Bachmann announce all new Class 37

[mallaig1983]

33 minutes ago, thetrains said:

Interesting review on Sam's Trains (I know, I know) his one came to a near stop on Gordons hill with eight cars in tow, and weighs 35g less than the (my) old model, odd esp. if it is supposed to have a die-cast chassis and he also reckons no flywheels as no roll-on when power cut.  Maybe he's missing the flywheels.  Anyone done a test yet, the (my) old one runs on 8.5 inches.

The motor is probably clogged with carpet fluff 🤣

[Marcoblanco]

10 hours ago, pauliebanger said:

 

Just wack open the throttle - all set up for thrash.

 

(More gentle opening will give more measured acceleration and sound progression).

 

Best regards,

 

Paul

 

 

 

 

possibly but its a bit to speedy for my liking.. Anybody know the sound cv on these?

[SHerr]

043 does seem really odd from Bachmanns commercial perspective as well as a modellers perspective. Lots, myself included will have the A/S one on order but would probably have also bought a Baccy one in a different number but will now just stay with the one that’s  ordered. Detail differences I get but as noted above from when A/S announced theirs in 2019/20 it must have been early enough to go for the different roof nose combo. Of all the comments about integral vs separate noses surely this is a benefit? I just hope they don’t end up with loads in the discount buckets and then next time a large logo 37/0 is mentioned the bean counters come out with ‘well the last one didn’t sell very well’.

 

I don’t want to sound too critical as it does look very nice but just puzzling from Bachmann’s side as well. I would have bought one with any other number on it.

[Pete the Elaner]

2 hours ago, thetrains said:

Interesting review on Sam's Trains (I know, I know) his one came to a near stop on Gordons hill with eight cars in tow, and weighs 35g less than the (my) old model, odd esp. if it is supposed to have a die-cast chassis and he also reckons no flywheels as no roll-on when power cut.  Maybe he's missing the flywheels.  Anyone done a test yet, the (my) old one runs on 8.5 inches.

 

I was interested to hear the 2 different views. They didn't conflict, but each were looking at different aspects & found different likes/dislikes.

[mallaig1983]

48 minutes ago, SHerr said:

043 does seem really odd from Bachmanns commercial perspective as well as a modellers perspective. Lots, myself included will have the A/S one on order but would probably have also bought a Baccy one in a different number but will now just stay with the one that’s  ordered. Detail differences I get but as noted above from when A/S announced theirs in 2019/20 it must have been early enough to go for the different roof nose combo. Of all the comments about integral vs separate noses surely this is a benefit? I just hope they don’t end up with loads in the discount buckets and then next time a large logo 37/0 is mentioned the bean counters come out with ‘well the last one didn’t sell very well’.

 

I don’t want to sound too critical as it does look very nice but just puzzling from Bachmann’s side as well. I would have bought one with any other number on it.

I would of had an 043  if it was banger blue with the white stripe. Nothing for me in this tranche so my wallet sleeps soundly.

[meatloaf]

1 hour ago, Marcoblanco said:

possibly but its a bit to speedy for my liking.. Anybody know the sound cv on these?

The volume CV is 266, i had to reduce mine to 25 but even then the speaker still rattled and it still distorted

[64F]

Even if it is the case that 043 is the only one of the six named ED split-box 37s that suits the initial tooling, it is still a daft choice as there were plenty of un-named ones to choose from.  I understand that namers might sell better as a rule, but that obviously isn't going to be the case when it is a duplicate like this.  Like others, I'd have happily bought any of the other ones, but I'll stick with my Accurascale pre-order for 043.  There are plenty of other demands on my wallet without buying duplicate locos at current prices just to renumber them.   Those two Eastfield 37/4s, for example...

[Gilbert]

9 hours ago, Marcoblanco said:

possibly but its a bit to speedy for my liking.. Anybody know the sound cv on these?

F27/28 allow volume control during operation IIRC

Chris H

[dj_crisp]

20 hours ago, Andy Mac said:

Have a watch of Dave’s review on Dean Park about the new Class 37….

 

The main criticism of the models is the protruding snowplows…. Perhaps that’s the reason Bachman weren’t really show casing them with the plows fitted….

 

 

 

A good review and I enjoyed watching it. 

 

It's interesting he picked up on similar things to my initial thoughts. Shape is good and there's lots to like (Especially how the body fits to the chassis).

 

Snowploughs look naff and aren't good enough but etches are an easy fix. 

