Manitoba

1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

 

Was it a complex question?

It was a request to prevent imminent dispatch of an order to an unattended address.  So it did require a timely acknowledgement from A/S.

Initial contact sent Tuesday morning, follow-up sent this morning.  This afternoon as I posted, I received a request to give feedback on how my chat had been handled (before any response had been received).  Hence the choice of RMWeb as the nuclear option, knowing that it would resolve the issue (which thanks to A/S's usual alertness it has), albeit stirring up the expected hornet's nest in the process.

I have attempted to change the title of the thread.....

Phil

Thanks Fran,

All sorted.

Sorry to have do this publicly but RMWeb does work...

Phil

10 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

Blimey, have we really come to expect an answer within 24 hours now and get frustrated if we don't? I remember having to wait about 3 weeks for a reply from Hornby once, and that is not knocking Hornby, just showing how expectations have changed, and not in a good way in my opinion.

 

Just for info, I used the webpage chat to ask a payment question this morning and got a reply in 16 minutes. Perhaps your email failed?

 

Roy

Roy,

Thanks for your feedback.

You may not be aware that:

1) If you sent A/S and e-mail it goes to the web chat anyway, and 

2) On 24 August McC of A/S posted "Our teams response time for the month of august is under five minutes with mean resolution times at 16 minutes so we’re never too busy to help! "

Phil

Contacted Accurascale Customer Support via e-mail yesterday morning.  After over 24 hours I have yet to receive a response (apart from the initial automated acknowledgement).

There seems to be no other means of contact apart from Instagram and Facebook - neither of which I use.  I have tried SMS, but it just tags onto the original mail.

I post here out of some frustration.......

Phil

22 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

OK - I'm going to break my own rule re 'Are we nearly there yet', as I am getting a little concerned.

 

I have 7810 'Draycott Manor' DCC Ready on order and paid-for, directly from Accurascale.

 

Simple question; has anyone received one of these yet?

 

CJI.

 

 

Me too - not sure they're even in the country yet.....

Phil

Quote

I have seen three use it today, all on the down line.

From occasional eye-balling of the online signalling sites over the last couple of days there does appear to be a marked reluctance for up trains to use the dive-under.  Network rail needs to get this sorted, or the DfT won't be very impressed that they're not using their new £200 million bit of train set.

1 hour ago, SteamingWales said:

 

Just read my newsletter. The cab and bunker will be one piece

Are we certain about this? The CAD shows the top/rear part of the bunker as a separate piece, just as on the 16xx (unless I am mis-reading it).

Phil

3 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

Thanks for posting this.  How does it look from the side?

Phil

16 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

Heck the bunker join looks poor, even allowing for it being a pre-produciton model. I understand the attempt to mask it with revet holes, and have it in a place where the real platework was jointed, but unless you are having similar lines at every platework join, it will look odd. Especially if the parts are painted before fitting.

I can well imagine the lined black versions having this line very noticable as there will inherently be a small gap in the lining over the crack. Painting after assmebly may help reduce the visibility of the line.

It all seems to be a bit like the weird roof seam on the Dapol Terrier, and rather un-rapido-ish who are normaly so excellent in their design and assembly. I've never seen such a weird join of flat areas of models on a 00 Loco before (nor I think a coach - any joins are in corners, changes in angles). If Bachmann can tool a one-piece bunker for thier new pannier, it must be possible and economic.

 

PLEASE AMEND THIS BIT OF THE DESIGN.....! I'd even pay £10 more if the tooling/production costs increase as a result (rather pay a bit more for quality product!)

I firmly agree with the last point.  I had been planning to buy the 16xx, but the rear of the bunker looks too much like a botch, and I will be hanging on to my drinking vouchers.

Let's hope it's not too late to save the day for the 15xx

Phil

6 minutes ago, Richard E said:

I have also seen that the environmentalists are now bleating about this project causing global warming due to the amount of CO2 released casting an 11000 tonne box and saying it should have been done using carbon neutral building methods ...

Was Wattle and Daub not considered?

On 14/12/2020 at 22:32, Kaput said:

Any chance someone with a factory sound version could post the default values for the following CV's?

CV9
CV56
CV57
CV58

 

I'm running on the asumption its a Zimo decoder and like their recent N gauge sound models Bachmann have tweaked the defaults to suit the coreless motor.

CV settings for the sound-fitted version:

CV9   =  50

CV56 = 255

CV57 =  65

CV58 =  20

22 minutes ago, 89A said:

Very sadly having to return my 58072 to Kernow due to increasing reluctance to move first in a forward direction and now in both directions. Suspect gear failure of some kind. 

Interesting.  I sent one back with a similar fault earlier in the week.  Let's hope it's not a design / QC problem for the model.

Wondering how the principle of limiting discounts squares with the legal points in the attached link.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/529969/RPM_60SS.pdf

Phil

Just checked out the Parkside section of the new site.

What a mess!

O and OO offerings jumbled up, with no clue as to which is which apart from price level and product code (if you happen to know their system by heart).

Phil