Bachmann 94xx

[lofty1966]

Too late in the day for the period I am intending to model, but Rule 1 will have to be invoked.

Dr Who time travel will be the order of the day!

[The Johnster]

Another regular passenger job in South Wales was the Machen-New Tredegar branch (the stub of the 'Old Rumney', a tramroad converted to standard gauge by the Brecon & Merthyr, originally terminating at Rhymney on the other side of the valley to the Rhymney Railway terminus and severed by a landslide at Abertwsswg in the 1930s).  Stock was E147 flat ended B set.

 

It is appropriate that there was a concentration of the class in South Wales as part of the original conception was as a Swindon Standard loco that could replace the smaller pregrouping 0-6-2 tanks in the area, the likes of the TVR 04, or Barry B and B1, which were reaching the end of their useful lives by the late 1940s.  The entire South Wales Valleys network was accessible to 'red' restricted locos, so the weight was not an issue here.

 

You could even see them hauling main line trains with express lamps and restaurant cars; the first leg of the 'Cheltenham Flyer' often featured one for the run to Gloucester Central where a Castle was coupled to the other end for the rest of the journey.  Cardiff to Liverpool or Manchester trains which changed locomotives at Pontypool Road could be hauled by one as well, though 56xx or 5101s were more usual.

 

The loco has been done before as 4mm RTR, but not to anything like this standard.  Graham Farish had a die cast metal model in the 1950s that was in production at least until the mid 60s, which was not bad for the time, comparable in overall quality to Hornby Dublo.  Lima turned up with one in the 70s, a plastic body moulding that was not too bad at all but the loco was very let down by a risible chassis which featured such delights as the centre drivers not being connected in any physical way to the coupling rods, and wheels with no balance weights.  Both these models incorrectly had steps on both sides of the bunker (only the left side had them in reality) and motors that intruded into the cabs.  Wills made (and still make AFAIK) a whitemetal kit which can run on a Triang Jinty chassis if you didn't want to make up the separately sold Wills one.

 

The Lima model can be made to fit on to a Bachmann 57xx chassis, which has the correct wheels, wheelbase, and coupling rods (the splashers are slightly out of alignment) but there are differences between the classes.  The 94xx is actually a tank version of the 2251 with smaller driving wheels, and the frame is longer overall and differently shaped at  the ends.  The leading brake shoes are at a different angle as well, but this has not stopped many modellers, myself included, making this 'Limbach' hybrid version and being quite happy with it; it looks not unlike a 94xx and runs well.  But the Lima body is only correct for the original 10 GWR built locos with sloping cover plates over the front of the cylinders below the smokebox; the BR built 'production' series shows the tops of the cylinder fronts and the plate frames.  The Baccy chassis provides backhead detail and a cab clear of motor.  

 

Mine will donate it's etched numberplates and shedcode plate to the new loco when it arrives and be promptly withdrawn; the new loco is a very much better and more detailed affair; look at that lovely pipework and reverser linkage!  It's chassis will probably go under another Bachmann 57xx body courtesy of 'Bay.

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

It’s worth remembering that despite the red restrictions, 94xx did turn up in some odd places.  For example there are reported visits on both the Calne and Cheddar branches (both in BR days), ref the Wild Swan book on the Calne branch and I think Steaming through the Cheddar Valley)

 

So it isn’t completely implausible for one to turn up on a blue coded branch line.

 

 

And they were also officially authorised to work over at least one Yellow coded branch without any restrictions!  (And not even Blue coded engines of any class were permitted on that branch.)

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

 

Mine will donate it's etched numberplates and shedcode plate to the new loco when it arrives and be promptly withdrawn; the new loco is a very much better and more detailed affair; look at that lovely pipework and reverser linkage!  It's chassis will probably go under another Bachmann 57xx body courtesy of 'Bay.

The sander operating linkage, of which quite a lot is visible on both sides of the engine, is far more impressive than the little bit of reverser linkage which can be seen.

