Prototype Issues - Couplings

Ross Logie

Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Ross Logie » Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:55 am

Dear Members,

As a new boy to the hobby I started out with the intention of getting things right and do not suppose that I am unique in wishing to achieve this goal. However it did not take long to realise that some issues are more practical than others and in truth I want to get a very modest layout off the ground and have some fun before tackling the minutiae of a prototypical railway.

A major issue that has arisen is that of couplings and the derision with which the RTR manufactures are subjected (rightly so); can anyone think of a more hideous offering than Hornby’s tension lock coupling? Yes it might be effective but the gap between rolling stock is twice as long as it needs to be. The prototype British railways standby is the three link chain but this is not much use if you want to employ auto coupling/uncoupling.

I have read many articles on the subject including the use of various types of auto couplers/uncouplers on the market and seek advice from members on the most practical and simple form of coupling that provides the auto coupling/uncoupling facility mentioned above and avoids the unacceptable gap, or should I say cavern, as provided by Hornby and others.

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2865
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Tim V » Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:01 am

Don't be so dismissive of the tension lock coupling. Bernie Baker uses them with impunity (and some mods) on Allt Y Graban (apologies for spelling), I think it will be at Scaleforum.
Tim V
(Not all railways in Somerset went to Dorset)

Clive Impey
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:09 am

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Clive Impey » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:09 am

I use Sprat & Winkle 3mm scale delayed action autocouplings on my layout and have found them quite satisfactory. The gap between wagons is ok and they are not too obtrusive. They do need careful setting up but once done require little maintenance. It helps if the wagons are not too free running but this is probably the case with all autocoupling systems. Use solenoids for uncoupling not permenant magnets which will uncouple wagons when you don't want them uncoupled.

Clive.

John Fitton

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby John Fitton » Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:10 pm

My choice for all passenger vehicles and vans is the Kadee type. Well engineered and manufactured, and almost a turnkey solution. Also not too expensive. Does not look too nice on uk 4-wheel wagons though.

David Knight
Posts: 810
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby David Knight » Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:41 pm

Hi Ross,
You will get a wide variety of opinions on this matter but your choice will have to be made based on what is best for your type of operation. I like to shunt and have a fairly tall layout (53") so an autocoupling is an asset. I used Kadees for my Canadian layout so got spoiled for anything that could not set out or pick up wagons remotely but did not like their appearance on UK stock. I use Dinghams, http://www.dingham.co.uk/ and find them to be unobtrusive and effective within the limits of their design. They are located on the buffer beam where the real thing goes. I did a review for Scalefour News 147 which can be had online.

HTH

David

EDIT; Forgot to add the usual disclaimer, no connection etc., etc..
Last edited by David Knight on Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jonathan Wells
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:57 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Jonathan Wells » Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:00 pm

I recently acquired the Alex Jackson coupling book and it makes an interesting read. To be honest, I don't fancy the AJ coupling for myself as it appears to be fiddly to make, has to be set up right in several planes on each stock and looks too easy to damage.

JFS
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby JFS » Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:26 pm

davknigh wrote:I use Dinghams,... and find them to be unobtrusive and effective within the limits of their design. .


Just one point to mention about Dinghams is that they are not symetrical, thus all your stock acquires an "A" and a "B" end - fine if nothing ever gets turned... or lifted off the track... or packed for a show... and for me that would completely rule them out.

Howard

nigelcliffe
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:31 am

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby nigelcliffe » Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:35 pm

Jonathan Wells wrote:I recently acquired the Alex Jackson coupling book and it makes an interesting read. To be honest, I don't fancy the AJ coupling for myself as it appears to be fiddly to make, has to be set up right in several planes on each stock and looks too easy to damage.


Fiddly ? Used to be, but with the current range of jigs they are very simple once you have the basic skills.
Accuracy of setup ? Again, not difficult with jigs which are available.
Easy to damage ? Can happen, but they are quick to fix. If you step outside the "conventions" and use thinner wire (and invert some of the bends), then damage seems to be reduced as the coupling tends to "spring" rather than "bend".

I think some of the other systems also work well.

One of these days I'll build the bits for automatic 3-link/screw uncoupling. But I'm still stumped on finding a practical design for an automatic 3-link coupling device.


