Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Connected to conversions and time. Tony says he will in the fullness of time convert the freight stock that is shunted to spat and winkle couplings. I can now tell you having converted 50 coal wagons, from rtr, kits and scratch. It took 3 months of only doing that. Now a retired person might do it more quickly, but then they seem to have the fullest diaries too.

Changes your mind on doing it?

Richard

Richard,

 

You're right about the diary being full!

 

Regarding Sprat & Winkle couplings, as Martyn and Alastair have suggested, not every vehicle needs to be converted. My plan (and it's nearly complete) is to remove all the tension-locks from my wagon fleet. These 'nasty' couplings were retained as an expedient, otherwise I wouldn't have had most of the Scotch Goods or a Down mineral empties. Because I don't really build much freight stock, I've had to rely on some RTR wagons (a minority, because mates have built a load of van/wagon kits).

 

As you might know, as part of a barter between Rob Kinsey and me (I built him locos), I acquired at least two complete rakes of his wagons (ex-Stoke/Charwelton), all S&W-fitted. Up to now, these have run in complete rakes. However, the plan is to use some of these wagons in the pick-ups, which are the only two trains which are shunted/separated on LB. The substitute wagons have my simple hook & bar coupling, which is non-automatic, because it doesn't need to be. It is, however, unobtrusive (unlike the TLs) and 100% reliable.

 

My decision to abandon tension-locks was vindicated today by a mate and me running the sequence. What happened during shunting? Two wagons (both Bachmann) had tension-lock couplings of incompatible heights. Why should this be? So, there are only about a dozen (out of 150) wagons still retaining them.

 

I've experimented/experimenting with uncoupling the S&Ws. I've found the system works perfectly well with only one hook on most wagons (provided they're all the same way round). Obviously, there are a few 'strategic' wagons, which have hooks at both ends - for locos running-round, etc. Instead of using magnets in the ballast, I have a small, flat piece of thin brass and just depress the hook when uncoupling. Although this precludes semi-automatic uncoupling and it requires the hand of God, it seems to work perfectly. It means wagons can be uncoupled anywhere on the layout.

 

For uncoupling the tension-locks, I'd made little brass paddles. These worked in two ways. One, they worked (most of the time), and two, they lifted the wagons up, and off! By just pressing down (lightly) on the S&W hook, there are no derailed wagons. 

 

As for the running today? Almost perfect. I forgot to change one point, that's all!

 

To finish; may I please thank all those who are posting pictures of their Gresley carriages/conversions? What great stuff!

Edited March 18, 2017 by Tony Wright

[robertcwp]

I have used Sprat & Winkle couplings for many years. Some wagons are in block trains as they don't need to be shunted. Others are usually S&W at one end and tension-lock at the other, except brake vans and long-wheelbase or bogie wagons, all of the former and most of the latter are S&W both ends. I'm way too far down the track to change now.

[mullie]

I do have strategically placed magnets which I use whenever possible. However, as the layout has developed, and I now run two mixed trains, it isn't always possible to auto uncouple so I use a coffee stirrer (thin side down) to uncouple. I mainly use S&W base plates and a simple jig and if I can make them work anyone can!

 

I have a piece of track with a homebuilt height jig at one end and jig for soldering coupling loops to base plates, very crude but it works, can be seen in the photo below:

 

 

Martyn

Edited March 19, 2017 by mullie

[Woodcock29]

Good morning Andrew,

 

a question for you with regard to your O4/5 if I may. Is the boiler solid through the length of the barrel, or is there provision made to add weight as desired?

Hello Headstock

 

The boiler is hollow, but note you only get the smokebox/boiler/firebox and cab. There is no footplate so you either need to use a Bachmann footplate and splashers or else make these from scratch.

 

Regards

 

Andrew

[Headstock]

Hello Headstock

 

The boiler is hollow, but note you only get the smokebox/boiler/firebox and cab. There is no footplate so you either need to use a Bachmann footplate and splashers or else make these from scratch.

