dj_crisp

Thanks! Very useful. If I've counted right there should be four small windows in the guards area. I'm tempted to add the corridor ones as they'll probably be noticeable with the lights on.

Yeah the interior is a bit different ;) on the subject of BSO interiors I thought Bachmanns trick of printing on clear plastic for the guards cage area was quite neat as previously I've done this with etches. I'm thinking there perhaps should be some more windows in the guards area so may try and open them out but as yet have found any decent photos.

3 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

Looking at photos of 1:1 class 47s on passenger trains, and also mixed rakes of mk 1s and mk 2s, mk 1 format stock appears to come out slightly taller than mk 2. However, referring back to the TMC video of D1960 on Little Bytham, the loco does look fine in comparison with the stock of the train it is depicted pulling (not mk 2). 

I'm always surprised how small Mk1 or Mk2s look Vs a loco. 

I've always thought the 47 bogies look proportionally large vs the body which Heljan haven't got right imo.

And Vs the Mk2b those NSE red stripes should be close to lining up.

12 hours ago, kintbury jon said:

Morning.  Can anyone tell me how easy it is to swap bodies over on the DCC versions?  For example, if I bought a DCC fitted BSO and replaced the interior and body with a TSO,  would it be a straightforward swap?

 

Having bought a few Accurascale Mk 2Bs I'm keen to mix and match them with some Bachmann 2F's.  Sadly, all I can see in IC is a BSO/FO or Blue/Grey BSO only!  

 

 

I just happen to have a few MK2fs on my workbench.... 

A comparison between a BSO and a TSO... there's not a great deal of differences that I reckon can't be dealt with. There's a few interesting holes in Mk2d/e differences zones ;)

Circuit boards are different but I think going from a bso to a tso will be ok.

Probably steps is the hardest thing. Personally I wouldn't try and remove a CDL as making it look ok will be quite alot of effort.

Hope this helps

55 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Until someone has better intel, i’m leading towards the Bachmann riding a little high. 

 

But on width they are the same, but the front end taper is different.
 

 

it may have something to do with clearances on curves as a CO- CO powered model, where as Heljans is an A1A-A1A powered model.

 

it sits square up to Accurascales buffers

 

but theres a 1mm difference to Bachmanns 47

 

but old and new Bachmann 47’s align.

sitting on the desk in front of me they play nice…

 

 

i just wish they’d got the front end around the bufferbeam cowling corners/bottom of cab sides better, and if they sort the roof panel on the next run as well I think the gap between the Bachmann and Heljan 47 would narrow a little… if they dont I suspect it will struggle longer term.

 

If this kind of modification needs a budget i’d suggest looking at a 47901.

 

meanwhile I might take a look at taking a Bachmann 47 down a millimeter on the bogies, as it does look nice on Heljans… look at the gap between body and bogie on 47628/47596 above.

 

The problem I see for both models, is whilst its an improvement on previous, the previous wasnt bad… so why trade up ? The demand is imo limited to gaps of whats not been done, or high demand liveries rather than reruns and repeats*. Theres already a lot of not bad 47’s out there.

 

* Lima is ripe for picking, not sure about Vitrains though there 47’s arent bad either.

 

Thanks for sharing. I'd do the same comparison on a piece of track though as the flanges could very well vary but you've done a good comparison.

One thing ive noticed while converting Accurascale MK2Bs to EM is Im not 100% sold on their ride height always being spot on. This is not a dimension thing as that looks great... just that the wheelsets are pretty naff in my opinion and have a lot of slop so I've seen a 1mm variety in ride height in mine. I've put some DCC concepts wheels with 26mm axles and they're now great and line up to my Bachmann MK2f's.

So it could be your MK2B is low. Even in your photos above I'd say the Heljan 47 looks low Vs the Mk2b. My prototype photos suggest they are a little higher than coaching stock but again there could be huge variety in the real thing.

I think your photos have highlighted Heljans deep bodyside and bogie/body relationship isn't great.

1 hour ago, BR Blue said:

TSO, TSO, TSO, BFK, TSOT, BFK, TSO, TSO, TSO, was indeed the most common configuration. Occasionally an FK could replace a BFK but it was generally as you mentioned. I believe there were 5 such rakes.

