Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

8 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

It might well be that the best answer to the close-coupling problem is to have two different lengths supplied (as you suggest). I'll certainly suggest it to the designer. 

 

I've used the 'hook & goalpost' system to couple tenders to locos; but, I prefer the system below............

 

 

This is 'my' preferred method (seen on an under-construction DJH A1). It's really simple, consisting of a hook made from .45mm nickel silver wire which is soldered centrally to the tender's soleplate between the first and second axles (this gives sideways flexibility through a slot in the tender front frame). The hook then engages into the eye of a split-pin, fitted through a central hole in the loco's dragbeam, which is held in tension by a standard coupling spring (the split-pin's ends being splayed to retain this). 

 

On tight curves, the spring just extends (it's strong enough not to be deflected by a heavy train's weight). 

 

The big advantage this system has over the simpler hook & goalpost is that the hook can be bent left or right to make sure a 'crabbing' tender always lines up with the loco.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with that Tony. It is perhaps a bit more effort to make but it has the important side to side element of movement and even more importantly, you have ample evidence that it works and works well.

 

I have always found that when I try to use springs, getting "strong enough but not too strong" consistently has been difficult for me, so I stopped using them in couplings some time ago.

 

I don't really have any experience of tenders crabbing, possibly one of the advantages of working in EM gauge with less play between wheels and track. So the simpler hook and bar has served me well.

 

 

[30368]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

This is 'my' preferred method (seen on an under-construction DJH A1). It's really simple, consisting of a hook made from .45mm nickel silver wire which is soldered centrally to the tender's soleplate between the first and second axles (this gives sideways flexibility through a slot in the tender front frame). The hook then engages into the eye of a split-pin, fitted through a central hole in the loco's dragbeam, which is held in tension by a standard coupling spring (the split-pin's ends being splayed to retain this). 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

Thanks for sharing this arrangement with us all. Now that I am running trains on my "work in progress layout", which has some tightish curves, the coupling issue is raising its head on occasion. I have a fair number of Hornby Maunsell coaches and these have a more sophisticated coupling that extends on tighter curves. It seems to work.

 

Good to meet you again at Doncaster last Saturday. I have taken your advice re the tender for the Nu-Cast V2 loco and retained the Bachmann tender. I bought the part completed loco and kit parts, which came with the Bachmann tender for £45 from a well known supplier in the NW. It did not run too well so a partial strip,clean and lub solved this and it runs rather well. I have spent some time detailing the loco and I am fairly pleased with the result.

 

Hope you don't mind a few pictures.

 

Before treatment. No brake gear in the kit so I adapted the Hornby B17 brake gear moulding.

 

Result is not too bad for a really cheap purchase and a wee bit of work.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

Edited February 18, 2022 by 30368

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, 30368 said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

Thanks for sharing this arrangement with us all. Now that I am running trains on my "work in progress layout", which has some tightish curves, the coupling issue is raising its head on occasion. I have a fair number of Hornby Maunsell coaches and these have a more sophisticated coupling that extends on tighter curves. It seems to work.

 

Good to meet you again at Doncaster last Saturday. I have taken your advice re the tender for the Nu-Cast V2 loco and retained the Bachmann tender. I bought the part completed loco and kit parts, which came with the Bachmann tender for £45 from a well known supplier in the NW. It did not run too well so a partial strip,clean and lub solved this and it runs rather well. I have spent some time detailing the loco and I am fairly pleased with the result.

 

Hope you don't mind a few pictures.

 

Before treatment. No brake gear in the kit so I adapted the Hornby B17 brake gear moulding.

 

Result is not too bad for a really cheap purchase and a wee bit of work.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

God afternoon Richard,

 

It looks really good, and it's an excellent bargain. I rather like Nu-Cast V2s; they capture the prototype well, and I've built several.

 

I never mind pictures of other folk's work. They rather 'make' Wright writes.

 

I've yet to see Bachmann's latest RTR V2 first-hand. I examined and tested the pre-production models, but the production models so far elude me. Does anyone out there have one? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[30368]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

God afternoon Richard,

 

It is a fairly poor afternoon here Tony rather than an afternoon of the Diety!

