Hornby Announce a Re-tooled Class 91 for 2020

[jonnyuk]

apart from the P4/EM and the option of factory fitted sound, not allot of difference, who knows what the execution of been like. We shall see with the class 56

[GraemeWatson]

On 06/05/2022 at 13:59, WolfofBadenoch said:

 

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.

 

 Mine is a bit clunky over pointwork.

 

https://youtu.be/B7S3v2fPGgc

 

So my original Intercity Margate ones have pizza cutter wheels, and when I coupled them with a loco on a flat table, the D loops ride over the top of the 91 slim coupling.

Are the ones you have tested newer ones (possibly) with better wheel sets?

Many thanks.

Edited May 10, 2022 by GraemeWatson

[GraemeWatson]

On 08/05/2022 at 22:27, sanspareil said:

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.

I've tried two; "For the Fallen" and "Durham Cathedral". Over point work, they run like someone in high heels walking over a sewer grate; they either fall in or trip up, 80% of the time.

[Matt]

Has anyone checked back to back wheel measurements on a “lumpy through points” 91? Over the years I’ve occasionally found this to be the cause of various items not liking point work but seeming ok on straight track. Might be an easy fix

[GraemeWatson]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

Has anyone checked back to back wheel measurements on a “lumpy through points” 91? Over the years I’ve occasionally found this to be the cause of various items not liking point work but seeming ok on straight track. Might be an easy fix

First thing I did. No joy.

[sanspareil]

For those interested I've spent more time looking in to this running matter (should we really be having to do this on £200 models!?!). The issue does seem to be related to the very limited movement fore and aft on the bogies but I am not sure its exclusively related to this. I can see Hornby have actually inserted a lug to limit bogie movement, its visible in a recent post on here.

 

I will take some photos another time but I can see one of two axles on each bogie push hard down in to the frog whilst the other axle just glides over, curiously it seems to do it on all but level track. I have found some points that I know are in an area with very slightly unlevel track and as expected its worse here. Here you see the inner axle lift away from the rail by a mm or two! How it doesn't derail i don't know. No other loco does this, sure my track could be billiard table flat but some reasonable tolerance needs to be built in to the loco surely, like it seems it is with the other 80 or so I have that run with no issues. My layout is far from badly uneven. 

 

I can see this causing undue wear and tear to my point work at speed! If this was NR the loco would be RA8+ with high track access charges. I doubt it would be permitted to run at 125mph, if at all.

 

Have Hornby either not tested this in a range of environment's (just a simple dead level/plain line test track I wonder) or have they designed this with too many sacrifices to running quality to boost visual accuracy?

 

PS I am going to test this loco on another layout I have access to. See if the issue is consistent.

Edited May 10, 2022 by sanspareil

[GraemeWatson]

This account above is very similar to what I am seeing on my layout. It's a large, full room affair with generous curves.

 

I run several loco/full rake/unit combos and have not had this issue with anything else. Despite it's age, the old Margate 91 still manages to glide through in comparison.

 

Quite simply, I cannot leave this new 91 to run around the layout without giving full attention to the emergency stop button (digital user) because going over any point, even when set to a straight path, is fraught with drama.

[scouse889]

9 hours ago, sanspareil said:

For those interested I've spent more time looking in to this running matter (should we really be having to do this on £200 models!?!). The issue does seem to be related to the very limited movement fore and aft on the bogies but I am not sure its exclusively related to this. I can see Hornby have actually inserted a lug to limit bogie movement, its visible in a recent post on here.

 

I will take some photos another time but I can see one of two axles on each bogie push hard down in to the frog whilst the other axle just glides over, curiously it seems to do it on all but level track. I have found some points that I know are in an area with very slightly unlevel track and as expected its worse here. Here you see the inner axle lift away from the rail by a mm or two! How it doesn't derail i don't know. No other loco does this, sure my track could be billiard table flat but some reasonable tolerance needs to be built in to the loco surely, like it seems it is with the other 80 or so I have that run with no issues. My layout is far from badly uneven. 

 

I can see this causing undue wear and tear to my point work at speed! If this was NR the loco would be RA8+ with high track access charges. I doubt it would be permitted to run at 125mph, if at all.

 

Have Hornby either not tested this in a range of environment's (just a simple dead level/plain line test track I wonder) or have they designed this with too many sacrifices to running quality to boost visual accuracy?

 

PS I am going to test this loco on another layout I have access to. See if the issue is consistent.

 

Very disappointing to read of all the issues people are reporting concerning running issues on their new MRP £200+ Class 91s. It makes you wonder how such running behavior, which seems to be relatively commonplace, was not picked up during the development and testing program (also the issues with the front end, which are not present on the 1980s vintage models - how is it that something that was got right 30+ years ago can now be got wrong?).

