Bachmann Anchor Mounted Tanks at Warley

[31A]

There will be an apology in a future RM. RM have been in contact with Bachmann about the errors in the review.

 

Of course, as many of my photos show, and also the ones in this topic the class Bs are accurately 20tonners. Haven't we been through this already. Tourret shows 10ft wheelbase 20ton anchor mounted wagons as well. He simply mentions there were also 20tonners with 12ft wheelbase, which there were especially for chemicals but also for Bitumen.

 

Paul

 

 

Thanks for clearing that up, Paul.  I asked really as I didn't feel confident at judging a difference of two feet in the wheelbase from photographs of the wagons.  I am fairly good at doing this with wagons such as vans and opens where I can gauge it visually in relation to things like door widths and brake lever positions, but the points of reference are not there to the same extent with tanks (which tend to be more variable in design, anyway).  You're quite right, we have been here before with regards to the 20 tonners, it was just that the RM review seemed to speak with some authority and cast seeds of doubt in my mind.

[Gordon A]

Arthur,

 

Thanks for the photograph of the underside.

 

Given the cost of these tankers I am very disappointed in the solid base of the chassis which is not as the real ones.

 

Gordon A

[cctransuk]

Arthur,

 

Thanks for the photograph of the underside.

 

Given the cost of these tankers I am very disappointed in the solid base of the chassis which is not as the real ones.

 

Gordon A

 

How would you hang a NEM pocket from a real one?

 

If you're that fussed - get out the needle files.

 

..... but then, if you're so disappointed, I take it that you won't purchase them.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Mark Saunders]

How would you hang a NEM pocket from a real one?

 

If you're that fussed - get out the needle files.

 

..... but then, if you're so disappointed, I take it that you won't purchase them.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

This is the way of models a compromise between detail and cost!

 

If the open chassis is what you want use a Cambrian chassis or carve the centre out and replace with styrene section!

 

Mark Saunders

[iak]

This is the way of models a compromise between detail and cost!

 

If the open chassis is what you want use a Cambrian chassis or carve the centre out and replace with styrene section!

 

Mark Saunders

Yup,and that is the way I am going to investigate. Carving up the chassis seems extreme but achievable.

The black Esso one I have acquired is,bodyshell wise very interesting, the chassis does need addressing if you like a sense of space and reality. The buffers seem anaemic but some LMS ones will sort that out.

[Mark Saunders]

Yup,and that is the way I am going to investigate. Carving up the chassis seems extreme but achievable.

The black Esso one I have acquired is,bodyshell wise very interesting, the chassis does need addressing if you like a sense of space and reality. The buffers seem anaemic but some LMS ones will sort that out.

 

I await the results of your investigations!

 

Thanks

 

Mark Saunders

[Mark Saunders]

I believe that the confusion in the review was caused by the weight reference, the difference being this is a 20 ton Gross weight, with 14 ton load; rather than a 20 ton load which would have been on the longer chassis!

 

Mark Saunders

[cctransuk]

I believe that the confusion in the review was caused by the weight reference, the difference being this is a 20 ton Gross weight, with 14 ton load; rather than a 20 ton load which would have been on the longer chassis!

 

Mark Saunders

 

Nope - looking at the illustration above of the black Class B one, it definitely reads "LOAD 20 TONS".

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Mark Saunders]

I believe that the confusion in the review was caused by the weight reference, the difference being this is a 20 ton Gross weight, with 14 ton load; rather than a 20 ton load which would have been on the longer chassis!

 

Mark Saunders

 

 

Nope - looking at the illustration above of the black Class B one, it definitely reads "LOAD 20 TONS".

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

John

 

I was referring to Class A rather than the heavier Class B tank but failed to mention this; plus I have not read the review!

 

Mark

[Gordon A]

Re John Isherwood's and Mark Saunders comments:

 

I will be buying one to ascertain how much work and cost will be required to bring this wagon up to the standard I would expect for a wagon retailing at this price.

I was thinking of purchasing a rake of five, but not now.

 

I will look at the Cambrian chassis option and possible others as a comparison of cost and time to bring the Bachman offering up to an acceptable standard.

 

Gordon A

[Downer]

Oh yes, all my diminutive trainspotters on my 4mm footbridge will be straining their eyes to see if they can make out the gaps in the chassis rumbling beneath them.

[cctransuk]

Re John Isherwood's and Mark Saunders comments:

 

I will be buying one to ascertain how much work and cost will be required to bring this wagon up to the standard I would expect for a wagon retailing at this price.

I was thinking of purchasing a rake of five, but not now.

 

I will look at the Cambrian chassis option and possible others as a comparison of cost and time to bring the Bachman offering up to an acceptable standard.

 

Gordon A

 

Time to revisit your expectations - the era of the two bob kit, and the like, expired some considerable time ago.

 

Nowadays, there's no point in having expectations of what your money should buy you - the economic world is moving too fast for that.

