Hornby Pullmans....coupling and derailments

[ikcdab]

I am now pulling my hair out.

I bought a rake of 7 of these a few months ago.

These are the mid-2000s models such as R4146 and R4150 etc. They are the ones with the slimline tension lock couplings, but with the couplings screwed to the bogies. They are not the later NEM socket ones which came later.

 

I have regular problems with these coaches derailing on my (fairly easy) reverse curves. What appears to be happening is that the bogies are catching somewhere under the coach and then can't rotate back to the straight position and so derail.

 

I have examined these in detail, and I have carved off the bottom of the window glazing lugs which I thought was catching but that isn't it.

 

I long ago discarded the Hornby couplings and replaced them with the hunt magnetic ones, again no difference.

 

I have read somewhere about this being a known problem.

 

Any advice on what to do next?

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

[richard.h]

I not sure if we are talking about the exact same models but I had a similar experience with my Pullmans, I couldn't run a rake of more than 4 coaches without them derailing.

 

After trying all available modern coupling without success I ended up fitting a Hook and Bar system as per Tony Wright and they now run perfectly as long as you don't need to reverse them.

 

 

Attached is a photo showing the system.

 

Richard

 

[ikcdab]

Hi Richard, I think you have the NEM pocket ones, but the principle is the same. Somehow the bogies get caught up. I really want to have a "fixed" coupling rather than loose coupled. I see how you have avoided this. 

Ian

[melmerby]

35 minutes ago, richard.h said:

I not sure if we are talking about the exact same models but I had a similar experience with my Pullmans, I couldn't run a rake of more than 4 coaches without them derailing.

 

After trying all available modern coupling without success I ended up fitting a Hook and Bar system as per Tony Wright and they now run perfectly as long as you don't need to reverse them.

 

 

Attached is a photo showing the system.

 

Richard

 

Those are the Close Coupling Unit cam fitted later ones, which work perfectly well with the supplied Roco/Hornby close couplers.

I have 12 of those Pullmans, 4 & 6 wheel types and any number can be used without a problem and they can be pushed.

 

However, they do not (and no CCU fitted NEM pocket fitted coach will) work well with Kadee NEM couplings

 

[BR60103]

3 hours ago, melmerby said:

Those are the Close Coupling Unit cam fitted later ones, which work perfectly well with the supplied Roco/Hornby close couplers.

I have 12 of those Pullmans, 4 & 6 wheel types and any number can be used without a problem and they can be pushed.

 

However, they do not (and no CCU fitted NEM pocket fitted coach will) work well with Kadee NEM couplings

 

I fitted my CCU Pullmen with Bachman NEMs. They don't have a swivelling head and are a tighter fit. I feel that pulls the CCU back in line.

I had problems with the coaches on downhill curves catching up and buffer locking.

 

[ikcdab]

I've just seen this thread that gives more info.

This is the same fitting as my coaches

I'll try this...

Ian

 

 

[richard.h]

10 hours ago, ikcdab said:

Hi Richard, I think you have the NEM pocket ones, but the principle is the same. Somehow the bogies get caught up. I really want to have a "fixed" coupling rather than loose coupled. I see how you have avoided this. 

Ian

Hi Ian

   Just to clarify my statement previously the coaches can be run in either direction but it is not advisable to push them in reverse.

 

  The problem with the Pullmans is the weight of the coaches and the stiffness in the bogie-coupling arm mechanism, especially as they age, which causes the them to derail on curves because the bogies are not swiveling freely and get pulled off the track.

 

By locating the connection on the coach body you have removed the stress on the bogie and solved the problem as I said previously the maximum rake I could run before was about 5 coaches, and my minimum radius is 36inches,  since the conversion I can run up to a 12 coach, my limit, without any derailment problems at all.

 

Richard

[Dunsignalling]

There shouldn't be any stress on the bogies as the CCU linkage is unconnected to them and is effectively body mounted already.

 

Important precautions if one wishes to propel these cars, e.g. into carriage sidings:

 

Use a soft pencil (4b or softer) or graphite powder to lubricate the contact area between the linkage and the floor. This will suppress any jerkiness in the action.

 

The old coupler linkages with the screw-on couplings are a lost cause, but assuming you have the sort with NEM pockets, bin the tension lock couplings between the cars and fit the Roco look-alike alternative heads (or proper Rocos). These lock adjacent pairs of links rigidly together, and thereby prevents them being pushed the wrong way (to the outside of the curve) when propelling, which is the root cause of derailments.  If you do have the old type, the NEM links are available as spares. 

