Best couplings for reliable shunting - 00?

[EWS60065]

Having looked through various websites and forums I am still undecided about what type of couplings to use. I will be doing slow speed shunting of trains up to 10 wagons long, Bachmann MTAs and Hornby MHAs mainly. The current tension locks constantly lock up and catch causing derailments every time something is shunted.

 

I need to use a new coupling system that is going to be affordable, reliable and needs the ability to automatically uncouple. Otherwise it will be 'hand from the sky' or an uncoupling hook, not ideal for a possible exhibition layout.

 

I've considered Kadees but heard they still have problems with shunting and seem the most costly too. MagNEMs or Hunts would be ideal but I don't believe there is any way of uncoupling those 'on scene'.

 

Looking forward to seeing what is recommended for this purpose.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

[CloggyDog]

NEM Kadees would be the easiest fit for modern RTR and I've found them reliable enough on my exhibition layouts. For buffered stock (UK and continental outline) I use a mix of #17 and #18. Shop around (including ebay) and you can get them for under a quid each. You don't have to use the bulky Kadee magnets, 3mm rare earth magnets set between the sleepers works equally well and are much easier to disguise. 

 

Other exhibition layouts I'm involved in use 3-link. Cheap, accurate and realistic. I have no problem with the hand of god. 

 

With both options, you ideally want to plan them into the layout - magnet placement, height of backscene/width of baseboard. 

 

There are alternative types of tension-lock (Spratt & Winkle, etc) as well as the more esoteric (Alex Jacksons) 

 

You don't say how large your fleet is, or what your budget is? Another thing to bear in mind is minimum curvature, some types are less reliable when trying to couple/uncouple on curves. 

Edited June 25, 2021 by CloggyDog
Speelung

[Dave John]

I use the Alex Jackson.

 

Advantages. Cheap , unobtrusive, remote uncoupling, wagons push buffer to buffer. Wagons can be uncoupled then pushed into location. 

 

Disadvantages. You have to make and fit them, they won't just plug in. Needs a moving uncoupling magnet or solenoid. They need to be accurate in terms of centreline and height. They can be intolerant of tight curves. 

 

To give you an idea;

 

 

I use guitar string. Corrosion resistant and more easily soldered than stock spring steel wire. 

[EWS60065]

35 minutes ago, CloggyDog said:

NEM Kadees would be the easiest fit for modern RTR and I've found them reliable enough on my exhibition layouts. For buffered stock (UK and continental outline) I use a mix of #17 and #18. Shop around (including ebay) and you can get them for under a quid each. You don't have to use the bulky Kadee magnets, 3mm rare earth magnets set between the sleepers works equally well and are much easier to disguise. 

 

Other exhibition layouts I'm involved in use 3-link. Cheap, accurate and realistic. I have no problem with the hand of god. 

 

With both options, you ideally want to plan them into the layout - lagnet placement, height of backscene/width of baseboard. 

 

There are alternative types of tension-lock (Spratt & Winkle, etc) as well as the more esoteric (Alex Jacksons) 

 

You don't say how large your fleet is, or what your budget is? Another thing to bear in mind is minimum curvature, some types are less reliable when trying to couple/uncouple on curves. 

Thank you for the reply. Ok so I only have a small rake of 6 four wheel wagons so far but looking to expand it. I cannot afford to spend much more than £2 per pair or it gets quite expensive just for a short rake. The layout uses code 75 small radius points and the rest is flexi track. Some curves are a little tight but nothing as tight as set track. It's useful to know kadees can be sourced cheaper than I thought.

The Bachmann MTA features a high pocket and dropped NEM coupling which could be problematic when fitting kadees. I read that they haven't made one that suits these higher pocket wagons.

I'll have a look into 3 links and Alex Jacksons too.

Cheers.

Edited June 25, 2021 by GWR5764

[EWS60065]

19 minutes ago, Dave John said:

I use the Alex Jackson.

 

Advantages. Cheap , unobtrusive, remote uncoupling, wagons push buffer to buffer. Wagons can be uncoupled then pushed into location. 

 

Disadvantages. You have to make and fit them, they won't just plug in. Needs a moving uncoupling magnet or solenoid. They need to be accurate in terms of centreline and height. They can be intolerant of tight curves. 

 

To give you an idea;

 

 

I use guitar string. Corrosion resistant and more easily soldered than stock spring steel wire. 

