Iain Rice Type Couplings (& Alternatives)

[2ManySpams]

Hi all

 

I've seen in some of Mr Rice's books that he uses his own sort of coupling. It's a horizontal loop attached under the buffer beam and a ___| shaped hook which has a three link attached to it and drops to disengage with the loop.

 

From photos it looks like these couplings have a much reduced visual impact than conventional tension lock and alternatives such as Kadees. They also look easier to set up than AJs.

 

My question is does anyone have experience of making, fitting and using these? Is there a minimum radius before buffer locking becomes a problem?

 

The only experince I have of alternative types of couling are Kadee (which I'm happy with on Southern coaches) and Alex Jackson (which I have mixed views on from a club layout)

 

Thanks

 

Chris

[wiggoforgold]

There's a description of making and setting them upon p27 of "Detailing and improving Readt to run wagons " (Irwell 1993) He called them the "Bringewood" coupling after the layout they were created for. Quick and cheap to make and install. I used them and found them reliable and unobtrusive, although when they first appeared the current generation of slimmed down tension locks were unheard of on rtr stock.

[2ManySpams]

Thanks WFG - I'll try googling "Bringewood" to see what that pulls up. The book is one of the few of his I haven't got.

 

Any views on the minimum suitable radius?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I have used a similar system on OO (RTR and kit built, running on Jackson or similar wheels) and the short answer is 'exactly as if using three link'; the buffers on the stock have to do the work when vehicles are pushed, so layout curvature and vehicle set up has to be arranged to prevent buffer locking. A safe minimum radius recommendation is 36", but it must be appreciated that this is dependent on all buffers being set at the same height above rail and centres, and limiting side to side 'slop' on all vehicles (that last BTW is where much RTR out of the box will have problems). With a restriction to short wheelbase vehicles, all carefully adjusted, and the layout built with transitions into all curvatures, much tighter radii are possible: down to scale two chains, (practically the same as set track third radius) with 24" radius points, which does fairly represent the tightest loco worked curvatures in dock and other confined space industrial location rail systems.

[2ManySpams]

Thanks for this 34C.

 

As background I've been holding off building my own layout and have been involved in other projects for some years now. We moved to a new house three years ago and after lots of discussion with the authorities now have planning consent and building regs for an extension. This new part of the building will have a large roof space which has been carefully designed to hold a layout room. This is going to be about 18' by 12' - more than I'd ever hoped for!

 

After Christmas we'll have 4-5 months of building mess to put up with but in the meantime I'm re-thinking all my previous layout design assumptions. Gauge, kit-built locos and couplings seem to be a determining factor on minimum radius, which is a major impact on the layout design. So my thinking is best get all these things out of the way and experiment before starting to draw up plans. I think I'd also like to get a feel for the new room before committing to a layout design.

 

So recently I've been doing a lot of reading about track building, board construction and couplings. I do find that many of the lines Iain Rice goes down do seen to strike a cord with me. At the moment I'd like to go EM, 3' min radius and some form of less obtrusive coupling but the last area seems to be a minefield! The only thing that puts me off EM though is the big conversion job to do on all the existing OO stock....

[wiggoforgold]

Iain reckoned they would workdown to 2' radius. I think the minimum I had at that time was probably about 3' so I never tested the minimum. IAR suggested a mod to the Bringewood design which was simply a short vertical bar fixed to the loop of the coupler which would allow "buffers free" propelling of stock.

[2ManySpams]

4mm Coupling options....

 

Iain Rice Bringewood - look ok, min rad 2' to 3'?

 

Dingham Autocoupler - min radius 2'6" My link

 

Winterley Couplings - My link

 

B&B / DG - appear to be similar

 

Sprat & Winkle - look just as bad as the tension lock?

[Ramblin Rich]

This sounds very similar to the original Spratt & Winkle design before the delayed uncoupling loop was added above the hook.

Is this single ended (ie loop on one end of stock, hook on the other end) or double eneded (hook & loop both ends) allowing reversal of stock?

[wiggoforgold]

I actually use DG couplings, which aren't mentioned in your list. Theres a bit about them here:http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/westford/dgcouplings.htm

The reasons I chose them over the Brigewood type were:

1. Theres no commercial support fo9r the Bringewood type-you have to make them yourself. You can buy an etch for DGs.

2. Ease of fitting: I mount them about 2mm below the bufferbeam, either on a square of plasticard stuck to the underside of the floor of 4w wagons, or on a wire bracket for bogie vehicles and locomitives with bogies

3. I found it easier to manouvre themover the uncoupler magnets.

The DGs are pretty unobtrusive. Have a look at the wagon shots in my gallery eg:http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/gallery/image/23376-d6723-approaches-diddington/

[2ManySpams]

I actually use DG couplings, which aren't mentioned in your list. Theres a bit about them here:http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/westford/dgcouplings.htm

 

Ah, that was a typo - the 2nd Dingham should have been the DG! Now corrected.

 

Will have a look at your links. Thank you.

[2ManySpams]

This sounds very similar to the original Spratt & Winkle design before the delayed uncoupling loop was added above the hook.

Is this single ended (ie loop on one end of stock, hook on the other end) or double eneded (hook & loop both ends) allowing reversal of stock?

 

I think single ended Rich.

[Sidecar Racer]

I am a Spratt & Winkle user , the Mk 2 type allowing delayed uncoupling , I dont find them to

be to obtrusive , certainly better than the standard coupling , with a touch of black paint to

hide the brass shine they tend to blend into the background from normal viewing distance .

 

A couple of pics . One close in and one further away .

 

 

 

 

 

[Chinahand]

I realise that this thread is targetted at 00 modellers but I believe some of my N Gauge experiences are relevant.

 

I tried seveeral of the couplers that have been mentioned when looking for a way to get rid of the horrendous Rapido couplers that we are blessed with in N Gauge. Having made up samples of Spratt & Winkle, B&Bs and DGs I felt that they were either very tricky to build and set up or were not 100% reliable.

 

Spratt & Winkles rely on having a piece of wire glued across the buffers which, IMHO, does not look good. They are also very prone to buffer lock.

 

On the face of it when I first opened the kit for the B&B couplers I thought I had found the perfect solution. It was only when I tried assembling them that I found it very difficult to do so without distorting one or more of the parts due to the way the loop and catch are attached to the base etch.

 

The DGs are quite easy to assemble but there is an inherant weakness in the design of the catch which simply wedges into a slot in the base etch. If it's too tight it doesn't always drop over the loop to allow shunting without actually coupling and if it's loose enough to drop back over the loop there is a tendency for it to come out all together. Hmmmm.

 

I then discovered MBD couplers which have completely solved all of those problems. Both the loop and the catch are mechanically pivoted from the base etch and they are quick and easy to assemble. They hold wagons away from each other by enough distance to minimise the risk of buffer lock on anything other than the tightest of radii.When blackened up they become almost invisible.

[Penlan]

....I then discovered MBD couplers which have completely solved all of those problems. ....

MBD's ? , but where from, as you mention on the 'Modelrailforum' they are similar to D&G's, but there is no pointer to a site where these may be either viewed or obtained, or indeed for any further information on them. Google doesn't help either.

 

A reference site for MBD's would be helpful, please.

 

Penlan - using LisaP4 couplings and 3 link..

 

PS, I have been in touch with 2ManySpams off line re. the Bringewood, hopefully Chris is sorted.

[Sidecar Racer]

Spratt & Winkles rely on having a piece of wire glued across the buffers which, IMHO, does not look good. They are also

 

very prone to buffer lock.

 

 

The Mk 2 coupling has a system that hold the wagons away from each other when reversing , so buffer lock

does not happen . It is possible to fit a loop between the buffers rather than a straight wire on them .

 

A slightly out of focus shot , but you get the idea .

 

[Penlan]

Not directly related but there's discussion at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/18741-alex-jackson-couplings/page__p__181112__hl__flubrush__fromsearch__1#entry181112 on the AJ and S&W's etc.,

which followed on from various topics on the old RMweb,

I wonder how flubrush got on with his P4me couplings..

 

There may be something of relevance.

[Chinahand]

Hi Penian,

 

As I said, I model N Gauge and I buy them from N Brass

 

The MBD coupling also seems to have been discussed here earlier Old RMWeb Link

 

I'm not sure if they are available in 00 scale but the above N'Brass link has contact details so give them a call.

[James]

Sprat & Winkle - look just as bad as the tension lock?

They are, I think, a huge improvement over tension look couplings - there's a long post on my blog about them. And if you look at this photo, with vehicles coupled you can barely see them -

 

 

I don't use three link droppers though - instead I use small office staples which, once blackened, are very discreet. And I think moving vehicles both appearing to have their couplings hanging loose looks rather odd.

[2ManySpams]

Thanks James - the 3mm version looks better than photos of the 4mm one I've seen. In fact, looking on the MSE site the DG couplings look heavier than the S&Ws.

 

It's funny that despite all these different types of coupling that one hasn't risen to become The accepted alternative to the tension lock.

 

Something that will be important to me is being able to use whatever couplings double-ended, for locos at least, as the layout is likely to feature a turntable. Whatever solution I adopt, I'd like the minimum of obtrusive fittings on locos, particularly the front buffer beam of the steamers - something that doesn't unduly spoil the look of the loco.

 

Penlan

Thanks for the off-air info. The Bringewood looks more complex than photos in Rice's other books appear to indicate.

