Jump to content

Lu4472ke

Bachmann J72

Recommended Posts

Yes, on the original Mainline one the splashers were a little small but not significantly, the sandboxes over them were way too low, on the 44 I added a piece of 40thou plasticard on top.

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have watched these splendid little engines run in and out of Darlington and Newcastle Stations lots of times.  However it doesn't help me remember any details!

 

Another view from the same set of pictures.  The older Bachmann splashers are certainly further inboard on the running plate and of smaller appeartance.

 

49282213542_9c092e33b8_5k.jpg

 

Cheers Ray

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

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

:wacko:

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. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

524246906_J7269023NYMT-AutGala2010071-Edit.jpg.95a0b0020531a112dff17377e176c4ba.jpg

 

68723-Newcastle-May-1960-Edit.jpg.61702e91df48e7ab71a0207815250f33.jpg

 

P

Edited by Porcy Mane
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

20191227_203314-1600x1554.jpg.53c293f8afeed40b13be4b2f27d7ee20.jpg

 

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.

 

20191227_204035-1600x1339.jpg.9d54006cec887c7900fea3a0c1d656dc.jpg

 

20191227_202753-1600x1299.jpg.71ea1f002eabd0d06630bc2bc6cfc09d.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

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

 

Good man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Compound2632

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

20191228_150352_resized.jpg

20191228_150344_resized.jpg

Edited by Daddyman
  • Thanks 2
  • Informative/Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

20191227_203314-1600x1554.jpg.53c293f8afeed40b13be4b2f27d7ee20.jpg

 

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.

 

20191227_204035-1600x1339.jpg.9d54006cec887c7900fea3a0c1d656dc.jpg

 

20191227_202753-1600x1299.jpg.71ea1f002eabd0d06630bc2bc6cfc09d.jpg

 

 

 

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


Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

20191228_150352_resized.jpg

20191228_150344_resized.jpg

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.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

20191228_191518_resized.jpg

Edited by Daddyman
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


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.