All-new Heljan 47 in 00 gauge

[MGR Hooper!]

49 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

I'm sure this has already been discussed, although I can't see it anywhere.

 

Has anyone any opinions on the ledge in front of the cab windows? I understand the 4mm is using CAD originally developed for the 7mm version. The pictures released by Heljan look as if this ledge is far too deep- but that's only from a few limited development pictures I've seen.

 

Has anyone seen anything more up to date to see whether this has been corrected?

Thanks.

 

Waiting for an updated sample from the O gauge department to see. As you said I'm also under the impression that the OO gauge one will be developed using the R&D from the O gauge variant. 

 

The last O gauge EPs we saw had a lot of errors, most focussed around the cab area and roof profile. 

 

Regarless of my criticism towards Heljan which I still stand by, I eargerly look forward to the EP2 sample of the O gauge one so that I have a good idea of how well the OO gauge one will turn out. If they nail the shape I will buy one or more, time will tell. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by MGR Hooper!

[adb968008]

On 16/11/2020 at 21:38, richscylla said:

Thanks - I model from 95 so I don't think 578 is going to be suitable. I think the parcels red one was still around at that time so I might have to do that one instead

 

 

47578 became 47776 in May / June 1994.

 

For Parcels, 47501 Craftsman is a good candidate for a renumber, wore Parcels for a very long time from 1990, 12+ years until DRS got it in 2002.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by adb968008

[Roy Langridge]

17 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Long range fuel tanks, red LEDs and jumper cables on the front, cut down cab around the buffer-beams and under the cab sides.

its noteworthy that one cab was rebuilt (without dominos) whilst in blue as 47578, which changed its appearance in large logo blue.

 

 

Are you sure? If I recall correctly the LED lights and jumper cables came later. For example, here is 47784 without in Aug 1995 (not my photo):

 

Flickr photo of 47784

 

The jumpers were to allow working with the PCVs which only started being modified in 1994 and took over two years to be delivered, the RES 47s being modified along the way, starting with those that had not yet been converted. 47776 was converted early 1994, predating the PCV introduction and modified 47s.

LED lights were even later and, I don't think LEDs were even approved for primary lighting use at that stage.

Edit: Looking, 47578 had the cut down cab around the buffer-beams and under the cab sides prior to conversion to 47776 (again not my photo) :

 

Flickr photo of 47578

 

So on that basis, it is possible that the Gaugemaster 47578 can be used for an early 47776 quite easily with just the long-range tanks to sort (which may be an available spare).

 

Roy

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Roy Langridge
Typo

[adb968008]

22 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

Are you sure? If I recall correctly the LED lights and jumper cables came later. For example, here is 47784 without in Aug 1995 (not my photo):

 

Flickr photo of 47784

 

The jumpers were to allow working with the PCVs which only started being modified in 1994 and took over two years to be delivered, the RES 47s being modified along the way, starting with those that had not yet been converted. 47776 was converted early 1994, predating the PCV introduction and modified 47s.

LED lights were even later and, I don't think LEDs were even approved for primary lighting use at that stage.

 

Roy

 

evolution, not revolution, and you do know that.

not every change happens in a day.

 

47578 wasn’t renumbered until 1994, it ran in RES prior though, which is where the confusion lies.. for instance the cab and fuel tank mods are not present on 578, but are from July /August 1994.

 

Yes there’s a period where the jumpers weren’t fitted, but if you examine closer your picture you will note fuel tanks, cut cab and other bufferbeam mods are present, those were removed later (and not present earlier)..

thats evolution.

 

If you want a day in time then a lot of research is required, the poster has mentioned 1995, and the mods are post 1995, yes some Mods are 4 months earlier than 1995...

If your modelling August to December 1994.. then yes you are correct.

If your modelling the next 25 years (I believe it still exists under overhaul).. then No.

Edited November 17, 2020 by adb968008

[Roy Langridge]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

evolution, not revolution, and you do know that.

not every change happens in a day.

 

47578 wasn’t renumbered until 1994, it ran in RES prior though, which is where the confusion lies.. for instance the cab and fuel tank mods are not present on 578, but are from July /August 1994.

 

Yes there’s a period where the jumpers weren’t fitted, but if you examine closer your picture you will note fuel tanks, cut cab and other bufferbeam mods are present, those were removed later (and not present earlier)..

thats evolution.

 

If you want a day in time then a lot of research is required, the poster has mentioned 1995, and the mods are post 1995, yes some Mods are 4 months earlier than 1995...

