Model Railway Forum banner
21 - 33 of 33 Posts

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,425 Posts
... even with the ROCO you don’t get the delayed uncoupling that the Kadees are able to do, I also found that even the genuine ROCO (and same with Fleischmann) couplings they needed a fair old force to couple up, far more than was prototypical without spilling everyone in the buffet coaches teas and coffee.
Indeed, not perfect, I wouldn't call it an 'autocoupler' as manual assistance is often required. But the close coupling effect is what I prioritise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
David I bought some excellant couplings a few months ago which i had never seen before they are Liliput. So i have replaced all my Swiss stock with them supplied by MSL

Babs
That looks interesting, does it facilitate remote uncoupling?

It looks like a very much better designed tension lock type, nice and neat.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
David Good Morning ( Just ). Do you mean an uncoupler in the track that pops up. If so i do believe they would work i will go up in the loft at the weekend and give them a try.
Babs
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,425 Posts
...It looks like a very much better designed tension lock type, nice and neat.
Certainly looks good, definitely going on my 'one to try out' list.

Although the lifting hook principle is the same, significantly the hook will not lock when engaged and in tension because there is no undercut; essential if the couplers are to 'make' as a rigid connection but still be able to release freely on an uncoupler that lifts the hook. So any installed track uncoupler can only lift when the target couplings are overhead, otherwise the whole train will uncouple. (Note for GWR types, potentially ideal for a slip coach uncoupler, just have to actuate the uncoupler at the right moment!)

What particularly caught my eye was the angled guide on the nearside of the illustration, which should act to correctly align the two coupler heads as they approach, compensating for any small off-centre positioning by the mechanisms. That's pretty essential to make it a reliable autocoupler, something of a deficiency of the Roco type.

Unless I have missed some aspect of this new coupler design, it won't be able to do the Kadee trick of remaining uncoupled while being propelled off the uncoupler. But a simple hand held 'flat paddle on a stick', of the sort long used for both tension lock and hook and loop uncoupling, will work fine when the vehicle to be uncoupled is in the required location.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
David Good Morning ( Just ). Do you mean an uncoupler in the track that pops up. If so i do believe they would work i will go up in the loft at the weekend and give them a try.
Babs
No sorry, I meant delayed uncoupling as in the Kadees.

With the Kadees I have one area with mini magnets under the track at the mouth of the yard (under the loading gauge actually) so I can uncouple there and I can shunt into each of four sidings and leave the wagons as I merrily chug* away.

*CHUG a term that can cover both steam and diesel…….and narrow boats come to think of it :LOL:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
David Sorry i an au fait with Kadee Couplers.
Now i wont have to go in the loft Thank You.
In my Job and company i flew for we had a saying if we wanted a Direct Routing With Maastricht Control and it was
( Chug a Lug ) those were the day's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,698 Posts
The fundamental problem is the tension lock coupler that is 'standard' for RTR OO product. It simply doesn't have the capability to work these cammed swinging linkages: what is required is a coupler system that links the NEM pockets as a rigid bar; that then 'works' the mechanisms correctly so that they recentre immediately as the vehicles exit curves. (I have been using the Roco pattern within sets of Bachmann and Hornby coaches with complete satisfaction for over 15 years, and plan to trial magnetic types.)

Of the Hornby diesels which exhibited the same problem - back in the day there were many threads on the subject - I have been able to test both the 30/31 and 50: substituting a Roco pattern coupler for the tension lock produced a reliable result with the coaches buffered up to the loco on straight track, and moved apart proportionally to the curve radius to prevent bufferlocking. I would expect the same to apply to the Accurascale implementation. It will be Accurascale's call whether they suggest a more suitable coupler; that would be the winning plan in my opinion.
I must admit that I find all this 'frothing' about NEM pockets rather amusing!

Some of us fit screw/chain couplings to all our stock (although I do use Kadee where the prototype used buckeyes), so if anything, the NEM pocket is actually a nuisance because invariably, it and its attachment (often a screw which holds a whole vehicle together) conflicts with threading a coupling hook through and accomodating a spring behind a buffer beam.
In most cases, the pocket is plastic, so normally easy to remove.

But I agree with 34C's point that to be effective, a ridged coupling between NEM pockets is necessary. Sadly, I think the Roco coupling looks appalling!
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,425 Posts
... I agree with 34C's point that to be effective, a rigid coupling between NEM pockets is necessary. Sadly, I think the Roco coupling looks appalling!
If used within train formations which are crane shunted to make substitutions in the time honoured 'fiddle yard' style, a small appearance improvement is possible by removing the uncoupler loop, and inverting the couplers in the NEM pocket. This makes them slightly less obtrusive when running as seen from typical viewing positions. (The truly keen can add brake and heat pipe details to the couplers dangling below.)

