Bachmann Ivatt 2-6-2

Bachmann are, it seems, about to release this model again. Can anyone
tell me if these have been improved over the years, or is the new one
essentially the same as all the previous ones?
I believe that some of the split chassis locos, e.g. the J72, have been
improved over the years with better/stronger axles. I'm not sure if this
is the case with the Ivatt 2-6-2 tank.
Some of the newer Ivatt 2-6-2's seem to have smaller couplings. I prefer
the older Mainline style ones: can the new ones be unscrewed and replaced
with the Mainline couplings?
Thanks
Reply to
Gerald H
Loading thread data ...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:52:54 +0100, Gerald H said in :
I have to say that I threw away a Bachmann J72. It was cheap, but it ran very poorly indeed. When it ran at all.
Guy
Reply to
Just zis Guy, you know?
"Gerald H" wrote
It would be nice to think that they'd incorporated the chassis from the 2MT 2-6-0, but somehow I doubt it. Unless they've gone down that route I suspect we're still stuck with the dreaded split chassis and self-destructing wheel sets.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
I have a Bachmann Ivatt 2-6-2 on my layout - loco No. 41313, Bachmann No. 31-452.
Seems quite good to me, although mine was given to me in mint new condition. I have no complaints about detailing, and it's fitted with a flywheel motor, so runs very smoothly. However, it is a little jumpy on the bogies, and will often derail on anything but a perfect track (I'm using standard Hornby Setrack - I know, I know!).
This one is fitted with the smaller couplings, although they do appear to be screw on - the blow-up diagram in the box shows the larger type of coupling.
Reply to
Andy Hewitt
My Dad has three failed J72s, one of which is on its second chassis. It's a shame, because they're nice models. Mainly Trains sell a chassis kit for them and Dad's bought one so we might get a J72 back up and running eventually. They also do a kit to convert a J72 to a J71 which might be an interesting use of one of the other wrecks.
Reply to
Graham Thurlwell
That would indicate oil on the armature and commutator. I'd have said "excess oil" but there shouldn't be any there.
Regards, Greg.P. NZ
Reply to
Greg.Procter
I took it all apart, split chassis and all, and cleaned it up once. I guess I need to do it again.
Reply to
MartinS
That smoke has to come from somewhere! (ie somewhere more specific than "the cab") Oil impregnated brushes from previous over-oiling are a possibility, if you're sure you did it right last time in cleaning the motor. In my experience that can only be fixed by replacement of the brushes.
Regards, Greg.P.
Reply to
Greg.Procter
Possibly. It could also just be the case that my family use the J72s more intensively than we use the J39s, but in the relatively short time I've been reading this group I've never seen anyone complaining about failed J39s whereas J72s seem to come up every now and again.
I just wish that Bachmann would re-tool the J72 chassis, because the body is superb.
Reply to
Graham Thurlwell
Hi Martin,
In that case there's something seriously wrong! There's very little that can smoke if you eliminate excessive oil. - The armature windings can burn off the shellac insulation. - Wrong material brushes can burn. In either case the smoke would get worse the longer you run it.
Regards, Greg.P. NZ
Reply to
Greg.Procter
"Graham Thurlwell" wrote
Never had any problems with the J39s, but the J72 and original BR Standard 4MT 4-6-0 were legendary for bad long-term reliability. Both incidentally J72 & 4MT were originally tooled by Mainline.
That body tooling is over 30 years old, and could do with a revamp in my opinion, but it's still not bad!
John.
Reply to
John Turner
One other issue I was concerned with regarding the Bachmann Ivatt 2-6-2 was whether it would go round UK first radius curves. I figured that an earlier version was more likely to, so I picked up a mint example at the local swapmeet. This goes around first radius curves with ease.
It's a shame that Bachmann and Hornby give the impression that 2nd radius is the minimum for most of their locos, when quite a number will negotiate 1st radius, as it stops me buying more modern locos.
Reply to
Gerald H
"Gerald H" wrote
The real shame is that we still insist on using curves as tight as 'first radius' but rest assured all of the smaller Bachmann and Hornby locos will manage these comfortably. It's only the larger locos that need 'second radius'.
John.
Reply to
John
If you insist, or have to, use curves as found on industrial railway you should stick to four and six wheeled tank/diesel engines... The point being, modern RTR models have become scale models rather than toys, 20 years ago one still had to kit and scratch build to get the standards now found out of the box, you can't expect to have scale models and then expect them to go around grossly non-scale curves - if you do say good-bye to scale wheels and a lot of main-frame detailing.
Reply to
Jerry

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.