O Gauge Auto Couplings

[orford]

Here is an 'intermediate' video to be going on with.  This is NOT the final configuration but does show the revised operation using one rectangular magnet set lengthwise along the direction of the track (and passing through one sleeper as described above).

 

The couplers are still mounted too high in the original coupler slots on this clip and as noted above, these have now been lowered to a final position immediately below the buffer beams. 

 

When this 'Mark II' clip was shot, I was still experimenting with dropper lengths..........and you will all no doubt be pleased to learn that the 'three links' on the loco (which can be retained for appearance sake) have now been replaced with non-magnetic ones to stop the loco getting an erection every time it passes over a magnet !

 

https://youtu.be/_zIZz63Ngfk

Edited November 25, 2016 by orford

[CME and Bottlewasher]

CME you mention Don's droppers and how nice you thought they looked.  I've not tried this but what about using a split pin?  One suitable for attracting to a magnet of course. 

Thanks - that's a good idea, are small split-pins still available? I need something similar for the support of the overflow pipes at the end of my MK1 coaches.....unless I can source some LWB castings.......

 

Showing coupler as described above mounted immediately below buffer beam.

 

Incidentally, these have been tested from a running point of view down to 30" radius and will happily 'couple up' and 'uncouple' on 36" radius curves.  The head of the original TL's 'loop' is positioned about 1-2mm ahead of the buffer faces (it's not critical but this gives a fairly prototypical spacing between two vehicles). This distance could be reduced slightly for 48" radius curves or greater, or increased slightly for less than 30" radius ....but then most O gauge locos won't look at that, so that's pretty academic. We do have some 36" radius minimum curves on 'Cratchett's Yard' and this dimension is fine for our purposes.

 

I'll do a new video tomorrow showing the final designin operation.

 

DSCF8353.JPG

Very interesting, useful info, nice smooth operation thanks.....so the rectangular magnets work better than round ones?? You do have me a little worried as I have - the same as Rod and Howard?- mounted my TLs level with the buffer face (my minimum radius is 5' 6" - mainly 6')......any chance of a side on photo of two of your vehicles coupled (if that's not too much of a hassle)? 

 

Also who's sound decoder is fitted to the engine, may I ask?

 

Thanks guys,

 

ATVB

 

CME

Edited November 25, 2016 by CME and Bottlewasher

[Simond]

I have to say that it is relatively unobtrusive!

 

Best

Simon

[Barnaby]

Great "how do" video Don, thanks for that.

 

You make mention about coupler height, to me the hook looks about mid point of the Buffers which is where I have set mine.  Are they now set as you want them, they look great to me.  I did notice on your earlier Photo that you had the couplings set under the existing hook which while it allows for both systems to be used it doesn't look as good to me as your video above.

 

Well done, I do like the way your hook droppers blend in, I might swap out my links for a straight wire "L" like you.

 

Best

Edited November 25, 2016 by Barnaby

[MarshLane]

Useful and informative information Jeff.

Grandma and eggs but I haven't had any problems soldering the steel to the brass pivot tube after I used some wet and dry to give it a good clean first.  I did do mine with a mixture of my resistance soldering unit and a 25watt iron with the latter seemingly more than adequate.

I also used a variant of these couplings when they weren't available that just used a suitable glue to hold the pivot tube.  I'll post a paperclip hash up of it for info. 

 

My hand shunting of a mix of the 2 couplings worked well.

So it's the same idea minus the bracket using the hook wire through the pivot tube............ if you see what I mean.   saves all the soldering hassle anyway. 

The bends at each end of the tube keep it positioned and the plane of the HOOK movement is ever so slightly different due to the pivot change but they work.

 

Best

 

 

Hi Barnaby,

While I've been very firmly in the three-link camp for coupling, I am giving some thought to fitting some wagons with autos and I like the Lincs system the best - it seems one of the more unobtrusive designs.  How have you got on coupling and uncoupling three links on wagons that are also fitted with the Lincs system?  If I've read all this thread right, it is feasible to use both?

 

I also believe the Lincs system has a delayed action to it?  Do you have any idea what the minimum radius would be for vehicles fitted with these couplings?

