The Bachmann NW-2

[wcfn100]

I think your fears are unfounded.  Even with any shortcomings observed with the NW2, it's clear that Bachmann has stepped-up its efforts in a huge way, which you've even noted in this thread.

Nut it's not just the NW-2.

Here's the 70 Tonner.



Let's just look at the door louvers.  There are two basic configurations the 70 tonners had, and this matches neither.  Also the door by the step should be shorter and have no louver, but instead the designer just mirrored the other side and called it good.

It's just plain lazy.  The cab windows on the RS-3 are the same thing.  Not even close to what they are supposed to look like. But eh, who cares?

It bugs me, what can i say?

Anyways, I have brake valves to machine and superior doors to kitbash.  I suppose I should get to them.

Jason

[Robbman]

Even if the prototype didn't ? GMD-1's almost exclusively used a high skid resistance surface on walkways as opposed to traditional tread plate so.....

They had standard EMD/GMDD cross hatch treadplate...

[peteski]

Funny, I was just critiquing Bachmann about their DDA40 in another thread (without going into as much detail as Jason did).  I also don't understand why any manufacturer would go and design a model which has some major inaccuracies. The excuse I came up with is that the models are designed in China, by designers and engineers unfamiliar with the US railroad equipment (or any railroad equipment).  Unless they are working from  3D CAD drawings of the actual 1:1 piece of equipment, errors and inaccuracies will creep in when using photos and anecdotal references.

I enjoyed Jason's clear and factual analysis of the model. He mentioned Bachmann because that is the company which makes this model. Others make excuses that since this is an entry-level model, inaccuracies are allowed.  Really?! That is bull! I could understand that excuse if the model was just simplified (missing details). But if the details are modeled, but were machined incorrectly into the molds, that excuse IMO goes out of the window.

As far as Jason bashing Bachmann, I don't think that is the case.  I have feeling that if this model was made by company XYZ, then Jason would still have critiqued it here. He would then be critiquing company XYZ - whoever produced the model. It just happens to be Bachmann.

With all the people gushing over all the wonderful, and inexpensive offerings from Bachmann, I find it refreshing that someone does offer a clearly documented critique of their models.  I will not buy this model (I do own the Kato version).  My biggest gripe about this model is the way the windows are modeled. Everybody has a different turn-off. I would also rather see no DC version offered (so, when I decide to buy the model I can install a decoder of my choice). I know that I'm in the minority, but that is my opinion.

One thing I disagree with Jason about is the thread-plate. I rather have smooth walkway than out of scale thread-plate.  Truly scaled thread-plate in N scale would be barely visible without magnification.

[wcfn100]

As far as Jason bashing Bachmann, I don't think that is the case.  I have feeling that if this model was made by company XYZ, then Jason would still have critiqued it here. He would then be critiquing company XYZ - whoever produced the model. It just happens to be Bachmann.

Right.  They also happen to have put out the most new locomotives (and prototypes I'm familiar with) so it seems they are being singled out.

One thing I disagree with Jason about is the thread-plate. I rather have smooth walkway than out of scale thread-plate.  Truly scaled thread-plate in N scale would be barely visible without magnification.

I agree that do to scale limitations, this can be modelers preference.   Like molded vs. free standing grabs or plastic vs. etched running boards.  But I can't think of a model I have that would look better to me without the molded tread plate.

Jason

[Puddington]

They had standard EMD/GMDD cross hatch treadplate...

That's either a 1400 or 1600 rebuild - the battery boxes were changed after the rebuilds so I have no doubt there were significant walkwsy changes -  we have the original specs for the 1000 and 1900 series that we are doing and they were built with a different surface - the rebuilds had all kinds of retrofits and I honestly can't say if we will add them to the HO models if we do them but I'm not going with oversized diamond tread on the N scale models  - look lousy.

[bbussey]

Nut it's not just the NW-2.

Here's the 70 Tonner.

Let's just look at the door louvers.  There are two basic configurations the 70 tonners had, and this matches neither.  Also the door by the step should be shorter and have no louver, but instead the designer just mirrored the other side and called it good.

It's just plain lazy.  The cab windows on the RS-3 are the same thing.  Not even close to what they are supposed to look like. But eh, who cares?

It bugs me, what can i say?

Anyways, I have brake valves to machine and superior doors to kitbash.  I suppose I should get to them.

Understood regarding the RS3 cab.  But again, you're not the target market that Bachmann is trying to reach.  AND, you have the skill to upgrade the model to an appearance you find acceptable.  But you shouldn't let it bug you.  Instead, you should buy the Atlas version.

I can understand your disappointment with the 70-Tonner.  But with the other three diesels you've mentioned, more accurate models from other manufacturers exist.  So this is sounding more along the lines of wanting the Kato/Atlas detail at the Bachmann price point, rather than not having viable N scale models available of those specific prototypes.  I have a ton of Atlas RS3 units for New Haven service, so I never even looked at the Bachmann model.  I have an Atlas GP7 decorated for Conrail, so again no reason to look at the Bachmann model.  Atlas has released a gazillion schemes on both of those models, including every scheme Bachmann has offered, so why even look at the Bachmann models?

Now, if Bachmann ever releases the EL-C electric in N, I'm in for a pair.  And if the detail isn't good enough for my tastes, I'll upgrade it, because I know the DCC-equipped mechanism is sound and the trucks and pantos will be more than acceptable.  Still much easier to do that than to kitbash or scratchbuild.  In fact, the primary reason I haven't scratchbuilt a pair is because Bachmann could turn around and release an EL-C at any time.  At some point I'll give up waiting on them, but for the moment I have some electrics ahead of it to create.

[peteski]

Bryan,
you keep bringing up the price point being the differentiation for the amount and correctness of details on a model.  I can agree that the amount of details could increase the price, I can't see how the correctness makes a difference in the cost of making the molds.

