New Crowdfunded Class 86 or Class 87

[Removed a/c]

Indeed, the Bachmann 85 is very nice, although I wouldn't go as far as to say that there is more than sufficient detail.  Sure, its crisply moulded and the pantograph is indeed very nice, and perhaps most important of all is that the general shape and appearance seems correct.  Okay, I appreciate that I'm perhaps adopting a slightly hardcore approach here, but aside from that ask yourself, where does the model truly excel? To be brutally frank, it really doesn't break any boundaries, or push the barrier any further than the bulk of previous models. 

 

One area that I strongly feel could be improved - and this applies to most diesel/electric models currently on the market from most manufacturers - is bogies frames, which for the most part, are still one-piece mouldings.  Having viewed the SLW Class 24 close-up very recently, I really do feel that this is one area that this new model excels way above what has been done before.  Take a really close up look at the SLW Class 24 bogies, followed by Bachmann's Class 85 bogies, and there's no competition.

 

At the end of the day I suppose it really depends upon what any manufacturer wants to achieve.  Of course there has to be some balance, but if its an okay-ish model that can be retailed for around 100 quid then compromises will no doubt be made.  If on the other hand if its something genuinely eye-catching and potentially groundbreaking that the manufacturer wants to be renowned for then we have to accept that its going to cost a little extra. 

 

I know which side of the fence I'm on, and its not the "Oh, let's knock another tenner off the price and leave off the sprung buffers, lights, wipers, blah blah blah brigade"

 

Just my two-penneth.

Had a look at the 24 and the detail is amazing. As I am in Canada I haven't had the opportunity to see one first hand. I also think that some of the detail is there for the sake of it. I personally don't see a need for that level of cab detail when for the most part it cannot be seen especially when on the tracks and moving. same applies to the bogies IMO. I don't think a metal tin is need with a rigid plastic case it just adds to the cost. This 24 reminds of the model collectors cars you can buy with all the bells and whistles mainly as a static display item. Just because it can be done does it need to be? 

[adb968008]

Reading the posts there seems to be some resistance about detail in some areas, which for a massively critical modeller community is quite unusual.

Obviously a model reaching a price tag that is closer to starting with a 2 is the factor.

 

It's worth considering the lifespan of a model, the current Hornby 86 is over 35 years old. It's challenger, by all accounts failed to take the spot.

AC models don't come around too often, even the "new" class 90 is only just being replaced after a 29 year life span.

 

Looking further back the hithero Unknown levels of detail seen on the Fleischmann warship over 45 years ago stood the test of time and was still considered the best warship model until 2015... And it was priced at an ungodly £100, 25 years ago, when you could buy 5 Lima warships new for that price.

certainly I doubt SLWs 24 will be surpassed in detail in the future and whilst it's £160 today, even in a few years inflation will make that price attractive and I'm sure the other 24 on the market may reach not too far from that price.

I suspect that had we known in advance they were doing it many would have questioned the logic considering price, detail and a competitor which isn't that bad... But when we saw what we got did we say "wow".

 

World records aren't believed in advance, but set the bar of expectation afterwards.

 

So done correctly the class 86 could be a fantastic model for the next 25 years, if that means it's the ultimate class 86, I'd rather take that opportunity than to have a cheaper part bake and in 10 years time be begging the market to replace it with, by that point with inflation, a £300-350 newer alternative.

It also raises the possibility that there's a market place for a new 81, which hasn't been done for nearly 50 years (trix) but still commands prices similar to the new proposed class 86 for a good one, without complaint or resistance, despite its lack of just about every detail that is proposed for the 86... Aren't modellers a fickle bunch.

