Bachmann announce Class 69 in OO and N.

[woodenhead]

14 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

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. 

But that assumes Bachmann were actually also tooling a 56, whilst I might have started the ball rolling suggesting such a thing it was in no way based on any facts.

 

Bachmann may simply be tooling a 69, with Cavalex left to fight it out with Hornby on the class 56.

[D9020 Nimbus]

And in N, the 56 is available from Dapol. Farish did one years ago, but it was well below current standards.

[woodenhead]

7 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

And in N, the 56 is available from Dapol. Farish did one years ago, but it was well below current standards.

There is a hint from Cavalex about an N version

[The Black Hat]

47 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

But that assumes Bachmann were actually also tooling a 56, whilst I might have started the ball rolling suggesting such a thing it was in no way based on any facts.

 

Bachmann may simply be tooling a 69, with Cavalex left to fight it out with Hornby on the class 56.

 

Yes it does, but its both logical and follows the trend of Bachmann getting many types off one chassis. With the tooling of the chassis and bogies all done for the class 69 you'd be mad not to go for the class 56... I actually still think Bachmann might.  

[MGR Hooper!]

34 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

 

Yes it does, but its both logical and follows the trend of Bachmann getting many types off one chassis. With the tooling of the chassis and bogies all done for the class 69 you'd be mad not to go for the class 56... I actually still think Bachmann might.  

I'd rather have Bachmann do a newly tooled Class 90 in N gauge than a Class 56 in OO gauge though... If Bachmann do have a plan to do a Class 56 after the Class 69, it'll be a good time to drop it and just focus on the Class 69. There's actually quite a few models from the Bachmann and Graham Farish stable that could do with an update rather than do a Class 56 where Hornby already has a fairly good model and Cavalex have a damn good model in the making.

[adb968008]

4 hours ago, TomScrut said:

Looks like those after a new 56 are getting one anyway!

Best of luck, i’m not sure why. I’ll stick with my Hornby ones, my fleet is already done and the Hornby model isnt bad, unless they are dirt cheap I dont see the point in duplication, i’ll be waiting for what I don't have... class 69... it is modern.

[TomScrut]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Best of luck, i’m not sure why

 

I am happy with my Hornby one, but they haven't done a DC grey one yet.

[ruggedpeak]

So I guess the next question is when will Andy be announcing the new "RMWeb Betting" website where we can bet on the next big model announcements?

 

So many bettable permutations - what were the odds of Bachmann and the 69 followed the same week by Cavalex and 56's? Will Bachmann announce a 56? What is the next item on the Hornby or Bachmann roster to be announced by several new entrants (e.g. MGR's)..........

[159220]

On 14/06/2021 at 17:59, Shoey said:

I hope Bachmann have the same vision as Accurascale when it comes to detail. Great announcement though and look forward to seeing the end result.

That is a joke? I gave you a 'Funny' like... Bachmann have been at the forefront of detail for decades, recently innovation I have been impressed by has been the CDL on the Mk2Fs and delivering the UKs first DCC operating pantograph on the class 90. Their most recent new tooling releases of the 20/3, 158s and 121/117s are exquisite in detail terms. Personally, I have not had an Accurascale locomotive in my hand yet. So I think the class 69 shall be in safe hands with Bachmann. Just a shame I do not model the Tonbridge area, yet after shake down and the class has 'proven' itself I am told they shall work fairly in scope. Certainly the class has many potentially suitable flows widely across GBRf's operational area. 

[Black 5 Bear]

1 hour ago, 159220 said:

That is a joke? I gave you a 'Funny' like... Bachmann have been at the forefront of detail for decades, recently innovation I have been impressed by has been the CDL on the Mk2Fs and delivering the UKs first DCC operating pantograph on the class 90. Their most recent new tooling releases of the 20/3, 158s and 121/117s are exquisite in detail terms. Personally, I have not had an Accurascale locomotive in my hand yet. So I think the class 69 shall be in safe hands with Bachmann. Just a shame I do not model the Tonbridge area, yet after shake down and the class has 'proven' itself I am told they shall work fairly in scope. Certainly the class has many potentially suitable flows widely across GBRf's operational area. 

Not to mention the Class 24/1s, another superb edition to the range !

[TomScrut]

1 hour ago, 159220 said:

Their most recent new tooling releases of the 20/3 are exquisite in detail terms.

 

Those 20/3s without marker lamps you mean?

 

Don't get me wrong they do tend to be excellent models, but they do sometimes overlook/not go to the lengths to do certain things.

