All-new Heljan 47 in 00 gauge

[franciswilliamwebb]

3 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

In what way Roy ?

 

As pictured - the footsteps reach outboard of the head code panel. Heljan's are completely inboard.

[brushman47544]

2 minutes ago, franciswilliamwebb said:

 

As pictured - the footsteps reach outboard of the head code panel. Heljan's are completely inboard.

Exactly. The steps were generally positioned closer together on the Crewe cut 47s, which is what Heljan has modelled but with the highly visible inserts at the lower cab corners to model the original cabs, without it seems a tooling option for the steps’ original positions.

[SouthernBlue80s]

I haven't made my final decision yet with regards to the new class 47 fleet.

 

At the moment I am edging towards Bachmann. The only thing stopping me is that I so want plated headcode versions. And Heljan have 47316 on the way.

[Opelsi]

17 hours ago, rob D2 said:

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

 

Looks like Heljan did an 'HO' version and Bachmann the 'OO' version to me!

Yet to see mine side-by-side.

Think I might have to keep them apart to avoid them show each other up!

[Mophead45143]

18 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

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

 

 

This sums up the 'looks like a class 47 to me argument'. Yes they do, neither of them look like a class 20!

 

But talk about chalk & cheese. They can't both be right. As Hal Nail has suggested, perhaps something between the two, but I'd say Bachmann triumphs overall. 

 

Cameron

Edited March 24 by Mophead45143

[97406]

1 hour ago, Mophead45143 said:

 

 

This sums up the 'looks like a class 47 to me argument'. Yes they do, neither of them look like a class 20!

 

But talk about chalk & cheese. They can't both be right. As Hal Nail has suggested, perhaps something between the two, but I'd say Bachmann triumphs overall. 

 

Cameron

The one on the left reminds of the old Hastings line gauge. I've gone for an NSE one nevertheless as the livery hides the difference quite well

[John Tomlinson]

There's a very interesting picture of Heljan's new D1960 running on the Little Bytham layout in "Wright Writes" - the latest page no.3170.

 

Taken some distance away, so showing the setting, I'm sorry to say that even to my unfussy eye the loco doesn't look right at all, too tall and too thin. The position of the front handrail and headcode box don't look right either.

 

Funny how sometimes a less forensic image can be quite revealing.

 

John.

Edited March 24 by John Tomlinson
Clarity

[John Tomlinson]

I don't know if this snap adds anything to the discussion, it certainly gives a clear view of the point at which the bodyside meets the bufferbeam cowl, and also the relation between the headcode box and the cross handrail, 

 

 

 

Click on pic for details.

 

John.

 

Edited March 24 by John Tomlinson

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, 97406 said:

The one on the left reminds of the old Hastings line gauge. I've gone for an NSE one nevertheless as the livery hides the difference quite well

 

Over-compensation?

 

Heljan seem to have gone from Tubby-Duff to Skinny-Duff!

 

Bachmann for me - if I were in the market for one.

 

Shame!

 

CJI.

[irishmail]

24 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Over-compensation?

 

Heljan seem to have gone from Tubby-Duff to Skinny-Duff!

 

Bachmann for me - if I were in the market for one.

 

Shame!

 

CJI.

Must have done it for the Hastings line then lol  :)  😁  I am more than happy with my Lima ones.

[MidlandRed]

https://flic.kr/p/2nmsTt5

 

I can’t get this to appear as a pic (D1960 at Crewe as built - Colin Alexander, Flickr) - however it does clearly show the slight curvature of the front panel and particularly, the location of the handrail in relation to the cab front. These look right to me on the Heljan and different from the Bachmann. 
 

The foot steps are also shown clearly and although Heljan’s left hand one is slightly too far left, it’s not as major as it appears against some of the other photos shown. 
 

