Revolution Class 320 & 321 EMUs in N

[guzzler17]

Here's what Which says about faulty goods

 

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-do-i-do-if-i-have-a-faulty-product-aTTEK2g0YuEy

 

Here are the key paragraphs

 

"The retailer is responsible

 

If what you’ve bought doesn’t satisfy any one of the three criteria outlined above, than the retailer that sold it to you is in breach of  the Consumer Rights Act.

 

This means that your statutory consumer rights are against the retailer – the company that sold you the product – not the manufacturer."

 

A special edition model should be treated no differently to a standard model.

[grahame]

3 hours ago, Legend said:

 

Sorry for your issues Stu

 

As I believe this was a special edition sold at Model Rail Scotland by AMRSS they may not have the ability to help you (unless they retained some for failures) . I think you probably need a dual approach , contact AMRSS ,who legally your contract would be with .  Presumably contact details will be in program if you were at Model Rail Scotland . But I would also private message Revolution Ben  on here in case he can help  as  Ben Ando is Director of Revolution . I'm sure he will be helpful , if only to give you the correct person to talk to in AMRSS. 

 

I'd have thought it best to contact the retailer, MRS. They are more likely to have stock to be able to replace it, as it was a special commission and presumably the entire batch was delivered to them. I seem to recall reading that they had sufficient to be able to continue to sell them after the show.

[Stu from EGDL]

Thanks to all above for the sage advice on Consumer rights etc. I’m quite aware of the responsibility of traders vs manufacturers and I was waiting, out of respect to both, a defined way ahead to source a remedy without unnecessary work to anyone.

Luckily, Revolution Mike (H) has been in touch and advised me to contact the MRS setup with my request. So, I have been on to the Model Rail Scotland website and used the ‘Contact Us’ facility. I am now waiting to hear back with the advice I need to sort the issue. 
With a large batch of models, there is obviously going to be a few with defects, and I think I may have one with a rough motor. The rest of the model is as good/ better than expected and I hope to have a replacement running around sweetly in due course.

 

More consumer rights advice is unnecessary from here on.

 

Later,

Stu from EGVN

[Revolution Mike]

In the grand scheme of things the buck stops with us but as I mentioned to Stu earlier probably best to contact the AMRSS as the retailer first as they should be able to advise if they can swap it out. If not we will replace or repair it (we’ve got a couple of spare sets). 
 

Definitely sounds like a dodgy motor. 
 

Anyone who has problem with one purchased from us should drop us a message as per the manual, though as I say we will make sure everyone is sorted. 
 

cheers Mike 

(still on way back from Glasgow!)
 

 

[justin1985]

I had an invoice for 321s from the second batch a week or so ago now, but haven't heard anything further. 

 

I guess that means they are imminent? But perhaps not as imminent as when the first batch were when they were invoiced! Has anyone had theirs yet? Or anyone from the RevolutioN team able to give an update?

[Revolution Mike]

Hi Justin

 

The last news item on our website explains the latest on the second batch deliveries and invoicing:

 

https://www.revolutiontrains.com/news/

 

cheers Mike

[87023Velocity]

Strathclyde class 320s on Dallam, just arrived today. Quickly posed, not inspected yet!

[87023Velocity]

A video of both my class 320s running on Dallam - with DB liveried 90129 from the Freightconnection event on a passing Intermodal, this could be somewhere south of Glasgow around the early 90s.

With the second unit run in I tried running in multiple. This works fine as both evenly matched speed wise on DC.  The head/tail lights were switched out on the middle vehicles. All internal lights switched off as well.

 

 

 

[bmthtrains - David]

My 321 arrived today, and after such a long wait I have to admit to mixed feelings. On the unexpected plus side, Ben and Mike kindly accommodated my very last minute request to swap from Silverlink to LM. I have a soft spot for the former but LM is much more central the era I’m now modelling.

