Heljan Mk1s

[Raffles]

Unable to find any other threads relating to todays news I thought I'd start one.

 

HJ Mk1s in various colours available at Rails and presumably other boxshifters.

 

No connection etc etc

[Glorious NSE]

I was wondering what was going on then - then I realised they're O scale ones!

[Raffles]

Good point... I've made a suitable adjustment.

[jonathan452]

Rail Express gave them the 'thumbs down' the other month. (A passing comment rather than a full review.)

 

Although not on my particular shopping list I would be interested to see what others think.

 

Also has the RMB been modified to reflect the later examples (additional storage cupboard taking up an extra seating bay)? As the earlier ones were subsequently altered the Heljan model as I last saw it (in magazines and on the net) reflects a very narrow time frame.

[Pete Piszczek]

At first glance, what struck me as looking odd, is the framing below the sliding windows. It's really chunky! Compare photos of a OO Bachy Mark 1 and the O Heljan example and you could be mistaken in thinking the Heljan isn't an O scale model, but something smaller. At least the O scale crowd won't be shaving off roof ribbing, although in Bachmann's defense, that is a straight forward fix.

 

Heljan

 

Bachmann

[Ian J.]

The thing that I noticed when I looked at the pre-prod models at Warley last year and that still seems to be apparent now is the tumbleholme - it doesn't appear to be the even curve that it should be. Also, looking at the pics in the links, the windows don't seem to be deep enough? I don't know, really. I'm not an O gauge modeller, but I would be disappointed if these had been Heljan's foray into OO Mark 1s

[Bob Reid]

Rail Express gave them the 'thumbs down' the other month. (A passing comment rather than a full review.)

 

There's nothing like giving a hearty welcome to a new release by Heljan, particuarly in an area ('O' Gauge Coaching Stock) that is new to them - very encouraging. Quite disappointing that all of these "reviews" (on here, and by Rail Express) are without access to a model in your hands and looking a the pre-production models and poor images (none of which show the profile) on the Hattons site.

 

The bodylights are the correct height, the bodysides have the correct profile (they don't have tumblehomes - being a single radius curve top to bottom), and Heljan chose to model the earliest diagram RMB, some of which lasted without the store cupboard from 1958 to the mid 70s..... A brave decision, but also without precedent, there being no other manufacturer producing this small lot of 12 vehicles.

 

Of course the models are not without fault - no Mark 1s appeared with the combiniation of BR Crimson Lake & Cream with the post 1959 (early 1960) modifications (different roof vent layouts, and also door strip & bodylight frames) except in preservation, and they all (except the RMB) should be equipped with Commonwealth Bogies however clearly Heljan chose to model these as shown.

 

Pity no one can offer anything more positive.

 

If it's a highly detailed Mark 1 you're after then the D J Parkins kits are the one's for you.

[craigwelsh]

The windows seem to really spoil the look on these, the upper sliding parts have the look of Kristal Klear glazing rather than the finer Bachmann offering. Unfortunately as they did the outside frames they couldn't really mould the frames on the glazing as per Bachmann.

 

The strips on either side of the doors stick out a bit and will be difficult for people to backdate. See prototypes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BR_Mk1_CK.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mk1_coaches_on_the_MNR.jpg where the strips look a bit more subdued.

 

No doubt someone could do laser cut glass and etched frames to make a big difference to these for the price, certainly cheaper than the brass alternatives.

 

re the roof ribs on the 4mm ones, I prefer to have them and remove them than the flat roof of the RMB and GUV, they do need a bit of the texture welding the plates together created and its difficult putting them in from scratch.

[Tom B]

I posted to a previous thread on this topic. I was concerned at reports from folk who'd examined the test sample at Telford re the 'slab' sides. I said I would be keeping my hands in my pockets and not ordering any until I had seen them in the flesh at Model Rail, Glasgow.

 

Well, there were about half a dozen on display between Tower Models and the Heljan/Howes stand. My first sighting was at Tower and they were in boxes so the end profile was not visible but, even just looking at the sides, it was obvious they were too flat. There are a number of close-ups on Rails of Sheffield site and if this link works it shows an end elevation. If not scroll down to the blue/grey FK.

http://railsofsheffi...-JJJA12551.aspx

There is a continuous curve visible but, too me, it is much too understated. The curved profile of these coaches is one of their most obvious features and Heljan have missed it. There has been similar criticism on the GOG Forum and someone on MRE Mag today likened them to Hastings stock! I confess the same thought struck me at Glasgow.

