Bachmann Class 25 retool announced 2018

[aureol40012]

Well, the prototype for their new 24 was at the GCR.

[Roy Langridge]

On 29/06/2019 at 00:37, aureol40012 said:

Well, the prototype for their new 24 was at the GCR.

 

Why do Bachmann seem to make bodyside detail too pronounced. We see it with the Class 158 and now, in my opinion, this one. 

 

Look at this photo to see how shallow the grills / triangular panel really are:

 (not my photo)

 

Roy

[blueeighties]

10 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

Why do Bachmann seem to make bodyside detail too pronounced. We see it with the Class 158 and now, in my opinion, this one. 

 

Look at this photo to see how shallow the grills / triangular panel really are:

 (not my photo)

 

Roy

We are now so spoilt by excellent tooling, Sutton 24, latest and upcoming Heljan etc, that picture looks distinctly 'old hat'. I think new tooling in this case means headcode box and fuel tanks. And still those ancient, massively overscale cab door handrails.

Edited June 30, 2019 by blueeighties

[Market65]

Sadly, since it’s at the livery sample stage, alterations to the tooling will not be possible. I guess it means continuing to buy the Sutton models if the grills, etc., are too bothersome. That’s what I’ll be doing anyway.

 

Regards,

 

Rob.

[caradoc]

Those grills do look heavy, but perhaps they are accentuated by the way the model is lit ?

 

On the plus side, the mis-aligned 0000 headcode is a nice touch.

 

[Porcy Mane]

11 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

Why do Bachmann seem to make bodyside detail too pronounced.

 

The triangular access panel can be made to look more prototypical and the body sides grills thinned, but why this should be necessary on a newly tooled model defeats me.

 

 

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the pronounced roof detail. Although altered from original and incorporating a removable panel  (I assume to cover variations.), to my eyes those roof panels look like they are made from over thick processed cheese slices.

 

P

Edited June 30, 2019 by Porcy Mane

[25901]

And the body side steps should be deeper even on the 25/3's, as I've had 2 loco sets made for the real thing.

 

Not the one's I had made but same as by some Devon mates, they are even deeper with mounting flange welded on.

Edited June 30, 2019 by 25901

[stovepipe]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

On the plus side, the mis-aligned 0000 headcode is a nice touch.

 

 

Though it only ran for 4 months, after train IDs were scrapped in Jan 1976.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎30‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 10:10, Roy Langridge said:

Why do Bachmann seem to make bodyside detail too pronounced...

 

On ‎30‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 20:24, blueeighties said:

... that picture looks distinctly 'old hat'. I think new tooling in this case means headcode box and fuel tanks. And still those ancient, massively overscale cab door handrails.

I would go with blueeighties assessment; it is mostly the old tooling. A characteristic of Bachmann's OO from their start up was overemphasis of detail, and it took until about 2007/8 before 'subtle rendition is better' fully took hold.

 

The biggie for me the mountain ridges on their first eight (or thereabouts) mk 1 subject's coach roofs. (BR was very proud of the precision butt welding process which produced a visually smooth roof, which typically only developed the very slight visible seams in preservation, presumably after some decades of differential corrosion.)

[Covkid]

On 30/06/2019 at 21:55, Porcy Mane said:

 

The triangular access panel can be made to look more prototypical and the body sides grills thinned, but why this should be necessary on a newly tooled model defeats me.

 

 

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the pronounced roof detail. Although altered from original and incorporating a removable panel  (I assume to cover variations.), to my eyes those roof panels look like they are made from over thick processed cheese slices.

 

P

 

The triangular panel is a real disappointment to me, which Bachmann messed up n their previous iteration of the model.

I believe I am correct in saying that all class 24s and class 25s had the triangular panel but it was flush with the bodyskin and only really identifiable when dirty or close up. The panel doesn't stand proud of it's surrouindings.

 

Class 25s of the earlier gangway end design which received dual brakes had another triangular panel facing the opposite way right next to the radiator grille.  I don't think that this had been modelled on commercially produced models..

 

[25901]

On 13/03/2020 at 17:34, Covkid said:

 

The triangular panel is a real disappointment to me, which Bachmann messed up n their previous iteration of the model.

I believe I am correct in saying that all class 24s and class 25s had the triangular panel but it was flush with the bodyskin and only really identifiable when dirty or close up. The panel doesn't stand proud of it's surrouindings.

