Bachmann 64xx Panniers

[davknigh]

If you look at the pre-production photos of the lined green version, you will see green pannier tank fronts. Bachmann changed this to the correct black for the main production run, and I recall being pleasantly surprised when I picked mine up, because I had thought that I'd have to mask off the sides of the loco and give the front a re-spray...

Just out of curiosity, if I wanted to back date a 64xx to 1934 would the tank fronts still be black? I know the tank side lettering would have to change from GWR to Great Western.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[brushman47544]

Just out of curiosity, if I wanted to back date a 64xx to 1934 would the tank fronts still be black? I know the tank side lettering would have to change from GWR to Great Western.

 

Cheers,

 

David

 

Not to mention the top feed...

[buffalo]

Just out of curiosity, if I wanted to back date a 64xx to 1934 would the tank fronts still be black? I know the tank side lettering would have to change from GWR to Great Western.

 

Cheers,

 

David

 

Yes, the green tank fronts only appeared on preserved examples.

.

Not to mention the top feed...

 

6400-9 were built in 1932 and would have had GREAT WESTERN on the tank sides. 6410-19 were built in November and December 1934 so would have had the shirtbutton when built. Apart from the topfeed, none of these were built with bunker steps on the fireman's side, nor were they initially fitted with whistle shields.

 

Nick

[philip-griffiths]

This is the best I can come up with regarding colour of the front. I recall when the original Tri-ang Hornby pannier came out they got the colour of the front wrong and it was said that the fronts were always black

6433 features in a number of photos in "the Vale of Neath Line" by Jones and Dunstone. All without top feed and the last date being November 1963. It seemed to be the chosen loco for the Hirwaun-Merthyr shuttle. 6437 was also pictured at Hirwaun sans topfeed.

 

Regards.

[Ian Hargrave]

6433 features in a number of photos in "the Vale of Neath Line" by Jones and Dunstone. All without top feed and the last date being November 1963. It seemed to be the chosen loco for the Hirwaun-Merthyr shuttle. 6437 was also pictured at Hirwaun sans topfeed.

Regards.[/quote

 

6437 being a one time 86 J (Aberdare......down the Gelli Tarw incline a small distance from Hirwaun) resident.....memories of schooldays and the tunnel that emerged in Abernant....disgorging its infrequent autotrain.Sobering to contemplate that you can now do the same journey in the blink of an eye via the A465....but without the same timeless sense of style.How many passengers did the branch carry ? Lord knows....but the memory lingers as one to savour and cherish.I'll carry it for a bit yet....hopefully.

[tanatvalley]

 I have found a colour photograph of 5410 on Southall shed, 27/9/59 in lined green livery with black pannier tank ends (Locomotives Illustrated 140 Front Cover, Nov-Dec 2001). It had just returned from a general overhaul from Caerphilly Works. The same photograph in black and white appears in the Irwell Press Pannier Papers No.7 on page 11. 5410 has a polished brass safety valve cover whereas 6412 is painted green. Colour photographs of 6433 (lined green, black pannier fronts) also feature in Western Branch Lines by David Soggee and Michael Welch, Capital Transport of page 71 although the difference between green and black in the more distant view is difficult to discern IMHO.

[The Stationmaster]

A little snippet for those who may be interested - we had three Bachmann 64XX running, at various times, on the modular layout at Taunton yesterday.  All three ran like the proverbial 'swiss sewing machine' with loads of up to 4 coaches and through curvature and Peco code 100 pointwork with no problems at all.  Nice and controllable for shunting moves as well.

[aforsyth]

Hi all,

 

Mike's post leads on very well to a question I'm pondering, having never seen the prototypes in action, and would be glad on any advice.

I'm trying my hand at building a small 50s/60s Cornish BLT with a couple of dock/freight sidings. From information I can gather, 54XX/64XX (and 16XX) pannier locos seemed to be quite typical of the motive power in Kernow at the time (do correct me, please, if I'm awry). If a 64XX with autocoach(es) arrived on a branch passenger, was it ever likely that the engine would uncouple and perform some shunting operations before re-coupling later for a return train, or would BR have always allocated shunting to a separate pannier or 08 instead? The earlier answer to a similar question suggests that 64XXes were never used for the odd freight work, even in their final years?

 

Thanks,

Alan

 

A little snippet for those who may be interested - we had three Bachmann 64XX running, at various times, on the modular layout at Taunton yesterday.  All three ran like the proverbial 'swiss sewing machine' with loads of up to 4 coaches and through curvature and Peco code 100 pointwork with no problems at all.  Nice and controllable for shunting moves as well.

[Les1952]

My 64xx is fast getting the same reputation that 57xx had when sold to collieries- it doesn't like sharp curves.

