[John]

Dear Daz,

According to the standard reference (David Gould's book on "Maunsell's SR Steam Carriage Stock", published by The Oakwood Press), all the current batch produced by Hornby in 2007 were withdrawn by December 1961, so you can't use them on a 1962 railway, unless you use modeller's license. Of course some Maunsells lasted a bit longer, until the end of 1964 or thereabouts. Of course I am being pedantic, but you did ask! The book I mentioned is under 10 quid, so it will not break the bank. I am not sure if it is still available, but you will be able to get it from any good second-hand book shop (e.g. through Amazon Marketplace Sellers). Try to get the 3rd edition, published in 2000, if you can.

As most SR or BR(S) modellers will know, these carriages ran in fixed sets. Some carriages were loose and added for strengthening, usually during the summer months, but all the 2007 Hornby batch were in sets initially. With the help of others in another forum, I have analysed the sets which these carriages ran in during the late 1920s/1930s period (SR Olive Green) and then in the mid 1950s to early 1960s (BR Green period). So far, Hornby have not produced one complete authentic set, either in the BR or the SR livery.

We can only hope that the 2008 production will fill in the gaps. It would have been so easy to produce authentic sets with some minor adjustments of the running numbers, but Hornby seem to have ignored this aspect completely. Perhaps they are just making us continue to buy these carriages into 2008!

 

[Noggins Friend]

I too had Maunsell coaches for Xmas. For many years now I have used corridor connectors from Modellers Mecca of Kingswinford. They advertise in all the magazines. They have an exclusive range made of folded black paper mounted on balsa wood which is designed to fit in the coach ends according to make. With the Maunsells close coupled it is not possible to use these, but if you remove the balsa mount and attch them with a little blue/white tac they look really good. It also saves altering the coach which remains as pristine as when you first took delivery. Not so elegant as the engineering carried out elsewhere on this posted topic but cheaper and nearly as good. For those of you who have not come across these connectors contact modellers mecca. You will be surprised how good they are at £2.50 per pair. They have them for all makes including Lima and Mainline. And No I don't work for them.

 

[Cameron]

I also had a rake of Maunsell southern coaches for Christmas, and it has been worth the wait. I will have to try the corridor connectors, as the gap is the only thing that spoils them. Thank you Noggins friend

 

[Dogmatix]

I have also recently acquired a brace of Hornby's Maunsells, and I am very please with the quality. I am particularly please that Hornby have fitted them with standard NEM pockets on close-coupling cams, as has been common on the Continent for three decades at least. A pair of Roco coupling heads is provided with each coach, but these are special long-shanked types, and still leave a gap. However, they are easily replaced (the whole point of the pocket system) with standard Roco coupling heads (or Fleischmann, if preferred: less delicate, but bulkier, and requiring a bit more coupling force) giving very close coupling.

The SR luggage van also has NEM pockets, but not on close coupling mounts, just on simple plastic pivots. Again, standard Roco heads provide close coupling.

Continental catalogues clearly show which models have which features, mostly by a system of icons, and it is easy to see which models have NEM pockets mounted for close coupling, and which have NEM pockets otherwise mounted. But Hornby and Bachmann seem to be very reluctant to reveal this information in their respective catalogues. If fact, there's no way of knowing short of opening a box in a shop.

Bachmann fitted their Mk1s with close coupling cams with NEM pockets, but at the wrong height and too far back. Apparently recent Mk1s have the pockets at the correct place - but is there any way of telling which is which without opening the box and measuring?

Is there anywhere a list of which Hornby and Bachmann models have 1) NEM pockets on close coupling cams, 2) NEM pockets on simple pivots fixed to chassis, and 3) NEM pockets on simple pivots fixed to bogies? Perhaps we could start such a list in this forum?

 

[Dogmatix]

By the way, why is the "6-compartment brake coach" actually a corridor coach?

