Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Poll Question : POLL - Do you want scale buffers and kinematic couplers -POLL
Choice Votes Statistics
  Total 50 100%
Guests can't see poll choices and poll results. Try login or register. Guests can't vote. Try login or register.
Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline kimballthurlow  
#1 Posted : 18 August 2011 06:15:03(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 6,653
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Hi,

I would like to question the validity of the kinematic close coupling system (kurzkuppling) as offered by the model manufacturers in Europe.

The Kadee coupler system in North America, does not have a kinematic close coupler system. Why is that?. Well North American rolling stock has no buffers. It is the scale reproduction of the buffers on European stock, that created the need for the kinematic coupler. In this, the coupler distance between bodies expands on curves. In models without kinematic couplers, the buffers might interlock in the curve, and as the train exited the curve, one or both adjacent wagons would come off the tracks, and so it would go on.

European model manufacturers (and presumably their customers) insist on scale size and length buffers, and the kinematic system allows them to have close coupling as well. Jouef in the 1950/60s had the perfect system I believe, where the wagons were close coupled, but did not have a kinematic coupler system. There was never any problem in a curve.

How did Jouef achieve that? They simply reduced the size of the buffers to well below scale, and there was no problem.

Some contributors to this debate mention the difference between 4 wheel wagons and bogie (some goods and passenger wagons). IMHO there is no difference. The problem of interlocking buffers is the same, and the kinematic coupler, or shortened buffers, offer the same solution.

How much extra do you pay for a kinematic system? 5 Euros?
How much complexity does that introduce to running and manufacturing?

So the question devolves to:
1. do you want scale buffers and kinematic coupling, or
2. would you prefer smaller buffers and simpler coupling systems?
Remember either system can retain a close body distance of 10-12mm.

Old Jouef wagons (1960s) with bodies 12mm apart, without kurzkuppling.

http://www.qldrail.net/altkloster/couplerdistjouef-800.jpg

Newer style kurzkupplings with wagon bodies 12mm apart, and the buffers almost touching.

http://www.qldrail.net/altkloster/couplerdistance-kk-800.jpg

regards
Kimball

Edited by user 19 August 2011 22:17:59(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge.
Offline nevw  
#2 Posted : 18 August 2011 06:28:15(UTC)
nevw

Australia   
Joined: 27/08/2005(UTC)
Posts: 11,071
Location: Murrumba Downs QLD
I have some Kadee Couplings that I am going to fit to some M US Style Rolling Stock, and also I have a Swiss set of carriages from NEW that always get buffer lock. I was thinking of either Roco or Kadee Couplings. The main problem is between the loco and first carriage.

NN
NOt wearing the Pink Pinny, which is hard to see and now I have a white Pinny which also is hard to see against MY pure white Skin Still have 2 new shiny tin Hips that is badly in Need of Repair matching rusting tin shoulders
and a hose pipe on the aorta
Junior member of the Banana Club, a reformist and an old Goat with a Bad memory, loafing around
Offline river6109  
#3 Posted : 18 August 2011 07:33:07(UTC)
river6109

Australia   
Joined: 22/01/2009(UTC)
Posts: 14,635
Location: On 1965 Märklin Boulevard just around from Roco Square
Kimball,

Thanks for bringing up the subject

What is the meaning of this phrase:

Do you want close coupling, or do you want close coupling?

quote:
No need for scale buffers - any coupling will do

does this mean close coupling as the heading suggests.

Liliput close coupling mechanism does prevent this from happening (buffers interfere with each other)



I regret, in hindsight, I had many 2 axle tank cars and sold them all including other freight carriages.
I came to the conclusion than and now with Passenger carriages it is more obvious "the gap" than with freight carriages.

