Bachmann retooled Modified Hall 2012 - What can we expect?

[dibber25]

Have they said that the Modified Hall will be anything other than the old model with a new chassis? I've had a read of the threads can't see any indication that the body itself is going to be retooled. I'd never noticed the (presence or absence of the) frame extensions before, by the way - shows how observant I am.

 

Bachmann say it will be 75% new tooling.

[Timara]

To add to what Chris has said above.....

 

I had a close look at the pre-production model at Ally Pally (usual disclaimer with ref to pre-prods). With the exception of the tender from the existing moulds, it would appear to be an entirely new model. Suffice to say, it looks like a Modified Hall, unlike the original model (even though it was good for its time).

 

I remember reading a while back that the original tools were absolutely hammered beyond their usable life after use for the Bachmann USA "Hogwarts Express" ? If that is indeed true, then it's probably no surprise we're getting what is to all intents and purposes a brand new model.

 

I look forward to seeing it when it's ready as I'll certainly be after a couple of them.

 

Cheers,

[gwrrob]

That sounds great but its a shame Bachmann won't be releasing one in the late GWR livery that seems to have gone out of fashion or favour.

[RonnieS]

I emailed Bachmann about a month ago with the questions on the retooled body. I have had no reply so I assume the following,

New chassis, new bogie but the old undersized cylinders. Same old unacceptable (to some) body.

Edited May 7, 2012 by RonnieS

[JeremyC]

I'm surprised no one else has drawn attention to the statement from Bachmann's Dennis Lovett on MREmag [currently page 2 of news, but it moves when new stuff is added so I've not linked to the exact page] for Wednesday 11th April in which he gives the rational regarding Bachmann only upgrading chassis and not the bodies.

 

So looks as if its probably only the chassis

 

Jeremy

[Pennine MC]

I emailed Bachmann about a month ago with the questions on the retooled body. I have had no reply so I assume the following,

New chassis, new bogie but the old undersized cylinders. Same old unacceptable body.

 

Whilst you're free to find it unacceptable - and I for one would certainly defend your right to do so - might I suggest that as a first post, your comment would be better received if it elucidated on what you think the faults are?

 

I'm surprised no one else has drawn attention to the statement from Bachmann's Dennis Lovett on MREmag ,,, in which he gives the rational regarding Bachmann only upgrading chassis and not the bodies.

 

Its style is forthright, the reasons are pretty compelling and I dont blame him for making it, but I doubt it'll silence some of the critics.

[TheEngineShed]

Its style is forthright, the reasons are pretty compelling and I dont blame him for making it, but I doubt it'll silence some of the critics.

 

and it is not as if Bachmann hasn't thrown some of the money into new steam models...

Edited April 15, 2012 by TheEngineShed

[MJI]

I have a Raveningham Hall in a wooden box, not a brilliant runner, front bogie comes off the track occasionally

[Horsetan]

I have a Raveningham Hall in a wooden box....

 

The box probably performs better.

[RonnieS]

Whilst you're free to find it unacceptable - and I for one would certainly defend your right to do so - might I suggest that as a first post, your comment would be better received if it elucidated on what you think the faults are?

 

The comment unacceptable is a relative term, Bachmann have set high standards with new models. At least when Hornby re release an older model they call it Railroad. A few years ago we were happy with the Triang Pannier now it's a laugh. constructive criticism has kept the manufacturers on their toes. We can not and must not let standards slide.

 

 

 

Its style is forthright, the reasons are pretty compelling and I dont blame him for making it, but I doubt it'll silence some of the critics.

[RonnieS]

I'm surprised no one else has drawn attention to the statement from Bachmann's Dennis Lovett on MREmag [currently page 2 of news, but it moves when new stuff is added so I've not linked to the exact page] for Wednesday 11th April in which he gives the rational regarding Bachmann only upgrading chassis and not the bodies.

 

So looks as if its probably only the chassis

 

Jeremy

 

Well Thank you it took me ages to find it but here it is Older models do not have the flexibility of more modern body tooling, offering slide options for chimneys, domes, cabs etc. They were produced as one type and one type they remain and it is totally uneconomic to scrap perfectly good tooling on the basis that it cannot offer an alternative chimney style. Alternative fittings are available from other suppliers for modellers who wish for a bespoke locomotive for their layouts.

We did replace both the Standard Class 4MT 4-6-0 and the Jubilee 4-6-0 with entirely new models and, taking into account the tens of thousands of these already in circulation, sales of both of these have been no different to, had they just received a chassis upgrade, such as those on the A4, B1 and V2. Hence, the decisions we have taken to upgrade chassis only; allowing valuable production slots to be better utilised by bringing totally new models on to the market place. So same body

Edited May 1, 2012 by RonnieS

[Pennine MC]

Well Thank you it took me ages to find it but here it is

 

A fortnight, presumably It would have been on the then-current page 2 - and hence easy to find - when Jeremy posted that.

 

The comment unacceptable is a relative term, Bachmann have set high standards with new models. At least when Hornby re release an older model they call it Railroad. A few years ago we were happy with the Triang Pannier now it's a laugh. constructive criticism has kept the manufacturers on their toes. We can not and must not let standards slid...