 

I'm in two minds on the roof grille. One of the best I've seen RTR but could be refined.

 

Cab Handrails are a limitation but is understandable and is on both Bachmann and AS. 

 

I'm not sold on the glazing and plan to replace mine.

 

Having a seperate nose is a production simplification and should be ok for many liveries just not this one. I've gone to great lengths to try and hide this on a 40 without great success but would be tempted here as hopefully the nose is a better fit than the 40!

 

AS are taking a different approach with different seperate items so will be interesting to see how that comes out. I'm not saying this is a better or worse approach though!

 

At least the review sample looks like running should be smooth (mine wasn't and is back with Bachmann)

 

Cheers

Will

 

 

 

[DaveClass47]

Hi,

 

Firstly thanks to the guys who watched my Bachmann Class 37 review and have mentioned it in this thread. 
 

 

If I may constructively and respectfully add my tuppence worth to this thread based on yesterday’s announcements. 
 

While I am very pleased that the 37 is here, I question why three of the four are Scottish based 37’s. Do Bachmann think us Scot’s have more money to throw at models 😆

 

This over Scottish bias leaves me with a choice. I know mates who live in other parts of the UK are scratching their heads as to why Bachmann have ignored larger parts of the Uk when selecting these locos for release. 
 

Personally, I am ruling out 043 (although a direct shoot off between Bach and AS might make a good video 😆), as many of you have said it’s a blatant duplication of a competitors model and wholly unnecessary when you have a class of loco where there are over 300 examples to choose from. 
 

I have the Accurascale one fully paid up and I’m not cancelling that for a significantly more expensive Bachmann one, with the awful snow plough fitting. Being a Scottish modeller, these ploughs are a must on most of my 37! Accurascale are doing a chassis and nem mounted plough option on their 37. Choice for the modeller. 
 

I really like Bachmann stuff. Big respect to them on their quality models. Their 20,24,47,158, mk2F and now 37…fantastic new models that will take us into the next 15-20+ years of the hobby. When Bachmann are on their game…not many can beat them. 
 

However this direct and deliberate duplication is not good for customers.
 

I’ll shut up now 😆 

Dave

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by DaveClass47

[Porcy Mane]

A question about the latest release Bachmann 37. Something I haven't seen anyone mention so far.

 

Are they still too long over body length to accommodate  the nose end PCB's and removable noses?

 

Tia,

 

P

Edited August 4, 2022 by Porcy Mane

[Ian Hargrave]

17 hours ago, thetrains said:

Interesting review on Sam's Trains (I know, I know) his one came to a near stop on Gordons hill with eight cars in tow, and weighs 35g less than the (my) old model, odd esp. if it is supposed to have a die-cast chassis and he also reckons no flywheels as no roll-on when power cut.  Maybe he's missing the flywheels.  Anyone done a test yet, the (my) old one runs on 8.5 inches.

I’ll try a load test in a while but really you have to ask of what significance is that ?  ATM I have 6 Bachmann 2f behind one and it’s not in the least bit bothered with that . It would be a good thing if once in a while we’d trust our own judgment and  not rely on media “influence “….and here I’m being consciously and tactfully diplomatic..

[Ian Hargrave]

11 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

I’ll try a load test in a while but really you have to ask of what significance is that ?  ATM I have 6 Bachmann 2f behind one and it’s not in the least bit bothered with that . It would be a good thing if once in a while we’d trust our own judgment and  not rely on media “influence “….and here I’m being consciously and tactfully diplomatic..

So ok,atm sound 37422 is happily hauling 10x2f ( Bachmann)  .That good enough for you ?  Be an excellent idea if we all agreed to cease spreading media info.as if it’s tablets of stone. It ain’t folks.

[Ian Hargrave]

7 minutes ago, thetrains said:

Not worried about load test itself in itself, I was just wondering if other owners of these new ones knew if they were fly-wheeled or not by doing the power cut.  I prefer fly-wheels as they make slower speed more controllable for me, being analogue only using GM controllers.

But that’s not how your post comes across.. Sam’s so called load tests certainly do bother me.The information and specification on the new model is readily available on Bachmann’s website for you to easily access if you are concerned about flywheels etc.

[Porcy Mane]

Strange how the model railway world "influencers" could often save themselves some embarrassment by doing the bare minimum of research. Less than 15 seconds work turned up this from Bachmann.