Since than I've bought many older carriages, e.g. car transport, tank cars (4 axle, new and old) and other 4 axle low side carriages, coal carriages etc etc,.for my BR 44's, Br 41, BR 50's

There are issues with close couplers from different manufacturers.
1.) Marklin: the tongue is too soft and under load they do come out of the coupling shaft
2.) Roco earlier short couiplings, uncouple when going into curves again under load and are compatible with all carriages and I found no interference with buffers,.
3.) Fleischmann: seem to be alright but again do uncouple under load.
4.) Roco latest Roco coupling are ok as both couplings lock into each other, compared with the Marklin close couplers and these couplers sometimes interfere with the buffers of other makers.
5.) Marklin iron ore carriages with plastic bogies: its not a coupling defect but the whole coupling mechanism on the new iron ore carriages. plastic and metal doesn't seem to be compatible and the coupling unless you put a drop of oil between coupling and the guide mechanism you'll find the coupling doesn't go back to its neutral position.

Above situations as outlined may only be caused with my heavy load freight carriages and the number of them but never the less it shows which coupling is holding its ground.

regards.,

John

P.S.

I will vote if you can extend the options:

prefer short couplings only

buffers (spring): would be nice but not essential (Liliput carriages).
https://www.youtube.com/river6109
https://www.youtube.com/6109river
5 years in Destruction mode
50 years in Repairing mode
Offline supermoee  
#4 Posted : 18 August 2011 08:21:38(UTC)
supermoee

Switzerland   
Joined: 31/05/2007(UTC)
Posts: 534
Hello,

I like to see the buffers nearly touching each other. It comes quite close to reality.

When I see the picture of the Jouef cars above, the big distance between the buffers looks awful.

rgds

Stephan
Offline kimballthurlow  
#5 Posted : 18 August 2011 08:31:28(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 6,653
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Originally Posted by: river6109 Go to Quoted Post
Kimball,

Thanks for bringing up the subject

What is the meaning of this phrase:

Do you want close coupling, or do you want close coupling?

quote:
No need for scale buffers - any coupling will do

does this mean close coupling as the heading suggests.

Liliput close coupling mechanism does prevent this from happening (buffers interfere with each other)


....regards.,

John

...


Hi John, Thanks for the questions.
The heading of the article "Do you want close coupling, ..... ?" is a bit tongue-in-cheek. It suggests you can have close coupling eith WITH or WITHOUT the kurzkuppling.

WITH includes the scale buffers.
WITHOUT means the buffers are shortened, and NOT to scale.

So the question devolves to "Do you consider scale size buffers important".
Some modellers think that is VERY important.
The differing views will be interesting.

Your other question "No need for scale buffers ....." also assumes that you will still have close coupling, that is bodies will still be only 12mm apart.

regards
Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge.
Offline RayF  
#6 Posted : 18 August 2011 08:33:45(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Kadee couplers work well with American stock. I think that's where they should stay.

European stock is characterised by the use of buffers, and the current close coupling systems I think are a good compromise. I think if you stick to couplers from one manufacturer you can avoid a lot of problems.

The Jouef compromise is another way of doing it, but I don't like it so much.
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
Offline Dimi194  
#7 Posted : 18 August 2011 09:49:33(UTC)
Dimi194

Australia   
Joined: 21/02/2011(UTC)
Posts: 382
I like the buffer almost touching. Looks very cool.
Author of the gritty sci-fi novel 'Stories of Earth: WWIII' (featuring an awesome train chase)
Avid YouTuber (XtremeTrainz and TrainzXtreme) and train person!
Offline H0  
#8 Posted : 18 August 2011 10:41:34(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Hi!
Originally Posted by: kimballthurlow Go to Quoted Post
Well North American rolling stock has no buffers, and it is the scale reproduction of the buffers on European stock that created the need for the coupler distance to expand on curves.

You have no (or little) problems if you cling to a single manufacturer like Märklin.

It's a known problem that M* close couplers cannot be used on all 3rd party rolling stock coz M* close couplers are higher than other types (on M* the buffers are slightly higher so they don't have problems).
Some M* cars have adjustable buffers - they must be pushed in to allow operation on R1 s-shaped curves. Otherwise you can pull 'em out to run your trains buffer to buffer (I dunno if this feature is explained somewhere - the catalogue only reads "adjustable buffers" ...).
It's a known problem of some Piko hobby locos that the coupler shafts are at the wrong positiion causing buffers to collide when close couplers are used.

Trix made some locos that include two sets of buffers: shrinked or shortened buffers for use with couplers and prototypical buffers for use without coupler. I abominate this as it prevents buffer to buffer operation.

