Bachmann 94xx

[The Johnster]

4 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

there are no shortcuts to good running.

 

Agreed, though I manage happily without the droppers in the interests of minimising electrical connections, which are not the best example of bombproof reliability with my soldering, and because the underside of the boards is not easily accessible underneath all of the track.

 

There is a single feed point with two bridging wires where there are kickback sidings in relation to it, and current is directed around the layout (DC, remember) by the set of the turnouts.  There are also two simple isolating sections; these are sufficient for all movements though of course I can only make one move at a time and am considering another feed and controller for the colliery so that two movements can be accomplished simultaneously.  KISS, Keep It Simple, Stupid, has worked well for me!  Good quality slow running and smooth stops and starts are important to me.

[mat]

Has anyone had issue with the sound fitting loco just while stationary just start making a high pitch noise.

[Wickham Green too]

Could be the fireman's turned on the injector .... or the safety valve's about to lift !! 🙄

[StuartGWR]

I very much like the 94xx which I have just purchased - it looks amazing, and gives a good account of itself on the track. However there is a niggling (potential) mechanical problem.  It looks as if Bachmann have repeated the disastrous design mistake they made in the 1980's/1990's, when all  their gear trains were configured to push the driving axle out of the frames when the slightest amount of wear had occurred, and torque was needed. Has anyone tried cleaning the wheels?  I found that this historic fault was happening on the new loco, but not, as yet, when running.  It may be that inserting packing beneath the keeper plate on the gear side will cure this, as thankfully the loco does have proper bearings.

[robertcwp]

I somewhat belatedly purchased 9479 yesterday and noticed it has a right-facing emblem (ie the wrong way round) on the right-hand side. I then looked at a photo in my own collection which confirms this is correct.

9479_OOC_11-60 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

Edited October 23, 2023 by robertcwp
Typo.

[Miss Prism]

How rare were the right-facing totems?

 

[Barry Ten]

2 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

How rare were the right-facing totems?

 

 

2 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

How rare were the right-facing totems?

 

 

Depends how many left-facing ones are left on the transfer sheet.

[robertcwp]

12 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

How rare were the right-facing totems?

 

They were standard on the right hand side from when the emblem was introduced until the College of Arms found out and told BR to change it. I don’t have an exact date but it was late 1950s. 

[Miss Prism]

So, presumably 1957-58 for new insignia applications ?

(Right-facing insignia would be visible for several years after that.)

 

 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Miss Prism

[Porkscratching]

Always seemed odd to me that they caved in on the facing direction thing, you'd think it'd be a case of "it's our logo, which we've paid to have designed and produced, we'll put it whichever way round we want"... Its not like anyone else is going to use the reversed one! 😁

[John Isherwood]

54 minutes ago, Porkscratching said:

Always seemed odd to me that they caved in on the facing direction thing, you'd think it'd be a case of "it's our logo, which we've paid to have designed and produced, we'll put it whichever way round we want"... Its not like anyone else is going to use the reversed one! 😁

 

The problem was that BR decided to register the new logo with The College of Heralds (Arms?); they need not have done so.

 

What they overlooked was that the registered logo was left-facing, and coats-of-arms must be as registered - you cannot have LH and RH versions.

 

Unfortunately, the situation was wholly of BR's making!

 

CJI.

[Porkscratching]

They'd have been better off just registering both versions as a reg trade mark type of thing then.. I suppose they were just trying to be all posh with the "heralds" malarkey! 

On a slightly different tack, didn't they use the arrow of indecision round the "wrong way" or mirror imaged for BR ferries? I seem to recall it was done like that on the Tilbury ferry when I used to go over daily for a while in the mid 70s.

[stewartingram]

Reverse arrows because shipping passes to the opposite side of trains

[hmrspaul]

26 minutes ago, Porkscratching said:

They'd have been better off just registering both versions as a reg trade mark type of thing then.. I suppose they were just trying to be all posh with the "heralds" malarkey! 

On a slightly different tack, didn't they use the arrow of indecision round the "wrong way" or mirror imaged for BR ferries? I seem to recall it was done like that on the Tilbury ferry when I used to go over daily for a while in the mid 70s.

