Bachmann 94xx

[No Decorum]

Yes, High Level, it would (when I get around to it). But I may mean something different to you by 'basic chassis'; I mean a complete chassis, including motor, gears, wheels, pickups, everything needed to build it and a attach it to a locomotive body, place it on the track, and pull trains with it, but not incorporating such detail sa working inside motion or spacers for EM/P4, intended for 'basic' level modellers.  i reckon a 'basic' (in this sense) range of chassis kits, possibly fold-up brass or nickel silver and carrying rivet and spring detail, designed for 00 use as replacement for proprietary chassis, would sell well (even if you branded them as Low Level...), especially with your 'patent' gerarbox.  The internal motion, aprung axleboxs, EM/P4 spacers could be be dispensed with; a sort of 'High Level Light' approach.  I went on Wizard's site yesterday to investigate Comet chassis; the site is a bit dense and difficult to navigate, and I came away little the wiser and having spent nearly an hour of my life that i'll never get back, Perceverance seem to be moribund, and Crownline are not exactly easy to find out about either.  I appreciate the reasons for this and intend no criticism of the people concerned, but I seriously think that there is a market for replacement chassis' for rtr steam outline locos out there.

 

Now, I'm not a marketeer, or a business minded person in general, and may be talking through a hole at the wrong end of myself.  I have no idea what is involved in designing, producing, marketing, or distributing a range of products for a niche market in difficult economic circumstances, and the problem with Mashima motors must be hitting you hard.  But. I consider myself an average modeller, not a good or skilled one, and can, just, cobble a decently designed chassis kit together.  As an example, albeit from some years ago and the loco has since expired, I once built a perfectly good Westward 64xx, which had a fold-up nickel silver chassis and, IIRC, Romford motor and gears, something else which seems to be no longer obtainable.  I appreciate that the supply of model railway motors outside replacements for rtr are a problem these days, and given Hornby's current spares policy, probably inside the rtr world as well; we seem to be moving towards 'disposable' locos with 'no user serviceable parts inside'. This might work to the favour of a small company offering replacement chassis'!

 

But, speaking firstly as a Johnster, and secondly as an 'average modeller', I would be interested in a chassis kit with the following features:-

 

: A fold-up chassis, with rivet and spring detail, or a simple block with brass overlays for the detail

: A gearbox giving better slow running than existing rtr (the Westward 64xx managed it 30 years ago), with a final drive ratio of about 40:1

: Motor, pickups, and wheels included, circumventing possible sourcing problems; the kit must be complete, even if basic

: Clear instructions written (a) by someone whose first language is English, and (b) by someone who has built the kit without guidance from it's designer.  That means I should be able to follow what is going on.

: Screw or nut and bolt assembly as far as possible to avoid solder assembly.  Many of us are a bit hit and miss with soldering, and it is not part of our comfort zone.

: Easy access to wheelsets for occasional lubrication, cleaning, and adjustment of pickups, possibly a keeper plate design, and motor for eventual replacement.

: The availability at a reasonable extra cost, of a finished, built, and running version that can be disassenbled for painting and maintenance; I would expect this to cost not far short of the original rtr loco it is designed for as a replacement available to modellers without the skill to build one, but who wanted to replace a damaged or worn out rtr chassis or upgrade it under an existing loco body which they may have spent some effort in detailing, repainting, or weathering.

 

Not asking for much, am I?  To my mind, the most important points are that the kit is complete with all the components needed to build a running chassis in the packet/box, and that it should be as able as an rtr chassis to provide for cleaning, lubrication, and motor replacement. 

I’m not in the market for a chassis kit (far too much else to do) but I think you might be on to something. You never know, if a nice, easy, smooth running chissis were made available I might be tempted. Not for a Lima 94XX – I steered clear of those – but I can think of some newer stuff which might benefit.

[tomparryharry]

Hello mate. I must confess I've built one or two (literally, one or two) High Level bits, and they've come together very well. I've got a Loadhauler geartrain, and the only reason I've not finished my 26xx, is because I need to resurrect my small miller, as I want to make a small modification to my chassis. Not High Level; just my chassis. Once my eyesight improves, I fully intend to do a chassis or two.