 

[bernardTPM]

QUOTE (72C @ 22 Dec 2007, 11:16) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>In 1962 the BRCW D6500 class were allocated mostly to the east Kent lines on introduction and by this time Maunsell coaches were beginning to move westward to the Withered Arm and S&D, thus only relief scratch trains such as race specials were likely to have D6500 moreover only in the summer as the heating systems were incompatible.

The BRCWs when new often ran with a Derby Sulzer type 2 (Cl.24) to provide steam heat. In the very early 60s the Derbys were often used in their own right, for example, on the New Romney branch.

 

[Takeshi]

QUOTE (Dogmatix @ 14 Jan 2008, 21:15) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I have also recently acquired a brace of Hornby's Maunsells, and I am very please with the quality. I am particularly please that Hornby have fitted them with standard NEM pockets on close-coupling cams, as has been common on the Continent for three decades at least. A pair of Roco coupling heads is provided with each coach, but these are special long-shanked types, and still leave a gap. However, they are easily replaced (the whole point of the pocket system) with standard Roco coupling heads (or Fleischmann, if preferred: less delicate, but bulkier, and requiring a bit more coupling force) giving very close coupling.

The SR luggage van also has NEM pockets, but not on close coupling mounts, just on simple plastic pivots. Again, standard Roco heads provide close coupling.

Continental catalogues clearly show which models have which features, mostly by a system of icons, and it is easy to see which models have NEM pockets mounted for close coupling, and which have NEM pockets otherwise mounted. But Hornby and Bachmann seem to be very reluctant to reveal this information in their respective catalogues. If fact, there's no way of knowing short of opening a box in a shop.

Bachmann fitted their Mk1s with close coupling cams with NEM pockets, but at the wrong height and too far back. Apparently recent Mk1s have the pockets at the correct place - but is there any way of telling which is which without opening the box and measuring?

Is there anywhere a list of which Hornby and Bachmann models have 1) NEM pockets on close coupling cams, 2) NEM pockets on simple pivots fixed to chassis, and 3) NEM pockets on simple pivots fixed to bogies? Perhaps we could start such a list in this forum?

Glad to see that I am not the only one using Roco couplers with the Hornby coaches.They work well with the close coupling mechanism equipped NEM Hornby Pullmans,Gresleys with buffer to buffer coupling.I am still awaiting a set of Maunsels to arrive here in the colonies.

Those Hornby Roco style long shank type couplers only defeat the purpose of the advantage of available realistic buffer to buffer coupling.
All the recent [for us]UK publication's new product review illustrations of the Maunsels show a sizable coupling gap with the long shank type.

However I have found that those long shank Hornby Roco style couplers work very well with the Bachmann 39-xxxx series coaches giving a much closer coupling also taking advantage of the provided close coupling mechanisms.Albeit being at the wrong height you mentioned.
I use them in rakes but when running the coupler springing of the mechanism spreads the coaches apart whereas the Hornby's don't.

I have had absolutely no trouble running the Hornby/Bachmann rolling stock buffer to buffer forward and back through complicated track work a la continental rolling stock.
As you said you do have to bang the coaches together firmly to latch.The Roco couplers were after all designed for Roco rolling stock which couple very smoothly.
I have a Liliput 2 car railcar set VT137 DRG Era2 [China made]and for example the sprung buffers touch and compress on curves very realistically.
Consequently I am at a loss as to why UK Hornby et al manufactures still provide a good one foot gap between buffer even using the Roco style close coupler.
Reminds me of the Roco catalogue illustration of a figure jumping the gap between coaches.

I have a rake of circa 70's Rowa Trans Europe coaches with close coupling mechanisms which got me going on this for UK rolling stock.

Happy close coupling UK modeling.

Cheers,Bryan.

 

[Brian Considine]

QUOTE (Nozomi @ 15 Jan 2008, 20:38) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I have a rake of circa 70's Rowa Trans Europe coaches with close coupling mechanisms which got me going on this for UK rolling stock.

Cheers,Bryan.

I have a set of early Rowa coaches in "POP" livery - the close coupling was one of the features of mainland European models that sent me "over the water".

