The new V2 ep

[AY Mod]

21 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

But, just because you made a kit yourself, doesnt make your engine any better than RTR and certainly not in the case of the owner of the latest RTR engine who beams with pride for the engine they now own sat on their layout. 

 

Many people are happy to butcher and build, including me, but a line is crossed whenever they preen themselves publicly making out they're 'better'; it's just pure snobbery that benefits no one at all.

[G-BOAF]

2 hours ago, micklner said:

And redo the just as bad Smoke Box Front moulding, adding Rivets to the edge where required (not behind the gap as done) and closing the gap between the Boiler and Smokebox  mouldings..

 

Yes I would agree with that. I intend to write to Bachmann in the new year.

The smokebox moulding would cost pence to make and distribute (albeit the cost of painting for the LNER versions, and printing numbers for the BR version, although if modellers are already going to have to fit the door, I wouldn't hold it against Bachmann to leave blank numberplates for modeller to use decals on).

HOWEVER - as shown in the thread above, the smokebox can be thinned down the moderate modelling skill (and at worse a touch of milliput and satin black paint).

 

The same cannot be said for the cab which would involve supply of a fully decorated and details parts (livery/printing, handrails, safety valves etc), though I'm guessing the backhead piece is separate and could be swapped between cabs...

 

The cab CANNOT be corrected without both moderate modelling skill and EXCELLENT painting skills to repaint and reline the cab front, as well as matching the shade of apple green (slightly harder than matching up a black smokebox). I'm certainly not going to risk a cab repair with the complex relining on a £200 model at the moment....

 

Hence my emphasis on need for replacement cabs, and not smokeboxes. But if they are going to do one, they might as well do the other...

[Downer]

10 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

Hence my emphasis on need for replacement cabs, and not smokeboxes. But if they are going to do one, they might as well do the other...

Dream on.

[G-BOAF]

8 minutes ago, Downer said:

Dream on.

 

If enough people stop dreaming and start lobbying.... 

Bachmann rectifying mistakes is not unheard of (60800 chimney error, 73050 body and tender error... there are others)

[micklner]

53 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

 

If enough people stop dreaming and start lobbying.... 

Bachmann rectifying mistakes is not unheard of (60800 chimney error, 73050 body and tender error... there are others)

The big thing Bachmann and retailers will soon notice if it does happen, is very simple.

If they dont sell ? Bachmann will then have to do something about the excess stock and appeasse some hacked off retailers, stuck with the stock.

Bachmann can then either withdraw the remaininder unsold and re model the bodies again , or reduce the price, or produce new mouldings .

Or the other option they sell all of them, and then reconsider very quietly, whether if worth financially remodelling the bodies at that time, either for sold stock or for future releases.

I cannot see them offering new Cabs or Smokebox fronts any time soon, if ever.

It would be totally pointless making any available for current stock, for the LNER versions.

 

[G-BOAF]

3 minutes ago, micklner said:

The big thing Bachmann and retailers will soon notice if it does happen, is very simple.

If they dont sell ? Bachmann will then have to do something about the excess stock and appeasse some hacked off retailers, stuck with the stock.

Bachmann can then either withdraw the remaininder unsold and re model the bodies again , or reduce the price, or produce new mouldings .

Or the other option they sell all of them, and then reconsider very quietly, whether if worth financially remodelling the bodies at that time, either for sold stock or for future releases.

I cannot see them offering new Cabs or Smokebox fronts any time soon, if ever.

It would be totally pointless making any available for current stock, for the LNER versions.

 

 

Why would it be pointless for LNER versions? X% of modellers won't be bothered, but doing a smaller run of appropriately numbered cabs for the LNER ones would seem reasonable alongside the next production batch (BR less so as its really much less visible due to the livery)

[Legend]

They’ll sell . It’ll probably be corrected in subsequent batches . 

[micklner]

49 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

 

Why would it be pointless for LNER versions? X% of modellers won't be bothered, but doing a smaller run of appropriately numbered cabs for the LNER ones would seem reasonable alongside the next production batch (BR less so as its really much less visible due to the livery)

As already said earlier.

