STOP BACHMANN CLOSE COUPLING SYSTEM
Laurent Truillet
I have just received my Bachmann N Class steam loco (nr. 32-153).
When I took the loco out of the box, I almost had a heart attack. I
discovered that Bachmann has now cought the same disease as almost all of
the European Model Railway Manufacturers. I am talking about the Close
Cloupling Disease. There is now a special close coupling device between this
Bachmann loco and its tender!
I live in Belgium. I have many friends who operate their model railway and
who run their trains as much as I do. Over here, we have a lot of Märklin,
Fleischmann, Roco etc. All these manufacturers fit their special close
coupling device in a growing number of rolling stock items. On this side of
the Channel, we all know very well the harm that the Close Coupling Device
Mania has already caused to the honest train operator. All my friends share
the opinion expressed in this message.
Why close couplings ?
In the older days, nobody cared about the huge distance separating the
buffers between two coupled items of rolling stock.
Then, some modellers started to be aware that buffers should be closer to
each others. Some manufacturers (like Kleinbahn) have produced small
standard couplings, carefully positioned on the models, which reduce very
effectively the gap between the buffers. They don't use any device described
hereunder and they work very well.
Then came about an idiot, who obviously never heard anything about
mechanics. He invented the close coupling device (which we call here the
"elongation" coupling). It consists of a cam or slot mechanism which pulls
the two vehicles closer together when they move on straight tracks.
One manufacturer (was it Roco?) was the first to claim his share of the
cake. As everybody knows, a product does not have to be good to sell, it has
to be new, and new indeed were the close couplings !
Close couplings are only a commercial argument.
After the first manufacturer who played the game had written on his
catalogue: "new: close couplings", all the others also wanted to cash on the
juicy idea. Of course, nobody cared to know if the device was good or not.
It was new, it had to sell!
In fact, close coupling devices are bad!
Close coupling devices are a nuisance: they derail the trains.
Why? The reason is obvious and very easy to understand.
Let us come back to our N-Class Bachmann locomotive. When you take the loco
in one hand and the tender in the other and you pull them outwards, the
permanent close coupling between the two units never stays "in the middle"
(i.e. on the center- line of the vehicles). It is designed to shift
sideways, because that is how it works to give a greater distance between
loco and tender in the curves. Shifting sideways, it creates a lateral push
which throws the tender off the tracks at the first occasion. This tendency
to derail is of course facilitated by the never ending tendency to reduce
the height of the wheel flanges. (If this tendency to reduce flage height
continues to go on at the same rate, in five years time we won't have any
more flanges at all!).
Some figures ?
I have an extensive layout on which many trains have been running for years
without one single derailment. Indeed, I have put a great effort into laying
my tracks as perfectly as possible.
When I started running this new N class Bachmann loco (fitted with the close
coupling system), the tender derailed four times at different locations
during the first running hour.
I took out the cross-shaped close coupling device and replaced it by the
good old coupling bar (a free moving styrene rectangle pierced by two little
holes with one screw in tle loco and the other in the tender. I did nothing
else. I put the model back on the track, ran it for another hour and did not
experience any more derailments.
I hear you ask: "what about the distance between loco and tender now ?"
With the stupid Bachmann close coupling device, I measured 5 mm.
With my good old coupling, I was able to reduce the distance to 3.5 mm. The
tender never touches the loco on 550 mm radius curves. It never derails, not
even moving backwards on the opposite curves of two small radius PECO points
placed back to back. Try this with the Bachmann close couplings !
What can we do ?
This message is to make British modellers aware of the new oncoming danger.
Close coupling devices (cams or slots) are a nuisance to train operators.
We have to reverse the argument !
We have to point out that close coupling can also be achieved by classical
couplings correctly positioned. We have to remind the manufacturers of an
evidence: the only satisfactory couplings (close or not) are those which
pull the vehicles towards the center-line of the track.
We say yes to closer couplings, but no to anti-mechanical close coupling
devices such as used by Bachmann on their N class loco.
If you do not believe me yet, please show this message to other modellers,
gather their comments and make up your own opinion.
Those who already think that close couplings are a nuisance should stick
together. We should press the manufacturers (starting with Bachmann) to
abandon the idea. Better still, we should press them to take advantage of
the demonstration contained in this present message and to use it as a
positive sales argument against anti-mechanical close coupling devices.