In terms of its size, and height, given the comparison earlier in the thread where the Bachmann model was shown coupled to an Accurascale mk2 coach and the buffers are clearly higher, whereas the Heljan ones match, are we sure Heljan is wrong and Bachmann right - looking at the side by side picture above, Bachmann’s looks too big to me, although the overall shape looks right (the handrail is too low for D1960 and the cab front too flat, however 😀). The Heljan has slightly less space between the marker light and the headcode - that might make all the difference. 

 

Im not clued up enough on differences (Crewe v Brush built) but I do know D1960 is the penultimate Brush product. 

[Halvarras]

4 hours ago, Mophead45143 said:

 

 

This sums up the 'looks like a class 47 to me argument'. Yes they do, neither of them look like a class 20!

 

But talk about chalk & cheese. They can't both be right. As Hal Nail has suggested, perhaps something between the two, but I'd say Bachmann triumphs overall. 

 

Cameron

 

And I was concerned about running Bachmann Class 42 & 43 Warships together!

 

The earlier buffer height comparison suggests Heljan is correct, but if it's riding a little too low (and the bogie clearance does look rather tight) jacking it up a bit would undo this. The whole scenario beats me.......

57 minutes ago, irishmail said:

  😁  I am more than happy with my Lima ones.

.......me too, I still have three, so perhaps we should be doing a comparison of both of these against the Lima model to see who's right 😉! (I'm already plotting my escape route......🤭!)

 

Personally I reckon you'd be OK if you run all Bachmann OR all Heljan 47s on your layout, but if mixed don't let them linger next each other and give them their own stabling sidings on different sides of the depot!

[brushman47544]

21 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

https://flic.kr/p/2nmsTt5

 

I can’t get this to appear as a pic (D1960 at Crewe as built - Colin Alexander, Flickr) - however it does clearly show the slight curvature of the front panel and particularly, the location of the handrail in relation to the cab front. These look right to me on the Heljan and different from the Bachmann. 
 

The foot steps are also shown clearly and although Heljan’s left hand one is slightly too far left, it’s not as major as it appears against some of the other photos shown. 
 

In terms of its size, and height, given the comparison earlier in the thread where the Bachmann model was shown coupled to an Accurascale mk2 coach and the buffers are clearly higher, whereas the Heljan ones match, are we sure Heljan is wrong and Bachmann right - looking at the side by side picture above, Bachmann’s looks too big to me, although the overall shape looks right (the handrail is too low for D1960 and the cab front too flat, however 😀). The Heljan has slightly less space between the marker light and the headcode - that might make all the difference. 

 

Im not clued up enough on differences (Crewe v Brush built) but I do know D1960 is the penultimate Brush product. 

 

That's an interesting photo and clearly shows that the Heljan model lacks the eyebrows above the cab windows, which join in the middle on Brush built locos but have a gap on Crewe built ones. The Bachmann model reflects the Crewe built locos in that respect.

 

As regards the curvature from the cab doors forwards, you can really only see how the difference between Bachmann, Heljan and the real thing head-on, not from a 3qtr view. For me, Heljan's narrows too much and this puts the whole front out as other aspects are correctly sized.

 

But at the end of the day, as long as you are happy with what you've paid for that's what matters.

[Mophead45143]

Comparing the two pictures already posted having mirrored one around, the Bachmann one looks much closer.

 

 

 

['CHARD]

Oh dear, Heljan have even printed the headcode back to front. Doh!

[Halvarras]

Heljan's guttering above the windscreens is surprisingly poorly defined on D1960, and although this time they have tooled the earlier pantograph wipers, and correctly applied these to D1526 and the Model Rail Class 48s, they appear confused about the timing of the switch from these to single-arm type on the prototype, which occurred during the early 1970s. This makes D1960 and D1969 incorrect - the latter still had pantograph wipers in July 1971 by which time it had lost its D prefixes (its data panels are also missing the blue background). It took me minutes to check this on the 'class47' website so I can't help wondering why Heljan didn't do the same........

