Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

31 minutes ago, Clem said:

 

Sorry Richard, forgot to mention Alex Jackson couplings. They used to be all the rage on finescale layouts but seem to have gone out of fashion a bit. I've never used them but it may be worth looking up.

Good afternoon Clem,

 

Though I've never used Alex Jackson couplings myself, I have seen them in operation. My observations have brought me to the following conclusions.....

 

1. They are extremely neat, unobtrusive and discreet.

 

2. Great care must be taken in setting them up, and they're very, very easy to knock out of adjustment (in transit?) which compromises their action.

 

3. On very heavy trains they're not suitable. Perhaps on the last vehicle, say, where it's detached at some point, but not as the front coupling on a 14-car, kit-built express.

 

Perhaps others who've used them might give us greater insight. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[nsl714]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The warmest of welcomes to posting on here, Zach,

 

Some splendid soldering (and everything on the model).

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Many thanks for the warm welcome, Tony.

I was pleasantly surprised at how well it went overall. There were a few pitfalls along the way, (whitemetal parts vaporize just as easily in 7mm as they do in 4mm!), but it cleaned up very nicely once done.

 

Thanks again,

Zach

[robertcwp]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Clem,

 

Though I've never used Alex Jackson couplings myself, I have seen them in operation. My observations have brought me to the following conclusions.....

 

1. They are extremely neat, unobtrusive and discreet.

 

2. Great care must be taken in setting them up, and they're very, very easy to knock out of adjustment (in transit?) which compromises their action.

 

3. On very heavy trains they're not suitable. Perhaps on the last vehicle, say, where it's detached at some point, but not as the front coupling on a 14-car, kit-built express.

 

Perhaps others who've used them might give us greater insight. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I have not used them but I have seen them in operation on exhibition layouts. Whilst neat and unobtrusive, I'm not convinced they would stand up to the rigours of operation over a prolonged period. As Tony notes, they also need to be set up very precisely.

 

I have used Sprat & Winkle couplings for 20 years. They are more obvious than Alex Jackson and engines need a bar across the buffers. On the whole, they work well and will just about take a 2' 6" curve, although it's pushing it a bit with some diesels, notably Westerns. Mark III or later stock would need a more generous curve.

 

They should be set up precisely but there is some tolerance and I have not found it necessary to be too precise in fitting them. The key things are for the bar to be at the correct height and the hook to point out straight when looked at from the side. The main issues relate to coupling to diesels with lots of pipes on the buffer beam, especially those with buffers that do not protrude very far. Sprung buffers are a nuisance and I have taken to gluing them solid.

 

The couplings seem to be able to take a considerable load. I have had 16 parcels vans running, coupled with S&W throughout, and they worked fine including through crossovers and reverse curves. I have also run a test 16' long freight and again the couplings were fine.

 

I use them on the ends of rakes and for loose carriages (mostly NPCCS) and wagons. In the case of wagons, I only use them on the ends of block trains and on one end of most other short wagons and both ends of long wagons and brake vans. On bogie stock, I mount the couplings on the bogies, the main drawback of which is that the buffer beam between the buffers has to go to allow the coupling to swing across as the bogie pivots. However, this is necessary for handling the sharper curves and being shunted through pointwork. Bogie mounting was at the suggestion of the previous proprietor of MSE many years ago (was it Derek Mundy? - I forget). 

 

You need a double-heading coupling to double head trains. The ones I have were made decades ago by a friend from two pieces of brass tube with a slot cut in and soldered together with a piece of rail to act as a kind of handle to get them on and off using tweezers or pliers.

 

Automatic uncoupling needs magnets under the track, so you need to plan in advance where to put the magnets and remember not to stop trains with the couplings over them if you don't want to uncouple. Manual uncoupling is easy if you can reach the trains. My uncouplers are simply a piece of stiff steel wire bent to an appropriate shape.

Edited August 10, 2020 by robertcwp
Typo.

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Clem,

 

Though I've never used Alex Jackson couplings myself, I have seen them in operation. My observations have brought me to the following conclusions.....

