Hornby Class 87 - Confirmed Newly Tooled Version for 2017 !

[Gordon H]

The vast majority probably wouldn't say anything because that would be poor etiquette.

 

That was the view I took having seen the layout in question a few times at shows.

The discrepancies stood out a mile to me, but apart from that, at least it has wires that can be approached physically, if not electrically.

Many don't seem to bother at all. 

[Dagworth]

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.

"Working" to my mind means sprung and able to ride against OHLE without falling over.

 

Power collection is simple if the pan works, but not necessary to my mind.

 

The pan is quite simply the most stand-out part of an electric loco and having a non-functioning pan is very poor. No-one would accept non-moving valve gear on a steam loco. Fortunately the pan is reasonably easy to replace either for purchasers or for Hornby as a later improved version

 

Andi

[298]

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

 

Only because they've seen it in the Yellow Pages advert....

[lyneux]

Fortunately the pan is reasonably easy to replace either for purchasers or for Hornby as a later improved version

 

 

Andi,

 

That may be true for the cross-arm (as the JE kit exists), but less-so for the B/W as the only kit (Hurst) is unavailable. So the only route to a scale working B/W remains scatch-building for now. Although I'm fine with this, it may not fit everyones definition of 'reasonably easy'.

 

Guy

[adb968008]

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

Dapol seems to be very successful with that approach with the Western.

 

They are all unnumbered, shipped with self attach nameplates, looking on ebay there aren’t many nameplate glue disasters out there either.

Edited October 26, 2017 by adb968008

[Pete the Elaner]

I am aware Heljan have released unnumbered locos too.

I just remembered reading that when Hornby tried it before, their product sold poorly. This may explain why they are hesitant to try it again.

 

Maybe we should all have a chat with the Hornby staff at Warley & indicate our desire for un-numbered locos?

[Fenman]

I am aware Heljan have released unnumbered locos too.

I just remembered reading that when Hornby tried it before, their product sold poorly. This may explain why they are hesitant to try it again.

 

Maybe we should all have a chat with the Hornby staff at Warley & indicate our desire for un-numbered locos?

Not just Hornby; hasn't Rapido also stopped doing unnumbered stuff because it just doesn't sell?

 

Paul

[MGR Hooper!]

I think Hornby should experiment with allowing (un-numbered) models to be pre-ordered.

 

My thoughts regarding it's failure earlier concluded with the fact that so many locos are rebuilt or modified and therefore we fussy British modellers will have more to complain about un-numbered models because a headlight was 5cm higher and some TDM cables were 15cm lower.

 

Selling un-numbered versions should be successful for a particular class of locomotives that were standard in design.

 

 

But they really should experiment with the pre-order method. And if they glance sideways to their friends at Airfix, they'll be sure to help with some decals and I'm sure etched nameplates can be taken care of too. It'll be a small amount of additional income for Hornby

Edited October 26, 2017 by MGR Hooper!

[GordonC]

Dapol seems to be very successful with that approach with the Western.

 

They are all unnumbered, shipped with self attach nameplates, looking on ebay there aren’t many nameplate glue disasters out there either.

 

its probably easier applying plates as numbers than transfers for other unnumbered models and getting an even and protected (varnished) finish

[Fenman]

I think Hornby should experiment with allowing (un-numbered) models to be pre-ordered.

 

My thoughts regarding it's failure earlier concluded with the fact that so many locos are rebuilt or modified and therefore we fussy British modellers will have more to complain about un-numbered models because a headlight was 5cm higher and some TDM cables were 15cm lower.

 

Selling un-numbered versions should be successful for a particular class of locomotives that were standard in design.

 

But they really should experiment with the pre-order method. And if they glance sideways to their friends at Airfix, they'll be sure to help with some decals and I'm sure etched nameplates can be taken care of too. It'll be a small amount of additional income for Hornby

 

But they already have experimented, as you note: they said it was a failure. Rapido agrees with them. How many experiments should they do (presumably each one losing them money) before you will be convinced? One definition of madness is doing the same thing again and again, but each time expecting the result to be different.

