Bachmann Peppercorn A2

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The construction of the model appears to be in similar style to the A1. If that is the case, I would be confident of adjusting the fits by having it all apart so that the cast footplate unit can be trued up; and then mounting the boiler, backhead and cab pieces, making any adjustments required to them to get a neat fit. Acknowledging that while this really shouldn't be necessary for a RTR model, the fairly flexible cast metal footplate in particular is always going to be vulnerable to slight deformation in a mass- assembly environment, with the work force probably under some pressure to 'make the numbers'.

 

Any comments on the chassis? Which axle is driven, gear ratio, does it have a sprung coupled axle, quietness or otherwise when running, traction poor/adequate/good? Just curious, and unlikely to be looking at one of my own anytime soon as it is strictly the Kylchap fitted version for me; to bear the names 'Velocity' and 'Bronzino'. (With only fifteen in class, may even wait for Bachmann to offer these specific locos, it shouldn't be too long a wait...)

[sulzer27jd]

 

Any comments on the chassis? Which axle is driven, gear ratio, does it have a sprung coupled axle, quietness or otherwise when running, traction poor/adequate/good? Just curious, and unlikely to be looking at one of my own anytime soon as it is strictly the Kylchap fitted version for me; to bear the names 'Velocity' and 'Bronzino'. (With only fifteen in class, may even wait for Bachmann to offer these specific locos, it shouldn't be too long a wait...)

 

I have 60537 (until it gets renumbered). The middle axle is driven and has a lot of play so that the first turn is noticeable in that it is out of sync with the coupled wheels, obviously just for a second but it does catch the eye. It has a sprung Cartazzi axle that when it comes off of a tight corner (9') fails to recentre and gives rise to a misalignment between loco and tender, but i think that will be treatable. Traction seems good, I've had it with 10 mk1's and no problem with haulage or speed. If anything it seems smoother under load.

 

As for the step between the tender and loco (discussed above) I think the additional lining on the loco footplate throws the eye off. All in all its a nice model. I did have to re-gauge the front pony wheel which you wouldn't expect having paid nearly £100 for something and there are a couple of detail errors but it is a good deal easier that having to kit build. Especially when you can use a lot of them.

 

My problem is that Balbeggie Sidings has concrete track and colour light signals! Mmmmm, do I back date it or build something else?

 

John

[Poor Old Bruce]

Wheel diameter, wheelbase, boiler length, footplate....I could go on. Basically other than a generic family resemblance (and being pacifics) the two locos share very little.

I thought they used similar boilers but the A1 needed a longer smokebox.

[Bernard Lamb]

I thought they used similar boilers but the A1 needed a longer smokebox.

Sinilar,yes, up to a point. I quoted the differences in the wheelbase earlier in the thread and obviously the weight distribution has to fit onto the appropriate wheelbase. I find it interesting how a lot of people do not see the differences between these two classes. The diesel fraternity throw their toys out of the pram over dimensional errors of about a tenth of these.

I will not be buying one yet. Right name but wrong period on the first issues and far too much on my plate to start carving one up.

Bernard

[LN Lancs]

Can someone do a picture of an A1 and A2 side by side - I'm struggling to see the difference.

 

 

Here we are Sweeps, the A2 is on the left the A1 on the right. Despite the niggling problems aleardy mentioned I'm very happy with the two models.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[coachmann]

Aside from the drooping running plate under the cab, the lining is far too thick and bright judging by photos.

[bluex5]

I'm going to be blunt. I don't like the shade of green very much. It seems to be a trend that Bachmann started around the time of the retooled Jubilee for this bright lining and rather bizarre interpretation of BR Green.

[Guest Max Stafford]

I'm sure you'll agree though; with a bit of care it can be made to look very nice...?

 

Dave.

[CUTLER2579]

Dave,

two cracking looking Locomotives.

Regards.

[bluex5]

I've got an A1 in similar fettle, but if you want to donate the Jubilee then I would be happy to give it a new home I think the A2 just needs some weathering to take the brightness of the finish, then all will be well.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Thanks. The Jube's going nowhere though...!

 

Dave.

[robmcg]

Thanks. The Jube's going nowhere though...!

 

Dave.

 

Lovely photos, lovely finish. May I ask if the weathering is dusted, brushed or sprayed? The natural light certainly helps too!

 

Brilliant models and I have both BR A2s en route to NZ via Hattons, I hope the footplate issues are minor. My A1 60158 'Aberdonian', one of the early 2001 versions has a small amount of droop but it appears mostly to be in the lining, to my eyes. Even factory catalogue photos show a tiny amount. I don't think lens distortion did the Hattons' 50528 any favours either.

 

Below that is late Bachmann A1 60115 'Meg Merriles' with similar footplate and the cab steps are not quite right, maybe?

 

 

 

 

 

Rob

[davidw]

Here we are Sweeps, the A2 is on the left the A1 on the right. Despite the niggling problems aleardy mentioned I'm very happy with the two models.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It took me a while but the livery on the tender looks wrong. Shouldn't the green be taken up higher on the tender curve like the A1 or were A2's painted differently?

[coachmann]

The black panel at the top of the tender on 60537 is wrong for BR liveries. Tender without beading had the green taken to the coal space. Gresley tenders with beading often looked black above that beading, but whether they were painted black or whether the cleaners couldnt be bothered cleaning above the beading I don't know.

[Poor Old Bruce]

Looking at the picture of the A1 and A2 side-by-side, two questions arise:

 

Why do the locos look to be much the same length when the A1 should be 1ft 11.375in (almost 8mm in 4mm scale) longer than the A2?

 

and why does the A1 boiler look a lot shoprter than the A2's when they should be the same length as, according to the RCTS Green Books, both classes were fitted with Diagram 118 boilers?