 

1. They are extremely neat, unobtrusive and discreet.

 

2. Great care must be taken in setting them up, and they're very, very easy to knock out of adjustment (in transit?) which compromises their action.

 

3. On very heavy trains they're not suitable. Perhaps on the last vehicle, say, where it's detached at some point, but not as the front coupling on a 14-car, kit-built express.

 

Perhaps others who've used them might give us greater insight. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hi Richard, Tony, Clem, et al,

We have been using Alex Jackson couplings on Hungerford with great success.  With care our experience is that you can avoid the problems that Tony has referred to.  As most will already know, Hungerford is an exhibition layout and so the stock has to be packed and unpacked on a regular basis.  We are careful to ensure that the stock is packed in such a way as to protect the couplings against damage. but given that they are made from thin and springy gauge 10 guitar wire they are actually more resilient against damage than you might expect.

 

We run prototypical length trains on Hungerford and so to avoid the other problem Tony has referred to it is important to run solder into the head of the coupling.  Without the solder under the load of a heavy train the hook of the AJ coupling can distort and the couplings lock onto each other and are difficult to separate.  The solder prevents this distortion and the couplings are then strong enough to pull what ever load you put behind them. 

 

To address Richard's concern they are relatively cheap given that they are bent entirely from guitar wire and a bent paper clip.  If you know enough guitarists second hand guitar strings are perfectly acceptable and then they are virtually free.     

 

Mounting them on coach bogies is slightly more challenging than goods stock but if you use MJT compensated bogies then they have been designed to make fitting AJ couplings simple.  

 

I should add that they are typically activated by electric magnets.   The couplings  are reversed over the magnets and once uncoupled the stock can be pushed to the location where the vehicle is to be dropped off.  

 

We have been so happy with the AJ couplings that we plan to use them again on Clayton.

 

Regards,

 

Frank

[Barry O]

Martin Brent used to sell AJ manufacturing jigs. A colleague borrowed mine.. and it hasn't returned. Fine in EM, S4 and O but OO has abit too much side pay for them to work well.

 

We in Leeds have used DGs for a long time *30+ years possibly). They are  easily made, can be fitted easily and can take real battering. We have a height gauge so a quick check when taking stock out of the stock boxes means they work well on our exhibition layouts. You can easily fit them to coach bogies, wagons, vans, Bogie goods stock, locomotives etc. Electromagnets can be used to give a delayed uncoupling action and they are much smaller than Sprat and Winkle (and you don't need to chop holes in buffer beams as some people do fitting S&Ws 

 

Both DGs and S &W are part of Andrew Hartshorne range (Major Clanger on RMWeb).

 

To use 3 links .. try seeing them with varifocals..

 

Baz

[Tony Wright]

Since the subject of couplings is topical, here are the ones I use on Little Bytham.

 

 

Though definitely not-prototypical, I find the hook and bar coupling extremely cheap and reliable to make. It's just a .45mm brass hook on one end and a .45mm 'goalpost' on the other, soldered to strips of PCB (sleepers) glued behind the headstocks. The wagons can be pulled and pushed with equal reliability, unwanted uncoupling never takes place, though the 'price' for this is that any form of semi-automatic uncoupling is impossible and the system is only suitable for fixed rakes. 

 

 

The painted brass hook can discerned on the wagon to the left. A Sprat & Winkle coupling is fixed to the cattle wagon. 

 

I use Sprat & Winkles on the pick-ups, where shunting takes place and uncoupling is a necessity. Strategically-placed magnets do the trick for that. 

 

 

The cattle wagon to the left has the painted brass 'goalpost' (which is also at S&W height), and the one to the right has three-links. The latter is, of course, more authentic but takes time when coupling up a full rake (that was the reason they were abandoned on Stoke Summit and Charwelton). How folk see such things when employing the 'hand of God' for shunting, I have no idea! 

 

More next..........................

