Bachmann announce Class 90 (OO)

[jonathan452]

But overall, just give us a loco to the same standard as the Class 85!

Agree!

[Crewlisle]

You clearly never saw 'High Gill' at any of the many exhibitions it attended during in its heyday in the 80's. We regularly ran our trains at well over a scale 100mph - with working pantographs on a tensioned 0.25mm contact wire. All fully portable too.

The stock also included a full length Hornby APT, fitted with a modified Sommerfeldt 968 to simulate the version the real thing had before it was changed to Brecknell-Willis.

The really unfortunate thing about all this is that it was before any of us had a means of video recording it in operation.

#

I am sorry I never saw 'High Gill'.  It is a layout which I would have really appreciated & enjoyed.  It must have been one of the few layouts which contradicted my statement in my comment number 319, 'I have seen a number of layouts at exhibitions with super detailed scale catenary but only dare run their locos at just over shunting speed!' 

[Gordon H]

It must have been one of the few layouts which contradicted my statement in my comment number 319, 'I have seen a number of layouts at exhibitions with super detailed scale catenary but only dare run their locos at just over shunting speed!' 

 

Which is why I included your quote in my message to that effect.

It is this certainty of knowing that it can be done that keeps me trying to encourage others to try to do the same, and not to simply accept what the nay-sayers might want you to believe. There are lots of examples of things that 'couldn't be done' until someone actually did.

[ThaneofFife]

Which is why I included your quote in my message to that effect.

It is this certainty of knowing that it can be done that keeps me trying to encourage others to try to do the same, and not to simply accept what the nay-sayers might want you to believe. There are lots of examples of things that 'couldn't be done' until someone actually did.I

 

Don't confuse  "naysaying" with not having model live OHLE though, folk.  The point hasn't been missed in this live overhead debate but personally I just don't see the point but this doesn't make me or anybody else with the same view a naysayer, rather just putting an opinion out there.  Others might be, but I'm certainly not poo pooing live overhead although you will always get the odd person who will not even accept the suggestion. 

[GordonC]

All this talk of powered third rail or overhead is very impressive that it can be done, but really must have little practical use for the vast majority of purchasers. So is it not little more than appendage waving that it 'can' be done?

 

More electrics to the standard of the Class 85 would be perfect

[Gordon H]

All this talk of powered third rail or overhead is very impressive that it can be done, but really must have little practical use for the vast majority of purchasers.

 

On that basis, what practical use does running trains on a layout have at all?

For me it's not the practical use that might come of such an effort, but the engineering challenge of making it happen that is of interest.

If the manufacturers helped a bit by making some of these features a bit more workable from the start, others might be encouraged to give it a go too.

There was a time when model railways was seen as a way to encourage engineering potential. Let's not try to kill it off by dissuading people right from the start. 

[GordonC]

... and its very impressive that it is possible like I said, but if you're going to the trouble of wiring or 3rd railing up every inch of your layout including tunnels and fiddle yards to avoid dead sections where the trains stop, then I wouldn't think it would be beyond your capabilities to come up with a working shoe arrangement to attach to bogie frames and move the wheel pickups over to or a metal pantograph on the roof to wire up.

 

What are you expecting the manufacturers to do? wouldn't that spoil your engineering fun if they did it for you anyway?

[railroadbill]

Hi Merseyrail507003,  your post #314 was interesting in showing how scale 3 rail working pickup can be done so would be worth its own thread imho.

 

Been some good ideas on this thread about model electric traction, both 3 rail and overhead, so there is obviously a lot of interest. So Bachmann's 90 should do well, following their 85 loco. The new Peco catenary should encourage this, almost too many options for an "electric" line, overhead, 3rd rail, live, not live, dcc etc.

Just bought the latest RM with the Peco "modelling overhead catenary" booklet.

As an aside, apart from the old Triang and Hornby and Trix locos which could pick up from  live catenary,  Fleischmann HO electirc locos had working pantos, as did their N gauge electrics. (That's from an old catalogue, don't know if current range still does).

[Gordon H]

... and its very impressive that it is possible like I said, but if you're going to the trouble of wiring or 3rd railing up every inch of your layout including tunnels and fiddle yards to avoid dead sections where the trains stop, then I wouldn't think it would be beyond your capabilities to come up with a working shoe arrangement to attach to bogie frames and move the wheel pickups over to or a metal pantograph on the roof to wire up.

 

What are you expecting the manufacturers to do? wouldn't that spoil your engineering fun if they did it for you anyway?

 

If you have ever seen 'Model Railways' Feb (I think) 1984, and a couple of 'BRMs' in late 98 you would know the answer to your first point. The first covers the scratchbuilding of AEI Cross-Arm pantographs, and the second covers my third rail shoegear implementation on the Class 508.