 

[Dogmatix]

I also went through a phase of fitting OO stock with close coupling mechanisms rescued from damaged Roco HO stock, later using the flat Fleischmann devices and the Symoba ones. I started with Mainline Mk1s - the bees knees of the day - and Airfix GW express coaches. It wasn't easy, as the bogies on British coaches are closer to the ends than Continental ones, leaving little room to work with. When I moved to the Germany in the early eighties I virtually gave up on British OO as the quality of European HO was so much better. Now that OO is improving - especially some recent Hornby models - I am slowly picking up on OO again.

I also noticed that the Hornby long-shanked Roco heads work with Bachmann Mk1s. I had heard or read somwhere that Bachmann intend to fit their coaches with properly positioned NEM pockets, and I wrote and asked (especially about retrofitting the current versions), but the reply was in the negative - no plans for new Mk1s at the moment.

It is annoying that there is so little information about NEM pockets and close coupling in the UK. It's almost as if Hornby and Bachmann are embarrassed about fitting them, and prefer to keep it quiet. The magazines, when they review models, sometimes mention the NEM pockets, but even if they do, they are often cagey about the close coupling mechanism, if present.

We don't even have a standard agreen nomenclature for the things. In Germany, it is called 'Kurzkupplungskinematik', or 'KKK' as a much needed abbreviation. They don't need to mention the NEM pockets themselves, as they are standard on virtually all HO models. Perhaps we could use something like 'close coupling mechanism', or 'CCM', as the standard expression - remembering that having NEM pockets does not automatically imply a CCM.

Well, that's enough ranting for today. Bryan, your Maunsells will be well worth the wait! By the way, is that Victoria BC, on Vancouver Island? Is it still as frightfully British as it was when I was there 22 years ago?

 

[John Webb]

QUOTE (Dogmatix @ 15 Jan 2008, 17:42) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>By the way, why is the "6-compartment brake coach" actually a corridor coach?

The Maunsells were in the first place main-line coaches travelling on long-distance trains, so the corridor was needed for the guard to move to other parts of the train as needed, the ticket inspector to pass through and last (but not least to the passengers!) to allow them to get to the toilets and possibly to get refreshments.

True compartment stock was only used on the relatively short-haul commuter trains where tickets were checked at all station exits on the route and passengers could, it was hoped, wait until they got off the train to relieve themselves.

Regards,
John Webb

 

[Daz]

so am I understanding this right?- it is best to use the roco close coupling's not the Hornby style ones for the Maunsell couches to get the best results.

 

[Takeshi]

QUOTE (Daz @ 15 Jan 2008, 23:04) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>so am I understanding this right?- it is best to use the roco close coupling's not the Hornby style ones for the Maunsell couches to get the best results.

I think so.I will give it a go when I get my Maunsels.
I don't know how the corridor door treatments are done yet.
With the Hornby Pullmans and Gresleys I removed the corridor end doors except for first coach next to loco and last coach.
This was because there were detail pieces which could bind and cause derailments while running.
As the was some daylight when coupled as so with the Pullmans I made rubbing plates of black cardboard [thin] to replace the end doors with a bit a concertina style folded black paper to hold in place.
I rubbed black graphite powder on the plates which makes them very slippery.
The Gresleys did not need anything.

It is all trial and error I'm afraid,

Cheers,
Bryan.

 

[Takeshi]

QUOTE (Dogmatix @ 15 Jan 2008, 22:00) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I also went through a phase of fitting OO stock with close coupling mechanisms rescued from damaged Roco HO stock, later using the flat Fleischmann devices and the Symoba ones. I started with Mainline Mk1s - the bees knees of the day - and Airfix GW express coaches. It wasn't easy, as the bogies on British coaches are closer to the ends than Continental ones, leaving little room to work with. When I moved to the Germany in the early eighties I virtually gave up on British OO as the quality of European HO was so much better. Now that OO is improving - especially some recent Hornby models - I am slowly picking up on OO again.

