Quote from: Highlander 66 on October 04, 2023, 10:37:06 AM

Quote from: Roy L S on October 03, 2023, 11:44:31 AM

Quote from: Steven B on October 03, 2023, 09:29:43 AMFrom what has been said here and elsewhere, Revolution saw no issues with the free-running of the Mk5s on their test samples. It remains to be seen if the problem's due to a change at the factory (like the Rapido Conflats) or down to the bogies not being put together properly.

How much of the problems are down to the electrical pick-up and how much is due to the internal bearings remains to be seen. Internal bearings are hard to do. Neither Farish or Dapols class 220 were particularly free running.


What might be worth further discussion given the problems with the lighting limitations on DC is whether as modellers it's something we want. Personally I don't what interior lighting and would either remove it or permanently switch it off. Dapol's approach of light bars available as a separate item is probably the best solution for most.

I can see several different approaches, the question is are there any others and which would we as modellers prefer?

A. factory fitted lights with magnetic wands - current Revolution and Rapido approach but need turning off again every time power is reapplied on DC.

B. Push the boundary further - fit the magnet controlled lights but power from a battery so they don't turn off when track power is removed. Recharging from the track would be a bonus.

C. Factory fitted lights with switches to turn lights on and off, either needs roof removing or vehicle lifting from track to access switches that might compromise roof or underframe detail.

D. Don't fit lighting - add the pick-ups but sell us light bars as optional extras

E. Don't fit lighting, don't fit pick-ups.


SB

I will firstly admit to having no skin in the game as far as these particular coaches are concerned and on the plus side I do admire the level of detail and finish shown on the pictures I have seen.

In terms of the options above, as a preference I am firmly in the "E" category personally, as I see it most of us run our trains in conditions where we want to see them, and this involves the whole layout being lit in some way to represent daylight, so the need for lights in coaches will in most cases be limited. I do not want to pay extra for all the paraphernalia involved in lighting coaches for something I will not use. In this respect for me Farish have it right, producing quality models without such gimmicks.

The above is just my opinion and I accept there will nonetheless be those who do want them, and so I would regard option "D" as an acceptable compromise so long as in doing so the running quality of models were not negatively impacted. This appears easy enough to achieve with outside bearings using split insulated pinpoint axles, but I am far from convinced it can achieved with inside bearings, where the bearing surface has to be sufficiently large to afford reliable current transfer. Inevitably even the most perfect bearing surface if it is large will create more friction, and when the surface (and/or other factors) are less than perfect (as they will be in the world of mass production inevitably) people will get the results being witnessed with these Mk5 coaches, where remarkably some are reporting even the four coach Fort William set is a struggle for some otherwise quite competent locos.

On the not so positive side I have a couple of other observations with regard to this specific matter. Firstly, I am somewhat surprised from seeing posts on forums that people appear to be encouraged to try and fix the coaches with problems themselves rather than the default being to return them (as is of course their right under consumer law if an item isn't fit for purpose). Secondly, if the problem is as widespread as it appears would it not be sensible to at least have a pause on shipping further coaches out to customers/retailers until remaining models have been checked and confirmed to be OK (or in the worst case not)? I do appreciate people will have been looking forward to receiving their coaches but clearly from what we are seeing already, keen anticipation has in many cases turned into disappointment and surely knowing that the "pause" button needs to be hit?

I do appreciate that if there wasn't a perceived demand for these kind of features they wouldn't be attempted, and the challenges both technical and logistical, of producing such complex models to a certain price-point should not be underestimated. However against that I do think the inherent risk of pushing boundaries too far is what is being seen here, and I would reflect that without the lighting feature the coaches would still very likely have been extremely well received but minus the headaches and subsequent disappointment.

