Bachmann announce NEW Class 47

[Zunnan]

 

32 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

... so no close-coupling mechanisms. Hornby have this feature on a number of their diesels and electrics, SLW and Accurascale on theirs, and it is commonplace on continental HO, but Bachmann could not get their act together, and have spoiled the model for a ha'porth of plastic.

 

Lets be honest, the same can be said of the Hornby CCM fitted diesels. They're awful and can spoil an otherwise fantastic model, especially on the longer overhanging models like the 56 and 60. Well known for an issue with a longer length rake, they won't auto centre coming off a curve and then proceed to drag the leading 4 wheeler (or bogie mounted coupler) off the rails. Great on MGR rakes or Bachmann BAA/BDAs in particular. To be frank, I prefer the Bachmann approach as theres much less to go wrong and I prefer not having to resort to fixed bar couplings just to stop a certain loco from derailing everything it touches.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Dogmatix said:

 

Indeed, so much thought has gone into this new version.... and yet:

 

 

... so no close-coupling mechanisms. Hornby have this feature on a number of their diesels and electrics, SLW and Accurascale on theirs, and it is commonplace on continental HO, but Bachmann could not get their act together, and have spoiled the model for a ha'porth of plastic.

 

Close coupling mechanisms do more harm than good when used in conjunction with tension lock couplings - the Hornby class 60 was renowned for dragging wagons off the track with its one when first released.

 

For a CCM to work reliably it needs some form of a rigid coupler - and although you may consider yourself above such devices the truth is an awful lot of people in the UK still use tension locks which are most definitely not 'rigid' in any shape or form

 

CCMs do have their place - but that is in bogie equipped coaching / freight stock , with the greatest advantage seen passenger coaches fitted with corridors thus permitting the gangways to be pretty much touching on the straight yet still negotiate 2nd radius setrack curves.

 

As such its an elementary sensible decision for Bachmann to provide fixed NEM mounts on locomotives and one which will hopefully ensure there are no coupling / derailing issues with the model going forward.

 

 

[rob D2]

I agree with the above - it didn’t work on the class 60 - much better to leave an NeM pocket and you can adapt couplings to suit.

 

I’m not overly keen on the front steps as I touched on or the cheap looking snow ploughs . On the plus side the level of detail of piping is excellent . What would really swing it would be a better drive chain - the existing 47s I find much less smooth and much noisier than Hornby diesels I have .

 

I’d have to see one close up to really establish if it has enough air between it and the old one to warrant effectively another 55 plus pounds per item but at present it’d be “ I don’t think so “

[TomScrut]

7 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

For a CCM to work reliably it needs some form of a rigid coupler

 

The thing there is you also need the geometry to be correct. For example a rigid bar on a Hattons 66 drags all sorts off the track because it doesn't have enough play in it. Tension locks have enough lateral play to avoid this but Hunts and the like don't.

 

I like the idea of close couplers on locos, and I do normally try and use something better than tension locks, but typically the bogie mounted couplers are far more reliable by the nature of how they work, automatically pointing the socket into the curve.

 

7 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

CCMs do have their place - but that is in bogie equipped coaching / freight stock

 

Exactly! When coupling two identical items the work brilliantly assuming there is enough play.

 

Although in the case of the 47 I do think that if they had made the socket removable and then had the snowplough body mounted it would have helped the appearance.

Edited October 8, 2021 by TomScrut

[TomScrut]

1 hour ago, rob D2 said:

the existing 47s I find much less smooth and much noisier than Hornby diesels I have .

 

I find Bachmann stuff very variable, the bulk of my Bachmann fleet are 37s and 66s, and vary drastically in noise generation from one to another. Both my 70s are quiet though.

[Class 158 productions]

15 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

I find Bachmann stuff very variable, the bulk of my Bachmann fleet are 37s and 66s, and vary drastically in noise generation from one to another. Both my 70s are quiet though.

Have to agree, some are absolutely silent, some of the best runners, then others are reminiscent of Lima offerings! Even with servicing. 11 Bachmann 47s and each one seems to behave in it’s own way. Prototypical to the real things I guess! 

[Dogmatix]

10 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

Do we need attention-seeking hyperbole? Surely we've moved from such jibes in this day and age?

 

No hyperbole or jibes intended - just expressing my annoyance that an otherwise splendid model has been rendered less splendid by the omission of (for me) an important feature, which has been around on continental HO for some 40 years, which some other OO brands have included successfully in their model locomotives, which works perfectly well if done properly, and which will be very difficult to retro-fit on this particular model.

[Dogmatix]

3 hours ago, rob D2 said:

I agree with the above - it didn’t work on the class 60 - much better to leave an NeM pocket and you can adapt couplings to suit.

 

CCM worked fine on my Class 60. And most, if not all, CCM stock uses NEM pockets, so I don't quite understand what you mean by "much better to leave an NeM pocket".

[Waverley West]

11 hours ago, Dogmatix said:

 

Indeed, so much thought has gone into this new version.... and yet:

 

 

... so no close-coupling mechanisms. Hornby have this feature on a number of their diesels and electrics, SLW and Accurascale on theirs, and it is commonplace on continental HO, but Bachmann could not get their act together, and have spoiled the model for a ha'porth of plastic.

 

Or, an alternative viewpoint:

 

Great, no CCMs! Having just spent a considerable amount of time on two Hornby Class 60s filing the close-coupling mechanisms down to get them to work reliably, it's good to know I won't have to do the same on the new Bachmann 47s.

 

Unless and until manufacturers can come up with a truly reliable CCM on locos, I'm quite happy to carry on with couplings on bogies which virtually always work flawlessly. In my experience, Hornby's CCMs are a real pain and a country mile off being reliable on my freight rakes (50s, 56s, 60s and even 31s). SLW's version seems to work pretty well, but I don't really use my SLW 24s to pull the long rakes that my Hornby and other locos are used on. 

 

[The Johnster]

On 08/10/2021 at 08:07, Class 158 productions said:

Have to agree, some are absolutely silent, some of the best runners, then others are reminiscent of Lima offerings! Even with servicing. 11 Bachmann 47s and each one seems to behave in it’s own way. Prototypical to the real things I guess! 

I have 5 locos running on nominally identical Bachmann 57xx/8750 pannier mechs, all superbly, but each has it’s own individual characteristics and foibles, just like real locos.  Each responds slightly differently to the controller and one must adopt slightly differing techniques to get the absolute best out of them.  One makes a little noise but performs well anyway.  
 

It is the same story with my 3 56xx, and 2 4575s and a 45xx.  My 94xx, which has a radically different coreless motor, is much more responsive, in that it will move on a lower controller setting than the others, but all stop and start smoothly and run controllably at low speeds on DC, which is basically what I require of them.  
 

My various Hornby mechs are good, but tbh not quite in the same league as Bachmanns’.  It is noticeable, though, that Hornby locos take longer to run in and develop their full potential, as has a Baccy Standard 3MT tank.  Currently the worst of a good bunch is my recent Hornby 5101, but a 42xx took a long time to settle and I have no doubt that the 5101 will fall into line eventually; it just takes a while on a small BLT where most things happen at low speeds with small loads. 
 

Quiet running of RTR mechs is A Good Thing, and most modern offerings can easily achieve it, but a good older mech often produces very good performance even if some of the energy that should be going into pulling quietly is making a racket.  Such locos can often be controlled down to a speed where motor ‘cogging’ is an issue!
 

The new Baccy 47 looks the part to me, though I have no need of one on my layout. I noted, though, that in the promotion photo of the green syp version both tail lamps were lit simultaneously, which is not correct, though it seems a common error on green and plain blue era RTR locos and multiple units.  Locos showed one red tail lamp to the rear when running light, and no lamp to the rear when coupled to a train or ahead of another locomotive.  Multiple units, except for Southern Region electric and diesel electric sets which showed a red blind the route indicator panel of their cabs (I believe the Southerns’ various electric and electro-diesel locos, as well a Class 33s running on the region, showed this red blind display as well), carried an oil tail lamp mounted on a standard lamp bracket at the rear of the train, though they did carry red glass discs to convert the marker lights n the cabs.  The marker light housings had slots in the bottom half to carry these, but they were not used during the green or plain blue diesel eras. 
 

A very common mistake on exhibition layouts is to see locos or multiple units liveried for these eras showing two red tail marker lamps, even on locos coupled to trains. 

