Hornby Class 87 - Confirmed Newly Tooled Version for 2017 !

[adb968008]

It was hardly a hysterical over-reaction. It was merely an attempt to highlight poor decision making.

 

Of course, the consequences of one decision were much more grave than the other. I merely meant to compare the poor quality of two decisions, both of which were difficult to recover from. I am sorry that you consider it in poor taste; I don’t see it as such.

So much negativity about a non functional part of a model.

Hornby has the most UK experience on pantographs.., Steeplecab, EM2, 81, 86, APT, 90, 91, 87, Eurostar, Javelin, 71..

 

Apart from the moulded plastic panto of the train sets in the 1980’s each has been good for its era of introduction.

Let’s give them a break, Bachman has only had an 85, Heljan the 86 and DJ class 71, Ok lima’s 87, Trix 76..

 

The panto is the least likely to be used, rarely ever to be lifted and almost certainly the easiest part to break.

 

So my criteria is it should look good and stay down... the 71 certainly meets that criteria and that was the immediate predecessor. HO scale panto’s to me are much the same and being metal doesn’t make any difference, apart from being too shiny.

Edited October 16, 2017 by adb968008

[Pete the Elaner]

The panto is the least likely to be used, rarely ever to be lifted and almost certainly the easiest part to break.

I agree with that.

 

I am modelling WCML complete with OLE & want to have pan's height drop as the wires drop to get under the layout's bridge. I accept that I may be in the minority, but Hornby need to cater for the majority.

This leaves me searching for a solution to springing the pan somehow. I am sure I will find a way.

[letterspider]

Why have Hornby been cynical about this? They announced the model and pressed on with it, any other manufacturer is free to produce a competing product. They've funded the model themselves, it wasn't a crowd funder possibility and the relatively quick schedule indicates that either Hornby had been working on this for a long time before it was announced or that they're on top of the field when it comes to developing projects. Either way they are neither cynical nor naughty in this case.

 

My apologies to anyone from Hornby who might be reading this - it is just an opinion but jjb1970 thinks it deserves justification - so here goes:

 

 

1/ Yes anyone can compete but often the winner is the first to get to market.

2/ We don't know how long this was in development but we can assume Hornby were aware of DJM's intentions. We can also assume that however long this was on the drawing board, they hadn't sussed out the pantograph (and if the European market leaders in modelling catenary for the last 30+ years are to be given any credibility then plastic is not the best engineering for this part)

3/ DJM appeared to be offering a better specification than Hornby and my memory of it was at a slightly lower unit price. Hornby could have known that as well - but the customer did not know.

4/ Hornby probably (I would be surprised if they didn't) must have been aware of the customer's expectations for this model as has been said in previous posts However, in the absence of a competitor they have not taken the pantograph to its proper conclusion.

5/ You balance it all up and you do get the feeling that Hornby have rushed this model and the result on the roof is rather a backward step for all who are thinking about modelling better catenary.

[Crewlisle]

I have sympathy for Hornby with this one. They cannot please everyone.

Have you built your own catenary before? I have & these are my findings:

 

I felt that commercially available catenary was way overscale, so I tried building my own.

Pantographs were sprung far too fiercely so I had to weaken their springs & also increase the gauge of the contact wire beyond what I really wanted to.

The wires needed to be under tension or else they would deflect massively when the pan was beneath them. When I tensioned 1 wire, its adjacent one would become slack. Tension this & the first one goes slack. It was a real problem. The answers were to increase the wire gauge still further or weaken the spring more.

Hornby will have been through all this & taken it into account when designing their pan.

 

I have not seen an assembled model yet, only the parts on their sprues. I will reserve judgment until I see the final product.

 

Pete,

 

I built 'Crewlisle's' catenary 30 years ago with JV Masts, modified their continental multi-track portal frames & scratch built the catenary wires in approximately 900mm lengths.  And it is all PORTABLE!  Only the WCML continuous run has OLE.  If you enter 'Model Rail%Crewlisle Catenary' it will pull up track plan, photos & the details of the construction of the catenary.  I have since updated the details to include the Peco catenary & how to make it all portable.  If you solder it all together, it is odds on that if anything goes wrong on the track it will be under the catenary!

 

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  

 

[jjb1970]

My apologies to anyone from Hornby who might be reading this - it is just an opinion but jjb1970 thinks it deserves justification - so here goes:

 

 

1/ Yes anyone can compete but often the winner is the first to get to market.

2/ We don't know how long this was in development but we can assume Hornby were aware of DJM's intentions. We can also assume that however long this was on the drawing board, they hadn't sussed out the pantograph (and if the European market leaders in modelling catenary for the last 30+ years are to be given any credibility then plastic is not the best engineering for this part)

3/ DJM appeared to be offering a better specification than Hornby and my memory of it was at a slightly lower unit price. Hornby could have known that as well - but the customer did not know.

