Jump to content
 

New Crowdfunded Class 86 or Class 87


DJM Dave

OO Class 86 or 87 Crowdfunded  

280 members have voted

  1. 1. OO gauge Class 86 or 87 crowdfunded. You decide!

    • Would you like a crowdfunded 86?
    • Would you like a crowdfunded 87?


Recommended Posts

Hi Dave,

 

I wouldn't mind a pair of Freightliner 86's to a high standard. A spark effect built in would be quite nice and the idea of raising and lowering the Pans would be fun although in reality I wouldn't have much use for them with the locos running through.

 

I must admit I have a feeling Bachmann will do an 87 to follow on from the 90 which makes the 86 seem the best bet.

 

Thanks

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough choice as I would dearly like both 86 and 87 to be produced.  However, I guess the sheer number of livery variations for the 86 make that a more attractive option.  Priority liveries for me would be Freightliner (both 'Powerhaul' and earlier green/yellow), RES and perhaps Virgin.

 

Wishful thinking, but maybe an 87 to follow?  Or a 92?  :)

 

(ps... all that said I've voted for both 86 & 87)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Dave,

 

I wouldn't mind a pair of Freightliner 86's to a high standard. A spark effect built in would be quite nice and the idea of raising and lowering the Pans would be fun although in reality I wouldn't have much use for them with the locos running through.

 

I must admit I have a feeling Bachmann will do an 87 to follow on from the 90 which makes the 86 seem the best bet.

 

Thanks

Mark

 

Prior to Crewe Works open day in 1987, the Class 90 was referred to as a class 87/2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi abd

 

The AL6s were never in electric blue, they were the first locos in rail blue as reported by Brian Haresnape in July 1965 Modern Railways. The first few E3135 being one, were delivered without yellow panels making them the only standard gauge rail blue locos to see service without yellow panels.

 

Fixed the typo.

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hornby pulled their proposed BR Blue 87027 limby model from the most recent announcements.  either that was to play catch up with other overdue models, theyre now thinking lets can the van and retool it or they just had a change of heart.   Frankly I was going to buy this for all of its dated flaws to sit alongside my Bachmann Class 85 - it would have made for a nice pairing on a diorama.

 

I think on an 87 model certainly the early year versions - the main central headlight and the 2 marker lights need to be fairly old in appearance just like the grain of wheat light bulbs Heljan fitted to their class 47s - its creates a very realistic look for the front lighting and the same goes for any corridor lights.  The high intensity brightness of the modern LED with a white light only really suits later versions certainly in terms of that central larger light.  The 87s have also got some variation options.....

 

87001 could be a Locomotion special based on the loco at the NRM or 101 Stephenson.

 

87006 in experimental large logo - what an option that could be.

 

87012 in the Back the Bid 2005 London Olympics campaigne.

 

Porterbrook special 87002 and the Acorp version of 87019 that Hornby also canned. 

 

Pre named BR blue versions with the BR logo in the centre

 

Black and red nameplate versions

 

Red buffer beam versions like 87021

 

The First/GBRF era 87s.

 

My OCD here but........ shiny buffer shanks/inserts?

 

Post modification lateral dampers on the bogies (will look up the year this work was carried out but thinking fairly early in their careers late 70s?).....maybe possible to have this as a separate part to be added by the purchaser?

 

Dummy relay cabinets visible inside the 2 corridor windows.

 

Unlike most euro spec diamond type pans it would be interesting to see a good 87 cross-arm style of pan.

  

Driver figure at one end. screw link couplings.

 

executive liveries with and without the dark grey wraparounds and BR logo in black on lower yellow cabsides or in white off centre on the bodyside.

 

Black front window frame surround versions on executive and swallow.

Room in the bogie frames to modify wheelsets for EM or P4 modellers as with the SLW class 24 (maybe supply fitted as required, along with the 00 wheelsets in the box?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

As I write this it seems that the Class 86 is opening up a gap on the 87.

The number of votes, of course, doesn't indicate the number of models required.

For instance, I voted for the Class 86, which is one vote, but if it does get the go-ahead

for production then I would want more than one - a 'fleet' of them, in fact.

Will there be a further poll to establish the number of models required?

 

I voted for the Class 86 mainly because of the liveries it carried - the Intercity with the yellow

roofs and front panels, and the Railfreight Distribution two-tone grey with red diamonds.

I would want three or four of each of these - but only if both liveries were to be included in the

first production batch.  ( I'm 71 years old and can't hang about for years waiting for future

production runs).  ;-)

 

Pantographs.  I would quite like them to be remote controlled - and I'd really like some way to

raise them to a level just short of the wires (without touching the wires) rather than have them

extending half way to the sky when raised.  If that makes sense to anybody.

 

Well.  Let's hope it becomes a winner.

 

Pete M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to vote for a number of reasons which I will mention in a moment. However, if I did it would be for an as-delivered AL6, as said arlier this fits neatly in the transition period. My old favourite, E3164, which appeared in publicity shots a lot, and was forever present on my WCML spotting visits (usually Bletchley), is my favourite.

Now, the reasons not to vote..

