Article - Coupling

[Henry's Grandad]

hello Rob, (Ironduke),

I'm really a lapsed modeller, not having done any since the 70s!

However, I now have a grandson, into Thomas, so I'm building his interest (I hope) by making him a layout. He is 130 miles away, so I do bits here then ferry them to him and hope they fit! I've cheated a bit by supplying a GWR pannier without a face!

To answer your question we only have the normal Hornby couplings, and I have submitted an article to Saslord about a cheap and cheerful method of uncoupling, with some pics. Not sure when, or if, it will appear.

[dr5euss]

The Sprat and Wrinkle couplings were being discussed over at the GnATTERBOX, but they looked really fiddly to me - almost like flatpack furniture. Have you had any experience with them?

Thanks,

[Henry's Grandad]

An article about fitting the Sprat and Winkle coupling can be found at http://www.gwr.org.uk/procouplings.html

The whole site above is a great source of technical and practical advice and inspiration.

Enjoy!

[fatmac]

Couplings - the bane of railway modellers everywhere.
I reckon, if they actually work, (like kadee), they are extremely fiddly to add to stock, as there isn't/wasn't a standard fitting, until N.E.M. - trouble is, most/all the stock I buy doesn't come with them.

[Mountain]

btw tension lock was invented by Peco. Hornby had to pay royalties to use it and this was what made Peco its money

oops! Well don't use that in the article.
I thought Peco invented magni-simplex couplings in competition with Hornby/Triang's tension locks ?

I'm afraid tension lock was used in early 00 before Peco made them. I have an old scratchbuilder book where home made tension lock couplings and variants of tension lock being an offset loop and hook which were far less noticeable, but I would guess, less reliable round sharper corners.
Peco did indeed have the monopoly on the coupling type used by Hornby on their Hornby Dublo 3 rail and 2 rail so maybe the poster above has mixed these up. (Sorry for late reply in this thread as only just read it. Not got to later replies as yet).
Regarding couplings, it depends what gauge and scale and if narrow or standard gauge, and also the country you model in. For example, Kadees look just right if operating in USA outline or if one has modern image UK 00 gauge Sprinters etc, but for most 00 gauge British outline stock I personally find I would rather the looks of a small tension lock. However Kadees do work well when set up correctly.
For British older wagons etc I like the look of Sprat and Winkles and variants of this type. They do work well but not easy to fit on coaching stock.
My 00 I have left as tension lock for now as the cost and time to convert so much locos and rolling stock is more then I can consider.
For my 7mm narrow gauge, from the outset I decided that as I tend to spend as little as possible on my models, I have made my own coupling system. It is not automatic which is actually realistic in operation if one thinks about it! The two main considerations to the design were that it should cost as little as possible and look relatively realistic. Then comes the need for very sharp corners I need to negotiate, and then comes the operation.
The first aspects. They are very cheap to make at a few pennies each. They are slightly large but look right. They will negotiate curves in less then 2ft diameter (In 7mm scale!), and in operation though they are manual, they are far easier then 3 link used in 7mm scale standard gauge.
So in all they have been a success. Just drawing pins and paperclips!

[Mountain]

The Sprat and Wrinkle couplings were being discussed over at the GnATTERBOX, but they looked really fiddly to me - almost like flatpack furniture. Have you had any experience with them?

Thanks,

Sprat and Winkle are easy to fit to wagons. Some coaches and locos need more thought. Wagons are very simple as they have room for the counter weight. In its simplest form, just fit a thin wire (Supplied in the kit) across the buffers or make a loop instead. The hook is held loose suspended on two wires under the chassis. That is basically it... Apart from a small hanging chain to represent the 3 link which also acts to be attracted to a magnet under the track. Uncoupled wagons can be pushed and will remain uncoupled if needed.

[Mountain]

Couplings - the bane of railway modellers everywhere.
I reckon, if they actually work, (like kadee), they are extremely fiddly to add to stock, as there isn't/wasn't a standard fitting, until N.E.M. - trouble is, most/all the stock I buy doesn't come with them.

Kadee have a few different types to help them fit to different stock. The two largest things that put me off are price, price and they look a bit odd for most 00 gauge use. Of course, if one models in USA outline H0 it is Kadee every time!

