What N gauge do you want to see from Accurascale?

[The Pilotman]

An excellent post by @Dr Al who clearly knows what he’s talking about.

[Steven B]

15 hours ago, Dr Al said:

For rolling stock, if these are used (and I'm not against them being used here, with careful design, as when coupled they work well to close the gaps), then they need to be designed so they are turned by the bogies, such that the coupler follows the track centre, such that they can then couple on curves.

 

I don't deny that there's an issue with couplings aligning on curves, but if rolling stock bogies can be designed to push the coupling in the right direction, then surely the same can be done on loco bogies?

 

 

 

Steven B.

 

[Dr Al]

13 minutes ago, Steven B said:

 

I don't deny that there's an issue with couplings aligning on curves, but if rolling stock bogies can be designed to push the coupling in the right direction, then surely the same can be done on loco bogies?

 

 

Bear in mind too that I'm not sure we've seen much rolling stock that does push the coupler in the right direction. The Farish Mk1s are close, but not enough - only happening on really tight curves, and not pushing it enough [though minor modifications can make them function in this way. Generally, with rakes that aren't separated, this is only needed on the end coaches, which is why I find it less of a grumble than the locos].

 

Maybe in some specific cases for locos this can be made to work. But generally from my observations of this on models like the EFE 17, Dapol 50, 68, Farish 90, no.

 

Why? The pivot centre position of most loco bogies is significantly more inboard than on many coaches/wagons*, either because of bogie position, or bogie length (particularly Co-Cos). This means the body overhang is proportionally greater, so to push the coupling to be central between the rails then can point it in the wrong direction too i.e. it points too much toward the centre of the circle described by the curve it is on, because its pivot centre does not match that of the bogie.... Difficult to explain without photos, which of that instance, I don't immediately have available, but it is clear from the examples out there that I've played with, that even on short bogie wheelbase locos (like the EFE 17) it is unlikely to work well - also the amount the coupler needs to be pushed is much larger, so actually envisaging the right mechanism to even achieve this is not immediately clear - maybe someone can, but I don't see it.

 

As such, this is all becomes very obtuse, as compared to just bogie mounting the coupling, which intrinsically puts the coupler where it needs to be, all the time, every time.

Cheers,
Alan

 

* Of course there may be examples of rolling stock this also applies to, but it seems like this is less common. At the other extreme, certainly 4 wheel stock like the Dapol blue spot fish van do not need this system as it does not do anything due to their short size - I've looked closely at these models to see if they extend on even tight curves, and they don't. So in cases like this, we are paying for something that is more complex, more parts to tool and assemble, that demonstrably does....precisely nothing.

[Mike Harvey]

@Dr Al What you have written is thought provoking and matches my experience.

 

The coupler displacement issue is important from an operational viewpoint. The layout  i am building involves a lot of shunting and I have designed in the uncoupler magnets for Dapol Easi-Shunts to all be where couplers will be close to the track centre line.  It all works well and is a pleasure to play with using an N gauge Society Hunslet and Kato class 77 (66 with air con). I did try coupling the Class 77 on a curve to a continental 4 axle grain wagon and this worked fine. I  did  not check how the lateral coupler displacement on the Class 77 catered for this. It may be that the obstacle deflector limits the coupler movement. I' ll check when I am back with the loco in a week or so. 

 

Just as an aside, another bugbear can be poor soldered connections which in recent times have been an issue with some Arnold locos and railcars. I prefer a brass to brass connection with the potential to adjust the tension as needed (Farish Class 150).

 

My vote would be for an Accurascale Mk 2c range.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Mike Harvey
Spelling

[47475]

My vote would be MK2B/C coaches and potentially also MK2D. I am very happy to see how much support there is for MK2B/C on this thread.

[D9020 Nimbus]

3 hours ago, Dr Al said:

Of course there may be examples of rolling stock this also applies to, but it seems like this is less common. At the other extreme, certainly 4 wheel stock like the Dapol blue spot fish van do not need this system as it does not do anything due to their short size - I've looked closely at these models to see if they extend on even tight curves, and they don't. So in cases like this, we are paying for something that is more complex, more parts to tool and assemble, that demonstrably does....precisely nothing.

It’s worth remembering that close-coupling mechanisms are designed for couplings which lock rigidly together—offhand the only N gauge coupling of this type is the Fleischmann Profi-coupling. Without such a mechanism, such a coupling will cause stock to derail on curves. However I'm not aware of anybody using this type of coupling on British N gauge stock, where most wagons do not have such a "kinematic" mechanism.

