Dogmatix

I was quite surprised to see posters of a 71 at the Hornby stand at Warley; I did not know they were doing one, too. The man on the stand told me that theirs will have the same sort of features as other recent Hornby diesels - motor amidship with flywheels, NEM coupling pockets (or dovetail shafts) mounted on extending close coupling mounts.... He also indicated that Hornby would do the preserved version.

Well, I did ask, and was told April or May. The model on show looked fantastic, but, of course, I couldn't help noticing that the NEM pockets were moulded into the bogie frames, thus preventing the use of Roco or Fleischmann close couplers.

I was at Warley (for the first time) and I asked a gentleman at the Bachmann stand about centre cars for the Thumper and for 4EPBs, and he told me that when - not if - Kernow do order 3H units from them, they will use the moulding for 4EPB. He seemed quite certain the this will come. But not next year...

And I'll third it.

I have now received my trio of Invicta CCT's, and very nice they are too (especially the weathered one) - but once again, Bachmann have screwed up the couplings. The NEM mounts are a tad too far in, so standard Roco couplers will not engage. The longer Hornby versions work but leave a large gap which the whole point is to avoid. Using a standard coupler on one side and a Hornby version on the other reduces the gap a bit. I would have thought that Bachmann, with their continental experience, would by now know where the NEM pocket should be. If anyone released a model in Germany with incorrectly sited NEM pockets, they would be blasted in the model railway press. The models would be seen as faulty due to non-compliance with standards, and Bachmann would have to replace the models, or at least hand out replacement drawbars (if they are easily replaced by the buyer).

Simple: I use Roco couplers. I do not use tension-lock couplers. The CADs show that Roco couplers will be impossible to use on the model as is, because the pocket is not even pivoted on the bogie (let alone mounted for close-coupling). Alterations would be required just to use Roco couplers even without close coupling. Moreover, the coach-to.coach and coach-to-loco gaps would really annoy me. Judging by the CADs, fitting close-coupling mechanics would be really tricky, possibly even not possible. Maybe there is a hidden higher floor pan or something to allow CCMs to be fitted, but if so, I'm sure Dave would have said by now.

Agreed. Which section would you suggest?

Considering the detail going into these coaches, not just the couplings will be fragile... As for the floor level, if CCM were designed into the model from the start, the effect would be minimal. Judging from the CAD pictures helpfully linked and shown earlier in this thread, fitting third-party CCM units would be very tricky at best, and certainly would require digging the floor out, and risk damaging the coach in the process. Therefore, as the Dragons say in their Den, regrettably, I'm out.

Actually, I find that Roco couplers are much easier to uncouple by hand than tension locks. They can also be uncoupled automatically, and also permit advance uncoupling, which tension locks don't. As for compatibility, I have fitted nearly all my OO stock with Roco couplers, where possible with close coupling mounts. I do not like tension lock couplings because of the large gaps needed to avoid buffer locking on curves, and in this respect, buckeyes are no better. Thus when deciding whether or not to buy a new model, I check whether it has close coupling mechanics, or may easily be fitted with such, or, at the very least, if it has NEM pockets on pivoted mounts. Unfortunately, the catalogues and magazines reviews in the UK are usually silent on this issue, so I look to forums for information. So I look forward to receiving my CCT's soon, but will not be ordering the Gate Stock until I have seen if a conversion job will be at all possible. By the way, I did manage to upload some pictures: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/63776-24-00815/

As I said, close coupling does not and cannot work properly with tension lock (or buckeye) couplings. Such couplings form a flexible link. Close coupling mechanics (CCM) need couplings that form a rigid connection to work properly. The CCM is not supposed to be driven or guided by the bogies, but by the rigid connection to the next vehicle. On British bogie stock, the bogies are closer to the ends of the coaches than on continental coaches, these being longer, and despite the difference between OO and HO, this shows up in models. Thus British outline model bogie stock, the bogies often do need cut-outs to accomodate the CCM, and if the CCM is not guided by being coupled to the next vehicle, the bogie can push it to the side - but this is merely a side-effect of the closeness of the bogie to the end of the vehicle. If I can figure out how to add pictures, I'll show you what I mean...

Well, that's the sadness. Close coupling, a great improvement common on continental HO models for over thirty years, is still seen by UK modellers as "extra twiddly bits" which only a few will "need" and those few will therefore "have the skills to add them". But why would fitting close-coupling NEM mounts make these models not work on anyone's layout? On the contrary, it would also make them work for modellers who use Roco or Fleischmann couplers! How much better the Gate Stock would look without the coach-to-coach gap.

