Heljan class 17

['CHARD]

On page 7554 of this thread I mentioned Heljan's party line as explained to me at Warley. It was simple: 'we will replace the chassis of your early locos.' In fact, I doubt they have any alternative now under the Sale of Goods Act, as the first batches are physically different and not of merchantable quality. This would not have been possible to quantify without comparison with a correctly manufactured Heljan Clayton, which is obviously now viable. I think this is where the stance taken back in March/ April will fall apart, for those able to take the trouble and effort.

 

WRT Wigan, I must say I had overlooked it! Are there free replacement chassis there????

[Trevor H]

I havn't any idea how many replacement chassis's have been produced or if any more are been made.

 

It seems from reading through the threads that some retailers are on the ball and a lot more helpful than others, whilst others dont seem to know what is happening.

 

Personaly i got two of my chassis's replaced, but i also purchased two others from the shows, which i have no details or proof of purchase and so unsure where to go about replacements

[spamcan61]

So it looks like anyone still waiting for a replacement has two options:-

 

1 - Reject the item back to the retailer as clearly not fit for purpose in return for a full refund, and hope more working Claytons are available at some point in time.

 

2 - Fix the original root problem with the gear tower bearings moving during assembly, assuming the motor hasn't burnt out already, as explained by Manfred Ebinger on 29th October in this thread:-

 

http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8591&st=60

[Trevor H]

And those of the first batch that worked well, clearly were of 'merchantable quality'.

 

Product suport theory section

HJ have probably responded to customers(retailers), that advised them of problem chassis and the numbers thereof. They would have probably made sufficient to cover the extent of the problem as known to them, plus a percentage in hand. They would have possibly made that as a percentage factor of the whole production run vs those 'known failures'. If a retailer didn't advise their suppliers of the number of failures then that retailer has a problem, not Heljan, though the cock up by the retailer and then possibly 'sloping shouldering' it would have an unfair effect on HJ as the supplier. Ask yourself, why would the manufacturer of a known faulty product, in a small specialist market, deliberatley make insufficient replcements? Me?, I think that unlikely.

 

 

Thanks PMP,

 

I think you have nicely put it across what i was trying to explain and along with "spamcan61" s link to the modelrail forum, with the ill fitting bearings during construction explaining the problem.

 

I too have been down the route with the two i have, explained by Manfred Ebinger on http://www.modelrail...opic=8591&st=60 and it does work, although i will probably end up fitting them with Mashimi motors, which will hopefully make them very smooth runners

[davknigh]

<snipped>

 

i will probably end up fitting them with Mashimi motors, which will hopefully make them very smooth runners

 

Trevor,

 

A simple swap of the motors will help but the gear towers still need work to get them running better. I put a Mashima 1224 in mine and it helped but the bearings need to be freed up before any sort of speed is possible.

 

HTH

 

David

['CHARD]

Not wishing to split hairs but the picture of two similar-looking chassis demonstrates not a great deal, and simultaneously everything there is to be said about this recall issue.

 

I think if I could re-phrase what I was trying to say: the batches may look the same but, the first was constructed to a different set of standards, be that QA, assembly sequence, tolerances, method statement, staff training, testing - whatever.

 

It is impossible for the layperson to tell the two apart, and equally impossible to know how crap the first batch was until you run a properly nailed-together specimen alongside it. HJ know and have acknowledged there was a problem with the first batch. I'm sure my four look similar to my newer pair under the skin, but quite clearly the Hairy Bikers have made up the recipe rather than Nigella or Worrall-Thompson, becuase they run like a bag of spanners in comparison. That's whay I say they are not of merchantable quality, because they cannot perform as designed, and that must include working in multiple with a correctly set-up one, and similar performance characteristics to a second batch example, within acceptable tolerances.

[Trevor H]

Trevor,

 

A simple swap of the motors will help but the gear towers still need work to get them running better. I put a Mashima 1224 in mine and it helped but the bearings need to be freed up before any sort of speed is possible.

