Jump to content
 

HELJAN UNVEILS ‘OO’ GAUGE 25/3 AND ‘ETHEL’ FOR 2019


Andy Y
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

With the possibility of 3 vendors in the market, it’s going to come down to the basic business premise of the triangle of Cost, Quality and Time.

Stretching any corner of the triangle alters the risk of the other two corners.

 

Lowest quality, Highest cost, slowest to market will all affect risk of low return, but also..

Highest quality, lowest cost and fastest to market will also increase risk of low return.

 

Each manufacturer has got to make the right decision if they want to see their return.

Class 25’s are popular, but not that popular.

 

I think this could be a very long game, regardless the merits of each, it’s probably going to be two decades at least before we see another tooling of a 25, after these possible 3, so I for one aren’t going to rush and buy the first, nor the cheapest.., just going to sit back and see what they all look like first.

With 3 potential vendors, snoozing/lose doesn’t apply, you can afford sleep on it and win.

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Class 25’s are popular, but not that popular.

 

 

 

Might become even more popular as the current rumour going around owners is that there may be two 25s going back on the mainline. You even know the loco owner John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might become even more popular as the current rumour going around owners is that there may be two 25s going back on the mainline. You even know the loco owner John

 

Yes, I reckon 25s are pretty popular too, in any case.  Maybe not in the Class 37 band of fandom, but reckon they hold their own with Peaks certainly, and possibly 47s.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hope Heljan takes on board feedback from the O gauge version and tweaks the OO design accordingly, a flawed model now would deserve box shifter 'bargin' status!

 

Good afternoon all,

Just a quick note to say that I believe the criticism of the O gauge Class 25 flat front end relates only to the early body version (version 1) released a couple of years ago. That has been addressed very effectively on the later body style O gauge version (Version 2, yet to be released), and the feedback for that has been extremely positive so far. In fact, the positive nature of the feedback on Version 2 encouraged us to believe that it would also work well in OO gauge. As I mentioned previously, the CAD images posted at the top of this thread are the actual ones for the OO gauge late body Class 25. There have been a few comments along the lines of 'I hope they get the shape right' - well, the shape is there for you to view and pass comment on!

Personally, I'm taking the lack of criticism so far as a positive sign!

 

All the Best, and thanks for your comments.

 

Ben

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Ben,

I’ve seen both criticism and praise of the new 7mm version!

 

In respect of the cads on this thread, it is actually very difficult to tell the degree of curve from them which may be why no one has commented!

 

Either way taking such feedback is a great step forward!

Edited by Hal Nail
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I reckon 25s are pretty popular too, in any case.  Maybe not in the Class 37 band of fandom, but reckon they hold their own with Peaks certainly, and possibly 47s.

Thats it...I must be out of touch. No one gave a monkey about the drab green EE Type 3's. Then around the mid 1980's, people started to go ape over them, probably because of refurbishment and large logo livery.  I know the Peaks had a following right from day-one, which lasted their life span because of their darn fine looks. But Class 47's?  They were the Black Five of their era....everywhere and boring.  I suppose Planet Nostalgia can never be accounted for.  I think back to the poxy Derby Type 2's taking over many local goods trains in the steam-era and then becoming eagerly sought after as Class 24's when they became hens teeth. Yup, I too was lineside with me one-eyed roll-film beast !

Edited by coachmann
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats it...I must be out of touch. No one gave a monkey about the drab green EE Type 3's. Then around the mid 1980's, people started to go ape over them, probably because of refurbishment and large logo livery.  I know the Peaks had a following right from day-one, which lasted their life span because of their darn fine looks. But Class 47's?  They were the Black Five of their era....everywhere and boring.  I suppose Planet Nostalgia can never be accounted for.  I think back to the poxy Derby Type 2's taking over many local goods trains in the steam-era and then becoming eagerly sought after as Class 24's when they became hens teeth. Yup, I too was lineside with me one-eyed roll-film beast !

 

We've probably opened an off-topic hornets' nest here, TBH.   All the 'Class 37 men' of my acquaintance began losing interest once the overhaul programme started in 1985 or so, referring to renumbered examples as 'bent.'  37s had to be no heat or steam heat, and in the range 37001-308; nothing else mattered.  

 

Being from Birmingham, where BR Type 4s were commonplace, they didn't have much of a following, because the rarity of exotic species like Hydraulics, 50s and 37s elevated these to iconic status.  I loved them in their early nose styles, but when they were healed-up post '76 they lost their beauty in many beholders' eyes.

 

The popularity of the 47 I do believe came with the later enthusiasts who bashed them around in the late eighties and nineties after other classes were falling by the wayside.  The 'duff' nickname was born of their commonality, again they were objects of scorn back in the day.  Funny how a combination of nostalgia and probably better awareness of the prototype alters their relative popularity and perception.

Edited by 'CHARD
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon all,

Just a quick note to say that I believe the criticism of the O gauge Class 25 flat front end relates only to the early body version (version 1) released a couple of years ago. That has been addressed very effectively on the later body style O gauge version (Version 2, yet to be released), and the feedback for that has been extremely positive so far. In fact, the positive nature of the feedback on Version 2 encouraged us to believe that it would also work well in OO gauge. As I mentioned previously, the CAD images posted at the top of this thread are the actual ones for the OO gauge late body Class 25. There have been a few comments along the lines of 'I hope they get the shape right' - well, the shape is there for you to view and pass comment on!

Personally, I'm taking the lack of criticism so far as a positive sign!

 

All the Best, and thanks for your comments.

 

Ben

I'm no expert, but it looks right, at least to my eyes, something the Bachmann one doesn't do, nor for that matter the flat fronted 7mm 25/1.

