Accurascale Class 50.

[centenary]

Saw a couple of YT vids recently on the new Class 50 and Id be lying if I said my heart didnt sink watching them. One guy's 50 had the fuel tank and other bits detached from the model and left in the packaging when he lifted it up!

But yep, it's true! Quality control issues are present. Guess I was lucky, it was only one small jumper(?) socket on one end that was rolling around the bottom of the packaging when I opened it.

Had to very carefully super glue back in place, which wasnt easy. Instead of being a flat surface to surface fit, the cab end has a tiny groove while the socket has a tiny protrusion. Ideally, this protrusion would fit in the groove when glued. Easier said than done even with magnifying glasses and a pair of tweezers! Still, it's on now, just a question of how long it stays attached. I will be very wary when it comes to taking off the tension lock and replacing them with magnetic couplers.

Other than that, it looks fantastic but at nearly £300, QC needs to be better.

[SRman]

Accurascale are aware of the issues and trying to find solutions. In the meantime their warranty covers everything, but even that's not quite so comforting when one lives overseas. I have two class 50s on the way right now, one from Accurascale direct, and the other from Rails.

Like you, I am quite prepared to make repairs where I can, so fingers crossed, mine will be okay when they arrive.

These locomotives are not cheap, but putting them in perspective, the other manufacturers' offerings for equivalent types tend to be dearer, with one manufacturer having to lower its prices to match for virtually identical locomotive models. As such, even with the slipped quality control, Accurascale still represent great value for money.

Of their earlier models, I have had four class 92s, all perfect, five class 37s, one of which had one roof horn missing (they posted a replacement free of charge), and another that suffered the motor issues (they sent a replacement motor for me to solder in, at my request, rather than me sending the whole loco back), and three class 31s, for which the only issue was of my own making, where I knocked off some of the buffer beam steps while fitting the end details.

They are learning as they go, so this one will give them a little shake up, and hopefully there won't be a repeat of the issues for the next release of their models.

[centenary]

Accurascale are aware of the issues and trying to find solutions. In the meantime their warranty covers everything, but even that's not quite so comforting when one lives overseas. I have two class 50s on the way right now, one from Accurascale direct, and the other from Rails.

Like you, I am quite prepared to make repairs where I can, so fingers crossed, mine will be okay when they arrive.

These locomotives are not cheap, but putting them in perspective, the other manufacturers' offerings for equivalent types tend to be dearer, with one manufacturer having to lower its prices to match for virtually identical locomotive models. As such, even with the slipped quality control, Accurascale still represent great value for money.

Of their earlier models, I have had four class 92s, all perfect, five class 37s, one of which had one roof horn missing (they posted a replacement free of charge), and another that suffered the motor issues (they sent a replacement motor for me to solder in, at my request, rather than me sending the whole loco back), and three class 31s, for which the only issue was of my own making, where I knocked off some of the buffer beam steps while fitting the end details.

They are learning as they go, so this one will give them a little shake up, and hopefully there won't be a repeat of the issues for the next release of their models.

Mine came direct from Rails and was in a sturdy box. Reading the Class 50 thread on another forum, it seems those who got the model direct from Accurascale complained the box was less sturdy and often arrived quite battered.

The issue with the jumper seems very common. I noted once I got mine out of the presentation box and opened the 'block of ice' I could see a couple of issues others have mentioned.

First is that the foam blocks seem to be a little too big and make removing the clear plastic sleves a bit more difficult that it should be.

Second, within the clam shell holding the loco, there are hard foam blocks that touch the cab ends. These blocks have like a 'T' shape presumably to fit between the left and right jumper cable sockets. However, the socket that seems to have fallen off on many models can get caught by the hard foam block and I think it is this that is causing the problem.

Third, from reviewing some pictures, the jumper socket that tends to fall off is on the right side of whichever cab end you look at ie it always seems to be the unused socket and not the one that actually has the representation of a cable on it. When this socket comes off, some models have a clearly defined groove into which a tiny spigot on the back of the socket engages.

It seems if your model has this, you can just push the socket back in place and it should stay put(?) On mine, this groove was not clearly defined either by way of moulding or paint \ glue residue.

Using magnifying glasses, tweezers, a steady hand and a tiny bit of super glue, I managed to glue the socket back in place. How long this lasts, who knows. It was only when I put the loco back in its block of ice that I noticed the previously mentioned foam block's close proximity to the jumper socket!

Hopefully, it doesnt get knocked off again, when I put the loco on the layout.

As for a couple of YT reviews Ive watched, the sound version seems to be set at full volume out of the box and is loud. When I come to test mine, if it is too loud, I'll reduce cv 63 to around 90 (set to 192 apparently!).

Ive noticed Accurascale comment quite frequently in the Class 50 thread of another forum. For whatever reason, they do not comment here which is a bit disappointing imho. OK, they cannot be expected to comment on every forum but surely they could make an effort here?

