All-new Heljan 47 in 00 gauge

[Albie the plumber]

5 hours ago, 97403_Ixion said:

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!

Photography is a complex subject and also a skill and I think that is something forgotten by many on this thread in their quest to show what is or isn't the definitive model of a class 47 .

Edited March 30 by Albie the plumber
Spelling !

[IRC]

2 hours ago, 97403_Ixion said:

 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.

I was tempted too but I hope they fixed the depot motif as it was upside down on the engineering sample they showed off.

[adb968008]

Some good feedback there for the photography, I do own an EOS80D but maybe not the right lens for close ups, my results using it on models have been poor.

I do use the iphone pro max for these pictures, and I will use track next time.

 

Alas I am but an amateur doing it in between work phone calls all day and dads taxi at night.., but it is my escapism fun, so the profesionals will always beat me on time, tools and quality (but thats why they get paid the big bucks).

however photography aside, the height measures were based on tyre to cab roof (not rim)  using the centre wheel (as this is the models bogie tower pivot wheel) to roof using a pair of digital calipers.

 

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

A real 47 is 3.9m / 12’ 9.5” which at 1:76.2 suggests 51mm or at 1.76 suggests 51.3mm

 

So its not on photos alone I think the Bachmann one(s) are too tall.. I checked against several I had to had as I wasnt for believing it intially.

 

There are other merits in the Heljan one.. the separate shutter grill handrails, front cab steps upto the bufferbeam as well...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4 by adb968008

[MidlandRed]

8 hours ago, dj_crisp said:

 

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.

 

 

Looking at photos of 1:1 class 47s on passenger trains, and also mixed rakes of mk 1s and mk 2s, mk 1 format stock appears to come out slightly taller than mk 2. However, referring back to the TMC video of D1960 on Little Bytham, the loco does look fine in comparison with the stock of the train it is depicted pulling (not mk 2). 

[dj_crisp]

3 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

Looking at photos of 1:1 class 47s on passenger trains, and also mixed rakes of mk 1s and mk 2s, mk 1 format stock appears to come out slightly taller than mk 2. However, referring back to the TMC video of D1960 on Little Bytham, the loco does look fine in comparison with the stock of the train it is depicted pulling (not mk 2). 

 

I'm always surprised how small Mk1 or Mk2s look Vs a loco. 

 

 

 

I've always thought the 47 bogies look proportionally large vs the body which Heljan haven't got right imo.

 

And Vs the Mk2b those NSE red stripes should be close to lining up.

 

 

 

 

 

[Halvarras]

13 hours ago, dj_crisp said:

 

I'm always surprised how small Mk1 or Mk2s look Vs a loco. 

 

 

 

I've always thought the 47 bogies look proportionally large vs the body which Heljan haven't got right imo.

 

And Vs the Mk2b those NSE red stripes should be close to lining up.

 

 

What an odd situation - we're usually moaning about diesel models having too large a gap between body and bogie - comparing your photo of the real thing with @adb968008's of the model, even allowing for his slightly elevated angle, this time it's the reverse! Adb's height measurement seems indisputable, which suggests that the suspicion that the model is too deep in the bodyside is correct.

 

Regardless of this I would like to think that Bachmann's version doesn't stand too tall, bearing in mind that at launch they boasted of spending a seven-figure sum on the tooling............!

[Zunnan]

If the Heljan 47 buffers lign up with the Accurascale Mk2b buffers, then they’re too low. The accepted correct buffer height for 4mm is 3’6” or 14mm. My Accura Mk2b coaches buffers are ALL under 13mm to centre, I’d say around 12.7-12.8mm

 

Now a bit more curious of the matter, I dug out one of the new Bachmann 47s and measured its buffer height…

 

I’d say a smidge under 14mm, but noticeably tall to an (incorrect apparently) Accurascale Mk2b.

[spamcan61]

Allowable variation on the prototype was just over 3" (according to a thread on here a while back) so that's 1mm of variation for starters.

