Class 66, By Accurascale

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

Could possibly be due to Sutton locomotive works having a smaller customer base (unless I’m mistaken). Personally I can’t comment on them as I don’t own any of their locos. It it’s worth noting tho that there’s is a distinct difference between a decoder needing to be ‘mapped’ to work, and a decoder outright not working. I don’t know which the Sutton loco works model falls into, however if it is the latter then it is just as much of an issue as with other models. Even tho I use Zimo I’d still argue they should work with ESU once the function mapping has been adjusted accordingly etc.

Edited May 13 by Bryn_Bach_Railway

[Kaput]

36 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

Interestingly, according to reports the SLW Class 24s needed a special Zimo chip, yet I don’t recall people getting so vocal. 

 

Roy

 

Yup, the SLW 24 uses a modified Plux22 that has the index pin connected to a function output. Used for one of the cab lights IIRC.

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

If that wasn’t clearly stated in the product description then as far as I’m concerned that falls into the same category as the AS37’s do. I’d like to make that clear as there are some that think I just dislike ESU which is not the case at all, however I’ll admit it might’ve seemed like that as all the models I have had trouble with have been ESU circuit boards. 
 

At the end of the day in the case of the 37 and apparently the SLW 24, if your using a non-standard setup it should be clearly advertised in product description etc. As for the cavalex 56 and As 66 and other models, if your going to recommend a specific decoder and mapping then this should also be advertised in product descriptions however with a caveat that other decoders may or may not also work. 
 

Anyways in an attempt to move back to 66’s and specifically the models, we are only 1 week away from the websites ETA of 20th of may for the rest of the batch! obviously that is subject to changes, however it does bring alot of excitement as well as precautions for the possibly shed infestation on many modern layouts. Time to make sure there’s enough room for them all I think.

[BR Blue]

But it is not non-standard. There is no standard beyond a certain point. SLW, Accurascale etc. are delivering functions beyond the standard.

Edited May 14 by BR Blue
Grammar

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

For the SLW 24 and AS 37, yes they are expanding on the standard. However the 21mtc standard allows upto 10aux functions and 2 directional lighting functions. Directional lighting at aux 1&2 being ‘full power’, and aux 3-10 being ‘logic level’. Some of the these need to be changed from input functions and so require function mapping, which I would say is expected for models of this complexity. However The AS 66, cav 56 and some other models fall within this 10+2 limit but still, for some unknown reason have problems with other decoders (In my experience). I will say there’s a small chance the decoders I programmed were set up wrong, however they either worked in other models, or in the case of the 56, had aux10 functional but no others so i personally don’t think that’s the case. However I’ll admit to that if someone can get theirs working on the same chips.
 

If anyone is interested, I’ll add a link to the NMRA standard document. I think I’ve been pretty clear in my points tho so I’ll leave it there. Appreciate people will disagree with some of my opinions, however I do stand pretty strongly by the fact we should at least be told before purchase. Bachmann do it for their 90’s and in all honesty I think it’s something every manufacturer should be doing. Surely there can’t be any harm in adding a sentence or maybe a few to the end of a product description to state the recommended decoder and set up. At the very least it would help reduce the amount of people trying to find the appropriate decoder, and it pre-sets the expectation that other decoders may not work as expected.

 

NMRA 21MTC standard;- https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/s-9.1.1.3_21mtc_decoder_interface_3.pdf

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

I think what note needs put on the box is pre order or buy the full fat sound model to avoid dissapointment......

We have these guys and a few others mentioned pushing the limit of realism, which we all like by the way they sell out but we have this theme where one or two want to fit a decoder make and complain when they cannot make it work with another manufacturors item,even though you can buy the correct chip in house for no great expense compared to others to retrofit and have all the functions........

Would you buy a Tesla and complain that the Ford fiesta ecu you fitted has made the self drive system drive the car off a bridge, It all works with the right items so why complain when it will not with something your told does not work??? GGMS

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

2 hours ago, ERIC ALLTORQUE said:

Would you buy a Tesla and complain that the Ford fiesta ecu you fitted has made the self drive system drive the car off a bridge, It all works with the right items so why complain when it will not with something your told does not work??? GGMS

Somewhat quickly want to respond to that example as I don’t think it’s quite close enough to what is actually happening. the difference here is the models are advertised as following a standard. ford ECU’s and Tesla ECU’s are not advertised as following the same standard. The example with car ECU’s I would argue is closer to trying to use an 8 pin or plux 22 decoder in a 21 pin model.

