Hi folks, I'm new to modelling (well the actual building a model railway because back in the late 60's /early 70's I worked in the toy trade selling it) and I am rather confused by the different coupling systems there are these days. Back when I sold model railways I thought the uncoupling ramp was rather unrealistic, so was pleased to learn that there magnetic methods now. What I am looking for is the pro's and cons of the different methods and what they are called.
Jim Lee
Way back in 2001, I wrote a piece for 009 News, describing and comparing both prototype and model coupling systems. This has been updated, and it seems the last version I have is from 2011. Nonetheless, most of the information is still relevant, so if you wish to send your email address to me via a Private Message (click on my name, and it should open my profile, with an opportunity to send a message - otherwise, if you are happy to publish your email on the Forum then in a Post) then I can send you a pdf copy.
EDIT: Having followed my own advice, I see that your email address is in your profile!! I will send the document imminently.
Regards
Tim
Welcome to the wonderful world of 009 Jim.
When it comes to couplings there are a number of different couplings used by 009 modellers and no set standard as to how high they are mounted on the stock.
The most 'popular' types are those that use a moulded buffer with a pin at the top, and a hinged loop that goes over the pin on the next coupling.
Bemo, Greenwhich, Paul Windle and DG all use this basic method to couple up, and if mounted at the same height should any one type should couple together with any of the others. Of those four the Greenwich type is probably the most widely used.
Some 009ers use the N-gauge couplings (the 'Elsie') and others use the KaDee / KayDee (however it is spelt) buckeye coupling from the US, but these two will only couple up with themselves (and not each other).
As to height the most important thing is to get them all at the same height and there are a couple of height gauges / jigs available. There is an etched plate as part of the Greenwich system but probably a bit easier to use is the cast resin gauge from RT Models.
There is also a DIY option of mounting a length of track on a bit of wood and using a wood screw put in between the rails at one end and screwed in so that the flat head of the screw (I've used a countersunk screw on my jigs) is at the height you want your couplings.
Whatever height you decide upon (I'd suggest that the flat top - not the pin - of the coupling is 6mm measured from the top of the rail) use the jig to mark the buffer beam of the coach and then carefully cut a notch or pack out (with plastic sheet offcuts) to give you a platform to mount the coupling on. The couplings will either be metal or engineering plastic bodied (bemo) so will need to be stuck with superglue or epoxy (Araldite, etc.) adhesives, and it might also be worth drilling a hole through the body of the coupling into the floor of the coach and sticking some wire pins through to reinforce the joint.
Hope that helps,
Julien Webb
The questions you need to ask yourself are:
Do you want a shunting layout or one that the trains just go round and round?
Also if you want shunting do you want to uncouple remotely or by using a hand held uncoupling tool?
These choices will affect your choice of couplings.
Fixed under-track magnets do look a lot better than ramps, however they can cause problems with unwanted uncoupling and attracting the steel parts of wagons and locos. Electro magnets under the track tend to have a very limited operating range so can be very fiddly in operation. The best solution I have seen is retractable magnets, but this obviously requires some type of mechanism.
In regards to uncoupling ramps I have seen layouts that very effectively disguise the ramps as a section of sleepers and ballast that only lifts up when under the vehicles for uncoupling.
(I just paint them 'rust' colour along with the sleapers and ballast and the side of the rails.)
Brian Meldon
Quote from: JulienW on October 20, 2017, 12:20
Some 009ers use the N-gauge couplings (the 'Elsie') and others use the KaDee / KayDee (however it is spelt) buckeye coupling from the US, but these two will only couple up with themselves (and not each other).
It's actually Kadee, but they only do HOn3 couplers and larger. The regular HO couplers would be too big - they are oversize for standard gauge. Narrow Gauge modellers in 4mm scale would use Micro-Trains couplers. Similar concept in operation, but the mechanics in the design are a little different. They are perfectly fine for US style narrow gauge, and even to an extent Australian narrow gauge (used on Puffing Billy), but are nothing like British narrow gauge coupling.
I could be wrong but I think that the Micro-trains N gauge couplings were indeed originally marketed by and part of the Kadee range! It was only later that the N gauge and H0 parts of the company were separated.
But I could be wrong?