 

HTH

 

David

 

 

Thanks David,

 

It is something i have tackled with excellent sucess, the first one i had filed the bearing faces as i thought their was a lack of endfloat, but by the second one i had realised, it was that the bearing were not seated properly in the housing causing everything to be a tight fit. Once rectified it is Sooooooooo much smoother

 

Another thing i have done as i wasn't bothered with the lights, was to wire it the more taditional way and discarded the the PCB and cab interior, now it looks more like a Clayton cab with plenty of space inside.

 

Cheers

[Bob Reid]

You know, I must have been really lucky - both those I got in the first week of delivery of the first batch ran smoothly out of the box - and they continue to do so without any obvious signs of stress/distress. Naturally I'm concerned that they'll fail at some point however I can't honestly tell the retailer that they're faulty when there is no obvious fault at this stage - without lying - something I'll choose not to do. Perhaps this thread is best left to individual action between the owners and the retailers who can pass on any further problems or shortcomings to Heljan.

[Pete Piszczek]

Has anyone pulled a motor from the second run and compared the amount of torque required to turn the shaft to one of the motors from the second run?

 

The chassis on the second run is apparently identical to the first run, but I have to wonder about the motor windings. It was easy enough to correct the bearings on my Clayton, but the motor really was in a class by itself. It's hard believe that the motor windings haven't been changed. The motor that came in my unit was almost impossible to turn by hand. It ran alright, but when it started it really started- you could have put the thing in a blender or other kitchen appliance...

[Trevor H]

I think on the first batch the corect placement of the bearings was the secret, the problem being some were not seated properly during assembly which caused binding and so overloading the motor. Not all were a problem and Bob-65b hopefully you've got a couple of good uns.

 

Pete the first two i got had the bearing problem which i rectified and now they run as smoothly as the later ones i have. They do need a bit more umph to get them going, needing about "4" on my DC controller where as the later ones i have run at about "2". I don't know if this is down to a change of winding in the motor though, or if i damaged/overheated them from when i had the initial problem, but i do plan to change them eventually to Mashimi's which should be better again.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Trevor, is there any chance of a couple of potographs of what you actually did please. I've tried to correct the fault without luck as I can never get the bearings to seat correctly afterwards. Assuming I am filing the metal away at the correct spot!

Thanks,

Dave.

[Trevor H]

Trevor, is there any chance of a couple of potographs of what you actually did please. I've tried to correct the fault without luck as I can never get the bearings to seat correctly afterwards. Assuming I am filing the metal away at the correct spot!

Thanks,

Dave.

 

Hi Dave,

 

A link was kindly posted earlier by "spamcan61" http://www.modelrail...opic=8591&st=60 look at the post by Manfred Ebinger who gave an excellent descripton on what needs doing.

 

As i mentioned earlier on the first one i filed some off the face of the brass bearings on the side that butts up to the worm gear, this would give the shaft a bit of sideplay once fitted back in the gear tower.

 

But since doing the first one i have since noted this is probably not actually the problem. As explained in the article the bearing has a small flat to stop it spinning, this flat should face upwards and it does need to fit snugly, otherwise it will push the bearing tight against the worm gear or force the shaft down causing the worm gear to be tight against the compoud gear.

 

I'd suggest doing one first off the chassis to see what your doing, shouldn't be a problem for you but let us know if you do, if you still have a problem i'll try and get some phots done for you

 

 

Trevor

[Pete Piszczek]

I think on the first batch the corect placement of the bearings was the secret, the problem being some were not seated properly during assembly which caused binding and so overloading the motor.

 

Incorrect seating could be one issue. Previous Heljan locos had bearings that could seat in any orientation; the Claytons have bearings that are keyed. There is a flat sided area on the bearing . On my unit though it wasn't that the bearing was incorrectly seated, it was that the brass "lip" one of the bearings was too thick. It had a much thicker lip than the other three bearings. One thick lip and the worm ended up being squeezed, especially if the bearing on the other side was also on the thick side of whatever tolerance they were working to. It only has to happen on one side of one worm and you basically have a poor runner.

[SEVERN VALLEY]

I note that Rails Of Sheffield are offering a Heljan Class 17, Product Code 1709 - running no. D8500. at the very competitive price of ??69.50.

 

Is this one of the new batch or the original batch that has given such grief ?

 

Your advice woild be much welcome.

 

Regards, John.

