VXDH92

Spoke with Dave at Warley and he says he is undecided which way to go with the pantograph - either poseable like the Hornby 87 or sprung like the Bachmann 90, but this would also mean having an additional arm, just like the Bachmann 90. Personally, I'd rather have a sprung (albeit slightly compromised) pan, and I would also then buy lots of them as spares. I realise not everyone shares that view, so maybe Dave could set up a poll? Perhaps it's biased of me, but surely if Dave does a sprung one with an additional arm, those that only want a poseable pan could just remove the extra arm?

Hi Jonathan, I spoke with OR at Warley - unfortunately the Virgin ones are some way behind. They don't have the license sorted yet. I'm after those ones as well! Regarding the lights; they more or less confirmed that there won't be any on the first releases, but might be a future option. I've cancelled my pre-order for now hoping they'll re-instate the lights for the Virgin release, although I imagine most people won't be too worried about the lights. Dave.

OO 14 car please Dave!

Well, I am taking the manufacturers at their word that the 90 and 92 pans will be sprung, yes. Other than that, we know that the Hornby 87 definitely won't have a sprung pan. I'm not too worried about the pan being a little compromised if it raises / lowers.

I have done some OLE with the PECO stuff. The wires are 0.5mm with 0.4mm droppers which is still over scale but looks good. I have had to tension a section of around 15 wire lengths from either end but have also found that even Bachmann Class 350s need their pan springs weakening. I am with the people that are a bit disappointed about the poseable only Brecknell Willis. I will have to replace it with a DJM Class 92 pan when the spares come to fruition as I doubt Bachmann will supply the class 90 pan as a spare. It doesn't seem great that the 87 is £170 RRP and only a poseable plastic pan so I probably won't pre-order and see if the prices drop a bit. However, I am extremely grateful that Hornby are doing an 87!

Yes I'm very worried about this. I don't think it's a trick on the eye as I saw the original EP and it had that curvaceous front. It's the only part of it that I can see that doesn't give it that 87 look, but it's so prominent that I hope it gets sorted.

Looking good! I do have a couple of reservations, but nothing major. The front still looks a bit too curved to me. I have thought that ever since the original 3D print. However, I don't know if it's because my eyes have got too used to the Lima model? The TDM cables look a bit thick - Hornby seem to have made them the same thickness as the multiple working cables on the blue variant, but in reality, TDM cables are much finer. Nit picking really - looks pretty damn good in the main! Just gotta wait for the Virgin ones...

Thanks for that. The pins are definitely fine so I'll try the reset. Dave H.

Hi everyone, I have a Bachmann Class 150 that I have recently fitted with a 21 pin Bachmann decoder. The other day, the unit just stopped working, but the lights remained. When I went to try again today, the unit would move but would only travel at max speed as soon as you turned the controller on even slightly. I've tried swapping the decoder to another loco and it causes the same problem, so I guess the decoder is knackered (frustrating as it's brand new!). Even worse, I then tried another new Bachmann 21 pin decoder in the class 150, and that won't even register. I then used that new decoder in another loco and it was fine, so I'm worried the class 150 is knackered too. Anyone had an issue like this? Dave H.

I wonder why none of the Bachmann releases are described as era 9 then? Perhaps the containers are of older design?

Cheers Brian. I guess I can have them in BR blue with the later containers then. Did EWS have any in BR blue? Cheers.

Hi all, I'm modelling around 2003 and I'm wondering if any of these first releases of ffa fga wagons will be suitable? I assume not as the flats were probably painted in EWS maroon by 2003, but pics are hard to come by where they are not just brown with dirt!

Yes, I'm sure I have seen two variants of pan on the 350s, but I have no photo evidence. I'm sure I saw some with a third bar on the pan head that sits a couple of inches below the contact wire. I don't know exactly which 350s are / were fitted with that or why it was there. Keep a look out and see if you see any with variances.

Hopefully the attachment works... below is a 360 pan. The head of the pan is right at the end of the upper arm. On an 87 / 90 etc, the head sits back a bit from the end of the upper arm. Compare to the 90 pan in the bottom pic.

I realised a little while ago that class 350 pans are not like the BW on an 87 / 90 etc... the top is quite different, so the Bachmann 350 is pretty accurate. There are also two different types of pan on a 350 depending on which subclass it is.

DJ Dave, Hope things are progressing well on this project. With all the discussion around the Bachmann class 90 pantograph, and how they've opted for a support arm to enable it to raise and lower, can I ask how you intend to make your BW pantos sprung? In your CAD image, there is no support arm. Does this mean that you're making it like the real thing where there is a very fine chain attached to the base of the upper arm, and run through a hollow lower arm to a roof mounted spring? That would be fantastic if that was the case. Cheers, Dave.

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!

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!

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?

Generally very pleasing; they've done a great job for what they are going to charge. Just a couple of comments / constructive criticism: > We still don't know about the interior lighting; it would be nice to know if it's happening > RE the livery - agreed, the red stripe is a bit thick. Also, have they done the window rims in black? They look darker than the Exec Grey surrounding them. I also think there should be a very fine silver rim around the windows on IC livery mk3s, but not 100% sure > the wheels on the pre-production unpainted samples looked a lot better - much finer rims around the edges. These on the painted sample look chunky and a bit Lima-esque Great job all-in-all OR; keep us updated and see if you can remedy some of our concerns to make it a 10/10 model (it isn't far off to my eye)! Cheers, Dave.

Anyone note the year the song was released?

James, Sadly, I think it's more than just a rumour. When I spoke to Paul from Hornby when it was first unveiled at Warley, he more or less confirmed that there would be no spring in the Brecknell Willis, so I'm not holding out much hope. Still, there's time for things to change is suppose!

The 87s look absolutely mega! Those wheels look so fine, and a far better representation than the original 3d print mock up's wheels. The pans look excellent, but like others, I am sorely disappointed by the lack of a spring in the Brecknell Willis. I realise this is probably because of the complexity of the mechanics of a single-arm pan (you need a hollow lower arm with an extremely fine chain running through, attached to the upper arm, and also to a spring on the base), but it is a glaring omission on a £170 loco! Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the DJ Models class 92 pan will be any better - I have left a couple of messages on the forum for the OO version, but DJ Dave still hasn't responded. I only want 87s from the Virgin era onwards, but it looks so good in IC Swallow that I am reallllyyyy tempted to get one of those too! Hornby - please give it quick enough gearing to give it scale speed when hauling a full train. I sometimes find all wheel drive Hornby mechanisms a tad on the slow side. Thanks!

Hi Dave, Any chance of some feedback on my above comments? Also, when is the second payment going to be requested? So far, I've paid £30 for each of my locos (£60 total) Thanks, Dave.

Hi Dave, Really pleased to see the OO CADs; they look great! Two queries: - are the bogies perhaps a tad far away from the sole bar? You will know better than me! - RE the panto; it looks as though only the upper arm raises from the CAD. Will this be remedied so that the both arms raise? I believe it is to be sprung, and I think you said it would be available as a spare? Thanks in advance, Dave.