Hornby D+E Couplings SOS

[pheaton]

Andy,

I wondered if after a while...if the poll gets filled in and if you agree..........

 

You could possibly use your influence to ask Hornby if they could look into the widely commented couplings problem of the SD D+E range where the locomotive commonly derails wagons going into a curve, Ive picked on the 56 and 60 because they are the locos more like to be used to haul short wheel based wagons in trains of a scale length.

 

My 31s seem to be immune from the issue but it may be down to luck but they do have a slightly different design of the coupling mechanism.

 

Im not asking for recompense for my current loco's all i would like is an acknowledgement that users are experiencing issues and they would look into it when designing future chassis. or if possible future releases of there current super detail D+E range.

 

after extensive testing none of my 56s or 60s are able to haul more than 8 Hornby super detail HAAs through 4th radius curves, they simply derail the first wagon when exiting the curve, because a combination of the trailing weight and design of the coupling prevent the coupling from re-centring and as a result it pulls the wagon off the track.

 

The only viable solution i have found is fitting coupling loops, after research on the internet others have tried different style couplings with varying degrees of success. but im yet to see a magic bullet in the form of an off the shelf coupler. 

 

As the prices for models only increases should the user have to resort to such lengths to remedy something which really should work out of the box and to date only seems to affect Hornby models, i can pull scale length trains with Bachmann models which have retained the coupling pocket on the bogie.

 

Ive no doubt that Hornbys reasons to move the coupling to the current arrangement were with good intentions and by removing coupler pocket from the bogie it makes the locomotive less prone to derailing, but that's a problem i have never seen on other locomotives due to the overall weight of the locomotive, and its really actually made the issue in my experience 10 times worse!

 

Hopefully if enough people comment then there could be two outcomes...

 

1 i'm complaining a about a problem that doesn't really exist....

2 There is an issue...Hornby listen and fix it and the future releases are able to do what we want them to do with scale length trains.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by pheaton

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Solution: if a RTR autocoupler is required, thenuse the Roco pattern coupler (Hornby sell a version as R8220) or Fleischmann Profi type. These form the rigid bar link between the NEM coupler pockets that the close coupling mechanism requires to recentre.

 

49 minutes ago, pheaton said:

...Hornby listen and fix it and the future releases are able to do what we want them to do with scale length trains.

 

The size of that 'we' is a problem. I suspect not one in one hundred of Diesel traction models sold ever pulls a train. This very problem was quickly apparent from the release of Hornby's  Brush type 2 something like 15 years ago! If these (and the later models) were actually used by most owners to pull trains the volume of complaint would have been on the same scale as for the Mazak rot problem, and Hornby would have had to take notice and sort it out. So my best advice is to get on with fixing it for yourself using the suggestion above.

[D9020 Nimbus]

There may be no easy solution to the problem. The locos are fitted with a close-coupling arrangement which relies on couplings which "lock" rigidly together—like the Roco ones mentioned—but most Hornby and Bachmann wagons don't have such an arrangement. 

Continental locos have this type of arrangement without any issues—but the relevant wagons do too. British manufacturers have provided NEM pockets but not implemented the close-coupling mechanism on a consistent basis.

That said, it might be worth considering trying Kadees—while they don't lock together, they have more flexibility than tension-locks do. The main possible issue is buffer-locking, but there are different lengths available. Not guaranteed to work, mind...

[pheaton]

I think others have tried Kadees and its not resolved the issue

[steve1]

My Class 60 has screw links and I don't have any issues.

 

steve

[Ravenser]

8 hours ago, pheaton said:

Andy,

I wondered if after a while...if the poll gets filled in and if you agree..........

 

You could possibly use your influence to ask Hornby if they could look into the widely commented couplings problem of the SD D+E range where the locomotive commonly derails wagons going into a curve, Ive picked on the 56 and 60 because they are the locos more like to be used to haul short wheel based wagons in trains of a scale length.

 

My 31s seem to be immune from the issue but it may be down to luck but they do have a slightly different design of the coupling mechanism.

 

Im not asking for recompense for my current loco's all i would like is an acknowledgement that users are experiencing issues and they would look into it when designing future chassis. or if possible future releases of there current super detail D+E range.

 

after extensive testing none of my 56s or 60s are able to haul more than 8 Hornby super detail HAAs through 4th radius curves, they simply derail the first wagon when exiting the curve, because a combination of the trailing weight and design of the coupling prevent the coupling from re-centring and as a result it pulls the wagon off the track.