 

Another important thing, I think, is to make sure that Dapol Easi-Shunts can fit the pocket. And, when it comes to the Rapido coupling, make sure it can lift properly. Some Farish locos have couplings that don't lift at all (some 08s and WDs at least).

[jpendle]

23 hours ago, Dr Al said:

there's no easy access to the commutator for cleaning (something that should be considered basic maintenance IMHO)

I'm ashamed to say that, even with a degree in electronics and 40 years experience in electronics manufacturing, I had to search for the definition of a commutator before typing this.

The last time I did any electric motor theory was for Physics A level.

I suspect that a great many modellers have no clue about how DC motors work and wouldn't have the first idea about how to clean a commutator, and therein lies the problem for the manufacturers, do they design models for those of us who can strip down a DC motor, or for the majority (my assumption) who can't?

 

Regards,

 

John P

[Stefen1988]

How about TT:120? 😆😆😆😆😆

[Dr Al]

4 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

It’s worth remembering that close-coupling mechanisms are designed for couplings which lock rigidly together—offhand the only N gauge coupling of this type is the Fleischmann Profi-coupling. Without such a mechanism, such a coupling will cause stock to derail on curves. However I'm not aware of anybody using this type of coupling on British N gauge stock, where most wagons do not have such a "kinematic" mechanism.

 

Another important thing, I think, is to make sure that Dapol Easi-Shunts can fit the pocket. And, when it comes to the Rapido coupling, make sure it can lift properly. Some Farish locos have couplings that don't lift at all (some 08s and WDs at least).

 

 

In terms of locking, yes, this is true. But there is also another way, which actually makes them function to their maximal ability- namely to close the gap up with appropriately shortened coupler heads so the corridors just touch on straight track. Then on curves the corridors will force the coupler system to actually work kinematically. Any coupler can be used - I do this mostly with standard Rapidos (so a short shank on one coach and a standard on the adjacent) or Dapol's fixed knuckles.

This works on most of the current models, though there are a few exceptions, where pronounced buffers cause locking (e.g. Farish Stanier). But Farish Mk1s, Mk2s, Dapol Mk3s, and Dapol Gresleys all work well. Of course the closed up gap also looks good.

 

Some examples (excuse photo quality - these were taken years and years and years ago) - note I have done precisely nothing fancy (yet virtually nobody else does this!):

 

Farish Mk2 (short + standard rapido)

 

Dapol Mk3 (short fixed knuckles)

 

Farish Mk1  (short + standard rapido)

 

Dapol Gresley (short rapidos)

 

These all work well as the buffers are retracted or in the case of Mk3s, not present.

 

Regarding Farish's execution - agreed. Farish have frankly waded through a mess of attempts at NEM sockets and couplers over the last decade, only in the last few years actually getting one that meets the standard. They've had:

- original execution, which had the pips on the coupler too small a diameter, and their receptacles the same - this is why early sockets (e.g. many of the first Mk1 batches) are so damn tight

- floppy sockets, unfortunately something still on some recent models - the little plastic 'wings' that should keep them centred either being moulded at an angle that doesn't make them function, or being so fine and weak that they don't work

- second iteration of the coupler and socket, where the pips were fixed, but the coupler head design had a completely non-standard symmetrical socket that relied on the base of the socket (rather than the two forks at the rearmost of the coupler head) to sit at the right height. These just about work in the Farish sockets, but on anything else they sag.

- many pockets on the current design are too stiff, so the coupler can get stuck upwards. Current class 37s are a culprit of this, I've had to patiently remove material from the heads on numerous to get these to free up.

 

Couplers at this size are a precision device, and as such, for proper reliable functionality need to be treated with more care in both design and manufacture.

 

Cheers,

Alan

[Dr Al]

23 minutes ago, jpendle said:

I'm ashamed to say that, even with a degree in electronics and 40 years experience in electronics manufacturing, I had to search for the definition of a commutator before typing this.

The last time I did any electric motor theory was for Physics A level.

I suspect that a great many modellers have no clue about how DC motors work and wouldn't have the first idea about how to clean a commutator, and therein lies the problem for the manufacturers, do they design models for those of us who can strip down a DC motor, or for the majority (my assumption) who can't?

 

 

 

Everyone knowing how motors work is not the point - I don't think anyone expects that; though better messaging around basic maintenance is something the hobby is again lacking, or has a lot of misinformation on. The pertinent point is that maintenance remains necessary whatever the owner's knowledge. If they don't know, they are likely to send it for service or repair, and that is where the rub comes - some of these models are actually barely possible for even experienced repairers to do basic maintenance on (without junking the motors and replacing, at considerable expense). For my fleet, I've had to accumulate various precision tools and (at times borderline ridiculous) ways of getting in to some of todays motors, just to clean the brush carbon out, which is something that can be done in minutes on older style motors (because they don't need stripped down...).

