Hornby Announce a Re-tooled Class 91 for 2020

[TomScrut]

6 hours ago, adb968008 said:

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.

 

 

Yes it's something I knew about but never really gave a lot of thought as I don't have any 91s or mk4s. I used to have 2 when I was a kid but obviously different story in the mid 90s!

 

I'd certainly be up for a 185 in TPE, maybe a 180 in GC.

[Pete the Elaner]

7 hours ago, adb968008 said:

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.

 

 

You are referring to the TOE (Trailer Open End). This had no corridor & a different end as a result. It also had a loco-compatible coupling.

Given that Hornby's coupling for all vehicles was a large tension lock, I don't find it at all surprising that they never produced a TOE.

 

The coaches were good for their time, but so was the 91. All had a good shape so were good candidates for detailing, but standards have moved on & a new 91 is on the way, so why not re-tool the rest of the train too?

 

When compared with their Mk3 DVT, the Mk4 looks like a much more basic model. The light clusters look poor, details is missing, particularly end pipework & the body itself looks a less well detailed model.

Mk4 coaches had poor wheels, an end skirt which was attached to the bogies not the model & several other details which have been bettered by newer models

If they were going to re-use the old tooling, I expect they would have announced it by now.

Hornby have also stated fairly recently (since the last Mk4s were made) that a lot of tooling was discovered damaged or been disposed of. This could well include the MK4.

[adb968008]

32 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

The coaches were good for their time, but so was the 91. All had a good shape so were good candidates for detailing, but standards have moved on & a new 91 is on the way, so why not re-tool the rest of the train too?

 

My rationale is the 225 set was done, done and thrice cooked, theres thousands of them out there.. if you want a “modern” train a rake of intercity mk4’s is as cheap as it gets.. you could have a rake of 9 mk4’s and a DVT for £100 second hand if you tried... everyone has got one.

 

So if it were retooled, your sitting there thinking a nice new tooled rake of IC mk4’s and DVT would set you back £400.. and the residual value of the old is nil.. why bother get rid of the old at all ? - in which case why buy a new one ?

 

GNER doesnt far that much better, it too is massively oversold. So that leaves East Coast, which wasnt that popular, followed by todays intensely popular LNER.... which I agree many will buy 1 set and probably only 1 set... so why not offee the LNER coaches off the current tooling and meet that residual demand ?

 

Now forwards thinking to the future with GNWR could sit well with a GNWR class 90... the 90 is railroad, so the current tooling offers matching potential, as a “Bucket and Spade” set  using the Blackpool destination..., add a stick of Rock and a model of Blackpool Tower this could be popular for kids, need no new tooling at all, and offer a modern budget trainset thats relevant to todays kids.

 

If I had money to tool something up, I think theres better selling potential out there. I think existing tooling still has legs in my opinion, a new tooling wont fetch a higher resale value than new paint on the old tooling.

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by adb968008

[TomScrut]

But using the same rationale why retool the 91? Surely most of the people who will want a new one will have an old one that will be near worthless when the new one comes out?

 

I think that given Hornby went to the bother of doing the mk3SD and the mk2F, when actually the market would probably have managed without (the mk3SD only really opens ScotRail up, although the 2fs open up quite a few potential sales vs other mk2s), means they'll also do the mk4s properly.

 

I won't be interested in buying one to run with the old coaches with the bogie skirts and old DVT. On the other hand in due course I'd maybe have a 4-5 coach LNER set once a bit more clarity on the tenure of the 225 sets with them is available.

 

Also you miss the Welsh mk4 sets in your analysis, as the Hornby 67 is decent it would go well with new coaches. Also GC branded ones whilst the Hornby 90 is railroad standard would probably compliment a Bachmann 90 well (if they were to do one)

Edited April 28, 2020 by TomScrut

[Pete the Elaner]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

 

If I had money to tool something up, I think theres better selling potential out there. I think existing tooling still has legs in my opinion, a new tooling wont fetch a higher resale value than new paint on the old tooling.

