Bachmann announce 0-6-2T L&NWR Webb Coal Tank

[amdaley]

Mine just arrived, 7841 was the last to work my branch in 1951, complete with 7A shed plate so nothing except weathering needed.

Tried on the layout and it caught on one place on my check rails (a lot of them on my branch). Removed the keeper plate (6 screws) but found not really needed to so back on. Bend back 2mm on each of the 4 pick ups and tuck them in behind the keeper, then adjust tension. Job done, 10 minutes with small tweezers, running great.

Well done Merfyn.

 

Any chance of a photo because I'm finding it difficult to picture this in my head ?

 

Tony.

[Budgie]

My BR version arrived today, so I started running it in on my code 100 test track in DC. This loco is a bit quick, measuring out at 103 m.p.h. on my Gaugegmaster Combi.

 

Then I installed a Zimo MX618 decoder, and tested that; top speed was 82 m.p.h.

 

And I had no trouble with the pickups on the points; which doesn't mean I won't have problems in the future.

[Merfyn Jones]

Well done Merfyn.

 

Any chance of a photo because I'm finding it difficult to picture this in my head ?

 

Tony.

 

Hope this helps.

 

[bertiedog]

Bachmann have set the tips of the pickups just below the level of the tyre, not a very good place to put them, and indicative of a complete lack of testing over real track. They run OK on basic track, but as soon as checkrails or the point crossover, then the pickups foul the back to back, and catch or bend.

 

With good grace I would suggest that the locos have never been properly tested after the final assembly, and that something happened in between the design, testing and production. The parts cannot easily be assembled wrong, the pickups are simply too long, and need the end turned over or clipped off. Maybe there is enough room for miss assembly, and miss alignment, and this explains why not all Coal Tank models do it.

 

Thank goodness it is a tiny issue, and might not even show on older code 100 points, where the pickup could travel along the flangeway due to it being wider. But it is worth checking anyway on all examples and putting it right as and when needed.

 

Stephen.

[amdaley]

Hope this helps.

 

DSCN8532.JPG

 

Great stuff Merfyn.

This is exactly what I had in mind but wasn't sure it would work or not.

I was afraid that doing it that way might put to much pressure on the backs of the wheels & stop any sideways movement ?

I presume you were able to do that with the keeper plate in situ ?

 

Another way I suppose would have been to cut a few mm off the pickups & just bend them in to the wheel backs ?

 

Tony.

[Guest spet0114]

Doesn't prove anything, but here's my Coal Tank pottering happily around the circuit at a recent club running night. Coped admirably with some reasonably complex pointwork.....

 

[coachmann]

Bachmann have set the tips of the pickups just below the level of the tyre, not a very good place to put them, and indicative of a complete lack of testing over real track. They run OK on basic track, but as soon as checkrails or the point crossover, then the pickups foul the back to back, and catch or bend.

 

With good grace I would suggest that the locos have never been properly tested after the final assembly, and that something happened in between the design, testing and production. The parts cannot easily be assembled wrong, the pickups are simply too long, and need the end turned over or clipped off. Maybe there is enough room for miss assembly, and miss alignment, and this explains why not all Coal Tank models do it.

 

Thank goodness it is a tiny issue, and might not even show on older code 100 points, where the pickup could travel along the flangeway due to it being wider. But it is worth checking anyway on all examples and putting it right as and when needed.

 

Stephen.

Personally I prefer to read hands-on advice and helpful tips from people who have bought one, not armchair pundits. 

 

My own small contribution was to test the 'Coal Tank' on  Peco large radius Code 75 and Peco code 83 points before adding the parts from the accessory pack and Kadee couplings....Size 17 at back and 18 at front. I can report no problems and it runs like a dream on DC.  So no mods required here.

[melmerby]

Hope this helps.

 

DSCN8532.JPG

I wonder whether bending them in the opposite direction might work?

In that case you are still using the full length of the spring and contact on the end, but using the back rather than the  front.

I will investigate. I have decided to keep mine and look at the options but must run it first to check it's OK.

 

Keith

[Trains4U]

I wonder whether bending them in the opposite direction might work?

In that case you are still using the full length of the spring and contact on the end, but using the back rather than the  front.

I will investigate. I have decided to keep mine and look at the options but must run it first to check it's OK.

 

Keith

This is what I had considered, but upon looking, the wipers are not long enough.   Because the keeper plate is below axle level, and the wipers are not quarter circles (More 1/6 of a circle) the effect would be the they point towards the axle, rather than the wheel rim - they would then foul the spokes of the wheels

 

The bending back option seems to be working OK for some, but it is a warranty invalidation - not something I would do to shop stock! 

[melmerby]

This is what I had considered, but upon looking, the wipers are not long enough.   Because the keeper plate is below axle level, and the wipers are not quarter circles (More 1/6 of a circle) the effect would be the they point towards the axle, rather than the wheel rim - they would then foul the spokes of the wheels

 

The bending back option seems to be working OK for some, but it is a warranty invalidation - not something I would do to shop stock! 

