All-new Heljan 47 in 00 gauge

[MidlandRed]

My D1960 was delivered today from TMC - also bought at Ally Pally. I’m very impressed with the model and particularly following some of the criticisms previously levelled (notwithstanding the error on the roof hatches, which may be capable of being corrected). I’ve compared carefully with the photo at Crewe on Flickr of the prototype and concluded the front is, actually pretty well accurate. Adding a bit of dirt to the ‘ledge’ in front of the windscreens will add a little more realism. It’s a very smooth and quiet runner, even more so after running in. This will look a treat alongside the SLW class 25, D7666, I have on order, also in late 66/early 67 corporate livery. NB the digital camera is very unforgiving…. the guttering on the prototype above the windscreen is clearly blue (or dirt) - the bits of slightly overlapping yellow on this model are not particularly visible with the naked eye - if I can be bothered I may touch it over or weather it a little in due course. 
 

 

[GD]

11 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

bits of slightly overlapping yellow on this model are not particularly visible with the naked eye

But that abomination around the skirts is ignored?

[Legend]

21 minutes ago, GD said:

But that abomination around the skirts is ignored?

Abomination ?  I think you need a bit of perspective here .  I think it looks pretty much like a 47 to me . Don’t see any abominations 

[GD]

1 minute ago, Legend said:

Abomination ?  I think you need a bit of perspective here .  I think it looks pretty much like a 47 to me . Don’t see any abominations 

To the right of the orange ets socket, the sticky out yellow bit at the bottom of the cab.

 

[GD]

No I'm mistaken, I have compared the model to a photo of 47522 and Heljan have nailed it.

[cctransuk]

32 minutes ago, GD said:

No I'm mistaken, I have compared the model to a photo of 47522 and Heljan have nailed it.

 

I think that we've got the point that you don't like it - so don't buy it.

 

It's not big and clever to use 'over the top' stuff like this! 🤔

 

CJI.

[SRman]

13 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

My D1960 was delivered today from TMC - also bought at Ally Pally. I’m very impressed with the model and particularly following some of the criticisms previously levelled (notwithstanding the error on the roof hatches, which may be capable of being corrected). I’ve compared carefully with the photo at Crewe on Flickr of the prototype and concluded the front is, actually pretty well accurate. Adding a bit of dirt to the ‘ledge’ in front of the windscreens will add a little more realism. It’s a very smooth and quiet runner, even more so after running in. This will look a treat alongside the SLW class 25, D7666, I have on order, also in late 66/early 67 corporate livery. NB the digital camera is very unforgiving…. the guttering on the prototype above the windscreen is clearly blue (or dirt) - the bits of slightly overlapping yellow on this model are not particularly visible with the naked eye - if I can be bothered I may touch it over or weather it a little in due course. 
 

 

 

One thing I would say about the appearance of this version is that the yellow rebates for all of the cab windows make them look too small, even though they aren't, at least at the angles of the photos. If the glazing can be easily removed, I would be inclined to paint the rebates matt or satin black. Mind you, the lighting of the photos may also influence that effect and it may not be so obvious to the casual observer's eyes.

[pheaton]

On 11/03/2024 at 19:18, cctransuk said:

 

There is a belief - nay, absolute conviction - that laser scanning produces the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; WRONG!

 

As has been mentioned, it produces an array of points that mostly existed on the prototype. No technology is infallible - there are plenty of opportunities for erroneous data to be included.

 

At present, it is down to a human to make sense of what the technology reports - perhaps  one day, AI will do it better; (or perhaps not).

 

Ask yourself this - if laser scanning is infallible, why would a designer go out of their way to produce an incorrect model from the 'perfect' scanned data to which they had access?

 

Nothing is perfect - and playing the blame game will not change that.

 

You pays yer money and you makes yer choice - it won't be the same choice that others make, but that's life!

 

CJI.

A breath of fresh air....

 

 

part of the issue is...if you take two brand new ford fiestas...(before they got discontinued) they will look exactly the same....why....because they were built by a robot to a defined program with very tight tolerances....

 

classic diesels were built by humans...and they will vary from the outset...but even going on from that....they were modified and repaired very very crudely.... and when being repaired they wouldnt have access to the original drawings....it would have been cut and shut and that will do.

 

and thats before we get to paint...