 

The only viable solution i have found is fitting coupling loops, after research on the internet others have tried different style couplings with varying degrees of success. but im yet to see a magic bullet in the form of an off the shelf coupler. 

 

As the prices for models only increases should the user have to resort to such lengths to remedy something which really should work out of the box and to date only seems to affect Hornby models, i can pull scale length trains with Bachmann models which have retained the coupling pocket on the bogie.

 

Ive no doubt that Hornbys reasons to move the coupling to the current arrangement were with good intentions and by removing coupler pocket from the bogie it makes the locomotive less prone to derailing, but that's a problem i have never seen on other locomotives due to the overall weight of the locomotive, and its really actually made the issue in my experience 10 times worse!

 

Hopefully if enough people comment then there could be two outcomes...

 

1 i'm complaining a about a problem that doesn't really exist....

2 There is an issue...Hornby listen and fix it and the future releases are able to do what we want them to do with scale length trains.

 

 

 

 

 

You've set up the poll so that nobody can register a vote unless they declare under Q2 that they have been forced to change the couplings 

 

I haven't , so can't register a vote. This is called "begging the question"

 

In reply to 34..... , my Hornby Brush 2 has regularly been used to haul 2 coach trains . The only derailments have been with a crossover where one point's closure is uncertain in one alignment - and my recollection is that every time a coconut it's the front bogie that splits the point - nothing to do with the couplers. (As a result the Airfix 31 with its coarser wheels is used on any job that involves running round . Loco hauled passenger trains are handled Minories style)

 

I use Kadees

Edited May 8, 2019 by Ravenser

[pheaton]

Hi ravenser.... Not sure what you mean..... If you haven't changed the couplings, does this mean you don't have an issue? 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎08‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 19:28, Ravenser said:

In reply to 34..... , my Hornby Brush 2 has regularly been used to haul 2 coach trains ...

I use Kadees

I wouldn't expect many problems in this scenario. Kadees perform much better than the supplied miniature tension lock - they won't tangle for a start - and with the combination of these couplers, the small trainload and the spring in the mechanism, there will be enough recentering force for the close coupling mechanism to keep out of trouble most of the time.

 

Try it with fifty four wheel wagons and the miniature tension locks. The  close coupling mechanism will pull over on a curve and not reset straight on reaching straight track. The next curve will probably result in derailment, and each subsequent curve transition just increases the probability. Put in a rigid bar coupler and no derailments. (Surely everyone purchasing RTR OO will have at least a few wagons with NEM pockets?)

 

On ‎08‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 19:28, Ravenser said:

... my Hornby Brush 2 ... The only derailments have been with a crossover where one point's closure is uncertain in one alignment - and my recollection is that every time a coconut it's the front bogie that splits the point - nothing to do with the couplers...

Quite possible that the mechanism is contributing, making the loco track sensitive. The brass bars in which the axle ends run can spread - cause indeterminate - and once sufficiently spread that a wheelset is not properly constrained they will come off the rails, on points in particular.

[Ravenser]

On 08/05/2019 at 19:33, pheaton said:

Hi ravenser.... Not sure what you mean..... If you haven't changed the couplings, does this mean you don't have an issue? 

 

I use Kadees. But I fit those because I use Kadees, not because I had a derailment problem with 60s or 31s. 

 

I have not been forced to change couplings as a result of derailments. Therefore your poll is forcing me to declare that I have experienced a problem , when I haven't.

 

It isn't possible to vote unless you select an option in Q2 which indicated you experienced a problem . If you made no change , because you never had a problem, the design of the poll prevents you registering a vote....... 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎08‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 15:47, D9020 Nimbus said:

There may be no easy solution to the problem. The locos are fitted with a close-coupling arrangement which relies on couplings which "lock" rigidly together—like the Roco ones mentioned—but most Hornby and Bachmann wagons don't have such an arrangement. 

Continental locos have this type of arrangement without any issues—but the relevant wagons do too. British manufacturers have provided NEM pockets but not implemented the close-coupling mechanism on a consistent basis...

All the NEM pocket fitted four wheel wagons I have encountered from Bachmann, Hornby and Oxford, have the necessary flexing mount for the NEM pocket that allows coupling with a rigid bar.

 

I have never tested NEM pocket fitted 4W wagons in this way with a Hornby diesel loco, but they do work perfectly well within a mostly bogie vehicle 'parcels' set, all the bogie vehicles having close coupling mechanisms identical in functionality to that on the locos.