 

 

A negative was it got delivered to my old address - thankfully no one was in so it went back to the depot, which did mean a 30 mile drive to collect it as I live too far away for them to redeliver.

 

A positive is the model is stunning - or at least should be. While none of the following are reasons to send the model back, there are paint errors on all cars such as fuzzy edges and lumpy heavy applications of paint. The front valances don’t seem to fit particularly well, nor do the lit yellow panels on the front and rear.

 

Then there are switches to control the internal lights…except only 3 are on the outside. To turn off the cabin lights in one car I now have to figure out how to take the body shell off as the switch is inside. A bizarre design choice.

 

Finally the couplings. And I thought the all time low was the Farish Voyager. I can’t see the 321 couplings lasting more than a few months - they are way too fragile and don’t properly fit together. Several seem to be under tension from the wires going into them which pulls them apart so they scrape the body shell and lift the next car’s bogie up off the track. So far this hasn’t caused too many derailments. Pressure from the tweezers to couple them up is only going to make things worse, however.

 

Overall, I’m not unhappy with the model, perhaps frustrated expresses it better. A terrific design (except those couplings and switches!), but the QC is definitely not what I’d expect.

 

My biggest bit of feedback is those couplings though - it’s made me think twice about ordering both the 313 and the 175 as these have the same ones. 
 

Once I have both boards of my layout up I will give it a good run in and hopefully manage to open it up to turn that last light off…

 

I have enormous respect for what Revolution are doing for N gauge, so hopefully these niggly criticisms will be seen as they are intended - constructive feedback to make things even better in future.

 

David 

[Karhedron]

I have just received mine. Whilst it is good overall, the pain finish does leave a little to be desired. Also, the shade used for the NSE silver grey is much darker than I was expecting based both on the website artwork and the real thing. My recollection is that it was much lighter and could be mistaken for white unless you looked closely.

 

 

 

 

 

[bmthtrains - David]

Further to my post above I fear this unit is going to have to head back to the depot. On coupling the unit for the second time to run in on my kato test track, one of couplings fell apart. On two out the three connections the parts don’t fit at all well:

 

 

Pushing this back as well as it could go, I then gave the unit a long run in. With the motor car towards the right, so in position 2, it ran beautifully in both directions, very smooth motor and no derailing. Swapping the unit round so the motor car is in position 3, however, it details in both directions. In one direction it’s the leading bogie on the rear car, while in the other it’s the motor car itself that derails.

 

The problem is those couplings - they have uneven lateral movement, as shown below. This coupling if raised up (so to the right when running) moves freely and falls back into the centre. When moved down…well it gets stuck. On the kato track the derailments take place at the transition between curved and straight track, where the coupling should fall back to the centre, which it doesn’t.

 

 

I will keep gently moving each coupling to see if it frees up, otherwise another trip to the post office is in order to send it back.

 

Update: one coupling pair is now locking and not even turning, so I’ve emailed Revolution to send it back. Slightly worried this is going to be the same on all of them though…

 

David

 

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by bmthtrains - David
Update

[TomE]

4 hours ago, bmthtrains - David said:

The front valances don’t seem to fit particularly well,

 

Hi David. I had this issue on one driving coach of mine. Turned out the lighting strip wasn't quite seated correctly. The bodies come off relatively easily so it was a fairly simple task to sort out and once everything was where it should be and back together the gap was gone. 

Tom. 

[Robert Shrives]

David,

Mike who does the warranty repairs has looked at my returned Model rail scotland unit which had the same issues as yours - check out contact details in the model booklet, has been very quick with repairs and sent an email with 8 pictures showing how the couplings should look if ok for coupling up.  Mine had bogies to tight but farings fitted ok, once bogies screws back off a turn each ran freely and motor car was brilliant.

Once coupled motor and one driver ran perfectly in all directions and easily around Templedean curves. However it  that the other car the coupler was dropping vertically  and not neatly fixed I carefully used tweezers supplied and got it coupled to the motor car - but any curve and it was "off across the field."