 

The Newport District was particularly keen on using 94XX on local passenger workings but probably their best known passenger job of all was the 'Cheltenham Spa Express' which they worked regularly between Cheltenham and Gloucester although with out the headboard and along with the various other Paddington - Cheltenham services.

[Chris Chewter]

Received emails both from Bachmann and Rails of Sheffield with images of the EP samples. I would post them here but I’m unsure whether that would be a copyright issue.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Captainalbino said:

Received emails both from Bachmann and Rails of Sheffield with images of the EP samples. I would post them here but I’m unsure whether that would be a copyright issue.

 

Don't think so. See Phil Parker's post from Monday. (Previous page, why does the newlook RMWeb not give the posts numbers as before?).

[Paul.Uni]

2 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Don't think so. See Phil Parker's post from Monday. (Previous page, why does the newlook RMWeb not give the posts numbers as before?).

On the top right corner of each post there is an icon that looks like a <.

Click on it and copy the link.

Paste the link into a new post and it will embed like so:

 

[Phil Parker]

They will be same photos as I posted further up this thread. 

 

You can find a small selection here: https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/brm/reviews/bachmann/news-new-ep-samples-on-show-from-bachmann-exclusive-brm-photos

[Chris Chewter]

Thanks Phil. Missed those. I think it’s shaping up to be a nice looking model.

[tomparryharry]

Humble pie time.

 

I never thought Bachmann would bring this out. So strong was my view, I posted to that effect on RMWeb.  That said, it's a rather fine looking model in picture form in my second time of looking. I hope Bachmann decide a very low gearing ratio, with a 'lot' of weight, so the grunt is commensurate with the overall feel of the model.

 

On current form, I will definitely have one/two of these. 

 

have a great weekend, everybody.

 

Ian.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

... I hope Bachmann decide a very low gearing ratio, with a 'lot' of weight, so the grunt is commensurate with the overall feel of the model...

They have done well so far on 0-6-0T, packing them near solid with metal.

 

Competition in the form of Hornby's J50 with 310g as a result of a capacious body well filled with metal. Someone could arrange a pull off contest for heavy 0-6-0T when the 94xx arrives.

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

Humble pie time.

 

I never thought Bachmann would bring this out. So strong was my view, I posted to that effect on RMWeb.  That said, it's a rather fine looking model in picture form in my second time of looking. I hope Bachmann decide a very low gearing ratio, with a 'lot' of weight, so the grunt is commensurate with the overall feel of the model.

 

On current form, I will definitely have one/two of these. 

 

have a great weekend, everybody.

 

Ian.

Don't be hard on yourself, Ian; my own faith wavered more than once and you backed your opinion with sound and rational marketing reasoning.  I imagine they will use a similar mechanism to their existing panniers; the only thing that needs to be different for this loco as opposed to a 57xx or 8750 is the frame profile and keeper plate moulding, and have no problem with this as my Baccy panniers run very well indeed.  But lower gearing would be a nice thing to have in general with RTR small steam locos (pushing things to call a 94xx 'small' but you know what I mean) to improve slow running and controller response; the thing doesn't need to run at more than a scale 50mph anyway!

 

Ballasting is not much of an issue on my layout where the heaviest train is a loaded mineral of 11 wagons and a van, and there are no gradients, and is in any case a matter you can fairly easily deal with yourself if you want yours to be heavier.  'Our' Limbach 94xx has as much 'Liquid Lead'; as can be got in and struggles very realistically trying to pick up the loaded coal train out of the loop, and some skill in driving is required; this is not IMHO this loco's worst feature.  My coal wagons are fully loaded with real coal as I like the 'heft' this gives them, but I could easily enough lighten matters with foam inserts topped by coal if I wanted.  The other locos that work this train are a Hornby 42xx and a couple of Bachmann 56xx, and the 56xx can slip a bit if not carefully driven; only the 42xx is master of the job.  I suspect that real Tondu drivers would have confirmed this assessment, though of course the real trains were much longer than 11 and a van.