 

Regards

 

Andrew

 

Morning Andrew,

 

thank you very much for your reply. The footplate is not an issue as I have a number of options in that regard. Thanks for the information on the boiler, with the Crownline V2 I drilled out the underside of the resin boiler with an 'industrial' size bit and packet it with lead. I haven't worked on such a large, what I take to be a 3d printed item before, so I wasn't certain how it would take to the procedure without damage to the fine detail. How did you get on with something the surfaces of any print line residue?

 

Many thanks,

 

Andrew.

[Woodcock29]

Morning Andrew,

 

thank you very much for your reply. The footplate is not an issue as I have a number of options in that regard. Thanks for the information on the boiler, with the Crownline V2 I drilled out the underside of the resin boiler with an 'industrial' size bit and packet it with lead. I haven't worked on such a large, what I take to be a 3d printed item before, so I wasn't certain how it would take to the procedure without damage to the fine detail. How did you get on with something the surfaces of any print line residue?

Cleaning the 3D printed material was not the easiest and to be honest I'm wondering now how clean I got it? The first issue was smoothing the fine lines/layering of the material to get a smoothish surface - this took some time. I removed the delicate 3D printed cab handrails and also the ejector pipe as these were too fragile and likely to get broken - brass replacements were the order of the day.

 

The surface in some areas of the boiler and cab is now starting to show a slight degree of what appears to be porosity - hard to describe really - hence my comment above about whether this is something to do with how clean it was before I primed it. I gave it 3 good washes with washing up detergent from memory. It was then painted with Holts DupliColour Car grey primer and then several light coats of a mix of Humbrol satin black (No 85) and a small amount of brown (186). After lettering/numbering it was then coated with Humbrol satin clear. I'm thinking I might give it some more coats of varnish when I have the air brush out next.

 

Andrew

[Headstock]

Cleaning the 3D printed material was not the easiest and to be honest I'm wondering now how clean I got it? The first issue was smoothing the fine lines/layering of the material to get a smoothish surface - this took some time. I removed the delicate 3D printed cab handrails and also the ejector pipe as these were too fragile and likely to get broken - brass replacements were the order of the day.

 

The surface in some areas of the boiler and cab is now starting to show a slight degree of what appears to be porosity - hard to describe really - hence my comment above about whether this is something to do with how clean it was before I primed it. I gave it 3 good washes with washing up detergent from memory. It was then painted with Holts DupliColour Car grey primer and then several light coats of a mix of Humbrol satin black (No 85) and a small amount of brown (186). After lettering/numbering it was then coated with Humbrol satin clear. I'm thinking I might give it some more coats of varnish when I have the air brush out next.

 

Andrew

 

Andrew,

 

it might be better to smooth down your the top coat with fine wet and dry in the areas you think are problematic. You could then retouch the areas in with the airbrush and revarnish. It's a shame that the body doesn't come as a simple kit of parts to aid the cleaning process and also allow for the optimal angle for each part in the printing process. I suspect that the downside of this would be in increased production costs.

 

I'm thinking that after cleaning the raw body it may be an idea to undercoat first and then rub down and then recoat as required. The process may possibly need repeating, with the help of suitable masking to prevent an undesirable build up of paint in areas that you don't want. A time-consuming process but no more so that putting the body together as a traditional kit that still requires preparation and painting. As you have suggested, items such as the handrails are probably best replaced and a case could be made for the washout plugs for example. Fortunately, I always have had a penchant for whittling away on bits of wood, similarly, I find the process of rubbing down quite relaxing and am perfectly happy to while away a few hours in the process.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Headstock

[richard i]

Richard,

 

You're right about the diary being full!

 

Regarding Sprat & Winkle couplings, as Martyn and Alastair have suggested, not every vehicle needs to be converted. My plan (and it's nearly complete) is to remove all the tension-locks from my wagon fleet. These 'nasty' couplings were retained as an expedient, otherwise I wouldn't have had most of the Scotch Goods or a Down mineral empties. Because I don't really build much freight stock, I've had to rely on some RTR wagons (a minority, because mates have built a load of van/wagon kits).

