Jump to content
 

Why are tension couplings still legal?


Recommended Posts

I am afraid that I doubt if this could be done.  The HD (Peco Simplex) coupling relies on having the big pivot somewhere behind the buffer beam (to get the correct spacing between vehicles) and the coupling is on about the same level as the pocket. The only way I can fit HD couplings to modern wagons involves destroying the NEM pockets.

Sixty odd years ago when making the first steps from Train Set to "scale" modelling fitting scale wheels and three link couplings was standard. Now at the other end of the age spectrum I find the need to go back to autocouplers! 

 

best wishes,

 

Ian

The peco doesn't fit NEM pockets without major surgery and or soldering but the similar Jouef / Playcraft plastic type which works with Peco and H/D will fit many NEM sockets by cutting off the pivot and filing the plastic shaft to fit.  Likewise the peco coupling can be lengthened with a piece of brass. A 1 mm or so vertical hole in the pocket to take a track pin or piece of wire will keep the coupling in.

I think the mid 60s Triang tension lock is probably the best of a bad bunch, the TTversion was even better, as it is metal so it can be tweaked if it is too high or low unlike the later ones, it is medium ugly but the NEM sockets on UK 4 wheel goods wagons are hideous, likewise the old Airfix is neat but the socket is massive and looks horrible from a low viewing angle. I use Triang coupings on Lima, Bachmann etc coach rakes by mounting it much further back so the corridor connections almost touch

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be worse - have you tried to couple 3-link or screw link under a corridor connection whilst the public watch you at an exhibition.......................?

 

Cheers,

Mick

Yes and it was 0 gauge even though my eyes were a lot younger - LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which are essentially upside-down tension locks.............

That look better, are easier to magnetise and allowed delayed uncoupling for shunting...

 

For "hands free" operation I feel they're the clear winner for English prototypes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That look better, are easier to magnetise and allowed delayed uncoupling for shunting...

 

For "hands free" operation I feel they're the clear winner for English prototypes.

Is there a version of S&W for NEM pockets?

 

H,C&O

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which are essentially upside-down tension locks.............

Upside down tension locks maybe, but that's where the comparison ends;

.

Not as obtrusive as some great big black commercial plastic thing........................and they can operate remotely.

.

Wagons so fitted don't  'shimmy' back and forth like those with Kadees when passing over their powerful undertrack magnets.

.

However,  fitting Spratt & Winkle couplings has a downside.......................

 

It requires some  fettling and fitting  components to your rolling stock...............................something to which the present day "plant and play" modeller may be averse.

 

Brian R

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm afraid I find Sprat and Winkle couplings to be as obtrusive as modern tension lock, and more so if they have that awful bit of wire running between the buffers.  If you exclude AJs, which are a pain to set up and maintain, the least obtrusive automatic couplings I've found that are also effective are Dinghams.  They are not however RTR - like Sprat and Winkle, they have to be made up and carefully fitted.

 

DT

Edited by Torper
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Upside down tension locks maybe, but that's where the comparison ends;

.

Not as obtrusive as some great big black commercial plastic thing........................and they can operate remotely.

.

Wagons so fitted don't  'shimmy' back and forth like those with Kadees when passing over their powerful undertrack magnets.

.

However,  fitting Spratt & Winkle couplings has a downside.......................

 

It requires some  fettling and fitting  components to your rolling stock...............................something to which the present day "plant and play" modeller may be averse.

 

Brian R

I use both Sprat & Winkles and Kadees in different realms of my modelling, the former in a project already established when I became involved and the latter out of choice. If I were starting from scratch, today, experience would not prompt me to choose S&W's over Kadees - much more labour intensive, in both installation and maintenance.  

 

The Kadee "shimmy" isn't an issue for me as I stick to electro-magnets nowadays. TBH, I never found it a massive problem with the undertrack ones, though I generally omitted the "intensifier" plate as I consider the action to be sufficiently powerful without it. Maybe my stock isn't as free running as some...... 

 

For most applications, I find that I can prepare stock and fit Kadee whisker couplers (I rarely use the NEM sort except in CCU's) in far less time than is required to get a good result with S&W's.

