Jump to content
 

Hornby Class 87 - Confirmed Newly Tooled Version for 2017 !


ThaneofFife
 Share

Recommended Posts

To be honest there is not a single loco/unit that would be allowed under my OLE with a pan direct from the factory, they all without exception have springs that need to be weakened...

 

Same here, but it would be nice not to have to go through that process for a change.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind the lights, the most important omission is a proper usable BW high speed metal sprung pantograph.  Where do you think it gets its power from?  Why concern yourself with nitty gritty details when its description is a '25 Kv Class 87 loco' but it cannot draw any power from the OLE?

 

Lovely model & I would buy one but it does not have a useable pantograph.  I would love to buy one with Executive Livery but I will now have to wait for the Bachmann Class 90.

 

Peter

Must be pretty messy pouring diesel into your models.... live steam I can understand, but where does the coal go?

 

Seriously though, I just don’t get this power collection from overhead wires arguement.... in the olden day’s, the Hornby overhead cantenary allowed, with a suitably equiped electric loco for power collection via the overhead wire, allowing for two loco’s (the other picking up via the rails) to be on the same bit of track with out the need for isolating sections....

move things on nearly 35 odd years and we have dcc which,to me renders power collection from overhead wires obsolete and a completely unnecessary expense....

Link to post
Share on other sites

As juvenile as your name modification is, as a member of the fairer sex I am disgusted (thankfully not insulted as other ladies would) by that choice of word and nothing I have said on this thread warrants any juvenile name calling. Grow up!

 

I'm out!

 Whoa there...

 

Not defending any intention, but when I typed 'hooper' it was autocorrected (?) to hooker!

 

Maybe an honest, if somewhat lazy, oversight?

 

Just sayin'. :yes:

Edited by leopardml2341
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

think i would only consider live overheads if i could go full on balls deep no compromises throughout the whole layout so realistic curves and long flowing high speed hand-built turnouts for starters with space not being at a premium.  oh and EM or P4 gauge.

Edited by ThaneofFife
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst not being an expert on the subject of OHLE - I think that Hornby are playing it safe - why produce a feature that many people will not use, have the hassle offering repairs on, adding to the R&D bill, plus add time to the production of the model, to add the feature!

 

It was never specified as having a working pantograph, and I would image many "die-hard" OHLE modellers will have the capability of adding further refinements.  As for the Class 87, no doubt if its popular it will serve as a Catalyst to develop more 25KV models and possibly features, which may even get back dated to the Class 87.  Although if we look at things the the Class 50. 31 & 56 - the fans don't rotate now - which some modellers favour.

 

Regards,

 

C.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was a working of the pantograph and working on the wires then decoder would blow because you have to much power and the decoder would not cope.

thats why company do not have pontograph working on the wires

 

???!!  Wow. Well informed stuff here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

If it was a working of the pantograph and working on the wires then decoder would blow because you have to much power and the decoder would not cope.

thats why company do not have pontograph working on the wires

I am a lineman for the county...

 

Cheers

 

Darius

Edited by Darius43
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Think fans of the 87 should be thankful we have a brand new long awaited model at all regardless of whether the pan is metal or conducts juice.

 

Imagine the floods of tears if Hornby were to have said well we had a new 87 in the making but we canned the idea as we felt the RRP needed to include a functioning pantograph would not be profitable enough for us.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I do question the logic in retooling models which were originally tooled in China in the mid90’s onwards

The detail is pretty good as are many drive systems (though DCC fans may disagree).

 

Though the 87 (and 86,90 and 91) all belong to an era much earlier, and even with a decent paint job look old.

I think chances of an 89 are greater than a 91 in the current climate.

 

Personally I thought the Lima 92 was pretty good and if Hornby had modified it for separate hand rails etc, plus a new drive it would have made sense, that said both Hornby and Lima’s 92’s were really poor sellers in their day.

 

I’m glad the 87 has been done, you can see age separating the toolings, much more so than I saw with the Duchess, jury is still out on the LN though, it was a Mainline tooling postponed until Bachmann days but I don’t find it that bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't want 25KV going to a DCC chip, probably best not to touch it either.

 

Can you imagine your electricity bill? Lol.... just imagine, you put you class 87 on track raise the pantograph to the wire, and all the lights in the surburb dim down.... ghee you’d Black the neighbour hood out if you double headed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

, that said both Hornby and Lima’s 92’s were really poor sellers in their day.

 

 

 

Does that prove that 3rd rail electrics don't sell?

 

(Coat, hat and going................)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I thought the Lima 92 was pretty good and if Hornby had modified it for separate hand rails etc, plus a new drive it would have made sense, that said both Hornby and Lima’s 92’s were really poor sellers in their day.

 

I was working at the Signalbox when they came out. Both were announced at more or less the same time, but lima did offer a few differnt locos in their first year while Hornby offered just one. I think - when the real locos were first delivered - they were located mainly around the channel tunnel - which if correct limited them mainly to the south east (and French coast).

 

Of the 2, everything was pre fitted on the Hornby 92, it also had working lights. But Lima's came out first, had better looking pantos and looked better all round (Hornby's wheels shiny, too small, horrible big pantos, the same used on their other electrics, fat bogies). You were required to fit roof details yourself on the Lima model which did put a few customers off.

 

As to sales... the Lima one sold very well, stock would come in and go out, it was nearly as popular IMHO as their class 59 released a year or 2 before. The Hornby one was hard to shift. It came out a few months after the Lima and people could compare them in the shop before buying and most went for Lima.

 

As for pantos on the 87, I'm surprised the blue one with the cross pan, is plastic. They did a fine metal one on their 71 which whilst not quite as fine as DJMs plastic one, is far more robust (if it does spring apart, you can fix it, if the plastic DJM breaks - and it is very fine therefore delicate and fragile with thin plastic folds on the corners - its dead).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which model are people referring to when they state "the pantograph is plastic on a metal base" - The Inter City/VT version?

 

Hornby magazine states twice that the GEC Crossarm pantograph on the BR Blue version is die cast.  It doesn't say anything to suggest that only the base is die cast - not on this version anyway. 

Edited by ThaneofFife
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously though, I just don’t get this power collection from overhead wires arguement.... in the olden day’s, the Hornby overhead cantenary allowed, with a suitably equiped electric loco for power collection via the overhead wire, allowing for two loco’s (the other picking up via the rails) to be on the same bit of track with out the need for isolating sections....

move things on nearly 35 odd years and we have dcc which,to me renders power collection from overhead wires obsolete and a completely unnecessary expense....

 

Your thinking is based solely on the notion that the only reason for having the overhead wire is to allow for a second loco. It is perhaps unfortunate that this was used as a selling point by manufacturers at the time, much like the 'only two wires are needed' notion for DCC.

It is not a question of perceived obsolescence or expense - its a matter of getting as close as reasonably possible to how the real thing operates - far closer than steam (other than the discontinued Hornby items) or diesel outline could expect to achieve in the smaller scales. Overhead wires are part of the infrastructure of the railway, so in principle should have as much attention paid to them as the track itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is pretty much expected considering the fact that the design of the prototype itself results in the overall build less robust than that of a scissors/diamond pantograph. We just need to be careful and handle it with care.

 

 

A single arm pan is more likely to have an Auto Drop Device should the carbon pickup strips or entire head become damaged. I'm guessing the one in the video doesn't have one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

If he stands on a bit of dry timber he'll be fine... ;-)

 

D

 

 

Marigold washing up gloves would be fine too, although the state of Joanna Lumley's hair indicates that fairy liquid is electrically conductive so best make sure they're dry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...