Should Hornby release connecting gangway coaches?

[Pint of Adnams]

Bernard, your are rather missing the point that the Gresley carriages are fitted with Pullman type gangways (vestibules in correct parlance) whilst the Hawksworth coaches are fitted with the British Standard gangway - for which combination a special adaptor is required in the real world...

[Mike Storey]

I accept the opinions of those who dislike the idea, but does anyone have any pics of the US or Australian versions that have been released (as referred in the original post) as those manf's (whomsoever they are) have apparently thought that there is a market for these on RTR. It maybe that standards are more consistent there than with UK 00, but I doubt it, having read other threads on the subject of the consistent application of NEM standards internationally? So, can we just see how they have done it, and what affect that has had on prices?

[coachmann]

If the rubber is to be the functional flexible element, you'd be talking condom wall thickness, as the force has to be very small. 

They would be marketed as a pack of four but I doubt manufacturers would be responsible if they come off. Plastic ones are stiff, but with a condom wall thickness connector you could cover a stiffy in a jiffy.

[Dunsignalling]

I thought the OP was asking about Hornby introducing it.

It is with Hornby that I have the problem.

Take a Gresley and a Hawksworth and you will find that the couplings needed to join them are not the same combination as you would need between two coaches of each type.

They have already proved that they cannot do it.

I see it as just creating confusion.

Bernard

The gangways on Hornby Hawksworths are just plain dreadful, the only real defect on otherwise very good models. Too long, prone to distortion and of generally toy-like appearance.

 

I've just begun sorting out some of mine. To summarise, remove, bin, replace with Keen Systems resin ones.

 

The ones on everything else Hornby have done in recent years (lit Pullmans onwards) are pretty much OK.

 

John

[phil-b259]

The gangways on Hornby Hawksworths are just plain dreadful, the only real defect on otherwise very good models. Too long, prone to distortion and of generally toy-like appearance.

 

I've just begun sorting out some of mine. To summarise, remove, bin, replace with Keen Systems resin ones.

 

The ones on everything else Hornby have done in recent years (lit Pullmans onwards) are pretty much OK.

 

John

 

Ahem - as has been pointed out Maunsell, Gresley, MK1 and Pullman stock uses a 'Pullman' type connector. Of you examine a prototype 'pullman' gangway it will be obvious that it is a very stiff, robust, and substantially engineered connector, the lower part of which takes all the buffering forces when the buckeye coupler is used. As such modelling it is an easy task because it doesn't have to flexible and can be made out of rigid plastic (with a reasonable thickness) and thus ovoid the squashing or deformation that the rubber versions supplied with the Stainiers and Hawksworths suffer from.

 

The 'British standard' gangway as used by the LMS & GWR (and reproduced in model form on Hornby's Staniers + Hawksworths) is - in the real world not much more than a few metal rods and metal plates supporting a predominately fabric walkway. Any attempts to reproduce it accurately in model form would produce something amazingly flimsy and in most cases it would be damaged the first time the coach came out of the box. The use of rubber gangways by Hornby is their attempt to find a compromise between the need or it to be robust on the model when the real thing was anything but (in engineering terms).

[jjb1970]

I'd support this idea as I do think it'd improve realism. There are already ways of doing it relatively easily with a bit of black card or specialist after market supplies but it'd be interesting to see the RTR manufacturers do it. My caveat is that it should be optional as there will be people who do not want it. I also take the point that for this to really work there needs to be good close coupling mechanisms and it'd be important to address compatibility issues.

[Dunsignalling]

Ahem - as has been pointed out Maunsell, Gresley, MK1 and Pullman stock uses a 'Pullman' type connector. Of you examine a prototype 'pullman' gangway it will be obvious that it is a very stiff, robust, and substantially engineered connector, the lower part of which takes all the buffering forces when the buckeye coupler is used. As such modelling it is an easy task because it doesn't have to flexible and can be made out of rigid plastic (with a reasonable thickness) and thus ovoid the squashing or deformation that the rubber versions supplied with the Stainiers and Hawksworths suffer from.

