Heljan announce re-tooled Class 86 in OO

[61661]

42 minutes ago, PM47079 said:

Doesn’t need the works plate on the cab side either. The sandbox cover isn’t quite right. But this is only an ep so I imagine some tweaks will be done as it moves forward 

The raised square on the upper part of the cabside isn't a worksplate. In fact, we don't know what it is meant to be. It's not on the CAD, and we didn't ask for it, so it will be removed before any further samples are produced. We've identified a number of issues with this first body sample (the chassis is borrowed from a first batch model and the pantograph is from an AL6 sample) and they are being dealt with. 

 

Hope this helps

 

Ben

[cravensdmufan]

The lower TDM cable ports have been modelled in their original positions; BR very soon moved them down lower due to reliability issues (water ingress I seem to remember being the reason?) leaving the four bolts from each as clearly seen on MGR Hooper's photo of 426 above.

 

Plus of course the original multiple working cable boxes were blanked off by the time later liveries appeared, again as seen in the same photo.

[61661]

1 hour ago, cravensdmufan said:

The lower TDM cable ports have been modelled in their original positions; BR very soon moved them down lower due to reliability issues (water ingress I seem to remember being the reason?) leaving the four bolts from each as clearly seen on MGR Hooper's photo of 426 above.

 

Plus of course the original multiple working cable boxes were blanked off by the time later liveries appeared, again as seen in the same photo.

This is only one of the two bodies we have tooled for the 86/4. The other has the later details you mention - different TDM pocket position and MW cables removed and plated over.

[Anadin Dogwalker]

2 hours ago, PM47079 said:

Doesn’t need the works plate on the cab side either. The sandbox cover isn’t quite right. But this is only an ep so I imagine some tweaks will be done as it moves forward 

The sandbox latches(?)-the smaller bit anyway- should be on the right side not left.

FWIW, the lamp bracket was moved to in front of the drivers feet on almost all /4s, there's one or two locos where they were on the second mans side. The 86/2 retained the original arrangements of 1 lamp bracket on top of each buffer. The brackets migrated on the 87s about 1980 at the same time as the sand fillers were changed from the top hinge with round finger hole to side hinge/ flap (and approx. concurrent with the appearance of cantrail stripes). The /0s and /3s were a mixed bag; there are MU equipped locos that retained the original bracket arrangement, but the /4 rebuild standardised them. The in the early 80s, brackets remained black initially and were repainted yellow, ie work from photos.

[PM47079]

6 hours ago, 61661 said:

The raised square on the upper part of the cabside isn't a worksplate. In fact, we don't know what it is meant to be. It's not on the CAD, and we didn't ask for it, so it will be removed before any further samples are produced. We've identified a number of issues with this first body sample (the chassis is borrowed from a first batch model and the pantograph is from an AL6 sample) and they are being dealt with. 

 

Hope this helps

 

Ben

Thanks Ben that's great to hear. The 86s of the era have a lot of differences with tdm cables headlights fitted/not fitted, blanking plates etc you are to be congratulated for taking on the challenge!!! 

[Johnson Street IEMD]

7 hours ago, Squirrel Rail said:

Make a change from a 90

Well I guess thats what Crewe IEMD looks like today, if i was modelling thirty years ago the same sort of thing, we would be talking about 86s, 87s and getting excited about 89001, wouldnt we ? the 90 is the loco fit for the 21st century and the various electric networks that are appearing ... hell ... even 90035 is as you read this working on the testing of the Midland Mainline electrificiation programme, having done a similar job on the Great Western leccy works. You could say, they are an invaluable part of the makeup of the rail network as we know it, so roll up the pans and roll up the juice !!!

[Squirrel Rail]

31 minutes ago, DBC90024 said:

Well I guess thats what Crewe IEMD looks like today, if i was modelling thirty years ago the same sort of thing, we would be talking about 86s, 87s and getting excited about 89001, wouldnt we ? the 90 is the loco fit for the 21st century and the various electric networks that are appearing ... hell ... even 90035 is as you read this working on the testing of the Midland Mainline electrificiation programme, having done a similar job on the Great Western leccy works. You could say, they are an invaluable part of the makeup of the rail network as we know it, so roll up the pans and roll up the juice !!!

