Heljan GWR 47xx Night Owl

[tomparryharry]

Fascinating to see the innovative features on this new loco. With regards to pulling power - it seems that it will pull scale-length trains too. It just gets better. Has anyone worked-out what ratio the gearbox is yet?

 

I'm probably being a bit unfair, but I'd want (& expect) a model to get 'close' to its operating parameter. Therefore, I'd want to see a 28xx getting on for the 80 wagon diagram, with the corresponding smaller locomotives being able to match their respective diagrams. Didcot-Paddington 'semi-fasts' had 10 coaches as a rule with a hall on the front, so my expectations are about right. Remember however that the bit from Reading was pretty flat, so no real problems there.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[adb968008]

So today was the first run with my Piko Digital / Wifi Dynamometer car.

Ive had some conversations with the manufacturer in Germany as it's been pushing the technical envelope a little here in the UK, I already suggested to be a truly dynamometer car it needs to add draw bar to it, which shouldn't be that hard.

 

It measures Speed / Gradient / Slope / Radius / Voltage and Level, transmitting the results back to the laptop in real time.

 

here's a video of it in action..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-W4rwtNC7g

 

 

The loop it went around was a few cm under 10metres (I'm still learning the software - I should have reset the counter to 0 first !)

 

here is speed slope and radius, I had no idea that even my level sections were not that level ! Whilst it has a clear correlation to Speed and Slope corners do not affect it.

 

 

 

when I turn on Grade and Voltage the horrors my mad gradient are revealed, but also any areas where I have dirty track or bad connections.

 

 

by viewing gradient with speed and voltage, the model achieves a max speed of 44.3cm / second (scale speed of 140km) and ebbs and flows according to Gradient.

 

So that's the science... whats the reality...

 

on my "level" track the model can pull... it walks away with 22 coaches, but my layout isn't happy with that.. the pull on two corners of my layout derails the coaches.. even if the loco can comfortably pull it !!!

but the ugly...

it is very unforgiving. if my track were a painting, Picasso would run away for the hills. The model does not like 2nd or 3rd radius unless it's flawless. Similarly it does not like 3 way points or double slips... and it really tells you that with some spectacular derailments.

 

This was a low speed derailment on a 3 way point...

 

 

here It bottoms out on exiting a 3 way point..

https://youtu.be/mBENBhN1vLE

(Excuse my frustration.. i’d Had many such moments).

 

 

There seems to be two issues.. the pony truck is under weight.. it’s an unsprung wheel held by flimsy plastic.. I may swap it with the truck off of a Bachmann 43xx to see if this improves.

 

The second issue is lack of play in the driving wheels over a long wheelbase with flanges.. it’ll do a flawless 2nd radius, but any gaps in the fishplates on 2nd or 3rd radius it will flip onto its side, taking the tender with it with quite a bang ! - I think it’s top heavy.

 

The model injures itself.. it lost a buffer to buffer lock, (replaced the coupling with a standard Bachmann long coupling seemed to solve this), but the front pony takes it in interesting directions (you will notice the coupling on the front has gone on my video.. it took the refitted vacuum pipe with it. It also lost an ejector pipe under the cab on a point... at one point I was getting very tempted with it and my open loft hatch.

 

It does go much better in reverse, with the weighty tender than forwards with the underweight pony wheel...

I'll go back for round two with it tomorrow, but when your in shape it does run well..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4GgOoC44Dk

 

The video above took several attempts to get a perfect loop, I had to tweak the track in a few places, which was unexpected as my other locos are somewhat more forgiving of my track.

Edited April 5, 2018 by adb968008

[Budgie]

So today was the first run with my Piko Digital / Wifi Dynamometer car.

Is there a thread for this vehicle?

[adb968008]

Aha. There are still a couple of things which escape me though. It seems to imply that the Black 5 and A1 are stronger than the Bachmann class 40. My one, which is from the latest tooling will out pull both of those locos easily. I mean I am surprised to a see a model (black 5) at 251g pulls as much as one at 616g (class 40).

I think you need to re-read my post, the 5mt isn’t an out of the box, it has DCC concepts magnets in it, and additional weight.

 

The A1 however is very strong.

Is there a thread for this vehicle?

I don’t know but it’s worth one, where would it go ?

 

The wagon is easy enough to get but the software required extra effort. I don’t know that the whole package is widely sold In the UK, certainly I had to find English drivers for the software, and German Libraries had to be downloaded. I had to learn a few words of German to get started and had a couple of discussions with Piko.

 

But the potential for it is brilliant, I think it was only released late 2017 so it’s still a bit bleeding edge.