 

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Clem]

1 hour ago, rka said:

Hi clem, 

 

I'm aware of them but being a student with a young family and renovating a house I'm aiming to buy as little as possible hence me thinking about a system similar to Tony's coaches. 

I have a similar system to Tony's except I have a goal post on each end of the carriage and make up discreet couplings that hook over both goal posts. This avoids having  carriages that are 'ended' i.e a goalpost end and a hook end and thus allows carriages to be coupled to any end. It works well but I feel it's not quite perfected yet. Before that I had a vertical piece of tubining just below the buffer beam in which a vacuum shaped coupling pipe slotted in. Again this worked but was pretty fiddly. 

 

I should say that I couple the carriages to the loco with a screw coupling.

 

For freight stock, I've always been happy with 3 link and screw.

[Tony Wright]

 

Three-links in goods trains are very unobtrusive, though, as mentioned, a bit of a fag to couple up. I've also find that they can twist, to the extent that they can cause derailments.

 

 

Sprat & Winkles are also unobtrusive, though it does seem slightly odd to have the hooks on adjacent vehicles both hanging down. 

 

When set up correctly, they're extremely reliable. 

 

Whether one uses the simple hook and bar, three-link or screw-link, or Sprat & Winkle all are far superior in appearance (and function) to the dreaded tension-locks. 

 

Though I accept my prejudice with regard to the tension-locks (and admit I did use them for a very short time for shunting the pick-ups when LB was in its infancy), I can't understand how any modeller seeking to create more-accurate model railways could ever use them. 

[mullie]

I use a variation on S&W mk 1 couplings. I use the 3mm version and adapt it for auto uncoupling by soldering a small piece of wire as shown here. They are relatively easy to set up and reliable. I have used staples rather than three links, easier than making 3 links and a box of staples lasts forever. Recently I have started using hinged Kadee magnets for uncoupling, Nothing technical, I use hinges from the DIY spares box, often left over from dismantled furniture, and pull the magnet into position using  string or spare wire. I do have very gentle curves as my layout is essentially a series of micros. This lessens the possibility of accidental uncoupling and is a lot cheaper than electro magnets. Not my idea I hasten to add, I saw it used at Expo EM two years ago.

 

 

I use the lower fitting style using S&W baseplates that make fitting the couplings a doddle, the height can be seen on the open wagon and the buffer beam remains intact. I fit couplings to the bogies on coaches though probably no longer need to.

 

The reason for using Kadee magnets is because I am building a collection of post steam mid 60s stock and wanted to try using Kadees. Using this system both S&W and Kadees can be used on the same layout.

 

Martyn

 

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by mullie

[APOLLO]

Why British Railways continued with the archaic system of buffers and chain (type) couplings I will never know. The Yanks got it right with the Janney (Buckeye / Knuckle) coupling back in 1868. Works then, works now,especially in model form  (Kadees).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janney_coupler

 

The old Hornby Dublo coupler (early metal) works well. I live with tension locks on my OO stuff but I vehemently I hate the modern small, flimsy tension locks - try reversing a rake of stock so fitted over reverse pointwork !!

 

I love my O gauge American stock with metal Kadees's fitted - Nuff said.

 

Brit15

[Compound2632]

Just now, APOLLO said:

Why British Railways continued with the archaic system of buffers and chain (type) couplings I will never know.

 

In the days before fixed rakes for absolutely everything - i.e. until fairly recently - how would you go about managing the change? 

[Buhar]

A quick mention for Dinghams, unobtrusive, reliable and with a nice delay function. I do need to be well stocked with mojo to assemble them and they are handed.

Alan 

[Tony Wright]

I'm splitting these coupling posts because too many pictures cannot be accepted. 

 

 

Sprat & Winkles are easy to fit to non-bogie stock, but can present problems when fixing to bogie vehicles. In this example, the coupling is fixed to the bogie. It works, but it's not quite so reliable as when fixed underneath the body.

 

 

Like this. Of course, a slot has to be cut into the headstock. 

 

The two examples above work in a train which is bi-directional (an excursion from Little Bytham to London return, which then ran back to Peterborough as empty stock). I live with the discrepancy of a lamp at both ends of the set at all times! 

