Hornby Announce a Re-tooled Class 91 for 2020

['CHARD]

5 hours ago, LMS_LNER_SR_GWR_fan2004 said:

I don't think Sunderland has overheads all the way to it. However there is a lot of room in the 91s internally so maybe a bi-mode 91 perhaps? 

 

A delightful fairy tale, but nonetheless it will remain a fantasy. 

[Pete the Elaner]

I can't actually find either of my 87s right now, but there is a reason they are not on the layout & both my Bachmann 90s are. The 87 was ok, but was not as much of a good model as Bachmann's 90, which is should have been.

I am sure I would have been massively disappointed if it was not at all sprung since I believe that a pan should react to wires; It shouldn't jump up & down & wobble all over the place, but neither should it sit perfectly still like one just posed there, not actually touching the wires at all. That looks wrong.

Having seen how fragile it is, I would have resigned myself to building some of my old Hurst brass kit ones anyway. One day I may make a start on these.

 

My skepticism remains. I doubt Hornby will release yet another BW pan so close to their last attempt.

I really wish they would...but I also wish they would join other manufacturers such as Dapol with their class 68, Bachmann with their 90 & Hattons with their 66 in offering controllable day/night lighting. Hornby don't seem to care about this, so why will they bother with an improved pan?

[TomScrut]

21 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Dapol with their class 68, Bachmann with their 90 & Hattons with their 66 in offering controllable day/night lighting

 

Exactly, and this is what I was getting at with the 8 pin reference before. They don't want to embrace additional functionality it would seem. I have each of the three locos you mention and I like the lighting on all of them, although I am going to have to swap the wiring the 68s so halos are on the main headlights (i.e. with the top marker) and the main beam is a separate function as this is how they are in real life AFAIK

[Pete the Elaner]

1 minute ago, TomScrut said:

 

Exactly, and this is what I was getting at with the 8 pin reference before. They don't want to embrace additional functionality it would seem. I have each of the three locos you mention and I like the lighting on all of them, although I am going to have to swap the wiring the 68s so halos are on the main headlights (i.e. with the top marker) and the main beam is a separate function as this is how they are in real life AFAIK

I pointed this out earlier on in this thread when I first heard the 91 had an 8 pin socket & a few reacted that they were not happy to pay for better features (mainly the speaker which probably costs less than a working pan).

[TomScrut]

8 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I pointed this out earlier on in this thread when I first heard the 91 had an 8 pin socket & a few reacted that they were not happy to pay for better features (mainly the speaker which probably costs less than a working pan).

 

I aren't even bothered about the speaker (as insignificant cost wise as it will be), but the light functionality can't cost much to implement. Its a few switches that's all it is (along with a more modern socket) routing whichever LED to whatever function on the socket. I'd pay a fiver more for a model with better lighting, and that would leave a big margin in it for them! Even better if they add separate markers and headlamps like the 68 and 66, but my biggest gripe is not being able to turn the train end off. I have 2 Bachman 37s, 2 Bachman 66s, a Hornby 60 and a Hornby 67 I would like to rework one day.

 

I'm not really that into cab lighting unless its separately functioned. On my 68s its turned off as 99% of the time they are off on the locos, all the time when running AFAIK. I have programmed my Hattons 66 so that it if the cab light is on, it will switch off if moving in that direction.

Edited April 7, 2020 by TomScrut

[Pete the Elaner]

1 hour ago, TomScrut said:

 

 I'd pay a fiver more for a model with better lighting, and that would leave a big margin in it for them! Even better if they add separate markers and headlamps like the 68 and 66, but my biggest gripe is not being able to turn the train end off. I have 2 Bachman 37s, 2 Bachman 66s, a Hornby 60 and a Hornby 67 I would like to rework one day.

 

I am with you.

Hornby just don't seem to be bothered (or else they would be fitting a 21 or 18 pin socket) & it is this which I find frustrating.

[No Decorum]

6 hours ago, TomScrut said:

 

I aren't even bothered about the speaker (as insignificant cost wise as it will be), but the light functionality can't cost much to implement. Its a few switches that's all it is (along with a more modern socket) routing whichever LED to whatever function on the socket. I'd pay a fiver more for a model with better lighting, and that would leave a big margin in it for them! Even better if they add separate markers and headlamps like the 68 and 66, but my biggest gripe is not being able to turn the train end off. I have 2 Bachman 37s, 2 Bachman 66s, a Hornby 60 and a Hornby 67 I would like to rework one day.