Edited April 5, 2018 by adb968008

[JSpencer]

I think you need to re-read my post, the 5mt isn’t an out of the box, it has DCC concepts magnets in it, and additional weight.

The A1 however is very strong.I don’t know but it’s worth one, where would it go ?

The wagon is easy enough to get but the software required extra effort. I don’t know that the whole package is widely sold In the UK, certainly I had to find English drivers for the software, and German Libraries had to be downloaded. I had to learn a few words of German to get started and had a couple of discussions with Piko.

But the potential for it is brilliant, I think it was only released late 2017 so it’s still a bit bleeding edge.

Ah ok, missed that sorry.

[adb968008]

Ah ok, missed that sorry.

If I can be pointed where to post i’m Happy to share the full list, I started this project back in 2017 but shelved it until today.

That and the dynamometer car is a discussion topic of its own and I’ve seen several people doing something similar, it would be good to pool it all into a discussion.

[Budgie]

I don’t know but it’s worth one, where would it go ?

Modelling musings and miscellany?

Skills & Knowledge Centre > Electrics (non-DCC) is a pretty poor place for this. Perhaps a new sub-forum could be set up: Electronics and Automation (non-DCC).

Maybe Andy could suggest somewhere.

 

The wagon is easy enough to get but the software required extra effort. I don’t know that the whole package is widely sold In the UK, certainly I had to find English drivers for the software, and German Libraries had to be downloaded. I had to learn a few words of German to get started and had a couple of discussions with Piko.

 

But the potential for it is brilliant, I think it was only released late 2017 so it’s still a bit bleeding edge.

Gaugemaster are selling both the van and the software, although the van is out of stock at the moment.

 

As you can tell, I'm interested in it.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Budgie

[adb968008]

Aha. There are still a couple of things which escape me though. It seems to imply that the Black 5 and A1 are stronger than the Bachmann class 40. My one, which is from the latest tooling will out pull both of those locos easily. I mean I am surprised to a see a model (black 5) at 251g pulls as much as one at 616g (class 40).

I meant to add..not all 40’s are the same. The earlier 40 (40075) was very poor compared to the 2015 release class 40’s...compare line 47 to 55... there’s not much in weight, but it’s how it’s used that makes the difference.. the daddy of haulage in the UK is the Dapol western..but it’s lighter than the 40.

Edited April 5, 2018 by adb968008

[adb968008]

Modelling musings and miscellany?Skills & Knowledge Centre > Electrics (non-DCC) is a pretty poor place for this. Perhaps a new sub-forum could be set up: Electronics and Automation (non-DCC).Maybe Andy could suggest somewhere. Gaugemaster are selling both the van and the software, although the van is out of stock at the moment.As you can tell, I'm interested in it.

I was well excited when I first saw it, bought it from Germany.

 

It’s pretty simple and works standalone but is much better with the software, it has built in Wi-fi for live communication, and it will charge from the rails but runs for hours without.

I’m thinking to rig up a flat wagon with the internals of a set of digital luggage scales and run couplings off each end of the plates so I can do true dynamometer readings to.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...it is very unforgiving. if my track were a painting, Picasso would run away for the hills. The model does not like 2nd or 3rd radius unless it's flawless. Similarly it does not like 3 way points or double slips... and it really tells you that with some spectacular derailments...

 I had to tweak the track in a few places, which was unexpected as my other locos are somewhat more forgiving of my track...

 So it's a track sensitive device then. Not really surprising with the long all (finely) flanged rigid coupled wheelbase. Given that it doesn't like 2nd radius imperfections, it will almost certainly 'refuse' on the standard set track point which is a very imperfect second radius curve. So really not suitable for a set track layout at all. If that's the  Peco double slip referred to, a very dodgy device indeed. While it may offer a 24" substitution radius end to end, it has near 2nd radius moments internally. It will find out any unintended gradient transitions on curved track with great reliability I expect...

 

 It is time the manufacturer's acquired a little bravery when it comes to large steam locos with this kind of construction. and came out with statements like 24" minimum plain track radius, Peco medium radius point or equivalent recommended. Either make it loose and floppy and compromised in appearance as a result, or right and tight but the puirchaser must accept that set track is so over...

[M.I.B]

Late GWR version of the 47XX are due out in May.

 

I didn't realise that they are being released in batches according to logo/livery.

[coachmann]

According to one thread, the new Peco bullhead slips will be to the same geometry (2ft radius) as well. 

[Clive Mark]

Could someone put a list of areas that need addressing so us lesser mortals can make a decision about wether to buy one or not? Such a shame that this long awaited model isn't to same standard as most other manufacturers.

