JSpencer Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 A welcome announcement, but if Virgin isn't being produced gives me a chance to finnish off my Lima model. Initial comments; not sure about the moulded on jumpers, and now Ive had a chance to look at the pictures on here, yes the side grill vents being proud of the upper bodyside is a little odd, other it looks a nice model, look forward to seeing more EPs etc NL Looking at the EP, I have an impression that it is a 3D print rather than a tooling EP. You probably cannot get the print fine enough for the side grills and things, likewise any jumpers would look moulded. Hopefully this will be explained in the next engine shed. Last thing Hornby or anyone else wants is an expensive OH electric not much better than the Limby one it replaces. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanspareil Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 I was told a virgin 87 is planned in batch 2. I assume the loco couplings will follow the recent standard Hornby practice of being body as opposed to (as Bachmann do) being bogie mounted? I am sure people can point to for and againsts for both but in my person experience the Hornby solution gives me no end of trouble, mostly with double heading but also while hauling on very tight curves (coupling rarely swings back to centre). I have never tried push-pull operation (as of course is prototypical with an 87) with a body mounted coupling but I can see this being interesting and a potential problem! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James90012 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 Pushing with the Heljan 86 was alright although the coupling is a bit flimsy so in my experience it bends, and the buffers push on the corridor connector. I think for the 87 it will pretty much be bolted to a WC set for me, so I will investigate a more substantial semi permanent solution. At the same time the HST coupling is pretty resilient when pushing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted November 27, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 27, 2016 I was told a virgin 87 is planned in batch 2. I assume the loco couplings will follow the recent standard Hornby practice of being body as opposed to (as Bachmann do) being bogie mounted? I am sure people can point to for and againsts for both but in my person experience the Hornby solution gives me no end of trouble, mostly with double heading but also while hauling on very tight curves (coupling rarely swings back to centre). I have never tried push-pull operation (as of course is prototypical with an 87) with a body mounted coupling but I can see this being interesting and a potential problem! Would Kadees as replacements help ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 OK my point - class 87s have a special place in my memory, but they would maybe need a comparable class 86 as companion sooner or later. There may be enough of a hint in the description here that Hornby are thinking along those lines already... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
metropolitan cammell Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Would Kadees as replacements help ? Roco or Hornby Roco style couplings are what is required especially if used with coaches with close coupling cams, being a solid joint when coupled would proberly be better for propelling anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wigan Wallgate OO Gauge Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Should Hornby wish to have the livery diagram as used by paint supremo Phil at Top Shed 1A, I'm sure someone could oblige.... now I know I'm not Hornby but they would be very useful for me!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Some shots of the stereo sample shown yesterday. Those bodyside grilles are sticking out quite a bit arent they! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 These are definitely 3D prints, you can see the layers in the glass. Certainly we should point out errors to Hornby and they can decide if its just a limit of the 3D printer or an issue in the detailed CAD design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGR Hooper! Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Since a dedicated thread is already up and running here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117244-Hornby-class-87-confirmed-newly-tooled-version-for-2017/page-1 can this one be either merged or locked (whichever is better)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGR Hooper! Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 The fact that it doesn't match the image of the CAD work, tells me that the 3D print's CAD was probably altered a bit (for the very reason of printers having limitations).https://admin.Hornby.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Class-87-A-2.jpg If anyone is interested in asking any question's I will be sending one of the reps at Hornby an email. I'll be most happy to pass on any comments and get their take on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrel Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Is it just me or is there a very big curve in the body. Look at the cab doors in particular it curves in at the bottom of the body then back out at the top. Almost like the opposite of a tumblehome Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew F Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 That could be an illusion accentuated by the handrails that are curved concave in the middle. It is a 3D print though so we can't go by it too much. For what it's worth, the front windscreens don't look wide or tall enough and for some reason I'm reminded of a Blackpool tram because of this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike at C&M Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 The recessed glazing of the 3D print hinders comparing the window size, as your eye picks up the solidness of the inside of the window frame. However, to my eyes, the depth of yellow showing below the lip of the cab roof suggests to me that the front cab windows do need heightening slightly. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted November 28, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 28, 2016 (edited) 87029_05_C.jpg The recessed glazing of the 3D print hinders comparing the window size, as your eye picks up the solidness of the inside of the window frame. However, to my eyes, the depth of yellow showing below the lip of the cab roof suggests to me that the front cab windows do need heightening slightly. That comparison also shows a significant discretion in the shape of the rain strip over the cab door, but I think we need to wait until we see a better CAD image as the 3D print seems to have a lot of compromise. The front of the cab roof on the print is also wrong, the real thing is not a single curve, it is two flat panels with straight edges and a distinct "widow's peak" at the join whereas the shadow on the 3D print would suggest that it has been modelled as a single curved panel. See the red line on this and compare to the unmarked photo in the quoted post. Andi Edited November 28, 2016 by Dagworth Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted November 28, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 28, 2016 I was told a virgin 87 is planned in batch 2. I assume the loco couplings will follow the recent standard Hornby practice of being body as opposed to (as Bachmann do) being bogie mounted? I am sure people can point to for and againsts for both but in my person experience the Hornby solution gives me no end of trouble, mostly with double heading but also while hauling on very tight curves (coupling rarely swings back to centre). I have never tried push-pull operation (as of course is prototypical with an 87) with a body mounted coupling but I can see this being interesting and a potential problem! Have you seen this thread? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117322-warley/ Tell them directly, they are all ears and I can vouch for them listening at Warley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 (edited) My pre-order is with my retailer. With the 87 taken care off, this leaves the 81 to 84 classes for the future. Looking at some of the shots, the "garden shed" mid-roof there may be a changeover switch for track or overhead pantograph power collection Edited November 28, 2016 by Pandora Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 With the 87 taken care off, this leaves the 81 to 84 classes for the future. And the Class 86. Heljan have given up on their version and the current Hornby model is almost as old as the old Lima 87. Plus the 86 came in more versions than the 86/2, so the AL6/86 is a wide open goal at the moment, which hopefully Hornby might well be plugging as we speak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Looking at some of the shots, the "garden shed" mid-roof there may be a changeover switch for track or overhead pantograph power collection The "Garden Shed" is the transformer header tank, and the bit sticking out that I think you're referring to is the explosion vent that is supposed to be there. We'll have to wait and see what Hornby do about a changeover switch, but I doubt it'll have one if they've said it'll use their non-functioning plastic High speed pan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted November 28, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 28, 2016 And the Class 86. Heljan have given up on their version and the current Hornby model is almost as old as the old Lima 87 Older I believe. Andi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted November 28, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 28, 2016 The Hornby 86 was a very good model in its day apart from the truly hideous pantograph. With a decent pantograph it can be made very presentable. In fact I thought that the ultimate indictment of the Heljan model was that despite a far better mechanism and some lovely under frame detail the overall impression didn't move things on much further than the old Hornby model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Older I believe. Andi All I know is both were exciting and new when I was at secondary school before I took my O levels. I'm 54 in January. On that basis I think we're overdue a new model. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold stovepipe Posted November 28, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 28, 2016 (edited) Older I believe. Andi According to the oracle (Pat Hammond) Hornby were going to do a class 87, but they switched to the class 86 when they learned Lima were already doing one. Hornby's 86 came out in 1981, but I'm not sure when Lima's 87 became available...though ISTR a review in MRC in late-1979 or possibly 1980? Anyway I'm pleased we will get another after 37-odd years... Edited November 28, 2016 by stovepipe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cravensdmufan Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Attention AC electric enthusiasts! There is a poll on Hornby's website asking people to vote for their favourite of the three new traction announcements. "Our" loco is currently coming in last! Get voting! http://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/stop-press-exclusive-warley-announcement/ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Well the latest Engine Shed notes the need to present a full range so that something appeals to everyone, so I think the omens look good for an 86 or an 87 this year. Add to this DJM saying he wasn't progressing an 86 or 87 because there were two manufacturers working on both, then I think the announcement of the 2017 range could be pretty interesting DJM has also dropped a hint, the class 84, the NRM loco, was being looked at by another manufacturer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now