[34C]

QUOTE (Daz @ 17 Dec 2007, 01:53) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Also I really like Bachmann's Mk1's close coupling set up, how do the Maunsell's look coupled up to each other?
They have the same close coupler system as the other recent Hornby coaches, (Pullmans, Gresleys, Staniers) which works well especially with a rigid bar type coupler. I have been using Hornby R8220 coupler, but shortening them so that the the corridor connector faceplates are in contact in straight track. That means there is no longer an autocoupling and uncoupling capability, but the trains look superb. (Ironically Hornby's R8220 coupler produces this 'connectors in contact' effect without any mods on Bachmann's mk 1's.) The close coupling mechanism permits a train to negotiate the same minimum radius and worst reverse curve combination negotiable by a carriage on its own.

It is somewhat amusing that neither manufacturer quite seems to trust the effectiveness of their close coupler mechanisms. Until this Hornby coupler became available I was heating the 'pipes coupler' supplied with Bachmann mk1's, and resetting it about 3.5mm shorter to get the connector faces in contact. But no more of that, having a coupler between each vehicle is a lot more convenient.

 

[34C]

QUOTE (Daz @ 19 Dec 2007, 23:12) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Sorry, some more questions on this 34C. Which system do you think is better? Are you saying that you use R8220 on bachmann coaches? How does the R8220 uncouple? I currently use Kadee's.
Within sets of coaches fitted with the close coupler mechanisms (both Bachmann and Hornby) I use the R8220. They will not autocouple because the connector face plates come into contact before the couplers make. They uncouple using a raised ramp, much as for tension lock types. (Note however that a permanently raised bow of flexible cellophane cannot be used as this will uncouple every vehicle.) As you may gather my operation uses pretty much fixed coach formations. I am intending to through wire for DCC control of lighting also.

At both ends of the sets I use Kadee, specifically for the reliability of auto coupling and uncoupling, which happily comes with reasonably prototypical appearance .

Good though the Kadee is, it doesn't form a rigid bar between coupled vehicles: if it did I would use it for preference over the R8220. To operate coaches with the connector face plates in contact on straight track, and retaining absolute reliability when they are on curves, demands a coupler which forms a rigid bar. The rigid bar will drive the close coupler mechanisms positively enough to get the necessary separation between vehicles as the first enters a curve, particularly when pushing; and also forces the Hornby version of the mechanism to re-centre. (The Bachmann is intrinsically self centering.) If I could find a way to make the Kadee perform the job I would use it, but no joy in experiments to date.

 

[34C]

Something I forgot to mention as a necessity for getting Hornby coaches coupled up with the corridor connector faceplates in contact on straight track. It is necessary to retract the sprung buffers. A small plastic ring (from wire insulation) on the back of the buffer shank secured with a small dab of cyano does this job, and is fully reversible should that ever be desireable.

 

[34C]

QUOTE (Nozomi @ 16 Jan 2008, 00:54) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It is all trial and error I'm afraid ..
.. with respect to exploiting the close coupling mechanisms on both Hornby and Bachmann coaches.

I was both pleased and puzzled when this feature first appeared on Bach's mk1's. Pleased because it was good to have, puzzled by the clip-in 'pipes' coupler which positioned the coaches too far apart. But happily the 'pipes' are moulded in thermoplastic and can be reset to bring the connector face plates into contact on straight track. By making them a little tight it is possible to overcome the slight stretch in the Bachmann mechanism for better appearance. Then came the Hornby CCM and then their R8220 (long shank Roco type) coupler, and again, too far apart, although the coupler is better for Bachmann. More trial fittings, I don't have a single one installed exactly as it came out of the packet. But, at least we now have CCM on UK stock with the large iimprovement in appearance it brings.

My present feeling is that neither manufacturer really understands the capability of the mechanism they fit. Presumably they fail to promote the feature to the press in consequence.