Wizard Models

[Catweasel]

I don't know how many of you use Spratt & Winkle couplings, a good few I would imagine,but I decided to fit fit them to my stock. Frets duly acquired and made up. what a fiddle doing the links! I then found that Andrew can supply them madeup. I bought 3 packs to try and was delighted to find that they are, indeed, complete with mounting and links. All I had to do was remove the original couplings, make a small slot in the floor of the wagon, and glue in place. Job done, hair intact. Nice one.

[Dunsignalling]

I don't know how many of you use Spratt & Winkle couplings, a good few I would imagine,but I decided to fit fit them to my stock. Frets duly acquired and made up. what a fiddle doing the links! I then found that Andrew can supply them madeup. I bought 3 packs to try and was delighted to find that they are, indeed, complete with mounting and links. All I had to do was remove the original couplings, make a small slot in the floor of the wagon, and glue in place. Job done, hair intact. Nice one.

Praise be!

 

I have an involvement in three layouts (though I am currently taking time out from one). Two use Kadees, which I (almost always) find dead easy to work with but the third is very large and features S&Ws (hundreds of 'em, quite a few of which are getting on a bit). Somebody said "he's good with couplings" and assembling/fitting/repairing them seems to have become "my job".

 

Just a fret and a half to go and I can relax a bit. Cue maniacal laughter!

 

John

[Stevelewis]

I have to agree John,  I am a kadee  user  in N H0e & 00  and have been  for  years, I find  them  easy to install in most  things  and they do  work  well

 

But I do have a couple  of friends  who swear by S&Ws  and  I have never  heard  them mention  the  Made  up ones  so  I will pass on Catweasel's post.

[MartinWales]

Started off in Finescale using S&W and having gone via three links I'm back using them-certainly vital in front of an exhibition audience!  

[br2975]

I used S & W couplings years ago in 7mm ( probably bought them off Derek Mundy ? ).

.

Returning to 4mm I gave Kadees a try.

.

 I used the under track magnets.

.

I got totally peeeeeed off with metal axles being attracted to the magnet and causing wagons to shimmy back and forth before they came to a stand.

.

Solution .........

.

Return to S & W using the "finescale" version.

.

S & W couplings can be fiddly to make and fit, but a Bill Bedford handrail jig comes in handy for folding the wire staples and goalposts and a home made height jig also helps.

.

They are very forgiving and don't require precise adjustment.

.

Brian R

[Dunsignalling]

I used S & W couplings years ago in 7mm ( probably bought them off Derek Mundy ? ).

.

Returning to 4mm I gave Kadees a try.

.

 I used the under track magnets.

.

I got totally peeeeeed off with metal axles being attracted to the magnet and causing wagons to shimmy back and forth before they came to a stand.

.

Solution .........

.

Return to S & W using the "finescale" version.

.

S & W couplings can be fiddly to make and fit, but a Bill Bedford handrail jig comes in handy for folding the wire staples and goalposts and a home made height jig also helps.

.

They are very forgiving and don't require precise adjustment.

.

Brian R

I get on OK with S&Ws, it's just that I find them fiddly and time consuming despite having made my own bending jigs and having a height jig already provided. Refitting wagons that already have them is usually more of a pain than adding them to new stock. I find that using goalposts from 0.6mm wire minimises future maintenance requirements; old wagons with handrail wire across the buffers move rapidly up my to-do list! Just horrible.

 

However, I am a lot quicker and more confident with Kadees and, so long as they are done right, it is usually a "fit-and-forget" operation. Exorcising unwanted NEM mounts and adding the extra weight needed for optimum performance is often more tricky than fitting the couplers, but S&Ws need that, too!

 

The attraction of axles by Kadee under-track uncoupling magnets can be minimised by lowering the magnets which are designed to work positively under the thickest of HO track. Under anything thinner than Code 100 Streamline, a millimetre or two of plastic or cardboard helps a lot and ensuring no wagon weighs less than 40g does most of the rest but I generally use the electric uncouplers if at all possible.  

 

In short, I consider S&Ws (if I have to make them up) to be something of an Art and Kadees to be Engineering!

 

John

[Stevelewis]

I agree  with  John  above,  the axle attraction problem is  easily overcome with magnet positioning,  I must say  though  that I  did not experience this much in my  early use of Kadees, back in the 80s when I built a US H0 layout, and  I have never noticed the problem  with  the  0 gauge layouts.