I take Bob's comments but I was assured that these were production models so we are not going to see any improvement on what was on display. The later features such as window reinforcing would not have been a problem as I am modelling the 80s. Bachmann have managed to capture the shape in 4mm as they did in 7mm with their brass models and have now just released test shots of their new N gauge models clearly showing the profile. What is galling is that I started off in O gauge almost thirty years ago detailing Lima Mark 1s! I know the scale was wrong but the profile was correct. I can add detail and I can change detail but I can't change the basic shape of a model.

 

My hands remain in my pockets while I examine the alternatives amongst the various kits on offer. They can't get the Class 26 wrong - can they?!

Tom.

[Bob Reid]

When I get a chance during the coming weekend I'll put up better photo's and some figures round the profile - there is a variation to the extent that the single radius bodyside curve (on a quick measurement) appears to be a bit large at around rad 250 mm as opposed to the rad 196 mm it should be - so it is less curved, though not "flat" as been already been banded about - granted one mans "less curved" is another's "flat" however it would have been nice to have seen comments of a more positive nature. Each to their own

 

 

[two tone green]

And I have just bought a maroon BSK. :icon_e_surprised:

[kiltedsignaller]

And I have just bought a maroon BSK.

 

 

So, what do you think, Two Tone?

[coachmann]

I presume they are fully fitted out with interiors so they look to be a snip at the price. Any issue with the bodyside curve could be sorted by comparing them with a Tower Models brass job.

 

As Bob mentioned, these Mk.Is have not been modelled in original condition, probably as a result of measuring and photographing preserved examples, so it is a case of be aware. Bood & Custard is probably out!

[two tone green]

Yes, it does look a bit odd at the end, flat. But to me its the curvature of the roof that seems a tad flat, as if some one has pressed down on the crown and squashed it a bit.

 

The lack of curve in the sides is not too bad and to be honest, I tend to spend more time looking at the sides of the coaches as they go by rather than the ends. In a rake of coaches behind a loco, especially a diesel, its the front of the loco that gets looked at the most followed by the passing of the train which includes the sides of course.

 

So for me, I can live with it. Not perfect but ok. Don't have the time etc to go for JLTRT so the Heljans are my choice. But I can understand those who don't like them for the 'faults' we have seen.

[kiltedsignaller]

Yes, it does look a bit odd at the end, flat. But to me its the curvature of the roof that seems a tad flat, as if some one has pressed down on the crown and squashed it a bit.

 

The lack of curve in the sides is not too bad and to be honest, I tend to spend more time looking at the sides of the coaches as they go by rather than the ends. In a rake of coaches behind a loco, especially a diesel, its the front of the loco that gets looked at the most followed by the passing of the train which includes the sides of course.

 

So for me, I can live with it. Not perfect but ok. Don't have the time etc to go for JLTRT so the Heljans are my choice. But I can understand those who don't like them for the 'faults' we have seen.

 

I'd not noticed that aspect before, but you're right; the roof DOES rather have a "sat on" appearance.

 

I'm with you when you say you can live with it and for the self-same reasons. I think I may spend some time trying to improve the overall look of the coach. The first thing which would benefit the bogies enormously is to blacken the wheels . . .

[two tone green]

As soon as I saw the end profile I thought American coach. As if the roof had the profile for people to walk on as they seem to do in the States.

[two tone green]

Forgot, will have it at the RR&CO get together tomorrow if those coming want a look.

[kiltedsignaller]

As soon as I saw the end profile I thought American coach. As if the roof had the profile for people to walk on as they seem to do in the States.

 

I know exactly what you mean.

[Bob Reid]

Having had a better chance to give the Heljan Mark 1 a better look over, I have to say that despite the already well published “errors†these are nice pieces of kit,

 

 

In the case of this blue & grey SK, they’ve made a good job of replicating the livery and lining. The decision to omit the regional prefix and vehicle number is a great idea, which the other manufacturers might like to consider. They’ve managed to capture the colours well, granted they do have some experience in the rail blue department with their existing loco’s. The roof colour is however a shade or three on the dark side with a distinct blue tinge to it, and the lettering on the solebars for the emergency lighting points etc. could have been rendered a bit better. Easily rectified when you are buying the appropriate vehicle numbers.

