Heljan 'OO' DP2

[Tony M]

 

One picture with DP1

 

 

And yes the front does taper starting at the front of the cab door.

 

 

So the loco sits lovely on its bogies..............

 

This photo shows how BAD the cab sides are. The taper should start from the back of the cab doors to the front of its nose. You can clearly see here it doesn't.

To me the bodywork shape takes priority over wheel size or how it sits on the bogies or if it had a cab light.... actually there's a question, does it have drivers in any of the cabs?

And look how good DP1 is.

 

Tony

[Porcy Mane]

Hi Porcy,

 

The Heljan wheel "treads" are much narrower than their normal type. I compared them to a 47 last night.

 

Colin

 

It makes me wonder if Heljan have "engineered" those wheels to give additional swing. They are certainly a fine looking set of wheels. (Thanks for the pics bigherb) but I'd have still preferred to have seen the cab end tumblehome incorporated though... and those tooling lines along the nose. Surely they didn't need to be that prominent. Having said that... I'm really pleased for those that are happy with their DP2's.

I probably shouldn't be commenting though as I haven't seen the model yet.

With a bit of luck I'll be probably be getting to see Pete55s jobby running some time in the near future, making me a bit better qualified to mouth off.

 

Cheers,

Porcy

[bigherb]

And look how good DP1 is.

 

Tony

 

Yes complete with light bulb effect.

 

And no the picture deosn't show where the taper starts so you can't tell. The focal length of the lens has distorted the image.

[Guest jim s-w]

 

The Heljan wheel "treads" are much narrower than their normal type. I compared them to a 47 last night.

 

 

That's a very very basic mistake and I am surprised Heljan have made it. You see the track and wheels are am integrated system. You can't just change one element and not the other and expect it to work. If you have finer wheels you have to have finer track.

 

For those more interested see http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79-the-vee-and-how-it-works/page__fromsearch__1

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Michael Delamar]

I would say the hardest thing for the modeller to do is a bodyshell, if a RTR manufacturer gets the shape and curves of the bodyshell right, then everything else such as the mechanical side,,changing wheels and even painting is easy to tinker with.

 

you would have to be a top modeller to totally scratchbuild a bodyshape such as this with simple tools.

 

thats where the disapointment comes when a manufacturer doesnt get the body shape right, its the hardest job that the modeller wants done for him.

[antrobuscp]

It makes me wonder if Heljan have "engineered" those wheels to give additional swing. They are certainly a fine looking set of wheels. (Thanks for the pics bigherb) but I'd have still preferred to have seen the cab end tumblehome incorporated though... and those tooling lines along the nose. Surely they didn't need to be that prominent. Having said that... I'm really pleased for those that are happy with their DP2's.

 

Porcy

 

I'm sure that's exactly right.

 

That's a very very basic mistake and I am surprised Heljan have made it. You see the track and wheels are am integrated system. You can't just change one element and not the other and expect it to work. If you have finer wheels you have to have finer track.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

 

I can understand why the change has been made, but my purchase would have been more cautiously made if I had known of their intention to modify the wheels from their normal standards.

 

Having watched my DP2 around the layout, and looking at the apparent clearance when the bogie translates, and having regard to the comments of others, I rather suspect that the thinned wheels might not have been necessary to traverse the large part of my layout.

 

Having seen Bigherb's excellent front end shot, I'm not really surprised that the wheelsets are dropping into some turnouts when there is an element of resistance to the translation of the bogies.

 

I haven't looked, are the wheelsets an easy swap for other Heljan types?

 

Colin

[the penguin of doom]

 

And yes the front does taper starting at the front of the cab door.

 

I'll give it a good look over later but apart from slight out of alignment buffer it's looking good.

 

I might be missing something here, but I can't see any taper at the top of the cab side windows......

 

There was certainly no taper on the model I viewed.

