All-new Heljan 47 in 00 gauge

[boxbrownie]

32 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

With an RRP of of £220 I would expect both, and that is not a moan about price, just a statement of expectation.

Roy

I wouldn’t expect to pay RRP or anywhere near it for either........only have to look at Heljan RRP and actual sale prices.

[Phil Parker]

58 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

Hi Phil,

 

The problem is we tend to never be told what those identified corrections are - if we knew then those comments may not be made. As it is, without knowledge we are going to comment in the hopes that if Heljan have missed something, they are alerted to it.

 

As it stands, it is a half way house - we see what is the current state, see errors / omissions but never really get any feedback on what is still to be addressed. As such, the value of the showing the EP is diminished.

 

Roy

 

I was replying to the suggestion that no changes would be made. That is a very different point to the one you are trying to make.

[Hal Nail]

Heljan said to me they prefer to do their own checks because any valid observations on forums tend to get lost in all the noise.

 

So pointing out every little thing you can spot actually hinders us getting better models. 

[Roy Langridge]

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

I wouldn’t expect to pay RRP or anywhere near it for either........only have to look at Heljan RRP and actual sale prices.

 
But you miss the point. This model is setting new highs for run-of-the-mill models. Yes it will be discounted, but it is starting at a high point. After discounting it will likely still be an expensive model. 
 

As I said, given that, I would expect an accurate models and one that runs well.

 

Roy

[Phil Mc]

Heljan should prefer to do their own checks, but as with most things, IF the people doing the 'checking' are the same people as those doing the 'creating', it's sometimes difficult to find the faults, otherwise you wouldn't have got them wrong in the first place !

(This obviously depends on the number of people involved in the design team. More eyes will see more things......)

 

If they don't want a public response to the pre-production samples, then why put the pictures out in the public domain ?

 

Cheers,

Phil.

 

[boxbrownie]

34 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 
But you miss the point. This model is setting new highs for run-of-the-mill models. Yes it will be discounted, but it is starting at a high point. After discounting it will likely still be an expensive model. 
 

As I said, given that, I would expect an accurate models and one that runs well.

 

Roy

Well I have NEVER bought a perfect model (on looks at least, I have a few that run perfectly....ironically all Heljan)........but have bought models that look very good indeed, run well and to my mind are good value.

 

There by lay the differences.

[boxbrownie]

47 minutes ago, Hal Nail said:

 

 

So pointing out every little thing you can spot actually hinders us getting better models. 

But for some it is their lifeblood 

[bazjones1711]

When i was at collage many years ago doing engineering one thing that i learnt and has stayed with me all these years later is something called accumulative error  , where by any errors made at one place are compounded elsewhere , something we see in many models , for example on the Heljan class 47 the bodyside windows line up with the cab side windows when in reality the side window is slightly higher up , problem now arises if you move the bodyside windows up around 1mm or so they become to near the cantrail grilles thus making the error stand out even more , so you need to look where the starting point is for the error before trying to move positions of the various details , my opinion is the the bodyside is slightly to high which is putting things out of proportion . Also years ago there was a one off model magazine about the various aspects of modelling , painting , soldering etc... IIRC there was a piece in there saying if we are to scratchbuild models the we need to make then within a tolerance of about + / - 20 thou ( 0.50 mm ) as if your 40 thou out ( 1.00mm ) things become out of square and look as though they are leaning etc..

As an example ; 4mm = 1 ft 

 1mm ( 40 thou )  equates to 3 inches

0.50mm (20 thou ) equates to 1 1/2 inches

So even these small errors of 1mm or so can make a big difference in the overall look of any model by any manufacturer as i have said in various posts in the past  , if on your first impression of any model there seems to be something quite not right  whether this be the wrong shade of paint and so on then it is  possibly is wrong .

But ultimately we all have a choice as to whether we purchase any models with or without errors .

 

[Ouroborus]

∆ very interesting read.  On the flip side, it never ceases to amaze me where slate roofed houses are modelled with way out of scale slates - too big, too chunky and yet they look right.  Maybe 'right' is the wrong word.  We know they are wrong but they look 'pleasing', a bit like the way the chubby 47 did

[Roy Langridge]

3 minutes ago, Ouroborus said:

∆ very interesting read.  On the flip side, it never ceases to amaze me where slate roofed houses are modelled with way out of scale slates - too big, too chunky and yet they look right.  Maybe 'right' is the wrong word.  We know they are wrong but they look 'pleasing', a bit like the way the chubby 47 did

 

Interesting that pleasing to you looks horrendous to others (me included). The 25 is similarly so: I am one of the vertically challenged, but when I look at the new Class 25 EP, all I can see is a short cab door and how even I would bump my head - others don't care. Whilst many speak about the face of a loco, for me you spend more time looking at the side and errors here are even more obvious.

