Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi All!
I've just purchased 32-952 - No. 76079 in BR black with BR2 tender / late crest , and a lovely model it is too.
For those who have read the December Model Rail review on 32-950 - No. 76053 in BR black with BR1B tender with early crest, there are no problems with the tender drawbar in the close-coupled positon as there apparently is with the BR1B tender.

However, contrary to the catalogue picture (and despite what it says on the end of the box-BR2), Bachmann have provided a (correct) BR2A tender for 76079. This differs from the BR2 in that the rear cab handrails are omitted from the loco and short handrails substituted on the tender.

Bachmann are to be congratulated on getting this right, even though in my case it has caused a rethink on renumbering!
In the catalogue they have illustrated 76020 (32-953DC) with an original BR2 tender, which is correct for this running number. It will be interesting to see if they get this right as well. If so, all the permutations will be available for the future 4MT 4-6-0!

Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Hi I am new to this website. Very excited by what I have seen. Many congratulations to all concerned. I too have bought one of these. Mine is the late crest with the BR1B tender. The rumours are correct. It will not close couple, and even worse, when running backwards, it disengages on the first hole in the bar and connects on the close couple and jams up. Has any one else had this problem?
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,718 Posts
The close coupling position being impractical for anything but display is common to several Bachmann models as supplied. Usually it is because the intermediate buffers on the tender front are moulded on, and this effectively locks the tender in line with the loco so that it cannot take a curve. These can easily be filed down to allow as much swing as your layout curves require. This modifcation is invisble in operation, and practically so on close inspection, particularly if there is a fall plate.

The coupler bar coming unhitched is unusual. On many of my Bach locos it's the very devil to get it to disengage! Does it droop below the horizontal when seen from the side? If so I would remove it from the chassis, and bend it slightly so that it stands out horizontally
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
I have taken a closer look at the model. I had only had a day or so when I last posted. The problem with the uncoupling was due to the fact that the small screw securing the bar was loose. This allowed it to slop downwards thus uncoupling. Having tightened it up, it now runs in reverse well. I take note of the suggestion of filing down intermediate buffers, but I am reluctant to spoil the model so for the time being I will run it in the more open position until it drives me mad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
so..if the 'closeness' of the tender to the engine is a 'contentious' issue....why is there no move towards the likes of Roco's close coach couplers..ie couplers that, in the straight, are close, but open up on curves?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,855 Posts
QUOTE why is there no move towards the likes of Roco's close coach couplers..ie couplers that, in the straight, are close, but open up on curves?

I guess it's either patents or cost, with cost being the most likely. The Roco system works really well on the coaches we have; The coach corridor connections touch on the straight but they take the bends without complaint either pushed or pulled at full speed.

David
 

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (dwb @ 8 Dec 2007, 20:08) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I guess it's either patents or cost, with cost being the most likely. The Roco system works really well on the coaches we have; The coach corridor connections touch on the straight but they take the bends without complaint either pushed or pulled at full speed.

David

I would agree with costs being more likely the issue, but as most close coupler arrangements are quite simple it must surely come down to penny pinching.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
560 Posts
QUOTE (alastairq @ 8 Dec 2007, 18:51) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>so..if the 'closeness' of the tender to the engine is a 'contentious' issue....why is there no move towards the likes of Roco's close coach couplers..ie couplers that, in the straight, are close, but open up on curves?

That's a good point, Bachmann did dip a tentative toe in this pool a while back with the Southern N class, I have one and it's lovely and close on the staight and opens up on the corners.
However there are a couple of down sides,

1. The loco and tender are permanently coupled which makes them more suseptable to damage when removing from the tight fitting packaging.

2. The tender on my N class is very light and prone to coming off at the least imperfection in the track this includes slight wear in the plastic in my insufrog points, I suspect this could be fixed by adding some extra weight which I'll have a go at in the new year when I get some nice Hornby Maunsell couches to go behind her.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,718 Posts
KISS. An extending coupler is frankly overkill for most UK tender loco designs, this one included. Because the rear of the (fairly short) loco rigid wheelbase, and the front of the (fairly short) tender wheelbase are close, a drawbar on a pair of simple pivots is all that is required; provided that there are no obstructions on the loco and tender dragbox faces or other fouling between cab and tender roofs. The 'mistake' is to mould on items such as the intermediate buffer detail. Better to omit this, or if the detail is thought desireable fit properly sprung buffers.

I have modified loco-tender coupling arrangements as required on all my tender locos to obtain correct distance between loco and tender. 9F's and Peppercorn A1's will still negotiate curves down to 24" radius in this condition, smaller 2-6-0 and 0-6-0 types can get through set track points. Setting the distance 1 or 2 mm greater than scale will get the largest UK tender loco through set track points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
I find the tender coupling arrangement on the ClassN very uneasy. My tender is not too bad but have read other peoples' postings that they constantly derail. Its not a very stable arrangement
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
QUOTE (34C @ 6 Dec 2007, 03:26) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The close coupling position being impractical for anything but display is common to several Bachmann models as supplied. Usually it is because the intermediate buffers on the tender front are moulded on, and this effectively locks the tender in line with the loco so that it cannot take a curve. These can easily be filed down to allow as much swing as your layout curves require. This modifcation is invisble in operation, and practically so on close inspection, particularly if there is a fall plate.

The coupler bar coming unhitched is unusual. On many of my Bach locos it's the very devil to get it to disengage! Does it droop below the horizontal when seen from the side? If so I would remove it from the chassis, and bend it slightly so that it stands out horizontally

I can report that it is not necessary to totally remove the intermediate buffers. Just file them down to about half the current length and the model can then be close coupled and still take reasonable curves. It also helps to glue the cab doors (if you fit them) pointing inwards a couple of degrees so they don't lock up on the front of the tender

Norm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
I'm in the process of changing 76020, to one of the five allocated to Stratford, 76030 with 30A shed code.

I've decided not to attempt the cutouts in both cab sides for the tablet catcher (1) in my view it spoils the look of the loco, especially with the number set just below the window etc and (2) (more to the point) I'm sure to mess the side up trying to carve out a 0.5mm deep recess 5mm+ square in the cab side! But I've closed the gap between tender and loco (made a new coupling) so the steps on the tender line up with the hand rails etc and as stated by others, slightly reduce the buffer heads between loco and tender.

Question, on a photo I have of sister loco 76034 taken in 1954 at Stratford, there does not appear to be any lining to the cylinder covers, is this correct for the Doncaster built locos? The loco is in a reasonable clean condition and the lining to running plate and boiler stands out OK.

Any comments much appriciated

Regards
Paul
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top