If your modelling August to December 1994.. then yes you are correct.

If your modelling the next 25 years (I believe it still exists albeit a Carnforth wreck).. then No.

 

Why the somewhat sarcastic reply? The question was "Does anyone know if 47578 underwent any changes when it was re-numbered to 47776?", not what changes happened to 47776 over its life.

 

At the point of renumbering to 47776, little changed...

Roy

Edited November 17, 2020 by Roy Langridge

[brushman47544]

9 hours ago, Derekstuart said:

I'm sure this has already been discussed, although I can't see it anywhere.

 

Has anyone any opinions on the ledge in front of the cab windows? I understand the 4mm is using CAD originally developed for the 7mm version. The pictures released by Heljan look as if this ledge is far too deep- but that's only from a few limited development pictures I've seen.

 

Has anyone seen anything more up to date to see whether this has been corrected?

Thanks.

 

9 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

Waiting for an updated sample from the O gauge department to see. As you said I'm also under the impression that the OO gauge one will be developed using the R&D from the O gauge variant. 

 

The last O gauge EPs we saw had a lot of errors, most focussed around the cab area and roof profile. 

 

Regarless of my criticism towards Heljan which I still stand by, I eargerly look forward to the EP2 sample of the O gauge one so that I have a good idea of how well the OO gauge one will turn out. If they nail the shape I will buy one or more, time will tell. 

 

The O gauge model certainly had some errors such as those mentioned in the quoted posts, that would be deal breakers for me if they were also reproduced in the OO gauge model. But Heljan still has time to correct them and I'm hoping they will do so.

[Derekstuart]

I don't understand what it is with the Brush 4. Granted, being the best diesel locomotive the World has ever seen (despite what those who like those things with the big noses might say) it's bound to attract the closest inspection, but no one has managed to get it right.

 

Lima got the nose almost right, but windows wrong, Bachmann got the windows right but nose wrong, Heljan (first version) looked right until you compare it to other stock. Ironically, I think the one that got the look closest was the original Hornby one, though it's so lacking in detail and dare I say very slightly overscale, it would still take too much effort to get it right.

[Hal Nail]

33 minutes ago, Derekstuart said:

Ironically, I think the one that got the look closest was the original Hornby one, though it's so lacking in detail and dare I say very slightly overscale, it would still take too much effort to get it right.

I'm not sure of the top one is the one i was looking for - I'm sure it said something about filing off the body ribs when I originally saw it.

 

http://www.emgauge70s.co.uk/model_omwb56.html

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/84563-Hornby-Heljan-class-47/

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Hal Nail

[adb968008]

4 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

Why the somewhat sarcastic reply? The question was "Does anyone know if 47578 underwent any changes when it was re-numbered to 47776?", not what changes happened to 47776 over its life.

 

At the point of renumbering to 47776, little changed...

Roy

 

Fuel tanks, buffer beam pipework and cab cut away additional buffer beam pipe work

 

later..

LEDs, Jumper cable.

?

Sarcastic ive pm’d you.

Time to take it offline and let this Back to 47s ?
 

Edited November 17, 2020 by adb968008

[richscylla]

Didn't mean to cause any trouble - perhaps I should have been a little clearer in my question. Although, I think in reality, my question is flawed. 

 

I model 94-98 in the South Wales and I want one of the new Heljan Class 47s and I'm trying to find which one would be most suitable to fit that period, for the majority of that period. Which I guess is impossible unless the loco stayed in the same state through the period. It seems that 47575 did (as far as I can see) and 47578 wasn't a simple re-number job to 47776. 

[158722]

On 17/11/2020 at 04:53, MGR Hooper! said:

 

Or put it this way.... 

 

Heljan Class 47, specifications listed match what Bachmann already offer. 

Bachmamn Class 47 - £179.95 (RRP in 2020) 

Heljan UK Class 47    - £219.95 (RRP in 2020/2021)

 

I'll gladly pay £220+ for a Bachmann Class 47 because I know what I'll get and I know it is accurate and it will come DCC sound fitted or DCC fitted at the least. 

 

You'd like justification for the price difference?

 

Heljan Class 47, specifications listed match what Bachmann already offer. 

Bachmamn Class 47 - £179.95 (RRP in 2020)  > a model developed on technology available around 2008/09, so over a decade ago

Heljan UK Class 47    - £219.95 (RRP in 2020/2021) > to be based on the significant technological (scanning) developments most/all manufacturers use in 2020, which should (important word that!) lead to better models.