 

The 'British standard' gangway as used by the LMS & GWR (and reproduced in model form on Hornby's Staniers + Hawksworths) is - in the real world not much more than a few metal rods and metal plates supporting a predominately fabric walkway. Any attempts to reproduce it accurately in model form would produce something amazingly flimsy and in most cases it would be damaged the first time the coach came out of the box. The use of rubber gangways by Hornby is their attempt to find a compromise between the need or it to be robust on the model when the real thing was anything but (in engineering terms).

The gangways I'm taking off my Hawksworths are definitely not made from rubber but a rather nasty stiff thin plastic that doesn't seem to remain stable for long unless you fit the end covers or add some internal bracing. It certainly doesn't squash or deform in the general sense but the sides tend to bow inwards after a while.

 

The bigger problem if, like me, you want to close-couple them is that they stick out 2-3mm beyond the buffers.

 

The Keen ones I am fitting overcome both deficiencies, look convincing at normal viewing distances and will work on No.2 radius curves* though I work to a minimum of 24". 

 

Masokits do etches to make highly detailed gangways that move like the real thing but they are certainly not produced with train set curves or modellers like me in mind. I suspect that if you needed to pay someone with the skills required to make a pair up, it would set you back more than the cost of the coach!

 

John

 

* Assuming the use of Roco coupler heads or rigid links between adjacent CCUs.

[lazythread]

I have two old Mainline mark 1s which are used as development hacks. I cut off the plastic gangways and buffers and added modified MJT gangways (I only used one fold) to roughly prototypical length.. Then I fitted Sergent engineering couplings in the headstocks.

 

Results:

 

They will not traverse setrack points without derailing (obvious but worth saying)

They will not traverse Peco small radius points without derailing

They will negotiate Peco medium radius points but not a reverse curve crossover made up of two medium radius points

They will negotiate Peco large radius points and a reverse curve crossover made up of two large radius points.

The gangways prevent uncoupling of the Sergent couplers, you have to lift the coaches off and invert them to get the jaws to open

They look absolutely brilliant, they are held close without any slack and move together as a proper train and not as a toy, which unmodified RTR coaches always do.

 

I have some Kadee #58s to put in place of the Sergents, which would help with the uncoupling, but they have more slack, so I may use them only on the outer ends of rakes.

 

I am not knocking the RTR manufacturers, it's the nature of the beast.

 

What I am saying is that to look effective and be worth paying for, the coaches have to be closer coupled without expanding the gap to take train set curves. Keen systems do a very good alternative and I reckon that's as good as it gets.

 

Just my tuppence worth

[Clive Mortimore]

I am in the yes camp on this subject but I am also a realist.

 

Last year I was talking to Colin Craig about his point kits and as the conversation rolled on he mentioned that on passenger carrying lines points had to be of a certain size (I cannot recall what size he said) because on the prototype when the gangways side across eachother you do not want to slice a passenger in half. :nono:

 

They will not look (or work) correct on set track, or most Peco points because it would be wrong.

 

Why do scale RTR items have to be dumb down to train set usage? :scratchhead:

[lazythread]

Hi Clive,

 

For BR mark1 coaches, according to Parkin, the C1 restriction called for an ability to negotiate a 3½ chain curve (somewhere between 3 - 4 feet in 00 I think, please correct me). But reverse curves were to be a minimum of 6 chains with a 10 foot length of straight between. Even then passengers hands might be trapped.

 

Regards

 

Richard

[Colin_McLeod]

Yes for me please. A retrofitting spare pair for existing coaches would be a nice bonus.

[Bernard Lamb]

Bernard, your are rather missing the point that the Gresley carriages are fitted with Pullman type gangways (vestibules in correct parlance) whilst the Hawksworth coaches are fitted with the British Standard gangway - for which combination a special adaptor is required in the real world...

I fully understand the need for the special adaptor on the real thing.

I suggest you measure the Hornby products and you will soon see the problem, as others have also tried to explain.

I am pretty sure that if this feature is introduced the average modeller is going to be reluctant to buy an extra part for use in some situations.

Surely it can only work by being a replacement for the supplied gangway, otherwise we are into the scenario of making the gap bigger, which is the situation highlighted earlier in the thread and one which many people want to avoid.

