Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Has anyone tried the Ree Modeles magnetic couplings? These have two magnets per coupling and so are not 'handed'. They do conductive versions too.

 

I haven't been able to find them on the REE website, but here are a couple of versions for sale in the US:

https://www.reynaulds.com/products/REE-Modeles/XB-932.aspx

https://www.reynaulds.com/products/REE-Modeles/XB-938.aspx

 

No connection to me, but they look interesting. Someone posted about them on the Hornby forum (I think) a while ago.

 

Phil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I am developing a good system of how to work with mix coupling formations.

 

So basically on my layout I need both a shunting coupling and a fixed rake coupling.  Kadee and Hunt coupling suite my needs. 

 

For shunting, I have a number of short sidings that can each take a maximum of 3 medium length wheelbase twin axel wagons such as OTA or VAA.  These will either be in short fixed formations such a 3 timber OTA or treated as singles wagons such as VAA vans and will be part of longer Speedlink trains.  I can then shunt all wagons using Kadee.

 

For fixed rake long trains that will just run around the layout I will use magnetic couplings with a Kadee at each end.  All locos with have Kadee (eventually!).

 

So to combine my shunting wagons and my fixed rake formations to make even longer trains, I will have to have a number of wagons that have both coupling types and a mix of A/B magnets polarities.

 

For example here are my various OTA train formations, I have a total of 7 wagons.

 

1778161396_OTAFormation.png.58a6b5701393d3574179521a338f4f59.png

Here wagons 5, 6 and 8 have the key coupling combinations and allow the visual look of the full formation to be changed each time by placing them at different positions.  Wagons 1, 5, 6 & 8 working in pairs can all be used in shunting trains.

 

My Speedlink train formations are even more fun to create with both coupling types!

 

Aside for the fact I find the Hunt Coupling much easier to fit than Kadee, there is a notable cost saving to convert all wagons/coaches.  Plus, the magnetic coupling type is a lot more tolerant of height and off centre position variations than Kadee.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, newbryford said:

Fixed bars are great for close coupling - but a real PITA when it comes to assembling sets on the tracks and difficult to use unless you leave your stock on the rails as much as possible.

 

This is it.

I'm also worried about the possibility of breaking such a small coupling but without a doubt, it'll be when you can't get spares!

 

I'd happily sacrifice some closeness for ease of getting apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 18/02/2020 at 05:04, Richard Lee said:

https://westhillwagonworks.co.uk/

 

They seem to be concentrating on fairly modern stock at present.  From the video they look impressive if you don't need automatic uncoupling.  I wonder whether they would be any good for a 1930s/ branch line with small 4-wheeled wagons?  I will watch this thread with interest.

I didn't wait I made my own for n gauge some months ago. The concept is great however I used four magnets per coupling pair. This is so I can reverse stock etc. Also when negotiating radius 1 curves/points there is a bit more give for unsprung coupling mounts on 4-wheeled stock.

Edited by Std4mt
Spelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received my couplings recently and I thought I'd share my thoughts.

 

I intend running fixed formations on my layout so these seemed ideal. I hadn't had many issues with the TLC supplied with these but I liked the look of close coupled coaches.

 

I ordered Close Coupling set for NEM pockets on my Bachmann Mark 1's and visually they are extremely good.

 

hunt3.jpg.19b75bc7f8a06cc21c823052558ea8e5.jpg

 

However, I had a few issues.Some fitted well but some were very tight in the NEM pocket and I had to file out the pocket before they would fit. Others were not tight enough and resulted in the coaches uncoupling. Also, the rake made an odd clicking noise on the curves that I haven't been able to establish the cause of. In the attached photos it doesn't look like the buffers are touching on my 30inch curves.

 

hunt.jpg.fe4bb6a83b03042bff4cb23e1b29d92c.jpg

 

The noise may be the coupling rubbing against the underside of the coach frame as in this photo. The Bachmann TLC's avoid this contact with a drop in height rather than coming straight outward.

 

hunt4.jpg.2160c5a951b8dfa77aa9e03a29d37d15.jpg

 

Overall I think these are good and I want them to work for me but it seems I have had more issues than anyone else posting here. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Bachmann Mk1 coaches you really need the stepped ones to allow them to clear the bufferbeam of the coaches. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Eddie R v2.0 said:

For Bachmann Mk1 coaches you really need the stepped ones to allow them to clear the bufferbeam of the coaches. 

I did buy a set of stepped as well but the 'step' only occurs as an offset position of the magnet.

