Hornby Announce a Re-tooled Class 91 for 2020

['CHARD]

6 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Ok, the older 91 was 100% Hornby & made while Lima was still trading.

Can we forgive the poster this error?

The Hornby 91 may have pushed 13 around but with traction tyres ... 

 

Yes, it wasn't a snipe, just a genuine question and it's answered below.

 

5 minutes ago, miles73128 said:

Sorry, my shorthand for the ex Lima locos, reintroduced by Hornby, fitted with this type of motor. Of course the existing Horny 91, is Hornby (not Lima) but the last version released (East Coast) has this “Limby” type motor, vers the Ringfield 5 or 3 pole. I haven’t tried with my Ringfields, they would struggle with a test load of 13! 

 

That makes sense, I had no idea that Horny had put the newer style motor in 

[miles73128]

22 minutes ago, 'CHARD said:

 

Yes, it wasn't a snipe, just a genuine question and it's answered below.

 

 

That makes sense, I had no idea that Horny had put the newer style motor in 

No problem. I didn’t take it as one. 

[MGR Hooper!]

I thought the most recent Hornby Class 91s had the usual Hornby style motorized bogies i.e. with a 5-pole motor??? Something that all Hornby Railroad models now have. Limby issue aside, I was always under the impression that Lima also used pancake motors like the much older Hornby models?

 

Can anyone confirm please.

[miles73128]

20 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

I thought the most recent Hornby Class 91s had the usual Hornby style motorized bogies i.e. with a 5-pole motor??? Something that all Hornby Railroad models now have. Limby issue aside, I was always under the impression that Lima also used pancake motors like the much older Hornby models?

 

Can anyone confirm please.

Yes, East Coast R3365, 91120 and the Virgin R3501 91124 have the sealed 5 pole can motor (a la Limby) and all previous Cl91 have Ringfields. R3001, 91110 and R3133 91120 are 5 pole, not sure when the exact change from 3 pole to 5 pole Ringfield was made.

 

BTW, That's why I used the term "Limby", to denote a modern 5 pole sealed can motor (bogie) vers old Ringfield 5 or 3 pole. Of course, don't confuse Limby with a centrally mounted 5 pole can motor driving both bogies (NEW Class 91) which is much better.   

Edited April 14, 2020 by miles73128
Additional info

[adb968008]

9 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

I thought the most recent Hornby Class 91s had the usual Hornby style motorized bogies i.e. with a 5-pole motor??? Something that all Hornby Railroad models now have. Limby issue aside, I was always under the impression that Lima also used pancake motors like the much older Hornby models?

 

Can anyone confirm please.

Lima used pancake motors in a broadly similar design to Hornbys (a little more engineered ), on all their UK range except the class 20 and class 67, though the class 40 was designed to have the chassis mounted motor, it appeared with the pancake, the gearbox is part of the dummy bogie moulding.

 

Iirc there was a Lima plan to upgrade the class 50 to a central mounted motor, as well as OO gauge bogies and filling the sandboxes, but BR started withdrawing them enmasse and sales went through the roof so it was postponed.

 

I dont follow Hornbys old class 91 too closely, but  R3365 (East Coast) onwards has the new 4 wheel bogie with the can motor, which was also used in the Freightliner class 86 and the current range class 90’s. Prior to this was the ringfield motor dating back to the 91’s development (Service sheet 208b) though it had a 5 pole armature instead of a 3 pole armature for a period. (service sheet 285), There isnt a service sheet for the new Railroad 91, but there are a few gaps between sheets 400-420, it could be one of them.

 

The same 4 wheel bogie seems to be used in the R2772/87 class 87, R2939 class 33, and r3xxx + releases of 86,90 & 91.

 

hope this helps.

Edited April 14, 2020 by adb968008

[MGR Hooper!]

14 hours ago, miles73128 said:

Yes, East Coast R3365, 91120 and the Virgin R3501 91124 have the sealed 5 pole can motor (a la Limby) and all previous Cl91 have Ringfields. R3001, 91110 and R3133 91120 are 5 pole, not sure when the exact change from 3 pole to 5 pole Ringfield was made.

 

BTW, That's why I used the term "Limby", to denote a modern 5 pole sealed can motor (bogie) vers old Ringfield 5 or 3 pole. Of course, don't confuse Limby with a centrally mounted 5 pole can motor driving both bogies (NEW Class 91) which is much better.   

