The great Hornby Coupling Farce.....PART 2

[pheaton]

Some of you might remember i started a thread a while back (with a similar title) wondering if a solution had been found to the Hornby coupling problem which has plagued the newly tooled Hornby classes 50 56 and 60....

 

For the steam only amongst us allow me to explain......since time began RTR manufacturers mounted the standard tension lock coupling either directly or via a nem pocket to the bogie of there model, which meant in the simplest terms as the coupling followed the bogie it remained centred at all times even on curves....... this worked really well for old Hornby, works really well for Bachmann works really well for Heljan......worked very well for lima.....airfix......mainline.....

 

For some reason......Hornby decided that they would depart from this tried and tested design and mount the coupling pocket in a cranked arrangement on the chassis.....which relied on a spring to centre it.......the reasoning behind this will remain one of the great mysteries of the human race, for the following reasons.....

 

1,) its vastly over complicated.....

 

2,) it requires 3 and in some cases 4 separate parts to assemble it correctly... there is no way on this planet that it can be cheaper then mounting it in a nem pocket on the bogie moulding.....

 

the upshot of it is...that if you take your very expensive nice looking Hornby class 50 and tip it over.....and move the coupling manually you will find that with a continuous load behind it (AKA some wagons or carriages) the Hornby design prevents it ever ever ever ....centring....

 

the upshot of that is when your loco exits a curve with anything more than 1 coach or 1 wagon behind it.....it derails.....as the weight of the trailing load prevents the coupling centring and the nearest bogie gets dragged off.

 

Last night during a running session I committed the grave mistake of changing what trains ran on my layout and I thought I would have my nice large logo 50 on load 8 mk2 aircons (lima for those interested) with a Bachmann full brake for good measure.....every curve the first coach came off....I shouldn't be disheartened my 56s and 60s do exactly the same thing.....at this point I'm looking at 12 of my 56s and 5 of my 60s and my 4 class 50s and wondering how much they will fetch in ebay.....because they simply at the moment are useless.....

 

then I put one of my 31s on.......which uses a similar chassis mounted coupling but with a few key differences....and this hauled the rake round the layout....no problem at any speed put the 50 back on and look at it the wrong way and it derails.....put the 31 on...no problem.....hmmmmmmmmm ok....

 

the main difference between the 31 and the 50 is that working travel of the coupling is drastically reduced......whilst the coupling does crank over its not enough under any curve or point to derail the stock behind it.....

 

comparing it to the 50 (and 56) the 31 has about 35% less working travel for the same coupling arrangement.....which is when I though I would experiment with a spare class 50 chassis......

 

Based on the theory that the problem is caused by excessive movement in the coupling, the theory was that by restricting that movement it would alleviate or resolve the problem....for the experiment I did the below...

 

 

with two bits of stiff wire glued into place I have restricted the movement of the coupling (for completeness the model was completely re-assembled) with the cover plate and spring ( the filing is per previous suggestions to resolve the issue which were not successful sadly) so with the coupling restricted in movement I decided to try it again.....

 

100 % successful, with 8 Bachmann mk2s behind it and 8 lima mk2s behind it and 28 retooled HAAs the loco managed it without derailing at any speed through 2nd radius set track curves.

 

The gotcha though is on the 50 the bogie needs the coupling to move because at the extremities of its rotation it interferes with the coupling and is designed to push it out of the way in order to achieve its maximum rotation, on finescale curves this would never be a problem however on set-track you need to be careful as this could derail the loco so always take care when restricting the movement of the coupling on the class 50, on the class 56 this isn't an issue (haven't checked the class 60 yet).

 

The upshot of this is....I or the other modellers in this community should never have to resort to this on a modern and expensive model, hopefully Hornby will re-consider there coupling arrangements for future models.....

Edited November 16, 2017 by pheaton

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

....I or the other modellers in this community should never have to resort to this on a modern and expensive model, hopefully Hornby will re-consider there coupling arrangements for future models.....

 Queen Anne is dead (at present).

 

Having put this close coupling mechanism on four newly tooled diesels that didn't really need it; when Hornby came to renew their HST power cars, a diesel with a gangway on one end for which a close coupling mechanism is a good choice: THEY DIDN'T FIT ONE! Probably because it would have drawn attention to their not-renewed Mk3 coaches without any CCM. Clearly no confidence in the sales potential of mk3 coaches, sufficient to renew them to match the new power cars...

