Hornby Class 87 - Confirmed Newly Tooled Version for 2017 !

[griffgriff]

But what happens if I want a white battery box..........................?

 

Oh - it's the M word again..........

 

Cheers,

Mick

Moan?

 

[MGR Hooper!]

The 87s look absolutely mega! Those wheels look so fine, and a far better representation than the original 3d print mock up's wheels.

 

I only want 87s from the Virgin era onwards, but it looks so good in IC Swallow that I am reallllyyyy tempted to get one of those too!

 

Hornby - please give it quick enough gearing to give it scale speed when hauling a full train. I sometimes find all wheel drive Hornby mechanisms a tad on the slow side. Thanks!

1) Agreed. It was stated early on that the wheels on the 3D printed sample where ones readily available and just for checking tolerances i.e. Class 86 wheels were used.

 

2) My thoughts exactly...very tempting.

 

3) Models usually seem slower but are actually running at a scale speed. I think your request for gearing is a tad bit too late.

[298]

But what happens if I want a white battery box..........................?

 

Oh - it's the M word again..........

 

Cheers,

Mick

*Battery charger.

 

In that case you'll be wondering which M........ technique to use to remove the nameplate. I've managed it to dename a Hornby 86 using T-cut, but I doubt this will work as well on the 87....

[Marcyg]

Looks like the credit card is going to get a hammering again! Got to spend it on something seeing as bachmanns class 90s seem to have gone into hiding

[ThaneofFife]

Enlarging those images suggests the old eyesight might have been fooled by the light reflection that runs across the top edge of the 2 corridor windows or its the prism effect of the glazing making them look deeper than they actually are. ...i will pm Paul though as I would like to think Hornby arent just blindly going straight to tooling without grabbing our feedback at each stage. We dont want another Heljan 86 on our hands......oh and some members have a great sense of humour, others though should stick to their day job methinks as you can see straight through it.

Edited May 22, 2017 by ThaneofFife

[James Makin]

The pans look excellent, but like others, I am sorely disappointed by the lack of a spring in the Brecknell Willis. I realise this is probably because of the complexity of the mechanics of a single-arm pan (you need a hollow lower arm with an extremely fine chain running through, attached to the upper arm, and also to a spring on the base), but it is a glaring omission on a £170 loco!

Agree completely Dave, I was holding back on saying too much, hoping that the rumours of an unsprung pantograph would prove false, but it is worrying!

 

I normally refrain from commenting on new models as one can generally fix most issues with some DIY but this is potentially a faulty pantograph on an overhead electric...the modelling equivalent of releasing a new car with a steering wheel that won't turn corners!!

 

Let's hope this is all just a rumour and the final pantograph will be a good working example...seems a crazy idea as Hornby have had catenary in their range for years, and you can now get it RTR from Peco...

 

Cheers,

James

[jonathan452]

But what happens if I want a white battery box..........................?

 

Oh - it's the M word again..........

 

Cheers,

Mick

Wait for a Limited Edition/Retailer Commission of 87001 in its very original (as delivered) state,

 

This could be produced in 2023 to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the class.............................

[newbryford]

Wait for a Limited Edition/Retailer Commission of 87001 in its very original (as delivered) state,

 

This could be produced in 2023 to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the class.............................

 

Better put the order in now to ensure a production slot....................

 

Cheers,

Mick

[MGR Hooper!]

Enlarging those images suggests the old eyesight might have been fooled by the light reflection that runs across the top edge of the 2 corridor windows or its the prism effect of the glazing making them look deeper than they actually are. ...i will pm Paul though as I would like to think Hornby arent just blindly going straight to tooling without grabbing our feedback at each stage. We dont want another Heljan 86 on our hands......oh and some members have a great sense of humour, others though should stick to their day job methinks as you can see straight through it.

Also keep in mind that this box-art is a fully edited image using a software like Photoshop. Don't take the highlights so seriously. It's not a real painted sample. I can bet that the Hornby Class 87 is going to be far superior than the Heljan Class 86. The Heljan Class 86 had an insane amount of errors to even use as a comparison.

[cheesysmith]

I'm only looking at a blown up image on my iPad, but isn't the white box on the under frame actually the electrical box used with the weak field and the battery box is the bigger black box next to it?

 

Sorry to be pedantic.

Edited May 23, 2017 by cheesysmith

[VXDH92]

Agree completely Dave, I was holding back on saying too much, hoping that the rumours of an unsprung pantograph would prove false, but it is worrying!

I normally refrain from commenting on new models as one can generally fix most issues with some DIY but this is potentially a faulty pantograph on an overhead electric...the modelling equivalent of releasing a new car with a steering wheel that won't turn corners!!

Let's hope this is all just a rumour and the final pantograph will be a good working example...seems a crazy idea as Hornby have had catenary in their range for years, and you can now get it RTR from Peco...

Cheers,

James

James,

 

Sadly, I think it's more than just a rumour. When I spoke to Paul from Hornby when it was first unveiled at Warley, he more or less confirmed that there would be no spring in the Brecknell Willis, so I'm not holding out much hope. Still, there's time for things to change is suppose!

[MGR Hooper!]

I'm only looking at a blown up image on my iPad, but isn't the white box on the under frame actually the electrical box used with the weak field and the battery box is the bigger black box next to it?

 

Sorry to be pedantic.

Well in all honesty not everyone here is an expert on the Class 87...so we'd have no idea.

[GRUNFOS]

I'll take the white box, just drop the nameplate, it is 1976 after all!

[298]

I'm only looking at a blown up image on my iPad, but isn't the white box on the under frame actually the electrical box used with the weak field and the battery box is the bigger black box next to it?

Sorry to be pedantic.

