Bachmann announce Class 69 in OO and N.

[AY Mod]

15 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Ahha so you don't like sarcasm and jokes snidey attitude.

 

FITFY.

[The Black Hat]

While I don't doubt Bachmann to have the ability to make a decent model of the class 69 (including a class 56 to follow as the chassis is done) - this to me has all the makings of another classic Bachmann land grab, just like the class 158 and Turbostar. I agree that it is likely this could take some considerable time for a model to be made, unless Bachmann push the project and thus it will overtake others that have already been announced. That again could undermine Bachmann's stance and statements on releases as one statement then does not match another that follows, meaning that views expressed already have a wider following and greater sympathy than some others may realise. 

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, The Black Hat said:

While I don't doubt Bachmann to have the ability to make a decent model of the class 69 (including a class 56 to follow as the chassis is done) - this to me has all the makings of another classic Bachmann land grab, just like the class 158 and Turbostar. I agree that it is likely this could take some considerable time for a model to be made, unless Bachmann push the project and thus it will overtake others that have already been announced. That again could undermine Bachmann's stance and statements on releases as one statement then does not match another that follows, meaning that views expressed already have a wider following and greater sympathy than some others may realise. 

How is it a land grab, they have had to gain a licence from GBRF to model this loco, otherwise they would not be able to do it.

 

Most likely it will also have agreed timescales to production else GBRF would not be interested, no point of a model of their new loco out in 48 months by which time they will likely have changed livery and all the hype about them gone.

[The Black Hat]

10 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

How is it a land grab, they have had to gain a licence from GBRF to model this loco, otherwise they would not be able to do it.

 

Most likely it will also have agreed timescales to production else GBRF would not be interested, no point of a model of their new loco out in 48 months by which time they will likely have changed livery and all the hype about them gone.

GBRf are a very helpful company for those in the model sector, supporting many others that have requested permission to do model their locomotives. I would assume that Bachmann, not GBRf specified the exclusivity agreement as this can stop others getting a foothold into the market share for an engine class that is going to be small in number but no doubt prove popular as these have the potential to show up nationally. 

The exclusivity is important as the class 56 chassis that Hornby have could easily have been the base start for a class 69 of their own. All that would be needed would be a new body, as the lights on the front match where the lights on the class 56 would have been, meaning that in terms of electrics the Hornby 56 chassis is a good starting point. The body with grills and its changes to roof and cab could have been done - but now I doubt if Hornby have a chance at producing this. For this same reason, this is also very likely to lead to a Bachmann class 56 in the future, even if the Hornby one by comparison is well received and holds up to current standards. Yes, some lighting options controlled via DCC would be excellent for the Hornby model, but for now it is still fine.  Bachmann have a track record in being able to select models from which the chassis can lead to others. The NRM Atlantic paved the way for the Southern version of Bachmann's own range, a Scottish version allowing the D11, the class 24 allowing 25 too, the new 20/3 allowing the 20 itself to follow. 

 

GBRf I also suspect would devolve all aspects of timescales over to Bachmann with the former more concerned with who they give permission to produce the model. If the timescales are protracted this becomes an issue for Bachmann and not GBRf who have specified Bachmann could make it and if Bachmann then struggle on sales due to protracted production this is an issue for them and not the Freight operating company that owns the prototype. Bachmann have admitted by default that this must be near the start of the process as this is a massive exercise in gaining interest and some PR from the announcement. Why not? Its a nice situation for them to be in to be able to announce the model to the market and then include the exclusivity clause. I say that it is near the start with more confidence as there are no mock up or renders of the model either at the computer design or artistic stage. Some 3-D mock ups would have given potential buyers more confidence but instead there is just a photo of the prototype. Bachmann might want to milk this for more PR and interest later with such mock ups but with none done at the announcement stage it makes me think these are not ready yet.

Given the time scale from those to model release can often be elongated this could see the actual model produced some time later, much more to that some realise. Thus Bachmann - yet again - will fall foul of the issue that they can take a while to make something from when it was announced. Thats why in my previous post I hinted that I can see this given more priority to reduce the chance of that happening, but then Bachmann don't help themselves with other models that are wanted (and could sell more given the potential popularity of them - such as Turbostar) are then over taken. So the accusation of delays and frustration returns again and is a situation of Bachmann's own making hence the switch to 3 monthly announcements and less engagement overall. While that might forestall some of the issues of frustration with the buying public, the negative consequences of that is less engagement overall and loosing the attachment to their customer base. Other companies such as Accurascale are showing how its done with positive and honest engagement, rather than a PR release with more spin than a bowler at a test match special, and these new companies are reaping the rewards with a higher appreciation and company reputation in the eyes of the buying public. 