I think close couplers with kinematics are a must-have nowadays - even for American coaches and powered rail cars. It's just a matter of proper standardization IMHO. And locos will then need one set of buffers only ...
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline kimballthurlow  
#9 Posted : 18 August 2011 11:07:36(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 6,653
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Thanks for the replies. Interesting.

If you believe that the real buffers are a standout and iconic feature on European stock, then you would opt for the scale size buffers and the kurzkuppling (kinematic coupling) on the model. This method has the buffers almost touching realistically.

If you don't think the buffers stand out, then shorter buffers would be OK, and ordinary fixed couplers with no kinematic mechanism, will do the job.

In both cases, the bodies look close, they are 12mm (approx) apart on the straight.

By the way, I have not voted yet, as I am not sure which method I like best.

There is another slant to this. How much extra do you reckon you pay for a model BECAUSE it has kurzkuppling? 5 Euro?? Or less?

regards
Kimball.
HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge.
Offline H0  
#10 Posted : 18 August 2011 11:15:29(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: kimballthurlow Go to Quoted Post
In both cases, the bodies look close, they are 12mm (approx) apart on the straight.
This trick doesn't work for coaches and passenger rail cars.
Freight cars running buffer to buffer is nice to have - obviously more important for flat cars than for box cars.
But coaches run wall to wall on the prototype - the kinematics make a much bigger (much more noticeable) difference here.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline mike c  
#11 Posted : 18 August 2011 11:25:47(UTC)
mike c

Canada   
Joined: 28/11/2007(UTC)
Posts: 7,880
Location: Montreal, QC
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: kimballthurlow Go to Quoted Post
In both cases, the bodies look close, they are 12mm (approx) apart on the straight.
This trick doesn't work for coaches and passenger rail cars.
Freight cars running buffer to buffer is nice to have - obviously more important for flat cars than for box cars.
But coaches run wall to wall on the prototype - the kinematics make a much bigger (much more noticeable) difference here.


It is not a freight vs passenger thing. It is a two axle vs bogie thing. Freight cars with two axle bogies will require more space between cars in curves as this is required due to the rotation of the bogie and generally the longer length of such cars compared to the shorter dual axle cars.

I have been operating consists with Maerklin's 7203 almost problemfree. I have had equally as good experiences with Roco's Universal coupler and with Fleischmann's Profi Couplers, which I use on my IC2000 & EWIV (SBB) and EWIII (SBB and BLS) push pull Intercity consists. The first coach (AD or baggage D) is equipped with Profi coupler on one end and Maerklin 7203 on the end facing the lok.

I am not crazy about using close coupler heads on loks that are not equipped with a close coupling shaft and mechanism. I prefer to use a traditional hook (available from Hag) for non push-pull loks as this allows a little more movement.

Regards

Mike C
Offline H0  
#12 Posted : 18 August 2011 12:18:36(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: mike c Go to Quoted Post
It is not a freight vs passenger thing. It is a two axle vs bogie thing.

I meant to say it's more noticeable with passenger coaches than with freight cars.
It doesn't depend on the number of axles, it depends on the hangover between axles (two axle car) or pivot point (bogie car) respectively and the buffers. Two axle container cars are rather long and are more likely to cause problems than short bogie cars.

I don't wanna miss the kinematics with passenger coaches. The hopper cars (Fals) also look much better with guide mechanism.
And I do wish M*'s BR 78 had kinematics because there should be only a small gap between loco and first coach.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline supermoee  
#13 Posted : 18 August 2011 15:22:40(UTC)
supermoee

Switzerland   
Joined: 31/05/2007(UTC)
Posts: 534
Hi Tom,

you are right pointing it out. For passenger cars it is even more worse.

On my layout is no permission to run to vehicles without short couplings, except for locos.

rgds

Stephan
Offline ricky  
#14 Posted : 18 August 2011 18:47:20(UTC)
ricky


Joined: 07/06/2011(UTC)
Posts: 313
Location: California
I'd like the buffers to touch, but of course that is impossible, even with "wide" radius curves.

