Heljan announce Class 45 in OO

[Pteremy]

Looking at the Heljan illustrations on page 1 of this thread the roof curve starts well below the rainstrip. So perhaps it is the arc of the rain strip across the front is wrong, with consequences of the upper slope of the windows?

[61661]

4 minutes ago, bill_schmidt1 said:

Whys it up to anyone other than Heljan to check the body shape? No point blaming people not coming forward and identifying the problems for you. After all, who's being paid to do the work? And in the same way you say about engaging with customers, that works both ways. Blame people for not coming forward to point out errors and those people you're pointing the finger at probably won't bother in the future. 

A fair point. The final sign-off is ours, but I'm not blaming anyone - simply stating a fact. It has been a repeated theme on this forum over many years that members have expressed a desire to be included in the process and given access to early images from manufacturers so that they can provide feedback. Over the last couple of years when we've made the effort to do that with CAD images, we've received surprisingly little useful feedback. 

[Downer]

This is all getting too confrontational. There is certainly a significant problem with the body shape, and the only really question is whether Heljan are willing and/or able to fix it at this stage of the process. 

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, 61661 said:

Over the last couple of years when we've made the effort to do that with CAD images, we've received surprisingly little useful feedback. 

 

I'm afraid that the most vociferous critics aren't really interested in being helpful - they just get a buzz out of finding something to criticise in the most abusive way possible.

 

Let's face it - if it isn't produced by SLW it can't be any good !

 

John Isherwood.

[61661]

4 minutes ago, Downer said:

This is all getting too confrontational. There is certainly a significant problem with the body shape, and the only really question is whether Heljan are willing and/or able to fix it at this stage of the process. 

Indeed, hence my earlier comments about reviewing how and when I contribute to this forum. I would politely disagree that there is a 'significant' problem with the body shape. Overall it is excellent and the general reaction reflects that. An issue has been raised and will be looked at, but blowing the photos up to many times the original size of the model exaggerates what would actually be a very small adjustment. 

[Rob F]

7 minutes ago, Downer said:

This is all getting too confrontational. There is certainly a significant problem with the body shape, and the only really question is whether Heljan are willing and/or able to fix it at this stage of the process. 

This is the million dollar question, I think. Ability to look at early CAD drawings is a move from manufacturers that I appreciate but it is not the only research resource that they will use. So long as criticism is offered in a constructive manner it can only be for the good of all concerned, we get better models and the manufacturer sells more of them because they are of higher quality, win win.

 

Personally, the number one thing that matters about a model is its basic shape. If that is wrong, the finest detail in the world cannot retrieve the situation, so I really hope it is not too late to do something about this as coming from Nottingham the class 45 is THE railway image of my childhood.

 

Rob

[Ryde-on-time]

10 minutes ago, 61661 said:

A fair point. The final sign-off is ours, but I'm not blaming anyone - simply stating a fact. It has been a repeated theme on this forum over many years that members have expressed a desire to be included in the process and given access to early images from manufacturers so that they can provide feedback. Over the last couple of years when we've made the effort to do that with CAD images, we've received surprisingly little useful feedback. 

Sorry but the first post on this thread, the press release announcing the class 45, contains the statement 

 

'Detailed design work was completed earlier this year and tooling is in progress and first releases planned in the third quarter of 2020'

 

So no feedback was sort before tooling began. I can't think of a Heljan model where a fundamental flaw has been pointed out at the CAD stage and they have bothered to do anything about it? To me, Heljan still seem to have a 'that'll do' attitude to the models they produce, the reason I don't buy them

[Hal Nail]

One for the future but sharing a cheap mock up (eg 3d print) prior to tooling would probably attract more useful feedback that the CADS, which arent the easiest to interperate. 

[Downer]

6 minutes ago, 61661 said:

Indeed, hence my earlier comments about reviewing how and when I contribute to this forum. I would politely disagree that there is a 'significant' problem with the body shape. Overall it is excellent and the general reaction reflects that. An issue has been raised and will be looked at, but blowing the photos up to many times the original size of the model exaggerates what would actually be a very small adjustment. 

Perhaps significant was an exaggeration.  Stupid thing is, if I hadn’t seen the pics of the prototype and model side by side I’d have been perfectly happy with the latter. 

[caradoc]

19 minutes ago, Downer said:

 if I hadn’t seen the pics of the prototype and model side by side I’d have been perfectly happy with the latter. 