Brian Meldon
Quote from: B.Meldon on October 21, 2017, 19:40
I could be wrong but I think that the Micro-trains N gauge couplings were indeed originally marketed by and part of the Kadee range! It was only later that the N gauge and H0 parts of the company were separated.
But I could be wrong?
Brian Meldon
That's right Brian. I was only describing the current situation, getting the spelling right so that internet searches work better. I wasn't giving the history.
I have heard (quite probably a myth) that it was the falling out of two founding brothers that caused the split into two companies. There definitely was a split though:
https://kadee.com/htmbord/kadee.htm (https://kadee.com/htmbord/kadee.htm)
Having posted a view under "PECO GR 105 Couplings listed" I discovered this thread dating from last year. It reflects my own (newer) thoughts very well.
See David's posting above - I have just moved my own response to the comments he made in the thread on Peco 105 couplings from that one to this - herewith:
All good points David. I can't answer them, just air my own opinion which may hopefully at least spark some more responses from members who know more about such matters than me!
First, 009 was and still is largely a "builders scale" in that until very recently there was virtually no such thing as ready to run other than continental HOe - and those manufacturers have almost exclusively (I'm being fairly loose with my statements here) gone for what we all refer to as "Bemo couplings" - ie the loop with central buffer/sticky up peg thing type) which exist with various small differences across the board from early Egger and Minitrains through Bemo, Liliput, Jouef, exotic and expensive continental makes, right through to the modern Minitrains, Peco, Heljan and now Bachmann, so if there is such a thing as "standard" 009 couplings, then one can safely say "this is it" as these couplings have been on 009 and HOe stock for the past 50+ years.
Some modellers prefer the looks and operability of small manufacturer's variation of the style, with I think it safe to say, the majority currently preferring to go for the Greenwich coupling which offers an unobtrusive loop and hook style as per the Bemo/Peco type and also enables automatic/remote hands free magnetic coupling and uncoupling. The majority of exhibition layouts currently regularly appearing that don't use the RTR Bemo/Peco type of coupling use either Greenwich, Paul Windle or DG couplings - from my own non technical and maybe inaccurate observations of hundreds of layouts in my roving reporter mode., Most of the variations of the loop and hook style of 009/HOe coupling have degrees of compatability.
Another relatively popular means of coupling is the American buckeye type of coupling that is used a lot in HOn3 and HOn30 narrow gauge modelling and has "bled" into British type 009 to a small degree, mainly by modellers who have experience using this method - I'm referring here to the Micro-Scale and Kadee types, many who don't have experience find these couplings extremely fiddly. You have to make your own mind up!
However there are two other routes that some 009 modellers follow. One is the totally home made scratch built coupling that some modellers prefer simply because it suits them. These vary in styles - simple peg and loop single ended ones which can be made from a loop of wire at one end of a wagon and a track pin at the end of the connecting wagon works fine if you don't want automatic operation, magnetic couplings, I've even seen dressmakers press studs holding items of stock to each other in fixed rake trains where shunting is not normally a feature of operation, - your imagination and personal requirement is your only constraint.
There is another approach, favoured by model bashiers including myself, who tend to go down the economy route and use N scale chassis for locomotives and for both scratchbuilt stock as well as an easy and reliable "fit" under 009 kits where putting the kit chassis together doesn't always guarantee free running and totally square accurate construction - if you have 5 thumbs instead of fingers, like I have.
This is to use the couplings that come "for free" on the N scale chassis - what are universally known as "Arnold couplings" because Arnold were the first N scale manufacturers to use them - possibly! Several famous and highly respected layout owners have used this method on their layouts. The late Dave Scott of Chelthwaite and Beccadale fame was the first well known exhibition layout owner and Railway Modeller featured modeller that I met who followed this approach and converted me way back in the early 1990's. Then I met and became good friends with Ted Polet, and his Craigcorrie and Dunalistair, and when I found that he uses N scale couplings as the standard in his very large stock roster of around 30 locos and well over 100 items of rolling stock, then that convinced me that for my own modelling purposes and preference, this is the way to go - but I emphasise that this is my own choice and does not mean that I am recommending that this method is the best - it certainly is not, but it works for me!