 

My 94xx is already on order at Lord and Butler's!  I'm hoping to have it my sweaty palm in about a year's time, as Bachmann are clearly genuinely setting the wheels in motion now, and will be keen to bring new products to market asap in response to Hornby's hit the ground running performance this year

 

 

[mdvle]

On 29/03/2019 at 03:53, tomparryharry said:

 I hope Bachmann decide a very low gearing ratio, with a 'lot' of weight, so the grunt is commensurate with the overall feel of the model.
 

 

This would be a bad idea as it would make using them as a banker difficult, and cause muscle memory issues as it would behave differently on a controller to other locos.

 

Life Like in the US 20+ years ago released a model with different gearing, presumably to better reflect the real running speeds, and received a lot of grief over it from upset customers.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 

On ‎29‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 07:53, tomparryharry said:

... I hope Bachmann decide a very low gearing ratio, with a 'lot' of weight, so the grunt is commensurate with the overall feel of the model...

 

1 hour ago, mdvle said:

This would be a bad idea as it would make using them as a banker difficult, and cause muscle memory issues as it would behave differently on a controller to other locos.

 

Life Like in the US 20+ years ago released a model with different gearing, presumably to better reflect the real running speeds, and received a lot of grief over it from upset customers.

But there is no fixed standard, and considerable variation within Bachmann's existing steam range, so I doubt it would hurt its chances. And going beyond just one maker's range, the divergence is yet greater. Personally I like motor and gearing arranged to enable the model to comfortably achieve the maximum scale speed of the prototype, with sufficient torque for smooth transitions between rest and dead slow movement.

 

(As a specific example their V2 proved to be geared at a higher ratio than the B1, making it a sluggard, but thankfully that can now be easily compensated for with DCC. Very few here took any notice within the thread relating to the V2, so I feel that this is probably of interest to only a small element within the customer base.)

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

This would be a bad idea as it would make using them as a banker difficult, and cause muscle memory issues as it would behave differently on a controller to other locos.

 

Life Like in the US 20+ years ago released a model with different gearing, presumably to better reflect the real running speeds, and received a lot of grief over it from upset customers.

Can't agree, sorry.  If you are going to be using one as a banker, surely you'd be using DCC and controlling the loco separately from the train loco, and there is a degree of difference for your 'muscle memory' to cope with with locos of different makes and within the same make on any layout anyway.  8 out of 10 of my locos are Bachmann 6-coupled mechanisms with broadly similar characteristics and scale GW 4'7" driving wheels, but they are as individual in terms of their response to the controller as real steam engines.  All require slightly different technique to get the best out of them, and all are very good indeed!

 

My 2 Hornby mechanisms, a generic Jinty chassis on a 2721, and a 42xx, are also very good but 'feel' very different, though not in a way that I can describe in an objective way.  I am expecting the Baccy 94xx to fall more or less into line with the general characteristics of my other blue box mechs; I will be happy with that!

 

Gearing of RTR locos is much better nowadays than it was when I were a lad and god were in short trousers, as is the overall running quality, but I still think there is room for improvement in smooth running at very low speeds to be had, which could be achieved with higher gear ratios.  Back in the day. you were lucky if you could control any RTR loco below about a scale 20mph, and top speeds could be 10 times that.  The Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby 0-4-0s were particularly difficult to manage, apparently having Scalextrix motors and gearing, a very poor choice for what were basically industrial shunting locos and pugs.  Lima chassis were another poor performer in this regard, and smooth starts or stops were impossible.

[tomparryharry]

11 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

This would be a bad idea as it would make using them as a banker difficult, and cause muscle memory issues as it would behave differently on a controller to other locos.

 

Life Like in the US 20+ years ago released a model with different gearing, presumably to better reflect the real running speeds, and received a lot of grief over it from upset customers.

