Gap between coupled railway carriages

[britannia70]

Can anyone tell me the prototypical gap between coupled railway carriages in 4mm scale please

[Dunsignalling]

It can vary quite a bit according to type, but on coaches fitted with Pullman-type gangways, SR Maunsell/Bulleid, LNER and BR Mk1., it should be around 6mm between the roof ends (the easiest place to measure). 

 

On stock employing the older "British Standard" style gangways (mainly LMS & GWR)  or none at all, the gap between the body ends will generally be greater. If you remove the couplers and push two together until the buffers touch, you will be there. 

 

Most modern r-t-r coaches incorporate close-coupling units (sometimes hyped as "Kinetic" couplers) which increase the gaps as coaches go round the (drastically) tighter-than-scale curves the vast majority of modellers are forced to use.

 

John

 

Pics attached of RTR coaches with aftermarket couplers fitted in the provided links to achieve the right "look".

Edited July 6, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[britannia70]

Thanks for that John.

[brossard]

I always struggled to get my coaches to close couple.  The first thing I would do is remove the moulded gangways and replace with folded paper ones a la MJT.  These are fitted with a rubbing plate and are in contact.

 

Secondly, the couplings.  I used to use Kadee but these have horrid fore and aft slop.  I moved to homemade couplings copied from Tony Wright's hook and bar system.  These worked a treat but did require some work.

 

 

Nowadays Hunt magnetic couplings would be a good choice.  These fit into NEM pockets.

 

John

[knitpick]

Ah, awkward question.  On gangwayed stock, the gangways should touch at all times.  Even when going round a bend.  At bends, the outer part should extend slightly and the inner contract.  On a reverse curve, then they gangways stay connected but skew slightly.  The result is that the internal gangway path remains a constant width even when skewed.  In reality, coach gangways are very flexible but model ones are too stiff and do not connect like the real ones.  

 

Also on real coaches with buckeye couplings (Pullman types etc.) the buffers do NOT touch - verified by visual inspection at Kings Cross in the late 60s.  The buffers will only touch on older coaches where screw couplings are used.  

 

So to run a model train with gangwayed coaches round a bend, then the gap must be too large.  Of course you could change the gangways to cloth based ones and find a method of attaching them between coaches - but to me I'll accept the inaccurate distance and stay with  molded gangways. 

[Dunsignalling]

This set of the old Bachmann Bulleids, * [fitted with Keen Systems CCUs and inverted Roco coupler heads] *, has had the plastic/rubber gangways replaced with home-made paper concertina ones. There is enough "Spring" in them to remain in contact whilst going round 2' radius curves and I think they would probably tolerate No.2 radius Set track, though I've not had chance to prove it.

 

I've done the same to one of my Maunsell sets, successfully liberating an intact pair of the more detailed Hornby gangways and covers to further upgrade the outer ends of the Bachmann 5-set.   

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Dunsignalling
Portion from * to * added for clarity

[melmerby]

On 06/07/2022 at 14:09, brossard said:

I always struggled to get my coaches to close couple.  The first thing I would do is remove the moulded gangways and replace with folded paper ones a la MJT.  These are fitted with a rubbing plate and are in contact.

 

Secondly, the couplings.  I used to use Kadee but these have horrid fore and aft slop.  I moved to homemade couplings copied from Tony Wright's hook and bar system.  These worked a treat but did require some work.

 

 

Nowadays Hunt magnetic couplings would be a good choice.  These fit into NEM pockets.

 

John

Hornby & Roco couplers are a good option as they work properly with the close coupling units fitted to many modern coaches, they are rigid with no slop.

A coach can be lifted from a rake with these couplings.

Kadees are pretty useless with CCUs but good on the outer ends of rakes.

[brossard]

4 hours ago, melmerby said:

Hornby & Roco couplers are a good option as they work properly with the close coupling units fitted to many modern coaches, they are rigid with no slop.

A coach can be lifted from a rake with these couplings.

Kadees are pretty useless with CCUs but good on the outer ends of rakes.