Right I'll look into those. Never heard of them but look interesting. Thanks

[Stubby47]

I almost universally use Bachmann couplings and have adapted the Brian Kirby uncoupling method (a iron tail on the bottom of one hook, the other hook is removed), with electromagnets.

[The Johnster]

I’m wondering why you are having problems with the tension locks; mine are pretty reliable and do not cause derailments being propelled through a minimum no. 2 radius curve in the fiddle yard.  This is a steam era layout and vehicles in coal trains vary in length with 21tonners mixed in with 9’ wheelbase wagons, and there is a parcels train with all sorts of lengths.  Coupling is automatic and uncoupling achived with a home made wire hook, but ‘spade’ types are also available.  Two things are critical to success, however (and please forgive me if I’m trying to teach granny to suck eggs here). 
 

Derailments are usually caused by buffer lock, so it is important that the bars of the tension lock couplers, which effectively act as buffers while the actual buffers are cosmetic, do not override each other when stock is being propelled.  As different makes of t/ls are mounted differently and the bars and hooks are made of differing materials to different profiles, it is necessary to ensure that the bars are at a standard height above the rails, and to standardise on one make as far as possible.  As well as buffer lock, overriding coupling bars will lift the vehicle so that wheels are clear of the rails; a derailment is inevitable on curved track. 
 

Secondly, it is essential to ensure that track is laid level and smoothly to the adjoining piece, especially at turnouts, again to prevent bar override. 
 

If you are having unsolvable issues with overriding coupling bars, it may help to glue or solder a piece of stiff wire vertically to the centre of the outer face of the bar to act as an override preventer.  Cut a notch in the bar for it to sit in so that the bar on the adjacent vehicle can slide laterally across it without catching on it. 

[EWS60065]

16 minutes ago, Stubby47 said:

I almost universally use Bachmann couplings and have adapted the Brian Kirby uncoupling method (a iron tail on the bottom of one hook, the other hook is removed), with electromagnets.

Just had a look at that. Looks promising, still the risk of the tension locks riding over each other in shunting though.

[Stubby47]

Tension locks of the same make should perform better than mixed makes.  But that also depends on the tightness of the NEM pockets and, dare I say, the smoothness of the track.

 

A simple jig can be made to ensure the bar heights are all the same, which should help with riding over each other.

[EWS60065]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

I’m wondering why you are having problems with the tension locks; mine are pretty reliable and do not cause derailments being propelled through a minimum no. 2 radius curve in the fiddle yard.  This is a steam era layout and vehicles in coal trains vary in length with 21tonners mixed in with 9’ wheelbase wagons, and there is a parcels train with all sorts of lengths.  Coupling is automatic and uncoupling achived with a home made wire hook, but ‘spade’ types are also available.  Two things are critical to success, however (and please forgive me if I’m trying to teach granny to suck eggs here). 
 

Derailments are usually caused by buffer lock, so it is important that the bars of the tension lock couplers, which effectively act as buffers while the actual buffers are cosmetic, do not override each other when stock is being propelled.  As different makes of t/ls are mounted differently and the bars and hooks are made of differing materials to different profiles, it is necessary to ensure that the bars are at a standard height above the rails, and to standardise on one make as far as possible.  As well as buffer lock, overriding coupling bars will lift the vehicle so that wheels are clear of the rails; a derailment is inevitable on curved track. 
 

Secondly, it is essential to ensure that track is laid level and smoothly to the adjoining piece, especially at turnouts, again to prevent bar override. 
 

If you are having unsolvable issues with overriding coupling bars, it may help to glue or solder a piece of stiff wire vertically to the centre of the outer face of the bar to act as an override preventer.  Cut a notch in the bar for it to sit in so that the bar on the adjacent vehicle can slide laterally across it without catching on it. 

Thanks ever so much for your reply, well explained. Can't say my trackwork is the smoothest and I have found a section where the cant (?) is slightly twisted so that the two rails are not exactly the same height - not good at all. My problem with tension locks is caused by some couplers drooping downwards and others more rigid. So standardised makes may help. However even with the same types I've noticed slight height differences and these are emphasised by uneven track. I like your idea about the stopper bar on top, might give it a go atleast as a temporary measure.

Thanks

[EWS60065]

43 minutes ago, Stubby47 said:

Tension locks of the same make should perform better than mixed makes.  But that also depends on the tightness of the NEM pockets and, dare I say, the smoothness of the track.

 

A simple jig can be made to ensure the bar heights are all the same, which should help with riding over each other.

