Why are tension couplings still legal?

[Colin_McLeod]

If you remember, we all quite liked them as children, which is who they were for in the days before, to quote that bloke off the telly, model trains became the preserve of ‘sad middle aged men’. And, I smile when I read articles in RM that say things like ‘now I’ve got older, I’ve given up on three-link, and gone back to tension lock’.

So, they have their place.

The children and the middle age men are probably the same people.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Buckeyes are far from being automatic couplings in real life. Notice it's only fixed rakes that have them. If they were so useful then everything would have had them...

 Simply untrue that they were only used on fixed formation trains. The GNR, ECJS  and LNER operated services which divided, made up train formations to suit specific services and all the other regular stuff that makes for operating interest; like leaving the sleeping car portions of overnight trains in the terminating platform until a civilised hour for the occupants to depart, then coupling them up for removal to carriage sidings for cleaning, before making them up into their next formation.

 

UK Goods stock was stuck with three/screw link in the steam period because for a start the private owner wagon constituted half the grouping period and earlier wagon fleet, and all the wagons on the network had to be interoperable. They have since been introduced, not least because of the much greater train load that can be accomodated.

 

Coaches were a different story, in that each comapny's vehicles were largely restricted to their own routes, and a small number of coaches with alternative gangways and adaptor jkits sufficed when inter operating with vehicles from elsewhere. And as for the buckeye and Pullman gangway being 'useful', That was the system that BR went for on gangwayed stock , despite the majority of the existing UK gangwayed coaching stock not having buckeyes.

[brianusa]

Don't worry, when the eyesight gets that bad you won't be able to see the tension lock anyway

 

Andi

 

True enough and the reason that I switched to tinplate ages ago.  Not that Hornby 'automatic' couplings are automatic by any means but they are big enough to get hold of without derailing rolling stock and who looks at coupling anyway?  Certainly not the punters who come to see the trains at shows an exhibitions; they want to see trains running, in circles if needs be and fast.  None of this slow shunting stuff for them; leave that to the enthusiastic OO modeller.  My US trains have knuckles, a bit oversize perhaps but they work either by remote control or by track something that couldn't be done easily with anything in the UK range.  You have to be dedicated to use three links; it may look good to the enthusiast but it has its limitations as mentioned in a previous post.

 

Brian.

[Right Away]

I have been unwilling to incur the expense of changing couplings on all my stock, however still wishing to have close coupling of vehicles and having generous track curvature I elected to a compromise.

 

Utilising short straight couplers (Bachmann 36-061) as direct replacements sometimes does the trick. On many vehicles I shorten the NEM pocket by a couple of millimetres, cutting off the "swallow tail" to fit. I then drill a 0.5mm hole through both parts of the coupling and superglue a pin (0.5mm steel rod) to hold them together. This method must be modified where the pocket is part of the cam assembly used on some vehicles.

The vehicles are now very close, almost buffer to buffer and operate without any buffer locking on large radius turnouts.

 

On fixed rakes, a screw coupling on the last vehicle can give beneficial results.

 

Lastly, it's worthwhile spraying tension locks with a weathering tone which will knock back their conspicuousness.

[43110andyb]

Operating Thorne Yard the look of the stock for me takes preference over practicality- even at the precived expense for some of operation at a show (I personally like to see authentic stock with an operators hand in view, opposed to stock fitted with couplings that work automatically but are not authentic to the original).

 

But!!!- I can well understand the practical side of operation for many people and the need of alternative couplings so I do respect their decision as each layouts needs are different!

[Clive Mortimore]

Operating Thorne Yard the look of the stock for me takes preference over practicality- even at the precived expense for some of operation at a show (I personally like to see authentic stock with an operators hand in view, opposed to stock fitted with couplings that work automatically but are not authentic to the original).

 

IMG_0602.JPG

But!!!- I can well understand the practical side of operation for many people and the need of alternative couplings so I do respect their decision as each layouts needs are different!

Hi Andy

 

Are you sure?  

[43110andyb]

Hi Andy

 

Are you sure?  

Hi Clive, If you mean do I respect other operations -Yes- because some layouts can't always be operated with 3 links, be it the size, practicality -you have to be able to reach each item of stock to be practical!

If you mean operating TY for a weekend with fully fitted 3 link stock then yes- hopefully it gives a good balance of look/operation -One size can't fit all.