 

In terms of the comparison you were replying about, sometimes Bachmann do have the correct tooling for things such as lighting positions, sometimes they don't. The new TFL 20s don't have the lights in the right place IIRC, 37099 they tooled specially for. This is exactly the sort of thing AS make a point of telling us all about when they do something. So yes, Bachmann are good but there's a couple of examples of where they arguably get pipped. I say arguably as AS haven't delivered a loco yet (although I know IRM have it are just about to) so the proof will be in the pudding so to speak.

 

And I aren't saying I wish AS had done this one either, I think Bachmann will make a good job of it.

 

None of this takes anything away from the stuff you mention such as the servo pantographs (it is worth noting though that gets taken a step further by a certain 92), there are other companies still shoving brand new product out of the door with 8 pin. With no innovation, whether it be from Bachmann or whoever (Heljan also look like they are going full on with DCC functionality for example), then progress wouldn't be made.

[Krieghoff]

Can we please have rotating fans as well powered by a separate motor like Cavalex have done on their 56 :), 

 

[Crisis Rail]

Good Lord.

 

Reading all this we've come a long long way and should be enough to end the bickering.

 

Anyone remember Lima?

[3rd Rail Exile]

17 minutes ago, Crisis Rail said:

Good Lord.

 

Reading all this we've come a long long way and should be enough to end the bickering.

 

Anyone remember Lima?

Remember them well - still have plenty!  

 

No gimmicky lights, annoying sounds or chips to fry .  

 

Some of them even looked like what they were supposed to 

[ruggedpeak]

And didn't have to follow them around the layout picking up the detail parts that fell off!!

Edited June 21, 2021 by ruggedpeak

[Crisis Rail]

1 hour ago, 3rd Rail Exile said:

Remember them well - still have plenty!  

 

No gimmicky lights, annoying sounds or chips to fry .  

 

Some of them even looked like what they were supposed to 

Yes. One or two still do hold up reasonably well. 

[159220]

On 19/06/2021 at 18:04, TomScrut said:

 

Those 20/3s without marker lamps you mean?

 

Don't get me wrong they do tend to be excellent models, but they do sometimes overlook/not go to the lengths to do certain things.

 

In terms of the comparison you were replying about, sometimes Bachmann do have the correct tooling for things such as lighting positions, sometimes they don't. The new TFL 20s don't have the lights in the right place IIRC, 37099 they tooled specially for. This is exactly the sort of thing AS make a point of telling us all about when they do something. So yes, Bachmann are good but there's a couple of examples of where they arguably get pipped. I say arguably as AS haven't delivered a loco yet (although I know IRM have it are just about to) so the proof will be in the pudding so to speak.

 

And I aren't saying I wish AS had done this one either, I think Bachmann will make a good job of it.

 

None of this takes anything away from the stuff you mention such as the servo pantographs (it is worth noting though that gets taken a step further by a certain 92), there are other companies still shoving brand new product out of the door with 8 pin. With no innovation, whether it be from Bachmann or whoever (Heljan also look like they are going full on with DCC functionality for example), then progress wouldn't be made.

 

Bachmann have given a very reasonable explanation behind the 20/3 light situation, I challenge you to design and deliver a tiny locomotive - mass scale - without a degree of compromise before it gets to silly money. 

 

I am sorry to say, yet the argument around 37099 is invalid in the context of my point. The Bachmann 37 is not recent tooling, even the class 90 is 4+ year old tooling (I merely used it to point out it was the first OO model to provide us with a DCC pantograph and naturally the AS 92 is an evolution...when delivered) and thus the technology/innovation then has been surpassed. Just as one fully acknowledges Bachmann's 69 shall have the latest technology and detail. Hence why I only mentioned their most recent tool items (forgot about the 24/1 - also an exquisite model). 

 

We shall only ever be able to compare the values of Accurascale against Bachmann when two recent new tool items...developed around the same timeframe, are delivered. Perhaps the AS Deltic and Bachmann 20/0 shall be the first (and of the same model vintage). 

 

I honestly don't think if all the manufacturers (bar a red one), all developed and delivered a locomotive in the same timeframe as each other, that you would notice much difference in terms of detail/tooling and technology/innovation. The only difference would be individual perception gained through history, experience and good public relations/marketing. 

 

Certainly as modellers, we have never had it this good. 