Don't worry Kat - there's plenty more 90s to come before the 86s get started on

[adb968008]

10 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Class 86/4 EP sample was shown off in one of the videos from Hornby Magazine...

 

 

 

The only issue I can spot is that the high intensity headlight seems a lot less pronounced than it should be. Seems rather flat like the ex-Lima/Hornby Class 47. Hope @61661 has made a note of it and will have it changed?

A couple of images for your reference...

 

The picture of 86430 shows a small plated over disc next to the headcode bracket.. is that a “royal train” hole ? Or some other purpose ?

[stovepipe]

27 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

The picture of 86430 shows a small plated over disc next to the headcode bracket.. is that a “royal train” hole ? Or some other purpose ?

 

 I was thinking the same thing - Royal Train comms hole, it'd be good to know.

 

Edit: think it was the place the original 1970s headlight was fitted, a mod that around a dozen of the class had.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by stovepipe

[MRDBLUE17]

Hi Ben,

 

Great to see progress with the 86’s. I’m looking forward to a Freightliner pairing which will go nicely with Arrans FSA/FTA’s rake when it appears in 4mm.

 

All the best

Mark

[andyman7]

Looking at the development work brings home how messy the original very clean front ends got as bits were added, removed and plated over

Edited October 13, 2020 by andyman7

[No Decorum]

These look pretty good and the spec excellent. It’s probably unfair to judge a sample painted a light grey but I wonder how the flexicoil springs will turn out. Even those on Bachmann’s fine Class 90 have been criticised. It’s a tricky one but they are a very prominent feature.

[MGR Hooper!]

4 hours ago, No Decorum said:

These look pretty good and the spec excellent. It’s probably unfair to judge a sample painted a light grey but I wonder how the flexicoil springs will turn out. Even those on Bachmann’s fine Class 90 have been criticised. It’s a tricky one but they are a very prominent feature.

I think they'll be fine, I just got an unpainted Hornby Class 90 bodyshell which has the same setup. Looks odd when not painted. Looks perfectly fine when painted.

Edited October 13, 2020 by MGR Hooper!

[Johnson Street IEMD]

On 12/10/2020 at 07:03, MGR Hooper! said:

Class 86/4 EP sample was shown off in one of the videos from Hornby Magazine...

 

 

 

The only issue I can spot is that the high intensity headlight seems a lot less pronounced than it should be. Seems rather flat like the ex-Lima/Hornby Class 47. Hope @61661 has made a note of it and will have it changed?

A couple of images for your reference...

 

 

 

Panto still looks a touch high off the roof of the body  ?

 

[cravensdmufan]

46 minutes ago, DBC90024 said:

 

Panto still looks a touch high off the roof of the body  ?

 

Indeed it does, and the pantograph itself looks slightly overscale.

 

It's the same old chestnut though.  The dilemma for manufacturers seems to be either working and chunky, or non-working and finer scale (as per Hornby's Brecknell Willis on their 87).  Modellers will have their own particular preference - it has been previously discussed at length.  Personally I am in the scale, non-working camp.

 

But I do find it strange that European models do have finer scale and operating pantographs.  Maybe production costs and therefore retail prices are that much higher?    

[ThaneofFife]

working or non working robust or non robust there should be no reason whatsoever why that pan is mounted so high off the roof..........it cannot be that big a deal to correct?   shorter insulators that it sits on.  there.  easy.  My invoice is in the post.

[Gibbo675]

Hi Folks,

 

If it was easy we would all be doing it:

 

There would have been a class 82 but I have had very serious issues with the poor standard of decoration of the class 82 and as such I have given myself the sack !

 

Gibbo.

