Class 47s (Brush type 4) in model form
 

Am i alone in thinking it is beyond the capabilities of the various manufacturers to make a DEFINITIVE class 47????

I write this after taking a look at bachmanns much-awaited version. I've been drooling over this since they announced the class 57 a couple of years ago. Yet once again, stupid errors have crept in & once again my wallet won't be disturbed.

After Heljan made a complete pigs ear,:eek: you'd think that Bachmann would have pulled out all the stops. No.:mad: On initial viewing, it's a beautiful model. Yet on second glance, you notice no-no's like the window-ledge window frames (MANUFACTURERS PLEASE NOTE, THESE ARE ALMOST FLUSH ON THE PROTOTYPE) & the comedy buffer beam fairings.

Suffice to say, i'm retaining my lima models - yes they aren't perfect either but at least they're cheap (2nd hand, you can get 3 or 4 for the cost of a Heljan-Bachmann) & easy to improve detail-wise. I don't care how fantastic the chassis & running characteristics are on heljan & bachmann varieties, the 'look' of the model is the main thing.

It does make you wonder, in these days of computer aided design, how a model can be turned out with errors. It is not as though there are no real ones to go take a look at! :(

I quite agree. I've never understood why it is that these daft little errors creep in. Underframe detail where it might conflict with the need of the model to go round train set curves I can understand, but there is no excuse for the body details. Do Continental and North American models suffer from these defects in the same way?

A computer is only as good as the person operating it. The computer will not add bodyside detail if the operator does not write it into the programme. But of course everybody knows this, except the model manufacturers

I agree with the sentiment thou.

Les

I can only speak for N gauge where unfortunately the answer is yes:(
The most common loco type in Switzerland is the SBB Re4/4 ll/lll. I have examples of the class produced by Arnold, Minitrix and Fleischmann and all exhibit noticeable detail errors. Admittedly the Minitrix loco represents an early version of the Re4/4 ll which has detail differences but the Arnold and Fleischmann examples should be the same yet look completely different because of the different manufacturers interpretation of the locos body shape.

For some reason model maufacturers have always had a problem with the Class 47. The current Class 47 offerings in OO are fantastic when compared to the N gauge examples from the 1980's. The Minitrix Class 47 in this pic http://www.railwayforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=882&cat=508 is well on the way to being a 37 judging by the size of it's nose:D and the later Grafar(later Bachmann) version isn't much better http://www.railwayforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=877&cat=508
As for Class 56..........well that's another story.:(

The grafar 47 was a good model for it's time. Unfortunately, that was a quarter of a century ago.... I understand the motor has been upgraded but the body just got a new coat of paint. (I'd model in 'n' but the majority of stock is too toy-like).

I know what you mean about the 56, almost as big a hash as the prototype!:D

Hi Dave,
I have bought a Bachmann 47. Not had it out of the box yet. Might not bother now.
Seriously though, you are 100% correct in what you say. The reason being is that we are more demanding now, not a bad thing I know, because we have put up with crap for years. When a new model is due there is so much hype beforehand that ANY fault is a major dissappointment.
I know with most classes of loco the subtle differences can be a nightmare for manufacturers, but we pay good money and we should get the goods we require.
Think I may have a sneak look in the box now.

First: See the interview with Bachmann in September's Model Rail and Model Rail's review of the 47. Model Rail are always "picky" and highlight the faults in Bachmann's new offering. However they still rate it as the best 47 yet and give it 4 out of 5!

Dennis Lovett of Bachmann told me a story of an incident at a show in Glasgow when he was being berated by someone for getting the rivet spacing wrong on one of Bachmann's models. The conversation was interupted by an ex ship yard worker who "explained" to the person complaining that rivet spacing depending on the day of the week, those on Fridays were more widely spaced than those on placed on Mondays!

I will be quite happy to hand over the cash for the new Bachmann 47, but the Bachmann 37/4 comes first!

Getting Diesel right does seem to cause manufacturers more problems. I understand that the delay in producing the 150 by Bachmann is the result of difficulty in getting copies of all the neccessry drawings.

Best wishes,

John H-T.

I don't disagree. Mechanically, it will easily score over hornby & lima, all 3 score over the laughable heljan model.

But it still isn't the DEFINITIVE model. Just look at it, & then at a picture of a bufferbeam-fairing fitted 47. You'll see the error straight away, why didn't bachmann? I know of one drawing in existence that suggests these over-deep fairings, did bachmann work from these (solely??)

As for the 37/4, bachmanns 2nd attempt to get it right...

You've spoilt my day by hinting that bachmann will base their 150 model on drawings. I'm hoping their new model bears more resemblence to the prototype than the truly awful dapol 'offering'. I hope i'm not wrong...

I realise this sounds negative. I so hoped that bachmann could deliver a 47 to be proud of, even toying with investing in dcc to play with the sound fitted examples. I'm gutted. Would it be too much trouble for them to go to Loughborough or Butterley to spend the day with a tape measure & camera to check these things out?