Accucraft Isle of Man Wagons.
- Thread starter casey jones snr
- Start date
Yes - I too recently took delivery of one of these wagons and I have to say I was somewhat disapointed when I compared them to some of the superb 'Peat' wagons that I had previously bought from the same manufacturer and the same dealer.
Here's a summary of the reply I gave to a fellow member on another forum when asked the reason why ........
The first thing I noticed when I unpacked the wagon was how rough it ran when I put it on a piece of track and it soon became evident that there were three main reasons for this.
1) - The wheels were not running true to the axles - there was both a radial excentricity and an axial wobble.
It appears that the design of these axles have been progressively downgraded over time - back in the days when the L & B 4 ton van first appeared the axles were of a triple diameter design - 5.0mm for the wheel locating land - 3.5 mm for the hub mounting - and 3.0 mm for the bearing section. In addition they had axial splines on the 3.5 mm section to give additional location for the wheel.
When the 'Peate' wagons came along, the axles were still of the triple diameter design, but the axial splines had been deleted. However, to compensate for the loss of the splines, the diameter of the hub mounting section had been increased from 3.5 mm to 4.3 mm diameter.
Now we come to the 'I of M' wagon axles which have been reduced to a simple two diameter design. The diameter of the hub mounting section has been reduced to be the same as that of the bearing section - i.e. 3.0 mm - which doesn't appear to be adequate considering that the 'I of M' wheels are bigger than the 'Peate' ones.
2) - All 4 wheels don't contact the track at the same time due to perhaps the most significant difference between the two designs.
On the 'Peate' wagons the W-irons have a flange running along the top edge which provides positive location up against the underside of the wagon floor. - On the 'I of M's there is no such flange - the irons are completely flat and so there is no positive location other than two M2 X 5mm self tapping screws which are a loose clearance fit in the irons.
Curiously - there are reinforcing pads moulded or glued to the floor in way of the irons, but the irons are completely clear of these pads by between 0.7 to 2.0mm
Unlike the 'Peat' wagons where the W-irons, axle boxes and springs are all cast as a single unit - the 'I of M' axle boxes actually slide in the irons as though it was originally intended that the wheels should be sprung. The big cut outs in the replica springs also look as though they were intended to accomodate real springs at some point.
I think the point here is that - if you are going to delete the locating flanges, then you need springing to compensate for the differences in height - and if you are going to delete the springing, then you need the flanges to positively locate the W-irons. However, if you delete both the flanges and the springing, then there is not much chance of keeping all 4 wheels in contact with the track at the same time.
3) - The 'Peat' wheels appear to be fully machined stainless steel - whereas, the 'I of M' wheels appear to be completely un-machined white metal castings. This cast finish is of a high quality but the imperfections on the rolling surface of the tire are just too big to allow smooth running - these deffects are difficult to see because the whole wheel, including the actual rolling surface in contact with the rail is covered in black paint.
There are a number of other points where the 'Peat' wagons are superior to the 'I of M's'
- Although the brake levers on the 'I of M's' are 50% longer than the 'Peat's' - they are only half the thickness which makes them very susceptable to getting bent.
- The lever on the 'I of M' was fitted up side down and because it was held in place by a rivet I had to drill it out - drill and tap the mounting - and fit an authentic looking M2 X 0.4 square head brass bolt - just like the ones that come fitted as standard on the 'Peats'. Now that I'd inverted the brake lever, the attachment bracket for the brake locking pin chain was upsidedown and had to be repositioned.
- The body furniture on the 'Peats' is painted authentic matt black - on the 'I of M's' it's just bare shiny plastic.
- Small details that are separate mouldings on the 'Peat's' are just painted on by hand with a brush on the 'I of M's' - the brackets that join the buffer beam's to the longitudinals - the wrought iron bands on the ends of the buffer beams. (the Peat's dont have these bands, but on the L & B bogie brake van that has similar beams, these bands are separate mouldings.) - and the inboard static part of the side board hinges.
As I said - disappointing ....
Here's a summary of the reply I gave to a fellow member on another forum when asked the reason why ........
The first thing I noticed when I unpacked the wagon was how rough it ran when I put it on a piece of track and it soon became evident that there were three main reasons for this.
1) - The wheels were not running true to the axles - there was both a radial excentricity and an axial wobble.
It appears that the design of these axles have been progressively downgraded over time - back in the days when the L & B 4 ton van first appeared the axles were of a triple diameter design - 5.0mm for the wheel locating land - 3.5 mm for the hub mounting - and 3.0 mm for the bearing section. In addition they had axial splines on the 3.5 mm section to give additional location for the wheel.
When the 'Peate' wagons came along, the axles were still of the triple diameter design, but the axial splines had been deleted. However, to compensate for the loss of the splines, the diameter of the hub mounting section had been increased from 3.5 mm to 4.3 mm diameter.
