New announcements from Bachmann

[Bernard Lamb]

Looking into my tea leaves I have a vision of the Bachmann design office.

On the desk are drawings and prototype parts for a composite resin and etched brass model of Belah Viaduct.

I can just hear the conversation in the board room.

Let's not bother with a Q6 or a J21. Let's do something that will really shut up those NE moaners.

Bernard

[coachmann]

I know where you are coming from Olddddudders. I had the same problem with painting along with my contemporaries when first starting out. In fact, I venture to suggest this is one reason why the GWR was so popular in far off days and why the LNER was not.

 

But hardship made one grow wings, and railway modellers had no option but to build kits when there was nothing else. Much remains the same today. I for one am grateful to Hornby and Bachmann for making railway modelling much easier, but none of us is immortal. At what stage do folk say, sod it, I'm going to do something for myself?

[stewartingram]

I like sticking bits of wood to other bits of wood... Im not bad at it too..... pity i have to buy trains to run on my joinery really

 

So its possible to stick wood to wood? Wow I've never been able to do that! But weld metals together, now you're talking - in fact I'm more successful at banging nails into each piece of wood, then welding the nail heads together........

 

 

Stewart

[S.A.C Martin]

At what stage do folk say, sod it, I'm going to do something for myself?

 

The moment you know you absolutely will have to build X kit as there's no alternative to build Y prototype.

 

I am having that sort of moment with the Ivatt N1. I know in my heart of hearts, the London Road Models kit is probably THE way to go. But I am looking at - some might say, in desperation to not have to build a working chassis myself - anything and everything to avoid buying the kit and having to learn soldering. Use the Hornby N2 chassis and scratch build? Requires a motor change. Do I change the motor? And so on and so forth until the cost of the kit must be lower than the kitbashing route...

 

It's an aversion to do the obvious in terms of the fear of ruining an expensive kit. I can solder wires together, no problem, but brass? The Tony Wright DVDs have helped for preparation but it still fills me with that unholy dread that the end results won't stand up to scrutiny.

[PenrithBeacon]

Ozepatriate said : Sadly the expressions have gone beyond 'dissapointment' at times, and I don't think it is just coming from boys.

 

It's difficult not to express disappointment, although I do agree that the way the disappointment is expressed is important. I'm not one of those who has a go when a RTR company doesn't produce something I want, but when they do and they get it wrong and it's a loco that I would like to see so much that I was prepared to actually try to make-up a kit, then an expression of disappointment is perfectly reasonable, provided that the way it is expressed is reasonable too.

 

Bachmann has got the 3F seriously wrong and as far as the splashers are concerned thay have made the same error that Airfix made with their 4F decades ago. The company have done wonderful things with other items in their catalogue, but this they have got wrong and it's will require a lot of work for a finescale modeller, in any of the three track standards, to put it right.

 

Regards

[Ian J.]

Bachmann has got the 3F seriously wrong and as far as the splashers are concerned thay have made the same error that Airfix made with their 4F decades ago. The company have done wonderful things with other items in their catalogue, but this they have got wrong and it's will require a lot of work for a finescale modeller, in any of the three track standards, to put it right.

 

Ah, but the 3F isn't a finescale model - it has to be able to cope with second radius curves on our sloppy OO track standards, meaning the wheels need more space to move, which is why the splashers are larger than scale (and probably will be on their 4F too).

 

Bachmann aren't in the business of producing finescale models, but in producing what is as accurate as possible given the OO track standard problem. For finescale modellers, there's genuinely no choice but to learn serious fettling of RTR and/or kitbuilding and/or scratchbuilding

['CHARD]

The moment you know you absolutely will have to build X kit as there's no alternative to build Y prototype.

 

I am having that sort of moment with the Ivatt N1. I ........on and so forth until the cost of the kit must be lower than the kitbashing route...

 

It's an aversion to do the obvious in terms of the fear of ruining an expensive kit. I can solder wires together, no problem, but brass? The Tony Wright DVDs have helped for preparation but it still fills me with that unholy dread that the end results won't stand up to scrutiny.

 

What he said.

 

I've no aversion whatsoever to mashing plenty of polystyrene about to wring either faithfulness to prototype (to some nebular, notional standard of my choosing) from an RTR diesel, or to create a subclass or special favourite/ hybrid... I seldom have the blocks of time available currently, in sufficient number, to do a PoD workbench approach - but that's probably whereabouts I'd set my cap.

