Wright writes.....

[Clearwater]

Scanning through this debate, it seems to me that any manual operator intervention at a show could be a good thing. It provides a natural break for the audience to ask why are you doing that? What's the reason it's operated like this?

 

Let's face facts that if you're under 50, you've probably never seen steam outside the preservation era and have unlikely seen the small scale shunting operations of a goods yard. If you're under 30, you may not even have seen much loco hauled passenger trains either.

 

Hands free is all very well but can leave the public /operator barrier very much in place.

[St Enodoc]

Scanning through this debate, it seems to me that any manual operator intervention at a show could be a good thing. It provides a natural break for the audience to ask why are you doing that? What's the reason it's operated like this?

 

Let's face facts that if you're under 50, you've probably never seen steam outside the preservation era and have unlikely seen the small scale shunting operations of a goods yard. If you're under 30, you may not even have seen much loco hauled passenger trains either.

 

Hands free is all very well but can leave the public /operator barrier very much in place.

Interesting thoughts. Perhaps, in musical terms, it depends whether you are putting on a performance or a masterclass.

Edited September 5, 2015 by St Enodoc

[cctransuk]

Re. couplings, I've said this before, but two words - Hornby Dublo.

 

Couldn't agree more !!

 

The one Achilles' Heel - unintentional uncoupling between double-headed locos.

 

I have found that a 2mm. dia. x 1mm. thick neodymium magnet applied to one of the two couplers produces a 100% cure.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[corneliuslundie]

Much also depends on the style and size of the layout.

 

In the real world in the past, at a good number of stations a train would arrive, the loco would uncouple, run forward and then run around the train. Fine with manual uncoupling unless it is under an overall roof.

 

And use of manual uncoupling assumes that you have long enough arms. I know that many layouts are only a couple of feet wide, but there are others which are much larger (Retford, Kings Cross?).

 

An interesting comment about running locos in groups - also applies to banking and piloting if you want to attach or detach the pilot or banker on a visible part of the layout.

 

One approach is to be pragmatic, as in fact Tony has done, and fit a form of automatic coupling only when remote coupling/uncoupling is needed and scale couplings to others, possibly with permanent couplings within permanent sets, such as the cast brass brake/steam heating pipes which double as couplings.

 

It's horses for courses. I don't like the look of S&W but for me they are the most acceptable compromise. For others the compromise will be different. Had I had information on some of the "non-commercial" auto couplings mentioned above thirty years ago I might have tried one or more of them, but with a couple of hundred wagons and other vehicles fitted with S&W it is too late to change.

 

Although I understand the comment about operators in front of layouts, the other side is that they can also have the specific role of explaining what is going on. I have seen that work very well.

 

Jonathan

[gr.king]

Re. couplings, I've said this before, but two words - Hornby Dublo.

A smaller version if practical, matching Kadee size, but a simple and therefore cheap single piece moulding requiring only a hole in a flat surface at the appropriate level and a mounting screw would have easily won me over when I instead went for the then newer, smaller, Dapol tension locks about 20 years ago. Tension locks of course have got even smaller and neater since then - thank goodness we are rid of the pressed metal Triang battering ram - but I wonder if some home made small couplings in Dublo/Simplex style might be feasible if one of the casting resins is tough enough for the job? Obviously, it would have to be very tough stuff.

[APOLLO]

Couplings - my pet hate.

 

My early years were Tri-ang TT, metal tension locks, all the same, always worked well. (even with the nylon Peco ones).

 

On my garage North American O scale layout I have a mixture of Kadee and the similar and compatible Weaver knuckles. They work well and being correct for US stock look the part. Very few (if any) problems once they are all set to the correct height. Easy to remove stock also, just pick it up !!

 

However, a bit different on my loft layout where I generally use what was fitted at the factory.

 

Old Triang / Hornby & Lima etc metal tension lock - work well, look clumsy

Mainline (etc) plastic tension lock, work OK, look a bit better.

Modern Hornby Bachman etc small triangular tension lock. Look better still - BUT

 

Try pushing a rake of 10 or more coaches so fitted  over a complicated bit of track - derailment virtually guaranteed as the couplings are loose / sloppy and override each other due to the weight of the train. This does not happen with the above older couplings. The "close coupling" cams also don't like reverse moves. The Hornby Pullmans are the worst.

 

Goods stock fitted with these couplings don't seem to have this problem. I can reverse a 30 wagon train over curved pointwork slowly with ease (most times !!)

 

Then, most importantly I think, there is the howling gap between the buffers on most stuff you buy to contend with. There is much scope I guess for shorter coupling bars and / or hooks that don't allow buffers to lock. I have some old Hornby Gresley coaches (the first series, short ones). These all couple together (with their large metal tension locks) very closely, the corridor connections almost touch, and I can reverse a rake over pointwork at any speed.

 

Manufacturers please note - It CAN be done.

 

Yes, the old Hornby Dublo metal coupling was good, the later plastic one a little bulky. I have a few Dublo wagons so fitted that always run together without problem.

 

Last point. I have a couple of Bachmann 2 car DMU's with the continental metal hook type metal couplings connecting the units, (as supplied by Bachman), also a rake of 9 Hornby (Lima) German bogie coal hoppers (similar to the Consett ore trains) fitted with same couplers, - these work very well, in both directions. A Hornby coupler is fitted each end of the rake.

 

OO / HO kadees I've no experience of.

 

Brit15

[t-b-g]

I have been involved in the subject of auto vs. manual couplings for many years now and I have layouts that have each. Buckingham (permanent) and Leighton Buzzard (currently just at shows) use 3 link couplings. All my own layouts use a fine wire home-made version of a "Spratt and Winkle". I am know these can be adapted to uncouple over a magnet and be pushed and left anywhere but that involves a highly unrealistic double shuffle to engage the "push and leave" mode.

 

The fact remains that until we can get a scale person with a shunting pole to uncouple and couple our stock, all couplings include an element of compromise. There really is no right or wrong answer. It is down to the individual to decide what compromises they are willing to accept to operate their layout the way that they want to.

 

It is no good me or anybody else telling folk that the "hand in the sky" is wrong for 3 links. It is no more or less "wrong" than a bit of wire under a bufferbeam and an unprototypical hook on a loco, carriage or wagon.

 

The best that anybody can do is to express a personal preference.

 

Most of my layouts involve a great deal more coupling and uncoupling than Little Bytham as they are terminus designs and pretty much everything needs to be shunted and uncoupled. I abandoned 3 links for my own stuff years ago but now have them back and I have to say that I enjoy working with them and they are the most realistic by far. The problem is that a number of my operators at home and at shows really struggle with them and they find that it detracts from their pleasure of operating. One or two have even suggested fitting auto couplings to Buckingham stock but that would be a step too far.

 

I have tried "Alex Jackson" and "Lincs" but couldn't get them to work as well as I would like. The home made ones do all I want so I have stopped looking for alternatives now.

 

Peter Denny clearly voiced is preference for 3 links in his articles and I am not that much of a rebel.

 

For my own layouts, I am happy with fixed magnets at stratigic positions, either permanent or electromagnets depending on how many there are down a siding and we get very reliable operation. There is a big side benefit, especially at exhibitions, in that it means you can take a nice tall bar stool and operate sitting down, whereas with 3 links mean constant getting up and down.

 

The exception is Leighton Buzzard, which is designed so that 90% of the uncoupling is done right under your nose and you can stay sitting most of the time.

 

Tony G 

[stewartingram]

With regards to tension locks, I have some experiences from the days of Traing (Hornby) through the introduction of the Mainline, Airfix and of course Lima ranges.

Starting with the Triang range, originally they were not a full loop, but were soon changed to become the tension lock we all know. These were pressed metal, usually sitiing on 2 studs and fixed with a centre screw. They were ugly, but worked well. This type was shown in the mags with 2 modifications which I liked:

1 - solder an L shaped wire on the down link. This meant the uncoupling ramp could be eliminated. Instead, a thin sprung wire on the centreline of the track was used, shaped like the ramp. One end was soldered to a brass pin in the baseboard, at the other end was another brass pin, with a small bore copper tube soldered to it, and the wire was located through this thus allowing movement.

2 - the coupling hook was modified with a single chain ink, which fouled the coupling if it was raised (ie became uncoupled) whilst being pushed. This meant only one uncoupler  need be used, and the wagon could be pushed in an uncoupled mode.

 

Then came the manufacturer mods and new ranges. Triang-Hornby started using plastic moulding, so the above mods couldn't be used. In addition, they added a notch in the loop, allowing a wagon in the middle of the train to be lifted out easier (H-D style)

Mainline came on the market, with a plastic coupling fitted the same way as the Triang ones. However it was plastic, as was the hook, located by a coil spring. I found these to be neater looking, and efficient. In my eyes though, the loop was the wrong radius. Tring/Hornby seemed to have calculated there radius better, such that couplings/wagons could be pushed or pulled safely round curves of all radii. The newer ranges had this modified loop radius which would cause stock to derail on some curve. Mainline, and Airfix both suffered this, and it was not advisable to mix them all.

Airfix introduced their coupling, much like the present day tension lock. I found that the radius problem was made worse by the coupling actually being smaller. In addition, they had a different fitting to the wagon. Ultimately, Both Mainline and Airfix produced their ranges with choices, either Triang or Airfix type fittings were available.

The complicated history of the manufacturers beyond the demise of Mainline and Airfix (by now known as GMR) is beyond this discussion, but ultimately all of them came to standardise (sort of) on the present type of tension lock, which owes a lot to the Airfix design; anll now push fit (though positioning is suspect in many cases).

Lima followed the basic Hornby pattern, though usually moulded in position on the chassis, with a very thick loop that also gave some coupling problems. Any extremely ugly too, seemed to match the Pizza cutter wheels though!

 

Has anyone else noticed the problems of that era that I have mentioned, especially with the loop radius?

I can, given time, dig out info on those mods if anyone is interested.

 

Stewart

[davidw]

A glance at Larry Goddard's (Coachman) most entertaining Ellesmere North layout thread will reveal some recent discussions on uncoupling devices. I recommend this thread because of its practical, sensible and most-personal approach to making an entirely-convincing model. 

 

The notion of making uncoupling devices brought me to how I arrange such items on Little Bytham. Firstly, the majority of trains don't stop, and even if they do an even larger majority doesn't separate. It's only the Up and Down pick-ups which do. For those, I still use tension-locks. I remain extremely ambivalent about such things, but I'm not sure of the alternatives. For the non-stops/stoppers, both passenger and freight, which don't divide I make my own couplings (which have been described before) or use three-links. A few sets still have Sprat & Winkle sorts - an inheritance from Charwelton, but these do not need separating. 

 

Kadees are fine for buckeye-fitted stock but, to me, look incongruous underneath (or even protruding from) the buffer beams of elderly steam locos and/or their tenders. I know Grantham uses these (and their efficacy will, no doubt, be demonstrated at the Grantham show next weekend) and for a layout where 'hand-of-God' access is restricted then they have their place. But, in close-up pictures, in my view they just look wrong. That's not to say that tension-locks look anything but awful and wholly unrealistic. But, on a loco fitted out for shunting such things, a discreet 'goalpost' of .45 brass/nickel silver wire fitted beneath the beam is almost invisible at normal viewing distances. No hook is necessary, just the one on the stock to be picked-up sufficing. 

 

I hope the following three pictures of locos I've made with this device illustrate what I mean.

 

Austerity 15 painted.jpg

 

Austerity 16 on layout.jpg

 

J6 16 on layout.jpg

 

The likes of Kadees and Sprat & Winkle couplings also need magnets underneath the track for them to be operative, though this does allow 'hands-free' uncoupling. 

 

I thus remain unsure what to do, but for now will stick with tension-locks for the pick-ups. I don't have ramps, preferring the likes of the following.......

 

DSC_2718.JPG

 

I make my own uncoupling devices, from scrap Code 100 rail bent to suit, with a paddle of etched brass or white metal soldered to the end. The handle end is bent into a triangle and soldered solid - the triangle conveniently fitting over a round-headed screw in the baseboard edge when not in use. 

 

DSC_2711.JPG

 

DSC_2713.JPG

 

Where access is adjacent, I use the shortest uncoupler, merely resting the edge of the device on the nearer rail, then lifting up the hooks in a rocking motion.

 

DSC_2715.JPG

 

Where wagons are further away, I use the intermediate or the longer one; again rocking it on the nearer rail or any adjacent one. I would stress that my layout is NOT DCC; if it were, I'd make the handles out of plastic!

 

These gadgets, which cost next to nothing to make (for the rail is usually second-hand or an off-cut) can be used anywhere on the layout. I still don't like the look of tension-locks, though. Uncoupling three links, whilst they look right, I find a nightmare. 

 

Finally, a couple of shots of my A2/2s. The nearest one is a straight DJH one, the middle one my prototype one and the furthest one a Crownline example. All have appeared in the model press in one form or another............ All, of course, have been painted by Ian Rathbone. 

 

A2 2s 01.jpg

 

A2 2s 02.jpg

 

Where's the really really like button

[Allegheny1600]

Has anyone else noticed the problems of that era that I have mentioned, especially with the loop radius?

Stewart

Hi Stewart,

I would say that my experiences more or less exactly mirror yours! I hated this on UK stock, one of many reasons my interests emigrated.

Once I started using Kadee couplings (fitted to US stock), it was a revolution being able to safely propel stock all round my then layout if I so desired. Not to mention coupling and uncoupling anywhere and lifting stock off with ease.

Later I moved over to European H0 outline stock and messed around with various types of coupler. I would say that the Kadee loses a lot of it's functionality with UK and Euro stock, largely because of steel axles, buffers, too much slop in the mountings etc.

While the Euro loop is adequate for shunting with, I really like the Fleischmann 'Profi' close coupling - fitted to properly engineered cam's we can prototypically propel scale length modern outline passenger trains at high speed around my friends German layout and they are easy lift off, close couplers too.

I like them so much that I fitted them to my Hornby Pullman coaches, sadly they embarassed me on LB because of the B2B's of the original Hornby wheels!

It's funny but as I write this, the advert for "Keen Systems" and their close coupling system is flashing at me. I did buy one of their taster sets but have never used it yet.

Cheers,

John.

[Tony Wright]

Another big 'Thank You' to all who've commented recently with regard to couplings (and other matters). 

 

As Larry has intimated, what works for one layout doesn't always (or won't at all) work on another. The only terminus layout I've ever been involved with is Moretonhamstead from Wolverhampton MRC. This employed Sprat & Winkle couplings, mainly because passenger trains had to be uncoupled underneath the overall roof. The system always worked well. The other layouts have all been roundy-roundies, though some shunting took place on Charwelton, again with S&W couplings. 

 

Little Bytham is obviously roundy-roundy, and the workings of the pick-ups have been explained. So, on a purely personal level, I can fit 'correct' couplings to the front and rear of my trains as I please. As I've mentioned before, this is very important to me, particularly in photographs. The trains don't separate (apart from the pick-ups) and (because it's the ECML) no double-heading takes place. For a terminus situation, though, it's no good. 

 

I've also explained some time ago how I configure my own couplings between my passenger sets. Because of the kick-back sidings, several trains (of up to 11 cars) have to reverse into position. My own couplings push-pull off the carriages' headstocks. I've had nothing but trouble down the years propelling (and pulling) carriages which are coupled via their bogies. I've also encountered problems propelling (and pulling) stock coupled by the flexible cam systems now in vogue. In my experience, rakes coupled via bogies or by the cam system on occasions lead to derailments because the bogies can 'bounce'. They also have a habit of coming undone in my experience.