 

Rich

[Barnaby]

Hello Rich,  I'm an escapee from the lincs coupling and have gone over to using the 00 gauge T/L system suitably tweaked with a short length of paper clip, as per the Brian Kirby method, to make them automatic. 

Brian Kirby info>>>  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35605

 

I did make up 3 wagons sporting the lincs coupling to test them out and found they coupled and uncoupled well.  This was achieved via a shirt button rare earth magnet laid between the sleepers.

The 3-links also coupled well but with my aged eye sight that was never going to be the way I was going to go.

 

In a desire to speed up my layout finishing I decided to use the T/L system which was a ready made nem pocket system which only needed me to cut a pocket hole and glue in the nem pocket, simples.  Should I want to I can now replace the T/L with 3-link hook and just slip it back in.

 

Best.

[MarshLane]

Hello Rich,  I'm an escapee from the lincs coupling and have gone over to using the 00 gauge T/L system suitably tweaked with a short length of paper clip, as per the Brian Kirby method, to make them automatic. 

Brian Kirby info>>>  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35605

 

I did make up 3 wagons sporting the lincs coupling to test them out and found they coupled and uncoupled well.  This was achieved via a shirt button rare earth magnet laid between the sleepers.

The 3-links also coupled well but with my aged eye sight that was never going to be the way I was going to go.

 

In a desire to speed up my layout finishing I decided to use the T/L system which was a ready made nem pocket system which only needed me to cut a pocket hole and glue in the nem pocket, simples.  Should I want to I can now replace the T/L with 3-link hook and just slip it back in.

 

Best.

 

 

Hi Barnaby,

Thanks for that.  The T/L option is one I've discounted for me, purely because I like to do model railway photography and the tension locks are so visible.  Each to their own as they say!  What works for one might not for another etc...

 

Thanks for the feedback though - think I'll order a batch of Lincs and give them a try.  I'm building an NE brake van at the moment, so an ideal time to have a look!

 

Cheers

Rich

[jcm@gwr]

Hi Barnaby,

While I've been very firmly in the three-link camp for coupling, I am giving some thought to fitting some wagons with autos and I like the Lincs system the best - it seems one of the more unobtrusive designs.  How have you got on coupling and uncoupling three links on wagons that are also fitted with the Lincs system?  If I've read all this thread right, it is feasible to use both?

 

I also believe the Lincs system has a delayed action to it?  Do you have any idea what the minimum radius would be for vehicles fitted with these couplings?

 

Rich

 

Hi Rich,

 

Yes, you can use both Lincs and 3-link on the same wagon, but,

you must use brass 3-links or they will interfere with each other.

 

I've been using them on my shunting puzzle for a few years now

and they are reasonably reliable*, they definitely work better on

the straight, but they don't have a delayed function (unlike S&W).

 

* you must ensure that they are set up properly, position and height

on wagon, and restricted from 'dropping' too much (or they hit the

sleepers), I use a jig for fitting and a spare set up on a block to test

the operation when fitted.

 

Jeff

[MarshLane]

Hi Rich,

 

Yes, you can use both Lincs and 3-link on the same wagon, but,

you must use brass 3-links or they will interfere with each other.

 

I've been using them on my shunting puzzle for a few years now

and they are reasonably reliable*, they definitely work better on

the straight, but they don't have a delayed function (unlike S&W).

 

* you must ensure that they are set up properly, position and height

on wagon, and restricted from 'dropping' too much (or they hit the

sleepers), I use a jig for fitting and a spare set up on a block to test

the operation when fitted.

 

Jeff

Thanks Jeff. I've ordered some from Richard Symes so I'll give them a go. Shame there is no delayed action as that really would make them perfect!

 

I like your idea for a spare set up on a block for testing.

 

Cheers

Rich

[Junctionmad]

Thanks Jeff. I've ordered some from Richard Symes so I'll give them a go. Shame there is no delayed action as that really would make them perfect!

I like your idea for a spare set up on a block for testing.

Cheers

Rich

Sorry to butt in on a 7mm thread

 

I had a demonstration of them and assembling them at Warley yesterday. Nice but on 4mm wagons with clasp brakes , it would be a difficult fit. The lack of delayed action is a killer though and hence I won't use them. I have dinghams but find in 4mm they are very fiddly and I get slop in the hoop pivot , also they are very limited on things like 40' bogie container flats etc.