 

Now, when it comes to the mysterious ways of steam traction, it's a whole different ball game. One prototype that I discovered fairly recently, with the right pedigree for my own ends, and that I have fallen in love with, is the V4. No amount of wishlisting will see this getting made RTR, and I wouldn't waste anyone's time doing so, but I will be looking at a far more complex mash-up of proprietary components to see how I might manage this beast.

 

One thing I have learnt this year is what to look out for in axle spacings, pony, trailing and driver diameters, and boiler dimensions. I'll even confess to recognising the distinction between parallel and taper. So, without wishing to stay O/T too long, one thing that manufacturers' announcements have taught me, in a back-handed way, is how to mine yet another seam of prototype info to learn - and scheme - more about what will become, dare I say it, some 'modelling' in the foulness of time.

[iak]

Indeed..

Since an after-market of bits for the 3F is being developed by various people then hey.

I'm under no illusions that the 3F at home will need fettling but that does me.

It is one less "kit" to fight with or to put it t'other way, less bun-eze to use...................

[Guest Max Stafford]

Ian's plethora of aftermarket 3F bits merely serves to underline my own philosophy vis a vis kits and RTR; I view both as mere raw material for my purposes, the only difference being the amount of finishing required.

 

Dave.

[Pennine MC]

A few years ago the people who thought we would ever see a RTR outside-framed GWR 4-4-0 were quite in the minority and I don't know anyone who really thought a L&Y tank would be here this soon.

 

It's a whole new game isnt it; with pre-Group designs, there's an absolute cornocopia of posibilities that few of us can have fully considered.

s

People who express 'disappointment' in the Bachmann Branch-Line releases are just sharing. Perhaps this is tedious for some, but with few exceptions, I think it's no harm, no foul.

 

No doubt tin hat time, but IMHO even some of the positive posts are tedious; those that simply list what somebody *is* going to splash out on this year. It might be 'sharing' but it doesnt bring anything additional to the debate

[iL Dottore]

As I've stated elsewhere, I'm quite looking forward to the new City Class and I welcome this move towards producing RTR pre-grouping rolling stock. The colourful (gaudy?) liveries are often difficult for many modellers to do to their satisfaction and the sophisticated tampo printing technology now available should make such liveries feasible for Hornby, Bachmann, etc.

 

I also suspect pre-grouping liveries will elicit fewer criticisms along the lines of "that's not the shade I remember seeing as a boy" (simply due to there being very few over 100 year old railway modellers...).

 

The key to moving successfully into pre-grouping would be the careful selection of prototypes. I would argue that anything that lasted until 1950 or so would have more potential than something that was scrapped in the 1920s (famous name locos excepting).

 

F

[Michael Delamar]

I cant keep up with this thread so ive only skimmed through it.

 

but regards Liverpool lime street layout, about 90% of the stock id say is re wheeled RTR, if it where all kit built it wouldnt be as far progressed as it is now, I know John has more kits to build for the layout, in particular coaches such as suburban stock.

 

 

one thing you lose is exclusivity if that sort of thing bothers you, which it doesnt me,

 

every man and his dog has got that finely detailed model whizzing round his oval of Hornby track.

 

but you can always renumber, add a bit more detail easier.

 

I do remember exhibitiing Chris Hewitt's Olive mount layout about 10 years ago when he had kit built black 5s, duchesss, super D, austerities, prototype deltic, patriots, scots, kit built coaches etc, all looked great at the time and people liked to see them but look no where near as good as the RTR versions now, the bodies and paint finish especially are better now.

[PenrithBeacon]

Ah, but the 3F isn't a finescale model - it has to be able to cope with second radius curves on our sloppy OO track standards, meaning the wheels need more space to move, which is why the splashers are larger than scale (and probably will be on their 4F too).

 

Bachmann aren't in the business of producing finescale models, but in producing what is as accurate as possible given the OO track standard problem. For finescale modellers, there's genuinely no choice but to learn serious fettling of RTR and/or kitbuilding and/or scratchbuilding

Isn't that what I said?

[S.A.C Martin]

Isn't that what I said?

 

Bachmann has got the 3F seriously wrong and as far as the splashers are concerned thay have made the same error that Airfix made with their 4F decades ago. The company have done wonderful things with other items in their catalogue, but this they have got wrong and it's will require a lot of work for a finescale modeller, in any of the three track standards, to put it right.

 

I am not sure "seriously wrong" is a fair description of the Bachmann 3F, IF we agree that there's a reasonable level of compromise due to the track gauge it was designed for.

 

The splashers being wrong are (in my view at any rate) that compromise which, as you rightly say, will have to be changed by finescale modellers.

[Silverstreak]

I do wonder if it is this kind of post that frankly puts Bachmann off producing North Eastern prototypes.

 

I am a North Eastern modeller, but I don't go off one like a petulant child when I don't get what I want. If you want a K1, J21 etc....three options.

1. Build one of the many kits available.

2. Save some money and commission one of the top modellers to build said loco.

3. Put up and wait.

 

What I see is quite a balanced release from Bachmann. A J11 was a widely used locomotive which would have ventured into the North Eastern Region granted it's not a NE prototype.

 

As Max Stafford says, the North Eastern's time will come.....but to be perfectly frank, your recent postings on this matter do little to help the North Eastern cause.

 

Hmm I find some of the above strange to say the least. Are you suggesting it is best not to discuss such matters on this forum in case the Folks at Barwell take the pip and continue to ignore anything NER in the future.

 

I would have thought their number one priority is to produce what will sell and apparantly they must feel that for the 2012-13 season nothing from the NER loco fleet would sell as well as a GC J11 or a duplicated LMS 4F.

 

Any real NER follower will have ignored what Bachmann has produced for years, the only example in their catalogue is the J72 and was that not inherited. Mind you the NER is not the only sector to have been overlooked. Where are the NBR J35, J36 and J37 or D30 and D34. At least they have bitten the bullet with the D11

 

As has already been stated elsewhere on this thread Dave Alexander and not forgetting 52F Models have been the sole flag wavers for years and I suspect that will continue until the "wish listers" start all over again in March 2013

[Guest Tom F]

I'm not in the slightest suggesting we can't discuss NE locos we would like to see produced.

 

What concerns me is posts that generally moan about what has not been released. We know the RTR manufactures read the threads and personally, I don't think it helps matters.

 

 

[Guest Belgian]

Looking at all the posts about the new Bachmann announcements there seems to be a general theme from LNER modellers that only some of their demands wishes have been met and that they still want more.

 

Analysing the steam locomotive models (only) in their catalogue for the forthcoming year the spread is as follows: LMS 13, LNER 10*, GWR 8**, BR 6 and SR 2. I don't think they are doing too badly!

 

* Including the WD Austerity ** not including 'deriviatives' - the ROD, 8750 Pannier and 4575 small prairie.

 

JE

[Invicta]

As I've stated elsewhere, I'm quite looking forward to the new City Class and I welcome this move towards producing RTR pre-grouping rolling stock. The colourful (gaudy?) liveries are often difficult for many modellers to do to their satisfaction and the sophisticated tampo printing technology now available should make such liveries feasible for Hornby, Bachmann, etc.

 

I also suspect pre-grouping liveries will elicit fewer criticisms along the lines of "that's not the shade I remember seeing as a boy" (simply due to there being very few over 100 year old railway modellers...).

 

The key to moving successfully into pre-grouping would be the careful selection of prototypes. I would argue that anything that lasted until 1950 or so would have more potential than something that was scrapped in the 1920s (famous name locos excepting).

 

F

 

As you suggest, perhaps the 'City' could be a bit of a 'test case' for the next step in RTR pre-grouping models.

 

So far, although Bachmann have put out quite a few pre-grouping loco classes now, (ROD/O4, 'Super D', S&DJR 7F, 3F) and have more on the way with the 2012 announcements, so far they're all locos that lasted well into the early 60's, and apart from the forthcoming SECR-liveried C (in preservation condition as a Bluebell tie-in) they've all been in post-grouping condition and livery.

 

Received wisdom on here seems to be that BR 'transition-era' is the most popular period now for steam modellers, and certainly releases from the manufacturers seem to reflect that with more BR versions being released than 'Big Four', and few pre-1923-liveried versions (although that's territory Hornby do venture into from time to time)

 

The 'City' is a class that- apart from 'Truro'- had gone by about 1930/31, so logically, you might think it's one that could be more of a sales risk for Bachmann compared to their other pre-grouping locos- Is there even any suitable stock in their catalogue to hang on the back of one? IIRC their Collett coaches are a late 30's design?

