Bachmann 94xx

[Legend]

The DVD included with this months BRM , great issue , but that’s another thread, shows 94XX on Tony Wrights layout . It’s the article where he is looking at the new V2 s but Bachmann have also lent him painted samples of 94XX and Midland 1P . Both are seen hauling large trains so they have huge haulage power. It is confirmed that the 94XX does have a coreless motor though. 

[The Johnster]

I don’t mind what sort of motor it’s got, as long as slow control is good (Blue Box are usually a safe pair of hands in this respect) and my early BR arrives sometime soon!  Coronavirus and CNY are convenient excuses for even more delay (I make it 4 years overdue already), and might for all I know be actual reasons...

Edited February 1, 2020 by The Johnster

[John Isherwood]

6 hours ago, Legend said:

Both are seen hauling large trains so they have huge haulage power. It is confirmed that the 94XX does have a coreless motor though. 

 

..... and the Midland 1P has traction tyres!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[The Johnster]

I hope that this doesn’t mean that Satan’s Snot befouls the 94xx’s wheels!

 

Seriously, traction tyres on a steam loco’s visible wheels, for a prototype  that doesn’t need to haul more than 3 coaches tops, what is this, 1980?  I’d be well miffed if I were awaiting this loco...

[Steamport Southport]

The 1Ps?

 

They were pulling eight bogie coach trains on suburban duties around the major cities well into the 1940s. Seems to be some misconception that they spent their entire lives pulling a couple of coaches on branchlines. That was mainly when they had been replaced by more modern engines such as the Ivatt 2MT 2-6-2Ts.

 

Even on the K&WVR they were often seen pulling four coach trains.

 

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

I stand corrected, and mildly impressed.  8 bogies is class 4 work in my book!  I tend to associate them with Highbridge and Burnham on Sea...

 

This is still IMHO not a reason to use traction tyres to solve a problem that could be better dealt with by powered rear bogies or proper balancing, or even some basic form of 3-point compensation, though I'd expect a price increase for the latter!

[John Isherwood]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I hope that this doesn’t mean that Satan’s Snot befouls the 94xx’s wheels!

 

Seriously, traction tyres on a steam loco’s visible wheels, for a prototype  that doesn’t need to haul more than 3 coaches tops, what is this, 1980?  I’d be well miffed if I were awaiting this loco...

 

I was sufficiently miffed to cancel mine!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[No Decorum]

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I hope that this doesn’t mean that Satan’s Snot befouls the 94xx’s wheels!

 

Seriously, traction tyres on a steam loco’s visible wheels, for a prototype  that doesn’t need to haul more than 3 coaches tops, what is this, 1980?  I’d be well miffed if I were awaiting this loco...

A brief rant but very much to the point. If a manufacturer thinks traction tyres are necessary, I have no objection so long as spare wheelsets without them are provided. Hornby does just that (not always successfully) by providing spare flanged wheelsets for its controversial flangeless Pacific trailing wheels. Rubber tyres belong on model road vehicles.

[gwrrob]

23 hours ago, Legend said:

The DVD included with this months BRM , great issue , but that’s another thread, shows 94XX on Tony Wrights layout . It’s the article where he is looking at the new V2 s but Bachmann have also lent him painted samples of 94XX and Midland 1P . Both are seen hauling large trains so they have huge haulage power. It is confirmed that the 94XX does have a coreless motor though. 

 

All impressive models and the haulage capacity surprised me in a very good way.

[The Johnster]

Well, if the 94xx turns up with Satan's Snot on it's wheels, I'll still buy it of course; I can hardly turn it down after the fuss I've made.  And I'll give it a fair trial, but if I think that running, especially slow running over my insulfrogs (very good with my other locos, I must add) is affected, and I mean think, I won't need empirical evidence, the tyres are coming straight off and being given an immediate and compulsory opportunity of an exciting new career in the landfill industry.  I am running a Hornby 2721 with a groove in a driving wheel with no problems, and it looks (and runs!) better than it did with the tyre.  Rubber tyres belong on model road vehicles.

[Legend]

There’s no mention of the 94XX having traction tyres , just the coreless motor

[No Decorum]

10 minutes ago, Legend said:

There’s no mention of the 94XX having traction tyres , just the coreless motor

That’s right. Off we go again. A solution to a problem we didn’t have?

[The Johnster]

Fair play.  I only said I hoped it's wheels are not befouled with Satan's Snot, there is no evidence that they will be.  I am surprised at the 1P, though.

[tomparryharry]

Stick to the facts, folks!