[Zunnan]

Bear in mind that in abd's photo, the 47 is lower than the Accura Mk2b, which at 1.2mm low itself is already outside that 'allowable variation'. But the general consensus is that a model which measures up pretty much spot on with the agreed standard in this area is too tall, and a model that is shorter to this measurement than a model which measures somewhere over 1.2mm low is within allowable variation. Gotcha.

 

[pheaton]

On 30/03/2024 at 17:53, adb968008 said:

Some good feedback there for the photography, I do own an EOS80D but maybe not the right lens for close ups, my results using it on models have been poor.

I do use the iphone pro max for these pictures, and I will use track next time.

 

Alas I am but an amateur doing it in between work phone calls all day and dads taxi at night.., but it is my escapism fun, so the profesionals will always beat me on time, tools and quality (but thats why they get paid the big bucks).

however photography aside, the height measures were based on tyre to cab roof (not rim)  using the centre wheel (as this is the models bogie tower pivot wheel) to roof using a pair of digital calipers.

 

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

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

 

So its not on photos alone I think the Bachmann one(s) are too tall.. I checked against several I had to had as I wasnt for believing it intially.

 

There are other merits in the Heljan one.. the separate shutter grill handrails, front cab steps upto the bufferbeam as well...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But :)

 

 

When you compare it to the real 47.....how thick are the tyres?

 

heljans 47 was measured using a 47 that is on scrap size tyres....and a 47 that is mid-life tyres...so that will throw off the height measurements.... and there isn't many 47s running around on new tyres at the moment....in fact im willing to bet there arnt any....

 

springs....no 47 out there has new springs....they relax over time....and also...how much fluid was in the 47 when it was measured...that too has an influence on ride height....add this to the tyres...and there is quite a variation possible....

Edited April 2 by pheaton

[MidlandRed]

I still think mine looks v pretty, in spite of all the discussions!! 😀
 

 

Edited April 2 by MidlandRed

[pheaton]

27 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

I still think mine looks v pretty

 

and that's all that matters :)

[eefitter]

 

Rail head to buffer centre-line is 3'-5 1/2" which equates to 1054.1mm

 

1054.1mm divided by 76.2 (conversion to OO scale) = 13.83mm

 

 

[Carver Bridge TMD]

So the consensus seems to be that either one is perfectly acceptable but together they look a bit out? That's a shame. Does anyone have a shot of one of each coupled together?

[Hal Nail]

47 minutes ago, Carver Bridge TMD said:

So the consensus 

I'm not sure there is a consensus. Some thought the Heljan looked wrong from the outset, some couldn't see it. The various comparison photos over the last few pages must at least have established the two interpretations are quite different but people are now just disagreeing over which one is correct!

Edited April 4 by Hal Nail

[Carver Bridge TMD]

1 minute ago, Hal Nail said:

I'm not sure there is a consensus. Some thought the Heljan looked wrong from the outset, some couldn't see it. The various comparison photos over the last few pages must at least have established the two interpretatiins are quite different but peope are now just disagreeing over which one is correct!

Agreed, but the biggest concern seems to be that the two are markedly different when parked up adjacent?

[Hal Nail]

41 minutes ago, Carver Bridge TMD said:

Agreed, but the biggest concern seems to be that the two are markedly different when parked up adjacent?

That is the current discussion following on from the photos on the previous page.

[MidlandRed]

1 hour ago, Hal Nail said:

I'm not sure there is a consensus. Some thought the Heljan looked wrong from the outset, some couldn't see it. The various comparison photos over the last few pages must at least have established the two interpretations are quite different but people are now just disagreeing over which one is correct!

I think the issue identified is that the Heljan looks less correct than the Bachmann from the square on front view. I don’t think anyone has disagreed with that. However it looks perfectly acceptable from most other angles that I’ve viewed it from. 
 

It is noticeable that all the photos you refer to show the Heljan front on but the Bachmann from more of an angle (not quite 3/4 front view) - so I’ve yet to see how good or otherwise the Bachmann looks front on in that version. 