 

Again I'd agree in principle, that standards shouldnt slide, but overall I dont see that they are doing. As you say yourself, Bachmann's all-new production is on a resolutely upward trend, it's just the old split chassis models that are standing still bodywise - and even then they're hardly in the same class as the 1970s (Triang Hornby?) pannier.

 

You've read the Bachmann statement and presumably understood it, so I'm not sure why you still expect body improvements when Dennis has clearly said that they're not cost effective. And you still havent answered my main point, which was to ask what precisely is it about the body that you personally find unacceptable. Constructive criticism isnt just saying that it's 'old', is it?

Edited May 1, 2012 by Pennine MC

[Timara]

I emailed Bachmann about a month ago with the questions on the retooled body. I have had no reply so I assume the following,

New chassis, new bogie but the old undersized cylinders. Same old unacceptable body.

 

I'm assuming here that you've not taken the time to read what can only be my invisible ink not two posts above your first post? If you had, you'd have read that it is not the original body at all! Nor, for that matter, are the cylinders. They'll be completely new, due in part to the complete re-design of the chassis.

 

<snip>

 

So same body

 

No, not the same old body. Nowhere in Dennis' piece on MREMag does it say that the Modified Hall is in any way affected by Bachmann's policy of just doing a new chassis. Neither, for that matter, does it say that is isn't, but that's by the by. Anyhow, it's a shame that nobody managed to get a photo of the EP model in the cabinets at the Ally Pally show.

 

I respect that you're new on here, but it doesn't take much to read what has already been posted before jumping to any kind of conclusions

 

Regards,

[The Fatadder]

I did wonder how so many people had managed to miss a post from a former magazine editor saying that the new model is "75% different" to the Replica one, followed by your first post mentioning that you had handled it.

 

Hopefully good sales of the retooled hall will show Bachmann that there is a market for retooling the body rather than just sticking a new body on the 80s model.

 

Does seem a very different attitude towards steam and diesel releases (or a very different attitude in their purchasers), given all the iterations of class 37/47 improvements etc for which the additional market reached cant be that much different to the market accessed by retooling a poorer steam model...

 

At the end of the day with the mod Hall its of no use to me, given its size being too large for cheddar. But a retooled Manor, should Bachmann see the light and start improving body as well as chassis on other old split chassis releases.....

[The Stationmaster]

We will no doubt get what we get. To me an interesting clue is that the Bachmann catalogue illustration is of a prototype loco and not of a model - suggesting there wasn't a model prepared in time perhaps? That apart we have a series of conflicting statements and, what looked to me at any rate a pretty good EP sample at Ally Pally although it was difficult to examine closely. Another potential clue is that it is seemingly way down the latest quoted Bachmann production schedule mentioned in one of the mags.

 

But at the end of all that what we will only conclusively know is what we see when it arrives. i.e. we will get exactly what we receive, good, brilliant, bad or indifferent (but I'll still be buying one).

[Bob O]

Having just joined I have hesitated to comment until now. I once spent a lot of time carving a Modifed Hall bodyshell about to remove the boiler bands so I can see some of the points but sureley the trap is that there wil be 2 or more Halls on the market at the same time.

Because some retailers have old stock the split chassis will be on sale alongside the latest offering. Hardly fair as it will trip someone up.

 

I cannot see which chassis the new releases 32.005 4962 'Ragley Hall' and 32.006 6922 'Burton Hall' will have?

[frobisher]

Having just joined I have hesitated to comment until now. I once spent a lot of time carving a Modifed Hall bodyshell about to remove the boiler bands so I can see some of the points but sureley the trap is that there wil be 2 or more Halls on the market at the same time.

Because some retailers have old stock the split chassis will be on sale alongside the latest offering. Hardly fair as it will trip someone up.

 

I don't think Bachmann have produced the Modofied Hall in about 10 years (in the Branchline range), so I doubt there's that many split chassis ones in the retailer sector at the moment (unless they're bright red and calling themselves Hogwarts Hall...). The Hall class that's on sale from the last few years doesn't have a split chassis and is hence also DCC ready.

[The Stationmaster]

I don't think Bachmann have produced the Modofied Hall in about 10 years (in the Branchline range), so I doubt there's that many split chassis ones in the retailer sector at the moment (unless they're bright red and calling themselves Hogwarts Hall...). The Hall class that's on sale from the last few years doesn't have a split chassis and is hence also DCC ready.

 

According to Ramsay's Guide Bachmann have not listed an 'ordinary' 'Modified Hall' since 1996 although it was sold at a later date in the USA as 'Hogwarts Castle' (making it doubly wrong I reckon). This year or next will indeed be interesting as it will see both the 'Hall' and 'Modified Hall' in the Bachmann catalogue together - which makes me wonder if that's what led to Hornby cancelling/postponing 'Paviland Grange'? And 4962 very definitely has a new chassis, and runs rather nicely.

[Pennine MC]

... but sureley the trap is that there wil be 2 or more Halls on the market at the same time.

Because some retailers have old stock the split chassis will be on sale alongside the latest offering. Hardly fair as it will trip someone up.