 

The above should allow you to propel even over No2 radius crossovers at sensibly low speed.

 

John

Edited November 23, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[ikcdab]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

There shouldn't be any stress on the bogies as the CCU linkage is unconnected to them and is effectively body mounted already.

 

Important precautions if one wishes to propel these cars, e.g. into carriage sidings:

 

Use a soft pencil (4b or softer) or graphite powder to lubricate the contact area between the linkage and the floor. This will suppress any jerkiness in the action.

 

The old ones with the screw-on couplings are a lost cause, but assuming you have the sort with NEM pockets, bin the tension lock couplings between the cars and fit the Roco look-alike alternative heads (or proper Rocos). These lock adjacent pairs of links rigidly together, and thereby prevents them being pushed the wrong way (to the outside of the curve) when propelling, which is the root cause of derailments.  If you do have the old type, the NEM links are available as spares. 

 

The above should allow you to propel even over No2 radius crossovers at sensibly low speed.

 

John

My problem is not propelling. It's hauling them round a gently reverse curve (the exit from a loop on a curve). Somehow the couplings get caught up and don't return to the straight position.

I have the screw in ones. I don't accept they are a "lost cause"! Others must have fixed it. It isn't all of the coaches either,just a rogue few.

Ian

[Dunsignalling]

20 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

My problem is not propelling. It's hauling them round a gently reverse curve (the exit from a loop on a curve). Somehow the couplings get caught up and don't return to the straight position.

I have the screw in ones. I don't accept they are a "lost cause"! Others must have fixed it. It isn't all of the coaches either,just a rogue few.

Ian

Whichever type of CCU you have, the key is to make them lock together as a rigid unit, so the tension locks have to go. That's easy with the NEM links, but will need a home-brewed solution if you are determined to keep the original type. Then you need to deter any sticking/jerking in their action (see my advice re. dry lubrication).

 

I replaced the links on my older Pullmans with the NEM pattern (Reference No. X.9098.M) along with Hornby R.8220 coupler heads within set, and any problems went away. Hornby changed them for a reason....

 

That said, before I got that far, the back-to-back dimensions on the wheels fitted to my earlier lit Cars (with the screw-on couplings) were none too tight on their axles and needed a few drops of superglue to keep them from moving about.

 

Good luck

 

John   

Edited November 23, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[melmerby]

16 hours ago, ikcdab said:

I am now pulling my hair out.

I bought a rake of 7 of these a few months ago.

These are the mid-2000s models such as R4146 and R4150 etc. They are the ones with the slimline tension lock couplings, but with the couplings screwed to the bogies. They are not the later NEM socket ones which came later.

 

Thanks

 

 

6 hours ago, ikcdab said:

I've just seen this thread that gives more info.

This is the same fitting as my coaches

I'll try this...

Ian

 

 

Right. Lets clear this up.

The R4150 (I found I have one I bought S/H) does not have a bogie mounted coupling.

It has the body mounted close coupling unit but without an NEM socket. It is a bit of a kludge as Hornby have used a normally plug in R8099 screwed to the CCU bar. I Checked it's operation and found it does catch occasionally. (All my others have NEM sockets with Roco/Hornby close couplers fitted and work flawlessly)

 

The problem is that for the system to work properly the CCU must be free to return to the centre line and a with tension lock fitted it doesn't do it if there is any resistance.

 

I haven't done anything to my solitary example yet but I will fit an NEM pocket so that it can join the rest of the fleet of Pullmans with Roco/Hornby couplers

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by melmerby

[RFS]

Hornby did acknowledge problems with derailing at the time (long time ago now!), and offered replacement bogies free-of-charge. I have a couple of the early ones that got these new bogies and all run well.

 

The R4150 was replaced by R4150A which has the proper CCM.

[Middlesea John]

Thanks everyone for the thread and the input to it.  We have a 10-car set on Ladycross that masquerades as the Bournemouth Belle.  Not all the correct  Pullmans we know but it suffices - and it derails regularly.  My Hull MRS friend/colleague Adrian owns most of these and has had so many goes and changing/altering/adjusting/hitting with a hammer the couplings that it's almost driven him bonkers. We've also relaid some of the track to try and help !  Finally at the Hull show this month it seemed to work OK but what a pain.  If nothing else it's good to know it's not just us !

