Bachmann 37/0 pre-production shots

[bmg]

Thank you for the insight. As one who was involved in the development (so to speak) perhaps you could give your view on how the raised edge to the removable grilles became a trench? The real 37003 does not have a trench yet it is on the model. Similarly none of the other 308 locomotives in the class has a tench. Curious?

[Pennine MC]

. Similarly none of the other 308 locomotives in the class has a tench. Curious?

 

Certainly something fishy

[bmg]

I blame my windows phone.... That or the fact that the screen is too small.

[workev2000]

bmg,

 

If I am honest I am not sure. We received two pre-production models, the second one being that on the website. However, the split-code models were delayed further so until we receive the models we wont know for sure, although I expect them to be the same.

 

Ian

[bmg]

Thank you. The mystery remains unsolved.

[workev2000]

Just to add, we did ask whether we could have the orginal rivetted cantrail grill outer bands (which were on the first 5). That would have required a complete re-tool, so was rejected.

 

We are working to try and make the models better through detailing parts, so any ideas people have polease let us know.

 

BUT, these things have to be commercially viable for us as we are a Charity, and all the money goes towards the loco.

 

I'll talk to Brian Hanson at Shawplan and see what he can come up with shall I?

 

Ian

[richierich]

Even if it's at the expense of the more common varient not being available?

 

Arn't you assuming they have modified exisiing tooling? I'm suggesting they have made a new tool to model this variant. From other contributors it would seem limited changes have been incorporated.

 

I think in future I'll steer clear of anything to do with Bachmann Class 37 debates, its too an emotional and passionate subject.

[James]

Arn't you assuming they have modified exisiing tooling?

 

It's odd when they have released previous versions with the two main cantrail grille varients covered; I assume they were produced by having different tool inserts, in which case they may be able to vary the grilles on the new moulding and just haven't in error in the case of 37 049 or are now to produce just the one variation.

[uk_pm]

I still think it looks more like a 37 than any other model yet produced: what do you think? (Apologies for the coupling: this is the back end of a pair of permanently-coupled 37s - hence the guard in the second-man's seat of the rear cab: nice work if you can get it!)

 

[Baby Deltic]

Certainly something fishy

 

If its fishy, there could be a stench too.

[Porcy Mane]

Dunno if these images help...

 

 

 

Also make the H'code boxes look inset to me but I have seen prototypes with this. Mayby after repair?

 

Hth

Porcy

[Guest 47107]

Do all these comments apply to the Green 37 D6801 Bachmann's ref 32-782 or does that mystery yet await us?

 

Cheers,

 

David

 

There was a small Bachmann display at the Bristol exhibition today and one of the models in the cabinet was green D6801. The model does indeed have 'the trench' under the grills as does blue 37251. I was told they were both production models.

[Pennine MC]

I still think it looks more like a 37 than any other model yet produced: what do you think?

 

It's not the done thing to sit on the fence in a class 37 debate , but apart from the unfortunate first issue I think all the incarnations are acceptable if imperfect models, with the middle batch of refurbs probably being the ones most free from irks. Having read through this, I can see the points made that these are in some ways a backwards step. I'm sticking with my existing 37/0s, but then again if I didnt have them, I'd probably buy these and sort them instead.

[James]

I took this at York -

 

 

I personally think the nose end has altered the proportions of the nose with its extended length. I don't think buffers have done it any favours either.

[uk_pm]

I anticipate that this will be my last post on this subject: I have read everything that has been said but am still a fan of the new moulding (or, to put it better, it doesn't offend me). But, by way of interest, here is a shot of the new 37 alongside the Mk 2 split-box class 37. I suppose it makes the point...

 

[Pete Piszczek]

Wow! I could see removing the nose, sanding out the extra bit, and reattaching. Of course, the devil is in the details.

 

Why does the ride height of the bodies look different? Was the Mark 2 body too low?

[Guest Phil]

I still think it looks more like a 37 than any other model yet produced: what do you think? (Apologies for the coupling: this is the back end of a pair of permanently-coupled 37s - hence the guard in the second-man's seat of the rear cab: nice work if you can get it!)

 

 

Nitpick mode

 

Shouldn't the guard be in the trailing cab of the leading loco ?

 

Or is my memory failing me ?

 

/Nitpick mode

[James]

Was the Mark 2 body too low?

IIRC the buffers were too low for some reason.

[37114]

IIRC the buffers were too low for some reason.

 

 

The skirts were too long, by circa 2mm. Removing the buffers and reducing the depth of the skirt then replacing with new buffers makes a massive difference, all of mine have this done.

 

Mention was also made in an earlier post of the headcode boxes being too recessed. This applies to the mk2 version and the 37003 model. It is particularly noticeable because Bachmann have painted it yellow. By painting the inner edges black improves things, although new Headcode glasses that are flush with the front (maybe laser cut hint hint) would fit the bill. Here is one of my modified Mk2 versions to show the changes I have done:

 

[Porcy Mane]

 

Mention was also made in an earlier post of the headcode boxes being too recessed.

 

My apologies. I didn't make myself very clear at all when I made that statement.

 

What I meant was that on some split box prototypes the entire head code box appears to be inset towards the centreline of the loco.

Perhaps these pics illustrate what I mean.

 

H'code Box inset.

 

H'code Box almost flush to side

 

Not conclusive evidence but I think that explains things a little better.

 

Porcy

[Pennine MC]

What I meant was that on some split box prototypes the entire head code box appears to be inset towards the centreline of the loco.

Perhaps these pics illustrate what I mean.

 

H'code Box inset.

 

H'code Box almost flush to side

 

Not conclusive evidence but I think that explains things a little better.

 

It does indeed Porcy, and illustrates a point sometimes lost on modellers - the real things weren't always identical with each other. It's late to go checking properly but I wonder if this is a difference between VF and RSH builds?

[James]

One former Brush employee (who was there when they were building the Class 47s) is that minor differences didn't matter, as long as the result was within gauge and the correct weight.

[D6975]

My apologies. I didn't make myself very clear at all when I made that statement.

 

What I meant was that on some split box prototypes the entire head code box appears to be inset towards the centreline of the loco.

Perhaps these pics illustrate what I mean.

 

H'code Box inset.

 

H'code Box almost flush to side

 

Not conclusive evidence but I think that explains things a little better.

 

Porcy

 

Interesting, but.... that's definitely not 37055 in the first phot.

[37114]

Interesting, but.... that's definitely not 37055 in the first phot.

 

 

The caption has been updated, its 37095.

[Porcy Mane]

but I wonder if this is a difference between VF and RSH builds?

 

I first noticed this variation when comparing pics whilst trying to work out how Bachmann had moved everything about on the nose of their MkII split box version. I wondered exactly that about VF & RSH builds but from memory (It was a few years ago now) pics seemed to suggest randoms between the different builders.

I'm layout operating over the next few days but will dig out my notes later in the week to see if I drew any conclusions.

Accident repair seems to ring a bell but James’s point about production tolerances is quite valid.

 

Cheers,

Porcy