Couplers and looks

NEM refers to a set of standards, as such there isn't really an NEM coupling but rather an NEM pocket, this allows differant couplings to be clipped into the pocket so as to make changing couplings easier.

As for couplings, well I've tried a lot of couplings in my search for the ideal, so here is a list of them with some comments, all just my opinion though.

Tension Lock (Hornby/Bachmann type)
These couple well, and work on tight curves, and are double ended so you can turn your stock. However they are difficult to uncouple without an ugly ramp between the rails, and are quite obtrusive as they are both highly visible and don't look like any prototype coupling.

Peco/Hornby Dublo Simplex
The "magni-simplex" version of these is the better of these as they couple and uncouple better than the original version. They work on tight radius curves, but like the tension locks they are difficult to uncouple without an ugly magnet or device between the rails, and are quite obtrusive as they are both highly visible and don't look like any prototype coupling.

Fleischmann/European standard
These are similar to the B&B/DG couplings mentioend below, but are not magnetically operated.

Spratt & Winkle
These work well but can be a bit difficult to uncouple at times. I found it best to have a hook at one end and loop at the other, but then you can't turn your stock. Also I find they are quite obtrusive, you can fit a smaller version (use 3mm couplings on 4mm stock) but then you may have problems on tighter radius curves.

DG / B&B
Similar comments as the Spratt & Winkle, you also may need to omit some buffer beam detail in order to fit them.

Kadee / SEM mk2
Again these work well, and being identical at both ends of the stock, enable stock to be turned. However they don't look right on most steam era models, especially 4 wheel wagons and vans.Also as most people use these at the H0 scale height, they tend to look like an after thought, and don't fit the models, although this can be improved by fitting them at the correct 4mm scale height, but that requires a lot of modifications to the chassis, and in any case some bufferbeam details need to be omitted. They also require shuffling back and forth to get the delay action to work, and don't couple or uncouple well on tight curves.

Lincs Auto Couplings
I found these to be excellent, very easy to fit, you can have full buffer beam detail and even have scale 3/screw links fitted as they do not get in the way of the auto coupling. Only downside is they don't have a delay action. No problems coupling or uncoupling on 18" radius curves or above.

Alex Jackson
These work beautifully, are practically invisible at most distances, and allow full buffer beam detail. Of course you have to make them yourself, and they can be a little fiddly to set up. Will uncouple but won't couple on tight curves.

Dingham
These look quite good and work very well, they are a little fiddly to make. They work as well as Alex Jacksons, but are single ended so you can't turn your stock.

3 links (+ screw & instanter)
They look great, but require a steady hand and patience when coupling and uncoupling.

Umm, I think that's every coupling on the market isn't it?

It is a good list and should be added to the resource section.

Now that many of the new Hornby locos and rolling stock have the NEM sockets than it would be useful to have a reference so that visitors can see what the alternatives forms of couplers are.

Clearly a consideration for many is how simple couplings are for juniors to use. How about rating them on a scale of 1 to 10 for ease of coupling and unhooking. Can they unhook automatically with appropriate help?

And of course price is a factor. You can pick up Hornby couplers for 25p or less in bulk.

I am only used to Dublo claw and Triang Hornby tension couplers. The issue with the Dublo couplers is that they do have a tendency to uncouple at random on uneven track. (there we go again - uneven track! )

Happy modelling
Gary

QUOTE Lisa ... I am generally dissatisfied with Hornby tension lock couplers (looks, functionality and compatibility), and I am intending to do a mass overhaul of the couplers on my running stock ... based on your experience, what would you recommend?

Couplings are quite a personal thing really, as what suits one person may not suit another. At present I'm using 3 links, but am looking at changing to an auto coupling soonish, so like you I'm considering the best option, except I've used them all before so know the good and bad points of each. I think you need to look at what you want in a coupling, for me that's reliable/works well, type of magnet required, unobtrusive, easy to fit/make, low maintenance, able to be used on curves down to 18" radius.

Just to show my thought process I'll break that down a bit.