[Bufferstop]

Just landed on this thread by random misdirection, read it and come to the conclusion that several people have their couplers and inventors mixed up, specifically in relation to Hornby, Peco, Tensionlock and Simplex. So here's the sequence, any date are approximate
1930's - a "chopper style coupler called the Lanal was invented but AFAIK was not patented.
1940's Sydney Pritchard invented a knuckle type coupler he called the Simplex, and not having the resources to patent it took the design to Meccano who were about to restart production of Hornby Dublo, they jumped at the chance to adopt it Patented it in partnership with Mr P. and split the rights to use it, Meccano took the toy trade and Mr P the model trade and founded Peco on the strength of the deal.
Trix tried to adopt it without paying by mirror imaging it and saying it was a new design. Hornby sued, the Judge agreed and Trix had to cough up royalties on every model they used it on.
Around 1950 a new company (later to be called Rovex) produced a cheap toy train set for Marks and Spencer to sell at Christmas. Lines Brothers who owned Triang looking to get into model trains bought the company (as Rovex) and adapted the designs to launch Triang Railways. Looking for a better coupler the saw the Lanal design, adopted and adapted it. It lacked the latching action that is now standard.
1955{ish) Triang developed a second range of trains using a scale of 3mm/ft on 12mm track (and you thought 16.5mm was bad) which launched early in 1957. One of its features was a development of the Triang (Lanal) coupler which had a hook instead of the flat faced chopper. A ridge around the rim of the loop stopped the hook rising when the coupler was in tension and pushed down a lightly sprung uncoupling ramp. They called it Tensionlock. I can't find any mention of it being patented as there was no one else around to pirate it. Peco produced a plastic version of it for the model trade and Triang appear to have accepted it as a legitimate move, it probably saved them from having requests to buy spares by modellers.
The advantages of the design seem to be realised and Tiang adopted the same design for their burgeoning 00 range. It was compatible with the original chopper design and so no upheaval was caused by swapping to it.
Early 60's Triang was wiping the floor with Hornby Dublo who were unable to shake off their old monopolist thinking. They did belatedly adopt plastic moulding for bodies and a switch to 2-rail electrics. The Simplex coupler was fiddly to make involving stamping, bemding and riveting operations and they developed a working but ugly plastic version. Peco produced an improved version and inserted a steel pin in the drop arm to create magni-simplex, but it all came too late to save Meccano and Hornby Dublo, who sold out to Lines Brothers, and Triang became Triang Hornby using almost exclusively Triang designs.
Mr P had meantime kept his finger on the pulse, having designs for both of the coupler systems in use and a diverse range of products in the market.
The story of how Triang Hornby became Hornby, Hornby Dublo became Wrenn and Hornby bought back some of the old Meccano tools ithat t had already bought and given away, belongs elsewhere.
At which point it would seem appropriate for me to butt out and leave this thread to go back to sleep.

[End2end]

Hornby Dublo who were unable to shake off their old monopolist thinking.

Nothing new there then.
Thanks for the history lesson Bufferstop. A interesting read.

I'm too amature to hack wagons about to cut off the horrible Hornby couplings. Yes it would be hacking
My approach was to buy the least possible amount of Hornby rolling stock and nothing too old except in exceptional circumstances (The Tolgus Tin loco as seen on my threads that I've wanted for years and is now DCC'd). I do have a Hornby bubble car but that will run on it's own so couplings are not an issue.
I decided that to get some sort of automated uncoupling I would use the Brian Kirby uncoupling method, attatching staples to the bottom of the coupling hooks and adding magnets between the sleepers.
By stopping the trains couplings over 2 installed magnets, the staples are attracted to the magnets raising the coupling hooks up and releasing them. This works fine but there are some caveats.

