Cavalex - New Class 60

[Zunnan]

I was really glad I did DEMU this weekend, looking over both of the incoming 60s being the main goal. I think even without the novelty of the magnetic bufferbeam and how simply convenient that makes swapping in and out a full detailed piece for coupler fitting, Cavalex has the edge just from a simple observation standpoint. There are elements of the Accura 60 which are a smidge behind the Hornby model, unless there are tooling revisions still to be made. Something so simple yet affects the whole face of the model. If you know and notice, you know. If you don't you probably won't ever miss it. Lets just say Bachmanns first 47 suffered from them, but in this case they should be present and are there on the Cav 60 but seem absent or are far too subtle on the Accura model.

 

edit ~ I should stress that I want both models to succeed here. A lot of effort has gone in by both parties, and as a customer I don't think I'd be disappointed with either model based on what I've seen. If, like a few experienced the with 56, the Cav 60 rapidly disappears from retailers and I missed out I would still happily go the other route. My pre-order is in well in advance this time though!

Edited June 17 by Zunnan

[atom3624]

The 'previous' Hornby iteration was pretty decent, and certainly considering how long ago it was manufactured.

I'm certain, as mentioned above, both 'newcomers' will have their own individual idiosyncrasies, but I'm certain they'll both be a step up, and brilliant.

 

I've ordered IKB (CavAlex of course) and am definitely keeping the order.

 

Al. 

Edited June 17 by atom3624

[zr2498]

23 hours ago, zr2498 said:

That DC Rail Freight looks great. I just wasn't quick enough to order the KMW exclusive. Hopefully there will be more on run 2?

Oh dear! No response as yet from the Cavalex boys. I would wait for a Cav one if I knew it was on the cards, instead of the other

[RBE]

45 minutes ago, zr2498 said:

Oh dear! No response as yet from the Cavalex boys. I would wait for a Cav one if I knew it was on the cards, instead of the other

Sorry didn't see the post. I'm very sure there will be more DC Rail liveried stock moving forward. It's a great livery and DC Rail are really big fans of the 60.

[97403_Ixion]

On 12/06/2024 at 23:21, RBE said:

No it has a floating centre axle like the 56 to help with finescale track. It doesn't need to be 6 axle drive, in fact the wheel to rail friction is better with four powered axles than six unlike on a real locomotives that has fully working suspension to spread the locos weight over more wheels and reduce track wear.

 

Our loco is lighter than the Accurascale one 650g v the perported 825g but weight per drive wheel (wheels carrying actual vehicle weight) and hence frictional traction at rail works out higher on ours.

 

825g / 12 wheels = 68.75g per wheel

Vs 650g / 8 wheels = 81.25g per wheel

 

We expect the performance to be comparable, ours is certainly powerful enough to pull anything it needs to on a model railway.

 

The reason behind our decision is not power however but the ability to ride well on finescale track especially when converted to P4 or EM gauge. As a modeller I have had too many issues in the past dealing with rocking bogies so we made the decision to float the cente axle as standard on all Co- Co locos.

It would also depend on the power of the motor at the wheels (i.e. less any losses in bearings, etc.), shared across however many driving wheels.

I would imagine the motors are probably comparable between the manufacturers and maybe near the limits of possibility anyway.

But if putting all power on just 4 axles, each with a heavier axle loading and hence higher coefficient of friction (assuming similar wheel surface properties) to provide adhesion, the delivered power at the track I would expect to be greater.  I'm not a mechanical engineer but am an engineer nonetheless... so interested in these kinds of thing.

 

The only way to improve power delivery would be to use traction control on each axle.  They did trials with a wheel slip control system called SEPEX on 58050 in the very early days, though removed it after the tests.

Power delivery is actively reduced to any axle that slips, whilst keeping full power to all remaining axles - a little like anti-lock brakes but in respect of power delivery instead.  I was even thinking of giving it a go in a model but life got in the way before then!

 

I think Cavalex have got it right to float the centre axle and their justifications seem very sensible to me.  Their Class 56 is testament to the power delivery possible (thinking of that 56 performing an incline start, pulling lots of HAAs!).  That's not to say Accurascale have got it wrong, just different approach, so not knocking them at all.

 

The 60 is a super machine, so having more loco number choices is a good thing.

