Apologies if this is in the wrong subforum: I am not sure what the correct subforum for this question would be.
May I ask what people have found to be the case vis a vis the compatibility between working couplings (especially the Dapol Easifit/Easishunt type as well as, for carriages, the Dapol NEMCoup type) and the little detailing parts that commonly come with locomotives and rolling stock?
For example, see this class 47:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48580319296_0ccd17639d_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h1SQq1)47583 County of Hertfordshire (https://flic.kr/p/2h1SQq1) by James Petts (https://www.flickr.com/photos/14730981@N08/), on Flickr
It has lots of holes in the bufferbeam for vacuum pipes, air pipes, ETH/ETS pipes and so forth; but the coupler sits immediately underneath these pipes and needs to swing quite considerably to navigate tighter corners such as those that one might find in fiddle yards. I imagine that some and possibly all of these parts could foul the coupler. However, without fitting the parts, there are lots of ugly holes on the bufferbeam.
Also, I notice that the new Dapol Class 50 has some of these detailing parts pre-fitted:
(https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_09/1310415238_class50sa.jpg.ef729b86b384084db4562369a9d5576e.jpg) (https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/68017-n-gauge-class-50/page/19/&tab=comments#comment-3663878)
(image by Grahame (https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/profile/33-grahame/))
This is so even though it also comes with the large Rapido coupler pre-fitted. This suggests that it might well be possible to have at least some pipes and details on the front with working couplings; but has anyone any experience of making this work and does anyone have any idea as to which one(s) work with which couplings and which locomotives and which radius of curves?
For my own layout, which is basically a roundy-roundy with fiddle yard, I run the diesels hauling in one direction only. I therefore omit any coupling at one end, and fully detail this end with the supplied pipework.
The other end has a coupling (B+B in my case, though a small number have Rapido style), and then I find by trial and error that I can fit some of the outermost pipework, but not those in the centre.
This method is obviously not viable if you run diesels requiring the need to haul in both directions, but I think you can still fit some of the outer pipework, as described.
If you have a working turntable (but your photos suggest this won't be so!), you can cheat and turn the loco on this if you decide to fully detail one end and omit that coupling.
martyn
"If you have a working turntable (but your photos suggest this won't be so!), you can cheat and turn the loco on this if you decide to fully detail one end and omit that coupling."
failing a turntable, the route to and from the mpd could form a 'y' which would have the same effect and turn the loco.
ie loco 'reverses' into mpd, is serviced, drives forward out of the mpd down the other leg of the 'y', and 'reverses' back onto it's new train.
Thanks did you notice if need tools and or glue to fix detailing parts
Thank you for your replies. I definitely need to be able to couple from both ends, so I am especially interested in what pipes can be fitted at the same time as the couplings.
james if farish locos:
There should be a leaflet with the models which shows where all the bits go, but if you don't have it, most Graham Farish ones can be found here:
http://www.bachmann.co.uk/service/gf_assmbly.php (http://www.bachmann.co.uk/service/gf_assmbly.php)
They need to be glued in place. if dapol :
https://www.dapol.co.uk/Catalogue/14/ (https://www.dapol.co.uk/Catalogue/14/)
tweezers or small pliers to hold the parts and maybe a pin vice to open up the holes slightly if the parts won't go in
good eye sight, good lighting, lots of patience.
any instructions ?
I understand in general terms how to fit them - the issue is more the extent to which they are compatible with working couplers. I could try this myself, of course, but I was hoping that some people here had already tried this and might be able to report their findings?
Trouble is that every loco will be different. As you identify the 47 has quite a lot of extra detail. You could fit it and trim the hoses as required. I'd expect most to be pretty restrictive. I've not fitted any details on coupling-equipped ends.
James;
I'd suggest that you fit the pipework, then trim back as you find necessary for YOUR layout; I suspect that what might work for one person won't for another due to, eg, gradients, minimum radius.
Any excess will easily trim with sharp scissors or snips; and if you have painted, eg brake pipes and multiple unit control gear in appropriate colours, you may find that this deceives the eye into making it look more detailed than they actually are.
HTH
Martyn
Thank you for your replies; I did wonder about trimming. Has anyone tried this (and does anyone therefore have an idea of how well that this works)?
