Flipping coupling upgrades

[peterbkloss]

Because I hope one day to have an overall roof covering the 'end' of my terminus and didn't fancy sticking long poles in to uncouple, I decided a while back that I needed some form of auto(un)coupling and the Dingham system was the one that appealed to me the most

So I bought three etches a long time ago and set about equipping the stock I had converted (RTR) with them. The actual uncoupling / coupling works reasonably well on straight track and with stock that is very closely matched in buffer beam height. Having also invested in a quantity of MJT bogies I soon discovered that some simple means of adjusting the ride height would be a bonus and press studs just don't do it. So as a side show, that which runs on MJT bogies will be converted to two torsion wires so the press studs can be replaced by bolts and spacing washers. (That is partly because judging the moulded underframe thicknesses properly on my RTR conversions has not been my strong point).

The other big deal apart from ride height is throw over on tight bends. The Dingham 4mm version 'documentation' says that it works down to 3'6" radius and that you need rigid buffers to take the pushing force when propelling - well in my experience, only on shortish wheelbase 4 wheel stock. For 57' or 63' bogie stock on a 3'6"curve the loop is not quite wide or deep enough and gets pulled sideways plus the rigid buffers meet on the inside of the bend and often the sideways / compressive force leads to derailment especially if a track imperfection is crossed

So my bogie stock is in the process of being upgraded to sprung buffers at the rake ends at least and the loops are being replaced by slightly larger and stronger Flippem loops, thank you Marc Dobson for producing these, I was wondering how to make wider loops and lo, someone else had got there first.

Intitial trials are promising, and derailments caused by excess forces on couplings on tight (3'6" ish) bends and reverse curves are fading ...

So some pics of work in progress .....

firstly fitting to an ex Mainline - ex Airfix Stanier brake 3rd. Coupling done, buffer replacement still needed

Airfix-stanier-under.jpg

Then fitted to a Hornby Hawksworth brake, sprung buffers done for me

Hornby-Hawks-end.jpg

Finally a Bachmann BCK with Markit BR coach buffers (the only ready-sprung buffers of this kind I know about)

Bachmann-Mk1-end.jpg

[davebradwell]

This sounds very odd. If you can't use sprung buffers with Dinghams, then you're forced to move coaches further apart so the buffers don't jam and you don't get the proper appearance with buffers and gangways all in contact. A step away from Finescale. Of course where Mk1s are coupled together the buckeye would be used and the buffers retracted so they never touch but these were Pullman gangways unlike the standard gangways on your other coach. See MRJ 200 for how to get gangways touching on Bachamnn Mk1s.

DaveB

[peterbkloss]

Yes Dave I agree about the sprung buffer conundrum - the specific problem (I believe) is that the loops aren't strong enough to take propelling forces - that would happen if the buffers retract when propelling and the loop ends up transmitting the force jammed against the opposite hook. I've enough bent loops to prove the point. The Flippem loops are thicker material so probably will stand the abuse better. Of course, you can have stronger springs in the buffers but then if they are too strong they will fore stock off on tight bends. This only really applies to bogie coaches BTW, wagons usually aren't an issue. I will minimise propelling coaches on my layout anyway ...

Having said all that, I am a 'satisifed user' so far of the couplings and haven't (yet) regretted choosing them

(Sorry if I appear to be pontificating, its my experience so far, rather limited, and 'reading the documentation')

any other users out there of Dinghams have comments, I am interested to hear

I am also glad the Society got involved to 'save' the Dingham

[davebradwell]

Looks like you want to find someone who manages to have Dinghams together with scale coach spacing and standard gangways in contact. If they can't do that it's a major failing.

Can't see how you can get loops to push on each other as they' would seem too thin to line up reliably but then I'm not familiar with them.

DaveB

[David Knight]

I've been using Dinghams for quite a few years now and have got around the problem with coaching stock (mostly Mk1s it should be said) by using Kadees which is not the best answer but it works for me.

My main interest is shunting goods wagons where the problems mentioned above are not a great issue even though I know fitted wagons should be buffered up but life is too short. My contribution to the discussion is a simple shunter's pole. Ideally Dinghams would be used with electromagnets but propelling wagons for any distance without re-coupling tries the patience so I experimented with a variety of poles including crochet hooks and similar things which worked but were liable to get hung up in the loop and derail the wagon. One day it occurred to me that the hook was the problem so looked for other ways to catch the loop but not hang on to it. Monofilament fishing line can be quite stiff and can be formed by heat into a blob that would have sufficient friction to lift the loop without catching on to the loop. After some experimentation I came up with this:

tempImageSVzS8a.gif

Using it is quite simple, the blob is placed under the loop and raised up until the latch falls into place blocking the hook, et voila, the wagon can be left or propelled to its next destination.

Cheers,

David

[David Knight]

FWIW a further illustration of the use of the pole.

