Hornby Announce a Re-tooled Class 91 for 2020

[MGR Hooper!]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

Not strictly true as Mk4s have been regularly used with Class 90s on the ECML at various times and there are a number of recorded examples of Mk4s being hauled in service by Class 47s without a Class 91 attached including one on the Midland Main Line. 

Yes, but these instances have been mostly due to the unavailabilty of stock. It's almost always been more like a stand-in thing rather than a schedule service. I think only now there's scheduled services with trains comprising of Mk4 coaches and a Class 90

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Yes, but these instances have been mostly due to the unavailabilty of stock. It's almost always been more like a stand-in thing rather than a schedule service. I think only now there's scheduled services with trains comprising of Mk4 coaches and a Class 90

GNER was always short on 91’s, i’d say almost continuously throughout the last 2 decades.
A single class 90 on mk4’s was a regular turn on Leeds diagrams for many years.

Ive got pictures going back to 2003.. they even used a Eurostar and 89001 for a while.

 

January 2003...

 

January 2019..

 

90024 was painted in GNER livery at one point.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by adb968008

[DY444]

1 hour ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Yes, but these instances have been mostly due to the unavailabilty of stock. It's almost always been more like a stand-in thing rather than a schedule service. I think only now there's scheduled services with trains comprising of Mk4 coaches and a Class 90

 

Periods of Class 90 operation on the ECML were not ad hoc though, they were usually planned to cover shortages due to specific overhaul/refurbishment/modification programmes on the 91s and they were used regularly and to specific diagrams during the periods they were employed.   To that extent they were booked for and scheduled to appear on the same services daily during the periods in question. 

Edited January 28, 2020 by DY444

[pheaton]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

The forum melted down over the class 66’s.. but outside the forum it was demonstrated that people prefer a nice paint job on a lower priced model than high detailed and accuracy.

it would appear Hornby has gone laughing to the bank not once, but twice...

 

Its profit they are chasing ! Why spend in the region of $500k on toolings for a rake of coaches when the existing ones will sell at the same price if they wear the right pretty livery and has a few minor tweaks to achieve the same sales at the end of the game.. spend money wisely.

People will buy the older one, as long as they get the right livery at the right price, forum meltdown or not. Then once they've cashed that out, they could always look at tooling new versions in a few years time if interest still remains.

 

I still think the mk4 and 91 is a passing fad, not a long term bet, if the 91 fleet goes for scrap as has been suggested several times, interest will wane...Has the mk4 buffet any future beyond 2020 ? The risk is would a new tooling be delivered to get max demand before the interest has waned, given the long lead times.

Modellers are a fickle bunch, if they arrived in 2022 91’s will be a memory and modellers crying out for 455’s and other items going off for scrap that year.

 

nail....head hit....

 

you only need to look back in the last decade....

 

before the ill fated DJ APT was announced Hornby APTs were fetching ridiculous prices.....

before the Bachmann blue pullman came out the triang version was punching prices well above its weight...

before the Hornby HST came out Lima power cars were fetching high values for their vintage.....

 

and the mk3s....

 

fag packet sleepers were going for over £300 on a well known auction site....

 

do Hornby need to retool the mk4......according to history no.....people moan like heck and then get the wallet out to pay over the odds for something they had just moaned about.... but don't worry in the early days 91s were regulars with mk2 coffins and very occasionally mk1s  .

 

I wouldn't at all be surprised if they tested the water with a simple re-wheeled mk4.....it makes perfect business sense to.....

 

but it does boil down to cost.....whats the average 91 rake load 8 plus a DVT.....coaches exceeding the 45 quid mark these days.....if you wanted a full rake plus the loco plus the DVT that's what nearly £800....if Hornby tooled it up would you spend that much money?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by pheaton

[Philou]

I probably would have been tempted to pay the extra for the Cavalex one. Hornby (for me) is a name synonymous with the Triang days (I used to sell them!) and whilst they have no doubt upped their game, I still get the impression that it's a case of 'good - but must try harder'. Let's see what happens.

 

I do wonder though if there would be an opening for Cavalex to provide the Mk4s and DVT - or would Hornby just trot out their old toolings to put a stop to that too?

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[60800]

I would prefer new Mk4's but can accept the old ones as they can be modified to look ok; It's the DVT that's the problem - when we sit the old DVT next to the new 91 it's not going to look great. 

 

Cheers,

  WV908

[adb968008]

18 minutes ago, 60800 said:

I would prefer new Mk4's but can accept the old ones as they can be modified to look ok; It's the DVT that's the problem - when we sit the old DVT next to the new 91 it's not going to look great. 

 

Cheers,

  WV908

With 9 coaches in between them you don’t have to.

