Bachmann retooled Modified Hall 2012 - What can we expect?

[brushman47544]

I emailed Bachmann about the tenders attached to the Modified Halls that are due out April/May and was advised that the two BR Green + late crest versions 31-780 (pristine) and 31-782 (weathered) would both have the Hawksworth tender, whereas the two Lined Black early emblem versions would have a Collett tender. I wonder what the weathering will be like...

[Andrew Bartlett]

Can't wait for when these come out. I bought one in 2008 second hand (I think) and it was a poor runner so hopefully there will be an improvement in running qualities as well as detail.

[Barry Ten]

Can't wait for when these come out. I bought one in 2008 second hand (I think) and it was a poor runner so hopefully there will be an improvement in running qualities as well as detail.

 

I'm not sure if you mean the original Hall or the Modified one, but for what it's worth, I've been looking at the new Hornby Hall chassis with a view to replacing the older Bachmann split chassis as used on the original Modified Hall. Some metal would need to be removed from the front of the Hornby one, and a plastic lug removed from the Bachmann model, but other than it looks like a relatively straightforward job. The cylinders and front bogie are of a different pattern between the two Hall classes but there are various workarounds for those. The original split chassis models can be great runners, but they're prone to the splitting of the axle muffs, among other things, and it's now increasingly hard to obtain spares. I've just done a DCC conversion of one by combining the best parts of two chassis.

 

As for the later Hall models, neither of my two are particularly good runners, in fact I'd rate them as the least smooth of any of my Blue Riband-era Bachmann steam engines. My BR black one has always been a bit lumpy, for want of a better word, even on DCC, and my GWR one, while smoother, has a pronounced limp suggesting wheel concentricity or quartering issues.

[Ian Hargrave]

I am hoping for a distinct improvement in performance on any of the previous Bachmann Halls of whatever vintage....be they split chassis or 3 pole can motor.I.M.H.O.not one of Barwell's better efforts to date.

[gwrrob]

There is a very good review of Foremarke Hall in this month's BRM and I'm seriously tempted by the lined black livery.Hitting the shops shortly.

[brushman47544]

There is a very good review of Foremarke Hall in this month's BRM and I'm seriously tempted by the lined black livery.Hitting the shops shortly.

 

Haven't seen that yet, but MREMag today has a review by Pat Hammond, which states inter alia that (my highlight):

 

The model has an 8-pin DCC decoder socket fitted and does not have a bag of extras to fit. While the chassis is new, the model still has the original body. Much effort has gone into the painted and printed finish and this includes the moulded-in equipment in the cab interior, which is picked out in appropriate colours.

 

 

I'm not sure if this is what Bachmann announced originally, but is a potential disappointment as the original body had some errors, or was that their first attempt at a reissue from 2013?

[Hilux5972]

The first reissue in 2013 was the body that had issues and was recalled.

[Ian Hargrave]

The first reissue in 2013 was the body that had issues and was recalled.

The fire iron tunnel was missing on the loco body.That triggered the recall....understandably.

[luke_stevens]

So do we think the 2015 model has the "original" 2013 body or the "original" 1990 or a "new" 2015 body? Oddly the smoke box door dart seems to be moulded rather than free standing. I wasn't aware that was going to happen. Even the 2013 body had one of the handles separate.

 

Luke

[dibber25]

So do we think the 2015 model has the "original" 2013 body or the "original" 1990 or a "new" 2015 body? Oddly the smoke box door dart seems to be moulded rather than free standing. I wasn't aware that was going to happen. Even the 2013 body had one of the handles separate.

 

Luke

Suggest you look at the Model Rail review in the next issue. One smokebox door handle is moulded to the door, the outer one is separate. 

CHRIS LEIGH

[luke_stevens]

Suggest you look at the Model Rail review in the next issue. One smokebox door handle is moulded to the door, the outer one is separate. 

CHRIS LEIGH

Long time subscriber! Will do. I was just puzzled by Pat's comment.

 

Luke

[dibber25]

Long time subscriber! Will do. I was just puzzled by Pat's comment.

 

Luke

Some changes have been made since 2013 but not all.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Ian Hargrave]

Model Rail's review has just arrived...June issue. Richard Foster's review does not make comfortable reading,I'm afraid..Key conclusion....with justification...is "Retaining the Hall chassis has meant that the Modified Hall still isn't right". ...and that for an accurate model you must look to the old Replica model. A compromise it seems that hasn't worked.Oh dear....but it does show that magazines are independent and don't always write reviews favourable in tone to the manufacturers.

[The Stationmaster]

Model Rail's review has just arrived...June issue. Richard Foster's review does not make comfortable reading,I'm afraid..Key conclusion....with justification...is "Retaining the Hall chassis has meant that the Modified Hall still isn't right". ...and that for an accurate model you must look to the old Replica model. A compromise it seems that hasn't worked.Oh dear....but it does show that magazines are independent and don't always write reviews favourable in tone to the manufacturers.