I may be wrong, but I think you're a little confused with motor bogie designs. As far as I am aware (and has @adb968008 has confirmed) Lima only used pancake motors bar a few that had a simple but effective centrally mounted can motor design (as seen on the Lima Class 67).

- Lima - pancake motors i.e. a CD motor mounted on top of a motorbogie (better engineered).
https://www.railwaymodellers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/lima_bo_bo_motor.jpg
- Lima - centrally mounted can motor (Class 67 and Class 20)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/0RyBWYP1dwKICx3ksaH-XZq-HrtIGtA6joZCHxWyNux03t04B27iIteNicXFlTSjmUvw4hM5-mSI6pqkbUE4hA3rWcnwI2RsOCOyeIM5
- Hornby - ringfield motor
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1465/8204/products/IMG_6228_75e2d261-5c4d-4fbe-91ac-860cab989e33_1200x1200.JPG?v=1548556913
- Hornby - sealed can motor (5-pole)
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_08_2012/post-6910-0-36703300-1344087033.jpg

 

Unless you just name them based on the fact that the Lima pancake motor and Hornby 5-pole motorized bogies just have an enclosure? In that case then I do apologize.  Normally I'v never seen people call Hornby's 5-pole motorized bogie design the Limby one. Ignore my confusion in that case.

Cheers

[miles73128]

1 hour ago, MGR Hooper! said:

I may be wrong, but I think you're a little confused with motor bogie designs. As far as I am aware (and has @adb968008 has confirmed) Lima only used pancake motors bar a few that had a simple but effective centrally mounted can motor design (as seen on the Lima Class 67).

- Lima - pancake motors i.e. a CD motor mounted on top of a motorbogie (better engineered).
https://www.railwaymodellers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/lima_bo_bo_motor.jpg
- Lima - centrally mounted can motor (Class 67 and Class 20)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/0RyBWYP1dwKICx3ksaH-XZq-HrtIGtA6joZCHxWyNux03t04B27iIteNicXFlTSjmUvw4hM5-mSI6pqkbUE4hA3rWcnwI2RsOCOyeIM5
- Hornby - ringfield motor
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1465/8204/products/IMG_6228_75e2d261-5c4d-4fbe-91ac-860cab989e33_1200x1200.JPG?v=1548556913
- Hornby - sealed can motor (5-pole)
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_08_2012/post-6910-0-36703300-1344087033.jpg

 

Unless you just name them based on the fact that the Lima pancake motor and Hornby 5-pole motorized bogies just have an enclosure? In that case then I do apologize.  Normally I'v never seen people call Hornby's 5-pole motorized bogie design the Limby one. Ignore my confusion in that case.

Cheers

Hi

Nop, I’m not confused.
I simply used the term “limby” to denote old Lima models, mostly former pancake (73, 33, 42 etc) which have been re-motored with a new bogie mounted sealed 5 pole motor. Hence LIM (LIMa) BY (Hornby). Sure, this is a subjective term, I’ve seen it used numerous times on RMweb  though clearly not official. It does, I think, describe the amalgamation of old Lima models with new Horny power bogies. The rest of the information I have provided and @abd968008 has expanded on, is correct. 
 

Which part of this motor history puzzle are you is unsure of? 

Edited April 15, 2020 by miles73128

[MGR Hooper!]

31 minutes ago, miles73128 said:

Hi
 

Nope, I’m not confused.

I simply used the term “limby” to denote old Lima models, mostly former pancake (73, 33, 42 etc) which have been re-motored with a new bogie mounted sealed 5 pole motor. Hence LIM (LIMa) BY (Hornby). Sure, this is a subjective term, I’ve seen it used numerous times on RMweb  though clearly not official. It does, I think, describe the amalgamation of old Lima models with new Horny power bogies. The rest of the information I have provided and @abd968008 has expanded on, is correct. 
 

Which part of this motor history puzzle are you is unsure of? 

Hey,

Yes the term 'Limby" is used to describe ex-Lima models that have now been brought into the Hornby range and sold by them. Commonly described as Limby or simply ex-Lima. But isn't the Class 91 a pure Hornby model. Designed and introduced by Hornby in 1988.

The only AC electric with Lima roots that was in Hornby's range was the Class 87.

So I am confused by your use of the term Limby here.

Edited April 15, 2020 by MGR Hooper!

[miles73128]

15 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Hey,

Yes the term 'Limby" is used to describe ex-Lima models that have now been brought into the Hornby range and sold by them. Commonly described as Limby or simply ex-Lima. But isn't the Class 91 a pure Hornby model. Designed and introduced by Hornby in 1988.

