Henley-on-Thames - GWR in the 1930's

[MrWolf]

Thanks, for reminding me about Stoke Courtenay, I have read through that thread with great interest before and it is now on my follow list of layouts that inspire and educate, as is this one.

[Neal Ball]

Re: Couplings:

It's a given that the majority of model railway owners are not huge fans of the tension lock coupling.

 

For me, they work and are "OK" - Just - They work, do what they need to, but are big and bulky. NEM coupling made it better.... but they are still big. But of course some older stock isn't NEM equipped.

 

Until now, its been one of those jobs that has been easier to put off... There is still no immediate hurry, but it needs to be addressed.

 

Having installed the new Dapol signals, I next want to tackle the station canopy roof on Platform 1 and 2. I've not been happy with it for a while, so will be replacing it soon. However, with it in place, I can't access the track at Platform 1 with my trusty pen torch and wire.

 

I am therefore looking at replacements for the tension lock coupling and would welcome suggestions from the RMWeb community.

 

As I see it the options are:

1. Stay with the tension lock coupling, but add an uncoupling ramp in front of the run round points on Platform 1.

I am likely to start treating my carriages as fixed rakes, although as everything is boxed, I will be looking at alternative fixed hook / bar arrangements inside rakes. This will probably also extend to fixed rakes of wagons as well. To change the couplings on all my stock will be a huge undertaking.

 

2. Spratt & Winkle: I have tried this before, without much success. But that means, I have a full set of kit to start making couplings, complete with magnets etc. Ive had a look at this topic going back to 2016: 

 

Plus of course Kevin aka @KNP at Little Muddle uses Spratt & Winkle, seemingly to good effect.

 

I have also seen a mounting block at 5322 models that couple make S & W easier to use.

 

My hesitation revolves around the issues I had before - but arguably I know have more time to get the height adjusted correctly try etc. 

 

3. Kadee Couplings: They now do NEM fittings and Kadee seems to be the go-to coupling of US model railroaders. Charlie at Chadwick Parkway has put together a good video about using Kadees: 

 

 

Looking at Hattons and other sites, it seems the NEM versions are currently in stock, plus I have found a model shop in Madrid that stocks Kadee. (although they don't have a website). But it's an excuse to visit Madrid when the pandemic has been contained.

 

The Kadee website seems to be quite useful in making the decision: https://www.kadee.com/ho-scale-couplers-c-274_276_284/

 

I have also sent a message over to Robin aka @gwrrob who I think uses Kadees on his layout of Brent.

 

4: Should I also consider a different type of coupling?

 

Clearly it all needs a bit more investigation before committing to a wholesale change. Maybe even trying both types of couplings on a limited basis.

 

I think I want to get my carriages into fixed rakes and then do away with the inter-carriage couplings, maybe going for a simple hook and bar - but again that needs investigating as well.

 

Any thoughts on my coupling conundrum would be appreciated.

Thanks, Neal.

[KingEdwardII]

Neal,

 

I too am no fan of tension lock - even the more "modern" narrow versions are still intrusive and I find them a pain in the neck to uncouple.

 

I am in the process of adopting Kadees, since to me these seem like the best of the available commercial offerings. Mostly these will be NEM versions, but I have some stock without NEM pockets and I shall probably have to use non-NEM versions with suitable kitbashing engineering to convert them.

 

In the longer term, I want automated uncoupling. This can be done with an undertrack magnet system for Kadees, but there is another system available for stock with suitable DCC decoders from Precimodels:

 

https://www.precimodels.com/en/

 

...the idea of uncoupling a loco at any location simply by pressing a Function button on a handheld controller really appeals to me. I can't see that being practical for uncoupling random wagons, but just dealing with the locos might handle the majority of uncoupling for me.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Neal Ball]

7 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

Neal,

 

I too am no fan of tension lock - even the more "modern" narrow versions are still intrusive and I find them a pain in the neck to uncouple.