I also noticed that the Hornby long-shanked Roco heads work with Bachmann Mk1s. I had heard or read somwhere that Bachmann intend to fit their coaches with properly positioned NEM pockets, and I wrote and asked (especially about retrofitting the current versions), but the reply was in the negative - no plans for new Mk1s at the moment.

It is annoying that there is so little information about NEM pockets and close coupling in the UK. It's almost as if Hornby and Bachmann are embarrassed about fitting them, and prefer to keep it quiet. The magazines, when they review models, sometimes mention the NEM pockets, but even if they do, they are often cagey about the close coupling mechanism, if present.

We don't even have a standard agreen nomenclature for the things. In Germany, it is called 'Kurzkupplungskinematik', or 'KKK' as a much needed abbreviation. They don't need to mention the NEM pockets themselves, as they are standard on virtually all HO models. Perhaps we could use something like 'close coupling mechanism', or 'CCM', as the standard expression - remembering that having NEM pockets does not automatically imply a CCM.

Well, that's enough ranting for today. Bryan, your Maunsells will be well worth the wait! By the way, is that Victoria BC, on Vancouver Island? Is it still as frightfully British as it was when I was there 22 years ago?

Yes it is Victoria on Vancouver Island.Been here since '71.It is not as frightfully British as it used to be.The Empress teas are about $60 per person nowadays.

I think it has been a deep dark secret in the UK.

I don't want to be a name dropper but I have ranted on to Hornby's Simeon Kohler over the years about close coupling since I won the 100 pound prize for the "Star" letter in the January 2005 Model Rail Question and Answers [see if you can find a copy as there you will see my attempts with the early Pullmans with CCM but NO NEM pockets!].
I got some Gresleys for my efforts which was highly acceptable.

Every time Hornby's new coaching stock was reviewed in the press they persist in not showing the true CCM capabilities possible.

Yet again with the Maunsells and 3 years plus later they,the press still show the rolling stock off to disadvantage.I have pointed this out to Mr.Kohler each time.
However sometimes I do wonder if I put the flea in Hornby's ears regards the Roco couplers as I was very surprised to find that they adopted them albeit a long shank version.

'nuff said.

Bryan.

 

[Dogmatix]

QUOTE (John Webb @ 15 Jan 2008, 23:43) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The Maunsells were in the first place main-line coaches travelling on long-distance trains, so the corridor was needed for the guard to move to other parts of the train as needed, the ticket inspector to pass through and last (but not least to the passengers!) to allow them to get to the toilets and possibly to get refreshments.

True compartment stock was only used on the relatively short-haul commuter trains where tickets were checked at all station exits on the route and passengers could, it was hoped, wait until they got off the train to relieve themselves.

Regards,
John Webb

Thanks, John, but what I meant is why is the Hornby model (R4305A/B) described in the catalogue and on the box as a "6-compartment brake" when in fact it is a corridor brake? Or did I just get an incorrectly boxed one?

 

[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.

 

[John]

QUOTE (Dogmatix @ 16 Jan 2008, 09:39) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Thanks, John, but what I meant is why is the Hornby model (R4305A/B) described in the catalogue and on the box as a "6-compartment brake" when in fact it is a corridor brake? Or did I just get an incorrectly boxed one?

Dear Dogmatix,

I would not worry about the labelling on the boxes as these are often abbreviated. If you wanted to be pedantic, you might call them "Maunsell main-line corridor etc, etc" coaches. Since all these coaches (built between 1926 and 1937 in 3 major styles), were main-line corridor coaches, saying this out in full becomes rather redundant. All these Maunsell coaches were main-line corridor coaches with a side corridor down a number of compartments. As far as I know, SR (under Maunsell) only built main-line corridor coaches, as the surburban lines were nearly all electrified and used EMUs, or used pre-grouping coaches, so there was no need for new suburban coaches.