 

im going to deliberately paint 043s yellow ends...in the wrong shade of yellow....purely because the shade we have chosen from experience is less prone to sunlight damage and fading... so if you took a model and made the mistake of comparing to 043...straight away your on to a loser.... and its the same with blue....br used williamsons....in the pres world...they are switiching to other suppliers....the shade and recipie for the paint is different so there are going to be differences....

 

and thats before we get to colour variation in photography.

 

 

[Halvarras]

1 hour ago, SRman said:

 

One thing I would say about the appearance of this version is that the yellow rebates for all of the cab windows make them look too small, even though they aren't, at least at the angles of the photos. If the glazing can be easily removed, I would be inclined to paint the rebates matt or satin black. Mind you, the lighting of the photos may also influence that effect and it may not be so obvious to the casual observer's eyes.

 

This is true of many diesel models, not just this one, but is tricky to do neatly. I used to with Hornby and Lima stuff in the increasingly distant past but ageing eyesight puts me off these days, unless I feel it's really necessary. However one notable success recently was a Hornby ex-Lima Class 33 on which I used a black Sharpie around the windscreens - I found that the slightly raised rims helped the felt tip 'track' around the openings, aided by the rounded corners - 5 minutes, done!

 

15 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

NB the digital camera is very unforgiving…. the guttering on the prototype above the windscreen is clearly blue (or dirt) - the bits of slightly overlapping yellow on this model are not particularly visible with the naked eye

 

Isn't it just? I applied etched nameplates to a Mainline Warship, D823 'Hermes' which I'd laboriously remotored with the remains of a Bachmann Mazak rot victim's running gear, certain I'd covered the printed name - posted some pics of the craziness on here and could just see the silver top edge of this poking out - looked at the model and really can't see it, even wearing reading glasses. Must be that ageing eyesight thing again 🤓!

[MidlandRed]

3 hours ago, GD said:

To the right of the orange ets socket, the sticky out yellow bit at the bottom of the cab.

 

Yes, with the digital photo the construction joint is obvious - however it’s not with the naked eye and in any case could easily be fettled if required - that said the overall shape mirrors the prototype in that the buffer beam is inset into the cab side panels. 
 

2 hours ago, SRman said:

 

One thing I would say about the appearance of this version is that the yellow rebates for all of the cab windows make them look too small, even though they aren't, at least at the angles of the photos. If the glazing can be easily removed, I would be inclined to paint the rebates matt or satin black. Mind you, the lighting of the photos may also influence that effect and it may not be so obvious to the casual observer's eyes.

The photos are not the best and these rebates are not as obvious in reality. The window rebates are completely yellow so as I will be removing the body to convert to DCC at some stage I’ll have a look and see if this is easily achieved, noting also @Halvarras comment about using a Sharpie. However they have got right the fact there is no obviously visible black window rubber on the prototype - the window surrounds as built (from the front) are completely yellow.

 

Im pleased with the colours and in bright light the blue does ‘pop’ to a colour similar to an Accurascale Siphon G (well my one, anyway!!). In reality, based on my memory, the shades of rail blue of rolling stock varied, particularly in the late 60s, dependent on the level of weathering - sometimes almost bleached white and particularly when subjected to the rigours of the WR (washing plants and sea wall salt spray!!)

 

 

[Marcoblanco]

All a bit quiet generally with this model so far and no review on YouTube as yet..

[97406]

Be careful using black paint around the inside of window apertures. If the glazing is a very close fit, it won’t go back in. A sharpie is much better.

[MikeParkin65]

56 minutes ago, Marcoblanco said:

All a bit quiet generally with this model so far and no review on YouTube as yet..

You've got to say S*ms Trains three times and then he appears 🤣

[brushman47544]

I’ve now seen one up close and some of the areas highlighted as being wrong are in reality not that visible at normal viewing distance. For example the curve of the grills at cantrail level is pretty good on the production version. That being said, the cab front is too narrow - the cab is supposed to narrow but this starts in the wrong place in relation to the cab doors and is too angled. This makes the headcode panel look too big but it is actually the correct size, although the individual characters look slightly too small so there is too much black around them - a fine separation between each character might help there. The infill on the cab corners to model the original non Crewe cut cabs is unfortunately very noticeable and the single instead of twin panels on the roof is unfortunate - and presumably a factory error because I don’t remember that error on the pre-production versions. And the triangular frame strengthening (?) behind the buffers is about 1mm too shallow.

 

Obviously everyone will have their own opinions on how important each of the issues are. For me personally these issues make the Heljan version less acceptable visually than the new Bachmann version, but not by a lot.

