Bachmann 94xx

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I've never seen it written down in any railway publication as a speed restriction for any class, and was no a formal instruction in the sense you mean, Mike, but according to Canton drivers I spoke to in the 70s it was the accepted practice not to exceed that speed (in other words the drivers were told to observe it as a limit), and point to point timings with given loads were based on it.  The subject came up in a messroom discussion about speeds on the Rhymney, which had a higher line speed than the Taff Vale which was a 50mph road above Radyr because of the curvature, and the fact that the 56xx which replaced Rhymney Ps and Taff As could not make the same speed, or not as comfortably anyway.  I'd postulated a '76xx' class with 5'2" driving wheels, but it was pointed out that the larger diameter would have raised the centre of gravity of the loco, which would have not ridden well.  The cylinders could have been more level, though.

 

Another thing that came out of this discussion was that 5101s were able to stretch their legs a little on the Rhymney, but not on the Taff or Barry.  They were common on the Vale of Glamorgan trains, but this is because their larger wheels gave them a bit of extra range before the tanks were empty compared to a 56xx.  I was also told that the likes of 42xx and 28xx used on Bank Holiday excursions were not expected to exceed 50mph.

 

I'm sure it was frequently exceeded, though.  Tuplin may not be the most reliable source for hard established fact and spouts a lot of opinion, but mentions, in 'Sinners and Saints' I think, that an idea of the speed of a train hauled by a GW loco with steam shut off can be obtained from the noise of the vacuum pump, and that coming down the bank from Torre to Newton Abbott behind a 45xx it was sometimes difficult to believe one's ears.  Ditto the 4575s coming down from Heath Jc to Queen Street with the Coryton auto, and the 64xx on the Marshfield Flyer could be seen 'popping along' a bit as well!

 

Of course, one must temper such subjective observations with the awareness that smaller wheeled locos' exhaust beats (and vacuum pump strokes, ts ts ts ts ts) seem very fast compared with larger wheeled locos at the same speed, so an impression of speed is created that may mislead an observer into thinking that the loco is going faster than it actually is...

 

The LMS had specially balanced 8Fs, identified by a star on the cab side above the number, that were permitted 60mph for fast freight and excursion passenger work, with wheels only an inch and half larger diameter than the GW locos we are discussing.  Churchward's standard wheel sizes were 4'1" for shunting, 4''7" for freight (but frequently used in passenger work in the Valleys and elsewhere), 5'2" for local and branch passenger work, 5'8" for mixed traffic, and 6'8" for fast passenger; Collett and Hawksworth messed around with these size a bit with moguls, large prairies, Kings, and Counties, and Collett introduce 6' for the successful Halls, but little of that impinged on Valley work, and the last GW locos built, the 94xx and 16xx, kept to the Churchward formula, and the 16xx heritage was even older than that.

 

Area/route specific restrictions of speed are not the same as a general restriction on any particular class of loco.  And as far as I can trace from the normal sources there was no such restriction on 94XX engines so it is misleading to state such in an unqualified manner as you did because people will then go away believing yet another myth to be fact.  The 94s were known for so pretty fast running between Gloucester and Cheltenham and were certainly timed at 60mph on a number of occasions (but then Gloucester men were known for fast running with tank engines when the opportunity present itself).

 

I think we always need to bear in mind that many folk regard RMweb as being a 'source' and will thus gather information from it.  I endeavour to cjeck any information like thsi before I write and will say so if I have not verified it against any original sources.  I think we owe that courtesy to other people who visit the forum. 

[Wickham Green]

11 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

 Ever so slightly incorrect John. The Western vacuum pump is driven off the locomotive crosshead, not the wheels ............

.............. and - all being well - will make one return stroke with every turn of the wheels .......... all driven by the latter when the loco is coasting.

 

Anyway, it's a bit academic talking about 50mph ( or whatever ) speed limits when none of these locos had speedos and the crew had better things to do than count rail joints .....................

