Jump to content

Bachmann J72


Recommended Posts

On 21/12/2019 at 20:24, Daddyman said:

 

 

Apart from the rods, a lesser niggle is the blower ejector pipe (not really a niggle at all, as it will be fun to remodel): most J72s had this pipe suspended off the boiler and straight for most of its length, whereas Bachmann's hugs the boiler and then kinks out for the smokebox. Only Joem seems to have its blower ejector pipe similar - but not the same - as this. The diameter of the pipe also looks a bit small. 

 

 

 

I thought that most J72s did not have this pipe.

Looking at photos of those that do have it there are several machines from the last batch that have the lower pipe with a kink near he smoke box end.

I have not found any evidence of an earlier loco that has this kinked pipe. Of course the only photos that I can find of the Bachmann loco are of the other side. What to do with mine is a project for the New Year I think.

Remove?

Replace?

Renumber? But that adds  further modifications  as it needs the rear sandboxes added and possibly a change of buffers.

Find proof that Bachmann are correct.

Bernard

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke to the supplier of my faulty J72 on Friday afternoon and he emailed a returns label.  I posted the model off on Saturday and it was received on Monday.  The supplier, whom I have previously found to be excellent, rang to say they had test run a replacement for 20 minutes, cleaned its wheels and would despatch it that afternoon.  The  replacement arrived today and is complete and undamaged.  However, whilst it does run, it is noisy and jerky at low speeds.  Have other purchasers found this or am I just unlucky?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

I thought that most J72s did not have this pipe.

Looking at photos of those that do have it there are several machines from the last batch that have the lower pipe with a kink near he smoke box end.

I have not found any evidence of an earlier loco that has this kinked pipe. Of course the only photos that I can find of the Bachmann loco are of the other side. What to do with mine is a project for the New Year I think.

Remove?

Replace?

Renumber? But that adds  further modifications  as it needs the rear sandboxes added and possibly a change of buffers.

Find proof that Bachmann are correct.

Bernard

 

 

The J72s were a mix. Most were intended for shunting duties. The GA describes it  as  a  ''shuntjng tank'. and as such had no requirement  train brakes. A few were selected for pilot duties. These were required to move passenger stock and  were fitted with vacuum ejectors hence the additional pipe on the left. There were variations in running this pipe from cab to smokebox. Some hugged the boiler until it neared the smokebox these had a severe kink, then a second bend into the smokebox.

 

The smaller pipe from the firebox fed steam to the Dreadnought injector in the cab.

94518525_Book673_3.jpg.0a1589847cd6bb144de34622ad272ad0.jpg

One further comment, not all the BR built locos  had vacuum ejectors fitted.

 

ArthurK

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

I spoke to the supplier of my faulty J72 on Friday afternoon and he emailed a returns label.  I posted the model off on Saturday and it was received on Monday.  The supplier, whom I have previously found to be excellent, rang to say they had test run a replacement for 20 minutes, cleaned its wheels and would despatch it that afternoon.  The  replacement arrived today and is complete and undamaged.  However, whilst it does run, it is noisy and jerky at low speeds.  Have other purchasers found this or am I just unlucky?

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. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Regarding the running of the J72’s. All three of mine are very smooth and quiet. No complaints. But I did have each one tested in the shop, which would have picked up on any faulty running. 
 

Rob.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a J72 in departmental guise at Tyne Dock, BR built with straight ejector  pipe. Note the support from the tank.

58 was set aside for preservation but didn't make it.

 

ArthurK693457923_Book8066_1.jpg.1f1298420e1941c965f7f80a3908f036.jpg

Edited by ArthurK
Grammar
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
32 minutes ago, Sun Chariot said:

Doe this latest Bachmann J72 release just cover the first ten of the class built or the remainder up to and including the latter builds 69001- 69028

 

No, 1914 build onwards, the earliest ones (1898/9) had shorter bunkers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sun Chariot said:

Doe this latest Bachmann J72 release just cover the first ten of the class built or the remainder up to and including the latter builds 69001- 69028

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 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎22‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 15:17, Hastings Thumper said:

...Does anyone know if the coal load comes out though ? - it looks like a diecast mound of coal but seems reluctant to move...

Not owning - or even having seen one - this is guesswork;  Bachmann's tank loco constructions typically have the plastic moulding representing the bunker exterior and rear spectacle plate surrounding a cast ballast weight with surface detail for 'coal' and the cab rear wall interior. A couple of crosshead screws on the underside of the body secure these parts to the footplate. Release these, and with a little wiggling to break any cement bonds all will be in bits.

 

Of course it may all be completely different, and if it is, do tell!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

@Worsdell forever, I've been looking at photos of those splashers/sandboxes compared the ones on the old Mainline model (per your Class 44) with increasing satisfaction that a Raven E1 is not something I'm interested in possessing. But a thought has occurred to me: are they the right size for an E?

 

I think height wise and in profile they're right, they're just way too wide, I've a feeling this is because they are cast metal as part of the footplate, they look good side on but head on they're huge. Luckily we mostly see them side on. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Worsdell forever said:

 

I think height wise and in profile they're right, they're just way too wide, I've a feeling this is because they are cast metal as part of the footplate, they look good side on but head on they're huge. Luckily we mostly see them side on. 

So, because they're cast as part of the footplate, they cannot be conveniently changed?

:wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Worsdell forever said:

 

I think height wise and in profile they're right, they're just way too wide, I've a feeling this is because they are cast metal as part of the footplate, they look good side on but head on they're huge. Luckily we mostly see them side on. 

 

Interesting. I was looking at @Silver Sidelines' photos of the new and old J72s head to head; the Mainline splashers look significantly smaller in height as well as width; perhaps they were always too small?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Paul Cram said:

Looking at side  photos in Yeadon the new ones look right. The original ones are too low compared to the boiler.

 

That's encouraging. Bachmann have been rather given to over-scale splashers, I had assumed that this was due to needing to accommodate over-scale flanges. The ex-Midland 3F and 4F 0-6-0s and the LMS Standard 3F 0-6-0T are cases in point, while those on the LB&SCR E4 have struck me as especially humongous, even though the driving wheel diameter is less than that of the Midland goods engines. I suppose the running plate is at a lower height above rail level. Looking at photos of the forthcoming 1P, they seem to have got that right.

 

Bachmann are by no means the only offender. Triang seemed to get splasher dimensions right, by dint of having the whole body sitting 2 mm too high!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.