 

Another  method of eliminiating unwanted rolling stock movement when uncoupling occurs,  is to fit  axle dampers to  some but no means all axles within a train........... this is simply a  small thin piece of flexible   foam ( the type used in lots of parcel packing theses days) which is glued to the underside of the wagon or bogie which presses lightly on  just one axle,  this act as a brake  but has very little effect of vehicle rollability.     This is  also useful  for preventing  'parked' vehicles  rolling  on slight  gradients.

[Kenton]

Always a S&W advocate (Kadees just simply look completely wrong and seem to require a total buy-in to Kadee gross magnets and other gadgets) S&W are simple to make up (albeit a bit of care required and best done in batches) There are better in appearance couplings out there but they are more fiddly to assemble or are easier to distort in use/storage (AJs) Besides it is too late to spend time changing everything.

 

S&Ws can be used with cheap, tiny, unobtrusive, powerful neodymium magnets.

[br2975]

The attraction of axles by Kadee under-track uncoupling magnets can be minimised by lowering the magnets which are designed to work positively under the thickest of HO track. Under anything thinner than Code 100 Streamline, a millimetre or two of plastic or cardboard helps a lot and ensuring no wagon weighs less than 40g does most of the rest but I generally use the electric uncouplers if at all possible.  

 

Not so easy to remedy once your track has been laid, and the magnets buried beneath it.

.

Brian R

[Dunsignalling]

Always a S&W advocate (Kadees just simply look completely wrong and seem to require a total buy-in to Kadee gross magnets and other gadgets) S&W are simple to make up (albeit a bit of care required and best done in batches) There are better in appearance couplings out there but they are more fiddly to assemble or are easier to distort in use/storage (AJs) Besides it is too late to spend time changing everything.

 

S&Ws can be used with cheap, tiny, unobtrusive, powerful neodymium magnets.

To somebody who grew up with ruddy great plastic Hornby Dublo couplings, Kadees look like a (much) smaller, neater version. I've also had enough practice with them over the last 20 years to achieve near 100% reliability. I might get to the same position with S&Ws eventually but, if I'm still around, I'll be 83 by then and there are other things I'd rather be doing!

 

If you plan where Kadee uncouplers are needed before you lay the track, the under-track magnets (permanent or electric) are completely hidden. 

 

The perfect auto coupling would have to be virtually invisible and only AJs get close to that. I tried them once, having seen them working beautifully on a P4 exhibition layout but concluded that the slack wheel/track interface of OO is just too much for them.

 

S&Ws are basically upside-down tension locks and don't "disappear" any better than Kadees which, at least, are narrow and hang down from the centre-line of the vehicle, like most real couplings.

 

As with so much else, in the end, it all comes down to personal experience and preference but, if anything ever does lure me away from Kadees, it won't be S&Ws.

 

John

[Kenton]

But Kadees represent buckeye couplings - perfect for "Continental" or late era stock but still totally non prototypical for the era(s)/stock I model. As also noted I have a really big issue with the forced "buy-in" to any one manufacturer's monopoly especially when it can be avoided.

 

Your comment indicating the conditions for failure of the AJs (use of OO gauge) is interesting and perhaps goes some way in explaining why I found them useless - but the main objection to them (and most other coupling systems) is that they are simply too fragile (also read - have too fine a tolerance to adjustment)

 

Of course anything is better than the ghastly tension lock coupling seemingly preferred by the manufacturer's where the only real way to uncouple is to lift and twist the stock off the track or do the shuffle over some long lump of plastic covering sleepers generously called an "uncoupler".

[Barry Ten]

I'm pretty sold on S&Ws, having found then relatively easy to install and above all reliable.

 

I have no problem with Kadees on my European rolling stock either, but for UK stock I find the relatively unobtrusive S&W to be a better solution. As noted by Kenton, I find my ability to set them up reliably is better if I do them in batches. Typically I make about 20 at a go, the most fiddly part being the forming of the chains. I buillt a height-setting jig, but I still found that minor adjustment was needed, so I must confess I rarely use the jig nowadays.