Now we come to the 'I of M' wagon axles which have been reduced to a simple two diameter design. The diameter of the hub mounting section has been reduced to be the same as that of the bearing section - i.e. 3.0 mm - which doesn't appear to be adequate considering that the 'I of M' wheels are bigger than the 'Peate' ones.
2) - All 4 wheels don't contact the track at the same time due to perhaps the most significant difference between the two designs.
On the 'Peate' wagons the W-irons have a flange running along the top edge which provides positive location up against the underside of the wagon floor. - On the 'I of M's there is no such flange - the irons are completely flat and so there is no positive location other than two M2 X 5mm self tapping screws which are a loose clearance fit in the irons.
Curiously - there are reinforcing pads moulded or glued to the floor in way of the irons, but the irons are completely clear of these pads by between 0.7 to 2.0mm
Unlike the 'Peat' wagons where the W-irons, axle boxes and springs are all cast as a single unit - the 'I of M' axle boxes actually slide in the irons as though it was originally intended that the wheels should be sprung. The big cut outs in the replica springs also look as though they were intended to accomodate real springs at some point.
I think the point here is that - if you are going to delete the locating flanges, then you need springing to compensate for the differences in height - and if you are going to delete the springing, then you need the flanges to positively locate the W-irons. However, if you delete both the flanges and the springing, then there is not much chance of keeping all 4 wheels in contact with the track at the same time.
3) - The 'Peat' wheels appear to be fully machined stainless steel - whereas, the 'I of M' wheels appear to be completely un-machined white metal castings. This cast finish is of a high quality but the imperfections on the rolling surface of the tire are just too big to allow smooth running - these deffects are difficult to see because the whole wheel, including the actual rolling surface in contact with the rail is covered in black paint.
There are a number of other points where the 'Peat' wagons are superior to the 'I of M's'
- Although the brake levers on the 'I of M's' are 50% longer than the 'Peat's' - they are only half the thickness which makes them very susceptable to getting bent.
- The lever on the 'I of M' was fitted up side down and because it was held in place by a rivet I had to drill it out - drill and tap the mounting - and fit an authentic looking M2 X 0.4 square head brass bolt - just like the ones that come fitted as standard on the 'Peats'. Now that I'd inverted the brake lever, the attachment bracket for the brake locking pin chain was upsidedown and had to be repositioned.
- The body furniture on the 'Peats' is painted authentic matt black - on the 'I of M's' it's just bare shiny plastic.
- Small details that are separate mouldings on the 'Peat's' are just painted on by hand with a brush on the 'I of M's' - the brackets that join the buffer beam's to the longitudinals - the wrought iron bands on the ends of the buffer beams. (the Peat's dont have these bands, but on the L & B bogie brake van that has similar beams, these bands are separate mouldings.) - and the inboard static part of the side board hinges.
As I said - disappointing ....
Last edited:
My goodness me John, that is a long list of deficiencies. The three wagons I have seem to be okay and have covered 21 actual miles today without any problems.
I hope you returned them John. Not much point moaning about a product if the manufacturer never knows.
Well to be fair - most of those problems only became apparent becase I had both wagon types side by side and I could compare them directly.
It would be interesting to know if you have found some of the same issues - or if the later ones have been improved.
It's not moaning Alan - when I was merely responding to the following members question ....
(quote) John - I also have the Accucraft W&L Peate wagons among others and all are very nice models. I was thinking of getting some of the IOM open wagons and soon to be released van and brake.
What are the specific 'quality' issues you have noticed with IOM rolling stock you have so far purchased?
.... Andrew (unquote)
As I said - I only bought one and no, I didn't return it, because it's still a good looking model and will be an interesting project to install sprung suspension on.
I had far more serious issues with the Accucraft NA locomotive I'd bought and I didn't return that either because, part of the fun is fixing things and more importantly, I'm just not prepared to have the hassle and trauma of entrusting expensive models to the tender mercies of the shipping people any more than is absolutely neccessary.
As far as telling the manufacturer about these problems is concerned - on the forum where I originally posted, I've had comunications with both the dealer and the designer - and who knows, they might even read GSC too! ....
I'm just trying to imagine how much 'fun' I'd have trying to fix problems on a brand-new £2500 locomotive.
I suspect that it would not be an overly large amount.
tac
I suspect that it would not be an overly large amount.
tac
This thread reminded me that of the four M wagon I bought, two have a bit of vertical movement when running, and therefore get little use. I'm not sure if the wheels are oval or the centres eccentric, but should be able to check this on a lathe.
Closer inspection (and disassembly) of the W iron/axleboxes reveals that the axleboxes are held in place in the W irons by paint alone, so a quick lick with a needle file has freed them off, which provides about 1mm of vertical movement on each wheel. I never had any problems with the running of these other than the off-centre/elliptical wheels, but will this amount of compensation be useful? There is the option of removing a small amount of metal from the top of the axlebox which would just about double the amount of movement -is it worth doing? The final development would be to drill a vertical hole through the leaf spring and insert a small (20mm long x 3mm dia) coil spring so that this 1 - 2mm vertical movement is sprung. Before I proceed, can anyone tell me if there is any appreciable benefit to be gained from doing this?