 

Ian

[High Level Kits]

Thanks for the comments so far, especially The Johnster for such a full reply which must have taken a good while. I'm going to have a further read of that. Any more views are most welcome...

 

Keep the comments coming about what you would like from a chassis kit particularly the level of complexity. It wouldn’t be difficult to adapt the existing designs into fold-ups, and the kits already come complete with gearboxes, so that's already sorted. Making a wheeled unit that is the right shape and runs smoothly is not a problem, but matching some of the detail from the complex mouldings of modern RTR without multi-part etch assemblies may be a challenge.

[The Johnster]

Thanks for the comments so far, especially The Johnster for such a full reply which must have taken a good while. I'm going to have a further read of that. Any more views are most welcome...

 

Keep the comments coming about what you would like from a chassis kit particularly the level of complexity. It wouldn’t be difficult to adapt the existing designs into fold-ups, and the kits already come complete with gearboxes, so that's already sorted. Making a wheeled unit that is the right shape and runs smoothly is not a problem, but matching some of the detail from the complex mouldings of modern RTR without multi-part etch assemblies may be a challenge.

 

My pleasure, and gratifying to think that my input is useful to you.  

 

It did occur to me after I'd pressed 'send' that it might be possible to devise chassis kits that used the wheels and possibly motion of the rtr loco they are intended to fit; I was thinking in terms of the 'replacement/upgrade' market rather than my vague plan for a 94xx with a Lima body sitting on top of one of your chassis'.  Nobody would want to re-use anything of the abomination that is the Lima chassis!  Similarly, 'block' chassis might be able to use the rtr axle//wheelsets and keeper plate/pickups as well; I realise it would be difficult for you to keep stocks of all the different sizes, crankpins, spoke numbers and so on of wheels to provide for all the rtr kits you would need to be providing, and an interruption in supply could prove disastrous.

 

My models are unlikely to wear out in what remains of my lifetime*, as I'm the fat side of 65 and approaching the home straight; I've probably had my last Heavy General and will be run into the ground until withdrawal, which, as I am of no interest to enthusiasts or a national treasure, will mean scrapping.  But even i would be heartened to know that, should anything disastrous happen to the works of any of my locos, something could be done about it, and many people younger than me might appreciate it even more.  The downside of this from your point of view is that it is, while definitely a demand, it is not a particularly large one, more a trickle effect over time.  

 

 

 

*except for an antediluvian Airfix 61xx which has to die sometime, though it seems bombproof for now.  The carbon brushes will wear out and that'll be the end of it; they and the motor are not replaceable and I may well be in the market for a replacement complete chassis when that happens...

Edited July 17, 2017 by The Johnster

[MG 7305]

"The carbon brushes will wear out and that'll be the end of it; they and the motor are not replaceable"

 

Surely not. I know you can buy standard motor worms and with the aid of some packing and super glue I have a couple of models with Mashima motor replacements in them following OEM failure. The issue I have with my Hornby 51/61 models is the failure of the intermediate cog in the drive train (sorry) and you can only get a similar but not identical replacement. A couple of layers of insulating tape packing under the motor and away we go again. Apologies for the thread creep.

[High Level Kits]

I've posted a few pics from Jim Smith Wright showing what he's achieved using a Lima body and High Level chassis. Here's a link

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/124550-jims-94xx/

[The Johnster]

I've posted a few pics from Jim Smith Wright showing what he's achieved using a Lima body and High Level chassis. Here's a link

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/124550-jims-94xx/

 

Nice.

[TheSignalEngineer]

I've posted a few pics from Jim Smith Wright showing what he's achieved using a Lima body and High Level chassis. Here's a link

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/124550-jims-94xx/

Jim did an item on how he modified the body on his website in the Brettell Road section.http://www.p4newstreet.com/a-pair-of-panniers.html

[High Level Kits]

Following on from the above, Hornby magazine issue 123 (September 2017) which is now out, contains a fine article on the 94xx in which someone has done a tidy job mating the High Level chassis with a Wills Finecast body.

 

The second photo shows what can be done with a Lima body on the same chassis.