Roy

I agree with you entirely, Roy. This is my 3rd purchase from Revolution and the 3rd negative experience.  My first was with a DB Class 92 which suffered manufacturing defects on the electronics out of the box, the second was draggy biomass wagons that have since much improved (although no doubt added needless strain to the loco) and now this quite significant issue.
I purchased the two Inverness packs, paying the £160.83 deposit & shipping in Nov 2021, almost 2 years later the items arrive and of 8 carriages 1 ran well out of the box.  To say that I was not best pleased, after paying a further €107 for import dues, that a total spend of €417 results in this to then be told by Revolution 'refer to our MK5 page for solutions' adds considerable insult to financial injury.
It is not by any imaginable reason acceptable to ask modellers, many of whom no doubt will have purchased a 16 carriage rake, to 'have a go and put our mistake right for us'. It highlights a number of not insignificant shortcomings but especially in the proving out of design through manufacturability and the extent of quality controls throughout the entire process (I have spent enough time in China brining complex projects to launch to understand the challenges).

The response from Revolution that "our samples ran well" is an example of manufacturing naivety in the extreme - do they seriously think that the manufacturer would send them unacceptable final samples?  Did they pull sets at random from the delivery and inspect and check run-ability? When made aware (very early) by many customers that these carriages were "a bit of a drag" (seriously, this is funny?) other than pop up a webpage with things that 'might' help without having identified actual root cause(s) but continue to despatch orders is frankly not the hallmark of a Quality supplier.

No, this experience is the last straw for me as regards Revolution.  I had a Caledonian liveried 92 (the 92's I understand also suffer from motor burn-out) on the way to me but I stopped it at Customs and it has been returned to them, both packs of MK5's will be winging their way back to them when I return home from business.

I, like many others, will have welcomed a new manufacturer to the market, stunning reproductions at a reasonable price, but this experience is 3 from 3 too many so it's back to Kato, Dapol and Farish - the latter 2 not hassle-free but noticeably far more reliable and customer centric.

Obviously we are all entitled to our own thoughts, conclusions and future actions but I feel this is a little unfair on Revolution

I have the Fort William set, one smooth runner (the club car-is there a pattern here?) Others with significant drag. Ordered and paid whenever orders were opened. Am I frustrated and disappointed, yes. It seems pretty clear they are too but what have they done?

Recognised there is an issue, communicated that-far from universal amongst manufacturers. Made it clear they are investigating the how why and how to resolve thoroughly and that those investigations are ongoing but, in the meantime they have shared potential fixes of their own and those from others whilst making it clear that customers can get in touch with their after sales department if not comfortable taking any or all of these steps themselves

From my own experience and from their communications here and elsewhere I see nothing to believe they are anything other than fully open and honest in their comms so, faced with a situation they hadn't expected, what haven't they done that they could have so far?  Nothing in my opinion but to go back to where I started, for each of us to form our own view and future actions.

I refer only to the running quality, luckily for me as a DCCuser I haven't experienced the lighting issue but do understand the frustrations of others on that one

Rob

As you say Rob, each person is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions, and I for one am not for a second questioning anybody's honesty.

However, I would firstly observe that if it were any other manufacturer they would be royally slaughtered (and rightly so) for suggesting buyers try to fix the problems themselves, witness for just one example the "sloping" Dapol M7 where a fix was suggested and precisely this happened. I am not sure why an exception should be made for any manufacturer and as RevolutioN is no longer a "philanthropic" undertaking but a business on a commercial footing with paid employees like any other, this applies, and indeed I am sure the RevolutioN team wouldn't expect it to be otherwise.

Of course the issue was unforeseen and unwelcome for everyone involved and if, on top of the production samples from the manufacturer being OK, by way of thoroughness sets from the shipment were also checked at random (we don't know this happened but let's assume) then agreed, there wouldn't be any more that could have been done until the problem started to become apparent when people started receiving their sets.

However, the problem having been identified and acknowledged, one thing that in my view not only could but should have been done would be to immediately pause sending further shipments out, until it had been rectified in all impacted models or if not possible the batch returned to China with an apology to purchasers. The "pause" may indeed have already happened in this case, but I appreciate that is an internal matter for RevolutioN and one I have no doubt they will communicate if or when they feel appropriate to do so.