 

If I was doing this today, I would go for Hunt couplings.  I have seen these in action on the club layout and my reaction was "game changer!".

 

As it is I switched to 0 gauge in 2016 and really love that there are no real compromises for track gauge and couplings.

 

John

[zarniwhoop]

For gangways on Bachmann or Hornby coaches where the prototype has buckeye couplings I would go with the sprung ends from Keen Couplings - they work on trainset curves, to stop the poor passengers having to jump. The Keen products for coaches where the prototypes had screw couplings also work (I watched a demo on second radius settrack with tension locks), but I don't have any such coaches. Unfortunately, you have to disassemble the coach to be able to fit the spring and to glue on the stop inside the coach end.

 

That's separate from the couplings, of course - on a Bachmann 4-CEP I had to fit some black paper over the Keen gangways because the couplings were a bit too long, but it worked fine on 18" radius (laid with a tracksetta).

[RFS]

9 hours ago, zarniwhoop said:

On a Bachmann 4-CEP I had to fit some black paper over the Keen gangways because the couplings were a bit too long, but it worked fine on 18" radius (laid with a tracksetta).

 

I simply replaced the internal conductive coupling on the 4-CEP with those for the class 101/150 (part 36-062). They are shorter and mean the gangways touch on straight track.

 

 

Top two here were supplied with my 4-CEPs, next is the class 101 and bottom is the 2-EPB. The 4-CEP now looks like this

 

 

I've also used the 101 coupling internally within the 2H Thumpers which also greatly improves the look. 

 

Here's my original topic on this with pictures re-inserted.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/107625-close-coupling-Bachmann-4cep411-and-thumper-units/

 

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by RFS

[RFS]

As I've been spending the last few days experimenting with magnetic couplings, thought I would post some pictures here.

 

Firstly, I bought a Hornby Maunsell Restaurant Car which came with a new pair of magnetic couplings. Internally within sets I use Roco couplings - both the original and the Hornby version (R8220) which is slightly longer. This Hornby falls somewhat in between in terms of length. I use the long Rocos for Bachmann MK1s and short ones for Maunsell stock so this does not really fit either.

 

 

However, it solved a problem with my Hornby Class 71 whose NEM pocket is too low and whose coaches (Bachmann Mk1s) are too high. The couplings snap together perfectly with a loud click even on curved track.

 

 

The Bachmann MK1 coaches now have Hunt Elite couplings, the close size which is identical to the long Roco ones:

 

 

Finally, I've been unhappy with the way EMUs couple together, As the NEM pocket is fixed on the bogie I'd always assumed a flexible coupling was needed and hence used Kadees. But the slop in these couplings meant there was some buffeting of coaches. So I tried a Hunt close coupling as with the MK1s and was pleasantly surprised they run faultlessly. I use Peco code 75 with large radius points, and curves no tighter than 28 inches. They look so much better.

 

 

 

Incidentally, I did first try some pivoted couplings from Ebay. But the prongs are far too wide and I couldn't get them into the pockets, Getting them out again caused both that I tried to break. The seller quickly refunded though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by RFS

[DCB]

On 06/07/2022 at 07:00, britannia70 said:

Can anyone tell me the prototypical gap between coupled railway carriages in 4mm scale please

The Gap between Buck eye coupled coach bodies is typically between 1ft 6" (6mm) BR mk1, 2ft, 8mm Gresleys, or 10 mm 2ft 6" in the unlikely event BR MK1s are coupled with screw couplers and side buffers.   The Pullman Gangways touch and provide the buffers between coaches on BR Standard coaches, the side buffers are not used between buck eye coupled coaches.  Some Suburban coaches had short buffers to let more coaches fit in short platforms and GWR B sets didn't have buffers or couplings at the inner ends just a metal bar.  On  model it's the curves reverse curves and end overhang on the coaches which limits close coupling, I have 2ft radius reverse curves to propel through and 19" radius to pull through.  With bogie mounted Tension locks I move the couplings back and use hooks for pulling and the gangways for pushing. My end couplers on sets and loose coaches are Peco type.  Frame mounted couplers on bogie coaches and me don't mix.

