Bachmann/Hornby standard class 4

[Re6/6]

Comparison between the Bachmann and the Hornby Standard Class 4MT.

I've looked in vain via the search facility on here and can't find any reference to this question. I'm sure that it has been debated before. It's probably due to my ineptitude that when I ever use the search facility that I've found everything but that that I want to know!

 

Help would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

John

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Run the search on the old forum in the search box provided at the bottom of the forum front page. That should find the threads.

[7013]

There isnt a lot in it really, from what I remember the Hornby model has a better cab and motor but the Bachmann one is better around the cylinders. Reviews generally settled on the Hornby as the best model, but the Bachmann while not quite up to the Hornby standard is usually much cheaper, again you pays yer money etc.

[Bernard Lamb]

To me it all comes down as to how important you find the butting up between the running plate and the cab. To curl up or not to curl up?

 

Bernard

[Butler Henderson]

I went for the Bachmann one - find the cylinders on the Hornby one too noticeably wrong in their positioning and at least with the Bachmann one you know you can breath on it without some fragile brittle plastic part breaking off.

[Taz]

John,

 

I think the general consensus was that the Hornby model has the better body but the Bachmann model looked better beneath the running plate.

I'm assuming you are thinking P4 here, so I guess the Hornby model might be the better bet, but you wouldn't go far wrong with either.

Even the original Mainline version wasn't that bad. I've got one form 1982 (one of my first 2 locos) which I've put aside to one day resurect in P4.

[OFFTHE RAILS]

The Model Rail review of the two locos indicated that:

1] The latest Bachmann version has the buffers set incorrectly at the (vertical) midpoint of the front buffer beam. The Hornby model has the buffers set correctly.

2] The Hornby chimney has a more prototypical shape than the Bachmann

 

Also the Hornby loco has a cylinder - footplate gap which is too large, the Bachmann one looks right.

Ian

[Tony W]

John

 

I've asked the same question on the Scalefour Forum but without reply. I've just come back from Dean Hall where Craigwelsh suggested I have a look on here. His concern of the Hornby model was the taper on the firebox being too great so as to match the profile of the frames in 00. I know Bachmann have approached it differently by providing an inset for the wheels but is the Hornby model so incorrect in this respect? I think the Hornby model captures the look of the prototype better at the front end. The Bachmann model looks a bit too much like the Standard 5 to me but I know I'm probably splitting hairs. I'm not concerned about below the footplate as I'll be putting a Comet chassis underneath.

 

Tony

[Guest Max Stafford]

I went for the Bachmann one myself, but the Hornby one's not bad either.

 

But which one is better?

 

There's only one way to find out...

 

 

 

Dave.

[Ohmisterporter]

So would putting the Hornby body onto the Bachmann chassis produce the best of both worlds?

 

Geoff.

[Re6/6]

John

 

I've asked the same question on the Scalefour Forum but without reply. I've just come back from Dean Hall where Craigwelsh suggested I have a look on here. His concern of the Hornby model was the taper on the firebox being too great so as to match the profile of the frames in 00. I know Bachmann have approached it differently by providing an inset for the wheels but is the Hornby model so incorrect in this respect? I think the Hornby model captures the look of the prototype better at the front end. The Bachmann model looks a bit too much like the Standard 5 to me but I know I'm probably splitting hairs. I'm not concerned about below the footplate as I'll be putting a Comet chassis underneath.

 

Tony

 

 

Hi Tony

 

It was your question on S4 site that prompted my question on here! It's been something that I've been pondering on for a while.

 

I too am not interested in below the footplate.

 

Some more debate here from the old RMweb

[neal]

So would putting the Hornby body onto the Bachmann chassis produce the best of both worlds?

 

Geoff.

 

The transition from the firebox above to below the footplate might be slightly odd, but it could work. Not sure about clearances for the respective mechanisms though. Personally I have examples of each, and contrary to some opinions I don't think there is a quantum leap between them.