 

Its called development, pushing the hobby forward with better quality models for those who want such things. As others have commented, it is good that 'entry level' models like the Railroad range exist, even though I suggest that the mark-up/profit on those will be higher than newer, high-spec models. 

[GRUNFOS]

Hattons are advertising Gaugemaster 47's for 184 pounds and normal run 47's at 186.95.

[Roy Langridge]

On 17/11/2020 at 04:53, MGR Hooper! said:

 

Or put it this way.... 

 

Heljan Class 47, specifications listed match what Bachmann already offer. 

Bachmamn Class 47 - £179.95 (RRP in 2020) 

Heljan UK Class 47    - £219.95 (RRP in 2020/2021)

 

I'll gladly pay £220+ for a Bachmann Class 47 because I know what I'll get and I know it is accurate and it will come DCC sound fitted or DCC fitted at the least. 

 

Not sure that "Heljan Class 47, specifications listed match what Bachmann already offer" is true - the Heljan spec looks to slightly more advanced, not a lot but a little bit.

 

For example, the Bachmann model does not offer fully independent lighting which Heljan have said will be available.

Roy

[JerseyJon]

47575 went to the scrap man wearing the red and grey parcels livery.  There is a picture of it in 2007 still wearing the livery https://www.railwaymedia.co.uk/Rail/Locos/47/i-3bb339Z/.

 

So that is probably your best bet for your time period!

[rob D2]

Agree with that .

575 wasn’t chosen for the rail net modifications so became an EWS ugly duckling, but that ,meant  more variety In what it pulled 

[w124bob]

On 17/11/2020 at 03:13, YesTor said:

 

True, in which case it sounds as though some people on this thread are in the wrong place and instead should perhaps be looking at the Hornby 47, already in stores at around £70?  Problem solved?

 

To elaborate:

 

Hornby Class 47 - tooling dating back to the 1970s (or maybe even earlier), cheap 'n' cheerful, no features  = retail price £72

 

Heljan Class 47 - new 2020/21 tooling, significantly more features/detail = it ain't gonna be £72

 

Straightforward really - quantum mechanics, this is not... 

 

Best

Al

Anyone with aspirations of improving a Hornby 47 should try a get a copy of the April '77 Railway Modeller, the article shows how to lower the ride height. Anyway back to Heljan at least their 47 137 in blue with glazed headcode gives a bases for an easy renumber to pre TOPS with dual brakes, something that hasn't been in the Barwell catalogue for a long time. That is assuming they get it right regarding rad shutters, pity it's another Spanner boiler version but at least it's a basis for pre TOPS non boiler conversion in blue. It's an easy job to blank out the boiler fittings, something I've done with an ex 47 256 in green from Barwell. 

Edited November 18, 2020 by w124bob
there to their!

[Ouroborus]

4 hours ago, 158722 said:

 

You'd like justification for the price difference?

 

Heljan Class 47, specifications listed match what Bachmann already offer. 

Bachmamn Class 47 - £179.95 (RRP in 2020)  > a model developed on technology available around 2008/09, so over a decade ago

Heljan UK Class 47    - £219.95 (RRP in 2020/2021) > to be based on the significant technological (scanning) developments most/all manufacturers use in 2020, which should (important word that!) lead to better models.

 

Its called development, pushing the hobby forward with better quality models for those who want such things. As others have commented, it is good that 'entry level' models like the Railroad range exist, even though I suggest that the mark-up/profit on those will be higher than newer, high-spec models. 

 

Thanks for this.  So just to clarify and get it clear in my mind, any model scanned *will* be a more accurate model than one not scanned?   2020 developments, pushing forwards etc....

[97403_Ixion]

I see they've updated the RES 47578 advert with a photo of 47578 rather than 47776!

Yay... but this time of 47578 with no nameplate...  

 

I hunted around and did eventually find a photo of 47578 in RES with the name 'Respected', so I am now convinced it did actually exist in this colour scheme with the name.

 

Tempted as I do like parcel trains  

[158722]

17 hours ago, Ouroborus said:

 

Thanks for this.  So just to clarify and get it clear in my mind, any model scanned *will* be a more accurate model than one not scanned?   2020 developments, pushing forwards etc....

I shouldn't really bother with replying to what seem to be flippant comments, but did I not clearly highlight the use of the word 'should' part of my earlier post, with no suggesting that it (or any other new model)  'will' be better than previous? There are several examples where newer models have been judged by the RMweb panel to be worse than previous - the Bachmann 25 compared with the Hornby 25 (at least on body shape anyway), whilst in my own view, the Bachmann 47 was not an advance over the first generation Heljan one. That wasn't an anti-Bachmann comment - just the first two examples that came to mind and they have of course produced some excellent models of late (Mk2F, 117s). Progress and tech developments 'should' make final products better - I think we all hope that that is true.

