# Manx Mannin



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

I just received my new Accucraft live steam Isle of Man 'Mannin' so I took a few shots for all to see.  
Mannin was the last and largest steam locomotive built for the IOM Railway.

Very nice indeed! I will have to be extra careful with handling Mannin as there are a few delicate parts sticking out down below. There will be no rolling this one over on it's side. 
I haven't steamed it up yet but will do so in the next few days.
The last couple of shots are with IOM 'Caledonia' and 'Loch'.


















































































Andrew


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

They are nice. I see that yours has the same bent floor under the gas tank. I also want to see how to cover and paint the boiler insulation that's sticking out on mine.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Andrew, this is a beautiful engine, I saw the prototype several years ago standing in the museum during my one and only visit to the Isle of Man. But it looks like there will be not only need for placing it on its side, but also upside down and quite some disassembly if you want to fix the dent in the floor... this does not look pretty! Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Yeah Jason, I actually spotted that irregular line when I first unpacked it and in the photos but forgot about it. Since then I've only looked at it from above.

Zubi, I jumped right in there and got the cab off! Very fiddly and almost seems impossible at first. 
The screws holding the cab/tanks are easy but the rest is tricky. The rear vacuum line is on a fixed post so it won't just slide back. I had to wiggle all the small details apart, Undo the rails and boiler lines. Then I taped all the ends and bent them slightly with electrical tape to clear the way and so they wont scratch anything. One line that goes from the smokebox into the cab I nipped slightly shorter so it could pull it out while flexing the cab a little.It protruded into the cab more than it needed anyway. Then a bit of bending and twisting the cab to clear the gas and reverser controls and the cab came off straight up. Phew! No damages or scratches. 

Now I have another locomotive pulled apart, just for a change. 
I'll give it a go tomorrow to straighten and reassemble.



















Andrew


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Andrew, well done so far! Yes, I know that taking off cabs can be tricky... Obviously, you are not there yet, but at least it seems like a fixable 'issue'. Hopefully one and only! Best wishes, Zubi


----------



## John 842 (Oct 1, 2015)

From the pictures it would appear that it's not just the floor that is bent, but if you look at the angle of the rear buffer beam in the last picture posted, it looks like the frames are bent as well.

And to fix that will require much further dismantling - maybe even a case for the insurance company?

It's interesting that both 'Garratt' and 'Kovacjr's locos have suffered similar damage - I wonder if they were both handled by the same carrier?


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Zubi, it has probably happened during assembly when Accucraft have fitted the gas line which has forced the gas tank down bending the floor which is quite flimsy. There is a screw attaching the cab to the floor that is about an inch more rear than the gas tank. If it was adjacent to the rear of the gas tank the floor section that distorts would unlikely happen. 
It may have been possible to bend the gas line while the cab is still attached therefore pulling the floor back up. 

Andrew


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

John, I missed your post. The bent looking buffer beam is just my camera which has a fairly wide angle lens giving barrel distortion in the image. I checked it with a square running under the wheels and all is good. The gas line is not that stiff so it is all due to some heavy handed assembly at the factory. The extended gas control is like a lever that has been forced down bending the floor. 

My Mannin came from the UK to Australia. I'm sure it had a different world tour than Jason's Mannin so it is not the carrier at fault. There is no significant weight to the gas tank for inertia to play out if the box was dropped anyway.

Andrew


----------



## John 842 (Oct 1, 2015)

Well that's good news Andrew - I checked the other pictures for confirmation, but I couldn't see it - so, as you say, it must be the lens.