 

"Building on the impressive specification of the award-winning Bachmann Branchline Class 47, the new Class 37 shares many common features such as the five pole motor with twin flyhwheels"

[tractor_37260]

Don't think this has been mentioned already, noticed that the new 37/4 tooling includes the small pairs of drainage holes ?? at the bottom edges of the cantrail grilles, a nice attention to detail.

[tractor_37260]

2 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

Strange how the model railway world "influencers" could often save themselves some embarrassment by doing the bare minimum of research. Less than 15 seconds work turned up this from Bachmann.

 

"Building on the impressive specification of the award-winning Bachmann Branchline Class 47, the new Class 37 shares many common features such as the five pole motor with twin flyhwheels"

 

Although it is possible the flywheels/motor may be slightly smaller than the earlier versions, due to the redesigned chassis changes, as was the case with the very latest revised Bachmann Class 24/25....

[Porcy Mane]

14 minutes ago, tractor_37260 said:

Although it is possible the flywheels/motor may be slightly smaller than the earlier versions, due to the redesigned chassis changes, as was the case with the very latest revised Bachmann Class 24/25....

 

 In all probability they are.  Just like the very much earlier class 20's and 37's when the PCB's were updated from 8 pin to 21 pin MTC DCC connectors. Nobody noticed any difference to haulage capacity then.

 

Although I can't be certain until I've seen one but I'd bet good money that the flywheels will have the same mass (and motor) as the 2020 release Class 24 as below. 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Porcy Mane

[jjb1970]

I will be amazed if these are anywhere near running out of haulage with a prototypical train formations for a 37 or what can be accommodated on a layout. If they can haul more than that it's nice but also basically irrelevant.

Edited August 4, 2022 by jjb1970

[HExpressD]

56 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

I will be amazed if these are anywhere near running out of haulage with a prototypical train formations for a 37 or what can be accommodated on a layout. If they can haul more than that it's nice but also basically irrelevant.

It's always nice to see a model be able to pull a realistic length train, but I think the number of layouts in the UK/world that will have a constantly visible scale length if track where this could be appreciated must be so small that provided the loco has 'decent' pulling power that will be enough for most people

[MikeParkin65]

1 minute ago, HExpressD said:

It's always nice to see a model be able to pull a realistic length train, but I think the number of layouts in the UK/world that will have a constantly visible scale length if track where this could be appreciated must be so small that provided the loco has 'decent' pulling power that will be enough for most people

And those finding a loco can't equal the prototypes tractive effort  might want to look at the variable gradients of their set track laid on a carpet and their 2nd radius curves and ask how closely that matches the prototype too 🤣

[TomScrut]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

I will be amazed if these are anywhere near running out of haulage with a prototypical train formations for a 37 or what can be accommodated on a layout. If they can haul more than that it's nice but also basically irrelevant.

 

Exactly. The main issue I think is that a lot of layouts have bigger gradients than real life railways but other than that I aren't sure that weight it is a useful metric beyond a certain point. I.e. I don't care which is heavier between my 55, 66 or 37 as long as they can pull what I need them to.

 

A Bachmann 70 is too light for me. I think every other D&E loco I have is heavy enough to do what I need them to do and I think whilst not prototypical lengths my trains are longer than a lot of the market will require.

 

It's a bigger issue with steam locos with less driven wheels IMO.

[Ian Hargrave]

1 hour ago, thetrains said:

Now , now no need to be rude.

 
I hardly think it falls Into that category. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Ian Hargrave
Spelling

[Ian Hargrave]

24 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

Exactly. The main issue I think is that a lot of layouts have bigger gradients than real life railways but other than that I aren't sure that weight it is a useful metric beyond a certain point. I.e. I don't care which is heavier between my 55, 66 or 37 as long as they can pull what I need them to.

 

A Bachmann 70 is too light for me. I think every other D&E loco I have is heavy enough to do what I need them to do and I think whilst not prototypical lengths my trains are longer than a lot of the market will require.

 

It's a bigger issue with steam locos with less driven wheels IMO.

Indeed. Only larger exhibition layouts can handle anything approaching most scale length trains,particularly freight of course. If talking of Class 37 for instance,then  a 4 coach passenger might suffice . I think most of us know whether or not it looks right.

[Gilbert]

6 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

Indeed. Only larger exhibition layouts can handle anything approaching most scale length trains,particularly freight of course. If talking of Class 37 for instance,then  a 4 coach passenger might suffice . I think most of us know whether or not it looks right.

Mine will be running with an inspection saloon so I should be OK.....