Bachmann LMS "porthole" coaches

[Guest Max Stafford]

I'm not sure what you mean here, DR. The close-coupling units of either should be essentially similar. You'll have me going off for a side by side comparison but it's my bedtime and I'll have to wait until tomorrow now! Won't a Roco-type close coupler bring them in closer for you?

 

Dave.

[Lochinvar]

Max - I was simply expressing the hope that,when the "Portholes" appear,they would use the same sort of close-coupler as Bachmann already offer on their Mk1s. IMHO,it's quite elegant as well as effective. And I was contrasting that with the Hornby equivalent,which strikes me as an aesthetic horror. So,yes,I do need to find a better solution for my Gresleys (and for my intended Thompsons). So,Rocos,perhaps - but I've also heard of Fleischmann "Profis". I don't know what look like,even less about their performance. Any experience/views?

 

DR

[Jamie]

Roco's coupling is the same pattern as Hornby supply, compatible, just slightly shorter. I mix the two to get optimum coupling lengths between different coaches. Dunno about Profis, but bound to have been discussed on here before.

 

I'd be quite happy with the Roco/Hornby pattern, as although they look awful if projecting from the end of a rake, they're wonderfully reliable and pretty unobtrusive (in my experience) within a set. Also much easier to couple and uncouple than the false pipes that are supplied with the Bachmann Mk1, which require to be disconnected from the NEM socket - fine for two coaches, cumbersome beyond that.

 

I'm looking forward to these models coming out. I expect to stick with my Comet plans for maroon vehicles (I can paint a single colour livery) but will possibly use the Bachmann models for any crimson/cream coaches - if the glazing and livery colour rendition is good enough.

[coachmann]

Realistically, Porthole stock should have screw link couplings. But if one can ignore this fact in the search for something 'usable', then the Bachmann E-Z coupling looks neat. It looks and acts like a Kadee but it is no use putting two together as they are not close coupled enough. Therefore I fit short Kadees to one end of a coach and E-Z at the other.

 

Coupling two Rocos together or a Roco and a Hornby-Roco gives close coupling plus the whole train moves off in unison with no slack to take up. But they look like a couple of bricks whereas the Kadee's do at least look like a coupler and a swinging pipe!

[frobisher]

Max - I was simply expressing the hope that,when the "Portholes" appear,they would use the same sort of close-coupler as Bachmann already offer on their Mk1s. IMHO,it's quite elegant as well as effective. And I was contrasting that with the Hornby equivalent,which strikes me as an aesthetic horror. So,yes,I do need to find a better solution for my Gresleys (and for my intended Thompsons). So,Rocos,perhaps - but I've also heard of Fleischmann "Profis". I don't know what look like,even less about their performance. Any experience/views?

 

So what you're wanting are the vacuum pipe couplers? If so these are available as spares from Bachmann (36-060, Branchline Coach Pipe Coupling (x4), RRP £ 2.95). The Hornby/Roco style ones can however be uncoupled with the coaches still on the track.

[Ian Hargrave]

Max - I was simply expressing the hope that,when the "Portholes" appear,they would use the same sort of close-coupler as Bachmann already offer on their Mk1s. IMHO,it's quite elegant as well as effective. And I was contrasting that with the Hornby equivalent,which strikes me as an aesthetic horror. So,yes,I do need to find a better solution for my Gresleys (and for my intended Thompsons). So,Rocos,perhaps - but I've also heard of Fleischmann "Profis". I don't know what look like,even less about their performance. Any experience/views? DR

 

The older Bachmann Mark 1,s certainly do not offer suitable close coupling,unless you mean the semi-permanent pipe-coupling,which, only if you want to keep a rake together, is ok but if you wish ,as most of us do,to change it from time is a pain. I use Kadees no.20. OK but not marvellous. They plug in. The best way I have seen is to replace the tension lock at one end only and replace with a shorter shank version (available accessory) and thus equip each of the rake on an every other basis. Roco 'kurzkupplung' will not work (I've tried) and ,similarly,neither do Fleischmann Profis.The profis however do an excellent job with Bachmann dmu. Are newer versions of the Mark one any different ? I don't know but I doubt it.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Right now. I've conducted a couple of tests for Mucklebackit on the wee Gresleys and my conclusion is that Kadee Number 18s provide a very acceptable close coupled distance for this type. An alternative would be a 17/19 combination. Rocos would probably be not bad and the big surprise was Fleischmann Profis which provided buffer to buffer contact, aided by the springing of the buffers themselves though I imagine these would be best avoided on a layout with less than 36" radius curves.

