The little detailing bags and working couplings

[jamespetts]

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:

47583 County of Hertfordshire by James Petts, 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:


(image by 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?

[martyn]

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

[guest311]

"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.

[crewearpley40]

Thanks did you notice if need tools and or glue to fix detailing parts

[jamespetts]

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.

[crewearpley40]

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

They need to be glued in place. if dapol :

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 ?

[jamespetts]

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?

[njee20]

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.

[martyn]

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

[jamespetts]

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).

[njee20]

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.

[Vonzack]

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 

[jamespetts]

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.

[Bealman]

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!

[LASteve]

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

Hey Chris - it might just be me but I get a "page not found" when I click the Bachmann link.