The LNER version with the large Black line is not a simple Cab change.

It would require the Boiler area to painted matching Bachmanns paint colour, and correctly relined again to match Bachmann's lining widths, it is not a simple two minute job.

[County of Yorkshire]

Don’t forget Bachmann have form here - newly retooled GWR Modified Hall first release had the huge howler of the “unmodified” front end under the smokebox (so bad that Brassmasters issued a kit to correct it).
 

Fast-forward to recent/imminent release of new Modified Hall, it’s been rectified. But, making noise might help Barwell to take action…

[Bon Accord]

2 hours ago, Legend said:

They’ll sell . It’ll probably be corrected in subsequent batches . 

 

The problem there is the next batch is probably 2-3 years away.

I was going to get the LNER version, but I won't now as the OTT valve gear, tyres and the aforementioned black mark have put me off entirely.

The running plate still doesn't sit quite right with me either - I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's far more obvious on the LNER versions than the BR black/green types.

I still have a 1995 Coldstreamer and 2000 Green Howards in LNER Doncaster and Darlington green respectively still running around like sewing machines after over two decades of use and I shall stick with them, particularly in the face of shelling out north of 200 notes for the new model.

Some years back I did buy the most recent BR version (double chimney with the new chassis) and although the boiler still needed put right as well as a few other details it was nearly there as mass produced models go. Unfortunately Bachmann seem to have taken a couple of steps forward and a couple back. Just a pity it's taken nearly 4 years to get here.

 

[Ian Hargrave]

5 minutes ago, County of Yorkshire said:

Don’t forget Bachmann have form here - newly retooled GWR Modified Hall first release had the huge howler of the “unmodified” front end under the smokebox (so bad that Brassmasters issued a kit to correct it).
 

Fast-forward to recent/imminent release of new Modified Hall, it’s been rectified. But, making noise might help Barwell to take action…

Not quite it hasn’t. The front piece of the loco’s frame,visible prominently under the buffer beam,a signature indicator viewed head on that a Modified Hall was approaching,is still missing from recent releases.

[Butler Henderson]

11 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

Not quite it hasn’t. The front piece of the loco’s frame,visible prominently under the buffer beam,a signature indicator viewed head on that a Modified Hall was approaching,is still missing from recent releases.

A neccessary omission if a front coupling is going to used and as both examples released are of preserved locos then they do spend  a large part of their time running tender first. What they could have done was to provided a plug in piece akin to the 03 bufferbeam but it is easilly resolved with a piece of plastic card.

[Ian Hargrave]

4 hours ago, G-BOAF said:

 

If enough people stop dreaming and start lobbying.... 

Bachmann rectifying mistakes is not unheard of (60800 chimney error, 73050 body and tender error... there are others)

So where might these dreamers be then ? Aside from members of this forum who probably in reality represent only a minority of possible takers for this who, given the troubled times we are in,aren’t going to bother. It is almost two decades ago since we returned new A1’s to Barwell for remotoring.  Yes ,my original first release Modified Hall had a Brassmasters kit fitted and as posted above the second iteration still IMHO is missing a component though a few forum members find this an excusable omission.

 

Worth pointing out at this juncture that those members who actually like their new V2 have been mightily upset by some insensitive comments posted in response.. We have to ask ourselves…for whom are we speaking ? And I accept that there are members of this forum who have much knowledge and expertise champing at the bit.
 

Yes there are aspects of this model that I know aren’t right. But as I’ve posted already that knowledge didn’t prevent me from pre ordering a BR green l/c. I’ll live with that 
 

 

[Ian Hargrave]

1 hour ago, Butler Henderson said:

A neccessary omission if a front coupling is going to used and as both examples released are of preserved locos then they do spend  a large part of their time running tender first. What they could have done was to provided a plug in piece akin to the 03 bufferbeam but it is easilly resolved with a piece of plastic card.

Yes I’ve heard that one before,proving my point that some of us find it acceptable. 