The whole point of NEM pockets (whether mounted for close-coupling or not) is to allow the user to choose which type of coupler to use. I agree that it would be helpful if the manufacturers would include a set of replacement close-coupling couplers, but they would have to buy these in from Roco or Fleischmann, and I suppose that this would add a tiny bit to the final cost, and British manufactures, wholesalers, retailers and buyers are very price-concious. Besides which, it would prejudice the user's choice. In Germany, close-coupling and NEM pockets were introduced thirty years ago by all the main brands. Especially Roco and Fleischmann had pages in their catalogues for several years explaining how close-coupling works. Since then, catalogues and tests in magazines have noted which item of rolling stock are fitted for close-coupling. In the UK, the brands have engaged upon a campaign of total silence. The result is that few UK modellers know how it works, and many have had problems with the few recent models that are fitted. The fact that the Bachmann Mk1's were incorrectly fitted (pockets too high, too far in and too loose) did not help matters. Nor fo Hornby's long-shanked couplers (supplied by Roco), which still leave a gap. Whilst NEM pockets themselves have become popular, they are mostly mounted without close-coupling mechanics. When mounted on a simple pivot, close-coupling couplers can still be fitted (to couple with other fitted stock) but without close-coupling. But when the pockets are moulded as part of the bogie frame, such as on Bachmann diesel models and, it would appear, on the LSWR Gate Stock, then not even this is possible.

Well, try fitting proper close-coupling couplers (Roco or Fleischmann, for example). Close coupling only works if a rigid connection is made. IT DOES NOT WORK with hook-and-bar 'British-style' couplings (Hornby, Bachmann etc) nor with buckeye types (Kadee). If Bachmann have fitted the NEM pockets in the correct standardised position this time, using close-coupling couplers will result in buffer-to-buffer coupling on the straight, extending on curves to avoid buffer locking.

Looking at the CAD's, it is clear that coupling pockets are moulded as fixed parts of the bogie frames. This is a crying shame. One of the CADs shows the result - a yawning gap between the coaches. The technology for curve-extending close coupling NEM mounts has been in common use on the continent for thirty years now, but in the UK we still fit stone-age couplings.

Or even Lima...

I don't suppose the new version has its NEM coupler pockets mounted on close-coupling cams? Or is that still too much too hope for even from a continental manufacturer?

... and 3.5mm...

Tja, hoffen kann man immer...

I know... how about a range of quality British outline models................................................. in H0?

If you want a challenge, how about a decent OO gauge Terrier, with room for a decoder (not in the cab), and with close-coupling? Otherwise, +1 for Class 71/74. Or how about a Southern L1? And some Night Ferry Waggons-Lit? Please? Pretty please? Pretty please with jam, icing, sugar, a cherry on top, and one of those umbrella stick things stuck in it?

Is there any hint of a sign that the Dapol Class 73 is still on the way?

Yes, you'd need two 2EPBs - the DMBS body from one would go on the chassis (and adapted seat inlay) from the DTS. The only snag is that the unpowered power pick-up bogie would be the wrong type. You'd either just have to swallow that, or try the tricky job of grafting sides from the powered bogie onto the unpowered one, or get hold of a spare CEP unpowered powere bogie. Or you could de-power the DMBS by removing the motor and the cogs in the bogie to permit free running. Howerevr, the heavy motor box has to remain to fit the bogie back in, and the whole thing is then rather heavy (been there, done that). The 3T was, if I recall correctly, made up by inserting a 2EPB trailer coach, with the yellow end painted over. This wasn't done until the late 70's, when 2H's were all wearing blue - I'm fairly sure that green did not survive till then - and Kernow have yet to furnish us with blue 2H's, so it means a repaint job.

(3) to those who want to "upgrade" their 2EPBs to 4EPBs

Thanks for putting me right on this! So green SYP, blue and NSE versions are still theoretically planned to follow, but on hold until further notice, and blue-grey is not planned. And we can basically forget the 3H for the forseeable future. Oh well...

The story so far (please correct me if I've missed anything): Kernow has commissioned Bachmann to produce 2H models in: Green, Green with V, & Connex liveries only. No all-blue, plain blue/grey or NSE blue/grey versions have been announced, planned or commissioned, let alone produced, even as limited editions. A 3H was suggested and confirmed (with liveries unknown), but has not been announced. A separate centre car (to strengthen existing 2Hs to 3H) was suggested but rejected (so as not to prejudice sales of the 3H). At this time, further versions or liveries to those now available are unlikely to be forthcoming. Correct?