Bachmann’s 32-487 and 32-487SF Class 40 D213

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On 26/08/2023 at 09:45, BR traction instructor said:

...my first concern with a Bachmann class 40 would be to check the height of the bodyside against prototype dimensions. ISTR that in order to get their model to negotiate 1st radius curves on toy wheels with deep flanges they effectively made the bodyshell unusable as a scale model of the prototype by reducing its height to allow the wheels to clear the body.

The fundamental problem, whatever brand has tackled it, is that the driven wheel diameter over the tyre alone means that it is inside fixed body work. The flange is secondary, a scale diameter tyre rim begins milling its way through scale bodywork representation if the model is required to run on significantly  underscale curve radii. The OO gauge compromise enables a correct appearance 40 to run on 36" radius, I would think a P4 model will be nearer 48".

 

The major compromise Bachmann adopted on those twin bogie diesel models where the tyre tops would foul the body work is to lift the entire body to provide clearance on set track (and significantly larger radius) curves; with the bogie pivot arrangement easily modified to bring the body position down to scale height. 

 

Personally that's the compromise I like, no need for well underscale wheel diameters and/or distortion of external appearance. Just use curves of sufficient radius...

[97406]

The Bachmann 40 can be lowered easily by filing down the tops of the bogie towers which are separate fittings and can be unscrewed. An improvement would be for them to be moulded to the correct height and removable shims being used to add the height to the model out of the box. I would argue the lowered example will negotiate second radius curves, though any vertical unevenness may present a problem. I’m working on several 40s at the moment and they respond well to being tweaked.

 

It’s the best model we’ll get for the foreseeable.

Edited September 27, 2023 by 97406

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

21 hours ago, 97406 said:

An improvement would be for them to be moulded to the correct height and removable shims being used to add the height to the model out of the box.

This was suggested to Bachmann getting on about 20 years ago. They felt that the DIY modification was better; owners that knew what they were about would also be able to find the washers to lift the height if ever required. (A very enjoyable feature of Bachmann UK under Graham Hubbard's management was his very direct practical approach.)

 

21 hours ago, 97406 said:

I would argue the lowered example will negotiate second radius curves, though any vertical unevenness may present a problem.

I had to go and check, it's so long ago that I fiddled with my v1 Bachmann 40, and you are correct. This version required clearance cutting in the underside, all out of sight, if the 'full drop' is implemented. (No idea what the current model requires, the first version with its inaccuracies more than adequately captures the overweight lumberingness of the EE type 4 for my taste.)

 

The limitations of a long rigid bogie frame requires very gentle gradient transitions - intentional or unintentional - on the layout; mainly because of the miniscule clearance between the bufferbeam and nose underside. Models of both this class and the Peak would benefit from the cosmetic exterior bogie frame not being rigidly coupled to the functional bogie frame, as demonstrated on KMRC's Bulleid diesel model which has the same (awkward) style of bogie design.

 

 

[97406]

11 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

This was suggested to Bachmann getting on about 20 years ago. They felt that the DIY modification was better; owners that knew what they were about would also be able to find the washers to lift the height if ever required. (A very enjoyable feature of Bachmann UK under Graham Hubbard's management was his very direct practical approach.)

 

I had to go and check, it's so long ago that I fiddled with my v1 Bachmann 40, and you are correct. This version required clearance cutting in the underside, all out of sight, if the 'full drop' is implemented. (No idea what the current model requires, the first version with its inaccuracies more than adequately captures the overweight lumberingness of the EE type 4 for my taste.)

 

The limitations of a long rigid bogie frame requires very gentle gradient transitions - intentional or unintentional - on the layout; mainly because of the miniscule clearance between the bufferbeam and nose underside. Models of both this class and the Peak would benefit from the cosmetic exterior bogie frame not being rigidly coupled to the functional bogie frame, as demonstrated on KMRC's Bulleid diesel model which has the same (awkward) style of bogie design.

 

 

 

Most interesting. Even with the missing chassis detail added, the bogies swing perfectly fine on the flat. The only problem I’ve had is sometimes the vacuum/steam pipes that I’ve added foul the bottom of cab footsteps, but that’s very much down to the positioning when I attach it, so I take more care with them these days.