Reliable/works well
I want a coupling that couples/uncouples smoothly, this means I should be able to couple up to a wagon without it rolling away, or needing a hefty thump at speed. For uncoupling I want to be able to stop in the right place and it's uncoupled, no shuffling back and forth to uncouple. A delay action is usefull, but not essential, if it does have a delay action again I don't want to be shuffling back and forth to get it to work, ultimately simply backing a train over a magnet should be alll that is required to uncouple and set the delay.
Couplings which meet these criteria are; Alex Jackson, Lincs, B&B/DG, Dingham.

Type of magnet required
I have also taken into consideration what type of magnet is needed to operate the coupling, most couplings can be uncoupled with an ordinary bar magnet or electromagnet between the rails or under the track, others require their own special magnets sold by the manufacturer, which are costly compared to a magnet from the local supermarket/hardware/electronics store, and I don't want to be paying a fortune for magnets.
Couplings which meet these criteria are; Alex Jackson, Lincs, B&B/DG, Dingham, Spratt & Winkle.

Unobtrusive
This means one of two things, it either has to look like a prototype coupling, or be difficult to see (you don't have to see a coupling, that's why it's automatic, so you don't need to see it!). I'd also consider the ability to have a fully detailed bufferbeam to be important here, I don't want to loose details or have to carve out the bufferbeam in order to have auto-couplings.
Couplings which meet these criteria are; Alex Jackson, Lincs, Dingham. Kadee's are OK on BR and LNER coaches and some loco's (and US prototypes), but look awful on wagons and tank engines, so I don't consider them an option.

Easy to fit/make
I don't want a coupling which is too fiddly to make, likewise I don't want to have to make major modifications to my stock to fit it, and that includes removing details.
Couplings which meet these criteria are; Lincs.

low maintenance
Unless it gets damaged I don't expect to have to do anything to a coupling once it is fitted, perhaps a dab of lubricant now and then if needed but that's all.
Couplings which meet these criteria are; Lincs, Kadee, Spratt & Winkle.

Able to be used on curves down to 18" radius
My layout doesn't have curves tighter than about 2'6", but I have a circular test track of 19" radius which I expect all my stock to negotiate, I also don't want an unsightly gap when the vehicles are on straight track. Whether a vehicle can couple or uncouple on these curves isn't overly important, but is prefered.
Couplings which meet these criteria are; Lincs, Spratt & Winkle, Alex Jackson.

So looking at that the main options are Lincs or Alex Jackson, Lincs meets all the criteria but doesn't have a delay action, while Alex Jackson has a delay action but can be fiddly to make. There isn't a lot in it really so I'm still unsure.

The only other thing I might consider is using a DCC function in my loco's to uncouple, and in this case the Lincs coupling is the better option, making the coupling DCC controlled would also negate the need for a delayed action.

I'm still thinking about which of the two I'll go for though.

The only thing I haven't included in my reasoning is NEM pockets, as I always cut them off as I think they spoil the appearance of a model which usually has a quite open and "skeletal" look to its underframe.

Gary, you're welcome to add that list to the resource section of the site.

Unfortunately, again and I feel absolutely unavoidably, we meet this very hard to bridge divide between childrens' toys and adults' models.

I think the Hornby couplings are just fine for kids.
Doug seems not at all impressed with their function, where my limited experience is that they function as well as anything else and maybe better than many but do look absolutely horrendous! I have at least three other types of couplings on various models (four incuding N gauge) and none look quite as horrible as Hornby but, other than the N gauge, none actually work any better either. Hence my deep interest in the subject.

Also again, this is one of those areas where there is a big overlap between gauges and scales - this subject could be of interest to many people, no matter what or where they model.

NMRA has standards for couplers and in the US most try to be Kadee compatable because that's what everybody uses. With N-Scale it depends on what prototype you model. Most of the US continental modelers that I know stick with Rapido couplers because they're too lazy and their corners might be to tight and they need the extra daylight between cars. Also with passenger cars there's usually less switching

My personal opinion regarding Kadee couplers is as follows ... if they had a Nobel Prize for Model Railroading then this company should get the first one. In the US it's all about realistic operation and with freight being king there is a lot of switching and yard work. For that you need dependable couplers (No we don't fiddle about with our hands ). Kadee came to the rescue and the rest is history. If you decide that you wish to convert some of your rolling stock get one of these: