Iain Rice Type Couplings (& Alternatives)

[2ManySpams]

TBG That looks very simple and neat. Just 4 parts if I'm looking correctly... Horizontal hoop on one end; vertical hoop on the other (to align the hook?); hook bar and soldered to it a dropper. No moving parts (just bend in the wire).

[Nickey Line]

A reference was made earlier in this thread to the P4Me coupling. I use this simplified AJ-type coupling on my Inglenook and would not hesitate to use it more widely. Made with .010 steel wire and cut-down panel pins, it's very cheap, easy to mount and very reliable, operated by electromagnet. The only proviso is that it would not work too well on standard 00 as there is too much slop. My Inglenook is 00 finescale (whatever that is!)Would work equally well on 00-SF, EM and obviously P4/S4.

[James]

I'm sure gun black would work just as well if not better.

Gun Blue works very well - I use it on brass a lot! I'll need a new bottle soon, I bought mine from Martyn Welch at York some years ago!

[flubrush]

Trying to get my head around how the delayed uncoupling works....presumably some cunning interface with the second, higher bent wire??

You have to to the shuffle. The stock is buffered up, the hook clears the bar and the hook wire is pulled down by the magnet. The wire will only go so far until the delay prong above the hook hits the bar on the other vehicle. However, the hook has disengaged and the vehicles can be pulled apart. The delay prong drops off the coupler bar and the hook wire drops even further such that the end of the delay prong is now lower than the coupler bar. At this point you can reverse and push the vehicle back to buffer up to the other wagon, and the delay prong is now under the hook bar so that when you propel the wagons away from the magnet, the hook is held under the bar and cannot couple. When you have placed the wagon, and pull away, the delay prong clears the coupler bar and the hook wire pops back up to its rest position, ready to couple up again.

 

Some people object to the shuffle to get the delay prong under the bar, but I found that if you got the coupler clearances as tight as you could you could minimise the amount of shuffle. I worked with electromagnets so the shape of the hook wasn't really critical. But if you decide to work with permanent magnets, then you have to make sure that your hooks really will lock when they pass over a magnet in tension to prevent unwanted train divides. Note the shape of the official S&W hook or the Hornby hook (OK it works the opposite way to the S&W but the principal is the same).

 

Jim.

[James]

Some people object to the shuffle to get the delay prong under the bar

 

I don't like the shuffle so we'll be using strategically placed electro magnets (for S&W couplings) so stock can be placed where it's needed. It may require test operating sessions but the result should make operation quite smooth and protypical hopefully.

[Jamie]

OK 'spams, here's two typical examples dug out the box:

 

Underview of one example. This has bent into an S-bend, the weak points being in the end hook and where the hole exists for the magnetic dropper. Partly my fault for opening up the hole I reckon:

 

Second example, hook section bent backwards:

 

Now, I've had to rethink my plans to strengthen them having looked through the fleet. Adding bits will upset the balance of the hook and paddle. Perhaps I shall shy away from that hornet's nest, and just keep mending them as and when.

[Mikkel]

I believe I read somewhere on RMWeb (Mikkel's blog?) that using Peco track pins was a good way to mount the paddles - and I can see it'd avoid the need to get really sharp bends in the wire staple - but I didn't get on with that when I tried it. Possibly it would work with a different diameter drill bit, to get a friction fit?

 

Worth exploring at any rate.

The track pin style of mounting the 3mm S&Ws seems to work OK so far. It's maybe not as neat as the recommended way, but seems quite a bit faster. There's a couple of shots towards the bottom of the Comments on this page (which is an updated version of the write-up on GWR modelling mentioned earlier): http://www.rmweb.co....nkle-couplings/

 

Some of the other options illustrated above are looking rather good though.

[2ManySpams]

Thanks all for the continued comments - all very much appreciated and apologies for not being on line for a few days. Looks like I've got some more reading and following of links to do. Cheers all.

 

Something I hadn't really appreciated before was the double shuffle for delayed uncoupling vs the uncouple at the desired location debate.

[Darwinian]

One option that has not been discussed and avoids the double shuffle is the Dingham coupler mentioned in one of the early posts.

 

Advantages: No double shuffle, Fits into buffer beam hook slot, Compatible with 3-links (although fiddly), Latches in open to push vehicle after uncoupling, Coupling moves out of harms way if end of vehicle is knocked, Vehicles can be lifted out by tilting one end up and the other down, very inconspicuous at one end, tolerates about 1mm variation in vertical alignment. fairly quick to assemble. Relatively inexpensive.

 

Disadvantages: Handed so stock cannot be turned, Hoop end looks unprototypical, Doesn't like tight radius curves, Propelling stock relies on buffers, upwards movement means it doesn't work under gangways as far as I can figure out but I haven't experimented yet.

 

I'm trying them out as I have quite a lot of 3-link/screw fitted stock so I can gradually re-fit. My branch line doesn't use turning of stock or locos.

 

It occured to me that if I did want to turn locos I could use the latch hook on the loco and have a double looped wagon on the back of my train (This would not work for guards vans however unless there was another converter wagon on the end of the train with hooks like the loco.

 

I'll try to post some pictures at the weekend. Here's my Rhymney P1 with latch hook with added screw coupling on the front to be going on with;) .

 

Adrian

[Darwinian]

Rught, a bit later than intended but here goes.

 

Here are some pictures of the dingham couplers in action. I have no affiliation with Dingham I just thought others reading this topic might be interested.

 

 

I think these are self-explanatory. There is a permanent magnet beneath the track to operate the lifting loop.

 

 

Adrian

[jasp]

A reference was made earlier in this thread to the P4Me coupling. I use this simplified AJ-type coupling on my Inglenook and would not hesitate to use it more widely. Made with .010 steel wire and cut-down panel pins, it's very cheap, easy to mount and very reliable, operated by electromagnet. The only proviso is that it would not work too well on standard 00 as there is too much slop. My Inglenook is 00 finescale (whatever that is!)Would work equally well on 00-SF, EM and obviously P4/S4.

Hi Whinge etc

I remember seeing the P4Me coupling but can find no sign of it now - could you provide a reference?

On the subject, what ever happened to Lisa of P4Me fame?

Cheers

Jim

[Kenton]

I remember seeing the P4Me coupling but can find no sign of it now - could you provide a reference?

RMWeb Topic

[2ManySpams]

Thanks Adrian for the photos of the Dingham. Stupidly busy at work on the run up to Xmas so visits and posts to RMweb are few and far between. Looking forward to the Xmas break and then I think I'll place some coupling orders and trial out what works best for me.

 

More than happy for folk to continue posting their experiences of making, using and maintaining the various options though. Particularly peoples thoughts on minimum radii that works well for the types.

 

Seasons greetings

 

Chris

[Nickey Line]

Hi Whinge etc

I remember seeing the P4Me coupling but can find no sign of it now - could you provide a reference?

On the subject, what ever happened to Lisa of P4Me fame?

Cheers

Jim

 

Further info can be found here... an old workbench topic of mine...

[geon]

I needed something easy, low cost and reliable. Attaching a small paper staple to the bottom (dropper) of Bachmann tension lock couplings provides automatic coupling and uncoupling with no unsightly uncoupling ramps or lifts. I agree that if you are a scratch or kit builder or have the time to set up and adjust coupling then some of the ideas above look neater.

 

 

You have to use Bachmann couplings because they have a non-ferrous (non-magnetic) dropper

[benachie]

I needed something easy, low cost and reliable. Attaching a small paper staple to the bottom (dropper) of Bachmann tension lock couplings provides automatic coupling and uncoupling with no unsightly uncoupling ramps or lifts. I agree that if you are a scratch or kit builder or have the time to set up and adjust coupling then some of the ideas above look neater.

 

You have to use Bachmann couplings because they have a non-ferrous (non-magnetic) dropper

I think it would be fair to acknowledge that this is Brian Kirby's idea

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35605

 

Alan

[jcm@gwr]

I am also a keen S&W user, the other way to 'blacken' the brass etches [for anything]

is to use a permanant marker, this works fine and doesn't interfere with the operation.

I've also made up [for my F-in-Law] and fitted Dinghams in 7mm, a bit more fiddly than

3 / 4 mm S&W. I also made a couple up in 4mm, not fun, but they did work!

If you look at the other thread running at the moment on here [also about couplings]

There is a link to a Swedish coupling called the TB Coupling, they look like an early,

simple version of S&W, but can work either from top or bottom [link to loop].

Personally I like S&W because I think they are discreet and reliable, with regard to

the mounting plate I use it because it gives consistancy in fitting and it's easier to

batch build a load ready, without lots of bits laying around.

Cheers, Jeff

[Brinkly]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this. Iain's coupling hook is an Alex Jackson (and works in the same way), with the 'tail' point up so that it couples up goal post on the other side. I think I have a photo showing this somewhere if it is of any use.

 

Regards,

 

Nick

[geon]

 

I think it would be fair to acknowledge that this is Brian Kirby's idea

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35605

 

Alan

 

Thanks for the reminder Alan.

 

Yes I have seen Brian's excellent and extensive post. I have also seen them at exhibitions, possibly on Brian's layout. They have worked well on Solway Sands layout for five years. The YouTube video is a response to questions asked at exhibitions. I will add a link to RMweb on YouTube. John

[john new]

What is the difference between a S&W Mk1 and the current type 3s? I have a pack bought years ago for a trial and then not used so are likely to be Mk1s.

 

Is the minimum radius for them still 3ft (why the original pack were never fitted) and if not what is it now?