Jump to content
 

All-new Heljan 47 in 00 gauge


Ouroborus
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

How big is your railway, not even old Oak, Bath Road or Tinsley would have that many on shed 😂


Stratford on the other hand…? There was certainly enough siding space… 🤣

Edited by brushman47544
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, woodenhead said:

How big is your railway, not even old Oak, Bath Road or Tinsley would have that many on shed 😂


He’s gonna need a stronger baseboard… 

  • Like 3
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Have made the mistake of parking the Heljan in the same siding as the Bachmann.  Most obvious quick improvement to the former would I think be raising the body height relative to the bogie. Anyone tried this yet?

IMG_3050.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
19 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Have made the mistake of parking the Heljan in the same siding as the Bachmann.  Most obvious quick improvement to the former would I think be raising the body height relative to the bogie. Anyone tried this yet?

IMG_3050.jpeg

 

The Heljan does look as if it's eaten all the pies!

 

John Isherwood.

  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Have made the mistake of parking the Heljan in the same siding as the Bachmann.  Most obvious quick improvement to the former would I think be raising the body height relative to the bogie. Anyone tried this yet?

IMG_3050.jpeg

 

My bet is as soon as you raise the body the overly deep bodysides will mean the loco will be too tall.

 

 

 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
30 minutes ago, dj_crisp said:

 

My bet is as soon as you raise the body the overly deep bodysides will mean the loco will be too tall.

 

 

 

I reckon there is about 2mm before that happens compared to the Bachmann version.  The Heljan is a nice model which I have defended on this thread but it does sit strangely low on the bogies I think

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Have made the mistake of parking the Heljan in the same siding as the Bachmann.  Most obvious quick improvement to the former would I think be raising the body height relative to the bogie. Anyone tried this yet?

IMG_3050.jpeg

It must be said that this highlights more than just the height issue. What's going on with the body framing inside the side window - its huge. And the life guards on the bogie don't protrude enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hal Nail said:

Anyone else getting deja vu? i think the issues might just have been flagged before.

 

Agreed, but @MikeParkin65 is wondering, now that the models are in circulation, whether anyone has come up with a (presumably) straightforward way of raising the body on the bogies by around 2mm. I don't have one but if it's designed the same way that Heljan diesels have been to date I'm not sure there will be a straightforward way.......

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Halvarras said:

I don't have one but if it's designed the same way that Heljan diesels have been to date I'm not sure there will be a straightforward way.......

 

Photo of the mounting on page 39 and some discussion of slop.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Have made the mistake of parking the Heljan in the same siding as the Bachmann.  Most obvious quick improvement to the former would I think be raising the body height relative to the bogie. Anyone tried this yet?

IMG_3050.jpeg

Shocking how wrong that is, so glad the 104 looks so good, phew!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

 

Photo of the mounting on page 39 and some discussion of slop.

It's that cross member shown on P39 that spans the width of the chassis .

It is this part that determines the height of the bogies to the chassis and thus , the bodyshell.

It also allows left/right/up/down movements of the bogies.

After removing the bogie itself by prising off the 3 sided clip , the cross member can then be removed 

My instinct would be to elongate the locating holes each side  downwards by the 2mm that was mentioned.

Obviously by doing that , you have created a slot which must be returned to being a hole .

If it were me doing it , I would use hollow brass tube to act as a liner into which each end of the cross member would fit This will.allow the cross member to tilt upwards or downwards for gradients.

I would then Araldyte the slot above it .

Hardly a quick fix granted but the question was asked 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

I reckon there is about 2mm before that happens compared to the Bachmann version.  The Heljan is a nice model which I have defended on this thread but it does sit strangely low on the bogies I think

 

The more I look at this model the more I think it was drawn from a 3/4 slightly distorted photo than from any plans. The reason I say this is I tried to guess the inside body framing on a 56 from a 3/4 view and first attempt got something like Heljan's effort. Did a bit of research (by finding a side on photo) and realised my mistake.

 

The framing behind the bufferbeam looks too short and small... not sure if its to allow the bogies to rotate due to the low body. When you lift there could be a big gap and also the decision is to line up the cantrail or buffers to the Bachmann 47. I dont think both will. Good luck! 

 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Anything striped just looks plain wrong to me as the overly deep sides pull liveries out of whack. The NSE 47 looks out of place with Accuras NSE Mk2b stock as the lining sits so far out of alignment even though the low buffers line up. When you look at photos of a real NSE or IC Exec 47, the stripes in the respective liveries line up pretty closely. These are unfortunately rather wide (low) of the mark, so for those of us with a bit of a thing for nice matching liveries they just don't cut the mustard.

 

Even the BR Blue one looks off at the head of a train of Mk1s to me. The bottom of the bodyside of a 47 is near enough level with the bottom bodyside of a Mk1, give or take maybe an inch typically for wheel wear and loading variations. That is the conclusion I came to after spending FAR too long looking over photos of 47s, as well as visiting a lot of heritage railways over the summer where 47 traction was my goal. Unfortunately the body of this model sits a few mm lower than any Mk1 stock on the market and is too low in comparison with a Mk2 as well.

 

If you don't care about accuracy, I guess the rivets are there to count and fine details are (mostly) all there to ooh and aah over. On the plus side, you're getting a very good decoder for £125 and only paying £85 for the 47 its attached to at those prices. Makes it an almost tempting way to get class 47 decoders and ship the model on.

Edited by Zunnan
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

At £209 I'm very to happy to have a punt - as noted above the decoder is worth over half that price - and I'll happily take any links to Bachmann sound fitted 47s at the £200 mark. Despite the highlighted issues it still looks like a 47; I happen to have a vacancy for a late NSE liveries one and whilst I wouldn't touch one at RRP this offer rather tips the balance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...