Bachmann (inc EFE and Graham Farish) Summer 2023 announcements

[Dorsetmike]

how about a Lord Nelson or a King Arthur

I've been saying this for years, the Southern is the only line that has no RTR 4-6-0s and only 2 white metal kits, Langley's S15 which requires a somewhat expensive Fleischmann chassis and BHE's N15 which is designed to fit a Poole Farish black 5, on which the drivers are too small and incorrectly spaced, looks much better on a Peco Jubilee chassis with a Union Mills tender drive (plus an extra pair of tender wheels).

[Roy L S]

I would have thought a B5 was unlikely, as the tender drive version is not that old, and is quite good.


Martyn

True, but the "current" tender driven Black Five is actually getting on a bit, from memory it was introduced around 2008/9 and I very much doubt we will see any further runs from that tooling, it is too "old hat" compared to more recent offerings.

Then, another compelling factor is that it is a large class of locos (842). From memory I think 16 preserved, suitable from mid-30s all the way through to the current scene (and some passed for running on the BR network). Between Nationalisation and 1968 could be seen across a wide area of the UK, from Scotland right the way down into the South-West.

Significantly the recent loco-drive 8F's Stanier tender would be compatible and is ready and waiting, designed and tooled complete with Next 18 socket and speaker.

All these factors would support strong sales as it's appeal is so wide-ranging so I would think a brand new state of the art model could be a pretty logical choice.

Roy

[martyn]

I would have thought a B5 was unlikely, as the tender drive version is not that old, and is quite good.


Martyn

True, but the "current" tender driven Black Five is actually getting on a bit, from memory it was introduced around 2008/9 and I very much doubt we will see any further runs from that tooling, it is too "old hat" compared to more recent offerings.

Then, another compelling factor is that it is a large class of locos (842). From memory I think 16 preserved, suitable from mid-30s all the way through to the current scene (and some passed for running on the BR network). Between Nationalisation and 1968 could be seen across a wide area of the UK, from Scotland right the way down into the South-West.

Significantly the recent loco-drive 8F's Stanier tender would be compatible and is ready and waiting, designed and tooled complete with Next 18 socket and speaker.

All these factors would support strong sales as it's appeal is so wide-ranging so I would think a brand new state of the art model could be a pretty logical choice.

Roy

I actually agree with what you say, and had forgotten that the BL 5 and B1 are actually getting a bit long in the tooth. The performance of the newer loco drive engines also seems to match, or better, the tender drive locos.

Not needing another Bl5, I've not followed their production schedule much, and agree that they are a class that ought to be popular with modellers.

It will be interesting to see where the manufacturers go when announcing their next steam loco models. There are still a number of locos in Bachmann's 4mm range, steam and diesel, which would probably be appreciated if made in N.

We can only wait and see!
Martyn

[Portpatrick]

I'm happy with my Black 5's............



but, although it holds the spirit of the loco, I'd like an update V2...........



A Hughes 'Crab' would be high on my list.

I have 3 of the most recent release Black 5s inmy desired BR form and am very happy with them.  If we are looking at updates of previous kettles ,the Crab first and compound second would be my choice.  The V2 may gave been a Poole intention released under Chinese management,  but I am happy with it.   But breaking new ground with such locos as LNER Moguls,  a J36 etc would be even better!

[martyn]

 

I'm happy with my Black 5's............



but, although it holds the spirit of the loco, I'd like an update V2...........



@Newportnobby

Hi Mick;

Have you (sadly) noted the V2 has part of the valve gear upside down?

Martyn

A Hughes 'Crab' would be high on my list.

[Brian-1c]

Another loco that could be easily upgraded and released is the Coronation class, which already has a 6 pin decoder socket. It would be very little change to include a speaker and Next 18 PCB like the 8F.

[Roy L S]

Another loco that could be easily upgraded and released is the Coronation class, which already has a 6 pin decoder socket. It would be very little change to include a speaker and Next 18 PCB like the 8F.

Very true, that and the WD Austerity would both seem logical choices for upgrades, personally I was reflecting more on what their next totally new tool steam loco might turn out to be, but it may well be that your thinking is along the right lines and we see more of these upgrades before anything new is announced, and in that respect I would probably also include Next 18 sound capable BR 4MT Tank.

