Hornby Class 87 - Confirmed Newly Tooled Version for 2017 !

[letterspider]

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

 

 

Andi

 

OHLE catenary wire would have to be made of Nickel / Cobalt / Iron or alloys high in content with those elements for a magnet to stick to it. Steel is not magnetic nor is Copper.

Choosing magnets with the correct strength would probably be easier than a spring of the correct tension. Springs lose tension more quickly than Nd magnets lose force. Also less moving parts and more robust.

 

Anyway - I think Hornby engineers have lost interest in this - its probably not going to be cost effective or too delicate.

Perhaps our only hopes now are DJModels' crowdfunded Class 92 and in which case I am sure he will make extra BW pans (the design is the same for both classes?) in the hundreds if he can get advanced orders...

[Fenman]

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

Yes, all materials scale perfectly...

 

You should start your own business - if you can pull off that trick you'd be a billionaire.

 

Paul

[jjb1970]

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.

 

I think this is one of those instances where we either accept that life isn't perfect and that we have to make a choice based on what is the least bad alternative, or retreat into denials of reality. As Fenman has pointed out, there is a scaling problem with the BW pan. Take a look at the diameter of the arms and the pivot arrangement and then imagine scaling that down to 1/76 and making it sprung without a noticeable visual compromise. And that is before we even get onto the trailing link and aerofoils. If the diameter of the arms was a lot larger there'd be potential to do something internally using hollow tubes but there is no way I can see that working without making the whole thing hideously over scale. Using an additional external link for the spring action (as per other model high speed pantographs) ruins the appearance IMO but I understand if people would rather have a sprung pantograph and accept the visual compromise even if I don't agree. And there are the pivot points, it'll be very hard to make those strong enough to prevent twist and withstand reasonable use and not look very overscale. Remember that this model isn't going to be sold to a handful of finescale modellers, it has to be robust enough for the RTR market, if the pantograph falls apart the first time a typical customer tries to play with it you can imagine the PR damage limitation exercise Hornby would face.

[letterspider]

I think this is one of those instances where we either accept that life isn't perfect and that we have to make a choice based on what is the least bad alternative, or retreat into denials of reality. As Fenman has pointed out, there is a scaling problem with the BW pan. Take a look at the diameter of the arms and the pivot arrangement and then imagine scaling that down to 1/76 and making it sprung without a noticeable visual compromise. And that is before we even get onto the trailing link and aerofoils. If the diameter of the arms was a lot larger there'd be potential to do something internally using hollow tubes but there is no way I can see that working without making the whole thing hideously over scale. Using an additional external link for the spring action (as per other model high speed pantographs) ruins the appearance IMO but I understand if people would rather have a sprung pantograph and accept the visual compromise even if I don't agree. And there are the pivot points, it'll be very hard to make those strong enough to prevent twist and withstand reasonable use and not look very overscale. Remember that this model isn't going to be sold to a handful of finescale modellers, it has to be robust enough for the RTR market, if the pantograph falls apart the first time a typical customer tries to play with it you can imagine the PR damage limitation exercise Hornby would face.

 

I agree on the whole except this cannot possibly be destined to be played with by little kiddies - that market is better served by the Limby 87. At over £150 the reality is this is for the discerning modeller (the big kiddies) and I imagine Hornby have priced the model at this price point to remind us.

Much in the same way you wouldn't lend your Jaguar to your 17 year old when they can have the Mini (I don't have either BTW!).

[ThaneofFife]

.....well i cant see it making it into the RailRoad range......................

[JSpencer]

The previous ex Lima, King Arthur, used a very fine BW panto made from plastic. It had small teeth on the joins so the user would raise it to desired hight and it would click into place.

 

As the entire panto was plastic, you certainly could not have this rubbing a overhead wire.

 

I see no easy victory on this other than two pantos, a fine scale cosmetic one and a practical sprung one with thin extra arms which keep the panto in contact with the wire.

[jjb1970]

I agree on the whole except this cannot possibly be destined to be played with by little kiddies - that market is better served by the Limby 87. At over £150 the reality is this is for the discerning modeller (the big kiddies) and I imagine Hornby have priced the model at this price point to remind us.

Much in the same way you wouldn't lend your Jaguar to your 17 year old when they can have the Mini (I don't have either BTW!).

