English OO trains need help with couplers

Hi All,
I need help in finding information on changing the couplers on my English Trains, I have hornby, Lima models they are about 15years old
and have that hook type coupler that hooks over the bar of the next car etc.
Is they a way to change them to more realistic couplers? (The only example of the coupler I have seen in hobby shops in the US is on Thomas and friends sold by Bachmann's) I think I would have to install some sort of conversion kit but not sure.
Any suggesting or web sites I might try to help with this would be greatly appreciated.
Rick
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hi Rick
The only reaiastic coupling for most UK portotypes is a small hook with a chain. This is only practical for simple layouts or larger scales.
There are are number of articles on the web about converting UK models to Kadee couplings. This is not a easy exercise on some models as the base of the existing coupling has to be removed and often the area where the Kadee is to be mounted restored to a flat surface. There is also the problem that the buffers require the Kadee to be mounted further out than on US stock.
If you put " UK kadee coupling conversion" or similar phrases into Google you will find some good advice on how to do this conversion.
Regards
Tony Cane
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet: snipped-for-privacy@m79g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...

Salvι tThere are a few options open, one ofcourse is to stay with the traditional british couplers which work :) Then there are link and hook couplers, which are realistic, but require at the very least a bar across the buffers to stop "buffer lock" on curves, Spratt and Winkle couplers which are a near invisible coupler worked magnetically and are cheap are another option, look in the British modelling press to obtain them, Kadee style couplers in my opinion are not an option because except on really modern stock because they look so wrong, the traditional coupler does the job very efectively they keep the stock far enough apart to stop buffer lock,and keep them coupled (!) but the kaydee is a prototypical type which looks totally wrong on any but the most modern British types, buckeye couplings have been used on coaching stock for many years but 3 link, Instanter and (on Victorian period) 5 link and screw link couplers have been the standard on prototype stock since the beginning, and a kaydee on any P/O wagon (Waggon) looks just plain ludicrous a real anachronism, maybe its just me but the usefullness of the kaydee disappears because it looks wrong , for some reason for me (And others!!) its easier to accept the unprototypical Walkley coupling ( because it is unprototypical?!) than the kaydees, Spratt and Winkles magnetically operated couplers are probably the way for you to go, they are near invisible and allow all the benefits that the Kaydee do without the visual impact of a foreign bt of kit at both ends jarring the imagination... The disadvantages of using links and hook is this, propelling a rake of chain couple wagons, without a wire across the buffer heads will cause buffer lock, you'll also need very easy curves to stop this happening too, which is only a minor problem compared to needing the hands of a neurosurgeon for uncoupling them(He may object to your sawing his mitts off so you can couple and uncouple a rake of coaches or wagons !) as well as a microscope to find the bloody things between each and every wagon/coach/loco........, As far as finding Spratt and Winkle types go try Hattons (of Liverpool) who sell everything railwayee :) hope this harangue confuses you less than it did me writing it.....oh yes there are alo the various couplers sold by PECO in their catalogue.....oh yes lots of typs matey.. urk! oh yes British modellers have been discussing this since the twenties when A.R. Walkley invented HO and his coupler..... Beowulf (now I'm going for a cup of char....)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pre the NEM 362 coupler pocket Lima had snap-in couplers on many of it's products. These have a vertical snap peg under the frame and the alternatives were: - UK hook and loop. - European loop and buffer. - US horn-hook.
Bogie stock (including locos) did not have removable couplers, the entire bogie was normally available with either European or UK couplers. In the case of locos the coupler was a part of the sideframe moulding.
With the European coupler, there were two distinct types, the early very clumsy type and then for a few years a much finer loop and buffer type much like a Roco coupler in size. Once the NEM362 coupler pocket was added to older models a snap-in loop and buffer coupler was produced. This was slightly larger than the second generation vertical peg type.
Bottom line - you would need to order replacement bogies from Britain to convert older European models to British couplers, bogies from Europe to convert older British models to European couplers and from the US to convert older models to US couplers. If you have models with NEM 362 pockets then there are Bachmann hook and loop couplers (and possibly Hornby and Dapol) which will snap in. Lima only produced a limited selection of it's total range for the US market but a surprisingly large selection for the UK market.
Regards, Greg.P.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Realistic" for British and European prototypes means drawhooks and screw couplers. Not sure about HO but some UK manufacturers such as Exactoscale make them in 4mm. http://www.exactoscale.co.uk/drawings/4CP%20S01A.pdf
Even high speed trains have screw couplers. See for example the end of a TGV La Poste half set and the new Siemens ES64U2, one of which recently set a world record for electric locos of 357km/h.
http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/images/laposte/laposte5.jpg
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/at/electric/1116/110-119/1116er_At.jpg
Of course you could always put Kadees on them. Knuckle couplers aren't common in the UK and even less common in Europe so they won't look right, but they won't look any less realistic on a British/European prototype than the Hornby or Lima types.
Much of Europe bypassed knuckle couplers completely and went straight to multi-function couplers for multiple unit trains.
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/diesel/dmu/648/648_Kiel.jpg
Cheers David
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A problem with knuckle couplers on European stock is that when set at "Kadee/correct" height they connect with the buffers. Because there is a much greater disparity in length between the longest and shortest rolling stock, the couplers need greater sideways movement than they would on US stock. Add to that the smaller spaces generally available to European modellers and the problem is compounded. Most European/British modellers who successfully use Kadees have straight line layouts. I've yet to see a worse looking coupler than the Hornby type, other than the Lima variation of the same thing.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Isn't the Spratt and Winkle an etched brass loop/rising hook coupler? There's another commonly used British coupler named for the inventor's initials (won't come to mind just now) which used a wire hook under the buffer beams and steel chain loops for a magnetic dropper. I tried it but there is too much side play in HO NEM wheels for reliable coupling.

That's another problem in substituting Kadees, one ends up with 5 pivot points in the couplings between wagons.

I rejected that option as it places limitations on operations.

That has been one of the reasons why European railways stayed with screw couplings, in spite of the extra work involved in coupling and uncoupling.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He didn't comment on the one where I recommended DCC either!

He uses old shoelaces for couplings.

Me too - make him stop!
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course you do, Mork. There's the various threads on DCC vs DC and train operation for a start!
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg.P. wrote:

Ahh... Mark found it! Here goes another thread. I'm sure it too will soon turn into another pissin' contest.
At least I've clearly marked this piece of it as "OT". :-)
Peteski
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'll be gone for a week from about Wednesday - someone else will have to spar with Mark for me.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg.P. wrote:

Maybe Terry Flynn will step up to fill the void.... Just like the old times...
Peteski
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter W. wrote:

I seem to notice that you have steped up to the mark yourself.
Greg Rudd Hypocrite NSW
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.