Bachmann 9F evening Star Problems

Mine has problems on the inner facing turnout of some Hornby 2nd radius curved points, but on others it's OK. I intend to experiment with the alignment of the adjoining flex track, and the loco wheels' back-to-back.

I don't have your problem number 1.

"gary" wrote

Curved setrack points are notoriously useless, and are to be avoided at all costs. In fact I wouldn't touch any setrack point at all as they are far too tight for any practical use with a large loco.

John.

"John Turner" wrote in news:459435b8$0$15470$ snipped-for-privacy@free.teranews.com:

Says you after selling me two sets :-) Actually I haven't had a problem with them, admittedly I don't have any 8 coupled engines running as yet but I have been careful to ensure that where I am using set-track piointwork (one end of a staging area to save space) the other side is all very gentle pontwork - peco large or medium radius at worst so that everything I need to have accessable by larger stock has at least one way to it.

"Chris Wilson" wrote

LOL - you 'bought' them I didn't 'sell' you them! ;-)

John.

Bah! All my Locos (modern Hornby and Bachmann)and my old Hornby 9F go through my curved points (Hornby and Peco) without any problems........I feel like chucking it

Oh I sorted out the noisy motor, it is loose inside the cast motor housing so wrapped some thick tape around it this has cured that problem.

Bloody Bachmann 9F I waited years for it come out.....what a let down

Gary

"gary" wrote

It's a pretty damned good model, mine works faultlessly and will pull more than twice the load of a Hornby Black 5. However British Rail would never have worked the prototype on curves where an L&Y 'Pug' 0-4-0ST would have struggled, so I fail to see why you would expect one to operate on ridiculously sharp setrack points.

John.

On 31/12/2006 11:15, John Turner said,

Because it's sold as a model and people who buy models expect it to operate on sharper than scale curves? I would agree that Set-track is pushing it though :-) Just had a look at the Bachmann website - no mention that I could see of a minimum radius for the 9F. Hmmm....

On 31/12/2006 07:49, gary said,

I don't have one, but I've seen them and they are beautiful models, and the ones I've seen running (albeit not many) run extremely well. Be grateful that Bachmann (and Hornby) are moving forward rapidly otherwise we would still be stuck with 1960s models.

Why is it that people always want to complain about something?

"Paul Boyd" wrote

Common sense has to apply though too Paul. Personally I think manufacturer's should state clearly just what radius a model is suitable for, although to be fair it will vary depending upon the quality of trackwork and the use to which the model will be put.

I'd have though that 24 inch radius should be considered to be an acceptable minimum for any large 4mm scale model. Second radius setrack is around 17½" radius - far too tight for anything other than trainset use in my opinion.

John.

In message , Paul Boyd writes

At the beginning of their catalogue, Bachmann state that their locos are not suitable for radii smaller than second radius.

Hi Paul,

I think the problem Hornby and Bachmann have is that they are not quite sure whether they are still producing for their original market -- toy trains for children -- or model trains for adult collectors. It's difficult for the same product to suit both. Clearly the "Thomas" stuff and especially the SET-TRACK is nothing more than a toy.

But is the 9F a toy? If not it seems unreasonable to expect it to run on toy track. Perhaps they should say so on the box? If the latest stuff was labelled "Collector Series" or some such, buyers would know that they need to build some decent track for it to run on.

On the other hand, if the 9F is a toy, they should hack lumps out of it until it will go round 15" radius, as they used to do. As a boy I would have been most upset if my new Christmas present wouldn't go round my tracks.

Martin.

If I have to pay ~ 100 GBP for a model then I expect it to be quality and to require a little intelligence on my part. my grandchildren may dismiss this kind of money as a reasonable mobile phone bill but I don't. John talks a lot of sense. gary has every right to feel pissed off.

Hi Peter,

I'm always puzzled by this form of words.

You don't have to pay anything -- buying a Bachmann 9F is not compulsory.

Martin.

On 31/12/2006 19:45, Peter Abraham said,

FWIW, I'll be making my own 9F in due course, for P4. It will cost well over £100 just for the materials, never mind any notional value that can be put on my time to build it. I did consider abandoning my plan to build it when the Bachmann model was released, but rather than spend £100 on spec to see what it was like, I had a good look at the model, with a conversion to P4 in mind. I chose (note the key point here - a choice) not to buy it because of the amount of work to make the chassis acceptable for P4 standards - no other reason than that.

So, if Gary is complaining because a very good model with incredible detail at a bargain basement price has some niggling faults, then I have little sympathy. If you don't like it, then there is always the option not to buy it and do something better yourself, or pay a realistic price to have a UK builder make one for you.

On 31/12/2006 15:15, Jane Sullivan said,

I long ago decided that the Bachmann catalogue consisted of a wishlist of models they might get around to releasing sometime in the future, possibly, so I haven't got one. I would expect this information to be prominent on the website against each model. Is it even mentioned on the outside of the box.

Hi Martin

Legally, it is a toy, but realistically it isn't, in my opinion. Therefore it is unrealistic to expect it to run on toy track (again, just my opinion). It is this toy track that seems to be the root of the problem here, and maybe Gary would have been better off buying the Hornby 9F, which is definitely aimed at the toy market and does run on toy track!

On 31/12/2006 14:45, John Turner said,

That should be a *minimum* requirement to be stated, I would have thought! Along with clarifying the totally misleading "DCC Ready" phrase when the model is anything but (like no chip fitted!).

I would like to point out that this model was bought for me at my request.

There was one niggling fault with it and that was the motor rattled around inside the cast metal motor housing this I cured by wrapping tape around the motor

But the fact that it does not go through Hornby or Peco curved points is in my opinion not a niggling fault but a bloody big fault

It states in the instruction that it is not suitable for less than 2nd radius curves which Hornby also state.

The fact that all my other locos Hornby and Bachmann (less than two years old models) and my old Hornby 9F go through these points without any problems annoys me

I also agree with comments about it being cheap but if it cost only a pound it is still a waist of money if it cannot be used.

I also agree with comments about cost cutting by having items made abroad.......I would willingly pay more for goods knowing they were made in this country thus supporting our work force with all the additional benefits.

Arghhhh it is a Pandora's box

Anyway have a good New Year all of you

Gary

"Paul Boyd" wrote

The latest Bachmann 66s claim to be DCC-ready, but in reality they're not, needing a 21 to 8-pin adaptor to allow the fitting of a standard decoder.

John.