[Ouroborus]

30 minutes ago, 158722 said:

I shouldn't really bother with replying to what seem to be flippant comments, but did I not clearly highlight the use of the word 'should' part of my earlier post, with no suggesting that it (or any other new model)  'will' be better than previous? There are several examples where newer models have been judged by the RMweb panel to be worse than previous - the Bachmann 25 compared with the Hornby 25 (at least on body shape anyway), whilst in my own view, the Bachmann 47 was not an advance over the first generation Heljan one. That wasn't an anti-Bachmann comment - just the first two examples that came to mind and they have of course produced some excellent models of late (Mk2F, 117s). Progress and tech developments 'should' make final products better - I think we all hope that that is true.

 

Thanks for your helpful clarification.  So models "based on the significant technological (scanning) developments most/all manufacturers use in 2020," aren't necessarily any better that the ones they replace after all.

Its actually an important point because it should highlight the importance of not being swayed by 'fools gold'.   The Bachmann 47, as 32-802 broke cover in 2006, the forgotten Vitrains 47, a few years later.  Neither were scanned, but both were generally well regarded.  In 2014 DJM scanned a Class71 and when it came to release, it was criticised for having bufferbeam details wrong and incorrect profile.   How did a scan get it so wrong?

It's because accurate models rely on the care and dedication of the designer behind them.  The man or woman who puts in the extra shift to make sure its 'right', not relying on the latest bit of tech.   ESA lost a Vega rocket this week because a person fitted a part upside down.  Such high tech failed because someone failed to check.

If any manufacturer wants to achieve the definitive Class X, then it is down to a person, not a machine or process, to reach that.   The moment the designer has a 'that'll do' moment is when errors creep in.  Heljan have the opportunity here to show this will not happen.  The 0 Gauge 47 has had criticism for being wrong and there'll be many of us pondering that these errors will get scaled down.  Comments on that thread relating to facebook updates suggest that Heljan didn't take feedback too well.  I'd suggest that rather than a LIDAR scan, the most important tool in the development of a model is the ability to listen to feedback.

 

[Roy Langridge]

4 hours ago, 158722 said:

I shouldn't really bother with replying to what seem to be flippant comments, but did I not clearly highlight the use of the word 'should' part of my earlier post, with no suggesting that it (or any other new model)  'will' be better than previous? There are several examples where newer models have been judged by the RMweb panel to be worse than previous - the Bachmann 25 compared with the Hornby 25 (at least on body shape anyway), whilst in my own view, the Bachmann 47 was not an advance over the first generation Heljan one. That wasn't an anti-Bachmann comment - just the first two examples that came to mind and they have of course produced some excellent models of late (Mk2F, 117s). Progress and tech developments 'should' make final products better - I think we all hope that that is true.

 

Hmm, the Bachmann 47 is the right width, unlike the Heljan model which is hard to correct. Bachmann just managed to mess up other bits which are, thankfully, easier to correct.

 

Laser-scanning has been seen a bit of a mix reception where sometimes the true shape causes issues in modellers eyes. I am thinking of things like the Dapol Class 73 roof dimples which caused a lot of complaint but were actually perfectly represented.

 

Roy

[158722]

7 hours ago, Ouroborus said:

 

Thanks for your helpful clarification.  So models "based on the significant technological (scanning) developments most/all manufacturers use in 2020," aren't necessarily any better that the ones they replace after all.

Its actually an important point because it should highlight the importance of not being swayed by 'fools gold'.   The Bachmann 47, as 32-802 broke cover in 2006, the forgotten Vitrains 47, a few years later.  Neither were scanned, but both were generally well regarded.  In 2014 DJM scanned a Class71 and when it came to release, it was criticised for having bufferbeam details wrong and incorrect profile.   How did a scan get it so wrong?

It's because accurate models rely on the care and dedication of the designer behind them.  The man or woman who puts in the extra shift to make sure its 'right', not relying on the latest bit of tech.   ESA lost a Vega rocket this week because a person fitted a part upside down.  Such high tech failed because someone failed to check.