[Philou]

I don't agree that a working pantograph is a 'gimmick' especially as it's an electric loco - it's what makes it work in the real world. I don't expect the public would mind too much if it doesn't come with a servo-operated one - but at least let's have one that is made in metal and does go up and down (or pose-able) manually. Fleischmann had been making fine detailed ones (that actually could pick-up power from the catenary - if you so wished) for years!

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Talltim]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

With 9 coaches in between them you don’t have to.

Except

 

[60800]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

With 9 coaches in between them you don’t have to.

With passing sets in my future recreation of Doncaster I Will. Sets also periodically end up the wrong way around due to diverts.

 

Cheers,

  WV908

[Rhydgaled]

19 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

If I wanted a full rake, I'll happily accept a Mk4 DVT to the same standard as the Mk3 DVT and in terms of coaches I think Mk4 coaches at the same spec as their current newly tooled Mk1 coaches will be more than acceptable. 

 

Their older Class 91, Mk4 coaches and Mk4 DVT are some of the cheapest (quality, detail, overall finish) models I've ever seen. TBH they weren't even worth being in the Hornby Railroad range. I won't even compare the Mk4 coaches to the current Mk3 coaches, their current Mk3 coaches still look good and farily little needs to be done to actually bring them upto modern standards. The Mk4 coaches however need quite a bit of work done to modify them. The biggest drawback of them is the glazing, the swinging end skirts and accuracy.

 

In what ways are the existing Hornby mark 4 coaches inaccurate? I can see that the end skirts being fixed to the bogie instead of the body is an issue, as is the lack of the SOE ('Standard Open End') vehicle but what else is wrong with them? Do any of the releases have NEM pockets or do you have to hack the bogies apart if you want to get rid of the tension locks? In terms of level of detail is the spec that much different to the Lima mark 3?

 

14 hours ago, Legend said:

To be honest , I may be in the minority on here , but I’d initially be happy with a run of LNER mk4s from the existing  model . The paint job they would do is miles better than I’ve achieved and it would mean I can get a restaurant car and first class coach to complete the VTEC train pack I got . 4 or 5 coaches is about the max I can run .  I think there’s probably a large part of the market that would settle for this .   However I do appreciate that to have a top quality 91 people will want similar quality coaches to run with it, and there must be a substantial market there. Cavalex thought so ! 

 

If I was in the market for LNER mark 4s I think I would also be happy with a run of the existing model*, as long as the price is right, with the exception of the DVT. Those printed/sticker head/tail lights just look REALLY naff.

 

As it happens the only 91 I'd potentially be in the market for at the moment is 91110 in Battle Of Britain Memorial Flight Livery, but neither Hornby nor Cavalex announced it. I was tempted last time Hornby offered it, but it still had the naff printed/sticker head/tail lights. The other thing that really lets down the old model (at least mine, which is the train set version) is the fixed-down plastic pantograph, I think I'd like one which can be manually set at any height and will stay there until moved into a new position by the 'hand of god'. I've zero DCC experience, so don't know what is involved, but would it be possible to produce a basic DCC-ready model with extras sold seperately? Such extras could include a servo-controlled pantograph and a choice of 8-pin and 21-pin decoders so that modellers can upgrade the basic model to whichever standard they prefer / can afford.

 

* with modified bogies to allow couplings to be replaced if they do not already allow this

 

10 hours ago, pheaton said:

but it does boil down to cost.....whats the average 91 rake load 8 plus a DVT.....coaches exceeding the 45 quid mark these days.....if you wanted a full rake plus the loco plus the DVT that's what nearly £800....if Hornby tooled it up would you spend that much money?

 

The IC225 rakes on the East Coast Main Line are currently formed of nine coaches I believe. The formation I think is 91 + SOE + 4x SO + SV + 3x PO + DVT. The TfW set that was on test today I think was 67 + SOE + SO + SV + PO + DVT, so the restaurant car (SV) will live on. I don't know why the first class coaches are called 'Pullman Opens' (PO) but that seems to be what BR decided they would be called.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Rhydgaled

[TravisM]

As it’s my plan to model a section of the joint line between Peterborough and Sleaford, a working pantograph is no real concern by me as it’s going to be dropped and the whole set dragged by my Class 67.  Sound isn’t a concern either, so a simple DCC chip will suffice.

[MGR Hooper!]

On 29/01/2020 at 04:17, Rhydgaled said:

 

In what ways are the existing Hornby mark 4 coaches inaccurate? I can see that the end skirts being fixed to the bogie instead of the body is an issue, as is the lack of the SOE ('Standard Open End') vehicle but what else is wrong with them? Do any of the releases have NEM pockets or do you have to hack the bogies apart if you want to get rid of the tension locks?