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[Northmoor]

7 hours ago, t-b-g said:

The manufacturers are faced with a difficult decision in designing models nowadays. They seem to want to provide a model that will satisfy both the more finescale modeller and the train set on the floor player. My preference would be for them to supply two couplings, a short and a long one, that simply plug in. They seem to want to invent a coupling that will give close coupling sometimes and at other times will be longer. Their attempts really don't fill me with confidence and cause more problems than they solve.

 

While I agree with the idea, I can see why Hornby/Bachmann etc. don't do this.  The volume of items returned to them for repair after (what should be) very simple addition of separately supplied parts has resulted in damage, suggests that a fair proportion of the public has the dexterity of a baboon.  Why give the customer even more things they can break and be disappointed with?

[teaky]

3 hours ago, 30368 said:

It is a fairly poor afternoon here Tony rather than an afternoon of the Diety!

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

The afternoon of the god of weightloss? 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, 30368 said:

It is a fairly poor afternoon here Tony rather than an afternoon of the Diety!

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

A slip of the keyboard; from an atheist!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[robmcg]

On 18/02/2022 at 22:07, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Rob,

 

You know, I never noticed!

 

So much for my observational skills!

 

Why not show some of your other 9F pictures? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Well, that's a very dangerous suggestion.

 

Allow me therefore to show two recent pictures I have made, showing the finest large steam engines ever made in Britain, both designed by Robert Riddles.  

 

I used to hang around steam sheds when I was 12 years to 16 or so, when steam more-or-less finished here in NZ and also in the many English magazines I used to read.

 

The Riddles 8P finally made good after miraculous restoration, and the Riddles 9F, each repesented here by Hornby and Bachmann respectively.

 

 

With Kylchap chimney and exhaust, and a correct ashpan, this engine can flatten Shap and Ais Gill like no other.

 

Going beyond the 9F theme for a moment, and well away from the ECML, is this lovely engine... a rebuild of course but arguably the last type of express steam engine built in Britain... with Light Pacifics too of course.

 

 

 

Edit; back to the foolhardy invitation to show Bachmann 9Fs,  I must congratulate Bachmann for their model,  as it provides such a marvellous basis for pictures.

 

 

Factory-weathered 92233 

 

 

Factory-weathered 92185 a proper ECML engine, even if Swindon-built..

 

 

Annesley Great Central , I think, ...   92070  Crewe-built in 1956 for the ER

 

 

Seen above with 'real' wheels but still with Bachmann body.

 

 

A TMC-weathered 92077,  Crewe-built for LMR.

 

 

Finally a long way from Little Bytham, 92245 emerges from Devonshire Tunnel on the S&D...    1-in-50 and twelve on, keep those wondows closed. 

 

And a chocolate-box-clean S&D engine, below, was 92220 ever this clean?

 

 

Apologies for late additions. 

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by robmcg
additions

[Tony Wright]

59 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

While I agree with the idea, I can see why Hornby/Bachmann etc. don't do this.  The volume of items returned to them for repair after (what should be) very simple addition of separately supplied parts has resulted in damage, suggests that a fair proportion of the public has the dexterity of a baboon.  Why give the customer even more things they can break and be disappointed with?

True,

 

You probably won't be surprised at the number of 'returned' items, especially where any extra detail has to be glued in place. I've seen examples which are just covered with glue and fingerprints, effectively ruined.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

While I agree with the idea, I can see why Hornby/Bachmann etc. don't do this.  The volume of items returned to them for repair after (what should be) very simple addition of separately supplied parts has resulted in damage, suggests that a fair proportion of the public has the dexterity of a baboon.  Why give the customer even more things they can break and be disappointed with?

 

Carriages are already supplied with conventional couplings and the twin pipe semi permanent type for those who run fixed rakes.

 

If they supplied the items fitted with coupling for train set curves but put one for larger radius curves in the pack, then hopefully it won't be total numpties who are changing them.

 

As I said, it is a problem that the manufacturers have, trying to please the most novice with a train set and also the experienced and discerning fine scale modeller. I only put it out there as a suggestion for a possible way to please both without reverting to devices like the one under the Bachmann Southern 2-6-0, which was a truly dreadful design.

