At last some new 33s

[Dan Bennett]

On 04/02/2023 at 20:44, SouthernMafia said:

 

Could just remove them? D6580 does look like it has something of a small rubbing plate but, it's definitely not what Heljan have put on it 

 

 

There's also the problem of the fuel tanks, it looks like the whole batch has the unmodified version with the recess. Previous releases have had the correct version depending on era:

 

 

Pictures courtesy Heljan

 

Yes you are correct on the fuel tank issue, and this isn’t the first time they’ve got it wrong. Heljan’s previous release of 33111 had the later type of fuel tank fitted, when 33111 actually carried the early type fuel tank with the cutaway throughout its entire life and still does to this day.

33111 is the only 33/1 to still have the early type fuel tank fitted. 
 

Heljan should really supply replacement fuel tanks free of charge to enable purchasers to correct the appearance of their locomotives.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Dan Bennett

[Roy Langridge]

1 hour ago, Dan Bennett said:

Heljan should really supply replacement fuel tanks free of charge to enable purchasers to correct the appearance of their locomotives.

 

Spoke to them re my 33111, got directed to the spares service to buy a replacement. Oh well...

 

Roy

Edited February 7, 2023 by Roy Langridge

[BR(S)]

All the chassis directly under the bottom of the body have been produced in black, but should be the same colour as the lower part of the body.  Easy to rectify with a pot of paint and/or weathering, but not for everyone and shouldn't have to be done at the new (or any) price.

[BR(S)]

35 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

Spoke to them re my 33111, got directed to the spares service to buy a replacement. Oh well...

 

Roy

 

Apart from the obvious issue with this, I want to buy mine professionally weathered, so a replacement fuel tank isn't much help.  I'll just stick with my solitary 33/2.

[SouthernMafia]

11 hours ago, BR(S) said:

All the chassis directly under the bottom of the body have been produced in black, but should be the same colour as the lower part of the body.  Easy to rectify with a pot of paint and/or weathering, but not for everyone and shouldn't have to be done at the new (or any) price.

 

Also spotted this, and again was correctly coloured on previous releases, so why the backwards step? 

[DY444]

On 03/02/2023 at 11:42, Dan Bennett said:

It’s a shame that D6580 has got the wrong chassis again. It should have a 33/0 chassis without the gangway rubbing plate and buckeye coupling

 

.. and it's missing the extra brake piping on the cab front

[Timsouth47]

Got 33101 today & it looks fantastic the paintwork & detailing is amazing.....but that's where the problem lies.

As a rule, i don't fit the extra detailing (usually in the packs with the loco) as i like my locos to run with coaches or wagons without

the extra parts fouling the bogies....

Unfortunately, Heljan have seen fit to fit all of the detailing to the front buffer beams, thus making the loco un-runable without problems.

While this may look fantastic for a static model, i want to run it on my track.

There's no way i can fit a coupling in the NEM pocket because the fitted buckeye is in the way & the fitted pipes foul the bogies,

see attached photos.

I have now got to do delicate surgery on a beautiful model without destroying it's looks. 😬

Thanks Heljan, 😡

I now look forward to having to do the same to the four others i have on pre-order. 

I have just contacted Heljan about this via their website.🤔 Will post response when it arrives.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Timsouth47
Extra info.

[Roy Langridge]

I am more concerned by the lack of blue on the chassis. I don’t believe that for the price now being asked we should have to get a paintbrush out. 

 

I have long found Heljan locos a bit hit and miss. Their apparent laziness, cost cutting or lack of quality control seems to have now relegated a hit to a miss.
 

I had planned another 33/1 to join my fleet if eight 33s. The KMRC specials would have been added too, but not now. 
 

Perhaps @61661 can explain the backward step?
 

Roy

[PM47079]

I have 33110 from a couple of years back, and I am sure it had blue underframe.

[Roy Langridge]

28 minutes ago, PM47079 said:

I have 33110 from a couple of years back, and I am sure it had blue underframe.

 

Yes, hence my comment on backward step. All my blue 33s have the blue underframe. I don't understand why have Heljan abandoned it.

 

Roy

[Halvarras]

On 04/02/2023 at 20:44, SouthernMafia said:

 

Could just remove them? D6580 does look like it has something of a small rubbing plate but, it's definitely not what Heljan have put on it 

 

 

 

D6580 as converted in 1965 to test the push-pull concept had a number of unique features, including external pipe runs to the high-level MU connections, and where these ran horizontally across the top of the bufferbeam they were liable to being clouted by the coupling shackle (see the lower cab front of almost any Class 33 in BR service), hence the provision of the protective plate visible in the above photo. This also appears to confirm that the lower edge of the cab front was cut away to clear the pipes so this feature of Heljan's Class 33/1 tooling is correct for D6580 in this condition, even if the gangway rubbing plate is absent.

