Jump to content

Heljan announce Class 45 in OO


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Mophead45143 said:

 

I appreciate that, and I have no doubt that the new Heljan model is going to be better detailed than the Bachmann offering, with correct features unlike some of the abortions Bachmann have churned out in the past. For example, the fictitious lamp bracket and hand rail arrangement on the noses of their centre-headcode 45's & 46's, the dodgy grille for the roof fan, the incorrect nose end grilles for blue era models and the iffy plated over bodyside steps. Some of these are being corrected on their new 'sealed beam' 45/0's going by the EP's. 

 

But my main point still stands, no-matter how much the new Heljan model will improve on the Bachmann model detail wise, which I'm sure it will, if they don't get the shape right then what is the point? 

 

The general consensus is that the Bachmann model got the overall shape right, so it looks like a peak. You can buy etched detailing kits to improve on the details that are not correct or missing, such as the "bogie  derailment" frames you mention. 

 

 

Cameron

 Speaking of abortions, cue Heljan's 'flat top' class 33 and 'Western wearing a baseball cap'. They have produced models that look wrong just like the Bachmann 24/0 and 25's. To Heljan's credit they have done a very good job on their new class 33 tooling as Bachmann have with their new class 24/1.

Edited by Baby Deltic
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, D1051 said:

Its an Engineering Prototype .I'm sure your "window" issue will be taken on board by Ben at Heljan. I remember a similar situation over another DIESEL where the EP was presented & tweaks made...& were leave it at that .E01646DA-C659-4CDB-84C4-0531EF6477A3.jpeg.47bc1989adbe95c288e9ad8611a79f69.jpeg

 

If it was the diesel I think it was , it has turned out beautifully with the aforementioned tweaks duly made. :-)

 

Davy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Crisis Rail said:

 

Maybe you should seek employment with such manufacturers to right all their wrongs? You sound pretty well clued up so how about channelling your expertise well before the proverbial stable door has bolted. 

 

There's no need of that is there really, constructive criticism should not be bashed on a modelling forum. At no point in any of my posts have I been emotive or biased to either manufacturer - I have already apologised for any misunderstandings there. I am just trying to have a sensible discussion about modelling peaks, surely that's why anyone is on this thread?! 

 

If a model is in the design phase, it should be in a manufacturers interest to try and get it right. I have seen Ben from Heljan take on board comments on here which have produced end results. Unfortunately, there are also examples of Heljan models going through to production with an issue that stood out from the first CAD, without any corrections being made - despite it being flagged up on RmWeb.   

 

Your stance suggests that unless any of us are involved in producing a model, we have no right to make comment on how it appears? Are we not allowed to give feedback? If we don't do it in the design stage, any given Model Railway magazine will review the model after it has already been produced and pick out its faults there! That could certainly affect sales, and by that point its far too late. 

 

I don't think anyone on here that has made comments about the windows for example is criticizing the model to spite Heljan, quite the opposite, we want them to get it spot on and knock spots of the older Bachmann model. But if a glaring issue is ignored, then that's surely going to affect sales. 

 

I'm not looking to have arguments on here, that's just silly. Can we please just discuss the prototype and the models. 

 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mophead45143 said:

 

There's no need of that is there really, constructive criticism should not be bashed on a modelling forum. At no point in any of my posts have I been emotive or biased to either manufacturer - I have already apologised for any misunderstandings there. I am just trying to have a sensible discussion about modelling peaks, surely that's why anyone is on this thread?! 

 

If a model is in the design phase, it should be in a manufacturers interest to try and get it right. I have seen Ben from Heljan take on board comments on here which have produced end results. Unfortunately, there are also examples of Heljan models going through to production with an issue that stood out from the first CAD, without any corrections being made - despite it being flagged up on RmWeb.   

 

Your stance suggests that unless any of us are involved in producing a model, we have no right to make comment on how it appears? Are we not allowed to give feedback? If we don't do it in the design stage, any given Model Railway magazine will review the model after it has already been produced and pick out its faults there! That could certainly affect sales, and by that point its far too late. 

 

I don't think anyone on here that has made comments about the windows for example is criticizing the model to spite Heljan, quite the opposite, we want them to get it spot on and knock spots of the older Bachmann model. But if a glaring issue is ignored, then that's surely going to affect sales. 

 

I'm not looking to have arguments on here, that's just silly. Can we please just discuss the prototype and the models. 

 

 

For what its worth I agreed with your original points and didn't think you'd said anything provocative subsequently. 

 

For me, and its a personal opinion, I am also in the camp that the fundamental shape is the most important and I'm happy to add or improve detail. If any model (not specifically this one) basically just doesn't look right to me, in an area such as windows which are difficult to modify, then I'll probably never be able to get it to the point I'd want. In other words its a deal breaker for me.