If you bend them as Merfyn has done but in the opposite direction the end will be in the same place as on Merfyn's but with the contact end inward towards the back of the wheel instead of outward.

Any mod of course invalidates the warranty

 

Keith

Edited May 21, 2017 by melmerby

[1BCamden]

My own contribution was to test the 'Coal Tank' on Peco large radius Code 75 and Peco code 83 points before adding the parts from the accessory pack and Kadee couplings....Size 17 at back and 18 at front. I can report no problems and it runs like a dream on DC. So no mods required here.

WEB Coal Tank 1.jpg

Hi Coach, your comments got me to unpack the coal tank and check it again, interestingly when run over a single slip crossover and point combination only one pick up sits marginally below any of the check rail heights, also all the pick ups angle into the wheel or tyre flanges. I tried to photo the clearances, but it's difficult to capture the detail, suffice to say none of them "picked up"

 

Couple of photos show the offending and non offending pick up arms, so as they say "The jury is out on this one"

 

Thanks for dropping the Kadee sizes in there, very helpful.

Edited May 21, 2017 by 1BCamden

[Ian Hargrave]

If you bend them as Merfyn has done but in the opposite direction the end will be in the same place as on Merfyn's but with the contact end inward towards the back of the wheel instead of outward.

Any mod of course invalidates the warranty

 

Keith

Of course it does.To follow on from this issue,if there truly is an endemic problem,it should be subject to a recall by Bachmann to Barwell for rectification.At the moment that is a big"if".as problems reported here seem random and inconclusive.Bodging a fix yourself just might be counter productive and an expensive mistake.

[melmerby]

Bodging a fix yourself just might be counter productive and an expensive mistake.

If Bachmann have little in the way of returns/complaints then it will be deemed OK and we could find the same problem on their next & subsequent releases.

However if those with contacts with the trade (Andy, Dibber & co) pass on the obvious problems some are having with such a low pickup position Bachmann might listen.

 

keith

[Ian Hargrave]

If Bachmann have little in the way of returns/complaints then it will be deemed OK and we could find the same problem on their next & subsequent releases.

However if those with contacts with the trade (Andy, Dibber & co) pass on the obvious problems some are having with such a low pickup position Bachmann might listen.

 

keith

 

Yes of course.But I did use the word "endemic" advisedly. Remember also that not every purchaser/prospective purchaser is a member of this forum and will be perhaps unaware of this potential issue.Bachmann contrary to the opinions of some are sensitive to customer feedback and IF there is an acknowledged malfunction critical enough to trigger a recall they will do so.As we must know they have followed this course of action previously.In any case it may be a little early in the day for that.Best not to rush to judgement just yet.

[coachmann]

I've been lucky, but some people are clearly having problems. To me, the manufacturers workaround looks to be a new phosphor bronze pick-up tray with horizontal pick-ups even though they would show behind the spokes. They are nothing new in fact.  In th'owden days when we built loco bodies on RTR chassis, we poked a brush thru' the spokes to paint the visible parts black. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by coachmann

[Joe MCMLXI]

This is my BR Coal Tank, that recently arrived, running through a few Peco Code 100 points, it was ok on these, Small 'Y', Medium radius Left and Large radius Right, as shown in this video.

But it derailed later, on another section of track, that included had a Code 100, SetTrack curved point, though I have had issues with other stock, running through this point and am looking at ways of removing it..... Joe

 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Joe MCMLXI

[Nile]

DON'T PANIC!

I don't think major surgery is needed to fix this problem, just some small adjustments to the pick-ups that shouldn't invalidate any warranty.

This is the before photo. Note the variation in the height of the pick-ups, which may explain why some aren't having any problems.

 

This is after bending the pick-ups slightly so that they rest on the inner edge of the wheel. There is about 1mm between the edge and the back of the spokes, so they shouldn't catch on them. The steel rule is resting on the wheel treads.

[Compound2632]

I'm looking forward to Nile backdating his to original condition with sloping smokebox front etc...

[Penlan]

I'm looking forward to Nile backdating his to original condition with sloping smokebox front etc...

No, No, I'm doing that   

though with a K's  (and a LRM chassis).

I admit it's been in a box, 25% built, for 25+ years,

but now it's on it's way, ready for Cardiff show in October (Stock for Dunvant).

 

BTW, The chimney is a lost wax casting, I believe, from Ian Rice,

it's been in the spares box (with lots of other bits)  for many a year.

The lamp holders are LRM's lost wax.  Handrails have not been added yet.

 

Oh dear, that lining needs removing and starting again.

Digital cameras have a lot to answer for, let alone my failing eye sight (and hearing).

 

 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Penlan

[bertiedog]

Personally I prefer to read hands-on advice and helpful tips from people who have bought one, not armchair pundits. 