 

I await return of unit which has been repaired rather than replaced so time will tell.   Revoultion are rock and hard place with the couplers as they are needed if only a single chip to be used on an MU which has lighting etc. I guess otherwise it will mean a prefitted chip in every board that can work with DC perfectly- regardless of how it is regulated and provided to rail. Which is a bit getting a lion from a zoo putting back into the wild and offering it a vegan burger for variation of outcomes over which there is no control but the zoo will always be to blame.

 

Cretainly I am sure it is something that vexes the massed brains trust at the bunker for other models in the forthcoming ranges.

 

Robert     

[bmthtrains - David]

Hi Robert - it will be interesting to see how the Farish 319 couplers work as well. The need for conductive connections for DCC I suspect is putting the limits of N gauge to the test. 
 

I’ve contacted Revolution so hopefully mine will be off for repairs soon. It may just need the couplers replaced as they’re basically falling apart.

 

David 

[Robert Shrives]

David,

 

It is the confluence of two customer "demands": close coupling/ auto adjusting cam assisted to cope with "train set curves" and single dcc gizmoitus with all bells and whistles.  It as you say limit testing stuff.  I would drop the cam couplers and take a bigger gap on straight track.  N vehicles just do not have the mass to take the mechanical reaction required, 4mm does so much better in this respect, with 4 wheel wagons on the limit.  

 

Sometimes simpler is just that bit better.   Have to say while I enjoy building kits etc many do not and want the best from the box, I really would not want to be a manufacturer in this day and age so hats of to all that bring models or anything to market.

 

Robert      

[Steven B]

My plain white set had similar issues with the couplings. One coupling would only pivot in one direction and one or two others were stiff. There were also three bogies that didn't rotate properly as the screws were too tight. Backing these off 1/4 turn made a big difference.

 

Testing on a large loop of Kato track I found it derailed when going from curved to straight track. There were also issues with is passing though the curved route of Kato #6 pointwork.

 

I took the worst offending coach (non-powered centre car) apart to discover that the coupling hadn't been fitted correctly (or had been dislodged in the post). The body pulls off and the bogies need removing as the screws hold the interior in place. I was then able to re-seat the coupling so it functioned correctly.

 

Close coupling mechanism can work well, as seen with the Farish Mk1 and Dapol Mk3 (It's a shame they're not fitted to the Mk2f). They do work best with a fixed coupling bar between then so they should have been ideal for the 320/321.

 

It's combining them with the electrical connectors that's caused the problems. The mechanism isn't as well designed as that on the Farish or Dapol coaches. I feel that the wire harness connecting the coupling to the circuit board is too short. If the fixed end had been mounted further back the pivot of the close coupling mechanism would have been able to move more freely. It's also slightly disappointing that track power isn't carried by the couplings - with 16 axle pick-up it would have been unstoppable. Likewise it would be nice to control the internal lighting on DCC but there's only so many circuits you can put through a connector before it starts getting bigger than the model!

 

I'm thinking about replacing the couplings with standard NEM pockets. I'd loose the close coupling and I'd have to either fit decoders in the driving trailers or forget about the lights but at least I'd be able to put the unit on the track one vehicle at a time rather than needing an extra pair of hands each time.

 

It'll be interesting to see how the new class 158 from Farish compares.

 

Steven B.

[BernardTPM]

Given that the units don't have buffers between any of the intermediate vehicles there isn't so much need for expanding couplings as there is for buffered coaches. The ends are angled too giving more clearance, so the only issue would be with the corridor connections. A pair of very lightly sprung 'solid' gangways with the touching faces smooth to allow them to slide against each other on reverse curves should do.

[Padishar Creel]

2 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

A pair of very lightly sprung 'solid' gangways with the touching faces smooth to allow them to slide against each other on reverse curves should do.

