Bachmann 2017 range

[davidw]

How about portholes and Thompsons in maroon?

[Black 5 Bear]

I'm just pleased that we will see the Stanier Mogul released (fingers crossed) in the early part of 2017.

[LaGrange]

PIA/KPA please given Bachmann already make most of the necessary parts http://www.ltsv.com/w_profile_054.php

[Hilux5972]

I am hoping that finally we get an newly tooled GWR Manor Class. The old one is far beyond decent for the type of models we get today. Along with the 43xx, these are crying out for replacement. Although to be honest I'd prefer Hornby to do the Manor and then they will have almost all the GWR 4-6-0 stable in their range. Fingers can be crossed.

[sp1]

I am hoping that finally we get an newly tooled GWR Manor Class. The old one is far beyond decent for the type of models we get today. Along with the 43xx, these are crying out for replacement. Although to be honest I'd prefer Hornby to do the Manor and then they will have almost all the GWR 4-6-0 stable in their range. Fingers can be crossed.

But if Hornby do it it will be in that horrible shade of green......

[Hilux5972]

But if Hornby do it it will be in that horrible shade of green......

I could live with that if it's up to the standard of their Castle and King.

[Adrock]

I am hoping that finally we get an newly tooled GWR Manor Class. The old one is far beyond decent for the type of models we get today. Along with the 43xx, these are crying out for replacement. Although to be honest I'd prefer Hornby to do the Manor and then they will have almost all the GWR 4-6-0 stable in their range. Fingers can be crossed.

I completely agree with this - surely the time is right to retool both the Manor and the 43xx now? They share a fair few components too. These are my only remaining split chassis locos (or non-DCC chassis locos actually) and are really kept only for display now as a result.

[south_tyne]

I don't think there's been any news yet but, just in case I have missed something, has there been any details about timescale for the reworked J72 yet? I imagine it's still a 'TBA', a long way in the future.

 

Cheers

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...surely the time is right to retool both the Manor and the 43xx now? ...

...has there been any details about timescale for the reworked J72 yet?...

 There are also the Nelson, J39 and class 04 that await renewal from split chassis form, and the V2 is slated to get a 'current standard' body since the mechanism was renewed; also the first of the current run of split chassis renewals which was the Jubilee got a new body, but the announced sloping throatplate boiler variant has yet to appear. For whatever reasons Bachmann may have, this process hasn't run that briskly since the initial announcement of intent to replace all the split chassis with DCC ready mechanisms, made back in 2007.

[Mr chapman]

Sprung centre axles would be nice. Just took a wrenn apart and they managed it... Tender pick ups would be nice to if its not too much trouble Mr Bachmann.

[01001]

Reading the new Bachmann collectors club magazine, the launch of next years models will take place on Sunday 8th January 2017 and not the usual date of March.

 

Additionally, the new Bachmann catalogue will be released at the same time.

 

I've thought for a while that Hornby have stolen a march on Bachmann, all the things that went wrong with "Red box" they have subsequently put right, leaving the "Blue box" falling behind. Maybe Bachmann are going to correct this for 2017.

 

Maybe those GWR toplights are being manufactured as we speak LOL

If thay do. buy the time there are on sale thay will about a £100 each 'the whay things are going !

[Dunsignalling]

I completely agree with this - surely the time is right to retool both the Manor and the 43xx now? They share a fair few components too. These are my only remaining split chassis locos (or non-DCC chassis locos actually) and are really kept only for display now as a result.

I'm not sure if the GWR Mogul and Manor will still be on the list for a chassis-only upgrade as both have been out of production for a good few years now. The mouldings do rather scream out "1980s" and the mogul always did have "dimensional issues". Hornby could get away with doing it by putting them into their Railroad range but Bachmann have no such option. 

 

Does the process remain a good strategy, anyway? Bachmann has taken a fair amount of stick over "doing half a job" on the V2 and Ivatt tank with the latter being widely regarded as having emerged at a price more commensurate with a completely new model. The much superior Standard 3 tank is readily obtainable cheaper.

 

I also think that, if Bachmann were bothered about the Lord Nelson, they would have addressed the matter long ago in order to beef up their numerically woeful range of Southern locos. My feeling is that Hornby may finally react to the draught that has long been blowing through this particular open goal and we'll soon see one in a red box. A clash with the MN in 2017 might not be wise but it would make a damn good follow-up for 2018.

 

If Bachmann are smart, they will do a comprehensive job on the GW Mogul family before somebody else does and if it was my decision I'd invert what I predict for the LN and go for the long-overdue 21st century-spec Large Prairie.  

