Jump to content
 

Bachmann announce GWR 'City'


Andy Y

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

That's great Robin.   ;)

 

No chance of them going near Newton in the late 20's.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

What about the couple at Bristol Bath Road?

Couldn't you persuade one of them to wander down South West?

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 year later...

The Killarney model looks good in plain green, not sure how historically accurate though.

 

I'm sure it is accurate, not so sure about the combinations of liveries and crests etc, together with top-feed or not on boilers, as with most Edwardian-era models it's a bit of a minefield. I have great faith in Bachmann researchers though. :)

 

Can someone who knows more than me advise whether 3708 'Killarney' comes with alternative front bogie, extra plates and details as some of the 31-726 'City of Bath' seem on Ebay ads to have these extras?

 

Is an alternative front bogie, separate plates and tools, extra bits and so on normally included with all of these models? Truro, Bath, London, ... and what is the nature of the alternative bogie?

 

post-7929-0-99025600-1512352003_thumb.jpg

 

Apologies if this has been discussed before. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The extra bogie is in case you want to sell the loco on and have butchered the horrid front coupling off the other one.Why Bachmann put the coupling on the front amazes me.

 

Thanks gwrob....     five years+ since you cleared that up for slow learners like me. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The plate below the name plate should be red, it was on the 1957 repaint, although the sandboxes were red back then too, although when the loco was in sevice there were no sandboxes above the footplate to paint anyway!

 

The bachman model with red frames is totally incorrect for any City other than Truro in preserved condition, as when the class had red frames the following differences were noticable.

 

shorter smokebox no rivets,

no sandboxes above footplate

no top feed

tender with combined D shaped filler rather than dome

no patched frames with rivets

cast iron tapered chimney

square socket lamp irons rather than flat bar.

slide rather than piston valves

different style of front bogie

 

Oh the double lining is a myth anyway should be just a single line either side of the black line with no green line between like the later livery

 

Didn't I say it was a minefield?   <g>   Worse than Bulleid Pacifics or Stanier Duchesses!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Can someone who knows more than me advise whether 3708 'Killarney' comes with alternative front bogie, extra plates and details as some of the 31-726 'City of Bath' seem on Ebay ads to have these extras?

 

Killarney does come with spare bogie and etched plates; I didn't use the one for the tender, as it didn't seem up to the standard of Truro or Bath and it's hardly noticeable.

 

Here's City of Brum in plain green c. 1930:

 

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrls159.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info about the spares/detail packs.  I think it is a nice touch.

 

I had a 31-725 Truro way back when first released in 2009-10 but sold it after the 2011 earthquake in ChCh NZ where I was living at the time, and have to say the lining and general appearance of all the Bachmann 3700 class models is lovely!

 

I have chosen to buy a 31-726 3433 'City of Bath' in what I'm presuming is 1920s appearance..

 

post-7929-0-47625100-1512420957_thumb.jpg

 

Don't they look great!

 

cheers

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info about the spares/detail packs.  I think it is a nice touch.

 

I had a 31-725 Truro way back when first released in 2009-10 but sold it after the 2011 earthquake in ChCh NZ where I was living at the time, and have to say the lining and general appearance of all the Bachmann 3700 class models is lovely!

 

I have chosen to buy a 31-726 3433 'City of Bath' in what I'm presuming is 1920s appearance..

 

attachicon.gif3433_3700_GWR_portrait1_1a_r1200.jpg

 

Don't they look great!

 

cheers

A beautiful model. However I thought Cities were Red route availability?

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blue.

Miss Prism

 

This is interesting & solely in the interests of accuracy.  I based my thoughts that Cities were Red route availability on my RCTS part 7, Dean's Larger Tender Engines, where page G37 shows the Cities as Red. This also ties in with their max axle load of 18T 10C which puts them in the red banding, i.e. over 17t 12c. Also in Swindon Steam, KJ Cook, is a series of photos of GWR classes, to scale, where Cities are also shown as Red. Were there later changes to the route banding or were the Cities downgraded in later life?

 

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. All valid points, Roger. Seems I spoke too soon. 18.5T isn't even on the margin, and is definitely into the full red zone. I don't think the Cities ever had the 180 degree inside cranks like the Atbaras, which did hammer the track a bit. But I can't recall reading the Cities being 'eased' for a blue ticket.

 

I'm stumped.

 

Edit: no longer stumped, see this posting, which indicates the current NRM livery (which Bachmann has copied) is wrong:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/113467-would-the-37xx-city-class-have-carried-route-availabilty-discs-and-power-classification-lettering-in-the-late-1920s/?p=2386394

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would 3433 'City of Bath' have run with that number, rather than the 3710 it wore after 1912, with that livery and with top feed, sanders, superheater, long smokebox etc?

 

Just curious.

 

No, even the model of City of Truro running as 3440 with Indian red frames is incorrect, except as in 'as preserved' condition, not the condition it was in when it was running as 3440 prior to renumbering. So City of Bath as 3443 is wrong to have its earlier number with later livery. If it was me, I'd just get later numberplates for it, so it looks a bit more (but not totally) correct.
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, even the model of City of Truro running as 3440 with Indian red frames is incorrect, except as in 'as preserved' condition, not the condition it was in when it was running as 3440 prior to renumbering. So City of Bath as 3443 is wrong to have its earlier number with later livery. If it was me, I'd just get later numberplates for it, so it looks a bit more (but not totally) correct.

 

A bit like this?  My photo-editing, not any (gasp, choke) actual modelling....

 

post-7929-0-68560300-1513127349_thumb.jpg

 

Apologies if you have seen this before. Will remove if necessary.

 

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • RMweb Premium

No, even the model of City of Truro running as 3440 with Indian red frames is incorrect, except as in 'as preserved' condition, not the condition it was in when it was running as 3440 prior to renumbering. So City of Bath as 3443 is wrong to have its earlier number with later livery. If it was me, I'd just get later numberplates for it, so it looks a bit more (but not totally) correct.

 

Damned if you do and damned if you don't?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...