Bachmann retooled Modified Hall 2012 - What can we expect?

[dibber25]

Thanks Ian,

Apologies if this reply is a bit late, but I've only just been made aware of the discussion. I pride myself on writing reviews that are as accurate and comprehensive as I can make them (with reason), so I'm very disappointed to see that this review was not up to the standards I aim for. I thought I'd covered all the modifications made to this model and that it was much better than the previous attempt. As you probably know, Rob Kinsey normally writes reviews of GWR models for BRM, but in this case the timescales were too short to get it photographed and over to him before this issue went to press. I'm the first to admit I don't have the same level of knowledge about GWR locomotives that I do for other companies and eras, but having been at MR when Richard Foster wrote the review of the Modified Hall that led to their recall, I was aware of the problems with the first batch and paid attention to those areas. Looking at it again, I would disagree with the use of the word 'spectacularly', as I think that's excessively dramatic in the circumstances. Although it's clearly not Bachmann's finest hour, there have been errors of greater magnitude in the past - Bachmann's original Class 37/4, for example.

But, I should have mentioned the lack of the stretcher across the front of the bogie (which is indeed a major distinguishing feature of the Modified Hall). And as CJL (dibber25) says above, the issue of the curve between the frame extensions could be (and has been) overlooked by those without the intimate knowledge of the class that some here have. That's not an excuse, I should have spotted it and I can only hold my hands up and apologise. I've identified much smaller and more obscure errors on many other models in the hundreds of reviews I've written over the last 15 years, but occasionally in any activity you don't quite meet the standards you aim for. Richard's review is certainly more comprehensive in this case, as I would expect from such a staunch Swindon man!

Thanks for making me aware of it. As someone wise once said, the only mistake is not learning from it. I've done that and it will lead to better reviews in future.

 

All the best

 

Ben

I'm waiting to fall into a similar hole over some 'modern image' item! Fortunately for me, there haven't been many major new diesels or electrics recently, but when something turns up, I know I'll be asking myself "What would Ben have spotted on this?"

CHRIS LEIGH

[Ian Hargrave]

Thanks Ian,

Apologies if this reply is a bit late, but I've only just been made aware of the discussion. I pride myself on writing reviews that are as accurate and comprehensive as I can make them (with reason), so I'm very disappointed to see that this review was not up to the standards I aim for. I thought I'd covered all the modifications made to this model and that it was much better than the previous attempt. As you probably know, Rob Kinsey normally writes reviews of GWR models for BRM, but in this case the timescales were too short to get it photographed and over to him before this issue went to press. I'm the first to admit I don't have the same level of knowledge about GWR locomotives that I do for other companies and eras, but having been at MR when Richard Foster wrote the review of the Modified Hall that led to their recall, I was aware of the problems with the first batch and paid attention to those areas. Looking at it again, I would disagree with the use of the word 'spectacularly', as I think that's excessively dramatic in the circumstances. Although it's clearly not Bachmann's finest hour, there have been errors of greater magnitude in the past - Bachmann's original Class 37/4, for example.

But, I should have mentioned the lack of the stretcher across the front of the bogie (which is indeed a major distinguishing feature of the Modified Hall). And as CJL (dibber25) says above, the issue of the curve between the frame extensions could be (and has been) overlooked by those without the intimate knowledge of the class that some here have. That's not an excuse, I should have spotted it and I can only hold my hands up and apologise. I've identified much smaller and more obscure errors on many other models in the hundreds of reviews I've written over the last 15 years, but occasionally in any activity you don't quite meet the standards you aim for. Richard's review is certainly more comprehensive in this case, as I would expect from such a staunch Swindon man!

Thanks for making me aware of it. As someone wise once said, the only mistake is not learning from it. I've done that and it will lead to better reviews in future.

