Bachmann 94xx

[Paul.Uni]

Also the 57XX models are now August

[tomparryharry]

I think there's a ship travelling from Hong Kong, to Southampton, via the Panama Canal. On board, there is a container, packed to the rafters with 94xx's.

 

However, it's only got as far as Hawaii, because there's a man in a boat, with a megaphone, speaking to the captain.....

 

"..... GO AROUND AGAIN!...."

 

Sorry folks, just a gentle wind-up.

 

Have a good Easter, and keep safe.

Ian.

[The Johnster]

December it is then; happy xmas Johnster.  Happy Easter everyone here, stay in, stay safe!

[Paul.Uni]

Now due:

• 35-025 9402 GWR Green (GWR) Oct-20
• 35-026 9487 BR Black (Early Emblem) Nov-20
• 35-027 9479 BR Black (Late Crest) Nov-20

[The Johnster]

Yes, it hasn’t been a bad day to be Johnster!

[The Johnster]

Browsing through the online catalogue I see the 94xx features a firebox flicker and prefitted speaker for sound chips, which I hadn't realised previously; I won't be bothering with the speaker and may even remove it if I need the space for anything else.  I suppose this isn't bad for only a tenner more than a 57xx!  Not sure how I'll get on with the firebox flicker either, especially if it can't be switched off; real steam locos do not have their firebox doors open all the time and only while being fired if they are moving.  If by firebox flicker they mean ashpan flicker that's not so bad.

Edited May 28, 2020 by The Johnster

[Gopher]

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Browsing through the online catalogue I see the 94xx features a firebox flicker and prefitted speaker for sound chips, which I hadn't realised previously; I won't be bothering with the speaker and may even remove it if I need the space for anything else.  I suppose this isn't bad for only a tenner more than a 57xx!  Not sure how I'll get on with the firebox flicker either, especially if it can't be switched off; real steam locos do not have their firebox doors open all the time and only while being fired if they are moving.  If by firebox flicker they mean ashpan flicker that's not so bad.

I think (but am not sure) that with DCC  the flicker may only occur via a function key, and with DCC  sound when the fireman shovelling noises are turned on.  I might be wrong, and of course no help for those who do not use DCC 

[Steamport Southport]

If it's anything like the Rapido Stirling Single then it's not really noticeable unless you are running at a decent speed.

 

Not noticeable at all if you forget to put the fall plate down. Which I've seen in a few of the online review videos. 

 

That's the DC version, no idea what it's like on DCC where I assume it's much more controllable/programmable.

 

Don't be expecting it to be like Triang or Hornby did in the 1960s/70s. It'll be much more discrete.

 

 

Jason

Edited May 28, 2020 by Steamport Southport

[The Johnster]

If that’s the case I’ll probably get on fine with it.  Sounds as if the led will be powered by the track current for DC purposes, and nothing goes fast at Cwmdimbath except your pay packet. Don’t think I’ve ever had the controller knob much past 4 except for testing.  

[Wickham Green too]

8 hours ago, Gopher said:

I think (but am not sure) that with DCC  the flicker may only occur via a function key, and with DCC  sound when the fireman shovelling noises are turned on ........

...... or the crew cooking breakfast noises : what's the DCC code for frying bacon smell ?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

...... or the crew cooking breakfast noises : what's the DCC code for frying bacon smell ?

F252113

 

5 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

If it's anything like the Rapido Stirling Single then it's not really noticeable...

It has a flickering firebox? Mine does 90mph (line limit) on every outing like every Doncaster express loco, and the fall plate is on the tender step, and I have never seen it...

[Steamport Southport]

Yes. Here's the installation guide for DCC Sound. If you hadn't bought one ready fitted that is.

 

The factory-fit firebox glow light is a nice bonus, and prepared connections for loco lamps is also a very neat touch, though you've got to be brave to open up the loco to fit some actual working lamps - very delicate!

 

https://www.youchoos.co.uk/Index-Resource.php?L1=Guides&Item=OORapidoStirSing

 

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

You wouldn't in reality really be aware of firebox glow on a reasonably bright day in daylight, but in dull weather or twilight you would.

 

22 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

It has a flickering firebox? Mine does 90mph (line limit) on every outing like every Doncaster express loco, and the fall plate is on the tender step, and I have never seen it...

