Pennine MC Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 . Not a problem until you discover the buffers seem to be only 11 inches diameter and not 13 inches so could present difficulties when propelling. Has anyone had any thoughts or done any mods to their buffers to get round this perceive problem? The buffers are the one thing on these that's a bit of a fudge TBH Richard, so I personally would change them for whitemetal ones. That seems like a good idea for variety anyway, and makes even more sense if you have doubts on other scores. I thought it had been covered early in the thread, but looking back it hasnt - it might have been in the pre-production thread. As you probably know there are two basic underframes, short brakelever and long brakelever - what I believe they've done is to mould each underframe with a buffer *head* which is correct for that type, but the buffer *body* from the other variant. Hence the short lever one has the Oleo body with the head of the self-contained unit, and the long lever one has the s/c body and the Oleo head. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted March 24, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 24, 2011 until you discover the buffers seem to be only 11 inches diameter and not 13 inches In OO ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poor Old Bruce Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Thanks Pennine though none of the diagrams say anything less than 13 inch buffers. In OO ? HO HO : I did mean scale sizes of course . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
locoholic Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 From the Bachmann website, in the items expected in the next 60 days section; 38-287 Triple Pack 22 Ton Presflo Wagons BR Bauxite Weathered TBA Can't quite believe that they're on their way, but Bachmann still can't decide how much to charge for them. I'm glad I'm not a retailer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rembrow Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 I believe that the uncertainty of the price is due to hard negotiations going on with Kader about the probable price. I've already posted in the Kernow Model Rail Delabole Slate Powder Presflo thread, after Kernow have posted on their website that the triple pack they have commissioned, which is being produced with Bachmann's triple pack and 2 single models, has been increased in price from £49.95 to £79.99. I would expect the Bachmann standard triple pack as weathered, to be also about this price. According to Kernow they are in negotiations with Bachmann about the proposed new price, hoping I believe, to negotiate a reduction and I would assume that Bachmann are doing the same with the parent company, Kader. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted June 6, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 6, 2014 If Bachmann isn't careful, it's going to get into a right mess with the prices of its models. If it's going to announce a model in its catalogue at a given price, it really should deliver at that price or risk alienating both retailers (who take pre-orders at that price in good faith) and modellers (if the cost suddenly goes up compared to the original price and they have to cancel a pre-order). On way round this would be to only announce models with a price that they have production slots for in the lifetime of the catalogue they first appear in, perhaps with "pre-announcements" of brand new models (i.e. not reliveries) that will not appear before the next catalogue without a price, to whet our appetites and stoke up interest. A price would then only be announced when Bachmann can confirm to both retailers and their customers that the price will be correct. But first Bachmann somehow needs to clear the backlog, which is getting longer and longer... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
locoholic Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Pack of three weathered Presflos 38-287 RRP on Bachmann website now shown as £78.50. If the discount offered by retailers is 20%, the price comes down to £62.80, still over £20 per wagon. Other Presflos that are shown as already arrived, prices are still TBA. Someone at Barwell is dithering, realising that perhaps there may be some negative publicity potential, to be traded off against the need to actually make a profit? Interesting times... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Mornin' all, I'm currently working on two Delabole slate Presflo (former ICI salt examples) P4 models and have the option of using some or none of the Bachmann model.... Prototype images included for direct comparison by kind permission of Trevor Mann Comparing an Airfix/Dapol kit body with the Bachmann model (each dimensionally similar) and close up images of the prototype suggests that the former has more prototypically accurate thin fins/strengthening around the hopper but the Bachmann version has closer to the prototypical depth of fin/strengthening. Trying to thin the Bachmann ones is difficult and unrewarding. The overthickness of the Bachmann fins is most noticeable on the verticals of the hopper ends. This combines with differently represented horizontals (in common with the Airfix/Dapol kit) compared with close up images of the prototype. The base of the hopper will need modifcation to represent the twin compartment/twin discharge design of the prototype. http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/presfloslate/hecc19ef#hecc19ef All running gear/W irons etc are represented in overthick moulded plastic in both the kit and on the model, therefore I'm substituting a mostly etched brass underframe with nickel silver fittings Plenty of work to do but the scope to transform this model makes it worthwhile. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Tomlinson Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Some interesting research and pictures there, revealing that neither Airfix nor Bachmann have really got this right. When the Bachmann version came out I tried to understand why the end horizontal fins look so wrong, and eventually worked out that its because on the real thing they must be longer than the ones on the side, but with the same angle of deflection from the horizontal. In consequence the seams joining the horizontal fins to the main body are in line, but the bottoms are not, giving rise to the droop in pictures taken from the side or three quarters. Hattons were selling one of the Bachmann variants - Tunnel Cement I think - at £22 for three, as opposed to £22 for one of some of the others, so if you're planning a mega hack that might be the way to go! John. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Hi John, If I thought that the Bachmann route would yield the best outcome then price wouldn't matter....I already have the two that I need anyway. However, it is looking increasingly likely that the Airfix/Dapol kit body will prove most usable/accurate and I have plenty of these in stock already. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 On the original Shildon build first lot and possibly part or all of the second lot, the two end horizontal ribs were as in the Airfix kit. These Presflos (no, no, not the Airfix models) were recalled to Shildon for remedial body strengthening work etc., that included replacement of the end ribs with wider stronger ribs that became standard. Here's a purposefully over exposed shot of the underside of the upper rib to show what they look like. Note there is also an added perpendicular lip. If you wanted to add correct diameter vac cylinders the end stay plates will also need replacing with something nearer to scale. U section on early Lot numbers, H section on later. The grapevine tells me a sprung chassis with both/either type of brake rigging is on the horizon. P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 ....thanks Porcy....I could see that the shape wasn't just plain. I'd already looked to n/s sheet hopper end supports so no issue with fitting correct dia. vac cyls. I have noted odd wagons with different sized vac cyls but this seems to be following maintenance rather than as built. The sprung chassis sounds good....6 months, a year....any ideas? Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 The sprung chassis sounds good....6 months, a year....any ideas? No idea. Probably best to keep an eye on Justins thread. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/72373-rumney-models/page-3&do=findComment&comment=2012926 P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmrspaul Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 The more you look at these wagons the more the variations are noticed. The end stays are flat on the early wagons with a strip added to the outer edge, whereas later they appear to be a single sheet with a 90 deg simple bend to strengthen the outer edge. The ladders have no additional handrails on the early examples, then there are handrails and a little later an additional hand rail on the end stays... and on and on! It looks like Lot 3156 introduces two vacuum cylinders and therefore a changeover lever. Of course the early wagons had plain bearings, but replacement with roller bearings does appear to have been done thoroughly (unlike some other fleets which should have also had conversion to RB). Paul http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brpresflo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71 Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Hi Paul, ....agreed....there seems to be a number of ways of modelling these, however, the hopper body is common to each and needs to be of a high standard to make the additional work worthwhile. Now that Justin at Rumney is hinting at underframe etches I can put these on the back burner for now and focus on what I have got parts for. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.