 

Terry

 

I'll leave the list to a 47xx expert but I have seen the Heljan model and although it has the look and character of the beast, I have noticed the points/issues raised by previous posters.

 

Does anyone agree that the driving wheel spokes seem very flat as they approach the boss/hub ? Recent releases from Hornby have had excellent spoke profiles e.g. the B12

 

For me, if I wanted a really good 47 I would invest the necessary time and money in the Brassmasters ex Finney kit.

[tomparryharry]

We've covered a lot of ground with Heljan, specifically with the points raised with the D95xx/Class 14. One of the solutions was to introduce some C clips, which effectively limit the amount of side travel for the wheelsets. It transformed my Class 14, and if the recent release is anything to go by, should work a treat.

 

You can't really blame Heljan for this. Heljan would most probably build a test rig layout, to which the EP model must perform and conform. However.... Back in the real world, John Doe and his 'perfectly laid track' is giving all sorts of problems.

 

There are probably lots of analogies we can use, but I'm sure you get the idea.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian

 

PS. Thanks to Mike NDBS of this parish, for his neat little idea.

Edited April 6, 2018 by tomparryharry

[Rail-Online]

I saw and inspected a Green one at York show on the Rails stand.

 

The rivets were not as prominent as they appear in the photos, but the footplate in front of the smokebox pointed upwards - and this was the 'hand picked' display model.

 

Overall I thought it a bit 'plasticey' and despite looking carefuly (the lighting was very poor) I could not make my mind up it the green GWR body colour was paint or pre-coloured plastic. I suspect the latter, can anyone confirm this please?

 

Overall as it is a 'nice to have' as opposed to an essential part of most peoples GWR/BR(W) layout I suspect quite a few modellers will be put off by the combination of quality of assembly/finish and the price.

 

Tony 

[Clive Mark]

I saw and inspected a Green one at York show on the Rails stand.

 

The rivets were not as prominent as they appear in the photos, but the footplate in front of the smokebox pointed upwards - and this was the 'hand picked' display model.

 

Overall I thought it a bit 'plasticey' and despite looking carefuly (the lighting was very poor) I could not make my mind up it the green GWR body colour was paint or pre-coloured plastic. I suspect the latter, can anyone confirm this please?

 

Overall as it is a 'nice to have' as opposed to an essential part of most peoples GWR/BR(W) layout I suspect quite a few modellers will be put off by the combination of quality of assembly/finish and the price.

 

Tony 

 

I have seen the black one and that has a suspiciously smooth 'plasticey' look to it.

[rovex]

Similarly it does not like 3 way points or double slips... and it really tells you that with some spectacular derailments.

 

This was a low speed derailment on a 3 way point...

 

 

Didn't I read somewhere that the real thing had similar problems or am I confusing it with the 2-8-2 tanks

[Rail-Online]

Didn't I read somewhere that the real thing had similar problems or am I confusing it with the 2-8-2 tanks

That was the 2-8-2Ts in South Wales, the 47xx were only used between big yards so were unlikely to encounter and dodgy track.

 

Tony

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Does anyone agree that the driving wheel spokes seem very flat as they approach the boss/hub ? Recent releases from Hornby have had excellent spoke profiles e.g. the B12...

 Refer to protoype as always. I think you may find that the 47xx has this style of flat hub boss. The protruding boss with the spokes elegantly flaring out to meet it seems to be a feature of a few express passenger classes, correctly present on the Hornby models of the Castle, B12/3, D16/3 for example (which does add much to the model's character).

[adb968008]

Refer to protoype as always. I think you may find that the 47xx has this style of flat hub boss. The protruding boss with the spokes elegantly flaring out to meet it seems to be a feature of a few express passenger classes, correctly present on the Hornby models of the Castle, B12/3, D16/3 for example (which does add much to the model's character).

Nice picture of the wheels here (click on the image for larger image).

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/steam-railway-uk/20160226/281505045300563

 

The real 4709 is getting 3 sets of its wheels from 4115 the wheel itself is a fairly standard GWR wheel used on Praries, Granges, 43xx...

[adb968008]

So it's a track sensitive device then. Not really surprising with the long all (finely) flanged rigid coupled wheelbase. Given that it doesn't like 2nd radius imperfections, it will almost certainly 'refuse' on the standard set track point which is a very imperfect second radius curve. So really not suitable for a set track layout at all. If that's the Peco double slip referred to, a very dodgy device indeed. While it may offer a 24" substitution radius end to end, it has near 2nd radius moments internally. It will find out any unintended gradient transitions on curved track with great reliability I expect...

