Baby Deltic Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Hi. First post on RMWEB,joined to see what others thought of new Baby Deltic.When i saw 1st pictures i just thought 'That don't look right'.Having compared pictures of real thing and model, my thoughts are that both the font and headcode box are too small. If you do a mirror image of the headcode box on a photo of the real thing,the bottom edge of the box is below the marker lights.If you do the same on a photo of the model the bottom edge of the headcode box is in line with the top of the marker lights.So because the box is too small,the numerals are too small and the front looks just wrong,which is a shame 'cause the rest looks spot on.Does anyone else agree or are my eyes playing tricks.Maybe i should get out more!!! If you don't like, don't buy - simple. I know that my friend Grahame (Brush Veteran) and, I believe, Brian Daniels put a lot of time and effort into working with Heljan on this model, and it was rejected several times, such was Grahame's desire to see them make it a goodun'. I'm sure they've already pored over the drawings and photographs for many hours. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spackz Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Definately need to do an original GN class 26. I would imagine that Heljan will re-tool the class 23 in due course, after they have completed the run of refurbished variants. After seeing but not purchasing (as they are post 1963), their latest effort is excellent and I too hope they expand on the range with both of these models especially the original baby deltic. Only a week to go and we might find out, its usually at Warley when Heljan announce their next catalogue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark54 Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Hi. First post on RMWEB,joined to see what others thought of new Baby Deltic.When i saw 1st pictures i just thought 'That don't look right'.Having compared pictures of real thing and model, my thoughts are that both the font and headcode box are too small. If you do a mirror image of the headcode box on a photo of the real thing,the bottom edge of the box is below the marker lights.If you do the same on a photo of the model the bottom edge of the headcode box is in line with the top of the marker lights.So because the box is too small,the numerals are too small and the front looks just wrong,which is a shame 'cause the rest looks spot on.Does anyone else agree or are my eyes playing tricks.Maybe i should get out more!!! I agree with you ackers. On the model you could fit another headcode box in the yellow panel because it is too small. Additionally there is too large a gap between the yellow panel and the Sherwood Green. Doesn't mean that I don't like the model, I have one on order. I'm just pointing out a flaw. Mark 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluex5 Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I have mine now and I still think it's just the font at fault. Other than that it's perfect. Runs beautifully too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Deltic Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) Measuring various photographs, looking at the ratio of headcode box height to nose height from the bottom cowling above the draw hook to the top of the nose. On the photo's, it works out that the nose is around 3.4 times the height of the headcode box. On the model it is about 4.1, so the headcode box might be very slightly under. Bear in mind that holding a rule over a photo is by no means dead accurate, so I might well be wrong. Even so, it is only a slight amount, and those who are really bothered by it could always get a Shawplan etch and replace the headcode box. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... Edited November 11, 2011 by Baby Deltic 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelticBlade Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Tempted to add one to the Deltic stable. Will those commenting upon so called faults go and moan to Simon and his team who are busy building a version of the real thing? Thought not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor H Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) Under close scrutiny you'll find the model has rather a lot of minor dimensional errors, never trust others drawings. But we are talking about a model and under normal viewing practice with it purring along my layout, I'm more than happy it's a BD Edited November 11, 2011 by Trevor H 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) Will those commenting upon so called faults go and moan to Simon and his team who are busy building a version of the real thing? Thought not. Not sure of the relevance of that, but hey ho. Slightly more understanding of why folk get so twitchy when errors are pointed out in a model they like, I suppose it's natural to feel defensive of a buying decision. My outlook is simple. If any given model is wrong (and I'm not necessarily saying the BD is or isnt), then it's wrong, and to say as much is just a factual observation, not necessarily a damning criticism. Even if it's only a millimetre out, it's still demonstrably wrong. Now then, whether that *matters* to an individual is a completely different issue IMO. We can all make our own choices and as Lloyd (BD) says, in this case there is an option available to improve things - but if commentators are initimidated into keeping schtum because some dont like faults being pointed out, then the freedom of making that choice is arbitrarily denied. Edited November 12, 2011 by Pennine MC 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Deltic Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Not sure of the relevance of that, but hey ho. Slightly more understanding of why folk get so twitchy when errors are pointed out in a model they like, I suppose it's natural to feel defensive of a buying decision. My outlook is simple. If any given model is wrong (and I'm not necessarily saying the BD is or isnt), then it's