Jump to content
Non-Gold users will see a video pop-up ad on most screens. This is a test. It should not appear on mobiles etc. ×

Heljan announce re-tooled Class 86 in OO


Andy Y
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, VXDH92 said:

...and I'm not sure I have the skill to rectify it!

 

That skill can be learnt, your eye for detail is a good place to start. :)

Edited by 97406
  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Not sure why you are having “ conniptions “ ( WTF ?) about people pointing stuff out.

I know nothing about class 86s, and I don’t want one , but I have been collecting  models for 25 years and I’m surprised that cables aren’t modelled by cables. 
 

it looks a bit poor if that is the final result - and there won’t be amendments to the tooling if they’ve reached the final decorated sample stage.

The problem is people are going on about printed RCH cables after Heljan have said several times they are not.  That's just plain lazy and jumping to conclusions that are wrong, have been explained to be wrong, yet they seem to just want to put the boot in.  Having an informed discussion about the moulded cables is something else, I must admit I'm not entirely sure of moulded wires, although they will be slightly more robust than separate fittings, I too don't feel that given the level of detail elsewhere they quite cut the mustard, and the response from Ben clearly explains that the issue could be revisited in the future for further batches.  If people feel they prefer to have separately fitted cables, and are happy to raise the issue, that's the kind of feedback that makes sense, but assuming Heljan were going to print the cables despite saying the opposite is just ridiculous.

Conniptions: "a fit of rage or hysterics.".  Look it up.  I'm not having conniptions but some of the histrionic responses elsewhere to "printed" RCH cables were definitely in that definition.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 61661 said:

Not at this stage unfortunately. Tooling is fixed and we’re moving through the deco stage. So far I’ve received messages asking for them to be printed cables(!), separate cables and saying they’re OK as they are, so it’s obviously a subjective thing. We can’t please everyone! 
However, given the feedback we’ll investigate whether it’s possible/practical to have separate cables on future releases.

 

Ben

I think the main problem is what appears to be the perfect symmetry of the cables on the model. In real life they were subtly different, or all over the place if they weren't reattached properly after use!

Edited by 97406
  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:

The problem is people are going on about printed RCH cables after Heljan have said several times they are not.  That's just plain lazy and jumping to conclusions that are wrong, have been explained to be wrong, yet they seem to just want to put the boot in.  Having an informed discussion about the moulded cables is something else, I must admit I'm not entirely sure of moulded wires, although they will be slightly more robust than separate fittings, I too don't feel that given the level of detail elsewhere they quite cut the mustard, and the response from Ben clearly explains that the issue could be revisited in the future for further batches.  If people feel they prefer to have separately fitted cables, and are happy to raise the issue, that's the kind of feedback that makes sense, but assuming Heljan were going to print the cables despite saying the opposite is just ridiculous.

Conniptions: "a fit of rage or hysterics.".  Look it up.  I'm not having conniptions but some of the histrionic responses elsewhere to "printed" RCH cables were definitely in that definition.

Hi Mr Wombat,

 

Here is a quote from Aldous Huxley that may make you smile:

 

"Beware of being too rational. In the country of the insane, the integrated man doesn't become king. He gets lynched."

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Gibbo675 said:

 

"Beware of being too rational. In the country of the insane, the integrated man doesn't become king. He gets lynched."

 

in similar vein*, a friend said to me yesterday "FFS! You know damn well everyone is thick, so why are you still surprised by their behavior?!"

 

 

*slightly less eloquent

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested in seeing how Heljan approach the Bracknell Willes pan that some of these locos are going to get.

Ben! do you know which of these locos are going to be receiving BW pans? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wombatofludham said:

The problem is people are going on about printed RCH cables after Heljan have said several times they are not.  That's just plain lazy and jumping to conclusions that are wrong, have been explained to be wrong, yet they seem to just want to put the boot in.  Having an informed discussion about the moulded cables is something else, I must admit I'm not entirely sure of moulded wires, although they will be slightly more robust than separate fittings, I too don't feel that given the level of detail elsewhere they quite cut the mustard, and the response from Ben clearly explains that the issue could be revisited in the future for further batches.  If people feel they prefer to have separately fitted cables, and are happy to raise the issue, that's the kind of feedback that makes sense, but assuming Heljan were going to print the cables despite saying the opposite is just ridiculous.