 

 

Hi Bob

 

It seems rather less fair to me, and a bit shortsighted TBH, to hold back progress on those grounds. The market (particularly if you include ebay, swapmeets etc) includes legions of examples of models that have been superseded by better ones - it's a case of caveat emptor I'm afraid, and hope that either folk do their homework or that sellers are open and honest.

[Guest dilbert]

Having just joined I have hesitated to comment until now. I once spent a lot of time carving a Modifed Hall bodyshell about to remove the boiler bands so I can see some of the points but sureley the trap is that there wil be 2 or more Halls on the market at the same time.

Because some retailers have old stock the split chassis will be on sale alongside the latest offering. Hardly fair as it will trip someone up.

 

I cannot see which chassis the new releases 32.005 4962 'Ragley Hall' and 32.006 6922 'Burton Hall' will have?

 

The Bachmann Hall class (49xx) has a product reference in the 32-00x range (this doesn't represent old tooling).

 

The Bachmann Modified Hall Class (6959) is split as follows :

 

- the older versions stop at Bachmann ref. 31-776

 

- the recently announced retooled version product ref starts at 31-780

 

...dilbert

Edited May 8, 2012 by dilbert

[Physicsman]

But at the end of all that what we will only conclusively know is what we see when it arrives. i.e. we will get exactly what we receive, good, brilliant, bad or indifferent (but I'll still be buying one).

 

I'd like to buy one, too, Mike - but I don't think I could justify a GWR loco on my S&C layout. Must admit the temptation to start a GWR-based collection is growing...oh dear!

 

Jeff

[robmcg]

I'd like to buy one, too, Mike - but I don't think I could justify a GWR loco on my S&C layout. Must admit the temptation to start a GWR-based collection is growing...oh dear!

 

Jeff

 

I share your anguish... the recent Hornby Castle and Bachmann City do rather celebrate some fine steam engineering and fine modelling. Not to mention the Robinson GWR ex-ROD...

 

Rob

[The Stationmaster]

The Bachmann Hall class (49xx) has a product reference in the 32-00x range (this doesn't represent old tooling).

The Bachmann Modified Hall Class (6959) is split as follows :

- the older versions stop at Bachmann ref. 31-776

- the recently announced retooled version product ref starts at 31-780

...dilbert

I'm not at all sure how Bachmann's numbering system works to be honest - the two 'new', modified 'Modified Halls' are 31-780 and 31-781; the two 'Cities' are 31-726 & 727; the 4F will be 31-880/1/2 and the V2 will be 31-550B and 31-564 & 565. So all in all - apart from the catalogue/website identifying which are 8 pin and 21 pin DCC sockets - the numbering system doesn't seem to indicate anything at all apart from a possible link with L&Y loco numbering practice

[Guest dilbert]

I'm not at all sure how Bachmann's numbering system works to be honest - the two 'new', modified 'Modified Halls' are 31-780 and 31-781; the two 'Cities' are 31-726 & 727; the 4F will be 31-880/1/2 and the V2 will be 31-550B and 31-564 & 565. So all in all - apart from the catalogue/website identifying which are 8 pin and 21 pin DCC sockets - the numbering system doesn't seem to indicate anything at all apart from a possible link with L&Y loco numbering practice

 

It goes something like this :

 

In the beginning, Bachmann relied on the product range originally developed by Mainline. A simplified view of this was :

 

31-xxx = locos

33-xxx = freight

34-xxx = coachining stock

 

Within this framework, different products were allocated a predetermined subset range of numbers within the principle product range.

 

With the advent of the Blue Riband range circa 1998, in addition to the logo, Bachmann introduced new numbering ranges to differentiate between the original ex-Mainline products and the new tooling :

 

32-xxx = locos

37-xxx/38-xxx = freight

39-xxx = coacheing stock

 

A couple of years ago, Bachmann stopped the Blue Riband branding.

 

If the Bachmann approach is considered as an intelligent numbering system, over time, and as the ranges expand according to whatever new product is released, they either run out of numbers or there are holes that appear because product has not been released against a particular product code sub-range. This gets further complicated when you consider product code suffices that are used, i.e. xx-xxxA = Bachmann standard release starting with the 'A' suffix and move forward thru the alphabet, LEs start with the 'Z' suffix and work backwards.

 

It appears that Bachmann have run out of sub-product numbering ranges in the 32-xxx series, so instead of opening a new range, such as 50-xxx, they have started to use the holes in the 31-xxx series (such as the Modified Halls).

 

And to simplify things, the BCC annual wagon ref. now is of a 37-xxxx format where xxxx equals the year of release.

 

Confused ?... dilbert

[Adrian Wintle]

According to Ramsay's Guide Bachmann have not listed an 'ordinary' 'Modified Hall' since 1996 although it was sold at a later date in the USA as 'Hogwarts Castle' (making it doubly wrong I reckon).

 

Since Hogwarts Castle was Olton Hall in disguise, Bachmann's use of the modified Hall tooling was closer than Hornby's use of the Castle tooling (neither had a Hall in their range at the time). We did have to take two of them to make one working Hogwarts Castle, which probably makes the Hornby effort more cost effective.

 

Adrian