Bachmann 94xx

[tomparryharry]

I haven't done a conversion from the later Bachmann 57/8750 chassis yet. Is/are there any pointers to using the later chassis? Will it fit?

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

Edited January 22, 2018 by tomparryharry

[The Johnster]

 Let me throw temptation in your path. The current 57xx mechanism has a sprung centre axle which is a major aid to good pick up. Sadly Bach have dropped this feature from their later designs, so a Lim-Bach hybrid is likely to be mechanically superior to the awaited RTR model.

 

Get thee behind me, Satan, and push...

 

I am very happy with my (current mech) Baccy 57xx, which is a superb runner and probably as good as it is rational to expect from an RTR product.  The only real issue with the Lim-Bach 94xx is that the 57xx type frames are the wrong shape and this shows at the front; the 94xx is basically a pannier tank 2251 with smaller wheels, rather than the beefed up 2721/57xx series pannier it is often regarded as, and should be thought of as a completely new type of pannier at it's introduction rather than a development of previous saddle/pannier types.  The difference is not huge, though looks a little odd as the very prominent plate frames of the 94xx that show above the running plate ahead of the smokebox have to match the profile of the frame below it, or it looks as if the front of the loco, already visually overhanging a bit, is not supported.  Many years ago I planned a conversion of my Lima 94xx with Mainline 2251 chassis and 57xx wheels, which would have involved very major surgery to the chassis blocks and a cab full of motor, and still possess parts of the 2251 I bought secondhand for this project, never started.

 

I am increasingly coming around to the view that I can live with the anomaly; after all, I happily run a Hornby 2721 which can hardly be regarded as a scale model (and which may also receive a Baccy chassis one day if I can resolve the wheelbase and splasher issues, to improve the running).  I am not and never have been in a position to adopt a high ground based on my ability to make models better than current RTR ones; I can't.  It is in Baccy's interest to get a wiggle on with this if they want to sell a 94xx to me, as once I have committed to a Lim-Bach, I will not be paying £125 for theirs unless it is a very exceptionally good model, by which I mean full compensation, working inside motion, etched number plates and so on (dream on, Johnster).  I am, if I am being brutally realistic, at an age where the 2 or 3 years it might take Baccy's loco to appear in the shops represents a significant and increasing percentage of the rest of my life, and am starting to subconsciously base my spending decisions on this fact...

 

It's being so cheerful as keeps a body going...

[adb968008]

I am, if I am being brutally realistic, at an age where the 2 or 3 years it might take Baccy's loco to appear in the shops represents a significant and increasing percentage of the rest of my life, and am starting to subconsciously base my spending decisions on this fact...

 

It's being so cheerful as keeps a body going...

Sadly to say, but it is exactly this reason I have been able to do 9466. The two panniers were my late fathers, who wanted me to do these for him, we discussed it in December 2016, along with plans for Germany, and Swanage/MHR 2017 galas. Sadly unknown to us both at the time but by February he was in hospital and his life was over by April.

I’m keeping my word by doing it, albeit a year late and running on a different layout than originally planned, one of many such projects I’ve had to decide to keep or dispose.

Edited January 22, 2018 by adb968008

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Get thee behind me, Satan, and push...

 At the front end of the body underside, you can surely cement on two vertical pieces of plasticard to fit either side of the short projection of the 57xx baseplate, to represent the frame profile of the 94xx. Go on, you know you want to...

[adb968008]

Here’s a very close up of mine from the other week, with coupling in place, there’s really not a lot of room under the front ?

 

Is that we’re you are referring to ?

 

Looking on line I think I see what your referring to

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/03/51/30/3513036_87b61261.jpg

 

Just also noticed I’ve got two sandboxes on mine.. the old Lima lump of one, and the Bachmann one on the chassis..

Edited January 23, 2018 by adb968008

[bike2steam]

I always remove the hooks off the locos, looks better as your pic proves.  

[adb968008]

I always remove the hooks off the locos, looks better as your pic proves.

 

But then it wouldn't be able to pull anything on my layout.

 

(Before you say change to screw link.. thats a change of x00's of items your suggesting..) 

[bike2steam]

But then it wouldn't be able to pull anything on my layout.

 

(Before you say change to screw link.. thats a change of x00's of items your suggesting..) 