 

I am in the process of adopting Kadees, since to me these seem like the best of the available commercial offerings. Mostly these will be NEM versions, but I have some stock without NEM pockets and I shall probably have to use non-NEM versions with suitable kitbashing engineering to convert them.

 

In the longer term, I want automated uncoupling. This can be done with an undertrack magnet system for Kadees, but there is another system available for stock with suitable DCC decoders from Precimodels:

 

https://www.precimodels.com/en/

 

...the idea of uncoupling a loco at any location simply by pressing a Function button on a handheld controller really appeals to me. I can't see that being practical for uncoupling random wagons, but just dealing with the locos might handle the majority of uncoupling for me.

 

Yours, Mike.

 

Thanks very much Mike, thats really useful. 

 

The Precimodels option is interesting, but realistically I only have two places that are awkward. Anything in the yard will be easily accessible. But never say never!

 

Thanks again,

[Tallpaul69]

15 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

Neal,

 

I too am no fan of tension lock - even the more "modern" narrow versions are still intrusive and I find them a pain in the neck to uncouple.

 

I am in the process of adopting Kadees, since to me these seem like the best of the available commercial offerings. Mostly these will be NEM versions, but I have some stock without NEM pockets and I shall probably have to use non-NEM versions with suitable kitbashing engineering to convert them.

 

In the longer term, I want automated uncoupling. This can be done with an undertrack magnet system for Kadees, but there is another system available for stock with suitable DCC decoders from Precimodels:

 

https://www.precimodels.com/en/

 

...the idea of uncoupling a loco at any location simply by pressing a Function button on a handheld controller really appeals to me. I can't see that being practical for uncoupling random wagons, but just dealing with the locos might handle the majority of uncoupling for me.

 

Yours, Mike.

Neal and Mike, (plus others interested in couplings):-

I have been debating (with myself) the matter of couplings.

I decided a couple of years ago that Kadees were probably the best bet. Like others I intend to go for fixed rakes in coaches. For goods stock the intention was to have short fixed rakes of 3/4 wagons plus of course single brake vans. The only single kadee wagons would be those for my  pick up goods.

 

This plan only progressed as far as test fitting a few NEM socketed wagons before more urgent matters (such as a layout to run them on!) got in the way.

 

Now with the first phase layout bought and installed, I need to get to some further work on couplings.

Like you I fancy being able to press a function key to uncouple locos!

I will update this thread on progress so long as you don't mind Neal?

 

Best regards

Paul

[Harlequin]

To my eye, Kadees look like real devices and what's more they look like entirely unlikely-on-the-prototype foreign real devices.

 

[The Fatadder]

I’m a big fan of the Dingham coupling system, assembly is straight forward and they fit into the buffer beam.

you get remote uncoupling via under layout magnets, I am currently experimenting adding a small bit of steel to the end of the coupling and using a magnet on a pole as an uncoupled from above. (Rather than the iron pin hanging from the pivot.)

[vulcanbomber]

I played with kadees on Barkham Green, but the problem was the different height of the Nem sockets on different wagons

[Neal Ball]

Thanks very much for the replies:

 

35 minutes ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Neal and Mike, (plus others interested in couplings):-

I have been debating (with myself) the matter of couplings.

I decided a couple of years ago that Kadees were probably the best bet. Like others I intend to go for fixed rakes in coaches. For goods stock the intention was to have short fixed rakes of 3/4 wagons plus of course single brake vans. The only single kadee wagons would be those for my  pick up goods.

 

This plan only progressed as far as test fitting a few NEM socketed wagons before more urgent matters (such as a layout to run them on!) got in the way.

 

Now with the first phase layout bought and installed, I need to get to some further work on couplings.

Like you I fancy being able to press a function key to uncouple locos!

I will update this thread on progress so long as you don't mind Neal?

 

Best regards

Paul

 

Thanks Paul, I also like the idea that they can be fitted straight into the NEM pocket. I will also probably end up with wagon rakes of say 4 wagons, with Kadees at the ends.

 

Apart from the pick up goods, where it would need a different arrangement obviously.

