Bachmann 94xx

[tender]

On 12/02/2021 at 22:38, ELTEL said:

As I understand the production Bachmann 94xx sound model is fitted with ESU V5 sound chip 

 

Terry 

 

 

I think someone earlier said it was a South West Digital sound file. It sounds remarkably similar to my SWD fitted O gauge pannier so I suspect they're correct.

 

Ray.

[Kaput]

Well, I decided to man up and put some decent effort into tracing the clicking sound.

 

Turns out there was tiny little peice of piping just in front of the left side cab that was dangling down a bit and the  rear axle's crank pin nut was catching it.

 

Stuck it back into place and no clicking thankfully.

 

Now if i could just get a stay alive that would fit inside properly it'll be ready for sound.....

[LimboBrit]

I am ordering from Railtec Transfers to renumber my 9487 to 8405 allocated to Bromsgrove 85F. The model uses GWR power class C but should this be changed to BR 4F?  Also, I understand from Railtec that two left facing crests is standard but the model uses both left and right facing crests. Is the model correct? I haven’t been able to find any conclusive photographic evidence. Any help would be much appreciated. Regards,

 

David

[cctransuk]

16 minutes ago, LimboBrit said:

I am ordering from Railtec Transfers to renumber my 9487 to 8405 allocated to Bromsgrove 85F. The model uses GWR power class C but should this be changed to BR 4F?  Also, I understand from Railtec that two left facing crests is standard but the model uses both left and right facing crests. Is the model correct? I haven’t been able to find any conclusive photographic evidence. Any help would be much appreciated. Regards,

 

David

 

8405 had a right-facing crest on its RH side - I have a photo which shows this.

 

John Isherwood.

[dibber25]

6 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

8405 had a right-facing crest on its RH side - I have a photo which shows this.

 

John Isherwood.

Are we going to need to go into the College of Arms and the Portcullis Pursuivant again, do you think? (CJL)

[cctransuk]

28 minutes ago, LimboBrit said:

... I understand from Railtec that two left facing crests is standard but the model uses both left and right facing crests. Is the model correct?

 

Short version :-

 

College of Arms awarded BR the right to use LH-facing crest;

 

BR thought they could use both LH and RH versions;

 

College of Arms said they couldn't;

 

BR stopped using RH version; (eventually - probably when they ran out of RH transfers)!

 

John Isherwood.

 

[The Johnster]

WR continued to use the GWR power classification letters inside the RA colour code spot, in this case C in red correctly modelled by Bachmann.   You don’t need to worry about 4F.  

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

WR continued to use the GWR power classification letters inside the RA colour code spot, in this case C in red correctly modelled by Bachmann.   You don’t need to worry about 4F.  

Yes and no.   The GWR power classifications continued to be carried on steam engines right up to their demise.  

 

But the painted power classifications weren't used at all for passenger, milk, and parcels etc train load calculations because these had been produced in tabular form giving a load by class of engine since 1927.   However the painted load classification was used for freight train load calculation until sometime in the 1950s (which as yet I cannot date) and the freight train marshalling books also identified the required power for many trains by the load classification letter.

[The Johnster]

I assume they were used in a more general way in allocating locos to jobs, though, sort of ‘diagram x requires shed to provide engine of blue RA and C power rating’ rather than ‘57xx class’.  Of course local experience would then preclude using a 57xx when a 43xx was better suited, but in terms of what the traffic department requested from the loco department, I can imagine something like this. 
 

The actual loadings for each class over each section were in tabular form of course, as were the timings, and could be found as part of the appendices to WTTs.  

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

I assume they were used in a more general way in allocating locos to jobs, though, sort of ‘diagram x requires shed to provide engine of blue RA and C power rating’ rather than ‘57xx class’.  Of course local experience would then preclude using a 57xx when a 43xx was better suited, but in terms of what the traffic department requested from the loco department, I can imagine something like this. 
 

The actual loadings for each class over each section were in tabular form of course, as were the timings, and could be found as part of the appendices to WTTs.  

There are a lot of photos around which indicate that various Foremen (or whoever) didn't pay much attention to the Route Availability map!   Engines of course were booked to diagrams so no choice about what was provided unless something had failed - if the diagram said a, say, 49XX was to be used that's what was used unless a failure prevented that.  The diagrams of course was matched the booked loads to ensure sufficient power was available to keep time.   If a pre-planned strengthening of a passenger train took place then a revised diagram would usually be issued to book a more powerful engine to the job. 

 

R freights booked to a particular Power Group were usually limited to a set maximum load.

[tomparryharry]

Knowing  'what went where' was part & parcel  of a shed foreman's job,. As far as I know, most foremen  graduated from drivers, who signed for route (s ) on their patch. In south Wales, knowledge was usually well-known across divisions & regions. 

