Heljan announce Class 45 in OO

[atom3624]

Take a close look at this photo - I may be mistaken, but I don't think the Heljan variant is that 'wrong' at all .... !!

 

 

Al.

[AY Mod]

24 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

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

 

Do we take this as an official standpoint of the committee on behalf of its members?

[Phil Bullock]

Ben

 

Many thanks for all the engagement. If the body side grilles and the rivets are sorted then that will surely be significant progress, and I hope you will then be able to take encouragement from a successful model.

[BR Blue]

9 minutes ago, 61661 said:

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.

I would not give any weight to Sam's opinions even if I might sometimes agree. His 'reviews' of models such as Hornby's  RAF liveried 156 (being blissfully unaware it was a 20 plus year old Lima tooling so what did he expect) to his sensationalist criticism of some Heljan models. There is more informed feedback to be found here, in amongst some OTT responses.  It is really great that you are engaging and I can appreciate it is difficult, all the more so with some far too personal comments. I would not blame you if you stopped.

 

The fact that Heljan had some historic models with shape issues such as the 33/0 (why has it come back in some recent releases?) and the 47 does make some wary and Heljan will come under more scrutiny in this regard. Heljan can get it right e.g 33/1, 33/2, 35, 128 etc. which makes the occasional misstep all the more frustrating.

 

I too am in the camp of when something is seen it cannot be unseen.  Your point about the O gauge 45 is well made and re-assuring.

 

I am looking forward to the next 45 updates.

 

Thanks for taking the time.

[61661]

2 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Ben

 

Many thanks for all the engagement. If the body side grilles and the rivets are sorted then that will surely be significant progress, and I hope you will then be able to take encouragement from a successful model.

Thanks Phil. That is much appreciated. My view is that it's vital for us to listen and engage with our customers. It's not always easy, as today proves, but if we end up with better models it will hopefully be worth the effort. 

[61661]

1 minute ago, BR Blue said:

I would not give any weight to Sam's opinions even if I might sometimes agree. His 'reviews' of models such as Hornby's  RAF liveried 156 (being blissfully unaware it was a 20 plus year old Lima tooling so what did he expect) to his sensationalist criticism of some Heljan models. There is more informed feedback to be found here, in amongst some OTT responses.  It is really great that you are engaging and I can appreciate it is difficult, all the more so with some far too personal comments. I would not blame you if you stopped.

 

The fact that Heljan had some historic models with shape issues such as the 33/0 (why has it come back in some recent releases?) and the 47 does make some wary and Heljan will come under more scrutiny in this regard. Heljan can get it right e.g 33/1, 33/2, 35, 128 etc. which makes the occasional misstep all the more frustrating.

 

I too am in the camp of when something is seen it cannot be unseen.  Your point about the O gauge 45 is well made and re-assuring.

 

I am looking forward to the next 45 updates.

 

Thanks for taking the time.

Thanks BR Blue - again, it is much appreciated. 

I can clear up the 33/0 question for you - the two models in question were produced for Gaugemaster as a cheaper alternative to our standard Class 33s, for use in their exclusive train packs and sets. Using the old body tooling allowed us to offer them at a lower price as a sort of 'Railroad' model for modellers who want a diesel loco but maybe aren't as concerned about it being 100% accurate and up-to-date. I think/hope that will be the last we see of it though! 

[lyneux]

54 minutes ago, DavidH said:

 

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

 

Mentioned on other forums back in February too (where legitimacy of criticism is not an issue).

 

I'm not sure why criticism (similar to peer review) is seen as such a bad thing. Peer review is used to achieve quality in most professional disciplines: academia, engineering, medicine, accountancy etc.

 

Or perhaps we've all had enough of experts telling us what to think?

 

Ben, what's the best way to get feedback to Heljan please?

 

Thanks,

 

Guy

[lyneux]

16 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Do we take this as an official standpoint of the committee on behalf of its members?

 

Certainly not from me Andy.... lol!

 

Guy

[Ian J.]

Personal attacks are not warranted, no matter what the issue. I hope Ben feels able to continue engaging with people here on RMweb.

 

As for errors, all manufacturers have been making them and I am always at pains never to single out any one for criticism without also mentioning the others. It is, however, getting difficult not to.