Train operators where are you?
Now is the time to spread this message around and to let your voive heard by
the manufacturers. Write to them. The more modellers write to them, the more
we may have a chance to be heard and to reverse this idiotic close coupling
devices mania.
Laurent TRUILLET
Model Train Operator
John Copping
<l.tru...@infonie.be> writes
>STOP BACHMANN CLOSE COUPLING SYSTEM
>
>Model Train Operator
>
>
I have been running trains for years with these coupling types in both
HO and N without any problems at all. Perhaps it's just Bachmann that
have got it wrong.
The Fleischmann display layout built by Modelmasters in Weston-super-
Mare has run close-coupled trains on a daily basis and has experienced
very few problems associated with the couplings.
--
John Copping
Steve Jones
I haven't got my hands on a Bachmann 'N' class as yet and so can't comment
on that specific close coupler but the Roco ones have been around for a good
few years now. Like many model train operators I have had a fair bit of
exposure to these items by now. They work just fine. No problems at all,
indeed if my British stock worked as reliably in all circumstances then I
would be a happy man. I can't imagine anything likely to cause more
derailments than the trusty tension lock.
Must get an 'N' class and have a look....
Steve Jones,
Shropshire, England
Laurent Truillet wrote in message <922305264.487326@eole>...
J & F Bayliss
the Bachmann tension lock couplings are dreadful. They are too chunky and
don't like any change of gradient. Some time ago I turned my back on ALL
tension lock couplings and went over to Kadee. These can be a bit fiddly to
set up and install on some stock, but once done I reckon that they are
wonderful. I know they aren't "prototypical" for British models but who ever
saw a prototype tension lock coupling?
Jonathan.
Laurent Truillet
Thank you for reading my message and answering it.
Your comments suggests that we progress a little further into the subject.
Of course, not all trains fitted with close coupling devices derail. Most of
them stay on the track. This is usually true if you speak of continental
rolling stock fitted with NEM wheel flanges, which are a little deeper than
the American RP25 very recently chosen by Bachmann. With these RP25 flanges,
you obviously have more chances to derail as a result of a sidewards
pressure.
So I agree with you that MOST locos stay on the track. But not ALL. I
recently bought the Marklin Belgian 2-10-0 Steam Engine (new item 1998). It
has elongation couplings on both ends of the tender. When the loco pulls a
train, both couplings of the tender flip to a different side. One flips to
the left while the other one flips to the right. You can clearly see that
the tender moves at an angle with respect to the center-line of the track.
So much so that I thought that it was derailed. Besides that, when the
position of the close couplings (left/right) is on the "wrong" side when the
train enters a curve, you see the tender jerk from left/right to right/left,
and most of the times it "jumps" off the track. I have written a long letter
to Marklin (same style as my message that you have read), but I received no
reply. My conclusions are:
1. I claim my money back for this loco (which costed me over 150 pounds - a
bit expensive for a failure!)
2. Marklin is on my black list: I have decided NOT to buy the two Belgian
locos which are in the "new items" list for 1999.
I also agree that most of the waggons stay on the track. However, with the
close coupling devices, they derail on the 360 mm radius curves of my old
Marklin layout. When I remove the close coupling devices (or at least when I
file off the top of the cam to round off the top) they stay on the track.
This is not a feeling, it is a FACT.
Finally, when a train is made up with elongation couplings, the waggons
never seem to be in-line. They move askew, because some bogies are pushed to
the left and some others to the right. Be honest: just watch your trains and
see for yourself. Of course, you won't notice anything if you run a loco
with three coaches on a level track, but it will be a lot different if you
have a double-header pulling a heavy train on a 4% gradient.
Let me even add an extra point. When a train enters a curve with the loco
moving at a constant speed, the last waggon does NOT move at a constant
speed. It shows multiple forward/backwards jerks, evey one of them happening
when a coupling slackens as it swings sidewards. The same jerks happen when
the train goes back to straigh due to the couplings pulling back to their
"close" position.
In short, my position remains the same for the benefit of all operators (me
included, this is why I am fighting this battle):
- The short coupling devices are bad, because anti-mechanical.
- It is possible to obtain a short coupling effect without any "elongation"
system (the more so now that the curve radii have a tendency to increase).
