Iain Rice's Bringewood coupling

[steve howe]

Has anyone had experience of (either making or using) Iain Rice's Bringewood Coupling? I have seen it described in various books and in operation on his Trerice, but I am interested in them as a reliable coupling on layouts with curves that make AJs impractical.

Steve

[Paul Townsend]

Did Iain write up his Bringewood coupling in any of his books?

[steve howe]

Hi Paul
I believe it was in the 'Improving RTR rolling stock' book, (which I don't have, a chum copied the relevant pages for me) and also in the 'Cameo Layouts' book. As far as I remember there were two slightly different variations; the version in the RTR book showed the pivotted hook being lifted up by the magnet; that in the Cameo Layouts version showed it being pulled down (AKA Alex Jackson principle) using a fixed soft iron wire dropper disguised as a 3 link coupling. The 'delayed uncoupler' feature in this case was a finger of wire covering the hook, but little mention is made of it in the notes. The former version was similar, but the hook lifted rather than dropped. It would be interesting to know which version found favour!

Steve

[David Knight]

I may have tracked the “Bringewood” down but not under that name. Rather it is named “The Imprecise” coupler on page 96 of Iain’s book “Creating Cameo Layouts” Wild Swan Books Ltd. ISBN 978-0-953877-17-1, 2016. It resembles an inverted AJ and uses PB wire but is apparently related to the Hope and Nixon coupler of 1948. FWIW it is used on Trerice.

HTH

David

[andyvincentuk]

Iain's 'Imprecise' is sort of an inverted 'Bringewood'. In the latter, the hook lifted to uncouple and was compatible with tension locks of that period. 'Imprecise' is closer to an AJ (mostly the same bends except no twist) and, like AJ, was pulled down to uncouple. As noted, Bringewood drawings are in 'Improving RTR Models' and Imprecise drawings in Cameo Layouts.

Regards
Andy
(still trying to decide on couplings for Butley Mills for Scaleforum SE at Uckfield . . . . )

[steve howe]

I think the 'imprecise' has potential, just don't have time atm to experiment!

Steve

[davebradwell]

So what's so terribly wrong with a Jackson? If nothing else, it has strength in numbers which is very useful when you turn up at someone's layout hoping to run your stock or you want to borrow stock for an exhibition. Sounds like we're only dealing with variations on them, anyway.

DaveB

[steve howe]

So what's so terribly wrong with a Jackson? If nothing else, it has strength in numbers which is very useful when you turn up at someone's layout hoping to run your stock or you want to borrow stock for an exhibition. Sounds like we're only dealing with variations on them, anyway.

DaveB

As I said in the original post, the Jackson has limitations on layouts where tight curves etc. abound. The hook and loop principle gives more latitude when coupling/uncoupling on curves where the traditional AJ would simply miss.

Steve

[adrianmc]

20230806_181053.jpg

An alternative is a modified Sprat & Winkle as per an article by Iain Rice, way back when.

This is the 3mm original version, with the addition of a phosphor bronze overrider which gives the uncouple and push anywhere functionality - the overrider stopping the hook re-engaging.

The loop is under the buffer centre line and is fixed in place via a piece of copper clad strip behind the buffer beam. The same copper clad provides the mount for the coupling pivot.

The loop is also set slightly behind the buffer line so that when two wagons are pushed together there is a slight gap for the overriders to come up through.

The top chain link is soldered perpendicular to the hook and only the bottom link is ferrous - these mods greatly reduce the incidence of the chain getting intertwined with itself and/or the chain on an adjacent item of stock when over a magnet.

Locomotives just have the loop.

When pushing, contact between items of stock is via the buffers and when pulling its via the couplings - just like the prototype.

Although more obtrusive than an AJ they do have the benefit of the impression of coupling chain links hanging down - and they do work on quite tight radii.

They also have a certain robustness that once set up they seem to be able to take fairly rough treatment - a good quality to have when being bounced around in a stock box to and from an exhibition!

The pictures show a Rails of Sheffield 3D printed SR van converted to P4 standards and with these modified S&W couplings fitted.

20230806_181014.jpg

[steve howe]

Thanks Adrian, I think this is a good compromise and a pragmatic alternative to the AJ, my only issue with it, (and it may be more obvious in photographs than real life) is the thickness of the etched hook. I am (post Scaleforum!!) planning to look at a wire version based on an 'upside down AJ' to see if the hook can be made even more discreet.

Steve

[Hardwicke]

Thanks Adrian, I think this is a good compromise and a pragmatic alternative to the AJ, my only issue with it, (and it may be more obvious in photographs than real life) is the thickness of the etched hook. I am (post Scaleforum!!) planning to look at a wire version based on an 'upside down AJ' to see if the hook can be made even more discreet.

Steve

I believe someone made a S&W delayed action one from wire to make it even thinner.