 

The Heljan appears perfectly acceptable to me - particularly on a layout where it will likely be the only Brush type 4 - much more so via the TMC exclusive which depicts a late 60s early rail blue LMR version, the 9 of which built as such were somewhat celebrities at the time - the only version of the new Bachmann so far acceptable to a modeller of that era is ER D1565 - having seen that version there are elements of the front (to do with the top of yellow warning panel and shelf in front of windscreen) I don’t like equally as much as the issues with the Heljan - however they are noticeable from different angles than from the straight on front view, and ones which I’m more likely to see more often, as a model. Otherwise it’s very good as well. 

Edited April 4 by MidlandRed

[Hal Nail]

23 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

so I’ve yet to see how good or otherwise the Bachmann looks front on in that version. 

[dj_crisp]

On 02/04/2024 at 20:39, pheaton said:

But :)

 

 

When you compare it to the real 47.....how thick are the tyres?

 

heljans 47 was measured using a 47 that is on scrap size tyres....and a 47 that is mid-life tyres...so that will throw off the height measurements.... and there isn't many 47s running around on new tyres at the moment....in fact im willing to bet there arnt any....

 

springs....no 47 out there has new springs....they relax over time....and also...how much fluid was in the 47 when it was measured...that too has an influence on ride height....add this to the tyres...and there is quite a variation possible....

 

Interesting points which are all valid but I'd have expected Heljan to compare info collected in the field with production drawings and measurements which must be available for the 47. I wonder if the body can be raised to create more of a gap between the body and the bogies as for me the side view really spoils this one.

[spamcan61]

18 minutes ago, dj_crisp said:

 

Interesting points which are all valid but I'd have expected Heljan to compare info collected in the field with production drawings and measurements which must be available for the 47. 

So, should they be reproducing the loco as ex factory (assuming it was actually built 'exactly' to drawing in the first place); or after a period in use, with knackered springs? - giving 3" = 1mm lower buffer height. I don't see why any model should be assumed to be representing ex works condition.

Edited April 4 by spamcan61

[Roy Langridge]

4 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

I think the issue identified is that the Heljan looks less correct than the Bachmann from the square on front view. I don’t think anyone has disagreed with that. However it looks perfectly acceptable from most other angles that I’ve viewed it from. 

if you like it, fair enough, but there is more wrong than just the front. Those horrendous  “in-fills”’on the cab corners that make it look like it has tiny wings. 
 

Bachmann got slated for their Class 37 nose-seams, which are nothing when compared to those in-fills. 
 

Roy

[adb968008]

44 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

if you like it, fair enough, but there is more wrong than just the front. Those horrendous  “in-fills”’on the cab corners that make it look like it has tiny wings. 
 

Bachmann got slated for their Class 37 nose-seams, which are nothing when compared to those in-fills. 
 

Roy

And the roof hatch doors, which are harder to ignore from above, even from a distance..

 

guess which is Heljans?

 

This weekend I might see what I can do about this.

 

7 hours ago, Carver Bridge TMD said:

Agreed, but the biggest concern seems to be that the two are markedly different when parked up adjacent?

head on…

(far left is an 87 chassis).
 

side on, theres really not much in it.

Pipework is less detailed on 47596, but the shutters have metal hand rails.
 

tbh I like the front foot step under the buffer, the livery just about hides that “crewe cut” insert, on the side, but not sure that will work on all liveries, and certainly not the front.

 

 

 

tbh on my desk from 2-3ft away it passes the test, (and so does Lima and Vitrains),  but theres a gap between 1st and 2nd place.

 

I guess a good litmus test here is… How many Accurascale 37 pictures did we get in the first 3 weeks of release… versus this one..

 

Edited April 4 by adb968008

[dj_crisp]

2 hours ago, spamcan61 said:

So, should they be reproducing the loco as ex factory (assuming it was actually built 'exactly' to drawing in the first place); or after a period in use, with knackered springs? - giving 3" = 1mm lower buffer height. I don't see why any model should be assumed to be representing ex works condition.

 

I'd prefer an alternative to knackered and ready for the scrap heap :)

[Daddyman]

I can't believe intelligent people are giving this model airtime and oxygen. It's Heljan; what did you expect? Select "ignore thread" and move on!