Class 86

[Dan Griffin]

saw the intercity one today at trains4u, looks very good, ran very smoothly, and had good lights, another on the 'wanted' list.!!!

[298]

Hi all,

 

I just wondered if anybody had noticed that the manufacturers actually release models with errors ON PURPOSE ?

 

Come on, they're ALL at it..........

 

They release a new model, and the idea is that everybody rushes out and buys it.........because it's 'new' and 'better than the current one' etc etc.....

 

.....a while later, they accept that there are certain errors, pointed out by the various experts and lo and behold, they 're-tool' their original errors, which doesnt cost anything as it's all factored in from the word go, and guess what, people rush out and buy the 'newer', 'better' version, therefore instead of having one initial sales surge for a 'new' product, you generate two.........with the added benefit of TWO lots of discussion/attention to the product in question.

 

This could go on for ever.........take one particular Class 37 manufacturer for example.

 

Ever notice a sign with a spelling mistake? You always notice it and then tell your mate what a muppet wrote the sign........BUT, in drawing your mates attention to the sign, you are talking about 'their' product etc........extended conversation etc.

 

I just wonder if it's all a game sometimes..........????????

 

 

That sounds like most of the contractors we get at work- they deliberately do something wrong (such as painting the floor with the wrong amount of grit in for skid resistance), so they're called back in to correct it at the client's expense.

 

However to my eye, there is something very wrong with certain aspects of the loco. I'd agree that not every model is perfect, but if you consider these faults on the basis of whether they are readily noticeable, easily correctable, or an improvement on previous models, i'd have to say "yes", "no" and "maybe" in that order.

 

I can't imagine Heljan have made the mistakes on purpose, all it takes is a few bad reviews and the whole loco is a dud and the only option is a body re-tool. I feel the next step for me will be to ask Heljan if they are planning to do this, as personally i'm not prepared to part with nearly GBP 100 for such a poor effort.

[NickL2008]

Such is life with new models, but some of us are willing to live with the mistakes .. would I buy a Heljan 86?? well maybe, maybe the bowed upwards panto is enough to put me off? or the crude moulded on TDM cables? or the fact its £90-£95 for one!

 

Theres probably more errors to be found, but it is a good model though, miles better than the Hornby 86, or is it ...?

 

NL

[Mod2]

Hi all,

 

I just wondered if anybody had noticed that the manufacturers actually release models with errors ON PURPOSE ?

 

Come on, they're ALL at it..........

 

 

I think we're used to opinion presented as fact, it spoils many a sensible debate, but that has to be one of the most irresponsible postings of the year so far. Andy has worked for five years now to get forums accepted as a medium that the manufacturers will take seriously, and yet still people seek to undermine it with this sort of nonsense.

 

Let's stick to objective appraisal of this model please, preferably once someone is actually in possession of one.

 

Thanks.

[Shedmaster]

I think we're used to opinion presented as fact, it spoils many a sensible debate, but that has to be one of the most irresponsible postings of the year so far. Andy has worked for five years now to get forums accepted as a medium that the manufacturers will take seriously, and yet still people seek to undermine it with this sort of nonsense.

 

Let's stick to objective appraisal of this model please, preferably once someone is actually in possession of one.

 

Thanks.

 

Dear Mod2,

 

After reading back my post many times, I can see that I have no option but to actually agree with your point and apologise profusely to all concerned.

 

In hindsight, my post was actually far from being 'sensible' or even a debate, and in fact, I feel, was way out of character.

 

I'm honestly gutted to have spoilt your excellent and highly regarded work, and time, spent with this forum over the years, I accept that I'm in the wrong here and will definately put more thought into future posts.

 

Kindest Regards,

 

Dave

[Mod2]

Thank you, Dave. We're not totally humourless, in a chat down the pub it would probably have seemed funny and then been forgotten; but here, it constitutes publishing for all to see.

[kiwitrains]

Does that pantograph look like the real thing? it looks like the one fitted on the Hornby APT of many years ago I know pictures on retailers sites are not the best but it does look strange

[jonathan452]

Looking at the pictures on the rails site they look like an 86 ,I am very impressed. I have little detailed knowledge of the prototype so the errors to me are not obvious although the pantograph looks like it is on stilts! Is this correct!

thanks

mark

 

Looking at the recent comments on this thread (including the above) and from the photographs I have seen on the retailers web-sites to date it looks as if the pantograph may the weakest aspect of the model(?).

 

So am I going to treat myself to one or two at Ally Pally or do I wait to see the 'definitive review' in RAIL EXPRESS?

 

Maybe the pantograph could be replaced.

[298]

I'm not saying i'm impressed with the pantograph (although it probably is the the most accurate working pan to be fited to an OO AC electric), but it's what I expected and think it might have some operational merit. Perhaps it is a push fit into the insulators, and photos show it not quite fitted properly. This could be quite a clever feature, as a loose fit means if the pantograph gets snagged in the overhead it detatches itself, rather than risk damaging the wires or derailing the train. This happens quite alot on Carstairs, but the first we usually know is if a train returns to the yard without it's pan, and one of the punters points out the the missing bit lying on the trackside.

