Bachmann announce NEW Class 47

[GD]

3 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Looking at eBay images , 435 is modelled with 2 part serck, dominos and what appears to be a round boiler port ( spanner ?),

Depends what era you are looking at , as I believe they all had the 3 part grills being built and were all converted , 435 I reckon dates from about 1977-1981

 

edit. It seems 525 was a swap directly from 0000 headcodes to opaque markers at or before 1977, so you’d have  an issue there

 

 

How about a bit of modelling?

I purchased another 47012 with sound for an unbelievable price and changed the headcodes. I bought two 47832 bodies for £15 each and cut out the headcodes from the no 1 ends.

 

[Gary H]

3 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

What amazes me about threads such as this is how pedantic today's modellers are about small details on locos yet can't be bothered to close-couple coaching stock.

Having come across from a H0 North American based layout back (again) to British practise, I'm having a hard time dealing with tension locks and whole world of **** that brings!!

I've been spoilt by lovely scale head Kadee knuckle couplers and the associated ease of use and close coupling for the last 15 years and very much want to recreate that in 00.

I am glad to be back though but its certainly a challenge to reach the same degree of finesse whilst also getting it all to actually run reliably! 

I have some rakes of wagons semi-permanently coupled using the 3 link instanter and plan on a more suitable method for coaching stock eventually with a couple of options being pondered.

For the ease of cost and time, I've opted to live with the rail spacing issue for now.😉

[Ian J.]

NMRA standards are pretty good at making sure everything runs pretty well. Even Peco have worked with them for their code 83 trackwork, as I have recently (to my chagrin) found out (check rail gaps). UK outline OO just doesn't have a proper standard that is fully agreed upon and all in the industry work to, so we end up with sloppy running that can only be corrected with a fair bit of time and patience. The advantage of such effort though is you can choose how far to apply your effort and get the standard you want (presuming you're not interested in running your stock on others' layouts or their stock on yours).

[Gary H]

1 hour ago, GD said:

And seem happy to run on narrow gauge track

Its a bugbear of mine to be honest. 20 years ago I dabbled in EM but was continuously frustrated with the availability and cost of wheels and endless hours building track.

I can see why many shy away from such things and are just happy with the compromise.

I looked around the net a few months ago and see the cost for such things has doubled, personally, there's no way I could entertain EM or P4 nowadays.

[TomScrut]

2 hours ago, GD said:

And seem happy to run on narrow gauge track

 

Does that mean we should just ignore all other details?

 

37 minutes ago, Gary H said:

Its a bugbear of mine to be honest. 20 years ago I dabbled in EM but was continuously frustrated with the availability and cost of wheels and endless hours building track.

I can see why many shy away from such things and are just happy with the compromise.

I looked around the net a few months ago and see the cost for such things has doubled, personally, there's no way I could entertain EM or P4 nowadays.

 

I think that it is a compromise the majority accepts knowing that whilst is now technically a unnecessary compromise, in reality correcting the problem in RTR form would be commercially difficult or even nigh on impossible.

 

There are three directions it could go, my money is on the third one!

 

Go to HO scale:

 

Pros:

1. All stock can run on existing layouts with existing stock meaning collections can be separately run or blended together to allow a gradual change to the new normal. Only issue is the scales won't quite match. If desired, scenery etc would need some adjustment.

2. No significant investment in track needed from a manufacturing perspective.

3. Doesn't require any additional kit or installing from the consumer so possibly most likely approach to work.

4. Gives us access to the rest of the world's products for HO that may work in British HO.

 

Cons:

1. Requires risk from manufacturers to tool up new stock for this scale and hope people buy them.

2. Would probably mean stock is more expensive as market is split. i.e. OO market would still exist and so stuff would be doubled up.

 

 

Stay at 1:76.2 scale but change gauge:

 

Pros

1. Is easier on stock manufacturers as they can offer alternative wheelsets (as Accurascale have done) but there would still potentially need to be investment in existing stock tooling to adapt.