 

Cometh the class 87 Electric. What will Hornby do on this one?

[sawyermodels]

I started using kadees on my class 60s etc and all my stock and it solved the problem as the kadee is strong enough to recentre the coupling.

[metropolitan cammell]

I thought that close coupling mechanisms needed a solid bar like a roco or Hornby clone roco coupling.

[Dunsignalling]

I thought that close coupling mechanisms needed a solid bar like a roco or Hornby clone roco coupling.

For optimum performance, yes and, from that "ideal" point, the benefit of having CCMs reduces as the amount of sideways slack in the coupler heads increases.

 

Kadees permit less free movement than mini tension-locks, so there is some gain to be had. The OP's photo shows larger TLCs which allow virtually unrestricted movement, (or non-movement, as the case may be) of the link before they create any guidance or centreing effect.

 

John  

Edited November 16, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Hilux5972]

I do agree it should definitely be on the bogies on the newer diesels. The 43 works well because it still allows the full air tank modelling beneath the guards compartment. They definitely need to sort it out.

[Dunsignalling]

Some of you might remember i started a thread a while back (with a similar title) wondering if a solution had been found to the Hornby coupling problem which has plagued the newly tooled Hornby classes 50 56 and 60....

 

For the steam only amongst us allow me to explain......since time began RTR manufacturers mounted the standard tension lock coupling either directly or via a nem pocket to the bogie of there model, which meant in the simplest terms as the coupling followed the bogie it remained centred at all times even on curves....... this worked really well for old Hornby, works really well for Bachmann works really well for Heljan......worked very well for lima.....airfix......mainline.....

 

For some reason......Hornby decided that they would depart from this tried and tested design and mount the coupling pocket in a cranked arrangement on the chassis.....which relied on a spring to centre it.......the reasoning behind this will remain one of the great mysteries of the human race, for the following reasons.....

 

1,) its vastly over complicated.....

 

2,) it requires 3 and in some cases 4 separate parts to assemble it correctly... there is no way on this planet that it can be cheaper then mounting it in a nem pocket on the bogie moulding.....

 

the upshot of it is...that if you take your very expensive nice looking Hornby class 50 and tip it over.....and move the coupling manually you will find that with a continuous load behind it (AKA some wagons or carriages) the Hornby design prevents it ever ever ever ....centring....

 

the upshot of that is when your loco exits a curve with anything more than 1 coach or 1 wagon behind it.....it derails.....as the weight of the trailing load prevents the coupling centring and the nearest bogie gets dragged off.

 

Last night during a running session I committed the grave mistake of changing what trains ran on my layout and I thought I would have my nice large logo 50 on load 8 mk2 aircons (lima for those interested) with a Bachmann full brake for good measure.....every curve the first coach came off....I shouldn't be disheartened my 56s and 60s do exactly the same thing.....at this point I'm looking at 12 of my 56s and 5 of my 60s and my 4 class 50s and wondering how much they will fetch in ebay.....because they simply at the moment are useless.....

 

then I put one of my 31s on.......which uses a similar chassis mounted coupling but with a few key differences....and this hauled the rake round the layout....no problem at any speed put the 50 back on and look at it the wrong way and it derails.....put the 31 on...no problem.....hmmmmmmmmm ok....

 

the main difference between the 31 and the 50 is that working travel of the coupling is drastically reduced......whilst the coupling does crank over its not enough under any curve or point to derail the stock behind it.....

 

comparing it to the 50 (and 56) the 31 has about 35% less working travel for the same coupling arrangement.....which is when I though I would experiment with a spare class 50 chassis......

 

Based on the theory that the problem is caused by excessive movement in the coupling, the theory was that by restricting that movement it would alleviate or resolve the problem....for the experiment I did the below...

 

WP_20171116_18_55_03_Pro.jpg

 

with two bits of stiff wire glued into place I have restricted the movement of the coupling (for completeness the model was completely re-assembled) with the cover plate and spring ( the filing is per previous suggestions to resolve the issue which were not successful sadly) so with the coupling restricted in movement I decided to try it again.....

