Since Grafar made class 91 in 90s, there's no production of this model.
In ebay, it is hard to find selling product.
Is there possibility to produce new n gauge class 91?
And class 91 has many special liveries, so we could expect them.
Cavalex models planned to make one to follow their planned OO gauge version, the OO version was dropped as Hornby beat them too it. Since then its all gone quiet as obviously shared research costs make the N gauge more viable.
Maybe one day they will turn back to it
Quote from: eddief83 on June 07, 2024, 02:06:42 PMCavalex models planned to make one to follow their planned OO gauge version, the OO version was dropped as Hornby beat them too it. Since then its all gone quiet as obviously shared research costs make the N gauge more viable.
Maybe one day they will turn back to it
Read about that on old post
Always thinkig that what if hornby make its oo products to N gauge.
N gauge Thompson pacifics, class 91, etc...
Well, do you have any specific livery hope to see?
Maybe 91111 For the fallen for me.
I was only commenting with
@njee20 last week that the 91 is the last gap in the N gauge market that Farish used to have and have yet to re-tool.
Used to also apply to the 90, which was then suddenly announced by Bachmann. I would not be surprised if they did the same again.
Skyline2uk
Quote from: Skyline2uk on June 07, 2024, 02:35:27 PMI was only commenting with @njee20 last week that the 91 is the last gap in the N gauge market that Farish used to have and have yet to re-tool.
Used to also apply to the 90, which was then suddenly announced by Bachmann. I would not be surprised if they did the same again.
Skyline2uk
Hope to they revise class 91 and rebuilt Merchant Navy.
Quote from: Skyline2uk on June 07, 2024, 02:35:27 PMI was only commenting with @njee20 last week that the 91 is the last gap in the N gauge market that Farish used to have and have yet to re-tool.
Diesel and electric loco maybe, but we've yet to see new versions of:
LMS 2P
LMS Crab
SR Rebuilt Merchant Navy
LNER V2
The old Farish class 87 is about to be superseded by the new Dapol version. Likewise the early Bach-Far class 44 coming from Rapido.
Still a few Poole era wagons to go at too.
Steven B
Yes the discussion was specifically on modern locos. Not least as I wouldn't recognise a Crab if one ran me over, let alone whether it was Poole-era or modern, or indeed 1:1 scale! :-[
The 91 is a funny one. ECML layouts don't seem all that common (waiting for the cries of "what about Drem/Northallerton etc etc"), and I wonder if that does quash the perceived demand a bit. That said, with the 91/mk4s you've got a lot of liveries to go at without too much in the way of retooling. Sure we'll see it. The way Cavalex handled the N gauge one was disappointing. They stated that the N gauge one would continue despite the OO gauge one being cancelled, but they never even started a thread on RMWeb about it, and any content was limited to a handful of posts on the OO gauge thread. I never saw anything else on it after that!
Quote from: Steven B on June 07, 2024, 03:50:35 PMQuote from: Skyline2uk on June 07, 2024, 02:35:27 PMI was only commenting with @njee20 last week that the 91 is the last gap in the N gauge market that Farish used to have and have yet to re-tool.
Diesel and electric loco maybe, but we've yet to see new versions of:
LMS 2P
LMS Crab
SR Rebuilt Merchant Navy
LNER V2
The old Farish class 87 is about to be superseded by the new Dapol version. Likewise the early Bach-Far class 44 coming from Rapido.
Still a few Poole era wagons to go at too.
Steven B
Heard that new tooling unrebuilt MN was not so successful
Possibility for rebuilt MN?
V2 is quite funny locomotive-it lies between poole era model and new tooled model.
And also, GWR King class.
Quote from: njee20 on June 07, 2024, 05:10:01 PMYes the discussion was specifically on modern locos. Not least as I wouldn't recognise a Crab if one ran me over, let alone whether it was Poole-era or modern, or indeed 1:1 scale! :-[
The 91 is a funny one. ECML layouts don't seem all that common (waiting for the cries of "what about Drem/Northallerton etc etc"), and I wonder if that does quash the perceived demand a bit. That said, with the 91/mk4s you've got a lot of liveries to go at without too much in the way of retooling. Sure we'll see it. The way Cavalex handled the N gauge one was disappointing. They stated that the N gauge one would continue despite the OO gauge one being cancelled, but they never even started a thread on RMWeb about it, and any content was limited to a handful of posts on the OO gauge thread. I never saw anything else on it after that!