 

 

Does the Mk4 tooling still exist? I did speculate earlier that it may not.

 

Hornby's previous management cleared out a lot of their older tooling. If this included the Mk4, then there is no existing tooling to re-use.

[adb968008]

47 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Does the Mk4 tooling still exist? I did speculate earlier that it may not.

 

Hornby's previous management cleared out a lot of their older tooling. If this included the Mk4, then there is no existing tooling to re-use.

R3501 was announced in 2016 and looks like it was delivered September 2016.. its not that long ago.

 

if its been lost, Its unfortunate, but  i’m still not convinced making new is money well spent. People will happily buy multiple locos, but I’m not sure its not true on multiple rakes of coaches. If its lost, then buying up the cheap £5+ Mk4 intercity coaches may not be a bad idea to get some respray material and some modelling potential.

 

Looking at how popular the LMS Coronation set looks to be, and at a higher price point, a set of LNER silver jubilee coaches may proffer greater rewards than mk4’s....The silver A4’s have all been done several times, and dont have coaches either.

 

Maybe convince LNER to paint a “silver jubilee”.. silver / grey Azuma .. might look quite good if LNER one day decided to revisit its past. :-)

 

Personally I think theres a vocal few that want new mk4’s, just like a vocal few want LBSC coaches for the myriad of LBSC terriers out there, but thats never been an issue selling Terriers, the Lima / Hornby National Power 59’s were lonely for 30 odd years, and their wagon is still yet to hit shelves.

 

but anyway.

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by adb968008

[TomScrut]

21 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

want new mk4’s

 

Maybe so, were people shouting at all for the sliding door mk3s though? Hornby have tooled all the combinations of those.

 

50 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Does the Mk4 tooling still exist? I did speculate earlier that it may not.

 

Hornby's previous management cleared out a lot of their older tooling. If this included the Mk4, then there is no existing tooling to re-use.

 

22 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

i’m still not convinced making new is money well spent

 

If they haven't got the tooling anymore they will surely be retooling, I cannot see for a minute they will be doing an LNER loco where the only source for stock is a rare VTEC pack where the DVT would need adjustment!

 

I'd say the mk4 has a larger area of interest /larger potential demand than the mk5s yet Accurascale have made a business case for them. Yes they go on 2 routes but the TPE ones will be different tools to the CS ones. And mk4s will potentially be in 3 regions soon.

 

I think plenty of people would rebuy if they were good enough.

[MGR Hooper!]

5 hours ago, TomScrut said:

 

Also you miss the Welsh mk4 sets in your analysis, as the Hornby 67 is decent it would go well with new coaches. Also GC branded ones whilst the Hornby 90 is railroad standard would probably compliment a Bachmann 90 well (if they were to do one)
 

 

Let's not forget that at one point in time Hornby sold an EWS Class 90 with a Virgin Pretendolino Mk3 DVT. And The did the same with the EWS Class 67 and EWS Mk3 DVT. People still bought it. There's very few people who actually care about what they run with what.

 

Infact over the last few days on a variety of Hornby's social media platforms, I've been seeing a lot of people who own Hornby Class 66s, posting pics of them hauling Hornby's KFAs and other full spec containers wagons from Bachmann and Dapol. And people have posted about how eager they are to get some of the Hornby containers to plonk on the Hornby KFAs to be hauled by a lot of Hornby Railroad locos (some far from prototypical).

People will buy it if they like it. Not everyone really thinks about accuracy. RMweb is a forum for everyone, but we see a large portion of modellers and rivet counters here. But the large portion on RMweb is still a small portion of the hobby. I'm sure if Hornby release a GC train pack, people will still buy it regardless. Those who aren't happy with the Hornby Class 90 have a lot of options detail it using a PH Designs kit and our very own PegasusDesigns detailing parts. Or Buy a Bachmann one and repaint it. Or I'm sure there's many like Olivias Trains, Rainbow Resprays etc who will do a small batch of repainted Bachmann Class 90s. Ofcourse there's a possibility that Bachmann will do  GC Class 90 if Hornby does coaches. They might be competitors, but if a competitors product is selling well and you have complimentary products, you will want to cash in on it.

