Bachmann 2251 with ROD tender

[neal]

Picked up one of these in GW green today.

 

After taking apart to fit a decoder, I noticed that there is an issue with where the pick up wires pass through the chassis block.

 

These rise through two small holes and then across below the cast metal footplate/backhead to pass up behind the motor mount and over to the pcb.

 

The bottom of the footplate casting has a (very) shallow recess to allow clearance for the cables, however this does not extend back far enough to reach the two holes in the block.

 

To this end, when the chassis and body are reassembled, the wires do not allow the body to seat properly and leave the running plate off level (by around 1.5mm). Not much I know, but still not quite 'right'. Furthermore, tightening of the rear chassis screw crushes the wires, creating a potential short via the metal footplate casting. For some reason, this also appears to make the rear axle bind a little.

 

I scratched my head for a while about this one, and considered grinding a slot in the chassis block to accommodate the wires. However, not keen to take the dremmel to a new model, I re-routed the pick-up wires through the redundant square hole set forward of the two small holes. This rises beneath the recess in the footplate bottom, and replacing the wires with slightly finer ones allows the footplate to seat properly, and the body shell to sit level.

 

Soldering new wires to the chassis underplate/pick-ups takes a lot of care as there is a risk of melting plastic, however the pick-up connections on the pcb are simple to re-do.

 

 

It now runs very well, however with the newer GC tender in tow, the locomotive moulding is showing it's age. Still, at £55 it is still good value (unless compared to the 3F!)

 

 

N

[OFFTHE RAILS]

Hi N,

You didn't actually say where the decoder socket was fitted in this ROD tender version of the Collet Goods - is it in the loco?

I had given up waiting for a DCC fitted 22xx and have hard wired two Bachmann 22xx with Hornby R8249 decoders. Of course I needed to cut chunks out of the boiler weight to fit even this very small decoder. By the way both locos perform smoothly and reliably.

I also have a Bachmann 3F tender loco but was disappointed to find that I had to glue bits of the tender back on after opening the tender body to fit a decoder.

Ian

[neal]

Hi Ian,

 

It's in the loco, forward of the motor. A good slice of the 'pre-dcc' boiler weight has been sacrificed to make room for the socket. As a result, the haulage capacity is slightly limited, and it struggled with a rake of 18 loaded wagons on 3rd rad curves and gentle inclines. I think this arrangement is the same as the dcc ready versions with Collett tenders. You probably managed to keep more weight by hard wiring with a small decoder. I too use the Hornby budget decoder, and setting aside the annoying glitch in the default speed curve, this runs fine with most models, including Bachmann 0-6-0's.

 

Using the tender for the decoder (as per the ROD's) would have allowed the weight to be reinstated, but I guess would have involved significant reverse engineering adding a lot to the cost.

 

I didn't mention that the loco mounted draw-bar is the old fashioned peg type. I personally don't have a problem with this, and it was reasonably close on the Collett tender version. However the ROD tender includes a short drawbar of it's own with a hole for the peg to go through. There is adjustment on this to vary the distance between loco and tender, however the default is reasonably close, and allows the tender fall plate to bear on the footplate. The arrangement works really well, and whilst it does not include tender pick-ups, it is easy to couple for those less dextrous amongst us, or with dulling eyesight!

 

I think I know why tightening the rear screw made the rear wheels bind. As the footplate casting was prevented from seating correctly at the rear (by the pick-up wires), this pitched it forward slightly. In turn this pushed against the motor mount (trapping the wires passing up and over to the pcb), which flexed to cause the motor worm to bind against the lay-shaft gear. Indeed, this caused the loco motor to run hot until I had resolved the issue. If you re-fit the model without altering the wiring it is important not to over tighten this screw. As noted, in time the pressure may cause the metal footplate to cut through the pickup cables and short the loco.

 

Whilst apart, I would recommend springing the loco pick-ups onto the wheel backs. There is a fair bit of side play on the front two axles, and as supplied the pick-ups do not track this fully - an issue found with some other Bachmann steamers.