 

A recent, and admittedly extreme, example was a Hornby Van B, on which I had to arrange the counterbalance end of the couplers to go up through the floor to avoid butchering the bogies. I am very pleased with the result, but it took almost a whole morning, against roughly two minutes to fit a pair of NEM Kadees into the CCU's provided!  I shall soon need to do the same on the van ends of two Pullman brakes, but thankfully they will have CCU's and Roco coupler heads within the set.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote to Peco last year to ask them if they made or considered making their version (simplex?) with a plug in NEM fitting. They said no they didn't but would think about it. I am sure they would be very popular as I think they are much more convenient than any other couplings on the market.

 I have some objective evidence from long ago of the failings of the simplex design (Peco/H-D) coupler. It is simply this: with realistic length freight trains of free running wagons on a finescale layout it randomly uncoupled all over the shop. It's a train set coupler, and even on train sets underperformed the old massive tension lock in the essential matters of reliably autocoupling, staying coupled and auto-uncoupling. The sole benefit is the lift out capability for the crane shunt. Peco failed to develop it into a genuine autocoupler.

 

The modern equivalent is the very well developed knuckle coupler first available from Kadee and now others. Why look for anything else, especially as uniquely among RTR autocoupler products it actually looks like a widely used prototype coupler, on top of the well known class leading operational performance?

 

It's not perfect, and its biggest failing on UK buffered 4W loose coupled wagon stock is insufficient slack to allow the wagons to buffer up when propelled. The Bachmann miniature tension lock suitably positioned does this, replicating the loose coupled effect very neatly. Since it looks no less like the real three link pattern than all other RTR autocouplers, I pronounce it the best available RTR autocoupler for unbraked UK goods stock, especially as it also takes the 'Brian Kirby' magnetic uncoupling modification thanks to a non-ferrous hook.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 I have some objective evidence from long ago of the failings of the simplex design (Peco/H-D) coupler. It is simply this: with realistic length freight trains of free running wagons on a finescale layout it randomly uncoupled all over the shop. It's a train set coupler, and even on train sets underperformed the old massive tension lock in the essential matters of reliably autocoupling, staying coupled and auto-uncoupling. The sole benefit is the lift out capability for the crane shunt. Peco failed to develop it into a genuine autocoupler.

 

The modern equivalent is the very well developed knuckle coupler first available from Kadee and now others. Why look for anything else, especially as uniquely among RTR autocoupler products it actually looks like a widely used prototype coupler, on top of the well known class leading operational performance?

 

It's not perfect, and its biggest failing on UK buffered 4W loose coupled wagon stock is insufficient slack to allow the wagons to buffer up when propelled. The Bachmann miniature tension lock suitably positioned does this, replicating the loose coupled effect very neatly. Since it looks no less like the real three link pattern than all other RTR autocouplers, I pronounce it the best available RTR autocoupler for unbraked UK goods stock, especially as it also takes the 'Brian Kirby' magnetic uncoupling modification thanks to a non-ferrous hook.

 

Because of cost, principally, especially if one has a lot of rolling stock. But it is a personal choice, I accept.

Edited by olivegreen
Link to post
Share on other sites

The peco doesn't fit NEM pockets without major surgery and or soldering but the similar Jouef / Playcraft plastic type which works with Peco and H/D will fit many NEM sockets by cutting off the pivot and filing the plastic shaft to fit.  Likewise the peco coupling can be lengthened with a piece of brass. A 1 mm or so vertical hole in the pocket to take a track pin or piece of wire will keep the coupling in.

I think the mid 60s Triang tension lock is probably the best of a bad bunch, the TTversion was even better, as it is metal so it can be tweaked if it is too high or low unlike the later ones, it is medium ugly but the NEM sockets on UK 4 wheel goods wagons are hideous, likewise the old Airfix is neat but the socket is massive and looks horrible from a low viewing angle. I use Triang coupings on Lima, Bachmann etc coach rakes by mounting it much further back so the corridor connections almost touch

 

 

 

I have tried this, but I find that the vertical movement of the 'hook' is compromised; and care has to be taken for the coupling unit not to foul the wheels. 

 

However, I can live with those constraints and the closer coupling does make a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s all a matter of horses for courses, innit? I like Dinghams which, for me do the trick ‘cos they come out of the buffer beam where couplings are supposed to live. That said, they are handed, don’t particularly like lumpy track, you have to make them up from etches, and can be fussy with wagons of greatly different lengths on curves. But I can live with all of that given their vastly superior appearance and the fact that they have all the virtues of Kadees without looking, erm, foreign.

