Bachmann latest releases announced including a V!/V3

[mick b]

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/175207-ba ... uncements/

The only item for the LNER modeller is a "Revised" V1/V3 it appears to me it is just the later revised chassis and the ancient old body in new liveries. Still has the Golf Ball Handrail Knobs and no overhang on the Cab Roof, etc .

Bargain price of £175.00 !!!

No chance

[Atlantic 3279]

Looks like the old body to me. No amount of precision printing of a lovely livery hides a cab roof that is far too flat, with uncertain ventilator "details" and no overhang at the eaves, plus of course the consequent doubtful shape of the spectacles.
Price quite ridiculous compared to the original versions in the 1990s, and even more so compared to later sales of surplus stock or second-hand items which provided me with chassis units for four LNER moguls, for a prairie-that-never-was, and a reworked body for Gresley's once-proposed 2-8-2T for East Midlands coal traffic.
And you can't use the new chassis units in that way because of the integrally cast lumps that extend into the side tanks...

[S.A.C. Martin]

It's 100% the original bodyshell. That markup on the newer chassis and old bodyshell is a bit breathtaking. I got my pair in and around 2015 (I think?) for about £70 each. Inflation over the last eight years has been high, but I am not certain it has been that high.

The apple green one is marginally cheaper at £169.

I will be voting with my wallet - I don't need another V1 or V3 and frankly at that price to that specification, it's not worth it.

Bachmann really have made some odd decisions with their steam outline models the last few years in OO. Dropping the J39, part revising the V2 - twice - and as I found out earlier this week, the new model is based on the upgraded old chassis we've seen before - doing the chassis but not the bodyshell on the V3 - very odd.

[Hatfield Shed]

...That markup on the newer chassis and old bodyshell is a bit breathtaking. I got my pair in and around 2015 (I think?) for about £70 each. Inflation over the last eight years has been high, but I am not certain it has been that high.

'We' have been importing deflation on manufactured product from China for several decades, and now the bill has come in, as China seeks to grow its internal economy; thus the goods will cost something more realistic. Whatever we may feel about Chinese political structure, I must approve the Chinese people now reaping the benefit of their hard work, and experiencing an improving standard of living.

Bachmann... the V2 ... as I found out earlier this week, the new model is based on the upgraded old chassis we've seen before...

It is a hybrid. New casting incorporating a much superior arrangement of the rear truck, (which Hornby should only study) revised drive train and motor of a type I have not seen before, which runs and pulls vastly better then the previous version which was slow and lacked traction. The rods and quite likely the wheels appear to be 'as previously'.

And then the doubleplus ungood all new element worthy of The Party running Oceania, the appalling botch of the camming loco to tender linkage which fails on all counts. Why this junk when their previous arrangement of a metal drawbar engaging a spigot on a screw locked slide concealed under the tender was the best arrangement in RTR OO? Well, I have written to suggest that it should be dropped, tout suite; and hope others do likewise...

[Woodcock29]

Fully agree on the debarkle of the V2 engine- tender drawbar. I made a simple hook and goalpost arrangement on mine but I gutted the Bachmann drawbar and reused the internal plug and socket for tender pick up connection.

Have never seen the previous revised V2 chassis so didn't know whether this was only a slight revision of that. I did suspect the valve gear on this latest model was from the previously revised chassis as its total 'crap' compared with something like the Stanier Mogul.

Andrew

.

[Horsetan]

... the appalling botch of the camming loco to tender linkage which fails on all counts. Why this junk .......

That sounds like the arrangement which is more or less standard on a good many Continental HO locos, and has been for some years.

[Hatfield Shed]

... the appalling botch of the camming loco to tender linkage which fails on all counts. Why this junk ...

That sounds like the arrangement which is more or less standard on a good many Continental HO locos, and has been for some years.

It is, but the Continental brands typically understand how to implement correctly. The idea is that on straight track the spacing between vehicles is to scale, with the camming action spacing the vehicles off as required, proportional to the curve radius to prevent fouling of the vehicle ends, buffer locking and the like. Then on return to straight track, the vehicles restore to scale spacing and straight ahead alignment. This works very well when properly implemented, but on the V2 it is a mess; firstly the spacing on straight track is way overscale, and then the loco and tender are unable to return to straight after a curve, running skewed if a trainload of more than about four coaches is behind the tender.

Fortunately it is easily removed, and a simple metal drawbar connecting loco and tender has been substituted on mine, exactly on the plan that Bachmann had used successfully for over 20 years...

[paul_anderson]

Maybe I'm not over-fussy. But my main problem with the Bachmann V1/V3 was the useless disintegrating chassis -- and I've long since replaced the two on my rather ancient LNER-liveried bodies for a grand total of £50, through careful ebay buying and selling. I'm not interested in the LNER green V3 (why put out a livery that lasted a few months?) but I'd like to know whether the lining on the black one is as crude as it was on the previous body. If it's better, I might just get the body when it comes up on Bachmann Spares at £43-plus and flog the old one on ebay for £25. Better loco for no effort for £25 including postage.

