Jump to content
 

Hornby 2021 - Maunsell dining saloon thirds and composites


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
20 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think the magnetic couplers already on the market come in a choice of lengths.

 

Four. Ultra close, close, intermediate and standard.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
32 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

Four. Ultra close, close, intermediate and standard.

Yup and there is one type that swivels. Gr8 range of kit.

Also really easy to adapt and self fit for kit built stuff like Walruses and other bigger wagons. Don't think they would work well on lightweight kit builds as there doesn't  seem enough 'leeway' for movement  but I've not experimented that much.

 

Not used any on Coaches as yet, but may do with these Diners in the middle of my 'fixed' Sets using different coupling on the outer ends of the Dining Pair to suit my needs.

 

I suspect I might go much further with magnetics as I progress.

Phi

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • RMweb Gold
6 minutes ago, Matt35027 said:

Does anybody know the catalogue number for the magnetic couplings that came with these coaches? I was quite impressed with them and thought I might get some more to experiment with.

I don't think Hornby has yet announced them as a separate item, they are just being included with the latest coach releases. They are too long to properly close couple as they stand.

 

John

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Matt35027 said:

Does anybody know the catalogue number for the magnetic couplings that came with these coaches? I was quite impressed with them and thought I might get some more to experiment with.

Try some *Hunts as they are readily available. Drop them a message if you want to know the length that might suit. *West Hill wagon Works

Phil 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have got my first coach with magnetic couplings as an option. I think the magnetic couplings are a good idea as they will be easier to couple and uncouple than the alternatives to Hornby couplings. I am happy with the Hornby couplings that have served me well for the last 65 years and my view is if something works don't fix it.

 

I have received my SR 3rd class dining saloon no 1363 from the Swanage Station shop now and it was interesting to compare it with the SR open third coach n0 1400.

 

The dining saloon is in plain olive green livery but the ventilated windows give a much clearer view of the seats and tables than the small windows on the open third. The open third has elaborate yellow lining and brown window droplights on the doors. The roof on the dining saloon is grey on the dining saloon whereas it is white on the open third. The open third has smoking and non smoking signs on the windows although I expect that the smoke drifted into the non smoking areas.  The dining saloon had one toilet whereas the open third had two. I wonder why the Southern needed to build the dining saloons when both coaches had tables.  I think that the Southern were ahead of the other railway companies in having open saloon coaches.

 

 

 

 

 

 

t

P1030929.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I don't think Hornby has yet announced them as a separate item, they are just being included with the latest coach releases. They are too long to properly close couple as they stand.

 

John

Are you sure they're too long? They look close coupled enough for me! They're very slightly closer together than a Hornby/Roco close coupling combination, but are easier to couple up. I've been looking at Hunt couplings, I'll get one of their sample packs to have a play with.

PXL_20220619_193515057.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
32 minutes ago, Matt35027 said:

Are you sure they're too long? They look close coupled enough for me! They're very slightly closer together than a Hornby/Roco close coupling combination, but are easier to couple up. I've been looking at Hunt couplings, I'll get one of their sample packs to have a play with.

PXL_20220619_193515057.jpg

 

Try taking the gangway shields off, it looks like you still have them fitted - If you slide a fingernail underneath them you can pop them off (they are a friction fit)

 

(Note that these shields were added at the front and rear of entire trains (not individual vehicles) in an attempt to try and keep the gangways clean - they should NEVER be employed within coach rakes because there is no way of passing through them)

 

Without them you should be able to use 2 genuine Roco couplers to close couple them together with no daylight on the straight (not the Roco + Hornby hybrid which does still leave a gap)

 

Based on the above photo however it looks like these magnetic couplers are, like Honrbys Roco clones, a bit too long for 'Pullaman' type gangwayed stock (SR, LNER & Pullman cars) but probably just right for 'British standard' gangways (LMS & GWR stock)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Robin Brasher said:

I wonder why the Southern needed to build the dining saloons when both coaches had tables. 

 

 

Because the early (1920s) Maunsell dinning / restaurant cars were conceived as a pair built alongside each other for the express purpose of dining. This is exactly what the other big 4 and pre-grouping companies did so the SR was just following the norms of the time.

 

It was only later (1930s) that when another batch of restaurant cars was being built that the SR realised they could save cash and simply use an ordinary open 3rd fitted with tables instead rather than building a bespoke vehicle. This realisation is what prompted the dining saloons to be renumbered (and used) as open 3rds rather than special dining vehicles.

 

Obviously between the two time periods the world underwent significant economic turmoil and railway companies would have been looking to make economies - which is most likely to be the drivers for the change as it meant fewer vehicles needed to be built.

 

2 hours ago, Robin Brasher said:

 

The dining saloon is in plain olive green livery but the ventilated windows give a much clearer view of the seats and tables than the small windows on the open third. The open third has elaborate yellow lining and brown window droplights on the doors. The roof on the dining saloon is grey on the dining saloon whereas it is white on the open third.