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by DCB

[billbedford]

The standard carriage spacing is 3' 6" (13.5 mm in 4mm scale) between headstocks. Coaches fitted with Pullman gangways usually, but not always, have bow ends to the bodies which shortens the length of the gangways. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by billbedford

[DCB]

On 14/07/2022 at 08:54, billbedford said:

The standard carriage spacing is 3' 6" (13.5 mm in 4mm scale) between headstocks. Coaches fitted with Pullman gangways usually, but not always, have bow ends to the bodies which shortens the length of the gangways. 

The distance between headstocks isn't a very useful dimension. The body overhangs the headstocks, 8" for flat ends to  2ft  for bow ends is typical.   The 3ft 6" is about right for BR stock with buffers extended and just touching, but they don't run like that in service, they retract the buffers and use Buck eye couplers  so it's typically 2ft 6" (10mm) between headstocks when coupled up.   (3ft 6" is 14mm in 00 not 13.5mm.)

Edited July 15, 2022 by DCB

[britannia70]

thanks for all that . it will help me a lot

[The Evil Bus Driver]

On 09/07/2022 at 08:36, RFS said:

 

I simply replaced the internal conductive coupling on the 4-CEP with those for the class 101/150 (part 36-062). They are shorter and mean the gangways touch on straight track.

 

 

Top two here were supplied with my 4-CEPs, next is the class 101 and bottom is the 2-EPB. The 4-CEP now looks like this

 

 

I've also used the 101 coupling internally within the 2H Thumpers which also greatly improves the look. 

 

Here's my original topic on this with pictures re-inserted.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/107625-close-coupling-Bachmann-4cep411-and-thumper-units/

 

 

I have some cl. 101 coupling bars somewhere. Probably I've put them somewhere 'safe' meaning they'll never be seen again lol

I am also fairly sure my Cep is at my mum's house so I'll have a look and bring it home next time I'm there but yes that definitely looks much  better. I really don't know why they don't just use those as the shorter couplings as they work really well. 

[The Evil Bus Driver]

On 08/07/2022 at 18:48, Dunsignalling said:

This set of the old Bachmann Bulleids, * [fitted with Keen Systems CCUs and inverted Roco coupler heads] *, has had the plastic/rubber gangways replaced with home-made paper concertina ones. There is enough "Spring" in them to remain in contact whilst going round 2' radius curves and I think they would probably tolerate No.2 radius Set track, though I've not had chance to prove it.

 

I've done the same to one of my Maunsell sets, successfully liberating an intact pair of the more detailed Hornby gangways and covers to further upgrade the outer ends of the Bachmann 5-set.   

 

Question for you. What's the best way to remove the Maunsell gangway covers? Are they clipped in? I'm reluctant to use too much force on mine as I don't want to break them. 

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, The Evil Bus Driver said:

Question for you. What's the best way to remove the Maunsell gangway covers? Are they clipped in? I'm reluctant to use too much force on mine as I don't want to break them. 

 

Fingernails!

 

They are not clipped in as such - the shields are a friction fit into the moulded corridor ends.

 

Ease one fingernail behind the cover where its at its loosest (usuaslly towards the bottom) then work your finger between the cover and the gangway towards the tight spot (usually mid way up the side). Lever the cover with the fingernail and the cover will pop off.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by phil-b259

[The Evil Bus Driver]

36 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Fingernails!

 

They are not clipped in as such - the shields are a friction fit into the moulded corridor ends.

 

Ease one fingernail behind the cover where its at its loosest (usuaslly towards the bottom) then work your finger between the cover and the gangway towards the tight spot (usually mid way up the side). Lever the cover with the fingernail and the cover will pop off.

 

 

Ah thanks. I'll give it a go when  I next have them out. I've been going through my Warley goodies haul and I'm really pleased with it.