['CHARD]

I note that Rails Of Sheffield are offering a Heljan Class 17, Product Code 1709 - running no. D8500. at the very competitive price of ??69.50.

 

Is this one of the new batch or the original batch that has given such grief ?

 

Your advice woild be much welcome.

 

Regards, John.

New batch, without any question.

[Sc59401]

A hint for those who expect to have the body off more than once during the lifetime of the loco: file a notch in each corner of the metal frame to clear the buffer ends, then you can remove and replace without ever having to touch the buffers again.

Good idea! Or as I am planning to do, fit replacement cast white metal buffers and trim the pegs so that they don't foul the chassis. My early production Heljan Clayton as supplied has one curved and one flat buffer at each end (Continental-style) and they just don't look right, especially as the loco has a Dave Alexander Clayton for company.

[Sc59401]

Well this is a long shot, but here goes - if anyone is doing a replacement chassis job, and consequently has a spare one they don't want anymore, I'll give you the price of postage and packing.

Might be worth trying retailers. My new chassis was fitted in the shop which supplied the loco, although I would have been happy to fit it myself, but I didn't get to keep the original. Should I have asked for it?

[petee19]

Having replaced the chassis on the Clayton I have stripped the motor etc out of the faulty one and am now left with a free running chassis without a body.

What a kind gesture it would be if Heljan made a replacement body available so that it would be possible to have a double header,what does anyone else think about this idea?

 

Pete.

[beast66606]

What a kind gesture it would be if Heljan made a replacement body available so that it would be possible to have a double header,what does anyone else think about this idea?

 

They did - at the 2009 Warley show, soon sold out though.

[petee19]

They did - at the 2009 Warley show, soon sold out though.

 

Well I think it would be a good PR execise if Heljan made a body available,after all it would bring them money in that may at least go towards compensating them for what they have lost in having to replace the chassis.

 

I can alway hope!

 

Pete.

[JZ]

After speaking to Hatton's, it seems that they are checking chassis to assess whether they need replacing and if so, they will do it themselves. Could it be that some unscrupulous people have been trying it on just to get a spare ? I will now do the work myself as i have added extra detailing and weathered mine.

[5944]

After speaking to Hatton's, it seems that they are checking chassis to assess whether they need replacing and if so, they will do it themselves. Could it be that some unscrupulous people have been trying it on just to get a spare ? I will now do the work myself as i have added extra detailing and weathered mine.

 

My dad wrote to them to say there was a problem with his Cl. 17. First Hattons said they'd send out the replacement chassis when they got them in, but then he got a letter through asking for him to send the chassis to them to be sorted. He sent it off and then got a phone call saying there's nothing wrong with it. He told them that whenever it was pulling a load it would slow down considerably, and they said, yes, the good ones do that, but the bad ones burn out!

[Brian D]

Apologies if I have missed this but can anyone tell me how you are supposed to fit the paper headcodes supplied with the loco? The leaflets supplied in the box by HJ are entirely mute on this. I took the body off to have a look-see but the headcode illuminated boxes appeared to be firmly anchored in the plastic nose ends and blanked off to prevent the paper codes being attached internally. Are you supposed to just stick them on the outside of the illuminated boxes?

Thanks in anticipation.

Incidentally, my new (for Xmas - thanks Santa!) D8612 runs very well, as does my 2 year old HJ Class 26 but the Clayton has not done many layout trips yet.

[neal]

The plastic lenses to the boxes can be removed to allow installation of the paper codes.

 

This may be carried out carefully with a scalpel, or alternatively attaching a piece of sellotape provides enough tack to remove the lens with a gentle tug (mind the paintwork though).

 

The paper codes need to be trimmed carefully to ensure that they sit flat within the boxes. There is a slight bevel to the edge of the lens, ensure that this is the right way round such that the 'interference fit' works when they are pushed back into the openings.

 

N

[Brian D]

Many thanks, Neal. I'll give that a go. I am so pleased that I don't have to take the body off again. I found replacing the cylindrical buffer retainers quite challenging to say the least. I've noted the comments about filing slots in the chasis to avoid this problem and may well do this in the future.

Once again, thanks for the prompt reply.

Regards,

Brian.