Bachmann NRM/Locomotionmodels.com - GNR Ivatt C1

[Tim Hall]

Phew, appear to have paid in full last July

[LocomotionatShildon]

We sent a few out today ..... Tomorrow is a major packing day!!

[gary20]

Thank you Sandra

Will you be forwarding email notifications once these are sent out.

I'm abroad and its always a long wait awaiting the post, just the peace of mind from an email advising its been sent would help.

 

Best wishes

 

Gary

[LocomotionatShildon]

Sorry Gary , no we don't. If you inbox me your name and postcode I can send a tracking number and you can follow progress.

[gary20]

Thanks Sandra

Your customer service is second to none.

I have inboxed my details and look forward to receiving the tracking information once posted.

 

Thanks again for all that you do

 

Gary

[grandadbob]

Very many thanks to the Locomotion team.  Mine has arrived this afternoon very well wrapped along with a Teak Buffet Car and all seems OK at first glance. Will be testing shortly. Meanwhile........

 

 

[Nelson Jackson]

What a stunning loco, well done to all involved in making this possible in RTR.

[grandadbob]

Well I've given it a brief test and it works!  However I nearly had a disaster when fitting the decoder because I struggled to get the blinking blankety blank blanking plug off. Definitely the most difficult I've had (for a while I thought it had been welded on) and when it eventually did come off I found a bent pin.(probably caused by my ham fistedness.)

After a considerable amount of profanity I eventually managed to straighten that and get the decoder on. So far so good and it runs very smoothly and my blood pressure is now returning to sensible levels.

Now having a calming cuppa and a cream cake!

 

PS It is a lovely looking loco.

Edited May 7, 2015 by grandadbob

[gr.king]

Verily, my cup also runneth over:

 

Very nice model, gratefully received without delay, whatever the little niggles may be.

 

I'll edit some other pictures, add a few comments on details/dimensions where necessary and be back later....

[gr.king]

Before I do the rest, I can now state what I think regarding the chimney position, based on measurement of the actual retail model and comparison with the Isinglass drawing.

The Isinglass drawing shows the smokebox marked up with a dimension of five feet and a quarter of an inch total length including the protruding front plate.  I measure The smokebox of the model as 20mm long without the protrusion of the from plate, which adds around 0.8mm (a good additional two inches full scale) to that length. I reckon the chimney is centred at just about 11mm from the rear of the smokebox as it should be, but that places it proportionately too far aft of centre compared to the visible length of the smokebox, which is of course too long. Were it not for the delicate balance of visible proportions in the off-setting of the chimney from true smokebox centre, then I don't think the extra length in the smokebox would be at all noticeable. I can however see the error, and as I can measure it too, I don't think I was simply being "Mr Grumpy" when it mentioned it in connection with the pre-production samples a few weeks ago.

 

The standard of detailing of the model, even without adding any of the knick-knacks from the packet, is of course superb overall.

 

Now that I have I have the NRM C1 model sitting in front of me to permit comparison with my own DJH Large Boilered Atlantic, I can also state that:

 

The DJH running plate is about 4mm longer overall than the NRM Bachmann version, but the discrepancy in the boiler lengths is only about 2mm.

 

Once you get above running plate level, everything about the DJH model is taller than the NRM Bachmann version too, tenders included.

 

The NRM model may well therefore be truer to scale for overall length, for wheelbase, and for matters "above decks" but as Pete Hill has noted in converting his loco to EM gauge there is no way that you can put scale size wheels onto it. The drivers have to be well under-size even for RP25 profiles, and the bogie as standard won't accept full size wheels without it lifting the coupled wheels clear of the rails. You cannot have it both ways.

 

My judgement is that the DJH and NRM models are however perfectly compatible visually unless you deliberately put them very closely side by side and start sighting along "datum" lines to spot discrepancies.

Edited May 7, 2015 by gr.king

[gr.king]

Further pictures, comparing features with the DJH model:

 

Tender rears compared. They should have behaved in class and avoided that visit to the headmaster's office....

Cab heights and Mr Stumpy-Legs. Loads more detail in the Bachmann NRM cab. Interior colour correct??

DJH boiler, and smokebox in particular fatter. Is that the main reason why the DJH model comes out too tall? Is it done to balance appearance given the elongating to accommodate flanged wheels of something approaching the right sizes? The lining and the black areas are missing from my DJH loco's bogie wheels simply because I'm halfway through the job of replacing 12 spoke Markits 14mm ones with ten spoke, scale 3'8" Gibsons.

Lovely cab roof detail but no whistle lever.

 

Novelty value only. Blast pipe and chimney petticoat IN the tubeplate?

Beautiful running plate detail, tiny anti-carboniser steam feed fitting, cast detail under the boiler too to suggest inside valve gear and brackets - all picked out in red.