 

Fleischmann 1st generation ICE in N has those, granted the coupling is a solid non-conducting bar, but that is the closest coupling I've ever seen, and they go round 1st radius curves without a problem. 

[Revolution Mike B]

On 09/05/2022 at 14:02, bmthtrains - David said:

My 321 arrived today, and after such a long wait I have to admit to mixed feelings. On the unexpected plus side, Ben and Mike kindly accommodated my very last minute request to swap from Silverlink to LM. I have a soft spot for the former but LM is much more central the era I’m now modelling.

 

 

A negative was it got delivered to my old address - thankfully no one was in so it went back to the depot, which did mean a 30 mile drive to collect it as I live too far away for them to redeliver.

 

A positive is the model is stunning - or at least should be. While none of the following are reasons to send the model back, there are paint errors on all cars such as fuzzy edges and lumpy heavy applications of paint. The front valances don’t seem to fit particularly well, nor do the lit yellow panels on the front and rear.

 

Then there are switches to control the internal lights…except only 3 are on the outside. To turn off the cabin lights in one car I now have to figure out how to take the body shell off as the switch is inside. A bizarre design choice.

 

Finally the couplings. And I thought the all time low was the Farish Voyager. I can’t see the 321 couplings lasting more than a few months - they are way too fragile and don’t properly fit together. Several seem to be under tension from the wires going into them which pulls them apart so they scrape the body shell and lift the next car’s bogie up off the track. So far this hasn’t caused too many derailments. Pressure from the tweezers to couple them up is only going to make things worse, however.

 

Overall, I’m not unhappy with the model, perhaps frustrated expresses it better. A terrific design (except those couplings and switches!), but the QC is definitely not what I’d expect.

 

My biggest bit of feedback is those couplings though - it’s made me think twice about ordering both the 313 and the 175 as these have the same ones. 
 

Once I have both boards of my layout up I will give it a good run in and hopefully manage to open it up to turn that last light off…

 

I have enormous respect for what Revolution are doing for N gauge, so hopefully these niggly criticisms will be seen as they are intended - constructive feedback to make things even better in future.

 

David 

Hi David,

 

The couplings on the 313 are not the same as these. The 320 and 321 models were made for by Sonic and the 313s are being made by a different factory.  

Edited May 13, 2022 by Revolution Mike B

[hsthero]

I have just got around to testing my Silverlink 321 on my Kato layout which has R1, R2,  R3 and R4 curves. Initially, there was no movement or lights. Fixed by reseating the sound chip in its socket on the pcb. I guess it probably got dislodged in transit.

 

I found that my model struggled to negotiate all the curves without derailing. I checked that the couplings were capable of moving from side to side properly. There were two that were sticking and needed to be relocated in the chassis. I also loosened the bogie fixing screws to allow more movement at the pivot. After this the model got round the R4 and R3 curves ok but still derailed on the smaller radius curves. I realise that with the factory fitted couplings the model was not going to make it round the R1 curves.

 

My view is that, on my layout, the wired couplings will not allow the model to negotiate my smaller curves. Therefore I have decided to remove the wired couplings and install a fixed bar between coaches. I have just tested this on two of the coaches and they go round the smallest Kato R1 curves (216mm radius) and both #6 and #4 points ok.  Downside of this is having to remove three small screws to get the coaches back in their storage box. Next job is to add the two other coupling bars.

 

Without the wire feeds from the motor coach I know this will leave me the problem of making the directional and destination board lights working again. Having studied the coach pcb I now know where I can pick up track power and install a function only decoder controlling the lights for each driving coach.

 

I also found the saloon lights far too bright for my liking causing difficulty seeing the coach livery and need to be dimmed. I tested a 1k resistor in the feed to the saloon lights and this looked much better to me. However, once the non-motorised coaches are fitted with a decoder I can connect them to a spare light function wire. I think it may be possible to dim the saloon lights with a CV adjustment in the decoder and will check this out.

