Jump to content
 

Bachmann announce Class 69 in OO and N.


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

From that comment I take it he is more than your average RMwebber then?

 

However in my defence we have seen it happen many times before - manufacturer announces X and a whole bunch of modellers insist its going to be easy to produce Y because they happen to share a certain characteristic or part of the tooling.

 

There is a clue in his sig..........

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

That when it comes to designing a RTR loco, the bulk of the designers time will end up being spent on the outside of the model rather than the mechanism / chasis.

 

As such being able to 'share designs' between models (i.e. the innards of a diesel or the tender of a steam loco does) not massively cut the cost of developing another model.

 

Thus the implication from some that Bachmann producing a 56 to follow on from the 69 will be 'cheap and easy' is not borne out be the realities of where the bulk of the design costs will likely fall and in reality the amount of design work needed to produce a 56 is not going to be significantly less than a 69.

 

That in turn will feed into the commercial decision on whether going for a 56 would represent a good business case for Bachmann. 

Not too sure where anyone has said it would be cheap and easy.

 

But - a 56 is a natural progression from a 69.

Chassis - yes - common components - so an easy "tap-in" goal

Body - the bulk of the design will be in the complex curves of the cab - already done..... Penalty shot.

The rest of the body - a 45 yarder from just inside the halfway line (with apologies to Scottish football fans)

 

So producing an all new 56, using the 69 as a base, will be cheaper than producing a 56 from scratch.

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

40 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Any design engineer, be it of model trains, or real trains, real cars, home appliances, houses, etc is going to look to see what else the company may have in its inventory to assist the process - it saves the company money and leaves time for the designer to concentrate on other areas of the product where fresh original design work is needed.

 

The thing is, having being a design engineer/engineering manager for give or take 11 years is that when trying to replicate a shape in CAD, generally the most difficult things in the design process is replicating the shape in question. I expect that designing a loco from scratch that the cardan shafts, the gearbox, the motor mounts and all the stuff involved in making the model a model takes a fraction of the time that copying somebody else's shape from scratch does, whether that be by CAD/scan or a combination of both. For example, is a model judged by its shape or how good the chassis is assuming it works?

 

As weird as it sounds, the stuff to be designed from scratch is generally easier than the copying.

 

Generally tooling costs more than the time it takes the engineer to design it, unfortunately for our profession.

 

And the other spin on that is if it is slightly different, it is another tool.

 

Depending on how they want to work the moulds, then doing a different loco full stop *might* be different toolings so to keep the wear on a particular mould the same for each loco built. For example if they did a 56 and 69 using the same tooling they'd have to consider that the chassis would wear faster than the body, and they'd have to use the same factory for both models.

Edited by TomScrut
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

Yesterday it was really interesting to read about the model announcement from Bachmann with of course thanks to Andy for putting the information on here for us all to see. The 69 is too modern for me, only by a few years, but I like the livery on 69001 and will look forward to getting one whenever it comes out. 
 

Please for everyone’s enjoyment can we talk about the model or prototype as it develops as many do. Sorry Phil-b259 but your posts come across as though you are well informed, but as a well regarded manufacturer has pointed out to you, it’s not the case. People are not saying it’s cheap and quick and easy but that the overall costs can be shared if a 56 was to develop. Probably more so far the 2mm market as both current options could be improved.

 

thanks

Mark
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours 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?  

 

1) it's a class of 10 to 15 prototypes which will limit it's sales potential - there really won't be a market for 2 competing models.

 

2) Bachmann can offer GBRf both OO and N - Hornby for example can't.

 

3) the danger of multiple models is that you end up with at least once being inaccurate due to the rush to get to market first, and potentially both being inaccurate.  An exclusive gives a better change of getting an accurate model to market.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
18 minutes ago, TomScrut said:


The thing is, having being a design engineer/engineering manager for give or take 11 years is that when trying to replicate a shape in CAD, generally the most difficult things in the design process is replicating the shape in question.

 

:offtopic:

 

Granted there might be software issues but could you not effectively  'cut and paste' a component / subassembly from one CAD file to another, then select the components attributes to edit (e.g. the Cardan shaft and subtract say 5mm off it).

 

I can see If you have to do all the work all over again then replicating someone else work might well turn out taking longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

Exactly. Cheaper but nowhere near 2 for the price of 1 IMO

 

The big question will be in the tooling - yes there are body differences, but if that can be accommodated with slides/inserts then while it won't be 2 for 1 it will be substantially better than having to tool 2 entirely different models.

