Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
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.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
Talk about a Negative reply why don't you tell Accurascale how to make them...
If you had read what I posted, then you would know that I (and others) made suggestions to this end. We knew the difficulties this design presents, and were interested enough to propose a better way. Other manufacturers have listened in the past to input on 'difficult prototypes', with superior models as a result. Sadly it didn't happen this time.

And what's negative in pointing out product deficiencies? It's the essence of customer power, and if sufficient people point out such aspects, the manufacturer may just decide to do better.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
...Top Shed had a running in turn to Cambridge and back for locos that had been serviced or repaired ...
Strictly that belongs to steam operation. The Deltics were initially maintained by EE (prob. Vulcan works Newton le Willows), and then a facility was established at Doncaster. The Deltic workings were necessarily intensive, to justify their high acquisition and operating cost, which meant the fast services KX - Leeds, Newcastle or Edinburgh, and return; which needed the extra power over the Brush, Derby and EE type 4s which could cope with all the other express passenger turns.

But who knows? This site used to be useful for this sort of information, but appears to have format problems in navigation. Deltics: Chronicles of Napier
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
...I've got an AS Deltic, it is Nimbus, unfortunately it has gone back for some rectification on a kinematic coupling mechanism which keeps sticking and causes the occasional derailment...
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.

...The detail is excellent, but I have had quite a few bits drop off (some during delivery) since receiving it whilst it trundles around. I think AS are on a steep learning curve with detail vs robustness, which I read they have acknowledged...
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.)
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
But mine was derailing without anything coupled up, it was light engine...
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...
...Once back mine will be running with Kadees anyway.
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.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
... even with the ROCO you don’t get the delayed uncoupling that the Kadees are able to do, I also found that even the genuine ROCO (and same with Fleischmann) couplings they needed a fair old force to couple up, far more than was prototypical without spilling everyone in the buffet coaches teas and coffee.
Indeed, not perfect, I wouldn't call it an 'autocoupler' as manual assistance is often required. But the close coupling effect is what I prioritise.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
...It looks like a very much better designed tension lock type, nice and neat.
Certainly looks good, definitely going on my 'one to try out' list.

Although the lifting hook principle is the same, significantly the hook will not lock when engaged and in tension because there is no undercut; essential if the couplers are to 'make' as a rigid connection but still be able to release freely on an uncoupler that lifts the hook. So any installed track uncoupler can only lift when the target couplings are overhead, otherwise the whole train will uncouple. (Note for GWR types, potentially ideal for a slip coach uncoupler, just have to actuate the uncoupler at the right moment!)

What particularly caught my eye was the angled guide on the nearside of the illustration, which should act to correctly align the two coupler heads as they approach, compensating for any small off-centre positioning by the mechanisms. That's pretty essential to make it a reliable autocoupler, something of a deficiency of the Roco type.

Unless I have missed some aspect of this new coupler design, it won't be able to do the Kadee trick of remaining uncoupled while being propelled off the uncoupler. But a simple hand held 'flat paddle on a stick', of the sort long used for both tension lock and hook and loop uncoupling, will work fine when the vehicle to be uncoupled is in the required location.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
... I agree with 34C's point that to be effective, a rigid coupling between NEM pockets is necessary. Sadly, I think the Roco coupling looks appalling!
If used within train formations which are crane shunted to make substitutions in the time honoured 'fiddle yard' style, a small appearance improvement is possible by removing the uncoupler loop, and inverting the couplers in the NEM pocket. This makes them slightly less obtrusive when running as seen from typical viewing positions. (The truly keen can add brake and heat pipe details to the couplers dangling below.)

As for the coupler pocket, while it has some utility for close coupling, it is sub-optimal for OO, because it was 'lifted' unchanged from HO; a long running theme in UK RTR products. Better is surely possible, but none of the brands turning out OO are keen on such innovative thoughts as a socket in the bufferbeam.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,427 Posts
... the bogies derailing and he also had a fix ...
The fixes are exactly as for all the many existing models with kinematic coupling cams:
Remove the tension lock coupler; it is totally unsuited to these mechanisms
Either use a HO coupler designed to link the mechanisms by forming a rigid bar. Simple and effective.
Or, modify the cam profile to a smooth curve instead of the peak to make recentering easier. Some loss of the close coupling on straight track, but will work with a good autocoupler such as Kadee which doesn't form a rigid bar.

And always likely with small moulded plastic parts, some may have a little roughness preventing free movement as received. 'Exercise them' before going into service to check they work freely, I bung in a little graphite powder for insurance. My oldest Bachmann and Hornby coaches with these mechanisms are still working perfectly after getting on twenty years in service, initially with Bachmann's 'pipes' rigid link (reformed to proper length) or Keen couplers, now all with the Roco pattern coupler.

...I do like to link my models back to the prototype railway as it adds much to the enjoyment of the hobby...
And on these coaches each Pullman gangway faceplate has a nicely 'buffed' section at the bottom from repeated contact, just where the centre buffer element of the Pullman faceplate is on the prototype. Is this by design or a happy accident? Looks good whatever.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top