Wainwright 'C'

[G-BOAF]

^{They do owe it to the Hobby Shop. Not so much customers. There are still SECR C Class models out there for sale, not all shops are sold out, and the reallocated models will have gone somwehere, so in theoryno one should miss out! The main loss here is the hobby shop who have lost business and potetially customer trust. Having had dealings from them in the past, they are a great shop, physically small, but great.}

 

^{I know Bachmann have always said 'we will never repeat a model' but they have with evening star and Tornado, indeed the later there appears to be NO difference between teh two Apple Green batches. So there' scope they could release 592 again. Come on Bachmann, another couple of thousand would sell over a year or so, especially with the headlines the Bluebell will make in 2013.}

 

^{Regarding the O1, completely different loco. yes different tender, also different boiler (I believe it is a H Class boiler or similar), different runing plate arrangement.... the list goes on.}

^{No, if there's going to be another SECR loco, lets have an H or D. The D would I think use the same tender as the C. Also, ake sure Bachmann do it. I'm sure Hornby could do a good job, but double-heading them would expose differences in colouring and design philosophy.}

[Iain Popplewell]

Sorry to sound a downote amongst all this euphoria,but looking at the pictures in Railway Modeller review the gearbox is not hidden within the firebox and quite frankly looks a right mess and difficult to put right.As one who has been looking forward to this model release I feel disapointed that what could well have been a superlative new model is spoilt by this toy like feature.

[Jack]

^{Regarding the O1, completely different loco. yes different tender, also different boiler (I believe it is a H Class boiler or similar), different runing plate arrangement.... the list goes on.}

 

Ah, enter the minefield!!

 

The main batch of O1's from 1903 onwards had H class boilers & fittings during their rebuild. However, the first 12 O1's were kitted out with new C class parts before 1903. Another 16 received second or third hand C class boilers and fittings over the next 20 or so years. The key difference between C and the early O1's was the driving wheels (5'2" & 5'1" respectively) and the wheelbase (16'6" and 15'6").

 

So Bachmann could do an O1 by changing the tender. They'd just have to be careful over which number they picked and accept a very little bit of compromise over the wheelbase - which is nothing compared to the difference between 18.85mm and 16.5mm!!

 

The Bluebell's O1 (no. 65) was one of the H class rebuilds though.

 

(This all came from Bradley's book "Locomotive History of the South Eastern Railway", p148ff)

[phil-b259]

Sorry to sound a downote amongst all this euphoria,but looking at the pictures in Railway Modeller review the gearbox is not hidden within the firebox and quite frankly looks a right mess and difficult to put right.As one who has been looking forward to this model release I feel disapointed that what could well have been a superlative new model is spoilt by this toy like feature.

 

Not wishing to start an argument but just how would you solve the issue then? Have it sticking out into the cab instead? Its always going to be a problem with small locos like this. Yes I suppose that in theory it might have been possible to design something small enough but that would no doubt have added to the development costs.

 

Besides as others have noted the flat plate under the boiler is also something of a let down if you are worried about accuracy, given Hornby managed a representation of the valve gear on their T9

[buffalo]

Funny how folk have been so over-awed by the paintwork that it's taken this long for the boggle^* to raise its ugly head. We discussed this at length on the 3F topic and no doubt it will be there again on the 4F when that appears. How would you solve it? Quite simply by using a gear train from the rear of the motor that drives either the rear or centre axle without intruding either below the boiler or into the cab. After all, they managed something like that on the Collett goods many years ago and it's the usual solution in any kit or scratch build. As to development costs, well, they've already been spread over the 3F, C and probably the 4F, all of which use a variation on the same design. If they'd done it properly, it would have cost little if any more and the costs would have been similarly spread.

 

Mind you, I do agree about the solid lump where there should be open frames and inside motion. As you say, Hornby have at least tried to do something here on some of their products. The 28XX is another that springs to mind, not perfect, but far better than a solid black lump.

