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

[Pteremy]

Does seem curious. I would have thought that it is just a question of halting/completing the chassis assembly process at an appropriate point, before the no longer needed components are added. With a saving in both assembly time and components. 

[Guest Half-full]

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

Calm down dear, its only a model train. I'm not doing any fancy maths or getting overexcited, just demonstrating that it is possible to sell unpowered versions at a lower price than powered.

 

That £40 price is a clearance price from Olivia's who clearly have very large quantity to get rid of, having sold 50 already and having "more than 10" left. So it is not necessarily representative of the cost of a chassis. And stripping parts and selling them has no relation to the cost making a powered or unpowered chassis.

 

Frankly only Heljan know the cost differential but I'd wager £1 it is possible to build and sell unpowered ETHEL's for less than the powered ones, just for business reasons they have chosen not to. Doesn't mean that Heljan are the root of all evil or anything, just disappointing having been led to expect a price differential.

I was reading about Rapido's F40 baggage loco's (Cabbage!) which in reality where converted from working locomotives to parcels vans, with a cab.  Rapido modelled them as powered as they said the difference in cost between powered and unpowered was only a few dollars.

[Guest Half-full]

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Probably about 50% cheaper. A good direct comparison

 

Dapol Hymek £115 powered £47 unpowered

Dapol 122 £134 powered £58 unpowered

 

At the end of the day they just need a bogie moulding to hold the wheels in the bogies and can leave out the motor and electronic gubbins. Lights aren't required.

 

Designing a bespoke bogie moulding, not only to hold the wheels but also to mount to the chassis frame, would cost a large amount of money, much more than the savings made by not installing the drive train and electronics.

 

 

[66738]

I’ll just take the drive shafts out and perhaps the motor too. I intend to put an old v3.5 sound chip in, and just have it ticking over in the train formation as it would have been. I don’t see why it would need a more sophisticated chip. 
66738

[Opelsi]

6 hours ago, 66738 said:

I’ll just take the drive shafts out and perhaps the motor too.

 

Same here.

That is exactly what I did with my Class 15 ADB968000 in Sherwood Green.

It can be dragged to where needed for mock carriage heating, whereas the Class 25 ETHEL will essentially be dragged within a (Class 37 hauled on my layout) moving train.

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, yes I know they are Class 97 or similar in they're heating capacities! lol

Edited March 22, 2020 by Opelsi
typo

[61661]

13 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Probably about 50% cheaper. A good direct comparison

 

Dapol Hymek £115 powered £47 unpowered

Dapol 122 £134 powered £58 unpowered

 

At the end of the day they just need a bogie moulding to hold the wheels in the bogies and can leave out the motor and electronic gubbins. Lights aren't required.

 

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

[PaulRhB]

16 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

but I'd wager £1 it is possible to build and sell unpowered ETHEL's for less than the powered ones,

 

Yes as Ben says above it is, but only a few pounds, tooling up extra bits for the bogie would swallow that up too

This was true when I worked for RJH 25 years ago when people couldn’t get their heads round the coaches costing just a few pounds less than a loco. We were always pointing out that effectively it was only the motor and gears different in parts supplied. 
 

 

16 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

 

just for business reasons they have chosen not to.

Quite sensible ones though Athearn, (in the much larger American market), used to supply unpowered dummies, in the days they supplied locos as partial kits, but abandoned it when they went fully rtr as savings were lost due to the split production. 

[adb968008]

20 hours ago, Pteremy said:

Does seem curious. I would have thought that it is just a question of halting/completing the chassis assembly process at an appropriate point, before the no longer needed components are added. With a saving in both assembly time and components. 

Ive dismantled Heljan locos plenty of times, it only takes a few minutes to build a bogie tower from bits, the motor drops in, theres not many screws.

 

The hardest part Ive found is securing the bogie towers to its pivot, which I think is an art Ive not learned properly... motor and circuit board are the dead easy bits.