4/ Hornby probably (I would be surprised if they didn't) must have been aware of the customer's expectations for this model as has been said in previous posts However, in the absence of a competitor they have not taken the pantograph to its proper conclusion.

5/ You balance it all up and you do get the feeling that Hornby have rushed this model and the result on the roof is rather a backward step for all who are thinking about modelling better catenary.

An opinion is an opinion and we all have plenty of those. If people are disappointed with this model then that’s fine (plenty of models disappoint me). If people think DJM would produce a better class 87 then that’s fine, it’s an opinion and people have every right to hold that opinion. However, to extend those opinions into asserting that Hornby are in some way not playing cricket with this release is wrong.

 

They obviously would have known about DJM’s intentions as that project was publicly announced. What I do not know is whether Hornby had started their project before DJM, however since DJM told us when they decided not to go ahead that the reason was that two others were developing class 87 projects, and given the fairly rapid fruition of the Hornby model, I’m guessing Hornby did not try and gazump DJM with this model. So then the question is whether any company should be expected to abandon a project just because somebody else announces it? If you were developing an idea and suddenly somebody else announced the same idea would you take an attitude of “it’s a fair kop, I’ll do the right thing and rip my plans up”? Or would you perhaps say “I’ve already invested £X and Y hours, I’ll have my product in the shops in a year, I’m going ahead”? Be honest, what would you do? Let’s remember, this can’t have cost DJM anything as their model was still at the stage of gauging crowd funder response, therefore in a sense there wasn’t even a rival project from DJM. What evidence does anybody have that a DJM model would be better? The only directly comparable products we have are the two class 71 models and my opinion is that those two models are evenly matched. The DJM has nicer bogies and some nice details and is suited to sound installation for sound fans, the Hornby model has better shape and a better mechanism. Swings and roundabouts, since sound is irrelevant to me I prefer the Hornby version because of its better shape and mechanism but that’s just me.

 

And ultimately, what a competitor does is not the business of Hornby, no more than what Hornby is doing is the business of anybody else. There are laws about collusion and model companies exist in a free market. In terms of the first getting to market being the winner, that is not always correct as it ignores product attributes, but if Hornby are capable of developing projects rapidly and delivering what they announce within a reasonable period (and at the moment they seem to be on top of the pile in that respect, unlike their problems a few years ago when they were delivering next to nothing) then I’d consider that something deserving of praise.

[ThaneofFife]

im just thankful that Hornby are now well down the road with this 87 and I an sit back and just look forward to the initial and future incarnations -  we don't know if there is a general slow down ahead in the rate of new announcements.   had the 87 not been announced it might not have seen the light of day for donkeys years or at all if the naysayers about electrics not selling influenced the manufacturers into just playing safe with diesel.

 

ill be taking a good look at the Warley show.   I'm still slightly amazed we are here talking about a new tooled 00 gauge class 87!

[letterspider]

An opinion is an opinion and we all have plenty of those. If people are disappointed with this model then that’s fine (plenty of models disappoint me). If people think DJM would produce a better class 87 then that’s fine, it’s an opinion and people have every right to hold that opinion. However, to extend those opinions into asserting that Hornby are in some way not playing cricket with this release is wrong.

 

They obviously would have known about DJM’s intentions as that project was publicly announced. What I do not know is whether Hornby had started their project before DJM, however since DJM told us when they decided not to go ahead that the reason was that two others were developing class 87 projects, and given the fairly rapid fruition of the Hornby model, I’m guessing Hornby did not try and gazump DJM with this model. So then the question is whether any company should be expected to abandon a project just because somebody else announces it? If you were developing an idea and suddenly somebody else announced the same idea would you take an attitude of “it’s a fair kop, I’ll do the right thing and rip my plans up”? Or would you perhaps say “I’ve already invested £X and Y hours, I’ll have my product in the shops in a year, I’m going ahead”? Be honest, what would you do? Let’s remember, this can’t have cost DJM anything as their model was still at the stage of gauging crowd funder response, therefore in a sense there wasn’t even a rival project from DJM. What evidence does anybody have that a DJM model would be better? The only directly comparable products we have are the two class 71 models and my opinion is that those two models are evenly matched. The DJM has nicer bogies and some nice details and is suited to sound installation for sound fans, the Hornby model has better shape and a better mechanism. Swings and roundabouts, since sound is irrelevant to me I prefer the Hornby version because of its better shape and mechanism but that’s just me.

 

And ultimately, what a competitor does is not the business of Hornby, no more than what Hornby is doing is the business of anybody else. There are laws about collusion and model companies exist in a free market. In terms of the first getting to market being the winner, that is not always correct as it ignores product attributes, but if Hornby are capable of developing projects rapidly and delivering what they announce within a reasonable period (and at the moment they seem to be on top of the pile in that respect, unlike their problems a few years ago when they were delivering next to nothing) then I’d consider that something deserving of praise.

