Why are tension couplings still legal?

[TheSignalEngineer]

Was it all Greenly's fault?

 

I think I am OK with copyright on this as it came from a model engineering magazine over 100 years old.

 

 

The interesting thing about it is that the leg hanging down is on a separate pivot. It is moved back towards the vehicle to uncouple and if pushed right back will lock with the hook raised to enable loose shunting.

[St Enodoc]

Because one evening at Dartford, when I was SM, an EPB starting away for Charing Cross broke its intra-unit coupling, the power jumper pulled out with a loud bang, and everything came to a halt as the breakers went out. And we had a platform blocked for quite a while. Circa 1980.

Don't tell me, the handbrake was on in the rear cab...

[St Enodoc]

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

No.

[St Enodoc]

Was it all Greenly's fault?

 

I think I am OK with copyright on this as it came from a model engineering magazine over 100 years old.

 

Greenly Coupler.jpg

 

The interesting thing about it is that the leg hanging down is on a separate pivot. It is moved back towards the vehicle to uncouple and if pushed right back will lock with the hook raised to enable loose shunting.

Rather similar in concept to Norwegian choppers.

[Oldddudders]

Don't tell me, the handbrake was on in the rear cab...

Plausible cause, but unlikely, as the unit was simply bouncing back in the Up Through platform. I don’t think handbrakes were often applied for such short stops. But as Andi Dell said above, not the train you’d want to be driving! It was an 8- or 10-car, and the break happened in the middle. I can’t honestly remember how the situation was resolved, either.

[PatB]

Was it all Greenly's fault?

 

 

 

Why not? Most problems  with British model railway standards seem to be .

[The Johnster]

I blame Triang, but understand why they did it.  They introduced what was AFAIK the first iteration of the current tension lock coupler in mass produced RTR as a result of redesigning the original Rovex hook and loop couplers, which could only be used one way around.  One assumes that a deliberate choice to not use the well established Hornby Dublo buckeyes was taken; the systems were incompatible in those days anyway as the Rovex/Triang flanges were too coarse for H/D flangeways and of course H/D was still all 3 rail with all metal wheelsets that would have shorted out on Triang's 2 rail track.

 

Both systems were too deeply established for either to be withdrawn in favour of the other by the time H/D had introduced a 2 rails system, and the buckeyes, also adopted by the only other player in the RTR game then, Trix, who were not big enough to make a difference, persisted until the demise of H/D.  There was also the Peco Simplex, another buckeye type, but I get confused here, the couplers supplied with 'Wonderful Wagons' kits being similar to the older type of H/D buckeye, and unlike those with Kitmaster/Airfix construction kits, also described as 'Peco Simplex' but a more complex, and to my mind better, design but made of rather brittle plastic.

 

Most modellers of my generation will have gone through a phase in their childhoods or teens of attempting to couple t/l and buckeyes by dropping the t/l hook over the inner part of the buckeye and hoping it stayed put; it usually didn't!  Tension locks in their current form have their issues, and I have been happy to complain repeatedly about them, but are at least some sort of RTR standard, and all RTR stock for the British market is compatible in terms of couplings, back to backs, and flange depth; the horror of the bad old days lingers in eBay descriptions 'compatible with Hornby' and the like. Everything couples to everything and runs with everything.  And NEM pockets have improved the capacity to change couplers.

 

This is a highly desirable situation for the manufacturers, modellers running RTR out of the box, probably the majority of us, and the remains of the train set trade, still important even if not to the likes of us.  And it is for this reason that any improved autocoupler will never be adopted by the manufacturers, and the thinking behind my original post.  Any improvement will probably come in the form of a retrofit for NEM fitting, but we are stuck with t/l on RTR is too well established to change now.

Edited March 30, 2018 by The Johnster

[Dunsignalling]

I blame Triang, but understand why they did it.  They introduced what was AFAIK the first iteration of the current tension lock coupler in mass produced RTR as a result of redesigning the original Rovex hook and loop couplers, which could only be used one way around.  One assumes that a deliberate choice to not use the well established Hornby Dublo buckeyes was taken; the systems were incompatible in those days anyway as the Rovex/Triang flanges were too coarse for H/D flangeways and of course H/D was still all 3 rail with all metal wheelsets that would have shorted out on Triang's 2 rail track.

 

Both systems were too deeply established for either to be withdrawn in favour of the other by the time H/D had introduced a 2 rails system, and the buckeyes, also adopted by the only other player in the RTR game then, Trix, who were not big enough to make a difference, persisted until the demise of H/D.  There was also the Peco Simplex, another buckeye type, but I get confused here, the couplers supplied with 'Wonderful Wagons' kits being similar to the older type of H/D buckeye, and unlike those with Kitmaster/Airfix construction kits, also described as 'Peco Simplex' but a more complex, and to my mind better, design but made of rather brittle plastic.

 

Most modellers of my generation will have gone through a phase in their childhoods or teens of attempting to couple t/l and buckeyes by dropping the t/l hook over the inner part of the buckeye and hoping it stayed put; it usually didn't!  Tension locks in their current form have their issues, and I have been happy to complain repeatedly about them, but are at least some sort of RTR standard, and all RTR stock for the British market is compatible in terms of couplings, back to backs, and flange depth; the horror of the bad old days lingers in eBay descriptions 'compatible with Hornby' and the like. Everything couples to everything and runs with everything.  And NEM pockets have improved the capacity to change couplers.

 

This is a highly desirable situation for the manufacturers, modellers running RTR out of the box, probably the majority of us, and the remains of the train set trade, still important even if not to the likes of us.  And it is for this reason that any improved autocoupler will never be adopted by the manufacturers, and the thinking behind my original post.  Any improvement will probably come in the form of a retrofit for NEM fitting, but we are stuck with t/l on RTR is too well established to change now.

The "old type" HD buckeye (by which I presume you mean the metal one, not the clunky great plastic version) was the Peco Simplex, a patented design on which Meccano Ltd. paid royalties for those used on their models. Legend has it that it was a (pre-decimal) penny a pair. The Kitmaster/Airfix coupler was always referred to as a "Horn-hook" design which (I think) originated in the USA. They can pretty much be discounted as they seldom survived more than a couple of days use. 

 

Unfortunately, the under-vehicle pivot of the Simplex makes them unsuitable for adapting to the NEM mounting system. Kadee only manage it because their considerably smaller buckeye allows them to squeeze in the pivot immediately behind the knuckle. 

 

I agree that we are way too far down the road to ever see something better fitted as standard to UK outline r-t-r models. I think the best we can hope for is that the NEM standard will eventually be applied properly to every (new) model, enabling all of us to fit our preferred alternatives on a truly plug-and-play basis.. 

 

It is striking how many layout photos published nowadays show T/L's having been replaced, usually with Kadee, S&W or scale couplings. Clearly, quite a lot of people dislike them enough to do something about it. When I first adopted Kadees in 1994, and subsequently joined Taunton MRG (who have been using them since the late 1960s), I was often asked what they were and where they came from. Since then, they have become quite commonplace and most people recognise them.  

 

John

Edited March 30, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[TheSignalEngineer]

I blame Triang, but understand why they did it.  They introduced what was AFAIK the first iteration of the current tension lock coupler in mass produced RTR as a result of redesigning the original Rovex hook and loop couplers, which could only be used one way around.  One assumes that a deliberate choice to not use the well established Hornby Dublo buckeyes was taken; the systems were incompatible in those days anyway as the Rovex/Triang flanges were too coarse for H/D flangeways and of course H/D was still all 3 rail with all metal wheelsets that would have shorted out on Triang's 2 rail track.

The Hornby Dublo Buckeye was adopted on resumption of production after WW2. It was described in Patent No. 605283 granted to a certain Sydney Charles Pritchard aka 'Mr Peco' . The original design was submitted in 1945 and the Patent application approved in 1948. Full details available at this site https://www.meccanoindex.co.uk/Patents/Hornby_pat.php?id=1522430405

Presumably the original owners of Rovex and subsequently Lines Bros, owners of the Triang brand name at that time, decided that they didn't want to up their costs to the extent of royalties to Mr Pritchard.

Edited March 30, 2018 by TheSignalEngineer

[Crewlisle]

When I built my 00 gauge 'Crewlisle' layout in the 1970s, I originally used Peco Simplex couplings & converted to these couplings whenever I bought any Hornby/Lima locos or stock with tension lock couplings.  On my compact WCML layout I have three gradients of 1:28, 33 & 38 & also a number of tunnels/under baseboard tracks.  Sometimes the Simplex couplings would uncouple coming down the gradient when transitioning to the level, which became embarrassing at exhibitions but were easy to lift off the track if any derailments occured in the tunnels.  Although I think the Simplex couplings are simple & unobtrusive, I have now converted all my stock to the Bachmann style mini couplings for reliability with very few uncouplings.

 

Converting once again to Kadees is out of the question because of the number of locos/stock I have & cost.  But the main reason is, "Would the Kadees be compatible with my relatively steep gradient transitions at high speed?"  Many of the layouts I have seen at exhibitions are on the level with no gradients & run at moderate speeds.

 

Peter

Edited March 31, 2018 by Crewlisle

[Ron Solly]

 

"  But the main reason is, "Would the Kadees be compatible with my relatively steep gradient transitions at high speed?"  Many of the layouts I have seen at exhibitions are on the level with no gradients & run at moderate speeds.

 

Peter"

 

 

As many modelers in the USA & Australia use Kadee;s and have many gradients without problems, then I guess the problem of false uncoupling is not a smooth gradient change. I too use Kadee on my UK outline & have no problems with false uncoupling on my gradients.

Edited March 31, 2018 by Ron Solly

[Dunsignalling]

When I built my 00 gauge 'Crewlisle' layout in the 1970s, I originally used Peco Simplex couplings & converted to these couplings whenever I bought any Hornby/Lima locos or stock with tension lock couplings.  On my compact WCML layout I have three gradients of 1:28, 33 & 38 & also a number of tunnels/under baseboard tracks.  Sometimes the Simplex couplings would uncouple coming down the gradient when transitioning to the level, which became embarrassing at exhibitions but were easy to lift off the track if any derailments occured in the tunnels.  Although I think the Simplex couplings are simple & unobtrusive, I have now converted all my stock to the Bachmann style mini couplings for reliability with very few uncouplings.

 

Converting once again to Kadees is out of the question because of the number of locos/stock I have & cost.  But the main reason is, "Would the Kadees be compatible with my relatively steep gradient transitions at high speed?"  Many of the layouts I have seen at exhibitions are on the level with no gradients & run at moderate speeds.

 

Peter

Kadees have a sprung self-centre action which, in my experience, overcomes the occasional issues that arose with Simplexes, which I consider stemmed from not having it.

 

The worst I've thrown at them is scale 50-ish mph running with 1-in-48 gradients and 3' radius curves, so probably not a severe test of their abilities. There was a reverse curve over a crossover ladder that incorporated a double slip at the bottom of one grade but that was, for more reasons than coupler performance, taken at around a scale 20 mph. Unwanted uncoupling was rare and usually traceable to incorrectly aligned couplers Any vehicle that came off or otherwise misbehaved twice, stayed off until the reason had been found and rectified. Coupler issues came nowhere near the top of the league!

 

Kadee knuckles are only 3.5mm deep so if one is set a millimetre too high and it's neighbour a millimetre too low, there's not much left holding on. Mine all start out right and are gauged whenever stock is packed away so that any dislodged knuckle springs or accident damage can be attended to. It's very rare to encounter either. It's also important only to use dry lubricants on Kadees as oil attracts dirt and causes them to seize up.

 

I have seen your amazing layout, several times, and your baseboard carpentry, track-laying and maintenance must be "spot-on" to make it work so reliably. Such a "quart-into-a-pint-pot" would present a much stiffer test for Kadees than I have ever applied. If I see you booked for an upcoming exhibition fairly locally (so I can come by car) I'd be willing to bring a selection of locos and stock to test. PM me if you are interested. 

 

Regards

 

John

Edited March 31, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[kevinlms]

" But the main reason is, "Would the Kadees be compatible with my relatively steep gradient transitions at high speed?" Many of the layouts I have seen at exhibitions are on the level with no gradients & run at moderate speeds.

 

Peter"

 

 

As many modelers in the USA & Australia use Kadee;s and have many gradients without problems, then I guess the problem of false uncoupling is not a smooth gradient change. I too use Kadee on my UK outline & have no problems with false uncoupling on my gradients.

Agreed, problems occur with Kadees only when there is a height difference. If properly set to the height gauge and no vertical misalignment in the track, they don't uncouple on the run.

 

The original No. 5 couplings will not delay uncouple if the springs have been assembled upside down. I had to fix some club vehicles, where that had been done. Some club members wanted them turfed for that reason!

Edited March 31, 2018 by kevinlms

[ejstubbs]

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

 

Kadee also does 'scale' couplings which have a smaller coupling knuckle than the ones based on the original Kadee design.  Being nominally 'scale' size for HO they are arguably under-size for the OO market.  They are only available in the "classic" and "whisker" variants, not NEM fitting.

 

For those yearning for DCC uncoupling, a company called Subarashi Models is apparently working on just such a thing, with co-operation from Kadee: https://www.smart-coupler.com

Edited March 31, 2018 by ejstubbs

[Titan]

Kadee also does 'scale' couplings which have a smaller coupling knuckle than the ones based on the original Kadee design.  Being nominally 'scale' size for HO they are arguably under-size for the OO market.  They are only available in the "classic" and "whisker" variants, not NEM fitting.

 

For those yearning for DCC uncoupling, a company called Subarashi Models is apparently working on just such a thing, with co-operation from Kadee: https://www.smart-coupler.com

 

The American Knuckle coupler is larger than the UK buckeye. If they do a scale HO version of the AAR knuckle, It will be almost, if not exactly bang on scale for an OO buckeye.

 

Now as a lot of UK freight stock is now fitted with the AAR knuckle, does that mean that the original Kadee is somewhere near scale size for those in OO too?

Edited March 31, 2018 by Titan

[newbryford]

The American Knuckle coupler is larger than the UK buckeye. If they do a scale HO version of the AAR knuckle, It will be almost, if not exactly bang on scale for an OO buckeye.

 

Now as a lot of UK freight stock is now fitted with the AAR knuckle, does that mean that the original Kadee is somewhere near scale size for those in OO too?

 

Quite possibly, but fitting the Kadee at the coupling gauge height sets them too low for the UK. The prototype UK buckeyes are fixed at buffer height and part of the drawbox.

 

If Kadees were fitted into the buffer beam and auto uncoupling was required, the trip pin will have to be lengthened to match.

 

Bachmann BYA/BRA steel carriers and HTA coal hoppers are supplied with both TL and the Bachmann EZ Mate Kadee clone. I think (but not certain) that fitting the EZ Mate to the wagons, sets them at "standard" (or thereabouts) Kadee height. They certainly aren't at UK buffer height.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Il Grifone]

The Hornby Dublo Buckeye was adopted on resumption of production after WW2. It was described in Patent No. 605283 granted to a certain Sydney Charles Pritchard aka 'Mr Peco' . The original design was submitted in 1945 and the Patent application approved in 1948. Full details available at this site https://www.meccanoindex.co.uk/Patents/Hornby_pat.php?id=1522430405

Presumably the original owners of Rovex and subsequently Lines Bros, owners of the Triang brand name at that time, decided that they didn't want to up their costs to the extent of royalties to Mr Pritchard.

 

Meccano Ltd. and Peco were joint holders of the patent (Dublo for 'toy' trains and Peco for 'scale'. (Meccano having paid for its use). Trix thought the patent wouldn't stand*, but were sued for infringement of the patent. This was resolved by Trix paying a set amount per coupling (I thought it was a farthing, but may well be wrong). (German Trix Express continued with the pre-war coupling (yet another variant of the continental loop coupling)).Tri-ang (always penny pinching) went their own way with a hook and bar type (not strictly a tension lock, as it doesn't lock). The tension lock proper was introduced with Triang TT in 1957 and fitted to their 00/H0 stock in 1959. Jouef/Playcraft started with a hook and bar but later changed to the Peco type with the Trix uncoupler spacing. Some 0 gauge stock (e.g, Lima) was fitted with a version in later years.

 

* Trix possibly thought that their different uncoupler spacing was sufficiently different to avoid the patent - it wasn't!

 

Incidentally 'Dublo' is from how OO is pronounced (cf 'Acho' (HO) in France), 'Trix' comes from Tri-X (their copy of Meccano) and Tri-ang from the 3 Lines brothers (3 lines make a triangle)

[John ks]

Kadee also does 'scale' couplings which have a smaller coupling knuckle than the ones based on the original Kadee design.  Being nominally 'scale' size for HO they are arguably under-size for the OO market.  They are only available in the "classic" and "whisker" variants, not NEM fitting.

 

For those yearning for DCC uncoupling, a company called Subarashi Models is apparently working on just such a thing, with co-operation from Kadee: https://www.smart-coupler.com

 

Had a look at the Subarashi Models & if I have converted the currency(¥6,600 ) correctly then it is AU$80.00 or £44,30 a pair which is a little lot too much for me

I have used Kadee's since the 60's on UK outline

 

​Recently I mounted them at buffer beam height on a Virgin HST (can't couple them to Mk1's or 2's but I don't see that as being a problem)

 

​Also been using Hornby/Roco & Fleischmann inside rakes of coaches with Close Coupling Mechs , this keeps the coupling rigid in the horizontal & improves the operation of the CCM

 

If you want to go scale HO then Sergent's make knuckle couplings (similar to & not compatible with Kadee's)

 

John

[Junctionmad]

On the subject , has anyone tried to make a spratt and Winkle NEM coupling , would be a nice idea 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Quite possibly, but fitting the Kadee at the coupling gauge height sets them too low for the UK. The prototype UK buckeyes are fixed at buffer height and part of the drawbox.

 

If Kadees were fitted into the buffer beam and auto uncoupling was required, the trip pin will have to be lengthened to match...

 Mounting Kadees in the bufferbeam of OO coaches - which puts them well over gauge height - doesn't affect their magnetic uncoupling at all. I thought I would have to straighten the trip pins to get the bottom ends into the field sufficiently but not so. (And somewhat straightening the trip pin will enable the bottom end to achieve gauge height, so that's an option should the magnetic uncoupling be impaired.)

[Dunsignalling]

Had a look at the Subarashi Models & if I have converted the currency(¥6,600 ) correctly then it is AU$80.00 or £44,30 a pair which is a little lot too much for me

I have used Kadee's since the 60's on UK outline

 

​Recently I mounted them at buffer beam height on a Virgin HST (can't couple them to Mk1's or 2's but I don't see that as being a problem)

 

​Also been using Hornby/Roco & Fleischmann inside rakes of coaches with Close Coupling Mechs , this keeps the coupling rigid in the horizontal & improves the operation of the CCM

 

If you want to go scale HO then Sergent's make knuckle couplings (similar to & not compatible with Kadee's)

 

John

There is a DCC uncoupling conversion for Kadees made (I think) in Switzerland.

 

There was a link somewhere on here but I can't recall what thread and have mislaid the note I made of it.

 

John

 

EDIT: Found it. Check out www.precimodels.com

Edited April 20, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[The Johnster]

On the subject , has anyone tried to make a spratt and Winkle NEM coupling , would be a nice idea 

 

It would, if manufacturers could be relied to set the pockets at a standard height above the rail.  Many seem to make the same error I did when I retrofitted t/ls to my stock last year, that if you set them a standard distance below the solebars all will be well; it won't...

 

IIRC, though, Spratts are designed to be mounted on kit or scratch stock that has greater underframe detail than RTR, though of course RTR has improved in recent years.

Edited April 21, 2018 by The Johnster

[Dunsignalling]

On the subject , has anyone tried to make a spratt and Winkle NEM coupling , would be a nice idea 

Given that S&W's come as a flat etch for self-assembly and installation, presumably not available commercially.

 

For those who want such a widget, there was a "How-To" article by Andy Hopper in the August 2008 issue of BRM.

 

John

[009 micro modeller]

As suggested earlier, why not use the Bemo loop coupling? The standard 009 coupling is a smaller version of this (also I think originally introduced by Bemo) and they can be uncoupled manually, with ramps and supposedly magnetically if a pivoting arm is added. I use the normal unmodified design in 009 but there is also the Greenwich variant, which has the loop on only one end of the vehicle and the pivoting arm built in so magnetic and even delayed magnetic uncoupling is possible. I don't use these myself but I have seen the delayed uncoupling demonstrated. I can't see why Greenwich or Bemo-type couplings wouldn't work (perhaps scaled up slightly) for standard gauge. I think however that the Bemo's dominance in 009 is similar to that of tension locks in 00 which leads to people using them to avoid changing the couplings.

Edited April 22, 2018 by 009 micro modeller

[Baby Deltic]

I always fit MK2 tension locks to all of my stock which makes it an absolute doddle to couple and uncouple stock at shows. Being small they are easy to work with using a simple plasticard uncoupling tool.