Couplings.. How to Un-couple ?

[40034_Nick]

How does everyone uncouple the Loco from the wagons or coaches? I have mainly Bachmann Couplings but am willing to change all for the right system to detach/un-couple..

 

Thanks in advance.. 

 

Nick 

Edited November 24, 2016 by 40034_Nick

[DCB]

There is no neat way to uncouple tension lock couplings, the ramps are ugly and no matter how many you have they are never in the right place. The plate on a stick is uglier.     I would suggest Kadees or if I was starting again in 00 using the standard N gauge coupling.    Something you can lift the loco or stock straight up to uncouple in hidden sidings.

I use Peco or  H/D couplings but retrofitting tension lock stock is a medium size nightmare. The Peco Magni Simplex version is good if you can face that prospect of changing all the couplings.

[Flying Pig]

There is no neat way to uncouple tension lock couplings, the ramps are ugly and no matter how many you have they are never in the right place. The plate on a stick is uglier.

I can't see a problem with the plate on a stick. It's easy to make from a bit of wire, a scrap of plastic or card for the paddle and some adhesive, just as easy to use, not particularly obtrusive and will work on the couplings you already have.

[Spitfire2865]

Id say go all in and use scale 3 links. Its so satisfying watching a rake grow and shrink as the train moves.

[Rivercider]

I would say there is no 'right' system,  but a rather number of different systems all of which have advantages and disadvantages,

and it partly depends on how you wish to operate your layout. I have enjoyed seeing different coupling systems in use at exhibitions.  

 

I am much more of an operator than a modeller,  my shunting layout only stays at home, and I use an uncoupling spade for my tension locks,

I do not mind the 'big hand from the sky', and the uncoupling spade means I can uncouple wherever in the yard I want to,

 

cheers

Edited November 25, 2016 by Rivercider

[BR60103]

I use the paddle (Handy Decoupler, as TriAng called it). I've found that the pins under the couplings are not always down to the same height which can create problems.

[Gordon A]

A lot depends on the scale / gauge that you are talking about, the type of operation, the era you model, how tight are your curves and how much work you are prepared to do converting your stock.

 

As some one who enjoys shunting I would go for Spratt and Winkle couplings, but modified. By that I mean I would make the hook arms out of wire, and rather than a wire bar across the buffers I would use a square wire loop mounted to the vehicle underframe.

 

I dislike three link couplings in 4mm as too fiddly.

 

Gordon A

[darren01]

A lot depends on the scale / gauge that you are talking about, the type of operation, the era you model, how tight are your curves and how much work you are prepared to do converting your stock.

 

As some one who enjoys shunting I would go for Spratt and Winkle couplings, but modified. By that I mean I would make the hook arms out of wire, and rather than a wire bar across the buffers I would use a square wire loop mounted to the vehicle underframe.

 

I dislike three link couplings in 4mm as too fiddly.

 

Gordon A

 

Have a look at Sprat a Winkle couplings, I fit them to just the end of the rake of coaches, wagons I do all of them for shunting, easy to fit.

[philsandy]

I use Bachmann couplings, but modified using Brian Kirby's magnetic system, it works very well, but you must set the couplings all to exactly the same height, otherwise you will get stock uncoupling when you don't want it to,

 

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

Edited November 25, 2016 by philsandy

[Stevelewis]

I recommend  KADEE  COUPLINGS  most  of  todays  UK  Stock  has  coupling  pockets  which  allow  (NEM sockets)  which  allow  the  hook & Loopp couplinngs  to be  changed  for  KADEE couplings  reef  NEM  17  /18 /19/20  ( the numbers  indicate  the   shaft  length in  MM) if  you have  sharpish  curves  then  20mm probably  suit you best,

 

Good  prices on  these  from  Hattons,  ( other  suppliers  are  available!) 

[Broadway Clive]

The original post relates to Bachmann (tension lock) couplings and it is indeed surprising that they have never produced an uncoupler. I always suspected this was because some of their locos have/had very low hanging gear wheels and brake rigging that will push down a spring loaded uncoupling ramp to prevent it working, or even snag on it.

 

Over 25 years with a large freight orientated BR steam/diesel era layout I have not found a practical alternative to the tension locks that would justify the conversion work whilst still allowing some of the horizontal movement at starting that loose fitted wagons should have. I've found the horrible looking Hornby uncoupling/rerailing track unit to be the most reliable method and have installed these in a hidden fiddle yard where appearance doesn't matter. Elsewhere the Hornby spring loaded uncoupling ramps are generally reliable though not so easy on the eye as the Peco version which disguises the ramp with planking. However I've found those more likely to snag on the aforementioned low hanging locos so I've had to modify them extensively. I have one fitted with a rod through the baseboard that would enable it to lie flat on the sleepers if fitted with the right mechanism. On the subject of which Heathcote electronics have their own virtually invisible uncoupler  http://www.heathcote-electronics.co.uk/uncoupler_oo_gauge.html

My only reservations are that a spring should always be included under the ramp because if the couplings are under tension then the wagons can be lifted off the track. That same problem applies to the less discreet but power hungry SEEP uncoupler ramp that has been available for many years and uses a large solenoid instead of the gentler servo motor.

 

As for the use of uncoupling spades, they don't look so good at exhibitions (with a bald bonce descending like a full moon!) but I have no objection to using them on my loft layout in the few locations I can readliy get access to. Indeed, rather than being critcised, manual uncoupling is just replicating real railway work and as such is extolled as a virtue by the manufacturers of Sergent couplers which are a finer scale alternative to Kadees.

[DCB]

I use Bachmann couplings, but modified using Brian Kirby's magnetic system, it works very well, but you must set the couplings all to exactly the same height, otherwise you will get stock uncoupling when you don't want it to,

 

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

Can I make a couple of points. 

 

Can you use electro magnets with Brian Kirby system?  

     

 I always wanted a rake of coal wagons with 3 links but my Hornby Doblo wagons have too much sideplay in their axle boxes to make propelling using their buffers practical.

 

How do you you remarshall trains with tension locks in hidden sidings?   I just lift stock with H/D couplings but my coach rakes have tension locks and removing a derailed coach from a rake in the sidings under the terminus requires a contortionist, whereas a H/D coupled vehicle is just a simple vertical lift.

[Broadway Clive]

 

How do you you remarshall trains with tension locks in hidden sidings?   I just lift stock with H/D couplings but my coach rakes have tension locks and removing a derailed coach from a rake in the sidings under the terminus requires a contortionist, whereas a H/D coupled vehicle is just a simple vertical lift.

The fiddle yard sidings are on a separate board hidden behind a backscene for the main layout, but the skyboard is separate and fixed to the sloping roof hence it is possible to see most roads over the backscene and the others via two driving mirrors fixed to the sky. Auto stopping is provided by reed switches linked to the control panel so that the locos will halt on or very close to an uncoupler. In the event of a failure then there is enough space between the fiddle yard and main layout for me to stand after crawling beneath it.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Broadway Clive

[ejstubbs]

I use Bachmann couplings, but modified using Brian Kirby's magnetic system, it works very well, but you must set the couplings all to exactly the same height, otherwise you will get stock uncoupling when you don't want it to,

 

This could actually be the answer to the OP: use modern ie small TLCs at random heights and stuff will uncouple all over the place 

 

I've almost completed the switch to Kadees.  These are much less prone to unwanted uncoupling - but I think this is in large part due to the care that you have to take to get them at the correct height in the first place, in order for automatic uncoupling over a magnet to work properly. Get the coupling height too far out and they uncouple at random just as easily as TLCs.  That said, Kadee do at least sell a gauge so that you can check that you've got the height right.  With TLCs it's largely left to your own MK-1--eyeball-based guesstifudgement.

 

Even using Kadees in NEM pockets isn't guaranteed to give you the correct height.  It's well known that certain manufacturers (cough...achmann...cough) put the NEM pockets on some of their stock at the wrong height.  And there's no starightforward way to correct for this in the Kadee NEM couplings; it's as easy to ditch the NEM pocket and fit one of the gear box couplings (eg from the #14n whisker coupling range) instead.  Even if the NEM pocket is at the correct height, far too many seem to be a bit on the slack side, resulting in the dreaded coupling droop.  This requires judicious packing of the NEM pocket with thin plastikard or the like in order to ensure that the actual head of the Kadee coupler sits at the right height.

 

Two undoubtable advantages to Kadees, to my mind at least, are the fact that you can just lift vehicles out of a rake without having to wrestle to get TLCs unhooked, and the delayed action uncoupling.  The latter means that you can potentially cut down on the overall number of uncouplers you need, if uncoupling in one location and then propelling in to different positions works within your operational plan.

 

One thing Kadees ain't though, is cheap.

Edited November 25, 2016 by ejstubbs

[darren01]

KADEE coupling just look wrong on British loco's, OK for US as they have them.

Edited November 25, 2016 by darren01

[ejstubbs]

Some UK stock does/did have knuckle couplings.  AFAIAA no UK stock has a TLC!

 

Sprat and Winkle may look a bit like a three-link coupling, but that's only really because there's a bit of chain hanging down.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the prototype didn't the chain, you know, couple the vehicles together?  Not dangle down between them as they rolled happily along attached to one another in a train.  And Sprat and Winkles still have a bar and a hook, just like a TLC.  They're basically TLCs that work upside-down because of where the pivot is in relation to the mass.

 

They're also something of a faff to build and fit.  Not that Kadees aren't a bit of a fiddle as well, of course, unless you can rely on being able to use the NEM ones.

 

I have looked in to (and looked at) S&W couplings and come away not overly impressed.  They do seem to be relatively cheap, though.

Edited November 25, 2016 by ejstubbs

[BR60103]

One of our older members said that he had never had a wagon disappear at an exhibition out of the middle of a rake equipped with tension locks.

[knitpick]

For what it's worth, to uncouple tension lock couplings, I use a paper clip.  Bend the outermost short length to be at right angles to the body of the paper clip.  Then straighten out most of the rest except the central loop.  The central loop acts as a neat handle and the bit sticking out at right angles at the other end fits neatly between the coupling loops to lift the tension locks.  Then separate the wagons / coaches / loco and train.  I find this a lot easier to use than the paddle style.  Also it's significantly cheaper.

[davetheroad]

For what it's worth, to uncouple tension lock couplings, I use a paper clip.  Bend the outermost short length to be at right angles to the body of the paper clip.  Then straighten out most of the rest except the central loop.  The central loop acts as a neat handle and the bit sticking out at right angles at the other end fits neatly between the coupling loops to lift the tension locks.  Then separate the wagons / coaches / loco and train.  I find this a lot easier to use than the paddle style.  Also it's significantly cheaper.

 

Just bent one, it works!.

 

Thinks - Is it really necessary to have the hooks on each coupler as uncoupling is even easier with one hook.

Edited November 26, 2016 by davetheroad

[Roger Sunderland]

KADEE coupling just look wrong on British loco's, OK for US as they have them.

Totally disagree. On coaching stock they look terrific as the droppers look like vac pipes and if you are close coupled you cannot see the coupling at all. I accept they do not look as good on wagons, however, nothing could look worse than a tension lock coupling, of whatever type. Plus, if correctly mounted, they work perfectly,and allow remote uncoupling, without the hand from the sky.

[40034_Nick]

For what it's worth, to uncouple tension lock couplings, I use a paper clip.  Bend the outermost short length to be at right angles to the body of the paper clip.  Then straighten out most of the rest except the central loop.  The central loop acts as a neat handle and the bit sticking out at right angles at the other end fits neatly between the coupling loops to lift the tension locks.  Then separate the wagons / coaches / loco and train.  I find this a lot easier to use than the paddle style.  Also it's significantly cheaper.

 

Do you have a photo ??

 

Thanks to all the replies so far...

[DAVE1562]

All my stock are fitted with the brian kirby method...works very well, i have used 2 x neodymium disc magnets 10mm x 1 mm under the track ,cannot be seen when ballasted, a small red dot on the sleeper shows the position to uncouple... the couplings have small staples attached painted black and can hardly be seen on the layout, works best with Bachmann and Dapol tlc... Hornby have a longer arm coupler so will not work, if they are nem pocket fitted change to Dapol or Bachmann.. solves the problem...

 

 

Dave...

Edited November 26, 2016 by DAVE1562

[JZ]

I'm another fan of Kadees. For uncoupling I use strips of 3x3mm neodymium magnets in place of three sleepers, 9 in all. Here are two of the uncoupling points.

I use the grass tufts to mark them.

 

As for the criticism that they don't look prototypical for the UK, my answer is, do they really show? The presflos are fitted with #17 and the Oxford ex POs have #18. Both will easily negotiate 24" radius. I don't fit them to the front of tender locos, brakes only have them at one end and with diesels, I fully load up one end with detailing and fit a coupling on the other. Exceptions are tanks and diesel shunters.

 

 

Expensive? Well yes, if you have a lot of stock to convert, but if you are just starting out, you only need a few pack at a time. Older stock and kit-build uses #5, which is a lot cheaper if you buy bulk packs. These can be fitted directly under the floor by glue or screw.

 

Edit

Just adding that I bought my magnets from here https://www.guysmagnets.com/neodymium-magnets-c11 They also have eBay presence.

Edited November 28, 2016 by JZ

[5050]

I dislike three link couplings in 4mm as too fiddly.

 

Gordon A

You always seem to manage OK on 'Enigma'

Edited November 28, 2016 by 5050

[Guest 40-something]

Im another for extolling the virtues of Kadee's, true they are not prototypical for the majority of stock, but neither are tension locks, S&W, DG etc etc.  If starting out, Kadee's arent expensive. buying as you go along (neither are any of the others) but if you have a lot of stock, then the Brian Kirby method is probably the more sensible option