[jjb1970]

I don't think there will ever be a truly ultimate or definitive model for the simple reason that if you have an existing benchmark then it will always be possible to do something more. Well, at least for our lifetimes I think. The fundamental question is what do people want models for? That may seem an obvious question but it is crucial to considering model production. I have US and Japanese brass models made 20 years ago that blow any UK OO RTR away in terms of detail but they tend to be rather problematic if running on a layout, they were very expensive and they're not models you'd want to risk being knocked in a crash, derailment or just handling them too much. Much of their detail is pretty much lost when I do run them however when in a display cabinet I love drooling over the finish and insane detail. What is really important for a model? I'd argue:

 

Shape - if the shape is not right then detail is irrelevant as it just won't look good

Mechanism - smooth and quiet running with sufficient power

Finish - a nice paint finish in a convincing colour and with good numbers, flashes, info labelling etc

 

If you get those three things right then you start considering how far you go down the detail line. Getting the shape right does not need to add anything to the cost. On running, despite all the opprobrium thrown at the design clever decision to go for three pole motors I find my Bachmann and Hornby models fitted with three pole motors are as smooth and quiet as any of the models I have with esoteric high end drives. In fact, in some cases the less exotic drives have actually outperformed models that should be better based on the components used. On finish, again, a good finish shouldn't really add that much to cost.

 

My objection to the Heljan 86 was not about detail or running (some of the underframe detail was superb and Heljan mechanisms are as good as it gets in my experience) but rather there were problems with the shape, body side design and that the oversize pantograph was an eye sore. If Heljan had not blown the shape and pan then I do not believe we'd see much need for another 86 model.

 

I'd not object to more and more detail if it was cost effective, but it is a bit disingenuous to ignore cost. Bachmann are taking a lot of heat for their price increases yet in some cases I see people attack Bachmann for the price of a model and then on another post demand more and more details and say if it adds to the cost then it's a price worth paying, which seems a bit inconsistent. One of the real strengths of Bachmann is that for the most part they've found a very sensible balance between detail, design, quality and price. If people want an ultimate 86 or 87 then I'd argue that they should be asking Dave to go the full hog and do it in brass and use one of the high end Korean brass outfits for production. Or, perhaps even better, go down the Broadway Limited Imports brass hybrid route which combines great running with a brass body shell and digital functionality. Certainly, at some of the prices being floated then I'd rather go further and pay for a brass hybrid.

 

I use the term arms race as I think it is apt. I'm not a unilateral nuclear abolitionist and believe in the concept of deterrence but I also think the nuclear arms race resulted in 10,000's of nuclear weapons for which there wasn't even a coherent strategy. They were made because people got into a race and completely lost sight of rational thought and strategy. If people want the ultimate that can be achieved then fair enough, but I think most potential purchasers will baulk at the cost, the resulting model probably wouldn't be great for those who run trains and it would be unnecessary. Presenting this as a "that's good enough, just keep the old Railroad model" argument is a bit disingenuous and ignores the elephant in the room, i.e. market sensitivity to cost.

[Dagworth]

All these comments about the Bachmann 85 pan, that was the worst part of that model, anyone who has one and has tried to use it in contact with wires will know that it doesn't behave correctly as is well documented in the 85 threads.

 

Andi

[GordonC]

and dragged between crewe - shrewsbury - wolverhampton too pretty regularly, so an 86 on an un-electrified line with GWR lower quadrant signals is prototypical!

86259 was recently dragged around on the east lancs on one of the gala days too

[Fenman]

... final quotes in from China and to be honest they are frightening. Mostly based on the fact that the costs due to Brexit panic affecting the exchange rate awfully, have affected things very badly.

 

So although i'm not at this stage going to tell you costs, i'm going to ask a crucial question.

 

Based on Metal sprung scale panto, PluX22 DCC, large speaker space, etched grilles, close coupling mechanism, sprung buffers, all the lights you could ever want controllable from DCC or by switches underneath the chassis, etched wipers, metal handrails, fully detailed cab, etched nameplates (where applicable) and a wealth of other details.....what would you be willing to pay?

...

 

Given the timescale you're probably working to and that spec., I'd expect to pay north of £200.

 

Doesn't mean I'd like to, just what I'd expect.

