Bachmann F-7s

[CBQ Fan]

So this must be a toy.....

http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/9/6/5/2965.1303916640.jpg

You can't look me in the eye and keep a straight face and tell me that the Q motor you are referring too is what Bachmann is trying to accurately represent with their loco.

I stand by my assessment of the shell.  Now the mechanism does look pretty awesome.  Just wish the shell was up to the standards of the IM or even the Kato.

[CBQ Fan]

Never make fun of a model - somebody will always be able to find a proto picture to make you look silly 

Cheers,
-Mark

I would like to see a side by side comparison of the Bmann, IM and Kato units to see which one is the least accurate pilot opening before we start calling each other names!!!   

[CBQ Fan]

I respectfully disagree with that assessment. The Bachmann S4 showed me that they have developed a superior drive train and gear tower to any model currently being offered... The slow speed performance of the S4 was a staggering 1.6 scale mph without cogging or studdering... in DC mode ! That is world class performance. The ad in the newest edition of MR for the Bachmann F7 says it has a new drive train and gear tower - which one can only assume is copied from the S4 - that will provide this model with unsurpassed speed and drive control.

It appears that Bachmann has invested in the "guts' of their products instead of updating the shell; I for one support that approach. Tooling a new shell is expensive and doesn't attract me if the running qualities of the locomotive aren't great. I can modify a pilot so I'd rather they put their dollars into the gear tower and drive train.... and if this F7 performs like the S4 then they will have a winner....

I think "toy" is a bit unfair, given the performance of their last offering. Bachmann's S4 running qualities are class leading and it appears so too will be their F7.

Again I was only referring to the F7 Shell, not the "guts" nor any other model.

[CBQ Fan]

I don't think you will find a MT replacement coupler for the Bachmann pilot coupler.  However you may look at Gary Hinshaw's "Notes on body-mount couplers (work-in-progress)" in the Best of the Wire Archives section.  The McHenry N scale couplers and the Full Throttle Z scale couplers use the same type of mounting mechanism as Bachmann couplers and they may work with minor modification.

Why would you need a pilot conversion kit if the opening was to the same level of detail as its competition??

[CBQ Fan]

Sorry that my assessment of the shell was not clear in my original post.  I cannot make any assessment on the running aspect outside of commenting on the photo, which is clearly limited.  It does look like a cool mech though!


I do think I had seen somewhere that the front coupler is truck mounted.....if true isn't that so like 1980's????  And if so odd to combine that with the state of the art mech.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Brian, trying to get your post count up? 

I think B-Mann is aiming this engine at the trainset crowd. It is no longer referred to as a Plus or Spectrum engine, just the normal B-mann line. If they are planning on replacing their F9 for this, I am all for that.

[SkipGear]

Sorry that my assessment of the shell was not clear in my original post.  I cannot make any assessment on the running aspect outside of commenting on the photo, which is clearly limited.  It does look like a cool mech though!


I do think I had seen somewhere that the front coupler is truck mounted.....if true isn't that so like 1980's????  And if so odd to combine that with the state of the art mech.

You're not paying attention, there are statements and pictures in this topic that show a body mounted front coupler, along with the rear on both A and B Units.

Yes the opening is large, but still not nearly as bad as has been done before and even the "done before" can be fixed fairly easy.

An OLD Bachmann F that I filled the pilot painted up just for fun.

[CBQ Fan]

Brian, trying to get your post count up? 

I think B-Mann is aiming this engine at the trainset crowd. It is no longer referred to as a Plus or Spectrum engine, just the normal B-mann line. If they are planning on replacing their F9 for this, I am all for that.

Trying to get to the 1000 post benchmark!!!!   

[CBQ Fan]

You're not paying attention, there are statements and pictures in this topic that show a body mounted front coupler, along with the rear on both A and B Units.

Yes the opening is large, but still not nearly as bad as has been done before and even the "done before" can be fixed fairly easy.

An OLD Bachmann F that I filled the pilot painted up just for fun.

I know what I was thinking of, someone posted somewhere that they suspected the shell was designed for truck mounted couplers (or was a rehash of an older shell) while they were actually body mounted.  Still not swaying me from my point of view.  Shell appears to not be in line with mechanism still.... We need those comparison photos!!!

I am using the photos from MB Klein for reference.

[Puddington]

I understand your comment on the pilot; it isn't perhaps to the standards of the IM unit or a Kato but by the same token the drive and gear train performance of the IM and Kato are not nearly as good as that of the Bachmann recent offerings.... I wouldn't refer to either as "toys".... I guess  my point was more about how we characterize a model and how we comment on it's overall appeal....  The term "toy" is pretty derogatory and Bachmann has suffered a lot of critical commentary for past sins when they have been making steady; and in this case, outstanding progress in motor and gear trains....

Just trying to give credit where it is due - not trying to cause a problem.

[spookshow]

At the end of the day, aren't they all toys? 

Cheers,
-Mark

[jnevis]

At the end of the day, aren't they all toys? 

Cheers,
-Mark

Blaspheme. You can't say that of talk bad about Pennsy on The Railwire!

[CBQ Fan]

I understand your comment on the pilot; it isn't perhaps to the standards of the IM unit or a Kato but by the same token the drive and gear train performance of the IM and Kato are not nearly as good as that of the Bachmann recent offerings.... I wouldn't refer to either as "toys".... I guess  my point was more about how we characterize a model and how we comment on it's overall appeal....  The term "toy" is pretty derogatory and Bachmann has suffered a lot of critical commentary for past sins when they have been making steady; and in this case, outstanding progress in motor and gear trains....

Just trying to give credit where it is due - not trying to cause a problem.

Fair point!  My mistake was replying too quickly and neglecting to clarify I was talking about the shell. 

For someone who has not purchased a Bachmann product since the 1990's it is these little things that give me pause over paying money for one of their products. It does not help that their recent releases have little to no prototype interest to me.  I would love to see a CB&Q steam offering in their top of the line product line, that I may take the leap.  Unfortunately their products don't jump out at me as something I want to purchase just to have.

Case in point is FVM GP60's.  I do not need them, they don't work with my era of my layout, but they are so unique and so well done by FVM I had to buy a set.  The same goes for the Hiawatha 4-4-2, too early of an era but again, neat proto and execution was awesome! 

So for those who have the BMann F units and are happy with them, I am happy for you.  And as Spookshow said, "Aren't they all toys" I do not see how calling something toy like is derogatory.  I would still love to see BMann, Kato and IM F units side by side by side from the front so we can see the differences.

Just to stir the pot, what would the reaction have been if the Kato E5 had had as big of an opening in the pilot as the BMann F7.................

[Scottl]

All it takes is the rumour of Kato having some minor detail wrong and it ends up filling pages 

I'm interested to hear B'man is stepping up their mechanisms.  This bodes well, I think.

[spookshow]

I would still love to see BMann, Kato and IM F units side by side by side from the front so we can see the differences.

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the Bachmann pilot opening (originally designed for a truck-mounted coupler) is much larger than either Kato's or Intermountain's. I'm assuming Bachmann decided to recycle the original Plus/Spectrum shell in order to offer these new models at a lower price (since a redesigned shell would have presumably jacked up the costs quite a bit).



I think everyone gets that it's a dealbreaker for you. Do we need to kill this horse any more?

(FYI, the C&NW unit is an F3 - I don't actually own any Kato F7's).

Cheers,
-Mark