 

By next experiment will be S&W , ultimately I'd like dcc controlled locos uncoupling , as loco "run rounds" are the main activity that requires uncoupling

Edited November 27, 2016 by Junctionmad

[MarshLane]

Sorry to butt in on a 7mm thread

 

I had a demonstration of them and assembling them at Warley yesterday. Nice but on 4mm wagons with clasp brakes , it would be a difficult fit. The lack of delayed action is a killer though and hence I won't use them. I have dinghams but find in 4mm they are very fiddly and I get slop in the hoop pivot , also they are very limited on things like 40' bogie container flats etc.

 

By next experiment will be S&W , ultimately I'd like dcc controlled locos uncoupling , as loco "run rounds" are the main activity that requires uncoupling

 

 

Hi,

We're a friendly bunch on the 7mm side!  Always welcome people butting in with useful information  Interesting comments. I think the one advantage of 7mm is the additional room.  The lack of delayed action is something of pain - I keep wondering if there is a way of modifying them to provide such a facility, its something I'm going to look at once I've got a couple of wagons equipped and can see them working - must be someway!  

 

The Dinghams and S&W all have good reputations, although obviously every system has its negative points, but personally, for me, they are both too intrusive visually on 7mm.  Now if we could get them working with DCC decoders to uncouple anywhere, well that could be a different kettle of couplings

 

Rich

[orford]

CME - Don't worry about the positioning of your loops in relation to your buffer heads. With minimum radius curves such as yours it won't be any problem to have them flush, or even slightly behind the buffer heads. Even less of a problem if all your buffers are sprung.

 

Ours have to cope with curves of slightly less than 36" in some areas, so need to be positioned slightly ahead of the buffers. In addition we have several locos and wagons on which we glued the buffers up solid - and even extended them out in some cases when we were trial-fitting Dingham couplers, so we have lost the 'sprung buffer' capability too.  But I'm sure your positioning will pose no problems whatsoever.

 

Mark - Where precisely you mount them is entirely up to you. We just decided we wanted to retain the ability to still use the original hooks to couple non-TL-fitted wagons into trains from time to time. We also felt the wagons look slightly better with the original three-link hooks still in place. But either way works absolutely fine.

 

Still haven't got round to doing the 'final' video yet but I will do so ASAP and will put it up with some more pictures.

 

 

- Don

Edited November 27, 2016 by orford

[orford]

FINAL SET-UP VIDEO

 

Here is the final video, as promised, showing the magnetic TL couplings working in the configuration which we finally settled on ('we' being myself and a friend, jointly building 'Cratchett's Yard').

 

Also a picture (sorry poor quality) showing how we set the loops in relation to the buffer faces - BUT, as mentioned above, we have some decidedly 'silly-radius' curves on Cratchett's Yard - a tad under 36". With 4' 6" minimum radius or greater, the loops could certainly be mounted flush with the front face of the buffers.

 

Finally, CME asked what sound system was in the loco. Well, none, actually - other than the sound already factory-loaded onto the Zimo MX645 decoder when you buy it. The MX645 comes with several sound files pre-loaded, both steam and diesel and as this one seemed to suit this particular loco quite well, I have not bothered to source something more bespoke, or to change it.

 

 

 

Here is the final video.............     https://youtu.be/ZCju_zictNE

Edited November 27, 2016 by orford

[CME and Bottlewasher]

CME - Don't worry about the positioning of your loops in relation to your buffer heads. With minimum radius curves such as yours it won't be any problem to have them flush, or even slightly behind the buffer heads. Even less of a problem if all your buffers are sprung.

 

Ours have to cope with curves of slightly less than 36" in some areas, so need to be positioned slightly ahead of the buffers. In addition we have several locos and wagons on which we glued the buffers up solid - and even extended them out in some cases when we were trial-fitting Dingham couplers, so we have lost the 'sprung buffer' capability too.  But I'm sure your positioning will pose no problems whatsoever.

