61661

Wat-Ex trains were usually formed of TSOs and 2x BFK, rather than an FK. Although FKs occasionally appeared too, they weren’t the norm.

Yes. We have made a number of changes based on feedback. Thanks to everyone who took the time to provide info and suggestions.

Not weird, it’s a commercial decision based on experience. Unfortunately all-First coaches tend to sell in much lower quantities than the others (for obvious reasons) and manufacturers almost always end up stuck with lots of unsold stock. We know we can sell the TSOs and the two Brakes (which share a body shell) but are less certain about an FK. If there proves to be huge demand, we can reconsider later - nothing is set in stone yet.

Certainly, a very good idea I think, so here goes. This is the status and approx release window for the O gauge models currently in progress. Class 03 - 2016 - IN PRODUCTION, ABOUT TO BE SHIPPED. DUE JAN Class 50 - 4/17 - SHIPPED - DUE DEC 17TH Class 56 - 8/18 - CAD SIGNED OFF. IN TOOLING. LATE-2021 Class 17 - 11/18 - IMPROVED SAMPLE NOW BEING CHECKED. ASSUMING NO FURTHER MAJOR CHANGES, DECO STAGE NEXT AND RELEASE IN Q3 OR Q4 2020. Class 31/1, 31/4 - 9/19 - MINOR ALTS BEING MADE TO TOOLING. AWAITING DECO SAMPLES. Q3 2020. Class 40 centre headcode - 11/19 - FIRST COMPLETE SAMPLE NOW BEING CHECKED AND MINOR ALTS IN PROGRESS. DUE MID-2020 Class 47 retool - 1/18. NOW IN TOOLING (FINALLY!) - FIRST SAMPLES EXPECTED IN THE NEW YEAR. DUE LATE-2020. Class 117 - IMPROVED SAMPLE NOW BEING CHECKED. ASSUMING NO FURTHER MAJOR CHANGES, DECO STAGE NEXT AND RELEASE IN Q3 OR Q4 2020. Class 120 (rumour this has been cancelled) - NOT A RUMOUR. THIS HAS BEEN SHELVED FOR SOME TIME. Class 121 - IMPROVED SAMPLE NOW BEING CHECKED. ASSUMING NO FURTHER MAJOR CHANGES, DECO STAGE NEXT AND RELEASE IN Q3 2020. Class 122 - IMPROVED SAMPLE NOW BEING CHECKED. ASSUMING NO FURTHER MAJOR CHANGES, DECO STAGE NEXT AND RELEASE IN Q3 OR Q4 2020. GWR AEC Railcar 8/18 - IMPROVED SAMPLE NOW BEING CHECKED. ASSUMING NO FURTHER MAJOR CHANGES, DECO STAGE NEXT AND RELEASE IN Q3 2020. Mark 1 CCT 9/19 - CAD IN PROGRESS. RELEASE DATE TBC.

The Bachmann OO 2251 is not the old Mainline model. Although they did initially release it like that, it was retooled some years ago and to my knowledge is a reasonably good representation (although I'm sure GWR fans will put me straight on that if I'm wrong).

No trouble. We had a complete and motorised sample on display at Warley. It hasn't progressed as quickly as we were hoping but it is heading in the right direction now. Once we have authorised the tooling (hopefully soon), we can move on to the deco samples.

SRP is expected to be around the £39 mark.

It will have pickups on the loco.

Good Morning, Just wanted to catch up with a few comments here after the Warley weekend. I fear people are reading rather too much into our choices on the 86s. We've never made any secret of the fact that we plan to work our way through the various sub-classes. However, we/I were keen to produce some of the missing versions that have never been properly covered in RTR, notably the original AL6 and now the 86/4s, rather than simply doing new models of subjects we covered in the first batch. We will get to the 86/2s in due course, but it's not possible (or desirable) to suddenly flood the market with dozens of models covering all possible variants/liveries/periods, especially on a class with a history as complex as the 86s. The 86/4 is a big step towards an 86/2, and design work is in progress. Using bits of artwork and existing parts we can also, at some point, add an MW fitted 86/0 and an 86/3 to the range if there is demand. However, the huge quantity of liveries and variations on the 86/4 and 86/6 should keep us occupied for some time yet. With regard to the pantograph, that is the final version, and far from being 'chunky' it is probably around 50% of the size of the old one. Designing a pan in this scale involves some compromises, balancing finesse against robustness. From expensive personal experience, I know that there are some superbly fine pans out there on HO models, but they are so easily damaged. In terms of other improvements, the 86 has LED lighting, a 21-pin DCC interface, improved body shape and grilles. There will also be a process of evolution, with more improvements and upgrades planned for the 86/4. Ben

