Guest Max Stafford Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 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. Which is precisely; Why I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bachy 37...! Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Yep, he's opened the second bottle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 64B Posted May 2, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 2, 2011 Hi All, I took the attached photo of 37001 at Liverpool Street in February 1981. To my eye it looks a very close match to the new Bachmann 37003 model. I note that with this variant the cowling is slightly different to later locos that gives direct access to the buffer bolts. Later locos have an additional small cover over the cowling that needs to be removed to gain access to the buffer bolts. Regards Neil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted May 2, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 2, 2011 "Bachmann got it right with the first models Collectors Club 37/0 from 2004," Hhhmm - D6717 later to become 37 503 was Vulcan foundry built - and did not feature the extra "RSH" stlye cantrail grille strips - only D6700-4 were so fitted, so not correct in that respect. As for the gap between the sandboxes/nose grilles etc, that may well be a bit more accurate than the latest release, but the original nose end fittings were all out of line/misplaced etc, the buffers/cowls were too low and the wrong shape etc etc. The slightly bigger gap between the sandbox/nose grille, although wrong, is a more acceptable compromise than all the original's problems. More of an issue is the "trench" as reported in REX Mag that has appeared under the cantrail grilles ? where's that come from ? Just to be clear, my original comment as quoted was clearly referring to the sandbox issue ONLY. I really don't see why anyone should interpret my earlier post differently. I am of course well aware of the other more significant errors with the earlier 37/0 models. 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... It certainly does, and has put me off the latest version completely... Looking at the latest model, the sandbox filler maybe a bit too small/narrow? But even adjusting that would not address the overlong nose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 But even adjusting that would not address the overlong nose. It is unfortunate that such a simple error has such a profound effect on the overall "shape". Disappointing. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
47423 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 It is unfortunate that such a simple error has such a profound effect on the overall "shape". Disappointing. Best, Pete. I have just had a look at a real 37 picture, it does appear to me that the newer longer nose is more correct than the short stubby old nose. The narrow sandbox filler is making the nose look too long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Well, we must disagree. The relationship of the "nose cone" from the side bears little resemblance to 37's I've seen - I just think it amazing that such a relatively small difference can have such a profound effect on the overall shape. I'd be please to be proved wrong...... Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
47423 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I have a picture of 37025 side on, which shows the length of the nose. I have not got a photo hosting site to post it on. I have no problems emailing to someone that has if they wish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
43179 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Well, we must disagree. The relationship of the "nose cone" from the side bears little resemblance to 37's I've seen - Seconded! Its also bears little resemblance to the prototypes when viewed from above - the Bachmann model (from 'mk2' to the current versions) has too much of a 'bullnose' shape in plan veiw - it lacks the distinctive 'corners ,at the top that catch the light often in prototype photos . The outer extremities of the nose have been rounded off slightly too much. Vitrains have got the shape of the nose very well - in its plan view , but its lacking in the height department , so looks just as weird... TFN Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 A little while ago there was an article on detailing and improving the N gauge versions by Tony Buckton in BRM - he built the corners up with Milliput and it made quite a difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted May 2, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 2, 2011 I have just had a look at a real 37 picture, it does appear to me that the newer longer nose is more correct than the short stubby old nose. The narrow sandbox filler is making the nose look too long. I've been having another look and I have to say that the narrow sandbox filler does confuse the issue. If you look at the first pic of 37003 (side-on) in Porcy Mane's post #87, on the bonnet there is a blue strip of paint between the top access doors (or whatever they're called) and the yellow, whereas on the centre headcode versions such as on this photo of 37240 6940 front side-on the yellow starts at these access doors. Are they different sizes/positions? There do also appear to be differences between headcode boxes on split headcode locos. Even so, I still think the bonnet looks too long on the new split headcode model of 37049, which may be because the curvature on the corners is wrong as 43179 suggests - perhaps the correct length is somewhere between the different models? But I will now reserve final judgement on whether to buy until I see the full headcode version 37251. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 47107 Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 37251 is now on shed at a certain Liverpool retailer. http://www.ehattons.com/StockDetail.aspx?SID=32718 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davknigh Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 37251 is now on shed at a certain Liverpool retailer. http://www.ehattons.com/StockDetail.aspx?SID=32718 There is also an interesting comparison the be found at the same website; http://www.ehattons.com/stockdetail.aspx?SID=32717 . The pic of D6801's nose looks shorter to me, or am I missing something obvious, apart from the fact that D6801 is split head code box and 37251 is full? Cheers, David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 There is also an interesting comparison the be found at the same website; http://www.ehattons.com/stockdetail.aspx?SID=32717 . The pic of D6801's nose looks shorter to me, or am I missing something obvious, apart from the fact that D6801 is split head code box and 37251 is full? Cheers, David I don't think that picture of D6801 is a production model, the earlier shot James showed up and the preproduction model were extended. Indeed James' picture shows the 37/4 bufferbeam on the chassis just poking out from behind the skirt. The old 37 with skirts was very wrong with the tail lights and headcode box (on the central type) all too far down as well as the buffers. The nose in general was also too rounded. This new one is probably the best shape we've had but its a shame a new chassis wasn't made to avoid the extrusion. Anyway, a prototype picture of D6700 to compare, not quite as square onto the side as i'd have liked but the relative proportions can be seen. Note also D200 in the background showing the cab windscreen not being flat across the 3 panes. Something the Shawplan windscreen can help add to a Bachmann. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