 

Mark - Where precisely you mount them is entirely up to you. We just decided we wanted to retain the ability to still use the original hooks to couple non-TL-fitted wagons into trains from time to time. We also felt the wagons look slightly better with the original three-link hooks still in place. But either way works absolutely fine.

 

Still haven't got round to doing the 'final' video yet but I will do so ASAP and will put it up with some more pictures.

 

 

- Don

Thanks Don, much appreciated, I understand, you are using the TL's rather like a NG single buffer. Hopefully mine will be okay, only certain buffers are fixed and most are sprung....

 

FINAL SET-UP VIDEO

 

Here is the final video, as promised, showing the magnetic TL couplings working in the configuration which we finally settled on ('we' being myself and a friend, jointly building 'Cratchett's Yard').

 

Also a picture (sorry poor quality) showing how we set the loops in relation to the buffer faces - BUT, as mentioned above, we have some decidedly 'silly-radius' curves on Cratchett's Yard - a tad under 36". With 4' 6" minimum radius or greater, the loops could certainly be mounted flush with the front face of the buffers.

 

Finally, CME asked what sound system was in the loco. Well, none, actually - other than the sound already factory-loaded onto the Zimo MX645 decoder when you buy it. The MX645 comes with several sound files pre-loaded, both steam and diesel and as this one seemed to suit this particular loco quite well, I have not bothered to source something more bespoke, or to change it.

 

DSCF8377.JPG

 

 

Here is the final video.............     https://youtu.be/ZCju_zictNE

Nice work again Don, I thought the sound chip was rather good - some sound awful - yet that sounded, in-line with the shunting moves, very good indeed!

 

Some slightly more philosophical notes;-I noted what a previous Poster wrote about the TL's showing up in photos and I agree, my models, when photographed with three links, screw-links, instanters etc look great, yet when shunting and actually running a layout, the TL's are a joy, three links aren't - middle aged eyesight and fingers etc etc. No value judgements as it is a case of each to their own (and prioritising ones wants and needs). If using the TLs with only metal pins mounted in the top of the hooks (for magnetic pole uncoupling_ or using Rod/Howard's methods then the TL's are a lot less noticeable - no worse than most other methods I would say. But even with droppers, in a layout environment they are hardly noticeable. Don has done some cruel close up video and photos so as to demo his work, and thus the TL's are the main focus - on a layout all one would notice is the smooth operation of trains and the lack of the 'hand of god' etc etc...layout - smooth - operation was always important to me (although I have had to modify my thoughts and models in an effort to make them look realistic but run well as well).

 

Thanks again.

 

Kind regards,

 

CME

Edited November 27, 2016 by CME and Bottlewasher

[orford]

Exactly CME.  The close ups were done for the video to show them working.

 

Maybe I should have added that under normal layout operating conditions one's eye is drawn to the wagon as a whole, the movement, the scenery through which the train is running - and so on ...and it is perfectly true that after a while you do not even notice the couplings, especially if painted black - but keep the paint well away from the 'hinge' and the face of the loop).

 

True - they do show up on photos (although a useful doge with them being mounted below the buffer beams is that they can easily be photo-shopped out (is that cheating?)

 

In truth - it depends on what you are doing and what you want. If I had the time and money to model the LNER main line in 'O', then I would be inclined to go for appearance as the number one priority and keep the original three-link couplings.

 

But our joint layout (and my future personal one) are both essentially shunting layouts - and the first of these will be for exhibitions. In these circumstances, OPERATION is far more important to me than fvisual accuracy - hence the need for auto-couplings.

 

- Don

[Simond]

Has anyone considered "AJ" AKA Alex Jackson couplings?

 

I personally don't like them, but this is a jaundiced view based on working John Matthews' Leigh & North Whitton, where John has both AJ and three-link couplings on some of his stock. The AJs, when they work, are excellent. When they accidentally harpoon the three link on an adjacent wagon, they are the most irritating couplings in existence.

 

I imagine having only AJs on a shunting layout, would be entirely satisfactory. They are near invisible, allow delayed uncoupling, and are cheap. They are reasonably easy to make & fit, too.

 

http://mmrs.co.uk/technical-articles/alex-jackson-coupling/

 

Food for thought!