 

There is o concrete evidence that the 94xx model does indeed have traction tyres. Having made panniers for the last decade or so, I'd expect Bachmann will get the running capabilities down to a fine art. I don't (personally) expect to see these tyre things, as that will mean you DCC types are up the Swanee. 

 

As far as the 1P is concerned, I'd guess that the electrical connectivity is maintained by having full contact across all 6 of the 8 wheels, with, as you say, a traction tyre on the second set of diving wheels.  Otherwise, like all good Midland locomotives, it won't pull the skin from a rice pudding. 

 

Little wonder, therefore, that Bachmann et al, are circumspect about releasing anything where there will be a  likelihood of reaction, real or fantasy. 

 

Have a great week, everybody!

Ian.

[Wickham Green]

On 01/02/2020 at 18:22, Steamport Southport said:

The 1Ps?

 

They were pulling eight bogie coach trains on suburban duties around the major cities well into the 1940s. Seems to be some misconception that they spent their entire lives pulling a couple of coaches on branchlines. That was mainly when they had been replaced by more modern engines such as the Ivatt 2MT 2-6-2Ts.

 

Even on the K&WVR they were often seen pulling four coach trains.

 

 

 

Jason

Yes, the 'humble' 0-4-4T wasn't just a branch line loco - think of the M7s hauling twelve or more between Waterloo & Clapham Junction ....

[The Johnster]

Good point, Wickham, but a better comparison might be the Wainwright H, also hauling prodigious commuter trains up hill to Chislehurst, and also rated 1P by BR.  The M7s were rated 2P.  

[Wickham Green]

Yes, there's certainly not a lot of 'up hill' between Waterloo and Clapham Junction - in either direction !

 

 

[adb968008]

On 01/02/2020 at 19:35, The Johnster said:

I stand corrected, and mildly impressed.  8 bogies is class 4 work in my book!  I tend to associate them with Highbridge and Burnham on Sea...

 

This is still IMHO not a reason to use traction tyres to solve a problem that could be better dealt with by powered rear bogies or proper balancing, or even some basic form of 3-point compensation, though I'd expect a price increase for the latter!

Interested to understand more about this ?

 

if it were using gears then it would be a rigid chassis, more of an 0-8-0 in terms of handling... not much use for corners unless one of the drivers was flangeless ?

 

Alternatively maybe two motors one on the bogie and one on the drivers.. expensive

 

or maybe an articulated frame.. again expensive

 

thats my thoughts... interested for yours on how they could do this at circa £100 or about ?

 

its a small 044.. you could cut out the DCC space and speaker and use that for weight. that would suit me as a DC user. :-) but an inverse of the 044 is a 440.. and of late they have had traction tyres too.

 

i welcome tyres, I’ve had sufficient maturity on European models to see that done sensibly they are extremely effective and needn’t lose my head with visions of 1980’s Hornby.

Edited February 3, 2020 by adb968008

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

5 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

...but an inverse of the 044 is a 4-4-0.. and of late they have had traction tyres too.

The most recent 4-4-0 releases haven't, Rapido Stirling Single*, Hornby's D16/3. Well designed to put weight where it needs to be, impressive traction.

 

*functionally, rear carrying wheel driven.

[TheSignalEngineer]

3 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

Yes, there's certainly not a lot of 'up hill' between Waterloo and Clapham Junction - in either direction !

 

 

In the early 20th century  Johnson 0-4-4 tanks were used on the Birmingham - Evesham trains, about 34 miles distance. It's a wicked climb out to Five Ways, a mile at an average of 1 in 77 with some wet tunnels.  If you go out via Camp Hill it's up to Proof House from a standing start then St Andrews to Camp Hill with a ruling gradient of about 1 in 65. In the other direction from Redditch to  Barnt Green there's nearly four miles at about 1 in 100 average with an intermediate stop at Alvechurch. Pictures are not entirely clear but they show loads of at least eight six-wheelers or six bogie coaches.

As loads got heavier they were replaced by Deeley 'Flatiron' 0-6-4 tanks, followed variously by Stanier 3P 2-6-2 tanks, Fowler 2-6-4 tanks and Ivatt 4MT moguls.

In the early 1950s the LMS 2P 0-4-4 tanks sometimes put in an appearance on Rugby - Birmingham stoppers, another 30 mile journey.

 

Then to get us back on topic, after the WR took over there were 94xx Lickey bankers which performed the occasional rescue. At least one took a Peak and its train through to New Street after the diesel failed at Blackwell.

Edited February 3, 2020 by TheSignalEngineer
Typos

[tomparryharry]

As a slight aside, the Adams 0-4-4 Calbourne (W24) still takes 5 bogie stock diagrams over at Havenstreet, IoW. I've fired her many times, and it's always on top of the job.

 

Cheers,

Ian. 

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Interested to understand more about this ?

 

if it were using gears then it would be a rigid chassis, more of an 0-8-0 in terms of handling... not much use for corners unless one of the drivers was flangeless ?

 

Alternatively maybe two motors one on the bogie and one on the drivers.. expensive

 

or maybe an articulated frame.. again expensive

 

thats my thoughts... interested for yours on how they could do this at circa £100 or about ?

 

its a small 044.. you could cut out the DCC space and speaker and use that for weight. that would suit me as a DC user. :-) but an inverse of the 044 is a 440.. and of late they have had traction tyres too.

 

i welcome tyres, I’ve had sufficient maturity on European models to see that done sensibly they are extremely effective and needn’t lose my head with visions of 1980’s Hornby.

The Rapido Stirling Single has a ‘single motor split drive’ mechanism, as does the Hattons/DJM 14xx, so that the loco is effectively an 0-6-0, or 0-4+2-0; the Whyte notation doesn’t really cope with this sort of thing!  UIC B-A, perhaps, if the prototype is B-1...

 

Not a fair comparison given the price of the Stirling and the compromised reputation of the 14xx model.  Bachmann have done very well to bring the 1P on at the price level they are quoting IMHO.  But I’m hard to convince on the subject of traction tyres on the basis of many years of bitter experience and of quantum improvements in the performance of any loco they are removed from.  I understood, at the same time as disagreeing with, their use back 40 odd years ago; locos had to have massive pancake motors driving the rear axles to maintain clear daylight beneath the boilers, and because those pancakes were crepe (see what I did there?) and had to run at insane speeds geared down with spur gears to develop any torque (and some of them still failed to achieve that), Satan’s snot was resorted to to pull realistic length trains. 
 

The drawbacks were inadequate pick up, crud all over your layout, poor reliability, replacement supply problems, hopeless slow running, stalls on insulated frogs, and an unsightly black band around your driving wheels on steam outline models.  Remove them and your loco could not run on anything but perfectly laid track. 
 

The big pancakes, described as ringfields which was an unforgivable insult to Frank Hornby,  occupied space that would have been better utilised with traction ballast weight, but had to be used to keep costs in check; the lesson of HD’s demise was recent and fresh in everyones’ memory. 
 

Modern steam outline RTR, vastly improved in detail, performance, and design for production, not to mention being as good and probably as cheap as anyone has a tight to demand from volume production, has (fortunately) abandoned the pancake/spur gear/traction tyre approach and reverted, sensibly, to can motors which are essentially the same as the old open frame types driving through brass worms and nylon cogs (which I’d like to see replaced with brass, but which I have to admit work fine), powerful enough to pull scceptable loads at scale speeds without Old Nick and his expectorant. 
 

In view of which I’m surprised and disappointed at what looks to me like a backward step for the 1P, but I’m not losing any sleep over it as I have no more than a passing interest in the thing.  As for the effectiveness of tyres on European models, I can’t comment as I’ve no experience of them.  They seem to be much more expensive than ours, though, and with money any daft piece of design can be made to work.  

 

[PMP]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The Rapido Stirling Single has a ‘single motor split drive’ mechanism, as does the Hattons/DJM 14xx, so that the loco is effectively an 0-6-0, or 0-4+2-0;

 

Despite having extensive hands on experience of the DJM 14xx, I have no idea what you’re describing, and I suspect you’ve never taken one apart. The chassis for that model is a small can motor and worm to a gear tower. The chassis has internal gears to the leading driver, it is an 0-4-0 driven chassis.

[adb968008]

5 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The most recent 4-4-0 releases haven't, Rapido Stirling Single*, Hornby's D16/3. Well designed to put weight where it needs to be, impressive traction.

 

*functionally, rear carrying wheel driven.

Ive sold my D16/3.. it cant pull much at all, neither can anything that DJ made, though as they are mostly shunters/light use locos I can live with them.

 

Stirling single.. well thats in a league of its own isn't it.. and so is its price.

Edited February 3, 2020 by adb968008

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

The drawbacks were inadequate pick up, crud all over your layout, poor reliability, replacement supply problems, hopeless slow running, stalls on insulated frogs, and an unsightly black band around your driving wheels on steam outline models.  Remove them and your loco could not run on anything but perfectly laid track. 
 

....

 

As for the effectiveness of tyres on European models, I can’t comment as I’ve no experience of them. 

 

What locos are you drawing your experience from, if your not comparing 1980’s Stuff or European models ?

 

Very few UK models have had traction tyres in the last decade.. mostly Railroad, which lets face it aren't exactly tuned for speed or for pick ups or reliability..

 

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by adb968008