Bachmann announce Class 90 (OO)

[ThaneofFife]

The servo operated pan came as a surprise to me and no doubt countless others.  Bachmann pushing the boundaries again.  I wonder if they will be able to do the same to their Class 85 in the future given that they have done this to the 90.

 

  the pan in the CAD images from E-Hattons looks, well its not 100%, but its pretty bloody good IMHO and I suppose to be dcc operated it had to have the extra under arm support piece but it looks very unobtrusive and I would have no hesitation in having that model.  to me its a fine representation of the BW pan given the scale and its operational capacity.       

[VXDH92]

The servo operated pan came as a surprise to me and no doubt countless others.  Bachmann pushing the boundaries again.  I wonder if they will be able to do the same to their Class 85 in the future given that they have done this to the 90.

 

  the pan in the CAD images from E-Hattons looks, well its not 100%, but its pretty bloody good IMHO and I suppose to be dcc operated it had to have the extra under arm support piece but it looks very unobtrusive and I would have no hesitation in having that model.  to me its a fine representation of the BW pan given the scale and its operational capacity.       

 

Looks great!

 

RE the panto - tbh I wish Hornby would do something like this for the '87. For those that want a sprung panto, it's a decent compromise; for those that aren't interested in the pan raising, they can remove the support wire.

 

I am a little confused as to how the pan will raise and lower on DC power? any ideas?

[Andy Mac]

Looks great!

 

RE the panto - tbh I wish Hornby would do something like this for the '87. For those that want a sprung panto, it's a decent compromise; for those that aren't interested in the pan raising, they can remove the support wire.

 

I am a little confused as to how the pan will raise and lower on DC power? any ideas?[/quote

 

A physical switch on the roof or underneath perhaps.... I think with the new generation of models coming to the market, you really need to be in the dcc club to take advantage of all the features... for too long I think dcc features/advancements have been held back due to the perceived belief that dc users were in the majority..... hopefully we are starting to see all the advantages of dcc and will see more developments over the coming years....

 

Nice to see the dcc socket will be easily accessible....

[Fenman]

 

... for too long I think dcc features/advancements have been held back due to the perceived belief that dc users were in the majority....

 

I thought for every 1 DCC loco sold, there were sales of 4 DC? Has that ratio changed?

 

Paul

[Roy Langridge]

I thought for every 1 DCC loco sold, there were sales of 4 DC? Has that ratio changed?

 

Paul

 

That is not a fair comparison, I never buy DCC equipped, and am fully DCC. I just fit my own.

 

Roy

[Simon Bendall]

 

I am a little confused as to how the pan will raise and lower on DC power? any ideas?

 

By hand with the servo linkage unclipped. It will be sprung.

[Fenman]

That is not a fair comparison, I never buy DCC equipped, and am fully DCC. I just fit my own.

 

Roy

 

Yes, I can see that consumer behaviour makes calculating the ratio tricky. Difficult to see how to get a reasonable figure then.

 

Paul

[Roy Langridge]

Yes, I can see that consumer behaviour makes calculating the ratio tricky. Difficult to see how to get a reasonable figure then.

 

Paul

Indeed. If the 1 to 4 ratio still holds for loco sales, I would not be surprised to find the ratio is nearing 50/50 as the number of DCC equipped locos direct from the manufacturer is limited. For example, there were no DCC Pecketts.

 

Of course, the number of DCC users is probably increasing all the time.

 

Roy

[Marcyg]

The servo operated pan was a surprise. Guessing the 119 estimated price tag has gone out the window

[No Decorum]

If Bachmann can put a servo motor into the 90s to raise and lower the panto, it occurs to me that one could be put into a diesel in order to turn its cooling fans. That would mean that the fans could spin more realistically and be synchronised with cooling fan sound from the decoder. It would be very much more convincing than Hornby’s rubber band idea.

[Roy Langridge]

If Bachmann can put a servo motor into the 90s to raise and lower the panto, it occurs to me that one could be put into a diesel in order to turn its cooling fans. That would mean that the fans could spin more realistically and be synchronised with cooling fan sound from the decoder. It would be very much more convincing than Hornby’s rubber band idea.