Best

Simon

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Exactly CME.  The close ups were done for the video to show them working.

 

Maybe I should have added that under normal layout operating conditions one's eye is drawn to the wagon as a whole, the movement, the scenery through which the train is running - and so on ...and it is perfectly true that after a while you do not even notice the couplings, especially if painted black - but keep the paint well away from the 'hinge' and the face of the loop).

 

True - they do show up on photos (although a useful doge with them being mounted below the buffer beams is that they can easily be photo-shopped out (is that cheating?)

 

In truth - it depends on what you are doing and what you want. If I had the time and money to model the LNER main line in 'O', then I would be inclined to go for appearance as the number one priority and keep the original three-link couplings.

 

But our joint layout (and my future personal one) are both essentially shunting layouts - and the first of these will be for exhibitions. In these circumstances, OPERATION is far more important to me than fvisual accuracy - hence the need for auto-couplings.

 

- Don

Yes Don, I am in full agreement, I like to play trains - an all to infrequent occurrence at the moment. As DA is a 'U' with a bit of roundy, roundy in the garden, couplings are key to good, smooth operations, if I owned Stoke Summit or Little Bytham et al. then I would be using scale couplings and lots more fixed rakes (I shall have some). I hardly ever use pure black or pure white when painting models, BUT, when I want to hide something, under the right circumstances (under wagons) matt black hides things such as couplings.....horses for courses really......I am grateful for your videos and photos....

 

Has anyone considered "AJ" AKA Alex Jackson couplings?

 

I personally don't like them, but this is a jaundiced view based on working John Matthews' Leigh & North Whitton, where John has both AJ and three-link couplings on some of his stock. The AJs, when they work, are excellent. When they accidentally harpoon the three link on an adjacent wagon, they are the most irritating couplings in existence.

 

I imagine having only AJs on a shunting layout, would be entirely satisfactory. They are near invisible, allow delayed uncoupling, and are cheap. They are reasonably easy to make & fit, too.

 

http://mmrs.co.uk/technical-articles/alex-jackson-coupling/

 

Food for thought!

Best

Simon

Hi Simon,

 

AJs are fine when used on their own, and on layouts without tight radii and those layouts that are ultra fine-scale (P4, S7), for my use, even in 7mm 'FS', I fear that there would be too much slop and too big a tolerances in wheels and other things for them to work successfully. Winterleys, AJs and Lincs are all fine coupling systems when used appropriately, yet they dont, sadly, suit my current needs.

 

ATVB everyone,

 

CME

[MarshLane]

Has anyone considered "AJ" AKA Alex Jackson couplings?

 

I personally don't like them, but this is a jaundiced view based on working John Matthews' Leigh & North Whitton, where John has both AJ and three-link couplings on some of his stock. The AJs, when they work, are excellent. When they accidentally harpoon the three link on an adjacent wagon, they are the most irritating couplings in existence.

 

I imagine having only AJs on a shunting layout, would be entirely satisfactory. They are near invisible, allow delayed uncoupling, and are cheap. They are reasonably easy to make & fit, too.

 

http://mmrs.co.uk/technical-articles/alex-jackson-coupling/

 

Food for thought!

Best

Simon

 

 

HI Simon,

Thats an interesting one - never heard of those before.  Just had a quick read through and it sounds quite interesting, although very fiddly to produce I think.  There must be a better solution in the 21st century to what is a basic issue, surely!

 

Rich

[CME and Bottlewasher]

HI Simon,

Thats an interesting one - never heard of those before.  Just had a quick read through and it sounds quite interesting, although very fiddly to produce I think.  There must be a better solution in the 21st century to what is a basic issue, surely!

 

Rich

Hi Rich,

 

There are jigs to help with setting up AJs.....you are right though couplings, just like for prototype couplings, cant seem to be standardised in their entirety, yet I cant help thinking that some clever bod could come up with a beautifully simple solution...

 

ATVB

 

CME

Edited November 27, 2016 by CME and Bottlewasher

[orford]

One thing I forgot to mention for the benefit of anyone thinking of trying the 'L' shaped loops, as on my own magnetic TL's.