 Cheers, good idea. Can't say my track is brilliant AND I'm using mixed makes so both factors present.

[brossard]

When I came back to the hobby more than 30 years ago, my first reaction upon seeing T/L couplers was "these have to go!"  I cast about a bit, trying 3 link but these were a non starter as they were too fiddly for the scale (ironically, now that I am doing 0 gauge, I use 3 link/screw link couplings.  Still fiddly but doable, and it gets easier with practice.).  My choice back then was Kadee.  They are well designed and reliable.  Back then NEM was unheard of so a fair bit of thinking and bodging was needed to mount them.  I was always able to do it though.  I never regretted going Kadee.  I would add that, unless you go 3 link, any coupling system you choose will be incorrect for British stock.

 

I never liked magnets (yes, I have tried them) so my shunting was done with a bamboo skewer.  I haven't got a problem with hand of God either.

 

John

[The Johnster]

With NEM pockets, you should be able to standardise on a make of coupling, which will be a move in the right direction.  I standardise as far as possible on Bachmanns for no reason other than that I have more Bachmann stuff than any other make, about half of my stock.  But even this will not eradicate all the potential issues as there are differeing methods of mounting the couplings, and of course older/Hornby Railroad items may not have NEM pockets.  Bachmann make 4 types of tension lock couplings to help with this, long straight, short straight, long cranked (downwards) and short cranked. 

 

For rigid wheelbase vehicles that do not have the NEM dovetail mounts, such as kits or older/Railroad stock, one can remove whatever sort of block mounting the vehicle has and replace it with a Parkside PA34 NEM mounting block, sold in packs of 10.  These have the dovetail socket and are made of soft plastic, so they can be easily trimmed to set the coupling at the correct height above the rails, but you will need to set them so that the coupling extends a workable distance beyond the buffer beam; this will depend on your curvature. 

 

NEM mounts on locomotives and bogies are another problem, and replacing non-NEM mounts on older stock is sometimes difficult.  I have two locomotives with pre-NEM couplers on my layout, and neither can be easily adapted to take NEM couplers; one is an old Hornby 61xx which is only used occasionally now as it is semi-retired/replaced by a new Hornby large prairie, but the other is a relatively recent Railroad 2721, which is in regular use; I just have to live with the appearance and luckily it seems not to generate any other issues...

 

Uneven track will upset the reliability of any coupling, even scale 3-link/instanter/screws types, and RTR locomotives, especially steam outline with long rigid wheelbases, will not run well on it; diesel or electric locos or multiple units with bogies will cope better, but some long wheelbase bogies like the Bullied/Raworth type used on class 40 and 44/5/6 may cause problems.  This is one of the advantages of kit or scratch built chassis with full compensation, as one can then represent the rough tracklaying of light railways or industrial sidings which is part of the charm of such prototypes.  But for RTR, even where some basic compensation is provided, the best advice has to be to lay the track as smoothly and as level as you can on level rigid baseboards, and to keep curvature, both vertical (at the foot and top of gradients) and horizontal as gentle as space allows.  I recommend transition curves leading into and out of any setrack curvature. 

 

Hope all this is of some help to you!  Coupling problems are frustrating and, since the tension lock is usually thought of as a standardised and compatible system, which it isn't by any means, one tends to think that problems should not occur, but they do.  They are not insurmoutable, though, although there may be some faffing, fitting, and fettling before you attain a reliable working system.  Anything you can do to bring your trackwork into line will help considerably!

 

'Scale' couplings, 3-link, instanter, or screw, are the only couplings that provide the correct appearance for steam era UK and European outline modelling, and for a lot of post-steam as well, and are 100% reliable in use.  They mount correctly on the buffer beam of stock, and look much better than any proprietary coupling.  But, and it's a big but, they are fiddly to uncouple, especially with gangwayed stock, and a deterioration in my eyesight and steadiness of hand prompted my reversion to tension lock couplings when I returned after an absences of several decades 5 years ago.  They also need very easy curvature and near scale separation of buffers, which need to be very lightly sprung: I have in the past successfully used them on stock that had to be propelled on 30" radius curves, but this is pushing the envelope and my recommendation is 36" minimum, 48" if you are propelling auto coaches with long buffer shanks using long bodied 4575s.

 

I considered other types at that time, but settled for t/ls because most of my new stock came with them, Kadees had failed to impress me at exhibitions (there seemed to often be a bit of a 'Kadee shuffle' going on when stock was being automatically uncoupled), and Sprat & Winkle types looked fiddly to install.  I require to be able to uncouple vehicles at any position on my layout, so eschewed uncoupling ramps.