 

from experience on my other locos, making a dummy wouldn't require anything specific to be tooled, just remove the shafts and unplug the motor. If you went whole hog, you could remove the gears from the tower, lights, motor, board. 

But i’ll leave my ethel motorised, it’ll be assisting my elderly Lima WHL Scottie / White stripe 37’s on my mega gradients, just as my Bachmann Intercity ethel does today. I dont do DCC, but I’d guess a number would want an Ethel power unit running away unpower whilst standing still... thats why steam enthusiasts Nationwide clubbed together to buy a generator car and see the Ethels off... you couldn't hear the steam loco for it.

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by adb968008

[Opelsi]

Apologies if raised previously, I have 25093 on order from the new Heljan release schedule.

 

It is listed as a Class 25/3, whereas my 'Platform 5' publication Diesel & Electric Register shows it as a Class 25/2.

 

 Which  is correct and are there any external differences between the two sub-classes please?

[Roy Langridge]

1 hour ago, Opelsi said:

Apologies if raised previously, I have 25093 on order from the new Heljan release schedule.

 

It is listed as a Class 25/3, whereas my 'Platform 5' publication Diesel & Electric Register shows it as a Class 25/2.

 

 Which  is correct and are there any external differences between the two sub-classes please?

 

Can't talk about the differences, but it was a 25/2.

 

Roy

[Phil Bullock]

2 hours ago, Opelsi said:

Apologies if raised previously, I have 25093 on order from the new Heljan release schedule.

 

It is listed as a Class 25/3, whereas my 'Platform 5' publication Diesel & Electric Register shows it as a Class 25/2.

 

 Which  is correct and are there any external differences between the two sub-classes please?

 

All 25/3 (D7598 - D7677, 25248 - 25327) had the later pattern body shell with cant rail rather than bodyside grilles - none with boilers.

 

25/2 (D5233 - D7597, 25083 - 25247) were a more mixed batch as follows:

 

D5233 - D5237 (25083 -25087) had the later pattern body shell but were boiler fitted - water tanks between bogies

 

D5238 - D7568 (25088 - 25218) had the later pattern body shell and no boilers - largely indistinguishable from 25/3

 

D7569 - D7597 (25219 - 25247) had the earlier pattern body shell and were boiler fitted - largely indistinguishable from 25/1

 

Main difference between all 25/2 and 25/3 were around generators and control gear but not obvious externally.

 

Hope that helps

 

 

Edited March 24, 2020 by Phil Bullock

[61661]

On 24/03/2020 at 13:43, Opelsi said:

Apologies if raised previously, I have 25093 on order from the new Heljan release schedule.

 

It is listed as a Class 25/3, whereas my 'Platform 5' publication Diesel & Electric Register shows it as a Class 25/2.

 

 Which  is correct and are there any external differences between the two sub-classes please?

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 

[Legend]

Does nobody else hear the streak in their minds when they see the header of this thread or is it just me . " Don't look Ethel.........but it was tooooooo  late "

[Phil Bullock]

43 minutes ago, Legend said:

Does nobody else hear the streak in their minds when they see the header of this thread or is it just me . " Don't look Ethel.........but it was tooooooo  late "

 

Doesnt that belong on an A4 thread?

Edited March 25, 2020 by Phil Bullock

[26power]

9 hours ago, 61661 said:

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 

Could the title of this thread be edited to reflect this?  Presumably needs a moderator?

[Ian J.]

The original poster can change the thread title by editing the first post in the thread. As that poster was Andy Y, then in this case it would be him. Or otherwise, it may be possible for a general moderator to do it.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Ian J.

[cheesysmith]

Just a note to anyone wanting to make their ethel unpowered, you will need to remove the worm from the top of the bogie tower as well as the drive shafts. Or remove the gears from the bogie itself. Unless the worm has been specially engineered, they will not back drive, so would prevent being hauled.

