Ian Abel Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Try as I might I'm not seeing it, I'm looking at the model and images of the real thing... Can someone put me out of my misery... Me either, then I'm not a locomotive designer/engineer. I think the only true solution is to find a rivet free hobby Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted March 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 3, 2017 Try as I might I'm not seeing it, I'm looking at the model and images of the real thing... Can someone put me out of my misery... Stand clear of the platform edge there..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 Try as I might I'm not seeing it, I'm looking at the model and images of the real thing... Can someone put me out of my misery... I hope this helps. The eccentric crank (blue) and is ahead of the driving wheel centre (red) when the loco is moving forward. For some years now, Hornby and Bachmann have incorrectly positioned the crank to the rear of the driving wheel centre on the RH side of the chassis. (Only correct for Bullied Pacific's). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 My Bachmann Stanier Mogul has just arrived via the snail mail, yep the return/eccentric crank is set for inside admission BUT it's such a minor detail, I was going to put it right, but naaa, - who cares, most of those standing a few feet away from a layout at a show watching it go past wont even notice. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 (edited) A workaround for RTR manufacturers is to position the eccentric crank in a neutral position central with the wheels boss. It is not a new idea by any means. Edited March 3, 2017 by coachmann Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 A workaround for RTR manufacturers is to position the eccentric crank in a neutral position central with the wheels boss. It is not a new idea by any means. Ah, you've seen my earlier kit-built stuff then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 ...most of those standing a few feet away from a layout at a show watching it go past wont even notice. I do feel this statement is not correct. I do believe people most standing a few feet away at a show won't even know what the correct position is - let alone spot it is wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 I was gonna agree, but thought it rather a bit cruel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Midland Mole Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 You can all call me a philistine if you want, because I could not care less if there is a crank out of place. I'm don't know enough about the real engines to even notice things like that. I still think it is a stunning model. Alex 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickRoper Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 WTF What do you mean WTF? If you look at a photo of the real thing, the valvegear geometry on the model is incorrect. What's the point of modelling it in such fine detail if there's an error like that? If you're prepared to accept that, it's up to you - I don't accept it. the chaps on the Severn Valley probably wouldn't accept it on the real thing either, as it would likely do untold damage! I'm not expecting miracles from a 4mm scale model, but at such a price, I would expect attention to detail at this level. Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickRoper Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 Where are they more than £150? Ours are £135.95, and that is roughly the price of them everywhere. Alex I wasn't quoting the price exactly, as I haven't yet looked at purchasing one. What I mean, metaphorically speaking, is that it's a bl**dy lot of money when it still needs attention to detail. It's otherwise a superb model, no doubting that - But I don't want to have to start messing around with it! Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 It isn't just Bachmann who can get it wrong. This was Horwich Works, 9th August 1953. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brocp Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 I've been "tinkering" around with my one for a little while now and i have to say while it is a fairly good model overall some design choices have keft me scratching my head. The steam pipes look ridiculous, the fact they are "solid" for want of a better term against the smokebox with no daylight underneath where the join on to it changes the face of the locomotive a lot. Also the prominent rivets on the steam pipes arent there either. Bachmann never seem to drill out the lifting rings, yes it's a minor grip and easily fixed but Hornby have been doing this a while. Bachmann also as sper usual on LMS locos do none of the pipework under the cab, which Hornby do on all bar the Black 5, the mechanical lubricators are pretty bare bones compared to the latest offerings from Hornby, again like most things easily fixed but it does beg the question for me if this loco is worth the price they are asking, yes it is a good loco, runs well etc but it feels of like sonething that either company would have released 15 years ago in terms of finesse compared to some recent releases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 It isn't just Bachmann who can get it wrong. This was Horwich Works, 9th August 1953. Friday afternoon job..... . 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 Friday afternoon job..... And here am I on a Friday evening knowing only too well that I won't remember this by Monday morning. Or even by bedtime tonight! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted March 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 3, 2017 I've been "tinkering" around with my one for a little while now and i have to say while it is a fairly good model overall some design choices have keft me scratching my head. The steam pipes look ridiculous, the fact they are "solid" for want of a better term against the smokebox with no daylight underneath where the join on to it changes the face of the locomotive a lot. Also the prominent rivets on the steam pipes arent there either. Bachmann never seem to drill out the lifting rings, yes it's a minor grip and easily fixed but Hornby have been doing this a while. Bachmann also as sper usual on LMS locos do none of the pipework under the cab, which Hornby do on all bar the Black 5, the mechanical lubricators are pretty bare bones compared to the latest offerings from Hornby, again like most things easily fixed but it does beg the question for me if this loco is worth the price they are asking, yes it is a good loco, runs well etc but it feels of like sonething that either company would have released 15 years ago in terms of finesse compared to some recent releases. Agree entirely and would add that the front pony looks like it would better suit a platform barrow than a locomotive. Bachmann have made some superb steam loco's but the mogul is imho opinion somewhat underwhelming compared to others in their range (4F, Super D, 9F instantly spring to mind). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 Agree entirely and would add that the front pony looks like it would better suit a platform barrow than a locomotive. Interesting, as on the full size version none of the 'pony truck' framework can be seen behind the cylinder, and drain cocks, unless you get down to rail level to look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted March 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 3, 2017 Interesting, as on the full size version none of the 'pony truck' framework can be seen behind the cylinder, and drain cocks, unless you get down to rail level to look. I mean the actual wheel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted March 3, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 3, 2017 (edited) Not to mention quartering the wheels of three-cylinder locos. I only ever view one side of my locos. Even if I pick them up and turn them around, try as I might, I can't see both sides at once, so does it really matter about the quartering? Unless you've got a mirror............ or if squint through the wheels, I might vaguely notice that a balance weight is out of line. Edited March 3, 2017 by newbryford 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Decorum Posted March 4, 2017 Share Posted March 4, 2017 I only ever view one side of my locos. Even if I pick them up and turn them around, try as I might, I can't see both sides at once, so does it really matter about the quartering? Unless you've got a mirror............ or if squint through the wheels, I might vaguely notice that a balance weight is out of line. Would it be all right if two-cylinder locomotives had cranks set at 180° or even 0°? Some axles for kit-built locos have the ends machined to ensure perfect quartering, which is handy but most r-t-r wheels are pressed onto axles with round ends. If I’m wrong on this, by all means put me right but if wheels are just pressed onto axles, is it not just as easy to get it right as to get it wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted March 4, 2017 Share Posted March 4, 2017 No. With the cranks at front or back quarters T the rods half way up the wheel) there is nothing to determine in which direction each set of wheels would rotate, so some could turn one way and another pair in the opposite direction. If one side is on front quarter and the other side on back quarter, the coupling rods would tangle themselves. This applies on a model as much as a real loco. One side must be at an angle: 90 degrees for two- and four-cylinder locos, 120 degrees for three cylinder. What we are discussing here is the angle of the return crank relative to the wheel. With the coupling rods at the bottom, the return crank should lean forward - on both sides. And while you cannot see both sides simultaneously, you can see the error on each side in turn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted March 4, 2017 Share Posted March 4, 2017 I mean the actual wheel With respect, I think some people are being a little too picky. Looking thro' every pic in the Irwell book on the class I cannot see any detail behind the wheel, just a dark mass !?!? Post#332 applies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 4, 2017 Share Posted March 4, 2017 Would it be all right if two-cylinder locomotives had cranks set at 180° or even 0°? Some axles for kit-built locos have the ends machined to ensure perfect quartering, which is handy but most r-t-r wheels are pressed onto axles with round ends. If I’m wrong on this, by all means put me right but if wheels are just pressed onto axles, is it not just as easy to get it right as to get it wrong? At the present precision of assembly of RTR OO, 'quartering' is sufficiently tolerant of the small dimensional and assembly errors in the chassis to work reliably. Pressing the wheels on 'thirded' (120 degrees) is technically not a problem, but as soon as you start coupling these wheelsets in the chassis the dimensional and assembly errors will result in a lot of defects. (Try it for yourself on a RTR model, or a kit built mechanism, you can do quartering by eye with a little practice; 'thirding' you need a good jig to press the wheels on very consistently, just for a start.) Since 'we' clearly don't welcome the higher price that the necessary superior precision that 'thirding' would demand, the RTR manufacturers do well to stick with quartering for its far greater tolerance. A question that interests me, do Golden Age's 3 cylinder productions or the Dapol BL A4 boast 'thirding'? The money asked should make it possible... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted March 4, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 4, 2017 With respect, I think some people are being a little too picky. Looking thro' every pic in the Irwell book on the class I cannot see any detail behind the wheel, just a dark mass !?!? Post#332 applies. I'm not looking behind the wheel, I'm looking at it! If I bought one I'd fit an appropriate Gibson wheel but as it is I agree with post 341 and remain underwhelmed comparing it to other Bachmann products available for similar money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold farren Posted March 4, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 4, 2017 (edited) I Really am looking forward to all those super detailed kit/Scratch built moguls. Which are obviously going to be built due to the dismal model by Bachmann. However I've think I can just about cope with it. So much so I already have a eye on a second. Edited March 4, 2017 by farren 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now