[TomScrut]

7 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

They might be competitors, but if a competitors product is selling well and you have complimentary products, you will want to cash in on it.

 

Exactly. Hornby probably wouldn't have done ScotRail mk2fs if the Dapol 68 wasn't there to pull them.

 

Also I would expect a Bachmann GC 90 to do well regardless TBH as whilst they will be mostly pulling mk4s about one could certainly make an excuse for them pulling an Intermodal on DBs behalf, even if they aren't allocated to it. In the same way TPE 68s have been buzzing about on the WCML and S&C because there isn't enough TPE work at the moment.

Edited April 28, 2020 by TomScrut

[sirwilliamfrs]

On 24/04/2020 at 23:52, Pete the Elaner said:

 

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.

When watching the action of a pantograph is is easy to be deceived into thinking it is moving about a lot due to the "stagger" of the overhead wire, which is offset from the centre line in a shallow zig-zag to even out wear on the pan conductor. Having said that, a pan which would follow the up and down contours of the wire would look good but must be quite difficult to engineer due to large variations in the quality of modelling the OHLE.

[Pete the Elaner]

14 hours ago, sirwilliamfrs said:

When watching the action of a pantograph is is easy to be deceived into thinking it is moving about a lot due to the "stagger" of the overhead wire, which is offset from the centre line in a shallow zig-zag to even out wear on the pan conductor. Having said that, a pan which would follow the up and down contours of the wire would look good but must be quite difficult to engineer due to large variations in the quality of modelling the OHLE.

 

I was already well aware of the stagger but the movement was something else.

it wasn't moving a lot, but there was a definite movement which seemed to be a reaction to the wires.

Thinking about this, it would have been the other way around: the loco was vibrating (as was the rest of the train) due to imperfections in the track, but the pan was moving in relation to the loco.

 It may be too subtle for 4mm, but it just didn't look 'dead' in the way a model pan does.

 

I was more interested in seeing how & how often contact wire changeover was performed, but that is probably best left for another topic 

[159220]

Surely a sprung pantograph is bit of a dud. You immediately disappoint the part of the market who has come accustomed to buying 'added value' to models priced at the higher end of the market with fully working DCC pantographs (class 86, 90, 92) as a sprung panto is so 1980s. But you also disappoint the purists who want a fully prototypical pantograph without any 3rd wire. Am I the only one here, who is underwhelmed by the 91... 8 pin DCC and a pantograph which just shows Hornby's outdated thinking? For me, I see Hornby trying to please both the cheaper end of the market and the 'disposable income' detail level with making mid-level models. I rather pay ten more bob and have the best! Bachmann, Accurascale, Heljan, Dapol, gosh even Hatton's get the market is the top end 'disposable income' detail level. 

[TomScrut]

2 hours ago, 159220 said:

8 pin DCC and a pantograph which just shows Hornby's outdated thinking

 

Yes we were having a moan a few pages back!

 

2 hours ago, 159220 said:

making mid-level models

 

At a price that isn't mid-level... The pre order discounted selling price is dearer than a Hattons 66 for example and comparable to a Bachmann 90

 

I think that the market for modern image locos (for what little I know about it) is either £150+ RRP for something pushing the envelope detail wise, to £120 ish for older (not cutting edge but good) models (Bachmann 66, 37 etc, in demand liveries more but most of the time end up down this area after a while) and then the lower end of circa £80 with railroad type products which appeal to a wide range of people. I'd rather have less locos and have top end £150 ones than loads of £80 ones but I know that's not what it's all about. (As in the reason people buy railroad is not just so they can have more)

Edited April 29, 2020 by TomScrut

[MGR Hooper!]

