Couplers

[Night Train]

Seeing as this is pretty much a "clean sheet" design from the various manufacturers, has any decision on couplers been made yet? Here is an ideal situation for them to produce something that is small, discrete and works well. Hopefully we dont get abominations like the Arnold N gauge coupler or slightly smaller tension locks.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

56 minutes ago, Night Train said:

Seeing as this is pretty much a "clean sheet" design from the various manufacturers, has any decision on couplers been made yet? Here is an ideal situation for them to produce something that is small, discrete and works well. Hopefully we dont get abominations like the Arnold N gauge coupler or slightly smaller tension locks.

Hi there.  So far there are two UK outline product proposals which have reached drawing stage: the Peco 7-plank wagon and the Heljan Class 31.  Both are shown with NEM coupler pockets, so coupler swaps will be possible.  The Heljan locomotive is pictured without couplers, while the Peco wagon shows the style of close couplers already used for Continental TT:120 by Tillig.  Arnold also use it too, and I think Roco do for their TT as well.

 

Rolling stock with the Tillig close coupler is designed to pull apart for 310mm radius curves, then comes together on straight track.  Being new to TT I’ve not yet tested mine on curved track, but from what I’ve seen so far they do look very promising, although I’m advised level track helps.  Interestingly, in my view they look much better in real life than they appear on the Peco drawing.

 

Piko TT has a loop style coupler that is also used on older Tillig and Berliner TT-Bahnen products, which seems to couple well, but is not as close.  For other manufacturers of TT it’d be worth checking on a case by case basis.  
 

Availability of spares in the UK for either type of standard coupler could become important of course.  Peco provide a couple of types of Narrow Gauge coupler option for 009, which I know I find invaluable for my Narrow Gauge H0e  modelling, so TT spares might be something they could offer when they reach production stage with the wagon (I hope).
 

American TT is limited, but from what I can see on the North American based ‘TTnut’ Forum, I think modellers either use Kadee or Micro-train couplers (as might be expected).

 

The question of couplers is always a big one for railway modellers in any scale, and has been referred to in posts in several TT:120 threads elsewhere (including my own ‘Moorbach’ thread linked in my signature below, with a very helpful photo from @rekoboy for reference).

 

Ironically perhaps, the Arnold style N-Gauge coupling might not look so huge on TT stock, but I’d be surprised if a manufacturer chose it now.  Hope this helps, Keith.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[D9020 Nimbus]

Roco TT models use the Fleischmann 'N' gauge Profi-coupling.

[britishcolumbian]

Keith sums it up pretty well, so I'd just add that yeah, if you've got good track on a permanent layout the Tillig close couplings work pretty well, but are a bit difficult if you'll be shunting a lot, and they look great. The old style coupler used by Piko don't look as great but are much more tolerant of flaws in the trackwork.

 

In North America for NorAm outline equipment we use Microtrains N scale or Kadee HOn3 couplers - they couple up to each other securely, so it makes no difference one way or the other which you choose; I prefer the Microtrains ones because they're almost exactly to scale in 1:120. And of course operationally these are great for shunting. I'm considering using these on my British stock when it comes time - Dapol make an automatic knuckle coupler to fit NEM pockets, I've used this on a model of a North Korean M62 loco I made; it looks the part and couples up with the MT/KD couplers too *but* with the caveat that in a NEM pocket the coupler head is significantly lower than the head of an MT coupler at standard height on North American equipment, so I couldn't mate the M62 to a NorAm train.

 

When Arnold made their first foray into TT in the mid 1990s with a Köf they did indeed use their Rapido N coupling on it; of course anybody who bought one immediately removed it.

[rekoboy]

Not everyone removed the N scale Rapido couplings! Arnold produced a converter to insert Rapido couplings into the original Berliner Bahnen or early Tillig spring pockets. Quite a few German TT modellers experimented with those standard N scale couplings as a possible means of close-coupling long before Tillig introduced NEM pockets and new couplers. I used Rapido couplings Araldited on to Berliner Bahnen or Tillig coupler shafts as a means of close coupling rakes of coaches. Photos to follow!

[britishcolumbian]

Oh, that's cool, I didn't know about that! It was hard to keep up with developments back then, I couldn't really afford an overseas subscription to TT-Kurier so could only grab some when I was over every year or two, and I wasn't aware of TT Board until the mid 2000s.

[rekoboy]

Here you go - some not quite sharp photographic evidence. You can see the old style BTTB/Tillig so-called 'Schlitzkupplung' which fits into a spring loaded slot in the buffer-beam of the vehicle. A later version of this - which I shall photograph tomorrow - used an N scale coupler box with a small coil spring. That was then replaced by Tillig with the NEM pocket in use today. In order to achieve closer coupling, especially of passenger coaches, (East) German modellers developed the hybrid Rapido coupling which can be made from a BTTB/Tillig shaft for the spring slot (preferably employing one of the older metal couplings) Araldited to the head of a standard N Rapido coupling. They work very well! Until the advent of Tillig's new close coupling I used my home-made hybrids for my coaching stock. Why? Firstly it is unobtrusive and looks like a real knuckle coupling, secondly the distance between vehicles is reduced and thirdly, because it has no vertical play, it stays firmly coupled -- even on gradients!

Edited July 13, 2022 by rekoboy

[F-UnitMad]

Years ago when I had a go at British HO I went with Kadee #58 'scale size' couplers, despite them looking rather wrong on 1960's Era BR 4-wheel stock (old Lima wagons repainted & rewheeled).

I later satisfied the desire for 'proper' British couplings by changing to O Scale, having tried 3-links in 4mm years before, and vowed never again!!

I'm tempted by the space-saving & 'something new' potential of TT 120 but if & when I do anything in that scale it'd be 1970s/80s BR Blue, so I reckon I'd use Microtrains N magnetics, which I used years ago in American N gauge. 👍 

Interesting detail about the Dapol magnetics not being compatible with them height-wise.

[Philately]

Can anyone attest to the effectiveness or otherwise of the Hornby TT:120 couplings for (a) their propensity or otherwise to come apart when trains are running and (b) the ease of otherwise of uncoupling using the uncoupler rail while shunting?  I have N Gauge at the moment and its worst aspect is the user-unfriendliness of its couplings.

 

Richard

[Hroth]

The "Hornby TT:120 couplings" are, as mentioned by Keith Addenbrooke above, the same as the style of close couplers already used for Continental TT:120 by Tillig.  Arnold  and Roco TT.  So unless Hornby have done something very odd with them, they should perform in exactly the same way.  Have a look at the Hornby TT:120 trailer.

 

 

Well, at least the first minute or so, before SK pops up!

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Hroth

[peak experience]

I'm interested in a TT, hands off, coupler/uncoupler for small shunting layouts, something akin to Kadees. I'm hoping that there is some capacity to attain this. I'm not content with the Dapol 'easi-shunt' 'N' gauge couplers I've been using on my 'N' gauge stock. They're not 100% reliable, despite my best efforts. 

[britishcolumbian]

9 hours ago, peak experience said:

I'm interested in a TT, hands off, coupler/uncoupler for small shunting layouts, something akin to Kadees. I'm hoping that there is some capacity to attain this. I'm not content with the Dapol 'easi-shunt' 'N' gauge couplers I've been using on my 'N' gauge stock. They're not 100% reliable, despite my best efforts. 

 

The coolest thing I've seen on this front is something a German guy did whilst he was living here in Vancouver: he made DCC-controlled servo mechanisms for MicroTrains couplers mounted in  a boxcar (I think also in a locomotive but I don't remember for sure). It was pretty nifty but I know it took up some space, at least the one in the boxcar, and I'm not sure if it's entirely practicable to fit an entire fleet of rolling stock with decoders.

 

That aside, I think the best answer to your question thus far would be to adapt MicroTrains N or Kadee H0n3 couplers to your TT stock (NorAm TT uses one or the other of these (or both! Some of the stock I've acquired from others or RTR have the H0n3 ones, but they mate just fine with MT, even if a little bit oversized; MT's "N scale" couplers are almost correct size for TT)). Actually the Tillig couplers being used by Hornby may have a similar capability but I've never investigated it as the big hand in the sky has never particularly troubled me.

[MartinRS]

1 hour ago, britishcolumbian said:

The coolest thing I've seen on this front is something a German guy did whilst he was living here in Vancouver: he made DCC-controlled servo mechanisms for MicroTrains couplers mounted in  a boxcar (I think also in a locomotive but I don't remember for sure). It was pretty nifty but I know it took up some space, at least the one in the boxcar, and I'm not sure if it's entirely practicable to fit an entire fleet of rolling stock with decoders.

I remember recently reading an article online about a US outline loco fitted with a DCC servo operated coupler but can't find the link. I did find this though which links here.

Returning to model railways after an 30 years I'm surprised that control of couplers, even if just for locos, has not been adopted by manufacturers, except in scale 1.

I just found this, another example.

Edited November 9, 2022 by MartinRS
Add another link

[BachelorBoy]

On 13/07/2022 at 16:25, britishcolumbian said:

a model of a North Korean M62 loco I made;

That sounds interesting. Could you post more about that please (probably under in a more appropriate subject heading elsewhere)?

 

 

[britishcolumbian]

1 hour ago, BachelorBoy said:

That sounds interesting. Could you post more about that please (probably under in a more appropriate subject heading elsewhere)?

