What type is the most reliable?

HI everyone. I would be grateful for a few opinions on this. I've been running some test trains on 00 gauge flexi track of different radii. Most of my stock is the tension-lock (Hornby) standard coupling. Some newer locos use a narrow version of the tension-lock coupling with a NEM style attachment. I have found these not very compatible with the standard couplings, tending to bind and cause derailments on some curves. 
It begs the question, if I"m thinking about changing couplings, then why not consider a more realistic looking style (Kadee or hook and horn)? I'm modelling mostly British stock, steam, up to amalgamation era. 
I'd be interested to know what others think. 
Cheers, Angus. 

I have only tried tension locks myself,most of the others are too fiddly,I have now fully converted all my stock to Kadee`s, very reliable and easy to fit,plus brill for uncoupling
:thumbs;-):cool:
Owen

I also am changing my stock over to Kadees,providing you use the Kadee height gauge,you will find they are very good.

Hi Angus,

I've been using Kadees couplers for over 14 years. All my GWR and BR stock has them, as do the PO wagons. As mentioned, get the height gauge. I would recommend you also get the coupler pliers for adjusting the trip pin, and the coupler wand. I use #5 or the #17-#20 NEM couplers. As others have noted, the presence of an NEM 362 pocket on a Bachmann or Hornby does not necessarily mean compliance with NEM standards.

All my North America stock is of course Kadees. Older items often have a horn coupler which gets replaced. Simple swap for a whisker fine-scale Kadee, which I have standardised on. Rare indeed is the stock with incorrect height. Really old stock can have a Baker coupler, which is a tension lock. They sometimes need a bit of work, but Kadee seem to have all the bits and pieces including underset and overset knuckles. 

And of course magnetic uncoupling. Although some UK stock has issues with this due to steel axles. Small neodymium magnets seem to work nicely.

Highly recommended. 

Nigel

Definitely lose the slimline tension-lock couplings. Some people say they're superior, but I don't think the loss in function is worth the minimal gain in looks.

Model knuckle couplings, Kadee being the most popular and reliable brand, are definitely one option. But you are going to have to do a fair bit of bodging to get them on at the correct height with some of that stock. Certain Hornby locos will absolutely require the ones that have an offset shank because the chassis will be in the way. Going the Kadee route, I would avoid the smaller truly-to-scale couplers in your situation. They don't tolerate even slight height differences, from what I've read.

If you want something more British-looking you could go with the Sprat & Winkle style of coupling. Those could be fitted with somewhat less bodging, and you can improve coupling distance by using a wire strung between the buffer shanks for the loop. If there's no room on the loco for a hook, it's no problem - you can get away with just fitting loops on the locos. With this system, you won't have to worry about getting or making a special uncoupler magnet (Speaking of which… Nigel, would you mind showing how you do yours?) since you just have to pull things down instead of to either side. Any regular magnet or electromagnet will do.

I am with Owen

I converted to Kadees a few years ago and have found them to be super reliable…..and I run a lot of routines depending on consistent automatic coupling and uncoupling.

Older stock can be a bit of a faff converting but with patience it can be done. New Releases from the major manufacturers in the last few years have the tension locks fitted into NEM pockets. These pockets take Kadees #17-20 (four different lengths) that plug straight in without any other work……..about 80% of the time. I had to add that caveat because height is a critical issue and from time to time Bachmann, Hornby and Dapol take a cavalier attitude to the concept of standard height!:roll:  Its usually easily surmountable with a bit of shimming….just an irritant.

Definitely worth trying.

Regards 

Oh What to do!.    I have tried all sorts ,it seems that the correct  height is most important with several types. at the moment i have some Spratt and WINCKLE , some tension locks .some B&B ,some D&G  some with the Brian Lambert idea of a short extension to the low part of the tension link  hook. All leave something to be desired.   The one i have not tried ,to be honest because of cost ,is Kaydee .
It seems that the general opinion is to fit Kaydees but accurately and with a height gauge.  I have gathered so much stock over the years  it will cost loads ,is it worth it i ask myself .   Oh what to do!

I'm with Zelda on this!
S & W are very reliable, and more in keeping with
loose coupled British stock, the use of 3 link chain
for the magnets just looks better.
I think Kadee's on coal wagons, etc., look worse
than tension locks.
Also, the loop can be very discreet, I use their
mounting plate and by the time you've blacked
it, it's almost invisible.

The new slimline tension locks are the default standard & they do not like working on curves with the old HUGE versions.
Kadee couplers are perfect for operation.

Thanks everyone for the sage advice. I'll begin experimenting with Kaydees first, and go from there. This should keep me busy until the summer temperatures lessen and I can get to the layout in my shed. Cheers, Angus.

I don't know why but a lot of UK modellers spell Kadee with a Y - there is no Y in the name
Kadee - Wikipedia

While 3 link couplings maybe realistic, try operating them on large layouts like West Midland by Edward Beal or Buckingham Central by Peter Denny.

Well, that's what Sprat & Winkle type couplings are good for. They approximate the appearance of three-link couplings, but with some compromises made to allow automatic coupling and uncoupling.

