Bachmann 2009

I don't suppose anybody will be interested, but
formatting link

has been updated this evening...
David
Reply to
David Jackman
Loading thread data ...
Ta for the reminder about this.
2-EPB! The picture is of the BR version, which I'm relieved about, since I've just bought a kit of the Bulleid version.
Reply to
Stuart Smith
Is this the first time that an LNER 2-8-0 has been produced in OO in ready to run. If so why has it taken so long to produce a exhibit from such a large class of locos.
Kevin
Reply to
Zen83237
:
: : 2-EPB! The picture is of the BR version, which I'm relieved about, since : I've just bought a kit of the Bulleid version. :
Makes sense, considering that the upper bodywork was based on the BR Mk1 suburban coach IIRC...
Reply to
Jerry
:
: Is this the first time that an LNER 2-8-0 has been produced in OO in ready : to run. If so why has it taken so long to produce a exhibit from such a : large class of locos. :
I assume you mean LNER (or it's constituent companies) *designed* 2-8-0's, think WD and 8F... :~)
Reply to
Jerry
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that the WD and 8F were LNER designed. The WD was Riddles designed I think and I thought that he was LMS. The LMS and GWR are represented by heavy freight locos but the LNER (and LNER lines in BR) are only represented by the WD and 9F. Did this loco have its origins in the GCR that even worked on the GWR and overseas it seems an odd one to have been missed out.
Reply to
Zen83237
:
: >
: > : : > : > : Is this the first time that an LNER 2-8-0 has been produced in : > OO in ready : > : to run. If so why has it taken so long to produce a exhibit : > from such a : > : large class of locos. : > : : > : > I assume you mean LNER (or it's constituent companies) *designed* : > 2-8-0's, think WD and 8F... :~) : > : I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that the WD and 8F were : LNER designed. The WD was Riddles designed I think and I thought that he was : LMS. The LMS and GWR are represented by heavy freight locos but the LNER : (and LNER lines in BR) are only represented by the WD and 9F. : Did this loco have its origins in the GCR that even worked on the GWR and : overseas it seems an odd one to have been missed out.
The LNER (post WW2) had two classes of 2-8-0's on their books - that is they owned them - whilst it is true that the WD was a Riddles design (designed whilst he worked for the War Department, not LMS) and the 8F was a Stanier LMS design built by the LNER during WW2, it is also true that both have been modelled in LNER guise before [1], hence why I was trying to clarify that you were presumably basing your question on who had designed the locos and not just ownership.
[1] in the case of the 8F as far back as the 1950s by Hornby-Doublo
Reply to
Jerry
:
: : The LNER (post WW2) had two classes of 2-8-0's on their books -
Relevant to the discussion in hand, I know that they had more, before any clever-clogs pulls me up on the above...
Reply to
Jerry
Never mind that, wheres the upgraded Scot and other split chassis timed out models. Over to Hornby then, Bachmann taking too long with their ex-Palitoy products.
Cheers, Simon
Reply to
simon
O4 2-8-0? At last.
Yippeee. This is a momentous day.
Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou Bachmann.
Oh boy, my bank balance is going to take a pasting over the next few years, but I am happy.
John S
Reply to
sutartsorric
: O4 2-8-0? At last. : : Yippeee. This is a momentous day.
Yes indeed, probably one of the most notable gaps for years, considering that the design ran under three railway ownerships (was even used outside the UK) and it's tender got attached to other locos - how long before Bachmann offer it in GWR/BR(w) guise and/or use the tender behind their 0-6-0 Collett Goods?...
Reply to
Jerry
"simon" wrote
Excuse me Simon but isn't the 03 shunter an ex-Palitoy model, and wasn't the 'Jubilee' the same, not to mention the BR Standard 4MT 4-6-0? I don't think that's bad going over the last couple of years.
However, I think any manufacturer's money is better spent on completely new models, and for once Bachmann are to be applauded for tackling something new which ran north of the Thames and east of the Pennines. I'm sure the GCR/LNER 04 2-8-0 will prove to be very successful.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
:
: : However, I think any manufacturer's money is better spent on completely new : models, and for once Bachmann are to be applauded for tackling something new : which ran north of the Thames and east of the Pennines. I'm sure the : GCR/LNER 04 2-8-0 will prove to be very successful. :
Talk about taking the p!ss John!
Come on, most of Bachmann's recent production has centred on stuff that ran north of the Themes and east of the Pennines, A1, A4, B1, J39, K3, V1, V2, the 8 coupled WD - never mind all the BR Standard classes that were found in the area or the old J72 , now they are talking about 'yet another' LNER 4-6-2 tender engine. The number of *steam* locos that ran south of the Themes and east of the M3 can be counted on a couple of fingers is we are talking pre BR designs and one hand if not, even the once well supported GWR looks some what depleted by comparison. If one was to build a model railway using only Bachmann locos and rolling stock the most advantageous area on which to base it would be *north of the Themes and east of the Pennines*...
