Old tension lock coupler

Hi All.    I have some old style Hornby Carriages, Wagons, and Locos which have the traditional tension lock couplers.But the couplers in question are built as part of either the chassis( in the case of Locos ) and as part of Bogies for Carriages. These are all very well, that is while they are in working order, that is apart from the out of scale gap between the carriages or WHY. Would some kind modeller please tell me how to cvercome this problem without
Major Surgery on the couplers.   Kevin

Hi Kevin

You may be out of luck. Hackery and butchery  are usually the order of the day, especially with the carriage truck mounted ones. KD 18-20 would be my choice, you however will need mounting blocks (Parkside Dundas, now Peco) and the 362 dovetails (which come with tension locks on the end, so you choose).Try Dapol who I believe supply 362 pockets. Well, they are reasonably close to 362 pockets. I believe i saw 362 pockets on Shapeways.

Stock with screw mounted tension hooks are usually a straight swap for more modern screw mounted ones. Not so wide.

Nigel

Kevin, as Nigel has said, hackery and butchery will be needed on those items.

Have you read this ?
http://yourmodelrailway.net/view_topic.php?id=8591&forum_id=156


Now for those who don't want to convert couplings and maintain tension lock, mixing the various breeds/brands is not recommended as the hooks on the large versions do not connect on the small thinner ones and depoending on curve radius,even cause derailments.

Hi Kevin,

Sol is spot on, it definitely is not mix and match with old and new tension locks. There is a reason why some of that old stock is cheap, changing the wheels and adding couplers is normally around another £6-£7. One of the reasons many of us went over to Kadee couplers. #18-#20 for stock that has the NEM 362 pocket (which I think you can now get on Shapeways for older stock - yes, just checked, search NEM 362 socket OO or idem HO). Or just good 'ol #5 on old stock after the tension lock has been removed (old Xuron cutters are ideal for this). Not hard, you need shims, and a KD height gauge.

I have seen many examples where the tension lock was removed from a bogie, and a strip of metal or styrene fixed to the bogie and used to attach a KD. Better to fix it to the ends of the body. Sometimes you just have to resort to under- or over-set couplers. For a rake of carriages that are not involved in being shunted get rid of the KD pin and use whatever height suits best, except for the end carriages of course.

Nigel

Hi Nigel.  Thank you for your reply.  Old stock , as you say is cheaper for a reason and you have "hit"  the nail squarely on the head. But it can fill the gap, depending on ones requirements. Of course "Cut and Shut" can become addictive, my trouble is that I am full of good intentions , but, then I stop one job and start another.. I purchased the GWR Clerestory coaches for cut and shut and haven't started that job. I had been looking at Parkside Dundas but didn't know that they were now part of Peco , trouble is the quality kits will probably disappear never to be seen again?? or get diluted, absorbed into the Peco range ( another competitor out of the way??) when I was looking for suitable bogies for the GWR conversion , I looked up shapeways but, didn't know anything their reputation or quality of workmanship. The idea of the Kadee #5 appeals to me as they can be screwed in position , and I have the Kadee height gauge already.    .All the best. Kevin

Hi Ron. Thank you for your reply. Yes, I did read that thread. And the point is the ability to attach the Kadee coupling at the correct height and distance from the buffers ( I believe that you have dispensed with buffers??)Which means with the stock in question , where the tension lock is part of the Bogie, getting the correct level/  height could be tricky, as  the Kadee would have to be above or below the "metal plate" which is part of the Bogie , of course one could buy new bogies, a bit dearer but the correct bogies could look so much better, and easier to fit Kadee couplings.
All the best. Kevin

Kevin, I haven't fitted Kadees to bogie stock, I attached the Kadee coupler box direct to the body ( some need some spacers to give correct height) after removing the tension lock from the bogie.

Hi Ron.  Thank you.  I didn't give that idea a thought, I just went along with the original idea of fitting to the Bogie.That idea does seem to be the obvious solution .    All the best. Kevin

This thread seems to have concentrated on KD,s    In my case i have similar problems with mixed stock ,but it would be too expensive for me to fit kadees to all my stock,( as much as i would like to) .   So maybe there is advice on just changing to an appropriate tension lock coupling?

Hi Reg.  Thank you for your reply.  That is okay ?if you change all the couplings. I read somewhere, it may have been the Hornby website? that some of the smaller tension locks don't mix well with the original Triang Hornby tension locks. I have been purchasing the Kadee swallow tail "a few at a time" and they seem to fit okay in Bachmann, Dapol,and Oxford wagons, but some need propping with a shim of plastic , shoved in the pocket. The wagons and Locos are my main goal for the shunting plank.     All the best. Kevin

Hi Kevin

I would agree with all that has gone before here - butchery or don't mix - if you don't want to change to a KD option (which I don't).

One, rather simple option is to remove the hook from the old Hornby coupling when connecting the vehicle to a new Bachmann/Hornby style coupling.  More problems seem to come on sharp curves when the two hooks clash.  I only use Setrack on the hidden sections of Yarslow (36in radius everywhere else) and these curves are a nightmare for mixed couplings!!  Going forward, the new system will have nothing under 24in - even in hidden sections.

Another issue arises with the old Dapol/Mainline hooks with a pronounced "hook" on the nose of the hook - if that makes sense!!  The hooks seem to have very tight "C" shaped ends and they do not traverse across the "bar" of the adjacent vehicle on curves - especially when the adjacent vehicle also has a hook.  [I might have to do some pictures to explain all that because it's late and I'm not sure that I know what I mean!!!]