 

So, I hope the following pictures illustrate what I mean.

 

 

In a recent post I mentioned how I'd filled the horrid hole in the front of the Bachmann D11's bogie with a sliver of plastic. My apologies for telling a lie; I merely cut off the protruding pocket and turned the bogie round! The front-end detail supplied was then added (though the guard irons had to be modified because they fouled the bogie wheels). Looking at this I'm astonished how good the Bachmann D11 is. All I've done is renumber/rename it, add some wiggly boiler-side pipes and weather it. The fact that a Sheffield-allocated 'Director' would be highly unlikely motive power through LB in 1958 is neither here nor there; it's just such a lovely model, and far superior than the two D11s I've built before (which I no longer own). 

 

 

A modified Bachmann A1 on an Up express. The coupling on the front of this is completely useless (except visually) because it's Bachmann's flimsy plastic thing (it's glued solid). The tension-lock provision on the Bachmann A1 (and A2) bogie is awful in my opinion because it consists of a flexible 'collar' which fits around the bogie's pivot. An adipose socket then juts out in front - horrid! In fairness, I'm sure it works but at what visual cost? I merely remove the bogie and discard the coupling provision. I've also added an AWS bang-plate to this loco. Other 'refinements' include etched brass deflectors (spare from the DJH A2/2-A2/3 frets) and numerous conduits. The poor bogie wheels also went. A shame, then, that the lamps are too big - Springside's BR ones; hugely over-scale, and due for replacement. 

 

 

Another modified Bachmann A1 with the same additions, with the exception of the AWS bang-plate (which this later-period A1 really should have). Again, the horrid coupling collar has gone and a slug of lead is fixed to the bogie - I might add that I also discard the bogie spring and pack the loco's body with a mass of extra ballast - that way these Bachmann A1s will pull scale-length rakes. The body has also been raised at the rear. The correct bogie wheels really do make a difference. Alongside is a typical rear end of one of my sets.

 

 

That same rear end in close-up. Obviously, because the buckeye is non-working this car cannot be coupled to any other. But, it's horses for courses, though useless for a terminus situation. Note, too, the tail lamp - of equal importance as headlamps (and the bogie cobweb which I missed!). I had a splendid time at the excellent Loughborough Show today. My compliments to the organisers. But (there's always a but), a few layouts had trains running where no lamps were displayed at all - front or rear! But, we've been here before. 

 

 

Another non-functional rear end, but, again, this rake is fixed. This very nice BZ was built by Mike Radford and given to me as a 60th birthday present by Gilbert Barnatt; a most generous gift.

 

 

 

Finally, the Kadee fitted to the tender of the Klondike for operation on Grantham (next weekend!). Because of the design of the kit's tender sub-frame, this really protrudes too far. Note the goalpost as well - so it can couple to tension-locks if required (one just unplugs the Kadee). These buckeye-style couplings are very reliable, but they just look so 'wrong' on vintage British steam in my view. 

 

Edited to include the following - I might add that everything in these pictures is well within the ability of the less-experienced/beginner modeller. Agreed the BZ is professionally-built (very well) but the kit (Mark Models?) is easy enough to build. Everything else (with the exception of the one kit-built car in the express, the leading car in the local and the Klondike) is merely modified/detailed RTR. Why not have a go yourself? 

Edited September 6, 2015 by Tony Wright

[gwrrob]

Very inspiring and just the look I'm aiming for on my stock too.

[gr.king]

In order to move the NEM mount, and therefore the Kadee coupling further forward on the tenders of my two "Grantham ready" DJH Atlantics I cut off the tender keeper plate just aft of the rear axle, allowing an NEM mount (harvested from an RTR vehicle by a friend of mine who converts all of his stock to "real" couplings and 18.83mm gauge) to be fitted to the layer of metalwork above. The keeper plate is rigid enough for just its front screw to keep it, and all three wheel sets in place, and it doesn't wander sideways at the rear because of the way it keys into place at interval along the bottom edges of the tender sub-chassis. A switch back to a plug-in tension lock, either complete, or without the hook is of course still possible. I suppose it would even be possible to use the swallow-tail stub of a plug-in tension lock, with most of the rest of the moulded plastic coupling cut away and replaced by a less visible wire loop as per the Klondike picture above.

