61661

Thanks BR Blue - again, it is much appreciated. I can clear up the 33/0 question for you - the two models in question were produced for Gaugemaster as a cheaper alternative to our standard Class 33s, for use in their exclusive train packs and sets. Using the old body tooling allowed us to offer them at a lower price as a sort of 'Railroad' model for modellers who want a diesel loco but maybe aren't as concerned about it being 100% accurate and up-to-date. I think/hope that will be the last we see of it though!

Thanks Phil. That is much appreciated. My view is that it's vital for us to listen and engage with our customers. It's not always easy, as today proves, but if we end up with better models it will hopefully be worth the effort.

Hi Clive, I'm very sorry to hear that you weren't able to speak to either of us in Glasgow. I'm also surprised, given how quiet we were at times over the weekend. As already stated, we have asked for the grilles to be improved to show the internal framing more clearly and for the rivet heads to be reduced/removed. It's good to hear that you are happy with your Mainline model. I hope it gives you many more years of service. Mine packed up years ago unfortunately. Have a good evening Ben

Thanks to you too. I have seen some of those 'reviews' and would rather not comment, except to say that he is, of course, entitled to his opinion but it is not shared by the the thousands of modellers who buy, run and enjoy our models every year.

OK thanks. That's news to me.

Can I try and add a bit of perspective here? I helped to review many of those early Heljan models when I was at Model Rail in the early-2000s and was critical of some fundamental errors in shape that affected the whole look of some locos - the chubby 47 and early 33/0 being two prime examples. While I accept that a small number of people on here would like it to be better, the issue identified with the new Class 45 is not of the same magnitude - if it was, it would have been spotted much earlier and the O gauge model would have been criticised for it a few years ago. It would also doubtless have been identified by at least some of the 1000s of people who examined the samples on display at Glasgow show in February, but it wasn't, which gives some clue as to how visible it is on the model (as opposed to a photo blown up to many times original size). That said, we are not complacent and we will examine the problem and address it if it is practical to do so, but focusing on it to the exclusion of all else ignores the multitude of other improvements it features over previous models, from finer, more extensive detail and better overall look to a huge range of detail options and versions that have never been offered RTR before, individually controlled lighting features and optional detailing parts. We do not ask for a free ride, but we do appreciate polite, constructive criticism and each model being judged on its own full merits rather than being written off after the first, uncorrected EP sample, tarred by existing prejudices or the issues of models produced by different people 15 years ago. Have a good day Ben

Indeed, hence my earlier comments about reviewing how and when I contribute to this forum. I would politely disagree that there is a 'significant' problem with the body shape. Overall it is excellent and the general reaction reflects that. An issue has been raised and will be looked at, but blowing the photos up to many times the original size of the model exaggerates what would actually be a very small adjustment.

A fair point. The final sign-off is ours, but I'm not blaming anyone - simply stating a fact. It has been a repeated theme on this forum over many years that members have expressed a desire to be included in the process and given access to early images from manufacturers so that they can provide feedback. Over the last couple of years when we've made the effort to do that with CAD images, we've received surprisingly little useful feedback.

Dear All, Many thanks for the feedback on the Class 45, of which more in a moment. Firstly though, I'm disappointed to see that some valid and constructive comments seem to have been accompanied by some unnecessary personal criticism, and unfounded assumptions about Heljan and our alleged attitude to customers. Engaging with modellers and acknowledging informed feedback is a priority for me and, wherever possible, we ensure that we respond to any issues raised. Personal comments (and pretty unpleasant accusations about Heljan's attitude to customers, which do not reflect our experience) reduce the incentive to engage on this forum and I will take some time to consider how and when I do so in the future. As a company, we always appreciate constructive criticism and informed feedback about all our products. Whenever possible we act on that feedback to help us produce better models. Privately, we also consult a number of knowledgable modellers during the development process to gain their feedback and feed that into the process too. With regard to the 45, it's important to make it clear that the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive from the vast majority of those who've responded. However, as with all pre-production models there are issues to be resolved and corrections to be made, including and beyond those raised on this forum. Areas where we have requested improvements include the bodyside grilles, the windscreen frames (where the rivet heads need to be removed) and the inclusion of a missing access panel. We are expecting improved samples soon, and hope that these issues will be eliminated at that stage. Turning to the shape of the cabsides, we are surprised that this has suddenly been raised a small number of commenters. To our knowledge it was never identified as a problem on our highly regarded O gauge model (on which the OO model is based) and neither were there any comments about it when the CAD images were published some months ago. Based on the feedback, we will investigate what, if anything, can be done before production starts. Finally, once again, please bear in mind that this is a first tooling sample and not the finished article. I hope this clarifies the current situation. Ben

Hi, Although this took place before I joined Heljan, I'm almost certain the motors were supplied to Olivia's as run-ons from our own production so are identical to those fitted in the models at the factory. Hope this helps Ben

And apologies from me for the poorly worded description used on our original press release. We did initially describe them as '25/3s' but changed soon after to call them 'late body Class 25s', which covers both the 25/2 and 25/3 variants with that body design. Although we've changed our wording, this obviously hasn't filtered through to everyone. Stay safe Ben