Seriously, though, this looks like really bad business by Bachmann. No one needs a new V1/V3 with the same old spec. It would obviously cost more to develop and build a new J39 chassis to put under the old body, maybe with minor frills, but that would sell. Perhaps not in thousands, but significantly.

[NZRedBaron]

Man alive; the more I hear about stuff like this, the more I start to wonder if the big RTR model makers are just contemptuous towards their customers, or even if it's just specific to LNER modellers.

I've never heard any complaints like this from GWR or LMS modellers- hell, it always seems to me that the big companies go out of their way, and bend over backwards, to cater to the whims of Swindonites; now granted, this is probably just bias on my part, but sometimes I wonder.

[S.A.C. Martin]

It's bias on your part. Every model will go through the same project development cycle, with all of the same issues of product development and research/design that entails. There's no specific bias against anyone's particular railway, just the usual debates about what will sell and in what volumes.

One could cogently argue the LNER lot have had an absolute party the last decade from Hornby, Bachmann and Heljan. The issue with the latter two is the quality or perceived value of the items.

I maintain that the best LNER models we've seen in OO can be found in the Hornby stable at present. The Bachmann stable only includes at present the A1, A2, J72 and V2, with the V3 incoming for a re-release, and the A1 when re-motored has always been a very solid model, the A2 is excellent, the new J72 is good but expensive, and the newest V2 has several issues that detract from some of the excellence, the drawbar and smokebox in particular edging it out. The V3 I was happy to buy and detail up when it was at £89 in its original release but it's nearly double that now in less than five years and I am not convinced that price is in line with inflation or China.

Heljan are re-releasing their LNER O2 model, which for me was the worst LNER RTR model of the last decade, by a country mile. The original release can be detailed up and repaired into something reasonable but almost every major design decision on that model is questionable. Never known anything like it.

Still makes me ponder how the HS4000 Kestrel and the LNER Tango come from the same manufacturer. The new version of the O2 looks to be much improved, and that should go some way to dispelling the issues of the original releases, but for me the damage is done and I won't be picking up further issues of the O2.

[Hatfield Shed]

Man alive; the more I hear about stuff like this, the more I start to wonder if... it's just specific to LNER modellers.

I've never heard any complaints like this from GWR or LMS modellers- hell, it always seems to me that the big companies go out of their way, and bend over backwards, to cater to the whims of Swindonites; now granted, this is probably just bias on my part, but sometimes I wonder.

The superior aesthetic of the 'dry side' makes us more critical possibly?

Whatever, there is a least as much complaint from elsewhere, (Oxford Dean goods, Bachmann 812 and modified Hall, Hornby Large Prairie and S15, are a few recent items that come to mind) and once we get to diesel and electric traction it's an absolute blizzard. When the 'better RTR OO revolution' started with Bachmann's Blue Riband product in the late 1990s, most of the then customers were grateful. (At least I was, no need to kit build and finish 200 BR 16T minerals, because Bachmann were making them to 'expert kit builder standard'.)

Standards have improved since the 'better RTR OO' started arriving, and I have noticed an effect on my own perception. A fault that would have been acceptable on a lower standard model is now a 'blot' on a superior model. So there's usually 'something to fix' on RTR.

... I start to wonder if the big RTR model makers are just contemptuous towards their customers...

I don't believe they are. These are small businesses in 'real world' terms, and have difficulty in maintaining corporate memory as a result: past learning is readily lost. A good example, traction tyres, which are creeping back into RTR OO, some 20 odd years since they were being actively eliminated by not being present on the newly tooled 'better' introductions.

Then there's 'fashion' driven by the growing competition. Each brand is looking to add features that enhance the product, and these unnecessary camming links between loco and tender are a good example. Hopefully this one wil be discarded onto the rubbish tip of 'unwanted'. And it's only an annoyance, which anyone with a little skill can correct; on the positive side, Bachmann have now demonstrated how the fixed rear truck should be handled to enable a sprung flanged wheelset to be accomodated.

Fair notice.

My perspective is formed by long past experience of RTR OO as a sad and shabby thing; those of us wanting good models had perforce to build them, (or if well heeled buy from specialists building to order) and this prior activity forms my perception of present RTR OO as a good deal. I could not build and finish for twice the money spent acquiring RTR: PeppA1, PeppA2, A3, A4, Brit, B1, B12/3, B17, BR Std 5, C1, D16/3, J11, J15, J39, 3F, J50, J52, J94, 3F, 57xx, C, Q1, K1, K3, Ivatt 4MT BR std 4MT, L1, Fairburn 4MT, N2, N7, O1, O2, O4, O7, 8F, BR std 9F, Super D, V2, V3, W1, DP1, Classes 03, 08, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26/0, 30, 37, 40, 47, 55, 105 - and that's just the powered models - that my KX area last 7 years of steam operation and transition to dlesel operation requires, to give a reasonable cross section of what could be seen operating.

Especially so as my interest is timetable operation: I positively don't want to run the loco, carriage and wagon works and paint shops, so decent RTR OO is very welcome, and if it needs some 'correction' then it will get it. There's barely a RTR item on the layout that hasn't been modified to some extent, but compared to the 'build it all yourself'' position before the 'better RTR OO' arrived, this is so much easier, and thus more fun for me. But as ever per individual, YMMV.