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

[stewartingram]

Further to my post #431, I have now taken a closer look at my DP2 as I have been puzzled as to why I've been having derailing problems when they do not appear to be widespread. I'm surprised I didn't notice earlier, but the red buffer beam inserts at both ends are offset from centre - by quite a margin on one end in particular - significantly restricting swinging of the bogie in one direction. Normally this would not necessarily cause a problem, but because they are "notched" to allow the bogie to swing by a restricted amount, the uncentered fitting makes quite a difference. I think this is the cause of the derailing on my loco, and I'd suggest anyone else having problems should check that the insert is centred.

 

The wheelsets are also occasionally dropping into Peco code 100 points where the stock? rail is thinned for the switch rail and possible a little easing out of the back to back may help. Because of the misfitted buffer beam - attempting to remove which might cause damage - I'm going to take the loco back and hopefully obtain a good replacement.

 

I've got one on order with T4U, being on nights this week I've not had chance to contact them yet (and I'm in no hurry anyway). Can you tell me whether this derailing will affect the way I will go with mine please?

I always remove all traces of the proprietary couplings, and substitute a loop of brass wire (usually to the body) as the 'female' part of a Spratt & Winkle. So presumably I will be removing the offending item that causes derailment?

 

Thanks in advance,

Stewart

 

Colin

[antrobuscp]

I've got one on order with T4U, being on nights this week I've not had chance to contact them yet (and I'm in no hurry anyway). Can you tell me whether this derailing will affect the way I will go with mine please?

I always remove all traces of the proprietary couplings, and substitute a loop of brass wire (usually to the body) as the 'female' part of a Spratt & Winkle. So presumably I will be removing the offending item that causes derailment?

 

Stewart, I don't think I can be sure. I am gaining the impression that the problem is only partially to do with tight clearances/radii curves. I suspect the real problem is that the narrow profile wheels have been fitted which will give trouble where "normal" wheels will not. I've checked the loco through four major sets of turnouts so far where it's given trouble, and mostly it dives between the rails on Peco code 100 turnouts. I would guess that if your trackwork is level and to finer tolerances than Peco code 100 certainly - I don't know about code 75 - and the radius is above 20-24" the loco will perform as it should. If you fit a wire loop direct to the body, I wouldn't expect that to interfere with trackholding. One thing I noticed when first placing the loco on the track was that the middle wheelset on each bogie would happily run along the sleepers when at first sight the loco was on the track. I'm wondering if this "free" wheelset is, in some circumstances, dropping into turnouts and pulling the loco off. I say this because it's not necessarily small radius points at which the loco derails. It's more often where there is an element of reverse curvature.

 

Sorry, I'm not a lot of help.

 

Colin

[Jon020]

I might be missing something here, but I can't see any taper at the top of the cab side windows......

 

There was certainly no taper on the model I viewed.

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

Sean... I think he meant that the nose tapers, which the body does seem to do... best way to aviod a Lima nose probably.... but yes, the cab doesn't. Oh dear. Right, where's that next Bachmann model..?

[the penguin of doom]

 

Sean... I think he meant that the nose tapers, which the body does seem to do... best way to aviod a Lima nose probably.... but yes, the cab doesn't. Oh dear. Right, where's that next Bachmann model..?

 

Mines just firing up, waiting to come out of exile in the loft.....

 

He heh.

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

[antrobuscp]

I spent some time last evening checking my DP2 over and checking it run over much of my layout. I am pleased to say that apart from the specific places I'd noted earlier it ran well, but not as smoothly over turnouts as other locos. I took the plunge and fitted a tension lock at one end, and trimmed the pipework back. I did not trim back the "air pipe brackets" at the bottom of the buffer beam. In this state, the loco will traverse all the areas I will want it to. The normal minimum radius is 24" as per Peco small radius turnouts, with one instance of a bit less than that - not exactly sure but I would guess at over 20" On this curve, there was a little grinding and tightness when the loco was orientated to the side where the air pipe brackets more limit movement, but the opposite way round there was no problem. I'm sure that if you modify the loco in the manner that Heljan indicate, bearing in mind the radii you use, the loco will traverse the minimum radius Heljan state.