If they launched n gauge one, it could be great success!
Wonder why cavalex models dropped out n gauge class 91.
It would be wholly understandable for them to say the N gauge one wasn't viable in the wake of not continuing with the OO gauge one, but they didn't. They expressly doubled down on the N gauge one going ahead, and then never mentioned it again.
Quote from: njee20 on June 07, 2024, 05:10:01 PMYes the discussion was specifically on modern locos. Not least as I wouldn't recognise a Crab if one ran me over]
Shame on you!
Hope you never get crabs. :smiley-laughing:
Chris
I have done considerable work on an N Gauge Class 91 and Mk4 spec but the combination of tooling costs and the cost-of-living crisis mean it is unlikely to happen at the moment.
Yes, I do have selfish seasons for wanting a 91 or three... :)
Quote from: Adam1701D on June 07, 2024, 10:58:29 PMI have done considerable work on an N Gauge Class 91 and Mk4 spec but the combination of tooling costs and the cost-of-living crisis mean it is unlikely to happen at the moment.
Yes, I do have selfish seasons for wanting a 91 or three... :)
Oh go on, just do the Loco to start with....you know you want to.... :D
(I jest, I know that isn't viable in relation to the prototype).
Skyline2uk
Quote from: Adam1701D on June 07, 2024, 10:58:29 PMI have done considerable work on an N Gauge Class 91 and Mk4 spec but the combination of tooling costs and the cost-of-living crisis mean it is unlikely to happen at the moment.
Yes, I do have selfish seasons for wanting a 91 or three... :)
Lighting, modifying front, Electra's decals, and lots of works...
Without the Class 91 there is little justification for Mk4 coaches. Their reuse in Wales hauled by Class 67s makes them more relevant to Dapol. Maybe this is another case where Farish dusts off the old clear-bodied Mk4 tooling as they have with the Mk3s, but that will not happen without a new Class 91.
@Adam1701D did produce a number of Class 91 schemes in his Electra Rail Graphics range before his move to Dapol. So I would accept his summary of the Dapol position. But the Farish Class 91 was in my view even worse looking than their Class 90. I really cannot see them relaunching an upgraded Class 91 for a few ECML liveries, albeit some of them were eye-catching and attractive in 1:1.
The Farish 91 can be made to look OK if you sacrifice the front coupling, cut off and fill the front valance and attach it to the body. A decent pantograph helps - I used a Revolution Stone-Faively type.
My dream 91 would have NEM sockets both ends with an optional full front valance. Tooling for Class 91 as built and the 91/1 with full DCC sound, lighting and the works. Not sure about the rotating cardan shafts to the wheels but if there's a way...
Quote from: Adam1701D on June 07, 2024, 10:58:29 PMI have done considerable work on an N Gauge Class 91 and Mk4 spec but the combination of tooling costs and the cost-of-living crisis mean it is unlikely to happen at the moment.
Given the Dapol range includes the 67 already is there not a potential for tooling up the DVT and whatever coaches TFW use from the sets first to then expand into the 91 and the rest of the fleet afterwards?
That's massively restrictive though. One livery, limited geography. I doubt 5% of sales of mk4s would be TfW.
Quote from: Adam1701D on June 07, 2024, 10:58:29 PMI have done considerable work on an N Gauge Class 91 and Mk4 spec but the combination of tooling costs and the cost-of-living crisis mean it is unlikely to happen at the moment.
Yes, I do have selfish seasons for wanting a 91 or three... :)
Personally I would struggle to see a viable business case for a 91 in N given the restricted routes they are/were used on and single type of rolling stock hauled. The 90 is more understandable as it is an altogether more versatile and wider travelled class.
Quote from: Roy L S on June 10, 2024, 01:45:09 PMPersonally I would struggle to see a viable business case for a 91 in N given the restricted routes they are/were used on and single type of rolling stock hauled. The 90 is more understandable as it is an altogether more versatile and wider travelled class.
Pendolinos are even more restricted, but they've now been run twice!