 

I wish I'd taken pics when I made these adjustments! However as getting the body on without trapping wires was awkward, I am reluctant to take it apart again.

 

 

I would guess this may be the 'last hurrah' for a venerable loco whose origins go back to the launch of Mainline nearly 40 years ago. Probably too many of these models exist (in various guises) to warrant a completely new tooling, although that didn't stop a new B1 coming along.

 

I too had a minor issue removing the tender top from my LMS 3F, this was actually glued down by seepage of glue from where the handbrake was fixed. Just took a bit of courage to force the top off.

 

N

 

 

 

[Neal Ball]

........

I would guess this may be the 'last hurrah' for a venerable loco whose origins go back to the launch of Mainline nearly 40 years ago. Probably too many of these models exist (in various guises) to warrant a completely new tooling, although that didn't stop a new B1 coming along.

 

......

N

 

Given that Bachmann said sometime ago that they were going to start updating some of the locos, I hope the 2251 is done pretty soon!

 

Not sure I want to start re-building a new loco, the way you have. I might have been inclined to use the DCC Concepts small decoder with stay alive, but clearly that would need to go into the tender. Let's hope Bachmann do new tooling soon!

[RussellD]

 

I would guess this may be the 'last hurrah' for a venerable loco whose origins go back to the launch of Mainline nearly 40 years ago.

 

 

The Bachmann "Collett Goods" is not the same as the old Mainline one, it was the first of their high-detail "Blue Riband" models and was completely retooled around 1998 if I remember correctly. I have one of the previous versions of these (32-304) and whilst it isn't up to the latest standards it is more than adequate. It would be desirable to have a representation of the inside valve gear (like the Hornby T9) rather than the flat chassis block under the boiler but I can live with it like it is. I wouldn't say no to an all new model, but doubt it is likely to come soon and I would prefer a GWR loco that hasn't been modelled before.

[melmerby]

The Bachmann "Collett Goods" is not the same as the old Mainline one, it was the first of their high-detail "Blue Riband" models

They never did produce a split chassis (ex Mainline) version because, so I have read, did not think it was up to scratch!

 

Did 3217 as shown in Bachmann's adverts with a ROD tender ever run in GWR livery with this tender? It was the last of the class built by the GWR and was delivered in Dec 1947.

The info I have suggest it was paired with a GWR tender when new. If it acquired one later then it should be BR period.

 

Keith

[The Fatadder]

 

 

The Bachmann "Collett Goods" is not the same as the old Mainline one, it was the first of their high-detail "Blue Riband" models and was completely retooled around 1998 if I remember correctly. I have one of the previous versions of these (32-304)

The only differences being the under boiler and a couple of bits of minor finess (buffers etc)

The basic tooling and shape is identical,

 

[Coach bogie]

 

Did 3217 as shown in Bachmann's adverts with a ROD tender ever run in GWR livery with this tender? It was the last of the class built by the GWR and was delivered in Dec 1947.

The info I have suggest it was paired with a GWR tender when new. If it acquired one later then it should be BR period.

 

Keith

 

I am with you Keith. I cannot find any evidence of 3217 being paired with the ROD tender. With an entire batch of locos 2281-6 attached to ROD tenders from new, in 1936, why choose a post war loco?

 

I am not too happy with the ride height of the 3217. I checked the entire batch in the shop, and they all ride too high at the cab end. Even the review pic in Railway Modeller looks like it is taking a dive! There is a moulding inside the cab at the top, that the back head should fit over. Non had been fitted properly. There is a screw on the base of the chassis that pulls the backhead down onto the chassis bringing the body with it. Tighten too much and the chassis will not run. I had to make various alterations to get the body level. At least the cab/tender steps do not need to line up, as they did not on the protoytpe.

 

In addition there is a really heavy moulding seam on top of the boiler. It is hardly noticable on the first batch one I purchased about ten years ago. It is all being sanded down ready for a repaint to emerge as 2286 with GREAT WESTERN on the tender.

 

Hornby appear to be constantly under the microscope with quality, yet annoying QC issues from Bachmann like this, appear to go unnoticed.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[melmerby]

 

 

Hornby appear to be constantly under the microscope with quality, yet annoying QC issues from Bachmann like this, appear to go unnoticed.

