locoholic

Here's a side view taken in the late 1980s of the first train out of Ooty in the morning.

Anyone who can make a model of all those connecting rods and gears has my undying admiration.

HS2 Bill was in the Queen's Speech, so no sign of George Osborne baulking at the price tag and getting cold feet.

The SNP claim that the business case for a high speed line from Scotland to London is very strong. Is there anything to stop the Scottish Govt from funding the construction of such a route on English soil, southwards to the point where the English bit of HS2 fizzles out?

If the SNP feel that outraged and snubbed, why don't they put taxes up a bit in Scotland to raise the cash to build their own line southwards towards civilisation?

Marvellous work, Brian. I wish I could saw that straight with a piercing saw.

I hope someone from Bachmann sees your work, and what a big difference it makes to the appearance of the model.

Perhaps Bachmann could include a selection of saws and files with each model?!

No.....why should there be ? The first effort was sent back to China for remedy a year ago.This is the result.

Well, there are the small matters of reputation and customer satisfaction. In the past Bachmann have apparently tried to appeal to "serious" modellers (rather than the train set market) by making accurate models of the less glamorous prototypes.

Also, why in one case the lack of a fire-iron tunnel should be deemed enough of a reason to scupper a batch, but a fairly major error in the shape of the loco at the front end is allowed through. It just seems very inconsistent.

Has there been any official comment from Bachmann regarding the error?

Did it look like this?

 

Sorry if I've missed it, but what does the sign in the photo above actually mean, please?

On the Hornby Magazine website there's a video clip of the new Modified Hall.

http://www.hornbymagazine.com/view_article.asp?ID=8849

Apologies if it's already been referred to - I had a look at earlier posts and couldn't see any reference to it.

 

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.

Just to show there is always one,  I cannot wait to get one! 

Perhaps if you could wait a bit you might get one at a discount, once word of its inaccuracy spreads?

So please, let's not kid ourselves that a retooled V2 won't sell because of the quantity of the older variants out there. The new model is likely to run better, look better, and be DCC ready (a big plus for a number of modellers). So they'll upgrade - because, let's face it, the difference between the quality of the old Hall and the new one is nothing compared to the potential difference in accuracy and quality of the old Bachmann V2 to its new one.

Well, I just hope for your sake that they don't try and combine the new V2 with an attempt to model a A2/1 pacific, and you end up with models that have random bits and pieces of both included!

I think you need to get this in context. I accept that if you are a GWR specialist , this defect will be reasonably obvious to you.

It would also be reasonably obvious if you have a drawing of the loco, or have inspected and measured the real thing, and have then paid attention to the drawings & measurements. I would hope that Bachmann had access to both whilst they prepared their product.

This appears to be a case of Bachmann trying to do a bit of "Design Clever" and creating as many common parts for both types of Hall, to reduce tooling costs and increase profit. Sadly, just like Hornby (who recently released a 52xx tank that was simply impossible to assemble correctly) they're obviously not quite clever enough to carry it off successfully.

I'm a bit surprised that people on here are so willing to give Bachmann the benefit of the doubt. I don't mind paying the new high prices for models, but in return for that I do expect the models to be the right shape.

I'm just surprised that Bachmann took the decision that a model with this kind of error is OK to release. If that's their thinking, can we (for instance) look forward to a new batch of Jubilees using the current tooling regardless of the boiler details, on the grounds that it wouldn't be cost-effective to tool for all the variations, and not many potential buyers would spot the errors?

I was surprised and disappointed when the Met-Cam units appeared with the dodgy window alignments, and I'm getting the same feeling with the Modified Hall.

And why bother to re-tool the V2 body - surely the market for that model must be pretty small by now? To my mind the old body looks pretty much like a V2.

You could be forgiven for thinking that there's someone in the background demanding that the UK part of Bachmann starts to get some cash in pronto, even if that means that standards have to slip a bit.

No, they recalled the 2013 modified 'Hall' after Model Rail's Richard Foster (and probably others) pointed out that the fire iron tunnel was missing and certain other features were incorrect. Most of those points have now been corrected but not the one involving the cast metal running plate and chassis block. In my view there's very little wrong with the Hornby 'Hall' and most of its glitches are easily fixed. However, the fact that the smokebox saddle job - which is vital to the '6959' class - on the Bachmann model involves cast parts makes it a much more difficult job to rectify. I suspect, that when the Bachmann Hall was first designed, there was no intention of doing a modified 'Hall'. 

CHRIS LEIGH

Chris, I think you're wrong - the model of 6922 Burton Hall (a Collett Hall) was recalled too: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/72753-Bachmann-hall/

Add in the first go at the Hawksworth Modified Hall which you refer to (and which didn't get into the shops) so Barwell have now messed up THREE times, except this last episode seems to be more of a deliberate decision by Bachmann to fob us off with an inaccurate model to save them tooling costs.

I won't be buying a Hornby Hall (however good it is) because it's a Collett one, and I already have three Bachmann ones.

Perhaps Hornby can fit their chassis under a Modified Hall?

If I've understood this correctly (and that's difficult without photos), a while ago Bachmann recalled a batch of Collett Halls because they'd used bits of the Modified Hall (Outside steam pipes?) and omitted the fire iron tunnel. Now they're issuing a Modified Hall which uses the Collett Hall running plate with the curved section beneath the smokebox door instead of the square step?