 

I wasn't thinking of kiddies, there are plenty of examples of modellers struggling to get models out of the box without breaking something and the much less challenging pantographs of the two OO Class 71 models seem to be rather delicate. This has always been an issue in models - where do you draw the line between maximising fine detail and keeping a model usable? I have brass HO models which are exquisite but getting the things out of the box can be quite traumatic in some cases.

[Dixie Dean]

What we need is a compromise in the form of a realistic but slightly over engineered pantograph which stays up in contact with the catenary.  Sommerfeld and Roco have been making similar ones for years out of metal.  I put a Roco one on my APT, this only problem is they have two V shaped upper arms.  The same with one would be great.

[Dixie Dean]

Having had a look at the Bachmann Acela on YouTube I think I'd be perfectly happy with the compromise they adopted.

[jjb1970]

If people are happy with the Bachmann Acela that's fine, but it is undoubtedly a significant compromise. Personally I think that such a pan would negate the efforts being made by Hornby to make such a fine model of the 87, but that's just me.

[wombatofludham]

I wasn't thinking of kiddies, there are plenty of examples of modellers struggling to get models out of the box without breaking something and the much less challenging pantographs of the two OO Class 71 models seem to be rather delicate. This has always been an issue in models - where do you draw the line between maximising fine detail and keeping a model usable? I have brass HO models which are exquisite but getting the things out of the box can be quite traumatic in some cases.

 

Don't laugh but my banana fingers managed to break a Heljan class 86 pantograph and that was designed to withstand detonation of one of Fat Boy Kim's dodgy Arthur Daley nukes, yet it disintegrated in my mitts.  I can't help thinking anything more delicate than riveted pylon engineering is doomed to destruction in my paws.

[Gordon H]

As Fenman has pointed out, there is a scaling problem with the BW pan. Take a look at the diameter of the arms and the pivot arrangement and then imagine scaling that down to 1/76 and making it sprung without a noticeable visual compromise. And that is before we even get onto the trailing link and aerofoils.

 

No need to imagine - I managed to do it over 30 years ago, as described earlier. The only compromise I had to make was to keep the trailing link  and aerofoils at a fixed angle relative to the upper arm. It worked then, and there's no reason why it wouldn't work now with a little effort on the part of the manufacturers.

Here is a picture here of one I made for a Dapol Pendolino a few years ago, before I got round to adding the aerofoils:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/13471-brecknell-willis-pantographs/&do=findComment&comment=120781

[JSpencer]

No need to imagine - I managed to do it over 30 years ago, as described earlier. The only compromise I had to make was to keep the trailing link  and aerofoils at a fixed angle relative to the upper arm. It worked then, and there's no reason why it wouldn't work now with a little effort on the part of the manufacturers.

Here is a picture here of one I made for a Dapol Pendolino a few years ago, before I got round to adding the aerofoils:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/13471-brecknell-willis-pantographs/&do=findComment&comment=120781

 

That looks a robust bit of kit. Is it actually sprung? If so, Hornby should be inspired!

[jjb1970]

No need to imagine - I managed to do it over 30 years ago, as described earlier. The only compromise I had to make was to keep the trailing link  and aerofoils at a fixed angle relative to the upper arm. It worked then, and there's no reason why it wouldn't work now with a little effort on the part of the manufacturers.

Here is a picture here of one I made for a Dapol Pendolino a few years ago, before I got round to adding the aerofoils:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/13471-brecknell-willis-pantographs/&do=findComment&comment=120781

 

That's about the best model of a BW pantograph I've seen but even this splendid example has had to make a significant compromise by fixing the trailing link and aerofoils. If a manufacturer could scale this up to a mass production process profitably and make it robust enough for an RTR model then I certainly think it might be a good compromise. One major issue with fixing the trailing link is the effect if the pan is down, as with any compromise it's a question of where you're willing to lose something.

[298]

Sommerfeld and Roco have been making similar ones for years out of metal.  I put a Roco one on my APT, this only problem is they have two V shaped upper arms.  The same with one would be great.

I believe Roco ones are made by Sommerfeldt, and the 968 with upper stabilizing frame is suitable for early APT power cars.

 

The same Faiveley type pan might be rare on this class, but was carried by at least two 87s for certainly a greater mileage than those sodding white battery chargers. In a market where you can buy variations of some quite obscure locos from different manufacturers in every livery they carried including photographic grey, the lack of knowledge from manufacturers towards AC electrics goes to show how far behind this sector of the market is.