 

 

[Porcy Mane]

Has the latest update been commented on?

 

https://railsofsheffield.com/news/articles/3489-Heljan-oo-class-25-sample

[Roy Langridge]

41 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

Has the latest update been commented on?

 

https://railsofsheffield.com/news/articles/3489-Heljan-oo-class-25-sample

The break between the two greens looks slightly too low. You can see that the horizontal hinge for the access panel on the side has broken into the dark green.  It only does this when vertical hinges have been fitted. I thought in two-one the cab gutter was green, but I am not 100% sure on that?
 

I would like to know what else is being fixed. The cab door is still wrong. It should extend above the  cab side windows, with the top of the cab door window being pretty much level with the cab side window. This spoils the look for me. 
 

I am also puzzled how the bottom of the cab doors now looks almost flush. Is that just the angle of the photo?

 

edit: the facebook photos show the cab door isn’t flush at the botton which is good. The cab door looks slightly better squarer on, but the window is just too small, the “beading” around it being too prominent in my opinion. 

 

Roy

Edited July 20, 2020 by Roy Langridge

[25901]

Bottom of door is flush if correct rain strip is fitted to door. Top marks for them doing the correct fiberglass roof that the 25s have but very low marks for the rad. grill (this is how the grill should look like)

Edited July 20, 2020 by 25901

[adb968008]

On 20/07/2020 at 21:22, 25901 said:

Bottom of door is flush if correct rain strip is fitted to door. Top marks for them doing the correct fiberglass roof that the 25s have but very low marks for the rad. grill (this is how the grill should look like)

gosh, hasnt it scrubbed up well...

 

i think we will both be modelling the same re-number, when its released. :-)

Edited May 16, 2021 by adb968008

[25901]

9 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

gosh, hasnt it scrubbed up well...

She did didn't she, too many late nights as you may know too well lol (happy times)

[Covkid]

On 24/03/2020 at 15:54, Phil Bullock said:

 

All 25/3 (D7598 - D7677, 25248 - 25327) had the later pattern body shell with cant rail rather than bodyside grilles - none with boilers.

 

25/2 (D5233 - D7597, 25083 - 25247) were a more mixed batch as follows:

 

D5233 - D5237 (25083 -25087) had the later pattern body shell but were boiler fitted - water tanks between bogies

 

D5238 - D7568 (25088 - 25218) had the later pattern body shell and no boilers - largely indistinguishable from 25/3

 

D7569 - D7597 (25219 - 25247) had the earlier pattern body shell and were boiler fitted - largely indistinguishable from 25/1

 

Main difference between all 25/2 and 25/3 were around generators and control gear but not obvious externally.

 

Hope that helps

 

 

 

Minor correction Phil D7568 which later became 25218 was the first of the earlier design 25/2s. They were 25218-25247 (D7568-D7597) and were actually built more or less concurrently with the last of the 25/1s - hence the same bodyshell design. D7568 (25218) was delivered to the operators September 1963 whereas D5182 (25082) was delivered two months later in November 1963. 

 

 

[Roy Langridge]

10 hours ago, 25901 said:

Bottom of door is flush if correct rain strip is fitted to door. Top marks for them doing the correct fiberglass roof that the 25s have but very low marks for the rad. grill (this is how the grill should look like)

That photo shows perfectly my issue with the cab door. The EP shown looks to have a dumpy door with a small window and an enormous bevel around it. I don’t think it is just the angle of the photo doing it. Heljan have not made the top of the door “tuck under” the overhang, as a result they have made a gap that isn’t there, pushing the top of the door down.
 

I would love manufacturers to show EP photos square on, front, side and top, to make comparisons more easily. 
 

Anyhow, as I have said elsewhere, my finger has been hovering on the cancel order button as I was unhappy with what I was seeing. As it stands, finger has now been removed and order remains. 
 

Roy

[25901]

Quick renumber lol