Collett Goods loco

[coachmann]

Locos could pull good loads so long as they weren't asked to pull them at speed. Those of us who used the summer extras out of Manchester Victoria or around the Oldham loop that were destined for Blackpool were well used to seeing whatever was available on the front. Up until the early 1950's the elderly L&YR 3F 0-6-0's were be no means unusual. The 4F 0-6-0's continued the 'day excursion' tradition into the early 1960's.

[melmerby]

Sticking a Hornby 28XX Tender drive Tender behind is a really great way to increase traction...   

I really want to see a load of plastic cogs - not!

 

Keith

[melmerby]

I bought a 32-304A (Churchward Tender) last week and as noted above found it to be seriously down on weight.

The loco (DCC ready) weighed just 148gm out of the box

 

After fitting a DCC decoder the next step was to start piling on the pounds (grams actually!)

Loading lead as previously shown plus some I managed to get an all up weight of 201gm which i think will make a distinct improvement to it's haulage capacity.

 

Showing lead on chassis (plus decoder):

Note the decoder is wired in to save space

 

 

Some lead  in smokebox:

 

Fully assembled:

 

The tender supplied is designed for a plug & socket connexion with the loco and provision for the decoder, but these are left out on this release.

That could be a possible upgrade by fitting a plug & socket & removing the DCC socket from the loco making room for even more ballast

 

Cheers

 

Keith

 

Edit

My non DCC ready loco has it's decoder fitted in a slight recess in the top of the boiler plug and the all up weight is 198gm.

Edited July 29, 2018 by melmerby

[melmerby]

For completeness here is my non - DCC ready version, complete with decoder:

 

 

This weighs 198gms with body on

 

Keith

 

Edit note the track connexions come through the square hole, they always did!

Edited July 30, 2018 by melmerby

[57xx]

Fully assembled:

collett 3.jpg

Have you fixed the wiper for the centre wheel yet?

[JSpencer]

I bought a 32-304A (Churchward Tender) last week and as noted above found it to be seriously down on weight.

The loco (DCC ready) weighed just 148gm out of the box

 

After fitting a DCC decoder the next step was to start piling on the pounds (grams actually!)

Loading lead as previously shown plus some I managed to get an all up weight of 201gm which i think will make a distinct improvement to it's haulage capacity.

 

Showing lead on chassis (plus decoder):

Collett 1.jpg

Note the decoder is wired in to save space

 

 

Some lead  in smokebox:

collett 2.jpg

 

Fully assembled:

collett 3.jpg

 

The tender supplied is designed for a plug & socket connexion with the loco and provision for the decoder, but these are left out on this release.

That could be a possible upgrade by fitting a plug & socket & removing the DCC socket from the loco making room for even more ballast

 

Cheers

 

Keith

 

Edit

My non DCC ready loco has it's decoder fitted in a slight recess in the top of the boiler plug and the all up weight is 198gm.

Bachmann clearly missed an opportunity to give the model a proper drawbar (I was surprised that any model in their range still used that dated plastic hook) put all the DCC stuff in the tender and leave the weight alone.

 

To be honest though, given its Mainline origins, money would have been better spent on a complete retool.

[melmerby]

Bachmann clearly missed an opportunity to give the model a proper drawbar (I was surprised that any model in their range still used that dated plastic hook) put all the DCC stuff in the tender and leave the weight alone.

 

To be honest though, given its Mainline origins, money would have been better spent on a complete retool.

The loco is not of Mainline origins. It is a completely new body on a Bachmann designed chassis. The tender however......

I would agree however it is time the loco drawbar was modified up to current standards with tender mount decoder (& sound for those that partake), then the original solid chassis could return.

 

Keith

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The loco is not of Mainline origins. It is a completely new body on a Bachmann designed chassis...

 Still has inherited 'Mainline DNA' though, where else did the undersize driving wheels and resulting disproportions in the body work come from? Bach's next 0-6-0 was the J39, and that they got dimensionally correct as 'all their own work', as has become typical of the all newly tooled products that have been introduced since.

 

The current 2251 model suffers from being such an early introduction. Improved technique has brought us some very good 0-6-0 models lately, with sufficient weight for traction, unimpeded airspace between boiler undersides and  frames and competent concealed drive lines; despite the challenges of small diameter boilers and all that goes with that. Sadly I fear there isn't the demand for a new tooling, what with a forty odd year supply of an OK-ish rendition out there...

[JSpencer]

 Still has inherited 'Mainline DNA' though, where else did the undersize driving wheels and resulting disproportions in the body work come from? Bach's next 0-6-0 was the J39, and that they got dimensionally correct as 'all their own work', as has become typical of the all newly tooled products that have been introduced since.