 

 

This non-gangwayed brake just shunts as part of a pick-up. This is a very old vehicle, where the bar is soldered across the buffers. I no longer do this. 

 

 

My standard hook and bar between gangwayed bogie stock. I have yet to fix the steam-heating/vacuum brake pipes between this pair. 

 

 

As I have done here. 

 

I'm very happy with this effect - it's cheap and easy to make, is 100% reliable in operation, can be pulled or pushed with equal merit, but is not automatic. 

 

Imagine how 'gross' this side-on view would be with a pair of tension-locks in operation! 

 

And, finally 'The End'. 

 

Because Little Bytham's train run in the majority as fixed-rakes, do not shunt and do not 'terminate', then I feel an 'accurate' representation of the rear end of those trains is essential. 

 

 

This a Hornby BSO (note the roof ribs!) with a Bachmann end plate. A dummy, dropped-down buckeye and steam heating/vacuum brake pipes compete the picture (though there really should be a hook protruding through the buckeye's 'tails'). And, never forget the tail lamp!

 

 

The 'end' is just as important on a non-gangwayed rake; in this case a Hornby Gresley Brake 3rd. This was originally supplied with a dirty-great tension-lock sticking out! 

 

 

And, don't forget three lamps on the brake van if a freight is not fully-fitted.............

[APOLLO]

19 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

In the days before fixed rakes for absolutely everything - i.e. until fairly recently - how would you go about managing the change? 

 

Yes indeed -  big logistics problem and that is probably why we stayed  with our archaic system. Don't forget though  the Yanks had a huge and rapidly expanding system also back in the mid 1800's, with many varying standards. They needed standardisation perhaps more than us,, worked on it and evolved it.

 

Brit15

[robertcwp]

On Sprat & Winkle couplings, I abandoned the goalpost bars except on tenders a long time ago as I found they caused problems through the pointwork and when shunting coaching stock. I put the coupling bars through a small hole drilled in each buffer. I don't paint the bars either as that causes friction and prevents the hook sliding across easily when going through pointwork. Double slips in particular have a small radius so there is a lot of sideways movement. The end of the hook is either not painted or paint is filed off the leading edge and inside the hook for the same reason. I went through a phase of not painting the hooks at all because of resulting stickiness. I have not in general gone back and painted them. but if I live to be 500, it might get sufficiently high up the priority list to be done. Similarly for the bars on diesels - experience has shown that painting them black causes problems, so they are left shiny. Incidentally, I always use nickel silver wire for bars on coaching stock and locos, not brass. On my layout, I established a long time ago that bogie mounting is essential. 

[Northmoor]

49 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Yes indeed -  big logistics problem and that is probably why we stayed  with our archaic system. Don't forget though  the Yanks had a huge and rapidly expanding system also back in the mid 1800's, with many varying standards. They needed standardisation perhaps more than us,, worked on it and evolved it.

 

Brit15

It doesn't need to be fixed rakes, so long as you have standard coupling systems within wagon types.  If a block train oil train never has to be mixed with steel or stone wagons, it wouldn't matter if it had buckeyes and others had instanters.

[t-b-g]

29 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

On Sprat & Winkle couplings, I abandoned the goalpost bars except on tenders a long time ago as I found they caused problems through the pointwork and when shunting coaching stock. I put the coupling bars through a small hole drilled in each buffer. I don't paint the bars either as that causes friction and prevents the hook sliding across easily when going through pointwork. Double slips in particular have a small radius so there is a lot of sideways movement. The end of the hook is either not painted or paint is filed off the leading edge and inside the hook for the same reason. I went through a phase of not painting the hooks at all because of resulting stickiness. I have not in general gone back and painted them. but if I live to be 500, it might get sufficiently high up the priority list to be done. Similarly for the bars on diesels - experience has shown that painting them black causes problems, so they are left shiny. Incidentally, I always use nickel silver wire for bars on coaching stock and locos, not brass. On my layout, I established a long time ago that bogie mounting is essential. 

