Hornby Class 87 - Confirmed Newly Tooled Version for 2017 !

[Gordon H]

Just to set the record straight and finish this off, any assumptions on my part were based entirely on seeing the actual models on display at Peterborough, and asking the actual Hornby reps what the situation is.

No doubt this message will be removed anyway, but there you are.

[Titan]

Sad two burst two bubbles in one night, but the pantographs don’t conduct metal, that’s why Hornby made them from plastic. Rtr gets its juice from the track. Has done for a couple of years, give or take a few.

 

But removing that constraint makes it easier to make more accurate looking ones.

Hornby have taken a gamble, that accuracy is more likely to sell than conductivity.

If they choose analysis of that, they could have studied sales (or not so) of their catenary range, and by looking at the massive competition (or not) of OO catenary and how much it sells for.

 

Personally I think that’s the right choice. I think they get more requests for R186 Signal boxes than catenary, and an R186 Signal box never existed.

For those who disagree, there is always somerfeldt etc etc.

 

 

There seems to be an awful lot of misconceptions here. The most accurate 00 pantographs to date are made of metal. A plastic pantograph is only chosen because it is the cheaper option, not because of accuracy. The reason is down to strength. If the pantograph is not to be very flimsy, the plastic one will have to be made overscale to give it strength, if not done then it will bend out of shape like that of the Hornby Class 92 and others.

 

The Bachmann Class 85 pan does not conduct, yet it is made out of metal because plastic, especially if it was attempted to make it to scale, would be too weak.

[LaGrange]

Hornbys updates - https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/a-touch-of-class-87

[Legend]

Will the BW  pantograph be available as a spare ?. I fancy sticking one on Robert Burns.

How dare you stick one on our National Bard! See you Jimmy!

 

It’s very difficult getting spares for anything Hornby today, so I suspect you won’t get any spare pantographs. The other reason is that cheap skates like me may well buy them to stick on Railroad 87s at a fraction of the cost and not bother splashing the cash on the main one. I’d certainly buy the original 70s diamond shaped one to retrofit 87s

[MGR Hooper!]

Hornby's Class 87 looking as splendid as ever! Hopefully a Class 86 or Class 91 to follow

[298]

The other reason is that cheap skates like me may well buy them to stick on Railroad 87s at a fraction of the cost and not bother splashing the cash on the main one. I’d certainly buy the original 70s diamond shaped one to retrofit 87s

It won't fit- Lima designed the base supports to fit a HO continental diamond pan. However, I didn't realise there was such a market and acceptance for "Floppy" pans. I'll have to draw one up and sell it on Shapeways.

[Andrew F]

It won't fit- Lima designed the base supports to fit a HO continental diamond pan. However, I didn't realise there was such a market and acceptance for "Floppy" pans. I'll have to draw one up and sell it on Shapeways.

 

Go for it. You may have a "flash in the pan" there.

[Classsix T]

Not in the market for these but two observations on the above pics, are the wheels stock items and do the Oleo's look a tad undernourished to anyone else?

 

C6T.

[Crewlisle]

Pete,

 

......................The 86s, 82 & APT have Sommerfeldt pantographs; the Lima Class 87 & Bachmann Class 85 have their original pantographs.  All pantographs are in contact with the contact wire & it is all tested to a scale 100mph.  And how do I reduce the tension in the pantograph springs on the wires?  By tying a short length of black or grey cotton from the pan head to the base of the arms.  It sounds crude but is effective & no one has spotted it at exhibitions from normal viewing distance!

 

Peter  

 

 

 

Unbelievable!   All through this forum there have been many criticisms of the model about white battery boxes & other minor details.  After all these discussions they are prepared to accept scale plastic pantographs that they can only POSE on the loco, whilst enthusing about the pivots/joints being correct.  Are they prepared to pay almost £200 for their prototypical Class 87 to run on their prototypical/scale layouts being dragged around by a diesel loco?  But it does have a scale non useable pantograph!

 

Earlier on in this forum someone had made a working metal BW pantograph, slightly overscale but it worked & looked the part.  I will go down this route.  No one has ever said that my Class 86's Sommerfeldt pantographs are over scale or that my original Class 87 pantograph is not a proper scissors pantograph.  The vast majority of modellers have never noticed it or knew the difference.

 

Peter

[ThaneofFife]

Unbelievable!   All through this forum there have been many criticisms of the model about white battery boxes & other minor details.  After all these discussions they are prepared to accept scale plastic pantographs that they can only POSE on the loco, whilst enthusing about the pivots/joints being correct.  Are they prepared to pay almost £200 for their prototypical Class 87 to run on their prototypical/scale layouts being dragged around by a diesel loco?  But it does have a scale non useable pantograph!