 

Either one's a winner - Lima bodies are available on Ebay for a few quid, or you can breath some new life into the old whitemetal kit, which is basically a sound model. Both chassis have custom gearboxes and can take a huge motor, which is hidden in the boiler space, as is the High Level way.

 

[gwrrob]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/192270999114?ul_noapp=true

 

There's a P4 kit built version here.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... a 'basic' (in this sense) range of chassis kits, possibly fold-up brass or nickel silver and carrying rivet and spring detail, designed for 00 use as replacement for proprietary chassis, would sell well (even if you branded them as Low Level...), especially with your 'patent' gerarbox

 

... I seriously think that there is a market for replacement chassis' for rtr steam outline locos out there...

 

The concept is one I like very much.

 

The problem I perceive is 'existing competition'. This is the heap of unused or little used decent RTR mechanisms 'out there', regularly available s/h at reasonable prices with a little patience. Of direct relevance in wheelbase and wheel diameter for use in powering a 94xx body, I have just acquired a Bach 57xx mechanism for a project awaiting such. Now it doesn't have the mechanical refinement of a Mashima on a good 40:1 reduction kit gearbox: but then it doesn't need it because the Lenz standard that is my usual choice will make it perform exquisitely. And at a net cost of £16 for the mechanism - already sold on the body and box to defray expense - that's powerful 'existing competition', and it's a running mechanism, no assembly or finishing required.

 

... The availability at a reasonable extra cost, of a finished, built, and running version that can be disassembled for painting and maintenance; I would expect this to cost not far short of the original rtr loco it is designed for as a replacement available to modellers without the skill to build one, but who wanted to replace a damaged or worn out rtr chassis or upgrade it under an existing loco body which they may have spent some effort in detailing, repainting, or weathering...

 

If the 'original RTR' or some near equivalent is available retail, it would be a real stretch to bring in the fully assembled mechanism kit for a smaller purchase price. The present situation with poor supply of spares from manufacturers 'works for us' in this scenario: buy a complete model for the mechanism, sell on all the unwanted parts. I have been about this during the past fifteen years of competent OO productions, to repower all sorts of models: various kits with worn or poor mechanisms, older RTR with decent/'usable with work' bodies but awful mechs, (the category the Lima 94xx falls in) newer RTR afflicted with the short life split chassis; so I feel have amassed fair experience to make this assessment.

 

I have never yet spent more than £25 to get a RTR 0-6-0 mechanism from RTR models of GW or LMS designs, and usually significantly less, as an idea of the target purchase price to beat...

[The Johnster]

So far as the 94xx is concerned, the elephant in the room is the Bachmann model, which is in the pipeline somewhere but we don't know exactly where and Baccy are notorious for missing release deadlines even when they have given you one.  This is not intended as a criticism of them, as guesstimating the arrival of a model for which you are dependent on sub contractors for production and assembly of parts is, I imagine, not as straightforward as I think even before you factor in returns for alterations and shipping problems.  I want a 94xx, I am not happy with the Lima or Grafar alternatives available secondhand, and doubt my ability to successfully build a High Level Chassis.

 

I am attempting to source a decent 57xx Baccy chassis for an 8750 body that currently has no gubbins beneath it, it's original split Mainline chassis having, um, split; trying to source two of them to have one to go under a Lima 94xx body is a big ask, as they are not readily available.  Moreover, a 57xx chassis is not suitable for use under a 94xx unless you are prepared to accept that the frames are too short and the wrong shape, and that this is visible at the front end of the loco; 94xx frames have more in common with the 2251, with which they share the cylinder casting and boiler mountings.

 

Is there any point in bothering with a Bachmann/Lima hybrid 94xx which will not be quite correct, when Bachmann are going to eventually release a 'proper' 94xx, and may yet re-release the 2251 which, if they did, would be a much better chassis to go under a Lima 94xx body though you'd need a set of 57xx wheels?  The answer depends on how badly and how soon you want your 94xx, and I may well crack, and end up with a Lima and throw away everthing except the body, and go for a High Level build without the inside working bits for simplicity, but it is a lot of work and likely to take me almost as long as it takes for the Baccy 94xx to appear.  My current state of play on this is to hold fire and wait for Bachmann, but every time the subject comes up it seems to disappear further into the vague future; there has been recent talk here about them engaging in 3rd party work, which is bound to delay the 94xx.  I don't especially want or need 2 94s, especially if they look different from each other.