 

Mike Wiltshire

Bachmann were originally going to produce a GWR green ROD 30XX numbered in the 3080s (I think) I (and others) e-mailed them to point out that the 3050-3099 group were only ever black and weren't Westernised, and were scrapped by 1931.

 

Keith

[GWR175]

Picked up one of these in GW green today.

 

After taking apart to fit a decoder, I noticed that there is an issue with where the pick up wires pass through the chassis block.

 

These rise through two small holes and then across below the cast metal footplate/backhead to pass up behind the motor mount and over to the pcb.

 

The bottom of the footplate casting has a (very) shallow recess to allow clearance for the cables, however this does not extend back far enough to reach the two holes in the block.

 

To this end, when the chassis and body are reassembled, the wires do not allow the body to seat properly and leave the running plate off level (by around 1.5mm). Not much I know, but still not quite 'right'. Furthermore, tightening of the rear chassis screw crushes the wires, creating a potential short via the metal footplate casting. For some reason, this also appears to make the rear axle bind a little.

 

I scratched my head for a while about this one, and considered grinding a slot in the chassis block to accommodate the wires. However, not keen to take the dremmel to a new model, I re-routed the pick-up wires through the redundant square hole set forward of the two small holes. This rises beneath the recess in the footplate bottom, and replacing the wires with slightly finer ones allows the footplate to seat properly, and the body shell to sit level.

 

Soldering new wires to the chassis underplate/pick-ups takes a lot of care as there is a risk of melting plastic, however the pick-up connections on the pcb are simple to re-do.

 

 

It now runs very well, however with the newer GC tender in tow, the locomotive moulding is showing it's age. Still, at £55 it is still good value (unless compared to the 3F!)

 

 

N

 

Has anyone got any feedback on its adhesion, my line is steeply graded and I am wondering how well it would cope. Thanks in advance

[neal]

Not bad, comparable to a Jinty or 57xx

 

N

[DavidParry]

Hi Ian,

 

It's in the loco, forward of the motor. A good slice of the 'pre-dcc' boiler weight has been sacrificed to make room for the socket. As a result, the haulage capacity is slightly limited, and it struggled with a rake of 18 loaded wagons on 3rd rad curves and gentle inclines. I think this arrangement is the same as the dcc ready versions with Collett tenders. You probably managed to keep more weight by hard wiring with a small decoder. I too use the Hornby budget decoder, and setting aside the annoying glitch in the default speed curve, this runs fine with most models, including Bachmann 0-6-0's.

 

Using the tender for the decoder (as per the ROD's) would have allowed the weight to be reinstated, but I guess would have involved significant reverse engineering adding a lot to the cost.

 

I didn't mention that the loco mounted draw-bar is the old fashioned peg type. I personally don't have a problem with this, and it was reasonably close on the Collett tender version. However the ROD tender includes a short drawbar of it's own with a hole for the peg to go through. There is adjustment on this to vary the distance between loco and tender, however the default is reasonably close, and allows the tender fall plate to bear on the footplate. The arrangement works really well, and whilst it does not include tender pick-ups, it is easy to couple for those less dextrous amongst us, or with dulling eyesight!

 

I think I know why tightening the rear screw made the rear wheels bind. As the footplate casting was prevented from seating correctly at the rear (by the pick-up wires), this pitched it forward slightly. In turn this pushed against the motor mount (trapping the wires passing up and over to the pcb), which flexed to cause the motor worm to bind against the lay-shaft gear. Indeed, this caused the loco motor to run hot until I had resolved the issue. If you re-fit the model without altering the wiring it is important not to over tighten this screw. As noted, in time the pressure may cause the metal footplate to cut through the pickup cables and short the loco.

 

Whilst apart, I would recommend springing the loco pick-ups onto the wheel backs. There is a fair bit of side play on the front two axles, and as supplied the pick-ups do not track this fully - an issue found with some other Bachmann steamers.

 

I wish I'd taken pics when I made these adjustments! However as getting the body on without trapping wires was awkward, I am reluctant to take it apart again.

