Why don't Bachmann produce Gresley A3s

[DonnyRailMan]

Why do Bachmann not produce Gresley A1s & A3s they produce Gresley A4s .

So how come not the Gresley A1 & A3 locomotives.

Edited March 28, 2019 by DonnyRailMan

[brushman47544]

Because Hornby produce very acceptable versions and Bachmann sensibly avoids duplication.

[woodenhead]

Because Hornby have produced them for a long time and keep updating them so there is no benefit in Bachmann tooling one as the volume wouldn't likely be there.

 

Bachmann produced the A4 at a time when Hornby were sitting back on their laurels a little, the response at the time was an updated Hornby A4 which was generally accepted as the better model.

 

It's a similar thing with the Coronations and Princess Royals - as long as Hornby keep releasing updated models as they do then it is more difficult for a challenger to get a foothold on that model.

[Steamport Southport]

9 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Because Hornby have produced them for a long time and keep updating them so there is no benefit in Bachmann tooling one as the volume wouldn't likely be there.

 

Bachmann produced the A4 at a time when Hornby were sitting back on their laurels a little, the response at the time was an updated Hornby A4 which was generally accepted as the better model.

 

It's a similar thing with the Coronations and Princess Royals - as long as Hornby keep releasing updated models as they do then it is more difficult for a challenger to get a foothold on that model.

 

The A4 was just a reissue of the old Lilliput/Trix model. Vastly outdated even in the 1980s.

 

The A1 has it's roots in that era as well. The A2 is new.

 

 

Jason

[Legend]

16 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Because Hornby have produced them for a long time and keep updating them so there is no benefit in Bachmann tooling one as the volume wouldn't likely be there.

 

Bachmann produced the A4 at a time when Hornby were sitting back on their laurels a little, the response at the time was an updated Hornby A4 which was generally accepted as the better model.

 

It's a similar thing with the Coronations and Princess Royals - as long as Hornby keep releasing updated models as they do then it is more difficult for a challenger to get a foothold on that model.

 And the Bachmann A4 is the old Trix version , so they could introduce it relatively inexpensively

[woodenhead]

4 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The A4 was just a reissue of the old Lilliput/Trix model. Vastly outdated even in the 1980s.

 

The A1 has it's roots in that era as well. The A2 is new.

 

 

Jason

Well I never knew that - I thought both were new models at the time not a rebranded Trix loco.

[RedgateModels]

Just now, woodenhead said:

Well I never knew that - I thought both were new models at the time not a rebranded Trix loco.

 

Are we talking about the split chassis version?

[D9020 Nimbus]

Pretty certain both the A1 and A2 from Bachmann are new. Anyway, Trix did the A2, A3 and A4—not the A1.

[Legend]

Yes as far as I know it was only the A4 that was the old Trix version , I think the A1, A2 were both completely new . I have A2 Blue Peter and its a lovely loco

[Phil Parker]

How come @DonnyRailMan feels the need to shout in the topic title?

 

While you are editing the title, how about turning it into something meaningful for the rest of the members.  Can I suggest "Why don't Bachmann produce Gresley A1s & A3"

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It was very well explained by Bachmann UK's then MD Graham Hubbard years ago, for a start there was plenty of choice in subjects without (current) models; and they wouldn't take on a  subject in another manufacturer's range unless (it was so far off the pace that) a significantly superior model could be produced. 

 

Relating specifically to the A4, the Trix body was way superior to Hornby's A4 when the Bachmann A4 was released in the early 1990s. Even now, there are two features on it which remain superior to the current Hornby model's body, even though it is comfortably beaten in most respects for conformance to prototype... And for the rest it left the feeble Hornby tender drive A4 for dead: heavy loco drive mechanism with good traction and near silent operation, wheel patterns that were genuinely Doncaster in form, adjustable slide to close couple the tender, there was much to like.

 

It was a shame they didn't also have the Trix Gresley A1/A3 tooling available; had they been in possession of it, then I would imagine that they would have had that in the range too. Their split chassis A4 mechanism could be fitted in the Hornby tender drive A3 body without difficulty. That was the easy path to a loco drive A3 for my old outdoor line.

[AY Mod]

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

While you are editing the title

 

You're assuming the OP has stayed in the same postcode after shouting at the pigeons. A bit like the **** who demanded I do something about the 10MB upload limit, whereabouts currently unknown. It's the forum equivalent of treading on a stink bomb and slinking off.

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, AY Mod said:

 

You're assuming the OP has stayed in the same postcode after shouting at the pigeons. A bit like the **** who demanded I do something about the 10MB upload limit, whereabouts currently unknown. It's the forum equivalent of treading on a stink bomb and slinking off.

Ah Andy's back, Phil has been ever so polite as mod today

[Dave47549]

.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Dave47549
Removed pointless guff

[Phil Parker]

28 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Ah Andy's back, Phil has been ever so polite as mod today

 

Been busy. Only banned one person today...

[Butler Henderson]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Relating specifically to the A4, the Trix body was way superior to Hornby's A4 when the Bachmann A4 was released in the early 1990s.

The body  tools did have 112 modifications made to them by Bachmann

[Oldddudders]

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Been busy. Only banned one person today...

Must try harder. 

[Andy Mac]

15 hours ago, DonnyRailMan said:

Why do Bachmann not produce Gresley A1s & A3s they produce Gresley A4s .