I rarely use magnetic uncoupling, most of my stock (all of the North American and probably 80% of the GWR/WR) has the trip pin removed. It's done with the hand in the sky and a 40 foot scale pole, as I don't like fixed coupling positions. Too restrictive. I'm going to have a look at the Rapido electromagnetic uncoupler, with the aim of being able to shift it's position via a linear activator. Primarily for running around. More on that when I have some results.

One of the reasons for going with fine-scale Kadee couplers is that properly positioned they really are unobtrusive. 4mm fine-scale would of course be using 3 link chains. But then I'm not a purist. Kadees couplers are a good compromise between functionality and looks. And because of the different lengths close coupling is easily done.

Nigel

Then of course, there are the decoder operated couplers, using muscle wire . . .



https://www.youtube.com/v/q29cdtFGdUo

Where's me tin hat?   :lol:

[user=269]MaxSouthOz[/user] wrote:

Where's me tin hat?   :lol:

You're a scratchbuilder, you probably cut it up for material :tongue

Nigel, I agree that fixed-position magnets are a bit on the restrictive side, especially if they're regular magnets and not electromagnets because then you can't park a train in that spot without having to reverse and recouple before starting off. But as Sol pointed out, having to use the big 0-5-0 to uncouple (or couple, in the case of actual three-link couplings) is a bit of an issue on larger layouts. I haven't actually been able to employ any of this stuff yet, but I've given it thought and done reading, and I came up with an idea for magnetic uncoupling: Put the magnet on a long stick so you can shove it under the layout to wherever you want it at the time.

Hi Angus,

I hope you're finding all of this instructive. This is probably one of the disadvantages of magnetic uncoupling, applies to all 57 varieties of couplers with the exception of locomotive or freight car, DCC-driven, mechanisms. Which have their own issues.

Max: I thought about memory wire, I actually got some, remembering where I put it…….presumably you are going to use this on the "plank" with uncoupling in every freight car. The issue I have is that most of my locomotives (HO/OO) would require additional butchery. Now "O" scale is a different proposition. As are HO/OO scale freight and passenger cars.

I have seen mini motors attached underneath the front/rear of the locomotive (HO/OO) coupled via a thread to the Kadee. They function as mini stall motors (but will burn out if left on for more than a few seconds). Rolf Eichenseher (http://www.precimodels.com/en/8-products/1-dcc-uncouplers) worked this one out. Tony's Trains had a DCC controlled system that involved 2 motors and arms that moved the coupler box down to disengage. More expensive than the locomotive.

Brendan: Large layouts tend not to have too many switching/spotting operations. For a small switching/spotting layout, plank or puzzle where only half a dozen 10 ton wagons or 40 foot freight cars are being used fixed magnets work fine. When different length wagons/cars/locomotives get into the mix all bets are off.

I think that a careful look at what is required pays off here. Where a passenger train comes into a station and needs to run around the carriages, fixed positions for the magnets work OK, although some degree of movement would be beneficial to accommodate different engine lengths and number of carriages.  Same goes for the yard where the engine needs to run around, drop-off and pick-up, although my preference there is hands-on wand-from-the-sky, as I like to play trains rather than hit keyboard buttons. For a small switching layout that involves 4-8 freight cars/wagons being shifted from one side to another individual uncouplers in every freight car/wagon would not be too expensive (especially with memory wire).

Angus, if you want to take this approach with tension hooks and DCC, Keen Systems do a DCC controlled tension hook (the modern thin one) that is activated using an actuator and an arm. Fits into a tender or a van/wagon, and it actually works. I used one in a slip coach, and it can be adapted for Kadees. Not cheap though and the actuator is big. http://www.keen-systems.com/Couplings.html

The original John Allen switching puzzle used 40-foot freight cars,  Baker tension hooks and uncoupling ramps, and was hand operated (as were the turnouts). You could of course motorize uncoupling ramps and put them under DCC control. Plenty of material on the web describing this.

Nigel

Angus said, "It begs the question, if I'm thinking about changing couplings, then why not consider a more realistic looking style (Kadee or hook and horn)? I'm modelling mostly British stock, steam, up to amalgamation era." 

I think the mention of Kadee and 'hook and horn' (I don't know of these) in the original question shows slight confusion as to what is actually wanted.  None of the foregoing suggestions are realistic when considering that Angus is modelling British steam outline.  In this regard Kadees are just as unrealistic as hook and bar couplings.

Angus, are you actually looking for a more realistic coupling (in which case go for three-link, etc.) or are you really looking for a coupling which gives you the ability to couple/uncouple automatically?

Terry

 

Good point Terry…..I ,like others, assumed Angus was concerned with ease of coupling:oops:

One could argue that Kadees are not too unrealistic on carriages but they  don't look right on wagons or even locos for that matter.

I am afraid in this instance I sacrificed realism on the alter of automation :lol:

Ps Good to see you posting again:thumbs

"hook & horn" couplers - see guidetozscale.com

even used by Airfix on their UK rolling stock kits at one stage

I have a box full of the airfix version of the Hook & Horn, there are also still on the sprues of the Dapol kits