Why are tension couplings still legal?

[Clive Mortimore]

 They don't like working properly with mixed versions of T/S's though - try running both pulling and pushing with Lima wide bar & latest units from Bachmann !!  Nor do they look like real couplings.

I must have a dodgy lot of Bachmann couplings because when I run my mixed DMU trains, Lima 101s with Bachmann 105s and 108s with one unit pushing the other nothing seems to go wrong. Also my Lima locos shunting Bachmann coaches nothing goes wrong. Tri-ang pushing new Hornby wagons, all OK.

[Clive Mortimore]

That's  just  the  point,  they  do  work  we  all  know  that  but  not  always  reliably,  and  the  use of  an  alternative  coupling  does  allow   a  passenger  train  to  perform   more  like  the  real  thing,  not  like  an unfitted  freight

Do you mount your Kadees on the headstock of your coaches as per the real thing? What gangway connectors do you use? Do they have working rubbing plates? What happens when you try to couple a loco with its screw coupling, are your Kadees drop head like the real things. and how do you see to get the screw coupling under the gangway, because the real thing only has a hook on the coach, and tighten it up? Are your buffers retractable? Are the buffers sprung and when you tighten up the screw coupling are the buffer heads touching? Lastly are your model coaches Air or Vacuum braked?

 

I bet no is the answer to the above, so you are in the same unrealistic position as those who use tension locks.

[Roger Sunderland]

Because they work. :scratchhead:

Sorry Clive, have to disagree. There are now so many different sizes etc of tlc compatability is a real issue. If you have to change them why not go for something that really does work ie. Kadees. One size of head, easy to fit at the right height, remote uncoupling and unobtrusive (if fitted correctly). They work exceptionally well even on our large terminus exhibition layout.

[D9502]

Has anyone tried making their own style couplings? Not necessarily for shunting but for semi-permanent fixed rakes.

 

I've see simple hook/eye used in OO/4mm on rakes of HAA MGR hoppers and I've just seen something similar in N scale too.

 

I'd be interested in seeing what others have tried...

[St Enodoc]

Has anyone tried making their own style couplings? Not necessarily for shunting but for semi-permanent fixed rakes.

 

I've see simple hook/eye used in OO/4mm on rakes of HAA MGR hoppers and I've just seen something similar in N scale too.

 

I'd be interested in seeing what others have tried...

Press studs connected by a length of paper clip wire. The secret is to have the male half of the stud one size smaller than the female, so that you get some flexibility in roll and pitch as well as yaw.

[The Johnster]

My permanently coupled stock consists of a rarely used 3 car dmu and a B set, but these have been fitted with home made wire loop coupler-pushers, stiff wire loops mounted around the bogie pivots and twisted to look (at a very passing glance) like vacuum or steam heating hoses.  I have used Bill Bedfords (excellent) on auto trains in the past, but need a bit more flexibility and the ability to negoitiate second radius reverse curves on Cwmdibath.

[The Johnster]

Sorry Clive, have to disagree. There are now so many different sizes etc of tlc compatability is a real issue. If you have to change them why not go for something that really does work ie. Kadees. One size of head, easy to fit at the right height, remote uncoupling and unobtrusive (if fitted correctly). They work exceptionally well even on our large terminus exhibition layout.

 

Kaydees don't work, and require unrealistic shuffling to auto couple/uncouple.  And they are ugly on British stock; t/ls, which do work, can be made effectively invisible with with track colour or similar camouflage.  The issue is often sharp curvature and the  need to prevent buffer locking on long vehicles, and the resultant gap between vehicles has to be lived with.

 

If only we all had more room, but then we'd just fill it with railway and replicate the problem on a larger scale...

 

Real raliway vehicles have a bit of flexibility in terms of sprung buffers and drawhooks, which can be replicated in 4mm, but introduce a whole new set of problems of their own as the springing is far too strong and cannot be 'scaled down'.  All modelling other than dead scale is a compromise; I have compromised on NEM t/ls which suit my modelling ability, steadiness of hand, and eyesight, none of which are particularly marvellous!

[newbryford]

This is fast becoming like the 00/OO v EM thread............