[Zunnan]

I had the chance to mull over whether to pick up one of these 47s in Kernow the other day. Up until then I was still willing to buy 47450, but after seeing the 47s on display and giving them a good once over in person, I'll take a hard pass. Does it look like a class 47? You can make a Brio block of wood recognisable as a class 47.

 

Edited March 29 by Zunnan

[MidlandRed]

It’s funny you should mention this, as I’ve also been mulling it over since the earlier discussions and after stumbling over the TMC video of D1960 on Little Bytham. I thought it looked rather good, even more so in weathered form.

 

My conclusion is it only doesn’t look its best when viewed exactly front on - which is unlikely ever to happen in reality. D1960 looked ok in relation to the height of the stock it was pulling - which begs the question whether Bachmann’s look too tall!! 
 

In contrast with the previous comment about the eye brows (in reality the frame around the tops of the windscreens) the Heljan model does replicate this with a slight rise in the panel above each windscreen - my guess is the dimension of this feature is really very small to reproduce correctly in OO scale.
 

Anyway my overall feeling is I’m happy with it, minor warts and all - and completely outweighed by the faithful representation of the early blue fye, four arrow, body side numbering livery - I certainly wouldn’t want to be attempting to repaint one of the other models into one of the final Brush 9, which were always something of a celebrity in my mind in the late 60s. Great that TMC had the vision to commission something for the transition era modeller! I shall always remember to look at it at least from the 3/4 view 😀 after all the only time I ever saw a loco fully front on (thankfully 😲) was on shed or at the end of a terminal station when I was stood in front of it - maybe on a bridge but that was from an elevated view and very rarely fully front on. 

Edited March 29 by MidlandRed

[adb968008]

Quote

Heres my measures Heljan 47596 / New Bachmann 47711 

 

Length over buffer: 254mm /  253 mm  (1mm) 

Length over buffer beam 242mm / 240mm  (2mm) 

Width centre bodyside 35.42 / 35.42 (0mm)

Height centre wheel to roof 51.02 / 52.08 (-1.06mm)

* note this height as its interesting..

 

*A real 47 is 3.9m / 12’ 9.5” which at 1:76.2 suggests 5.1mm or at 1.76 suggests 5.13mm

Until someone has better intel, i’m leading towards the Bachmann riding a little high. 

 

But on width they are the same, but the front end taper is different.
 

 

it may have something to do with clearances on curves as a CO- CO powered model, where as Heljans is an A1A-A1A powered model.

 

it sits square up to Accurascales buffers

 

but theres a 1mm difference to Bachmanns 47

 

but old and new Bachmann 47’s align.

sitting on the desk in front of me they play nice…

 

 

i just wish they’d got the front end around the bufferbeam cowling corners/bottom of cab sides better, and if they sort the roof panel on the next run as well I think the gap between the Bachmann and Heljan 47 would narrow a little… if they dont I suspect it will struggle longer term.

 

If this kind of modification needs a budget i’d suggest looking at a 47901.

 

meanwhile I might take a look at taking a Bachmann 47 down a millimeter on the bogies, as it does look nice on Heljans… look at the gap between body and bogie on 47628/47596 above.

 

The problem I see for both models, is whilst its an improvement on previous, the previous wasnt bad… so why trade up ? The demand is imo limited to gaps of whats not been done, or high demand liveries rather than reruns and repeats*. Theres already a lot of not bad 47’s out there.

 

* Lima is ripe for picking, not sure about Vitrains though there 47’s arent bad either.

 

Edited March 30 by adb968008

[Albie the plumber]

That the Heljan model on the right looks like it's done in HO just goes to show how deceiving photography  can be .

The Bachmann model towers over it .

Other pics show that not to be the case .

Will make up my mind when I see it in the flesh .

I'm not expecting to see the huge discrepancies that are being talked about .

The  overly large windscreen shelf argument has already gone out of the window ( No pun intended 😉)

[GD]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Until someone has better intel, i’m leading towards the Bachmann riding a little high. 

