Jump to content
 

Bachmann announce Class 101 DMU


Andy Y
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Given that Bachmann's record on 1st generation DMUs has been very good, I too am with Jim on this one. That said, early versions of the tooling Heljan had for the 128 looked good on a quick inspection and the new railcars look to have been well executed. So undoubtedly Heljan have done many good models but on DMUs things like the side profile which can be quite different on similar looking classes are very important. I have seen the Heljan 0 guage Mk1s and I am not impressed. Additionally, unlike say, Dapol, they do not seem to respond to feedback on CAD images when errors are pointed out but press ahead regardless. Hopefully the Heljan 128 will be correct and will be the first in a series but for something new like the 120 or the 116, if I had to choose a manufacture to make them, it would be Bachmann.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Heljan cock up the W&M railbus then?

 

From what I saw on our training layout today, absolutely no way.

The Heljan railbus is very very sweet, and suffer just one flaw, which afflicts most models. Bloody pure marker lights !!!!

 

If the DPU comes out at that kind of quality, and Heljan consider some long frame DMUs, then Bachmann and Hornby have serious competition

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I saw on our training layout today, absolutely no way.

The Heljan railbus is very very sweet, and suffer just one flaw, which afflicts most models. Bloody pure marker lights !!!!

 

If the DPU comes out at that kind of quality, and Heljan consider some long frame DMUs, then Bachmann and Hornby have serious competition

 

I reckon Heljan will go after the pressed steel DMU's once current projects are put to bed. I'm only surmising, but I reckon it would be pretty lucrative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily so Pennine. I believe there was a batch of four car sets with DMBS/TS/TC/DMC also used on the NE region.....

 

 

I did say 'typical' :P I always choose my words carefully Sean, what with all the nitpickers round here ;)

 

I'd have to check, but I think that was due to some sets being ordered as triples but being delivered as twins and quads.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I did say 'typical' :P I always choose my words carefully Sean, what with all the nitpickers round here ;)

 

I'd have to check, but I think that was due to some sets being ordered as triples but being delivered as twins and quads.

 

I hope you're not inferring I'm a nit picker Pennine?.... ;-)

 

Either way, I'd like a four car set, but might take the easy option. I didn't realise these ones were destined to be three and two car sets though. I guess it demonstrates the versatility of the DMU fleet.

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I did say 'typical' :P I always choose my words carefully Sean, what with all the nitpickers round here ;)

 

I'd have to check, but I think that was due to some sets being ordered as triples but being delivered as twins and quads.

 

I hope you're not inferring I'm a nit picker Pennine?.... ;-)

 

Either way, I'd like a four car set, but might take the easy option. I didn't realise these ones were destined to be three and two car sets though. I guess it demonstrates the versatility of the DMU fleet.

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you're not inferring I'm a nit picker Pennine?.... ;-)

 

As if :angel:

 

I didn't realise these ones were destined to be three and two car sets though. I guess it demonstrates the versatility of the DMU fleet.

 

Cant remember where I read it, but looking at the RCTS listings (power cars numbered 51425 - 444 and 51495 - 514), it makes sense - there are enough cars for twenty triple sets, but listed as delivered as ten power twins and ten quads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mike - not able to check numbers ATM but if that's what I think it is and is formed correctly, it's what I mentioned earlier:

 

Gary, Richard - thinking about it now, I'm not sure if any of the four-lamp Blue Square sets were delivered as twins, other than the very early 501xx MBS/560xx DTCL, which IIRC had Rolls Royce engines and were thus 111s.

 

Only a hadful of sets, IIRC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jim s-w

 

Didn't cock up the Clayton either (well not the body / bogies anyhow)!

 

 

Um, the cab is VERY wrong, sorry.

 

Heljan have consistently proven they cannot get basic shapes right. They have a handful of models that are ok but most are a bit iffy and some are just hopeless. Add to that the poor manufacturing problems, (burnt out motors, crumbling chassis, over tight gearboxes etc etc) and I feel fully justified in my belief that they would most likely cock up a 116.

 

If they do one and it's good enough I would buy about 20 sets. If they do one and it's basically right I would still buy them and do them up. If they do one that's bordering on unfixable (as many of their models are) then I won't. Simple as.

 

If what Heljan do is good enough for someone else that's great (such as your clayton) that's great however I am only concerned if it's good enough for me and to use the clayton example (if I needed one that is) It would be a no-brainer to build the Judith edge kit as it actually looks like a real one.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

 

Jim

Edited by jim s-w
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jim s-w

Hi bob

 

It's obvious if you look at pictures and it was spoken about a lot when it came out. However I suspect it got lost is the fuss about the chassis problems.

 

Like I said though, if you study a real one and the Heljan model and can't see the difference then why would you worry about it? just because I would shouldn't make a difference to what you think

 

Cheers

 

Jim

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw (at a guess) in the order of 50 of the real things Jim - day in day out both running and on the scrap lines at St.Rollox and Millerhill, so please don't tell me I don't know what I'm looking at or for. If there is a difference it's of such an insignificant amount (hence the reason I asked you to quantify it) that most reasonable folk wouldn't bother about it - even those prepared to cut up perfectly a good representation to recreate a specific loco down to the nth degree. If there is a difference and I'm not seeing it, well you'll just have to live with your opinion as I mine.

 

I doubt very much any cab issue was masked by the problems with the chassis - there are as you know only to well, a few merely waiting for the hint of a new model to rip apart Heljan's output (meritted or not makes no difference) so I'll say again, where's the flood of moans regarding your problem with the roof? (BTW it seems like it's you that's bothered about it seeing as you raised it - and consequently amended your original posting from the one liner).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Max Stafford

Bob, it's cool. Jim's just got a supercritical eye for detail and like he says, it's just 'his thing'. Mere mortals like you and me are still free to enjoy our models and unless you strive for the level of perfection that Jim clearly does (and demonstrably so when you check out New Street) then it's not really an issue. I can't see it and I don't particularly have any desire to. It's certainly not worth us all getting 'het up' about!

Jim, I accept your point but please understand that the impressionists among us prefer not to get too encumbered with these subtleties as long as the overall picture is well blended and consistent.

It's a broad church this with room for Swiss watchmakers like yourself and landscape painters like me. :-)

 

Dave.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dave. Apologies to everyone for tolerating my off-topic rant however back to the topic in hand.

 

Going on the past form with the EMUs I'm sure Bachmann will be able to produce a model - perhaps not a vastly improved up top - but considerably better than the current Hornby model in particular in the underframe equipment department where the block "representation" cuts no ice. Not that that's a modern requirement, the block "engine" never cut it on the first release. By far the most difficult choice will be choosing what particular sets to represent for what period, as the changes - even between regional allocations were wide and varied - mainly because the refurbishment program turned out to be over expensive and lengthy and was reduced in scope as time went on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, it's cool. Jim's just got a supercritical eye for detail and like he says, it's just 'his thing'. Mere mortals like you and me are still free to enjoy our models and unless you strive for the level of perfection that Jim clearly does (and demonstrably so when you check out New Street) then it's not really an issue. I can't see it and I don't particularly have any desire to. It's certainly not worth us all getting 'het up' about!

Jim, I accept your point but please understand that the impressionists among us prefer not to get too encumbered with these subtleties as long as the overall picture is well blended and consistent.

It's a broad church this with room for Swiss watchmakers like yourself and landscape painters like me. :-)

 

Dave.

 

Hear hear!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...