Bachmann 94xx

[tomparryharry]

I don't think 9479 had a cover over the cylinder fronts.  The original 10 locomotives had a sloped covered plate, held on by 4x 5/8" Whitworth set screws. I'm pretty sure the later locomotives didn't have (or keep) the plate above the valve chest. The 94xx is as we know, and inside-cylindered locomotive. The 2 halves are cast separately, and bought together at the middle joint, which is readily apparent on the real thing, and hopefully, the model also. The complete sub-assembly then provides a stiffener for the cylinder & valves, and a support for the front tubeplate of the boiler. A little 'work-up' to the model would be to make the inside middle joint more noticeable, but to be fair, how many would know what the joints, or what it's for, or should it be really relevant to what is, by & large, a largely well-educated but uninformed general public?

 

Thus far, Bachmann appear to have done a very nice job on the 94xx. Will I buy one? Honestly, I don't know. Bachmann have prevaricated over the model to such a degree that the erstwhile Lima 94xx  has firmly taken root here.To make matters worse, the chassis comes from the very predecessor Bachmann have sought to make!  

 

I should say here, that I have no axe to grind with Bachmann. 

 

Have a good weekend,

Ian.

 

PS. Don;t mention the topfeed on the 8750 models. I very nearly mentioned it earlier, but I think I got away with it..... 

[The Johnster]

Only 9400-09, the 1947 GW batch with higher pressure, had these plates, which I assume were hinged but you say were secured with screws.  These locos carried the plates throughout their working lives AFAIK and 9400 still has hers; the Locomotion model and Bachmann 9402 are correct.  Only those first 10 locos had this feature, and until B release 9487 or 9479, no 94xx RTR model or kit in 4mm has ever been able to represent the 'BR production model' open frames/no cover plate version, with the valve chests peeping over the running plate, the coy little minxes...

 

This means that B have either produced two separate body toolings, one for each version, or the plate is attached at assemble; either way they are to be highly commended for this attention to detail.  They've also apparently tooled a correct chassis for this project rather than used the 57xx or 8750 tooling, as the profile is correctly shown at the front end beneath the running plate.  It is based on the 2251, because the 94xx has a similar cylinder/half smokebox saddle assembly to go with the no.10 boiler, and is a different shape to the 57xx/8750.  Their 64xx chassis is correctly different to the 57xx or 8750 as well.

 

I'm looking forward to this model, whenever it appears, and consider that the price is worth it for the improvements over the Limbach; splashers will align properly with the wheels, the coy little minxes will be on show, the hole in the rear buffer beam for the coupling will be gone, and I have a 57xx body for the Limbach's chassis to have an exciting new career under, 2 locos for the price of, well, nearly 2 locos a year or two ago, but you know what I mean...

 

The join between the valve chests is a good work up tip, and I will be doing this fo' sho', blood...  

 

(Sorry, the mean streets affected me for a moment there)

[The Johnster]

And I claim the prize for being the first to spot a mistake on the Bachmann 94xx (hopefully a free Bachmann 9487) (dream on, Johnster).  The fire iron hooks on the bunker rear are the wrong shape; 94xx, 15xx, and 16xx had welded on hooks which were a more angular shape that the previous bolted on hooks, which were still being fitted to the last series of 96xx after the initial 94xx were in traffic.  

 

Yay me, I am now an official rivet counter!!!

[The Stationmaster]

19 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

And I claim the prize for being the first to spot a mistake on the Bachmann 94xx (hopefully a free Bachmann 9487) (dream on, Johnster).  The fire iron hooks on the bunker rear are the wrong shape; 94xx, 15xx, and 16xx had welded on hooks which were a more angular shape that the previous bolted on hooks, which were still being fitted to the last series of 96xx after the initial 94xx were in traffic.  

 

Yay me, I am now an official rivet counter!!!

Are you sure?  The hooks on the Bachmann bunker back are a pretty close match to both of the preserved engines and engines in traffic in BR times.  What is the difference you are seeing?

Edited November 30, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[Miss Prism]

 

 

(9417 at Torquay, 5 July 1952)

 

[The Johnster]

Pretty sure, Mike.  Ms P's definitively excellent photos show it very well; the 94xx/15xx/16xx type is more angular than the earlier standard type with a curved hook.  The ones in the Warley photo and the video look more like the earlier type to me, but it is difficult to be 100% certain on my screen.  I could, of course be wrong, and actually hope I am!

 

Both versions look as if they are made by hammering a hot strip of metal into shape blacksmith style, the earlier type around a round former such as the horny end of an anvil, and the later 94xx type more crudely on the block part of the anvil, a rough right angle between the welded attached part and the horizontal part, again between horizontal and vertical, and a slight bend inwards of about 20 degrees to make a hook, finishing off with a small lip at the end.  I'm visualising it as an apprentice's job, and there seems to be little if any difference between the Swindon interpretation on 9400 and RSH's on 9417; can't imagine Bagnall's or YE locos were any different either...

