Bachmann 94xx

[Paul.Uni]

I could be wrong, but didn't Hornby show pictures of 9400 being measured up in Steam in an Engine Shed update a while back, who knows what 2018 could bring..... 

 

It was 5 months after the Bachmann announcement https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/a-researchers-tale/

 

It'll be interesting to see if 'not all projects make it through' caption under the measuring of 9400 applies to the 94XX.

[Rhys Underwood]

It was 5 months after the Bachmann announcement https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/a-researchers-tale/

 

It'll be interesting to see if 'not all projects make it through' caption under the measuring of 9400 applies to the 94XX.

 

It would, although this has never stopped duplication by the two manufacturers with 4900 Hall being a good example.   

[MatthewCarty]

It would, although this has never stopped duplication by the two manufacturers with 4900 Hall being a good example.   

But we still don't have a close to accurate Modified Hall!!

[coachmann]

But we still don't have a close to accurate Modified Hall!!

Well we have, but it is only available to people used to doing a spot of after-modelling using a Brassmaster kit. I agree though that the 4mm/00 hobby needs a pucker Modified Hall. Hornby could do it because the front body retaining screw is further back in the chassis. Below is a modified Modified Bachmann.....

 

Edited December 10, 2017 by coachmann

[Legend]

Given that it seems most sales now derive from the initial run of a new loco, quickly tailing off on second batch etc , it seems to me the first person to market is going to reap the rewards. In these circumstances if Hornby did announce one in the 2018 range they are probably still safe as The Bachmann one still seems a long way off.

[The Johnster]

Well, I have more or less given up on Bachmann ever delivering a 94xx, which is a shame as it would be easy enough for them using the 2251 chassis as a basis.  I am considering the 57xx chassis/Lima body route.  H could easily beat them to the punch and I'd have said it was a good opportunity for Ox but H have absorbed them; I doubt we'll see any new railway releases from them now.

 

But part of me hopes that B are reading some of this stuff and taking notice; a Baccy 94xx would be a good model that ran well and was well finished.  I regard them as a safe pair of hands when it comes to new products.

Edited December 10, 2017 by The Johnster

[tomparryharry]

Well, I have more or less given up on Bachmann ever delivering a 94xx, which is a shame as it would be easy enough for them using the 2251 chassis as a basis.  I am considering the 57xx chassis/Lima body route.  H could easily beat them to the punch and I'd have said it was a good opportunity for Ox but H have absorbed them; I doubt we'll see any new railway releases from them now.

 

But part of me hopes that B are reading some of this stuff and taking notice; a Baccy 94xx would be a good model that ran well and was well finished.  I regard them as a safe pair of hands when it comes to new products.

 

I understand, but slightly disagree.

 

Hornby must have had 'a safe pair of hands' when they did the Peckett model, along with a goodly number of other delectables. Hornby toad, anyone? If Hornby need to 'cut their teeth', they might want to try any number of older models, such as a large prairie, an early 2721, just for starters. Polite encouragement is needed here. If it's a good quality model, it will sell, and sell well.

 

Take your pick, Hornby. Any one of the 3 I've just mentioned will do just fine.

 

Ian.

[OnTheBranchline]

Well we have, but it is only available to people used to doing a spot of after-modelling using a Brassmaster kit. I agree though that the 4mm/00 hobby needs a pucker Modified Hall. Hornby could do it because the front body retaining screw is further back in the chassis. Below is a modified Modified Bachmann.....

 

WEB Modified Hall 1.jpg

WEB Modified Hall 2.jpg

 

Beautiful stuff.

[The Johnster]

I certainly had no wish to imply that Hornby were not a 'safe pair of hands'; my recent models from them are excellent quality, very well detailed, good runners (42xx current chassis), and well finished.  My only 0-6-0 chassis from them is a 2721, which runs well if it clean and in a good mood, but that is hardly a fair representation of their current output.  I would be quite happy with a Hornby 94xx if one beats the Bachmann to the market!