Bernard

[Pint of Adnams]

Why on earth would I want to spend good money on a Hawksworth  coach when LNE or BR Mk1 coaches are my bag?

[The Evil Bus Driver]

I've got 25 year-old continental coaches with closer couplings than anything current UK RTR, using basically the same system that the UK manufacturers and Keen have adopted/adapted. Virtually no gap on straights and a variable gap depending on the sharpness of curve.

 

The main issue is those stupid tension locks with their inherent slack. Drop those for one of the better options (Kadee, Fleischmann, Roco) which will plug straight into NEM pockets (assuming, of course, that our manufacturers can bother to get all their NEM pockets at a consistent height...   )

 

I tend to run most of my stock in fixed rakes, with either Kadees at the ends and the pipe couplers at the inner ends, or the short tension lock ones Bachmann have produced which more or less eliminates the gap. I bought a pack to try out on another rake so I'll have to try both when I have half a mo. I'll put in an order to keen systems at some point and see about some floating end plates for the gangways. I have 3 Hachette coaches that I use as an experimental rake to try things out on so I can trial fit them to those. They'll also be used for my planned interior lighting trial and seat upholstery trial as well. They were only £4 each so it's no great loss if something goes wrong. I'll do a blog when I start, and all going well I might start adapting my "main" stock.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Clive,

 

For BR mark1 coaches, according to Parkin, the C1 restriction called for an ability to negotiate a 3½ chain curve (somewhere between 3 - 4 feet in 00 I think, please correct me). But reverse curves were to be a minimum of 6 chains with a 10 foot length of straight between. Even then passengers hands might be trapped.

 

Regards

 

Richard

Hi Richard

 

Point wise for a crossover we are looking at a pair of B7s minimum and that would be at a very slow speed.

[Grovenor]

Hi Richard

 

Point wise for a crossover we are looking at a pair of B7s minimum and that would be at a very slow speed.

Here is the effect on a B6 crossover.

https://youtu.be/-tfQ1HXfd0c

Keith

[60012 Commonwealth of Australia]

Right.

 

Firstly - I have not actually got photographs of the close coupled gangways, but I have seen numerous examples at train exhibitions here in Australia. Secondly - For those arguing about settrack, that is why the Railroad versions exist - they are cheaper, less realistic models, as are the set track items. Thirdly - My example with the BR blue and grey coaches was done with the card method, so everyone stating that the card method is much better and cheaper but then said that the said example looked horrible have rebutted their argument immediately. Also, the non-railroad coaches could be fitted with the gangways, and like with many other things the corridor gangways sold seperately if people wish to modify Railroad coaches instead of buying the proper non-railroad versions. The American/Australian version is done with thin rubber, about .8mm if I remember correctly, Kadee couplers (which I am fitting to all my stock), and had magnets to easily connect to other coaches so the gangways did not move too much. Here is an image of standard RTR coaches - 

Now, for everyone saying it is too expensive, the Hornby Hawksworth coaches costed me $63, or approximately 31 pounds.

Your average Australian coach, without gangway connections fitted, can cost between $125-$200

Basically, I can buy 2-3 British coaches for the same price as 1 australian coach. This is just an example of how cheap British coaches are compared to some other companies. I would personally be prepared to pay up to $10 more, or 5 pounds more for connecting gangways. Either way it is cheaper than modelling an australian prototype.

One thing I really hate is peoples arguments about Hornby. I personally much prefer Hornby, having had a couple of bad experiences in the past with Bachmann. And also, Bachmann track is ripped off from Hornby track, same product code but with the R being replaced with 36-

As for the price arguments, as I have stated above, even when fitted with gangways, going by what people are saying about the gangways apparently going to cost about 15 pounds more. I do not for a moment believe that will be the case. Also, when fitted with Kadee couplers, not only is it more realistic, easier to fit gangway connections without needing to worry about uncoupling, it is also 1000 times more realistic. Kadee number 19 couplers fit almost perfectly in the NEM pockets, and are the right length.

 

Peter

[James Makin]

I have to admit I voted 'yes' without reading all the contrary responses below, the resulting No majority surprised me somewhat!

 

From my perspective, yes, we have a number of aftermarket support items here and it's one of the last vestiges of 'modelling' but from a D&E perspective, I don't believe we actually have an aftermarket product that looks anything like the gangways found on any DMU/EMU stock that can be seen across the system these days.

 

A lot of the steam-era stock and the BR mk1/2/3s are covered nicely (Great Little Gangways' Mk3 products are awesome by the way) but say trying to do something for the modern-day 'Turbostar' or 'Voyager' - these are different beasts and a little bit of homemade crinkled paper just won't cut it - believe me I've tried!!

[Dunsignalling]

I fully understand the need for the special adaptor on the real thing.

I suggest you measure the Hornby products and you will soon see the problem, as others have also tried to explain.

I am pretty sure that if this feature is introduced the average modeller is going to be reluctant to buy an extra part for use in some situations.

Surely it can only work by being a replacement for the supplied gangway, otherwise we are into the scenario of making the gap bigger, which is the situation highlighted earlier in the thread and one which many people want to avoid.

Bernard

Absolutely. a 4-foot gap between coaches is still a 4-foot gap even if you fill it up to conceal it. The whole point is to get the coaches correctly spaced without daylight between them. The problem with Hornby Hawksworths is that the gangways are simply too long and extend beyond the buffers. 

 

I nowadays have Keen Systems resin gangways on most of my stock. They leave a very small gap filled by a sprung cover which is held in contact with its counterpart on the next coach. Their Pullman and British standard types work together with no need for a representation of the adaptor.    

 

I have fitted them to Hornby Pullman, Maunsell, Gresley and Hawksworth stock using Roco coupler heads within sets and Kadees on the outer ends.

 

Couplers permitting, they all work fine with each other. In order to make Bachmann Mk1s compatible, it is necessary to replace the non-conforming NEM link with the Keen Systems replacement so that the couplers align properly (it's not just the height that's wrong, the length is too). I regularly run a mixed set of Bachmann Mk1s with these links and Hornby Gresleys without problems. I tried the first of my Hawksworths to be converted in place of one Mk1 brake the other night and everything lined up just right. 

 

A critical point with all these close-coupler links is that the correct action is only fully obtained when adjacent pairs are linked by a rigid link or couplers like the Roco type which lock together to form one. Retaining tension-lock couplers (other than at the ends of sets) cancels out almost all the benefit of having them.

 

There are various (though rather time-consuming, in my experience) dodges to make the Bachmann Mk1s work better with one another but the Keen links provide a quick and easy way to make them compatible with all your other stock, too.

 

As this is beginning to read a bit like an advert, I must make it clear that I have no connection with Keen Systems other than as a very satisfied repeat customer.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

 

Why do scale RTR items have to be dumb down to train set usage? :scratchhead:

Because, if you are going to sell r-t-r track, the r-t-r models you also sell should work on it.

 

Hornby and Bachmann are thus lumbered but no-one else needs to be.

 

However, many of us who try to keep curves gentle on visible parts of the layout still use tight ones where they can be decently concealed.

 

John

[phil-b259]

The problem with Hornby Hawksworths is that the gangways are simply too long and extend beyond the buffers. 

 

 

Thats because on the real things the gangways pretty much do!

 

'British standard' gangways as used on the Hawksworth and Stanier stock are used in conjunction with a standard screw coupling - thus the prototypical position for such a gangway in its extended / in use mode is in line or just proud of the buffers which in turn will depend on how hard the stock has been banged together (i.e. how compressed the buffers are when the screw coupling is tightened up).

 

With 'Pullman' gangways the side buffers must be extended so the 'Pullman' gangway will sit back from the buffers when coupled to other non buckeye fitted vehicles. Thus in a situation where a Hawksworth vehicle gets coupled to a MK1, then the 'British Standard' gangway actually has to extend further than the buffers of the Hawksworth coach to connect with the 'Pullman' type* on the MK1.

 

*  'Pullman' types are of a fixed length and cannot be varied - unlike the 'British Standard' one.

[Godders]

Here is the effect on a B6 crossover.

https://youtu.be/-tfQ1HXfd0c

Keith

Hi Keith

 

You and Clive have changed the rules without telling people.

