Couplings

Having just spent half an hour examining slow-moving trains with a strong light and a large magnifying glass, I have come to the conclusion that it is the crappy tension lock couplers which are causing my trains (trucks in particular) to derail. And the longer the train, the worse the problem.

So: which coupling system should I switch to? I will never go finescale, I think, and am not that interested in automatic decoupling, but it would be good to get coaches closer coupled. Ease of fitting is important too, and especially ease of use, for the boys.

Guy

Reply to
Just zis Guy, you know?
Loading thread data ...

I would recommend Kadee or any of their clones. These represent what you call buckeye couplers, albeit about 50% overscale in size. Your problem will be to cut off all remnants of the tension-lock coupling' mount, and fix a coupling box at the correct height onto the bogie or underframe. Not for the faint of heart.

What you observed was the friction of the hooks against the loops in effect locking the hooks and loops together so that the coupling could transmit some sideways thrust, sufficient for other glitches (such as wheels picking railjoints, wheels rding up the rail, bogies resisting turning, non-eased curves, etc) to work their 'orrible way with your rolling stock.

Kadee couplers may transmit a vertical force, but unless you have sudden changes in grade that's not a problem. OTOH, if you have tight curves, coupling on curves will be a problem, especially if one vehicle is wholly or partly on the straight track. But coupling on tight curves is a problem for real railroads, too, so you can always comfort yourself with the knowledge that you merely encountering a prototypical problem... :-)

If you want to stay with tension lock couplings, I've found that Bachmann stock, whose tension lock couplings, despite their smaller size compared to Hornby's, functions better. Maybe the plastic is more slippery, or B'mann's manufacturing tolerances are better, maybe the wheels are better. Layout: an 18"R circle under the Christmas tree. I've given up trying to run Hornby stock on it, even though I use Hornby's Oliver, which should have no trouble with Hornby carriages, (18"R is slightly larger than their second radius, right?) But the combination produces random derailments for no apparent reason.

HTH

Reply to
Wolf Kirchmeir

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 17:36:30 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir said in :

Thanks for the advice re kadees - will follow up. Newer Hornby stock has smaller tension-lock couplings with flexible whatnots, and these do seem less problematic (though not completely right) so what you say has the ring of truth.

Guy

Reply to
Just zis Guy, you know?

But is some of the side thrust caused by sharp curves and/or stiff running stock? The material that the tension lock is made from can have an effect on the side thrust. I discovered a similar problem when fitting locos with nickel-silver wire loops instead of a full T/L coupler. When painted black, they were near invisible, but the following wagon hook would "drag" on the paint and cause derailments. First solution is to leave the loop unpainted, a better solution is to chemically blacken the wire.

Cheers, Mick

Reply to
Mick Bryan

Also with Kadees, you now have the option on some stock to use NEM shanked versions - these are a fairly straightforward replacement for those items that have NEM poskets on them, intended for the precise purpose of the user being able to choose the couplings of their choice. The only two problems I have with the NEMs on UK stock are:-

  1. The tendency of UK manufacturers not to stick to a single standard NEM pocket height - this can cause couplings to be fitted at incompatible heights - for an example, look at Bachmann's BR Standard 4MT tank - the coupling pocket at the back is a different height to the one at the front - which Bachmann overcame by having their tension lock coupling moulded differently to correct for the difference Unfortunately the Kadee NEM shanked versions do not come with height variations. As far as they are concerned, they stick to the principle of the NEM standard which is that all pockets should be at a single consistent height.
  2. The tendency to mount the pocket on a pony truck or bogie rather than directly to the body. Not a problem with 4 wheel wagons and vans, but definitely can cause trouble on bogie coaches and locomotives. Buckeye couplers are designed to be used mounted in such a way, and in the case of Kadees, can lead to changing height variations sufficient to cause uncoupling (bogies and pony trucks can tilt up and down - tension lock couplings are better at dealing with such issues. Also if a coupling is mounted to a bogie, it will of course fowl any extra pipe detail fitted to a loco - either diesel or steam - or to a coach, wagon, etc.

For the reasons mentioned above, I mount all my Kadees to the body of a vehicle, and remove any close coupling mechanisms from coaches etc where the Kadee is to be fitted. I tend to have fixed rakes of coaches (being a BR(S) fan), so it's not so much of an issue (in fact, I find Bachmann's alternative pipe coupling for their Mark 1s very useful in this regard).

Ian J.

Reply to
Ian J.

That should have been "Buckeye couplers are NOT designed to be used mounted in such a way."

Sorreee!!!

Ian J.

Reply to
Ian J.

It was mentioned that Bachman couplings are OK but that is not what I have found. My 2 tankers couplings have had to be modified as they do not rotate sufficiently and are very stiff being a plastic hinge and cause the following wagon to derail. (Track is curve 2) I have removed the hooks on the tankers and rely on the wagons so is it necessary to have 2 hooks as they rub together and give a sideways loading.

Peter

Reply to
Peter Prewett

2 hooks are needed if you want to couple your stock together anyway round. If you don't have a turntable, wye or reversing loop and don't use a cassette type fiddle yard to turn trains then you can remove the hooks from one end of each item. Keith
Reply to
Keith

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.