[Legend]

No I have same issue . I only have 5 coach rake , curiously it always seems to be the second vehicle that derails even on a slight curve  it seems the bogie just doesnt want to go there . It happens intermittantly , no matter what order the coaches are in .  Frankly its just got to the stage I tend not to run them anymore as a train . They seem OK if used as singles in other trains . Perplexing 

 

[ikcdab]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Whichever type of CCU you have, the key is to make them lock together as a rigid unit, so the tension locks have to go. That's easy with the NEM links, but will need a home-brewed solution if you are determined to keep the original type. Then you need to deter any sticking/jerking in their action (see my advice re. dry lubrication).

 

I replaced the links on my older Pullmans with the NEM pattern (Reference No. X.9098.M) along with Hornby R.8220 coupler heads within set, and any problems went away. Hornby changed them for a reason....

 

That said, before I got that far, the back-to-back dimensions on the wheels fitted to my earlier lit Cars (with the screw-on couplings) were none too tight on their axles and needed a few drops of superglue to keep them from moving about.

 

Good luck

 

John

My tension locks have gone. I replaced them the hunt magnetics. They are held rigidly and they still derail.

Ian

[ikcdab]

1 hour ago, RFS said:

Hornby did acknowledge problems with derailing at the time (long time ago now!), and offered replacement bogies free-of-charge. I have a couple of the early ones that got these new bogies and all run well.

 

The R4150 was replaced by R4150A which has the proper CCM.

What changes did they make? Can I modify my bogies accordingly?

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, RFS said:

Hornby did acknowledge problems with derailing at the time (long time ago now!), and offered replacement bogies free-of-charge. I have a couple of the early ones that got these new bogies and all run well.

 

The R4150 was replaced by R4150A which has the proper CCM.

I think mine might actually be the R4150A but it has a screw on coupling and the CCU/bogie does catch slightly.

It's just as in the the topic linked to above from November 2020

[brossard]

18 hours ago, richard.h said:

I not sure if we are talking about the exact same models but I had a similar experience with my Pullmans, I couldn't run a rake of more than 4 coaches without them derailing.

 

After trying all available modern coupling without success I ended up fitting a Hook and Bar system as per Tony Wright and they now run perfectly as long as you don't need to reverse them.

 

 

Attached is a photo showing the system.

 

Richard

 

 

Don't know about the derailment issue, but I wanted to congratulate you on the Wright couplings.  I was assembling coach rakes with these just before I switched to 0 gauge.  I didn't do much running with them but what I did showed the system to be reliable. and much better at getting close coupling than Kadee.  Propelling wasn't an issue as I recall, however I did replace the rigid gangways with folded paper ones a la MJT.  These folded gangways provided a spring effect and prevented buffer lock.

 

Nowadays I think Hunt couplings are where it's at.

 

John

[phil-b259]

7 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The old ones with the screw-on couplings are a lost cause

 

 

No they are not!

 

I have several retrofitted a CCM arm with one that features a NEM coupler*.

 

The procedure is fairly easy:-

 

• First remove the body bogie from the chassis (they are a push / clip fit but can be prised off with the careful application of a flat bladed screwdriver between the chassis mount and the bogie.
• Move the bogie away from the chassis, pulling as much of the wire feeding the table lamps through as you can (normally there is plenty of slack).
• Cut the wire (leaving enough for you to be able to strip and twist / solder them together again later.
• On the chassis, remove the retaining plate, unhook the spring from the peg on the body then remove the CCM arm for an exciting new career in landfill.
• Take your new arm fit, add the centring spring and then the retaining plate.
• Join the wire you cut earlier and cover with heatshrink or insulation tape, then tuck it back into the body as you clip the bogie back in.

 

*Hornby used to sell them as spares (X9098M) but I suspect that this one, X6194 (for 12 wheeled Pullmans) might work too.

There is one from Keen systems which will do the job too. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/323045367281

 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, ikcdab said:

What changes did they make? Can I modify my bogies accordingly?

 

They simply redesigned the arm so it had a NEM coupling head on it. That in itself doesn't make much difference - the real point is that you can fit a coupling which forms a rigid bar between vehicles.

 

If you want to perform your own fix the replacement CCM arms are available for you to retrofit.

 

As has been said many times over the years, if a model is fitted with a CCM then using 'sloppy' couplings like tension locks is asking for problems.

Edited November 23, 2021 by phil-b259

[ikcdab]

3 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

No they are not!

 

I have several retrofitted a CCM arm with one that features a NEM coupler*.