 

You may have noticed that where the new steel L-shaped dropper wires are soldered to the original hook's dropper, there is a slight 'overhang' (red arrow on picture).  This is both deliberate and important as (a) it limits the degree of 'rise' of the hook by hitting against the underside of the loop and (b) also prevents the hook getting jammed in the 'up' position. This overhang only needs to be about a millimetre or so.

 

 

Oh - and just for fun, did anyone notice the fireman in the loco has a cigar in his mouth ??

Edited November 27, 2016 by orford

[jcm@gwr]

On the subject of axle slop, I agree that most

0 gauge wagons can have way too much.

That can affect how well the Lincs system works,

which is why, on my Inglenook, I used the old

Lima and Big-Big 16T opens and retained the

plastic axle sets (pin-point axles) to eliminate

the problem.

 

Jeff

[Simond]

I can confirm that AJs work with 32mm "0-Fine", and will certainly do so with 31.5 "0-Modified Fine". Even so, they won't couple on tight curves.

 

I suspect Kevin (Nearholmer) would find them troublesome!!!

 

Best

Simon

[Barnaby]

I tried AJ's in P4 and that experience put me off them for life.

Even with all the "help you bend build gauges" they were a fiddle to make and mine needed close alignment to work reliably.   Closer tolerance than the ISS in space when accepting a module into their dock.

 

They seem overly complicated for what should be a relatively simple action and I think that challenge is what appeals to some.

 

I am getting a very reliable couple/ uncouple using the T/L and a bit of bent paperclip [thank you BK], that allows me to happily shunt about hands free with out too much need to reset things or activate the HOG.

 

An interesting trial that I made was to replicate the Lincs system but have a thin sheet brass hook with the hook not vertical but tilted to one side.  They looked better as the hooks were facing upwards and were operated by the 3-lincs from a magnet between the sleepers.

From memory I used the hook part of a Dingham coupling and attached it to the existing Lincs wire but cut off the hook end.  I had to extend the hook length to allow them to latch when tilted off centre.  They did work but needed some more slop in the system to allow for curves.  I'll revisit them when I get some away time from my layout proper maybe even trial fit them onto some wagons and not just pieces of wood. 

 

Each to their own and mine just presently are T/L's 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Barnaby

[BG John]

I want delayed uncoupling, which is why I'm planning to use S&W on my 4mm layouts, and Dinghams on the O gauge. I haven't assembled a Dingham yet, but what appeals to me is the apparent simplicity of replacing the coupling hook, rather than needing to fit and align a separate mounting.

 

The TL idea seems to be a copy of the Brian Kirby 4mm adaptation (I'm not sure if that's been mentioned here), that I may try on my OO layout, as almost all the stock is Bachmann  with TLs already fitted, but if I'm not happy I'll change them to S&W.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

One thing I forgot to mention for the benefit of anyone thinking of trying the 'L' shaped loops, as on my own magnetic TL's.

 

You may have noticed that where the new steel L-shaped dropper wires are soldered to the original hook's dropper, there is a slight 'overhang' (red arrow on picture).  This is both deliberate and important as (a) it limits the degree of 'rise' of the hook by hitting against the underside of the loop and (b) also prevents the hook getting jammed in the 'up' position. This overhang only needs to be about a millimetre or so.

 

Image2.jpg

 

Oh - and just for fun, did anyone notice the fireman in the loco has a cigar in his mouth ??

Thanks Don, I thought that I noticed a slight over-hang, that makes perfect sense....clever stuff!

 

I want delayed uncoupling, which is why I'm planning to use S&W on my 4mm layouts, and Dinghams on the O gauge. I haven't assembled a Dingham yet, but what appeals to me is the apparent simplicity of replacing the coupling hook, rather than needing to fit and align a separate mounting.

 

The TL idea seems to be a copy of the Brian Kirby 4mm adaptation (I'm not sure if that's been mentioned here), that I may try on my OO layout, as almost all the stock is Bachmann  with TLs already fitted, but if I'm not happy I'll change them to S&W.

Yes the Dingham's are good in that regard, I have spied one or two exhibition layouts struggling with Dinghams though, but as they were being problematic the operators were not all that approachable, so I never found out why they did work 100%

 

ATVB

 

CME