Heljan GWR 47xx Night Owl

[gwrrob]

 Perhaps one day I will succumb.

 

Go on, you know you need one.

 

 

[tomparryharry]

DSCN3405 (2).JPG

 

 

imageedit_1_6963895045.jpg

Fireman; "What's that funny noise?"

 

Driver: " We're off the b**^* road, that's the funny noise!"

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[NCB]

Unboxed my shirtbutton version from Hatton's last night, gave it a good looking-over, ran it up and down a few times on the long bit of straight track which is the only OO track I have at the moment. Thought the packaging was in fact very good.

 

Details all intact. And what details! Superbly fine lamp irons etc. Brings up the question though, in service can one avoid the fine detail being knocked off? I think that's a question for any scale model in 4mm/ft. If you want museum quality stuff then that's always the risk. But I think it's worth having that detail.

 

Runs beautifully. Slight hesitation in moving off but the motor has a heck of a lot of weight to shift. Possibly if you're using DCC you can program that out. Virtually silent, just glides along the track, acceleration and deceleration very smooth. Was also impressed with Heljan's 1366 and this is fully up to that standard.

 

Above all, it's a highly impressive model. Can't actually remember a mass-produced model of this standard. It captures the imposing look of the prototype superbly well. A very satisfied customer.

Edited May 18, 2018 by NCB

[7007GreatWestern]

Above all, it's a highly impressive model. Can't actually remember a mass-produced model of this standard. It captures the imposing look of the prototype superbly well. A very satisfied customer.

 

 At a time when the other manufacturers have been rushing to churn out increasingly tiny tank engines (presumably that's where the biggest profit margins are these days?) Heljan took on an obscure goods engine largely unknown outside the circles of GWR followers and somewhat unappreciated within! What they've produced is a really substantial, impressive model that captures most of the distinctive features of the prototype really well. They're also brought some original thinking to the engineering of the model such as the layout of the drive train and and access to the tender. Even the most churlish critics of the model surely wouldn't deny that Heljan have given this model a "real good go"? It isn't perfect. Much of the rivet detail for example does look rather overscale. The vulnerabilities of the front running plate and pony truck are well documented. I maintain however there's a damn sight more right with it than wrong with it!

 

Andy.

Edited May 18, 2018 by 7007GreatWestern

[ndg910]

At a time when the other manufacturers have been rushing to churn out increasingly tiny tank engines (presumably that's where the biggest profit margins are these days?) Heljan took on an obscure goods engine largely unknown outside the circles of GWR followers and somewhat unappreciated within! What they've produced is a really substantial, impressive model that captures most of the distinctive features of the prototype really well. They're also brought some original thinking to the engineering of the model such as the layout of the drive train and and access to the tender. Even the most churlish critics of the model surely wouldn't deny that Heljan have given this model a "real good go"? It isn't perfect. Much of the rivet detail for example does look rather overscale. The vulnerabilities of the front running plate and pony truck are well documented. I maintain however there's a damn sight more right with it than wrong with it!

 

Andy.

I totally agree they are a fine model and whilst there appear to be packaging issues it is not difficult to resolve more robust packing if indeed that is the cause. I heard a long time ago that Heljan package up in Denmark and not in China. Maybe am wrong but does that mean an unprotected journey on the high seas? Nonetheless, I will be in for another GWR version with Great Western on the tender when they’re released.

 

I don’t think Heljan have any outstanding OO gauge locos so are we due an announcement? With their fondness for one offs or obscure or small classes - Falcon, Kestrel, 1361, 1366,4700s, is it too much to hope for perhaps something different - Leader?, Fell? Or maybe some GWR constituent locos? Ok, enough wish listing....

[gwrrob]

The good, factory fitted screw link coupling.

 

 

The bad, those cabsides. I think they're too low.

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by gwrrob

[Silver Sidelines]

Hello Rob

 

Good clear pictures.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the driving wheel under the firebox looks not to be in contact with the rail?