 

 

Well maybe inaccurate wasn't the best word, but there's certainly isses that do pose a problem:-

- As you mentioned the lack of an SOE. I know you can get a resin cast end to modify a coach, but for various reasons, my first option isn't modelling and I'll mention it further down.
- The end skirting being bogie mounted is an odd design, the coaches have and always had the large D style tension locks that work even on 1st radius curves. The bogies aren't too far back either.
- The glazing unit leave a lot to be desired. I don't think Hornby Mk4 coaches ever had flush-glazing. For me an immediate thumbs down.
- I believe someone (either on rmweb or maybe elsewhere) mentioned that over the years the Mk4 catering coach received modifications? That is obviously lacking in Hornby's model.
- The DVT is a lump of plastic with stickers for lights.

 

My concerns with modelling have nothing to do with modelling itself. Whilst I fully support modelling and take it up as a challenge whenever I can, the main reason that prohibits this is cost. Living half way across the globe, in a country where the government and all government run agencies are extremely corrupt, the cost of small things is can easily double/triple very quickly. So if I were to say want to detail an older Hornby Class 91, I'd have to buy etches and other detailing material from atleast 3-4 suppliers and each would come up to approximately 20 quid. If you add P&P and customs (where the Customs Dept charge anywhere between 50-75%) the bill soon crosses the 150 quid mark. That's double the cost of a the average Hornby Railroad loco.

Overall the Mk4 coaches and DVT need a lot more work to bring it upto an acceptable standard. We need a Mk4 DVT that is along the same spec as their own Mk3 DVT and the Mk4 coaches should atleast be brough upto the standard of Hornby's Mk1 or Mk2F coaches.

 

 

 

None of the releases have NEM couplings, when the Class 91 was updated with a DCC ready chassis, 5-pole motor and better wheels, it wasn't given NEM couplings like all the other locos that received the same upgrades.

Edited January 30, 2020 by MGR Hooper!

[Pete the Elaner]

8 hours ago, jools1959 said:

As it’s my plan to model a section of the joint line between Peterborough and Sleaford, a working pantograph is no real concern by me as it’s going to be dropped and the whole set dragged by my Class 67.  Sound isn’t a concern either, so a simple DCC chip will suffice.

I'm glad the model suits you, but others may want to run their model differently.

Is it unreasonable to want to run a model with a pantograph under OLE? The BW one used on the 87 looks good when posed but is also very fragile & I would not risk it under wires.

[Pete the Elaner]

3 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

- As you mentioned the lack of an SOE. I know you can get a resin cast end to modify a coach, but I have an issue with that and I'll mention it further down.

I have an SOE casting which I bought some time ago & have not got around to fitting. What is your concern with it? You forgot to mention.

[adb968008]

4 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

Well maybe inaccurate wasn't the best word, but there's certainly isses that do pose a problem:-

- As you mentioned the lack of an SOE. I know you can get a resin cast end to modify a coach, but I have an issue with that and I'll mention it further down.
- The end skirting being bogie mounted is an odd design, the coaches have and always had the large D style tension locks that work even on 1st radius curves. The bogies aren't too far back either.
- The glazing unit leave a lot to be desired. I don't think Hornby Mk4 coaches ever had flush-glazing. For me an immediate thumbs down.
- I believe someone (either on rmweb or maybe elsewhere) mentioned that over the years the Mk4 catering coach received modifications? That is obviously lacking in Hornby's model.
- The DVT is a lump of plastic with stickers for lights.

Overall the Mk4 coaches and DVT need a lot more work to bring it upto an acceptable standard. We need a Mk4 DVT that is along the same spec as their own Mk3 DVT and the Mk4 coaches should atleast be brough upto the standard of Hornby's Mk1 or Mk2F coaches.

 

 

 

None of the releases have NEM couplings, when the Class 91 was updated with a DCC ready chassis, 5-pole motor and better wheels, it wasn't given NEM couplings like all the other locos that received the same upgrades.

All of these can be overcome by a bit of modelling...

Indeed I paid a handsome £10 for a mark4 on ebay (not exactly a sign of overwhelming popularity) and having looked at it, I believe I could have it with pivoted NEM couplings and the steps mounted on the body within 30 minutes needing only 1 existing screw, a miniscule amount of glue and a knife to remove the old coupling...

 

It really looks easy and begs the question why,if this is such a deal breaker, arent these pages full of mk4 mods... unless like the price on ebay suggests, demand isnt there  and that most only want 1 livery which hasn't been exploited to its potential... despite there only being 1000 made and its “rarity“ at a time of peak popularity, R3501 still isnt fetching much more than any other set of 3 railroad coaches / railroad loco...indeed a good 2x car Trix Transpenine still commands more.

Edited January 29, 2020 by adb968008

[adb968008]

Meanwhile, on LNERs twitter feed they just announced...

 

other sites suggest up to 15 sets retained for up to 3 years...

I wonder if all is well with the Azuma fleet ?

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by adb968008

[MGR Hooper!]

20 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I have an SOE casting which I bought some time ago & have not got around to fitting. What is your concern with it? You forgot to mention.