 

The procedure is fairly easy:-

 

• First remove the body bogie from the chassis (they are a push / clip fit but can be prised off with the careful application of a flat bladed screwdriver between the chassis mount and the bogie.
• Move the bogie away from the chassis, pulling as much of the wire feeding the table lamps through as you can (normally there is plenty of slack).
• Cut the wire (leaving enough for you to be able to strip and twist / solder them together again later.
• On the chassis, remove the retaining plate, unhook the spring from the peg on the body then remove the CCM arm for an exciting new career in landfill.
• Take your new arm fit, add the centring spring and then the retaining plate.
• Join the wire you cut earlier and cover with heatshrink or insulation tape, then tuck it back into the body as you clip the bogie back in.

 

*Hornby used to sell them as spares (X9098M) but I suspect that this one, X6194 (for 12 wheeled Pullmans) might work too.

There is one from Keen systems which will do the job too. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/323045367281

 

 

so i am struggling to see how this solves the problem. I have discarded the original screwfit tension locks and i have fitted rigid Hunt magnetics. See below. These are tightly screwed in and are rigid. 

The problem i seem to have is where the CCM fits under the headstocks. This where it seems to be catching up.  I have looked closely, and cant see where.

I need to look closer.

Ian

[Dunsignalling]

16 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

No they are not!

 

I have several retrofitted a CCM arm with one that features a NEM coupler*.

 

The procedure is fairly easy:-

 

• First remove the body bogie from the chassis (they are a push / clip fit but can be prised off with the careful application of a flat bladed screwdriver between the chassis mount and the bogie.
• Move the bogie away from the chassis, pulling as much of the wire feeding the table lamps through as you can (normally there is plenty of slack).
• Cut the wire (leaving enough for you to be able to strip and twist / solder them together again later.
• On the chassis, remove the retaining plate, unhook the spring from the peg on the body then remove the CCM arm for an exciting new career in landfill.
• Take your new arm fit, add the centring spring and then the retaining plate.
• Join the wire you cut earlier and cover with heatshrink or insulation tape, then tuck it back into the body as you clip the bogie back in.

 

*Hornby used to sell them as spares (X9098M) but I suspect that this one, X6194 (for 12 wheeled Pullmans) might work too.

There is one from Keen systems which will do the job too. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/323045367281

 

 

I didn't mean the whole coach, just the coupler linkage!

 

My early ones were dealt with in exactly the same way as yours.

 

I realise my earlier post was a bit ambiguous so I've amended it to avoid misleading anyone.

 

John

Edited November 23, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

4 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

so i am struggling to see how this solves the problem. I have discarded the original screwfit tension locks and i have fitted rigid Hunt magnetics. See below. These are tightly screwed in and are rigid. 

The problem i seem to have is where the CCM fits under the headstocks. This where it seems to be catching up.  I have looked closely, and cant see where.

I need to look closer.

Ian

If you wiggle it all about manually for a while, the problem area should get polished a bit, revealing where you need to ease the clearance.

 

John

[Theakerr]

I have to go back a number of years so bear with me.  As I remember a friend had a similar problem with some Hornby coaches (not Pullmans)  and as I remember I had to file away the centre of the coach running plate.  In case I am not using the correct word the body directly under the corridor connection.  After much searching we found that under some conditions the top of the coupling mounting plate would just catch on the body.  We found it by turning the coach upside down and trying to rotate the bogie 'smoothly' whilst gently pressing on the outer (coupling) side of the bogie.  you could just feel it catch.  I might even have a picture somewhere.  As a matter of interest I have replaced the coupling on all coaches that pull directly through the bogie so that the load is transmitted through the body leaving the bogies free to rotate as required.

[richard.h]

3 hours ago, brossard said:

 

Don't know about the derailment issue, but I wanted to congratulate you on the Wright couplings.  I was assembling coach rakes with these just before I switched to 0 gauge.  I didn't do much running with them but what I did showed the system to be reliable. and much better at getting close coupling than Kadee.  Propelling wasn't an issue as I recall, however I did replace the rigid gangways with folded paper ones a la MJT.  These folded gangways provided a spring effect and prevented buffer lock.

 

Nowadays I think Hunt couplings are where it's at.

 

John

 

Thanks for that, yes the Wright couplings do the job where needed but like yourself I am now using Hunt Elite couplings on most of my coaching stock.

 

I find it actually saves me money because at an average of 50pounds a time I can't afford to buy all the coaches I would like and it's much easier to re-arrange the coaches into the different formations needed with Hunt Couplings compared to the Bachmann Pipe couplings I was using before to achieve close coupled sets.