[davebradwell]

My issue with "other" couplings is just the lack of compatibility - one of the greatest strengths of the P4 standard is it's interoperability. There's perhaps some hope here, given the will and it would mostly be a case of choosing an appropriate height. Might a left handed version of your inverted hook mate with a Jackson? I can assure you I am familiar with the problems of using Jacksons on tightish curves. Full marks for having buffers that touch, though.

There's always the 3 link as a fall-back, I suppose!

DaveB

[Will L]

...
There's always the 3 link as a fall-back, I suppose!

With all that effort that goes into getting all the other details right e.g., I am bemused by P4 people who want to fit strange monstrosities where the couplings should be. I remember seeing Mr Rice's effort in the past, it fits into this category.

I sort of get AJs, but they are an hard to make and fit accurately and routinely, prone to damage and hard to keep in adjustment, don't work on corners and instead of presenting a visible monstrosity produce an equally visible absence. I finally decided against when we readjusted (stretched out of shape) a pair when using them to tow a heavy train up Tony Mont's 1in 60 to Buxton.

Anybody for SPHOG (Society for the Preservation of the Hand Of God)

[zebedeesknees]

...
There's always the 3 link as a fall-back, I suppose!

Anybody for SPHOG (Society for the Preservation of the Hand Of God)

Room for another Founder Member?

[jim s-w]

Anybody for SPHOG (Society for the Preservation of the Hand Of God)

Absolutely Will

It's all about suspension of belief. Do you choose to do it for the few seconds it takes to couple a 3 link with a pole, or do you do it every time you look at the model?

Personally the first option is obviously better and that's before you factor in the coupling shuffle many of the autocouplers options often need.

Jim

[Noel]

Anybody for SPHOG (Society for the Preservation of the Hand Of God)

[Paul Townsend]

I recently looked hard at Ian's Bringewood on paper. I see it has some advantages over vanilla AJs but shares some snags too.

I have been a supporter of SPHOG for many decades. It is required at High bridge, entirely on GWR and partly on S&DJR where AJs find some use.When helping at many exhibitions I have coped OK with Robin Gay's Rolvenden with HOG for his 3 links.

However the many members of the SPHOG club have not aged as much as me ( they will catch up eventually) since Covid. Good sight and hand steadiness are crucial for the HOG. Thus I have resigned from SPHOG and now prefer some sort of autocoupling.

This means I am choosing between Dinghams and AJs for Dartmouth. The former are 95% probable...extensive tests ongoing with Dinghams and Flippems and various magnetic uncouplers which would do equally well if I fallback to AJs.

We Broad Gauge modellers have an additiuonal challenge with 3 links in that the early BG vehicles had incredibly tiny hookls and no fixed chains at all, Guards carried several loose chains to use.

Thus a practical BG model which needs some shunting, even just loco run-round, must deviate from the prototype.

Now that the future of vanilla Dinghams is secured by our Society I reckpon they have the best visual effect of the options. My confidence in building and fitting them is growing during my trials.

Martin Goodall ditched them due to a tendency of the latch to stick in the up position. I must ask him if he tried the Type 2 latch as it is slightly heavier than Type 1 and so is less prone to that albeit needing a tad more oomph from the uncoupler.

[Philip Hall]

The modified Sprat & Winkle, 3mm scale ones, were mine, and Bob Barlow persuaded me to write the article in MRJ no. 0, which led to my association with MRJ. I got the idea from an article in the old Model Railway Constructor by HS Newcombe, who I think was a member of the Epsom Club at one time. His modification was to the old H&N coupling which itself in turn spawned the S&W. I made a few out of wire, also in the article, but didn’t make very many because they were such a pain to make.

Nothing was new even in those days! Iain monkeyed around with various couplings over the years but I don’t think used the S&W. I still have some assembled ones which get used on other folks models from time to time. They came from my wagons when I went back to three link.

They did work very well. 100% reliability.

Philip

[David Knight]

Martin Goodall ditched them due to a tendency of the latch to stick in the up position. I must ask him if he tried the Type 2 latch as it is slightly heavier than Type 1 and so is less prone to that albeit needing a tad more oomph from the uncoupler.

The trick with Dinghams is to make absolutely sure the loop and latch operate freely both before and after blackening. Excess solder is the usual culprit but sometimes a pivot pin that’s out of square with the hook can be the problem as can tabs not bent at 90 degrees. I’ve been using them since 2006 and am very pleased with them but they do have some problems on curves with wagons of differing overhang which is where Flippems come in handy.

Cheers,

David

PS I fully understand the aims of the SPHOG group and wish them well but dimly lit surroundings, dimming eyesight, and inconvenient tremors when reaching over sidings full of wagons have driven me to the sybaritic pleasures of auto couplings and Dinghams are the closest to the real thing I can find.

[martin goodall]

I believe that quite a few of us have experimented with various auto-couplings over the years. My first attempt was a variant using Harry Newcombe’s inverted hook, but I eventually decided to devise a design of my own. I developed this over a long period of time, after testing and considering modifications to various existing coupling designs.