 

Nick

 

^* Boggle: so named because it boggles the mind why they have to do something so crude and intrusive.

[coachmann]

Even the most proficient stratchbuilder would be hard pressed to build perfection for 60-odd quid, so those who expect it on a plate are going to go through life pretty dissapointed. It seems to me a spot of taking things for granted is in the air sometimes when it comes to plastic RTR.

[Iain Popplewell]

Not wishing to start an argument but just how would you solve the issue then? Have it sticking out into the cab instead? Its always going to be a problem with small locos like this. Yes I suppose that in theory it might have been possible to design something small enough but that would no doubt have added to the development costs.

 

Besides as others have noted the flat plate under the boiler is also something of a let down if you are worried about accuracy, given Hornby managed a representation of the valve gear on their T9

It looks like the problem is not the gearbox this is nicely hidden under/inside the boiler.The problem seems to be the square casting between motor and gearbox I feel this could have been better designed to avoid the visually intrusive square cutout in the boiler side.I am no rivet counter and can live quite happily with lack of daylight under boilers etc. what disappoints however is that a model that is so close to perfection and my expectations is let down by what I consider an avoidable compromise.

[buffalo]

Even the most proficient stratchbuilder would be hard pressed to build perfection for 60-odd quid...

But that was not my point, Larry, any more than that you would be hard pressed to paint one at that price. The point was that such unnecessary blemishes could so easily be avoided at the design stage if only the designers were not so stuck with such an unimaginative chassis design.

 

Nick

[Guest Belgian]

Sorry to sound a downote amongst all this euphoria,but looking at the pictures in Railway Modeller review the gearbox is not hidden within the firebox and quite frankly looks a right mess and difficult to put right.As one who has been looking forward to this model release I feel disapointed that what could well have been a superlative new model is spoilt by this toy like feature.

 

Some confusion might be the result of the models on display at Warley. I was delighted to see that the two examples of the C class in Bachmann's display cabinet showed no sign of the motor assembly extending beyond the length of the firebox. It was quite clear to see through even behind the centre drivers. Is it possible these were pre-production prototypes which were not fitted with motors/gears?!

 

JE

[coachmann]

But that was not my point, Larry, any more than that you would be hard pressed to paint one at that price. The point was that such unnecessary blemishes could so easily be avoided at the design stage if only the designers were not so stuck with such an unimaginative chassis design.

 

Nick

No matter how you looks at it, for 60-odd smackers we have a magnificent model of a 'C' class 0-6-0 with an excellent paint finish that runs well and probably knocks most kitbuilt models costing twice the price into a cocked hat. What Bachmann have produced is what we've got..........A massed produced toy at a very reasonable price that pleases a whole lot of people. It has been the case for many years now that it is up to keen railway modellers to build new chassis if they are unhappy, not the manufacturer.

[Peter Bedding]

Some confusion might be the result of the models on display at Warley. I was delighted to see that the two examples of the C class in Bachmann's display cabinet showed no sign of the motor assembly extending beyond the length of the firebox. It was quite clear to see through even behind the centre drivers. Is it possible these were pre-production prototypes which were not fitted with motors/gears?!

 

JE

 

Yup,

 

My 1256 is most acceptable. I still offer 99.8% to the Bachmann team. My two reservations are 1). For the microscopic screws that secure the tender body to the underframe, and 2). For the superficial instructions to fit a decoder. Fortunately a chap at Digitrains explained for Noddy, and the TCS 621 supplied by Digitrains dropped in with minimal pressure.

CV1 to 56, CV3 to 15, CV4 to 1, and I was in business.

 

The ex-LSWR 0-6-0s (Adams and Drummond) are all suitable for today's tastes, and tomorrow would not be too soon.

 

PB

[buffalo]

No matter how you looks at it, for 60-odd smackers we have a magnificent model of a 'C' class 0-6-0 with an excellent paint finish that runs well and probably knocks most kitbuilt models costing twice the price into a cocked hat. What Bachmann have produced is what we've got..........A massed produced toy at a very reasonable price that pleases a whole lot of people. It has been the case for many years now that it is up to keen railway modellers to build new chassis if they are unhappy, not the manufacturer.

