Jump to content

Bachmann announce Class 69 in OO and N.


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

48 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.


I guess they were not aware of the other 37, 47, 55, 101, 9F, Mk. 2 stock, Mk. 1 stock, 16t minerals... 

But to be fair. In the main they tend not to duplicate and in fact in many ways have opened up new sectors and expanded, such as 1st Gen Units, Slam Door EMU's.... but its not always the case. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours 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

 

After Mainline acquired the Airfix (GMR) Railways range and incorporated it into its own range (Mainline was a brand of Palitoy and not Kader at that time), Palitoy (Mainline) had access to the manufacturing resources of both Sanda Kan as well as Kader. From its introduction until the Airfix (GMR) Railways acquisition the entire Mainline Railways locomotive and rolling stock range was manufactured by Kader (others such as PECO made the track etc.). The Class 56 was a former Sanda Kan manufactured model for Mainline Railways - hence it took a different route back to market than that of the Kader produced models. The prototype locomotives were surveyed at Coalviille Depot by the late Merl Evans  (who later worked for Bachmann). Palitoy was based in the Coalville area of Leicestershire.

 

When the break up of Palitoy came in 1985, the brand name Mainline Railways as well as spares, components and assembled models was acquired by Dapol. It is well known that Kader retained ownership of the tooling that they had produced for Mainline and some of it subsequently appeared in Replica Railways boxes and others were reintroduced (albeit with improved chassis) following Bachmann Branchline being established as a UK Kader subsidary in Barwell in 1989.

 

The former Airfix Railways tooling was neither owned by Sanda Kan or Kader and was sold to Dapol. In time this was purchased by Hornby who then used Sanda Kan to produce it.

 

This is a much simplified version of what was a complex arrangement following Palitoys decision to withdraw from British toy manufacturing and distribution in the mid-1980s. 

 

Edited by 1E BoY
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

 

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

 

Not sure about that, but you’d have something prototypical with the other left overs (47 body / 56 bogies) wouldn’t you?

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

18 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

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.


Sorry but you keep repeating this despite being told it is manifestly incorrect. I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to prove but it isn’t right!

 

If you know from the outset of a project that you might want to use the identical chassis for a 69 and 56 then you design and more importantly tool it for both from the outset.
 

The design is nowhere near the bulk of the cost hence why if you can share tooling (even part of the tooling in this case) it is so beneficial. As you say you will still have to tool separate bodies but that doesn’t make the cost saving from a shared chassis anywhere near trivial. 
 

I have a reasonable/good idea of the costs involved in the various stages and repeating incorrect ideas gives a false impression to others. 
 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Black Hat said:


I guess they were not aware of the other 37, 47, 55, 101, 9F, Mk. 2 stock, Mk. 1 stock, 16t minerals... 

 

I didn't realise that I had to include the caveat that they be outdated or inaccurate. 

 

Anyway, what about my previous question? https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/165257-bachmann-announce-class-69-in-oo-and-n/&do=findComment&comment=4476638

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

 

I didn't realise that I had to include the caveat that they be outdated or inaccurate. 

 

Anyway, what about my previous question? 

 


The Bachmann 66 has now become outdated, but they kicked off a storm when Hattons did their own. Did it matter that it was Hattons? Would the reaction have been the same if it was Heljan or Hornby? 

I was going to leave your question as thought the conversation had moved on... but as your interested. 

Several statements have been contradictory over the years. Only making smaller engines as larger ones are more expensive, only to then come out with a Blue Pullman pack. 

Delays to models being produced. This is not just production slots in factories and things being made in china. Bachmann had projects sat on the research and development or cad stage for ages. The class 158 was a case in point. Statements from Bachmann were that the project was just ongoing. Why not specify more on the fact that delays can be attributed to changes in factories and events in China, or Bachmann prioritising which models should be progressed with. 

 

Price rises. Some of the price rises have been attributed to transport costs increasing, production and wages for staff in China, inflation, changes in currency exchange rates. These all sound reasonable, but the hike in prices for some items has been much larger than the rest of the competition has for similar releases. Bachmann then suddenly have the ability to then drop prices in the case of competition coming along, meaning that the batch previously could have been sold at the same price they have dropped the following batch too. That is maximum profit taking and while thats understandable (in some cases needed) its then disingenuous to site the reasons previously again. 