 

0b1d445c93eb8a0d946c3b9f8d11ddbd7d2ea91f_480x480_fwb.png.278d55a01e2cb75fa53299d6795452b5.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the step cleared the BB but looking at that, doesn’t seem to be the case. Apologies, looks like I have misunderstood the reason for the step. 
 

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really the fault of the Hunt coupling that it's a problem on Bachmann Mk1s?

 

I can never fathom out why Bachmann say the Mk1 has NEM pockets.

The NEM-362  standard refers not only to the pocket, but the height (and distance from bufferbeam IIRC) of said pocket.

 

What Bachmann should say is "We've used NEM pockets, but mounted them at a completely non-standard height which means that any NEM compliant coupling may/may not work. A similar issue arises when using  NEM pocket compatible Kadees - such as the #17-20 range.

 

Is there a possibility that the next person will come along and blame Hunt couplings for the reason why their Bachmann Mk1 won't couple to other coaches because the couplers are at different heights?

 

I'm sure that as Westhill develop the range, they will come up with a suitable coupler for the vast majority of RTR stock

 

I have no connection with Hunt/Westhill in any other way that as a satisfied customer of two version of their magnetic couplings - so far.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clicking sound could be coming from the close coupling mechanism on the coaches. Ensure this travels freely and returns to centre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, newbryford said:

Is it really the fault of the Hunt coupling that it's a problem on Bachmann Mk1s?

 

I can never fathom out why Bachmann say the Mk1 has NEM pockets.

The NEM-362  standard refers not only to the pocket, but the height (and distance from bufferbeam IIRC) of said pocket.

 

What Bachmann should say is "We've used NEM pockets, but mounted them at a completely non-standard height which means that any NEM compliant coupling may/may not work. A similar issue arises when using  NEM pocket compatible Kadees - such as the #17-20 range.

 

Is there a possibility that the next person will come along and blame Hunt couplings for the reason why their Bachmann Mk1 won't couple to other coaches because the couplers are at different heights?

 

I'm sure that as Westhill develop the range, they will come up with a suitable coupler for the vast majority of RTR stock

 

I have no connection with Hunt/Westhill in any other way that as a satisfied customer of two version of their magnetic couplings - so far.

I agree with everything you say. I hope I didn't sound like I was criticising the couplings. I really want them to work for me but on the Bachmann Mk1's I have a few issues to overcome.

 

1 hour ago, LNERandBR said:

The clicking sound could be coming from the close coupling mechanism on the coaches. Ensure this travels freely and returns to centre.

 

Yes, I think you are right but the couplings don't clear the buffer beam sufficiently as the mechanism slides across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bino said:

I agree with everything you say. I hope I didn't sound like I was criticising the couplings. I really want them to work for me but on the Bachmann Mk1's I have a few issues to overcome.

 

 

 

Not at all - but like you, I think the Bachmann Mk1s have caused more issues by having non-standard height NEM pockets. (I've glued Kadees under the pockets before now!)

 

A suggestion for Westhill - a height gauge.

Two magnets of opposite polarity on a block that fits on the rails. (so it works in the same way as the Kadee #206)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Bino said:

I agree with everything you say. I hope I didn't sound like I was criticising the couplings. I really want them to work for me but on the Bachmann Mk1's I have a few issues to overcome.

 

 

Yes, I think you are right but the couplings don't clear the buffer beam sufficiently as the mechanism slides across.

 

More expense, but the solution is the Keen Systems replacement draw bars for Bachmann BR MKI and Pullman Carriages.
https://keen-systems.com/Couplings.html

 

Works a treat as it relocates the NEM box to the correct position and the Hunt coupligs will work properly.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 23/06/2020 at 23:13, newbryford said:

Is it really the fault of the Hunt coupling that it's a problem on Bachmann Mk1s?

 

I can never fathom out why Bachmann say the Mk1 has NEM pockets.

The NEM-362  standard refers not only to the pocket, but the height (and distance from bufferbeam IIRC) of said pocket.

 

What Bachmann should say is "We've used NEM pockets, but mounted them at a completely non-standard height which means that any NEM compliant coupling may/may not work. A similar issue arises when using  NEM pocket compatible Kadees - such as the #17-20 range.

 

Quite so and it occurs to me that if Bachmann actually did say that their Mk1s were fitted with NEM pockets, (it's possible they simply fitted them without such a description) would that not be an offence under the Consumer Protection/Trade Descriptions Act by them or any retailer who also described them as such?

