Bachmann 94xx

[AY Mod]

27 minutes ago, Erixtar1992 said:

they still havent fixed RMWeb rotating pictures from an iphone with no option to correct.

 

Who are 'they''?

 

There's nothing that can be fixed at this end, you just need to know how to take pictures the right way round on the phone.

[Pteremy]

3 hours ago, Bulwell Hall said:

I after the disappointment of the Dapol GWR Mogul shows what can be done by manufacturers.

 

Gerry

I think that the only people disappointed are those with unrealistic expectations or those 'wanting' to be disappointed. 

[Erixtar1992]

34 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Who are 'they''?

 

There's nothing that can be fixed at this end, you just need to know how to take pictures the right way round on the phone.

The phone that used to work perfectly fine before with landscape pics.

nevermind eh! 
 

 

[AY Mod]

47 minutes ago, Erixtar1992 said:

The phone that used to work perfectly fine before with landscape pics.

 

And still will if you turn it the right way round.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-your-iphone-photos-sometimes-appear-upside-down-2014-10?r=US&IR=T

[tomparryharry]

Deleted.

Edited January 27, 2021 by tomparryharry
post deleted. Sorry!

[The Johnster]

9 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

My BR black 94XX arrived today, with many thanks to Not Captain Kernow and his team at Camborne for prompt despatch.

 

I think I must have become a little too immersed in the 'Johnster Effect', as I had been really looking forward to receiving this loco.

 

I got it out of the box this afternoon and had a look at it. It must feature one of the best and most detailed RTR loco bodies that I've ever seen. It looks simply magnificent.

 

I put it on my test track, which is one yard of OO and P4 dual-gauge track, consisting of standard code 75 bullhead rail, directly soldered to copper clad sleepers. The coreless motor responded reasonably well to my bog-standard Gaugemaster DC controller, a tight spot or two, which I felt would have eased with some running in.

 

Now, I know that this loco has been eagerly awaited by many and I really, really don't want to sound overly negative or rain on anyone's parade, but what happened next left me feeling extremely disappointed, but perhaps not that surprised.

 

I put the 94XX on 'Bethesda Sidings', which features standard C&L chaired bullhead track and applied some power.

 

Nothing.

 

I gave it a tap, and the loco lurched and stuttered a few inches and stalled again. This was repeated a couple of times and I then realised that the Bachmann flanges were fouling the chairs below.

 

Without serious work in terms of reducing the flanges, this loco was not going to run on 'Bethesda Sidings'.

 

Just to be on the safe side, I got my 8750 pannier out, which features the original Bachmann chassis and that ran just fine on the layout, just like it did the last time I ran it.

 

I've had this problem with Bachmann steam outline locos before, that of inconsistent flange profiles between different steam locos from the same manufacturer.

 

A few years ago, I had hoped to run a Crab and a Standard 5 on 'Engine Wood', but neither would run smoothly, due to the deeper flanges fouling the chaired C&L track. At that time, I contacted Alan Gibson to order a replacement set of wheels. He was incredulous that I found it necessary to do that for a loco that would stay in OO gauge, he had assumed that I wanted an EM or P4 set.

 

In the end, I didn't convert the locos, they got sold on, unconverted, during a major clear-out and the wheels got sold separately.

 

I've even found inconsistent wheel flange profiles on the same Bachmann loco, such as the WD 2-8-0. Fortunately in this case, the driving wheels had the same flange profile as the 8750 pannier and I only had to change the pony and tender wheels (for Markits ones).

 

So, as I said, I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

 

I can't vouch how these 94XXs will fare on other makes of chaired bullhead track, but mine is the original C&L product from a few years ago and it just doesn't like it.

 

So if you are getting one of these 94XXs and are expecting to run them smoothly on C&L chaired bullhead track - you have been warned!

 

So, what now for the 94XX? It really would have been too heavy for 'Bethesda Sidings' in real life, so I am almost certainly going to keep it and convert it to P4 with a High Level chassis and run it on 'Callow Lane'. It might even make it to the Forest of Dean (over specially strengthened bridges!).