[SRman]

I haven't seen the Accurascale guys on any other forums than RMweb. I guess they have to have some time to actually do their work.

As for the volume, I have reduced the volume on every Accurascale locomotive I have received so far. I very rarely have any of the sound locomotives from any source at full volume, with the only exceptions being where a sound file is particularly soft to start with, or the speaker(s) are not up to the job.

I am anticipating that I'll have to glue some bits back on, judging by what I have read elsewhere, but you never know, I might be lucky. I generally don't mind adding detailing bits, but it depends how steady my hands are on any given day.

I am keeping my Hornby class 50s but may embark on a scheme to improve the lighting controllability on them, one by one. I've already rewired a couple of Hornby class 31s to bring them nearer the Accurascale/Cavalex and modern Bachmann standards. I posted a video on YouTube if you are interested in seeing what I did to one of them.

https://youtu.be/UUlOYnygbbM

[Metadyneman]

There have been issues with a few people receiving their class 50s with bits having fallen off but I am lucky in so much as both mine arrived intact. One from Rails and the other from Accurascale direct. The Accurascale box looked as though it had been in the middle of a scrum between England & Scotland at Twickenham but amazingly the loco was 100% intact. The Rails one was much better packed and looked as though a modicum of care had been taken putting it in said box. I did experience a major fault with 50 021 which I won't go into here but I managed to fix it and both my 50s are now settling in to running on my garden line.
Here's a couple of pics of 50 017 Royal Oak in the garden.

[SRman]

I can now report that all three of mine arrived last week, within four days of each other: two from Accurascale, and one from Rails.

50 021 'Rodney in LL blue was first (from Rails), and had two parts floating loose, the "usual" jumper receptacle from one end, and the cab footsteps from one side of one bogie (I haven't seen that one reported anywhere else). Both parts easily glued back on.

NSE 50 017 'Royal Oak was next, with one loose jumper receptacle. I later knocked one of the buffer steps off, though, but that was my fault.

Finally, 50 149 'Defiance in Railfreight sector livery arrived with no parts loose at all.

All run superbly, and sound great, but I did turn the volume down a bit (to 135). I started adding some of the details, with 'Rodney' and 'Defiance' getting the full treatment at one end (minus tension lock coupling and pocket), but 'Royal Oak will retain its t-l couplings at both ends for now. I do intend to add the outer pipes/cables to the buffer beams while still leaving room for the couplings to swing.

I posted a short video of 'Royal Oak' running with the full NSE West of England rake of mark 2 coaches I have, but the sound didn't come out particularly well.

I also posed a couple of them beside the (almost) equivalent Hornby models. The Hornby ones weren't bad for their time, and still stand up well now, particularly for running qualities, but the Accurascale models have surpassed them in many ways. One thing that never worked well for me with the Hornby 50s was the kinematic coupling mechanisms (I tried many fixes, none really worked).

https://youtu.be/f-_DYfmF5jY

[SRman]

Since posting that last one, I added the "compromise" buffer beam details to 50 017, retaining the tension lock couplings and pockets. With the middle hoses trimmed to clear, the coupling can swing from side to side. The outer hoses restrict the extent of the movement slightly, but not enough to affect running on my layout (radius 3 minimum).

50 021 on the rolling road shows the full effect with couplings removed and everything fitted.

[Bigmet]

...One thing that never worked well for me with the Hornby 50s was the kinematic coupling mechanisms (I tried many fixes, none really worked).

The only fix is a 'rigid link' coupler, ideally to another vehicle with a kinematic coupling. This worked very well when I used the Roco pattern coupler (of which Hornby's R8220 is a clone in an overlength mount) and then with the sprung buffers withdrawn, the effect of the loco close coupled to a carriage was seen, with the camming action to separate the vehicle ends proportional to track curvature to prevent any locking together of the vehicle ends.

It's been something of a puzzle to me that neither Bachmann or Hornby gave any attention to educating their customers on how to make this coupling system work; the HO brands that introduced it had made their customers fully aware of the 'how to' prior to its arrival...

[SRman]

...One thing that never worked well for me with the Hornby 50s was the kinematic coupling mechanisms (I tried many fixes, none really worked).

The only fix is a 'rigid link' coupler, ideally to another vehicle with a kinematic coupling. This worked very well when I used the Roco pattern coupler (of which Hornby's R8220 is a clone in an overlength mount) and then with the sprung buffers withdrawn, the effect of the loco close coupled to a carriage was seen, with the camming action to separate the vehicle ends proportional to track curvature to prevent any locking together of the vehicle ends.

It's been something of a puzzle to me that neither Bachmann or Hornby gave any attention to educating their customers on how to make this coupling system work; the HO brands that introduced it had made their customers fully aware of the 'how to' prior to its arrival...

I agree that that is the most effective "fix", but it is also the least practical for me, because of the variety of stock the loco has to couple with. I don't want to change the couplings every time before using a loco or stock. There are a few instances where I have allocated specific locos to specific stock, such as the two 33/1 diesels that work with the two 4 TC sets I have in pull-push mode.