 

There is obviously no substitute for getting things "right", but where compromise is made, I feel things must still look in proportion. Unfortunately the tubby 47 and 25 EPs do not. 

Roy

[Philou]

Hmmmm, you're right regarding slates. It bugs me that a perfect plasticard model can be spoilt with a slate roof that shows grooves all round - as if there was a mortar joint all round. Slate is very thin and each course is overlaid on the one below, therefore slate should be stepped - tiles likewise. It shouldn't be too difficult for the plasticard manufacturers to get the moulding right. Otherwise make your own using thin card or paper strips.

 

Sorry, OT.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[TravisM]

I’ve had a quick look through all the different comments but I couldn’t find anything but have have Heljan announced the sub classes and liveries?  If I’ve missed it, can someone direct me to it.

[Global]

That fat 47 looked awful! I bought one of the early ones and it went straight back to the shop! 
 

I realise everyone has a personal standard to which a model is worthy of them purchasing, I’m not after perfection in every little detail but I do expect it to look like it’s supposed to in the major areas, but I realise some are not so fussy and are happy with something that vaguely looks like it supposed to! 
 

As has been pointed out already, things like the side windows maybe only a fraction out but that fraction will become blindingly obvious when some of the br sector liveries are applied and when the colour should go under the window it hits the window that is now too low! 
 

As we seem to be in a world where we have to pre order everything for fear of missing out, I’ve actually ordered 11 of these so I’m really hoping Heljan get it right - especially as they are pricing it at the top end of the market. 
 

Unfortunately I can see it going the same way as most of their other releases and them doing nothing about the fundamental errors that plague most of their diesels or electrics on first release.

 

If that’s the case, despite preordering them, they will all be going back.

 

I’d also planned on a couple of the 25s, which I’ve cancelled due to the errors, and most of the late BR Blue 45s which I can see going the same way unless they correct the errors before production release. 
 

Now I get it’s entirely my choice, but that’s around 20 loco sales they’re on their way to losing because they just couldn’t be arsed to put a bit of effort in in getting it right first time.

 

I got shot down for saying it last time but there has got to be something seriously wrong with the design department at Heljan, the odd indiscretion can be accepted but these design errors occur with far too much consistency.

 

Yes they might get there on the second or third attempt, as they seem to have done on the 33s and 86s, but why not put the effort in to get it right at the beginning? 

[BigAndy]

Having been howled down in the past for rainsing concerns and highlighting issues, I'm wary of making any comments again, so I won't.

 

The only point I'm going to raise (again), is that when starting the CAD's for a Loco and then the process of getting it to an EP, why not just get it right?

 

For those that aren't too fussed about the overall look of something and are just happy that a new model is being produced, then those customers will be happy whether the Loco is 90% there or 100% there.

However, if it's the other way around and for those of us who ARE concerned with it being spot on, then it matters greatly that something is only 90%.

 

Surely, from a business and economic sense, Heljan would get another 10% of sales to the modeller who wants 100% and wont buy if it's at 90%! Does that not make sense?

Or is it simply a case of, to reach that extra 10% from 90%, the effort outweighs the sales they will achieve?

 

From where I'm sitting, it seems as though a project is deemed 'good enough' by the manufacturer when it reaches that magical 90% there, thus ensuring the aforementioned 90% will buy it.

I just don't see why modellers with the quest for perfection should be let down.

 

Let's face it, we aren't talking a couple of rivets out of place, which seems to be the gripe of the 90% who see the rest of us as 'nit pickers'. We're talking about pretty fundamental shape problems and window misplacement amongst many things - that is not being picky! If you ordered a Steak at a Restaurant and they brought out a Chicken breast instead, would you send it back? It's still food right? Close enough and it will fill you up, correct?

 

Anyway, Heljan will deliver what they want to, regardless of what the likes of me say about it. I've learned that too over the years.

 

cheers

 

Andy

[mdvle]

25 minutes ago, BigAndy said:

The only point I'm going to raise (again), is that when starting the CAD's for a Loco and then the process of getting it to an EP, why not just get it right?