 

Like some others, I think the specification arms race is going a bit mad: whatever you produce has to fit sensibly alongside other models so, just as anything too toy-like would look wrong, so something too pristine would either look wrong or not be noticed at speed / normal viewing distances - and, if the latter, why would I pay for it?

 

Hornby's highly detailed steam engine cab interiors are hugely impressive, but frankly they're mostly invisible to me when I'm using the models. Whether a model does or doesn't have a highly detailed cab interior is usually utterly irrelevant to my purchasing decision (those of other people will differ...).

 

Opening doors, masses of DCC features that I will never use (what is the current ratio of DC to DCC buyers?), even lights (marker lights at the beginning of this period were very faint, practically invisible in sunlight - so why would I want those? Especially when 90% of my coaches don't have them) - I can happily live without any of those.

 

Though I'm still expecting to pay around £200 a pop by, say, 2018.

 

Paul

[GordonC]

I can't believe it's taken me this long to spot this poll only after reading about it in a magazine!!

I'd have both and would struggle to pick a favourite of the two classes. Bearing in mind I model WCML in 80s and 90s these classes are currently a fairly obvious omission in what's currently available and I'd really want 5+ of both.

I'd agree with the others about the Bachmann class 85 being the standard to aim for. I'd hope for around the £150 mark but get the quality is right the price would be less of an issue but don't have an endless wallet either.

A motorised pantograph sounds like a bit of a gimmick - Dave could you give us an idea of how much extra this feature would cost in isolation?

I can't help thinking the longevity and livery options for both these classes is quite different to the crowd funded or some smaller diesel classes where demand could be satisfied in a single batch or two of models produced in one go. I'd expect these to be like the electric equivalents of the 37s and 47s and sell year on year in various livery and detail options. I would ask to maybe spread models produced at the same time through different eras to avoid too big a cost at once if several models are pre-ordered at once.

 

I'd go with 21 pin DCC socket, I don't see what Plux22 adds and doesn't seem as common as 21 pin

maybe given previous experience you should announce something completely random to see if it flushes out 'duplication'

[wombatofludham]

It sounds as though the existing Hornby Class 86 will tick a good number of your boxes - "Correct shape, correct features and detail for the variant/time period of the model), separate handrails etc..."

 

 

 

Absolute rot and you are jumping to a very stupid conclusion. 

 

I'm a realist.  Dave has hinted the cost of a new 86 or 87 with all the gimmicks and toys people seem to keep asking for will be north of £200.  I'm lucky, I can afford that but many can't.  Given AC electric fans are in a minority anyway so the market by default will be lower, if the price is well north of £200 it will depress the market further and as such probably make it unlikely to attract sufficient pledges.  So, wanting the moon and sixpence on the "definitive" 86 or 87 might lead to it becoming the definitive wish-list rather than the definitive model.

 

Let's get real.  Sprung buffers?  Unless you have the eyes of the proverbial shitehouse rat and run your stock with continuous brakes so they don't move when buffering up, will you notice buffer compression on the average layout until the unbraked stock bounces off unrealistically?  So, really, what is the point of them?  Opening doors.  How often did the real life 86s and 87s hurtle around the network at 110 mph with their cab doors open?  Cab lights.  Again, how often did you see locos with their cab lights on in service?  Possibly once in a blue moon when stopped in a yard or station, but, again, if that adds significantly to the cost, it's something of dubious added value.

 

We've yet to get a decent model of the 86 or 87 in shape or in all the varieties and modifications throughout their long lives.  A model to match the standard and quality of the Bachmann 85 would be pretty definitive (although finer windscreen wipers and better pantograph would be essential) and I certainly don't miss any gimmicks on the Bachmann 85 which is streets ahead of the Hornby 86 and the geriatric Limby 87, so no, the Hornby ACs are not acceptable as a match standard, but the Bachmann 85 is.  My concern is if we demand too many features "just because it can be done" we will be in grave danger of pricing the model way outside of most people, and create the situation where we end up with nothing simply because not enough people come forward with pre-orders, especially given the bizarre reluctance on the part of the UK modeller to get involved in crowd funding or modelling anything needing OHLE.

