Bachmann retooled Modified Hall 2012 - What can we expect?

[Legend]

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.

Thanks for explanation Rembrow

 

The BRM review only shows the front from a low angle  so you cannot discern whether the area between plate frame extensions is curved or straight. Looking at pictures of the real thing, while the curved footplate of unmodified Halls is obvious , for modified ones the plate frame extensions leave that area in shadow, so again not obvious for me, although I believe the experts . Oh dear, but still not sure its fundamental (speaking as someone who has never seen the real thing and would have been unaware if hadn't seen above posts)

Edited May 6, 2015 by Legend

[dibber25]

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.

That's it exactly. The original 'Hall' chassis is being used, but with a plate-framed bogie and correct '6959' cylinders. Unfortunately, this chassis has the front screw mounting 'boss' as part of the curved section of the footplate, meaning that Bachmann have not been able to alter the running plate in this area other than to add the two frame extensions. Had they altered the running plate to provide the vertical saddle below the smokebox front, the chassis block would have also needed retooling, otherwise the front mounting screw would have been positioned in the flat running plate ahead of the smokebox saddle. Thus, considerable redesign and retooling would have been needed. In a sentence, you can't use an original Hall chassis under a Modified Hall body without some compromises. I can't comment on the BRM review but the Model Rail review illustrates the discrepancy and comments on it.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Bulwell Hall]

Another major dissapointment for those of us looking forward to a good Hall to modern standards.  The Hornby 49xx was a major dissapointment and now the Modified Hall is similarly unsatisfactory. Several have already commented on the very distinctive look of the front end of a Modified Hall and the Bachmann model just hasn't got it  It seems as though us GWR/BR(W) modelers are destined not to get a Hall - OK from a distance just isn't good enough. 

 

Perhaps Rapido might like to have a go and show us how it should be done!  If other modelers are like me there will still be a market because I haven't bought the Hornby 49xx and will not be buying the Bachmann Modified Hall either.

 

Gerry

Edited May 6, 2015 by Bulwell Hall

[Horsetan]

..... seems as though us GWR/BR(W) modelers are destined not to get a Hall - OK from a distance just isn't good enough. .....

The Martin Finney "Hall" kit will be available again whenever Brassmasters are ready to put it back into production, probably 2016 or later.

 

The old NuCast "Modified Hall" kit might be resurrected by South Eastern Finecast; might be worth asking SEF's Dave Ellis about this.

[The Fatadder]

I'm guessing that going forward lobbying Brassmasters for a Finney modified hall is going to be the only way to get a decent one...

[Horsetan]

I'm guessing that going forward lobbying Brassmasters for a Finney modified hall is going to be the only way to get a decent one...

Martin Finney never produced a "Modified Hall" kit, only the Collett "Hall". I only know of one such kit which was itself modified by John Hayes to produce a "Modified" version, and he commented that it required a lot of work! A pic of it appeared in MRJ years ago - an early attempt at teasing.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Horsetan

[The Fatadder]

I should have made it clearer that was in deflation to Brassmasters previous comments re expanding the Finney range rather than an existing kit.

[Barry Ten]

Another major dissapointment for those of us looking forward to a good Hall to modern standards.  The Hornby 49xx was a major dissapointment

 

 

 

Not really - it was clearly announced as a Railroad-type model and that's what we got. I think most modellers were quite pleased with the running qualities and the price.

[locoholic]

If I've understood this correctly (and that's difficult without photos), a while ago Bachmann recalled a batch of Collett Halls because they'd used bits of the Modified Hall (Outside steam pipes?) and omitted the fire iron tunnel. Now they're issuing a Modified Hall which uses the Collett Hall running plate with the curved section beneath the smokebox door instead of the square step?

 

Looks like someone didn't think ahead when the Bachmann Collett Hall was first designed, and make the chassis the right shape at the front end to accommodate both variants. As others have pointed out, the Bachmann Hall chassis isn't the smoothest runner, so it's a shame that they didn't take the opportunity to redo it this time.

 

You would have thought that Barwell would have been extra-careful with this release after the previous mistake, especially as Hornby now have a Hall in their range. I too won't be spending on either the Hornby or Bachmann offerings.

[dibber25]

If I've understood this correctly (and that's difficult without photos), a while ago Bachmann recalled a batch of Collett Halls because they'd used bits of the Modified Hall (Outside steam pipes?) and omitted the fire iron tunnel. Now they're issuing a Modified Hall which uses the Collett Hall running plate with the curved section beneath the smokebox door instead of the square step?

 

Looks like someone didn't think ahead when the Bachmann Collett Hall was first designed, and make the chassis the right shape at the front end to accommodate both variants. As others have pointed out, the Bachmann Hall chassis isn't the smoothest runner, so it's a shame that they didn't take the opportunity to redo it this time.

