New & Improved Class 33

[JSpencer]

Any clue to the why and what might be done to amend this? That's what you need to know.

 

I should have thought the 33 shares running gear with the 26/27, and that definitely will go round R1, although it is on the limit there; bogie pivotting mechanically constrained by the chassis design. I would be confident of getting a 33 to run on R1, but it very likely would require adjustments /alterations to eliminate binding, snagging and other limitations on the bogies pivotting. Something as simple as one pick up wire effectively short due to the way it is assembled can be the cause.

As most things these days are not designed for 1st radius, I suspect it would be easier to replace R1 curves than adjusting super detailed models to go round them each time you buy one. Alternatively you could do what would also be prototypically correct and restrict locos to certain lines.

[ThaneofFife]

As most things these days are not designed for 1st radius, I suspect it would be easier to replace R1 curves than adjusting super detailed models to go round them each time you buy one. Alternatively you could do what would also be prototypically correct and restrict locos to certain lines.

 

i suspect most layouts that use R1 curves have little option to go bigger-Id expect them to have done so from day 1 had space been available.  i like the idea or prototypically applying an RA but really its not practical in the confines of your average model railway as youll more likely than not have nowhere to run them if you restrict them! 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I suspect most layouts that use R1 curves have little option to go bigger-Id expect them to have done so from day 1 had space been available...

Certainly the case with a couple of layouts I know. On one the R1 is concealed, a space saver to enable the scenic sections to offer much easier curves for better appearance. And then there's inertia: layout built years ago and much developed over time; 'not going to change it at my age!' says the owner of another such layout with R1 curves. Both owners still purchase new RTR when something appealing comes along: these come to me if adjustments are found necessary.

 

As most things these days are not designed for 1st radius, I suspect it would be easier to replace R1 curves than adjusting super detailed models to go round them each time you buy one...

Ah, but! This all comes down to the basic set track point which is the crucial set-track piece that no plastic body OO RTR manufacturer has yet been willing to say of 'No longer going to make items to get through this outdated horror'. It has to be faced, that 80% and more of existing layouts probably have this item on them, and the RTR manufacturers doubtless know that. It is sold as R2: but it isn't really, it is two straight sections and two tighter than R2 curvatures: to make a net curve that substitutes for an R2 piece.

 

So the R2 capability of RTR is actually a little better than what is suggested by the manufacturer, such that modifying RTR for reliable R1 performance isn't usually very challenging. And short BoBo types are among the easiest. The Heljan 26 I have done for one of the layouts mentioned above needed no more than slight wiring redressing so that one pick up wire didn't act as a tether limiting the swing of one bogie for one direction of curvature. On the 33, if it has a bufferbeam detail fit like the class 23 I have just purchased, I can imagine some of that may have to be looked at for fouling; or it may be that internally a little adjustment is required somewhere to enable the bogie to swing a little further.

[Nimbus]

I thought it might help to judge the profile of the new Heljan attempt if I provided the following drawing. This is a segment of a survey I made on a preserved 33 partially stripped for rebuilding; this meant that the cab roof was off, and so I was able to measure directly to the main roof panelling, and reference the height to the underframe, at the cab rear bulkhead. It was similarly easy to measure the roof curve at the cantrails directly using a set of radius templates.

 

So you can take the body width, and the roof side curves as accurate, and the roof main curve height as accurate, with its radius being derived from the other dimensions. The fact that it scales close to a round figure adds confidence.

 

The box around the drawing should be 80mm x 60mm at 4mm:1ft scale. (It was in one of my viewers, but needed printing at 25% 

from another application.)

 

Anyone care to make a profile template from this and try it against their new model?

The Nim.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Nimbus

[JSpencer]

Certainly the case with a couple of layouts I know. On one the R1 is concealed, a space saver to enable the scenic sections to offer much easier curves for better appearance. And then there's inertia: layout built years ago and much developed over time; 'not going to change it at my age!' says the owner of another such layout with R1 curves. Both owners still purchase new RTR when something appealing comes along: these come to me if adjustments are found necessary.

 

 

Ah, but! This all comes down to the basic set track point which is the crucial set-track piece that no plastic body OO RTR manufacturer has yet been willing to say of 'No longer going to make items to get through this outdated horror'. It has to be faced, that 80% and more of existing layouts probably have this item on them, and the RTR manufacturers doubtless know that. It is sold as R2: but it isn't really, it is two straight sections and two tighter than R2 curvatures: to make a net curve that substitutes for an R2 piece.

 

So the R2 capability of RTR is actually a little better than what is suggested by the manufacturer, such that modifying RTR for reliable R1 performance isn't usually very challenging. And short BoBo types are among the easiest. The Heljan 26 I have done for one of the layouts mentioned above needed no more than slight wiring redressing so that one pick up wire didn't act as a tether limiting the swing of one bogie for one direction of curvature. On the 33, if it has a bufferbeam detail fit like the class 23 I have just purchased, I can imagine some of that may have to be looked at for fouling; or it may be that internally a little adjustment is required somewhere to enable the bogie to swing a little further.

