Hornby Class 87 - Confirmed Newly Tooled Version for 2017 !

[wombatofludham]

Speaking personally I'd prefer an accurate looking BW pan rather than a robust but working one.  Technically it looks like trying to make a working yet accurate BW pan is difficult and in today's manufacturing climate that equals expensive, so rather than have the daft situation of a lovely model with a crude high-speed pan with additional bits and gubbins to keep it up, or have Hornby adopt the Heljan approach and commission the National Grid to design their pantograph, I'm happy with a poseable accurate non-working pantograph model.  I'll be running on DCC anyway so any OHLE will be purely decorative for me so a working pan is an irrelevance for me.

[Gordon H]

Indeed...I think these are the 3 points you're talking about.

 

Pantograph.jpg

 

1) is going to be a bit painful to make as it extends forwards, too fragile for a spring that might end up snapping it and too far forward to sit horizontally all the time, it's bound to fall forward thanks to a certain little force called gravity.

 

2) and 3) are fairly easy to do and Hornby have done it before using V shaped srpings. It works well but the springs cannot be hidden easily especially the spring connecting the lower and upper arm. The spring connecting the base to the lower arm is easy to accomplish.

 

But I clearly see why 1) can easily mess up an entire pantograph simply down to it's design.

 

When I started to scratchbuild mine shortly after the real thing first appeared, it was clear that for pivot (1) it would be virtually impossible to provide a linkage to maintain the head angle. Thus all mine have this top arm as a fixed feature, set at a compromise angle relative to the upper arm to look correct at a nominal wire height though the pan head itself is pivoted to allow for variations.

The function of (2) cannot be done properly with just a spring. There needs to be a linkage of sorts, replicating the arm and chain that runs up the hollow lower arm on the real thing. For mine I started with simple thread, superglued to the upper arm top surface and wrapped over the (2) knuckle, feeding down through the hollow lower arm and wrapped/glued to the underside of the front base cross member to provide a constant length while it is under tension.

With the length set just so, all you need to do is provide a spring between the base assembly and lower arm (3). The linkage thread then does the rest, as its path is offset from the mechanical pivot points and performs the pantograph function.

Subsequently I have used actual metal chain rather than thread, soldered in position as before - but this needs care to prevent the solder simply wicking up the very fine chain links and producing a solid 'wire' instead.

The only disadvantage of this arrangement is that it cannot prevent the pan 'unwrapping backwards' if the pan head catches on something on the wire while travelling in the conventional 'forwards' direction (i.e. to the left as shown in the diagram), as the chain only operates under tension. However, with properly set up and maintained wires this should not be too much of a problem as the only force the pan head sees should be downwards, whereby it works fine - electrically too, using all metal construction.

For me, a 'poseable pantograph' is not a pantograph at all. Might as well not be there if you're not going to use it.

[James Makin]

I'm happy with a poseable accurate non-working pantograph model.  I'll be running on DCC anyway so any OHLE will be purely decorative for me so a working pan is an irrelevance for me.

Hi Mark,

 

Thanks, to be clear here and avoid confusion - I'm the same, by "working pantograph" I mean that I'm looking for a pantograph which is correctly sprung and will itself raise towards and ride the contact wire (which is non-powered cosmetic OHLE). For example, the newer versions of the Hornby Class 92 have plastic representations of the BW pan, which as soon as you run this under model OHLE will catch and is frequently ripped off, and the spring fitted also compresses the pantograph at the wrong point so it looks a bit dodgy!

 

As a trade off, I'd be happy to go back to using the old metal Hornby pantographs from the 80s/90s era but it does seem a shame considering the rest of the model will undoubtably be class-leading here.

 

Cheers,

James

[adb968008]

Maybe I'm off base here, but why not ship with plastic pantograph arms fixed manually in different possible fixed positions...minimum being. 1 in the up position, 1 in the down ?

Surely a lot less bother than an adjustable one, which doesn't adjust anyway.

 

Can always be painted to give a realistic finish, and if shipped as two parts those could be set to adjustable positions, just not "sprung".

 

Most people don't do knitting above the track, so fixed down is fine, and could be adjusted to up manually for this that do.

 

Cost would be negligible compared to current complex solutions, and needn't be factory fitted making the box and shipping easier too.

Finally leaves room for an after market super detailed one for those really just must..

Edited May 24, 2017 by adb968008

[Michanglais]

As someone returning to UK modelling from Continental modelling (now that I've moved to the Continent - ironic, huh?!), are the wheels shown in the box artwork images the colour we can expect to actually feature on the model?

