Hornby R8220 Couplings

[Graeme Leary]

I have been experimenting with a variety of couplers to replace those on older stock I have (and certainly to get away from any of the large, wide and unsightly couplings most of them have).

I have fitted some Kadee (#18) with varying degrees of success but in some cases the curved 'bar' extending from the front will catch, especially on the switch rail of points. I've been told these can be trimmed back but understand these have something to do with 'uncoupling' magnets so reluctant to do this sort of 'surgery'.

However I have just come across Hornby's R8220, sold to me as 'close couplings for carriages'. These look much more acceptable and seem to work quite well for this purpose but I'm interested in any comments on:-

(1) Is there any uncoupling device made for R8220 (not that important as my main line rakes tend to be permanently set up but of interest if I wish to bring in a different loco to work the formation).

(2) Is there any tendency for these to uncouple eg on curves? There does seem to be some flexibility in the plastic and whilst experiencing no obvious problems so far I wonder if when the pressure is off (eg when possibly slowing down on curves) this may happen.

(3) Despite being sold as 'close couplings for carriages' has any member tried them on goods wagons (where uncoupling will be important) I plan to try myself but with some 150 goods wagons, many of older make with cast couplings, to buy the couplings for (as well as Hornby's X6354 mounting blocks to take them) it would be helpful to hear any experiences others may have had before I have this expense. (Where I have tried Kadee on goods wagons, the problem arises with couplings needing to be at exactly the same height, sometimes not the easiest with the variety of older stock I have but maybe not quite the same problem with Hornby's R8220).

Many thanks.

Graeme Leary
New Zealand

[jwealleans]

I don't have any of these myself but I have worked with them on exhibition layouts. The Roco version is said to be better than the Hornby and I think that is the one the stock was fitted with.

They're ideal for fixed rakes because they're a tw*t to couple up but they don't come undone. You have to quite forcibly pull them apart. The issue with (un)coupling them is usually that you get hold of the pair of vehicles you're trying to attach and the rest of the rake tips over.

I don't believe there's any sort of uncoupler unless it's home made and I'm not sure how well they'd work on wagons.

[markeg]

Hi Graeme,

I have used various couplers myself.

I have used Kadees on my Gresley 61' stock. Most of these are kit built. Getting the height right is critical otherwise they uncouple over any deviation in the height of track.

I use the R8220 Hornby close couplers you now have on Hornby Gresley Non-corridor stock and on fixed sets of Hornby SR Maunsell coaches and Bachmann Mk1 Maroon coaches. With regard to the Bachmann Mk1's they are a very close fit, but I have 3' (915mm) Radius curves and they do not touch, or just touch. Johnothan suggests that they need a strong pull to uncouple, actually they just need to be lifted vertically, or just one can be lifted. There is no uncoupler for these other than the 'hand of god' method. They do not uncouple easily with my stock on level track.

With regards to goods wagons, I have around 100 wagons, some kits and decided to stick with tension locks, ones fitted to r-t-r wagons from Bachmann, Dapol, Hornby and Oxford. So the narrow type. I only have a few older Hornby wider types, so where possible I have changed them to the narrow ones, some will stay as they are. Other than keeping the tension locks, Kadees, or others which are Spratt and Winkles and one other which I think are called DGM these have uncouplers, such as magnets. Again I run them in fixed rakes, but may do some uncoupling in sidings, especially a branch line.
I Hope this is of some help.

Mark

[Woodcock29]

The Hornby and Roco close couplings can be uncoupled with Gaugemaster tension lock uncouplers. They uncouple quite well but are a 'b....r' to couple up - they can't just be pushed together on the track without handling them and raising them at an angle.

The interesting point is that the Roco couplings are best on Hornby coaches and Hornby coupings on Bachmann coaches (eg Mk 1s) - this arrangement gives the best close coupling.

I use them on some RTR rakes I have such as Hornby bow-ended Colletts, Staniers and Bachmann Mk1s and Hornby BR Gresley's. Mind you most of these don't get run much other than the Staniers on the high level LMS part of my layout.

Andrew

[Graeme Leary]

Many thanks all for your comments. Whilst you were all slumbering north of the equator I've fitted 4 coaches (Hornby 8 and 12 wheel Pullman) of a 7 coach rake with the R8220 and they seem to run fairly satisfactorily. This is on my 'outer' track with curves of what I am sure is 3rd radius (all laid and ballasted before I became aware of flexitrak and, to me, the rather arcane radius classification terminology).