 

There is still lurking at the back of the mortal remains of my mind the perception that Hornby were, until the last few years, not up to the mark that Bachmann had set, and historically were far short of what Bachmann's predecessors were producing.  I have perhaps too long a memory in RTR terms, and the old prejudices die hard...

[phil-b259]

It would, although this has never stopped duplication by the two manufacturers with 4900 Hall being a good example.   

 

However Bachmann pulled plans to do a S15 and the rebuilt Patriot / Royal Scot classes in the past when Hornby said they would be doing them.

 

The odd occasion where direct competition (as opposed to decades old tooling versus a brand new model or, as per the 9F, a low budget version from one manufacturer and a highly detailed one from another) has happened, like the Standard 4MT 4-6-0, both parties have suffered from reduced sales.

 

As such mist manufacturers will shy away from duplicating another efforts - though it may be that with all the delays Bachmann have experienced, in hindsight Hornby may internally be thinking "if only we had known ..."

[MikeParkin65]

I think Bachmann are a safer pair of hands than Hornby precisely because they don't rush to get their products to market. That said the Modified Hall was a very strange episode - I don't really understand how they managed to make such a fundamental mistake and given the gestation time why it wasn't picked up. 

[coachmann]

I think Bachmann are a safer pair of hands than Hornby precisely because they don't rush to get their products to market. That said the Modified Hall was a very strange episode - I don't really understand how they managed to make such a fundamental mistake and given the gestation time why it wasn't picked up. 

The trouble was, the minimum of modifications were made to the loco, for example the poorly positioned DCC plug under the cab, which I expect prevented many people from fitting sound. The body was also a minimalist effort with the old front chassis securing screw taking precedent over a lousy representation of a 'Modified Hall' front. I have no doubt the loco filled a gap for many buyers, but it's also a fair bet no one else will produce a pucker Modified Hall now.

Edited December 11, 2017 by coachmann

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Well, I have more or less given up on Bachmann ever delivering a 94xx... I regard them as a safe pair of hands when it comes to new products (as compared to Hornby).

 Wait long enough and every organisation has its less than stellar moments!

 

If your operation requires a brute of an 0-6-0T, the original maximum weight 0-6-0T designed for UK main line railway service is available from Hornby in the form of a model of Mr Gresley's J50 of 1913, originally for the GNR. It well matches what we have seen from Bachmann in 0-6-0T, in both exterior fidelity to prototype and on-track performance.

 

Hornby might need a little help to see that producing 0-6-0T is a desirable thing, This is the first all-new design 0-6-0T in the Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby progression since the long ago Triang 3F 0-6-0T of the 1950s! Yes, really, with the 0-6-0T only the most common type of UK tank loco, and the first they have done from scratch as a modern standard scale model after all that time. It really needs customers beating down retailer's doors to send H. the message, don't wait another sixty years...

Edited December 11, 2017 by 34theletterbetweenB&D

[The Johnster]

Good point, 34!  But, much as I admire the very sensible J50 design, the best conceived modern loco of it's type ever in the UK IMHO especially with the hopper bunker, and appreciate your attempt to convert me to LNERism, my requirement is for a 94xx as I model a part of South Wales in the 1950s which would have been provided with motive power from Tondu shed, 86F.  This means 2721 (just), 57xx, 8750, 64xx, 94xx, 45xx, 4575, 56xx, 41xx, and 42xx; I will ignore for now the shed's 44xx and 31xx exotica as they were used on the Porthcawl branch fairly specifically.  I am currently short of an 8750, 45xx, both obtainable easily enough when funds are available (I am a poor pensioner, cue violins), and the 94xx; sadly, a J50 will not look right amongst the sheep dotted rain drenched mountains of Cwmdimbath...

 

Hornby have been a bit lax in this regard generally, but are historically connected to 'Princess Elizabeth' and the Jinty.  Their modern output is more than acceptable.

