Couplings -some conclusions

[John CutlerParticipant]

I think most of us leave thoughts of couplings to the last minute, after we have built a layout and/or rolling stock. Then discover that the Dinghams we want require a hole to be dug in the middle of the buffer-beam at the front of our prize-winning loco! Or another hole to be drilled for an electromagnet in the most inaccessible trackwork alongside a delicate scenic feature! We need to plan ahead better. The more information there is about coupling alternatives, the better to do so. Hence my comparison table in another Topic.

I, like Iain Rice, used to believe that AJs are the ultimate auto-coupling solution and those are what I assumed would be my design of coupling. But I now think they (and variants) are too difficult and frustrating for the average or EM modeller. Even with a limited number of wagons and only 2 locos fitted, I soon discovered they need regular tweaking to perform properly. With precision and tighter tolerances, I suspect AJs are much more feasible and reliable for P4 modellers but still have a very high maintenance requirement. For EM, I believe there is too much lateral wheel slop to allow 100% reliable centring and coupling up.

So do not assume you know which coupling(s) you will employ without trying them out. Your decision may affect your layout build and the design of rolling stock, especially small locomotives.

My personal conclusions of which couplings to use for EM are:

1.       For a shunting plank, including exhibitions, Winterleys. Locos have to be carefully selected or built for smooth slow running, admittedly a challenge, and for footprint space at one end for mounting the bulky hook. No need for electromagnets so a bit less wiring and weight on the layout.

2.         For general exhibitions I would follow the recommendation of the late and great operator of layouts as pure theatre, Ray Earl: Sprat & Winkles. Yes, the couplings are reliable but obtrusive; set the track back from the front of the layout so they blend in to the background. If you have MRJ142 (2003), look up Brookfield (EM).

3.        For my home layout I have ended up with Rice’s Imprecise with no auto-uncoupling. I am just using vertically-thrusted lollipop sticks instead of the Hand of God to uncouple. Why worry overmuch if the only viewer is me? If I ever build (or rebuild) a new home layout, I might design and build thin baseboards for the track to allow a strong uncoupling magnet to be run along the underside of sidings; crude but probably effective.

 

[John CutlerParticipant]

A couple more thoughts.

Ensure you are confident that your choice of coupling will work for you before buying a large quantity. Buying a full complement of Kadees might come as a shock to the finances!

You might want to buy more than enough couplings for your immediate layout needs. Bear in mind that both Lincs and Dinghams were unavailable for some time. You cannot buy Yeovils or the Fleetwood Shawe coupling any more. There is a risk involved in buying a proprietary single-source coupling.

[Christopher JacquierParticipant]

I’m new, here, so I don’t know my way around and there may be some answers or references to this query:

I should like to have realistic spacing spacing between carriagesperhaps with a flexible gangway system and suitable couplings. What would be the minimum radius of track curvature that would retain the train’s integrity?

[John CutlerParticipant]

If you are running coach sets of BR Mk1s or later, then Kadees are the obvious choice of couplings as they look like the prototype.

Also Bulleid coaches and probably many others.

But not for pre-Grouping coaches.

Apart from costing a fortune, they look horrible on most freight stock unless you are into the very modern era.

So you may need to have separate locos with different couplings for goods wagons.

As for minimum radius for Mk1 coaching stock, I am afraid you are looking at a large radius for it to look good; 4’/120cms+?

Note that to be prototypical, running line curves of less than 6′ radius require check rails!

Also if you are going to propel shunt such stock without derailing e.g. in carriage sidings, you are looking at an even larger radius.

And to propel them through a reverse curve i.e. crossover, you probably need C9+ turnouts.

What is your interpretation of ” train integrity”?!

 

[Christopher JacquierParticipant]

”train integrity”? Perhaps an anthropomorphism, but as with people, it refers to the consistent and good performance of its duties.

Thank you for your comments which I take on board (literally, of course.)

[Christopher JacquierParticipant]

”train integrity”? Perhaps an anthropomorphism, but as with people, it refers to the consistent and good performance of its duties.

Thank you for your comments which I take on board, (literally, of course.)

[John CutlerParticipant]

It would be useful for us to know what era you are modelling.

 

For my own part, I model the 50s-60s BR period in the South West. The Southern and BR(S) kept their coaches in fixed sets. I therefore use fixed hooks to maintain them thus and have auto-couplers at the ends of the sets only. This means there is no problem in having to allocate/schedule separate locos for passengers and freight traffic. If you do not plan to split coaching stock then you can apply the same strategy. You only really need to split rakes a lot if you model a main-line terminus, carriage sidings or carriage works.

 

For older non-gangway coaching stock, I use Brassmasters lost wax castings for fixed hooks (£8 each); look them up in the Rolling Stock section on their website. These follow a design by Pendon and you can make your own variation: see the 2 designs in Iain Rice’s book “Railway Modelling the Realistic Way” (page 340).

 

I confess that I only have one gangwayed coach set and that is a 2-coach Maunsell pull-push unit by Hornby. I use Roco’s fixed links (code 4490) upside down for that because they are slightly shorter than Hornby’s own but are compatible with Hornby. The coaches end up so close together that the corridor connections really do not need replacing -see my post on converting this pull-push set. The downsides are that separating the coaches is not straightforward and storing the units can be difficult. Fortunately I do not believe I will ever need an 11-foot cassette to store a 12-coach fixed rake! Hornby’s centring NEM pockets allow tight radius curves to be navigated but the rake looks ridiculous on anything other than fairly straight track because the corridor connection ends fail to align realistically. Having said this, the pull-push unit looks OK navigating a B8 turnout on my running line loop.

[Nigel BurbidgeParticipant]

I tend to use a combination of couplings.  All of my locos and wagons are fitted with three link couplings (as the closest to much of the real thing in the period I model – 1950’s).  My carriages are formed into fixed rakes, with three link/screw couplings at the ends of the sets to enable coupling to a locos but with Kadees within the set.  The corridor connections tend to mask the couplings to a large degree and Gresley/BR standard stock would have had buckeye couplings anyway.

Nigel

[Christopher JacquierParticipant]

I would like to model a scene in the early ’60s.

From the top of the coke heap at my CofE junior school up the hill in Matlock, I could see over the wall and down to the railway station and observe trains passing through the Station. At home at night I often heard trains passing through the station and sometimes slipping on wet rails going North.

At 9 years old, I observed the most beautiful train I have ever seen. There was not a more beautiful train before it, nor since, neither in UK nor the rest of the world. It sealed my interest in railways and my career.

Thus, at least part of the distance between the Derwent river bridge to Holt Lane Tunnel including Matlock Railway Station, is my aim.

 

[Author]

Posts