Hornby Announce a Re-tooled Class 91 for 2020

[classy52]

8 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

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...)

 

I've seen or heard from other members that Hornby don't directly engage on here but I may be mistaken thus apologies if they do but to be honest I've never seen a Hornby person reveal themselves or engage on any of the Hornby modern image or catalogue/release threads but perhaps you see them within the Steam threads.

Going by Phil's post perhaps they do but personally never seen Hornby Rep's within the Hornby threads I use or view.

[MGR Hooper!]

18 hours 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

Send in your query to @Islesy, he should be able to answer it for you.

[brushman47544]

Well according to today's Engine Shed blog, vehicle surveys, as part of the research, started in June 2016. So a long time in gestation.

[adb968008]

On 30/01/2020 at 12:03, classy52 said:

 

I've seen or heard from other members that Hornby don't directly engage on here but I may be mistaken thus apologies if they do but to be honest I've never seen a Hornby person reveal themselves or engage on any of the Hornby modern image or catalogue/release threads but perhaps you see them within the Steam threads.

Going by Phil's post perhaps they do but personally never seen Hornby Rep's within the Hornby threads I use or view.

Your never more than a few posts away from someone who works somewhere in the hobby.

They watch, they lurk, and they smirk.

 

Even some of the Chinese manufacturers watch these threads.

Edited January 31, 2020 by adb968008

[andyman7]

3 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

Well according to today's Engine Shed blog, vehicle surveys, as part of the research, started in June 2016. So a long time in gestation.

The Cavalex model was announced in March 2019 so the Hornby model looks to have been on the cards well before then.

[PaulRhB]

3 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

Well according to today's Engine Shed blog, vehicle surveys, as part of the research, started in June 2016. So a long time in gestation.

Consideration was without doubt but the scanning was a lot more recent, post the Cavalex one, that’s from TOC staff. 
Hornby needed to be bold it’s just unfortunate that a popularly supported one from someone who has produced good models suffered. 
Like has been said on the Cavalex thread it’s business and Hornby aren’t in a particularly cosy position so have taken the gloves off. The Terrier is good but the Rails one is at least cosmetically even better. Let’s hope they pull out the stops on this  

[Mel_H]

On 30/01/2020 at 07:41, Legend said:

 

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

And, they've crashed one....

[stationroad]

8 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

Well according to today's Engine Shed blog, vehicle surveys, as part of the research, started in June 2016. So a long time in gestation.

 

It took them 4 years to get to a fairly average looking 3d print, and yet it's going to be here at the end of this year 

 

something doesn't add up

[MGR Hooper!]

4 hours ago, stationroad said:

 

It took them 4 years to get to a fairly average looking 3d print, and yet it's going to be here at the end of this year 

 

something doesn't add up

3-5 years is the "NORMAL" development time. R&D usually takes anywhere between 3-5 years from initial idea to hitting shop shelves. The 3D prints Hornby do are a low-resolution one used to check tolerances - not to showcase detail. And please do read a little more, the Class 91 is already in tooling and they're awaiting first samples.

It does add up to anyone who understands the R&D process of models.

Edited February 1, 2020 by MGR Hooper!

[stationroad]

I’m well aware of the R&D process for models thanks

 

The official line for the 87 is that work started in March 16, they had a 3d print at Warley that year. It missed its 2017 initial release date but it has been out for a year. If the 91 was started around the same time then we should be further ahead. The proof will be in the pudding though, so I’m looking forward to seeing it at the end of the year...

 

-edit-

I’m aware of concerns about the contribution of this model to the  haitus of the other one, so I should clarify I’m not trying to reopen that debate, merely that I’ll be very surprised if there is a 91 under this year’s christmas tree. 

Edited February 1, 2020 by stationroad

[Vistisen]

5 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

3-5 years is the "NORMAL" development time. R&D usually takes anywhere between 3-5 years from initial idea to hitting shop shelves. The 3D prints Hornby do are a low-resolution one used to check tolerances - not to showcase detail. And please do read a little more, the Class 91 is already in tooling and they're awaiting first samples.

It does add up to anyone who understands the R&D process of models.

But not to a conspiracy lover.

[stationroad]

47 minutes ago, Vistisen said:

But not to a conspiracy lover.

yes, my point was that the timeline for delivery this year looks a bit ambitious, not that the Russians have stolen the plans and it’ll arrive powered by chemtrails. But nevertheless, we’ll leave it there.