Simple example - most of my goods stock runs on Peco 10 and 15ft N scale wagon chassis. Even nowadays they are "only" around
Very many thanks, Mick, for your thoughtful expose of the background and history of the 009 coupling field. Your points are difficult to argue with, even if I wanted to!
Let's suppose we have a group of modellers who have grown up with and are used to the N-gauge Elsie (and its rapido derivatives). Each modeller has begun to accumulate a mix of new and used stock and is now sufficiently mature in the narrow gauge world to begin to think about replicating an original line - at the stage of focusing on a particular outline/line/era. What this modeller needs is some sort of guide to the variety of couplings available and how they interface (or not) so he can standardise across his motley fleet. There's something akin to this in the N-gauge world at http://www.nscaledivision.com/information_on_couplers.htm
I would have thought that the 009 Society would have produced such a thing. But maybe I'm barking (up the wrong tree), or asking to be spoon fed rather than sucking it and seeing for myself.
Anyway - I'll plod on in my quest for enlightenment. And thanks again for shedding more light.
hi David,
You've hit the nail on the head on a topic that has been a talking point in the Society for a (very large) number of years! There is a pressing need for guide articles or (dare I say it) a Society Handbook. The last one produced was around 20 years ago and the 3rd edition has "been in preparation" for around that many years - apparently!
Maybe as a fresh member, a letter to the committee via the "proper" channels, ie via the Society Secretary may add to the very large file he has probably accumulated on the matter of couplings, track standards, you name it, over the years for attention by "somebody" I think this should possibly end up in the in tray of the Communications Director rather then the Operations Director, but who knows, there has never to my knowledge been a "responsibility" tree issued for the benefit of the members about who is responsible for what amongst the 5 elected members of the Board of Directors.
Bear in mind however, that the Society is exclusively managed by fellow members who are volunteers, so while it is quite in order to identify something that could be done to improve things, it also depends if it is ever to get done on somebody volunteering to be "pressganged" into actually doing it!
I hope you have managed to re-light the fires that have been smouldering away for years!
Anyone listening?
Mick
I think a manual is required but it should be a bit more of a flexible living website - even if we make periodic printable versions. Our hobby will keep growing and changing.
I did produce a survey of prototype and model couplings, which appeared in the News in 2001, then was updated circa 2011. I guess that it might be further reviewed, and later additions of types and systems added. I confess that it was my own opinions, and may not concur with others', and although I mentioned the use of N scale and "Kadee/Microtrains" types, from my own experience I concentrated on the "hook and loop" versions common to 009/HOe. Even if I was to be "press-ganged" as Mick mentions, I guess that others would need to be involved, so that the results are more representative of the collective views, than of my own!
Tom's idea of a 'living' version on the website sounds good, but again requires someone to periodically review and update. Having been involved during my career with production and revision of "Specifications" I know how difficult version control can become! :)
Quote from: Elmgate on May 21, 2018, 11:00
Tom's idea of a 'living' version on the website sounds good, but again requires someone to periodically review and update. Having been involved during my career with production and revision of "Specifications" I know how difficult version control can become! :)
That is sounding a bit like a Wiki page. It works for other model railway groups/societies. I guess it is for the committee to decide whether it is something that the Society should do and who can edit it.
On the old Yahoo group there was something that approached this idea with members contributing photos and documents to a file area. Similarly with track, showing some of the less common sorts too.
I think it is fair to say that with regards to 'Standards', whether they be for wheels, couplings, whatever, being laid down by the Society, you may well have a very long wait. Whilst the Directors of the Society feel this would be a good course of action, the cold fact is that, whatever was laid down, the vast majority of 009 modellers would continue to do their own thing regardless. Wheel standards and back-to-back measurements are, for the most part, dictated by what will run through Peco points. Couplings usually reflect what was fitted to the first item, usually a locomotive. acquired. And, in reality, I am not sure there is any pressing need for universal standards, as not much inter-layout running occurs. And, again in reality, if you really want to run an item with incompatible couplings, it is a simple enough job to make some sort of match vehicle.
On a slightly different tack, with regard to couplings, to my mind, the couplings we should favour, whatever type, are the ones that are least intrusive visually. But I realise that opinion will not find universal favour!
