Jump to content

The new V2 ep


Dr Gerbil-Fritters
 Share

Recommended Posts

I’m still in two minds whether to buy a V2 (Black early BR) and along with areas that have already been mentioned 

wondered how people feel about the ‘clunky’ loco to tender connector ?

This is a big improvement over past Bachmann steam tender engines, but feel it could have been made higher

up under the fall plate and therefore less noticeable.

 

 

 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Eddie the dog said:

I’m still in two minds whether to buy a V2 (Black early BR) and along with areas that have already been mentioned 

wondered how people feel about the ‘clunky’ loco to tender connector ?

This is a big improvement over past Bachmann steam tender engines, but feel it could have been made higher

up under the fall plate and therefore less noticeable.

 

 

 

Whilst not identical it looks like a similar system fitted to the units of late (158/9,117). I agree it is chunky I've found it an excellent system. It is reliable and offers absolutely no flickering of the lights on a unit. Personally I’d be happy with a more chunky reliable system then a dainty coupling fitted to the 150 that seems to fail constantly. Then again I’m coming at it from a Unit perspective. Maybe it’ll act different in steam, but in my experience it’s a good reliable connection. Hope that helps

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hornby Magazine review was very  very  favorable too. 

1 hour ago, Ian Hargrave said:

A highly favourable review by George Dent is in the new edition of Model Rail. It covers the black BR e/c version. The coupling rods are darkened btw but are to my eyes at any rate clunky and overscale .Sorry George.

Valve gear and overscale rivets/ smoke box rivets let it down. Other than magazine samples has anyone seen any in the shops. Only seeing one in the flesh will we really be able to make a judgement.

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ian Hargrave said:

A highly favourable review by George Dent is in the new edition of Model Rail. It covers the black BR e/c version. The coupling rods are darkened btw but are to my eyes at any rate clunky and overscale .Sorry George.

Interesting that only all Black versions are being reviewed, Black hides a lot of noticeable defects in any model. Henry Ford had the same idea with the Model T !!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, micklner said:

Interesting that only all Black versions are being reviewed, Black hides a lot of noticeable defects in any model. Henry Ford had the same idea with the Model T !!

Brm did the BR Green version. Railway Modeller LNER.  I've not read the Railway Modeller or Model Rail review.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, davidw said:

Brm did the BR Green version. Railway Modeller LNER.  I've not read the Railway Modeller or Model Rail review.

 

I've read the BRM, Railway Modeller and Hornby magazine reviews.

 

Gilbert Barnatt's BRM review praised the finish and detail, criticised the smokebox front a little, but it was a 2-page review. The others were mostly factual and without much opinion, other than that all three used phrases along the lines of '21st century' and 'up to date'.

 

No mention of cab-firebox issues, nor of over-sized rods and motion. There is a very complete detailing pack though.  Absent was any great praise.

 

A lot will depend on assemby quality, as with all recent high-spec 00 RTR. I predict praise for the paint on BR green models but am not so sure about lining and so on on the LNER Apple green versions.

 

For me and only judging from the review photos I wheels and motion are less than convincing, but I am being picky...  

 

 

Edited by robmcg
typo, correction, apology
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, robmcg said:

here is a scan from the BRM review photo by Andy Y. Will remove if required.

 

Please do not copy, edit and re-use my copyright images from the magazine. It is a 2-page review too. Not impressed at all with your post on those two counts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Please do not copy, edit and re-use my copyright images from the magazine. It is a 2-page review too. Not impressed at all with your post on those two counts.

 

Pic removed, apologies, and yes my mistake it was a two page review.  

Edited by robmcg
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, robmcg said:

Pic removed, apologies

 

I note that images are regularly copied, edited and re-used with a 'will remove if required'. It's not on, it's breach of copyright as I'd bet you never sought consent beforehand. I've used your appropriation of one of my images to do this and ask you never to post the images you have stolen from anyone on RMweb at any time.

 

Do it again with one of mine and you'll be getting an invoice or legal action.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

True I have used Hattons photos and manufacturers' photos and not asked, but for photos by individuals I do make a point of asking, or in some cases offering to remove.

 

I see the same Hattons and Bachmann photos widely copied by commercial operations and this is presumably a breach of copyright, where in my case the only financial interest would be in your site's visitors, the pics I use enhance sales of products and engender enjoyable reading, or so I thought until now.

 

I do appreciate you requiring control of your images.  I don't recall stealing any images from anyone on RMweb without their consent, unless by quoting their post and photo it represents copying and theft.

 

Don't bother putting me on moderator watch.  I've had it with the ads and the tone of your post has finished my interest in contributing here.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
  • Friendly/supportive 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have assumed that this is a BRM website, given the branding. Irrespective of any fair use arguments, attaching a scan of BRM's content on a BRM website would not be covered by copyright in the manor suggested. Finally 'stolen' has a specific meaning, which is unlikely to cover any copyright violation.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, robmcg said:

I see the same Hattons and Bachmann photos widely copied by commercial operations and this is presumably a breach of copyright

 

No, any manufacturers' images used on stockists websites are provided by the manufacturers for that purpose; not to help yourself to.

