And a new price of £252.99 
Specific to the Bachmann 9F, my four specimens have been galloping around the layout for 15 years now, pulling trains of up to 2.5kg, and keep in mind I operate daily if possible. Still run equally smoothly compared to the brass bearing models I use. I reckon that the light plastic compatible greases now available do the job of wear reduction much better than the oil of the past, when significant wear was observable in mazak chassis block axle holes....especially as Bachmann seem to be getting decent chassis with brass bearings...
Until we can persuade more manufacturers to take up the 0.6mm flange depth that Heljan have been using, we are stuck with the need for compromise when wheels are closely spaced, to enable the flanges of adjacent wheelsets to clear. Bachmann opted for equidistant axle spacing on their 9F, the compromise an extra 0.5mm, so a 2mm overlength coupled wheelbase. I have yet to read a single complaint about this, let alone a review that picked this up; but what is evident is equidistant axle spacing as on the prototype, a better compromise in my opinion.Re the driving wheel spacing think that is common to most OO 9Fs due to the overscale flanges...
Thanks for the information on the Bachmann 9F, I will see about regreasing mine. It definitely looks a lot better than the Hornby oneSpecific to the Bachmann 9F, my four specimens have been galloping around the layout for 15 years now, pulling trains of up to 2.5kg, and keep in mind I operate daily if possible. Still run equally smoothly compared to the brass bearing models I use. I reckon that the light plastic compatible greases now available do the job of wear reduction much better than the oil of the past, when significant wear was observable in mazak chassis block axle holes.
Until we can persuade more manufacturers to take up the 0.6mm flange depth that Heljan have been using, we are stuck with the need for compromise when wheels are closely spaced, to enable the flanges of adjacent wheelsets to clear. Bachmann opted for equidistant axle spacing on their 9F, the compromise an extra 0.5mm, so a 2mm overlength coupled wheelbase. I have yet to read a single complaint about this, let alone a review that picked this up; but what is evident is equidistant axle spacing as on the prototype, a better compromise in my opinion.
You have reminded me that a purchase of lube needs to be on my shopping list.Thanks for the information on the Bachmann 9F, I will see about regreasing mine. It definitely looks a lot better than the Hornby one.
This is happening with every new release from Hornby, I was going to buy the farewell tour HST set until you realise it’s £363 for effectively a Loco and a coach!And a new price of £252.99![]()
TMI…..definitelyYou have reminded me that a purchase of lube needs to be on my shopping list.
I did that same comparison a year ago when I bought the City of Edinburgh.and that was at £264. Even if you took the latest class 90 from Bachmann and complimented it with the dummy trailer from Hornby I don't think I would get near the new price. You might if you added the new sound option with pantograph control. Only time will tell, I may be wrong but I don't think there is that much money out there. The cost of living is getting high which means there is less money for hobbies. I wonder if Bachmann will increase their prices, they are beginning to look pretty cheap against the new Hornby ones.This is happening with every new release from Hornby, I was going to buy the farewell tour HST set until you realise it’s £363 for effectively a Loco and a coach!
I wonder if Simon Kohler has had the television series gone to his head?
Same here - on all the retailer websites they show an RRP of £329 and now its £363 on the Hornby website as you say. I have sent an email to Hornby asking for an explanation...This is happening with every new release from Hornby, I was going to buy the farewell tour HST set until you realise it’s £363 for effectively a Loco and a coach!
I wonder if Simon Kohler has had the television series gone to his head?
No! The problem with Heljan flanges is they derail when going over any slight hump and eight coupled chassis just cantilver of the tracks. Good running is far more important than a small inaccuracySpecific to the Bachmann 9F, my four specimens have been galloping around the layout for 15 years now, pulling trains of up to 2.5kg, and keep in mind I operate daily if possible. Still run equally smoothly compared to the brass bearing models I use. I reckon that the light plastic compatible greases now available do the job of wear reduction much better than the oil of the past, when significant wear was observable in mazak chassis block axle holes.
Until we can persuade more manufacturers to take up the 0.6mm flange depth that Heljan have been using, we are stuck with the need for compromise when wheels are closely spaced, to enable the flanges of adjacent wheelsets to clear. Bachmann opted for equidistant axle spacing on their 9F, the compromise an extra 0.5mm, so a 2mm overlength coupled wheelbase. I have yet to read a single complaint about this, let alone a review that picked this up; but what is evident is equidistant axle spacing as on the prototype, a better compromise in my opinion.
