TMC G5

[mr B]

any one got a G5 from TMC , if so is it worth investing ?

[jwealleans]

The green ones I've seen seem to have quite a colur mismatch between dome and body. I haven't seen one in the flesh and no-one's complained about it so it might be a photographic effect,

[mr B]

thanks for the feedback

[Woodcock29]

Quite a bit of commentary starting to appear on the other side. Photos do appear to show slightly different green for the dome on NER version but you'd need to see one in the flesh. Sounds like the balancing is well done and they run well. I've ordered 1752 - just couldn't resist it. Years ago, back in 70s I converted a Triang M7 into a G5 - not sure what happened to it.
Andrew

[Hatfield Shed]

If I could make a loco model look as good as this item by DIY from a kit or scratch I would be over the moon.

Reports of the good tractive performance interest me, with suggestions that this item (and the Bach MR 0-4-4T) is better designed for weight forward than previous RTR 0-4-4T. That's been enough to encourage me to buy one, always interested to see design improvements for performance; coupled with support for 'the home team'. (Buying models of LNER prototype subjects is the best way to encourage future introductions.)

There is a running performance criticism, in common with other models with coreless motors, which motors are inevitably increasingly being fitted in new RTR introductions. These motors will start on a breath of current, and control gear (DC, DCC, any other flavour there may be out there) which cannot provide the necessary very small output to obtain a smooth start at dead slow will result in the model galloping off unrealistically.

[Hatfield Shed]

I have been giving an example the once over (32-255Z, BR early emblem in lined black).

The mechanism arrangement is near optimal for this type of wheel arrangement, weight concentrated forward, light motor immediately rear of the coupled wheels, DCC socket in bunker. The balance point is within the coupled wheelbase, and there is a well judged sprung bogie to keep the loco stable on track.

It ran smoothly and silently from dead slow on DC (Duette with high resistance mats) in both directions and after an hour of gentle trundling in both directions proved capable of starting 14 free running coaches (2.1kg) on straight and level track, with just a little starting wheelslip going forward, no wheelslip in reverse. It's not been allowed a full speed run yet, but what I have seen suggests this model has been geared for a sensibly modest maximum. Quite likely that traction will improve with more running as the tyres polish up, the usual thing with Bachmann product.

All wheels have pick up wipers, and all were correctly arranged and functioning as received. (Amusingly, the product notes suggest pick up is only from the drivers, now I have got around to reading them fully!) Body removal was very easy, three identified screws, and fitting the Next 18 decoder very simple - as it should be. (I am already tempted to alter the internal construction: there's a plug of screw attached mazak ballast in the front of the boiler and smokebox which should be removeable with the undoing of a few body construction screws, replacement with lead will move the balance point forward, nearer the center of the coupled wheelbase. Bachmann's construction plan makes this very easy, done this on all their models that I own other than the sufficiently heavy 9F and V2.)

With a Zimo decoder fitted it's now on its 'infant mortality' detection running; probably unnecessary, models with sweet running mechanisms straight out of the box are typically good for life.

Appearance, you may gauge for yourself, looks like a good rendering of the subject to me but I have never seen the prototype.

[john coffin]

Keep looking at the pictures on the Hornby Magazine video, and wonder why there is a footplate across the space between the
front splashers. I am pretty sure that no other picture that I have seen show such a thing on a real loco.

Pictures in Yeadon Vol38 don't make it very clear, but it is difficult to imagine that the NER would have not had easy
access to the motion and rear of the cylinders, which would have meant no running plate between frames, so why
have Bachmann included it.

It doesn't detract from the fact that at the side it looks pretty good (says a GN man) and if your experiments are
anything to go by it will be a decent performer and addition to layouts for the north of england.

Paul

[mick b]

Keep looking at the pictures on the Hornby Magazine video, and wonder why there is a footplate across the space between the
front splashers. I am pretty sure that no other picture that I have seen show such a thing on a real loco.

Pictures in Yeadon Vol38 don't make it very clear, but it is difficult to imagine that the NER would have not had easy
access to the motion and rear of the cylinders, which would have meant no running plate between frames, so why
have Bachmann included it.

It doesn't detract from the fact that at the side it looks pretty good (says a GN man) and if your experiments are
anything to go by it will be a decent performer and addition to layouts for the north of england.

Paul

The Footplate as you call it is a simple dodge to avoid having to model the inside of the frames and internal driving motion. Very few r.t.r and even most kits are made the same way. Some recent r.t.r have placed a top half moulding of the internal motion glued on top of the area painted red. e.g Oxford J27
There is a far more obvious dodge/bodge by Bachmann on this one. The Cab Doors are missing/ignored and the adjacent Handrails either side of the Cab enterance are simply moulded into the Cab sides.

I havent seen one in the "flesh" so far.

[Hatfield Shed]

The Footplate as you call it is a simple dodge to avoid having to model the inside of the frames and internal driving motion. Very few r.t.r and even most kits are made the same way. Some recent r.t.r have placed a top half moulding of the internal motion glued on top of the area painted red. e.g Oxford J27...

I doubt we will ever see regular RTR productions with anything approaching the very desireable appearance of a model with an etched plate frame underframe kit. (Do current Korean 'brass' productions boast this feature?) If the body is good enough, some bold soul will doubtless fit one for a P4 conversion.

...There is a far more obvious dodge/bodge by Bachmann on this one. The Cab Doors are missing/ignored and the adjacent Handrails either side of the Cab entrance are simply moulded into the Cab sides.

And the absence of cab doors is really noticeable because of the current fad for painting cab interiors pale cream!

When I find my way into the cab to tone this down to the usual grubby appearance, I can add the cab doors and steps which are included in the detail pack; the steps are owner optional for those not requiring the model to work on set track radius curvature. (There are some decent looking fire irons to sling on top of a tank, and I think I can manage a slacker pipe and a bucket somewhere.)

What does puzzle me are the short posts on the roof corners. Are these representations of anchorages for a tarp to provide crew shelter on the upwind side?

[mick b]

Do they make models in Korea still ?

I was'nt aware of the Cab doors being available.

The "bits" on the Roof are Tank vents according to the dark side posts.

[drmditch]

Well, I wasn't going to get one of these because I have an elderly (Nucast ?) Class O which runs really well, although it needs some additional detail.
I also have an un-started Dave Alexander kit.

However, I was tempted by the availability of the TMC/Bachmann model, to cheer me up in what are for me at the moment dark days.
I ordered No 2082 with the vacuum gear for push-pull operation.

It arrived promptly, although the front RH buffer was detached in the packaging. This was easy to correct.
So far, all I have done is to run it in, according to the instructions, for half an hour in each direction.

It runs excellently, even over the less satisfactory parts of my trackwork (all Peco Code 100) and bumpy baseboard joins. It has a lot of beautifully applied detail, especially for the vacuum control gear and pipes at both ends. The weight over the driving wheels and the springing of the bogie seem very good. It responds well to my Gaugemaster controllers. There are a lot of detail parts to add, including the cab doors. I haven't made a detailed study of it yet and have for the moment put it back into it's box until I am ready for it's project. 2082 was a Sunderland engine for at least part of the timescale in which I am interested, so it may not need re-numbering.

I have managed to find a Steve Banks article in Model Rail of November 2005 describing LNER Push-pull operations and coaching stock. I thought I had a copy of British Railway Journal No.32 which has an article by Clive Carter on the same subject. I know I put it somewhere safe but where?

I do have a D&S brass kit for an NER brake-composite driver. This will need some practice of my soldering skills.

[Hatfield Shed]

Thanks for the tank vent information, so that's no longer a mystery.

The bunker end can wag around excessively, because the bogie pivot is well forward of the bogie frame, and there is no recentering action. I can feel a modification coming on: the pivot point as supplied is a crosshead screw which can be removed, then we can create clearance for the forward bogie extension that conceals the bogie pick up wiring, cement plastic sheet to the bogie frame, put a hole in it and use the bogie centre screw as a centrally located pivot. Should think there will be enough sideplay in the wheelsets for this to be OK for my 30" minimum radius requirement.

So that's another mod to make when replacing the mazak ballast weight with lead.

The NEM coupler pockets were slightly low, but the useful vertical assymetry in the Bachmann pocket moulding means that with the pocket turned over the Kadee coupler than comes out at gauge height.

Do they make models in Korea still ? ...

When posting I nearly typed Japan instead of Korea, but managed an update before hitting submit! The brand that comes to mind is Samhongsa, definitely Korean based but could by now well have 'off-shored' production. (Or is that 'elsewhered' since it's most likely to be on the contiguous asian continent? )

[mick b]

Try some Peco Fibre washers on the Bogie wheels to reduce the sideplay.

[Hatfield Shed]

The sideplay of the bogie wheelsets is nicely controlled by Bachmann's usual neat pick-up wipers, which keeps them centred in the bogie frame.

The solution for the tail wag is to alter the bogie pivot to where it should have been, as I described above; and happily there's a pivot point provided at the bogie centre all ready to be adapted for use. Just need to eliminate the bad idea of having the bogie pivotted from a long way forward.

[mr B]

happy with the BR extended bunker one , got it over the counter at TMC , only to find my local shop (Redcar) has them for sale .