Bachman GS4 review shows that they have cranked out another model with the valve gear set incorrectly. Wouldn't you think they would have learned by now?
Eccentric crank on the right: Correct Leads the crankpin when rods are down
Eccentric crank on the left: incorrect. Trails the crankpin when rods are down.
I don't know how easy that is to fix, but you shouldn't have to.
This has been a problem with manufacturers beyond Bachmann for decades. I don't know why it isn't corrected.
_________________________________________________________________
Some manufacturing will never change. They will replace/ rebuild it but it's sometimes it's always the same.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
I respect those that are particular about details but personally I'm not so much as long as the engine runs well and looks good on the rails.
Back in the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's, model railroaders were happy to find any model that looked reasonably decent and ran passably well. At that time, nothing ran as snoothly and quietly as the typical off-the shelf model of today. Starting in the 1960's, there was a lot more attention to correct dimensions, proportions, and accurate details on steam loco models. The mechanisms were not so great, but the frames were usually true and square, so they could be improved with better motors and gearboxes as those became available. Then, when the memory of active revenue steam was fading and younger modelers began entering the hobby, Atlas blew everybody away with the revolutionary notion that a model engine could run quietly, smoothly, and reliably, while carrying accurate dimensions and details. Who knew? These were all diesels, but that's what the changing market demanded. Eventually, the steam market grew and caught up with reliable mechanisms and better details, but by the time it did, those with firsthand knowledge of the prototype were mostly gone. That brings us to today.
Old timers like me are a dying breed. The steam modelers of today comprise a disparate group, but I truly believe most are happy to let the manufacturers do their research for them. Thyey don't know or care that the Bachmann or BLI 2-8-0 is not really a B&O 2-8-0. They happily plunk down extraordinary sums of money for demonstrably bogus paint schemes, and are happy to pay the extra amount for the special livery! They don't care that the MTH PRR H10s is really closer to an H9s, because they don't bother to invest in a few books, study a few pictures, and join a Society to learn the difference. Frankly, it's not that hard. It should surprise nobody to observe that the manufacturers will continue to produce models with easily corrected errors as long as there is somebody out there willing to give up his hard earned money to buy it.
I'm fortunate in that I've been around long enough that there's not much I really need any more. and most new releases would be extraneous, or don't fit my modeling era and scheme. There are desirable generic models (such as USRA's) that I can modify into the item I really want, and there are some incorrect details I can change. But I rarely assume the manufacturer got it right, without checking.
Tom
Honestly I think a large part is becasue there is so much interesting in operating major systems today rather than modeling itself. MR is a great example itself -- there are far fewer articles on how to model or build anything than in the past. More folks are modeling the paperwork and interactions correctly than the trains themselves. And I suppose when your modeling a large layout with dozens of multi locomotice trains pulling hundreds of cars there is much less emphasis on getting the details right. Kind of taking Allen McClelland's "good enough" philosophy to an extreme.
I'm almost startign to go back the other way. I don't have room for a large layout and so am more and more thinking about switching to O scale for more detail rather than less. And doing more scratch building rather than shaking the box.
jim
ACY TomThe steam modelers of today comprise a disparate group, but I truly believe most are happy to let the manufacturers do their research for them. Thyey don't know or care that the Bachmann or BLI 2-8-0 is not really a B&O 2-8-0. They happily plunk down extraordinary sums of money for demonstrably bogus paint schemes, and are happy to pay the extra amount for the special livery! They don't care that the MTH PRR H10s is really closer to an H9s, because they don't bother to invest in a few books, study a few pictures, and join a Society to learn the difference. Frankly, it's not that hard. It should surprise nobody to observe that the manufacturers will continue to produce models with easily corrected errors as long as there is somebody out there willing to give up his hard earned money to buy it.
In S scale I'm happy if anyone produces steam locomotives with scale wheels. Currently, that's only brass and they produce about one every couple of years.
So yeah, if a scale 4-4-0 is produced in S, I'm buying it.
Paul
ACY Tom Back in the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's, model railroaders were happy to find any model that looked reasonably decent and ran passably well. At that time, nothing ran as snoothly and quietly as the typical off-the shelf model of today. Starting in the 1960's, there was a lot more attention to correct dimensions, proportions, and accurate details on steam loco models. The mechanisms were not so great, but the frames were usually true and square, so they could be improved with better motors and gearboxes as those became available. Then, when the memory of active revenue steam was fading and younger modelers began entering the hobby, Atlas blew everybody away with the revolutionary notion that a model engine could run quietly, smoothly, and reliably, while carrying accurate dimensions and details. Who knew? These were all diesels, but that's what the changing market demanded. Eventually, the steam market grew and caught up with reliable mechanisms and better details, but by the time it did, those with firsthand knowledge of the prototype were mostly gone. That brings us to today. Old timers like me are a dying breed. The steam modelers of today comprise a disparate group, but I truly believe most are happy to let the manufacturers do their research for them. Thyey don't know or care that the Bachmann or BLI 2-8-0 is not really a B&O 2-8-0. They happily plunk down extraordinary sums of money for demonstrably bogus paint schemes, and are happy to pay the extra amount for the special livery! They don't care that the MTH PRR H10s is really closer to an H9s, because they don't bother to invest in a few books, study a few pictures, and join a Society to learn the difference. Frankly, it's not that hard. It should surprise nobody to observe that the manufacturers will continue to produce models with easily corrected errors as long as there is somebody out there willing to give up his hard earned money to buy it. I'm fortunate in that I've been around long enough that there's not much I really need any more. and most new releases would be extraneous, or don't fit my modeling era and scheme. There are desirable generic models (such as USRA's) that I can modify into the item I really want, and there are some incorrect details I can change. But I rarely assume the manufacturer got it right, without checking. Tom
Wow, Tom, all that from a incorrect eccentric crank?