 

Your pretty much spot on there, I only have 1x 1st radius curve on an industrial branch but the rest of my layout of 2nd or 3rd radius.

I use a number of Peco curves it will take the outer 3rd but not the inner 2nd. On curves themselves any slight kink (mine right now has a number due to the cold weather and track shrinkage) it’ll bomb out. After a little fettling on those curves it settled in, but any impurity it will find them... I think the only other loco that is a little fussy as this is Roco’s BR 52 but that is also much more forgiving... it’ll definitely be my test loco of choice in any future track works !

 

What concerned me more was the rejection of Peco double slips and 3 way points. I’m putting this down to the pony wheel.. I checked it’s back to back.. it’s actually near impossible to not have accurate back to backs.. as the axle doesn’t fully penetrate the wheel (nice) so when you push it tight..your in gauge.. I think it’s the pony truck...it’s got no weight and no spring.. I think as it hits the intense frame work of these points it’s getting imbedded into the blade..stops the loco dead and if your cornering..it’ll tip it over.

 

I may just remove it and run it as on 0-8-0 to test the theory first.

Edited April 6, 2018 by adb968008

[Dunsignalling]

Your pretty much spot on there, I only have 1x 1st radius curve on an industrial branch but the rest of my layout of 2nd or 3rd radius.

I use a number of Peco curves it will take the outer 3rd but not the inner 2nd. On curves themselves any slight kink (mine right now has a number due to the cold weather and track shrinkage) it’ll bomb out. After a little fettling on those curves it settled in, but any impurity it will find them... I think the only other loco that is a little fussy as this is Roco’s BR 52 but that is also much more forgiving... it’ll definitely be my test loco of choice in any future track works !

 

What concerned me more was the rejection of Peco double slips and 3 way points. I’m putting this down to the pony wheel.. I checked it’s back to back.. it’s actually near impossible to not have accurate back to backs.. as the axle doesn’t fully penetrate the wheel (nice) so when you push it tight..your in gauge.. I think it’s the pony truck...it’s got no weight and no spring.. I think as it hits the intense frame work of these points it’s getting imbedded into the blade..stops the loco dead and if your cornering..it’ll tip it over.

 

I may just remove it and run it as on 0-8-0 to test the theory first.

 

Thanks for the tip on the pony truck, looks like I'll be making a replacement in metal when my 47xx turns up.

 

In my experience, very few locos with leading trucks or bogies really "like" the Code 100 Streamline 3-way point when taken in the facing direction.

 

The layout of a late friend had a couple of them but fortunately they were normally traversed only in the trailing direction except by the station pilot.

 

John

[Barry Ten]

Thanks for the tip on the pony truck, looks like I'll be making a replacement in metal when my 47xx turns up.

 

In my experience, very few locos with leading trucks or bogies really "like" the Code 100 Streamline 3-way point when taken in the facing direction.

 

The layout of a late friend had a couple of them but fortunately they were normally traversed only in the trailing direction except by the station pilot.

 

John

 

 

The Code 75 one seems to be bit more forgiving, but with the Code 100 version, I had to add shims to the check-rails to get reliable running with anything with either a pony truck and/or a fine wheel profile.

[The Stationmaster]

Gradients are your friend... According to my copy of GWR Goods wagons whilst the 47 was rated for 70 10 ton equivalent on gradients up to 1:190, on a 1:45 they were limited to about 21. So if your fast fitted freight mustn't stop for a banker and there is a big bank somewhere on the route then your traffic folk will be forced to reduce the train considerably. 

 

But don't forget that 47XX were not so likely to have been on trains of coal and would instead have been working fiitted freights which would mean Class 3 wagon loads and not Class 1 loads.  Thus up Dainton (1 in 38) they were allowed 30 Class 3 wagons unassisted on a Class C and D freights (1938 train classification) - the same load as a 'Castle'

[81C]

To me the most annoying issue is the way the back of the tender tank sits plumb on the back of the framing and so there is no lip there. It is going to be a bit of a swine to correct.

 

Best regards

This one was a simple fix for me, I took the tank off elongate the fixing holes (3) by pulling the tool boxes and tank filler cap off, remove the 3 screws the tank came clear of the chassis I then

slotted out the fixing holes towards the rear end of the tender with a broach file just enough for the screws to go back in when the tank relocated in position and pushed forward, then I

checking the position of the tank when tightening the screws back up, I made holes just big enough having removed sufficent plastic first time there was a bit of chassis showing when

viewed from the top at the rear.

 

Don't take this on if you are not sure I wouldn't like any one to buqqer up their loco.

 

BTW This is one loco I would have like as a CKD kit it would save no end of time wasted on sorting out the build errors.