Bachmann retooled Modified Hall 2012 - What can we expect?

[locoholic]

No.....why should there be ? The first effort was sent back to China for remedy a year ago.This is the result.

 

Well, there are the small matters of reputation and customer satisfaction. In the past Bachmann have apparently tried to appeal to "serious" modellers (rather than the train set market) by making accurate models of the less glamorous prototypes.

 

Also, why in one case the lack of a fire-iron tunnel should be deemed enough of a reason to scupper a batch, but a fairly major error in the shape of the loco at the front end is allowed through. It just seems very inconsistent.

[ExPatBrit]

Bachmann released both a new version of the 'Hall' and a new version of the 'Modified Hall' but 'Model Rail' quickly sussed problems which led to Bachmann recalling both new models although, as others have noted, some retailers had sold their stock (initial stock?) before they were told of the recall.

 

Bachmann have now reissued the further modified 'Modified Hall' - with the front footplate error but are only releasing the now modified 'Hall' in a set, which is a pity as it looks pretty good; presumably they didn't want to go into direct competition with the new Hornby Railroad/Railroad+ model of a 'Hall'?

OK, got it, it was the modified Hall issue and withdrawal I was missing, I knew about the Collett Hall, thanks for that.

[coachmann]

Hornby produces the original Hall and the 'fire iron' Hall. Maybe it will complete the set and produce the Hawksworth Hall now. 

[Brian Kirby]

Off comes that top slice of the chassis, this will now clear the lowered footplate when added. I had to loosen the cylinder block and motion brackets, then move them back temporarily out of harm's way, it would be even safer to remove them completely, but of course you'd have to feed the piston rods and crossheads back on, which is fiddly, i also got away with just swivelling the bogie, whilst the chassis block was held in the vice. You may also notice that i've cut out the NEM coupling box on the bogie, it could be left in place, but would stick up higher than the new front panel. The new prominent plain bogie front is just cut from black 30 thou plasticard and glued on, i think i've got the size about right, but of course it is affected slightly depending on your choice of gauge, i.e. with P4/S4 the whole frame can be modelled full width. I usually remove tension locks from the front of locos anyway, and replace with fine blackened wire as just a plain coupling bar, keeping the tension lock on the back, same goes for tanks. You won't find many pics of chuffers coupled chimney-to-chimney, it was usually frowned upon.

 

 

Here's the new bogie front, i couldn't decide which photo to post, one accidentally used flash, so here're both!    BK

 

[Ben Alder]

Just shows what a bit of old fashioned modelling can do to solve a "problem"......

[bigherb]

Just shows what a bit of old fashioned modelling can do to solve a "problem"......

You shouldn't have to though when the original model got it right.

 

[Mallard60022]

Yes....earlier I should have included Hacksaw and Piercing Saw. Well done Brian. 

P

Edited May 18, 2015 by Mallard60022

[G-BOAF]

Off comes that top slice of the chassis, this will now clear the lowered footplate when added. I had to loosen the cylinder block and motion brackets, then move them back temporarily out of harm's way, it would be even safer to remove them completely, but of course you'd have to feed the piston rods and crossheads back on, which is fiddly, i also got away with just swivelling the bogie, whilst the chassis block was held in the vice. You may also notice that i've cut out the NEM coupling box on the bogie, it could be left in place, but would stick up higher than the new front panel. The new prominent plain bogie front is just cut from black 30 thou plasticard and glued on, i think i've got the size about right, but of course it is affected slightly depending on your choice of gauge, i.e. with P4/S4 the whole frame can be modelled full width. I usually remove tension locks from the front of locos anyway, and replace with fine blackened wire as just a plain coupling bar, keeping the tension lock on the back, same goes for tanks. You won't find many pics of chuffers coupled chimney-to-chimney, it was usually frowned upon.

 

Excellent work, you will have a great model at the end of it.

One question - how will you be securing the loco body back, as from comments above, the screw fits in to the excess footplate between the frames?

 

Looking forward to seeing the final results.

Edited May 18, 2015 by G-BOAF

[coachmann]

Full marks to Brian Kirby.  I enjoy b*ggering about but in this instance I will pass. 

[locoholic]

Perhaps Bachmann could include a selection of saws and files with each model?!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Off comes that top slice of the chassis...

That's a fine bit of mazak whittling, and a very straight cut from a junior hacksaw! I am sure Brian and many other experienced folk know this, but for those who might not; watch out for the freshly cut edges of the mazak. It can take a real edge, and the first time you realise this is when it is proving difficult to grip tool or workpiece, and you then realise that it is your own blood - weeping from the painlessly slashed finger tip or whatever - that is the cause of the problem. Prompt rounding off with a file is a good plan.

[Taz]

That's an excellent job Brian has done there.

 

Can I ask a question about the original Bachmann Modified Hall?