 

To ease the pain of converting a large amount of rolling stock, I group wagons into blocks of between one and seven vehicles, using 3-links between intermediate vehicles. If I'm shunting one of my cattle wagons, for instance, I'm generally moving all three as a block anyway, so I don't need to be uncouple the individual wagons. This doesn't detract from the play value at all and does enable one to quickly build up a fleet of converted vehicles. I also have a 14 unit coal train which is made up of 2 x 7 units of wagons, with S&Ws only at the outer ends. The advantage is that I can still fit 3-links much quicker than S&Ws, even when doing them as a batch. When viewed from the side, the eye accepts the 3-links and S&Ws as being similarly unobtrusive.

 

One dodge I've learned for myself, is that the hoop on the loco can be set a tiny bit lower than the corresponding hoops on wagons. This has no drawbacks in terms of automatic uncoupling but does reduce the likelihood of an inadverant uncoupling happening. I also use friction brakes on some vehicles, as noted in Steve's post. Mine are made using a flap of thin plastikard, one end glued to the underframe, the other bearing on the axle to impart a bit of drag. Personally I find the slight drag effect helps to make a train look "heavy" but that's a very subjective thing. In any case, given the moderate train lengths I operate, there is no significant issue with loco haulage.

[Dunsignalling]

But Kadees represent buckeye couplings - perfect for "Continental" or late era stock but still totally non prototypical for the era(s)/stock I model. As also noted I have a really big issue with the forced "buy-in" to any one manufacturer's monopoly especially when it can be avoided.

 

Your comment indicating the conditions for failure of the AJs (use of OO gauge) is interesting and perhaps goes some way in explaining why I found them useless - but the main objection to them (and most other coupling systems) is that they are simply too fragile (also read - have too fine a tolerance to adjustment)

 

Of course anything is better than the ghastly tension lock coupling seemingly preferred by the manufacturer's where the only real way to uncouple is to lift and twist the stock off the track or do the shuffle over some long lump of plastic covering sleepers generously called an "uncoupler".

 

For me, Kadees are just neat, efficient and dependable automatic couplers that I use on model trains. In the event of derailments etc, it much easier to remove a vehicle from a train than with S&Ws where two hooks are engaged on two wires. In that respect, they need something to depress both hooks to free them (I use a lolly stick).

 

Any monopoly expired along with the original patents and there are around a half-dozen firms offering compatible units, how many make S&Ws?

 

I have never understood why Kadees are frowned upon just because they are based on a coupler that is used on some real railways/eras.

 

Nobody ever seems to worry that S&Ws (or any other purely model couplers) bear no resemblance whatever to ANY prototypical device. 

 

"Unobtrusivity" is in the eye of the beholder and I don't see much difference if both types are properly installed.

 

John

[Stevelewis]

I see  the  point  re  Kadees on  UK  stock not  being  prototypical,  but  hook  &  loops  are  even  less so IMHO

 

Most  of  my Model interest  these  days  is  USA  orientated  so  they  are OK!

 

On thing  about  Kadees  not  often  mentioned is  the  fact  that  they  do not  have much slack between  2  coupled   couplings  therefore  the  whole  train  moves more prototypically, and  not  like  a  loose  coupled (unfitted)  goods  train,

The  downside to  this  of  course is you  are  actually  running  a UK  loose  coupled  goods  train!!

 

The  point  about  having to do a total buy in of  Kadees  is  not  strictly  true,  as  it is possible to  do  it  in phases  as  some  of  my  freinds have  done,  by purchasing enough Kadees  to  convert  some  locos  and  the  outer  ends of  coach  rakes  and   outer ends of \ Brake Vans and  some goods stock,  retaining  \hook & Loops within  the  rakes,  and  then  as  funds permit doing  a  rolling conversion programme,  The  actual uncoupling  magnets  are  relatively  cheap, and it has to be considered also  that the numbers of uncoupling  magnets may not be too many due to the ability of being able to propel uncoupled vehicles to any desired position.

 

For Info  HATTONS  are now  stocking  Kadee products

[olivegreen]

I think one has to accept that automatic couplings, whatever their make, are going to be unprototypical and obtrusive to some extent - after that, as has been said, it is a matter of personal choice, perceived 'unobtrusiveness' and so on. I bought a stock of S&Ws years ago and am slowly converting to them: what has always put me (and no doubt others) off Kadees is their cost.