.

Bachmann now seem to be pretty sure that there's a clear market for those pre-group loco classes that survived in reasonable numbers into the 60's, to the point where we're getting slightly more 'left-field' choices like the L&Y tank, so maybe the City gives them a chance to push the envelope a bit further, and see if locos that don't fit that 1960's transition-era scenario might fly in the marketplace. The development costs have already been paid out, and presumably shared with the NRM when they did 'Truro', so I guess the risk factor for Bachmann on the 'City' is lower than if they were developing something comparable from scratch.

 

If they can sell the 'City' in respectable numbers then it could open up all kinds of possibilities. If they can make a go of selling a loco withdrawn in the early 30's, then maybe a few of the classes that made it to the early years of nationalisation (say that 1950 date you mentioned) could be worth a look.

 

As Pennine said a couple of posts back, 'It's a whole new game isn't it?'

[TheCromptonParkinson]

http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/product/37323/30076_Bachmann_Midnight_Metropolitan_Train_Set

 

Not sure if this has gone elsewhere - but its COOL.

[Ravenser]

Looking at all the posts about the new Bachmann announcements there seems to be a general theme from LNER modellers that only some of their demands wishes have been met and that they still want more.

 

Analysing the steam locomotive models (only) in their catalogue for the forthcoming year the spread is as follows: LMS 13, LNER 10*, GWR 8**, BR 6 and SR 2. I don't think they are doing too badly!

 

* Including the WD Austerity ** not including 'deriviatives' - the ROD, 8750 Pannier and 4575 small prairie.

 

JE

 

The LNER was a very diverse railway - more so than any of the other companies, so more types are needed to produce the same degree of coverage. Those modelling the Southern Area/original ER have done quite nicely in the last few years - the wishes are now coming from the NE Area/Reg and the Scots, though the latter are pleased with their D11/2 and eagerly wondering what it might lead on to in future years.

 

Quoting the Bachmann numbers alone is a little misleading - Hornby have a lot of Southern locos in their catalogue,and the Scots issue is that there are no indigeous Scottish types available from anyone (Caley Pug excluded) . I don't see that the Swindonised ROD shouldbe excluded as it's not a varient of another GW type . This means that the smaller and highly standardised GW is more or less level pegging with the much larger and more diverse LNER - implying a much greater level of coverage for GW modellers. Put another way the NER, NBR and GNoSR probably had alarger route mileage than the post 1923 GW . But the RTR support is vastly different. Scottish modellers are short of the specifically Scottish signature items - the stuff that made Scotland Scotland (as opposed say to the LMR in the North West)

 

But thisis something for the future - this year we';ve done well

[Ozexpatriate]

People who express 'disappointment' in the Bachmann Branch-Line releases are just sharing. Perhaps this is tedious for some, but with few exceptions, I think it's no harm, no foul.

Sadly the expressions have gone beyond 'dissapointment' at times, and I don't think it is just coming from boys.

Yes, there are posts that go beyond 'sharing'. Not having one's favourite rtr model announced is not life or death.

No doubt tin hat time, but IMHO even some of the positive posts are tedious; It might be 'sharing' but it doesnt bring anything additional to the debate

Agreed. I wanted to say that in my earlier post but stopped short, not wanting to offend.

[Ozexpatriate]

.. perhaps the 'City' could be a bit of a 'test case' for the next step in RTR pre-grouping models.

 

Received wisdom on here seems to be that BR 'transition-era' is the most popular period now for steam modellers, and certainly releases from the manufacturers seem to reflect that with more BR versions being released than 'Big Four', and few pre-1923-liveried versions (although that's territory Hornby do venture into from time to time)

 

If they can sell the 'City' in respectable numbers then it could open up all kinds of possibilities. If they can make a go of selling a loco withdrawn in the early 30's, then maybe a few of the classes that made it to the early years of nationalisation (say that 1950 date you mentioned) could be worth a look.

 

As Pennine said a couple of posts back, 'It's a whole new game isn't it?'