 

I have already modified a Hornby one, when it first came out. I did the conversion, didn't just open a RTR box (Tony Wright logic). However if it wasn't for the following, I would probably have an updated one as well, mainly as a shelf model like the present one.

Because Dave favours coreless motors, and I am old school with a very good feedback controller, I will NOT change (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). Sorry Dave, but as much as I applaud what you are doing, I can't buy it.

Similarly, I am DC not DCC, see enough computerised stuff at work thanks.

 

 

Good luck with the venture.

 

Stewart

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got about six Hornby 86s repainted and modified into early style AL6s but I would happily retire them all for an "out of the box" detailed model, with the best will in the world, none of them will match up to a factory finish or have the running capability of a modern model.  I'm also a fan of DCC sound and I would expect a new model to have a simple plug-n-play fitting for DCC sound. 

 

In terms of numbers I dread to think how many I would buy.  A lot probably especially as I'm designing my WCML layout to represent 1962-1997.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Pantographs.  I would quite like them to be remote controlled - and I'd really like some way to

raise them to a level just short of the wires (without touching the wires) rather than have them

extending half way to the sky when raised.  If that makes sense to anybody...

 

This is where using servos really wins, you can program the positions into the decoder just by adjusting CVs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for an 87 but would like both. I'm not too concerned about duplication, though the mention of price does concern me a little. I expect you can't give ball park figures yet, but could you say that e.g and 86 will be X% more than an 87?

 

I'm confident the final product will be superb. but I also would urge discussion with Oxford Rail - if you happen to have a decent working relationship with them.

 

Edit: if you find that Oxford have plans to do the 86, then naturally the 87 would be a more logical follow on. I don't think other manufacturers will be a concern at this stage, I think it is unlikely Hornby will commit to either of these and Bachmann would be many years in the making anyway. 

 

Quality wise - if you match the Bachmann that would be excellent! I do quite like the idea of the pantograph raising / lowering, but I think I would only appreciate this on one model when I'm likely to have a few.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I forgot to add to my earlier post - not really fussed about motorised pantographs - seems a bit 'gimmicky' to me and can't really see the point. Just my humble opinion of course.

Agree . I would have thought it much more important to moderate the cost rather than incorporate whizz bang gimmicks that will increase cost and possibly increase design/ production time. Haven't voted on this one as much rather see mainstream release from the big boys , ideally Hornby or Oxford. Certainly Oxford seem to have a peculiar range of models in line from NBR 4 planks to Mk3s . If there is joined up thinking, surely an 87 or 86 would follow.

 

Edited . I don't quite understand the coreless motor bit, but I run DC with Track cleaners . It works for me , a large loft layout that I seldom have to clean track on. I'm using Gaugemaster D controllers . Not sure if that's feedback or not , but if these items are Coreless and not compatible I'm not about to change my set up for 1 loco.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a pan that can be raised and lowered remotely as I can see that it is something that would be prototypical in operation. AC electrics, when stabled lower their pans and when coasting through neutral sections. Current collection is not important in either DC or DCC operation. So working pans is a yes from me.

 

I too would also like to know a ball park figure on how much this would cost along with how the crowdfunding process works.

 

Cheers

 

Shane

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a pan that can be raised and lowered remotely as I can see that it is something that would be prototypical in operation. AC electrics, when stabled lower their pans and when coasting through neutral sections. Current collection is not important in either DC or DCC operation. So working pans is a yes from me.

 

I too would also like to know a ball park figure on how much this would cost along with how the crowdfunding process works.

 

Cheers

 

Shane

I fully agree with Shane,

 

Having an operational pantograph (i.e. one with the ability to raise and lower) is actually prototypical. I do not see it as a gimmick.

 

Moreover for me personally also having a working pantograph (i.e. collecting power from OHE) is also not a gimmick and I look at it as something all the more realistic. However I do agree it has it's drawbacks. And so I vote for my first suggestion and as I said I fully agree with Shane. We have steam and diesels with simulated puffing smoke, so I really really do feel that having a pantograph be able to raise and lower remotely is also a nice thing.

 

I also fully understand that such features are not everyone's cup of tea...so designing a model in such a way where the pantograpgh can be motorized easily and having a motorizing kit sold as a spare, it would be really nice.

 

In this picture one can see various areas of the roof that look like panels (even where the pantograph sits).

http://s174.photobucket.com/user/Jim_Smith-Wright/media/model%20railways/87roof.jpg.html

If that is designed as a removable piece and if DJM decides this is a good idea replacement kits containing an pantograpgh with the servo already hooked up could be produced. It literally will be a drop-in piece of kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a pan that can be raised and lowered remotely as I can see that it is something that would be prototypical in operation. AC electrics, when stabled lower their pans and when coasting through neutral sections. Current collection is not important in either DC or DCC operation. So working pans is a yes from me.

 

I too would also like to know a ball park figure on how much this would cost along with how the crowdfunding process works.