[gr.king]

Well I'm glad that I did not suggest, quite untruthfully, that the V2s cobbled together by my own methods, are perfect - nor are they necessarily "better" overall than the latest RTR incarnation, but in the ways that matter most to me I have taken some trouble to try to get them to look right.

 

If something IS wrong you can pretend that it isn't wrong if that makes you feel better, but others will still be able to see that it is wrong. I do however agree that some modellers need to be much more careful when (with justifiable pride) they are making themselves feel good by pointing out the better features of their own hand-built models. They should try to avoid appearing at the same time to suggest that the treasured possessions of others are absolute rubbish.

 

I bought an original-version Bachmann LNER V2 Coldstreamer back in the 1990s, impressed by my (then) naive assessment of its appearance in the shop run by my friendly local dealer, who was happy to endorse my enthusiastic comments at the time, thus encouraging me to buy. Not too long after that, at the local model railway club, he pointed out that the shape of the boiler was not at all correct! Now did I get upset or offended? No - the realization that the boiler was wrong instead persuaded me, eventually, when I felt that I might have developed enough skill to do the job, to attempt an improvement by cutting out much of the original boiler and grafting in a shortened boiler from a Hornby pacific model. I wasn't born with modelling skill of course, I had to learn, slowly, by trial and error, by reading the modelling press, and by seeing what others did.  Of course, given the more modest cost of the simpler, original 1990s model compared to the item now offered, it was much easier, especially after a period of ownership, to contemplate butchery.

 

 

 

 

[rembrow]

I haven't got a horse in this race, but what I can add is my recent experience of Bachmann, regarding a significant model livery error. When they released the refurbished Class 20/3 diesel models  earlier this year, the one in DRS original livery, had a significant livery error, the DRS logo on one side, was in the wrong place. These logos are full body height. I contacted Bachmann  via the Collectors Club and received a prompt reply from Richard Proudman  who confirmed the production error and that it was not up to Bachmann's expected standards. He advised they had decided to have new bodies manufactured. Six months later we were advised the new bodies were imminent and asked to send proof of purchase. Replacements came about a week later. They were full replacement bodies, with all fittings and electrical connections, they did not even ask for the original bodies to be returned  so I  cannot fault them for sorting out that issue.

Edited December 25, 2021 by rembrow
Correction

[MikeParkin65]

7 hours ago, rembrow said:

I haven't got a horse in this race, but what I can add is my recent experience of Bachmann, regarding a significant model livery error. When they released the refurbished Class 20/3 diesel models  earlier this year, the one in DRS original livery, had a significant livery error, the DRS logo on one side, was in the wrong place. These logos are full body height. I contacted Bachmann  via the Collectors Club and received a prompt reply from Stephen Proudman  who confirmed the production error and that it was not up to Bachmann's expected standards. He advised they had decided to have new bodies manufactured. Six months later we were advised the new bodies were imminent and asked to send proof of purchase. Replacements came about a week later. They were full replacement bodies, with all fittings and electrical connections, they did not even ask for the original bodies to be returned  so I  cannot fault them for sorting out that issue.

I think the key difference will be that the class 20 issue was a production error. The V2 is a design error so the nearer equivalent would be the original class 24 and 25 with the wrongly shaped roofs - how long have we waited for these to be improved - about 20 years by my reckoning. A perhaps more likely scenario is that another manufacturer sees the V2 as still available low hanging fruit and brings out a better model. 

[45568]

11 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

I think the key difference will be that the class 20 issue was a production error. The V2 is a design error so the nearer equivalent would be the original class 24 and 25 with the wrongly shaped roofs - how long have we waited for these to be improved - about 20 years by my reckoning. A perhaps more likely scenario is that another manufacturer sees the V2 as still available low hanging fruit and brings out a better model. 

I always hoped Hornby would follow-up the B17 and B1 with a V2; even now, assuming they could get a correct BR green, I still think a Hornby V2 would be superb.

 I nearly had a horse in this race, I wanted to model 60809 in BR green late crest with inside steam pipes. Thank to an unusual set of initial Bachmann variants, I was prepared to re-number a Rails edition of 60964 to get the desired model.

 Having seen the actual models, unfortunately I have decided not to bother, they just do not look 'right'!

Cheers from WestOz,

Peter C.

Edited December 26, 2021 by 45568
spelling

[curlypaws]

Personally, having experienced issues with two Hornby B1s (one had a faulty motor amongst other issues and it is impossible to get a replacement, the other damaged its own valve gear). I would think that Hornby would be better to concentrate on improving their quality control (e.g. the W1 Hush Hush), keeping a stock of spare parts and producing the locomotives they have already announced rather than trying to compete with Bachmann for the likely small market of those looking for the 'perfect' V2 RTR model. And who is to say that any Hornby V2 model wouldn't have some design decisions that upset potential purchasers?

 

I'd take a Bachmann model over a Hornby any day!

[micklner]

B1 motors and valve gear on for sale on ebay at daft prices.

[Ian Hargrave]

3 hours ago, 45568 said:

I always hoped Hornby would follow-up the B17 and B1 with a V2; even now, assuming they could get a correct BR green, I still think a Hornby V2 would be superb.

 I nearly had a horse in this race, I wanted to model 60809 in BR green late crest with inside steam pipes. Thank to an unusual set of initial Bachmann variants, I was prepared to re-number a Rails edition of 60964 to get the desired model.

 Having seen the actual models, unfortunately I have decided not to bother, they just do not look 'right'!

Cheers from WestOz,

Peter C.

In terms of accuracy in representation of its prototype,I agree. We are however in a Catch 22 situation in that firstly,current Hornby  QC issues have reached dire proportions and that Hornby’s BR  “green” paint finish for most is unacceptable. The latter is where rival Bachmann scores heavily,I’m afraid. No winners here then. 

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, micklner said:

B1 motors and valve gear on for sale on ebay at daft prices.

It was only a few years back B1’s were being sold at daft prices.. £60 odd quid at one point.

[MikeParkin65]

8 hours ago, 45568 said:

I always hoped Hornby would follow-up the B17 and B1 with a V2; even now, assuming they could get a correct BR green, I still think a Hornby V2 would be superb.

 I nearly had a horse in this race, I wanted to model 60809 in BR green late crest with inside steam pipes. Thank to an unusual set of initial Bachmann variants, I was prepared to re-number a Rails edition of 60964 to get the desired model.

 Having seen the actual models, unfortunately I have decided not to bother, they just do not look 'right'!

Cheers from WestOz,

Peter C.

Agree with all of this. Dubious rendition of BR green aside Hornby really ‘get’ LNER locos in my opinion and I hoped they would add the V2 to the same standard and roughly the same price point as the B1 (of which I have 2 and they are both sweet and reliable runners). 
 

I had a pre order in for a BR green version but cancelled when images of the production model appeared. Apart from the clumsy errors made for me the model just looks too ‘carthorse’ when the prototype looks like a racehorse even standing still. 
 

I fully respect those who are happy with their model (and it is beautifully finished) but for me it has missed the essence of the V2. 

[Chamby]

I do not profess to be an expert about the details of the V2, so will refrain from adding comment to what has been posted already about this model.  As a purchaser I thought I'd post some of my own observations here, and show a comparison with Bachmann's previous model, which I also own.

 

I have purchased 60845 in BR lined black livery with the early crest, this particular locomotive spent 18 months allocated to Woodford Halse between Spring 1950 and Autumn 1951 - so apart from the shed code used on Bachmann;'s model, it is an ideal model to run on my Eastern Region (ex-Great Central) layout.  

 

First impressions are very favourable, it is crisply modelled and runs very smoothly straight out of the box.  As Bachmann's DCC sound version of 60845, first impressions of the sound file are good, perhaps not quite up there with the best but perfectly acceptable, although some adjustment of the relevant CV's will be required to properly synchronise the 'chuffs' to the wheel rotation.  Whistle sounds are crisp and bright, albeit unusually operated using F4 and F8.