 

I've found it particularly difficult in the past when working up Mainline 57xx body toolings and an old Hornby 2721 to get the earlier 'round hook' type right, or even consistent (I can live with 'near enough' if they are consistent, but one even a smidgeon off looks horribly wrong when they're supposed to be 4 in a row), and perhaps that's made me oversensitive on the subject

[The Stationmaster]

Right let's put the two together - with apologies to 'Harlequin'  and 'Miss Prism' for lifting their pics etc 

 

The real one

 

 

Bachmann's (cruelly enlarged)

 

[gwrrob]

Not brilliant but an end on view.

 

[Miss Prism]

I think Bachmann has made a good effort at capturing those 'square' tool iron hooks.

 

[The Johnster]

I hereby withdraw my claim for the 'first to spot something wrong with the Baccy 94xx' title.  The only thing wrong with this loco is that I haven't got one yet...

[gwrrob]

3 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

  The only thing wrong with this loco is that I haven't got one yet...

 

Only nine months to wait now....

[Welchester]

18 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

 

Only nine months to wait now....

 

That's a fairly normal gestation.

[gwrrob]

1 hour ago, Bishop of Welchester said:

 

That's a fairly normal gestation.

 

Allowing for a pregnant pause of course.

[Metr0Land]

I think we're all hoping for a home delivery

[tomparryharry]

Deleted

Edited February 1, 2020 by tomparryharry
Post deleted:- Not helpful

[rembrow]

There is a good photo of the BR black decor sample in the Wright Writes thread. Earlier this week a Bachmann designer, Steve Purves, bought latest samples of the 94, the Midland 1P and the V2 to Tony to run on Little Bytham. What has surprised me is that according to Tony's notes, the 94xx has a coreless motor. He stated it ran very smoothly and quietly. I've no reason to doubt that as he was with the Bachmann designer, however very surprised as the 94xx is not that small and Bachmann has successfully used it's 3 pole motor in other 0-6-0s. There was recently debate about one review of the new J72 saying it has a coreless motor, yet a second review said standard pole motor. Some potential buyers may have issues due to Feedback controllers. May be helpful to get clarification.

Edited December 14, 2019 by rembrow

[No Decorum]

1 hour ago, rembrow said:

There is a good photo of the BR black decor sample in the Wright Writes thread. Earlier this week a Bachmann designer, Steve Purves, bought latest samples of the 94, the Midland 1P and the V2 to Tony to run on Little Bytham. What has surprised me is that according to Tony's notes, the 94xx has a coreless motor. He stated it ran very smoothly and quietly. I've no reason to doubt that as he was with the Bachmann designer, however very surprised as the 94xx is not that small and Bachmann has successfully used it's 3 pole motor in other 0-6-0s. There was recently debate about one review of the new J72 saying it has a coreless motor, yet a second review said standard pole motor. Some potential buyers may have issues due to Feedback controllers. May be helpful to get clarification.

Absolutely. In recent years, I have found Bachmann locos generally run well, except for the Wickham Trolley, which refuses to move at all. Why on earth would Bachmann switch from a technology which works well to one over which so many question marks hang?* For now, my funds are likely to go elsewhere. a shame, though as I rather fancied a 94XX.

 

Mainline launched with a Standard 4 4-6-0 and a J72. The Standard worked reasonably well for those days but the J72 was an unreliable performer. However superb the new J72 looks, there doesn’t seem to me much point in adding to the older ones I have if it contains a coreless motor. Personal opinion as always.

 

*For clarity, I recognise that the size of the trolley probably dictates a coreless motor.

[gwrrob]

2 hours ago, rembrow said:

There is a good photo of the BR black decor sample in the Wright Writes thread. Earlier this week a Bachmann designer, Steve Purves, bought latest samples of the 94, the Midland 1P and the V2 to Tony to run on Little Bytham. What has surprised me is that according to Tony's notes, the 94xx has a coreless motor. He stated it ran very smoothly and quietly. I've no reason to doubt that as he was with the Bachmann designer, however very surprised as the 94xx is not that small and Bachmann has successfully used it's 3 pole motor in other 0-6-0s. There was recently debate about one review of the new J72 saying it has a coreless motor, yet a second review said standard pole motor. Some potential buyers may have issues due to Feedback controllers. May be helpful to get clarification.

 

 

[The Johnster]

What's wrong with coreless motors?  The old Mainline toolings gained a poor reputation for reliability due to axle problems with the split current collection chassis, wheels going out of quarter, and plastic spur gears which split or went out of alignment; the motors were fine.  These spur gears were the result of the use of 'pancake' motors, also used by Airfix and Lima, and Triang Hornby in tender drives, described as ring field in those days. and very successful a decade or so earlier in Hornby Dublo models but driving vertically through 'conventional' worm and cog gearing.  

 

The problem with their use by Hornby Dublo was that the only space to put them was in the cab, which was filled by them.  At the time of the Mainline 4MT and J72 introduction, there was a need to keep the cabs clear and to avoid 'skirts' beneath the boilers. Underframe detail was beginning to be expected on RTR models, and Mainline hadn't made life easy for themselves by choosing the 4MT with it's high running plate.  A conventional open frame motor was out of the question, as one small enough to be out of sight could not develop sufficient power, so the choice was a transverse mounted pancake in the firebox running at very high RPM to develop decent power output, and spur gear final drive reduction.  Are you confusing these pancake motors with coreless?

