Bachmann announce Class 90 (OO)

[ThaneofFife]

The Class 395 has a different pantograph and isn't similar at all. A Class 390 Pendolino will be a far more helpful comparison. And for what it's worth, Hornby were looking at prototypical looks whilst Bachamann went for non-prototypical compromises. If Hornby were following Bachmann's strategy they'd have something just as similar to Bachmann's effort.

 

Have you thought of sending a CV off to Bachmann?

[jjb1970]

The pantograph of the Bachmann Class 350 is the only disappointing aspect of an otherwise superb model IMO. The pantograph is such an obvious and characteristic feature of electric trains that if it doesn't look right then it sticks out like a sore thumb. Especially if it is a very distinctive pantograph like the BW high speed type. I find it a bit odd that people will often get upset about details many customers will never even notice and then seem happy to accept such a characteristic and very visible feature looking completely wrong.

[surfsup]

I disagree. Hornby's pantographs are fragile and flimsy plastic. I cannot remember how many spare Hornby ones I have bought for the Class 395. The last one broke when I merely tried to raise it! They are un-useable under a wire. My point was, not comparing the in-house Hitachi designed pantograph with the BW on the Siemens Desiro. But the two different paths taken by the model manufacturers. Both attempts at modern pantographs have had their compromises, though both do capture the 'look' of the pantograph. For me personally, as a modeller, I want to be able to use my pantograph under the wire - I cannot see how you could prototypically run an electric locomotive or MU not under a wire. By all accounts, the CAD of the Class 90 pantograph not only captures the prototype well, but is also useable. Compare that to CAD and EPs of the Class 800 from Hornby and I think I shall buy a pack of spare pantographs to go with it - or as the prototype, ban it from operating with panto up under the wire! 

 

Anyway, an academic argument, as aren't you a N gauge enthusiast?

I completely agree with you I'm afraid. It seems that if there's one area on Electrics Hornby seems to have issues with, it's always been around the Pantograph. I used to have 2 Pendolinos, I ended up having to hoover up a few more spare pantographs on Ebay just to either replace or repair or keep as a spare just because the Hornby effort is so delicate and flimsy. I was even contemplating replacing my Heljan 86 'Pylon' effort with one from Hornby, but that looks somewhat dissapointingly has an underscale appearance compared to the far overscaled effort already on the model. So now my hope remains either with Dave Jones being able to produce a few extras as spares, or Bachmann making some of these available - fixed or motorized. Coming back full circle to the thread, not only do I agree with you that it looks like a perfectly reasonable compromise and the ability to raise / lower it will certainly be a great addition if not possible price riser, it's certainly a game changer and bodes well for potential future models in Bachmann using the BW Pantograph - An upscaled 319 maybe?

[MGR Hooper!]

I disagree. Hornby's pantographs are fragile and flimsy plastic. I cannot remember how many spare Hornby ones I have bought for the Class 395. The last one broke when I merely tried to raise it! They are un-useable under a wire. My point was, not comparing the in-house Hitachi designed pantograph with the BW on the Siemens Desiro. But the two different paths taken by the model manufacturers. Both attempts at modern pantographs have had their compromises, though both do capture the 'look' of the pantograph. For me personally, as a modeller, I want to be able to use my pantograph under the wire - I cannot see how you could prototypically run an electric locomotive or MU not under a wire. By all accounts, the CAD of the Class 90 pantograph not only captures the prototype well, but is also useable. Compare that to CAD and EPs of the Class 800 from Hornby and I think I shall buy a pack of spare pantographs to go with it - or as the prototype, ban it from operating with panto up under the wire! 

 

Anyway, an academic argument, as aren't you a N gauge enthusiast? 

My apologies, misunderstood your post. When you mentioned similarities I instantly stuck to BW pans.

 

PS: Yes N gauge is now my preferred and prioritized scale to model in. However I did start with OO gauge in the mid 90s and I still have quite a few OO gauge models. As an interest I love modern era (present day) and my general interest isn't scale specific.

 

My apologies once again!

 

Cheers

[ThaneofFife]

Is it due next year ?

[Gordon H]

Here we go again, we had all this discussion in the 87 thread. Two different groups striving for two different things: a scale model of the prototype versus a working pan. It seems to me these two points of view will never meet.

 

Neither is more important than the other and we just need to accept that the manufacturers will choose the path that they consider offers their best chance of sales

 

As one who favours the working pan aspect as the main point of OHLE modelling, I would suggest that for an electric loco it has rather more importance than almost anything else. Otherwise, you might as well stick to modelling diesels.