 

If it is reliant on track voltage on DC, then if they've got the level reasonably right you probably wouldn't see it unless you were looking for it unless the layout is darkened, and I'm not sure what effect the current consumption of the loco might have.  Once your loco is up to running speed and doing scale 90mph, which a Stirling Single was certainly capable of, the loco is cruising and the current consumption is not high.  This replicates the real situation, in that steam consumption is highest when starting, accelerating, or climbing; it is effectively zero if you are coasting or braking.  Rheostatic braking on electric locos actually feeds surplus current back into the OLE.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

59 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

You wouldn't in reality really be aware of firebox glow on a reasonably bright day in daylight, but in dull weather or twilight you would.

 

 

If it is reliant on track voltage on DC, then if they've got the level reasonably right you probably wouldn't see it unless you were looking for it ...

It was a little naughty of me not to mention it has a decoder and runs on a DCC layout. Digital the layout control may be, but my fully analogue digit has not pushed whatever button is required to switch the light on. (Since it is a steam loco I didn't read the destructions, since I know everything I need to know about making the mechanism run, and that's all that is required of a Victorian steamer with an elegant 8' wheel. It looks like it is floating along the track, lovely effect...)

 

But never mind that, is pressure building up nicely in the 94xx expectation stakes?

[The Johnster]

I am trying to maintain a cool detachment; my 94xx is on order from Rails and I’m doing my best to

be philosophical for the remaining months, and hoping that supply from Rails is not interrupted by the sort of spat Hatton’s had with Barwell over pricing...

 

The reason that Dean’s otherwise immaculate single, and Johnson’s Spinner, did not have outside cylinders is, of course, the same as the reason that master carpet weavers always incorporate one incorrect stitch; perfection is only for Allah.  The Stirling falls ever so slightly short of ideal because of the crude cab...

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

4 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

... The Stirling falls ever so slightly short of ideal because of the crude cab...

The footplate crews would be right with you. A spectacle plate alone  was an insult to their proficiency. All enclosed in that stuffy cab, not what they wanted at all, but it had to be borne...

[The Johnster]

1 minute ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The footplate crews would be right with you. A spectacle plate alone  was an insult to their proficiency. All enclosed in that stuffy cab, not what they wanted at all, but it had to be borne...

On the GW, they complained when Churchward tried out a much more modern GE style cab on ‘County Carlow’, and there were examples of drivers years earlier objecting to the inability to see forward when weatherboards, spectacle plates, and eventually proper cabs were provided.    There were objections to tip-up seats on GW Castles.  
 

Basically, older drivers are always keen for younger men to at least as much and preferably more than they did! 

[31A]

On 28/05/2020 at 19:37, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

F252113

 

It has a flickering firebox? Mine does 90mph (line limit) on every outing like every Doncaster express loco, and the fall plate is on the tender step, and I have never seen it...

 

Well there's a light there but it doesn't flicker much (on DC) - to be honest I'd never even noticed it until I read this thread, and dug mine out of the display case to give it a spin!

[Steamport Southport]

Thank gawd for that!

 

I thought I was going mad and seeing lights. 

 

 

 

Jason

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

On the GW, they complained when Churchward tried out a much more modern GE style cab on ‘County Carlow’, and there were examples of drivers years earlier objecting to the inability to see forward when weatherboards, spectacle plates, and eventually proper cabs were provided.    There were objections to tip-up seats on GW Castles.  
 

Basically, older drivers are always keen for younger men to at least as much and preferably more than they did! 

Not 'County Carlow' - that had a standard cab (for that series of Counties).   The large NER style  cab was on 'Badminton'. 'Earl Cawdor', together with the large diameter parallel boiler, from 1903 to 1906.  The 'Frenchmen' of course all came with larger cabs than the usual GWR pattern and retained them for the whole of their working lives even after reboilering with Swindon boilers.   

 

Years ago I went through a complete set of local meeting miny tues between management and enginemen at a large GWR depot and there was never a siungle complaint recorded about the nature of engine cabs although various other things were heavily criticised.

 

Back to 94XX - which were also the subject of criticism from enginemen which in turn had an impact on some of the work they were used for.

Edited May 30, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[MG 7305]

The 94xx was also criticised by KJ Cook in his book Swindon Steam, see pages 151 and 152.  In summary:

 

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by MG 7305
Duplicated table

[Steamport Southport]

However they weren't built as replacements for 57XXs as they were still building those. The same goes for the smaller tank engines which were being replaced by the 15XXs and 16XXs. Many of which had their orders cancelled.

 

In one of the early 1950s ABCs I've got it's got numbers for them up to 1599 and 1699 with the note (locomotives of this class are still being delivered). As does the 67XXs and 96XXs, 34XX also goes up to 3499. ISTR there was also more 74XXs planned as well.