 

I suspect that they do attempt to - but it isn't as easy as saying "just get it right".

 

Something that is wrong that is "obvious" to a poster on a forum can easily be missed by the people working on the project, who having spent hours looking at photos and drawings can have things seem to blur together because, ironically enough, they have become too familiar with the subject (similarly, we as human are frequently very poor at proofreading our own writing - because our brains read what we intended and not what we actually put to paper or screen).

 

Larger operations like Hornby have an advantage here because they have more people, and hence more eyeballs, to vet things - and yet they also still have issues get missed.

 

Then their is the reality of the production process - where for any number of reasons at some point you need to say proceed to the next step because otherwise you miss your slot in the tooling process or production process, which then potentially blows the project's budget.

 

Again, a larger operation can have more flexibility as they potentially can juggle and swap projects (up to a point) to keep those slots - but even they at some point need to put a stop to the money being spent on a project as otherwise the company will lose money.

 

So short form - yes it's frustrating when a model of a favourite prototype ends up having an issue that just screams "mistake" to us, but none of the manufacturers are deliberately doing it - they like us want a 100% model but it actually is very difficult to achieve.

 

[edit]

 

To add, not even RMweb is perfect - my recollection is there has been at least one model where when the final product arrived somebody said X is wrong, and when a member went back and looked that problem had existed from the posted CAD's and nobody until the final product showed up had noticed it.

Edited February 3, 2021 by mdvle

[Albie the plumber]

On 03/02/2021 at 18:02, mdvle said:

 

I suspect that they do attempt to - but it isn't as easy as saying "just get it right".

 

Something that is wrong that is "obvious" to a poster on a forum can easily be missed by the people working on the project, who having spent hours looking at photos and drawings can have things seem to blur together because, ironically enough, they have become too familiar with the subject (similarly, we as human are frequently very poor at proofreading our own writing - because our brains read what we intended and not what we actually put to paper or screen).

 

Larger operations like Hornby have an advantage here because they have more people, and hence more eyeballs, to vet things - and yet they also still have issues get missed.

 

Then their is the reality of the production process - where for any number of reasons at some point you need to say proceed to the next step because otherwise you miss your slot in the tooling process or production process, which then potentially blows the project's budget.

 

Again, a larger operation can have more flexibility as they potentially can juggle and swap projects (up to a point) to keep those slots - but even they at some point need to put a stop to the money being spent on a project as otherwise the company will lose money.

 

So short form - yes it's frustrating when a model of a favourite prototype ends up having an issue that just screams "mistake" to us, but none of the manufacturers are deliberately doing it - they like us want a 100% model but it actually is very difficult to achieve.

 

[edit]

 

To add, not even RMweb is perfect - my recollection is there has been at least one model where when the final product arrived somebody said X is wrong, and when a member went back and looked that problem had existed from the posted CAD's and nobody until the final product showed up had noticed it.

 

 

I get what you mean about the proof reading bit , so does my newspaper editor girlfriend .

She will sometimes miss something perfectly obvious that perhaps a third party wouldn't .

 

A case of not being able to see the wood for the trees .

[Roy Langridge]

5 minutes ago, Albie the plumber said:

 

 

I get what you mean about the proof reading bit , so does my newspaper editor girlfriend .

She will sometimes miss something perfectly obvious that perhaps a third party wouldn't .

 

A case of not being able to see the wood for the trees .

Whilst what you say is true, we are talking CAD here, not words. You can overlay lines in CAD to check the relationhip between features such as windows..

 

More significantly, whilst we are often trying to find images to match the point of view for a released CAD image, if you are developing CAD you can rotate / project that model to match the available images, overlaying the two.

 

Roy

[Dunsignalling]

On 03/02/2021 at 17:44, BigAndy said:

Having been howled down in the past for rainsing concerns and highlighting issues, I'm wary of making any comments again, so I won't.

 

The only point I'm going to raise (again), is that when starting the CAD's for a Loco and then the process of getting it to an EP, why not just get it right?

 

For those that aren't too fussed about the overall look of something and are just happy that a new model is being produced, then those customers will be happy whether the Loco is 90% there or 100% there.

However, if it's the other way around and for those of us who ARE concerned with it being spot on, then it matters greatly that something is only 90%.