 

But on width they are the same, but the front end taper is different.
 

 

it may have something to do with clearances on curves as a CO- CO powered model, where as Heljans is an A1A-A1A powered model.

 

it sits square up to Accurascales buffers

 

but theres a 1mm difference to Bachmanns 47

 

but old and new Bachmann 47’s align.

sitting on the desk in front of me they play nice…

 

 

i just wish they’d got the front end around the bufferbeam cowling corners/bottom of cab sides better, and if they sort the roof panel on the next run as well I think the gap between the Bachmann and Heljan 47 would narrow a little… if they dont I suspect it will struggle longer term.

 

If this kind of modification needs a budget i’d suggest looking at a 47901.

 

meanwhile I might take a look at taking a Bachmann 47 down a millimeter on the bogies, as it does look nice on Heljans… look at the gap between body and bogie on 47628/47596 above.

 

The problem I see for both models, is whilst its an improvement on previous, the previous wasnt bad… so why trade up ? The demand is imo limited to gaps of whats not been done, or high demand liveries rather than reruns and repeats*. Theres already a lot of not bad 47’s out there.

 

* Lima is ripe for picking, not sure about Vitrains though there 47’s arent bad either.

 

Spot on adb, the old Bachmann one was decent and i have just rekindled my admiration by buying a few 1987 liveries, 47710, 47712, 47436, 47576 and 47444.

Had to whip off the aerials on the two large logos and spray the roof with halfords racking grey because no grey i have matched! And gluing the windows back in is always enjoyable.

[dj_crisp]

55 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Until someone has better intel, i’m leading towards the Bachmann riding a little high. 

 

But on width they are the same, but the front end taper is different.
 

 

it may have something to do with clearances on curves as a CO- CO powered model, where as Heljans is an A1A-A1A powered model.

 

it sits square up to Accurascales buffers

 

but theres a 1mm difference to Bachmanns 47

 

but old and new Bachmann 47’s align.

sitting on the desk in front of me they play nice…

 

 

i just wish they’d got the front end around the bufferbeam cowling corners/bottom of cab sides better, and if they sort the roof panel on the next run as well I think the gap between the Bachmann and Heljan 47 would narrow a little… if they dont I suspect it will struggle longer term.

 

If this kind of modification needs a budget i’d suggest looking at a 47901.

 

meanwhile I might take a look at taking a Bachmann 47 down a millimeter on the bogies, as it does look nice on Heljans… look at the gap between body and bogie on 47628/47596 above.

 

The problem I see for both models, is whilst its an improvement on previous, the previous wasnt bad… so why trade up ? The demand is imo limited to gaps of whats not been done, or high demand liveries rather than reruns and repeats*. Theres already a lot of not bad 47’s out there.

 

* Lima is ripe for picking, not sure about Vitrains though there 47’s arent bad either.

 

 

Thanks for sharing. I'd do the same comparison on a piece of track though as the flanges could very well vary but you've done a good comparison.

 

One thing ive noticed while converting Accurascale MK2Bs to EM is Im not 100% sold on their ride height always being spot on. This is not a dimension thing as that looks great... just that the wheelsets are pretty naff in my opinion and have a lot of slop so I've seen a 1mm variety in ride height in mine. I've put some DCC concepts wheels with 26mm axles and they're now great and line up to my Bachmann MK2f's.

 

So it could be your MK2B is low. Even in your photos above I'd say the Heljan 47 looks low Vs the Mk2b. My prototype photos suggest they are a little higher than coaching stock but again there could be huge variety in the real thing.

 

I think your photos have highlighted Heljans deep bodyside and bogie/body relationship isn't great.

 

 

[97403_Ixion]

37 minutes ago, Albie the plumber said:

That the Heljan model on the right looks like it's done in HO just goes to show how deceiving photography  can be .

The Bachmann model towers over it .

Other pics show that not to be the case .

