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 ocram63_uk  
#1 Posted : 12 August 2019 18:57:12(UTC)
ocram63_uk

United Kingdom   
Joined: 07/01/2015(UTC)
Posts: 221
Location: England, Suffolk
Good evening, I bought on ebay the following coaches: 44741 + 44740 + 44744.
They are all very nice, to exact scale, not used to such niceties.

I had to remove the end buffers to have them rolling without derailing on my switches. I use C track R1 and R2 for the curves.

If I pulled hem with an electric loco derailments were more frequent. Trial and error allowed me to discover why this was happening.
The loco's coupler was too short and the bogie was blocked by the underside streamlining bits which I had to remove. Great improvement.

I then used a steam engine to pull the coaches and all went well.

Although I like the Roco close coupler I'm not really keen on this and would like to use normal Marklin couplers, which article number are these ?

Do I need the 72060 to have a bit more distance between the coaches and between loco and first coach or there is something different ?

The Marklin shop has no pictures of these items and the catalogue numbers do not match anything on ebay.

Thank you
Offline midwestbls  
#2 Posted : 12 August 2019 19:28:55(UTC)
midwestbls

United States   
Joined: 04/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 61
In my experience the 303mm 1:87 Roco coaches with close coupling are very problematic on R1, and likely won't work at all without some surgery underneath and/or couplings that expand the space between coaches. I've "downsized" most of my Roco !:87, 303mm coaches to the Marklin 1:97 or 1:100 lengths. While I love the look of the true prototypical-length Roco coaches, they are just too long except for exhibition layouts, in my opinion, and then there are the very problems you report with the tightest Marklin radii. I'm not a "rivet-counter" and recognize that all modeling involves some visual "compression" for effect. The newest Marklin 1:97 or so scale lengths are a great compromise, I think. I'd rather run a train with 5 compressed coaches vs. 4 true 1:87.

(Many Roco true 1:87 Swiss coaches are naturally shorter in the prototype than DB and other lines, so may do better.) My 1:87 303mm Roco coaches with Roco close couplers can usually handle R2, but don't like "S" curves (common with turnout + R2 reverse curve to parallel track). SOME locomotives, maybe some of the cars (?), have adjustable buffers where you can "shorten" them to help with tighter radius and close-coupling.

Good luck.

- Bill
ETE - Swiss Era III - BLS - Brig Station
Offline mike c  
#3 Posted : 12 August 2019 19:39:23(UTC)
mike c

Canada   
Joined: 28/11/2007(UTC)
Posts: 6,379
Location: Montreal, QC
Here are a few solutions:

1) You can try the 40395 Roco Universal Coupler. It is Roco's version of the Maerklin close coupling and is compatible with normal Maerklin couplings as well as with Maerklin's 7203.
The shaft of this coupling is about 1mm longer than that of the 7203 and the result is that this coupling has solved a lot of issues with cars/coaches where the coupling shaft does not sufficiently extend past the buffer beam and for situations where the 7203 was impacting on the buffers themselves.

2) You can try equipping coaches with alternating couplers, so that one coach has close couplers and the adjacent coach has normal Maerklin couplers. This will extend the spacing by about 2-3mm per coach pair and is a good solution if #1 does not solve the issue.

3) The other possibility is to file away a mm from the underside of the buffers, to allow for clearance of the coupling in use.

I don't know why Roco does not sell buffer parts that are slightly offset, so that they can be swapped for the originals for use on tighter radii where this may become an issue.

Regards

Mike C
thanks 4 users liked this useful post by mike c
Offline ocram63_uk  
#4 Posted : 27 August 2019 23:52:09(UTC)
ocram63_uk

United Kingdom   
Joined: 07/01/2015(UTC)
Posts: 221
Location: England, Suffolk
Hi guys, thank you for the suggestions. In the mean time I've ordered Roco's axles for AC hoping that this too helps. Keep you posted.
Offline Bart  
#5 Posted : 28 August 2019 11:14:53(UTC)
Bart

Netherlands   
Joined: 13/05/2002(UTC)
Posts: 631
Originally Posted by: mike c Go to Quoted Post
Here are a few solutions:

1) You can try the 40395 Roco Universal Coupler. It is Roco's version of the Maerklin close coupling and is compatible with normal Maerklin couplings as well as with Maerklin's 7203.
The shaft of this coupling is about 1mm longer than that of the 7203 and the result is that this coupling has solved a lot of issues with cars/coaches where the coupling shaft does not sufficiently extend past the buffer beam and for situations where the 7203 was impacting on the buffers themselves.

2) You can try equipping coaches with alternating couplers, so that one coach has close couplers and the adjacent coach has normal Maerklin couplers. This will extend the spacing by about 2-3mm per coach pair and is a good solution if #1 does not solve the issue.

3) The other possibility is to file away a mm from the underside of the buffers, to allow for clearance of the coupling in use.

I don't know why Roco does not sell buffer parts that are slightly offset, so that they can be swapped for the originals for use on tighter radii where this may become an issue.

Regards

Mike C


Thanks for the useful information.