 

I have seen several types of loco tender drawbar which were much better than that, included some where you loosen a screw to extend or shorten it or which have two holes in the drawbar itself. I would be very surprised if the sort of people who want to run their trains around 2nd radius curves would be worried about a larger than scale loco tender gap on the straight.

 

[TrevorP1]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

While I agree with the idea, I can see why Hornby/Bachmann etc. don't do this.  The volume of items returned to them for repair after (what should be) very simple addition of separately supplied parts has resulted in damage, suggests that a fair proportion of the public has the dexterity of a baboon.  Why give the customer even more things they can break and be disappointed with?

I think that’s being a little unfair on the poor baboon! Seriously though, it’s alarming to realise that manual dexterity and mechanical sympathy are becoming things of the past. 

[Woodcock29]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I've yet to see Bachmann's latest RTR V2 first-hand. I examined and tested the pre-production models, but the production models so far elude me. Does anyone out there have one? 

Tony

Whilst clearly the new Bachmann V2 is a vast improvement on the 1992 version there are several issues with the 2022 version. It does certainly look like a V2.

 

In the above photo all I've done is substitute the flanged cartazzi wheels (provided with the accessories)  and add the front vacuum pipe and a coupling. The engine to tender drawbar is a diabolical arrangement not suited to steam locos in my view and used previously on the Blue Pullman I'm informed. Its ugly from side on and stretches out as its sprung, when under load making the excessive gap even wider. Also it causes the tender to 'crab' along and on a moderate weight train (9 Hornby and Kirk Gresleys) caused the first carriage to derail a couple of times. I will need to change the drawbar arrangement.

 

The front of the smokebox is too thick and needs to be trimmed back. It doesn't look as bad on this LNER version as a BR version, as it doesn't have the ring of rivets set well back from the front. Fortunately its easily removed by dismantling the body and pushing the weight in the smoke box forward from behind. This pushes the front out at the same time sliding the handrails forward, which are simply bent around and fitted into holes in the smokebox front plate not into handrail knobs as they should be. This will be rectified shortly by filing back the rear of the smokebox front and refitting it, including with handrail knobs for the side handrails.

 

The valve gear is excessively chunky (cf with Hornby A2s or indeed the Bachmann Stanier Mogul). I think, although I can't prove it as I don't have the model, that Bachmann have simply used the valve gear from the chassis upgrade version of a few years ago. Or at least parts of it. On the left hand side the reversing rod is placed too low below the footplate (sorry haven't photographed that side yet). The only plus on the valve gear is that it at least it has a two layered expansion link (should be three of course). I have a plan for dealing with the valve gear - its called Comet.

 

The raised section of the footplate over the driving wheels is about 1mm too high compared with the Isinglass drawing. This accentuates how low the reverser is on the left hand side.

 

The footplate is adorned with rivets. Unfortunately a lot are in the wrong places. I've been studying V2 photos continually since receiving this model (Locos Illus 9, RCTS 6C, Yeadon Vol 4, The Book of the V2s, Gresley Obs 154 - The V2 issue, Gres Obs V2 Supplement), also a couple of photos posted for me by Mike Trice on LNER Forum of Green Arrow and an extensive range of V2 photos posted by Neil Dimmer also on the LNER Forum. The rivets along the outer edge above the cylinders and on the up slope to the rear of this all seem to be fiction, and maybe some in front of the smokebox. Whereas the side curves above the buffer beam are almost devoid of what in photos are the most prominent rivets on the loco. Each side piece has two rivets instead of eleven on the prototype. (I know that locally here in Adelaide I'm known as a rivet counter - this simply proves the fact!).

 

The livery is generally well done and I think the colour is about right. However, the thick moulded band at the front of the Vee has caused Bachmann to place the V in the lining too high making the black band look well overscale.

The cab side windows are marginally underscale but look better when the glazing in the rear windows are removed - I've done that since taking the photo.

 

As Tony indicated with the test pieces he had on LB there are some really nice aspects such as the off-set lubricators on the left hand side. the off-set plating around the snifting valve. Something I'm not clear on is whether in fact the safety valves should be set into a longitudinal open section in the front of the cab roof (as on the model) or simply set into the plating of the cab roof like on a A4? Can anyone advise please?