Added the reason (in blue), thanks for pointing it out.

Edited January 30, 2020 by MGR Hooper!

[MGR Hooper!]

23 hours ago, adb968008 said:

All of these can be overcome by a bit of modelling...

 

Very easy for a resident of the UK to say....
 

• Living in a country where the hobby is almost unheard of means there's a total lack of modelling materials. Most hobbies of are type are non-existent be it model trains, aero-modelling etc. Hobby shops are few and far between.
• Alternatives aren't easy to get. Even basic things like glue and brass wire are hard to get. We have to experiment with things like glues/paint removers etc and risk damaging models over it.
• Being a student with a part time job and living alone means expenses are tight. I have general life to think of and everyday expenses which obviously reduce my model train budget for the year. Or I work over-time.
• International shipping is expensive. The cheapest I pay for postage is 15 quid!! 
• Customs charges in a corrupt country means we pay anything over 50-75% on the overall cost, where their own official website says 25%. I once paid what's equivalent to 103% customs for my Dapol Collector's Club Class 66 "Evening Star". The certificate came separately and yes I was charged for that piece of paper!
• The cost of detailing a basic Hornby Railroad locomotive cant often lead to the price rising to two or three times the amount for the basic locomotive. So if I were to taken a Hornby Railroad loco worth 70 quid, I'd end up paying almost double the amount based of the level I want to detail it to. Lots of detailing kits are cheap, but lots are expensive. 3D printing is expensive. The list goes on. Add all that up and you have a hefty bill. For the same amount I can sometimes get 1 really fancy RTR loco or sometimes eve 2 smaller RTR locos.

 

I have never ever said no to modelling. I fully support it. If fairies who granted 3 wishes did exist, I'd ask for more time, cheaper shipping options and a government that wasn't corrupt. All that just to get some alone time to play trains and detail trains.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Hornby for some updated Mk4 coaches and a Mk4 DVT. A "Hornby Railroad PLUS" style set of coaches with finely moulded detail, flush glazing, non-sprung metal buffers, fixed end skirting, NEM couplings and accurate coach variants with a top class paint job would keep a majority of the people happy, especially if they can keep the cost to around 30 quid a pop.

 

And this is something I am hoping they'd announce in June this year of January next year.

Edited January 30, 2020 by MGR Hooper!

[Legend]

14 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Meanwhile, on LNERs twitter feed they just announced...

 

other sites suggest up to 15 sets retained for up to 3 years...

I wonder if all is well with the Azuma fleet ?

 

 

Well that’s good news . With all the attention on capacity and connecting the north I’m glad these trains are being retained at least for a while . Sounds like there’s still some work to be done on power supplies north of Newcastle and there are always issues introducing new train fleets, so looks like a victory for common sense

[Hal Nail]

7 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

And this is something I am hoping they'd announce in June this year of January next year.

As any West Brom fan will tell you, it's the hope that kills!

[G-BOAF]

On 24/01/2020 at 11:39, G-BOAF said:

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

Anyone (Hornby?) able to answer my query posted almost a week ago on the state of close coupling arrangement for this model?

Cavelex responded quickly and poistively on my similar post when they were doing the 91. Given you are the only game in town now, a similar level of engagement would be appreciated

[classy52]

5 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

Anyone (Hornby?) able to answer my query posted almost a week ago on the state of close coupling arrangement for this model?

Cavelex responded quickly and poistively on my similar post when they were doing the 91. Given you are the only game in town now, a similar level of engagement would be appreciated

 

Hornby do not engage on here thus the answer more than likely will come from another member who may have the knowledge or queried this with Hornby already or you will need to engage Hornby directly via email, phone or via other social media outlets where they may have direct engagement with customers.

[G-BOAF]

59 minutes ago, classy52 said:

 

Hornby do not engage on here thus the answer more than likely will come from another member who may have the knowledge or queried this with Hornby already or you will need to engage Hornby directly via email, phone or via other social media outlets where they may have direct engagement with customers.

I thought there were Hornby R&D people on this forum?

 

Hornby are missing a trick if they are not engaging with enthusiasts who are driving the push for high-fidelity models. Especially as their smaller and more agile competition are frequent posters and engagers on here (Accrascale, Rapido, Cavalex, Rails, Hattons...)

Edited January 30, 2020 by G-BOAF

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, G-BOAF said:

Anyone (Hornby?) able to answer my query posted almost a week ago on the state of close coupling arrangement for this model?

Cavelex responded quickly and poistively on my similar post when they were doing the 91. Given you are the only game in town now, a similar level of engagement would be appreciated

 

The people likely to respond, or answer questions, are likely to be in Nuremburg right now for the Toy Fair having left London from last week's event. Realistically, we are months away from this thing appearing so it might just be that this hasn't been finalised yet. I'm sure there will be updates in time.