As for the coupler pocket, while it has some utility for close coupling, it is sub-optimal for OO, because it was 'lifted' unchanged from HO; a long running theme in UK RTR products. Better is surely possible, but none of the brands turning out OO are keen on such innovative thoughts as a socket in the bufferbeam.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,540 Posts
I followed your link to Deltic Chonicles 34C and found it to be vey informative as it listed duties that were exceptional. I typed "Cambridge" into the search box and the initial hit D9015/9015/55015 was for D9015 Tulyar:

16.07.72
With yet another failure in service for 55015, this time on Sunday 17th July 1972 with the 1N29 18:00 King's Cross - Newcastle (the second failure in two days) the DME commented... "following this second casualty in two days the locomotive returned to King's Cross where at test run to Cambridge, with technical staff riding, quickly showed up the defect. These two casualties illustrate the undesirability of returning a locomotive to normal service with no fault found".
18.07.72
1B66 15:33 King's Cross - Cambridge and 1B66 17:35 Cambridge - King's Cross.
05.10.73
1B66 11:30 King's Cross - Cambridge and 1B66 13:30 Cambridge - King's Cross.

I also discovered that the EE maintenance contract ended in 1966 but prior to that date all scheduled overhauls had been undertaken at Doncaster. That's not to say that the installed diesel engines or generators were not sent back to the manufacturers for refurbishment. I am unclear about that. I also found references to Darlington Works being involved.

What I ask myself is how on earth I managed to miss all the occaissions when the GN main line workings north of Hitchin were diverted via Cambridge. I recollect that my main aim in those days was to combine a day trip to Peterborough with a clandestine bunk of March shed, which i did innumerable times (I was always thrilled to find a visiting ex NER loco. Even then I would have seen ECML workings passing through March and Ely ... but I never did. Later, when I finally moved back to Cambridge in 1983, I did witness such diversions and somewhere I have photos of HST's passing through Cambridge (though they usually halted on the through road for a crew change - in my observational experience).

I followed up on Deltic Chronicles to find references to Pinza, the model that i have purchased, with this enquiry Search results which combines D9007 with Cambridge though I have not had time to go through all the references yet.

Thank you for that link 34C. Hours of nerd type fun. When I am in my dotage (with this heat surely only a matter of a few weeks before I reach that stage) I will no doubt be tempted to match my notebook observations with the details in Deltic Chronicles ........... though restrictions on how much I am allowed to take with me into the nursing home may be a limiting factor. I do like to link my models back to the prototype railway as it adds much to the enjoyment of the hobby.

Best regards .................. Greyvoices (alias John)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,540 Posts
Fed up with having my models languishing in boxes I had to put Pinza to the test:

Bookcase Audio equipment Electronic instrument Publication Gadget


Obviously running DC but a steady 0.4 amps looks healthy. I have not tried it on DCC yet but I can say that it does growl convincingly on direct current.

Best regards .................... Greyvoices (alias John)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
Hi John Have only had one of my two out of the boxes yet. Not run. Someone on FB gave me the heads up about the bogies derailing and he also Had a fix which he was going to share with me. Anyway how are you.
Babs
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,540 Posts
I am fine thank you Babs,

Counting down the days left in my 8 year stint of civic duties. I dream of the day when I can concentrate on my second childhood ................ nexy May. Meanwhile I dabble in odd moments.

Best regards ........ Greyvoices (alias John)
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,425 Posts
... the bogies derailing and he also had a fix ...
The fixes are exactly as for all the many existing models with kinematic coupling cams:
Remove the tension lock coupler; it is totally unsuited to these mechanisms
Either use a HO coupler designed to link the mechanisms by forming a rigid bar. Simple and effective.
Or, modify the cam profile to a smooth curve instead of the peak to make recentering easier. Some loss of the close coupling on straight track, but will work with a good autocoupler such as Kadee which doesn't form a rigid bar.

And always likely with small moulded plastic parts, some may have a little roughness preventing free movement as received. 'Exercise them' before going into service to check they work freely, I bung in a little graphite powder for insurance. My oldest Bachmann and Hornby coaches with these mechanisms are still working perfectly after getting on twenty years in service, initially with Bachmann's 'pipes' rigid link (reformed to proper length) or Keen couplers, now all with the Roco pattern coupler.

...I do like to link my models back to the prototype railway as it adds much to the enjoyment of the hobby...
And on these coaches each Pullman gangway faceplate has a nicely 'buffed' section at the bottom from repeated contact, just where the centre buffer element of the Pullman faceplate is on the prototype. Is this by design or a happy accident? Looks good whatever.
 
21 - 33 of 33 Posts
Top