The discussion around pre-grouping prototypes, extended to pre-grouping liveries (or even grouping liveries), makes me wonder when we collectively will see an equivalent amount of wishlisting for relevant passenger stock and brake vans (or other distinctive company-liveried stock).

 

One can go a long way with the private owner wagons that are readily avaialble, but building representative trains even by accumulating models over a long period is very hit or miss. This is particularly true for Bachmann who while breaking new ground in locomotives are less focused on coaches than Hornby has been. (Yes, they have their Mk1s, the old Colletts and people are looking forward to the LMS porthole stock.)

 

But I'm not really intending to criticize any manufacturers here. People wishlist largely for locomotives in an overwhelming manner - yet unless they are destined for the display cabinet, locomotives do not by themselves make a train.

 

It will be interesting to see whether any changes regarding passenger and company-owned freight stock is reflected in the upcoming MREmag and RMweb wishlist poll results.

[The Stationmaster]

The LNER was a very diverse railway - more so than any of the other companies, so more types are needed to produce the same degree of coverage.

 

Quoting the Bachmann numbers alone is a little misleading - Hornby have a lot of Southern locos in their catalogue,and the Scots issue is that there are no indigeous Scottish types available from anyone (Caley Pug excluded) . I don't see that the Swindonised ROD shouldbe excluded as it's not a varient of another GW type . This means that the smaller and highly standardised GW is more or less level pegging with the much larger and more diverse LNER - implying a much greater level of coverage for GW modellers. Put another way the NER, NBR and GNoSR probably had alarger route mileage than the post 1923 GW .

 

Difficult to source accurate information on this but one source quotes NER route mileage at 1,757 miles while another quotes nearly 5,000 miles (which is clearly incorrect!!!, but might be a misreading of track miles) but whatever the North Eastern was definitely in the top group of the Pre-Group companies - of which the GWR boasted 2,900 route miles. Another source - again somewhat suspect quotes NBR route mileage as 2,739 (possibly a misreading of track miles I would think) while GNoSr route mileage is quoted as 334 which again sounds rather a lot. Whatever - the main fact is that none of those companies boasted a greater route mileage than the Pre-Group GWR let alone the additional mileage it gained at the Grouping.

 

I'm sure the key point for producing LNER locos is the one of which to chose (once you've got past the fancy ECML express classes) and in terms of this year's releases Bachmann have probably made the best initial selection in going for the relatively widespread J11 which migrated beyond its GCR home. But I'm saying that from the Swindon side of the fence (where, as it happens there is still a pretty limited choice among the classes which formed a major part of the GW/WR fleet, i.e. the tank engines).

 

The fact we all have to face is that we are lucky if something is made which does suit our modelling interest and we have become increasingly lucky, and looked after, over the last couple of decades or so and if we support manufacturers hopefully that situation will continue.

[Redditch 34]

Bachmann do need to be creditted for there production of wagons they make up 90% of the rtr frieght stock on my layout which all runs well is detailed and in great variety of types and where new weather items a re better than most of us could dream of doing.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It was their production of the common BR steam era wagons, then the mk1 coaches, that persuaded me that OO was now worth a look, otherwise I would have done 'something' in HO taking a US subject, exploiting the range of choice offered in RTR. Imagine, there was no decent RTR model of the BR sixteen tonner or an RCH seven plank mineral before Bachmann got going. While I enjoy building kits, or even some scratchbuilding, I prefer to do this as 'seasoning' and have the endlessly repeated common vehicles from RTR especialy the types where a couple of hundred are required for an extensive scale of operation. Since then they have plugged away at offering the ordinary, which is very welcome.

 

One big hole, which I fondly imagined might have its turn this year is LMS design freight vehicles. There really doesn't seem to be much interest in them as seen in the wishlists over the years, but they are essential. Likewise some LMS design non-gangwayed stock. Perhaps it is just too rational to expect a range to grow in this way? (Bear in mind my interest is firstly LNER/BR(ER) but the LMS was so large a part of the UK railway scene that you never had to look far for its vehicles, even knocking twenty years after it had ceased to exist.) Presumably all those fine LMS group loco models have made plentiful sales; what are the LMS/LMR enthusiasts using as carriage stock behind the three native types of 2-6-4T now available, and are they not missing the sight of the many LMS design goods vehicles that would be expected in the trains behind the spread of class 3/4/5/6/7/8 F rated goods machines produced in model form?