 

Due to their design, Sommerfeldt-type single arm pans can look a little proud when locked down and this is no exception. There is no easy fix and the look is quite prominent, but don't forget the prototype has two stages-the position it ends up in when down, and then a slightly lower position when locked down to bring the head further into gauge.

 

* Note- I've not seen one of these locos yet so can only comment on web photos.

[cairnsroadworks]

Right, I have just received my model of 86501, er sorry 86605 - its not been on the workbench yet! Whilst taking on board the comments above about the accuracy of the model dimensionally I have to say I am well chuffed with it. It really does look the part and my Hornby ones will be consigned to history. I do have some criticisms, but for me these are things easily rectified, and part of the fun of detailing - readers of my thread in weathering and painting will know this is where my interest lies!! So here we go with my issues:

 

1. No attempt of moulding where the old style Multiple Working jumpers were - just printed on "detail"

2. TDM cables moulded on. No, No, NO!!

3. The pantograph. I still prefer the Lima 87 "Stone Faiveley" style ones - but thats ok for me, as I've got loads spare.

4. No attempt on the other models to have the more common Brecknell Willis style one - perhaps I need to dust off my Hurst Models kit and take a deep breath!!

5. Roof fire protection tanks - red please - why mould them in grey?

 

But, like I say, personally I feel i am being picky. All these can be rectified on the work bench. I look forward to seeing Jim SW's comments though - i am by no means an expert on 86 details. I just love the locos, and this is my most eagerly awaiting model for many a year. I am a strong believer in personal preference - I like the model a lot, although having said that i feel sorry for those who feel let down by it. But to me, it does look like an 86 - and doesn't look obviously 'tubby' like the 47 did/does.

 

Cheers,

 

Andi.

[reevesthecat]

Looking at the pics on the hattons site the virgin 86 is missing a virgin sticker in one corner- is this prototypical?

mark

[cromptonnut]

The Engine Shed, Leytonstone, had a few in today.

[66540_ruby]

Looking at the pics on the hattons site the virgin 86 is missing a virgin sticker in one corner- is this prototypical?

mark

 

Appears to be a problem with hattons loco as the pic on Rails website has the logo on it.

 

Craig

[298]

Looking at the pics on the hattons site the virgin 86 is missing a virgin sticker in one corner- is this prototypical?

mark

 

And are the stripes oddly spaced...? the gap between the bottom and middle one looks larger than middle to top....??

[brushman47544]

So here we go with my issues:

 

1. No attempt of moulding where the old style Multiple Working jumpers were - just printed on "detail"

2. TDM cables moulded on. No, No, NO!!

3. The pantograph. I still prefer the Lima 87 "Stone Faiveley" style ones - but thats ok for me, as I've got loads spare.

4. No attempt on the other models to have the more common Brecknell Willis style one - perhaps I need to dust off my Hurst Models kit and take a deep breath!!

5. Roof fire protection tanks - red please - why mould them in grey?

 

But, like I say, personally I feel i am being picky. All these can be rectified on the work bench. I look forward to seeing Jim SW's comments though - i am by no means an expert on 86 details. I just love the locos, and this is my most eagerly awaiting model for many a year. I am a strong believer in personal preference - I like the model a lot, although having said that i feel sorry for those who feel let down by it. But to me, it does look like an 86 - and doesn't look obviously 'tubby' like the 47 did/does.

 

Cheers,

 

Andi.

It does seem strange that Heljan should have gone for moulded TDM cables - won't this make it more difficult to backdate the model to 1970s/80s condition and require new cab tooling. Are the cabs separate fittings?

 

Overall, the latest pictures on Hattons/Rails do show the model better than the ones posted earlier on Dagworth, but the one big issue for me remains those upper bodyside grills. The top edges appear to stand proud of the bodyside above, which they shouldn't. It is more noticeable on the ligher coloured bodysides, so I will reserve final judgement on whether or not to buy when (if?) a 1980s BR blue version appears.

[87023Velocity]

I am going to take the plunge and buy one hopefully in the next couple of weeks, with the view to back dating it to an early 80's loco, possibly 86260 in good old banger blue!

 

Simon

 

 

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Simon

 

You will need the early style sandboxes as per the Hornby Model. I still haven't seen one in the flesh yet but still based on pictures I am still sticking with Hornby. Not that my opinion should affect anyone elses naturally.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

 

[87023Velocity]

Hi Jim,

 

Nice etches! TBH, I've not worked out what would need modifying to back date the Heljan model as yet, apart from the obvious, fire bottles, headlight, cab door handles (1 instead of 2), tdm cables, and as you mentioned -sand boxes, not to mention the pan!

 

 

 

Cheers

 

Simon

 

 

[Simon Moore]

I have just taken the plunge & ordered the freightliner version i do have concerns about the pantograph but it does look like a class 86 in my book & once it's been through the weathering shop i think it will produce a nice upto date workhorse. With this model now out & Bachmann doing the class 85 & the desiro i think ohle will follow along with up to date versions of the british ac collection.

