Bachmann Midland 1P 0-4-4T

[brossard]

51L/Wizard did/do? D-502 and D-526 coach kits, complete with push-pull ends

 

Well, I've done two using Hornby's NC coaches. 

 

John

[Compound2632]

Isn't it interesting how little froth the Bachmann 1P 0-4-4T has generated compared to other RTR models of engines of this wheel arrangement? Just goes to show what sober, dignified and patient folk we Midland/LMR enthusiasts are.

[NHY 581]

Quite right.

 

 

Rob.

[Dick Turpin]

Isn't it interesting how little froth the Bachmann 1P 0-4-4T has generated compared to other RTR models of engines of this wheel arrangement? Just goes to show what sober, dignified and patient folk we Midland/LMR enthusiasts are.

 

Either that or it demonstrates their level of faith in Bachmann.

[NHY 581]

Either that or it demonstrates their level of faith in Bachmann.

Bachmann have produced lovely models of small Midland/L.M & S R locomotives over the years without misshap. I'm not expecting anything different here.

 

 

Rob

[tomparryharry]

I'd respectfully suggest that the degree of interest/froth may have a direct correlation to how many interested people are modelling in any of the era, locations that they might be interested. I'll hazard a guess that Western modellers outnumber the others by quite a few percentage point.

 

There is a historical point to this. In the past, you could make any old tat, and stick a GWR sticker on it, and it would sell. Apart from the older R52 Jinty, it's the only tank locomotive in town. The numbers alone make sense. There has been some really questionable stuff heaped upon us, to the point that the customer base replied "not good enough, we want better". Little wonder that in recent years, the quality & fidelity has shot up. At last, producers are starting to cotton on.

 

Finally, in the highly unlikely event that Bachmann produce a lemon, then the customers money won't be forthcoming.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Dunsignalling]

I'd respectfully suggest that the degree of interest/froth may have a direct correlation to how many interested people are modelling in any of the era, locations that they might be interested. I'll hazard a guess that Western modellers outnumber the others by quite a few percentage point.

 

 

That may have been true - in the 1950s.

 

The "LMS Society" edition of Railway Modeller hammered the first nail into that particular coffin.

 

John

[phil_sutters]

Apropos of the S&DJR, apart from the single 1532 class 0-4-4T transferred to the joint line in the twenties and subsequently re-assimilated into the class, resuming its old number (and of which Bachmann are aware), the other blue 0-4-4Ts - the nine built by Avonside in 1877 and the four by the Vulcan Foundry in 1883 - are bit of a mystery to me. I don't have much on them but I gather they differed from the contemporary Midland engines quite significantly, even possibly having shorter coupled wheelbase than 8'0". Is this so? Johnson's 4-4-0s for the S&DJR are also charmingly petite and unlike any of his Midland engines and I'm starting to suspect that even the Neilson and Vulcan Foundry "Scottie" 0-6-0s were smaller than standard, though not the later Derby-built and Neilson "Bulldogs". This is in contrast to the engines he supplied for the M&GN which were identical to contemporary Midland classes. Curious.

S&D Loco History shows the coupled wheels diam as 5ft 3" and the bogie wheels as 3ft 0". The wheelbase was 8ft0" + 8ft6" + 5ft6"   22ft oa  - The standard Avonside version is at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/77578-sdjr-0-4-4t-no-13-avonside-1877-to-1930/ in my album and there is a later version with a different chimney, safety valve and dome, from about 1906, adjacent to it.

Edited March 5, 2018 by phil_sutters

[Compound2632]

S&D Loco History shows the coupled wheels diam as 5ft 3" and the bogie wheels as 3ft 0". The wheelbase was 8ft0" + 8ft6" + 5ft6"   22ft oa  - The standard Avonside version is at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/77578-sdjr-0-4-4t-no-13-avonside-1877-to-1930/ in my album and there is a later version with a different chimney, safety valve and dome, from about 1906, adjacent to it.

 

In terms of wheelbase and wheel diameter, that's the same as the 1532 Class built from 1881 onwards (per the Bachmann model); the 6 Class of 1875 had a shorter bogie (5'0") though at the same centre, as did the 1252 Class of 1875/6, though these had 5'7" drivers. So the Avonside engines represent an intermediate stage in the evolution of the Johnson 0-4-4T; evidently sufficiently different (tank height? boiler pitch?) not to be a possible variant of the Bachmann model. Your official photo of No. 10 shows an intermediate "Deeley-fied" condition which, thankfully, the Midland engines were spared - a truly hideous chimney!

 

I'd respectfully suggest that the degree of interest/froth may have a direct correlation to how many interested people are modelling in any of the era, locations that they might be interested. I'll hazard a guess that Western modellers outnumber the others by quite a few percentage point.

 

Well, I think Great Western modellers are not guilty this time - but only on account of that company not having many 0-4-4Ts! I rather had in mind the threads on Hornby's SE&CR Class H and the TMC/Bachmann NER Class O 0-4-4Ts - the latter of which I'm guilty of having contributed to.

[tomparryharry]

In terms of wheelbase and wheel diameter, that's the same as the 1532 Class built from 1881 onwards (per the Bachmann model); the 6 Class of 1875 had a shorter bogie (5'0") though at the same centre, as did the 1252 Class of 1875/6, though these had 5'7" drivers. So the Avonside engines represent an intermediate stage in the evolution of the Johnson 0-4-4T; evidently sufficiently different (tank height? boiler pitch?) not to be a possible variant of the Bachmann model. Your official photo of No. 10 shows an intermediate "Deeley-fied" condition which, thankfully, the Midland engines were spared - a truly hideous chimney!

 

 

Well, I think Great Western modellers are not guilty this time - but only on account of that company not having many 0-4-4Ts! I rather had in mind the threads on Hornby's SE&CR Class H and the TMC/Bachmann NER Class O 0-4-4Ts - the latter of which I'm guilty of having contributed to.

Well, I am also guilty, to a lesser or greater degree. I think what we've found is that polite, informal & sometimes educational discussion on the subjects should, in most cases, lead us to where we want to be. If for some reason, you don't like what you're offered, don't buy it. You can politely explain why you're not buying it. You're not baying for blood, although it sometimes look like that! Any producer worth his salt should have cottoned on over the last few years, and realised that the upper end of the market is where it's at. sales will ably demonstrate that, because you're paying for it, ultimately. 

 

I'm quite prepared to hang on for what 'floats my boat'. No? Then the wallet stays shut. Simples....

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Compound2632]

I am sure one model has opening smokebox door along with opening firebox door with fire flicker which is just overkill and just adding cost for very little use under normal running. Hopefully it's just a one off and not a sign of the norm to come

 

I thought that was the Triang M7?

[Jub45565]

I'd respectfully suggest that the degree of interest/froth may have a direct correlation to how many interested people are modelling in any of the era, locations that they might be interested. I'll hazard a guess that Western modellers outnumber the others by quite a few percentage point.

Good trolling!

 

Maybe it's because we have better things to do until Bachmann supply some info about which we can converse.

 

I'm busy finishing my Craftsman one now, correcting it's defects & hopefully coming up with something I will prefer 'cos I made it. That said, if Bachmanns cuts the mustard I will buy one - like I have their other prototypes of interest.

 

The problem could be, unlike for GWR folk, that there is no suitable motor train stock to use with this, or the push pull fitted Ivatt. I'm aware the Hornby D1907 BT is ripe for a D1856 conversion, as others have proved & I have underway. Other variants including some Midland examples would be magic.

 

This has already been discussed though, so I'll head back to the modelling bench until further info arrives...

[tomparryharry]

Good trolling!

 

Maybe it's because we have better things to do until Bachmann supply some info about which we can converse.

 

I'm busy finishing my Craftsman one now, correcting it's defects & hopefully coming up with something I will prefer 'cos I made it. That said, if Bachmanns cuts the mustard I will buy one - like I have their other prototypes of interest.

 

The problem could be, unlike for GWR folk, that there is no suitable motor train stock to use with this, or the push pull fitted Ivatt. I'm aware the Hornby D1907 BT is ripe for a D1856 conversion, as others have proved & I have underway. Other variants including some Midland examples would be magic.

 

This has already been discussed though, so I'll head back to the modelling bench until further info arrives...

Oh dear me! A Troll! Back to the hole where I can hide!

 

Goodbye!

[phil_sutters]

I thought that was the Triang M7?

I have rewheeled Triang M7 chassis under my two S&D 0-4-4Ts! There weren't glowing fireboxes in them 48 years ago! They are parked on a makeshift diorama just for the photos.

Edited March 5, 2018 by phil_sutters

[John_Miles]

The pictures on the Bachmann website are of actual engines rather than the models. The one in Midland livery shows a loco with a Johnson chimney, small Johnson numbers, continuous handrail and a flat Deeley smokebox door with dogs. Is this how the model will appear. This would date the engine to a very narrow band of years from around 1903 to 1907. However, I would certainly splash out on one of these, even though I already have two 2228 class engines which are more correct for my South Wales early 20thC layout.

[peterfgf]

The pictures on the Bachmann website are of actual engines rather than the models. The one in Midland livery shows a loco with a Johnson chimney, small Johnson numbers, continuous handrail and a flat Deeley smokebox door with dogs. Is this how the model will appear. This would date the engine to a very narrow band of years from around 1903 to 1907. However, I would certainly splash out on one of these, even though I already have two 2228 class engines which are more correct for my South Wales early 20thC layout.

The one of 1273 shows the loco at the old Buxton Midland Railway shed.  This was demolished before WWII and Buxton locos all went to the old LNWR shed.  The site is now under the Spring Gardens bypass.

Peterfgf

[Jub45565]

Does anyone know of a photo showing the cab/backhead of a Belpaire rebuild?

 

There is a brilliant one for a round topped version in the Wild Swan Midland Engines No. 1 covering these tanks (p30). There is a sideways view with some view of the cab in the Midland Record preview edition (p77). But neither of these is quite what I am after...