I have to say it's a beautiful looking model - I particularly like the sander nozzle and brake detail.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Garratt said:


> Zubi, it has probably happened during assembly when Accucraft have fitted the gas line which has forced the gas tank down bending the floor which is quite flimsy. There is a screw attaching the cab to the floor that is about an inch more rear than the gas tank. If it was adjacent to the rear of the gas tank the floor section that distorts would unlikely happen.
> It may have been possible to bend the gas line while the cab is still attached therefore pulling the floor back up.
> 
> Andrew


Andrew, I suspected that this was what happened, Gas tank is a solid brick and applying force to it can inflict damage on the floor or wherever it is attached. Accucraft should instruct their assembly people to be more careful - plus of course, these locomotives should have never been allowed to leave the factory in this state... Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


----------



## John 842 (Oct 1, 2015)

zubi said:


> Andrew, I suspected that this was what happened, Gas tank is a solid brick and applying force to it can inflict damage on the floor or wherever it is attached. Accucraft should instruct their assembly people to be more careful - plus of course, these locomotives should have never been allowed to leave the factory in this state... Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


Well it seems that the carrier is unlikely to have caused this problem - however, I wouldn't be so sure that Accucraft corporate is entirely to blame here either.

The fact that there are two identical damaged models in this thread alone - and my own recent experiences with damaged Accucraft models, would lead me to suspect disgruntled employees as being the more likely culprits.

My most recent example was on my Victoria NA class loco which has 4 valve handwheels virtually hidden in inaccesable places - two behind the side tanks and two beneath the running boards between the #2 and #3 drivers. All four handwheel rims were bent over at a 45 deg. angle. 

They were so well protected that I don't think the damage could have happened in transit and the handwheels were an integral part of different castings so a mould deffect is also unlikely.

The only citicism I would make against Accucraft is that they appear to be slow in recognising that the changes in the Chinese economy means that they can't make the high quality models they've produced in the past and yet remain competitive with manufactures in Hungary, Germany, Malta and the UK.


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

John, I checked my NA valve hand wheels between the drivers and they seem to be angled downward a little, perhaps about 30 degrees from facing horizontal. They do also in a pre-production NA drawing and in the pre-production model image below which you can only just make out in the shadows. The ones behind the side tanks are angled about 30 degrees from facing vertical on my model. They are all in tight corners therefore angled. Probably not meant to be facing perfect on any axis. I will now have a look at the prototype next time I'm next to one. David Fletcher will know exactly how they are supposed to be as I think he did the design drawings for Accucraft.

Are your castings bent at the valve stem or are they assembled at an angle? I think they are supposed to be on an angle because they are all in tight corners. 










Andrew


----------



## John 842 (Oct 1, 2015)

Hi Andrew - thanks for checking that. 

The valves on my NA were installed at the neccessary angles - it's just that all four had the actual hand wheel rim bent down on one side of the spindle as though they had recieved a light tap with a very small hammer.

Half the fun of playing with these things is fixing them - so I just bent them back again - but it does make me wonder what is going on at the factory.

While we're on the subject of the NA - I wonder if I might ask you another question....

The only picture I could find of the underside of the buffer beams was that shown in the factory video of how to install radio gear. This showed the beams to be a hollow fabrication. Now I wanted to be able to fit standard Accucraft couplings occasionaly to run other rolling stock. Unfortunately, when I came to drill the holes, I found that the beams were a solid chunk of super hardened stainless steel that proved impossible to drill with HSS drills.





 See 1:15

I was wondering, are your beams hollow or solid?

Many thanks


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

John use a carbide drill. 

My NA also had bent valve handles. Straightened them out. Had other timing issues that are just being sorted out now finally. My Mannin and 2 others i know of have bent floors. Seems due to assembly and possible the gas line being too short. Pressure applied to the tank to bend the pipe into place or just pushed too hard on a thin material and it bent. Its impossible to straighten without major disassembly. All still goes to QC to me. Ive brought the issues up to Accucraft US, when brought to ATUK I was told I was the only one to complain.


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

Re the NA, the water feed valve handles on the underside of the side tanks should be on a 45 deg angle facing away from horizontal. Like my photo above, you can see it perfectly installed. In truth these valves are often installed on the real locos on different angles. But we went with the most common angle. 

