Jump to content

Invicta commission Bachmann to produce CCT


Recommended Posts

 IT DOES NOT WORK with hook-and-bar 'British-style' couplings (Hornby, Bachmann etc) nor with buckeye types (Kadee).

So why fit them when they won't work properly with tension lock couplings which the majority of users will be using and not supply the rigid bar if you want to use it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So why fit them when they won't work properly with tension lock couplings which the majority of users will be using and not supply the rigid bar if you want to use it?

 

The whole point of NEM pockets (whether mounted for close-coupling or not) is to allow the user to choose which type of coupler to use. I agree that it would be helpful if the manufacturers would include a set of replacement close-coupling couplers, but they would have to buy these in from Roco or Fleischmann, and I suppose that this would add a tiny bit to the final cost, and British manufactures, wholesalers, retailers and buyers are very price-concious. Besides which, it would prejudice the user's choice.

 

In Germany, close-coupling and NEM pockets were introduced thirty years ago by all the main brands. Especially Roco and Fleischmann had pages in their catalogues for several years explaining how close-coupling works. Since then, catalogues and tests in magazines have noted which item of rolling stock are fitted for close-coupling.

 

In the UK, the brands have engaged upon a campaign of total silence.

 

The result is that few UK modellers know how it works, and many have had problems with the few recent models that are fitted. The fact that the Bachmann Mk1's were incorrectly fitted (pockets too high, too far in and too loose) did not help matters. Nor fo Hornby's long-shanked couplers (supplied by Roco), which still leave a gap. Whilst NEM pockets themselves have become popular, they are mostly mounted without close-coupling mechanics. When mounted on a simple pivot, close-coupling couplers can still be fitted (to couple with other fitted stock) but without close-coupling. But when the pockets are moulded as part of the bogie frame, such as on Bachmann diesel models and, it would appear, on the LSWR Gate Stock, then not even this is possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So why fit them when they won't work properly with tension lock couplings which the majority of users will be using and not supply the rigid bar if you want to use it?

 

In most cases manufacturers of UK RTR items DO provide suitable couplers with their stock.

 

Hornby supply a set of their 'Roco clone' rigid couplers with all their coaches fitted with a close coupling mechanism which ensures the CCM works as it should (though in most cases their product is too long and for true close coupling the genuine  Roco product is required)

 

Bachmann supply a set of their 'rigid dummy air / vac pipe lookalike' couplers with all their coaches fitted with a close coupling mechanism - although these have the big disadvantage compared to Hornby that there is no easy way of separating them and to uncouple you need to pull one end out of its NRM pocket (which means removing the coaches from the rails and turning them on their side). That aside however Bachmanns efforts will work reliabley with CCM mechnaisms although personally I have found Hornbys coupler to be more suitable on MK1s and the Roco version better on the recent porthole stock)

 

Now I am not familiar with the recent CCT release and accept that Bachmann may not have provided a suitable rigid coupler in this instance, but to say that this is the case for the majority of CCM fitted stock is absolute rubbish (even if said rigid coupling is not the best that there could be)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you have quoted me where did I say that?

 

I took it to be implied (or very similar sentiments) by the phrase I originally quoted. If that was not what you meant I apologise.

 

Still doesn't change the fact that by and large manufacturers do usually include suitable CCM comparable couplers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still doesn't change the fact that by and large manufacturers do usually include suitable CCM comparable couplers.

 

I am quite aware how well close coupling can work and on a vehicle with bogies driving the CCM they will work with tension lock couplings.

The point is that with a four wheeled vehicle this design of CCM doesn't work with tension lock couplings and the coupling distance is worse than standard plain or NEM couplings as it doesn't work as a CCM. A bar would make them work properly but Bachmann haven't supplied a suitable coupling with this or the Mk1horse box only the tension lock coupling, which if like me you don't want semi permanently coupled rakes and prefer to make up and break rakes using standard couplings the CCM should be able to work correctly with the supplied couplings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite aware how well close coupling can work and on a vehicle with bogies driving the CCM they will work with tension lock couplings.

The point is that with a four wheeled vehicle this design of CCM doesn't work with tension lock couplings and the coupling distance is worse than standard plain or NEM couplings as it doesn't work as a CCM. A bar would make them work properly but Bachmann haven't supplied a suitable coupling with this or the Mk1horse box only the tension lock coupling, which if like me you don't want semi permanently coupled rakes and prefer to make up and break rakes using standard couplings the CCM should be able to work correctly with the supplied couplings.