One compromise that the manufacturers probably wouldn't consider is to supply the models with no pan at all. It would make the models cheaper at a stroke, those that don't really want the perceived hassle of OHLE can run it as-is, and those that want to model OHLE can do it to their chosen level of accuracy and operation by adding to the model themselves, as has been necessary in the past. Just a thought.

[Flying Pig]

As one who favours the working pan aspect as the main point of OHLE modelling, I would suggest that for an electric loco it has rather more importance than almost anything else. Otherwise, you might as well stick to modelling diesels.

 

I hope the construction and operation of your railway is totally authentic in the ways that matter most to me (I'm rather keen on working tap changers and the correct charging of demurrage on wagons), otherwise you might as well stick to watching the telly.

 

Or to put it another way, raising ones own preferences to the status of absolutes is really rather silly. I thought we'd learned that from the gauge wars.

[jjb1970]

Based on the Class 87 thread I think whatever manufacturers do will upset some when it comes to the BW high speed pan, the three main options would appear to be:

 

1. make an accurate non-functioning pan which can be posed and won't break the bank (Hornby)

2. make a functioning pan which won't break the bank but which also doesn't look much like a BW high speed pan (Bachmann)

3. Go all out to try and make a fine scale functioning BW pan, whatever you do getting the trailing upper link will be very difficult and making it robust enough for an RTR model more so, it'd be far from cheap.

 

I'm struggling to see how any manufacturer is going to reconcile making a true scale BW pan which functions and which is affordable for most customers and robust enough for an RTR model. I'd love to see somebody do option 3 well, even though I doubt it is practical, I can live with option 1, but the option I really can't support is option 2 which to me just undermines all the work a manufacturer will invest in getting the rest of the model to look right.

[Dixie Dean]

Looking at the pantograph detail (attached), it does seem to be a very reasonably accurate representation of a BW pantograph.

 

Much better than the class 350, which I would rate at 6/10, due to not having the correct upper top section (blue in diagram) and incorrect structures at the base(mauve).

[298]

I hope the construction and operation of your railway is totally authentic in the ways that matter most to me (I'm rather keen on working tap changers and the correct charging of demurrage on wagons), otherwise you might as well stick to watching the telly.

Or to put it another way, raising ones own preferences to the status of absolutes is really rather silly. I thought we'd learned that from the gauge wars.

I still can't believe Gordon used memory wire to actuate the sliding doors on his scratch built class 508 EMU, when the real things clearly didn't..! (Although I believe he sampled the hustling alarm from a similar 313).

 

As welcoming as it might be to get some acknowledgment from manufacturers for those who will be promoting this new generation of OHLE models on their layouts at shows and in the magazines and forums, I think its a bit of an own goal from all the stakeholder manufacturers by not saying (either individually or as a collective) "Look, despite past efforts dating back to the 1950's, overhead modelling has never really been widely accepted and therefore to provide compatable products you need to understand that it'll be based on the principles of what is commercially available in Europe, but perhaps with less choice-

 

Working- with the potential to be energised, slightly crude, and expensive...

Edited July 11, 2017 by 298

[Flying Pig]

I still can't believe Gordon used memory wire to actuate the sliding doors on his scratch built class 508 EMU, when the real things clearly didn't..! (Although I believe he sampled the hustling alarm from a similar 313).

 

Which is brilliant and I applaud him for it. But it doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't do likewise is wasting their time. What I was trying to illustrate is that some sense of proportion and recognition that other folk's priorities are as valid as our own is necessary, particularly when posting in public. I do get tired of threads full of endless wrangling over tangential dogmas.

[Gordon H]

Which is brilliant and I applaud him for it. But it doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't do likewise is wasting their time. What I was trying to illustrate is that some sense of proportion and recognition that other folk's priorities are as valid as our own is necessary, particularly when posting in public. I do get tired of threads full of endless wrangling over tangential dogmas.

Actually, the sound sample mentioned previously was from a 321 recorded at Gidea Park - not even a 315 as the obvious choice, but I can't remember why not!

Anyway, my suggestion was to encourage people to model their OHLE to whatever standard they feel comfortable with . Can't see anything wrong with that.

Working tap changers on a Class 90? Don't think so...

[VXDH92]

Looking at the pantograph detail (attached), it does seem to be a very reasonably accurate representation of a BW pantograph.

 

Much better than the class 350, which I would rate at 6/10, due to not having the correct upper top section (blue in diagram) and incorrect structures at the base(mauve).

