Sprung buffers-are they neccesary

[hornbyandbf3fan]

With rising costs in manufacturing, manufacturers are trying to find ways to cut costs, with Hornbys approach backfiring massively. As Bachmann have stated that sprung buffers add an additional £10 to costs, do we need them or can they be replaced by non-sprung to cut costs. This is mainly aimed at the 00 area of the market. 

[bike2steam]

I find it somewhat amusing that sprung buffers are on rtr locos that rely on tension-lock couplings. When they are on models that have buffer to buffer contact -  yes, but otherwise who's kidding who ??

[brossard]

They're nice to have, but I don't generally retrofit them to my rigid buffer stock.  For those who wish to use tension lock, or, in my case, Kadee, they aren't really necessary.   Save the 10 pounds I say.

 

John 

[Paul Cram]

Necessary when using Dingham couplings which are preferable to the RTR ones.

[PatB]

Presumably the fitment of sprung buffers to r-t-r stock has two functions. Firstly as a marketing feature and (probably very) secondarily to assist those modellers who will be removing the tension-locks and fitting three-links or other non-buffing couplings.

 

However, given that most modellers who would be likely to change couplings are also likely to be perfectly capable and willing to change the buffers for aftermarket units (probably for a similar cost), much of the practical purpose of factory fitted sprung buffers is negated.

 

Save the tenner or spend it on something of more universal benefit I say.

[Spitfire2865]

Ive always seen them as pointless when used with tensionlocks. Though if using a special autocoupling or just 3 links, then they are amazingly useful.

If they add them, people say they are a waste, if they dont add them, people say its cheap or that the manufacturer didnt do a good job. Either way people will be bothered. We are spoiled and we dont even know it.

[Nelson Jackson]

I don't personally find a real need for them, but I have seen examples where if the customer is using chain link couplings they look fantastic and give you that bit more excitement and realism.

[Wibble]

I find factory fitted sprung buffers are usually of poor quality, and their crimped assembly makes for difficult removal / maintenance, especially when they 'stick in' and cause problems propelling wagons. I now just tend to glue them solid, so you can guess what my vote was! Oh yes, and oval buffers that sit at different angles..... don't get me started on that.

[PatB]

I find factory fitted sprung buffers are usually of poor quality, and their crimped assembly makes for difficult removal / maintenance, especially when they 'stick in' and cause problems propelling wagons. I now just tend to glue them solid, so you can guess what my vote was! Oh yes, and oval buffers that sit at different angles..... don't get me started on that.

 

In Alan Wright's book on the North Sunderland Railway there is a photo which clearly shows one of the LNER Y7s which worked on the line with its oval buffers sloping up twards the centre at a jaunty 30 degrees or so, so there is prototype justification for poor quality control .

[Bernard Lamb]

Is it not an attitude to detail rather than a question regarding the item itself?

If you remove sprung buffers as a feature do you start the trend for the down grading of other features?

Where will it all end?

Please don't reply saying the Hornby DoG.

On the other had, taking up the point raised by Wibble. The DF cast DoG buffer is rather better looking than any sprung offering.

Bernard

[pete_mcfarlane]

Some of the Hornby ones are particularly poor, and I've removed and replaced them with Alan Gibson buffers. So another vote for not bothering with them, as most of the time modellers using 3 links will replace them anyway.

[Torper]

Necessary when using Dingham couplings which are preferable to the RTR ones.

 

Not so.  For dependable working, the Dingham coupler relies on the correct relationship between the positions of the hooks and the buffer faces of vehicles.  Dingham instructions used to specifically advise against the use of spring buffers, though I note that the latest ones merely state that if possible spring buffers should be adjusted to project either 6 or 7mm out from the buffer beam.  That prevents the coupler loop being pushed against the back of the slot in the opposing hook when propelling.

 

DT

[CKPR]

In Alan Wright's book on the North Sunderland Railway there is a photo which clearly shows one of the LNER Y7s which worked on the line with its oval buffers sloping up twards the centre at a jaunty 30 degrees or so, so there is prototype justification for poor quality control .

Nowt to do with sprung buffers, but 10/10 for mentioning the NSR !

[davknigh]

The thing with sprung buffers is that they invite improvements. Think about it, you see the buffers and you think, "wouldn't it be nice to see them work?" then the hook and bar gets binned and another fine scale modeller is born. Or not....

 

Cheers,

 

David