We do. There are seconds and returns on our stand every year at Warley. And there will be again this year, but you have to be quick to get them as there aren't many (which is a good thing!) and they always fly out. Most of the O gauge returns are cleared out at Telford Guildex, but there will be some at Warley too I'm sure.

Laser scanning has some advantages for model production but can create additional work elsewhere, so it’s not the panacea it is sometimes depicted as. Being Swiss, the drawings are VERY precise and very detailed but no doubt there are some variations! With regard to 18000 specifically, there are many differences between its BR condition up to 1960 and how it looks now. In no particular order, these include: The modified frames with bulge at one end Grille/window arrangement End details Lamps Roof is largely plated over Modified bogies for the UIC wheel/rail interface testing And, as there’s no internal equipment the loco is noticeably higher on its springs than when it was at its full working weight.

Exactly. The condition we are offering on this batch only takes you as far as the late-1970s. Beware though, 86101 is quite different as it is basically a Class 87 and the bogies are an entirely different design so would need an awful lot of work and a Hornby 87 donor loco. 86401 is also also quite different as it has SAB wheels, Flexicoil springs, TDM cables (with the old MW cable mountings plated over) and lots of retro fitted bits for the modern era. It has always been our intention to cover the later periods and other sub-classes over the coming years, so keep an eye out for updates. Hope this helps Ben

Hello, Just to clarify, we baseball our loco selections on photographic evidence and this pair is no different. We have excellent photos of 86034/036 in the conditions depicted, ie still with glazed headcode panels but without MW equipment. The compressors are separate parts so anyone who wishes to model them in later condition can simply remove one - it’s a very easy job! We will have samples on the Heljan stand at Warley next weekend if anyone wants a closer look. Thanks Ben

Good evening everyone. I’ve held off for a couple of days before responding to the various questions asked about 18000 here since it was unveiled on Tuesday. Firstly, thanks to everyone for the positive feedback. It reinforces my/our view that the demand is there for this machine. It has nothing to do with Heljan ‘returning to oddballs’ or doing less in O gauge due to competitors etc and, as my former boss says, everything to do with the right combination of factors at the right time. Rails is to be congratulated for putting its money where its mouth is and investing a lot of resources upfront into such a project. So, to clarify, it will be an A1A-A1A, and the centre trailing wheels are smaller diameter as per the original. Everything has been designed from the original Brown Boveri works drawings of 1949 (which are in the NRM archive) rather than a scan of the loco as it is, which would be of limited use for many reasons. However, the GWS were kind enough (as they always are) to let us have a look over 18000 when we visited Didcot to measure up the AEC Railcar. We are not planning to offer sound fitted or factory weathered models, but there will be plenty of space inside for a speaker if required. I’d also like to thank Chris (dibber25) for his help, and for pointing us in the right direction with regard to the finer details.

Thanks. We changed the CAD in response to some detailed feedback from customers, and I agree, it does look better. We should all be able to judge for ourselves shortly as the first tooled and assembled sample is on its way from China. We should (all being well), have it on the Heljan stand at Warley next month.

