Bachmann production similarities or differences within the same 'batch'

[G-BOAF]

I came across the 'weirdest' Bachmann thing today. I finally inspected a relatively recently purchased but never opened Mk1 TSO 39-052E Crimson and Cream. This was a purchase I didn't 'want' to make as I already had this coach and don't like to have duplicate numbers on the layout (although will take the plunge at renumbering). The shortage of these coaches, coupled with some poor QC on another batch I tried to purchase, lead me back to this duplication.

 

However when I compared it to my older purchase of the 'same' coach it was clearly from a different batch. My second model had the revised (smooth) roof without ribs, whereas the first had ribs. The running numbers were, as expected, the same. The manufacturing date stamped on the box flaps however confirmed that these models were made FIVE YEARS apart (2010 and 2015).

 

I know Bachmann sometimes re-run models that are nominally similar, and the catalogue numbers are different, even though the model should be the same (e.g. Evening Star as originally released c.2006, (32-850), and re-released around 2012 (32-850A). There were some subtle differences (varnish and green tone, and some deterioration in the decoration and positioning), but at least they were not pretending to be the same item.

 

What is weird in my Mk1 case is that you have nominally exactly the same model, but with different generation of parts. I would have thought at least Bachmann would have changed the running number and included a new prefix in such a case, but they did not. I've never come across such repeated models before from Bachmann.

 

Are there any other similar examples people have?

Might it have been a case of only part of the batch being produced in 2010, and so it was 'completed' five years later?!

Edited December 18, 2023 by G-BOAF
topic title typo!

[brushman47544]

Bachmann did this with a number of Mk1 coaches around the same time. I have a Blue/grey CK with repeat numbering and rib-less roof, in this case with the correct end point for the yellow first class line compared to the original version. IIRC Bachmann said at the time it was to speed up production of a number of models as the factory could “copy” the previous version so decorated samples weren't needed or something of that ilk. Definitely separate production runs.

Edited December 18, 2023 by brushman47544

[adb968008]

Slightly OT buy Hornby have done it to, with R3115 34001 Exeter.

The original release correctly does not have aws boxes on the front, but the later batch does.

 

Going back to ancient times I guess it was routine to re-run once a line ran low, and it remained in the range for years.

[SRman]

It wouldn't be too hard for them to keep the same decoration as the roofs are a separate part. The sides could still be produced exactly as before, with the new roof moulding added to feed into the production line.

[tomparryharry]

It's a typical production technique. Manufacturers will deliberately over-run stock for any number of reasons. Then, it'll dwell in stores until the demand is there, or the price rises to the desired profit margin.

 

A job we did was for console buttons for National Panasonic. We made a lot; 24/7, 6 days a week. The tool came off on a Sunday, ready for Sunday night to the following Sunday morning. The draw down was prodigious, so we always kept a weeks worth of production in stock for the customer. 

[G-BOAF]

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Slightly OT buy Hornby have done it to, with R3115 34001 Exeter.

The original release correctly does not have aws boxes on the front, but the later batch does.

 

Going back to ancient times I guess it was routine to re-run once a line ran low, and it remained in the range for years.

Yes Hornby we know have repeated things with significant differences in different production batches with the same catalogue number. 

Exeter was one (indeed this was because Sanda Kan produced too few at the end of their exitance and work for Hornby)

Clan Line (R2169) was produced in a second batch (quickly following the first) with correct smokebox door, and Mallard (R2339) was produced as part of the original run in c.2004 and a later batch with an incorrect bell whistle (and I think loco-tender wiring with tender chip), as well as degraded tooling of the cab roof (a real bugbear of mine as it means that blue-black interface on the cab roof is not straight)

 

But Bachman are normally quite 'tight' about different batches having different catalogue numbers, even if (as with my Evening Star case above) the model is the same.

 

 

13 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

Bachmann did this with a number of Mk1 coaches around the same time. I have a Blue/grey CK with repeat numbering and rib-less roof, in this case with the correct end point for the yellow first class line compared to the original version. IIRC Bachmann said at the time it was to speed up production of a number of models as the factory could “copy” the previous version so decorated samples weren't needed or something of that ilk. Definitely separate production runs.

It is interesting to hear of other case of the inverse by Bachmann, namely different batches of the same item. Weird that they would need full deco samples for a simple number change (given positioning etc would remain the same). Wouldn't there be as much chance of errors creeping in when re-setting up old printing than new ones?

 

I now annoyingly find that this later Mk1 also suffers from the 'cut end' bogie, whereby the front cross member of the bogie has been removed in the factory, and the bogie is not guiding the coupling in curves; I wondered why the tension lock was pulling to the side on curves as the first vehicle behind the engine. Thankfully enough BR1 bogie frames in stock (from Commonwealth conversions) to rectify.

Edited December 19, 2023 by G-BOAF