Some motors are actually impossible to open - Farish's 7mm coreless is an example - it either works, or it's in the bin, and that (at £20 a shot) is...........expensive. And they do fail - I've seen several.

 

Design changes do not need to be significant to do this (and should be trivial for a clean sheet design IMHO) - Dapol is a good example - their 5 pole skew wound motor only needs a 5mm square hole tooled in on one side to expose the commutator. Currently the only methods are to either remove the flywheels and the motor end cap fully; or drill out your own access hole (which is one for the die hards!).

 

I do feel that none of these things are in any way complex - the mechanism in a model is not conceptually complicated at all, and wouldn't take much for those of knowledge to bring about, so it does amaze how poor some models can be.

 

Anyways, I fear there's enough of the soapbox from me - I don't want to drag thread too much away from the original point.

 

Cheers,
Alan

[McC]

perhaps one answer to the motor issue is a ready supply of standardised, not expensive replacement motors ?

[Dr Al]

1 hour ago, scumcat said:

I’m not sure this is progress, I thought the world was moving away from a throw away culture. I’m sure many out there have locos with motors in them that have lasted years. It seems to me that modern motors are so throw away that they are just not reliable.These days the mark up on replacement motors is eye watering.

I totally agree.

 

We are in the strange situation now where locos can potentially be expected to go through 2 or 3 or more motors in their lifespan [some have tested motors to destruction and shown lifespans of ~100 hours] - this is just a complete waste. Given that open frame easy to maintain motors can last the lifetime of a loco (one only need look at original Minitrix - many still going after now *55* years (first N gauge they did was 1967)) the current situation is in many ways embarrassing.

 

The question is to manufacturers: What is so bad about a traditional 5 pole, skew wound, carbon brushed motor, that it's dropped out of favour? Or a larger coreless with exchangeable brushes, instead of the short lifespan, irreplaceable commutation seen now? I imagine the reason is: that the 3 pole can and coreless motors are el-cheapo, and that most manufacturers don't bother to make their own motors any more. Sadly too, manufacturers of superb quality motors, like Mashima, also are disappearing.

 

The markup is quantifiable - the 7mm coreless motors Bachmann use (or at least something identical) were available from China direct for a short period, and they were ~£1.50 each, delivered. Bachmann are charging £20+. Now sure, I expect Bachmann to make a profit on this, but close to 14x, and at a level that can often consign the model to "beyond economical repair" bin, just because it needs new brush gear, feels a bit sore. I guess if spares could be a lot cheaper, that would be better, but it's still a lot of hardware going to landfill.

 

Again, this is not theoretical - I've seen a lot of modern Farish with worn out, or trashed brushgear, some less than 2 years old. E.g Farish 3 pole 1015 can, badly grooved worn out commutator, and dead wiper brushes. Otherwise totally fine, coils all read good resistance, but in the bin. IIRC this was from a Farish Class 55, so not an old model when I pulled this one (early 2020):

 

Cheers,

Alan - oh dear, sorry it's the soapbox again.

 

P.s. If you run a model for 1 hour a week (seems reasonable?) then with 100 hour life, it'll be dead in less than 2 years. That means even if you keep it only 10 years, you'll go through 5 motors in that time, costing more than the loco's new value to get replaced (assuming sent for repair). Given how difficult and infrequent batches are, keeping a model 10 years isn't unreasonable either.....many of us expect to have these models until we croak it, or change to something else!

Edited March 2, 2023 by Dr Al
typo

[Scott B]

The range of Mk2 s for me and a skinhead 31 if a loco were to be produced.

[CF MRC]

The comments about replacing motors or servicing are interesting. We have always used coreless motors on Copenhagen Fields. The number of times these have been replaced due to motor failure are minimal, in fact I can’t recall when one was replaced for that reason. These motors have generally been made by Maxon and are expensive. However, we have recently started using the Tramfabriek motors which are good value and have worked well over the last few years.

 

http://tramfabriek.co.uk/drives-n.html#!/~/ 
 

The improvement in performance of a Dapol B17 re-motored with one of their drop in units is very significant - the room lights don’t dim when one starts!

 

I strongly recommend the use of coreless motors in 2mm scale: there is less vibration - so better traction, they run better with flywheels because of no magnetic lock and are easy to install - they can simply be glued into a saddle.
 