Dear All, Thanks for the feedback on the latest batch of Class 17s. I can confirm that no changes have been made from the several earlier production runs. Lighting, mechanism, motors etc are the same as before (although they are of course improved from the very first batch with the faulty chassis). The separate sheets of paper headcodes were indeed a feature of early Heljan locos, but haven't been included for many years after customer feedback told us that the majority of people would rather have them factory fitted. It was a case of responding to demand, rather than cutting back. In terms of quality control, we have had only a few returned with production faults, but we are keeping an eye on the situation to see if these are rogues or an indication of wider issues. The control samples I received were 100% OK. If you are unlucky enough to have a faulty model, the best course of action is to return it to where it was purchased for replacement or refund, rather than sending to Howes or attempting to make your own repairs (unless it is something very minor!) Hope this Helps. Kindest Regards Ben

I didn't know that, thanks for the info. Another example of the many little quirks across the build. We don't number them, so it's up to the customer to avoid such pitfalls! Although we are doing two fully numbered and named 56s in this case - 56101 Mutual Improvement in RF Coal and 56110 Croft in RF Construction.

Just to clarify, before this becomes a(nother) scare story, the NRN aerial, cabside aircon vent and 'grid' under the bufferbeam will be separate customer fit items, so you can fit them or leave them off according to the specific loco you want to model. You'll also have the option of two styles of cab door handrail (round or flat section). With regard to the cab roof dome, it looks different on the real thing (and also the CAD) depending on what angle you view it from, so it's possible to source images that both confirm the shape shown on the CAD and the comments about it being too flat! There's also plenty of evidence that the real things vary in shape, which makes it very difficult to create a 'definitive' shape that will please everyone and cover every loco in the chosen batch. All the Best Ben

*edit* As I've said on several occasions, across various platforms recently about various models, the O gauge 47 is still a work in progress and the CAD for the cab front is in the process of being modified to correct aspects with which we are not satisfied. The CAD has already been changed since that 3D print was made, so it's not an accurate reflection of where we currently stand. Perhaps best to wait until we see the finished model before making a judgement. It's also premature to make judgements about the new OO 47s extrapolated from this one, uncorrected (and not fully detailed) 3D resin print of a different model in a larger scale. I should also add that we were explaining this to people who asked about the O gauge 47 at Telford over the weekend, but it's obviously not the same when the photo is seen out of context without explanation.

Dear All, Apologies for the slow response on this but I wanted to see as much feedback as possible before making any comments. A few points I'd like to clarify to reassure people that this is a somewhat better depiction of a late body Class 25 than some of the comments here would lead us to believe. 1) It's a hand-decorated pre-production sample and therefore not representative of spec or decoration of the finished product. Some parts are poorly fitted and others are missing or damaged. 2) As a pre-production model, its job is to help us identify any problems, faults and mistakes that can be rectified before manufacturing starts. More specifically, we had spotted the prominent rivet heads around the windscreens and have asked them to be removed so that they will not be present on production models. I'm aware that late changes haven't always happened with Heljan models in the past but we are endeavouring to respond more quickly and pro-actively now on issues like this. 3) There will be a number of parts supplied as customer fit items which aren't necessarily visible in the photos. 4) The OO model is based on work done for the O gauge Class 25 Version 2 which, as far as I'm aware, was very well received when it was released last year. Unless anyone can tell me different there wasn't anything like this kind of negativity around that model so I'm intrigued as to what is different. 5) Personally, I'm surprised at the response, given that we shared CADs and various photos of other pre-production samples over the last year (something that critics of all RTR model manufacturers always ask for is early input of this kind) and had very little in the way of negative comment at the time. Does the paint really make that much difference? 6) Having had the models around the office for a few months, I believe it does capture the character of the prototype well (and we've had more messages in favour than against) but perhaps the super close-up photos and angles used don't do it any favours. However, I fully appreciate that this is a subjective view, as are those posted here, and everyone should be free to make their own mind up about it when the models are released. Long experience tells me that issues relating to D&E models can often get extremely heated about very small features, sometimes losing sight of the overall quality and detail of a product. On the flip side of that, I am constantly impressed by the level of knowledge and eye for detail shown by many modellers in this area and appreciate the detailed feedback. Without wishing to sound like a politician (heaven forbid!), I'm confident that it will impress the vast majority of potential customers when it is released. Thanks again and best regards to all. Ben