My point really was that although I was able to do these things for myself, there are likely to be others who although they might be interested to do something similar, they could well struggle with the relatively intricate on-loco aspects for various reasons, and therefore give up at the first hurdle.

If, as many Continental & Japanese manufacturers do, they at least provided the means to have their pick-up systems working as an option, that hurdle would be overcome. After all, the Tri-ang AL1 and EM2 had this facility over 50 years ago!

I would be quite happy if a mainstream UK manufacturer took the trouble to make their pantographs and shoegear operational, if only to encourage others to take the plunge and give it a go. Thereafter, the catenary/third rail set up can be as accurate as you choose to make it.

[Revolution Mike]

The problem is that it is a bit chicken and egg about whether there is really sufficient demand for working pantographs etc because it all adds to the cost if additional work is necessary (eg getting a metal panto head and wiring it up).  OK the cost at the factory may not be much but it will be something so the manufacturer has to decide which features are most in demand vs the costs of including them ie cost/benefit analysis.

 

Everyone has their own little wants list, the challenge whether picking features or a new model is to pick what sufficient of the market is willing to pay for.

 

Cheers, Mike

[GordonC]

If you have ever seen 'Model Railways' Feb (I think) 1984, and a couple of 'BRMs' in late 98 you would know the answer to your first point. The first covers the scratchbuilding of AEI Cross-Arm pantographs, and the second covers my third rail shoegear implementation on the Class 508.

My point really was that although I was able to do these things for myself, there are likely to be others who although they might be interested to do something similar, they could well struggle with the relatively intricate on-loco aspects for various reasons, and therefore give up at the first hurdle.

If, as many Continental & Japanese manufacturers do, they at least provided the means to have their pick-up systems working as an option, that hurdle would be overcome. After all, the Tri-ang AL1 and EM2 had this facility over 50 years ago!

I would be quite happy if a mainstream UK manufacturer took the trouble to make their pantographs and shoegear operational, if only to encourage others to take the plunge and give it a go. Thereafter, the catenary/third rail set up can be as accurate as you choose to make it.

 

I think that might quite quickly turn into something that the manufacturers couldn't win with. Did the Tri-ang AL1 and EM2 locos have 'scale' pantographs? In bulking up pantographs or shoe-gear for robustness would that make the appearance worse which is likely to cause more complaints than having them operational in the first place?

 

I would have thought with the difficultly in what you're trying to achieve, not that I've ever tried, but I'd expect one of the easier issues would actually be getting the loco pickups fitted and that the associated trackwork and consistency in fittings would actually be the hardest part.

 

Electric modelling seems to be deemed enough of a 'niche' market that I'd be reluctant to see additional things added to make it even more niche and increase prices for little benefit

[rob D2]

All I know is , if the class 90 is good, I may get one and that may spur me into getting some catenary......

 

I don't know much about electrics but I did get pulled behind one years ago on the sleeper to Edinburgh , and very impressive it was

[Gordon H]

Did the Tri-ang AL1 and EM2 locos have 'scale' pantographs?

 

The EM2 pantographs were very good representations, with quite fine metalwork. Unfortunately, it was a bit of a decline after that. The AL1 wasn't nowhere near as accurate, but that pales into insignificance compared to the abomination they came up with for the 86's when they arrived. Their '90' had a Brecknell Willis with extra arms to make it physically active, and was/is not really adaptable for fine scale operation.

All of these at least had a roof switch to allow the user to try them out on the wires. However, none since the EM2 has really been usable that way. Even the EM2 needed its springs weakened, and ideally the head changed - as it was originally designed as a single rounded piece to ride over the wire 'fishplates' that their catenary system used then.

[GordonC]

The Triang models were a bit before my time and I cant think what the pantograph on them was like. I remember the enormous ones on a Hornby Phoenix Class 86 with the sliding switch.

 

Were the Lima Class 87s not capable of taking power off the pantograph too? I remember the initial models having a little slotted screw switch at the cab end of the pantograph which was missing on later models. I dont remember their pantographs looking too bad scale wise

[Titan]

The Triang models were a bit before my time and I cant think what the pantograph on them was like. I remember the enormous ones on a Hornby Phoenix Class 86 with the sliding switch.

 

Were the Lima Class 87s not capable of taking power off the pantograph too? I remember the initial models having a little slotted screw switch at the cab end of the pantograph which was missing on later models. I dont remember their pantographs looking too bad scale wise

 

Yes they were, and I can testify that the pantograph works very well. Although they are very nice in themselves, they were unfortunately the wrong type for a class 87, presumably taken from the parts bin of continental electric locos.

[Gordon H]

Yes they were, and I can testify that the pantograph works very well. Although they are very nice in themselves, they were unfortunately the wrong type for a class 87, presumably taken from the parts bin of continental electric locos.

