Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Railroads / September 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

English OO trains need help with couplers

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Rick Mitchell - 19 Aug 2006 04:35 GMT
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
t.cane@btinternet.com - 19 Aug 2006 09:02 GMT
>Hi All,
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Rick

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
Beowulf - 21 Aug 2006 20:26 GMT
Rick Mitchell <MitchellRA@gmail.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:1155958523.259363.302590@m79g2000cwm.googlegrou
ps.com...
> Hi All,
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Rick

Salvé
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....)
Greg.P. - 21 Sep 2006 03:05 GMT
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.

> Rick Mitchell <MitchellRA@gmail.com> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:1155958523.259363.302590@m79g2000cwm.googlegrou
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
> invented HO and his coupler.....
> Beowulf (now I'm going for a cup of char....)
David Bromage - 21 Sep 2006 04:14 GMT
"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
Greg.P. - 21 Sep 2006 07:04 GMT
> "Realistic" for British and European prototypes means drawhooks and screw
> couplers. Not sure about HO but some UK manufacturers such as Exactoscale
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Cheers
> David

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.
Beowulf - 21 Sep 2006 20:11 GMT
> 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
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Regards,
> Greg.P.

There was a method for adapting the Lima coupler to carry the Fleischman,
and the best cuopler for invisibility is still the Spratt and Winkle
magnetic which is made out of piano wire , The fact is that in order to work
with buffers a coupler must hold the wagon  away from the preceeding wagon
at a distance to stop buffer lock whilst proppelling or crossing points or
curves the fact is that most coupler disappear between the wagons just as
the prototypes did so Just by dismantling the forward coupler from the
engine and the rear coupler from the guards vanan immediate improvement can
be made. As to Buckeye couplers I can with absolute authority say that they
were disliked by most Train Guards due to the ride given by them being
rather jerkier than that of a similar coach connected by screw link (not
instanter or 3 link which were exclusively or goods stock) I can say this
because I was a guard basaed at Watford Junction  so know my onions! atleast
pre 80´s :)
Beowulf
Greg.P. - 21 Sep 2006 22:01 GMT
>> 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
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> and the best cuopler for invisibility is still the Spratt and Winkle
> magnetic which is made out of piano wire ,

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.

> The fact is that in order to work
> with buffers a coupler must hold the wagon  away from the preceeding wagon
> at a distance to stop buffer lock whilst proppelling or crossing points or
> curves the fact is that most coupler disappear between the wagons just as
> the prototypes did so

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

> Just by dismantling the forward coupler from the
> engine and the rear coupler from the guards vanan immediate improvement
> can
> be made.

I rejected that option as it places limitations on operations.

> As to Buckeye couplers I can with absolute authority say that they
> were disliked by most Train Guards due to the ride given by them being
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> atleast
> pre 80´s :)

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.
Peter W. - 21 Sep 2006 23:48 GMT
Whoa!

There are three Greg P. postings on this thread and no Mark Newton
couterposts yet?!
He must be snoozin' at the keyboard.  Or maybe he is not a OO scale
coupler expert? Neah...

Actually, I find it quite refreshing to see a thread without bickering.

I still remember the Newton/Flynn battles about a year ago.  I know, I
should find this stuff amusing.  But I only find it annoying.

Peteski
Greg.P. - 22 Sep 2006 05:29 GMT
> Whoa!
>
> There are three Greg P. postings on this thread and no Mark Newton
> couterposts yet?!

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

> He must be snoozin' at the keyboard.  Or maybe he is not a OO scale
> coupler expert? Neah...

He uses old shoelaces for couplings.

> Actually, I find it quite refreshing to see a thread without bickering.
>
> I still remember the Newton/Flynn battles about a year ago.  I know, I
> should find this stuff amusing.  But I only find it annoying.

Me too - make him stop!

Regards,
Greg.P.
mark_newton - 22 Sep 2006 12:41 GMT
> Whoa!
>
> There are three Greg P. postings on this thread and no Mark Newton
> couterposts yet?! He must be snoozin' at the keyboard. Or maybe he is
> not a OO scale coupler expert?

Correct. I know nothing about 00 scale couplers.

But unlike Procter, I don't feel the overwhelming need to post opinions
on subjects I know nothing about.
Greg.P. - 22 Sep 2006 20:51 GMT
> > Whoa!
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> But unlike Procter, I don't feel the overwhelming need to post opinions
> on subjects I know nothing about.

Of course you do, Mork.
There's the various threads on DCC vs DC and train operation for a start!

Regards,
Greg.P.
Peter W. - 23 Sep 2006 03:01 GMT
> > > Whoa!
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Regards,
> Greg.P.

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
Greg.P. - 23 Sep 2006 09:42 GMT
>> > > Whoa!
>> > >
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> At least I've clearly marked this piece of it as "OT". :-)

I'll be gone for a week from about Wednesday - someone else will have to
spar with Mark for me.

Regards,
Greg.P.
Peter W. - 25 Sep 2006 05:24 GMT
> I'll be gone for a week from about Wednesday - someone else will have to
> spar with Mark for me.
>
> Regards,
> Greg.P.

Maybe Terry Flynn will step up to fill the void....  Just like the old
times...

Peteski
Greg Rudd - 26 Sep 2006 08:09 GMT
> > I'll be gone for a week from about Wednesday - someone else will have to
> > spar with Mark for me.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Peteski

I seem to notice that you have steped up to the mark yourself.

Greg Rudd
Hypocrite NSW
Peter W. - 27 Sep 2006 06:54 GMT
> > > I'll be gone for a week from about Wednesday - someone else will have to
> > > spar with Mark for me.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Greg Rudd

I don't think so.  I'm done here.  I'm sure you see marks full
potential in the current GregP battles of words. I'm small potatoes
compared to GregP and Terry Flynn.

BTW, clever play on words.

Peteski
mark_newton - 25 Sep 2006 13:41 GMT
>>> Whoa!
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Of course you do, Mork. There's the various threads on DCC vs DC and
> train operation for a start!

Yeah, Procter - that's why I'm employed by a railway operator as train
crew, to run trains, and why you still can't get your pointy little
troll head around something simple like TT/TO.
mark_newton - 25 Sep 2006 13:43 GMT
> Whoa!
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I still remember the Newton/Flynn battles about a year ago.  I know, I
> should find this stuff amusing.  But I only find it annoying.

Ah, I remember now why I had you killfiled.
Peter W. - 26 Sep 2006 03:11 GMT
> > Whoa!
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Ah, I remember now why I had you killfiled.

Your memory is fading a bit Mark, isn't it? But your caustic
personallity hasn't changed a bit. And I'm not biting this time. I'm
not going to ask you to create alt.mark.likes.to.spew.crap group and
vent there.  I got used to the likes of you frequenting this group and
spewing OT bickering all over the group.  Carry on! And have lots of
fun doing it.

And judging by the copious quantities of vile posts from you, it seems
that you much rather argue than provide some useful on-topic
contrbutions.  Occasionally however, you do seem to be in a good and
constructive mood.  Like I said, whatever works for you...

:-)
Peteski
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.