OK, on one level I agree with you completely, BUT, taking a "generic" model, or an alternate prototype of reasonable accuracy, and marketing it with a variety of incorrect paint schemes is nothing new, and surely not unique to the "new era" of better steam models.
What about 60 years of Mantua locos which were "generic" by every standard, painted in every/any roadname that would sell?
Are you suggesting that was OK because it was all we had, but that putting B&O on a Bachmann 2-8-0 terrible?
Not sure I get the point of your rant?
In the late 60's when I was just getting started in this, you bought brass (not always all that accurate, or detailed, or good running), you settled for Mantua, Varney, MDC, Bowser, or you learned to buy Cal Scale and Kemtron, do your research and build/detail your loco.
Only thing that has changed is the locos that provide that kit bash platform are RTR, with better electrical pickup, and might actually be closer in the first place.
Truth is a lot of people are just not that fussy. Everyone has a different set of interests and goals for their modeling.
I "know" a lot about the trains and railroads that interest me, but I have to admit, I either make some or all of the needed changes to the available commercial models to suit my needs, or I accept them, or some where in between.
BLI could do a lot better, they could have tooled a Delta trailing truck for their "generic" USRA Mikes and Pacifics, they could have moved a few headlights, etc, etc.
Bachmann at least tries with simple stuff like mentioned above, but admittedly they don't always get it right.
But in any case, it's still better than the "good old days"........
Just my view,
Sheldon
In my (minority?) view, dialog and discussion are good. I think everyone wins in a weird way when someone complains that something ain't right...either with the hobby or with what is commercially available in it. Right or rong (yes, it's intentional), it fosters discussion, encourages those who didn't know to begin to read and study, and it might encourage a few to start learning how to build their own stuff. Who could fault them if they're sticklers?
As I have said repeatedly, the hobby has room for all kinds. Even those who quite correctly carp (and don't mean that word negatively in this case) that someone paying for a litter of models couldn't be bothered to ensure that what they did include on them was at least assembled correctly.
Just one man's opinion.
selector In my (minority?) view, dialog and discussion are good. I think everyone wins in a weird way when someone complains that something ain't right...either with the hobby or with what is commercially available in it. Right or rong (yes, it's intentional), it fosters discussion, encourages those who didn't know to begin to read and study, and it might encourage a few to start learning how to build their own stuff. Who could fault them if they're sticklers? As I have said repeatedly, the hobby has room for all kinds. Even those who quite correctly carp (and don't mean that word negatively in this case) that someone paying for a litter of models couldn't be bothered to ensure that what they did include on them was at least assembled correctly. Just one man's opinion.
Just to be clear, Tom and I are generaly on the same page about most stuff, and I agree discussion is fine. But I do think it can be done without throwing the manufacturers under the proverbial bus.
And, if, as Tom suggests, the modeler should know what he is modeling, than by extension he should know that his BLI B&O Pacific is ALL WRONG. So if he buys it, then he must be OK with that fact........
I do strongly disagree with any notion that manufacturers have some obligation to only make museum level correct models - it simply is not practical. We surely would not have much to run on our layouts if that was the case.
Sheldon, most steam has the cranks oriented correctly in the non-brass part of the hobby. I have seen MR staff comment when they find that it isn't, so it's noteworthy to those who need to know which way an eccentric, expansion link, and sliding block should be mounted. We're not talking about whether or not the steam dome was rearward on the lone sand dome, whether there are two sand domes on X locomotive and not just the one BLI depicts, and even if a Delta truck would have been the correct trailing truck. This mistake is a screw-up that no steamer would have in the real world...not even one on the B&O.
-Crandell
selector Sheldon, most steam has the cranks oriented correctly in the non-brass part of the hobby. I have seen MR staff comment when they find that it isn't, so it's noteworthy to those who need to know which way an eccentric, expansion link, and sliding block should be mounted. We're not talking about whether or not the steam dome was rearward on the lone sand dome, whether there are two sand domes on X locomotive and not just the one BLI depicts, and even if a Delta truck would have been the correct trailing truck. This mistake is a screw-up that no steamer would have in the real world...not even one on the B&O. -Crandell
Competely agreed, my response was to Tom, seems like a jump to go from an incorrect eccentric crank to every incorrect detail or fantasy paint scheme?
And if your not happy, dont buy it. Vote with your wallet and instead go pickup one of the more recent brass GS4 locomotives. Even the brass builders get things wrong, just not as much as in times past. Good critquie of the sample model normally catches things like this. It might be possible to move the Bachmann one to the correct foward leading position. Some real engines did have them leaning back toward the cab(mostly older slide valve engines converted to Walscherts once the inside Stephenson wore out. But like posted, most folks are pleased to have decent running steam models with DCC and sound these days. So small details like this do not always get noticed by enough to make a differance. Mike
Silly NT's, I have Asperger's Syndrome
"
Yah! Have a late model Bachmann J in N. When I took the shell off it had an electric motor rather than steam tubes!
Point is they are running models. There will always be compromises because of that. The valve gear thing is more worth an eye roll or chuckle, before putting it on the rails and watching it run.