 

 

The dining saloon is presented as it would have looked in the 1940s! This was a time of austerity and where the droplights in the doors which had originally been varnished wood were painted Olive.

 

The previously released Olive open 3rds like 1400 portray a much earlier period - the late 1920s where full lining and varnished droplights were the order of the day.

 

Hornbys initial information indicated the dining saloon would be produced in its original lined out glory - not the wartime / Maunsell - Bullied crossover livery it actually ended up in.

 

I've said it before but what with all Hornbys Maunsells (bar the Dunkirk train pack) being in 1920s lined Olive, modelling the restaurant car as a later build (which meant it couldn't legitimately be lined) and now releasing these dining Saloons in plain Olive will have harmed sales.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

As well as removing the gangway shields, buffers between coaches with Pullman gangways were retracted, the buffing forces being taken through a central buffer (arrangement) situated within the gangway mechanism.

 

I've just carried this out on a Bulleid 59' 3-set and intend to photograph the result tomorrow. I'll then add it to this post. Like Phil, I use Roco couplers within sets.

 

The side buffers were used in their extended position where it was necessary to couple to locomotives or vehicles not fitted with Pullman gangways and buckeye couplings. The ones at the van ends of my set therefore remain as supplied.

 

John  

P1000034er.jpg

Edited by Dunsignalling
Photo added
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

... coaches with Pullman gangways ... the buffing forces being taken through a central buffer situated within the gangway mechanism. ...

Actually four buffers, one each corner of the gangway - though the top pair were much lighter sprung and really only acted to keep the gangway faces pressed together.

 

To represent retracted side buffers on Hornby Maunsells I simply glue a small piece of plastic card between the buffer spring and headstock, each side, so that the buffer heads are not pushed out to their full extent : the buffers are not pushed fully home, either, but retain a small amount of movement.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Try taking the gangway shields off, it looks like you still have them fitted - If you slide a fingernail underneath them you can pop them off (they are a friction fit)

 

Ah, I'd forgotten to mention about the shields! I'm in the habit of leaving them on because it's my preference to not see all the way down the length of the coach as they go round my 2nd radius curves. One day when I get somewhere to build a layout with more gentle curves, I'll take the shields off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
50 minutes ago, Matt35027 said:

 

Ah, I'd forgotten to mention about the shields! I'm in the habit of leaving them on because it's my preference to not see all the way down the length of the coach as they go round my 2nd radius curves. One day when I get somewhere to build a layout with more gentle curves, I'll take the shields off!

 

 

There is no danger of being able to 'see the length of the coach' as you put it - Hornby have correctly modelled the doors which separate the actual gangway and the vestibules as per the real thing.

 

Have a look at the phots of a Maunsell coach on the KESR (though the doors were traditionally painted black rather than the white seen here) and the Bluebell

 

With sharp curves all you will therefore see is the inside of the gangway connector and the representation of said door.

 

The only UK stock which lacked such doors are Pullman cars - and these had more robust gangway shields as a consequence

 

kent-and-east-sussex-railway-tenterden-a

 

6575_blue_ras4796_17may10m.jpg

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Actually four buffers, one each corner of the gangway - though the top pair were much lighter sprung and really only acted to keep the gangway faces pressed together.

 

To represent retracted side buffers on Hornby Maunsells I simply glue a small piece of plastic card between the buffer spring and headstock, each side, so that the buffer heads are not pushed out to their full extent : the buffers are not pushed fully home, either, but retain a small amount of movement.

Thanks, I'd never seen the full arrangement so my description was merely of the practical effect. Post edited for clarity.

 

I just take the springs out and lightly glue the buffers in the retracted position.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

As well as removing the gangway shields, buffers between coaches with Pullman gangways were retracted, the buffing forces being taken through a central buffer (arrangement) situated within the gangway mechanism.

 

I've just carried this out on a Bulleid 59' 3-set and intend to photograph the result tomorrow. I'll then add it to this post. Like Phil, I use Roco couplers within sets.

 

The side buffers were used in their extended position where it was necessary to couple to locomotives or vehicles not fitted with Pullman gangways and buckeye couplings. The ones at the van ends of my set therefore remain as supplied.

 

John  

P1000034er.jpg

Photo now added as promised. The Roco couplers have had their uncoupling loops removed and are mounted upside down which looks a lot tidier.

 

These will go round No.2 radius curves with no problem; no daylight is visible unless looking at the interface square-on at eye level against a bright background. That's the point of the close coupling links. The gangways touch (or very nearly so) on straight track and the coaches open out on curves. 

 

I went to town on one set, removing the plastic gangways and substituting fold-up paper ones that are in compression so "grow" to keep the gap closed on curves. I haven't yet decided whether to make this my standard practice.

 

These coaches didn't come with end covers, but I have fitted the van ends with a pair retrieved from some Maunsells where I didn't need them.