 

Cheers,

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I reckon we are stuck with t/ls on RTR stock for the foreseeable future; it would be a brave (by which I mean suicidally insane) manufacturer that would bring out a new design.  Compatibility with older non-NEM fitted vehicles is essential, and some of these are still being produced (e.g. Hornby A27/30 auto trailer, a vehicle liable to be propelled at line speeds).  My moan is that what is supposed to be a standard coupling is anything but; bar height above rail, width, profile, and hook profiles, not to mention materials and methods of mounting on underframes and bogies, can and do differ, even within one manufacturer's output.

 

I am one of those previously referred to old codgers/Luddites who have been forced to return to t/ls as my eyesight and steadiness of hand are no longer up to the job of using scale couplings, which are the only thing that I consider look decent on a British outline model.  At least I model in 00 and do not have to endure the abominations that infest N gauge stock.  I don't like t/ls, but have accepted than my continued operation of my railway depends on them.  I just have to live with the appearance and overscale distance between vehicles, and that retrofitting such stock as remains from the old days that used scale couplers was a terrible faff.

 

The good points are that they are, once you've faffed around to get the bars the right height, 100% bombproof reliable; coupling up is automatic (in fact I wouldn't mind it not being, sometimes) and I have, in over a year's operation, never had a train part on me in service.  And I have been able to shoehorn in 3 extra fiddle yard roads, enough storage for all my trains, by using setrack turnouts on this non-scenic section of the layout.  Propelling through turnouts is faultless even with a 64' Hawksworth BG and a 9' wheelbase mineral (except for Ratio GWR 4-wheeled coaches, which are only just happy at 2' radius), and locked buffers are unknown.  Turnouts on the scenic section are Peco small or medium radius; only the engine release crossover is small radius.

 

What were the alternatives?  Kaydees are IMHO just as ugly on British stock with the exception of prototypically buckeye fitted stock, i.e. LNER 8-wheel tenders and LNER/SR/BR standard gangwayed passenger stock, and I am less than convinced about their reliability having seen many failures on exhibition layouts; also I don't like the unrealistic shuffling back and forth needed to get them to uncouple or couple up correctly.  Realistic shunting is important to me and there is a lot of it on my layout, which is designed for this sort of operation; by realistic I include in the definition the ability to couple or uncouple at any point on the layout and will not accept the restriction imposed by automatic uncoupling that requires stock to be positioned at a specific location.  I know that Kaydee's fans are legion, but please don't bother trying to convert me.

 

Spratt and Winkle and the like are faffy to install (if I had trouble with t/ls, what sort of mess will I get into with these), though the appearance is much better; but the closer coupling achievable with them will be negated by buffer lock (for some reason I just wrote 'butter lock'; perhaps I am hungry) on my fiddle yard's trainset curves.  I considered making my own hook and loop system using paper clips, but abandoned the idea due to probable issues around securely attaching the clips to the buffer beams, and buffer locking when propelling, preventing which would need unrealistic bars across the buffers.

 

I considered Peco/Hornby Dublo type 'buckeyes', as they have the advantage that uncoupling with a hook can be done from overhead, but the reliability issues dissuaded me; I do not run long trains and they would have been strong enough for my purposes.  They have no other advantage, though, and even this one would have led to problems on gangwayed stock; anyway I have become adept at uncoupling t/ls with a shunting pole from the side even in quite restricted locations.  My pole is the conventional wire attached to a bent up piece of surplus rail which is taped to a small but powerful LEDLENSER flashlight; sits in my hand nicely and very effective.

 

My only real answer is to convert to O gauge and see if I can manage scale couplings of that size!  Not gonna happen, so I'll live with the t/ls for now, which at my age means until they nail the lid on.  Perhaps some enterprising person will devise a better alternative that will overcome the difficulties and fit an NEM pocket, but good luck with that given that NEM pocket mounting positions are not as standard as they should be and anything like the 'extendable' couplers that RTR manufacturers are nowadays fitting to coaching stock will be complex and expensive to produce, and still look like a t/l at the end of the day!

 

I would hope that the future includes, as well as world peace, a cure for all diseases, and an end to poverty, a DCC operated automatic coupler of unintrusive appearance, with perhaps sound effects including the shunter swearing when the coupling fails to engage on the first attempt.  The first 3 things are more likely...

 

To summarise, I hate tension locks and all they stand for but could not operate my railway without them.

