Decorated Samples of Class 101

[BigAndy]

As Legend quite rightly says, sometimes we can be overcritical, y'know, if a loco or coach/wagon is a scale 1.5 mm short in length, but otherwise looks lovely, then those innacuracies are hardly relevant.

 

Unfortunately, what we have here, and Heljan have fallen into this trap with the 58, 86, 33,  western, et al, is that there are blindingly obvious innacuracies that could have and indeed should have been picked up on at an early stage of development.

I have recently been reading with interest the development of Rapido into the British market, I was there at one of their presentations and I have recently had a chat at an exhibition with a well known producer of high quality units ( no names! ), so there are a couple of things that seem to be a reoccuring theme.

 

What I have picked up on is that the Chinese CAD designers will only go so far in the development of a loco before they call it a day, and no ammount of coercion or threats will get them to shift once they've set their own minds. 

The basic dimentions, window arrangements, location of important detail etc etc needs to be signed off at an early stage in the development process, by whichever manufacturer is producing that particular model, before the finer points are then thrashed out.

It would appear that the Chinese have a fixed line to which they won't be pushed over, so if, as it would appear to have happened with the 101 that an improtant piece of detail positioning isn't rectified at an early part of the process, then tough luck my friend, your stuck with it.

 

Apparently it can become quite a battle with the Chinese engineers to get them to rectify something, so if a manufacturer is a wee bit lax in attending the overseeing of the development, then big problems creep in that can't then be altered.

 

I have a nasty suspicion that even if Bachmann have picked up in this glaring problem, they will have liitle chance of getting it sorted now.

 

cheers

 

Andy

[cravensdmufan]

Very interesting comments Andy.

 

So maybe it's time for future manufacturing to be brought back to the UK?

 

Especially as I understand Chinese production costs (which include all the hassle you have highlighted) and shipping charges have increased.

[Fenman]

Maybe time for manufacturing to be brought back to the UK then?

 

Especially as I understand Chinese production costs and shipping charges have increased.

 

As is traditional when this question is asked, here's the link to Rapido's newsletter which seems to be the most detailed explanation yet published as to why the economics of moving production to expensive western countries still don't work (notwithstanding obvious differences between North America and Western Europe, Rapido super-dooper-detailed versis Hornby/Bachmann super-detailed, etc).

 

Paul

[BigAndy]

Very interesting comments Andy.

 

So maybe it's time for future manufacturing to be brought back to the UK?

 

Especially as I understand Chinese production costs (which include all the hassle you have highlighted) and shipping charges have increased.

 

 

I don't know mate to be honest. I mean, noone wnats sweatshop working conditions, just so the affluent west can have a lovely model to drool over.

From what Jason was saying at his presentation, the conditions at the manufacturing plants have increased greatly, which is good to hear and the average assembly worker can do an honest days work for an honest day's pay.

 

I think there's probably a massive breakdown in communication and also expectation of what is required. Lets face it, I know about as much of the Chinese railway system as I do about quantum physics - and I'm a railway fan.

 

Imagine your job is a CAD draughtsman in a factory, somewhere in deepest Dongguan and you've never even seen a ( choose your favourite loco here ) and you get some guy from the Uk or Denmark going on about the dimensions of a radiator fan or the curvature of the cab windows at cantrail level.................. I mean, you may not even be interested in your own countries railways, never mind some country like Britain where you're never even likely to visit, so what's all the fuss? I mean, to you it looks about 90% correct and you have your manager breathing fire at you to get it right before the production deadline looms.............

 

I have no idea how often the likes of a Bachmann rep or a Heljan rep or a Hornby rep would be on the blower to their respective factories, but I could imagine it would get a tad wearing eventually, and nobody likes knitting fog, so it would be easy to trust the Chinese when they insist that thyey've got it 100% right, honestly guv............

 

Whether this would see manufacturing returning to the Uk, remains to be seen. Personally, I wouldn't have thought so. Some of these Chinese factories have now been running for twenty plus years and are all geared up for production.

