Realistic Couplings

[Stoker]

For those of you who are like me and passionately hate tension-lock couplings, what is your preference for an alternative?

I'm currently at the benchwork stage, so I'm starting to consider what standards I'd like to adopt, and for the longest time I've wanted to try out 3-link couplings. However having had no personal experience of them, I'm not sure how practical this would even be on what will predominantly be a shunting layout. There's also the issue of buffer lock - I've read various things about this; that sprung buffers help a lot, also that you should keep radii as large as possible (which is my intention, why bother with realistic couplers if you're going to have unrealistic curves?). I've also read that some people say you can't really propel 3 link on anything other than EM or P4 because the sloppy standards of 00 cause frequent derailments. Then of course, some say 3 link is too fiddly, while others don't seem to mind.

Having looked at Richard Bohill's "Finlow" it seems he uses what look like Romford screw links without any issue.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

[TheQ]

Favourite Dingham, Available OO, O, I really need to do a mass fitting for the EM rolling stock..

Second favourite  Sprat and Winkle (as it's available in N as well.)

 

Although AJs are probably better for unobtrusiveness, I think the setting up will be too much for my clumsy fingers..

 

Having spent a day operating a shunting EM layout with 3 link couplings at a show , never again, its a right pain. 3 link / screw link destroys the realism for the punters, with the hand of God appearing over the back scene every couple  minutes.

 

Though I would use 3 and screw link for fixed rakes with just the previously mentioned at the end of the sets

[Torper]

Favourites Dinghams (you've got to be OK with them being single ended but they don't need sprung buffers) but I don't like Sprat & Winkle.  I agree with TheQ about AJs and also about 3-link - far and away the best looking but not really suitable for a shunting layout.

 

DT

Edited April 2, 2019 by Torper

[TheQ]

I must admit If Dinghams were available in N that's what I'd go for..

[corneliuslundie]

I used to operate an EM layout with Alex Jackson couplings at shows and it was a dream - remote uncoupling, unobtrusive and cheap. But the owner of the layout spent some time before every show tweaking the couplings, as they are pretty sensitive to misalignment.

For my own EM layouts I have opted for Spratt & Winkle. they are pretty easy to install and not so sensitive to misalignment as Jacksons, though to be honest I have never yet got a layout to the point where I have done much operating.  The one big disadvantage, at least the way I install them, is the slot in the bufferbeam, though it is possible to mount them lower - you need to decide before you start installing any. Again remote uncoupling. I have found that the links tend to go AWOL but that may just be me. I do install three links on some vehicles where they will stay in fixed rakes. 

For our new club 7mm layout we have opted for Dinghams.  The etchings are not cheap but they are well thought out, though even in 7 mm somewhat fiddly to assemble, especially the loop on the end without a dropper. They also need some planning as they are single ended.  However, they look to be fairly inconspicuous. But again, we shall use three links within rakes which will stay together.

Jonathan

Edited April 2, 2019 by corneliuslundie

[Torper]

2 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

For our new club 7mm layout we have opted for Dinghams.  The etchings are not cheap but they are well thought out, though even in 7 mm somewhat fiddly to assemble

 

For 4mm, Dinghams are £13.50 for an etch with enough couplings for 20 vehicles - hardly expensive!  But they are a bit fiddly to assemble though once you've got the hang of it it's not difficult to churn out quite a few in an evening.

 

DT

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Obviously enough, for those vehicles which had knuckle couplers - and it was in service continuously in the UK from late C19th due to the influence of the Pullman company - then a model knuckle coupler is the choice item. For best appearance in 4mm models it is preferable to mount them above standard height for HO, through the bufferbeam where they should be. Full autocoupler performance may still be obtained

 

Bachmann offer this on appropriate RTR OO wagon models, and the results speak for themselves; not surprising when a model coupler resembles the prototype.

https://www.hattons.co.uk/431999/Bachmann_Branchline_37_629A_BRA_Steel_Carrier_Ex_EWS_DB_Schenker_W_/StockDetail.aspx

 

1 hour ago, Stoker said:

...There's also the issue of buffer lock - I've read various things about this; that sprung buffers help a lot, also that you should keep radii as large as possible (which is my intention, why bother with realistic couplers if you're going to have unrealistic curves?). I've also read that some people say you can't really propel 3 link on anything other than EM or P4 because the sloppy standards of 00 cause frequent derailments...