 

The current 2251 model suffers from being such an early introduction. Improved technique has brought us some very good 0-6-0 models lately, with sufficient weight for traction, unimpeded airspace between boiler undersides and  frames and competent concealed drive lines; despite the challenges of small diameter boilers and all that goes with that. Sadly I fear there isn't the demand for a new tooling, what with a forty odd year supply of an OK-ish rendition out there...

 

I think the J39 was before the 2251, the former being split drive solid buffers often without the blackenned rods and wheels in the early or mid 90s. People speculated at the time that the J39 would be followed by a J38 which never happened. The later 2251 being directly into the Blue Ribbon range which was at the end of the 90s.

 

I had thought the 2251 was the same Mainline tooling revamped to give a cab and other improvements, just as their first spectrum range class 46 was Mainlines class 45 revamped (the split drive of this loco was considered superb at the time, looks horrible now).

Edited August 14, 2018 by JSpencer

[phil-b259]

I had thought the 2251 was the same Mainline tooling revamped to give a cab and other improvements, just as their first spectrum range class 46 was Mainlines class 45 revamped (the split drive of this loco was considered superb at the time, looks horrible now).

Nope.

 

The LOCO was a brand new design - body AND chassis which launched the ‘blue ribbon’ branded release of the early 1990s which dispensed with things like the split chassis concept and added loads of previously ignored extra detailing.

 

If Bachmann got any of the dimensions wrong it is because they designed them that way from scratch - not because they ‘copied’ or ‘reused’ the previous mainline releases.

 

The TENDER was however simply a reissue of the mainline era one - hence its less refined appearance and the somewhat crude design of loco - tender linkage.

Edited August 16, 2018 by phil-b259

[melmerby]

Note sure why the undersize driving wheels are such a concern as they are still within normal wear tolerances being bang on 5' 0" (0.8mm undersize)

Bigger ones would mean oversize splashers.

I think it is a pretty good effort from 25years ago and the pre DCC one is a fair weight as well.

 

Keith

Edited August 17, 2018 by melmerby

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I have only ever had one to look closely at, a friend's early example which I converted to DCC. The wheels were a tad over 18mm diameter on the tyres just as on the 57xx which I was converting at the same time. Decent for 4'7'5", well undersize for 5'2". Has the model been updated since?

[melmerby]

I have only ever had one to look closely at, a friend's early example which I converted to DCC. The wheels were a tad over 18mm diameter on the tyres just as on the 57xx which I was converting at the same time. Decent for 4'7'5", well undersize for 5'2". Has the model been updated since?

Just measured a brand new one, 32-304A, first time out the box and my vernier gives me 19.98mm

My 1992/3 vintage well used original 32-300 is 19.85mm.

A 57XX was a tad under 18.5mm, definitely different wheelsets

 

Keith

Edited August 17, 2018 by melmerby

[melmerby]

I have now run in and set up my 1st 32-304A and I'm pleasantly surprised as how smooth a runner it is

Top speed was slightly higher than the 32-300 so it needed a bit of decoder tweak to get the same as the the earlier one.

 

Considering the later one supposedly has a 3 -pole "house" motor compared to a better quality 5 -pole in the earlier one there doesn't seem to be any inferiority when running.

 

Both locos have Lenz Silver Mini + decoders.

 

Keith

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I was disappointed all those years ago when Bachmann ceased to put five pole motors in their 'Blue Riband' steam models. (This had actually been part of the advertised feature set of the new range.) But having taken up DCC it was quickly evident that a good decoder would mask any small loss of refinement in performance, there's no visible evidence of the motor type inside.

[The Johnster]

Modern 3-pole 'house' motors may be disposable items with 'no user serviceable parts', cheap chuck away chattels, but they are very good little things indeed which turn in very smooth performances indeed, and are to all intents and purposes silent and maintenance free for reasonable working lives.  They are probably as 'good' as many older 5-poles.  I'd say that a good 5-pole beats a good 3-pole any day, but that the gap has narrowed since I were a lad and everything were in black and white...

 

As to wheel diameter, as it happens I have an ancient Mainline 2251 chassis stripped down at the moment and have just roughly measured the driving wheels to be pretty close to a scale 5'2" at the flange on a cutting board scale ruler, suggesting that the actual wheels are underscale diameter slightly, which would not be incorrect for a real loco that has done a few miles since it's last overhaul and tyre replacement.  They are certainly not the same wheels as on either an old, now dead, Mainline 57xx or the current Baccy 57xx.  