 

All the best

Ben

Out of respect for a great and honest posting...the word "spectacularly " has been removed from my original post.All of us,me included,should have seen this coming from Andy Y's images here way back a couple of months ago.I saw production samples on the Bachmann stand at York and didn't look closely enough...Mea culpa! I know there are sound reasons for them doing it the way they did but it is a pity that the essential distinguishing feature of the Modified Hall has been somewhat emasculated.Regards,Ian

[TrevorP1]

Out of respect for a great and honest posting...the word "spectacularly " has been removed from my original post.All of us,me included,should have seen this coming from Andy Y's images here way back a couple of months ago.I saw production samples on the Bachmann stand at York and didn't look closely enough...Mea culpa! I know there are sound reasons for them doing it the way they did but it is a pity that the essential distinguishing feature of the Modified Hall has been somewhat emasculated.Regards,Ian

Agreed. The area under the smoke box saddle is similar on the County, 94XX as well as the Modified Hall and is instantly recognisable. The bogie is, to me at least, a lesser issue that could be sorted easily.

 

Maybe I should have seen it coming but I honestly expected Bachmann to get it right.

 

I'm going to leave it for now until one turns up on the secondhand market that is cheap enough to risk a butchering job... Maybe...

[Ozexpatriate]

This has been an interesting thread for me.  I'm not in the market for the modified Hall - they are late for my interests and particularly so since most of them were built under nationalization and carry BR liveries.

 

I am a GWR fan, but never grew up with them. It embarrasses me to admit it but frankly the nuances between GWR 4-6-0s are challenging for me and I certainly would not have noticed any issues with the modified Hall were they not pointed out.

 

There was a comment in this thread earlier (I can't find it so perhaps it was edited away) that reminded me of something Simon Kohler said in one of his blogs, (I am paraphrasing here), about critics not spoiling things for the rest of us.

 

I don't accept this mindset. I am not an expert. I rely on people with more experience than I have to understand how well a model represents its prototype. I rely on informed reviews to understand when a model manufacturer gets it right or gets it wrong. This helps me make an informed purchase choice. As a customer I can choose to overlook a flaw or spend money elsewhere on a better model.

 

I think the magazine reviews do a great service by being objective in their reviews and it is very evident here.

[The Stationmaster]

Of course a very simple approach is just to look at it sideways on  (and deal with the missing frame plate on the front of thebogie by removing the coupling and applying a piece of plasticard)

[dibber25]

Of course a very simple approach is just to look at it sideways on  (and deal with the missing frame plate on the front of thebogie by removing the coupling and applying a piece of plasticard)

I don't think anyone ever said the bogie front plate was a real problem. It's a five minute fix. However, the smokebox saddle front became more of an issue, the longer I looked at it. I got out the review sample of the 30-year-old Replica Railways Lady Margaret Hall and although it looks 'Railroad' by modern standards, its front end looks much better. I was reminded of a painting of an 'A3' that hung in my boss's office at Ian Allan. I remarked one day that I thought it was a fabulous painting (by Vic Welch). "Yes," said my boss, "but have you noticed that the middle wheel is oval, not round?" The perspective was off, the wheel was wrongly shaped, and I had never noticed it, but after that, I couldn't look at that painting without the middle wheel spoiling it. This '6959' is the same, and I just know that sooner or later I'm going to have to take a hacksaw to it.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Clearwater]

It's a good web forums didn't exist 25+ years ago to hear the shellacking would have got for some of their more heinous models!

[coachmann]

The perspective was off, the wheel was wrongly shaped, and I had never noticed it, but after that, I couldn't look at that painting without the middle wheel spoiling it. This '6959' is the same, and I just know that sooner or later I'm going to have to take a hacksaw to it.

I'm smiling because thats the modeller coming out.... I'm sure there is a workaround even if it mean making a new screw mounting for the body-chassis....Or even leaving a pile of smokebox ash there.... haha.

[TrevorP1]

 This '6959' is the same, and I just know that sooner or later I'm going to have to take a hacksaw to it.

 

CHRIS LEIGH

 

We'll be interested in the results Chris! 