 

John

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Sprung centre axles would be nice...

 When Bachmann commenced their 'Blue Riband' introductions, the steamers had a sprung driven axle - or even two in the case of the WD 2-8-0 - with the expected gain in pick up reliability. (Tender pick ups with their dragginess if achieved using wipers, are really not required if the loco has springing on driven wheels - that's  my opinion.) Sadly they didn't get any credit for this very welcome feature, and it has slowly ceased to regularly appear on their product. The last introduction with it was the Peppercorn A2 I believe.

[luke_stevens]

New DCC compatible chassis for the Lord Nelson?

[Adrock]

I'm not sure if the GWR Mogul and Manor will still be on the list for a chassis-only upgrade as both have been out of production for a good few years now. The mouldings do rather scream out "1980s" and the mogul always did have "dimensional issues". Hornby could get away with doing it by putting them into their Railroad range but Bachmann have no such option.

 

Does the process remain a good strategy, anyway? Bachmann has taken a fair amount of stick over "doing half a job" on the V2 and Ivatt tank with the latter being widely regarded as having emerged at a price more commensurate with a completely new model. The much superior Standard 3 tank is readily obtainable cheaper.

 

I also think that, if Bachmann were bothered about the Lord Nelson, they would have addressed the matter long ago in order to beef up their numerically woeful range of Southern locos. My feeling is that Hornby may finally react to the draught that has long been blowing through this particular open goal and we'll soon see one in a red box. A clash with the MN in 2017 might not be wise but it would make a damn good follow-up for 2018.

 

If Bachmann are smart, they will do a comprehensive job on the GW Mogul family before somebody else does and if it was my decision I'd invert what I predict for the LN and go for the long-overdue 21st century-spec Large Prairie.

 

John

Hi,

 

Not sure why you thought I meant a chassis upgrade only. I suggested the locos be retooled - i.e. completely new.

[Dunsignalling]

Hi,

 

Not sure why you thought I meant a chassis upgrade only. I suggested the locos be retooled - i.e. completely new.

Simply because Bachmann have never yet done anything more to a prototype that's already been in their range.

 

(Sorry, forgot the Modified Hall but I think they probably want to, as well.) 

 

Unless they adopt a new policy, it seems the term "Completely New" has to include the subject.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

New DCC compatible chassis for the Lord Nelson?

Not without a new body to post-1980 standards to sit on it, thanks. 

 

John

[Butler Henderson]

 Bachmann has taken a fair amount of stick over "doing half a job" on the V2 and Ivatt tank with the latter being widely regarded as having emerged at a price more commensurate with a completely new model. The much superior Standard 3 tank is readily obtainable cheaper.

Yet for all the critical comments on the Ivatt no retailer appears to have seen a need to chop their prices to get stock shifting.

[Dunsignalling]

Yet for all the critical comments on the Ivatt no retailer appears to have seen a need to chop their prices to get stock shifting.

I've bought one as a stop-gap while I build new chassis for two of my old ones.

 

My original intention was to replace all three with new but the acquisition of a couple of unbuilt chassis kits at good prices has undercut Bachmann. 

 

John

[robertcwp]

Simply because Bachmann have never yet done anything more to a prototype that's already been in their range.

 

(Sorry, forgot the Modified Hall but I think they probably want to, as well.) 

 

Unless they adopt a new policy, it seems the term "Completely New" has to include the subject.

 

John

Bachmann did a new Jubilee too and are doing a new body for the V2 to go on their improved chassis.

[Dunsignalling]

Bachmann did a new Jubilee too and are doing a new body for the V2 to go on their improved chassis.

 

It appears Bachmann listen some of the time....................

 

I'd heard about the subsequent addition of the body for the next bite at the V2 but have to admit the Jubilee passed me by unnoticed.

 

The fact remains that nearly all the upgrades to older Bachmann models have been limited to making a DCC friendly chassis. 

 

Across the OO spectrum, there are shrinking numbers of available "everyday" prototypes not already produced, which has led to coverage of some fairly esoteric classes.

 

Some mainstream locos previously offered by Bachmann have been off the market for so long that it would hardly qualify as duplication if others were tempted. My Ivatt tanks were pretty much worn out before Bachmann did anything and I imagine there will be plenty of (even older) GWR moguls and Manors in equal need of replacement.

 

The important question is, will Bachmann get their finger out or leave the way open for others?

 

John

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Bachmann did a new Jubilee too and are doing a new body for the V2 to go on their improved chassis.

