point.

 

Anyone interested in GWR tenders then this is a useful guide.

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/no-tenders.html

 

 

 

Jason

 

The GWR built many of the 2251s with Collett 4000 gallon Tenders for accountancy reasons. The tenders went to Castles and Halls which had 3500 gallon tenders .  I don't know when the Collett 3000 gallon Tender was substituted in production for the 4000 gallon, but there is photographic evidence that Bulldogs acquired these new tenders and the last Bulldog went in 1951.   The GWR still had 50 odd year old 2500 gallon tenders running post war behind Dukedogs etc so they may have perceived a need to replace these with tenders smaller than the 4000 gallon type, weight restrictions might have influenced this as there was a shortage of light locos for yellow routes prior to the 57XX being reclassified Yellow circa 1950.

The initial batch of 2251 locos had lever reverse beloved by the GWR for goods work as it made reversing easy, a necessity for shunting.  Tellingly the later batches were screw reverse and I think all the early ones were converted to match  which suggests they were used mainly on passenger duties.  

The 2251 evoluted from a need for a light secondary tender loco. The WSR 9351 was one design considered but may have been too wide for some routes or too expensive, and it is thought the rebuilt MSWJR 0-6-0s with the same std no 10 boiler was the inspiration for the 2251.  Logically it should have had the no 3 boiler as per the 1902 2-4-2T (and the BR std 3) with the longer firebox as the std 10 had a shorter firebox to suit locos with less gap between centre and trailing axles, so it was very short on grate area.

There is photographic evidence of a 2251 on 10 coaches on the MSWJR which included 1 in 75 gradients so they could pull a decent load but three would be a more typical load.. 

The 2251 obviously suffered bearing troubles as some had Stroudley style cranks with huge balance weights  and the boiler was normally fitted with a 200 psi safety valve though boiler had a design pressure of 225 psi.   I suspect they were kept away from hard slogging to avoid bearing troubles,  I know they worked as pilots between Stratford on Avon and Snow Hill so they could run fast, and banked trains up Campden Bank but I am not aware of many references to them on Pick Up goods work and no 0-6-0  tender engines were allocated west of Exeter in later days so  their use on West Country branches is very doubtful, apart from the "Exmoor Ranger" railtour of 1962(?)

Hanging a heavy tender body on the drawbar is a good way to improve traction but in my experience the Tender wheels need to be in a subframe so they do actually follow the rails and the Bachmann 2251 doesn't have anywhere to rest a tender on anyway. Shifting the decoder to the tender and replacing it with lead has to be a good idea.

Sticking a Hornby 28XX Tender drive Tender behind is a really great way to increase traction...   

[ThePipersSon]

 

There is photographic evidence of a 2251 on 10 coaches on the MSWJR which included 1 in 75 gradients so they could pull a decent load but three would be a more typical load..

 

 

The photograph I have seen  (District Controller's View no.11) Shows 2203 pulling an eight coach train - the 16.36 Southampton - Cheltenham.  Normally 3 coaches, it had been strengthened on the day with 5 extra coaches. The Manor pulling it failed at Ludgershall.  The only engine available was the one from the local pick-up goods, which was normally a Mogul, but on this day was 2203.  The train was 30 tons over the limit for an 0-6-0, but 2203 proceded to take the train to Cheltenham, there being no other engines available at Ludgershal, or on route.