Bachmann Standard 4MT Tank 32-360

[Crosswood]

Bought this a couple of years ago and have now reached the point where I am fitting uncoupling ramps to the track. The front coupler works fine every time, either on my own home-made acetate ramps or the Peco version. The rear coupler never works. Close study reveals that the dropper arm on the rear of the loco is too short to touch the ramp and from that I deduce that the entire coupler is set too high.

 

If I raise the ramps any higher I shall derail the front bogie and foul the underside of the loco, so it seems I can either identify a replacement coupler with a longer drop arm, or lower the entire coupling - but how?

 

All suggestions gratefully received, thanks.

 

While I'm here:

 

I've had to bend the brass strip make the front bogie sit more firmly on to the rails, not to mention having to send the loco back twice because the connecting rods were fouling other bits of gear.  And shouldn't this loco have OHLE warning flashes? 

 

I don't believe we should have this sort of hassle given the amount we are paying

[Paul-H]

Hi

 

If the rear coupling is too high, a not uncommon issue, could you try extending the dropper with a bit of heat shrink tube 

 

Might work as it goes quite stiff once shrunk.

 

Paul

[Metr0Land]

And shouldn't this loco have OHLE warning flashes? 

 

I don't believe we should have this sort of hassle given the amount we are paying

 

What date are you modelling?  She was new to Kittybrewster in 1955 and didn't come to Polmadie until 1961 so the flashes wouldn't have existed early in her life, and she probably wouldn't have been anywhere near OHLE until '61.

[Butler Henderson]

If I raise the ramps any higher I shall derail the front bogie and foul the underside of the loco, so it seems I can either identify a replacement coupler with a longer drop arm, or lower the entire coupling - but how?

Is the coupling the same as that fitted to the front. From memory my Standard 4 tanks came with a coupling fitted to the rear that had a very deep step in its shank. Might be worth contacting Bachmann as it could just be a case of a factory error and the wrong coupling has been fitted.

 

Never used one with tension locks but you would to sort it out yourself you follow the approach I take when fitting Kadees to overhigh NEM coupling mounts. Take a pair of normal tension locks (without any step in the shank) - on one cut of the prongs that fit into the NEM mount, on the other cut off the loop and remove the hook. Then with plastic card spacers as necessary fit the one that still has the prongs on top of the one that still has the loop and hook. Glue together - I also usually drill though the completed assembly and fit a small bolt and nut.

[Steamport Southport]

What date are you modelling?  She was new to Kittybrewster in 1955 and didn't come to Polmadie until 1961 so the flashes wouldn't have existed early in her life, and she probably wouldn't have been anywhere near OHLE until '61.

 

That wasn't a consideration. Most Southern locomotives got them pretty quickly and they only had a little bit of OHLE in a couple of yards in the SE.

 

 

 

Jason

[Metr0Land]

That wasn't a consideration. Most Southern locomotives got them pretty quickly and they only had a little bit of OHLE in a couple of yards in the SE.

 

 

 

Jason

 

...but the date is still a consideration. You can't (shouldn't?) apply flashes before they existed. 

[Steamport Southport]

...but the date is still a consideration. You can't (shouldn't?) apply flashes before they existed. 

 

That's why you look at photographs or in the relevant book.

 

I would have thought that it received them when it acquired the late crest or at it's first major overhaul.

 

Best photo I've found is 1955. More interesting is that it's on the Southern with birdcages.

 

 https://www.flickr.com/photos/31514768@N05/10579868916/in/photolist-h7UAr3-fM7GgM-dU1DbC-8tNLv6-8TAPx7-paeNqW-6Bkrah-8tNMoX-dU1Dj9-8TxHy8-8tRQmG-6ZufgZ-dU1DD9-dTV2ia-7ZoYyJ-8tNMgx-6BkqEd-6Er1uQ-8TxHzg-7Zp1ny-cq3NFf-9Yngqz-fzsafX-7ZoYdQ-6BgfHT-4oqX93-6BgfDe-8tRRSN-QcE1mP-8tRT6q-7ZkN5e-8tNKF4-8TxHz2-8tRRF3-8tNN9P-7ZoYNq-7ZkL2T-8tRSTq-cq3Nn3-dU1D2J-7ZkMBH-6BgepT-dTV2rc-8tNP6p-6EmPRT-6BkqqW-7ZkLka-8tNMaZ-8tRPB3-8tNNHa

 

Also 1955 in Scotland now.

 

http://brsteam.livejournal.com/377.html

 

 

1963 with Flashes.

 

https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/9/42/

 

 

 

Jason

Edited January 9, 2018 by Steamport Southport

[Crosswood]

Flashes. I'm modelling (badly) end of steam on the Welsh borders. I am happy to live with locos from far beyond their home territory but would like them to be conteporaneously correct, if not geographically! 

 

Thanks for the suggestions so far, I think I shall check with Bachmann to see if the wrong coupling has been fitted in error.