So, yes it is a land grab. A deliberate statement that will stake Bachmanns claim to class 69 and for them to enjoy that moment and interest. However, its also a warning for the future as now Bachmann will be looking to see what other options can follow and plan such production slots on the grid of spaces available in their range to come.  

[Monkersson]

8 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

GBRf are a very helpful company for those in the model sector, supporting many others that have requested permission to do model their locomotives. I would assume that Bachmann, not GBRf specified the exclusivity agreement as this can stop others getting a foothold into the market share for an engine class that is going to be small in number but no doubt prove popular as these have the potential to show up nationally. 

The exclusivity is important as the class 56 chassis that Hornby have could easily have been the base start for a class 69 of their own. All that would be needed would be a new body, as the lights on the front match where the lights on the class 56 would have been, meaning that in terms of electrics the Hornby 56 chassis is a good starting point. The body with grills and its changes to roof and cab could have been done - but now I doubt if Hornby have a chance at producing this. For this same reason, this is also very likely to lead to a Bachmann class 56 in the future, even if the Hornby one by comparison is well received and holds up to current standards. Yes, some lighting options controlled via DCC would be excellent for the Hornby model, but for now it is still fine.  Bachmann have a track record in being able to select models from which the chassis can lead to others. The NRM Atlantic paved the way for the Southern version of Bachmann's own range, a Scottish version allowing the D11, the class 24 allowing 25 too, the new 20/3 allowing the 20 itself to follow. 

 

GBRf I also suspect would devolve all aspects of timescales over to Bachmann with the former more concerned with who they give permission to produce the model. If the timescales are protracted this becomes an issue for Bachmann and not GBRf who have specified Bachmann could make it and if Bachmann then struggle on sales due to protracted production this is an issue for them and not the Freight operating company that owns the prototype. Bachmann have admitted by default that this must be near the start of the process as this is a massive exercise in gaining interest and some PR from the announcement. Why not? Its a nice situation for them to be in to be able to announce the model to the market and then include the exclusivity clause. I say that it is near the start with more confidence as there are no mock up or renders of the model either at the computer design or artistic stage. Some 3-D mock ups would have given potential buyers more confidence but instead there is just a photo of the prototype. Bachmann might want to milk this for more PR and interest later with such mock ups but with none done at the announcement stage it makes me think these are not ready yet.

Given the time scale from those to model release can often be elongated this could see the actual model produced some time later, much more to that some realise. Thus Bachmann - yet again - will fall foul of the issue that they can take a while to make something from when it was announced. Thats why in my previous post I hinted that I can see this given more priority to reduce the chance of that happening, but then Bachmann don't help themselves with other models that are wanted (and could sell more given the potential popularity of them - such as Turbostar) are then over taken. So the accusation of delays and frustration returns again and is a situation of Bachmann's own making hence the switch to 3 monthly announcements and less engagement overall. While that might forestall some of the issues of frustration with the buying public, the negative consequences of that is less engagement overall and loosing the attachment to their customer base. Other companies such as Accurascale are showing how its done with positive and honest engagement, rather than a PR release with more spin than a bowler at a test match special, and these new companies are reaping the rewards with a higher appreciation and company reputation in the eyes of the buying public. 

So, yes it is a land grab. A deliberate statement that will stake Bachmanns claim to class 69 and for them to enjoy that moment and interest. However, its also a warning for the future as now Bachmann will be looking to see what other options can follow and plan such production slots on the grid of spaces available in their range to come.  

Maybe Hornby approached GBRf and were turned down due to the well noted dis-array they appear to in at the moment?  Maybe GBRf approached Bachmann?

 

This wont just have been agreed yesterday when the photo's were published, it was most probably agreed months ago.   

 

Even though it hasn't been said that a 56 will follow, if it does then so what?  On the Accurascale subforum people have been requesting a new 56, the Hornby model is good, but could be a lot better.

 

I don't see how this is a land grab, Hornby don't have much history of upgrading their toolings, people have been saying the 56 (and 31) are incorrect in certain areas but no improvements so a 56 is an open goal, and if Bachmann have closed that, then good for them.  

 

Regarding the 158 and Turbostar, Bachmann didn't land grab with those, they have been in their range for a very long time.  

 

Accurascale announced a 55 & 37, which Bachmann (and Hornby) both make, and Heljan a 47 when, again, both Bachmann and Hornby make.  Are those land grabs too?

