RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted May 8, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 8, 2015 I hope Bachmann note the reaction being expressed here and elsewhere and learn from it. Maybe this is Bachmann's attempt at "design clever", maybe it was simply a case of they give a project a budget and red lined spending more to alter the remaining issues, maybe they genuinely just got it wrong. Whatever the reason I think the criticism is justified and looking at this I think it would need a very accomplished modeller to rectify the front of the model to give it the correct shape. I think part of the reason for the disappointment is linked to expectation, we all know Bachmann are better than this and how good they can be when they pull the stops out. That said, there is also a risk of over reaction and whilst Bachmann have dropped a big klanger with this one it is far too premature to start reading too much into this with respect to their future standards. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 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). Not what I was saying John. The difference between the Modified Hall and the V2 is that the Hall is, dimensionally at least, accurate for a Hall. Yes, the new one has a few problems and compromises, but they're nowhere near as pronounced as the dimensional errors on the V2. I can fully understand why someone not 100% au fait would miss that on the Hall, but the V2 put up against a photograph of the real thing is very, very wrong and noticeably so. The V2 has so many things wrong with it that - and believe me, I and others tried to improve it - that binning the body and using one of Graeme King's, or a Kit, produces a better body shell. I care about them all - standards should always be maintained. I am surprised given how good the retooled Jubilee was that the Hall was lacking in a few errors. I understand and sympathise with GWR followers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 9, 2015 I hope Bachmann note the reaction being expressed here and elsewhere and learn from it. Maybe this is Bachmann's attempt at "design clever", maybe it was simply a case of they give a project a budget and red lined spending more to alter the remaining issues, maybe they genuinely just got it wrong. Whatever the reason I think the criticism is justified and looking at this I think it would need a very accomplished modeller to rectify the front of the model to give it the correct shape. I think part of the reason for the disappointment is linked to expectation, we all know Bachmann are better than this and how good they can be when they pull the stops out. That said, there is also a risk of over reaction and whilst Bachmann have dropped a big klanger with this one it is far too premature to start reading too much into this with respect to their future standards. I don't think we can read anything at all into this in regard to future standards from Bachmann because it has already been passed by in the design and production process by a number of other models - probably at least half a dozen already on sale including three this year alone. Bachmann might or might not tell us why this one has gone wrong - that is entirely up to them and I don't lose any respect for them if they chose to say nothing. It's just a nuisance that they messed up first time round with both the 'Hall' and 'Modified Hall' reissue and that at their second go they look to have got the 'Hall' right but have fallen short with the 'Modified'. As one review has shown it can be easy to miss something with an engine you don't know, maybe Bachmann encountered the same sort of thing - we just don't know. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted May 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 9, 2015 Ironically the Bachmann advert on the inside cover of Model Rail shows the defect perfectly. Highlighted by the lighting, now that I know there is a defect. Picture in review shows it well too. It is quite a difference right enough Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Just to show there is always one, I cannot wait to get one! 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
locoholic Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Just to show there is always one, I cannot wait to get one! Perhaps if you could wait a bit you might get one at a discount, once word of its inaccuracy spreads? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B15nac Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 When are these due out? Cheers Neil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 9, 2015 Perhaps if you could wait a bit you might get one at a discount, once word of its inaccuracy spreads? I suspect a lot of folk won't worry in the least about it, and even more won't even realise. It might have some effect on sales but I do wonder if it will be serious - after all more than a few got through the net after the previous recall and I know of one retailer who sold out, even after news of the shortcomings had appeared in 'Model Rail'. The missing element is in a head-on views and in any event part of it is lost due to the coupling - you can get something back if you replace that, how many buyers will do that in order to capture that distinctive plate front of the bogie? And in many respects that, and the higher steampipes, was more distinctive at a distance than the section between the frames although the latter is still obviously incorrect. Side on - as I've already said - it is a good rendition of a 'Modified Hall' and it is probably more likely to be seen from that angle than any other on most layouts. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mallard60022 Posted May 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 9, 2015 Can two or even three people get one or perhaps two of these new releases, BR late crest and when they find them unacceptable, give them to me. Many thanks, Q 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Perhaps if you could wait a bit you might get one at a discount, once word of its inaccuracy spreads? You got me wrong. It's an attitude I have no time for. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clearwater Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I've just read the model rail review. Aren't we on danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water? I note they score it at 78%. The same as the lms non-gangwayes coaches on the next page which seem to get a reasonably positive response on here! Looking at the pictures, the front plate is obvious but I can see the issue with the coupling. In the same way as one mag (I forget which) had an interesting recent article explaining the design compromises sometimes required, it would be interesting to read Bachmann's views here. I'll probably buy one of these (black and weathered green) - overall i like the model. I will compare it to my old replica hall in due course. However, next to newer models, I have thought that looks a bit dated Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted May 13, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 13, 2015 They have appeared on e bay so now is the time to judge for yourselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Several variants are in stock at Antic Online as well. Anyone bought one yet? Edited May 13, 2015 by coachmann Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 13, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 13, 2015 Several variants are in stock at Antic Online as well. Anyone bought one yet? Mine will no doubt be arriving at Alton soon then 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Mine will no doubt be arriving at Alton soon then And you will likely get your first. Everything I ordered from Antics is taking a month of Sundays to arrive! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted May 13, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 13, 2015 Mine will no doubt be arriving at Alton soon then And I look forward to your appraisal in particular. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted May 13, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 13, 2015 And I look forward to your appraisal in particular. Yes, that's one review I would take notice of ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
locoholic Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 On the Hornby Magazine website there's a video clip of the new Modified Hall. http://www.hornbymagazine.com/view_article.asp?ID=8849 Apologies if it's already been referred to - I had a look at earlier posts and couldn't see any reference to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDJR7F88 Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Just picked up 'Fountains Hall' in BR Early Weathered Black from my local model shop and am just about to venture up into the loft do do a video review. Should be an interesting one. As well as 'Fountains Hall', they also had 'Thirlestaine Hall' in for a customer in BR Late Green Weathered. The model shop owner showed me the model, as she had spotted a very interesting error that I have not heard anyone mention yet. The Name 'Thirlestaine Hall' is spelt wrong on the model, but correct on the box! Instead of 'Thirlestaine Hall' like on the box, the name plate bares 'Thirlestain Hall'! Missing the e at the end! She had contacted Bachmann on the issue and said she was the first to spot it. Must say it made me laugh a bit. Still it's a great looking model, despite the few errors. Hope to get the review of 'Fountains Hall' up in the next few days when I get around to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Just picked up 'Fountains Hall' in BR Early Weathered Black from my local model shop and am just about to venture up into the loft do do a video review. Should be an interesting one. As well as 'Fountains Hall', they also had 'Thirlestaine Hall' in for a customer in BR Late Green Weathered. The model shop owner showed me the model, as she had spotted a very interesting error that I have not heard anyone mention yet. The Name 'Thirlestaine Hall' is spelt wrong on the model, but correct on the box! Instead of 'Thirlestaine Hall' like on the box, the name plate bares 'Thirlestain Hall'! Missing the e at the end! She had contacted Bachmann on the issue and said she was the first to spot it. Must say it made me laugh a bit. Still it's a great looking model, despite the few errors. Hope to get the review of 'Fountains Hall' up in the next few days when I get around to it. I believe there was a production error; there is a bag included the box with replacement plates (with the correct spelling!) and a note explaining the issue. The alternative would have been to return these to the factory for rectification so I commend Bachmann for adopting a common-sense solution. I'd recommend using Johnsons Klear as a low-tack fix. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDJR7F88 Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 (edited) I believe there was a production error; there is a bag included the box with replacement plates (with the correct spelling!) and a note explaining the issue. The alternative would have been to return these to the factory for rectification so I commend Bachmann for adopting a common-sense solution. I'd recommend using Johnsons Klear as a low-tack fix. That's good of them indeed. We did not look inside the box hence why we did not know Edited May 15, 2015 by SDJR7F88 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B15nac Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Just picked mine up from the South Devon railway an she's a beauty! I've not run her yet but really like the weathering it's not to heavily done. Sorry about the poor picture will upload some better ones later. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-BOAF Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Any chance of some close up pics of the compromises Bachmann have enacted on the front end? From the verbal descriptions it is difficult to fathom out exactly what is being spoken about. At the same time on MREMAG there is a letter arguing that the author cannot see any error, but I sense they are looking in the wrong area. Cheers. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted May 17, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2015 The best way of checking for yourself is to find a photo of Modified Hall with a front on/ three quarters view.That should not be too difficult a task.Plenty available on line ,books,etc. Then look at a similar view of Bachmann's current delivery.Andy Y put one up a couple of months ago from which it was obvious that it just wasn't right.I confess I didn't spot it....mea maxima culpa twice over because I saw a production sample at the York Show as well.....and I of all people I should have known simply because I saw every single one of them in my spotting days.Sorry to repeat myself but too b***** right it's an incorrect rendition of the business end. However,if you are happy with it,as one member obviously is,then buy it.I have little doubt that it's a beautiful model but not quite of a Modified Hall. In my eyes,it is what it is essentially....a compromise ......and therefore a hybrid Hall. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) Any chance of some close up pics of the compromises Bachmann have enacted on the front end? From the verbal descriptions it is difficult to fathom out exactly what is being spoken about. At the same time on MREMAG there is a letter arguing that the author cannot see any error, but I sense they are looking in the wrong area. I havent got a Modified 'Hall', so I have used the LMS 8F to show the marked difference that Bachmann failed to incorporate. On the right is a pre-war 'Hall'. It has a continuous curved running plate right across from left to right of engine. The Modified 'Hall' was built with plate frames showing above the running plate as per the LMS 8F and the part between the frames under the smokebox was as per the 8F, a kind of boxed-off deep ravine as far as the smokebox saddle! I hope this explains things better.... Edited May 17, 2015 by coachmann Link to post 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