The blue and grey Bachmann Class 108 appears to be available now. Pictures here:
As some the members of some forums frown on open discussion of models, I'll ask here instead: does the shape of the cab roof look OK to you?
Regards,
Stuart.
On 30/11/2006 18:58, Stuart Smith said,
Hmm. I've always been one of those people who can't understand why people complain if a curve is a fraction of a millimetre out of place, or the body has an extra rivet, or whatever. So I thought "Let's see what he might be complaining about."
Well, not that DMUs are a particular area of mine, but that cab roof looks wrong! It seems to be too rounded, as if the apex of the roof is too high and the dome has to drop more to catch up. It could just be the angle of the photo, of course, but it looks the same in all photos.
The problem with all these things is that it can be very subjective. To me it looks "wrong" from an aesthetic POV, but it might well measure up exactly to drawings and the prototype. Maybe the prototype looks "wrong" as well. Without a headcode box, it would to me at any rate!
Yes, that's what I thought was wrong too. It occurred to me that perhaps the destination box may be too small, and that could be accentuating the apex and curve of the roof?
Despite this, I still think it's quite an impressive piece of work.
Regards,
Stuart.
My first thought was that the roof curve looked odd, but looking at the real thing, that also looks a bit odd to me:-/
My first thought was that the roof curve looked odd, but looking at the real thing, that also looks a bit odd to me:-/
roof
roof is
photos.
I think that you might be right there, that roof looks to high, the over all height from cant rail to apex looks wrong when compared to the height of the side doors. If Bachmann has got this wrong I suspect that many people will be highly and rightly pezzed off! :~(
"Stuart Smith" wrote
Here are some prototype pics, draw your own conclusions:-
On 30/11/2006 20:56, John Turner said,
Nah - the roof profile on the prototype is definitely wrong :-)
This one makes the model look right.
Regards,
Stuart.
"Stuart Smith" wrote
It might well be, but the cab roof would be identical - I think!
John.
I'm less bothered by roofline than by the train set gap between the units.
Any gap like that is easily solved by making your own solid drawbar.
-- Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
To me, it looks like the angled part of the cab sweeps back too much.
That said, I think it's a nice looking model all the same.
PhilD
They both look odd - and in similar ways. It's the inflexion in the roofline when you look across the cab at 45 degrees that draws my attention - but it's there in John's photos too, so it's simply wierd, not actually wrong. However, there is something about it - possibly the model roof comes to too fine a 'point' above the corners of the cab? Then again, maybe that's cleanliness and the resulting specular light effects that are highlighting that?
James Moody
"James Moody" wrote
I wonder whether it's that we're simply viewing the Bachmann model at an angle at which the prototype was not normally viewed?
My initial reaction to the 108 photographs was - WOW! Certainly puts the ageing Hornby 110 into the shade, and I suspect it will do the much the same to the ex-Lima 101 when that finally gets released by Hornby.
Do I assume that the BR green version of the 108 will have the 4-character headcode box? Anyone seen which version they are producing in that livery?
John.
wierd,
cab?
Possibly, but what IS glaring to me is that the model [1] doesn't have any raised weld / rivet joints between the sections of panel work on the roof, the roof is being made to look to 'slab' like.
[1] in the Hattons photo at least, which I assume is of a production version.
This can have a big effect on the appearance of a model - I know the (Bratchell?) 456 kit I saw did that to me - go look at a real one in the same light, and yup, the details I could have sworn were so wrong actually are faithful to the original.
Does look like a nice model. I think the possible niggle with the roof will not be apparent when a bit of prototypical dirt is applied to that area. Most of the photos show the roof caked in the stuff...
James Moody
I would rather fit Keene couplers so as to cope with tight curves. The point is that Bachmann should have done something similar at the factory. Why bother to fit corridor extensions and then leave a glaring great gap between them?
(kim)
"it's like that on the official drawings" :)
Fred X
If you look carefully in one photo, the unit is not actually coupled.
There is also the problem (as I found with a Hornby 110) that although they may sit end to end on straight track, take it over 2 points back to back and they end up side by side !!! (The corridor connections) Unprototypical radii of the track !
Andy
I would rather fit Keene couplers so as to cope with tight curves. The point is that Bachmann should have done something similar at the factory. Why bother to fit corridor extensions and then leave a glaring great gap between them?
(kim)
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.