Accurascale Class 55 Deltic - 4mm scale

[McC]

As above the kinematic works best with a fixed or rigid coupler. We recommend kadee and similar or fixed bar couplers. If you must use tension locks we recommend putting one of the supplied pairs with the loco into the leading wagon or coach to guarantee compatibility 

[boxbrownie]

Well I use Kadees on all the other stock (the track cleaning wagon has each type) but I was reluctant to try a Kadee until it was running satisfactorily as standard.

 

If your saying I need to change the couplings to Kadee I’ll try that tomorrow.

 

I’ll try first putting one of the Locos TLC into the cleaner wagon to test it first.

[boxbrownie]

Tried the other Loco coupler in the truck so they are a matched pair but still the same outcome, the kinetic just doesn’t want to centre after a curve or reverse curve points, as below first one was a curve to straight transition, second is the reverse curve point transition, it does it both ways!

It’s not like it’s pulling a breeze block 😉

[boxbrownie]

I give up…..just tried Kadees and exactly the same result, the kinematic refusing to return to centre!

without butchering the Loco coupling mechanism it appears I cannot drag a train with the Loco.

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, markw said:

 

To improve reliability you need change a coupling to have a matched pair, reduce the weight of the train or increase the radius. The only way to get totally reliable operation of a kinematic cam is to couple it to another one using a rigid coupling such as the roco close coupler.

But this Loco clearly states it’ll operate on R2, in fact the curve to straight transition is coming off a radius 4 curve, and as you see I tried a Kadee and it still doesn’t return.

[MikeParkin65]

2 hours ago, thetrains said:

Oh dear, sorry for you.  I am removing my kinematics tomorrow after advice from visiting local club and seeing issues with their Deltics, no two seem to be the same from their experience.

For balance both of mine perform perfectly and identically from either either end using Kadees

[boxbrownie]

13 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

For balance both of mine perform perfectly and identically from either either end using Kadees

Mine went away for repair as it derailed running light engine with one of the kinematic sticking after transitioning a curve, now this one runs fine light engine but any load on the coupling even with Kadees seems to have the same effect, stronger spring on the kinematic maybe?  I have no idea.

[Enterprisingwestern]

WD40.

Cures everything.

 

Mike.

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

49 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

It’s not like it’s pulling a breeze block

@AY Modhas this covered,he will i am sure enlighten you to any centering issues if the coupling is still on his model.........

Im sure a chat with the team at the towers will help sort this  for you, possibly try upping the  weight in the wagon behind the loco to see if it improves things.

[markw]

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

But this Loco clearly states it’ll operate on R2, in fact the curve to straight transition is coming off a radius 4 curve, and as you see I tried a Kadee and it still doesn’t return.

You are trying to couple the worst possible combination of coupling arrangements, the Bachmann VAA has the single axle 'bogie' which has no centering spring with the nem pocket attached to the 'bogie'.

They should work perfectly with a rigid coupling but may need a longer version.

The real solution to this problem would be an nem pocket that could be unclipped from the cam, inverted and clipped to the bogie frame.

[boxbrownie]

14 hours ago, markw said:

You are trying to couple the worst possible combination of coupling arrangements, the Bachmann VAA has the single axle 'bogie' which has no centering spring with the nem pocket attached to the 'bogie'.

They should work perfectly with a rigid coupling but may need a longer version.

The real solution to this problem would be an nem pocket that could be unclipped from the cam, inverted and clipped to the bogie frame.

But I shouldn’t have to use a non standard coupling to make the system work, and it isn’t the Bachmann VAA, it’s the ROCO track cleaning wagon which also has a kinetic type coupler.

[markw]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

But I shouldn’t have to use a non standard coupling to make the system work, and it isn’t the Bachmann VAA, it’s the ROCO track cleaning wagon which also has a kinetic type coupler.

The kinetic cam was never designed to work with the hook and bar coupler, the spring is to centre it when not coupled, when coupled it is centered by rigidity of the coupling. So it is the hook and bar coupling that is non standard when used with a cam.

The hook and bar was designed to be rigidly mounted to a wagon or bogie frame.

Using a hook and bar that does not provide the rigidity needed to centre the cam is not within the design parameters.

Using a hook and bar that is mounted so it can move from side to side is not within its design parameters.

As you are coupling two vehicles that have cams the best option is to use a rigid coupling as they are designed to be used, another option that might work would be to place another vehicle with couplings that can't move sideways between them.

A track cleaning car will have extra friction which will have a similar affect to more weight.

 

 

[Zunnan]

21 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

I give up…..just tried Kadees and exactly the same result, the kinematic refusing to return to centre!

without butchering the Loco coupling mechanism it appears I cannot drag a train with the Loco.

That example in particular will most likely be down to the close coupling cam on the Gaugemaster track cleaning wagon. Mine behaves exactly the same no matter what is hauling it, whether the loco has bogie mounted couplers or kinematics. Given the drag these wagons have, I think AYs breeze block was a lighter load…a Bachmann class 20 or 24 can barely shift these monsters.