Interesting.... were the BFKs Mk2bs? 

4 minutes ago, The Evil Bus Driver said:

Might be worth looking at some of the old footage of the 50s on 8 mk2s at Waterloo and see how some of the consists are made up. There do seem to be two brake coaches and often a BFK in there. 

The waterloo to exeter route often had a pair of BFKs back to back in the centre (for easier alignment with platforms) in the 50s later days.

Not sure when the destination boards were used... my guess is its a 70s thing 

54 minutes ago, 40002 said:

So my MK2b TSO arrived yesterday my concern with detailed models is are they too fragile for a practical layout I think this is about on the limit for me, I don't think my Bachmann Mk2f is too far off detail wise compared to the Mk2b and probably about right for me. Colour wise the blue matches the Bachmann  stock but the grey is a lot paler which is correct I don't know? While for Hornby MK2e aircons the blue is too dark for both the Bachmann and Accurascale. The Grey doesn't match the Bachmanns either but its closer than Accurascale.

I'm quite happy to mix both Bachmann and Accurascale in a rake as the grey is probably in the range of natural variability.

There's a really nice shot of Blue/Grey aircon on the thread below which Simon shared when I asked about MK2ds on the Mule as I'm planning on converting a Mk2f to a Mk2d one day.

29 minutes ago, MJI said:

Which ones matches Precision?

As for precision paint.... I guess it depends which one ;) I've got a tin of precision later rail grey and that looks a good match for Bachmanns DMUs so should be similar to their Mk2f.

Personally I really like Bachmanns blue and the Accurascale looks a very good match. I've tried many blues and Rainbow Railways is the only paint that matches Bachmann.

11 minutes ago, DIRTY DIESEL said:

Thanks for your reply, popped the wheels out today, very easy as you say, they look like the correct size, photos beyond my IT skills unfortunately. 
There’s an interesting posts (up thread)about teasing the wheels out a bit, so might try that next time in the loft. 

One other thing I noticed in my first attempt at converting these to EM using original wheelsets is there's no fixed position of the wheel to fit onto the axle (B2B is ok and set at the width of the plastic isolating axle). So its down to how reliably the factory can set this dimension which could affect the overall axle length. The only one I checked came out at 25.5mm (I think) and I definitely noticed some coaches having more slop than others so could be axle length varies...?  

And hopefully some Accurascale Mk2as as well :)

My MK2Bs are now all running nicely in EM thanks to the suggestion to bend the electrical tab back and use Black Beetle/DCC concepts 12mm wheels with a smidge taken off the pin points. They also now have less slop and line up very nicely with my Bachmann Mk2fs. So I'm alot happier now with just brakes left to align :)

One thing I noticed on mine is some of the bogies arrived slightly over tightened so were stiff to rotate. I'm not sure if that info helps with problems going round curves or not? A simple quarter turn to loosen has helped.

5 hours ago, Simon Bendall said:

 

It would be 13563, which was the other regular Mk.2d FK alongside 13575 and remained in blue/grey. My pic from c7/92.

That is brilliant. Many thanks for your help! I best get on with having a bash at modelling it :)

8 hours ago, DIRTY DIESEL said:

I received my 6 coaches and they all run freely on straights but come to a stand on curves with a slight binding noise, they also short out going though points, even my Peco express points, plus the lights will always be on when I turn the layout on even after being turned off previously.

I’ve contacted support any waiting a response, I haven’t taken the wheels out as didn’t know how easy this was with all the brake rigging around them and didn’t want to damage them.
 

As it looks like they just lift out looking at your photos, I’m wondering if I might have the same problem?

 

Thanks for sharing…

The wheelsets are really easy to take out and you shouldn't damage the brakes by doing so.

I've removed all of my brakes and most are glued in really well but some have just fallen out when the glue missed. Again easy to fix. The only bit I've knocked off myself is the cross link thingy (not sure what to call it but it sits at 90 degrees to the springs) and be careful around the bogie steps.

If you share some photos I'm sure somewhere here can also help.

A quick question....