[locoholic]

I'm just surprised that Bachmann took the decision that a model with this kind of error is OK to release. If that's their thinking, can we (for instance) look forward to a new batch of Jubilees using the current tooling regardless of the boiler details, on the grounds that it wouldn't be cost-effective to tool for all the variations, and not many potential buyers would spot the errors?

 

I was surprised and disappointed when the Met-Cam units appeared with the dodgy window alignments, and I'm getting the same feeling with the Modified Hall.

 

And why bother to re-tool the V2 body - surely the market for that model must be pretty small by now? To my mind the old body looks pretty much like a V2.

 

You could be forgiven for thinking that there's someone in the background demanding that the UK part of Bachmann starts to get some cash in pronto, even if that means that standards have to slip a bit.

[The Stationmaster]

I'm just surprised that Bachmann took the decision that a model with this kind of error is OK to release. If that's their thinking, can we (for instance) look forward to a new batch of Jubilees using the current tooling regardless of the boiler details, on the grounds that it wouldn't be cost-effective to tool for all the variations, and not many potential buyers would spot the errors?

 

I was surprised and disappointed when the Met-Cam units appeared with the dodgy window alignments, and I'm getting the same feeling with the Modified Hall.

 

And why bother to re-tool the V2 body - surely the market for that model must be pretty small by now? To my mind the old body looks pretty much like a V2.

 

You could be forgiven for thinking that there's someone in the background demanding that the UK part of Bachmann starts to get some cash in pronto, even if that means that standards have to slip a bit.

As a matter of fact we simply do not know why it hasn't been modelled correctly - could be an error, could be something lost in translation, could be a cost saving measure, could be lack of research (although I doubt that one to be honest), could be someone didn't take account of the need for two different footplate components and two different chassis mounting methods and took an easy way out, could even be a mix up once again of of 'Hall' and 'Modified Hall' components as appeared to happen last time round?  Unless and until Bachmann tell us we simply don't know which of those, or something else, led to the situation with these engines.  

 

So to draw conclusions from one what might imagine to be the cause, and what impact that imagined cause might have on other models, doesn't really mean anything.

[Legend]

I think you need to get this in context. I accept that if you are a GWR specialist , this defect will be reasonably obvious to you. And indeed we have heard from people who have spotted the real thing saying they immediately noticed it was wrong. Also when Dibber contemplates attacking the Mazak , you think well he's not doing that for the sheer hell of it , there must be something wrong.

 

However on the other side , I certainly wouldn't have known there was an issue. More expert than me, Ben Jones didn't notice it . Also if you look at album pictures, the area is often in shadow and its not at all obvious that there is an issue. So is it critical overall? If you are that GWR officionado then probably your eyes are drawn to it , but for the rest of us probably not. So talk of holding it back and not releasing it I think is a bit over the top.

 

Comparison with the V2 is not the same. Here there is a very visible fault in that the dome is way too flat and doesn't stand out as much as it should. To me that is immediately obvious and its most definitely not in shadow. Yet this model has sold , probably relatively well, given its longevity in the catalogue and the fact they deem it worthwhile redoing. So while the Modified Hall is not Bachmanns best model its not their worst either.

 

And if it doesn't sell well, maybe I'll pick up one at a discount in 6 months time 

Edited May 8, 2015 by Legend

[brushman47544]

Comparison with the V2 is not the same. Here there is a very visible fault in that the dome is way too flat and doesn't stand out as much as it should. To me that is immediately obvious and its most definitely not in shadow. Yet this model has sold , probably relatively well, given its longevity in the catalogue and the fact they deem it worthwhile redoing. So while the Modified Hall is not Bachmanns best model its not their worst either.

 

And if it doesn't sell well, maybe I'll pick up one at a discount in 6 months time 

 

Looking from the front, I would argue that the error with the Modified Hall is not different to the side on view of the V2. To those who know the class, the error is obvious. I know little about LNER prototypes so the current V2 looks pretty much OK to me.