 

There is a but. The finer wheels fitted, presumably in order to achieve the above happy state, do seem to give the bogies a tendency to dive between the rails of Peco code 100 points, and not necessarily the just small radius ones. I found this happening at four locations. One does appear to have been a clear track issue which had not affected any other loco, and which I have resolved. One turnout was "floating, the next had remained fixed, and although at first sight the pointwork was flat, the weight of the loco caused a dip on the joint beteen the two turnouts(medium/large radius code 100) and the buffer beams were momentarily supported on the bogie ends.

 

At another location, the bogie movement appeared to free up a little with more running and the issue, whilst not eliminated, is limited to very occasional problems with the loco facing a particular way. The loco is unlikely to run through the junction arrangement in the direction I used in my test as it amounts to "wrong road" running.

 

There remain two locations where the loco seems to prefer the sleepers rather than the rail. Both involve small radius turnouts in combination with others and reverse curves are involved. I'm guessing that lateral forces are pushing one wheel hard up against a switch rail just where the stock rail is rebated for its switch blade, and it drops to the sleepers. Having quickly read a good part of the thread that jim s-w referred to in his post, it would seem pretty certain that any fickleness DP2 has to trackwork relates to the changed wheel standard and not to track curvature pure and simple..

 

Although the loco will go through all my other turnouts reliably - all Peco code 100 of 2 or 3 generations(surprisingly it's not the old ones giving rise to any problems) - they are in less complex and straighter formations, and passage through the turnouts is more bumpy and noisy than with other locos.

 

I'm keeping my DP2, I'm happy with it, but I'll never leave it chasing its tail while I do something else.

 

Colin

[Baby Deltic]

Picked up a pair of DP2's today. Very nice indeed, although it was originally my plan to buy the one in the later livery only, because I already have a Silver Fox plain green DP2. Having seen the models, I quickly realised that the Heljan one knocks the Silver Fox one into a cocked hat, plus the fact that only 2000 are being produced, I bought a plain green one too.

[The Stationmaster]

Picked up a pair of DP2's today. Very nice indeed, although it was originally my plan to buy the one in the later livery only, because I already have a Silver Fox plain green DP2. Having seen the models, I quickly realised that the Heljan one knocks the Silver Fox one into a cocked hat, plus the fact that only 2000 are being produced, I bought a plain green one too.

That sounds like a seal of approval BD.

[Ian Hargrave]

Thank you,Colin---post 466---for a thorough,honest appraisal of your DP2 and its fickle track performance. Your post is most helpful.

[stewartingram]

I spent some time last evening checking my DP2 over and checking it run over much of my layout. I am pleased to say that apart from the specific places I'd noted earlier it ran well, but not as smoothly over turnouts as other locos. I took the plunge and fitted a tension lock at one end, and trimmed the pipework back. I did not trim back the "air pipe brackets" at the bottom of the buffer beam. In this state, the loco will traverse all the areas I will want it to. The normal minimum radius is 24" as per Peco small radius turnouts, with one instance of a bit less than that - not exactly sure but I would guess at over 20" On this curve, there was a little grinding and tightness when the loco was orientated to the side where the air pipe brackets more limit movement, but the opposite way round there was no problem. I'm sure that if you modify the loco in the manner that Heljan indicate, bearing in mind the radii you use, the loco will traverse the minimum radius Heljan state.

 

There is a but. The finer wheels fitted, presumably in order to achieve the above happy state, do seem to give the bogies a tendency to dive between the rails of Peco code 100 points, and not necessarily the just small radius ones. I found this happening at four locations. One does appear to have been a clear track issue which had not affected any other loco, and which I have resolved. One turnout was "floating, the next had remained fixed, and although at first sight the pointwork was flat, the weight of the loco caused a dip on the joint beteen the two turnouts(medium/large radius code 100) and the buffer beams were momentarily supported on the bogie ends.