The only AC electric with Lima roots that was in Hornby's range was the Class 87.

Indeed.
 

The Hornby class 91 is pure Hornby. As noted in the previous post “the existing Horny 91, is Hornby (not Lima)”

 

Regards

[MGR Hooper!]

Quote

 

Indeed.
 

The Hornby class 91 is pure Hornby. As noted in the previous post “the existing Horny 91, is Hornby (not Lima)”

 

Regards

 

 

Quote

But the last version released (East Coast) has this “Limby” type motor

 

Quote

PS My Limby 91 even managed 13 of these at a respectable speed!

So well yeah, my confusion arose from your use of the term Limby Class 91. As there's no connection with Lima.

Well time to drop the matter though  for me the term Limby is basically an ex-Lima model now part of the Hornby range. The Class 91 in my books isn't a Limby model. And as I said before has absolutely no connection with Lima at all. The motorized bogie inside it has no Limby connection also. Hornby developed that just over a decade ago and it's been seen in a lot of Hornby models too Class 86, Class 90, Class 91 and Class 153 and every EMU Hornby has made. Apart from that the same design was used also in ex-Lima models. To me it's a Hornby motorized bogie. It's a modern motorized bogie with a 5-pole motor and better gearing and designed by Hornby.

Hence the confusion. But I've now understood why you refer to it as Limby one and honestly never seen or heard of anyone else referring to it that way. Always known of the term Limby to be used exclusively for ex-Lima models and not for a motorbogie design.

Cheers

Edited April 15, 2020 by MGR Hooper!

[miles73128]

23 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

 

So well yeah, my confusion arose from your use of the term Limby Class 91. As there's no connection with Lima.

Well time to drop the matter though  for me the term Limby is basically an ex-Lima model now part of the Hornby range. The Class 91 in my books isn't a Limby model. And as I said before has absolutely no connection with Lima at all. The motorized bogie inside it has no Limby connection also. Hornby developed that just over a decade ago and it's been seen in a lot of Hornby models too Class 86, Class 90, Class 91 and Class 153 and every EMU Hornby has made. Apart from that the same design was used also in ex-Lima models. To me it's a Hornby motorized bogie. It's a modern motorized bogie with a 5-pole motor and better gearing and designed by Hornby.

Hence the confusion. But I've now understood why you refer to it as Limby one and honestly never seen or heard of anyone else referring to it that way. Always known of the term Limby to be used exclusively for ex-Lima models and not for a motorbogie design.

Cheers

Great that is clear for you now. 
 

Regards 

[adb968008]

The gearing in the small wheel motors (101/156/73/Bil/Belle etc) I believe is not the same as the larger ones (87/86/90/91 etc)... this was certainly the case in Lima.

 

Also 5 pole is confusing... Hornby did make some 5 pole ringfield motors too... it was just the same old ringfield motor, with a 5 pole armature in, (not DCC ready), it did standout over the 3 pole in performance, but it sits in-between the 3pole ringfield and the 5 pole “can” motor in their current models... examples in my collection include 86261/86401 in EWS livery, so i’d say circa 2004-2012 models.

Edited April 15, 2020 by adb968008

[scottrains29]

The 'Limby' motor bogie (sealed 5 pole can with twin worm), was designed by Hornby specifically for the ex Lima models before Hornby released them. The Limby motor was a huge improvement over the Lima motor and proved popular.

 

Later, Hornby started fitting this exact same type 'Limby' bogie to older Hornby models, eg 86,90,91,92.

 

People refer to it simply as a 'Limby' drive to avoid any confusion with any other Hornby drive type (ringfield 3 pole, ringfield 5 pole, centrally mounted 5 pole, etc.).

 

As an example Hornby have released two models of 87010 over the last few years. Both were in the same livery, with same name, each with a 5 pole skew wound motor and 8 pin DCC socket and pickups on all wheels. Neither were in the railroad range. On paper they sound the same but one is a full fat model and one is an ex Lima model with Limby motor.

 

Once the new 91 arrives Hornby would have produced 3 class 91s with 3 different types of 5 pole motor (ringfield, can (Limby), can (full fat)). It therefore makes sense to continue to use the term Limby to describe the drive even on locos that were always Hornby.

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by scottrains29

[MGR Hooper!]

The April edition of TES is now live. Updates about the Class 91.