 

As noted, this was debated at length on the old forum with a number of side by sides.

 

http://www.rmweb.co....by+4mt&start=50

 

 

The Hornby model is undoubtedly better detailed above the running plate, however with the exception of the expansion link hanger (which is rather crude) the Bachmann chassis and wheels look finer, there is also a question over fluting to coupling/connecting rods. Both run very well, but the Hornby loco with turned drivers is a tad smoother.

 

Ironically, examples of both are now in bargain bins - Lesson to manufacturers - avoid duplication!!!!

Buying now, I would go for a discounted Hornby 75062 for around £69, however I believe this model should not have lamp-irons to the sides of the smokebox door as this was not a southern allocated loco.

 

BR Green/SVR 75069 with double chimney and shiny cylinder fronts can be had for a tenner less.

 

 

N

[Tony W]

Hi John

 

Thanks for including the link to the old RMweb discussion about this. Having read it all thoroughly I was still not sure which one to go for but since the overall concensus was that the detail above the footplate was finer on the Hornby, and since that, like yourself, was the part I was particularly interested in, I trotted off to the Wigan show this morning and purchased one. Walking around the show Geoff from Comet caught sight of the bag it was in and was getting ready to sell me one of his chissis kits before I informed him that I'd already purchased one of those from him previously. He was quite disappointed!!

 

With Slattocks running for the first time yesterday with the new track I suppose I'd better not find a permanent shelf in the cupboard for this one!!

 

Cheers

 

Tony

[JZ]

Just resurrecting this from 4½ years ago. I purchased a Bachman one when they first came out and, as I am now building a Somerset & Dorset layout, I needed a second one. I managed to get a Hornby one at, what I think was, a very reasonable £60. Putting the two together side by side, I don't think there is much between them. OK, as mentioned, the cylinders are set slightly differently and looking at photos of the real things, I would say the Hornby one is the more correct. However, the difference is not so much that if the two were together on the layout that it would stand out. As for performance, until I get a decoder for the Hornby one, it only arrived this morning, that will have to wait.(may see what Antics in Cardiff have to offer when I'm over there this afternoon.)

[Dunsignalling]

Just resurrecting this from 4½ years ago. I purchased a Bachman one when they first came out and, as I am now building a Somerset & Dorset layout, I needed a second one. I managed to get a Hornby one at, what I think was, a very reasonable £60. Putting the two together side by side, I don't think there is much between them. OK, as mentioned, the cylinders are set slightly differently and looking at photos of the real things, I would say the Hornby one is the more correct. However, the difference is not so much that if the two were together on the layout that it would stand out. As for performance, until I get a decoder for the Hornby one, it only arrived this morning, that will have to wait.(may see what Antics in Cardiff have to offer when I'm over there this afternoon.)

Where you will really notice the difference is if you have other Bachmann BR Standards.

 

Their 4MT has a "family resemblance" to them that the Hornby one lacks and, to my mind, fits in better with the others when on shed.

 

I had one of each and also think the Hornby version, overall, had the edge but later disposed of it in favour of a second Bachmann one for just that reason.

 

John

[MikeParkin65]

Bachmann looks better but is curiously light footed. Not as good as some smaller loco's from the same manufacturer.

[JZ]

Bachmann looks better but is curiously light footed. Not as good as some smaller loco's from the same manufacturer.

Will get to compare the two later today. It will be interesting to see how they go head-to-head. I find that the Bachmann Std 5MT are no better than my 4MT Moguls. Yet the Hornby Black 5s I have will haul what is asked of them over my little part of the Mendips.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Bachmann  looks better but is curiously light footed. Not as good as some smaller loco's from the same manufacturer.

Will get to compare the two later today. It will be interesting to see how they go head-to-head. I find that the Bachmann Std 5MT are no better than my 4MT Moguls. Yet the Hornby Black 5s I have will haul what is asked of them over my little part of the Mendips.

