RMweb Gold TomE Posted October 1, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 1, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, JR_P said: The bogies and underframe are not in black, but actually a browny-black - as most clearly evidenced by the coupler which is a standard ‘black’. Revolution did something similar with the KFA bogies but went for a dark grey-black.... not sure how I feel about this, but it is quite apparent - surprised no one else has mentioned this! Isn’t that correct though? I was of the understanding that BR painted coach underframes & bogies a very dark brown when first out shopped in BR blue and did so right up until the early 80s where after black became standard. Still waiting for the intercity versions so will refrain from comment until I have them in hand, but can’t help feeling the bogie mounted coupling is a bizarre retrograde decision for Bachmann to make. Tom. Edited October 1, 2020 by TomE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Steadfast Posted October 2, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 2, 2020 My mk2s haven't arrived yet, but I've just had the thought that if they have modelled the buffers in the retracted position, then a close coupling system may actually not be needed to get them round corners? It's something I'll be interested to look at when mine arrive. Not so much Bachmann, but I've found Dapol close couplers a pain as the springs are weak so they stretch when hauled and they can also lock up at times, so I'm willing to wait and see when these arrive. Jo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwfb Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 14 hours ago, JR_P said: "The underframe detail is adequate but not any better than the mk2a, for example. I’ve also noted that the a/c blower doesn’t look quite right and looks ‘shaved-off’ on the underside and whilst a minor gripe is visible from a side-on viewing angle. Additionally, the opposite side air tank has a cut-out on the ‘inside’ which again is kind of visible from a side-on angle." You mean like the real thing? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padishar Creel Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Steadfast said: My mk2s haven't arrived yet, but I've just had the thought that if they have modelled the buffers in the retracted position, then a close coupling system may actually not be needed to get them round corners? It's something I'll be interested to look at when mine arrive. Not so much Bachmann, but I've found Dapol close couplers a pain as the springs are weak so they stretch when hauled and they can also lock up at times, so I'm willing to wait and see when these arrive. Jo Hallo, The problem lies with the steps that have been represented at the coach ends. When the radius is too tight the coupling touches up against the step and the bogie cannot swivel any more. es grüßt pc Edited October 2, 2020 by Padishar Creel Typo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium JR_P Posted October 2, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 2, 2020 5 hours ago, iwfb said: You mean like the real thing? Yes, apparently so !.... your photo is pretty compelling evidence; comment amended accordingly. It still looks a bit odd on the model though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmthtrains - David Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 Just thinking out loud but would the decision to have a bogie mounted coupling have anything to do with the tooling for the driving cab version? I was wondering if there was no room to have a body mounted system there due to the interior/lights etc, meaning a bogie mounted one would be needed, so to save having two different designs, they all became bogie couplings? David 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Steven B Posted October 2, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 2, 2020 Dapol managed a close coupling mechanism on both ends of the Mk3 DVT so compromises for the Mk2 DBSO shouldn't be the reason why a close coupling mechanism wasn't included. I wonder if close coupling wasn't included to keep the price down as it's one less thing to fit and a few minutes less assembly time - times by several thousand coaches (FO RFB, SO & BSO x2 liveries) and you've saved several days of labour). But then the RRP is a couple of quid more than a Mk1 so perhaps not? The steps on the coach ends are what stop the coaches being used reliably on 9" radius curves. The standard coupling gap is sufficient as is the amount of motion available to the bogie when the steps are removed (or in my test when the coupling is removed!) Steven B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Harvey Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 39 minutes ago, Steven B said: The steps on the coach ends are what stop the coaches being used reliably on 9" radius curves. The standard coupling gap is sufficient as is the amount of motion available to the bogie when the steps are removed (or in my test when the coupling is removed!) Steven B. So a slimmer coupler head would probably allow operation on tighter curves. Cue the Hunt couplers, perhaps? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Steven B Posted October 2, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 2, 2020 I can't remember if it was the coupling head or the stalk that bumped into the end steps. Hunt couplings might not work well. There's some side to side movement in the bogie mounted NEM pockets, but you may also need the side-play in the coupling itself to get around 9" curves. Has anyone tried a Hunt Elite coupling with these yet? I'm a big fan of them in Dapol Mk3s but wasn't comfortable with the amount of force I was needing to fit them to Farish Mk1 or Mk2a so gave up before breaking something. Steven B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padishar Creel Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 3 hours ago, Steven B said: I can't remember if it was the coupling head or the stalk that bumped into the end steps. Hunt couplings might not work well. There's some side to side movement in the bogie mounted NEM pockets, but you may also need the side-play in the coupling itself to get around 9" curves. Has anyone tried a Hunt Elite coupling with these yet? I'm a big fan of them in Dapol Mk3s but wasn't comfortable with the amount of force I was needing to fit them to Farish Mk1 or Mk2a so gave up before breaking something. Steven B. In my photo it is the coupling head of the short shank Farish (left coach). The other coach in the photo has a SpurNeun coupling which has a shank length midway between the two Farish types es grüßt pc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin1985 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 I've got some Intercity coaches on order, so haven't seen them in the flesh yet. But I'm inclined to agree with this ... 17 hours ago, Steadfast said: My mk2s haven't arrived yet, but I've just had the thought that if they have modelled the buffers in the retracted position, then a close coupling system may actually not be needed to get them round corners? It's something I'll be interested to look at when mine arrive. Not so much Bachmann, but I've found Dapol close couplers a pain as the springs are weak so they stretch when hauled and they can also lock up at times, so I'm willing to wait and see when these arrive. Jo I think there is a danger in seeing a Kinematic Coupler mechanism as a tick-box essential, like etched grilles on a loco, that doesn't necessarily add very much, or might even be worse than the conventional alternative. I don't recall actually seeing the close coupler on my Farish Mk1s or Dapol Gresleys really moving much at all in practice on all but the very sharpest settrack curves - there often seems more flex in the NEM socket itself than in the mechanism. Has anyone tried them with the short Dapol non-magnetic basic buckeyes? Justin 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium njee20 Posted October 2, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 2, 2020 My worry with the Hunt couplers would be that you lose any rotation between the two couplers - fine with kinematic designs, but with bogie mounted you’ll turn them into a single fixed unit, and I’d not expect that to work well on reverse or tight curves. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westie7 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 2 hours ago, justin1985 said: Has anyone tried them with the short Dapol non-magnetic basic buckeyes? Justin yeah see my post on wednesday 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Solo Posted October 3, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 3, 2020 Well I bought a couple of these and have been experimenting a bit - I had a spare pack of the Hunt HST couplings so attached the ones meant for the Mk3s (the shorter ones), handy because of course they're double pole. These couple quite closely and will easily navigate a peco radius 3 curve as shown. Looks like they could probably just about manage second radius or if you kept to third radius an even shorter Hunt coupling would do the job, assuming there is one. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Solo Posted October 3, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 3, 2020 You can get even closer if you use this technique I pinched from somewhere on the internet of snipping the protruding part from a Rapido and attaching a little magnet to the flat face of one coupler and a little piece of paperclip (or something else magnetic) to the other, I'll post the link if I manage to find it (also works really well with Farish DMUs which don't have the close coupling cam). Will still easily do radius 3 but of course this method is 'handed'. All in all a superb model and the lack of a body-mounted coupler is no downside at all as I see it, may even make things simpler - just don't use the supplied Rapido! 5 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted October 4, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 4, 2020 Can someone just confirm something for me. I have encountered a thread on Facebook where one individual claims that Mk2f coaches all ran on B5 bogies? I could have sworn they were all B4 barring the occasional special conversion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Solo Posted October 4, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 4, 2020 1 hour ago, John M Upton said: Can someone just confirm something for me. I have encountered a thread on Facebook where one individual claims that Mk2f coaches all ran on B5 bogies? I could have sworn they were all B4 barring the occasional special conversion. Pretty sure all the Mk2Fs ran on B4s - as I understand it B5s were similar but 'beefed up' a bit and used mainly under Southern Region EMUs 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted October 4, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 4, 2020 That's what I thought but an 'expert' on Facebook is insisting they all had B5's with hydraulic suspension and you can clearly tell on a distant thirty year old photo the difference between a 2F and all the other aircon types!! Social media is becoming increasingly full of idiots.... 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fezza Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 Yes pretty sure they rode on B4s - and I wonder how many could recognise the differences between a B4 and B5 in N gauge? I would struggle.... (he said reaching for coaching stock books...