Jump to content


Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

Photo
- - - - -

Class 86





  • Please log in to reply
404 replies to this topic

#26 Adam

Adam

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,635 posts
  • LocationSouthampton

Posted 04 March 2010 - 10:01

I wouldn't be quite so strident as that Jim (it does at least have the right number of windows, but I know what you mean). The loco specific details are not something Heljan do especially - see their Hymek for example - it's difficult to be surprised by them. Having lived with 86s during my time in Norwich, that front end is more than a bit odd, and the grilles are a let down and that pan is horrible, but barring sentimental value, I wouldn't buy one in any case since it isn't a model I need. Far from the best, I agree.

Adam

Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

#27 brushman47544

brushman47544

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,376 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 04 March 2010 - 10:21

Ginge has posted a couple of pics of the Anglia version of the Heljan 86 posing on Dagworth at the show with kinder lighting
See [Link removed due to technical issues at the other end]

Andi

says gallery is unaviliable ....?????

would like to see how Heljan has done thier 86 model...

NL

Gallery is available again at this moment. I have to agree the cab front windows are pretty awful. The middle one is better, but the outer two are much too wide. Do we have a tubby 86 to join Heljan's tubby 47 I wonder?

Off topic - sorry - but I have to say that those Dapol Silver Bullets in the same gallery look superb. Pity they're not my modelling era.

Edited by Mod4, 05 March 2010 - 12:37 .


#28 GaryHN

GaryHN

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 10:52

Just looking at the pictures and it does look like one of the worst new release model in a long time!!!
If you go back in the gallery the Dapol Class 86 is an awesome model!!! Hope Dapol decide to do a McDonalds and upsize the model.
Gary in Aus

#29 John M Upton

John M Upton

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,441 posts
  • LocationBumbling along the Coastway West in a 313...

Posted 04 March 2010 - 13:41

I must say I find people throwing arms up in horror only on the basis of a couple of photographs of the model a tad annoying. Wait until you see it in you hand in front of you, if it does indeed turn out to be a pile of pony, then feel free to vent the proverbial spleens...

Actually, what is a spleen anyway? :blink:
  • Agree x 1

#30 Removed a/c_Phil

Removed a/c_Phil

  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2010 - 14:22

I must say I find people throwing arms up in horror only on the basis of a couple of photographs of the model a tad annoying. Wait until you see it in you hand in front of you, if it does indeed turn out to be a pile of pony, then feel free to vent the proverbial spleens...

Actually, what is a spleen anyway? :blink:


It's what a chinese bloke does when he twists his ankle !!!

Seriously, I tried to follow links to pics, but the only pic I can find is the broadside twitter pic. I guess the fotopic images are "busy".

Any other refs or links ?

#31 westie7

westie7

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 563 posts
  • LocationAberdeenshire

Posted 04 March 2010 - 16:47

This has gotta be one of the worst RTR loco's released in years! ......... (you might have guessed I am more than a bit disapointed!)

Cheers

Jim


I saw it in the "flesh" at the show, I was standing next to some other bloke as we both peered through the glass... stood up, looked at each other and went, errr no!
I have an old Hornby 86 and a whole bunch of detailing parts i've never done anything with. When I heard Heljan were doing this I thought oh bu99er might as well not bother. Now I think I'll do a detail job and put it on ebay. The Hornby body, flushglaze, Sommerfeld pan, jumpers and decals etc might just look better than this.

Rgds
Mark

#32 mcowgill

mcowgill

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts
  • LocationIpswich

Posted 04 March 2010 - 16:53

I'm a little concerned that if the Heljan 86 isn't popular it might be another obstacle to current-spec 4mm overhead electrics. I can already hear the murmurs from Margate and Barwell saying that there's no market for them, look how poorly the Heljan 86 sold...

#33 Removed a/c_jim s-w

Removed a/c_jim s-w

  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2010 - 17:42

Might be but then look at the Bachmann 25.

Its very similar to this (in that its about the same on the hopelessly wrong scale) but Bachmann have sold it buy the Bucketload.

I am sure there is enough pent up demand that will mean this will sell. Its only people who want something that looks like a minature class 86 that wont buy it. For most people who know no better it has the right number of windows, is a pretty colour and has a pantograph on the roof so I am sure they will be happy and if they are then good for them!

Cheers

Jim

#34 jonathan452

jonathan452

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 970 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 18:03

I am sure there is enough pent up demand that will mean this will sell. Its only people who want something that looks like a minature class 86 that wont buy it. For most people who know no better it has the right number of windows, is a pretty colour and has a pantograph on the roof so I am sure they will be happy and if they are then good for them!

Cheers

Jim


Thank you

Yours

An 'average' modeller wishing to buy something nice at Ally Pally.

