Class 86

[Summer_Saturday]

That's a good picture of the 86 on the cumbrianrail website and I have to say it has sold it to me. It may be that the livery is altering the look of the model, although I appreciate that some people who saw it in-the-flesh at Glasgow raised an eyebrow or two. I always thought some of the privatisation liveries made some locos etc look different, even though no body work had been changed.

 

I'm no expert on Class 86s but I would be happy to have this model running on my layout.

[Ohmisterporter]

Before any model reaches production, the CAD drawings, tooling, and test mouldings all have to be passed off by engineers. The part we are interested in is the mouldings; it's what we will be buying, or not, after all. So the person signing off the mouldings will only do after an initial sample inspection report has been done. This is the means of checking that the moulding corresponds to the drawings. If there are errors the engineers will have to decide which ones need to be corrected, and which do not. Seeing that Heljan is in production means they think any errors in the tooling as it now stands are acceptable. The design team are experts at designing tooling that can make mouldings that fit together with ease of assembly to produce what they think is an acceptable model at the right price. They do not have great knowledge of individual classes of locomotive or rolling stock.

 

Which ramblings lead me to suggest that the time to ask opinion on new models is not when they hit the shops, but at the planning stage. IMHO that is when they should be asking for advice from modellers who, as in the case of the 86s, have seen the faults committed by other manufcturers. There any some on this forum that have built kits or modified r-t-r models to an excellent standard. They know what it takes to get a model to look right. Which is not the same as measuring right. All models in all scales are compromises to some degree. And before anyone mentions it I know 00 gauge models are inaccurate because of the track gauge etc. That doesn't mean to say the body, windows, wheelbase, lighting, and pantograph cannot be right.

 

Geoff.

[taybridge]

The colour of the paintwork looks totally wrong, but maybe that's just the photography?

 

The lower white stripes should extend round to join the yellow warning panels.

 

The upper white stripes should not extend round the ends.

 

Front windows should extend up to immediately under roof line.

 

The grills on the body side need attention by the modeller - they always seem to be very dark grey in practice.

 

What is affecting perceptions of the ends is that the ends of the model's roof are too sharp / too square - looks to me like they are more curved in reality?

 

Compare to extract of photo below...

 

I hope the older liveries look better - which might prove to be the case.

[taybridge]

Refer comments above compared to this...

[stonojnr]

The colour of the paintwork looks totally wrong, but maybe that's just the photography?

 

Heljan just have to use the same batch of paint they used on their Anglia 47's, so its probably the lighting in the photos

 

The lower white stripes should extend round to join the yellow warning panels.

 

Im not convinced they always did (but I cant find any photos), but much like the One refresher livery there were several interpretations, early versions had a very light grey roof, and I certainly remember seeing some diy extensions to the lower white stripes round the cab ends.

 

The upper white stripes should not extend round the ends.

 

thats definitely not necessarily so as the attached photo of 86215 shows. and also note the handrail is black not white in that photo

 

I dont think it looks too bad personally, but alot of the fretting would be taken away if they just published the photos they based these prototypes on.

 

Stonojnr

[298]

I'm not too bothered about how correct the livery is (at this stage), it's tooling errors that are the issue and I know for a fact that they have had access to real class 86's, so something has definitely gone wrong for a pre-production loco to look like this.

 

I'll still wait for the magazine reviews and have a look at one in the flesh before buying, so don't take my word for anything. I've also noticed there is a gap where the compressor mounting beams should be on the twitter photo, but again, we'll have to wait and see what hits the shops.

[taybridge]

Maybe I just can't stand that Anglia livery! It really is awful.

 

I'm sure it will look a lot better in BR blue...

[craigwelsh]

Which ramblings lead me to suggest that the time to ask opinion on new models is not when they hit the shops, but at the planning stage. IMHO that is when they should be asking for advice from modellers who, as in the case of the 86s, have seen the faults committed by other manufcturers. There any some on this forum that have built kits or modified r-t-r models to an excellent standard. They know what it takes to get a model to look right. Which is not the same as measuring right. All models in all scales are compromises to some degree. And before anyone mentions it I know 00 gauge models are inaccurate because of the track gauge etc. That doesn't mean to say the body, windows, wheelbase, lighting, and pantograph cannot be right.

 

Geoff.

With the Heljan Western the pre production model was on show for some time and the cab peak was picked up and supposed to have been fixed. As we know it never was unfortunately.

 

I wonder if like the 33 they'll do the fixes if they do an original condition release body. The 1/2 relief roof tanks and spindly pantograph are a bit poor really in this day and age. I wonder if they forgot to take a step ladder when they went to see a real one?

[Clay Country]

Before any model reaches production, the CAD drawings, tooling, and test mouldings all have to be passed off by engineers. The part we are interested in is the mouldings; it's what we will be buying, or not, after all. So the person signing off the mouldings will only do after an initial sample inspection report has been done. This is the means of checking that the moulding corresponds to the drawings. If there are errors the engineers will have to decide which ones need to be corrected, and which do not. Seeing that Heljan is in production means they think any errors in the tooling as it now stands are acceptable. The design team are experts at designing tooling that can make mouldings that fit together with ease of assembly to produce what they think is an acceptable model at the right price. They do not have great knowledge of individual classes of locomotive or rolling stock.