 

I'll be attending to the modifications in a couple of weeks after our daughter and her family have gone home to Qld. Unfortunately when they arrived the youngest granddaughter (4 yrs) brought an unwanted guest with her - Covid so we're in a 14 day lock down period. Both my wife and I and our other granddaughter have all contracted it now. But we're not too bad.

 

I'll post a photo when I've completed the upgrade.

 

St Enodoc will be surprised/interested to hear that I've started on a small scenic project on my layout with the elder granddaughter (7 tomorrow) now they're here for 14 days or more!

 

Andrew 

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Woodcock29
typo

[Chamby]

Folks have commented on the ‘crabbing’ tender with the new Bachmann V2, caused by the spring loaded arrangement between the tender and Loco.  I too purchased one in BR black, overall the loco is a big improvement on Bachmann’s previous model, apart from the over-complicated drawbar.  This is arranged so that the gap between loco and tender opens up on a curve, but closes up again on the straight.  The only problem is, the spring isn’t strong enough... the arrangement works fine with up to four of Bachmann’s Thompson coaches, add a fifth and the spring can’t cope and the tender starts to crab like this:

 

 

As as well as looking odd, it means that the tender wheels then don’t run ‘true’ which can be problematic on turnouts.  Definitely a design flaw, yes it can be overcome if modified by a competent modeller, but that’s not what you'd expect on a new tooling, premium priced model that should take pride of place in a RTR fleet.

[micklner]

8 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony

Whilst clearly the new Bachmann V2 is a vast improvement on the 1992 version there are several issues with the 2022 version. It does certainly look like a V2.

 

In the above photo all I've done is substitute the flanged cartazzi wheels (provided with the accessories)  and add the front vacuum pipe and a coupling. The engine to tender drawbar is a diabolical arrangement not suited to steam locos in my view and used previously on the Blue Pullman I'm informed. Its ugly from side on and stretches out as its sprung, when under load making the excessive gap even wider. Also it causes the tender to 'crab' along and on a moderate weight train (9 Hornby and Kirk Gresleys) caused the first carriage to derail a couple of times. I will need to change the drawbar arrangement.

 

The front of the smokebox is too thick and needs to be trimmed back. It doesn't look as bad on this LNER version as a BR version, as it doesn't have the ring of rivets set well back from the front. Fortunately its easily removed by dismantling the body and pushing the weight in the smoke box forward from behind. This pushes the front out at the same time sliding the handrails forward, which are simply bent around and fitted into holes in the smokebox front plate not into handrail knobs as they should be. This will be rectified shortly by filing back the rear of the smokebox front and refitting it, including with handrail knobs for the side handrails.

 

The valve gear is excessively chunky (cf with Hornby A2s or indeed the Bachmann Stanier Mogul). I think, although I can't prove it as I don't have the model, that Bachmann have simply used the valve gear from the chassis upgrade version of a few years ago. Or at least parts of it. On the left hand side the reversing rod is placed too low below the footplate (sorry haven't photographed that side yet). The only plus on the valve gear is that it at least it has a two layered expansion link (should be three of course). I have a plan for dealing with the valve gear - its called Comet.

 

The raised section of the footplate over the driving wheels is about 1mm too high compared with the Isinglass drawing. This accentuates how low the reverser is on the left hand side.

 

The footplate is adorned with rivets. Unfortunately a lot are in the wrong places. I've been studying V2 photos continually since receiving this model (Locos Illus 9, RCTS 6C, Yeadon Vol 4, The Book of the V2s, Gresley Obs 154 - The V2 issue, Gres Obs V2 Supplement), also a couple of photos posted for me by Mike Trice on LNER Forum of Green Arrow and an extensive range of V2 photos posted by Neil Dimmer also on the LNER Forum. The rivets along the outer edge above the cylinders and on the up slope to the rear of this all seem to be fiction, and maybe some in front of the smokebox. Whereas the side curves above the buffer beam are almost devoid of what in photos are the most prominent rivets on the loco. Each side piece has two rivets instead of eleven on the prototype. (I know that locally here in Adelaide I'm known as a rivet counter - this simply proves the fact!).