I agree with the points about the 8-pin DCC socket. We may never know why Hornby prefer to stick to 8-pin DCC sockets and decoders. Someone try asking Simon Kohler next time they meet him at a show?

But sprung pantographs being outdated? You've got to be joking. By that logic, a majority of the electric locomotive models in the world are manufactured by companies who think along these "outdated" lines. Just because it's not servo-controlled, doesn't mean it's outdated. All North American models of electric locos have sprung pantographs, all Australian ones are sprung, all Japanese ones are either sprung or posable, a vast majority of European ones are sprung. Are all these manufacturers thinking along outdated lines?

 

PS: You seem to have answered you own question with this... "I see Hornby trying to please both the cheaper end of the market and the 'disposable income' detail level with making mid-level models." At the end of the day Hornby's market is more than just the modeller or just the child. They are trying to satisfy both and the best answer is something that slots in-between.

From all the manufacturers in the UK, how many are actually aiming their products for the rivet-counters, the modellers, the casual modeller, the collector?

And how many make products specifically for kids, new entrants, people with a disposable income?
Accurascale - not even close
Bachmann - long time since the sold a train set for kids (they have only recently introduced a  dedicated range for TTTE, have you seen the prices???)
Cavalex - nope
Dapol - nope
Hattons - far from it!
Heljan - nope
Rapido - not at all
Realtrack - no
Revolution - no again.

 

Atleast Hornby has been and still is taking some steps to satisfy everyone. And FWIW, most of Hornby's "super-detailed" (except the Design-Clever range, which we brought upon ourselves) models deliver on the eye-candy level. They only lack internally in terms of DCC and lighting.

[TomScrut]

2 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

some steps to satisfy everyone.

 

I think the issue is, the 91 is not mid range with its pricing. £180 RRP IIRC which then leads to a £153 pre order discounted price. Smack bang in Hattons 66 territory among other things. £17 cheaper than an Accurascale 92 which should have the lighting options and TWO servo pantographs. £17 is still £17 but the Hornby is only 10% cheaper than the Accurascale.

 

If it was £120 then you could say they are trying to at least shoot down the middle with it.

 

2 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

long time since the sold a train set for kids

 

I'd say the "military manoeuvres" set is probably aimed at kids, but it's not cheap compared to basic Hornby ones.

 

I do think the market depends on Hornby to an extent to cover off some of the space you're talking about though, as you say the low end of the market isn't covered by anybody else. But I do think it would be in their interest to improve the spec of their expensive models

[Pete the Elaner]

3 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

I agree with the points about the 8-pin DCC socket. We may never know why Hornby prefer to stick to 8-pin DCC sockets and decoders. Someone try asking Simon Kohler next time they meet him at a show?

 

My guess is that they make models suitable for their own 8-pin decoder, but this is a bit long in the tooth now.

Now models have more lighting options, 4 functions is not enough & 8 pins can only cope with 3...the 4th being on a loose wire.

The answer is a decoder with more pins but Hornby don't seem to want to move with this.

This leaves us with a catch 22:

 

Why make models which need a 3rd party decoder? If they have less features, the Hornby one will be suitable.

Why update the decoder when the latest Hornby models don't need anything more?

 

& this appears to be giving us a class 91 at the same premium price point as other latest models but with less features.

 

 

[7013]

It looks like Hornby are going to miss a trick with only having a passable pantograph, unlike Bachmanns DCC operated one and Many continental offerings having DCC posable pantographs for years now. I suppose if you stick with the 8 pin decoder socket you are always going to be limited to what features you can add, Hornby seem to charge premium prices for less than premium features.

[TomScrut]

58 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

catch 22

 

22 being the key number!

 

They could make a decoder that has the basic functionality, fits into a plux22 socket (no point going to 21 when people are already moving from it, do it via a loom as their 8 pins do, not direct so the circuit board for the decoder doesn't need reinventing) and have switches (like Dapol and Hattons) to amend lighting for however many functions the decoder has.