[GordonC]

You have lost me with that one. A steam model without working motion would be laughed out of town by serious steam modellers. For serious modellers of overhead electrics, a pantograph that can follow the overhead wires, with realistic changes in height for infrastructure is also required. Where is the issue?

 

As for the vote, I voted for a class 86 and if I were DJM, that is what I would look to do: they were more numerous, carried more liveries and have more detail differences to include in releases over the years.

 

As has been noted, one vote does not mean one model sale. For me, make some rail blue 86s available and I will buy 3 or 4. Personally not interested in much else livery wise, perhaps one large logo may just be ok.

 

Roy

 

Electrics didn't generally carry Large Logo livery other than 87006 with its experimental battleship grey livery in 1984 before the other test livery Intercity Executive was chosen. Or are you thinking of the Rainhill Class 86s?

[Roy Langridge]

Electrics didn't generally carry Large Logo livery other than 87006 with its experimental battleship grey livery in 1984 before the other test livery Intercity Executive was chosen. Or are you thinking of the Rainhill Class 86s?

Quite right you are, the memory must be going! As I said, I don't normally venture beyond all-over blue, that is my excuse and I am sticking too it ;-)

 

Roy

[fozzy280472]

Absolute rot and you are jumping to a very stupid conclusion. 

 

I'm a realist.  Dave has hinted the cost of a new 86 or 87 with all the gimmicks and toys people seem to keep asking for will be north of £200.  I'm lucky, I can afford that but many can't.  Given AC electric fans are in a minority anyway so the market by default will be lower, if the price is well north of £200 it will depress the market further and as such probably make it unlikely to attract sufficient pledges.  So, wanting the moon and sixpence on the "definitive" 86 or 87 might lead to it becoming the definitive wish-list rather than the definitive model.

 

Let's get real.  Sprung buffers?  Unless you have the eyes of the proverbial shitehouse rat and run your stock with continuous brakes so they don't move when buffering up, will you notice buffer compression on the average layout until the unbraked stock bounces off unrealistically?  So, really, what is the point of them?  Opening doors.  How often did the real life 86s and 87s hurtle around the network at 110 mph with their cab doors open?  Cab lights.  Again, how often did you see locos with their cab lights on in service?  Possibly once in a blue moon when stopped in a yard or station, but, again, if that adds significantly to the cost, it's something of dubious added value.

 

We've yet to get a decent model of the 86 or 87 in shape or in all the varieties and modifications throughout their long lives.  A model to match the standard and quality of the Bachmann 85 would be pretty definitive (although finer windscreen wipers and better pantograph would be essential) and I certainly don't miss any gimmicks on the Bachmann 85 which is streets ahead of the Hornby 86 and the geriatric Limby 87, so no, the Hornby ACs are not acceptable as a match standard, but the Bachmann 85 is.  My concern is if we demand too many features "just because it can be done" we will be in grave danger of pricing the model way outside of most people, and create the situation where we end up with nothing simply because not enough people come forward with pre-orders, especially given the bizarre reluctance on the part of the UK modeller to get involved in crowd funding or modelling anything needing OHLE.

I think this post has hit the nail squarely on the head .

 

Cheers Paul

[adb968008]

Let's supposed the detail was that of the Bachmann 85.

What if that price then was still closer the magic 2 figure ?

 

On the day the class 71 was announced here the £/$ exchange rate was $1.68 = £1.00. (July 31st 2014).

Today your looking at $ 1.32.

That's a 21% drop.

on that basis the price of the 71, if done today is £139 * 21% = £168.

 

Then add inflation and all the other salary stories, and risk risk risk were are drip fed from China.

 

It may be that the magic £200 figure may be the price even for a Bachmann class 85 spec.