 

I'm not really that into cab lighting unless its separately functioned. On my 68s its turned off as 99% of the time they are off on the locos, all the time when running AFAIK. I have programmed my Hattons 66 so that it if the cab light is on, it will switch off if moving in that direction.

I’m with you on those points. I like cab lights but they must be controllable. If they aren’t, I’ll disable them by cutting the power supply by some means or other. The ability to turn off tail lights when hauling a train is, to my mind, more important than being able to switch between day and night headlights. As for space for a speaker and a decoder, it costs nothing at all if designed in from the outset.

[TomScrut]

25 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

I’m with you on those points. I like cab lights but they must be controllable. If they aren’t, I’ll disable them by cutting the power supply by some means or other. The ability to turn off tail lights when hauling a train is, to my mind, more important than being able to switch between day and night headlights. As for space for a speaker and a decoder, it costs nothing at all if designed in from the outset.

 

It would be very interesting to know how they are going to handle the lighting on the 91, given 99% of the time the train end is the same yet in reality I would expect the community will expect the rear lights to work too, for running blunt end forwards/light engine or both.

[No Decorum]

10 hours ago, TomScrut said:

 

It would be very interesting to know how they are going to handle the lighting on the 91, given 99% of the time the train end is the same yet in reality I would expect the community will expect the rear lights to work too, for running blunt end forwards/light engine or both.

If Hornby isn’t going to do a proper lighting job, as seems likely from the specification of an eight-pin socket, it will be interesting to see. Hornby is habitually stingy with its provision of lighting switches underneath diesels and electrics. For my part, I’d rather have fully functional front lights and no rear lights, given that the blunt end will usually be next to the train. (The train of Mk. IVs? What train of Mk. IVs Hornby?)

[TomScrut]

Yeah I just don't get it TBH though, as said before it can't cost much at all to add the functionality. Whilst I am unlikely to be in the market for a 91 anyway given their impending withdrawal on normal ECML use (I know LNER are keeping some but this won't last forever), I think the industry has got itself into a situation now where £150 odd for a newly tooled loco without any configurability of lighting is too expensive.

Edited April 8, 2020 by TomScrut

[No Decorum]

34 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

Yeah I just don't get it TBH though, as said before it can't cost much at all to add the functionality. Whilst I am unlikely to be in the market for a 91 anyway given their impending withdrawal on normal ECML use (I know LNER are keeping some but this won't last forever), I think the industry has got itself into a situation now where £150 odd for a newly tooled loco without any configurability of lighting is too expensive.

I’m sure the people at Hornby are aware of the point being made. For all of the complaints about Bachmann’s prices, it is noticeable that the Class 90 is not much more expensive than Hornby’s 87. We know that Hornby has borrowed heavily and that debt has to be serviced. Perhaps that is why economies are made. Perhaps Hornby’s idea of using around half a dozen different factories is more expensive than Bachmann’s in-house arrangements. Hornby is being very light-lipped about what, if anything, might be produced to accompany the 91. My guess is that a re-tooled Mk. IV DVT is on the cards. There is probably a reluctant acceptance in Hornby’s corridors of power that to have a lighting suite at one end but not at the other would let the whole train down. As for coaches, the decision has to be: re-tool or re-livery the existing ones. The majority of us probably want a re-tool but Hornby is probably dithering between re-tool (expensive) and re-livery (cheap). If there is a re-tool, the question then arises, should the re-tool include lights – probably along the lines of the Azumas rather than Bachmann Mk. IIIfs. We’ll know soon enough, I suppose.

 

I somehow doubt that we’ll get a decent pantograph, by which I mean a robust but reasonably fine metal one that can follow the rising and falling of the catenary.

[TomScrut]

19 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

We know that Hornby has borrowed heavily and that debt has to be serviced. Perhaps that is why economies are made.

 

Yes but they also need their products to be competitive and appealing to the customer! It would be interesting to know how lighting features etc affect purchases.

 

21 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

My guess is that a re-tooled Mk. IV DVT is on the cards. There is probably a reluctant acceptance in Hornby’s corridors of power that to have a lighting suite at one end but not at the other would let the whole train down. As for coaches, the decision has to be: re-tool or re-livery the existing ones. The majority of us probably want a re-tool but Hornby is probably dithering between re-tool (expensive) and re-livery (cheap)

 

I think if they don't retool the coaches then the project may struggle. People aren't that keen on the mk3, let alone the mk4 which is older still. It's also worth noting that they have tooled the sliding door mk3 which is a bit more niche than the mk4 in terms of time period (although not in terms of region). As I think I have said before, with GC and TFW using mk4 sets now there is a bigger potential market for them as well.

