Ravenser Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 Bachmann have had poor outcomes 'both ways'. They changed policy on their split chassis renewals after the complete new tooling for the Jubilee proved disappointing in retail return. (Fine model it remains.) They switched to mechanism only renewals after that. My opinion is that many of the Mainline models were good and well liked for appearance (and the Jubilee one of the best of them) and with tens of thousands 'out there' s/h prices were depressing the realisable sale price of the all new successor. I feel this applies in spades to the smaller models like the J72 (and J39 though it was never a Mainline release) which being lighter tend to be less affected by the weaknesses of the split chassis design; and have suggested to Bachmann that alternative models might be a better choice. Specifically the J69 and J6 for those two, neither having ever had a RTR OO model, and both with very specific attractions. They were polite, but clearly not much interested in the idea... It is startling that a Group Standard 0-6-0 used throughout the LNER system is not a viable product when J11s, J15s, J36s and the Black Motor 0-6-0 are . I know the Hornby 0-6-0s have been early candidates for discounting, though. It may be that Barwell believes a few years out of the catalogue , and the self-destruction of more of the previous model, are required to generate sufficient demand for a new model. I can't help wondering if a similar logic has been applied to classes 158/170 ….. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 60027Merlin Posted January 9, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 9, 2019 Bachmann have had poor outcomes 'both ways'. They changed policy on their split chassis renewals after the complete new tooling for the Jubilee proved disappointing in retail return. (Fine model it remains.) They switched to mechanism only renewals after that. My opinion is that many of the Mainline models were good and well liked for appearance (and the Jubilee one of the best of them) and with tens of thousands 'out there' s/h prices were depressing the realisable sale price of the all new successor. I feel this applies in spades to the smaller models like the J72 (and J39 though it was never a Mainline release) which being lighter tend to be less affected by the weaknesses of the split chassis design; and have suggested to Bachmann that alternative models might be a better choice. Specifically the J69 and J6 for those two, neither having ever had a RTR OO model, and both with very specific attractions. They were polite, but clearly not much interested in the idea... As they only produced the Jubilee in the short firebox variant, being just over half of the class in number, the disappointing sales are hardly surprising. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdvle Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 It is startling that a Group Standard 0-6-0 used throughout the LNER system is not a viable product when J11s, J15s, J36s and the Black Motor 0-6-0 are . I know the Hornby 0-6-0s have been early candidates for discounting, though. It's not always the case the the viability of a single product is so cut and dried. Other considerations that can cause a delay or cancellation include what else is scheduled to be available for the target market, thus reducing sales due to conflicts on how to spend the £s available, juggling the available productions slots or even giving a slot to another product that can produce a quicker return on the capital outlay. It may be that Barwell believes a few years out of the catalogue , and the self-destruction of more of the previous model, are required to generate sufficient demand for a new model. I can't help wondering if a similar logic has been applied to classes 158/170 ….. The 158 is scheduled for sometime around July according to an October update that was posted here, and given they showed a second EP of the 158 at the end of August it should show up this year assuming no other issues come up to cause more delays I would think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLPG Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 I have to agree with the comments about retooled chassis for the J39 and do we need one. I think the desire is from most for something new and exciting. I have 3 J39’s. A pain to convert to DCC but not impossible. I would prefer a few J27’s or J21’s now. I have to agree with the comments about retooled chassis for the J39 and do we need one. I think the desire is from most for something new and exciting. I have 3 J39’s. A pain to convert to DCC but not impossible. I would prefer a few J27’s or J21’s now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted January 10, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 10, 2019 Actually I believe the last new chassis redo was the Ivatt tank which rightly got lambasted for its ancient tooling body on the new chassis at an unjustifiable high price. Bachmann seems to have quietly dropped the rechassis program since then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRH_Dan_Hull Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 I must admit I am disappointed about the J72, especially as the Bachmann Farish one killed off the Dapol effort, not that announcements at Dapol are ever a guarantee of anything actually being made anyway. I am not living in hope that the sidelining of the J72 means that something else that is currently a secret is in development for N, something they think will sell much better and be easier to produce. I put my hopes and logical predictions on it being a V2, surely a new version of this to replace the previous model is long overdue and fits in with R&D currently being done for a new 00 version.Perhaps if any retailers with some serious money in their back pockets are reading this, why not try and get the J72 back on but as your own exclusive model? if I had the money I know i'd try and back a reboot, especially as there are so few small engines in N, and so few the same quality as the Farish 64xx or Jinty, which surely the J72 would live up to. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 The 158 is scheduled for sometime around July according to an October update that was posted here, and given they showed a second EP of the 158 at the end of August it should show up this year assuming no other issues come up to cause more delays I would think. I have just checked the Bachmann Availability list and the 158 is still shown as July. But the existence of an EP is no guarantee of timescale, as I have discovered with the 2 HAP, which now shows TBA in the timescale, having been originally Jan 19, then June 19, until recently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 I have just checked the Bachmann Availability list and the 158 is still shown as July. But the existence of an EP is no guarantee of timescale, as I have discovered with the 2 HAP, which now shows TBA in the timescale, having been originally Jan 19, then June 19, until recently. Wasn't the three-car EP available for viewing at Warley? I can't find my photos just now but feel sure it was there, unless my senility's kicking-in again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Wasn't the three-car EP available for viewing at Warley? I can't find my photos just now but feel sure it was there, unless my senility's kicking-in again. I am not sure which class you mean, but the 2 car 158 and 2 HAP EP's were definitely there - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131275-warley-national-model-railway-exhibition-2018-24th-and-25th-november/page-15&do=findComment&comment=3376278 I recall so was the class 159? Which may be the three car you mean? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 I am not sure which class you mean, but the 2 car 158 and 2 HAP EP's were definitely there - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131275-warley-national-model-railway-exhibition-2018-24th-and-25th-november/page-15&do=findComment&comment=3376278 I recall so was the class 159? Which may be the three car you mean? You're right Mike, it was the 159 I was thinking of! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted January 11, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2019 Actually I believe the last new chassis redo was the Ivatt tank which rightly got lambasted for its ancient tooling body on the new chassis at an unjustifiable high price. Bachmann seems to have quietly dropped the rechassis program since then. But they do have a nice chassis to tool up for the 84xxx BR Standard Here's a left field thought, what if Hornby are already quite far down the line of a brand new J39 and Bachmann got wind of it and have decided to throw in the towel ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted January 11, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2019 A pain to convert to DCC but not impossible. Doddle http://redgatemodels.co.uk/?p=96 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike woods Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) Not if you they are needed to complete your shed stock and the alternative is scratch building added to an already long list Edited July 24, 2019 by Mike woods Spelling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold D9020 Nimbus Posted July 24, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) On 11/01/2019 at 14:32, RedgateModels said: Here's a left field thought, what if Hornby are already quite far down the line of a brand new J39 and Bachmann got wind of it and have decided to throw in the towel . Just wondering how similar a J39 chassis is to the J27 that Oxford are doing... Odd that Bachmann have abandoned the OO J39 retool, but are introducing a fresh set of N gauge J39s... Edited July 24, 2019 by D9020 Nimbus Clarification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad McCann Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 I believe the coupled wheelbase is very close but the wheel diameter is essentially the same as a J38, opening up cut and shut possibilities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed-farms Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 On 24/07/2019 at 16:25, D9020 Nimbus said: Odd that Bachmann have abandoned the OO J39 retool, but are introducing a fresh set of N gauge J39s... Not really odd, the OO model was a new chassis (not sure if it was a new chassis or full body as well) that required investment to produce, whereas the N gauge model was already made so they are just making use of tooling they have ready to go Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now