[JSpencer]

Absolute rot and you are jumping to a very stupid conclusion. 

 

I'm a realist.  Dave has hinted the cost of a new 86 or 87 with all the gimmicks and toys people seem to keep asking for will be north of £200.  I'm lucky, I can afford that but many can't.  Given AC electric fans are in a minority anyway so the market by default will be lower, if the price is well north of £200 it will depress the market further and as such probably make it unlikely to attract sufficient pledges.  So, wanting the moon and sixpence on the "definitive" 86 or 87 might lead to it becoming the definitive wish-list rather than the definitive model.

 

Let's get real.  Sprung buffers?  Unless you have the eyes of the proverbial shitehouse rat and run your stock with continuous brakes so they don't move when buffering up, will you notice buffer compression on the average layout until the unbraked stock bounces off unrealistically?  So, really, what is the point of them?  Opening doors.  How often did the real life 86s and 87s hurtle around the network at 110 mph with their cab doors open?  Cab lights.  Again, how often did you see locos with their cab lights on in service?  Possibly once in a blue moon when stopped in a yard or station, but, again, if that adds significantly to the cost, it's something of dubious added value.

 

We've yet to get a decent model of the 86 or 87 in shape or in all the varieties and modifications throughout their long lives.  A model to match the standard and quality of the Bachmann 85 would be pretty definitive (although finer windscreen wipers and better pantograph would be essential) and I certainly don't miss any gimmicks on the Bachmann 85 which is streets ahead of the Hornby 86 and the geriatric Limby 87, so no, the Hornby ACs are not acceptable as a match standard, but the Bachmann 85 is.  My concern is if we demand too many features "just because it can be done" we will be in grave danger of pricing the model way outside of most people, and create the situation where we end up with nothing simply because not enough people come forward with pre-orders, especially given the bizarre reluctance on the part of the UK modeller to get involved in crowd funding or modelling anything needing OHLE.

 

Agree with this. Note though the Bachmann has Sprung buffers, agree they are not useful and many Bachmann diesels (like the 40) have separate cab lights (both come on at once when the prototype was generally just one end).

 

While many locos have sprung buffers these days, only a few coaches do and hardly any wagons. At the same time, there is no standard of buffer tension in the model world, so any buffering up that does happen, normally leads to model with the softest buffers getting compressed and not the other. Hardly realistic!

 

So I agree, for the sake of cost saving, they can be dropped.

 

On the other hand, I have seen panto's popping up and down on the real things often enough. Nice to have for sure. How much though?

 

As for weight (mentioned elsewhere), the Bachmann 85 can pull 22 coaches. It might feel light but is perfectly apt. If the DJM 86/87 can be better than that and leave space for decent sound chips and decent speaker, I have no quibbles.

[Titan]

All these comments about the Bachmann 85 pan, that was the worst part of that model, anyone who has one and has tried to use it in contact with wires will know that it doesn't behave correctly as is well documented in the 85 threads.

 

Andi

 

The sad thing is that it is also the best RTR pan to date on an AC electric (hastily adding the last quantifier as he remembers the new class 71's!!!), but having said that the rest of the model is so good the pantograph would have had quite a high bar to meet in order for it not to be the worst part of the model! What is really annoying is the fault with the pantograph is really simple, and should have been picked up prior to release. If corrected the pan actually works very well - No problems with my modified version running Pan up.

[Roy Langridge]

Let's get real.  Sprung buffers?  Unless you have the eyes of the proverbial shitehouse rat and run your stock with continuous brakes so they don't move when buffering up, will you notice buffer compression on the average layout until the unbraked stock bounces off unrealistically?  So, really, what is the point of them?  Opening doors.  How often did the real life 86s and 87s hurtle around the network at 110 mph with their cab doors open?  Cab lights.  Again, how often did you see locos with their cab lights on in service?  Possibly once in a blue moon when stopped in a yard or station, but, again, if that adds significantly to the cost, it's something of dubious added value.