 

Another factor  that might be affecting your shunting is wagon weight, especially when propelling.  There are various opinions on this but if the wagon is too light, then the inward pull on curvature if there are heavier wagons in the train may derail it.  Most people recommend about 12.5 g per axle, which is sometimes difficult when modelling empty lowmacs and the like.  Once the axle loading is sufficient to attain stable running but not too heavy for your locos, it is best to standardise it on rolling stock as far as can be achieved. 

 

Also, ensure that all wheelsets are clean, true, to gauge and run as freely as possible.  I strongly advise the replacement of any plastic wheelsets as they cannot be adjusted for back to back measurement and will spread dirt around your layout.  The best running is with metal wheelsets and pin pointed axle ends running in brass cone bearings, the standard for most kit builds, but RTR stock usually has the pin pointed axle ends running in a cone in the rear of the plastic axlebox.  This works well but will eventually wear and run less freely, and induce play in the axle which will affect reliable running.  Try as far as possible to standardise on one manufacturers' wheelsets; I use Bachmann for the same reason as the couplings, but it doesn't matter which make you choose, so long as it is the default layout standard.

 

Avoid Dapol wheelsets and NEM couplings; I have never been able to achieve reliable running from the wheelsets and the couplings droop.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by The Johnster

[EWS60065]

25 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

With NEM pockets, you should be able to standardise on a make of coupling, which will be a move in the right direction.  I standardise as far as possible on Bachmanns for no reason other than that I have more Bachmann stuff than any other make, about half of my stock.  But even this will not eradicate all the potential issues as there are differeing methods of mounting the couplings, and of course older/Hornby Railroad items may not have NEM pockets.  Bachmann make 4 types of tension lock couplings to help with this, long straight, short straight, long cranked (downwards) and short cranked. 

 

For rigid wheelbase vehicles that do not have the NEM dovetail mounts, such as kits or older/Railroad stock, one can remove whatever sort of block mounting the vehicle has and replace it with a Parkside PA34 NEM mounting block, sold in packs of 10.  These have the dovetail socket and are made of soft plastic, so they can be easily trimmed to set the coupling at the correct height above the rails, but you will need to set them so that the coupling extends a workable distance beyond the buffer beam; this will depend on your curvature. 

 

NEM mounts on locomotives and bogies are another problem, and replacing non-NEM mounts on older stock is sometimes difficult.  I have two locomotives with pre-NEM couplers on my layout, and neither can be easily adapted to take NEM couplers; one is an old Hornby 61xx which is only used occasionally now as it is semi-retired/replaced by a new Hornby large prairie, but the other is a relatively recent Railroad 2721, which is in regular use; I just have to live with the appearance and luckily it seems not to generate any other issues...

 

Uneven track will upset the reliability of any coupling, even scale 3-link/instanter/screws types, and RTR locomotives, especially steam outline with long rigid wheelbases, will not run well on it; diesel or electric locos or multiple units with bogies will cope better, but some long wheelbase bogies like the Bullied/Raworth type used on class 40 and 44/5/6 may cause problems.  This is one of the advantages of kit or scratch built chassis with full compensation, as one can then represent the rough tracklaying of light railways or industrial sidings which is part of the charm of such prototypes.  But for RTR, even where some basic compensation is provided, the best advice has to be to lay the track as smoothly and as level as you can on level rigid baseboards, and to keep curvature, both vertical (at the foot and top of gradients) and horizontal as gentle as space allows.  I recommend transition curves leading into and out of any setrack curvature. 

 

Hope all this is of some help to you!  Coupling problems are frustrating and, since the tension lock is usually thought of as a standardised and compatible system, which it isn't by any means, one tends to think that problems should not occur, but they do.  They are not insurmoutable, though, although there may be some faffing, fitting, and fettling before you attain a reliable working system.  Anything you can do to bring your trackwork into line will help considerably!

 

 

 

 

Thank you, yes what you're saying is helpful.

I have some trackwork to do first it seems. This is the wheel on one wagon as it lifts up on a curve and comes back down off the rail. It weighs 36g and is the second heaviest in the train. The heaviest, at 45g tends to be the most reliable.

Edited June 25, 2021 by GWR5764

[brossard]

4 minutes ago, GWR5764 said:

Thank you, yes what you're saying is helpful.

