scouse889

...and now the Accurascale 89 ahead of a GNER rake! 😁

Me too. Against my better judgement I pre-ordered some of the LNER Mk4s and was hoping to pick the loco up after it was released. Very disappointed to read the comments of derailments and running issues, plus finishing issues with the coaches - and now reluctant to spend £200 plus on a loco that might not even stay on the track. Yes, ok, I could send it back if I get problems, but I just don't understand how this kind of thing would not have been apparent during the design and development process - especially as it has already been pointed out that the designer mentions running issues in the 'beyond the buffers' podcast, so why they didn't make absolutely sure this was solved? It really is at the stage where I'm left wondering how Hornby are going to muck things up when they announce new things, rather than being able to look forward to the model and follow its development - look at the issues identified about the derailing 800, the poorly-constructed APT (plus its capacitors), and the derailing clunky 91. How will the recently announced Anglia 755 get stuffed up? Or the retooled HSTs? At least there is the option of keeping the LNER Mk4s (assuming my supplier can supply ones with a decent finish!) and putting a Bachmann 90 at the front!

Just found this thread, visited the CVRM over the Jubilee bank holiday and it seems to be in quite a bad way. No tram in operation, line overgrown and in disrepair, there was surprisingly little stock in the model railway shop compared to previous visits, no kids rides outside the main building and no ride on kids cars in the area at the end of the siding, fence around the miniature railway falling apart, the scenic model railway in the green wagon closed and evidently damaged by fallen ceiling tiles from a collapsed roof, the end of the buffet car separating off due to rust, and so the list goes on. I have fond memories of this place from when I was a kid, and have been back periodically over the years, but very sad to see it in its current state. It is almost as though it’s heading for closure…. anyone know anything about it?

Maybe they are going to respray some of the vast reserves of Cross Country liveried MK3 SDs that are knocking about to try to sell them this way? 😁

Now they were definitely oddball!!!! Who wishlisted one of them??! 🤔

Hornby have announced rolling stock (in the 2021 and 2022 ranges) in the later Serco Caledonain Sleeper livery, which matches 87002. These are item numbers R40040, R40040A, R40195, R40228, R40228A. The first of these, the sleeper cars, R40040/A, are literally just arriving this week, with the rest (representations of the seating coaches) due later this year. So we will see how well they appear to sell, and this may answer your question. Several suppliers already seem to be sold out on pre-orders for these (Kernow, Derails - just two I checked). Sleepers do tend to sell well though as you say - go on eBay and try to buy a set of Kernow's GWR Night Riviera sleepers or day coaches! I guess I come back to my earlier point though - if Hornby have decided that the loco and coaches should be modelled, why weren't they announced together??! Doesn't seem very joined-up thinking to me, as clearly the loco has been languishing on the shelves for a number of years which may be in part due to the fact that there has been no suitable rolling stock available RTR.

Slightly off on a tangent, but has anyone tried powering this model? I seem to recall on the original HST releases the lighting boards were different in the motored and non-motored HST power cars, so it wasn't quite as simple as fitting a bodyshell for a non-motorised power car on to a spare motorised chassis (need to swap light boards as well). I run a representation of the test trains that operated with a 91, HST DVT and blue/grey Mk3 sleeper cars, the 91 being an original 1980s version, which is ok but not the best runner (and has traction tyres!), so I wonder about motoring the HST DVT and using the 91 as a non-motored vehicle..... Be interested to know if the coupling idea works, it was certainly possible to do exactly this on the Lima versions, but have not seen it implemented on the Hornby SD versions.

Yes, it is in its current condition as preserved in the NRM, where it was residing in the far corner of station hall (coupled to a Blue Pullman Mk2) when I visited a couple of weeks ago.

Totally agreed, especially when they keep talking about making the company more profitable but then produce odd models or model combinations: can I interest anyone in one of the 18 XC Mk3 SD vehicles, produced for a single set of power cars which require a rake of 7 coaches, now selling almost everywhere for as little as the £20 mark, and still not shifting? A brand new one sold on eBay the other day for £12.50 (excluding postage). I think a big part of the problem is also this piecemeal approach - I think they need more joined-up thinking with their loco/coach/wagon ranges. Back to 87s, for instance, 87002 might have sold better if suitable rolling stock was announced at the same time to go with it (even if not in the new matching livery, they could have done debranded ex-First Scotrail sleepers/representations of day coaches). Also, why aren't there any blue/grey or Executive liveried Mk2/Mk3's to go with the forthcoming Executive 87, or even suitably numbered loco-hauled Swallows? That might have been better than the DRS Mk1 coach, or repeat runs of the single blue/grey and executive RBRs...

