Bachmann J72

[Porcy Mane]

1 hour ago, Daddyman said:

I'm pretty sure - going by memory when I had the body off a few days ago - the splashers are plastic and a separate moulding. 

 

They certainly seem to be looking at the cads  and phots earlier in the thread.

 

The distance between the outside of the running plate and the upright of the outside of the splasher looks narrow. I originally thought that the over wide splasher might be one of those modelling compromises to accommodate an over-width 00 wheel but if Mainline got it correct?

Maybe were going to have another splasher-gate on our consciences?

I'll just leave these here so you can make up your own mind.

One in preservation and the other earning it's keep at the Central.

 

 

 

P

Edited December 27, 2019 by Porcy Mane

[Daddyman]

Surely someone has drawings? I don't have Record 3 with me at the mo. 

[Worsdell forever]

Here's a photo at a similar angle to Porcy's shot of 69023, don't need a drawing to show they're too wide!

 

I've had it to bits and the splashers are plastic. Also, someone was asking if the coal was removable, it is screwed to the bunker, drop the chassis out, remove 6 screws to take the bodywork off and the screw can be seen in the bunker. The coal rails are held in place by the coal.

 

 

 

 

[Porcy Mane]

Handy images P.

 

Can you see if the  round section of the boiler separates at the band behind the dome and was the printing easy to remove?

 

This might be saving me a hundred squiddles.

 

T'ther P

(Appy crumble to you & yours btw).

[Worsdell forever]

12 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

Handy images P.

 

Can you see if the  round section of the boiler separates at the band behind the dome and was the printing easy to remove?

 

This might be saving me a hundred squiddles.

 

T'ther P

(Appy crumble to you & yours btw).

 

Yes, the boiler does separate behind the dome and the printing does like all Bachmann printing does - show it a No 20 blade and it runs a mile.

[Porcy Mane]

17 minutes ago, Worsdell forever said:

show it a No 20 blade and it runs a mile.

 

Good man.

[PenrithBeacon]

Ok so the splashers are too wide, but are the cut-outs for wheels too wide also?

The reason I ask is that the splashers, if made of plastic, can be modified, but modifying the hole in the platform is a different ball game altogether.

Cheers

[atom3624]

Are the splashers too wide to avoid interference from the bolts on the coupling rods, possibly?

 

Al.

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Record 3

 

Side elevations only, I'm afraid.

 

K. Hoole, An Illustrated History of NER Locomotives (OPC, 1988) has a drawing from The Engineer of 23 Nov 1888, of a Class B compound. Width over splashers scales out at about 5'9". Any help?

 

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by Compound2632

[Daddyman]

15 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Side elevations only, I'm afraid.

 

K. Hoole, An Illustrated History of NER Locomotives (OPC, 1988) has a drawing from The Engineer of 23 Nov 1888, of a Class B compound. Width over splashers scales out at about 5'9". Any help?

 

 

Yes, thanks: Bachmann have 26mm over splashers. 

 

I thought the side elevations might confirm whether there is in fact a height issue with the splashers as well as one with width.

 

[Daddyman]

Here are photos showing the removable plastic splashers. The boiler front also comes away as Porcy suspected (secured by two screws under the s.box), and it looks like both the s.box body and s.box front are also separable. 

 

Re Penrith Beacon's question, the total f.plate width is 32mm, and the splasher apertures reach to within 4.84mm of each edge. I've had a long drive and am too knackered to do the sums, but I'm sure someone can work out whether it is possible to take some width off the splashers and not expose the aperture in the f.plate. The problem, I think, will be the upright cast into the f.plate which serves to (wrongly) position the splashers. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Daddyman

[2750Papyrus]

On ‎24‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 19:15, Daddyman said:

Mine too - noisy and jerky at low speeds, despite oiling, and worse the more I run it in. Not what you would call a smooth runner. 

