Michanglais Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 Hi all, I was wondering if anyone could tell me whether the couplers on the Bachmann class 44/45/46s are removable, or not. I think I know that they don't have NEM sockets, but are they moulded in as part of the actual bogie, or clipped-in in some other manner? Many thanks in advance for any info on this subject. Cheers, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy P Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 I can confirm that these models do feature NEM coupler pockets. Bachmann's website doesn't have the service sheet PDFs available for these at present. However, http://www.ehattons.com/Trade/StockDetail.aspx?SID=9238 will give some illustration. RP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michanglais Posted May 26, 2012 Author Share Posted May 26, 2012 Thanks for the speedy response - and the news is better than I'd hoped Out comes the credit card again... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy P Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 Further info; It might be of interest to note that at the same time as these models were upgraded to include working lights and the "nose seam", the position of the NEM pockets was lowered and used the straight couplers. Earlier models had stepped down couplers. RP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 But how are the NEM pockets fixed? 1. Moulded as part of the bogie frame, thus non-swivelling, non-pivoting, non-extending, not suitable for Roco/Fleischmann couplers, and totally useless for close-coupling? 2. Mounted on simple pivots, allowing Roco/Fleischmann couplers to be used, but still no good for close-coupling? 3. Mounted on proper close-coupling cams, extending on curves for close coupling? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
neal Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 1 N Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 Although... The same NEM pocket arrangement is found on the Class 40, and on a whim some time ago I tried the Roco close coupler in the loco bufferbeam socket with the Hornby clone (R8220) in a Bachmann mk1 coach and that performed fine. Not tested below 30" radius and the smallest crossover formation was from two Peco Streamline large radius points (nominally 60" radius). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy P Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 And there again lies the problem of a compromise failing to please all of the people all of the time. Any arrangement other than that chosen by Bachmann would have left a larger hole in the buffer beam that many might disapprove of'; Especially those who like to dispense with tension locks or alternative at one end at least. Those who have serious issues with coupling arrangements will seek their own solutions. The manufacturers have to decide which compromise will satisfy most of the people most of the time. Whether or not they always get it right I believe they are getting it right more often than they used to and the newer Peaks compared to the original Mainline inherited types are a good illustration. RP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 But how are the NEM pockets fixed? 1. Moulded as part of the bogie frame, thus non-swivelling, non-pivoting, non-extending, not suitable for Roco/Fleischmann couplers, and totally useless for close-coupling? 2. Mounted on simple pivots, allowing Roco/Fleischmann couplers to be used, but still no good for close-coupling? 3. Mounted on proper close-coupling cams, extending on curves for close coupling? Given the buffers are mounted on the bogie and that the whole point of close-coupling cams is to make up for the fact that the buffers in general are NOT fixed to the bogie I can't see this is a big problem. I suspect that you could quite happily couple a pair of peaks with Roco couplers and get around set track curves (well maybe 3rd and above...). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyman7 Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 I suspect that you could quite happily couple a pair of peaks with Roco couplers and get around set track curves (well maybe 3rd and above...). Er, I don't think so. Roco close couplers form a rigid bar when joined, so you'd better ensure your layout consists only of straight track if you try them in your Bachmann Peaks (or class 40s) for a spot of double heading.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Er, I don't think so. Roco close couplers form a rigid bar when joined, so you'd better ensure your layout consists only of straight track if you try them in your Bachmann Peaks (or class 40s) for a spot of double heading.... There is some give in the NEM clips, and it should be sufficent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyman7 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 There is some give in the NEM clips, and it should be sufficent. OK, maybe up to a point, but I'd be curious as to what the minimum radius is. I suspect it wouldn't cover a crossover, but am willing to be proved wrong! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JZ Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 But how are the NEM pockets fixed? 1. Moulded as part of the bogie frame, thus non-swivelling, non-pivoting, non-extending, not suitable for Roco/Fleischmann couplers, and totally useless for close-coupling? 2. Mounted on simple pivots, allowing Roco/Fleischmann couplers to be used, but still no good for close-coupling? 3. Mounted on proper close-coupling cams, extending on curves for close coupling? I have an older one with the pockets too high. I used a modified Kadee #5 glued into socket and have no close coupling issues through the 24" pointwork in my fiddle yard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 OK, maybe up to a point, but I'd be curious as to what the minimum radius is. I suspect it wouldn't cover a crossover, but am willing to be proved wrong! Given that a whirl in this morning's running session. A 40 and a 45 coupled up using the Roco coupler; both having the same style of coupler pocket rigid in the bufferbeam, and generally similar chassis dimensions. Will go through a Peco large radius crossover formation freely enough. Looked at closely you can see that the slight looseness of the coupler mounts in the pockets is taken up, and some of the lateral freedom of the wheelsets too. No trouble on plain curves down to 30" radius, all of which though have a foot or more of transition from straight track. Started to grunt audibly on a crossover formed from a combination of Peco medium radius and large radius points (36"/60") which is the tightest running line crossover I have, and popped a wheelset off on a nominal 30" reverse curve in the goods yard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.