[aureol40012]

On 26/08/2023 at 13:46, Black 5 Bear said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Class 40 is on Accurascales "To Do" list some time in the future.

Having seen the recently released 40 mock up from KR models, I'm not convinced by this, although TBF they're pre production photographs.

I’ve not understood Accurascale’s decision to focus their attentions elsewhere, the class 66 announcement over a 40 was simply bizarre.  When I was a basher in the 80s the accepted holy trinity in terms of popularity were 55s, 52s, and 40s.  Hopefully accurascale rectify this omission imminently!

 

Im on the project team for the CFPS for the KR model and I too await with a mixture of excitement and trepidation!  We have fed back on certain key aspects of differences between class members, we too want an accurate model.

[97406]

18 minutes ago, aureol40012 said:

I’ve not understood Accurascale’s decision to focus their attentions elsewhere, the class 66 announcement over a 40 was simply bizarre.  When I was a basher in the 80s the accepted holy trinity in terms of popularity were 55s, 52s, and 40s.  Hopefully accurascale rectify this omission imminently!

 

Im on the project team for the CFPS for the KR model and I too await with a mixture of excitement and trepidation!  We have fed back on certain key aspects of differences between class members, we too want an accurate model.

 

The 66 is a moneyspinner for Accurascale with the tooling already in existance and complete save for the tweeks that they are doing to it. Plenty of modern period modellers out there and liveries to produce even though they’re a bit ‘meh’ to me. It would be great if and when they do a 40, but I am not waiting for them to produce it or the KR one to come good. I will however buy a number of either on top of my existing Bachmann and Limastein models when/if they fit the bill.

[Black 5 Bear]

2 hours ago, aureol40012 said:

I’ve not understood Accurascale’s decision to focus their attentions elsewhere, the class 66 announcement over a 40 was simply bizarre.  When I was a basher in the 80s the accepted holy trinity in terms of popularity were 55s, 52s, and 40s.  Hopefully accurascale rectify this omission imminently!

 

Im on the project team for the CFPS for the KR model and I too await with a mixture of excitement and trepidation!  We have fed back on certain key aspects of differences between class members, we too want an accurate model.

Maybe the choice of a 66 offering was due to taking on the former Hattons offering, with the intention of adding a few tweaks?

Purchasing the tooling makes good business/economic sense

It was already an excellent model, I'm pretty sure Accurascale will deal with the original issues before the model is re released.

Excellent news that you're on project team and are providing feed back to KR models.

I've recently purchased the Bachmann D213 Andania and can conclude that it's a fine model.

An Accurascale 40 will most likely follow at some stage, fingers crossed!

 

[LMSfan72]

On 24/08/2023 at 23:58, LMSfan72 said:

Although D213 has had full yellow ends since Feb this year - I guess mine will be heading for a facial 

 

I couldn't get the light lenses out easily so rather than strip I just repainted the noses. I couldn't quite get rid of the old paint line, but, I'm pretty happy with the noses. Flashes to add and reassembly tomorrow...

[40002]

So just got the latest version of the model 32-489SF in Rail Blue, I currently have a split headcode version but was keen for a disc headcode version.  I wasn't keen on the price however but after a lot of searching I managed to get a sound one significantly cheaper than the current street price of the well know suppliers. I take on board about some of the criticism of this model but overall I am happy enough with it, i'm always prepared to forgo a bit of accuracy and detail in favor of praticality and robustness. Obviously the nose seam isn't an issue with a standard rail blue version. The most obvious improvement for me is the ability to individually turn the tail lights off, when I returned to modelling around 18 months ago I was very surprised to find that only some the very latest models had this feature, to me this should be a basic feature. Anyway overall its sounds great and think its a great model. 