 

Please update, that will be good. Thanks again Paul.

 

25 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

To my eye, Kadees look like real devices and what's more they look like entirely unlikely-on-the-prototype foreign real devices.

 

 

Agreed thanks Phil

 

18 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

I’m a big fan of the Dingham coupling system, assembly is straight forward and they fit into the buffer beam.

you get remote uncoupling via under layout magnets, I am currently experimenting adding a small bit of steel to the end of the coupling and using a magnet on a pole as an uncoupled from above. (Rather than the iron pin hanging from the pivot.)

 

Thanks Rich. The issue here I think is that its a complete new system that I have to start from scratch. At least of I dont get on with the Kadees, I can take them out of the NEM and go back to the tension lock.... (Not ideal)

 

4 minutes ago, vulcanbomber said:

I played with kadees on Barkham Green, but the problem was the different height of the Nem sockets on different wagons

 

This came up in the Chadwick Parkway video.

 

Is that a case that those wagons are kept in fixed rakes perhaps? Hopefully carriages to locos will all be a similar height.

 

Thanks again for the comments, it's been a useful exercise.

[gwrrob]

29 minutes ago, vulcanbomber said:

 but the problem was the different height of the Nem sockets on different wagons

 

Yes I've found that too and sometimes on the same manufacturers stock. Not unsurmountable though with a little work with a tweak here and there.

[Neal Ball]

Just now, gwrrob said:

 

Yes I've found that too and sometimes on the same manufacturers stock. Not unsurmountable though with a little work with a tweak here and there.

 

Thanks Robin.

 

I'm going to fit out a couple of carriages and locos to see how I get on.

 

Regards, Neal.

[Denbridge]

I cant show any photos at present, but ive used Sprat and Winkle couplings since the early 1980's. I find them easy to fit, reliable and once chemically blackened and/or painted/weathered, extremely unobtrusive. I also rather like the dinghams, having tried them, but I'll stick with S&W.

I did try kadees many years ago,  but to my eye buckeyes just dont look right on british steam age locos and stock.

[checkrail]

A sort of halfway house could be the 'Brian Kirby modification' to the t/l coupling, operated by magnets under the track (slim neodymium magnets can be installed without compromising existing track and ballast).  If the main function is incoming train loco release in your terminal platforms it might be worth considering before a wholesale conversion programme.  

[The Fatadder]

2 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

Thanks Rich. The issue here I think is that its a complete new system that I have to start from scratch. At least of I dont get on with the Kadees, I can take them out of the NEM and go back to the tension lock.... (Not ideal)

Certainly makes it a much more involved process when doing the whole layout.  I have taken something of a pragmatic approach.  If it’s running in a fixes formation it gets Dinghams on the outer ends and then a wire loop & hook system that Tony Wright uses, the loop is fitted through holes in the headstock while the hook goes through the hole for the coupling hook.

Some vans and BCK will have a dingham on both ends so that they can be added / removed from a mainline set and taken down the branch.

 

Locos are slowly being fitted with Dinghams, on one end for most, and on both for those which need to shunt. 
 

for goods stock it’s the most work, so far with two ‘long’ trains of 20 of or so wagons fitted with the fixed loop type) while another 20 are in the process of being Dingham fitted to allow for shunting.  Some of these are in blocks of 2 or 3 wagons that will always be together (such as the cattle vans)

I used to use Kaydees about 15 years ago on my modern stock.  In the end making a silly decision to move to scale couplings.  The main logic being that while they offered much better autocoupling than tension locks they looked a bit silly on uk locos.  
I still use them ok sets of modern buckeye fitted coaches though (again fitted to the headstock rather than NEM sockets)

I would definitely recommend investing in the kaydee height gauge.  I recall NEM sockets are more often at the wrong height than the right one 

 

now I suppose I ought get back to building couplings 

[KingEdwardII]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

To my eye, Kadees look like real devices and what's more they look like entirely unlikely-on-the-prototype foreign real devices.