 

 

Dimensionally the vehicle generally scales up well though there is an issue with the curvature of the bodyside being “less curved†than the prototype. Whilst it is the correct scale width overall at waist height, the larger radius curve employed for the sides means that the top and bottom edges (at the gutter and drip edges) sit too far out by approx 1mm on either side and in addition to this the curve of the roof appears as a consequence to have been slightly altered to suit (though the main radius in the centre appears reasonably correct). How much of this is a concern is down to the buyer however I wouldn’t write them off for it.

 

 

As far as the rest of the body is concerned, the main bodylights are a fair representation of the originals and, correctly, for vehicles built post early-1960 have been modelled with Beclawat type aluminium frames. These are correctly scaled/modelled however the centre section supporting the sliding lights could do to be narrower, particularly in the centre section. There was only one flaw on the toilet bodylights – they’ve been modelled too narrow, scaling up to only 2ft wide as opposed to the 2ft 3 in of the prototype. All however are otherwise correctly positioned on the bodyside and of the correct dimensions.

 

 

In keeping with the framed bodylights, the bodyside doors have been modelled correctly with the aluminium anti-corrosion strips either side of the doorway and all of the details on the doors are correctly represented on the model with one small barely noticeable exception – the hinge positions are a bit out. Again, no big deal.

 

As was mentioned in another post/thread by “kiltedsignaller†the gangway vestibule doors whilst correct for one end of the vehicle, are not correct for those vehicles (the SK, TSO, RMB) which have twin toilets at one end, where the door is hinged as opposed to sliding and is slightly narrower. Fortunately this would be easily corrected should it be an issue however as most will never be seen in use in a set, it may not be worth altering.

 

 

The roof on the SK has the ventilators correctly positioned for a post 1960 vehicle, and this is also repeated on all but the RMB, which retains its as-built 1956 roof layout. (A minor point on the RMB is that the rainstrip over the centre door should have been curved as opposed to straight). Of particular interest was the representation of the welds between the roof panels. If Bachmann had managed to get them as thin as this on their 4mm model, they would’ve certainly received fewer comments

 

 

The vehicle ends have been given a similar late build treatment, with the corect absence of all bar the first roof access step. The vehicles are equipped with sprung gangway faceplates, which when used with the sprung drawhook and working (though not technically correct) screw coupling gives the proper clearance between adjacent vehicles and obviously without gaps between the faceplates, and with sprung buffers – eat your heart out 4mm modellers! Who though has spotted that the Train Lighting (RCH) Jumpers couple up to the next vehicle (provided of course it’s another Heljan Mark 1, and you’ve a 7mm scale shunter). The only issues I have with the ends are that the water filler pipes, handrails, and passenger communication pipes & rods have been left in polished/stainless steel finish and as a result of fitting the sprung gangway the gangway assembly sits within a housing that never existed in the prototypes. Not a particularly noticeable error however.

 

The interiors have some basic detailing though there isn’t an obvious way of getting into the coach to make any further judgement at this point. Certainly on the SK, there are good representations of the transverse and corridor partitions and sliding doors and of the interior seating.

 

The headstocks are equipped with representations of the vacuum and steam heat pipes however these are relatively fragile, mine having lost one in the post, though these details are perhaps an early candidate for replacement with something more substantial anyhow. The choice of coupling may be (unprototypically) strange, when it should be an automatic (buckeye) coupler however, when there is no “standard†in this scale, the provision of a working screw screw coupling is the best compromise.

 

 

Heljan chose to produce these vehicles with BR1 type bogies, which are a fair representation of their full size equivalents if a little lacking in detail, particularly around the centre & side bolsters. What is excellent about them though is the correct clearance between the top of bogie sideframe and the underframe, with the top of the wheelsets correctly sitting behind and under the solebars. Unfortunately as they chose to match these with bodyshells in post early-1960 condition, all bar the RMB should really have been equipped with Commonwealth Bogies

 

 

Finally, I didn’t find any real problem with the underframe detailing, all of the electrical and brake equipment being represented to a greater or lesser degree though there is a small detail issue in that the brakegear modelled is representative of the arrangement for earlier Mark 1s, with the symmetrical ‘V’ hanger for the brake shaft to the left of the vacuum brake cylinder, as opposed to an asymmetrical hanger to the right of the cylinder.