 

£180 value overall? All a matter for the individual to decide. I've yet to run mine so cannot comment on that aspect yet. I did find out that the wire forming the sand pipes doesn't take very well to having its bends adjusted more than once - I over-tweaked one of mine that was visibly out of line, and as I tried to ease it back it just broke off.

Edited May 7, 2015 by gr.king

[Tim Hall]

Mine has just arrived, looks lovely, and has negotiated all bits of the layout I need it to. A couple of laps with 7 Bachy colletts (all that was handy and not air braked-got to be a bit sensible!) showed decent haulage as well. Very snugly packaged as well.

[Legend]

Mine arrived too. The most expensive loco I've ever bought! It's a nice looker and runs well. I've tried it with 6 older Hornby Gresleys with no problems. The only issue I have is my smokebox door keeps coming open . It's something I could do without . I'll figure out a way of keeping it shut . A touch of blue tack perhaps

[Adams442T]

Got mine a while ago and agree it's a great model, but why, oh why do they have to include 'novelty opening smokebox doors' and faux blastpipe and tubeplate detail.  It must surely add to the cost, and IMHO does nothing to enhance it.

 

Mine certainly isn't going to be sitting around with the smokebox open!

[jjb1970]

I thought things had calmed down on the gimmick front. A few years there was a bit of an arms race to add more and more features such as opening cab doors, louvres etc which in my opinion really didn't add much other than cost and potential fragility. I can see why manufacturers think things like opening smoke box doors help sell models and can see why many people like features such as these but I'm not a fan.

That said this is a beautiful model, well done Bachmann!!

[robmcg]

I agree it is a superb model congratulations Bachmann and NRM and thankyou Sandra at Locomotion.

[gr.king]

The model certainly attracted some positive remarks at yesterday's LNER society 50th anniversary symposium.

 

Since the model is so nice overall, it seems a pity to note the following, more to do with Bachmann than with the NRM:

 

I wondered on trying to remove the body from my loco whether Bachmann are employing a furious chimpanzee to tighten the body mounting screws. I'd all but destroyed the head on at least one before it finally decided to shift, and the palm of my hand now features one or two small sub-cutaneous haemorrhages resulting from the amount of pressure I had to apply to the screwdriver!

Once I had the body off I was at last able to measure accurately the height of the top of the motor above rail level. Oh dear! 42.3mm near enough. A very poor piece of design planning with respect to a possible C2 variant model (if any such planning was involved), since I suspect that puts the top of the motor just about at the level where the outside of the top of the firebox ought to be.

 

Regarding the C2 possibility, I suppose the chance might be there for some cunning and competent etch designer to produce the whole body (or just the superstructure) for a very slightly dimensionally "tweaked" version. A 10 thou wall thickness to the firebox and boiler, with a VERY close fit to the motor top might just produce a convincing model. Any takers for this challenge? Of course, it has to be one of the last ten C2s with "convertible" rear frames unless you want to get involved in chassis alterations too.

 

Edited May 10, 2015 by gr.king

[Guest spet0114]

The model certainly attracted some positive remarks at yesterday's LNER society 50th anniversary symposium.

 

Since the model is so nice overall, it seems a pity to note the following, more to do with Bachmann than with the NRM:

 

I wondered on trying to remove the body from my loco whether Bachmann are employing a furious chimpanzee to tighten the body mounting screws. I'd all but destroyed the head on at least one before it finally decided to shift, and the palm of my hand now features one or two small sub-cutaneous haemorrhages resulting from the amount of pressure I had to apply to the screwdriver!

 

Once I had the body off I was at last able to measure accurately the height of the top of the motor above rail level. Oh dear! 42.3mm near enough. A very poor piece of design planning with respect to a possible C2 variant model (if any such planning was involved), since I suspect that puts the top of the motor just about at the level where the outside of the top of the firebox ought to be.

 

Regarding the C2 possibility, I suppose the chance might be there for some cunning and competent etch designer to produce the whole body (or just the superstructure) for a very slightly dimensionally "tweaked" version. A 10 thou wall thickness to the firebox and boiler, with a VERY close fit to the motor top might just produce a convincing model. Any takers for this challenge? Of course, it has to be one of the last ten C2s with "convertible" rear frames unless you want to get involved in chassis alterations too.

 

 

I fail to see why you insist on criticising Bachmann for the fact that their model of a C1 can't be converted into a C2. It really makes no sense. 

 

The comission from Locomotion would have been to produce a C1, not a C2 and not a "C1-that-can-be-converted-into-X". Bachmann have spectacularly fulfilled that remit.

