'CHARD Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 I like that matey! PS: Have you been waxing? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted May 9, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 9, 2019 28 minutes ago, 61661 said: Good Morning Everyone, Entirely by coincidence, a modified and improved Class 25 sample arrived this morning. I think the grille mesh is far superior to the first effort, but I thought it might be useful to find out what RMweb experts think. It's still a compromise between scale accuracy and the need to have a robust component that will withstand regular handling (and still have the detail visible behind) but much better than before. Let us know what you think! Ben Hi Ben, As I said earlier, I like mesh grills and to me that is an acceptable compromise. One comment on that image though if I may? There is something not quite right with either the cab side window or the door, I think probably the former. If you draw horizontal lines along the top and bottom beading for the cab side window, it should match the top and bottom recesses for the door window. On that shot it shows that the top of the door window recess is well below the beading for the cab side window, the top of the door being more in line. I think, although I haven't got anything to measure it against at the moment, that the cab window is too tall, everything above the door window looking about the right size / proportion. I know you want to get it right this time, so I thought I would mention it. Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
66738 Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said: Hi Ben, As I said earlier, I like mesh grills and to me that is an acceptable compromise. One comment on that image though if I may? There is something not quite right with either the cab side window or the door, I think probably the former. If you draw horizontal lines along the top and bottom beading for the cab side window, it should match the top and bottom recesses for the door window. On that shot it shows that the top of the door window recess is well below the beading for the cab side window, the top of the door being more in line. I think, although I haven't got anything to measure it against at the moment, that the cab window is too tall, everything above the door window looking about the right size / proportion. I know you want to get it right this time, so I thought I would mention it. Roy Firstly, thanks to Ben for trying his best to keep us in the loop and asking us our opinion if the 25 samples are right. The grill looks a lot better. Have to agree with Roy on this one. Something not just right with the cab window/cab door window. I think it’s a bit of both. The cab window needs to come down the body by about 0.5 - 1mm. And the cab door window needs to go up the door by similar. But overall it’s a very good effort and I’m looking forward to one (preferably 25313 with ploughs. It went pretty much right to the end) and probably not going to resist an Ethel as well. 66738 Edited May 9, 2019 by 66738 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Decorum Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 1 hour ago, 61661 said: Good Morning Everyone, Entirely by coincidence, a modified and improved Class 25 sample arrived this morning. I think the grille mesh is far superior to the first effort, but I thought it might be useful to find out what RMweb experts think. It's still a compromise between scale accuracy and the need to have a robust component that will withstand regular handling (and still have the detail visible behind) but much better than before. Let us know what you think! Ben The first grill was 21 holes across, this one has 33. I counted 36 on a photo of the prototype, so it’s pretty close. The holes also look bigger in the latest version. On the prototype, of course, the grill is a network of wires whereas on the model, the holes are etched into a sheet. It’s curious that on the 33, an attempt was made to depict wires, with the result that they looked badly overscale. All in all, I think this is pretty good and I for one would be happy with it. What a difference the paint makes, though! I resorted to counting just to make sure that the improved appearance wasn’t merely due to the paint. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 10 hours ago, 61661 said: Good Morning Everyone, Entirely by coincidence, a modified and improved Class 25 sample arrived this morning. I think the grille mesh is far superior to the first effort, but I thought it might be useful to find out what RMweb experts think. It's still a compromise between scale accuracy and the need to have a robust component that will withstand regular handling (and still have the detail visible behind) but much better than before. Let us know what you think! Ben That looks pretty good. The only side-on cab view I have doesn't quite show the cab door: 25286_Hereford_7-84_3m by Robert Carroll, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ghost of IKB Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 New grille is much better! I agree that the door window should be fractionally taller, and the cab window is a tiny amount too high up the bodyside, but personally i could live with that discrepancy, as its not immediately noticeable and the measurements are tiny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted May 10, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 10, 2019 From the photo of the cab front posted above, it looks to me like the bottom of both the cab and door windows should line up with the point on the front of the cab where the windows angle back from the vertical. On the model, it looks like the bottom of the cab side windows are a little too low, as is the bottom