Phil,

 

But the Kadees look way better than the tension lock couplings that look like nothing that ever appeared on a railway. And the Kadees operate much better as well. 

 

If the desire is to have couplings that match the prototypes, then for steam era we are looking at 3-link or Instanter couplings. These do exist for OO (and other) scales in various forms, but they are not popular for a host of good reasons:

 

e.g. https://jamestrainparts.com/shop/couplings/oo-gauge-fixed-link-wagon-couplings/

 

For me, Kadees seem like a reasonable compromise, with a good ecosystem supporting them (like that Precimodels stuff I mentioned in my last post).

 

Yours,  Mike.

[Neal Ball]

Thanks again guys.

 

1 hour ago, checkrail said:

A sort of halfway house could be the 'Brian Kirby modification' to the t/l coupling, operated by magnets under the track (slim neodymium magnets can be installed without compromising existing track and ballast).  If the main function is incoming train loco release in your terminal platforms it might be worth considering before a wholesale conversion programme.  

I wasn’t aware of the Brian Kirby modification, thanks John @checkrail I found a post from 2015 but have not found any more:  

 

38 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

Certainly makes it a much more involved process when doing the whole layout.  I have taken something of a pragmatic approach.  If it’s running in a fixes formation it gets Dinghams on the outer ends and then a wire loop & hook system that Tony Wright uses, the loop is fitted through holes in the headstock while the hook goes through the hole for the coupling hook.

Some vans and BCK will have a dingham on both ends so that they can be added / removed from a mainline set and taken down the branch.

 

Locos are slowly being fitted with Dinghams, on one end for most, and on both for those which need to shunt. 
 

for goods stock it’s the most work, so far with two ‘long’ trains of 20 of or so wagons fitted with the fixed loop type) while another 20 are in the process of being Dingham fitted to allow for shunting.  Some of these are in blocks of 2 or 3 wagons that will always be together (such as the cattle vans)

I used to use Kaydees about 15 years ago on my modern stock.  In the end making a silly decision to move to scale couplings.  The main logic being that while they offered much better autocoupling than tension locks they looked a bit silly on uk locos.  
I still use them ok sets of modern buckeye fitted coaches though (again fitted to the headstock rather than NEM sockets)

I would definitely recommend investing in the kaydee height gauge.  I recall NEM sockets are more often at the wrong height than the right one 

 

now I suppose I ought get back to building couplings 

Thanks Rich.

 

6 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

Phil,

 

But the Kadees look way better than the tension lock couplings that look like nothing that ever appeared on a railway. And the Kadees operate much better as well. 

 

If the desire is to have couplings that match the prototypes, then for steam era we are looking at 3-link or Instanter couplings. These do exist for OO (and other) scales in various forms, but they are not popular for a host of good reasons:

 

e.g. https://jamestrainparts.com/shop/couplings/oo-gauge-fixed-link-wagon-couplings/

 

For me, Kadees seem like a reasonable compromise, with a good ecosystem supporting them (like that Precimodels stuff I mentioned in my last post).

 

Yours,  Mike.

The issue is that tension locks definitely don’t look like anything on the railway.... if we’re being honest, neither do Kadee. But that’s not really the issue. Clearly though between the 2 Kadee can uncouple the train without me leaning across the canopy where I can’t see the coupling.

 

I will only have the issue with Platform 1 and 2* and largely the coupling will not be visible as my locos don’t have couplings on the front.  *Platform 2 is only an issue if the loco pulls up completely under the overall roof.

 

I doubt I will split rakes in the station.... wagons of course are a different matter. But a brake van could have a Kadee on the outer end.

 

Clearly it’s a huge undertaking to change all the stock... 

 

Thanks again for all the comments today.

 

 

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

Thanks again guys.

 

I wasn’t aware of the Brian Kirby modification, thanks John @checkrail I found a post from 2015 but have not found any more:  

 

Thanks Rich.

 

The issue is that tension locks definitely don’t look like anything on the railway.... if we’re being honest, neither do Kadee. But that’s not really the issue. Clearly though between the 2 Kadee can uncouple the train without me leaning across the canopy where I can’t see the coupling.

