black and decker boy Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 ]We have been eagerly awaiting the 2 car 108, catalogue no 32-900B which finally arrived this week. Imagine our disappointment when we opened the box at our local model shop (Arcadia Models, Shaw) to find Bachmann had used the small headcode variant and not the big headcode variant. All of their advance publicity shows the large 4 digit headcode box. The model sadly has the 2 character cab front display with small destination blind on the roof -see pics (One is from the Bachmann website, the other is the actual model). Is it really so hard to make sure your advertising matches your product? Still, its £69 I have to spend on someone elses products like a Heljan Lion. http://railsofsheffield.com/class-108-br-green-with-speed-whiskers-2-car-dmu-32-900b-jjja15416.aspx Whinge over. [Admin edit - Copyright image removed and replaced with link] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted February 24, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 24, 2011 I noticed this too although I personally prefer the model version without headcode, but no good if thats what you wanted. I have been caught out like this before with Bachmann showing one picture and the model being different. One reason why I won't preorder Bachmann stuff now and will only order when I have seen a picture of what has actually been produced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butler Henderson Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 One reason why I won't preorder Bachmann stuff now and will only order when I have seen a picture of what has actually been produced. Hornby aren't exactly innocent in the matter either. Personally I do not usually pre-order anything - the Modelzone Farish 97201 being an exception and that was only because my local branch has little if any N gauge in stock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I think Bachmann have only done the earlier end version in this livery once before, and those sold out very quickly, so I'm sure many will welcome it. Still not good for those who placed advanced orders based on what was in the catalogue. By the way, I'm still waiting for a green with yellow panels two car or a blue unit other than as a limited edition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted February 25, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 25, 2011 I do think Bachmann are their own worst enemies in this respect. And it's not just down to using an incorrect picture, in this case of the previous version 32-900A, and for which there is no excuse when they already have a stock picture of the original 32-900. Bachmann has a good system for numbering their products, using A, B, C etc. for further production runs of the same basic model with minor differences, e.g. numbers or destinations. For me, the different types of headcode box are not a minor variation and justify a separate product code as Bachamnn already uses for the different liveries. If this had been the case, the 4 character headcode box version would have had a different 32-90x product code and this latest one been 32-900A. I, and I suspect many others, would then have known what to expect this time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted February 25, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 25, 2011 I would feel more than a little miffed if I had been waiting for a 4-character headcode version and received the 2-panel one instead. It is true that the version released may satisfy many customers but opening the box to find something very different inside to what one was expecting is not good. Bachmann have only ever illustrated the former and must have known for some time that it was not going to be the model they released. That to me suggests at the very least poor communication and marketing and possibly something closer to misrepresentation. Their own website occasionally mentions changes to announced models but nothing was said about the 108. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted February 25, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 25, 2011 I guess if people feel strongly about this then the next step is to contact Bachmann. You never know, they may not even be aware there is an issue at this point in time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted February 25, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 25, 2011 It is not inconceivable that Bachmann were also expecting these to be the large roof top head code version and that the mistake could lie with the factory in China pulling the wrong mould out of storage, the mistake not being discovered until people started receiving their models and opening the box, it has happened before with a Ltd Edition loco which turned up with the wrong tender IIRC. Are the car numbers on the model correct for the head code variant as supplied? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagrizz Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I would think that an easier mistake for Bachmanns' advertising/marketing people to make is simply using the wrong photo. Catalogue 32-900 was the original two-panel headcode release, 32-900A was the four-panel headcode release. If you were told that the next release was 32-900B, which version would you expect and which photo would you use? My bet is that someone used the photo from the last version. Graham Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