To be fair to Bachmann - some of these are in any companies best interests not to speak openly about, or put out massive statements on. Getting maximum profitability is good business as it gets maximum cashflow. Many of the reasons such as transport, currency, Chinese developments and issues effect all companies involved in the trade and how these effect a company going forwards is something that no company would want to publish totally in complete honesty. Discretion is needed and understanding is called for, but Bachmann's statements being contradictory make customers suspect. Other companies can control prices more, or have better means at engaging with their customer base through social media, statements or means of using forums (of which RM Web is probably best). Their interactions mean you can read more and engage more and pick up on what is happening. Customers feel more confident and think more highly of these companies that operate like that as they understand just that bit more. Perhaps Bachmann's pricing needs to be higher, in terms of some of the quality models that are new tooled and being produced. The class 158 is an excellent model, so too others like the J72 (a gorgeous little gem that sits there under the radar). Other models like the C-class have parts added or complex liveries that follow a tried and tested method that Bachmann have become renown for. Bachmann clearly are aiming for a more pre-order and higher price point to get the cashflow and capitalise on runs where some tweaks can get more sales. The creation of Reps models at limited edition runs but with Bachmann the sole beneficiary was a masterstroke when they get to make more diesel and share the costs over increases in runs. 

Yet, Bachmann have reduced the statements put out overall and now just focus on the three monthly releases. Larger statements and announcements have subsided with the one for the class 69 being one that has been brought about through release of the prototype and bucking the trend. Media seems to have to be supportive of Bachmann, those that question what is happening or mean to try and find out more often get a curt response whether in the form of a short release or by others that seem to be protective and this can stifle debate between customers. Some media has seen those supportive of Bachmann maintain a more watchful eye over comments made and criticism of Bachmann often is just not tollerated. Its got to the point in some cases where it has become a standing joke. Companies that have developed their own products look to have fallen by a clause of being a competitor - Hatton's being the obvious target here. Bachmann then pick and choose which companies they support - but the supposed all or nothing approach doesn't materialise. If Hatton's are a competitor advertising sales on the websites for their own model will Rails get treatment for doing private owner wagons. Are other companies targeted for acting as agents for spares for some companies - as has happened apparently. All this from the same company putting out statements that says they want to support small companies and shops.  

None of this ever comes in one statement. Some of it comes from speaking to reps at stands at events, from talking to shop keepers and companies that then interact with Bachmann. Its in following all releases and aspects that you see what's being done. Perhaps the new entrants to the market are putting more pressure on the traditional manufactures who are forced to act more aggressively and have the larger ranges to protect. Hornby have also done the odd similar act to Bachmann so it is unfair to think just one company was doing this. Perhaps too honesty is the wrong word to start with, as full transparency is never going to be realised. Maybe consistency or statements that match more to what is happening would mirror the actions that the customer sees on the ground and in shops. So, when things and events change (as they naturally will) Bachmann are just more forthcoming about the reasons they give to the best extent they can which will eventually restore the trust that I think has been reduced of late. 

I suspect I will now be accused of being intellectualising, moderated or banned. Having an opinion seems to be against the rules. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
  • Round of applause 5
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it is a lovely looking loco, I know it is a converted 56, but it now looks the finished article. The prototype will be a powerful loco and makes good use of available engineering. As far as the model is concerned I believe it will be quite popular. There are those who despair about long waits for models, and rightly or wrongly Bachmann seem to get the most stick. It would be nice if it came to the market sooner rather than later. But hey! I’m still waiting for the Dapol 59, so I can wait for this beauty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

Having an opinion seems to be against the rules. 

 

You're making things up again having gone to the trouble of qualifying your opinion (I actually appreciate you doing that despite many of your thoughts being incorrect). A few people have had their collar felt this week for glaring. Never get into a spat with an Admin with toothache.

 

 

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

 

You're making things up again having gone to the trouble of qualifying your opinion (I actually appreciate you doing that despite many of your thoughts being incorrect).


The problem, however, is that much a company’s reputation comes from what the customer perceives about it, not what the truth may actually be.  @The Black Hat has nicely summed up what a lot of people perceive. If Bachmann are unhappy with that perception, they need to work to change it.
 

If that perception is incorrect, as you suggest, a change should not be hard to achieve. 

 

Roy

  • Like 2
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with any model railway company's communications, all we really need to know is what they are making, ball park price and when they expect it to be released, we don't need any more information.  Whether they choose to bombard us with every minute detail of the production progress or tell us nothing is entirely up to them.

 

They are making model trains, luxuries we don't need, we should be thankful that there are so many companies producing a wide and varied range of models.

 

A manufacturers reputation should rest on the products they make, not how they communicate, or go about business, in my opinion.

Edited by Monkersson
Removed mis-quoted post
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, Monkersson said:

I don't have a problem with any model railway company's communications, all we really need to know is what they are making, ball park price and when they expect it to be released, we don't need any more information.  Whether they choose to bombard us with every minute detail of the production progress or tell us nothing is entirely up to them.

 

They are making model trains, luxuries we don't need, we should be thankful that there are so many companies producing a wide and varied range of models.

 

A manufacturers reputation should rest on the products they make, not how they communicate, or go about business, in my opinion.


You seem to have read an awful lot in my post that I didn’t say…

 

As for “all we really need to know is what they are making, ball park price and when they expect it to be released” I agree 100%. Sadly, we seem to get let down on all of those with some regularity (not just with Bachmann) with models “paused”, delayed and price rises that mean the ball is in a very different park…

 

Roy

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:


You seem to have read an awful lot in my post that I didn’t say…

 

As for “all we really need to know is what they are making, ball park price and when they expect it to be released” I agree 100%. Sadly, we seem to get let down on all of those with some regularity (not just with Bachmann) with models “paused”, delayed and price rises that mean the ball is in a very different park…

 

Roy

Apologies Roy, didn't actually mean to quote anyone, I'll edit my post.

 

In this day and age we have come to expect delays and price rises from the original statements, in all markets not just model railways, and that was before Covid.  There are so many facets to off-shored procurement that it is almost inevitable, although some manufacturers stick to that original price for the first releases.

 

If say a loco is announced to be delivered in 2 years at £150 but ends up taking 3 years at £170, so be it, its not the end of the world.

 

Just my way of thinking though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

You're making things up again having gone to the trouble of qualifying your opinion (I actually appreciate you doing that despite many of your thoughts being incorrect). A few people have had their collar felt this week for glaring. Never get into a spat with an Admin with toothache.

 

 


With respect you have offered nothing to say how I am incorrect. I guess the Bachmann PR rep must have been making it up when I discussed world trade supply and company structure issues with him at a show on two separate occasions. The shop owners and staff of several companies that I have spoken to (being the actual business owners, lead managers, regular staff or those in affiliated companies) must also have got it wrong too. Third party specialists must have been making it up about the pros and cons of Bachmann stock, when I have discussed upgrading some with them and Bachmann must have just put out statements and not realised how some of them merely contradict what they said last year... 

Ironically some of the staff that have been at Bachmann have now moved on and its current staff have to change the perception and lack of coms, that I and others clearly feel is needed to help bolster their relationship with the modelling community. I don't doubt that such a thing can be done and if Bachmann are reading this, they should take from it that actually we WANT them to be successful in this. We do like Bachmann and we do like Bachmann products, but both openness from them and the ability to freely discuss the trends and issues from Bachmann in places where the modelling community meets (of which RM Web is one) needs to be something that can happen and not be stifled, or ignored by the company which is what the perception sometimes is from the community it seeks to serve. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

Ok, let's just go back to the topic being about the 69.


Sorry, didnt see this after I have just hit send on the post above. I agree it will be nice to just leave opinions there where they stand now as each as stated their case. 

One thing I think most of us will all agree on - that the model will need a nice big speaker and probably a Biffo sound chip. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

 

 

is there irony in there somewhere that Mayflowers first run being to Hastings ?

 

Plymouth would be more apt.....

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

22 minutes ago, RCAR6015 said:

Will be interesting to see which manufacturer gets to the market the earliest!


I would imagine it's more about who does it better. They'll both be of a similar price and there is no confirmation Bachmann will even do one although I admit it looks likely after the 69 announcement. However, if they haven't started the tooling, they may decide against it. Who knows and we'll see. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, RCAR6015 said:

Will be interesting to see which manufacturer gets to the market the earliest!

 

They are different classes so unlikely to matter.

 

Given the 56 is at CAD render stage and the 69 is at photograph of prototype stage, one looks ahead of the other....

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

They are different classes so unlikely to matter.

 

Given the 56 is at CAD render stage and the 69 is at photograph of prototype stage, one looks ahead of the other....


The Class 56 from Cavalex is already in tooling now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RCAR6015 said:

Will be interesting to see which manufacturer gets to the market the earliest!


Its actually at times like this I do feel sorry for the new Bachmann staff learning the trade and taking on roles by some staff that have moved on. While the class 69 and therefore likely 56 was a good idea at the time, the length of time, progress and ability to get production done expediently, might now scupper the 56 idea if another good one comes out. The new staff are the ones left to sort it all out as to what Bachmann does next. 

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...