PS Very happy with my Bachmann Class 25 - 25279 (Although did fit some brass handrails to it.)

#35 Removed a/c_jim s-w

Removed a/c_jim s-w

  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2010 - 18:29

Good for you then!

I am not saying anyone shouldn't buy it, if they like it and want it then thats all the reason they need. What I am saying is that if you want something that looks as closer to the real thing you will be better off starting with the decades old Hornby model as was the case with the class 25.

You pays your money and you make your choice. The modern class 25 and 86 have much superior chassis but the older versions look more like the real loco's. Best result will obviously be to take the best of each and make 1 model (as I did with my 25's). The point is for a model in this day and at the cost that Heljan will sell it for you shouldnt have to throw half of it away if you want the best result. It should be good out of the box.

It wont bother me one bit as I have a huge stockpile of Hornby class 86 bodyshells and combining the two is what is called modelling. I just wonder how long we will have to be continually correcting fundimental mistakes on modern models when tool makers 30 years ago got it right.

Cheers

Jim

#36 298

298

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,399 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 19:01

I'm a little concerned that if the Heljan 86 isn't popular it might be another obstacle to current-spec 4mm overhead electrics. I can already hear the murmurs from Margate and Barwell saying that there's no market for them, look how poorly the Heljan 86 sold...


Conversely, if there is enough interest from people who say "I'd have brought an 86 had it been spot on", there might be a case for their own release. For all I know, they might be dusting off the prototype tooling right now. After all, this is the 37 or 47 of the electric world....

I was really looking forward to ordering one in IC Swallow to renumber as '213, but at the very least i'll have to wait to see one up close before deciding...

#37 tomstaf

tomstaf

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 603 posts
  • LocationMiddlesex

Posted 04 March 2010 - 20:35

I haven't seen one in the flesh yet but from the pictures and other peoples comments it doesn't seem to bode well!
I think this error raises a more fundamental question, namely, why can mainstream manufacturers not get the basics right given the evolution of the rtr market? Heljan seemed to have kicked off the UK 4mm modelling market revolution in the early 2000s with the tubby duff. Yes it was wide but nonetheless it did introduce a new base level for rtr models such as a decent drive, lights and lots of extra details. Bachmann, Hornby et al soon followed suit. A few errors in the mid 2000s such as the Bachy 37 caused some burnt fingers for the producers, but these issues seem to have now been favourably resolved and you'd have thought that more effort is put in to ensure the product is delivered as correct as can be for the available technology. Now 10 years later, our expectations are much higher, the technological advances for development result in superior models, and the companies are now global. So that just leaves the question of why models are still produced with fundamental errors? Fair enough that some small details might be left off, but why are basics like the cab widows and grills produced in error? Heljan in particular do not seem to be learning. They are producing quite a list (47, 33/0, Western) of fundamentally flawed models and do not seem to be learning from their mistakes. Perhaps there is still a link in the chain of production that needs to be updated.

Regards

Thomas :)

#38 NickL2008

NickL2008

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,356 posts

Posted 04 March 2010 - 20:54

re: the Bachmann 25s, I guess its because not just the detailing its the use of the Chassis, oh and btw it still says Gallery not availiable?! hopefully without breaking any copyright is anyone able to post the pictures up in here? or perhaps Ginge himself can if hes a member lol?

The first picture I saw looked promising, but as Ive always thought, its better to see these things up close and personal for yourself sometimes rather than relying on a review as as such ...

NL

#39 brushman47544

brushman47544

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,376 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 05 March 2010 - 09:38

PS Very happy with my Bachmann Class 25 - 25279 (Although did fit some brass handrails to it.)

I too have been perfectly happy with my Bachmann 25/3s, it's their 25/1 that's been less well received. I've said it before, what matters to me is whether a model captures the look of the prototype. From the photos available, sadly the 86 doesn't quite make it.

#40 bluex5

bluex5

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 10:10

While I'm not burying my head in the sand regarding errors on what are supposedly "new tooling" models, sometimes I think we'd do better to express any errors in terms of dimensions rather than saying "it looks wrong" or it "doesn't capture the look of the prototype". Any frothing about shape carries much more weight if it's quantified with dimensional comparison to the prototype.

#41 brushman47544

brushman47544

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,376 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 05 March 2010 - 10:36

While I'm not burying my head in the sand regarding errors on what are supposedly "new tooling" models, sometimes I think we'd do better to express any errors in terms of dimensions rather than saying "it looks wrong" or it "doesn't capture the look of the prototype". Any frothing about shape carries much more weight if it's quantified with dimensional comparison to the prototype.

