Who wants a newly tooled Class 91?

[DaveClass47]

Hi, thanks for your feedback.   Really helpful comments.   Can I suggest you put your suggestion directly to Hornby via their 'contact us' section of their website.   The more people who directly contact Hornby the better!  I would love to see Hornby upgrade this model, but it will only have a small chance of happening if we all get in touch with Hornby - or in time another manufacturer!

 

Thanks again.

Dave

[DaveClass47]

There is an obvious problem with this poll. I am not interested in a class 91. There is a question that allows me to state this, but ONLY if I make a lot of choices about a model I've said I don't want! At the moment 13% of the answers are from people who have said they have no interest in this model. This mean that an 1/8 of the data collected about all the very detailed wishes for a new model is by definition invalid.  It ought to be question 1 and the other question ought only to be visible if you vote FOR a model.

With respect...if you are not interested in this model then why are you even bothering to make an issue of the poll?

 

Sadly, I am not a professional 'poll maker'.   This poll was a simple way of me gauging the opinion of my fellow modellers who do/do not want to see a new 91.  I agree, The poll is not perfect, but does that detract from the over all feedback I have received and from the fact that over 80% have consistently said that they would like to see a newly tooled example (whether they have a direct interest in the class or not).  

 

Your argument surrounding invalid data is not entirely relevant.   One example I have had so far is of a modeller who sent me a message saying that whilst he has no direct interest in this class of locomotive he does feel that it needs to be updated.   He was also able to give me feedback on the liveries he thought suited this class of loco the best.

 

If you wish to add your constructive feedback on the current Hornby offering then please feel free to do so.  However pointing out the very minor flaws in my poll is not going to bring about a newly tooled 91.  

[DaveClass47]

Would love too see a INTERCITY version of the '91' with MK4 coaching stock with the MK4 DVT, will lights, upgraded chassis etc. Maybe a purposed 91 007 with Golden doors for a mid 90's vibe. 

Hi, thanks for your feedback.   Really helpful comments.   Can I suggest you put your suggestion directly to Hornby via their 'contact us' section of their website.   The more people who directly contact Hornby the better!  I would love to see Hornby upgrade this model, but it will only have a small chance of happening if we all get in touch with Hornby - or in time another manufacturer!

 

Thanks again.

Dave

[Vistisen]

Because the point of the poll is to see if there is demand, for a model, In other words what percentage of the modeling public would buy one of these? So unless you collect data from all the possible choices it is useless to a manufacturer. They know how many models they sell, in all, so they can use a poll that HAS a no answer and those who answer NO to see if as a percentage there would across the whole of their customer base there would be enough people who would buy one, If there at 300 out of 300 who say yes then then only know there are 300 customers. If there are 150 out of 300 who say yes, Then they know that about half of their customers want one.

 

Another valid reason for voting no to a project is that I might rather that they uses their limited resources to produce something I do want, rather than 'waste' them on a model i don't

Edited April 4, 2015 by Vistiaen

[Multiple identity account]

 

With respect...if you are not interested in this model then why are you even bothering to make an issue of the poll?

 

Sadly, I am not a professional 'poll maker'.   This poll was a simple way of me gauging the opinion of my fellow modellers who do/do not want to see a new 91.  I agree, The poll is not perfect, but does that detract from the over all feedback I have received and from the fact that over 80% have consistently said that they would like to see a newly tooled example (whether they have a direct interest in the class or not).  

 

Your argument surrounding invalid data is not entirely relevant.   One example I have had so far is of a modeller who sent me a message saying that whilst he has no direct interest in this class of locomotive he does feel that it needs to be updated.   He was also able to give me feedback on the liveries he thought suited this class of loco the best.

 

If you wish to add your constructive feedback on the current Hornby offering then please feel free to do so.  However pointing out the very minor flaws in my poll is not going to bring about a newly tooled 91.  

 

Well you'll always have people saying thins like that. Even I had no idea why..... 

[Multiple identity account]

Because the point of the poll is to see if there is demand, for a model, In other words what percentage of the modeling public would buy one of these? So unless you collect data from all the possible choices it is useless to a manufacturer. They know how many models they sell, in all, so they can use a poll that HAS a no answer and those who answer NO to see if as a percentage there would across the whole of their customer base there would be enough people who would buy one, If there at 300 out of 300 who say yes then then only know there are 300 customers. If there are 150 out of 300 who say yes, Then they know that about half of their customers want one.

 

Another valid reason for voting no to a project is that I might rather that they uses their limited resources to produce something I do want, rather than 'waste' them on a model i don't

The objective of this poll is to see how many people want a Class 91 and how many are ok with the current offering. With that in mind the poll is fine. There is no need to see who doesn't want one.

