Sixties Snapshots - 00 scale

Yes there could still be a few errors there Ray.

 

It's been built up over a few years when I was considering a purchase, but I managed to acquire three class 43s instead.

 

Charles

That's a good list from Stovepipe and very useful, thanks.

 

At risk of sounding obtuse, if you don't use DCC and regard bright lights as a bit silly/ unprototypical for the period involved, it would be another project to fit an old chassis to a new class 43 body. The reason I say this is that the slow speed running on DC seems a lot better with the old chassis. On my own layout it doesn't really matter so much as once underway the trains just go round and round until they end up back in the storage area, but I can see that for those with a small shunting type layout and no DCC the class 43's as bought would be a disappointment.

 

John.

2 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

 

At risk of sounding obtuse,

 

Thank you John.  Obtuse?  Is that the same as lateral thinking?  I like the idea, not all that is new is better.  Perhaps too many bells and whistles and not enough attention to basic details.

 

Cheers Ray

34 minutes ago, Silver Sidelines said:

 

Thank you John.  Obtuse?  Is that the same as lateral thinking?  I like the idea, not all that is new is better.  Perhaps too many bells and whistles and not enough attention to basic details.

 

Cheers Ray

Thanks Ray. I guessed that you'd gone for exploration on this when I saw your pictures on Flickr.

 

It would be great to think of obtuse as lateral thinking, rather than simply awkward/ difficult!

 

I do like both old and new Warships by Bachmann, the mechanism on the old 42's I prefer as above, but the detail on the later 43 is a defininte step up with its etched grilles and add on twiddly bits. We're lucky indeed to have such fine models of both.

 

Hope you are both keeping well, and best wishes,

 

John.

I had a running session with D829 Magpie yesterday (DCC).  I agree with the views that running performance smoother on the earlier models.  I have D820 Grenville: start up is a much smoother transition. I did try a couple of alternative motors in D829 Magpie. The running stayed somewhat lumpy compared to the older model. No apparent tight spots in the drives.  I might bypass the PCB in the newer model later, as the older model lacks any PCB.

9 hours ago, liathach said:

I had a running session with D829 Magpie yesterday (DCC).  I agree with the views that running performance smoother on the earlier models.  I have D820 Grenville: start up is a much smoother transition. I did try a couple of alternative motors in D829 Magpie. The running stayed somewhat lumpy compared to the older model. No apparent tight spots in the drives.  I might bypass the PCB in the newer model later, as the older model lacks any PCB.

Pictures above might be of use.  It seems the hunch about the PCB being a factor with DCC control might be correct.  I swapped a few spare motors from different models earlier.  I decided to bypass the PCB.  The PCB shown in the picture is labelled with the L and R rail connections from the towers.  The decoder is wired to these.  Trying the original motor supplied with D829 Magpie, I got a partial improvement with the wires bypassing the PCB.  I then tried another spare motor - which I think is from a type two - which needed extended cardan shafts made using cotton bud tubes cut the length with cut track pins through them at their ends to fit the motor and tower females.  The motor from the type two now runs almost as smoothly as the older design D820 Grenville.  It might be worth other people trying the same with their Warships for comparison!

1 hour ago, liathach said:

Pictures above might be of use.  It seems the hunch about the PCB being a factor with DCC control might be correct.  I swapped a few spare motors from different models earlier.  I decided to bypass the PCB.  The PCB shown in the picture is labelled with the L and R rail connections from the towers.  The decoder is wired to these.  Trying the original motor supplied with D829 Magpie, I got a partial improvement with the wires bypassing the PCB.  I then tried another spare motor - which I think is from a type two - which needed extended cardan shafts made using cotton bud tubes cut the length with cut track pins through them at their ends to fit the motor and tower females.  The motor from the type two now runs almost as smoothly as the older design D820 Grenville.  It might be worth other people trying the same with their Warships for comparison!

 

You have been busy, fascinating.  You do say DCC control so is this yet another reason for my staying analogue?  Might there also be an issue with your choice of digital chip?

 

Regards  Ray

Both my class 42 Warships are of the later type with PCB's, I have installed both with ZIMO MX 644D sound decoders from You Choos, and I haven't noticed any roughness when starting or running at any speed. The decoders are just plugged into the onboard 21 pin socket. Only the speaker wires needed to be soldered to the foot of the socket. Maybe the decoder CV settings on your Zimo MX 638D could be the cause of any roughness?