 

Regards Ray

.

[url=http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/DSCN3443

Edited May 18, 2018 by Silver Sidelines

[JSpencer]

I

I don’t think Heljan have any outstanding OO gauge locos so are we due an announcement? With their fondness for one offs or obscure or small classes - Falcon, Kestrel, 1361, 1366,4700s, is it too much to hope for perhaps something different - Leader?, Fell? Or maybe some GWR constituent locos? Ok, enough wish listing....

Don,t forget Class 07.

[bike2steam]

And the joke that was the NBL type 1.

[NCB]

The good, factory fitted screw link coupling.

 

DSCN3444 (2).JPG

 

The bad, those cabsides. I think they're too low.

 

DSCN3443 (2).JPG

 

Wondering if they're too high! Looking at some pics, like:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GWR_4700_class_2-8-0.jpg

it seems to me the edge of the roof should be below the washout plugs.

 

However, the roof edge looks correct relative to the top of the tender. Whatever, it's a magnificent model.

 

Nigel

[DCB]

 

The bad, those cabsides. I think they're too low.

 

DSCN3443 (2).JPG

 

Something is wrong with the cab.  It has been bothering me.  I am used to a Cotswold die cast 47XX which tows a Hornby Dublo Castle tender and I think the Heljan cab roof is too flat and does not come down low enough at the sides and may well be too low in the middle, it had the sort of triangle with a rounded top profile like a Castle or King not rounded like a Saintb or Hall so there should be a lot of cab roof visible from a broadside shot 

 

 The cab roof cut away should curve up some distance ahead of where side sheets end so either they should be longer or the cab roof cut away start further forward

 

The pic shows a loco with the back wheels off the road so the tender so while the cab cut out is a bit low re the tender it may be because its off the road, however the bottom step on the loco is too high to match the tender. 

 

The Loco Handrail should be dead straight in the horizontal plane and in line with the cabside hand rail and the tender flare  These lines of symmetry are much more noticeable on GWR locos than other railways. I think there is a tendency to build 4mm models of GW locos to the current BR loading gauge whereas they were actually well over 13 feet (52mm) high.

Edited May 19, 2018 by DavidCBroad

[Ian Hargrave]

And the joke that was the NBL type 1.

You mean the OO Clayton....D9500,aka Type 17 ?

[JimC]

Something is wrong with the cab.  It has been bothering me.  I am used to a Cotswold die cast 47XX which tows a Hornby Dublo Castle tender

Doesn't that presuppose that combination is definitively correct? Is that a safe assumption?

Photographs do lie to you, especially of 3 dimensional objects. If you look at that profile photo at first it seems square on, but actually the cab roof on the far side is showing way lower than the cab roof on the near side, even though the tender rails line up, so we are getting a lot of perspective distortion. Calling it wrong (or right!) from these photos is more than I would dare to do.

Irritatingly the limited no of GWR drawings I have available don't show the cab side vertical height: dimensions stop at the bottom of the cut out and thereafter only height to top of roof is shown, but as a bit of trivia they do show the cab on 4700 in her Std 1 boiler guise as being 1.125in inch higher than the main production lots with the Std 7 boiler.

[bike2steam]

You mean the OO Clayton....D9500,aka Type 17 ?

 

Nope, D8400, or another class of 10 locos - once the new build 47 is complete !!??   

[gwrrob]

Hello Rob

 

Good clear pictures.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the driving wheel under the firebox looks not to be in contact with the rail?

 

Regards Ray

 

Yes  Ray, a few more are on my thread hopefully on the rails this time.

 

 

 

[jjb1970]

And the joke that was the NBL type 1.

Heljan already made those, and did an excellent job. I'd rate it as their best model in OO.