 

In the words of Harry Hill

 

 

FIIIIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHHHTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!

 

Cheers,

Mick

[The Johnster]

Not my intention; I just wanted to say that, for most of us, the result of squeezing a quart into a pint pot is a compromise at the coupling; gauges, frame widths, splasher positions and so on are another matter.  Even on what are regarded as scale layouts in any 4mm gauge, curves on running lines are far too sharp, and those in yards or depots require some sprung give in the buffers and drawhooks.

[Clive Mortimore]

Sorry Clive, have to disagree. There are now so many different sizes etc of tlc compatability is a real issue. If you have to change them why not go for something that really does work ie. Kadees. One size of head, easy to fit at the right height, remote uncoupling and unobtrusive (if fitted correctly). They work exceptionally well even on our large terminus exhibition layout.

Hi Roger

 

Kadees.....as you say at the right height which is the wrong height for British stock. Right height means the NEM pocket is useless as everyone keeps saying they are at different heights.  As Johnster says you have to keep shuffling over the magnet to uncouple. Unless you use a cocktail stick to prise them apart, then that brings in the hand of god so why not use three links? They work and are always the right height.  Damn buffer lock on anything under 3 ft radius.

 

Kadees are as obtrusive as a tension lock, I think even more so on a loco. Most of my locos have the hook removed so there is just the bar which looks far neater than a buckeye coupling dangling in mid air with a loco chasing it.

[Stevelewis]

Do you mount your Kadees on the headstock of your coaches as per the real thing? What gangway connectors do you use? Do they have working rubbing plates? What happens when you try to couple a loco with its screw coupling, are your Kadees drop head like the real things. and how do you see to get the screw coupling under the gangway, because the real thing only has a hook on the coach, and tighten it up? Are your buffers retractable? Are the buffers sprung and when you tighten up the screw coupling are the buffer heads touching? Lastly are your model coaches Air or Vacuum braked?

 

I bet no is the answer to the above, so you are in the same unrealistic position as those who use tension locks.

 

Actually   the  appearance  does not actually  concern  me  at  all  Having  been into  Railway Modelling  for  around 65 years now  I prefer  to be  able  to  run  trains  reliably  and  that  is  what Kadee  couplings  provide,  they  work!

And  by  the  way  my locos  do  not  have  screw couplings  they  have  Kadees  like  the  rest of  the  rolling  stock!!

[Dunsignalling]

Hi Roger

 

Kadees.....as you say at the right height which is the wrong height for British stock. Right height means the NEM pocket is useless as everyone keeps saying they are at different heights.  As Johnster says you have to keep shuffling over the magnet to uncouple. Unless you use a cocktail stick to prise them apart, then that brings in the hand of god so why not use three links? They work and are always the right height.  Damn buffer lock on anything under 3 ft radius.

 

Kadees are as obtrusive as a tension lock, I think even more so on a loco. Most of my locos have the hook removed so there is just the bar which looks far neater than a buckeye coupling dangling in mid air with a loco chasing it.

Try to forget about Kadees being a replica of a real coupling that is only fitted to newish UK stock plus about half the corridor coaches and about three dozen tenders in steam days. 

 

Think of them just as a robust, reliable efficient model coupler and it all makes sense. The (metal) Peco/HD coupler (which, itself, was far better than any tension lock) reborn for the 21st Century. OK if you have toy-town curves you have to space them out more but that goes for every model coupling on the market unless fitted into CCU's (and those don't work properly with T/Ls in them anyhow).

 

If you use electromagnetic uncouplers there's no shuffle required unless you want to make a propelling move after uncoupling - try that with an unmodified T/L, with or without a shuffle.

 

If you have reasonable curves, 30" or greater, and install Kadees accordingly, they are less obtrusive than mini T/Ls, they are narrower and don't stick out so far....... 

 

Forget NEM mounts unless attached to the end of a CCU. They are a complete PITA thanks to the UK brands not applying the standard fully or consistently. On wagons and locos they block out most of the low-down daylight that should be under the ends of the vehicle too. I chop 'em off and fit proper Kadees (usually #146) straight under the floor, where you can barely see the box at all.

