Hornby Announce a Re-tooled Class 91 for 2020

[Roy Langridge]

37 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

Clearly my preferences don't represent everyone, but frankly if the Hornby 91 has the right shape and livery, I can live with an 8 pin interface. 

The question really, though, is why do we have to live with it? In the grand scheme of things, the cost of a 21 pin interface and a couple more switches is absolutely negligible. 
 

Roy

[MGR Hooper!]

7 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

The question really, though, is why do we have to live with it? In the grand scheme of things, the cost of a 21 pin interface and a couple more switches is absolutely negligible. 
 

Roy

 

There's quite a few people who are happy with a basic setup... therefore it's based on personal opinion. Judging by the number of comments on manufacturer's facebook pages, a majority of people have absolutely no idea what the difference is between a 4/6/8/21-pin DCC setup. Most people aren't worried about the individual functions of directional lighting, most aren't too fussed about a poseable, sprung, plastic, metal, servo controlled pantograph. Rmweb has a good breed of proper modellers who do care about these things, but rmweb represents a small part of the hobby.

 

Before anyone gets any bright ideas of me "supporting: Hornby, it's just an observation.

Edited January 22, 2020 by MGR Hooper!

[Roy Langridge]

49 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

There's quite a few people who are happy with a basic setup... therefore it's based on personal opinion. Judging by the number of comments on manufacturer's facebook pages, a majority of people have absolutely no idea what the difference is between a 4/6/8/21-pin DCC setup. Most people aren't worried about the individual functions of directional lighting, most aren't too fussed about a poseable, sprung, plastic, metal, servo controlled pantograph. Rmweb has a good breed of proper modellers who do care about these things, but rmweb represents a small part of the hobby.

I think you miss my point. The cost of meeting the expectations of those who do desire more functionality is negligible, so why does Hornby continue to utilise what is, quite frankly, old technology?

 

Hornby do understand the difference between the chip configurations and the capabilities that go with them, yet still insist on using an option that constrains both themselves and the modeller. 
 

As for “most people”, if you discount collectors* who will just display their stock, many people now look for better lighting options. 
 

*I mean no offence by this, simply that the whole point of the DCC discussion is about functional capability. 
 

Roy

Edited January 22, 2020 by Roy Langridge
Typo

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

9 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

The question really, though, is why do we have to live with it? In the grand scheme of things, the cost of a 21 pin interface and a couple more switches is absolutely negligible.

I would suggest that the answer is most likely because the large majority of Hornby end users that also use DCC are satisfied with the capability that comes with an 8 pin socket. I often remove sockets of any description from models ( any maker) and make four soldered joints to get the one DCC capability I truly require, the excellent independent motor control. Lights, sounds, operating doo-dads, meh.

 

The acquisition cost of introducing 21 pin decoder sockets to the range isn't negligible for Hornby. There would have to be at least one Hornby 21 pin decoder product added to the range. While this would be a modest cost in truth, unless their customer - the retailers - tell them that they are losing significant sales over this, why take that cost?

[Legend]

5 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

There's quite a few people who are happy with a basic setup... therefore it's based on personal opinion. Judging by the number of comments on manufacturer's facebook pages, a majority of people have absolutely no idea what the difference is between a 4/6/8/21-pin DCC setup. Most people aren't worried about the individual functions of directional lighting, most aren't too fussed about a poseable, sprung, plastic, metal, servo controlled pantograph. Rmweb has a good breed of proper modellers who do care about these things, but rmweb represents a small part of the hobby.

 

Before anyone gets any bright ideas of me "supporting: Hornby, it's just an observation.

 

Yes agree . Also remembering that as well as the Collector market , for those that actually run their trains , many still use DC analogue  so discussions on 4/6/8/21/next 18 just sail above our heads .  

[Pete the Elaner]

3 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

The acquisition cost of introducing 21 pin decoder sockets to the range isn't negligible for Hornby. There would have to be at least one Hornby 21 pin decoder product added to the range. While this would be a modest cost in truth, unless their customer - the retailers - tell them that they are losing significant sales over this, why take that cost?

Sapphire was a 21 pin decoder, so it wouldn't be something completely new.

To use the same old 8 pin socket in a new tooling seems a bit of a half-hearted effort after Bachmann's 90 has shown what is possible.

[adb968008]

18 hours ago, 7013 said:

It does seem rather silly producing the 91 with no new Mk4 stock or a DVT.

Never been convinced on the demand for a new 91 to begin with.