Personally, I don't care whether a model is perfectly dimensioned or not, and I'm certainly not going to get out a pair of calipers to check. My point is that for me, the look is what matters rather dimensional perfection, which arguably cannot be achieved in OO with HO scale track.

A model may not look right, even if dimensionally it is pretty close. Sometimes it can be a very small thing, on other occasions something much more obvious, that detracts from the overall look of a model. On the Heljan 86, the outer front windows look too wide and the side grills too high. The latter is very obvious when compared to the prototype and both Hornby OO and Dapol N versions.

#42 dave_long

dave_long

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,176 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 10:49

While I'm not burying my head in the sand regarding errors on what are supposedly "new tooling" models, sometimes I think we'd do better to express any errors in terms of dimensions rather than saying "it looks wrong" or it "doesn't capture the look of the prototype". Any frothing about shape carries much more weight if it's quantified with dimensional comparison to the prototype.




Well there was this discussion on the old rmweb HJ86 CAD thred




#43 Summer_Saturday

Summer_Saturday

    Member


  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 11:52

There are some good pictures here of 86 215 that can be opened and then flicked between to compare with the ones on the gingespotting fotopic site that are at a similar angle: http://www.theflob.c...86_twilight.htm

As an "average" modeller myself, my initial reaction is that it looks like a Class 86, although I'll wait to see the final product in the shops. I can clearly see, for example, that the bodyside grilles are higher than on the prototype but that sort of thing just isn't a deal breaker for me. I appreciate that for others it will be though.

#44 Removed a/c_jim s-w

Removed a/c_jim s-w

  • Guests

Posted 05 March 2010 - 12:08

Personally, I don't care whether a model is perfectly dimensioned or not, and I'm certainly not going to get out a pair of calipers to check. My point is that for me, the look is what matters rather dimensional perfection, which arguably cannot be achieved in OO with HO scale track.

A model may not look right, even if dimensionally it is pretty close. Sometimes it can be a very small thing, on other occasions something much more obvious, that detracts from the overall look of a model. On the Heljan 86, the outer front windows look too wide and the side grills too high. The latter is very obvious when compared to the prototype and both Hornby OO and Dapol N versions.


I agree

Lima were past masters of getting something to look right. When you measure some of their stuff its a country mile out but without measuring you couldn't really tell.

Cheers

Jim

#45 Removed a/c_jim s-w

Removed a/c_jim s-w

  • Guests

Posted 05 March 2010 - 12:14

There are some good pictures here of 86 215 that can be opened and then flicked between to compare with the ones on the gingespotting fotopic site that are at a similar angle: http://www.theflob.c...86_twilight.htm

As an "average" modeller myself, my initial reaction is that it looks like a Class 86, although I'll wait to see the final product in the shops. I can clearly see, for example, that the bodyside grilles are higher than on the prototype but that sort of thing just isn't a deal breaker for me. I appreciate that for others it will be though.


Thanks for that, I might have to revise my opinion that the side grills are too tall.

I now think they are correct as they do relate correctly to the cab doors and windows, The change between grey roof and white band does correctly run through the rainstrip but I now believe its the actual side is far too shallow. If you look at the real picture there is far more grey present on the top of the sides than the model.

Cheers

Jim

#46 298

298

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,399 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 19:18

In the absence of Ginge's gallery, i've been comparing http://cumbrianrail..../p63552750.html to prototype photos and think both white bands are too thick. This has been partly compounded by the over-thick rainstrip throwing the top band's position out.

For me, the cab window rake is still killing the look but I can't decide exactly where the problem is, apart from the pillar angle. Those windows would be great for a class 84, and I think the only solution is transplanting the cab roof and windows from the Hornby body (or a re-tool).

#47 dave_long

dave_long

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,176 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 20:49

That Panto, looks worse down than up. Its like something out of a bug movie almost ready to pounce on its prey. Shame we could have done with a decent new Panto.

#48 Flying Pig

Flying Pig

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,137 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 20:54

Rod (10800) posted a shot of the naked body moulding in the Warley thread - here.

#49 298

298

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,399 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 20:58

That Panto, looks worse down than up. Its like something out of a bug movie almost ready to pounce on its prey. Shame we could have done with a decent new Panto.


I think it's just sitting too high on the insulators, and the curve on the "bike frame" stabiliser on the top section looks too pronounced. It's not that bad really and is a good compromise for their core market.

#50 NickL2008

NickL2008

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,356 posts

Posted 05 March 2010 - 21:01

To me the front doesnt look right, not overly sure about the marker lights or the tailights ,the latter looking rather overscale in size but that may just be me?

Looks good so far, but I think i'll agree with everyone else in this thread is id have to see one in person before I fork out my hard earned money to purchase one!

NL







Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.