I may also experiment with truing up the wheel diameters on a lathe so that they are concentric, but that is a separate undertaking to providing some compensation/springing.
Closer inspection (and disassembly) of the W iron/axleboxes reveals that the axleboxes are held in place in the W irons by paint alone, so a quick lick with a needle file has freed them off, which provides about 1mm of vertical movement on each wheel. I never had any problems with the running of these other than the off-centre/elliptical wheels, but will this amount of compensation be useful? There is the option of removing a small amount of metal from the top of the axlebox which would just about double the amount of movement -is it worth doing? The final development would be to drill a vertical hole through the leaf spring and insert a small (20mm long x 3mm dia) coil spring so that this 1 - 2mm vertical movement is sprung. Before I proceed, can anyone tell me if there is any appreciable benefit to be gained from doing this?
I may also experiment with truing up the wheel diameters on a lathe so that they are concentric, but that is a separate undertaking to providing some compensation/springing.
My three wagons have now covered 63 actual miles without any problems. At 100 miles I will disassemble them and evaluate the wear and tear.
They wobble up and down and side to side. I can accept the latter but the up and down movement is a bit too nautical for my liking!
Not good looking, is it. I t does seem to be a problem with wheel sets. I remember that the Bachmann replacement metal wheels sometimes had a wobble.
I bought a set of Accucraft (British) wheels for the VW Speeder - they're OK
Bachmann wheelsets could generate massive wiggles, but never come off the track - don't know how they managed it
Bachmann wheelsets could generate massive wiggles, but never come off the track - don't know how they managed it
Having had the wheelsets apart, there is good and bad news. The radial (i.e. up and down) wobble seems to be a result of the plastic bushes being a push fit in the wheels and on the axles. Some of the holes in the bushes seem off-centre, which I assume is a manufacturing anomaly. I've made up some replacement bushes and this has solved the vertical movement, but things are further complicated by the holes in the wheels, most of which are 5.9mm diameter, but some are 6. I think this may be what gives the sideways wobble. In practice it increases/decreases the distance between flanges but doesn't affect running -my M wagons have never derailed, which is a bit of a novelty on my line.
The good news is that many of these wagons run perfectly straight from the box, so Casey and others need not worry that these things could develop over time. I think it is fair to assume that if you have a good one, it will remain good.
The bad news is that anyone who ends up with two of my wagons in 10/20/30 etc years time will find that the axles aren't insulated!
The good news is that many of these wagons run perfectly straight from the box, so Casey and others need not worry that these things could develop over time. I think it is fair to assume that if you have a good one, it will remain good.
The bad news is that anyone who ends up with two of my wagons in 10/20/30 etc years time will find that the axles aren't insulated!
Well perhaps I can enlighten you.
Yes I bought it and even with all the faults it was still something of a bargain - and yes I accepted it because some of the major problems were beyond the manufacturers ability/willingness to put right - a typical example being the defective water gauge.
Ideally, for the best gauge performance, the top and bottom connections should tap directly into the back head and the fittings need to have a larger bore that the gauge glass itself.
However, for these small engines that is just not practical, so the most expediant solution for the manufacturer is to cobble together a variety of standard fittings to enable the top connection to made via a tortuous path through the steam manifold. Unfortunately, there are many models out there with a similar problem, so for anybody who may be interested in improving their gauges - this is what I did ....
There's no easy way to solve this other than increasing the bore of the various fittings, taking care to leave sufficient wall thickness to withstand the stresses of assembly and steam pressure - especially at the root of the threads.
Lower fitting increased from 1.96 to 3.3mm.
Upper fitting increased from 1.96 to 3.3mm.
Top bajo fitting increased from 1.96 to 2.5mm
Banjo bolt x-bore increased from 1.5 to 2mm.
Manifold to central riser increased from 1.96 to 2.5mm. (note - this could impact the boiler certification as it's an integral part of the shell.)
Although still not ideal, these changes alone give a much more useable gauge and my next mod. will be to increase the gauge glass to 6.0mm to gain a further improvement.
__________________
Regards ....
John
I had to go back to the start of this thread - I thought I had missed something! I presume your locomotive was from the same stable as the trucks?
I often wonder if the water is to blame with regards to the number of problems experienced with sight gauges. I have never seen any water treatment offered that might alter the surface tension or scaling of the different waters - is there such a thing for model steamers? Or do you just use water produced by condensation?
You have made some large increases in bore size - nearly 70% in the case of the top and bottom fittings. You would think that manufacturers would adequately test their products before releasing them on to the market place!
As for the subject of this thread, I think they are a nice looking representation of the originals!