Jump to content
 

Hornby Class 87 - Confirmed Newly Tooled Version for 2017 !


ThaneofFife
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

But (as Stove Pipe mentioned in post 440) did 87035 even have a white battery box?

 

And in its named condition,

 

A few photos might be useful to clear this matter up.

Direct from the blog post you copied and pasted

 

"Our Decoration Graphic Designer has visual references where it does appear white"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

And yet strangely of all the photos commonly available not one has come to light showing 87035 in named condition with a white battery box. Or any named 87 with a white battery box for that matter. Post it here if you find one. Mine'll be painted over regardless.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's ten minutes of my life I'll never see again.  Just trawled through Flickr which is normally very good for these things and can't find any sign 87035 ever had a white battery box.  Does it bother me?  Not on your nelly.  Given the only alternative has underscale bogies, plastic jelly moulds for jumper boxes, and four half open cab windows, I will be happy to get a tin of paint and a brush.  It's an easier fix than the visible panty line on the Mk2e where the fictional solebar underframe really gets on my moobs, or the missing vents on the Mk3 buffets, which given most people look at their models from a scale ten floors up, is pretty obvious.  So long as everything else is bob on and the cross-arm pantograph is good, then that is more important.

 

No it's not accepting second best, and it's a mystery where Hornby think these white boxes were seen other than on 87001 on the day it left Crewe works, but so long as everything else is the right size, shape and level of finesse, in the grand scheme of things I don't expect most people will be saying "I'm not buying that heap of junk because the battery box only carried that paint job for three hours on it's first test run".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Keen readers of July’s edition of Hornby Magazine will not have missed a littler teaser in the “Inside Hornby” column and we’ve noticed a few readers have already put two and two together and realised that we have received the first shots of the one and only Class 87! We’ll have more info coming soon about the sample so stay tuned and if you’re visiting The Great Central Railway show, you might get to see even more of the project’s progress…

 

post-27484-0-30571000-1497669225_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

This was also part of yesterday's "The Engine Shed" blog. So I think the next blog will have an update on the Class 87 and also those attending the GCR Event may be able to snap up some updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No its certainly not that big an issue but the answer to this question still remains one that some including myself are entitled to continue to question even as an isolated 87 interest question even though we know that Hornby have set the ball rolling on this final paint scheme now.  if we want it black or brown or whatever its no biggy BUT I agree with some other posters. 

 

Had Hornby put out a photo of 87035 on the day of its naming ceremony with the white charger then I would go eat my humble pie and could fully understand where they were coming from but to my mind it would have been white only after original build and possibly after a works repaint prior to receiving nameplate.  To be pristine this loco would have had to go back in for a repaint (unless it saw so little use since being freshly outshopped from new and it just need "a wash and brush up" it having served at least 3 years out on the road.   I believe it was named in 1978 and although my memory is faded slightly I can recall observing fresh 87 namers back in the day but never saw a white charger on a single 87 and I copped many in showroom condition during those years.  

 

Personally I think this is a mistake but it wont make me cancel my order because its such an easy thing to change.   I agree with another poster in that hopefully if this is all we have to concern ourselves with on the new 87 model then happy days.  I hope those wheel diameters are correct, the pantograph is not a giant pylon affair like the Heljan 86 one, the motor and chassis are top quality and of course the grilles and windows etc.

 

JS Wright always said work to a photo - never was a truer word spoken in this instance!    Maybe Hornby have a reference photo???

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the white colour on the battery charger really that much of an issue ?

 

Cheers

Paul

Yes. Considering the free research available (as exploited by other manufacturers), Hornby ought to be able to answer basic questions such as "where is the photo of a named 87 with white underframe equipment?", as they did with "Why have you picked King Arthur again?"

 

I remember one trader blasting the critics when additional body coloured printing lines were missed off a rail blue 31, but the fact was that they had come up with a clever way of depicting the raised waist strips without radically changing the tooling, but scored an own goal by not delivering on it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this white paint can be easily removed with acetone (nail polish remover) or similar. How many modellers or customers will want to make their 87 look realistic or just keep it as it comes? If it's a big deal then there must be more collectors interested in the model than modellers but would a collector really be that bothered about a white charger?

 

It is a lot of money to pay for a model that is not how you want it though, isn't it?. It would be nice if it came with an additional pack of scale squashed flies to stick on the front.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hopefully somebody at the GCR event today might be able to provide an update.........not sure if Paul is on site to speak to.

 

BTW - has anybody blown up that bags of bits from Hornby trying to make head nor tail of the components?   I did but with zero success.   dont even understand tha various bag labels aprt from "87".  I was peeking out for any "/86 or "86/1" references too........well you never know.

