Class 33 OO scale re run

[centenary]

Heljan have announced a re run of their OO scale Class 33 locos, including factory fitted sound versions for the first time.

Should be available sometime later this year in Q4.

Hmmm, the West Coast Railways version looks good!

https://railsofsheffield.com/blogs/news ... f0w.RXkVMS

[Bigmet]

A sensible move on Heljan's part, there isn't a RTR OO centre motor drive alternative of this class from the squad of competing brands - yet! - so make money on it while unopposed.

The virtues of Heljan's 'full body width' BoBo mechanisms are well known, the same one is in the BRCW 26/0's, and with a slightly different wheelbase, in their class 23's, that run on my layout: all really smooth and quiet with ample traction, and totally reliable.

[Metadyneman]

With each re run, Heljan have steadily upgraded both the body and underframe detail as well as the internal electrics. It now sports LED lighting instead of a bulb at each end and also now has a 21 pin decoder interface and a fully revised pcb. The bogies have been redesigned with more "removable" parts, notably the centre suspension springs which I knocked off whilst being a bit over zealous trying to get the frame off the wheels! The only downside I feel is that all of the detailing is now applied at both ends which requires removal if you wish to put a functioning coupling at the ends. I feel they would have been better left off for the modeller to put on at leisure. Very much a personal choice though and I can see both sides of the argument with that one.

[Phred]

Metadyneman wrote:
The only downside I feel is that all of the detailing is now applied at both ends which requires removal if you wish to put a functioning coupling at the ends.

I agree with that. I remember thinking how lovely my first 'fully detailed' loco looked until I realised that I would have to get stuck in with the needle nosed pliers (trying not to break anything) and remove most of the good stuff so I could fit the couplings and actually use the thing to tow some wagons and such.

[SRman]

Metadyneman wrote:
The only downside I feel is that all of the detailing is now applied at both ends which requires removal if you wish to put a functioning coupling at the ends.

I agree with that. I remember thinking how lovely my first 'fully detailed' loco looked until I realised that I would have to get stuck in with the needle nosed pliers (trying not to break anything) and remove most of the good stuff so I could fit the couplings and actually use the thing to tow some wagons and such.

I don't mind having all the pipes and hoses pre-fitted, preferring to snip them off at just below buffer beam level to allow the operational couplings to be fitted at one or both ends. I think it looks better with the buffer beams populated rather than bare, even if the fittings are somewhat more "low-relief". It's also easier to snip the lower ends off the fittings than it is to actually fit everything in anyway, in my experience, and it may even be possible to leave the outer pipes in place if the coupling swing doesn't reach the extremes.

[centenary]

The only downside I feel is that all of the detailing is now applied at both ends which requires removal if you wish to put a functioning coupling at the ends. I feel they would have been better left off for the modeller to put on at leisure. Very much a personal choice though and I can see both sides of the argument with that one.

If you use magnetic couplers, have a look through Peter at Torridon Road's You Tube channel.

He shows how to adapt a spare magnetic coupling, fit it on the loco's actual drawbar \ hook, allowing full buffer beam detailing and the loco able to both pull or propell even large rakes of wagons or coaches.

If you dont use magnetics, then yes, already added buffer beam detail has to be cut back \ removed.

[Phred]

Cutting back the detailing bits seems like the quickest/most practical approach. I just have this nagging feeling that I'll want to replace them on the buffer beam one day.

[Mike Parkes]

i prefer the pipework pre fitted as its often a pain to fit when supplied for the user to add. Holes typically need enlarging; theirs the danger of glue marks and the normal hunt on the floor for one pipe at least that has sprung out of the tweezers. Its quite easy in contrast with a pair of decent snippers to trim back pipework that is the way of a coupling.

[Bigmet]

My contribution to this bufferbeam pipework/fittings problem of fouling the coupler, is to put the coupler in the right location: where the drawhook is located, and it doesn't foul. I have been steadily moving in this direction using Kadee knuckle couplers, since Bachmann produced their HAA coal hoppers with their knuckle coupler right where it should be. The class 66 to haul these proved very easy to fit with a Kadee through the bufferbeam, and with the NEM coupler pocket removed from the bogie, the full detail fit of airdam and pipes was possible; and despite the Kadee mounted well over gauge height it works perfectly using Kadee track magnets. I had thought it might be necessary to straighten the coupler head 'trip pin' for reliable performance of auto uncoupling, but this has thus far proved unnecessary.

I am always looking for simple solutions that work reliably, and this is one of them. As a side note, I don't find knuckle couplers unattractive; it's far and away the most realistic looking commercial autocoupler, and for performance superior to all alternatives: and the knuckle coupler has been in regular service in the UK since late C19th on GNR and ECJS carriages, and subsequently standard on the LNER and then universal on BR's carriages (until overtaken by subsequent developments) so a good fit for modelling the BR steam period on the ECML.