 

Let's hope that the Rapido-Model Rail 16XX doesn't give the same problems. No reason to assume it will, but my experiences of many RTR steam-outline locos these days hasn't been that good. I shall hope for the best!

 

Bummer, and my apologies for generating a 'Johnster effect' which has made the disappointment all the greater for you (with great power comes great responsibility).  The RTR world does seem to have it in for you; I remember the trouble you had with the DJM 48xx. 

 

The 94xx has the same axle spacing as the 8750, so it may be possible to obtain a set of 8750 (or 57xx) wheels from Bachmann and drop them in as direct replacements; this assumes that the worm and cogs are the same or compatible.  I'd suggest trying it with the wheels from your 8750 and, if they work, leave them in there and order a replacement set for the 8750.  If not, you've not made the situation any worse, and can return the 8750s wheels to the 8750. 

 

I have never really looked at any of my Bachmann flanges as there has never been any need on my layout, which uses code 100 Streamline, but a long term plan is to replace it with code 75 bullhead.  I see Andy Y has pointed out that the 94xx runs fine on this!  It will be interesting to compare the wheels on my 57xx and 8750 fleet with the 94xx when it arrives.

 

 

[paul-dereham]

Slightly worried as I'd love one of these but my shunting yard is C&L bullhead track.

 

[PMP]

17 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

My BR black 94XX arrived today, with many thanks to Not Captain Kernow and his team at Camborne for prompt despatch.

 

I think I must have become a little too immersed in the 'Johnster Effect', as I had been really looking forward to receiving this loco.

 

I got it out of the box this afternoon and had a look at it. It must feature one of the best and most detailed RTR loco bodies that I've ever seen. It looks simply magnificent.

 

I put it on my test track, which is one yard of OO and P4 dual-gauge track, consisting of standard code 75 bullhead rail, directly soldered to copper clad sleepers. The coreless motor responded reasonably well to my bog-standard Gaugemaster DC controller, a tight spot or two, which I felt would have eased with some running in.

 

Now, I know that this loco has been eagerly awaited by many and I really, really don't want to sound overly negative or rain on anyone's parade, but what happened next left me feeling extremely disappointed, but perhaps not that surprised.

 

I put the 94XX on 'Bethesda Sidings', which features standard C&L chaired bullhead track and applied some power.

 

Nothing.

 

I gave it a tap, and the loco lurched and stuttered a few inches and stalled again. This was repeated a couple of times and I then realised that the Bachmann flanges were fouling the chairs below.

 

Without serious work in terms of reducing the flanges, this loco was not going to run on 'Bethesda Sidings'.

 

Just to be on the safe side, I got my 8750 pannier out, which features the original Bachmann chassis and that ran just fine on the layout, just like it did the last time I ran it.

 

I've had this problem with Bachmann steam outline locos before, that of inconsistent flange profiles between different steam locos from the same manufacturer.

 

A few years ago, I had hoped to run a Crab and a Standard 5 on 'Engine Wood', but neither would run smoothly, due to the deeper flanges fouling the chaired C&L track. At that time, I contacted Alan Gibson to order a replacement set of wheels. He was incredulous that I found it necessary to do that for a loco that would stay in OO gauge, he had assumed that I wanted an EM or P4 set.

 

In the end, I didn't convert the locos, they got sold on, unconverted, during a major clear-out and the wheels got sold separately.

 

I've even found inconsistent wheel flange profiles on the same Bachmann loco, such as the WD 2-8-0. Fortunately in this case, the driving wheels had the same flange profile as the 8750 pannier and I only had to change the pony and tender wheels (for Markits ones).

 

So, as I said, I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

 

I can't vouch how these 94XXs will fare on other makes of chaired bullhead track, but mine is the original C&L product from a few years ago and it just doesn't like it.

 

So if you are getting one of these 94XXs and are expecting to run them smoothly on C&L chaired bullhead track - you have been warned!

 

So, what now for the 94XX? It really would have been too heavy for 'Bethesda Sidings' in real life, so I am almost certainly going to keep it and convert it to P4 with a High Level chassis and run it on 'Callow Lane'. It might even make it to the Forest of Dean (over specially strengthened bridges!).