I don't really disagree with any of that, Larry, though I would say it is much closer to being a 'magnificent model' than a 'mass produced toy'. It's certainly a good example of the current state of the RTR art. My point is that with the considerable improvements in the bodies of recent RTR products we can see what the manufacturers can do if they set their minds to it. Surely there's no harm in trying to encourage them to do better in the areas which still retain something of a toy-like quality?

 

Nick

[Iain Popplewell]

No matter how you looks at it, for 60-odd smackers we have a magnificent model of a 'C' class 0-6-0 with an excellent paint finish that runs well and probably knocks most kitbuilt models costing twice the price into a cocked hat. What Bachmann have produced is what we've got..........A massed produced toy at a very reasonable price that pleases a whole lot of people. It has been the case for many years now that it is up to keen railway modellers to build new chassis if they are unhappy, not the manufacturer.

Ah well c'est la vie.A Comet chassis,bit of work with plasticard and filler.Match up the paint and lining and the jobs a goodun.In the meantime is it OK. to feel a little bit disappointed.It seems a pity that Bachmann having produced such a marvellous model didn't go that little further it's almost perfect.

[Oldddudders]

In post #228, to Larry's evident satisfaction, member nile posted comparison pics of the C and the 3F. It looks to me as if the motor has shrunk slightly. It looks to me as if - as Larry posted - the motor/gearbox combo are now slightly lower. Isn't that progress? I haven't yet looked at my C class - Xmas day will be fine for that - but expecting an RTR supplier to produce perfection on all fronts at once is simply unrealistic. A pre-Grouping 0-6-0 in a choice of liveries, with DCC socket, and which the market has clearly embraced, thus offering encouragement for future models of the same genre, at a price we can nearly afford - a 4-VEP this ain't!

[buffalo]

No, Ian, it's not progress. They've merely filed off the top corners of worm enclosure, used a slightly smaller, more rounded motor and moved the capacitors and inductors out of the way so that the same design can fit inside a lower, round-topped firebox. That's just basic production engineering.

 

Why is it that anyone who says that it's good, but not perfect, and offers constructive criticism about how the manufacturers can go even further with their improvements is invariably met with a response of "be thankful for what you've got", "don't criticise the mighty hornbachpol"? I don't expect perfection, but the indications of recent years are that the manufacturers are striving towards it and we should support them in doing so.

 

Nick

[Ian Hargrave]

Forgive me ,Nick,but you used the word 'support' in your posting.Yet your hostility is tangible in your use of emotive language and aggressive phrasing. This is NOT 'encouragement' as you put it. Please do not confuse criticism with negativity. Both Larry and Ian have sound ---but not uncritical---viewpoints born of years of experience.

[neal]

By all means keep the pressure on our valued manufacturers, but also have some regard to the extended supply chain stretching across the globe to provide mass produced models at what remain affordable prices.

 

Most manufacturers have fallen foul of failures in intercontinental communication, and many a thread here relate to unwitting cock-ups 'lost in translation'.

 

However this issue largely relates to product development, and evolution allowing a new model to hit the shelves 18 months after announcement, not 3 years.

 

Be patient, models continue to get better.

 

 

N

[Guest Belgian]

In support of Nick, what I would rail against is the unnecessary compromises that still get engineered into certain models. I too was surprised when the 3F came out with the 'boggle' and that it has been repeated in the C class. Some 5 to 10 years ago Bachmann re-engineered the Collett class 2251 with a vertically mounted motor in order to keep the open space between the boiler and the running plate open - so why have they gone backwards in this regard?

 

Yes, I know the 2251 has a high mounted boiler and a Belpaire firebox, but, in view of the myriad of motor designs that these models use, surely it can't have been impossible, in the three-year gestation period, for them to have located a shorter motor that would be suitable for vertical mounting within the the fireboxes of these smaller 0-6-0s. And, since all the chassis are bespoke, why couldn't they take the motor lower into the chassis and arrange the gearing as many modellers do, with the gearbox alongside/under rather than at the end of the motor?