 

100 % successful, with 8 Bachmann mk2s behind it and 8 lima mk2s behind it and 28 retooled HAAs the loco managed it without derailing at any speed through 2nd radius set track curves.

 

The gotcha though is on the 50 the bogie needs the coupling to move because at the extremities of its rotation it interferes with the coupling and is designed to push it out of the way in order to achieve its maximum rotation, on finescale curves this would never be a problem however on set-track you need to be careful as this could derail the loco so always take care when restricting the movement of the coupling on the class 50, on the class 56 this isn't an issue (haven't checked the class 60 yet).

 

The upshot of this is....I or the other modellers in this community should never have to resort to this on a modern and expensive model, hopefully Hornby will re-consider there coupling arrangements for future models.....

A (perhaps) more effective (and easier) modification might be to fix a pair of fairly stiff wires into the ends of the bogies, spaced so as to "bracket" the NEM pocket but with a millimetre or two of slack to allow for the differing angles generated by the bogie and the linkage, 

 

Then, as the bogie straightens up, it will steer the CCM back onto the straight and narrow, too.

 

John

Edited November 16, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[pheaton]

The issue with kadees is that its an all or nothing affair unless you are prepared to reduce the flexibility of your rolling stock, but they are a chalk or cheese item, in that some people myself included find them more difficult to accept, as I've never tried them i cant comment on how they work better but threads I've seen in the past confirm this behaviour.

 

 

Oh and potentially john yes my solution is more a ffs Hornby sort it out highlight if it prompts easier and more effective solutions from people like yourself then that's even better

 

I fitted a larger coupling as seen in the picture before the above mod to try and resolve the problem but if I'm honest compared to the standard issued modern tlc it actually made it worse. Looking at all four of my 50s the mount and tlc is different across the batches which seems to imply that Hornby has tried to resolve the issue (I'm only picking on 50s here) I've not looked at 56s. But for me the entire coupling needs redesigning and if i can resolve the issue with two bits of wire it shouldn't be too difficult for Hornby to resolve the entire issue without relying on it's customers to do it for them.......or do we all run light engine on shunting planks .

 

Is it really a ccm? I cant see any closer coupling with the included tension locks over the Bachmann equivilents....?

Edited November 16, 2017 by pheaton

[JSpencer]

The class 71 has CCS and it works well (so does the DJM version). So I guess the 87 will too.

 

Can understand why the HST does not, as someone else said, the air cylinders make a CCS awkward.

 

Hornby's detailed coach range use CCS too.

[JSpencer]

The issue with kadees is that its an all or nothing affair unless you are prepared to reduce the flexibility of your rolling stock, but they are a chalk or cheese item, in that some people myself included find them more difficult to accept, as I've never tried them i cant comment on how they work better but threads I've seen in the past confirm this behaviour.s....?

I have fitted Kadees to some Heljan locos to avoid snipping off pipe work on the buffer beams. I use converter vans (normally a southern PMV or CCT) which have a kadee one end and tension lock at the other. No need to convert all stock to Kadees.

[frobisher]

Can understand why the HST does not, as someone else said, the air cylinders make a CCS awkward.

Not really, Dapol's N gauge HST has a functioning CCM, but then, so do their MK3s (including the DVT...).

[Dunsignalling]

The issue with kadees is that its an all or nothing affair unless you are prepared to reduce the flexibility of your rolling stock, but they are a chalk or cheese item, in that some people myself included find them more difficult to accept, as I've never tried them i cant comment on how they work better but threads I've seen in the past confirm this behaviour.

 

 

Oh and potentially john yes my solution is more a ffs Hornby sort it out highlight if it prompts easier and more effective solutions from people like yourself then that's even better

 

I fitted a larger coupling as seen in the picture before the above mod to try and resolve the problem but if I'm honest compared to the standard issued modern tlc it actually made it worse. Looking at all four of my 50s the mount and tlc is different across the batches which seems to imply that Hornby has tried to resolve the issue (I'm only picking on 50s here) I've not looked at 56s. But for me the entire coupling needs redesigning and if i can resolve the issue with two bits of wire it shouldn't be too difficult for Hornby to resolve the entire issue without relying on it's customers to do it for them.......or do we all run light engine on shunting planks .

 

Is it really a ccm? I cant see any closer coupling with the included tension locks over the Bachmann equivilents....?