 

Whilst we can talk about Hornby only having 8 pin decoders as their excuse for only fitting 8 pin into the locos, the issue here is partially that is all they offer. Like even the excuses of making things cheap and suitable for kids doesn't cut it IMO. Most kids interested in model trains would love to mess about with the lights I think, and Hattons' 6 function 21 pin decoder is cheaper than Hornby's 8 pin AFAIK.

Edited April 30, 2020 by TomScrut

[James90012]

The main thing I'm hoping for the 91 is it not to use the outdated wiring approach used on the 87. In some respects it's easier as the blunt end lights will likely never be used by most people and so could just be disconnected.

 

That and to update the MK4s, something the quality and price range of MK3SD would seem to be a good comprise. It's a no go from me until the coaches are confirmed!

[TomScrut]

8 minutes ago, James90012 said:

In some respects it's easier as the blunt end lights will likely never be used by most people and so could just be disconnected.

 

Not sure about that, one thing railway modellers tend to gravitate towards is the unusual or stranger stuff that happens (which I think is why NR test train stuff sells so well even though it accounts for very little of the traffic).

 

I think there will be a lot of people keen to be able to run these light engine or blunt end first with ease. Doing a run round simulating a busted DVT for example would need good lighting functions to be done "properly"

[hellotojasonisaacs]

Surely a simple set up of switches on the underside to isolate marker lights at either end, as desired, along with the ability to turn cab lights off would be a solution?

 

At least this way, it’ll avoid overly complex electronics keeping costs down, plays to Hornby simplicity of this, as well as catering for the discerning modeller.

[TomScrut]

On 02/05/2020 at 13:11, hellotojasonisaacs said:

Surely a simple set up of switches on the underside to isolate marker lights at either end, as desired, along with the ability to turn cab lights off would be a solution?

 

At least this way, it’ll avoid overly complex electronics keeping costs down, plays to Hornby simplicity of this, as well as catering for the discerning modeller.

 

Switches underneath stop realistic lighting whilst manoeuvring on and off train. Whilst the 91 this is not likely to be a major issue other than the scenarios in my previous post, it is a downside to all their other loco models, most of which the tooling is a few years old now so is excusable but when Bachmann Dapol and Hattons are now bringing out locos with independent end lighting it makes this not look so clever.

 

The thing is, lots of lighting functions with 21 or 22 pin decoders are still really simple both in operation and design. The Dapol 68 and Hattons 66 have switches on the circuit board which make the lights act how you want them to if you don't want to use a multifunctional decoder. The Bachmann one (on the 90) is a bit more clever I think in that it seems to use functions on the decoder to latch the lighting situations making it even more plug and play.

 

Other than a slightly more complex circuit board (but still simple), and potentially a few more LEDs, there isn't really a downside to additional functionality other than in Hornby's case not being able to sell a chip.

Edited May 3, 2020 by TomScrut

[MGR Hooper!]

September edition of TES has some content on the Class 91

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/developing-Hornby-far-wide

 

Quote

 

Once again the Hornby 2020 catalogue provides excellent information (See page 128) concerning this East Coast Mainline Class 91 locomotive which entered service towards the end of 1988.

Hornby’s first running sample of the Class 91 model was received recently and first impressions were and are quite favourable. There are of course the inevitable tooling modifications required with some tolerances requiring attention but in general the first tooling shots of the model are very encouraging as the images do show.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by MGR Hooper!

[TomScrut]

7 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

September edition of TES has some content on the Class 91

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/developing-Hornby-far-wide?fbclid=IwAR0ZhENuXv9gUGP8Lfy5XX6arQBXVWCQO3rMqVP54o_a0L2VIDd6y1QjCO8

 

404 error now. Have they pulled it down?

[MGR Hooper!]

They've updated the link... so have I, should be okay now?