 

The livery is generally well done and I think the colour is about right. However, the thick moulded band at the front of the Vee has caused Bachmann to place the V in the lining too high making the black band look well overscale.

The cab side windows are marginally underscale but look better when the glazing in the rear windows are removed - I've done that since taking the photo.

 

As Tony indicated with the test pieces he had on LB there are some really nice aspects such as the off-set lubricators on the left hand side. the off-set plating around the snifting valve. Something I'm not clear on is whether in fact the safety valves should be set into a longitudinal open section in the front of the cab roof (as on the model) or simply set into the plating of the cab roof like on a A4? Can anyone advise please?

 

I'll be attending to the modifications in a couple of weeks after our daughter and her family have gone home to Qld. Unfortunately when they arrived the youngest granddaughter (4 yrs) brought an unwanted guest with her - Covid so we're in a 14 day lock down period. Both my wife and I and our other granddaughter have all contracted it now. But we're not too bad.

 

I'll post a photo when I've completed the upgrade.

 

St Enodoc will be surprised/interested to hear that I've started on a small scenic project on my layout with the elder granddaughter (7 tomorrow) now they're here for 14 days or more!

 

Andrew 

 

Very poor effort by Bachmann which has been waited on for many years.

 

This is the first time I have read that the Footplate is too high along with the other numerous faults and errors. I have always throught that the whole Loco looks too high of the ground , sadly that issue is now also confirmed.

 

One for the Bargain Bin, before I would ever consider buying one . Even then a kit build is far more attractive. Why? because a lot of the Bachmann faults cannot be rectified, without destroying the model .

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

Very poor effort by Bachmann which has been waited on for many years.

 

This is the first time I have read that the Footplate is too high along with the other numerous faults and errors. I have always throught that the whole Loco looks too high of the ground , sadly that issue is now also confirmed.

 

One for the Bargain Bin, before I would ever consider buying one . Even then a kit build is far more attractive. Why? because a lot of the Bachmann faults cannot be rectified, without destroying the model .

 

Bachmann for diesels, Hornby for steam???

 

How much longer can the Red Box crew resist filling the only remaining gap in their range of numerous LNER-built Gresley large/medium types?

 

John 

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, TrevorP1 said:

I think that’s being a little unfair on the poor baboon! Seriously though, it’s alarming to realise that manual dexterity and mechanical sympathy are becoming things of the past. 

Good (not god) morning Trevor,

 

There have always been those who are (should we say?) less dextrous. 

 

This fact was brought home to me at Doncaster last weekend. I had a number of items for sale on behalf of a bereaved family (the organisers were happy with this, as were the traders - by the way, may I thank all those who bought things from me? We sold out!). One of the things I had for sale was an old Gaity (is that how it's spelt?) die-cast pannier body, fitted rather well on to a Triang/Hornby 'Jinty' chassis. It was undamaged and it ran very well. I'd put £15.00 on it. Though the mountings were still in place, it had no couplings.

 

One chap picked it up, saw it run and opined he'd have it if it had tension-lock couplings. I said that I was sure they could be acquired as spares, plus two small self-tapping screws. Clearly, such actions were beyond him, and he walked away. It seemed the guy was interested in railway modelling but was incapable of fitting simple couplings. Why? Why not? 

 

It did sell eventually.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[TrevorP1]

People like that are beyond me Tony - I just don’t understand them.
 

I’ve met a good few who are ham fisted but prepared to have a go. These folk were usually quite prepared admit their lack of skill. Good on them for trying though!

[MikeTrice]

8 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Something I'm not clear on is whether in fact the safety valves should be set into a longitudinal open section in the front of the cab roof (as on the model) or simply set into the plating of the cab roof like on a A4? Can anyone advise please?

Andrew 

 

Does this image help?

[Woodcock29]

36 minutes ago, micklner said:

Very poor effort by Bachmann which has been waited on for many years.

 

This is the first time I have read that the Footplate is too high along with the other numerous faults and errors. I have always throught that the whole Loco looks too high of the ground , sadly that issue is now also confirmed.

 

One for the Bargain Bin, before I would ever consider buying one . Even then a kit build is far more attractive. Why? because a lot of the Bachmann faults cannot be rectified, without destroying the model .

