Marcyg Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I am sure I read somewhere the new models won't be seen for 18 months. Will not be here this year as Bachmann website has items listed up to nov/dec such as the class 150 and the 90 is still listed as awaited. Mark Good news, plenty of time to save up! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) Think i need to backtrack. Earlier i suggested that if Bachmann model the loco without the cab to cab corridor the model would be heavier than the class 85. Thats all well and good and im surprised nobody pulled me up on this but if Bachmann did go down this route it might then mean that if a class 87 followed using the same chassis block then it would not accommodate a detailed and illuminated corridor like visible through the side windows as per the class 85. I think i might put some thoughts in writing to Bachmann if that helps its gestation because i dont think now its a question of if a new 87 will emerge based on the 90 model.....but when. Edited August 14, 2014 by ThaneofFife Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium James Makin Posted August 14, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 14, 2014 On a slight OT but did the 87s have the corridors lit regularly? Or is it like ad-hoc if the drivers left the corridor lights on? I only did day trips and never went trainspotting on the WCML at night so would be interested to find out! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Very much adhoc james. I like the lit corridor feature on the class 85 i just wish it was on a function of its own separate from the cab lights (which i would also like to be independent between no.1 and no.2 ends)...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 some rare footage of a class 90 naming ceremony. subscribe to avocet1989 as he seems to have captured quite possibly the best footage of 86 87 and 90 action at london euston. theres about 3 or 4 other videos remembering the interesting days of loco release pre DVT era operations. superb stuff.you can keep your voyagers and pendos. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan452 Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 (edited) Meanwhile http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD0i02DclYo Freightliner 90042 on its first Mainline Test run in 2 years with 90045 0Z91 at Crewe 24/6/2014 Edited August 18, 2014 by jonathan452 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrostar Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 Watching the excellent naming ceremony video reminds me when Intercity reversed the decision to use tiny numbers. I don't know if any of the early 90s received them but certainly the 91s and 47s (47/8s?) did. The former having the tiny numbers originally only at the blunt end before common sense saw larger numbers at the front end too. Not that Hornby were quick to cotton on! There was also the outcry in the railway magazines about the black nameplates with silver (I think) writing replacing the more traditional red ones. I think black writing on silver as shown here was the compromise. But it was sometime ago and I was just a boy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 The first 90s did receive small numbers. I'm sure the outcry was over the "Tin" nameolates, as seen in the video. Personally, I quite liked them, as long as it was a proper name. There were some right howlers to follow... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonC Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I wouldn't have thought the cost of having a separate Mazak chassis block for Class 90's and 87s would have added much to the complexity or cost of producing one model from another. Personally, I'd probably find the light-up corridor a bit of a gimmick and I'd prefer the extra weight so the model can handle realistic length trains better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold mcowgill Posted August 19, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) We've heard from both Bachmann and Hornby that when you tool up a new loco it's the whole thing that gets produced, there's no longer a mix and match of parts bin components where they are common. As the production is batch based a full set of tools for that model is put through the factory, in Hornby's case it might be a factory that doesn't produce a product with notionally common parts so there has to be duplicate tooling - not sure if Kader use more than one factory for Bachmann products. The only benefit of a common component would be to speed up the design and pull the existing CAD files as the starting point for the drawings of a new product, I suspect the Mazak chassis block would one of the easiest items to redraw for change for say a class 87. Martin Edited August 19, 2014 by mcowgill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 a class 87 wouldnt need much of the block removing to portray the corridor. in the class 85 you have 4 corridor windows and of course the class 87 only has 2 towards the middle. on that basis i dont see any need for such a model to be compromised on either score. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-BOAF Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 My opinion - haulage versus lights that might be occasionally left on... I'd go for weight and haulage. Not quite sure I can justify a 90, but thrilled it is being produced as it will doubtless be a nice model. Will watch with interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 im still surprised by Bachmanns move here. The Class 85 had exactly the same shock factor. lots wishlisted lots guessed but nobody really saw either model coming. not convinced that there wouldnt be a crossover for a new 87 to utilise the 90 chassis and that doesnt sound right. i wonder then if two lots of tooling would be made available from the 90s chassis..... its all guesswork as an 87 isnt even on the cards yet as far as us joe public is concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan452 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) Soon to be history-: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqWlzpm2Lt0 EDIT - Also note a pair of the few remaining LM Class 321 'Dusty Bins' being overtaken at Ledburn Junction (around 06:00 on the video). Edited August 23, 2014 by jonathan452 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Hi Everybody I am new to this so if I make a mistake please bare with me. Anyway thankyou for allowing me to join in thd conversation and hope I can make new friends on here too. Welcome to the wonderful world of RMWeb. Get ready to buy Boris a pint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 the pantograph wont collect current if thats what you mean by working. like the class 85 it will raise or sit down. a new class 87 should morph from the 90 in time..