Why are tension couplings still legal?

[ianLMS]

My earlier post has led me to a "stupid" type question while my mind gets around my own suggestion.

 

Can I purchase an electromagnet (to sit under/between the sleepers) that when energized will part two magnets attracted to each other, or demagnetize a metal part thats attached to a magnet?

Edited April 26, 2018 by ianLMS

[frobisher]

Short answer is "no".

 

Slightly longer answer is "magnetism doesn't work that way".

[Coryton]

 

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? 

 

If we can put men on the moon....why can't we put men on the moon?

[ianLMS]

Short answer is "no".

 

Slightly longer answer is "magnetism doesn't work that way".

I was googling it most of last night and it appears I know nothing about magnetism/electromagnets and how they work. Back to the drawing board then!!!

 

I am testing 1mm x 2mm Neodymium magnets on the end of black 1mm elastic (simulating vacuum hoses). getting them to connect is no issue as when they get close to each other the automatically attract, getting them to uncouple however is the issue. 

[Il Grifone]

We are going to have to wait for DCC micro-robot shunters to uncouple our 3 links and screw couplings....

 

Seriously, the problem is we are trying to model a system which uses basically a bit of chain to couple vehicles together, which requires some sort of buffer, (It was tried without in the States in the early days - they quickly wedged lengths of wood between the vehicles to stop the resulting concertina effect.) Most automatic couplings incorporate the buffing gear and the model's buffers just get in the way (as they do on the prototype and have to be retracted). So either we need to have a longer than prototype inter-vehicle distance  or dumpy buffers (as used by Dublo).    

 

For vehicles fitted with automatic couplings on the prototype, Kadees look like the real thing so are the obvious solution. (Unless it's a Scharfenberg* coupling but lets not go there....)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scharfenberg_coupler

 

* All continental (U.I.C.) vehicles were to be fitted with these by the late seventies*, but, since the real thing shares our cost/number of vehicles/incompatibility problems, they're still not. (I lived in Italy for twenty years and saw one in all that time!)

 

* According to 'Italian Railways' P.M. Kalla-Bishop

 

So we have tension locks fitted to everything as they won the Peco/HD versus Tri-ang coupling battle in the sixties (wrongly IMHO) and they became the British Standard and we are lumbered with them. They do work, but fail the ability to lift a vehicle from a train test (How important this is is a personal opinion, but having had a whole train fall off the baseboard onto the floof thanks to these things I'm biassed...).

 

Personally my stock is equipped as follows:-

 

British 1920s EM - scale screw/3 links (decided when my close up vision was better than it is now...).

British 1950s 00 -  Peco/HD.

British TOPS era - Tension Locks (Mainline type preferred).

USA H0 - Kadee (some clones and with X2f in block trains gradually being converted but it's a long job that almost certainly will never be completed).

Continental H0 - Loop coupling set at Lima height - not the best most of the stock is Lima....

Italian 1:80 (Rivarossi) - Their version of the loop coupling (uncouples magnetically and the best version IMHO. (some vehicles (the few vehicles which will be involved in shunting) have (or will have) the delayed action adaption. (This doesn't involve the tension lock/Kadee 'shuffle' - cf Märklin.)

Everything else keeps its original couplings.

[Il Grifone]

I was googling it most of last night and it appears I know nothing about magnetism/electromagnets and how they work. Back to the drawing board then!!!

 

I am testing 1mm x 2mm Neodymium magnets on the end of black 1mm elastic (simulating vacuum hoses). getting them to connect is no issue as when they get close to each other the automatically attract, getting them to uncouple however is the issue. 

 

They do use this system in the States for air hoses. Probably a 1mm x 2mm is too strong and I think maybe one has to be plain iron. This doesn't matter, because the system can only work one way round anyway, as otherwise the magnets will repel each other.

[ianLMS]

I was looking at semi-fixed rakes of coaches initially. Previous attempts to fix rakes using brass wire/screw-links/hoses etc resulted in it being too cumbersome and parting them/recoupling them proved difficult.

 

Someone though had already used 2 x 3mm magnets to couple their rakes together and I was impressed with it, so I am developing my own method, just using smaller magnets. Not too much of an issue under coach connections as you cant see much underneath, but on wagons, especially un-fitted ones, the magnets would need to work with the 3-links, not the hoses. 

