Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi - My Hornby class 60 is superb in every respect except, surprisingly, the coupler system. I apologise if this has been covered elsewhere but I am new to the forum.

When pulling (pushing causes no problem) any significant load, the coupler snags through any S-shaped manouvre causing the adjacent coach or wagon to be pulled off the track. The problem is that coupler gets jammed on one side. I had similar trouble on some Bachmann coaches which I've now sold.

I am astounded that this is a problem, yet have not seen any reference to it anywhere.

Any advice or comments would be appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
SCF
Sorry about the last post, must have pressed the wrong button.

I have the same problem with my class 60. It occurs when negotiating 2nd radius curves and is due to the limited sideways movement on the coupling combined with the length from the centre of the bogie to the coupling end (about 60 mm). I don't have this problem with the class 25 as the bogie centre to coupling is shorter (about 50 mm). Another factor is the type of rolling stock used. All of my bogie mounted stock has the couplers firmly fixed to the bogie or the main frame, this allows no sideways swing at all. Small wagons vary slightly, older stock have large fixed couplings while the newer wagons have the smaller couplings having a limited side play built in. The class 60 copes with all stock as long as it is only dealing with large radius points.

Brian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
QUOTE (Branchliner @ 26 Apr 2008, 12:48) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>SCF
Sorry about the last post, must have pressed the wrong button.

I have the same problem with my class 60. It occurs when negotiating 2nd radius curves and is due to the limited sideways movement on the coupling combined with the length from the centre of the bogie to the coupling end (about 60 mm). I don't have this problem with the class 25 as the bogie centre to coupling is shorter (about 50 mm). Another factor is the type of rolling stock used. All of my bogie mounted stock has the couplers firmly fixed to the bogie or the main frame, this allows no sideways swing at all. Small wagons vary slightly, older stock have large fixed couplings while the newer wagons have the smaller couplings having a limited side play built in. The class 60 copes with all stock as long as it is only dealing with large radius points.

Brian

Thanks Brian. I'm surprised that it happens at all though - surely it is not rocket science to sort out decent couplers. I picked up some information from another forum that suggests that Hornby now have a modification for this and I have since emailed Hornby - I'll let you know if I get a response. It's fairly clear now that newer locos are requiring larger radius curves to operate (note the 4th radius curve that Hornby now offer) and I'm looking to ditch 2nd radius curves and short turnouts when I rebuild my layout. Thanks again. Steve.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
560 Posts
I don't have a 60 (wrong era for me) but I had a similar problem with my 50, the trick with these new generation Diesels is to use a rigid bar type coupler and not the tension lock couplers supplied fitted to them as they don't self centre very well under load. Try this thread http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index...?showtopic=1055
On the 50 I also found that the buffer beam detail mounts interfered with the free movement of the CCM so I filed these down slightly and added some graphite lubricant (ground up 6b pencil lead
) to the moving parts of the CCM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
QUOTE (5696Arethusa @ 27 Apr 2008, 12:49) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't have a 60 (wrong era for me) but I had a similar problem with my 50, the trick with these new generation Diesels is to use a rigid bar type coupler and not the tension lock couplers supplied fitted to them as they don't self centre very well under load. Try this thread http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index...?showtopic=1055
On the 50 I also found that the buffer beam detail mounts interfered with the free movement of the CCM so I filed these down slightly and added some graphite lubricant (ground up 6b pencil lead
) to the moving parts of the CCM

Thanks Andii. I appreciate the advice and the useful link - I'm looking to improve / shorten the unrealistic couplings / distances between rolling stock. Cheers. Steve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Well i`m glad it`s not only me that has a problem with the Hornby Class 60. Of the "new gen" locos its the only one i have encountrered this problem with. All the Heljan 47`s & 58`s are ok. The same with Bachmann even my 50`s are not as "picky" But as mentioned most stick to the old formula of couplings on the bogie.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,681 Posts
QUOTE (f2paul @ 28 Apr 2008, 08:15) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>But as mentioned most stick to the old formula of couplings on the bogie.
'Old faithful', which has the benefit of actually working with the tension lock coupler. For those who don't mind butchery it is relatively simple to hack off the Hornby CCM, and glue a metal strip to the bogie base to take an NEM pocket. That's what I did when Hornby's CCM mechanism proved unable to reliably recentre under load on a Brush type 2, with either of miniature tension locks or Kadees installed.

It would recentre using the R8220 coupler, but that's not the coupler I want on locos. I notice that Hornby are now including this coupler with their CCM equipped Pullmans, but that it does not fully exploit the mechanism's capability; the corridor connector faceplates remaining several millimeters apart on straight track. Ironically the R8220 coupler works beautifully with Bach mk1's which have their NEM sockets mounted too far back from the buffing face...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
894 Posts
I have found this problem on two of my 60s and my new LE 56, although it was more to do with entering the curve. It irritated me that Hornby said to send them back 'for repair' at a cost of £17 (postage), only for them to return them apparently unopened with a pack of 12 wider couplings (6 medium width, 6 wide).

The 56 now runs properly.

Having inserted the medium width couplers on the 60s the same problem persisted. I have found that if you file the sides of the couplers to a 45 degree angle they move more smoothly into the right position when going across 's' curves.

That said, they still don't like the parkside rudds and clams.

The problem with the 60 appears to be that the coupling comes in to contact with the plough on the front of the loco

It now appears though as if I cannot now remove the couplings, they have stuck themselves in for good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Hornby phoned today (following my email). They're sending me updated cams (wishbone-shaped plastic part attached to the tiny spring) and suggested that I add a small amount of grease where they make contact with the metal guide on which they catch. The engineer was keen to be as helpful as possible. I'll update once I receive and fit new cams and add the grease. Steve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I received the 'updated' cams from Hornby. They look identical to the original ones. I replaced them anyway and added grease, as instructed - no difference. Admittedly the points I'm using are short points (I'll be changing to express points in due course) but there is a fundamental design flaw with this system - I might try filing the 'pointy' bit behind the buffer beam that the coupler catches on. The guy at Hornby said that the body-based coupler reflects the design now used on the real locos, which is why they no longer attach them to the bogies. I'm happy with this philosophy but look forward to a more practical design in the near future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
Hi SCF,

If you are going to file the "pointy bit" of the CCM (KKK to european modellers) you need to take very little off it. A neddle point is no good, just a slam (about 0.5mm) well bevelled centering area. I would look first at the coupler shank where it centers and see if that is where the problem is as well.

Close couplers have been used for many years in europe, most work really well, but evey now and again, you get the odd one that needs to be adjusted. That being said CCM wagons do look a lot better than non CCM wagons.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
QUOTE (john woodall @ 13 May 2008, 10:42) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi SCF,

If you are going to file the "pointy bit" of the CCM (KKK to european modellers) you need to take very little off it. A neddle point is no good, just a slam (about 0.5mm) well bevelled centering area. I would look first at the coupler shank where it centers and see if that is where the problem is as well.

Close couplers have been used for many years in europe, most work really well, but evey now and again, you get the odd one that needs to be adjusted. That being said CCM wagons do look a lot better than non CCM wagons.

John

Much appreciated, John. Many thanks.

Steve
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top