 And the Hall as already mentioned. Which suggests to me that it is only the bigger more popular types that win sufficient sales to make this upgrade investment really worthwhile. (Hornby aren't showing any inclination to retool their older smaller types in a hurry, the N2, 61xx, Dean goods, L&Y pug, J94 and Terrier soldier on.)

 

I have a feeling that Bachmann might be better served by dropping the split chassis renewals programme, and going for all new subjects never previously available RTR. I'd particularly cite the J72 as worth ignoring: light locos tend to last best in split chassis form, and it always was a good model considered as a body moulding; and there must be a zillion cheap s/h examples available. Tool up some other small tankie in C, F, G, J or N instead from within the LNER group, there's a dozen common types to choose from that have never had a RTR model; and any of them will probably outperform the J72 at retail.

[phil-b259]

It appears Bachmann listen some of the time....................

 

I'd heard about the subsequent addition of the body for the next bite at the V2 but have to admit the Jubilee passed me by unnoticed.

 

The fact remains that nearly all the upgrades to older Bachmann models have been limited to making a DCC friendly chassis. 

 

Across the OO spectrum, there are shrinking numbers of available "everyday" prototypes not already produced, which has led to coverage of some fairly esoteric classes.

 

Some mainstream locos previously offered by Bachmann have been off the market for so long that it would hardly qualify as duplication if others were tempted. My Ivatt tanks were pretty much worn out before Bachmann did anything and I imagine there will be plenty of (even older) GWR moguls and Manors in equal need of replacement.

 

The important question is, will Bachmann get their finger out or leave the way open for others?

 

John

 

The Jubilee was what caused Bachmann to go down the 'Chasis only' revamps in to first place.

 

In short, lots of modellers were very vocal about the perceived inadequacies with the previous Mainline body. As such Bachmann retooled both the body and chassis - however in contrast to all the noise created before release, sales of the new Jubilee model were actually pretty disappointing. Therefore Bachmann concluded it wasn't financially viable to do the same with the likes of the V2 etc and they would only upgrade the chassis.

 

Given Bachmann are a business - not a charity, and must respond to market realities rather than frothing and hype, their chassis only upgrade plan is a perfectly reasonable response, particularly given the production difficulties they have experienced of late.

 

As such all those calling for a totally new manor or 43xx should  be aware that having been caught out once by the Jubilee, Bachman are hardly going to be in a rush for history to repeat itself and no amount of frothing will change that.

[brushman47544]

The Jubilee was what caused Bachmann to go down the 'Chasis only' revamps in to first place.

 

In short, lots of modellers were very vocal about the perceived inadequacies with the previous Mainline body. As such Bachmann retooled both the body and chassis - however in contrast to all the noise created before release, sales of the new Jubilee model were actually pretty disappointing. Therefore Bachmann concluded it wasn't financially viable to do the same with the likes of the V2 etc and they would only upgrade the chassis.

 

Given Bachmann are a business - not a charity, and must respond to market realities rather than frothing and hype, their chassis only upgrade plan is a perfectly reasonable response, particularly given the production difficulties they have experienced of late.

 

As such all those calling for a totally new manor or 43xx should be aware that having been caught out once by the Jubilee, Bachman are hardly going to be in a rush for history to repeat itself and no amount of frothing will change that.

Not just the Jubillee, the 75xxx was also completely retooled and had disappointing sales although that had to compete with the Hornby version as well.

[Dunsignalling]

The Jubilee was what caused Bachmann to go down the 'Chasis only' revamps in to first place.

 

In short, lots of modellers were very vocal about the perceived inadequacies with the previous Mainline body. As such Bachmann retooled both the body and chassis - however in contrast to all the noise created before release, sales of the new Jubilee model were actually pretty disappointing. Therefore Bachmann concluded it wasn't financially viable to do the same with the likes of the V2 etc and they would only upgrade the chassis.

 

Given Bachmann are a business - not a charity, and must respond to market realities rather than frothing and hype, their chassis only upgrade plan is a perfectly reasonable response, particularly given the production difficulties they have experienced of late.

 

As such all those calling for a totally new manor or 43xx should  be aware that having been caught out once by the Jubilee, Bachman are hardly going to be in a rush for history to repeat itself and no amount of frothing will change that.

Fair enough, they seem to have got themselves and us thoroughly confused and it seems best that we ignore anything that has gone before. I must admit, I forgot about the BR4 4-6-0 revamp, rather odd considering that I bought two of them!

 

The 43xx and Manor mouldings were good in their time but nowadays look more comparable with "Railroad" products than current Hornby "main range" items.

 

If all we are likely to get from Bachmann is old body, new chassis at a quite elevated price point, we'd best hope somebody else takes them on.

 

John