 

I'm also curious about your vision of pre-orders: won't that cut out the model shops? Or how would it work?

 

Paul

[MGR Hooper!]

But they already have experimented, as you note: they said it was a failure. Rapido agrees with them. How many experiments should they do (presumably each one losing them money) before you will be convinced? One definition of madness is doing the same thing again and again, but each time expecting the result to be different.

 

I'm also curious about your vision of pre-orders: won't that cut out the model shops? Or how would it work?

 

Paul

How does it relate to their previous try? When they did do it there was no system of pre-ordering via any website.

 

And how do they lose money by simply having a method of pre-ordering? If it doesn't cross a desired figure they dont need to sanction a production run of un-numbered models.

 

And how are the retailers cut out here? If at all it's the "pre-orders" from retailers and Hornby's website itself that counts as a pre-order.

[Guest]

...and so, back to the model as a whole... Nice, innit?

[Pete the Elaner]

How does it relate to their previous try? When they did do it there was no system of pre-ordering via any website.

 

And how do they lose money by simply having a method of pre-ordering? If it doesn't cross a desired figure they dont need to sanction a production run of un-numbered models.

 

And how are the retailers cut out here? If at all it's the "pre-orders" from retailers and Hornby's website itself that counts as a pre-order.

You are preaching to the converted. Most of us would like to see un-numbered models.

We need to convince Hornby that the market has changed sufficiently to re-try it & we will not do this by discussing it among ourselves.

[Pete the Elaner]

...and so, back to the model as a whole... Nice, innit?

Yes, I like it.

I am still partly concerned about the BW high-speed pan. This is not a criticism. The dimensions of the prototype make a scale version very fragile.

This will not put me off from buying one. Making the pan work will be a modelling challenge (or maybe it will get me building some of the many Hurst ones I bought years ago).

I am looking forward to seeing it run with Oxford Mk3As & Hornby DVT.

[Gordon H]

Assuming it is the case, it does seem rather ironic that the manufacturers worry themselves more about perceived loss of sales through non-numbering than their failure to provide rather essential working parts in the first place.

[Revolution Mike]

I'm not sure how a working (ie sprung and/or current collecting) pantograph can be described as an essential working part.  It clearly is not an essential working part.  Hornby (like all manufacturers) will have had to make a balance between functionality, appearance, manufacturing tolerances and cost - some decisions will be weighted differently to others depending on the part.  In this case Hornby appear to have decided that appearance (and presumably cost) is more important than functionality (springing or current collection) - unless you have better market information than Hornby (or their competitors who have made similar choices) then it is difficult to justify increased costs for a small market segment.

 

On un-numbered locos - quite a few have tried it Heljan, Dapol, Rapido and I'm sure others but largely without a great deal of success.  There are some modellers that will buy them (and for those people it is a very useful option) but the overall numbers are tiny compared to the number of people wanting fully finished models.

 

Cheers, Mike

[Guest]

OK, well, as the pantograph debate continues...

As a 3rd rail modeller, I would need to be totally out of my tree to expect sprung, working shoes. They're dummies, and I'm fine with that. I can think of only one modeller who has working 3rd rail (and a Class 508 with power operated doors - most impressive). From what I can gather from this thread and others, those with working OHLE exist but are very few in number. There are also a good number of modellers with cosmetic OHLE and those who are happy to run AC electrics with catenary that exists only in their mind. All of the above is fine, but I have to ask why we expect the likes of Hornby and other manufacturers to cater for our every whim? Manufacturers compromise on lots of things because they're in the business of turning a profit. I just think maybe we should learn the art of compromise too. As others have noted, working pantographs to scale are certainly a possibility - it just requires DIY.

