Jump to content

Heljan announce re-tooled Class 86 in OO


Recommended Posts

It is the correct design, the Stone-Faiverly pantograph was standard as built although a few were turned out with diamond cross-arm pans and later on as they suffered damage others got cross arms on repair.  Although the angle of the cad is difficult it looks correct to me, being the design first fitted to the 86 which had a slightly different upper section to the simpler designs fitted to the 81-5s.

The only quibble I can see on the cad is the lower half, I'm pretty sure (but stand to be corrected) that the thineer section was in front of the fatter support, rather than as shown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the correct design, the Stone-Faiverly pantograph was standard as built although a few were turned out with diamond cross-arm pans and later on as they suffered damage others got cross arms on repair. 

The one shown is not a UK style Stone-Faiveley.

Its lower linkage is behind the main arm, indicating it is more like a Siemens type.

Faiveley's have their lower linkage this side of the main arm (as viewed in the picture).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting - all this is AL6 based - what of the flexicoil varieties - are they future plans or has someone else got designs on that now?

 

Hello,

A good question, and one that lots of people are asking. We thought it was better to fill a gap that hadn't been covered by previous releases first, and then (if there's enough demand), to work our way forwards through the variants so that we can do Flexicoil-fitted Class 86/4s and 86/6s and then take another look at the 86/2s later, rather than repeating what had already been produced a few years ago. 

 

Pantograph is based on official drawings of the correct Stone-Faiveley type, but for practical reasons it has had to be 'beefed up' a little to withstand use on 4mm scale catenary. We're waiting to see the first samples 'in the flesh' and will then consider any changes that might be required. 

 

Hope this helps

 

Ben

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

A good question, and one that lots of people are asking. We thought it was better to fill a gap that hadn't been covered by previous releases first, and then (if there's enough demand), to work our way forwards through the variants so that we can do Flexicoil-fitted Class 86/4s and 86/6s and then take another look at the 86/2s later, rather than repeating what had already been produced a few years ago. 

 

Pantograph is based on official drawings of the correct Stone-Faiveley type, but for practical reasons it has had to be 'beefed up' a little to withstand use on 4mm scale catenary. We're waiting to see the first samples 'in the flesh' and will then consider any changes that might be required. 

 

Hope this helps

 

Ben

But shouldn't you now be known as HeljanBen - or even HeljanDave - as it appears you need to be called Dave if you represent your company on here. :jester:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

A good question, and one that lots of people are asking. We thought it was better to fill a gap that hadn't been covered by previous releases first, and then (if there's enough demand), to work our way forwards through the variants so that we can do Flexicoil-fitted Class 86/4s and 86/6s and then take another look at the 86/2s later, rather than repeating what had already been produced a few years ago. 

 

Pantograph is based on official drawings of the correct Stone-Faiveley type, but for practical reasons it has had to be 'beefed up' a little to withstand use on 4mm scale catenary. We're waiting to see the first samples 'in the flesh' and will then consider any changes that might be required. 

 

Hope this helps

 

Ben

Suggest you check your official drawings against pictures of the real thing before getting anything manufactured.

A picture of the correct AMBR type - though not on an 86 - can be seen here:

http://www.traintesting.com/images/mentor-roof.jpg

Here is one on an 86:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Faiveley_AMBR_Pantograph#/media/File:E3146_(8420382865).jpg

Edited by Gordon H
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
features a number of improvements over our previous Class 86s, including ... better bodyside grilles,

 

Hmmmm, a lot of ifs, buts and maybes in my mind.  I suppose it depends on what Heljan mean by "better grilles", if they are to resemble anything close to the 'improved' grilles of the Class 33 then I think I'll pass? 

 

And regardless of pantograph, underframe gear etc etc, the key thing is getting the shape correct, so that this time round it actually looks like an 86!  I'll be keeping my credit card in my wallet until I can see the finished product in the flesh methinks.  But good luck!  ;)

Edited by YesTor
Link to post
Share on other sites

The one shown is not a UK style Stone-Faiveley.

Its lower linkage is behind the main arm, indicating it is more like a Siemens type.

Faiveley's have their lower linkage this side of the main arm (as viewed in the picture).