 

As you might know, as part of a barter between Rob Kinsey and me (I built him locos), I acquired at least two complete rakes of his wagons (ex-Stoke/Charwelton), all S&W-fitted. Up to now, these have run in complete rakes. However, the plan is to use some of these wagons in the pick-ups, which are the only two trains which are shunted/separated on LB. The substitute wagons have my simple hook & bar coupling, which is non-automatic, because it doesn't need to be. It is, however, unobtrusive (unlike the TLs) and 100% reliable.

 

My decision to abandon tension-locks was vindicated today by a mate and me running the sequence. What happened during shunting? Two wagons (both Bachmann) had tension-lock couplings of incompatible heights. Why should this be? So, there are only about a dozen (out of 150) wagons still retaining them.

 

I've experimented/experimenting with uncoupling the S&Ws. I've found the system works perfectly well with only one hook on most wagons (provided they're all the same way round). Obviously, there are a few 'strategic' wagons, which have hooks at both ends - for locos running-round, etc. Instead of using magnets in the ballast, I have a small, flat piece of thin brass and just depress the hook when uncoupling. Although this precludes semi-automatic uncoupling and it requires the hand of God, it seems to work perfectly. It means wagons can be uncoupled anywhere on the layout.

 

For uncoupling the tension-locks, I'd made little brass paddles. These worked in two ways. One, they worked (most of the time), and two, they lifted the wagons up, and off! By just pressing down (lightly) on the S&W hook, there are no derailed wagons. 

 

As for the running today? Almost perfect. I forgot to change one point, that's all!

 

To finish; may I please thank all those who are posting pictures of their Gresley carriages/conversions? What great stuff!

I too have switched to a coupling at one end only as it is half the time and cost. I also understand the frustration with tension locks as the boys find the cannot couple up certain wagons at their couplings are different heights. It definitely increases the shunting puzzle for them.

Richard

[BrianMac]

Hello Tony

 

No I am not saying other P4 layouts do not have good baseboards, fine track laying, well maintained stock and team that is disciplined. I am saying the combination of these factors help Mostyn perform well at exhibitions. There are many layouts of all scales and gauges that do not have the same high level of these attributes and the operators and public wonder why they do not run as well.

 

As for diesels not having unpowered pony trucks to push or have trailing behind, how about Peaks and English Electric type 4s?

 

Not all diesel based layouts run well, I know of one diesel layout where the running tonight was appalling. Can I work out why all of a sudden a DMC of my 4 car BRCW unit (converted Hornby 110)  is derailing as it goes over a single slip in one direction? Back to backs OK, one bogie was a bit stiff to rotate, a few strokes with a file in hole in the underframe and nice and lose. Still derails, both propelled and hauled. I first changed the wheels, then the bogies and in the end a spare underframe was dug out of my DMU bits box. Even with a new underframe, bogies and wheels it derailed. The other DMC does not, neither does the TS with the same design of bogie and underframe. I ran the train with a Calder Valley DMC, no problem. But when I tried with a DMC off my 3 car BRCW set, plonk into the ballast it went on the same spot, it hasn't done that before. No other units or coaches jump off there. No obvious track problem. 

Clive,

 

I am gifting a Calder Valley set to a friend. It has been boxed up for years and was dry as a bone. Gave it a service and driving car runs fine but propelling two cars it throws itself off at a point where the curve straightens out to meet a trailing turnout. Did you ever solve your problem?

 

Brian

 

sorry to use first names as I am not known to you.

[Tony Wright]

I have used Sprat & Winkle couplings for many years. Some wagons are in block trains as they don't need to be shunted. Others are usually S&W at one end and tension-lock at the other, except brake vans and long-wheelbase or bogie wagons, all of the former and most of the latter are S&W both ends. I'm way too far down the track to change now.

A very sensible arrangement, Robert. 

 

I suppose if the 'perfect' 4mm (or any scale) coupling had been devised, we'd all be using it. 

 

Having photographed so many layouts down the years with so many coupling systems, I think I've come to the following conclusions. 