 

I will only have the issue with Platform 1 and 2* and largely the coupling will not be visible as my locos don’t have couplings on the front.  *Platform 2 is only an issue if the loco pulls up completely under the overall roof.

 

I doubt I will split rakes in the station.... wagons of course are a different matter. But a brake van could have a Kadee on the outer end.

 

Clearly it’s a huge undertaking to change all the stock... 

 

Thanks again for all the comments today.

 

 

Given that, with a few well-known exceptions that prove the rule, no model autocoupler looks anything like what British railways (small r) used in steam days, your choice comes down to:

 

- functionality (including how they are uncoupled)

- reliability (do they stay coupled when you want them to and do they uncouple when you want them to)

- ease of use (including whether or not you have to make the couplers)

- cost (purely subjective)

- appearance (purely subjective)

- interoperability with other people's models (probably not an issue for you)

- single-ended or reversible (turntables, reverse loops, triangles)

 

I use DGs, which satisfy me on all those counts but I'd hesitate to "recommend" them as others will rate those parameters differently.

 

Available from Wizard Models (usual disclaimer).

[jcm@gwr]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Given that, with a few well-known exceptions that prove the rule, no model autocoupler looks anything like what British railways (small r) used in steam days, your choice comes down to:

 

- functionality (including how they are uncoupled)

- reliability (do they stay coupled when you want them to and do they uncouple when you want them to)

- ease of use (including whether or not you have to make the couplers)

- cost (purely subjective)

- appearance (purely subjective)

- interoperability with other people's models (probably not an issue for you)

- single-ended or reversible (turntables, reverse loops, triangles)

 

I use DGs, which satisfy me on all those counts but I'd hesitate to "recommend" them as others will rate those parameters differently.

 

Available from Wizard Models (usual disclaimer).

 

That list rings true, and I agree with everything you've written, except

I would substitute S&W for DG! (also available from Wizard Models!)

[St Enodoc]

35 minutes ago, jcm@gwr said:

 

That list rings true, and I agree with everything you've written, except

I would substitute S&W for DG! (also available from Wizard Models!)

As I said, I'm not recommending any particular brand!

[Neal Ball]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Given that, with a few well-known exceptions that prove the rule, no model autocoupler looks anything like what British railways (small r) used in steam days, your choice comes down to:

 

- functionality (including how they are uncoupled)

- reliability (do they stay coupled when you want them to and do they uncouple when you want them to)

- ease of use (including whether or not you have to make the couplers)

- cost (purely subjective)

- appearance (purely subjective)

- interoperability with other people's models (probably not an issue for you)

- single-ended or reversible (turntables, reverse loops, triangles)

 

I use DGs, which satisfy me on all those counts but I'd hesitate to "recommend" them as others will rate those parameters differently.

 

Available from Wizard Models (usual disclaimer).

Thanks very much.

I would add one other objective into the list, namely the ease of changing over.

As you say, the issue about being able to take my stock onto a different railway does not arise.

Neither does the single end issue, as my locos in the main only gave couplings on one end.

 

Food for thought though. Thanks again.

[Neal Ball]

I’ve not seen this particular chaps videos before. It’s a practical demonstration of the Brian Kirby adaptation of the tension lock:

 

 

It looks straight forward, although it also looked a bit hit and miss.....

 

Interesting though his summary is “an improvement on the tension lock, but not as good as a Kadee”

 

[checkrail]

13 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

I wasn’t aware of the Brian Kirby modification, thanks John @checkrail I found a post from 2015 but have not found any more:  

Don't be put off by the word 'problems' in that 2015 thread you found - it's largely about how I overcame them.  See also the video clip in the 10 January post on my layout thread this year.