 

Let's hope that the Rapido-Model Rail 16XX doesn't give the same problems. No reason to assume it will, but my experiences of many RTR steam-outline locos these days hasn't been that good. I shall hope for the best!

 

Tim is the C&L handbuilt or flex track? I’ve tried the 94xx on thin sleeper C&L flex and whilst clearances are not visible, I had no issues on their flex track. I’m wondering if the print file of individually laid chairs inner face are different to the flex track. (Obviously won’t get round points with hand built components though)

 

C&L thin sleepers 

 

Peco CD75 Bullhead.

 

it runs through all Peco no issues, I placed a 30 thou shim under the C&L to make a hump, and again ran without any strikes.

[Captain Kernow]

15 hours ago, Bulwell Hall said:

In the same vein of not wanting to p... on anybody's parade I have heard that the clearances inside the splashers are tight for those - like me - wishing to convert the model to one of the wider gauges.  Mine hasn't arrived yet but from the photos I have seen it looks to be a superb looking model and I hope to convert it to EM gauge in due course.  I'll be interested to hear what you think Tim if you are contemplating conversion to P4 - can it be done?

I did a quick check last night, without removing the chassis and it looks to be about 22mm.

 

A measurement over a set of P4 wheels (AG) in one of my panniers showed that a minimum of 21.5mm, ideally 21.75mm is required, and that's without any slop at all.

 

P4 conversion will, I suspect, depend on how much material you can remove from the insides of the splashers.

 

[Captain Kernow]

2 minutes ago, PMP said:

Tim is the C&L handbuilt or flex track? I’ve tried the 94xx on thin sleeper C&L flex and whilst clearances are not visible, I had no issues on their flex track. I’m wondering if the print file of individually laid chairs inner face are different to the flex track. (Obviously won’t get round points with hand built components though)

 

C&L thin sleepers 

 

Peco CD75 Bullhead.

 

it runs through all Peco no issues, I placed a 30 thou shim under the C&L to make a hump, and again ran without any strikes.

It's bog standard C&L flexi track, Paul, with thin sleepers.

 

Thanks for checking.

 

Those inner chairs on the Peco bullhead track seem a lot lower than the C&L equivalents, which is interesting.

 

One other issue I discovered last night, which may or may not have a bearing, pending my doing something about it, is that the B-to-B on the leading and trailing drivers of the 94XX is 14.5mm, which it should be, but the B-to-B of the centre drivers is 15mm.

 

[Captain Kernow]

12 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

The Model Rail/Rapido J70 is fine on C+L and Peco bullhead, for what it's worth.

Thanks, Al. I did get one of these, but it's going to Hattons in due course, with a package of other stuff from my latest clear-out. It isn't really that suitable for the Welsh Marches, even on an outrageously improbable light railway, but the main issue was that the B-2-Bs of the J70 measured out at 15mm, rather than 14.5mm. It was indeed fine on plain track (C&L flexi on thin sleepers), but really didn't like my OO-SF pointwork (the gauge of which was checked carefully during construction and later and is spot-on).

 

This is one reason that I am a bit concerned about the forthcoming Rapido-Model Rail 16XX, although Chris Leigh did assure us in the relevant thread that the B-to-B would be 14.5mm.

 

[Captain Kernow]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The 94xx has the same axle spacing as the 8750, so it may be possible to obtain a set of 8750 (or 57xx) wheels from Bachmann and drop them in as direct replacements; this assumes that the worm and cogs are the same or compatible.  I'd suggest trying it with the wheels from your 8750 and, if they work, leave them in there and order a replacement set for the 8750.  If not, you've not made the situation any worse, and can return the 8750s wheels to the 8750. 

 

I have never really looked at any of my Bachmann flanges as there has never been any need on my layout, which uses code 100 Streamline, but a long term plan is to replace it with code 75 bullhead.  I see Andy Y has pointed out that the 94xx runs fine on this!  It will be interesting to compare the wheels on my 57xx and 8750 fleet with the 94xx when it arrives.

Interesting idea, Mr Johnster (and no need to apologise for the 'Johnster Effect', by the way, I was a willing participant!