Food for thought though... if it did turn out one or the other was more powerful, well, just buy the appropriate DB liveried one and call it a Super 60!

 

Cheers,

Ixion.

[RBE]

It's all interesting stuff and as an engineer myself I find it fascinating, however, there are pros and cons to both systems. We are using floating axles purely to make like easier for the P4 and EM modellers as some form of compensation is absolutely critical with those track standards, however our argument regarding power is solely aimed at those that think 4 axle drive will not be fit for purpose, which of course is nonsense. 

 

It's not wrong to use 6 axle drive but you do need to ensure a level of compensation if you do use it on finescale track. 4 axle drive just makes that process easier.

 

We are never going to say it will be the champion hauler of 2025 but it will be a great model that will haul what it needs to for prototypical running and provide an easy platform for finescale modellers to use on their layouts.

Edited June 18 by RBE

[Roy Langridge]

11 hours ago, Zunnan said:

 Something so simple yet affects the whole face of the model. If you know and notice, you know. If you don't you probably won't ever miss it. Lets just say Bachmanns first 47 suffered from them, but in this case they should be present and are there on the Cav 60 but seem absent or are far too subtle on the Accura model.

If you mean the windscreen retaining screws then they are flush countersunk screws on the prototype, not raised at all and on some locos are pretty much invisible. 
 

60001:

If you want something so subtle to show in model form it is necessary to make it slightly overscale, which is what Cavalex seem to have done. Accurascale haven’t.
 

Personally, I can live with both approaches as they are one of those compromises that has to be taken in 4mm scale. 

Roy

[RBE]

5 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

If you mean the windscreen retaining screws then they are flush countersunk screws on the prototype, not raised at all and on some locos are pretty much invisible. 
 

60001:

If you want something so subtle to show in model form it is necessary to make it slightly overscale, which is what Cavalex seem to have done. Accurascale haven’t.
 

Personally, I can live with both approaches as they are one of those compromises that has to be taken in 4mm scale. 

Roy

Agreed Roy. You have to choose an approach. In reality when looking at a real class 60, unless it's straight out of the paint shop, the window screws are always visible. They are flush as you say but are not always level with the frame surface and in short time the paint is cracked around them or weathered so they are very visible. 

 

In order to allow modellers to replicate that we moulded ours in. It's no different to manufacturers oversized rivets etc to make those more visible as well. 

 

Neither approach is wrong and it's down to what people prefer I guess.

 

We personally feels it lacks something without them, your milage may vary.

Edited June 18 by RBE

[adb968008]

To weigh back into the 6 wheel vs 4 wheel debate.

 

Back in the 1970’s Lima made the J50, Pannier tank, with coupling rods only pinned to the outer wheels. That also was for compensation, and handling sharp curves.

 

None one liked it, because it wasnt real, and no steam modeller would accept that today. Indeed Hornbys recent 71000 was panned because it was a bit lacking in the motion, as it was little more than a GWR loco when it came to motion, at a minimum several swapped the driving wheel coupling rod for Britannia ones, but it was still lacking.

 

The last two decades, weve seen a trend from 4wh to 6wh drive on co-cos without much complaint. Whilst the science suggests it might be better, it is less real.

 

Varying levels of aggression in emotional comments from some supporters aimed at persuading modellers to accept something less real in preference to science, seems a contradiction when refusing the science that traction tyres are ultimately the best solution, even if they are also equally unpopular, it works both ways!.. Realists like Real, Scientists should like Science.

 

so..

 

If this is about making it easier for p4 modellers, why not just offer a gear free centre axle in the p4 wheelsets pack, design the gear tower around that ? If additional movement space is required, put small axlebox guides/bush on the 00 axle, and leave it off the p4 axle.. this also takes the weight off it.

Wouldnt this then be the best of both worlds ?

 

 

Edited June 18 by adb968008

[Zunnan]

6 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

If you mean the windscreen retaining screws then they are flush countersunk screws on the prototype, not raised at all and on some locos are pretty much invisible. 
 

60001:

If you want something so subtle to show in model form it is necessary to make it slightly overscale, which is what Cavalex seem to have done. Accurascale haven’t.
 

Personally, I can live with both approaches as they are one of those compromises that has to be taken in 4mm scale. 

