RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted October 20, 2009 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 20, 2009 The O4 was on display at Manchester and we stopped for a good while and had a chat with the very helpful chap on the stand. The model about at the moment is a pre-production sample with much of the assembly and quite a few parts made by hand. They are aware that some parts/details are not there yet but these should be sorted out by the time the production version appears. There will probably be two coming in our general direction! One to finish in LNWR livery and one for GC! I think that the tender on the sample is a ROD tender (no water pick up gear)rather than a GC proper. There are not many RTR locos that would get my hand into my wallet but this is certainly one!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
26power Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Presumably you could e-mail or write to them with your thoughts? Would I be right in thinking the tender would have a use behind other LNER engines such as some of the Shires? Cheers, 26power Hi, Sorry to put a downer on this lovely ROD body, but I had a good look at Manchester and it is worth reporting that Bachmann have produced another "solid chassis" block between the frames so below the boiler all you see is a solid block.? ? I appreciate this is their current thinking, but it really lets the model down in my eyes. I think the best compromise would have been to cast the franes at full height and taken the solid block across at a lower level this would have reduced the visual impact. Unfortunately, unlike last year the Bachmann stand was unmanned on Sunday at the show so I could not communicate my thoughts.? ? Looks like I will have to do some "heavy engineering" on my purchases! Don't worry I will still buy a couple...... Cheers tony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 The GCR standard tender was found behind some of the first series of Shires, and also some O2's. It of course also went on to have a career on the GW and LMS when the ROD it was attached to was scrapped. I was musing in the equivalent thread on RMweb the third whether if the tender proves to be as good a model as we hope for, there would be enough interest to get the minimum order quantity together (512 I believe) for a 'tender only' run from Bachmann, possibly via one of the sponsoring traders on this site. Regarding representing the tops of the frame plates, the problem is that the weight of the chassis block is thereby reduced, and the weight reduction occurs where weight is most wanted in a small scale model, low down. It is an interesting question how much of the height of the frames would have to be represented to get an improved appearance; if something between 1 and 2 mm was enough, that might be acceptable compromise of small weight loss for a good gain in appearance. The other question is how thick an edge the mazak can be cast to reliably. With UK frame plates in the inch to inch and quarter range, nothing thicker than 0.33 mm cast, so that with paint the top edge is still in scale, would be desireable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomp Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 I've just been to my man and put my name down for one of his when it comes. This will be my first ever deliberate Eastern purchase, and will fit in my IMRIRWIL universe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 For no other reason than that I saw them from the bottom of my Uncles garden (on the line from Apethorne Junction up to Godley Junction), I will be adding one to the fleet. Fortunately, they occasionally ran to Lees so I don't need to rewrite history in order to have one on Standedge! It is the 04/8 version I am really looking forward to though. B) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 If Bachmann don't announce 'versions' pretty smartish, I can imagine there will be several of us constructing 'Frankenlocos' by unions of B1 and O4 body parts on the O4 running gear. Both the O4/7 and O4/8 should be readily accessible by this method. What to do with the left over bits? The boiler from what becomes the O4/7 might find its' way into a Q1 0-8-0T, could the boiler and cab from the O4/8 be recycled into a Pom Pom? We haven't even got the new toy yet, and I am mentally pulling a couple to pieces... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 A Thompson 'full rebuild would be nice, complete with air pumps for the Consett run! Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Overheard on the Bachmann stand at Peterboro' - the rep definately staed that the WR version would be appearing (2011?) and would have to incorporate a new boiler moulding. Also heard elsewhere that a 104 dmu and a Derby Lightweight dmu have been photographed by Bachmann using DC Kits models......? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Also heard elsewhere that ....................a Derby Lightweight dmu have been photographed by Bachmann using DC Kits models......? I hope it's the original 'tram-front' Derby Lightweight...... The BR steam era DMU.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Yes and a straightforward 'suit change' for the 108 chassis as far as I can gather! Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilwell Park Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Overheard on the Bachmann stand at Peterboro' - the rep definately staed that the WR version would be appearing (2011?) and would have to incorporate a new boiler moulding. Also heard elsewhere that a 104 dmu and a Derby Lightweight dmu have been photographed by Bachmann using DC Kits models......? I am glad that the GWR version will be produced, but why a new boiler? New safety valve, dome, chimney, smoke box door & buffers yes but as far as I know the boiler was the same? Roger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 27, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 27, 2009 I am glad that the GWR version will be produced, but why a new boiler? New safety valve, dome, chimney, smoke box door & buffers yes but as far as I know the boiler was the same? Roger Perhaps they have done it as a one piece moulding? I was told some months back by a Bachmann rep that they intend to do a Western version but said nothing at the time as I regarded our chat as being in confidence (so if you're reading this..... ). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady_Ava_Hay Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Well someone did, he had sold the kit by Sunday morning I have noticed this 'effect' before. A long lost interest in an obscure, hard to find model or kit or even the previous less detailed version of the new RTR offering, seems to generate fresh interest and value. It doesn't seem to last very long after the RTR version is released. Perhaps we should beat our brains for a title or handle for this effect? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwealleans Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I think I posted this on the old forum but some of these went to the LSWR just after WW I and before the grouping. Anyone know of sources for livery/numbering details? They'd be spot on for our period for Corfe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilwell Park Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I think I posted this on the old forum but some of these went to the LSWR just after WW I and before the grouping. Anyone know of sources for livery/numbering details? They'd be spot on for our period for Corfe. According to the RCTS the LSWR had 17 of these loco's from November 1919. 1733/38/39/40/41/42/45. 2069/70/1/2. 2119/20/21/22/23/24. LSWR numbers 800-816 were allocated but only 800 & 801 were used, but only for a few days before the old numbers were restored. They were shedded at Nine Elms, Strawberry Hill, Exmouth Junction & Salisbury. They were used for mainline freight and ballasting at weekends but were in store by July 1920. There being insufficient suitable duties for them. Sorry no idea of livery & I think it unlikely that they ever reached Corfe. Roger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 That's interesting simply as a reflection of how little freight a fair sized company like the LSWR had to shift, that it did not need locos of this capacity. Didn't the Lancs and Yorks have some as well? Or are these the the same as what are usually refered to as the LNWR RODs brought into the LMS, the L&Y having become part of the LNW a year before grouping? I have noticed this 'effect' before. A long lost interest in an obscure, hard to find model or kit or even the previous less detailed version; of the new RTR offering, ... Perhaps we should beat our brains for a title or handle for this effect? Retrobubble.(N) Small scale short lived froth about an item from the past. Para~ : froth provoked by the announcement of an equivalent updated item. Meta~ : provoked by the rumour of the appearance of an equivalent updated item. Retrobubblimastosis : a painful condition brought on by youthful overindulgence in Italian items. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwealleans Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Cheers for that, Roger. The layout is a composite of actual buildings in a fictional landscape - Corfe because Ron Rising built Corfe Castle station as the centrepiece - so we can get away with a great deal. If it was LSWR and between the War and the Grouping then that's good enough. It'll save someone building another goods loco, because we need one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Hi, Sorry to put a downer on this lovely ROD body, but I had a good look at Manchester and it is worth reporting that Bachmann have produced another "solid chassis" block between the frames so below the boiler all you see is a solid block. I appreciate this is their current thinking, but it really lets the model down in my eyes. I think the best compromise would have been to cast the franes at full height and taken the solid block across at a lower level this would have reduced the visual impact. Unfortunately, unlike last year the Bachmann stand was unmanned on Sunday at the show so I could not communicate my thoughts. Looks like I will have to do some "heavy engineering" on my purchases! Don't worry I will still buy a couple...... Cheers Tony Why do Bachmann do this? They produce a beautifully crafted and detailed body and then sit it on what can only be described as an abortion. OK I know it's for the r-t-r market and 'OO' but surely that doesn't mean that they (Bachmann) can abandon any pretense at their models being scale models instead of toys. And, before anyone raises this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with 'OO' or the r-t-r market but it deserves better than this. Bachmann's locomotive bodies have set a new standard of excellence, for r-t-r models. Their chassis', on the other hand, have plumbed new depths of 'cheap and nasty' and visually horrendous! Regards Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Why do Bachmann do this? They produce a beautifully crafted and detailed body and then sit it on what can only be described as an abortion. OK I know it's for the r-t-r market and 'OO' but surely that doesn't mean that they (Bachmann) can abandon any pretense at their models being scale models instead of toys. And, before anyone raises this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with 'OO' or the r-t-r market but it deserves better than this. Regards Mike That has to be one of the daftest comments I've ever heard. It's a model locomotive at the end of the day - comparing it to an abortion is frankly ridiculous, and infantile. I think to an extent you have to accept certain compromises in any scale for RTR models, and the design of the chassis is one of them. It is enclosed to be able to protect its innards for a reason I would have thought - each design being made to be robust and last in service. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 That has to be one of the daftest comments I've ever heard. It's a model locomotive at the end of the day - comparing it to an abortion is frankly ridiculous, and infantile. I think to an extent you have to accept certain compromises in any scale for RTR models, and the design of the chassis is one of them. It is enclosed to be able to protect its innards for a reason I would have thought - each design being made to be robust and last in service. Then continue to read my threads and comments and, I'm sure, I shall manage to come up with comments far dafter (or is that more daft) than this. And to be referred to as 'infantile' at my age is, quite frankly, rather refreshing. The work of many of the contributors, on here, constitutes model locomotives - they are superb. There is absolutely no reason why Bachmann and Hornby should not move in that direction, governed as it must be, by the cost v realism (and fragility) equation. But the fragility of these models is already limited by the beautifully crafted detail, so that should not be the issue on chassis engineering. Bachmann's models are lovely above the running plate, so surely with a little more engineering design thought and, perhaps, a slightly more expensive set of manufacturing options, they can approach that same standard below the running plate. Regards Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Then continue to read my threads and comments and, I'm sure, I shall manage to come up with comments far dafter (or is that more daft) than this. Bachmann's models are lovely above the running plate, so surely with a little more engineering design thought and, perhaps, a slightly more expensive set of manufacturing options, they can approach that same standard below the running plate. Regards Mike Then why couldn't you have said the above first and not made the initial (highly emotive) comment? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Then why couldn't you have said the above first and not made the initial (highly emotive) comment? Ah but it's the highly emotive comment which prompted your response, and for which I thank you. We all have very different modelling ethics, mine is 'absolutely no compromise' but each unto their own and validly so. Wasn't it your good self who commented on one of my Hessle Haven photos and for which, again, I thank you? I do stand by that emotive comment for no other reason than that which you have so ably and convincingly shown. Very best regards Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Ah but it's the highly emotive comment which prompted your response, and for which I thank you. We all have very different modelling ethics, mine is 'absolutely no compromise' but each unto their own and validly so. Wasn't it your good self who commented on one of my Hessle Haven photos and for which, again, I thank you? I do stand by that emotive comment for no other reason than that which you have so ably and convincingly shown. Very best regards Mike Mike, Taunt me if you like - however my ethos is that manners cost nothing, and when debating the advantages, disadvantages of a model and its design, there is more than one way to say something. In other words, I may agree with your sentiment as to detail, but feel the point can be made more constructively and towards a better solution if made without inappropriate references or resorting to insults. Thanks, Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemeg Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Mike, Taunt me if you like - however my ethos is that manners cost nothing, and when debating the advantages, disadvantages of a model and its design, there is more than one way to say something. In other words, I may agree with your sentiment as to detail, but feel the point can be made more constructively and towards a better solution if made without inappropriate references or resorting to insults. Thanks, Simon And as a final contribution to this debate, let me say that I wholeheartedly agree with you - 'manners cost nothing' and I have steadfastly adhered to that ethic in all that I have written on this site and in the various other journals and printed publications for which I write, and on a variety of subjects. I choose my words fairly carefully but, sometimes, it needs to be said 'as one sees it', merely to provoke the debate. Bachmann and Hornby spend a considerable amount of time, money and effort on researching and designing their models to ensure dimensional accuracy. This is all very laudable and moves the standards constantly forward. Then they seem to abandon this approach when it comes to the chassis, where they design a solid 'chunk' onto which the cylinders, wheels and running gear are mounted. Steam locos didn't run on solid chunks, they ran on plate frames, held together by various spacing pieces and by the components which naturally spanned the mainframes. Anyway, I'm in danger of lecturing here, so will now revert to my other threads. Many thanks for the debate; I much enjoyed it. Regards Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 7013 Posted November 10, 2009 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 10, 2009 In some ways I do not mind waiting until 2011 for the GWR version, with a lot of stuff on order it will give me time to save, I know the GWR versions had a cone instead of a dome on the top of the boiler cover and some of the smokebox doors were replaced with GWR versions, I presume the lamp holders were swpped for western versions, anything else? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.