I once imagined a way to do it: have a very flat low power magnet on each buffer, so they keep touching each other, along with a sliding system to adjust for the curves. The sliding system would be coupled with the coupler itself.
However I think it is not really feasible in HO (too small.) Maybe for 1 scale?

Of course the buffer lengths would not be to scale in curves (too short/long), but most curves and switches (even the widest) are not prototypical anyway...

Cheers,
Ricky Smile
Offline hennabm  
#15 Posted : 18 August 2011 18:51:17(UTC)
hennabm

Scotland   
Joined: 22/09/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,040
Location: Edinburgh,
Although I run mainly older stock I have voted for close coupling and scale buffers.

I only have one coach with close coupling and even when joined to "normal" couplings it brings it closer and more realistic.

If only they could do a close coupler for the old tin platesLove
1957 - 1985 era
What's digital?
Offline rmsailor  
#16 Posted : 18 August 2011 19:27:49(UTC)
rmsailor

Scotland   
Joined: 20/01/2006(UTC)
Posts: 569
Location: Kirkcaldy, Fife
The close coupling is definately an advantage with passenger stock as it means that corridor connections are almost touching, though the in and out motion on curves is less attractive, especially when running 303 mm coaches With freight stock the effect is less obvious but since most modellers are chronically short of space, even saving a few millimetres on each vehicle may be an advantage.

Bob M.
Offline Webmaster  
#17 Posted : 18 August 2011 21:12:55(UTC)
Webmaster


Joined: 25/07/2001(UTC)
Posts: 11,161
The Jouef buffers are not showing too well, would it be possible to amend a pic where they are not hidden by catenary wire & shadows?

Then I will vote... Smile

Remember having a short-buffered wagon with plastic wheels as a kid, could that have been a Jouef (or maybe Lima)?
Juhan - "Webmaster", at your service...
He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask a question remains a fool forever. [Old Chinese Proverb]
Offline kbvrod  
#18 Posted : 18 August 2011 22:31:56(UTC)
kbvrod

United States   
Joined: 23/08/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,597
Location: Beverly, MA
Hi all,
I voted for scale and close coupling,...
A few thoughts,if I may?
A 'bone of contention' as we say for most European modelers,let me explain.
N.American models have the advantage in some ways.The knuckle couplers are prototypical looking and perform well.Yes they still need an uncoupler(i.e magnet) or the 'hand of God' method.
The configuration of European couples does not allow a true prototype coupler.Well Brawa does,it's un-coupling that is the problem!
Many swear by hook&loop,rarely fails,no close coupling.
Märklin KK,even those who don't even own M like them.When properly adjusted couple very well.
Roco universal couplers,works with the M kk's,very smooth and couple easily.
There are of course other considerations:
Radius curves on our model railroads;few of us have the space to have prototypical curves where this is not problem.
Rolling stock weight;this applies to both passenger and goods wagens,many are too light to couple realistically.That is,without excessive movement.
Buffers;M/Fl/R are ridged buffers,which as we know is again(sorry) is not realistic.I have run some Lilliput wagens around a tight radius curve(18") and the springs within the buffers are too stiff,so that their action is not an advantage.Perhaps a very soft metal or a memory wire,spring is the answer,...

Dr D
Offline kariosls37  
#19 Posted : 18 August 2011 23:56:08(UTC)
kariosls37

New Zealand   
Joined: 02/01/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,067
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
I have both ends of the spectrum. On my M track layout I run only the older non-close coupled rolling stock, and I'm not really bothered that the buffers are some distance apart.

However, I also have brass rolling stock that couples exaxtly like the prototype: sprung buffers and chain and hook. The wagons with prototypical couplings look fantastic running through larger radius points, but boy are they a fiddle to couple. It takes me four or five goes to couple onto a wagon with tweezers, and I've got very good eyesight!
All my future brass rolling stock, exept for stuff that will exclusively be running in consists will be equipped with Kadees, with buffers close to scale size. My layouts are based mainly around shunting, and the fun will very quickly go down the gurgler if I continue to use scale couplings.