 

9/9/15: Here's a picture of the somewhat scruffy underside of one of my NEM fitted DJH Atlantic tenders. This one has been altered to carry a different electrical pick-up arrangement to the one intended by DJH, but that's irrelevant. The keeper plate is cut back so that it only just still retains the rear axle. A piece of brass has been folded to accept the wedge base of the NEM sleeve and has been soldered in place to the metal above the level of the cropped keeper plate. It may look as if the brake rigging is supporting the rear end of the keeper plate. It may in truth be assisting in that respect now, but when I first put the tender together like this the screw at the front of the keeper plate was doing all of the supporting work. The possibility that the brake rigging is providing extra support only arises since I found it necessary to slide some folded black paper in between the wiper pick-ups and the top of one of the brake yokes, there being too little clearance there otherwise  to prevent short circuits.

 

Since this loco got switched back to a plug-in tension-lock coupling to suit Grantham operations at our dress rehearsal weekend, I'm now wondering whether I might as well have left the simple wire goal post in place.....

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by gr.king

[Focalplane]

Just so you know, even North American HO models often have to be butchered to take the appropriate Kadee coupler.  Back in the 1980s I bought several Athearn and Proto 2000 diesel electrics and had a helluva job fitting the couplers.  With Athearn A-B-A F7 sets I gave up and close coupled the three units using simple brass bars with screws tapped into the chassis.  As they usually ran as a set this seemed to be a good idea at the time.  It also helped the fact that the two A units were powered whereas the intermediate B unit wasn't, so the entire consist had more integrity than if coupled with Kadees.

 

Here are a few examples:

 

 

A Proto 2000 Southern Pacific "Daylight" E8 with Kadee

 

 

A Walthers "Cities Service" tank car kit with Kadees (I once worked for the oil company so these cars have a special place in my collection)

 

 

Whereas here is Bachman Jinty with Kadee couplers (now removed).  Certainly not prototypical!

[Andy R]

Hi Tony- very helpful comments. Can I PM you on your 'own design' couplers or is the design written up anywhere for others to consider?

 

regards, Andy R

[coachmann]

The thing about faults on models, track and couplings is we don't 'see' them normally. But a photograph puts everything into a little rectangle where all the faults are as clear as daylight. For example, I see a wagon with an oval wheel and coaches that lean to one side and brightly painted boiler bands, but while my imagination conjures up visions of smoke and steam, I dont see brightly polished motion, 00 track or tension-lock couplings. What's wrong with me.....  

[westerner]

Nothing!  I think we are all like that until we look at a photo.

[t-b-g]

Hi Tony- very helpful comments. Can I PM you on your 'own design' couplers or is the design written up anywhere for others to consider?

 

regards, Andy R

 

Hello Andy,

 

I did post a few photos on another thread once upon a time but I can't remember which thread to look up a link for you!

 

So At the risk of hijacking Tony W's thread once again, I will post them here again. Basically, they are made from "top E" guitar wire and are sprung pretty much like an AJ type. They have a split pin for a dropper, a loop at the other end (brass to prevent residual magnetism becoming a problem) and a further loop to stop the dropper digging into the ballast.

 

The loop is level with the buffers and at the bottom of the buffer beam, so the buffers are clear of any wires and do their job as normal. As long as the "tail" of the hook is beyond the buffers at that end, you can actually get some reallly close coupling, unlike a number of other automatic couplings. I have a pair of pliers with serrated jaws, which helps to grip the wire, which is bent back on itself then formed into the hook by the double section being bent half way along.

 

It has limitations, in that it is single ended. Some locos have a loop at one end and a hook at the other. Some locos have a loop at both ends and some (express locos mostly) just have a loop on the tender. carriage sets have a hook at each end. Chemical blackening is used rather than paint as it leaves a better surface for the metal to slide over and doesn't wear off like paint would.