 

That was my observation as well, but to be honest I did wonder if it was perhaps a hint at some sort of self raising mechanism as per the proposed Bachmann Class 90 pantograph.  That said, even if the pan ends up like this it is streets ahead of the pylon fitted to their 86/2, I think I could live with it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news. Will the tooling still allow modern versions to be produced such as /2 and /6?

 

It's new tooling. After the criticism of the previous 86/2s and 86/6s we wouldn't want to release those again, so any other variants we decide to produce will be developments of this improved tooling. If we decide to produce the later Flexicoil locos they will require further new tooling based on this improved bodyshell, but hopefully with any reusable bits of the old CAD transferred over. No decision has yet been taken about later locos. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I need a lie down.........after chasing my credit car halfway across town.......come here you little git.

 

Same here, versions 8651 to 8656 basically are what I remember watching out of my primary school windows as they flew past the school playing fields between 1968 and 1973 so I think I'm going to have to start selling my body to the old dears in the village as a gigalo between now and next year to raise some cash...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its gone to tooling! 

 

hopefully this time around Heljan invite feedback before that tooling is signed off as perfect.

 

good to see it move to 21 pin rather than 8 pin. the image supplied looks pretty darn good and agree with wombat - gone is the pylonesque sized pan.  anything would have been an improvement lets face it.

 

frothing at what other features it might contain such as cab lighting interior corridor lights tail lights that can be switched out...….???  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's new tooling. After the criticism of the previous 86/2s and 86/6s we wouldn't want to release those again, so any other variants we decide to produce will be developments of this improved tooling. If we decide to produce the later Flexicoil locos they will require further new tooling based on this improved bodyshell, but hopefully with any reusable bits of the old CAD transferred over. No decision has yet been taken about later locos. 

 

That sounds a good move.  I'd especially like a pre refurb Class 86/2 at some point but going for the AL6 first suits me fine.  All I need now is an RTR AM10 unit and I will be able to die happy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben whats the difference between the 8654 and 8655 versions both shown as "BR blue with full yellow ends".  just different numbers or will one depict later locos with the orange cant rail warning stripe along the top of the body?

 

also will the weathered version 8656 be just a weathered version of 54 or 55 or a totally different 3rd variant of that blue with full yellow ends ?

 

I need to start renting out my spare bedroom I think...…….new 85, new 87, new 90 and now a new 86.   Amen though ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent news, although for me too the bodyside grills will be the key factor. I'd also personally like a late 70s BR Blue 86/2 with flexicoils so more closely matches the Hornby 87035 period-wise. I wonder if we'll see that from Hornby in the meantime.

 

How about the numbers 3-1-0?

 

Do you mean one of these? https://www.flickr.com/photos/ssave/23570209610

Edited by brushman47544
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben whats the difference between the 8654 and 8655 versions both shown as "BR blue with full yellow ends".  just different numbers or will one depict later locos with the orange cant rail warning stripe along the top of the body?

 

also will the weathered version 8656 be just a weathered version of 54 or 55 or a totally different 3rd variant of that blue with full yellow ends ?

 

I need to start renting out my spare bedroom I think...…….new 85, new 87, new 90 and now a new 86.   Amen though ! 

 

I'm still working on the specific loco IDs, but the plan is that 8654 with have an 'E31XX' number and 8655 will be TOPS 860XX. 8656 will be a weathered TOPS loco. None of them are late enough to have an orange cantrail stripe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, a lot of ifs, buts and maybes in my mind.  I suppose it depends on what Heljan mean by "better grilles", if they are to resemble anything close to the 'improved' grilles of the Class 33 then I think I'll pass? 

 

Just consider that Heljan's UK operation are under a new person now, so by all means be cautious (which is true for pretty much any manufacturer) but there certainly is reason to be more optimistic now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Just consider that Heljan's UK operation are under a new person now, so by all means be cautious (which is true for pretty much any manufacturer) but there certainly is reason to be more optimistic now.

Wholly agree. A presence and a voice here is exactly what Heljan need.Who better ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see what Gordon is on about regarding the pantograph. I don't know the names of the bits (I could always look in one me books*) but the real thing has the thinner of the two lower arms above the thick one. The upper arm arrangement also looks different, the 86s had like a cage arrangement, which is missing from the CAD.

 

* Thrust rod.

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.