 

Its business at the end of the day, new and upgraded models are only good for us modellers

 

[TomScrut]

36 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

So, yes it is a land grab. A deliberate statement that will stake Bachmanns claim to class 69 and for them to enjoy that moment and interest. However, its also a warning for the future as now Bachmann will be looking to see what other options can follow and plan such production slots on the grid of spaces available in their range to come.  

 

The thing is whilst it is a land grab, I can't blame them for doing so.

 

I doubt Hornby will be quaking in their boots about them doing a 56. IF they do one, then it probably won't be for a long time and given Bachmann are in the pricier end of the market, would have tooling to pay for and Hornbys tooling probably doesn't owe them anything Hornby could probably be aggressive with the pricing.

Edited June 15, 2021 by TomScrut

[TomScrut]

13 minutes ago, Monkersson said:

On the Accurascale subforum people have been requesting a new 56, the Hornby model is good, but could be a lot better.

 

They have. It doesn't mean it makes sense though! Same reasons I say above. If a newly tooled one is £75 (for example) more expensive than what is already a good model it might not go down well. I think somebody suggested AS made a 60 on there too.

 

13 minutes ago, Monkersson said:

Are those land grabs too?

 

Yes IMO. Or market grabs.

 

13 minutes ago, Monkersson said:

Regarding the 158 and Turbostar, Bachmann didn't land grab with those, they have been in their range for a very long time.

 

Announcing something then either never making it (170?) or taking ages (158) to could still put others off from doing it.

 

I don't see why the term "land grab" is being treated with such a negative attitude. I'd be more worried if they were all being passive.

Edited June 15, 2021 by TomScrut

[The Black Hat]

4 minutes ago, Monkersson said:

Maybe Hornby approached GBRf and were turned down due to the well noted dis-array they appear to in at the moment?  Maybe GBRf approached Bachmann?

 

This wont just have been agreed yesterday when the photo's were published, it was most probably agreed months ago.   

 

Even though it hasn't been said that a 56 will follow, if it does then so what?  On the Accurascale subforum people have been requesting a new 56, the Hornby model is good, but could be a lot better.

 

I don't see how this is a land grab, Hornby don't have much history of upgrading their toolings, people have been saying the 56 (and 31) are incorrect in certain areas but no improvements so a 56 is an open goal, and if Bachmann have closed that, then good for them.  

 

Regarding the 158 and Turbostar, Bachmann didn't land grab with those, they have been in their range for a very long time.  

 

Accurascale announced a 55 & 37, which Bachmann (and Hornby) both make, and Heljan a 47 when, again, both Bachmann and Hornby make.  Are those land grabs too?

 

Its business at the end of the day, new and upgraded models are only good for us modellers

 

 

Bachmann have a habit / track record, of announcing models that they will be upgrading at the start of the process. Yes some have been in the range for sometime, but it is a massive deterrent for others to then move onto the same patch knowing there would be duplication. Bachmann then take ages to make the model as they know its less likely others will produce the same. Some of the examples you mention do appear in other ranges, but these are also very popular choices - such as the 55 and 37.

These are ones that continually will drive standards and interest if always then retooled to the high spec and include developments such as light functions, sound etc. It is also in part the fact that Bachmann cant defend against all their range being reproduced by others and so if they can they will safeguard models with exclusivity agreements. Dapol did the same with the 68 I think. So popular choices such as 37 will be done by others as its open that the market can take one or two and for customers to choose which they want to buy. Thats also why Bachmann will still continue to produce class 37, 47, 66 even though there are other models available as they still believe at the right price the Bachmann model has a place and will still sell. 

This has been a land-grab, just as Bachmann have done before, but its also business as you say and upgrades will happen to tooling in their range or models will swap ranges as companies move against each other for advantage. Its why companies have been aggressive when shop commissions rival engines in their own range. Its all part of the debate and interest - if that is - customers can express their views and its likely to stay that way for a long time yet.  

 

 

 

[woodenhead]

I still doubt GBRF signed an exclusivity agreement with Bachmann that isn't in some way time bound so if the model does not appear within say 12-18 months (or less) then they can allow someone else to do a model.

 

Bachmann know who and what the competition is, they turned out the sealed beam Peak in good time whilst Heljans is still going through it's development programme, so a quick turn around on a class 69 is possible especially with it being the loco of the moment before the class 93 arrives in a couple of years from RevolutioN.

 

 

[James Makin]

Should be interesting, and maybe a backdated Bachmann 56 could be fun too!

