New Bachmann Ivatt 2-6-0?

"kim" wrote

Bachmann's model of the Ivatt 4MT 2-6-0 is scheduled for delivery this Autumn (September or October).

John.

The Class 4 is pictured separately in the same article. It was the inclusion of a picture of a Class 2 which aroused my suspicion.

(kim)

"kim" wrote

Well let's hope your suspicions are prophetic. The 'little' 2-6-0 cries out to be modelled properly - it's the ideal size of loco for most layouts and one of my favourites.

John.

Indeed. The old Hornby model is now very dated compared to modern offerings. Would this mean they are updating the Ivatt 2-6-2 chassis to make it easier for DCC?

I agree. It was used pretty well everywhere on secondary lines, pulling short passenger or goods trains.

Look... will you lot please stop teasing me?!? I can hardly wait!

I even have a Dapol kit standing ready so that I can convert one to a BR standard 4MT...

Why? Bachmann will almost certainly do one themselves.

(kim)

"kim" wrote

Hmmm! They've not yet churned the Ivatt 2-6-2T out in its BR Standard reincarnation. Must say I'd like to see a retooled 2-6-2T as well as the

John.

I think the second part of your post answers the first part. The old Ivatt will be woefully dated compared to the new one. Methinks they'll take the opportunity to phase out the 2-6-2 altogether.

(kim)

Why? Because I can! :-)

I think it will take Bachmann a while to get around to a BR 4MT, and I quite enjoy tinkering around with things like that.

"kim" wrote

I believe the Ivatt 2-6-2T has been Bachmann's best selling loco of all time and I'd hate to see it dropped as it still sells well. If they are to do a 'Blue Ribband' 2-6-0 then it wouldn't take a genius to design a chassis which could be used in both the tank and tender loco.

John.

IIRC Bachmann did announce a Standard 2 tank a while back as being on a list of future models involving an upgrade of the Ivatt chassis to Blue Riband standard.

Mike Parkes snipped-for-privacy@mphgate.removetoreply demon.co.uk

So there's no point in them doing a BR Standard version until they've upgraded the chassis.

(kim)

In message , kim writes

I'd have thought there's no point in their even announcing a BR standard version until they've caught up on the backlog of models they've announced but which don't seem to be anywhere near release. Examples: Pullmans, GUVs, etc., some of which were in last year's catalog.

K4 could be either of two things - but if the SVR is involved then it probably /isn't/ the large and elegant Pennsy Pacific ;)

In the .ukian context a K4 is a medium-boilered three-cylinder Gresley

The first of 'em was later rebuilt as the sole K111, prototype for the Thompson/Peppercorn K1s (all the original small-boiler Gresley K1s having gone by then, natch).

So it would be a natural progression for Bachmann to develop one from its existing K3?

(kim)

The bits under the running plate should be pretty similar, ditto much of the cab and tender. I don't /think/ the wheel spacing differed, but others will know.

The nice thing (apart from the K4 - a nice thing per se) is that doing the K4 boiler /could/ allow a K2 at a later stage, using a different set of cylinders (and probably a slightly different wheel spacing - think the firebox was smaller. Maybe a new chassis..). A K1 would be possible, too. Depends how much compromise could be accepted these days....

K3: pony wheels 3'2", drivers 5'8" Wheel spacing: 8'11"+7'6"+8'9"

K4: pony wheels 3'2", drivers 5'2" Wheel spacing: 8'11"+7'6"+8'9"

K1/1 and Pep K1 were the same as the K4

So the difference is 6" of coupled wheel diameter and thus 3" (1mm) of axle height.

ISTR the coupled wheels are undersized on the Bachmann K3???

Tim