[Newportnobby]

@martyn
Thanks for pointing that out......I think, Martyn.
It's been like that from new as I bought the Master Cutler set many years ago 'cos I wanted the black loco.
I'll have to find someone who can remedy that as it might well run better then

[Roy L S]

@martyn
Thanks for pointing that out......I think, Martyn.
It's been like that from new as I bought the Master Cutler set many years ago 'cos I wanted the black loco.
I'll have to find someone who can remedy that as it might well run better then

Which bit is upside-down? I have studied the photo a couple of times and I can't see anything amiss compared to mine, but then that could mean mine has the same issue

[martyn]

@Roy L S

The union lever which is outside the front wheel.

Part number 11 on the 'technical details' diagram here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walschaerts_valve_gear

If it's not exactly upside down, it's wrong, and without playing with it, I'm not sure at present how to correct it. It should be nearly horizontal, not cranked downwards.

Martyn

Later; compare the V2 valve gear with, eg, Bl 5, B1, LMS/LNER/BR Pacifics. Other options available!

[Newportnobby]

@martyn @Roy L S
I've checked several pics of the N gauge V2 and they are mostly identical to mine. Some have that piece of the motion slightly more horizontal but that could purely be how the motion is after coming to a rest. Perhaps I'll have a look next time I have my test oval set up.

[Roy L S]

@martyn @Roy L S
I've checked several pics of the N gauge V2 and they are mostly identical to mine. Some have that piece of the motion slightly more horizontal but that could purely be how the motion is after coming to a rest. Perhaps I'll have a look next time I have my test oval set up.

@Roy L S

The union lever which is outside the front wheel.

Part number 11 on the 'technical details' diagram here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walschaerts_valve_gear

If it's not exactly upside down, it's wrong, and without playing with it, I'm not sure at present how to correct it. It should be nearly horizontal, not cranked downwards.

Martyn

Later; compare the V2 valve gear with, eg, Bl 5, B1, LMS/LNER/BR Pacifics. Other options available!

Hi Martyn

I think the issue is that the V2's valve-gear is a based on a design carried over from Poole locos such as the A3/A4 (which should come as no surprise given that the design originated from Poole). The combination lever on the Bachmann China designed B1 (which was to hand for comparison) prototypically has two pivots at the bottom of the said lever, the V2 only has one (the rear pivot is an impression but it is solid metal) this looks like the reason why the lever "pushes" forward in the way it does.

No easy fix, possibly B1 valve gear components could be used in substitution, but a faff to have to break and remake some of those tiny rivets 

Roy

[martyn]

@Roy L S  @Newportnobby

Roy, you could well be correct about the valve gear being a Poole carry-over, but my Poole Bl 5s have it correctly assembled, with the crank/union lever in the correct orientation. This valve gear is simplified on the Poole designs, but it was good for its time, and looks much better than the V2.

If all the Chinese V2s are like this, I'd be inclined to say mis-assembly at the factory, or poor design in the first place; but not owning one, and only having rarely seen one, I'd not noticed it before. Without being able to see how it is actually assembled, I've no idea if the fault could be corrected by 'flipping' the crank.

The more I look at NPN's photo, I wonder how the valve gear works at all.

Coupled with the V2 'skirt' does this not make the V2 a better candidate for upgrading to current standards? 

And again, I say, I don't need one, so have no need to promote the V2.

Martyn

[Hailstone]

The problem here is that the anchor link which is usually fixed to the crosshead in real life and the union link which connects the anchor link to the combination lever were from poole days made as a one piece stamping, which saved yet another small rivet and thus an extra operation in the construction of the valve gear of all locos firtted with walschaerts valve gear, which persisted until the release of the V2.
All locos designed since with Walschaerts valve gear more faithfully replicate the full size article, which interestingly enough, Minitrix had been doing back in the days of the british outline locos

Regards,

Alex

[Roy L S]

@Roy L S  @Newportnobby

Roy, you could well be correct about the valve gear being a Poole carry-over, but my Poole Bl 5s have it correctly assembled, with the crank/union lever in the correct orientation. This valve gear is simplified on the Poole designs, but it was good for its time, and looks much better than the V2.

If all the Chinese V2s are like this, I'd be inclined to say mis-assembly at the factory, or poor design in the first place; but not owning one, and only having rarely seen one, I'd not noticed it before. Without being able to see how it is actually assembled, I've no idea if the fault could be corrected by 'flipping' the crank.

The more I look at NPN's photo, I wonder how the valve gear works at all.

Coupled with the V2 'skirt' does this not make the V2 a better candidate for upgrading to current standards? 

And again, I say, I don't need one, so have no need to promote the V2.

Martyn

I would much prefer a V2 personally and I would agree that from the perspective of what is "wrong" with it and the lack of any DCC provision in some ways it would appear a better choice to do a complete retool on, and let's not forget the OO V2 was recently retooled so all of the R&D has been done.

Roy