The front and rear beams were way too flimsy on the original prototypes so were made as a solid metal on the production. The whole frame on the production model is far more solid and rigid. Way better.

Thanks chaps,
David.


----------



## John 842 (Oct 1, 2015)

David Fletcher said:


> Re the NA, the water feed valve handles on the underside of the side tanks should be on a 45 deg angle facing away from horizontal. Like my photo above, you can see it perfectly installed. In truth these valves are often installed on the real locos on different angles. But we went with the most common angle.
> 
> The front and rear beams were way too flimsy on the original prototypes so were made as a solid metal on the production. The whole frame on the production model is far more solid and rigid. Way better.
> 
> ...



Hi David - I think you're missing the point I was trying to make in my post #13 above. It's not the angle of the valve installation that's the problem - it's the way the hand wheel rim has been distorted from the flat, single plane, disc that it should be.

It's no big deal and easily corrected - but it's the fact that all four handwheels had been damaged in exactly the same way that led me to question how it could have happened in the first place.

As far as the buffer beams are concerned, I agree there's no problem untill you want to repair or modify them or the frames themselves. Being solidly welded to the frames, rather than being bolted, any repair is going to be far more difficult.

But all of that, hopefully, will never be a problem - the problem for me comes when I want to change the coupling to be able to run non prototypical stock. To have any chance of getting a carbide drill through 13mm of hardened stainless, I would have to set the beam up in the mill - and I can't do that without being able to unbolt the beam because my mill isn't big enough to accomodate the whole assembly.

I could just drill 6mm X 1.25mm holes and tap them 1.6 X 0.35 with a carbide tap as per the original holes, but I still wouldn't want to attempt it freehand. The shame of it is that all this hassle could have been so easily avoided with brass beams. However, I guess you couldn't do that because you wanted to go with the cheaper option of welding the beams to the frames and so the buffers had to be stainless.

I realize of course, that in todays competitve global market place these kinds of economies have to be made, but I just find it kinda sad that these quality issues are becoming ever more frequent in the urgent quest for profitability.


EDIT - Speaking of quality issues - the 'Argyle Loco Works' picture in post #12 above shows three examples .....

- The uneven gap in the soldered joint between valance and the running board

- The way the pipe below the valance is hanging down unsupported.

- The sloppy fit of the crosshead in the slide bars.


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

I tend to agree with some of the quality issues with more recent Accucraft locomotives.
To be fair, the 'team' get so much of it right at the design stage and the NA is a superb model but some of the workmanship at the factory is scrappy to say the least.
I haven't said much, but I will now.

Bent running board under the side tank near the cab
A gap along the running board valance under the side tank
Badly placed lining sometimes not meeting up with the corner lining properly 
Ratty edges to the red paint lining where masking has been removed
Dry sprayed details like some of the rear air tank
Hand rails are not properly spaced from the bodywork, often one end very different than the other as if no spacer was used during assembly.
Noticeable gap difference between the front of the cab and the rear of the side tank.
The glossy 'jam job' paint which I did talk about here on this forum prior to the manufacture of the NA model. Not a good look especially on black chassis.

My two cents and a picture... Click thumbnail to see larger size.










Andrew


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey John and Garrett,
John I knew what you meant, I was just showing what it should be. I agree, there are things that need to be tidied up a little on Accy models generally. It would be nice if they were more perfectly assembled, but I generally find the parts are good, design is good, you just might need to align, straighten and touch up here n there. They offer a huge amount of detail and accuracy for the money, and for the most part these models are darn easy to fire and operated, almost universally easy to fire and operate. We worked pretty hard on the sample (in that Argyle photo) to rectify things, there were actually a lot of changes, including that wayward pipe - take a look at your own model and you'll see the correct loop in the pipe where it loops under the motion bracket, just like the real loco - that pipe was fixed on the production models. That loop was left off the sample, causing the pipe to be too low. The crossheads were also tightened up. I've only seen maybe 25 of the 160 models made, so I dont know the range of cosmetic issues. Oh that valance - take a close look and you'll see it actually has a fold in the top of the valance enabling it to be fixed firming to the bottom of the running board. Its not miss-soldered, but was a construction decision they made, again for robustness. 