Has anyone reported these issues to Hornby and received a reply?

I haven't ordered a 91 yet (was planning on getting the IC House Martin, LNER and GNER versions) and have some of the relevant MkIV coaches on preorder, but now I'm having second thoughts.....

[No Decorum]

1 hour ago, scouse889 said:

 

Very disappointing to read of all the issues people are reporting concerning running issues on their new MRP £200+ Class 91s. It makes you wonder how such running behavior, which seems to be relatively commonplace, was not picked up during the development and testing program (also the issues with the front end, which are not present on the 1980s vintage models - how is it that something that was got right 30+ years ago can now be got wrong?).

Has anyone reported these issues to Hornby and received a reply?

I haven't ordered a 91 yet (was planning on getting the IC House Martin, LNER and GNER versions) and have some of the relevant MkIV coaches on preorder, but now I'm having second thoughts.....

Likewise having second thoughts, although I was only considering GNER. Just to be clear, my second thought is not to buy it –why would I spend so much on such a flawed model? As for another model, one of the few models I have regretted buying was the GWR Hitachi. It’s not Hornby’s fault but the livery was rather uninspired. The LNER livery is (in my view) much more attractive. However, Hornby has produced its model with light bleed and I find myself reconciled to my GWR version. The APT-P also has multiple problems. Hornby, please get a grip!

[cravensdmufan]

Just wondering - are those that have had problems with their 91s on pointwork using code 75 track?

 

I hope Hornby haven't  designed this model just to run on their own brand code 100!  Now that would be like going back 40 years!

[sanspareil]

17 minutes ago, cravensdmufan said:

Just wondering - are those that have had problems with their 91s on pointwork using code 75 track?

 

I hope Hornby haven't  designed this model just to run on their own brand code 100!  Now that would be like going back 40 years!

I am bog standard code 100. Its a mix of mostly newer Peco with tighter frog gapping and some older with the larger gaps. To be honest is bangs through all the point work, newer or older. The key thing here is i have no other issue with any other loco I have, bar a slight similar tendency with the Dapol 73. This recent Hornby 87 is a totally different running beast compared this 91. You wouldn't have thought they came from the same stable.

 

I was considering a 2nd 91, TBH that is now off and will keep my heavily modified older 91. I am now tempted to extend the detailing to this further (i had put it off given the new model). I might even be tempted to off load this newer 91 in time if i cant live with it. I think i can see ways to improve bogie movement at the sacrifice of some bogie detail but it looks a difficult/risky business on a £200 model.

Edited May 11, 2022 by sanspareil

[sanspareil]

3 hours ago, scouse889 said:

 

Very disappointing to read of all the issues people are reporting concerning running issues on their new MRP £200+ Class 91s. It makes you wonder how such running behavior, which seems to be relatively commonplace, was not picked up during the development and testing program (also the issues with the front end, which are not present on the 1980s vintage models - how is it that something that was got right 30+ years ago can now be got wrong?).

Has anyone reported these issues to Hornby and received a reply?

I haven't ordered a 91 yet (was planning on getting the IC House Martin, LNER and GNER versions) and have some of the relevant MkIV coaches on preorder, but now I'm having second thoughts.....

 

Good point on contacting Hornby, I need to do so. I dont hold out much hope of anything coming of it but maybe if we all did, weight of numbers might make them think!

[sanspareil]

On 09/05/2022 at 08:55, 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

 

Could you let me know how you get on please, if trimming the dampers helps? Its one of the possible things to try. The other would be to trim the lugs that restrict bogie movement but this looks hard to do. We have seen images on here of fractured bogie clips. In the circled you can easily see the vertical plastic lug that restricts fore/aft movement, I think due to the high damper detail and risk of body collision like you say. Hornby have modelled this prototypically (but unworkably) tight?

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by sanspareil

[adamvb]

8 minutes ago, sanspareil said:

Could you let me know how you get on please, if trimming the dampers helps? Its one of the possible things to try. The other would be to trim the lugs that restrict bogie movement but this looks hard to do. We have seen images on here of fractured bogie clips. In the circled you can easily see the vertical plastic lug that restricts fore/aft movement, I think due to the high damper detail and risk of body collision like you say. Hornby have modelled this prototypically (but unworkably) tight?

 

 

I've tried removing the two underside bogie screws and running it without the bogie detail frame and that makes no difference to my 4.

[neilf]

3 hours ago, sanspareil said:

 

Good point on contacting Hornby, I need to do so. I dont hold out much hope of anything coming of it but maybe if we all did, weight of numbers might make them think!