 

They seem very bright and shiny to me - is this Hornby's version of 'blackened' wheels?

 

Cheers,

Michael

 

Just as a quick 'edit' - do Hornby usually only produce a couple of liveries per loco per year? I'm fully intending to buy each and every 87 livery they produce but I can see my collection will be slow to grow if this is the case...

Edited May 25, 2017 by Michanglais

[John M Upton]

Yes, generally two or three liveries a year plus the odd commissioned limited edition from mags or retailers or the Collectors Club which is where I expect 87101 in RfD livery to appear from sooner or later.

[letterspider]

Indeed...I think these are the 3 points you're talking about.

 

Pantograph.jpg

 

1) is going to be a bit painful to make as it extends forwards, too fragile for a spring that might end up snapping it and too far forward to sit horizontally all the time, it's bound to fall forward thanks to a certain little force called gravity.

 

2) and 3) are fairly easy to do and Hornby have done it before using V shaped srpings. It works well but the springs cannot be hidden easily especially the spring connecting the lower and upper arm. The spring connecting the base to the lower arm is easy to accomplish.

 

But I clearly see why 1) can easily mess up an entire pantograph simply down to it's design.

 

Can I suggest that the pan head and the linkage arms utilise two neodymium magnets with same poles facing.They are really powerul and the repulsion would be sufficient to force the pan head against contact wire and you wouldn't need to have a spring?

[Crewlisle]

When I started to scratchbuild mine shortly after the real thing first appeared, it was clear that for pivot (1) it would be virtually impossible to provide a linkage to maintain the head angle. Thus all mine have this top arm as a fixed feature, set at a compromise angle relative to the upper arm to look correct at a nominal wire height though the pan head itself is pivoted to allow for variations.

The function of (2) cannot be done properly with just a spring. There needs to be a linkage of sorts, replicating the arm and chain that runs up the hollow lower arm on the real thing. For mine I started with simple thread, superglued to the upper arm top surface and wrapped over the (2) knuckle, feeding down through the hollow lower arm and wrapped/glued to the underside of the front base cross member to provide a constant length while it is under tension.

With the length set just so, all you need to do is provide a spring between the base assembly and lower arm (3). The linkage thread then does the rest, as its path is offset from the mechanical pivot points and performs the pantograph function.

Subsequently I have used actual metal chain rather than thread, soldered in position as before - but this needs care to prevent the solder simply wicking up the very fine chain links and producing a solid 'wire' instead.

The only disadvantage of this arrangement is that it cannot prevent the pan 'unwrapping backwards' if the pan head catches on something on the wire while travelling in the conventional 'forwards' direction (i.e. to the left as shown in the diagram), as the chain only operates under tension. However, with properly set up and maintained wires this should not be too much of a problem as the only force the pan head sees should be downwards, whereby it works fine - electrically too, using all metal construction.

For me, a 'poseable pantograph' is not a pantograph at all. Might as well not be there if you're not going to use it.

 

Gordon,

 

Nice to find someone else who can find a simple solution to a difficult problem.  I made my catenary using the French JV system 30 years ago.  It is all portable & the pantographs are in contact with the contact wire.  On my 2 x 86s, 1 x 87, 1 x 85, 1 x 82 & APT, I have fitted Sommerfeldt pantographs (except on the Bachmann 85 & Lima 87).  

 

The simple part on my catenary is how I restrict the pantograph head rising too high in tunnels where it could possibly snag electrical wiring.  How do I do it?  A length of black or grey cotton super glued to the pantograph head & the base frame.  This is almost invisible at normal viewing distance & viewers only see it when it is pointed out to them!

 

What I cannot understand is modellers complaining about the difficulty of modelling a working BW pantograph, saying they will run it with the pantograph down whilst at the same time praising the new model.  Why have a super detailed AC loco when the biggest out-of-scale thing is not having OLE or a working/raised pantograph?

 

Peter

Edited May 26, 2017 by Crewlisle

[MGR Hooper!]

Can I suggest that the pan head and the linkage arms utilise two neodymium magnets with same poles facing.They are really powerul and the repulsion would be sufficient to force the pan head against contact wire and you wouldn't need to have a spring?

That bit of advice will be more useful for Hornby or modelers who want a sprung pantograph rather than me. And might I add, if you say they are really powerful, I shudder to think what force it would apply to catenary. Also haven't come across magnets like that that are small enough. We're aiming for prototypical looks.