of the cab door window. Whether the vertical to angle of the front is at the right position I cannot say. The 'error' is slight, so probably not worth fixing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted May 10, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Ian J. said: The 'error' is slight, so probably not worth fixing. What do we want in out models - Accuracy or not? Ben has said this is an EP and changes are being made. Whilst the error is small, the impact is greater as the cab side and door windows match on a 25. Whilst there has been lots of discussion about a very minor taper which may or may not be there, this is an error that shows. If Heljan feel that a minor correction can be made then that would be good - but at the end of the day that is their call. I find this accepting of compromise when potentially things can be fixed for little cost somewhat strange - let us point out the issues and Heljan can decide what they want to do about it, if anything. Roy 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonC Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 If that photo shows anything, the thing that jumps out to me is that the cabside window frame moulding looks very heavy on the model in comparison to the photo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul_sterling Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 23 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said: What do we want in out models - Accuracy or not? Ben has said this is an EP and changes are being made. Whilst the error is small, the impact is greater as the cab side and door windows match on a 25. Whilst there has been lots of discussion about a very minor taper which may or may not be there, this is an error that shows. If Heljan feel that a minor correction can be made then that would be good - but at the end of the day that is their call. I find this accepting of compromise when potentially things can be fixed for little cost somewhat strange - let us point out the issues and Heljan can decide what they want to do about it, if anything. Roy Roy, Coming from experience, I can assure you that metal on or metal off tool modifications cost a lot of money. I agree it is great that we can provide feedback on the EP samples as the project progresses, and thanks go to Ben and Heljan for doing so. Paul. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted May 10, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 10, 2019 22 minutes ago, Paul_sterling said: Roy, Coming from experience, I can assure you that metal on or metal off tool modifications cost a lot of money. I agree it is great that we can provide feedback on the EP samples as the project progresses, and thanks go to Ben and Heljan for doing so. Paul. I appreciate that, but Ben has said changes are being made and as I also said, it is for Heljan to decide if they wish to make the changes. I just don't think we should be saying not to bother. Out of interest I just took a class 25 cabside photo, drew lines along the gutter and windows and overlaid it on the EP and the results were very surprising. The cab side window was pretty much spot on, it is the door window that is wrong at the top with too much door between the gutter and window. Roy 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted May 10, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 10, 2019 (edited) I accept that making a modification to be accurate is preferable to not sorting something out. However, from some history of feedback from others that I point out errors that 'don't need correcting and everything is fine, stop whining', I tend these days to try and think how much effort a manufacturer would have to put in to change a tooling, and whether the effort is worth the cost and delay for release to them. Sometimes I feel something really needs doing as it's a very clear error (to my eyes), other times I can see that an error is slight enough that it might not be worth the manufacturer's trouble to redo the tooling. I am not sufficiently aware of the Class 25 as a prototype, nor is it of significantly great interest to me, to feel that any discrepancy, however small, should be fixed at all costs. However, I would always prefer to see an accurate model to an inaccurate one. Edited May 10, 2019 by Ian J. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ghost of IKB Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 Bearing in mind that changes are being made, i wonder if this is still on schedule for release later this year? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry W Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 Congratulations Ben, this is looking really good so far. I would agree that the door window needs to extend up and down to match the height of the cab window. The rounded corners on the top edge of the door are too large making it a bit gappy and causing the door to seem shorter than it is. There should be a rivetted plate to the right of the footstep covering the groove running along the lower edge where it meets the cab/body join. Loving the radiator detail, the new mesh is a great improvement, I hope the detail is still visible through it after painting. If I had a wish at this stage it would be a nicely detailed modified exhaust port, Brian Daniels has a great shot in his class 25 album. I think I need to start clearing my credit card in preparation for their release! When do you start work on the 25/1's? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold stovepipe Posted May 10, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 10, 2019 On 09/05/2019 at 10:47, 61661 said: Good Morning Everyone, Entirely by coincidence, a modified and improved Class 25 sample arrived this morning. I think the grille mesh is far superior to the first effort, but I thought it might be useful to find out what RMweb experts think. It's still a compromise between scale accuracy and the need to have a robust component that will withstand regular handling (and still have the detail visible behind) but much better than before. Let us know what you think! Ben The grille is much much better. However there appears to be some issues with the headcode and horn casing join line. The slope angle is too great, making the horn casing appear too long and the headcode appear to stick out too far. The slope angle needs to be lowered a little. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