An interesting point. But in the big world, the actual 08 shunter is in fact limited to about 8 MPH. Any higher, and you'll damage the final drives on the traction motors.  Remember the old saying though.... "Your ability to stop, is your right to speed".

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Steamport Southport]

Diesels are totally different to steam locomotives though.

 

Besides these need a decent turn of speed and haulage. Don't forget their main duties was moving empty carriage stock to/from Paddington as quickly as they could. They weren't exactly pottering about with a couple of wagons in sidings.

 

 

Photo Ben Brookshank from Wiki.

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

They were employed on the Paddington ecs, working from Old Oak carriage sidings, and are probably best known for this relatively high profile job, but one could hardly claim it to have been their 'main duty'; in fact they were allegedly only used on this work because of their alleged modern appearance after the Victorian looking domes of the 57xx/8750s had come in for some criticism from the chattering classes.  M7s at Waterloo seem not to have attracted such comment...

 

The majority of the class were allocated to South Wales depots for the shorter distance mineral trips and transfer freight jobs, but they were pretty well distributed over the WR.  GW/WR practice was to limit locomotives with 4'7" driving wheels to 50mph so far as timings were concerned: not saying that this was never ever exceeded but there would be no requirement for it to be in normal running, even on passenger trains.  The 15xx were also used at Paddington for ecs, and these were very poor riders at all but the very lowest speeds, being conceived as dock shunters and influenced by the USATC 0-6-0Ts that had been used in South Wales ports during the war.

 

As we have seen, they were certainly used on passenger work including the 'Cheltenham Flyer' as far as Gloucester Central from Cheltenham, with 50 mph timings and express headlamps.  The original GW built locos with higher boiler pressure were all, AFAIK, allocated to Old Oak, and presumably had the edge on the 'production run' BR locos in terms of acceleration.

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Diesels are totally different to steam locomotives though.

 

Besides these need a decent turn of speed and haulage. Don't forget their main duties was moving empty carriage stock to/from Paddington as quickly as they could. They weren't exactly pottering about with a couple of wagons in sidings.

 

 

Photo Ben Brookshank from Wiki.

 

 

Jason

More myth I'm afraid.

 

Paddington ECS might have been one, if not the, most noticeable of features of their working life but it was a very long way indeed from ever being their 'main' duty.  In fact Old Oak at various times didn't even have the largest allocation of the class with, on occasion in pre-dieselisation days, the allocations variously at Duffryn Yard and Radyr exceeding that at Old Oak and with a number of South Wales sheds consistently having allocations in double figures so not many fewer than Old Oak.  At their peak just over a little  half of the class were allocated to Newport, Cardiff, Cardiff Valleys,  and Swansea District sheds, the remainder were spread all over the Region with no other District coming anywhere near them.  At the same time the London District had just over 10% of the class spread between four depots

 

Paddington ECS work carried out by pilots (for some was always in the hands of train engines in BR days if not previously) was shared fairly equally between 57XX and 94XX plus the 15XX with far from uncommon appearances by 97XX plus (when they returned to the London area to work out their mileage) a latterday reappearance of 45XX.  I suspect the main reason the 94XX were used as carriage pilots was because a lot of men, particularly those short in stature, didn't like tham for shunting but I still don't recall them as being anything like the predominant class on ECS pilot turns.  But I might be biased as I had a footplate ride on a 57XX from Old Oak ground frame (seen in that Ben Brooksbank picture) to Paddington via the E&C overbridge with a load of 13 Mk1s, no trouble at all for a 57XX (they were quite happy with 15 if needed).

 

The one thing a 94 could be guaranteed to do - but in superheated form only - was to  'go round Greenford' from Paddington to Old Oak with the sleeper stock which was the heaviest of all the ECS moves without a need to take water anywhere. on the ways.