Edited December 11, 2017 by The Johnster

[adb968008]

The trouble was, the minimum of modifications were made to the loco, for example the poorly positioned DCC plug under the cab, which I expect prevented many people from fitting sound. The body was also a minimalist effort with the old front chassis securing screw taking precedent over a lousy representation of a 'Modified Hall' front. I have no doubt the loco filled a gap for many buyers, but it's also a fair bet no one else will produce a pucker Modified Hall now.

What was really wrong with the old one ?

I have both Bachmann (7915) and Replicas (7911), they work fine.

Edited December 11, 2017 by adb968008

[coachmann]

It must be quite difficult for manufacturers to know exactly what will sell.  The 94XX is quite a brute in both size and weight, and is most definitely not yer branch line engine. Only 9400-9409 were  post-war GWR engines, then there was then a gap of three years before construction recommenced.  So the question is, who is going to buy it?  Or is it one of those locos that has so much appeal that everyone will want one?

 

I can bring to mind a lot of other locos that in theory stand a better chance of being a commercial success, but the 94XX might be a relatively inexpensive model to produce if it makes use of an existing chassis. It does happen at times. Personally, I think its dodgy.

[60027Merlin]

I am not a GWR follower, however I notice, that when looking through a friend's latest issue of the Bachmann Collectors Club magazine last week to check on the latest placing stages of the LNER V2 new body tooling, that the 94xx has actually moved from Forthcoming Items (1st. stage) into the Drawing Office (2nd. stage).

 

There is at least some hope for you now.

 

Unfortunately the V2 body is still unmoved languishing in Stage 1 along with the J39 and Unrebuilt Royal Scot ( both for new chassis upgrading) which along with the 94xx have been in the 1st. stage for the last two and a half years!

[adb968008]

It must be quite difficult for manufacturers to know exactly what will sell.  The 94XX is quite a brute in both size and weight, and is most definitely not yer branch line engine. Only 9400-9409 were  post-war GWR engines, then there was then a gap of three years before construction recommenced.  So the question is, who is going to buy it?  Or is it one of those locos that has so much appeal that everyone will want one?

 

I can bring to mind a lot of other locos that in theory stand a better chance of being a commercial success, but the 94XX might be a relatively inexpensive model to produce if it makes use of an existing chassis. It does happen at times. Personally, I think its dodgy.

Your forgetting the preservation factor.

 

9466 has been all over the UK, it’s also been Mainline registered for nigh on 30 years too, it’s also done steam on the Met several times.

 

That’s a lot of exposure to people with happy memories.

 

I’m more able to relate to 9466 due seeing it at several locations, including a Mainline steam trip around Birmingham, Wolverhampton to Cosford and Kidderminster, than the MR 0-4-4t which I had to go figure out online what exactly it was.

 

That said making a model of something no ones seen in 60 years is less likely to get critical complaints than a current one, as there’s fewer people who know it and even fewer with facts to find faults.

[Legend]

Well from the latest Bachmann Times it’s in the CAD stage, so I reckon it’s still pretty far away. I think Hornby could yet steal the day here if their model was under development last year.

 

January 8th should reveal all.

[County of Yorkshire]

Your forgetting the preservation factor.

 

9466 has been all over the UK, it’s also been Mainline registered for nigh on 30 years too, it’s also done steam on the Met several times.

 

That’s a lot of exposure to people with happy memories.

 

I’m more able to relate to 9466 due seeing it at several locations, including a Mainline steam trip around Birmingham, Wolverhampton to Cosford and Kidderminster, than the MR 0-4-4t which I had to go figure out online what exactly it was.

 

That said making a model of something no ones seen in 60 years is less likely to get critical complaints than a current one, as there’s fewer people who know it and even fewer with facts to find faults.

 

Also scope for a NRM/Steam Museum Ltd Ed. with 9400.

 

Given their association with Paddington, I've always had them in that same emblematic bracket that contains the N2 for the LNER at the Cross and the M7 for the SR at Waterloo. I'd buy a least one of the 1947 batch, despite 8 of the first 10 of the class being shedded at OOC first off, and I'm not looking to model the London division...

 

CoY

[The Johnster]

It must be quite difficult for manufacturers to know exactly what will sell.  The 94XX is quite a brute in both size and weight, and is most definitely not yer branch line engine. Only 9400-9409 were  post-war GWR engines, then there was then a gap of three years before construction recommenced.  So the question is, who is going to buy it?  Or is it one of those locos that has so much appeal that everyone will want one?

 

I can bring to mind a lot of other locos that in theory stand a better chance of being a commercial success, but the 94XX might be a relatively inexpensive model to produce if it makes use of an existing chassis. It does happen at times. Personally, I think its dodgy.

 

Not only are you forgetting the preservation factor, but that the most popular single section of the BR steam market is WR steam/diesel crossover with the hydraulics.  94xx is slap in the firing line for this!  It is, by GW standards, an ugly brute and I doubt that it has 'so much appeal that everyone will want one', and and has been pointed out this is a heavy freight loco not a branch 0-6-0, but it is an essential component of any WR layout set from 1951 until the end of steam.

 

It is capable of sitting on the 2251 chassis which is closer to production and would save a lot of development costs.  It should be at least as good a seller as a D95xx.

[coachmann]

Not only are you forgetting the preservation factor, but that the most popular single section of the BR steam market is WR steam/diesel crossover with the hydraulics.  94xx is slap in the firing line for this!  It is, by GW standards, an ugly brute and I doubt that it has 'so much appeal that everyone will want one', and and has been pointed out this is a heavy freight loco not a branch 0-6-0, but it is an essential component of any WR layout set from 1951 until the end of steam.

 

It is capable of sitting on the 2251 chassis which is closer to production and would save a lot of development costs.  It should be at least as good a seller as a D95xx.

I have forgotten nothing. You say the 94XX is capable of sitting on the 2251 chassis?  You need to go away and think about that. You say it is an essential component of any WR layout set from 1961 to the end of steam. Really?  

[tomparryharry]

The GWRCC are standing by. (Great Western Rivet Counters Club. Our motto:- "We aim to measure, a moan is our pleasure"). Rivet counting detector vans south of Carlisle have been put on alert to "move South".

 

Flights of Foam dispersal agent have been flown into Manston and East Midlands airports respectively, being the strategic areas to actively address the froth.

 

Special undercover members of the GWRCC have been 'tipped off' about the likely possibility of spotting 9466, sporting some extra air bags, at or about the frontal & rearwards extremities of the locomotive. Rumours abound of incorrect livery details are as yet, unfounded.

 

Fred the Office Boy has been found, and the coffee machine has been re-filled.

 

S.C. Rooge.

[Dunsignalling]

Not only are you forgetting the preservation factor, but that the most popular single section of the BR steam market is WR steam/diesel crossover with the hydraulics.  94xx is slap in the firing line for this!  It is, by GW standards, an ugly brute and I doubt that it has 'so much appeal that everyone will want one', and and has been pointed out this is a heavy freight loco not a branch 0-6-0, but it is an essential component of any WR layout set from 1951 until the end of steam.

 

It is capable of sitting on the 2251 chassis which is closer to production and would save a lot of development costs.  It should be at least as good a seller as a D95xx.

2251 chassis block with smaller wheels? Recipe for yet another different height for a Bachmann NEM pocket.........

 

John

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...It is capable of sitting on the 2251 chassis which is closer to production and would save a lot of development costs...

 Bachmann were sufficiently good to tell us some years ago that the mechanism is a small component in development cost nowadays. (They have 'boilerplate' mechanism design layouts in CAD is my suspicion, and the tooling to make the parts is then probably largely cut by CAM, lot of economy potential there.)

 

So even though they have the 57xx mechanism layout which is perfect for the 94xx, that doesn't save much. All the visible parts have to be designed and tooled uniquely for the 94xx.