 

Since tension-locks are the industry standard and if a layout owner just wants to run trains, these are probably best retained. However, tension-locks fixed to bogies cause them to jump and derail if control is not smooth and perfect. The same is so for the 'collar' arrangement around bogies which is designed to increase the distance between adjacent vehicles on tighter curves. Having tried this with a couple of Bachmann Mk.1s (using the representation of the two pipes to do the pulling) I dislike it, because it can cause the towed coach to jump. It's not too keen on being propelled over curves, either. I suppose Kean Systems invented this idea and I remember photographing the prototypes. That seemed to work well. I wonder why all tension-locks do not come out at the same height, despite the universal 'NEM' pockets these days. Even though tension-locks might be the coupling of preference, why do some leave the obese things on the fronts of locos? Why don't they substitute a discreet metal goalpost? 

 

I've never used Kadees (is that how they're spelled?) except on locos I've built for Grantham. They look like a buckeye coupling, but just look totally wrong underneath the buffer beams of (British) tenders apart from those A4s (and the W1 up to BR days) equipped with corridor tenders. I took some pictures once where they were fixed by cutting a gaping hole in the middle of the buffer beam of the tender of a loco I'd built. I was horrified! I thought Kadees were supposed to be fixed UNDERNEATH the beam, even though the real ones were in the centre (though not in a bl**dy great hole!) It's my (limited) experience that they don't always uncouple/couple with 100% reliability. Still, if one has Gresley/Thompson/Bulleid/Pullman gangwayed stock, then they're the most realistic. 

 

A mate had Hornby-Dublo as a kid (his parents were well off), so used the Peco-type hook. Another chum had Trix, so the couplings were compatible. Being less-well-off, I had Tri-ang. Since none of us knew the meaning of 'compatible' (or incompatible) at the time, the couplings were bent and twisted so they'd couple up - for two-rail HD, of course, or Tri-ang wagons on HD tin track. Some folk still use them, but beware the thief. At one show, a very nice carriage was lifted out of a train in the fiddle yard when the operators weren't looking. Dead easy with Peco couplings.

 

Screw-link/three-link/Instanter couplings are the most realistic, of course, but what a fag to put together, especially with long rakes prior to the opening of a show (that's why they were discarded on Stoke and Charwelton). Not only that, when they accidentally uncoupled, what an even greater fag to put them back together in a tight fiddle yard.

 

Sprat & Winkle were/are the preferred couplings of our choice. However, and nobody I've asked knows the answer to this, even when they've been running happily in a train for hours, how do two become crossed over, causing a derailment? 

 

I've never used the Alex Jackson coupling. It's really discreet but very fine and easily knocked out of alignment. Is it also not entirely suitable for very heavy trains? 

 

I took pictures of the late Dick Tarpy's system, which used a pair of brass 'L's, but pivoted at 45 degrees underneath the vehicle floor. It seemed to work really well and I'm surprised it hasn't caught on. Graeme King showed me a modification of this he uses for one of his rakes on Grantham. It, too, works very well, and is discreet.

 

A mate uses a system developed by him and the late Andrew Kinsella, which also works very well. 

 

There must be other systems - perhaps others will enlighten us. 

 

As is known, I just make-up my own for my carriage rakes. I know these work. 

Edited March 19, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Focalplane]

A recent innovation in Gauge O involves very powerful but small magnets in place of the hook in a traditional scale coupling (screw, 3 link, etc.).  This allows coaches (in my case) to be coupled simply by pushing them together and then pulled apart with a firm Hand of God, the coach not having to be lifted off the track at all.  This is ideal for a rake of coaches that are kept running together but according to the makers the limit for Gauge O coaches is six.  On corridor coaches the magnets are hidden by the corridor connections.  They are sprung (as are the buffers on my coaches) and seem to be more than capable of negotiating a 6ft radius reverse curve.

 

I can't see a reason why this arrangement could not be scaled down to 4mm but so far no-one has produced a smaller coupling.

 

For my reduced (to 6) Midlander rake I will have screw couplings on the brake ends at front and rear, and five pairs of magnetic couplings for the rest.