 

Don't you have hooks on your rolling stock ?? It makes shunting easier.( Er - still keep the 'bar'. )

Edited January 23, 2018 by bike2steam

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Here’s a very close up of mine from the other week, with coupling in place, there’s really not a lot of room under the front ?

 

...Just also noticed I’ve got two sandboxes on mine.. the old Lima lump of one, and the Bachmann one on the chassis..

 It just needs two small pieces the depth of the bufferbeam to stop the light coming through where frames would be. (The frames extend all the way to the rear of the bufferbeam plank, at a least full depth of the bufferbeam, to provide adequate strength for buffing and traction loads.)

 

Interesting how a photograph reveals that there's detail that needs taking care of. Presumably the 94xx sandbox was a little further forward relative to the leading wheelset than on the 57xx

[tomparryharry]

Just awaiting my copy of the pannier Papers to be delivered (34xx). Then, I'll give my Limby 94xx a serious dose of looking at.

 

Ian.

[TheSignalEngineer]

 

 

Interesting how a photograph reveals that there's detail that needs taking care of. Presumably the 94xx sandbox was a little further forward relative to the leading wheelset than on the 57xx

The Lima ones need to come off. The 94xx sandbox was quite a long way from the front, close to the brake block, as with the Bachmann one. The problem with the Bachmann ones is that they should probably be a bit further out, closer to the downward part of the angle iron of the running plate.

[Budgie]

I always remove the hooks off the locos, looks better as your pic proves.

I take it you don't do much double-heading on your layout.

[bike2steam]

I take it you don't do much double-heading on your layout.

 

Nope    

[The Johnster]

I agree that removing the hook from t/ls on locos improves the appearance, or at least diminishes the awfulness of it, but mine are retained, and not for double heading purposes.  It is my view that, until the trade can decide on, and more importantly effectively implement, a standard for t/l regarding height above the rail, flexibility, hook profile and bar profile, not to mention distance from buffer beams and materials, something they clearly have no intention of ever doing in my lifetime, reliable coupling requires both vehicles' hooks to engage on each other's bars.

 

This is particularly true on layouts with train set curves and changes of gradient.

 

There may be a case for a new standard NEM fitting coupler for 00, especially if it is cheaper and easier to develop than standardising the existing coupler in the way I have described.  A standard position for the NEM pocket would be a big help in each case.  Scale couplings are beyond my ability to manipulate in these compromised eye-hand co-ordination days of my dotage, but might be a way forward for others if they were available in NEM pocket fitting form.

 

Bit off thread for 94xx, more a tension lock wish list really!

Edited January 24, 2018 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

 It just needs two small pieces the depth of the bufferbeam to stop the light coming through where frames would be. (The frames extend all the way to the rear of the bufferbeam plank, at a least full depth of the bufferbeam, to provide adequate strength for buffing and traction loads.)

 

Interesting how a photograph reveals that there's detail that needs taking care of. Presumably the 94xx sandbox was a little further forward relative to the leading wheelset than on the 57xx

 

 

You are starting to preach to the choir, 34; I am convinced enough to go down this route unless Baccy seriously get a wiggle on soon.  A Baccy model will have the advantage of cab detail, though; any Limbach I build will have the cab shutters slid shut to try to hide the yawning interior chasm...

[tomparryharry]

You are starting to preach to the choir, 34; I am convinced enough to go down this route unless Baccy seriously get a wiggle on soon.  A Baccy model will have the advantage of cab detail, though; any Limbach I build will have the cab shutters slid shut to try to hide the yawning interior chasm...

On a purely personal note, but too late, I feel. It would have to be pretty spectacular the greater price commanded by he 94xx, over the 57xx. However, I'm sure that it will command an interest.

 

Ian.

[Barry Ten]

It really isn't that hard to do the Lima/Bachmann conversion - about one evening, to get a basic mate between the chassis and the body, I reckon.

 

 

The black one seen here required about three hours of total modelling time spread over three evenings, done in early December, and that includes doing the handrails, making a replacement step (one was missing from the shell I had) and removing/filling the spurious cabside steps on the driver's side of the loco. Adding cosmetic frame extensions would take a bit longer, but shouldn't be too difficult with some plastic card - maybe another hour? As for the cab interior detail, I added a spare backhead to the green 94xx seen here, but it's barely visible when running so I'm not too sure I'll bother with the black one. There's nothing fiddly about any of this, by the way - just some basic modelling and bodging, real kitchen table stuff. I'm a very hamfisted modeller and rarely get things right first go, especially cutting plastic card, but I'll happily make two or three attempts and then use the best one. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Barry Ten

[tomparryharry]

It really isn't that hard to do the Lima/Bachmann conversion - about one evening, to get a basic mate between the chassis and the body, I reckon.