 

its more like buying a phone with a USB-C charger, which advertises itself as following the USB-C standards only to find that you only get the highest charging speeds with the manufacturers plug. Even tho the other plug you’ve bought matches all the same standards and same specs and has the same listed outputs etc, but is from your personal brand of choice. And you’ve been told by the manufacturer themselves that nothing in their own plug is non-standard.*
 

I don’t think advertising the full sound model as the only way to garentee full lighting is the way to go, they cost an extra £100 and not all of us want sound either. Just adding the recommended decoder to product descriptions (like the Bachmann 90’s) solves the same issue. maybe an alternative solution (if decoders are being provided by the manufacturer) is to simply not list the model as having a specific DCC socket or standard, and just link direct to the pre-programmed decoder. Personally I’d rather be told that only one decoder works even tho others might too, then be led to believe other decoders work when they don’t. 

—————

 

I think I’ve been pretty clear on this thread they even tho I tried a Zimo MN340C/D chip in 66 001 as it is what I have stock, and did not get full lighting. I intend to get the pre-programmed chips when they’re available anyways, and just listed my findings with Zimo chips for others who may find it useful. Which I know at-least one other person did so as far as I’m concerned it was worth the post.
 

as I said above, I’ll leave it there, I only wanted to make one post to clarify what was originally being discussed as some of the points were not exactly accurate with the standards or specs of mentioned models etc. I think I’ve covered that in my last few posts now and clarified it enough too, as well as linked to the exact standard for 21MTC too. As far as I’m concerned now I’m just patiently waiting for the other 9 sheds to arrive, and getting them running on various freight trains. I don’t plan on making another post here until that’s the case. 
 

*fictional example

 

edit;- wanted to add that despite the problems with DCC, I don’t want to blame that on the model manufacturers. in the case of AS, ESU have made the circuit boards and so the fault is on them if it does turn out to be non-standard. It’s still an AS model so I would still direct query’s at them, however i understand they didn’t make the circuit board. 

Edited May 14 by Bryn_Bach_Railway

[McC]

For clarity, all of our models follow the DCC standards, such that they are, but our functionality requirements typically exceed what's achievable (or easy to achieve for the user) with a plethora of lighting functions, sound, stay-alives, rotating fans, smoke and what not, which requires, in most cases, additional ESU Integrated Circuits in the main boards to achieve 'full' functionality. We do state 'Optimised for ESU' on our packaging, boxes, etc and will further clarify the messaging on the website and to our retail partners, such that, if you want 'total' functionality, we provide the chips, otherwise YMMV. Ultimately, our customers are some 65-70% DCC sound, with some variation by model, so catering for maximum accuracy and fidelity and 'playability' is definitely one of our core philosophies. 

As a simple example, on a forthcoming multiple unit, we could build it using integrated circuits in the vehicles, allowing entire unit control (which is very complex) with a single ESU decoder, and small connectors between cars, or we would require large pin connectors between vehicles and at least three decoders per unit, to allow more 'generic' DCC control. 

Ultimately, again, we believe customers want something simple, cost effective, and fun to play with, while remaining accurate and true to the prototype.

We take on board and value the feedback, and are working to further improve the messaging on the compatibility,

Hope that helps clarify.