 

I am well acquainted with Kadees having numerous HO North American models.  Retrofitting them to older rolling stock can be an absolute pain as the tiny spring can so easily be lost or damaged.  The European style Kadees are much easier to install with the standard NEM pocket.  But they simply look odd on British locomotives.  The Kadee patent ran out some time ago and there are now imitations, some of which are smaller in outline and may not be so reliable.

 

For me, one of the attractions of 7mm scale is that I can, most of the time, work the screw link and three link couplings with the help of a tool made of bent brass wire in a brass tubing handle.

[coachmann]

As usual, a bit late to the meeting! The Hornby Dublo coupling was a much neater coupling than the oppositions (Triang) and was comparatively easy to fit much of the time. It is still available in its original form from Peco but I dont know why it still has that thumping great hole in it. This metal coupling showed its downside when 2-rail came in, as it carried current of course and some very funny things happened when current from metal loco chassis passed between loco or vehicles. I am considering adopting it at the moment.

Edited March 19, 2017 by coachmann

[New Haven Neil]

There is no need to carve holes in things to fit Kadees, they are available with several different degrees of offset shanks.  Given proper set-up and a touch of their graphite dust on fitting, they are 99% reliable.

 

Problems only occur when using the other manufacturer's versions, none of which I have ever found anything like as good as the real thing, over 25 years of use.

 

Why they should look 'wrong' on UK stock any more than a tension lock or Peco/HD type coupling can only be down to familiarity with other 'wrong' couplings.

Edited March 19, 2017 by New Haven Neil

[Barry Ten]

Here's my attempt at a Spratt and Winkle coupling jig:

 

 

I made it as a device for fine-tuning stock that had got out of alignment on the way to an exhibition, but I must admit it's not

had much use since, and if I'm fitting couplings to a new wagon, I just trust my eye now and know roughly when things are

in the right position, and how to adjust them if they're not.

 

I'm not sure how common this is, but for my shunting sequence, I need to be able to detach wagons from a train on the main line. As

an experiment I added some magnets at three strategic points on the main, and I've been pleased to report very few instances of

unwanted uncoupling. There's a downside, though, which is that, as a wagon passes over the magnet, one of the two arms (I fit them

at both ends) is liable to dip down for an instant. In practise I tolerate this as the price for being able to do totally hands-free

shunting, which I find enormously satisfying when it all goes well.

 

As mentioned before, I actually prefer it when my wagons aren't totally free-wheeling, especially when using magnetic uncouplers.

So quite a few items of rolling stock have some form of mild friction brake applied to one axle, not enough to stop the wheel turning,

but to prevent the wagon jittering around too much, and to keep tension across all the couplings in a good train. I picked this up

from Marc Smith of this forum, whose shunting layouts always operate well at exhibitions.

 

Alastair

 

 

[Barry O]

Tony

 

a lot of the Leeds MRS OO members use DG couplings

 

easy to fit, bought as an etch plus phosphor bronze (for loops) and iron wire (for droppers) from Wizzard Models.

 

we have used these for quite some time using electromagnets for uncoupling. Once uncoupled the vehicles can then be pushed into place and left.

 

Personally I use KDs inside my coaching rakes with DGs on the end.(and yes they are fitted through the buffer beam.)

 

 

Downside is that you need to check them before use at a show - using a height gauge (ours  were supplied by Mike Edge so that they are all the same) and, by turning them upside down you can check that the coupling "bar" is free to move.

 

For O Gauge we use Dinghams as the use of screw links on Corridor stock is a pain in the proverbials - corridor connections are always getting in the way ...

 

I did look at AJ couplings and bought a jig from the late Martin Brent but they have a problems with the OO axle slop tolerances,

 

Dick Tarpey's "Lincs" coupler is available from Richard Syms and is demod at Warley as part of the alternatives to standard couplings in the demo area.

 

Baz

[stewartingram]

Does anyone use electromagnets (and if so, what  type) with S&W couplings?