If you provide sufficient -generous - transition into curves, you can propel OO stock down to a 10" radius without bufferlocking, scale for the 1 chain minimum for short wheelbase wagons. It's down to the layout builder to decide on the required transition. If operation is to be all SWB wagons then the transition can be more rapid than if wanting to use bogie vehicles with potentially greater end overhang: that decision needs to be made ahead of track laying. Operation is critical too, no bumping and banging, and the appropriate speed, walking pace down to dead slow as the radius falls below scale for 4 chains. (I have seen real SWB wagons pushed off circa 1 chain curves by slightly too vigorous handling of the 'bufferbeam' equipped tractor used to move the wagons about.

[Porkscratching]

I'm very tempted to go all 3 link, it's not like I'm going to display and run stuff in public so hand of Gawd isn't a problem!

Tbh I'm thinking of making it all myself, deep joy eh!

[CloggyDog]

It depends....

 

My German H0, US H0 and UK OO stock is all Kadee'd (NEM Kadees #17 or #18 in the NEM-pocketed German/UK stock, retro-fitting pockets where necessary) and the US stock is slowly being standardised on scale-head 'whiskered' (ideally the short #153)

 

The German and UK stock have a mix of #17 and #18, sometimes one of each on the same wagon to give me nice close coupling - yes it means my stock is handed, but as some of it is only finished on one side, that's quite usual for me!

 

The EM UK (and UK O stock) is all 3/instanter/screw link, as that's what the prototype uses . I've standardised on Ambis hooks and Smith's links as giving a decently fine appearance without compromising operation under exhibition conditions. Screw links are Smiths or Ambis. IMHO, that consistency is key to successful operation with 3-links - you don't want a mix of hook shapes and link length/thicknesses, get them all the same and it does make life a lot easier. A correctly-shaped shunters' pole helps too. Oh... and that's on a predominantly shunting layout!

 

 

Interestingly, there's a piece in one of the German mags this month (either MIBA or ModellEisenBahner) about fitting and using Dinghams on German H0 stock.

Edited April 2, 2019 by CloggyDog

[Stoker]

Some good input so far gents.

I feel I should clarify that "handedness" would not be a problem for me, given that the layout will be an end-to-end, so the Dinghams are certainly an attractive option. I'm definitely leaning heavily toward these at this point. What really appeals to me about them is that if I were to decide to go 3 link at some point in future (let's say I try it and I like it) it would be really easy to swap the Dinghams for 3 link.

As far as OO vs EM, I'm still undecided, although I really like the look of Peco's new bullhead stuff. 

[Torper]

1 hour ago, Stoker said:

Dinghams are certainly an attractive option. I'm definitely leaning heavily toward these at this point. What really appeals to me about them is that if I were to decide to go 3 link at some point in future (let's say I try it and I like it) it would be really easy to swap the Dinghams for 3 link.

You could actually do it bit by bit as Dinghams are compatible with three-link.

 

DT

[davknigh]

I’ve been using Dinghams in 4mm for over ten years now and never regretted the change. When blackened as recommended they are quite unobtrusive plus they emerge from the buffer beam as couplers should. I did do three link for a short while but one show cured me of that. The effect really comes into play with smaller engines. Compare a “P” class or a Peckett with Dinghams to the same engine with any other coupler with the possible exception of AJs or three link and you’ll see what I mean.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[The Johnster]

Once upon a time, there was a modeller who operated a a British outline layout with scale couplings, Smith's and Jackson.  His period was 1958-60, so there were no 3 links, and stock was fitted with instanter or screw as appropriate.  The instanters were mostly used in the long position as his layout was a BLT, but he shortened them when he ran his stock on main line club layouts at shows.  Few of his wagons were fitted with sprung buffers, and his insistence of 3' radius curvature where stock was to be propelled and avoidance of reverse curves, along with the use of transition curves (his layouts had very few straight sections!) avoided buffer lock when propelling.

 

Then circumstances proscribed that he could not indulge himself in his hobby for some time, and when he was able to come back to it, he found that his eyesight and steadiness of hand had deteriorated (along with a few other things, but that's another website), and he was no longer comfortable with using the scale couplings; in fact it was driving him nuts!.  In the time he'd been dormant as a modeller, tension locks had lost some of their horribleness, becoming at least smaller and less obtrusive, and allowing closer to scale distance between coupled vehicles, but they were still pretty ghastly.