Edited October 10, 2021 by The Johnster

[younGGuns7]

Rails have emailed to say that the first ones are imminent 

[Waverley West]

On 10/10/2021 at 18:30, The Johnster said:

The new Baccy 47 looks the part to me, though I have no need of one on my layout. I noted, though, that in the promotion photo of the green syp version both tail lamps were lit simultaneously, which is not correct, though it seems a common error on green and plain blue era RTR locos and multiple units.  Locos showed one red tail lamp to the rear when running light, and no lamp to the rear when coupled to a train or ahead of another locomotive.  
 

A very common mistake on exhibition layouts is to see locos or multiple units liveried for these eras showing two red tail marker lamps, even on locos coupled to trains. 

 

I believe even SLW (surprisingly I would say) opted to illuminate both tail lights on their 24 just because they expected so many frustrated customers contacting them about only one of the tail lights being illuminated. I don't know whether the same can be said for other manufacturers, but it's certainly possible.

 

Good news about the imminent arrival of the new 47s though.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Waverley West

[The Johnster]

No problem if that’s what some customers want, so long as the option of one marker light or no lights to the rear is available, as an option in DCC and as a switcheable feature for DC, on any locomotive or multiple unit in liveries that this applies to.  That is, green, blue, and early sectorisation liveries, pretty much most of the BR period. 

[Roy Langridge]

8 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

No problem if that’s what some customers want, so long as the option of one marker light or no lights to the rear is available, as an option in DCC and as a switcheable feature for DC, on any locomotive or multiple unit in liveries that this applies to.  That is, green, blue, and early sectorisation liveries, pretty much most of the BR period. 

The issue is that requires two more functions, and the demands of users tend to exceed the number available.

Roy

[The Johnster]

In which case, either the correct option should be marketed or customers informed of the inaccuracy to make their own informed minds up.  How necessary are engine room lights?

Edited October 21, 2021 by The Johnster

[younGGuns7]

24 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 How necessary are engine room lights?

As I model a MPD I do quite like the idea of the engine room being lite up 

[rob D2]

Looking forward to someone getting their mitts on one and telling us as it is 

[The Johnster]

Yes, engine room lights are not a bad idea, locos often run about on running lines with the engine room lights left on and illuminating detail in there, but I would, if functions are limited, prefer to have the correct tail lamps displayed.  Locos running around mpds at night could move about with no lights at all, of course, or lit up like xmas trees.  In loco yards, one could move locos about without instructions from ground staff, so extra care and use of horns when starting from rest were needed. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by The Johnster

[pheaton]

58 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

Looking forward to someone getting their mitts on one and telling us as it is 

Got two sound deluxe ones on order will post a review and videos 

[Roy Langridge]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Yes, engine room lights are not a bad idea, locos often run about on running lines with the engine room lights left on and illuminating detail in there, but I would, if functions are limited, prefer to have the correct tail lamps displayed.  Locos running around mpds at night could move about with no lights at all, of course, or lit up like xmas trees.  In loco yards, one could move locos about without instructions from ground staff, so extra care and use of horns when starting from rest were needed. 

 

And therein lies the problem for a manufacturer - everybody wants different. A few years from now it will not be a problem, the number of output functions seems to be forever increasing on DCC, time will some when there is enough for everyone's wishes. Which of course, means we will probably need more than F0-F28 to support them!

Roy

[The Johnster]

Yes, but realism and correct working practice should take priority over gimmicks. 

[Roy Langridge]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Yes, but realism and correct working practice should take priority over gimmicks. 

 

And again, what is a gimmick to one person is operational value to another. Yes, I want everything as well to fully recreate the past, but I know I can't have it today and accept that compromises have to be made. We don't have scale drivers changing end, or scale oil dripping for working locos, or scale flash-overs (well not often)...

 

Manufacturers are doing a good job of progressing this level of realism, but it takes time and needs the support of the DCC chip providers as well.

Roy

[lyneux]

Ok, this is a preserved line but illustrates my point well: headlight and taillights all on at the same time.

 

Guy

[rob D2]

22 minutes ago, lyneux said:

Ok, this is a preserved line but illustrates my point well: headlight and taillights all on at the same time.

 

Guy

I'm guessing that's a mistake , rather than prototypical 

[Roy Langridge]

5 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

I'm guessing that's a mistake , rather than prototypical 

Probably dpends upon when it was withdrawn from service. IIRC locos now have to display both tail-lights and as, in most cases, it is only a switch change in both cabs, some were modified. 
 

Roy