 

Earlier on in this forum someone had made a working metal BW pantograph, slightly overscale but it worked & looked the part.  I will go down this route.  No one has ever said that my Class 86's Sommerfeldt pantographs are over scale or that my original Class 87 pantograph is not a proper scissors pantograph.  The vast majority of modellers have never noticed it or knew the difference.

 

Peter

 

that's absolutely fine Peter but I would say its only a limited few who have non exhibition layouts who have (or plan to have) working OHLE and will enjoy their new Class 87 no matter what, whether the pan is plastic/metal or working/non-working but you enjoy your new model anyway you can,  I say - never the twain need meet!

 

Bravo !..........

[Fenman]

Unbelievable!   All through this forum there have been many criticisms of the model about white battery boxes & other minor details.  After all these discussions they are prepared to accept scale plastic pantographs that they can only POSE on the loco, whilst enthusing about the pivots/joints being correct.  Are they prepared to pay almost £200 for their prototypical Class 87 to run on their prototypical/scale layouts being dragged around by a diesel loco?  But it does have a scale non useable pantograph!

 

Earlier on in this forum someone had made a working metal BW pantograph, slightly overscale but it worked & looked the part.  I will go down this route.  No one has ever said that my Class 86's Sommerfeldt pantographs are over scale or that my original Class 87 pantograph is not a proper scissors pantograph.  The vast majority of modellers have never noticed it or knew the difference.

 

Peter

 

So basically you're saying there's a choice:

- scale but non-functional; or

- non-scale but functional.

 

You want the latter, while it seems (I haven't done statistical analysis, so am happy to be challenged) that the vast, vast majority of people want the former.

 

But you seem able to model your way out of this problem to get what you want, so that's all good.

 

Paul

[Titan]

So basically you're saying there's a choice:

- scale but non-functional; or

- non-scale but functional.

 

You want the latter, while it seems (I haven't done statistical analysis, so am happy to be challenged) that the vast, vast majority of people want the former.

 

But you seem able to model your way out of this problem to get what you want, so that's all good.

 

Paul

 

Why is scale and functional left off the list, since it is an available, cheap and well proven option, other than the BW pan perhaps?

[Legend]

For me it is the pantograph that is the selling point though. I don't run OHLE so I'm not too bothered by metal or plastic. I do get why people would be upset , however, if the panto doesn't flex against overhead wires. I have looked at the the Limby 87s and they are not bad . As you can probably get these for £50-£60, the hike to £134 at Rails (not near £200!)is substantial, and the reason I'm considering it is to get the proper "diamond" panto of a 1970s 87. I'm a little concerned at possible limited functionality and may still consider the Limby one (or even 2) as I would still have change left over. If I could get that "diamond" panto separately I would have no hesitation in going for the earlier Limby versions.

[Pete the Elaner]

My only regret (extremely minor) is that Hornby didn't try the American approach and offer the blue engine without numbers and nameplates.  First job will be to renumber and rename.  A new thread: How to remove numbers and nameplates from retooled Class 87!!

They tried that in the 1980s with an InterCity 86 & blue-grey Mk3's & apparently they sold poorly.

[Fenman]

Why is scale and functional left off the list, since it is an available, cheap and well proven option, other than the BW pan perhaps?

 

It's left off the list because the OP did not include it. He posited just those two options, then insisted the one he wanted was the "correct" solution. I was simply pointing out the difficulty that the majority of views seemed to be against him.

 

But I'm curious: if producing a scale and functional pantograph is the same price as producing either of the other two options, I wonder why you think Hornby's designers have not done so. Do you really think they are that inept? I've been hugely impressed by what I've bought from Hornby over the past few months, so I would be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Though am always happy to see data which proves me wrong.

 

Paul

[lyneux]

I don't run OHLE...,

Why on earth are you buying an 87 then?

 

I agree with Peter (Crewlisle). I will buy one or two and fabricate my own working B/W. but it will likely stay in the box for several years until I build layout number 3 or 4 on my todo list which will be the wcml layout.

 

Guy

Edited October 25, 2017 by lyneux

[Titan]

But I'm curious: if producing a scale and functional pantograph is the same price as producing either of the other two options, I wonder why you think Hornby's designers have not done so. Do you really think they are that inept? I've been hugely impressed by what I've bought from Hornby over the past few months, so I would be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Though am always happy to see data which proves me wrong.

 

Paul

 

I did not say it was the same, I said it was cheap. The plastic one is probably even cheaper.

