Bachmann retooled Modified Hall 2012 - What can we expect?

[coachmann]

Part of 'What can we expect' concerns running qualities. I wonder if anyone has a Railroad Hall to compare with a Bachmann Modified Hall? If so does the Bachmann loco start off slowly and run smoothly slowly on DC?

[Mallard60022]

I havent got a Modified 'Hall', so I have used the LMS 8F to show the marked difference that Bachmann failed to incorporate. On the right is a pre-war 'Hall'. It has a continuous curved running plate right across from left to right of engine. The Modified 'Hall' was built with plate frames showing above the running plate as per the LMS 8F and the part between the frames under the smokebox was as per the 8F, a kind of boxed-off deep ravine as far as the smokebox saddle! I hope this explains things better....

 

WEB Hall difference.jpg

Thanks Coach. That's really helpful. Not too difficult to fabricate the plate frames, but maybe not so easy to create the recess back to the saddle? Would I bother? Not sure as I don't really need Halls except for 'diversions' and I could use the early build version for the one or two trains required.

P

 

Edit having seen post #286

Edited May 17, 2015 by Mallard60022

[Froxfield2012]

I think I have posted these two pictures before but they clearly show the front end differences of the two types of Hall.

 

[G-BOAF]

So its the vertical flat recessed section between the frames under the smokebox and is not vertical/flat?

[Horsetan]

So its the vertical flat recessed section between the frames under the smokebox and is not vertical/flat?

That's about the size of it.

[G-BOAF]

Surely the simple answer would have been for Bachmann to design the chassis for the modified hall, with the extra 'metal' below the running plate made up with the running plate moulding on the Collett hall?

 

Would still like a picture to see for myself.

Edited May 17, 2015 by G-BOAF

[SDJR7F88]

Hope these two scene shots help. One showing the front end. Got a full video review coming soon.

[Ian Hargrave]

Surely the simple answer would have been for Bachmann to design the chassis for the modified hall, with the extra 'metal' below the running plate made up with the running plate moulding on the Collett hall?

 

Would still like a picture to see for myself.

That in itself would have meant investment in new tooling which it seems Bachmann did not feel economically worthwhile.Hence this belt and braces model.It has been discussed at length earlier in this topic.Excellent images have recently been posted to amply illustrate the issue which should suffice to help you making a decision.

[G-BOAF]

That in itself would have meant investment in new tooling which it seems Bachmann did not feel economically worthwhile.Hence this belt and braces model.It has been discussed at length earlier in this topic.Excellent images have recently been posted to amply illustrate the issue which should suffice to help you making a decision.

 

Hope these two scene shots help. One showing the front end. Got a full video review coming soon.

 

Thanks, exactly the pic I wanted.

Oh dear - a compromise too far me thinks... and the error is even detailed with lubrication pot etc... looking even more like a Collett hall

 

That in itself would have meant investment in new tooling which it seems Bachmann did not feel economically worthwhile.Hence this belt and braces model.It has been discussed at length earlier in this topic.Excellent images have recently been posted to amply illustrate the issue which should suffice to help you making a decision.

So, Bachmann tooled up the hall some years ago, a smashing model. When retooling the modified hall, they simply put a new body over the hall chassis. OK. I presume it would have been possible to modify the existing hall tooling though to accommodate both models. Or, given that it has been Bachmann's policy to 'update' (retool) split chassis locos, why wasn't thought given to tooling flexibility when the Hall was tooled up?

 

Other than that error, looks a smashing model and a credit to Bachmann's design and manufacturing. But with the error, one I will be avoiding, and watching subsequent batches with interest.

[Mallard60022]

I bet Coachman could adapt that front end if he really needed a Mod Hall.

Surely a drill, file and some plasticard will be enough and also to make the plate front for the bogie?

Can I afford to try..........................nope!

p

[locoholic]

Has there been any official comment from Bachmann regarding the error?

[coachmann]

I bet Coachman could adapt that front end if he really needed a Mod Hall.

Surely a drill, file and some plasticard will be enough and also to make the plate front for the bogie?

Can I afford to try..........................nope!

I am going off what Editor Chris Leigh said about the front chassis securing screw or nut being right where you dont want it. 

[Brian Kirby]

Hi Everyone,

    I bought a green 6959 yesterday, overall i'm impressed and pleased with the model, nice shade of green, neat accurate lining, just this problem of the front footplate? I can't put it back in it's box without sorting this, so here's my effort at correcting the fault. The first two pics reveal the problem, the centre section of footplate, between the frames and below the smokebox, has perpetuated the older 49xx arrangement, whereas for the 6959 sub-class the centre of the footplate should be flat from the buffer beam to the smokebox saddle. This "Modified Hall" will be further modified.

 

 

Here's the body removed from the chassis (three screws).

 

 

Rather like the new Hornby 42xx and 72xx, and presumably the earlier Bachmann 49xx, the footplate can be unscrewed from the boiler/firebox/cab (another three screws), perhaps this is so Bachmann can re-use the same boiler on the different footplates? If you try this, be aware that the cab handrails come away with the footplate. More to follow.

                            Cheers, Brian.

 

[PMP99]

So its the vertical flat recessed section between the frames under the smokebox and is not vertical/flat?