 

This suggests that the old Mainline body moulding, which is pretty much the same as the modern Baccy one, or at least an improved version of it as opposed to a completely new tooling designed from scratch, as is IMHO proved by the coupling hook for the tender discussed earlier in this thread, has room for very near correct diameter wheels in it's splashers, and I would assume the current model to have these.  They do not look radically out of scale or too small on the catalogue picture; I have yet to see the current loco 'in the plastic' but would be very surprised if Baccy had got this badly wrong.

 

My interest is in the upcoming (allegedly) 94xx, which will probably have substantially the same chassis as the 2251 but with smaller driving wheels; the real loco is more akin to the 2251 than to a 57xx/8750.  The shape of the frames is the same on 2251 as on 94xx, and different, slightly longer and more sloped at the front, from the 57xx.

[phil-b259]

This suggests that the old Mainline body moulding, which is pretty much the same as the modern Baccy one, or at least an improved version of it as opposed to a completely new tooling designed from scratch, as is IMHO proved by the coupling hook for the tender discussed earlier in this thread........

And how pray tell do you expect a brand new loco to couple to an ancient tender then?

 

As far as I know you either have to modify the tender tooling or recreate the ‘old’ coupling on an otherwise completely new model.

 

Also if the original Mainline model was accurate why shouldn’t an all new replacement be equally accurate?

[eastglosmog]

I think the tyres on the model are too thick (over 1mm) to represent a well worn example.

[The Johnster]

And how pray tell do you expect a brand new loco to couple to an ancient tender then?

 

As far as I know you either have to modify the tender tooling or recreate the ‘old’ coupling on an otherwise completely new model.

 

Also if the original Mainline model was accurate why shouldn’t an all new replacement be equally accurate?

 

It can be equally accurate in terms of proportions and dimensions, but improved; thinner cab sheets, glazing, backhead details, lamp irons, sprung buffers and so on.  And if a new chassis is used that cannot use the original mounting points or will foul the new motor, then the body must be retooled, even if not completely, to accommodate it.

 

Often 'new toolings' are not complete re-toolings from scratch, but improved versions of the old ones, whose 'DNA' they retain.  If the manufacture states categorically that the new version is completely re-tooled I have sufficient faith in them to believe this, but that statement is not always made and I would then assume it to be a modification of the older version.  

 

My world is grey, not black or white.

[melmerby]

can anybody confirm which way round the tender/loco coupling was on the Mainline Collett?

The reason I ask is that the hook on the Manor & 43XX are on the tender not the loco on an otherwise similar tender.

I sold my Mainline Collett 10 years ago so have no recall whether it was the same.

 

Keith

 

Edit Answered my own question:

http://tri-angman.co.uk/shop/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMG_4273-1024x768.jpg

 

The hook is on the tender, so the tender on the Bachmann Collett is not exactly the same.

Strange Bachmann did what they did!

Edited August 21, 2018 by melmerby

[melmerby]

Further to the above:

 

Mainline Collett Tender (with loco)

http://tri-angman.co.uk/shop/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMG_4276.jpg

http://tri-angman.co.uk/shop/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/IMG_0088.jpg

 

Two Mainline Tenders (43XX & Manor) with a Bachmann 32-300 Collett Tender:

 

From that evidence I would conclude the Bachmann tender and the Mainline tender for the Collett loco are two different beasts

Bachmann haven't just used the Mainline one, they have produced a new one, but with a similar (not same) drawbar arrangement.

 

I would conclude that the Bachmann 2251 & the Mainline 2251 are two completely different locos, tenders et al.

 

Keith

Edited August 21, 2018 by melmerby

[DCB]

It can be equally accurate in terms of proportions and dimensions, but improved; thinner cab sheets, glazing, backhead details, lamp irons, sprung buffers and so on.  And if a new chassis is used that cannot use the original mounting points or will foul the new motor, then the body must be retooled, even if not completely, to accommodate it.

 

Often 'new toolings' are not complete re-toolings from scratch, but improved versions of the old ones, whose 'DNA' they retain.  If the manufacture states categorically that the new version is completely re-tooled I have sufficient faith in them to believe this, but that statement is not always made and I would then assume it to be a modification of the older version.  

 

My world is grey, not black or white.

The running plate /buffer centre line anomaly was carried over quite bizarrely when there is a 2251 still very much in existence which could be measured or at least photographed. I have always suspected that Mainline intended to use the same chassis for a Pannier and the Tender chassis has the axle holes too far up to bring the tender running plate level with the locos.

This carried over into the tooling for other Collet tenders including the earlier Hornby loco drive Castles. The Churchward Tender for the Manor and 43XX were much better. The Mainline Tenders did at least run and stay on the track a lot better than the later Bachmann/ Hornby chassis in the photo above!