 

Perhaps they will in a future release, but why have they yet again spoiled a beautiful model for a ha'penny-worth of tar?

 

JE

[Oldddudders]

Perhaps they will in a future release, but why have they yet again spoiled a beautiful model for a ha'penny-worth of tar?

Because it hasn't stopped the model from being a runaway sales success? Why invest in more when you can earn as much from less? Bachmann is here to make money, not impress the minority of very knowledgeable purists. They have done what the mass-market needed - and got their reward. And, as a result, they live to bring even better models to us tomorrow.

[Tom Bayford]

I dont have one i have worked on a real C class and too me it looks like a C class is that good enough?

[phil gollin]

Just noticed the 'gearbox' protrusion at the front of the firebox. Pitty this component couldn't have been 'half width' at this point. In black it will be difficult to notice, but in green the premature stopping of the lining is noticable. I can'it believe every mm of material is necessary in this area... Shame, this is the only major compromise I can see in this model. Come on Bachmann. If Dapol could get daylight under the boiler of thier 4mm scale terrier in the 1990s (they did!) anything is possible!

 

For those people who have "forgotten" that we have discussed this issue before (9th July).

 

.

 

.

[buffalo]

Because it hasn't stopped the model from being a runaway sales success? Why invest in more when you can earn as much from less? Bachmann is here to make money, not impress the minority of very knowledgeable purists. They have done what the mass-market needed - and got their reward. And, as a result, they live to bring even better models to us tomorrow.

Quite so, Ian. However, though I am sure it was not your intention, I think there is a danger that argument might be read as "They have done the minimum that the mass-market needed..." I think the evidence is that the manufacturers or, at least, a significant number of their more influential staff, are also striving to produce the very best models that they can within the commercial and other constraints they work under. I can't offhand think of a Bachmann example, but Dapol Dave's participation in RMweb and Andy's interview with Simon Kohler both point in this direction. As a result we have the quality of body mouldings and detailing that we see on the C and other current models. If most are happy with that, fine, but I take the view that there's still much room for improvement in the chassis of RTR steam models. I'm disappointed that they still have not addressed this, but live in hope it will be fixed in tomorrow's better models.

 

Nick

[Guest Belgian]

Because it hasn't stopped the model from being a runaway sales success? Why invest in more when you can earn as much from less? Bachmann is here to make money, not impress the minority of very knowledgeable purists. They have done what the mass-market needed - and got their reward. And, as a result, they live to bring even better models to us tomorrow.

That's awfully cynical Ian!

 

JE

[Ian Hargrave]

Improvement leads to on-cost in r&d and production. A blunt question to all. Costs are high enough as it is. How much more are you prepared to pay for it ? An examination of costs in the r-t-r HO market in mainland Europe may clarify the situation for some. Quality there is higher,in the main,but it comes at an eye-watering cost. We have,as they say,to cut the coat according to the cloth----and no,I'm not arguing that our manufacturers should rest on their laurels. Simply that nobody's pocket is elastic.

[Matabiau]

Improvement leads to on-cost in r&d and production. A blunt question to all. Costs are high enough as it is. How much more are you prepared to pay for it ? An examination of costs in the r-t-r HO market in mainland Europe may clarify the situation for some. Quality there is higher,in the main,but it comes at an eye-watering cost. We have,as they say,to cut the coat according to the cloth----and no,I'm not arguing that our manufacturers should rest on their laurels. Simply that nobody's pocket is elastic.

Unfortunately this is no onger the case. With one or two exceptions (LS Models for example) the quality of continental HO RTR models is no longer better than that of UK OO RTR, in many cases it is inferior. However, the price remains two ro three times what UK modellers have to pay. I suspect that the reason is primarily due to sales levels, there are fewer trains sold here than in the UK.