For Bachmann Mk1s, Kadee No 20s and the Hornby 'Roco' style coupler are best. One note of caution however; many are already aware but for those who aren't, the Bachmann mounts are set slightly high. If you're prepared to file a notch out of the drag beam this isn't a major issue on the inner part of a self-contained Mk1 rake but it will be an issue when it comes to coupling up to locomotives and other items of stock. Improvised solutions are possible however including attaching the Kadee to a cropped Bachmann mount. I believe it's been covered back in the earlier days of the forum. Might even have been Pennine's baby!

 

Dave.

[Lochinvar]

Right now. I've conducted a couple of tests for Mucklebackit on the wee Gresleys and my conclusion is that Kadee Number 18s provide a very acceptable close coupled distance for this type. An alternative would be a 17/19 combination. Rocos would probably be not bad and the big surprise was Fleischmann Profis which provided buffer to buffer contact, aided by the springing of the buffers themselves though I imagine these would be best avoided on a layout with less than 36" radius curves.

For Bachmann Mk1s, Kadee No 20s and the Hornby 'Roco' style coupler are best. One note of caution however; many are already aware but for those who aren't, the Bachmann mounts are set slightly high. If you're prepared to file a notch out of the drag beam this isn't a major issue on the inner part of a self-contained Mk1 rake but it will be an issue when it comes to coupling up to locomotives and other items of stock. Improvised solutions are possible however including attaching the Kadee to a cropped Bachmann mount. I believe it's been covered back in the earlier days of the forum. Might even have been Pennine's baby!

 

Dave.

 

Many thanks for going to these lengths to help. As I said,I'm reasonably content with the (vac.pipe -style) close-connectors which are in use on my fixed rakes of Mk1s. They cope well with the most challenging radius (24",nominal,on a double-slip) on my layout. We're in danger of going way off-topic here with the discussion (for which I created the opening!)) on how to improve upon the Rocos on my Hornby Gresleys....so roll on the "Portholes"!

 

DR

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The 'wee Gresleys' are OK with the Roco close coupler too, up to a point. Practically buffered up when pulled on straight track and no trouble at all on plain curves, and formations of the Peco large radius point; but reverse curves on pointwork formed from nominal 36" Peco medium radius points defeats them much of the time. Buffer head edges collide, and if they slip 'inside' and lock then it is derailment time. On the corridor coaches I have taken to fully retracting the sprung buffers to avoid this problem, but on these vehicles will have to pack behind the buffer stock to limit travel a little, 0.5mm will probably do it. Obviously one could use a longer coupler like Hornby's Roco clone, but what I want to preserve is the near scale separation of vehicle ends which looks so well

[robertcwp]

This photo shows how the porthole stock was often to be seen in the 1950s:

46210_20-5-53 by robertcwp, on Flickr

Note the mix of Mark I and LMS designs.

 

Visible stock comprises:

BG Mark I

CK Mark I

FK Mark I

FO porthole

RK LMS

TO LMS

TO LMS

TK Mark I

BTK porthole

BG (not clear)

remainder not visible.

 

The train appears to be the southbound Midday Scot, which had portions from Glasgow and Perth.

 

What the modeller really needs to go with the porthole (and other LMS design) stock is an open third and a kitchen car.

 

Here is a closer view of the FO - not very sharp as it's a very small part of the negative:

 

 

It does show the unusual roof vent arrangement.

