A Coupling question

[darren chpamn]

I'm in the process  of building a small station  terminus exhibition  layout  and I want to use either 3 link coupling  or sprat winkle

Being  it's a small layout there will be lots of shunting of wagons and coaches  

Stock wise it's about 6 locos 5 coaches and about 15 to 20 wagons 

So what are your thoughts pro and cons on both types of coupling 

Regards darren 

[TheQ]

Exhibitions,  Spratt and winkle,  or I would actually recommend Dingham couplings

 

Exhibiting a 3 link coupling layouts becomes very tiring by the end of one day let alone two. The concentration required and the good eyesight needed in the often poor lighting of a show are a problem. 

 

I also find 3 link destroys the illusion,  every time the hand of God appears over the top to play with the couplers. 

[brossard]

In 00, I think 3 link is really not practical although certainly desirable.  There's also the potential for buffer lock on curves.  I'm using 3 link in 0 and it works well so far.

 

The problem with other coupling systems is that they don't look anything like the prototype although I will concede that Dingham come close.

 

My preference for couplings for 30 years was Kadee, well designed, work well and easy to install.  These at least look like they belong on a railway vehicle, just not British ones.

 

John

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, brossard said:

...My preference for couplings for 30 years was Kadee, well designed, work well and easy to install.  These at least look like they belong on a railway vehicle, just not British ones.

They only arrived in the UK about 1895, but that restriction apart became widely used on passenger vehicles. The progression on gangwayed vehicles is Pullman, GNR, ECJS, LNER, SR, then universal on BR. Ample opportunity to utilise them.

[brossard]

Right, I was thinking of goods stock.  Plenty of coaching stock using knuckle type couplers.  I have a pair of 7mm Gresleys that I plan to use Kadees with.  I intend to put them through the buffer beam tough, not under.

 

In 00 I was using Tony Wright's system of hook and bar coupler for coaches with Kadee at the loco end.  The hook and bar eliminates the horrendous slop in the Kadee which makes close coupling very difficult.

 

John

[darren chpamn]

Thanks for all your input  

Darren

[davknigh]

I’ll put in a vote for Dinghams too. They come from the proper place, don’t overwhelm smaller wagons, and when set up properly work a treat. I’ve used them for over ten years with no complaints.

 

Usual disclaimer applies.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎05‎/‎05‎/‎2020 at 17:38, brossard said:

Right, I was thinking of goods stock.  Plenty of coaching stock using knuckle type couplers.  I have a pair of 7mm Gresleys that I plan to use Kadees with.  I intend to put them through the buffer beam tough, not under.

 

In 00 I was using Tony Wright's system of hook and bar coupler for coaches with Kadee at the loco end.  The hook and bar eliminates the horrendous slop in the Kadee which makes close coupling very difficult.

We need someone smart at small mechanism to devise a functional centre buffer that works exactly as the Pullman gangway faceplate. Did Kadee ever consider that I wonder?

[brossard]

Doubtful I think.  Kadee are primarily a US railroad supplier where the market is huge.  I think we only got the NEM pocket thing because of the European market.  I suspect that to Kadee, the UK market is a rounding error.

 

Perhaps a clever UK manufacturer can come up with something.

 

John

[Andy Reichert]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

We need someone smart at small mechanism to devise a functional centre buffer that works exactly as the Pullman gangway faceplate. Did Kadee ever consider that I wonder?

 

If you restrict your stock to curves and reverse curves that don't exceed 50% of buffer misalignment, it's easy. If you want toy train set curves. No way.

 

Andy

[burgundy]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

We need someone smart at small mechanism to devise a functional centre buffer that works exactly as the Pullman gangway faceplate. Did Kadee ever consider that I wonder?

There is just such an experiment under way on Roswell Mill, using Alex Jackson couplings.

Best wishes 

Eric 

[brossard]

Actually, thinking about it, if you construct gangways from folded paper, with plasticard rubbing plate and attachment plate, you get a very useful central buffer.  I have done this with my coaches.  I recall fitting my Cl 108 with a #18 and #17 Kadee and folded paper gangways.  Running the set with power car propelling, gave a very nice close couple.

 

 

Kadees act as their own buffers and you rarely get buffer lock.  I agree with Andy though, if you have really tight curves you could have problems.

 

John

 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by brossard

[Il Grifone]

The problem is knuckle couplings (and most other model couplings) are their own buffer. (MKI coaches have retractable buffers to get them out of the way.) This leads to overlarge gaps between vehicles. The  gangway connectors have no buffing function. I have considered making them from folded paper (Back in the fifties these were available ready made (10d  a pair IIRC - LNER and LMS patterns*). and possibly using magnets in the buffing plate to couple.

 

* Concertina style alternate tabs above/below and on the sides (we used to make concertinas from bus tickets - back in the days when you got a proper ticket). Modern (as in '50s onwards) Continental ones are flexible (rubber?) tubes each side of the end door and across the top requiring a rethink.

[TheQ]

I've seen somewhere, where the gangways themselves were the couplers with magnets in them.. 

[SR71]

If you have stock with three links can Dingham's be swapped in? I use the spring and split pins with my 3 links so they come out easily.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

17 hours ago, brossard said:

Actually, thinking about it, if you construct gangways from folded paper, with plasticard rubbing plate and attachment plate, you get a very useful central buffer.  I have done this with my coaches.  I recall fitting my Cl 108 with a #18 and #17 Kadee and folded paper gangways. 

My present lash up uses the close coupling mechanism found on RTR OO coaches and the Roco pattern coupler within the train. Nothing more elaborate than  a fold of paper on each faceplate maintains the light blocking when a gangwayed train goes through a crossover, which is satisfactory.

 

I ought to search out the old sprung endplates, and see how they do with body mounted Kadees . Minimum 34" radius for gangwayed coaches on the layout, so it should look well enough.

[davknigh]

6 hours ago, SR71 said:

If you have stock with three links can Dingham's be swapped in? I use the spring and split pins with my 3 links so they come out easily.

Yes. And as an added bonus they are compatible. You lose some of the automatic features of the Dinghams but if you want to make a slow transition while building up your stock of Dinghams (in both senses of the word) then you are good to go.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[darren chpamn]

I've emailed  trevor but so far no responce  yet 

[Ncl]

Hi All

 

I am looking to use Spratt and Winkle couplings in 4mm. I would like to mount the magnets under the baseboards, but am struggling to find magnets strong enough. I am using 9mm ply baseboards with 2mm cork and Peco code 100 track. 

 

Are there any recommendations for magnets strong enough to mount underneath the baseboards or alternatively small enough to fit between the sleepers? 

 

Many thanks in advance. 

 

Kind regards 

 

Nick

[brossard]

A mate of mine of mine has been experimenting with Hunt couplings.  For coaches these are the bees knees.  Running a rake equipped with these had other club members declaring "game changer!".  Wagons still need something that enables shunting.

 

John

Edited October 2, 2020 by brossard

[Siberian Snooper]

I and the club use electro-magnets from Wizard Models, as we have found that there's a tendency to uncouple when you don't want to, when using permanent magnets. They do however require you to drill a hole in the baseboard and put a piece insulation tape over the hole, so that the track can be ballasted in the normal way and a 12 volt transformer, the one I use is rated at 2amps.