Bachmann 94xx

[The Johnster]

My memory is not what it was.  IIRC(!), the MRC show was traditionally at Central Hall but moved to Wembley shortly after the facility there opened.  The queues and crowds at the MRJ show prevented me seeing much, which may be why it is not particularly highlighted in the shattered ruins of my memory.  I am sure that 'Hursley' must have been there, and at least one Iain Rice layout, but I cannot specifically recall any of them, only my dissappointment at not getting to see North Shields.  I don't remeber seeing Ian Petherton, whoever he is, either...

[Captain Kernow]

4 hours ago, cctransuk said:

The MRJ show was a one-off, legendary / infamous exhibition, organised by the Model Railway Journal publishers.

 

Legendary for the selection of superb layouts displayed; infamous for the length of the queue, and the density of the crowd once inside.

 

I can vouch for both - I was there!

I was also there.

 

I was at the back of the longest exhibition queue I had ever seen, having caught the train up from Bristol on a rather cold day.

 

It was clear that it was going to take a long time to get inside, so after a relatively short time, I thought 'bug*er this', so I went off up to Puffers in Kenton, so that my trip up was not completely wasted. That turned out to be a productive visit to Puffers, because I bought the last three rail-built bullhead buffer stops that they had in stock, which ended up being used on 'Engine Wood' and 'Bleakhouse Road' a few years later.

 

[Godfrey Glyn]

Yes it was a wonderful show, and well worth the journey down from Darlington.The layout that made the most impression on me was Hursley, I had never seen any model so beautiful before.  A good friend and wonderful modeller, now sadly dead, John Bridger who worked for PECO was very jealous of my attendance so I made a sticker for the rear window of my Beetle which proclaimed " I've seen Hursley". He was slightly amused when I parked outside his house in Seaton. Sorry to go off topic.

I cannot justify a 94xx but I have compared one with the Model Rail 16xx and felt that the 16xx sample I have ran slightly better out of the box than the 94xx I was shown. Both very nice models though. 

 

all the best

Godfrey

[The Johnster]

Hursley was remarkable, and something of a standard bearer for MRJ in it's early years.  The first model I was aware of that was, in photographs, unidentifiable as being a model.  The attention to detail was exceptional, down to the platform surfaces and the dirt collected in the corners of windows, at the same time being superbly presented in the 'macro' sense; trees, roadways, embankments, all were completely convincing.  You could almost smell the creosote on the sleepers boiling in the sun.

 

And that was just the photos in the MRJ!

 

We are drifting from 94xx, though.

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by The Johnster

[LimboBrit]

On 27/03/2021 at 11:25, w124bob said:

In the "Pannier Papers 94xx vol" there's a comment in one of the captions that the works plates were removed from the contractor built loco's by Swindon

Interesting. I bought the works plate from 8405 at auction (see avatar). I was assuming that it was removed when it was scrapped. I have the number plates for 8405 from Railtec and am waiting for delivery of the works plate for renumbering. I will still replace the Stephenson plate with the Bagnall one though for sentimental reasons. My grandfather worked for 52 years at Bagnall's Castle Works.

[The Johnster]

Come to think of it, I don't recall builder's plates on 94xx, not that I was particularly noticing them...

[john dew]

The GWR version 9402 has the letters "Pdn" in White on both running plate step supports.

 

For greater certainty I assume this means Paddington and will be redundant on my model which is in the process of being renumbered to 9407 (Oxley) ? I was planning to just paint it out.

 

Happy Easter from Vancouver

[Miss Prism]

Yes, PDN is Paddington. I couldn't see Oxley mentioned for 9407 in the BRdatabase listing

[The Stationmaster]

10 hours ago, john dew said:

The GWR version 9402 has the letters "Pdn" in White on both running plate step supports.

 

For greater certainty I assume this means Paddington and will be redundant on my model which is in the process of being renumbered to 9407 (Oxley) ? I was planning to just paint it out.

 

Happy Easter from Vancouver

9407 was always a London Division engine. however 9408 was one of the Oxley allocated 94XX

[john dew]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

9407 was always a London Division engine. however 9408 was one of the Oxley allocated 94XX

B****r.............You are absolutely right Mike.   That was a typo.....sadly on my plate order 

 

Thats tiresome but thanks for telling me better to know than not.

 

Best wishes

[The Stationmaster]

18 hours ago, john dew said:

B****r.............You are absolutely right Mike.   That was a typo.....sadly on my plate order 

 

Thats tiresome but thanks for telling me better to know than not.

 

Best wishes

Rule 1 is always useful John.  But you never know - it might have been shopped at Wolverhampton and then run-in locally   

[Monkey28]

On 23/03/2021 at 09:52, Monkey28 said:

 

I have done that Johnster 

 

What I have found is that with the base plate removed the rear wheel with the gear on is moving in an up and down movement.

 

Thinking that the quartering has gone out slightly 

 

Going to either send it back or see what Bachmann say .

 
Still having problems with my sound fitted 94xx despite it having been to Bachmann for repair.

 

they said they had replaced the motor and the body that was damaged in transit.nothing was said about the wheels.
 

Though it was a little odd as it came back in the same packaging as it was sent there was no damage to the outer box and I had tested the motor before sending it to them without the wheels fitted.

 

they have fixed the grinding noise and poor running but It has a problem with stopping on points at slow speed.
 

I have cleaned the wheels and pickups and made sure that the pickups are making good contact with the backs of the wheels .