On yours Garratt, I'd remove the side tank and bend the running board level. Not seen this one before, but would also be an easy sort. I too wish for more, but we do get a lot from them, despite how hard we are on them. They offer robust, good running and highly detailed models. I sure couldn't build one myself anywhere near as good.

Thanks chaps,
I'll attach a couple of production model versions - the Maroon one is mine, with the original Baldwin front on it (ie 1A from Walhalla), while the black 8A and 12A are owned by two friends of mine. The NA happens to be the best running model I own, against all the brands I have. A very close 2nd is Lew.


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh, I should also mention, two of us pick up our Mannin models on the weekend. It will be interested to see if the floor is bent on those two models as well. If they are, then its an assembly issue, where the same guy damaged all the models in the same place during assembly, and no-one picked it up. I'll let you know what ours are like.

David.


----------



## Accucraft UK (Sep 16, 2013)

We have been notified of a couple of bent footplates on 'Mannin' in the UK but these have been easily rectified. However, we do take to heart the comments about QA at the factory and major steps have just been taken there to tighten this up. The other issue is the 'mummification' of locos for transport, a process which sometimes exerts too much pressure on the delicate parts of locomotives. We would like to deliver more and more models in the wooden boxes used for the larger locos - this is one way to ensure they travel securely.

Graham.


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Graham, I've had 5 Accucraft locomotives shipped from the UK to Australia and never had problems. They are well mummified also with padding. There is absolutely no movement and they have all been small so not much inertia to them compared to some of the big ones. I have more trouble with LGB that has half an inch of movement in it's original box. 

Andrew


----------



## John 842 (Oct 1, 2015)

Garratt said:


> ........To be fair, the 'team' get so much of it right at the design stage and the NA is a superb model but some of the workmanship at the factory is scrappy to say the least..........
> 
> Andrew





David Fletcher said:


> .... I generally find the parts are good, design is good, you just might need to align, straighten and touch up here n there. They offer a huge amount of detail and accuracy for the money, and for the most part these models are almost universally easy to fire and operate.........


Gentlemen - I absolutely agree that these are fine models and are excellent value. I don't regret buying mine for one moment and I'm pleased to have it in a prominent place in my display cabinet.

As has been noted - there are a number of issues that might need to be "aligned, straightened and touched up here n there" - I think this could be regarded as normal and almost to be expected - in fact, as I said earlier, for me this can be part of the fun playing with these things.

However - in addition to the buffer beam issue that I refered to in my post #16 - there are a couple of other issues that are not so easily put right and can perhaps be laid at the design "teams" door......... 

- The displacement lubricator is in the wrong place. If you look at the video in post #13 at 1:47 you can see there is a taper plug petcock on the boiler top blow-down and a screwed plug valve on the displacement lubricator drain. Now the use of these taper plug cocks is a really nice touch, they look well with the other details and they make it much more convenient to operate the valves - especially as access to them is partially obstructed by the pipe connecting the two drain/separator pots.

Unfortunately it's not possible to fit a taper plug petcock on the lubricator drain because it is too close to the trailing truck side frames to allow it to be screwed in. So the best option was to fit a screw plug valve body which could be screwed in and then the plug, complete with it's tommy bar, could be installed. 

The problem then becomes apparent that the tommy bar is too long to allow the plug to be turned, so the tommy bar had to be cut shorter. Now with this shortened tommy bar, cut down to it's absolute minimum length consistent with remaining operable, it would be a borderline acceptable solution. However, even with the shortened bar, it is *still* too close to the the truck frame to enable it to be rotated.

Now comes what I regard as the unacceptable part of the solution. Somebody decided in their wisdom, that the only remaining option was to cut away part of the cast detail on the truck side frame to provide the required clearance to operate the drain. Thus rendering the frame damaged beyond repair.

My loco came with screw plug valves in both locations - however on the picture of your friend's #12A (post#18, picture #4) you can see the taper plug petcock on the blowdown has been re-instated. You can also quite clearly see the cut down tommy bar on the lubricator drain valve.

I would be interested to know if your friend's trailing truck has been damaged in a similar way to mine. (Andrew - perhaps you may like to check yours too?)

- Another design feature that I think is unfortunate on a model of this quality - is that the trailing truck side frames are in fact, non-functioning fixed dummies. If the similar truck side frame design used on the leading truck can be made semi-functional - at least in the way it moves with the rest of the truck - surely it would not be unreasonable to expect the trailing truck to be similarly prototypical?


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

No damage on the rear trucks that I have seen on the NAs, and several have added their own valves without issue, so dono what happened to yours. I dont use this oil drain however, as there is so much detail under the floor, its hard to access regardless of where they put the valve, I pull out from the top as I do on several smaller engines. 

I'm certainly not going to apologise for making the draw beams solid, they needed to be robust, the hollow versions were not and easily dinged up on layouts, the ones on our samples were split open. Its the correct decision even if it doesn't suite you, its not an 'error'. 

Oh on the rear truck - sorry you have it arse about. The whole front truck shouldn't move side to side either and doesn't on the real loco (actually very slightly due to an early VR mod). On the real loco those H shaped frames over the wheel centres hinge out laterally allowing the wheel to move over. The equalisers on the rear truck and the middle of the front truck dont move laterally, they only move up and down. On the rear truck on the real loco, most of it is pretty rigid just as we have it on the model. Its that H frame just over the face of the wheel that slants sideways to let the journal over on the curve. To swing the rear truck like the front on our model (ie like the Accucraft Lyn is), is not correct at all. A good example of this principle is the Baldwin K27 rear truck. It also has the wheel move laterally via the framework around the wheel journals. The whole thing doesn't swing out.

Here's a close up of the front truck - the lower part of the frame does not move laterally (well it has some slop, but not much), you can see the pivots on the lower bar allowing the inner frame to swing outward at the top. This allows an inner frame to slide over, wheels/journals and all.

Now the rear truck close up - those long equaliser bars reaching from the rear driver springs hook to the lower centre of the rear truck frame. These equalisers move up and down, but not sideways. This hooks to a similar frame as the front, where a hinged inner frame swings out, hinged from the bottom, allowing the journal and wheels to move laterally...they dont move any further out than the lower frame (as these only move very slightly). Its an engineering not easily replicated on a model if we intend to run on our less than prototypical curves. I did move the rear frame out a little more to give the rear wheel more clearance. No didn't model the working pivots on the inner frame, hope you can understand.

Finally a close up of the rear truck journal out of the loco. The big shiny boss on the top goes into a ferrul under the cab floor, and has very minor lateral movement. This holds the outer truck frame in place. On the outside of this frame, hinged from the lower rod is the inner frame, which slides pretty firmly inside the outer frame. ..its like one big frame sliding inside the other, with the outer rigid and inner slips side to side. It does mean the wheel doesn't actually change angle as it slides over, but the curves are much wider than our models run on!

I'm not going to respond any further unless you want to discuss real engine details, others have far more input than I on the model engineering aspect. Please enjoy your model, it is a work of art. Tinker improve it, steam it and enjoy it.

Best,
David.


----------



## John 842 (Oct 1, 2015)

OK OK, I'll withdraw my last comment about the truck frames - I'll admit I didn't fully understand the dynamics of the Baldwin design. However, my comments about the draw beams and the positioning of the lubricator still stand though.

Many thanks for your comprehensive reply - it's been a real pleasure to discuss these things with you.


----------