I have some trackwork to do first it seems. This is the wheel on one wagon as it lifts up on a curve and comes back down off the rail. It weighs 36g and is the second heaviest in the train. The heaviest, at 45g tends to be the most reliable.

 

Another issue for the modeller is wagon weight.  Conventional wisdom and what I tried to do is make them 50g.  It helps the train dynamics if all the wagons weigh the same.  However, depending on the wagon 50g is not always achievable (eg. flat wagon).

 

John

[EWS60065]

Just now, brossard said:

 

Another issue for the modeller is wagon weight.  Conventional wisdom and what I tried to do is make them 50g.  It helps the train dynamics if all the wagons weigh the same.  However, depending on the wagon 50g is not always achievable (eg. flat wagon).

 

John

I could have a go with getting them heavier 

[EWS60065]

I am running modern image stuff so most wagons should be similar in type and therefore could be similar in weight

[D9020 Nimbus]

I use Kadees, mostly on continental stock (if you think tension-locks are bad, the NEM 360 hook/loop coupling is worse!) and uncouple with a Kadee uncoupling tool — a plastic skewer (obtained from Model Junction, don't know where you could get one now). They work well enough; I haven’t tried magnetic uncoupling. I find Kadee no. 19s to be the most useful, but continental wagons are often longer than UK ones, despite the smaller scale.

 

You won't be able to use Kadees to replace cranked couplings, however, and getting the height right is crucial to success. You will also need to make sure that buffer-locking can’t occur on your tightest curves.

[brossard]

I always found #18 couplings to be right for wagons.  It does depend on your layout curves and tight curves may drive you to use a longer coupling.  It is a balancing act to get the right gap between wagons without buffer lock.

 

For carriages, I converted mine to Tony Wright's homemade hook and bar system which I found very reliable without the 5mm back and forth slop of Kadees.  Nowadays, I think Hunt couplings are ideal for carriages.  I have seen these in action on long trains and I was astounded.  They can't be auto uncoupled, but a Kadee at the loco end means you can marshal the train.  These are only currently available for NEM fitted coaches but I believe there is a type under development for non NEM.

 

John

Edited June 25, 2021 by brossard

[EWS60065]

28 minutes ago, brossard said:

I always found #18 couplings to be right for wagons.  It does depend on your layout curves and tight curves may drive you to use a longer coupling.  It is a balancing act to get the right gap between wagons without buffer lock.

 

For carriages, I converted mine to Tony Wright's homemade hook and bar system which I found very reliable without the 5mm back and forth slop of Kadees.  Nowadays, I think Hunt couplings are ideal for carriages.  I have seen these in action on long trains and I was astounded.  They can't be auto uncoupled, but a Kadee at the loco end means you can marshal the train.  These are only currently available for NEM fitted coaches but I believe there is a type under development for non NEM.

 

John

Thanks, if they can't be used for cranked sockets then I wouldn't be able to convert any of my MTAs, the mainstay of the current fleet unfortunately. Hunts sound great for fixed rakes but the purpose of my layout is shunting so not sure

[brossard]

In all my years I don't think I ever encountered a cranked coupling.  Then again I was doing pre-nationalisation.  If all else fails you can use the #5 style draft gearbox glued or bolted to the wagon.

 

Hunts won't work if you want to shunt wagons.  However, if you have a fixed rake of wagons, like a merry go round train, they should work.

 

While wagon shunting is far more interesting than passenger ops, I always felt the need to include passenger work in my layout.

 

John

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by brossard

[ejstubbs]

9 minutes ago, GWR5764 said:

... if they can't be used for cranked sockets then I wouldn't be able to convert any of my MTAs, the mainstay of the current fleet unfortunately.

 

Basically, if the NEM pocket isn't at the right height then it's not a NEM pocket in any practically useful sense, and no NEM couplings are going to be usable (apart from the stepped Bachmann NEM TLCs that they produce specifically to resolve the issues caused by their initial inability to follow the full NEM spec).

 

You can use one of the other types of Kadee couplings instead, the types that fit in to Kadee's own designs of gear/draft  box.  I use the #14x 'whisker' couplers on any stock that doesn't have NEM pockets (which is most of it).  Note the these come in the different "heights" (overset, underset and centreset) - this gives you some flexibility in where and how you can mount the gear box to get the correct coupling height.

 

A number of the other solutions proposed - e.g. Alex Jackson, Spratt & Winkle, and three-link - would require your whole fleet to be converted.  At least with Kadees it would only be the stock which doesn't have NEM pockets (or doesn't have incorrectly positioned NEM pockets) that would need to have the knife taken to them, rather than every vehicle.

