Bachmann 2017 range

[JSpencer]

The N class was one of the first of Bachmann's "Blue Ribbon" releases in the late 90s - along with a totally new Collett Goods 0-6-0 and were of conventional construction. They did however lack a DCC socket until recently - which is more due to the fact that in the late 90s hardly any models had such a provision and the DCC part of the industry was just finding its feet.

 

The two biggest drawbacks of the N are actually the rather over complicated loco - tender draw bar and rather oversized lamp brackets compared to what has been achieved on pretty much every other release from the era. Naturally some may also bemoan the lack of provision of DCC sound - or tender pick ups, but again these features were not considered necessary at the time the N was designed.

 

Also what many posters fail to appreciate that while the N and U looked visually similar, the actual dimensions were different in most key areas - in other word the tooling for the N class cannot be altered to produce a U while still being able to make a N as well. You are basically needing to tool up an entirely new loco - with only the tender being shareable between the two. Bachmann are on record as saying they have considered producing a U from the N tooling but rejected it precisely of theses factors

 

There is also the question of whether Bachmann would actually want to introduce a U given its visual similarity to most casual observers. Yes enthusiasts would appreciate the difference but as has been shown before, far too many modellers seem to forget that Bachmann, etc are running a business and in that enviroment sales potential is not the same thing as people writing on a fourm that the bet "it would sell loads because of X, Y & Z"

Blue ribbon chassis on the N and WD 2-8-0 are more complex versions of what they do now with more expensive motors. The latest N has a DCC socket bug to be honest, there is little chance of fitting a DCC chip there. Then there is, as you say the superbly complex close coupling tender mech.

 

They would certainly have to tool up the entire loco part. The tender couple might lead to new tender parts. The Hornby S15 tender is identical to their N15, except for the running plate level and tender coupling which now uses Hornby's current practice.

 

Given that Bachmann never shred away from redoing entire locos (class 37, 40 and 45 spring to mind) even thrice, doing a U should be in their grasp, and as others have said, the S15 did very well. I will add it was high on the wish list pole.

[grahame]

Generally I disagree with someone saying that 3rd rivet on the left is 1/8 inch too small etc. Or should be a thou further over!l

I haven't heard comments like that or read them in posts. Generally I find that critical comment about models is about the overall character and look of them and how a misshapen or inaccurate part contributes to a lack of fidelity. Comments about rivets are usually made by people as a disparaging slight on those they name-call 'rivet counters'.

 

G.

[railroadbill]

Re the Bachmann N class.

 

I've got 2 N class, one with the 4MT type chimney and one with the original fatter chimney, that also has a tender with turned in side sheets. The 4MT chimney went on locos with renewed or partially renewed frames (plus outside steam pipes), but the  Bachmann model represents a loco that just had  revised draughting.  So there have been a few detail differences made.  

A new frame loco would be nice, but the differences would be rather subtle to see.

[Steamport Southport]

The detail differences are what the locos went through during their lives. To be honest Bachmanns N shows similar detailed differences.

 

The problem is a lot of people are just asking for a U for the sake of asking for one without considering the differences. If they do produce one and get it wrong then imagine the uproar.

 

You've just got to look at the Oxford Dean Goods and Hattons/DJM 14XX threads to see that many people won't put up with models that "look right" anymore.

 

 

Personally I would wait until the N was no longer up to scratch and start again with a brand new N and U, which are made in a way to change detail parts as much as possible.

 

 

Jason

[farren]

A nice Austin 7 would be a very welcome anocment. Along with the Annual Hope for the MR 0-4-4t.

 

Maybe not a original wish but it's mine.

[Roy Langridge]

Dear Mr Bachmann (Santa's real name)

 

Please may I have:

A 3H in blue/grey

A 4EPB in blue/grey and blue

A 508 in blue/grey

And a 4REP

 

I have been a good boy.

