Bachmann to produce ex LBSC Atlantic H2 Class 4-4-2

[bertiedog]

In respect of bringing in Marklin and other pizza cutter wheels, please note i said  "in the past" and then commented on more current wheel standards. Yes several euro makers still use traction tyres, but they generally use more expensive types than Hornby or Bachmann use, and at the prices they charge that would be expected.

There are other ways of increasing traction, lots of weight, and with the Atlantic being a tender loco, transferring weight from the tender via the draw bar, a system rarely even considered by RTR designers. Also using some form of springing helps traction greatly.

If the wheels are unsprung then they must be perfectly round and have no eccentricity other wise wheels loose contact with the rail as the loco moves forward on each revolution, losing traction.

The reason traction tyres appear so good is not just inclines, but around corners, where we forget that one side of the loco travels a different distance to the other, resulting in one side being forced to slip. This does  not happen with traction tyres as the tyre forces grip on the side fitted.

It has been known for Euro makers to fit tyres on both sides on the same axle, and it causes massive wear to them.

 

Stephen

Edited August 16, 2016 by bertiedog

[Guardian]

Hi,

 

The T 9 indeed is far too light - the model did not manage to climb an incline of 3 or 4% incline with a coach. Hornby could have made the model heavier by using die cast and metal only, but that would have increased the price. The comparatively small locos built prior 1900 may simply do not offer enough space and are too open to implement sufficient weight. A solution could have been a tender drive as the 8-wheeled tender offers plenty of space (I am aware that such proposal is not popular in the UK, but simply experience a properly made tender drive of e.g. the Fleischmann class 13 (KPEV S 6, also a 4-4-0 express loco)).

 

Cheers

Mark

[bertiedog]

Hi,

 

The T 9 indeed is far too light - the model did not manage to climb an incline of 3 or 4% incline with a coach. Hornby could have made the model heavier by using die cast and metal only, but that would have increased the price. The comparatively small locos built prior 1900 may simply do not offer enough space and are too open to implement sufficient weight. A solution could have been a tender drive as the 8-wheeled tender offers plenty of space (I am aware that such proposal is not popular in the UK, but simply experience a properly made tender drive of e.g. the Fleischmann class 13 (KPEV S 6, also a 4-4-0 express loco)).

 

Cheers

Mark

Hornby showed by demonstration the complete ignorance of tender drive operation, they did it on the cheap, with others designs and parts and just made a complete and utter mess of it, causing a generation of modellers in the UK to distrust tender drives. For a tender drive to work right and look right, the wheels must be fully spoked, with clearance underneath, and that means not spur drives but worm drives, and low ratio small ones at that, with extra gears between the shaft and motor. There should not be dragging pickups and no weight, which causes the tender to push the loco with no wheels turning.

But Hornby got it all wrong in every possible way, at least they have the Chinese to restrain them from such basic blunders these days.

 

But again models should not really be on 4% gradients, my T9, with the rubber bands removed and replacement tyres, pulls 5/6 coaches happily on more modest 1 in 60 slopes. But it has had any pickups removed, working on tender return power, as well.

 

Stephen

[JSpencer]

Hornby showed by demonstration the complete ignorance of tender drive operation, they did it on the cheap, with others designs and parts and just made a complete and utter mess of it, causing a generation of modellers in the UK to distrust tender drives. For a tender drive to work right and look right, the wheels must be fully spoked, with clearance underneath, and that means not spur drives but worm drives, and low ratio small ones at that, with extra gears between the shaft and motor. There should not be dragging pickups and no weight, which causes the tender to push the loco with no wheels turning.

But Hornby got it all wrong in every possible way, at least they have the Chinese to restrain them from such basic blunders these days.

 

But again models should not really be on 4% gradients, my T9, with the rubber bands removed and replacement tyres, pulls 5/6 coaches happily on more modest 1 in 60 slopes. But it has had any pickups removed, working on tender return power, as well.

 

Stephen

I think Hornby were actually the best of the a British tender drives out there at the time. Airfix/mainline used plastic wheels and alll wheels had traction tyres. Pickups were entirely from the loco drivers (that were not driven). This drive really was rubbish, wobbled like hell and the none powered loco drivers were prone to locking up (the loco part being too light to ensure good electrical contact all times too, and contacts were strong enough to block the wheels). Lima were somewhere in between the two. A little bit more robust (the Airfix one really was not built to last) ran slightly better than the Airfix but still left much to be desired. The Hornby drive was based on the Fleischmann. Almost identical, then refined and symplified into a robust unit. I got these to run well. Some later tender drives having a Diecast tender frame too. Although I've seen many of the continental tender drives, I still prefer (and most people on the continent would tend to agree) to have the loco driving wheels actually driven as per prototype.

 

Besides, tenders on these Atlantics are really quite small so you will not get pulling power from a tender drive here.

Edited August 17, 2016 by JSpencer

[Wickham Green]

I think Hornby were actually the best of the a British tender drives out there at the time. Airfix/mainline used plastic wheels and alll wheels had traction tyres. Pickups were entirely from the loco drivers (that were not driven). This drive really was rubbish, wobbled like hell and the none powered loco drivers were prone to locking up (the loco part being too light to ensure good electrical contact all times too, and contacts were strong enough to block the wheels). Lima were somewhere in between the two. A little bit more robust (the Airfix one really was not built to last) ran slightly better than the Airfix but still left much to be desired. The Hornby drive was based on the Fleischmann. Almost identical, then refined and symplified into a robust unit. I got these to run well. Some later tender drives having a Diecast tender frame too. Although I've seen many of the continental tender drives, I still prefer (and most people on the continent would tend to agree) to have the loco driving wheels actually driven as per prototype.

 

Besides, tenders on these Atlantics are really quite small so you will not get pulling power from a tender drive here.

I think Gresley tried a Black Beetle under one of his atlantics - shared between the rear of the loco and front of the tender ................. didn't last very long !

[Dunsignalling]

I think Hornby were actually the best of the a British tender drives out there at the time. Airfix/mainline used plastic wheels and alll wheels had traction tyres. Pickups were entirely from the loco drivers (that were not driven). This drive really was rubbish, wobbled like hell and the none powered loco drivers were prone to locking up (the loco part being too light to ensure good electrical contact all times too, and contacts were strong enough to block the wheels). Lima were somewhere in between the two. A little bit more robust (the Airfix one really was not built to last) ran slightly better than the Airfix but still left much to be desired. The Hornby drive was based on the Fleischmann. Almost identical, then refined and symplified into a robust unit. I got these to run well. Some later tender drives having a Diecast tender frame too. Although I've seen many of the continental tender drives, I still prefer (and most people on the continent would tend to agree) to have the loco driving wheels actually driven as per prototype.

 

Besides, tenders on these Atlantics are really quite small so you will not get pulling power from a tender drive here.

So the obvious solution is to drive both loco and tender with spur gears in the tender and worm drive in the loco to stop any fighting.

[JSpencer]

So the obvious solution is to drive both loco and tender with spur gears in the tender and worm drive in the loco to stop any fighting.

That should make the design more complex and expensive and I personally do not like prop shafts running between the two.

They would need to get two different wheel diameters running at exact same speeds from quite different gearing then leave space for DCC chip and speaker. The C1 arrangement is perfectly adequate for me.

[Dunsignalling]

That should make the design more complex and expensive and I personally do not like prop shafts running between the two.

They would need to get two different wheel diameters running at exact same speeds from quite different gearing then leave space for DCC chip and speaker. The C1 arrangement is perfectly adequate for me.

Why would you need prop shafts? Just put one motor in the loco and another in the tender. Getting the revs synchronised is down to doing the maths. The tender drive could be an optional extra aimed at those who own switchback layouts!

 

John

[Oldddudders]

Why would you need prop shafts? Just put one motor in the loco and another in the tender. Getting the revs synchronised is down to doing the maths. The tender drive could be an optional extra aimed at those who own switchback layouts!

 

John

A sort of model booster engine?

[Dunsignalling]

A sort of model booster engine?

Just like the real thing that was tried for a while on one of the GN locos. They aren't one of my pet subjects but I think I remember reading that it succeeded in enabling Atlantics to start heavier trains but, as more Pacifics were introduced, and the Atlantics were cascaded onto lighter duties, the additional maintenance required was judged to be uneconomic.

 

In a model, driven by electricity instead of steam, with reasonably well-matched motors and gearing, DCC chips (one for each motor) with a feedback facility should do the rest.  

 

John

Edited August 20, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[gr.king]

Appropriate ratio gearing to the axle under the cab, turning the loco into a 4-6-0 works a treat if there's sufficient weight in the loco, as in my Doncaster version. That rear axle can then carry weight, solving any track-following deficiencies, and the whole unit can be made to go around curves just as many 4-6-0s do. There's the real advantage too that weight transfer when pulling makes that driven back axle "dig-in" and do its job of helping to propel the loco even more effectively. Bachmann won't do anything like this though, it's too far removed from their entrenched approach to chassis units.

[JSpencer]

Why would you need prop shafts? Just put one motor in the loco and another in the tender. Getting the revs synchronised is down to doing the maths. The tender drive could be an optional extra aimed at those who own switchback layouts!

 

John

 

Sounds good for after market people, but I cannot see Bachmann taking the time to develop the option for something which probably won't sell much.

 

As a default item, it will obviously increase price more creating a double critic of "why is it so expensive and why have they given us a tender drive most people do not want?"

 

I don't think Bachmann are backwards to chassis designs, only responding to the general view. Likewise, double DCC chips is clearly twice the expense, though the Garrett and APT-E have shown that it is possible for one chip to control both motors (though here they are same gearing and wheel size). I personally am not in favor of 1 loco having 2 chips. Aside the expense, it means setting them up to run togethor. OK, if your DCC collection is small but tiresome when you have quite a fleet and you may wish for such locos in question to act from time to time as double  headers.

 

All design is compromise in the end.

[Mr chapman]

I really fancy one of these but damn that's quite a price! RRP of about £180... Even box sifters would have it about £150ish I would imagine.

[Ian Hargrave]

I really fancy one of these but damn that's quite a price! RRP of about £180... Even box sifters would have it about £150ish I would imagine.

With new release A1's at around £150 and its cousin the Locmotion C1 costing £185 on release 18 months ago,I'm afraid that's about par for the course.

[Guest spet0114]

With new release A1's at around £150 and its cousin the Locmotion C1 costing £185 on release 18 months ago,I'm afraid that's about par for the course.

Well worth it though, if it's as nice a model as the Locomotion C1.

[Dunsignalling]

Sounds good for after market people, but I cannot see Bachmann taking the time to develop the option for something which probably won't sell much.

 

As a default item, it will obviously increase price more creating a double critic of "why is it so expensive and why have they given us a tender drive most people do not want?"

 

I don't think Bachmann are backwards to chassis designs, only responding to the general view. Likewise, double DCC chips is clearly twice the expense, though the Garrett and APT-E have shown that it is possible for one chip to control both motors (though here they are same gearing and wheel size). I personally am not in favor of 1 loco having 2 chips. Aside the expense, it means setting them up to run togethor. OK, if your DCC collection is small but tiresome when you have quite a fleet and you may wish for such locos in question to act from time to time as double  headers.

 

All design is compromise in the end.

I agree, just offering a possible way round it.

 

The root of the "problem" is that some people cram as much railway as possible into their available space with consequent gradients and curves that are much more severe than the prototypes had to cope with, then expect their model locos to deal with it. The word "scale" has many more implications than just size.

 

Loads on my home layout (when up and running) will be limited to six coaches so it shouldn't be an issue for me and the big layouts it will get to run on have no gradients and 3' radius minimum curves. Assuming performance comparable to the GNR model, it's unlikely to struggle with eight or nine. 

 

John

Edited October 15, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

I really fancy one of these but damn that's quite a price! RRP of about £180... Even box sifters would have it about £150ish I would imagine.

Compared with the "new" Ivatt tanks it looks a bit of a bargain at that level.

 

Hornby are catching up, too; the Pecketts are going up a tenner before release and their next batch of S15s will come with an effective RRP (Hornby don't officially set one but that's the figure on their website) of £154-99. 

 

If Sterling keeps on plummeting, we'll have much worse to come.

 

John

[Re6/6]

As has been said about the plummeting pound (political switch is off) and the likely high price, I'm glad that l've got my brass kit version.

 

The firebox needs reshaping at the front and the cab will have to be altered to the  Maunsell type.

 

 

 

 

[Mr chapman]

I'll still get one Nice build by the way Re6/6! Its just a shame that its getting quite expensive. Perhaps it will give a boost to the kit market?

[Steve Purves]

Samples on display today in the cabinets

Edited November 26, 2016 by 47845

[Clearwater]

This was in the Bachmann cabinet today

[it's-er]

Ooooh, thanks Clearwater. Given Bachmnn are showing this today at Warley, and it is a major development in the birth of their Brighton Atlantic, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this earlier today. Yours is the first photograph to appear, so thank you.

 

Are those different tender and cab variants above the tender of the main Atlantic in your photo?

 

John

Edited November 26, 2016 by it's-er

[Clearwater]

Thanks John - afraid I'm no expert on it. As far as I recall, there was no labelling in the cabinet. May have led to reluctance to post pictures !

[GreenGiraffe22]

Excited for this one!

[BlueLightning]

It could just be me but when comparing that EP to photos it looks to be as built to me. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

photo as built in LBSC livery: http://www.semgonline.com/steam/pics/ds_421.jpg

 

photo after rebuild in BR days: http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/locos/atlantic/beachy_head_24feb57q.jpg

 

Gary

 

EDIT: Had linked to the wrong picture so have updated the first link

Edited November 27, 2016 by BlueLightning