 

Thinking about this problem on Christmas Eve, I wondered whether the new J72 is allergic to feedback controllers (I use Gaugemaster)  and emailed the supplier to ask what they test on.   I had an email on my return from visiting family over Christmas to say they test ran the model for 20 minutes using a straightforward GM controller.  I therefore hooked up an old H & M Duette to my layout and the loco ran sweetly and quietly (though not slowly), even on half-wave rectification! It therefore looks as if my suspicion is correct.  I have checked the instructions and there is no warning about the use of feedback controllers.  (The only warnings are about sharp radius curves and not to use DCC fitted locos on analogue DC layouts with electronic track cleaners).

 

I wonder whether Daddyman and other users experiencing problems are also using feedback controllers, and whether Bachmann would care to comment? 

 

Also, would magazine reviewers PLEASE run review samples on a range of currently available controllers, not just one!

[Daddyman]

I don't know anything about controllers I'm afraid! I've only run it on my dad's layout, where one controller is 50-odd years old, and the other is a recent (5 years-ish) Gaugemaster. What problems did you have? It was rough for me, and wouldn't start until the controller was up to full notch, and then the loco would sprint off. The roughness could be a need for more oil, and pickups might explain that starting problems, but they're all in contact with the wheels (the track and wheels are clean, obviously). 

15 minutes ago, 2750Papyrus said:

I wonder whether Daddyman and other users experiencing problems are also using feedback controllers, and whether Bachmann would care to comment? 

 

[Hastings Thumper]

19 hours ago, Worsdell forever said:

Here's a photo at a similar angle to Porcy's shot of 69023, don't need a drawing to show they're too wide!

 

I've had it to bits and the splashers are plastic. Also, someone was asking if the coal was removable, it is screwed to the bunker, drop the chassis out, remove 6 screws to take the bodywork off and the screw can be seen in the bunker. The coal rails are held in place by the coal.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the photos - I've now successfully extracted the coal load from mine

Sam

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, Daddyman said:

Here are photos showing the removable plastic splashers. The boiler front also comes away as Porcy suspected (secured by two screws under the s.box), and it looks like both the s.box body and s.box front are also separable. 

 

Re Penrith Beacon's question, the total f.plate width is 32mm, and the splasher apertures reach to within 4.84mm of each edge. I've had a long drive and am too knackered to do the sums, but I'm sure someone can work out whether it is possible to take some width off the splashers and not expose the aperture in the f.plate. The problem, I think, will be the upright cast into the f.plate which serves to (wrongly) position the splashers. 

The upright cast into the footplate is pretty much correctly positioned for the outside face of the splasher. Probably best to trim it down flush to the footplate, slim down the inside of the splasher moulding for correct overall width, and stick it back on.

[Daddyman]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The upright cast into the footplate is pretty much correctly positioned for the outside face of the splasher. Probably best to trim it down flush to the footplate, slim down the inside of the splasher moulding for correct overall width, and stick it back on.

Slight problems are (a) you lose the rivet strip surrounding the splasher, and (b) there is a groove outboard of the cast splasher guide, which will probably be exposed when the splashers are moved inboard. 

 

Another problem for those converting to J71s (mine will be a J71) is that the rear bufferbeam (like all the footplate and the tanks, and even the steps) is cast - this will be difficult to remove and will then need blending into the valance before a steel replacement beam is added further back. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Daddyman

[PenrithBeacon]

I notice you have used an etched chassis as well as the other mods. Beginning to think it isn't really worth parting with the pension pot.

Cheers  

[Paul Cram]

If you are doing a J71 I think a Arthur Kimber kit would be a better solution.

[Sun Chariot]

On 26/12/2019 at 13:47, Bernard Lamb said:

Not the BR ones without modification.

Rear sand boxes and GS buffers amongst the detail differences and all manner of variation in the ejector pipe as already mentioned in several posts.

Bernard 

 Thank you for the clarification Bernard

[Floreat Industria]

19 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Another problem for those converting to J71s (mine will be a J71)

 

You will need NEW splashers as the J71's were taller and quite different to suit the bigger wheels. Also, they had the shorter bunker like the early J72s.

[Daddyman]

42 minutes ago, Floreat Industria said:

 

You will need NEW splashers as the J71's were taller and quite different to suit the bigger wheels. Also, they had the shorter bunker like the early J72s.