Roy

 

 

I don't disgree. However, even when freshly shopped they weren't invisible, and after a short period in service they became very visible indeed. Different people observe things differently, so everyone is going to have a slightly different viewpoint and take note of different aspects of a model. Take the class 25 for example, I've had discussions with people who can't tell the difference between the 20 year old Bachmann model and a Heljan one. Does that make them right or wrong? Does it really matter? Of course not!

 

60016, Stockport circa 1992

 

DBS 60007

 

From my most usual viewing points of down from the bridges or from the disused station in and around Sutton Park, the first thing you'd see was the face of a locomotive. With the Tugs the windscreen stood out to me the most, especially when the black surround wore back to bare metal. For me, the Cavalex representation sits better by having them.

Edited June 18 by Zunnan

[RBE]

2 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

To weigh back into the 6 wheel vs 4 wheel debate.

 

Back in the 1970’s Lima made the J50, Pannier tank, with coupling rods only pinned to the outer wheels. That also was for compensation, and handling sharp curves.

 

None one liked it, because it wasnt real, and no steam modeller would accept that today. Indeed Hornbys recent 71000 was panned because it was a bit lacking in the motion, as it was little more than a GWR loco when it came to motion.

 

The last two decades, weve seen a trend from 4wh to 6wh drive on co-cos without much complaint. Whilst the science suggests it might be better, it is less real.

 

Varying levels of aggression in emotional comments from some supporters aimed at persuading modellers to accept something less real in preference to science, seems a contradiction when refusing the science that traction tyres are ultimately the best solution, even if they are also equally unpopular, it works both ways!

 

If this is about making it easier for p4 modellers, why not just offer a gear free centre axle in the p4 wheelsets pack ? If additional movement space is required to allow the wheel move less restricted, put a small axlebox guide on the 00 wheel, and leave it off the p4 wheel. 

Wouldnt this then meet the best of both worlds ?

 

 

Having the movement connected or not on a steam engine is a very different case though, its all very visible and detracts from the look of the model if it's incorrect. The fact it wasn't powered like the real thing was not the issue, it was the fact that you could clearly see that the wheels were not pinned and didn't move right. On diesel locomotives you cannot see whether its 4 axle or 6 axle drive. Hell you can't even see the difference on a real life class 31. The argument of it being more real is a straw man argument, where do you consider the stop point there? The bogies don't have axle mounted traction motors or a diesel engine in it so any model loco regardless of how many wheels are powered are not real as each axle by that argument should be independently powered and driven by a diesel powered electricity generator inside the body. 

 

The argument of traction tires is, for me, the issue that traction tires take away contact points for potential electrical pick up, and traction tired wheel becomes insulated wheelsets by default.

 

Whilst the optional alternate wheelset idea may on the surface seem logical it isn't really. It needs to be able to move vertically for the concept to work and as you said you would have to add some kind of removable restrictor that hold the OO wheelset in place but not the P4/EM version. added complexity and cost for a small market. Simply having the centre axle floating is cost effective and provides for everyone. Also drive mechanisms in the bogies tend to use the centre axle as a pass through gear due to space and the lack of need for extra gears. Without the powered axle it would break continuity of the gear train unless the bogie gearbox could be made larger to circumnavigate the centre axle but still have a feed that the centre axle gear can mesh with. Again added complexity and size for no real gain.

 

Thirdly the benefits that P4/EM modellers gain from the floating axle, OO gauge modellers do as well with the reduction in potential see sawing in the centre axle on gradient transitions etc. Granted it's not always a problem, is generally worse when trying to make wheels with more scale sized flanges, but still a benefit none the less.

 

But fourthly and more importantly it makes no difference to the model one way or the other being 4 axle drive (indeed I don't ever recall seeing a debate regarding Heljans locomotives and they are all 4 axle drive and considered very strong pullers). If the argument is that the real one is 6 axle drive so the model should be then I don't see that is a fair reasoning to add increase cost for a swappable system, or to eliminate the benefits it gives for finescale running when as mentioned before, we also don't have axle mounted independently driven taction motors either.

 

The bottom line is as modellers me and Alex over the years have had enough issues in the past with see sawing and road holding that is was something that we felt needed addressing on our models, we agreed that 4 axle drive with floating axles was the way to go and that's currently our stance on it until we see a need to change, we will adapt of course and be looking into alternative ways to give the best of both worlds but don't want that to ultimately be a cost that has to unnecessarily be passed onto the customer.

