...

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Couplings.
sarah
post 12 Jul 2016, 14:01
Post #16


Station Master
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,267
Joined: 24-November 08
From: North Wales
Member No.: 4,244



Some information about couplings available here...

http://modelrailwaysandroadszone.co.uk/php...f=124&t=405



NEM Couplings...fitting to older and non-NEM fitted models...


In the post below, NEM Couplings are Fitted...using Parkside Dundas NEM mountings (PA34) on plastic card spacers.

http://modelrailwaysandroadszone.co.uk/php...?f=41&t=421

The Parkside adapters are intended to be used with the cranked couplings like Bachmann have used, but It is better to pack the adapters down a little using plasticard spacers between the adapter and the wagon floor, spaced to give the "correct" height for the couplings, and use straight couplings.

http://www.parksidedundas.co.uk/acatalog/P...S_FITTINGS.html

http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=PA34

The coupling pocket and hook are Hornby parts, sold in packs of 10. (X.9289) Bachmann versions are also available. Straight (With Pocket) Sold in packs of 10. - 36-030


Kit Built CCT...



Wrenn (Ex Hornby Dublo) CCT...






There are other sources of information RE: fitting couplings.

The Bachmann Collectors Club Magazine has recently run a series on fitting NEM pockets and various couplers, including Kadees and the Bachmann version....

A good search on the 'net will turn up a lot of info!

I am working on fitting NEM pockets on most of the Ffrwd Locks Rolling Stock...I may later fit NEM Kadees....all options open! wink.gif
This is a compromise fitting...fit NEM pockets, and NEM Kadees...then any NEM coupling could be used, and you are not stuck with Kadees...

If you were to sell a wagon on, for example, you can keep the Kadees, fitting British Standard NEM tension Lock Couplings! wink.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+
34C
post 12 Jul 2016, 15:03
Post #17


In depth idiot
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,190
Joined: 31-May 07
Member No.: 1,818



I think there is a possible design that is 'Dingham like' in working princple but that doesn't have the handed problem. Still workling on refinement. If I succeed there will be a very large quantity of Bach MTL's for sale!

QUOTE (Brossard @ 12 Jul 2016, 13:55) *
... I note that Hornby included a pair of couplings that look European(Roco?) with my last coach. These don't offer any improvement in appearance and I can't comment on performance...

That's the coupler Hornby sell as R8220, and it is a Roco pattern, fully compatible with Roco's 40270 which comes in a shorter mount (because Roco know how close coupling mechanisms work). The serendipitous benefit: Roco's 40270 operates Hornby's correctly positioned NEM pockets, and the Hornby R8220 with the longer shank compensates perfectly for Bachmann's earlier error of having the pocket too far inboard on their mk1s. So there's a 'full system' on offer for good close coupling operation of common UK coach stock.

The resulting passenger trains look great with all the gangway faceplates in contact, and there's a lovely effect on starting as the loco sees the full weight of the train immediately rather than picking up a coach at a time: very often a half turn or two of wheelslip just naturally, no need to simulate it. That pleases me, if no one else!
Go to the top of the page
 
+
Brossard
post 12 Jul 2016, 15:30
Post #18


Station Master
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,312
Joined: 16-August 07
From: A Bloke in Quebec
Member No.: 1,958



You captured the essence of what we do in your last sentence, 34C. thumbsup.gif

John


--------------------
John

Go to the top of the page
 
+
Graham Plowman
post 19 Jul 2016, 11:59
Post #19


Regional Controller
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,410
Joined: 5-September 06
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 869



I fit Kadee and EzMate to rolling stock which prototypically had buckeye couplings such as coaches.

