Couplings

[stevejjjexcov]

Hi all a simple question I hope. I want to use alex Jackson couplings on a small shunting layout. Do they work using perment magnets or will I have to use electro magnets? 

Thanks for any replies.

 

Steve

[Killybegs]

You will need electromagnets otherwise every thing will uncouple as you propel wagons over a permanent magnet.

[stevejjjexcov]

Thanks killybegs I thought that might be the case. This means I will have to learn  how to wire the things up. Lectrickery is not my strong point. More than 2 wires and I'm lost. 

 

Thanks again. Steve

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by stevejjjexcov
Typo

[Dunsignalling]

If considering AJ couplings, bear in mind they were devised by a EM modeller and only work well with EM and P4.  The amount of slop between the wheels and track in OO means the couplings on vehicles being brought together almost never line up well enough to couple reliably.

 

Tried it years ago, and it was very frustrating.

 

John

[tomparryharry]

We tried AJ's on the Alkham layout. Very fine work, but, very fine adjustment. Having underfloor electromagnets meant that you could only uncouple at an  predesignated spot, something that fails  (for me) miserably in the real world. That said, The AJ wins hands down over the Kadee coupling for looks. I've never tried using them on 00 sized stock.

 

Each to their own, I guess, short of having a working 20mm figure with a shunting pole, lamp & brake stick. "Ease up son!" Sound chips would be a non starter....

 

"oi! ***bleep*** Ease up! I ain't got all ****Bleep*** night! ***** H *****, what a shower of **Bleep **!!!!!

 

Expletives deleted to protect the innocent from R-rated profanities....

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Gordon A]

If modelling 00 try Sprat & Winkle style couplings made out of wire.

Virtually all automatic couplings only uncouple in specified spots unless remote mechanisms are fitted to your stock.

The advantage of Sprat & Winkle, AJs, Kadees, DG and Bingham couplings is the delayed action.

This refers to the fact that having uncoupled you can propel to a spot a distance from the magnet without recoupling.

The Sprat & Winkle style coupling requires a shuffle backwards to allow the couplings to full uncouple before propelling to the spot where you wish to leave your wagon(s).

 

Gordon A

[Torper]

I've never understood the attraction of Sprat and Winkle couplings.  If this demo is anything to go by, they're more obtrusive than current RTR Bachmann couplings.

 

 

There really is no such thing as an unobtrusive automatic coupling.  The nearest thing to it that I've used are Dinghams although they do have a disadvantage on some layouts in that they're single ended and they're a bit fiddly to make although once made and properly fitted they generally work well.  And electromagnets only need two wires, so you should be OK!

 

Another advantage of Dinghams is that as a train is propelled over the electromagnet, wagons can be uncoupled at will whilst the train is on the move and will then remain uncoupled. No more having to stop over the magnet and then perform an unprototypical back and forth shuffle to uncouple and place a fixed loop on top of a fixed latch.  However, if the train is being pulled rather than propelled it will have to stop pretty precisely over the magnet for uncoupling to take place.

 

DT

Edited February 25, 2019 by Torper

[Yardman]

3 hours ago, stevejjjexcov said:

Thanks killybegs I thought that might be the case. This means I will have to learn  how to wire the things up. Lectrickery is not my strong point. More than 2 wires and I'm lost. 

 

Thanks again. Steve

 

You only need two wires for an elctromagnet.

[stevejjjexcov]

Ahhhh, there's a man that knows how to do it. 2 wires I can do but from where to where? Are there switches involved? See more complecations already!!!

Thanks Yardman for the info

 I just hope any instructions with the electro magnets are idiot proof.

All the best,Steve

[Nickey Line]

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

If considering AJ couplings, bear in mind they were devised by a EM modeller and only work well with EM and P4.  The amount of slop between the wheels and track in OO means the couplings on vehicles being brought together almost never line up well enough to couple reliably.

 

Tried it years ago, and it was very frustrating.

 

John

 

Will also work with 00 finescale, which uses EM clearances, and a wider back to back.

The downside of this though is you can't run your stock on standard 00, or vice versa. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

7 hours ago, stevejjjexcov said:

Hi all a simple question I hope. I want to use Alex Jackson couplings on a small shunting layout...

Not quite so simple. Does your small shunting layout plan require automatic coupling and uncoupling action to be effective on small radius curves? Most systems need straight or nearly so track to reliably perform in RTR OO. The miniature tension lock as produced by Bachmann, with the 'Brian Kirby' magnetic uncoupling modification does equally well on curves as straight track, using permanent magnets, but only offers 'uncouple on the spot'.

 

If there is no restriction due to curves then try the Alex Jackson couplings, and once finished with the swearing and having got it out of your system, go with Kadee. Tolerant of the sloppiness of RTR OO, there's a good gauge for easy set up, uncouples selectively on permanent magnets so no need for wiring. Basically fit and forget, and thereafter enjoy operating your model railway. (The prototype's knuckle coupler has been in wide use in the UK since late C19th, so model knuckle couplers are easily the most realistic RTR commercial coupler system for OO, by at least looking like something the real railway used. So I would propose...)

[stevejjjexcov]

Hi 34th letter.All stock is kit/ scratch built so fitting couplings with pockets would be a bit of a faf. There will be bits of straight track and curves won't be that tight so I hope all will be OK in that respect but thanks for the suggestion

Steve

[stevejjjexcov]

1 hour ago, Nickey Line said:

 

Will also work with 00 finescale, which uses EM clearances, and a wider back to back.

The downside of this though is you can't run your stock on standard 00, or vice versa. 

Hi Nickey I will be building trackwork to oo fine scale so I am hoping there won't be two many probs

Steve

[Nickey Line]

2 hours ago, stevejjjexcov said:

Hi Nickey I will be building trackwork to oo fine scale so I am hoping there won't be two many probs

Steve

 

Hi Steve, then the AJ system should work for you. I use a slightly simplified version on my own 00 FS shunting plank...

 

 

A very cruel close-up! That coupling hook needs some attention! You can see from this though how unobtrusive the functioning coupling is. From anywhere but close-up it's virtually invisible...

 

 

 

[Torper]

6 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

If there is no restriction due to curves then try the Alex Jackson couplings, and once finished with the swearing and having got it out of your system, go with Kadee. ...........The prototype's knuckle coupler has been in wide use in the UK since late C19th, so model knuckle couplers are easily the most realistic RTR commercial coupler system for OO, by at least looking like something the real railway used. So I would propose...)

 

While I entirely agree with what you say about AJ couplings, I think you're being a little misleading re prototype use of knuckle couplers.  The OP is building a shunting layout, and I assume that he'll largely be using freight stock.  As far as I'm aware, while knuckle couplers were in use on some passenger rolling stock from Gresley days, they were not generally introduced to British freight stock until the mid 1970s, and then only to new-builds.  Kadees would almost certainly therefore look obtrusive and entirely out of place in a traditional UK shunting yard.

 

DT

[Dave John]

Ok, have a look at these : 

 

 

and 

 

 

I would never suggest that this is the best way of doing it , but it works for me . Electromagnets run hot , a swinging permanent magnet is simple and cheap. 

 

[Il Grifone]

 

AJ couplings are tricky to align but unobtrusive. Since theyt rely on the buffers actually doing their job, 00 slop is going to give problems and either 00-SF or DOGA tolerances are necessary (basically EM standards with 1 mm flangeways). Both these are going to require track to be built, as AFAIK neither is available commercially. (I would like to be proved wrong!). The advantage of the former (16,2mm gauge) is that the stock does not need modification (Unless it has older coarse wheels but these need replacement anyway).

Since they are a delayed action coupling, permanent magnets are fine (they are essentially a refined tension lock) Wiring an electromagnet is simple however one wire from the power supply via a push button switch* and then a second return from the other terminal to the power supply.

 

*An on-off switch could be used, but they have the tendency to be forgotten and the electromagnet could then  burn out as they are only designed for short term use.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Il Grifone

[Nickey Line]

2 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

 

Both these are going to require track to be built...

 

...which is precisely what the OP is proposing. To 00 finescale  (DOGA fine) I believe. No need to build plain track in this instance, though, as the track gauge is 16.5.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

13 hours ago, Torper said:

... I think you're being a little misleading re prototype use of knuckle couplers.  The OP is building a shunting layout, and I assume that he'll largely be using freight stock.  As far as I'm aware, while knuckle couplers were in use on some passenger rolling stock from Gresley days, they were not generally introduced to British freight stock until the mid 1970s, and then only to new-builds.  Kadees would almost certainly therefore look obtrusive and entirely out of place in a traditional UK shunting yard.

True enough, the knuckle coupler was mostly on passenger stock from its first introduction on the ECJS in 1895, and subsequent standardisation on the GNR's gangwayed passenger stock within a decade.

 

Nevertheless, of all the RTR couplers on offer, show me an alternative that looks more like a coupler on the prototype. Add to that its great reliability as an autocoupler. I would suggest it is the best of the available choices.

[The Johnster]

Whatever couplings you use, your biggest problem will be providing them with a 'standard' mounting that will hold them in the correct position and height above the rail head.  It is the nature of UK prototypes that some are bogie vehicles and some are rigid framed on different lengths of wheelbases.  In reality, couplings are mounted in the centre of the buffer beams, but this cannot be done on the model unless scale curves and correctly sprung buffers and drawhooks (most model solutions are far too strongly sprung) are used, or buffer locking will occur when propelling stock and derailments will be caused as the coupling will not stretch when hauling stock around curvature.  

 

It is very difficult to achieve a standard mounting method when some couplings must be attached to bogies and some to rigid chassis, and they need to have a degree of side and vertical play as well.  The floors of different makes of RTR wagons are different, sometimes within the same manufacturer's range, and a range of different mounts must be produced to cope with the different situations, making a nonsense of standardisation.  Even NEM, the closest we have ever had to a standard, needs different lengths of coupling shafts in cranked and straight versions.  Parkside do dovetail mounts for them, but they are no use on bogie stock or locomotives where the chassis block is too close to the buffer beams to use them.  

 

It might have been a simple question, but it isn't, sadly, a simple answer!

[Torper]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

In reality, couplings are mounted in the centre of the buffer beams, but this cannot be done on the model unless scale curves and correctly sprung buffers and drawhooks (most model solutions are far too strongly sprung) are used, or buffer locking will occur when propelling stock and derailments will be caused as the coupling will not stretch when hauling stock around curvature.

 

 

Dinghams are mounted where they should be, ie in the centre of the buffer beam which of course ensures a standard mounting point for all stock.  They don't require sprung buffers - indeed, the instructions advise against them.  They would be problematic if fitted to long wheelbase stock such as coaches negotiating RTR type curves although modifications can be made to the couplings to alleviate that problem.  I have never encountered any problems with buffer locking but I have no curves less than 3' 6" radius.

 

I should add that Dinghams are compatible with three link couplings.

 

DT.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Torper

[The Johnster]

This is the minimum radius I would recommend for scale couplings unless the draw hooks are extended out from the buffer beams.  

[stevejjjexcov]

Thanks all a simple question but no simple answer! But at least I know where the wires go. Thanks Grifone and everybody for the advice

Steve

Edited February 26, 2019 by stevejjjexcov