 

 

I would guess this may be the 'last hurrah' for a venerable loco whose origins go back to the launch of Mainline nearly 40 years ago. Probably too many of these models exist (in various guises) to warrant a completely new tooling, although that didn't stop a new B1 coming along.

 

I too had a minor issue removing the tender top from my LMS 3F, this was actually glued down by seepage of glue from where the handbrake was fixed. Just took a bit of courage to force the top off.

 

N

Hi Neal

Just bought a Collet and also found the wires trapped - so did take my Dremmel and ground out channels below and up the front of the aluminium cast block. Then found that the pick-ups on the loco were poor so added wipers within the tender and wired them to the underplate pickup points. Also, had to fit a wired mini decoder (Lenz mini silver) so I can save space and add more weight for better traction! Runs well now!!!

Seems many of us have significant issues with Bachmann chassis (sometimes very poor) quality.

David

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...there is an issue with where the pick up wires pass through (two holes in) the chassis block.

 

... I re-routed the pick-up wires through the redundant square hole set forward of the two small holes. This rises beneath the recess in the footplate bottom, and replacing the wires with slightly finer ones allows the footplate to seat properly, and the body shell to sit level...

 Is it possible that your model was misassembled? Never looked at a 2251 as it isn't a fit for my modelling, but on most Bach steam chassis I can quickly recall, the wires come up from the wiper strip terminals through a rectangular cross section void in the chassis. So if there is a rectangular hole in the right position, one would suspect that it is the designed path for the wiring.

 

...  Hornby appear to be constantly under the microscope with quality, yet annoying QC issues from Bachmann like this, appear to go unnoticed...

 

 I don't think so. Not a few on here have had their Bachmann locos apart, and reported on the numerous corrections necessary on this site. The difficulties with the N, (original tender linkage, inflexible tender chassis, mazak rot of footplate on an early batch) A1, (oversprung carrying wheels, back of loco rests on tender step, both reducing traction) BR 5MT (too high a gear ratio for prototype maximum speed, lacks traction) K3, (dodgy soldering to the pick up strips in the first batch) Ivatt 4MT, (chassis near bonded in to body, connecting pipework cemented together on the first batch) ROD/O4, (cylinder axis not aligned correctly) Johnson 3F, (tender platform not part of body per drawing, often breaks off when body is removed) revised B1 (crude split chassis tender 'hook' arrangement retained) V2 (too high a gear ratio for prototype maximum speed, split chassis era body which was probably the worst of that era retained with too many faults to quickly summarise) are a few that quickly come to mind. That's in addition to perennials such as wipers usually needing adjustment to remain in contact with wheelbacks, loco to tender coupling arrangements needing alterations to enable scale distance to be set, extra weight required for tractive purposes.

 

(For balance of those I have owned or worked on, some productions, and increasingly the more recent all new toolings have had fewer troubles; the 56xx, 57xx, Fowler 3FT, Fairburn 4MTT, Super D, BR 9F, A2, Wainwright C, all good to go on receipt.)

[Silver Sidelines]

Hello Neal
 
There have been a number of recent threads dealing with the Bachmann 22xx models, and the ROD tender version in particular.
 
Some comments in no particular order - yes the moulding is becoming dated and a number of modellers have been very critical of the top of boiler seam on the Black ROD version.
 
The latest models DC / DCC fitted have 'lost' some of the ballast weight from the boiler to make space for the 'Chip'.  The early Bachmann models weigh 195gm.  The latest digital versions weigh 155gm - really very light weight!
 
I have been inside my 'new' model to add some lead!  I didn't pay any attention to the wiring but I did have the body on and off a couple of time because I realised that by 'overtightening' the rear body fixing screw that I was upsetting the engine running - ie.it stated limping.  I took this picture comparing old and new at the time - seems Bachmann have changed the wiring arrangements.

 

Ray

Edited April 21, 2013 by Silver Sidelines

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Loks like the wiring was meant to go through the rectangular cross section hole as on the top example in the picture, but the assembly workers are mistakenly threading it through the two round holes which just happen to be there on more recent production.