 

I think we are highly unlikely to ever see an accurate recreation as demand for a model of such a short-lived (2 years) region-specific locomotive would not justify the tooling investment. This is Heljan's third release of D6580 and if it hasn't happened by now........ There was something adrift with the yellow warning panel on the last one and it appeared to be a result of confusion caused by the lower lamp brackets being in the wrong place - another of D6580's unique features.

 

Considering the almost revolutionary nature of D6580's purpose 1965-7 I'm surprised the trials with scratch TC sets went so unrecorded - another victim of the 'steam swansong' effect? I understand the above photo plus one were taken at Eastleigh Works in August 1967 just before the locomotive went in for modification to standard configuration and repaint into blue, so we should be very thankful the photographer could be bothered to record it in the nick of time, because it seems very few others did!

[steve1023]

19 hours ago, Timsouth47 said:

Got 33101 today & it looks fantastic the paintwork & detailing is amazing.....but that's where the problem lies.

As a rule, i don't fit the extra detailing (usually in the packs with the loco) as i like my locos to run with coaches or wagons without

the extra parts fouling the bogies....

Unfortunately, Heljan have seen fit to fit all of the detailing to the front buffer beams, thus making the loco un-runable without problems.

While this may look fantastic for a static model, i want to run it on my track.

There's no way i can fit a coupling in the NEM pocket because the fitted buckeye is in the way & the fitted pipes foul the bogies,

see attached photos.

I have now got to do delicate surgery on a beautiful model without destroying it's looks. 😬

Thanks Heljan, 😡

I now look forward to having to do the same to the four others i have on pre-order. 

I have just contacted Heljan about this via their website.🤔 Will post response when it arrives.

 

I fully agree with this. I'm often left with the feeling from Heljan of 'that'll do' and why I sincerely hope that AS announce a class 33.

 

Sadly, I've steadily grown to hate Heljan for this and why I now, no longer buy their products. Unfortunately, if we want a class 33 we are left with a choice of Heljan or Lima. 

 

Steve

[159220]

Anyone know why 3354 is yet to be released? I have on pre-order. TBH I never saw 3350 in the list of orders, has 3354 been dropped for 3350 instead? Shame! 

[dj_crisp]

6 hours ago, steve1023 said:

 

I fully agree with this. I'm often left with the feeling from Heljan of 'that'll do' and why I sincerely hope that AS announce a class 33.

 

Sadly, I've steadily grown to hate Heljan for this and why I now, no longer buy their products. Unfortunately, if we want a class 33 we are left with a choice of Heljan or Lima. 

 

Steve

 

I'm not sure a different manufacturer would be able to produce a fully detailed bufferbeam and then have NEM couplings though. One of the reasons I went to kadees mounted on the buffer beam for all of my locos. 

 

I agree I'm a bit frustrated with some of the later Heljan releases where I agree I feel they have let standards slip. (I really wanted a proper peak but shape wise its not right).

 

I quite like Heljans 33 though and wouldn't replace any of mine if another manufacturer announced one. My experience of Heljan is the running qualities are pretty good.

 

[steve1023]

On 12/02/2023 at 16:25, dj_crisp said:

 

I'm not sure a different manufacturer would be able to produce a fully detailed bufferbeam and then have NEM couplings though. One of the reasons I went to kadees mounted on the buffer beam for all of my locos. 

 

I agree I'm a bit frustrated with some of the later Heljan releases where I agree I feel they have let standards slip. (I really wanted a proper peak but shape wise its not right).

 

I quite like Heljans 33 though and wouldn't replace any of mine if another manufacturer announced one. My experience of Heljan is the running qualities are pretty good.

 

But this is the problem. I don't want a fully detailed buffer beam - they just end up breaking. Looks great admittedly, but Heljan force it upon those who don't want. It's not only that. There is nearly always something just not quite right. In the case of the 33/0 - good front end, annoying oversize grill & I believe roof inaccuracies. 33/1 - naff front end, this one never gets mentioned. Just compare 33/0 & 33/1 to see. Little things, but very annoying. I would certainly replace mine with something better. 

[JSpencer]

On 11/02/2023 at 15:12, Timsouth47 said:

Got 33101 today & it looks fantastic the paintwork & detailing is amazing.....but that's where the problem lies.

As a rule, i don't fit the extra detailing (usually in the packs with the loco) as i like my locos to run with coaches or wagons without

the extra parts fouling the bogies....

Unfortunately, Heljan have seen fit to fit all of the detailing to the front buffer beams, thus making the loco un-runable without problems.

