Class 85

[Michael Delamar]

I would imagine theyve used the correct colour, just that it appears dark, maybe it doesnt scale down well?

 

Id still like to repaint mine anyway before I put the nice crest on. then could say its slightly faded.

 

I know we shouldnt totally trust old slides, but having seen many of them and in films such as the british transport films,

 

this is how Id like mine to look..

http://railphotoprin...6af38#h2ad6af38

 

I want to change the headcodes too if anyone has any recommendations.

 

cheers

 

Mike

Edited July 4, 2012 by michael delamar

[Guest jim s-w]

Like the Hornby 50? I would say we have certainly learned from that and no longer have such toy like gimmicks. See through grills are ok if the real thing is actually see through.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited July 9, 2012 by jim s-w

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... and as for split axles, well theres your built in failure feature. Do we never learn from past mistakes ?

With appropriate materials choices I don't believe these to be any trouble. Hornby's classes 30/31 and 50 have their wheelsets arranged this way and there's no reports of trouble from this source, and these are fairly weighty chassis. I have examples of the class 30/31 chassis in constant use since introduction of this model (8 years ago?) and this aspect proved completely reliable (the troubles of this chasis well documented as lying elsewhere); and I have 'mucked around' with these by reaming out the centre axle insulator so that the wheels are idlers, likely to provoke any weaknesses inherent to the technique.

 

Bachmann's DMU's have split axle, also their Pullman cars; now these are lighter vehicles it is true, but again no rash of failure reports. In general I think the technique better suited to diesel and electric traction, on steam models the need for accurate quartering maintained against any slight mechanical inequities in the cranks and rods is probably not the ideal recipe for longevity.

[Pugsley]

See through grills are ok if the real thing is actually see through.

Even then, I'd rather have a nicely moulded grille than a coarse see-through replacment (the Lima 73 and A1 replacement parts spring to mind).

[metman]

Bit of help please. I received my TOPS CL 85 the other day and what a nice example it is. I have been running it in and noticed that only the left red rear light works, even when direction is changed. Is this a feature of the lighting on the CL 85 or have I a duff loco? Many thanks in anticipation of your replies.

[ClikC]

Bit of help please. I received my TOPS CL 85 the other day and what a nice example it is. I have been running it in and noticed that only the left red rear light works, even when direction is changed. Is this a feature of the lighting on the CL 85 or have I a duff loco? Many thanks in anticipation of your replies.

 

It's designed like that, there is only 2 LED's on the little lighting circut boards for the Cab ends, yellow/amber/orange for the marker lights/ headcode display and one red LED for one of the rear lights.

 

HTH

 

Regards

 

Matt

[Dagworth]

Shortening the wire pulls the head back. The arm would be the correct length to push the head back if the mounting was below the pivot point.

 

IMO the shortening method works with what Bachmann have provided us. Any other method deviates to far from the prototype for my liking/ means extra work.

 

In any case, I'll opt for 'looks right' over 'is right'.

 

Regards

 

Matt

See my post much earlier in the thread. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/40432-class-85/page__st__475&do=findComment&comment=699416 The problem is that, as supplied, when you push the pan down the head tips forward instead of staying level. This is because the top end of the upper control rod is fixed in the wrong place, nothing to do with how long it is.

BartB's photo shows that the problem still exists in this batch too.

 

Andi

[ClikC]

 

See my post much earlier in the thread. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/40432-class-85/page__st__475&do=findComment&comment=699416 The problem is that, as supplied, when you push the pan down the head tips forward instead of staying level. This is because the top end of the upper control rod is fixed in the wrong place, nothing to do with how long it is.

BartB's photo shows that the problem still exists in this batch too.

 

Andi

 

Hi Andi,

 

I did see your post. I've now changed the position link on one of my 85's for a shorter one. I'm now quite happy my pan head will sit level through the height range I'm likely to use. Though not through the minimum to maximum (55mm to 77mm) the prototype might encounter. So definite room for improvement with the pan design. Interestingly the top mount on the lower arm assembly for the thrust rod to connect too is over sized, meaning it would foul the contact wire at the 55mm minimum height.

 

Regards

 

Matt

Edited July 10, 2012 by ClikC

[GRUNFOS]

I need an early TOPs version and was wondering if any ran with 'oooo' headcodes?

Thanks

Paul

[ClikC]

I need an early TOPs version and was wondering if any ran with 'oooo' headcodes?

Thanks

Paul

 

Hi Paul

 

My period is 1974 so I opted to backdate the model of 026 (31-678), as I considered this being a much easyer route than trying to bring E3056 (31-677) forwards.

 

 

Work to this stage was fairly easy, I removed the orange line on top of the body side panels using Micro Sol and cotton buds. I drilled out the plated over headcode panel, then filed this square (I filed until the rivet head detail on the plate disapeared, thus giving me a small lip around the inside edge of the headcode box). Then I cut a small peice of thin clear plastic to the right shape, and used the Modern Traction 4.0mm backlit headcodes from Precision Lables to produce the 3A65 headcode. For post 1st jan 1976, you's just use the 0O00 supplied in the same kit. I've not finished mounting the headcodes perminantly yet, but hopefully that gives you the general idea.