Edited May 14 by McC

[WCML100]

I think the common misconception that DCC ‘just works’ in all scenarios. The consumer is always pushing for more boundaries to be pushed and accuracy improved. That includes the dcc functions. What is often forgotten about is there is usually a gain without some kind of offset consequence for said gain. I am no DCC expert but I will always go with the recommended chip for that loco to get the manufactures intended use out of it - otherwise I just don’t see the point. We are after realism after all.. well I am at least. *for the record I am not pro ESU or Zimo - I use both depending on the loco…

 

Or put simply, you buy a race car - if you put tesco unleaded in to it, you’re not going to get all the performance you desire. Fill it with the specifically designed race fuel for said race car, and you will get all the performance possible from said machine…

[KDG]

2 hours ago, McC said:

For clarity, all of our models follow the DCC standards, such that they are, but our functionality requirements typically exceed what's achievable (or easy to achieve for the user) with a plethora of lighting functions, sound, stay-alives, rotating fans, smoke and what not, which requires, in most cases, additional ESU Integrated Circuits in the main boards to achieve 'full' functionality. We do state 'Optimised for ESU' on our packaging, boxes, etc and will further clarify the messaging on the website and to our retail partners, such that, if you want 'total' functionality, we provide the chips, otherwise YMMV. Ultimately, our customers are some 65-70% DCC sound, with some variation by model, so catering for maximum accuracy and fidelity and 'playability' is definitely one of our core philosophies. 

As a simple example, on a forthcoming multiple unit, we could build it using integrated circuits in the vehicles, allowing entire unit control (which is very complex) with a single ESU decoder, and small connectors between cars, or we would require large pin connectors between vehicles and at least three decoders per unit, to allow more 'generic' DCC control. 

Ultimately, again, we believe customers want something simple, cost effective, and fun to play with, while remaining accurate and true to the prototype.

We take on board and value the feedback, and are working to further improve the messaging on the compatibility,

Hope that helps clarify.

Mmmmm, "forthcoming multiple unit" - you tease....

[BR Blue]

10 minutes ago, KDG said:

Mmmmm, "forthcoming multiple unit" - you tease....

It could be the IRM 22000 but hopefully something else 😁

[South-East Rail]

4 minutes ago, BR Blue said:

It could be the IRM 22000 but hopefully something else 😁

 

E L E C T R O S T A R

 

Ed

[Southernman46]

40 minutes ago, South-East Rail said:

 

E L E C T R O S T A R

 

Ed

Class 501 - they've already got the right suburban coaches ........................... 🙏

A whole new load of speculative froth starting ........................... 🤦‍♂️

Edited May 14 by Southernman46

[Krieghoff]

Anyway.........are the 66's nearing the port of the UK 🤣🤣👍👍

[Krieghoff]

Duplicated post 

Edited May 14 by Krieghoff

[Csalem]

5 hours ago, Krieghoff said:

Anyway.........are the 66's nearing the port of the UK 🤣🤣👍👍

Status page has ETA of May 20th 

https://www.accurascale.com/en-eu/pages/projects

[rob D2]

The boat is being impeded by the massive amount of froth it has to smash its way through to reach the shore ;)

[Creampot Junction]

I cant understand why the Main lighting functions Like the main Head Lights (Day and Marker) and tail lights are not put on lower out put numbers as everyone will be using them. Compared to other features and then the build the numbers up with the function output which will be more popular. Or those that you will hardly be able to see from a viewing distance e.g desk lights on the higher functions.  Instead of them all being mixed bags and the main ones cant be used. Espically as the originally Hattons 66 head lights worked with the markers apart from the error with the bug eye lights.

 

Hopefully Accurascale will work with ESU to resolve this issue and put the Main lights on the lower out put numbers for the next batch of 66's.

Chris

[Denny]

1 hour ago, Creampot Junction said:

I cant understand why the Main lighting functions Like the main Head Lights (Day and Marker) and tail lights are not put on lower out put numbers as everyone will be using them. Compared to other features and then the build the numbers up with the function output which will be more popular. Or those that you will hardly be able to see from a viewing distance e.g desk lights on the higher functions.  Instead of them all being mixed bags and the main ones cant be used. Espically as the originally Hattons 66 head lights worked with the markers apart from the error with the bug eye lights.

 

Hopefully Accurascale will work with ESU to resolve this issue and put the Main lights on the lower out put numbers for the next batch of 66's.

Chris

I completely agree. 

