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

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline John O  
#1 Posted : 17 September 2003 05:11:00(UTC)
John O


Joined: 13/02/2003(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: ,
Hi all,

I have read about Telex in the M catalog and I have looked at the pictures. It looks like a Telex coupler is just a big hook that mechanically can be raised and lowered, which couples or uncouples a wagon or coach. Does this work well for the close couplers? I was looking at the little diesel shunters like the 37650 or the 37652.


John
Offline KLB  
#2 Posted : 17 September 2003 05:14:49(UTC)
KLB


Joined: 22/09/2001(UTC)
Posts: 639
Location: ,
Hi John,all,
The Telex couplers should work with close couplers,...
Kevin!

Moderator,Märklin Bar&Grill

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MarklinBandG/
Offline John O  
#3 Posted : 17 September 2003 05:23:29(UTC)
John O


Joined: 13/02/2003(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: ,
Hi Kevin,

That was a fast reply. Thank you.

John
Offline chris.busby  
#4 Posted : 17 September 2003 07:07:45(UTC)
chris.busby


Joined: 08/05/2002(UTC)
Posts: 138
Location: ,
They do work with the cose couplers, but there can be problems. The hook on the Telex is slightly more upright than normal to allow for the uncoupling action, so coupling can be a bit of a nightmare. Bending it just a couple of degrees, to more of a slope, can sort that problem but you can then have problems coupling/uncoupling as the loop on the close coupler is shorter than NEM standard (makes it closer).
I have also found that there is quite a height difference between couplers mounted in standard boxes (normal or close) which can droop slightly and the Telex coupling which is firmly fixed at the correct height. Again this can lead to the hoop on the wagon/coach hitting the face of the Telex coupling and not rising up to hook over it.
Chris Busby
UK Marklin Digital layout builder and collector.
Offline kimmo  
#5 Posted : 17 September 2003 09:32:24(UTC)
kimmo


Joined: 11/08/2003(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: ,
I have 37649, which is essentially the same loko as 37650 and 37652, and the coupling/uncoupling seems to work well. But since the tolerances are fairly small, even small differences in the coupler hight etc. can make a difference. But with my wagons, with both close and relex-couplers, it has worked OK so far. And as a general note, I think these small diesel shunters with Telex are really nice lokos.
Kimmo
Offline Lars Westerlind  
#6 Posted : 17 September 2003 09:46:42(UTC)
Lars Westerlind


Joined: 19/10/2001(UTC)
Posts: 2,379
Location: Lindome, Sweden
There is also an older Telex couplers, with side guides, giving better operation in curvers, especielly when pushing. But these guides don't fit to close couplers; I hade to replace my couplers of my 1960 3031 loco.

Regards,
Lars
Offline John O  
#7 Posted : 18 September 2003 23:58:04(UTC)
John O


Joined: 13/02/2003(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: ,
Hi all,

Waiting for a hurricane to pass through the area so I get to have some hobby time here in Washington, DC.

So it seems that the locos I referred to are good locos, Telex works well provided everything is well aligned. So this may mean some slight bending of the couplers. Do relex couplers make things a little bit better? It seems that coupler height seems to be an important parameter and that the normal coupler height tolerances are not within the Telex's full range of normal operation.

Thanks for the details, always rewrding to listen to everyones comments. I had better tuen off the computer in case we get a power hit. And no digital trains during a storm either I'm guessing.

John

John

John
Offline chris.busby  
#8 Posted : 19 September 2003 00:39:03(UTC)
chris.busby


Joined: 08/05/2002(UTC)
Posts: 138
Location: ,
Good luck with the storm, I only ever got into one of those when in Florida in the '90s.

With the couplers it just takes time to get everything aligned right. However, as the locos with telex have no close coupling mechanism it is far better to persevere with the close couplers to get rid of part of the gap than to resort to the longer (but easier) relex ones.
Chris Busby
UK Marklin Digital layout builder and collector.
Offline kimmo  
#9 Posted : 19 September 2003 17:54:52(UTC)
kimmo


Joined: 11/08/2003(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: ,
John,

Quote:
[size=1" face="Verdana" id="quote]quote:So it seems that the locos I referred to are good locos


Did you check the 37649 loco-review in "Models & Modeling" section? There is also my comment in that review about adding some more weight to these small shunters, which makes them even better.
Kimmo
Offline John O  
#10 Posted : 21 September 2003 20:51:32(UTC)
John O


Joined: 13/02/2003(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: ,
I all,

We only got the edge of the hurricane, and no houses or cars were damaged in our neighbourhood. We did loose power about 30 mins after my previous message until some time early morning. So no power for 2.5 days, some serious withdrawal symptoms from the train set and the usual internet train sites.

Kimmo, thanks for pointing me to the reviews. I have generally just looked at the latest and had forgot the archive section. When I get one of these I will definately add some insulated weight. And Chris, I will take your advice and stick with the close couplers, the realism is worht some teething troubles.

John

John
Offline dampf  
#11 Posted : 25 September 2003 21:55:36(UTC)
dampf


Joined: 06/11/2002(UTC)
Posts: 92
Location: ,

Hey folks,

The Marklin couplers are simply a pain to deal with, period... Telex or close couplers, blah... if you have NEM sockets, do yourself a favor and order Fleischmann's Profi-Kupplung, which not only look better, but actually work... moreover, uncoupling is easy to achieve my simply lifting the car/Lok right off the track... they are also "closely coupled" for the right look, run quieter, and cause far fewer headaches and detailments... try them, you'll love them...
jay kempen
Offline John O  
#12 Posted : 27 September 2003 18:01:35(UTC)
John O


Joined: 13/02/2003(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: ,
Hi Jay,

Thanks for your suggestion. As usual, I have a few questions.

I have the Fleischmann catalog but I could not determine if these couplers are Telex compatable. If not I have to use an uncoupling track, sothe Marklin uncoupler will work on these couplers?

One of the features Fleischmann discuss is the preuncoupling. I see the advantages for shunting, but how do you couple back up again? Is the coupling speed regulated?

Do coaches appear as close with Fleischmann or are they closer? Will I get the same results retro-fitting these couplings onto existing Marklins, or should it be a Fleischmann wagon to start with?

Thanks.

John
Offline Lars Westerlind  
#13 Posted : 27 September 2003 19:48:11(UTC)
Lars Westerlind


Joined: 19/10/2001(UTC)
Posts: 2,379
Location: Lindome, Sweden
John,
I guess you have some older cars with fixed coupler, no NEM pocket that is? In that case, and in order to keep the TELEX coupler, you should stick to Märklin compatible couplers IMHO. I'm not familiar with Fleischmanns, but I guess they aren't possible to use with Märklin.

Apart from the TELEX and hooks at some locos, I think there are 3 couplers of interest:
Märklin (RELEX) standard coupler, or similiar from other manufacturers
Märklin CC
Roco universal coupler (Close coupler).

They are all compatible, and they are all possible to open for shunting. Roco is better at coupling and uncoupling than Märklin CC, but isn't so good with TELEX or hook. But I prefer it before Märklins.

BTW, the ability to shunt = back with open coupler makes the need of TELEX less. If you have one decoupler track at the head of a shunting yard, that's enough for all shunting, also if you haven't any TELEX at all. But TELEX is also fun, so go for it if you whish.

/Lars
Offline John O  
#14 Posted : 28 September 2003 20:15:17(UTC)
John O


Joined: 13/02/2003(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: ,
Hi Lars,

Yes I have some older wagons and coaches that are not at all compatible with Marklin cc. I was asking about adapters in a previous thread, Kevin put me onto a brand but I could not find them on the website he sent me to. So when Jay recommended the Fleischamann I checked their catalog and found they have an adapter I can model onto the older rolling stock, at least for coaches.

From the pictures the Roco close-coupler is very similar to the Fleischmann, the linkages are in a horizontal plane as opposed to the Marklin cc and roco universal coupling where the linkages need a vertical plane of movement to engage/uncouple.

Telex seems to require vertical movement so I would not expect it to be compatible with either the Fleischmann profi or the Roco close-couplers.

I will probably buy some of the Roco and Fleischmann and give them a try, the prices are not a problem (Roco about 15 Euro or Fleischmann 25 Euro for 50). I will also get the uncoupling track (do I need to buy a control box 7270 to control this accessory?) but I will put the Telex on hold until I decide on which coupling system I prefer. As you said the uncoupler track may be all I need. And I can have a lot of fun figuring out the answer to that question.

Thanks everyone for the very helpful advice and discussion.