[TomScrut]

18 minutes ago, 159220 said:

Bachmann have given a very reasonable explanation behind the 20/3 light situation, I challenge you to design and deliver a tiny locomotive - mass scale - without a degree of compromise before it gets to silly money. 

 

I appreciate they explained it, but whether it's an excuse for cutting corners or a valid reason I don't know. For example if there was a competitor on that model would they have achieved it? There are plenty of things that all of a sudden become achievable when the desire to do it is increased.

 

It's not my place to design one, but it's one of the reasons I haven't bought one. If it was going to add £10 more to the loco I'd have taken the £10 increase and probably had one or more (given they tend to run in pairs).

 

I know it's a different design challenge, and old tooling, but if Illuminated models can justify making a PCB kit for the Bachmann 66s (and selling them for less than a tenner each) then to me the market is interested in them looking right, and secondly makes me wonder why they haven't tweaked the PCB on the 66. It's the biggest detail hole on that model IMO.

 

19 minutes ago, 159220 said:

I am sorry to say, yet the argument around 37099 is invalid in the context of my point.

 

It wasn't that long since they did 099, and the point was they got the tooling and did a mod specifically for that loco. OTOH they haven't done with the newly tooled TFL 20s yet have a past record of doing so on the 37. Whereas AS if you look at their 37s and 55s don't seem to have compromised on light positions etc. with such as the purple 55 having WIPACs.

 

22 minutes ago, 159220 said:

 

I honestly don't think if all the manufacturers (bar a red one), all developed and delivered a locomotive in the same timeframe as each other, that you would notice much difference in terms of detail/tooling and technology/innovation. The only difference would be individual perception gained through history, experience and good public relations/marketing. 

 

Certainly as modellers, we have never had it this good. 

 

I agree, whilst I think there is validity to the discussion we are having, they all tend to be good and unless they suprise me by making a mess of this loco I will probably have one.

[The Black Hat]

2 hours ago, 159220 said:

 

Bachmann have given a very reasonable explanation behind the 20/3 light situation, I challenge you to design and deliver a tiny locomotive - mass scale - without a degree of compromise before it gets to silly money. 

 

I am sorry to say, yet the argument around 37099 is invalid in the context of my point. The Bachmann 37 is not recent tooling, even the class 90 is 4+ year old tooling (I merely used it to point out it was the first OO model to provide us with a DCC pantograph and naturally the AS 92 is an evolution...when delivered) and thus the technology/innovation then has been surpassed. Just as one fully acknowledges Bachmann's 69 shall have the latest technology and detail. Hence why I only mentioned their most recent tool items (forgot about the 24/1 - also an exquisite model). 

 

We shall only ever be able to compare the values of Accurascale against Bachmann when two recent new tool items...developed around the same timeframe, are delivered. Perhaps the AS Deltic and Bachmann 20/0 shall be the first (and of the same model vintage). 

 

I honestly don't think if all the manufacturers (bar a red one), all developed and delivered a locomotive in the same timeframe as each other, that you would notice much difference in terms of detail/tooling and technology/innovation. The only difference would be individual perception gained through history, experience and good public relations/marketing. 

 

Certainly as modellers, we have never had it this good. 

What reasonable explanation? The one that was yet another spin to point out that Bachmann had decided to stick with switches on an engine where the lighting features would be most used by digital control? How exactly did they think that would work... that those still on analogue would be happy sending an engine round half the time with the wrong control as the switches were set, or the hand of god appearing on a digital layout to lift the engine, change the switch and then put it back? 

While Bachmann have been at the front in terms of detail, some of their thinking has been overtaken and the features they like to trumpet are now matched or exceeded by new entrants into the sector. Some traditional companies are still operating like this, but the fact is that now the bar has been set and they will have to catch up quickly. I don't doubt that the press will still give them favourable coverage, or the fact that most people will be happy operating the engines as they see fit, but Bachmann and others supporting them need to realise that some of Bachmanns thinking has become overtaken by events and advances in the sector - some of these being within the last few years as technology has allowed the development of DCC control to reach the potential that it showed when the switch to digital operation began. 

The use of 37099 is not a great example overall. Bachmann merely produced a new nose moulding for the engine which sorted that issue out. It was a good tweak but did show what the Barwell team can do. Some of the others such as the DCC fitted coaches, the class 90 with working pantograph and some of the steam engines show the detail, precision and high standard that Bachmann can reach. There is an obvious move for Bachmann to aim for a European style operation, with the higher costs and shorter runs driving a demand for models on the case of buy it or miss out. Yet, as mentioned before, some of this has been from new tooled models done in the last few years.

 

Prior to that Bachmanns push was to fit things such as switches in the hope it would satisfy demands for better operation and appease both DCC and analogue. The market has moved on to the extent that most now use DCC, meaning that the 57/3, 66 and now 20 all have a need for lights that can never be met. Other attempts to bridge the gap to DCC where the fitting of 8 pin decoder sockets inside the engines bodies themselves, rather than link to the tender to allow bigger decoders or more importantly - sound. Some of these models saw older bodies retained and while you can understand how that might have worked out initially - in fact it was even accepted as a good idea - now allowing the fitting of sound is standard and new entrants are able to produce a new tooled model with this advancement for the same price to the consumer as Bachmanns modified model. The fact that some engines like Bachmann's 20 had speakers fitted, shows the dichotomy of decision making across their range. All of this is seen with hindsight, so its easy to point out the problems that have overtaken Bachmann - but those making the decisions in the company thought that things like switches were a good idea or where prepared to accept the obvious compromise this would bring (and then in true Bachmann fashion round on those objecting). Many of those that were taking those decisions or answering for them have now moved on, meaning staff now have a legacy issue. Some might have been too late to reverse (such as the lights on the 20) but we can now hope that new staff and new models show that Bachmann are adapting and meeting the challenge brought on by new entrants and other established companies. 

Remember, I and others do want Bachmann to match this success and to improve their range and production so that the sector overall is both stronger and more versatile. The competition of new entrants is a good move and the hobby, appears to be stable, despite the concerns that I have of over saturation for some periods and areas, that can reduce the cashflow or profits when models just don't sell. Certainly there is more to come and Bachmann thanks to the innovations they have started and will continue to develop will remain at the forefront (especially if they complete the move to full DCC lighting control) for years to come alongside the other new companies and established competition that will drive the standards and costs for us consumers.

Yes we have never had it so good, but that in turn is so long as the models you want are made and include all the DCC high standards the best can get. If thats the case, it is marvellous, but what comes next will be just as interesting as how we got to this point. 

[TomScrut]

17 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

The use of 37099 is not a great example overall. Bachmann merely produced a new nose moulding for the engine which sorted that issue out.

 

But that was exactly my point (as I brought 099 up to begin with), forgetting DCC for a moment. The comparison with Accurascale was to do with detail, and lighting positions and tooling for massive amounts of variation is something we hear a lot about from AS. Bachmann not so much and it would appear they haven't tooled all the headlamp positions on their new 20, but they specifically did so for 099 which means they can and do when they want to.

 

It's also worth noting they updated their 70 tooling for the intake mods (shame it didn't get independent end lighting at the same time). The fact that this tooling mod seems completely under utilised with only 1 FL and Colas release each is another matter (check Colas 70 prices out on eBay)

Edited June 22, 2021 by TomScrut

[Midnight-Freight]

At the recent naming ceremony for 69002, Bob Tiller, who the loco is named after and who revealed the nameplate was handed a model of the loco that looked 00 gauge size. I wonder if this was a one off or a clue that the Bachmann model is quite advanced.

[159220]

A wonderful gentleman Bob Tiller and a lifetime railwayman. 

The model is hand built, I believe by GBRf usual choice Dave Lowery (but it might be someone else). 

 

There's a good article in Model Rail this month too: https://www.pressreader.com/uk/model-rail-uk/20210801/281681142860533

[adb968008]

Interesting quirk I noticed yesterday looking at 69002 is how bright the engine room light is, it lights the full interior from large grill end giving a full view of the innards, and of course the daylight on the other side.

[E100]

Based on the recent Class 47 announcement, it makes me wonder what kind of detail they'll be going for on this. I'd certainly hope there's much technological/design progress and lessons learnt that can be transferred across.

[mdvle]

51 minutes ago, E100 said:

Based on the recent Class 47 announcement, it makes me wonder what kind of detail they'll be going for on this. I'd certainly hope there's much technological/design progress and lessons learnt that can be transferred across.

 

Given that yesterday's video on the Class 47 indicated that it had been started about 3 years ago if I recall correctly (and note I'm not saying that the Class 69 will take 3 years - the 69 is a much simpler project from a research and tooling perspective given the lack of variations and the current prototype design document availability) it would be a reasonable guess that the Class 69 will have similar level of detail/accuracy.

 

As noted by others in the Class 47 thread, Bachmann apparently has decided high end detail is where the market is for them going forward.