[Stevelewis]

I think one has to accept that automatic couplings, whatever their make, are going to be unprototypical and obtrusive to some extent - after that, as has been said, it is a matter of personal choice, perceived 'unobtrusiveness' and so on. I bought a stock of S&Ws years ago and am slowly converting to them: what has always put me (and no doubt others) off Kadees is their cost.

20 Pairs  of  No 5s  £16.50,   2 Pairs of  NEM plug in  no. 20s £2.90  dont  appear  to  be  over expensive  

[olivegreen]

I take your point, but at today's prices S&Ws are about half that cost per vehicle, less if you use the simpler version without the delay facility (which is marginally less obtrusive, by the way)…plus a bit of work, of course… and fitting is pretty much the same for RTR as for kit or scratchbuilt.

 

 

Each to his own!

[Kenton]

20 Pairs  of  No 5s  £16.50,   2 Pairs of  NEM plug in  no. 20s £2.90  dont  appear  to  be  over expensive  

On the surface I would agree - but it never seems to be so.

 

As I indicated earlier once you make the decision to opt for Kadee or S&W or any other flavour of coupling and for whatever reason you choose to use the change to a different format is very expensive especially in the time taken/wasted. BTW NEM plug in might have their use but for kit built stock you have to also buy the sockets. I also find the auto uncoupling better visually on the S&W avoiding that very unprototypical Kadee shuffle over magnets.

[ThePurplePrimer]

I bought some S&W couplers a while back but wasnt really happy with my results of bending the 'staples' to hold the coupler on - it all seemed a bit hit and miss.

 

Is there a better way of doing it ?

 

Also could anyone show me a picture of some properly built and mounted ones so I can see exactly what it is Imam try to achieve

[Stevelewis]

On the surface I would agree - but it never seems to be so.

 

As I indicated earlier once you make the decision to opt for Kadee or S&W or any other flavour of coupling and for whatever reason you choose to use the change to a different format is very expensive especially in the time taken/wasted. BTW NEM plug in might have their use but for kit built stock you have to also buy the sockets. I also find the auto uncoupling better visually on the S&W avoiding that very unprototypical Kadee shuffle over magnets.

I have  used  Kadees  for  over  25 years  and  have  had  no serious  issues  with shuffle  over  magnets, if it  does occur it is  easily  rectified as  I mentioned in a previous  post

[Gilbert]

I'm using some in O gauge and I'm pretty happy - I'll try to sort out some photos

[Catweasel]

I bought some S&W couplers a while back but wasnt really happy with my results of bending the 'staples' to hold the coupler on - it all seemed a bit hit and miss.

Is there a better way of doing it ?

Also could anyone show me a picture of some properly built and mounted ones so I can see exactly what it is Imam try to achieve

 

These photo's may help you. When fitting the loop,make it level with the buffers. I didn't have trouble with the loop, but the links drove me nuts. Incidentally, if you use something like 23 thou phospher bronze wire it's almost invisible.

[Gilbert]

As I happened to have an S&W equipped Brakevan in the office here goes:

 

As you can see I use the mounting plates supplied by Wizard Models - I didn't on early stuff and I'm tempted to revisit those

As most stock is kit built I plan the mounting into the build - I keep a selection of Evergreen styrene sections in my S&W box.

For uncoupling I use pairs of very small magnets obtained from ( think) Squires

I only use bars on the locos rather than hooks and bars so I can use a number of single Electro Magnets (already on the layout from a failed attempt at AJ couplings) for loco uncoupling.

 

As you may see I add a bit of scrap brass to the counterweight to improve performance.

 

Chris

[ThePurplePrimer]

Thanks Gilbert

 

I think the ones I bought were Sw3 - I also bought the mounting plates

 

My tests seemed to suggest that the height of the loop made by the staples ( that hold the paddle and hook ) was important but when bending them over if was impossible to get them all identical. I then thought I could make a U shaped hoop and pass it through and solder it to the mount and clip the excess off and file flush - the problem was that Imcouldnt determine exactly what the delth of the staple hoop should be - if I knew I could have placed a suitable spacer under the paddle before I soldered the loop and knew every single one would be identical.

 

So I Gave up and put them in a box

[Gilbert]

By leaving the joint in the staple on the lower side it's possible to fiddle with the setting. Its not neat but it works. You can also get the plate and loop set before the hook and paddle are added.

BTW I have made a number of height gauges and wouldn't be with out them along with a Dapol wagon that acts as my standard for height and hook inclination

Chris