As for my Markin rolling stock, I am very happy to continue with the non-close couplers, because they are a lot more troublesome than the older stuff. As someone from our Marklin club puts it: "Marklin close couplers are called that for a reason. They get close to coupling" BigGrin
Who is going to notice the diffrence anyway when a train roars past at a scale 70 km/h

I consider reliability a good bit more important than 100% to scale models. What is the use of a running model if it derails every time you use it?

Rick
Offline kimballthurlow  
#20 Posted : 19 August 2011 09:07:04(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 6,653
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Originally Posted by: Webmaster Go to Quoted Post
The Jouef buffers are not showing too well, would it be possible to amend a pic where they are not hidden by catenary wire & shadows?

Then I will vote... Smile

Remember having a short-buffered wagon with plastic wheels as a kid, could that have been a Jouef (or maybe Lima)?


Yes sir, three bags full sir! Vote to your heart's content. Smile

Photo has been changed to better suit the theme of the article.

I think many of the "other" brands too, had shortened buffers.

regards
Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge.
Offline Lars Westerlind  
#21 Posted : 19 August 2011 10:16:09(UTC)
Lars Westerlind


Joined: 19/10/2001(UTC)
Posts: 2,379
Location: Lindome, Sweden
I personally make a difference between passanger and freight trains. For passanger train I certainly prefer close coupling, but not so important with freight trains, for several reasons.
Offline kimballthurlow  
#22 Posted : 21 August 2011 00:36:49(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 6,653
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Hi,
The findings are (as of 21 August) that the majority prefer the newer style kinematic coupling (for close coupling), to a more simplistic solution.

As in my previous polls on this site, my personal opinion about a matter is out of sync with the majority. That is of no importance, as members here have opinions and are free to express them, and that is excellent.

It is also interesting that only 25 members voted, which indicates the subject does not closely occupy the minds of many Marklin modellers.

I think one area of the Jouef 1960s type solution, that could be improved, would be to enlarge (diameter) the buffer heads.

regards
Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge.
Offline Macfire  
#23 Posted : 21 August 2011 16:53:44(UTC)
Macfire


Joined: 04/11/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,652
Location: New Zealand
I like being close to my buffers BigGrin
Lord Macca
New Zealand branch of Clan Donald.
Offline hxmiesa  
#24 Posted : 29 August 2011 11:48:17(UTC)
hxmiesa

Spain   
Joined: 15/12/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,519
Location: Spain
I voted YES for KK.
But the problem is not that simple.
Although I would prefer KK with scale buffers and couplings, I certainly prefer COMPATIBILITY to my existing rolling stock.
Märklin has solved this problem wellm with their coupling, although the buffer-height is not to scale.
Best regards
Henrik Hoexbroe ("The Dane In Spain")
http://hoexbroe.tripod.com
Offline john black  
#25 Posted : 30 August 2011 10:28:39(UTC)
john black

United States   
Joined: 22/04/2004(UTC)
Posts: 12,139
Location: New York, NY
Since they are marklins - I do prefer their sturdy & reliable RELEX metal couplers ever since day one ThumpUp
I hope no one visits a poor Southener's layout in Brooklyn. Intruders beware of Gators.
AT&SF, D&RGW, T&P, SP, WP, UP, BN, NYC, ARR, epI-III - analog & digital Marklin Classics only.
CU#6021 FX-MOTOROLA DIGITAL SYSTEM. Fast as lightning and no trouble. What else ...
Outlaw Member of BIG JUHAN's OUTSIDER CLUB. With the most members, worldwide

Offline kimballthurlow  
#26 Posted : 30 August 2011 11:49:41(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 6,653
Location: Brisbane, Australia
As of 30 August, 33 votes, and over 80% in favour of the close coupling kinematic system.

regards
Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge.
Offline Piggy  
#27 Posted : 30 August 2011 13:58:05(UTC)
Piggy

Australia   
Joined: 08/05/2009(UTC)
Posts: 590
Location: Sydney
I voted for the close coupling kinematic system, In my opinion it is the second most important improvement over the last some thirty years, the digital control being the most important improvement. When I look at my old 27cm coaches from the seventies the huge distance between them is really something I don't like. In my eye the long coupling distance is more noticeably than a coach missing a couple of centimeters in length in order to be correct to scale.
Regards
Kenneth
CS1 update - K & C tracks - German Era 3B & 4, with some Swiss and Austrian visitors. - My Layout
Offline mrmarklin  
#28 Posted : 04 September 2011 05:37:35(UTC)
mrmarklin

United States   
Joined: 27/10/2004(UTC)
Posts: 890
Location: Burney, CA
The reason that anyone should prefer the close coupling is because in Europe cars run buffer to buffer whether they're freight or not. Cars are set up and tightened together. So to allow distance between the buffers is definitely not prototypical, distance should be minimized.