 

The reason your corridor connections are not displaced is because you are using proper turnouts. You both mention the standard references of turnout terminology B7 & B6 respectively. Everyone else has talked about set track or peco streamline. The difference is that on straight track, which most model railway turnouts are, the branch connection of the turnout is curved, so you get a reverse curve. With straight B7 & B6 in a crossover you have normally a straight section between the two branch tracks which mitigates the change of direction and effect on corridor connections.

 

Godders

[Dunsignalling]

Thats because on the real things the gangways pretty much do!

 

'British standard' gangways as used on the Hawksworth and Stanier stock are used in conjunction with a standard screw coupling - thus the prototypical position for such a gangway in its extended / in use mode is in line or just proud of the buffers which in turn will depend on how hard the stock has been banged together (i.e. how compressed the buffers are when the screw coupling is tightened up).

 

With 'Pullman' gangways the side buffers must be extended so the 'Pullman' gangway will sit back from the buffers when coupled to other non buckeye fitted vehicles. Thus in a situation where a Hawksworth vehicle gets coupled to a MK1, then the 'British Standard' gangway actually has to extend further than the buffers of the Hawksworth coach to connect with the 'Pullman' type* on the MK1.

 

*  'Pullman' types are of a fixed length and cannot be varied - unlike the 'British Standard' one.

Yes. But on the model they are rigid so, if you want to make them compatible, you have to play around with the geometry. As produced, the buffers cannot touch under any circumstances, let alone be compressed.

 

The most practical way to deal with it would be for the BS gangway to pass through the end of the coach onto a sprung mount so that it could be pushed back when necessary and extend forward when allowed to. It still wouldn't prevent transverse misalignment on reverse curves/crossovers but that is caused by drastically under-scale track curvature and any mechanism designed to overcome a modelling-induced problem is unlikely to come from prototype practice. In short one good bodge deserves another.  

 

If you want BS gangways that work exactly as per the prototype, and you are willing to couple/uncouple screw links under them, try Masokits (and don't use curves of under 5' radius) but I can't see Hornby achieving anything remotely comparable at prices that wouldn't raise howls of anguish and abandoning tension lock couplers into the bargain.   

 

John

[Grovenor]

Hi Keith

 

You and Clive have changed the rules without telling people.

 

Godders

We didn't change any rules, just added a little to the prototype information supplied by Richard (lazythread).

Regards

Keith

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 As another whose model railway interest centres on a location where the Pullman gangway was the system from late C19th onwards, I hadn't really appreciated the difficulty with the native gangway system. It's not very useful at all from a modelling perspective is it? A quick experiment with the Hawksworth and Stanier BG's from Hornby made the point. I had expected to buy some Bachmann portholes once available in maroon, this has decided me against! Dry side first and only...

 

 

... For those arguing about settrack, that is why the Railroad versions exist - they are cheaper, less realistic models, as are the set track items...

Just regarding Hornby: Railroad is a relatively new introduction, and the set track is not marketed as 'Railroad' but under the Hornby brand.

 

Of the two OO RTR manufacturers offering set track: they are thereby effectively committed to producing product which works on set track. This is no trivial matter, it is generally reckoned that well over 80% of sales of OO RTR that are bought for operation, go to owners who will operate them on OO set track. It has to work on set track or the sales won't be sufficient, and that means coping with the standard 'averages R2 radius point' and the most extreme reverse curve that can be formed from set track pieces.

 

Dapol and Heljan both - as far as I am aware - also constrain themselves to this requirement, despite not producing set track, and I expect that the new RTR entrants will as well. The only exceptions in OO RTR  are those offering brass models made out East, or metal models made in the UK (OOworks, DJH etc.) which typically require the 36" minimum radius; long - but informally - established as the expected standard among the 'fine scale' interest in 4mm. 

 

 

... ...My example with the BR blue and grey coaches was done with the card method, so everyone stating that the card method is much better and cheaper but then said that the said example looked horrible have rebutted their argument immediately.

Not necessarily so. There's more than one way of using a card system, and adding it to existing moulded representations on the coach end which are already scale length is not the optimal path. Take the moulded gangways off, and use a card (or other flexible system) in its place so that the coach ends are at correct separation, and a better appearance is available.