wrong, and to say as much is just a factual observation, not necessarily a damning criticism. Even if it's only a millimetre out, it's still demonstrably wrong. Now then, whether that *matters* to an individual is a completely different issue IMO. We can all make our own choices and as Lloyd (BD) says, in this case there is an option available to improve things - but if commentators are initimidated into keeping schtum because some dont like faults being pointed out, then the freedom of making that choice is arbitrarily denied. I understand both sides of the argument, Ian, and if there are errors, of course someone will notice them and speak out. Thats only natural. It can't be very rewarding for those who have put in hours of their time on this model, trying to get it right to then have the errors (such as the headcode box) repeatedly rammed down their throats. They may be thinking "why do I bother, go buy the kit". That's all. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NINJA Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 It is disappointing to read in these reviews how some people can make such a fuss about the slightest discrepency in size on models and ignore the fact that the bogies are totally wrong given that they have the incorrect wheel spacing i.e. 16.5 mm. When a model has major issues these threads are invaluable to help and give a solution for the modeller to put right or minimise these faults. Personally I think the Baby Deltic is a lovely model. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 12, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 12, 2011 I have always subscribed to the 'if it looks right then I'm fairly happy' school in respect of R-T-R and kits and the odd fraction of a millimetre here & then doesn't strike me as too much of a problem as long as it looks right (and sometimes a spot of minor dimensional distortion can actually be helpful in getting the look correct). It's an awful long time since I saw (all) the Baby Deltics in traffic in either their original or re-fettled form and memory does play tricks but to me it has definitely seems to have captured the appearance of the real thing and that is quite something when you consider it the original had some subtlety of shape in various areas. And in any case anything produced to other than exact scale in every detail is likely to involve some compromises and if you don't like them the answer is in your own hands - don't buy it and go build your own. 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted November 12, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 12, 2011 I've seen an error that really shouldn't have made it into the model, but I'm in two minds as to whether to mention it here. I don't really have much money spare at the moment, and as the model is outside my core interests that additional error has made the decision not to buy for me. As to the 'the gauge is wrong so don't complain about other errors', that's an old argument that needs to be buried. Why, just because a compromise has to be made in one respect, do compromises have to be made in other respects? 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 It is disappointing to read in these reviews how some people can make such a fuss about the slightest discrepency in size on models and ignore the fact that the bogies are totally wrong given that they have the incorrect wheel spacing i.e. 16.5 mm. Slotting in P4 wheels is a relatively easy fix compared to fiddling with the size of the headcode box if there's an issue there. Im with Pennine in always being confused that people get so defensive when they purchase something and someone else comments that it may have a discrepancy to prototype. Btw if the font is distracting stick the photo in Paint and rub out the numbers before doing a compare.. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 I had very slight reservations about the headcode boxes, but i bought two, and they look very good "in the flesh". The headcode box may be ever so slightly shallow, but it's very border line, i agree with others, it's mainly the size of headcode characters and the fact they are set rather too far in. I'm Mr.Fussy, but i'm 9.9 out of ten happy with mine and will definitely buy one or two more. With these and the excellent Co-Bos, Heljan seem to be on a winning streak. Credit where credit is due and it's nice to make positive and complimentary comments for a change, i have been known to criticise some things . . . Cheers, Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 It can't be very rewarding for those who have put in hours of their time on this model, trying to get it right to then have the errors (such as the headcode box) repeatedly rammed down their throats. They may be thinking "why do I bother, go buy the kit". That's all. Understood Lloyd, in this case we know that respected forum members have had input but we also know that such input (for whatever reason) doesnt always make it to the final model. It's also made worse by the Internet tendency for folk to make posts before they've actually done any objective appraisal It is disappointing to read in these reviews how some people can make such a fuss about the slightest discrepency in size on models ... When a model has major issues these threads are invaluable to help and give a solution for the modeller to put right or minimise these faults. Yeah, that kinda illustrates my point really Ninja. You draw a distinction between 'slight discrepancies' and 'major issues', yet with all due respect, it isnt for you (or I for that matter) to decide what is and isnt significant. At the risk of labouring the point, if the fullest information is made available - down to a millimetre if necessary, which can in some cases noticeably alter proportions - then the buyer can make a more informed choice. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 If the poster qualifies their observation with some substance as to the specific nature of the discrepancy then that's constructive and fine by me. What I find particularly irksome are comments of the " I don't know what it is, but it definitely looks wrong". As a matter of course I consign such speculative and unsubstantiated hearsay to the virtual shredder. Dave. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluex5 Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 If the poster qualifies their observation with some substance as to the specific nature of the discrepancy then that's constructive and fine by me. What I find particularly irksome are comments of the " I don't know what it is, but it definitely looks wrong". As a matter of course I consign such speculative and unsubstantiated hearsay to the virtual shredder. Dave. If something is dimesionally wrong, then let's quanitify it in numbers or with side by side shots of the model and prototype. Anything else is purely subjective and proves nothing. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Deltic Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 I've seen an error that really shouldn't have made it into the model, but I'm in two minds as to whether to mention it here. I don't really have much money spare at the moment, and as the model is outside my core interests that additional error has made the decision not to buy for me. As to the 'the gauge is wrong so don't complain about other errors', that's an old argument that needs to be buried. Why, just because a compromise has to be made in one respect, do compromises have to be made in other respects? If you have seen a fundamental error and it has put you off buying the model, my advice would be to P.M. Grahame Wareham (Brush Veteran) and let him know what you have found. Grahame might not be able to do anything about it on this model, but if Heljan decide to do a backdated version, at least that could be sorted out. We won't know what Heljan are planning until the announcement at Warley, as Grahame has mentioned, but you never know. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Piszczek Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 If something is dimesionally wrong, then let's quanitify it in numbers or with side by side shots of the model and prototype. Anything else is purely subjective and proves nothing. Using a photograph, and assuming a buffer to buffer width of 5'-8", I calculate the head code panel to be 48-1/4" wide, or in 4mm scale about 16.1 mm. Anyone care to measure the outside edges of the box, horizontally? Mine won't arrive for weeks... To be fair, earlier Heljan locomotives had minor paint issues too, yellow panels that should have ended inside the irons, but extended too far out, etc. Of course it is nice when the error is too much yellow, it being fairly straight forward to plop some green on top. Did I mention someone needs to produce a sound chip? Heck, I'd probably be satisfied with a Deltic on one engine, you can always have the chip reblown if something better comes along... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted November 12, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 12, 2011 If you have seen a fundamental error and it has put you off buying the model, my advice would be to P.M. Grahame Wareham (Brush Veteran) and let him know what you have found. Grahame might not be able to do anything about it on this model, but if Heljan decide to do a backdated version, at least that could be sorted out. We won't know what Heljan are planning until the announcement at Warley, as Grahame has mentioned, but you never know. OK, will do. The error I've seen is visually quite obvious, I'm surprised no-one else has mentioned it, and I'm even more surprised that, small though it is, it got through the CAD stage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Piszczek Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Using a photograph, and assuming a buffer to buffer width of 5'-8", I calculate the head code panel to be 48-1/4" wide, or in 4mm scale about 16.1 mm. FWIW, the box should be about 21" vertically, or in 4mm that would be 7mm high... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 OK, will do. The error I've seen is visually quite obvious, I'm surprised no-one else has mentioned it, and I'm even more surprised that, small though it is, it got through the CAD stage. Would it be that the axleboxes are not in line with the wheel centres? ie the whole bogie frame seems to be too low? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Using a photograph, and assuming a buffer to buffer width of 5'-8", I calculate the head code panel to be 48-1/4" wide, or in 4mm scale about 16.1 mm. There seems to be an issue with this statement the word - "Assuming". Doesn't this just make the rest of the calculation arbitrary. In the photo's of the model that I have seen, it looks fine to me. Then I have nothing to compare it with to make a judgement. Until I see it in the flesh, it will be difficult to really tell if there are errors. Mass production of models will always throw up the odd millimetre discrepancy. On most layouts a model will be viewed from at least a scale 100 feet. Try looking at a prototype locomotive from a 100 feet away and making a comparison between the two. It really gets down to the individual and whether or not they are happy enough with the model to consider purchasing it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted November 12, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 12, 2011 Would it be that the axleboxes are not in line with the wheel centres? ie the whole bogie frame seems to be too low? No. Take a look at the bodyside windows in relation to the grills and door. They are visibly too low compared to all the photographs of the prototype that I have checked out. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Deltic Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) IIRC, the horizonal centreline of the bodyside windows on class 23 and 40 is level with the bottom of the cab windows. I'll have a look at some piccies. Edit: don't know horizontal from vertical Edited November 12, 2011 by Baby Deltic 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