Heljan announce re-tooled Class 86 in OO

[97406]

The pantograph looks good, but nearly destroyed some of my new catenary due to the pan head not sitting straight and the springing being too strong. My banger blue one now has a spare Sommerfeldt 927 on a Hornby base. The original blue ones have had the springs removed and a tweak so that they can be posed at about the right height. This is something that does need to be addressed, and watch out if you have modelled OHLE. Beware!

Edited May 19, 2021 by 97406

[letterspider]

I have that Sommerfeldt and although very fine is also very robust - apart from the base really would have been a better choice for Heljan.

I agree that of itself the pantograph looks good and is an improvement in the right direction, however when the Heljan 86 is put next to a Bachmann 85 or 90, you get the feeling that Bachmann were uncompromising in their aims

 

[Pete the Elaner]

3 hours ago, 97406 said:

They look similar to the castings I took off the Hornby 87, size-wise. I wonder if the ones on the 50 are a touch too big having scrutinised some photos, though I still think the Hornby 87 ones are a little too small.

 

When designing them, I checked photos of class 87s, 50s & 58s. The fittings looked different. I'll make no claim about my artwork being bang on. I certainly guesstimated them, but from photos of class 87s, not 50s or 58s.

 

My 3d printed ones are certainly different to those on a Hornby class 50; the 50s being taller but the receptacle on the 2nd man's side of the 87 is wider.

[97406]

6 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

When designing them, I checked photos of class 87s, 50s & 58s. The fittings looked different. I'll make no claim about my artwork being bang on. I certainly guesstimated them, but from photos of class 87s, not 50s or 58s.

 

My 3d printed ones are certainly different to those on a Hornby class 50; the 50s being taller but the receptacle on the 2nd man's side of the 87 is wider.

Yes, I think the real 50 ones may be different too having squinted at photos. I really need to get up close and personal to 87002 that has a real set. Here's my Hornby 87 duplicates.

[97406]

19 hours ago, Strathyre said:

are those available to buy?

 

Paul

I understand you can send the file to a commercial 3d printer like Shapeways and they print them. I have some class 86 compressor shelves (from someone on here), to replace the one I broke on my Heljan model, and also for my Hornby fleet in due course. https://www.shapeways.com/product/7SX4KWHEF/1-76-class-86-underframe-with-one-compressor

 

[97406]

10 hours ago, letterspider said:

I have that Sommerfeldt and although very fine is also very robust - apart from the base really would have been a better choice for Heljan.

I agree that of itself the pantograph looks good and is an improvement in the right direction, however when the Heljan 86 is put next to a Bachmann 85 or 90, you get the feeling that Bachmann were uncompromising in their aims

 

My 2 non-sprung Heljan pans now work quite well, but I’ll go for the Sommerfeldts. It looks like the Heljan metal base can be fettled with a file so the pan just drops in like the Hornby bases I’ve used before.

 

The Hornby crossarm pan from their 87 also doesn’t work properly on catenary, with the pan head flopping over to the side, which is a real shame as I like the look of it. I have a poseable Judith Edge crossarm pan on an 86, but my soldering skills weren’t quite up to making it work fully, alas.

[Johnson Street IEMD]

9 hours ago, 97406 said:

Yes, I think the real 50 ones may be different too having squinted at photos. I really need to get up close and personal to 87002 that has a real set. Here's my Hornby 87 duplicates.