25901 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 8 hours ago, stovepipe said: The grille is much much better. However there appears to be some issues with the headcode and horn casing join line. The slope angle is too great, making the horn casing appear too long and the headcode appear to stick out too far. The slope angle needs to be lowered a little. Were all the headcode boxes and horn casings the same shape? It was suggested to me recently that there were at least two variants on the later 25s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ghost of IKB Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, stovepipe said: The grille is much much better. However there appears to be some issues with the headcode and horn casing join line. The slope angle is too great, making the horn casing appear too long and the headcode appear to stick out too far. The slope angle needs to be lowered a little. I thought tge same about the 7mm version, but couldnt put my finger on where the error was. I think youre right. The slope should start slightly nearer the front of the box, giving it a less severe angle, nearer to 45% from the horizontal, rather than 60 -75% as it appears to be now. Having said all that, if robert is right and there are two versions of it, then it opens up a whole new minefield of detail! The more photos i look at the more it seems some of the horn cowls might be longer than others. Edited May 11, 2019 by The Ghost of IKB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold stovepipe Posted May 11, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 11, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, robertcwp said: Were all the headcode boxes and horn casings the same shape? It was suggested to me recently that there were at least two variants on the later 25s. According to Derby Sulzers, there were two main types of headcode/horn casing mouldings. Of the type fitted to the 25/3 (and 25/2 of the same body style), with the horn casing top flush with the mould line, there were also some variations it seems. Derby Sulzers says 'Close examination of the Class 25 cab roofs indicate there are distinctive differences with regard to the height of the horn moulding and the length of the sloping wings coming down from the top of the headcode box and as it ends how it interacts with the curves of the cab roof moulding. It is presumed there were multiple moulds used to create the cabroof and these may have introduced minor variations.' However I don't believe the variations are as great as we are seeing here. Measuring the prototype slope angle from side on with a school protractor gives 45°, whereas the Heljan model is around 70°, as IKB suggests. The most noticeable thing for me is that it makes the horizontal top of the headcode box from the side appear much too long. Here's another decent side view from the 'Diesels in Depth - Class 24/25' book. Edited May 11, 2019 by stovepipe Photo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 1 hour ago, D1051 said: Is the variation in headcode roof area down to the the two loco works & possible different interpretation by the fabricators at each location ? I wondered that too. As whole cabs were moved around between locos, it might be hard to pin down. The photo a few posts back shows 25327 (Derby built - the final 25) but with the number 25307 also visible (built by Beyer Peacock). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
25901 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 Just to add to the mix, on the picture of D7550 who noticed the little access panel below the grill that nobody ever models. I helped plate up the one on 25262 and still to this day don't know what they were for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
25901 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, D1051 said: 25901 You work on one .So what is behind said panel ? Compressor ? Exhauster ? Something that needs some form of access Well I did have 25901 but she's gone to the SDR, behind that panel on the 25/3s are three air tanks (pic is copyright of South Devon Diesel Traction). Please note that there are Brush electrics and Westinghouse exhauster's in a AEI and Davies / Metcalfe loco, no such thing as a standard 25 lol 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Phil Bullock Posted July 3, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 3, 2019 Have we seen this folks? https://www.hattons.co.uk/newsdetail.aspx?id=326 Phil 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted July 3, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 3, 2019 1 hour ago, Phil Bullock said: Have we seen this folks? https://www.hattons.co.uk/newsdetail.aspx?id=326 Phil Have now Phil, Like the big boys toy the front looks a wee bit flat. But mustn't grumble about RTR, got told off the other day. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Phil Bullock Posted July 3, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 3, 2019 Not you surely Clive??? Can see what you mean looks worse from some angles than others Phil 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now