[Covkid]

Only a guess, but I am surmising that this particular loco has an issue which prevents the NEM box on it's arm from self centring.  Other deltics from the same batch seem to work just fine so is there a rough spot on this coupler which prevents it retuning to centre ? Is the other end the same ?

[andyman7]

22 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

I give up…..just tried Kadees and exactly the same result, the kinematic refusing to return to centre!

without butchering the Loco coupling mechanism it appears I cannot drag a train with the Loco.

A Kadee is not a rigid bar coupling. A rigid coupling is a Roco close coupler, a Fleischmann Profi-coupling or similar, where there is no articulation at all at the point where the couplings join.

 

This subject has been covered extensively in other threads, but essentially, for a kinematic coupling to work properly it needs a rigid coupling. It can work with others but is much more susceptible to issues as seen above, especially on curves, pointwork, etc.

[boxbrownie]

4 hours ago, markw said:

The kinetic cam was never designed to work with the hook and bar coupler, the spring is to centre it when not coupled, when coupled it is centered by rigidity of the coupling. So it is the hook and bar coupling that is non standard when used with a cam.

The hook and bar was designed to be rigidly mounted to a wagon or bogie frame.

Using a hook and bar that does not provide the rigidity needed to centre the cam is not within the design parameters.

Using a hook and bar that is mounted so it can move from side to side is not within its design parameters.

As you are coupling two vehicles that have cams the best option is to use a rigid coupling as they are designed to be used, another option that might work would be to place another vehicle with couplings that can't move sideways between them.

A track cleaning car will have extra friction which will have a similar affect to more weight.

 

 

Did you see my post on trying Kadees as well?

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, andyman7 said:

A Kadee is not a rigid bar coupling. A rigid coupling is a Roco close coupler, a Fleischmann Profi-coupling or similar, where there is no articulation at all at the point where the couplings join.

 

This subject has been covered extensively in other threads, but essentially, for a kinematic coupling to work properly it needs a rigid coupling. It can work with others but is much more susceptible to issues as seen above, especially on curves, pointwork, etc.

So some of us have to put up with a model that doesn’t do what it says it will do using the industry standard coupler it came supplied with?

That is just crazy logic, and maybe AS should provide alternative coupling method for those that do not use “rigid” couplings.

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, Zunnan said:

That example in particular will most likely be down to the close coupling cam on the Gaugemaster track cleaning wagon. Mine behaves exactly the same no matter what is hauling it, whether the loco has bogie mounted couplers or kinematics. Given the drag these wagons have, I think AYs breeze block was a lighter load…a Bachmann class 20 or 24 can barely shift these monsters.

It happens with other wagons/carriages as well, my example using the cleaning wagon was just because I needed to run it as the layout had not been used for a while and thought it could do with a clean and what better Loco than the heavyweight AS Deltic, several of my Heljan Locos can happily pull the wagon as well, without issue.

 

 

[Hound Dog]

Guys,

 

pls see my posts of several weeks ago re modifying the point on the Kinematic coupling cam…….. no issues at all since doing this on R2 curves and inclines

[Covkid]

30 minutes ago, Hound Dog said:

Guys,

 

pls see my posts of several weeks ago re modifying the point on the Kinematic coupling cam…….. no issues at all since doing this on R2 curves and inclines

 

Thanks for that "Hound Dog".  

I was speculating in my head whether the dead centre part of the "v" was causing issues with the swing of the couple arm. Looks like you confirmed my own cranial impressions   

[boxbrownie]

58 minutes ago, Hound Dog said:

Guys,

 

pls see my posts of several weeks ago re modifying the point on the Kinematic coupling cam…….. no issues at all since doing this on R2 curves and inclines

I did see that and quite frankly hoped it was a “one off” issue, and waited to see what the returned Nimbus was like, I may well modify the kinetic in the same manner, it’ll be a problem for me but hey Ho, we are here to conquer problems 🤣

[boxbrownie]

28 minutes ago, Covkid said:

 

Thanks for that "Hound Dog".  

I was speculating in my head whether the dead centre part of the "v" was causing issues with the swing of the couple arm. Looks like you confirmed my own cranial impressions   

It does seem like the point when manipulating the coupling by hand under slight load has a pronounced peak to the movement which seems to act as an “over centre” position, you may have found the answer.

[stewartingram]

On 20/08/2022 at 18:17, Enterprisingwestern said:

WD40.

Cures everything.

 

Mike.

Bodger's tool No.1.

[Hound Dog]

The profile on the kinematic coupling is too extreme and when there is a higher than normal degree of sideway load on the follower, it simply cannot traverse around the point and locks, thus causing derailment.

 

Smoothing the profile cures the problem and makes the arrangement more forgiving of certain layout conditions, eg curved points, R2 curves or curves on an incline / decline.

 

I hope Accurascale take this onboard for future models as they seem intent on sticking with the Kinematic coupling , but I for one do not want to see this issue on the Class 37 or 31’s that I have on order !

[markw]

4 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

Did you see my post on trying Kadees as well?

Yes, but while a kadee is better in many ways than a hook and bar, as others have said it is not a rigid coupling so would not help with your problem.