 

So that's about three or four hundred extra Pannier tanks of which only 90 are planned to be 94XXs.

 

I also read, but may be a myth, that BR had stipulated that any more steam shunting locomotives would be Pannier Tanks regardless of region and if any were needed then WR ones would be transferred. Which is what seems to have happened with the two 16XXs that went to Scotland and the handful of 57XXs that went to the SR.

 

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

But a couple of J72s slipped through the net!  The 94xx were indeed never designed to be 57xx replacements, and Jason is right in saying that the 96xx and 6750 series were still being delivered up to 1950, and of course the 15xx and 16xx even later.  The final series of 94xx were delivered from outside contractors (only the first 10 were built at Swindon, the superheated GW locos) as late as 1955, and some had service lives of less than 5 years; cf the loco that replaced them, the D95xx.

 

Hawksworth's original concept was for a modern, GW standard loco for replacing the South Wales pregrouping locos, in particular the TVR A and 04 classes, on shorter haul mineral and trip/transfer work, which were reaching the end of their working lives.  I wonder if the suggested BR proposal to build pannier tanks if any new steam shunting engines were required is based on the 15xx, a pure shunting loco unsuitable for work outside yards, a 'yard switcher' or 'hog' in US terms.  It seems unlikely, as the 350hp standard diesel electric 08 type was already well established and a loco of very similar capacity to a 15xx or USA.  The other GW designed panniers (perhaps not the 1366) were more in line with the US concept of a 'road switcher' as were most UK 0-6-0s that happened to also used as shunting locos.  Main line company built 6-coupled pure shunting locos were rare; 15xx, Fowler Dock Tank, I'm struggling now, J94 not actually LNER built, USA not actually Southern built, NLR tank...

 

This does not chime with the 67xx/6750 panniers, capable or running line unfitted work but designed as a 57xx/8750 variant for heavy dock shunting, particularly in the company owned South Wales ports and at Avonmouth.  

 

The 94xx has the same t.e. as the 57xx, but is power class 4F under the LMS derived BR power classification system which put the 57xx at 3F.  It's route availability is irrelevant for South Wales work where all locos bar Kings and 47xx were permitted everywhere by the Sectional appendix, and the original concept was to use them in South Wales, remember.  They ended up widely spread across the system and the first 10 went to Old Oak, but more than half the class served in South Wales.  Their use on ecs duty out of Paddington is said to have been the result of comment in Parliament about old fashioned looking but actually brand new 8750s publicly visible at the lawn end of the station, as were the 15xx.  M7s seem not to have caused offence at Waterloo...

 

For comparison, the t.e of a 3MT 225, the loco from which the 94xx is directly derived with an identical boiler, cab cylinders motion, and frames, is 200lbs less, but the 2251 is yellow r.a and not really designed for comparable work.  It is another example of a loco more route restricted than the 2301 it was supposed to replace, though; Swindon in the post Dean era seems to have had trouble keeping their locos' weight down.

Edited May 30, 2020 by The Johnster

[MG 7305]

I have read that the 94xx were meant to replace the pregrouping 0-6-2T, and perhaps the 56xx , a process I cannot track.  My understanding is that the post 9409 locomotives were part of an effort to provide various builders with business.  The new design offered no improvement over the 57xx and significant demerits.

 

Indeed the subcontracting involved and delivery rates are  indicative of this.  It took a long time for the contracted locomotives to be delivered.  Cook was a GW man and I suggest that his views are of great value, given his great seniority and works experience   He had enormous workshop experience and become the BR(W) CME before his successful move to Doncaster.  The essential question is what improvement over the 57xx did the 94xx provide?  I for one cannot see what it was and I bow to the views of the very senior (top of the tree) engineers of the time.

[tomparryharry]

The 94xx was required to replace the pre-group locomotives of class 4 power. As such, Taff vale A& O3-4, Rhymney Railways classes, Cardiff Railways 151-4, and the last remaining Barry & Brecon & Merthyr locomotives. I'm a bit surprised that the Western bought in the 94, after all, they were a business, and having spurious classes doesn't seem like good business practice to me. As said, the English Electric 350HP shunter was beginning to gain ground, and as a result, good quality locomotives were needlessly built for a very short working life. I have a photo of 3408 being broken up for spares at Caerphilly. Not poor quality; just no work.....

 

If-when I do acquire a 94xx, it'll most definitely be renumbered as 3408.