 

At the end of the day any manufacturer wants to sell and average of a 1000 units. So in theory if 1000 people vote for it, it is viable. Why would a no vote affect a vote for it?

[Rhydgaled]

There is an obvious problem with this poll. I am not interested in a class 91. There is a question that allows me to state this, but ONLY if I make a lot of choices about a model I've said I don't want! At the moment 13% of the answers are from people who have said they have no interest in this model. This mean that an 1/8 of the data collected about all the very detailed wishes for a new model is by definition invalid.  It ought to be question 1 and the other question ought only to be visible if you vote FOR a model.

I disagree. I am in the 13% who voted no to the question "Would you be interested in adding a Class 91 to your layout?" but that was for two reasons:

1. I already have the old Hornby one with the naff sticker-headlights, and would rather pay a small amount to upgrade my existing model if Hornby would retool the headlight panels and sell them as spares, and
2. If I ever get round to building a layout I doubt I will be modeling a line with OHLE

So, my 91 isn't really for my layout, but it is something I really like and will probably have it on static display on a shelf most of the time (I'd still stick it on the layout and have it run magically without OHLE from time to time though). As a fan of the 91, it pains me to see the naff sticker-headlights on photos of other's layouts, as well as on my own model. And, as I said before, if a new model is priced right and looks right I would be tempted to buy 91110 in its East Coast Battle Of Britain Memorial Flight livery; it wouldn't be for my layout but just because the real thing is such a good-looking loco, and a properly done model should look great too.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Rhydgaled

[sub39h]

The reassuring thing is that the MR and Flying Scotsman sets sold out. I was expecting both of them to bomb tbh. Proves there is a market for the Class 91 out there.

[Removed a/c]

If people are snapping these up is there any incentive to release it with updated tooling? 

[DaveClass47]

If people are snapping these up is there any incentive to release it with updated tooling? 

Hi, I believe so.

 

As you can see from the poll results so far, 90 out of the 110 votes said they are not content with the current tooling.   That's over 80%.  The same is true for the question on whether they would interesting in adding a 91 to their layout.   90 people have said yes, but only if its re-tooled.   

 

I think that if Hornby have the courage and future vision, then its essential for them to have a modern electric to 21st century standards in their line up of models.   They have exhausted the steam fleet and to be honest, they dont show much interest in the diesel era, so maybe they can carve a new market niche in the electrics!   I have read that Simon Kohler banged his head against a brick wall trying to get the engineers to re tool the APT!....more fool them!

[YesTor]

If people are snapping these up is there any incentive to release it with updated tooling? 

 

 

Hi, I believe so.

 

I think the point that thebritfarmer is making is indeed there perhaps isn't any incentive to upgrade the existing Class 91 model.  After all, why would any manufacturer choose to invest heavily in new tooling when the existing tooling is clearly turning what we can only assume to be a healthy profit with no further investment required?

Edited April 15, 2015 by darkjunglemung

[YesTor]

This hasn't been discussed with Dave Jones yet, but I'd plan on using a strategy with different formations on offer + coach packs + special 'one off' liveries if the necessary rights can be obtained. The rights to produce certain liveries would of course push the price up of items. 

 

Cheers,

   60800

 

It would be a really good idea, and more to the point good business savvy, to actually find out if it is indeed possible to obtain the rights to produce these 'one-off' liveries, before organizing, or even publicly discussing such a crowd funding scheme.  After all, look what happened with the recently announced Class 59, which has now been put on hold due to being unable to obtain permission to produce key liveries.  This is merely speculation, but for all we know Hornby may well already possess exclusive rights to produce some of the special liveries already produced on the Class 91.  If this were to be the case then it would significantly affect any investment in a new model I would have thought...

 

In summary, if it were me, I'd be gathering all of the necessary facts before making any kind of proposal publicly.  Don't forget, the "walls have ears", and you've just successfully informed the chief competition of your future plans...  

Edited April 15, 2015 by darkjunglemung

[Removed a/c]

I think the point that thebritfarmer is making is indeed there perhaps isn't any incentive to upgrade the existing Class 91 model.  After all, why would any manufacturer choose to invest heavily in new tooling when the existing tooling is clearly turning what we can only assume to be a healthy profit with no further investment required?

You are correct in your thinking.  

[Oakydoke]

 

...... look what happened with the recently announced Class 59, which has now been put on hold due to being unable to obtain permission to produce key liveries.  

 

The latest news from DJM, is that the situation has now progressed in a positive direction, with only one permission left outstanding.

[YesTor]

The latest news from DJM, is that the situation has now progressed in a positive direction, with only one permission left outstanding.

 

That's great news as I'm personally really looking forward to the 59s. 