 

Cheers

 

Shane

 

I think a loco raising and lowering the pan would be far from prototypical. Locos do not lower their pan running through neutral sections, and only lower their pans when stabled for long periods. Typically a loco may not lower its pan at all during the working day. The only trains that you could reasonably get away with realistically lowering/raising pans are those which are dual voltage and changing supply, or those with two pans that swap over according to direction - eg some of the early electric locos, Pendolinos etc, and even then only prototypical if you are working in to a terminus. i suppose it would be of benefit to those modelling an Electric TMD, but how many are doing that?

 

I fear we will get a lot of layouts unrealistically lowering pans just because they can rather than because it is prototypical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would much rather have a pan that conducts than one that can be raised and lowered, though the two features are not mutually exclusive, of course.

There has been a long discussion along similar lines about the Bachmann 90, where I expressed the same view.

In this instance, my preference would have to be an 87 with working AEI Cross-arm pantograph in Rail Blue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great news. I voted for an 86 to get the DJM treatment (somehow 87 looks like something's missing from the front?).

It'll go nicely with the Oxford Rail Mk3s.

InterCity Executive, Swallow and Railfreight grey/Distribution for liveries please.

And the more bells and whistles the better; a functional pantograph sounds brilliant!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, I've voted for the 86 personally, I would definitely purchase one to complement the forthcoming Bachmann 90. However, the only livery I personally would be interested in is RfD, so either an 86/4 or 86/6. Both models would be good choices, I know a lot of people aren't happy with the Heljan 86 and Hornby haven't touched the 87 for years. If you're also taking opinions on powered pantographs etc, personally I wouldn't have a need for them, but I'm sure some modellers would. Anyway, best of luck, and hope to hear some positive news soon regarding a potential new model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree with Shane,

 

Having an operational pantograph (i.e. one with the ability to raise and lower) is actually prototypical. I do not see it as a gimmick.

 

Moreover for me personally also having a working pantograph (i.e. collecting power from OHE) is also not a gimmick and I look at it as something all the more realistic. However I do agree it has it's drawbacks. And so I vote for my first suggestion and as I said I fully agree with Shane. We have steam and diesels with simulated puffing smoke, so I really really do feel that having a pantograph be able to raise and lower remotely is also a nice thing.

 

I also fully understand that such features are not everyone's cup of tea...so designing a model in such a way where the pantograpgh can be motorized easily and having a motorizing kit sold as a spare, it would be really nice.

 

In this picture one can see various areas of the roof that look like panels (even where the pantograph sits).

http://s174.photobucket.com/user/Jim_Smith-Wright/media/model%20railways/87roof.jpg.html

If that is designed as a removable piece and if DJM decides this is a good idea replacement kits containing an pantograpgh with the servo already hooked up could be produced. It literally will be a drop-in piece of kit.

 

As long as the pantographs are produced sprung upwards, (with a facility to lock them down) with an actuating arm that protrudes inside, it should be quite straightforward to make provision to just clip a servo in with a horn attached that just bears on to whatever actuating arm protrudes inside from the pantograph. Plug the servo into the PCB and plug in the Plu22 decoder, refit the body and away you go. A fully specified loco like this is going to be able to make use of at least nine function outputs to justify going PluX:-

 

2x pantographs

2x headlights

2x tail lights

2x cab lights

1x corridor lights

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave

 

Not sure if the 86/3's got a mention and also the 86/2s in blue all with and without their SF/AEI pans and names/pre-names with and without headcode boxes .....as i have said almost too many variants of the 86 to choose from. The 86/4s in executive livery should be mentioned too as I see plenty of calls for current Railfreight versions but I would hate to think that on any launch you would cater for at least one version from most eras to keep everyone sweet.  Youll be a busy boy if you go with the 86 from now to beyond retirement as you just wont be able to get the liveries out to satisfy demand.

 

On the Class 87 front I said I would look my book by O S Nock up on the bogie modification - I think I was wrong on this as it appears the modification was carried out on an 86 as an experiment and then all the new 87s came with the modification as built so the frames on the model can all be identical or so it seems unless others know different.

 

In terms of 86 and 87 body length and width and cab dimensions, grille placements and other key measurements - does anybody know if they are identical, bar the obviously different 2 and 3 windscreen arrangement?  If so is it not worth working on both models with swappable mouldings for the cab noses just like the Bachmann Class 37s?  Same wheelbases and wheel diameters I believe and bogie centres so only different frames would be required on a modular like chassis with probably air brake only equipment on the 87s buffer beam.........this could all be academic as Bachmann have this work all done on the 85 (which it too shares the basic chassis dimensions with the 86/87) and could already be planning a crossover to follow the 90........it could go the other way as the 85 is also very similar to the Class 81 which many have called for.

 

The model might be dimensionally perfect but its success could fall on the quality of the liveries - personally I have always favoured Bachmanns and Hornbys interpretation of BR Blue......far less of a fan of Dapols interpretation of blue and also the depth of the yellow they use on the fronts and cabsides which appears to be marred by the base coat not being light enough to lift the yellow to the correct shade.

 

A bulled up 87004 " Britannia "with AEI pan, silver buffers, glossy blue paint and white wheel rims could also sit on the long list of possible models as seen on royal train duties. 

 

If the 87 was a pukka model I fear for my credit rating.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...