Jump to content
 

Bachmann Midland 1P 0-4-4T


Downer
 Share

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, barrymx5 said:

To say I am pleased with this loco would be an understatement. 

 

I couldn't agree more!

 

I cancelled my order at the first mention of traction tyres, and bought a full set of Craftsman kit / Markits wheels / High Level gearbox to go with a Mitsumi motor. (I'd had the full set for ages - but sold it when the Bachman model was first announced)!

 

When I saw the first photos of the finished RTR model, and learned that it would come with optional traction tyres, the temptation was too great - my order was reinstated. I am in no way disappointed, and I cannot for the life of me imagine why Bachmann even contemplated traction tyres.

 

Anyone in the market for a full set of Craftsman kit / Markits wheels / High Level gearbox / Mitsumi motor? (Seriously).

 

John Isherwood.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, barrymx5 said:

Has anyone felt it necessary to fit the traction wheels provided?

I have no carriages to run with it yet, awaiting construction, so its been "relegated" to goods services, because its so pretty to look at. But on flat, code 75 track, especially going through a cluster of points at the entry to the goods yard, it struggles with 12-15 plastic and white metal wagons. My two 0-6-0T 1Fs have  no problem, but I suppose that's the way it was way back then, so will try the traction tyres as it will be expected to pull 4 48' carriages with a 4w luggage van and the occasional fitted goods van.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I haven't done a test on a goods train yet but mine was perfectly happy with four Hornby LMS Period 3 non-corridors - very free-running carriages - but struggled with my four Ratio Bain suburbans, built when I was a teenager and still with plastic wheelsets running in plastic bearing holes. My six-coupled locomotives can generally manage these.

 

The real 1532 Class engines allocated to London had to work goods and mineral trains to South London depots over the switchback of the Metropolitan Widened Lines until the 2441 Class 0-6-0Ts (the ancestors of the Jinties) appeared on the scene in 1899. I gather the 0-4-4Ts struggled; I don't know what the load limits were.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The picture of the S&D version, not 54 as modelled by Bachmann, on Railwest’s site shows it in charge of 7 4 or 6 whl coaches. My two slipped slightly on starting but handled 5 Bachmann warflats, with resin tank loads, and a brake van on the flat on 2ft radius corners. They are equivalent to about 6 bogie coaches so it’s haulage on the flat on fairly sharp radii seems good enough to me. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 20/12/2020 at 08:50, nigcuberail said:

 

 

Another gentle 'prod' of Simon @ Rails by email yesterday morning has produced the required action - it's on it's way :yahoo_mini:

 

Now over to Royal Mail :scared:

 

Update - Shipped by RM 24hr Saturday 19/12/2020 & arrived Monday 21/12/2020 :yahoo_mini:

 

Well recovered Rails.

Edited by nigcuberail
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The load-hauling ability of all my previous Bachmann locos has improved by at least 50% once the newness has been worn off the wheels.

 

I use a rolling road for initial running in of gears etc. but wheels only really bed in on track, preferably with lots of curves. 

 

Mine will only be expected to deal with typical 1950s maximum loads of up to 3 coaches and a 4-wheel van. It was OK with that from the get go, though the layout is pretty flat with minimum 3ft curves.

 

The prototypes weren't designed to handle big loads or steep gradients, and certainly not both. Traction tyres are the only substitute we have for working sanders in model form. Those who want the model to deal with such demands will need to fit them.

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The prototypes weren't designed to handle big loads or steep gradients, and certainly not both. 

 

That's not really so - see my previous post about goods traffic over the Metropolitan Widened Lines. And they certainly had to work hard on the various suburban passenger stopping trains they worked - the Manchester engines were working nine-coach sets of 48 ft non-corridor carriages from 1902/3 until the arrival of the 2000 Class 0-6-4Ts; out of Moorgate they worked twelve-coach trains, though admittedly of 27 ft 4-wheelers! Not forgetting those Bradford-London and Bradford-Bristol expresses with their heavy 12-wheel dining carriages.

 

With 17" x 24" cylinders, increased to 18" x 24" before the end of the century, they didn't have quite the nominal power of the contemporary 4-4-0s and 0-6-0s, which had 26" stroke, but they probably had fewer opportunities to work expansively anyway.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That's not really so - see my previous post about goods traffic over the Metropolitan Widened Lines. And they certainly had to work hard on the various suburban passenger stopping trains they worked - the Manchester engines were working nine-coach sets of 48 ft non-corridor carriages from 1902/3 until the arrival of the 2000 Class 0-6-4Ts; out of Moorgate they worked twelve-coach trains, though admittedly of 27 ft 4-wheelers! Not forgetting those Bradford-London and Bradford-Bristol expresses with their heavy 12-wheel dining carriages.

 

With 17" x 24" cylinders, increased to 18" x 24" before the end of the century, they didn't have quite the nominal power of the contemporary 4-4-0s and 0-6-0s, which had 26" stroke, but they probably had fewer opportunities to work expansively anyway.