- Nigel

David Knight
Posts: 810
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby David Knight » Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:05 pm

Just one point to mention about Dinghams is that they are not symetrical, thus all your stock acquires an "A" and a "B" end - fine if nothing ever gets turned... or lifted off the track... or packed for a show... and for me that would completely rule them out.

Howard[/quote]

Fair enough, but my terminus is at the bottom of a steep incline and the locomotives have to run tender first into the station or risk exposing their crownsheets, ergo, no need to turn :D
FWIW I believe there is a prototype (or two) for just such an occasion but that is why I mentioned the "within the limits of their design" bit. Identifying the A & B ends is dead easy and I have had no problems at shows.

Cheers,

David

JFS
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby JFS » Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:41 pm

... and there's nothing worse than an exposed crownsheet :D

Howard

martin goodall
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby martin goodall » Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:03 pm

Blowing the fusible plug was no joke.

It would prevent a boiler explosion, but was likely to cause death or serious injury to the loco crew through scalding.

Hence the preference for locos to face 'uphill' whenever possible, i.e. to keep the boiler crown covered.

Natalie Graham

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Natalie Graham » Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:49 pm

nigelcliffe wrote: But I'm still stumped on finding a practical design for an automatic 3-link coupling device.


I would have thought you would have developed an automated, DCC controlled, shunter with a pole by now. ;)

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 2416
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Terry Bendall » Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:23 am

Quite a long time ago at Scaleforum there was somebody demonstrating the various sorts of coupling used by many "fine scale" modellers, including Sprat and Winkle, Dinghams and the Alex Jackson type. I asked the question "Which is best?" The answer was that none can be said to be the best since they all have advantages and disadvantages. As with other things in the hobby it is a case of examining the alternatives and deciding which works best for you in your situation. Although I don't personally use AJ couplings, Having spent quite alot of time helping to proof read the AJ book when it was being produced, in my view the secret to successful operation of these is to make them accuractely and consistently and make sure that they stay in shape. For those who take their layouts to exhibition this needs careful packing in the stock box.

Tim Venton wrote: "I think it (Allt-y-Graban Road) will be at Scaleforum." Yes it will along with Blackgill, Dubbieside, Elcot Road, Halifax King Cross, London Road, Nottigham Goods, Obbekaer, Simington, Stoke by Nayland and West End.

Terry Bendall

User avatar
Ian Everett
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Ian Everett » Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:35 am

I have made the journey from three links to AJ to a sort of Spratt and Winkle as advocated by Iain Rice.

AJs were wonderful - unobtrusive, realistic advance uncoupling and easy to make with that little turned brass jig whose manufacturer I have forgotten, and which I have lost. But for this ham-fisted modeller they suffered two disadvantages. They could not cope with the (entirely prototypical) dockside curves (more like corners) on Humber Dock and they were very vulnerable to damage. I spent far too much time adjusting them.

I have now converted entirely to the bastardised S&Ws, whch was very simple because they are effectively inverted AJs. They work very well with the limited shunting opportunities on Humber Dock but their inability to uncouple in advance severely limits their effectiveness on the more complex Bradford North Western.

So I am wondering about Dinghams.

I have no problem with their asymmetry and they look pretty inconspicuous but I wonder how they would cope with Humber Dock's corners? Has anyone any experience of such extreme usage?

Mind you at only £12 to convert 20 vehicles I can feel an experiment coming on!

Ian

billbedford

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby billbedford » Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:22 am

Ross Logie wrote:auto coupling/uncoupling facility mentioned above and avoids the unacceptable gap, or should I say cavern, as provided by Hornby and others.

If you don't do any shunting you don't need autocouplings……..

Armchair Modeller

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Armchair Modeller » Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:06 am

Another alternative is the DG coupling, which (along with with very similar designs) is used pretty universally by 2mm modellers. This can be fitted at both ends the same, or with loops at just one end of each wagon - and for locos you can get away with just an L shaped piece of wire hidden amongst all the various pipes and buffers. It is available in 4mm scale (and others) from Wizard Models. The coupling allows delayed action uncoupling without the Kadee "shuffle".

I have not yet tried it in 4mm scale, but have used them extensively in 2mm scale in the past. This page explains all about them.