 

I used to paint mine and found that it led to problems. The paint either rubbed off or created friction just where you didn't want any.

 

I have found that chemical blackening is an ideal solution. It is much more durable than paint and can be polished to give a lovely slippery surface.

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

The funny thing is, I have the space and I’d happily pay to build such a shed. However, there’s three reasons why I won’t, not yet, one being that the property is owned by my grandma and I’d feel rude asking, seeing as she’d already gifted me the room that BJ is in now. Two, in case I decide to eventually move out of home and get my own place, I’d like to have the layout at my place of residence - (maybe I should just buy next door, there’s plenty of room there, that’s what us w o g s do). Three, I don’t think I’ve reached the level of skills to undertake such a layout. I think the viaduct would be a commission job, I don’t think I’d have the skills for that, a small viaduct I could knock up but not one 20ft long. 
 

Unless I start it soon and it be a lifelong project, just like Retford. Either way it will be the ‘Layout of a Lifetime’, either I finish it or die before it is finished, the harsh reality. 

Keep practicing. i didn't start my "last great project" until I was 58 but I'd been accumulating stuff for over 30 years before that.

 

A 20ft viaduct is only five 4ft ones joined together of course.

[Dave John]

I managed a 9 foot viaduct in about 3 months . Foamboard and styrene. 

 

 

 

Some more pics in the blog . Yes , Concrete Bob shot the mix full of brickdust so the original was that colour. 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/entry/20017-some-viaduct-pictures/

 

I see couplings are being debated. My advice KRA, buy or make a selection , mess about, see what suits your operational requirements. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Dave John

[Michael Edge]

10 hours ago, Barry O said:

 

 

We in Leeds have used DGs for a long time *30+ years possibly). They are  easily made, can be fitted easily and can take real battering. We have a height gauge so a quick check when taking stock out of the stock boxes means they work well on our exhibition layouts. You can easily fit them to coach bogies, wagons, vans, Bogie goods stock, locomotives etc. Electromagnets can be used to give a delayed uncoupling action and they are much smaller than Sprat and Winkle (and you don't need to chop holes in buffer beams as some people do fitting S&Ws 

 

Both DGs and S &W are part of Andrew Hartshorne range (Major Clanger on RMWeb).

 

To use 3 links .. try seeing them with varifocals..

 

Baz

Tests are ongoing with this variation for DG couplings initially on Wentworth Junction but also on Carlisle whenever I get back there.

This combined draw hook and DG peg is etched in .015" n/s and is mounted in the buffer beam. The latch is pivoted on a pin but the coupling can be used without it if delayed action is not required.

This is the application I had in mind when designing it, it's very difficult to put DG couplings on locos with deep buffer beams. They are also very unobtrusive in appearance, even without painting or blackening them.

This is the etch, everything seems just about right with it although the angle of the peg and the length were just a guess, it also incorporates a hole for a three link chain.

I was initially worried that it might cause problems when propelling stock but in practice the end of the coupling peg pushes against the buffer of the adjacent DG and the side buffers still don't touch. This eliminates a problem with 3 link and AJ couplings in 00, because the wheels are very sloppy in the gauge even short vehicles are prone to buffer locking - this isn't a problem in EM or P4. The big advantage of the DG coupling over the Sprat and Winkle is that all the forces are central, pulling and pushing, the offset pull of SW (and the hideous standard UK coupling) can cause problems with long trains on curves. More on all this in my workshop thread.

[Barry O]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Keep practicing. i didn't start my "last great project" until I was 58 but I'd been accumulating stuff for over 30 years before that.

 

A 20ft viaduct is only five 4ft ones joined together of course.

Accumulating stock for 30 years...as the layout gets closer to fruition my stock acquired over the last 40 years is reappearing to be tested and prepared for use. Some of my Ian Kirk 24.5 T and 21T minerals have morfed into some strange shapes over the years but still run.