 

Kadee did go to considerable trouble to ensure that their #17-20 NEM362 "European Style" couplers were compatible with pockets that actually were to the NEM standard. They even allowed for the manufacturers who'd rather ignored the distance from the bufferbeam bit of the standard by supplying them in four lengths but the height of Kadees is fairly critical. 

 

Mind you, even in the USA, where the NMRA enforces its standards far more rigorously than MOROP ever could, Kadee still supplied couplers for draft boxes that had been set by their manufacturers at non-standard heights. The standard height for NEM boxes is set by the model standard but the standard draft box height set by the NMRA is based on that of the real thing. 

Edited by Pacific231G
clarification
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 23/06/2020 at 22:43, Bino said:

"Clipped"

 

I ordered Close Coupling set for NEM pockets on my Bachmann Mark 1's and visually they are extremely good.

 

"Clipped"

 

However, I had a few issues.Some fitted well but some were very tight in the NEM pocket and I had to file out the pocket before they would fit. Others were not tight enough and resulted in the coaches uncoupling. Also, the rake made an odd clicking noise on the curves that I haven't been able to establish the cause of. In the attached photos it doesn't look like the buffers are touching on my 30inch curves.

 

"Clipped"

 

The noise may be the coupling rubbing against the underside of the coach frame as in this photo. The Bachmann TLC's avoid this contact with a drop in height rather than coming straight outward.

 

 

Hi Bino

 

The Standard Hunt does not fit well on the Bachmann Mk1 due to the NEM pocket height and the buffer beam.

 

What I found works really well is the Hunt Pullman (stepped) Coach coupling.  See my previous post https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/151728-hunt-coupling-system/&do=findComment&comment=3959966

 

The resultant magnet height still lines up with Standard Hunt coupling.

 

The ticking sound will either be the Hunt coupling rubbing on the buffer beam or the Bachmann Close Coupling  mechanism having to work a bit more harder than it does with the original TLC.

 

Rather than file the NEM pocket, just file a small chamfer on the ends of the coupling prong bobbles.  You can also file the inside face of the two legs to allow them to close up more.  For loose ones, a dab glue on the bobbles will hold them in place.  Glue gun might also work as that can be picked off if the coupling needs to be pulled out.  The issue is not so much the Hunt coupling but the variation in NEM pocket tolerances.  The Hunt system is trying to cover all bases.

 

I also tried the Keen system a while back on a rake of old coaches and whilst it worked well and gave good close coupling, I found it was noisy as the mechanism creaked works around corners and need oiling.  I also found the two pin coupling fiddly to connect and it regularly fails on some of my gradient transition.

 

For some of my other old coaches that do not have an auto close coupling systems, I might look at how you could “bash” the two systems together – Keen system for the close coupling part and Hunt for the easy coupling aspect.

Edited by Jaggzuk
Missed some text off
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So far I've had good experiences with a Hornby HST and Hornby Mk 2e coaches which don't have auto close coupling. The Hunt Close coupling has brought these close enough that the gaps between the coaches are acceptable but not so close that they clash on corners.

With three levels of closeness now 'Standard', 'Close' and 'Untra Close' I think the Hunt couplings are getting very versatile. It's just a case of finding the correct length for the stock and curves you have.

 

I haven't tried it yet, but I presume you could mix and match lengths. Have all the 'A' couplings in a rake 'Standard' length and all the 'B' couplings 'Close' for example to get a coupling length that's between the two. Would depend how 'fixed' you want your fixed sets to be!

Edited by LNERandBR
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

  

Mix and match is possible.  I have experimented with it on some wagons where the Standard version increased the buffer to buffer gap compared to existing TLC, but the Close type ended up being too close on my curves.  So, I mixed a Standard and a Close.

 

Based on my measurements (see post Hunt Coupling measurments ) the following NEM pocket separations can be achieved by mixing the three types.  Approx. 1-3mm variation between each pairing.

 

  image.png

 

Personally, the 6.2mm difference between a pair of Standard or a pair of the Close types is too great.  Standard is too long and the gap it creates is worse than TLC.

 

Mix and match is also the only way to really solve the variations in NEM pocket position .

 

 

Edited by Jaggzuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/06/2020 at 22:43, Bino said:

I received my couplings recently and I thought I'd share my thoughts.

 

I intend running fixed formations on my layout so these seemed ideal. I hadn't had many issues with the TLC supplied with these but I liked the look of close coupled coaches.

 

I ordered Close Coupling set for NEM pockets on my Bachmann Mark 1's and visually they are extremely good.