C964A860-67F2-43B6-9763-21F5938C1D2A.jpeg

One might wonder why use a pole when magnets remove the need for “divine intervention”? Simply because electromagnets are all very fine but in real life the train is not backed up to the same spot each time to uncouple/couple wagons and while a cunningly placed magnet can work there are many other occasions when they are inconvenient. Kadees, which I used for many years when modelling North American outline, are the same and modellers also use uncoupling tools as a supplement to magnets for the reasons listed above. Dinghams are the closest in appearance and function to the real thing that emerges from the buffer beam apart from three link/screw link but are still practical for use in exhibitions. When blackened Dinghams are unobtrusive and work well and are not overly fussy to make up once a simple jig or two is made up to help. Flippem loops have proved very useful for longer vehicles and diesels but need to be handled differently on installation as they are a mirror image from the Dinghams.

Cheers,

David

[peterbkloss]

Thank you David for your comments - I haven't tried propelling uncoupled any distance so this is an interesting solution - providing the track is within reach!

[peterbkloss]

Folowing my thread about the need for sprung buffers on longer bogie stock when using Dinghams or Flippems, I did a 'cheapy' fixed to sprung buffer conversion on one of my ex Mainline ex Airfix Stanier brake 3rds by cutting off the buffer heads and drilling through 0.5mm and then 1mm most of the way and then putting in 51L 'spare' buffer heads and springs that I happened to have (I bought them as heads and springs at a show).

To drill the hole I set up a 'horizontal drilling machine' - not having 'proper' machine tools this is as good as it gets in my workshop!

drilling out buffers.jpg

Both minidrill and chassis are supported by carefully chosen packing so the drill is actually in the centre of the buffer stock - the drill then steered by hand too ..... outrageous but it worked

and this is the result

buffers fitted.jpg

and standing on the track - excuse the too tall dingham electromagnet armature ...

stanier end with sprung buffers-mod.jpg

[peterbkloss]

So, in the post two days back came Society Journal no.233 (post takes a little longer to Norway) and joy of joys included two items on the launch of the S4 Soc distribution of the Dingham coupler. Thank you Steve Carter and Mark Davy for your contributions. Mark commented that he had no experience of the Flippem loops marketed by Pregroup Railways (Marc Dobson) - well as I have said above, I have and I heartily recommend them for my combination of bogie stock (40 ft +) and tight curves ( 1100-1200 mm). Here is an example showing a normal loop at the end of travel on an 1100mm curve:

old-loop.jpg

compared to a Flippem loop

new-loop.jpg

and similarly with my 14XX and Bachmann A38 (62ft) autotrailer with very long buffers

Auto-flippem.jpg

I'm busily changing the loop end coupling on all my bogie stock to use the Flippem loops and I'm just about done. One thing I haven't said is that due to the single ended nature of the Dingham, If you have a turntable (which I will) you need to 'do something' to get around having to avoid wrong way round connections. The original Dingham suggestion was to create a special loop and hook coupling for the locos that turned. I didn't fancy that so my 'solution' has been to fit hook and latch to both ends of the locos and a loop to each end of my passenger coach rakes as I do not intend to remarshall in the terminus station, just shunt fixed rakes. Remarshalling will be done at the fiddle yard end, the rakes will have some sort of internal bar coupling (I'm trialling WestHill wagonworks Hunt magnetic couplings with the end brakes having an 'internal' connection at the inner end and a Flippem loop at the outer end. I am only going to have a small goods yard (originally I wasn't having any at all!) so I haven't been too fussed about what to do about wagons - I could dedicate a freight loco or two or have a double looped wagon at one end of the rake, I haven't really got that far in operations to find out how much of a nuisance that will be (or it just adds more complication/fun). For the passenger rakes I can add loose vans at one end again I don't think will unduly restrict operations. We shall see.

So next in this programme is checking that all the loops do actually work and that the hooks are at the right level. Sadly first time round I 'assumed' that if I centred the couplings in the bufferstocks which are always set to 14mm centres I would be fine (!!). Needless to say I'm now sorting that mess out checking the coupling levels and bringing them all to close to the same height!

[David Knight]

Hi Peter,

There are few ways to get around the handed nature of Dingham/Flippem couplings one of which you’ve already figured out and that is to use fixed rakes. The other is to use either tank engines or diesels neither of which need turning.

Forgive me if you have already thought of this but the appearance of the couplings is greatly improved if they are blackened. Then again if you are trying to illustrate a point using photos the plain ones do show up better .

Cheers,

David

[jim s-w]

Have you considered DCC control?

https://p4newstreet.com/dcc-controlled-dinghams/

[peterbkloss]

Hi Peter,

There are few ways to get around the handed nature of Dingham/Flippem couplings one of which you’ve already figured out and that is to use fixed rakes. The other is to use either tank engines or diesels neither of which need turning.

Forgive me if you have already thought of this but the appearance of the couplings is greatly improved if they are blackened. Then again if you are trying to illustrate a point using photos the plain ones do show up better .

Cheers,

David

Yes the couplings in the photos are 'naked' and they will all be blackened - i've been using a spirit marker to do that and it does work well enough