Of course, standardising on one type of coupling for everything would answer that, but cost and practicality mean that that isn't going to happen. I do like the Roco short couplings and have used quite a few, and also the Hornby longer versions, which actually hold Hornby's own stock too far apart but work better on Bachmann's coaches.

Let's face it, though, the Accurascale mechanisms work well, yet Hornby's don't, so something is not right with the Hornby kinematic mech somewhere.

[Bigmet]

...something is not right with the Hornby kinematic mech somewhere.

My sole brief experience of the Hornby mechanism in a loco is on one Brush 2, combined with kinematic equipped Bach and Hornby carriages, using the Roco pattern coupler. This required sprung buffers to be retracted and a little 'exercise' to get it working properly. (The Brush 2 is a passenger loco in the time period and location I model.) This was a brief experiment though, see following.

The Roco coupler is not what I would call an autocoupler, and I have dropped it for loco to brake fitted train coupling, using Kadee body mounted in the bufferbeam on locos and carriage formations, with some 'ring the changes' designated 'end of train' carriage stock. This simply enough for the excellent reliability in coupling and magnetically released uncoupling that Kadee provides. Still working on what the fitted freight gets as a coupler...

(Short mounted Bachmann TL's with the Kirby mod on unfitted freight, and the locos for this traffic, with a pool of 'Kadee one end' wagons for those occasions when the steam passenger and mixed traffic traction is on a freight turn.)

[Metadyneman]

Personally, I find kinematic couplings on locos an utter abomination. They either pull to one side and hang on to the rolling stock its pulling with one hook which eventually derails the leading bogie, or just lose the rolling stock altogether whilst I'm not watching and the loco runs round the garden light engine until it rams the rear of its own train. Bachmann locos have the couplings attached to the bogies on their locos and that works much better in my opinion as it keeps the coupling central to the bogie and there is no tendency to pull to one side. I use magnetic couplings on most of my rolling stock but don't like using them on locos because they don't look very nice. A semi permanent coupling bar looks even worse! I've never understood the point of fitting locos with kinematic couplings in my view, they are utter rubbish.

[Bigmet]

... I've never understood the point of fitting locos with kinematic couplings in my view, they are utter rubbish.

Applies equally to D+E traction and between loco and tender of steam models.

[centenary]

Accurascale announce 2nd run of their new Class 50.

While this is to be welcomed, the cynic in me thinks they, like all manufacturers, undercooked the number of items like this brought to market in the first place. And yes, I know it's part of a strategy to keep prices up. Such small numbers that the batch sells out, sometimes just on pre orders, snapped up by scalpers to appear on fleabay with inflated prices.

The fact they're doing a 'second run' so soon also suggests to me they could have just added these into the first run. Same thing with rolling stock, small limited production runs that sell out quickly making it hard to build 'that' particular rake of rolling stock you want.

But like I said, that's the cynic in me!

[Mountain]

... I've never understood the point of fitting locos with kinematic couplings in my view, they are utter rubbish.

Applies equally to D+E traction and between loco and tender of steam models.

Remind me what are kinetic couplings? Are we talking about those close coupling devices fitted to coaches? I kinda abandoned buying new 00 after that other than the lovely Hornby basic 0-4-0's to convert to 7mm scale narrow gauge...
Just re-read. Kinematic?

I get what you mean now! Are these now fitted to locos as well? Horrible things!

Honestly, while other modellers head down the small tension lock nem pocket close coupling route, I am more tempted to buy up the old wide Triang/Hornby metal couplings and replace all smaller couplings with them if I bothered with my 00, as in the days when I first had electric model trains, all my couplings were these wide metal couplings and never once did they let me down, and also visually speaking did tend to blend in so were less noticeable than when they started making them from plastic, and coaches (If one had metal wheels) ran amazingly well! Example is I used to run a lengthy 10 coach train of Lima coaches backwards pushing through my maze of pointwork at speed! Yet modern coaches with those close coupling systems could not even negotiate the complexities of my paintwork going FORWARDS! Let alone in reverse!

As you say Bigmet, the NEM pocket idea and the close coupling idea never were designed with the tension lock in mind which needed positioning where they would not droop or flex. Other designs cope with flex. Tension lock does not cope well with flex.

Yes. Was glad to change to narrow gauge when these things came in, not that I don't have 00 or don't like 00. I just didn't like the direction the manufacturers of 00 were heading.

I am more than happy with my own narrow gauge couplings, and this is what cou to. I just got to catch up with making and fitting them!

[Bigmet]

...Remind me what are Kinematic couplings? Are we talking about those close coupling devices fitted to coaches? ...

They certainly are, as I think you have already worked out, and very good too for those of us wanting to operate OO express train sets all close coupled. But no use at all on locos, from which the manufacturers would do well to remove them forthwith!