To recreate that here would cost.....well it probably wouldn't even be a viable venture.

 

These are of course, only my own views, and tentative conclusions that I have drawn from listening to the various experts.

 

cheers

 

Andy

[BigAndy]

Another couple of nuggets of information which may also be of interest, is that when I had a good look at the unpainted example which was on the Bachmann stand at the DEMU show this year, the first thing I noticed were the moulded grab rails on the cab side.

 

I mentioned this to the rep on the stand and he simply shrugged and said it was down to costs. He also stated that before too long, the sprung buffers would probably dissapear as well..........

 

Now, without trying to be controversial in any way, it kind of makes you wonder where this is all heading.

 

Hornby, Bachmann and several others all took their production to China as it was a cost effective way of producing a model. Now it seems that with the increased demand and higher levels of skill required by production line staff, wages have increased dramatically from 15 years ago.

 

This has had a knock on effect to the end user, i.e us modellers.

 

Because there seems to be a finite perceived limit as to what the British modeller is prepared to pay, then it would seem that the end product is going to start suffering from the levels of detail that we have recently been treated to. Separate handrails, sprung buffers, lights and even the standard of motor could all be subject to review before too long if the consumer doesn't budge on how much they are prepared to pay.

 

As I stated in a previous post, noone wants to see sweatshop conditions for production staff in China, but it may be that the British outline modeller may have to realise that we are going to have to pay another 20 - 30 pounds on top of that rrp, if we want to keep the standard of model.

 

It could be that the 101 is the first item to be the subjext of some tweaking in the detail expectation dept. If modellers accept this, then further measures could creep in as I have suggested above.

 

Without going off topic, as there is another thread running about Rapido, but this would seem the crux of the argument that Jason Shron is making as per what a consumer is prepared to pay for a model.

 

cheers

 

Andy

[Guest G567281]

Upon viewing the images of the Met-Camm DMU's on show at Warley it appears the first 144 DMBS's are not represented. All models shown have the guards door on the right on the drivers side. This is correct for DMBS's from SC51224 onwards however on the earlier cars it was on the left. Not good for early North Eastern sets.

[Revolution Ben]

Maybe, but as others have said, but in terms of the errors being discussed, it's as easy to get the model right as it is to get it wrong. Someone doesn't seem to have been watching development very carefully, if it's now too late to correct.

 

No - it's only as "easy to get it right as to get it wrong" if you get it exactly right first time.  If you don't, and it's wrong, then you'll need to make changes to get it right.  And that costs money.  The CAD may require repeated alterations if the designer hasn't quite understood what's needed.  Each will add to the cost.  Some errors may only become apparent when you actually mould the model, or try to paint it.  Replacing or modifying a cut tool will add to the cost even more. 

 

So the higher the development budget you can justify, the more alterations you can fund and, therefore, the better the model will be.  Manufacturers will assign models aimed at Britain a lower R&D budget, as they know their customers want a low RRP.  So there are fewer opportunities to refine or correct any errors.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[dibber25]

Is the CAD work for Bachmann not done at Barwell? The big problem comes when alterations are wanted AFTER a tool has been made - and remember, if you see a pre-production sample in a showcase, that means the tool has been made. Any alteration to that tool which requires metal to be 'put back' means scrapping the tool and starting again. With a small tool like a smokebox door, that's no big deal but a one-piece body moulding with a collapsible core is BIG money. Manufacturers aren't going to change that just to adjust a detail that's a smidgin wrong.

CHRIS LEIGH

 

PS

Maybe I'll post a couple of pictures on the Rapido thread. It would be interesting to hear the views of British modellers as to just HOW MUCH detail they might expect when Rapido does its UK model.

[the-gog]

Oh well, time to go hunting the Limby one. I'm certain I saw the blue/grey one in a shop in Birmingham recently, boxed, and going for £99.99. Lima did a fine job of that model.

[Ian Fisher]

With a fleet as big as the 101 family, surely you must expect variations in detail and how and when its tackled?