 

The peak demand is probably now/next few months as they exit service then I suspect like all prior “end of service” types before it.. interest will wane.

A career built mostly on 1 coach type, predominantly 1 route.

If the 91 has a future, its likely to be overseas, out of sight / mind.

The loco on its own I dont think will set the world on fire unless Hornby rapidly overdose on all the celebrity liveries whilst they are still here.

 

Now if someone were to retrofit a 91 to the APT (its not beyond the realms of science) and make a luxury non-tilting train from whats left, then theres a chance Hornby could do well out of both toolings.. Ive never seen anything to suggest that might happen I should add, but then no one thought a VEP could resurrect the Brighton Belle either, so you never know.

 

Otherwise if the usual model of a few here and there each year are announced, with no new stock, I can see interest fading quite fast... Theres a big gap between an 87 and a 91 when it comes to variety, excitement, interest and layout usability.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by adb968008

[Legend]

I think there's a little more mileage in the Class 91 than you think adb968008. Yes restricted to East coast Main line  but that's a pretty big geographical spread KX . Leeds, Newcastle , Edinburgh , Glasgow Central.   You could argue same about A4s and Deltics if it comes to that . So there's probably a market for 1 but apparently not 2 Class 91s . Lots of liveries . I thought they were going to have further use with other operators in UK  but must admit its easy losing track of everything that's going on in the real railway just now .

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

7 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

...To use the same old 8 pin socket in a new tooling seems a bit of a half-hearted effort after Bachmann's 90 has shown what is possible.

This really needs retailer input. I am sure Hornby are aware of the larger competitors doings, and will gauge the market reaction by what the retailers tell them. So Bachmann have been using 21 pin in much of their product for over a decade, how does that work for the retailer? What about the 6 pin and Next18?  Meanwhile Heljan too have been generally using 8 pin; although I see that has changed recently, they appear to be shifting to 21 pin.

 

(I was totally unaware that Hornby had a 21pin decoder in the range, they really promoted that; and I do visit a specialist model railway dealer's premises, well stuffed with Hornby amongst other RTR OO...)

 

18 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

...A career built mostly on 1 coach type, predominantly 1 route...

...and the final flourish of 'comfort first' train travel from the indigenous product on the contemporary railway. Gone, but never to be forgotten. It was enjoyable, every time without exception.

[Pete the Elaner]

21 minutes ago, Legend said:

I think there's a little more mileage in the Class 91 than you think adb968008. Yes restricted to East coast Main line  but that's a pretty big geographical spread KX . Leeds, Newcastle , Edinburgh , Glasgow Central.   You could argue same about A4s and Deltics if it comes to that . So there's probably a market for 1 but apparently not 2 Class 91s . Lots of liveries . I thought they were going to have further use with other operators in UK  but must admit its easy losing track of everything that's going on in the real railway just now .

I agree. Class 91's ran the fastest services on a high profile route, so this will make them attractive.

 

As mentioned, the A4s & Deltics were also route-limited & didn't last any longer. So were the LMS Pacifics & their careers were cut a little short by electrification & the Princesses in particular had less major variations & possibly 2 more liveries than the 91s.

A difference is that none of these require OLE to look right. I can understand this: good looking OLE is fiddly to build (I had a go but wasn't impressed with the result & will try again). Many don't like it either (shame on you luddites! )

This may reduce the class 91s appeal in comparison with a Deltic.

 

I am sure Hornby will produce Mk4s again because it will help sales of the 91. I am sure they will also want to sell the 91 in a set, so Mk4s will be needed for this.

Will these be a re-release their old Mk4s, an update of the old tooling or a completely re-tooled model?

[adb968008]

5 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Will these be a re-release their old Mk4s, an update of the old tooling or a completely re-tooled model?

The coach end is a separate piece already, so making a “buffer” end coach isnt hard or expensive... it looks like it was designed with this in mind originally.

 

The steps are a separate piece screwed onto the bogie.. turn the screw upside down and screw it into the body instead.

 

Then add a pivoting NEM coupling to the underside and use the coupling-free bogie tooling they already have for the DVT bogie and voila you have an upgraded coach.

Retooling all the variants would be expensive, and as the buffet has no future and a tooling for a buffered end coach would be expensive, doing more with less and ending up with a £35+/- coach wouldn't be a bad outcome, and mk4’s look to be a better long term future with the WCML and Wales, as both the 67/90 are both lower end toolings (railroad+) these could fit well.