[Ron Solly]

I've used many forms of couplings over the years, but IMO the tension lock requires the least adjustment, maintenance and care.

 

Other forms of coupling require regular checking and resetting as required.

 

Yes - it isn't the prettiest, but is usually the most reliable.

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

 

you try to do a lot of shunting with tension lock couplings on a big layout like 12 x 20 ft - not a plank size .

[kevinlms]

No votes for the Lima 'Dunny seat' as fitted to non U.K. models?

[PatB]

One solution that I've used for fixed formations in coarse-scale 0 gauge is a rubber band between coaches with fixed gangways acting as  de facto centre buffers. Close coupling on straights, automatically opening up as necessary on curves. No problems on tight reverse curves either, provided the gangways don't become completely offset. Whilst only applicable for a limited range of applications it worked very well on, for example, a freelance DMU made up from Triang coaches

[bike2steam]

you try to do a lot of shunting with tension lock couplings on a big layout like 12 x 20 ft - not a plank size .

 

Yep, I used to have some trouble , until I got rid of the loco hook.  

[Ron Solly]

Yep, I used to have some trouble , until I got rid of the loco hook.

have you tried to split a train up into two or three lots of wagons, spotting some at a goods shed, others at a local industry/dairy, etc ?  Not unless they have been modified for magnetic uncoupling like the Brian Kirby method or

[bike2steam]

Funny you should say that Ron, I devised something faintly similar when experimenting with an uncoupling system that could be as less obtrusive as possible for my old Bembridge layout a few years ago, as seen in the September 1995 'Railway Modeller'.

edit, Sorry, and to answer your question, I made an uncoupling ramp where separating wagons was fairly simple using a clear plastic ramp slotted into a base, I must put together a sketch.  

The brass bar was made from 25 thou diameter rod, the hook from 15 thou 'piano' wire. 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by bike2steam

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Clive, If you mean do I respect other operations -Yes- because some layouts can't always be operated with 3 links, be it the size, practicality -you have to be able to reach each item of stock to be practical!

If you mean operating TY for a weekend with fully fitted 3 link stock then yes- hopefully it gives a good balance of look/operation -One size can't fit all.

Hi Andy

 

That is a photo of me struggling with three links, my sanity is just coming back.

 

 

 

For some strange reason I have said yes to helping Dave at York this weekend....oh no......It happening again..... :crazy:

[43110andyb]

Hi Andy

 

That is a photo of me struggling with three links, my sanity is just coming back.

 

 

 

For some strange reason I have said yes to helping Dave at York this weekend....oh no......It happening again..... :crazy:

After reading this thread I’m thinking of starting a 3-link-coupling support group up- any one up for some coupling therapy?

[TheSignalEngineer]

Most of my stock has Bachmann tension lock couplings. Stock with other couplings still fitted like a group of six coal hoppers have a Hornby R8099 which is a straight plug in to an old Dapol mount in one end of two wagons. This makes them easy to couple to Bachmann couplings and can be run in a groul of between 2 and 6.

My biggest problem with RTR NEM against fixed couplings is the amount of play in the socket mounts. The Hornby cattle wagon I bought recently had 3mm of sag at the bar because the mounting boss is too long. A bit filed off and a bit of glue on the retaining screw so it could be tightened until there was just enough play for horizontal but no vertical movement and the height was perfect.

[Titan]

 any one up for some coupling therapy?

 

I get all I need from my girlfriend.

[43110andyb]

I get all I need from my girlfriend.

No -screw couplings is a completely different therapy session so sorry not an excuse not to attend!

[bazza.]

It's not really that simple. They were used mainly on stock that was not regularly uncoupled/coupled. Which in a way is what this thread is about. The SR and LNER coaches usually ran as fixed sets. Between the locomotives and coaches, and other sets/coaches they still used screw couplings.

 

If you were modelling those sets then you might as well just make them fixed sets rather than fitting Kadees.

 

 

 

Jason

There is a bit more to add to this.

 

In 1924 the big four railway companies agreed to standardise on Pullman-type gangways and buck-eye couplings for all new coaching stock, but the GWR agreed but then changed its mind and the LMS continued to use the old British gangways and screw couplings. So only the LNER, the Southern Railway and later British Railways, standardised on a  3/4 size version of the American buck-eye coupling, on which the head drops down to leave a standard hook visible.

 

The regulations stated that when two buck-eye fitted coached were to be coupled they were to be buck-eyed coupled together in preference to screw coupled. 

 

Barry

[John M]

Interestingly there seems to be little or no mention of the NEM hook and loop couplings or its British iterations such as the B&B coupling for British outline stock. 

 

I used B&Bs for my British stock when I converted from 3 link about 20 years ago, the coupling is unobtrusive and has a delayed uncoupling function a friend used Bemo couplers modified to uncouple magnetically on an EM gauge layout as a less fiddly alternative to assembling B&Bs.

 

The Liliput coupling should be a simple push fit into stock with NEM pockets  http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/38711/L939101-Liliput-Bosna-Hoop-NEM-Coupling.

 

I have used Microtrain (Kadee couplers) in N gauge without any problems, a cocktail stick or a special pick can be used for uncoupling if you don't to use the magnetic uncoupling function. Fullsized freight stock with knuckle couplers can be uncoupled when a vehicle by lifting raising the uncoupling bar at the side of the vehicle once the coupling pin is not in tension otherwise HumpShunting/Switching would be impossible. The need to compress the coupler by applying the handbrake or pushing vehicles to be uncoupled against a buffer stop with passenger stock is to prevent accidental uncoupling.

[GRUNFOS]

I chose to use Kadee's when I started modeling again about 10 years ago. I don't think they are  out of character so much for diesel/electric locos as they are for steam.

 

[Torper]

If people like the idea of Kadees but find them too obtusive you could always try Sergeant couplings - http://www.sergentengineering.com/

 

DT

[Wickham Green]

 

 

The regulations stated that when two buck-eye fitted coached were to be coupled they were to be buck-eyed coupled together in preference to screw coupled. 

 

Barry

......... yes, the regulations quite rightly recognise that the gangways wouldn't touch ( so have to be kept locked ) if the side buffers are used when, say, one of the buckeyes is faulty : a red-painted Emergency Screw Coupling is kept in each guard's van for such eventualities. The General Appendices cover a bewildering variety of potential coupling & gangway combinations ! 

[D9020 Nimbus]

Interestingly there seems to be little or no mention of the NEM hook and loop couplings or its British iterations such as the B&B coupling for British outline stock. 

 

I used B&Bs for my British stock when I converted from 3 link about 20 years ago, the coupling is unobtrusive and has a delayed uncoupling function a friend used Bemo couplers modified to uncouple magnetically on an EM gauge layout as a less fiddly alternative to assembling B&Bs.

 

The Liliput coupling should be a simple push fit into stock with NEM pockets  http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/38711/L939101-Liliput-Bosna-Hoop-NEM-Coupling.

 

I have used Microtrain (Kadee couplers) in N gauge without any problems, a cocktail stick or a special pick can be used for uncoupling if you don't to use the magnetic uncoupling function. Fullsized freight stock with knuckle couplers can be uncoupled when a vehicle by lifting raising the uncoupling bar at the side of the vehicle once the coupling pin is not in tension otherwise HumpShunting/Switching would be impossible. The need to compress the coupler by applying the handbrake or pushing vehicles to be uncoupled against a buffer stop with passenger stock is to prevent accidental uncoupling.

Not all of these type of couplings can be uncoupled magnetically—Liliput coupling loops are not magnetic. IMHO this type of coupling is trickier to use than tension locks.

[Il Grifone]

No votes for the Lima 'Dunny seat' as fitted to non U.K. models?

 

Perhaps not the Lima version, which lacks the centring spring fitted by most/all* of its rivals. It is also a different height from the others which makes intercoupling difficult.

(One of my Lima prairie tanks was bought in Italy and came with these. They were chopped off as soon as she came home! I was going to fit screw couplings, but she ended up with Peco Simplex)

 

I favour the Rivarossi (proper 1:80 scale Rivarossi, not Hornby) version which uncouples magnetically. It can also be modified to make it delayed action like the Märklin variety.

Every manufacturer has their own more or less compatible version of this coupling.... (cf tension locks).

 

* I have a couple of Kleinbahn wagons which have the coupling fixed to a two wheel unit similar to Hornby's LWB wagons. Not being sprung it is even more prone to derail. I cured mine by fitting a diagonal link between the units so that they 'steer' in opposite directions and actually follow the curves, rather than going crabwise.

 

Where forced to use tension locks (my TOPS vehicles) I am trying to stanardise on the neat Mainline version.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Il Grifone