While looking at Waterloo to Exeter Class 50/33 hauled services I often see what i think is a Mk2d FK in blue/grey amongst a NSE Mk2a/b/c rake. First question is it a Mk2d and i don't suppose anyone knows it's number? (I know of 13575 which appeared in NSE so could be that one in an earlier guise).

Thanks

Will

2 hours ago, ChrisMitchell said:

Here is a link to a youtube video which I found and followed. The relevant bit is from about 7mins in. In my case I also removed the brake yokes (I plan to reinstate later on)

 

 

Chris

Thanks Chris.

A really good idea that a quick bodge of bending the electrical contacts would work. I'm going to try the same technique as my attempts aren't great. I assume the contacts have only been designed as contacts and don't prevent body rocking?

4 hours ago, ChrisMitchell said:

I used Branchlines wheels to convert mine to P4.  Worked extremely well with the axles fitting perfectly. With all metal wheels with an insulating bush on one side,  I am still able to use the lights, having bent down the appropriate prong that transfers the power from each bogie (effectively picking up from one side of each bogie.  I picked this approach up from a video on Youtube.

 

Chris

 

Chris

Interesting... although I don't follow what you've done. I'd be interested in seeing how you've got it working :)

12 hours ago, Melton Works said:

@Accurascale Fran @McC My MK2B coaches have finally arrived! What a credit to you all at Accurascale for producing these fine coaches! Everything has been thought out, detail, too much to mention, not seen on other RTR models. The best part for me though is the interior! These are second to none!

 

Anyway, I had detailed a few Bachmann MK2As, to make a prototypical rake, but to be honest, comparing the two, the MK2a is definately inferior. So the modeller in me came up with a plan....

 

But of alteration, with the Bachmann body being 4mm too short and resprayed roof/ends, but retains all of the Accurascale features!

 

Hopefully until there is a future release, i will have to make do with my improvised version...

Some very nicely modelled Mk2a's! On their own what youve done looks smashing but I agree next to the Mk2b you really spot their errors. I always thought they got the length OK as Guy says the MK2a is shorter than the 2b/c

The 2b really is a great coach detail wise! They sit well with my Bachmann MK2f's body/roof wise and I'm really happy with that.

Personally I'm struggling with the Mk2b when it comes to converting them to EM. I've got my MK2fs bang on first time by changing out the wheels for RP25-88 using the original pin point axles. With a slightly wider axle setting than OO I've managed to reduce any slop so they sit at 49.5mm. I can't do that with the MK2b though as it has a 1.5mm axle! And I'm finding the Accurascale axle had loads of slop and my set of coaches each has varying ride heights by 1mm or so and can vary at each end. I think its due to the play allowed by using a shorter than standard axle width which does allow the model to run very freely.

I've ended up drifting out the Accurascale wheel with a wider axle width setting as a temporary solution which kind of works with less slop but has a deeper flange so catches on my trackwork. I dont have a problem with this as I'm yet to find a RTR wheel that works well. I just wish there was an easier option to replace them like with the mk2f. One to solve for the future. 

So for me I prefer Bachmanns less detailed bogie! (And way prefer a DCC setup without a wand).

Brilliant and thanks. Wow that is alot of grease on both of them!

I was wondering if Heljan had sneaked in a smaller wheel or Bachmann had done an oversize one but both are a good size. (my goto 47 wheel for EM conversion is Ultrascale 15mm which looks ok for both.)

I always find adding grooves difficult in plastic and I hope your attempts go OK.

Cheers

Will

An excellent comparison and really interesting. It's confirmed to me that the Heljan body looks too tall and thin at the front. 

I've always found the duff to be a rather deceptive shape in that the body is quite high Vs the chassis which the Bachmann one captures better whereas Heljans looks a bit overweight. But its really interesting that it sounds like Bachmanns too high.... im going to try and find some measurements and have a look at mine. Do you know if they've been fitted with the same wheel sizes?

Thanks

1 hour ago, wombatofludham said:

Wasn't the issue with the Bachmann Mk1s that when they fitted the B4 bogies to them they pushed the ride height up compared to their Mk2as or am I mis-remembering?

Anyhoo, I notice on tatbay someone is selling modified Bachmann Mk2 stock with wafty magnetic lighting and detailed 3d printed and painted seats which show it is relatively easy to upgrade them to a standard where they could run in mixed rakes.  The 3d printed replacement seats look very nice and work out at about £12 a coach so it is something I will look at when I start upgrading my mixers.