Yes, you're right - I have the splashers and frames from the MT etch, but had forgotten the bunker was quite so much shorter (I thought it was 2 inches but it's 2mm). 

[47137]

On 28/12/2019 at 15:29, 2750Papyrus said:

 

Thinking about this problem on Christmas Eve, I wondered whether the new J72 is allergic to feedback controllers (I use Gaugemaster)  and emailed the supplier to ask what they test on.   I had an email on my return from visiting family over Christmas to say they test ran the model for 20 minutes using a straightforward GM controller.  I therefore hooked up an old H & M Duette to my layout and the loco ran sweetly and quietly (though not slowly), even on half-wave rectification! It therefore looks as if my suspicion is correct.  I have checked the instructions and there is no warning about the use of feedback controllers.  (The only warnings are about sharp radius curves and not to use DCC fitted locos on analogue DC layouts with electronic track cleaners).

 

I wonder whether Daddyman and other users experiencing problems are also using feedback controllers, and whether Bachmann would care to comment? 

 

Also, would magazine reviewers PLEASE run review samples on a range of currently available controllers, not just one!

 

My J72  ran happily in the shop on a Gaugemaster controller (sorry forgotten which model), and terribly at home on my Kent Panel Controls feedback controller. I then ran the model with a non-feedback controller at home and with a Gaugemaster "twin track with inertia model" on a friend's layout, and both controllers were fine. Then I put the chip into the model, this is a Zimo one with Bachmann packaging, and DCC operation is a lot better than all of the analogue controllers.

 

This is only the second loco I've ever had which was unhappy on the KPC controller. (For completeness the other was an ESU class 66 temporarily converted from the factory DCC to analogue operation). In both cases, slow running was uneven and not very slow. So I guess, Bachmann are using a different kind of motor.

 

I agree entirely, magazines should try a selection of analogue controllers.

 

- Richard.

[SDJR7F88]

As short running session featuring the all new NER E1 / LNER J72 0-6-0T from Bachmann.
This fully re-tooled model of the popular J72 has been well worth the wait, bristling with detail and other interesting features. 
This fully re-tooled model of the popular J72 has been well worth the wait, bristling with detail and other interesting features, such as firebox glow and interchangeable lamps.  
In this video we see the J72 in action, piloting a short rake of Hornby Teaks.
Hope you enjoy!

 

[Broadway Clive]

On 28/12/2019 at 15:29, 2750Papyrus said:

 

Thinking about this problem on Christmas Eve, I wondered whether the new J72 is allergic to feedback controllers (I use Gaugemaster)  and emailed the supplier to ask what they test on.   I had an email on my return from visiting family over Christmas to say they test ran the model for 20 minutes using a straightforward GM controller.  I therefore hooked up an old H & M Duette to my layout and the loco ran sweetly and quietly (though not slowly), even on half-wave rectification! It therefore looks as if my suspicion is correct.  I have checked the instructions and there is no warning about the use of feedback controllers.  (The only warnings are about sharp radius curves and not to use DCC fitted locos on analogue DC layouts with electronic track cleaners).

 

I wonder whether Daddyman and other users experiencing problems are also using feedback controllers, and whether Bachmann would care to comment? 

 

Also, would magazine reviewers PLEASE run review samples on a range of currently available controllers, not just one!

Yes it definitely has a coreless motor as the designer told Andy in a video interview a year or so ago. Terrible jerkiness on Gaugemaster HF handheld with feedback and also on my Kent Panel Controls handheld - but improved by operating the feedback cut-out button. But I need feedback controllers as I run trains semi automatically and they keep the speed steady despite unavoidable gradients caused by loft timbers. I wonder if anyone could fit a conventional motor in the damn thing.   Second thoughts are that maybe the flickering fire or other electronics is interrupting feedback and causing the problem, as I had similar troubles when the first DCC sockets were fitted by Bachmann several years ago on the then new K3 and Ivatt 2-6-0 'flying pig'.  At that time I cured it by cutting them out and rewiring direct to the motor.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Broadway Clive
second thoughts

[Legend]

I just think it should be made very clear which models contain coreless motors . Clearly there are compatibility problems