 

I'm currently laying the entrance to a coal disposal point, and this involves a succession of short Y-points.  It is intended that the largest loco running over these will be an 0-6-0 tank.   J94s, no problem.  Kitbuilt Hudswell and Hunslet tanks-  no problem.  Ex-GWR 0-6-2T from a chassis and body kit - no problem.  Going silly- Hornby Stanier 4MT and L1 2-6-4Ts - no problem, even though they should never need to use these sidings (and wouldn't in prototype days).  Even sillier, K1 2-6-0 no problem.  Admittedly the last three grind a little, but so did most locos at colliery screens....

 

So why does the 64xx always want to run its outside leading wheel the wrong side of the frog?  I suspect the wheelbase is just a little too rigid for this kind of layout.  At least I've not got round to re-lettering the tank sides NCB and weathering it, so its resale value is preserved.

 

All the very best

Les

Edited April 27, 2015 by Les1952

[tomparryharry]

Hi all,

 

Mike's post leads on very well to a question I'm pondering, having never seen the prototypes in action, and would be glad on any advice.

I'm trying my hand at building a small 50s/60s Cornish BLT with a couple of dock/freight sidings. From information I can gather, 54XX/64XX (and 16XX) pannier locos seemed to be quite typical of the motive power in Kernow at the time (do correct me, please, if I'm awry). If a 64XX with autocoach(es) arrived on a branch passenger, was it ever likely that the engine would uncouple and perform some shunting operations before re-coupling later for a return train, or would BR have always allocated shunting to a separate pannier or 08 instead? The earlier answer to a similar question suggests that 64XXes were never used for the odd freight work, even in their final years?

 

Thanks,

Alan

 

I might suggest that the working timetable would answer this question. 

 

If the passenger service had a stopover at the terminal, then it could & would be used for shunting. It depends on how the freight side of things worked out. Freight trip working could take up a large portion of time, and sometimes the only way to shunt out a yard, was if the trip had 'buggered off' (pardon the vernacular). 

 

Rule 1, as always, will apply.....

 

Ian

[coachmann]

I'm not so sure about a 64XX being detached from push & pull coaches just to do a spot of shunting before being reattached to its auto coach. Was mechanical push pull gear easily connected? 

[tomparryharry]

Well, I need to dig out my books, but I seem to remember Gasson talking about it, when on the Cholsley service. That was with a 14xx, BTW.

 

It does depend on many factors, such as time,space, and the WTT. Also, is the service taking a tail load?

 

As I mentioned earlier, rule No1 can always apply.

 

Ian

[ady77014]

I have been led to believe that when shunting need to take place (at Ashburton at least), they just left the coach still attached on, to save time having to unhook off the control rods. I imaged it would be difficult in certain stations/sidings though.

[The Great Bear]

Or, I have read, completely unofficially of course, if they had to often shunt without the autocoach due to clearances in the yard or whatever, they didn't connect the gear and the fireman controlled the regulator leaving the driver controlling the brake and the gong.

[Darwinian]

Well, I need to dig out my books, but I seem to remember Gasson talking about it, when on the Cholsley service. That was with a 14xx, BTW.

 

 

That was a great story, still makes me smile. Disconnect regulator linkage rod, vacuum hose, whistle chain. Except that he forgot the whistle chain twice (thrice?)and the vacuum hose once IIRC . Quite a faff for a bit of shunting I would think, especially the vacuum.

[dibber25]

On one of our Steam World archive programmes there's footage of an auto-train running down into (I think) Stonehouse or Stroud (with the trailers leading) and there is quite clearly no one in the cab of the autocoach. Presumably the effort of shifting that mechanical linkage had just got too much for the driver.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Andy M]

At both Ashburton and Brixham, limited shunting using the 14xx with trailer still attached was not uncommon. This tended to be the simple placement of vehicles into reception sidings. The more complex sorting and train assembly being carried out by the trip freight engine. Although never having seen or read any evidence of the larger auto-tanks being so used (64xx/45xx), it is quite feasible.

 

Regards,

 

Andy.

[coachmann]

Who knows why the GWR stuck with mechanical linkage when the LMS and LNER started to convert to auto-Vac equipment in the mid 1930s (never fully completed). I have a photo of a Greenfield-Oldham push-pull train with the driver in the driving trailer and the fireman on the non-auto-vac fitted Fowler 2-6-2T. Apparently it was driven on whistles and arm shakes, although I think the driver could at least destroy the vacuum in the case of an emergency. Push pull trains were often in one of the Top-Links because the fireman had also to be capable of driving ......he had to control slipping. The driver in the coach would often be unaware the loco was slipping.