 

 Has anyone fitted a power pack to the decoder? There doesn’t seem a lot of space for one 

 

is there anything else I can try like Cvs settings 

 

thanks 

oliver 

 

 

 

 

[The Johnster]

One point or all points?  One would suggest less than 100% perfectly level track with perfectly smooth fitting to the next piece, all means the chances are it’s the loco. 

[Monkey28]

I’ve tried it on two layouts so it’s got to be the loco .

 

I rapidly losing patience with this loco all the problems I’ve had with it .

 

Completely out of ideas on what to do with it.

[Gopher]

13 hours ago, Monkey28 said:

I’ve tried it on two layouts so it’s got to be the loco .

 

I rapidly losing patience with this loco all the problems I’ve had with it .

 

Completely out of ideas on what to do with it.

I wholly sympathise mine had a similar problem jerky running forwards at slow speed, slightly better in reverse  It is still at Bachmann being repaired.   I will be charged for the repair because in my efforts to fix the problem I took off the keeper plate to examine the wheel set and adjusted the pick ups.  Mine never ran perfectly from day one but I thought I could live with it.   I returned it to the model shop who eventually returned it to Bachmann (at my insistence), because there was also a flaw in the moulding of one of the spokes on the wheels.   The model shop told me that they thought it ran the same as their other 94xx locos , so basically there was nothing wrong with it.  I tried a different decoder,  tweaked CVs etc.        

 

 Sorry no suggestions as what else you can do with it other than hit it with a hammer  (I came close to smacking mine).  It is so frustrating when you get the occasional dud loco.  I have never had a problem with Bachmann locos until this one.  Other people have not had a problem and are delighted with the model.    

[The Johnster]

I agree; it has to be the loco; and it seems like a pickup problem if you have insulfrog points.  Remove the body and closely observe the behaviour of the pickups while slow running through the turnouts.  
 

Another possibility is coupler hook droppers fouling on the crossing rails, something I have had with some Bachmann items even after checking that the couplings are properly pushed home in their dovetail mounts.  The answer is to trim the dropper by about 1mm with something like a Xuron or wire cutter; it will still have sufficient weight to function as a counterbalance. 

[Guest]

On 18/04/2021 at 09:04, Gopher said:

 Sorry no suggestions as what else you can do with it other than hit it with a hammer  (I came close to smacking mine).  It is so frustrating when you get the occasional dud loco.  I have never had a problem with Bachmann locos until this one.  Other people have not had a problem and are delighted with the model.    

It's a shame, as generally I find Bachmann better runners than Hornby, still trying to sort my Hby King out since Christmas, to much gunk round gears, cleaned a lot off has made it a bit better.  See here after I freed it up (actually 8 coaches on King as 3 uncoupled).

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by Guest
class 8750 not 57xx!

[geoffers]

5 hours ago, Gopher said:

Sorry no suggestions as what else you can do with it other than hit it with a hammer

Been there...done that I'm ashamed to say but only twice over 40 years. Boy do you feel a pillock afterwards. The advice about trimming the coupling dropper is a good one. 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, geoffers said:

Been there...done that I'm ashamed to say but only twice over 40 years. Boy do you feel a pillock afterwards. 

Same here, but only once.

[The Johnster]

I hammered a motorised Airfix kit Drewry 04 that refused all attempts to get it to run properly once; didn't feel a pillock, just a terrible satisfaction that has only ever been matched by the one time I broke a chap's nose, feeling the crack and the spread of the bones under my knuckles and the squirt of blood.  He richly deserved it and I was cheered by a whole pub, and it felt wonderful, but I was at the same time deeply ashamed of myself, firstly for allowing myself to be so provoked and secondly for enjoying it, but not so ashamed that I refused the several beers that were bought for me including one by the barmaid.

 

I threw a recalcitrant Lima Western against a wall once as well.  Not proud of that either.

[Monkey28]

Thanks everyone for your suggestions. I have run the loco without the couplings fitted that makes no difference.

 

Going to recheck the pickups tonight 

 

If not I think this loco is going to the back of the cupboard 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Monkey28 said:

If not I think this loco is going to the back of the cupboard 

Oh no.

[MikeParkin65]

On 17/04/2021 at 19:33, Monkey28 said:

I’ve tried it on two layouts so it’s got to be the loco .

 

I rapidly losing patience with this loco all the problems I’ve had with it .

 

Completely out of ideas on what to do with it.

On the DCC forum there is short exchange about similar hesitant running with the latest sound fitted 24/1. This was cured by the removal of the suppressors across the motor terminals . I haven’t got a 94xx or a 24/1 (yet!) but I remove these suppressors as a matter of course as they have long being named as ‘suspects’ in DCC running issues. 

[The Johnster]

You have little to lose by trying this!

[Monkey28]

I have an update on my loco 

 

I removed the body that was a very tight fit and didn't want to separate from the chassis of the loco easily.

 

When I got them separated I could see a long piece of black tape going from the green under boiler over the motor to the other side. The tape on the green Part of boiler was making the body a tight fit.

 

When I tried the loco on the track as suggested to see what was happening the loco would run worse than with the body fitted. stoping and starting and very jerky 

 

I had an idea to try another decoder I had a cheap lais DCC decoder spare so gave that a try. Nothing form the loco at all .

 

I decided to trim the black tape so the body would fit better.

 

That's when I found the problem! The black tape was hiding the problem that the black wire was broken. It must have just been the body and the tape just about holding the wire together some times .

 

So I have to replace the wire and all should be good 

 

Thanks for everyone's help

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Monkey28