1, The rolling stock cannot be auto-uncoupled just anywhere, needing to be above the installed magnets.
2, Some couplings do not work as they are not made of the correct materials. A metal coupling hook will be attracted by the magnet thus holding down the hook instead of pulling down the attached staple, raising the hook.
3, Some couplings like Hornby cannot be easily replaced with the correct type/material coupling without having to cut away some of the original moulding.
4, A lot of rolling stock will need thier coupings replaced (like most coupling decisions dictate). I've found Bachmann couplings are the best with the BK method as they are made from the correct materials. Both the screw and NEM variety.
5, For couplings that cannot be easily replaced (see point 3) another uncoupling solution is needed alongside the BK method. I use a "magnet on a stick" method to lift the metal coupling hooks. This can be used anywhere but introuduces "hand of god" and "owner get up and move" implications.
6, Out of the box, Hornby (new and older), Peco and the newer Oxford do not work as their couplings are metal.
7, Installation of the uncoupling points needs to be planned.
8, Light trains sometimes uncouple going over the magnet positions. This is easily rectified. I personally use lead flashing either in (covered by a load) or stuck under (using black tack) the rolling stock.
9, You hear the couplings "CLACK" sometimes going over the magents. It doesn't bother me, in fact I quite like it, but it might you.

I think that's it off the top of my head.
Are Bachmann couplings cheaper then Kadees et al? I don't know, but what I do know is gluing a staple to a coupling hook has got to be a lot easier than cutting away original moulding to attach another coupling..... and then getting that coupling set right!
You can paint the staples black once glued in position and they are barely visable and can cover the magnets inbetween the sleepers with ballast or paint.
Until someone invents a device, perhaps DCC controlled that you can add to any rolling stock for "anywhere uncoupling" the BK method has been serving me fine.

Please do remember I am an amature and couldn't even consider taken a saw to ANY rolling stock. These are just from my personal journey and my way around such "obsticles".
Thanks
End2end

[TimberSurf]

Until someone invents a device, perhaps DCC controlled that you can add to any rolling stock for "anywhere uncoupling" the BK method has been serving me fine.
End2end

Readily available and DIY versions also seen (none are cheap! )
Alex Jackson (AJ) DCC couplings
Hatton ideas

Krois
keen-systems.com
http://www.precimodels.com/en/8-product ... uncouplers

http://www.rr-cirkits.com/uncoupler.html
http://www.shop.tec4trains.de/img/downl ... _web_D.pdf UK http://dcctrainautomation.co.uk/index.p ... search=t4t

Roco

smart-coupler

DAUM! That's another category for my links page!

[Bufferstop]

E2E - a solenoid operated de-coupler is available, it functions by tilting the buffing bar downwards. It's really only compatible with loco tenders and tank locos with an empty bunker. It just uses a spare function on the decoder. Some fairly small solenoids are available so perhaps other stock could be equipped, ibut t's the decoder that's the problem you would need one for every equipped vehicle. Some form of magnetic or electromagnetic uncoupling would seem to be the best bet for the currently available technology.

[End2end]

Thanks chaps but all above my budget and fitting experience.
I'll echo the word... amature.... amature.... amature.... ...........
Thanks
End2end

[flying scotsman123]

I'll echo the word... amature.... amature.... amature.... ...........

Surely we're all amateurs really? I don't think anyone here is paid for their work (with a couple of notable exceptions). Just being an "amateur" should automatically prevent you from doing anything in modelling; I first took a hacksaw to a new loco aged 16, after a bit of practise on cheaper items first!

[Bufferstop]

Being an amateur in no way equates to lower standards, if anything an amateur doing work for himself, is going to strive for the best result he can achieve. A professional is going to balance the time spent against acceptable quality in order to maximise profit, oherwise he will rapidly go out of business.

[Mountain]

I just brought my old book out. (Modelling 4mm Scale Rolling Stock by Michael Longridge published in 1948). It shows how to make tension lock couplings before the days they were commercially available on models. The author was a 4mm scale 18mm gauge modeller from the 1930's onwards. The uncoupling ramp side of things was designed slightly differently to how they are today. A Mr A.L.Rice from USA designed a sideways bar at 90° to the coupling hook (Which was joined to the hook) and it was pushed up by two thin springy wires on the track.
If you ever see a copy of this book for sale, go for it as it has some really good information, as back when it was written, if one wanted to model in 4mm scale, almost nothing was available.
I'd like to show a PIC of a page relating to diagrams of the couplings but not sure if copywrite rules apply.