 

13 hours ago, robmcg said:

but for photos by individuals I do make a point of asking, or in some cases offering to remove.

 

There is no difference, all material has a creator or owner. Offering to remove something does not exonerate you.

 

29 minutes ago, Bomag said:

I have assumed that this is a BRM website, given the branding. Irrespective of any fair use arguments, attaching a scan of BRM's content on a BRM website would not be covered by copyright in the manor suggested. Finally 'stolen' has a specific meaning, which is unlikely to cover any copyright violation.

 

'fair use' is a oft-wafted fallacy by those who think they know something whereas it has specific meaning - spend some time looking into it rather than using it incorrectly. Any material, text or images, is automatically the copyright of the creator or owner and it's the same as helping yourself to something that isn't yours.

 

13 hours ago, robmcg said:

Don't bother putting me on moderator watch.  I've had it with the ads and the tone of your post has finished my interest in contributing here.  

 

Your call but I don't like martyrs trying to make out they're hard done by when they do something they've already been told not to do.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, davidw said:

Brm did the BR Green version. Railway Modeller LNER.  I've not read the Railway Modeller or Model Rail review.

I forgot the Railway Modeller LNER version review. I havent seen the BRM review.

 

A lot of praise , none of the very obvious faults as mentioned on here, were mentioned.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

@robmcg This forum will be very much the poorer and indeed will be cutting its nose to spite its face if it loses your regular contributions and with it your extensive knowledge of rtr, tales of days past and of course your images. I’ve no knowledge of this particular spat with Andy but we’ve shared an occasional PM and the one image of mine (a shot of a pre production 46256) you used you asked for my permission beforehand and sent me copy which I treasure and use as a screensaver. 

 

Please dont leave the forum though I do understand that at the moment the atmosphere on this thread has been made rather unpleasant. 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 4
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AY Mod said:

'fair use' is a oft-wafted fallacy by those who think they know something whereas it has specific meaning - spend some time looking into it rather than using it incorrectly. Any material, text or images, is automatically the copyright of the creator or owner and it's the same as helping yourself to something that isn't yours.

 

If you had read my post I excluded the issue of 'fair use'. I deal with the issue fairly regularly and it was clear it's not relevant in this case, although others may have thought it as it was quoting a review. Copyright infringement is not the same as steeling something - the creator still has the original content and can still obtain reproduction fees.  A creator may be out of pocket, and may reasonably seek redress if the breach has a commercial benefit to the person breaching copyright; otherwise an impact on the reputation etc of a copyright holder would need to be shown. In this case you were presumably (as the attachment was deleted) making a specific point about a scan of a BRM magazine photo, the photo in it is quite possibly posted in the BRM part of the forum  (at least one V2 photo is included). 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bomag said:

In this case you were presumably (as the attachment was deleted) making a specific point about a scan of a BRM magazine photo, the photo in it is quite possibly posted in the BRM part of the forum

 

That's irrelevant. Copyright still applies, the problem was a track record of him not respecting anyone's copyright; I chose to stop him doing it here.

  • Like 4
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, robmcg said:

I see the same Hattons and Bachmann photos widely copied by commercial operations and this is presumably a breach of copyright, where in my case the only financial interest would be in your site's visitors, the pics I use enhance sales of products and engender enjoyable reading, or so I thought until now.

 

 

I'm not condoning misuse of copyrighted or non-permission images on here (or anywhere). However Rob IS correct on the Hattons images front. I found one (recent) example on AMAZON (of all places) which very clearly uses Hattons images (despite Amazon being a semi-official Hornby stockist). This is, sadly quite widespread especially for Hattons images, but clearly Hattons have better things to do than chase this up (though I'm surprised the don't at the very least put their web address or logo somewhere on the edge of the item). And yes the Amazon stock example is sold by Amazon not on behalf of, or fulfilled by, Hattons, so aside from any private deal between Hattons and Amazon, there is no reason why Hattons images should be used.