 

At another location, the bogie movement appeared to free up a little with more running and the issue, whilst not eliminated, is limited to very occasional problems with the loco facing a particular way. The loco is unlikely to run through the junction arrangement in the direction I used in my test as it amounts to "wrong road" running.

 

There remain two locations where the loco seems to prefer the sleepers rather than the rail. Both involve small radius turnouts in combination with others and reverse curves are involved. I'm guessing that lateral forces are pushing one wheel hard up against a switch rail just where the stock rail is rebated for its switch blade, and it drops to the sleepers. Having quickly read a good part of the thread that jim s-w referred to in his post, it would seem pretty certain that any fickleness DP2 has to trackwork relates to the changed wheel standard and not to track curvature pure and simple..

 

Although the loco will go through all my other turnouts reliably - all Peco code 100 of 2 or 3 generations(surprisingly it's not the old ones giving rise to any problems) - they are in less complex and straighter formations, and passage through the turnouts is more bumpy and noisy than with other locos.

 

I'm keeping my DP2, I'm happy with it, but I'll never leave it chasing its tail while I do something else.

 

Colin

 

Having had the reply re: removing totally the coupler, and seen the above review, I now wonder if:-

The leading wheels are 'finescale' if I read this right. The centre and trailing wheels are 'normal'. What if....a swop round of wheels could be done? I think the preference would be Normal-Fine-Normal on each bogie? This is of course assuming all wheels are otherwise identical - ie geared. If only the outer wheels are geared, then maybe put the fine wheels at the inner end of the bogies?

 

This is of course all supposition on my part as I still haven't caught site of one! Hopefully at the end of next week, or possibly after Railfest, I shall be wending my way to Peterborough to pick mine up.

 

Any thoughts on this? Maybe an aftermarket set of wheels instead?

 

Stewart

 

ps not defending (or even critisizing) Heljan at all in this, just acting as a 'modeller' trying to overcome a situation as we always used to!

[antrobuscp]

Having had the reply re: removing totally the coupler, and seen the above review, I now wonder if:-

The leading wheels are 'finescale' if I read this right. The centre and trailing wheels are 'normal'. What if....a swop round of wheels could be done? I think the preference would be Normal-Fine-Normal on each bogie? This is of course assuming all wheels are otherwise identical - ie geared. If only the outer wheels are geared, then maybe put the fine wheels at the inner end of the bogies?

 

This is of course all supposition on my part as I still haven't caught site of one! Hopefully at the end of next week, or possibly after Railfest, I shall be wending my way to Peterborough to pick mine up.

 

Any thoughts on this? Maybe an aftermarket set of wheels instead?

 

Stewart

 

ps not defending (or even critisizing) Heljan at all in this, just acting as a 'modeller' trying to overcome a situation as we always used to!

 

Stewart, if you know the Bachmann Deltic, on that the outer pairs of wheels are much finer, the rest are "normal". In the case of DP2, ALL the wheels are finer, possibly even slightly finer than those on the Deltic. I'm only saying this last by eye, I've not measured anything. As to powered axles, the loco is an A1A-A1A. The centre axles are as fine as the others, but are free to "thrash about" as they will, and occasionally do.

 

The loco is not tolerant at all of changes in level. After posting my last message I turned the loco around and sent it through a junction it had been happy with. It derailed in both directions. The cause was a small change in level but on a curve. By working on the track, I managed to cure it in one direction, but not in the other - untiI I pulled out the complete coupler pocket on the loco at the end where I didn't need it. This cured it. The cause was the coupler pocket running up against the bottom edge of the buffer beam which lifted the inner end of the bogie, throwing it up and over a rail head. Filing the lower buffer beam edge down should have a similar corrective effect, but I don't need the coupler pocket at that end.