 

Incidentally could 'The Johnster' please give n me a reference for the 50mph speed restriction he refers to as it isn't shown (or I can't find it) ineither the GWR General appendix or the WR Regional Appendix (although i don't have all the Supplements to the latter)

[The Johnster]

I've never seen it written down in any railway publication as a speed restriction for any class, and was no a formal instruction in the sense you mean, Mike, but according to Canton drivers I spoke to in the 70s it was the accepted practice not to exceed that speed (in other words the drivers were told to observe it as a limit), and point to point timings with given loads were based on it.  The subject came up in a messroom discussion about speeds on the Rhymney, which had a higher line speed than the Taff Vale which was a 50mph road above Radyr because of the curvature, and the fact that the 56xx which replaced Rhymney Ps and Taff As could not make the same speed, or not as comfortably anyway.  I'd postulated a '76xx' class with 5'2" driving wheels, but it was pointed out that the larger diameter would have raised the centre of gravity of the loco, which would have not ridden well.  The cylinders could have been more level, though.

 

Another thing that came out of this discussion was that 5101s were able to stretch their legs a little on the Rhymney, but not on the Taff or Barry.  They were common on the Vale of Glamorgan trains, but this is because their larger wheels gave them a bit of extra range before the tanks were empty compared to a 56xx.  I was also told that the likes of 42xx and 28xx used on Bank Holiday excursions were not expected to exceed 50mph.

 

I'm sure it was frequently exceeded, though.  Tuplin may not be the most reliable source for hard established fact and spouts a lot of opinion, but mentions, in 'Sinners and Saints' I think, that an idea of the speed of a train hauled by a GW loco with steam shut off can be obtained from the noise of the vacuum pump, and that coming down the bank from Torre to Newton Abbott behind a 45xx it was sometimes difficult to believe one's ears.  Ditto the 4575s coming down from Heath Jc to Queen Street with the Coryton auto, and the 64xx on the Marshfield Flyer could be seen 'popping along' a bit as well!

 

Of course, one must temper such subjective observations with the awareness that smaller wheeled locos' exhaust beats (and vacuum pump strokes, ts ts ts ts ts) seem very fast compared with larger wheeled locos at the same speed, so an impression of speed is created that may mislead an observer into thinking that the loco is going faster than it actually is...

 

The LMS had specially balanced 8Fs, identified by a star on the cab side above the number, that were permitted 60mph for fast freight and excursion passenger work, with wheels only an inch and half larger diameter than the GW locos we are discussing.  Churchward's standard wheel sizes were 4'1" for shunting, 4''7" for freight (but frequently used in passenger work in the Valleys and elsewhere), 5'2" for local and branch passenger work, 5'8" for mixed traffic, and 6'8" for fast passenger; Collett and Hawksworth messed around with these size a bit with moguls, large prairies, Kings, and Counties, and Collett introduce 6' for the successful Halls, but little of that impinged on Valley work, and the last GW locos built, the 94xx and 16xx, kept to the Churchward formula, and the 16xx heritage was even older than that.

[tomparryharry]

I was given to understand the 34-84-94xx class were a direct replacement for the 300-odd pre-group class 4 locomotives still existed within South Wales at the end of WW2. Size & haulage somewhere between a 56xx and an 9750 pannier. I'm pretty sure there will be endless references to this all over RMWeb.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[The Johnster]

They were indeed in many ways the culmination of the policy formulated by Collett to deal with absorbed and constituent locos at the grouping, and the huge majority of these were from South Wales companies.  The policy was to scrap such locos as could not be brought into line with Swindon practice and were life-expired, and rebuild the rest with Swindon components.  Replacements in the form of the 57/8750 panniers and the 56xx, essentially a Rhymney R constructed of Swindon components, speeded the process but there were, at the end of WW2, as you rightly say Ian, still a lot of pre-group locos that had not been attended to and some of those that had been were approaching the end of their useful lives.  