The whole thing with having a spring to self-centre the CCM is problematic. As you have discovered its effectiveness reduces and eventually ceases as load increases.

 

That's why devising a way of steering the coupler generally works better over a wider range of circumstances.

 

John

Edited November 16, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[pheaton]

However the potential issue of using the bogie to steer the coupling is that whilst being tidier and easier potentially to implement, you are increasing the the torque required to rotate the bogie through curves which means if your trailing load exceeds 50% of the weight of your locomotive, it could derail...which is quite possible with a scale length train by using the chassis to restrict the coupling there's no change to the movement force on the bogies.

Edited November 16, 2017 by pheaton

[No Decorum]

I like Kadees but I only use them on fixed formations with tension locks on the ends. One of their great virtues is the four lengths available. It enables the closest coupling practicable for different models. They don’t always work and there can be a tendency for the dropper to foul points. The fault lies with the NEM pocket on some models rather than the Kadees. I don’t think it worth the trouble on older stock without NEM pockets. Feel free to disagree.

 

Cams and springs are all very well. They will deflect on curves as designed but they will deflect the wrong way when pushing, which makes matters worse.

 

Aren’t all these problems a result of the introduction of the better-looking tension locks with much narrower loops? They look neater but I doubt that such a can of worms was foreseen when they were first introduced.

[Francis deWeck]

Works well with Heljan?

 

The problem that exists with Heljan is the coupling droops, despite being NEM, and so doing has a great tendency to catch the points when crossing them. This particularly so for the Class 17 and 33's. Apart from trimming the coupling hook to a degree there doesn't appear any other way to deal with this.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Cams and springs are all very well. They will deflect on curves as designed but they will deflect the wrong way when pushing, which makes matters worse.

 

Aren’t all these problems a result of the introduction of the better-looking tension locks with much narrower loops? They look neater but I doubt that such a can of worms was foreseen when they were first introduced.

These camming close coupling mechanisms (CCM) were developed by European HO manufacturers, who also developed coupler heads optimised to operate them by forming a rigid bar between the mechanisms. of which the best known are probably the Fleischmann Profi, and Roco patterns. (The latter pattern has been supplied on an over length mount by Hornby, R8220.) They informed their customer base of this development and how to use it, something I was dimly aware of when it was introduced, thanks to continental family with the model railway interest.

 

Applied to OO first on coaches by Bachmann and then Hornby, neither manufacturer attempted any education on how to get the best from them. This may be because it would have meant stating 'not really suitable for use with the tension lock coupling, of any design'... Bachmann issued the mk1 coaches with a rigid clip in connector in the form of the hose connections, and those of us who tried these could immediately see the benefit. A little thermal resetting of the 'hoses' to bring the gangway ends into contact on straight track, and the full intended effect was achieved: very nice too, but awkward for shunting and similar.

 

Equipped with an appropriate coupler forming a rigid bar between the CCM (I use the Roco pattern) all is well. Long trains may be pushed through any track formation that an individual vehicle will negotiate with complete success. As many of us know, Hornby's overlong R8220 by happy chance works perfectly with Bachmann's incorrectly positioned coupler pockets on most of their mk1 production, a welcome little burst of serendiptity.

 

Much the same comments apply to the 'Keen' system, a product for DIY retrofitting coaches with CCM. This product comes with a dedicated (manual only) coupler which forms a rigid link between the mechanisms, and may equally be applied to RTR coaches with CCM.

 

However the potential issue of using the bogie to steer the coupling is that whilst being tidier and easier potentially to implement, you are increasing the the torque required to rotate the bogie through curves which means if your trailing load exceeds 50% of the weight of your locomotive, it could derail...which is quite possible with a scale length train by using the chassis to restrict the coupling there's no change to the movement force on the bogies.

The first vehicle in a 14 coach rigid bar coupled CCM train, weighing somewhere in the region of 180g, has about 2.5kg behind it. They all stay on the rails, pulling and pushing, through any formation.  Free movement of the mechanisms is very important, and I lob in a little graphite powder as 'insurance' to ensure this is maintained, after the vehicle has been tested for free movement on receipt.