 

I've not checked wheel diameters against, say, a Heljan 47/Western but I had thoughts of asking Howes if such wheels would fit, and could be supplied. I have never taken a bogie apart on one their locos so I don't know if changing wheelsets is a big or small job. Given it was a straight forward job, I would first try replacing the centre pair of non-powered wheels, and then the inner set if necessary. Clearly, changing the inner pairs of wheels would restrict, a little, the minimum radius the loco would manage.

 

Like you, I'm trying to get a loco I want to work reliably given what Heljan have decided to produce. They've been open about the modifications necessary to traverse certain radii. If I were to be critical, I think they should have been equally open about the variance from accepted wheel standards in achieving their aims for what I do think is a good model. I suspect the end taper bodywork issue might be related to the clearances required, but I'll leave that for others to pick up as its not a massive issue for me. I do prefer the tubby 47 after all!!

 

I don't think I'll further modify my loco. In principle, I'd rather address the cause than the affect even if this is the only loco affected and, being blunt, I think the loco will work well on good track. It's just that most locos only require "acceptable" track. I'll accept the modest "route availability" restrictions. I think running reliability could be further improved by creating a little more room for track imperfections. Initially at least, I would attempt this by filing modest amounts from the lower buffer beam edge where the coupler pocket has been retained - it probably doesn't need much, but you might have to reposition some of the details slightly. If you don't need the coupler pockets, remove them, and I suspect the loco will have the necessary clearance.

 

I hope this helps,

 

Colin

[vac_basher]

Well, I've been looking at my pair of DP2's for the past couple of days (I'll put a few photos on Bath Road tomorrow), and I'm really very pleased with them. Of all the Heljan models I have (47; Western; Falcon; Kestrel; Lion; Crompton; etc.) it's one of the best. I might even go as far as saying that to my eyes it's Heljan's best model to date!

P:S. One thing I wanted to say, which I don't think's been mentioned yet, is they've done a really good job designing the fuel tank - chassis - body set up, because it's so easy to unscrew them and take the body off. Well done Heljan!

[stewartingram]

Stewart, if you know the Bachmann Deltic, on that the outer pairs of wheels are much finer, the rest are "normal". In the case of DP2, ALL the wheels are finer, possibly even slightly finer than those on the Deltic. I'm only saying this last by eye, I've not measured anything. As to powered axles, the loco is an A1A-A1A. The centre axles are as fine as the others, but are free to "thrash about" as they will, and occasionally do.

 

The loco is not tolerant at all of changes in level. After posting my last message I turned the loco around and sent it through a junction it had been happy with. It derailed in both directions. The cause was a small change in level but on a curve. By working on the track, I managed to cure it in one direction, but not in the other - untiI I pulled out the complete coupler pocket on the loco at the end where I didn't need it. This cured it. The cause was the coupler pocket running up against the bottom edge of the buffer beam which lifted the inner end of the bogie, throwing it up and over a rail head. Filing the lower buffer beam edge down should have a similar corrective effect, but I don't need the coupler pocket at that end.

 

I've not checked wheel diameters against, say, a Heljan 47/Western but I had thoughts of asking Howes if such wheels would fit, and could be supplied. I have never taken a bogie apart on one their locos so I don't know if changing wheelsets is a big or small job. Given it was a straight forward job, I would first try replacing the centre pair of non-powered wheels, and then the inner set if necessary. Clearly, changing the inner pairs of wheels would restrict, a little, the minimum radius the loco would manage.

 

Like you, I'm trying to get a loco I want to work reliably given what Heljan have decided to produce. They've been open about the modifications necessary to traverse certain radii. If I were to be critical, I think they should have been equally open about the variance from accepted wheel standards in achieving their aims for what I do think is a good model. I suspect the end taper bodywork issue might be related to the clearances required, but I'll leave that for others to pick up as its not a massive issue for me. I do prefer the tubby 47 after all!!

