Lochinvar Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 No sir.....I was referring to the recently released 39-460 Brake 3rds. ( I assumed that, since I had hit the "Reply quoting this post" button on "rembrow"s posting above,that would have been clear. Seemingly not. Sorry to have unintentionally raised your hopes. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandwich station Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 No sir.....I was referring to the recently released 39-460 Brake 3rds. ( I assumed that, since I had hit the "Reply quoting this post" button on "rembrow"s posting above,that would have been clear. Seemingly not. Sorry to have unintentionally raised your hopes. DR No worries mate. As you had no quoted post and my question was after the one you say you were answering, I had assumed (wrongly) that you were referring to mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Market65 Posted May 18, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 18, 2015 Hi. I've received an email from Hattons saying that the pre-order of two 39-460 brake thirds has been processed. I think it will, presumably, be sent on off in the post tomorrow. All the best, Market65. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted May 19, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 19, 2015 Hi. I've received an email from Hattons saying that the pre-order of two 39-460 brake thirds has been processed. I think it will, presumably, be sent on off in the post tomorrow. All the best, Market65. Ditto here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rembrow Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Does anyone know if the 57ft Porthole Corridor 3rd 39-450 has been dropped from the range? As it doesn't appear on Hatton's or Bachmann's websites. Hi I've sent you a pm about a shop that may still have stock and does website and telephone mail order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 'Porthole' brake third arrived today. Very neat model it is too.... I wonder how many purchasers will have noticed the sides are correctly slightly lower than the ends, the first plastic RTR coach to carry this feature and which all etch coach kits fail to replicate. Note also the revised communication chord layout in an inverted V over the corridor connection.... On the prototype the body sides are welded to the chassis, which is why they are lower than the floor and almost touching the stepboards. This in turn made for a deeper panel above the windows. The chassis was also of welded construction, hence the fillets in the corners of the trussrods.... This attention to detail make it all the more curious as to why Bachmann got its Modified 'Hall' so wrong. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Market65 Posted May 21, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 21, 2015 Hi, everyone. I received the Porthole BTK's from Hattons today. On looking at the sides, I've found myself wondering if the cantrail to the top of the window measurement is correct, for on the model, it is the same as on, for example, a TK. I thought that this was a bit more than that, but I could be wrong . . . All the best, Market65. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) Hi, everyone. I received the Porthole BTK's from Hattons today. On looking at the sides, I've found myself wondering if the cantrail to the top of the window measurement is correct, for on the model, it is the same as on, for example, a TK. I thought that this was a bit more than that, but I could be wrong . . . All the best, Market65. You're right. Bachmann HAS slipped up. The measurement from bottom of window to bottom of coach side should be 10mm on ALL Stanier coaches. So when the body side is lowered below the floor the cantrail should be correspondingly deeper. It isn't because Bachmann has simply kept the windows where they are in relation to the cantrail and increased the drop below the windows to almost 11mm. Oh dear. Edited May 21, 2015 by coachmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad McCann Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Compared to the job I have getting decent bogies for the I think I can live with the previous issue! Still, no harm done in pointing it out. You just need to decide whether you can live with it or not. Otherwise, this coach is a 'looker'. :-) Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I merely mentioned it from a scale model builders point of view. Whether one can live with it or not is immaterial to me......... I have my own accurate etchings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted May 22, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 22, 2015 I don't know what the original issue leading to the delayed release of the Brake Third was but I hope Bachmann didn't alter something they got right in the first place then rip us off for a Tenner for making it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor7598 Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Coachman correctly points out that peculiarity on Stanier pre/post war brake thirds ie. the lowered sides, complete with lower windows. I have often wondered why these vehicles were designed differently to the other types of the same era. There must be a reason for it . I did wonder when Bachmann withdrew the brake thirds, if they had not modelled this feature and quietly dumped them and retooled.But even the newly released models don't have lower windows and won't look odd in a train of Stanier stock like the prototypes did !. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted May 23, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 23, 2015 I don't know what the original issue leading to the delayed release of the Brake Third was but I hope Bachmann didn't alter something they got right in the first place then rip us off for a Tenner for making it wrong. How are we being 'ripped off tenner l?' This model way exceeds anything I could make myself and is more detailed and better finished than a Hornby Mk1 which retails for about £10 less. £34 for this strikes me as excellent value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted May 23, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 23, 2015 How are we being 'ripped off tenner l?' This model way exceeds anything I could make myself and is more detailed and better finished than a Hornby Mk1 which retails for about £10 less. £34 for this strikes me as excellent value. I am not arguing that this model is not worth the price compared with the current prices charged for other coaching stock. Had the model been released at the time it was first delivered it would have been sold by Hattons, etc at £24, their original pre-order price. Bachmann withdrew it then delivered it after the price increases, forcing retailers to initially sell it at a higher price under their trading terms. Had it been released and sold with the other models at £24 then the manufacturer admitted it was defective, offering you a replacement, would you expect to have to pay £10 extra to get it? There would be more froth on here than Watneys Keg if they tried to pull that one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I have often wondered why these vehicles were designed differently to the other types of the same era. There must be a reason for it . Staniers initial corridor brake third designs to D1851, D1852, D1952, D1905, D1963 and D1971 were no different structurally than other Stanier coaches, however, commencing with D1968 a much a stronger brake third was designed with welded underframes and body side panelling concealing the upper edge of the solebars. This was standard from then on***. ***Except for a batch of D1968's built at Wolverton, which had normal bodysides that were not lower than the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lochinvar Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 My BTK has arrived. Following the insertion of bogie spacers "a la coachman" it has now been coupled up to a similarly-modified CK. Using Roco 40270 close-couplers on both brings the gangways more or less into contact,while allowing negotiation of the curved area of a Peco double-slip without buffer-lock. (The close-couplers supplied by Bachmann - which produce satisfactory results on their Mk 1s - are quite useless with the "Portholes",since they leave the gangways miles apart). DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWR8700 Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Anyone know why Bachmann aren't making a 39-450a but they are making weathered versions for all of the others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rembrow Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Anyone know why Bachmann aren't making a 39-450a but they are making weathered versions for all of the others? I believe the reason is that the weathered 'a' versions are surplus stock of the original pristine versions, reworked into weathered. The 39-450 version 57ft third, was sold out at Bachmann, so no surplus stock to enable a weathered version to be made. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three Cocks Junction Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 OK then, a quick browse of Hattons shows:- 39-460 Brake 3rd (I already have this as M26668M) But: 39-460A weathered is also numbered M26668M (so is it actually a respray of 39-460?) 39-465 Composite I already have. 39-465A is of course a repeat of 39-465 numbered M24659. 39-470 Brake 1st I have no use for. 39-470A touts itself as M5077M. 39-475 Open Vestibule 1st is probably duplicated by 39-475A M7481M There does seem to be a massive overload of firsts here. There is nothing listed that I can use to increase my Brake 3rd - 3rd - composite to any credible longer formation. So why not another brake 3rd and a couple of different-numbered 3rds? That would go down well, and so would some maroons without too many firsts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 I have never understood this policy by manufacturers, and it is not just a recent thing. Why produce lots of first class coaches which are only seen in number on main line services, and are obviously poor sellers by the number which are still on sale long after the 2nds of all description are sold out? Why not manufacture twice (or even three times) as many 2nd class vehicles to first, and satisfy those who run secondary route or branch line layouts? And don't get me started on sleepers or catering coaches... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Colin Posted July 10, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 10, 2016 Definitely some in maroon - I'm seriously thinking of respraying a couple of coaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor7598 Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 I have never understood this policy by manufacturers, and it is not just a recent thing. Why produce lots of first class coaches which are only seen in number on main line services, and are obviously poor sellers by the number which are still on sale long after the 2nds of all description are sold out? Why not manufacture twice (or even three times) as many 2nd class vehicles to first, and satisfy those who run secondary route or branch line layouts? And don't get me started on sleepers or catering coaches... Unfortunately Bachmann seem to have fixated on the word Porthole ie every coach in the range had to have a porthole. Thus there was no open third in the range, which would have sold by the bucket load. A much better theme would have been ' Post war coaches ' , then replaced the brake first with a post war third open. The Severn Valley Railway even have a couple of prototypes to measure up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Colin Posted July 11, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 11, 2016 Is the old Replica LMS 3rd a post war design BTW - I was wondering if they might Be OK with a bit of detailing and some new windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted July 11, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 11, 2016 Is the old Replica LMS 3rd a post war design BTW - I was wondering if they might Be OK with a bit of detailing and some new windows. The instructions with Comet kits imply that it's a D1915 built at Derby in 1935. A total of 376 of the 60-seat version were built between 1935 and 1937. Probably the only Portholes to exceed this were the BTK, although the decision to ignore the CK baffles me when there must have been about five times as many of these as all of the FK, FO and BFK put together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Is the old Replica LMS 3rd a post war design BTW - I was wondering if they might Be OK with a bit of detailing and some new windows. I remember seeing a few of those in the make-up of excursion trains to the Lincolnshire coast from the Midlands in the early 1960s, but they seemed to vanish from the rakes very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now