[E100]

I'm going to cross post this to both threads as I think answers may be useful.

 

As a very satisfied customer of a fair few Accurascale models (55, 2 37's and a 92 along with some coaches and plenty more on order) but also love my 56008 this is a hard decision. Whilst there's been the occasional niggle with the 37's (speakers) and 55 (chains naturally - good job on fixing these for the next batch) they are superb. The 92 with the exception of the pantograph angle when down needing adjustment is IMO the finest of the lot and therefore gives me a lot of confidence in the class 60 offering. 

 

On the flipside my Cavalex 56008 is an exceptional model with a solid feel unmatched to date and have zero issues (note I don't have SLW models).

 

I think 60001 will be my rule 1 class 60. They will have needed to test on the Fort William Alcan flow of course! I therefore find myself trying to weigh up the benefits of each. So are there any other factors to consider than those below:

• Slightly lower price for Accurascale inc. rewards
• Very occasional niggles with previous Accurascale locos (granted it has allowed support to be given which has been very good for me a least)
• Accurascale's higher weight
• Cavalex's floating axle solution (very conscious of the various debates around this - I'll just state this as a factor without showing my hand and doesn't the debate need reopening)
• Accurascale's box exclusive artwork is exceptional unless Cavalex plan to follow suit which I'm sure will also be good. The 56 box is very nice as is anyway but the exclusives nudge it currently.
• Cavalex's bufferbeam (bit of gimmick for me but understand those who want it)
• I have no desire for EM/P4 so whilst I think Cavalex have announced more support though providing wheelsets unless I am mistaken I don't think Accurascale have said they will, yet at least.

Is there anything else I should consider and I welcome input from the team to highlight their USP's. I'm not asking for opinions (as those can be debated for

time immemorial) but more just key factors to consider such as those above that differentiate between the two.

 

Both teams are genuinely lovely to chat to at shows and on here and IMO are very worthy of our support. I'd hope we can all agree that they are at great at engaging with modellers and both design teams are clearly very passionate about class 60's which comes across in the videos and info put out.

[RBE]

2 minutes ago, E100 said:

I'm going to cross post this to both threads as I think answers may be useful.

 

As a very satisfied customer of a fair few Accurascale models (55, 2 37's and a 92 along with some coaches and plenty more on order) but also love my 56008 this is a hard decision. Whilst there's been the occasional niggle with the 37's (speakers) and 55 (chains naturally - good job on fixing these for the next batch) they are superb. The 92 with the exception of the pantograph angle when down needing adjustment is IMO the finest of the lot and therefore gives me a lot of confidence in the class 60 offering. 

 

On the flipside my Cavalex 56008 is an exceptional model with a solid feel unmatched to date and have zero issues (note I don't have SLW models).

 

I think 60001 will be my rule 1 class 60. They will have needed to test on the Fort William Alcan flow of course! I therefore find myself trying to weigh up the benefits of each. So are there any other factors to consider than those below:

• Slightly lower price for Accurascale inc. rewards
• Very occasional niggles with previous Accurascale locos (granted it has allowed support to be given which has been very good for me a least)
• Accurascale's higher weight
• Cavalex's floating axle solution (very conscious of the various debates around this - I'll just state this as a factor without showing my hand and doesn't the debate need reopening)
• Accurascale's box exclusive artwork is exceptional unless Cavalex plan to follow suit which I'm sure will also be good. The 56 box is very nice as is anyway but the exclusives nudge it currently.
• Cavalex's bufferbeam (bit of gimmick for me but understand those who want it)
• I have no desire for EM/P4 so whilst I think Cavalex have announced more support though providing wheelsets unless I am mistaken I don't think Accurascale have said they will, yet at least.

Is there anything else I should consider and I welcome input from the team to highlight their USP's. I'm not asking for opinions (as those can be debated for

time immemorial) but more just key factors to consider such as those above that differentiate between the two.

 

Both teams are genuinely lovely to chat to at shows and on here and IMO are very worthy of our support. I'd hope we can all agree that they are at great at engaging with modellers and both design teams are clearly very passionate about class 60's which comes across in the videos and info put out.