 

Look at the product, consider the price, and decide to buy or not - but don't bother to moan about it as no-one cares - especially the manufacturers !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[37079]

Are any of the initial liveries for both flammables and oil suitable for 1945-47? I am a bit of a stickler about 1948 and later liveries on my summer 1947 Padstow.  Unfortunately I do not have much in available resources to do my own research for private owner stock.

 

thanks

The Shell BP livery is the post-war version, it appears repaints in this livery started from 1947 onwards so you might just get away with it if you leave it in near ex-works condition.

 

Esso 2672 appears in Tourret and is quoted as built in 1948, although photographed ex-works as per the Bachmann model around 1955. I haven't found a picture of this version of the Esso livery before 1950 but I suspect this may also have been introduced or reintroduced soon after the war. Incidentally, from the photo the wheelbase does indeed appear to be 10ft but the real 2672 appears to have a significantly larger diameter tank barrel than the Bachmann model.

 

Benzene 852 also appears in Tourret and is quoted as having been built and registered in 1951. The real 852 is a much better match to the Bachmann model in this case.

 

Mike

[black and decker boy]

Would any of these 1st batch be common in Northumberland in the years 1938-1958?

 

It's very hard to get good pictures of freight in these rural areas.

 

Thanks in advance

[hmrspaul]

Would any of these 1st batch be common in Northumberland in the years 1938-1958?

 

It's very hard to get good pictures of freight in these rural areas.

 

Thanks in advance

That is too broad a time frame. Introduced on the cusp of nationalisation oil and petroleum was handled (do I mean that) at many small yards. See Coppin, Alan (1999) Oil on the Rails. Publ. Historical Model Railway Society. 162pp ISBN 0 902 835 17 3.

 

Paul Bartlett

[hmrspaul]

Thanks for clearing that up, Paul.  I asked really as I didn't feel confident at judging a difference of two feet in the wheelbase from photographs of the wagons.  I am fairly good at doing this with wagons such as vans and opens where I can gauge it visually in relation to things like door widths and brake lever positions, but the points of reference are not there to the same extent with tanks (which tend to be more variable in design, anyway).  You're quite right, we have been here before with regards to the 20 tonners, it was just that the RM review seemed to speak with some authority and cast seeds of doubt in my mind.

Whereas Chris at Model Rail asked his old mate as Chris had also mis-understood the entry in Tourret and MR got it right!

 

Paul

[black and decker boy]

That is too broad a time frame. Introduced on the cusp of nationalisation oil and petroleum was handled (do I mean that) at many small yards. See Coppin, Alan (1999) Oil on the Rails. Publ. Historical Model Railway Society. 162pp ISBN 0 902 835 17 3.

 

Paul Bartlett

I will order a copy tomorrow, thank you for the advice it's much appreciated

[Gordon A]

Time to revisit your expectations - the era of the two bob kit, and the like, expired some considerable time ago.

 

Nowadays, there's no point in having expectations of what your money should buy you - the economic world is moving too fast for that.

 

Look at the product, consider the price, and decide to buy or not - but don't bother to moan about it as no-one cares - especially the manufacturers !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

John,

 

I think it is perfectly reasonable to have expectations as to what my money will buy.

I strongly object to forking out £20.95 recommended retail price for one tanker wagon to find that I have to spend more money or carry out hours of work to bring it up to the standard of a 1960's Airfix kit, which I am sat looking at.

The Airfix tanker wagon was an open chassis except where the coupling mounting plates are fitted at each end which span the width of the chassis and are 8mm wide / long.

In my thinking the rrp for one of these tankers takes it out of the toy category into​ that of a scale model and as such is not, in my opinion,  as far ahead of the Mainline 14 ton tankers as it should be. 

 

As to my comments complaining that I am not happy about the standard of the end product, how are the manufacturers supposed to know what the public want if it is not by pointing out the failings of their products and with constructive criticism.

A case in point is that OO modellers are now getting some decent track from another provider.

Improvements in products are often driven by customer complaints along with improvements in production technology and information.

 

Gordon A

Edited June 23, 2016 by Gordon A

[iak]

I await the results of your investigations!

 

Thanks

 

Mark Saunders

Might be some time Mark.

I'm not renowned for my speedy actions at the moment...

Wibbly wobbly phut phut...

[cctransuk]

John,

 

I think it is perfectly reasonable to have expectations as to what my money will buy.

 

The point is that the price of any product depends upon design, development, production and marketting costs, plus profit. You cannot compare those current factors with their 1950s equivalents, or with the expectations / requirements of the manufacturers.

 

Model railway products are now marketted as an every developing range, for a very short period, in relatively small numbers. In the 1950s, the range was very modest indeed and virtually static, but the individual items were sold in huge numbers. Indeed, some 1950s products, including the 35Tglw tank wagon kit, are still being marketted some sixty plus years later !!

 

Nowadays, costs have to be covered and profit made in a time period so short as to have been considered out of the question only a few years ago.