 

I hope that the 45 roof profile can be fixed, but as tooling is already being cut, I doubt this can be done cost effectively.

[Hal Nail]

Before doorgate builds momentum and becomes a distraction, the issue being discussed here is the cab windows and the curve of the roof. The doors were only mentioned as demonstrate where the curve starts, not because anyone actually thinks cab door are vital to the overall appearance!

 

By the way I have the o gauge one and like it.

 

Ps re postings, what cheeses people off, irrespective of the content, is over-emotional outbursts, wildly exaggerated comparisons and rudeness. It's totally unnecessary and in fact, entirely counter productive.

[PMP]

In the early 1980's the mainline peak was brilliant. In 2020 if that was what was available I'd do without.

 

PMP

Independent Modeller

[Guest Half-full]

1 hour 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’ 

Anybody who takes any notice of what he says needs a good talking to.  I watched a vid of his, he seemed to know nothing at all about the prototype or model history.  I felt I had to watch some more just to see if it was a one off, but no, he appears to know nothing.  If you are reviewing something, you need to know at a least a little about what you are reviewing.

[61661]

5 minutes ago, lyneux said:

 

Mentioned on other forums back in February too (where legitimacy of criticism is not an issue).

 

I'm not sure why criticism (similar to peer review) is seen as such a bad thing. Peer review is used to achieve quality in most professional disciplines: academia, engineering, medicine, accountancy etc.

 

Or perhaps we've all had enough of experts telling us what to think?

 

Ben, what's the best way to get feedback to Heljan please?

 

Thanks,

 

Guy

Hi Guy,

Interesting point - thanks. Coming from an academic background (albeit a few years ago!), I understand peer review and know its value. Although of course, as has been proven many times over the decades, it's not a cast iron guarantee of success!

My suspicion is that it doesn't sit entirely comfortably with a commercial product like model railways where, in the early stages when the really detailed feedback is most needed, it is often necessary to keep a project quiet to avoid someone else beating you to it. Like other manufacturers, we have a group of 'experts' (if that's not a dirty word these days) who assist us with our projects and consult others with more specific knowledge where necessary - much like peer review. They get to see drawings and CAD before it is made public and we then normally publish a draft of CAD to gather in public feedback before signing it off. After the tooling is made we can still make small changes but making big changes such as body shape etc is a very expensive and time-consuming enterprise that manufacturers of all kinds seek to avoid if possible. The most frustrating part for all concerned is that shape or detail issues occasionally are not evident until tooled/painted samples are shown.

 

Constructive criticism is absolutely not a bad thing and any organisation worth its salt should value it. If you want to send any feedback to Heljan at any time, you can send me a PM here (although please be aware I don't monitor it every day) or email Heljan@Heljan.dk and mark it for my attention. Also, come and say hello at any show we attend (when we can do that again!) - I'm always happy to meet our customers and listen to feedback. 

[Guest Half-full]

On 21/06/2020 at 16:50, BigAndy said:

I really do not like to bash manufacturers, as without them we would all be stuffed.

 

However, and its a big however, when a 21st century state of the art model is produced, how on Earth can it be cocked up so badly?

It's not just Heljan ( although they do have more form for it than some of the others ), but who approves the CADS before going to toolmaking? Surely, there should be someone at these companies who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

 

Noone on here wants to just sit and be keyboard warriors, it's pretty easy and simple really, if you want our cash then get it right!! All we want is a product without errors! that's all..........You wouldn't buy a car and then accept it because there were a 'few faults' on it......or a kettle than doesn't boil water......or a microwave that will only heat certain foods up but not others.....

 

Well it's the same here I'm afraid Heljan - you need to look long and flippin' hard internally as to who is approving your CADS for tooling, coz they aint getting it right and it's costing you sales.

Disapointment reigns when everyone has been looking so forward to a new model and it falls flat on its face, all for the sake of getting some expert advice on whether the CADs look like the real thing. Can't be THAT hard for you surely? Don't you want to get it so right, that every single modeller out here is clamoring for your new 45?

I mean, we're not bickering over a £50 Loco are we - substantial amounts of modellers wonga will be shelled out here.....

