Henners84

I am not sure how a well meaning question can blow up into quite such negative comments. I have a question that I think is reasonable. That question is aimed at ascertaining whether or not I can run these new mk2bs with Bachmann mk2as and mk1s without noticeable height differences. Given that some of accurascale's suggested rakes include both mk1s and mk2as, I think it legitimate to consider many may want to run prototypical mixed rakes. The photos show a height difference between all three coaches with accurascale's coaches sitting between the height of Bachmann's mk1 and mk2 offerings. It is easy to raise the height of the mk2a to match, but how can I reduce the height of the mk1 to match (or increase the height of accurascales mk2b to match). I find it a little surprising why (for what is a reasonable question) there is pushback. Yes it may be that you do not think the difference in the picture is significant, but (if the picture is accurate) i do. We are all entitled to our opinions but cannot I (hopefully) politely suggest that if you opinion differs your refrain from providing a response that is not helpful to the question. Whilst you are entitled to respond I would prefer that responses are constructive to the original question so as to keep this thread on topic and to not let it degenerate into conflict as this has no rightful place in this thread. If anyone has any constructive help they could provide on this question it would be appreciated here. If not, then I will take it as a sign that I am the only person who sees this height difference as a potential issue. Thanks

By the amount shown in the photos. Another forum user commented that this difference may also increase once the skewed bogies are rectified so (depending on whether or not this question is valid) there may be a greater height difference than pictured

I don't understand. The photos show the Bachmann mk1s sit higher than the accurascale mk2bs. Are you suggesting the photo is not accurate?

Not sure I completely agree. If we are all 'modellers', then surely we should scratch build all our locos and rolling stock? It's a relatively easy fix but an expectation that we should have to alter fundamental issues with rtr stock when a manufacturer should be able to get things right first time is not correct. However, I'm not quite sure how I can reduce the height of the mk1s to match accurascale's mk2b just yet (seems harder to reduce than increase height). Also there will be 'modellers' who cannot adjust the height very easily (eg maybe struggle with arthritis or something else that now makes things a bit trickier).

So somewhere in the middle but closer to the mk1s....?

Yup, the answer will help answer the question on which (if any!) of the bachmanns are the correct height

If anyone knows... Will there be a height difference between these and either the Bachmann mk1 or mk2a? Wondering about setting up a mixed rake and one of the annoyances I currently have is the height difference between the two

Inclined to agree. Going by the roof vents both coaches 2 and 3 appear to be corridors. However coach 3 appears to have a centre door so must be a mk2a

Just wondering if anyone has any info on the sk (ex fk) blue grey intercity coach? Presume some first corridors were converted to second class? However I'm wondering how common this was and what services you'd find them on? Thanks

Promise I won't shout 'duplication' at you if you announce some mk2as. Desparate to build a full mix rake of accurascale As and Bs. Just noticed there isn't an NSE brake coach. Possibly something for batch 2?

Interested to hear people's thoughts on this because I don't expect people to agree. I contacted accurascale last night via their website who commented there would not be a mk2a product from them. I didn't ask about the mk2c. Whilst understand the mk2a would need different tooling parts, it does feel a bit of a miss to me. I love accurascale's products. I personally don't need the detail to be 100% accurate to prototype but I very much enjoy seeing the detail there. In my mind my model railway needs to evoke my past memories accurately so detail is great and models need the right look and feel and proportion and finish. I probably would not notice a slightly different air vent. However I do recall the mk2 rakes having a combo of centre door and non centre door stock. Having all centre door or all non centre door feels wrong to me as it is not the illusion I recall. I can fix for this by adding a mix of Bachmann and accurascale stock but I feel the detail of accurascale's model will make the Bachmann coupled next to it very toy like and spoil the illusion I'd like to achieve (it will emphasise Bachmann's lack of detail - harder to see if the accurascale product does not exist). So I am in two minds. I don't thin the Bachmann and accurascale models will look good together. So do I get a rake of accurascale mk2bs and spoil the illusion I want of some centre door coaches. Or do I stick with Bachmann and fix that illusion by tactically using coridor mk2a coaches to represent the non centre door mk2bs. The Bachmann route is certainly not correct but it may actually be a better compromise of the illusion I am going for. And after all model railways are about compromise and illusion. That's why I feel accurascale have missed a trick here but maybe its just me?

Anyone know why the coaches on Facebook are £10 cheaper than the ones on accurascales website? Are the Facebook ones maybe ex vat or is there a special Facebook deal I have missed?

Is it just me or are others assuming there will be a subsequent mk2a and mk2c release from accurascale? Reason for thinking is most of the prototypical rakes (and supported by accurascales own examples) are a mix of various mk2s (a, b, c, etc). Mixing/matching with Bachmann /Hornby stock will look wrong in my opinion (detail, colour, coupling and height differences)

Keeping my fingers crossed for the lighter blue too...

If the actual loco chassis and body is a different length then I can understand why not in the range/future plans. The other parts could have just about be argued as a tooling variation in my opinion