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/east-coast-line-bumper-edition

 

Images for those who just want to see, rather than read through the whole blog.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by MGR Hooper!

[TomScrut]

6 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

TES for 24/4/20

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/east-coast-line-bumper-edition

 

Well that answers some of the questions about the pantograph!

 

I am going to have to have one of these at some point I think. Which one I don't know and I'd want new DVT and coaches to go with although I would be amazed if they don't do these.

[Pete the Elaner]

3 hours ago, TomScrut said:

 

Well that answers some of the questions about the pantograph!

 

 

I am very pleased & surprised that they are having another go at this.

It is a really tough component to get working & make it even closely to scale.

 

I will not be possible to put the whole thing on a class 87 because the tilting profile gives the class 91 a narrower roof, so the base is smaller.

 

DVT? Possibly ... even if Cavalex do make one & do a good job of it.

[TomScrut]

14 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

DVT? Possibly ... even if Cavalex do make one & do a good job of it.

 

I think (and I have said this before on here somewhere IIRC) that given TfW and GC now have them they'd be mad not to redo/spruce up the mk4 tools. They could do a TfW 67 and a GC 90 (although most would want a Bachmann 90) and I bet they'd do well. At the moment the TfW ones are just the DVT anyway although I'd expect this to change long term.

[MGR Hooper!]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I will not be possible to put the whole thing on a class 87 because the tilting profile gives the class 91 a narrower roof, so the base is smaller.

 

Well good to know. I was wondering if it was a straight swap. If it was then available as a spare, a lot of people would be happy. And obviously future Class 87s would have a sprung pantograph.

[Pete the Elaner]

6 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Well good to know. I was wondering if it was a straight swap. If it was then available as a spare, a lot of people would be happy. And obviously future Class 87s would have a sprung pantograph.

 

I was basing that assumption on the fact the 91 has a narrower pan well. When Hurst made their brass BW pans, they did 1 for the 86/87/90/319/321 & a separate one for the 91 because the base had to be different.

Maybe Hornby will engineer it differently to make it the same size? I hope not, because it should be different.

 

I would very much like to have pans on my 87s which react to the OLE instead of sitting there like a statue. Having watched a 90s pan from the end of a Mk3 (Sorry for being sad enough to do that), it constantly shakes from side to side, so the smallest movement on a model will make a big difference.

[MGR Hooper!]

On 24/04/2020 at 16:41, TomScrut said:

 

 I'd want new DVT and coaches to go with although I would be amazed if they don't do these.
 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Hornby has given us a lot of clues already. 

- FIRST HINT: November 2016 when they announced the Class 87, it was clearly told to us that Hornby had the Class 87 and Class 91 on the table. It was also said that the Class 87 was chosen first because it was cheaper to tool up and that a new Class 91 would need matching coaches and a DVT to go along with it.
- SECOND HINT: At the same time they also said they'll do the Class 91 a couple of years down the line. This meaning it will follow the Class 87 once it was released. I took it as a clue/unofficial announcement.
- THIRD HINT: Jan 2020 they announced the Class 91. If Hornby had no intention of tooling up brand new Mk4 coaches and a Mk4 DVT, they would've simply given us the existing coaches and DVT, either as is or with minor modifications like NEM couplings.

People here have only speculated that we'd have to live with the older coaches and DVT (citing the HST situation as an example), all that's done is create more negativity. But if Hornby wanted money, they'd have to either re-tool it or re-release older models. To me this says we'll get updated Mk4 coaches sometime within the next two years.

Let's see, normally Hornby makes a mid-year announcement by May end or the beginning of June. If nothing is announced now, then I think we'll see some Mk4 coaches next year or so. I'm sure Hornby are not stupid. Who knows, even TES is now back in full form, maybe they'll drop a hint or two.

[adb968008]

On 26/04/2020 at 08:51, MGR Hooper! said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Hornby has given us a lot of clues already. 

- FIRST HINT: November 2016 when they announced the Class 87, it was clearly told to us that Hornby had the Class 87 and Class 91 on the table. It was also said that the Class 87 was chosen first because it was cheaper to tool up and that a new Class 91 would need matching coaches and a DVT to go along with it.
- SECOND HINT: At the same time they also said they'll do the Class 91 a couple of years down the line. This meaning it will follow the Class 87 once it was released. I took it as a clue/unofficial announcement.
- THIRD HINT: Jan 2020 they announced the Class 91. If Hornby had no intention of tooling up brand new Mk4 coaches and a Mk4 DVT, they would've simply given us the existing coaches and DVT, either as is or with minor modifications like NEM couplings.

