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).

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

I like the buffer almost touching. Looks very cool.

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.

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

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

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 plates

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...

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

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"
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

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.

I like being close to my buffers

Since they are marklins - I do prefer their sturdy & reliable RELEX metal couplers ever since day one

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.

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.

Hi,
As far as I know there is no substitute KK for these cars. As your own search confirmed.

regards
Kimball