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

Area/route specific restrictions of speed are not the same as a general restriction on any particular class of loco.  And as far as I can trace from the normal sources there was no such restriction on 94XX engines so it is misleading to state such in an unqualified manner as you did because people will then go away believing yet another myth to be fact.  The 94s were known for so pretty fast running between Gloucester and Cheltenham and were certainly timed at 60mph on a number of occasions (but then Gloucester men were known for fast running with tank engines when the opportunity present itself).

 

I think we always need to bear in mind that many folk regard RMweb as being a 'source' and will thus gather information from it.  I endeavour to cjeck any information like thsi before I write and will say so if I have not verified it against any original sources.  I think we owe that courtesy to other people who visit the forum. 

This is why I described the 50mph restriction as 'practice' rather than written instruction, Mike.  Gloucester certainly went very fast out to Standish with 14xx on the Chalford Auto; I believe over 70mph was common, and I have no doubt that they caned it a bit with the 94xx on the Cheltenham Spa Express (it had dropped the 'Flyer' by BR days).  I never claimed it to be an official restriction, but I was certainly told that 50mph was 'regarded as the instruction', official or not, for 56xx on the Rhymney, a 90mph road from the north end of Caerphilly Tunnel down to Queen Street, and the Taff south of Radyr (70mph), because of the driving wheel size.  The men said that they had preferred the faster Taff A and Rhymney P for right time arrivals at Queen Street if some had been lost to station work further up the valley.

 

It is important to make clear that information is not verified when this is the case; as you say this is how myths and incorrectness perpetuates; perhaps I should make myself clearer in future and will take your comments on board.  But correct reading of my post will show that I have not claimed anything to be a verified fact or inferred in the writing that this is so.

[The Stationmaster]

21 hours ago, The Johnster said:

This is why I described the 50mph restriction as 'practice' rather than written instruction, Mike.  Gloucester certainly went very fast out to Standish with 14xx on the Chalford Auto; I believe over 70mph was common, and I have no doubt that they caned it a bit with the 94xx on the Cheltenham Spa Express (it had dropped the 'Flyer' by BR days).  I never claimed it to be an official restriction, but I was certainly told that 50mph was 'regarded as the instruction', official or not, for 56xx on the Rhymney, a 90mph road from the north end of Caerphilly Tunnel down to Queen Street, and the Taff south of Radyr (70mph), because of the driving wheel size.  The men said that they had preferred the faster Taff A and Rhymney P for right time arrivals at Queen Street if some had been lost to station work further up the valley.

 

It is important to make clear that information is not verified when this is the case; as you say this is how myths and incorrectness perpetuates; perhaps I should make myself clearer in future and will take your comments on board.  But correct reading of my post will show that I have not claimed anything to be a verified fact or inferred in the writing that this is so.

You said, and I quote, 'GW/WR practice was to limit locomotives with 4'7" driving wheels to 50mph so far as timings were concerned: not saying that this was never ever exceeded but there would be no requirement for it to be in normal running, even on passenger trains.'

 

I asked for the origin of that because there must have been something which said that was what had to be done and you couldn't offer that.  Route specific restrictions of speed are one thing, restrictions on certain sizes of driving wheel or classes of engine were a very different thing hence they were published, in writing, in order to be observed by those preparing timetables and - to the extent that experience allowed - by Drivers

 

End iof.

[Miss Prism]

I really cannot understand any obsession with speed for small-wheeled tank engines.

 

[The Johnster]

Not really an obsession, Ms P; we are trying to establish how fast they could go in our own clumsy ways in order to operate more realistically.  I have arbitrarily put a 40mph line speed on the Cwmdimbath branch (clearly, the locos could do much better than that) and never get up to anything like that that; a passenger train departing might be expected to manage 25mph before the tail lamp disappears beneath the scenic break bridges. and as I imagine there to be a steep bank just beyond that out of sight, arrivals come over the top at about 20mph.  I judge speed by driving wheel revolutions and imagined exhuast beats; all of my current locos are GW with 4'7" wheels and I think I'm probably ball park accurate with this.  Freight and mineral traffic is unfitted and restricted to 25 mph, and never gets over 15mph in practice.

