Bachmann NRM/Locomotionmodels.com - GNR Ivatt C1

[The Stationmaster]

I'll need to see it in the flesh but it's not, strictly speaking, a deal breaker for me...yet. It looks odd there to be sure. I wonder if it will be noticable whilst running though.

 

There are compromises, and there are compromises.

It didn't show up too much when the engine was running on the rollers.  It is noticeable from some angles with the engine stationary and, as you've seen, it tends to stand out like a sore thumb in some photos - in fact I noticed it far more in photos than when looking at the model.  So I think you're right in your view Simon.  Of course we don't know if the production version will have such a dramatic 'set' in it?

[S.A.C Martin]

It didn't show up too much when the engine was running on the rollers.  It is noticeable from some angles with the engine stationary and, as you've seen, it tends to stand out like a sore thumb in some photos - in fact I noticed it far more in photos than when looking at the model.  So I think you're right in your view Simon.  Of course we don't know if the production version will have such a dramatic 'set' in it?

 

If Miss Prism hadn't posted the picture, I confess happily that I would not have noticed! But what is seen cannot be unseen and I am in two minds about it. I plan on buying mine to be run - one on a Leeds Pullman train and the other on a stopping local - so if it's not noticable while running, why should I get wound up about it?

 

I would agree with the view that potentially it will look odd stationary, in a cabinet, however for me it's not a deal breaker yet.

[JSpencer]

_{I think  the 1421 compound C1 atlantic could be even more challenging:}

 

_{http://locodriver.co.uk/Vol07/Part11/02/index.html}

[GNR Dave]

Damn it ! I assumed the BR version would have the early crest, pushing it beyond my period of interest. Looks like I'll be getting all three then.

Sandra, if you're reading this, be a love and send mine now. Not sure I can wait 'til Christmas, let alone 2015 !

[teaky]

No need to avoid the centre steps though.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

If Miss Prism hadn't posted the picture, I confess happily that I would not have noticed! But what is seen cannot be unseen and I am in two minds about it. I plan on buying mine to be run - one on a Leeds Pullman train and the other on a stopping local - so if it's not noticable while running, why should I get wound up about it? ...

And if it is, filing down the inside of the step if necessary, and fitting a straight connecting rod will fix it, if your layout curves permit.

[Adams442T]

_{I think  the 1421 compound C1 atlantic could be even more challenging:}

 

_{http://locodriver.co.uk/Vol07/Part11/02/index.html}

 

You might care to know that your link to Atlantic information, on going to Volume 1, threw up a JS/Agent Trojan activating virus, which my security blocked and neutralised, but others may not be as lucky.  Suggest the site manager gets his links checked out and de-bugged.

[JSpencer]

You might care to know that your link to Atlantic information, on going to Volume 1, threw up a JS/Agent Trojan activating virus, which my security blocked and neutralised, but others may not be as lucky.  Suggest the site manager gets his links checked out and de-bugged.

 

Ouch! If you cannot trust a train website, what can you trust?

[PrestburyJack]

So much pressure generated by this excellent thread that I'm afraid I finally cracked, went into Mr Smith's reading library and picked up a copy of Model Rail, started at the back page cos I thought the ad might be towards the back, couldn't find it, worked my way towards the front of the magazine, got to front page, still hadn't found the ad, looked on cover, noticed it wasn't actually the latest issue...

A true story.

 

I did exactly the same, whilst my wife stood next to me looking at her watch!

Just been back to Smiths, the Summer Model Rail is now in stock. Hope I'm not spoiling anything if I reveal that Locomotion are advertising a GNR C1 Atlantic No. 251 on page 131! Edited July 31, 2014 by garyeagger

[7013]

How similar are the Ivatt C1 and the Southern Atlantic, they both look similar to my untrained eye.ŷy

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Developed from the same platform. Earle Marsh went from Doncaster to Brighton, with a set of Ivatt C1 drawings, marking the changes he wanted in red ink so the story goes.

[Adams442T]

How similar are the Ivatt C1 and the Southern Atlantic, they both look similar to my untrained eye.ŷy

If you read the Graham_Muz blogpost under the Bachmann LBSC Atlantic posted 29th July he gives an excellent account of the differences. More than one might think from a superficially similar design, which will probably entail a completely separate tooling.

