New & Improved Class 33

[frobisher]

It's the roof profile that's wrong on the 33/0 as I understand it and is correct/better on the 33/1.

[dibber25]

It's the roof profile that's wrong on the 33/0 as I understand it and is correct/better on the 33/1.

I think the reviewer that mentioned this may have been me. I only reviewed the very first Heljan Class 33 release (whichever one that was) and I spent a lot of time comparing the model to photographs of the real thing before I concluded that something was wrong with the roof profile above the cab windshields. Other people reviewed the later versions, compared them to the earlier model,  and concluded that they were better.

CHRIS LEIGH

[SRman]

The whole roof profile was too flat and shallow a curve on the 33/0, made even more obvious by the 'shoulder' moulded into the cab roof edges. If you look at the photos posted earlier of the new moulding, you'll see that the cab roof should flow smoothly into the upper cab sides over the windows, interrupted by the gutters but these don't break the actual line.

 

I took some photos a few years ago of my 33s, 33/0 with the cab roof edges filed down to disguise the shouldered effect, a 33/1 and a 33/2.(much nearer correct profile). If you look at the grey central translucent panels on my models, you can see the much flatter profile on the 33/0.

 

 

 

I don't have any 33/0s in original Heljan condition to show, unfortunately. I have modified all of mine to the same standard as the blue one in the photos above.

 

With apologies for taking this topic off on a slight but partially relevent tangent.

Edited November 27, 2013 by SRman

[JSpencer]

Admitedly my Heljan 33/0 is from a later batch (BR blue 33004) while the 33/1 is the NSE Ashford 150.

 

Roof grills are exactly the same, body exactly the same, everything is the same (except the obvious prototypical differences). So it seems that they did improve the 33/0 as well after the initial batch (which I think is what Chris is saying - although I cannot remember seeing anyone else say that later production runs of 33/0s were improved). I find the roof profiles on both exactly the same and flat to my taste (most obvious against the Lima version but that hardly serves as a comparison).

 

But neither look anywhere as good as this new revised version which, looking at the photos, really capture the Crompton for the first time and looks far better than the 33/0 and 33/1 I own.

[BR(S)]

Admitedly my Heljan 33/0 is from a later batch (BR blue 33004) while the 33/1 is the NSE Ashford 150.

 

Roof grills are exactly the same, body exactly the same, everything is the same (except the obvious prototypical differences). So it seems that they did improve the 33/0 as well after the initial batch (which I think is what Chris is saying - although I cannot remember seeing anyone else say that later production runs of 33/0s were improved). I find the roof profiles on both exactly the same and flat to my taste (most obvious against the Lima version but that hardly serves as a comparison).

 

But neither look anywhere as good as this new revised version which, looking at the photos, really capture the Crompton for the first time and looks far better than the 33/0 and 33/1 I own.

 

I'm not one who can often see the issues that people critique with models, but there was definitely an issue with the 33/0 roof profile being too flat, which was then corrected on the 33/1 and 33/2.  As far as I know, Heljan didn't retool any of their 33s until now.  Out of interest, would it be possible for you to post a head-on picture of your 33004 and Ashford 150?

 

Of course, if you're happy with them, that's the crucial thing!

Edited November 27, 2013 by BR(S)

[bigherb]

Hattons have got them on pre order for £95, I've taken a punt on a couple of green ones.

[Lyddrail]

The 33/0 has never been changed (until now), the roof is too shallow. The 33/1 has this corrected but the front cab windows are too far out from the centre on both the 33/0 and 33/1. The 33/2 has the right roof (different because of the narrow body) and correct front window positions.

 

On all my 33/0s I filed the roof over the cab to improve the look but it is still wrong. On one of my 33/0s I also repositioned the cab front windows which is a big improvement.

 

Many of the the releases were also fitted with the wrong fuel tanks (cut out in corner early & filled in for later period) but this could be sorted by buying spare tank mouldings.

 

The new model looks much improved.

 

Cheers.

 

Paul.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Re the roof profile.

There is a difference between the 33/0 and 33/1 that makes the cab windows a different shape, hence the reason for diferent packs of Laserglaze for each sub class.

 

Mike.

[WILLIAM]

Here is a comparison picture of two Heljan 33s straight out of the box.

 

[Pete 75C]

Here is a comparison picture of two Heljan 33s straight out of the box.

 

Heljan 33's.jpg

 

If this is how the current production looks, just how ridiculously fussy have we become that nothing less than perfection is good enough??? They look pretty damn good to me.

[griffgriff]

Take a look at the 'shoulder' it's almost highlighted by the red pot on the left.

[JSpencer]

Looks like I was wrong, the 33/1 has a slightly improved look compare to the 33/0. I took photos of both from the exact same position and distance from the camera and the subtile différences start to become clear (need my eyes tested!!):

 

 

 

Am I happy with these? not enough to want to fit sound to them!

 

I still think the photos of the revamped one look far better however  and have order a BR Green one, and Dutch 33002 (which I actually saw 20 years or so ago). The latter I'll convert to sound I think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete 75C]

Honestly... Having gone from this...

to this...

in a relatively short space of time, and some of you still aren't happy... Oh well, each to their own.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Pete_S

[SRman]

While acknowledging that the 33/0s weren't perfect, I did something about it in terms of modelling by reshaping and repainting the cab roofs on all three of the 33/0s I own. The superb Heljan running qualities far outweigh the downside of the somewhat inaccurate roof profile and cab windscreen issues, so I do own three of the inaccurate 33/0s, two (more accurate!) 33/1s and a 33/2.

 

For all that, I think Heljan still deserve the criticism they received because they were advised at the pre-production stage that the roof didn't look right. Without the criticism, we probably wouldn't be getting this improved version now.