While this may look fantastic for a static model, i want to run it on my track.

There's no way i can fit a coupling in the NEM pocket because the fitted buckeye is in the way & the fitted pipes foul the bogies,

see attached photos.

I have now got to do delicate surgery on a beautiful model without destroying it's looks. 😬

Thanks Heljan, 😡

I now look forward to having to do the same to the four others i have on pre-order. 

I have just contacted Heljan about this via their website.🤔 Will post response when it arrives.

 

FWIW, the buckeye can be pulled off. I either fitted long kadees on mine with convert vans between the 33 and rolling stock, OR roco style couplings when used in push/pull mode with a 4-TC and eventually Caroline from revolution. Both work fine without fouling all the other pipework and any screwlink.

A bigger issue is if you want to attach plows as that basically means no coupling if applied to both ends. And it looks way too odd having bright yellow ploughs one end and none the other.

Tension locks require snipping away some of the pipes.

[JSpencer]

On 12/02/2023 at 10:56, steve1023 said:

I fully agree with this. I'm often left with the feeling from Heljan of 'that'll do' and why I sincerely hope that AS announce a class 33.

 

Sadly, I've steadily grown to hate Heljan for this and why I now, no longer buy their products. Unfortunately, if we want a class 33 we are left with a choice of Heljan or Lima. 

 

Steve

 

I am confident AS will be around for a long time so a 33 is quite probable especially as we keep begging them for one.

The Heljan model is still light years ahead of the Lima one though which only represented the early roof. 

[Timsouth47]

15 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

 

FWIW, the buckeye can be pulled off. I either fitted long kadees on mine with convert vans between the 33 and rolling stock, OR roco style couplings when used in push/pull mode with a 4-TC and eventually Caroline from revolution. Both work fine without fouling all the other pipework and any screwlink.

A bigger issue is if you want to attach plows as that basically means no coupling if applied to both ends. And it looks way too odd having bright yellow ploughs one end and none the other.

Tension locks require snipping away some of the pipes.

Thanks for the info Re- buckeye coupling removal.👍

Will get the tweezers out tomorrow.

[Timsouth47]

Got a reply back from Heljan re-buffer beam parts.

 

"Sorry to see you are not happy with your Class 33/1 bufferbeam parts. We have always factory fitted these parts on our models. The only time we did not do it we received a large number of complaints was many people do not like to fit the small parts themselves. It's a very simple job to remove the buckeye coupler or trim the hoses to accommodate the tension lock coupler without damaging the model and should not cause any damage to your model. We're sorry that this is not an ideal situation for you personally. Kind Regards Team Heljan"

 

Pretty standard reply form, but at least they did, so kudos for that.

The text i've highlighted in red i'm not convinced about. Having bought a class 33 last year which had the buffer detailing in a separate bag. 🤔 I'm not going to question them further about that now i know that at least the buckeye coupling ( which was causing the biggest problem) can be removed easily.

Regards the missing blue paintwork on the under chassis, i haven't a model (that should have that detail) in my collection.

So i suggest contacting them on their website via the web form, hopefully you should get your answer pretty quickly.

All in all, as i'm not that worried about the finite details (on all my models) irrespective of the manufacturer, i just want a good representation of the prototype that runs well & gives me that joy factor, i still like Heljan's Cromptons as they've always been good runners (for me anyway), which is more than i can say about other manufacturers products( no names mentioned ).

Although i don't have the skills or the space to build a layout which represents a certain time or place, I still appreciate a good looking model though that runs well, they don't sit in cabinets collecting dust.☹️

[dj_crisp]

4 hours ago, JSpencer said:

 

FWIW, the buckeye can be pulled off. I either fitted long kadees on mine with convert vans between the 33 and rolling stock, OR roco style couplings when used in push/pull mode with a 4-TC and eventually Caroline from revolution. Both work fine without fouling all the other pipework and any screwlink.

A bigger issue is if you want to attach plows as that basically means no coupling if applied to both ends. And it looks way too odd having bright yellow ploughs one end and none the other.

Tension locks require snipping away some of the pipes.

 

Agree with all this.

 

I've not owned any of the newer 33s but all the bits where very easy to take off on mine. (Although hopefully mine won't now fall off as I superglued them all in)

 

 

My bodge it solution using long Kadees and full ploughs.

 

I've cheated a bit on the height of the centre plough but can live with that. The plough is just mounted on scrap brass using the kadee housing so it can all be taken apart if necessary. The long kadee allows this setup to go round pretty tight curves. Also I've thinned the edges of the the ploughs and roof bods to try to give an illusion they're thinner than they really are.