 

Surely, from a business and economic sense, Heljan would get another 10% of sales to the modeller who wants 100% and wont buy if it's at 90%! Does that not make sense?

Or is it simply a case of, to reach that extra 10% from 90%, the effort outweighs the sales they will achieve?

 

From where I'm sitting, it seems as though a project is deemed 'good enough' by the manufacturer when it reaches that magical 90% there, thus ensuring the aforementioned 90% will buy it.

I just don't see why modellers with the quest for perfection should be let down.

 

Let's face it, we aren't talking a couple of rivets out of place, which seems to be the gripe of the 90% who see the rest of us as 'nit pickers'. We're talking about pretty fundamental shape problems and window misplacement amongst many things - that is not being picky! If you ordered a Steak at a Restaurant and they brought out a Chicken breast instead, would you send it back? It's still food right? Close enough and it will fill you up, correct?

 

Anyway, Heljan will deliver what they want to, regardless of what the likes of me say about it. I've learned that too over the years.

 

cheers

 

Andy

At the risk of sounding cynical, getting to 100% now, or at any other time, means you don't get the chance to flog near enough the same thing to the same people all over again in a year or two.

 

It's called The Apple i-Principle.

 

John 

[davebem]

22 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

It's called The Apple i-Principle.

 

 

Its interesting if the manufacturers have done that market research and deliberately following this kind of approach?  But due to higher standards and our demands we are probably at a point now where if they take more time to get it as perfect as possible during development that the investment in more complicated but accurate and detailed tooling pays off in the longer run?  If the Heljan 47 is the ultimate 47 it would have a longer life (think like the accurscale 55 has potential), it would pay off for Heljans end to end extra investment made in it more than the original 47 tooling (and/or bachmanns).

Edited April 10, 2021 by davebem

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, davebem said:

 

Its interesting if the manufacturers have done that market research and deliberately following this kind of approach?  But due to higher standards and our demands we are probably at a point now where if they take more time to get it as perfect as possible during development that the investment in more complicated but accurate and detailed tooling pays off in the longer run?  If the Heljan 47 is the ultimate 47 it would have a longer life (think like the accurscale 55 has potential), it would pay off for Heljans end to end extra investment made in it more than the original 47 tooling (and/or bachmanns).

For basic dimensions and shapes, I agree but, TBH, I don't think anybody will ever make a 47 to satisfy everyone. There were so many and they lasted so long that, by the end of their careers, no two were identical.

 

Tooling every variation for every member of the class throughout its service life would take forever, and be so expensive as to push the models beyond the means of most purchasers.

 

You'd be certain to include or omit some feature that some will consider a deal breaker because it was fitted or removed from their favourite two years before or after their modelling period.

 

John

Edited April 10, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[woodenhead]

On 10/04/2021 at 16:30, Dunsignalling said:

For basic dimensions and shapes, I agree but, TBH, I don't think anybody will ever make a 47 to satisfy everyone. There were so many and they lasted so long that, by the end of their careers, no two were identical.

 

Tooling every variation for every member of the class throughout its service life would take forever, and be so expensive as to push the models beyond the means of most purchasers.

 

You'd be certain to include or omit some feature that some will consider a deal breaker because it was fitted or removed from their favourite two years before or after their modelling period.

 

John

Bachmann have I think accepted your challenge!

[Hilux5972]

Absolutely agree Woodenhead. And if the new Bachmann one performs and looks as fantastically as they are suggesting, then I think this one may die a quiet death. Then again they may persevere with it and offer it at a lower price point for those modellers that can’t afford the new Bachmann one. 

[brushman47544]

I will be keeping an open mind about which to buy until I see the actual models from both manufacturers in the liveries I want. If Heljan hasn’t corrected the roofline of the models where the grills curve and meet the bodyside compared to the pre-production shots, Bachmann’s model would appear to have a head start. But let’s wait and see…

[47164]

You have to feel for Ben having put his heart and soul into the 25/45/47 models with two being challenged by other manufacturers, I guess for us it will come down to price at the end of the day "……it’s becoming a crowded market place.

[tractor_37260]

5 minutes ago, 47164 said:

You have to feel for Ben having put his heart and soul into the 25/45/47 models with two being challenged by other manufacturers, I guess for us it will come down to price at the end of the day "……it’s becoming a crowded market place.

 

Yes I'd agree, but with this new Bachmann announcement, there will be no room for any errors in the new Heljan model for it to compete, although the price comparison should prove interesting !