Edited by ThaneofFife
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another rmwebber who attended GCR yesterday has advised on the Oxford Rail Mk3 coach thread that he spoke to someone on the Hornby stand and got the impression they were releasing the Mk3 dvt next year in Virgin livery, with Intercity probably some time later. This may indicate a Virgin livery Class 87 (or 86) next year.But if correct what is the thinking in delaying a re-release of the swallow livery dvt to match this year's 87 in swallow. The original swallow dvts are as rare as hen's teeth, whereas the original Virgin versions hung around. If true it's strange thinking.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another rmwebber who attended GCR yesterday has advised on the Oxford Rail Mk3 coach thread that he spoke to someone on the Hornby stand and got the impression they were releasing the Mk3 dvt next year in Virgin livery, with Intercity probably some time later. This may indicate a Virgin livery Class 87 (or 86) next year.But if correct what is the thinking in delaying a re-release of the swallow livery dvt to match this year's 87 in swallow. The original swallow dvts are as rare as hen's teeth, whereas the original Virgin versions hung around. If true it's strange thinking.

 

Indeed I did, 

I also asked about the release of other liveries including Virgin on the 87, they were well aware of the detail differences and though I can't remember the exact wording, I wouldn't expect a Virgin Trains 87 to be too far behind. 

 

Intercity DVT wise, I believe there are some differences in detail between the as builts and later service. Again Hornby seemed aware of this, as well as the rarity of these vehicles now.

 

Class 86s, again don't quote me on it, but it was very much a 'lets see how the 87 goes'...

 

First time I have really spoken to the Hornby crew, not sure who I spoke to, but they were very polite and knowledgable. Also seemed to be very forthcoming/open with their intentions (whilst maintaining a non-committal stance) which was very nice to see. 

 

Wild Boar Fell

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another rmwebber who attended GCR yesterday has advised on the Oxford Rail Mk3 coach thread that he spoke to someone on the Hornby stand and got the impression they were releasing the Mk3 dvt next year in Virgin livery, with Intercity probably some time later. This may indicate a Virgin livery Class 87 (or 86) next year.But if correct what is the thinking in delaying a re-release of the swallow livery dvt to match this year's 87 in swallow. The original swallow dvts are as rare as hen's teeth, whereas the original Virgin versions hung around. If true it's strange thinking.

I'm glad I bought 2 while they were available.

I also have a Hurst kit somewhere. I must make a start on that one day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hopefully somebody at the GCR event today might be able to provide an update.........not sure if Paul is on site to speak to.

 

BTW - has anybody blown up that bags of bits from Hornby trying to make head nor tail of the components?   I did but with zero success.   dont even understand tha various bag labels aprt from "87".  I was peeking out for any "/86 or "86/1" references too........well you never know.

 

Lol....Glad I wasn't the only one zooming in... to be honest I thought one of the labels said 86 but it blurs on zooming in... ah well....

Link to post
Share on other sites

good pics.  well theyve got that small protrusion on the model if you look at the roof aerials then cast your eye down to the bodyside grille band then slightly to the left......along the top drip rail theres a tiny rectangular piece that sticks out below that top drip rail.  I dont know what that is for on the real thing but it does appears at the same end on the corridor side too.........is it where fitters hooked in the "Not to be Moved" signs?   

 

ive thought the equipment inbetween the bogies was looking like it wasnt filling the gap up between its base and the rail head (seemed to be a lot of space) but looking at images of 87s ive traced the bottom of this equipment across to reference points with the bogies and it does seem to be fine on that score too.  maybe it just looks slightly wrong because its a body in white sample and that gap shows up easier and looks larger.

 

Cant tell if the main pantograph insulators are a touch too high and in danger of making the pan look pylon-esque perched up.......hopefully not.  I think the insulators are no higher than the cab roofs.  jury out on that. 

 

I would like to see the corridor side of this model.........but so far I think shes shaping up very well.......

Edited by ThaneofFife
Link to post
Share on other sites

good pics.  well theyve got that small protrusion on the model if you look at the roof aerials then cast your eye down to the bodyside grille band then slightly to the left......along the top drip rail theres a tiny rectangular piece that sticks out below that top drip rail.  I dont know what that is for on the real thing but it does appears at the same end on the corridor side too.........is it where fitters hooked in the "Not to be Moved" signs?   

 

I can't remember offhand what the proper name is, but it's a Data tag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I can't remember offhand what the proper name is, but it's a Data tag.

And it shouldn't be on the earlier versions, not sure when they were fitted but as a general rule from photos anything blue will not have them, anything Exec will not have them, anything InterCity Swallow and after will. I do have a photo of 87032 in exec with one, and 87101 never had them.

 

Andi

Link to post
Share on other sites

And it shouldn't be on the earlier versions, not sure when they were fitted but as a general rule from photos anything blue will not have them, anything Exec will not have them, anything InterCity Swallow and after will. I do have a photo of 87032 in exec with one, and 87101 never had them.

 

Andi

 

the sample has to be of 87010.   Be interesting to see the early blue bodyshell to see if they have left it off...........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...