[Gordon H]

But I'm curious: if producing a scale and functional pantograph is the same price as producing either of the other two options, I wonder why you think Hornby's designers have not done so. Do you really think they are that inept?

 

It is not usually designers themselves that are inept - It is far more likely to be the managers in charge who are the limiting factor in pushing such advancements. Designers in all spheres rarely get to produce the things they would like to, given the chance.

Having seen the plastic sprues that are to be used, they are clearly well designed and manufactured.

It might be useful if they could somehow use the same moulds/CAD files to produce them in metal as a lost wax or similar casting. Can't see that happening though.

[Fenman]

I did not say it was the same, I said it was cheap. The plastic one is probably even cheaper.

Ah. Well there you have your answer. It's a commercial judgement.

 

We can argue about this til we're blue in the face, but there are already people on here complaining bitterly about the likely price of this model: Hornby have decided what they think the right balance is between accuracy, functionality and price.

 

And now we as the market will tell them whether or not they're right.

 

Paul

[Legend]

Why on earth are you buying an 87 then?

 

I agree with Peter (Crewlisle). I will buy one or two and fabricate my own working B/W. but it will likely stay in the box for several years until I build layout number 3 or 4 on my todo list which will be the wcml layout.

 

Guy

I know its shocking isn't it (all puns intended) running an electric without wires. I bet we all have fantastic OHLE installed in our layouts

[Dagworth]

For me it is the pantograph that is the selling point though. I don't run OHLE so I'm not too bothered by metal or plastic. I do get why people would be upset , however, if the panto doesn't flex against overhead wires. I have looked at the the Limby 87s and they are not bad . As you can probably get these for £50-£60, the hike to £134 at Rails (not near £200!)is substantial, and the reason I'm considering it is to get the proper "diamond" panto of a 1970s 87. I'm a little concerned at possible limited functionality and may still consider the Limby one (or even 2) as I would still have change left over. If I could get that "diamond" panto separately I would have no hesitation in going for the earlier Limby versions.

You can get an accurate, working, metal cross-arm pan separately. Judith Edge sell them.

 

Andi

[sorabain]

Out of interest when people say "working pan" do they mean sprung, able to raise and lower, or do they mean it must be able to pick up power from overhead? (as well as the other things).

 

I sometimes get lost wondering which aspect people are asking for or believe is necessary.

 

I can relate to the former (the sprung part certainly), but doing an electrified overhead would be beyond RTR for me - at that point i'd start being sad that i didn't have scale engines inside the diesels.

 

 

 

[298]

Out of interest when people say "working pan" do they mean sprung, able to raise and lower, or do they mean it must be able to pick up power from overhead? (as well as the other things).

 

I sometimes get lost wondering which aspect people are asking for or believe is necessary.

Try exhibiting an OHLE layout, I did at the weekend and was pleased with myself for pulling off a particularly difficult "back-poleing" move better than would have happened on the prototype without dewiring the trolley pole. And the next question to follow..... "Does the overhead work?"

 

I can relate to the former (the sprung part certainly), but doing an electrified overhead would be beyond RTR for me - at that point i'd start being sad that i didn't have scale engines inside the diesels.

People wanted as British "ready to plonk" Catenary system, and that's what Peco delivered. Saying it isn't scale is like complaining your Hornby Trainset with a reliveried 0-4-0 in isn't like Pempoul (insert name of other exhibition layout here)

[Steamport Southport]

 

Personally I think that’s the right choice. I think they get more requests for R186 Signal boxes than catenary, and an R186 Signal box never existed.

For those who disagree, there is always somerfeldt etc etc..

 

Do you mean the model or the real one?

 

The real one is on the West Somerset Railway and the model is still available from Gaugemaster and readily available second hand.

 

http://cgibin.wsr.org.uk/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?h=Snapshot&p=1972/1972_35_njo

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hornby-RAILWAYS-OO-GWR-SIGNAL-BOX-LEVEL-CROSSING-KIT-R186-/162721058690

 

http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=GM402

 

 

 

 

Jason

[298]

No one has ever said that my Class 86's Sommerfeldt pantographs are over scale

 

No, because being HO means they are underscale...

 

 

or that my original Class 87 pantograph is not a proper scissors pantograph.  The vast majority of modellers have never noticed it or knew the difference.

 

The vast majority probably wouldn't say anything because that would be poor etiquette. But I'm pretty certain that anyone with a serious interest in "wire scrapers" would know what they're looking at, and not accept someone else's comprises as verbatim.

Edited October 25, 2017 by 298