Model Railway Forum banner

Bachmann B1

12669 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 - 2 of 45 Posts
QUOTE (nick lamkin @ 29 Dec 2011, 12:31) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>61243 is a variant I was not aware even existed with the curved fillets at the front and rear of the footplates. .. was this a Doncaster modification? I have not seen this mentioned anywhere else.

I'm no B1 expert Nick but it was carried out (fairly comprehensively I understand) to Scottish based locos.
QUOTE (nick lamkin @ 29 Dec 2011, 18:05) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Why have Bachmann never considered doing this version?

Probably because the tooling dates from a time when it was a case of 'a B1 is a B1 is a B1', you didnt get all the wee variants designed in, as we now expect
1 - 2 of 45 Posts