I have no doubts lessons have been learned which will be applied to future releases, and hopefully the TPE sets which show as still in production will be rigorously checked before despatch.

Hopefully when the K Pullmans are designed consideration will be given to points raised in this thread, and for those like me, a DCC user who have no interest in lighting in coaches, a better compromise such as optional "light bars" can be factored in.

Roy

The mk5s are evidently a 'perfect storm' of inside bearings, lighting pickups and a lot of people wanting to run long (prototypical) trains.

I've seen comment from Revolution on FB that it's a 'small number' that are affected. I must admit I find that a bit insulting. I'm not aware of anyone who has gone 'wow these run well'. A loco (any loco) not being able to pull 4 is dismal. I'm a big fan of what Revolution are doing, but I do think facing into this would be better than denying it is endemic.

I've started removing the weights from mine. They're substantial! They're conductive, so it does mean that you only get lighting pickups from one bogie (if you want to retain them at all). It's not for the faint hearted either, the coupling 'wires' can spring off, and the unframe details are easily detached (albeit easily glued on). A Farish 37 will now manage 14 (I've taken weights out of 8 so far!), albeit working hard. I can't see that 16 with a single loco will ever be doable, but perhaps a pair of 92s is what it needs to be.

Interesting. These are notably heavy in hand, I didn't dare venture to consider looking inside for fear of damaging and giving Revolution excuse to refuse a refund. Given that I don't run trains in a darkened room I would care less if I lost lightning, save the last vehicle in the rake. Is it an onerous task?

Not especially. At least if the couplings don't ping off into the ether, the spring wire is minuscule.  I'll confess to having lost one, so one coupling no longer self centres, but I'll sort that. You have to remove the body, which is the usual clipped affair. Then you have to remove the interior, which is also clipped to the underframe, but does have two wires attaching the PCB to the contacts. Then there are two weights held in by 4 screws. The coaches still feel pretty heavy without them, and seem to run fine. I'll do all of mine and see what difference it makes. Happy to be the guinea pig 

Quote from: njee20 on October 04, 2023, 11:38:06 PMThe mk5s are evidently a 'perfect storm' of inside bearings, lighting pickups and a lot of people wanting to run long (prototypical) trains.

I've seen comment from Revolution on FB that it's a 'small number' that are affected. I must admit I find that a bit insulting. I'm not aware of anyone who has gone 'wow these run well'. A loco (any loco) not being able to pull 4 is dismal. I'm a big fan of what Revolution are doing, but I do think facing into this would be better than denying it is endemic.

I've started removing the weights from mine. They're substantial! They're conductive, so it does mean that you only get lighting pickups from one bogie (if you want to retain them at all). It's not for the faint hearted either, the coupling 'wires' can spring off, and the unframe details are easily detached (albeit easily glued on). A Farish 37 will now manage 14 (I've taken weights out of 8 so far!), albeit working hard. I can't see that 16 with a single loco will ever be doable, but perhaps a pair of 92s is what it needs to be.

Interesting to note the use of substantial weights in these coaches, I am surprised that the lesson learned from the impact of heavy weights on haulage hasn't been learned from the first run of Class B tankers. To me it is just inevitable that substantial weight pushing down, especially on the large bearing surfaces in these coaches would always be likely to induce a lot more friction and therefore drag and @njee20  it really shouldn't have been necessary for you to substantially dismantle and modify your brand new coaches to be able to run close to a prototypical rake.

It does beg the question as to whether tests were undertaken using an entire train of 16 coaches being hauled by a cross section of locos rather than just individual coaches being tested alone for free-running? Could be all this was done and samples passed fine, but from what I am reading it seems pretty much universal that locos normally considered quite capable of decent haulage are struggling to move even eight of these coaches and then only with great effort and strain on motor/geartrain - Class B scenario all over again in some ways.