[Bryn_Bach_Railway]

9 hours ago, Creampot Junction said:

I cant understand why the Main lighting functions Like the main Head Lights (Day and Marker) and tail lights are not put on lower out put numbers as everyone will be using them. Compared to other features and then the build the numbers up with the function output which will be more popular. Or those that you will hardly be able to see from a viewing distance e.g desk lights on the higher functions.  Instead of them all being mixed bags and the main ones cant be used. Espically as the originally Hattons 66 head lights worked with the markers apart from the error with the bug eye lights.

 

Hopefully Accurascale will work with ESU to resolve this issue and put the Main lights on the lower out put numbers for the next batch of 66's.

Chris

They are on the 66’s. Most decoders will operate upto AUX4. For full lighting control all the separate lights need to be on separate functions or involve complex logic gates in the circuitry. Here's the function list in text view as well as a photo of the function card; 

 

Front Light - Marker Front

Rear Light - Marker Rear

Aux 1 - Red Front

Aux 2 - Red Rear

Aux 3 - Day Front

Aux 4 - Day Rear

Aux 5 - Night Front

Aux 6 - Night Rear

Aux 7 - Cab Front

Aux 8 - Cab Rear

 

On 06/04/2024 at 19:42, Bryn_Bach_Railway said:

 

 

[vanbasher]

Now seeing the function list is a worry, I'm still using a Bachmann Dynamis as not got a permanent setup layout yet. Famously the Dynamis can only input up to F20 (unless there's some way to update the software I'm unaware of?) So this means that I'm going to lose out on all of the light functions. So it's going to be reliant on switches for me to get those pesky tail lights off when coupled to a train. It's annoying but I'm still so looking forward to getting my hands on 004 & hopefully some spare GBRF examples looking for homes after the pre orders.

[Roy Langridge]

Puzzled by all the angst here. If you run sound then moving lights to lower function keys will mean sounds are not available. If people are not using sound, just remap the function keys. 
 

The amount of people still running DCC systems that do not support the full range of functions seems significant (but not high?), however, why should those that can support all the functions be compromised for those that don’t?

 

Sounds/braking etc. need to be on lower keys for simple operations when running, lights tend to be set once before a train sets off, so being on the higher keys is more convenient. 

 

Roy

Edited May 15 by Roy Langridge

[farren]

2 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

Puzzled by all the angst here. If you run sound then moving lights to lower function keys will mean sounds are not available. If people are not using sound, just remap the function keys. 
 

The amount of people still running DCC systems that do not support the full range of functions seems significant (but not high?), however, why should those that can support all the functions be compromised for those that don’t?

 

Sounds/braking etc. need to be on lower keys for simple operations when running, lights tend to be set once before a train sets off, so being on the higher keys is more convenient. 

 

Roy

Horses and corses spring to mind. I have the 20~ year old Bachmann dynamis (bought brand new when £75 was thought a lot) works great up to a point. Picked up a decent second hand Gauge master after I got the first Accurascale 55. This dose have more function keys however it doesn’t show all of them on the screen (stops at 12 or some such) so now I’m not a hundred percent sure if the 37 has day or night lights on. Has when I’ve turned the thing on some times locos come back to life with lights on! Which makes me wonder does it have a last used setting. If so what  was I using day or night I can’t remember. I know I might just have to buy a new controller really but £400 just to see what’s switched one is a bit hard to swallow, that’s two class 31s. Either that or commit to memory the difference between day and night lights. Tough call. 

Could the lights not work differently to the number of times a key is pressed like the 31 Lego man start up on the 31? Once for start up, on off for a failed startup and on off on for cold start up. That way most the light functions could be on one function key. 

Edited May 15 by farren

[LMSfan72]

2 hours ago, farren said:

ould the lights not work differently to the number of times a key is pressed like the 31 Lego man start up on the 31? Once for start up, on off for a failed startup and on off on for cold start up. That way most the light functions could be on one function key.

It’s certainly possible to do that just needs a sound slot to be used to do it so must be done as part of a sound project not by function mapping and can only be done on an ESU sound decoder. I take that approach on my custom 73/9 file - pressing F0 cycles through: both ends lit, day - both ends lit, night - end1 only, day - end1 only, night - end2 only, day - end2 only, night - off.

[newbryford]

They can't be far away now as I've just received an email for payment of the remainder.

Yet - I paid in full in January.

 

I have contacted the chat line................