 

 

Correct, as is the battery switch cover too

[drgj]

Sometimes I think the makers deliberately make details slightly oversized just to make them stand out a bit and be seen. I am not really bothered by the grilles and plates on the loco sides.

 

Dave

[Dougjuk]

Having had the hard job of making the new class 24 sound better I don't think this model will be on my list.  Seems Bachmann are removing the speaker space by installing a cheap and low sounding speaker.

 

Will wait and see what the Heljan model looks like under the roof.

 

Doug

[PenrithBeacon]

This model has been reviewed in the April Model Rail and has been given 96%. 

I can see why there are complaints about the grills etc, does seem to be a little heavy, but also, oddly, lacking definition. Strange.

Cheers

[charliepetty]

On 21/03/2020 at 20:55, Dougjuk said:

Having had the hard job of making the new class 24 sound better I don't think this model will be on my list.  Seems Bachmann are removing the speaker space by installing a cheap and low sounding speaker.

 

Will wait and see what the Heljan model looks like under the roof.

 

Doug

Replace the cheap speaker wit a better speaker.

 

Charlie (dcKits/Legomanbiffo)

[Phil Bullock]

7 hours ago, charliepetty said:

Replace the cheap speaker wit a better speaker.

 

Charlie (dcKits/Legomanbiffo)

 

Have already mentioned that to Bachmann Charlie. Paradox is that in making this model true plug and play - and for that all credit to them -  they have extended the PCB to include their speaker over the space we would normally use! 

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by Phil Bullock

[Dougjuk]

18 hours ago, charliepetty said:

Replace the cheap speaker wit a better speaker.

 

Charlie (dcKits/Legomanbiffo)

Hi Charlie,

 

I normally do but the space is so limited in these new designs.  Only managed a small Single dumbo and a sugar cube in the 24/1.

 

Also there is no large metal chassis anymore just one big PCB.   And I think there is an issue with that board.  When I tried using my LOk Programmer via the loco it would not read properly.  I had to take the chip out put it on the chip tester and it worked fine.

 

That V4 I sent back to you that was all messed up came out of the new 24/1 when I transferred it over from one of my other 24's/

 

Its a complete backward step by Bachmann, not sure I will be rushing to buy any new Bachmann locos for a while.

 

 

regards

 

Doug

Edited March 25, 2020 by Dougjuk

[Phil Bullock]

1 hour ago, Dougjuk said:

Hi Charlie,

 

I normally do but the space is so limited in these new designs.  Only managed a small Single dumbo and a sugar cube in the 24/1.

 

Also there is no large metal chassis anymore just one big PCB.   And I think there is an issue with that board.  When I tried using my LOk Programmer via the loco it would not read properly.  I had to take the chip out put it on the chip tester and it worked fine.

 

That V4 I sent back to you that was all messed up came out of the new 24/1 when I transferred it over from one of my other 24's/

 

Its a complete backward step by Bachmann, not sure I will be rushing to buy any new Bachmann locos for a while.

 

 

regards

 

Doug

 

Loaded Biiffo file on V5 chip with Lokprogrammer and had no issues. Agree re PCB and speaker and have already fed this back to Bachmann - issue will be that speaker will only be used in probably less than 10% of locos sold so will they listen? We will see.....

 

Was Dumbo and sugar cube a significant improvement?

 

 

[Crisis Rail]

On 13/03/2020 at 17:34, Covkid said:

 

The triangular panel is a real disappointment to me, which Bachmann messed up n their previous iteration of the model.

I believe I am correct in saying that all class 24s and class 25s had the triangular panel but it was flush with the bodyskin and only really identifiable when dirty or close up. The panel doesn't stand proud of it's surrouindings.

 

Class 25s of the earlier gangway end design which received dual brakes had another triangular panel facing the opposite way right next to the radiator grille.  I don't think that this had been modelled on commercially produced models..

 

 

 

A good job there - I suppose if your not happy with the mouldings it will give you plenty to do.

[Roy Langridge]

18 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

 

Loaded Biiffo file on V5 chip with Lokprogrammer and had no issues. Agree re PCB and speaker and have already fed this back to Bachmann - issue will be that speaker will only be used in probably less than 10% of locos sold so will they listen? We will see.....

 

Was Dumbo and sugar cube a significant improvement?

 

 

 

This seems to be an inherent problem with locos from Bachmann and Hornby where no good provision is made for speakers (or even DCC in some cases). Of the older manufacturers, only Dapol seem to have really embraced provision for speakers, although not to the same extent as many of the newer entrants.