[Adamphillip]

well seeing as Hornby are the only port of call for buying the class 91 now it seems we're either going to have to put pressure on Hornby to deliver a top quality model, with top quality DCC [21pin] or we're going to have to be ingenious and fit our own 21pin sockets and rewire the lights!

[MGR Hooper!]

Once again from Hatton's, slightly enhanced.

 

 

 

 

NOTE:
- In terms of Hornby, their 3D printed samples are just to check tolerances and not to show off detail.
- Hornby's 3D printed samples are usually a mix-n-match of many variants, so there will be different details.
- The 3D print isn't a high-resolution one, so detail is hard to see.
- A lot of separately added details are absent.
- There's no undercoat of primer and therefore the shiny light grey plastic makes it harder to see details.

Edited January 23, 2020 by MGR Hooper!

[andyman7]

19 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

The question really, though, is why do we have to live with it? In the grand scheme of things, the cost of a 21 pin interface and a couple more switches is absolutely negligible. 
 

Roy

It's swings and roundabouts - I don't have any spare 21 pin decoders but do have quite a few 8 pin ones so from a purely selfish viewpoint the cost is not negligible.

[shunny]

A few points here, firstly the operation area should increase soon with planned train from Stirling to London via west coast using class 91s and Mk4 and 67s for Wales so there will be future liveries etc hopefully could make new Mk4 more viable

Secondly the 8 pin socket I would argue is a bigger issue for modern image modellers who tend to use far more Dcc functions and high end decoders many feel Hornby don't understand the market truly most of the competition are using 21 or 22 pin decoders fully separate lighting options.

Finally Hornby have a tendacy with modern liveries to have a bit of a it's close enough attitude an example being the caledonian sleeper teal which is a blue and nothing like the real thing but even after being advised the 67 was the wrong colour still used it for the class 92!

 

I have no doubt Hornby can make a great looking 91 but the Bachmann 90 has shown what is possible and I will still order one but I would have  preferred the cavalex with all the extras. 

[scottrains29]

2 hours ago, shunny said:

A few points here, firstly the operation area should increase soon with planned train from Stirling to London via west coast using class 91s and Mk4

LNER have also operated the 91s to Stirling, the furthest north they've been. I'm sure we'll still be seeing the 91s running in the UK for many more years with other operators.

[G-BOAF]

Looks fantaistic. especially the underframe details and brake disks!

 

Difficult to tell from the 3D print, but are the NEM pockets mounted on cams for close coupling (bearing in mind any coupling to coaches is using pullman buffing plates and should be touching on curves)? I would hate this to be a repeat of the HST where there is an unsightly gap between coach and loco.

And especially for pushing a rake, a fixed bar (or roco coupler) is a much better arrangement than a tension lock, so its not just a cosmetic preference

Please advise Mr Hornby

Edited January 24, 2020 by G-BOAF

[Pete the Elaner]

3 hours ago, shunny said:

 

I have no doubt Hornby can make a great looking 91 but the Bachmann 90 has shown what is possible and I will still order one but I would have  preferred the cavalex with all the extras. 

Hornby's 87 looked nice on the outside, but inside was not so good.

Their own decoder was too big to fit in the space they engineered for it, so this was a bit of a shot in the foot. They also left nowhere for a speaker. Speaker location was marked on the back of the PCB but there was insufficient space to actually fit anything.

By comparison, Bachmann's earlier 85 was a simple plug-in decoder fitment & a speaker mount point was included. It was just a matter of fitting one. This was a basic speaker but this was perfectly suitable for class 85 sounds.

Bachmann's 90 was a step forward. The speaker was already included so it was just a matter of fitting a decoder, for which there was sufficient space.

A working pan & fully DCC switchable lighting features were a step forward.

 

It would be disappointing if Hornby's 91 shared the same internal design as the 87.

[dogbox321]

4 hours ago, shunny said:

A few points here, firstly the operation area should increase soon with planned train from Stirling to London via west coast using class 91s and Mk4 and 67s for Wales so there will be future liveries etc hopefully could make new Mk4 more viable

Secondly the 8 pin socket I would argue is a bigger issue for modern image modellers who tend to use far more Dcc functions and high end decoders many feel Hornby don't understand the market truly most of the competition are using 21 or 22 pin decoders fully separate lighting options.

Finally Hornby have a tendacy with modern liveries to have a bit of a it's close enough attitude an example being the caledonian sleeper teal which is a blue and nothing like the real thing but even after being advised the 67 was the wrong colour still used it for the class 92!