And of course Richard Foster is spot on in that respect.  I always found the most distinctive feature, and instant giveaway, of a 'Modified Hall' was seeing them head-on - instantly recognisable at a half a mile or more even when running at speed.  Bit of a shame really as otherwise it looks quite good to me and the bogie would be straightforward to alter albeit sacrificing the Bachmann coupling.  But I wonder just how easy or difficult it might be to modify the front end of the footplate and area beneath the smokebox door? (and obviously it involves cutting metal rather than plastic)

[dibber25]

And of course Richard Foster is spot on in that respect.  I always found the most distinctive feature, and instant giveaway, of a 'Modified Hall' was seeing them head-on - instantly recognisable at a half a mile or more even when running at speed.  Bit of a shame really as otherwise it looks quite good to me and the bogie would be straightforward to alter albeit sacrificing the Bachmann coupling.  But I wonder just how easy or difficult it might be to modify the front end of the footplate and area beneath the smokebox door? (and obviously it involves cutting metal rather than plastic)

I'm going to be taking our review sample home to have a look at the practicality of this tonight. I have my doubts, as I think it will involve cutting both the mazak running plate and whatever is underneath by way of a chassis/frame block, which may also be metal. 

CHRIS LEIGH

[brushman47544]

What were we originally expecting? I thought it was a chassis upgrade only, to replace the split frame chassis for a DCC compatible one. There was no suggestion as far as I recall that the new Modified Hall chassis would be shared with the original Hall.

 

From the Bachmann website I found this news item from August 2012 http://www.Bachmann.co.uk/details_archive.php?id=46

Pictures are now available for the Modified Hall livery samples. These OO scale models feature authentic plate frame bogie, copper capped chimney, 8 pin DCC socket and Hawksworth or Collett tender options.

 

The more recent changes were to correct errors with the body tooling, so what "happened" to the upgraded Modified Hall chassis?

Edited May 5, 2015 by brushman47544

[Barry Ten]

And of course Richard Foster is spot on in that respect.  I always found the most distinctive feature, and instant giveaway, of a 'Modified Hall' was seeing them head-on - instantly recognisable at a half a mile or more even when running at speed.  Bit of a shame really as otherwise it looks quite good to me and the bogie would be straightforward to alter albeit sacrificing the Bachmann coupling.  But I wonder just how easy or difficult it might be to modify the front end of the footplate and area beneath the smokebox door? (and obviously it involves cutting metal rather than plastic)

 

Cylinder casings were different between the Modified and original Halls as well, unfortunately.

[Ian Hargrave]

The 'front end' is the dead giveaway with the Mod.Hall. Get it wrong....and this one is ,there is for instance the absence of that plate.....and it all goes pear shaped. So sorry but what did I expect ??.......better than this.Not a good day for GW fans.

[brushman47544]

The 'front end' is the dead giveaway with the Mod.Hall. Get it wrong....and this one is ,there is for instance the absence of that plate.....and it all goes pear shaped. So sorry but what did I expect ??.......better than this.Not a good day for GW fans.

If your "what did I expect" comment refers to my post above, I was referring to what did Bachmann originally say they were going to produce in terms of an upgraded model. I searched and couldn't immediately find anything except the news item saying that the new Modified Hall had the plate frame bogie. Perhaps, and I'm not an expert, the rest of the chassis could be shared with the original Hall but I assumed it meant a different chassis. Then we have the body. Bachmann recalled the earlier release because of body errors and we were told the body was being retooled. These elements together would suggest that both the chassis and body on the new model should be new tooling.

 

So my question was where do the issues and errors with the front end in particular come from, or perhaps more specifically what happened to the chassis with plate frame bogie that was produced in 2012? If Bachmann produced it specifically for the Modified Hall, why have they now used the original Hall's chassis? Has the factory got it wrong again? After all the factory got in a muddle last time because it was manufacturing two different versions of Hall at the same time, and it is doing so again with the Shakespeare Express set due shortly too.

Edited May 5, 2015 by brushman47544

[dibber25]

As Richard Foster says in his review, MOST of the corrections HAVE been done. These include the correct plate-framed bogie (though the NEM coupler pocket means that the distinctive flat front plate is not present) and the corrected cylinders with their upsweep to the running plate. The retooled cylinders are plastic, the metal front bogie already existed. The running plate with its erroneous curved section is metal, as is the chassis block beneath it. To answer Stationmaster's question about how easy it might be to correct it, my assessment is that I would not attempt it.  The curve in the running plate matches a curve in the chassis block and in the middle of the curve is the tapped boss for the front screw which holds body and chassis together. Cut the curves away, and you cut the boss away too. Bachmann would have needed to re-tool the running plate AND the chassis block and I suspect that the cost and complexity of this ruled it out. I'm sure someone will do the mod, but I feel it is not something that I would try as all the parts involved are metal and the need to keep filings away from the mechanism would require complete dismantling of the chassis as well as separation of the plastic boiler from the metal running plate. The position of the mounting boss means that it would have to go and some other way of securing the frontend would need to be found. 

