The great Hornby Diesel Coupling Farce.....was a solution ever found?

[pheaton]

Hi All,

 

was a solution ever found to the Hornby diesels (31, 50, 56, 60) derailing anything that wasnt bogied coming out of a curve, having revisted one of my 56s the other day hauling 25mgrs it derailed the first wagon on the same curve every time. Looking at the design of the coupling (for design read over complication) the way its laid out its impossible for it to return to centre after a certain amount of weight is behind it, am i going to have to fit a coupling bar or did somebody come up with an ingenious solution? Ive had a look back through the threads but havent see anything that has fixed the issue.

 

 

Thanks

 

Simon

[SRman]

I had some success by filing the point off the "vee" part of the guide, turning it into a flattened curve.

 

For a couple of others, I substituted wider couplings (more of the older style); not as elegant but practical.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Three options I think.

 

Using one of the HO design couplers that form a rigid bar - Hornby's version of the Roco pattern coupler is R8220, packed with some of their coaches with camming mechanism - is one option, the other vehicle dioes require at least a swinging coupler mount.

 

Attach bracket to the bogie and mount coupler on that.

 

Body mount coupler of choice, options include the simple wire bar: really neat in that the full bufferbeam hose detail can then typically be installed.

 

The irony. Having used this camming system on what were mostly freight classes, they failed to use it on the HST, where a camming coupler to keep the gangway connectors as close as possible would have been an enhancement!

[JSpencer]

I tend to use long buckeyes as the first coupling between Loco and stock in certain circumstances such as this one. Or when I really do not fancy snipping off pre-fitted pipe details....

 

You end up with a few special converter wagons, but when running with a tension lock loco, it then gets placed at the back of the rake (buckeye to the rear).

 

I guess a heavy first wagon could work well here too.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I guess a heavy first wagon could work well here too.

 Not a guess because I actually tested this: that actually makes the problem worse. It's the train weight that causes the problem. With no load the coupler recentres, and it usually manages to recentre sufficiently well with a light load - couple of coaches, half a dozen wagons - not to cause a derailment. Increasing load increases the derailment occurence. The sort of train weight that comes with a full size load, derails almost all the time becauise the coupler never recentres.

[Waverley West]

I've found in some cases that removing the coupling hook and lubricating the area where the swivel mounting is joined to the chassis is sufficient.

 

This has generally worked on my 56s and 31 but does leave a large gap between the loco and first wagon, as the coupling is unable to retract on straights with any load behind it, as the OP mentions. This is just a stopgap solution though and I await a proper solution and more time to look at the problem. It works for the time-being though.

 

Fortunately, I don't need many Hornby locos and they're a luxury on the layout rather than a necessity.

[JCClark]

Hi Simon

As per one of the members before me, I ground the "V" down flat on the coupling slot in the metal chassis of my 60s and do not have the problem now.

Regards

John

[JSpencer]

I've found in some cases that removing the coupling hook and lubricating the area where the swivel mounting is joined to the chassis is sufficient.

 

This has generally worked on my 56s and 31 but does leave a large gap between the loco and first wagon, as the coupling is unable to retract on straights with any load behind it, as the OP mentions. This is just a stopgap solution though and I await a proper solution and more time to look at the problem. It works for the time-being though.

 

Fortunately, I don't need many Hornby locos and they're a luxury on the layout rather than a necessity.

After seeing the before yours, I did wonder if some grease or lubricant could help, but your reply answers that.

 

Another thought is a slightly stronger spring.

[SGP]

 

 

Hornby's version of the Roco pattern coupler ..... 

.... doesn't work either, at least not on their top of range Pullman coaches. Instead of expanding apart on curves, they lock buffer.

The idea of the expanding coupling is completely lost on Hornby and Bachmann. 

[Waverley West]

After seeing the before yours, I did wonder if some grease or lubricant could help, but your reply answers that.

 

Another thought is a slightly stronger spring.

 

The problem with using a spring at all in a coupling is that it will only have the right tension for one particular load. Add or remove coaches or wagons and the spring is either unable to retract or it becomes too strong and pulls the leading wagon off on the outside of a curve, in my experience anyway. 

 

Just about every make of close-coupling I've ever used has caused me problems in some way. Sometimes you just can't beat a simple bogie-mounted fixed coupling, especially on locos.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

.... (The Hornby R8220 Roco pattern coupler) doesn't work either, at least not on their top of range Pullman coaches. Instead of expanding apart on curves, they lock buffer.

The idea of the expanding coupling is completely lost on Hornby and Bachmann. 

 So what you do is retract the sprung bufferheads. I slip a piece of wire insulation on the back of the shank to hold them retracted. Then you may enjoy the full effect of all gangway faceplates in contact on straight or nearly so track, and  easily install some light baffling to maintain appearance as the mechanism opens the spacing to take curves.

 

That neither Bachmann or Hornby seem to have a clue about how these mechanisms function, and thus fail to advise their customers of the 'how to'  has been the case since Bach's mk1 range came on the market! It's really weird that they don't seem interested in promoting what is - if understood - a very good feature of the products so equipped.

 

I learned the 'how-to' on ur-RMweb, and there's probably some of the discussion on the archived version. I regret that it looks like this system is not being fitted on more recently introduced product: on the Bachmann BR DMU's for example where it would have made an improvement to appearance. Wonder if we will see it on the Oxford Rail mk3s? The longer the vehicle the greater the benefit...

[cravensdmufan]

I have used a dry lubricant (Labelle micro fine powder with PTFE) on the metal plate above the cam mechanism.  The V piece then moves freely.

 

Never had any problems since.  And never had to reapply.

 

Don't be tempted to use oil or grease or WD40 - it will eventually make matters worse.

[pheaton]

I had some success by filing the point off the "vee" part of the guide, turning it into a flattened curve.

 

For a couple of others, I substituted wider couplings (more of the older style); not as elegant but practical.

 

 

Hi Simon

As per one of the members before me, I ground the "V" down flat on the coupling slot in the metal chassis of my 60s and do not have the problem now.

Regards

John

You guys able to post a picture, or describe how much material you removed?

 

Thanks

 

Simon