Conniptions: "a fit of rage or hysterics.".  Look it up.  I'm not having conniptions but some of the histrionic responses elsewhere to "printed" RCH cables were definitely in that definition.


I think you need to chill out. People can be forgiven for thinking they look printed on from the pics Heljan shared. The moulding line is very fine and the difference isn’t all that obvious. The clarification only came a few posts ago from Ben.

 

I don’t think anything malicious is intended and your response is over the top.

 

Guy

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

20210729_135045.jpg.0d8657a892ea84b64fcd62198e61f31a.jpg20210729_135045.jpg.0d8657a892ea84b64fcd62198e61f31a.jpgBelow is a pictures20210729_143734.jpg.1c9c10392a2c0f7215011c66b969fbd2.jpg of my latest modified Judith Edge crossarm pan kit, follow the following posts of what you need and how to do it.

  • Like 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

To do this modification you will need a set of fine broaches, [ Squires tools, Eileen's Emporium or Ebay are good sources of these]  and some micro brass tube, the size required is in the picture below [ Ebay is the best source] a good powerful soldering iron or even better a soldering station, 40 watt is the or more is best and some separate flux, always use a little flux for all soldering procedures as helps the solder to flow so you don't need as much solder or heat. Start by making the bottom frame as described in the instructions with the kit on a piece of wood not on the loco but do not solder the 4 lengths of 0.45 wire to the frame only use them with the template to keep the frame square, I solder a larger diameter brass wire to the frame to make the legs at the end. As you can see from my pictures in my previous post I use the Hornby insulators on the model rather than the kit ones, the choice is yours. Next take finest broach and start to ream out the mounting hole of the lower arms whilst they're still on the fret as its easier to hold them. Then take the next sized broach and continue to carefully ream the hole until you can just about push the brass tube into through it. Make the lower arms up as per the kit instructions and  put to one side. Take 4 parallel link arms off the fret and using a pair of pliers to hold each one in turn ream out the mounting hole at wider end as per the lower arms. See next post.

20210729_135503.jpg

20210729_135600.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Next cut 2 lengths of brass tube that just fit inside the width of the bottom frame and onto each these thread 2 parallel link arms. Position the 2 parallel link arms 5mm apart either side of centre of the tube, thread the length of 0.45mm wire that comes with kit through the smaller hole of the link arms, use this wire to hold down the link arms on a piece of wood while you solder the far end of the link arms to the tube,  see the brass parts in pics below, as the assembly and soldering takes place on the tube and away from the frame there is very little chance of soldering up the motion of the pantograph, plus its much easier to solder the parts. Next make the parallel link itself using the jig provided but instead of 2 separate wires, make it a loop, see the loco mounted pan picture below which has the loop made from brass for clarity, fit the parallel link arm assemblies each ends of the loop then bend the ends over and solder together, see picture of the drawing. Fit the lower arms of the pantograph onto the brass tube in the correct orientation but do not solder at this time. Cut 2 lengths of the 0.45 wire that are wider than the bottom frame as per the kit instructions. Start at the 'long' end as its easier , thread the 0.45 wire into the hole on side of the frame as it says in the kit but also through the brass tube and through the hole on the other side of the frame so it forms an axle for the brass tube, make sure you orientate the parallel linkage correctly at this point, the link arms should up at the short end , down at the long end, see loco picture.. To do the 'short' end you will first have to gently bend the 'A' shape on the outside edge of the frame out of the way to thread the wire through it's hole and through to brass tube to the other side, straighten the 'A' shape when done.  See next post.