 

HTH Regards

 

Matt

Edited July 10, 2012 by ClikC

[GRUNFOS]

Very nice Matt, I was really thinking about the E3056 version with expossed gutters and no air tanks on the roof or is this modification pre Tops? My version of Springsbranch is set in 76, hence the zero codes.

Paul

[ClikC]

Very nice Matt, I was really thinking about the E3056 version with expossed gutters and no air tanks on the roof or is this modification pre Tops? My version of Springsbranch is set in 76, hence the zero codes.

Paul

 

I've never seen a photo of one in that condition post '73. So as I say, for what your after 026 is the best starting point with a bit of work.

 

Regards

 

Matt

[wombatofludham]

Matt, thanks for the concise outline of how to backdate the air-tank equipped 85, that's just what I'm going to have to do when I get hold of one.

 

"Grunfos", all the 85s had roof mounted tanks and rain gutter mods completed by about 1973, some even running in this condition with pre-TOPS numbers, and by 1976 all would have had TOPS numbers. The pre-TOPS rail blue version modelled by Bachmann is only really suitable for the period 1968-1971/2 when they entered works for refurbishment.

[GRUNFOS]

Thanks gent's will get the chequebook out any bargains out there?

[Dagworth]

Thanks gent's will get the chequebook out any bargains out there?

 

best price I know of currently is Cheltenham at (appropriately) £85.

 

Andi

[ThaneofFife]

Well after a couple of months Im pretty much now happy with my first weathered 85. The first attempt was abandoned and I started again.

 

Here are a few shots including ex works 85026 and well worked classmate 85040 stabled up awaiting their next duties down on Muir Bank......

[Rail-Online]

I need an early TOPs version and was wondering if any ran with 'oooo' headcodes?

Thanks

Paul

85003 was running around like that 1977-06-20 at Springs Branch.

 

Cheers Tony

[GRUNFOS]

85003 was running around like that 1977-06-20 at Springs Branch.

 

Cheers Tony

 

 

Thanks Tony,

85 003 it will become. Don't suppose you have a picture?

Regards Paul

[ThaneofFife]

Interesting close up shot showing lots of detail but also note the buffer locking between the loco and a van. Oh dear......blame railman englebert.

 

http://www.petertand..._buff_15685.jpg

 

Some maybe interested (well disappointed) to learn that at the moment Bachmann cannot supply spare pans.

 

I asked the question on Thursday as I intended to buy a couple and replace the sit up and beg type pans on my Heljan Class 86s. A better pan would have certainly improved them a bit but maybe they will be available next year.

 

Take care of your 85 pans!

Edited July 21, 2012 by ThaneofFife

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi All

 

Heres a grubby little pic from me!

 

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited July 25, 2012 by jim s-w

[ThaneofFife]

i emailed Bachmann after seeing the initial sample shots of the model regarding its buffers around 6 months before release-in hindsight that might have been too late but I didnt think changing the buffer heads would cause any real issues on the factory floor. if i can look at it in simple terms you change one box of buffer heads for another and the line worker merely fits the revised parts - parts that are already going to be available in vast numbers on the 47 production lines.

 

the heads are incorrect and its only now really starting to bother me (a sign that us modellers are becoming ever more impatient and picky?).

I have seen a few attempts at remedying the buffers here but I think we can find an even better solution.

On looking at those found on the Bachmann class 47 models (the round Oleo style) and lining these up against one of my 85s it seems they are the same diameter but with slightly longer inner shanks (which is needed if you look at a photo of them) and a better shape of head. Those on the AC model are the equivalent of the old NHS thick rimmed specs!

 

Anyway Ive again emailed Bachmann but this time asking if the buffer heads from the Class 47 are available as spares in an "uncrimped" form allowing those who wish to do so an easy swap over job on their class 85s. Break off the back of the 85 buffers to allow them to come out (retain the spring) then insert the class 47 buffer and then crimp into place. Should be as easy as that and the model would look much more authentic for it as a cost of a couple of pounds. The flat face is also in line with the proto.

 

Unless Bachmann go the Hornby route and begin painting the inner shanks silver this little modification would also give modellers who like to keep their sprung buffers a chance to paint the new buffer shanks and let them dry before they are inserted into the loco. Doing so in situ would probably stick them together when first pressed in due to the sprung action. Not good.

 

If anybody has a good alternative solution, do tell!

[Rugd1022]

Lovely job Jim - I know it's New Street, but it reminds me very much of the view walking down the ramps at Euston in the late '70s / early '80s

 

The shadows around te cab front show just how well Bachmann's tooling has captured the real machines to a tee!

[Welly]

I love the dead flies on the front!

[Guest jim s-w]

 

On looking at those found on the Bachmann class 47 models (the round Oleo style) and lining these up against one of my 85s it seems they are the same diameter

 

 

They shouldnt be - class 47 used 21" Oloes, class 81-83 and 85-87 used 18" ones.

 

HTH

 

Jim

[ThaneofFife]

I dont doubt your prototype dimensions Jim as I dont have this info myself but trust me those on the Bachmann Class 47 model are ideal for this swap as Bachmann have made them slightly underscale in the first place which takes care of the 1mm difference you would expect to see.