As someone who is directly involved in designing and manufacturing injection-molded N scale models, maybe you could enlighten me.

Since certain details are being cut in the molds (things like radiator grille, louvers or hood doors) for an inexpensive model, how does it cost more to cut them to properly represent the items on the real locomotive rather than making them inaccurate (wrong size or shape)?

[wcfn100]

Since certain details are being cut in the molds (things like radiator grille, louvers or hood doors) for an inexpensive model, how does it cost more to cut them to properly represent the items on the real locomotive rather than making them inaccurate (wrong size or shape)?

I would be curious as well and can put an example to this.

Here's the new Bachmann F7.



Here's the proto.



Just looking at the louvers, it's a detail they already have but didn't do much with.


Jason

[johnh35]

I would be curious as well and can put an example to this.

Here's the new Bachmann F7.



Here's the proto.



Just looking at the louvers, it's a detail they already have but didn't do much with.


Jason

I'm not sure I really understand what you are getting at here. The "new" F-7 is new in terms of the mechanism only as far as I can tell. Did you expect them to retool the shell?

[bbussey]

It appears that Bachmann decided not to extensively detail these particular models, given that most of the steam engine models are faithful to their prototypes AFAIK.  There could be any number of factors at play.  R&D is one area where cost can be shaved.  The designing of the digital solid model takes a number of man-hours to do, with more intricate detail obviously taking more man-hours.  I know Robb is faster than I am, but we both have day jobs and it takes me a few months to create a 3D digital rolling stock model.  The X58 took a lot longer to do than the XIH, which took a lot longer to do than the G26.  While the X65 didn't take as long due to just the body being designed, I'm currently working on a model slated for 2015 that will take longer than the X58.  Passenger equipment takes longer to design than freight equipment and motive power takes longer to design than both of them.  Tool-cutting takes longer the more intricate the model.  And availability of slots in the CNC schedule for cutting the tools also is a factor.  If both the Atlas and Bachmann GP7 models were designed and tooled today by the same contractors, it would cost more to tool the Atlas unit and probably cost more to produce the Atlas unit.

I'm not saying I agree with the business model, but I understand the logic behind it.  These "lower-end" models are marketed to the entry-level consumer with a limited budget who is just looking to get in the hobby and doesn't particularly care if every louver on the model is prototypical.  The models such as the B&O EM-1 and the C&O H-4 are marketed to the established more sophisticated modelers looking for prototype-specific items.

In a parallel example — Fox Valley diesel units are now manufactured with pre-painted free-standing grab irons that must be installed by the consumer, in dimples that must be drilled through by the consumer.  How many of those consumers are installing the grab irons, and how many are content with the models as purchased?  FVM locomotives are being purchased by established modelers, yet the "lack" of grab irons doesn't bother them.

[peteski]

Bryan,
your lengthy reply was very informative, but it din not even attempt to answer what I thought to be a logical question.


Bryan,
you keep bringing up the price point being the differentiation for the amount and correctness of details on a model.  I can agree that the amount of details could increase the price, I can't see how the correctness makes a difference in the cost of making the molds.

Since certain details are being cut in the molds (things like radiator grille, louvers or hood doors) for an inexpensive model, how does it cost more to cut them to properly represent the items on the real locomotive rather than making them inaccurate (wrong size or shape)?



Maybe the only explanation is simply sloppiness of the designers, or lack of proper reference materials (they are simply winging it), and not any additional cost involved in the manufacturing.

[VonRyan]

This list is great for voicing our disappointments in model releases. I highly suggest though that you also send your disappointment letters to the manufacturers and let them know they are loosing customers.

N-Scale isn't even in the ballpark when it comes to getting the attention to correct bad manufacturers oversight like HO does. I think most likely because most N-Scalers are complacent to be happy to get something instead of taking th etime to send their complaints to the manufacturer.

Although I doubt it is even worth it to send any complaint to Bachmann. I do think though that most other manufacturers would listen if enough modelers would stand up and say "Hey, this is unacceptable". N-scale is not taken seriously by the manufacturers. My proof is all the foobies that still crop up and the incorrect numbering series on freight cars and locomotives are still in the dark ages (not all, but most).

When you go to train shows and the manufacturers are there. Stop going up to them and complimenting them on everything they do. Yes, let them know when they do something good, but if you have a beef with something that is incorrect, point it out and give them proof of your arguement.

I for one will NOT buy any Bachmann diesel locomotive. Pure hideous junk to the eyes. They do not care enough to take the time to get it right. My $$$$ go elsewhere. Same goes for Atlas Trainman. Can't stand it. Why dumb down a product.

You missed a real gem then.
The S4 is excellent.

[johnh35]

I think the problem here is that too many people are living in the past, stuck with that age-old fear that if one model company makes it, others will not. Though we have seen this does not hold true in this day and age, it seems that the learned reaction still exists. There is room in this hobby for the models that Bachmann makes, and you can vote with your wallet.

[unittrain]

I like my Bmann Chessie GP7 and I also have the Atlas Gp7's and 9's which I like but don't they both have flaws when you get down to it I thought the Atlas hoods are wider than prototype on the GP7s9s and GP30 and 35's? I also have heard the fan spacing in the Atlas GP30 is wrong? I guess we have compromises when it comes to our models I can accept small errors if the model looks good and runs well, we N scalers are still having to accept the fact that a lot of the models we have available were tooled up years ago when N wasn't taken as seriously when it came to fine details.

[bbussey]

... Maybe the only explanation is simply sloppiness of the designers, or lack of proper reference materials (they are simply winging it), and not any additional cost involved in the manufacturing.

Which I did state above.  R&D also costs money.