My inner tracks appear to be 2nd radius on which I don't plan to run fast express trains but maybe the odd shorter wheelbase suburban train as well as goods traffic - however I will still check whether I can run these longer Pullmans or some of the 61' 6" Gresley teak stock.

One point though with the R8220s - it seems that to couple carriages satisfactorily the ends to couple need to be facing each other on a straight section of track, they were impossible to do if the ends were on any sort of curve as the 'connecting' portions would face away from each other, not a problem now aware of it.

Will now try some on 'newer' goods stock and if okay then change the mounting blocks and fit the R8220 to some of the older wagons. However, I wonder if (unlike the longer carriages with swivel bogies) the 'fixed' mountings on the wagons will pose a problem on curves. Maybe not.

Before discovering the R8220 I had also bought a couple of packs of Smith's LP6 Assembled Instanter Couplings to get this closer coupled (and more realistic looking) effect but they seem to require more fiddling around with and are not 'idiot proof' (ie me) to fit as are the R8220s. However, should these be persevered with and if so, any tips would be appreciated.

Graeme Leary
New Zealand
.

[Hatfield Shed]

The Hornby and Roco close couplings can be uncoupled with Gaugemaster tension lock uncouplers. They uncouple quite well but are a 'b....r' to couple up - they can't just be pushed together on the track without handling them and raising them at an angle.

The interesting point is that the Roco couplings are best on Hornby coaches and Hornby coupings on Bachmann coaches (eg Mk 1s) - this arrangement gives the best close coupling...

Seconded.

If prepared to adjust carefully, add a little powdered graphite on moving parts and gangway faceplates, they work very well indeed. Had these in use since 2007, once set up very reliable. The same effects are available by using the Fleischmann Profi - which is an autocoupler - and the Keen system. But since the R8220 comes 'free' I'll save money by only having to buy a pack of Roco type for the Hornby Pullmans... (A yet further money saving option is to thermally reset the 'pipes coupler' supplied with the Bachmann products, to properly close up the coaches. Bit of a pain for re-railing more than a pair, I use this selectively for the permanent vehicles of a train.)

They may be inverted (with the hinged uncoupler actuator removed) to be less intrusive if desired. I use them as 'lift out couplers' within formations and have body mounted Kadees on set end vehicles. Mounting the Kadees over Kadee gauge height looks better, and Kadee uncouplers still actuate them!

Aspect I like most, the whole train moves as a piece as it should. No need for 'loose coupled' carriages.

The gangway faceplates in contact on straight or nearly so track looks very well: for any who are unfamiliar with these close coupling mechanisms, when rigidly linked as the system requires, the train will negotiate any curve the individual vehicles will negotiate, thanks to the camming action of the mechanisms.

[Graeme Leary]

I have just come across an article in Hornby magazine September 2015 which covers both the Hornby and Roco product. It sent me back to my Pullman boxes to discover that 5 of my 8 Pullmans had the R8220s included with each carriage. However, as well as 2 couplings the packs also included 4 lengths of black plastic (approx 43mm x 2mm) but no description of how/where to use. Are they for any particular use as the R8220 packs do not include them?

I also noted on Hatton's website describing R8220 as 'not suitable for curves tighter than radius 3', however I have run 4 Pullman coaches on my inner tracks (2nd radius) with R8220 quite happily. Could this be due to the swivel bogies allowing the couplings to keep in a more-or-less straight line? I have also run 2 goods wagons(all the couplings I had) on the 2nd radius inner track with no apparent difficulty either and now that I have found the 5 packs from the Pullman coaches will fit these to see how a longer rake of goods wagons perform - although previous comments suggest uncoupling for shunting may be an issue so will have to weight this up.

Thanks all.

Graeme Leary

[Hatfield Shed]

...I also noted on Hatton's website describing R8220 as 'not suitable for curves tighter than radius 3', however I have run 4 Pullman coaches on my inner tracks (2nd radius) with R8220 quite happily...

Graeme,
That's a reflection of the complete lack of customer information from both Bachmann and Hornby, on getting the best from the close coupling system.

The HO manufacturers that developed these systems gave their purchasers all the information required. What with continental cousins with HO layouts I got lucky and had the information.

The fundamental difficulty in the UK is 'our' RTR tension lock (or 'tangle likely') coupler which is about the worst possible for these mechanisms, and I guess the marketing man pretty much froze at the proposition of communicating that welcome news: 'All your couplers are obsolete'.


