Bachmann 2012

[Atlantic 3279]

I noticed however on BRMW that TBG appeared to be a little uncertain regarding the tenders for the Scottish Directors.

E.M. Johnson's second book on Locomotives of the GCR clearly states, with good photographic evidence, that the D11/2s had the self trimming variety but without a water scoop. Pictures concincingly show the shallow step-out of the coping above the wide tank, the raised ends to the straight-topped front coalplate and the large central box on the front bulkhead. I've yet to locate a picture that shows the type of water filler fitted in lieu of the previously usual GCR combined filler hatch / scoop cover. It may have been the ROD type for which drawings already existed, but who knows? As all of the Directors had the newer pattern of wide, high-roofed cab, regardles of whether it had side windows, another little point to note regarding the tenders originally built to go with these locos would be the width of the soleplate at the front of the tender: For those earlier Directors originally paired with older-type, narrow-bodied "non self trimming" tenders, in order to match the width of the rear of the loco the soleplate above the front tedner steps was made a little wider, and the vertical front handrails of the tender were (I believe) set out a little more towards the sides than had been the case on earlier tenders such as those behind the O4s. The upper parts of the backplates for the front steps on the tender may have been vertical too, rather than "sloping under" to match the shape of the loco steps as before.

[IAK]

Methinks Bachmann will need to be careful then mon.
Mind if they are they will kill a lot of birds with one set of tenders?
But that "may" be for the future....

Anyhow, one hopes that the right tenders will gae behynd the re'ht beasties.......
Either that or some soul will no doubt start correcting them.

[45609]

I've yet to locate a picture that shows the type of water filler fitted in lieu of the previously usual GCR combined filler hatch / scoop cover. It may have been the ROD type for which drawings already existed, but who knows?

Graeme,

This photo gives a good clue....

http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/ ... p?id=34038

Morgan

[Bill Bedford]

This photo gives a good clue....
http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/ ... p?id=34038

That shows a tender with a water scoop box on the tank top.

[Atlantic 3279]

So what is the probable explanation? Had that loco had a tender swap? Were the Scottish tenders built with the combined scoop cover and filler hatch but no scoop beneath? Or Does the book have it wrong about the Scottish tenders having no scoops?

[9E]

The RCTS volume covering the D11s states D11/2 built with self-trimming tender without water scoops as per E.M. Johnson's text. Very similar phrasing perhaps suggesting that the RCTS volume is the source of the info in locomotives of the GCR?

Simon

[Bill Bedford]

So what is the probable explanation? Had that loco had a tender swap? Were the Scottish tenders built with the combined scoop cover and filler hatch but no scoop beneath? Or Does the book have it wrong about the Scottish tenders having no scoops?

That photo shows a 'D' shaped filler lid and the division plate well forward of the end of the raves. So it looks like the central box with the scoop head is present, but whether the cross box that held the drive rod is there I can't tell.
Some where I have a overhead photo of the loco that was used as a stationary boiler outside the Edinburgh hotel, which may tell us more. I just can't remember where it is.

[Saint Johnstoun]

Another D11 catch is the recylinderings and long travel valves. The two identification points seem to be the rivets below the smokebox - originally they were in a U formation, but after rebuilding they were in two staggered rows. The reversing rod on the originals was straight, and curved on the long travel upgrades.

[Skaran]

Does anyone know how the D11s according to the NRM was running from 1899? Or have they confused them with the older GCR 4-4-0s?

I could just about justify a D10 the 11 is sadly a little late for me.

[Atlantic 3279]

E.M. Johnson's second book on Locomotives of the GCR clearly states, with good photographic evidence, that the D11/2s had the self trimming variety but without a water scoop.

It begins to look as if Bachmann may have correct features on the tenders of the pre-prod McDirector. Morgan Gilbert has now pointed out to me some features of a self-trimming tender drawing in Johnson's book. The particular example shows the usual "b" shaped group of covers/hatches on the top rear of the tender, and the fixed-position riser pipe for water pick-up beneath those covers, within the tank. Beyond these features however there are none of the other parts of the water pick up apparatus - no scoop beneath the tank and no parts of the linkage (or linkage covers) to connect the scoop to a controlling handwheel - ordinarily on the front bulkhead of the tender but also absent in this drawing.
There are no explanatory notes and only a brief caption that does not reveal the origin of the drawing. If however this IS the post-grouping version of the tender drawing for use with the D11/2s then it solves the mystery.