 

A replacement somewhere in between an 8750 and a 56xx was considered necessary, and the result was the Hawksworth 94xx.  Hawksworth developed it from the Collett 2251 0-6-0, with which it shares frames and many components; incidentally the no.10 boiler used on these engines was originally developed to fit pre-grouping locos being rebuilt to Swindon specifications.  The loco's true progenitor can therefore be said to be the Dean Goods, the inspiration for the 2251 which was a modernised version of it.     

 

In practice many South Wales drivers couldn't see the point and regareded them as little better than an 8750 in service, and didn't like the small cabs.  The GW classed them as power D, however.  BR regarded the 8750s (GW C) as 3F, the 94xx as 4F, and the 56xx (GW D) as 5MT.  The 2251 were BR 3MT.

Edited March 31, 2019 by The Johnster

[tomparryharry]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I've never seen it written down in any railway publication as a speed restriction for any class, and was no a formal instruction in the sense you mean, Mike, but according to Canton drivers I spoke to in the 70s it was the accepted practice not to exceed that speed (in other words the drivers were told to observe it as a limit), and point to point timings with given loads were based on it.  The subject came up in a messroom discussion about speeds on the Rhymney, which had a higher line speed than the Taff Vale which was a 50mph road above Radyr because of the curvature, and the fact that the 56xx which replaced Rhymney Ps and Taff As could not make the same speed, or not as comfortably anyway.  I'd postulated a '76xx' class with 5'2" driving wheels, but it was pointed out that the larger diameter would have raised the centre of gravity of the loco, which would have not ridden well.  The cylinders could have been more level, though.

 

Another thing that came out of this discussion was that 5101s were able to stretch their legs a little on the Rhymney, but not on the Taff or Barry.  They were common on the Vale of Glamorgan trains, but this is because their larger wheels gave them a bit of extra range before the tanks were empty compared to a 56xx.  I was also told that the likes of 42xx and 28xx used on Bank Holiday excursions were not expected to exceed 50mph.

 

I'm sure it was frequently exceeded, though.  Tuplin may not be the most reliable source for hard established fact and spouts a lot of opinion, but mentions, in 'Sinners and Saints' I think, that an idea of the speed of a train hauled by a GW loco with steam shut off can be obtained from the noise of the vacuum pump, and that coming down the bank from Torre to Newton Abbott behind a 45xx it was sometimes difficult to believe one's ears.  Ditto the 4575s coming down from Heath Jc to Queen Street with the Coryton auto, and the 64xx on the Marshfield Flyer could be seen 'popping along' a bit as well!

 

Of course, one must temper such subjective observations with the awareness that smaller wheeled locos' exhaust beats (and vacuum pump strokes, ts ts ts ts ts) seem very fast compared with larger wheeled locos at the same speed, so an impression of speed is created that may mislead an observer into thinking that the loco is going faster than it actually is...

 

The LMS had specially balanced 8Fs, identified by a star on the cab side above the number, that were permitted 60mph for fast freight and excursion passenger work, with wheels only an inch and half larger diameter than the GW locos we are discussing.  Churchward's standard wheel sizes were 4'1" for shunting, 4''7" for freight (but frequently used in passenger work in the Valleys and elsewhere), 5'2" for local and branch passenger work, 5'8" for mixed traffic, and 6'8" for fast passenger; Collett and Hawksworth messed around with these size a bit with moguls, large prairies, Kings, and Counties, and Collett introduce 6' for the successful Halls, but little of that impinged on Valley work, and the last GW locos built, the 94xx and 16xx, kept to the Churchward formula, and the 16xx heritage was even older than that.

 Ever so slightly incorrect John. The Western vacuum pump is driven off the locomotive crosshead, not the wheels. It's the same, irrespective of wheel diameter. It requires cylinder stroke, and not the rotational motion of the valve gear. In this way, 'linking up' does not have any detrimental effect on the ability to raise & keep vacuum. A locomotive of the same stroke will nominally have the same length of pump to create 25" of head.  Have a look on a 28xx, and you'll see the bracket leading back off the crosshead to the pump proper on the drivers side.

