Bachmann 57

suchahampal · Post by **suchahampal** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:35 am

its about time I did a good review:

Bachmann Class 57/3 â€œScott Tracyâ€ 57301

Product Code: 32-751

Motor: Bachmann 3-pole

Traction Tyres: None

(Picture Taken From Hattons)

This model arrived in the market shortly after Heljanâ€™s model. Well the question is:
â€˜Is it better then than Heljanâ€™s model?â€™ The answer is a certain YES!

First of all, the body width is more accurate, where as Heljanâ€™s is way to fat. (By a scale foot I think.) It also has the â€˜Thunderbirdâ€™ nameplates unlike Heljanâ€™s model which Model Rail described as â€˜naked.â€™ It has bright LED lights (unlike the Heljans feeble filament lights) with a day or night setting switch at the bottom. However the lights are incorrect and Heljan beats Bachmann here.

The interior is also good, and one of the cabs has a small figure sitting in it. However, the cabs floor is only just below the wind screen, which lets the model down slightly.

The bogies are more like the real thing, and Heljanâ€™s model scores low in this area.

The motor (as usual) is smooth, quiet and good at slow running. Bachmann scores high in this area. It goes on both code 100 and code 75 rather well, and doesn't slip on points. The motor drive all six axles.

The price is another good thing. It is lower than Heljanâ€™s RRP. I think Bachmannâ€™s model is a clear winner for me.

+ Performance, DCC ready, Nameplates, LED lights, Price.

- Incorrect lighting arrangement, cab.

Overall mark: 9/10

Highly Recommended.

Review By Suchahampal

Dr5euss (Popular Forum Member) pointed out: "The Thunderbird name limits the layouts on which it can be used."

Manicmadman (Forum Member) explained: The reason being that it has a limited time frame, is because it has no 'Dellner' coupling.

dr5euss · Post by **dr5euss** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:39 am

The Thunderbird name does limit the layouts on which it can be used though, might be worth adding for the negatives?

suchahampal · Post by **suchahampal** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:43 am

dr5euss wrote:The Thunderbird name does limit the layouts on which it can be used though

Why?

dr5euss · Post by **dr5euss** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:46 am

Because the were contracted to pull the Pendolinos over unelectrified line (hence them being 'rescue' loco with the Thunderbird name), so it limits it a bit...it's in the Model Rail review...

suchahampal · Post by **suchahampal** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:47 am

Thanks for that bit of info George.

dr5euss · Post by **dr5euss** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:47 am

Limited time frame - that was it

I also think the nameplates are on the wrong way round too, I'll have to have a look in Model Rail...

Post by **saslord** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:58 pm

Do You have any pictures of this model on your layout. Also what is the product code of this model?

One thing you seem to have missed off the review is the models performance. / such as how the model runs, What type of motor does it have, how many wheels are powered and provide traction. does it go through standard points well etc.

suchahampal · Post by **suchahampal** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:53 pm

saslord wrote:on your layout.

I'm not quite there yet.

I've taken this photo from hattons.

I've also updated the review.

live-frog · Post by **live-frog** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:32 pm

dr5euss wrote:Because the were contracted to pull the Pendolinos over unelectrified line (hence them being 'rescue' loco with the Thunderbird name), so it limits it a bit...it's in the Model Rail review...

They run the Holyhead - London Euston service as far as Crewe over the non-electrified North Wales Coast line , so that the MP for Holyhead can have his breakfast - the voyagers don't have restaurant cars apparently.
The traction isn't my cup of tea but the route is !

manicmadman · Post by **manicmadman** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:30 pm

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the model was time limited due to it not having the Dellner coupling on the front / rear of the loco, not due to the name.

For example, where I am in Gloucester we often get Virgin Class 57s passing by as they are often used with Voyagers as well as the Pendilinos. I believe that without the Dellner couplings they can only be used for a small time frame - a good excuse for the use of "Moddellers Licence"

dr5euss · Post by **dr5euss** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:32 pm

You could well be right, in fact, you probably are

Still need to hunt that article down...

tinsleytmd · Post by **tinsleytmd** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:34 pm

I bought a weathered one of these from a mate & its the dogs *word censored*.

suchahampal · Post by **suchahampal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:17 pm

tinsleytmd wrote:I bought a weathered one of these from a mate & its the dogs *word censored*.

???

Its much better than the Heljan model. (IMHO)

suchahampal · Post by **suchahampal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:20 pm

manicmadman wrote:Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the model was time limited due to it not having the Dellner coupling on the front / rear of the loco, not due to the name.

For example, where I am in Gloucester we often get Virgin Class 57s passing by as they are often used with Voyagers as well as the Pendilinos. I believe that without the Dellner couplings they can only be used for a small time frame - a good excuse for the use of "Moddellers Licence"

Thanks for that, added it to the review!

suchahampal · Post by **suchahampal** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:46 pm

So does it make the grade?