Whatever, provided there is care in set up, all the close coupling mechanisms on RTR bogie coaches that I have tested will work down to the smallest radius that the individual vehicles in the train can negotiate, which means down to the near right angle turns of R2. The care in set up is critical. First 'exercise' the mechanism to check for free movment. Specifically on Hornby's Pullmans I remove the gangway cover plates, and on all of Hornby's coaches retract the sprung buffers to avoid snagging and fouling, and add a little powdered graphite on all moving parts and the face plates to ensure smooth movement. Expect to do some 'tweaking' for the best appearance: the mechanism is all cheap plastic mouldings, there will be some dimensional variation. Once done it stays done (it's actually fifteen years since my the oldest set was worked up) and very satisfactory it is too.

[Seagull]

I have tried the Hornby R8220 and the Roco 40270 couplings on Hornby Pullmans and Gresley teaks for fixed rakes.
They both seem to work OK on my test oval which has 3rd radius set-track curves.
The Roco couplings are slightly shorter than the Hornby, but in every other respect the two types are exactly the same
I suspect that smaller curves and coaches without the 'cam action' NEM pockets maybe a problem though.

I have never seen any good offers on the Hornby couplings
The Roco couplings can be bought in a bulk pack of 50 the code is Roco 40271. Be patient and you will find them on offer as I did.
I bought a couple of packs off a well known auction site at roughly the same price as a single pack from a well known supplier.
Though said supplier occassionaly has them on sale.

According to the Roco instructions coupling should be done by carefully pushing them together on straight and level track.
Uncoupling by lifting the carriage vertically from between the others, this works fine in my experience.
They will not uncouple on the track unless you use considerable force and you will probably end up damaging them anyway.

I have not tried them on wagons - preferring to stick to the small tension lock for those.

I agree about the use of graphite to lubricate the gangway faceplates - even more so for intricate security locks and padlocks.
However in my experience it is hard to get hold of the powder easily in small amounts and at anything other than a ridiculously expensive price.
Plus it's messy to use for modelling applications. Much easier is to use either graphite sticks or even better still 6B or 8B pencils.

The graphite sticks are available from a good staionary supplier, art shop, or certain well known auction websites.
The pencils are even more practical and far less likely to snap and make a mess. Buy a box of 12 - they work out much cheaper and will last you for a very long time. Stick to the name brands like Staedler, Faber-Castell etc. as they are more likely to be graphite and the cost difference over the cheap ones is small anyway.

Alan

[Graeme Leary]

Many thanks for all the latest - very helpful indeed. Couple of further questions:-

(a) Woodcock mentions that both Hornby and Roco work quite well with Gaugemaster Tension Lock Uncoupler unit. On Hatton's website they say the Gaugemasteer unit '(ramp) is raised when a current is passed through' (and I presume the TLU ramp pushes up the semi-circular loop under each coupling at the same time to allow the uncoupling). I take it this therefore is an operation that needs to be actively done each time needed to uncouple. Also implies TLU's would need to be installed around the layout where uncoupling is likely to be used. eg where a loco may have to be uncoupled from a passenger train (say, to run around a train). This also suggests (if price allows) a number could be set up in a goods yard for shunting purposes.

(b) The Hornby magazine (September 2015) article I referred to has no mention of the Smith's 'Instanter' product LP6 nor has it come up in any replies to my first posting. Does this suggest the product is not widely used or the R8220 and/or Roco 40270 are generally more 'favoured'. This suits me as Hornby is readily available here even if Roco is not but useful to know. However the bulk pack of 50 40271 has some obvious appeal if after some testing, I decide to fit them on my goods wagons so could add to my next on-line order from my regular UK supplier (if they can/will get them). I do lean towards replacing the couplings on the r-t-r goods wagons with the close couplings as they look much less obtrusive - and maybe more prototypical even - than particularly the wide (horizontal) bar/hook on older goods stock - and even some of the newer models with a similar wide hook attachment.
The replies also suggest (to me) that either/both of these close-coupler products could be more in use than Kadee's - perhaps for the same reason I have found, ie the curved section under the coupling getting caught on (especially) the switch rail on points or single/double slips.

(c) Is the graphite (powdered or pencil) applied to the parts of each coupling that come into each other and, as a lubricant is this to make uncoupling smoother? And ('Seagull') is the 'gangway faceplate' the double downward projections at the base of the gangway connector or the entire section glued to the carriage end?

Phew - think I've got it all covered, again, many thanks.