Looks like someone didn't think ahead when the Bachmann Collett Hall was first designed, and make the chassis the right shape at the front end to accommodate both variants. As others have pointed out, the Bachmann Hall chassis isn't the smoothest runner, so it's a shame that they didn't take the opportunity to redo it this time.

You would have thought that Barwell would have been extra-careful with this release after the previous mistake, especially as Hornby now have a Hall in their range. I too won't be spending on either the Hornby or Bachmann offerings.

You might do better sending a PM to Sandra (LocomotionatShildon on here). I'm pretty sure she's not there everyday but she will respond and sort it. Mine came without detail parts but is being rectified.

Your suggestion worked and, thanks to Sandra at Locomotion, I've now received a fully functioning GNR Atlantic in place of the dodgy one.

My Model Rail D11 'Marne' was defective and had to be returned. I received my GNR Atlantic yesterday, and that has a tight spot in the mechanism, preventing it from running smoothly, so that has to go back too - very annoying. I guess I've just been unlucky.

The difference is that with 'Marne', all I had to do was call Kernow Models and it was all sorted out very quickly, whilst I've tried calling and emailing Locomotion and received no response, and there's nothing in the paperwork that came with the Atlantic to say what to do in the event of a faulty loco.

A couple from last week, taken on the branch to Swinden Quarry, near Grassington, on 27 March 2015.

66089 with inbound empties near Rylstone.

A couple of hours later, and 66174 has brought empties to the quarry and is then coupled onto a loaded rake, whilst the shunter pulls the empties into the loading siding, to get them out of the way, so 66174 can depart.

Likewise Leeds is adjacent to the present station, Birmingham is adjacent to Moor St, and Nottingham should end up adjacent to a regional hub station and on the tram...

My apologies - I had read that HS2 ended at Ardwick, not at Manchester Piccadilly. However, I wouldn't fancy carrying a suitcase from Moor St to Curzon Street (or especially between New Street & Curzon Street), or between the stations in Leeds. There was a reason for the trend since the 1960s to rationalise the number of stations in cities - it is more convenient for passengers and more efficient for the railway operator. It is a fact that HS2 is reversing that trend.

And as for the concept of "regional hub stations" for Nottingham/Derby and Sheffield, why not simply end HS2 somewhere around Barnsley and call it "Up North Parkway"?! It was very noticeable when I travelled from Paris to Florence by train that the "regional hub" out-of-town TGV stations in eastern France were very quiet, unlike where the train used the city centre stations.

It is simply a case of double standards to spend billions getting the line into Euston, but not bothering to reach New Street, or even getting near the centres of Nottingham or Sheffield. I'm not anti HS2 - I just want it to be a useful part of the rail network, which it could be, if the design is altered so it connects better.

This Lords EAC Report does not say that at all. Try reading it and then try matching the conclusions to the evidence actually given.

 

You do not need to read the whole report to know that HS2 as currently planned has poor connectivity in Birmingham, Manchester, Derby/Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds - in other words, everywhere except London, which makes me question whether HS2 is really designed to benefit the regions or London.

History is full of examples of railway lines that failed because their stations were poorly sited and/or lacked connections to other lines. Are passengers expected to be so grateful to have been whisked along at 220mph for a while that they will ignore the inconvenience of getting from the HS2 terminal to their actual destination, in the process losing a fair proportion of the time saved by the high speed section? Crossrail would never have been designed without the connections to other lines, and yet HS2 is badly compromised.

History is also full of examples of rail infrastructure projects going over schedule and budget, which is perhaps why the £50 billion figure has more credibility.

The other aspect of HS2 that makes me sceptical is the "mission creep", from time saving, to an alternative to Heathrow expansion, to capacity enhancement, to regional regeneration, without any change in the design to reflect these changes.

Finally, (and sorry for being flippant) if David Cameron and Ed Miliband both support the project, there has to be something wrong with it.

Committees in both the Commons and the Lords have now said that the case for HS2 hasn't been made, but still the vanity project trundles on.

The design of HS2 is a hopeless bodge. Only at the London end will there be proper connectivity with the rest of the rail network (because that's the only place where they're prepared to spend the cash on bulldozing through densely populated areas). Sheffield and Nottingham have to make do with "parkway" stations that will only increase local road traffic, and it misses Leicester altogether, despite the poor service that city currently enjoys.

The speed argument has been sidelined, and it's all about capacity now, so spending £50 billion on a 220mph route is very poor value for money. Instead, they should look at building new sections of conventional railway that will add capacity where it's needed, and can be used for diversions, local passenger and freight as well as inter-city traffic.

Has anyone else tried double-heading their models of late crest 30585 & 30587 as per the South West Suburban Railtours of 1962? Of course, one model is from the first batch, and the other is the latest batch with the coreless motor.

I have found that the latest one (30587) goes way faster than 30585 for any given voltage, presumably due to the different characteristics of the two motors. As I don't run DCC, I'm wondering if there's any way of getting the two locos to run at roughly the same speed.

The only solution I can think of involves fitting the loco body off 30585 onto a new chassis (from 30586). Does anyone know if they can be swapped without surgery?

The dreaded email from Hattons has afflicted the "missing" Porthole Brake 3rd, too. Price up to £33. Still, compared to the Autocoach that looks like a bargain.

Can't believe the maroon Portholes weren't in the 2015/16 Bachmann catalogue, though. Don't they want my money?!