Jump to content
 


Gopher
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't think that we have gone backwards since about 1977 with couplings, I don't think that we have moved forward. Every manufacturer has their own version which aren't always compatible with other makes. 

The alternatives are too fiddly for some people, such as my preferred 3 links and the automatic couplings are generally complicated, temperamental and expensive.

 

Like a lot of things with working models, there has to be some compromises.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, MrWolf said:

I don't think that we have gone backwards since about 1977 with couplings, I don't think that we have moved forward. Every manufacturer has their own version which aren't always compatible with other makes. 

The alternatives are too fiddly for some people, such as my preferred 3 links and the automatic couplings are generally complicated, temperamental and expensive.

 

Like a lot of things with working models, there has to be some compromises.

 

I don't disagree with your general points but my specific irritation is with the projection of the couplings beyond the headstocks. This seems to be a consequence of a) the aim to replicate as much of the prototype detail as possible without considering functionality; and b) the almost universal use of NEM coupling pockets. The grotesque result is, in my not always humble opinion, a Bad Thing.

 

Regarding compromises, I'd like to see some compromise between producing a model that, on its own, could be displayed in a showcase and one that can perform realistically on a layout.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

In no way is this a criticism of you, Clive, but those photos just highlight for me how far we have gone backwards with tension-lock couplings on RTR trains. That gap between the loco and coach buffers must be about a scale three feet. Even in the good old bad old days of Tri-ang, things were better than that (all the couplings were the same height as each other, too - and they never drooped...).

I agree John, and absolutely no criticism taken. 

 

It seems particularly bad with some Dapol and some Rapido rolling stock.  In this photo the coach and loco are both Dapol.  I started to standardise on the short straight Bachmann NEM tension lock couplers, but these still leave quite a gap with some rolling stock.  Mainly because the NEM socket is quite long on the rolling stock.   I could of course cut the NEM socket or shaft of the coupling and superglue it to the NEM socket.

 

I have just bought some Hunt magnetic couplers for my BR ex LMS corridor rake.  These definitely give a closer coupling, and there appears to be a variety of couplings to cater for different gaps sizes track geometry.  So I think I'll start using these for my coaching stock. 

 

Thanks and Best Wishes 

 

Clive

 

P.S I'm astounded by your great modelling on your own layout.   It is a huge project.  I came across an article in one of my old Railway Modellers (1980s) - which I think was one of your previous layouts.         

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
18 minutes ago, Gopher said:

I agree John, and absolutely no criticism taken. 

 

It seems particularly bad with some Dapol and some Rapido rolling stock.  In this photo the coach and loco are both Dapol.  I started to standardise on the short straight Bachmann NEM tension lock couplers, but these still leave quite a gap with some rolling stock.  Mainly because the NEM socket is quite long on the rolling stock.   I could of course cut the NEM socket or shaft of the coupling and superglue it to the NEM socket.

 

I have just bought some Hunt magnetic couplers for my BR ex LMS corridor rake.  These definitely give a closer coupling, and there appears to be a variety of couplings to cater for different gaps sizes track geometry.  So I think I'll start using these for my coaching stock. 

 

Thanks and Best Wishes 

 

Clive

 

P.S I'm astounded by your great modelling on your own layout.   It is a huge project.  I came across an article in one of my old Railway Modellers (1980s) - which I think was one of your previous layouts.         

Thanks Clive. Yes, the original St Enodoc branch terminus. The drying shed and signal box are on the current version.

 

20220120001stenodoc1layoutplanbobbeattie.jpg.2c373131e35ddfce58810d25409f1752.jpg

  • Like 8
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...