 

Polarity is another issue to overcome.

 

All good stuff!

 

Ian

[Il Grifone]

Magnet coupling is used on the children's wooden trains, so obviously works. I can remember an advert for a train years ago which also used it (It must have been American as it talked about 'cars').

 

The polarity issue is easily solved by siting the magnets parallel to the headstocks, so that the north poles are always to the same side. They will then all couple north to south. The magnets will have to be strong enough to hold the train together, but not too strong to pull apart. Obviously some experimentation is called for.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Il Grifone

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I am testing 1mm x 2mm Neodymium magnets on the end of black 1mm elastic (simulating vacuum hoses). getting them to connect is no issue as when they get close to each other the automatically attract, getting them to uncouple however is the issue. 

 There is a suitable mechanism design incorporated in all the Canon 'A' series 35mm cameras, which latched the shutter curtains magnetically and released them using an electromagnet. (Extremely accurate release timing, but the curtain drives were still clockwork with all the inherent errors of that technique.)

[57xx]

If we can put men on the moon....why can't we put men on the moon?

 

No boogey man, budget cuts and a lack of public interest.

[jcm@gwr]

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.

 

Also no mention of the Lincs Autocoupling system, I've used them in 7mm

and they work well, They are quite discreet, not handed, you can lift out

wagons and (in 7mm) don't interfere with 3 link couplings, but no delayed

action for shunting.

They are reasonable to assemble/build and not too difficult to fit and set up.

[jimwal]

Also no mention of the Lincs Autocoupling system, I've used them in 7mm

and they work well, They are quite discreet, not handed, you can lift out

wagons and (in 7mm) don't interfere with 3 link couplings, but no delayed

action for shunting.

They are reasonable to assemble/build and not too difficult to fit and set up.

Agree generally with you but in 4mm at least, Lincs couplings are difficult on bogie stock. Maybe any coupling type with an inner counterbalance arm would be the same. 

Because of the angled hook Lincs will couple with pretty much any other type, though not automatically of course.

 

As well as some stock with Lincs, I have older items with Peco/Dublo type and kitbuilt/converted/scratchbuilt stock with scale couplings but not long wheelbase or bogie vehicles. This due to buffer locking issues.

These and most newer stock have small tension locks. This mix does require a good number of converter vehicles for flexibility.

 

Jim

[ianLMS]

The 4mm version of the Magclic is what I am hoping to achieve. www.modelrailwaywagons.co.uk. 

[Il Grifone]

The 4mm version of the Magclic is what I am hoping to achieve. www.modelrailwaywagons.co.uk. 

 

It shouldn't be difficult. Some experimentation is necesssary with magnet strength. What isn't mentioned in the video is that they are single ended. which may or may not be a problem. The gangway connectors were too stiff which was half the problem with the screw couplings, They should only have enough spring to touch each other, not enough to act as buffers.

 

The problem with all couplings which rely on the buffers doing their job is that the tolerances between wheel and rail ('slop' if like) are such as to make scale buffer heads far too small to avoid buffer locking, especially with sharp model curves. This is one of the reasons I decided to switch to EM* in the distant past. I wanted to use proper 3 link/screw couplings, but they just wouldn't work in 00. (I had been using wire buffer bars with a single-ended wire version of the tension lock wick a delayed uncoupling modification. (This worked OK when everthing was adjusted correctly, but wasn't 100% successful in practice. Having a resistance controller didn't help at all!)

 

* Other solutions are available - P4, 00SF DOGA fine.... Large radii help too - I had decided on 4' 6" minimum, but I had more space then (and better eyesight).

[ianLMS]

It shouldn't be difficult. Some experimentation is necesssary with magnet strength. What isn't mentioned in the video is that they are single ended. which may or may not be a problem. The gangway connectors were too stiff which was half the problem with the screw couplings, They should only have enough spring to touch each other, not enough to act as buffers.