Sadly, none of this will pass without some negative reputational impact sticking, but much will depend on how RevolutioN respond and how quickly. To take a similar recent example, the 00 Gauge Rapido 15xx tank loco seems to have seen more than it's fair share of QC issuses, but what I find refreshing is that from the get go Rapido have held their hands up and admitted it wasn't acceptable - no playing it down or hiding from it. Then, rather than suggesting how people might try to fix the problem, they have actively discouraged it, instead saying that regardless of whether shop purchased or direct sale it should be returned to them for repair/replacement. I would reflect that they too are only a small company with limited resources/manpower but the steps they have taken will very likely mitigate any reputational damage significantly and give people confidence to continue buying their products.

Roy

Quote from: woodbury22uk on October 04, 2023, 11:51:30 AMI am still unclear as to whether RevolutioN was offered an "all lights off" start up option but rejected it. I guess we will never know.

Ben's metioned (here or RMWeb, I'm not sure) that having the magnets turn on the lights was considered but rejected because they'd get lots of support calls/emails claiming the "lights aren't working", when the reality is they wouldn't have been triggered correctly.

Accurascale have used the same magnetic switches on their OO Gauge versions - it'll be interesting to dig through the thread on RMWeb and see if they've have similar grumbles.

Hopefully Revolution will take on board the feedback they've had when they develop the lighting for the K-type Pullmans.

SB

Quote from: Steven B on October 05, 2023, 09:20:31 AM

Quote from: woodbury22uk on October 04, 2023, 11:51:30 AMI am still unclear as to whether RevolutioN was offered an "all lights off" start up option but rejected it. I guess we will never know.

Ben's metioned (here or RMWeb, I'm not sure) that having the magnets turn on the lights was considered but rejected because they'd get lots of support calls/emails claiming the "lights aren't working", when the reality is they wouldn't have been triggered correctly.

Accurascale have used the same magnetic switches on their OO Gauge versions - it'll be interesting to dig through the thread on RMWeb and see if they've have similar grumbles.

Hopefully Revolution will take on board the feedback they've had when they develop the lighting for the K-type Pullmans.

SB

I did trawl through the RMWeb thread and it appears that the Accurascale sleepers are configured with all lights off at start up. I accept the reason that Revolution opted for all lights on to save the work of pointing people towards the instructions, but in retrospect it seems to be a decision that inconveniences every user instead of Revolution. Even on DCC the train has to be set up at the beginning of operations so turning off any unwanted tail lights as a minimum which in my case with an overall station roof and eventually OHLE would still be an inconvenience. It really is the tail lights which are the deal breaker and hopefully that will not be an issue with other hauled stock as older stock carried externally hung tail lamps, with the exception of the Mk3 sleepers, or were integral push-pull sets.

If memory serves me correctly @Steven B  @woodbury22uk these units have been manufactured by, or in association with, Accurascale for Revolution which may go some way to explaining some decisions.

I made that comment on Facebook and Stephen McCarron (MD of Accurascale) was quick to say they didn't make them. I'm sure at the very least they had a (large) hand in design though - they're very similar to the OO gauge ones.

Quote from: Roy L S on October 05, 2023, 09:18:31 AMInteresting to note the use of substantial weights in these coaches, I am surprised that the lesson learned from the impact of heavy weights on haulage hasn't been learned from the first run of Class B tankers. To me it is just inevitable that substantial weight pushing down, especially on the large bearing surfaces in these coaches would always be likely to induce a lot more friction and therefore drag and @njee20  it really shouldn't have been necessary for you to substantially dismantle and modify your brand new coaches to be able to run close to a prototypical rake.

Not just the Class Bs - the TEAs, HOAs and IZAs were all compromised by weight and drag. I recall for the early ones it was weight being to NMRA standards, which our locos don't adopt, so it causes problems.