Some locos like the Hornby 8750 pannier catch the look of the prototype while being pretty hopeless dimension wise.

The Bachmann 2251 fails to catch the look of the prototype despite not being far out. its the Face which looks so wrong and the Churchward tender running pate being noticeably higher than the locos.

[melmerby]

The running plate /buffer centre line anomaly was carried over quite bizarrely when there is a 2251 still very much in existence which could be measured or at least photographed. I have always suspected that Mainline intended to use the same chassis for a Pannier and the Tender chassis has the axle holes too far up to bring the tender running plate level with the locos.

This carried over into the tooling for other Collet tenders including the earlier Hornby loco drive Castles. The Churchward Tender for the Manor and 43XX were much better. The Mainline Tenders did at least run and stay on the track a lot better than the later Bachmann/ Hornby chassis in the photo above!

Some locos like the Hornby 8750 pannier catch the look of the prototype while being pretty hopeless dimension wise.

The Bachmann 2251 fails to catch the look of the prototype despite not being far out. its the Face which looks so wrong and the Churchward tender running pate being noticeably higher than the locos.

I'm confused.

 

IMHO

The Bachmann Collett is a pretty good representation of the prototype with the only major visual dimensional error being the buffer height on the front buffer beam (they're are the top of the beam and should be at the bottom)

It fits nicely against a 4mm reproduction of diag A27.  The driving wheels are also slightly undersize if meant to represent new.

Their newly tooled tender chassis has better and more prototypical looking wheelsets which run true unlike the Mainline plastic axle & wheel centre ones.

The Hornby 8750 is ghastly and to me doesn't look much like the prototype, the Jinty chassis being a big let down.

 

The Hornby Castle AFAIK doesn't have anything to do with Mainline/Bachmann, having come from Airfix where it was developed and first marketed.

All Airfix tooling was owned by them and passed eventually to Hornby (that includes the Dean Goods which was pure Airfix but didn't appear until the Palitoy take over)

All Mainline (Palitoy) tooling apart from a few wagon duplicates was owned by Kader and formed the basis of the Bachmann range.

 

Keith

[The Johnster]

I am with Kieth on the subject of the Hornby 8750, an appalling toy on the wrong chassis with the wrong coupling rods with a joke where the chimney should be and it sits too high.  I would not have one on my layout if you paid me (unless you paid me a lot), and I am happy to accept a Hornby 2721, abeit with a new chimney and other working up, so you can hardly call me a scale modeller (though I try to get things right if'n I can!).

[DCB]

I'm confused.

 

IMHO

The Bachmann Collett is a pretty good representation of the prototype with the only major visual dimensional error being the buffer height on the front buffer beam (they're are the top of the beam and should be at the bottom)

It fits nicely against a 4mm reproduction of diag A27.  The driving wheels are also slightly undersize if meant to represent new.

Their newly tooled tender chassis has better and more prototypical looking wheelsets which run true unlike the Mainline plastic axle & wheel centre ones.

The Hornby 8750 is ghastly and to me doesn't look much like the prototype, the Jinty chassis being a big let down.

 

The Hornby Castle AFAIK doesn't have anything to do with Mainline/Bachmann, having come from Airfix where it was developed and first marketed.

All Airfix tooling was owned by them and passed eventually to Hornby (that includes the Dean Goods which was pure Airfix but didn't appear until the Palitoy take over)

All Mainline (Palitoy) tooling apart from a few wagon duplicates was owned by Kader and formed the basis of the Bachmann range.

 

Keith

The Airfix Castle was Tender drive and the Hornby Loco drive Castle inherited the Mainline 2251 Tender chassis  with the axle holes much too high up the axle boxes and the buffers too high on the buffer beams so the buffers line up other stock but the Tender comes out too low compared to coaches.  The rear fender should line up with the cant rail on a Mk1 coach.

It is just about inconceivable that Hornby would make the same mistake as Mainline quite independently when  the original Airfix tender, their own Hall Tender, and King and Saint/28XX/County Tender Drive tender  all had the correct axle/ Buffer Running plate ratios.

My 2251 looks a lot better since I re drilled buffer holes around 1mm lower down the buffer beam and fitted brass buffers, Maybe Triang Jinty buffers were not the optimum but hey ho,

My Mainline wheels sets run true but the Bachmann ones with inside bearings make the Tender body wobble over iffy track.  My older 2251 has a Mainline tender chassis filed down to fit inside a Hornby Dublo Castle Tender Chassis filed to look like a Dean chassis with what I think is a Triang Lord of the Isles Tender body but might be an Airfix City of Truro tender body it was done 30 odd years ago and lives deep in the dark recesses of my spare loco drawer..