The great Hornby Coupling Farce.....PART 2

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Kadee #17 are near perfect for the gangways practically in contact. Needs a 36" minimum radius, and a reliable auto-uncouple cannot be obtained as there is insufficent slack to allow the jaws to clear, unless the gangway face plates are slightly filed away. Some graphite on the gangway faceplates to help them slip against each other, prevents jerky action on curve transitions when the faceplates are in contact because the trailing vehicle is propelling.

 

A combination of #17 and #18 allows auto-uncoupling, good on a 30" minimum radius (and maybe a little tighter, not tested). As above with the graphite, because the faceplates make contact when propelling.

[vitalspark]

Which Kadee number for the Craven?

 

 Answered in detail by 34C and agree.

 

We have 4ft min curves so tighter the better and being a DMU auto uncoiling is irrelevant.

 

D.

[rob D2]

I'm obviously missing something here..a coupling on a loco does not need to close up like that between coaches so pull it off and drop it in the bin..then replace with a wire loop of the kind that almost all decent modellers will fit if running tension lock stock.

 

Unless you are finescale and using Jacksons or the like then a wire loop is the answer.

 

If you are running KDs then obviously its not for you but then you are likely not having issues.

 

The remainder will likely be running stock regardless of period with some sort of tension lock with every coach/wagon having a hook..so why do you feel the need to also have one on the loco?

 

Who wants to see a tension lock hook sticking out from the front of an otherwise decent loco?

 

A loop at the correct height as the tension lock bar and secured by turning the ends at right angles up into the loco frame into drilled holes and secured with superglue or araldite is the answer.

 

Its unobtrusive and allows the tension lock hook on the leading vehicle to slide and follow the loco perfectly.

 

No self respecting modeller leaves a tension lock on a loco and apart from that the wire loop is cheap..easy to fit.. good to look at as it can blend with the buffer bean detailing especially on a diesel and its also totally reliable.

 

Ten years on the exhibition circuit with Alloa and not a single coupling failure or trains splitting back this up.

 

A few images attached.

 

One of the first tasks with the new Hornby 'Stanier' was to lose the tender coupling.

IMG_1318.jpg

 

Heljan Co-Bo

IMG_1319.jpg

 

Underside..chemically blackening the wire would be better however its easy to touch up when it gets 'chippy'

IMG_1321.jpg

 

Coupling bars galore on Alloa

DSC_0677.JPG

 

Its not just our locos that get the wire loop treatment Tony Wrights beautiful kit built A2 Tudor Minstrel on Alloa.

IMG_6085.jpg

 

Hope this is taken in the spirit its intended as not meaning to be critical but often simplest is best.

 

Dave.

 

“ self respecting “ , “ decent modellers “. Well I haven’t got them, I’d beter go and say ten Hail Marys and beat myself with a stick.

 

These wire loops on diesels look no more prototypical than a tension lock...simply because no diesel Really has them although yours are less obvious then the massive ones some fit so they can put all the pipes on which is a bit of an oxymoron at best .

[pheaton]

Looking at the samples at Warley the 87s have the same coupling arrangement as the other Hornby diesels.....

Edited November 25, 2017 by pheaton

[Dunsignalling]

Which Kadee number for the Craven?

Given that you won't (presumably) want them to uncouple over magnets, if you fit Kadees, I suggest cutting off the tails.

 

Alternatively, I found that Rocos work fine on the Cravens unit despite them not having CCUs. I fitted them to a mate's unit a few years ago - I think the minimum radius on his layout is 30". On that basis, Keen Systems manual buckeyes should give the same spacing and, if you use Kadees, two 18s unless you have very gentle curves or one 17 and one 18 if you do.

 

The Rocos do leave a small gap but you only really notice it when viewed square-on with the train at eye level. I also went to the trouble of making a paper bellows to fit inside one gangway, attached to a wider "rubbing plate" from thin card to stop it snagging on the other one, but he never bothers to use it! 

 

 

John

Edited November 25, 2017 by Dunsignalling