[Johnson Street IEMD]

34 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Folks,

 

If it was easy we would all be doing it:

 

There would have been a class 82 but I have had very serious issues with the poor standard of decoration of the class 82 and as such I have given myself the sack !

 

Gibbo.

 

Nice !!!

 

Have you got a decent standard of knitting to deliver the juice for these classic leviathons ? 

 

Kat@johnsonstreetIEMD

[Gibbo675]

3 minutes ago, DBC90024 said:

 

Nice !!!

 

Have you got a decent standard of knitting to deliver the juice for these classic leviathons ? 

 

Kat@johnsonstreetIEMD

Hi There,

 

I don't currently have a layout never mind overhead wires !

 

Such is life,

 

Gibbo.

[Johnson Street IEMD]

10 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi There,

 

I don't currently have a layout never mind overhead wires !

 

Such is life,

 

Gibbo.

What a shame, there was me imagining a 1960s version of Johnson Street IEMD flooded with AL1-6 activity ?

 

Instead of United colours of DB ruled by Skodas, Dysons and Sheds, a concophony of BR Blue roarers and cans

 

The knitting and the depot still looking the same 

 

Happy Modelling !!!

 

Kat@johnsonstreetIEMD

 

[letterspider]

3 hours ago, cravensdmufan said:

Indeed it does, and the pantograph itself looks slightly overscale.

 

It's the same old chestnut though.  The dilemma for manufacturers seems to be either working and chunky, or non-working and finer scale (as per Hornby's Brecknell Willis on their 87).  Modellers will have their own particular preference - it has been previously discussed at length.  Personally I am in the scale, non-working camp.

 

But I do find it strange that European models do have finer scale and operating pantographs.  Maybe production costs and therefore retail prices are that much higher?    

 

If the pantograph is done badly then it is really frustrating because Bachmann and Hornby have both shown it can be done at a reasonable price point,  Accurascale promising even more with their 92.

And the biggest frustration of all is that there is no hope of replacing these with something finer in anything but HO scale. 

Those samples may just be the body shells with the chassis and pantos from the older 86 and the production model may have true to scale parts, not long before we find out, I guess Christmas?

 

 

[Wagonmaster]

1 hour ago, letterspider said:

 

If the pantograph is done badly then it is really frustrating because Bachmann and Hornby have both shown it can be done at a reasonable price point,  Accurascale promising even more with their 92.

And the biggest frustration of all is that there is no hope of replacing these with something finer in anything but HO scale. 

Those samples may just be the body shells with the chassis and pantos from the older 86 and the production model may have true to scale parts, not long before we find out, I guess Christmas?

 

 

 

Well there might be hope for us. Michael Edge of Judith Edge Kits has recently posted a constructed test etch of their forthcoming Stone-Faively AMBR pantograph in 4mm scale!

[Johnson Street IEMD]

One would think Heljan wouldnt want to get this aspect wrong this time, lots of chatter in here about the cosmetic differences between one era of 86 and another but the pantograph aspect for a premium electric model is important to get right, the devil is, in the detail.

[MGR Hooper!]

As for the pantograph, seems like Heljan already made corrections from what we saw in the CAD stage, so I have little hope that they'd re-visit it again to correct the height (*please prove me wrong Heljan). It was mentioned multiple times before, but as usual I'm fairly certain it either wasn't noted or they deemed it too minor to bother about. Or maybe like in a certain other Heljan thread, we'd be blamed for not finding the issue when we already pointed it out.

[Johnson Street IEMD]

9 hours ago, Wagpnmaster said:

 

Well there might be hope for us. Michael Edge of Judith Edge Kits has recently posted a constructed test etch of their forthcoming Stone-Faively AMBR pantograph in 4mm scale!

 

@Wagpnmaster do you have a picture of this? or link to the page on the net about this?

 

@61661 FYI Mr Heljan man ... dont want you guys to go to all those lengths making us a new sparkly (pun intended ever so slightly) 86 to then have these sorts of issues with it ... 

 

Kat@johnsonstreetIEMD