Bachmann-Hornby couplings

I bought my first bachmann wagon yesterday, and noted that it had a
different coupling to the existing fleet of hornby ones. whilst they do
work for a little while, the wagon tends to get left behind occasionally.
What can I do - replace the coupling with a Hornby one, or replace all
my couplings. If the latter, what should I replace them with ?
Reply to
Ian Cornish
Loading thread data ...
Phil: Without wanting to reatart an earlier thread, I'd advocate changing to Kadee couplings - made easier on recent Hornby stock (and some Bachmann) by their use of NEM pockets so they can be plugged in. Her speaketh a convert!
And having jsuut had to pack away all my stock, due to building work, I can say agian that the ease of lifting the stock apart, as in the old Hornby Dublo (Peco Simplex) days, that the Kadees also offer, made it so much easier! The Kadees also offer delayed uncoupling, and uncoupling without needing solenoid operation.
Reply to
Phil
"Ian Cornish" wrote
Hornby are slowly moving across to a coupling similar in size to the Bachmann unit, although the Hornby hook is slightly longer. I certainly wouldn't consider retaining the older Hornby type as I suspect it will soon be redundant on all of their new higher-spec locos and rolling stock.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
Much of my older stock has Hornby type couplings that are part of the underframe moulding. how easy is it to upgrade this type of rolling stock to a more modern type of coupling. Has anyone tried this with success
Bob
Reply to
Bob Heath
"Bob Heath" wrote
I've successfully fitted the small Bachmann coupling to all my rolling stock, including a variety of different Hornby items and some Lima too.
It's all about a bit of ingenuity - there's no set way of doing it, but a mixing of self-tapping screws and differing glues usually produces a result. The key is to mount the new couplings at a consistent height - I have a wagon which I use as my height gauge and I aim to have them all match this one piece of stock.
It's not difficult, just takes a bit of time.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
I have just acquired some Kadee coupling and as my Bachmann stock all have NEM pockets thought this should be easy. So I fitted the couplings (#20) to a pair of intermodal bogie wagons, lined them up on the track and oh dear the couplings are at differing heights! Same problem with a brake van --- the coupling is much too low with the 'wire' bit extending below rail level.
Mark Thornton
Reply to
Mark Thornton
In message , Bob Heath writes
Yes, thank you.
It involves removing the old coupling with any of a combination of knife, junior hacksaw and file, offering up the Kadee No.5 to the bufferbeam to make sure the front of the coupler is in the right place as regards the buffers, and drilling a 1.8mm hole through the chassis in the right place, tapping this hole 8BA and bolting the coupler to the item. You might want to remove the steel weight from the chassis first, or you might be happy to drill and tap through it.
If the top of the coupler matches the bottom of the buffer beam it should be the right height. You may need to add some packing material behind the buffer beam to fix the coupler level with the chassis, and you may need to remove some material from any bogies, to prevent them snagging the couplers. Kadees seem to work better when body-mounted than when bogie-mounted. (Be careful with buffer beams: some coach buffer beams are deeper than wagon buffer beams and a bit may need filing out of them.)
Other Hornby conversions are easier: for example if you have a coupling that is screwed in place, unscrew it, drill a 2.2mm hole through a Kadee No.20 in an appropriate place, cut the tails off the Kadee, and use the original screw to fix it in place. This again will be at the right height.
The worst Hornby item I have converted recently is the LMS / Palethorpes / 2004 6-wheel van.
Reply to
Jane Sullivan
"Mark Thornton" wrote
If you've modelled USA outline you'll realise that this problem is not isolated to UK models and is why Kadee produce such a wide range of different coupling types.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
Phil: That's why I said 'some Bachmann' - the Mk1 coaches, 4MT are at the wrong height(s), and the coil wagon is correct if you take off the supplied Kadees, and refit with the NEM pocket Kadees.
I was proposing submitting an article to Model Rail summarising all this, as a result of having converted over 600 items recently, but possibly due to overlapping with Chris Leigh's own article and/or email hiccups and delays, this seems to have slipped off the agenda. Due to building work, I have now had to pack the stock away, making taking the photographs of the conversions a bit difficult.