For reference, the minimum radius is 305mm (in the fiddle yards).
It'll depend as much on things like how flat the track is too. I think it really is one of those things you'll need to try. One person's solution will not necessarily work for you.
I'd guess that dummy screw-link couplers will foul, whilst other pipes or hoses may be ok. They'll cut easily with a pair of side cutters, and it may give the illusion of the extra detail. Or it may look terrible. Only one way to find out!
Ultimately if you cut everything off above the line of the coupler it should be fine.
My preference is to have the pipes to fit in the box, but not fitted to the loco. The Dapol 68 was interesting in that it had a detailed and non-detailed end, but I ended up just clipping the pipes away as I need/prefer a coupling at each end. No turning round for the modern stuff :D
I had a look at this this evening with my class 47, but realised that I needed some finer tweezers to do this properly, so have ordered some and will report back when I have had another chance.
In the meantime, I have taken delivery of some very nice Dapol Class 50s, which get around the problem ingeniously by using shortened pipes and having the coupling pocket pivoting independently of the bogies. I have tested these on my ~305mm radius curves coupled with a Dapol Easifit coupler to a Farish mk. 1 (albeit pushing it around as I have not DCC fitted them yet and only a small fragment of my layout is wired so far), and this is able to navigate the curve successfully.
I have a number of "recent" locos, well they're recent to me - most of my stuff is late eighties early nineties Poole Farish - and the bits are still in the bags.
But when I think about it, trimmed stuff would have to look better than holes in the buffer beam.
I'd be interested to see photos from anyone who tries it!
Quote from: crewearpley40 on September 07, 2019, 07:00:47 PM
james if farish locos:
There should be a leaflet with the models which shows where all the bits go, but if you don't have it, most Graham Farish ones can be found here:
http://www.bachmann.co.uk/service/gf_assmbly.php (http://www.bachmann.co.uk/service/gf_assmbly.php)
Hey Chris - it might just be me but I get a "page not found" when I click the Bachmann link.
Yeah, I'm not getting a service page either.... I get what appears to be the Bachmann home page, saying this page has been moved.
Unfortunately Bachmann reorganized their website a while back and zapped a lot of the useful information.
Fortunately the waybackmachine has it: https://web.archive.org/web/20170630174132/http://www.bachmann.co.uk/service/gf_assmbly.php (https://web.archive.org/web/20170630174132/http://www.bachmann.co.uk/service/gf_assmbly.php)
Oooh, that's pretty cool.... well done, squiddy! :thumbsup:
that is a really neat tool, will have to remember that when something goes missing
whoops sorry
in the search box i discovered you have to type the loco eg class 47 but everybody go with squiddy 's idea !!!!
maybe i have odd systems ?? doing it that way helped me but wont argue with squiddy's link, a useful tool
I have the Feb 2018 service sheets but think it's the same (or not as good as) Squiddy's link.......
http://service.bachmann.co.uk/knowledge-base/instruction-sheets/ (http://service.bachmann.co.uk/knowledge-base/instruction-sheets/)
Quote from: jamespetts on September 11, 2019, 12:49:50 AM
I had a look at this this evening with my class 47, but realised that I needed some finer tweezers to do this properly, so have ordered some and will report back when I have had another chance.
In the meantime, I have taken delivery of some very nice Dapol Class 50s, which get around the problem ingeniously by using shortened pipes and having the coupling pocket pivoting independently of the bogies. I have tested these on my ~305mm radius curves coupled with a Dapol Easifit coupler to a Farish mk. 1 (albeit pushing it around as I have not DCC fitted them yet and only a small fragment of my layout is wired so far), and this is able to navigate the curve successfully.
Are the pipes shortened? Having just received my 50 it seems to just work through brute force, defecting the pipes as the coupler turns, they're most certainly not out of the way!
Assuming it's adequately robust it's certainly
a solution, but I'm not totally sold on it.
The manual claims that they are shortened, but I suspect that this may be incorrect.
Its possible they are, but it's moot as they still foul the coupler, which simply bashes them out of the way when swivelling.