To be honest, I,ve never had issues running modern stock through the set track points I have. Probably because there is enough side play in them and the fact it's only inching a part of itself around a tighter curve and not the entire loco at any given time.

 

My first layout which was 8 ft by 4 and built in the early 90s had 4 loops, of which 2 used R1 curves. I sscrapped this in 2005 and then built another bigger layout. Over time, I,ve modified/tweeted the design to increase functionality, stripping out and replacing certain parts (normally to cater for kit locos) At some time I'll need to reduce length 2 inches to fit a new ship. The thing is packed solid with rails in parts but it's not hard to do if you keep it evolutive.

[owentherail]

The darker grey looks to dark on 33033

[33212]

Hmm,

Not too impressed to be honest, the cab window surrounds look too chunky, side grilles too chunky and printed detail?

The general shape looks wrong to me, maybe I am too used to the old model now, which was a step change, I replaced a dozen Lima 33's with a dozen Mk1 Heljan, will I be replacing the Mk1's with Mk2's, nope. However, if they bring out a decent version, such as 33023 with white roof and red beams...will get one..

 

Matt

[Fireman Sam]

The darker grey looks to dark on 33033

Agreed it looks far too dark.

[33212]

Having slept on it, have had another staring session at the photos above, and the new model does actually look better now, the shape is more rounded, pity about the printed on bits though. Still not intending to replace what I have mk1 wise though, especially as the 33/1 and 33/2 are correct profile wise.

[ThaneofFife]

I read a review of the new 33 in a recent issue of Model Rail and despite having nothing of note as the minuses they rated it 87%.

Then we have the new farish fairburn

2-6-4T again as far as negatives go they say nothing yet it scores 95%!

I do wonder sometimes about the consistency of their ratings.....the Heljan baby deltic was marked down on thick glazing and ladders yet still managed 84%

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

For comparability a set of declared evaluation standards per category to be reviewed (shape, dimensions, detail, livery, construction, operational performance, for example) with the resulting scores (deductions) are required. Relatively easy to develop for measurable dimensions, with error ranges and matching deductions; a lot more work for more subjective appreciations such as shape. But even there it can be done: from a model that looks like the prototype from all angles - no deduction - to enough readily visible error making it look unlike the prototype - full deduction, review terminated. (The ideal way to work such a scheme is to start each category with an 'ideal score' of 1, and make deductions from this. The results from all categories are then multiplied for a final result. This is a very HARSH scheme in that a zero in just one category, means an overall zero score; and even good models are not way over the 50% point. Plenty of headroom for improvement.)

 

For my own satisfaction, I maintain such an evaluation. The Heljan 23 is a typical current standard model at 55%  - which is what results when you get a 0.9 or thereabouts in six categories - and as such is a decent product in my view. May be compared to the best plastic bodied RTR diesel I own, circa 66% for the NRM/Bachmann DP1.

[dibber25]

I read a review of the new 33 in a recent issue of Model Rail and despite having nothing of note as the minuses they rated it 87%.

Then we have the new farish fairburn

2-6-4T again as far as negatives go they say nothing yet it scores 95%!

I do wonder sometimes about the consistency of their ratings.....the Heljan baby deltic was marked down on thick glazing and ladders yet still managed 84%

As I've said on here many times before, I personally dislike the scoring system and - frankly I would advise people to read the review, ignore the score, and make up their own mind based on the comments in the review. The scores are an aggregate of the ratings (for which there are clear criteria) averaged out. The references to 'nothing' or whatever are merely a summary of the review comments and don't relate directly to the % score. Thus, ratings of 87% and 95% are both very good models, but comparing a OO diesel with an N gauge steam locomotive is never going to be a valid comparison anyway. We have today reviewed a model which we reckon is even better than the Fairburn - it scored 96%. When manufacturers push us into giving 100% (which they all want) we'll have to scrap the whole thing and start again with a different rating arrangement, as you can't give more than 100%, and when was there ever a 'perfect' model?

CHRIS LEIGH

[paulbb]

As I've said on here many times before, I personally dislike the scoring system and - frankly I would advise people to read the review, ignore the score, and make up their own mind based on the comments in the review. The scores are an aggregate of the ratings (for which there are clear criteria) averaged out. The references to 'nothing' or whatever are merely a summary of the review comments and don't relate directly to the % score. Thus, ratings of 87% and 95% are both very good models, but comparing a OO diesel with an N gauge steam locomotive is never going to be a valid comparison anyway. We have today reviewed a model which we reckon is even better than the Fairburn - it scored 96%. When manufacturers push us into giving 100% (which they all want) we'll have to scrap the whole thing and start again with a different rating arrangement, as you can't give more than 100%, and when was there ever a 'perfect' model?