 

The problem with all couplings which rely on the buffers doing their job is that the tolerances between wheel and rail ('slop' if like) are such as to make scale buffer heads far too small to avoid buffer locking, especially with sharp model curves. This is one of the reasons I decided to switch to EM* in the distant past. I wanted to use proper 3 link/screw couplings, but they just wouldn't work in 00. (I had been using wire buffer bars with a single-ended wire version of the tension lock wick a delayed uncoupling modification. (This worked OK when everthing was adjusted correctly, but wasn't 100% successful in practice. Having a resistance controller didn't help at all!)

 

* Other solutions are available - P4, 00SF DOGA fine.... Large radii help too - I had decided on 4' 6" minimum, but I had more space then (and better eyesight).

I have screw and 3-link couplings on some of my wagons/loco's and coaches and so far the gap is sufficient to allow the trains to navigate my tight radius curve without buffer locking. I have some magnets on order (1mm x 2mm N42) which have a 0.03kg pull which I am hoping is sufficient. I will experiment over the next week or two and see how I get on. 

[The Johnster]

I have screw and 3-link couplings on some of my wagons/loco's and coaches and so far the gap is sufficient to allow the trains to navigate my tight radius curve without buffer locking. I have some magnets on order (1mm x 2mm N42) which have a 0.03kg pull which I am hoping is sufficient. I will experiment over the next week or two and see how I get on. 

 

Can you propel without buffer locking, though?

[ianLMS]

Good point. That test will need to form part of the experiment

Edited May 1, 2018 by ianLMS

[Il Grifone]

Pulling is not a problem with screw/3 links though they may need to be overscale to negoiate tight curves, especially if the buffers are not sprung. (Tension locks pull off centre which promotes crabbing on curves.) Pushing is another matter and the heads can slide around each other and cause derailments*. Some British (e.g. GNR) and Continental railways favoured one flat or dished buffer head to help to counteract this effect. In Britain the practice died out at Grouping, but it persisted on the Continent until 1961. Coaches and long wheel base wagons have oval or large headed buffers because of this.

 

In 00 there is around 1mm of slop between wheel and rail, which can result in 2-3mm off centre at the buffers if just one of the vehicles is skewed relative to the rails. 4mm diameter buffer heads don't leave much safety margin.

 

* I have a pair of Dublo coaches (The short SR green suburbans - composite and brake/second). Normally they are OK, but if coupled one way they will lock if pushed, despite bogie mounted couplings and short buffers. I have never been able to find out why, as they look identical to all the others and obviously, if watched, they behave themselves.... I resolved the problem by reversing the composite and making sure they stayed that way.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Il Grifone

[newbryford]

No other forms of torture are still allowed. Has anyone actually checked the Geneva Conventions? 

 

Given that you started the thread and have not commented since, what are your preferences in lieu of tension locks?

 

Cheers,

MIck

[Clive Mortimore]

No other forms of torture are still allowed. Has anyone actually checked the Geneva Conventions? 

Mick is right, you have started this thread but not made any other comments.

 

You have unleashed those who think us who still use tension locks as being a lower form of modeller. I am quite happy with my scratchbuilt locos with tension lock couplings.

 

Let us hear you alternative, better still let us see your modelling.

[The Johnster]

The only alternative in my mind is scale couplings, on Brit outline models at least but I would argue the case for European H0, and I am too old, feeble, short sighted, and unsteady handed to use them.

 

T/ls have the advantage of coming already fitted to RTR models which are all I have nowadays, working reliably, being easy to operate (you can even automate them if you like), and nowadays the distance between vehicles is not too bad.  They are not the same beast as the ones Hornby are still putting out on some Railroad stock, and a huge improvement on the abominations Lima used to pollute our lives with.  If you think their use promotes an inferior sort of modelling, have a look at RHY's ovine related layouts and see if you still think the same afterwards!

 

I have seen some dreadful layouts over the years with scale pretensions whose builders would have, I imagine, thought that t/lls have no place in good modelling.  They are a compromise, but I regard them as less unacceptable than setrack curves, which doesn't prevent me using those in my fiddle yard...

[ianLMS]

Initial testing of a 4mm version of the Magclic is proving ok with both pulling and pushing, and maintain a distance eliminating buffer lock. However, its still too early for me to declare this as succesful or suitable for general use in all cases (this is where T/L, Kadees etc excel). I am sure Magclic have a patent out on this idea so this is not something I am doing for commercial interest, just something for me, and willing to share my thoughts, ideas and concerns with like-minded folks on here.

