Heljan Class 14 today, the 2018 bach.

[swiftbeam]

Hi Guys,

I've had my new Heljan Class 14 today, this is the 2018 bach.
Can anybody tell me if this bach is different from the previous batches in the way the body comes off and how the decoder is fitted. I've been told that the body was a real pig to get off and lots of parts can get broken. This does not 'seem' to be the case according to the instructions I have with my loco.

Can anybody confirm?

Thanks.

image2.jpeg (27.86 KiB) Viewed 4269 times

image1.jpeg (26.33 KiB) Viewed 4269 times

[swiftbeam]

Hi Guys,

Don't bother to reply to my question.
I've just test run the model up and down my 3 foot test track, It's awful, so it's going back for a refund and I'll not buy another.

Running backwards, it's actually quite good, running forwards thought is a different matter! it waggles all over the place (not a normal simple side to side) and clicks like the jack shaft is catching the con rods. It probably is because there is SO much end float in the middle axles.

Looks nice, runs bad.
Game over.

[Pennine MC]

I went through five of these (first batch) before I got two that were acceptable (for me and a mate). The side play is minimisable by placing washers between the wheel and frames, but the clicking/hesitancy sounds familiar. Hattons were good about swapping them but if you can't face the hassle, I wouldn't blame you

[Bigmet]

'Interesting'. My first experience of a rod coupled Heljan was with their Garratt (specimens owned by friends) and the O2 steam models. I have to say that their notion of steam loco mechanism construction is about as far distant from their strong, simple and easily worked on centre motor drive, as it is possible to imagine. You wouldn't think it was from the same business.

I am expecting the 47xx to be a disaster if the mechanism construction is similar to that of the Garratts and O2. The Swindonites having been well supplied with RTR 'forever' have no idea how to tackle a less than ideal mechanism. All the ones that get operated will be broken within a week.

[Paul-H]

Only ever owned one Heljan model and that was their Class 27 and although it was a good runner, the body clips didn't line up with the location points on the chassis so it had a distinctive bulge at each end, shame as it spoilt an otherwise excellent model and is the sole reason I have never bought another one of their models, reading these forums is another reason I have not tried another one as well

Paul

[Bigmet]

It took Heljan 'forever' to get around to models that interested me, after my initial rejection of their class 47 due to its overwidth shape which made the model so ill proportioned I wouldn't consider a purchase.

Between classes 15, 16, 23 and 26/0, they have now impressed me. These all rate 'very good' by the assessment system I use: they measure and look right, carry all the practical detail and are well finished, are of simple, robust and easily serviced construction, run and pull exceedingly well. Up to par with the other 'very good' RTR diesel types I have which are Bachmann's DP1, 03, 40, 47, 105 and Hornby's 08.

[Pennine MC]

Only ever owned one Heljan model and that was their Class 27 and although it was a good runner, the body clips didn't line up with the location points on the chassis so it had a distinctive bulge at each end, shame as it spoilt an otherwise excellent model and is the sole reason I have never bought another one of their models, reading these forums is another reason I have not tried another one as well

Between myself and a couple of mates, we must have had a dozen to 15 examples of 26/27s; this fault is untypical.

[D605Eagle]

I have 3x 26s and 1x 27. Mine are all fine too. As these clips/lugs are part of the tooling and cast into the parts I'm failing to understand how this could have happened. Not a Lima 27 body on a Heljan chassis? Only thing I could think of LOL!

[SRman]

I have nine class 33s (all but identical to the 26/27 as far as chassis and body fixings go), plus one class 26, and just one class 33 had a similar problem to that described by Paul, and that was caused by the body being particularly tight on the chassis. A little extra brute force got it to sit down properly and the clips to engage properly.

[GWR_fan]

............................................... it waggles all over the place (not a normal simple side to side) and clicks like the jack shaft is catching the con rods. It probably is because there is SO much end float in the middle axles.

Looks nice, runs bad.
Game over.

I seem to recall this was one of the issues with the original release, but fixable but then why should we have to? When are manufacturers going to stop corrupting scale models by making them run on R2 curves? They destroy the enthusiast model market for the sake of trainset followers. R1 and R2 should have been shown the door when Margate production closed down.

[Bigmet]

The problem - and it is fundamental - is that retailers I have spoken to estimate that of those customers who actually operate their OO models, 80%+ will use set track. So other than small (and expensive) batch productions like those of Golden Age, that's what we are stuck with simply so that the product is acceptable to the majority of potential customers to win sufficient sales.