All fair comments, and very sensible. 

 

As for our USP, it's as it's always been. We are modellers (OCD ones at that some might say) first and foremost who are trying to bring the highest possible levels of quality, detail and accuracy to our models that its possible to achieve and push to make it possible where it currently isn't.

 

For us it is just as important to cater for the finescale modeller who are not a massive market but just as important none the less as they generally represent the level of modelling that ultimately we would all like to emulate and also bring that level of finesse to the average modellers who ultimately don't feel that they have the skill set to achieve the level of modelling to produce models themselves that they aspire to own and operate.

 

We are both long term experienced modellers and lifelong railway enthusiasts that want to use that experience and knowledge to make what we hope you will agree are some of the most accurate looking high quality items of roling stock produced to date, and enjoy them as you see fit.

[ruggedpeak]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

The last two decades, weve seen a trend from 4wh to 6wh drive on co-cos without much complaint. Whilst the science suggests it might be better, it is less real.

This is highly subjective and somewhat illusory. 6wd is only slightly more "real" than 4wd given the drivetrain of the model otherwise bears zero "realness" to the actual locos. I'm pretty sure there isn't a great big electric motor sitting in the middle of the body driving 2 driveshafts into a tower gearbox sitting on each bogie. Until someone puts a tiny diesel generator and hangs motor off bogies or axles the "real" is a bit of a nonsense.

 

The science is which runs the best, pulls the most and has practical features like ease of maintenance and supply of spare. Type of drive is irrelevant to those items, it is real world outcomes that matter.

 

It is quite likely that something one 76th of the size of the real thing will be different due to materials, the laws of physics, the drivetrain being totally different, and the permanent way being very different.

 

I used to sell high end hifi and home cinema. I have excellent hearing and can detect a  single blown transistor in a large amp. The vast majority of other people can't, neither can they actually/scientifically tell the difference between a £50k sound system and a £1m one. The biology of most people's hearing simply isn't good enough. A good salesman could convince buyers that  they could tell the difference but the reality was they couldn't. Same with 4 and 6 wheel drive, if you didn't know which was which you wouldn't be able to tell when the locos run.

 

Might make people feel better but the science is which runs and pulls better and has the best drivetrain on the real world of running on layouts.

[IOW O2]

Originally posted some of this on the Accu 60 thread.

 

A few weeks back I made a change to either end of the hidden storage roads.

 

I replaced gentler curves of flexi-track leading in and out with the Peco 2 radius set-track to get a longer trains in.  There was a stark difference, AS Deltic, 10+yr old Bach 37, latest Bach 47, as they hit the new curve, (as in pic below with roof off scenic section so to speak, Bach 47 shown) at about 50 mph scale speed hauling coaches there is a noticeable jerk in the coaches still in the scenic section.  Obviously not an issue at other end when exiting. The Cav 56 and class73 no jerking.

 

I ran light engine at a crawl for a test and the 55, 37 and 47 will stop, 47 shown below, the 55 will go on a bit more.  All BtB's OK.  It's not a major issue for me, the 60 is not a loco I will be getting from either manufacturer as too late a period, but food for thought.  Will be getting another blue 56 from the 2nd run.

 

Just in case anyone on this thread is wondering if it's the track or my laying, it was brand new and not dirty, R2, Peco ST2026, only the 3 AWD do it, all other locos inc. 4-6-2's and 0-6-0 tanks no issues, so not electrical.  This is the only R2 on layout.  A further test since if at 60mph there's minimal jerk, more inertia carrying them over that centre point of curve I guess.

[zr2498]

2 hours ago, E100 said:

As a very satisfied customer of a fair few Accurascale models (55, 2 37's and a 92 along with some coaches and plenty more on order) but also love my 56008 this is a hard decision. Whilst there's been the occasional niggle with the 37's (speakers) and 55 (chains naturally - good job on fixing these for the next batch) they are superb. The 92 with the exception of the pantograph angle when down needing adjustment is IMO the finest of the lot and therefore gives me a lot of confidence in the class 60 offering. 

 

On the flipside my Cavalex 56008 is an exceptional model with a solid feel unmatched to date and have zero issues (note I don't have SLW models).