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

The peco doesn't fit NEM pockets without major surgery and or soldering but the similar Jouef / Playcraft plastic type which works with Peco and H/D will fit many NEM sockets by cutting off the pivot and filing the plastic shaft to fit.  Likewise the peco coupling can be lengthened with a piece of brass. A 1 mm or so vertical hole in the pocket to take a track pin or piece of wire will keep the coupling in.

I think the mid 60s Triang tension lock is probably the best of a bad bunch, the TTversion was even better, as it is metal so it can be tweaked if it is too high or low unlike the later ones, it is medium ugly but the NEM sockets on UK 4 wheel goods wagons are hideous, likewise the old Airfix is neat but the socket is massive and looks horrible from a low viewing angle. I use Triang coupings on Lima, Bachmann etc coach rakes by mounting it much further back so the corridor connections almost touch

 

The Jouef/Playcraft coupling* couples OK with Peco/HD couplings, but uses the Trix spacing for the uncoupling dropper. The Peco/HD couplings (at least the metal one) can be modified by bending in the dropper, but then no longer operate with the Peco uncouplers. There was a version for Trix back in the day, but they are rather hard to find today.

 

Some tweaking may be required, but this is necessary with the various versions of the Peco coupling anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a version of S&W for NEM pockets?

 

H,C&O

 

Oh, if only! I'm surprised Wizards et all haven't commissioned a version as I'm sure there's a market. Something like an injection moulded baseplate with NEM fitting and sprung plastic hook (much like modern T/Ls) with a fine wire drawbar. At that point you're basically making a finescale T/L by another name but RTR manufacturers seem to be set on keeping things "chunky" which is a big negative aspect for modelers.

 

 

I use both Sprat & Winkles and Kadees in different realms of my modelling, the former in a project already established when I became involved and the latter out of choice. If I were starting from scratch, today, experience would not prompt me to choose S&W's over Kadees - much more labour intensive, in both installation and maintenance.  

 

The Kadee "shimmy" isn't an issue for me as I stick to electro-magnets nowadays. TBH, I never found it a massive problem with the undertrack ones, though I generally omitted the "intensifier" plate as I consider the action to be sufficiently powerful without it. Maybe my stock isn't as free running as some...... 

 

For most applications, I find that I can prepare stock and fit Kadee whisker couplers (I rarely use the NEM sort except in CCU's) in far less time than is required to get a good result with S&W's.

 

A recent, and admittedly extreme, example was a Hornby Van B, on which I had to arrange the counterbalance end of the couplers to go up through the floor to avoid butchering the bogies. I am very pleased with the result, but it took almost a whole morning, against roughly two minutes to fit a pair of NEM Kadees into the CCU's provided!  I shall soon need to do the same on the van ends of two Pullman brakes, but thankfully they will have CCU's and Roco coupler heads within the set.

 

John

 

Unfortunately that's a tradeoff that the modeller has to make; Kadees are so easy to fit and work nigh flawlessly, and for American layouts I absolutely adore them, but for English prototypes it sticks out like a bulldogs ######. S&W couplings are, as you accurately surmised, a lot of faffing around, especially because the design itself is very simplistic. Rather than a proper axle to pivot the coupling on we have the "staple" hinge design, and a large counterweight rather than a spring. There's potential for leaps and bounds in improving the S&W coupling, but part of the beauty of the current iteration is that it's just an etched fret, some magnetic chain links and some fine gauge wire, which makes it extremely cost effective for both the retailer and the consumer. Part of what sold me on S&W couplings is that I can buy a big fret of 32 couplings for not a lot of money.

 

...Spratt and Winkle and the like are faffy to install (if I had trouble with t/ls, what sort of mess will I get into with these), though the appearance is much better; but the closer coupling achievable with them will be negated by buffer lock (for some reason I just wrote 'butter lock'; perhaps I am hungry) on my fiddle yard's trainset curves.  I considered making my own hook and loop system using paper clips, but abandoned the idea due to probable issues around securely attaching the clips to the buffer beams, and buffer locking when propelling, preventing which would need unrealistic bars across the buffers...

 

I'm afraid I find Sprat and Winkle couplings to be as obtrusive as modern tension lock, and more so if they have that awful bit of wire running between the buffers.  If you exclude AJs, which are a pain to set up and maintain, the least obtrusive automatic couplings I've found that are also effective are Dinghams.  They are not however RTR - like Sprat and Winkle, they have to be made up and carefully fitted.

 

DT

 

I feel like people have "forgotten" that the original intended S&W drawbar was a "staple" shape set to a predetermined length from the drawbar, rather than a long bar across the buffers (which is more obtrusive but discovered to be much easier to install).