I've got a set of the seats (for something completely different) and they look pretty good to me.

On 16/03/2024 at 20:27, drgj said:

I had a couple of Bachmann mk2s and the overall height of these was less than that of their mk1s making them look a bit odd when run together. Are these higher? 

 

Dave

If it helps my notes for mk2s are they should be 49.5mm to top of roof (excluding vents) and 41.7mm over guttering. Mk1s are also pretty much identical and obviously in reality ride heights would vary slightly.

I've got a Bachmann MK2f set up at 49.5mm height so will be able to check the MK2b when I've converted to EM. I dont think there'll be any issues though as my very unscientific first glance the Mk2f and Mk2b looked ok together so I'm expecting the Mk2b ride height to be ok.

I have to measure up the Bachmann mk2a but when I looked at them a long time ago I seem to remember they looked a little low but thinking it's the guttering being too low that could be tricking my eye. I think I'm seeing that in the photos on the thread here. 

Have a browse on flickr as I reckon they can be any shade...!

Personally I'm not as sold on the fit of the roofs as they were a bit variable across the samples I saw at ally pally.  Also the body fit needs some work but there's plenty of time to fine tune for the production samples 

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

It would seem that a significant proportion of the members who are posting in this thread feel that they could do a better job than the mainstream model producers.

 

Now that we have easily accessible CAD design software, and domestic 3D printers, perhaps it is high time that one or more of these dissatisfied potential model purchasers demonstrated how model design SHOULD be done?

 

After all, we are assured that all that is needed is basic competence with a tape measure - surely it cannot be that difficult to produce a design for the definitive Brush Type 4?

 

I await developments with interest - but I won't hold my breath!

 

CJI.

Or just buy a Bachmann 47 with significantly less issues that are easier to resolve.

Heljan have produced some really good models over time... I just don't agree this is one of them. 

34 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

I disagree.In these days of laser scanning , CAD design etc and the fact that numerous of the prototype still exists , there’s no interpretation required….just accuracy . It’s not unfair in this day and age to expect excellence , especially for the prices we now pay - “ good enough “ just isn’t good enough .

I pretty much agree but also accepting that not everything on a locomotive will be able to scale down. No excuses when it comes to basic shape. Its funny that models I know were created from scans still exhibit errors etc.

And ultimately its down to the CAD designer who puts it all together... you can see the ones that are outsourced or have a lack of time as some obvious errors creep in Vs those done by a passionate designer with knowledge of the prototype.

I'm not sure where this 47 sits ;)

5 hours ago, 97406 said:

Another vote for the pre 84 lemony shade of yellow being correct on he Bachmann model. Ambient lighting and other factors will play their part in photographs. I used pre 84 yellow on my last detailing projects (classes 40 and 81) and it does appear pale compared to the later shade but it is technically correct. 

Aaah the fun of paint matching yellow. I've kind of given up using yellows out of a tin these days and mix my own. Helps with some variety as each time they're different!

I had a tin of precision pre-84 yellow which was a perfect match for Bachmann yellows on post 84 stock. A second tin now no longer matches and is more lemony. Their post 84 (& railmatch) didn't match and looks more orange so I now mix my own as a combo of pre n post 84s.

When I was doing my pair of 70s bubbles I really noticed all photos of my 122 seemed lighter than the 121 despite being from the same period and similar repainting times.... But then again I found photos of the 122 freshly painted where the shade of yellow is closer to post 84 than pre. Weather conditions and camera trickery really makes it a hard call as to what looks right.

So I've gone with a lighter shade on the 122 below Vs the 121. Not sure if it's right or not but I like the difference! My photo is on a sunny day so even this looks a tad more orange than say a cloudy day today.

(I wasn't very scientific seeing as I was batch spraying so I started out with roughly 90:10 pre 84 Vs post 84 in the mix for the 122... then kept adding post 84 to the mix till I finished on some 90s DMUs 😀)

Rightly or wrongly I don't get on with the lemon yellows straight out of the tin.... but they're probably totally accurate Vs the paint spec!