[Silver Sidelines]

Just to keep the pot boiling so to speak I have scanned F J  Roche's drawing and it posted it to Flickr
 
https://flic.kr/p/26cT3ns

 

The cab height is dimensioned at 13'-4 3/4"

 

I would second the comments that when making close up pictures distortion can be a problem and I try and use a 'telephoto' type mode.

 

Regards

Ray

[JimC]

The cab roof cut away should curve up some distance ahead of where side sheets end so either they should be longer or the cab roof cut away start further forward

The GWR drawing of the cab roof extension ("attached to drawing No 60019" dated August 1925) shows the roof cut out exactly at the end of the side sheets. The roof is dimensioned 5ft 9in overall, 4ft 0in to the start of the cutout. The concave radius is shown at 1ft 0in, the convex radius at 3in. Those are the only relevant dimensions on the drawing.

[Ian Hargrave]

Nope, D8400, or another class of 10 locos - once the new build 47 is complete !!??

 

Apologies.I had totally forgotten those.

[JimC]

Just to keep the pot boiling so to speak I have scanned F J  Roche's drawing and it posted it to Flickr

Interesting. Not all the dimensions of that match GWR GA 60040, which shows the cab height at 13ft 3.5 and the chimney at 1ft 6.75 above the smoke box for total height 13ft 4.75. Diag J in Russell also shows the chimney height at 13ft 4.75 Just goes to show how difficult it is to be "right" I suppose.

[81C]

The cab is roughly the same size as the Cotswold kit give or take a gnat's wotsit.

[tomparryharry]

The good, factory fitted screw link coupling.

 

DSCN3444 (2).JPG

 

The bad, those cabsides. I think they're too low.

 

DSCN3443 (2).JPG

 I like those photos, Robin, Highly likely I'll succumb.

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting. Not all the dimensions of that match GWR GA 60040, which shows the cab height at 13ft 3.5 and the chimney at 1ft 6.75 above the smoke box for total height 13ft 4.75. Diag J in Russell also shows the chimney height at 13ft 4.75 Just goes to show how difficult it is to be "right" I suppose.

 

Personally I would trust a Swindon GA drawing of anything.  They were known to lack accuracy and to not necessarily agree with what had been manufactured using them and i was warned to be wary of them many years ago by Eroc Mountford - and he ought to know.  Indeed when I obtained one for a model project it came to light that there were omissions on the drawing and that it did not agree in some details with engines which had been built using the drawing.  The most accurate Swindon drawing were always reckoned to be the pipe which had to accurately represent what had been built in order that pipework could be properly planned and added to the engine.

 

As a model the 47XX doesn't fit with the area in which I am interested so I have no interest in buying one.  It's an awful long time since I last saw a 47XX and memory, even jogged by photos, can play tricks but in some respects, and for whatever reason*s), it doesn't quite capture the engines.  But it certainly is an impressive beast representing the end of Churchward's period in charge and what is - arguably - the largest, and of course the only 8 coupled, mixed traffic engine to run in Britain.

[Tim Hall]

You mean the OO Clayton....D9500,aka Type 17 ?

 

The Claytons (class 17) were D8500-D8616.

 

D9500 was the first class 14, aka "Teddy Bear".

[JimC]

...when I obtained one for a model project it came to light that there were omissions on the drawing and that it did not agree in some details...

Isn't that, though, at least partly that we just don't have the right drawings.

 

In "GWR Journal No3", Wild Swan Publishing, Summer 1992, there's a letter from Mike Casey, ex Swindon drawing office. It reads in part "I was taught… that I should NEVER NEVER scale off a drawing. It was drummed into me that the dimensions were there to be used, and that if I needed a dimension not shown on a particular drawing, I was probably looking at the wrong one…"

 

The GA drawing of the 47 doesn't include several of the cab dimensions, but surely all that means is that there were different drawings for constructing those components. If only we could just go to the plan drawer and get the right drawing out...

 

Of course its also documented that for minor components the factory didn't always fit them where the drawing showed...

Edited May 19, 2018 by JimC