 

54 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

For all of the complaints about Bachmann’s prices, it is noticeable that the Class 90 is not much more expensive than Hornby’s 87.

 

Exactly. The electronics can't be particularly expensive!

[Guest Half-full]

Hornby is a start to finish company, all of their products are supported by their other products, ie they dont sell anything that needs another manufacturers' products to make it work (AFAIK - happy to be corrected).   As they don't market a high function decoder, then there is no requirement to put the relevant electronics and thus lighting features into the 91.

 

If Hornby were to invest in a supply of high function decoders to allow full lighting configuration, it would have to make financial sense.  I would imagine the cost of this would be prohibitive for just the one model (91).

 

To get the full financial return on an investment of such decoders, then just about all the light fitted loco/mu's in their catalogue would need the electronics changed, as would the design of the TTS decoders.  All of this would cost money, which, as we know, Hornby are short of at the moment.

 

Hopefully in the future we'll see the electronics upgrade to match other manufacturers though

[TomScrut]

25 minutes ago, Half-full said:

As they don't market a high function decoder, then there is no requirement to put the relevant electronics and thus lighting features into the 91.

 

Good point (all of it but only quoting this bit as it's the bit I want to reply to).

 

They could arguably do a 18/21/22 pin version of their existing decoder (I wouldn't say that would be difficult), put the socket on new locos and have switches like everyone else does to tackle functionality of different decoders.

 

I had hoped that they had (in general, I know pre TTS sound locos had 21 pin) just decided to skip 21 pin and go straight for plux22 when it became more common which it looks like Bachmann are swapping to now.

 

I think the thing is, and it's like with a lot of things (their MK3 slam doors for example) where there are complaints of them needing a retool but people are still buying them as they are better than not having them, but then when a competitor comes along they try to stamp on it (understandably so). Most of the newcomers (Hattons, Accurascale etc) except Cavalex seem to have been picking on Bachmann's territory (high end 37, 55, 66) rather than Hornby (although they do have railroad tooling for all of these).

 

But unfortunately this is one area the Cavalex one would have "shone" I think.

[Pete the Elaner]

37 minutes ago, Half-full said:

Hornby is a start to finish company, all of their products are supported by their other products, ie they dont sell anything that needs another manufacturers' products to make it work (AFAIK - happy to be corrected).   As they don't market a high function decoder, then there is no requirement to put the relevant electronics and thus lighting features into the 91.

 

 

Sort of...but not really, if that makes sense?

Using their class 87 as an example, there is not enough clearance to shove a decoder on top of the board then fit the body.

They provided a decoder slot...great...but their own decoder does not fit becauae the slot is too small. (yes, really) Thiis seems barely believable, but I struggled to fit a Loksound v4 micro in there, which is a smaller decoder.

If that is not bad enough, they were completely oblivious of this until Charlie Petty told them.

So what hope does this leave us that the 91 will be well thought out?

 

[Guest Half-full]

15 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Sort of...but not really, if that makes sense?

Using their class 87 as an example, there is not enough clearance to shove a decoder on top of the board then fit the body.

They provided a decoder slot...great...but their own decoder does not fit becauae the slot is too small. (yes, really) Thiis seems barely believable, but I struggled to fit a Loksound v4 micro in there, which is a smaller decoder.

If that is not bad enough, they were completely oblivious of this until Charlie Petty told them.

So what hope does this leave us that the 91 will be well thought out?

 

The lack of decoder space on the 87 (and the 71) is a rather unfortunate (and embarrassing) design error that really should have been picked up before going into production.  That fact that folk struggle to fit any make of decoder into both these loco's is proof of that!

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the same lack of space will be found in the 91 when it's released, which is a shame

[scottrains29]

1 hour ago, Half-full said:

Hornby is a start to finish company, all of their products are supported by their other products, ie they dont sell anything that needs another manufacturers' products to make it work

I've always thought Hornby was a 'that'll do' kind of company.

 

Take their popular HST. Introduced in the 1970s with short coaches. Then in the late 90s Hornby retooled just the coaches but only bothered with a first, second and just one buffet variant. They didn't bother with the TGS even though every HST set had them. It was years later after acquiring the 80s Lima tooling that they could add 3 more variants (buffet, sleeper, TGS). A few years later they then, out of the blue, retooled the MK3 DVT. The Hornby MK3 saga really has been quite a mismash of old and new.

 

Their new Mk2e/fs are another example. They have released numerous Virgin BSOs but haven't bothered tooling the RFB coach that is required to complete the rake. Every Virgin BSO should have an RFB at the opposite end. Bachmann, on the other hand, produced the full rake (BSO, SO, RFB) from the start.

