cctransuk Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 A resounding silence from Peco......I have to say that I find Peco's attitude to this matter indefensible. If they have had second thoughts about an NEM-compatible Simplex coupler why not have the courage to say so? Simply to ignore enquiries and hope the matter will quietly 'go away' is, frankly, arrogant! This isn't, actually, the first time that I've raised the Simplex coupler with them. Many years ago they told me on the telephone that the original metal coupler was to be dropped, as the form tool was worn out and not worth replacing. I wrote to one of the model magazines encouraging Simplex users to stock up before the demise of this item; the letter was published. Very soon thereafter, Peco had a letter published in the same magazine stating that my "information was premature", and indicating that the coupling would continue to be produced. It seems that Peco cannot decide if they want the Simplex to succeed or not!! Let's hope that, once again, my negative information is 'premature'. Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted March 31, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 31, 2013 I asked about the NEM Simplex coupling on the Peco stand at the York show today. Their representative explained that it was 'back on the drawing board', as it had been found wanting in the testing process. Apparently the last vehicle of the train had shown a propensity to become detached, such that on a continuously circulating loop test layout (with the train left running over a long period) the train could end up with all of its vehicles which had started out behind the loco, ending up in front of the loco! I can sort of sympathise with this, as being a keen user of Simplex couplings in the past, I can imagine that very free running modern stock with no drag to keep the couplings tight combined with possibly constrained side play (e.g. due to centreing springs in the design) could lead to this happening. Anyway, he said it was still on the drawing board but not imminent, unfortunately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 It's 3 years since Andy started this thread so innovation obviously ain't Peco's strong point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cornelius Posted March 31, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 31, 2013 Aside from the ready-to-run 009 rolling stock they've announced and launched within the last six months? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colmflanagan Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 I've been following this story as I still like to use the simplex coupler myself, though with quite a lot of more recent stock I'm getting lazy and not converting every coach/wagon/loco I get. I've certainly had the uncoupling experience mentioned by the man from Peco, if a vehicle "overruns" one in front it can happen. I wonder if this happens with Kadee couplings? he reason sometimes given is usually "we didn;t get it" and since you can't prove it and email is not 100% relaible I suppose we will just have to grin and bear it. I havea feelign we'll never see the "new" coupling. Colm Flanagan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted March 31, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2013 Considering their simplex was used by Hornby Dublo hardly innovation, more continuing support for one of their older products Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted March 31, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2013 I wonder if this happens with Kadee couplings? No the knuckle has to be pulled open by a pick or magnet operating the iron 'tail' to uncouple. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted March 31, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 31, 2013 Hmm not sure I'd be quite that harsh; I definitely got the impression that they sincerely wanted the things to perform reliably which does seem to be their modus operandii with their product range generally. As a long time Railway Modeller subscriber (from 1968) and user of Peco products generally I'm quite an admirer of the firm and think they continue to encompass the image of a British company with integrity and sincerity whlist being a succesful business - a pity their aren't more (although there are some!). I recognised the man I was speaking to from Frizinghall Models (apologoes, I can't remember the name, in case he is on here!) and believe him to be a man of his word with the interests of the hobby at heart, so I am confident that if they can resolve the issues with this coupling, they wiil. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted March 31, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 31, 2013 I've been following this story as I still like to use the simplex coupler myself, though with quite a lot of more recent stock I'm getting lazy and not converting every coach/wagon/loco I get. I've certainly had the uncoupling experience mentioned by the man from Peco, if a vehicle "overruns" one in front it can happen. I wonder if this happens with Kadee couplings? he reason sometimes given is usually "we didn;t get it" and since you can't prove it and email is not 100% relaible I suppose we will just have to grin and bear it. I havea feelign we'll never see the "new" coupling. Colm Flanagan Funnily enough the gentleman I was speaking to this afternoon did allude to instances of similar problems with Kadee couplings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Well - I have now had the definitive response from Peco ; I quote:- "Dear Mr. Isherwood, Thank you for your email. Unfortunately the coupling project has been postponed due to a number of design issues! We are hoping we can overcome these in due course but in the meantime are focusing on a couple of other new products in order not to hold those up as well. Sadly the issues may mean that the design has to deviate from the original thus meaning that they might not couple with the old R2 design. Thank you again for taking the time to write and for your interest in Peco products. If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, Ben Arnold Engineering and Development Director" This does not sound promising, let alone logical! Producing an alternative NEM-compatible coupling that permits stock to be easily lifted on and off the track is perhaps a good idea. However, such a coupler would be in competition with the well-established Kaydee product. The NEM compatible Peco Simplex coupler had the attraction for me that I could easily fit it to new stock, which would be compatible with my larger collection of stock fitted with the old, metal R2 version of the Simplex coupler. If the new coupler will not be compatible with the traditional Simplex, I can't see the point of going any further with the project. I can see how modern pin-point axle stock could cause difficulty with the Simplex; indeed, even on my test track I find that the R2 couplers can occasionally become uncoupled if they become slack through overrun of the vehicles behind. This is not surprising; the Simplex was designed for stock with plain axles running in tinplate bearings. I have anticipated this problem arising when my 'ultimate' layout is finally built, and intend fitting any excessively free-running stock with a thin wire bearing lightly on one axle; to act as a brake. The major advantage of this will be an end to stock 'shuttling' within the train - something that I hate to see and which destroys any semblance of the real thing. So - it looks as if I'd better lay in a further store of R2 Simplex couplers; if any member has any for disposal, I'll be pleased to hear from them. Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Funnily enough the gentleman I was speaking to this afternoon did allude to instances of similar problems with Kadee couplings. Typically, unintended uncoupling by Kadees has more to do with height variations - either not having all the couplers at exactly the same height or having too much vertical flexibility in the coupling mount (particularly some interpretations of NEM mounts). Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br-nse-fan Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Producing an alternative NEM-compatible coupling that permits stock to be easily lifted on and off the track is perhaps a good idea. However, such a coupler would be in competition with the well-established Kaydee product. I agree... any new knuckle, or similar coupler, would undoubtedly be compared to the Kadee couplers. I have yet to see another company release a coupler that comes close to quality and performance reliability. I did have a thought however.... what if Peco, Bachmann and/or Hornby worked with Kadee in producing couplers specifically for the UK market? Bachmann already have their EZ-mate couplers, and Peco are investigating a new coupler... why not just stick to a proven design? Rather than re-inventing the wheel, why not work with Kadee in designing (and manufacturing?) appropriate NEM shanks for their stock, only needing the Kadee knuckle head to be attached. Alternate coupling shanks could also be created for easier fitting to stock that use the Airfix plugin and the Mainline/Bachmann screw-on coupler. Dreaming... I know... but still... had to get that out there Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.