 

If I were Hornby's marketing team I'd be trotting out the old Railroad Hornby-Dapol/Mainline Class 56 and painting it up as a GBRf '69' in the various liveries just as they did masquerading the old Lima 66s as low-emission ones - their target audience aren't bothered with the differences and everyone's a winner!

 

Cheers,

James

[The Ghost of IKB]

11 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

 

 

Bachmann know who and what the competition is, they turned out the sealed beam Peak in good time whilst Heljans is still going through its development

 

 

Considering Heljan are designing a brand new model from the wheels up and Bachmann was a very limited upgrade, (and the sealed beam end was already tooled some years ago)  they were bound to be  quicker to market than Heljan.

[woodenhead]

16 minutes ago, James Makin said:

Should be interesting, and maybe a backdated Bachmann 56 could be fun too!

 

If I were Hornby's marketing team I'd be trotting out the old Railroad Hornby-Dapol/Mainline Class 56 and painting it up as a GBRf '69' in the various liveries just as they did masquerading the old Lima 66s as low-emission ones - their target audience aren't bothered with the differences and everyone's a winner!

 

Cheers,

James

But they can't as they don't have the license for the liveries or logo - they would have to create a Frankenstein fictitious loco - just stick to class 56s, they will be allowed the livery and punters would be happy.

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, The Ghost of IKB said:

Considering Heljan are designing a brand new model from the wheels up and Bachmann was a very limited upgrade, (and the sealed beam end was already tooled some years ago)  they were bound to be  quicker to market than Heljan.

Possibly, but it just shows Bachmann can be fleet footed when they need to be.

[Monkersson]

51 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

 

Bachmann have a habit / track record, of announcing models that they will be upgrading at the start of the process. Yes some have been in the range for sometime, but it is a massive deterrent for others to then move onto the same patch knowing there would be duplication. Bachmann then take ages to make the model as they know its less likely others will produce the same. Some of the examples you mention do appear in other ranges, but these are also very popular choices - such as the 55 and 37.

These are ones that continually will drive standards and interest if always then retooled to the high spec and include developments such as light functions, sound etc. It is also in part the fact that Bachmann cant defend against all their range being reproduced by others and so if they can they will safeguard models with exclusivity agreements. Dapol did the same with the 68 I think. So popular choices such as 37 will be done by others as its open that the market can take one or two and for customers to choose which they want to buy. Thats also why Bachmann will still continue to produce class 37, 47, 66 even though there are other models available as they still believe at the right price the Bachmann model has a place and will still sell. 

This has been a land-grab, just as Bachmann have done before, but its also business as you say and upgrades will happen to tooling in their range or models will swap ranges as companies move against each other for advantage. Its why companies have been aggressive when shop commissions rival engines in their own range. Its all part of the debate and interest - if that is - customers can express their views and its likely to stay that way for a long time yet.  

 

 

 

It could therefore be argued that any model a manufacturer makes is a land/market grab as there is always the danger another company will come along with their version.   I think competition is good for the hobby, but only if its a significant step up from the existing model, AS 37/55/92 meet that criteria, and I believe a newly tooled 56 from Bachmann, if it was to happen, would be a significant step up too.

 

Its all relative to me mind you as I'm not in the market for any of the new releases as I've titillated my stock to look how I want it too (until someone makes a 304 EMU!) 

 

To me, its just business, anything that's manufactured, in any field, is at risk from competition.  

[TomScrut]

3 minutes ago, Monkersson said:

It could therefore be argued that any model a manufacturer makes is a land/market grab as there is always the danger another company will come along with their version.   I think competition is good for the hobby, but only if its a significant step up from the existing model, AS 37/55/92 meet that criteria, and I believe a newly tooled 56 from Bachmann, if it was to happen, would be a significant step up too.

 

To me, its just business, anything that's manufactured, in any field, is at risk from competition.  

 

Yes and competition is good for us ultimately.

 

But in the case of the AS 37 and 55 it will be interesting how Bachmann react. If they start doing 37s for £120 then there will be plenty who will keep their £50 and have a Bachmann one.

 

You just have to look at the size of the market for Railroad and old second hand stuff to know that there are a lot of people not into buying £170+ locos regardless of how good they are. Especially if these locos are presents where one or more people (not the end user) are making the purchase.

[adb968008]

I think its just the world we now live in.

 

lets face it, Bachmann got passed the winning post first, if it weren't, someone else would.

Tbh not sure Hornby would even enter the race, their track record on post 1994 isnt that high.

What it might do is gear up Hornby's efforts on 56’s to make sure that its only the 69 Bachmann do, though theres not much left their anyway.