 

And that, for me, is the key question; Who among us would actually have noticed the issues otherwise, probably not me for a start. Personally, I will wait and see when the model is actually available.

 

Thanks to Ben Jones for responding here.

 

Finally, it seems strange to criticise this model yet believe that HO scale coaches being too short is perfectly OK; And to say that modellers willl 'suffer' because the Heljan Peak may not be perfect is, especially in current times, a little OTT.

 

[GordonC]

Having seen the painted pre-production sample photos over the weekend I thought it looked good, but having seen the comparison above its hard to unsee the discrepencies now.

 

is it the cab roof which is throwing things out? looking at the photo compared to the model there looks a bit much meat on the cab roof above the rainstrip. And the photo looks like the cab roof tapers inwards more or less from where the strip goes over the roof at the back of the cab door. Does it not taper inwards enough on the model? Is the model roof too flat between the top of the cab windscreens at each end?

 

I do think the criticism of Ben Jones is all a bit personal, I'm sure there will have been lots of other people involved up until this point, but a full liveried prototype model really helps to show up inaccuracies that aren't always obvious in plain grey CAD images.

 

I had to go and look at current Bachmann models to compare the roof profile and dare I say it, I do think they've captured that and the cab door profile better.

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, Class 158 productions said:

Must say, it is really refreshing to see a manufacturer representative on the forums and someone who clearly cares about the product. Looking forward to the peaks, but as I’ve stated before, this model for its price and demographic needs to be correct. The other model, which is actually quite an old body shell, got the basic shape right. I really hope something can be rectified, and hopefully it will improve the Heljan stigma and produce a brilliant model, take care! 

Quite a few manufacturers interact on here directly, Heljan are not the only ones and even Bachmann do respond if indirectly through the mods.

 

The 'Heljan stigma' seems a bit strong

[Class 158 productions]

Is it? Personally I think it’s quite gentle given what has been put out in the past and even quite recently. For example the wide 47, the western, early 33s there’s more. I like Heljan, I have plenty of their products and want them to do well. But the response has left me slightly worried, hopefully I’m wrong, as I really want a proper seal beam 45, but The errors are reminiscent of years gone by. 

[Legend]

1 hour ago, GordonC said:

Having seen the painted pre-production sample photos over the weekend I thought it looked good, but having seen the comparison above its hard to unsee the discrepencies now.

 

is it the cab roof which is throwing things out? looking at the photo compared to the model there looks a bit much meat on the cab roof above the rainstrip. And the photo looks like the cab roof tapers inwards more or less from where the strip goes over the roof at the back of the cab door. Does it not taper inwards enough on the model? Is the model roof too flat between the top of the cab windscreens at each end?

 

I do think the criticism of Ben Jones is all a bit personal, I'm sure there will have been lots of other people involved up until this point, but a full liveried prototype model really helps to show up inaccuracies that aren't always obvious in plain grey CAD images.

 

I had to go and look at current Bachmann models to compare the roof profile and dare I say it, I do think they've captured that and the cab door profile better.

 

Quite frequently I look at supposed discrepancies and can't figure out what people are on about , however ,I think Yes Tors email shows it very well. I can quite clearly see that the door is not curving inwards at the top .  Like Gordon it is now hard not to see the discrepancy and I now know its wrong .   Given that Bachmann sat on its hands for long enough without giving us this variant I really was happy when Heljan announced their model. However for people to switch from the existing and new Bachmann models the Heljan one really has to be superior and I'm afraid that it is  not demonstrating that at the moment . I hope the revision can still be made but it seems fairly fundamental to me , but I think Heljan really need to do it  or folk will simply wait for the Bachmann one .

[61661]

29 minutes ago, Class 158 productions said:

Is it? Personally I think it’s quite gentle given what has been put out in the past and even quite recently. For example the wide 47, the western, early 33s there’s more. I like Heljan, I have plenty of their products and want them to do well. But the response has left me slightly worried, hopefully I’m wrong, as I really want a proper seal beam 45, but The errors are reminiscent of years gone by. 