I demonstrated this coupling at Scaleforum in September 2018, where it attracted quite a lot of interest, and I later wrote it up on this forum under the title of The ‘Burford’ Auto-coupling [ viewtopic.php?f=126&t=6069 ]

This is a single- ended design, with a fixed hook at one end of the vehicle, having a hinged delay latch above it (which avoids shuffling about when uncoupling), and a pivoted loop at the other end of the vehicle.

The original version of this coupling was entirely bent up from wire. This proved to be a successful design, but bending all the components from wire was awkward and time-consuming, so I decided to get some of the components etched in order to speed up production. I described and illustrated this revised version of the coupling in my ‘Burford Branch’ thread on this forum in April 2022 [see viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1846&start=450#p91065 ]

I subsequently decided to get separate etches of the hooks made, as shown below, but bending up the hooks from wire remains an option. I reckon that my etched hooks are no more conspicuous than the 3mm version of the S&W hook and, being mounted only 8mm above rail level, they are virtually invisible when chemically blackened and/or painted and seen against the track and ballast from a normal viewing angle. [I had to take the photos below from a low angle in order to make them visible, and I also left this example as bare metal for the same reason.]

1.JPG

4.JPG

7.JPG

8.JPG

9.JPG

The last of these shots shows the loop raised over a magnet.

I built a simple assembly jig for soldering the hooks and loops to their respective supporting brackets.

6.JPG

I am currently assembling and fitting a number of these couplings to wagons and other vehicles in order to check the etchings and to devise the quickest and easy method of assembly.

If there is enough interest, I may see if they can be made available commercially, but they will not be released until I am completely satisfied that any minor corrections have been made to the etches and a complete set of assembly instructions is available.

[In answer to Will, there is no escaping the fact that all automatic couplings are 'unprototypical', and some are more conspicuous than others, but there are various reasons why some of us find it necessary or desirable to compromise by fitting such couplings to our stock. I was a firm believer at one time in 3-link couplings operated by the Hand of God, but they are simply not a practical option on my present layout.]

[davebradwell]

It appears, then, that we have 4 or 5 couplings all based on a loop and inverted hook with different names. Perhaps someone might clarify just what the practical differences are between them...if any. How can you have so many variations of the same thing? Crucially, will they couple together? Someone said you can't have the buffers touching with a Dinghams so why is that good?

DaveB

[Hardwicke]

Crucially, will they couple together? Someone said you can't have the buffers touching with a Dinghams so why is that good?

DaveB

I know that people always go over the top with sprung buffers on locos, yet wagons seem to require them much more. You either get buffers at full stretch causing locking and three links have to be longer than they should or semi retracted and then lots of snatching.
I have predominantly three link with modified S&W at strategic points.

[David Knight]

Someone said you can't have the buffers touching with a Dinghams so why is that good?

DaveB

Actually buffers touching with Dinghams is not a problem. The problem sometimes occurs with sprung buffers being compressed as this allows the loop to get caught under the latch which impedes uncoupling and the same problem can occur when the buffers are too short but the instructions cover this issue and offer solutions. Dinghams also couple with 3 links but will then require Divine Assistance to uncouple.

Cheers,

David

[Enigma]

I've been 'experimenting' with Dinghams for Braynerts Sidings. There are two places on the layout which, thanks to my efforts to design a track plan that was 'interesting' to operate, are very awkward to couple wagons with 3-links. I have therefore dabbled with a non-magnetic Dingham, using a pole to flip up the loop by hand prior to spotting the wagon in place. Relatively easy to do on a 'plank', The awkward coupling up is then automatic (more or less!). I have both originals and Flippems and have generally used the 'long' Flippem loop with original Dingham hooks to get over potential buffer locking. When propelling the buffers come into contact properly. I will have to experiment (ie - fiddle about with) buffer lengths and only have a selection of 'Braynerts Approved Wagons' for show use. The minimum radius - including a reverse curve - is at the most 18" and they work OK. I don't use sprung buffers.

I have to admit however that I have found the assembly of the couplings to be a most awkward and exasperating process and have only been able to assemble - at the most - 2 at a time before going to make a cuppa. So far I've made 6 pairs...................

[martin goodall]

I have no sprung buffers on any of my rolling stock. I deliberately avoid sprung buffers.

The 'Burford' auto-coupling is designed to work with buffers touching or, when vehicles are being hauled, with a realistic separation between the buffers. The loops do not project beyond the buffer heads. The hooks project 3 mm beyond the buffer heads, and I have confirmed that rolling stock fitted with these couplings runs round even the sharpest curve on my layout (a little more than 800 mm radius) without buffer locking.

These couplings are designed to be straightforward to assemble, and the use of assembly jigs ensures accurate assembly without any of it being at all fiddly. I can't claim that making them up and fitting them is particularly quick, although batch production of component sub-assemblies helps to speed up the process to some extent.