 

Thank you,

 

Roy

[robertcwp]

Dear Mr Bachmann's (Santa's real name)

 

Please may I have:

A 3H in blue/grey

A 4EPB in blue/grey and blue

A 508 in blue/grey

And a 4REP

 

I have been a good boy.

 

Thank you,

 

Roy

A 3H in any livery would be good and much more useful than a 2H.

[Mr chapman]

Obviously your not a GWR man then? To those of us who are, we can spot every different class a mile away by their differences. If you think the GWR locos look the same, try differentiating between the Original Merchant Navy, Battle of Britain, and West Country, and then of course the rebuilt versions all look the same too.

I know, I know It's all a bit of regional muck throwing. It's not your fault Swindon didn't have much imagination For the record the WC/BOB ARE the same engine. Just depends on the name what "class" it is. I do like GWR engines. But with a hall, castle, Grange etc I was simply pointing out that two similar looking models isn't unreasonable. Now... Back to your overly pretty branch line with you!

[Mr chapman]

The problem is a lot of people are just asking for a U for the sake of asking for one without considering the differences. If they do produce one and get it wrong then imagine the uproar.

 

You've just got to look at the Oxford Dean Goods and Hattons/DJM 14XX threads to see that many people won't put up with models that "look right" anymore.

 

 

Personally I would wait until the N was no longer up to scratch and start again with a brand new N and U, which are made in a way to change detail parts as much as possible.

 

 

Jason

The thing is... Do you really HAVE to produce 50 variations? How about ONE spot on model. Available in SR green through to BR late crest. And here's the kicker... Just keep it in your range for a while. With a quality base model available surely people can do some modelling and adapt it to other identities or variants. People who just want a U get what they want.

[Roy Langridge]

The thing is... Do you really HAVE to produce 50 variations? How about ONE spot on model. Available in SR green through to BR late crest. And here's the kicker... Just keep it in your range for a while. With a quality base model available surely people can do some modelling and adapt it to other identities or variants. People who just want a U get what they want.

The problem is that if your base model only matches a very small number of real locos your releases are limited. Yes modellers can change them, but many people will not wish to do so and you have very much restricted your market. Payback may therefore be limited, putting up the unit price, restricting your market...

 

Roy

[Mr chapman]

The problem is that if your base model only matches a very small number of real locos your releases are limited. Yes modellers can change them, but many people will not wish to do so and you have very much restricted your market. Payback may therefore be limited, putting up the unit price, restricting your market...

 

Roy

But if you just want a rtr U class then surely it doesn't matter what particular running number it is? If you pick the longest running loco that ran in one form then you could tool for that loco only. I don't see many people asking for a new kit for a U class. That would keep me happy. But at the end of the day I'm one of those modellers that does this for fun Some might say that's the wrong way

[Roy Langridge]

But if you just want a rtr U class then surely it doesn't matter what particular running number it is? If you pick the longest running loco that ran in one form then you could tool for that loco only. I don't see many people asking for a new kit for a U class. That would keep me happy. But at the end of the day I'm one of those modellers that does this for fun Some might say that's the wrong way

I doubt that any manufacturer would recoup tooling costs, let alone make a profit, taking such an approach.

 

Roy

[farren]

Why? You can always use transfers

[Roy Langridge]

Why? You can always use transfers

If that was in reply to my post, then because the details would not be right for just renumbering.

 

Roy

[Steamport Southport]

If you're not bothered with the details of a U class being correct then why not just use a N class?

 

 

 

Jason

[Dunsignalling]

There are more Us in preservation than Ns. It could share a lot. The problem is the N is too recent to be brought up Bachmann's latest chassis standard yet too old to tool up the missing parts to do a U.

The N (which was a fairly uniform class before BR started messing them about) and the U (which had always been anything but) only look similar, the dimensions of various parts actually vary quite widely. The more you look, the more differences you find.