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin_l_jones Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Still there could possibly be a way to adapt it to collect power, I'll have to await the finished product and see if it is possible. It will also mean that for anybody like myself who cannot afford DCC that if there are steam and/or diesel locos running on the same track that the 90 could be driven independently of the other locos. I managed to adapt a Hornby Class 92 using the bogie drives and motor from a Bachmann Class 66 chassis which were placed alongside the loco before fitting and found to be correct and with a bit of work got a smooth 6 axle powered loco which also has both pantographs wired together and going to 1 side of the motor which will inntime be disconnected from the bogies in order to drive it independently of track only powered locos. I realise its a digression from the class 90 subject but I hope it gives an idea that others may hopefully find useful. Do you have any photo's from your modified chassis for the 92... I would be intrigued to see how easy or difficult it is... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium James Makin Posted November 2, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 2, 2014 I've rebuilt class 92 chassis using Heljan class 47 innards on my fleet, have heard of others using the Hornby 60 as well, there's a few options to choose! I voted for a new 92 in this years Wishlist poll, fingers crossed sometime! Back on the 90, I'm not fussed on the overhead pickup side but I'd love to see a pantograph you can raise and lower via DCC, in effect an RTR version of Andi Dell's superb moving pantograph he did using memory wire all those years back! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 about the pricing. correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonC Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Still there could possibly be a way to adapt it to collect power, I'll have to await the finished product and see if it is possible. It will also mean that for anybody like myself who cannot afford DCC that if there are steam and/or diesel locos running on the same track that the 90 could be driven independently of the other locos. I managed to adapt a Hornby Class 92 using the bogie drives and motor from a Bachmann Class 66 chassis which were placed alongside the loco before fitting and found to be correct and with a bit of work got a smooth 6 axle powered loco which also has both pantographs wired together and going to 1 side of the motor which will inntime be disconnected from the bogies in order to drive it independently of track only powered locos. I realise its a digression from the class 90 subject but I hope it gives an idea that others may hopefully find useful. does your solution work ok if you turn the loco round? Presumably you're replacing one of the rail pickups with the pantograph one, but if you turn the loco round wouldn't you be picking up from the same rail and get no power? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonC Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Having a pantograph that goes up and down with DCC is a neat gimmick, but on seeing how difficult it seems to be to even get models of the AC Electrics produced or upgraded to current standards then I'd think it would be an unnecessary expense on already high purchase prices. I'm perfectly happy with something that looks the part, but is powered through the rails! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 ...The only benefit of a common component would be to speed up the design and pull the existing CAD files as the starting point for the drawings of a new product, ... I am as sure as one can be without actually seeing them do it, that Bachmann (and also most likely Heljan) have several 'boilerplate' layouts for the twin bogie centre motor mechanisms in CAD; with a table into which a set of key dimensions are loaded to give the first cut at a potential layout of a new chassis. Witness the extreme commonality of parts, layout and assembly technique in product after product. That's going to be effective in making the mechanism element economical to develop, tool and produce. It's all the externally visible parts and 'clothing' including livery, which has to look like the prototype where the real money gets spent. Bachmann as good as revealed this in a manufacturer interview some years ago: varying the mechanism for correct wheelbase spacing or whatever was relatively cheap, making the parts which would be seen (includes wheels in respect of the mechanism) that's where the new tooling cost is really incurred. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium James Makin Posted November 3, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 3, 2014 Having a pantograph that goes up and down with DCC is a neat gimmick, but on seeing how difficult it seems to be to even get models of the AC Electrics produced or upgraded to current standards then I'd think it would be an unnecessary expense on already high purchase prices. I'm perfectly happy with something that looks the part, but is powered through the rails! Absolutely agree Gordon, my pantograph suggestion was just pie in the sky wishlisting knowing full well that the specification and price points had probably been locked down well before announcement, it'll be the same spec as the 85, I'd just be grateful if it was a good representation of the BW pan, nothing more! Nice to dream of course though!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 itll actually be slightly less specced than the 85 as it wont need corridor lighting. sure i read somewhere though that on this one the cab lights are independently controlled on dcc. we'll see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multiple identity account Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Hi guys I am still having trouble trying to post the class 92 chassis photos. It says the files are to big to upload but when I tty the image editor nothing happens. If anybody has any advice to offer I would be greatful. Hi, Try using "Microsoft Office Picture Manager" or "Irfan View" and resize the image to probably 800 or 1024 and then see? I never knew images could be big enough to actually exceed the limit. If you have any trouble PM me. Cheers! J. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now