 

I wish Hornby could just tell us now that they will retool all the MK4 variants and DVT even if it takes a few more years for the coaches to be released. That way modellers will know what is happening and can save up accordingly.

 

In terms of functionality I think Hornby must produce a better pantograph and allow better lighting control, either by extra switches underneath or by investing in a bigger decoder socket. The competition has already overtaken and Hornby can't be left behind.

[TravisM]

On 06/04/2020 at 23:26, TomScrut said:

 

Would be good if GC took some 91/mk4s for ECML use at some point. Surely they'd be better than the 180s? Does Sunderland have overheads all the way to it?

Sunderland does have OHLE but it’s the wrong voltage.  It’s 750V DC for the Tyne & Wear Metro.

[TomScrut]

6 hours ago, scottrains29 said:

Hornby can't be left behind

 

That's the thing. They seem to want to innovate with stuff like the sound can (which whilst it sold out can't see it being a repeatable sell out tbh) yet ignore the (what is now) fairly basic functionality people want from a loco. Maybe it's just I am in the minority expecting independent lighting.

[Pete the Elaner]

7 hours ago, scottrains29 said:

I've always thought Hornby was a 'that'll do' kind of company.

 

Take their popular HST. Introduced in the 1970s with short coaches. Then in the late 90s Hornby retooled just the coaches but only bothered with a first, second and just one buffet variant. They didn't bother with the TGS even though every HST set had them. It was years later after acquiring the 80s Lima tooling that they could add 3 more variants (buffet, sleeper, TGS). A few years later they then, out of the blue, retooled the MK3 DVT. The Hornby MK3 saga really has been quite a mismash of old and new.

 

Their new Mk2e/fs are another example. They have released numerous Virgin BSOs but haven't bothered tooling the RFB coach that is required to complete the rake. Every Virgin BSO should have an RFB at the opposite end. Bachmann, on the other hand, produced the full rake (BSO, SO, RFB) from the start.

 

I wish Hornby could just tell us now that they will retool all the MK4 variants and DVT even if it takes a few more years for the coaches to be released. That way modellers will know what is happening and can save up accordingly.

 

In terms of functionality I think Hornby must produce a better pantograph and allow better lighting control, either by extra switches underneath or by investing in a bigger decoder socket. The competition has already overtaken and Hornby can't be left behind.

 

You've missed out some of the Mk3s history. It was worse than what you've mentioned.

It was originally short but the windows were about the correct size, so it only had 7 of them. I am pretty sure the coach was designed short to get round ultra tight train set curves, which really indicates where Hornby believed their target market was at the time.

After complaints from modellers about the coaches having a windows missing because they were too short, Hornby reacted by making the windows smaller to fit the 8th.

 

When Hornby introduced their Virgin Mk3 DVT in the 1990s, I felt there was something strange about it. It was not until I saw one in a shop that I realised the body had the same tilt profile tumblehome as the Mk4. It was not a Mk3 at all, it was Virgin's West Coast livery applied to a Mk4!

Their Mk3 DVT 're-tool' was the first genuine Mk3 DVT they tooled & apart from debates about livery colours, they finally made a good job of it.

 

[TomScrut]

3 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Hornby reacted by making the windows smaller to fit the 8th.

 

That's fantastic! Talk about missing the point!

[miles73128]

Old Hornby MK4 fitted with new West Hill Waggon Works magnetic couplings, ready for Class 91! There's life in the old Hornby Mk4s, with a bit of creativity and glue, my Mk4's now are fitted with a coupling that closes the gap and importantly is a "bar type" so can be pushed much more reliably! 

(first pic old tension lock, second new magnet ones) 

PS My Limby 91 even managed 13 of these at a respectable speed!

Edited April 14, 2020 by miles73128

['CHARD]

24 minutes ago, miles73128 said:

 

PS My Limby 91 even managed 13 of these at a respectable speed!

 

 

 

Limby?

[Pete the Elaner]

8 minutes ago, 'CHARD said:

 

Limby?

Ok, the older 91 was 100% Hornby & made while Lima was still trading.

Can we forgive the poster this error?

The Hornby 91 may have pushed 13 around but with traction tyres ... 

[miles73128]

8 minutes ago, 'CHARD said:

 

Limby?

Sorry, my shorthand for the ex Lima locos, reintroduced by Hornby, fitted with this type of motor. Of course the existing Horny 91, is Hornby (not Lima) but the last version released (East Coast) has this “Limby” type motor, vers the Ringfield 5 or 3 pole. I haven’t tried with my Ringfields, they would struggle with a test load of 13!