Jump to content
 

The new V2 ep


Dr Gerbil-Fritters
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, micklner said:

To achieve that on the A2 they made the Axlebox and Spring less than half the thickness they should be. Is the V2 the same?

It will be interesting to find out how it has been done. I shouldn’t say this but I intend to get one; in my wholly individual and subjective opinion, the V2 is the most beautiful steam locomotive eve built. I’m fully aware that the famous O. S. Nock disagreed; a case of beauty being in they eye of the beholder.

 

I believe it was JSpencer who made suggestions ( which seemed to be workable) as to how full-depth axleboxes and springs could be made without resorting to flangeless wheels, I think in relation to Hornby models. Hornby might not pay attention but Bachmann might. The EP certainly looks as if it has full-depth fittings. Fingers crossed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone wishing to improve their current Bachmann V2 models I have now made available an upgrade kit comprising 3D printed replacement smokebox door, streamlined dome, superheater covers, snifter valve and front steps/buffer detail. Sadly it will not resolve the missing "hump" on the current Bachmann Boiler/Firebox:

IMG_1740.JPG.dbda19553a00e0ba176321d511868030.JPG

 

IMG_1746.JPG.bfd4bfa1587c9e596494fa5e04b68103.JPG

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/111744-mike-trices-shapeways-shop-ner-ventslamps-v2j50-upgrade-kits-now-available/&do=findComment&comment=3855937

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, micklner said:

To achieve that on the A2 they made the Axlebox and Spring less than half the thickness they should be. Is the V2 the same?

No. If I understand correctly based on 'reports thus far' Bachmann have followed Hornby's established practise in this matter.

 

Externally, the frames are rigid and of correct scale form: this is visible on the EP, it looks right.

 

Internally, it will have a flangeless wheelset fitted as supplied, in order that it will function as a 2-6-0 and thus be capable of negotiating R2 curves.

 

The implication of what I have read is that a flanged wheelset will be included in the box, for substitution by those who choose (again, as Hornby have done thus far in my experience) so that on display it will look right, and those of us mad enough to fiddle with our RTR can do as they will to get it round curves. (With fixed frames, a regular flanged OO wheelset will work down to 30" radius on a loco the size of a V2, and possibly a slightly smaller radius than that. My fiddled with Hornby A3, A4 and Brit pacifics all sail around 30" radius with Hornby's substitute flanged wheelset mounted in their much hacked about interiors.)

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

No. If I understand correctly based on 'reports thus far' Bachmann have followed Hornby's established practise in this matter.

 

Externally, the frames are rigid and of correct scale form: this is visible on the EP, it looks right.

 

Internally, it will have a flangeless wheelset fitted as supplied, in order that it will function as a 2-6-0 and thus be capable of negotiating R2 curves.

 

The implication of what I have read is that a flanged wheelset will be included in the box, for substitution by those who choose (again, as Hornby have done thus far in my experience) so that on display it will look right, and those of us mad enough to fiddle with our RTR can do as they will to get it round curves. (With fixed frames, a regular flanged OO wheelset will work down to 30" radius on a loco the size of a V2, and possibly a slightly smaller radius than that. My fiddled with Hornby A3, A4 and Brit pacifics all sail around 30" radius with Hornby's substitute flanged wheelset mounted in their much hacked about interiors.)

Not good news. In spite of what I said, flangeless trailing wheels would be a deal breaker for me. I didn’t imagine Bachmann would offer such things. However, a spare set of flanged wheels which can negotiate 30" radius would be fine. I have them on a Hornby A4, an Ivatt Duchess and Standards and, whilst they could have been designed better, they work, with fiddling. No such luck on the air-smoothed Merchant Navy, though. A solid chunk of metal is in the way.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, No Decorum said:

Not good news. In spite of what I said, flangeless trailing wheels would be a deal breaker for me. I didn’t imagine Bachmann would offer such things...

Unfortunately, this is a 'what goes around, comes around' situation. The competitor does it, and there's no significant complaint from the customers; so we might as well go join them on the broad and easy path. (Traction tyres too, creeping back in; really hoped they were gone forever from OO, yet there they are on Bachmann's 1P 0-4-4T: but that's another discussion.)

 

I feel there is a much superior solution available. First have an internal truck with a flanged wheelset. The side frames or truck frames for the trailing wheelset made as two independent pieces, body mounted on a hinge with a low force return spring: which thereby only ever move on one side away from the body (thus obviating the need for the clearance that leads to the air gap) and at that, only when the internal truck swings sufficiently to require it.

 

(Kernow have used a not unrelated concept on their D600 model, the external cosmetic bogie frame not mounted on the internal functional bogie, but instead 'floating' to very good effect. In that case enabling the external bogie frame to be correctly spaced below the body side. There are always better solutions, given some thought to search for them and effort to implement, provided the customer is prepared to pay for it. This last in italics - given what's already been posted - the very significant counter-argument to this approach.)