I am hoping with Heljans policy of doing one off's i would love a class 89 badger in all 3 liverys it wore.

 

Simon.

[deltic79]

Saw these today in my local Antics.

 

Have to say that they looked pretty good but I wasn't impressed with the finish of the Intercity liveried example. The paint coverage of the stripes is poor around the cab doors as the stripes are not complete underneath the cab handrails and look ragged. This is much more obvious than it sounds and spoils the look somewhat for me. 

 

It reminded me of the old Lima finish on the Intercity liveried Mk.3s where the stripes faded away at the ends of the coaches rather than wrapping round completely as they should have done. With the handrails factory fitted to the 86 it would be almost impossible to touch up the stripes.

 

Also, the lens unit for the headlights (marker and high intensity) was sitting proud on the Intercity model on display, at both ends. Perhaps with a little persuasion this would push back flush into the bodyshell as per the other liveried models on display which didn't have this feature.

 

The other liveries looked really good, though I have to say that as they don't fit into my time period I paid them less attention that the IC model. However I didn't notice any issues with poor paint application or proud lenses on these, so perhaps the IC version was just a bad cookie. It ran sweetly on the test track but I didn't make a purchase as I'm waiting for a RES model as a future release instead.

 

Not sure about the pantograph - it looks about right but I'm not overly familiar with them so can't say for sure. There is a large spring wrapped around the base that doesn't look very prototypical but I stand to be corrected.

 

Just a few things I thought might be of interest if you're purchasing remotely without seeing the model in the flesh first.

 

 

 

 

 

[Trains4U]

PHOTOS...

 

I'm not going to say too much about whether I feel things are right or wrong with the model, I'll leave you to judge for yourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bowing in the pantograph disappears when the pantograph is raised. the pan head has a self leveling mechanism.

The lower torsion arm is, I feel, a little too long, causing too much tension in the pantograph when lowered, hence the bending of the "Bicycle frame"

 

 

 

 

The cab windows do not appear to be as severely raked as on the prototype moulds. Has this been fixed?

 

 

The white lines on the Virgin livery are definitely not equidistant.

 

 

 

 

 

This model is let down by the poor aplication of white paint above the cab windows, which has flaked away. The white bands should also wrap around to the warning panel. black paint from the handrails also appears to have transferred to the cab front.

 

 

 

Inevitably there will be comparisons with the Hornby Model. This is somewhat cruel to the Hornby Veteran, but I do feel the Heljan model has a much better overall look. The Hornby model looks bloated, and next to the Heljan model reminds me of an old Trans pennine unit.

 

 

 

 

I thought I'd "cut and shut" the two models together to better compare differences and profiles...

 

 

The top grilles standing proud is clearly highlighted here, but this is under very harsh top-down lighting.

 

 

Adjust the lighting to something more reasonable (and more like real life) and they look much better.

 

 

 

I really like this model, I think it captures the look of the prototype well (Even if my eye is a little untrained) yes there are issues, but overall it is a good package sadly let down by poor livery application in some cases.

[298]

Thanks for the thorough synopsis Gareth, especially comparing the two models. looking through your photos again i'd definitely say the cab windscreen rake issue is still present and the shade of blue used on 86233 would be great for an early loco but not this heritage repaint.

 

I really do hope it is a popular seller and justifies the introduction into RTR overhead electric classes, although I wouldn't like to see the same errors continued should Heljan choose to model an 87.

[kiwitrains]

Thanks for those pictures Gareth it does look ok to me now even the panto looks a bit better than I thought I think I might order one.

[Zunnan]

Has anyone had the chance to have a go at removing the pantograph yet? (I know, its a bit early for disassembly, but still...)

 

To me it looks like its mounted too high, standing above rather than down between the insulators. I'm hoping its an easy removal from the insulators (and insulators from roof) for a quick bodge to get it sitting lower. Slot inside edges of insulators and slide pantograph home that bit lower so the mounting frame sits just below cab roof height, which is where it seems to sit on every photograph I've seen of the prototype. Potentially a reasonable quick fix to an otherwise decent model, though the flaky paint and other decoration errors is a little disappointing. Heres hoping an earlier BR Blue version is forthcoming

[vac_basher]

I don't want to be controversial, and I must admit I'm not all that familiar with the Cl. 86 - however I do know a cl. 86 when I see one.

 

From the pics in this topic, this offering just doesn't look right, to me. There seems to be something wrong somewhere, but I'm unable to put my finger on it. Perhaps somebody will measure one soon.

Viewed from the side they look like cl. 47s! Surely the cab profiles are wrong.

It also appears the front windows are too small.

The paint/finish on some of the ones in Trains4u photos also seems a bit dubious.

However, as I said earlier, I'm able to recognize a class 47 when I see one, and this generally ticks all the boxes. Nice detail on the roof.

 

Personally I won't be buying any of these, as they're not relevant to my interests. Shame, because minor issues appart, it seems like a decent model. If an AL1 is ever produced then it would be a diffrent story.

 

(Please Heljan, can we have a new cl. 50, AL1, DP2, HST Prototype, and cl. 89 )