 

Quite by coincidence, I've got a Bachmann 8750 awaiting conversion to P4, using drop-in wheels, so I will indeed have a spare set of 8750 wheels available.

 

In the meantime, I am minded to try pressing the centre drivers in, to achieve the correct B-to-B of 14.5mm (they are currently at 15mm, which is an inconsistency with the leading and trailing drivers, on the same loco!).

 

[PMP]

16 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

It's bog standard C&L flexi track, Paul, with thin sleepers.

 

Thanks for checking.

 

Those inner chairs on the Peco bullhead track seem a lot lower than the C&L equivalents, which is interesting.

 

One other issue I discovered last night, which may or may not have a bearing, pending my doing something about it, is that the B-to-B on the leading and trailing drivers of the 94XX is 14.5mm, which it should be, but the B-to-B of the centre drivers is 15mm.

 

Tim,

just checked my 94xx 

rear b2b 14.35

middle    14.36

front.      14.32

 

A first release 57xx looks exactly the same on the track as the 94x, the wheels aren’t interchangeable, the gear train is completely different.

It might just be yours Tim, the EPs ran on Little Bytham which has chaired Norman Solomon track, and two of my 57/64 panniers (standard wheels) have also run there with no chair strikes. The wheel profiles will obviously be tuned to set track requirements.

[Captain Kernow]

5 minutes ago, PMP said:

A first release 57xx looks exactly the same on the track as the 94xx

Thanks Paul, that's what's puzzling me!

 

I will see how easy it is to push the centre drivers back to a 14.5mm B-to-B and take it from there.

 

I have to admit, if it ran (runs) OK on Bethesda Sidings, I'd be highly tempted to keep using it in OO and get another one to convert to P4.

 

[Captain Kernow]

9 minutes ago, PMP said:

A first release 57xx        the wheels aren’t interchangeable, the gear train is completely different.

Thanks for that, saves me a bit of potential work later!

 

9 minutes ago, PMP said:

It might just be yours Tim

Yes, indeed, but it always is me that seems to encounter the problems, isn't it?!

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Captain Kernow

[Barry Ten]

I might be misremembering, but when discussion of C+L compatibility has come up in the past, someone suggested that there might be variations between batches of the track, perhaps due to tooling wear.

 

I've got a mix of Peco bullhead, and thin and thick-sleepered C+L on my layout. I've not really encountered any problems with locos (that i can remember) but I've certainly noticed that Hornby's new Maunsell stock rides rough in places although I've generally found Hornby's 14mm coach wheels to be OK, so much so that I prefer them over Gibsons. My pointwork is bog-standard Code 75 but with the checkrail clearances tightened in places with shims.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Barry Ten

[PMP]

2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

I did a quick check last night, without removing the chassis and it looks to be about 22mm.

 

Just checked mine and narrowest is 21.28 between faces, widest 21.35mm.

[Mark]

15 hours ago, Pteremy said:

I think that the only people disappointed are those with unrealistic expectations or those 'wanting' to be disappointed. 

 

15 hours ago, Pteremy said:

I think that the only people disappointed are those with unrealistic expectations or those 'wanting' to be disappointed. 

Or perhaps those who are disappointed consider that the model does not capture the fundamental shape of the prototype.

 

Back on topic my 94xx has just arrived courtesy of Derails.

 

Mark

Edited January 28, 2021 by Mark

[Bulwell Hall]

4 minutes ago, Mark said:

 

Or perhaps those who are disappointed that the model does not capture the fundamental shape of the prototype.

 

Back on topic my 94xx has just arrived courtesy of Derails.

 

Mark

 

I would have been more than delighted if the Dapol Mogul had been up to scratch but it isn't.  I had great hopes for it but when it arrived I was instantly disappointed with it so it was returned.  When compared with the Bachmann 94xx and the Hornby 4150 2-6-2T it just doesn't 'cut the mustard'. 

 

Gerry

[Markn]

2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

It's bog standard C&L flexi track, Paul, with thin sleepers.

 

Thanks for checking.

 

Those inner chairs on the Peco bullhead track seem a lot lower than the C&L equivalents, which is interesting.

