Class 92, By Accurascale

[Graham108]

3 hours ago, Roddy Angus said:

 

Read the final sentence of his post!

 

Roddy

I read it  that No Decorum was referring to himself, NOT Damo666

[tetsudofan]

On 23/12/2022 at 16:28, Markwj said:

So ordered my class 92 Ravel from rails when the price was £250 (prior to the price increase deadline set by Accurascale) however they have tried to charge me the higher price and denied there was a price change. Have cancelled order and has left a bitter taste.

 

I am not going mad they were £250 to start with then a price increase wasn’t there?

 

Have just looked at my pre-orders listing with Rails and see that the pre-order for my Cl.92 has appeared twice for the same loco but on different pages.

 

One shows an estimated price of £249.99, deposit paid £30.00, estimated balance £219.99

 

Other shows an estimated price of £279.99, deposit paid £0.00, estimated balance £279.99

 

Nothing has hit my credit card yet, be interesting to see what does appear.....

[Markwj]

Just now, tetsudofan said:

 

Have just looked at my pre-orders listing with Rails and see that the pre-order for my Cl.92 has appeared twice for the same loco but on different pages.

 

One shows an estimated price of £249.99, deposit paid £30.00, estimated balance £219.99

 

Other shows an estimated price of £279.99, deposit paid £0.00, estimated balance £279.99

 

Nothing has hit my credit card yet, be interesting to see what does appear.....

I would screen shot that order then you can prove to rails the terms you agreed to buy- I didn’t and regretted it - they didn’t seem to believe what I was saying. I will agree I got it wrong over the promised pre order price (didn’t apply to the exclusive shop editions) but at no point did rails inform me of a price rise. 

[brittannia]

7 hours ago, Chris56057 said:

Keep telling myself I don't need one... 😅

 

But they look so so good..👍

I said that. I have bought 4 !!!!

[Roddy Angus]

2 hours ago, Graham108 said:

I read it  that No Decorum was referring to himself, NOT Damo666

Your right, it can be read that way. Please accept my apologies  No Decorum.

 

Roddy

Edited December 27, 2022 by Roddy Angus
Blooming phone would not let me type correctly.

[Johnson Street IEMD]

For those interested, there's a sound fitted DB class 92 on ebay now for #250 quid on an auction listing

 

but caution ... there's also some DCC ready examples on there for the cost of a sound fitted one ...

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Johnson Street IEMD

[Ncarter2]

1 hour ago, Johnson Street IEMD said:

For those interested, there's a sound fitted DB class 92 on ebay now for #250 quid on an auction listing

 

but caution ... there's also some DCC ready examples on there for the cost of a sound fitted one ...

 

That’s was it’s second listing, no buyers first time round. Appears sold this time. 

[Johnson Street IEMD]

2 hours ago, Ncarter2 said:

That’s was it’s second listing, no buyers first time round. Appears sold this time. 

Its still up for grabs, got about an hour left at 250 quid

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/175541830900?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160811114145%26meid%3D00c6a3f46e72423a8cbf896421ef8d17%26pid%3D100667%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D8%26sd%3D175541830900%26itm%3D175541830900%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2351460&_trksid=p2351460.c100667.m2042

[No Decorum]

7 hours ago, Roddy Angus said:

Your right, it can be read that way. Please accept my apologies  No Decorum.

 

Roddy

No apology needed. I should have expressed myself less ambiguously.

[SRman]

My Europort 92 043 arrived today from DHL. Nice that they delivered a day earlier than they advised, so I'm happy.

It took me quite a while to work out how to get both pantographs to stay down for DC mode, but I got there in the end. I used the tweaks posted earlier to lower the height of the raised pantos, so they won't foul anything on my layout if they are raised by accident.

It was funny transferring it from the programming track to the main lines, with the sound still going as I handled it, thanks to the keep-alives.

 

Like a few others have reported, one of the couplings was unclipped and loose in the plastic packaging. I used a small blob of black-tack to hold it more firmly back in place without resorting to glues.

Edited December 28, 2022 by SRman

[SRman]

Belay that (below). I found it on f8 after re-reading the function list.

 

Can anyone point me to the entry where someone posted how to run the sound-fitted 92 in 750V DC (third rail) mode with both pantographs down, please? I'm sure I saw it in here somewhere, but with 82 pages to troll through, I would be grateful if someone can narrow it down for me.

Thanks in anticipation.

Edited December 28, 2022 by SRman
Found what I needed.

[vanbasher]

I have now received my full contingent of 3 (2 DCC sound & one analogue). All 3 of these have blown me away on absolutely every front, however a little question for those on here more sound savvy than myself. F12 the dynamic brake, I assume having this function active will activate the brake fan sound this is how the locos received the nickname Dyson anyway. However I've found the sound to be very random & doesn't seem to activate everytime I'm bringing the loco to a stop. Does anyone know if there is a required criteria to make it happen when stopping? e.g. does the loco have to have a certain number of speed steps applied before stopping, or does the brake have to be applied more gently or severely to make it happen? Anyone who may know I'd greatly appreciate any advice you can give me. Many thanks once again to all at Accurascale for this absolute game changer of a model... Can't wait for the 37's now!