[Pacific231G]

Hi Neal 

The real problem with model couplers is that the big railway in Britain and most of Europe  never solved it either so they are still largely stuck with either labour intensively chaining wagons together manually or mostly running wagons in semi-fixed formations . Visually, three link apart and I'm far too clumsy to use them in anything less than 0 gauge, , I think the Alex Jackson coupler is about the most discrete but though I've operated layouts with them I've not fitted them myself and understand that they are a bit delicate. There's an article about them from the Manchester MRS (where Alex Jackson first introduced them) http://www.mmrs.co.uk/technical-articles/alex-jackson-coupling/  

 

AJ coulings do rely on the buffers to do their job (as do three link of course) so buffer-locking could be a problem with smaller radius curves. I find with Kadees that - though they also buff as well as draw- I can, compared with RTR couplers, have the buffers almost touching even with two foot radius curves. 

 

Personally, I've been using Kadees ever since building a small N.American  themed layout in the early 1980s. I use them now on my French H0 layout which is very shunting oriented. I find them almost infinitely preferable to the loathsome hinged loop "NEM360" coupler whose only purpose seems to be to make even the tension lock seem like a good coupler in comparison!  

The video of the Brian Kirby adaptation is interesting but also seems to illustrate another problem with tension locks that the buffer heads are about  a scale eighteen inches apart 

 

Kadees  are height sensitive and there is a perennial problem with the height of the "NEM"coupler pockets  provided by many manufacturers. If they're not at the specified height- defined with tolerances in NEM362- they're not really NEM coupler pockets, and  shouldn't be advertised as such but there's no enforcement of compliance beyond market pressure: given how many of us just use the couplers our models  come out of the box with, that pressure is minimal.

 

For earlier models not fitted with NEM pockets,  I generally prefer to fit them with aftermarket NEM boxes than to fit Kadee draft boxes. With four wheel wagons and the generally greater "slop" in typical wheel and track standards, Kadees don't work quite as well as they did with my US freight cars but still better than anything else I've used. 

There was an attempt by the UIC to standardise on a version of the Willison coupler that (though it works completely differently and is actually more automatic) looks not totally dissimilar from the standard American AAR coupler  long used on British coaches  and latterly some wagons and several railways did (and do) use them - notably the Russian SA3   "Советская Автосцепка, 3" standardised on their broad gauge network.  Unfortunately, for our purposes, both AAR and Willison couplers are fitted at European drawbar height which is higher than American draft boxes - the height , in H0,  at which Kadee couplers are designed to operate.   

Edited February 8, 2021 by Pacific231G

[checkrail]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

The video of the Brian Kirby adaptation is interesting but also seems to illustrate another problem with tension locks that the buffer heads are about  a scale eighteen inches apart 

I agree that the distance between opposing buffers is one of the many shortcomings of t/l couplings, but it's one that can be overcome if curves allow and it's certainly not illustrated in my video - all my t/l couplings (mainly short, small Bachmanns) are further shortened by chopping 2 or 3 mill. off both NEM box and coupling tail.  I've just been back to check the 45xx and B set, standing on straight track, and I can't get a 2mm (i.e. 6 scale inches) wide bit of Plastikard between the buffer faces of loco and leading coach without the sprung buffers retracting a little on both.

[TrevorP1]

1 hour ago, checkrail said:

I agree that the distance between opposing buffers is one of the many shortcomings of t/l couplings, but it's one that can be overcome if curves allow and it's certainly not illustrated in my video - all my t/l couplings (mainly short, small Bachmanns) are further shortened by chopping 2 or 3 mill. off both NEM box and coupling tail.  I've just been back to check the 45xx and B set, standing on straight track, and I can't get a 2mm (i.e. 6 scale inches) wide bit of Plastikard between the buffer faces of loco and leading coach without the sprung buffers retracting a little on both.

 

Hunt couplings suit my personal needs and I've pretty much gone over to them except for goods stock.  I use similar methods to yourself on my 'fitted' rake and the china clay vehicles. The latter can be pushed round an off scene 2' radius curve with no problem. That said if there is 'shunting derailment', ie operator error in the fiddle yard, they do get in a tangle. Actually that would make a good group noun... A tangle of tension locks...