 

A couple of issues emerged during running in.  Firstly, the model comes fitted with flangeless wheels in the 'trailing bogie' (Cartazzi truck), hanging low enough to run on the rail surface.  Surprise surprise, these bridge the insulation gaps on Peco Code 75 Bullhead turnouts, consistently shorting out and stalling the loco.  Fortunately the supplied replacement 'flanged' wheels were fitted and fixed this problem for me, though modellers with R2 curves on their layout will also find this fix problematic as the flanged wheels require a minimum R3 (505mm).  The second issue I'll come to later.

 

Some comparison pictures then, between Bachmann's new V2 and the model that it replaced:  Firstly looking at their faces: 4771 is the 'old' model on the left in LNER green, 60845 the new one in BR lined black.  60845 has yet to have its front coupling hook and vacuum pipe added, as it is still undergoing acceptance trials following its receipt from Kernow Models!  

 

The re-tooling here is obvious, much crisper mouldings, much greater detail and generally showing the level of refinement that you'd expect in 2021.  As I said before, I won't comment on its accuracy as a model, just those points that are obvious to the 'average' purchaser.  The only obvious thing to me on the new model is the minor loss of crispness in the rivet detail on the top of the smokebox, presumably a consequence of the moulding process.

 

 

 

A similar level of detailing is observed around the cab and tender area.  The tender itself is substantially different, although it bears a 'family resemblance' the detail differences are many and obvious.  To my mind the coal load is poorly modelled, though this plastic component falls out easily and will be replaced with the real stuff as and when the loco passes its acceptance trials:

 

 

 

I also thought it worth illustrating the revised arrangement between the tender and loco underneath - new model on the left (below).  This is very different - the Cartazzi (trailing bogie) arrangement is simply a fixed axle with a lot of play, it is lightly sprung and goes round R3 curves (20" radius).  On the right, the old 'swivelling' arrangement.  The tender wheels clearly have been remodelled to allow electrical pick-up, though why have Bachmann reverted to having a plastic section in the middle of the axle???  I can only see this giving reliability problems in years to come...  The electrical connection between the locomotive and tender is very different to the little white 4-pin plug we have become accustomed to.  The arrangement used here is large and unwieldy but mostly hidden from the normal layout viewing angle.  Its design will be familiar to modellers who also have the 'Blue Pullman'.  Bachmann have also supplemented this with the same pivoting arrangement that they use on bogie coaches, that opens up the gap between loco and tender on corners... :

 

 

That rigid connector and its pivoting arrangement leads me to my main issue with this model, from a running perspective.  As a light engine, the model runs very freely and well: first impressions were excellent and the model traversed the entirety of my layout without issue.  However after the obligatory 30 minutes running in, I put the new V2 on the front of a train, a freight totalling 34 axles of RTR stock (5x 4-axle bogie bolster wagons and 7x 2-axle open wagons).  This relatively modest load pulls on the tender to such an extent that the coupling between the tender and loco becomes stretched even on straight track, and consequently gets swung off-centre as if the loco is traversing a curve.  On straight track, this results in the tender 'crabbing' behind the loco, offset from centre about 4-5mm:  this effect is very obvious, occurs with both examples of the new V2 that I have seen, and occurs every time the train travels on a straight section of track after traversing a reverse curve.  I'm still scratching my head over how to fix this... any ideas?

 

 

Apart from that, it is a lovely model, runs well and it looks great in the BR black livery.  But I'm definitely scratching my head about what I can do to fix the dodgy tender coupling....

 

 

[31A]

Thank you Phil for this comprehensive review.  I look forward to getting mine soon!  I must say the new one looks to be a significant improvement on the old.  Good to read that it will go round 20" radius curves with the flanged trailing wheels fitted.  Are you able to try it on Peco slips with these wheels fitted?

 

Re. the loco-tender coupling, from the pictures I have seen I had come to the same conclusion as yourself (but didn't know about the crabbing effect), and also think the gap between the loco and tender is longer than it needs to be for my layout.  So, I'd been thinking of replacing it with something more like the simple drawbar arrangement of the old model, which could allow the gap to be smaller.  I believe the new coupling only carries two wires, for the tender pick ups, and if so I would just replace them with two new wires bridging the gap, possibly ending in miniature plug / sockets of some sort on the tender.