 

So far, I have tried 2 different methods but only tried method 1 out on the track between two wagons.

 

Method 1 is based on the Magclic design, utilizing two 1mm dia x 2mm magnets, glued into seperate 5mm sections of 1.5mm styrene rod (with 1mm hole drilled - need to observe correct polarity so I work on them while the magnets are attached to each other). On the other end, a small hole is drilled through the rod to hook a 3-link loop. This end attaches to the hook on both wagons. Once the styrene rod and edge of magnet is painted black, its hardly visible.

Intial testing had the magnets attract each other very rapidly causing the loop to jump off the hook. This is over come by a tiny peice of .33mm brass rod glued over the hook holding the 3-link loop in place but still loose enough to hang, move side-to-side.

Standard 3-link on one wagon can be left dangling as per prototype.

 

The attraction is quite strong so will begin to pull the wagons together when they get within a couple of centimetres of each other, but not to the point where damage would occur. When the wagon is not coupled, it is obvious its not a proper 3-link, but still looks better than Kadee's/T/Ls' etc.

 

Pulling and pushing around tight radius was no issue, but full testing behind loco's with multiple wagons has not yet been performed (the weight of 10+ coupled wagons might prove too much for the first one or two magnets)

 

Planned modifications for testing Method 1: Using 1.5mm (O/D), 1mm (I/D) brass tubing (more robust than styrene). Stronger glue (used Wilko's Impact Adhesive so far and is ok - CA is no good - does not hold magnet at all)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Method 2: This is based on the US idea of using the vac/steam hoses. This idea uses 1mm thick black elastic cord with a 1mm dia x 2mm thick magnet glued on the end (simulates the hose couplings) . Holes are drilled in the buffer beam just inside the buffers and the other end of the cord is passed through and glued to the underfloor with CA. Leaving enough cord so it loops down when connected. This is ideal when using coridoor connectors.

On non-coridoor stock, where vacuum hoses are mounted high, the magnet can be glued to the prized open end of the coach hose, with the cord glued to the end of the hose on the other coach .

To prevent buffer locking, I still need to come up with a suitable way of actually coupling the coaches, probably using the same as method 1, but with 6 magnets in-between each pair of coaches, incorrect coupling (screw-link to hose etc) is something I need to try to avoid. 

 

Issues with this are: Polarity - ensuring that the 2 cords on the same coach end utilise different polarity to prevent them from attracting to each other. The cord is quite stiff and does not hang down enough when not coupled, so either need a softer cord or only use for semi-fixed rakes. 

------------------------------------------------

Issues still remain and discussed previously are: 

1. They only work one way round due to polarity, so suitable for semi-fixed rakes.  

2. Uncoupling - still requires the hand from above to pull the wagons/coaches apart, but fiddling with hooks/paddles is not required.

3. Fiddly making the couplings - as with many railway modelling projects, this is a very time consuming and fiddly job.

4. Its too early to take pictures and the concept could still fail - but i'm having fun messing around doing it!

 

Ian

[andytrains]

To answer the original question.

I have lobbied my MP and she is going to put forward a Private Member Bill to Parliament.

 

Titled: The getting Rid of Ugly Couplings Act 2018.

 

Far more important to get this into law rather that all this Brexit nonsense.

 

It will include all coupling apart from exact scale ones.

 

 

 

Hat, Coat, Door.

[F-UnitMad]

To answer the original question.

I have lobbied my MP and she is going to put forward a Private Member Bill to Parliament.

 

Titled: The Getting Rid of Ugly Couplings Act 2018.

 

 

I should think such a title would scare the hell out of most MPs, before they'd even looked at what the subject matter actually is...

[ejstubbs]

Issues with this are: Polarity - ensuring that the 2 cords on the same coach end utilise different polarity to prevent them from attracting to each other. The cord is quite stiff and does not hang down enough when not coupled, so either need a softer cord or only use for semi-fixed rakes.

 

To stop the two cords on the same coach end from attracting each other they'd need to be the same polarity.  Opposite poles attract, like poles repel.

 

It might make the two cords dangle in a rather unexpected way, though.  (I've always tried to avoid dangling in an unexpected way.  It never ends happily.)