The Maunsell Brake 3rds coaches (known as BTK) were built in 2 basic configurations, one with 4 compartments and one with 6 compartments. Obviously the 4 compartment BTKs had a much larger luggage compartment and were designed for the longer distance trains to the South West. The 6 compartment coaches had smaller luggage space and were intended for the main-line commuter trains in the Central and SE Divisions. There was also a type of brake coach with both 1st and 3rd class compartments, known as Brake Compos or BCK. These were quite numerous and used mainly on branch trains in the SW. After many SR enthusiasts pointed out this gap in the production, Hornby are planning to bring these out in 2008.

If you are really interested in the details, there are 2 books by David Gould and Mike King which are recommended reading. Just click on the names and it will take you to the full description of the book on Amazon. You don't need to buy them from Amazon, as they should be available from second-hand bookshops.

 

[Dogmatix]

QUOTE (John @ 16 Jan 2008, 13:57) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Dear Dogmatix,

I would not worry about the labelling on the boxes as these are often abbreviated. If you wanted to be pedantic, you might call them "Maunsell main-line corridor etc, etc" coaches. Since all these coaches (built between 1926 and 1937 in 3 major styles), were main-line corridor coaches, saying this out in full becomes rather redundant. All these Maunsell coaches were main-line corridor coaches with a side corridor down a number of compartments. As far as I know, SR (under Maunsell) only built main-line corridor coaches, as the surburban lines were nearly all electrified and used EMUs, or used pre-grouping coaches, so there was no need for new suburban coaches.

The Maunsell Brake 3rds coaches (known as BTK) were built in 2 basic configurations, one with 4 compartments and one with 6 compartments. Obviously the 4 compartment BTKs had a much larger luggage compartment and were designed for the longer distance trains to the South West. The 6 compartment coaches had smaller luggage space and were intended for the main-line commuter trains in the Central and SE Divisions. There was also a type of brake coach with both 1st and 3rd class compartments, known as Brake Compos or BCK. These were quite numerous and used mainly on branch trains in the SW. After many SR enthusiasts pointed out this gap in the production, Hornby are planning to bring these out in 2008.

If you are really interested in the details, there are 2 books by David Gould and Mike King which are recommended reading. Just click on the names and it will take you to the full description of the book on Amazon. You don't need to buy them from Amazon, as they should be available from second-hand bookshops.

Ah, I get it: the description "6 compartment" does not refer to it being a compartment, i.e. non-corridor coach, but to it being a corridor coach with 6 compartments lest we think it may be a corridor coach with 4 compartments (and more luggage space).

Come to think of it, I have somewhere in the deep recesses of my memory a recollection of OO scale Graham Farish Maunsell coaches, which did come in both corridor and non-corridor versions (and in some unlikely liveries). I should still have one or two somewhere...

 

[Takeshi]

QUOTE (34C @ 16 Jan 2008, 10:12) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>.. 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.

I discarded those clip in pipe connectors mainly due to un-cliping and de-coupling of a rake of coaches was a pain in the neck.
I have used the clip in pipe connectors in other applications.
Trying the Hornby R8220 on the Bachmanns worked out well as you can lift out one coach in a rake if required.

Like the idea of coining the CCM abbreviation suggested by dogmatix.

Cheers,
Bryan.

 

[Takeshi]

QUOTE (dbclass50 @ 15 Jan 2008, 21:18) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I have a set of early Rowa coaches in "POP" livery - the close coupling was one of the features of mainland European models that sent me "over the water".

I was not the only convert then.
Certainly has taken the UK makers a while to start to catch up.

What happened to Rowa?Was it and tooling taken over by Roco Trix?
They made some very nice stuff.Very well detailed.
Cheers,
Bryan

 

[Brian Considine]

QUOTE (Nozomi @ 16 Jan 2008, 18:03) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>What happened to Rowa?Was it and tooling taken over by Roco Trix?
They made some very nice stuff.Very well detailed.
Bryan

Not too certain, I've been told a few different versions. Certainly some Rowa ended up with Roco, & I think Ade came into the picture somewhere. One thing is certain - the Rowa of the mid 70's was well ahead of the rest of the field (remember the coach lighting sets that lit the compartments individually ?

The Rowa rolling stock always rolled very well, as does the Roco of today.