47423 Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 I have had a good look at 37049 at my local model shop tonight, the cantrail trench is hardly noticeable. The nose does not too bad to me,i can live with it. Looking forward to my cheap pre-order arriving from Rails and 37251 will be in my collection as soon as my local shop gets them in B) The local Bachmann rep was in the shop, so i had a natter with him about the new 37`s, he was aware of the flak Bachmann are receiving over the web. Looking forward to my pair of Blue Tractors landing, just need some blue 47`s now Mr Bachmann Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D400 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Interesting stuff. Has anyone had a chance to compare these models to the last batch of 37/0s (i.e. 37035/057 et. al.) It had been my intention to see if could swap the noses between a 049 and 035 to add gangway doors and remove the headlight - but the more I look the more it seems these noses are totally different If anyone has got one of each a photo showing them end to end would be very useful - thanks. Bruce Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
english electric Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 i bought a 37049 and this error with the nose, you can hardly tell its there its only a millimetre difference between the old (035, 057 n 114) and the new aka 37049, i was neally put of buying it and im so glad i didnt since i can live with it and it is actually a nice model at the end of the day and far better than the Hornby version still Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted May 13, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 13, 2011 I agree. While it is good that people point out possible discrepancies to enable us to make an informed choice, I've just bought 37251 and its a great little model. Running on a normal layout you won't notice the extra nose length. In its favour its a good runner with excellent lighting which can be controlled by switches. Good detailed model for £61 at a time when other diesels are approaching £100 discounted! Well done Bachmann. Tempted for the green one when it comes out now! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 This may be a useful view for reference - D6700 at the NRM earlier today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted May 19, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 19, 2011 Just received a de-sounded 37049 and I do have to say, the extra thickness of the nose is noticeable, the fact it is a contrasting colour to the rest of the loco body merely accentuates it. It would not be as noticeable on say large logo colours where the bonnet sides are the same colour as the front, however I can live with it and it means my breathed upon Lima split box one can now be gracefully retired. That trench under the cant rail grilles though, what were Bachmann thinking? Or is it a beyond their control cock up by the Chinese factory perhaps? Might try a couple of very thin strips of plastic prior to a repaint or weathering, may well do the trick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveb860 Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Just received a de-sounded 37049 and I do have to say, the extra thickness of the nose is noticeable, the fact it is a contrasting colour to the rest of the loco body merely accentuates it. It would not be as noticeable on say large logo colours where the bonnet sides are the same colour as the front, however I can live with it and it means my breathed upon Lima split box one can now be gracefully retired. That trench under the cant rail grilles though, what were Bachmann thinking? Or is it a beyond their control cock up by the Chinese factory perhaps? Might try a couple of very thin strips of plastic prior to a repaint or weathering, may well do the trick. Glad it arrived safely John. I succumbed to 37003 which will receive the sound chip, but couldn't justify keeping both both in these hard times. Just hope postie delivers soon!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
m mcdermott Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 D6801 arrived from the liverpool emporium today ,hav,nt run it yet but it looks stunning in the raw . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnd Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Got mine yesterday and it runs well, yellow leds for the cab and headcode box well pleased. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
essexexpress Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Eeek! only just caught up with what Bachmann have done. Looks very wrong on the BR blue models (likely to be exagerrated by the paint scheme), but the end looks too far out and the curves don't look right, it makes the nose end look a bit "deltic - esque", I know there's a family connection there but we're talking cousins NOT brothers! How do these models compare to the previous flatter Bachmann releases? Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hayes Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 well its not puttining me off buying them, i do love accuracy and i do enjoy people pointing out descrepencies, but i couldnt let it put me off it looks like a 37 its a great effort and will give me lots of fun joy and happy memories relived. its never gonna be real, why if we really want to nit pick does anyone think that the models we get are too smooth, how about modelling the ripples and indentations on the bodysides. real putty in the windows. and make them out of metal with a reall diesel, na... Bachmann thanks so much for providing the 37 of my dreams and for charging a great price that is affordable (just) what a great model it is, puts my old triang one to shame. i just wish i could get a shrink ray gun and shrink a real one too 00 gauge, then we would see how it really fairs up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.