CHRIS LEIGH

So Chris,  which loco scored 96% ?

[dibber25]

So Chris,  which loco scored 96% ?

That would be telling! 

[wirey33]

That would be telling! 

 

Was it the Mallard they're advertising on the telly (comes with a free maagzine and an Army watch; I think ??)

[Colin]

Picked up my 2 33s (1 plain green, 1 green/syp) today; got to say that with the exception of the rather odd bodyside grille, I'm well pleased.

Both run superbly and IMHO the new loco is a massive improvement over the former model.

 

If anyone is looking for a couple of old type 33 chassis, drop me a PM!

[JSpencer]

Picked up my 2 33s (1 plain green, 1 green/syp) today; got to say that with the exception of the rather odd bodyside grille, I'm well pleased.

Both run superbly and IMHO the new loco is a massive improvement over the former model.

 

If anyone is looking for a couple of old type 33 chassis, drop me a PM!

I agree, I think they cracked it for the early green versions. However there are issues for the later 1990s ones.

 

I have been searching for clear shots of the roof to see whether exhaust cover panel was one or two pieces.

[Guest]

Picked up my 2 33s (1 plain green, 1 green/syp) today; got to say that with the exception of the rather odd bodyside grille, I'm well pleased.

Both run superbly and IMHO the new loco is a massive improvement over the former model.

 

If anyone is looking for a couple of old type 33 chassis, drop me a PM!

Any chance of pics of the Plain Green one please? As it's a model I'm seriously considering getting, and would like to see how it shapes up!

[Colin]

Any chance of pics of the Plain Green one please? As it's a model I'm seriously considering getting, and would like to see how it shapes up!

I may be able to take a couple of shots over the weekend.

[JSpencer]

Picked up my 2 33s (1 plain green, 1 green/syp) today; got to say that with the exception of the rather odd bodyside grille, I'm well pleased.

Both run superbly and IMHO the new loco is a massive improvement over the former model.

 

If anyone is looking for a couple of old type 33 chassis, drop me a PM!

Also, who has them in stock?

[Colin]

Also, who has them in stock?

I bought mine from John Dutfield in Chelmsford. I'm sure other retailers must have them by now - I called into the shop on the way back from work and they were opening the boxes and testing the locos (which had only just arrived). They had a couple of plain green, green/syp (1 version) and green/fye (1 version), also Dutch, triple grey & rail blue (pre-TOPS number); there could have been others, that was all I saw.

[steveb860]

Any chance of pics of the Plain Green one please? As it's a model I'm seriously considering getting, and would like to see how it shapes up!

Have a look on Invicta's site. click on their pics and they will enlarge

[Butler Henderson]

Kernow are listing the green ones as being in stock, no doubt other box shifters will follow suit in the next day or two.

[JSpencer]

Here are some shots comparing the original 33/0, the 33/1 and the new 33/0. I have tried to take them from the exact same angles and then merging them in photoshop.

 

First the face. Left to right, 33/1, new 33/0, old 33/0

 

You can see how flat roofed the original 33/0 was (it is marginal but still there). The new 33/0 has very subtle but improved spacing of the cab windows.

 

 

Side shots: New 33/0 on top, 33/1, and old 33/0 on the bottom. Again the slight flatness of the old 33/0 is apparent here.

 

 

 

Top view: Original 33/0, then new 33/0 and 33/1. What is amazing is the big central roof panel on all three are different sizes to each other. I assume the new is correct or I hope it is. Where the silencer would have sit, the new 33/0 has a prominant split panels. The original and 33/1 have a single panel. I have studied photos, but have no clear roof shots. Most indicate a single panel or at best a faint panel line. I stand to be corrected however. Note how on the original 33/0 and 33/1 that the sides angle in a little bit around the cabs while the new 33/0 they rest straight.

 

 

more to follow...

[JSpencer]

Looking at the underside of the models. Here the original 33/0, 33/1 and 33/2 are all exactly the same.

The new model is much improved, however as we will see, it shares parts with the original 33/0.

 

A close up of the bogies: The new (top) is much more detailed. With stepped back centre bogie springs. The original bogies could on occasion fowl the backs of the sprung buffers (when sprung back), the new bogies do not fowl the buffers and the buffers sit at the correct distance.

 

In this shot, we look Underneath the bogies. Instantly it is evident that the new 33/0 uses the same parts as the original 33/0. This surprised me at first, as the new 33/0 ran better out of the box compare to my 3 older ran in 33s. It was marginal, but still a pleasent surprise. Removing the body may reveal mechanical différences, although I doubt it. Others here have testified at the improved running qualities of this new run.

The good news is, you can fit the new bogie sides to the older models.

 

In this shot we compare the battery boxes and feul tanks. Ok the new 33/0 is little more refined, a little crisper, with extra pipe detail underneath compared with the original. But its not really an area I was worried about.

 

 

More to follow...