 

Please don't forget that we don't all have layout that model 86s at 110 mph. Some of us have layouts representing TMDs etc. where pantographs that can move, cablights  / opening doors (of which I am not a fan) are more appropriate.

 

Roy

[JSpencer]

Please don't forget that we don't all have layout that model 86s at 110 mph. Some of us have layouts representing TMDs etc. where pantographs that can move, cablights  / opening doors (of which I am not a fan) are more appropriate.

 

Roy

 

Ok, I freely admit that cab lights are handy during warmup on DCC sound control. Not sure on opening doors though as you cannot control these and it would be awfully expensive to do so.

[ruggedpeak]

because not enough people come forward with pre-orders, especially given the bizarre reluctance on the part of the UK modeller to get involved in crowd funding or modelling anything needing OHLE.

I agree with all of your post except the last bit. This does seem to be an issue more for OO modellers as N guage projects such as the Pendo and 321 seem to be doing OK. Perhaps the provision of OHLE from Peco might help the situation?

 

As for the topic in hand, 86401 in its current Caley Sleeper colours (still performing duties at Ilford depot) and its earlier NSE would be my choices, but at a cost nearer £100 than £200. I might also be tempted by matching Caley 87002.

[JSpencer]

I don't think there will ever be a truly ultimate or definitive model for the simple reason that if you have an existing benchmark then it will always be possible to do something more. Well, at least for our lifetimes I think. The fundamental question is what do people want models for? That may seem an obvious question but it is crucial to considering model production. I have US and Japanese brass models made 20 years ago that blow any UK OO RTR away in terms of detail but they tend to be rather problematic if running on a layout, they were very expensive and they're not models you'd want to risk being knocked in a crash, derailment or just handling them too much. Much of their detail is pretty much lost when I do run them however when in a display cabinet I love drooling over the finish and insane detail. What is really important for a model? I'd argue:

 

Shape - if the shape is not right then detail is irrelevant as it just won't look good

Mechanism - smooth and quiet running with sufficient power

Finish - a nice paint finish in a convincing colour and with good numbers, flashes, info labelling etc

 

If you get those three things right then you start considering how far you go down the detail line. Getting the shape right does not need to add anything to the cost. On running, despite all the opprobrium thrown at the design clever decision to go for three pole motors I find my Bachmann and Hornby models fitted with three pole motors are as smooth and quiet as any of the models I have with esoteric high end drives. In fact, in some cases the less exotic drives have actually outperformed models that should be better based on the components used. On finish, again, a good finish shouldn't really add that much to cost.

 

My objection to the Heljan 86 was not about detail or running (some of the underframe detail was superb and Heljan mechanisms are as good as it gets in my experience) but rather there were problems with the shape, body side design and that the oversize pantograph was an eye sore. If Heljan had not blown the shape and pan then I do not believe we'd see much need for another 86 model.

 

I'd not object to more and more detail if it was cost effective, but it is a bit disingenuous to ignore cost. Bachmann are taking a lot of heat for their price increases yet in some cases I see people attack Bachmann for the price of a model and then on another post demand more and more details and say if it adds to the cost then it's a price worth paying, which seems a bit inconsistent. One of the real strengths of Bachmann is that for the most part they've found a very sensible balance between detail, design, quality and price. If people want an ultimate 86 or 87 then I'd argue that they should be asking Dave to go the full hog and do it in brass and use one of the high end Korean brass outfits for production. Or, perhaps even better, go down the Broadway Limited Imports brass hybrid route which combines great running with a brass body shell and digital functionality. Certainly, at some of the prices being floated then I'd rather go further and pay for a brass hybrid.

 

I use the term arms race as I think it is apt. I'm not a unilateral nuclear abolitionist and believe in the concept of deterrence but I also think the nuclear arms race resulted in 10,000's of nuclear weapons for which there wasn't even a coherent strategy. They were made because people got into a race and completely lost sight of rational thought and strategy. If people want the ultimate that can be achieved then fair enough, but I think most potential purchasers will baulk at the cost, the resulting model probably wouldn't be great for those who run trains and it would be unnecessary. Presenting this as a "that's good enough, just keep the old Railroad model" argument is a bit disingenuous and ignores the elephant in the room, i.e. market sensitivity to cost.

