Revolution Class 320 & 321 EMUs in N

[grahame]

7 minutes ago, bmthtrains - David said:

 

Farish’s 319 doesn’t seem to be immune from the same coupling problems either if early reports are accurate, and there really needs to be some cross-industry thinking on this if conductive couplings are going to become commonplace. 
 

 

And many whinged about the Arnold-Hornby 5-BEL units intra-car couplings.

 

[TomE]

1 hour ago, bmthtrains - David said:

Farish’s 319 doesn’t seem to be immune from the same coupling problems either if early reports are accurate, and there really needs to be some cross-industry thinking on this if conductive couplings are going to become commonplace. 

I’ve seen 2 comments about the 319, one here and one on the N Gauge Forum Facebook Group, so I’m not sure that indicates a significant problem as far as that model is concerned.
 

If these new units are handled correctly the couplings should work fine. I found the 319 versions are easier to work with and slightly more robust than those on my 321, but I suspect a lot of the issues derive from people not reading the instructions or using too much force when coupling/uncoupling and the result can be dislocation of the kinematic mechanism, especially on the 320/321. 
 

I don’t doubt that a small number have had issues on delivery, but I also suspect the bulk of the complaints are probably self inflicted. 

 

Tom. 

[Adamphillip]

9 minutes ago, TomE said:

I’ve seen 2 comments about the 319, one here and one on the N Gauge Forum Facebook Group, so I’m not sure that indicates a significant problem as far as that model is concerned.
 

If these new units are handled correctly the couplings should work fine. I found the 319 versions are easier to work with and slightly more robust than those on my 321, but I suspect a lot of the issues derive from people not reading the instructions or using too much force when coupling/uncoupling and the result can be dislocation of the kinematic mechanism, especially on the 320/321. 
 

I don’t doubt that a small number have had issues on delivery, but I also suspect the bulk of the complaints are probably self inflicted. 

 

Tom. 

Exactly what I’ve found, it was the kinematic getting dislocated that fouled mine when I first got it out.

[bmthtrains - David]

1 hour ago, TomE said:

 I also suspect the bulk of the complaints are probably self inflicted. 

Some perhaps, but I have seen many reports with exactly the same issues mine had and this was due to with either the design and manufacture or both - the wiring preventing free movement of the coupling which lifted the bogies off the rails when coming off curves. Nothing to do with this owner’s handling I can assure you. Revolution will no doubt have a better idea as to the principal cause of the issues that have been reported by examining returns.
 

Even if rough handling is a major cause, however, it is a poor designer who blames the user (which Revolution have not and I would imagine never would, to clarify) and so I would expect Revolution to be quietly looking at improvements for their next multiple unit regardless of the cause. The engineering tolerances in N are extremely slim and as expectations for models get ever greater I certainly don’t envy any manufacturer’s task…

 

David

 

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by bmthtrains - David
Clarity of last paragraph

[TomE]

1 hour ago, bmthtrains - David said:

the wiring preventing free movement of the coupling which lifted the bogies off the rails when coming off curves

I did note whilst I had the top off the 319 that there is significantly more wire between coupling and PCB than on the 321, as you can see in the pic below.  This could be Bachmann's answer to making sure the coupler has sufficient freedom of movement and isn't restricted by the wiring.

 

Tom.  

[Steven B]

I think the design of the coupler has lead to some of the issues with manufacturing faults.

A few tweaks to the design - such as longer wires going to the coupling would have made putting the model together much easier.

 

Revolution, Farish and Dapol could take a leaf out of Kato's book - their models appears to be designed with manufacturing in mind. There are far fewer screws (if any) and next to no hand soldering of wires. Small changes but saving a lot of time when you're building 10's of thousands of each model.

 

Steven B.

[Revolution Mike B]

22 hours ago, Steven B said:

I think the design of the coupler has lead to some of the issues with manufacturing faults.

A few tweaks to the design - such as longer wires going to the coupling would have made putting the model together much easier.

 

Revolution, Farish and Dapol could take a leaf out of Kato's book - their models appears to be designed with manufacturing in mind. There are far fewer screws (if any) and next to no hand soldering of wires. Small changes but saving a lot of time when you're building 10's of thousands of each model.

