Heljan GWR 47xx Night Owl

[tomparryharry]

I well remember a Cotswold/Sutherland 47xx kit. Worked very well, and went together just as nicely. I always remember the vast improvement over the equivalent K's offering, especially with that big milled chassis.  Nu-cast went that sort of way, and I've still got a few similar chassis with some 42xx, and some Taff Vale A types. The MRRC 1001 motors still come up from time to time on Eeh-Bah-Bay, and for what's needed, fit the bill a treat. 

 

So far, I'm resisting a 47xx, in either guise. They didn't work through to my area, and my  proposed layout is strictly (well, not too strictly) tank locomotive country. Of course, Rule 1 might well apply, and remember the Kings made it to Cardiff.....

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Hilux5972]

Rails have the first versions in stock now.

[Ian Hargrave]

Rails have the first versions in stock now.

So I see....hummmm .Those "plates" ? Ugh!

[rovex]

Rails have the first versions in stock now.

 

looks like a good price too

[gwrrob]

So I see....hummmm .Those "plates" ? Ugh!

 

Not impressed by this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by gwrrob

[The Fatadder]

Those rivets look straight from the 1980s, as for the name plates the least said the better. What’s wrong with just printing on and letting the modeller apply an etched plate.....

[gwrrob]

Those rivets look straight from the 1980s, as for the name plates the least said the better. What’s wrong with just printing on and letting the modeller apply an etched plate.....

 

How did that boiler handrail pass QC too.  

[rovex]

Rails have the first versions in stock now.

 

Looks like the BR black version has sold out already

[M.I.B]

Hattons are still showing "Pre-Order"   and a price £2 dearer than Rails - buy it could even out in the postage.

[Garethp8873]

Following on from the experience I had last year with my first GWR 1366, I think I'll pay for a train ticket and go down and see these in the flesh...

[Rail-Online]

Is the front footplate (forward of the drop) pointing upwards?  It of course should be parallel to the running rails.

 

Was there not a similar problem with another RTR loco?

 

Tony

[gwrrob]

Is the front footplate (forward of the drop) pointing upwards?  It of course should be parallel to the running rails.

 

Was there not a similar problem with another RTR loco?

 

Tony

 

Hornby 42xx/52xx/72xx

[7007GreatWestern]

The overscale rivet detail on the tender, cab and running plate edge aren't doing the model any favours and neither is the 'olive drab' paint application. Also the quality of assembly on the production line doesn't look great. The pony truck guard irons, fireman's side handrail and driver's side upper slide bar and are all bent or set at strange angles. Of interest is the connection between the loco and tender. As well as a drawbar there appears to be rigid housing for the wiring, or are the wires taped together?  The prototype is a personal favourite and one that I never thought we would see RTR. I commend Heljan for at least trying to fill a gap in the GWR fleet that was never likely to be filled by the long established manufacturers. However, these first close-up images don't inspire confidence...certainly not at £150+ and given the reputation of Heljan motors and drive trains.

 

Andy.

[WisTramwayMan]

The overscale rivet detail on the tender, cab and running plate edge aren't doing the model any favours and neither is the 'olive drab' paint application. Also the quality of assembly on the production line doesn't look great. The pony truck guard irons, fireman's side handrail and driver's side upper slide bar and are all bent or set at strange angles. Of interest is the connection between the loco and tender. As well as a drawbar there appears to be rigid housing for the wiring, or are the wires taped together?  The prototype is a personal favourite and one that I never thought we would see RTR. I commend Heljan for at least trying to fill a gap in the GWR fleet that was never likely to be filled by the long established manufacturers. However, these first close-up images don't inspire confidence...certainly not at £150+ and given the reputation of Heljan motors and drive trains.

 

Andy.

 

Agree with the comments regarding quality of assembly - both the ones on Rails' website had glaringly obvious faults. Slightly concerning as I've got one of these (the new build) on order with another retailer, and will be following with interest comments from those who have ordered the early ones. Along with the issue of potential motor and drivetrain problems.....

[7007GreatWestern]

Is the front footplate (forward of the drop) pointing upwards?  It of course should be parallel to the running rails.

 

Was there not a similar problem with another RTR loco?

 

Tony

 

There is a certain irony in the fact that the support struts, whose sole purpose on the real locomotives was to keep the front buffer beam and running plate square and true, have become such an obstacle to the model manufacturers achieving the same goal!

 

First, a bit of history. If you look at photographs of Churchward's locos in the very early years of the 20th century they were absent - Churchward foresaw no need for them. Here are early examples of 28xx & 51xx

 

https://goo.gl/images/9kqfNy

https://goo.gl/images/FG8AWS

 

In the case of the Large Prairies the support struts began to appear as early as 1909 - a sure sign that GJC himself recognised a vulnerability in his design. The reason for the vulnerability is the way that the frames, the very foundation of the locomotive, were designed in the Churchward tradition. Here is a helpful photo from the 47xx New Build project website:-

 

https://goo.gl/images/kD14ft

 

In the above photograph the "extension frames" which support the smokebox saddle and front running plate are separate from but bolted to the main frames, which support the bulk of the locomotive and ride on the four coupled axles. I have no idea why Churchward opted for this type of construction. Maybe he overestimated the strength of the extension frames or underestimated the impact load on them. Maybe he was ahead of his time and saw the extension frames as 'sacrificial', rather like crumple zones in a modern car only protecting the alignment of the main frames as opposed to protecting the occupants of a car? Whatever the reason they were a notorious weakness and the struts were a concession to that unpalatable fact.