 

If you want to fit Kadees to coaches at scale height, they will uncouple over standard magnets though that's best kept within sets as it looks awful if you start chopping them into the buffer beams of wagons and locos to make them line up.

 

I've been using Kadees since 1994 and I've not yet come across anything that holds a candle to them as across-the-board practical model railway couplings. I don't use them universally, CCU-fitted coaches mainly get Roco couplers within set and Kadees just at the ends. Wagons almost never keep their NEM mounts unless dismantling them sufficiently to neatly install Kadees makes it too much like hard work. Locos are dealt with on a case-by-case basis but tenders usually end up with #141 or #147 Kadees and no pockets. Misaligned pockets all-too-often dictate the gluing of a #20 Kadee straight into the NEM dovetail after removing the pocket, in order to get them high enough. That sometimes covers the body-mounting screws, so the correct choice of glue can be important. 

 

I "do" Sprat & Winkles, too on a friend's large (50' x 18' with minimum 3' curves) layout. Operationally, very nice once they are done, but an awful lot more work - I know exactly which I prefer of the two..........  

 

John

Edited April 26, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Ron Solly]

While I understand that some like 3 link as they are prototypical depending on location & era,in the model scene, IMO, only really good when one can reach them to uncouple/re-couple like on a plank layout.

Shunting on some of the layouts as planned by iain Rice in his book "Mainlines in Modest Spaces" as some sidings are nearly 3 feet away from the operating area.  Kadees or modified T/L do the job.

 

For modified T/L, have a look at

and

[newbryford]

Interesting that the OP who originally lobbed this grenade thread in has only popped his head above the parapet once on page one and then scarpered......

Yet he never said why he didn't like TLs or what his preference is.....

 

 

It's all his fault.

 

Cheers,

MIck

[LBRJ]

After no consideration at all, or maybe 30 odd years of it - I came to the conclusion that doing what you like best works best. everytime.

 

I admit I like 3 link or screw couplings in the privacy of my own shed, but in public I would use the T/L on my OO things (in auto mode -none of them bloody paddle things on show ta!)

[newbryford]

I came to the conclusion that doing what you like best works best. everytime.

 

And that succinctly sums up this great hobby. Simplified to Rule 1

 

With your permission, I'm going to use that in other threads.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[LBRJ]

I wish more people would at least think it, from time to time !

Spread the word

[Richard Lee]

Have to say that I am happy using Kadees.  However, because of the cost I might not have gone for them if I didn't have a small layout with not too much stock.  Must admit that I don't bother with the auto-uncoupling, and often snip off the shiny dangley bit, particularly from goods wagons.  I find them reasonably discrete (without the dangley bits), easy to shorten the distance between stock, can just lift a vehicle from a train, cope with the 30" radius curve, and seem to work well.  On the other hand, if manufacturers fitted them, they would probably have to fit ones long enough to cope with set track radius 2 curves, which would reduce the ability to shorten gaps between stock.

 

A few years ago at an exhibition, I saw a OO layout that used Dinghams.  I was impressed with them, but I understand that you have to be careful with minimum curve radius with them.

 

I don't like tension-lock couplings, but accept that they may be the most practical commercial option for manufacturers to fit.

[Roger Sunderland]

Kaydees don't work, and require unrealistic shuffling to auto couple/uncouple.  And they are ugly on British stock; t/ls, which do work, can be made effectively invisible with with track colour or similar camouflage.  The issue is often sharp curvature and the  need to prevent buffer locking on long vehicles, and the resultant gap between vehicles has to be lived with.

 

If only we all had more room, but then we'd just fill it with railway and replicate the problem on a larger scale...

 

Real raliway vehicles have a bit of flexibility in terms of sprung buffers and drawhooks, which can be replicated in 4mm, but introduce a whole new set of problems of their own as the springing is far too strong and cannot be 'scaled down'.  All modelling other than dead scale is a compromise; I have compromised on NEM t/ls which suit my modelling ability, steadiness of hand, and eyesight, none of which are particularly marvellous!