 

Post cancelled - covered by Coachman in 279

Edited May 17, 2015 by PMP99

[Brian Kirby]

I've scored a line marking the position of the front of the smokebox saddle, as a guide for cutting. Incidentally, the saddle is plastic and comes out easily. I did start a pilot hole next to the line, then realized it was right above the body screw socket, so i had to start again.

 

 

The chassis needs cutting down at the front, i'll probably have to remove the cylinders for safety.

 

 

Having drilled a new pilot hole to accept a blade, it's time to get the serious tools out, the piercing saw will now cut out the incorrect section of metal, as far forward as where the footplate is already flat. As Chris and Larry have already touched on, there's a snag where we lose the front screw socket, which holds the body to the chassis. I reckon i can get around this by slotting the front of the chassis to lock in securely behind the buffer beam, just relying on the two rear screws for body fixing.

 

 

Here's the offending section removed, just needs a bit of tidying up.

 

 

Here's the other problem, the re-fitted chassis will need that curved section flattened, a job for the junior hacksaw, then finish off with a coarse file.      BK

 

Edited May 18, 2015 by Brian Kirby

[Ian Hargrave]

Has there been any official comment from Bachmann regarding the error?

No.....why should there be ? The first effort was sent back to China for remedy a year ago.This is the result.

[Horsetan]

O

....The first effort was sent back to China for remedy a year ago.This is the result.

Of that flawed first effort, how many were actually returned? Are there still some out there in circulation?

[Brian Kirby]

Quite a few were sold and not all were returned with the recall, there was a secondhand one for sale the other day.   BK

[Ian Hargrave]

O

 

Of that flawed first effort, how many were actually returned? Are there still some out there in circulation?

Possible to find one occasionally cropping up on e bay .Why anyone should want one is beyond me but apparently they have a curiosity interest.I think 6922...,wrong loco anyway,,,.was offered as an example? The confusion continues.

Put it simply this way...unless another manufacturer takes up the cause of a genuine Modified Hall,I am unlikely to see one in my lifetime.

[Horsetan]

...unless another manufacturer takes up the cause of a genuine Modified Hall,I am unlikely to see one in my lifetime.

Your best bet lies in the kit sector, namely the ex-NuCast example now under the wing of South Eastern Finecast. Best give Dave Ellis a ring......

[ExPatBrit]

Possible to find one occasionally cropping up on e bay .Why anyone should want one is beyond me but apparently they have a curiosity interest.I think 6922...,wrong loco anyway,,,.was offered as an example? The confusion continues.

Put it simply this way...unless another manufacturer takes up the cause of a genuine Modified Hall,I am unlikely to see one in my lifetime.

I've got to admit, I'm confused, I thought the recall was for the Collett Hall not the Modified Hall. The Collett was missing the fire iron tunnel and had the wrong outside steam pipes, hence the recall. This modified Hall is a new or modified body on the Collett Hall chassis, to replace the original split frame chassis. Am I wrong?

[Horsetan]

I've got to admit, I'm confused, I thought the recall was for the Collett Hall not the Modified Hall. The Collett was missing the fire iron tunnel and had the wrong outside steam pipes, hence the recall. This modified Hall is a new or modified body on the Collett Hall chassis, to replace the original split frame chassis. Am I wrong?

Not so much wrong, as confused.

[TrevorP1]

Not so much wrong, as confused.

I'm thinking Bachmann are confused I wonder how many more permutations of the Hall we can get before we get one that's correct!

[Brian Kirby]

Hi there ExPatBrit,

     The 6959 model from 25 years ago sold by Replica (but made by Bachmann) was a different body moulding, it had the correct front end arrangement, but an old-style Mainline-type chassis. About 15 to 20 years ago Bachmann re-used this 6959 body on one of their split-axle chassis. Bachmann released their 49xx Hall over five years ago, with a modern standard chassis and was well received with no major issues. A couple of years ago Bachmann released their new 6959 Modified Hall, but as is well documented, had several design and detail issues, which led to a product recall, after many models had already been sold. You can still make a decent model out of one of these, as long as you're prepared to make a few mods, although of course some people are understandably apprehensive of cutting into their prized models. The brand new revised models still unbelievably have the same footplate mistake. So much for progress.

      The Nu-Cast 6959 Modified Hall kit was released over twenty years ago, but is better than most, as are most of the Wills/SE Finecast range. However there's plenty of work involved, plus it will cost more with added parts and will take up a lot more precious time. Bear-in-mind that whitemetal casting can be a hit and miss affair, guessing the correct rate of shrinkage is a science, so the whitemetal body may not be as accurate dimensionally as the higher spec. Bachmann metal body.     

                                                                       Cheers, Brian.

[The Stationmaster]

I've got to admit, I'm confused, I thought the recall was for the Collett Hall not the Modified Hall. The Collett was missing the fire iron tunnel and had the wrong outside steam pipes, hence the recall. This modified Hall is a new or modified body on the Collett Hall chassis, to replace the original split frame chassis. Am I wrong?

Bachmann released both a new version of the 'Hall' and a new version of the 'Modified Hall' but 'Model Rail' quickly sussed problems which led to Bachmann recalling both new models although, as others have noted, some retailers had sold their stock (initial stock?) before they were told of the recall.

 

Bachmann have now reissued the further modified 'Modified Hall' - with the front footplate error but are only releasing the now modified 'Hall' in a set, which is a pity as it looks pretty good; presumably they didn't want to go into direct competition with the new Hornby Railroad/Railroad+ model of a 'Hall'?