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

1 hour ago, vanbasher said:

Can't wait for the 37's now!

These will be the one everyone wants to see,huge following with the post steam onward and their long life in service,its the one to blow the bloody doors off us i guess.Not to long to go now.

[Krieghoff]

This little beauty arrived this morning. All i can say is what an absolutely superb model. So glad i managed to secure this model albeit i don't run OLE. Well done Accurascale and the team. Another triumph for modern image and hi fidelity modelling. Dont ever compromise guys. You are literally on the right track!

Edited December 28, 2022 by Krieghoff
Typos

[96701]

My wonderful son gave me 92001 DCC ready for Christmas and a Lokpilot V5 Basic because he wanted to see it run. What a superb model it is. Trouble is, I'm now looking at wiring the main lines!

[CazRail]

My Victor Hugo arrived this morning. Absolutely blown away. Superb bit of kit.

[Lyddrail]

I gave my Accurascale class 92 92003 a test run, which went very well and smoothly at various speeds. Hauling a long rake without trouble. The model comes with most of the cables and pipes fitted on both ends, with the front plates (or whatever they are called) to be added plus the cable on these. Without them the tension lock coupling can work with the pipes etc fitted. Screw couplings are provided as are card window blinds plus etched arrows and plaques. There is a lot of fine detail including the cab interiors.

I have very few items that are not spot on, some of which have been mentioned by others.

1.     The bogies lack some depth and openings that Lima's version did include.

2.     The tunnel polos are moulded, and the silver paint or print is not smooth which looks odd (see pics 1 & 2). The arrows and plaques prints look the same. Revolution Trains used etches on their N gauge model.

3.     The shoebeams are painted silver but should be light grey (anti flash paint). They are different on each side of the bogie, but the leading shoebeam should be taller. It is taller but doesn’t look enough to me (see pics 3 & 4).

4.     The front cab windows don't have the rivets/screws that Lima represented (see pic 5). They are not that noticeable.

5.     Something is wrong with the cab side windows. The windows are black but there should be a section of black paint under the windows. This is missing, so are the windows too big, or is the divide between the greys out of place?  On further investigation the bottom of the dark grey should be level with the cab front black section. Confirming this is the grilles on the righthand of the side, where the second bolt from the bottom is too low (see pics 6 & 7). Therefore, the grey divide is too high making the polos too high as well. The doors would now be wrong as the top door handle lines up with the divide as is. It looks like there is not enough space between the handle recess and the bottom of the door window.

6.     The pantograph head appears too big and stays in an angled position.

7.     Now the elephant in the room! The roof is very nice, but the pantographs may be clever in raising on DCC, but they can't lower into the stowed position which is level with the cab roof! Being approximately 5mm too high. Not good for 3rd rail operation! Are they too big? Does the raising mechanism dictate this? I will look at somehow getting them lower, but it will take some doing.

However, it is a very good model overall. I point out what I believe to be incorrect so you can decide if it bothers you or not. I will likely not try and correct many of these, the pantograph being the most important to improve 3rd rail operating.

[Afroal05]

I caved, after reading this thread since I received my first (and originally only 92) and everyone's euphoria at their own models I started debating getting 92020. I've ordered the mk5s and made a bit of an oversight not knowing that 92038 never actually hauled the mk5s in the condition modelled. I spent two days watching the remaining stock count down and the other half telling me that I should get it (which felt like reverse psychology) only to find that late last night there was one left, I panicked, I bought it.

 

Thanks to AS for making such a stellar model, so jaw dropping that despite absolutely not needing another, I've bought one anyway.

[BR(S)]

Hatton's have listed nine variants of the Accurascale 92 in today's new stock items.  Not sure if any are sold out versions.

[Dan Griffin]

So i caved and bought a sound 92003. It is simply stunning. I did a quick review here. The haulage capacity of this loco has to be seen to be believed! 
 

 

[Accurascale Fran]

Hi everyone,

 

Just a quick note to say that we have less than 10% of the Class 92 production run now in stock. So, if you want one, it would be best to act sooner rather than later.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

[Jeremy Davison]

21 hours ago, Lyddrail said:

I gave my Accurascale class 92 92003 a test run, which went very well and smoothly at various speeds. Hauling a long rake without trouble. The model comes with most of the cables and pipes fitted on both ends, with the front plates (or whatever they are called) to be added plus the cable on these. Without them the tension lock coupling can work with the pipes etc fitted. Screw couplings are provided as are card window blinds plus etched arrows and plaques. There is a lot of fine detail including the cab interiors.

I have very few items that are not spot on, some of which have been mentioned by others.