20210729_142639.jpg

20210729_143932.jpg

20210729_160718.jpg

Edited by dmu 156
Missing some text
  • Like 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Assemble the pan head as per the kit instructions for the double pivot method and leave to one side. Now to make the upper arms of the pantograph, this depends on whether you want assemble them as the kit suggests or the way I have done it a single diagonal brace. My way is by cutting 2 lengths 0.45mm wire to approximately the lengths shown in the picture below and bending them accordingly, remembering to allow for the thickness of the parts it will be threaded through,  the diagonal length is about 21mm. Before soldering the lower arms to the brass tube set the position of the parallel linkage first, either by using the kit instructions or with the pan in the lowered position using the picture below as a rough guide in either case solder the lower arms to the tube on their inside edges by which I mean away from the bottom frame to prevent accidental soldering up of the motion, see pictures in earlier posts. this is easier if you turn the pan upside down as its easier to keep the arms level.  If using the kit instructions, make the upper arms as described and assemble  If using my upper arm method assembly is done in a specific order, looking at the pantograph from either end, first thread the 20mm end of the pre bent wire in the picture below through the hole in the left hand lower arm until the arm is at the bottom of the diagonal, then take the pan head assembly, push right hand side double pivot of pan head onto the 20mm end of the pre-bent wire slide along and push the left hand double pivot on to the short end of the pre-bent wire, this can flattened to hold the pan head in place. Carefully bend the 20mm end of the wire down to where it is bent to fit the right hand lower arm pivot point, see previous pictures I have posted. Trim the excess wire as required and flatten the end, repeat the process for the side. Fit the springs but I did not stretch them as per the instructions on the second pan kit I did and it works just a s well. To stop the pan from rising to far I used 2 single arm pivots from the fret, filed off the tiny spikes on the sides, reamed out the hole to push fit onto the bottom spike of the double pivots on the underside of the pan head. see the third picture below. I used 12mm long, 0.7mm brass wire instead of the 0.45mm the kit uses to make the legs which are more robust. After removing the Hornby pantograph I simply pushed the legs through the insulators, into the body and bent the legs over inside the body , its a surprisingly rigid fit. Hope these modifications inspire you to give the pan kit ago or another go, as the case maybe. The class 87 will be running at Chester Cathedral with pan up this weekend.

20210729_140957.jpg

20210729_170302.jpg

20210729_142722.jpg

Edited by dmu 156
missing text
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stellar work there, dmu 156. I think this is worthy of its own thread in the Skills area for reference. Will have to get to Chester too.

Edited by 97406
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thank you, just trying to help out those who have had trouble with this kit and those who are thinking of giving it ago. Another bonus with the modifications was that the brass tube stiffens up the lower arm  rotation ,  making the parallel linkage into a loop and the extra parts  under the pan head  helps to significantly reduced the tendancy of the pantograph to 'roll over'  against the direction of travel,  a loco moving forward the pan would ' roll over' backwards and vice versa.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 27/07/2021 at 17:03, 61661 said:

Emphatically not. They were on some of the first run of Heljan 86s but we’ve moved beyond that now. 
Unfortunately the raised details are not obvious in the heavily compressed photos on Facebook. 
We’ve tooled two different bodies to cater for MW/TDM and TDM only locos, which covers most requirements except the very early conversions with MW cables and no headlights. 
 

As always, happy to clarify such things as they arise. 
 

Hope this helps. 
 

Ben

1A56B446-E4FB-41D9-BE7D-77FF6B35DBC7.jpeg

 

Do you happen to know if the cab rain strips will be changed to the correct style?

This is one area that was wrong on the BR blue 86/0s (but correct for the early AL6) but I don't think at all passable on an 86/4.

 

I appreciate that this is just a decorated sample and pre-production. But do you know roughly how close to the production RES version this is likely to be?

There are some major errors in it - The roof for RES livery was not light grey, it was the same dark grey as on the body sides. You can see it in the linked picture.   The orange cant rail lining on the side of the cab roof looks definitely wrong, and the MW blanking plates on the cab front were never painted orange as far as I know.

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a nice shot of the features 86416 in ex works condition.

Notice the yellow blanking plates and the very small step in the orange cant rail at the end of the rain gutter.

86416

 

 

RES for me is the model I am most likely to buy because No.1 it looked good on the locos, No.2 they could turn up on just about any type of train on any electrified lines and 3. It was quite long lived, approximately 1991 to 2004 ish. I really want it to be right for this reason. Can't justify £165 on a new loco if it needs repainting out of the box however...