 

Whatever, if the rest of the model is OK, it will be 'tinker time' chez moi. There is usually something to alter on even the best RTR OO models, even if it is as trivial as making a new loco to tender drawbar for the J36.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless a miracle occurs, it will never be possible for mass produced models to simultaneously possess dead-scale full features, be able to negotiate ridiculous fourteen-inch radius curves, sell at only pocket-money prices, haul enormous loads, accommodate electronic nick-nacks, and withstand ham-fisted handling. Given that one or other section of the market will be dissatisfied if any of the above criteria are not met, it is pretty obvious that anybody who insists on being fully satisfied by specific features of an RTR model is going to have to either:

1. make custom modifications to it, or

2. pay somebody else to do the alterations for them, or

3. go without.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that if I have to pay £230 for something, it should be a scale model - by which I mean, P4.  it's about time the RTRs went balls-to-the-wall and made some finescale chassis to really suit all this new-fandangled top-hat tooling.  If an RTR supplier supported 18.83mm gauge, (or even EM) I'd jump ship from OO and buy everything they made.  Of course, I'm on the path to making my own stock now, because the range is broader and I get to finish it how I want, but I'm wincing at the limitations I'm putting on my models by having that at a woefully inaccurate gauge.  I have the space to have one metre minimum radii, so I'm seriously thinking about it.

 

Nothing stopping Hornby's Railroad range being OO...  they already have their ranges split, they just haven't made the next leap.

 

Hornby and Bachmann are supposed to be leaders, they should lead.  I wonder if Oxford Rail are considering this kind of idea?

 

[/controversial]

 

 

Edited by FoxUnpopuli
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
16 minutes ago, FoxUnpopuli said:

 I have the space to have one metre minimum radii, so I'm seriously thinking about it.

 

 

So that's about 4 chains at 1:1 scale I reckon, which I suspect is below the minimum operating radius for a V2, even at walking pace, Whilst I don't have the numbers to hand I would think a 'mainline speed capable ' curve would need to be at least 5 times that radius. it's an old cliche I know but the track gauge is usually the least compromised dimension on '4mm' layouts.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not jump ship as I have far too much stock , But I do Agree I am really surprised that one of the big manufactures have not done this, Even if it is just too see how the market for this would be, I do expect they will in the not too distant future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, mswjr said:

I would not jump ship as I have far too much stock , But I do Agree I am really surprised that one of the big manufactures have not done this, Even if it is just too see how the market for this would be, I do expect they will in the not too distant future.

It would be financial suicide; drastically reducing the size of the potential market for a product whilst increasing costs, none of them are that stupid.

  • Agree 13
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

So that's about 4 chains at 1:1 scale I reckon, which I suspect is below the minimum operating radius for a V2, even at walking pace, Whilst I don't have the numbers to hand I would think a 'mainline speed capable ' curve would need to be at least 5 times that radius. it's an old cliche I know but the track gauge is usually the least compromised dimension on '4mm' layouts.

 

OK, I got the number wrong, but you get my point, right?   And we all strive (and in many cases attain) some beautiful models, and this cursed OO occasionally spoils the view.  I can see past it and play trains, but sometimes I just look and the missing 7" seems really obvious - and it's something that could be easily fixed 'nowadays'.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 minutes ago, FoxUnpopuli said:

 

OK, I got the number wrong, but you get my point, right?   And we all strive (and in many cases attain) some beautiful models, and this cursed OO occasionally spoils the view.  I can see past it and play trains, but sometimes I just look and the missing 7" seems really obvious - and it's something that could be easily fixed 'nowadays'.

I disagree it could be 'easily fixed' in terms of a volume manufactured product; manufacturing tolerances don't scale, and our toy trains are made out of completely different materials to 1:1 scale.

 

When I look at OO layouts like Geoff Taylor's superb Barmouth Junction I see something much more true to life than many P4 layouts I've seen.

 

https://www.geofftaylormodels.com/barmouth-junction-1

Edited by spamcan61
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, mswjr said:

I would not jump ship as I have far too much stock , But I do Agree I am really surprised that one of the big manufactures have not done this, Even if it is just too see how the market for this would be, I do expect they will in the not too distant future.

Dapol did at one time sell the Austerity J94 with an EM wheel set. The experiment did not last very long.

 

Bernard

  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, FoxUnpopuli said:

...If an RTR supplier supported 18.83mm gauge, (or even EM) I'd jump ship from OO and buy everything they made.  Of course, I'm on the path to making my own stock now, because the range is broader and I get to finish it how I want, but I'm wincing at the limitations I'm putting on my models by having that at a woefully inaccurate gauge.  I have the space to have one metre minimum radii, so I'm seriously thinking about it...

This is effectively where the first EM project started. It is much easier now. There is a RTR loco which can be supplied on request fitted with EM gauged wheels (SLW class 24) and there is RTL EM plain track; and the EM Gauge Society have RTL LH and RH points announced, to get those you need to join, and as a member you will also get much more.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was that much demand then, given how inventive our small suppliers are in this hobby, somebody would already by now be offering  simple chassis kits that enabled you to just substitute EM or P4  axles and wheelsets whilst still re-using as many other  original components of some popular OO r-t-r models' chassis and underpinnings as possible, so as to minimise the work and the expertise required in conversion.