 

I don't think I'll further modify my loco. In principle, I'd rather address the cause than the affect even if this is the only loco affected and, being blunt, I think the loco will work well on good track. It's just that most locos only require "acceptable" track. I'll accept the modest "route availability" restrictions. I think running reliability could be further improved by creating a little more room for track imperfections. Initially at least, I would attempt this by filing modest amounts from the lower buffer beam edge where the coupler pocket has been retained - it probably doesn't need much, but you might have to reposition some of the details slightly. If you don't need the coupler pockets, remove them, and I suspect the loco will have the necessary clearance.

 

I hope this helps,

 

Colin

 

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, as I said I was just musing over the problem having seen various reports. I shall definately be getting mine (soon), I do like the look of it, it passes the 2' rule for me! I have a Silver Fox one as it is part of my 'wanted' collection; I always thought that DP2 was the ugliest of all the prototypes I knew, especially in the plain green of my era, so it won't gain plus points for appearance anyway. I run on handbuilt code 75, very much a 'hit it to fix it' approach which seems to work well so I will overcome any problems anyway. And I do totally remove all couplings so I reckon it should be ok.

 

Stewart

[10000]

Well considering some of the posts about running problems I consider myself very lucky with my DP2.

In the week I've had it with the supplied couplings fitted, on code 100 with Peco streamline points I've had it running through straight points, curved points, 3 way points ,crossings and up and down gradients, round my track at full speed and not one derailment.

 

 

Oh sorry, 1 derailment but that was my fault for not getting the centre wheels of one bogie on the track.

[antrobuscp]

Just a little more information. I compared the front end view in Bigherb's photo with my own DP2. In the photo, and even allowing for a little shadow below the bottom edge of the body above the red buffer beam, there appears to be virtually no gap between the detail of the surround to the 3-link coupling mount and the bottom of the body. On my DP2 there is a very narrow band of plain moulding at one end(probably as per Bigherb's loco allowing for shadow), and somewhat more at the other. The difference between the two ends is a little under 1 mm. This would explain why behaviour varied by leading end and I think it may well explain why others have not had the problems I've been having - the free vertical movement at the outer bogie ends is slightly more restricted than intended. The total depth of exposed buffer beam at one end is a whisker over 5 mm, and at the other just about 6 mm measured alongside the 3-link hook. It also appears that at one end, the buffer beam is fitted very slightly askew, maybe by the equivalent of .5 mm depth across the width of the buffer beam.

 

Colin

[vac_basher]

I had a prototype line up on Bath Road tonight, with DP1, DP2, Falcon, Kestrel, and Lion (all I need now are the Bachmann LMS Twins ) and I just have to say DP2 looks really very good. It certainly holds it's ground next to Bachmann's DP1.

 

Now, a technical question for those familiar with the beast: what colours should the pipes on the bufferbeam be painted? It's hard to tell from the few colour photos of DP2 which I've been able to see. So would this be correct, from left to right (looking towards the model) Yellow, Red, (coupling), Silver; Yellow. Or should the yellows be whites? Seems like it may have changed over the years. I'm not even too sure about the silver one to be honest

[vac_basher]

or if it had a cab light.... actually there's a question, does it have drivers in any of the cabs?

I've taken one of mine appart and no, it doesn't have cab lights, nor does it have any people in it.

[Accurascale Fran]

Mine arrived today, hope these shots might be of use to some

 

 

 

I can see the issue with the cab roof, but it just isn't a deal breaker for me. It's annoying they got something wrong, but there are locos on the market that have more obvious and annoying errors on them than this which do not get half the stick DP2 does.

 

Anyway, obligatory 'doesn't it sit lovely on its bogies!' shot

 

 

 

And for some reason I got two limited edition certs!

 

[vac_basher]

Here's a few photos for your enjoyment.... (There's a few more of DP2 on my Bath Road topic too)