More to the point, they would inevitably have struggled for adhesion (and you stated as much in an earlier post).

 

In terms of prototype weight, three 27' 4-wheelers roughly equate to one modern steel-bodied coach, the model handles four of those quite happily. Nine of the 48-footers roughly six. which would be pushing it a bit on most layouts. Bet they went through tons of sand though, hence my comment about traction tyres being necessary to replace the effect of that in model form.  Your high-drag Ratios demand either that, or new bogies with bearings in them.:) 

 

In any event, mine's a BR one, and yes, the sub-100 ton loads did only represent about half what they managed in their prime. That was a fact of life for all old locos; there wasn't enough money for BR to replace everything that needed it so it was necessary to find work they could still do without costing a fortune in fuel or maintenance. That's why ancient but versatile tanks survived and newer specialist express locos didn't. 

 

That said, by the 1950s, giving one of the surviving 1Ps the kind of treatment they received in their youth would have seen it condemned on return to shed, assuming it got that far! The Shed Master would have been on the phone next morning trying to scrounge a replacement, ideally a 2MT 2-6-2T, which is what he and his crews would have preferred to have in the first place....

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Very fair, @Dunsignalling, although I think a 4P 2-6-4T would have been more the thing for the 1950s equivalent jobs - certainly the Bradford expresses and the majority of the suburban turns on the Midland division. 

 

It would certainly have been interesting to see a 1P trying to move the Devonian with 11 Coaches on!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
33 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Very fair, @Dunsignalling, although I think a 4P 2-6-4T would have been more the thing for the 1950s equivalent jobs - certainly the Bradford expresses and the majority of the suburban turns on the Midland division. 

Increasing train weight resulting from modern coaches had moved those duties well beyond the capacity of the 1P long before WW2, hence the requirement for the 4P locos in the first place.

 

The 0-4-4 tanks had been cascaded to branch and local turns for many years before nationalisation.

 

John

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't they replaced by Fowler 3Ps in London? Although whether they were any better is debatable....  

 

Not wishlisting for them or the Stanier versions as Judith Edge do them. 

 

 

Good thinking about the Slaters brass numerals though. I've got a packet of them somewhere. Bought from one of those boxes of bits you find at exhibitions.

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
29 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

It would certainly have been interesting to see a 1P trying to move the Devonian with 11 Coaches on!

 

Indeed. The early 20th century equivalent was five 54 ft clerestory corridor carriages from Bradford, one a composite brake for Bournemouth, the rest going no further than Bristol. No dining car until Derby. The London trains were a heavier proposition though, as seen in the Bradford Under Snow film that I've posted before.

 

13 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Increasing train weight resulting from modern coaches had moved those duties well beyond the capacity of the 1P long before WW2, hence the requirement for the 4P locos in the first place.

 

The 0-4-4 tanks had been cascaded to branch and local turns for many years before nationalisation.

 

The allocation table in Summerson shows that the majority of the 0-4-4Ts were still at the sheds to which they had first been allocated as late as 1933. By 1945, the survivors have been dispersed. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean they were still on the same turns as they had been in the 1880s or 1890s. In the Manchester, Birmingham, and Nottingham areas they had already been supplanted by the 2000 Class 0-6-4Ts, which Derby had ended up producing instead of something very like the later 2-6-4T which was also on the drawing-board (sans superheater). By the mid-30s, there were plenty of 2-6-4Ts...

 

5 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Weren't they replaced by Fowler 3Ps in London? Although whether they were any better is debatable....  

 

Not wishlisting for them or the Stanier versions as Judith Edge do them. 

 

... together with the weedy 2-6-2Ts in the London area. The Fowler variety look as if they've scarcely got enough ommph to move themselves and the Stanier ones don't look much better!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

... together with the weedy 2-6-2Ts in the London area. The Fowler variety look as if they've scarcely got enough ommph to move themselves and the Stanier ones don't look much better!

Somebody with first hand experience of both once told me the smaller Ivatts could wipe the floor with the Fowlers, and equal all but the best of the Staniers.

 

The batch of "Midland Tanks" supplied to the Southern Region earned the admiration (and in some cases, adoration) of enginemen who generally disdained anything "not invented here".

 

John

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Dunsignalling said:

Somebody with first hand experience of both once told me the smaller Ivatts could wipe the floor with the Fowlers, and equal all but the best of the Staniers.

 

I was deliberately refraining from mentioning the Ivatt 2MT 2-6-2Ts in the same breath as the earlier 3Ps!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Putting aside the Fowler 3P engines, just why did the Stanier 3P locomotives underperform? I've never understood it

 

Were they not simply the same engine with a different boiler? I can't find that there was anything particularly wrong with either the G6S boiler or the 6/6A taper boiler, just that both were too small for the engine's 17½" x 26" cylinders (identical in volume to those of the 1P 0-4-4T!). I suspect the front end was sub-optimal. It's weird that having got things spot on with the 4P 2-6-4T the 3P could be such a dud.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The boiler was too small apparently. They started reboilering them, but stopped after only 6 were completed for some reason.

