Has anyone had the kind of problem with couplings on the Heljan Baldwin that have been experienced with the 2-6-2? (That is, failure to engage with couplings on PECO stock).
Russell
There are always going to be coupling issues with 009!
There are even issues within individual manufactures ranges!! The most common issue is the height of the couplings. This should be measured from the rail head to the underside of the loop, and the loops also need to be horizontal, not drooping down. Drooping couplings tend to be an issue with couplings that are in NEM pockets. This is rather inconsistent between makes and even from one model to another. I have found that many items need the coupling height changed from new. Because it is near impossible to change them I use the small Roco four-wheel wagons as a coupling height guide and adjust any new items so that they couple up to these.
The other issue is the length of the loop relative to the height and depth of the pin on the next coupling. Some coupling loops are too short and will not go over the pin on the next coupling. If the loops are metal they can be extended slightly, and/or the back edge of any thicker pins can be filled down.
For reference here are some of the older manufactures coupling heights, measured from the rail to the underside of the loop:
Coupling Heights
Roco:
Small four wheel wagons: 5.8mm (This is what I use as a guide as they can not be changed)
Larger bogie wagons: 5.8mm
Egger-bahn:
Four wheel trucks: 5.8mm (1963 onwards, first to use these couplings)
Four wheel vans: 5.8mm
Four wheel bogie coaches and wagons: 5.8mm
Tram coaches: (Bogies mae by Lima) 5.8mm
Locos: 5.8mm (No loop fitted.)
Jouef:
Decauville V Skip: 4.4mm
Decauville toastrack coach and log wagon: 5mm
Bemo: 5.8mm. (Others will need to confirm this as I do not have many Bemo items with the original couplings.)
Liliput:
5.8mm (Note the couplings tend to start to sag over time in the pivot and even motre so in the later NEM socket.)
Tillig: 6.3mm. (Measured on the locos that do not have a loop.)
New Minitrains:
Wagons and coaches: 5.8mm
Locos: Most are higher than 6mm, but as I have altered all my ones I can not measure them now.
Perhaps others could add the Peco 009 items as I have none to measure.
So going by the above it would appear that most RTR H0e manufactures use 5.8mm coupling height.
Thanks, Brian, that's a very useful survey clearly based on long experience!
My specific question regarding the Heljan Baldwin arises from problems with at least the first crop of their Lynton and Barnstaple 2-6-2s. I haven't seen reviews that mention coupling problems for these locos, so I thought that someone who had bought one might eb able to advise me.
Regards,
Russell
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53828084610_94f76013ea_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2q1B1dj)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53828084620_6cb1bd709b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2q1B1du)
2 photos showing my Heljan Lyn and my RT models coupling height gauge that I've loaded up to my Flickr account.
The buffers on the loco have their tops level with the top of the gauge, and the loops go over the peg on the gauge, though as you can see from the photos they are a little stiff (sticking up in the air rather than dropping by their own weight & gravity), and so need a prod to get them to drop down to couple up.
At some point I'm planning to turn my black unliveried example into a South American loco with added brass details and as part of that the couplings will probably be replaced, but this will be fairly easy as they look to be located in NEM pockets.
Lookingn at Julien's photos, it looks to me like Russell's issue is almost certainly going to be that the coupling loop is not long enough to go over the Peco coupling pins.
From what I have seen, and I have none to hand to look at, I think the Peco coupling pins are quite thick and so a short coupling loop like the one on on this loco will not go up and over the peco coupling pin. The best way to cure this is to file down the back face of the Peco coupling pins, you may even have to flatten the front face of the coupling a little on the Peco couplings to enable the locos loop to get over the Peco pin.
But without looking I can not be sure.
Many Thanks!
As it happens, my Heljan Baldwin arrived today. The rear coupling works well with the PECO rolling stock, but not the front, which presents the same problems as those on the Manning Wardle. And I haven't added the cowcatchers yet.
With the Manning Wardle, I filed away some of the front of the coupling under the pin, which helped, but not enough for automatic coupling. This in addition to the problem with the relative heights of the loco and coach couplings.
So work in progress, and my ability to bend brass will be challenged by the Greenwich coupling for NEM pockets – not an insuperable problem – and they need blackening now.
But its a shame that the two RTR locomotives appropriate to the L&BR aren't equipped out of the box for the run-round-and-couple pattern of the line's (current) working.
Onwards.....
Russell
Quote from: Russell Jackson on July 04, 2024, 17:17But its a shame that the two RTR locomotives appropriate to the L&BR aren't equipped out of the box for the run-round-and-couple pattern of the line's (current) working.
Onwards.....
Russell
As I mentioned this has always been, and will always be an issue in 009.
I have two layouts that have extensive shuntting, running round etc.
This is all done 'hands free' with ramps working with Bemo/Egger type couplings.
That said there are many other makes of couplings also in use including Peco, Roco Liliput and I use the Greenwich couplings without the loop fitted on many of the locos.
Some of the ready to run items work fine stright out the box, but many do not and require modifications to the couplings to make them work. This is not so bad as each item is done as I get it. (Or make them.)
As mentioned I use the small Roco four wheel wagons as a height guide.
I also check all the couplings before any exhibitions to make sure they have not been damaged or moved in some way. The end resuly is near perfect hands free opperations.
Quote from: Russell Jackson on July 04, 2024, 17:17So work in progress, and my ability to bend brass will be challenged by the Greenwich coupling for NEM pockets – not an insuperable problem – and they need blackening now.
Blackening the couplings isn't too hard, as a black permanent ink marker will do the job reasonably well.
As to bending them up...
The 'front' end (the bit that couples up) isn't too bad, especially if you have a pair of pliers with a straight edge or end to use to align the etch to make the bends (as there are no 1/2 etch lines to do this for you). I've also found it useful to run a small drill (0.5 mm iirc though check the size of the pin or wire supplied with the couplings for the pivots as the holes need to match the wire + 0.05 mm for clearance) through the pivot holes
after bending things up. This removes the etching cusp from the hole and seems to help make the loops nice a 'floppy' so they couple and uncouple (magnetically) with ease.
The 'back' end on the NEM couplings I find a little more difficult, possibly because I haven't done that many of them. It will pay you to read the instructions
several times to get the correct order and directions of the bends needed in your head and pay careful attention as you make the bends. It might be worth accepting that the first couple may not go to plan, though if the 'front' end is OK you may still be able to use them in the same way as the 'standard' Greenwich couplings so they (hopefully) won't be a total loss.
Thank you! Yes, I've used black permanent ink on O scale three-link couplings, so that's what I intend to do. The advice on the Greenwich couplings is well taken. I have my straight edged pliers at the ready.
My experience with Egger, Lilliput etc. was also that they were less sophisticated and consequently easier to deal with.
Russell