 

Steven B.

Unfortunately, that’s a bit like comparing apples to oranges. The Kato models are very sparsely detailed in comparison to many of the Farish / Dapol / Revolution products and they aren’t really designed for DCC (that was an after thought for the U.K. market). As manufacturers, we’re often stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea when it comes to the end user. More detail, means more things to get broken, more features or functions mean more complicated wiring or electronics. If we just made basic models people would moan that they weren’t detailed enough. 

[justin1985]

On 08/07/2022 at 12:45, Steven B said:

 

Kato's book - their models appears to be designed with manufacturing in mind. There are far fewer screws (if any) and next to no hand soldering of wires. Small changes but saving a lot of time when you're building 10's of thousands of each model.

 

This is such an important point that has perhaps been missed in the talk of "detail".

 

It's more about design philosophy. Perhaps a more familiar example is the way that Farish diesels routinely use sprung metal contacts to connect body mounted LEDs to chassis mounted PCBs, whereas Dapol routinely use soldered flexible wires (with plug in connectors). Farish's sprung contacts are much more reliable, as well as less hassle, but I wonder if there might be a few more steps to constructing them, compared to soldering a PCB?

 

So Farish take a design decision that explicitly makes user maintenance easier by eliminating points of failure (wires). But it needs more thinking through at design stage, and perhaps more jigging/tooling.

 

Kato/Lemke/Hobbytrain tend to take that a step further, integrating LEDs onto the main PCB, relying on body mounted fibre-optic to take the light to the right place. So that's even further down the route of simplified assembly and user maintenance, but perhaps even more complex design work?

 

None of that has any bearing on scale detail, but has a big impact on the users experience of the model.

 

On the specifics of the Revolution 321 and Farish 319, the couplers are fundamentally the same design, just a little better implemented by Farish.

 

But the whole below solebar conductive coupler seems a bit of group-think. These models are already never going to couple with other vehicles - so why persist with something designed around a traditional coupler concept? Why not go through the corridor connection, and improve the appearance of that at the same time?

 

It looks like some some Kato Shinkansen have couplers with corridor diaphragms that move with them (https://www.plazajapan.com/4952844191825/ ) - wouldn't that be a much better basis for an electrical connector? (no need to carry wires down to bogie level, where they get in the way). Making your electrical connections through a corridor connection could allow you to arrange them vertically, and ideally even use wiper contacts, rather than wires.

 

Justin 

[Revolution Mike B]

On 09/07/2022 at 17:54, justin1985 said:

 

This is such an important point that has perhaps been missed in the talk of "detail".

 

It's more about design philosophy. Perhaps a more familiar example is the way that Farish diesels routinely use sprung metal contacts to connect body mounted LEDs to chassis mounted PCBs, whereas Dapol routinely use soldered flexible wires (with plug in connectors). Farish's sprung contacts are much more reliable, as well as less hassle, but I wonder if there might be a few more steps to constructing them, compared to soldering a PCB?

 

So Farish take a design decision that explicitly makes user maintenance easier by eliminating points of failure (wires). But it needs more thinking through at design stage, and perhaps more jigging/tooling.

 

Kato/Lemke/Hobbytrain tend to take that a step further, integrating LEDs onto the main PCB, relying on body mounted fibre-optic to take the light to the right place. So that's even further down the route of simplified assembly and user maintenance, but perhaps even more complex design work?

 

None of that has any bearing on scale detail, but has a big impact on the users experience of the model.

 

On the specifics of the Revolution 321 and Farish 319, the couplers are fundamentally the same design, just a little better implemented by Farish.

 

But the whole below solebar conductive coupler seems a bit of group-think. These models are already never going to couple with other vehicles - so why persist with something designed around a traditional coupler concept? Why not go through the corridor connection, and improve the appearance of that at the same time?

 

It looks like some some Kato Shinkansen have couplers with corridor diaphragms that move with them (https://www.plazajapan.com/4952844191825/ ) - wouldn't that be a much better basis for an electrical connector? (no need to carry wires down to bogie level, where they get in the way). Making your electrical connections through a corridor connection could allow you to arrange them vertically, and ideally even use wiper contacts, rather than wires.