 

Likewise free rolling as vehicles, for which GT85 functions very well on RTR plastic bogies; ensures that the train will roll away on a 1 in 100, the 'olde standard' of what constitutes free rolling stock and still as valid as ever.  That means that the traction force on my maximum weight 3kg train is only 30g on level track, and worst case on the 1 in 80 gradient of my set up rises to circa 70g, still well below half the vehicle weight.

[cravensdmufan]

I use a small amount or Labelle 134 dry powder on the metal plate where the cam rubs.  The lubricant ensures the coupling always remains free moving and springs back to centre position.  A graphite pencil may do the job as well.  But dry lubrication is the key.

 

Only needed to apply once and never had any problem since with my Hornby Classes 31 50 56 or 60's.  Perfect, even with the lightest wagons in tow.

 

Labelle is made in USA and not widely available here in the UK - I got mine at an exhibition some years ago.  It is expensive but a bottle will last a lifetime.

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Labelle-430-000134-NEW-LABELLE-MICRO-FINE-POWDER-WITH-PTFE/112565776821?hash=item1a357171b5:g:K6IAAOSwxflZvMog

Edited November 17, 2017 by cravensdmufan

[ejstubbs]

I use a small amount or Labelle 134 dry powder on the metal plate where the cam rubs.  The lubricant ensures the coupling always remains free moving and springs back to centre position.  A graphite pencil may do the job as well.  But dry lubrication is the key.

 

Only needed to apply once and never had any problem since with my Hornby Classes 31 50 56 or 60's.  Perfect, even with the lightest wagons in tow.

 

Labelle is made in USA and not widely available here in the UK - I got mine at an exhibition some years ago.  It is expensive but a bottle will last a lifetime.

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Labelle-430-000134-NEW-LABELLE-MICRO-FINE-POWDER-WITH-PTFE/112565776821?hash=item1a357171b5:g:K6IAAOSwxflZvMog

 

An alternative to the graphite pencil is dry graphite powder eg https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00BTOBHH6 You may want to be careful how you spray it around in the vicinity of things containing electrickery.  Also, be careful of the stuff that's sold for locks: that often has the graphite suspended in oil, which is emphatically not what you want for close coupling mechanisms.

 

WD40 do a dry PTFE lubricant: https://www.amazon.co.uk/WD-40-Specialist-Lubricant-PTFE-400ml/dp/B006UCJ4Z4 - much cheaper ml for ml compared to Labelle but I can't swear that it would be precisely as effective (although if it is then 400ml would probably be enough for all the close coupling mechanisms in the UK!)

Edited November 17, 2017 by ejstubbs

[Dunsignalling]

However the potential issue of using the bogie to steer the coupling is that whilst being tidier and easier potentially to implement, you are increasing the the torque required to rotate the bogie through curves which means if your trailing load exceeds 50% of the weight of your locomotive, it could derail...which is quite possible with a scale length train by using the chassis to restrict the coupling there's no change to the movement force on the bogies.

The bogie rotates as a result of the wheels following the curve, there isn't (or shouldn't be) a turning moment applied by the propelling locomotive unless the coupler is attached to the bogie.

 

The purpose of having CCUs In the first place is so that the forces of haulage and propulsion are applied to the coach mainframe. The bogie goes along for the ride as it does on the prototype. An over-strong steering device would cause trouble by interfering with the bogie, and we want the opposite effect, that of the bogie acting upon the CCU. 

 

The wires or other device used to ensure the CCU will self-centre upon exiting curves will only cause problems if they surround the pocket too tightly and/or if they are too rigid. It is necessary for the guides and the CCU to slide against one another even though they do not rotate through matching arcs, so a certain amount of slop and/or flexibility is vital. How much is "right" is a matter for trial and error, balancing more slack + complete rigidity against tighter guidance + greater flexibility until one finds a sweet spot.

 

The idea is for the guides to achieve approximate centring of the CCU, and for the spring to complete the job that, when a heavy load is involved, it is not strong enough to initiate.

 

 John 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[vitalspark]

I'm obviously missing something here..a coupling on a loco does not need to close up like that between coaches so pull it off and drop it in the bin..then replace with a wire loop of the kind that almost all decent modellers will fit if running tension lock stock.

 

Unless you are finescale and using Jacksons or the like then a wire loop is the answer.

 

If you are running KDs then obviously its not for you but then you are likely not having issues.