[stovepipe]

1 hour ago, stationroad said:

yes, my point was that the timeline for delivery this year looks a bit ambitious, not that the Russians have stolen the plans and it’ll arrive powered by chemtrails. But nevertheless, we’ll leave it there.

 

Yes exactly. The Hornby fanboys have been all over this and the Cavalex thread, it makes for rather tedious reading.

[ruggedpeak]

Thunderbird 67 with 91 at Kings Cross the other day (30/01/20) - I think it is 67016. Camera phone isn't great, and LNER staff loitering didn't help, but with Mk4's the scene will be modellable.

 

 

[MGR Hooper!]

Quote

The official line for the 87 is that work started in March 16, they had a 3d print at Warley that year. It missed its 2017 initial release date but it has been out for a year. If the 91 was started around the same time then we should be further ahead. The proof will be in the pudding though, so I’m looking forward to seeing it at the end of the year...
 

 

The Hornby reps clearly stated that the Class 91 was to follow the Class 87, R&D moves forward at different speeds and each and every individual project has it's own hurdles. So whether projects are started on the same day/week/month is irrelevant!

[MGR Hooper!]

Can anyone tell me what's the difference between the Mk3 and Mk4 DVT? Apart from the obvious valance/skirting on the front of it, is there anything else like the body profile or something?

[Hal Nail]

4 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Can anyone tell me what's the difference between the Mk3 and Mk4 DVT? Apart from the obvious valance/skirting on the front of it, is there anything else like the body profile or something?

Yes, the profiles are different and reflect the different stock - the mk3 is more slab sided.

 

What I've never quite nailed is why the mk4 dtv cab looks different to a 91. If prefer it personally. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Hal Nail

[Pete the Elaner]

42 minutes ago, Hal Nail said:

Yes, the profiles are different and reflect the different stock - the mk3 is more slab sided.

 

The Mk4s were designed to be retro-fitted with tilt & were designed to run faster than 125mph, so they had different bogies & as mentioned above, a profile which stays inside the loading gauge even when tilted.

Tilt was never necessary on the WCML & ironically it would have helped now there are plans to re-deploy them on the WCML. It seems a waste to retro-fit tilt to a fleet 30+ years old.

 

Hornby's first Virgin DVT was actually a MK4. When I saw it on sale for the first time, I thought it looked a little odd. It was only when I saw it out of its box, I noticed the tapered sides & was therefore a re-issue of their Mk4 in the wrong livery.

[G-BOAF]

8 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Can anyone tell me what's the difference between the Mk3 and Mk4 DVT? Apart from the obvious valance/skirting on the front of it, is there anything else like the body profile or something?

 

3 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

The Mk4s were designed to be retro-fitted with tilt & were designed to run faster than 125mph, so they had different bogies & as mentioned above, a profile which stays inside the loading gauge even when tilted.

Tilt was never necessary on the WCML & ironically it would have helped now there are plans to re-deploy them on the WCML. It seems a waste to retro-fit tilt to a fleet 30+ years old.

 

Hornby's first Virgin DVT was actually a MK4. When I saw it on sale for the first time, I thought it looked a little odd. It was only when I saw it out of its box, I noticed the tapered sides & was therefore a re-issue of their Mk4 in the wrong livery.

 

Correct. I think also the bogies were different.

Totally different vehicles. And not a suitable substitute to make up a 225 in any way shape or form. We need new Mk4s to go with a new 91!

I know we have not seen them in the flesh, but Mk4s to the standard of the slide door Mk3s, with close coupling cam-mounted NEMs, and decent end detail would probably be fine. There is not the same level of external detail as a Collett or Maunsell coach

[stovepipe]

7 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

The Hornby reps clearly stated that the Class 91 was to follow the Class 87, R&D moves forward at different speeds and each and every individual project has it's own hurdles. So whether projects are started on the same day/week/month is irrelevant!

 

Continually parroting the Hornby party line is not going to cut much ice with the independent minded forum folk with a semblance of critical thinking skills. The 87 was released in August 2018, 2 years 6 months on from Hornby's declared start date. The engineering sample from the tooling was about 13 months in advance of release. So far we have a 3d print of the Class 91, with tooling just started. We are therefore looking at something like mid-2021 for the model to be released. 5 and 1/4 years on from the declared start date.