John
Offline Lars Westerlind  
#15 Posted : 28 September 2003 20:39:34(UTC)
Lars Westerlind


Joined: 19/10/2001(UTC)
Posts: 2,379
Location: Lindome, Sweden
Ok
think I understand. I myself have several "vertical couplers" on my old Märklin cars, so my choice is easy. It's true that TELEX needs one of the ones I told of, and doesn't work with so called Roco CC. Probably not Fleischmann Profi either. In fact, evem Roco digital couplers (2 rail only) work only with veritical movement, as well as uncoupler tracks I know of.

I guess you more or less got how shunting with open coupler works:
1. Two cars pushed together couple, form a closed couple. (Sorry for my english; the couplers angage and can be used for both puling and pushing. But the connection might be narrow (close) or somewhat distant depending of the kind of the coupler).
2. If a decoupler track is activated beneath such a coupler, ít opens. In this state it might be pushed with maintaned open state.
3. if cars are pulled, only the pulled car goes.
So. A set of cars with opened cars might be pushed into a yard. When the loco leaves, the cars remains where they are.

Regards,
Lars
Offline John O  
#16 Posted : 28 September 2003 22:21:57(UTC)
John O


Joined: 13/02/2003(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: ,
Hi Lars,
Thanks for the 3 steps, now I really understand. Your english is not a problem at all, but I'm sure you've been told that many times. With language the hardest part is the jargon, my understanding of a phrase may different to someone elses understanding. And with my lack of experience in model trains, I think I am usually misrepresenting my question. So your summary was very helpful in letting me know that I understand. Thanks again.

John
Offline kimmo  
#17 Posted : 02 October 2003 18:38:02(UTC)
kimmo


Joined: 11/08/2003(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: ,
I don't have any uncoupler tracks, so I have to ask the following question. From the above posts I understand that when driven over the uncoupler track, it lifts the couplers open (if activated), AND THEY STAY LIKE THAT even after the uncoupler track has been passed (in pushing operation). Is that really the case? Don't they close again when the couplers are not lifted anymore, and the loco is pushing the wagons? Isn't that how they couple in the first place (by running loco into the wagon)?
Kimmo
Offline Lars Westerlind  
#18 Posted : 02 October 2003 20:44:31(UTC)
Lars Westerlind


Joined: 19/10/2001(UTC)
Posts: 2,379
Location: Lindome, Sweden
Yes Kimmo, they don't stay 'up' but they stay 'open'. The thing is the little tongue at the RELEX coupler, and the CC, that rests on the hook. When two cars are pushed togheter the loop lifts this tongue, and sets itsekf around the hook, the coupler engage. The uncoupler track when activated, pushes the loops up, but the tongues fall down again on the hook. When disactivated the loop falls upon the tongue, but not under it. This is the state I call open; disenganged might be more proper wording. If you have really old stock this tongue is missing; then it doesn't work.
That coupler was just called automatic coupler. Shunting is fun!!!

Regards,
Lars Westerlind.
Offline kimmo  
#19 Posted : 02 October 2003 21:12:39(UTC)
kimmo


Joined: 11/08/2003(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: ,
Does it work the same between two couplers (wagons), or just between a coupler and a hook (loco)? In the other words, do all the wagons uncouple themselves also when run over an activated uncoupler track, or just the loco and the first wagon? Sorry if these are too trivial questions...
Kimmo
Offline Lars Westerlind  
#20 Posted : 02 October 2003 22:36:28(UTC)
Lars Westerlind


Joined: 19/10/2001(UTC)
Posts: 2,379
Location: Lindome, Sweden
The question is good, because - it does always work between two cars as these normally have RELEX or CC, but never if one participcate have a hook or TELEX!!! Which is not uncommon for smaller locos. With one automatic coupler and one RELEX in fact you have 50 % chance; if the loop of the automatic is under the loop of the RELEX, it lays on the tongue and the coupler remains open. In the other case the loop of the RELEX lies around the hook of the automatic coupler, and the coupler is engaged.

/Lars
Offline Noel Loganathan  
#21 Posted : 03 October 2003 15:21:57(UTC)
Noel Loganathan


Joined: 12/07/2003(UTC)
Posts: 297
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Guys

The latest Insider (4/2003) has the first of a series of articles on this topic.

Could be a mindful of information.

Cheers from sunny Queensland


Noel
Noel
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
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 © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.483 seconds.