 

The remainder will likely be running stock regardless of period with some sort of tension lock with every coach/wagon having a hook..so why do you feel the need to also have one on the loco?

 

Who wants to see a tension lock hook sticking out from the front of an otherwise decent loco?

 

A loop at the correct height as the tension lock bar and secured by turning the ends at right angles up into the loco frame into drilled holes and secured with superglue or araldite is the answer.

 

Its unobtrusive and allows the tension lock hook on the leading vehicle to slide and follow the loco perfectly.

 

No self respecting modeller leaves a tension lock on a loco and apart from that the wire loop is cheap..easy to fit.. good to look at as it can blend with the buffer bean detailing especially on a diesel and its also totally reliable.

 

Ten years on the exhibition circuit with Alloa and not a single coupling failure or trains splitting back this up.

 

A few images attached.

 

One of the first tasks with the new Hornby 'Stanier' was to lose the tender coupling.

 

Heljan Co-Bo

 

Underside..chemically blackening the wire would be better however its easy to touch up when it gets 'chippy'

 

Coupling bars galore on Alloa

 

Its not just our locos that get the wire loop treatment Tony Wrights beautiful kit built A2 Tudor Minstrel on Alloa.

 

Hope this is taken in the spirit its intended as not meaning to be critical but often simplest is best.

 

Dave.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jjb1970]

I think kadee couplings are the best there is but height set up is critical and they are ruthless in exposing poor set up and less than perfect track.

[w124bob]

I'm about to pick up D400(renumber 50035 circa 1974)and having read this thread will be going down the wire loop road , with full buffer beam at one end.

[vitalspark]

I'm about to pick up D400(renumber 50035 circa 1974)and having read this thread will be going down the wire loop road , with full buffer beam at one end.

 

 

Good man its the best way as it allows you to add extra detail and unless you are planning to double head then yes I would detail the other end with no coupling.

 

The thing is you are only removing the existing coupling from the NEM pocket and its a few seconds to pop it back in again if for whatever rason you wanted to revert to a full tension lock.

 

Also any fixing holes for the wire loop are up under the buffer beam into the loco chassis or floor so theres no trace of anything..nothing to lose by having a go.

 

Use a drill with a tight interference fit and drill up behind the buffer beam vertically.

 

I know guys that use 0.45 n/s wire but I prefer something slightly heavier to allow for propelling on the bar.

 

You are going to ask me what size ..but I cant remember its perhaps 0.7 but tbh as long as it allows the hook to engage and its rigid enough which even 0.45 will be after forming a small loop and securing the ends.

 

Form the loop along the same dimensions as the smaller neater tension locks and stand it off the loco usually just a smidgeon behind the buffer heads is right as it looks ok and allows plenty of space for coupling up.. if the stock is propelled or buffers up the loop should act

 

on the coach tension lock bar with the nose of the hook one the coach still being clear of the loco body.

 

Its easy enough to offer up a coach and get the correct distance.

 

if the holes are drilled interference fit the wires of the two legs will slide up and remain there while you adjust it down for height etc.

 

Its then a case of some superglue on the two ends and slide up again.

 

The forces on the bar are spread up vertically so the glue really is only to retain the wire.

 

Glad you're having a go as said its easy to reverse without anything showing and I doubt you'll regret regret it.

 

Dave. 

[vitalspark]

I think kadee couplings are the best there is but height set up is critical and they are ruthless in exposing poor set up and less than perfect track.

 Kadees are excellent for close coupling passenger stock and so easy to fit but I don't favour them on locos unless of course they are US outline..or on the back of an A4 tender!

 

We only use them on fixed rakes so height is not an issue.

 

The Hornby Thompson/Gresley suburbans are transformed in minutes with their addition but remember for these coaches as is often the case a mix is best for optimum appearance.

 

A short 17 and a long 18 ..one on either end of the coach..is ideal for these coaches as 2 x 17s wont couple and 2 x 18s space them too far apart.

 

The Cravens 105 DMU with kadees is transformed in minutes with the corridor connections almost touching.

 

It always amazes me when I view an otherwise decent exhibition layout with few sharp curves running corridor stock and dmus with huge gaps between coaches that are still tension lock coupled.

 

Dave. 

Edited November 18, 2017 by vitalspark

[w124bob]

Which Kadee number for the Craven?