New Bachmann passenger cars up on MBK

[arbomambo]

What a shame....
just NOT anywhere  close to the drawings that were produced by Bachmann when these were announced...
one of their worst efforts to date, compounded by the ridiculous price wanted for these...I can't even rationalize them as cores for M&R sides.
Bruce

[Cajonpassfan]

Bruce, what drawings are those? I must have missed them.
We're they of the 3432 class Budds?
Otto

[arbomambo]

I'll have to find them...I know they were published here at some point...in a link to the Bachmann announcement...
Bruce

[thomasjmdavis]

What a shame....
just NOT anywhere  close to the drawings that were produced by Bachmann when these were announced...
one of their worst efforts to date, compounded by the ridiculous price wanted for these...I can't even rationalize them as cores for M&R sides.
Bruce

From our friend Nato above:

First off here are measurements. Baggage car over coupler pulling faces 5 & 1/8" inches

Per my brand new, hasn't been dropped yet, caliper, the M&R side for the 3432 class is 5.310 inches.  If the Bachmann is 5.125 over the coupler faces, it is several scale feet too short, price notwithstanding.  That makes it shorter than the Con-Cor Budd baggage (CB&Q prototype) which is already too short for use as a core for the M&R side.  Best core, in my opinion, remains the original Kato Budd cars with removeable roof.  I just ordered a few more bodies from the Kato parts dept- at $8 a pop, they are just about perfect size and price.

[arbomambo]

http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/docs/NMRA_2015_ANNOUNCEMENTS.pdf

Otto,
I stand corrected...they ARE like the drawings (which are flawed...yes...it is SUPPOSED to be that particular ATSF baggage...drawn AND produced w/o the upper fluting...go figure!)
The coach is the only car (of the three) that is not supposed to have the fluting above the windows...
Bruce

[wcfn100]

one of their worst efforts to date

Nah, standard Bachmann.  This just happens to be a car you're interested in and have knowledge about.


Jason

[thomasjmdavis]

Same thing Con Cor did with their Budd cars- some are accurate models of cars with full width letterboards, others not so accurate models of cars with smaller letterboards..  But it gives them plenty of room for "Richmond Fredricksburg & Potomac" and similar road names.

[Missaberoad]

Nah, standard Bachmann.  This just happens to be a car you're interested in and have knowledge about.


Jason

Yeah, These cars are beautiful compared to their 50' "ACF" boxcar they did a few years ago...

Or this monstrosity.... (worse part is they make a car that's closer to the CP cylindrical  )

http://cdn3.volusion.com/ztna9.tft5b/v/vspfiles/photos/BAC-17555-2.jpg?1458727168

[peteski]

Don't we all wish that we could have been there while they were discussing the design of this car?  What were they thinking?

I still think that Bachmann just farmed out both, the design and manufacturing to China and those people have never seen a U.S. prototype car.  They used various reference photos and just used soem features of several cars (possibly to think it will appeal to multiple groups of modelers).

[Cajonpassfan]

From our friend Nato above:
Per my brand new, hasn't been dropped yet, caliper, the M&R side for the 3432 class is 5.310 inches.  If the Bachmann is 5.125 over the coupler faces, it is several scale feet too short, price notwithstanding.  That makes it shorter than the Con-Cor Budd baggage (CB&Q prototype) which is already too short for use as a core for the M&R side.  Best core, in my opinion, remains the original Kato Budd cars with removeable roof.  I just ordered a few more bodies from the Kato parts dept- at $8 a pop, they are just about perfect size and price.

Whoa, I'm not defending Bachmann, but in the interest of having accurate information available for car bashing (or Bachmann bashing), the baggage car sides scale to almost exactly scale 72', or 5.4 actual inches, NOT what was posted here. It's actually about 8 scale inches longer than the Kato car. It's got plenty of errors, but length doesn't appear to be one of them. Just wanted to clarify...
Otto K.

[Cajonpassfan]

Oh, the mystery deepens...
You may recall some of us thought the ridiculous pricing on these was perhaps in part the result of providing illumination in the cars. So I decided to open up the car to see the lighting (which I had previously nagged about as being silly in a baggage car) and, what? There isn't any The metal pickups support brass springs which....ride the bottom of the plastic floor...a three point truck equalizer of sorts No power pickup.
Well the car does track well, weighs in at 1.3 oz (compared to Kato .9) The pics below illustrate the design, including the spring loaded swiveling coupler (which actually mates with MT's and such). I'm scratching my head, because there are some very good ideas here, but the lack of detail on the shell sucks....
Oh well, I only paid 28 bucks for it
I still have hope of turning it into a something useful...
Otto K.

[peteski]

I only paid 28 bucks for it

Only?  Ouch!

The trucks do have electric pickup capability, but no lighting is needed in a baggage car, so they didn't make allowance for it.   Why it doesn't cost less than the illuminated cars? I have no idea. 

[thomasjmdavis]

Well, consider this an apology to Bachmann for not measuring their car myself.  But I think I will still continue to use the Kato cars for cores, at least until the Bachman come down in price, and/or I need the trucks from one.

Peteski,  all of the dealers I looked at sell the coach and obs for several dollars more than the baggage, so I think Bachmann did "discount" the price a little for no lighting - MSRP for the coach/obs $59, for the baggage $49.  Online retailers appear to be selling for 30-40% less than MSRP.  So far, the only ones I've seen on the big auction site are Buy it Now at prices higher than online retailers.