Mick the only two things of those I mention that can't be fixed are the height of the centre section of the footplate and the issue with the overscale band on the front of the V. I had actually hoped I could separate the cab (and the V front) from the firebox which is possible with most recent Bachmann locos I have - O4, D11, J11, C1 etc but it seems to be firmly glued together in that area as I think the firebox was initially a separate item. The slightly undersized cab windows look better with no glazing in the rear ones. However, of course none of these matters should have needed to be fixed. One of the most disappointing aspects is the valve gear which is just so chunky compared to any other recent models. But I can replace that - valve gear is something I love tinkering with. 

Andrew

[Woodcock29]

7 minutes ago, MikeTrice said:

Does this image help?

Absolutely Mike - thanks. It confirms I need to fill in the space they've left between the two valves. They've got a representation of the clips holding that plate around the valves but the plate is only really the edge of the plate on the model.

Andrew

[Woodcock29]

Tony

Further to my earlier post here's a photo of one of Alan Harrison's trio of BR Bachmann V2s. This time the left hand side. You can clearly see the extra thickness of the smokebox front with the rivets set way too far back from the front. Something that's also missing and visible in this photo, but easily rectified are the handrails on the curved sections of the footplate behind the buffer beam. 

Andrew

[31A]

9 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

The front of the smokebox is too thick and needs to be trimmed back. It doesn't look as bad on this LNER version as a BR version, as it doesn't have the ring of rivets set well back from the front. Fortunately its easily removed by dismantling the body and pushing the weight in the smoke box forward from behind. This pushes the front out at the same time sliding the handrails forward, which are simply bent around and fitted into holes in the smokebox front plate not into handrail knobs as they should be.

 

Thanks Andrew for this review.  I also think the valve gear (or parts of it) might be carried forward from the previous incarnation.  It is quite disappointing when compared to the Bachmann A1 or A2, for example.

 

But on the subject of the smokebox front, I have not attempted this but you make it sound quite straightforward so perhaps I'll give it a go.  But if you do thin down the smokebox front, does this have the effect of making the boiler as a whole shorter than it should be, i.e. the smokebox front is now too far back?  Might it be easier to fill the join line in with some kind of filler and re-paint the smokebox?  And possibly remove the rivets on the BR version - I assume the real ones originally had countersunk rivets which were later replaced by round headed ones, perhaps not all locos had this done?

[Woodcock29]

7 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

Thanks Andrew for this review.  I also think the valve gear (or parts of it) might be carried forward from the previous incarnation.  It is quite disappointing when compared to the Bachmann A1 or A2, for example.

 

But on the subject of the smokebox front, I have not attempted this but you make it sound quite straightforward so perhaps I'll give it a go.  But if you do thin down the smokebox front, does this have the effect of making the boiler as a whole shorter than it should be, i.e. the smokebox front is now too far back?  Might it be easier to fill the join line in with some kind of filler and re-paint the smokebox?  And possibly remove the rivets on the BR version - I assume the real ones originally had countersunk rivets which were later replaced by round headed ones, perhaps not all locos had this done?

By my measurements the smokebox appears to be too long by the extra thickness they've added to the front.

Andrew

[31A]

2 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

By my measurements the smokebox appears to be too long by the extra thickness they've added to the front.

Andrew

 

Thank you, that's interesting - I may have to give it a go then!

 

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony

Whilst clearly the new Bachmann V2 is a vast improvement on the 1992 version there are several issues with the 2022 version. It does certainly look like a V2.

 

In the above photo all I've done is substitute the flanged cartazzi wheels (provided with the accessories)  and add the front vacuum pipe and a coupling. The engine to tender drawbar is a diabolical arrangement not suited to steam locos in my view and used previously on the Blue Pullman I'm informed. Its ugly from side on and stretches out as its sprung, when under load making the excessive gap even wider. Also it causes the tender to 'crab' along and on a moderate weight train (9 Hornby and Kirk Gresleys) caused the first carriage to derail a couple of times. I will need to change the drawbar arrangement.