 

One other issue I discovered last night, which may or may not have a bearing, pending my doing something about it, is that the B-to-B on the leading and trailing drivers of the 94XX is 14.5mm, which it should be, but the B-to-B of the centre drivers is 15mm.

 

 

This issue of the centre wheel spacing is part off the issue I had last weekend. They can be adjusted quite easily and mine runs fine now.

[Budgie]

Yesterday I had a bit of an ooh-nasty with my 94xx. It was running at step 96/128 pushing my track cleaner and pulling two coaches, when it derailed and fell four feet from the baseboard onto the floor. Three things broke: the chimney broke cleanly at the bottom of the "copper" cap (which looks more like brass to me); the left-hand front buffer, which is bent out of shape; and the front coupling assembly which broke into four parts. So I need to ask Bachmann if they can supply me with 2 spare parts: one buffer and one of those dovetail NEM pockets. A new coupling is not required as I had replaced the tension-locks with Kadee 19s, and I have a few of those in stock.

 

Replacing the loco on the track, I found that in all other respects it works perfectly.

[Markn]

20 minutes ago, Budgie said:

Yesterday I had a bit of an ooh-nasty with my 94xx. It was running at step 96/128 pushing my track cleaner and pulling two coaches, when it derailed and fell four feet from the baseboard onto the floor. Three things broke: the chimney broke cleanly at the bottom of the "copper" cap (which looks more like brass to me); the left-hand front buffer, which is bent out of shape; and the front coupling assembly which broke into four parts. So I need to ask Bachmann if they can supply me with 2 spare parts: one buffer and one of those dovetail NEM pockets. A new coupling is not required as I had replaced the tension-locks with Kadee 19s, and I have a few of those in stock.

 

Replacing the loco on the track, I found that in all other respects it works perfectly.

Ouch! Shows its made of stern stuff at least!

[Dunsignalling]

4 hours ago, PMP said:

Tim,

just checked my 94xx 

rear b2b 14.35

middle    14.36

front.      14.32

 

A first release 57xx looks exactly the same on the track as the 94x, the wheels aren’t interchangeable, the gear train is completely different.

It might just be yours Tim, the EPs ran on Little Bytham which has chaired Norman Solomon track, and two of my 57/64 panniers (standard wheels) have also run there with no chair strikes. The wheel profiles will obviously be tuned to set track requirements.

Unless he's changed, Norman's usual pick for plain line was SMP.

 

Tamerig Central, a layout we were both involved with some years back, mainly did, too, but one day I sent a Bachmann loco (a WD, iirc) into a couple of little-used sidings that had been laid with C&L. The issue of the higher chairs and some Bachmann wheels is nothing new....

 

I notice that I have, at some time, fitted my WD with Markits tender wheels, so maybe the flanges on the loco are shallower....

 

John

Edited January 28, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[PMP]

57 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Unless he's changed, Norman's usual pick for plain line was SMP.

 

 

John

 

The issue won’t just be plain track, it’ll be the points too. The pictures in the thread the points are obviously custom built. The plan track is apparently SMP, but doesn’t look like the type I used to sell in the 80’s.

 

I think Tony would probably have mentioned running clearance had their been an issue. 

Edited January 28, 2021 by PMP
Correction re SMP track

[Dunsignalling]

11 hours ago, PMP said:

 

The issue won’t just be plain track, it’ll be the points too. The pictures in the thread the points are obviously custom built. The plan track is apparently SMP, but doesn’t look like the type I used to sell in the 80’s.

 

I think Tony would probably have mentioned running clearance had their been an issue. 

This is an offcut of SMP left over from the construction of Bath Green Park (so c2000) and spray-primered by Norman before laying.

 

As you can see, the tops of the chairs taper in under the rail head, upon further interrogation of my memory cells, I think the issue with C&L track of that time, was that the chairs, whilst no higher, had flat tops that stuck inwards between the rails. That's why some wheels hit them, and I think it happened with older (1960s/70s) Romfords too.

 

John

 

Disclaimer: C&L has changed hands at least a couple of times since then, and has probably been retooled.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Dunsignalling