 

If the point you are making is that small tank engines spend most of their time going slowly and a good bit of that going very slowly, and that slow smooth control of such locos is vital for realistic operation, then you are preaching to the choir; I absolutely agree as I imagine most of us do.  Top speed in unimportant unless you have a layout on which an express passenger or large mixed traffic loco can stretch it's legs; few of us can do this without imposing curvature that would in reality be severely speed restricted on to the layout!  Top speed is an irrelevance to many modellers.  8 out of my 10 are similar Bachmann mechanisms which perform very well in this regard, and the other 2 Hornby are just as good, but have a very different 'feel' on the controller.  I fully expect the 94xx when it arrives to be compliant, and will be vocal on the matter if it isn't!

 

One can be too slow, though, and it is frequent point of discussion.  We've all seen exhibition layouts where endless shunting moves are left standing by invisible 4mm snails or continental drift.  Very slow movements certainly took place on the real railway; movements into goods sheds where the driver cannot see if men are working in vans or wagons for instance took place with extreme caution.  Most shunting in goods yards was done by the pickup guard, and took place at the speed he could walk about coupling wagons, pinning down brakes illegally with his shunting pole, and pulling point levers; about 8mph would probably be about right with occasional pauses for him to catch up.  Carriage siding shunts took place at about this pace as well.  Marshalling yard shunting was much faster and rougher; everybody wants to finish early and go home, train departure times are approaching, and the wagons are banged about with gay abandon and, with several men on the ground, it is a matter of teamwork between them and the driver.  

 

Realistic operation of a busy marshalling yard at prototype speeds is a major challenge on a model, with the continuous 24/7 intense activity as wagons are knocked about hard and fast all over the place running loose, maybe more than one pilot operating simultaneously in different parts of the yard, against the backdrop of continual arrivals and departures.  I've never seen it properly achieved.

 

 

[Brentor95]

There were a few allocated to the Southwest Devon and Cornwall in 1959; 83A Newton Abbot. 9440; 9462; 9487.  83C Exeter. 9439; 9474; 9497.  83D Laira. 8422; 9433; 9467. 83E St Blazey. 8485. 83F Truro 8412; 8421. 84G Penzance. 8409; 8473.

 

Some photo references; Peter Gray West Country Branch Lines 9487 on the 08.00 Kingswear-Manchester (as far as Newton Abbot) 18th April 1960.

 

Hugh Ballantyne Western Steam in Colour. 9471 on the 15.50 Cheltenam-Paddington 16th May 1964; 9493 10.20 Gloucester-Chalford 26 September 1964; 8459 on a transfer goods to Acton Yard 21 December 1963.

 

Very pleased with the samples seen so far.

[SDJR7F88]

A look at some of the latest models and prototypes from Bachmann Europe, filmed on their Roadshow Stand at the Bristol Model Railway Exhibition 2019. Models featured, included the all new GWR 94XX Pannier Tank )0-6-0PT, MR 1532 1P 0-4-4T, NER E1 / J72 Class 0-6-0T and Ransomes & Rapier 45 Ton Breakdown Crane, plus much more, as well as many other exciting developments cross the range.

Hope you enjoy!

https://youtu.be/8p5rRhmpUZs

Edited May 8, 2019 by SDJR7F88

[The Johnster]

Progress!  If this means that the model actually exists in a corporeal form that can be looked at from different angles without 3D glasses or VR, and picked up and handled.  But this is not clear from the photo, and the website still shows photos of prototype locos.  I'm encouraged, but not getting too excited just yet...

