4mm scale Modelling Review - Bachmann 2Hap

Bachmann’s long awaited 2Hap models started appearing in model shops during the last weekend in November 2020.  What has taken so long?  Surely this is just the MBSO of a 2EPB mated with the DTCL of a 2H and Bachmann already have tooling for models of both of these?  Superficially yes, but this simplistic view overlooks the complexities and intricacies of the history and details of Southern Region EMUs and DEMUs.  There are significant differences between similar car types in both units.  Differing electrical equipment between 2EPBs and 2Haps plus provision or absence of lighting conduit on roofs are just two examples.  On a purely model level, some time ago a modelling associate and I were trying to determine how we could make a 4EPB from a 2EPB, and provide a centre trailer for the 2H, using existing various Bachmann Mk1 suburban models, “cut-and-shut” if necessary, and similar vehicles from Replica Railways.  What we discovered was every time Bachmann tools for a Mk1 suburban vehicle the details are subtly different, noticeable when put together.  The most noticeable is the depth of the gutter, and on Bachmann models this varies between the 2EPB, 2H (MLV and Cep).  Of course such details, including door furniture, may have varied in real life and building in batches over a long time there may not have been a Mk1 standard.  Can any SEG member advise?  For modelling a unit where vehicles are built around the same time in batches we do need such details to match.  On top of this 2Haps were built in four distinct versions.  A comprehensive and authoritative history can be viewed online on the informative Blood and Custard website.  Bachmann’s three models are of the 1957 phase 1 type, but this does not mean just one set of tooling because as we shall see, all three versions correctly have different body types and details.  The details on these models are correct for 1957 phase 1 Haps.

The three models are as follows:

31-390. Unit 6061 MBSO S61259 DTCL S75379 BR green with plain cab fronts.  Whistles on cab fronts, periscopes above the guard’s compartment on the MBSO.  Headcodes and rear blanks in the early tall thick but narrow font.  Headcode 18 (in 1961 on the SE Division Charing Cross – Sevenoaks via Lewisham and Orpington or Charing Cross – Margate via Orpington, Dover Priory and Minster) on the MBSO, double white blanks on the DTCL.  This unit was in this incarnation from late March 1959 but unfortunately we do not know when it received its small yellow warning panels (~mid 1960s?).

These models are produced to a very high standard as were their 4Ceps, 2EPBs, 2Hs and MLVs previously.  They share many features.  Because of this I do not think it necessary to comment on every fine detail.  These 2Haps have the same body mounted motor-flywheel driving one bogie as per Bachmann’s other SR Mk1 EMUs.  This intrudes into the MBSO’s saloon interior by one and a half seating bays so is a visual intrusion.  This has wrought just about the only criticism of this model in reviews in several model railway magazines given that Bachmann now have a below window drive as used in their recent 158/9 and 117/121 DMU models.  As to whether you think this is a negative depends upon your opinion of the new drive.  I was expecting the 2Haps to use the same body mounted drive as earlier SR EMUs so I had no expectation of something different only to be disappointed, and besides I find the new drive noisy (at least when not fully run-in) and lacking its own inertia.  I have test run my six versions and all six ran well straight out of the box.  Admittedly some ran better and were quieter than others, but the stiffer or noisier versions were improving within five minutes of running. I only checked the back-to-back dimensions on all the axles of one model with a gauge but all eight were spot-on.

This model is prepared for a 21 pin DCC decoder and has a mount for a 11x15mm loudspeaker, should DCC sound be your thing.

Between the cars the coupling is the two pole conducting spear-bar type as used on previous SR EMU models from Bachmann but two lengths are provided, a longer one for curves down to trainset 2nd radius, a shorter one for minimum trainset 3rd radius curves.  I have found this sort of coupler to be tricky to insert and detach and they are prone to damage when doing so.  However the multi-pole coupler as used on the new 158/9 and 117 models is also tricky and prone to damage. I will come out and tell it how it is – an easy to use reliable conducting coupler for mass produced British MU models has yet to be designed and made.  Unfortunately I found the two supplied spear couplings on all six of my models to be more problematical than on my 2EPB, 4Cep and 2H models as they appear to be even tighter to insert and detach.  To explain, the coupling bar inserts into receptacles on each car with sprung arrow points in the horizontal plane for mechanical coupling and two sprung upward facing electrical contacts.  Whilst the bar initially inserts reasonably well mechanically the “angle of attack” of the electrical contacts is almost vertical making it difficult for the contacts to compress to insert the coupling further without damage to the electrical contacts on the cars or coupling bar.  It is even more difficult to force the bar as the receptacles are on a sprung mount, free to float vertically and horizontally, of the close coupling mechanism.  I managed to break one coupling bar, bent the contacts on others and also damaged the contacts on one receptacle.  The best one can hope for is to couple with the bar’s contacts touching the receptacles’ outer contact surfaces rather than being inserted and rely on the mechanical tightness of the coupling thus far to keep the cars together when running.  I found that I could therefore use the shorter 3^rd+ radius bar on 2^nd radius curves.  There is a sprung single buffer between the cars mounted to the DTCL, but buffers on the outer ends are not sprung.

Decoration-wise, these are up to Bachmann’s usual high standards.  Though I did notice, but only when viewing one of my extreme close up photographs closely, that the colour division between yellow warning panel and roof is ragged on the blue & grey version.  That this extreme pickiness is the worst comment I can come up with shows how well Bachmann have done.  The standard of printing of letters and numbers, particularly some of the smaller details, is wonderful.  Although there is a lot of science behind colour and light, colour perception is always a personal issue, not only of how colours are seen but also remembered.  For me all three liveries are “credible”/“in the ballpark”.

Again I have not yet had time laboriously to compare these models to photographs of the real thing, but on a quick comparison I cannot see anything wrong.