As a 3rd rail modeller with (you'd think) little interest in AC electrics, my route knowledge did extend up as far as Willesden and I do have fond memories of the 87s that I saw in the 1980s. Using a healthy dose of "compromise", there's every chance I'll purchase one of these because, quite simply, they look terrific.

 

Edited: typo

Edited October 26, 2017 by Pete 75C

[wirey33]

Step outside RMWEb and I think you'll find the percentage of people looking for finished models with numbers v un-numbered is rather higher than the hallowed halls of these forums. 

 

 

If it was in any way profitable for Hornby/Bachmann etc., they'd be doing it.

 

It isn't, they don't.

[sparaxis]

The irony of it all. The Hornby 71 had a working pantograph, where it wasn't really needed! They also have produced a variety of very fine pantographs for Jouef and Rivarossi locos.

 

I think the compromise of many European manufacturers is what I would expect, a pantograph that is mechanically functional, but not necessarily electrically functional.

With the rise of DCC there seems a growing trend in European outline to have non-conductive overhead, and to either reduce the spring force of the pantograph (since reliable conduction is not required) or tie it down with a tiny piece of thread so that it rides a few mm below the wire. The spring remains so that if for some reason it was pushed down by a low spot in the wire, it would then return to its constrained position when the wire rises again.

 

I get why people do this. I had a layout with Sommerfeldt  profi-catenary and I was running Roco locos with fragile fine scale pantographs. There is no more distressing event than a derailment resulting in a damaged pantograph entangled in the wires!

 

Now I suppose you could pose the Hornby pantograph a few mm below the wire. Probably be ok if it stays where posed and does not ever get pushed down for some reason. But if I was buying an 87 I would want to have a working pantograph as the layout I am building will have cosmetic catenary. 

 

Fortunately, since I model the 1956-1961 period, class 87s are an academic discussion for me.

[Gordon H]

I'm not sure how a working (ie sprung and/or current collecting) pantograph can be described as an essential working part.  It clearly is not an essential working part. 

Of course it is - it's what makes an overhead electric what it is. At a minimum it should work mechanically.

 

 

I can think of only one modeller who has working 3rd rail (and a Class 508 with power operated doors - most impressive). From what I can gather from this thread and others, those with working OHLE exist but are very few in number.

 

Hence my on-going mission to encourage more to give it a go and not just assume it is all too difficult.

[wombatofludham]

I see Pangate is rumbling on.

 

When Hornby announced this model last year I assume the loco had been in development for a while which means the decision to commit funding to it would have been taken some while back.  At that point we'd only got the no longer in production Heljan 86, Bachmann's 85 and an announcement of a Class 90, and Hornby's old models.  Popular received wisdom amongst modellers, including some "names" was that electrics don't sell, with some pointing to deep discounting on the 85 as proof (although I haven't seen the same names pointing to the fact you can currently buy J15, Claud Hamiltons and NER Q6s at near on half price at some box shifters as reasoning that kettles don't sell...) and the inference was the market couldn't support another high fidelity AC electric model.  At the time Hornby was experiencing what some would call "financial headwinds" and was experiencing boardroom unrest as well, so Hornby would have been more than justified in spending any investment money on yet another pretty kettle, safe in the knowledge that the grey pounds would flood to it and they'd get a decent return, which according to the pundits, isn't guaranteed with an AC electric.

​Yet, despite all that, they committed to doing the model.

 

Now, I don't subscribe to the "oh we should be grateful for anything" school of thought but I do recognise this decision was bordering on the brave given the circumstances and therefore am willing to be more pragmatic about the model spec.  For me the priorities were:

 

1) It should look like an 87 at normal viewing distances.

2) The bogies should be the correct length.

3) It should have good running capabilities, be DCC compatible with easy sound installation.

4) it should reflect the detail alterations made to the real locos throughout their life, not a one size fits all moulding.