 

On the question of possible discount I quite agree. There will be a price at which I can accept the error and they are eventually discounted to that level I may well buy one. But not at full price.

[locoholic]

I think you need to get this in context. I accept that if you are a GWR specialist , this defect will be reasonably obvious to you.

 

It would also be reasonably obvious if you have a drawing of the loco, or have inspected and measured the real thing, and have then paid attention to the drawings & measurements. I would hope that Bachmann had access to both whilst they prepared their product.

 

This appears to be a case of Bachmann trying to do a bit of "Design Clever" and creating as many common parts for both types of Hall, to reduce tooling costs and increase profit. Sadly, just like Hornby (who recently released a 52xx tank that was simply impossible to assemble correctly) they're obviously not quite clever enough to carry it off successfully.

 

I'm a bit surprised that people on here are so willing to give Bachmann the benefit of the doubt. I don't mind paying the new high prices for models, but in return for that I do expect the models to be the right shape.

[Arthur]

 

Times have changed. If you inhabit forums like this you will be exposed to the knowledge of genuine experts, with real in depth knowledge, who can point out errors in our models.

 

No longer can you model in happy ignorance, whether or not it bothers you, you will be more aware of shortfalls in your purchases.

[dibber25]

Times have changed. If you inhabit forums like this you will be exposed to the knowledge of genuine experts, with real in depth knowledge, who can point out errors in our models.

 

No longer can you model in happy ignorance, whether or not it bothers you, you will be more aware of shortfalls in your purchases.

But it wasn't 'experts' on any forum like this that exposed their knowledge in this case, it was a good old-fashioned magazine reviewer.

[S.A.C Martin]

I tend not to post here, but after being handed this link and being asked for my views via email, I feel on balance I must protest regarding the comment that the "V2 looks pretty much okay".

 

If you were to put the Bachmann model alongside the real thing, Green Arrow, you would find that the smokebox door is overly bulbous and not the right size, the boiler does not have the correct profile, being almost parallel instead of tapered, the dome (as said earlier) is flatter than it should be, and actually if you look at the cab, there's a few erroneous details such as the cab sides. That's before we point out the flaws in the original chassis.

 

Anyone who is an LNER enthusiast and runs LNER or BR liveried stock on their LNER or BR railway needs at least one V2 if it's a mainline of some form they're modelling. I'd argue you need more than that to accurately depict any period from the V2s introduction. Since the Bachmann V2 isn't a great depiction, any improved model will sell. They were halfway there with the new chassis, for which Graeme King did a run of some excellent self-made resin bodyshells, three of which I am working on and am quite content with.

 

So please, let's not kid ourselves that a retooled V2 won't sell because of the quantity of the older variants out there. The new model is likely to run better, look better, and be DCC ready (a big plus for a number of modellers). So they'll upgrade - because, let's face it, the difference between the quality of the old Hall and the new one is nothing compared to the potential difference in accuracy and quality of the old Bachmann V2 to its new one.

 

Personally I'm excited as to the possibilities. A model as good as their A2 I would be well content with. I wouldn't sell on my GR King examples for modelling's sake but the new ones would supplement them almost certainly.

RE the Hall review - on balance it's one of those things. You spot the difference or you don't. Given the minute details on models these days and the accuracy compared to the prototype it's become a giant game of spot the difference every time.

[Horsetan]

..... it's become a giant game of spot the difference every time.

 

Game of two halves, Simon, but almost guaranteed to leave you sick as a parrot when you do spot the differences.

[Arthur]

But it wasn't 'experts' on any forum like this that exposed their knowledge in this case, it was a good old-fashioned magazine reviewer.

As a serial magazine subscriber Chris, I am not knocking them, their staff nor their reviews. However, no magazine has a staff large enough to have expertise on every minute detail of our railways. Yes, they can, and do, provide usually accurate reviews.

 

I'm merely observing that on a forum such as this, with it every reader just a few keystrokes from a response, there will be genuine experts on the most arcane of topics who can give a considered opinion.

 

And, if you follow these threads, you will be exposed to them.

[Legend]

As a serial magazine subscriber Chris, I am not knocking them, their staff nor their reviews. However, no magazine has a staff large enough to have expertise on every minute detail of our railways. Yes, they can, and do, provide usually accurate reviews.

 

I'm merely observing that on a forum such as this, with it every reader just a few keystrokes from a response, there will be genuine experts on the most arcane of topics who can give a considered opinion.

 

And, if you follow these threads, you will be exposed to them.

 

Having not seen the mag, it worked for me.

[Dunsignalling]

I tend not to post here, but after being handed this link and being asked for my views via email, I feel on balance I must protest regarding the comment that the "V2 looks pretty much okay".

 

If you were to put the Bachmann model alongside the real thing, Green Arrow, you would find that the smokebox door is overly bulbous and not the right size, the boiler does not have the correct profile, being almost parallel instead of tapered, the dome (as said earlier) is flatter than it should be, and actually if you look at the cab, there's a few erroneous details such as the cab sides. That's before we point out the flaws in the original chassis.

 

Anyone who is an LNER enthusiast and runs LNER or BR liveried stock on their LNER or BR railway needs at least one V2 if it's a mainline of some form they're modelling. I'd argue you need more than that to accurately depict any period from the V2s introduction. Since the Bachmann V2 isn't a great depiction, any improved model will sell. They were halfway there with the new chassis, for which Graeme King did a run of some excellent self-made resin bodyshells, three of which I am working on and am quite content with.

 

So please, let's not kid ourselves that a retooled V2 won't sell because of the quantity of the older variants out there. The new model is likely to run better, look better, and be DCC ready (a big plus for a number of modellers). So they'll upgrade - because, let's face it, the difference between the quality of the old Hall and the new one is nothing compared to the potential difference in accuracy and quality of the old Bachmann V2 to its new one.

 

Personally I'm excited as to the possibilities. A model as good as their A2 I would be well content with. I wouldn't sell on my GR King examples for modelling's sake but the new ones would supplement them almost certainly.

RE the Hall review - on balance it's one of those things. You spot the difference or you don't. Given the minute details on models these days and the accuracy compared to the prototype it's become a giant game of spot the difference every time.

If you can't spot discrepancies on engines you aren't interested in, how can you expect GWR fans to identify the shortcomings of a model they probably don't care about?

 

John

Only vaguely interested in things Western and not at all in locos with 5-digit numbers beginning with a 6 (of any shape).

[nigel newling]

I am really surprised that no one has mentioned the horrible representation of the cladding band at the front of the firebox. Not only is the band buckle seriously over size, but the firebox levels on either side of the band are not level, giving a wierd stepdown behind the band. Yuck.

[dibber25]

I am really surprised that no one has mentioned the horrible representation of the cladding band at the front of the firebox. Not only is the band buckle seriously over size, but the firebox levels on either side of the band are not level, giving a wierd stepdown behind the band. Yuck.

It's mentioned in the MR review. I know, because I added it.

CHRIS LEIGH

[locoholic]

So please, let's not kid ourselves that a retooled V2 won't sell because of the quantity of the older variants out there. The new model is likely to run better, look better, and be DCC ready (a big plus for a number of modellers). So they'll upgrade - because, let's face it, the difference between the quality of the old Hall and the new one is nothing compared to the potential difference in accuracy and quality of the old Bachmann V2 to its new one.

 

Well, I just hope for your sake that they don't try and combine the new V2 with an attempt to model a A2/1 pacific, and you end up with models that have random bits and pieces of both included!

[Hilux5972]

I would say, given the time spent on correcting this loco to some extent, and failing on 2 of the most major front aspects, perhaps it's over to Hornby to produce a new one to go with its Hall. Yes I know theirs was a Railroad model, but for the price, it makes a great loco, and is a good starting point for someone wanting to super detail it.