Accurascale Deltic's via Rails of Shefield

34C said:

Not yet, as unfortunately Accurascale have mangled this model by going for the bad old compromise of significantly underscale diameter wheels; and the bogie frames may not be right either, as the axlebox moulding centres are below the underscale wheel centres. It's a classic in the 'spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar' tradition.

I was on this issue very early after announcement in 2018 to see if Accurascale might consider a solution which offered options of 'no compromise but you need 30" minimum radius in OO and more like five feet in P4', and the necessary compromises for R2 capability: underscale wheels to clear under the body work, and a (user removeable) packing piece to adjust body ride height to correct buffer height with underscale wheels. (For sure the axle box centres would then have been above the underscale wheel axle centres, about the same amount that the model has them below the axle centre, so clearly enough acceptable by Accurascale's standards.) I would have envisaged the model sold in R2 capable form, with an option to buy the correct diameter wheels as spares for DIY installation by the nutters who wanted it right.

I am now waiting for their EE type 3 to see if that has potential for retrofit bogies with scale diameter wheels and correct frames, should these be made available as spares.

Click to expand...

Babz said:

Talk about a Negative reply why don't you tell Accurascale how to make them...

Click to expand...

Babz said:

It's Funny how they are all sold out.

Click to expand...

Free_at _last said:

Not yet... English Electric Type 5 - Class 55 'Deltic' — Accurascale

Click to expand...

Greyvoices said:

...Top Shed had a running in turn to Cambridge and back for locos that had been serviced or repaired ...

Click to expand...

34C said:

The fundamental problem is the tension lock coupler that is 'standard' for RTR OO product. It simply doesn't have the capability to work these cammed swinging linkages: what is required is a coupler system that links the NEM pockets as a rigid bar; that then 'works' the mechanisms correctly so that they recentre immediately as the vehicles exit curves. (I have been using the Roco pattern within sets of Bachmann and Hornby coaches with complete satisfaction for over 15 years, and plan to trial magnetic types.)

Of the Hornby diesels which exhibited the same problem - back in the day there were many threads on the subject - I have been able to test both the 30/31 and 50: substituting a Roco pattern coupler for the tension lock produced a reliable result with the coaches buffered up to the loco on straight track, and moved apart proportionally to the curve radius to prevent bufferlocking. I would expect the same to apply to the Accurascale implementation. It will be Accurascale's call whether they suggest a more suitable coupler; that would be the winning plan in my opinion.


It has always been the case that the more refined the detail fit becomes - both in quantity of the really small parts represented, and adherence to scale dimensions - the greater the risk of detached parts. (Only once have I seen a small applied detail piece actually 'in the act' of falling off an OO model, generally they 'disappear' unseen.) This I feel we have to live with, if we want to operate the models. (Current champion, the NRM/Rapido Stirling single, nothing has fallen off - but then it is an occasional runner, and not daily 'belted along' on a heavy load - such as a Doncaster pacific or this diesel replacement would be, on 'my ECML' running timetable services.)

Click to expand...

boxbrownie said:

But mine was derailing without anything coupled up, it was light engine...

Click to expand...

boxbrownie said:

...Once back mine will be running with Kadees anyway.

Click to expand...

34C said:

In my experience this indicates snagging, and this can be in either or both of the concealed camming mechanism, and on the more visible coupler pocket and coupler contacting buffer beam detail. It can be very slow getting to a solution that retains as much detail as possible, but at least you have Accurascale on the job...

Much better than the tension lock, but the Kadee doesn't form the ideal rigid link between the NEM pockets. What I found did the best job in restricting hinging between the Kadees was melting the NEM pocket interior with an old screwdriver modified to match the end of a no 5, and fitting a no 5. (Well that was how I used to do it, but have now abandoned putting Kadees into NEM pockets of passenger stock, and am instead body mounting them through the bufferbeam. It looks rather neat having a buckeye correctly positioned right under the Pullman gangway faceplates. )

Whatever, you can have fun experimenting to find what you feel is best.

Click to expand...

34C said:

The fundamental problem is the tension lock coupler that is 'standard' for RTR OO product. It simply doesn't have the capability to work these cammed swinging linkages: what is required is a coupler system that links the NEM pockets as a rigid bar; that then 'works' the mechanisms correctly so that they recentre immediately as the vehicles exit curves. (I have been using the Roco pattern within sets of Bachmann and Hornby coaches with complete satisfaction for over 15 years, and plan to trial magnetic types.)

Of the Hornby diesels which exhibited the same problem - back in the day there were many threads on the subject - I have been able to test both the 30/31 and 50: substituting a Roco pattern coupler for the tension lock produced a reliable result with the coaches buffered up to the loco on straight track, and moved apart proportionally to the curve radius to prevent bufferlocking. I would expect the same to apply to the Accurascale implementation. It will be Accurascale's call whether they suggest a more suitable coupler; that would be the winning plan in my opinion.

Click to expand...