 

Justin 

This isn’t the case unfortunately as the Kato 800 suffers from a few design issues (and I say this as an individual not on behalf of Revolution Trains). Firstly, the sprung contacts for the wheel pickups can be problematic, the decoder ‘sockets’ are also problematic due to being an after thought. The windscreens fall out and the head / tail lights can dislodge making the illumination very dim. two of mine have motors that sound like they’d be better employed in a tractor - farm, not class 37! I’m in no way saying it’s a poor model (I have 5 of them) but it’s definitely not without faults. The assembly is simple because the model itself is simple - less detail makes it very easy to put together but when you actually take one apart, it’s easy to see just how basic the model is. And this relates to my point of being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. We can all make basic models that have no detail parts and run like clock work…….but then people will say (as they have done with the 800)…they aren’t detailed enough. Sometimes we just can’t win….but that doesn’t mean we can’t try! 
 

 

Edited July 17, 2022 by Revolution Mike B

[DavidMcKenzie]

I don't envy those in the business of making models. It's always a compromise and will always lead to someone being unhappy. I'm on the other end of the scale and have been wanting a RTR 321 model to do the southern end of the wcml justice in N gauge. It felt like all my Christmases had come at once when opening the box and getting the model running on the (not yet complete) layout. 

 

And even with very happy customers like me.....I still wouldn't want to be in the business of making models because all you'll get is requests for more (class 90 anybody🤣).

 

Many thanks to everyone involved in making this project happen and also many thanks for all the tips posted on the forum, all very helpful to fix small issues. 

 

All the best,

Dave

[Davexoc]

On 09/07/2022 at 17:54, justin1985 said:

But the whole below solebar conductive coupler seems a bit of group-think. These models are already never going to couple with other vehicles - so why persist with something designed around a traditional coupler concept? Why not go through the corridor connection, and improve the appearance of that at the same time?

 

Already been discussed and rejected two pages back I'm afraid....

[Ngauge 4 me]

Sorted my 320/1. Ripped off the couplings and fitted standard rapido couplings. Now they run sweet. (No head tail lights function,  DC).

I think this is a good platform to raise issue and find out about issues. Its a huge plethora of useful content to go back to. Maybe in a few years time too. I'm one of those that doesn't have an up and running layout at the moment and it could be some years before I do. Therefore my products will be long out of warranty and I have no ideas how to fix some of the problems highlighted here. So sites like this are invaluable. I don't do social media.

I emailed my poor models to the email address supplied in the instructions and never got a reply back. So hence I sorted the issue myself. It was that or put them on EBay at a loss.

 

But still the worse models. 

Dapol the worst for blowing head and tail lights. You know if they derail thats a blown a component on the PCB.

Farish; I can't fault them I'm afraid. Except of course the dreaded fractured gears that still hasn't gone away but are much better now. But only ever had one model.overy 40 years that I should have returned. The latest blue ribbon class31 that runs so slowly. (Yes I did try and run it in).

[Revolution Mike B]

13 hours ago, Ngauge 4 me said:

Sorted my 320/1. Ripped off the couplings and fitted standard rapido couplings. Now they run sweet. (No head tail lights function,  DC).

I think this is a good platform to raise issue and find out about issues. Its a huge plethora of useful content to go back to. Maybe in a few years time too. I'm one of those that doesn't have an up and running layout at the moment and it could be some years before I do. Therefore my products will be long out of warranty and I have no ideas how to fix some of the problems highlighted here. So sites like this are invaluable. I don't do social media.

I emailed my poor models to the email address supplied in the instructions and never got a reply back. So hence I sorted the issue myself. It was that or put them on EBay at a loss.

 

But still the worse models. 

Dapol the worst for blowing head and tail lights. You know if they derail thats a blown a component on the PCB.

Farish; I can't fault them I'm afraid. Except of course the dreaded fractured gears that still hasn't gone away but are much better now. But only ever had one model.overy 40 years that I should have returned. The latest blue ribbon class31 that runs so slowly. (Yes I did try and run it in).