Know there's a lot of chat on these but my experience, I got 2x4 of these, as they were packed the top and bottom of each one roll lovely the two middles quite draggy, so 4 superb 4 draggy. Out the boxes lined all 8 together as is and the revolution sleeper class 92 again as is out the box on dcc pulls all 8 just fine. Remove the loco and try and pull all 8 by hand yeah they feel quite heavy load to pull round. So whilst they are a big heavy/draggy personally I wouldn't call my set a disaster as some seem to say they are. I'm sure there may be some worse and a lot better, law of averages. But I will give revolution 10/10 for sorting these issues if you give them the chance and be a little patient. I dread to think what I've spent with them, well into 5 figures, yes most fantastic yes a few problems but they have all been sorted, I would put give the same feedback to the Dapol and farish box shifting manufacturers.

Quote from: Spanners70 on October 05, 2023, 01:54:47 PMKnow there's a lot of chat on these but my experience, I got 2x4 of these, as they were packed the top and bottom of each one roll lovely the two middles quite draggy, so 4 superb 4 draggy. Out the boxes lined all 8 together as is and the revolution sleeper class 92 again as is out the box on dcc pulls all 8 just fine. Remove the loco and try and pull all 8 by hand yeah they feel quite heavy load to pull round. So whilst they are a big heavy/draggy personally I wouldn't call my set a disaster as some seem to say they are. I'm sure there may be some worse and a lot better, law of averages. But I will give revolution 10/10 for sorting these issues if you give them the chance and be a little patient. I dread to think what I've spent with them, well into 5 figures, yes most fantastic yes a few problems but they have all been sorted, I would put give the same feedback to the Dapol and farish box shifting manufacturers.

The point that is being made is that they shouldn't be that "draggy" and your locos shouldn't have to work that hard to pull them, but if you are happy with them, then quite honestly that is all that really matters.

From personal experience I can't give any manufacturer 10/10 and this does extend to RevolutioN as no non-intrusive solution was ever really provided for the Class B tanks and I could never run all of my original 12 in a single train as purchased due to the weight, oscillation between wagons and break-aways. The solution in the end (and risky due to their delicate nature) was to open them up myself and remove the weights. To be fair the second batch by comparison (and Class As too for that matter) are excellent so lessons were applied.

Then there is the Sturgeons (I have six) that in my experience struggle to stay coupled, I have lost count of the times I have set an 08 off slowly pulling them round the layout, look round a few minutes later to find half the train being pushed! They are exquisite models detail and finish wise but I now very rarely run them due to this issue.

So, I would say receptive and keen to resolve problems, absolutely yes, but 100% successful and therefore 10/10 no, sorry not from me

In terms of any manufacturers though, our views are very often prejudiced by our own personal experiences. Personally I have had very few problems with Farish products, I find their models by far the best in terms of quality and reliability, but I am aware that others have different experiences and therefore views.

Roy

Hello all,

Rest assured that we are working hard to assess and sort the problems some are having.

A week long national holiday in China has only just ended and this has necessarily impacted our discussions with the factory.

No one is seeking to diminish the issue.  It is clear some of the bogies on these coaches have wheelsets that drag.  We understand the frustration of those with such coaches and we are keen to help.


EDIT: When I first wrote this post I added that, for context, we had now sent out thousands of coaches to hundreds of customers and had received barely a dozen emails to our support line.  I deleted the remark when I read back and saw that such comments make those with difficulties think we are being complacent, when we aren't.

However I have reinstated it for the sake of jpendle's sanity.  He isn't losing it!!


cheers

Ben A.

Have some posts been deleted?

I could have sworn that I saw a post from @Ben A  saying that despite all the comments on here there have been relatively few emails to the Rev's support line about the issue.

I must confess that as a complainer I hadn't emailed Revs directly, but now I have.

Regards,

John P

The one immediately preceding yours is from Ben...? Doesn't mention complaints though.