 

However, I am aware that every day, and in every way, the Bachmann 94xx gets 94xxier and 94xxier, and that I will have one on Cwmdimbath, possibly by the end of this year and almost certainly be the end of next.  Bachmann, who I've criticised enough over the delays to this loco, are coming good eventually, and I am happy with this.  A chap on their stand at last year's Bristol show told me that 'it's not just a box on wheels, you know (I did know that, actually), which suggests that they have had issues with this loco that they have preferred to keep to themselves, which they are absolutely entitled to do whatever i think about it and they probably have good reasons I'm not aware of.  Personally, I think I'm grown up enough to be told about this sort of thing, but actually it's none of my business if a delay is caused.  I am better off as a customer with a model that they've taken time and effort to get right; every previous 4mm incarnation of this loco, from the Graham Farish die cast of the 1950s to the Lima with the worst chassis I've ever seen in RTR, has been compromised in some way; coupling rods, wheel spacings, safety valve covers, bunker steps where they shouldn't be, and this iteration, complain though I might (and have!), should be worth the wait.

 

All will be forgiven when the model is in my sweaty little paws despite the pain in my wallet.  So long as it runs properly, of course!  If not, I'm off to Barwell with a big hitting stick; anyone coming with...

[PMP]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Progress!  If this means that the model actually exists in a corporeal form that can be looked at from different angles without 3D glasses or VR, and picked up and handled. 

 

Are you actually suggesting that the model in the Bachmann showcase in the video isn’t there? A hologram perhaps?

[SDJR7F88]

A couple of pictures I managed to get of the 94XX, while filming the above video.

Hope they are of interest!

 

[Shedman5]

Watching the video does not bode well for my future bank balance lol!

[The Johnster]

Nor mine!  I've watched the vid, now, and along with the photos can confirm to my satisfaction that this loco very probably does physically exist!!!

 

This is the GW version with the sloping plate covering the tops of the cylinders on the running plate ahead of the smokebox, and I'll have to wait a little longer for my 'BR production' model.  

[Steamport Southport]

If you've got the money 9466 is for sale. 

 

 

 

Jason

[adb968008]

50 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

If you've got the money 9466 is for sale. 

 

 

 

Jason

Its a lovely engine.

I remember reading the restoration article in steam railway (i think 1985) titled “Dinosaur 9466”..

 

seen here on its last mainline railtour, for now.. a 3 coach special from Southall, via Greenford thru High Wycombe to Princes Risborough last October.

 

 

A scene possible to recreate as WCRC mk2’s are also in the catalogue.

Edited May 8, 2019 by adb968008

[RThompson]

You could also by going back in 2000 and 2001 recreate "Steam on the Met" as all the locos during the 2 years I rode in it are now (94xx soon) available ready to run. Only missing some LT A60 stock.

[adb968008]

9 hours ago, RThompson said:

You could also by going back in 2000 and 2001 recreate "Steam on the Met" as all the locos during the 2 years I rode in it are now (94xx soon) available ready to run. Only missing some LT A60 stock.

4TC in LT Maroon...

[RThompson]

8 hours ago, adb968008 said:

4TC in LT Maroon...

4TC available rtr, just need to repaint it,

[Paul.Uni]

The 94XX is due May 2020 according to the Bachmann availability page.

[No Decorum]

1 hour ago, Paul.Uni said:

The 94XX is due May 2020 according to the Bachmann availability page.

Informative but will The Johnster hold out that long? 

[The Johnster]

He’ll try, and console himself with the fact that he can stop worrying about the money for a while...

 

[Hastings Thumper]

A view of the other side (Bluebell railway model exhibition)

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 23/06/2019 at 20:53, Paul.Uni said:

The 94XX is due May 2020 according to the Bachmann availability page.

 

On 23/06/2019 at 23:09, The Johnster said:

He’ll try, and console himself with the fact that he can stop worrying about the money for a while...

 

Still got time to put the finishing touches to mine. 

[Miss Prism]

 

3405 looks newly-arrived from Sheffield at Swindon, 1956. Presumably Meadowhall Works delivered the rods separately.
 

[The Stationmaster]

8 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

3405 looks newly-arrived from Sheffield at Swindon, 1956. Presumably Meadowhall Works delivered the rods separately.
 

They would be shifted new to Swindon with the rods off to avoid lubrication problems - like potential lack of lubrication.   The rods might even have been made at Swindon - depends on what the contract said.