 

I have said it many times before but - the world moves on ! We have to deal with this and adjust our expectations accordingly. Be assured that the manufacturers are fully aware that we would all like more detail for less money, but as sound commercial minds they know that it's not viable in the current trading environment. Complaining about detail versus cost will NOT change ANYTHING.

 

Stating that Design Clever was a bad idea, and that many of us were prepared to pay more for a properly detailed model did, on the other hand, hit home and produced changes. It's no good now complaining that we want even more detail at a lower price.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Mark Saunders]

Might be some time Mark.

I'm not renowned for my speedy actions at the moment...

Wibbly wobbly phut phut...

Ian

 

Ok we will see who manages to get their first?

 

Marl

[No Decorum]

Stating that Design Clever was a bad idea, and that many of us were prepared to pay more for a properly detailed model did, on the other hand, hit home and produced changes. It's no good now complaining that we want even more detail at a lower price.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I’m not so sure that our stating that Design Clever was a bad idea had much effect. I think it is much more likely that Hornby noticed a drop in sales. Perhaps what we did do was point out to Hornby the way to recover sales, which concentrated minds. The case of the GWR eight-coupled tanks is curious. Design Clever had little effect on the external details other than the smokebox handles and the buffers. Design Clever concentrated on the internals, with unfortunate results for these and other models.

[Wickham Green]

The Shell BP livery is the post-war version, it appears repaints in this livery started from 1947 onwards so you might just get away with it if you leave it in near ex-works condition.

 

Esso 2672 appears in Tourret and is quoted as built in 1948, although photographed ex-works as per the Bachmann model around 1955. I haven't found a picture of this version of the Esso livery before 1950 but I suspect this may also have been introduced or reintroduced soon after the war. Incidentally, from the photo the wheelbase does indeed appear to be 10ft but the real 2672 appears to have a significantly larger diameter tank barrel than the Bachmann model.

 

Benzene 852 also appears in Tourret and is quoted as having been built and registered in 1951. The real 852 is a much better match to the Bachmann model in this case.

 

Mike

Having now had a chance to study my Esso 2672, I think it's fair to say it's actually a fourteen tonner masquerading as a 20T wagon : not only is the tank of smaller diameter but it's shorter than the chassis whereas it should overhang slightly ............. livery's nicely applied though  -  but I've not found an Esso 14T anchor mount class 'B' to renumber it as !

[Gordon A]

Hello Wickham Green,

 

Having just purchased the same model I reached for my copy of Tourett's Petroleum Tank Wagons......

 

The dimensions of the model match the dimensions of a 14 ton anchor mounted wagon in the above reference book.

Also the photographs of various  20 ton anchor mounted tank wagons show that the tank is no where near long enough.

In fact it is a scale 16.5mm (over 2ft) too short for a 20 ton anchor mounted tank wagon.

The chassis and wheel base are also not for a 20 ton tank wagon but do match that of a 14 ton tank wagon. 

 

Are Bachman taking a lead from our politicians in providing misleading information?

 

Come on Bachman, why cant you get the details right?

 

At least I did not pay full RRP from my local model shop.

 

Gordon A

Edited June 30, 2016 by Gordon A

[hmrspaul]

Hello Wickham Green,

 

Having just purchased the same model I reached for my copy of Tourett's Petroleum Tank Wagons......

 

The dimensions of the model match the dimensions of a 14 ton anchor mounted wagon in the above reference book.

Also the photographs of various  20 ton anchor mounted tank wagons show that the tank is no where near long enough.

In fact it is a scale 16.5mm (over 2ft) too short for a 20 ton anchor mounted tank wagon.

The chassis and wheel base are also not for a 20 ton tank wagon but do match that of a 14 ton tank wagon. 

 

Are Bachman taking a lead from our politicians in providing misleading information?

 

Come on Bachman, why cant you get the details right?

 

At least I did not pay full RRP from my local model shop.

 

Gordon A

Bachmann have not claimed that it is an accurate model for every livery it will be produced in. Like all companies making models of tank wagons they are compromising by having only one barrel dimension. But, it is not true to say that the length and wheelbase are inaccurate. As I have repeatedly said, The 20ton class Bs were on a frame of similar dimensions to the class As 10ft wheelbase and 17ft 6in over headstocks, but of course they have other differences. Yes there were more unusual anchor mounted tank wagons with longer wheelbase and much longer over headstocks like these Thomas Ness - NCB tanks http://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/ncbtankwagons/e11396468 - a drawing is in Model Railways. Or BPCM http://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/bpcsethanol/e4dbbf078

 

Tank wagons were incredibly complicated. We measured dozens of them and simply didn't repeat ourselves. As well as barrel dimensions the shape and angle of anchors vary, the fittings vary, the unloading arrangements vary. Tank wagons are a study in themselves. I haven't seen a Baccy anchor mount tank, but I suspect that the Benzene Class A tank is closer to being accurate. Just be grateful we managed to stop them producing the ICI design that they put in the first catalogue which had an interim mounting development that was possibly unique, certainly very unusual.

 

Paul