[DCB]

The coupling loop needs to be set at the correct height. If it is correct (according to your gauge because hardly any two RTR products are the same) and still does not operate then you may need to lengthen the dropper, by substituting another coupling hook or glueing an extension or if it is a steel hook by soldering an extension.  At the end of the day Tension Locks look hideous and don't couple well and are horrible to uncouple so fitting something else has to be a good idea. If I was starting again I would try standard N gauge couplers or Kadees.  The acetate loops sound too high of they lift the leading wheels, I take the sprung plate off and weight the truck with lead instead

[The Johnster]

One of the things I discovered some 16 months ago when I re-entered the hobby after a quarter century hiatus was that my eyesight and hand/eye coordination were not as good as they once were, and I made the decision to 'revert' to tension locks.  I simply ignore the hideous appearance, which on British outline stock is no worse than Kaydees, a thing of which I remain unconvinced.  This comment will generate howls of support for them, but a bit of perusal of videos of Kayee equipped layouts shows that they are simply unreliable except on dead straight level track unless they are mounted on bogies American style.

 

This meant retrofitting previously scale coupled stock with t/ls, and I made the mistake of assuming that a standard bar height above the rail, essential for reliable operation, was the same thing as a standard depth below the solebar; it isn't!  What is worse, RTR manufacturers do not seem to be able to achieve a standard height above the rail, bar or hook profile, depth or profile of dropper, material, or weight.  I have a Hornby 42xx which, like the OP's standard 4MT tank, has couplings of different heights and profiles from each other at each end.  

 

Eventually, I have got everything to couple reliably to everything else, but it was a lot harder than it should have been.  Anyway, to get back to the OP's problem, if the loco couples to stock without issues despite the different heights, perhaps the simplest solution is to superglue am extension to the dropper so that it engages with an uncoupling ramp set to the proper height.  

 

I uncouple with a shunting pole (piece of stiff wire attached to a penlight bent to shape, the wire not the penlight), because the trade's abject failure to provide a standardised product has defeated my attempts to use a 'spade', which in any case needs clear side access which is not available everywhere on my layout.  I like the pole because using it is a proper railway operation miniaturised.  I work to the principle that, as on a real railway, one should be able to uncouple anywhere if required, and do not use ramps, though one can hardly object to their appearance having accepted the hideous couplings!

 

I do not believe that N gauge couplers are reliable over curves or gradient profiles on 00 stock, and are harder than t/ls to uncouple.  But I am getting tired of having to fettle the couplers on almost every item of new stock I purchase to get them to work properly on a level layout where the sharpest curve is a no.3.  Come on trade, extractus digitus, though I've been saying that since about 1960.

[Il Grifone]

...but the date is still a consideration. You can't (shouldn't?) apply flashes before they existed. 

 

The flashes didn't appear until the sixties I'm not sure of the exact date, but AFAIK it was contemporary with the the electrification of the West Coast main line,

 

In any case, it is easier to fit them if needed, rather than remove them if not.

 

The top of the tension lock loop should be about 10mm above rail level. The actual height is not critical (apart from uncoupling as the ramps need to be the right height for the droppers), but must be consistent for all stock that runs together. (IMHO yet another reason for not using the wretched things!)

 

Kadees should really be mounted on the vehicle body not the bogies as per prototype. Mounting couplings on is only a bodge for train set curves. Try a couple of cheapo vehicles fitted with the usual bogie mounted X2f couplings with a overstrong spring to see why. (It could be why the NMRA recommends such heavy weighting?)

Edited January 10, 2018 by Il Grifone

[RFS]

The NEM pocket on the rear of this loco is much too high and Bachmann supply a stepped tension-lock coupling to overcome this. However this is a pain if you're fitting Kadees and for these you need to manufacture a stepped Kadee. Basically cut the prongs off a No. 20, and the tension lock off a stepped version and screw the two parts together with a small screw. 

[Crosswood]

Wow, thanks to all for your observations and suggestions. I am constantly amazed at the breadth of knowledge on here and members' willingness to share experiences. I am particularly struck by Johnster's call to manufacturers to get their act together, at least on their own products1

 

Thanks again

[The Johnster]

Electrification flashes, when they appeared, were simple stickyback affairs issued to sheds, and were thus very quickly deployed almost everywhere; I remember being grimly amused, callous youth that I was, by the childish image of some hapless shunter on the Southern getting fried looking upwards for the wires having read one...

 

I have grown up since then.

 

But not that much.

[Crosswood]

The NEM pocket on the rear of this loco is much too high and Bachmann supply a stepped tension-lock coupling to overcome this. However this is a pain if you're fitting Kadees and for these you need to manufacture a stepped Kadee. Basically cut the prongs off a No. 20, and the tension lock off a stepped version and screw the two parts together with a small screw. 

Thanks RFS, Bachmann Service Department are sending me replacement couplers and it will be interesting to see if they are the stepped/cranked ones, as opposed to the bog-standard straight ones. I need to become a deal more competent before I start seriously considering Kadees.

 

Please look after Derbyshire for me. I mis-spent my early years in N E Derbys and, my word, it has changed more than a bit. But that's a whole different story.