 

Was it relatively easy to make those triangular cantilevers? As I'm planning to use that style on my layout ? :-)

[97406]

25 minutes ago, DBC90024 said:

 

Was it relatively easy to make those triangular cantilevers? As I'm planning to use that style on my layout ? :-)

Yes, using the Peco mast I drew a sketch on graph paper, based on a photo of the real thing. I used .75mm nickel silver rod for the main triangle and side assembly, and .5mm brass wire for the registration arm (I think that’s what it’s called) that holds the contact wire. I found this flexed a little too much on some so some got replaced with slightly thicker wire. I used thin masking tape to hold down the components that needed soldering. I made a top piece out of a strip of plasticard, and insulators from 0.3mm brass wire coiled around the .75mm nickel silver wire. Apart from the soldered joints they are glued together with superglue. The thing is to ensure the contact wire is lower than any other parts of the assembly or the pan head will catch it. The contact wires are held in place with a blob of superglue, and this can be heated with a soldering iron if you want to remove a piece of wire for maintenance.

 

The picture above is the test piece, the proof-of-concept if you will, so that’s your first thing to do before it gets rolled out on the layout. .

Edited May 20, 2021 by 97406

[Johnson Street IEMD]

Thank you .. is it okay if I refer this method on to my OLE builder ? @97406 He's on here but I dont think he is a regular under the tag amertonman ...

[97406]

14 minutes ago, DBC90024 said:

Thank you .. is it okay if I refer this method on to my OLE builder ? @97406 He's on here but I dont think he is a regular under the tag amertonman ...

Of course, go for it. Let me know of any improvements he may have. The wires are standard Peco BTW, but shortened as required.

[97406]

3 hours ago, DBC90024 said:

Thank you .. is it okay if I refer this method on to my OLE builder ? @97406 He's on here but I dont think he is a regular under the tag amertonman ...

There's a pic of a spare assembly on my thread:

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by 97406

[dmu 156]

On 16/05/2021 at 00:15, NorthenElectric91 said:

The side by side comparison reveals a few interesting things livery wise. One being just how off white/grey the window surrounds on the AL5 are compared to the AL6, when really they should be white (the roof dome IS white so I'm not quite sure what went wrong there...? )   Anyway, most importantly the shade of blue for the AL6 is definitely darker and more green than the AL5 electric blue, but a little lighter than the BR blue models, so it looks to me like they got it right.   It could even be a touch darker in my opinion but I will give it a pass.

 

The roof section is slightly less convincing - the shades of grey seem a little confused an those unpainted black bits spoil it a little.   The bus bar should be red (as on the AL5) and the pantograph looks rather garish in unpainted silver.   Still, these are all things a dab of paint can correct, so not deal breakers.

 

All of the major criticisms of the body seem to have been addressed. The grilles are correct, the windscreen wipers are mounted correctly and the tail light surrounds are correct for the era.

As a few people have mentioned though, the main hand rail is slightly disapointing - both the old 86 and Hornby's new 87 did it better. Perhaps an area to modify/retrofit.

 

As with the old 86, motor is excellent and the underframe detailing superb.   Comparing the bogies between the two classes, the AL6 has better relief of the lower stretcher bar but the AL5 has better steps and brake components - the cylinders on the AL6 look too shallow IMO.

One slightly strange feature is that the triangular bogie side mounts are mounted to the bogies themselves, rather than the bodyside, as correctly modelled on the AL5. I'm not sure why Heljan did it that way? The gap between the two isn't to noticeable in truth, though it can look a little odd if the loco is parked on a curve.

 

I'm not entirely convinced by the new pantograph... the shape of the base doesn't look right and unfortunately, as with the AL5, the geometry is wrong so the pickup head flops forward rather than staying level to the contact wire.  Perhaps that can be corrected (?). The gap between the upper most part of the frame bothers me - why is it there?

Having said all that, it IS a step forward over the old 86.

Though right now I am thinking of doing a pan swap and renumbering - maybe E3161 or E3162, both of which carried different pantographs from new anyway.

 

Overall, a nice model, excellent motor and much improved body shell.  Could maybe have tried a little harder on the roof detailing.  I'd give it a 7.5/10.