 

Since even that hasn't happened yet with our aftermarket suppliers, frankly I suspect the likelihood of one or more of the mainstream manufacturers going down such a route is somewhere between negligible and flat zero.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Willie Whizz said:

If there was that much demand then, given how inventive our small suppliers are in this hobby, somebody would already by now be offering  ... substitute EM or P4  axles and wheelsets whilst still re-using as many other  original components of some popular OO r-t-r models' chassis and underpinnings as possible, so as to minimise the work and the expertise required in conversion...

Sounds like Ultrascale to me.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Is EM or P4 really more popular than say N gauge ?

 

yet N gauge people are always complaining they are poor relation to OO.

 

i’m afraid in the real world EM /P4 is a minority, that feels like a majority when all huddled together in a small room such as this forum.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/02/2020 at 16:59, rembrow said:

Does this new V2 use the dcc ready chassis that Bachmann developed for the old V2 body, as that had the later motor and fixed cattazi bogie if I recall correct. I think it was only used on the last 3 V2 models released, which was circa 2015, before Bachmann decided to retool the body moulding

Does that chassis have a conventional motor or a coreless?   

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Broadway Clive said:

Does that chassis have a conventional motor or a coreless?   

It is a conventional motor. Bachmann upgraded the V2 about 5 years ago to change the original split chassis system, to one that had dcc ready compatibility, so the chassis, motor, wheels, axles and valve gear were all new. The new chassis had a fixed rather than swinging cartazzi truck . This was at the time that they had a rolling programme of replacing the split chassis models with dcc ready chassis. I think the new motor was the 3 pole type they were using at the time. When Bachmann announced they were retooling the loco body, I assumed they were using the dcc ready mechanism introduced in 2015, but according to a member who saw the V2 ep at Glasgow, it has a new chassis. I have one of the 2015 versions, which I bought in the belief that Bachmann were not going to retool the loco body, then they changed their mind.

Edit. Looks like this was released in 2012 not 2015  as 31 564 and 31 565

Edited by rembrow
Correction
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Sounds like Ultrascale to me.

 

From the context of the discussion, I was thinking primarily of steam locomotives.  A quick look at the Ultrascale website shows that by far the great majority of their products are for diesel models - which, though I've never tried it, I've always understood to be a good deal easier to convert anyway.  If there was really that much demand for steam-outline conversion packs as was being suggested, no doubt this enterprising firm would be offering far more different types.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rembrow said:

It is a conventional motor. Bachmann upgraded the V2 about 5 years ago to change the original split chassis system, to one that had dcc ready compatibility, so the chassis, motor, wheels, axles and valve gear were all new. The new chassis had a fixed rather than swinging cartazzi truck . This was at the time that they had a rolling programme of replacing the split chassis models with dcc ready chassis. I think the new motor was the 3 pole type they were using at the time...

Supplementary to which, the motor is of 1426 dimensions and functionally identical to the motor in their B1, likewise upgraded from split chassis. For some inexplicable reason Bachmann used 40:1 gears in the V2 mechanism and the result is that it struggles for maximum scale speed. The B1 has 30:1 on the same diameter driving wheels and gallops along properly. It is possible to fiddle around and exchange  the gear sets so that the V2 is properly the speedier of the two

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

From the context of the discussion, I was thinking primarily of steam locomotives.  A quick look at the Ultrascale website shows that by far the great majority of their products are for diesel models - which, though I've never tried it, I've always understood to be a good deal easier to convert anyway.  If there was really that much demand for steam-outline conversion packs as was being suggested, no doubt this enterprising firm would be offering far more different types.

Quite so, should have mentioned that. Steam, and particularly pacific sized steam with Walschaerts gear, is 'not easy' in EM. The usual 36" minimum radius is best avoided, start from 48" and evaluate against what you can either construct from ground up or improve from RTR OO beginnings. Not sure what it would require in P4. On the prototype these machines squeaked, creaked and grunted on the 5 to 6 chain curves that were the typical minimum negotiable at dead slow.

 

If I had a P4 A4, would I dare whang it along at scale for the necessary 90mph on a suitable layout? I do it every day with the Hornby and Bachmann RTR OO pacifics without a second thought, and they go off scene onto a 32" radius curve at full tilt. That's what the OO compromise buys...

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

If there was that much demand then, given how inventive our small suppliers are in this hobby, somebody would already by now be offering  simple chassis kits that enabled you to just substitute EM or P4  axles and wheelsets whilst still re-using as many other  original components of some popular OO r-t-r models' chassis and underpinnings as possible, so as to minimise the work and the expertise required in conversion.

 

Since even that hasn't happened yet with our aftermarket suppliers, frankly I suspect the likelihood of one or more of the mainstream manufacturers going down such a route is somewhere between negligible and flat zero.

 

Maybe I missed something as I've only just picked up this thread, but isn't that what Brassmasters do with their EasiChas range  http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/easichas.htm   ?

 

Alasdair

  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...