Buying Branchline instead of Walthers Heavywieghts

[Anonymous]

The ads for the Walthers heavyweight HO passenger cars look good, but I have decided that I am sticking witht he Branchline kits. Why? Made in USA.

BL is doing many prototypes, apparently even more than announced, and it is worth my money to spend it on a kit than the similarly priced RTR Walthers cars (which I expect will be from China).


Rarley do we have the chance to choose. I am going to choose American.

Rob

[markpierce]

Recently bought three but haven't yet assembeled three 8-1-2s from Branchline. The kits look nice. Big advantage over Walthers is that correct air conditioning system is provided and there is a large variety of different road names and individual cars.

[twhite]

If Branchline comes out with D&RGW markings, then I'll get some. But Walthers already HAS D&RGW in their RTR's, so I'll probably go with them when they're available. But I've seen a built Branchline at my LHS, and man, are they GORGEOUS!

[markpierce]

Nevertheless, I sure wish Branchline and Walthers made passenger cars with diaphrams that actually touched each other. It is disconcerting to see that gap between their "operating" diaphrams. Where are suitable substitutes?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by markpierce

Nevertheless, I sure wish Branchline and Walthers made passenger cars with diaphrams that actually touched each other. It is disconcerting to see that gap between their "operating" diaphrams. Where are suitable substitutes?

Good afternoon:

I have all of the Budd cars that Walthers makes for Santa Fe and I don't find the gap that bad and you can only see it straight on.

Have a blessed day and remember SANTA FE ALL THE WAY
Bob

[markpierce]

There's about a 6 inch gap on the Walther Budd cars. I'm expecting (fearing Branchline's) gap to be larger. Perhaps the solution is closer coupling. But is that an easy solution?

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by markpierce

There's about a 6 inch gap on the Walther Budd cars. I'm expecting (fearing Branchline's) gap to be larger. Perhaps the solution is closer coupling. But is that an easy solution?

Actually, there is a factory made solution. The Europeans have had it for years. It's the NEM 362 plug-in coupler pocket and the associated close coupling mechanism that opens a gap between cars on curves. On tangents, cars ride with the diaphragms and buffers touching. The problem that leads into is then you need a coupler that doesn't require slack for uncoupling. Equipped with Kadees or their clones, you'd still have a gap between diaphragms. Roco, Marklin and Fleischmann all make plug-in couplers that do not require slack for uncoupling. IIRC, they also all have "delayed" action in that you can push a car without having it immediately recouple. 'Course, they require uncoupling ramps,

Another solution is to use the old Walthers folded paper diaphragms with one of the folds removed to lessen stiffness (and allow some slack) and body mount your Kadees so they protude a reasonable aproximation of prototype distance from the car end while allowing diaphragm contact. Andy Sperandeo had an article on passenger car improvements in one of the issues of MR this year (at least I think it was this year, I don't have the issue handy) and had some advice on the subject. Naturally, this one requires some work.

Then there are the diaphragms made by American Limited: http://www.americanlimitedmodels.com/diaphragms.htm. I've never tried these and don't know if they'd work with cars that are closely coupled (i.e. close to prototype distance). However, they are designed for diaphragm to diaphragm contact. In any case, if you're using Kadees, you need slack to uncouple.

Andre