Hi All, Just wanted to add a quick note on this subject to clarify a few points raised. The cost differential between a motorised Class 25 and an 'unmotorised' ETHEL is actually very small. The majority of the costs of any model, from any manufacturer, are generated by a need to cover 1) the tooling costs, 2) R&D and CAD costs 3) labour costs for assembly and 4) the cost of applying complex printed decoration. A motor costs only a few dollars at most, making very little difference to the overall price. The number of parts involved and the specialist nature of model railway products makes them time consuming (and therefore expensive) to assemble compared to other 'toy' and consumer electronics products. At various times since we announced the Class 25/ETHEL, I have been approached by modellers asking us to ensure the electronics and lighting are retained so that DCC and sound can be installed and some have even asked for the motor and gears to be retained so that they can use the ETHEL to provide traction. None of this would be possible if we replaced the standard chassis with a bespoke bogie moulding to hold in the wheels (which would also add more cost to the overall project). In fact, we have never actually specifically said how we are going to deliver the ETHELs, only that they would be 'ready to haul'. We are expecting the first samples of the decorated and complete Class 25s/ETHELs soon (international events permitting), so I hope to report back then with a clearer idea of how the finished models will look. Kindest Regards Ben

Correct. We committed to doing this from the outset as there has not, to date, been a correct RTR Class 45/1 in any scale. Our V4 and V5 models have the appropriate plated over boiler roof panels at the No2 end, as well as other ETH-related items. V4 has sealed beam ends, and V5 is in final BR condition with the square HI headlights added. Hope this helps Ben

Dear All, Just to clarify, as there still seems to be some confusion about this, Gaugemaster has replaced Howes as the official outlet for Heljan spares in the UK. However, due to the complexity of changing over, the sheer quantity of parts involved and so on, the service has been suspended temporarily to allow a smooth transition. Gaugemaster will launch the new Heljan spares service on March 1st, with spares available to order online 24/7 or via telephone during shop hours. Hope this helps Ben

The sample on show at MIOG was/is factory weathered and was approved on that basis. Obviously there will always be some variation in the application from loco to loco but this doesn’t match what we approved. I will try and find out what has happened and if this one is an isolated example. Ben

Hi Penguin of Doom, Thanks for the information - all feedback is welcome. PM sent. Ben

Happy New Year to all. First proper day back at the keyboard since the Christmas holidays, so just wanted to respond to these comments about the Class 25. Apologies if my failure to respond to each comment individually has come across as indifference, but that's far from the case. The feedback about the late body Class 25s in both O and OO has been overwhelmingly positive and the experts we consult during development are satisfied that the subtle curve of the cab front has been captured effectively. After the obvious flatness of the early O gauge 25, it would be easy to over-compensate and exaggerate the curve of the front (as has been the case on some other Class 25 models we've seen), but we believe that a more subtle curve captures the look of the prototype, as can be seen in the attached (borrowed) image. Hope this helps. Kindest Regards Ben

We have a plan for interior lighting on the Mk2s. All will be revealed in due course. Ben

We have removed the rivet heads from around the tail lights and windscreen frames, which were far too prominent compared to the real thing and made a couple of internal changes to improve the lighting/electronics. With regard to the cab front, this appears to be a myth carried over from the first O gauge Class 25, which did indeed have a flat front. It was rectified on the second version with late body and the OO model has been scaled down from that.

As usual, all other parts on sprues will also be produced as a run-on to provide a pool of spares. We have no plans to produce a cross-arm pan at the moment. We are looking at a Brecknell-Willis single arm pan for some of the later 86/4s though.

I have asked for a run-on of new pantographs to be sold as spares. The legs of the pan base are glued firmly into the insulators.

That's the plan, although we don't intend to offer the disc brake parts etc for the E&G push-pull Mk2s. The intention is to offer representations of the VB and AB underframe parts on a detailing sprue for customers to fit as required.

Yes. They’re signed off and may already be in production:

OK. Here goes... Class 27s - due December Class 33 rerun - Jan/Feb Class 33 V3 with headlights - Q2 2020 Class 25 - delayed to make mods/improvements but hopefully end of Q2 2020 Class 45 - Q3 2020 Class 47 retool - Q4 2020 Class 86/0 - Q2 2020 Class 86/4 - first half of 2021 GWR Railcar - Q3 2020 Gresley O2s with GN tenders etc - Q4 2020 As with the O gauge list, all dates are provisional and subject to alteration. Hope this helps Ben

OK. Here goes... Class 27s - due December Class 33 rerun - Jan/Feb Class 33 V3 with headlights - Q2 2020 Class 25 - delayed to make mods/improvements but hopefully end of Q2 2020 Class 45 - Q3 2020 Class 47 retool - Q4 2020 Class 86/0 - Q2 2020 Class 86/4 - first half of 2021 GWR Railcar - Q3 2020 Gresley O2s with GN tenders etc - Q4 2020 As with the O gauge list, all dates are provisional and subject to alteration. Hope this helps Ben