5) The pantographs should look accurate, i.e. not a parts bin Italian job or National Grid surplus Pylon model

 

For me, I don't actually need or want a pantograph that can bounce up and down like Tigger on cocaine, as my OHLE will be cosmetic, only on the scenic parts of the layout, and of a location where the contact wire would be a uniform height (no overbridges or level crossings), so a pan that can perform a Jive to satisfy Craig Revell-Horwood would be quite damaging when transiting from an unwired fiddle yard to a wired scenic front of house.  So Hornby's solutions are fine for me.  However, whilst I wouldn't be arrogant enough to suggest - as some seem to be - that my needs are the mainstream and Hornby therefore should be tailoring their spec to my needs, I also feel that the suggestion that some won't be buying the loco because of Pangate is bordering on absurdity.  The rest of the loco looks to be bob on, especially compared to the alternative (which was new before I took my O levels and I'm coming up to 55) or for that matter the Heljan 86, and we can hope based on recent models that it will run well and be simple to make noisy.  Those are things that are far more difficult to put right if they are wrong, compared to a non bouncing pantograph.  Not buying the model because of the pantograph is cutting off your nose to spite your face and, it has to be said, possibly counter productive as I can't help thinking that an 86 would be next given Hornby have form for re-issuing modern versions of their older classics, and the old Hornby 86 isn't that much younger than the old 87.

​For me this was the model announcement that restored the faith in Hornby to cater for anyone under 75 who have an interest in anything that doesn't boil water, after the slapdash Mk2e and other recent own goals.  I fully intend to raid my piggy bank to buy six initially, three of each, and hope that Executive liveried version follow on although preferably after a few month's have elapsed to fill up the piggy.  I'm a realist, I'm sure I could pick faults with the model but given the fact it appears to tick so many boxes on my decision list, and it looks to be streets ahead of the alternatives, so long as the pantograph LOOKS the right shape and size, that's close enough for me.

[jjb1970]

On the unnumbered model bit, I suspect most of those that want unnumbered models are quite capable of renumbering models themselves whilst those who don't have the confidence to do that would not buy an unnumbered model. Hence, avoiding unnumbered models makes sense to me.

[wombatofludham]

I've always found Hornby models reasonably easy to renumber.  It's a nice, quick and easy way to customise your fleet.

[blueeighties]

not fussed either way but I wonder if the model will mean no more limby models and the tooling finally retired? many seem to think they would have suited the Railroad range for those who like to model on them from the box especially as the basic shape was bob on.

 

I expect sales of the new class 87s cross arm pantograph could be popular from the Hornby spares dept for those wanting to add them to older class 86 and 87 models. Hornby seem to have made a really nice job of it when they could so easily have stuck on an old style diamond type pan.

Doubt it. Hornby continue to sell old tooling models alongside later ones. The 56 is one example.

 

And I wouldn't hold your breath with regards to spare parts either, another area Hornby don't seem interested in anymore.

Edited October 26, 2017 by blueeighties

[letterspider]

In another thread about a coach which costs not much less than this 87, I was shouted down for suggesting that coach should push the envelope when it comes to carriage detail, and the concensus was that apart from being triple price of any previous, everyone wants a coach that is the same as any other regardless how much it lightens their wallet yet how std cost it is to make.

 

Why therefore is anyone expecting an electric loco priced competitively to its peers to be head and shoulders above any other locomotive in quality and detail and complains when it’s industry standard at std industry price ?

 

If the class 87 was to innovate i’d Be looking at weight, clever use of traction tyres and a quality similar to Pikos’s new offerings, which are of a similar price and nature. A spring loaded pan drawing current is as niche as some of the niche gauge configurations people use off the back of OO... Hornby must focus on the 80% to sell and make money not the 20% that demand most but represent little revenue.

If your business model is correct then DJM is going to be in big trouble with his Class 92 and Bachmann with their Class 90. At the prices we are paying then both of these are aimed at the conneisseur and expectations are they will be definitive models. The 87 will be judged against them so hopefully it will be perfect!