Yes. That is on the corridor side, the smaller one on the equipment side is the charger. The 86/1s also have a weak field box, although I managed to omit it from my model of '103.

[surfsup]

Agree completely Dave, I was holding back on saying too much, hoping that the rumours of an unsprung pantograph would prove false, but it is worrying!

 

I normally refrain from commenting on new models as one can generally fix most issues with some DIY but this is potentially a faulty pantograph on an overhead electric...the modelling equivalent of releasing a new car with a steering wheel that won't turn corners!!

 

Let's hope this is all just a rumour and the final pantograph will be a good working example...seems a crazy idea as Hornby have had catenary in their range for years, and you can now get it RTR from Peco...

 

Cheers,

James

I'm rather with you two on this one as well. Not just because I think this will complete what is stepping up to be one very fine model indeed, but for a £150 loco it almost justifies it. Those and I'm after a far superior one for my Caley Sleeper 86 to replace Heljans rather clunky effort.

[jjb1970]

The BW pantograph is difficult to model accurately and function in OO. The design has three rather than two articulation points and the design prevents easy hiding of springs and linkages. The slight nature of the design makes it difficult to combine true scale appearance with adequate strenght to work and maintain the correct attitude. I'm guessing the development team have evaluated this and decided that a poseable BW pan is the least bad option, based on technical considerations. I'd be interested to see what a specialist company like Sommerfeldt might be able to do.

[MGR Hooper!]

The BW pantograph is difficult to model accurately and function in OO. The design has three rather than two articulation points and the design prevents easy hiding of springs and linkages. The slight nature of the design makes it difficult to combine true scale appearance with adequate strenght to work and maintain the correct attitude. I'm guessing the development team have evaluated this and decided that a poseable BW pan is the least bad option, based on technical considerations. I'd be interested to see what a specialist company like Sommerfeldt might be able to do.

That being said now I do tend to agree, the best way to model a Brecknell-Willis pantograph is to simply have a poseble one. For those who really want a sprung Brecknell-Willis pantograph I'd suggest getting hold of a pair of Hornby Class 92 pantographs. It's quite a good replica and all it needs is it's upper arm straightened out.

 

[ThaneofFife]

Also keep in mind that this box-art is a fully edited image using a software like Photoshop. Don't take the highlights so seriously. It's not a real painted sample. I can bet that the Hornby Class 87 is going to be far superior than the Heljan Class 86. The Heljan Class 86 had an insane amount of errors to even use as a comparison.

 

I remember when we was at a similar stage in the birth of the 86 that very few here were finding fault with the model and many were saying how good it looked  - it was only after its launch did folk begin to find the errors and pick it apart.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[MGR Hooper!]

I remember when we was at a similar stage in the birth of the 86 that very few here were finding fault with the model and many were saying how good it looked  - it was only after its launch did folk begin to find the errors and pick it apart.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Fair enough... I never even knew that the Heljan Class 86 has so much exposure to the modelling community (eg: posting about every update and sharing images of the rendered livery etc.) prior to it's release.

 

PS: Do contact Paul directly and share your concerns. That way you'll know you have a reliable person be notified about it

Edited May 24, 2017 by MGR Hooper!

[298]

The BW pantograph is difficult to model accurately and function in OO. The design has three rather than two articulation points and the design prevents easy hiding of springs and linkages. The slight nature of the design makes it difficult to combine true scale appearance with adequate strenght to work and maintain the correct attitude. I'm guessing the development team have evaluated this and decided that a poseable BW pan is the least bad option, based on technical considerations. I'd be interested to see what a specialist company like Sommerfeldt might be able to do.

What annoys me about this "decision" is there are no easy options apart from using an aftermarket spare, and the negative comments from either decision won't help the loco's image. Bachmann have managed to use a respectable albeit compromised attempt at a high-speed pan on their class 350 and relevant US models, so why have Hornby given up at this important stage...?

Edited May 24, 2017 by 298

[jjb1970]

If it is a major issue for potential customers then MGR Hooper has already pointed out that these concerns should be sent to Hornby. For me it isn't such an issue as I want the BR blue cross arm version, but if I do get a later one (and I suspect I will) then personally I'd prefer a poseable pan rather than a visually compromised one. Obviously I'd like a fine scale working pan, but looking at the BW pan I can see why that is difficult to achieve.

[Pete the Elaner]

What annoys me about this "decision" is there are no easy options apart from using an aftermarket spare, and the negative comments from either decision won't help the loco's image. Bachmann have managed to use a respectable albeit compromised attempt at a high-speed pan on their class 350 and relevant US models, so why have Hornby given up at this important stage...?

Sommerfeldt have never made anything British. We are just fortunate that the Faiveley pan is very similar to a European one.

I like Bachmann's compromise with the 350 pan, but a BW one is more complicated.

I understand the discontinued Hurst BW pan kit is very fragile so I can understand why a RTR manufacturer would want something more robust.

I have some Hurst BW pans in my kit drawer so it may be time to have a go at building one...especially as I am building a 321 right now.

[MGR Hooper!]

What annoys me about this "decision" is there are no easy options apart from using an aftermarket spare, and the negative comments from either decision won't help the loco's image. Bachmann have managed to use a respectable albeit compromised attempt at a high-speed pan on their class 350 and relevant US models, so why have Hornby given up at this important stage...?

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.

 

 

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.

[MGR Hooper!]

The BW pantograph is difficult to model accurately and function in OO. The design has three rather than two articulation points and the design prevents easy hiding of springs and linkages.

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

 

 

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.

[jjb1970]

I think the real headache is making a true scale BW pan robust enough for use. I think it would be possible to do something, but unless you make the arms overscale and accept visually intrusive springs I think it'd be extremely difficult to make something that'd last much beyond the first time it is used.