I contacted Hornby, they replied they had tested the 91 on inclines and curves and points and had no wobbles or derailing 

[neilf]

Reply from Hornby 

[WolfofBadenoch]

On 10/05/2022 at 11:10, GraemeWatson said:

 

So my original Intercity Margate ones have pizza cutter wheels, and when I coupled them with a loco on a flat table, the D loops ride over the top of the 91 slim coupling.

Are the ones you have tested newer ones (possibly) with better wheel sets?

Many thanks.

 

I replaced the wheels with 12mm Bachmann ones.

 

Attached are photos showing the coupling apparently bent upwards. I've not noticed this before but wondering if it's to do with alot of pushing the carriages?

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by WolfofBadenoch
To get photos correct way up

[scouse889]

7 hours ago, sanspareil said:

 

Good point on contacting Hornby, I need to do so. I dont hold out much hope of anything coming of it but maybe if we all did, weight of numbers might make them think!

Agreed, if enough people do it at least it indicates there is a problem and they might be persuaded they have to do something about it to secure weight of sales for future runs.

I would be very interested to hear the replies, if any.

In the meantime, I think I will keep my wallet closed for the moment…

 

[Hilux5972]

29 minutes ago, scouse889 said:

Agreed, if enough people do it at least it indicates there is a problem and they might be persuaded they have to do something about it to secure weight of sales for future runs.

 

When has that ever worked in the past? The odd occasion maybe but I wouldn’t rely on it. 

[Hilux5972]

8 hours ago, cravensdmufan said:

I hope Hornby haven't  designed this model just to run on their own brand code 100!  Now that would be like going back 40 years!

Why would they not? Hornby don’t really make models to ensure they are compatible with a competitors products. 

[scouse889]

45 minutes ago, Hilux5972 said:

When has that ever worked in the past? The odd occasion maybe but I wouldn’t rely on it. 

Off the top of my head, they did another run of bodies for the misprinted NMT 43 and Construction 60, and on the derailing 800s where a mod was made on subsequent releases.

I wouldn’t rely on it either, but if Hornby don’t get feedback they can’t possibly be expected to do anything about these things.

[cs233]

Another disappointed customer at this end. Had issues with derailing over points and also it seemed to have a wobble especially on the front bogie. That was not the reason for returning though it was the several marks on the paint finish and what seemed like a scratch on the windscreen. Not opted for a replacement have gone directly for a refund. Was disappointed with the APT finished product and cancelled the pre order and now this...

[stonojnr]

4 hours ago, neilf said:

I contacted Hornby, they replied they had tested the 91 on inclines and curves and points and had no wobbles or derailing 

 

well, maybe Im being a touch cynical with Hornby of late, but Id have been surprised if theyd replied back saying theyd either not tested it properly, or that theyd found these issues but decided to release it anyway.

 

its kind of a given I think theyll say theres no problem with it at all and everything if fine, unless you can demonstrably prove the issue and send it back to them to get it fixed kind of thing.

 

 

 

 

[Hilux5972]

2 hours ago, stonojnr said:

 

well, maybe Im being a touch cynical with Hornby of late, but Id have been surprised if theyd replied back saying theyd either not tested it properly, or that theyd found these issues but decided to release it anyway.

 

its kind of a given I think theyll say theres no problem with it at all and everything if fine, unless you can demonstrably prove the issue and send it back to them to get it fixed kind of thing.

 

 

 

 

I think a lot of people would need to send videos showing the problem otherwise Hornby would just say it’s bad track laying. 

[scouse889]

10 hours ago, Hilux5972 said:

I think a lot of people would need to send videos showing the problem otherwise Hornby would just say it’s bad track laying. 

 

Yes, not surprised that Hornby are going down the "we tested it and it was ok" route, and blaming the track laying. If they put it down to variability of the track laying, then sending them a video of the 2022 Class 91, and say the 1990 Class 91 and/or some other modern Bo-Bo (e.g., Class 87) running over the same track (with the 2022 91 running more poorly/loudly/derailing) is proof that their argument is not valid.

I am interested now - I will have to go back and look over the 800 thread, when people were experiencing derailment issues with the original batch, and see what the responses from Hornby were then - presumably similar in that they had tested the 800 prior to release, but clearly they later admitted (albeit not necessarily explicitly) that there was a design flaw, as they accepted people's models back FOC for a modification, and subsequent batches were produced with a mod to the original design. I think if enough people experience these issues and send proof to Hornby it is a design flaw with the model itself, there is a reasonable chance they might do something about it, even if that is only on future runs and not a retrofit to the initial batch.

I note that the release dates for the 2022 range models have been pushed back to Spring 2023.... is it cynical of me to wonder if this is actually because Hornby know there is an issue with the model and want time to investigate and fix before 91101 and 91110 arrive??