[Xerces Fobe2]

I think at least a couple of these will make it to Croxley!

 

XF

Edited August 25, 2012 by Xerces Fobe2

[Kim]

I have no doubt I wil find a home for some of them.

 

However, I just wish Bachmann would adpt the NEM standard for their coupling. They can do it on the Liliput stock so why not tthe UK stock!

 

Kim

[Lochinvar]

I see that the Bachmann website is now quoting Jan/Feb for the expected arrival of these.

 

DR

[Graham_Muz]

Bachmann advised on Sunday that they are just awaiting the EP samples from the tool room for these models.

[johnd]

According to the Bachman website I notice the date for these coaches has been moved from Jan/Feb to June/July.

 

So are Bachmann now having supply problems ?

[Guest Max Stafford]

I'd say they were just taking their time to get the models right. Perhaps due to feedback from those viewing the prototypes?

 

Dave.

[robertcwp]

There was an earlier thread on these coaches:  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/51903-lms-porthole-corridor-stock/page-2&do=findComment&comment=776986 (ADMIN - now merged with this one).

 

Also, there were photos of the EP samples here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64646-latest-developments-from-Bachmann-farish/&do=findComment&comment=853970

 

And my comments on them here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64646-latest-developments-from-Bachmann-farish/page-4&do=findComment&comment=857454

 

I hope the delay is so that they can make a few tweaks.  Also, I don't think any images of the CK have been released yet.  These vehicles had a unique profile amongst LMS designs and it will be interesting to see if Bachmann are able to capture their shape.  There are a couple of preserved ones to help them do so.

[Michael Delamar]

im looking forward to these eventually being released in maroon and hopefully not weathered like the mk1's they're doing at the moment.

[Barry O]

These have been in gestation for a very long time. The ones at Warley looked OK but without being able to get a good look at them you can't pass constructive comment.

 

I will have built my kits of these by the time they arrive at the rate they are progressing - bit like the CovHops

[10800]

The February 'Rail' is suggesting release in the next couple of months - which came as a shock to my wallet with a squadron on pre-order!

[01001]

How many survied tobe painted  into blue gray?  Ive seen some photos in magazines etc  would intresting to have that option as well...my painting skills  are a bit   limited. 

Edited December 26, 2012 by 01001

[robertcwp]

How many survied tobe painted  into blue gray?  Ive seen some photos in magazines etc  would intresting to have that option as well...my painting skills  are a bit   limited. 

At least one CK, two SK and around half-a-dozen BSK, possibly more, carried blue/grey.

[coachmann]

LMS 'Porthole' coaches using Comet etched sides as a basis. The Bachmann models should resemble the two coaches below if modelled correctly...

 

'Porthole' brake third with sides mounted on ends lower than 'normal' and a correspondingly deeper cantrail between the top of the windows and the roof gutter. Also ridge dome roof vents....

 

'Porthole' composite. Note four trussrods and different end profile compared with adjacent coach .....

 

'Porthole' composite differed in many respects from previous LMS designs....

The sides were more clipper-sided with a slightly more accentuated tumble home.

 

The junction between the sides and roof at cantrail was sharper and the roof lost its semi-eliptical shape and had much more in common with the profile adopted by BR.

 

The junction between the sides and the ends had a rounded corner.

 

These coaches had four lightweight trussrods (LMS coaches normally had two).

 

Some of the batch had a different arrangement of train alarm equipment on the end.

 

Some coaches were built using up scissor non-suspended gangways from wartime damaged stock. Also some featured pre-war torpedo vents while others had ridge dome roof vents.

Edited December 26, 2012 by coachmann

[davefrk]

They really are very nice Coachmann, I just hope the Bachmann ones are even half as good....

 

Respect,

 

Dave Franks.

[coachmann]

Thanks Dave. I collated the info in one place in case Bachmann has missed one or two points.

 

I also have a selfish reason.........The composite in particular turned out to be a lot of donkeywork that I would not wish to revisit and so I will happily stock up with Bachmann's if correct,