 

You would have thought that Barwell would have been extra-careful with this release after the previous mistake, especially as Hornby now have a Hall in their range. I too won't be spending on either the Hornby or Bachmann offerings.

No, they recalled the 2013 modified 'Hall' after Model Rail's Richard Foster (and probably others) pointed out that the fire iron tunnel was missing and certain other features were incorrect. Most of those points have now been corrected but not the one involving the cast metal running plate and chassis block. In my view there's very little wrong with the Hornby 'Hall' and most of its glitches are easily fixed. However, the fact that the smokebox saddle job - which is vital to the '6959' class - on the Bachmann model involves cast parts makes it a much more difficult job to rectify. I suspect, that when the Bachmann Hall was first designed, there was no intention of doing a modified 'Hall'. 

CHRIS LEIGH

[brushman47544]

I suspect, that when the Bachmann Hall was first designed, there was no intention of doing a modified 'Hall'. 

CHRIS LEIGH

 

This is in a way what I don't understand. Bachmann had a Modified Hall (with split frame chassis) before they produced their original Hall. So when they announced a new version (chassis upgrade for DCC) of the Modified Hall, I assumed it would be a new chassis for the Modified Hall but instead it seems Bachmann went for the cheaper option of using the original Hall chassis with a couple of detail changes. Not a good decision it would seem from the result. BTW I haven't seen Richard Foster's review yet; MR takes at least a week to get to Portugal. 

[jjb1970]

I think this is one of those models which will be a bit of a binary one in terms of opinion and acceptability. For those familiar with the Modified Hall it will be hugely disappointing. There will however be many (I'll include myself) whose knowledge of the prototype is not familiar enough to really notice the short comings and for who it will be a nice model. As with most models acceptability is closely linked to familiarity with the prototype I think and what is not a big deal to some is a real deal breaker for others. For example I found the Heljan 86 hugely disappointing and do not like the model (and not just because of the obviously over sized pan which got much of the adverse comment) yet I know others who are very happy with it.

That said, it appears there are good reviews and the model is being distributed via Bachmann's normal retailers hence we can all of us make our own decision. If you like it then you can buy it, if the issues pointed out are a problem then people are not going to lose anything by not buying it and use the piggy bank elsewhere. I probably will not buy but that is more because I already have the regular Hall and that is enough for me than problems with this model.

On the Hornby model, I think it very much depends on whether you consider the Railroad or the main range version. I think it would be unfair to be negative about the Railroad version as it offers a very nice, very sweet running model at a bargain price for those on  a budget.

[The Stationmaster]

This is in a way what I don't understand. Bachmann had a Modified Hall (with split frame chassis) before they produced their original Hall. So when they announced a new version (chassis upgrade for DCC) of the Modified Hall, I assumed it would be a new chassis for the Modified Hall but instead it seems Bachmann went for the cheaper option of using the original Hall chassis with a couple of detail changes. Not a good decision it would seem from the result. BTW I haven't seen Richard Foster's review yet; MR takes at least a week to get to Portugal. 

I'm not at all sure what they have done and why.  Perhaps what Chris (Dibber) is saying is one reason, and it sound perfectly logical and sensible but equally have Bachmann simply got it wrong twice - I really don't know.  The one good thing I can say is that having seen an example of 'Rood Ashton Hall' they do, this time round, seem to have made a good job of that - it's just a shame from my own situation, that they decided not to go head-to-head against Hornby's version and dropped the 'Hall' apart from The Shakespeare Express 'special.  Perhaps we can but hope that they will run the 'Hall' in BR condition at a later date?

 

I had originally intended to go for a couple of 'Modified Halls' but only have one on pre-order (fortunately) and I shall honour that as I deal with a local model shop and I think it unfair to lumber him with something he might not be able to shift.  The interesting question then arises of what can, or more likely can't, be done with it?  Definitely something of  red face situation for the guys at Barwell which is particularly unfortunate in view of the job they're done with, for example, the 64XX.  I do wonder if something might have been lost in the translation - maybe even literally - between England and China or whether it is, as Chris believes, simply a way of reducing production costs?  If the latter then I suppose it's another example of what can happen when people have 'design clever' type ideas in their minds.

[locoholic]

No, they recalled the 2013 modified 'Hall' after Model Rail's Richard Foster (and probably others) pointed out that the fire iron tunnel was missing and certain other features were incorrect. Most of those points have now been corrected but not the one involving the cast metal running plate and chassis block. In my view there's very little wrong with the Hornby 'Hall' and most of its glitches are easily fixed. However, the fact that the smokebox saddle job - which is vital to the '6959' class - on the Bachmann model involves cast parts makes it a much more difficult job to rectify. I suspect, that when the Bachmann Hall was first designed, there was no intention of doing a modified 'Hall'. 