 

hunt3.jpg.19b75bc7f8a06cc21c823052558ea8e5.jpg

 

However, I had a few issues.Some fitted well but some were very tight in the NEM pocket and I had to file out the pocket before they would fit. Others were not tight enough and resulted in the coaches uncoupling. Also, the rake made an odd clicking noise on the curves that I haven't been able to establish the cause of. In the attached photos it doesn't look like the buffers are touching on my 30inch curves.

 

hunt.jpg.fe4bb6a83b03042bff4cb23e1b29d92c.jpg

 

The noise may be the coupling rubbing against the underside of the coach frame as in this photo. The Bachmann TLC's avoid this contact with a drop in height rather than coming straight outward.

 

hunt4.jpg.2160c5a951b8dfa77aa9e03a29d37d15.jpg

 

Overall I think these are good and I want them to work for me but it seems I have had more issues than anyone else posting here. 

 

 

 

Hi just to let you know we do do specific couplings for those -https://westhillwagonworks.co.uk/couplings-new-c-2/hunt-couplings-original-oo-gauge-c-15/hunt-couplings-pullman-coaches-5-pairs-oo-gauge-p-46

 

 

 

Regards

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All,

 

I have recently fitted these couplings, and have generally found them pretty good. I can vouch for using the Pullman couplings on Bachmann mk1's, they work well. Only niggle really is that the A and B markings are on the wrong side, they face upwards, not downwards on these.

 

I have swapped the couplings on Bachmann 108's with close couplers, I find the gap between the cars is about the same as the Bachmann couplings, so I think these would be ok with ultra close couplings instead, but I don't have any to test.

 

I have also fitted the couplings to Hornby mk3's with the clip coupling, but ran into a problem with my blue/grey mk3's. This isn't down to the couplings, but rather the design of the bogie. My rake of blue/grey mk3's are from the first batch of the 'long' coaches Hornby released, probably over 15 years ago. the location of the 'pip' is further back from later release coaches.

 

20200626_150336.jpg.8d4e47d8b45b61bbe949e3059cadf3bd.jpg

The bogie on the left is a later mk3, the one on the right from when the long mk3's were first released. Using standard length Hunt couplings are too close for all but the gentlest of curves. On my layout I use a standard coupled to a close coupling on the later mk3's with no problems, using standard length couplers on the early mk3's are extremely close, and cannot negotiate the curves on my layout without the corridor connectors fouling each other and derailing. 

 

Anyone know where to buy new bogies that match the one on the left in the picture from?

 

Thanks.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Looks like the magnet polarity issue has NOW been resolved by Hunt Couplings with the introduction of the Hunt Couplings Elite for OO (27-06-20).  https://www.westhillwagonworks.co.uk/couplings-new-c-2/hunt-couplings-elite-oo-gauge-new-c-21/

 

I saw this review video, which is a bit long winded, but it shows what the new Elite version with a square magnet looks like and how it works.

 

 

So now it is possible, with this version, to swap any vehicle around and the couplings will still work!  I think this is a very cleaver solution.

 

I do not think they will be backwards compatible with the round versions as I am guessing the magnet polarity is now sideways rather than NSNS.

 

This is my guess at how it works and it is why Nymondeum cube magnets can be staked.

 

1442442718_hUNT1.jpg.0d2b29a0e5f358fc046efe29f7957dd0.jpg

 

A good development I think.

 

And taking the dimensions from the Shop website, we now get these NEM to NEM offset.  Note that there is a new Intermediate version.

 

image.png.68429cf8373a24ba1b6cd104601624a7.png

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jaggzuk
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jaggzuk said:

Looks like the magnet polarity issue has NOW been resolved by Hunt Couplings with the introduction of the Hunt Couplings Elite for OO (27-06-20).  https://www.westhillwagonworks.co.uk/couplings-new-c-2/hunt-couplings-elite-oo-gauge-new-c-21/

 

 

 

 

I notice a few videos on YouTube featuring these Elite couplings. They are the answer to the problems I've encountered with the Bachmann Mk1's. 

 

I've reverted back to my tension locks and doubt I will fork out another £25 on the Elite version. I'm a bit annoyed with myself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's different here in the USA. But when there was an update to Sergent Engineering couplers, early in the development cycle, all the original customers got sent free replacements. 

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video I saw on bookFace posted by Westhill Wagon Works made it clear that the new elite (square) couplings work either way round with the original round ones, by virtue of the fact that they feature a much more powerful magnet.
HTH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.