 

I have no doubt Hornby can make a great looking 91 but the Bachmann 90 has shown what is possible and I will still order one but I would have  preferred the cavalex with all the extras. 

 

Sorry if its already been mentioned, but theres soon the Grand Central to Blackpool with 91's and Mk4's too.  Plus who could resist a Class 91 in Europheonix   or 2?

 

Regards,

 

C

[Pete the Elaner]

Just now, dogbox321 said:

 

Sorry if its already been mentioned, but theres soon the Grand Central to Blackpool with 91's and Mk4's too.  Plus who could resist a Class 91 in Europheonix   or 2?

 

Regards,

 

C

There has been talk of those services being handled by class 90s with Mk4s.

Apparently these have better acceleration, the WCML crews already have knowledge of them & the higher top speed of the 91s cannot be used on the WCML.

I don't think it has been finalised yet.

[dogbox321]

30 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

There has been talk of those services being handled by class 90s with Mk4s.

Apparently these have better acceleration, the WCML crews already have knowledge of them & the higher top speed of the 91s cannot be used on the WCML.

I don't think it has been finalised yet.

 

I were talking to a former colleague who works for Arriva GC the other day......  But like you say everything changes, and often will.  Until it happens....  For the CL 91's after LNER finish with them, very few places can use them to their full potential, but Blackpool to London with 2 intermediate stops will give them as good a run as anywhere I would have thought.

 

Regards,

 

C.

[PaulRhB]

43 minutes ago, scumcat said:

I’m not convinced about pre fitted speakers. I don’t want to pay for something I’m not going to use

I can see the point in something like the 009 Baldwin where it’s in a different part of the body to where you put the decoder in but if you’re taking the body shell off anyway it seems a bit wasteful. 
In some of my Tillig HOm locos it sits beneath the circuit board which when screwed back down seals it over the sound box and makes the contacts. Neat bit of thinking, taking moments to install and no soldering of delicate contacts. 

[Pete the Elaner]

18 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

I can see the point in something like the 009 Baldwin where it’s in a different part of the body to where you put the decoder in but if you’re taking the body shell off anyway it seems a bit wasteful. 
 

I agree, but I have no idea where Bachmann put the speaker in their class 90. It is certainly not on the same board as the decoder & it not visible with the roof off. The model would need to be dismantled further to find it.

The decoder fits under the roof panel, which is fairly easy to remove. Being a 21 pin type, it is just a flat board with a socket.

The speaker which the 85 is designed to accept is a cheap model, but the class does not produce a deep sound like you need from a diesel or steam loco: it has a variety of whirring & humming sounds. I doubt the 90 has an expensive speaker either, but it doesn't sound like it needs upgrading.

 

The point is if Bachmann can include fully switchable lighting, a working pantograph & a speaker, why can't Hornby?

 

Hornby fell behind in the 70s/80s: Lima arrived, producing Mk3s which were the correct length, 37s with 37 bogies (not the 31 then 47 which Hornby stuck with), HST power cars with light clusters which actually fit properly, locos heavy enough to pull trains.

Hornby worked hard to catch up in the late 90s & 2000s but do they now want to slip back & let history repeat itself?

Bachmann & Hattons have pushed have all pushed the standard up. Accurascale & Cavalex are looking to join them. Heljan look like they will join them with their class 86.

The hobby is a better place with a good Hornby striving to be a market leader, not the one from the 80s who were content to let others get ahead. If they do release the 91 with an 8 pin socket as previewed, they will be doing just that.

[spamcan61]

2 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

The point is if Bachmann can include fully switchable lighting, a working pantograph & a speaker, why can't Hornby?

 

Presumably they estimate that the extra time and money involved in providing those features would not generate sufficient extra profit, they are a business after all. Whether that's the correct decision or not is difficult to call but hey, it's their money (sort of) 

[BritishRail60062]

I think I will be getting the Intercity model as it looks nice. Same in regards the VTEC and the "For the Fallen" models. The GNER and the LNER models don't interest me much but the VTEC interests me as it was the last livery I saw on the locomotive before I left England in 2017. Never got to see LNER in the flesh and I dislike GNER for reasons I will not share publicly. Therefore I will only buy three Class 91's .

 

As for the Mk4's. I think Hornby will do them next year because to be honest. It would be silly for Hornby to not make the carriages and DVT and only do the locomotive. Cavelex on the other hand should still consider proceeding on with their models. Why? Because it gives the consumer a choice - that's why .