 

The beauty (admittedly not always apparent!) of this forum is you can discuss any issues with a model and decide how easy it will be to rectify. Missing detail is usually fairly black and white but shape can be hard to determine and often results in discussion. Not everyone will agree on what the issue is, or which are more significant but the info is then there for anyone to form their own opinion on whether to buy it.

 

Edited by Hal Nail
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Has anyone got a decent side view of the 45 ?

 

the absence of the angled body side strengtheners, highly visible underneath the grills is quite a big one for me... even Mainline got that right.


I did not notice them on the TMC sample..

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't class it as good but you can see the general effect of the body side ribs as seen through the grills.

 

 

924215403_PeakSideOn.jpg.e35da3a6e0f02a0dcd5966a744f1ebeb.jpg

 

Almost head on shot of front cab windows - the bottom edge of the two outer pains subtly follow the curve of the nose whilst the top edges are more linear in nature.

 

 

1150199675_PeakWindows.jpg.f110887d5f587a5b3da432bb1d6ad8b4.jpg

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Baby Deltic said:

 Speaking of abortions, cue Heljan's 'flat top' class 33 and 'Western wearing a baseball cap'. They have produced models that look wrong just like the Bachmann 24/0 and 25's. To Heljan's credit they have done a very good job on their new class 33 tooling as Bachmann have with their new class 24/1.

 

I was modelling Joueff class 40s long before anybody else's came along so I can certainly empathise with the 'body shape' argument !

Having said that, after market white metal split box indicators and buffer beam pipework polished the turd somewhat!

Ironically the bogie blue star connectors looked N scale on the Joueff and O scale on the Bachmann. I'm sure Heljan can do a better job with that particular fault! :blink:

Edited by Holmesfeldian
extra info
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mophead45143 said:

 

There's no need of that is there really, constructive criticism should not be bashed on a modelling forum. At no point in any of my posts have I been emotive or biased to either manufacturer - I have already apologised for any misunderstandings there. I am just trying to have a sensible discussion about modelling peaks, surely that's why anyone is on this thread?! 

 

If a model is in the design phase, it should be in a manufacturers interest to try and get it right. I have seen Ben from Heljan take on board comments on here which have produced end results. Unfortunately, there are also examples of Heljan models going through to production with an issue that stood out from the first CAD, without any corrections being made - despite it being flagged up on RmWeb.   

 

Your stance suggests that unless any of us are involved in producing a model, we have no right to make comment on how it appears? Are we not allowed to give feedback? If we don't do it in the design stage, any given Model Railway magazine will review the model after it has already been produced and pick out its faults there! That could certainly affect sales, and by that point its far too late. 

 

I don't think anyone on here that has made comments about the windows for example is criticizing the model to spite Heljan, quite the opposite, we want them to get it spot on and knock spots of the older Bachmann model. But if a glaring issue is ignored, then that's surely going to affect sales. 

 

I'm not looking to have arguments on here, that's just silly. Can we please just discuss the prototype and the models. 

 

 

Well -  I personally felt your post certainly did have a fair degree of criticism in it  - hopefully constructive enough to have now channeled this toward Heljan or any other manufacturer instead of whinging about prototypical shortcomings on here. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I can accept less visible errors or missing items on a model as long as it looks right. So for me the 45 we currently have images of does not come up to scratch because those cab windows and roof shape are visibly wrong. I hope Heljan corrects them on later incarnations of the model's development, and we should certainly give them the chance to do so, but in the past models have gone through a few iterations in development and, despite errors remaining, have been produced with them. 

 

As it stands, if the Heljan version isn't corrected, I will be going for the Bachmann sealed beam version as its warts are less intrusive. That's my choice; others can of course decide differently.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Crisis Rail said:

 

Are you analyzing the 1978 Mainline version or the (as yet released) Heljan version?

 

If so - you really need to get a grip.

 

Thanks for the advice... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

Personally I can accept less visible errors or missing items on a model as long as it looks right. So for me the 45 we currently have images of does not come up to scratch because those cab windows and roof shape are visibly wrong. I hope Heljan corrects them on later incarnations of the model's development, and we should certainly give them the chance to do so, but in the past models have gone through a few iterations in development and, despite errors remaining, have been produced with them. 

 

As it stands, if the Heljan version isn't corrected, I will be going for the Bachmann sealed beam version as its warts are less intrusive. That's my choice; others can of course decide differently.

 

....if Heljan read this forum with all it's Class 45 experts I'd be gobsmacked if they don't (that's if they haven't been duly informed) and hopefully when the final versions are released some on here won't come back with their all nerdy "I told you so" attitudes.

 

Edited by Crisis Rail
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mophead45143 said:

 

There's no need of that is there really, constructive criticism should not be bashed on a modelling forum. At no point in any of my posts have I been emotive or biased to either manufacturer - I have already apologised for any misunderstandings there. I am just trying to have a sensible discussion about modelling peaks, surely that's why anyone is on this thread?! 