There was a reply saying that Hornby/Bachmann should adopt Heljan flange depths and then the 9f could have correct wheel distances, I replied that would be disastrous for running qualityTrevoro, you terrify me, what has Heljan to do with this or is it a copy of something you see on the loco?
'No! The problem with Heljan flanges is they derail when going over any slight hump and eight coupled chassis just cantilver of the tracks. Good running is far more important than a small inaccuracy.'
Any way if it comes in too expensive they can forget it, I have 9 of these by Bachman and they are all great, pull the CMX up the 1 in 30, I love 'em but if they are not close in price then it'll flop surely Hornby would not be so dumb!
I am solidly in agreement about the importance of reliable running, and operate Heljan 2-8-0's. They would have been swiftly returned if they didn't stay on the rails, but have proved completely reliable.No! The problem with Heljan flanges is they derail when going over any slight hump and eight coupled chassis just cantilever of the tracks. Good running is far more important than a small inaccuracy...
This additional detail puts a different perspective on the problem, as it's a couple of identified locations where the combination of rigid chassis and shallower flanges is unable to accommodate the transitions in rail level on curves. So you know what the problem is, but the construction precludes action.These minor humps are totally in scale with the prototype and with track laid on concrete rectifying is difficult no other models in my fleet of over 500 cause problems including kit built loco with scale wheels. The problem only occurs at a couple of locations one when coming off a canted high speed track curve in a cast concrete tunnel,...and another on a curved point 5ft radius where as many Peco points do over time distort slightly raising the area around the frog...
My focus is all on the benefits of a shallower flange for better scale models, particularly of steam locos with closely grouped drivers where 'dimensional fiddling' is currently necessary - sometimes done well, sometimes badly - which a flange 0.6mm deep pretty much eliminates. There's quite a lot I don't like about the Heljan steam loco construction, but I cannot fault the resulting superior appearance of the wheels compared to most RTR OO....the Heljan locos are not to the agreed RP25 wheel standard...
Now this is exciting! There are altogether too few railway modellers active on forums that really operate their model railways, and this limits the information on longevity and reliability of mechanisms and vehicle running gear when put to the test of significant use. I look forward to reading more....The APT ran around my layout at 170 MPH scale speed for 3 Hours without derailment the garden layout is a great test track for how stock should run. If its only one piece of stock that causes a problem the problem is the stock if several locos cause a problem its the track. Many other modellers have complained about similar problems with Heljan steam locos.
I had an early Hornby (ex Triang) 9F (Evening Star) that I got from a train fair for possibly £25 back in the 90's in Temple Meads, It was my favourite steam loco, but unfortunately the wheelbase didn't like one of my curves on my layout at the time and it had "Silver Seal" wheels and was also tender drive. So I sold it some years later. Anyway I got back in to the hobby recently and picked up a Railroad model (possibly 10 years old) off ebay for £50, in fantastic condition, but the drawbar bolt snapped in transit, anyway fixed it. and for £50 I'm chuffed, the railroad model is as good (if not better) than the Bachmann stuff from late 90's 00's. Hornby really have sorted it out. Price was very low IMO and I think I got a bargain. However I did recently pick up a Cock-O-The-North P2 Railroad model off Amazon brand new for £83, I thought this was a bargain too hence why purchased, something about lots of driving wheels and deflectors, anyway. Pricing is a hot topic, I'm affraid I now ignore the railways range, simply too pricey, Railroad (don't like the name much) but I like what it delivers, so always interested in what they bring to the table. I'd like to second that the current 9f chassis is a vast improvement over the old and my 9f happily negotitates 1st radius curves, granted it slows a little but doesn't de-rail. Hornby really do set the standard at the moment for chassis and drive systems, just a shame prices can be high. Unfortunatley it's railroad or 2nd hand for me.Currently being splashed in the 'Engine Shed', EP of the new 9F tooling.
![]()
But oh dear, I can see a readily discernable dimensional error in the photographs, and I expect this represents what is to be produced, as what are definitely new components which necessarily match the incorrect dimensions are shown.
The driven axle centres should all be spaced at the same dimension; the model doesn't replicate this. (Hornby have probably perpetuated the incorrect driven wheel base from their previous model.) For me this is a 'once seen, cannot be ignored' defect.