Good Morning All, Thanks for the overwhelmingly positive reaction to this announcement. As you might have guessed, we've been working on this for some time and if the first batch sells well there will be more to cover other livery/detail variations that haven't made it into the initial production run (hence the gaps in item numbers). We were also keen to ensure that retailers and modellers were not overwhelmed with a large number of short-run locos in one hit, possibly causing confusion and upset if people can't afford/obtain all they want and end up missing out. For the sake of clarity, the item numbers have been chosen to identify different sub-types, rather than allocated randomly. They are as follows: #451XX = steam heat, vac or dual brake 45/0 with glazed split-centre headcode panels #453XX = steam heat, dual brake 45/0 with sealed beam nose ends #454XX = Electric heat, dual brake 45/1 with sealed beam nose ends #455XX = as above but with square HI headlight added The eagle-eyed among you will notice that there's a gap for #452XX. This was intended to be early ETH-fitted 45/1s with glazed split-centre headcode panels but due to the limited lifespan and lack of variety in liveries for this variant we held it over to reduce complication in the initial batch. It might appear later if there is sufficient demand. Other variants may also appear in due course if the model is a success. We would be interested to find out what your priorities are from the following options: - Class 46 - both original and sealed beam ends - Split headcode Class 45 without centre doors - As above but with centre doors - Single centre headcode Class 45 Droopy couplings: We have specifically asked for all future OO locos to have the shorter variant of our tension lock coupling as developed for the O2 'Tango' but not used since for some reason. I've had a bee in my bonnet about this problem on Heljan locos for a long time, so it will not get approved unless the couplings are right. The same applies to headcode typefaces, which is something we've been particular attention to recently. Chassis: An image of the chassis and drive mechanism was issued with the press release and can be viewed on our Facebook page. It's a central motor with two flywheels and, as far as I am aware (will check the models when EP samples arrive) pick ups on all except the pony wheels. Apart from the Class 47 faulty metal issue from many years ago, we are not aware of any problems with Heljan loco chassis, including the Class 23. Hope this helps to provide a little more insight into what we're doing and how we are doing it. Kindest Regards Ben

As seems to have been established already, it’s Hell-Yan as the Danes pronounce the ‘J’ as a ‘Y’. I believe it is a compound of the founder’s children’s names. Jan is the current MD’s father. My favourite ever mispronunciation of a model company name was during my time at Rails when a customer came in asking about ‘Djowff’ models. It took us a while to figure out he meant Jouef! Have a good weekend! Ben

Hello, I'm not going to add anything to today's teaser on social media, other than to say we think it's an exciting development, but I can tell you more about why the three items mentioned haven't appeared. LNER O2/1 and O2/2 - sales of the O2/3 and O2/4 were disappointing and there are still some out in the market several years after release. We feel that putting even more O2s into retailers would not be a wise move at this stage, especially as there's little sign of any demand for them when we talk to customers online and at shows. However, the design work has been done, so it's a possibility in the future if demand does start to grow. Wickham DRB - Although sales of the earlier DRBs were good, it was a case of diminishing returns on the later ones and as the Wickhams were among the more obscure types development was not regarded as a priority. Again, apart from the very occasional query, we are not seeing any sign of demand for it and unless that changes it should be regarded as shelved. Hope this helps Ben

Good Morning Everyone, Entirely by coincidence, a modified and improved Class 25 sample arrived this morning. I think the grille mesh is far superior to the first effort, but I thought it might be useful to find out what RMweb experts think. It's still a compromise between scale accuracy and the need to have a robust component that will withstand regular handling (and still have the detail visible behind) but much better than before. Let us know what you think! Ben

I agree, the etched mesh on this first 25 sample is crude and it certainly doesn't match the CAD we supplied. It isn't the best mesh available, there are much finer ones out there. Therefore I requested improved versions and they are on their way to the UK now. Can I clarify one thing though - this is the first sample off the tooling and should not be regarded as the finished article. It is a work in progress and we are aware of its shortcomings. I hope the next version will be a major improvement. If not, we will look at other options for achieving the correct appearance of those large grilles. With regard to the OO Class 33, I've also asked for a better solution for the large radiator grilles on future batches. Just as a little rudimentary market research, would buyers be offended if we returned to a more finely detailed moulded mesh? Or are we committed to etched grilles, despite the fact that (as various models have proved) it is a real challenge to find a scale mesh as fine as that seen on the real Sulzer Type 2/3s?