 

It's on record from Bachmann (earlier in this thread, I believe) that the models of the C1 and H2 will share virtually no common components, despite their general similarity being at least as high or greater than that between a C1 and C2. This is actually a good thing as it avoids the situation where the moulds/tools for any common components are subject to twice the wear and tare. If Bachmann were to produce a C2, they'd basically start from scratch and produce a complete set of tooling for the production of a C2 and nothing else. This would probably be cheaper and more time efficient than wasting time designing a set of C2 tooling where the design of the new tools was hampered by the necessity of incorporating components from the C1, with their associated design constraints.

 

In short, Bachmann have absolutely no business driver to make their C1 convertible into anything else, C2, H2 or HST. To berate then for 'poor design planning' is simply wrong. 

 

Cheers

Adrian

[jjb1970]

Haven't Hornby stated that their policy is to produce complete new tooling for each new type rather than sharing tooling between models (eg. common tenders) for that same reason?

[gr.king]

Has it now become a crime to fail to suck up to Bachmann?

 

My remarks fell far short of "berating", they quite specifically included the phrase "if any such planning was involved" to clarify the fact that those remarks were conditional. Use of the chassis for other purposes may well have been far from Bachmann's minds, but standardisation of tooling and parts in this particular case would have been extremely sensible in order to open up the possibility of low-cost introduction of additional closely related models.

 

The remark about lack of scope for conversion into an HST is nothing but ridiculous exaggeration.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 I suspect that with the mechanism layouts (and much else) now in CAD, the 'one drive size fits all' economy from re-using parts or even whole mechanisms are largely eliminated. Presented with any of C2, H1 or H2 requiring a mechanism, the designer can relatively quickly revise the layout, for example for a lower motor position for the C2.

 

Bachmann as good as stated this some years ago when they revealed that the cost of making a mechanism 'dead right' dimensionally, (rather than exploiting the saving of using a 'close enough' existing tooling) was not significant. Making the visible parts to the correct pattern for the prototype ias where almost all the design and tooling money is spent. This also marries with the making of a complete kit of tools for each model, designed to have much the same working life and stored for use as a complete kit; no hunting around to put mechanism 'A' with new tooled body 'B' and the tender from 'C'.

 

This is something of a pity for the modeller like Mr King who presented with a good drive will think 'I could make a body for the precursor class to fit on that mechanism - if it will go'.

[t-b-g]

I would have thought that the numbers of units being produced from particular tooling are tiny compared to things like the Triang Jinty or Princess from past ages.

 

So unless the metals and methods used in tooling production are worse now than they were back then, I would be quite surprised if wear on the tooling was much of an issue.

 

I can see that producing new tooling for each model would allow the work to be dished out to different factories, so Hornby/Bachmann etc. would not have to be tied down to using a factory where the previous model using those parts was made.

 

Presumable, somebody makes a profit from the toolmaking too, so perhaps there is a financial benefit to somebody in having new tools made each time.

 

Tony

[coachmann]

Has it now become a crime to fail to suck up to Bachmann?

W o h?   You did not know......?      

Edited May 10, 2015 by coachmann

[locoholic]

 

This is actually a good thing as it avoids the situation where the moulds/tools for any common components are subject to twice the wear and tare. If Bachmann were to produce a C2, they'd basically start from scratch and produce a complete set of tooling for the production of a C2 and nothing else. This would probably be cheaper and more time efficient than wasting time designing a set of C2 tooling where the design of the new tools was hampered by the necessity of incorporating components from the C1, with their associated design constraints.

 

If there's no sharing of components, then what the heck is going on with the new Modified Hall sporting the running plate & chassis from the Collett Hall??

 

The old argument about wear & tear on the tooling being a factor against sharing components probably isn't as important for lots of models these days, as the size of production runs must have shrunk after the recent massive price rises. At £179 is the demand for the C1 going to be so great that the tooling wears out?

 

I think the comment about a possible follow-on C2 was fair enough - perhaps it should have been Locomotion that specified it.

[micklner]

Has it now become a crime to fail to suck up to Bachmann?

 

My remarks fell far short of "berating", they quite specifically included the phrase "if any such planning was involved" to clarify the fact that those remarks were conditional. Use of the chassis for other purposes may well have been far from Bachmann's minds, but standardisation of tooling and parts in this particular case would have been extremely sensible in order to open up the possibility of low-cost introduction of additional closely related models.

 

The remark about lack of scope for conversion into an HST is nothing but ridiculous exaggeration.

Perhaps Bachmann et al are deliberately making designs so that they cannot be amended into other Locos? I am sure they are aware that there is a growing market of modellers using new and or secondhand Locos to change into to other Classes.

I doubt if they would be happy with such actions , evidence is e.g  Bachmann now refusing to sell separate chassis this ensure no can update old bodies such as the B1 and V2 using a new chassis. Hornby are just as bad in that you cannot but body parts and only 3/4 of chassis parts are available.

I personally have at the moment  A2 and a K3 bodies and Tenders which are going nowhere as you cannot buy the chassis.