As an example, the best mechanical solution is proposed by Kleinbahn (NOT
Klein Modelbahn!). The next best solution was the British Airfix RTR
coupling (similar to the Fleischmann traditional coupling), because the hook
was in the center of the coupling. The Bachmann standard mini-coupling
fitted on the waggons is almost as good, but it has THREE defects (which can
be the subject of another message!). The worst British couplings are the
LAAAAARGE Hornby and Lima couplings with the hook on one side. Here again,
they exert a sidewards push, and we are back to our starting point.
Are you still reading? If yes, thank you for your patience!
Anyway, best regards and enjoy your modelling activity!
Laurent TRUILLET
john_is...@my-dejanews.com
Model manufacturers cannot be expected to produce more realistic products
that stay on the track, if we are going to insist on using them on toy train
track.
John Isherwood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <922386528.899647@eole>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jean-Pierre Hoven
As a user and fan of the close coupling system, i have to give some
clarification
Laurent Truillet a écrit dans le message <922386528.899647@eole>...
>Dear John,
>
[snip]
>
>Finally, when a train is made up with elongation couplings, the waggons
>never seem to be in-line. They move askew, because some bogies are pushed
to
>the left and some others to the right. Be honest: just watch your trains
and
>see for yourself. Of course, you won't notice anything if you run a loco
>with three coaches on a level track, but it will be a lot different if you
>have a double-header pulling a heavy train on a 4% gradient.
>Let me even add an extra point. When a train enters a curve with the loco
>moving at a constant speed, the last waggon does NOT move at a constant
>speed. It shows multiple forward/backwards jerks, evey one of them
happening
>when a coupling slackens as it swings sidewards. The same jerks happen when
>the train goes back to straigh due to the couplings pulling back to their
>"close" position.
>
This is normal, because you have left the original coupler. With the weight
of the train, they put the mechanism in bad position and if the next curve
is the other side, bang!!
To work properly, close coupling MUST have rigid coupling between cars, as
Roco close couplers, Fleischmann Profi or Märklin close couplers. With them,
no more problems, even with heavy trains on reasonnable curves. The more i
tried for the moment is at our club layout with a double-header with 36
wagons on 600mm curves and boucles without any problems.
For the Märklin loc, i can't tell for the coupling between loc and tender
cause i don't have it (2r)!
Regards
Jean-Pierre Hoven
jipe...@ping.be
Laurent Truillet
Lima are even worse!
In fact, as I wrote to John Copping yesterday, the British Standard Coupling
has THREE defects, more or less important according to the manufacturers. I
thought this topic could be the subject of a message, here it is:
First, I have to explain how I became aware of these defects, how I came to
describe them and how I managed to cure them:
I have an extensive 2-rail + 3-rail interconnected layout. The 3-rail system
is made of metal Marklin tracks, which are far from perfect to say the
least. Minimum radius for Marklin is 360 mm. The trains run from one system
to the other.
I have made so many efforts to lay all track as perfectly as I could and to
correct all defects that I have now less than 1 derailment in 10 hours
operation. EVERY derailment is investigated and the cause of it is
corrected.
So let's now come back to the three defects of the British Standard
Coupling:
ONE
The hooks are not in the center-line of the vehicle (in some cases like
Hornby, they are fairly well off-centre). They pull the vehicle askew and
this causes derailments.
Remedy: replace the couplings with Bachmann mini couplings, or better with
an old Airfix RTR coupling. The latter are dead in the middle! If you cannot
replace the coupling (some Hornby waggons), remove the hooks and hope that
the next waggon has one!
TWO
As you noticed, the tension lock does not allow for much gradient change.
This is because two adjacent hooks interlock with the loops and almost make
a rigid link.
Remedy: file off the very end of the hook which points back to the waggon.
Just leave a little metal triangle.
THREE
In curves, the hooks have a tendency to jump out of the loops and fall
aside. When the train exits the curve and goes back straight, the hook
pushes on the side of the loop and derails the next waggon which is "pushed
out" of the track.
Remedy: on Bachmann mini coupling, bend down gently the outer end of the
hook (angle 5 to 10 degrees) so that it enters deeper in the loop of the
adjacent waggon. Also bend the hook (same angle) horizontally towards the
center-line. This reduces the tendency to jump aside.
Ahhhhh, what if everybody on this planet used Kadee couplings ?...