 

Stewart

[Barry O]

we make our own coils - we had a large supply from the  Wisdons emporium (alas long gone!)- procured via their cat-a log.

[asmay2002]

There must be other systems - perhaps others will enlighten us.

 

On another thread in this forum - the Sayer Chaplin coupling

Edited March 19, 2017 by asmay2002

[Focalplane]

There is no need to carve holes in things to fit Kadees, they are available with several different degrees of offset shanks.  Given proper set-up and a touch of their graphite dust on fitting, they are 99% reliable.

 

Problems only occur when using the other manufacturer's versions, none of which I have ever found anything like as good as the real thing, over 25 years of use.

 

Why they should look 'wrong' on UK stock any more than a tension lock or Peco/HD type coupling can only be down to familiarity with other 'wrong' couplings.

 

Neil

 

I agree with everything you wrote, but they, along with anything that is not scaled down from the prototype, do look "wrong".  When I was enjoying 3.5 and 4mm scale I fitted Kadees to lots of locomotives and never had to cut anything out that was visible.  Butchers should stay in their shops!  What did need some cutting were 1980s box cars and gondolas that cost a mere $7 out of the box.  I have a few dozen of them in storage if anyone is interested!  Accurail, Walthers, etc.

 

Paul

[New Haven Neil]

Neil

 

I agree with everything you wrote, but they, along with anything that is not scaled down from the prototype, do look "wrong".  When I was enjoying 3.5 and 4mm scale I fitted Kadees to lots of locomotives and never had to cut anything out that was visible.  Butchers should stay in their shops!  What did need some cutting were 1980s box cars and gondolas that cost a mere $7 out of the box.  I have a few dozen of them in storage if anyone is interested!  Accurail, Walthers, etc.

 

Paul

 

No argument with that at all , I agree totally Paul, but what I really meant was that they are no more wrong than, say, tension locks, which as you rightly say are also wrong but seem to be accepted as 'less wrong' by many folk.  That is odd, in my world!  I tried 3 links in my late teens, and the frustration led me to US modelling!

[Barry O]

Paul

 

try using Kaydee 58s.. more scale sized and less requiring of the hand of god to uncouple/couple...

 

Baz

[Tony Wright]

There is no need to carve holes in things to fit Kadees, they are available with several different degrees of offset shanks.  Given proper set-up and a touch of their graphite dust on fitting, they are 99% reliable.

 

Problems only occur when using the other manufacturer's versions, none of which I have ever found anything like as good as the real thing, over 25 years of use.

 

Why they should look 'wrong' on UK stock any more than a tension lock or Peco/HD type coupling can only be down to familiarity with other 'wrong' couplings.

Neil,

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

I didn't imply that Kadees were more visually-wrong than any other type of proprietary coupling, though I could have phrased my statement better. In fact, as I alluded to, they do actually look like a (real) buckeye coupling; entirely unlike tension-locks which are visibly awful.

 

Sprat & Winkles don't look like any real coupling, either. However, they're more discreet than TLs.

 

I 'cheat', by fitting a screw- or three-link shackle to the front of my locos, and a simple goalpost at S&W height on the rear/tenders. I also fit a 'proper' hook through the slot in the rear buffer beam as well, should visiting stock with proper couplings need hauling. Or, I have a converter wagon or two with a proper coupling at one end and a S&W bar at the other. That gives me plenty of flexibility with visiting locos and stock. In fact, the running of visitors' locos and stock is a particular highlight of mine on LB, whatever its coupling system. 

 

Returning to Kadees, I'm glad to learn that cutting a very wide slot in a buffer beam is not necessary (nor a Kadee sticking right out where there should be a hook). It's just that when I made a pre-Grouping Atlantic for Grantham, the fitting of a 'modern' coupling underneath the buffer beam at the rear of the tender just looked incongruous. No more incongruous I admit that a tension-lock, but far less discreet than a blackened S&W goalpost, with a hook in the middle of the beam's slot. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[New Haven Neil]

Neil,

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

I didn't imply that Kadees were more visually-wrong than any other type of proprietary coupling, though I could have phrased my statement better. In fact, as I alluded to, they do actually look like a (real) buckeye coupling; entirely unlike tension-locks which are visibly awful.