Yes, I don't think we want to go down the road of the 009 Society getting embroiled in defining standards. On the other hand, documenting what there is available would be very useful.
It's a good point Rod makes about visual appearance. I think that is where the compromises creep in. Unlike standard gauge where loading gauge and size is more uniform, 009 covers everything from tiddly locos and skips to some monster locos and bogie stock. With bigger stock, bigger, more robust couplings (maybe magnetically operated, with delayed uncoupling and just possibly more reliable) are possible and relatively unobtrusive, but the options are rather more limited with skips and similarly sized 4-wheel stock.
Elsie, Micro Trains, Hornby etc. couplings are identical within reason within their ranges. On the other hand there are so many variations on loop and hook type with differing materials even for the loops - wire, very thin photo-etched brass, relatively chunky plastic - so even couplings that are of the same general type vary quite widely.
I have found something like this to be of personal use...
1. Does it work? = Yes, then fine I must have done something right, end loop!
2. Does it work? = No, then fiddle until it does work and = yes, end loop
3. Does it work? = No, then fiddle again and then repeat from step 1
What I suppose is that since we all have our own layouts and, in many cases, our personal stock to run on them then do any standards really matter that much?
I have developed my own methods for couplings as others have their own I am sure. I use the Coupling Height Gauge (GAG1 from Dundas Models https://dundasmodels.co.uk/webstore/index.php/hikashop-menu-for-module-108/product/5519-coupling-height-gauge (https://dundasmodels.co.uk/webstore/index.php/hikashop-menu-for-module-108/product/5519-coupling-height-gauge)). I normally set my coupling height to 6.0mm (I am sure others will disagree!). This seems to work for most of my needs.
Because we only tend to run trains round and round, the coupling hooks are removed from locos and from one end of each item of rolling stock. This gives me the best results (I am sure others will disagree!).
The only other thing that I have done is remove any Peco couplings and replaced with Greenwich on my rolling stock, mainly because the coupling hooks in my experience are better (I am sure others will disagree!).
You can tell from the way I am writing this that if you ask each OO9er about couplings then you will get a different and probably conflicting story as you may have found already by reading this far!
As a newcomer to 009, I attended the superb Kegworth Convention and there was a workshop session about couplings. I was delighted about this as I was finding couplings to be the most complex, difficult, aggravating, frustrating aspect of 009. The workshop covered various different types of couplings, how to make them, how to fit them, and so on...I came out an hour later finding couplings to be the most complex, difficult, aggravating, frustrating aspect of 009. And not much has changed since then!
Geo S
Norfolk
It has just occurred to me that the original poster is probably too young to remember the 50s and 60s where there were two completely incompatible coupling systems in commercial 00, the Hornby/Peco type and the Triang type, which is what is effectively the norm nowadays. Notwithstanding this we all seemed to manage perfectly well in those days, opting for one or the other. And wheel standards differed vastly between the two main brands as well, not to mention the early distraction of Hornby being exclusively three rail until about 1959. So, in all honesty, I am not sure why there is so much confusion and complaining about matters currently. Is it just that most people expect to be spoon fed now? Someone even went so far as to complain they felt 'let down' because the couplings on the Bachmann Baldwin, a model which to be fair we could not even have dreamed of five years ago, are not apparently instantly compatible with Peco couplings. If that is the case, why not get a needle file and MAKE them compatible?
Coming up to the boil nicely Rod, safety valves starting to bounce.
;D
Could't have put it better ref spoon feeding.
Surely the answer to the Bachmann Baldwin coupling issue is to simply switch out the manufacturers standard item and insert a Peco one (sans loop). Ok, the coupling becomes a tad longer but works perfectly. this is something that I have done with all my RTR stock with no issues at all.
Whilst on the subject of couplings, has anyone else had a Minitrains Decaville Progress which has the rear coupling glued very close to the body?
What have you done to alleviate this?
George,
On Wednesday I will be seeing the gentleman who ran the workshop on couplings at Kegworth in 2013.
I will let him know how successful it was !!
Stan.
Anyone else using Meridian choppers?
Mal.
Quote from: Stan Williams on May 22, 2018, 21:50
George,
On Wednesday I will be seeing the gentleman who ran the workshop on couplings at Kegworth in 2013.