 

Actually, the Lima pan heads and the springs were quite useful as spare parts. I used the heads for convenience when I was scratchbuilding a batch of cross-arms, and the springs found use on my scratchbuilt Brecknell Willis pans some time later.

[ThaneofFife]

if a new 87 is ever released itll be interesting to see how the cross arm pantograph appears/functions.  the Lima 87 had what I would describe more as a diamond type which looked (back in the 80s) quite good under a very low contact wire but if the wire was higher the incorrect shape of pantograph became more obvious.  I always thought hornbys newer class 87/90 high speed pan looked brilliant. I don't think they did a bad job on it at all. the cross arm type is possibly the more trickier of the types as the bases need to slide I believe unless there is ample slack in the design to fix the base and allow the pan to go up and down symmetrically.

 

the worst looking pantograph ive seen is that on the Heljan 86. and its huge base set really high.

[wombatofludham]

I was thinking the other day "wouldn't it be nice if Bachmann decided that as a reward for our patience in awaiting the new 90 they would design an 87 in parallel" for release six months later.

 

Then I woke up.

 

I've noticed a few Japanese electrics with pantographs similar to the AEI cross-arm, unfortunately I've been unable to source them as spares as they don't seem to be produced in large numbers in Japanese HO.  Of course, Japanese HO is underscale for OO and they have some strange shaped heads but if I ever manage to source one I could be tempted to see how the head could be modified and how it looks scale wise

[brushman47544]

I've noticed a few Japanese electrics with pantographs similar to the AEI cross-arm, unfortunately I've been unable to source them as spares as they don't seem to be produced in large numbers in Japanese HO.  Of course, Japanese HO is underscale for OO and they have some strange shaped heads but if I ever manage to source one I could be tempted to see how the head could be modified and how it looks scale wise

 

Rivarossi and ViTrains sell diamond and Faiveley pantographs as spares - Lendons in Cardiff comes up on a Google search: http://www.lendonsmodelshop.co.uk/index.asp?search=Railways-20Hornby-20International&showorder=partnumber&check=yes&searchme=Rivarossi-20Spares-20--20Pantographs

 

ViTrains: http://www.vitrains.it/en/prodotti/pantograph

 

They will be HO but may be better than anything pre-fitted to British outline RTR?

 

EDIT thanks to clarification from Gordon H

Edited April 29, 2016 by brushman47544

[Gordon H]

Rivarossi and ViTrains sell cross arm and Faiveley pantographs as spares -

 

Those are not cross arms, they are diamond frames. Almost completely different.

[MGR Hooper!]

If I'm not mistaken, this Tomix spare is/similar to a Class 87 cross-arm pantograph....

 

HO-P22
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10153621

 

HO-P18
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10095803

PA1110
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10214353

[Dagworth]

if a new 87 is ever released itll be interesting to see how the cross arm pantograph appears/functions.  the Lima 87 had what I would describe more as a diamond type which looked (back in the 80s) quite good under a very low contact wire but if the wire was higher the incorrect shape of pantograph became more obvious.  I always thought hornbys newer class 87/90 high speed pan looked brilliant. I don't think they did a bad job on it at all. the cross arm type is possibly the more trickier of the types as the bases need to slide I believe unless there is ample slack in the design to fix the base and allow the pan to go up and down symmetrically.

 

the worst looking pantograph ive seen is that on the Heljan 86. and its huge base set really high.

The cross-arm pan doesn't slide at the base, it has pivots at both ends, there is no connection where the arms cross each other.

 

Heljan's pan was really only appalling at the head, the bulk of the rest of it is quite useful.

 

Andi

[MGR Hooper!]

The cross-arm pan doesn't slide at the base, it has pivots at both ends, there is no connection where the arms cross each other.

 

Heljan's pan was really only appalling at the head, the bulk of the rest of it is quite useful.

 

Andi

But that bulky head ruined the whole thing...added to that was a very badly designed shell with many errors. To me it actually didn't capture the look of the Class 86.

[Dagworth]

But that bulky head ruined the whole thing...added to that was a very badly designed shell with many errors. To me it actually didn't capture the look of the Class 86.

I agree that the pan head was awful, and as for the 86 underneath it, no thanks... but the rest of the pan is not bad at all and I've got one with a Lima head on the roof of my 81 as shown here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110547-drawings-and-parts-for-classes-81-to-84-and-86-to-89/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2286834

 

Andi

[ThaneofFife]

I agree that the pan head was awful, and as for the 86 underneath it, no thanks... but the rest of the pan is not bad at all and I've got one with a Lima head on the roof of my 81 as shown here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110547-drawings-and-parts-for-classes-81-to-84-and-86-to-89/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2286834

 

Andi

 

underneath......the body, yes.  the chassis was superb imho and that made it all the more painful that Heljan fell down on the rest of it.