 

This was shown up very sharply on privatisation.  I knew several drivers whom were hived off  to Valley Lines, whilst Inter-City also had an allocation of drivers. The largest gripe was that route knowledge wasn't taken into consideration, and drivers with extensive knowledge were limited to  rattling back & forth  on  the  Valleys service.  

[ELTEL]

On 14/02/2021 at 14:21, Kaput said:

Well, I decided to man up and put some decent effort into tracing the clicking sound.

 

Turns out there was tiny little peice of piping just in front of the left side cab that was dangling down a bit and the  rear axle's crank pin nut was catching it.

 

Stuck it back into place and no clicking thankfully.

 

Now if i could just get a stay alive that would fit inside properly it'll be ready for sound.....

I haven’t had the courage as yet to remove the body of my 94xx to look for available space for the fitting of some sort of stay alive.

 

I was recently watching a YouTube video where a modeller was fitting a stay alive to his small saddle tank loco (DJI)  which was fitted with a ESU 5.0 as I believe is the 94xx 

 

I understand from his comments that fitting of a non ESU stay alive (or power pack as they market it ) can cause damage to the chip when any programming is done.

 

He warned, if a non ESU device was used the ESU warranty would be void. 
 

I look forward to comments from far more knowledgeable modellers than me.

 

Terry 

 

Edited February 15, 2021 by ELTEL

[Kaput]

I have a LaisDCC stay alive in my J70 which is fitted with an ESU LokPilot V4 - have no issues whatsoever programming it via DecoderPro and SPROG or my Prodigy controller.

 

The ESU LokProgrammer also programs it fine but it gets a little weird with actually responding to commands afterwards for a few minutes then goes back to normal.

 

There is probably some oddness with ESU decoders since they are designed for 3 wire stay alives instead of the more common 2 wire.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

There are a lot of photos around which indicate that various Foremen (or whoever) didn't pay much attention to the Route Availability map!

I would submit that the evidence backs you up on that score, Mike.  Information useful as always.  It wasn't always as clear cut as you suggest though, a job demanding a 49xx got a 49xx.  At Tondu, the loco hauled valleys passenger work might feature a 57xx/8750, 5101, 56xx, 45xx,  4575, or 94xx, not to mention auto fitted 4575s and later 64xx; conversely, non auto fitted locos of all the above classes could be seen hauling auto stock.  Prior to the introduction of auto work at the depot, September 1953 in connection with the new South Wales Regular Interval Timetable, the practice was for up to 3 services, Abergwynfi, Blaengarw and Nantymoel (4 pre 1930 when Gilfach Goch was still open) to be accommodated in the up loop 'valleys' platform at Bridgend, with each loco coupling to the train in front of it and uncoupling from it's own, so that only the leading loco had to run around thus keeping occupation of the up main for that purpose to the minimum.

 

Pre-auto (and post auto if they were loco hauled) Abergwynfi trains were usually 3 coach sets, but the Blaengarw and Nantmoel trains, 2 coach sets, ran combined to Brynmenyn where the Nantymoel portion was uncoupled before the junction and the Blaengarw portion drawn forward into the Blaengarw platform by the train loco, while the Nantymoel portion was rescued by that branch's loco and drawn forward into the Nantymoel branch platform, a similar procedure being performed at Blackmill when the Gilfach Goch branch was still open to passenegr traffic.  The trains were combined for the return journey, which the Nantymoel loco taking the 4 coaches forward to Bridgend and the Blaengarw loco taking up work on the Nantymoel branch.  The Blaengarw branch closed to passenegrs earlier in 1953.  So, the same coaching stock diagram featured potentially 3 different locos during the course of a working day, each loco taking at least one return trip on each branch from Tondu or Brynmenyn.  All this of course no doubt covered in local instructions.

 

The Hodges/Stuart books outline this procedure, and contain a photo of 3100 at Abergwynfi in 1953 which suggests that the loco, ostensibly for the Porthcawl Residential, visited Nantymoel and possibly Blaengarw as well that day (good enough for me to want to have a go at modelling it for Cwmdimbath).  One of the Tondu-Porthcawl diagrams visited Bridgend twice in the day as well, which introduces 44xx into the valleys platform shuffle performance, though these locos were kept to the Porthcawl sphere of operations AFAIK.  I'd prolly buy one if someone does an RTR version, though.  Where loco hauled working persisted post 1953, auto locos sometimes joined in the game as well. 

 

The Hodges/Stuart books have photos of auto fitted 4575s hauling non auto stock at Abergwynfi and Nantymoel, but I have not seen photos of non auto locos hauling auto stock in non auto mode other than at Abergwynfi, so cannot state that it happened at Nantymoel. 