CHRIS LEIGH

 

Chris, I think you're wrong - the model of 6922 Burton Hall (a Collett Hall) was recalled too: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/72753-Bachmann-hall/

 

Add in the first go at the Hawksworth Modified Hall which you refer to (and which didn't get into the shops) so Barwell have now messed up THREE times, except this last episode seems to be more of a deliberate decision by Bachmann to fob us off with an inaccurate model to save them tooling costs.

 

I won't be buying a Hornby Hall (however good it is) because it's a Collett one, and I already have three Bachmann ones.

 

Perhaps Hornby can fit their chassis under a Modified Hall?

[dibber25]

Chris, I think you're wrong - the model of 6922 Burton Hall (a Collett Hall) was recalled too: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/72753-Bachmann-hall/

 

Add in the first go at the Hawksworth Modified Hall which you refer to (and which didn't get into the shops) so Barwell have now messed up THREE times, except this last episode seems to be more of a deliberate decision by Bachmann to fob us off with an inaccurate model to save them tooling costs.

 

I won't be buying a Hornby Hall (however good it is) because it's a Collett one, and I already have three Bachmann ones.

 

Perhaps Hornby can fit their chassis under a Modified Hall?

You may well be right. I don't think that 6922 got as far as being sent out for review, or if it did, I never saw it. We did have the errant modified 'Hall' but Bachmann recalled it once the problems had been raised with them. I think 'fob us off' is being a bit harsh. I think, as Jason Shron said in his column in Model Rail recently, there comes a point where a manufacturer simply can't throw any more money at a job and has to take a decision on when to let it go. The smokebox saddle issue is obvious enough to those who know but it's not blindingly obvious to all, as witness the number of folk who haven't spotted it. Indeed, not so many years ago it would probably have been accepted without comment - I'm not sure I didn't once create a 6959 merely by sticking Plastikard frame extensions on the old Tri-ang Hall! I certainly made one into a 'Saint' without doing anything about the undersized wheels.

CHRIS LEIGH

[coachmann]

With higher steam pipes and correctly shaped cylinders, the incorrect bit under the smokebox between the frames isn't really such a big deal. As Dibbers has pointed out, a securing screw lies under there somewhere making modification awkward, but are folk really going to live without a modified 'Hall' when they are probably happy running a Railroad Hall with moulded steam pipes and handrail and no brake pull rods or water pick up gear?

Edited May 6, 2015 by coachmann

[coachmann]

This could be the tester that confirms I'm starting to shift my spending habit to other things as the product no longer delivers the goods at the right price, but it'll get a fair hearing... If it looks right and runs right I might be persuaded.

I wonder what comparisons have made when deciding a product does not deliver the goods at the right price. I'm guessing the comparison is with previous prices over the past decade and current prices for plastic ready-to-run rather than a comparison with the costs of kit-building. RTR locos tick all the boxes for squarely built scale models on well running chassis that do not wiggle and hunt their way down the track and have good slow running characteristics. What we got or get with a kit-built loco is down to the builder, but in my experience they often leave a lot to be desired in the box-ticking exercise. The cost of kit building often overlooked goes beyond the actual £££'s and involves kits where total accuracy is barely a feature. That finger cannot be pointed at most of the up to date RTR locos in anything like the same measure. They do say familiarity breeds contempt and I feel many people dependant on RTR have lost sight of the improvements that have taken place since the proprietary manufacturers moved their base to China. 

Edited May 7, 2015 by coachmann

[Barry Ten]

Over the years we have all lived with minor "faux pars" from both Hornby Bachmann & Dapol that come to light on first production runs.Hopefully Bachmann will correct the error.I,ve cancelled my two orders on the back of this review.

 

I don't think there's much chance of Bachmann correcting this now, not given the amount of money the Hall must have already cost them.

 

I must say I don't really understand the habit of pre-ordering models and then cancelling them on the back of reviews. If you're that bothered by possible errors, why wouldn't you just wait until the model appeared and was reviewed before buying one?

[Froxfield2012]

At the risk of going off topic, in the light of all the flak flying to and fro over the "new" Halls, I have taken a fresh look at the split chassis Bachmann Mere Hall that I have:  that at least gets the front of the frames right?  But I am not after an analysis of its strengths and weaknesses, just some specific advice and guidance, please!  It was a perfectly good runner but I have swapped over to DCC and had more or less decided to pension it off to be replaced by this year's offerings (a new Modified Hall or Hornby's Hall).  Now I am thinking again and wondering if I might be happier with Mere Hall if I can tackle the (for me no doubt difficult) task of converting to DCC.  Has anyone here done this and if so what decoder and wiring harness might fit as easily as possible.  I can't find a detailed guide on line but there is an excellent guide on here for the Bachmann Nelson.  Is this likely to be a good guide for the Hall?  So that I can at least assess whether I am up to the challenge!