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomag Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 1 hour ago, fezza said: Yes pretty sure they rode on B4s - and I wonder how many could recognise the differences between a B4 and B5 in N gauge? I would struggle.... (he said reaching for coaching stock books...) The B5 has a bigger flat faced traction rod (the horizontal rod slight off centre) and a thicker bolster. I have seen a B5 conversion in N and it was clearly different from a foot away. The B5(SR) is a different bogie and although similar in design is notably difference from both the normal B4 and B5. The only Mk2s with B5s in normal use were the Mk2 Pullman Kitchen (PFK) and the Royal train conversions. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marke Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 I have a short rake of these new MK2fs and am pretty pleased with them. I have swapped the fitted coupler at one end of each coach with the short shank version provided in the bag of accessories so that each couples together with one short shank to one medium shank version. The rake happily copes with my minimum 11inch radius curves. The short shank version also happily couples with my Farish Mk1s. 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colossus Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 Afternoon all, An intriguing thread especially with six of these coaches in order. I'm a bit unsure about some of the terminology being used - may I ask a few fundamentals? Is the coupling supplied easily swapped? Does the model come with alternative couplings or lengths? I was concerned that the coupling wasn't of the NEM 'box' type and that swapping in and out couplers of choice wasn't possible. Can coupling be pushed in/pulled out as desired? I've seen so many different couplings mentioned above, I assume that any coupling is easily replaced? Just a bit of clarification please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted October 4, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 4, 2020 Well I found a retailer who was offering the FO for a shade under forty quid including delivery so I bought one! A few pictures for you posed next to the old tooling declassified FO it will be replacing for comparison. The old one had a major rebuild a few years ago using bogies and parts salvaged from a modern tooling Mk2a that someone had managed to completely wreck and I picked up the sad remnants off Ebay. It worked too as it provided NEM pockets for the Dapol Easy shunt couplings I prefer to use. The new one will be declassified and take the number, couplings and tail lamp off its predecessor whilst that will be stripped for spares and scrapped. Here is a shot of the small parts pack for reference showing the very small replacement rapido couplings also supplied: 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padishar Creel Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 25 minutes ago, Colossus said: Afternoon all, An intriguing thread especially with six of these coaches in order. I'm a bit unsure about some of the terminology being used - may I ask a few fundamentals? Is the coupling supplied easily swapped? Does the model come with alternative couplings or lengths? I was concerned that the coupling wasn't of the NEM 'box' type and that swapping in and out couplers of choice wasn't possible. Can coupling be pushed in/pulled out as desired? I've seen so many different couplings mentioned above, I assume that any coupling is easily replaced? Just a bit of clarification please. Swapping couplings is easy, an NEM pocket is mounted on the bogie. If you use Dapol short NEMcoup couplings, you can almost close the gap and they will still negotiate radius 1 curves. The head of the short Farish coupling hits the moulded steps and can cause derailments. The MK2Fs are slightly lower than the MK1s and noticable when coupled to a BG whereas at a scale 12" to the ft the height is hardly noticed. My solution was to take an old B4 bogie cutting as in the photo, then using a hole puncher in plasticard create a collar for the gap between underframe and bogie. This lowers the MK1 to the same height and increases the realism. I still think though I need to find a very slightly thicker plasticard. Also fitting B4 wheelsets to a new style CW bogie also reduces the height of a MK1 to the same level. So with this technique the heights of MK1, MK2F and Dapol MK3 are all equivalent and makes a mixed rake so typical of the WCMLmore realistic. (Similarly if you create a collar from the clear inner packaging of Farish models the height of a MK2A can be raised without making the coach look as if it is standing on its toes) es grüßt pc 3 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colossus Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 2 hours ago, Padishar Creel said: Swapping couplings is easy, an NEM pocket is mounted on the bogie. If you use Dapol short NEMcoup couplings, you can almost close the gap and they will still negotiate radius 1 curves. The head of the short Farish coupling hits the moulded steps and can cause derailments. The MK2Fs are slightly lower than the MK1s and noticable when coupled to a BG whereas at a scale 12" to the ft the height is hardly noticed. My solution was to take an old B4 bogie cutting as in the photo, then using a hole puncher in plasticard create a collar for the gap between underframe and bogie. This lowers the MK1 to the same height and increases the realism. I still think though I need to find a very slightly thicker plasticard. Also fitting B4 wheelsets to a new style CW bogie also reduces the height of a MK1 to the same level. So with this technique the heights of MK1, MK2F and Dapol MK3 are all equivalent and makes a mixed rake so typical of the WCMLmore realistic. (Similarly if you create a collar from the clear inner packaging of Farish models the height of a MK2A can be raised without making the coach look as if it is standing on its toes) es grüßt pc Thanks for that Padishar. It just wasn't clear that the new Mk2f had NEM pockets- that's a relief. As long as I can us different coupling combos to coupler as close as radii will permit, that'll do me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now