 

Shunting with a coach attached:  Any shunting must have taken place at the loco end, as it is doubtful if a carriage could be allowed to take impacts during shunting operations.

[buffalo]

Who knows why the GWR stuck with mechanical linkage when the LMS and LNER started to convert to auto-Vac equipment in the mid 1930s (never fully completed)...

 

Perhaps because the GWR mechanism had proved to be quite adequate for the job since its introduction around 1905, unlike some of the bizarre rope and pulley arrangements seen on some other railways. Though the vacuum approach was also effective, it was probably quite expensive to adapt engines to use it and gave no significant benefit over the GWR mechanical system.

 

As to connection/disconnection, the mechanical linkage simply required insertion/removal of a pin to connect the sliding part to the universal joint on the engine's buffer beam. Hardly complex or time consuming in itself, but remember that apart from the usual hoses and coupling, there was also an electrical connection for the communication bell and a whistle cord, though the latter appears to not always have been used.

 

Nick

Edited April 28, 2015 by buffalo

[The Stationmaster]

We've been here before in another thread so now we're back again.  On the GWR (and WR) it was permitted to use an autotrain to shunt with the trailer attached, either leading or trailing - unless it was specifically prohibited to do so at any particular place (an example of that surfaced in another thread a short while back).  There is a fairly well known published picture of an autotrain doing exactly that, with coal wagons, at Wallingford  (which is hardly surprising as all trains on the Wallingford branch were authorised to run as Mixed Trains - hence perforce they had to shunt).  Incidentally I've not come across any instances of either 45Xx or 64XX/auto trailers shunting but I would think that in many respects that was down to where they were most commonly used rather than any other factor.

 

I have been told by those who worked on such trains that sometimes connecting the rodding could be a right pain (add expletives to choice) and in some places it was 'not entirely unknown' for autos to run without the rodding being connected and the Fireman working everything except the brake when the trailer was being propelled.  This also happened if the rodding happened to be 'a bit stiff' - the traincrew simply disconnecting it (all such goings on were usually out of reach and far from the eyes of officialdom but I know that it definitely happened on the far from remote Marlow branch).

 

As far as 64XX on freight are concerned I suspect the simple answer is that while they were about for passenger work there were plenty of other engines around capable of freight work and which were more suitable for shunting.

[coachmann]

One thing I noticed at Llangollen was the silence of ex GWR locos working the auto trains while at taking on pasengers. This contrasts with LM Region locos using auto-vac where there was a constant humming sound (like a low revving motor) from the chimney while at rest. It must have been in connection with the blower and was so familiar to me as a lad I always knew when a Delph train was in Oldham Clegg Street Station even before it was visible. A challenging sound-effect for those using DCC sound...

Edited April 28, 2015 by coachmann

[Captain Kernow]

As far as 64XX on freight are concerned I suspect the simple answer is that while they were about for passenger work there were plenty of other engines around capable of freight work and which were more suitable for shunting.

There's certainly a published photo showing the Marlow 14XX having taken it's autocoach to the water column, it would have been considered as 'one unit' in operational terms.

 

The 64XXs would have been less favoured by crews for a significant amount of shunting, due to the screw reverser, whereas a 57XX had a lever reverser, which was less bother when changing direction.

[aforsyth]

Thank you all for your help and responses, and my apologies if this was already covered elsewhere. I find it difficult to keep up with everything that's happening on RMweb these days, despite having subscribed to many diverse topics/forums.

 

The Bachmann 64XX looks a beautiful model, so I may start the layout's steam collection with that and an autocoach, for passengers and occasional shunting, enabling stricter 'prototype practice' to later justify the purchase of a 57XX/8750!

 

 

There's certainly a published photo showing the Marlow 14XX having taken it's autocoach to the water column, it would have been considered as 'one unit' in operational terms.

 

The 64XXs would have been less favoured by crews for a significant amount of shunting, due to the screw reverser, whereas a 57XX had a lever reverser, which was less bother when changing direction.

[David Bigcheeseplant]

High Level had an etched chassis on his stand at Expo, the kit should be available at Scaleforum.

 

interesting that the model on display had 5 foot 2 wheels making it a 54XX and the larger wheels fitting in the splashers on the Bachmann model. Chris did say the body and footplate were one moulding making it hard to make replacement splashers for the 64XX.

 

David

[Re6/6]

Bachmann ensemble - eventually. Lovely finish on this loco although tanks should be black at the front, but this was 11 years ago....

 

WEB 6430 1.jpg

 

i remember this engine languishing on the back sidings at Buckfastleigh in the early seventies looking very forlorn with many missing parts. It was specifically purchased for spares for 6412 and 6435 and its future seemed doomed.

 

Thank heavens sense prevailed and she was saved for posterity.