Can I try and add a bit of perspective here? I helped to review many of those early Heljan models when I was at Model Rail in the early-2000s and was critical of some fundamental errors in shape that affected the whole look of some locos - the chubby 47 and early 33/0 being two prime examples. While I accept that a small number of people on here would like it to be better, the issue identified with the new Class 45 is not of the same magnitude - if it was, it would have been spotted much earlier and the O gauge model would have been criticised for it a few years ago. It would also doubtless have been identified by at least some of the 1000s of people who examined the samples on display at Glasgow show in February, but it wasn't, which gives some clue as to how visible it is on the model (as opposed to a photo blown up to many times original size). 
That said, we are not complacent and we will examine the problem and address it if it is practical to do so, but focusing on it to the exclusion of all else ignores the multitude of other improvements it features over previous models, from finer, more extensive detail and better overall look to a huge range of detail options and versions that have never been offered RTR before, individually controlled lighting features and optional detailing parts. 

We do not ask for a free ride, but we do appreciate polite, constructive criticism and each model being judged on its own full merits rather than being written off after the first, uncorrected EP sample, tarred by existing prejudices or the issues of models produced by different people 15 years ago. 

 

Have a good day

 

Ben
 

[DavidH]

3 hours ago, 61661 said:

Turning to the shape of the cabsides, we are surprised that this has suddenly been raised a small number of commenters.  [emphasis added]

 

Mentioned definitely on February 27th, and over the following days.

 

The discussion got a bit bogged down in the inevitable RMWeb argument about the legitimacy of criticism

[Class 158 productions]

Thank you for responding, and I agree with your point. However I have noticed a trend from younger members of the hobby like myself, seem to have a prejudice against the brand, due to a certain YouTuber called Sam, sadly he has dragged the name through the mud, hopefully you can do a stunning 45, the base of the model looks brilliant, and prove them wrong, I’m sorry if any of my comments are offensive and if you disagree please say so, but there is a significant amount of who are influenced by his ‘reviews’ 

[wombatofludham]

Ben, I would hope that in a day or so you will come to realise that the histrionic wailing of the Finescale Taliban do not represent the majority of people on this forum and their intemperate personal criticism and dummy spitting is, I would venture to suggest, condemned by the majority on here - and I would hope others who feel this way will post or back this up.  I've bought Heljan models which have recieved criticism in the past (Class 86 and 33) and yes, I can see faults (the National Grid surplus pylon used for the pantograph for example) but, I've taken the view that overall, they fit my purpose and when viewed from the equivalent of a ten storey building 200 feet from the track, they satisfy me.  Your involvement on this forum and in bringing forward and revisiting models for the UK market, including revising the 86 which I never thought would happen as long as I draw breath, has been positive.

I like perfection.  I also know it is unattainable at a price I'm prepared to pay in a manner that makes commercial sense.  When I saw the photos posted by Lee on his Facebook feed I thought "Wow, that does look nice".  I didn't see the cab door, and as my first reaction was positive, I'll be ordering one or two.  However, if every model you bring forward is going to lead to you and your company being insulted so publicly, can I suggest you start making other locos with coathangers on the roof?  Classes Al1-AL4 still haven't been done, and then there's the AM10 unit as well.  Leave the oil-burners to their voodoo dolls and pitchfork practice, those of us who like electrics will be very happy to have a full deck of classic sparkies to play with.

But above all, don't let the disgraceful rantings of a minority cause you or the company to withdraw from the interaction on here.  It has been appreciated by many.

[61661]

OK thanks. That's news to me. 

[Hal Nail]

1 hour ago, GordonC said:

Is it the cab roof which is throwing things out? looking at the photo compared to the model there looks a bit much meat on the cab roof above the rainstrip. And the photo looks like the cab roof tapers inwards more or less from where the strip goes over the roof at the back of the cab door. Does it not taper inwards enough on the model? Is the model roof too flat between the top of the cab windscreens at each end?

 

I think this highlights the problem. Sometimes you know it doesnt look quite right but cant nail why. (For what it's worth I thought the marker lights were slightly too small at first rather than the window area). It's all tiny margins and everyone's recognition is different anyway.

 

Given you can't exactly scale every bit - eg the glazing will always look a bit different to the real thing due to the limitations of moulding, it may even be that some other things would have to compensate slightly to get something that looks right overall.

 

There isnt that luxury given you are broadly stuck wih a tool once cut because tooling is so expensive and it just isnt economic to do more than one attempt. Thats why i think it's worth developing a way of really checking what it will actually look like in 3D, before getting to the tooling stage.