 

On a 57-94xx pannier it will be inside the frames, fireman's side.

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Miss Prism]

On 23/03/2019 at 21:50, Ian Hargrave said:

Why so savage ?  Please explain....or are you opening a can of worms here  because effectively this forum is owned by what you deem as the press ? Easy to make a sweeping statement perhaps but not so easy to justify or evidence it .I too look forward to a reasoned logical response to a distasteful assertion.

 

On 22/03/2019 at 20:03, dibber25 said:

I'm fascinated as to why you think the press is 'dumbed-down' because it pays some attention to extra features provided on a model. Or was this just another opportunity to take a cheap shot? It would be interesting to see some evidence of models where features ( or gimmicks as you call them) are offered as a distraction from substandard design or engineering. Examples, please. (CJL)

 

Sorry for the delay in responding. (Some computer problems over the last few days.)

 

Here's an attempt at a brief explanation with a few examples.

 

Remember the tragic transformation of the 2-BIL with a thousand superfluous rivets into a version of the Battleship Potemkin? Did the mainstream mags point this out? And what about the wheelbase of the leading bogie on the trailer car? Did that error get reported in the mainstream press? And what of the chassis design of Hattons 14xx? There is a 100-plus-page thread on the subject here, much of it discussing the extreme variability of its performance. Did the mainstream mags mention the problems inherent in that kind of chassis design?  What about the S-scale size of the chimney on the Kernow O2? What about the awful cantrail shape of Bachmann's first effort on the Class 40? Or were brain faculties usurped by the mantra that it must have been correct because it had been "laser-scanned for absolute accuracy". How gullible do reviewers think we are? They must think we were born yesterday. What about the wheelbase error on Bachmann's cattle wagon? Did that get picked up in the reviews? When the Hornby 31 appeared, all the press hubbub was about its opening cab doors. Would this presage opening doors on subsequent models etc etc? The problem was all the interest in the trivial matter of the opening doors (most people had got completely bored by the feature a year or so later), no one in the mainstream press noticed the gears used to drive the middle axle of the bogie (on an A1A!) turned those smaller middle axle wheels at the same rotational rate as the larger outer wheelsets, resulting in different tread speeds. Apparently, all this was too much for mainstream reviews to cope with. The list goes on - the faults, both mechanical and in livery, on the Oxford DG loco were skimmed over, although  bizarrely the mags did not mention how good the tender was. What were we expected to learn from such a review? I accept the horrors of the Oxford brake van were too numerous to address properly in a mainstream model mag review, where space is necessarily constrained, but one got the impression that most of the reviewers really didn't know much, or didn't care much, about the prototype to make even a decent stab at an honest appraisal. Perhaps the readers of the average review are not discerning enough. Or perhaps they no longer accept that mainstream reviews are going to be much good on the level of information provided. Padding out a review with a copy of what is in Wikipedia is not in itself a bad thing, but it is padding, and at the expense of conveying a balanced view on the attributes of the model. (That last point begs another question though, as to what the scope of a model review should be, but that is a different debate - feel free to start a new thread!)

 

In so many of these cases, the mainstream reviews are unable or unwilling to comment on deficiencies. The information tends to be simplified. There tends to be significant information that is missing. The information is bland. It is for a largely uncritical readership. There is a word that sums that up - dumb.

 

My view is that online comment, which admittedly is fraught with its own contradictions, is generally far more informed than mainstream media reviews, and has been for the last 20 years.

 

Your views about such matters may be radically different to mine. I have no problem with that, but I trust what I have written here is not 'distasteful'.

 

And I see the thread has taken a definite turn for the 'far more interesting content' while I have been away!

 

[Miss Prism]

Can't say the 94 is my favourite flavour of Pannier, but Bachmann's effort is seriously impressive and desirable.