 

Vent locations on the sides are an obvious case of just having flexible tooling, the real question would seem to be the roof and whether the tooling can allow for 2 different roofs.  If you merely need to tool 2 different roofs, and the sides have swappable parts to allow for different vent locations, then a 56 becomes much more attractive as part of a 69 program.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Legend said:


We don’t know the terms of the agreement.  I’m not sure GBRf get anything back per model, I would doubt it as it’s small beer to them .  So as I said I see the value of Exclusivity to Bachmann  but not to GBRf .

 

We simply don't know.  However, what it might be fair to deduce is that no business entity would enter into any deal in order to lose out - what would be the point - Bachmann and GBRf are both businesses after all, are they not?  So I think it's fair to assume that both Bachmann and GBRf would be gaining something.  Who knows, maybe Bachmann paid a higher rate per model for exclusivity, and as such GBRf achieve their gain in that respect.  Either way, it is of little interest to myself as an individual, but I suppose there will always be those that like to speculate. 

 

Best
Al

Edited by YesTor
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

:offtopic:

 

Granted there might be software issues but could you not effectively  'cut and paste' a component / subassembly from one CAD file to another, then select the components attributes to edit (e.g. the Cardan shaft and subtract say 5mm off it).

 

I can see If you have to do all the work all over again then replicating someone else work might well turn out taking longer.

 

The point is even designing the shafts etc from scratch is probably insignificant vs the detail required on the outside which is loco specific. I.e. not much of a saving whichever way you go about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/06/2021 at 21:37, HillsideDepot said:

I'd have thought that it was much more likely to have been planned to coincide with the unveiling of 69001 in full livery by GBRf today. Bachmann were very slick at getting the word out (or embargoed until) just after the GBRf reveal of the real thing. Impressive stuff by the communications team. 


And possibly timed to coincide with US President Bidens visit to the UK, with the Mayflower theme..?

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, YesTor said:

 

We simply don't know.  However, what it might be fair to deduce is that no business entity would enter into any deal in order to lose out - what would be the point - Bachmann and GBRf are both businesses after all, are they not?  So I think it's fair to assume that both Bachmann and GBRf would be gaining something.  Who knows, maybe Bachmann paid a higher rate per model for exclusivity, and as such GBRf achieve their gain in that respect.  Either way, it is of little interest to myself as an individual, but I suppose there will always be those that like to speculate. 

 

Best
Al

We simply don’t know.

 

it could be as simple as the MD of GBRf is a mate of Dave H at Bachmann!

 

It’s not worth the conjecture.

 

Andrew

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Legend said:


We don’t know the terms of the agreement .   The rights have the value of being allowed to make the model . That should be it . Exclusivity is something extra .   I’m not sure GBRf get anything back per model, I would doubt it as it’s small beer to them .

 

What we know is that Bachmann have an exclusive licensing deal.  There's not a lot more that really needs explained to the rest of us - and Hornby.

 

You're making the assumption that big corporation must give stuff away for free because it won't make mega bucks because big corporation doesn't need the money.  So why then enter into ANY licensing agreement?  You'll say that's to protect the integrity of the brand, but then if anyone can license it for nothing, you'll get tests of the boundaries pretty damn rapidly.  Then you have got costs involved in giving away your licenses....

 

15 hours ago, Legend said:

So as I said I see the value of Exclusivity to Bachmann  but not to GBRf . If Hornby came to them saying they wanted to do a version wouldn’t that get the GBRf name into many more households, so why exclusivity ? It’s up to Bachmann  or any other manufacturer to take risk if they think the model will sell . 

 

If you are going to license something there has to be value in that license to both parties, otherwise the licensor is merely impeding the licensee rather than enabling them and/or the licensor gets no value from it.  This isn't about getting the GBRf brand in front of more households.  People (not enthusiasts) do not use a service preferentially because it has GBRF traction at the front or rear. Households don't use GBRf and never will. This is about recognising that certain members of households want a GBRf branded model.  This is about deriving income (and small beer is better than no beer) from that market not altruism.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

That when it comes to designing a RTR loco, the bulk of the designers time will end up being spent on the outside of the model rather than the mechanism / chasis.

 

As such being able to 'share designs' between models (i.e. the innards of a diesel or the tender of a steam loco does) not massively cut the cost of developing another model.