 

People can easily draw their own conclusions. Mine is that H completed their research in June 2016, and then shelved the project until sometime in 2019. There is nothing wrong with getting ready to defend your product line, and then doing so, but let's not blindly believe all the corporate spiel.

[trevor7598]

4 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

Yes, the profiles are different and reflect the different stock - the mk3 is more slab sided.

 

What I've never quite nailed is why the mk4 dtv cab looks different to a 91. If prefer it personally. 

I've always considered the front end of a Mk4 DVT to be quite handsome.

Quite why the 91 and DVT have different cab designs is unclear, but must have added to the cost of the build

as two sets of components instead of one would be required. A cost saving was missed there.

[Talltim]

32 minutes ago, trevor7598 said:

I've always considered the front end of a Mk4 DVT to be quite handsome.

Quite why the 91 and DVT have different cab designs is unclear, but must have added to the cost of the build

as two sets of components instead of one would be required. A cost saving was missed there.

Well, the 91s were built by BREL and the Mk4 DVTs by Metro-Cammell along with the rest of the Mk4s. Having said that sone of the shells were built by BREL 

[Pete the Elaner]

1 hour ago, stovepipe said:

 

Continually parroting the Hornby party line is not going to cut much ice with the independent minded forum folk with a semblance of critical thinking skills. The 87 was released in August 2018, 2 years 6 months on from Hornby's declared start date. The engineering sample from the tooling was about 13 months in advance of release. So far we have a 3d print of the Class 91, with tooling just started. We are therefore looking at something like mid-2021 for the model to be released. 5 and 1/4 years on from the declared start date.

 

People can easily draw their own conclusions. Mine is that H completed their research in June 2016, and then shelved the project until sometime in 2019. There is nothing wrong with getting ready to defend your product line, and then doing so, but let's not blindly believe all the corporate spiel.

Agreed,

They stated they were considering an update to the 91, nothing more.

Sales of AC electrics have always been poorer than for diesels so it made sense to see how well the 87 sold before committing to a 91.

 

& likewise, they have not yet committed to making MK4s, nor have they ruled out the possibility of doing so.

[JDW]

On 29/01/2020 at 07:55, adb968008 said:

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.

 

The originals seem reasonably accurate and look like what they're supposed to, but certainly benefit from some work - I've done a set of them with new TSOE end, new couplings and farings underneath each end, new light clusters on the DVT etc, but they are still fairly basic models in terms of quality. If mine were repainted, I think I'd get away with the coaches, although as others have said, I think the DVT, as the other "face" of the train, would need to be of the same quality as the 91. I wouldn't want to hang a rake of out of the box Hornby ones behind a high-quality new loco, with the huge swinging couplings and boxes underneath. Too much like a train set coach. 

 

They look like a Mk4, that's for sure, but I think they'd look a bit like running Triang Mk1s behind the new Hornby 87. It'd look like a Mk4 set and 91, it'd do the job, but there's a noticeable difference in fidelity and quality. 

 

See a few posts down page one of my thread for the modifications: 

 

[Legend]

56 minutes ago, JDW said:

 

The originals seem reasonably accurate and look like what they're supposed to, but certainly benefit from some work - I've done a set of them with new TSOE end, new couplings and farings underneath each end, new light clusters on the DVT etc, but they are still fairly basic models in terms of quality. If mine were repainted, I think I'd get away with the coaches, although as others have said, I think the DVT, as the other "face" of the train, would need to be of the same quality as the 91. I wouldn't want to hang a rake of out of the box Hornby ones behind a high-quality new loco, with the huge swinging couplings and boxes underneath. Too much like a train set coach. 

 

They look like a Mk4, that's for sure, but I think they'd look a bit like running Triang Mk1s behind the new Hornby 87. It'd look like a Mk4 set and 91, it'd do the job, but there's a noticeable difference in fidelity and quality. 

 

See a few posts down page one of my thread for the modifications: 

 

 

Didn't the window arrangement change on Mk4s when they went through the GNER "Mallard" upgrade . I thought one of the end windows got blanked off , but I may be mistaken . If correct though, the Mk4s would only be suitable for Inter City and early GNER liveries , not East Coast, NATEX, VTEC or LNER.  If you can ignore that they do scrub up well in VTEC livery .