 

I'd read the P4me threads on the old site but they didn't seem to reach a conclusion. I have, however, reached a conclusion that AJs are not for me (experience of them being high maintenance on another layout) and that kadees, whilst OK on coaches, look daft on steam era wagons.

 

Thoughts continue.....

 

Considering how many other folk out there have the same deliberations, wouldn't it be good if someone like MSE did a composite pack of all the popular options for comparative test at home.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

In a similar floor area, I have stayed with OO. Not that I don't like what EM or S4 can deliver, but with over 2,000 axles, and the RTR manufacturers now doing better than I can readily kit build...

 

Your phrase regarding a replacement for the tension lock coupler: "one hasn't risen to become The Accepted Alternative'" strikes a chord with me.

 

Basically what is required is something with the simple installation, operational capability and robustness of Kadees, but close enough in looks to three link / screwlink, (or very unobtrusive and able to work around representations of these couplers) and ideally with a very simple installation, like drill one hole, use one screw.

 

Passenger stock, I use Kadee: since it actually bears some resemblance to the actual coupler used on ex-LNER and BR corridor stock, that's an easy decision. For the 4W goods stock I have stayed with the miniature tension lock, positioned so that the wagons buffer up when pushed, good down to 24" radius. Ongoing adaption of these couplers to the 'Brian Kirby' mod for auto uncoupling on the same magnets that actuate the Kadees, keeps me out of mischief. (Fixed formation fully braked goods trains may one day get sprung screwlinks for better appearance, but that's a long way off.)

 

There must be someone out there with the mechanical insight to come up with something better. I live in hope.

[JohnR]

I think that one point Iain made about his Bringewood coupler was that it was compatible with tension locks - so if you were gradually converting your stock, you didnt have to do it it all in one go.

[Turin 60]

I actually use DG couplings, which aren't mentioned in your list. Theres a bit about them here:http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/westford/dgcouplings.htm

The reasons I chose them over the Brigewood type were:

1. Theres no commercial support fo9r the Bringewood type-you have to make them yourself. You can buy an etch for DGs.

2. Ease of fitting: I mount them about 2mm below the bufferbeam, either on a square of plasticard stuck to the underside of the floor of 4w wagons, or on a wire bracket for bogie vehicles and locomitives with bogies

3. I found it easier to manouvre themover the uncoupler magnets.

The DGs are pretty unobtrusive. Have a look at the wagon shots in my gallery eg:http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/gallery/image/23376-d6723-approaches-diddington/

Hi, I've had a look at your wagon photo's as above, Im curious what you do with the hoses & so on that clutter up diesle buffer beam. Don't these dangling appendages get in the way of the DG couplings?

 

Yours John.

[Will Vale]

 I've used the 3mm S&W couplings with staples as James recommends above  and I also think they can look very discreet, especially if you use the "lower" mounting style so the wire runs across at the bottom of the buffers rather than the middle. I had some problems with buffer locking taking LWB wagons (OCA and up, TTAs and down are fine) through Peco medium radius which I've "solved" by using a yard pilot to take stock through the diverging route - cheating, but good for operational interest and I can still run my long locos.

 

Uncoupling is very neat, although I needn't have bothered with the delay action I think - easier just to add more permanent magnets (if you use rare earth ones all you need is a 3mm hole between sleepers). I haven't had any problems with trains parting over the magnets even at slow speeds.

 

If you fit couplings at both ends of wagons you only need the loops on locos. This makes it very easy to run guest stuff at shows - you can just twist a bit of jeweller's wire around the buffer shanks and tweak it to the right height.

 

My one caveat is that all the parts (wire, etched paddle, dropper) are a bit thin and bendy, so you may need to tweak them after packing/unpacking stock if you accidentally bump anything.

 

Will

[James]

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/gallery/image/23376-d6723-approaches-diddington/

Very nice! Despite its short comings, the Lima 37 can still look pretty good when treated with care!

 

Hi, I've had a look at your wagon photo's as above, Im curious what you do with the hoses & so on that clutter up diesle buffer beam. Don't these dangling appendages get in the way of the DG couplings?

That's the advantage of S&W couplings if you use them as Will describes with just the 'goal post' as it leaves you free to add all the detail you need or want to in this area.

 

My one caveat is that all the parts (wire, etched paddle, dropper) are a bit thin and bendy, so you may need to tweak them after packing/unpacking stock if you accidentally bump anything.

We use Gibson wire for S&W's - 0,45mm for the paddle support/pivot and 0,33mm for the coupling bar and it does seem quite durable. And once balckened the 0,33 wire is very hard to notice with the naked eye.

[2ManySpams]

Thanks everyone for your experiences, much appreciated.

 

What started this was a row of Bachmann wagons in my display case near the PC - all nicely weathered but spoilt (IMO) by the standard couplings.