Model Railway Partwork - Your Model Railway Village

[YK 50A]

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here, Alun. I was arguing in favour of the Hachette coach, not against it.

 

There are posts on this thread stating that the Hachette Mk1 is nothing like a Mk1. I'm using the 40 to argue that its a ludicrous statement. Even something as toy like as a Jouef 40 can capture the appearance and essence of what it purports to be.

 

I understood what you were saying, I just didn't think it was a great analogy.  I agree with just about every word of that though.

 

Alun

[Baby Deltic]

 our lass may have the same number of limbs  as Brianna Banks so she looks like her?

Naturally, if she asks you "do you think I look like Brianna Banks?" You'd have to say "of course I do"...

 

 

Unless she doesn't like Brianna Banks, of course..

['CHARD]

Thanks guys, that piece of research was definitely out of gauge  

[Baby Deltic]

Thanks guys, that piece of research was definitely out of gauge  

Just like the Jouef 40?

['CHARD]

Does she come from New England, by any chance?

 

 

 

EDIT: this was a far too subtle shed-code reference.

[andymac-2008]

 our lass may have the same number of limbs  as Brianna Banks so she looks like her?

I'm sure when the advert came on the TV most people noticed that it was a Mk1 coach.

 

I think the reason you have rattled so many peoples cage is your comment saying it will never look like a Mk1 coach.

 

I think if you would have pointed out that it resembles a Mk1 coach but not at yours and today's standards I think this thread would then be going in a different direction. 

So no hard feelings and happy modelling.

Andy 

[big jim]

well i've obviously made a huge error of judgement buying some of these coaches, no matter what i do i wont get them to look anything like a mk1 coach apparently, i think i'll sell them on and buy some original triang coaches instead

 

while im at it i'll swap my Hornby mk3s for some original short 7 window ones, replace my deltic with a dublo one, swap my lenz for a zero 1 and rip my nickel silver track up and replace it with steel rail

[Baby Deltic]

well i've obviously made a huge error of judgement buying some of these coaches, no matter what i do i wont get them to look anything like a mk1 coach apparently, i think i'll sell them on and buy some original triang coaches instead

 

while im at it i'll swap my Hornby mk3s for some original short 7 window ones, replace my deltic with a dublo one, swap my lenz for a zero 1 and rip my nickel silver track up and replace it with steel rail

You know it makes sense.  

 

 

P.S...... wanna buy a Hornby-Dublo Co-Bo to go with the Triang coaches?

[Il Grifone]

Perhaps what is wrong with the Hachette coach is that it does only cost £3.99!

 

Historically the humble Mk I coach has had a rough ride. There were three attempts from Tri-ang (the last is still available and, although much improved, is still rubbish - if you accused this of not looking like a Mk I, I would probably agree! They never made an SK either.). Trix made theirs to the wrong scale (a marketing error that cost them dear (not only them)), Hornby Dublo had two goes (putting BR numbers on (too short) models of Stanier coaches fools nobody and their second attempt was again too short, though their windows are the best yet IMHO). The Playcraft efforts can be dismissed out of hand and the Lima ones suffer from excessively recessed windows (amongst other things), which still do not look right even with 'Flushglaze' glazing. That leaves Bachmann ("Very good, but could try harder" As teachers used to write on school reports). In my opinion the Hachette comes somewhere between the Lima and the Bachmann.

 

There are of course also the Kitmaster kits, which were a welcome arrival at 6/6d. and make up into quite reasonable models though there are a few errors here too (slightly too short and the CK window spacing is all over the place for a start).

[Il Grifone]

You know it makes sense.

 

 

P.S...... wanna buy a Hornby-Dublo Co-Bo to go with the Triang coaches?

 

The Dublo Co-Bo is rather better than their Deltic! Neither can be faulted on their ability to pull trains.

[big jim]

wouldn't it be funny if this was all a HUGE marketing ploy by Hornby and it turned out these were actually the new Hornby 'design clever' coaches.

[Bob Reid]

OK - we've been here before but you're still making your (spurious) point!

 

What, specifically, is SO wrong with the Hachette SO that cannot be put right?

 

As one who has actually dismantled eight of them, along with two Bachmann Mk.1s, I can state categorically that dimensionally they are identical - to the piont where components are capable of being interchanged.

 

Bodyside profile? Identical.

 

Bodyside height? Identical.

 

Method of assembly? Identical.

 

............. and on and on and on............!