Graeme Leary

[Woodcock29]

Graeme

I generally use the smaller modern tension lock couplings on my layout and have installed almost 40 of the Gaugemaster uncouplers on my layout at strategic locations. The only downside is they are not the most attractive - I simply paint the ramps on mine a dark dirty brown and there is no opportunity for delayed uncoupling like you get with Kadees or Spratt and Winkle. But they generally work fine. It is important also to have your couplings set at the correct height on kit built stock of which I have a lot. I've found that generally the uncoupling ramps also need some filing down on the underside of each end to ensure they sit down nice and flat, preferably a smidgen below rail height so you don't take the paint off with a track cleaner.

Andrew

[Seagull]

Hello Graeme,

The faceplate on a Pullman gangway is the black/grey bit



If you use the paper bellows connections between your carriages, with paper or plasticard faceplates, then the graphite will make everything slide around nice and smoothly

Just scribble the pencil around the face where it meets it's neighbour and similar to it's neighbour and you're good to go. As the pencil is the same sort of colour it does not show unless you look closely.

They will usually slide around without the graphite but it's all a little bit smoother with it.

As it stays in place for a long time and is fairly clean graphite is useful in all sorts of other places.
Hornby LNER 8 wheel tender bearings is another suggestion.

Alan

[Hatfield Shed]

...I suspect that smaller curves and coaches without the 'cam action' NEM pockets maybe a problem though...

My opinion, this 'rigid bar' coupler type is a 'one trick pony'. Excellent on bogie vehicles with the camming mechanism, otherwise of no worth at all!

I much prefer Kadee as an autocoupler for coaches, and it's 'ours' as LNER followers, what with the GNR having pioneered its use on their own and ECJS stock, and passing this use onto the LNER. So I have that on the outside end vehicles of formations.

On wagons, the miniature tension lock from Bachmann has all the advantages over other's designs, and may be neatly repositioned for a good loose coupled effect on SWB wagons (minimum radius required 24") and will take the BK mod for magnetic uncoupling, which is happily actuated by Kadee's track magnets.

...I agree about the use of graphite to lubricate the gangway faceplates - even more so for intricate security locks and padlocks.
However in my experience it is hard to get hold of the powder easily in small amounts and at anything other than a ridiculously expensive price.
Plus it's messy to use for modelling applications. Much easier is to use either graphite sticks or even better still 6B or 8B pencils...

The expense, ah well good things often cost. I got my current supply cheaply when Bachmann were promoting the launch of their 'Woodland Scenics' range, and it had a 'puffer tube' of powdered graphite which was very welcome. Good job too as my supply of Rank Hilger ES electrodes was all but exhausted. What I will attempt when the tube is empty is to refill it, the dispensing action is so good. (I'll grind the graphite fine in a old lab pestle and mortar reserved for the purpose.) So many uses beyond model railway, cures 'screaming' rubbers on car windows in an instant for example.

...no mention of the Smith's 'Instanter' product LP6 nor has it come up in any replies to my first posting. Does this suggest the product is not widely used ...

They are unusable unless you have the patience of Job, installed under a gangwayed coach. And if using the old hook and chain on non-gangwayed coaches, then screw link is the one to use. My game plan with such stock which operates in fixed sets is sprung buffers and screw link 'one day'. Plenty else to get done first!

[Graeme Leary]

THanks Seagull, Woodcock and Hatfield Shed - I think (hope - as you no doubt will be) that answers all my queries. A plus is coming across a few new terms that I'd not known previously - although I should have (such as your shot and explanation of the 'faceplate' Seagull)

Pleased to get the Instanter issue answered as (despite buying 2 or 3 packs) I thought they could be a bit beyond my abilities to fit. For my goods wagons I will stick with the smaller tension locks (and eventually fit mounting blocks and change all my old stock 'wide bar' over to them). On reflection the smaller type probably don't look as 'ugly' as I'd convinced myself they did. (and like Hatfield Shed I'll fit Kadees to the outside ends of formations - and the locos)

Good tip about the Gaugemaster TLU (you do need to be 'pro-active to put the electric charge through them - correct??) so I will work out where I might need them but did I see somewhere they're about GBP9.00 each? If so, you have a good investment with 40 of them Woodcock. Good tip about a dash of dark 'dirtyish' paint - I've done that with a couple of diamond crossings with solid plastic fillers between the rails (and if starting again I wouldn't have used these particular ones but all fixed and ballasted so stuck with them).

Again thanks (and the additions to my education).

Graeme

[Seagull]

Just found a useful discussion about the Roco couplers on 'another' forum - https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index ... -couplers/

With apologies to Richard.....

Alan