Roy L S

For what I can see are models of the utmost quality - quite simply you get what you pay for, and if there wasn't a demand with enough people being prepared to pay that kind of price then Bachmann wouldn't be doing them. Even in N (the scale I model in) RRP for their excellent Mk1s is £47.95 and you will expect to pay over £40 a coach.

Collectors Club Members only event with "Not quite perfect" sale tends to move around, it was at the North Norfolk Railway last year and will be at The Battlefield Line this.

I have the Army one no.92 and it is a delightful little loco, and relevant to the area where I live as it spent part of it's time at the Bicester Military Railway .

I absolutely agree that electrical connectors would be inappropriate for reasons mentioned by Benn and also my post above, for example I may buy two green ones, one with speed whiskers and one with small yellow panel and wish to mix sets so that one power car has a yellow panel and one does not etc... I also agree that the 128 power car with a single bogie runs super sweetly and has bags of power for a three car set (and a lot more so the odd GUV as tail-traffic would be no problem). In terms of the speaker situation, I think more needs to be done than to just get rid of the holes. Firstly something better than "entry level" with higher output and less propensity to distort needs to be used and secondly the speaker needs a proper resonance chamber, integral with the speaker, and as I have already said there appears no reason why this could not be concealed in the Guard's compartment. Roy

No totally standard, Units were compatible within coupling codes, the most common and universal was the "Blue Square" code which includes the 120. Some like Derby Lightweights and early Metro Cammell DMUs had different ones meaning (for example) the these outwardly similar looking units could not work with Blue Square 101s, and unsurprisingly was part of the reason for early withdrawal. I grew up around the truncated Marylebone-Aylesbury remainder of the Met/GC Joint, largely four car 115 Suburban Units, but I vividly recall the odd 101 power car too, including one coupled inboard in a (strange in itself) seven car set facing the wrong way! In terms of colour mixes, my recollection of the 115s goes back to the original green and the introduction of the blue repaints with full yellow end and I recall specifically standing on the platform at Little Chalfont with my late father seeing the yellow "blob" approaching and wondering what it was. For some time after a mix of blue and green vehicles amongst four car sets was commonplace. This repeated when livery changed from all over blue to white with blue stripe and again with later ones too, until finally withdrawn in Network Southeast colours in the early 90s. Definitely much more of a propensity to mix and match in those days for sure.. Roy

The thing is that if using traction tyres a good designer will position them so as to not impact on the pickup footprint of a locomotive, so a loco with four/six tender wheels picking up together with the front four of a typical six wheel/three axle coupled wheelbase will still have a decent length pickup footprint barely compromised by a set of tyres on the rearmost coupled axle. Also as you say, it isn't just the treads of a wheel that pickup power, the flanges will also do so when in contact with the rails and this will still be the case with a tyred wheelset. Longevity of tyres will depend on two things primarily, first the material used, rubber may last considerably less time than say something synthetic like neoprene, but also chemicals used in track cleaning (even residues) can be quite caustic have a significant degrading effect which is why I never use any (just a rubber). What I would say though is the need for tyres increases with the reduction in volume for tractive weight and this is typically more the case in smaller scales, so in N (which I primarily model) for many steam locos in particular they may be necessary, for locos OO if well designed, having greater volume for weight available in footplate/loco body/chassis arguably less so. Roy

Could be, and I appreciate the Crewe Cuts have been promised for a long time. If there was no suitable bodyshell I would get it but there is and so it seems such an odd way to go about things given the inevitable popularity of those two liveries. Roy

I was indeed. Although this is a "Bachmann" thread their quarterly announcements capture the entire spectrum of their product range and for that reason it didn't seem inappropriate to mention it here. The OO 47 (lovely as it is) did include two tone green and BR blue amongst it's initial releases, therefore all the more strange that Farish did not following the recent sound upgrade, not lease as a bodyshell was available. Given that the green and blue versions of almost all Farish diesels sell out fastest and probably between them account for 50 plus percent of the N market era-wise, it seems one heck of an "oversight" not to have produced them.

I recall being told by one of the Bachmann Team that there wouldn't be any more 47s for a while, I did say it was absolutely crazy not to produce BR two-tone green and BR pre and post TOPS when they do have a suitable bodyshell (as seen on the Collector's Club XP64 model which I have). I am at a loss personally to understand how these decisions are made, not least because there has just been a huge resupply of Mk1s in BR Maroon and Blue/Grey which would go with those locos perfectly 🤔..

I am not going to Model World Live, but would still be interested in an update, not least because there hasn't been a huge amount of info provided since the original announcement. As far as I know, we have been told thus far that the unit will use a development of the 128 chassis as a power unit (hopefully with an improved speaker arrangement) will be available in two or three car sets depending on livery and we have been shown some illustrative artworks. What hasn't yet been confirmed as far as I can recall (and apologies if it has) is what DCC socket will be used, whether one or two decoders will be needed, or the sets will be electrically connected via conductive couplings, if internal lighting will be fitted or a retro fit option like the Pendo (I hope the latter as I prefer not to have it) or indeed whether for this one sound options will be available. I don't think anyone would expect to see an EP yet, never mind pricing, but some kind of update would be most helpful. Roy

I am more interested in whether I will see them at all! 😁

My main modelling interest is N, and realistically, after the announcement of the LMS Twins in Q1, alongside the Dance Hall brake van and the anchor mounted tank subsequently, much as I would like a new-tool steam announcement (the last being the 8F over seven years ago) I am not expecting anything else of significance. Maybe some news on the much delayed J39 or a further sound upgrade (the WD Austerity would seem ripe for this) but that really would be it. As far a N goes, I think any further major announcements will be held off until the International N Gauge Show in September, but that is based on nothing more than a gut feeling which can of course be fallible. Roy

That much I do recall, it was said an earlier showing of the EP, later info on pricing/liveries at the Quarterly Announcements, delivery potentially beyond the 3 month window but not excessively so i.e. months rather than years as used to be the case.

The real issue is that only if a loco were running "light engine" (i.e. without a train) would a lamp be fitted to the rear of the tender at all. That rear lamp denotes the rear of the train is present i.e. to a signalman that the train is complete, were there any train behind the tender there would never be a lamp positioned there under any circumstances that I am aware of, the tail-lamp would be on the last vehicle in the train. I honestly see no reason to change my initial thinking that this kind of lighting is nothing more than an ill-conceived and rather "naff" gimmick that adds very little and isn't truly credible, much better stick to getting the basics right I would say. Roy

To be fair, Bachmann are in this short clip simply informing when the announcements for the Summer will take place, we do already know about the 7mm scale Quarry Hunslets, wagons and buildings, but not specific models/liveries or as far as I am aware pricing, and that will follow on from the initial info given at Statfold Barn. The same is true of the recently announced OO Palvans and the N Gauge Farish anchor-mounted tanks where so far EPS only have been shown. Personally I am not completely clear whether there will be any further models announced for any scale at forthcoming quarterly announcements going forward, or whether all models will have EPs shown earlier, and the quarterly "announcements" just add in further info - this was my understanding but doesn't mean I haven't got it wrong! If it should transpire (and as I say this may be clearer to others than to me currently) then I can see the intrigue of the announcements will be very much diluted and the "wow" factor for surprises like the N Gauge LMS Twins somewhat less impactful, so I am thinking there may be a change in the focus of them. From what I have understood, this appears to have been a case of responding to feedback in making such changes, and doubtless it will be beneficial in some ways as announcing at EP stage provides an earlier "heads up" gives more time for retailers and also potential purchasers to know what is on the horizon and plan their purchases. It may not suit some though and as with most things, in making such changes is a case of damned if they do, and damned if they don't! 🤔 Roy