 

Please tell me its a trick of the camera.

[G-BOAF]

Please tell me its a trick of the camera.

 

It would appear to be a trick of the camera, perspective, and lining up! The rear 3/4 view suggests that the tenders are not in line, with the A1 being further back. Or this is how it seems to be.

 

Somewhere there are some pics of the pre-production A2 and Bachmann Tornado at Barrow Hill. This shows the A2 is slightly shorter.

 

 

On another subject, what is going on with the droopy cabs. I've just seen some A2s in MZ. on Button especially, the firebox is not sitting squarely on teh chassis block, suggesting the running plate got 'pulled down' at the back (while not sitting properly further forwards) during assembly. A bit of fettling should fix this. The A2s were noticably better than the A1s, it will be interesting to compare the two face to face (or cab to cab!) - pics anyone?!

 

For the actual rear 'end point' of the running plate to be lower, and the loco steps to be completely out of line with the tender, the actual chassis rear is too low. Thus putting spacers under the rear body end doesn't actually solve the root of the problem. In an extreme interpretation, this would suggest the drivers are not in a line, and causing the loco to lean backwards, however I can't believe this is the correct interpretation.

 

RobMCG you have a very finely fettled A1, what's the trick?

[robmcg]

Hi G-BOAF

 

The A1s in my photos a few messages up are straight out of the box via Hattons, set to close-coupling or perhaps not coupled at all for the photo (I don't remember), they are modified, or 'photoshopped' (I use Paint Shop Pro 6) pics but NOT in the cab-tender or any other dimension. It wouldn't be hard to fix anything in a photo, though. I think the A2 in the early BR green Hattons pic may be a bit 'out' with cab droop but the lens used for their photo was not kind.

 

For what it's worth the coupling bar seems to have some effect on how the engine-tender sits, depending on its vertical alignment.

 

All three of my A1s have an apparent slight droop at the rear of the cab, and/or high tender, but it is very slight.

 

If the A2s are similar, I won't be complaining.

Here is a pic of early BR A1 60114 showing minimal droop, it helps to position the engine to de-accentuate the engine-tender gap...

Looks like the tender ride-height is too high too, with a Hornby Gresley not helping!

 

 

 

Best,

 

Rob

[micklner]

Has anyone checked the tender heights on the A1/A2 as both loco cabs are lower than the tender ?

 

In the MR review the photos make the difference in step heights even more noticeable. MR does even mention the difference in heights or the pronouced seam along the boiler sides. I does say that two types of boilers are being made but why the seam?

 

Perhaps its not the locos at fault but the tender ?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The top of the tender footplating is slightly overheight, and can vary a little model to model. This is mainly the thickness of the plastic used to represent the footplating, but the tender body often seats a little high on the chassis too, fouling on small bits of swarf and protruding legs of separately fitted detail. It is possible to adjust the seating internally, and drop the tender body slightly in relation to the chassis; and fine down the edge of the tender footplating from the underside which allows the bufferbeam to rise slightly relative to the bodywork as it butts directly on the underside of the footplating. (Bear in mind this all relates to the A1 as I don't have an A2, yet...)

 

Combined with adjusting the fits of the A1 body components, and straightening any deformations in the footplating, that sorted out the 'droopy cab' look for me. As proves necessary I anticipate doing the same on any A2s I eventually acquire, (when Bachmann make with the kylchap version on general release).

[davidw]

The top of the tender footplating is slightly overheight, and can vary a little model to model. This is mainly the thickness of the plastic used to represent the footplating, but the tender body often seats a little high on the chassis too, fouling on small bits of swarf and protruding legs of separately fitted detail. It is possible to adjust the seating internally, and drop the tender body slightly in relation to the chassis; and fine down the edge of the tender footplating from the underside which allows the bufferbeam to rise slightly relative to the bodywork as it butts directly on the underside of the footplating. (Bear in mind this all relates to the A1 as I don't have an A2, yet...)

 

Combined with adjusting the fits of the A1 body components, and straightening any deformations in the footplating, that sorted out the 'droopy cab' look for me. As proves necessary I anticipate doing the same on any A2s I eventually acquire, (when Bachmann make with the kylchap version on general release).

 

Any chance of a photo(s) illustrating this change?

[micklner]

Sounds good , however that will not get the Tender and Cartazzi Truck steps to then be inline ?? they are out of line on both the A1 and A2.

I have seen a picture of the new A2 and Hornby's L1 front to front and the front buffers on both are dead inline. This therefore suggests to me the tender is the culprit. I wonder if the tender buffers line up with other stock or are higher?. I dont own a A1 or A2 (wrong period for me) so cannot check.

[davidw]

Anyone any word on when Blue Peter will be available.

[robmcg]

As to A2 tender heights I am pleased to say that my two BR versions have arrived and are beautiful, the very slight droop on the horizontal lining below the cab side is of very little consequence to my eye, and the camera shows it as very minor, the cab and tender steps are quite close to equal-height. The cutoff lever below the running plate is not perfectly straight, and neither is the running plate itself, but then, it is still a simply astoundingly good model.

 

I look forward to detailing the model!

 

 

Rob

[Guest Max Stafford]

There's no late BR version yet - Blue Peter will fill that niche on this first issue.

Didn't the lower number plate go hand in hand with the lowered lamp-iron and split handrail, well into the late crest era?

 

Dave.

[sulzer27jd]

 

Didn't the lower number plate go hand in hand with the lowered lamp-iron and split handrail, well into the late crest era?

 

Dave.

 

Not necessarily, there is the lowered numberplate , high lamp and single handrail option, in the early crest.

 

John