So I succumbed and bought a discounted 87001.... I too found I couldn't resist for £99! As others have said, I too always thought 87001 and 87002 were somewhat odd choices (IIRC they were in about the 2019/2020 catalogue?). 87001 didn't run any trains in the livery Hornby chose but I believe they could have modelled it in blue un-named, named Royal Scot on both sides, or named Stephenson on both sides, all of which were prototypical for operation and so would seem a more sensible choice at they would have enabled its use with the VT Mk3 rake and DVT that had been announced just the year before (to coincide with the release of 87019 in VT). Then with 87002, although the livery was current when it was announced, the lack of an announcement of suitable rolling stock to go with it seemed to limit its appeal. So as it was, both locos were well down my wish list, and the evidence would appear to suggest that I am not alone in this assessment, as both appear to have failed to hit mass-market sales, given that they have been out of the catalogue for a few years (so presumably out of production), yet both are still available almost everywhere - at £206.99 MRP on the Hornby website but with much heavier discounts applied everywhere else, and I don't think Hattons would be selling 87001 for £99 if they could sell it at a meaningful rate for anything more! I picked up one a couple of weeks ago when there were sub-10 left. Shortly after that it was sold out, and has been ever since, suggesting that they were indeed selling off old stock and the loco is no longer in production. I decided, for £99, I can write an alternative history for the loco where it was dual named Royal Scot/Stephenson for the final few months operation with VT - a bit like GWR did with 43198 - and use it on my layout alongside 87019. It seems somewhat ironic that suitable sleeper/day coaches for 87002 were announced in the 2021/2022 ranges and have literally only just this week started arriving (so, in fact, I may be tempted by a discounted 87002 in due course as well). I guess that first the colour match monster will rear its head once more... Does anyone have 87002 and one of the new sleepers (R40040/A) and can comment on the colour match, or post some pictures? I'm holding off on both until I see them together (been bitten by this particular monster too many times in the past)!!

Either that or he was referring to every time it goes over a point! 😂

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??

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.

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…

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.....

Exactly what I was thinking when the new 90s were announced! 😁 Although now there are two more unknowns.... what are 32-616 and 32-618???!!! 🤪 Really pleased to see the EWS and RES versions of these locomotives.

Always can spell trouble when the couplings are different sizes. Not yet got one of the new 91s to try with my small remaining Mk IV coach collection, but looking at it, you might have more joy using an NEM Hunt coupling on the loco (either standard, close, or ultraclose, depending on the exact length requirement), with a bespoke replacement on the leading coach (if you don't want to replace the whole lot)...? https://www.westhillwagonworks.co.uk/hunt-couplings-c-2/hunt-couplings-elite-oo-gauge-c-21/hunt-couplings-elite-pack-for-intercity-225-class-91-mk4-dvt-set-oo-gauge-p-314

Sorry to hear of the damage being caused to the 91002's because of the packaging being too tight. But every cloud, at least it explains @XChris's photo of 91118, which has clearly been sent by GNER to East Coast in the same packaging!

For information - Hornby did one after it was overhauled and rededicated by the NRM. R3443. Examples are available quite often on eBay for reasonable prices. BTW - the Mods will probably lock this thread soon as wishlisting is only allowed in December, IIRC....?

That is really poor. Hope you get it sorted.... somehow!

For reference - 43314 from R3390TTS and 43309 from R3802. Essentially the same shade of red.

Blimey, that's quite a visible difference in the reds! The red of the later LNER HST power cars (R3802) is essentially the same as the red of the earlier VTEC pairs (R3390TTS and R3502) pictured here. So, assuming the forthcoming MkIV coaches and DVT are going to colour match 91118 (as one would hope???), there will be a significant difference between the reds on the LNER 225 and the earlier LNER HST - meaning they are going to look a bit incongruous together, which is somewhat disappointing... 😕

Model Railways Direct, The Model Centre, Cheltenham Model Centre and Collett's Models still appear to be accepting pre-orders for these (R40192) coaches - no connection, just four suppliers I checked, so seems there might still be some available....??

How is the colour match on 91118 with the previous Hornby LNER HST and Mk III coaches? The second and third releases of the Mk III coaches had a distinctly more orange tint to the red, but the LNER power cars (R3802) and first release of the Mk III coaches looked better to my eyes...

Yes, as @TomScrut says, the LNER HST power cars did not have a representation of the vinyl on the bodysides. I was also a bit mystified by the email - clearly it was not proof-read before being sent! Let's hope more care has been spent on and more attention to detail involved in producing the models themselves! I also wonder why it mentions 'City of Leeds' (which was 91108)....