What's your experience with the Roco 40270 / 40271 Profi Couplers?
I know these are not compatible with 7203, but I would be happy to exchange all couplers in my consists that have issues with couplers
*Bart
Offline H0  
#6 Posted : 28 August 2019 12:11:53(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 13,505
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: Bart Go to Quoted Post
What's your experience with the Roco 40270 / 40271 Profi Couplers?
To avoid confusion: Roco 40270 are known as Roco Short Couplers (Roco Kurzkupplung). They are not compatible with the Fleischmann Profikupplung.

I use Roco 40270 for many coaches - Roco coaches come with pre-installed 40270 anyway. I also use them on some Märklin, Piko, or Trix coaches.

They may separate if you have steep changes of incline on the layout. No problem with carefully laid tracks, but I've seen problems with table layouts where tables had different heights - can easily be fixed with some pieces of cardboard under the tracks.
This is not really a disadvantage - the advantage is you can uncouple coaches by simply lifting one of them.

Roco 40270 is a bit fragile, so handle with care and have a few spare couplers.
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 Bart  
#7 Posted : 02 September 2019 10:05:53(UTC)
Bart

Netherlands   
Joined: 13/05/2002(UTC)
Posts: 631
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Bart Go to Quoted Post
What's your experience with the Roco 40270 / 40271 Profi Couplers?
To avoid confusion: Roco 40270 are known as Roco Short Couplers (Roco Kurzkupplung). They are not compatible with the Fleischmann Profikupplung.

I use Roco 40270 for many coaches - Roco coaches come with pre-installed 40270 anyway. I also use them on some Märklin, Piko, or Trix coaches.

They may separate if you have steep changes of incline on the layout. No problem with carefully laid tracks, but I've seen problems with table layouts where tables had different heights - can easily be fixed with some pieces of cardboard under the tracks.
This is not really a disadvantage - the advantage is you can uncouple coaches by simply lifting one of them.

Roco 40270 is a bit fragile, so handle with care and have a few spare couplers.


Thanks.
My question specifically related to the present topic, i.e., any role for Roco 40270 to solve issues with cars/coaches where the coupling shaft does not sufficiently extend past the buffer beam and for situations where the 7203 impacts on the buffers themselves?
*Bart
Offline H0  
#8 Posted : 02 September 2019 12:05:34(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 13,505
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: Bart Go to Quoted Post
My question specifically related to the present topic, i.e., any role for Roco 40270 to solve issues with cars/coaches where the coupling shaft does not sufficiently extend past the buffer beam [...]
Only very few models are constructed with NEM pockets in the wrong location to cause problems.
The Roco short coupler couples rather close. If there are issues with the distance, then the Roco Universal coupler will give you a bit more space. For even more space the height-adjustable Roco Universal couplers can be used.
AFAIK this is an issue with older Piko Hobby models and some Brawa locos, but most models with work without issues.

Originally Posted by: Bart Go to Quoted Post
[...] and for situations where the 7203 impacts on the buffers themselves?
The 7203 is too high and causes problems with scale models. The Roco short coupler is much lower and I never had problems with buffers.
And even the Roco Universal coupler is lower than 7203 and avoids collisions with buffers - but it should be used on both sides to really avoid issues. Coupling a Roco Universal coupler with a 7203 gives you a 50% chance that things will work, depending on which coupler loop is on top.
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 ocram63_uk  
#9 Posted : 03 September 2019 23:57:22(UTC)
ocram63_uk

United Kingdom   
Joined: 07/01/2015(UTC)
Posts: 221
Location: England, Suffolk
the AC axles have arrived. I have checked with a caliper that the inner face distance is what Marklin prescribes, tweaked the ones that were not correct and replaced the original ones with the new ones. Everything worked perfectly. While waiting for the axles with a dremel I reduced the frame of the bogie so that the coupler mechanism does not interfere with it over sharp curves.

I re-inserted the Roco short couplers, re-attached the buffers and everything works fine.
I ran the convoy over all my switches and there are no derailments.

I like these coaches but they are too long compared with the Marklin ones.
3 of these are as long as 4 Marklin. I don't think I'll buy anymore 1:87 coaches.

HTH
Offline ocram63_uk  
#10 Posted : 04 September 2019 08:22:07(UTC)
ocram63_uk

United Kingdom   
Joined: 07/01/2015(UTC)
Posts: 221
Location: England, Suffolk
the photo illustrates better what I did. Te oval indicates the area that I enlarged with the dremel and the arrow the coupling mechanism that interfered, in my opinoin, with the bogie. Everything moves better now.

bogie2.gif
Offline H0  
#11 Posted : 04 September 2019 08:23:38(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 13,505
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: ocram63_uk Go to Quoted Post
3 of these are as long as 4 Marklin. I don't think I'll buy anymore 1:87 coaches.
I think this is a funny statement. Many Märklin coaches are 1:87 - some are even 303 mm long. Not all coaches in 1:87 are 303 or 316 mm long though.

If you decide not to buy any more 303 mm coaches then there is nothing wrong about that decision.
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 ocram63_uk  
#12 Posted : 04 September 2019 14:39:34(UTC)
ocram63_uk

United Kingdom   
Joined: 07/01/2015(UTC)
Posts: 221
Location: England, Suffolk
at the end of the day it comes down to the available space you have and curve radii.
having both 1:87 coaches and Marklin 'shorter' coaches the comparison looks odd. At the moment I'll stick to 'shorter' coaches :-)
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
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 © 2003-2019, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.536 seconds.