With regard to the updated chassis, it has a decoder socket right at the very rear of the chassis, beneath the cab, which would require a decoder with a harness as the location for the decoder itself is a pocket ahead of the motor, which contains a small weight which would be replaced by the decoder. 

CHRIS LEIGH

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks for that Chris.

 

This afternoon I had a look back at the Bachmann 2012/13 catalogue where the front footplate area of the 'Modified Halls' is shown in two illustrations.  Now it is important to understand that these are catalogue illustrations and therefore might not be of a real and fully finished production model so there is a big caveat.  However one lot of illustrations show what could well be the correct leading footplate /under smokebox front area - not absolutely distinct but certainly giving a good impression of it.  However the other two illustrations fairly clearly show an incorrect (i.e as now arriving) front end footplate area.  Perhaps even then there was some indecision about the extent of retooling which would be undertaken?

 

Alas a  bit of a shame and a poor comparison with what I've seen of 'Rood Ashton Hall' which looks much better all round apart from the over large - to my eyes - lance cock (which even then is far better than the Hornby equivalent.

[Legend]

I'm a bit puzzled by this, not subscribing to MR and having seen review.  What exactly is the issue with the footplate?

 

I'm referring to pics in May BRM  of Formarke Hall. There is a review there by Ben Jones that doesn't pick up on any points on footplate   " The front end arrangement with plate frame extensions projecting beyond the smokebox towards the bufferbeam. plate frame bogie design and revised outside steam pipes is well modelled. The "face" is utterly convincing"   further "Overall , the model conveys the outline of the prototype perfectly, from the utterly convincing face......."

 

I know we can get caught up in rivet counting , and I initially thought that the issue was not severe, but if we are talking about cutting into Mazak chassis it appears to me that its something fairly critical and spoiling the look of it, but for the life of me comparing BRM pics with  pics in a GW steam portfolio I can't see it. What am I missing?

[TrevorP1]

Now having seen the photos in Model Rail all I can say is that I'm very disappointed. The most characteristic part of a Modified Hall is totally wrong! I will be cancelling my pre order if possible or at least swopping it for something of similar value.

 

Talking of retailers, a good many maybe now be stuck with unsaleable or very slow stock. A bad day for Bachmann.

Edited May 6, 2015 by TrevorP1

[rembrow]

I'm assuming that the main issue is the section underneath the smokebox at the front of the loco, between the plate frame extensions. The original Hall had that section curved to the same geometry as the footplate curve, which was part of a continuous curve across the front as there weren't any plate frame extensions. The modified Hall had a different support for the section under the smokebox, which had a vertical rather than curved face. So I'm assuming that although Bachmann have modelled the plate frame extensions that the modified Hall had, they have left the front shape of the smokebox support as curved rather than vertical. This will be quite a noticeable feature, as I believe the modified Hall had the smokebox support further back, compared to the aesthetic continuous shape of the original Hall.

[Ian Hargrave]

I'm a bit puzzled by this, not subscribing to MR and having seen review. What exactly is the issue with the footplate?

 

I'm referring to pics in May BRM of Formarke Hall. There is a review there by Ben Jones that doesn't pick up on any points on footplate " The front end arrangement with plate frame extensions projecting beyond the smokebox towards the bufferbeam. plate frame bogie design and revised outside steam pipes is well modelled. The "face" is utterly convincing" further "Overall , the model conveys the outline of the prototype perfectly, from the utterly convincing face......."

 

I know we can get caught up in rivet counting , and I initially thought that the issue was not severe, but if we are talking about cutting into Mazak chassis it appears to me that its something fairly critical and spoiling the look of it, but for the life of me comparing BRM pics with pics in a GW steam portfolio I can't see it. What am I missing?

I have a high regard for Ben as a top class journalist in his genre.As one of the "Meldrew generation" whose spotting days began at the Newport end of Platform 3 at Cardiff General and who spotted every single Hall and Modified Hall in his time,I have to tell you that Ben has this one wrong. If he reads this,I apologise for hurting his feelings. As Mike ( Stationmaster ) has posted,you could always recognise one from a good distance away,the front end being the dead giveaway. Regrettably,Bachmann have lost the plot on this release.This is not an accurate representation of the prototype.I would urge you to buy a copy of the new edition of Model Rail and read Richard Foster's brilliantly incisive review which is enhanced by an image which perfectly demonstrates the points he makes and with which I and a number of other members of this forum entirely agree. I was eagerly awaiting this release and anticipated purchasing a black and a green version. The plastic stays intact. It gives me no joy to post this as I hold Bachmann products in high esteem.So sorry! Edited May 7, 2015 by Ian Hargrave