Heljan GWR 47xx Night Owl

[Ian Hargrave]

The Claytons (class 17) were D8500-D8616.

 

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

Indeed .Not having an accurate morning am I ...it must be the weather...or something ?

[NCB]

What it boils down to is that you can never trust drawings for 100% accuracy, photographs can be misleading, and there can be variations in the class, both as built and over time. Do I think the model is 100% accurate? Probably an impossible question. Am I happy with it as it stands? Dead right.

 

Nigel

[gwrrob]

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

 

Glad to help you make your mind up.  

 

 

 

 

[Silver Sidelines]

Excellent

 

Back on the straight and narrow!

 

Glad to help you make your mind up.

Thanks Ray

Edited May 19, 2018 by Silver Sidelines

[The Stationmaster]

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...

 

Nothing to do with the right or wrong drawings - just that Swindon GA drawings are not a reliable indicator of what a loco was like when it was actually built and the most reliable source for that was/is the Pipe Drawings.  So if someone has the Pipe Drawings - at least some of which are known to exist - you should have a reliable drawing but if you have a GA drawing you more than likely don't have a reliable drawing.

[Garethp8873]

Me thinks I will be walking away from Rails with one of these when I visit them tomorrow...

[Methuselah]

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...

 

Exactly right. They didn't build thousands of locos based on the back of fag packets.

[Ian Hargrave]

Me thinks I will be walking away from Rails with one of these when I visit them tomorrow...

Do yourself a favour before you set out and check o see whether or not they are in stock .The website states they are on order.

Certainly none were in sight when I attended their do on the 11th.

[NCB]

Exactly right. They didn't build thousands of locos based on the back of fag packets.

 I seem to remember reading that it was only when the broad gauge era was ending that the GWR decided they'd better have some drawings of the broad gauge stock :-)

[JimC]

Nothing to do with the right or wrong drawings - just that Swindon GA drawings are not a reliable indicator of what a loco was like when it was actually built and the most reliable source for that was/is the Pipe Drawings.  So if someone has the Pipe Drawings - at least some of which are known to exist - you should have a reliable drawing but if you have a GA drawing you more than likely don't have a reliable drawing.

I'm interested to know more about this. I have an arrangement of pipes drawing for the 47s available to me, and I'm sure its a reliable indicator of where the pipes were located when built, but you'd struggle to get anything else off it because the information simply isn't there.

Each drawing is made for a specific purpose, and I'm happy to believe that, say the 4700 GA is not a reliable source for the 4700 cab sides because they are not dimensioned on it and its not the drawing that would have been used to manufacture those components. I'll need a bit more convincing that the actual drawing with the cab sides on is very far out. Apart from anything else Holcroft records how the factory would build what the drawing office specified even if they knew it wouldn't work (Locomotive Adventure p38) and I can recall in my time in industry the glee with which the shop floor would enjoy any error from the laboratory which resulted in something useless. On the other hand it is recorded and I don't doubt that handrails and other minor fittings weren't always placed where the GA showed, simply (I imagine) because workers (on piece rate remember) wouldn't necessarily stop and refer to it if they felt there was no need.

Edited May 20, 2018 by JimC

[Rail-Online]

David is correct - there is definately something wrong with the cab sides. the gutter should be way lower than the mudhole covers

 

See for a broadside view

 

http://www.rail-online.co.uk/p1849823/h6f1ca470#h6f1ca470

 

Tony

Edited May 21, 2018 by Rail-Online

[NCB]

The good, factory fitted screw link coupling.

 

DSCN3444 (2).JPG

 

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

 

DSCN3443 (2).JPG

 

Looking at the top pic here, and comparing it with the Roche drawing and Rail-online pic, I'd say the cab is spot on, or near enough. The only things possibly at fault are that the mud-hole covers may be a tad too large and a bit low on the firebox. May.

 

Nigel

Edited May 21, 2018 by NCB

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

There is a detail in the loco cab to tender relationship that I would have to 'do something' about if I owned a 47xx, much as I did on my Heljan O2. No fallplate, and the tender step looks on the high side to me.

 

And the OO loco models we are waiting for from Heljan are the GNR build O2 loco and tender combinations.