 

Roy

Edited March 26, 2020 by Roy Langridge

[Phil Bullock]

1 hour ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

This seems to be an inherent problem with locos from Bachmann and Hornby where no good provision is made for speakers 9or even DCC in some cases). Of the older manufacturers, only Dapol seem to have really embraced provision for speakers, although not to the same extent as many of the newer entrants.

 

Roy

 

Partly agree Roy - and I am talking 4mm here , 140 + locos done.

 

Heljan are generally the worst from speaker fitting perspective although have just done a Clayton with a 22mm round in the fuel tank which was pretty straightforwards. Chip in the cab roof. Did a Baby Deltic with a base reflex which really was a shoehorn job and had to sacrifice part of PCB but sounds great.

 

Only have experience of 31s with Hornby and can get a base reflex in if fan is removed - with a bit of carving.

 

Bachmann have left space in 37/45/47 chassis although you are better off ditching their mount and blu tacking a 22 x 40 speaker directly to the chassis. Their more recent models - retooled 40 and 43 - have both had a 28mm speaker mount incorporated under the fan grille so perhaps unfair to say they are not trying?

 

Dapol did pretty well with 22 and 52 with a specific space for a base reflex speaker which works well - but 121/122 are retrograde with a poorly thought out metal round speaker mount as part of the chassis.

 

One thing we need to remember is that probably no more than 10% of models end up with sound fitted - so may not be a manufacturing priority. But as speaker technology improves fitting gets easier - the double speakers Roads and Rails sell (other vendors are available) are a big improvement and based on experience so far need no further sound chamber adding

 

Cheers

 

Phil

[mdvle]

3 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

One thing we need to remember is that probably no more than 10% of models end up with sound fitted - so may not be a manufacturing priority.

 

But it should be.

 

When tooling a new model the reasonable assumption is that the tooling will be expected to provide income for 10 years or so with assorted additional runs over the year.

 

The younger generation of modellers, having grown up in the electronic world, are more interested in the lighting/sound features of models.

 

Thus if you want to continue selling as the hobby does is inevitable generation change, you should be planning your models to appeal not just to today's buyers but future buyers.

 

Otherwise in X years some other manufacturer will bring out a duplicate model that will appeal to the wants of consumers in X years because your model failed to plan for the future (where really, planning for allowing a decent speaker adds essentially no additional cost now).

[Phil Bullock]

49 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

But it should be.

 

When tooling a new model the reasonable assumption is that the tooling will be expected to provide income for 10 years or so with assorted additional runs over the year.

 

The younger generation of modellers, having grown up in the electronic world, are more interested in the lighting/sound features of models.

 

Thus if you want to continue selling as the hobby does is inevitable generation change, you should be planning your models to appeal not just to today's buyers but future buyers.

 

Otherwise in X years some other manufacturer will bring out a duplicate model that will appeal to the wants of consumers in X years because your model failed to plan for the future (where really, planning for allowing a decent speaker adds essentially no additional cost now).

 

Whilst I dont disagree with the basis of what you say how many locos never even see a layout? Stored in boxes or display cases as part of a collection.

[mdvle]

27 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Whilst I dont disagree with the basis of what you say how many locos never even see a layout? Stored in boxes or display cases as part of a collection.

 

Depending on perspective, either far too many or not enough.

 

Yes, a lot of stuff is bought - either for collecting reasons for for the layout that never gets built.  The good news of course is that for those that do have layouts all that buying makes the models possible - and encouraging more collecting is a good way to encourage more stuff to get made.

 

But a large portion of the never-see-a-layout purchases are done with the well-intentioned goal of having a layout at some point, and so if the goal is to have a layout then those features remain important even if the goal is never achieved.

[Dougjuk]

On 25/03/2020 at 18:46, Phil Bullock said:

 

Loaded Biiffo file on V5 chip with Lokprogrammer and had no issues. Agree re PCB and speaker and have already fed this back to Bachmann - issue will be that speaker will only be used in probably less than 10% of locos sold so will they listen? We will see.....

 

Was Dumbo and sugar cube a significant improvement?

 

 

Phil,

 

The result is not too bad to be fair, but up against the bigger speakers you can hear the difference.  I have had confirmation from a reliable source that there are issues with reading and writing via the PCB of the newer stock.  As an example it took 30 minutes to read the chip on my Low Programmer via the chassis of 24137 and it failed a couple of times.  Take the chip out put it on the chip tester reads in very short time.

 

Regards

 

Doug