 

Cheers,

 

Eve

Bachmann class 42 and class 43 body swaps, The class 43 shell is a fraction longer than the 42 chassis so it fits very nicely onto Mainline, early Bachmann and later 21 pin. The only need to alter is the rear end of the cab interior to clear the bogie tower and pcb on the 21 pin, the screws line-up, job done. I expected the lights to work but they don't they do look different internally. On the Mainline chassis, cab interior to clear the motor and slice a bit of their light holders, the screws don't line-up of course. As the 42 shell is a fraction shorter than the 43 classis, the only things I can see is to trim the buffer beams on the 43 and trim the cab interior.

10 hours ago, D 844 said:

Bachmann class 42 and class 43 body swaps, The class 43 shell is a fraction longer than the 42 chassis so it fits very nicely onto Mainline, early Bachmann and later 21 pin. The only need to alter is the rear end of the cab interior to clear the bogie tower and pcb on the 21 pin, the screws line-up, job done. I expected the lights to work but they don't they do look different internally. On the Mainline chassis, cab interior to clear the motor and slice a bit of their light holders, the screws don't line-up of course. As the 42 shell is a fraction shorter than the 43 classis, the only things I can see is to trim the buffer beams on the 43 and trim the cab interior.

 

Thanks for a very useful posting. Do you know if a class 42 shell from a later 21pin chassis will fit on the class 43 chassis? This information would pretty well complete most of the options available for Warship fanatics :-)

 

Cheers,

 

Eveannessant

Edited May 11, 2023 by Eveannessant

An interesting article that I missed when it was originally posted.

I would add to more recent posts that D829 from the Torbay Express set does have lights. I bought this set as a bargain way of getting a maroon Warship, with a couple of free coaches thrown in. 😎

I fitted sound into this model but the lights were already there.

Bachmann Class 42 and 43 body swaps, The later 42 with 21pin is just the same as earlier bodyshells, so to fit it on to a 43 chassis the only option is to trim the 43s bufferbeams.  As said before about the 43 shell on a 21pin 42 is easy but the 21pin blanking plate is high so I removed the fan housings just to be sure, they are hardly visible anyway.

When should we be expecting the new Class 42 Warship, it seems a long wait. The Class 43 shell does have minor mould seems near the roof so they are prepared for different roof details. Perhaps running quality needs a re-think, certainly the gearing and pickups. Interesting on Ebay recently, some trusty older Class 42s have been going for higher prices than Class 43s. The new Class 42 will have to be spot-on to be a winner for Bachmann and us.

21 minutes ago, D 844 said:

When should we be expecting the new Class 42 Warship, it seems a long wait. The Class 43 shell does have minor mould seems near the roof so they are prepared for different roof details. Perhaps running quality needs a re-think, certainly the gearing and pickups. Interesting on Ebay recently, some trusty older Class 42s have been going for higher prices than Class 43s. The new Class 42 will have to be spot-on to be a winner for Bachmann and us.

I don’t think it’s anywhere in Bachmanns current programme. It was announced with the NBL IIRC but was then dropped. 

On 22/05/2023 at 14:45, Phil Bullock said:

I don’t think it’s anywhere in Bachmanns current programme. It was announced with the NBL IIRC but was then dropped. 

A current-spec 42 would be great but would there be a demand for it?

Then again,the Kernow D600's seemed popular.

Although the Bachmann 42's may not be at the top table for detailed models,some of mine date back to 1999 and still run really well,in that respect not showing their age at all.

(Unlike their owner...)

On 24/05/2023 at 17:44, D860 VICTORIOUS said:

 

Then again,the Kernow D600's seemed popular.

Although the Bachmann 42's may not be at the top table for detailed models,some of mine date back to 1999 and still run really well,in that respect not showing their age at all.

(Unlike their owner...)

A great Post.  I too have been playing with an elderly Bachmann 42 which when fitted with etched plates compares very favourably with Kernow's D6xx models.

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Silver Sidelines

11 hours ago, Silver Sidelines said:

A great Post.  I too have been playing with an elderly Bachmann 42 which when fitted with etched plates compares very favourably with Kernow's D6xx models.