 

Admittedly Hornby's 4W wagon range is probably dominated  by legacy items without the NEM pocket, so the choice of wagons that can couple to these locos using a rigid bar type coupler may well be limited for 'Hornby only' owners.

[Matt]

As far as I can recall, every Hornby 60 & 56 I own suffers from this problem to some extent but the fix is quite easy, at least for my examples.  After modification my locos can pull ~18 TEAs or 30 HAAs around my layout which includes the odd 2nd rad curve, plus some awkward reverse curves in the fiddle yard.

 

The problem in my view stems from the cam mechanism design coupled with very slight manufacturing imperfections.  If you invert the loco and look at how the coupler works, it is designed to move from side to side in a slot system where additional length is provided when the coupling is out to each side, and shorter in centre position.  In principle this is great but if you watch what happens out on the layout - the loco as it enters a sharp curve sees the coupling mechanism initially pushed out to the outside of the curve as the body swings inwards (and the nose swings outwards), as the wagons also start to enter the curve the coupling gets pulled over in tension to the inside of the curve.  In transitioning from one side to the other the coupling has to pass through the centre point where it provides a shorter coupling length.  The ability of the coupling to traverse this is the issue... under close observation I have seen that some mechanisms are worse than others but they all to some extent "bind" around the centre point preventing movement to the inside and causing the derailment.  This is worse on longer/heavier trains because of the additional tension caused by the heavier train.  You can replicate this by keeping the tension on the coupling and moving from side to side to see if it binds or not.

 

The fix that has worked for me is a combination of filing a little bit of metal off the cam mechanism around the sort of triangular centre point (talking about shaving here) and adding a small amount of lubricant to the cam.  This is the work of minutes and on my modified locos has eliminated the problem.  I should add I am a Kadee user but the problem if anything was worse with kadees than TLs before the mod, and fine afterwards.

 

Your issues may differ but this has been my experience.

 

Interestingly the same locos are the only locos in my extensive fleet that have suffered from squealing after a period of inactivity - the gear towers seem to suffer from grease drying out and can be remediated with a drop of powerlube on the top of the gear tower.

 

These are lovely locos and even better when running gremlins are solved - traction is phenomenal with long trains over my 1 in 50 gradients, including starting on a gradient which is something a lot of the blue box locos struggle with.

 

Hope this helps,

M

 

 

[D9020 Nimbus]

8 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

All the NEM pocket fitted four wheel wagons I have encountered from Bachmann, Hornby and Oxford, have the necessary flexing mount for the NEM pocket that allows coupling with a rigid bar.

 

I have never tested NEM pocket fitted 4W wagons in this way with a Hornby diesel loco, but they do work perfectly well within a mostly bogie vehicle 'parcels' set, all the bogie vehicles having close coupling mechanisms identical in functionality to that on the locos.

 

Admittedly Hornby's 4W wagon range is probably dominated  by legacy items without the NEM pocket, so the choice of wagons that can couple to these locos using a rigid bar type coupler may well be limited for 'Hornby only' owners.

There is some flexibility in the mount, but it isn't the same as on most European stock where there is a swinging link arrangement, the purpose of which is to increase the distance between wagons on curves. The idea is that wagons can be "buffer to buffer" on straight track and also negotiate set-track curves. It really needs a rigid link to work correctly.

It's noteable that Hornby's equivalent of the Roco close coupling keeps vehicles further apart than the original.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Unfortunately it has only been on coach stock that the full system has been fitted in OO (to the best of my knowledge) and that without any information about how best to exploit it! I do rather wonder why both Bachmann and Hornby bothered, not that I am ungrateful (glass half full kind of person).

[truffy]

On 10/05/2019 at 13:14, Ravenser said:

 

I use Kadees. But I fit those because I use Kadees, not because I had a derailment problem with 60s or 31s. 

 

I have not been forced to change couplings as a result of derailments. Therefore your poll is forcing me to declare that I have experienced a problem , when I haven't.

 

It isn't possible to vote unless you select an option in Q2 which indicated you experienced a problem . If you made no change , because you never had a problem, the design of the poll prevents you registering a vote....... 