PS Changing the moulded-to-chassis Hornby wagon coupling is very easy to a Kadee type, more tricky on the bogies! The really-older type were rivetted or screwed, and these are easy to convert.
Reply to
Phil
(snipped)
Phil: 1/ I agree with you about the 6 wheel vans!
Phil: I disagree with you about using the Kadee No.5: For most UK/European stock I find it is too short to avoid buffer lock, and the larger, rectangular draft gear box and spring system is both easy to assemble and fit to the underside of the typical wagon (rigid wheelbase) (also assuming that the height was correct with a no.5 ./ centre shank.
I found that the longest availble versions (with under/centre/over shank according to chassis) was needed because of the buffers. No5 is fine for US style stock without buffers.
Reply to
Phil
"Phil" wrote
Only an issue on tight curves.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
In message , Phil writes
Strange. I don't get buffer lock even when propelling through a crossover of Peco short radius points. The minimum radius on the running tracks of my layout is 3ft. 6in., so I suppose I'm OK.
I try to see if an imaginary line joining the buffers passes through the middle of the Kadee "hook", because that means that everything will be OK. The buffers end up separated by 2mm. on straight track, and by not very much less on curved.
Reply to
Jane Sullivan
They don't (as far as I know) produce couplers with offset shanks for NEM pockets --- these are 'supposed' to be at the correct height. It is also extremely odd that the bogie wagons didn't match --- they ought to be an identical pair.
Mark Thornton
Reply to
Mark Thornton
I can only dream of such radii. A Peco small radius point is still 24" while set track 2nd radius is a mere 17.25".
Mark Thornton
Reply to
Mark Thornton
Depends on the buffer length - considering the longer versions cost no more (in the basic pack rather than bulk) their is no reason to use 5's when the others allow the draft box to be fitted behind the bufferbeam.
Going back to the original message back in the 70s / 80s when we had all sorts of different versions of tension lock from Airfix, Mainline, Hornby, Lima etc I used a wagon card system for shunting with different coloured dots for the different types of coupling. It was then a case of marshalling a train with compataible couplings adjoining, and having a number of wagons with different types of tension lock on either end
Mike Parkes
Kadee page
formatting link
Reply to
Mike Parkes
"Mark Thornton" wrote
I thought they did but I might be wrong, but even so the fact that there's an NEM pocket provided doesn't preclude you removing it and using any of the other couplers in the Kadee range.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
What would give the better result in looks and use, the Kadee or the Bachmann. If using the Kadee, is there one with a longer shank than the no. 5 that would not be a problem on tight bends. I already have some stock with the small Bachmann and Hornby type couplings, would it be better to convert everything to this standard. What at the end of the day would be the most cost effective.
Bob
Reply to
Bob Heath
In message , Bob Heath writes
No.26 (plastic) and No.46 (metal) are longer than No.5 but otherwise the same (i.e. centreset)
That is for you to decide. I can only relate the experiences I have had given the choices I made. However, if you want to run really long trains (which, I agree, you might not) there are inherent disadvantages built in to the tension lock coupler.
- Do nothing, i.e. leave your couplings as they are. - Ask someone like me to send you all my old tension-lock couplings in return for "expenses", so you can use them yourself. (I have a 1kg. Olivio container half-full of the things, mainly Dapol, but there are several dozen Bachmann and Hornby in there as well. I can't use them.
Reply to
Jane Sullivan
"Jane Sullivan" wrote
All couplers have inbuilt disadvantages, but overall the small Bachmann coupling is not too unsightly and works for me in my current layout situation.
I the past when I've used Kades, and others also appear to have the same experience to some extent or other, I've had problems with items of stock uncoupling and dropping off the end of trains. There are supposed cures for this like ensuring that stock is operated with non-magnetic axles (the uncoupling magnets attract the axles it seems), that all coupling are at a totally consistent height and that each item of stock is weighted to an approved formula (dependent upon length).
I'm not decrying Kadees - they would be my only choice on USA outline stock where buckeye couplers are the norm, but I've not been happy with experiments I've done with British outline stock.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
formatting link
Click on links for details and comparison charts.
Reply to
MartinS

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.