 

 

 

 

The top picture looks like somewhere in Devon on a summer Saturday c.1960, or so I imagine in my fondest dreams!

 

Fully agree about the Bachmann 42's, it's been said before but for non-DCC users I find the mechanisms preferable to those on their later 43's. We're off to Cornwall this week for a wedding (sigh!) and perhaps a visit to a certain shop in Camborne is in order to finally buy one of the D600's.

 

John.

1 hour ago, John Tomlinson said:

 

The top picture looks like somewhere in Devon on a summer Saturday c.1960, or so I imagine in my fondest dreams!

 

Fully agree about the Bachmann 42's, it's been said before but for non-DCC users I find the mechanisms preferable to those on their later 43's. We're off to Cornwall this week for a wedding (sigh!) and perhaps a visit to a certain shop in Camborne is in order to finally buy one of the D600's.

 

John.

Enjoy the weather and hope the travelling is not too fraught (rather you than me)..

 

I do believe there are siill some new D6xx to be had - but only a few.

 

Coincidently I have just touched on the running characteristics of the Class 43s with Aliun on Flickr.  The Class 43 seem to lack the freem movement / momentum of the earlier Class 42s.

 

Regards Ray

On 04/12/2020 at 00:43, stovepipe said:

 

An interesting read.

 

This is my list of Cl 42s produced so far, with what I've gleaned. Strictly the bodyshell is only suitable for D813-817, 819-829 and 831. The rest I've marked as inauthentic - but could of course be renumbered. Hopefully the other columns are self-explanatory.

 

32050

 

 

 

This is a useful list, and highlights one of Bachmann's weaknesses until fairly recently of being fairly cavalier about picking subjects that matched the tooling. There are 19 examples listed here of which only 7 match the body tools, even though there were 17 real life examples in the fleet that matched the tools!. I remember being quite excited when 870 Zulu was announced as this had unique rood mounted horns within a little but very distinctive fairing - but I was then disappointed that the model was just the standard one reliveried. For blue FYE examples, they only managed one Class 42 of the right type to suit their tools in the entire lifetime of the model, and that was a repeat of the one Mainline modelled! Mainline only ever did four locos and they were all correct for the tools.
Bachmann are much better now, in the past few years new tooling sets reflect a much wider set of variations and locos are modelled on actual subjects.

On 22/05/2023 at 14:23, D 844 said:

When should we be expecting the new Class 42 Warship, it seems a long wait. The Class 43 shell does have minor mould seems near the roof so they are prepared for different roof details. Perhaps running quality needs a re-think, certainly the gearing and pickups. Interesting on Ebay recently, some trusty older Class 42s have been going for higher prices than Class 43s. The new Class 42 will have to be spot-on to be a winner for Bachmann and us.

 

On 22/05/2023 at 14:45, Phil Bullock said:

I don’t think it’s anywhere in Bachmanns current programme. It was announced with the NBL IIRC but was then dropped. 

 

On 24/05/2023 at 17:44, D860 VICTORIOUS said:

A current-spec 42 would be great but would there be a demand for it?

Then again,the Kernow D600's seemed popular.

Although the Bachmann 42's may not be at the top table for detailed models,some of mine date back to 1999 and still run really well,in that respect not showing their age at all.

(Unlike their owner...)

I think it is safe to assume that the Class 42 is no longer in the forseeable pipeline as Bachmann's business model has moved on. However, if they do choose to do one now I would expect based on recent releases such as the Class 37/47 that the tooling suite would allow a vastly detailed range of body options:

- disc or headcode noses

- skirt differences 

- roof panel differences (in particular walkways/no walkways/centre circular vent versions)

- centre cantrail no vent version

- single central vent strap on bodyside and cantrail vents for D800-812/D866-870

- D870 horn fairing

- short nose handrails D800-802

- different cab roof profile D800-802

Etc, etc. In particular those early disc fitted locos are probably the last major RTR modernisation plan diesel gap to be covered. So it could yet happen!