Tim

Edited March 6, 2023 by CF MRC

[TomE]

Well the NGN poll is showing some clear leaders out of the existing Accurascale OO range people would like to see pass through the shrink ray. Thanks to all those who have voted so far, and for those that haven't you can do so here 

The Class 37, Mk.2 coaches and HAA + variants are leading each of the rolling stock categories, although the Manor and HUO are also doing well. 

 

Interestingly, the item with the highest number of votes so far is from the supplementary question I added about the important considerations when buying N Gauge models, with running qualities currently leading that section. That no doubt speaks to some of the issues DrAl raised around motors & reliability.

I'll be recording an interview with Accurascale about their thoughts around N Gauge at Alexandra Palace on the Sunday which will go up on NGN shortly after. 

Tom.  

Edited March 10, 2023 by TomE

[Davexoc]

On 10/03/2023 at 12:40, TomE said:

Well the NGN poll is showing some clear leaders out of the existing Accurascale OO range people would like to see pass through the shrink ray. Thanks to all those who have voted so far, and for those that haven't you can do so here 

The Class 37, Mk.2 coaches and HAA + variants are leading each of the rolling stock categories, although the Manor and HUO are also doing well. 

 

Interestingly, the item with the highest number of votes so far is from the supplementary question I added about the important considerations when buying N Gauge models, with running qualities currently leading that section. That no doubt speaks to some of the issues DrAl raised around motors & reliability.

 

Interesting where comprehensive lighting features, sound and long term availability have featured in the poll......

[snitchthebudgie]

An immediate, if late addition to the list - a J69.

[masonc61]

If the J69 just announced by Accurascale for OO were to also be done in N then I am definitely up for a couple.

[TomE]

I recorded the short interview for NGN with Accurascale at Alexandra Palace on Sunday. Just need to edit the footage into something presentable and then it’ll be up on the site & YT channel. 
 

Tom. 

[Accurascale Fran]

Hi Tom,

 

Was a pleasure to do the interview with you and what an honour to have the first ever video recorded interview with N Gauge News. Many thanks for that!

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

[woodenhead]

Just now, Accurascale Fran said:

Hi Tom,

 

Was a pleasure to do the interview with you and what an honour to have the first ever video recorded interview with N Gauge News. Many thanks for that!

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

As long as you supplied decorated samples Fran

[TomE]

Well here's the NGN chat with Accurascale recorded at Alexandra Palace. First time we've done this so be gentle 😂

 

 

Hope it's of interest! 

Tom.  

 

[Southernfrance]

I would back up the CF MRC post in terms of using coreless motors. We use a lot of modern RTR locos containing these on James Street and they have not caused significant issues in the seven years we have been on the circuit. I would suggest that we work locos harder than most, with long trains and continual gradients, although the latter are not as severe as some modellers might use. I also wonder if an open frame motor would fit into some of the locos that are now being produced. I cannot see how Farish would have got one in the C or 2MT for instance.

 

My pet hate from any manufacturer is extended buffers. We seem to have accepted that any buffer in N (I suspect it's not a problem in the bigger scales where you can have sprung buffers), whether on an RTR item or as an aftermarket item from a specialist supplier, needs to be modelled fully extended. On coaches such as Farish Staniers and SECR Birdcages, this means that these cannot be successfully be truly close coupled. I appreciate that some people might buy the model to display, in which extended buffers are OK, but if you want to run them, which I suspect a lot more people do, then close coupling is out. Given that the accessory packs often contain items that are never used, how about shorter, maybe even slightly underscale length, buffers that could be used to replace the fully extended ones. I may be alone in cutting buffers down to make close coupling possible, but to me seeing coaches with huge gaps is really unprototypical.

 

Dave

[Accurascale Fran]

48 minutes ago, TomE said:

Well here's the NGN chat with Accurascale recorded at Alexandra Palace. First time we've done this so be gentle 😂

 

 

Hope it's of interest! 

Tom.  

 

 

Hi Tom,

 

Many thanks for this and it was really well done by you. A pleasure to talk to and to deal with. We're also honoured to be the first interview of your YouTube channel and hope your readers and subscribers find it of interest.

 

I guess we better make some N gauge now!

 

Cheers!

 

Fran 

[TomE]

27 minutes ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

Hi Tom,

 

Many thanks for this and it was really well done by you. A pleasure to talk to and to deal with. We're also honoured to be the first interview of your YouTube channel and hope your readers and subscribers find it of interest.

 

I guess we better make some N gauge now!

 

Cheers!

 

Fran 

Thanks Fran, it was great to be able to chat with you guys and hopefully it won’t be first and only time! 

 

Tom.