As I said, close coupling does not and cannot work properly with tension lock (or buckeye) couplings. Such couplings form a flexible link. Close coupling mechanics (CCM) need couplings that form a rigid connection to work properly. The CCM is not supposed to be driven or guided by the bogies, but by the rigid connection to the next vehicle. On British bogie stock, the bogies are closer to the ends of the coaches than on continental coaches, these being longer, and despite the difference between OO and HO, this shows up in models. Thus British outline model bogie stock, the bogies often do need cut-outs to accomodate the CCM, and if the CCM is not guided by being coupled to the next vehicle, the bogie can push it to the side - but this is merely a side-effect of the closeness of the bogie to the end of the vehicle.

 

If I can figure out how to add pictures, I'll show you what I mean... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know exactly what you mean.

The point is the majority of us use flexible couplings for compatibility, convenience in ease of uncoupling or automatic uncoupling. If I buy a British outline RTR stock I want it to be compatible with existing stock, not to buy extra couplings and not to tie up other stock with different couplings at each end as converter vehicles to stock that doesn't have CCM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite aware how well close coupling can work and on a vehicle with bogies driving the CCM they will work with tension lock couplings.The point is that with a four wheeled vehicle this design of CCM doesn't work with tension lock couplings and the coupling distance is worse than standard plain or NEM couplings as it doesn't work as a CCM. A bar would make them work properly but Bachmann haven't supplied a suitable coupling with this or the Mk1horse box only the tension lock coupling, which if like me you don't want semi permanently coupled rakes and prefer to make up and break rakes using standard couplings the CCM should be able to work correctly with the supplied couplings.

You are totally correct in your analysis here and what it ultimately comes down to is this.

 

Either Bachmann shouldn't have used a close coupling mechanism, or they should have included a rigid coupler (as with all their coaching stock - although as I said Hornby's Roco clone is far better than Bachmann's 'pipes' solution).

 

However if you don't actually need the CCM feature then I would imagine there is a fairly easy solution (based on their coaching stock). Simply remove the spring that self centres the arm upon which the NEM coupler is mounted then glue the arm so that it stays fixed in the centre position. If it is too long then one dodge is to simply snip a bit off the NEM coupling box. Thus moving the tension lock back a bit and securing it with a dab of glue. All in all a relatively simple procedure and well within the reach of most modellers -even those whose ability to do detailed work is limited.

 

Conversely fitting a CCM mechanism to a vehicle which has not been designed with this in mind can sometimes be a pain - though to be fair the availability of the Keen coupling system makes it a lot easier than would otherwise be the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However if you don't actually need the CCM feature then I would imagine there is a fairly easy solution (based on their coaching stock). Simply remove the spring that self centres the arm upon which the NEM coupler is mounted then glue the arm so that it stays fixed in the centre position. If it is too long then one dodge is to simply snip a bit off the NEM coupling box. Thus moving the tension lock back a bit and securing it with a dab of glue. All in all a relatively simple procedure and well within the reach of most modellers -even those whose ability to do detailed work is limited.

 

Easier with a 1.5mm drill and 10BA screw, done a long time ago as it didn't like having the buffers with a gap I could drive a Morris Minor through.

Dscf4714640_zps34760ee4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know exactly what you mean.

The point is the majority of us use flexible couplings for compatibility, convenience in ease of uncoupling or automatic uncoupling. If I buy a British outline RTR stock I want it to be compatible with existing stock, not to buy extra couplings and not to tie up other stock with different couplings at each end as converter vehicles to stock that doesn't have CCM.

Actually, I find that Roco couplers are much easier to uncouple by hand than tension locks. They can also be uncoupled automatically, and also permit advance uncoupling, which tension locks don't. As for compatibility, I have fitted nearly all my OO stock with Roco couplers, where possible with close coupling mounts. I do not like tension lock couplings because of the large gaps needed to avoid buffer locking on curves, and in this respect, buckeyes are no better. Thus when deciding whether or not to buy a new model, I check whether it has close coupling mechanics, or may easily be fitted with such, or, at the very least, if it has NEM pockets on pivoted mounts. Unfortunately, the catalogues and magazines reviews in the UK are usually silent on this issue, so I look to forums for information. So I look forward to receiving my CCT's soon, but will not be ordering the Gate Stock until I have seen if a conversion job will be at all possible.  

 

By the way, I did manage to upload some pictures: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/63776-24-00815/

Edited by Dogmatix
Link to post
Share on other sites

In most cases manufacturers of UK RTR items DO provide suitable couplers with their stock.