 

Yes - details have been simplified - no wire tank fillers, etc. - but nothing that cannot VERY easily be remedied.

 

So - let's put a stop to all this "...whilever (?) the sun still shines..." and leave these coaches to those who have the modelling skills, (or the commitment to acquire them), to make something worthwhile out of these undoubted bargains.

 

Why is there always someone ready to 'knock' anything new?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

You know John,  I hate to harp on about this however I feel your posting needs some correction so as to not mislead.  They are not cheap and accurate enough Mark 1s, they are just cheap (not particularly good) fakes copies

 

The bodyside profile is not correct - the Hachette Mk1 is far to flat i.e too great a radius when compared to both the prototype and the Bachmann Mk1

 

If you look at C&WR's posting 1121 - aside from others that have appeared in this thread, the profile is obviously different from the prototype.  To put scale numbers round it. on the prototype the (maximum) width over the body is 36.0 mm - on the Hachette 35.4mm and on the Bachmann 36.1  couple that to an overwidth underframe (Scale 31.8 the Hachette 32.8 Bachmann 31.8 and the curve clearly has to be a large diameter on the Hachette.  Aside from the width over the solebar, the depth of the solebars are not correct.  The visible depth of a Mk1 solebar is 2.08mm on the Hachette this is 2.94 and on the Bachmann 2.08

 

As to interchangeability with the Bachmann Mk1 - the sides are a full 1.5mm longer - try fitting a Bachmann side into the Hachette underframe unit and it becomes painfully obvious.

 

All that said, these are good enough for anyone setting out to start modifiying coaching stock, but lets not pretend that at short of £4 we've stumbled on a cheap source of fairly accurate Mk1's.  

 

As to the "experts" where or who are they? 

['CHARD]

round and round and round it goes,

where it stops nobody knows

[PhilJ W]

 our lass may have the same number of limbs  as Brianna Banks so she looks like her?

Who's Brianna Banks?

[big jim]

They are not cheap and accurate enough Mark 1s, they are just cheap and (not particularly good) fakes

 

fakes of what exactly?

[big jim]

Who's Brianna Banks?

google is your friend, clear your browsing history afterwards though if your wife shares your computer!

[Bob Reid]

Fake Bachmann Jim

[big jim]

how can they be fake, they are not marketed as Bachmann coaches, budget copies perhaps but not fake

[PhilJ W]

google is your friend, clear your browsing history afterwards though if your wife shares your computer!

   

[Bob Reid]

how can they be fake, they are not marketed as Bachmann coaches, budget copies perhaps but not fake

 

Fair enough Jim. Since amended.

[big jim]

cheers (i still think they are a decent model though!!)

[cctransuk]

You know John,  I hate to harp on about this however I feel your posting needs some correction so as to not mislead.  They are not cheap and accurate enough Mark 1s, they are just cheap (not particularly good) fakes copies

 

The bodyside profile is not correct - the Hachette Mk1 is far to flat i.e too great a radius when compared to both the prototype and the Bachmann Mk1

 

If you look at C&WR's posting 1121 - aside from others that have appeared in this thread, the profile is obviously different from the prototype.  To put scale numbers round it. on the prototype the (maximum) width over the body is 36.0 mm - on the Hachette 35.4mm and on the Bachmann 36.1  couple that to an overwidth underframe (Scale 31.8 the Hachette 32.8 Bachmann 31.8 and the curve clearly has to be a large diameter on the Hachette.  Aside from the width over the solebar, the depth of the solebars are not correct.  The visible depth of a Mk1 solebar is 2.08mm on the Hachette this is 2.94 and on the Bachmann 2.08

 

As to interchangeability with the Bachmann Mk1 - the sides are a full 1.5mm longer - try fitting a Bachmann side into the Hachette underframe unit and it becomes painfully obvious.

 

All that said, these are good enough for anyone setting out to start modifiying coaching stock, but lets not pretend that at short of £4 we've stumbled on a cheap source of fairly accurate Mk1's.  

 

As to the "experts" where or who are they? 

 

I have before me, butted end to end, Hachette SK and Bachmann BSK bodysides; the bodyside profile is indisputably identical. The locating lugs must be the same too, as the two are of identical overall height when laid flat and butted up. If you are within range of Bodmin, by all means call in and verify this for yourself.

 

I, and many other modellers, do not consider slightly reducing the visible depth of solebars or the overall length of the a coach in anyway insuperable, if these features offend our eyes.

 

It has never been contended by any of the purchasers of these coaches that they are as good overall, when purchased, as Bachmann coaches - though there is one notable area where they ARE better.

 

If you want off-the-shelf coaches to Bachmann standard that you can place straight on the track and run, (and can put up with the roof ribs), then buy Bachmann at £20.00 plus new.

 

If you are a moderately skilled modeller, it is perfectly possible to modify the Hachette coaches to produce a model that is better than Bachmann; viz the Bachmann roof ribs. The base cost of £4.00, plus any added fittings, will not come close to half the cost of the Bachmann model.

 

The real reason that I contributed to the this thread, though, was the derisory way in which you portrayed purchasers of these coaches as the sycophantic courtiers in the tale of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'; a quite unnecessarily dismissive attitude.

 

Here endeth my postings on this subject.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Brian Indge]

 

If you look at C&WR's posting 1121 - aside from others that have appeared in this thread, the profile is obviously different from the prototype.  To put scale numbers round it. on the prototype the (maximum) width over the body is 36.0 mm - on the Hachette 35.4mm and on the Bachmann 36.1  couple that to an overwidth underframe (Scale 31.8 the Hachette 32.8 Bachmann 31.8 and the curve clearly has to be a large diameter on the Hachette.  Aside from the width over the solebar, the depth of the solebars are not correct.  The visible depth of a Mk1 solebar is 2.08mm on the Hachette this is 2.94 and on the Bachmann 2.08

 

 

 

This is a typical posting by a 'Rivet-counter'. I would love to know how 0.6 of a millimeter on body width can be seen from a metre away!!

If this is not for you, then fine, but don't criticise the rest of us if this descrepancy is not the end of the world. I suppose you have no problem with overscale lights on your locomotives which look ridiculous from any distance.

[Baby Deltic]

Our local sunday school teacher Not sure what she does the other 6 days of the week

 

Pornbroker? (deliberately mis-spelt)

[Il Grifone]

You know John,  I hate to harp on about this however I feel your posting needs some correction so as to not mislead.  They are not cheap and accurate enough Mark 1s, they are just cheap (not particularly good) fakes copies

 

The bodyside profile is not correct - the Hachette Mk1 is far to flat i.e too great a radius when compared to both the prototype and the Bachmann Mk1

 

If you look at C&WR's posting 1121 - aside from others that have appeared in this thread, the profile is obviously different from the prototype.  To put scale numbers round it. on the prototype the (maximum) width over the body is 36.0 mm - on the Hachette 35.4mm and on the Bachmann 36.1  couple that to an overwidth underframe (Scale 31.8 the Hachette 32.8 Bachmann 31.8 and the curve clearly has to be a large diameter on the Hachette.  Aside from the width over the solebar, the depth of the solebars are not correct.  The visible depth of a Mk1 solebar is 2.08mm on the Hachette this is 2.94 and on the Bachmann 2.08

 

As to interchangeability with the Bachmann Mk1 - the sides are a full 1.5mm longer - try fitting a Bachmann side into the Hachette underframe unit and it becomes painfully obvious.

 

All that said, these are good enough for anyone setting out to start modifiying coaching stock, but lets not pretend that at short of £4 we've stumbled on a cheap source of fairly accurate Mk1's.  

 

As to the "experts" where or who are they? 

 

According to the data I have, The dimensions of a BR Mk I coach on the long underframe are:-

 

Headstocks                                   63' 5"            253.67mm    Hachette   253.5mm*

Body Corner Pillars                      63' 6"            254mm          Hachette  255mm*

Over Body &Stepboards              9' 0"               36mm         Hachette     35.8mm

 

* Measured with a ruler (several times), so around 0.5mm error either way is possible.

 

I will agree that the sides look too flat. (I believe the prototype radius is 22' 6" flattened around the windows to avoid the use of curved glass). This appears to be due to the solebars being slightly too far apart to allow wheel clearance (the real thing will only negotiate a 3.5 chain radius (about 36" in 00), while the model has to contend with about half of this. There appears to be a slight overlap of the sides over the ends and the buffers are mounted too low on the headstocks.

 

All I can say is that if the Bachmann is shorter (I don't have one to measure), it is the Bachmann that is incorrect. Kitmaster coaches are too short by a couple of mm. This can be seen in the end doors being too close to the ends.

 

As to experts, I certainly don't claim to be one and, if any of the above is incorrect, please point it out.