I am just in the process of adding a motor to the fan in a Hornby Class 31. I plan to drive it using DCC and will report my findings...

 

Roy

[MGR Hooper!]

Class 90 looks superb....pantograph detail looks excellent but the whole 2nd lower arm just to raise and lower it has spoilt the entire thing and prototypical look. Thank God Hornby went for prototypical looks over a more costly version for functionality.

[VXDH92]

Class 90 looks superb....pantograph detail looks excellent but the whole 2nd lower arm just to raise and lower it has spoilt the entire thing and prototypical look. Thank God Hornby went for prototypical looks over a more costly version for functionality.

I was thinking it is a really good compromise. If you want a sprung pantograph, then it's there; if yu just want it for show, you can remove the extra support bar. I actually wish Hornby would have done this so that those of is that have OHLE can use the pan.

 

Totally agree with you on how good the general CAD image looks 'though!

[Pete the Elaner]

Class 90 looks superb....pantograph detail looks excellent but the whole 2nd lower arm just to raise and lower it has spoilt the entire thing and prototypical look. Thank God Hornby went for prototypical looks over a more costly version for functionality.

I am not sure which Hornby one you mean. They will have 4 soon.

The chunky metal one used on their class 90, 91, 92 & some 86s.

The flimsy but accurate plastic one used on some class 92s.

The dropped one used on some class 90s (& probably others too).

I assume a brand new one for the class 87 which I believe has not bee published yet, possibly because they are still developing it.

[MGR Hooper!]

I am not sure which Hornby one you mean. They will have 4 soon.

The chunky metal one used on their class 90, 91, 92 & some 86s.

The flimsy but accurate plastic one used on some class 92s.

The dropped one used on some class 90s (& probably others too).

I assume a brand new one for the class 87 which I believe has not bee published yet, possibly because they are still developing it.

The one being developed by Hornby for the current Class 87.

 

And just a minor correction,

The clunky metal one was only used on the Class 86 (all), Class 90 and Class 91 (pantograph #1). The Class 92 had it's own pantograph from start (pantograph #2) and the one they made for the ex-Lima Class 87 (pantograph #3) which was by far the best representation from Hornby. I only recall three and not 4. Hornby have made pantographs for the Javelin, Eurostar, Pendolino and Class 71 (these are all different).

 

I think you've been confused a bit after seeing a few people's personal modifications.

[MGR Hooper!]

I was thinking it is a really good compromise. If you want a sprung pantograph, then it's there; if yu just want it for show, you can remove the extra support bar. I actually wish Hornby would have done this so that those of is that have OHLE can use the pan.

 

Totally agree with you on how good the general CAD image looks 'though!

I believe in compromises, however this hampers the look of the pantograph completely (all my personal views). The mechanism used by Hornby for the Class 92 pantograph was a good compromise. The Class single arms of the Brecknell-Willis pantograph was never lost, whereas here I completely dislike the lower arm. I hope disconnecting the extra arm is easier said than done.

[VXDH92]

I believe in compromises, however this hampers the look of the pantograph completely (all my personal views). The mechanism used by Hornby for the Class 92 pantograph was a good compromise. The Class single arms of the Brecknell-Willis pantograph was never lost, whereas here I completely dislike the lower arm. I hope disconnecting the extra arm is easier said than done.

Yeah I see your point.

 

The trouble with the class 92 pan is that the top and bottom arm should move together as one unit like the real thing. The 92s upper pan arm and lower pan arm move independently, so you tend to find that whichever arm has the weaker spring is the one that moves, and the other stays relatively rigid. Both arms should always have equidistant angles regardless of how high / low the pan is. The only way to do this properly is to emulate the real thing with a chain linking from the bottom end of the upper arm, through a hollow lower arm, and attached to a spring at the bottom. Not easy at 1:76 scale!

[MGR Hooper!]

Yeah I see your point.