 

Wind the clock forward over a century and today's model manufacturers are struggling with ways to represent them. By far the best approach in my opinion is that used by Hornby for the retooled 28xx/2884. The struts on that model are entirely cosmetic and made from injection moulded plastic. They can be so flimsy because Hornby designed the running plate of the model with sufficient stiffness that the struts are not needed to keep the running plate level. Another advantage of cosmetic struts is that there no unsightly bends as is the case when metal struts are used. Which leads me onto the Hornby Eight Coupled Tanks and Heljan 28xx. Both models use rigid metal struts. Presumably the designers didn't believe their running plate mouldings had sufficient strength and needed support. In the case of the Heljan model this has lead to the inevitable visual compromise of unrealistic bends in the struts but still hasn't achieved the goal of keeping the front running plate flat:-

 

 

Here  is what they should look like:-

 

 

Andy.

[County of Yorkshire]

Where's the fall plate? Why is the moulding seam on the steam pipes very prominent on what is an expensive model?

 

This will be the only game in town for the 47xx, and it's not great... sloppy.

 

CoY

[peteskitchen]

Oh dear. It seems Heljan have taken a step in the wrong direction with this model. Zooming in on those pictures GWRRob posted, the fit and finish of added parts is appalling. The more I look at it, the more I find. The 1363 class I recently bought is bad enough but this is just too much for me. I was really looking forwards to this loco too.

Edited March 30, 2018 by peteskitchen

[Rising Standards]

I'm not particularly familiar with the class and would probably forgive a lot, but the smokebox looks to be a deal breaker for me as it's throwing the 'face' of the loco off. The door looks undersized and quite prominently domed out from an overly-wide surrounding ring, giving the front end what I can only describe as a scaled up 28XX/Hall look. Photos of real 47XX front ends seem to show a narrower ring and flatter door; more like a Castle or 10XX County.

[farren]

you want How much for that!

 

If that's the production model it's such a shame for a lovely prototype. What a dogs dinner for the price. Sorry

 

The green looks odd! Is it painted or is it coloured plastic.

Edited March 30, 2018 by farren

[Trains&armour]

Feeling slightly underwhelmed by this model...

Mind you, I still think it's a reasonable model, but it could have been better, much better.

 

I canceled my pre order a while back, and now seeing the above photographs, I don't regret doing that.

Will wait for the magazine reviews and users comments on RMweb before deciding to buy one or not. 

[The Stationmaster]

I keep looking at it and something doesn't look right and I think I've narrowed it down to the various washout plugs and the two covers on the firebox with the latter being slightly too low and the row of plugs above the handrail not looking to be the correct angle although the heavy over moulded rims might not help that.  That sort of tooling looks distinctly passé by 21st century standards and goes with the overdone rivet heads on the tender.  Fortunately I don't want one as they were barred from entry to the Principality and the North & West route

 

The frames problem was down to Churchward's adoption of forged steel bar frame extensions on the 2 cylinder designs - presumably to simplify construction especially the mounting of cylinders and help keep down the weight.  They were fairly quickly found to have a tendency to bend upwards due to buffing forces (hence the adoption of the stays which were intended to stop the buffer plank rising) and were also even more likely to do that if hit really hard during a shunting collision but when that happened they had the advantage that they could be repaired very quickly reducing the amount of time an engine was out of traffic.  It took until the Hawksworth regime to finally drop the idea when he decided to use through plate frames on the 'Modified Halls' and 'Counties' and accept the need for a cutout in the frame to mount the cylinders.

Edited March 30, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[Ian Hargrave]

No it doesn't "look right". For £154 they could have done much better than this.The O2 (with which they received knowledgeable assistance from a couple of forum members) looks much better "out of the box" than this.....and that had its well documented initial difficulties.

 

This seems to fall way short of current market standards.Disappointing.

[gwrrob]

I keep thinking this model is an early April fool and Heljan are really waiting to shew us the real one. No wonder they kept it a secret.

[81C]

I keep thinking this model is an early April fool and Heljan are really waiting to shew us the real one. No wonder they kept it a secret.

It's no worse than the 1363 saddle tank there is far less work to bring it upto scratch and no additional carbuncles to remove, the clueless moaners keep coming on here saying it don't look right

I wish for once they would say whats wrong with it like some that have expressed an opinion like SM Mike and others instead of just moaning and saying nothing. 

[mdvle]

Does the 47xx share tender design with any other model, thus allowing a better replacement to at least solve part of the problem / reduce the list of fixes?