[Titan]

That bit of advice will be more useful for Hornby or modelers who want a sprung pantograph rather than me. And might I add, if you say they are really powerful, I shudder to think what force it would apply to catenary. Also haven't come across magnets like that that are small enough. We're aiming for prototypical looks.

 

These should be plenty small enough:

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/200pcs-2mm-x1mm-Round-Disc-Magnets-Neodymium-Rare-Earth-N35-Strong-Magnet-/371931460892?hash=item5698d7b51c:g:yFkAAOSw3ZRZAOec

 

One of their modelling uses so far has I believe been coupling scale vacuum hoses together...

 

Having said that a lot of catenary wire is coated steel, so could have very interesting effects. A form of magnadhesion in reverse?

Edited May 26, 2017 by Titan

[bescotbeast]

Well that's the problem isn't it? Hornby can never please everyone, they've gone for the best possible solution to portray a certain piece of equipment on a model as accurately as possible to the prototype. I don't see the annoying part about using an aftermarket spare either (all it needs is the upper arm straightened out).

 

And if you're looking for something that's accurate I'd hardly call Bachmann's effort respectable. I just compared images of the Bachmann Class 350's pantograph with that of the ones fitted to the real thing, that's a severely compromised pantograph and all those extra arms just to make it sprung spoil the whole thing. I can imagine their upcoming Class 90 fitted with such a mechanism.

 

Untitled.jpg

 

I'm sorry, but that looks nothing like a Brecknell-Willis pantograph to me. I can imagine what the feedback would've been if Hornby used this and Bachmann made an accurate poseable one. Hornby would've been bashed left, right and centre. I'd be happy with Hornby's poseable one if a sprung version is going to turn out like Bachmann's.

I'd be more than happy with that, infact I'd be more than happy with a re-tooled Class 87 which we are getting so I'm gratefull.

[ThaneofFife]

As someone returning to UK modelling from Continental modelling (now that I've moved to the Continent - ironic, huh?!), are the wheels shown in the box artwork images the colour we can expect to actually feature on the model?

 

They seem very bright and shiny to me - is this Hornby's version of 'blackened' wheels?

 

Cheers,

Michael

 

Just as a quick 'edit' - do Hornby usually only produce a couple of liveries per loco per year? I'm fully intending to buy each and every 87 livery they produce but I can see my collection will be slow to grow if this is the case...

 

I'm not a collector in the sense that I buy every version but I will undoubtedly be buying every incarnation they make in the various executive liveries and BR Blue with maybe the exception of the locos as built ex-works condition and 87002 as preserved.  I think I prefer the BR Blue versions roughly from 1978 once they were being named.

 

Another idea for a Class 87 twin-pack set might be the 110mph pack - 87006 and 87012 in their experimental liveries marking the start of the new high speed anglo-scottish timetable in May 1984. 

[298]

Fixed heights? Magnets? Cotton thread?

 

Why try to reinvent the wheel? After a woeful start the UK scene is finally catching up with what our Continental neighbours might call a cohesive scheme to similar standards, which is a sprung pantograph capable of running under commercial wires. It might not suit all modellers, but then again if you're so keen on OHLE modelling then you're probably already doing your own thing anyway. Part of the joy of owning an electric loco is to push the plan down and have it spring up, why should a 50yr old Triang loco or a 30yr old tenner from a swapmeet Hornby one allow this but not a brand new one for GBP 170?

 

The only compromise I can see that is needed is a rod next to the lower arm to stabilise the upper, the head can be left to float as on my own high-speed pans. I'm surprised that Hornby haven't been to Sommerfeldt to have a prototype made, considering the latter's interest in supplying Peco with UK catenary.

[ThaneofFife]

that's a bit

 

Bachmann did a not bad working representation on the Acela models.

A few tweeks and it could pass for a UK pan.

Only available now if you buy a loco body.

 that's a bit more like it -some thinking outside of the box..................... any pics of the Bachmann Acela's pan?

[Gordon H]

There is a video if it on the Bachmann website, which clearly shows the pan has an external linkage on the lower arm.

In that respect it fails at first base as far as I'm concerned.

[jjb1970]

The issue with the BW pan is that whichever way you do it will need a compromise. Of course models are no different to any other goods in being a collection of compromises but in this case they will be much more visible.

If people want a fine scale true replica of the BW pan then I'm struggling to see a way of making it sprung and also making it robust enough for an RTR model.

If people want it sprung then I suspect we'd end up with something like the Bachmann Desiro pan which is the only weak link in an otherwise outstanding model. If people want it to be sprung then they'll probably accept such a compromise, to others it'd ruin the model.