 

They have tackled rain strips above doors and a constant. Lets see what else maybe forthcoming.

 

Upon viewing the images of the Met-Camm DMU's on show at Warley it appears the first 144 DMBS's are not represented. All models shown have the guards door on the right on the drivers side. This is correct for DMBS's from SC51224 onwards however on the earlier cars it was on the left. Not good for early North Eastern sets.

[Legend]

Is the CAD work for Bachmann not done at Barwell? The big problem comes when alterations are wanted AFTER a tool has been made - and remember, if you see a pre-production sample in a showcase, that means the tool has been made. Any alteration to that tool which requires metal to be 'put back' means scrapping the tool and starting again. With a small tool like a smokebox door, that's no big deal but a one-piece body moulding with a collapsible core is BIG money. Manufacturers aren't going to change that just to adjust a detail that's a smidgin wrong.

CHRIS LEIGH

 

PS

Maybe I'll post a couple of pictures on the Rapido thread. It would be interesting to hear the views of British modellers as to just HOW MUCH detail they might expect when Rapido does its UK model.

Yes but, with respect, it's not a smidgin wrong. The relationship of windows to door windows is fundamental, and as said before this model has to be better than what preceeded it. If not people will simply hold onto the models they've got. So if they have got it wrong , they will have to spend the big money to correct, otherwise these models will just sit on shelves and most of money spent so far will have been wasted anyway

 

Didn't Bachmann/Grafar not do an "n" one ? Did they get the windows right then? I don't recall a storm of protest. Makes it all the more incredible it's gone wrong this time

[Adam1701D]

Yes but, with respect, it's not a smidgin wrong. The relationship of windows to door windows is fundamental, and as said before this model has to be better than what preceeded it. If not people will simply hold onto the models they've got. So if they have got it wrong , they will have to spend the big money to correct, otherwise these models will just sit on shelves and most of money spent so far will have been wasted anyway

 

Didn't Bachmann/Grafar not do an "n" one ? Did they get the windows right then? I don't recall a storm of protest. Makes it all the more incredible it's gone wrong this time

Here's a picture of the N Gauge 101 - I'll let the panel decide!

 

[Legend]

Here's a picture of the N Gauge 101 - I'll let the panel decide!

 

[/quote

 

Hmmm looks like that's where the issue stems from then!

[bigherb]

I've enhanced it a bit, still not certain but it looks wrong.

 

 

[BR(S)]

I was hoping bigherb might swing by to do his thing!  Here's a comparison of all treated pictures.

 

 

 

 

[Grovenor]

All models shown have the guards door on the right on the drivers side. This is correct for DMBS's from SC51224 onwards however on the earlier cars it was on the left.

Note the problem is said to be the guard's door which is not shown in the enlarged pics. And it is correct for some cars so if Bachmann had done the earlier version, then it would be those preferring the later one that would be complaining.

Keith

OK, sorry, reading back a bit further there are two different issues.

K

[Metr0Land]

With a fleet as big as the 101 family, surely you must expect variations in detail and how and when its tackled?

 

 

One question that doesn't appear to have been asked on this thread is:

 

Did Bachmann measure up a specific example of the real thing, and if so which one?  If we know that, it may explain some detail differences.  Alternatively, if they worked from drawings, do we know which?

[Nimbus]

One question that doesn't appear to have been asked on this thread is:

 

Did Bachmann measure up a specific example of the real thing, and if so which one?  If we know that, it may explain some detail differences.  Alternatively, if they worked from drawings, do we know which?

 

Which sent me rummaging in my 'Archive'. I came up with this:

 

Evidently Bachmann did not use a copy of this, but then, comparing with the prototype broadsides we've been shown, M-C themselves may not have either! (Which is just a jest, as I realise GAs of this style aren't intended as production documents.) 

Still, for what it's worth, here it is for your interest and edification. "Just goes to show..."

 

Prior to this, I was wondering how the lined green models will stand up to scrutiny. The cantrail line in particular will have to thread though the space between the cab window and destination blind aperture, so can't be fudged much there.

