[alastairq]

Having read a revue of the above, in RM (not bought by me)...I note the observation that this model isn't ACTULLY built to 4mm scale!

Apparently it is a hybrid scale somewhere between HO and OO scale, as it is reported to be from the old Trix range?

Is this a regular Bachmann happening?

How many other rolling stock items have they re-introduced, with this mismatch of scales?

Whilst I appreciate that many proprietary models have discrepancies in dimensions...this apart, has anyone discovered how many other products are sold purporting to be OO/4mm scale, but aren't in fact so?

BTW, no critiscm of the product as such is intended....after all, when but a nipper, I was quite content with teh new,very cheap, ie pocket- money-cheap, Playcraft range......pulled by a 2nd-hand, dummy, Triang Transcontinental diesel!
An engine is an engine?

 

[Pennine MC]

QUOTE (alastairq @ 17 Mar 2007, 08:08) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Having read a revue of the above, in RM (not bought by me)...I note the observation that this model isn't ACTULLY built to 4mm scale!

Apparently it is a hybrid scale somewhere between HO and OO scale, as it is reported to be from the old Trix range?
Bit puzzled here Alastair - AFAIK the only ex-Trix items in the range are the 35T grain hoppers (often dubbed 'whisky wagons'), and although not spot on for 4mm scale, they arent IMO to the much-mentioned 'Trix hybrid' either. Any chance of clarification as to which model we're talking about? (I dont have the RM)

 

[John Webb]

These are 33-805 and 33-806. RM put their samples against a 4mm scale drawing and found the model to be shorter and lower than the drawing. They "suspect" that the scale may be the inbetween Trix orginal. They point out that Bachmann don't actually claim these to be accurate 'Toad E' models, just describing them as 'BR 20ton short brake vans'.
Regards,
John Webb

 

[alastairq]

I, too, don't find Bachmann having committed any 'misrepresentation' over these items, certainly not as 'scale models'....but they ARE in the OO range......and as individuals, may attract buyers who may find them wanting when placed alongside other..4mm scale..items?

Indeed, RM suggests the use of flat 'barrier' wagons placed in front in the train....to reduce the 'out of scale' effect?

ermm????

 

[alastairq]

indeed...perhaps Bachmann have anticipated suggestions of bringing their British outline models into line with HO continental stock, so as to make the 16.5mm gauge track as it is, more to scale....and are in fact subtly starting to wean us all into HO 3.5mm scale , hoping no-one will ntoice until it is too late?

 

[Tonyperks]

If your that worried about size why not try finding an old triang one at a awapmeet or something and detail and re-wheel that i saw one recently for £3 i think it was.

 

[Pennine MC]

QUOTE (John Webb @ 17 Mar 2007, 11:03) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>These are 33-805 and 33-806. RM put their samples against a 4mm scale drawing and found the model to be shorter and lower than the drawing. They "suspect" that the scale may be the inbetween Trix orginal.
Thanks for the clarification John, I just looked at the Bach website and to the best of my knowledge, these are an old 1970s Mainline (Palitoy) model, some of which are still in Bachmann's range. I think from memory that the body is indeed too low and too short. The same body saw service on another chassis, as a 'long' BR standard brake - for which it was too long anyway - so if it had been made the correct length for a Toad E, it would have been even more overlength for the BR van. Hope that makes sense, it sounds like Mainline made a compromise to suit both vehicles (sort of...

)

I'm frankly at a total loss as to why the RM reviewer should draw any Trix connection whatsoever

; it's hardly helpful reviewing technique, for either manufacturer or buyer and IMO they should make themselves properly aware of a model's parentage before leaping to speculation.
QUOTE (alastairq @ 17 Mar 2007, 12:17) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I, too, don't find Bachmann having committed any 'misrepresentation' over these items, certainly not as 'scale models'....but they ARE in the OO range......and as individuals, may attract buyers who may find them wanting when placed alongside other..4mm scale..items?

QUOTE (alastairq @ 17 Mar 2007, 12:21) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>indeed...perhaps Bachmann have anticipated suggestions of bringing their British outline models into line with HO continental stock, so as to make the 16.5mm gauge track as it is, more to scale....and are in fact subtly starting to wean us all into HO 3.5mm scale , hoping no-one will ntoice until it is too late? B)
I doubt that very much, it's just re-use of tooling from a different age, as with the commonly raised issue of mineral wagons that are a scale foot overlength. The 33-series catalogue number indicates it's not a model that's to the Blue Riband standard

Lots of models have dimensional accuracies, considered in isolation. This one does sound particularly 'compromised', but it's hardly the same thing as being 'to a different scale' as such

 

[rb277170]

Watch out you can't criticise B*******n without them threatening to go legal on you as RMweb has found out.