 

 

Here you go:

 

 

[CloggyDog]

On my Czech TT fleet for Nové Město (see sig for link to layout thread), I've adopted the Kühn version of the Tillig coupler. This has a small tab on the underside of the head which helps with vertical alignment. Kühn sells these in bulk packs (part #74900 for 24 heads) and being NEM they just plug into the standard 358 socket. Tillig do a conversion coupler of their head on the BTTB-style sprung mount: Tillig #08847 is a 10-pack.

 

Operationally on an exhibition layout, they are fairly reliable, but not perfect - coupling on curves can be problematic. 

 

I use a double-ended shunting pole with a magnet on one end to raise the hooks from above and a flat plate at the other to lift the hook tails from below. 

 

One friend has swapped the couplers on his Czech TT fleet for the Dapol N gauge Easi-Mate buckeye-type, but at over £5 per vehicle, that's a bit too pricey for me. 

Edited November 9, 2022 by CloggyDog

[Philately]

Thank you to all who were kind enough to reply to my earlier post, but I'm still a bit confused.

 

I'm basically a train set operator rather than a modeller, who wants to have a railway that enables predictable and reasonably realistic shunting (and long-distance train runs).  There's no point in jumping out of the N Gauge frying pan into the TT:120 fire if the Hornby couplers, of whatever provenance, aren't reliable and easy to work with. FWIW I don't do exhibition layouts, and I have zilch knowledge of Continental/American couplers.

 

So I'm trying to find out whether the Hornby system, (a) on straight track couples up consistently, (b) on straight track, with the aid of an uncoupler rail/device uncouples reliably, and ( c) trains when coupled up stay that way.  If Hornby are following Continental practice, then do Continental couplers measure up?

 

This isn't an absolute yes/no thing.  A score of 7/10 would be a win for me.

 

Richard

 

 

[NCB]

Think this needs to be tried out with Hornby stock to get a useful answer. Things like weight of stock come into play.

[britishcolumbian]

5 hours ago, Philately said:

If Hornby are following Continental practice, then do Continental couplers measure up?

 On balance, yes. An important thing is to use a height gauge to make sure the couplers are lined up correctly otherwise they'll be a bit sensitive to rough track, but once that's done, they're good. They couple up well on straight track and uncouple well with an uncoupling tool (I haven't used uncoupler rails and don't know if such exists, never bothered to pay attention), but they don't like curves for coupling on.

[britishcolumbian]

2 hours ago, NCB said:

Think this needs to be tried out with Hornby stock to get a useful answer. Things like weight of stock come into play.

I can't see that Hornby stock is going to be too much different in terms of weight, at least not for locomotives and coaching stock; shorty mins and vans may be a possible issue if Hornby don't put sufficient weight into it, but honestly I can't see them being much lighter than a Continental E/Es open wagon. Hornby do seem to be following all the NEM standards, I don't see why they'd deviate on the weight?

[5Dublo2]

19 minutes ago, britishcolumbian said:

I haven't used uncoupler rails and don't know if such exists, never bothered to pay attention

I vaguely remember around the date Hornby first released the catalog, that someone (either on RMweb, Facebook or a comment on a YouTube video) did say that the a TT/12mm uncoupling rail is something new that the continental modellers don't have. Assuming this is true then we will have to await Hornby's being available to find out how well it works.

[D9020 Nimbus]

There is an uncoupling track in the Tillig ballasted track range, and I think in Modelllgleis too. They are electrically not manually operated. I haven't tried either, preferring the hand uncoupling tool which Tillig supply. This is basically a magnet on a stick, so you need to have overhead access to lift the hooks—not usually a problem with wagons, but can be with coaches.

[britishcolumbian]

Just now, D9020 Nimbus said:

but can be with coaches.

The stick from an ice lolly or a tongue depressor split lengthwise works well from beneath. This works well enough for me since coaches aren't generally being shunted, but rather kept in rakes... however a thought does strike me: what if one is modelling a train that splits (do these exist/did they exist in the UK?), where you have to uncouple the last coach or two because they continue in a different direction from the rest of the train? This happens at stations at the platform, might be a challenge doing this with the British high platforms?

[CloggyDog]

8 hours ago, Philately said:

This isn't an absolute yes/no thing.  A score of 7/10 would be a win for me.

 

Richard

 

I'd say 7/10,maybe 8/10, provided Hornby adhere to the NEM standard. 

[DaveArkley]

2 hours ago, britishcolumbian said:

The stick from an ice lolly or a tongue depressor split lengthwise works well from beneath. This works well enough for me since coaches aren't generally being shunted, but rather kept in rakes... however a thought does strike me: what if one is modelling a train that splits (do these exist/did they exist in the UK?), where you have to uncouple the last coach or two because they continue in a different direction from the rest of the train? This happens at stations at the platform, might be a challenge doing this with the British high platforms?

Did exist and to a lesser extent still do.

 

Cheers

Dave

Edited November 9, 2022 by DaveArkley