 

A couple of warnings for 321 owners. If you decide to remove the non powered bogies be very careful not to loose the contact springs which drop out when turning the bogies upside down. Also avoid damaging the springs when refitting the bogies, both happened to me.

 

Also the the silver paint applied to the window frames appears to be quite fragile and I have rubbed it off in places with my fingers just by removing the body from the chassis. I am now applying Tamiya low tack tape where my fingers hold the body when removing and refitting it and hope this avoids this problem.

 

I really like the sound fitted 321 model with the Silverlink livery and chose to carry out these modifications as it was important to me that I could use the model on the small radius curves on my layout.

 

Colin

[Steven B]

@hsthero have you got any photos of  your coupling modifications? I'm thinking of replacing the electric-couplings with NEM pockets.

 

Steven B.

[bmthtrains - David]

The specific issues with the 321 (I’m still waiting to hear when I can send mine back for repairs) do raise a couple of industry or gauge-wide concerns that I do think need to be addressed.

 

Firstly - what is the minimum radius for N gauge going to be now? If it is no longer 9 inches then a new one needs to be agreed and Farish, Dapol, Revolution, Peco etc can all design to this standard. Similarly, if there is no agreed standard every model needs to be clearly advertised stating what curves it will go round so people can make informed choices before they buy, rather than finding out when the model arrives.

 

Secondly - conductive couplings. Everyone is going to try different approaches and it is going to be a mess. The NEM standard was largely stuck to so couldn’t the NGS and the NRMA or similar groups get together with manufacturers to agree a common standard? If one is developed than perhaps a viable solution can be shared, as I do think the desire for close coupling and conductivity is at the limit of what is possible in the scale.

 

Back to the 321, hopefully mine will be repaired well enough to actually run, and that both the 313 and 175/180 will use a different coupling system, and that it is thoroughly tested in action. The kind of modifications being discussed in this thread and elsewhere really should not be necessary on a brand new £220 model.

 

David

[hsthero]

Hi Stephen B. As you can see I have not submitted many posts so if adding photos goes wrong I have an excuse.

 

The first photo shows the fixed bar coupling with the coaches on my layout. Farish 350 in background with nem rapido couplings..

 

 

Next photo shows the underside with the black plasticard fixed coupling bar with the two pivot screws. The screws really should be black  but as they are not visible they are fine by me.

 

 

The next photo shows the other end of the center coach with the screw fixed awaiting the fixed coupling to the motor coach.

 

 

You will see that I have reshaped the hole in the chassis and super glued in a small square of 1mm plasticard which was then drilled to take the screw. Initially I glued Dapol NEM pockets to the chassis just behind the body ends and fitted nemcoup couplings. This did not work well as there is just not enough movement of the couplings in the nem pockets to go around the curves without derailing. I did think about gluing the pockets to small pieces of plasticard and then screwing them to the chassis to achieve the required movement. However, I thought the postion of the screw head might obstruct the bogie rotation so I decided to go with the fixed bar as it seemed much simpler.

 

I hope this is helpful. I will post photos of the coach pcb's when I have added the lighting decoders and the dimming resitors.

 

Colin

 

 

[Steven B]

Thanks for posting the pictures Colin. It's interesting to read that fitting NEM pockets to the chassis didn't work well as this was going to be my approach.

 

I may end up with bogie mounted couplings. Either way, more thought needed!

 

Steven B.

[Mike Harvey]

5 hours ago, Steven B said:

Thanks for posting the pictures Colin. It's interesting to read that fitting NEM pockets to the chassis didn't work well as this was going to be my approach.

 

I may end up with bogie mounted couplings. Either way, more thought needed!

 

Steven B.

The NEM mount does not allow the couplers to move from the centre line of the coach. A bar coupler would not work because of this rigid alignment. A pivoted NEM mount might work but with at least one coach always being pushed, I suspect that the power car would tend to push the preceding coach off the track at bends.