 

Exhibit 1 - Hattons webpage of recent Hornby LNER Scotsman item, note Amtech steel rule, flipped up front screw coupling, and bent back vacuum pipe:

https://www.hattons.co.uk/430691/hornby_r3736_class_a1_4_6_2_4472_flying_scotsman_in_lner_green/stockdetail

 

Exhibit 2 - Amazon webpage of same item, with SAME images, incl Amtech rule, flipped up front coupling and bent vacuum pipe (I'm actually very surprised at this as I would have thought Amazon publicising their own stock would be very strict on this)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hornby-R3736-4-6-2-Flying-Scotsman/dp/B07N8C9D1M

 

And just to illustrate these are NOT in any way manufacturer images but Hattons own images, here is a Dapol western with the same Amtech steel rule!

https://www.hattons.co.uk/360303/dapol_4d_003_014_class_52_western_d1008_western_harrier_in_br_maroon_with_yellow_bufferbeams/stockdetail

 

The fact that others are doing it obviously does not make it right. Nor understandably would RMWeb likely want to be hosting such images (I presume there might be legal implications for RMWeb as the 'publisher' of any hosted images? ... not sure where UK law is on this though). Manufacturer/catalogue images are of course something else in terms of rights to reuse (though an interesting point could be raised of the rights of non-authorised stockists' websites using manufacturer images especially in Bachmann's case when they are clamped down on 'unauthorised dealers'.)

 

Would also be a shame @robmcg to loose you from here after so long. Your pictures are works of art and a great expression of models, such that Hornby themselves have used them with permission I understand. Also valued are your insights on model detail - you can learn a lot about the ins and outs of a model in the flesh through what needs tweaking in a virtual image to lift a model. Just be careful with asking and obtaining permission BEFORE posting and attributing accordingly. As is too often the case once things are up on the internet and stored in caches they can be VERY hard to remove in a timely manner.

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 27/10/2021 at 21:30, G-BOAF said:

I presume there might be legal implications for RMWeb as the 'publisher' of any hosted images? ... not sure where UK law is on this though

 

There most definitely are legal implications, even more so when the site in question has a commercial element.  There are rights holders who will vigorously change come after you if you host images that they own the copyright for (Getty Images are particularly well known for this) with claims for costs that can run in to the thousands.

 

I have my own website where almost all of the images have come from others and are published with their express consent.  The problem is that so many people seem to assume that if an image is 'on the internet' then it is fair game to be posted anywhere else, I spend hours every week trying to get images from my site removed from Facebook and you wouldn't believe the abuse I get from posters and group admins when I, politely, ask for the images to be taken down...

 

 

Edited by johndon
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just read the review in Model Rail, which states that the Bachmann manual for this loco recommends the use of a smoothed supply when using analogue control, and speculates on the possible fitting of a coreless motor (not mentioned in the BRM or RM reviews). 

 

My layout is an oval with hidden storage sidings, so has gradients at each end.  I therefore use Gaugemaster feedback controllers to maintain reasonably constant speeds.  I have had a V2 on order for many months and have not previously been aware of this potential problem.  Please can anyone advise?

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, johndon said:

I spend hours every week trying to get images from my site removed from Facebook and you wouldn't believe the abuse I get from posters and group admins when I, politely, ask for the images to be taken down

 

I can wholeheartedly sympathise. The most bizarre incident I had was with an Australian retailer stealing one of my pics of a pre-production livery sample of a product for use for their eBay store to try and take orders before the item was even released. I asked for it to be removed and they complained to Warners saying that they would sue for me trying to damage their business; timewasters as well as being legally very dubious.

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

I have just read the review in Model Rail, which states that the Bachmann manual for this loco recommends the use of a smoothed supply when using analogue control, and speculates on the possible fitting of a coreless motor (not mentioned in the BRM or RM reviews). 

 

My layout is an oval with hidden storage sidings, so has gradients at each end.  I therefore use Gaugemaster feedback controllers to maintain reasonably constant speeds.  I have had a V2 on order for many months and have not previously been aware of this potential problem.  Please can anyone advise?

 

I raised this issue with Bachmann, who advise that the V2 is fitted with a 5 pole motor.  They are not aware of issues when using such motors with most proprietary analogue systems but their recommendation is that all Bachmann products are used with a controller giving a smoothed output to provide a single, consistent message irrespective of product/components.  They do not envisage problems with the new V2 but suggest contacting the controller manufacturer for total peace of mind.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 2750Papyrus said:

 

I raised this issue with Bachmann, who advise that the V2 is fitted with a 5 pole motor.  They are not aware of issues when using such motors with most proprietary analogue systems but their recommendation is that all Bachmann products are used with a controller giving a smoothed output to provide a single, consistent message irrespective of product/components.  They do not envisage problems with the new V2 but suggest contacting the controller manufacturer for total peace of mind.

Wasn't the coreless 5 pole motors an issue with the GWR 94xx?

These motors don't like feedback controllers according to Bachmann.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/10/2021 at 19:21, davidw said:

The Hornby Magazine review was very  very  favorable too. 

Valve gear and overscale rivets/ smoke box rivets let it down. Other than magazine samples has anyone seen any in the shops. Only seeing one in the flesh will we really be able to make a judgement.

 

There seems to a question as to the position of the rivets as well as the size of them.

They appear to be too far in from the front of the smoke box.

As you say it needs seeing in the flesh to make a judgement.

Bernard

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...