I suggest that you need to actually take stock, the LNER is no longer the poor relation, Bachmann has done the region proud over the last few years.
Reply to
Jerry
"Jerry" wrote
A lot of those are old & dated models Jerry, using split-frame technology which is not DCC friendly.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
: > I suggest that you need to actually take stock, the LNER is no : > longer the poor relation, Bachmann has done the region proud over : > the last few years. : : : A lot of those are old & dated models Jerry, using split-frame technology : which is not DCC friendly. :
Your point being what, that you need to do some ruddy MODELLING for a change, just like those who wish to model south of the Themes sill have to?! Give me a 9/10 decent RTR model that might have a 'challenging' chassis to convert to DCC (if one chooses to use DCC) opposed to a Hobson's choice of either kit or scratch building I'll take the RTR model and then do half the work than I would otherwise have to...
Reply to
Jerry
In message , John Turner writes
It should be even more successful when they bring out a GWR version.
Reply to
Jane Sullivan
"Jane Sullivan" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk... : In message , John Turner : writes
: : >GCR/LNER 04 2-8-0 will prove to be very successful. : : It should be even more successful when they bring out a GWR version. :
I wonder if Bachmann will modify one to EM gauge, have it painted in GC livery and then present it to a certain Peter Denny?...
Reply to
Jerry
Still 03 - ex-Palitoy - not according to my aging copy of Ramsay. But thats a good point, bought a MR/LMS 1F kit yesterday and after rereading the class history was wondering why Bachmann brought out the 3F instead of the 1F ? Then there was all this fuss that Hornby 'stole' the rebuilt Scot and Patriot. So what does Bachmann do in response - upgrades the Jubilee (excellent) then brings out a parallel boiler Patriot that was new to them but still available (if older model) from Hornby and continue to sell the ex-Palitoy parallel boiler Scot. I feel sorry for all those lesser aware persons what buys the Scot (and B1) not realising Bachmann have promised to upgrade all these split chassis models.
Yes the O4 is a nice model to bring out - no complaints there, may even get one eventually as weve seen it at Loughborough and even if it didnt visit LMS rails its not too far out to pretend it did.
Cheers, Simon
Reply to
simon
"Jerry" wrote
I'm perfectly capable of hard-wiring a DCCdecoder into a split framed chassis, but some of my customers - funnily enough the ones the train set market is aimed at - are not.
Strange that manufacturers should be pushing DCC so hard, and yet one of the major players is failing to accomodate them in the whole of their range.
I could also make the point that the Bachmann split chassis doesn't provide anything like the quality of operation of their 'Blue Ribband' locos. Should those who wish to model ex-LNER prototypes be happy with that? I do believe that the 04 2-8-0 will be the first 'Blue Ribband' ex-LNER loco in the Bachmann range.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
: > Your point being what, that you need to do some ruddy MODELLING : > for a change, : : I'm perfectly capable of hard-wiring a DCCdecoder into a split framed : chassis, but some of my customers - funnily enough the ones the train set : market is aimed at - are not.
...whilst they are also the least likely to be using DCC anyway (or if they are, they will use DCC fitted/compatible locos), so how the chassis works is irrelevant!
: : Strange that manufacturers should be pushing DCC so hard, and yet one of the : major players is failing to accomodate them in the whole of their range.
Funny how those that are pushing DCC *train sets* don't offer *none* DCC fitted locos in those sets! Look at DCC as like the progression from set-track to flexible track - to use flexible track successfully one has to learn new skills, those who can't or don't want to stay with set-track, the same is true of analogue and DCC.
: : I could also make the point that the Bachmann split chassis doesn't provide : anything like the quality of operation of their 'Blue Ribband' locos. : Should those who wish to model ex-LNER prototypes be happy with that? I do : believe that the 04 2-8-0 will be the first 'Blue Ribband' ex-LNER loco in : the Bachmann range. :
In comparison with those who model the SR, and to some extent even the GWR, they should be happy with what they have - it's a dammed sight more than many have, stop complaining, stop being a 'box opener' - start doing some railway *modelling*...
I can just see the letters to magazines or the posts to the 'web' complaining that Bachmann are not offering one new item of stock this year, other than spending the years development funds on redesigning chassis...
Reply to
Jerry

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.