[Atlantic 3279]

A good close look at the pre-production Bachmann Director in the cabinet at York on Sunday got me wondering and worrying. I remember the problem well from building my Little Engines D10, and it was one of the reasons, aside from traction and balance, for my decision to set the loco body up free to "nod" on the motorised coupled-wheels unit, with its front actually riding at fixed height on the bogie pin: The commendably full-sized bogie wheels on the Bachmann sample almost rub on the underside of the running plate, which in line with standard Bachmann practice will presumably be metal. The dummy frames currently in position between the bogie wheels also barely clear the wheel flanges. It all looks highly authentic but if they build the model as a standard "toy 4-4-0" there will be no end of trouble with shorting and binding on curves or the slightest irregularites in model trackwork. If they fit smaller bogie wheels, or raise the running plate, they'll siginificantly spoil the appearance. Good luck Bachmann. I shall hold fire on any order for Butler H until I see how this problem has been solved.

Here's what I found, and what I did, with my D10 viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7321&p=67235#p67235

[60800]

I've already pre-ordered 506. The reps at the bachmann stand at York MRS last week did mention that there were two D11/1 prototypes, one at the NRM and the other back at bachmann HQ being mechincally tested.

[Hatfield Shed]

A good close look at the pre-production Bachmann Director in the cabinet at York on Sunday got me wondering and worrying. I remember the problem well from building my Little Engines D10, and it was one of the reasons, aside from traction and balance, for my decision to set the loco body up free to "nod" on the motorised coupled-wheels unit, with its front actually riding at fixed height on the bogie pin: The commendably full-sized bogie wheels on the Bachmann sample almost rub on the underside of the running plate, which in line with standard Bachmann practice will presumably be metal. The dummy frames currently in position between the bogie wheels also barely clear the wheel flanges. It all looks highly authentic but if they build the model as a standard "toy 4-4-0" there will be no end of trouble with shorting and binding on curves or the slightest irregularites in model trackwork. If they fit smaller bogie wheels, or raise the running plate, they'll siginificantly spoil the appearance. Good luck Bachmann. I shall hold fire on any order for Butler H until I see how this problem has been solved.

Further to this; this very thing happens with the K3 model's pony truck ( and may well afflict models elsewhere in the range). Bach make the running plate as a casting (commendably to get the weight up) and the model relies on the paint to prevent the flanges shorting on the running plate underside when less than perfect track is encountered. My liking for much model railway operation saw shorting occur about two years into service, once both flanges had worn away enough paint to form decent size contact patches. Three minutes with the side cutter in the high speed rotary tool to cut clearance arches (there's enough depth in the casting) and the problem is solved. You never know, Bachmann may have realised this is a potential problem by now and cast in arches on later models especially those that are more difficult to balance like 4-4-0s. Don't suppose anyone here has purchased a Bach 4-4-0 yet since they are all wrong-uns...

[Atlantic 3279]

It did occur to me a day or two ago that it would be possible for Bachmann to go for a fixed-ride-height, loaded front bogie without having to stray outside of their established envelope of chassis construction techniques. No need to make the whole of the four-coupled drive unit free to "nod" as I did in my Director. One coupled axle sprung (e.g. as in the A1s) would do the job. I imagine they would feel compelled to put the drive gears on the leading coupled axle, so that it would have to be the rear one that got the springing, though I fancy that the reverse arrangement might be better for traction and would better suit any attempt to load the dragbeam with the weight of the front of the tender.

[60800]

There is now a fully liveried prototype version of the Bachmann D11/1 no 506 at York NRM. I'll get some photos of it while I'm at railfest and will post them here.


From this photo I found on facebook, the leading bogie appers to have been altered to provide more clearance, with a rather large spring evident to help with balance: