Smith's Couplings, Romford Couplings, and Others: What Functions the Best

[ForeverAutumn]

Hello,

I'm thinking of using Screwlinks for my OO Gauge layout, which works the best, which looks the best, what are easiest to obtain for someone in The United States, and how do you fit them to rolling stock and engines with pre-fitted dummy hooks?

[doctor quinn]

I find that Smiths screw and instanter couplings work best, I found  that Romford are too stiff and tend to uncouple as the slack in the train runs in. all of my U.K. stock is so fitted for operation on Deepcar, the Nottingham club layout. 
 

As regards suppliers, they are widely available, Peter’s Spares are one stockist.

Edited November 5, 2020 by doctor quinn

[ForeverAutumn]

I see, much appreciated!

[brossard]

While screw/3 link couplings are very desirable, I use them on my 0 gauge stock, for my 30 years of 00 experience I always found Kadee to be excellent.  Obviously they don't look like UK couplings, unless you have Gresley or BR Mk 1 coaches which used buckeye couplings.

 

They work reliably, and are easy to install, esp. with NEM pockets which are pretty much universal today.

 

Another coupling system for coaches that I have seen recently is Hunt couplings:

 

https://www.westhillwagonworks.co.uk/hunt-couplings-new-c-2/hunt-couplings-original-oo-gauge-c-15/hunt-couplings-close-coupling-10-pairs-for-nem-sockets-oo-gauge-p-23

 

These magnetic couplings are brilliant for coaches allowing close coupling, much superior to Kadee IMO.

 

John

[jwealleans]

Smiths are easier to work with because they're overscale and so you can see them better for coupling and uncoupling.  The scale ones are a nightmare in that regard and don't use the Smiths scale links for the same reason.

 

I agree about the Romford stiffness issue as well.

 

On vacuum fitted stock, don't put the pipe directly above the coupling hook or you'll struggle with the couplings.   No-one will be able to tell if you offset it to one side unless they look directly down on the stock from above.

[ForeverAutumn]

11 hours ago, brossard said:

While screw/3 link couplings are very desirable, I use them on my 0 gauge stock, for my 30 years of 00 experience I always found Kadee to be excellent.  Obviously they don't look like UK couplings, unless you have Gresley or BR Mk 1 coaches which used buckeye couplings.

 

They work reliably, and are easy to install, esp. with NEM pockets which are pretty much universal today.

 

Another coupling system for coaches that I have seen recently is Hunt couplings:

 

https://www.westhillwagonworks.co.uk/hunt-couplings-new-c-2/hunt-couplings-original-oo-gauge-c-15/hunt-couplings-close-coupling-10-pairs-for-nem-sockets-oo-gauge-p-23

 

These magnetic couplings are brilliant for coaches allowing close coupling, much superior to Kadee IMO.

 

John

I have considered Kadee's, I suppose I could always fit the smiths on some engines and still be able to use the Kadee's interchangeably, and then form a decision on which I like more that way,

[ForeverAutumn]

7 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Smiths are easier to work with because they're overscale and so you can see them better for coupling and uncoupling.  The scale ones are a nightmare in that regard and don't use the Smiths scale links for the same reason.

 

I agree about the Romford stiffness issue as well.

 

On vacuum fitted stock, don't put the pipe directly above the coupling hook or you'll struggle with the couplings.   No-one will be able to tell if you offset it to one side unless they look directly down on the stock from above.

Good to know! as all my stock will be vacuum fitted.

[brossard]

1 hour ago, ForeverAutumn said:

I have considered Kadee's, I suppose I could always fit the smiths on some engines and still be able to use the Kadee's interchangeably, and then form a decision on which I like more that way,

 

30 years ago, I was searching for a reasonable alternative to the dire tension lock.  I knew that was a none starter.

 

I ended up choosing Kadee.  Back then fitment was more difficult since NEM pockets had yet to be invented.  That said, from a looks point of view I think the #5 type of Kadee draft gearbox are less obtrusive and would go for them.  I had actually started fitting the "scale head" Kadees shortly before my 0 gauge revelation.

 

I did have a go with 3 link a couple of times but I never could get on with them.  My opinion is that these are better matched to EM or P4 because of the inherently larger radii and less end swing.

 

I thought I would provide some options and thoughts that may help.

 

John

Edited November 6, 2020 by brossard

[The Johnster]

Depends on your stock, in particular long, rigid wheelbase items such as CCTs, Gresley 8 wheel tenders, ‘Tube’ wagons and so on, your minimum radius curves and turnouts, the presence of gradients where the vertical curve and ‘corkscrew’ effect of curvature may be an issue. Assuming your minimum radius, both horizontal and vertical planes, to be about 36”, you should be fine with Smith’s, and you might be able to reduce that with the cheat of setting the drawhooks a smidge further proud of the buffer beam than scale...  

 

But that will compromise scale between the buffer heads, one of the attractions of using scale couplings in the first place. You are aiming for a situation in which any vehicle can be coupled to any other vehicle and be hauled or propelled anywhere it is allowed on the layout without buffer locking. 
 

Scale couplings are very difficult to manhandle beneath gangways, unless you can train ants to work as shunters...

[ForeverAutumn]

38 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Depends on your stock, in particular long, rigid wheelbase items such as CCTs, Gresley 8 wheel tenders, ‘Tube’ wagons and so on, your minimum radius curves and turnouts, the presence of gradients where the vertical curve and ‘corkscrew’ effect of curvature may be an issue. Assuming your minimum radius, both horizontal and vertical planes, to be about 36”, you should be fine with Smith’s, and you might be able to reduce that with the cheat of setting the drawhooks a smidge further proud of the buffer beam than scale...  

 

But that will compromise scale between the buffer heads, one of the attractions of using scale couplings in the first place. You are aiming for a situation in which any vehicle can be coupled to any other vehicle and be hauled or propelled anywhere it is allowed on the layout without buffer locking. 
 

Scale couplings are very difficult to manhandle beneath gangways, unless you can train ants to work as shunters...

If I had to specify my rolling stock it would be majority Lms stock and maybe even be stock, however It would be nice to run a plethora from the other companies (for simple fun of course and not realistic running,) as for curve and turnout radius, my minimum is second radius (I believe that's an 18 inch), as for all this I'm starting to think Kadee's may be the better option

[Steamport Southport]

Does it have to be Kadees or tension lock then? Kadees look wrong unless they are on suitable rolling stock IMHO.

 

Plenty of unobtrusive couplings available that look much better. Never used them, but seen them in use plenty of times, particularly on small layouts such as shunting planks and I'm sure there will be threads somewhere on the forum where you could get advice.

 

Sprat & Winkle for example. Also Dingham and Alex Jackson. I'm sure there are others.

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/procouplings.html

 

http://www.dingham.co.uk/4mm_coupler.htm

 

Can't find a link for info on AJs. But ISTR they were made from guitar string.

 

 

Jason

[brossard]

5 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Does it have to be Kadees or tension lock then? Kadees look wrong unless they are on suitable rolling stock IMHO.

 

Jason

 

The problem is that, if you are going for the prototype, everything else looks wrong and T/L looks most wrong I think.  I opted for the pragmatic.  You need to find the method that suits you.   I have seen Dingham and these to be about the best even though they are handed.

 

My advice before going into a massive conversion program is to buy some sets of couplings that look promising and give them a try.

 

John

[Captain Kernow]

One thing that will make using 3-links and screw links much easier is for the final link to be made of steel and to then us a magnetic uncoupler, preferably fitted to a small pentorch.

 

I always fit the Smiths hooks now, with a combination of their non-magnetic links and magnetic links.

 

For screwlinks, you used to be able to get steel 'D' links (for the end of the screw link coupling) from Exactoscale, but I don't think these are available any more, but you could consider making something up from soft iron wire or even soldering a section to a brass final 'D' link.

 

[Theakerr]

Very happy with my Accurascale instanter and screw-link couplings.  Easy fit, reasonably easy to use and look pretty good.

[The Johnster]

Sorry, I know it’s not what you want to hear, but 18” radius is way too tight for scale couplings; you’ll probably have trouble with buffer locking even hauling stock.  My advice is that you have a choice of couplings designed for use on setrack; tension lock, the various hinged bar solid hook European RTR types, Hornby Dublo, and Kaydees (which are designed for bogie stock originally and best suited to that use).
 

If it were me, and it was 4 years ago when I re-entered the hobby to find that my eyesight and hand-eye co-ordination meant that I could no longer easily use scale couplings, I’d go for t/ls as the alternatives are equally unsightly.  RTR comes with them anyway.  I have standardised on Bachmann NEMs, in conjunction with Parkside NEM mounting blocks.  Ignore what the RTR people tell you about tension locks being compatible between makes; they aren’t!  Trimming the Parkside mounts and the use of the 4 variants of Bachmann NEMs enables a standard bar height and distance proud of the buffer beams to be established.

 

Some older locos and coach bogies may need mounting positions to be made up, and the old mounts adapted or cut off.  If you have fixed rakes, I can suggest James’ Trains 3D printed scale 3-link, instanter, and coach couplings; they are NEM pocket compatible, very realistic, not expensive, and hold the vehicles’ buffers apart on my minimum curve, a no.3 on a 4th>3rd curved setrack turnout.  No connection, happy customer. 

This nicely segues into another advantage of RTR couplings; I have been able to convert a 4 road fiddle yard into a 6 road one that can accommodate slightly longer trains and has 3 roads from which trains can appear on the layout either from the main running line or an NCB feed from an unmodelled colliery.  Coupling is automatic and uncoupling can be carried out anywhere with a bar ended coupling pole beneath the hooks, stiff wire is perfect.  The only move I can’t replicate is loose shunting and the propelling of uncoupled wagons, which is not the most prominent feature of operating in restricted space BLTs anyway!

 

Edited November 6, 2020 by The Johnster
Unable to spell a 2 letter word

[ForeverAutumn]

19 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Sorry, I know it’s not what you want to hear, but 18” radius is way too tight for scale couplings; you’ll probably have trouble with buffer locking even hauling stock.  My advice is that you have a choice of couplings designed for use on setrack; tension lock, the various hinged bar solid hook European RTR types, Hornby Dublo, and Kaydees (which are designed for bogie stock originally and best suited to that use).
 

If it were me, and it was 4 years ago when I re-entered the hobby to find that my eyesight and hand-eye co-ordination meant that I could no longer easily use scale couplings, I’d go for t/ls as the alternatives are equally unsightly.  RTR comes with them anyway.  I have standardised on Bachmann NEMs, in conjunction with Parkside NEM mounting blocks.  Ignore what the RTR people tell you about tension locks being compatible between makes; they aren’t!  Trimming the Parkside mounts and the use of the 4 variants of Bachmann NEMs enables a standard bar height and distance proud of the buffer beams to be established.

 

Some older locos and coach bogies may need mounting positions to be made up, and the old mounts adapted or cut off.  If you have fixed rakes, I can suggest James’ Trains 3D printed scale 3-link, instanter, and coach couplings; they are NEM pocket compatible, very realistic, not expensive, and hold the vehicles’ buffers apart on my minimum curve, a no.3 on a 4th>3rd curved setrack turnout.  No connection, happy customer. 

This nicely segues into another advantage of RTR couplings; I have been able to convert a 4 road fiddle yard into a 6 road one that can accommodate slightly longer trains and has 3 roads from which trains can appear on the layout either from the main running line or an NCB feed from an unmodelled colliery.  Coupling is automatic and uncoupling can be carried out anywhere with a bar ended coupling pole beneath the hooks, stiff wire is perfect.  The only move I can’t replicate is loose shunting and the propelling of uncoupled wagons, which is not the most prominent feature of operating in restricted space BLTs anyway!

 

My apologies, I wasn't quite clear on what I meant, 18 inch radius is my absolute bare minimum, the actual radius will be much more gentle, and track itself it's peco flex track, so a set radius isnt really an issue

[brossard]

My first attempt at an 0 gauge layout had a 4'6" radius around the end of the basement.  I use 3 link/screwlink as I mentioned.  Scaling this to 4 mm gives a radius of 2'6" and this was pretty much the giddy limit for the couplings.  The couplings are sprung as are the buffers and these could be seen to compress when propelling.

 

John

[The Johnster]

Also my apologies, I am not quite clear on what curves you are needing to operate stock around, which is probably at least as much due to my inability to understand as it is to your ability to describe.  Where is your minimum radius?  This, if it is on siding or a road in a loco shed that will never have stock propelled into it, will only limit RTR stock to the minimum the maker states on the box, but if your stock has scale couplings, and the minimum 18" radius is on one of the running lines, or at the fy throat (as my no.3 is), then all the stock has to negotiate it all the time in normal running; it is the 'ruling radius' however large the rest of your radii are.  This is vital to you choice of couplings. 

 

18" radius is fine for light engines, and for stock with RTR couplings, but if it is anywhere on your main running lines, or on a siding where stock is propelled, or on any turnout, and especially if it is anywhere in the vicinity of a reverse curve. then it has implications for operating with scale couplings.  Scale couplings on sharp curves with rigid framed stock (consider on your mostly LMS layout a Stanier tender coupled to a CCT or Stove R) are pulled in towards the centre point of the curve's radius and do not lie at right angles to the buffer beams.  This means that the distance between the buffer beams is lessened, and at 18" the buffers are brought together.  If they are very lightly sprung you will have a litte more wobble room, and if the drawhook spring is very light (Smiths' are not) you will get a little more there, but the buffer contact will start at a bout 30" and 18" is a lot less; moreover, the effect is a hyperbolic parabola, and the rate at which it worsens increass exponentially (first time I've used that word this year I think) with the decrease in radius.  Once the buffers have contacted and any springing has been taken up, the coupling will pull the vehicles off the road or the buffers will override; either way you are in for a derailment.

 

Put another way, all RTR couplins act as buffers as well as coupling and buffers on RTR stock are decorational, and completly non functioning; they should never touch each other more than the lightest possible 'kiss'.  Scale coupligs necessarily mean the buffers have to act as buffers, and they can only do this on scale curves.  A 5mph restricted curve on a real raliway scales down to something like 4 and a half feet in 4mm; running at scale speeds exascerbates the problem, though in 00 we get away with it because of the overscale coarsness of the rail and wheel profiles.  If you want so see what real coarse scale can do,  look at Hornby tinplate 0 gauge; trains whizzing at 200mph+ around curves a little more than a foot radius, without problem.  The vehicles a scale 6'+ apart at the buffer heads.

[ForeverAutumn]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Also my apologies, I am not quite clear on what curves you are needing to operate stock around, which is probably at least as much due to my inability to understand as it is to your ability to describe.  Where is your minimum radius?  This, if it is on siding or a road in a loco shed that will never have stock propelled into it, will only limit RTR stock to the minimum the maker states on the box, but if your stock has scale couplings, and the minimum 18" radius is on one of the running lines, or at the fy throat (as my no.3 is), then all the stock has to negotiate it all the time in normal running; it is the 'ruling radius' however large the rest of your radii are.  This is vital to you choice of couplings. 

 

18" radius is fine for light engines, and for stock with RTR couplings, but if it is anywhere on your main running lines, or on a siding where stock is propelled, or on any turnout, and especially if it is anywhere in the vicinity of a reverse curve. then it has implications for operating with scale couplings.  Scale couplings on sharp curves with rigid framed stock (consider on your mostly LMS layout a Stanier tender coupled to a CCT or Stove R) are pulled in towards the centre point of the curve's radius and do not lie at right angles to the buffer beams.  This means that the distance between the buffer beams is lessened, and at 18" the buffers are brought together.  If they are very lightly sprung you will have a litte more wobble room, and if the drawhook spring is very light (Smiths' are not) you will get a little more there, but the buffer contact will start at a bout 30" and 18" is a lot less; moreover, the effect is a hyperbolic parabola, and the rate at which it worsens increass exponentially (first time I've used that word this year I think) with the decrease in radius.  Once the buffers have contacted and any springing has been taken up, the coupling will pull the vehicles off the road or the buffers will override; either way you are in for a derailment.