 

Which ramblings lead me to suggest that the time to ask opinion on new models is not when they hit the shops, but at the planning stage. IMHO that is when they should be asking for advice from modellers who, as in the case of the 86s, have seen the faults committed by other manufcturers. There any some on this forum that have built kits or modified r-t-r models to an excellent standard. They know what it takes to get a model to look right. Which is not the same as measuring right. All models in all scales are compromises to some degree. And before anyone mentions it I know 00 gauge models are inaccurate because of the track gauge etc. That doesn't mean to say the body, windows, wheelbase, lighting, and pantograph cannot be right.

 

 

I totally agree, and some manufacturers, particularly Dapol, are very open about this, sharing CAD images on their website. There is a lot to be gained from allowing enthusiasts with an intimate knowledge of the subject to cast a critical eye over the model at this stage before it gets expensive to fix any errors. It could be enough to make satisfactory models like the 33/0 into really top-notch representations of the real thing.

[dave_long]

I totally agree, and some manufacturers, particularly Dapol, are very open about this, sharing CAD images on their website. There is a lot to be gained from allowing enthusiasts with an intimate knowledge of the subject to cast a critical eye over the model at this stage before it gets expensive to fix any errors. It could be enough to make satisfactory models like the 33/0 into really top-notch representations of the real thing.

 

I refer back to this thread post #45 link posted on page 2, a discussion took place on the 86s CAD drawings which were posted on Heljans website. They don't read forums, but thoughts were passed on through Howes whether they took any notice is a different matter its probably far too late anyhow by the time CAD drawings are in the public domain.

 

 

 

[298]

I refer back to this thread post #45 link posted on page 2, a discussion took place on the 86s CAD drawings which were posted on Heljans website. They don't read forums, but thoughts were passed on through Howes whether they took any notice is a different matter its probably far too late anyhow by the time CAD drawings are in the public domain.

 

At what point did someone look at the first 3D body (whether in injection moulded plastic or rapid prototyping), and think "Oops, I think we've dropped the ball here". It's true some details don't scale down too well and can appear oversize especially when painted (such as the taillight bezels and handrails), but there isn't a manufacturer out there who doesn't mess something up between the research and the tooling, especially when your production facilities are on the other side of the world and the toolmakers aren't familiar with the prototype and don't speak the same language as you.

 

Like others on here, i've been asked prototype questions or for photos on behalf of manufacturers, but in most cases i've made a comment that they need to go and look at the real thing and measure and photograph it well, as the hobby is quite rightly intolerant of avoidable mistakes. However, this is a tall order, and personally i've modelled the same loco three times now, done well with it in competitions and even driven it, but still keep noticing faults on my models.

[G-BOAF]

I refer back to this thread post #45 link posted on page 2, a discussion took place on the 86s CAD drawings which were posted on Heljans website. They don't read forums, but thoughts were passed on through Howes whether they took any notice is a different matter its probably far too late anyhow by the time CAD drawings are in the public domain.

 

Heljan CAD drawings still online

http://Heljan.dk/faste_filer/modul.asp?vis=nyhedmod&fModul=web588.asp&mode=laesnyhed&artikelid=228

 

I passed on JPEG images of the comparison I did (noting its limitations). These were obviously only front end comparisons. Anyway, Heljan UK replied to me, saying they'd passed on my comments to Heljan in Denmark, and that my comments were similar to others they had received. So they got the message.

 

Big problem appears that the 'major' issue i.e. cab side profile, was not noticed. Panto moulding not such an issues IMHO - its a separate component and easy to replace with moderate modelling skills. Correct cab front (or 33 Roof Profile, Western cab hood etc) are major tasks, necessitating surgery, glue and partial repaint (if you are lucky!)

 

I'm no manufacturing engineer, but how difficult can it be to get basic locomotive shapes right in this age? I know models are always compromises, but for what is basically a box on wheels (gasp - compared to a steam loco), its not complex. This is especially the case where surviving examples exist, and laser scanning is available (Bachmann Deltic showed it COULD be done). The 33/1 is a nice model (second time lucky), so why continue to make mistakes?

 

This said, we should wait until the final production samples hit the shops, and people's layouts (with decent photos) before being too critical. Its not as if they are going to make changes at this stage in the process.

Low res web images can be deceptive to body shape, as can livery errors.

[G-BOAF]

Further to the above, see attached images.

Class 86 Heljan CAD combined with profile drawing from:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/markshipman/railway/class86r.htm (I hope they don't mind me using it, but have not displayed the complete image)

 

I make no comments as to the accuracy of the drawing, nor is the scaling 100% (I matched both images in length over bottom of cab front). The drawing was probably scanned at some point, and as such may contain some form of distortion. I've used it as is.

 

I say this as I've been blown up once before on my splicing of images (done on MS word, using the crop tool, nothing fancy as I don't have Photoshop on this computer). This is just an attempt, make your own mind up, don't shoot the messenger.

 

All I'll say is that cab side windows aside at one end (suggesting line drawing distortion), the CAD seems very accurate. End window profile slant seems to be very good. Bodyside grills might be fractionally out.

The big question therefore is, was it manufactured according to the CAD images that were publicised by Heljan?

 

Must get back to work.....

 

[jonathan452]

Heljan CAD drawings still online

http://Heljan.dk/fas...d&artikelid=228

 

I passed on JPEG images of the comparison I did (noting its limitations). These were obviously only front end comparisons. Anyway, Heljan UK replied to me, saying they'd passed on my comments to Heljan in Denmark, and that my comments were similar to others they had received. So they got the message.

 

Big problem appears that the 'major' issue i.e. cab side profile, was not noticed. Panto moulding not such an issues IMHO - its a separate component and easy to replace with moderate modelling skills. Correct cab front (or 33 Roof Profile, Western cab hood etc) are major tasks, necessitating surgery, glue and partial repaint (if you are lucky!)

 

I'm no manufacturing engineer, but how difficult can it be to get basic locomotive shapes right in this age? I know models are always compromises, but for what is basically a box on wheels (gasp - compared to a steam loco), its not complex. This is especially the case where surviving examples exist, and laser scanning is available (Bachmann Deltic showed it COULD be done). The 33/1 is a nice model (second time lucky), so why continue to make mistakes?

 

This said, we should wait until the final production samples hit the shops, and people's layouts (with decent photos) before being too critical. Its not as if they are going to make changes at this stage in the process.

Low res web images can be deceptive to body shape, as can livery errors.

 

 

Thankyou for your words of wisdom.

 

Now looking forward to getting my Freightliner and Alsthom Heritage versions after all. (Hopefully at Ally Pally.)

[298]

On a similar note, there are some good roof shots on WNXX at the moment:

 

http://www.wnxx.info/pix/2010/1003/86232/index.htm

[Guest jim s-w]

Further to the above, see attached images.

Class 86 Heljan CAD combined with profile drawing from:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/markshipman/railway/class86r.htm (I hope they don't mind me using it, but have not displayed the complete image)

 

I make no comments as to the accuracy of the drawing, nor is the scaling 100% (I matched both images in length over bottom of cab front). The drawing was probably scanned at some point, and as such may contain some form of distortion. I've used it as is.

 

 

Its a General Arrangement drawing - they are not supposed to be accurate just a rough (almost sketch) of where key components are.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[BernardTPM]

I'm no manufacturing engineer, but how difficult can it be to get basic locomotive shapes right in this age? I know models are always compromises, but for what is basically a box on wheels (gasp - compared to a steam loco), its not complex.

 

It's a box on wheels in the same way a steam loco is a tube on wheels. Such simplification doesn't help. In that 'box' there are subtle shapes that, if missed, can affect the appearance. Looking at the head-on CADs it's quite clear that the cabside windows area is vertical, rather than slightly sloping in at the top. Mind you, it still looks a lot closer than their Western which is well short of the mark with failings in both cab end shape and some detail areas; the fact that the side grilles don't come flush is an obvious error.

[thunderer08]

Hi all,

The Heljan website is advertising the 86's as being in stock, there are photos of 4 examples.

Mick

[Summer_Saturday]

Now in stock at http://www.modelfair.com/whats_new.htm

[Gulliver]

Just picked mine up from Kernow - surprised to see them in stock. It was not what I went in for!

[Mike at C&M]

... and now in at C&M Models in Carlisle, the packing department at Heljan have obviously been busy!

 

We have also just received our first production samples of the BR blue 'N' gauge Class 86 from Dapol. Photos of these should follow in the relevant thread shortly.

[66540_ruby]

Just recieved a E-mail from Rails stating these are instock they also have photos on there website.

[CullingworthGNR]

To me, they look fantastic. I fancy the Intercity and Virgin ones for my new layout, but it seems a waste to have them on such a tiny depot! They need to be stretching their legs, with that excellent Heljan motor...

[reevesthecat]

Looking at the pictures on the rails site they look like an 86 ,I am very impressed. I have little detailed knowledge of the prototype so the errors to me are not obvious although the pantograph looks like it is on stilts! Is this correct!

thanks

mark

[tetsudofan]

It's interesting that many posters above say let's wait until we see one in the flesh...and then decide whether or not to buy it. Problem here is that in the far South East there are not many Heljan dealers - years ago (before they closed)Hythe (Kent) Models, at that time my local hobbyshop, tried to become a Heljan dealer but failed - more recently the HobbyShop at Faversham, now my local hobbyshop, has had no luck becoming a Heljan dealer.

 

Think my closest Heljan dealers are The Signal Box at Rochester or Kent Garden Railways at St. Mary Cray just outside London.....quite a way just to have a look

 

One would have thought that Heljan would have been keen to expand their dealer network