​I still considered it worthwhile to fit sound in two 33/1s (Howes and Legomanbiffo), a 33/0 (Digitrains/Paul Chetter/Zimo), and a 33/2 (Howes).

 

Oh yes: I also sold all my Lima 33s, including one I converted to 33/1 ... I was quite proud of that one but compared to the Heljan model it looked a bit sad!

 

As for these new ones coming out, I'll have to get at least one of the earlier style with roof silencer in one of the green variations. I still won't sell the existing ones though.

Edited November 28, 2013 by SRman

[griffgriff]

I wasn't happy with the 33/0. What annoyed me most was the that Heljan proved they could do it right when they wanted and they wanted the same cash for a good Crompton and a poorer Crompton. However I did what SRman did and got on with some modelling and got the result I wanted. (Although I converted a /1 to a /0). I agree it's down to personal preference but please don't decry those who seek a decent model, on another thread I've read comments about the shape of a pile of plastic coal, I really don't think that wanting the roof of a Crompton to be the correct shape is unreasonable.

[Pete 75C]

I'm not disrespecting anyone's efforts to improve upon something - it is, in fact, admirable and I admire the skills involved. It's purely a personal opinion. I remain absolutely gobsmacked by how far we've come over the last 20 years or so in terms of "out of the box" detail and I'm happy to leave it be. Besides, I have enough trouble getting the ballast to stick down and the little people on the platforms to stand up! I just wouldn't want to mess about with what I see as an *almost* perfect model. I drove Cromptons on and off for over 10 years and looking at the Heljan model, I'd be unable to spot any faults. I guess that's because I was familiar with the real thing to the point of contempt (the cab side windows leaked like a sieve for example). I certainly haven't spent enough time studying prototype pictures to be able to discern any mistakes. I remain one of those railway modellers happy to go for the "overall effect" rather than precise detail. Pete.

[JSpencer]

There is a lot of bad press out there. One magazine gives the original 33/0 a 5/10 score for looks. That same mag gives the Hornby/Lima one also 5/10.

 

However the 33/1 and 33/2 have a 8/10 score.

 

I did not get a 33/1 until recently thinking it looked the same (nose and buffer parts exempt) as the 33/0. Indeed the similarity between the two is amazing. So maybe the 33/0 should had at least 7/10!

 

The photos of the new 33/0 look far better than either but we won,t know how much until we have sat next to the original.

 

Admittedly I grew up seeing cromptons so maybe I am more fussy with this. My memories of working 37s and 47s are Hornby models and I honest could not tell you which of the modern builds look better!

 

Maybe it's all psychological and only when we have the new 33/0 will we be able to tell.

 

I certainly won,t sell the 33/0 I have when it does arrive, they are great runners.

[BR Blue]

I always felt the 33/0 looked wrong to my eyes, which is why I never bought one. I did convert a 33/1 into a 33/0. Having looked at the revised one in the cabinet at Warley it is much improved and I shall be buying some.

 

Hopefully we will see Heljan revisit some of the their other models that suffered from shape issues such as the 47 and 86 and the O gauge Mk 1s.

Edited December 5, 2013 by BR Blue

[frobisher]

BR Blue, on 02 Dec 2013 - 21:22, said:

Hopefully we will see Heljan revisit some of the their other models that suffered from shape issues such as the 47 and 85 and the O gauge Mk 1s.

Presumably you mean 86 rather than 85..? I would really like to see that sorted out, but Heljan haven't had the appetite for even a rerun of the original so far. The 47 they would have to absolutely nail at this point to make it worth while, whereas even with its tubbiness it's a good seller so I can't see them rushing to correct it. The MK1s may be in the realms of "market not quite big enough" in regards the relative effort to correct.

[BR Blue]

Presumably you mean 86 rather than 85..? I would really like to see that sorted out, but Heljan haven't had the appetite for even a rerun of the original so far. The 47 they would have to absolutely nail at this point to make it worth while, whereas even with its tubbiness it's a good seller so I can't see them rushing to correct it. The MK1s may be in the realms of "market not quite big enough" in regards the relative effort to correct.

Thanks, I do mean the 86. I have edited my post. Electrics are not my area of expertise. I have lots diesels and no electrics Edited December 5, 2013 by BR Blue

[Dunsignalling]

Just been looking at D6526 on the shelf above the laptop, it looks perfectly OK from the side (which is the view I usually got of the prototype's roof!)

 

I'll keep the too-shallow roof profile in preference to the 'orrible metal grille on the new one any day.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

There is a lot of bad press out there. One magazine gives the original 33/0 a 5/10 score for looks. That same mag gives the Hornby/Lima one also 5/10.

Which nicely demonstrates how much notice one should take of such reviews!

 

They presumably didn't have both in the office at the same time!

 

John

[dibber25]

Which nicely demonstrates how much notice one should take of such reviews!

 

They presumably didn't have both in the office at the same time!

 

John

No, it demonstrates that you SHOULD READ the reviews. That way you find out WHY the two models would come out with the same score. Without re-reading the reviews (the score system is a sledge-hammer to crack eggs anyway) the 5/10 score suggests that neither is very good, but the scores are done independently and are not a 'this one is better than that one approach'. There are a set of criteria against which the model is scored which means two different models can arrive at the same result by different routes. I've never liked the system, not least because the 'value for money' score can create a 'false' score by making a cheap reasonable model score more highly than a better but more expensive model. The scoring system was created as a shortcut for people who didn't read the reviews.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Butler Henderson]

The value for money factor typically seems to be the one that skews the overall mark, maybe it ought to be left out of what otherwise is a rating of how accurate a model is.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Butler Henderson

[Enterprisingwestern]

I can't see very clearly from the photo's, but I would hope the most glaring error has been corrected, viz, the bogie springs?

 

Mike.