Au contraire. In your case, the Q&A goes as follows:

 

Q1. Of your Hornby SD class 56s and 60s do you have issues with couplings derailing wagons

A1. I have no issues with the couplings 

Q2. What have you done to try and resolve the issue

A2. Fit A N Other coupler

Q3. Has the coupling issue put you off buying further Hornby locomotives with this coupling arrangement

A3. No

 

Yes, it's rather nonsensical, but it's true and, as the saying goes, 'garbage in, garbage out'.

 

I've had polls/surveys at work with far greater logic problems. But experience tells me, from official supplier surveys as well as forum polls, surveys rarely result in any change, so they're there for fun or to ignore.

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, truffy said:

Au contraire. In your case, the Q&A goes as follows:

 

Q1. Of your Hornby SD class 56s and 60s do you have issues with couplings derailing wagons

A1. I have no issues with the couplings 

Q2. What have you done to try and resolve the issue

A2. Fit A N Other coupler

Q3. Has the coupling issue put you off buying further Hornby locomotives with this coupling arrangement

A3. No

 

Yes, it's rather nonsensical, but it's true and, as the saying goes, 'garbage in, garbage out'.

 

I've had polls/surveys at work with far greater logic problems. But experience tells me, from official supplier surveys as well as forum polls, surveys rarely result in any change, so they're there for fun or to ignore.

 

 

But I haven't done anything "to resolve the issue" .... Kadees were fitted for other reasons 

 

There is no way you can register a vote unless you declare you have experienced a problem with the couplings.....

[truffy]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

But I haven't done anything "to resolve the issue" 

 

A1

 

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

There is no way you can register a vote unless you declare you have experienced a problem with the couplings.....

 

A1 + GIGO! 

 

 

 

[37501]

I am in the process of fitting a chassis mounted Kadee coupling to my 60033. This has done away with the cam mounted arrangement altogether. Also means that the full snowplough can be fitted. I have built up layers of plasticard and super glued an M2 thread stud into this. Just experimenting with shaving a fraction of a mm off the inside of the sandboxes to maintain the full bogie rotation. Will post some pics when done.

Did a similar mod to a Bachmann 66 several years ago and it has worked well. Also allows the full skirt to be fitted, albeit with a bit of surgery...

The Kadee in its box mount needs to protrude far enough ti prevent buffer lock. 

 

John

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by 37501
Spelling mistake

[37501]

60033 fitted with a Kadee No. 5 coupling at one end. The other end will have the dummy screw coupling fitted. Wheel faces are in primer prior to painting.

 

I fitted a Kadee 19 into the NEM pocket of my 56013 and retained the CCM. The large round buffers prevent the coupling swinging over far enough to stick.

 

John

[JSpencer]

Close coupling mechanisums use a spring tensioned to a certain amount. Now if too soft, they can fail to return to the centre causing derailments. If too hard, they won't move out and function correctly on curves. It should be noted the issue always disappears when using ROCO like couplings that effectively lock the couplings between vehicles so that bar like nature between vehicles always forces the close coupling system to function correctly regardless of spring tension.

The issue is the load behind the loco when classic couplings (tension lock, buckeyes etc) are used. A heavy train might be beyond what the spring can return (i;e pull the train back in again after quiting the curve). A light load might not be heavy enough to pull the spring so the system extends as the train goes round the curve etc.

 

Hornby's are generally adjusted for lightish loads up to - say - 6 coaches on the flat. Beyond that, you really need to fit ROCO style (Hornby sell them - often provide them as alternatives in recent releases). Buckeyes do - IMO - perform better than tension locks when the train is being pulled. When "pushed" by a loco, you should always use bar like (Roco, or Bachmann bar) couplings on vehciles using close coupling. The issue is really on big diesels, you won't find shunters and steamers fitted with close coupling systems (at least in UK RTR).

 

[D9020 Nimbus]

European locos generally do have close-coupling mechanisms unless they can't be fitted for reasons of space, when NEM363 (not 362) couplings are often used (the range of suitable alternative couplers in that mount is a lot less).

[BritishRail60062]

Overall my Hornby Class 60's do behave themselves with the older wider loop Lima Bogie Tank wagons on my Kato track. But the narrower coupling loops with some of the rolling stock and when shunting them into a siding, these couplers would not co-operate with the Hornby Class 60 and that would result in my Class 60 knocking them off the track. The 2006 Hornby Class 60's would play up with SWB wagons but the bogie wagons would work fine on the third and fourth radius track with no issues. 

 

I have not yet tried the buck-eye couplings personally. Are they any good?

[Hilux5972]

My class 50 has this issue. Pulls coaches and all sorts off the track.