Model Railway Forum banner

Bachmann B1

12637 Views 44 Replies 14 Participants Last post by  kristopher1805
I got a new Bachmann B1 (61180) for Christmas and I regret to say it's a disappointment.

Certainly runs better than my previous split chassis version but it has retained the crude tender coupling and the resulting, by todays standards, huge gap between loco and tender. The tender also has two peg-holes on the tank top for which I see no part to fit, it doesn't have the big cylindrical thing (!!) on the tank top I have on 61132 and the "toy" coal load doesn't seem to be removable.

Not good Bachmann - a rush job? - not thought through? - cutting unnecessary corners? On this evidence it won't be hard for the Hornby version to be far better and worth the extra money over this Bachmann "railroad" equivalent.

If Mr Bachmann reads these forum pages, I'd be interested in hearing the excuses.


PS I'm sending it back to the retailer anyway as the crude tender coupling is not properly fitted and I'm not prepared to have to repair a brand new item. Quality control???
1 - 8 of 45 Posts
That's exactly as advertised. Glad to read this. I am waiting for the price to fall consequent on there being duplication, so I can buy cheap, as I want the chassis for earlier 'worked on' bodies whose split chassis long ago wore out. The more returns there are the sooner this happy prospect is realised...

It is the work of minutes to mod the tender coupling to scale distance, vastly improves the appearance.
QUOTE (60159 @ 26 Dec 2011, 22:20) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>... Is the V2 to be the same cop out?
The announcement was existing bodies with new chassis for all of A4, B1 and V2. So I wouldn't expect anything else. From samples photographed at an autumn show, it did look likely that the dome and chimney of the V2 (and possibly some other applied parts) have been improved. But the overall body moulding looks to be that from the model we already have. Bachmann have also said that the new A4 and V2 chassis will not fit the earlier bodies because the new chassis have fixed Cartazzi framing.
Cowlairs. The Scots noticed cracking in the footplate angles and introduced this mod.

The Hornby model, like the L1 before it, is an absolute cracker. The glazing seems to me spectacularly (sorry) good, really lifts the model.
Same here! Going to wait on a suitable Hornby variant for the Southern end of Eastern Region, with the hope that prices drop in the summer. My very worn Bach split chassis Bongo can limp on until then, making realistic mechanical complaints from its knackered condition.

I liked the comment 'a B1 is a B1 is a B1' in respect of the original body Replica had tooled up by Kader. At the time of release twenty some years ago that was far and away the best OO RTR loco model for appearance - less said about the decent looking chassis the better - so it is a good yardstick for progress since.
The Bach B1 is light as supplied, but for those prepared to ballast it themselves the body cavity is still the same size as on the split chassis model which was heavy enough for realistic traction, and lead is denser than mazak. Mine hasn't had the running to get its tyres fully polished up yet, but weighted to similar to the split chassis model (which will pull 14 on level track) has no trouble with 11 Bach mk1s on, I will give it a maximum traction assessment after a couple of weeks regular use.
'34theletterbetweenBandD' = 34C. The last time RMweb crashed and burned I fell off the membership list, but it wouldn't let me rejoin as 34C for some reason.

General note, until they introduced the Fairburn 2-6-4T model in about 2006/7; Bachmann consistently oversprung carrying wheels. It is a fault 'on the right side' in that it usually helps trackholding and especially so on set track, and most set track layouts being small don't require overmuch traction. But on a layout using a flexitrack system or better, larger radius curves and points, gentle gradient transitions and other good stuff; cutting coil springs down very significantly (typically to a third or quarter original size) and backing off flat springs provides adequate track holding and opften very significant gaions in traction.

Bonus: Hornby often draw springs on bogies in their service diagrams, but until the L1 came into my possession, they were never to be seen on the actual models. So, what to do with all those Bachmann coil spring offcuts? Difficult one that..
See less See more
There's bags of room in the smokebox, mine have either Lenz Standard or Zimo MX600, both with an 8 pin plug on wires. I doubt you would tell the difference in running performance, uniformly excellent, and frankly at the moment it's snatch the decoder that is in stock out of the retailer's hand! (And pay of course...)

But there is a slight caveat, all my B1's are hacked about internally to get in the maximum quantity of lead ballast, while keeping the centre of balance over the middle coupled wheelset to improve traction. (Both the Bachmann and Hornby models need weight added to deliver traction sufficient for prototype loads, they were good for 14 coaches or 60 wagons.) Did I take anything out of the Bachmann smokebox or off the front of the chassis block? I don't think so, but this was over ten years past and I don't remember...
Certainly is a robust model, and more! I think it was the late Iain Rice who picked this model out over thrty years ago, as overall a class act from the then limited RTR selection, other than the the original Replica drive line design; and readily improved by any modeller that cared to customise it, close the loco to tender gap, add crew, coal and small details of choice. My Bachmann B1s are all in workaday condition, ther typical appearance. I am now up to two of the Hornby B1's, never having intended to buy more than one, (but the second was so cheap!) one just returned from a general and gleaming, the second which had superficial exterior damage 'slightly worn', but just been cleaned at Top Shed. It seemed a shame to make them mucky...
1 - 8 of 45 Posts