I await the arrival of the new 86/4 with much intrigue

 

[dmu 156]

The pantograph on the AL5 is a Stone Faiverley AMBR type, it is a pretty good representation and its shape is about right. The pan head is set to be straight when it is at its full height. This can be modified as I have done on my Bachmann 85, you shorten the pan head control rod by about 0.5 mm, remove the control rod from the knuckle end, straighten out the manufacturer's bend. You can now move the control rod back and forth this will show you how much the pan head can be adjusted to suit the height of your catenary contact wire. When you've  got your pan head level, bend the rod at the point it goes through the hole at the knuckle end, this will keep the pan head level at the height you need it and cause the pan head to roll backwards when at its full height.

[dmu 156]

On 16/05/2021 at 00:15, NorthenElectric91 said:

The side by side comparison reveals a few interesting things livery wise. One being just how off white/grey the window surrounds on the AL5 are compared to the AL6, when really they should be white (the roof dome IS white so I'm not quite sure what went wrong there...? )   Anyway, most importantly the shade of blue for the AL6 is definitely darker and more green than the AL5 electric blue, but a little lighter than the BR blue models, so it looks to me like they got it right.   It could even be a touch darker in my opinion but I will give it a pass.

 

The roof section is slightly less convincing - the shades of grey seem a little confused an those unpainted black bits spoil it a little.   The bus bar should be red (as on the AL5) and the pantograph looks rather garish in unpainted silver.   Still, these are all things a dab of paint can correct, so not deal breakers.

 

All of the major criticisms of the body seem to have been addressed. The grilles are correct, the windscreen wipers are mounted correctly and the tail light surrounds are correct for the era.

As a few people have mentioned though, the main hand rail is slightly disapointing - both the old 86 and Hornby's new 87 did it better. Perhaps an area to modify/retrofit.

 

As with the old 86, motor is excellent and the underframe detailing superb.   Comparing the bogies between the two classes, the AL6 has better relief of the lower stretcher bar but the AL5 has better steps and brake components - the cylinders on the AL6 look too shallow IMO.

One slightly strange feature is that the triangular bogie side mounts are mounted to the bogies themselves, rather than the bodyside, as correctly modelled on the AL5. I'm not sure why Heljan did it that way? The gap between the two isn't to noticeable in truth, though it can look a little odd if the loco is parked on a curve.

 

I'm not entirely convinced by the new pantograph... the shape of the base doesn't look right and unfortunately, as with the AL5, the geometry is wrong so the pickup head flops forward rather than staying level to the contact wire.  Perhaps that can be corrected (?). The gap between the upper most part of the frame bothers me - why is it there?

Having said all that, it IS a step forward over the old 86.

Though right now I am thinking of doing a pan swap and renumbering - maybe E3161 or E3162, both of which carried different pantographs from new anyway.

 

Overall, a nice model, excellent motor and much improved body shell.  Could maybe have tried a little harder on the roof detailing.  I'd give it a 7.5/10.

I await the arrival of the new 86/4 with much intrigue

 

[dmu 156]

If you accidently break the control rod when straightening and re-bending then it can be replaced using brass wire of the same diameter which is easier to bend. It happened to me on one of Class 85's when I did the adjustment.

[dmu 156]

Another option to improve the pantograph on the Heljan 86 is to use an etched base from PH Designs with a Sommerfeldt 968 pantograph [remove the short legs and insulators], swap the pan head for a Sommerfeldt 980]. The pantograph fits perfectly into the etched base. This is one of several Hornby 86s that I have modified.

[ThaneofFife]

does anybody know if the next release inc 86404 executive livery will have independent cab interior  lights?  i understand heljans plan was better circuitry on later versions....

[97406]

On 22/05/2021 at 12:16, dmu 156 said:

Another option to improve the pantograph on the Heljan 86 is to use an etched base from PH Designs with a Sommerfeldt 968 pantograph [remove the short legs and insulators], swap the pan head for a Sommerfeldt 980]. The pantograph fits perfectly into the etched base. This is one of several Hornby 86s that I have modified.

