Hornby Announce a Re-tooled Class 91 for 2020

[Global]

They seem to have missed painting the inside edge of the window surrounds black on all versions looking at those pics above? 

[60800]

91002 with some era-appropriate friends this afternoon;

 

 

 

 

@PaulRhB Caistor loco had a perfect 91002 delivered when I was there this morning if you want to give them a ring / fire off a message on bookface. I'm not affiliated beyond being a regular customer but mentioned the issues with these so I checked over the 91's they had; 1 x 91002 and 1 x 91118, both perfect in livery and no dropped bogies. 

 

I kind of wish I'd cancelled my Hornby pre-orders and been patient to have those two but there you go haha (I did relieve them of their last IC 90 as above though 😉 )

 

Cheers,

  60800

Edited April 30, 2022 by 60800
Photos messed up

[PaulRhB]

7 minutes ago, 60800 said:

Caistor loco had a perfect 91002 delivered when I was there this morning if you want to give them a ring / fire off a message on bookface.

Ta for the heads up 👍 but I’ve sorted it with a bit of red paint and it runs well. 

[60800]

3 hours ago, Global said:

They seem to have missed painting the inside edge of the window surrounds black on all versions looking at those pics above? 

 

This is bugging me now haha - I better add it to the list of mods.

 

Looks like Dean Park has beaten us to having all four. I wonder if he's planning on full rakes for each? 

 

Cheers,

  60800

[XChris]

On 30/04/2022 at 19:37, 60800 said:

 

This is bugging me now haha - I better add it to the list of mods.

 

Looks like Dean Park has beaten us to having all four. I wonder if he's planning on full rakes for each? 

 

Cheers,

  60800

 

Between us we beat him to it though? 🤣

 

I certainly plan on a full GNER blue rake, and hopefully a couple of Virgin rakes when they do the inevitable re run of the LNER/Virgin rakes. Like with the HST’s.

[GraemeWatson]

I've just tried running 91111 with an old set of Margate MkIVs....

Doesn't seem to like them!

The rear coupling on the 91 doesn't stand too far out from the body, and although I'm sure will give a close couple fit on the new tool MKIVs doesn't allow much leeway for anything else. 

 

A bigger Hornby NEM D loop doesn't fit, as it falls foul of the detailing, but perhaps a slimmer D-loop will. 

 

If anyone has any success of running the old tool MKIVs with this I'd love to hear about it

[60800]

@GraemeWatson

 

Have you tried removing the coupling hook from the Mk.IV to just let the loco's hook hold the D loop?

 

Cheers,

  60800

[GraemeWatson]

10 minutes ago, 60800 said:

@GraemeWatson

 

Have you tried removing the coupling hook from the Mk.IV to just let the loco's hook hold the D loop?

 

Cheers,

  60800

Yes, I did, but this also didn't help.

I appreciate the suggestion though.

I also tried removing the hook from the 91 coupling. The coupling as fitted on the 91 is quite deep underneath it, relative to most locos. Only about one third of the coupling protrudes from the rear of the loco, making for a very close fit.

[GraemeWatson]

This photo probably better shows what I mean about the deep coupling on the 91, and therefore, a tendency to drag the older Margate MKIVs off the track.

 

There is some detailing at either side, which precludes using a wider NEM D loop replacement. 

[scouse889]

1 hour ago, GraemeWatson said:

This photo probably better shows what I mean about the deep coupling on the 91, and therefore, a tendency to drag the older Margate MKIVs off the track.

 

There is some detailing at either side, which precludes using a wider NEM D loop replacement. 

 

 

Always can spell trouble when the couplings are different sizes.

Not yet got one of the new 91s to try with my small remaining Mk IV coach collection, but looking at it, you might have more joy using an NEM Hunt coupling on the loco (either standard, close, or ultraclose, depending on the exact length requirement), with a bespoke replacement on the leading coach (if you don't want to replace the whole lot)...?

 

https://www.westhillwagonworks.co.uk/hunt-couplings-c-2/hunt-couplings-elite-oo-gauge-c-21/hunt-couplings-elite-pack-for-intercity-225-class-91-mk4-dvt-set-oo-gauge-p-314

 

[60800]

If(!) Hornby had painted the headlights and cab window surrounds properly, this is what we would have got with 91002. Kadees look pretty nice on these 91's 😉

 

 

Cheers,

  60800

[60800]

The cabs just pop out. This is good as the detail is err, well... 

 

 

Cheers,

  60800

[G-BOAF]

2 hours ago, 60800 said:

If(!) Hornby had painted the headlights and cab window surrounds properly, this is what we would have got with 91002. Kadees look pretty nice on these 91's 😉

 

 

Cheers,

  60800

What are the 'hatches' on the nose? I know they were plated over later in life

 

[60800]

@G-BOAF I have to admit I don't know - but they'll be gone on this 91 soon enough haha.