Split chassis aside, what is the general consensus on the accuracy of the model? Does it have any major flaws (boiler / firebox shape etc)? 

I have one which is a reasonable runner but am not sure if it is worth upgrading to the latest model.

 

Thanks.

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks chaps, but we're not finished yet. 34C is right about sharp edges from mazak, worse still is when you get the piercing saw blade stuck in your finger, i did it once and the damn teeth lock themselves in, the only option (apart from A&E) is to yank it out quickly. OUCH!  

To answer G-BOAF's body fixing question, option #1 is to cut off a slice under the chassis front and add a lip inside the buffer beam, so the chassis slots in. Option #2 is to drill a 2mm hole in the chassis front, then add a new screw coupling (Smiths) and use the stem of the hook to slot in the chassis hole. The chassis is mazak, but does anyone know what metal they are using for the 6959 boiler and footplate, is it gunmetal or pewter, or just a finer grade of mazak? Haven't decided whether to plug the footplate hole and sides with sheet metal or black plasticard, whichever i use will probably have to be glued in. I presume the front of the steam chest would be a plain blank and there should be a lines of rivets where the floor meets the sides, but it's all a bit dark down there? The old Replica/Bachmann version has a plain inner floor and no front plate, it also lacks the correct bogie front, so there's another job. I'll keep my old ones, they look fairly decent, but they are old split-axle mechs, which aren't the greatest pullers or smoothest runners.     

                                                    Cheers, Brian.

[Dunsignalling]

That's an excellent job Brian has done there.

 

Can I ask a question about the original Bachmann Modified Hall?

Split chassis aside, what is the general consensus on the accuracy of the model? Does it have any major flaws (boiler / firebox shape etc)? 

I have one which is a reasonable runner but am not sure if it is worth upgrading to the latest model.

 

Thanks.

If you have one that is a reasonable runner, hang on to it, it may be unique. The running of the only one I've directly had anything to do with (a friend's) was utterly diabolical and, if the hours I put into the damned thing hadn't been free, it wouldn't have been viable to fix.

 

As for its looks, I'm no authority on things GW, but it always struck me as capturing the character of the prototype quite well even if it wasn't 100%.

 

Then again, all GW locos look the same, don't they.   

 

John

Edited May 18, 2015 by Dunsignalling

[Froxfield2012]

I presume the front of the steam chest would be a plain blank and there should be a lines of rivets where the floor meets the sides, but it's all a bit dark down there? The old Replica/Bachmann version has a plain inner floor and no front plate, it also lacks the correct bogie front, so there's another job. I'll keep my old ones, they look fairly decent, but they are old split-axle mechs, which aren't the greatest pullers or smoothest runners.     

                                                    Cheers, Brian.

This detail of 7917 (see earlier post) is from a slightly different angle and the second crop is from a shot of 7903.  That's the best I can do!  All the other shots I have of Modified Halls show the rivet pattern across the front of the steam chest.  And then there seems to be a row of a row of rivets across the plate and an angle bracket with rivets down each side.

 

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks Froxfield, that's useful. 7917 also seems to have tapered buffers, which is odd to me, perhaps a swapped and repaired old set? Correction: Just found a pic of the prototype in wartime black, that's got tapered buffers too. Something else missed off the new Bachmann, are the two front lifting lug holes.   BK

[Guest 7007GreatWestern]

Venerable Sirs,

 

Just a few thoughts.

 

Firstly, Thank You Brian Kirby for not only "having a go" at rectifying the defects in the Bachmann model but also sharing with us his method in great detail. I wonder how he feel about having to take a drill and saws to a brand new, "state-of-the-art" model? I hope his effort are rewarded with a loco that gives him great satisfaction and has enhanced resale value. It is thanks to his contribution I am seriously thinking about buying one of these models.

 

I have known and loved the GWR Halls for some 35 years. I know the prototype quite well. I have therefore followed the development of this particular model since its announcement with great interest. It strikes me that this project has been hamstrung from the start by the initial remit, namely *NOT* to start afresh but instead to reuse existing, old tooling where possible. The initial announcement as I recall was to merely retool the chassis but to reuse the existing "Replica Railways" body moulding dating back to the 90s. Later it was announced that Bachmann would also retool the body. I seem to recall that a contributor on an internet forum (possibly this one) said that the original body tooling had been worn out mass-producing "Hogwarts Castle"s for the US market!

 

The "Hogwarts Castle" story may be apocryphal, but the next turn of events in the fraught development of this model was the wholesale recall of them from retailers (at great expense I imagine). The problem that arose was essentially down to a "cross-fertilisation" of features between the two types of "Hall". The Collet "Hall" ended up with "Modified Hall" steam pipes and the "Modified Hall" ended up without the distinctive fire-iron "tunnel" - a characteristic of the early Collett "Halls". It is not known if this was the result of a failure of specification at Barwell or a failure of assembly in China.