Edited March 20 by brushman47544
Typos

[stewartingram]

2 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

You've got to say S*ms Trains three times and then he appears 🤣

That means only 2 more people have to say it - please don't encourage them!

[MidlandRed]

Regarding the headcode box, having compared the image on Flickr of D1960 at Crewe carefully, I’ve concluded it is correct. It may look marginally odd from some of the angles we view model trains from but it certainly looks fine when looking at a more realistic viewing angle (in relation to how one would see the prototype normally). 
 

I too really like the new Bachmann model (other than the fact the only 1960s variant available is D1565, in two tone green, if you can find one). A Crewe built example and not suitable to be in early blue (D1953-61). However, and again having compared the Heljan with the photograph on line, I have concluded that, if anything the Bachmann version has the below windscreen hand rail slightly too close to the top of the front panel. Also, looking at the comparison photos further up this thread, the earlier models have too narrow (in relation to the width of the roof) a ventilator on the cab roof.   
 

Overall I’m happy with the model as is, and for another day, may execute the minor tweaks talked about above sometime in the future - it looks fabulous from layout viewing distance. 

Edited March 20 by MidlandRed

[Hal Nail]

13 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

Overall I’m happy with the model as is

Which is all that actually matters. 

 

I'm genuinely staggered that we can all look at the same evidence and draw such different conclusions but I think the answer is to stop bothering to read these threads :)

 

(edit: it's a bit annoying that having crawled all over one measuring it, I've mislaid the vital envelope I recorded it all on).

Edited March 20 by Hal Nail

[rob D2]

Enjoy your model,

but people, please stop making excuses for errors and mistakes .

It’s 2024, you shouldn’t have to “ fettle “ a brand new model . 
 

And what is that yellow bit by the buffer ?

[SRman]

7 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

Yes, with the digital photo the construction joint is obvious - however it’s not with the naked eye and in any case could easily be fettled if required - that said the overall shape mirrors the prototype in that the buffer beam is inset into the cab side panels. 
 

The photos are not the best and these rebates are not as obvious in reality. The window rebates are completely yellow so as I will be removing the body to convert to DCC at some stage I’ll have a look and see if this is easily achieved, noting also @Halvarras comment about using a Sharpie. However they have got right the fact there is no obviously visible black window rubber on the prototype - the window surrounds as built (from the front) are completely yellow.

 

Im pleased with the colours and in bright light the blue does ‘pop’ to a colour similar to an Accurascale Siphon G (well my one, anyway!!). In reality, based on my memory, the shades of rail blue of rolling stock varied, particularly in the late 60s, dependent on the level of weathering - sometimes almost bleached white and particularly when subjected to the rigours of the WR (washing plants and sea wall salt spray!!)

 

 

 

I have to say I use Sharpies for quite a few such jobs nowadays. Silver ones are also useful for picking out window vents, so black and silver Sharpies are essential components of my kit, now.

[45125]

On 18/03/2024 at 18:41, Halvarras said:

 

The hinges are there but 'incomplete' - the engine access panels should be four, two per side not one long one per side. Division missing.

The triple ribs on the engine exhaust panels.....??

To me the Heljan windscreens look a little too deep.

 

The original Tubby Duff also had moulded bufferbeam corner steps - keeping them attached was not easy......

The panel over the silencer does have ribs on, they aren't very noticeable on some photographs the real thing.

 

 

Edited March 20 by 45125

[robertcwp]

Comparison between Heljan D1960 and new Bachmann 47 435.

 

IMG_0589am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

IMG_0590am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

 

[rob D2]

49 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Comparison between Heljan D1960 and new Bachmann 47 435.

 

IMG_0589am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

IMG_0590am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

 

Is it my imagination or is the bachy one way higher ?

Heljan wins on the front footsteps , over those abominations attached to the body or chassis ( dependant on where they end up ) on bluebox version .

 

It always seems Bachmann has a Friday afternoon moment with something . Footsteps on this , snowploughs on the 37

[Hal Nail]

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

 

if we leave them alone together they might mate and somewhere in between would be about right :)

[Roy Langridge]

3 hours ago, rob D2 said:

 

Heljan wins on the front footsteps , over those abominations attached to the body or chassis ( dependant on where they end up ) on bluebox version 

Shame they are in the wrong place for most 47s then…

 

Roy

[rob D2]

15 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

Shame they are in the wrong place for most 47s then…

 

Roy

In what way Roy ?