[97406]

24 minutes ago, 40002 said:

So just got the latest version of the model 32-489SF in Rail Blue, I currently have a split headcode version but was keen for a disc headcode version.  I wasn't keen on the price however but after a lot of searching I managed to get a sound one significantly cheaper than the current street price of the well know suppliers. I take on board about some of the criticism of this model but overall I am happy enough with it, i'm always prepared to forgo a bit of accuracy and detail in favor of praticality and robustness. Obviously the nose seam isn't an issue with a standard rail blue version. The most obvious improvement for me is the ability to individually turn the tail lights off, when I returned to modelling around 18 months ago I was very surprised to find that only some the very latest models had this feature, to me this should be a basic feature. Anyway overall its sounds great and think its a great model. 

 

I have 2 97407 Aureols in the queue to be detailed properly and become 044 and 106, but I quite fancy this model as a disc headcode Clayton boilered example to become 091 with the water tanks removed. 091’s one of the few I managed to catch in service in late 1984 when I really got into railways and just before the demise of the class. Sadly, I’ve lost the photos I took but there’s plenty available online.

[97406]

On 09/10/2023 at 13:58, LMSfan72 said:

 

I couldn't get the light lenses out easily so rather than strip I just repainted the noses. I couldn't quite get rid of the old paint line, but, I'm pretty happy with the noses. Flashes to add and reassembly tomorrow...

 

Admittedly it’s one of the last batch of 40s, but I’ve just removed all the lenses from a disc headcode 40 end after stripping the paint with IPA. The lenses may be glued in, but the glue is on top of paint and 2 stubborn lenses came out with ease after I had stripped the paint off the end moulding,

[Tiddles47]

3 hours ago, 40002 said:

So just got the latest version of the model 32-489SF in Rail Blue, I currently have a split headcode version but was keen for a disc headcode version.  I wasn't keen on the price however but after a lot of searching I managed to get a sound one significantly cheaper than the current street price of the well know suppliers. I take on board about some of the criticism of this model but overall I am happy enough with it, i'm always prepared to forgo a bit of accuracy and detail in favor of praticality and robustness. Obviously the nose seam isn't an issue with a standard rail blue version. The most obvious improvement for me is the ability to individually turn the tail lights off, when I returned to modelling around 18 months ago I was very surprised to find that only some the very latest models had this feature, to me this should be a basic feature. Anyway overall its sounds great and think its a great model. 

Ive just got this today too. Will become 40012 with plates coming from Fox transfers and the numbers, data panels and depot stickers from Railtec.

[Roy Langridge]

On 27/09/2023 at 12:53, 97406 said:

The Bachmann 40 can be lowered easily by filing down the tops of the bogie towers which are separate fittings and can be unscrewed. An improvement would be for them to be moulded to the correct height and removable shims being used to add the height to the model out of the box. I would argue the lowered example will negotiate second radius curves, though any vertical unevenness may present a problem. I’m working on several 40s at the moment and they respond well to being tweaked.

 

It’s the best model we’ll get for the foreseeable.

A quick question please. How much material do you need to remove to get a more prototypical gap?
 

Thanks,

 

Roy

[97406]

2 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

A quick question please. How much material do you need to remove to get a more prototypical gap?
 

Thanks,

 

Roy

About 0.8mm based on trial and error. Details here…

 

[37501]

On 16/10/2023 at 13:16, 40002 said:

So just got the latest version of the model 32-489SF in Rail Blue, I currently have a split headcode version but was keen for a disc headcode version.  I wasn't keen on the price however but after a lot of searching I managed to get a sound one significantly cheaper than the current street price of the well know suppliers. I take on board about some of the criticism of this model but overall I am happy enough with it, i'm always prepared to forgo a bit of accuracy and detail in favor of praticality and robustness. Obviously the nose seam isn't an issue with a standard rail blue version. The most obvious improvement for me is the ability to individually turn the tail lights off, when I returned to modelling around 18 months ago I was very surprised to find that only some the very latest models had this feature, to me this should be a basic feature. Anyway overall its sounds great and think its a great model. 

I too bought 40097 sound fitted as I was very keen on a disc headcode one. I have since upgraded the speakers with a pair of round 27mm dia. Base enhanced speakers from Roads and Rails. This was a very simple upgrade following their guide. The sound is much improved. 40097 is currently in the queue for weathering.