Only on one side, the arrow was intended to always face towards the bow. They were on the funnel of course. 

 

Paul

[Welchester]

3 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

Only on one side, the arrow was intended to always face towards the bow. They were on the funnel of course. 

 

Paul

On the flag too, which looked different from either side. 

[Porkscratching]

I just had a look at a few old pics of the Tilbury ferry "Edith" which was generally the one l seemed to catch (there was another one Catherine which only operated occasionally) and sure enough the symbol on the "nearside" is reversed so the top arrow faces forward, looks really odd as you're so used to seeing it the "right" way round! 

[adb968008]

14 hours ago, Porkscratching said:

They'd have been better off just registering both versions as a reg trade mark type of thing then.. I suppose they were just trying to be all posh with the "heralds" malarkey! 

On a slightly different tack, didn't they use the arrow of indecision round the "wrong way" or mirror imaged for BR ferries? I seem to recall it was done like that on the Tilbury ferry when I used to go over daily for a while in the mid 70s.

Wasting taxpayer money is nothing new.

[Wickham Green too]

23 hours ago, cctransuk said:

... What they overlooked was that the registered logo was left-facing, and coats-of-arms must be as registered - you cannot have LH and RH versions. ...

OK - so what was there to prevent BR using a registered version on one tank/tender side and absolutely anything else they fancied ( including an un-registered version ) on t'other ?

[adb968008]

Its nebulus anyway, if the loco was going tender first… theyd still be facing backwards to direction of travel.

And on a diesel.. what then as either direction is forward ?

Edited October 25, 2023 by adb968008

[John Isherwood]

2 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

OK - so what was there to prevent BR using a registered version on one tank/tender side and absolutely anything else they fancied ( including an un-registered version ) on t'other ?

 

That was not the way that 'things were done' back then - one respected the authority of bodies with which one engaged; one did not try to circumvent them.

 

Not the done thing at all, old boy!

 

CJI.

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

That was not the way that 'things were done' back then - one respected the authority of bodies with which one engaged; one did not try to circumvent them.

 

Not the done thing at all, old boy!

 

CJI.

But isnt that exactly what they did do… use two different emblems ?

it wasnt unique to BR either… BOACs speedbird never flies backwards.

 

the whole thing is a waste of cash, and they ended up binning it anyways.

 

i’m not sure its done today either… Avanti’ 390’s have the logo facing one way, which means one way at one end the logo is facing the front, the other side its facing the train.

Edited October 25, 2023 by adb968008

[John Isherwood]

Only until the College told them to 'Stop it'!

 

...... then they just used the LH-facing version on both sides.

 

CJI.

Edited October 25, 2023 by cctransuk

[Metr0Land]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

But isnt that exactly what they did do… use two different emblems ?

it wasnt unique to BR either… BOACs speedbird never flies backwards.

 

 

 

BOAC and later BA had the union flag different on either side of the fuselage.  Every so often some know it all 'discovers' the flag is upside down on the starboard side of the fuselage - except it isn't.  The convention is that the staff (flagpole to most of us) is at the front of the aircraft and so the flag on starboard side is the reverse side of the flag.

[hmrspaul]

On 24/10/2023 at 09:31, cctransuk said:

 

The problem was that BR decided to register the new logo with The College of Heralds (Arms?); they need not have done so.

 

What they overlooked was that the registered logo was left-facing, and coats-of-arms must be as registered - you cannot have LH and RH versions.

 

Unfortunately, the situation was wholly of BR's making!

 

CJI.

The use of a crown is restricted - permission is supposed to be sought so it is possible that this why BR went to the College of Arms. 

 

The old Min of Ag got into trouble when it went to alter a mark that was used to show a pesticide had been through the official approval scheme. IIRC this had to alter when such approval became a Common Market/EU agreement (many years after the UK joined the EEC). It was realised that the mark that had been in use, from possibly the 1950s, which was an A on top of a crown had never been officially registered. 

 

Paul

Edited October 26, 2023 by hmrspaul

[Butler Henderson]

Purchased the preserved 9466 model which I found has no etched number plates with it. Bachmann have confirmed that none are supplied.