[The Johnster]

46 minutes ago, ELTEL said:

I haven’t had the courage as yet to remove the body of my 94xx to look for available space for the fitting of some sort of stay alive.

Can't help you with the stayalive, being a DC techophobe, but removing the body is simple enough.  You first remove the couplings; I prise them gently upwards, I mean downwards but the loco's upside down so it's upwards, with a small screwdriver blade beneath the dovetail and the box to support the 'waggler' which is not designed to be pulled vertically and snaps easily.  This reveals the crosshead screws that attach the body to the chassis, which can then be removed and the chassis gently withdrawn from the upside down body.  Be careful if you've attached the steam heating bags and pipes, but there should be no problem.  I keep the tiny screws in a lump of Blutac to prevent them sacrificing themselves to the Carpet Monster, a drawback of having a layout in a bedroom...

[The Johnster]

Following up on the firebox glow for DC operation, the loco has become a part of normal working at Cwmdimbath now and I feeI can comment on the effect.  I am barely aware of it unless operating an 'evening' session in low light, and even then it is not intrusive at the low speeds of a smallish BLT.  As I said before, if we are to have it I'd prefer an orange light than the dull red glow which suggests the fire is not up to the job, but it's an irrelevance even by first world problem standards.  I may, as some undefined future point if I've got the top off for any reason, attempt to rewire it so that one of the orange leds that I assume are there for the DCC flicker is activated instead/as well, but suspect (I haven't investigated this) that the location is awkward to get at, which would be the reason it is supplied for DC models anyway.  There's a surplus to requirement speaker in there somewhere as well...

 

My general satisfaction with this lovely model continues to increase over time; it was worth the wait though probably not the amount of fuss I made of it...  Tondu shed used it's allocation of 94xx on passenger work in general, but I can see mine taking turns on the colliery trip and pickups as well.  She can handle the loaded minerals, my heaviest train, with ease where the 57xx and 8750s struggle a bit with it, proof that the coreless motor has a good bit of grunt even if some people don't like it; I am ambivalent, and happy with it's performance.  Unless you are using feedback control, which I'm not, a motor is a motor and this one is a pretty good performer; does need a slightly different technique than my other Bachmanns, though.

[Legend]

I'm genuinely glad you're enjoying it Johnster .  There's the occasional model you just have pride in owning and enjoy running . You certainly had to wait a long time !

[tomparryharry]

44 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Following up on the firebox glow for DC operation, the loco has become a part of normal working at Cwmdimbath now and I feeI can comment on the effect.  I am barely aware of it unless operating an 'evening' session in low light, and even then it is not intrusive at the low speeds of a smallish BLT.  As I said before, if we are to have it I'd prefer an orange light than the dull red glow which suggests the fire is not up to the job, but it's an irrelevance even by first world problem standards.  I may, as some undefined future point if I've got the top off for any reason, attempt to rewire it so that one of the orange leds that I assume are there for the DCC flicker is activated instead/as well, but suspect (I haven't investigated this) that the location is awkward to get at, which would be the reason it is supplied for DC models anyway.  There's a surplus to requirement speaker in there somewhere as well...

 

My general satisfaction with this lovely model continues to increase over time; it was worth the wait though probably not the amount of fuss I made of it...  Tondu shed used it's allocation of 94xx on passenger work in general, but I can see mine taking turns on the colliery trip and pickups as well.  She can handle the loaded minerals, my heaviest train, with ease where the 57xx and 8750s struggle a bit with it, proof that the coreless motor has a good bit of grunt even if some people don't like it; I am ambivalent, and happy with it's performance.  Unless you are using feedback control, which I'm not, a motor is a motor and this one is a pretty good performer; does need a slightly different technique than my other Bachmanns, though.

 

That'll explain the different driving posture between an 57, and a 94xx. 

[The Johnster]

Absoulutely, mate; Mike Stationmaster thinks it's to do with being able to reach things from the driving seat in the 94xx's widercab, but we know it's down to the coreless motor...  The 94xx starts to move, smoothly, at about position 15 on my ancient Gaugemaster, whereas the other Bachmanns go off at between 22 and 25 or so, exception being the 3MT which needs 30.  Hornbys need this as well, though, like real locos, each has it's own little quirks and foibles whichever colour box it came out of.

 

The point at which a loco moves off, and the smoothness of it's moving off, is a function of current, the inherent torque of the motor, and friction in the drive train.  Modern drive trains are very efficient, but smooth performances can be obtained from older worm/cog mechs if the motor has sufficient torque, which I think of as 'grunt'.  The worst performances to my mind were the awful pancake motors (it is pancake day, btw) of the 70s and 80s that drove through sets of nylon cogs.  The motors were feeble and had to run at high rpm to develop enough power to pull acceptable trains, which many of them failed to do even then, and this had to geared down through several stages of nylon gears to provide what the manufacturers' reckoned was adequate slow running and smooth stopping and starting; I begged to differ and still do.  As many of these already hopeless mechs still couldn't pull trains properly, the manufacturers fitted traction tyres, which worsened the problem as far as slow smooth running was concerned.  Continental and American models with traction tyres seem to not suffer this issue, so the cause was poor quality control and designing down to a cost as opposed to up to a quality.  All manufacturers have to do this or go out of business of course, but the UK market got it wrong, badly.