Will make up my mind when I see it in the flesh .

I'm not expecting to see the huge discrepancies that are being talked about .

The  overly large windscreen shelf argument has already gone out of the window ( No pun intended 😉)

 

I agree about the photography!

 

Lenses tend to distort things a lot, especially when close up.  Unless both models are in exactly the same position in front of the camera, a close up or even near closeup view will always have a significant degree of distortion, even across a single image.

 

A better comparison would be with the camera moved back significantly, e.g. 1 metre or even more... and zooming in a little to make the models fit the middle 1/3 or so of the image.  This should help reduce non linear effects, including distortion across the full width of the image.  At the risk of upsetting mobile phone users(*), this is where more professional cameras with their lenses are a better bet for achieving this.

 

* mobile phones are superb these days and very effective at getting close ups, so not knocking them with ease and convenience of use, though when they cost more than some cameras do and get advertised for their photographic ability rather than their telephonic purpose, it is a little concerning to me.

 

As far as the 47's are concerned, I have to admit, Heljan do seem to have got it right with the buffer heights matching the Accurascale Mk2b coaches, which is quite pleasing and the photos of the NSE one are tending to encourage me to get one in that livery, especially as, despite being a later comer, I managed to get a full set of Accurascale NSE Mk2b coaches.  My only concern is the size of the headcode panel on all images I see - it does look rather big (cameras distortion aside).  I guess I will only know for sure if I either see one in person (difficult for several reasons) or buy one... which is probably what I'll do.  I am, however, looking forward to 47214 in Railfreight Red Stripe as I remember seeing it about and loving the livery with Tinsley motif below the nameplate on it.

 

Cheers,

Ixion.

[Albie the plumber]

1 hour ago, 97403_Ixion said:

 

I agree about the photography!

 

Lenses tend to distort things a lot, especially when close up.  Unless both models are in exactly the same position in front of the camera, a close up or even near closeup view will always have a significant degree of distortion, even across a single image.

 

A better comparison would be with the camera moved back significantly, e.g. 1 metre or even more... and zooming in a little to make the models fit the middle 1/3 or so of the image.  This should help reduce non linear effects, including distortion across the full width of the image.  At the risk of upsetting mobile phone users(*), this is where more professional cameras with their lenses are a better bet for achieving this.

 

* mobile phones are superb these days and very effective at getting close ups, so not knocking them with ease and convenience of use, though when they cost more than some cameras do and get advertised for their photographic ability rather than their telephonic purpose, it is a little concerning to me.

 

As far as the 47's are concerned, I have to admit, Heljan do seem to have got it right with the buffer heights matching the Accurascale Mk2b coaches, which is quite pleasing and the photos of the NSE one are tending to encourage me to get one in that livery, especially as, despite being a later comer, I managed to get a full set of Accurascale NSE Mk2b coaches.  My only concern is the size of the headcode panel on all images I see - it does look rather big (cameras distortion aside).  I guess I will only know for sure if I either see one in person (difficult for several reasons) or buy one... which is probably what I'll do.  I am, however, looking forward to 47214 in Railfreight Red Stripe as I remember seeing it about and loving the livery with Tinsley motif below the nameplate on it.

 

Cheers,

Ixion.

Agree entirely. 

Too much reliance on mobile phone pics .

And clearly , you know what you are talking about 👍

[97403_Ixion]

4 minutes ago, Albie the plumber said:

Agree entirely. 

Too much reliance on mobile phone pics .

And clearly , you know what you are talking about 👍

Thanks Albie the Plumber!

 

Have to admit, it does tie in with my day job but it is all too easy for people to sometimes get the wrong impression.

 

It's also true with colours due to different lighting conditions, film choice (in the case of 'old' film), polarising/other filters, colour palettes, scanner/display screen colour profiles, white balances, etc. - the list is endless... and even if you have 'Night Mode' set on Windows to view it, things go all very yellowy as I recently found out!