Bachmann 94xx

[The Johnster]

i think Ian means the final 96xx series, some of which were produced by BR; I believe the last was in 1950.  I have two of these modelled, 9649 and 9681, and a 1947 built 6750, 6762, and need to check my driver's side injectors.  This might mean a trip to the DFR to take a look at 9681...

[No Decorum]

17 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

i think Ian means the final 96xx series, some of which were produced by BR; I believe the last was in 1950.  I have two of these modelled, 9649 and 9681, and a 1947 built 6750, 6762, and need to check my driver's side injectors.  This might mean a trip to the DFR to take a look at 9681...

Whilst there, you could always pop into Derails and ask if the 94XX has arrived yet. 

[tomparryharry]

34 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

So what am I looking at here?

 

 Yes, absolutely right, Ms Prism. But! We did indeed strip down the sad remains of 9629, and there was 2 injector bosses on the fireman's side tank. More investigation, methinks!

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

So what am I looking at here?

 

Rather obviously a picture of a 46XX pannier with an injector on the Driver's side (sorry to state the blindingly obvious but a literal answer almost seemed called for.  And as it happens that engine is no different from all the other 8750s, including the 96XX series, in having an injector on the Driver's side.  In fact I'd be distinctly worried if it didn't have one as I wouldn't fancy being on a pannier with only one injector although in the past I've found them to usually pick up quite easily.

 

If anybody is using as an example one which went out of BR ownership and happened to be subsequently 'messed about' by somebody l else then we might be talking about a different animal - but it was obviously a different animal.  Always be wary of what subsequent owners, including preservationists, have done to engines.  Visit the SVR and you could almost be excused for thinking certain GWR engines came with hopper ashpans when in fact they didn't.

 

However I had thought this thread was meant to be about the Bachmann 94XX although recent pages seem to be suggesting otherwise with comments about viruses (rather obvious and discussed in a topic of its own elsewhere), Bachmann's pricing policy (we know what that is already and I really wish it had its own thread because it litters too many others), and enough bright red herrings,  occasional black & crimson herrings, and continuing dripping like a tap that needs a new washer about the amount of time this model is taking (not unusually so for for Bachmann) from initial, place holder, announcement to arriving on the shelves of our favourite toyshop.  

[The Johnster]

Fair points Mike, but I doubt any 'place holder' model has been deferred as many times as the 94xx.  

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Fair points Mike, but I doubt any 'place holder' model has been deferred as many times as the 94xx.  

As a matter of interest how many times have Bachmann stated that this model has been deferred?  

 

It would appear from Ian Hargave's post on Page 1 of thread that in early/mid 2017 work had not started on it but EPs were on view 2 years later - which isn't much different from the pace of progress achieved by some other 'manufacturers' and is no doubt quicker than some.  An EP in early 2019 plus an already ambitious programme with a lot of other new toolings coming along and other EPs requiring review and approval would suggest to me that we could probably expect to see it on the market sometime during 2020 in view of the various approval stages it would need to go through.

[PMP]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

As a matter of interest how many times have Bachmann stated that this model has been deferred?  

 

I don’t believe they ever have. The fact that an EP was shown which was clearly not a 3D print indicated that metal had been cut. With that much time, effort and crucially, money having gone in, it’s highly unlikely to have been deferred. As you mention its certainly not unusual in its progress either as far as the industry goes.

[Paul.Uni]

Release dates for the 94XX that have appeared on the Bachmann website, prior to the new release announcement system being used:

• March 2015: TBA
• June 2019: May 2020
• November 2019: September 2020

 

Edit: I thought I'd add the changes to the Bachmann RRP for the 94XX as well

• March 2015: TBA
• Around September 2018: £124.95
• February 2020: £129.95

 

Edit 2: I've added the dates on which the release month was updated.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Paul.Uni

[John Isherwood]

36 minutes ago, Paul.Uni said:

Release dates for the 94XX that have appeared on the Bachmann website, prior to the new release announcement system being used:

• TBA
• May 2020
• September 2020

 

Edit: I thought I'd add the changes to the Bachmann RRP for the 94XX as well

• 2015: TBA
• Around September 2018: £124.95
• February 2020: £129.95

 

That being the case, it would appear that (a) certain member(s) who (is) are anxious to get their mitts on the 94XX (is) are allowing their enthusiasm to to overstate the facts !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

 

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, Paul.Uni said:

Release dates for the 94XX that have appeared on the Bachmann website, prior to the new release announcement system being used:

• March 2015: TBA
• June 2019: May 2020
• November 2019: September 2020

 

The Bachmann website currently states Aug-20 for availability, though I would wait until it appears in one of the quarterly announcements to take a date as being accurate.