Best get a wriggle on, I'd like 2 in my christmas stocking please.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thats it...I must be out of touch. No one gave a monkey about the drab green EE Type 3's. Then around the mid 1980's, people started to go ape over them, probably because of refurbishment and large logo livery. 

25/6/7/40/45s had all exited the stage, it was a choice between being a fan of 31’s or 37’s.

Not a hard choice really.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Good afternoon all,

Just a quick note to say that I believe the criticism of the O gauge Class 25 flat front end relates only to the early body version (version 1) released a couple of years ago. That has been addressed very effectively on the later body style O gauge version (Version 2, yet to be released), and the feedback for that has been extremely positive so far. In fact, the positive nature of the feedback on Version 2 encouraged us to believe that it would also work well in OO gauge. As I mentioned previously, the CAD images posted at the top of this thread are the actual ones for the OO gauge late body Class 25. There have been a few comments along the lines of 'I hope they get the shape right' - well, the shape is there for you to view and pass comment on!

Personally, I'm taking the lack of criticism so far as a positive sign!

 

All the Best, and thanks for your comments.

 

Ben

 

Ben

 

OK, I'll throw my twopenn'orth in.  First of all, I'm no expert and I can't find a dimensioned drawing to back this up, but getting the front of the cab, the locos 'face' right, is  all important to the overall look.

 

Having seen your CAD designs on page 1, it does look like you have captured the right shape.

 

The reason the Bachmann one is wrong is because someone incorrectly assumed the cab front is the same width as the loco body, and it isn't, it is very slightly narrower at the front than the back wall of the cab.  By making the sides of the loco parallel all the way along, that meant the front is too wide and the arc over the windows is too shallow, which makes its face look wrong.

 

I cannot tell you where the taper starts or how much narrower the front is on the real things, but ironically that is something that Hornby Railways with ther R.068 of 1977 managed to get spot on, whatever other faults that model may have!  I have seen on RMWeb Bachmann Rats with Hornby cab transplants to fix the too wide cab problem.

 

Regards

 

Moxy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I think it is quite hard to judge the CADs - the one 3/4 view is from a high angle not usually seen from. I do wonder though if the cab front windows are not quite the correct depth? Its possible it's the effect of the viewing angle and the raked-back windows, but they do look a little shallow to me.

 

I can't tell whether the cab doors are sufficiently recessed - would need to see the lip above the door to be sure.

 

There's a slightly odd part of the curved section of roof in the corner below the horn grills, on the cab front view. The join line appears to drop downwards as it nears the headcode box.

 

Can't see much else of note.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is quite hard to judge the CADs - the one 3/4 view is from a high angle not usually seen from. I do wonder though if the cab front windows are not quite the correct depth? Its possible it's the effect of the viewing angle and the raked-back windows, but they do look a little shallow to me.

 

I can't tell whether the cab doors are sufficiently recessed - would need to see the lip above the door to be sure.

 

There's a slightly odd part of the curved section of roof in the corner below the horn grills, on the cab front view. The join line appears to drop downwards as it nears the headcode box.

 

Can't see much else of note.

I agree about the cab front windows. Seems to be too much space between the bottom and the handrail. There are enough of the things still around for someone to take a tape measure and check on the real thing. This was another thing that Bachmann got wrong although they did deepen the front windows on later releases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, you will excuse my skeptism, but I have followed the progress of others trying to produce replacement cabs for the Bachmann version and whilst the CAD drawings always looked good the resulting 3d prints were often far from good.

 

Initially the posted images do look pretty good, although I haven't been able to scrutinise them in detail yet, the first samples will give a much better indication of how close you have managed to get.

 

Barry

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a moment to compare the CAD images with some photos and I would say it looks pretty good so far.

 

I would question if the cab door window needs to extend up a little more, it is very difficult to judge from photos so might just be my eyes! Also I wondeŕ if the exhaust grille needs to be a touch more pronounced?

 

Barry

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I missed 10.Not too bad for memory not looking it up in a book.

 

As I have said I have modeled all three body types over the years.

 

Edit. It seems odd that I said that I would have a go at modelling the Second Body Style on this a modelling forum and have people pick holes in what I said. Let's all wait for the Heljan model then tell them where they went wrong.

Quite right!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Any idea if there was a "pre-production"model on display today at the NEC..

 

I went but it was "scrum mode" around Heljan stand.So didn't bother.

I didn't see one but there was an O gauge one on display, which looked wrong in shape due to lack of taper of the sides between cab doors and ends. The 'face' didn't look right either. They need to start again from scratch with the 00 one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see one but there was an O gauge one on display, which looked wrong in shape due to lack of taper of the sides between cab doors and ends. The 'face' didn't look right either. They need to start again from scratch with the 00 one.

 

See this thread, Mr Coates knows his stuff as he used to own the real thing with me

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/138816-Heljan-class-253-o-gauge/

Edited by 25901
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Any idea if there was a "pre-production"model on display today at the NEC..

 

I went but it was "scrum mode" around Heljan stand.So didn't bother.

Yes it was hard work there. I spoke briefly to Kim (I'm sure it was he) who was packing an 'O' gauge Western for a purchaser and made his conversation as brief as possible. The subject was the Beyer-Garratt, regarding its pricing and the nature of its modifications/upgrading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...
48 minutes ago, D1051 said:

Heljans Facebook page has a picture of a sample .Taken at Model Rail Scotland (22/2/2019). 

 

 

 

Yes, and it's not very encouraging. Something doesn't look right about the cab area. This may be because the slight taper from cab door to front has not been captured. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At least they are planning different versions as they have put in body side steps The triangle panel and BIS covers are flush which is correct but there's something not right with the curve of the roof to bodyside were the roof vents are (maybe the light)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...