 

I'm also in the process of filling the gap above the bufferbeam as I need to repaint the yellow anyway.

 

Cheers,

  60800

[Steadfast]

1 hour ago, G-BOAF said:

What are the 'hatches' on the nose? I know they were plated over later in life

 

Believe they hide the TDM multi working sockets.

 

Jo

[G-BOAF]

2 minutes ago, Steadfast said:

Believe they hide the TDM multi working sockets.

 

Jo

that makes sense.

But then what happened when these were plated over, and there was a need to run 'blunt end outwards' with a DVT at the other end?

 

Furthermore, the blunt end kept the hatches, but there are no jumpers visible when coupled up to the TSO(E)

e.g.

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/locomotive/images/1/1e/GNER-91115.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20120611082343

Edited May 3, 2022 by G-BOAF

[47606odin]

18 hours ago, 60800 said:

If(!) Hornby had painted the headlights and cab window surrounds properly, this is what we would have got with 91002. Kadees look pretty nice on these 91's 😉

 

 

Cheers,

  60800

the headlight panels were clear when the locos were built, which will suit me when I remove the nameplates off mine when it arrives. I assume they were modified because the plastic covers kept breaking because of their shape

[60800]

@47606odin

 

Yeah someone pointed this out on Facebook too, but then it was also noted that 91002 was not named until 1993 so the model is still wrong sadly, but right for as built. Mine is on the slow road to becoming 91119 so they needed painting. 

 

Cheers,

  60800

[WolfofBadenoch]

On 02/05/2022 at 21:31, GraemeWatson said:

I've just tried running 91111 with an old set of Margate MkIVs....

Doesn't seem to like them!

The rear coupling on the 91 doesn't stand too far out from the body, and although I'm sure will give a close couple fit on the new tool MKIVs doesn't allow much leeway for anything else. 

 

A bigger Hornby NEM D loop doesn't fit, as it falls foul of the detailing, but perhaps a slimmer D-loop will. 

 

If anyone has any success of running the old tool MKIVs with this I'd love to hear about it

 

My 91 arrived yesterday. No problems running with the old Mk IVs either pulling or pushing. I had been running the carriages with a Bachmann Class 90 since it came out (3 years ago i think) with no problems either pulling or pushing. The Mk IV DVT i have on the opposite end is actually running on Mk3 DVT bogies and smaller coupling - again with no problems. Nice of Hornby to colour match the new 91 to the old Mk IVs.

 

On 28/04/2022 at 16:14, Dennis2000 said:

So managed to get my LNER one up and running today. To be honest I'm disappointed by the performance. Really bad running at low speeds, wobbles when on the curves, clunky going over points and makes intermittent grinding noises. Has any one else had any of these problems?

 Mine is a bit clunky over pointwork.

 

https://youtu.be/B7S3v2fPGgc

[Rhydgaled]

On 07/04/2022 at 21:47, phil-b259 said:

In my view the bigger issue with the extra grills is the way one straddles the white diagonal by the cab. I’m not sure if it would be possible but painting said grill slats + surround in a ‘half and half’ setup of black and white would go some way to mitigate its placement with InterCity livery applied. 

I agree, it really spoils the look of that side of 91119.

 

On 07/04/2022 at 21:47, phil-b259 said:

Given the extra grills were installed for sound ENGINEERING reasons there is absolutely zero chance of them being removed if anyone has any desire to actually run it (as opposed to being permanently restored for static display.

Could those engineering reasons be satisified by moving that particular extra grill somewhere which would be entirely within the black/dark area of the swallow livery?

 

On 27/04/2022 at 12:38, Markwj said:

Don't think I have seen it mentioned but the next release of the 91 has been put back to spring 2023 (battle of britain livery etc).

Given my previous comments regarding a retooled 91, it might be rude off me not to order one of those (and a display cabinet for it) so a delay to next year is good for me since I am having to be careful with spending at the moment (just spent most of my savings on an investment and need to wait for a return on that).

 

One question though, I think the retooled 91110 was described as VTEC or LNER livery; are there any detail differences between that and it's original East Coast condition?

 

On 03/05/2022 at 22:46, G-BOAF said:

that makes sense.

But then what happened when these were plated over, and there was a need to run 'blunt end outwards' with a DVT at the other end?

 

Furthermore, the blunt end kept the hatches, but there are no jumpers visible when coupled up to the TSO(E)

e.g.

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/locomotive/images/1/1e/GNER-91115.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20120611082343

I think I saw a photo online once of a 91 that suggested the hatches weren't plated over but concealed with some sort of polyfiller type stuff. Could be wrong though.

 

1 hour ago, 50149 said:

Mk4’s use UIC cables buffer mounted for TDM transmission, so when 91’s are attached to a MK4 DVT this is what’s used for communicating with the train as they would when coupled to a TOE. Class 91’s have also had their UIC cable on one side + male connection removed replaced by a female connection (a spare UIC cable is carried onboard). A similar modification was also performed with the ETS cable. Both modifications reduce the risk from impact damage/water ingress etc.
 