 

The idea, in steam outline models, was that the pancakes could be mounted crosswise in the fireboxes so that daylight was visible where it should be beneath boilers, which to be fair had been a problem with previous RTR locos that had had to hide the motors and gears with unrealistic boiler skirts. Or tender drive was resorted to, defeating it's own object by having spur gears clearly visible behind the underframes and drawing attention to themselves by revolving distractingly.  We have come a long way since those days, for which I am grateful.

 

The point, which we get to eventually, yay, is that the effectiveness of a motor is not down to it's type; a good 3-pole will outperform a poor 5-pole, and there is no inherent superiority in coreless over cored motors; the critical factors are the grunt of the motor and the efficiency of the drive train, which depend in turn on quality of components an manufacture.  The motors found in most current RTR are little engineering miracles produced in huge volumes to very high standards of manufacture and quality control and a ridiculously low prices in the Far East.  When did you last hear of a dud motor in a new model?

 

Those manufacturers, of which and whom I wot little as they are in the position of sub sub contractors to the likes of Hornbys' or Bachmanns' sub contractors, the guys from whom the models are commissioned, seem in general to be producing more coreless motors, perhaps for some production cost reason or difficulty in obtaining parts, we don't know and I don't really care, so I reckon future RTR production, including new batches of already released models, will tend to feature coreless motors, something I have no problem with so long as the level of quality and performance is maintained.

 

The motor in the 94xx is a doozy, better than anyone has any right to expect from a volume produced cheap device IMHO.  It's long term reliability remains to be proved, of course, but my take is that I am 69 years old in a couple of weeks and all my motors will probably outlive me!

[mat]

There do seem to be some quality issues mine was a poor runner would just stop for no reason at slow speed and an issue with the centre axel being tight the loco made a high pitched noise and did not go anywhere. 

[WisTramwayMan]

Different issue - the forthcoming weathered model 35-025A - certainly the initial photos of the model appear to show the rear bunker steps in the incorrect position for the number / livery. They're mounted under the bunker and facing sideways, whereas there's a period photo on the 'net of the same loco, same livery, they appear to be mounted on the rear buffer-beam facing to the rear.

 

Search "GWR 9400 class wikipedia" and you'll see the photo - looks to be at Paddington.

 

Given they only carried GWR livery for a very short time period, I would have thought it unlikely that the photo is inaccurate. Looking at later, BR liveried photos of the same loco the steps appear to have been changed at some point to side mounted. Hopefully the photo issued by Bachmann is just an early mock-up, not the finished article, but whilst it's accurate for BR livery it doesn't look to be for GWR.

 

9400 at the NRM is a different matter, being effectively a BR survivor being repainted in its original livery.

 

 

 

 

[The Johnster]

The GW locos carried GW livery well into the mid 50s, not being repainted until their first full overhauls, which were done on an accrued mileage basis.  It is possible that some may have gone straight from GW livery to the ferret and dartboard 1958 BR livery.  We are used to rebranding and new liveries being established quickly these days, but in the steam era locos were not repainted until a scheduled full overhaul was complete, painting being done at main works. 
 

The steps on 35-035A look to be different to the rear facing ones on my BR liveried 94xx, and are apparently an integral part of the body tooling.  The plot thickens...

[PMP]

There two different footplate castings as I understand it to reflect prototype practice. Rear facing bunker steps underneath the buffers for the GW built version, and side facing bunker steps for BR/Contractor built locos. The steps on the GW build locos were subsequently changed to side facing. 9405 had BR livery and side facing steps by 1955 so the GW/side step livery combined is an unusual combination.  You’d need works records to determine when 9405’s steps were modified and if it were carrying GW livery at the time or subsequently.

Edited February 18, 2021 by PMP
Word deleted

[tomparryharry]

The rear-facing steps are a real PITA if you're 'going under' to couple/uncouple.  Little wonder therefore that the contractor classes omitted the steps. 

[The Johnster]

It does seem a daft idea; rear facing steps are inherently less safe for shunters to ride on than steps facing sideways; if you are going to fall off for any reason I know which way I'd rather fall, especially if the loco was reversing.  They are probably more vulnerable to accidental damage as well.  Hawksworth probably had a good reason to put them there but I cannot imagine what it was!  I can see how they would be a PITA quite literally in some situations...