Bachmann Ready to run Quarry Hunslets.

[rod335]

I think the comments aimed at Bachmann are unreasonable. Yes, it would be nice if all worked perfectly together but with respect I have to say that I have had similar problems with all the odd Peco vehicles I have encountered so I suspect the problems lie with their couplings rather than Bachmann's product. Bachmann's loco works perfectly with their own products and also all other vehicles I have with the standard 009 type coupling except the moulded Peco ones. The problem seems to me to be related to the dimensions and shape
of the Peco coupling loop and the material it is made from, which to my mind is just not heavy enough.

[Michael Melton]

True.  When I fit the NEM pockets to kits, the PECO couplings snag points and require snipping. 

Really, since RTR OO9 is fairly new, we can expect a few minor things like this, especially when they are coming from three different manufacturers. 

I pre-ordered 590 and have heard several good remarks about the Baldwins.  I'm pretty stoked!

[B.Meldon]

Coupling issues are not confined to one manufacture, in fact there are no manufactures that always get it correct.
Here are some examples:
Some of the Minitrains locos have couplings that are too high to couple up to their own wagons without manual intervention.
Liliput NEM couplings sag so do not couple with their previous non NEM couplings.
The 1980's Roco H0e steam locos couplings were too low so would uncouple with the Roco wagons.
The early Egger-bahn couplings locked up with each other when propelling on the tight curves on Egger's own track.
The Minitrains Brigadelok's  rear coupling will lock up and de-rail wagons on Minitrains own track.
The old Peco non NEM coupling face and pin was too deep and would not couple with other makers couplings.

I could go on and on but in short all the H0e ready to run manufactures have had coupling issues at one time or another.

I use the Bemo/Egger type couplings on all my layouts and to get reliable shunting I often have to adjust and adapt the couplings on a great many ready to run items.

There is no universal 'standard' for these couplings so each manufacture is slightly different, so none are 'right' but also none are 'wrong'.

[Frank]

I don't think this sort of problem is confined to 009.   I have recently been fitting some standard N gauge couplings to the new Society waggons (building a small layout for a small boy, this seemed the best coupling to use).   I got some Peco NEM mounting brackets and some Farish NEM couplings.   The brackets did not hold the couplings securely enough to stand up to shunting.   However having studied the brackets I have managed to build NEM pockets out of styrene sheet that seem to work fine.

Frank

[jimowers]

Today I received the Bachmann Baldwin 4-6-0 that was ordered a very long time ago. I ran it on an oval of track. All OK. Then I tried to couple it to some rolling stock. It doesn't couple to Peco RTR rolling stock. The coupling on the loco is too thick to allow the loop on the rolling stock to engage. I had a similar problem with the Heljan 2-6-2 I received last year and was returned on the same day that I received it, after waiting literally years to get it.  The press had been saying that the item had been "developed in conjunction with Peco".
These locos are not cheap, but the makers release items that are simply not fit for purpose.
I feel that i'm being taken for a mug.

Not sure what all the fuss is about! I have never run any OO9 loco with loops on the loco. I have always removed them as a matter of course. I then rely on the loops on the rolling stock - surely, problem solved

[garrywhiting]

Not sure what all the fuss is about! I have never run any OO9 loco with loops on the loco. I have always removed them as a matter of corse. I then rely on the loops on the rolling stock - surely, problem solved

I'm with Jim on this, on the majority of locos, the coupling loops are not necessary.

Garry

[danny]

Not sure what all the fuss is about! I have never run any OO9 loco with loops on the loco. I have always removed them as a matter of corse. I then rely on the loops on the rolling stock - surely, problem solved

I'm with Jim on this, on the majority of locos, the coupling loops are not necessary.

Garry

I've never felt the need to use loops for locos and never had an RTR loco with them. I'm not sure where the idea of having only the hook for locos started but it seems to work (is it to stop a derailing loco taking the train down with it as with some old 00 couplings?). For use with uncoupling ramps I also remove the loops from one end of the wagons to make uncoupling smoother.

[duttonbay]

I've never felt the need to use loops for locos and never had an RTR loco with them. I'm not sure where the idea of having only the hook for locos started but it seems to work (is it to stop a derailing loco taking the train down with it as with some old 00 couplings?). For use with uncoupling ramps I also remove the loops from one end of the wagons to make uncoupling smoother.

Hmm. Your locos don't have loops, and your wagons only have loops at one end. So how do you couple a loco to the non-hook end of a wagon? Or do your trains never go back from whence they came?

[danny]

I've never felt the need to use loops for locos and never had an RTR loco with them. I'm not sure where the idea of having only the hook for locos started but it seems to work (is it to stop a derailing loco taking the train down with it as with some old 00 couplings?). For use with uncoupling ramps I also remove the loops from one end of the wagons to make uncoupling smoother.

Hmm. Your locos don't have loops, and your wagons only have loops at one end. So how do you couple a loco to the non-hook end of a wagon? Or do your trains never go back from whence they came?

Sorry I should have made it clear - this is on a specific layout so it works on there - elsewhere I have them on both ends. But I think Greenwich couplings have loops on only one end. I'm curious as to how the idea of only having the hook on locos originated.
Danny

[garrywhiting]

I'm curious as to how the idea of only having the hook on locos originated.
Danny

Probably with the original Egger-bahn locos, they all only had a hook and no loop.

Garry

[rod335]

Greenwich couplings, which are self-assembly, are supplied with a loop for each hook. Whether or not you fit them is your choice.

[B.Meldon]

I also have no loops on the locos and loops at both ends of all rolling stock. However the coupling height still has to be correct on the locos. Too high, like with several Minitrains locos and the loop on the next vehicle will not slip up the pin with out intervention.

The critical height is that of the loop or if no loop is fitted the lower end off where the pin has a slope.

I use the small Roco wagons as a height guide as these are virtually impossible to change, they are also the same as the height use by Egger-bahn who were the first to use these couplings on 9mm gauge starting in 1963.

The issue with both loops lifting at the same time can be cured by making sure every loop is exactly horizontal with the rails. Again this is critical and is often incorrect on RTR items.

Brian Meldon

[Pete Williams]

Getting back 'on theme', any further news  on expected delivery dates ?