Class 91’s originally had high level RCH cables (behind the flaps) fitted for compatibility with RCH only fitted vehicles/locomotives, however were essentially redundant (particularly after privatisation as they only worked with MK4’s) and eventually removed from No 1 end with the fibre glass front sealed up. Prior to that the jumper hatches were prone to damage, water ingress etc. 

 

hope this helps…

Didn't the 91 that ran with mark 1s on the GBRF charity railtour last year need those cables?

[roy h]

Not impressed to say the least.
Looks good out of the box.  start the running in ready for doc to be fitted and it wobbles clunks over point work then throws its bogie out as clip is snapped back.  
Why use such a old way of mouting the boiges and on a model close to £200 

Only arrived today and did 1 1/2 laps at least they allow a 21 pin decoder now 

[sanspareil]

First opinions of my arrived 91.

 

Its looks visually good, very good. Nice paint job, bogie detail and so on. Some nice etched mesh work on the roof. Have they missed off painting the black inner lead window frame on the IC version though?

 

Its clear however for the price point Hornby aren't with the best of the competition overall. No included speaker(s), just the one DC switch for lights (you cant even turn off the blunt end lights on a loco that runs 99% with blunt end off!!!), all but no cab detailing and whilst the pantograph looks improved its not a patch on the motorised competition. Compared to the Bachmann Class 90 its several pegs behind and thus looks over priced. I do wonder what Cavalex would have done with the 91?

 

Running on plain track the loco is smooth and quiet. On most point work the loco runs very lumpy (its noticeable mostly at speed), like riding hard lumpy. Its not an electrical pick up issue it seems to run unbalanced almost like the weight is uneven on each axle. It bangs through the point frogs but you normally only hear 1 axle on each bogie. To be honest I have never had a loco run so badly like this. The Dapol 73 did show some slight similar tendencies but not a patch on this. A quick look does reveal that bogies are very tight fore and aft. There is very very little play available, probably due to the damper bogie detail and risk of it hitting the body. Further investigation required, I will report back but this is a real negative for me. My old 91 with newer motor (and no tractions tyres) runs so much better, smoother through point work with no lurching about).

 

PS I have seen a couple of printed press reviews of the 91 and none have mentioned any of my observations above. Am I just too observant/critical or are magazine reviews just poor now? It sounds like im not the only one mentioning running issues.

Edited May 8, 2022 by sanspareil

[60800]

@sanspareil I've found that my 91's are very heavy on the outer axles but very light on the inners. I might look at adding some weight to the bogies to counter this and I'll also be modifying the dampers as they clash on all three of mine. 

 

Yes the inner lead window frame on the IC and LNER versions should be black - I'm not sure about the GNER one though. 

 

I've painted this on my 91002, but this image also shows up another huge issue in that the body does not run all the way down to the bufferbeam as it is cut to work around the chassis. I'm presently modifying this on my 91002 as the front end yellow is going to be repainted anyway as part of the process to turn it into 91119;

 

 

Depending on what period you wish to model, you might want to leave the headlight covers clear as 91002 is supplied with them 'as built', but by the time she was named they had been modified to the above. 

 

Cheers,

  60800

 

[G-BOAF]

7 hours ago, 60800 said:

@sanspareil I've found that my 91's are very heavy on the outer axles but very light on the inners. I might look at adding some weight to the bogies to counter this and I'll also be modifying the dampers as they clash on all three of mine. 

 

Yes the inner lead window frame on the IC and LNER versions should be black - I'm not sure about the GNER one though. 

 

I've painted this on my 91002, but this image also shows up another huge issue in that the body does not run all the way down to the bufferbeam as it is cut to work around the chassis. I'm presently modifying this on my 91002 as the front end yellow is going to be repainted anyway as part of the process to turn it into 91119;

 

 

Depending on what period you wish to model, you might want to leave the headlight covers clear as 91002 is supplied with them 'as built', but by the time she was named they had been modified to the above. 

 

Cheers,

  60800

 

Oh dear what a howler.

I do wonder if its been 'hacked out' in the factory as the edge does not look straight (dips down a bit in the middle). The livery computer renders on Hornby's website do not show this, so I wonder if it is a factory bodge.

Why on earth wasn't the chassis block below just set back a bit? Seems like someone has not done their job properly. Not hard to rectify, just recess the front of the chassis above the buffer beam a bit.... Heck Hornby got this right in 1988, a shame to mess it up now!

A note to Hornby pointing this out and asking for correction on future batches might be useful (unless Hornby are reading this thread.... Please correct this, once noticed it can't be unseen, especially on liveries will full yellow ends)

[Hilux5972]

On 09/05/2022 at 09:27, sanspareil said:

I do wonder what Cavalex would have done with the 91?

This post by Grimley Grid from June 1, 2019 shows what they would have done.