 

Phil Sutton has proved that it can be done, with his 24 - it's beautiful........so is it just a case of you can't be bothered to spend the time and effort in getting it right? Or is it more a case of maximizing your profit and stuff the customer?, with repeated models trotting out under your name, that all have glaring inaccuracies,  it certainly feels like the latter.

 

Will you PLEASE, PLEASE, just take a bit of time to get it spot on - ask on here..... or ask someone who is in the know, for their expert opinion BEFORE you sign the CADS off. It would save a lot of disappointment and heartache.

 

cheers

Andy

If you are getting heartache from a model being incorrect, you need help

[GordonC]

2 minutes ago, 61661 said:

Hi Guy,

Interesting point - thanks. Coming from an academic background (albeit a few years ago!), I understand peer review and know its value. Although of course, as has been proven many times over the decades, it's not a cast iron guarantee of success!

My suspicion is that it doesn't sit entirely comfortably with a commercial product like model railways where, in the early stages when the really detailed feedback is most needed, it is often necessary to keep a project quiet to avoid someone else beating you to it. Like other manufacturers, we have a group of 'experts' (if that's not a dirty word these days) who assist us with our projects and consult others with more specific knowledge where necessary - much like peer review. They get to see drawings and CAD before it is made public and we then normally publish a draft of CAD to gather in public feedback before signing it off. After the tooling is made we can still make small changes but making big changes such as body shape etc is a very expensive and time-consuming enterprise that manufacturers of all kinds seek to avoid if possible. The most frustrating part for all concerned is that shape or detail issues occasionally are not evident until tooled/painted samples are shown.

 

Constructive criticism is absolutely not a bad thing and any organisation worth its salt should value it. If you want to send any feedback to Heljan at any time, you can send me a PM here (although please be aware I don't monitor it every day) or email Heljan@Heljan.dk and mark it for my attention. Also, come and say hello at any show we attend (when we can do that again!) - I'm always happy to meet our customers and listen to feedback. 

 

I suspect the Class 45/0s and 45/1s would always be difficult to differentiate from an existing decent standard model and if there is a hair out of place it will be highlighted. There's always room for improvement in pretty much any model though.

 

Is it possible or easy to render liveries on CAD drawings to try and pick up issues at an earlier stage? I guess straight lines are easy to apply, curved probably less so. Or when 3D prints are made before cutting metal, should they be painted too?

[Ian Hargrave]

14 minutes ago, Half-full said:

Anybody who takes any notice of what he says needs a good talking to.  I watched a vid of his, he seemed to know nothing at all about the prototype or model history.  I felt I had to watch some more just to see if it was a one off, but no, he appears to know nothing.  If you are reviewing something, you need to know at a least a little about what you are reviewing.

 
That’s a very interesting observation.Sam is viewed as an “influencer” by some .Which is why he gets invitations to attend model rail product launches alongside others big on the YouTube scene alongside other more worthy luminaries of the genre and press.Some might conclude it a good way to shoot yourself through the foot . I suppose being charitable one could say there’s no such thing as bad publicity though Ben and quite a few others might not see it that way.

 

I too had a Mainline version way back.Is someone perhaps having a laugh ? 

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

 

Do we take this as an official standpoint of the committee on behalf of its members?

No just my personal view. And the views of many on the DEMU forum.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Clive Mortimore

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, 61661 said:

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

Hi Ben

 

In the past when I have spoken to Heljan staff I have been dismissed.

 

The cab roof and the electrical cabinet (small bonnet) on the class 15 should be the same height. Basically told to go away.

 

The various errors on the Baby Deltic, again go away, what do you know.

 

And talking to you about the Hornby magazine diesel brake tender, the errors in what was proposed. I didn't feel that you were very receptive.

 

Never mind my scratchbuilt ones might not have all the tiny details but at least I get the shape right because I look at the prototype.

 

Good evening to you

 

Clive

 

 

 

 

[61661]

28 minutes ago, GordonC said:

 

I suspect the Class 45/0s and 45/1s would always be difficult to differentiate from an existing decent standard model and if there is a hair out of place it will be highlighted. There's always room for improvement in pretty much any model though.