 

I suspect that altering some of the existing N tooling to make a U would be more difficult than starting afresh. The cast running plate, without splashers, would be much easier to replace than modify to include them, but which width of U would they pick? Much else in the N wouldn't be suitable either; even where parts were common, the 6-inch difference in the driving wheels on the prototypes meant that they didn't necessarily line up the same. The process would also change the old tooling sufficiently to make the production of further Ns impossible. 

 

All in all, the sort of double whammy best avoided.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

If you're not bothered with the details of a U class being correct then why not just use a N class?

 

 

 

Jason

Why not indeed. In my youth, I had a Tri-ang Hornby J83, tweaked a bit, sprayed matt black and numbered as an Adams G6 - purely because I could afford a J83 but not the Wills kit for a G6.

 

The two classes look similar in much the same way as a U resembles an N but what the third form me considered acceptable is something a modern manufacturer would get crucified for.

 

John

[wombatofludham]

Guys, whilst you Southerners decide quite which letter of the alphabetti spaghetti that seems to be Southern loco classes you prefer, just be careful we modernisers don't come in and gazump any slot you are bidding for with our request for a loco wearing a coathanger on the roof...

[Dunsignalling]

Guys, whilst you Southerners decide quite which letter of the alphabetti spaghetti that seems to be Southern loco classes you prefer, just be careful we modernisers don't come in and gazump any slot you are bidding for with our request for a loco wearing a coathanger on the roof...

Would that be one coathanger or two.............

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a U or several but not a half baked approximation that destroyed the tooling for one of Bachmann's most consistent selling locos in the process.

 

John

[Steamport Southport]

That's twice today in this thread that I've been called a Southerner.

 

 

I think I need a lie down in a room of Blackberry Black.

 

 

 

 

 

Jason

[wombatofludham]

I think I need a lie down in a room of Blackberry Black.

 

 

 

 

 

Jason

 

A sensible colour.  All steam locos should be black or red.  Don't understand this obsession with green.

[Roy Langridge]

A sensible colour. All steam locos should be black or red. Don't understand this obsession with green.

Would that be black with sunshine lettering? ;-)

[sandwich station]

A sensible colour.  All steam locos should be black or red.  Don't understand this obsession with green.

 

5 or so blue ones are ok as well.

[Mr chapman]

I doubt that any manufacturer would recoup tooling costs, let alone make a profit, taking such an approach.

 

Roy

Why? If they make one set of tooling and produce say 1000 locos, surely that's more cost effective that four sets of tooling producing 250 of each. It's nice to have several variations of a particular class but not really necessary for a rtr model. One quality model is better than nothing. Take the SLW class 24 for example. Let's say they produced one version, the longest running loco in one condition, and sold it in green and blue. Would that be a rubbish model because only one version was available? Hell no!

Perhaps if they tooled for one loco and kept it in the range for a couple of years then the cost would be covered. There's no law that says a model may only carry a livery for one catalogue.

As my limited understanding goes. Tooling costs X. Sell locos till X is covered. Continue to sell locos to make a profit.

[Forester]

The N (which was a fairly uniform class before BR started messing them about) and the U (which had always been anything but) only look similar, the dimensions of various parts actually vary quite widely. The more you look, the more differences you find.

 

I suspect that altering some of the existing N tooling to make a U would be more difficult than starting afresh. The cast running plate, without splashers, would be much easier to replace than modify to include them, but which width of U would they pick? Much else in the N wouldn't be suitable either; even where parts were common, the 6-inch difference in the driving wheels on the prototypes meant that they didn't necessarily line up the same. The process would also change the old tooling sufficiently to make the production of further Ns impossible. 

 

All in all, the sort of double whammy best avoided.

 

John

 

All this was said about the Unrebuilt Merchant Navy but Hornby did it anyway.

 

We need a U to complement the N but in my view the best bet would be to do the U1, which is an interesting and unusual version of the U and wouldn't compete with the current N, which a standard U might.