Tony M Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 If it is better proportioned than the Bachmann Deltic, I wonder how easy it would be to convert it into a Deltic with Shawplan etches? Personally? No. What I would consider would be cutting the cabs off a Bachmann 55 (from the back of the cab doors) and transplanting them onto the DP2... expensive conversion but at least it would look right. The loco looks fantastic from the side and 3/4 angle but head on is where it all goes to poo. After seeing it at MR Scotland my wife thought I was mad with the way I was going on about it and advised me "if you are not 100% happy with it then cancel the order" ( waiting for the "she would say that anyway" comment ) Tell me this Heljan, do you have no research division? Or access to the internet to see photos and read up on the history of DP2? I'm outside the UK and this loco was around well before me and I can see where you went wrong....This is all my personal opinion and can sound harsh and they will probably sell well but I just feel I still need to rant about it.... ahhh T Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaGrange Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Reading the new Rail Express they pass comment on the shape of the nose, no doubt they are just waiting to tear it to shreds in their review of the production model, as they are not known to hold back on their opinions if something is not right... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Reading the new Rail Express they pass comment on the shape of the nose, no doubt they are just waiting to tear it to shreds in their review of the production model, as they are not known to hold back on their opinions if something is not right... Which is exactly how it should be. Unless, of course, a good review is issued for commercial reasons......... ROB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
neal Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I really do not see how Heljan can please all the people on this one. What they appear to have done (and this remains conjecture as the final model is still yet to land) is widen the cab ends to allow the wheels to sit within the tumblehome of the locomotive, with correct diameter wheels, allowing 2nd radius curves to be negotiated. Alternative solutions would have been undersized wheels (as per Hornby 50), raised bodysides clearing the wheels for sharper curves (as Bachmann 55 or 37), or a truly prototypical representation (ignoring the 00 'anomaly') which would not be suitable for many of our layouts. I think this is a reasonable compromise, and a different approach to many (well criticised) solutions offered before. If it is unacceptable to some, then so be it. However I think this is a brave approach which does give the loco more gravitas when viewed side on. Other than offering a rubber chassis and body which 'flex' as the loco negotiates curves, I can't see another solution. I don't think it is a failing of the 'Heljan research division', more a failure of Heljan in explaining why such a compromise has been made. Indeed, we have been spoiled by the level of interaction that Dapol have given over their recent models. I would be interested to hear how Dapol would solve this one (or even may still do!?) N Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaGrange Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Which is exactly how it should be. Unless, of course, a good review is issued for commercial reasons......... ROB Good point, especially with the 33's pushed back further again. Never forget, despite the shortgivings people will buy them. Only the minority want it perfect! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilgrim in France Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Surely the answer is simple. If we expect a model to be dimensionally perfect, with no compromises, then we have to have rails that are the correct distance apart and the radius of curves which are also to scale. Until that happens we should be grateful that a manufacturer is prepared to make what would appear to be an exciting model of a one off engine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
00ERmissus Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I really do not see how Heljan can please all the people on this one. What they appear to have done (and this remains conjecture as the final model is still yet to land) is widen the cab ends to allow the wheels to sit within the tumblehome of the locomotive, with correct diameter wheels, allowing 2nd radius curves to be negotiated. Alternative solutions would have been undersized wheels (as per Hornby 50), raised bodysides clearing the wheels for sharper curves (as Bachmann 55 or 37), or a truly prototypical representation (ignoring the 00 'anomaly') which would not be suitable for many of our layouts. I think this is a reasonable compromise, and a different approach to many (well criticised) solutions offered before. If it is unacceptable to some, then so be it. However I think this is a brave approach which does give the loco more gravitas when viewed side on. Other than offering a rubber chassis and body which 'flex' as the loco negotiates curves, I can't see another solution. I don't think it is a failing of the 'Heljan research division', more a failure of Heljan in explaining why such a compromise has been made. Indeed, we have been spoiled by the level of interaction that Dapol have given over their recent models. I would be interested to hear how Dapol would solve this one (or even may still do!?) N Good points. I did cancel my order but am prepared to reinstate it, if, once I’ve seen the actual model in the raw, it looks OK to me. I’ve read the informed criticism and very valid points have been raised but as long as I can live with it, I’ll still buy one. If I can’t, I won’t. The windscreen surrounds, especially on the early version look too thick and pronounced and that is more of a concern to me right now but that can probably be rectified to some degree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Deltic Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Surely the answer is simple. If we expect a model to be dimensionally perfect, with no compromises, then we have to have rails that are the correct distance apart and the radius of curves which are also to scale. Until that happens we should be grateful that a manufacturer is prepared to make what would appear to be an exciting model of a one off engine. Please don't use the gauge argument!! It starts arguments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Please don't use the gauge argument!! It starts arguments. Nevertheless it's a valid point. If anyone seriously wants a scaled down, entirely accurate representation of the real thing then they should model in P4 and be prepared to devote an area the size of their local swimming pool so as to reflect scaled down, prototypical curves. If they want to model in OO, then like it or not we simply have to accept a mostly accurate, yet inherently compromised model - and that applies to every loco and item of rolling stock in OO, even the most recent releases. We can't have it both ways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Deltic Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Nevertheless it's a valid point. If anyone seriously wants a scaled down, entirely accurate representation of the real thing then they should model in P4 and be prepared to devote an area the size of their local swimming pool so as to reflect scaled down, prototypical curves. If they want to model in OO, then like it or not we simply have to accept a mostly accurate, yet inherently compromised model - and that applies to every loco and item of rolling stock in OO, even the most recent releases. We can't have it both ways. The gauge argument is a given. If the P4 brigade want to rectify it, that's up to them. Some facets of a model cannot be corrected by gauge correction