black and decker boy Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 We did actually contact Bachmann later about this and initially there were unaware. Having checked, they cinfirmed they were expecting the small headcode version based on the artwork sent to China, however, they had not spotted that version 0 and version A were different. They have said they will update the image & description of version B to remove the confusion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 And it's not just down to using an incorrect picture, in this case of the previous version 32-900A, and for which there is no excuse when they already have a stock picture of the original 32-900. Absolutely. No excuse whatsoever. Apart from good old simple human error, of course; perhaps some folk work in a field where that's been totally eradicated? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny Emily Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I have always taken to getting positive confirmation of livery/variance details because Bachmann, and other manufacturers too, have a habit of using old stock photos for items. Each time a new 16t mineral wagon appears, for example, it seems to use the stock photo of a previous version. I never rely on the catalogue images anymore. As long as you know that manufacturers do this it becomes something that is easy to watch out for. Usually an email either to a retailer or direct to Bachmann can clarify the exact details. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted February 28, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 28, 2011 We did actually contact Bachmann later about this and initially there were unaware. Having checked, they cinfirmed they were expecting the small headcode version based on the artwork sent to China, however, they had not spotted that version 0 and version A were different. They have said they will update the image & description of version B to remove the confusion. Absolutely. No excuse whatsoever. Apart from good old simple human error, of course; perhaps some folk work in a field where that's been totally eradicated? Of course there is human error but that's what quality assurance is for - to spot mistakes like this. But since my previous post, I looked at the Bachmann catalogue and that says roof headcode boxes, so the catalogue picture matches the description. Yet Bachmann says the small headcode version is what they asked for... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted February 28, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 28, 2011 Of course there is human error but that's what quality assurance is for - to spot mistakes like this. But since my previous post, I looked at the Bachmann catalogue and that says roof headcode boxes, so the catalogue picture matches the description. Yet Bachmann says the small headcode version is what they asked for... This appears to be another case of Bachmann's left hand (Bachmann UK) not knowing what their right hand (China) is doing and not having in place any sort of incoming goods inspection to check what is received is what was ordered. This smacks of the confusion where the UK operation insisted the LMS Jinty was not DCC ready when it was. Nobody in the UK had noticed the change (initiated at the factory). Even stranger nobody had (presumably) checked any of the new batch when they arrived in the UK, otherwise they would have spotted it. When I worked in Quality Assurance this could not have happened as each new batch of goods was checked upon arrival against that ordered and anything not meeting the specification rejected. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltic56 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Does it really matter at the end of the day? A model has been released and a good one at that . Also despite all checks etc mistakes can still be made after all we are all human ----- Aren`t we [ well most of us are ] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted March 1, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 1, 2011 A good model, agreed, but the not inconsequential variations between the one illustrated and against which orders were placed and that now delivered makes all the difference for many modellers who wish to accurately represent a particular era, location or train. Taking a different view I would be mightily unhappy if an air-smoothed Bulleid light Pacific had been ordered based on marketing material but turned up without prior warning in rebuilt condition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailsbury Hall Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 It does matter! The item is incorrectly described and it could hurt Bachmann long term as people will have less inclination to pre-order. This in turn could mean that dealers will order less stock up front. Add this the debacle with Hornby and the latest Merchant Navy release and you wonder just what is going on as both Hornby and Bachmann are supposed to have their own employees in the factories to ensure that what is produced is what was ordered. Does the confusion actually lie in the U.K.? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 It does matter! The item is incorrectly described and it could hurt Bachmann long term as people will have less inclination to pre-order. In which case, there's no real reason for anyone here* to get too bent out of shape, is there? It's Bachmann's mistake - which they are aware of - and their lookout if they don't learn from it. Simples * Other than of course the OP and anyone directly affected, I do understand it must have been annoying - but that IMO doesnt warrant the 'hang 'em high' mentality that's developing here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltic56 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I fully agree --- it is a mistake there is no need to write a tome as long as War and Peace on it. After all it is only a model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 It has been pointed out to me that the Rails photos show the numbers are at the left hand end on one side of the vehicles. I thought DMUs had numbers at the right hand end, which was the BR standard from 1951. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted March 2, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2, 2011 It has been pointed out to me that the Rails photos show the numbers are at the left hand end on one side of the vehicles. I thought DMUs had numbers at the right hand end, which was the BR standard from 1951. Oops, you're correct. But aren't we an observant lot...not! I've just looked at Hattons pictures of the first version 32-900 32-900, which I have, and it's the same - numbers at the left hand end of both cars on one side. Never noticed... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy P Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 It may be purely academic in the light of somepeople’s disappointment, but it looks as though the problem is with the cataloguenumber of 900A. Everyone seems to point out the different headcode arrangementbut not the fact that the 1st issue was a Power / Trailer set andthe 2nd (A) was a Power Twin. It is a question of how the cataloguenumbers are allocated to the various combinations of “relevant†features (frontend style, 2, 3 or 4 car, trailer or twin). Therefore, when such a discrepancy occursbetween the 1st and 2nd issues, we may need to ask more questionsabout the 3rd. I suppose this will mean relying on the catalogueillustrations. Sorry if I’ve muddied the waters. I would be interested to know how the tooling isarranged for these models. If the body sides are created by using a combinationof tools (think of the construction of a DC Kits model to see what I'm gettingat) then it would mean that the ability to recreate the TBSL vehicle in the 4car set already exists. I would guess it would otherwise be an non-viable proposition. Roy P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted March 4, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 4, 2011 At the end of the day however while these sorts of errors and oversights are frustrating to many of us I wonder really how much that might affect sales among the great majority of potential customers. In places such as RMweb we probably represent the "10%" at the most knowledgeable and demanding end of the scale. I don't excuse poor communication nor errors which should be easily spotted and corrected with the most basic of research but how much does this sort of thing matter to the remaining "90%" (random figures used) who just want a train that looks like a train? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted March 4, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 4, 2011 In which case, there's no real reason for anyone here* to get too bent out of shape, is there? It's Bachmann's mistake - which they are aware of - and their lookout if they don't learn from it. Simples * Other than of course the OP and anyone directly affected, I do understand it must have been annoying - but that IMO doesnt warrant the 'hang 'em high' mentality that's developing here -tend to think its a bit sloppy of Bachmann, but as I far as I can see as long as the product was exchanged/refunded with good grace it is not of huge consequence. It is a bit of a shame for the OP and they were right to flag this up as although many are happy to run what they like on their layout there are as many people who look forward to a certain release as being just the thing for them, I'm certainly glad Dapol are doing the pilot scheme 26 fairly early on, that didnt happen in OO! Hang em high? -is it a simple error or a misrepresentation, you hear all sorts about advertising getting rapped I think Broadband speeds are the current one? If any one wanted to really get that sh*tty about mis-representation of headcode boxes (or any other demeanours) I am sure the ASA would love to hear! - as I have already stated I do feel disappointed for the original poster who was looking forward to the model, they were right to flag it up for anyone who was after the same (or the other) model! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy P Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 At the end of the day however while these sorts of errors and oversights are frustrating to many of us I wonder really how much that might affect sales among the great majority of potential customers. In places such as RMweb we probably represent the "10%" at the most knowledgeable and demanding end of the scale. I don't excuse poor communication nor errors which should be easily spotted and corrected with the most basic of research but how much does this sort of thing matter to the remaining "90%" (random figures used) who just want a train that looks like a train? Wise words and something which we should always bear in mind. More generally, it would be nice to think that every time a manufacturer is encouraged to raise their game by a genuine enthusiast that someone, somewhere absorbs this and ultimately migrates from the 90% to the 10%. Quite where I sit in the pyramid I couldn't really say (most knowledgeable top 10%? maybe! most demanding 10%?Maybe! Most spending 10%? probably) We are not born with the knowledge but we may be encouraged to seek it. We all have some part to play. We should not feel guilty about pointing out errors. And the companies involved should understand that most criticism is fuelled by a passion for their product that producers of other "goods" would kill for. Roy P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.