[ThaneofFife]

If people are happy with the Bachmann Acela that's fine, but it is undoubtedly a significant compromise. Personally I think that such a pan would negate the efforts being made by Hornby to make such a fine model of the 87, but that's just me.

 

then please do offer a viable alternative suggestion to the discussion - we are all ears.  blimey this discussion is being pulled in so many directions......you get a possible solution and then somebody says that's a significant compromise!   I fail to see how on earth Hornby can win here. 

 

surely a thin but hard wire, sprung within the pans base to push up and support the upper arm (and thus push up the lower arm too) is the only way forward?

 

I cant see how its possible to mass produce a fully sprung single arm pan to mimic the real things construction.  even non mass. prod.  its a tricky one.

[Gordon H]

That looks a robust bit of kit. Is it actually sprung? If so, Hornby should be inspired!

 

Yes, it is sprung. In this instance the springing method was an experiment to try out a simple wire spring, which can be seen at a slight angle inside the base, bearing on the underside of the lower arm. The piece of wire towards the rear of the base running across it, but underneath, can be slid forward to depress the spring wire to lower the pan when necessary.

Previous versions used actual tension springs, mainly donated by Lima diamond frame pans and cut to suit.

[jjb1970]

then please do offer a viable alternative suggestion to the discussion - we are all ears.  blimey this discussion is being pulled in so many directions......you get a possible solution and then somebody says that's a significant compromise!   I fail to see how on earth Hornby can win here. 

 

surely a thin but hard wire, sprung within the pans base to push up and support the upper arm (and thus push up the lower arm too) is the only way forward?

 

I cant see how its possible to mass produce a fully sprung single arm pan to mimic the real things construction.  even non mass. prod.  its a tricky one.

 

 

I've already said that I see no way of doing the BW pan without compromising, either by accepting it is made to be a fine scale replica but only poseable or by making it sprung and accepting it will be visually compromised. And your comment about Hornby not being able to win is the whole point, they have to select which compromise to apply.

[jjb1970]

Given that the Hornby class 71 offers superb powerful and smooth performance I'm confident that the 87 will perform well.

[Dagworth]

Have you weighed the class 71 by any chance?  The 87 is slightly longer but the 71's weight will give an indication I hope.  The class 85 just about topped 12 ounces, way too light.

No problems whatsoever with the haulage ability of my 85s

 

Andi

[andania 213]

I hope Hornby do better with the Class 87 than Bachmann did with the Class 85 regarding performance.  The 85 is under weight and underpowered, and cannot really replicate the haulage ability of a 3,300 horsepower machine.

I have the venerable Hornby Class 86 with twin motor bogies and loaded up with lead, and although the starting performance is not very good, it is almost up to the task of hauling 13 cars up 1 in 50 at 100mph.  I hope the new 87 can follow in the footsteps of the excellent class 50, which in my books is the best diesel model ever.

Can understand that you may well need locos with some power for your own layout, given your ruling gradients, but in reality, I doubt a real 85 could do the ton up a 1 in 50 with 13 on. The Hornby 50 is indeed powerful, but to an unrealistically high level IMO.

Ken G

[jjb1970]

I've never weighed my Hornby 71, but it is a heavy old lump and with a pretty beefy looking motor. I think it is another model which comfortably outperforms the 1:1 prototype in terms of its haulage capability.

[Roy Langridge]

I've never weighed my Hornby 71, but it is a heavy old lump and with a pretty beefy looking motor. I think it is another model which comfortably outperforms the 1:1 prototype in terms of its haulage capability.

Quoted as being 490g in reviews.

 

Roy

[jonathan452]

I believe Roco ones are made by Sommerfeldt, and the 968 with upper stabilizing frame is suitable for early APT power cars.

 

The same Faiveley type pan might be rare on this class, but was carried by at least two 87s for certainly a greater mileage than those sodding white battery chargers. In a market where you can buy variations of some quite obscure locos from different manufacturers in every livery they carried including photographic grey, the lack of knowledge from manufacturers towards AC electrics goes to show how far behind this sector of the market is.

I put a 'like' on the post, particularly in relation to the bold red highlighted text.

 

Meanwhile back on the pantograph issue has anybody mentioned the one (albeit to HO scale) on the Lima Class 92.

 

How does this square up in the proceedings?

[lyneux]

Given that Zamak (more widely used name for the zinc alloys used) has a melting point of around 400 degrees Celsius whilst Tungsten melts at 3422 degrees, I think this is highly unlikely to be practical.