 

If a model is in the design phase, it should be in a manufacturers interest to try and get it right. I have seen Ben from Heljan take on board comments on here which have produced end results. Unfortunately, there are also examples of Heljan models going through to production with an issue that stood out from the first CAD, without any corrections being made - despite it being flagged up on RmWeb.   

 

Your stance suggests that unless any of us are involved in producing a model, we have no right to make comment on how it appears? Are we not allowed to give feedback? If we don't do it in the design stage, any given Model Railway magazine will review the model after it has already been produced and pick out its faults there! That could certainly affect sales, and by that point its far too late. 

 

I don't think anyone on here that has made comments about the windows for example is criticizing the model to spite Heljan, quite the opposite, we want them to get it spot on and knock spots of the older Bachmann model. But if a glaring issue is ignored, then that's surely going to affect sales. 

 

I'm not looking to have arguments on here, that's just silly. Can we please just discuss the prototype and the models. 

 

id treat comments like that as water off a ducks back if you havent already because you'll not see the same suggestion of "working for these manufacturers and....channelling your evergy etc...." levelled at the ..... uh hum..... elders of this fine establishment so nothing seems to stop them from airing their constructive criticism so why shouldnt you...........people would moan if something was missed because people such as yourself kept schtum and kept your concerns to yourself that then led to a less than perfect model.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen it on other threads too, where the 'elders' self-appoint themselves as moderators. It's quite often associated with gold badges. And then without any hint of irony, they go on to discuss the postion of the reversing gear on some kettle for hours.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Crisis Rail said:

 

....if Heljan read this forum with all it's Class 45 experts I'd be gobsmacked if they don't (that's if they haven't been duly informed) and hopefully when the final versions are released some on here won't come back with their all nerdy "I told you so" attitudes.

 

If you're being asked to part with the best part of £150 for a model loco, you want it to be right, at least visually. The issues with the Heljan model are blindingly obvious and, in my opinion, thus far, it doesn't cut the mustard against the current Bachmann offering in this respect. You can add all the small details and embellishments to a model that you want but if it looks visibly wrong and doesn't correctly capture the look of the prototype then that's the most important aesthetic compromised regardless of anything else.

Edited by Baby Deltic
  • Like 1
  • Agree 14
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, stovepipe said:

I've seen it on other threads too, where the 'elders' self-appoint themselves as moderators. It's quite often associated with gold badges. And then without any hint of irony, they go on to discuss the postion of the reversing gear on some kettle for hours.

Oi! keep us gold badge people out of this. I happen to agree that the cab doors are missing the curve off the top and the windows could look better, which will definitely impact on where the cantrail lands and the curvature of the roof. I'd love to be able to get my hands on a Peak that can be easily renumbered / renamed to D60 Lytham St Annes, one which was quite common in West Yorkshire.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Baby Deltic said:

If you're being asked to part with the best part of £150 for a model loco, you want it to be right, at least visually. The issues with the Heljan model are blindingly obvious and, in my opinion, thus far, it doesn't cut the mustard against the current Bachmann offering in this respect. You can add all the small details and embellishments to a model that you want but if it looks visibly wrong and doesn't correctly capture the look of the prototype then that's the most important aesthetic compromised regardless of anything else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spot on comments 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Geoff Endacott said:

That would look so much better with flush glazing.

 

Geoff Endacott

At least they've painted the edges black to disguise it!

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know if the models displayed recently were 3D prints, or shots from the tooling?

 

I always worry when shots from the tooling have shape issues, as it suggests that not enough care has been taken at the R&D and/or tool cutting stages. There is often then an unwillingness on the part of commissioners to put money and effort into what amounts to wholesale redesign to correct for that lack of care.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/03/2020 at 21:52, Baby Deltic said:

If you're being asked to part with the best part of £150 for a model loco, you want it to be right, at least visually. The issues with the Heljan model are blindingly obvious and, in my opinion, thus far, it doesn't cut the mustard against the current Bachmann offering in this respect. You can add all the small details and embellishments to a model that you want but if it looks visibly wrong and doesn't correctly capture the look of the prototype then that's the most important aesthetic compromised regardless of anything else.

 

Well - dont buy one then.

 

I am sure all the typewriter ribbon used by the experts on here will point Heljan in the right direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Crisis Rail said:

 

Well - dont buy one then.

 

I am sure all the typewriter ribbon used by the experts on here will point Heljan in the right direction.

Oh I see, so anyone who wants an accurate representation of a class 45 can go forth and multiply because rather than pointing out glowing errors when the manufacturer has a chance to act and correct the model -thus assisting the manufacturer create a better model - should just sit quietly and not mention these errors whilst a model is released which doesn't look right and will therefore probably not stack up against the model being re-tooled by the competition and lose Heljan sales because of it.

Edited by Baby Deltic
  • Like 4
  • Agree 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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.