Edited by NorthenElectric91
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, NorthenElectric91 said:

Here is a nice shot of the features 86416 in ex works condition.

Notice the yellow blanking plates and the very small step in the orange cant rail at the end of the rain gutter.

86416

 

 

RES for me is the model I am most likely to buy because No.1 it looked good on the locos, No.2 they could turn up on just about any type of train on any electrified lines and 3. It was quite long lived, approximately 1991 to 2004 ish. I really want it to be right for this reason. Can't justify £165 on a new loco if it needs repainting out of the box however...

That pic shows just why I do not like the moulded cables (or other details) on a currently produced model. I’d pay the little bit of extra money for the separate fixtures too.

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/05/2021 at 07:17, Pandora said:

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?

better..... the Hornby 87 has front cab shape issues and the internals are pretty hopeless for sound installation

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 01/08/2021 at 19:11, 97406 said:

That pic shows just why I do not like the moulded cables (or other details) on a currently produced model. I’d pay the little bit of extra money for the separate fixtures too.

Just out of interest, what do you think of the TDM cables on the Hornby 87?

 

Those ARE seperate items but, to my eye, they look noticeably too thick and are therefore not a better solution.

If it were possible to produce seperate TDM cables scaled down to the correct thickness, would they survive being handled?

 

It's a bit of a tricky one because the real ones are so thin,  seperately fitted TDMs would most likely have to be beefed up to survive being handled/boxed/unboxed repeatedly etc. and then people would end up complaining they look too chunky...   Admittedly not so much of a problem with the older style MW cables because the prototypes WERE thick and chunky.  I look forward to seeing Heljans rendition of these, which I assume WILL be seperately fitted detail (?)

Edited by NorthenElectric91
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NorthenElectric91 said:

 

Just out of interest, what do you think of the TDM cables on the Hornby 87?

 

Those ARE seperate items but, to my eye, they look noticeably too thick and are therefore not a better solution.

If it were possible to produce seperate TDM cables scaled down to the correct thickness, would they survive being handled?

 

It's a bit of a tricky one because the real ones are so thin,  seperately fitted TDMs would most likely have to be beefed up to survive being handled/boxed/unboxed repeatedly etc. and then people would end up complaining they look too chunky...   Admittedly not so much of a problem with the older style MW cables because the prototypes WERE thick and chunky.  I look forward to seeing Heljans rendition of these, which I assume WILL be seperately fitted detail (?)

They 87 ones are a little too thick, but the advantage is that separate mouldings can be removed and amended without disrupting the paint, which on the grey band of the executive livery one may be problematic. It’s not insurmountable if the factory paint’s a good match to Railmatch, but the masking off round the front can be tricky.

 

My first attempts at modelling these on the class 86 in my profile pic were from fuse wire and are too thick. Here’s a better pic below.

image.png.c7541a1ac3eede6b23a00a7364263cb7.png

However I found that the bit of wire you get in those sandwich bag ties is a better look. My 47/7 has these, though in hindsight the cables should be a touch longer.DSCF0203.jpg.52e0f6d78df12defffd5ebfcc81a362a.jpg

 

Edited to add that both cable solutions above are quite robust, as the ends are glued into holes, so a note for any manufacturer is to perhaps look into making the cables out of blackened steel wire and use the approach above.

 

Edited by 97406
  • Like 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GordonC said:

 

2D perhaps, but not all in uniform positions

I think it’s a case of wait and see. Other than the moulded cables and the cab gutters on the sample, it will be a great model, and the 2 small issues can be rectified in a relatively short time if I feel they need to when I have two of them sat in front of me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

Below are a couple of pics of my Heljan 86 with the Sommerfeldt 'Stone Faiverley' pan mounted on a PH Designs 86 pan mount etch, its much better than the factory fit. This pan and my modified Judith Edge 'crossarm' pans can be seen in close up running on the Chester Cathedral layout in a video by Phil Clarke on youtube. 

20210821_135152.jpg

20210821_135209.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
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...