[Silver Sidelines]

Hello (again) Neil

 

For completeness I have loaded some more close up pictures of Bachmann 22xx onto Flickr (rather than clutter up your thread).

 

32-301 BR Black and 32-302 BR Lined Green are early Bachmann models, both are wired with the pair of wires passing through the larger opening.  Note that the top of the chassis casting is flush.

 

32-311 Black BR ROD has the wires separated with one each passing through the small holes.  BR lined green from the Rambler Set (30-052) has the two wires passing through a single small hole.  These two models are both DC ready.  Note that the top of the chassis casting now has a protruding boss which in my view is used purely to locate the plastic body onto the chassis - nothing seemingly to do with raising the body to leave a cavity for the wires.  The pictures confirm that if the body is screwed down tightly it will cut into the wires.  The BR green model screws back together easily and runs 'no problem'.  The chassis and body for the black ROD version need to be carefully lined up and the body fixing screw must not be overtightened - otherwise the rear pair of driving wheels seems to become clamped to the chassis - with not very pleasant consequences.  Who knows what Bachmann intended - but certainly lots of differences.

 

Regards

 

Ray

Edited April 23, 2013 by Silver Sidelines

[neal]

Thanks for that Ray. Seems like there have been some QC issues with this. As you say, the key is to not over tighten the rear body screw!

 

N

[Adrock]

On 23/04/2013 at 15:51, Silver Sidelines said:

Hello (again) Neil

 

For completeness I have loaded some more close up pictures of Bachmann 22xx onto Flickr (rather than clutter up your thread).

 

32-301 BR Black and 32-302 BR Lined Green are early Bachmann models, both are wired with the pair of wires passing through the larger opening.  Note that the top of the chassis casting is flush.

 

32-311 Black BR ROD has the wires separated with one each passing through the small holes.  BR lined green from the Rambler Set (30-052) has the two wires passing through a single small hole.  These two models are both DC ready.  Note that the top of the chassis casting now has a protruding boss which in my view is used purely to locate the plastic body onto the chassis - nothing seemingly to do with raising the body to leave a cavity for the wires.  The pictures confirm that if the body is screwed down tightly it will cut into the wires.  The BR green model screws back together easily and runs 'no problem'.  The chassis and body for the black ROD version need to be carefully lined up and the body fixing screw must not be overtightened - otherwise the rear pair of driving wheels seems to become clamped to the chassis - with not very pleasant consequences.  Who knows what Bachmann intended - but certainly lots of differences.

 

Regards

 

Ray

Really useful description here Ray as ever. I am just DCC’ing both 2260 (32-301) and 2259 (32-311) and am wondering if anyone has re-routed the wires through the larger hole on 2259; and more importantly, does that then make the body sit level? Can the screw be tightened up normally whilst still getting the rear wheel set to operate correctly?

 

I bought this engine second hand (but in excellent condition) and it had quite a lot of red grease around the cogs. Is that a factory thing does anyone know, or likely to have been added by the previous owner?

 

2260 is the much better runner by the way! Assume that’s a 5 pole motor whereas 2259 is 3 pole...?

 

 

[Silver Sidelines]

This really is history!  Bachmann have used 'red' grease at various points in time so perhaps from the factory not the previous owner.

 

Now there's a question - do any of these models have five pole motors?

 

As to rerouting wires - is that not just a soldering iron job?

 

Enjoy, cheers Ray

Edited May 11, 2021 by Silver Sidelines

[Adrock]

17 minutes ago, Silver Sidelines said:

This really is history!  Bachmann have used 'red' grease at various points in time so perhaps from the factory not the previous owner.

 

Now there's a question - do any of these models have five pole motors?

 

As to rerouting wires - is that not just a soldering iron job?

 

Enjoy, cheers Ray

Certainly is an old thread, but a very useful one! 
 

yes a job for the soldering iron, but there are three places - unsolder at the pickups, unsolder at the motor, or cut the cable and then resolder. So would be interested to hear what others have done. My cable is pretty squashed from the body nipping it to be honest. 
 

thanks for the info on the red grease, I’ve removed quite a bit. The motors in the two models look a bit different, and I always thought it was a 5 pole motor in the initial release but I could be wrong! I may check my catalogue from 1999 tho...