 

John  

 

 

P1000034er.jpg

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Matt35027 said:

 

Ah, I'd forgotten to mention about the shields! I'm in the habit of leaving them on because it's my preference to not see all the way down the length of the coach as they go round my 2nd radius curves. One day when I get somewhere to build a layout with more gentle curves, I'll take the shields off!

The links are designed to work with a static gap (on straight track) of zero. They have a cam action which creates gaps as the coaches go round curves; the tighter the curve, the bigger the gap (within design limits).

 

Don't be afraid to couple these coaches up close when on the straights, it really does work, honest!

 

Admittedly, gaps do become visible as the coaches space out, I have solved that on a couple of sets (one of Hornby Maunsells, one one of the original Bachmann Bulleids, fitted with after-market CCUs). I have replaced the plastic corridors with compressible paper ones (keeping scale distance between coaches not just filling the gaps), but those who don't like irreversibly altering stock in case they ever want to sell it will cringe at the idea.

 

I am trying out a "non-surgical" alternative of inserting small blocks of dark grey foam of the sort that's cut out to make stock-box inserts, into adjacent gangways (one per gap, not individually).

 

It looks promising but I haven't yet done enough testing to determine the ideal size. big enough not to fall out at maximum spacing and small enough that the static compression isn't so great as to cause trouble.  

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I am trying out a "non-surgical" alternative of inserting small blocks of dark grey foam of the sort that's cut out to make stock-box inserts, into adjacent gangways (one per gap, not individually).

 

It looks promising but I haven't yet done enough testing to determine the ideal size. big enough not to fall out at maximum spacing and small enough that the static compression isn't so great as to cause trouble.  

 

John

 

I have tried that sort of technique but found very quickly it causes problems leading to derailments. Having trains entering a tunnel before the radius of the curves gets too tight was my solution!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, RFS said:

 

I have tried that sort of technique but found very quickly it causes problems leading to derailments. Having trains entering a tunnel before the radius of the curves gets too tight was my solution!

That's my backstop position!

 

My plans should only need them to perform down to a 30" radius (inside route on a Streamline curved point), so it may be doable.

 

I'm making the foam blocks a push-fit into the gangways so as to be easily removable if it doesn't work or I want to run the coaches on layouts with tighter curves.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I've received the restaurant car to add to my rake and I've been looking at the magnetic couplings. Between 2 Maunsell coaches there's still a gap - about the same size as with the Hornby-Roco coupling. So it's been coupled up with the original Roco as have my other Maunsells.

 

The Hornby-Roco coupling works well with Bachmann MK1s although getting the coaches coupled up can be quite a faff as they won't self-couple. But these magnetic couplings are much better, and I've fitted them to a pair of coaches and will see how they perform.

 

20220622_122053.thumb.jpg.f767c5667fe6b6131fda63c149940bd7.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 22/06/2022 at 12:51, RFS said:

I've received the restaurant car to add to my rake and I've been looking at the magnetic couplings. Between 2 Maunsell coaches there's still a gap - about the same size as with the Hornby-Roco coupling. So it's been coupled up with the original Roco as have my other Maunsells.

 

The Hornby-Roco coupling works well with Bachmann MK1s although getting the coaches coupled up can be quite a faff as they won't self-couple. But these magnetic couplings are much better, and I've fitted them to a pair of coaches and will see how they perform.

 

20220622_122053.thumb.jpg.f767c5667fe6b6131fda63c149940bd7.jpg

 

Unfortunately testing did not go well. I tried first on my rendering of the Golden Arrow - bogie luggage van, pair of Bachmann MK1 seconds and 7 Hornby lighted Pullmans. Connected the 2 MK1s with the couplings, and although the train started OK the couplings parted on the first bend. Probably an extreme test given the weight of the Pullmans!

 

Then tried with a simple MK1 4-car set with the first and second coupled with them. Better, but on the second run round the layout they again parted on a bend. I use Peco code 75 track, and the minimum radius is not less then 30 inches.

 

So it's back to trusty Hornby-Roco couplings for Bachmann MK1s internally within their sets. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Perhaps should have done this earlier, but here's Hornby's new coupling laid out alongside the Roco couplings. It's clearly shorter than the Hornby-Roco version which no doubt explains why the Bachhmann MK1s didn't take to it. But not too far off the original Roco, so perhaps might work well on Maunsells with the end doors still attached. 

 

Approximate lengths are 37, 34 and 32 mm.

 

Couplings.jpg.ae949770bd790537e463ff4b3f3f44c6.jpg

 

Edited by RFS
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/04/2022 at 19:15, Godfrey Glyn said:

I picked up my BR(S) composite dining saloon today from Paul at Alton Model Centre and I am very impressed. Something which I was not expecting to find was a pack of magnetic couplers in addition to the Hornby version of the Roco style connectors. Is this a first for Hornby?

I haven't had the opportunity to try them, they fit into the normal NEM pocket.

best wishes

Godfrey

I think this is a great idea although j know exactly where Hornby have had their eyes cast to come up with it. I might buy a pack of them and experiment with my own Maunsell stock to see if I like them or not. But not until after building my work table...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...