 

However, after a period of considering the alternatives, he rejected them all, Kaydees because they were no better than t/ls in appearance on British outline stock of the period (he'd gone back in time to 1948-58 by now) and came in a bewildering variety of types, Spratt/Winkles and similar systems because they seemed fiddly and faffy to install for reliable operation (a paramount requirement).   He even considered developing his own wire hook and loop system, but in the end accepted reluctantly (sound fx heavy sigh) that he had to revert to t/ls and could no longer consider himself a 'proper' modeller.

 

This brought about unexpected problems and unexpected benefits.  He found that the so-called standard tension lock coupler was anything but, and had to deal with all sorts of compatibility issues between different profiles and setting the height above the rail correctly, and made a lot of work for himself by mistakenly assuming that height above the rail is the same thing as distance below the wagon floor or relative to the mounting on the bogie.  He got it all right in the end, though, and has 100% coupling reliability in operation.  He does not require automatic uncoupling as he has no objection to the hand of god on a home layout; in fact the hand of god operates the signals and changes the insulfrog turnouts as well as uncoupling with a wire hook/torch shunting pole.  He requires to uncouple at any point on his layout and refused to be constricted by fixed point magnets.

 

The unexpected benefit was that he could now use much sharper curvature, and while he objected to the appearance of that on the scenic part of his layout, the fiddle yard was another matter!  He was able to extend his fiddle yard from 4 to 7 roads and increase the length of his coal trains from 8 to 11 wagons.  He would, in an ideal world, like to prevent automatic coupling in some shunting moves, but The Johnster (For It Was He, all along) has learned to love his tension locks.

 

Realistically, the only way I can use the scale couplings I really want would be to convert to 0 gauge, and I have neither the space nor money for that.  But there is no substitute in appearance or realism of operation IMHO in traditional outline 4mm for scale couplings.  My choice was between accepting an inferior alternative or giving up having a railway; no brainer and I am thus qualified.  Using a shunting pole with scale couplings is performing an actual railway operation in the way it was actually done; doesn't get much better than that!

[PMP]

8 hours ago, Stoker said:

I'm currently at the benchwork stage, so I'm starting to consider what standards I'd like to adopt, and for the longest time I've wanted to try out 3-link couplings. However having had no personal experience of them, I'm not sure how practical this would even be on what will predominantly be a shunting layout. There's also the issue of buffer lock - I've read various things about this; that sprung buffers help a lot, also that you should keep radii as large as possible (which is my intention, why bother with realistic couplers if you're going to have unrealistic curves?). I've also read that some people say you can't really propel 3 link on anything other than EM or P4 because the sloppy standards of 00 cause frequent derailments. 

 

If intending to use 3-link you need to determine the minimum radii of the pointwork and curves you’re going to use. You’ve not mentioned what era/stock you’re using that will also have a significant impact on the practicality of three links. I’ve used them on three different OO layouts using Peco Code 75 track and the minimum radius I’ve used is medium, however that does restrict the type of stock and locomotives that work without bufferlock. There’s no issue regarding OO standards and three links, but radii will be your most limiting factor.

 

I’m also using Dinghams, they too have operational restrictions regarding curve radii for uncoupling and coupling. They’re a bit fiddly to assemble as mentioned in a previous post and stock once fitted is ‘handed’, or they’ll only work effectively facing one direction. 

 

Get a good idea of your track plan/available space/stock requirements, and that will give an early indicator as to which types of couplings will work best for you.

[Captain Kernow]

In terms of propelling, I would agree with what PMP has said in terms of radii.

 

Short overhangs are also good if you are propelling, regardless of whether in OO, EM or P4 (so something like a Pannier propelling some 16t mineral wagons will work better than a Prairie propelling some longer wheelbase vans, for example, round the same radius of curve).

 

Buffer size also plays a part, so the larger the buffers, the more reliable the operation, which is why many industrial locos had large buffers, to cope with the sharper curves in industrial sidings and systems.

 

It also helps if the buffers are sprung.

 

[Stoker]

PMP makes a good point, I should probably clarify what my parameters are a bit more.