 

Thus the implication from some that Bachmann producing a 56 to follow on from the 69 will be 'cheap and easy' is not borne out be the realities of where the bulk of the design costs will likely fall and in reality the amount of design work needed to produce a 56 is not going to be significantly less than a 69.

 

That in turn will feed into the commercial decision on whether going for a 56 would represent a good business case for Bachmann. 

Let me help...

 

yes the designer will use many common parts...

 

most likely the screws, coupling and maybe the NEM pocket.
If their lucky the gears, if the ratios in the tower match, but more likely will be a new gear tower and seeing which standard sizes can be used.

They might also reuse the same cad designer, his desk, chair, laptop, and software licence.

 

Doing a copy paste of a class 47 CAD and renaming it class 69 is fanciful imho... starting at the cabs.. totally different, which means the chassis voids are different, light paths are different, which can affect the hole for the chassis to rotate in..which affects the tower shape..which affects the drive shaft length, potentially thickness or even material its made from...

 

how about some real life.. below is a Bachmann 47 and Hornby 56 chassis..

 

first up, cab size differences, LED position differences.., then most importantly.. gear box tower alignment ( assuming your expecting it to turn corners )...

 

55E2AE01-5C77-43E9-B074-7D83E3304EBE.jpeg.2bad70e483ccf845874f249e40a673f6.jpeg


 

next up... fairings 47 is visibly narrower, 56 is fatter at the cab ends.

 

Fan position on the 47 is different to the 56... indeed Hornby couldnt use this 56 chassis for a 69 either as its different (i know Ive got to remove those fans, the flywheel and belt, plus a further 2mm of chassis metal underneath if I want to make a 69 out of it.. with its deeper set fans on its exterior).

 

finally basics... the 47 is longer overall.

ECC02686-011F-47DD-9B14-12C35607B4DC.jpeg.aa475b83a39b306f159f4296face4491.jpeg


(As Ive started my own 69 conversion, and its costing next to nowt, i’m going to continue it just for fun, so with that i’m hoping to get my own view of it at Tonbridge tonight... at least its an excuse for a jolly on a nice night).

 

I’m not even going to pretend I am a model designer, but it is just plain easy to use a mk1 eyeball and just look at it to see the difference, before posting online.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Fwiw, as Ive removed all the interiors of my donor old railroad body, and the light paths on the 47 can be “squeezed”... ive sated your desires....

 

tbh.. it doesnt look to bad... 56 on 47 chassis.DE856D83-8CC0-4B39-BBF6-BFC35B049AD9.jpeg.26462431ec0ee2407a1a7e2300f2eafd.jpeg

 

850F418C-0E5B-42D7-85DF-A79DF9E1E545.jpeg.e95b1eae13665f0cfb25c23e8bc543ba.jpeg

should I go ahead and do the full job, paint it BR Blue and number it a class 49 ?

 

 

you might be onto something afterall...

:D

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

:offtopic:

 

Granted there might be software issues but could you not effectively  'cut and paste' a component / subassembly from one CAD file to another, then select the components attributes to edit (e.g. the Cardan shaft and subtract say 5mm off it).

 

I can see If you have to do all the work all over again then replicating someone else work might well turn out taking longer.

Thats called a library of components. (Symbols, shapes, stencils etc)

 

i’m sure cad designers have them, without needing to rob an existing design to find the part...

 

I love Heljans models for simplicity, aside of the electronics & metalwork, everything is on a sprue for that specific class.. literally everything... their sprue numbering made getting spares dead easy..given overlap with classes its fairly certain it was cut/paste of stencils onto a sprue... Kind of feels the new 25 has partly broken with that tradition though.

 

I recall dismantling a Bulleid unrebuilt MN from Hornby and came to conclude its chassis couldn't be used for a new rebuilt Merchant Navy, which left me disappointed as I thought it a natural follow on and was expecting to see it designed in, with tell tale markings. But it serves to show, each new model seems to be approached as a start from scratch, except minor inclass variations.

 

i’d be surprised if Bachmann didnt start with a CAD or a Scan of the real 69, then selected from a Library of components and started being creative in design... starting with a 47 and shaping it into a 69 just seems odd to me (and an easy way for errors to creep in...a-la 57 from a 47, which genetically makes more sense from that design)

 

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah 

 

 

Anyone else seeing it like the above at this rate. 17 paragraphs when 1 will do?