 

The reason why I am recapping this story is to illustrate the high price Bachmann have paid for their initial product development remit. I suspect they would have been better off both financially and reputationally if they had done more prototype research from the outset and been less parsimonious about new tooling. The incorrect footplate profile is not the only evidence of that underinvestment. Modern Bachmann practice is to locate to DCC decoder socket in the tender. This model sees it still located in a claustrophobic little cavity under the cab. Try fitting a speaker in there! Bachmann's Hawksworth tender appears to be the rather clunky old "Replica" one. Stand it next to Hornby's latest model of the same tender and you really notice the difference. The Hornby offering is much finer and has tender pickups. In later releases I believe it also houses the DCC socket. 

 

Earlier in this thread Chris Leigh said that "cost and complexity" ruled out retooling of the the chassis block. Well, I dare say Bachmann know their customers far better than I do. I am really surprised however that the demand for this model wouldn't justify that expense.

 

Please understand that this is NOT a "Bachmann Bashing" post. I'm very grateful to Bachmann for the excellent models they have produced over the years of which I have not a few! The recent 64xx and "Dukedog" exemplify what they are capable of. I think this is a good model of a handsome, versatile and much loved prototype. The shame is that it could have been "Outstanding" rather than merely "Good".

 

I do think however there are lessons for Bachmann to take from this project. Lessons about prototype research. Lessons about customer expectations. Lessons about tooling up products with a view to later "spin offs".

 

I hope this post is received in the constructive spirit in which it is sent.

 

And "Yes", I am still probably going to buy one!

[Clearwater]

However for all the comments on the thread seems to be selling well. Just went into Ian Allen near Waterloo. They'd sold most of the ones they'd been sent....

[gwrrob]

I have a spare body from my 31-777 Soughton Hall and wondered what my options would be with it.The chassis is damaged and probably not economical to get repaired . Its a shame as it came with the rare livery on the Collett tender of G badge W long overlooked by manufacturers.

[TrevorP1]

I'd just like thank Brian for showing us how to rectify the problems. More power to you Brian! A brave but in my mind necessary move.

 

Possibly when I've finished my other projects... (!).... (if that ever happens) I might consider giving it a go myself but for the moment I'll pass. By then my skills will be sharpened from practice on cheapies from eBay!

 

T

[robertcwp]

The issue with the front is disappointing and misspelling the name on 6965 is rather careless, but at least they included nameplates so the error can be corrected.  I think my 6965 will be heading to Brian for modification. 

[Brian Kirby]

I decided on Option #2 for the new front fixing, using a new extended coupling hook fixed rigidly to the buffer beam, the 2mm hole idea turned into a groove (not an open slot). The new hook is from an ancient spare PC Models coupling fret (4 types, remember them?), the idea is the chassis is fed back into the body nose-first, the back of the hook slides along the slotted groove, holding the front firmly, the whole thing is secured by the remaining two screws at the rear. Unfortunately, to cut the groove, the cylinders have to come right off again, so the bogie can be swivelled or removed. To use the junior hacksaw, the bogie would need to come off as well since there's not enough room, getting this off is tricky, using a small screwdriver at the top and a slotted screwdriver (Romford type will do) underneath, watch out for the coil spring flying out. Alternatively and doing it my lazy way, remove the blade from the junior frame and clasp it in your fingers, there's enough room if you swivel the bogie, which saves taking that apart.

 

                                                             Cheers, Brian. (Anyone know if PC couplings are still available?)

 

 

[coachmann]

Ass washers? For bidet repairs....?

Edited May 18, 2015 by coachmann

[ExPatBrit]

I decided on Option #2 for the new front fixing, using a new extended coupling hook fixed rigidly to the buffer beam, the 2mm hole idea turned into a groove (not an open slot). The new hook is from an ancient spare PC Models coupling fret (4 types, remember them?), the idea is the chassis is fed back into the body nose-first, the back of the hook slides along the slotted groove, holding the front firmly, the whole thing is secured by the remaining two screws at the rear. Unfortunately, to cut the groove, the cylinders have to come right off again, so the bogie can be swivelled or removed. To use the junior hacksaw, the bogie would need to come off as well since there's not enough room, getting this off is tricky, using a small screwdriver at the top and a slotted screwdriver (Romford type will do) underneath, watch out for the coil spring flying out. Alternatively and doing it my lazy way, remove the blade from the junior frame and clasp it in your fingers, there's enough room if you swivel the bogie, which saves taking that apart.

 

                                                             Cheers, Brian. (Anyone know if PC couplings are still available?)

 

CIMG4818.JPG

CIMG4820.JPG

 

Excellent and ingenious, kudos for the great job.

[Brian Kirby]

Ass washers? For bidet repairs....?

 

I always keep me ass.washers handy, ooer missus! (ass. = "assorted").    BK