We’ve replied to every email sent to the support email address. Did you send just the one email? 
 

 

[Adamphillip]

3 hours ago, Revolution Mike B said:

We’ve replied to every email sent to the support email address. Did you send just the one email? 
 

 

This does remind me I need to poke you about a running issue mine has, even after being ran in it seems very jerky when setting off.

[Steven B]

18 hours ago, Ngauge 4 me said:

Sorted my 320/1. Ripped off the couplings and fitted standard rapido couplings. Now they run sweet. (No head tail lights function,  DC).

 

Have you got any photos of your conversion that you can share?

 

Steven B.

[tiger]

Just back from holiday and had a chance to look at mine…also afflicted with a wider black band on the centre car, as per the pictures below. Comparing to prototype photos, the narrow band is the correct livery application on a 320.

 

Disappointing as it will be difficult to correct this without adversely affecting the factory finish. Can anybody confirm if the whole batch is like this or just some models?
 

On 29/06/2022 at 18:03, Hearts1874 said:

I must have been a rogue batch 

you can see the very poor application and the difference in the width of the black on the centre car 

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by tiger

[Hearts1874]

On 24/07/2022 at 00:56, tiger said:

Just back from holiday and had a chance to look at mine…also afflicted with a wider black band on the centre car, as per the pictures below. Comparing to prototype photos, the narrow band is the correct livery application on a 320.

 

Disappointing as it will be difficult to correct this without adversely affecting the factory finish. Can anybody confirm if the whole batch is like this or just some models?
 

 

I think it’s the whole batch as all pictures I have seen are the same centre car black band to wide 

[Stu from EGDL]

19 minutes ago, Hearts1874 said:

I think it’s the whole batch as all pictures I have seen are the same centre car black band to wide 

Hi Gang,

 

Not seen my Strathclyde 320s yet, due to a bit of confusion (mine) about collecting them, but I think I might be quite miffed if something as fundamental as the paint spec makes the model look unlike it should.

 

Fingers crossed it is not the whole batch…..

 

Later,

Stu from EGVN

[gedlee]

Sorry Stu,

I think it must be the whole batch. I have just inspected mine and it has the same fault.

Oh Dear!!

Ged.

 

[Stu from EGDL]

@Revolution Mike

What are the chances of getting the balance of my 320 order in the post. I know that I have messed you guys around a bit with my in and out of the country exploits...and I apologise for the various faffs.

I'm sure you are anxious to clear the decks of outstanding orders..

 

Regards,

Stu from EGVN

[Revolution Mike B]

1 hour ago, Stu from EGDL said:

@Revolution Mike

What are the chances of getting the balance of my 320 order in the post. I know that I have messed you guys around a bit with my in and out of the country exploits...and I apologise for the various faffs.

I'm sure you are anxious to clear the decks of outstanding orders..

 

Regards,

Stu from EGVN

Stu, you need to email us on the info address please.

 

Thanks

[Stu from EGDL]

10 hours ago, Revolution Mike B said:

Stu, you need to email us on the info address please.

 

Thanks

Done...

 

Regards;

STU

[Revolution Mike B]

We were aware of an issue with the centre car livery on our Strathclyde Class 320 models and after speaking to the factory, they kindly offered to supply complete replacement centre car body shells which have now arrived at Revolution Trains HQ. Anyone wishing to obtain a replacement, please follow this link:
 

https://www.revolutiontrains.com/strathclyde-orange-320-replacement-body-shell/

[Ed-farms]

17 hours ago, Revolution Mike B said:

We were aware of an issue with the centre car livery on our Strathclyde Class 320 models and after speaking to the factory, they kindly offered to supply complete replacement centre car body shells which have now arrived at Revolution Trains HQ. Anyone wishing to obtain a replacement, please follow this link:
 

https://www.revolutiontrains.com/strathclyde-orange-320-replacement-body-shell/

 

Great news for the lucky one's to have this set, I just need to find one now for myself

[cornish trains jez]

On 29/07/2022 at 22:04, Revolution Mike B said:

Stu, you need to email us on the info address please.

 

Thanks

 

I've done this a few times and still waiting for a reply. 😞