One thing I have found, even when putting trains together of old Hornby/Dapol/Mainline hook & bar couplings - even though they are all roughly the same size, the order of the vehicles can make a difference to the safe running of the train.  I have trains wholly using older couplings and have spent several running sessions getting the order right.  In some cases I have reverted to removing the hook as before.

Out of interest, whatever I do, I cannot get the long wheelbased Hornby CCT to run with anything using the wierd "Hornby close coupling" devise.  Its OK with a new hook/bar.

Barry

[user=31]sparky[/user] wrote:

This thread seems to have concentrated on KD,s    In my case i have similar problems with mixed stock ,but it would be too expensive for me to fit kadees to all my stock,( as much as i would like to) .   So maybe there is advice on just changing to an appropriate tension lock coupling?

Hi Reg and Kevin,

Most KD coupler additions are straightforward and cost-effective. I don't buy the argument that it's too costly when you add in the time it takes to add new tension locks to old stock. The way I look at it is that the wagon may have cost £1 new way back when, you bought it on eebuygum for £4, it's now £12-£15  new with 362 pockets and tension locks to match. And adding 2 KD  #5 couplers is around $4 here, shouldn't be more than £4 in the UK. You're ahead by miles.

I have a box (large) of old and not so old tension locks from wagons, vans, carriages and locomotives that have accumulated over the years Trying to replace an old "wide as the wagon" tension lock with a more modern one is a pain and often time consuming. Almost all new stock now comes with an NEM 362 pocket. All the bits are available to add NEM 362 pockets to old stock. This gives us the choice of using tension locks with 362 prongs or KD couplers (#17-#20). NEM 362 pockets are expensive, but there is a more cost effective way I described back in 2013.See http://yourmodelrailway.net/view_topic.php?id=11873&forum_id=62#p207023

I don't know whether the Parkside Dundas part is currently produced by Peco, hopefully yes. If not Dapol have couplers that take NEM shafted tension locks that the sell in packs of 40 - COUPNEM00. The range of OO couplers that go into NEM 362 pockets available on Shapeways should keep everybody happy (I have nothing to do with the company). "Instanters", bars for B sets, fantastic range.

Nigel

.

Hi Barry.  Thank you for your reply.   Unfortunately I don't have a "full size" layout at the moment, so I don't have that problem. I do have a  "Railway Room" and some " Modules" ready for the purpose, as soon as I get around to having my Laptop working I will have all these thread notes laminated and filed for reference. Another thing delaying me is the Puzzle Planks and magnets, but I am getting there.    All the best. Kevin

Hi Nigel. Thank you for your reply.  My idea, is to standardise my couplings and while I am about it , I thought that I would go the whole hog, meaning out with the old, in with the new, but, there are problems, which I outlined in the opening to this thread. If I was a GWR fan? I could use a Shunters truck, with a tension lock on the Loco end, or alternatively add extra pickups for short wheelbase Locos ( even 03 Diesels use them) and the Kadee at the wagon/ carriage end of the shunters truck, But I don't believe that the Southern used such wagons, and they are a bit cumbersome on shunting puzzles. "Ahead by Miles". comment? I don't understand that isn't the value of a dollar around 70p? which would make the Kadee that much cheaper in the USA??? All the best.    Kevin

I'm a fan of Dingham Couplings http://www.dingham.co.uk/, and will be fitting them to anything that needs to be coupled / uncoupled.  
A cheaper alternative is to use Alan Jackson couplers http://www.mmrs.co.uk/technical-articles/alex-jackson-coupling/ which can be made from bent wire with a bit of practice.

Although for fixed rakes of carriages I'd be tempted to use more scale http://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Smiths_couplings_for__OO_.html

As they say any changes for any type of coupling requires surgery.

Hi The Q.   Thank you for your reply. You are probably correct in all the points you have raised . But with the Kadee 362 and it's swallow tail (NEM ) fitting into most RTR wagons and carriages, and my kit making skills, or inability to complete them??? not proud of that fact, I prefer the former, and if it never ran over Southern rails? Tough.
Maybe one day I will get to complete a kit?    All the best. Kevin

Rule 1 always applies



Most of my stock Is pre NEM and I like butchering  / modelling so a little extra work is not a problem..



 I even will allow Southern on to my line, well it is only 7 Miles away….

Hi the Q.    The questions are "where do you fit the couplings?" On the body or the Bogie , most of my "second hand " stock is also pre NEM too. Living in London all the regions are close by, it is that National Rail , Southern , Thamelink,London South Eastern and through London freight go right past the door/ garden.  All the best. Kevin

Hi Kevin,

Even the simplest change (which would be the Dapol system) will involve material removal and addition (just to shim it to the correct height for the new coupler), and with carriages body removal between the buffers. There is unfortunately no easy way to do this (there is no magic kit that works with all the types of tension hook designs). Some of us like to get the surgical implements out (mine are always to hand), others don't. It's a personal choice.

Rule 1 applies. Have fun, play trains. And don't count rivets. Or buy old stock with dinosaur tension hooks that belong in the recycling or parts bin.

Nigel

Edit: All this because there is no common accepted standard for couplers in the UK, where no manufacturer has yet committed to NEM standards.

Hi Nigel.  Thank you. I understand all of that, but, when it comes to screwing a Kadee coupling onto the metal plate it comes down to over or under? which of course means too high, or under which means too low.I need to fit the coupler on a level plane. Which the 362 does. Following Rons advice, screw Kadees direct to the end of the carriage is straightforward . And maybe when it comes to wagons, at could be similar.
All the best.    Kevin