 

• Cavalex's floating axle solution (very conscious of the various debates around this - I'll just state this as a factor without showing my hand and doesn't the debate need reopening)

 

I have to agree that the Accurascale 55s and 37s have been excellent, albeit there have been a few minor issues to resolve. In some respects this is because they have been pathfinders and have susequently changed designs based on feedback and performance.

 

The problem I had with my first 92 was chattering along the flat straight rail, as the middle wheels in the Co of both bogies were set slightly lower than the two outer wheelsets. Hence the 'rock around the middle set clock'. The replacement was much better, but I could still measure a very small rock. Ideally the centre wheel set is set very slightly higher than the two outer. Indeed, I found that on a DJH A2 kit the locomotive frames were drilled that way.

So, although there are differing opinions, the floating centre wheel set is the ideal engineering solution, especially if handling changes to gradients. I very much welcomed this for my Cavalex 56s and these have both run perfect out of the box.

 

[7013]

Successfully changed my pre order With ROS, now have IKB on pre order.....🙃 as a 🐷 in💩

[Shoey]

17 hours ago, RBE said:

Sorry didn't see the post. I'm very sure there will be more DC Rail liveried stock moving forward. It's a great livery and DC Rail are really big fans of the 60.

60099 is still yet to emerge so a handful still to choose from 😊

[dj_crisp]

8 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

 

If this is about making it easier for p4 modellers, why not just offer a gear free centre axle in the p4 wheelsets pack, design the gear tower around that ? If additional movement space is required, put small axlebox guides/bush on the 00 axle, and leave it off the p4 axle.. this also takes the weight off it.

Wouldnt this then be the best of both worlds ?

 

 

 

Sorry i can't see this working well for EM/P4 and I think it's over complicating the design for no benefit.

 

I still don't get your suggestion that models are more realistic with AWD on co-co's as models do not pocess scale weight, the material properties cannot be scaled down and the bogies are not sprung. So they don't behave the same as the real thing and you start with a model that is compromised in a "real" sense resulting in more of a challenge to make the thing work ok in a model world. If you're really bored have a look at my (low quality) video of a hattons 66 negotiating a minor incline and going over pointwork..... then look at a real 66 doing similar and you'll see the bogies work differently. It took me an age to get the shed to work well as.... you guessed it.... it annoyingly rocked on one bogie. I don't actually blame the manufacters for this as tolerances to be able to get perfect bogies must be really difficult. To me it seems obvious to go with a design that doesn't require such a fine tolerance and is more tuned to a model railway than a real railway.

 

Then looking at this from a business point of view.... which option would you take;

1. AWD which can work well on OO layouts with perfectly flat track OR;

2. A1A drive which will work better on OO layouts without perfectly flat track (which if we're being honest is more likely and I include my layout). Then as a consequence the model will be more popular with EM/P4 modellers resulting in your model featuring on more scale layouts in magazine photos.

 

I know which business model I would invest in..... And I know which bogies on locos i prefer.... Bo-Bo's are just brilliant.

 

[96701]

Dammit! Just ordered the sound fitted Steel on Steel. I wasn't going to get another 60, now I have 2 on pre-order.

[Erixtar1992]

Cant believe the floating axle thing is still ongoing. 😂

[97403_Ixion]

12 hours ago, E100 said:

I'm going to cross post this to both threads as I think answers may be useful.

 

As a very satisfied customer of a fair few Accurascale models (55, 2 37's and a 92 along with some coaches and plenty more on order) but also love my 56008 this is a hard decision. Whilst there's been the occasional niggle with the 37's (speakers) and 55 (chains naturally - good job on fixing these for the next batch) they are superb. The 92 with the exception of the pantograph angle when down needing adjustment is IMO the finest of the lot and therefore gives me a lot of confidence in the class 60 offering. 

 

On the flipside my Cavalex 56008 is an exceptional model with a solid feel unmatched to date and have zero issues (note I don't have SLW models).