 

Still if it's anything like the C1 l suspect it will be worth waiting for!

[GNR Dave]

The cab shape is the biggest visual difference for me. I'm also guessing that as one was built at Doncaster and the other at Brighton, many 'off the shelf items' would be unique to their respective builders.

[railroadbill]

Help needed. I've been looking at various references regarding 251 . 

 

One reference says that when withdrawn as 2800 in July 1947 loco had piston valve cylinders (which must have been replacements at some time)  and 32 element superheater.  When restored "to GNR condition"  a boiler from 3278 and slide valve cylinders from  2868 were fitted. The boiler had the superheater elements removed, which caused poor steaming when 251 was run again with 990 on the "Plant Centenarian"  excursion  in 1953 and other specials in 1954.  

 

Another source says that there were still 9 locos with slide valves in 1945.

 

My query is, was there any external difference between slide valve/piston valve engines (which I can't make out) but  primarily between superheated boilers and the original saturated type?

 

So does 251 as preserved now look exactly the same externally as it did when first built?  If so, that's fine but otherwise if there are differences, which era does the model represent?

[Cooped]

I'd love to order one of these, but 'er with the purse strings is quiting work to go back to college for a year (ish) so probably not a good idea (some of my existing pre-orders may have to bite the dust too). One thing I don't understand though, and maybe one of you kind chaps can help me out here. With the connecting rod/steps thing, how is it that it could be a problem needing the slight bend in the rod given that the scale is 1/76, but the guage is already smaller at 1/87? Surely this gives more room for clearance past the steps?

[Guest spet0114]

Help needed. I've been looking at various references regarding 251 . 

 

One reference says that when withdrawn as 2800 in July 1947 loco had piston valve cylinders (which must have been replacements at some time)  and 32 element superheater.  When restored "to GNR condition"  a boiler from 3278 and slide valve cylinders from  2868 were fitted. The boiler had the superheater elements removed, which caused poor steaming when 251 was run again with 990 on the "Plant Centenarian"  excursion  in 1953 and other specials in 1954.  

 

Another source says that there were still 9 locos with slide valves in 1945.

 

My query is, was there any external difference between slide valve/piston valve engines (which I can't make out) but  primarily between superheated boilers and the original saturated type?

 

So does 251 as preserved now look exactly the same externally as it did when first built?  If so, that's fine but otherwise if there are differences, which era does the model represent?

If memory serves, No. 251 had 'dummy' superheater elements put back in, in an attempt to improve steaming.

 

The NRM model represents the loco in 2014 condition. The loco itself is (probably) broadly representative of GNR service condition, but doubtless with a selection of minor detail differences that betray the fact that it was a BR loco that was 'backdated'.

[gr.king]

Not quite true, 251 was withdrawn and "restored" a little before nationalisation, so it wasn't a BR loco.

 

Right about the dummy s/h elements to force the gases passing through the big flues to actually heat the walls, and to ensure that most of the gases actually went more usefully through the small tubes.

[JSpencer]

I'd love to order one of these, but 'er with the purse strings is quiting work to go back to college for a year (ish) so probably not a good idea (some of my existing pre-orders may have to bite the dust too). One thing I don't understand though, and maybe one of you kind chaps can help me out here. With the connecting rod/steps thing, how is it that it could be a problem needing the slight bend in the rod given that the scale is 1/76, but the guage is already smaller at 1/87? Surely this gives more room for clearance past the steps?

Unfortunately the model is required to go round far tighter radiuses than the prototype, this means more side play. Like wise the steps in the real C1 uses very thin plates, the model over thickness for the simple reason that it would easily deform or tear off if not. Thus it is tighter than the real C1 despite gaining 6 scale inches to play with.

[gr.king]

I recognise the genuinely straight section, and maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough earlier, but my point is that Bachmann's straight section appears to be a lot longer than the prototype's. I do not underestimate the trickiness in CAD and tooling to get these two moulding pieces to fit more snuggly, but this is an area that could and should be improved in my opinion. Moreover (sorry, Mike), I don't think this discrepancy will alter under a coat of paint.