 

But I might be tempted to go the Lima/new chassis route yet.  Another factor holding me back is setrack curves on some of my fiddle yard roads, which in general would preclude the use of kit chassis although the High Level might be fine on a no.4; I suspect that keeping things to rtr chassis is my best bet, though.  If Bachmann sold a 57xx chassis separately I'd probably buy 2 of them, and certainly one immediately for the 8750, which I particularly want to model as 9681 as supplied new to Tondu in 1948, with 'BRITISH RAILWAYS' sans serif on the tanks.  In fact I am thinking of retiring my unicycling lion 7739 in favour of this loco, but I will still need another chassis to go under 7739; High Level would be doing pretty well out of me if it wasn't for those curves!

[Budgie]

What's wrong with the Finecast 94xx chassis?

[The Johnster]

By no means certain to go around no.4 curves, and not as detailed as either High Level's (even without the inside motion) or Bachmann's will be.  I will be needing a Bachmann 57xx chassis under a Lima body at least and will, if I can manage it, wait for the Bachmann to be released.  I need a locomotive with NEM pockets that will beyond doubt negotiate no.4 curves and ideally no.3.  Also, prices out at around £120 with 'wheel pack', and I'm not sure that includes all items needed to complete.

 

My modelling these days is restricted by space, short-sightedness, and hand-eye co-ordination problems (I am old and feeble) to rtr standards, sharp curvature, and tension lock couplings; I think my kit building days are probably behind me except perhaps for rolling stock, for which there is very little need as rtr covers most of my 1950s requirements to a higher standard than I can kit build and certainly than I can finish.  My only likely scratchbuilding project someway down the line because there are other priorities is a matchboard auto trailer, A7, A9, or Z.  Detailing rtr is my practical limit these days.

Edited August 10, 2017 by The Johnster

[Miss Prism]

 

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Miss Prism

[coachmann]

The 94XX was a popular pannier tank in days before time began and folk thought they made the idea GWR branchline injun....!  The fact that they were red route restriction didn't register in those days of scarcity.  I hadn't realised just what a big engine they were until I saw one double heading with a 57XX on YouTube (taller tanks and higher pitched boiler). I have 94XX sound in one of my Granges solely because of its deep sharp exhaust. But if I were Bachmann, I'd be looking at the 16XX Pannier; a far more useful model.

[The Johnster]

They were popular with some of the minor RTR players back in the 50s and 60s such as Graham Farish, whose rather basic die cast model with it's weird safety valve bonnet still turns up on Ebay.  It can be worked into a half tidy loco, but to be honest still requires a modern good running detailed chassis, and the Lima is less work, as the body moulding is fine on it.  It was a bit like the Will's Flatiron, a loco in which the 1950s mechanism could be easily hidden if you were prepared to forego daylight beneath the tanks and boiler with moulded skirts.  They were very common on GW branchline layouts as Larry says, as small GW RTR locos were like rocking horse doodoo in those days, and the obvious drawback that only the first ten appeared in GW livery at the very end of the company's existence and were far too heavy for most branch lines.  The Trix 56xx appeared in similar situations.

 

They are really a heavy freight tank, described by Swindon as being for yard transfer work, and were also intended to complete the GW's long standing programme of replacement of pre-grouping South Wales 0-6-2s, especially the TVR 04s.  Their association with Paddington ecs workings stems from a desire to have 'modern looking' locos visible to the punters on the lawn; this meant locos without domes on their boilers.  They weren't so fussy at Waterloo with M7s.  They were not, as is sometimes claimed, shunting engines that should never have been built in 1947 or until 1954, though they were very useful for heavy shunting work.  They probably looked like a decent investment in the late 40s, when nobody at Swindon had foreseen the dieselisation of the next decade.  It might be argued that the later locos, particularly the 34xx series which had very short lives, were a waste of money, but the materials had been ordered and paid for so little could be saved by cancelling them.