The layout is going to be a china clay siding, mostly running stock dating from the 60's through to the early 2000's. The largest wagon would be a bogie cargowaggon, the next largest would be a PBA, and the smallest would be an OOV/UCV clayhood. The largest locomotive would likely be a class 66, the smallest being a Sentinel. As for radii, I'm going for realism, and this will be an end-to-end layout, so large turnouts and minimal use of scale radius curves would be the order of the day.

Finally, before we get any more long winded third person accounts of blurry eyes and wobbly hands forcing bitter acceptance of tension lock couplers, I should point out that I'm 32 years old, and hopefully have a way to go yet before any of that becomes an issue. Honestly, were it to come to that, I'm more likely to starve to death in my basement, having spent 3 days trying to couple two wagons at age 80, than I would be to reluctantly embrace the dreaded tension lock - family will say things like "he went out doing what he loved" and "that's the way he would've wanted to go" while the mortician pulls photoetched coupler components out of my solder burned wrinkled fingertips.

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Captain Kernow said:

In terms of propelling, I would agree with what PMP has said in terms of radii.

 

Short overhangs are also good if you are propelling, regardless of whether in OO, EM or P4 (so something like a Pannier propelling some 16t mineral wagons will work better than a Prairie propelling some longer wheelbase vans, for example, round the same radius of curve).

 

Buffer size also plays a part, so the larger the buffers, the more reliable the operation, which is why many industrial locos had large buffers, to cope with the sharper curves in industrial sidings and systems.

 

It also helps if the buffers are sprung.

 

It’ll help if the buffers are sprung, but not too strongly.  Most modern RTR sprung buffers are fine, as are any Silurian Era Peco ‘Wonderful Wagons’, as they are sprung by a flexible plastic bar that bends under soft compression.  Be careful of buffers with actual springs; this is certainly a more prototypical method but the springs are nearly always far too strong.  The buffers will not compress properly unless the train is very heavy, and the wagons will ping about all over the place when you’re shunting. 

[PMP]

3 hours ago, Stoker said:

The layout is going to be a china clay siding, mostly running stock dating from the 60's through to the early 2000's. The largest wagon would be a bogie cargowaggon, the next largest would be a PBA, and the smallest would be an OOV/UCV clayhood. The largest locomotive would likely be a class 66, the smallest being a Sentinel. As for radii, I'm going for realism, and this will be an end-to-end layout, so large turnouts and minimal use of scale radius curves would be the order of the day.
 

 

I've been in the mancave and by chance I have a couple of Hj cargowaggons, no 66's though. Because the cargo's have such wide buffers they propel through Peco streamline Cd75 large radius points with no buffer lock between them or the 07 I used as 'power'. I've not got a reverse cross over which would be the acid test but the combination  above worked ok. In the past I've ran an 08 with the cargo's and don't recall any issues on large radii Peco, but again not through a reverse crossover. Your clay hoods should be ok too with the shorter locomotives, but 37's might not work on reverse curves. Capt Kernow is on the money re the medium length stock too, ive found odd combinations that don't work, eg 57xx panniers are ok on my autotrailer sets but 64xx panniers bufferlock if coupled bunker to autotrailer, similar to CK,'s prairie example.

There's no one stop answer unfortunately, the dinghams ive set up basically need to be on straight track to uncouple and couple reliably, or a very large radius curve. The benefits are they are discreet and reliable when set up well, I have a high 90 percentile success rate with mine. You also need to consider the actuation of them, location and magnet hardware choices.

 

https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2018/12/29/notes-from-the-man-cave-getting-to-grips-with-dinghams/

 

The above link will give some feel for the factors to think of with Dinghams in 4mm scale, used with OO track.

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by PMP

[PMP]

3 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

In terms of propelling, I would agree with what PMP has said in terms of radii.

 

Short overhangs are also good if you are propelling, regardless of whether in OO, EM or P4 (so something like a Pannier propelling some 16t mineral wagons will work better than a Prairie propelling some longer wheelbase vans, for example, round the same radius of curve).

 

Buffer size also plays a part, so the larger the buffers, the more reliable the operation, which is why many industrial locos had large buffers, to cope with the sharper curves in industrial sidings and systems.

 

It also helps if the buffers are sprung.