See http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/westford1/dgcouplings.htm

User avatar
Russ Elliott
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Russ Elliott » Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:12 am

Somersham stock is fitted with 3mm DG couplings. Fiddly to set up, but they seem fairly reliable. Personally, I prefer AJs.

Philip Hall
Posts: 1943
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Philip Hall » Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:17 am

Having successfully used a modified 3mm Sprat & Winkle coupling, I have now reverted to scale couplings, 3-link and screw, as they are easy to fit and look right. Maybe as I get older I will decide that autos have to come back, but we will see.

However, last weekend I was privileged to visit Trevor Pott's 'Churston', and was immediately struck by the fact that not only were the carriages properly coupled, buffer to buffer and gangway to gangway, but the locos were also properly close coupled to the train, something I've never seen done before, ever, in 4mm scale. Sprung buffers, sprung drawhooks and reasonably heavy carriages seem to be the answer, and his couplings between carriages are single link, with single links of varying lengths used to couple up the locos. There's not a lot of coupling and uncoupling, it's true, but it didn't seem to be too difficult with a pair of tweezers for the single link, and far less obtrusive than an auto coupling.

Philip

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2865
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Tim V » Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:11 pm

Of course Trevor's layout is a permanent one. But it is good. EM though!
Tim V
(Not all railways in Somerset went to Dorset)

allanferguson
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:27 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby allanferguson » Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:34 pm

billbedford wrote:If you don't do any shunting you don't need autocouplings……..


Good point. Quite a few of the excellent exhibition layouts only have trains running round, and occasionally stopping. They look none the worse for it, though.

It's horses for courses!

Allan F

David Knight
Posts: 810
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby David Knight » Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:39 pm

clecklewyke wrote:..... So I am wondering about Dinghams.

I have no problem with their asymmetry and they look pretty inconspicuous but I wonder how they would cope with Humber Dock's corners? Has anyone any experience of such extreme usage?

Ian

Hi Ian,

I'm not sure what qualifies as 'corners' but I just tried a couple of 16T minerals with rigid buffers on an 18" radius curve and while they would not couple they would make it around, just, sprung buffers would have helped. 24" radius should be safer as long as the wagons aren't wildly varying in length.

EDIT: I had to try, 18" radius, sprung buffers, no problem. ;)

HTH

David

User avatar
Ian Everett
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Ian Everett » Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:22 pm

davknigh wrote:Hi Ian,

I'm not sure what qualifies as 'corners' but I just tried a couple of 16T minerals with rigid buffers on an 18" radius curve and while they would not couple they would make it around, just, sprung buffers would have helped. 24" radius should be safer as long as the wagons aren't wildly varying in length.

EDIT: I had to try, 18" radius, sprung buffers, no problem. ;)

HTH

David


Thanks for that, David.

I think the corners are about 18* radius but we need to couple and uncouple on them, and that is possible with S&Ws. Still, I think I will have a go with the Dinghams.

Ian

User avatar
LesGros
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:05 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby LesGros » Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:36 pm

Russ Elliott wrote:
Somersham stock is fitted with 3mm DG couplings. Fiddly to set up, but they seem fairly reliable. Personally, I prefer AJs.

Russ,
I am curious about DG couplings and have looked at the Wizard site information; what were/are the curve radii on Somersham?
regards,
LesG

The man who never made a mistake
never made anything useful

Ross Logie

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Ross Logie » Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:03 am

Dear Members,

I am grateful for all your replies and yes I am aware of most of the comments and the pros and cons of the various suggestions.

It is my intention, at least initially to have a shunting layout; hence the interest in auto-coupling/uncoupling systems. However I have become aware that the British prototype, three links and screw, is a possible alternative and would be interested in this coupler even although there is no auto-coupling/uncoupling facility available; not unless Nigel Cliffe can come to the rescue as he indicated.

Thank you all, most sincerely,

Ross Logie

User avatar
Russ Elliott
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Prototype Issues - Couplings

Postby Russ Elliott » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:45 am

LesGros wrote: I am curious about DG couplings and have looked at the Wizard site information; what were/are the curve radii on Somersham?
regards,

Very gentle, Les, apart from turnouts, which are standard B-switches.


Return to “Couplings”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests