84f Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Hello everyone I have experimented with Dingham auto coupling and consider them the best option for me - apart from the fact they are single handed - i.e. they are asymetrical - all stock has to be pointed the same way and so locos cannot be turned. All postings I have seen on couplings stress this point. As I have issues with the two others on my short list (AJs and Spratt & Winkles), I am looking for an acceptable workaround with Dinghams. I would only require double handed couplers for the few tender engines that I am planning, and then only on the tenders. The Dingham website mentions a method of making couplers with both a loop and a latch which is given in the 7mm instructions - although it is not recommended for reliable uncoupling. Has anyone tried this in 4mm or got any other ideas? Thanks Robin . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Rowsley17D Posted June 24, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 24, 2015 Hi Robin, I too like the look of Dinghams and have fitted them to a wagon and brake van to try them out. They are the most unobtrusive auto couplings I have used. I haven't tried double-handing a tender loco yet but will have a go as I have a turntable and want to use it. I am sure if they are carefully made they should work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim V Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Why bother with the latch? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jub45565 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Are Dinghams not designed to be compatible with screw/3 link/instanter couplings? So would it be viable to fit Dingham hooks to both ends of those tender locos, but instead of the Dingham loop or latch fit screw couplings? It would obviously remove the 'auto' functionality for this scenario, but that would depend whether your layout could cope with the odd manual coupling move... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Rowsley17D Posted June 24, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 24, 2015 The latch prevents the vehicles recoupling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim V Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 The latch prevents the vehicles recoupling. I know. However, that is only of use when using the delayed action. If that isn't needed, the tender engines, or the stock they couple to, could have loops on both ends. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
84f Posted June 24, 2015 Author Share Posted June 24, 2015 Are Dinghams not designed to be compatible with screw/3 link/instanter couplings? So would it be viable to fit Dingham hooks to both ends of those tender locos, but instead of the Dingham loop or latch fit screw couplings? It would obviously remove the 'auto' functionality for this scenario, but that would depend whether your layout could cope with the odd manual coupling move... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Rowsley17D Posted June 24, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 24, 2015 Looks like the answer has disappeared from the above, but 3-link and screw can couple to Dinghams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
84f Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 Looks like the answer has disappeared from the above, but 3-link and screw can couple to Dinghams. Sorry, been having some techncial issues replying from the mobile site and I have only now been able to get time on a 'real' computer. I have now decided to go with Dinghams on the basis that it will be possible to work out a solution for tender engines when I get there. I want to retain auto coupling / decoupling if possible, but have back up of using manual 3 link if nothing else proves satisfactory. I still want to investigate having the latch and loop on the same coupling - would be great to see the 7mm instructions on this and if anyone has tried it in 4mm. And Rowsley17D, do post how you get on with your instructions. Having test fitted to 4 wagons, the appeal of Dinghams compared to other delayed action couplings (AJs / S&W) 1. relatively unobtrusive - esp at the latch end 2. fits where it should on the buffer beam and can be fitted to all types of stock - doest not interfere with underframe details such as clasp brake linkages (my issue with S&W paddles) 3. Works reliably within fairly reasonable tolerances - as per my own experiments and discussion with exhibitors. (not as critical to set up as AJs) 4. as highlighted by Jub45565 - can be used with 3 links. When I tried it, I did find it a little fiddly due to the latch, probably need to get a decent shunters pole and to practice, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasatcopthorne Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I've fitted a lot of Dinghams, but have not been able to make the 'double type' work yet in 4mm. I have though been able to get a coupling that swings side to side for vehicles with long overhangs. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasatcopthorne Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 At our Club, we spent a lot of time finding reasonably priced electro magnets to operate these. We finally found some a got them working. We needed 25 odd. Then, when fitting another layout with the Megnetic conversion for Bachmann RTR couplings and we needed good magnets, we discovered a magnet that works well with Dinghams through a 6mm ply baseboard. Meaning they can be retro fitted wherever needed. Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davknigh Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Not sure what you're modelling 84f but there is a simple wheeze to get around the problem of turning engines. If yours is a branch line terminus you can say that the ruling grade in or out is such that engines can only be run in one direction to keep the crown sheet covered. There is a prototype or two for this. Or you can run diesels.... I've been using Dinghams for over ten years and am very happy with them. There are some minor issues with dips in the track causing unexpected uncoupling and the length variations previously mentioned but they can all be worked around and the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. HTH David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
84f Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 Not sure what you're modelling 84f but there is a simple wheeze to get around the problem of turning engines. If yours is a branch line terminus you can say that the ruling grade in or out is such that engines can only be run in one direction to keep the crown sheet covered. There is a prototype or two for this. Or you can run diesels.... I've been using Dinghams for over ten years and am very happy with them. There are some minor issues with dips in the track causing unexpected uncoupling and the length variations previously mentioned but they can all be worked around and the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. HTH David There's a thought, David ,that could really work . I assume you mean to avoid bolier blow outs (not sure that is the right term) where the angle of the engine reduces the water level below the fire so would need to reverse downhill and forwards up hill.- I am in planning stages at the moment - it is U shaped end to end with a goods branch dropping off at around 1 in 30 and loops back to the fiddle yard (a bit like a mini Borchester Market) I will have to think carefully about the matching gradient on the U to get level with the fiddle yard - should work at around 1 in 60 - maybe that would negate it. Robin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davknigh Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Robin, (sorry I didn't use your proper name last post, didn't read far enough) I have an L shaped layout with fiddle yard at one end so in my case the grade is rather hypothetical but the excuse still works for me. Failing a convenient grade you could have a broken down turntable or blocked turning triangle. There's all sorts of excuses for running tender first Cheers, David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jub45565 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 The other option is to have half the sets, and half the locos, each way around. Therefore, 2 locos pull in 2 rakes of coaches, both get turned, and effectively swap sets... This could always be extended over shed visits etc. This would be a nightmare if trying to do so with goods trains that might actually be shunted, but should be easily achieveable for a lot of passenger movements. Yes, it has holes, but just a thought for the mix... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.