 

As CK mentions sprung buffers can give an advantage, the problem you may come across is the lack of suitable buffers to fit, there isn't a great deal of post 80's detailing components like buffers available. One way round this is to spring the drawhook for three links some types will be easier to do than others. Again the wider and more gentle your curves the better.

[Dave John]

I rather like ajs, but it has taken 30 years of messing about to get it vaguely right . 

 

 

They do work well in 2mm. At least they do for Caley JIm. But thats really very clever 2mm fs stuff, takes a bit of practice . 

 

[Stoker]

5 hours ago, PMP said:

As CK mentions sprung buffers can give an advantage, the problem you may come across is the lack of suitable buffers to fit, there isn't a great deal of post 80's detailing components like buffers available.

 

Which is something I noticed when searching for sprung buffers, or even just metal upgrades for a finer appearance, the more I look at it the more it becomes apparent that the best time to have done this was about 10 years ago when there were still a few suppliers around. This is the exact thing that is putting me off of EM gauge, lack of availability for common parts. The only outfit that makes EM finescale wheels for the Hornby Sentinel is Ultrascale, and they won't produce their next batch until they've had sufficient interest. I can't not have a Sentinel on this layout, that's a deal breaker. I remember the days when you could pick up the blower and give Branchlines a call, and have all the bits and pieces you'd need in the post the next working day.

All this sums to make Dinghams more attractive. Sounds like the only downside might be coupling on curves. As I've said I'm going for prototypical track geometry on this layout, so I'm hoping that won't really be a problem.

[JohnR]

I think that in a thousand years time, we will still be discussing two things. Brexit and what type of couplings to use on our models!

[PMP]

4 hours ago, Stoker said:

 

Which is something I noticed when searching for sprung buffers, or even just metal upgrades for a finer appearance, the more I look at it the more it becomes apparent that the best time to have done this was about 10 years ago when there were still a few suppliers around. This is the exact thing that is putting me off of EM gauge, lack of availability for common parts.

This might affect you with wagon wheel choice too, I don't know if replacement cargowaggon wheels are available for example it's worth checking if you already have a clear idea of your fleet requirements.

Its worth getting a pack of dinghams to try and a couple of large radius points to start. That way you can test before you get too far into the project, though it sounds like 3-links may well work for you too.

The other option thats quite popular are Kadee's obviously not uk prototypical but far better looking and effective than tension locks.

[Stoker]

The wheels on the cargowaggon (go round and round?) as it sits out of the box aren't too bad. Neither are what I got with the DJ Models tiger wagons, or the Bachmann polybulk for that matter. One thing I would like to do for my eventual CDA fleet is to upgrade the single sets of disc braked wheels (for those who are not aware CDAs have one pair of wheels disc braked, the other pair tread braked) to the Stenson stainless brake rotors. I think that would set them off nicely.

I do think you are correct that I'll just need to test things, and not assume that following the prototype means I can fit anything anywhere. One thing people often forget, myself included, is that the real world railways have their own restrictions just like the models, some sidings and branches were not suitable for large bogie wagons, and careful operation is sometimes required through turnouts. Buffer lock can and does cause derailments on the real thing, although it's rare. That said, I think we make life hard for ourselves in the model world when we mix trainset standards with model standards - I don't think I've ever measured a turnout on google maps that was less than 75 feet in length, which would be about a foot long in 00 scale. That's probably considered a small radius turnout, but in model form we'd call it a large radius because compared to trainset stuff it's massive.

[RedgateModels]

On 02/04/2019 at 09:56, Stoker said:

I've also read that some people say you can't really propel 3 link on anything other than EM or P4 because the sloppy standards of 00 cause frequent derailments. 

 

With respect, cobblers. I use home made 3 links on the intermediate wagons on Summat Colliery (the ends of each set of 5 are tension locks as I use BK uncoupling) and have never had a derailment due to the standard plastic Bachmann buffers locking etc. Peco code 75 steamline points and track including being propelled through an asymmetric 3 way point.

 

The Bachmann hooks fitted as standard to their 16 tonners take the copper wire stripped from "bell wire" with no modification, so almost free to fit for me too

 

Having now read the whole thread I see that CK and PMP have basically covered what I have said anyway, sorry chaps for duplicating your good advice

Edited April 3, 2019 by RedgateModels
didn't read the whole thread before posting