My tweezers arrived yesterday, so I have been able to undertake some brief exploratory work this evening, albeit my time has been limited as I am going on holiday to-morrow. I am not sure that I have correctly unpicked what cable should go where, exactly, and there are some mysterious non-cable items, but I have been able, I think, to get the cables into the buffer beam on the Farish Class 47 so that the working coupling pushes them out of the way when going around a corner as with the Dapol Class 50. I had to enlarge some of the holes with a 0.45mm drill bit (hand held) and use PVA glue to put others in place, but it appears to work well with brief testing.
The pipes I have had to push outwards from the coupling area at somewhat of an angle (a little like curtains with tie-backs), and, while this does not look ideal, it is better, I think, than having no pipes at all. I shall have to test more comprehensively and take photographs when I get back.
You can fit all the detail and add a wire coupling that will hook the rapido if you have gentle enough curves;
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/81/4664-160919211152.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=81643)
I need automatic uncoupling, so this is not workable for my use case. It is an interesting idea, though.
Having returned from holiday, I have been completing my work on this to-night.
Here is the appearance of the detailed end with working coupling:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48790779232_6ec3fdaa12_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hktuPA)Farish class 47 with detailing and coupling (https://flic.kr/p/2hktuPA) by James Petts (https://www.flickr.com/photos/14730981@N08/), on Flickr
This is what it looks like coupled to a carriage:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48790779702_d6f58befa0_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hktuXG)Farish class 47 (https://flic.kr/p/2hktuXG) by James Petts (https://www.flickr.com/photos/14730981@N08/), on Flickr
And this is a comparison of it next to a class 50:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48790662946_17790ffa74_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hksUfE)Farish class 47 and Dapol class 50 front ends compared (https://flic.kr/p/2hksUfE) by James Petts (https://www.flickr.com/photos/14730981@N08/), on Flickr
As we see, the pipes are swept aside somewhat to allow the coupler to travel around the corners. Whilst this does not look as good as the pipes hanging straight, it looks better than having no pipes at all.
This definitely seems to be the way forward for these locomotives. Next, I will have to investigate the equivalent detailing packs for the carriages. I am interested whether anyone has any experience with these.
looking very good james. can you please provide a step by step guide for how you managed to achieve this please ?
Yes that does look good. I've removed the coupling from the leading end of my 50 and it now looks a bit bare, as the detail obviously accommodates the coupling, so without it there's a gap. I noticed there were snowploughs, I didn't see if there were other bits to put in place of a functional coupling.
the Farish class 47 with detailing and coupling makes it more realistic. how did you achieve removing the coupling ? nick / james. is it a simple screw or clip / push gently pocket ?
agree looks good close coupled and take it hauling a rake of coaches round curves does not hinder movement or cause issues ?
On the 50 it's NEM, on a little chassis mounted kinematic pocket, so it just pulls out. I don't have any 47s to compare, but I think they're the same. :)
The latest (post 2009) Farish class 47s have a push fit NEM pocket for the couplings. I am using the short shank Dapol Easifit coupling to replace the default coupling.
To add the detailing parts, I used a pair of tweezers, a combination of 0.45mm, 0.50mm and 0.55mm drills to open out the holes (as some of the parts did not want to fit in and very little force can be applied without risking sending the minute parts flying accross the room) and PVA glue. The idea of using PVA glue was that it should be possible to remove the parts using moderate force without damaging them should it transpire that this arrangement does not work.
I made sure to fit the parts nearest the couplings to the upper holes and then, when the glue was still wet, swung the bogie from side to side gently to push the pipes out of the way slightly so that they would dry in the correct position for navigating curves.
When I tested this before I went on holiday, it appeared to go around my fiddle yard curves (minimum radius: ~305mm) coupled to a Farish mk. 1 carriage also fitted with a short shank Easifit coupling without difficulty. (Earlier tests without glue and with the pipes hanging straight down did not work so well, with the parts simply coming loose when the locomotive was pushed around the curve).
Thanks thats a mini tutorial and looks good. Thanks nick and james for answering the points
One other point to note is that it is necessary to use very fine tweezers, as coarse tweezers make it very difficult to hold the parts adequately.
Been reading this thread today and I must say James that you have done a great job of work in both the detailing and in explaining how you did it. Thanks. :thumbsup:
I must admit that being long-sighted and ham fisted I may not manage the results you have shown, but I'm less likely now to leave all those fiddly bits in their bags and boxes.
:beers: