Peter Kazmierczak Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Did anyone ever use those "buck-eye" style of couplings that were supplied with the original Airfix plastic kits? Regards, Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted November 27, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 27, 2011 Did anyone ever use those "buck-eye" style of couplings that were supplied with the original Airfix plastic kits? Regards, Peter I still have a rake of Esso tanks fitted with them. the two at the ends have been changed to tension lock to couple to modern locos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br-nse-fan Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 i have to disagree with that slightly. i have e-z mates fitted to all my Bachmann mk2's, and they do bring them extremly close together, almost touching, but stretch out on curves so to avoid buffer locking. they are generally good couplings. I use the Bachmann 'pipes' that come with the coaches for intercarriage coupling and knuckle couplers on the ends. This arrangement works well enough, but have found that the knuckle couplers sit too high compared to the 'correct' Kadee hight. I've tried both the Bachmann EZ-Mate & Kadee # 20, and end up with the same problem.. when going over an incline, there is a high probablitly that the train will uncouple from the loco due to variance in hight. This does not happen on anything other than the Bachmann MK1 & MK2's. Roger Keen has a replacment part for the MK1 & MK2 coaches that lowers the NEM pocket to the correct height as an option... but if what I have read so far about these Peco couplers.. we will have the opportunity to buy a cranked version to correct most, if not all, of the height issues. Anyone know if these couplers will be compatible with Kadee's? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWJ Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Forgive my ignorance, perhaps I have missed something, but I'm struggling to see how the new Peco coupling will be any better than existing products (Kadee, EZ-mate, etc.). I don't mean to sound negative, as any new product in these challenging economic times is to be celebrated, but where is the 'innovation'? Good to see the concrete-bearer turnout and the steel-sleepered track Cheers, Will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I used to use the metal Simplex type and still would if it wasn't so difficult to fit them to modern rolling stock, so will very much look forward to getting hold of some of this new version! I still use them exclusively, and I have a huge stocklist. It is relatively easy to cut off the Peco coupling behind the vertical tail; drill and tap the remainder 12BA, and screw it to a NEM shank with a couple of packing washers. Peco couplers fitted in this way work a treat, and if your track radii permit you can have buffers touching when propelling. Whilst I have large stocks of the original metal version, I will be looking at the new plastic type when they are released. Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Did those long concrete sleepered oints ever come out? And does anyone know their nominal radius? Next question... Is there a matching diamond so that a double junction could be constructed from these long points? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colmflanagan Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I still use them exclusively, and I have a huge stocklist. It is relatively easy to cut off the Peco coupling behind the vertical tail; drill and tap the remainder 12BA, and screw it to a NEM shank with a couple of packing washers. Peco couplers fitted in this way work a treat, and if your track radii permit you can have buffers touching when propelling. Whilst I have large stocks of the original metal version, I will be looking at the new plastic type when they are released. Regards, John Isherwood. Any chance you could,post a picture or diagram just to show exactly what you do? It sounds like an excellent idea - I have tried cutting off the rounded end and trimming the shank.then pushing and gluing it into an NEM pocket - works sometimes but others not. A "proper" fixing would be much better. Long live the peco coupling.... Colm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Did anyone ever use those "buck-eye" style of couplings that were supplied with the original Airfix plastic kits? Regards, Peter Those were horn-hooks, the standard North American coupling until the advent of the Kadee knuckle coupler. I can see a use for the Peco couplings if they are truly compatible with, and as reliable as, Kadees, and if they fill the gap that was introduced by Bachmann's curious interpretation of the NEM standard. Otherwise I can't see a lot of use for them. Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Any chance you could,post a picture or diagram just to show exactly what you do? Not the easiest thing to photograph - but here goes. I trust that these photos illustrate the general principles. The Peco coupling is cut off with tin-snips immediately to the rear of the point where the vertical 'tail' folds down. A hole is drilled and tapped 12BA in line with the centreline of the 'tail', and the head is cut off a small tensionlock coupler to leave just the shank and the NEM lugs. Having determined how far forward you wish the Peco coupler to project, a 12BA clearance hole is drilled and countersunk on the underside in the NEM shank. A 12BA countersunk screw is inserted from below into the NEM shank, via a couple of 12BA washers, and screwed up into the Peco coupling. The surplus screw is cut off above the coupling and tidied up with a file. The screw and washers disappear under a dab of black paint. You now have a Peco coupling that can be inserted into a NEM pocket. The overall length of the coupling is determined by where you drill the clearance hole in the NEM shank and the height is determined by the number of packing washers used. If the NEM pocket is not pivotted / sprung, then use a piece of plain brass strip as the shank and drill vertically through the NEM pocket and coupling shank for a 12BA screw pivot. The advantage of the above methodology is that the Peco couplings can easily be removed and the original NEM tensionlock couplings substituted. Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colmflanagan Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Very neat job indeed. many thanks, I will certainly give this a try. Colm Flanagan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollywoodfoundry Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 One of the great advantages Kadee have over many other pretenders is the range of different types to suit different requirements, short shank, long shank, shelf types etc. While this new coupler might be a good thing for Peco, it is just one type from the information presented. From the photos, it does look overscale in size, whereas with Kadee you have the choice of normal sized or the neater scale size couplers. Kadee are only really seeing competition in the knuckle coupler market from Sergent among those modellers who use the knuckle coupler. And while it might suit the shorter trains on a typical British layout, long trains may be in trouble with the plastic coupler stretching and letting go under the strain. In many coutries where longer trains are modelled, only metal couplers are acceptable, plastic ones have not been successful in the market place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted December 17, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 17, 2011 Many thanks for the comprehensive explanation above John; sorry I don't dip into this part of the Forum very often. If the new 'Magnetic' version doesn't meet my expectations I may try your suggestion although it would entail a lot of drilling and 12BA tapping! When I used Peco couplings on my '1930s' rolling stock, I latterly chopped off the vertical 'tails', which made them even more unobtrusive. I found it wasn't always possible to fit uncoupling ramps where I wanted to uncouple vehicles, and instead uncoupled them manually by means of a flat strip of brass with a pointed end, which could be dropped down between the couplings and twisted to part them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 I'm in agreement with Will on this, how are the new couplings better than Kadee? I've always argued that the Kadee coupling at least looks like it belongs on a railway vehicle, unlike most of the others. Kadee also do a range of "scale" couplings (15X series) that offer even more unobtrusiveness. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colmflanagan Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 maybe someone could help me on this; there apprears (to a newcomer to them) to be a bewidlering variety of Kadees, lenght/height etc., does anyone have or know of a listing giving theh best types for use on, say Bachmann/Hornby/old Lima etc etc..? It'd be a useful resource to have, especially if compiled by someone who knows the subject in detail. Maybe such a thing exists elsewhere on the f orum in which case could we have a link to it? As a user of the "old" peco coupling I agree it's not as "scale" as Kadees, but it is very easy to adjust/hand uncouple, for those of us who don't have a requirement for auto uncoupling. Latterly i got lazy with new British outline stock and left the couplings alone. I am now becoming increasingly irritated at the number of "hooks" I am finding on my layout, which have come off these small style couplings now fitted; They are difficult to get back on and even if you do, you end up having to replace the coupling completely because they just come off again. So something different, whether from Peco or kadee, is worth a try. Colm Flanagan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 I've used Kadee for more than 20 years and must have fitted well over a hundred vehicles in that time (I don't necessarily still have these). I find Kadee to be excellent. Pre NEM I pretty much standardised on No 5 for non bogie vehicles and No. 7 for coaches (No. 7 are being discontinued). For models fitted with NEM pockets, life is much simpler, but still a bit of trial and error. I think No.18 are good for wagons and No.20 for coaches. This will depend on your curve rad. and how close you want to couple. Pick up a few packs of varying lengths and try them out. You still need to watch for the pockets not being at the correct height. I actually fitted No.20 couplings UNDER the pocket on my Bachmann Mk 1 coaches. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butler Henderson Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Kadees are primarily designed for the US market and the big difference in their use on UK stock is the presence of buffers. With regard to the non-NEM ones the commonly available No.5 Kadee is actually part of the 40 series of Kadees and would be the 48 if numbered as part of the series. There is a useful web page on Kadees site showing the differing lengths and arrangments of its non-NEM couplings. http://www.kadee.com/htmbord/HO-Scale%20Couplers.htm The 30 series has a smaller (and far more fiddly to assemble) draft box but significantly you can swop 30 and 40 series couplings and draftboxes about so for example if you have a pack of 5s and a pack of 31 you can make a 38 or a 41. The 40s are gradually being replaced by whisker couplings (140 series) which are not interchangeable with the 30 series. With regard to buffers I find it usually best to use one of the longer length Kadees as this allows the draftbox to be set behind the bufferbeam as opposed to protruding beyond it as is commonly needed when using a 5. The longer equivalent to the 5 was the 46 but this has been superceded by the whiskered 146, while the 41 is useful as it allows the coupling shaft to fit below the bufferbeam. The 20 series is no interest to UK modellers as is it simply the equivalent 40 series coupling with a variety of plastic mouldings to allow them to fit specific US models. There is one other difference worth noting, that being 20 and 30 series are supplied with plastic coupling heads while rest are metal although in practice they seem to work as well as each other and are swoppable with 40 series as noted above, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colmflanagan Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 It's over a year since I heard anything more about the "new" Peco coupling? No reviews etc.. Does anyone shed any light on progress or know if it has been quietly dropped? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 And what happened to the extra-long points? Peco once told me they were doing wooden-sleepered ones, too, but I've not seen any in the sops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 I spoke to one of the PECO reps on their Warley stand a few months back about the concrete mainline turnouts. They are not forgotten and are due for release "within 12 months" so hopefully later this year then. I agree that code 75 wooden sleepered versions would be very desirable in fact possibly more so than the concrete. I'm sure wooden will follow but Tillig could be a good alternative. Im afraid I dont have any info on radius. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 I spoke to one of the PECO reps on their Warley stand a few months back about the concrete mainline turnouts. They are not forgotten and are due for release "within 12 months" so hopefully later this year then. I agree that code 75 wooden sleepered versions would be very desirable in fact possibly more so than the concrete. I'm sure wooden will follow but Tillig could be a good alternative. Im afraid I dont have any info on radius. I was told by Peco that these extra-long points will have the same geometry as the code 83 US-style number 8 points (or should I say, switches), just with a UK sleeper arrangement. The nominal radius is 1702mm (5' 7"), angle is 7.15°, length; 322mm (12' 11/16"). The curved part is between tongue-tips and just short of the frog; the frog itself and the continuing rails are straight, so I'm not sure if the nominal radius refers to the radius of just the curved portion or the end-to-end radius. Peco have a template for the number 8 here: http://www.peco-uk.com/imageselector/Files/Track-templates/c83/SL-8381%20&%20SL-8382.pdf. There are no matching crossings or slips in the US range, so I doubt if any will appear in the code 70 range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br-nse-fan Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 It's over a year since I heard anything more about the "new" Peco coupling? No reviews etc.. Does anyone shed any light on progress or know if it has been quietly dropped? I agree.. anything? Anyone? I thought I read somewhere that they would be available in straight and cranked NEM shafts, thus making them easier to fit to certain models. Perhaps an email to Peco directly is in order? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I agree.. anything? Anyone? I thought I read somewhere that they would be available in straight and cranked NEM shafts, thus making them easier to fit to certain models. Perhaps an email to Peco directly is in order? Already done. Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br-nse-fan Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Already done. Regards, John Isherwood. excellent... looking forward to seeing the response! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 excellent... looking forward to seeing the response!A resounding silence from Peco - perhaps they're trying to pretend that they never announced this item? Anyone got a contact at Peco? Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OOgaugeJaf Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 The new turn out looks quite good apart from the sleeper spacing. Having just completed the wish list poll. I wonder how much interest there is in improved RTR track with correct sleeper spacing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.