 

I stress that it is not a universal type that will suit all layouts and needs but for us, it does all we require with a very high degree of reliability and is almost invisible against track and ballast. 

 

I hope that helps but if you need to know any more, you know how to get hold of me.

 

If I may just add a slight disclaimer. The LNWR Brake Van in the photo was a grotty old one we got second hand. My construction is usually a bit neater than that 

 

Cheers,

 

Tony G

[Clive Mortimore]

The thing about faults on models, track and couplings is we don't 'see' them normally. But a photograph puts everything into a little rectangle where all the faults are as clear as daylight. For example, I see a wagon with an oval wheel and coaches that lean to one side and brightly painted boiler bands, but while my imagination conjures up visions of smoke and steam, I dont see brightly polished motion, 00 track or tension-lock couplings. What's wrong with me.....  

Hi Larry

 

With photos I know it is a model so I do see the tension lock, the narrow track, etc. but don't worry about it. I just think what a nice model (or not so nice model). As modellers we do try to make things a close to a scale replica as we can. Often a well operated layout with a good sense of being (all stock, cars, peoples clothes, trackside bits and bobs in the same time frame) can get away with things like tension lock couplings. If one can get lost in the scene created by the modeller then "Wow".

[newbryford]

Hi Larry

 

With photos I know it is a model so I do see the tension lock, the narrow track, etc. but don't worry about it.

 

Narrow track.........?

 

Do you mean the 16.2mm of 00-SF?

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Herbert Nigel]

Hello Andy,

 

Basically, they are made from "top E" guitar wire and are sprung pretty much like an AJ type.

(Snipped, I hope)

 

Not wishing to be a party pooper but "top E" guitar strings come in a variety of gauges, ranging from .008 to .012 and, additionally, in at least 6 different metals! Do you know which variety you used?

[Herbert Nigel]

Sorry. Obviously haven't got the hang of this "snipping" protocol right.

[t-b-g]

Hello Andy,

 

Basically, they are made from "top E" guitar wire and are sprung pretty much like an AJ type.

(Snipped, I hope)

 

Not wishing to be a party pooper but "top E" guitar strings come in a variety of gauges, ranging from .008 to .012 and, additionally, in at least 6 different metals! Do you know which variety you used?

 

You are quite right! I had forgotten that. Sadly, I get mine second hand when my daughter breaks a string, so I don't get them in a packet with a size and description marked on.

 

I was aiming to use the same sort of wire as is used for AJ couplings, which I think is .0011" sprung steel. We have been using them for over 10 years now and we have noticed that some of them are slightly different thicknesses but it doesn't seem to make any difference to the operation or reliability.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony 

[jwealleans]

I've had the same issue as Tony with the Kadee on the back of my DJH C1 for Grantham sticking out too far, so I shall examine Mr King's solution closely at the weekend.

 

For anyone who doesn't feel able to build carriage couplings like Tony's from scratch, Mainly Trains do an etch, designed by Bill Bedford (item BB25) which you can fold up and solder. The principle is exactly the same - but you need to extend the pin so it goes through a hole in the middle floor rather then just hooking behind the buffer beam. This keeps them centred and makes it possible to reverse rakes on the couplings.

 

Another word for Mike Radford's BZ as well - I gather it had a poor review in MRJ when it came out (I haven't read it personally), but it looks like what it's supposed to be and was one of the first etched vehicles I built, so it can't be terribly hard.

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by jwealleans

[queensquare]

Well it's DG couplings for me every time but then in 2mm three links aren't really an option although it's been done and I know of a couple of modellers who still do.

 

In the larger scales, as others have said, it's always going to be a compromise. My own preference is for hands off operation but there is no doubt that nothing looks as good as three link/screw couplings.

When Kim and I went to operate Buckingham Tony assumed that being a 2mm modeller I'd be a dab hand with the three links. In truth I had the devils own job with them although Kim got the knack very quickly.

 

Jerry