 

The trouble with the class 92 pan is that the top and bottom arm should move together as one unit like the real thing. The 92s upper pan arm and lower pan arm move independently, so you tend to find that whichever arm has the weaker spring is the one that moves, and the other stays relatively rigid. Both arms should always have equidistant angles regardless of how high / low the pan is. The only way to do this properly is to emulate the real thing with a chain linking from the bottom end of the upper arm, through a hollow lower arm, and attached to a spring at the bottom. Not easy at 1:76 scale!

What they needed was a pair of springs with the same strength and not one weaker and one stronger.

Edited July 7, 2017 by MGR Hooper!

[Pete the Elaner]

The one being developed by Hornby for the current Class 87.

 

And just a minor correction,

The clunky metal one was only used on the Class 86 (all), Class 90 and Class 91 (pantograph #1). The Class 92 had it's own pantograph from start (pantograph #2) and the one they made for the ex-Lima Class 87 (pantograph #3) which was by far the best representation from Hornby. I only recall three and not 4. Hornby have made pantographs for the Javelin, Eurostar, Pendolino and Class 71 (these are all different).

 

I think you've been confused a bit after seeing a few people's personal modifications.

Confused? Possibly. Can you blame me?

It looks like they had even more than I thought.

 

Some 90s & 91 sold in sets had a pan permanently moulded in the dropped position.

Having checked photos, their Railroad 87 & Pendo seem to have different versions which I have not seen properly.

Then the chunky, working one for the 90, 91 & some 86's (other 86s & the APT-P having a crude representation of a Faiveley).

 

It seems like Hornby have never been satisfied with their BW pan, constantly revising it with different compromises.

[Pete the Elaner]

What they needed was a pair of springs with the same strength and not one weaker and one stronger.

A nice theory, but have you ever ridden a bike with 'V' brakes? These are supposed to have matching springs but in practice they need regular adjustment to stop the pads releasing unevenly, which leaves 1 block rubbing.

[Michanglais]

Are the servo-motored pans optional? 

 

My locos are for display only. I have got a DCC controller so could wire up a track to raise and lower the pan for the fun of it but, all in all, I'd rather not be 'forced' to have this feature (I'm guessing it will raise - ho-ho - the price considerably).

 

Have I missed somewhere if this is an option, or not?

 

Like some others, I would also prefer not to have the second support arm, tho I'm not sure that's possible, even without the self-raising pan feature.

 

On Hatton's site there's still a non-dcc version listed but I wonder whether that will also be servo-motor free or just an option for those who prefer to choose their own chips?

 

Has anyone got an idea on how much these servo-motors cost and how this might be reflected in the price of the loco?

 

A bit confused...

[Pete the Elaner]

Servos themselves are relatively inexpensive. Those used for operating points are reputed to be about £1-£2 each.

I would expect the mechanism to allow these to operate would raise the cost more than the motor itself.

I would therefore expect that if they have been announced, they would be in all models but only switchable by DCC.

[Michanglais]

Servos themselves are relatively inexpensive. Those used for operating points are reputed to be about £1-£2 each.

I would expect the mechanism to allow these to operate would raise the cost more than the motor itself.

I would therefore expect that if they have been announced, they would be in all models but only switchable by DCC.

 

Many thanks for the info!

[amwells]

Confused? Possibly. Can you blame me?

It looks like they had even more than I thought.

 

Some 90s & 91 sold in sets had a pan permanently moulded in the dropped position.

Having checked photos, their Railroad 87 & Pendo seem to have different versions which I have not seen properly.

Then the chunky, working one for the 90, 91 & some 86's (other 86s & the APT-P having a crude representation of a Faiveley).

 

It seems like Hornby have never been satisfied with their BW pan, constantly revising it with different compromises.

I'm fairly sure that the 92s had two types. The first was not great. The second type I loaded up on spares of and fitted them onto 90s as far better options.

[Dixie Dean]

Class 90 to feature a DCC controlled Pantograph apparently.

 

I personally am really impressed, provided it looks the part and proves to be durable.  Bring it on.