[melmerby]

I don't think, historically, Bachmann ever fitted 5 pole motors in these sorts of models, the trusty 3 pole Buhler and later 3 pole Bachmann branded motor seem to be the norm.

 

In another thread I have shown how I transferred the DCC socket to the tender and added tender pickups on those fitted with the "City" class tender.

That was intended for pickups and a DCC decoder socket but aren't fitted when used with the 2251.

Once that is done the whole of  the boiler space can be filled with lead, which will  improve pulling power drastically and improves pickup no end.

 

 

IMHO this model is due for a re-tool, as although a completely new model when Bachmann first produced it  (albeit with a warmed over Mainline tender), it is now getting a bit long in the tooth and not now up to currently expected standards.

Edited May 12, 2021 by melmerby
added link to previous topic

[Adrock]

On 12/05/2021 at 12:17, melmerby said:

I don't think, historically, Bachmann ever fitted 5 pole motors in these sorts of models, the trusty 3 pole Buhler and later 3 pole Bachmann branded motor seem to be the norm.

 

In another thread I have shown how I transferred the DCC socket to the tender and added tender pickups on those fitted with the "City" class tender.

That was intended for pickups and a DCC decoder socket but aren't fitted when used with the 2251.

Once that is done the whole of  the boiler space can be filled with lead, which will  improve pulling power drastically and improves pickup no end.

 

 

IMHO this model is due for a re-tool, as although a completely new model when Bachmann first produced it  (albeit with a warmed over Mainline tender), it is now getting a bit long in the tooth and not now up to currently expected standards.

Thanks for this, looks like a great job with the tender mods and pickups. 
 

I think that you’re right, the earlier loco must have the Buhler motor and the later one the Bachmann. The former seems to run more smoothly and I would say the 1998/9 release has better quality control all round. 
 

I have cut the wires in the middle, re-routed through the larger hole and have reassembled. The body does now sit level against the tender, so I’m really pleased with that. Just about to add a Zimo chip and then am going to work on the cosmetic details - pipe work, etched plates and renumber the model etc. 
 

Picture illustrates coupled to a tender now from a Dapol mogul (ROD tender has gone!).  
 

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Adrock

[faulcon1]

I have an early Bachmann 2251 32-301 and I only took it apart the other day for the first time. On screwing it back together the rear screw screwed up nicely but the front screw wouldn't meaning stripped threads. Is there any way of fixing it as I don't want to have to buy a new body. I have seen online of people using super glue with baking soda but the screws they use to "cut" a new thread are all pin point screws and the chassis body screw on model locos are not pin point screws.

The loco is not a split frame chassis but the first run of the later chassis which at that time was not DCC ready. I think the model dates from about 1998.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

     

[Silver Sidelines]

14 hours ago, faulcon1 said:

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

     

If it was mine I would put a drop of Butanol / MEK in the hole and then screw the parts back together.  Some types of liquid super glue should work the same way, softening the plastic and allowing the screw to make a new thread.  With care you should be able to remediate the situation.  Good luck Ray

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On 11/05/2021 at 19:36, Silver Sidelines said:

Now there's a question - do any of these models have five pole motors?

The 2251 was introduced with a Buhler five pole motor, as also the N class and WD 2-8-0. If you have one it can be recognised by the name Buhler on the motor casing. (In other 'five polery' on steam models some of their A1's got a Mashima 1430 when a fault in the armature wire caused recall of the early A1 releases, until the problem was sorted.  I have a model from the faulty production run, the motor on which never showed any sign of trouble, runs well to this day.)

 

On 15/02/2024 at 06:40, faulcon1 said:

On screwing it back together the rear screw screwed up nicely but the front screw wouldn't meaning stripped threads.

I would take a look at what the screw is located in. If there is no split in the plastic, the next size up self tapper would be my choice. If there's a split, than cement and fill, drill out and gently replace the original screw.