This fact is another reason North American trains can be much much longer than their German counterparts. In North America, the lok can gradually take up the slack in the loosely coupled train, gaining momentum, thus torque and able to pull a much longer consist, in general. Since there is no slack in a German train, the lok bears the total weight of the consist from the beginning, and cannot gain momentum to pull a longer consist than the initial pulling power of the engine even though at a higher speed there might be a lot of torque available.
From the People's Republik of Kalifornia
Offline H0  
#29 Posted : 04 September 2011 08:34:11(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: mrmarklin Go to Quoted Post
This fact is another reason North American trains can be much much longer than their German counterparts.

Do automatic couplers have slack?

The couplers on German trains do have slack, but are too weak for heavier trains (no slack when going uphill anyway).
Infrastructure does not allow longer trains (normally 700 m, but 800 m have been tested in 2008 between Hamburg and Ringsted (Denmark)).

The heaviest trains in Germany do not have buffers:
https://www.marklin-user...-Germany.aspx#post145874
Currently pulled by BR 189 instead of BR 151.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline Goofy  
#30 Posted : 04 September 2011 09:01:29(UTC)
Goofy


Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC)
Posts: 8,993
I use Kadee close couple for kinematic.
The number is 18 or 19.
It´s very easy and so soft by coupling togehter.
Marklins own close couple is more harder and though by coupling togehter.
H0
DCC = Digital Command Control
Offline mrmarklin  
#31 Posted : 06 September 2011 05:40:18(UTC)
mrmarklin

United States   
Joined: 27/10/2004(UTC)
Posts: 890
Location: Burney, CA
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: mrmarklin Go to Quoted Post
This fact is another reason North American trains can be much much longer than their German counterparts.

Do automatic couplers have slack?

The couplers on German trains do have slack, but are too weak for heavier trains (no slack when going uphill anyway).
Infrastructure does not allow longer trains (normally 700 m, but 800 m have been tested in 2008 between Hamburg and Ringsted (Denmark)).

The heaviest trains in Germany do not have buffers:
https://www.marklin-user...-Germany.aspx#post145874
Currently pulled by BR 189 instead of BR 151.



Yes there is slack in the knuckle automatic coupler system.

I've not yet seen a train in Germany without buffers, but when I see cars being coupled together over in Deutschland, I note that they are running buffer to buffer, with tension. I realize that there is probably some "slack" between the cars since the coupler mechanism is only tightened by hand, but it appears minimal.
From the People's Republik of Kalifornia
Offline AmericanImmigrant  
#32 Posted : 18 September 2011 17:52:52(UTC)
AmericanImmigrant


Joined: 03/08/2011(UTC)
Posts: 45
Location: Indianapolis, IN USA
I have Marklin 4139, 4140 and 4145 passenger cars, purchased between 1980 and 1985, or so. Their couplers are standard, they work, but there is too much space between cars. Scoured the internet for Close Couplers (or KK for Kurz Kupplungen), but all state that there are no KK for the cars. - What substitue KK would attach and would work? Thank You in andvance. AI
Offline kimballthurlow  
#33 Posted : 18 September 2011 22:38:52(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 6,653
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Hi,
As far as I know there is no substitute KK for these cars. As your own search confirmed.

regards
Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by kimballthurlow
Offline AmericanImmigrant  
#34 Posted : 24 September 2011 01:52:15(UTC)
AmericanImmigrant


Joined: 03/08/2011(UTC)
Posts: 45
Location: Indianapolis, IN USA
Thank You, Kimball. To be honest, I am not a fan of 'No', but am grateful for your opinion.
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2024, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 1.585 seconds.