Any new RTR locos for 2009?...

The Q6 would be nice but I'm sure an O4 would go down better and have far more sales opportunity - even the GWR enthusiast would have a use for it, never mind those followers of the old GC. Of course it could be an attempt to compete with or use components from the recent G2...

"Jerry" wrote

Very little interchangeable parts between models these days Jerry. I doubt very little apart from motor would be common between a G2 and Q6.

John.

T2 - yes, that makes sense. Long-lived, successful and ubiquitous across quite a wide area of the country. The K1 - and here I'm assuming you mean the Thompson/Peppercorn machine, not the small-boilered Gresley one - I don't quite see. It's a late type, restricted to a narrow range of periods. Surely a K2 would be a more obvious choice - they were active for a much longer period (spanning three railways) and were prominent features of aome of the model modellable locations (do 'em with the GNR cab and with the NER-style one used for the Lochs and there's quite wide appeal). The K1 just seems and odd - and limited - choice.

I'm sorry, youve lost me here.

Being gracious, I would say they learned from the customer feedback.

MBQ

erm, we are talking about Bachmann.

Cheers, Simon

"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote

Certainly my preference would be for a Q6 even though I have an extremely nice scratch-built example, but the Thompson K1 would also be a good choice bearing in mind that there is an active preserved example, which has done mainline running in Scotland as well as on the NYMR.

John.

wrote

didn't work if you used an 8 pin decoder? If not, then it was a strange decision. Probably a new entrant to DCC thinking the 21 pin interface was the new standard and they'd better use it. I model in N, where 6 pins are the norm for steam outline, so I didn't pay too much attention at the time.

You cannot simply plug an 8-pin decoder into the 21-pin interface - they are totally different.

The 21-pin arrangement was devised by ESU (I think) and is designed to permit additional functions where sound decoders are likely to be used.

In that respect IF it is likely to become the norm then I would have thought that it would make sense for it to be fitted as standard throughout Bachmann's range, but for non-sound purposes 8-pin generally permits enough function options.

John.

I know, you use an adapter, but it doesn't alter my question. If you used the adapter and 8 pin decoder, did you lose functions that were accessible to a 21 pin decoder? If not, then there was no point fitting the 21 pin socket. Only if the 21 pin socket was wired for sound and a speaker was already fitted at the factory or suitable mounting points provided would it make sense.

MBQ

wrote

used the adapter and 8 pin decoder, did you lose functions that were accessible to a 21 pin decoder?

I'm not completely sure with all makes, but in the case of Lenz both their Silver (8-pin) and Silver 21 (21-pin) decoders offer junst 4-functions.

The 21-pin socket is designed to offer more functions where an appropriate (multi-function) decoder is fitted. This is particularly useful where multi-function sound decoders are used. The extra pins in that instance access the other decoder (not loco) functions.

John.

They could do a Deltic or an A4 or a Flying Scotsman :o)

(kim)

I understand all that!

The question is, in the specific case of the Bachmann loco in question, were any of the extra poles of the 21 pin connector actually wired to anything?

MBQ

wrote

question, were any of the extra poles of the 21 pin connector actually wired to anything?

Not as far as I can tell. Why would you need more with a non-sound equipped model steam loco without lights?

John.

"kim" wrote

LOL - not much use on a small branchline or freight oritentated layout! :-)

John.

How about a GWR saddle tank? Some of these lasted into BR days.

Two 850s that did were 1925 and 2007.

Considering that these didn't normally carry "Great Western", just the number, a plain green one covers an awfully long time.

One of these late survivors carried it for a film, but that was all.

They could use the same chassis for a small pannier as well.

Just a change from my usual rant about the Duke/Bulldog/Dukedog group providing four engines for the tooling costs of two.

Well yes I was going to suggest everyone model only the GWR but John might have thought I was being sarcastic? (Perish the thought).

Kim

I know I'm a GWR bigot but I couldn't think of a similar situation on the other lines.

In the US some of Bachmann's offerings come with alternative wood/steel cab and other fittings in the box, as well as painted but undecorated to apply your own decals for different periods.

So they could include long or short smoke box, and safety valve cover with or without top feed. Narrow or wide cab. Or removable top feed for the Duke.

Giving even more possibilities for the buyer.

And selling more models.

I'd also like to see other industrials than the Austerity. Preferably some of the older ones which survived. My own favourite would be a Manning Wardle Class K or L - which many of the main lines inherited.

wrote

There are other potential industrials available in RTR form, but all (to the best of my knowledge) ex-BR locos.

Jinties, Claytons, diesel of classes 03, 08 & 20 (just to mention a few) all found use in industry.

John.

A Royal Scot was used on shunting duties at Donisthorpe Colliery in derbyshire for a couple weeks. So can we stretch to a Pacific - yep its my ....

cheers, Simon