I will let him know how successful it was !!
Stan.
But it did teach me one good lesson...just don't overcomplicate the issue. KISS I think they call it!
Quote from: WALLSHIRTS on May 23, 2018, 00:42
Anyone else using Meridian choppers?
Mal.
I did at one time, however, the lack of remote uncoupling, and the fact that they are not as reliable (in my experience!) as even the worst of the alternatives, has led me to use them only as "within rake" permanent couplings in a, very, few applications.
Inevitably, the debate has drifted somewhat. Just for the record, what I was suggesting was NOT standardisation. I also made it clear that I'm a beginner in 009 and was simply pointing out the value (to beginners) of some sort of document listing what's out there, the pros and cons, and what's compatible with what. I also volunteered to assist (assuming that the task would benefit from one of you 009-ers longer in the tooth than me, to supervise). Initially, my suggestion gathered some support. But then more recent posts have rubbished what I never asked for or proposed. I agree with (most of) the rubbishers, but I've no idea where we go from here!
If you are referring to your statement:
"What this modeller needs is some sort of guide to the variety of couplings available and how they interface (or not) so he can standardise across his motley fleet."
Then yes, it is worth pursuing.
Barring the obvious incompatibilities (Elsie - Micro-Trains - chopper - hook-and-loop) most are varieties of hook and loop and I guess hook and loop couplings are all compatible after a fashion.
I think that is where the issue lies. It is the fettling, fine adjustment and awareness of the gotchas. Number 1 is consistent coupling height and beyond that there are things to look out for such as where couplings are mounted on wagon ends compared to ones mounted on bogies or pony trucks and there are issues with coupling and uncoupling on curves as opposed to straights.
I suspect there is no definitive answer "A works with B but not C" because there is such a wide variety of layouts. That does not mean to say that gathering all the disparate pieces of information together is not worth while. Looking through it, a reader will hopefully find something that helps. That is why I suggested a Wiki-like approach.
Here is a hook and loop variant I'd not come across before:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/009-Gauge-Couplings-x-10/323272473783?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D50546%26meid%3D66f1183ec96a4a78b7b4747fb2e38e1e%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D323259001125%26itm%3D323272473783&_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/009-Gauge-Couplings-x-10/323272473783?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D50546%26meid%3D66f1183ec96a4a78b7b4747fb2e38e1e%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D323259001125%26itm%3D323272473783&_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850)
Does anyone know it?
They look good. I wonder if they require assembly and whether the ends can be sawn off for narrower/smaller wagons.
Danny
Can't think of any reason the bar can't be shortened. I agree that they look very good and not a bad price either. Someone's gone to a bit of time and trouble to make them!
The product refered to in the link might be a 3d printed product - but it is the increasingly common 'Here we have ' in the intro that i find slightly nausiating.
I think the couplers are injection moulded (though the seller does have 3D printed material). I think I can see an ejection pin mark on the top and evidence of shrinkage on the bottom.
I
Quote from: GraemeD on May 31, 2018, 22:17
Here is a hook and loop variant I'd not come across before:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/009-Gauge-Couplings-x-10/323272473783?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D50546%26meid%3D66f1183ec96a4a78b7b4747fb2e38e1e%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D323259001125%26itm%3D323272473783&_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/009-Gauge-Couplings-x-10/323272473783?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D50546%26meid%3D66f1183ec96a4a78b7b4747fb2e38e1e%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D323259001125%26itm%3D323272473783&_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850)
Does anyone know it?
Hi Graeme,
This is the coupling that I decided to standardise on for all stock that needs to be coupled/uncoupled.
I'm still p[laying with them to see how adaptable they are.
So far?
Cut off both legs of the tee and shape the stump to fit into nem pockets. Have to be stuck in though.
Cut off the legs of the tee again and extend the remaining shaft longer for some bogie stock. Drill hole in longer shaft to suit pivot point for bogie coaches.
Add magnetic tail to make automatic uncoupler type.
That's about it for now!
Thanks
Good to hear that you've had some success with them. They certainly look the part. I might give them a try.
Yes they do look rather nice so I've sent off for a trial pack!