 

I realised a little while ago that class 350 pans are not like the BW on an 87 / 90 etc... the top is quite different, so the Bachmann 350 is pretty accurate. There are also two different types of pan on a 350 depending on which subclass it is.

[Pete the Elaner]

There are also two different types of pan on a 350 depending on which subclass it is.

Are you sure?

I use them 2-3 times a week, pay attention to things like this & have never noticed a difference.

[VXDH92]

Are you sure?

I use them 2-3 times a week, pay attention to things like this & have never noticed a difference.

Hopefully the attachment works... below is a 360 pan. The head of the pan is right at the end of the upper arm. On an 87 / 90 etc, the head sits back a bit from the end of the upper arm. Compare to the 90 pan in the bottom pic.

Edited July 12, 2017 by daveahudson

[Phil Parker]

Interesting photos. Just shows how hard making a scale pan will be, at least if you don't want loads of them coming back from modellers who mangled them the first time the loco came out of the box.

[Pete the Elaner]

Hopefully the attachment works... below is a 360 pan. The head of the pan is right at the end of the upper arm. On an 87 / 90 etc, the head sits back a bit from the end of the upper arm. Compare to the 90 pan in the bottom pic.

Your earlier comment suggested that the 350 had 2 different types of pan depending on which sub-class & that was the difference I was referring to.

There may be technical differences within the class due to 350/1 & 350/3 being cleared for 110mph running but I have never seen a visible difference with their pans from platform level.

[ThaneofFife]

Interesting photos. Just shows how hard making a scale pan will be, at least if you don't want loads of them coming back from modellers who mangled them the first time the loco came out of the box.

 

and this id say is something Bachmann knew only too well during the design stage.

 

you cant really have a pan that's too delicate to handle or remove from its box. that's not really what RTR is about........sure id love to see the ray gun shrink a BW pan to 4mm scale rivet for rivet but I cant see them going down a road involving memory wire. do other manufacturers utilise memory wire for this sort of application?

[VXDH92]

Your earlier comment suggested that the 350 had 2 different types of pan depending on which sub-class & that was the difference I was referring to.

There may be technical differences within the class due to 350/1 & 350/3 being cleared for 110mph running but I have never seen a visible difference with their pans from platform level.

 

Yes, I'm sure I have seen two variants of pan on the 350s, but I have no photo evidence. I'm sure I saw some with a third bar on the pan head that sits a couple of inches below the contact wire. I don't know exactly which 350s are / were fitted with that or why it was there. Keep a look out and see if you see any with variances.

[NXEA!]

The two types of pantograph for 350's will be one certified for 110mph running (350/1's /3's and /4's) and the standard 100mph variant (/2's). 350/1's originally had the 100mph certified variant, but when the LM Crewe services were upgraded for 110mph running via Weedon, the 350/1's were retrofitted with the 110mph version, and took some time to be certified, particularly for 8/12 car running. The 350/3's and /4's were delivered with the 110mph pantographs from new.

[Dixie Dean]

I realised a little while ago that class 350 pans are not like the BW on an 87 / 90 etc... the top is quite different, so the Bachmann 350 is pretty accurate. There are also two different types of pan on a 350 depending on which subclass it is.

 

For me the most obviously wrong part of the Bachmann OO gauge class 350 pantograph is the base, which is nothing like the real thing, see the attached.  Compare that to the real thing above.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Dixie Dean

[westie7]

Hopefully the attachment works... below is a 360 pan. The head of the pan is right at the end of the upper arm. On an 87 / 90 etc, the head sits back a bit from the end of the upper arm. Compare to the 90 pan in the bottom pic.

334's are similar in having the aerofoils on the Knuckle and the head at the end of the upper arm, FWIW

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mechanism shown here....

 

 

 

Marklin use a piezo mechanism

 

[Legend]

To be honest that's a lot of messing around, and the engine noise could rival these chirping class 20s for nuisance value.

[BritishRail60062]

Looking at the pantograph detail (attached), it does seem to be a very reasonably accurate representation of a BW pantograph.

 

Much better than the class 350, which I would rate at 6/10, due to not having the correct upper top section (blue in diagram) and incorrect structures at the base(mauve).

That sure does look like a great model in the works going by the CAD image. However I don't know if I would use the DCC pantograph as my layout will have no OHLE installed at first. However I shall be getting the Freightliner one at first and hopefully perhaps a DB red one will ensue in a couple of years after (please as I have two DJM 92's to buy!). Also I may get a DB one with sound if they don't pile them all out in a mad rush as funds can only go so far when there is living costs to take into account too .