 

 

The original thread of this dialogue was about the pantograph and it is not an opinion - the fact is plastic is not up to the job. Hornby have absorbed Joeuf, Electrotren and Rivarossi and if you go to their website and online shop and look at the models released under these marques whch have pantographs - I don't see any made of plastic.

A Judith Edge cross arm pantograph kit costs just shy of £10 looks great and it doesn't look impossible to assemble to me. So maybe Hornby thought plastic was a good decision for those who are happy with it and the rest of us can enjoy a bit of easy modelling - fingers crossed prices continue to drop from the RRP.

 

So I have to agree with you about this model - and it is a case of put up or shut up. Nobody is forcing anybody to buy anything.

Edited October 17, 2017 by letterspider

[UMinion]

I will have to replace it with a DJM Class 92 pan when the spares come to fruition as I doubt Bachmann will supply the class 90 pan as a spare.

 

Have any DJM spares ever seen the light of day? I took that idea as abandoned long ago. At least Bachmann actually do supply some spares.

[Gordon H]

The orientation of the cranks was not mentioned or implied. Only their location at the bottom of the arms. 

 

 

 

The orientation most certainly WAS implied, and not just to me it seems.

As the orientation of the cranks is the only crucial factor in this discussion, it was reasonable to assume that it was this you were referring to when using the term bottom to identify their location.

Obviously the linkage will be at the bottom of the pantograph as a whole, within the base area, but what matters is that one crank is on the top of one cross member, and the other crank is on the bottom of the other cross member.

[Gordon H]

So much negativity about a non functional part of a model.

Hornby has the most UK experience on pantographs.., Steeplecab, EM2, 81, 86, APT, 90, 91, 87, Eurostar, Javelin, 71..

 

Apart from the moulded plastic panto of the train sets in the 1980’s each has been good for its era of introduction.

Let’s give them a break, Bachman has only had an 85, Heljan the 86 and DJ class 71, Ok lima’s 87, Trix 76..

 

The panto is the least likely to be used, rarely ever to be lifted and almost certainly the easiest part to break.

 

So my criteria is it should look good and stay down... the 71 certainly meets that criteria and that was the immediate predecessor. HO scale panto’s to me are much the same and being metal doesn’t make any difference, apart from being too shiny.

 

That is the point - it should not be non-functional in this day and age.

If they managed to do all these functional versions dating back 60 years, why take yet another a step backwards now?

The rot started to set in when they produced the ridiculous 86 pan about 30 years ago.

If you don't want to get involved in pantographs and OLE, why model AC electric outline at all?

It has already been mentioned that some of the other 'continental' makes that Hornby now own seem able to produce working pans - and Japanese models have had working cross arms for years, even in N Gauge.

Why should it be so difficult to produce them for British outline as well?

[Titan]

As the orientation of the cranks is the only crucial factor in this discussion, 

 

Not at all. it is completely incidental to the subject being discussed. The picture was posted to show the location of the link, and nothing more. I specifically mentioned nothing about the orientation of the cranks as it had little to do with the subject under discussion, which was the location of the link, not what it was connected to, in response to the below which was quoted in the original response and I quote again:

 

I am still at a loss as to which link is missing, look at my post above with a link to the real 87035 and I don’t see what you talk about.

 

Absolutely nothing to do with the orientation of the cranks, but the location of the link near the roof as it could not be seen from normal viewing angles.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Titan

[jjb1970]

 

It has already been mentioned that some of the other 'continental' makes that Hornby now own seem able to produce working pans - and Japanese models have had working cross arms for years, even in N Gauge.

 

 

Most Japanese N gauge models have used poseable, non-working pantographs. Very finely detailed and accurate looking pantographs but nevertheless non-working and unsprung. A common approach to overhead electrification in Japanese N gauge is to model masts but with no catenary, it can actually look much better than it sounds.

[adb968008]

That is the point - it should not be non-functional in this day and age.

If they managed to do all these functional versions dating back 60 years, why take yet another a step backwards now?

The rot started to set in when they produced the ridiculous 86 pan about 30 years ago.

If you don't want to get involved in pantographs and OLE, why model AC electric outline at all?

It has already been mentioned that some of the other 'continental' makes that Hornby now own seem able to produce working pans - and Japanese models have had working cross arms for years, even in N Gauge.

Why should it be so difficult to produce them for British outline as well?

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.

Edited October 17, 2017 by adb968008

[ThaneofFife]

i had not even spotted that the Hornby pan was made of plastic.   Must be fairly convincing then!   Metal or plastic personally I am not bothered provided it is robust and wont fall apart.  