 

Put another way, all RTR couplins act as buffers as well as coupling and buffers on RTR stock are decorational, and completly non functioning; they should never touch each other more than the lightest possible 'kiss'.  Scale coupligs necessarily mean the buffers have to act as buffers, and they can only do this on scale curves.  A 5mph restricted curve on a real raliway scales down to something like 4 and a half feet in 4mm; running at scale speeds exascerbates the problem, though in 00 we get away with it because of the overscale coarsness of the rail and wheel profiles.  If you want so see what real coarse scale can do,  look at Hornby tinplate 0 gauge; trains whizzing at 200mph+ around curves a little more than a foot radius, without problem.  The vehicles a scale 6'+ apart at the buffer heads.

I would say my actual minimum is what would be 3rd radius, one of my engines has trouble on 2nd due to his wheels, that is why it's my bare minimum

[melmerby]

20 hours ago, brossard said:

 

These magnetic couplings are brilliant for coaches allowing close coupling, much superior to Kadee IMO.

 

John

You shouldn't be using Kadees on close couplers else they don't work properly.

Use the Roco/Hornby ones, they hold the Close couplers in line so they work correctly

[Dave John]

Well, To answer the op, buy a few packs of 3 links or screw couplings , fit them to some cheap stock and mess about . I use screw on fixed rakes of coaches and 3 links on short rakes of wagons with magnetic ajs where I need to uncouple. 

 

As Johnster says the big test is pushing rakes of wagons back through pointwork. Sprung buffers at consistent heights are essential. Oh and a drop of oil , even on dumb buffers. 

 

To my eye nothing looks better than wagons being pushed with the buffers actually doing what they are supposed to do. Here is a bit of an example;

 

 

 

I accept that it's harder to manage in OO than EM due to the greater sideplay. However when you get it to work it really is very satisfying, so worth having a shot at. 

[brossard]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

You shouldn't be using Kadees on close couplers else they don't work properly.

Use the Roco/Hornby ones, they hold the Close couplers in line so they work correctly

 

Assuming that "close couplers" refer to coaches with bogie cams, I agree about not using Kadees for coaches.  They have about 3 - 5mm fore and aft slop (I measured the gap once) so close coupling is hard to achieve.

 

I converted several rakes of coaches to the Tony Wright hook and bar method which works very well (page 21 on his thread).

 

However, Hunt couplings are even better.  They fit into NEM pockets and there is no slop.  When a rake was demo'ed at the club, peoples jaws dropped and there were exclamations of "game changer".  The coaches come apart with slight hand pressure but stay coupled for long rakes.  I wouldn't use Hunt couplings on wagons though.

 

John

Edited November 7, 2020 by brossard

[ForeverAutumn]

I will definitely take all this into account I'll buy some packs of couplings and I'll see what I like, thank you all for the helpful tips

 

 

As for my last question, if were have a piece of rolling stock (such as my Oxford Rail 4 plank) how would one swap out the dummy hook in exchange for the 3 link? Would it be a case of cutting off the exposed bit and then drilling tiny holes for the coupling to fit in? Or have I been a complete dummy again and just completely missed an area to remove it? I have a lad who lives out west and he burns holes into his trucks for his couplings which he scratch builds, but I would not feel comfortable melting a hole into a truck...

 

Patrick

[Dave John]

With a bit of luck they will just pull out, if not a 0.4 mm drill to form the slot. Generally I  find Oxford are sparing with glue, so they come apart easily. 

 

 

I know some folk criticise them , but they are cheap and can be knocked into shape quite easily. An excellent place to start. 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2020 by Dave John

[Theakerr]

For a lot of the newer models I leave the hook intact and just insert the chain link.  In fact sometimes I wonder if they are designed to do that because the slots seem to be sized just right for a link .015" diameter