"Kadees don't work" Try telling that to the thousands (or is it millions) of users in the USA, Europe and GB. I repeat we operate a large exhibition layout and they work perfectly for us. No shuffling required. Also available, but not many people seem aware of it, is auto uncoupling using one button push on DCC.

[jcm@gwr]

 

It's a bit like us driving on the left in the UK and most other places use the other side. It isn't going to change.

 

Like most aspects of this hobby, if people want to go ahead and change things for their own preferences - then crack on.

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

But not which side of the road you drive on, could be messy!

[PatB]

No mention so far of DGs. Whilst I've no direct experience of them they appear to offer low(ish) cost, easy fitment to a variety of stock, delayed action and, perhaps crucially, a buffing action that makes their use on sharp curves a bit more feasible than other "scale" couplings. Fiddly to make, though.

[tomparryharry]

I have allsorts at home. I do like three link. There's nothing to beat a bit of prototypical take-up when a loco moves off.

 

When I operate the shunting puzzle, then it's Kadees. They give a degree of latitude which allows you to operate in a slick manner, essential if you've got the public watching you.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[The Johnster]

I would prefer to use scale (i.e. instanter or screw) every time but my eyesight and steadiness of hand make it no longer practical in my case.  Having reluctantly decided to 'revert' to tension locks and live with the issues, I then found that retrofitting them to my scale coupling fitted stock was a terrible faff that went on for some months before I achieved reliable coupling without lock buffering and I still have some issues with the t/ls on my Ratio 4 wheel coaches.  Retrofitting auto trailers, with those long buffer shanks, was a particular nightmare.

 

But on the plus side, the t/ls have permitted sharper curvature, down to no.3 and 2 in one case, in the fiddle yard which has allowed me to shoehorn 3 extra roads in; as the original plan only had room for 4, this is a significant improvement in capacity and I can operate the full timetable without picking up stock by hand (though of course I still do this to change stock).

 

Everything in 00 is a compromise and we each do the best we can with what we've got; I am happy with the operation, and the overall appearance of the scenified section, of my layout.  Couplings are not the only compromise, as I also use insulfrog points in the interests of electrical simplicity and reliability, and this has been highly successful; my trains run slowly and faultlessly so long as the track is reasonably clean.  I took great care in laying it to ensure this result.

 

With the exception of the Ratio 4 wheelers, I can draw and propel any of my stock anywhere on the layout with any of my locos with absolute confidence, but prefer to keep the auto trailers off the no,2 curved point.

[Dunsignalling]

No mention so far of DGs. Whilst I've no direct experience of them they appear to offer low(ish) cost, easy fitment to a variety of stock, delayed action and, perhaps crucially, a buffing action that makes their use on sharp curves a bit more feasible than other "scale" couplings. Fiddly to make, though.

On the surface of things, it seems odd that the only self-assembly auto-coupler to become a (relatively) mainstream fixture within the hobby is the Sprat & Winkle.

 

I suspect that is down to the S&W having been promoted as a commercial product, to an extent that others haven't. It was also more-or-less the only game in town for long enough to become well-established before very much competition emerged. 

 

I rather like DGs and might well have chosen them, had I not already become heavily invested in Kadees before I became aware of them.

 

Although widely used by the EM/P4 fraternity, I don't consider the Alex Jackson coupler appropriate for wider adoption, there's simply far too much slop in commercial OO wheel/track standards for them to work reliably.

 

John

Edited April 26, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[ianLMS]

It appears what is needed is a system incorporating prototypical 3-link/instanter/screw couplings with relevant vacumm/steam hoses, that automitically connect when close enough to the next loco/coach/wagon, and upon request, can uncouple just as easily. It also needs to expand in order to navigate tighter than prototype radius curves, and tighten on the straight so as to retain the look of close coupling.

 

I refer to an earlier post - we can put men on the moon, create micro-chips smaller than a grain of sand, build monstrous sky-scraping facilities, split the atom and we now understand black holes (well some people do), so surely someone can create something to fit the criteria of what I/we am/are looking for? 

 

Just a thought for those innovative engineering pioneers out there who liked watching the Krypton Factor and can solve the Times crossword puzzle in less than a month (or never in my case).