 

Sprat & Winkles don't look like any real coupling, either. However, they're more discreet than TLs.

 

I 'cheat', by fitting a screw- or three-link shackle to the front of my locos, and a simple goalpost at S&W height on the rear/tenders. I also fit a 'proper' hook through the slot in the rear buffer beam as well, should visiting stock with proper couplings need hauling. Or, I have a converter wagon or two with a proper coupling at one end and a S&W bar at the other. That gives me plenty of flexibility with visiting locos and stock. In fact, the running of visitors' locos and stock is a particular highlight of mine on LB, whatever its coupling system. 

 

Returning to Kadees, I'm glad to learn that cutting a very wide slot in a buffer beam is not necessary (nor a Kadee sticking right out where there should be a hook). It's just that when I made a pre-Grouping Atlantic for Grantham, the fitting of a 'modern' coupling underneath the buffer beam at the rear of the tender just looked incongruous. No more incongruous I admit that a tension-lock, but far less discreet than a blackened S&W goalpost, with a hook in the middle of the beam's slot. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Great - we agree to agree!

 

I really fancied trying one of the 'alternatives' back in my 00 days, and looked closely at S&W, but a group in our club diverted my attention with US shaped trains, so it didn't happen.

[Clive Mortimore]

Clive,

 

I am gifting a Calder Valley set to a friend. It has been boxed up for years and was dry as a bone. Gave it a service and driving car runs fine but propelling two cars it throws itself off at a point where the curve straightens out to meet a trailing turnout. Did you ever solve your problem?

 

Brian

 

sorry to use first names as I am not known to you.

Hi Brian

 

I have solved the problem, all be it a temporary one, it is banned from platform 3 and does not have to traverse the slip to threeway point crossover. Still cannot work out why one unit has suddenly taken to jumping off at that point. And oddly when being shunted back across the crossover it does not derail.

 

If it is an old Calder Valley set it might have the old plastic axles which have a really naff back to back measurement. If it has the newer metal axle wheels the back to back can be altered to 14.5mm. Many Hornby wheels are under this dimension. I always rewheel older class 110 units with 12mm disc wheels. Apart from one car in one unit they work lovely.

[Anglian]

Tony

 

a lot of the Leeds MRS OO members use DG couplings

Ex LM cattle wagon.JPG

 

easy to fit, bought as an etch plus phosphor bronze (for loops) and iron wire (for droppers) from Wizzard Models.

 

pigeon brake (1280x492).jpg

we have used these for quite some time using electromagnets for uncoupling. Once uncoupled the vehicles can then be pushed into place and left.

 

Personally I use KDs inside my coaching rakes with DGs on the end.(and yes they are fitted through the buffer beam.)

 

 

Downside is that you need to check them before use at a show - using a height gauge (ours  were supplied by Mike Edge so that they are all the same) and, by turning them upside down you can check that the coupling "bar" is free to move.

 

For O Gauge we use Dinghams as the use of screw links on Corridor stock is a pain in the proverbials - corridor connections are always getting in the way ...

 

I did look at AJ couplings and bought a jig from the late Martin Brent but they have a problems with the OO axle slop tolerances,

 

Dick Tarpey's "Lincs" coupler is available from Richard Syms and is demod at Warley as part of the alternatives to standard couplings in the demo area.

 

Baz

 

 

 

I'm 99% certain that Keith Armes (have I got the name correct?) the builder of the fabulous 2mm fine scale Chipping Norton used the 2mm version of the DG and coupling. I was so transfixed by the layout at the MRJ Central Hall show way back when that I must have spent two hours watching him shunt the yard. The layout operated without a single fault and the performance of the coupling was perfect. Wagons were uncoupled by hidden magnets and then pushed into place. It really was a wonder to behold.

 

However, I'm not sure of the suitability of this type of coupling in the context of a large mainline layout with many large and potentially heavy formations on the roster.