[60800]

It would be a really good idea, and more to the point good business savvy, to actually find out if it is indeed possible to obtain the rights to produce these 'one-off' liveries, before organizing, or even publicly discussing such a crowd funding scheme. After all, look what happened with the recently announced Class 59, which has now been put on hold due to being unable to obtain permission to produce key liveries. This is merely speculation, but for all we know Hornby may well already possess exclusive rights to produce some of the special liveries already produced on the Class 91. If this were to be the case then it would significantly affect any investment in a new model I would have thought...

 

In summary, if it were me, I'd be gathering all of the necessary facts before making any kind of proposal publicly. Don't forget, the "walls have ears", and you've just successfully informed the chief competition of your future plans...

The project is currently at a halt as there have been no more discussions since. Yes, the walls do have ears and it's the potential purchasers that I hope would be listening in to make suggestions as to how they would prefer the model to be delivered

 

Cheers,

60800

[GWR 14xx]

Hi,

I would just like to say that I would love to see a newly tooled class 91 and Mk 4 DVT, I don't mind who does them, I just want them. Oh and if a kickstarter, crowd funding project was started with DJ Models on board then I would definitely want to be part of that. I have the new Beattie Well tank produced by DJM in conjunction with Kernow Model Rail Centre and I can tell you that it's detailing and quality is excellent so I'm sure that a 91 would be produced to an equally high standard.

 

Oh and Dave, I love your YouTube videos, can't get enough of them in fact, keep them up!

 

Cheers

Howard.

Edited April 23, 2015 by GWR 14xx

[DaveClass47]

Hi,

I would just like to say that I would love to see a newly tooled class 91 and Mk 4 DVT, I don't mind who does them, I just want them. Oh and if a kickstarter, crowd funding project was started with DJ Models on board then I would definitely want to be part of that. I have the new Beattie Well tank produced by DJM in conjunction with Kernow Model Rail Centre and I can tell you that it's detailing and quality is excellent so I'm sure that a 91 would be produced to an equally high standard.

 

Oh and Dave, I love your YouTube videos, can't get enough of them in fact, keep them up!

 

Cheers

Howard.

Hi Howard,

 

Thanks you so much for your comments about my layout.   I try to get videos uploaded each month, but with the warmer weather coming in I am limited to my time up the loft...it just gets too hot!   Keep an eye out for more uploads and thanks for your support.

 

As for the Cl91.  I have now emailed Hornby on 3 occasions asking for them to look at this thread and I also informed them of the growing desire from a large group of modellers for them to re tool the 91, DVT etc.   However if it is to happen it needs more people than just little old me telling them directly.   Thats why I urge everyone who reads this to contact Hornby directly via the Hornby.com site and direct their comments to the customer care team or 'product suggestions' section of the 'Contact Us' tab.   The more times Hornby are reminded of this thread the more attention they may pay to it.   If they don't then maybe the DJ models via a kick starter is the next step...however a kickstarter would require DJ models (or who ever else) to produce the full train including MK4 coaches and MK4 DVT.

 

Thanks for your comment, I hope your voice is heard by Hornby.   Fingers crossed for a new 91 & MK4 DVT!

 

Dave

[jjb1970]

I'll admit I find a lot of the business behind what models get made to be baffling. We have two models of the class 71 coming, excellent models of short lived pilot scheme diesels like the 15 and 16 and even one off prototypes yet the locomotives that have operated the ECML for 25 years are served in model form by what is in effect a Railroad quality model. Hornby have replaced several old diesel models, for example the 31, 43 HST, 50, 56, 60 and 67 were all in the Hornby tooling pool (admittedly mainly via acquired lines) and were replaced by new super detailed models. Bachmann gave us the superb 85 but we still lack a good 86 or 87 too. Something that may be significant is that for all I think the 85 is a tremendous model it does seem to have lingered on shelves for along time and I get the impression it has not set the world on fire sales wise. Maybe Hornby just don't see overhead electrics as being attractive to most of the market?

[Multiple identity account]

My take on the lack of sales is as follow:-

Heljan Class 86: IMHO, it has more inaccuracy than accuracy in it. It never looked like a Class 86.

Bachmann Class 85: I never had one, from images I like it's detail level. But the Class 85 just wasn't popular enough. I was never a fan of the Class 85 - I was never a fan of it's looks - I am no more a fan of Bachmann (personal reasons)

General Issue: So far we've had two attempts at new electrics (excluding the Class 71's). The reason for them cited above. But another main reason is the lack of affordable easy to set up OHE masts and wire. Most people will want the full package i.e. loco and OHE. Scratch building masts and wire isn't everyone's taste.