 

Nowadays we have the benefit of very powerful, very small, very cheap and very readily available 'can' motors, basically the same as an open frame motor but fully enclosed.  These can be successfully hidden in a steam outline model preserving the cab and underframe detail; skirts are thankfully a thing of the past!  These motors drive through conventional worm and cog gears, and deliver very smooth and quiet performance with very good slow running capabilities.  The downside is that there are 'no user serviceable parts inside' and they have to be replaced when the carbon brushes wear out, but none of mine are at that stage yet and I'm expecting many years more; it's a small layout, speeds and loads are low.

 

Bachmann, Mainline's ultimate successors, presumably have a reason to go for a coreless in the 94xx as opposed to the very successful can/worm/cog arrangement in their other panniers, and it may be more to do with cost/availability than performance.  I'm expecting the 94xx to run at least as well as my other panniers and will be delighted if it runs better; I regard Bachmann mechs as being about as good as anyone has a right to demand from volume produced RTR.  The use of a coreless in the 94xx will certainly not put me off buying one!  It will be interesting to see if the existing models switch to coreless in future production runs, as presuming that the motor mounting is the same they will be a drop in replacement.  Maybe Kader got a particularly good deal from the suppliers.  AFAIK it is a first for Bachmann UK.

[rembrow]

Not a first for Bachmann UK as they have used coreless motors in at least two previous models, the Wickham trolley and the Baldwin narrow gauge locos, both were likely to be due to limited space in the models for a conventional motor. There is nothing inherently wrong with coreless motors, however they have limitations that users need to be aware of. For dc use, there is a risk that they will burn out if used with feedback controllers or where electronic track cleaning is in use, if you have either on your layout, the best advice is to avoid coreless motors. I've also seen feedback that they can fry some dcc chips. 

What I'm wondering is if there has been some confusion about the motors actually being can motors rather than open frame motors previously used in the smaller models of this type. The Hornby mag review of the J72 stated that it was fitted with a coreless motor and showed the chassis with a can type motor. The can size indicated it was a traditional brush motor, so I'm wondering if that is the same with the 94xx.

Buyers need to be made aware of whether a model has a coreless motor, just as they are made aware of whether it's DCC ready or fitted, due to the risk of damage in certain applications. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by rembrow

[Ian Hargrave]

I think similar confusion over the “pedigree “ of the motor happened with production of the ModelRail USA tank.

[mdvle]

6 hours ago, No Decorum said:

Absolutely. In recent years, I have found Bachmann locos generally run well, except for the Wickham Trolley, which refuses to move at all. Why on earth would Bachmann switch from a technology which works well to one over which so many question marks hang?

 

Rapido, in their most recent video, stated that they are moving to coreless motors for all their models going forward (don't know if this applies to models that they make for others like Model Rail, Realtrack, etc.).

 

There really aren't any "question marks" as such regarding coreless motors - they work, and work well.  The only issue with them is that they don't like certain types of controllers and it is likely a reasonable assumption that the benefits of the coreless motors outweigh the problem for a small number of potential customers otherwise they wouldn't be used.

 

The one obvious benefit to moving to the smaller coreless motors is that increases the space to be used for other things, whether it be detailed interiors, more electronics, bigger speakers, or even more weight.

Edited December 14, 2019 by mdvle

[The Johnster]

I can't imagine that Tony Wright, who is about as experienced and skilled when it comes to loco mechs as anyone anywhere, would mistake something else for a coreless motor.  Nor can I imagine that Bachmann would release a model into a market in which DCC plays a major and increasing part with a mech that was unsuitable for use with that technology.  If the 94xx does have a coreless motor, I would take it as read that it is suitable for use with DCC.  

 

Feedback is another matter.  I use DC with 'conventional' controllers, electronic but not feedback, and am unconcerned on the matter, but I would advise anyone who uses feedback DC controllers (there can't be many of us these days) to check with Bachmann before buying the loco.

 

The benefits of moving to a smaller motor are obvious; more detail can be incorporated and daylight beneath boilers or under running plates represented properly.  But it is essential that the motor delivers enough power to pull the trains, especially heavy ones at low controlled speed, with all types of controllers.  Tony Wright's comment that the loco was a smooth runner augers well for this loco.  

 

I believe the future will be with coreless motors driving each powered axle directly, without gears, and with the motor shaft being the axle itself.  Full frame detail should result, as well as very good performance with pick up on each driving wheelset powering all the motors.

Edited December 14, 2019 by The Johnster

[mdvle]

Another thought, don't condemn coreless motors on the basis of one former manufacturer whose models had mechanisms with issues that would likely have also existed with normal motors.

 

For example, the Model Rail / Rapido J70 used a coreless motor (for space reasons) and there haven't been any indications of any problems with it.

[tomparryharry]

deleted.

Edited February 1, 2020 by tomparryharry
Post deleted:- Not helpful