if they are wrong, and herein lies the 'argument's put forward by the critiques and detail purists. It is true that many manufacturers make errors from time to time, not just Heljan. People will say "I'm not paying £100 odd quid for that, etc, etc, etc" but the fact remains that the trade price and retail price are very different indeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I really do not see how Heljan can please all the people on this one. What they appear to have done (and this remains conjecture as the final model is still yet to land) is widen the cab ends to allow the wheels to sit within the tumblehome of the locomotive, with correct diameter wheels, allowing 2nd radius curves to be negotiated. Alternative solutions would have been undersized wheels (as per Hornby 50), raised bodysides clearing the wheels for sharper curves (as Bachmann 55 or 37), or a truly prototypical representation (ignoring the 00 'anomaly') which would not be suitable for many of our layouts. I think this is a reasonable compromise, and a different approach to many (well criticised) solutions offered before... There has to be a compromise when bogie mounted wheels are going to foul body work when the model is operated on under scale curves down to set-track second radius. That's a given, which hopefully most folk can be persuaded of: there are physical constraints that just have to be worked around, one way or the other. I have been curious about what Heljan's compromise might be since seeing the pictures of the model in development. Not owning a Heljan model of the length and design characteristics which might pose this sort of challenge, I don't have any prior information on their 'house style' for this compromise. In terms of what pleases the customer, this customer favours Bachmann's house style. Make all the parts the correct shape and size, and use a simple bogie mounting that places the body higher than it should be relative to the bogies and wheels to provide the clearance for the underscale curves. That way, anyone with a layout where the curves are not so tight has the option of easily revising the bogie mounting to lower the body relative to the running gear. The model is thus brought closer to scale, with a little simple and fully concealed internal work, and no need to purchase any replacement parts or refinish externally visible parts. Done carefully, the modification is fully reversible too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Please don't use the gauge argument!! It starts arguments. As also does the 'we should be grateful' argument Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Delamar Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 being honest, I dont know deltics too well, im not a fanatic on them, so I cant see the wrong angles and lines that everyone is talking about, so until someone does a photoshoped drawing with lines and angles that I can compare in the same way someone did a while back with the Bachmann class 40 Im happy with it, happy in my ignorance shall we say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Deltic Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 happy in my ignorance shall we say. Ignorance is bliss! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Deltic Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 As also does the 'we should be grateful' argument We've never had it so good....etc, etc, etc..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I've flipped to 'couldn't give a ****' mode... Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Surely the answer is simple. If we expect a model to be dimensionally perfect, with no compromises, then we have to have rails that are the correct distance apart and the radius of curves which are also to scale. Until that happens we should be grateful that a manufacturer is prepared to make what would appear to be an exciting model of a one off engine. I'm sorry, but this ancient argument is, to put it politely, a load of old tosh. Because the gauge is wrong we should be content with everything else being wrong as well. Really? ROB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaGrange Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 being honest, I dont know deltics too well, im not a fanatic on them, so I cant see the wrong angles and lines that everyone is talking about, so until someone does a photoshoped drawing with lines and angles that I can compare in the same way someone did a while back with the Bachmann class 40 Im happy with it, happy in my ignorance shall we say. Aslong as people have that outlook, the manufacturers will continue to output garbage, 'it looks ok to me' - well maybe to YOU, but not to those who demand better. There have been good models released by every manufacturer since CAD/CAM technology came to the fore, so why do Heljan do good models and then suddenly flop badly with this one? Granted the term 'see-saw' applies with them, good,bad,good bad! They have got models right where the original no longer exists, yet they cant get it right when a prototype does still exist, 6 of them. OK I know DP2 was scrapped after its crash but Deltic cabs (14 of them!) still exist and its the cabs that are not right, not the DP2 specific bodysides Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 'it looks ok to me' - well maybe to YOU, but not to those who demand better. Obviously I can't say if it was your intention but that comes across as very patronising, especially with the capitalised emphasis. Please keep the communications civil. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaGrange Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Obviously I can't say if it was your intention but that comes across as very patronising, especially with the capitalised emphasis. Please keep the communications civil. Your right - I refer to those who are happy with anything as a generalisation, not that specific poster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Delamar Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 the point I was trying to make is that I cant see the inaccuracies yet,to my utrained eye, but when I am shown what it is that people are talking about then it will probably grate with me and annoy me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 There are more important things in this country that people don't see and would be furious about if they did Mike, so I think I can live with a subjective error on a toy train. Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony M Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Fig.1. Fig.2. Here's where I think Heljan went wrong. Fig.1. Shows the Class 55 deltic with the taper starting from the rear of the cab doors. (note the class 37 also has this taper) Fig.2. Shows my interpretation of what Heljan have done. The cab windows are in line with the cab sides. This is incorrect for DP2. Some have said that they may have done it to accommodate the wheels. I don't think so because the body side has to taper in to the front of the nose anyway and that's where the outer wheels are anyway so would they not snag the body there? unless they have the width of the nose wrong too.... In this age of technology with 3D CAD & 3D laser prototyping there is no reason not to have it correct or even look correct and the error that they have made with this model is not subtle. I'm not one for "it's 0.5mm to big or they are the wrong size wheels", if it looks good at first glance then I'd be happy with it and unfortunately this one doesn't. Tony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluex5 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Thanks Tony, that explains it perfectly. It also shows where the oddity in the windscreen area comes from. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Delamar Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 right, thanks Tony, I can see what you mean now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.