Smiths 3 link couplings

[philsandy]

I'm considering using some 3 link couplings on rakes of mineral wagons which will not need uncoupling very often, to give a more realistic closer coupling.

Can these links just be hung on the standard coupling hooks of Bachmann and Hornby wagons without any modification?

Also, the tightest curve on my layout is a short 28" radius, is this too tight, and cause buffer locking?

[37255]

Can these links just be hung on the standard coupling hooks of Bachmann and Hornby wagons without any modification?

 

Well, yes and no... You CAN drill a small hole into Hornby/Bachmann 3 link hooks and hang 3 links off them, but they tend to be far too shallow in design to survive much shunting. In my experience it's worth the short-term hassle of fitting proper coupling hooks to avoid having to constantly re-couple wagons every few seconds!

[woodyfox]

In my experience a 3 link will struggle on a third radius setrack curve. The Smiths hooks can be shortened and glued in place. I drill 2 x holes in the wagon beam and gently file the two into a slot with the drill. It's better to spring the hook but it isn't always possible. Your track will also need to be very level without undulation.

Edited February 25, 2014 by woodyfox

[RonnieS]

Some BR shunting engines had an extra link. So try 3/4 links on the standard hooks?

[MartinWales]

Have used Smiths coupling with success for over ten years on four EM gauge exhibition layouts and whilst 36" radius would be ideal I see no problems in using some sprung couplings as a test piece before converting several others 

 

Suck it and see!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Also, the tightest curve on my layout is a short 28" radius, is this too tight, and cause buffer locking?

Not too tight pulling, but will lead to buffer locking when pushing. The problem isn't with the three links as such, but the slackness of OO on the track: wheelsets slop side to side in axlebox locations, the tyres can slop side to side on the rail. When you push a train, as the load increases the wagons taking the most force will tend to skew on the track, one bufferhead slips inside another and bufferlocking will occur.

 

With a very short train you may get away with pushing on 28" radius as the load is small. To completely escape this as trains get longer needs radii of around four feet with RTR wagons. Work on your stock to reduce the side to side slop in the axle locations and the 36" minimum radius long standard in EM is possible. Another old solution is a fine wire across the bufferheads, to positively eliminate the chance of bufferlocking.

 

What I do is crop near 2mm off the pockets, and ditto from the coupler tails, such that the 'bumper bar' of the Bachmann miniature tension lock is in the same plane as the buffer heads. The wagons buffer up on straight track, pull out to a 2mm gap between bufferheads, 10' and shorter wheelbase stock will still go round a 24" radius curve. Longer stock, the coupler needs to be set by gauging against the tioghtest layout curve.

 

Doesn't look as good as three links would, but the realistic effect of a loose coupled steam era goods is satisfactory :  has the virtues of being quick and simple to do, provides positive protection against bufferlocking. It will have to do until some bright spark invents a three links autocoupler which resists bufferlocking... 

[Bob O]

There is a useful site called Fungus in model land

[YK 50A]

There is a useful site called Fungus in model land

 

You're worrying me!

[darren01]

Hi 

I used three link couplings on my layout for sometime, but gave up and moved over to S/W ones.

I got feed up trying to uncouple and couple up the links and having buffer lock happening, a pain when shunting the wagons around the yard.

The good thing with S/W is that you can do all your shunting around without ever having to touch the wagons and the do not couple back up when doing this.

If you do go for them i would get the shorter ones that MES sell for the wagons and the longer ones for the coaches, the other good thing is no more buffer lock!.

Darren

Edited February 26, 2014 by darren01

[philsandy]

Not too tight pulling, but will lead to buffer locking when pushing. The problem isn't with the three links as such, but the slackness of OO on the track: wheelsets slop side to side in axlebox locations, the tyres can slop side to side on the rail. When you push a train, as the load increases the wagons taking the most force will tend to skew on the track, one bufferhead slips inside another and bufferlocking will occur.

 

With a very short train you may get away with pushing on 28" radius as the load is small. To completely escape this as trains get longer needs radii of around four feet with RTR wagons. Work on your stock to reduce the side to side slop in the axle locations and the 36" minimum radius long standard in EM is possible. Another old solution is a fine wire across the bufferheads, to positively eliminate the chance of bufferlocking.

 

What I do is crop near 2mm off the pockets, and ditto from the coupler tails, such that the 'bumper bar' of the Bachmann miniature tension lock is in the same plane as the buffer heads. The wagons buffer up on straight track, pull out to a 2mm gap between bufferheads, 10' and shorter wheelbase stock will still go round a 24" radius curve. Longer stock, the coupler needs to be set by gauging against the tioghtest layout curve.

 

Doesn't look as good as three links would, but the realistic effect of a loose coupled steam era goods is satisfactory :  has the virtues of being quick and simple to do, provides positive protection against bufferlocking. It will have to do until some bright spark invents a three links autocoupler which resists bufferlocking... 

 

Thanks for all your replies.

My layout is  EM, so will that help a little in preventing buffer lock? ie. less side to side wheel slop than OO.

 

"What I do is crop near 2mm off the pockets, and ditto from the coupler tails, such that the 'bumper bar' of the Bachmann miniature tension lock is in the same plane as the buffer heads."

 

That sounds quite interesting, I had thought about using the Bachmann tension lock couplings, but try and get them to couple closer.

Edited February 28, 2014 by philsandy

[Horfield Mob]

You're worrying me!

Fungus in Model-Land: Couplings

[EHertsGER]

In my search for 3 link couplings that are up to the standard and look of the now defunct (are they? No sign on their web site.) Exactoscale couplings I went to PetersSpares and lo and behold a range of Smiths couplings. But which ones? There is an LP1, LP10, LP11 and so on - so which set is the closest to prototype in look and function (I can't see to well from the photos)?

 

Best,

Marcus

[johndon]

30 minutes ago, EHertsGER said:

In my search for 3 link couplings that are up to the standard and look of the now defunct (are they? No sign on their web site.) Exactoscale couplings I went to PetersSpares and lo and behold a range of Smiths couplings. But which ones? There is an LP1, LP10, LP11 and so on - so which set is the closest to prototype in look and function (I can't see to well from the photos)?

 

LP1 and LP11 are, as I understand it, identical, the difference is that LP11 come assembled whereas you have to put LP1 together.  LP10 are the same but are magnetic.

 

For screw couplings, I use LP11.  Whilst they are slightly overscale, they are much easier to couple up than dead scale 3 links...

 

John

 

[Compound2632]

I've used Slaters 4 mm scale 3 link couplings which are, I think, closer to scale than Smiths, or at least the Smiths ones I've seen. Of course, the closer to scale the better they look but the fiddlier they are to use.

[John Tomlinson]

22 hours ago, johndon said:

 

LP1 and LP11 are, as I understand it, identical, the difference is that LP11 come assembled whereas you have to put LP1 together.  LP10 are the same but are magnetic.

 

For screw couplings, I use LP11.  Whilst they are slightly overscale, they are much easier to couple up than dead scale 3 links...

 

John

 

FWIW I buy the unassembled ones. Partly its because I welcome the chance to save the money, but also I find that when things haven't gone well, the fairly simple but productive task of making up the couplings is good therapy to get back, as it were, in the modelling saddle.

 

John.