 

Cons:

1. New track required on layouts, so anyone wanting to do it would need a new layout.

2. For it to stand a chance of being commercially successful we'd need a range of affordable RTR track.

3. Would still end up as a cost to do at the customer level for a while.

 

Stay as we are with incorrect gauging:

 

Pros:

1. Fully established market with pretty much all requirements catered for.

2. Perfect synergy with existing stock and layouts.

3. Most of the market stays as it is, with correct gauge (EM/P4 etc.) being a niche.

 

Cons:

1. The rails are too close together.

 

Either if the directions for sorting the gauging issue out would ultimately mean more expensive products, which will be enough of a put off for most. Likewise, a lot of people won't entertain DCC despite acknowledging the benefits simply down to having a cupboard full of locos they'd need to adapt. I expect similar with drop in wheelsets where it would never capture the whole market. The HO option at least allows OO and HO to run together.

 

I am interested to see how TT turns out, as it is a similar situation really. I'd definitely have considered TT in 2018 when I started with this again had there been the products in place then. The size is more appropriate for me than OO but I aren't keen on N. Likewise going to HO would probably be my preference on the above "change" choices for the same reason.

Edited October 2, 2022 by TomScrut

[rob D2]

4 hours ago, GD said:

How about a bit of modelling?

I purchased another 47012 with sound for an unbelievable price and changed the headcodes. I bought two 47832 bodies for £15 each and cut out the headcodes from the no 1 ends.

 

You’d have to ask Gary if he “ wants a bit of modelling “, I was merely responding to his request for information, which was whether he can renumber 435 to 525. Anything’s possible if you wanna do some hacking around, I know as I’ve done my share 

[GD]

17 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

You’d have to ask Gary if he “ wants a bit of modelling “, I was merely responding to his request for information, which was whether he can renumber 435 to 525. Anything’s possible if you wanna do some hacking around, I know as I’ve done my share 

Why the anger?

[brushman47544]

18 hours ago, Gary H said:

47 experts please.

Could I renumber 435 to 525 ??

I note as built, 435 had fixed 3 part rad grills as apposed to the Serck shutters on 525.

How is 435 modelled ?

 

 

7 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Looking at eBay images , 435 is modelled with 2 part serck, dominos and what appears to be a round boiler port ( spanner ?),

Depends what era you are looking at , as I believe they all had the 3 part grills being built and were all converted , 435 I reckon dates from about 1977-1981

 

edit. It seems 525 was a swap directly from 0000 headcodes to opaque markers at or before 1977, so you’d have  an issue there

 

47435 and 47525 had different boilers and so differences to the roof ports at the No.2 end, so - depending how much such differences matter to you - you may or may not need to “do some modelling” to be wholly accurate.

Edited October 2, 2022 by brushman47544

[Roy Langridge]

1 hour ago, GD said:

Why the anger?

Can we have a puzzled reaction? I see no anger in @rob D2’s response.

 

Roy

[rob D2]

3 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

Can we have a puzzled reaction? I see no anger in @rob D2’s response.

 

Roy

Yeah , no anger , obvs didn't translate well on keyboard 

[BigDee]

Lady Di arrived Saturday, cracking loco. 

[97406]

5 hours ago, BigDee said:

Lady Di arrived Saturday, cracking loco. 

 

Nice to see they’ve done the black cab windscreen surrounds which was a subtle feature of the livery, in the same pattern as on Large Logo and early Railfreight liveries. 

[Opelsi]

On 02/10/2022 at 16:20, brushman47544 said:

 

47435 and 47525 had different boilers and so differences to the roof ports at the No.2 end, so - depending how much such differences matter to you - you may or may not need to “do some modelling” to be wholly accurate.

Hi,

I am buying 2 of 47435 to form the backbone of my ETH diesel fleet.

Obviously going to have to renumber one and was considering 47497.

Reading the comment on different boilers and roof ports (I don't want to think about hacking an expensive model and doubt my skills would produce an acceptable result either), I am wondering what alternative locomotive numbers may be possible for the livery/boiler/roof port/headcode combination and would be suitable for accurate renumbering please?

[Krieghoff]

Got my Galloway Princess today from Rainbow Railways as well. Absolutely superb locomotives. 
 

looking forward to the class 37 Loch Lomond as well. 

[brushman47544]

10 hours ago, Opelsi said:

Hi,

I am buying 2 of 47435 to form the backbone of my ETH diesel fleet.

Obviously going to have to renumber one and was considering 47497.

Reading the comment on different boilers and roof ports (I don't want to think about hacking an expensive model and doubt my skills would produce an acceptable result either), I am wondering what alternative locomotive numbers may be possible for the livery/boiler/roof port/headcode combination and would be suitable for accurate renumbering please?

 

It's rather complicated to produce any sort of list - I recommend you look at Class47.co.uk and see whether a number you want to renumber to has the same features as the donor, in this case 47435. I suggest you start here: Class47.co.uk ~ Numbers

 

47497 was Brush built and had a Clayton MkII boiler, whereas 47435 was Crewe built and had a Spanner Mk 3 boiler. Even as early as when domino fitted, boiler ports started to be plated over on some 47/4s.

[Roy Langridge]

From the photos on here I was uncertain about the headlight on 47711, it just didn’t look right. 
 

Well, mine arrived today and how wrong I was, it is an absolutely stunning model and the headlight is bang on. I think this is one of those models where close-up photos don’t show it properly. 
 

Roy

[GD]

40 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

From the photos on here I was uncertain about the headlight on 47711, it just didn’t look right. 
 

Well, mine arrived today and how wrong I was, it is an absolutely stunning model and the headlight is bang on. I think this is one of those models where close-up photos don’t show it properly. 
 

Roy

It's a lovely model Roy, I hope they go on to do the blue with white roof 47/7 version, maybe a flush fronter like 47701.

[GD]

Bachmann, please 🙏 

[37081LochLong]

44 minutes ago, GD said:

Bachmann, please 🙏 

For me personally I'm hoping for 47704 Dunedin in that scheme but I'll settle for any of them :)

[GordonC]

3 hours ago, GD said:

It's a lovely model Roy, I hope they go on to do the blue with white roof 47/7 version, maybe a flush fronter like 47701.

 

There just something about the Flush fronted Bachmann 47s that just doesn't look right to me. I'm not sure if the flush lights are too large, too close together or too recessed but I just dont think they're convincing and wont touch any Bachmann flush front releases.

 

[rob D2]

Have they ever done a blue 47/7 like that ? I know they’ve done a few scotrail ones inc the most recent .

[billywhizz]

AFAIK they have never done a blue 47/7 

Hoping for one in the future as well preferably a flush front example which which would give more number options for LLB and ScotRail liveried models. 
Bill. 

[Suzy Sulzer]

52 minutes ago, billywhizz said:

AFAIK they have never done a blue 47/7 

Hoping for one in the future as well preferably a flush front example which which would give more number options for LLB and ScotRail liveried models. 
Bill. 

I second that, 47701 is my fave .Lets hope Bachmann provide . If not maybe a retailer commission.

 

HINT HINT

[Tiddles47]

3 hours ago, billywhizz said:

AFAIK they have never done a blue 47/7 

Hoping for one in the future as well preferably a flush front example which which would give more number options for LLB and ScotRail liveried models. 
Bill. 

They haven’t done in OO gauge but they have in N gauge. 47701. 

 

[37081LochLong]

Yep we've had 708, 710 in scotrail 711 in large logo, 712 twice! In scotrail and 706 in scotrail but debranded and NWSE marked for kernow 

 

And as tiddles47 says blue 47701 but in farish N gauge 

Edited October 6, 2022 by 37081LochLong
Brain not connected