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

A very welcome announcement. Irrespective of the costs or economies of doing a 56, it seems clear that the appearance of a 69 has generated an appetite for a new 56. As for costs, we are told that mechanisms are the cheapest part of a model. If that is so, can the costs of a 56 be that much more than producing, for example, sub-classes of a 37 and the appearance of a 37 likewise creates an appetite for sub-classes.

 

As for “landgrab”, Mainline produced 56s, so Bachmann might very well claim to be defending its turf, not that Bachmann goes in for turf wars.

 

We’ll be fairly safe with Bachmann. We can expect a good paint job, a good runner and a well appointed DCC compatible model. Bachmann is very keen on sound fitting these days. Perhaps a microphone will have been taken to GBRf along with a ruler.

 

Just in case I don’t sound sufficiently enthusiastic: hurrah! :good: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, mdvle said:

2) Bachmann can offer GBRf both OO and N - Hornby for example can't.

 

Can't or don't want to? Hornby's Arnold brand is more than capable of producing N Gauge models - as shown by their Brighton Belle 5-BEL EMU.

 

Steven B.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

Perhaps a microphone will have been taken to GBRf along with a ruler.

 

 

It sounds like several hundred other locomotives already on the network - but there will be nuances of course.

 

6 minutes ago, Steven B said:

 

Can't or don't want to? Hornby's Arnold brand is more than capable of producing N Gauge models - as shown by their Brighton Belle 5-BEL EMU.

 

Steven B.

Could still be can't, perhaps Hornby are unable to fund a full foray into N gauge beyond the Brighton Belle which was a collectable.

 

Whichever it is, I don't expect anything in N from the Hornby stable for the foreseeable future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

As for “landgrab”, Mainline produced 56s, so Bachmann might very well claim to be defending its turf, not that Bachmann goes in for turf wars.

 

We’ll be fairly safe with Bachmann. We can expect a good paint job, a good runner and a well appointed DCC compatible model. Bachmann is very keen on sound fitting these days. Perhaps a microphone will have been taken to GBRf along with a ruler.

 

Just in case I don’t sound sufficiently enthusiastic: hurrah! :good: 

 

Something people have forgotten looking at a few posts above.

 

It was made by Mainline, not Hornby. I know as I bought two of them when they came out in 1983 or so. No idea how it ended up in the Hornby range though. It wasn't an old Airfix model. I assume Dapol ended up with the rights to it, but mine came in genuine Mainline boxes like the LMS 2P 4-4-0 did.

 

Hornby are currently making a BR 9F when there is a perfectly good one from Bachmann. If Bachmann now make a new Class 56 to go head to head with Hornby's newer version then that's fair game IMO.

 

I think the days of no duplication are gone I'm afraid.

 

 

Jason

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Something people have forgotten looking at a few posts above.

 

It was made by Mainline, not Hornby. I know as I bought two of them when they came out in 1983 or so. No idea how it ended up in the Hornby range though. It wasn't an old Airfix model. I assume Dapol ended up with the rights to it, but mine came in genuine Mainline boxes like the LMS 2P 4-4-0 did.

 

Hornby are currently making a BR 9F when there is a perfectly good one from Bachmann. If Bachmann now make a new Class 56 to go head to head with Hornby's newer version then that's fair game IMO.

 

I think the days of no duplication are gone I'm afraid.

 

 

Jason

I spent a few weeks work experience once, which involved taking blue 56’s out of Mainline boxes and into Purple Dapol boxes.

 

Dapol did produce a batch of 56’s in Railfreight colours, in 56001, 075, 090 & 094.

 

Airfix model was way ahead of its time, in all measures, I dont think airfix released any 56’s, moreover, Mainline bought Airfix and then released it...followed by Dapol acquisition, and later Hornby... toolings generally outlive their masters.

 

as for the game of duplication... look where that got Marklin, Trix, Roco, Gutzold etc... imho were heading into the same place. Its ok saying we’ll make a better one to beat the other guy..trouble is no one throws anything away, and the next one wont be cheaper than the last one. Bachmann class 69 all good, but a 56, why ?

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
50 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Bachmann class 69 all good, but a 56, why ?

 

It's not Bachmann's normal MO to duplicate a product already in production from someone else. The 69 will be able to stand its own too feet, especially at the rate GBRf release new liveries and variations.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

It's not Bachmann's normal MO to duplicate a product already in production from someone else. The 69 will be able to stand its own too feet, especially at the rate GBRf release new liveries and variations.

Umbrella up, it's raining on my parade.

 

Not that I would buy at 56, wrong end of the power range and not very common in the north west in 1976

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...