 

As others have said, it's important to get the coupling height correct with Kadees - which is why their product range includes the #206 insulated coupling height gauge which is just the job for carrying out this check.  It's worth checking NEM couplings as well as gear box mounted couplings, since some NEM pockets can have a bit of slop (Dapol are bad for this IME) which allows the coupling to droop. This can usually be sorted with a shim of 10thou plasticard inserted in to the NEM pocket to eliminate the sloppiness.

 

As far as curves are concerned, there are two main considerations:

 

1) Make sure that the correct length of coupling is used to prevent buffer lock on the tightest curves on your layout.  This can usually only reliably be determined by experimentation.  This is why the Kadee NEM couplings come in four different lengths, and Kadee gear box couplings come in three different lengths (bearing in mind that you also have a degree of flexibility in the fore and aft location of the gear box).

 

2) Coupling and uncoupling tends to be unreliable on curves, more so the tighter the curve (Kadee do state this in their documentation, though the issue is by no means unique to Kadees).  Some experimentation will indicate how likely this is to be an issue on your layout.  If it does turn out to be a problem then the most reliable solution is to arrange for the location(s) where you couple up and uncouple are on sections of track which are straight enough for the coupler heads to meet as close as possible to head on.  The length of straight track required to ensure this will depend to a degree on the stock that you have: longer wheelbase stock, having greater end throw, will general require a longer section of straight track to couple & uncouple reliably.  (Where bogie stock is concerned, if the couplings are mounted on the bogies then they are effectively short wheelbase vehicles for this purpose; but if the couplings are mounted on the vehicle body then the end throw on curves will be greater.)  Note especially that Kadee's "delayed uncoupling" feature means that you don't actually have to uncouple a vehicle at the point where you want to leave it: you can uncouple in a convenient straight section, then propel the uncoupled vehicle to the spot where you want to park it.  Depending on exactly how complicated you expect your shunting to be, it can be possible to get by with just one uncoupler for a fan of sidings, by having it on a straight section before the first turnout.

[t-b-g]

I have made my own for several years now. A simple inverted hook and bar. They are single ended (hook one end, bar the other) so if you have a reverse loop or turntable fiddle yard you have problems!

 

No precision is involved and the only unreliability I have ever had is that on a permanent magnet, they sometimes (but rarely) uncouple when you don't want them to. On electromagnets, they are as near 100% effective as I have ever seen. You do need buffers that work as buffers and do not lock on sharp curves, although it it is a problem you can put a wire across the buffers to prevent problems.

 

No hinges, pivots or other moving parts, just a couple of bends in a "top E" guitar string wire (which is the same as what is recommended for Alex Jacksons. The dropper is a steel split pin of they type provided for commercial 3 link couplings. The "safety loop" under the hook is optional but can stop the dropper digging into the ballast.

 

[EWS60065]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

I have made my own for several years now. A simple inverted hook and bar. They are single ended (hook one end, bar the other) so if you have a reverse loop or turntable fiddle yard you have problems!

 

No precision is involved and the only unreliability I have ever had is that on a permanent magnet, they sometimes (but rarely) uncouple when you don't want them to. On electromagnets, they are as near 100% effective as I have ever seen. You do need buffers that work as buffers and do not lock on sharp curves, although it it is a problem you can put a wire across the buffers to prevent problems.

 

No hinges, pivots or other moving parts, just a couple of bends in a "top E" guitar string wire (which is the same as what is recommended for Alex Jacksons. The dropper is a steel split pin of they type provided for commercial 3 link couplings. The "safety loop" under the hook is optional but can stop the dropper digging into the ballast.

 

Thanks for that method. Looks nice and simple. How does it work with the magnets though if you say there are no moving components? 

[t-b-g]

11 minutes ago, GWR5764 said:

Thanks for that method. Looks nice and simple. How does it work with the magnets though if you say there are no moving components? 

 

The wire is fixed rigidly (usually glued or soldered into a hole drilled in the buffer beam) to the far end of the wagon. There is enough spring in the wire for a magnet, either permanent or electro, to pull the dropper down. In some respects it is a hybrid with the coupling action of a S & W and the spring arrangement of an Alex Jackson.

 

It is really very simple to make. We use brass wire for the loop on the other end as we found that using steel wire could end up with residual magnetism, enough to pull an uncoupled wagon along if it was free running enough.