 

Richard

[Barry Ten]

At the risk of going off topic, in the light of all the flak flying to and fro over the "new" Halls, I have taken a fresh look at the split chassis Bachmann Mere Hall that I have:  that at least gets the front of the frames right?  But I am not after an analysis of its strengths and weaknesses, just some specific advice and guidance, please!  It was a perfectly good runner but I have swapped over to DCC and had more or less decided to pension it off to be replaced by this year's offerings (a new Modified Hall or Hornby's Hall).  Now I am thinking again and wondering if I might be happier with Mere Hall if I can tackle the (for me no doubt difficult) task of converting to DCC.  Has anyone here done this and if so what decoder and wiring harness might fit as easily as possible.  I can't find a detailed guide on line but there is an excellent guide on here for the Bachmann Nelson.  Is this likely to be a good guide for the Hall?  So that I can at least assess whether I am up to the challenge!

 

Richard

 

 

The split chassis Halls aren't too bad to convert. The main thing is to make sure it runs well on DC first, and that the axle muffs are all still intact, not split etc. It's a bit easier than the Nelson and other outside valve gear models as the disassembly and reassembly isn't too tricky. For mine, I think I ended up putting the decoder in the tender as I don't think there's much room under the boiler unless you start cutting away the chassis block, which I didn't want to do.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I take 'Coachman's' point about the demands made on RTR. It's clearly the case that the RTR models we now get easily exceed most modellers general ability to build it for themselves, even with a good and accurate kit as a starting point. If this was a class I wanted a model of, and the non-conformance to prototype appearance didn't please, the question I would have is 'can I modify it to better represent the prototype?'. I have yet to encounter the RTR model that couldn't use a little work to make it a bit more realistic in some way, and it is a sight easier, cheaper, and with a superior end result in prospect, than starting from a kit or scratch.

 

 

...  I can't find a detailed guide on line but there is an excellent guide on here for the Bachmann Nelson.  Is this likely to be a good guide for the Hall?  ...

All the Bachmann 4-6-0 split chassis are generically much alike, so I would say yes. The essential essence of the job is to release the motor from between the frame halves and solder the orange and grey wires onto the brush terminals, and fully insulate these terminals and joints (shrink on sleeving recommended) so that there is no possible contact between them and the chassis halves. Detail stuff like cutting clearance for the wiring so that the chassis halves reassemble properly, and deciding where the decoder you want to use should go, are aspects you will have to work out for yourself.

 

Edited to remove a superfluiiiity oif i.

Edited May 7, 2015 by 34theletterbetweenB&D

[The Stationmaster]

I wonder what comparisons have made when deciding a product does not deliver the goods at the right price. I'm guessing the comparison is with previous prices over the past decade and current prices for plastic ready-to-run rather than a comparison with the costs of kit-building. RTR locos tick all the boxes for squarely built scale models on well running chassis that do not wiggle and hunt their way down the track and have good slow running characteristics. What we got or get with a kit-built loco is down to the builder, but in my experience they often leave a lot to be desired in the box-ticking exercise. The cost of kit building often overlooked goes beyond the actual £££'s and involves kits where total accuracy is barely a feature. That finger cannot be pointed at most of the up to date RTR locos in anything like the same measure. They do say familiarity breeds contempt and I feel many people dependant on RTR have lost sight of the improvements that have taken place since the proprietary manufacturers moved their base to China. 

Very much so Coach - Bachmann have recently delivered the 64XX (as you know) and have done a really good job with it, their Southern E4 seems to be attracting the right sort of approbations from the followers of that railway while the NRM C1 is also a good job, especially considering the difficulties posed by having the driving wheels so close together.  The 64XX has excellent running qualities on every example I've seen and it's interesting that the cosmetic front end problem apart 'Model rail' gave the 'Modified Hall' some pretty good remarks (and 'marks' on their scoring system).

 

The simple fact is exactly that - compared with what we were offered barely even 20 years ago we are getting a very good deal in what reaches us from the factories in China and it is really beyond comparison with what we saw from both Margate & Liverpool in 'the old days'.

[61661]

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 spectacularly 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!

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

[jjb1970]

Thanks to Ben for that post, it shows a lot of integrity to make a post like that and deserves a lot of respect.

[jjb1970]

On the model, now that the front face issue has been pointed out to me I can see why some are complaining. If this had never been pointed out to me I would never have noticed it but I do see that once you are aware of it then it is indeed noticeable. That said it is for all of us to make our own decision whether or not it is a big enough deal to make us not buy the model and in other ways it looks to be a nice enough model.