Regards,
John P
Of course I cannot speak for anybody but myself, but I would have at least the class 91 loco as a "rule one" purchase (much like I did with my Pendo).
Farish seemed to shift a fair few of the original tooling, and saw fit to issue a new GNER livery version when they were taken over by Bachmann.
Skyline2uk
Quote from: Roy L S on June 10, 2024, 01:45:09 PMPersonally I would struggle to see a viable business case for a 91 in N given the restricted routes they are/were used on and single type of rolling stock hauled.
I'd have to say I disagree. The class 91s have worked over the full length of the ECML between London and Glasgow, plus the branches to Leeds, Bradford and Skipton, and have been in service for 35 years and counting. If that is "restricted" then the same applies to e.g. the Stanier Pacifics, except that Stanier Pacifics weren't in service as long! But, nonetheless, Stanier Pacifics have been re-run in N.
And it was also initially envisaged that the Class 91s would work freight and parcels services blunt-end first, thus extending the options for "Rule 1" purchases.
I suspect we will see a re-tooled 91 from Farish at some point, but as they seem happy with making money from N by drip-feeding new releases over an extended timescale we may have a long wait. In more robust financial times, that might leave an opening for a faster-moving competitor to jump in, but that doesn't seem to be the case for British N at the moment.
(On that note and going OT, given the economic situation I am amazed at the quantity and variety of expensive 00 locos that are still being pumped out at eye-watering prices. I suspect a lot of 70 year olds' pension schemes are being extensively raided, and that there will be an absolute tidal wave of highly-detailed (and never unboxed?) stock appearing in estate sales in the next fifteen years.)
Quote from: Roy L S on June 10, 2024, 01:45:09 PMQuote from: Adam1701D on June 07, 2024, 10:58:29 PMI have done considerable work on an N Gauge Class 91 and Mk4 spec but the combination of tooling costs and the cost-of-living crisis mean it is unlikely to happen at the moment.
Yes, I do have selfish seasons for wanting a 91 or three... :)
Personally I would struggle to see a viable business case for a 91 in N given the restricted routes they are/were used on and single type of rolling stock hauled. The 90 is more understandable as it is an altogether more versatile and wider travelled class.
I have to join the chorus of questioning the 'restricted routes' part particularly. They operate on the whole of the ECML, and the very northern bit of the WCML and have done so for 35 years. That's far wider and longer than a lot of other models. Lots of liveries. I do think they have a certain following too, as does so much ECML stock.
Quote from: njee20 on June 10, 2024, 05:15:35 PMQuote from: Roy L S on June 10, 2024, 01:45:09 PMQuote from: Adam1701D on June 07, 2024, 10:58:29 PMI have done considerable work on an N Gauge Class 91 and Mk4 spec but the combination of tooling costs and the cost-of-living crisis mean it is unlikely to happen at the moment.
Yes, I do have selfish seasons for wanting a 91 or three... :)
Personally I would struggle to see a viable business case for a 91 in N given the restricted routes they are/were used on and single type of rolling stock hauled. The 90 is more understandable as it is an altogether more versatile and wider travelled class.
I have to join the chorus of questioning the 'restricted routes' part particularly. They operate on the whole of the ECML, and the very northern bit of the WCML and have done so for 35 years. That's far wider and longer than a lot of other models. Lots of liveries. I do think they have a certain following too, as does so much ECML stock.
I am very happy to respect that others have a different opinion to me with regard to this particular model, it doesn't make anybody "right" or anybody "wrong" just means views are different.
As regards the Stanier "Duchess" a valid point made about longevity v's the 91 by
@Richard Taylor but it would have to be said that the Duchesses pulled a variety of different coaches/trains in their lives including mail (I am pretty sure) and latterly could be seen on parcels trains and the like towards the end of their time in service.
I think Adam's take on the 225 train is the most telling, so would a loco without the Mk4s sell as a "Rule 1"? Opinion seems to be it would and so presumably they would be happy hooking up to other coach types like Mk3s?
Roy
They did operate with mk3s in the early days, so it's not wholly unprototypical. I would say they have to be done together (with the DVT) to be viable though, and as such I totally get why they've not, but IMO that isn't the same as a limited geographical range. Look at some of the wagons we've had that run small flows.