 

I think 60001 will be my rule 1 class 60. They will have needed to test on the Fort William Alcan flow of course! I therefore find myself trying to weigh up the benefits of each. So are there any other factors to consider than those below:

• Slightly lower price for Accurascale inc. rewards
• Very occasional niggles with previous Accurascale locos (granted it has allowed support to be given which has been very good for me a least)
• Accurascale's higher weight
• Cavalex's floating axle solution (very conscious of the various debates around this - I'll just state this as a factor without showing my hand and doesn't the debate need reopening)
• Accurascale's box exclusive artwork is exceptional unless Cavalex plan to follow suit which I'm sure will also be good. The 56 box is very nice as is anyway but the exclusives nudge it currently.
• Cavalex's bufferbeam (bit of gimmick for me but understand those who want it)
• I have no desire for EM/P4 so whilst I think Cavalex have announced more support though providing wheelsets unless I am mistaken I don't think Accurascale have said they will, yet at least.

Is there anything else I should consider and I welcome input from the team to highlight their USP's. I'm not asking for opinions (as those can be debated for

time immemorial) but more just key factors to consider such as those above that differentiate between the two.

 

Both teams are genuinely lovely to chat to at shows and on here and IMO are very worthy of our support. I'd hope we can all agree that they are at great at engaging with modellers and both design teams are clearly very passionate about class 60's which comes across in the videos and info put out.

 

Hi E100,

 

Minor additions, to do with packaging...

 

  Cavalex's 56 was supported inside the main box in a very rigid plastic support base frame (screwed to it) and enclosed within a foam insert.

  Accurascale locos come in a more standard transparent plastic opening blister, inside a plastic rectangular tube, supported by foam, all within the main box.

 

Both have good rigid external boxes, though Accurascale generally have an additional plastic sleeve around the outer box, though I have had one (or maybe two) models missing this.

 

  Cavalex - you can see the model as soon as you remove the foam layer - making it easier to check something without taking it right out

  The attached base also means you can hold it up for inspection, without handling the body (remember that fine detail is easy to damage if handled wrongly)

  It takes longer to get it on the tracks though as you have to remove the base panel first...

 

  Accurascale - I feel the sides of the model are better protected from any loose items in the box but you have to remove the packaging more to see the model itself.

  The external transparent sleeve does help keep the lid and box together, though the speed the lids slide off these days means you probably have a minute before the contents drop out the bottom!

  Quick undo of the blister packaging and you can get the model onto the rails for work...

 

Both good packaging and not sure which I feel is truly better as they both have their merits.

 

Thanks,

Ixion.

[bradfordbuffer]

3 minutes ago, Erixtar1992 said:

Cant believe the floating axle thing is still ongoing. 😂

It's the gift that keeps on giving....you would think people would just accept that's how this model is going to be produced.

[norfolkchinaclay]

7 hours ago, bradfordbuffer said:

It's the gift that keeps on giving....you would think people would just accept that's how this model is going to be produced.

Exactly. If they don’t like it, they do not have to spend their money on it. Other manufacturers products are available in this particular case, so they have a choice unlike a few years ago.

 

Full support for the Cavalex 60 from me (I’ve preordered the DCR grey one from Key Pub). I’m also happy to consider the Acc one if they do DCR 055 which has been hinted at by them.

 

Please can we all move on? 

[Nick-L]

23 hours ago, adb968008 said:

To weigh back into the 6 wheel vs 4 wheel debate.

 

Back in the 1970’s Lima made the J50, Pannier tank, with coupling rods only pinned to the outer wheels. That also was for compensation, and handling sharp curves.

 

None one liked it, because it wasnt real, and no steam modeller would accept that today. Indeed Hornbys recent 71000 was panned because it was a bit lacking in the motion, as it was little more than a GWR loco when it came to motion, at a minimum several swapped the driving wheel coupling rod for Britannia ones, but it was still lacking.

 

The last two decades, weve seen a trend from 4wh to 6wh drive on co-cos without much complaint. Whilst the science suggests it might be better, it is less real.

 

Varying levels of aggression in emotional comments from some supporters aimed at persuading modellers to accept something less real in preference to science, seems a contradiction when refusing the science that traction tyres are ultimately the best solution, even if they are also equally unpopular, it works both ways!.. Realists like Real, Scientists should like Science.

 

so..

 

If this is about making it easier for p4 modellers, why not just offer a gear free centre axle in the p4 wheelsets pack, design the gear tower around that ? If additional movement space is required, put small axlebox guides/bush on the 00 axle, and leave it off the p4 axle.. this also takes the weight off it.

Wouldnt this then be the best of both worlds ?

 

 

If you are concerned about “reality” you’d be converting your models and building your track closer to scale standards.