[mikesndbs]

Does anyone know when these will be out? 47XX 2-8-0 NIGHT OWL 4707 WITH GW LETTERING - OO GAUGE

[M.I.B]

"Due out at the end of May" was a statement I got from my supplier when I inquired back in April when the first versions came into the shops.

[Welchester]

"Due out at the end of May" was a statement I got from my supplier when I inquired back in April when the first versions came into the shops.

 

The month or the Prime Minister?

[Siberian Snooper]

Loco drawings are not the only ones not to be trusted, ships drawings were notoriously inaccurate, we had to fit some vent down the starboard wing of a batch 3 Leander boiler room and the only way it would have fitted would be too cut a hole in the side. We used what we could and then made the rest to suit. Another fiasco was trying fit an incinerator in a compartment that was only a couple of foot bigger than the incinerator on a 22.

[Guest chris.trebble]

Model Rail's review in july issue is pretty damning and backs up the numerous adverse comments in this thread. Please, Heljan, take them all on-board and postpone the next planned releases in order that they can be re-tooled accordingly to produce a model that I, probably with others, can be proud of and justify paying your asking price

[Hilux5972]

I think one of the biggest things they could change would be to remove the moulded cabside Numberplate for starters! Very undersized and it would make a huge difference straight away!

[Ian Hargrave]

Model Rail's review in july issue is pretty damning and backs up the numerous adverse comments in this thread. Please, Heljan, take them all on-board and postpone the next planned releases in order that they can be re-tooled accordingly to produce a model that I, probably with others, can be proud of and justify paying your asking price

Much as one can but agree that revision is necessary,retooling is probably not viable.I'd be happy with a firmer grip on production.Hopefully it is not too late for a few tweaks which will vastly improve the product.In his review,Richard Foster states that in many ways this is "a rather good model".Unfortunately it is price wise at the high end of the market......as he points out.AFAIK,the asking price is ....given its failings....too high.

[Silver Sidelines]

Now Hattons are now selling off Tangos at £89.00.  That might be seen as supporting the theory that the initial price set by Heljan is on the high side?

 

I cannot work out how the Heljan 47XX is too dear. It is their model and they set the price. You either pay £154.00 or do without, it is as simple as that. Comparison with other locos regardless of price or value is pointless because none are 47XX's.  

 

Ray

[Forester]

I cannot work out how the Heljan 47XX is too dear. It is their model and they set the price. You either pay £154.00 or do without, it is as simple as that. Comparison with other locos regardless of price or value is pointless because none are 47XX's.  

 

I've done without because the price is too high. Therefore, ummm, the Heljan 47xx is too dear

 

 

for me

[bike2steam]

Now Hattons are now selling off Tangos at £89.00.  That might be seen as supporting the theory that the initial price set by Heljan is on the high side?

 

 

Ray

 

Or could it be that it just wasn't that popular ?? And Hattons need to make room for something better !!

[adb968008]

The problem is dumping Tangos means waiting for the 47xx to be dumped has merit.

 

If the initial Tango hasn’t sold I assume the other variants might be on hold for a while, same too the black class 05 etc.

 

I personally thought the price was fine, comparable to other manufacturers, which to me suggests too many were made.

 

I’m surprised the Tangos were dumped, given Heljan hasn’t announced anything new in OO for 3 years now, b-tanks, and everything planned in OO is delivered, i’d Assume sitting on its assets for longer may have sense, unless they are exiting the OO market or they have new models coming unannounced and they need space or money... to me it seemed premature to dump this lot, they don’t seem to have an in stock range with the same depth and age of Hornby’s or there problems. That said looking backwards Hattons has had low price 26’s, DPUs, 16’s, various Prototype diesels and 47’s at differing times in the past.

Edited June 8, 2018 by adb968008

[Dunsignalling]

I've done without because the price is too high. Therefore, ummm, the Heljan 47xx is too dear

 

 

for me

Or you just didn't want one badly enough...…..

 

And/or it might have been a Rule One collectible, and those are the first to be scrubbed off the shopping list when there are other items with greater personal relevance in the offing.

 

John

Edited June 9, 2018 by Dunsignalling