I'll take the present large choice of compromised but generally good RTR OO; and improve it in both appearance and operation, by modifications to the model permitted by using much larger radii. (Other than a few items where unskilled or unimaginative design has resulted in uncorrectable or nearly so consequences.) There are DIY options from kits, adaptions of other items and scratchbuilding in desperate cases.

[GWR_fan]

Bachmann (USA) realised a long time ago in largescale that not every one was happy running compromised locomotives designed to run down to R1 (four-foot diameter) curves. They gradually upped the minimum operating diameter so that eventually 8' became the minimum standard if you wanted detailed locomotives. Other "American" manufacturers followed suit. One loco needs around a 20' minimum curve to run.

If approximately 80% of OO buyers are using set track (I assume R1 and R2) then either they accept the compromises with poor running quality or they are so ingrained with poorly designed locomotives they do not know any better. We are not talking finescale here but simply a well designed loco not compromised to run R1 and R2 curves. I would accept R3 as a minimum standard. Time to move on from the little kiddies' trainsets and play with big boy's trains.

[gppsoftware]

Bachmann (USA) realised a long time ago in largescale that not every one was happy running compromised locomotives designed to run down to R1 (four-foot diameter) curves. They gradually upped the minimum operating diameter so that eventually 8' became the minimum standard if you wanted detailed locomotives. Other "American" manufacturers followed suit. One loco needs around a 20' minimum curve to run.

If approximately 80% of OO buyers are using set track (I assume R1 and R2) then either they accept the compromises with poor running quality or they are so ingrained with poorly designed locomotives they do not know any better. We are not talking finescale here but simply a well designed loco not compromised to run R1 and R2 curves. I would accept R3 as a minimum standard. Time to move on from the little kiddies' trainsets and play with big boy's trains.

Apologies for re-instating an old discussion, but I would agree with @GWR_fan and the way the American market has moved. It really is time that the British market moved away from R1 and R2 and all the compromises they impose on models to accommodate those toy-trainset radii.

On the subject of the class 14 itself, I have recently made a concerted effort to resolve its numerous problems: http://www.mrol.com.au/Pages/Vu/HeljanC ... ifications but reached the point where I have to conclude that it looks very nice, but the chassis and construction design are nothing short of unserviceable, throw-away junk.

I have raised these issues with Hattons who passed them to Heljan. I notified Heljan UK who sent them to Heljan DK. I also notified Heljan DK. Several weeks on, no response at all from Heljan DK.

My view is that the Heljan class 14 should have a solid chassis block, same as how Bachmann and Hornby do it. That way, the weight would be kept low so that it isn't top heavy. In turn, this would create a proper level surface on which to place a single, monocoque body and attach it with a couple of screws each end. Maybe the footplate could be metal to add further weight.

As it stands, the model is an absolute pig to get apart and virtually impossible to reassemble properly without a gap below the cab bottom edges.
It is an extremely poor design, clearly rushed, which seems to ignore all current good design practice.

[GeraldH]

The major issue with mine was the jackshaft flopping around and one of the crankpins not being fitted correctly. I removed and reinstalled the crankpin and the jack shaft was solved by cutting a slot in some plastic tube and slipping it over centre of the axle. The gap in the tube was then filled with epoxy to fix it in place. It's less conspicuous that split washers and does an excellent job. I recall that the tube was actually a large diameter pen refill and it's a kind of soft plastic. I also had major issues with the couplings which had the usual Heljan height issues so I had to rebuild the mounts.

IMG_0243.JPG (54.07 KiB) Viewed 1729 times

My Class 14 runs beautifully now, but I do agree it's a very poor design and it took a lot of thinking and effort to get it working properly. I would have bought another had it been better engineered. It's a shame that it was not produced by a different manufacturer as they might have done a better job.

[gppsoftware]

Hi Gerald,

Yes, you are right, the jackshaft is a major problem on all class 14 models, as is the excessive side-play in the wheels.

Your solution to stopping the jackshaft side-play is one solution to the problem, but it needs to be accompanied by a reduction in the side-play of the wheels otherwise you might get the coupling rods jamming.

I seem to be going round in circles with this. Hattons tell me it's Heljan's model, Heljan tell me they only use it with Hatton's permission so evidently, Heljan don't believe it is theirs and Gaugemaster (the official spares supplier) tell me that they haven't got any of the gear spares I need.

Great! I have an unusable loco with a gear which has been malformed from manufacture that I can't replace. Nice to have a £110 piece of unusable junk on my workbench.