1.     The bogies lack some depth and openings that Lima's version did include.

2.     The tunnel polos are moulded, and the silver paint or print is not smooth which looks odd (see pics 1 & 2). The arrows and plaques prints look the same. Revolution Trains used etches on their N gauge model.

3.     The shoebeams are painted silver but should be light grey (anti flash paint). They are different on each side of the bogie, but the leading shoebeam should be taller. It is taller but doesn’t look enough to me (see pics 3 & 4).

4.     The front cab windows don't have the rivets/screws that Lima represented (see pic 5). They are not that noticeable.

5.     Something is wrong with the cab side windows. The windows are black but there should be a section of black paint under the windows. This is missing, so are the windows too big, or is the divide between the greys out of place?  On further investigation the bottom of the dark grey should be level with the cab front black section. Confirming this is the grilles on the righthand of the side, where the second bolt from the bottom is too low (see pics 6 & 7). Therefore, the grey divide is too high making the polos too high as well. The doors would now be wrong as the top door handle lines up with the divide as is. It looks like there is not enough space between the handle recess and the bottom of the door window.

6.     The pantograph head appears too big and stays in an angled position.

7.     Now the elephant in the room! The roof is very nice, but the pantographs may be clever in raising on DCC, but they can't lower into the stowed position which is level with the cab roof! Being approximately 5mm too high. Not good for 3rd rail operation! Are they too big? Does the raising mechanism dictate this? I will look at somehow getting them lower, but it will take some doing.

However, it is a very good model overall. I point out what I believe to be incorrect so you can decide if it bothers you or not. I will likely not try and correct many of these, the pantograph being the most important to improve 3rd rail operating.

 

Hi Paul,

It's always useful to get another take on these lovely models.

On point 2, I was pleased to see in my model of 92036 Bertolt Brecht that there are etched arrows and plaques in a separate accessory bag. Hopefully you have some too which will address this point.

I do fully agree with point 7 though and think that the ability of the pan to sit level within the loading gauge and to also track the overhead wire properly are linked and need some looking at. As the pan head clips off and is a separate moulding this may make it easier to provide a fix or for us to amend.

Hopefully spare pan heads will become available in due course.

Cheers

Jeremy

[Sweetling Park]

I apologise if I am a little late in joining the thread, but it has been nice to read the comments and thank you to those of you have shared photos of your models.

 

One of my Class 92s, 92020, arrived yesterday and I am very impressed by the level of detail.  Mine arrived with one coupler pocket detached and loose in the box, like others have said, but is easily clipped back into place.  I also like the new style label on the box as it makes it easier to see the contents at a glance.  I am looking forward to receiving my other Class 92s which will hopefully be delivered soon.

 

I understand that the Class 92 has a 5 pole motor fitted so that it will be able to haul a decent rake behind it.  I have some Mark 5 coaches on their way and was wondering what the recommended/maximum number of coaches that a Class 92 could realistically pull, whether it be a split portion of 8 coaches, full rake of 16 coaches or something else.  If someone could advise me please then I would be most grateful, as I don't wish to overload the motor.

 

I was looking at the enclosed documentation and understand that the locomotive will need a touch of light oil and greese in certain locations every 100 hours.  However, I am unsure where the gear tower is so would be grateful if someone could advise me, please.  Would I be correct in thinking that this and the other locations will require removal of the bodyshell?  I apologise in advance if I've missed this in the documentation.

 

Also, does anyone happen to know how long the locomotive is, please?  This is so that I can add it to my spreadsheet of my rolling stock, which will come in handy when planning lengths of sidings, headshunts etc.

 

On 28/12/2022 at 15:36, Afroal05 said:

I caved, after reading this thread since I received my first (and originally only 92) and everyone's euphoria at their own models I started debating getting 92020. I've ordered the mk5s and made a bit of an oversight not knowing that 92038 never actually hauled the mk5s in the condition modelled.

I made the same oversight and didn't realise that 92038 as modelled would technically be incorrect to haul the Mark 5s either.  However, whilst I would like things to be prototypical, I am applying the rule that it's my railway so it doesn't matter.  I now have 92020 and will soon have 92010 in the fleet to make up for it.

 

Thank you in advance for your help.

[McC]

19 minutes ago, Sweetling Park said:

I have some Mark 5 coaches on their way and was wondering what the recommended/maximum number of coaches that a Class 92 could realistically pull, whether it be a split portion of 8 coaches, full rake of 16 coaches or something else.

 

Yes.

 

(Joking answer aside, we tested with alllll the sleepers. The loco should have zero trouble hauling at least 30 on a permanent basis. 

[Peter749]

On 21/12/2022 at 09:53, Torbay Express said:

Thinking laterally, is there any requirement for both pantographs to be operational?  Whilst ideal to have both units operative, just wondering if some ocasions where anomalies occur (ie use front) whether this could be the reason. 

Both pantographs are not in use at the same time when in motion - it is up to the driver and the railway system as to which pantograph is used