34 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

This is a useful list, and highlights one of Bachmann's weaknesses until fairly recently of being fairly cavalier about picking subjects that matched the tooling. There are 19 examples listed here of which only 7 match the body tools, even though there were 17 real life examples in the fleet that matched the tools!. I remember being quite excited when 870 Zulu was announced as this had unique rood mounted horns within a little but very distinctive fairing - but I was then disappointed that the model was just the standard one reliveried. For blue FYE examples, they only managed one Class 42 of the right type to suit their tools in the entire lifetime of the model, and that was a repeat of the one Mainline modelled! Mainline only ever did four locos and they were all correct for the tools.
Bachmann are much better now, in the past few years new tooling sets reflect a much wider set of variations and locos are modelled on actual subjects.

 

I entirely agree. Isn't it strange that, despite its fame as the first BR diesel to be preserved by a private individual, both Mainline and Bachmann managed to dodge D821 'Greyhound' even though it matches the tooling. On the other hand, as soon as the centre-drive chassis was ready Bachmann wasted no time producing a model of the other preserved example, D832 'Onslaught'. 'Greyhound' has been produced in model form, but by Fleischmann in HO scale.

Strictly speaking the Mainline/Bachmann Class 42 tooling represents just one locomotive, D818 'Glory', whose unique Spanner Mark III train heating boiler gave it a bespoke centre roof panel, as described in my topic 'D818 Glory - Misfit with a Legacy' a couple of years ago. The Fleischmann model was the same, and my assumption is that both manufacturers used D818 on static display at Swindon Works for research purposes. On D813-7/9-32 the train heating boiler roof detail was the same as Class 43.

I currently have a Mainline maroon D823 'Hermes' on the workbench into which I am attempting to fit the remnants of a D800 Mazak Rot victim which I foolishly added to a Hattons order on a whim cos it was cheap........and now wonder exactly what I've got myself into, as the chassis block is, er, somewhat shorter than it used to be and the motor is defunct, requiring replacement by a slightly rattly Class 25 unit I happen to have spare (phew!) The project has just reached the Point Of No Return as far as D823's body/underframe is concerned, if this works perhaps I'll post more - if it doesn't I won't mention it again 🤐!

 

2 hours ago, Halvarras said:

 

Strictly speaking the Mainline/Bachmann Class 42 tooling represents just one locomotive, D818 'Glory', whose unique Spanner Mark III train heating boiler gave it a bespoke centre roof panel, as described in my topic 'D818 Glory - Misfit with a Legacy' a couple of years ago.

 

I parted with my Mainline models some years ago so I cannot check but I have it in my mind that 'Highflyer' and 'Intrepid' had different roofs to each other.  It sticks in my mind because I marvelled at the time that Mainline would go to the trouble of making two different bodyshells.

 

Cheers Ray

An update!  Some pictues comparing a very early Bachmann Class 42 and a much later (2015) Class 43.  I think that how you feel about them all depends on the viewing distance. 

 

 

First D816 Eclipse a Bachmann Class 42 from the past.

 

 

Second D841 Roebuck Class 43 from 2015

 

 

Lastly a comparison showing the two roof details.

19 hours ago, Halvarras said:

 

I currently have a Mainline maroon D823 'Hermes' on the workbench into which I am attempting to fit the remnants of a D800 Mazak Rot victim which I foolishly added to a Hattons order on a whim cos it was cheap........a

 

Yes Mazac rot!  D800 Sir Brian is one of the models that suffers.  Some time ago I bought a model of Sir Brian which was advertised as having been repaired by Bachmann.  Sadly the seller didn't pack the parcel very well and on arrival one of the bogie towers was damaged.  I had another Sir Brian on hand with an apparently complete bogie tower which I would fit.  Move on to the begining of this year when I thought it was time to bring Sir Brian out of storage.  Sadly it kept turning left at various points and crossovers.  On inspection it was apparent that the bogie casting had warped and on dismantling it was even more obvious that the pins holding the two parts of the tower together had disintegrated.  Interestingly Bachmann are still selling replacement bogies and a search of the Internet will show other suppliers.  I have a soft spot for Sir Brian but he still needs some proper etched plates.  Not long ago I did buy a set off eBay but it was immediately obvious that they were the wrong dimensions.  They didn't cover the Bachmann printed plates and the spacing of the lettering didn't match pictures of the prototype.

 

D800 Sir Brian Robertson - Bachmann 32-055

 

Warped - turn left!!

 

Spot the broken pins and the crazed casting.

 

D800 Sir Brian Robertson back in service

Edited May 30, 2023 by Silver Sidelines