[melmerby]

On 24/02/2020 at 14:21, MatthewCarty said:

Not just the Modified Hall, but I think there is still room for a definitive original Hall.

Hornby's is the design clever era compromise and I've found Bachmann's to be the one of the least good runners of recent times, as well as needing to take out a large chunk of the weight to convert to digital (and it's not particularly heavy to start with). You would hope a Hall/Modified Hall would take 8 (Bachmann MK1s) on the flat without any problems, my Bachmann Hall will take 6 with the weight still in, and 4 once dcc fitted.

 

If a manufacturer (unlikely to be Bachmann now) could do tooling that catered for both Hall and Modified Hall to the standard we see from Accurascale, Sutton's etc I think it would sell well.

Do as I did (and documented some time ago).

I have the decoder (Lenz Standard +) in it's correct position in the boiler with some lead alongside giving a net gain of mass.

[melmerby]

On 24/02/2020 at 12:47, Harlequin said:

Imagine the humble 57XX pannier tank with compensation, conversion to EM designed in, easy-fit DCC, built-in keep-alive, speakers and firebox flicker, optional top-feed (!), wide choice of GWR/BR shed codes, etc., etc... They would sell like hot-cakes!

 

Dream on

(DCC is already easy to fit)

[The Johnster]

On 24/02/2020 at 12:47, Harlequin said:

I think there's still plenty of scope for new RTR (G)WR loco models.

 

There are pre-Churchward loco classes yet to be done and, as technology and fine scale quality move ever onwards, many others that could be profitably updated.

 

Imagine the humble 57XX pannier tank with compensation, conversion to EM designed in, easy-fit DCC, built-in keep-alive, speakers and firebox flicker, optional top-feed (!), wide choice of GWR/BR shed codes, etc., etc... They would sell like hot-cakes!

 

Maybe I'm "straying into the realms of fantasy" but it's a nice place to visit occasionally!

 

While we’re at it, working inside motion and valve gear, removable cab roof, empty bunker, posable cab windows, sliding roof and side shutters, and opening cab doors, and the ultimate fantasy, lamps, 2 head and 2 tail (for lamping the loco up for pilot duty within station limits), working of course, from in-lamp power supply recharged from brackets. 
 

Reckon they’d sell like the sort of hot cakes that cost the best part of £1,000 a pop. 
 

 

[tomparryharry]

23 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Dream on

(DCC is already easy to fit)

 

You're lucky, Keith. I'm a DC Luddite. 

 

DCC? Double curry & chips!

Edited March 2, 2020 by tomparryharry
Forgot the 'C' bit n DCC.....

[Guest WM183]

Dapol have managed to deliver most of those features in an 0 gauge model costing significantly less than 1k. I wonder....

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎24‎/‎02‎/‎2020 at 14:21, MatthewCarty said:

Not just the Modified Hall, but I think there is still room for a definitive original Hall...

You would hope a Hall/Modified Hall would take 8 (Bachmann MK1s) on the flat without any problems, my Bachmann Hall will take 6 with the weight still in, and 4 once dcc fitted.

...If a manufacturer (unlikely to be Bachmann now) could do tooling that catered for both Hall and Modified Hall to the standard we see from Accurascale, Sutton's etc I think it would sell well.

Hornby have demonstrated very well what they can do with a cast metal body on a smaller 4-6-0. All up weight of 340g for the B12/3 means it will pull dozen current RTR coaches with ease. Exterior appearance is fine too. Lobby Hornby (and other manufacturers) for this to become standard?

[The Johnster]

It will become standard if:-

 

1) It is beneficial to the production process,

2) There is perceptible demand.  
3) It meets health/safety marketing  reqirements, and 

4) It doesn’t increase costs. 

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

It will become standard if:-

 

1) It is beneficial to the production process,

2) There is perceptible demand.  
3) It meets health/safety marketing  reqirements, and 

4) It doesn’t increase reduces costs. 