So how come not the Gresley A1 & A3 locomotives.

 

Why doesn’t Carlsberg produce a class 37 or 47, they’d probably be the best models in the world? 

[DonnyRailMan]

19 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

How come @DonnyRailMan feels the need to shout in the topic title?

 

While you are editing the title, how about turning it into something meaningful for the rest of the members.  Can I suggest "Why don't Bachmann produce Gresley A1s & A3"

I did not intend to shout the name of my thread title.

[Phil Parker]

9 minutes ago, DonnyRailMan said:

I did not intend to shout the name of my thread title.

 

You typed it in capital letters - on the web, that is considered shouting.

 

It's also not a helpful title, there's no way of knowing what the thread is about from looking at a list. If you want people to read and react, edit it to a meaningful title without all the capitals. 

[Right Away]

Reverting toward the direction of the original posting, the much maligned Thompson 4-6-2s might be welcomed by modellers of the later LNER  and BR eras.

 

Numerically, the A2/1, A2/2 and A2/3 classes were relatively small and together with what some may consider an ungainly appearance, it is quite understandable that manufactures would have shunned the concept of their production in the past.

 

Gresley A1 and A3 locomotives have seemingly been with us forever in model form and for good reason but our diverse tastes could bring a fresh look at the developing RTR scene.

 

Times and tastes move on and I would be very surprised if a Thompson would not meet with the approval of East Coast devotees.

[Les1952]

Looking at the A3 in particular-

 

Bachmann are quite keen to bring new models into fruition in both OO and Farish N if they can - or at least they were last time I asked anyone in their higher reaches.  They would thus most likely be looking to do an A3 in both scales if they were to choose to do it.

 

Hornby do the A3 in OO, and are quite possibly also in a position to do a spoiler with Railroad rereleases.

 

Dapol do the A3 in N, and are quite capable of getting another run or three out of their existing tooling, again taking sales from any Farish version.  In addition the existing Farish A1 and A2 are tender drive and can suffer from locking up problems if not kept clean from dust and stray oil.   I presume Bachman wouldn't want to do the same with an A3.   However, using the tender chassis from the A1/A2 would give them a head start by lowering tooling costs.

 

I think it would be hard to justify a Bachmann group A3 as I'm pretty certain they wouldn't make enough money out of it.

 

Just a few thoughts

Les

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 hours ago, Right Away said:

Reverting toward the direction of the original posting, the much maligned Thompson 4-6-2s might be welcomed by modellers of the later LNER  and BR eras.

 

Numerically, the A2/1, A2/2 and A2/3 classes were relatively small and together with what some may consider an ungainly appearance, it is quite understandable that manufacturers would have shunned the concept of their production in the past...

The A2/3 the best of them, and the most numerous with 15 in this class part, and remained in service later than parts 1 and 2. All of them will look ungainly on set track curves, as the bogie will have to cam well forward to keep the rear bogie wheels from fouling the cylinder block.

 

Here's the thing though, as an ECML modeller I would definitely take a look at another manufacturer's attempt at an A3, and buy if it outdid the Hornby. Thompson pacifics, meh. Only if there was nothing else taking the RTR budget, the competition including loco classes A5, B16, C12, E4, J1, J2, J4, J6, J17, J19, J20, J67-69, K2, N1, N5, P1, P2, V2, W1, Gresley or Howlden coaches, etc.. If I am anything like typical, there are far better options worth tooling than an A2/3 if wanting to make a decent profit.

 

So if tooling for a LNER wide firebox loco is considered, then the V2 which has never had a RTR model remotely close to 'current standard' is surely a far more inviting prospect? With 184 in class, ubiquitous on both LNER and BR (ER), (NER) and (ScR) main lines: neat and pretty too. This needs good work at the design stage to pack in enough weight for the tractive mightiness, being rather more compact than the pacifics.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The weight for traction aspect is a whole other factor. The manufacturers know what is required but are inconsistent in execution. Products like the Bachmann 9F, Heljan O2 and 47xx 2-8-0s, and Hornby Britannia and B12/3 show that the  knowledge of what is required and the technique to execute are hardly secret. And sometimes they do, but much of the time they don't. If you haven't encountered Hornby's B12/3, it's a real treat. Largely metal body, resulting in the best traction from any current RTR OO 4-6-0 I have tested. (Which is by no means all!)

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Mersey507003 said:

The only points I can think of at this time besides the obvious requirement of a new tooling to be made is that Bachmann do use better motors, heavier chassis and metal bodies on their steam locos.

 

This combination would make the locos heavier but it would give them the ability to do what modelers want them to do and that is haul the trains of the correct length ( subject to layout space allowing this of course )..

 

I will also say that both Bachmannand Hornby both claim that their locos will haul say 12 mk1 coaches but from personal experience that has been the case once adequate extra weight has been added.

 

Which comes at with increased production costs.

 

If realistic haulage and detailing were the main factors then i'm sure most locos would be a lot heavier than they are - but they would also have to sell at higher prices to recoup the costs - look at the price of the Acurascale Deltic which has a more expensive Tungsten chassis to provide weight than Mazak while allowing extensive interior detailing

 

Model trains are not immune to the norms affecting any product with the production cost, retail price, sales volumes and level of detailing / functionality all closely related to each other.