quote:

---

Originally posted by sjlauritsen

...4. Does the model have short coupler kinematics? Not just the short coupler, but the kinematics as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thomas Duengefeld

..... Never understood the difference in this coupling kinematics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sander van Wijk

...These full kinematics come at the advantage that the coupler slightly moves inward when centered, resulting in a smaller clearance between the buffers without causing troubles in curves, ideally, that is.

---

Reading the topic "Ludmilla" just above I might have found an explanation to a "problem" (disadvantage rather) I noticed, when I had my Swiss passenger train running with 3-4 or 5 wagons. The last wagon(s) in the consist were running at an uneven speed when within and exiting curves - most noticable with the last wagon. The loco was pulling at a constant speed.

Could that not be the result of these yielding couplers?

Once you have noticed, it keeps catching your eye and it does not look very natural.

Has anybody else noticed something similar?

I have noticed the same, Benny.

As the car length (coupler to coupler) actally increases in the curves, the rear end of the train has to slow down when the train enters a curve.

It is very noticable if you hook up a measuring car (I have the 49960 Messwagen) at the rear end of the train. When the front end of the train exits the curve, and the couplers starts to straiten up, the rear end accelerates as the cars get shorter again.

If the Messwagen runs directly behind the locomotive, the phenomena is almost eliminated.

As Ray says, the longer the train is (more couplers), the more noticable.

Hi all,

This is, indeed, a commonly noticed phenomenon, most people do not like it very much... obviously. Couplers are unfortunately a huge compromise in MRR, no doubt about that. AFAIK the only way to reduce the effect is by using wider curves (read, better to scale curves) or otherwise transition curves. An outstanding explanation of transition curves can be found in this topic here: https://www.marklin-user...chTerms=transition,curve

Thanks for your replies.
I followed Sander's suggestion of renaming the topic.

In my experience it is worse when the coaches have a spring to pull the coupler pocket straight which also compensates for play in it. Now as train length increases so does the gap between coaches.

I wouldn't be without them though. Body mounted couplers like these solve so many problems and they look a lot better than non-close coupled stock.

Goofy,

I'm glad you feel qualified to criticise other members choice of words in English. Your confidence is a credit to you.

For your information, the word normal can apply to inanimate objects as well as to living persons. In the way I used it, it means "not special" or "not improved". It was my way of saying "couplers without the close coupling kinematics".

I'm sure everyone knew what I meant, including you.

Ray

John,

I agree that now it is more normal to get a close coupler than a Relex. Even the Hobby loks come with close couplers.

Unfortunately, the habits of 50 years can't be eliminated in the last 5 or 6, so for me, "normal" still means "Relex".

Having said that, Goofy's choice of "Standard" for a Relex coupler is also suspect. If most models now come with close couplers, then surely these are now the "standard" type?

Maybe we should specify "Relex" or NEM 360.

Ray

PS, Don't get me wrong, I also prefer to see close coupled trains, though I find it more important for passenger coaches than freight wagons.

Wow, doesn't time fly!

I prefer "standard" for the "normal" or oldest coupler and "close" for the newer one (only 23 years old )

That makes sense, Henrik.

The smaller the radius, the longer out on the V-shaped mechanism the coupler is moving, making the coupler to coupler distance longer.

Hi Søren,

How long was your train.

I don't notice the effect on trains about 1 meter long, definatelty notice it on trains over 2 meters long

John