5.  Metal of the necessary quality can be made available in sufficient quantities.

I've amended that a bit.  Incidentally My added No.5 is really down to the UK customer specifying and checking the quality of the metal used.  if that isn't carefully controlled you'll get crumbling loco bodies to go with crumbling mazak chassis.  Item 1 depends very much on the customer being prepared to accept the extra tooling cost in teh shape of the metal used for the tools.

[Guest WM183]

On 02/03/2020 at 17:58, The Johnster said:

While we’re at it, working inside motion and valve gear, removable cab roof, empty bunker, posable cab windows, sliding roof and side shutters, and opening cab doors, and the ultimate fantasy, lamps, 2 head and 2 tail (for lamping the loco up for pilot duty within station limits), working of course, from in-lamp power supply recharged from brackets. 
 

Reckon they’d sell like the sort of hot cakes that cost the best part of £1,000 a pop. 
 

 

The Dapol 0 gauge model delivers most of this for way less than 1k. My guess is that it's doable in 00 too.

[The Johnster]

It's doable I'm sure, but the cost would be I suspect the fat side of 1k.  I wouldn't mind seeing my independently powered lamp system taken up though; it might be feasible.  A nano led, doesn't have to be more than a fraction of a volt to power it, perhaps activated by being placed on the bracket, which completes a circuit.  I reckon about a 10 minute burn time is sufficient for most layouts, and anything upwards of that would be a bonus (ideally, it needs to be capable of staying lit for 24 hours, the real ones were designed do this if trimmed correctly).  Little plastic handling tool to place and remove from the bracket and return to charging station. and another bonus if it can be charged from the loco/coach/brake van brackets.  If it could be brought to market at under £10 a lamp, and say £30 for the starter kit including the charging station, which can have brackets for say 10 lamps, I'd go for it.  Lamps need to be 3 types, head, tail, and brake van side.  Light output can easily be a lot less than is common in current 4mm working lamps, which are far too bright; you need ideally to be struggling to see that the lamp is lit through the red lens in normal room lighting levels.  Look at the real thing; you can't really see it in bright daylight, nor are you intended to, it's for darkness, fog, or falling snow!  The presence of the lamp body is sufficient to indicate to the signalman that the train is approaching, that it is of the correct class for signalling priority purposes, and that it is complete when the tail lamp passes him.

 

Some of my suggestions could be incorporated now, without causing much in the way of a price increase, though.  Removable (mag mount?) cab roofs for diesels, electrics, multiple units and steam tank locos so we can get detail in there without becoming qualified gynacologists, and empty bunkers (yes, I know, the tendency is to use this area for chips or speakers and bury them under plastic coal) are easily achievable and have been done on some RTR, as have sliding cab roof shutters.  

[No Decorum]

8 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

It's doable I'm sure, but the cost would be I suspect the fat side of 1k.  I wouldn't mind seeing my independently powered lamp system taken up though; it might be feasible.  A nano led, doesn't have to be more than a fraction of a volt to power it, perhaps activated by being placed on the bracket, which completes a circuit.  I reckon about a 10 minute burn time is sufficient for most layouts, and anything upwards of that would be a bonus (ideally, it needs to be capable of staying lit for 24 hours, the real ones were designed do this if trimmed correctly).  Little plastic handling tool to place and remove from the bracket and return to charging station. and another bonus if it can be charged from the loco/coach/brake van brackets.  If it could be brought to market at under £10 a lamp, and say £30 for the starter kit including the charging station, which can have brackets for say 10 lamps, I'd go for it.  Lamps need to be 3 types, head, tail, and brake van side.  Light output can easily be a lot less than is common in current 4mm working lamps, which are far too bright; you need ideally to be struggling to see that the lamp is lit through the red lens in normal room lighting levels.  Look at the real thing; you can't really see it in bright daylight, nor are you intended to, it's for darkness, fog, or falling snow!  The presence of the lamp body is sufficient to indicate to the signalman that the train is approaching, that it is of the correct class for signalling priority purposes, and that it is complete when the tail lamp passes him.

 

Some of my suggestions could be incorporated now, without causing much in the way of a price increase, though.  Removable (mag mount?) cab roofs for diesels, electrics, multiple units and steam tank locos so we can get detail in there without becoming qualified gynacologists, and empty bunkers (yes, I know, the tendency is to use this area for chips or speakers and bury them under plastic coal) are easily achievable and have been done on some RTR, as have sliding cab roof shutters.  

Interesting idea about the lamps. I had thought about a live lamp iron with a pad at the base (insulated from the iron, of course) connected to the track supply.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

31 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

...I wouldn't mind seeing my independently powered lamp system taken up though; it might be feasible.  A nano led, doesn't have to be more than a fraction of a volt to power it, perhaps activated by being placed on the bracket, which completes a circuit.  I reckon about a 10 minute burn time is sufficient for most layouts, and anything upwards of that would be a bonus (ideally, it needs to be capable of staying lit for 24 hours, the real ones were designed do this if trimmed correctly).  Little plastic handling tool to place and remove from the bracket and return to charging station. and another bonus if it can be charged from the loco/coach/brake van brackets.  If it could be brought to market at under £10 a lamp, and say £30 for the starter kit including the charging station, which can have brackets for say 10 lamps, I'd go for it.  Lamps need to be 3 types, head, tail, and brake van side.  Light output can easily be a lot less than is common in current 4mm working lamps, which are far too bright; you need ideally to be struggling to see that the lamp is lit through the red lens in normal room lighting levels.  Look at the real thing; you can't really see it in bright daylight, nor are you intended to, it's for darkness, fog, or falling snow!  The presence of the lamp body is sufficient to indicate to the signalman that the train is approaching, that it is of the correct class for signalling priority purposes, and that it is complete when the tail lamp passes him... 

Being easily impressed, I would settle for a standardised system of either: varieties of scale plug in lamp irons, exchangeable for matching non-illuminated scale plug in lamps, or alternatively, scale lamp irons robust enough to take scale dimensioned matching lamps which stayed put. A handling tool for either sounds like a good plan.

 

Make a reliable and affordable product of one of those, and then move on to a working version if the demand is present.

Edited April 5, 2020 by 34theletterbetweenB&D
sense better make

[The Johnster]

Bachmann have mag mount lamps that seem to be a step in this direction, but the detailing is a little crude.  So there is hope...  I use Springsides or Modelus, but am tending to Springsides as the Modelus, otherwise excellent and printed ready to be mounted on brackets, are not robust enough for repeated handling, the root of my 'handling tool' idea.  The Springsides have to have mounting holes drilled in them, and I have a bit of a cheek criticising Baccy's lamps as crude, as I use no.13 staples as brackets.  Where metal brackets are supplied on RTR models they are adequately robust, but the mounting sometimes lets them down (Hornby coaching stock), and excessive force with Modelus can burst the plastic.

 

I think this is an aspect that is being neglected by RTR designers in favour of DCC lighting, which as current era modelling is inevitably replacing steam era/70s probably makes sense, but they are IMHO missing a trick if they are not at least investigating something like my suggestion.  If they are, of course, they'll keep it under wraps; even Baccy won't  announce it more than 3 months in advance!  My feeling is that a system along the lines that I have suggested is more likely to come from a 3rd party producer, possibly a 3D printer and possible crowd funded.

 

Yes. that is an open challenge from me for someone to have a go, yes I will crowd fund if I can afford it, and yes I will pay up to £30 for a starter kit, £50 with a set of lamps; don't reckon it's viable at more than that price, and once you buy the starter kit, 4 lamps and a charger, repeat sales of further lamps at £!0 a pop will follow.  I'd suggest BR lamps to begin with, Big 4 to follow if successful.  

 

It's the sort of thing Dapol might look at.  Trick is to keep the lamp voltage and wattage as low as possible to conserve charge and deal with heating; this chimes with greater realism anyway!  Paraffin lamps were pretty dim, but there was less ambient lighting even in urban areas in those days, so they were adequately bright for their intended purpose.  UK railway are largely fenced, and illumination of the track ahead is not deemed necessary; where speeds are higher than 15mph absolute block signalling is used.  Even modern high powered headlights are for the purpose of identifying an approaching train rather than enabling the driver to see what's in front of him.

Edited April 5, 2020 by The Johnster

[Paul.Uni]

Now due:

• 35-025 GWR 94XX Pannier Tank 9402 GWR Green (GWR) Nov-20

• 35-026 GWR 94XX Pannier Tank 9487 BR Black (Early Emblem) Dec-20

• 35-027 GWR 94XX Pannier Tank 9479 BR Black (Late Crest) Dec-20

[gwrrob]

Yes, I saw that and their run of the mill re-liveried 8750 class is pushed back to June too. That's life at the moment.