Article here: http://www.mrol.com.au/Articles/Rolling%20...eCouplings.aspx


--------------------
Graham Plowman
(British outline 00 - NCE PH PRO-R, Lenz 100 - DCC Sound and computer controlled signalling/interlocking of Ashprington Road with SSI software)
Go to the top of the page
 
+
Mr N. Ladd
post 19 Jul 2016, 21:03
Post #20


Passed Fireman
****

Group: Members
Posts: 486
Joined: 3-December 15
Member No.: 21,897



You are funny Brossard. I am here and been interested in the replies. Out of all the replies so far maybe the Peck type that were used by Hornby Dublo were the most appropriate for general use rather then tension lock, but as tension locks go, the old Mainline size tends to be the best compromise. I wrote as really I feel we do need something that looks better and works well and does not cost a small fortune. I have noticed on more modern stock that the nem pockets do add a degree of unwanted up and down play where at least the days before the nem pockets the couplings stayed still and therefore worked better. I do see the reason for using nem pockets though.
The post was not really intended to get sides for or against certain coupling methods but rather for us to think to see if we or the manufacturers have answers in design. For a coupling in 00 or N gauge it is better to be mounted low if it does not follow prototype practice as this is my gripe (For a long time I couldn't think why they stood out so much more then tension lock) with Kadees. As they are mounted high they do stand out. Now I am the first to point out that if the prototype look like a Kaydee (For example a BSI coupling mounted on a class 158) then they are the best and do need the higher mountain point.
I have tried Sprat and Winkle and they can be made to dissapear in their looks compared to others. The main issue I found with them is the daunting task of converting ones entire stock! But this issue remains with any coupling alteration, hence the idea for nem pockets.
I do feel the couplings do need to work both ways, in other words, not be one directional. I am fascinated with all the different types, some I knew about and a few I didn't or knew them but didn't understand how they work.
My original thought about seeing a perfect well made model railway display running the latest RTR stock where the couplings stood out was "Surely the industry could do better?", but didn't have a definite answer to the problem.
In the larger scales the size is more user friendly to allow ones hand to uncouple a three link coupling and even if one needs to compensate with large buffers for tight corners, the end result looks right. In smaller scales things get more difficult. I feel the main reason the "Hand of god" is frowned upon in smaller scales is due to the hand being so much larger then the model, and the lack of space for one to actually carry out the procedure. It is a shame in a way as for generations it has been done by hand on the prototype.
In narrow gauge it is slightly easier if using a centrally mounted buffer as it is easier to make something cheap and reasonably looking that works. I can't say easy exactly but easier!
In an old scratch building in 4 mm scale book I have published around 1948, they did address couplings and one solution was a wire formed tension lock but there was a small loop on one side of the vehicle and a small hook on the other. In other words, they didn't look like current tension locks but the downside was that they are less likely to work with tight corners like a centrally mounted tension lock does. If the coupling is made from wire it does tend to blend in more, but will it still work? It actually gives me an idea but I will need to experiment a bit.
Whatever coupling is chosen, I do feel that for general use for the masses, it does need to be able to negotiate first radius curves (Even if others may not agree).
Go to the top of the page
 
+
Peter Armond
post 20 Jul 2016, 09:41
Post #21


Footplate Inspector
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 725
Joined: 1-February 06
From: Lusaka, Zambia
Member No.: 560



As a slight aside knuckle type couplings have always? been used on the railways in this part of the world, East and Southern Africa.

A few weeks ago while passing under a road bridge adjacent to the railway line here in Lusaka a freight train was passing with several mineral wagons. What amazed me was the distance between the wagons. All of course had knuckle couplings which seemed to protude from each wagon by at least 2 metres so the distance between each wagon must have been at least 4 metres, probably more. It simply did not look normal and if it was reproduced in model form we would all say the distance between the wagons was too great.

Unfortunately it was not appropriate to stop and try and obtain a photograph, but if another opportunity arises I will try and do so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+
34C
post 21 Jul 2016, 07:18
Post #22


In depth idiot
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,190
Joined: 31-May 07
Member No.: 1,818



A big advantage of the 'Janney' (knuckle) coupler design is that it enables simple spacing off of potentially heavily loaded vehicles to comply with the civil engineer's limits of ton weight per foot run on bridges and other structures.

It was introduced in the USA in the mid 1870s, and was certainly operating in the UK in the 1890s thanks to the Pullman company, which led to its advantages being realised by the ECJS and GNR, and its adoption from 1895. I would not be surprised to learn that it was operating in Africa before the UK, as the advantage mentioned in my first sentence was likely to be very significant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS    Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th August 2020 - 05:36