 

TIA,

[Compound2632]

The one of 1273 shows the loco at the old Buxton Midland Railway shed.  This was demolished before WWII and Buxton locos all went to the old LNWR shed.  The site is now under the Spring Gardens bypass.

Peterfgf

 

The photo in question appears on p. 90 of Stephen Summerson's Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 3 (Irwell Press, 2002). It is stated to be at Buxton c. 1909. The engine carries its post-1907 number, 1273, but in the small brass numerals - the great renumbering preceded the general adoption of the 18" transfer numerals. This engine was 1539 before the renumbering. As John Miles says, the details restrict it to quite a narrow date range, but slightly later than he says, probably c. 1907 - maybe c. 1910? A model with Deeley smokebox/chimney and 18" transfer numbers would represent late Midland / early LMS condition and sit more nicely alongside Bachmann's other Midland models such as the 4F and 3F that have appeared in Midland livery. If the model is a reproduction of the photo, for myself, I'll be looking at replacing the Deeley flat smokebox door with a Johnson-pattern one and re-numbering to a pre-1907 number using Slater's etched brass numerals.

[Rising Standards]

On the subject of smokebox doors, excuse the pondering of someone largely inexperienced about the Midland Railway, but is there an engineering-influenced reason why Deeley turned up his nose at Johnson's nice dished smokebox door and cooked up that 'orrible flat thing, or was it purely an aesthetic choice on his part?

[coachmann]

On the subject of smokebox doors, excuse the pondering of someone largely inexperienced about the Midland Railway, but is there an engineering-influenced reason why Deeley turned up his nose at Johnson's nice dished smokebox door and cooked up that 'orrible flat thing, or was it purely an aesthetic choice on his part?

It is likely Johnsons dished door could not be kept airtight, hence the new door pressing and cleats or dogs around its perimeter. A similar door went onto ex. L&YR locos. They were a nuisance to open!

[Compound2632]

It is likely Johnsons dished door could not be kept airtight, hence the new door pressing and cleats or dogs around its perimeter. A similar door went onto ex. L&YR locos. They were a nuisance to open!

 

But the Johnson design had been in use for three decades, so it can't have been so very bad?

[PenrithBeacon]

But the Johnson design had been in use for three decades, so it can't have been so very bad?

I'm not at all sure that Johnson cared too much about maintenance issues and I suspect that he was a bit of a martinet so people wouldn't tell him if things could be improved. Your job might depend on keeping quiet.

 

Johnson was quite happy to accept that about 25% of the locomotive stock would be in works or waiting to go in the works. If there was a loco shortage he just ordered more rather than improve throughput at Derby or change the designs so they needed less maintenance! Deeley was a breath of fresh air at Derby, probably too fresh for the inward looking MR. He and Kirtley were by far the best mechanical engineers the railway had but then there weren't many; Kirtley, Johnson, Deeley and Fowler.

[PenrithBeacon]

It is likely Johnsons dished door could not be kept airtight, hence the new door pressing and cleats or dogs around its perimeter. A similar door went onto ex. L&YR locos. They were a nuisance to open!

When I go to the KWVR which I try to do at least once a year, I go to the engine shed after close of play. Sometimes, if the the 4F has been in use, you can see the smokebox being cleaned out. Then you can see why Larry thinks they were a nuisance but it was a good deal more effective than Johnson's design.

[John_Miles]

I'm not at all sure that Johnson cared too much about maintenance issues and I suspect that he was a bit of a martinet so people wouldn't tell him if things could be improved. Your job might depend on keeping quiet.

 

Johnson was quite happy to accept that about 25% of the locomotive stock would be in works or waiting to go in the works. If there was a loco shortage he just ordered more rather than improve throughput at Derby or change the designs so they needed less maintenance! Deeley was a breath of fresh air at Derby, probably too fresh for the inward looking MR. He and Kirtley were by far the best mechanical engineers the railway had but then there weren't many; Kirtley, Johnson, Deeley and Fowler.

 

Saying anything negative about that nice Mr Johnson is a mortal sin. He designed beautiful engines and their smokebox doors may not have been perfect but his locos lasted until the 1960s, albeit with a lot of aesthetic damage from Deeley, Fowler and to a lesser extent Stanier. If you read the memoirs of loco men such as Terry Essery they were good engines. Part of the reason they spent so long in the works was the paint shop needed a lot of time to produce that wonderful finish.

[coachmann]

Photograph clearly comfirms that whilst the original Johnson front end on non-reboilered locomotives did survive until the grouping on one or two locomotives, by and large its replacement by the Deeley 'dogs' pattern had taken place by 1917. Thus the Midland had a changed 'face' even before it entered the LMS. Metal corrosion leading to a failure to be airtight is probably the reason. 'Aesthetic damage' counts for nothing when a locomotives efficiency is affected. Similar doors held by perimeter catches appeared on the SE&CR and Southern.  I havent studied L&Y locos, but similar doors may have started to replace original doors before the grouping.