[61661]

4 minutes ago, Class 158 productions said:

Thank you for responding, and I agree with your point. However I have noticed a trend from younger members of the hobby like myself, seem to have a prejudice against the brand, due to a certain YouTuber called Sam, sadly he has dragged the name through the mud, hopefully you can do a stunning 45, the base of the model looks brilliant, and prove them wrong, I’m sorry if any of my comments are offensive and if you disagree please say so, but there is a significant amount of who are influenced by his ‘reviews’ 

Thanks to you too. I have seen some of those 'reviews' and would rather not comment, except to say that he is, of course, entitled to his opinion but it is not shared by the the thousands of modellers who buy, run and enjoy our models every year.

[atom3624]

I've had no issues with my 33, 35, 52 and 58, and particularly their running.

 

I had mentioned once they seemed to need a little 'boost' to get going as the motors appeared 'straight wound' not skew, but this was negated with a little clean and lube - superb running locomotives.

 

Not certain what the plan is with 'the door thing', but all things otherwise considered, it looks great.

 

Al.

[Downer]

A mistake has been made, but not one, I would guess, which will be visible from two feet away to anyone who doesn't eat, sleep and quite possibly mainline - pun intended - Peaks.  And as Ben says, the rest of it looks great.  I shall be getting one of the TMC specials.  

Edited June 22, 2020 by Downer

[Clive Mortimore]

38 minutes ago, 61661 said:

Can I try and add a bit of perspective here? I helped to review many of those early Heljan models when I was at Model Rail in the early-2000s and was critical of some fundamental errors in shape that affected the whole look of some locos - the chubby 47 and early 33/0 being two prime examples. While I accept that a small number of people on here would like it to be better, the issue identified with the new Class 45 is not of the same magnitude - if it was, it would have been spotted much earlier and the O gauge model would have been criticised for it a few years ago. It would also doubtless have been identified by at least some of the 1000s of people who examined the samples on display at Glasgow show in February, but it wasn't, which gives some clue as to how visible it is on the model (as opposed to a photo blown up to many times original size). 
That said, we are not complacent and we will examine the problem and address it if it is practical to do so, but focusing on it to the exclusion of all else ignores the multitude of other improvements it features over previous models, from finer, more extensive detail and better overall look to a huge range of detail options and versions that have never been offered RTR before, individually controlled lighting features and optional detailing parts. 

We do not ask for a free ride, but we do appreciate polite, constructive criticism and each model being judged on its own full merits rather than being written off after the first, uncorrected EP sample, tarred by existing prejudices or the issues of models produced by different people 15 years ago. 

 

Have a good day

 

Ben
 

Hi Ben

 

I was at Glasgow on a layout for all three days. Every day I tried to get the attention of someone to give my views on the Peak. Each day I got fed up waiting and moved on.

 

I think one of the post show remarks I made about the lack of visible body framing through the grilles as can be seen on the Peak locomotives either on here or the DEMU forum. I fully agree with those who have stated the roof profile is wrong making the cab look all over the place and would have mentioned it at Glasgow. As for all those rivets.

 

The Mainline model with its droopy nose is a better representation of my favorite class of locomotives I trainspotted in the late 60s and early 70s. 

 

Clive Mortimore

DEMU committee

[61661]

11 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Ben

 

I was at Glasgow on a layout for all three days. Every day I tried to get the attention of someone to give my views on the Peak. Each day I got fed up waiting and moved on.

 

I think one of the post show remarks I made about the lack of visible body framing through the grilles as can be seen on the Peak locomotives either on here or the DEMU forum. I fully agree with those who have stated the roof profile is wrong making the cab look all over the place and would have mentioned it at Glasgow. As for all those rivets.

 

The Mainline model with its droopy nose is a better representation of my favorite class of locomotives I trainspotted in the late 60s and early 70s. 

 

Clive Mortimore

DEMU committee

Hi Clive,

I'm very sorry to hear that you weren't able to speak to either of us in Glasgow. I'm also surprised, given how quiet we were at times over the weekend. As already stated, we have asked for the grilles to be improved to show the internal framing more clearly and for the rivet heads to be reduced/removed. 

It's good to hear that you are happy with your Mainline model. I hope it gives you many more years of service. Mine packed up years ago unfortunately. 

 

Have a good evening 

 

Ben