Regarding buffer lock, I recall an ancient guide that recommended reaming out the hinge holes slightly to enable a bit of lateral motion on the hook which helps with tight corners and close coupling. Or you can be a crazy person like me and replace fully half your buffers with sprung units :blink:

Edited by TheGunslinger
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Kadees are ok for UK modern image, but look at least as bad as modern tension lock on steam/ early diesel. Why go to the considerable expense of converting several hundred items in many cases, for little or no benefit?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kadees are ok for UK modern image, but look at least as bad as modern tension lock on steam/ early diesel...

 Knuckle couplers were fitted to advanced design grouping era steam locos, and have been in use in the UK on the coaches of progressive railways since late C19th...

 

Nothing looks better nestled in the cutout at the bottom of the Pullman gangway faceplate of Pullman and GNR/ECJS/LNER/BR stock. (Ignoring the Kadee gauge height, and body mounting a Kadee correctly through the bufferbeam looks very right indeed. The Kadee magnets still work the auto-uncoupling features too!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd convert to Kadees in a heartbeat, but I can't afford to do so.

 

The different types you can get also put me off - NEM pockets are plug and play - easy.

 

If whoever makes them retailled them with very little profit (think more slaes = more profit), then I'd be much more interested.

 

The benefits after conversion are so tiny for my needs so I'd rather buy a new DCC fitted train with sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First let me say that the selection of a coupler is a modellers own personal choice - not for me to judge.

While not a fan of the tension lock coupler I can see why they are used by manufacturers.

They are reliable and rarely uncouple. The only issue is when you try to mix the different types produced in the past with the modern slimline ones.

As for the NEM pockets, it’s not always a simple matter of plug and play. Each manufacturer does not seem to understand that ‘NEM’ is a ‘standard’ and needs to be manufactured conform to the standard.

No end of times, has different rolling stock (from the same manufacturer) had NEM pockets that are set at slightly different heights or set back too far or not far enough from the buffer beam.

Quite a lot of NEM pockets have too much slack and the replacement coupler sags.

Most time for me, it’s out with the xuron cutter to chop the mounts off and fit the desired coupler straight to the body at the correct height. It usually works out quicker that trying to fettle the NEM pocket to get it at the right height or position.

The other pet hate of mine is magazine reviews that state the item has a NEM pocket, but never fit another coupler to see if it works properly.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I've used many forms of couplings over the years, but IMO the tension lock requires the least adjustment, maintenance and care.

 

Other forms of coupling require regular checking and resetting as required.

 

Yes - it isn't the prettiest, but is usually the most reliable.

 

Cheers,

Mick

In my experience, properly installed Kadees rarely need looking at for at least ten years.........

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Kadees are ok for UK modern image, but look at least as bad as modern tension lock on steam/ early diesel. Why go to the considerable expense of converting several hundred items in many cases, for little or no benefit?

I prefer to look at Kadees as a technological advance on the Peco Simplex/ HD concept of yore. That some real trains use a full-size equivalent is neither here nor there.

 

I was attracted to their compactness and dependability long before the advent of mini tension-locks. Having seen how visually identical versions of the latter from different manufacturers interact (badly, far too often), I still think I made the smart decision back in 1994.

 

John  

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Could be worse - have you tried to couple 3-link or screw link under a corridor connection whilst the public watch you at an exhibition.......................?

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

Then model stock which uses Buckeyes

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 Knuckle couplers were fitted to advanced design grouping era steam locos, and have been in use in the UK on the coaches of progressive railways since late C19th...

 

 

I thought the only buckeye couplings used on UK steam locomotives were on corridor tenders used with Gresley Pacifics. Am I wrong on this? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I like the Magclic idea, just a shame its only available for O gauge. http://www.modelrailwaywagons.co.uk/Accessories.html.

 

Surely, if we can put a man on the moon, make computers the size of a grain of sand, and fly non-stop to Australia for 17 hours, we must be able to come up with a better coupling device that works for all scales!!!! \

 

What we need, is the "A" Team!!! Hannibal would come up with something for us!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

In my experience, properly installed Kadees rarely need looking at for at least ten years.........

 

John

 

Any coupling - regardless of type, once set and adjusted is usually fine.

Until it is handled.

IMO - in regular exhibition use with unpacking and packing, TLs are the most robust.

 

Cheers,

Mick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...