 

 

 

 

 

[SRman]

6 hours ago, Timsouth47 said:

Got a reply back from Heljan re-buffer beam parts.

 

"Sorry to see you are not happy with your Class 33/1 bufferbeam parts. We have always factory fitted these parts on our models. The only time we did not do it we received a large number of complaints was many people do not like to fit the small parts themselves. It's a very simple job to remove the buckeye coupler or trim the hoses to accommodate the tension lock coupler without damaging the model and should not cause any damage to your model. We're sorry that this is not an ideal situation for you personally. Kind Regards Team Heljan"

 

Pretty standard reply form, but at least they did, so kudos for that.

The text i've highlighted in red i'm not convinced about. Having bought a class 33 last year which had the buffer detailing in a separate bag. 🤔 I'm not going to question them further about that now i know that at least the buckeye coupling ( which was causing the biggest problem) can be removed easily.

Regards the missing blue paintwork on the under chassis, i haven't a model (that should have that detail) in my collection.

So i suggest contacting them on their website via the web form, hopefully you should get your answer pretty quickly.

All in all, as i'm not that worried about the finite details (on all my models) irrespective of the manufacturer, i just want a good representation of the prototype that runs well & gives me that joy factor, i still like Heljan's Cromptons as they've always been good runners (for me anyway), which is more than i can say about other manufacturers products( no names mentioned ).

Although i don't have the skills or the space to build a layout which represents a certain time or place, I still appreciate a good looking model though that runs well, they don't sit in cabinets collecting dust.☹️

The earliest releases didn't have the pipes and bits fitted, and they were a bit of a pain to fit because not all of the holes were the correct sizes. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't fit the bits.

I simply snip off any pipes that foul the couplings level with the bottom of the buffer beam. It's a compromise, but looks better than a bare buffer beam with holes in it, but not as good as having the whole pipe in place.

Incidentally, I have eight Heljan class 33s of various ages and types.

Edited February 14, 2023 by SRman

[JSpencer]

On 11/02/2023 at 19:19, Roy Langridge said:

 

Yes, hence my comment on backward step. All my blue 33s have the blue underframe. I don't understand why have Heljan abandoned it.

 

Roy

 

Indeed 33056 The Burma Star from a few years back has this, as does 33116 Hertfordshire Rail Tours produced not so long ago for the NRM.

[SouthernMafia]

9 hours ago, SRman said:

The earliest releases didn't have the pipes and bits fitted, and they were a bit of a pain to fit because not all of the holes were the correct sizes. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't fit the bits.

I simply snip off any pipes that foul the couplings level with the bottom of the buffer beam. It's a compromise, but looks better than a bare buffer beam with holes in it, but not as good as having the whole pipe in place.

Incidentally, I have eight Heljan class 33s of various ages and types.

 

Would agree that I'd rather the detailing is fitted, and can then be removed by those who want to put a NEM in there. For me, similar to @dj_crisp I prefer to put Kadees in the buffer beam for 33/1s, and a wire loop protruding out from behind the buffer beam for 33/0s and 33/2s (and some of my 33/1s too). Best of both worlds because you can still couple an NEM coupler to the wire loop, and retain most if not all of the detailing. I get NEMs on locos serve a purpose, but they really don't look very good at all.

 

 

[Halvarras]

On 12/02/2023 at 09:56, steve1023 said:

 

Unfortunately, if we want a class 33 we are left with a choice of Heljan or Lima. 

 

I know this would hardly be a solution for most here reading this, but it would be interesting to know if Hornby has the ex-Lima Class 33/1 tooling. The Railroad Class 73s prove they do have the MU pipework. D6537 in green has been the only Railroad 33 release to date, they haven't even bothered to do a bog standard blue 33/0, which makes one wonder whether retooling the Lima chassis parts to take the new motor bogie was really worth the effort for one version. Perhaps they've realised it was simply too far behind the times, after all I recall buying my first one in July 1977, over 45 years ago.....!😬

[matchmaker]

On 12/02/2023 at 09:56, steve1023 said:

 

I fully agree with this. I'm often left with the feeling from Heljan of 'that'll do' and why I sincerely hope that AS announce a class 33.

 

Sadly, I've steadily grown to hate Heljan for this and why I now, no longer buy their products. Unfortunately, if we want a class 33 we are left with a choice of Heljan or Lima. 

 

Steve

I don't have a 33, but I do have a 27 which I assume has the same chassis. It's a lousy runner compared to my Bachmann , Dapol and Hornby locos. It gives out a constant "thrumming" when running. I've greased all the gears but suspect the problem may be a slightly bent cardan shaft. Guess what - Heljan don't supply cardan shafts as a spare.