 

The problem with modelling any vehicle, especially one with a long life and numerous variations is that it becomes a minefield for getting near 100% accuracy, and for every vehicle seen in one particular condition, another supposedly built at the same time can be found to be quite different, especially where some reliance is made on details from vehicles now in preservation.

 

If it’s an exceptionally highly detailed Mark 1 you’re after in 7mm scale, then the kits from the likes of Dave Parkins would be hard to beat, but prepare yourself for the long haul. If it’s good RTR Mark 1 with the odd issue (some of which would only concern the coaching stock purists) then you should gives these a look.

 

First thing I’d change would be the bogies!

[mark54]

Good review, Bob.

 

Looking at your photos and additional to your points, the roof vents should be the later dome type, not the ridged type modelled by Heljan. The solebar looks to be possibly a bit on the heavy side and there is something wrong with the relationship between the wheels and bogie frames - the axle ends don't line up with axleboxes.

[Bob Reid]

Good review, Bob.

 

Looking at your photos and additional to your points, the roof vents should be the later dome type, not the ridged type modelled by Heljan. The solebar looks to be possibly a bit on the heavy side and there is something wrong with the relationship between the wheels and bogie frames - the axle ends don't line up with axleboxes.

 

Not sure what's going on with the axlebox / wheelset alignment Mark. The bearings (obviously) are correctly aligned with the frame and wheelset however the plastic axlebox/spring assembly that is glued to the frame is clearly about 1.5-2mm Low

[kiltedsignaller]

Good review, Bob.

 

 

 

 

I agree with you, Mark54, a good review with a lot of thought, thank you, Bob.

 

Three other details have crossed my mind since my first looks, all to do with "too small", for once (How often does that happen?):

 

- I feel the water filler pipes are too fine-scale; you wouldn't get a good flow through these capilliaries.

 

- The circular vent over the buffet compartment of the RMB is half the size it should be. I've measured it and it's the same size as that on the Bachmann 00 scale model.

 

- The transfers of the overhead wires warnings on the coach ends suffer an equally proportionally small distortion.

[Rugd1022]

Good review there Bob

 

Your fifth photo from the top gives a very good impression of the overall look of the model, from this angle I'd say it's a winner, personally I could probably live with the lack of curvature to the profile and the only thing which jars is the thickness of the horizontal window bars. I'm wondering how one of these would look after some additional painting and weathering etc.... particularly the roof and end details.

 

Do you have any photos of the RMB?

 

Cheers, Nidge

[Bob Reid]

Good review there Bob

 

Your fifth photo from the top gives a very good impression of the overall look of the model, from this angle I'd say it's a winner, personally I could probably live with the lack of curvature to the profile and the only thing which jars is the thickness of the horizontal window bars. I'm wondering how one of these would look after some additional painting and weathering etc.... particularly the roof and end details.

 

Do you have any photos of the RMB?

 

Cheers, Nidge

 

 

The RMB should be here tomorrow Nidge so pictures to follow - unless of course John (kilstedsignaller) has any to put up......

 

I'd certainly agree with you that some painting and weathering would improve the look of them no end - careful application could probably disguise the worst of the thickness of the window bar.

 

I did manage to remove the roof this morning (if anyone's interested, it's just a press fit onto the sides) after removing the water filler pipes, however the pipes are not securely connected to the ends and would better secured via some short handrail knobs. Although the roof came off easily and it would allow the seats to be painted, the sides appear to be rigidly glued to the floor and ends without any obvious way of removing them cleanly to allow further detailing - painted seats, a compartment mirror and adding some seated passengers looks to be the best you could do at the mo.....

[kiltedsignaller]

The RMB should be here tomorrow Nidge so pictures to follow - unless of course John (kilstedsignaller) has any to put up......

 

 

 

 

I'm afraid not, Bob, as yet. (waiting for the winter to end before I get my camera out ;o) )