 

Baz

[queensquare]

43 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

Tests are ongoing with this variation for DG couplings initially on Wentworth Junction but also on Carlisle whenever I get back there.

 

This combined draw hook and DG peg is etched in .015" n/s and is mounted in the buffer beam. The latch is pivoted on a pin but the coupling can be used without it if delayed action is not required.

 

This is the application I had in mind when designing it, it's very difficult to put DG couplings on locos with deep buffer beams. They are also very unobtrusive in appearance, even without painting or blackening them.

 

This is the etch, everything seems just about right with it although the angle of the peg and the length were just a guess, it also incorporates a hole for a three link chain.

I was initially worried that it might cause problems when propelling stock but in practice the end of the coupling peg pushes against the buffer of the adjacent DG and the side buffers still don't touch. This eliminates a problem with 3 link and AJ couplings in 00, because the wheels are very sloppy in the gauge even short vehicles are prone to buffer locking - this isn't a problem in EM or P4. The big advantage of the DG coupling over the Sprat and Winkle is that all the forces are central, pulling and pushing, the offset pull of SW (and the hideous standard UK coupling) can cause problems with long trains on curves. More on all this in my workshop thread.

 

These are some really interesting developments Mike. DG couplings are by far the most popular coupling in 2mm ( they were developed for 2mm by Nick Dearnley and John Greenwood - DG).

As you say fitting them to locos with deep bufferbeams is problematic. My only concern would be the loss of the buffing plate on the DG. In 2mm, getting the buffers to do their proper job is tricky - they are pretty small! Have you found that to be an issue when pushing stock?

The big advantage I would see for something like this in 2mm, for me is on the front of passenger locos which need to double head as its far more unobtrusive than a full DG.

 

Jerry

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

Tests are ongoing with this variation for DG couplings initially on Wentworth Junction but also on Carlisle whenever I get back there.

This combined draw hook and DG peg is etched in .015" n/s and is mounted in the buffer beam. The latch is pivoted on a pin but the coupling can be used without it if delayed action is not required.

This is the application I had in mind when designing it, it's very difficult to put DG couplings on locos with deep buffer beams. They are also very unobtrusive in appearance, even without painting or blackening them.

This is the etch, everything seems just about right with it although the angle of the peg and the length were just a guess, it also incorporates a hole for a three link chain.

I was initially worried that it might cause problems when propelling stock but in practice the end of the coupling peg pushes against the buffer of the adjacent DG and the side buffers still don't touch. This eliminates a problem with 3 link and AJ couplings in 00, because the wheels are very sloppy in the gauge even short vehicles are prone to buffer locking - this isn't a problem in EM or P4. The big advantage of the DG coupling over the Sprat and Winkle is that all the forces are central, pulling and pushing, the offset pull of SW (and the hideous standard UK coupling) can cause problems with long trains on curves. More on all this in my workshop thread.

Good morning Mike,

 

That looks very impressive.

 

I haven't looked on your own thread, but are they available for sale?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clem]

A question regarding GC carriages in the 1950s. Having seen photos of GE corridor stock in teak as late as 1959, does anyone know, did Dukinfield paint the GC carriages (particularly the non-gangwayed ones) crimson in the early 50s, or just leave them and renumber with the E prefix/suffix? At some stage I'd like to include a couple in my local passengers as they definitely appeared regularly in my period.

[richard i]

7 minutes ago, Clem said:

A question regarding GC carriages in the 1950s. Having seen photos of GE corridor stock in teak as late as 1959, does anyone know, did Dukinfield paint the GC carriages (particularly the non-gangwayed ones) crimson in the early 50s, or just leave them and renumber with the E prefix/suffix? At some stage I'd like to include a couple in my local passengers as they definitely appeared regularly in my period.

To start, just E numbers. Barnums were definitely put into crimson and cream but non gangwayed I would need to look at photos to be definitive. It is the wrong end for me, now all the colour and detail changes between 1900 and 1923 and I would feel on much safer ground. Tony might know he travelled in them from retford to kiverton park as a youngster and might remember a colour under the filth and dust.

richard