If any manufacturer wants to achieve the definitive Class X, then it is down to a person, not a machine or process, to reach that.   The moment the designer has a 'that'll do' moment is when errors creep in.  Heljan have the opportunity here to show this will not happen.  The 0 Gauge 47 has had criticism for being wrong and there'll be many of us pondering that these errors will get scaled down.  Comments on that thread relating to facebook updates suggest that Heljan didn't take feedback too well.  I'd suggest that rather than a LIDAR scan, the most important tool in the development of a model is the ability to listen to feedback.

 

Sarcastic comment to start with?

 

I don't agree with you on the Bachmann 47 - I think it is dreadful - far too narrow on the cabs, with some details such as the headlight and bufferbeam surround/lip that look like they've had a dose of viagra, both of which combine to fail to replicate the all important 'face' and look of the model. I do agree with you on the ViTrains one however, the bodyshell shape appears to capture more of the prototype character better than the others, but is let down by poorer quality finishing and mechanics/electrics.

 

I do agree with you on the designer input - fundamental - but surely a better final could and should result when supported by new technologies?

 

Some of the 'feedback' aimed at any of the manufacturers is quite often, down right ridiculous, pointless and wrong - that said, amongst the chaff, there are some valuable and very valid comments that all manufacturers need to pick up on, as you rightly say. I know for a fact that Heljan do that, as do Bachmann.  

[158722]

4 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

Hmm, the Bachmann 47 is the right width, unlike the Heljan model which is hard to correct. Bachmann just managed to mess up other bits which are, thankfully, easier to correct.

 

Laser-scanning has been seen a bit of a mix reception where sometimes the true shape causes issues in modellers eyes. I am thinking of things like the Dapol Class 73 roof dimples which caused a lot of complaint but were actually perfectly represented.

 

Roy

As per my previous reply, I don't think the width/shape issues with the Bachmann 47 cab are easy to correct - just as the width issue of the Heljan one is virtually impossible too.

 

I agree with your comment about the true shape - for example, I've had to revise my opinion of the Heljan O gauge 56 cab/windows area, which I thought was well off the mark in the CAD images and prototypes we've seen so far. It wasn't what my eyes were expecting, but does seem to be heading towards a decent representation.

[BR(S)]

Not sure if this has been mentioned above.  Colletts Models have listed the Gaugemaster 47s at £178.99:

 

https://www.collettsmodelshop.co.uk/?s=gaugemaster+collection&post_type=product

[Derekstuart]

On 17/11/2020 at 17:07, Hal Nail said:

I'm not sure of the top one is the one i was looking for - I'm sure it said something about filing off the body ribs when I originally saw it.

 

http://www.emgauge70s.co.uk/model_omwb56.html

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/84563-Hornby-Heljan-class-47/

 

That second link is a good one. I'm not sure what exactly he's done to the cab windows but it's about one of the most convincing and accurate looking that I've seen. I must ask him.

 

 

18 hours ago, Ouroborus said:

Its actually an important point because it should highlight the importance of not being swayed by 'fools gold'.   The Bachmann 47, as 32-802 broke cover in 2006, the forgotten Vitrains 47, a few years later.  Neither were scanned, but both were generally well regarded.  In 2014 DJM scanned a Class71 and when it came to release, it was criticised for having bufferbeam details wrong and incorrect profile.   How did a scan get it so wrong?

 

 

In the case of the hallowed Brush 4, it is well known that Brush still retain all the engineering drawings for this World-beating locomotive design. They have assisted model projects previously and I cannot imagine that they'd be any less enthusiastic about helping prefect a model of a perfect class. So is there need for scanning? I bet a competent CAD operator could convert drawings to 3D faster than cleaning up an automatic laser measuring session.

 

 

14 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

Hmm, the Bachmann 47 is the right width, unlike the Heljan model which is hard to correct. Bachmann just managed to mess up other bits which are, thankfully, easier to correct.

 

Laser-scanning has been seen a bit of a mix reception where sometimes the true shape causes issues in modellers eyes. I am thinking of things like the Dapol Class 73 roof dimples which caused a lot of complaint but were actually perfectly represented.

 

Roy

Hello Roy, if I may, I don't think it's just the issues of shape with the Bachmann 47. The bogie frames, for example, look really poor to me. Were they scaled up to 1:1 and made from metal, I doubt those springs would hold up your car, let alone 120 tons of Brush 4. I've never really thought the Bachmann 47 looks right, despite its mechanical pulling power, which is the best of all.

 

By 73 roof dimples, do you mean the deformed cab roof domes? I must admit that I've never noticed them, despite travelling several times a week Victoria- Gatwick. So you're probably right inasmuch as it's what we expect to see rather than what we really do see.