 

The really silly decision was to replace them with the D95xx diesel hydraulics, as their traffic was being Beechinged out of existence even as the diesels were being drawn out, and had gone by the time they reached traffic!

 

Come on Mr Bachmann, sir, where is my 94xx?

[OnTheBranchline]

 

Another day goes by without the 94xx...

 

For all the controversy about Hornby's "Design Clever" a few years ago, at least they were delivering models to the market.

Edited December 3, 2017 by OnTheBranchline

[No Decorum]

For all the controversy about Hornby's "Design Clever" a few years ago, at least they were delivering models to the market.

In the case of design clever models, I wish they hadn’t been. The eight-coupled tanks have been upgraded. I wish Hornby would do the same for the Star and DoG.

 

I don’t like to complain about delays; they help the budget. Take your time and get it right!

[The Johnster]

To be fair there's a difference between delays, caused by the likes of production problems or even shipping issues, and the non-appearance even on anyone's horizon of a model listed in the catalogue for over a year as 'on order/TBA' with photographs of the prototype confirming than no work has been done to be photographed.  The MR 0-4-4T looks like being another no-show for some time.  Bachmann are not making any friends in this way, and while they might not be in need of friends in the way Hornby are at the moment, the future is uncertain and, while the non-appearance of a small tank loco is not going to sink or save them if the crap hits the fan, the attitude might come back and bite them!

 

I would accept that I am more likely to have an axe to grind here, as I particularly want a 94xx and have been so pleased with the running of my other Baccy 0-6-0 GW chassis that I am looking forward to it's eventual release; my only Hornby 0-6-0 does not run anything like as well.

[OnTheBranchline]

In the case of design clever models, I wish they hadn’t been. The eight-coupled tanks have been upgraded. I wish Hornby would do the same for the Star and DoG.

 

I don’t like to complain about delays; they help the budget. Take your time and get it right!

Bachmann took their time with the Modified Hall and they still screwed it up.

[tomparryharry]

With all of the demons & ghouls out there, it's little wonder Bachmann are 'somewhat reticent' about producing the 94xx. It would appear that as soon as the EP photos are issued, there will be hordes of interested parties with claims of rivets being out by 1/32" and the 3rd spoke on the centre driver has a real life scratch on the spoke behind the coupling rod knuckle, (but only in 1958).

 

Perhaps, it's a bit like the old saying of decimal currency. "What's all this new stuff, can't we let all of the old people die first?"

 

I'm confident of either Hornby or Bachmann having a good go at this. In fact, I'm a bit surprised Hornby didn't beat them to the punch. I'd suggest the plethora of highly informed analyses might be putting them off. Even Fred the Office Boy ran off with the toilet rolls....

 

Me? I'm back off to re-do my Limaline pannier. Having reviewed my old photo, my effort is not up to standard. Lots & lots of work to do. Time to re-learn my motor skills.

 

Happy weekend, everybody!

 

S.C. Rooge

[Rhys Underwood]

I'm confident of either Hornby or Bachmann having a good go at this. In fact, I'm a bit surprised Hornby didn't beat them to the punch. I'd suggest the plethora of highly informed analyses might be putting them off. Even Fred the Office Boy ran off with the toilet rolls....

 

 

 

I could be wrong, but didn't Hornby show pictures of 9400 being measured up in Steam in an Engine Shed update a while back, who knows what 2018 could bring..... 

[adb968008]

I could be wrong, but didn't Hornby show pictures of 9400 being measured up in Steam in an Engine Shed update a while back, who knows what 2018 could bring.....

 

I thought I saw that, twice, but that was a few years back, and before Bachmanns announcement.

I figure if it was coming from Hornby we’d have heard by now.

 

No ones picked the 15xx yet, i’m sure given its London suburban habitat it would be popular.

Edited December 9, 2017 by adb968008

[tomparryharry]

I could be wrong, but didn't Hornby show pictures of 9400 being measured up in Steam in an Engine Shed update a while back, who knows what 2018 could bring.....

Yes, I believe you could be right. A lot of people would like a faithful and quality rendition of a pannier, other than the 8750 variety.