 

The front of the smokebox is too thick and needs to be trimmed back. It doesn't look as bad on this LNER version as a BR version, as it doesn't have the ring of rivets set well back from the front. Fortunately its easily removed by dismantling the body and pushing the weight in the smoke box forward from behind. This pushes the front out at the same time sliding the handrails forward, which are simply bent around and fitted into holes in the smokebox front plate not into handrail knobs as they should be. This will be rectified shortly by filing back the rear of the smokebox front and refitting it, including with handrail knobs for the side handrails.

 

The valve gear is excessively chunky (cf with Hornby A2s or indeed the Bachmann Stanier Mogul). I think, although I can't prove it as I don't have the model, that Bachmann have simply used the valve gear from the chassis upgrade version of a few years ago. Or at least parts of it. On the left hand side the reversing rod is placed too low below the footplate (sorry haven't photographed that side yet). The only plus on the valve gear is that it at least it has a two layered expansion link (should be three of course). I have a plan for dealing with the valve gear - its called Comet.

 

The raised section of the footplate over the driving wheels is about 1mm too high compared with the Isinglass drawing. This accentuates how low the reverser is on the left hand side.

 

The footplate is adorned with rivets. Unfortunately a lot are in the wrong places. I've been studying V2 photos continually since receiving this model (Locos Illus 9, RCTS 6C, Yeadon Vol 4, The Book of the V2s, Gresley Obs 154 - The V2 issue, Gres Obs V2 Supplement), also a couple of photos posted for me by Mike Trice on LNER Forum of Green Arrow and an extensive range of V2 photos posted by Neil Dimmer also on the LNER Forum. The rivets along the outer edge above the cylinders and on the up slope to the rear of this all seem to be fiction, and maybe some in front of the smokebox. Whereas the side curves above the buffer beam are almost devoid of what in photos are the most prominent rivets on the loco. Each side piece has two rivets instead of eleven on the prototype. (I know that locally here in Adelaide I'm known as a rivet counter - this simply proves the fact!).

 

The livery is generally well done and I think the colour is about right. However, the thick moulded band at the front of the Vee has caused Bachmann to place the V in the lining too high making the black band look well overscale.

The cab side windows are marginally underscale but look better when the glazing in the rear windows are removed - I've done that since taking the photo.

 

As Tony indicated with the test pieces he had on LB there are some really nice aspects such as the off-set lubricators on the left hand side. the off-set plating around the snifting valve. Something I'm not clear on is whether in fact the safety valves should be set into a longitudinal open section in the front of the cab roof (as on the model) or simply set into the plating of the cab roof like on a A4? Can anyone advise please?

 

I'll be attending to the modifications in a couple of weeks after our daughter and her family have gone home to Qld. Unfortunately when they arrived the youngest granddaughter (4 yrs) brought an unwanted guest with her - Covid so we're in a 14 day lock down period. Both my wife and I and our other granddaughter have all contracted it now. But we're not too bad.

 

I'll post a photo when I've completed the upgrade.

 

St Enodoc will be surprised/interested to hear that I've started on a small scenic project on my layout with the elder granddaughter (7 tomorrow) now they're here for 14 days or more!

 

Andrew 

 

Thanks for that Andrew,

 

As I say, I've yet to see the Bachmann production V2s in the flesh. That said, I've no intention of acquiring one.

 

You mention that the valve gear might be mainly from the chassis upgrade of a few years ago. 

 

Here's an example of this..........

 

 

It's got the new chassis, but it's still the old body (made better by my fitting a proper dome). I also fitted decent pony wheels and a screw coupling. Tom Foster weathered it. I gave it away to Ian Wilson.

 

 

In company with a modified Bachmann A2 (which I retained), also weathered by Tom Foster. 

 

Over a decade ago, I fitted a Comet chassis to a detailed original Bachmann V2..........

 

 

The equivalent of putting a 'Rolls-Royce engine inside a wrecked Ford Pop'? 

 

Even with a proper chassis, I still couldn't live with the thing............

 

 

So, I fitted a Graeme King resin body to my chassis (shades of Trigger's broom?). Geoff Haynes painted it.

 

I'm sure the latest Bachmann V2 is selling very well. As you say, it's far superior to what went before.

 

Will most purchasers bother about the 'faults'?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.