[lyneux]

JB,

 

I think we will NEVER have easy-to-set-up OHLE that doesn't look toy like. The reason: if you want it made to scale, then you need a strong join between the wires and the masts and tension in the wires. This is really hard to achieve without all-metal soldered construction (which doesn't fit with the injection moulded plastic ready-to-plonk concept). Manufacturers producing metal masts might help with this but I expect they would be very expensive as they will have to be fabricated (die cast ones would snap and be over-scale).

 

If you are not going to tension things, then the alternative is to over-scale everything... hence the toy-like systems that we have seen in the past.

 

So, don't hold your breath waiting for a RTR/RTP scale system!

 

Guy

[jjb1970]

In N gauge the Japanese concept of using masts without wires works surprisingly well and in many ways looks better than actual wires as a result of the over scale appearnace of N gauge wires but as you scale up to 1/76 it becomes much less attractive and really you need wires for OHLE to look good.

[DaveClass47]

In N gauge the Japanese concept of using masts without wires works surprisingly well and in many ways looks better than actual wires as a result of the over scale appearnace of N gauge wires but as you scale up to 1/76 it becomes much less attractive and really you need wires for OHLE to look good.

Hi,

 

I think the inclusion of wires poses some problems for modelers.   At the moment there seems to be no hard and fast rule as to the spacing of the masts, so any wiring would have to include a guide for distance between masts.   And we all know that masts are closer together on curves and on point work, so manufacturing set sections of wiring to cater for all of these eventualities could be complex and expensive, considering the limited market of modelers who may want to use wiring with their masts.

 

Dapol are apparently launching wiring (non operational) to go with their 00 gauge masts, but the maximum section of these is 200mm, thats far too close for masts to be spaced, so would look wrong.  Dapol are also expending the types of masts they offer n and 00 gauge modelers...however I have been waiting 2 years for these to materialise!!

 

Secondly, having the wires in place impedes maintenance.   You cant get in to clean the track as easily, hoover up dust etc and generally clean the layout.   The wires by their very scale would be very fragile and hinder more than enhance a working layout.

 

I think we are in danger of missing the point of getting a newly tooled electric loco....and that is to run detailed electrics to modern standards.   They will look good pulling trains under masts, with or without wires.   I just want a newly tooled loco....then if they take off then we never know, operational wires may follow!

Edited April 24, 2015 by DaveClass47

[DaveClass47]

Can I suggest?

 

Can I please ask anyone posting on this thread who wants a newly tooled electric, Class 91 or otherwise to contact manufacturers and make a product suggestion through their official channels.

 

Simply posting thoughts and desires on here is really great, informative and worthwhile, however in order to get things to happen the manufacturers need to be directly persuaded.   So why not spend 5 minutes writing them a polite email?, perhaps ask them for:

 

Class 91 - perhaps try Hornby first, as they already tool this loco.    www.Hornby.com/uk-en/contact

 

Class 86  - ask Heljan to retool their flawed one?

 

Class 87 - ask ALL three major manufacturers?   Hornby are currently the only ones who have this loco in their range, even if it is pretty rubbish by modern standards.  If Bachmann take it on we may see it by 2025 going on Bachmann's current progress! 

 

Manufacturers such as Hornby etc say that a lot of their future products come about as a result of consumer demand.   Well let us start directly demanding a new 91 of them!!

 

Thanks

 

Dave (I'll get a new 91 somehow! lol)

Edited April 25, 2015 by DaveClass47

[jjb1970]

I've never really been that worried about running electrics with the pan down and no wires, clearly there is something wrong in an electric running without wires but I don't mind it. Also, my own experience of club layouts with overhead wires has not been especially positive, things like Sommerfeldt catenary were very expensive, the wires themselves didn't look great (the masts did however look good) and they were rather temperamental as well as the issues with impeding access to the track. I run my Japanese N gauge using the Japanese concept of masts without wires and am happy with that compromise.

I do think we need more good overhead electrics. The two Heljan DC electrics are not great, neither is the Heljan 86. The 86 was especially disappointing as in some ways the 86 is like the 47 of the WCML, any WCML layout from their introduction onwards needs 86's. He old Hornby model is very old but to be honest I'm not sure the Heljan version is that much better (mechanism excepted) and to consider that a relatively new model really doesn't offer that much more in body terms than old 80's Hornby tooling is rather sad. The 87 is the other big need, as with the Hornby 86 the Lima 87 was a good model for its time and with work it can be made very presentable but we really could do with a good new model. Maybe it is because I am biased in that I have always lived on the WCML and grew up with classes 81, 85, 86, 87 and 90 but I've always found it disappointing that overhead electrics have struggled to find representation in OO model form.

I do have some optimism in that recent years have seen a real transformation in the availability of Southern region third rail models which were another sorely under represented in model form however it does need much less imagination to run a third rail train with no third rail than an overhead electric without wires.