The class 91 was built and ready to use before the mk4s were ready. The 91s ran on sets of HST Mk3 with buffer fitted HST power car at the other end.
Away from the Mk4, 91s could be found on excursion trains - look on the likes of Flickr and you'll find pictures of them with mk1 and mk2 sets.
From time to time you'd find a mk4 set away from the ECML. They ran into Manchester Piccadilly on a couple of occasions.
How different are the various types of Mk4? We manage with Dapol's Mk3 and the various loco vs hst versions not being 100% correct.
Steven B
Quote from: njee20 on June 10, 2024, 06:18:55 PMThey did operate with mk3s in the early days, so it's not wholly unprototypical. I would say they have to be done together (with the DVT) to be viable though, and as such I totally get why they've not, but IMO that isn't the same as a limited geographical range. Look at some of the wagons we've had that run small flows.
I agree as regards wagons, the Alcan alumina wagons being a good example - a single flow albeit for a fair while now. Scary to think the the Fort William smelter is the only one left in the UK now and so the sole source of UK produced aluminium ???
Quote from: Steven B on June 10, 2024, 06:45:33 PMThe class 91 was built and ready to use before the mk4s were ready. The 91s ran on sets of HST Mk3 with buffer fitted HST power car at the other end.
Away from the Mk4, 91s could be found on excursion trains - look on the likes of Flickr and you'll find pictures of them with mk1 and mk2 sets.
From time to time you'd find a mk4 set away from the ECML. They ran into Manchester Piccadilly on a couple of occasions.
How different are the various types of Mk4? We manage with Dapol's Mk3 and the various loco vs hst versions not being 100% correct.
Steven B
This early formation with the buffer HSTs would be the sole reason for my rule 1 purchase in the hypothetical release world.
Skyline2uk
When built, the intention was that the class 91 would be used overnight on parcels and possibly freightliner trains. I'm not sure this happened, but there are plenty of other options.
Test run with Mk1 and non-air-con Mk2:
https://flic.kr/p/rjRZjq
Leading a buffer fitted HST blunt end first:
https://flic.kr/p/2fd88GH
Pointy end at front of HST set:
https://flic.kr/p/2jdfQZG
Early on there was also a Hull to Kings Cross where they swapped at Doncaster for a pair of class 31. Train used non-air-con Mk2:
https://flic.kr/p/fDnBNw
They were also used for relief trains (short notice, extra capacity). Here's a pair of them with a mix of Mk1, Mk2a/b/c ad Mk2d/e/f:
https://flic.kr/p/fDn3nL
Then there's always a charter rake:
hocolate and cream Mk1s:
https://flic.kr/p/2mmebME
Or Intercity Mk1:
https://flic.kr/p/2ibWrXL
Or Mk2 Pullman:
https://flic.kr/p/LLwi7n
Steven B
That said, ideally you need a Mk4 set!
DVT - different type to the Mk3 Dapol already do; They're the same, but different! There's also variations through the years - privatisation saw the addition of a bulbous antenna pod for example.
Of the coaches (FO, FOD, TSO, TSOD, TSOE and RSB), there are two main body styles. The RSB buffet car has typically shallow windows at the buffet end and additional vents on the roof.
The standard coaches share the same body shell, but with differing interiors. The TSOE (tourist second open end) was used on the end of the train the Class 91 coupled to. As the train ran as a fixed set there was no corridor connection on one end. The old Farish model included this detail; they used a separate plug-in part for the end detail meaning it was simple to replicate this detail (and put it on the wrong end of the coach!).
The standard body shell has eight main windows and two smaller square windows. These smaller windows are at the same end of the coach as the toilets (i.e. the coach is handed). The biggest complication to making a model occurred during privatisation era. The outer window of the "A" side (square windows to the right) was plated over, with the inner window replaced by a sheet that fitted in the window opening. Ideally Dapol would need to allow for this in their tooling (although the inner square window could be simply painted.
Would we be happy if Dapol made the same compromises as they did for the Mk3, where the roof vents aren't correct for one type and a single buffet car molding is used for several real life versions?
Steven B
Totally agree regarding the Mk4s, Stephen. Post "Mallard" refurbished coaches would need to have the correct mods tooled up.