 

 

The black one seen here required about three hours of total modelling time spread over three evenings, done in early December, and that includes doing the handrails, making a replacement step (one was missing from the shell I had) and removing/filling the spurious cabside steps on the driver's side of the loco. Adding cosmetic frame extensions would take a bit longer, but shouldn't be too difficult with some plastic card - maybe another hour? As for the cab interior detail, I added a spare backhead to the green 94xx seen here, but it's barely visible when running so I'm not too sure I'll bother with the black one. There's nothing fiddly about any of this, by the way - just some basic modelling and bodging, real kitchen table stuff. I'm a very hamfisted modeller and rarely get things right first go, especially cutting plastic card, but I'll happily make two or three attempts and then use the best one.

I do like your photo- very nice. I'm just awaiting the book, and then I'll have a go myself. My first go wasn't too bad, or difficult either. They both run ok already, so I'm looking forward. All of the add-ons are not too expensive, or difficult to make or obtain.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Legend]

I always thought that the 94XX was a big beast of a Pannier, yet the latest Bachmann Catalogue lists the 64XX as 138mm long and the 94XX as only 133mm .

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

You are starting to preach to the choir, 34; I am convinced enough to go down this route unless Baccy seriously get a wiggle on soon...

 One last push then! The Bach 57xx mechanism I own is stuffed into a J52 body, which transforms it from the dodgy running of Hornby's 'one size fits all equally inaccurately' apology for a six coupled tank loco chassis. That's the second stuffing of this 57xx mechanism, the first stuffee being a Lima J50 body. It was released from this role by Hornby producing a decently accurate J50 model.

 

The real joy of this activity. This 'rain dance' performance of doing things with mostly RTR bodies and mechanisms magically influences the manufacturers. Result so far: 67% (9F, K3, A3, B17, J50, Class 40, O1, K1, now available as good RTR;  just the class 21, class 30, J39 and J52 to come...) although I am lining up old B1 body parts alongside a ROD with a view to an O4/8, but then again Dapol and Bachmann may yet deliver, and surely someone is going to do an exquisite 'Ped' someday?

[WD0-6-0]

although I am lining up old B1 body parts alongside a ROD with a view to an O4/8, but then again Dapol and Bachmann may yet deliver, and surely someone is going to do an exquisite 'Ped' someday?

Off topic but I'd hold off on the 04/8, with Bachmann announcing the changes to do the ROD version it wouldn't surprise me if an 04/8 was waiting in the wings.

 

Back on topic, I started a LimBach conversion a few years ago with the intention of doing 9463 the Penzance Station Pilot in the early 1950s, it's still on going with etched plates turning up recently and new handrails currently being made but it donated it's chassis to an 8750 body so I need to get hold of another chassis

Does anyone know who does suitable water fillers for the 94xx, my bodyshell did not have any?

Edited January 24, 2018 by WD0-6-0

[Miss Prism]

I always thought that the 94XX was a big beast of a Pannier, yet the latest Bachmann Catalogue lists the 64XX as 138mm long and the 94XX as only 133mm .

 

Bachmann have got it wrong, then, haven't they?

[Legend]

Bachmann have got it wrong, then, haven't they?

I don’t know to be honest. I thought it was a good bit bigger but this seems to suggest otherwise.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Legend

[TheSignalEngineer]

I always thought that the 94XX was a big beast of a Pannier, yet the latest Bachmann Catalogue lists the 64XX as 138mm long and the 94XX as only 133mm .

The 94xx is correct. The 64xx should be 124mm if the Great Western Archive site is right.

[tomparryharry]

According to my drawings here, the 64xx 'should' be 31'1" over buffers, whilst the 94xx 'should' be 33'2" over buffers. That 'should ' equate to 124.03mm (64xx) and 133.66mm (94xx). I think I've got that right. That's about 9.63mm longer.  Please feel free to check my figures, but it does go to show how much larger the 94xx actually was.

 

Ian.