 

I have to agree with much of this.

 

Early models, which really were toys aimed at the toy market sought only to have the item looking remotely like the real thing. The fact that the number of wheels was not correct or not scale etc, did not matter. Its a toy, so an A4 with a smokey chassis is apt here.

 

Then they started to get the number of wheels correct, and make the the item look a lot more like the real thing. Even if dimensionally incorrect by a wide degree, they were considered as scale models than toys. The last of these was the Hornby 28XX from the end of the 80s. Compare with the one now to see how over long it was...

 

Now a manufacturer can get the shape right but have only molded details. The Lima class 47 fits that well. Or it can have many fine details fitted and be wrong, the Heljan 86 fits that one it seems.

 

Clearly a manufacturer needs to get the shape right first. Scanning helps for sure, but we have seen examples that even when scanned, the person doing the CADS may - as they tidy up the scanned fuzz ball shape - end up changing it. So that in turn still needs a good old fashioned shape check. This doubles the research time which is not free, but still cheaper than redoing all the tools.

 

Having got a correct shape, how detailed do you go?

 

Anyone who has taken a hundred photos of a real loco (me - as prior research before building a kit of the Q1) will know that there are actually tonnes of details such as lots of thin pipes and cables less than a centimetre round on the real thing. It is dountful moulding tools can get that fine, if they can, would we want such details as seperate fittings? The line has to drawn somewhere. Many a pre-determined dimension or a set of rules. Again someone with sufficient end buyer knowledge must step in to sign it off. In the case of my Q1, I left them off because the kit maker decided not to include these and you cannot see them on this scale. Hornby did too (though they did put in an effort to make the sandpipes more detailed than I did).

 

Even if the moulds can go finer, we have probably reached the limits of what someone can assemble by hand anyway. But the finer, more separately fitted detail you go, the more the cost goes up and it arriving with bits fallen off.

 

Sure, carbon nanotubes and 3D printing might eventually give us yet finer models that are more robust than today. These will probably need warnings that they are now a set of sharp edges waiting to fingers. The roof sheet of any loco scaled down is finer than a razor blade afterall.

 

In the meanwhile, remember in the 80s, a Lima or Hornby Electric loco was made from about 50 parts, today it is around 300. Do we need 300 parts? Can we get a decent model on just 200? Or does the scale we want correspond to 400?

 

None of the above means anything if the paint job is poor however. Which again can be really fine to require a microscope to read it or simply representative. Colours are equally subjective too...

[jjb1970]

Could DJ sub-contract the pantograph to somebody like Sommerfeldt? They've been making very fine, accurate functional pans for decades. I honestly can't understand why OO pans have been so problematic (Heljans effort was almost as much an eye sore as the Hornby efforts) when HO and N gauge manufacturers have been making excellent overhead electric models for lord knows how many years.

[Titan]

Ok, I freely admit that cab lights are handy during warmup on DCC sound control. Not sure on opening doors though as you cannot control these and it would be awfully expensive to do so.

 

I am not sure if I was the first to mention opening doors on this topic, but it was more from the point of the doors being separate moldings. Then the bodyshell for an 86 and 87 would be identical apart from the cab fronts - which would have several variations and slides to cover the sub types anyway. The only difference in bodyside between 86 and 87 is the 87  had an extra door handle (and indeed some 86 - were 86 and 87 doors interchageable?).

 

In other words, separate doors means no extra mold slides required to make an accurate 87 from an 86 mold (or vice versa!) And I would expect that molding a hole where the door should be is no worse than molding a window...

 

Now it might not be as simple as that, but if it is, why not have both?