 

Pity theres not as much scramble about DMU and EMUs... low hanging fruit always gets picked first.

 

fwiw I have a class 56 body, and was considering a 69 from it.. I have a donor 66 and 68 ready to chop the bits from..

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by adb968008

[Monkersson]

7 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

Yes and competition is good for us ultimately.

 

But in the case of the AS 37 and 55 it will be interesting how Bachmann react. If they start doing 37s for £120 then there will be plenty who will keep their £50 and have a Bachmann one.

 

You just have to look at the size of the market for Railroad and old second hand stuff to know that there are a lot of people not into buying £170+ locos regardless of how good they are. Especially if these locos are presents where one or more people (not the end user) are making the purchase.

Definitely agree with you Tom, same goes that you only have to look at the froth of the market for brand new £170+ loco's!  The manufacturers must be confident their products will sell, or else they simply wouldn't consider them.

 

Fortunately there always has been a significant amount of people who must have the latest shiny thing, and multiples of it, no matter the cost.

[TomScrut]

11 minutes ago, Monkersson said:

Fortunately there always has been a significant amount of people who must have the latest shiny thing, and multiples of it, no matter the cost.

 

Yep, and I am one of them within reason.

 

My main gripe with prices at the moment is with rereleases on old tooling, a lot of the time are more or less the price of new all singing all dancing stuff.

Edited June 15, 2021 by TomScrut

[Legend]

It is a pity that it is an exclusive agreement . I can see the benefit of that to Bachmann , but can't see why GBRf would want it  .Surely they would want models of their fleet spread over as large a base as possible and if another manufacturer was interested  let them have the rights also.    I think there could have been a few manufacturers interested , why would GBRf care about exclusivity? On the same basis , as this is pretty marginal to them, would they have thought to insist on the model appearing within a set time frame or exclusivity is waived?  

[woodenhead]

16 minutes ago, Legend said:

It is a pity that it is an exclusive agreement . I can see the benefit of that to Bachmann , but can't see why GBRf would want it  .Surely they would want models of their fleet spread over as large a base as possible and if another manufacturer was interested  let them have the rights also.    I think there could have been a few manufacturers interested , why would GBRf care about exclusivity? On the same basis , as this is pretty marginal to them, would they have thought to insist on the model appearing within a set time frame or exclusivity is waived?  

They recently named a class 60 Graham Farish to celebrate 50 years of the company, some sort of tie with with Bachmann, so they are not disinterested in marketing - likewise all the liveries they do and heritage tie ups (the class 50 pair).   They appear quite savvy to me

[shunny]

I'm happy as not a fan of Hornsby's GB blue and continued use of 8 pin decoders. Bachmann will use an 18 or 22 decoder.

[Wolf27]

I can’t work out if people are happy with Bachmann announcing this or not. Seems like 50/50 reading back.

[newbryford]

1 minute ago, Wolf27 said:

I can’t work out if people are happy with Bachmann announcing this or not. Seems like 50/50 reading back.

 

I'll bet a company in Kent isn't happy!

I'll get one if they work in the North-West, but I did hear that they were destined for the South East.

[BR Blue]

I am not happy but would have no objections to Bachmann doing a 56 

[The Black Hat]

1 hour ago, TomScrut said:

But in the case of the AS 37 and 55 it will be interesting how Bachmann react. If they start doing 37s for £120 then there will be plenty who will keep their £50 and have a Bachmann one.

 

You just have to look at the size of the market for Railroad and old second hand stuff to know that there are a lot of people not into buying £170+ locos regardless of how good they are. Especially if these locos are presents where one or more people (not the end user) are making the purchase.

 

That's exactly how Bachmann will react. On classes where there is no competition, Bachmann are whacking up prices to get maximum profit. While thats understandable as a business you can see the discounting starting on some. Theres little reasoning for the price increases being so much continuously on something like a class 57, especially when Bachmann for some sound fitted models have gone for selects and other brands chips as a means of using a cheaper decoder yet selling it at full price for a complex and fully functioning one. Bachmann deliberately dropped prices to undercut Hatton's for the 66 and they will do the same for the 37 and 55. It says it all when prices drop so much just because there is another option out there. Yes, again, that's business but Bachmann can be more honest about their marketing and interactions with the customers (as I said before) than all the excuses and PR spin that we get to read over again and then decide how much we want models or if we are better off waiting for the inevitable discounting to start to a price the model will sell at, sell well at and where Bachmann could have priced it at first and got the same cashflow in earlier...