 

gnr-atlantic-comparison.jpg

Further to the above, here's the DJH model. Notwithstanding whitemetal construction which is not renowned for being wafer thin, there is no excessive "flat" on the rear of the splasher. In fact it probably overdoes things in the opposite sense, being slightly recessed into the firebox front and hence it has no straight-cut portion at all. I fancy Bachmann could have found a way to get it right in injection moulded plastic....

 

 

With thin metal con-rods and thin metal backplates to the steps, it requires no kinky features either. I see little point to the fitting of convincingly "chunky" cast con rods to RTR models if they then have to feature a wholly unrealistic dog-leg in order to work.

Edited July 31, 2014 by gr.king

[Ronny]

Congratulations to Bachmann/HRM

 

I have wanted an Ivatt C1 since I was ten years Old

 

Thank you ;-)

 

You should have started saving then... boom boom

[gr.king]

Another observation: The "as preserved" 251 model appears to have piston tail rods. Does 251 have these at present? If so, should it really have them? RCTS 3A reports tail rods as a feature added on superheating and 251 is supposed to be in as near original condition as possible. Perhaps the addition of the tailrods was one of the one-time numerous mythical "necessities" for a superheated loco, according to Herr Dr Schmidt??

[railroadbill]

Another observation: The "as preserved" 251 model appears to have piston tail rods. Does 251 have these at present? If so, should it really have them? RCTS 3A reports tail rods as a feature added on superheating and 251 is supposed to be in as near original condition as possible. Perhaps the addition of the tailrods was one of the one-time numerous mythical "necessities" for a superheated loco, according to Herr Dr Schmidt??

This was really my question in post 618 - how "original" is the external condition of 251 now,  and is the Bachmann model intended to represent the current state as preserved or as the loco first appeared, if there are indeed differences?

 

 

They did best when the Robinson superheaters replaced the Schmidt ones, according to C J Allen  (British Atlantic Locomotives)

 

 

edit for typos

Edited July 31, 2014 by railroadbill

[coachmann]

Further to the above, here's the DJH model. Notwithstanding whitemetal construction which is not renowned for being wafer thin, there is no excessive "flat" on the rear of the splasher. In fact it probably overdoes things in the opposite sense, being slightly recessed into the firebox front and hence it has no straight-cut portion at all. I fancy Bachmann could have found a way to get it right in injection moulded plastic....

 

STA79618 atlantic full LHS.jpg

STA79618 atlantic firebox LHS.jpg

 

With thin metal con-rods and thin metal backplates to the steps, it requires no kinky features either. I see little point to the fitting of convincingly "chunky" cast con rods to RTR models if they then have to feature a wholly unrealistic dog-leg in order to work.

I painted a number of  Atlantics, but none were built to go around toytown curves. Was the model that is illustrated? Secondly, the DJH Atlantic does indeed have a flat section of beading on the rear splasher but the painter has lined it as a continuous arc, though it looks like DJH only flattened the outer edge.

Edited August 1, 2014 by coachmann

[farren]

I would like to see the stats that support that view.  I don't know whether on average German living standards are currently higher than the UK, but I do know that at the lower extreme they are not.

 

UK Minimum wage 2013 £6.31 per hour (not a lot I will grant you) - introduced to try and activate the job market and get people back to work.  Now used to keep wages down.

Germany - no minimum wage   Concept set up of the 650€ job (that is per month not week - I think at todays exchange that equates to £3.45/hr )  - introduced to try and activate the job market and get people back to work.  Now used to keep wages down.

 

Doing the exact calculations is difficult because of tax breaks and subsidies paid (in cash or kind) to low paid workers, but that is a very big gap.

 

I cannot speak for the Netherlands.

What you have to remember is in the UK we get taxed on almost every thing. I now many a year ago there was a paper flying around that had done the maths and for ever pound we spent over 80 % may have been as high as 87% of of it went in taxes.

[Dunsignalling]

What you have to remember is in the UK we get taxed on almost every thing. I now many a year ago there was a paper flying around that had done the maths and for ever pound we spent over 80 % may have been as high as 87% of of it went in taxes.

Some time in the Seventies IIRC. Nowadays its only anywhere near that when filling your car up.

 

John

Edited August 1, 2014 by Dunsignalling