 

Hornby supply a set of their 'Roco clone' rigid couplers with all their coaches fitted with a close coupling mechanism which ensures the CCM works as it should (though in most cases their product is too long and for true close coupling the genuine  Roco product is required)

 

Bachmann supply a set of their 'rigid dummy air / vac pipe lookalike' couplers with all their coaches fitted with a close coupling mechanism - although these have the big disadvantage compared to Hornby that there is no easy way of separating them and to uncouple you need to pull one end out of its NRM pocket (which means removing the coaches from the rails and turning them on their side). That aside however Bachmanns efforts will work reliabley with CCM mechnaisms although personally I have found Hornbys coupler to be more suitable on MK1s and the Roco version better on the recent porthole stock)

 

Now I am not familiar with the recent CCT release and accept that Bachmann may not have provided a suitable rigid coupler in this instance, but to say that this is the case for the majority of CCM fitted stock is absolute rubbish (even if said rigid coupling is not the best that there could be)

 

 

I use the Bachmann "rigid dummy air/vac pipe" on "fixed rakes" and they work very well opening up on corners as necessary and closing up on straight track.

tend to leave coaching stock as fixed rakes so not an issue for me.

 

THE CCT coupling uses the same mecnaism as per the class 31 loco.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't fault Invicta's service, ordered on Friday afternoon, delivered Saturday morning.

 

The 39-554Z BR re-railing equipment coach is moulded in a translucent yellow plastic which results in a certain amount of light bleed. Ideally, the interior should be painted a suitable colour to overcome this.

 

Does anyone know of the interior colour of these vehicle and has anyone dismantled one yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

My maroon version arrived this morning  (excellent service from Invicta) - and very nice it is too.  I agree with previous posters that the vacuum cylinders are underdeveloped, and I think I will change these, and add safety loops where appropriate, and the dynamo drive belt, but there's not much else that needs doing.

 

One question, however - the ends are painted maroon. I have it in my mind that the ends would have been painted black, but I am happy to be corrected.  And anyway, I suspect that generally they were so filthy that it would have been difficult to tell!

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Best Regards,

 

ZG

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One question, however - the ends are painted maroon. I have it in my mind that the ends would have been painted black, but I am happy to be corrected. 

 

 

Maroon ends started to replace black from circa 1964/65,as far as I can remember. Apparently this was about the time that Derby C&W started spray painting carriage stock rather than brush painting.

 

I'm sure that an RMWebber with more knowledge or better memory will confirm the actual date that this took place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for mine to have a look, but I don't understand your comment because Bachmann doesn't make a Class 31

 

Andrew

 

Apologies for the confusion it was the Hornby Class 31 I was referring to.

 

They both have this sprung loaded coupler on a vertical post I hadn’t thought about the manufacturer, my first thought was that hey are the same but I have just been to have a look at my models and they are similar but not the same.

 

 

The class 31 item can be seen at the following  http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hornby-X9233-Class-31-50-Cam-Couplings-Springs-Pair-/331121588231?pt=UK_Trains_Railway_Models&hash=item4d18627807

The CCT one can be seen in post #187 above

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

My maroon version arrived this morning  (excellent service from Invicta) - and very nice it is too.  I agree with previous posters that the vacuum cylinders are underdeveloped, and I think I will change these, and add safety loops where appropriate, and the dynamo drive belt, but there's not much else that needs doing.

 

 

Update following my post yesterday - read the review of the CCT in Model Rail, where it is pointed out that these CCTs had 18" vacuum cylinders rather than the more usual 21".  On the model they are just under 6mm diameter, so still slightly small, but TBH close enough for me not to worry about it.

 

There's also a handrail missing from the ends - but the photos I have seem to show this as being on the LH side only as you look at the end. 

 

Best Regards,

 

ZG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One question, however - the ends are painted maroon. I have it in my mind that the ends would have been painted black, but I am happy to be corrected. 

 

 

Maroon ends started to replace black from circa 1964/65,as far as I can remember. Apparently this was about the time that Derby C&W started spray painting carriage stock rather than brush painting.

 

I'm sure that an RMWebber with more knowledge or better memory will confirm the actual date that this took place.

 

There's a works photo of the van Invicta have numbered their maroon version for (M94291) in the Parkin Mk1 Coaches book but as it's in black and white it isn't easy to tell whether the ends are black or not.  However there's a colour picture of M94149 quite clearly ex works and passing through Rugby in Robert Hendry's book 'British Railway Coaching Stock in Colour'.  The caption dates the as 30th July 1964, and the ends of this one are very clearly black.  As you say, Parkin gives the changeover to red ends as 'during 1964 and 1965'.

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.