 

I don't think it is fair to ask why bother getting involved with AC electrics and OLE if you are comfortable buying a model with a non-functioning pan.  One can argue for a functioning pan and I get that but that argument doesn't carry over into questioning why others are happy to buy what is available to them.  Its 2 totally different things.

[Andy Mac]

That is the point - it should not be non-functional in this day and age.

If they managed to do all these functional versions dating back 60 years, why take yet another a step backwards now?

The rot started to set in when they produced the ridiculous 86 pan about 30 years ago.

If you don't want to get involved in pantographs and OLE, why model AC electric outline at all?

It has already been mentioned that some of the other 'continental' makes that Hornby now own seem able to produce working pans - and Japanese models have had working cross arms for years, even in N Gauge.

Why should it be so difficult to produce them for British outline as well?

In the years gone by, when we had a functioning OHLE and the little switch on the roof of the 86/87/90's, the reason for all of this was to allow an unheard of two trains to operate on the same piece of track at the same time... the manufacturers are not taking a step backwards now, they are nearly getting rid of a legacy electrics that have basically been rendered obsolete with the widespread take up of DCC.

The pantograph has to be a compromise between realism and strength...

[Andy Mac]

Have any DJM spares ever seen the light of day? I took that idea as abandoned long ago. At least Bachmann actually do supply some spares.

Have a look at DJM's thread, you might need to take it all back!

[Mad McCann]

In the years gone by, when we had a functioning OHLE and the little switch on the roof of the 86/87/90's, the reason for all of this was to allow an unheard of two trains to operate on the same piece of track at the same time... the manufacturers are not taking a step backwards now, they are nearly getting rid of a legacy electrics that have basically been rendered obsolete with the widespread take up of DCC.

The pantograph has to be a compromise between realism and strength...

And of course, considering the uber alles - important UK factor of price... ;-)

 

D

[wombatofludham]

Given that I'm happy to buy diesel multiple unit models with non-functioning internal combustion engines, and steam locos with non-functioning boilers the lack of a functioning pantograph on the 87 is small beer.  At least it's a model of an electric loco powered by electricity, which is more than can be said for the kettle or the fart-cart.

[MGR Hooper!]

Some images from Hattons

 

 

I'm so glad that Hornby decided to go for accurate looking scale pantographs! They look stunning

[cravensdmufan]

Looking fantastic. One of each for me.

[Gordon H]

In the years gone by, when we had a functioning OHLE and the little switch on the roof of the 86/87/90's, the reason for all of this was to allow an unheard of two trains to operate on the same piece of track at the same time..

 

That was certainly a selling point they latched on to in the early days, but at least it allowed overhead electric locos to derive their power 'as nature intended'. Now we don't even get the option.

By forming an alternative common return current path, the original system could easily be expanded using conventional track sectioning techniques, so was by no means limited to just two independently operated locos.

[Roy Langridge]

That was certainly a selling point they latched on to in the early days, but at least it allowed overhead electric locos to derive their power 'as nature intended'. Now we don't even get the option.

By forming an alternative common return current path, the original system could easily be expanded using conventional track sectioning techniques, so was by no means limited to just two independently operated locos.

But for those few who wish to have working pans, wouldn’t everybody else has to compromise by having over-scale components?

 

Roy

[Andy Mac]

That was certainly a selling point they latched on to in the early days, but at least it allowed overhead electric locos to derive their power 'as nature intended'. Now we don't even get the option.

By forming an alternative common return current path, the original system could easily be expanded using conventional track sectioning techniques, so was by no means limited to just two independently operated locos.

I remember it well....ghee, showing my age now! The Hornby catalogue with the cantenary on the cover, seemed like a massive step forward.... also remember Zero 1 as well, another piece of technology that became superceded/redundant but showed the way towards DCC. Those were the days, lol, large choice of model shops around Glasgow, the anticipation of waiting for the blue peter layout getting an airing on TV.... How things move on.... give it 30 years and we'll all be having a side discussion over who can remember having a petrol or Diesel engine in their car!!!

 

But after all the hassle with the cantenary, track sections and DC operation, surly just running some electrics under DCC operation, is far easier, simpler and more reliable...

 

Those 87's look good, and both are pre-ordered...

[298]

But after all the hassle with the cantenary, track sections and DC operation, surly just running some electrics under DCC operation, is far easier, simpler and more reliable...

Those 87's look good, and both are pre-ordered...

Which is all well and good, but doesn't address the issue of the pan being unable to hold itself against the wire.

 

Hornby could of at least said "We're working on it" and produced something semi scale as a stop-gap measure, but the old comment that purchasers expect a complete track/loco/ohle system from one manufacturer and the corresponding acceptance that someone else can produce all of the catenary seems to have been extended denounce all responsibility for the pan...

[ThaneofFife]

I can't to tell from the pics so maybe somebody can or knows....... are the bogies now scale length which was a bugbear before or a carry over from the old model with a longer pivot centre to centre ?