 

The Nim.

[Metr0Land]

I could be crazy but I'm wondering if (as standardisation was creeping in) that a 'standard BR Mk1 door' was used for the passenger door above, and this caused the juxtaposition of the top/bottom edges to change vis a vis the top/bottom of the picture windows?

[Ceptic]

I could be crazy but I'm wondering if (as standardisation was creeping in) that a 'standard BR Mk1 door' was used for the passenger door above, and this caused the juxtaposition of the top/bottom edges to change vis a vis the top/bottom of the picture windows?

Not crazy, Metroland. After all these years  I remember reading (somewhere), that the body-side curvature of the 101s, also matched that of Std. Mk.1 stock.

[Rob Rossington]

Not crazy, Metroland. After all these years  I remember reading (somewhere), that the body-side curvature of the 101s, also matched that of Std. Mk.1 stock.

That was the 105s wasn't it? Or was it the 108s? Definitely not the met-camms though.

 

The windows of a 101 are quite distinctive, so to get them wrong is a big problem.

[Ian Fisher]

The more I look at it could it be as simple an error of the door window being too deep?

 

I guess we need one in the hand to really measure a passenger window, rather than the case being made of the juxtaposition of the windows compared to the prototype. There is an error, but one maybe just magnified by developing their 2mm one?

 

I wonder if it would be possible to have some fine etched doors to overlay onto the body as a fix, could also look to address the variation in brake van doors too over a huge fleet.

[Armchair Modeller]

Which sent me rummaging in my 'Archive'. I came up with this:

Class101 GA 25%.jpg

 

Evidently Bachmann did not use a copy of this, but then, comparing with the prototype broadsides we've been shown, M-C themselves may not have either! (Which is just a jest, as I realise GAs of this style aren't intended as production documents.) 

Still, for what it's worth, here it is for your interest and edification. "Just goes to show..."

 

Prior to this, I was wondering how the lined green models will stand up to scrutiny. The cantrail line in particular will have to thread though the space between the cab window and destination blind aperture, so can't be fudged much there.

 

The Nim.

 

The window in the guard's door on the left of the drawing is a different height to the two doors on the bodyside on the right..

 

Also, the date of the drawing is 1957 - OK for a provisional drawing for the start of main production run, but 3 years after the so called "Lightweight" version had been introduced - which I thought had the same bodyshell?

[Porcy Mane]

Gentlemen,

taking into account that this is a preserved example and shows quite a few post introduction modifications, is this of any help?

 

DMC 50746

 

 

Porcy

[DropTheTap]

There appears to be a combination of issues with the livery/ windows ("sidelights" ):

 

 

It's pretty obvious that the droplights are not centered on the sidelights, which they should be according to the prototype photo. Bachmann's over- thick window surrounds, as well as a closed, over- thick droplight have exacerbated this. Perhaps an improvement could be made If the raised portions had been highlighted silver (instead of making a painted metal representation on the inner frames), and then adding a finely lined rubber grommet round the outside, per the prototype. As it stands, Bachmann's grommet appears to be the raised portion (and is not painted), which serves to enhance the error.

 

As an aside, *all* the window frames on this model look thick and remind me very much of the N scale version...

 

What worries me more is the position of the top of the grey panel. It's obviously too low (I can't find any photographs with it this close to the top of the sidelights)... but wait: it looks pretty consistent with the prototype in terms of the level of the cantrail/ old rainstrip. If you thicken the grey panel to raise it to the correct level above the sidelights, the distance between it and the cantrail would appear to be too shallow. Does this mean that the sidelights are either too low or the wrong shape (too thin)?

 

Additionally, one of the views makes it look as though the sidelights are slightly higher up the bodyside than the cab windows, yet other views do not support this viewpoint. Would appreciate some confirmation here.

 

I feel like I have already made enough significant assumptions without actually having a model to make measurements against, however I would also like to point out that the all blue model does not look anywhere near as troublesome. In fact, it looks like something I could live with thereon. I await some definite measurements with interest.