A very heavy handed attitude.

Good organisations actually encourage feedback or criticism.

Better just not mention them or their products at all!

 

[Ravenser]

Being entirely practical, what routes are open for a short LNER brake van?

Parkside used to do a kit for this van , in the earlier wooden ducket version. Unfortunately the kit seems to be out of production : one can only hope they re-introduce/retool it to current standard as it would be a useful and widespread vehicle. You might find an old kit in some trader's bits box

There is a Slaters kit for an older ex NER 10T van. Slaters wagon kits are pretty good in my experience

Smallbrook Studios (see the back of RM) offer a resin kit for an ex LSWR "road van" , large numbers of which were built for the War Dept in WW1 and sold off cheap thereafter to various companies , including a number of LNER constituents. Some survived into BR hands. The kit's relatively expensive - I've got one but haven't built it yet. I recall someone on another forum had built one and seemed reasonably impressed. BR unfitted grey is not the most difficult livery in the world to paint

Mainly Trains list a whitemetal kit from David Geen for an ex GC van. Again this is rather more expensive, and may be a bit more demanding. An acquaintence who's built some Geen kits seems to have had mixed experiences - some kits were excellent some not

But I don't think there's much you can do to sort out the Mainline body. The real Toad B/Toad E had a 19'long body and a 10'6" wb. Sounds like Mainline compromised the body to get it onto their standard 17'6" RCH underframe (Such were the ways of the 70s and 80s).So if an early LNER group standard van is essential sounds like a scratchbuilt job if you want a van that's spot on

The alternative is the later longer Toad D - which became the familiar standard BR brake after nationalisation

Height from rail level to roof top is given as 11'6" on the drawings in Tatlow Pictorial Record of LNER Wagons (ie the old 1 volume Tatlow, not the new multivolume he's started)

This sort of thing is not a regular Bachmann happening - it's characteristic of older "compromised" RTR from the last quarter of the 20th century. (The Hornby 16t mineral and VEA van are notorious examples). Bachmann don't have that much tooling of this vintage in their catalogue, though their LMS box van is another inherited example - stick to Ratio kits for that vehicle

Certainly its got nothing to do with Trix or HO .

By the way RM have managed to get the wheeldata wrong, quoting the N gauge Farish back-to-back

 

[spongebob]

This seems to be a new record even for railway modeller. 17 years in Bachmanns range and only now does the model raise comment about its accuracy. Someone clearly has their finger on the pulse.

 

[Mike Parkes]

QUOTE (spongebob @ 18 Mar 2007, 09:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>This seems to be a new record even for railway modeller. 17 years in Bachmanns range and only now does the model raise comment about its accuracy. Someone clearly has their finger on the pulse.

And on the market for over 30 years in total. Makes you wonder at the knowledge of the reviewer.

For the record the model was originally released as:-

NE 182030 - Mainline c 1976 (37-140), the warehouse stock / parts of which were sold by Dapol from 1985 (B31).

BR grey E168064 - Mainline 1977 37142, the warehouse stock / parts of which were sold by Dapol from 1985 (B37)

Both versions were repeated by Bachmann in 1990/1992 as 33-800 and 33-801. In between 33-802 was released in 1991 as NE 108061. More versions have followed from 2000.

 

[Ravenser]

And I now recall I tarted up a Mainline one for a friend's EM layout as I'd picked it up second hand and had it in the cupboard. I seem to recall making some comment to him at the time about it not being strictly accurate (so I must have checked it against the drawing)

I suspect the knowledge it wasn't right would nag at me personally, and I have got the Smallbrook kit for something I've got involved with- I've always fancied the WD vans since I saw the 3mm society kit, and a resin kit is something a bit different to try. (It comes with a RTR chassis, which removes the most difficult part of building a wagon kit, so I'd encourage others to give it a shot)

But I recognise my discomfort with underscale vehicles would be regarded as a bit controversial by some

 

[jwealleans]

It was me who built the Smallbrook Studios van and it is illustrated below, along with another from the range which a fellow club member built.

It's pretty much as supplied except for the stepboards which I replaced with brass strip and angle.

Falcon Brass list quite a few pregrouping brake vans in their range, from the GC, NE and NBR. I can't comment on the quality as I've never built any of them. I have acquired a few D & S kits of different prototypes and I believe their 4 mm whitemetal range is now with ABS.

I also have a Bachmann body bought cheap from Mainly Trains with the intention of building a Toad D but you've all put me right off, now.