Are these still in production, as I couldn’t find them on the site? I found out that the Heljan base is plastic, not metal last night, and not quite capable of taking the fettling needed for the pan to fit in snugly.

[Pandora]

I'm thinking of buying  the recent Heljan 86.

Please may I enquire,

 

is there a side by side  comparison of the new retooled Heljan 86 and the original Heljan 86 or around 15 years ago, pointing out the errors?

Is there a comparison between the  35 year old Hornby 86 and the new Heljan 86?

Is the new Heljan 86  as good as the Hornby 87?

[dmu 156]

I emailed PH Designs last week to see if the pantograph base was still available, he replied he hasn't done any for awhile but he can still get them etched but isn't sure of the cost. If you contact him either by email or phone I'm sure he can give you that information. 

[Hal Nail]

20 minutes ago, Pandora said:

Is there a side by side  comparison of the new retooled Heljan 86 and the original Heljan 86 or around 15 years ago, pointing out the errors?

There are plenty of comparison photos in this thread if you skim back over the pages since it was released.

[97406]

2 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

There are plenty of comparison photos in this thread if you skim back over the pages since it was released.

Go from P32 onwards. I’m running detailed and flush glazed Hornby 86s alongside the new Heljan ones and will be getting a couple of Heljan’s 86/4s when they come out.

[dmu 156]

I have just completed the Judith Edge cross-arm pantograph kit. I see in the posts some of you have give this kit a go with mixed results. I did alter the upper arm configuration from the kit instructions in that I didn't use 4 pieces of wire and the cross bracing parts on the etch. I made the upper arms from 2 pieces of wire, bending each wire as a back to front 'N' , use the upper arm double pivot jig on the etch to form the first arm but instead of cutting the wire, feed it into the pivot on the lower arm, bend it up diagonally to the other side of the pan head, through the pan head pivot. bend it back down to the other lower arm pivot making sure its exactly the same length as the first upper arm. Repeat the process for the other side, this will give the prototype upper arm configuration. If you have an old Lima diamond pantograph this has the wire bent this way but with the diagonal wire going the opposite way forming an 'N' itself. I do intend to improve the kit further to make soldering up the moving parts easier for others using a micro brass tube where the lower arms and parallel linkages are soldered to the wire at the bottom.

I'll keep you all posted on this.

[dmu 156]

This is a schematic drawing of the cross arm in the lowered position showing the the diagonal bracing

[97406]

On 31/05/2021 at 21:00, dmu 156 said:

I have just completed the Judith Edge cross-arm pantograph kit. I see in the posts some of you have give this kit a go with mixed results. I did alter the upper arm configuration from the kit instructions in that I didn't use 4 pieces of wire and the cross bracing parts on the etch. I made the upper arms from 2 pieces of wire, bending each wire as a back to front 'N' , use the upper arm double pivot jig on the etch to form the first arm but instead of cutting the wire, feed it into the pivot on the lower arm, bend it up diagonally to the other side of the pan head, through the pan head pivot. bend it back down to the other lower arm pivot making sure its exactly the same length as the first upper arm. Repeat the process for the other side, this will give the prototype upper arm configuration. If you have an old Lima diamond pantograph this has the wire bent this way but with the diagonal wire going the opposite way forming an 'N' itself. I do intend to improve the kit further to make soldering up the moving parts easier for others using a micro brass tube where the lower arms and parallel linkages are soldered to the wire at the bottom.

I'll keep you all posted on this.

Well done, it really is a thing of beauty! I may have a go at another one. I fell short of being able to get the parallel motion soldered in properly, and my diagonal bracing's based on a mirror universe example, but I just used a few blobs of glue to keep mine at a fixed height. I ended up doing similar with my Hornby 87 as the crossarm pantograph’s pan head flops to the side and it  doesn’t stand the test of time in use. Pic here https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/164738-nifkins-bridge-tmd/&do=findComment&comment=4461631

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by 97406