 

The Bachmann 5MT was notoriously light footed, and the 4MT 4-6-0 may be the same. (Bach's BR std 4MT 2-6-0 out pulls the 5MT with both nicely run in, but otherwise in as supplied condition.)

 

Leading cause on the 5MT was a much oversprung bogie, and I would check for this on the 4MT 4-6-0. Take it off entirely and see if the loco does much better for haulage to see if this affects yours. On the 5MT I cut a one quarter length off the original spring, slightly stretched this small piece, and that was then enough spring pressure for good trackholding, without lifting much weight off the driving wheels. (There's quite a lot more can be done on the 5MT; the leading driver is also sprung, and this spring can with advantage be given a firmer action, also there is space inside for weight above the leading driver: if a lot more traction is required this model can be got to 400g balanced on the centre driver and then pulls very well indeed.)

 

Another factor with Bachmann's steam models to keep in mind, sometimes the driven wheel tyres are slippery when new. I suspect a residue from a manufacturing process as an hour or two of running fixes this problem. Once there is good polished up track on the wheel treads they pull as the weight would suggest they should.

[Bulleidnutter]

The Bachmann 5MT was notoriously light footed, and the 4MT 4-6-0 may be the same. (Bach's BR std 4MT 2-6-0 out pulls the 5MT with both nicely run in, but otherwise in as supplied condition.)

 

Leading cause on the 5MT was a much oversprung bogie, and I would check for this on the 4MT 4-6-0. Take it off entirely and see if the loco does much better for haulage to see if this affects yours. On the 5MT I cut a one quarter length off the original spring, slightly stretched this small piece, and that was then enough spring pressure for good trackholding, without lifting much weight off the driving wheels. (There's quite a lot more can be done on the 5MT; the leading driver is also sprung, and this spring can with advantage be given a firmer action, also there is space inside for weight above the leading driver: if a lot more traction is required this model can be got to 400g balanced on the centre driver and then pulls very well indeed.)

 

Another factor with Bachmann's steam models to keep in mind, sometimes the driven wheel tyres are slippery when new. I suspect a residue from a manufacturing process as an hour or two of running fixes this problem. Once there is good polished up track on the wheel treads they pull as the weight would suggest they should.

You can also swap the motor out for a Mashima 1420 as I have done with both my STD 5s and a 4mtt.

[JZ]

So, I got around to having a comparison run and was pleasantly surprised by the results. The test load was 5 Bachmann Mk1s, all bought at swapmeets or ebay and not the greatest of runners, and a Hornby Gresley corridor. The Hornby loco handled this without any problem, whereas the Bachmann one was starting to slip as it reached the summit. From a standing start at Gurney Slade, both locos managed it, again the Bachmann one starting to slip at the summit. As my projected load for these is 5 and my other stock are much better runners, I have no reason for concern. FWIW, the 5MTs both struggled with this load and slipped to a halt. Not tried them on the return gradient between the levels in the fiddle yard, but this is only so I can sit back and watch trains go by from time to time, so no great worry.

[Combe Martin]

I've both Bachmann and Hornby versions of these, and I would say the Hornby one is the smoothest running loco I've ever come across.

[sidmouth]

Having just acquired a Hornby one at a price I couldn't refuse I'm impressed at the detail especially in comparison to my two Bachmann ones (both early Bachmann) 

 

I was considering selling one Bachmann one on on account of the wheel centres having bowed out but having deployed some sandpaper around the edge these now sit true and runs as smoothly as it new Hornby sibling 

[Ohmisterporter]

Always nice to have updates from old topics.

[Legend]

Ironically it's about to become current again with Hornby reintroducing their 4MT in the 2017 range . I think it's still in the Bachmann catalogue too.

[Black 5 Bear]

Ironically it's about to become current again with Hornby reintroducing their 4MT in the 2017 range . I think it's still in the Bachmann catalogue too.

One of Hornby's finest even with the "Devils Plug" fitment.