People here have only speculated that we'd have to live with the older coaches and DVT (citing the HST situation as an example), all that's done is create more negativity. But if Hornby wanted money, they'd have to either re-tool it or re-release older models. To me this says we'll get updated Mk4 coaches sometime within the next two years.

Let's see, normally Hornby makes a mid-year announcement by May end or the beginning of June. If nothing is announced now, then I think we'll see some Mk4 coaches next year or so. I'm sure Hornby are not stupid. Who knows, even TES is now back in full form, maybe they'll drop a hint or two.

Fourth hint...

A well known researcher tweeted his modelling weekend consisted of cutting the end off a mk4 and making it a buffered end coach using keen systems end moulding this weekend.
 

oh I wish I knew where he found those VTEC Mk4 coaches though.. I badly need some of those !

 

double bluff or just a modeller doing some modelling ? - you have to take him at his word...Though it begs the question, why bother to do that, to the most valuable mk4’s out there, if you had the inside gen of making some newly tooled ones ?

 

Hornby haven't announced mk4’s, until they announce them, i’m not expecting them. If I could find some VTEC mk4’s, sub £50 each, i’d be doing the same... the loco body alone, no motor sold for £60.. the sets selling over £200 s/h on ebay, you need at least 3 sets to make a half decent rake.

 

if there was a mid-year announcement, a re-run of LNER mk4’s, maybe TfW, would still sell off the old tooling, with no new tooling cost to Hornby and will probably suffice to serve any current demand for mk4’s.

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by adb968008

[TomScrut]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

VTEC Mk4 coaches though

 

Did they actually sell them loose or just in the pack?

[adb968008]

59 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

Did they actually sell them loose or just in the pack?

R3501 is the only pack.

 

if you want to make a 6 coach rake ( and still be minus the buffet) you need 3x R3501.. a cool £600+ just on coaches, leaving you 2x DVT and cl 91’s spare from that lot, unless you get lucky... I saw 1x VTEC mk4 sold ex-set for £85 once....

 

 

[TomScrut]

27 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

R3501 is the only pack.

 

if you want to make a 6 coach rake ( and still be minus the buffet) you need 3x R3501.. a cool £600+ just on coaches, leaving you 2x DVT and cl 91’s spare from that lot, unless you get lucky... I saw 1x VTEC mk4 sold ex-set for £85 once....

 

 

 

Yeah so no wonder they are rare if they only did the pack. I can't see how they would ever not do the 91 without at least a rerun of coaches but then if it was a rerun why weren't the announced? Although I think they'd still need to add lighting to the DVT regardless, although I think it would seem we are in agreement they will probably be doing the lot?

 

Also just looked up the carriage end you're on about. Never occurred to me that this has been missing all this time! Is that coach in a rake special in layout other than the end cap? As in is Hornby almost certain to tool it if they are as thorough as it would appear they have been with the mk3SD?

Edited April 27, 2020 by TomScrut

[adb968008]

53 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

Yeah so no wonder they are rare if they only did the pack. I can't see how they would ever not do the 91 without at least a rerun of coaches but then if it was a rerun why weren't the announced? Although I think they'd still need to add lighting to the DVT regardless, although I think it would seem we are in agreement they will probably be doing the lot?

 

Also just looked up the carriage end you're on about. Never occurred to me that this has been missing all this time! Is that coach in a rake special in layout other than the end cap? As in is Hornby almost certain to tool it if they are as thorough as it would appear they have been with the mk3SD?

The coupling between the 91 and the last mk4 in the rake uses buffers, and as its always the last one before the loco it doesnt have a gangway end.

The rest of the rake is without buffers (like HST mk3’s dont have buffers either).

Hornby never tooled this variant, back in the late 1980’s. 

Personally I dont think the Hornby mk4 is all that bad. if you move the screw on steps onto the under frame, and fit a  roco 40343 Kinematic NEM adapter used to allow the coupling to remain tight, but pivot on curves,  the mk4 is quite acceptable, but to most people,  as a budget coach I doubt many will complain if LNER ones were produced on the current tooling.

 

If Hornby has a stash of spare cash sitting about personally i’d prefer some new post 2000 built EMUs or DMUs, like 175/180/185/Electrostar from todays railways over a new mk4 tooling.

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by adb968008