 

My own small contribution was to test the 'Coal Tank' on  Peco large radius Code 75 and Peco code 83 points before adding the parts from the accessory pack and Kadee couplings....Size 17 at back and 18 at front. I can report no problems and it runs like a dream on DC.  So no mods required here.

WEB Coal Tank 1.jpg

Before connecting this comment with the posting, perhaps you do not read advice. I posted on experience based on two of my own examples and others quoted here, and offered advice to adjust them, already covered in the previous post. My experience is nearly 48 years of making models for myself and clients, I am no armchair pundit.I have designed kits, manufactured parts and motors, and the only struggle I have in old age is getting out of an armchair.

 

If you care to look at 668 the photos show the problem and the very minor tweak to cure it. It is still fair comment to say they should not have been delivered this way.

The running in was done on a rolling road, where I did not see the issue, it was then tested on track without points, and then tested on points where one of the pickups bent and caught the frog, at which point I checked the other one, which also caught the frog. I assumed that they were just rogue cases till reading about the issue on here

Edited May 21, 2017 by bertiedog

[melmerby]

DON'T PANIC!

I don't think major surgery is needed to fix this problem, just some small adjustments to the pick-ups that shouldn't invalidate any warranty.

This is the before photo. Note the variation in the height of the pick-ups, which may explain why some aren't having any problems.

CT01.JPG

 

This is after bending the pick-ups slightly so that they rest on the inner edge of the wheel. There is about 1mm between the edge and the back of the spokes, so they shouldn't catch on them. The steel rule is resting on the wheel treads.

CT02.JPG

Before reading your post I had done a bit of testing on my trackwork and found only two of the four suspect wipers actually caught on the check rails, noticing that they were about 1mm lower than the other two at normal wheel position.

I decided to tweak them and ended up in more or less the same positions that you have done.

 

Note though that as the wheel face pushes toward the wiper, due to the angle it is it will move lower on the wheel back.

With a bit of judicious bending I think I have found a satisfactory median. Not too high when the wheel is furthest away from the wiper and not too low so that it catches on the track when it is at it's closest position.

 

I was going to post this as a suggestion but you beat me to it!

 

Keith

 

Edit typo

Edited May 21, 2017 by melmerby

[bertiedog]

The reason it may not show up on all examples is shown in the drawing, the pickup is tight to the back of the wheel and passes down the flangeway, but the degree of tightness depends on the position of the wheel on a curve, where the spring would effectively block the back to back clearance and could catch on the frog or blades.

Some users are not having problems at all, but the potential for a fault is there and it merely requires a check and very minor bend to the pickup to eliminate the problem entirely. all gone!!

[Martin_R]

DON'T PANIC!

I don't think major surgery is needed to fix this problem, just some small adjustments to the pick-ups that shouldn't invalidate any warranty.

This is the before photo. Note the variation in the height of the pick-ups, which may explain why some aren't having any problems.

CT01.JPG

 

This is after bending the pick-ups slightly so that they rest on the inner edge of the wheel. There is about 1mm between the edge and the back of the spokes, so they shouldn't catch on them. The steel rule is resting on the wheel treads.

CT02.JPG

Just done the very same mod with just a pair of very fine pointed tweezers!?! Now runs through every bit of my pointwork like a dream.

 

One observation on mine was that the pickups only contacted the rim when wheels were central in chassis, move the wheels away and there was little or no tension so perhaps this was more the problem than the height? All fixed now thanks to all for the various suggestions/solutions - RMweb at its best!

[No Decorum]

I can’t say that mine has given me anything but delight (Code 100 & large radius electrofrogs) but I must say I admire the way people have pitched in to sort problems out. As Martin_R says, RMweb at its best!

 

This little loco goes back to the days when firegrates were small and could fit between driving axles. Advantage was taken of this to place them low down to obtain the maximum volume in the firebox. I dare say no-one thought that it would give Bachmann problems. As firegrates got bigger, they had to pass over an axle, leading to problems with Lord Nelsons and Jubilees in particular but making it easier to fit pick ups. You win some, you lose some.

[coachmann]

I can’t say that mine has given me anything but delight (Code 100 & large radius electrofrogs) but I must say I admire the way people have pitched in to sort problems out. As Martin_R says, RMweb at its best!

 

This little loco goes back to the days when firegrates were small and could fit between driving axles. Advantage was taken of this to place them low down to obtain the maximum volume in the firebox. I dare say no-one thought that it would give Bachmann problems. As firegrates got bigger, they had to pass over an axle, leading to problems with Lord Nelsons and Jubilees in particular but making it easier to fit pick ups. You win some, you lose some.

Except on locos with a rear carrying truck, all firegrates and ashpans went between the frames. If a designer had any sense, he also positioned them between axles. Robinson didn't on his 4-6-0 designs and ran into all sorts of trouble with poor steaming etc because he was forced to use a shallow almost level grate.