 

The BR version had an equivalent to the bigger 6B boiler from the outset and was well liked. Ignore all that nonsense on the Wikipedia page saying they were based on the GWR locomotives. They were pure LMS, even the boiler was designated BR6.

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Were they not simply the same engine with a different boiler? I can't find that there was anything particularly wrong with either the G6S boiler or the 6/6A taper boiler, just that both were too small for the engine's 17½" x 26" cylinders (identical in volume to those of the 1P 0-4-4T!). I suspect the front end was sub-optimal. It's weird that having got things spot on with the 4P 2-6-4T the 3P could be such a dud.

The Fowler engine had a very cramped front end and short lap etc valves which the Stanier design corrected. As for the boiler being small on the Fowlers there is archive footage showing them going like the clappers on the outer suburban services from St Pancras. I get the impression that as long as the superheater was warm enough on the Fowlers it could deliver enough steam for the job for outer suburban services. The problem lay in the hurdles that steam had to mount before it got to the cylinders giving rise to high fuel consumption.

OK , that's my understanding of the Fowlers, but the Staniers appear to have resolved those issues, but they were still poor engines: why? Why is it that the GWR, where Stanier came from, had no problem designing this class of engine but Stanier couldn't or didn't take that with him?

Thoughts please

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 30/12/2020 at 17:53, Steamport Southport said:

The boiler was too small apparently. They started reboilering them, but stopped after only 6 were completed for some reason.

 

The BR version had an equivalent to the bigger 6B boiler from the outset and was well liked. Ignore all that nonsense on the Wikipedia page saying they were based on the GWR locomotives. They were pure LMS, even the boiler was designated BR6.

 

 

Jason


The boiler used on the BR Standard 3MT 2-6-2Ts (and the 2-6-0s for that matter) was of GWR origin (Swindon No. 4, modified). Source: Locomotive Panorama, volume 2 by E.S.Cox (Ian Allan). Chapter 1, page 23. My copy cost £1 in 1974!
 

What's pure LMS, anyway — after all William Stanier was imported from a certain other railway…
 

Edited by D9020 Nimbus
Corrected spelling, added page and chapter numbers.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:


The boiler used on the BR Standard 3MT 2-6-2Ts (and the 2-6-0s for that matter) was of GWR origin (Swindon No. 4, modified). Source: Locomotive Panorama, volume 2 by E.S.Cox (Ian Allan). Chapter 1, page 23. My copy cost £1 in 1974!
 

What's pure LMS, anyway — after all William Stanier was imported from a certain other railway…
 

 

Same size boiler as a LMS 6B which was used from 1940.

 

Here's a photo of one of the boilers in question.

 

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/LOCOMOTIVES-OF-BRITISH-RAILWAYS-MIDLAND-REGION/262T-LOCOMOTIVES/i-6nXPwBz/

 

The design was already in use over ten years before the BR version was built.

 

The GWR boiler is totally different. That's why it's important to dispute "facts" such as this. Especially since there is no sources cited.

 

Quote

The design and construction took place at the ex-GWR Swindon Works, along with the 2-6-0 tender engine version of the class. Although the boiler shared flanged plates with the GWR No.2 boiler the barrel was shortened by 5 13⁄16 inches and a dome added. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BR_Standard_Class_3_2-6-2T

 

That is describing an LMS boiler and is the correct size for a type 6B, not a GWR boiler. GWR taper boilers didn't have domes for a start. 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Given the build up to the release of this model and the doubts and critique levelled at the various versions, I'm surprised how little there has been in the way of posts or photos regarding the now released models, which is what the thread is about. 

 

I expected a lot more.........

 

 

Rob. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

Given the build up to the release of this model and the doubts and critique levelled at the various versions, I'm surprised how little there has been in the way of posts or photos regarding the now released models, which is what the thread is about. 

 

I expected a lot more.........

 

 

Rob. 

Apart from on the rollers mine’s only run on my father’s shed layout on Xmas day and there was too much food distracting from taking pics! 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
16 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

Given the build up to the release of this model and the doubts and critique levelled at the various versions, I'm surprised how little there has been in the way of posts or photos regarding the now released models, which is what the thread is about. 

 

I expected a lot more.........

 

 

Rob. 

Well mine runs nicely on a GWR D set, smooth and virtually silent. The cab doors are a pain to fit (as are those on the J72). For some bizarre reason, my photos will only open in Antipodean orientation....

 

Edited by Tim Hall
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, Tim Hall said:

Well mine runs nicely on a GWR D set, smooth and virtually silent. The cab doors are a pain to fit (as are those on the J72).

IMG_3245.JPG

 

You appear to have acquired an Australian market example, Tim. 

 

Rob

Edited by NHY 581
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...