 

Is it possible or easy to render liveries on CAD drawings to try and pick up issues at an earlier stage? I guess straight lines are easy to apply, curved probably less so. Or when 3D prints are made before cutting metal, should they be painted too?

It’s not possible to apply liveries to 3D CAD artwork as far as I’m aware. I’m sure you’d have seen it by now if it was possible as it would be a useful tool! 
It’s also very difficult to paint 3D printed parts as the paint doesn’t adhere very well (at least without lots of rubbing down and preparation). 

[61661]

3 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Ben

 

In the past when I have spoken to Heljan staff I have been dismissed.

 

The cab roof and the electrical cabinet (small bonnet) on the class 15 should be the same height. Basically told to go away.

 

The various errors on the Baby Deltic, again go away, what do you know.

 

And talking to you about the Hornby magazine diesel brake tender, the errors in what was proposed. I didn't feel that you were very receptive.

 

Never mind my scratchbuilt ones might not have all the tiny details but at least I get the shape right because I look at the prototype.

 

Good evening to you

 

Clive

 

 

 

 

Hi Clive.
I think you are confusing me with someone else. I’ve never worked for Hornby Magazine and had nothing to do with the DBT. 

The 15 and 23 date from well before I joined Heljan but I’m sorry if you felt your comments weren’t taken on board. 
 

Ben

[pheaton]

LOL Those were the days.....I haven't aged a bit

Edited June 22, 2020 by pheaton

[Pteremy]

This is only a 'rule 1' purchase for me. But i reckon that if the upper window angle can be fixed (so more nearly parallel than 'droopy') then most people will think that this is the Peak to have. 

[RBE]

2 hours ago, 61661 said:

It’s not possible to apply liveries to 3D CAD artwork as far as I’m aware. I’m sure you’d have seen it by now if it was possible as it would be a useful tool! 
It’s also very difficult to paint 3D printed parts as the paint doesn’t adhere very well (at least without lots of rubbing down and preparation). 

Hi Ben,

 

It is possible to add liveries to 3D CADs as we did earlier this year with our Cavalex class 91 in GNER.

 

Hornby also did the same with their subsequent version of their CAD releases of their retooled class 91.

 

 

 

It can be a usefull tool in visualising the locomotive compared to the prototype.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards

Cav

 

 

Edited June 22, 2020 by RBE

[Roy Langridge]

Ben, I really appreciate the time you have spent joining this debate and the feedback you have given. I really hope you get this one right (along with the class 25). I have over 30 Heljan models and I do love them, but I have also had some that I couldn't love and they had to move on to pastures new...

 

Please take the constructive criticism on board (I hope that you will where you can) and ignore the odd posts - I have two mainline Peaks sat within 4 of me feet as I type this, and they most certainly are not the best yet!

 

I can see  a good few more Peaks joining the seven Bachmann versions that I have. As I said earlier, I am not pre-ordering and I will wait to see what the available model is like before committing. For many of those who are old enough to have enjoyed the Peaks in service, this is an iconic loco, they were quite frankly, beasts. 

 

And as a general comment to some of the posters earlier in this thread. Why is it that it seems acceptable on RMWeb to point out errors on a steam outline EP, but to point out what are to some (me included) significant errors on a diesel EP is just nit-picking?  They are not just boxes on wheels...

 

Roy

 

 

[Allegheny1600]

7 hours ago, 61661 said:

personal criticism,

 

To our knowledge it was never identified as a problem on our highly regarded O gauge model (on which the OO model is based) and neither were there any comments about it when the CAD images were published some months ago.

 

Hello Ben,

I think I was the first one to mention your name so I may be mistaken but maybe your comments about personal criticism are directed to me? I do recall that your appointment with Heljan was greeted with great fanfare and you assured us all that future models would be given your utmost attention? I thought therefore, bringing your name into this fray is nowhere near personal criticism, rather more adding facts to the discussion?

However, if this has upset you, I can only apologise as earnestly as I can convey through the medium of the internet.

 

As for criticism of the 0 scale model, well I admit, I did have it in my mind that there was some however, I can find nothing so again, I apologise for my previous comments.

 

I sincerely hope that when the identified problems (window bolts etc) are rectified, then you will have a definitive model that deserves every success.

Best regards,

John Edge.