Without elongation system, of course!
Laurent TRUILLET
Laurent Truillet
Please do buy an N class Bachmann loco. It is a beatiful model.
Then put it on your layout and let us know very honestly how it runs.
If you tell me that it never derails, I'll invite you very friendly to come
and try it on my layout at home.
Remember that this loco has RP25 flanges, while Roco is still NEM. It does
make a difference.
I agree that Roco runs well on two rail tracks. Not on three rails Marklin
metal tracks. The only way to run Roco on Marklin tracks is to remove or
transform the close coupling devices (i.e. round off the tips of the cam and
remove the coupling springs).
Laurent TRUILLET
Jean-Pierre Hoven
Laurent Truillet a écrit dans le message <922479714.722870@eole>...
>
>I agree that Roco runs well on two rail tracks. Not on three rails Marklin
>metal tracks. The only way to run Roco on Marklin tracks is to remove or
>transform the close coupling devices (i.e. round off the tips of the cam
and
>remove the coupling springs).
>
run in 2R or 3R ;-))
Regards
Jean-Pierre Hoven
jipe...@ping.be
John Copping
>Dear John,
>
>Thank you for reading my message and answering it.
>recently bought the Marklin Belgian 2-10-0 Steam Engine (new item 1998). It
>has elongation couplings on both ends of the tender. When the loco pulls a
>train, both couplings of the tender flip to a different side. One flips to
>the left while the other one flips to the right. You can clearly see that
>the tender moves at an angle with respect to the center-line of the track.
>So much so that I thought that it was derailed. Besides that, when the
>position of the close couplings (left/right) is on the "wrong" side when the
>train enters a curve, you see the tender jerk from left/right to right/left,
>and most of the times it "jumps" off the track. I have written a long letter
>to Marklin (same style as my message that you have read), but I received no
>reply. My conclusions are:
>1. I claim my money back for this loco (which costed me over 150 pounds - a
>bit expensive for a failure!)
>2. Marklin is on my black list: I have decided NOT to buy the two Belgian
>locos which are in the "new items" list for 1999.
>I also agree that most of the waggons stay on the track. However, with the
>close coupling devices, they derail on the 360 mm radius curves of my old
>
>Laurent,
Sorry to hear about the Marklin loco, I don't buy them myself (except in
Z - and I'm not going to close-couple them!) there is something about
them that tends to say "Toy".
I think the minimum radius I use is greater than 360mm (Roco-line R3) so
I don't have any problems there, even with scale length coaches. I do
get the occasional coupling part on a steep section of the layout (in a
tunnel and on a curve, at the most awkward part to get to, always the
way). I have had no problem with long freight trains either. The spring
mechanisms on the Fleischmann and Roco stock always operate smoothly,
Kleinbahn can be a bit awkward and Liliput's method of NEM box/sprung
buffers/no mechanism causes more trouble than it's worth.
Still, to each their own. Good Luck!
John
--
John Copping
Laurent Truillet
You mark one point!
But the next one will be for me: I cannot tolerate that a Marklin loco
derails on Marklin tracks. Nowhere in the catalogue nor on the box does it
say that this Marklin loco is not supposed to run on Marklin tracks.
Laurent TRUILLET
Laurent Truillet
I know the tune you are singing, words and music.
I have indeed replaced the original standard couplings by the rigid Roco
couplings. They perform a little better of course, but they also slip to one
side of the cam.
By the way, you seem to live in Belgium. Parlez-vous français, Jean-Pierre.
I live near Liège, where are you situated ?
Regards,
Laurent TRUILLET
Jean-Pierre Hoven
>
>By the way, you seem to live in Belgium. Parlez-vous français, Jean-Pierre.
>I live near Liège, where are you situated ?
>
Jean-Pierre Hoven
jipe...@ping.be
Laurent Truillet
>
>Still, to each their own. Good Luck!
>
>John
Thanks for your reply.
I think we have gone as far as we could on this subject. I like your
conclusion: everyone has to find his own way. It's amazing the amount of
work it takes to reach zero derailment (I'm very close to that mark).
The show has to go on...
Laurent TRUILLET
David Breeze
>Remember that this loco has RP25 flanges, while Roco is still NEM. It does
>make a difference.
>
just the size of the flanges. After all, look at the flanges on full-
sized trains, they are tiny relative to the model ones. I have always
found that the small-flanged RP25 wheels are more reliable for not
derailing than the large, sharp flanges used on European (inc. British)
models. It's much easier for the large, sharp flanges to 'pick' point
blades or track joints that are slightly out of alignment.
I just wish we could get more realistic wheels/flanges on ordinary N-
scale models.
--
Dave Breeze
Glasgow,
Scotland
Mark Fielder
>work it takes to reach zero derailment (I'm very close to that mark).
Which is exactly why the various finescale systems like P4, S7, 2mm etc all
work so well. Everything is done to a common set of dimensions.
People decry the effort it takes to scratchbuild and then proceed to expend
as much if not more trying to make various commercial standards work in
harmony. To me, that is the amazing thing.
However, it must be very frustrating to people who are starting out, as they
wonder why their stuff doesn't run as well as might be expected given what
it cost. Shades of the computer industry!
rgds
Mark.
Mark Fielder
scale models."
Can I suggest 2mm finescale, perhaps? We've been doing this for years (39,
to be precise).
rgds
Mark.
David Breeze
I realise that, that's why I said 'ordinary N-scale'.
I would love to get into finescale modelling, but I know that I would
just get bogged down in expensive, complicated projects (even more so
than I do already!) and never get any trains running.
I think that N-scale manufacturers could improve things (for wheels at
least) by using a more realistic ready-to-run standard like RP-25 in HO.
Maybe I will replace all my wheels with finescale ones once I get
everything up and running...
Jim Guthrie
<da...@sdscom.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Dave
>I would love to get into finescale modelling, but I know that I would
>just get bogged down in expensive, complicated projects (even more so
>than I do already!) and never get any trains running.
I wouldn't equate finescale with expense. In most of the fine scales
in the UK, a lot of the bits and materials are shared with the
popular scales (00/P4, 0/S7, etc) so the cost is the same in that
respect. More specialist bits like wheels and track can cost a bit
more, but we're usually talking small differences.
The major cost is probably our time since finescale does require a bit
more care, but that will spread the expenditure out over a longer
period and improve your cashflow :-).
Jim.
Progressing (maybe) in S7 at www.netcomuk.co.uk/~sprocket/index.html
David Breeze
>The major cost is probably our time since finescale does require a bit
>more care, but that will spread the expenditure out over a longer
>period and improve your cashflow :-).
Thanks Jim, I rather like that way of looking at it!
David Breeze
>
>To '2mm' your N gauge, a quick run-down of what's needed:
>
<snip>
Is the track gauge different from N-gauge or are you hand-laying just to
get better quality track? I've got about 20 yds of Peco and Micro-
Engineering code 55 put down, so you can imagine how enthusiastic I am
about tearing it up to start hand-laying! Also, the Micro-Engineering
stuff is very nice, much better than I could hand-lay.
Thanks for that run-down of what is involved in 2mm, very interesting.
Jim Guthrie
<da...@sdscom.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Dave,
>Thanks Jim, I rather like that way of looking at it!
As a fellow Glaswegian (ex-pat in the South West), I thought that
might appeal to your baser instincts :-).
Mark Fielder
The track gauge used in 2mm is 9.42mm, with flangeways circa 20 thou (練m)
wide. So yes, the gauge is different and yes, we hand-lay to get better
quality track.
In truth, N stock will run on 2mm track, but not through the turnouts. A
fair bit of the stock in use on Copenhagen Fields (at York over Easter)
still has N gauge wheelsets.
Unfortunately, it's not always feasible to use a finer wheel and leave the
track unchanged. Track and wheels work together as a system. N gauge tends
to rely on the wide tread and deep flanges to help stock negotiate the wide
gaps in pointwork.
Of course some manufacturers are proud of the coarse wheels. Take Farish for
example, they bright nickel plate their wheels to show off the treads and
flanges...:-)
But with a little care, it's possible to build a very good looking N gauge
layout. Take a look at John Birkett-Smith's model of Ashburton (featured in
MRJ a while back). Code 55 peco, carefully ballasted and painted,
weathered stock with dulled down wheels (esp. locos), Micro-trains couplers.
It all adds up to a heck of a good layout, every bit as good as a genuine
finescale layout.
rgds
Mark
David Breeze wrote in message ...