The top trailing link and aerofoils are a very notable characteristic of the BW design. If you don't get the trailing link separately sprung and also the aerofoils maintained at the correct angle then it doesn't matter how good the rest of the model is, it won't look right. Ditto, oversizing the characteristically slight main arms to spring them and have enough strenght to stand up to use and avoid twist won't result in a great looking pan.

I can't understand how it's possible to become animated by details few will ever notice and which hardly detract from the model and then decide that pantograph, one of the most visually defining parts of the model, should throw accuracy to the wind in order to be sprung.

Hornby will have looked at this and will themselves have wanted a sprung pantograph. I'm sure they've worked with their factory to get a solution and for all we know may have spoken to a company like Sommerfeldt. They also have in house expertise at Hornby Europe (take a look at some of the pantographs on their HO models) and the class 71 and cross arm version of the 87 show their development team are fully aware of the importance of the pantograph.

I still hope that Hornby pull a rabbit out of the hat but personally I think it'd negate all their efforts to make such a fine looking model to put something like the Bachmann pan on the roof.

[reevesthecat]

I think we should wait for the model to see what the pantograph is like because it is just otherwise endless speculation.

 

And then we can slate it!!!

 

Mark

[No Decorum]

I think we should wait for the model to see what the pantograph is like because it is just otherwise endless speculation.

 

And then we can slate it!!!

 

Mark

By which time it will be too late to correct anything.

[letterspider]

By which time it will be too late to correct anything.

 

Only if you have pre-ordered

[jjb1970]

I think we should wait for the model to see what the pantograph is like because it is just otherwise endless speculation.

 

And then we can slate it!!!

 

Mark

 

In this case I don't think it is so much speculation as an opportunity to get a feel for which compromise would be considered least bad by customers. I think we have two basic choices:

 

1. A true, scale replica pan which faithfully captures the look of the prototype but which is only poseable

 

2. A sprung pantograph which is visually compromised in order to make it work

 

There is of course a third choice which is that Hornby figure out how to combine 1 and 2 with a true scale sprung BW pantograph which I'm sure we'd all agree would be the optimum solution. The sprung option also have various permutations, such as a sprung pan but with the trailing arm and aerofoils fixed. I think it is a fair discussion to have to get some feel for which way people are leaning. Life is about choices and in this case people are probably going to have to choose a least bad option.

[Gordon H]

In this case I don't think it is so much speculation as an opportunity to get a feel for which compromise would be considered least bad by customers. I think we have two basic choices:

 

1. A true, scale replica pan which faithfully captures the look of the prototype but which is only poseable

 

2. A sprung pantograph which is visually compromised in order to make it work

 

There is of course a third choice which is that Hornby figure out how to combine 1 and 2 with a true scale sprung BW pantograph which I'm sure we'd all agree would be the optimum solution. The sprung option also have various permutations, such as a sprung pan but with the trailing arm and aerofoils fixed. I think it is a fair discussion to have to get some feel for which way people are leaning. Life is about choices and in this case people are probably going to have to choose a least bad option.

It really has to be the 'third choice, especially as the first two options have been tried in the past and found to be sadly lacking. Thus we already know (more or less) what the reaction would be to those appearing yet again.

Every other aspect of RTR has seen major progression over the last several years, so surely it is time to push forwards with expectations on this aspect too.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Gordon H

[Fenman]

It really has to be the 'third choice, especially as the first two options have been tried in the past and found to be sadly lacking. Thus we already know (more or less) what the reaction would be to those appearing yet again.

Every other aspect of RTR has seen major progression over the last several years, so surely it is time to push forwards with expectations on this aspect too.

Damn those pesky laws of physics. Of course Hornby can overcome them, if only they were to try harder. They are clearly just unwilling to put the effort in.

 

Paul

[ThaneofFife]

I didnt think the updated Limby 87 with the then new bw pan was a bad effort at all. Ok it wasnt sprung - i would from the camp that could live without it being sprung provided it looked like a bw pan.

[Dagworth]

Can I suggest that the pan head and the linkage arms utilise two neodymium magnets with same poles facing.They are really powerul and the repulsion would be sufficient to force the pan head against contact wire and you wouldn't need to have a spring?

no thanks, the head would stick to the OHLE and then move in jerks rather than a smooth glide

 

 

Andi

[Gordon H]

Damn those pesky laws of physics. Of course Hornby can overcome them, if only they were to try harder. They are clearly just unwilling to put the effort in.

 

 

There are no laws of physics to overcome. If there were, the real thing wouldn't work either.