[Titan]

Could DJ sub-contract the pantograph to somebody like Sommerfeldt? They've been making very fine, accurate functional pans for decades. I honestly can't understand why OO pans have been so problematic (Heljans effort was almost as much an eye sore as the Hornby efforts) when HO and N gauge manufacturers have been making excellent overhead electric models for lord knows how many years.

 

Judging by how good the panto on the 71 looks, I expect that DJ can cope with a good pan on an AC loco just fine. I think until the Bachmann 85 came along no manufacturer could be bothered to make the effort. 

[bescotbeast]

Absolute rot and you are jumping to a very stupid conclusion. 

 

I'm a realist.  Dave has hinted the cost of a new 86 or 87 with all the gimmicks and toys people seem to keep asking for will be north of £200.  I'm lucky, I can afford that but many can't.  Given AC electric fans are in a minority anyway so the market by default will be lower, if the price is well north of £200 it will depress the market further and as such probably make it unlikely to attract sufficient pledges.  So, wanting the moon and sixpence on the "definitive" 86 or 87 might lead to it becoming the definitive wish-list rather than the definitive model.

 

Let's get real.  Sprung buffers?  Unless you have the eyes of the proverbial shitehouse rat and run your stock with continuous brakes so they don't move when buffering up, will you notice buffer compression on the average layout until the unbraked stock bounces off unrealistically?  So, really, what is the point of them?  Opening doors.  How often did the real life 86s and 87s hurtle around the network at 110 mph with their cab doors open?  Cab lights.  Again, how often did you see locos with their cab lights on in service?  Possibly once in a blue moon when stopped in a yard or station, but, again, if that adds significantly to the cost, it's something of dubious added value.

 

We've yet to get a decent model of the 86 or 87 in shape or in all the varieties and modifications throughout their long lives.  A model to match the standard and quality of the Bachmann 85 would be pretty definitive (although finer windscreen wipers and better pantograph would be essential) and I certainly don't miss any gimmicks on the Bachmann 85 which is streets ahead of the Hornby 86 and the geriatric Limby 87, so no, the Hornby ACs are not acceptable as a match standard, but the Bachmann 85 is.  My concern is if we demand too many features "just because it can be done" we will be in grave danger of pricing the model way outside of most people, and create the situation where we end up with nothing simply because not enough people come forward with pre-orders, especially given the bizarre reluctance on the part of the UK modeller to get involved in crowd funding or modelling anything needing OHLE.

Well articulated Mr Wiles

[Chris Higgs]

I am not sure if I was the first to mention opening doors on this topic, but it was more from the point of the doors being separate moldings. Then the bodyshell for an 86 and 87 would be identical apart from the cab fronts - which would have several variations and slides to cover the sub types anyway. The only difference in bodyside between 86 and 87 is the 87  had an extra door handle (and indeed some 86 - were 86 and 87 doors interchageable?).

 

In other words, separate doors means no extra mold slides required to make an accurate 87 from an 86 mold (or vice versa!) And I would expect that molding a hole where the door should be is no worse than molding a window...

 

Now it might not be as simple as that, but if it is, why not have both?

 

What about the underframes?

 

Chris

[Karhedron]

I agree with all of your post except the last bit. This does seem to be an issue more for OO modellers as N guage projects such as the Pendo and 321 seem to be doing OK.

 

I think part of the reason is that electric trains tend to be fairly long beasties and it is a lot easier to build a layout that will accommodate them in N gauge than it is in 00.

[GordonC]

I think part of the reason is that electric trains tend to be fairly long beasties and it is a lot easier to build a layout that will accommodate them in N gauge than it is in 00.

 

not necessarily - the Intercity or Cross-country trains were generally electric hauled on the WCML northern legs. 1 First/Buffet RFO coach, 4 or 5 standard class TSO and a half-brake BSO.

 

Pretty sure I've seen 86s or 87s bringing a single BG to Carstairs with a portion of a postal.

 

Plenty HSTs must get sold, no reason why they'd be any shorter