This is my first railway kit, a Dundas Tipper wagon (see picture), and need some advice please. I want to fit a Greenwich coupling at one end o bought a pack of Peco "pockets" but I am struggling to see how to fit them, has anybody else done this and could send me a picture please?
Without being able to see the photo (my system tells me that it can't download it - sorry) it's difficult to see what the issue is.
However, I wonder if in trying to attach the the Peco 'NEM-Style' pocket and the greenwich couplings designed for it you may be making life difficult for yourself.
I say that because the 'standard' Greenwich coupling - CPL1 - has a flat 'tail' (the other end to the buffer) that can be attached to the underside of the wagon chassis - I use the etched holes in the tail and drill through these into the wagon to add pins to the glued joint for extra strength.
The 'other' type - CPL3 for the NEM socket (the one you seem to have) - has a different design of tail that you fold up to create a 'block' that plugs into the 'pocket'. This is fine if you already have a pocket / socket to plug the coupling into, but it seems odd to go down this route when you also have to fit the pocket to a kit built wagon. This may be quite dificult given that some wagons - and the Dundas tipper wagon will be one of these - do not have much flat space to fit a coupling pocket to.
From memory of building both types I suspect that it would be possible to use the CPL3 in the same way as CPL1 by missing out the step of folding up the 'tail' and using the flat strip to attach it to the skip - possibly also drilling a couple of small (0.5mm) holes through the tail before fitting and after fitting extending these up into the plastic chassis (aim for the middle chassis member running along the length) to insert some reinforcing wire pins of the same diameter.
And an advantage of the flat tail is that you then have some adjustment to the coupling's height by gently bending the metal.
A minor word of caution here - I suspect that in straightening out a bent up CPL3 tail the etched metal will probably break, so any built couplings would be best left as they are 9i.e. to plug into a socket / pocket) and used for rtr stock or something with a flat floor to which the Peco pockets can be fitted.
I hope that helps, and I think that I have some of the Dundas tippers that I've fitted etched DG couplings (similar design to the Greenwich but smaller) to. If I can find them I'll take some photos and post them here - but that may take a while...
I found it quite difficult to fit couplings to the Dundas V skip wagons.
The main problem was that the chassis was not at the correct height for my couplings.
As a result, I never bothered to finish building the ones I have.
Brian Meldon
Quote from: JulienW on November 13, 2019, 10:13
However, I wonder if in trying to attach the the Peco 'NEM-Style' pocket and the greenwich couplings designed for it you may be making life difficult for yourself.
I say that because the 'standard' Greenwich coupling - CPL1 - has a flat 'tail' (the other end to the buffer) that can be attached to the underside of the wagon chassis - I use the etched holes in the tail and drill through these into the wagon to add pins to the glued joint for extra strength.
Sorry I din't realize that there were two types, but looking at the packet it says CPL3, and from what I read I thought that the pocket was the standard way of fitting them.
I haven't made one up yet, and have been slightly put off by the referenced video because it is so small that I can't really work out what is happening, so I am expecting a few fatalities along the way :(
I can see where you are coming from about attaching the coupling directly so will have a look at that, thanks.
It is a bit of a catch 22, I can't fit the coupling until the wheels are one and I don't want to fit them until its painted, but then I want to fit the coupling first..
Quote from: B.Meldon on November 13, 2019, 12:49
I found it quite difficult to fit couplings to the Dundas V skip wagons.
The main problem was that the chassis was not at the correct height for my couplings.
As a result, I never bothered to finish building the ones I have.
I hadn't even go that far, and that's a nuisance :(
There is a tiny little bump at one end which hooks under a Bemo coupling look, unfortunately my only loco at the moment just has a hook too, so this is not a long term winning solution. :(
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49060286141_6e798697e8.jpg)
Quote from: Stephen Rainsbury on November 13, 2019, 16:55
There is a tiny little bump at one end which hooks under a Bemo coupling hook,
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49060286141_6e798697e8.jpg)
Isn't that what it is for? I thought you only put a coupling at one end of these things. So you have a hook one end and the stump for the next wagon's hook at the other end.
Quote from: Stephen Rainsbury on November 13, 2019, 16:55
There is a tiny little bump at one end which hooks under a Bemo coupling look, unfortunately my only loco at the moment just has a hook too, so this is not a long term winning solution. :(
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49060286141_6e798697e8.jpg)
That helps!
First off, as Hobby has said the 'tiny bump' is meant to engage with the loop of a coupling on the next vehicle, but if (like your loco) the next vehicle doesn't have a loop then pulling it will not work as there is no link.
Secondly, as B. Mellon has said, fitting couplings to these wagons is not easy because they are so small, and fitting couplings is made slightly more involved as you need to get them all at the same height for the couplings to work well.
So, bearing the above in mind might I suggest the following:
First off some kind of height gauge is going to be useful, and better to sort something out at the start of your 009 carear rather than having to continually adjust couplings depending on what they are couloir get up to. Greenwich sell at etched gauge, but this has the disadvantage (in my view) of being a flat etch that need to be held vertically to mark the height. An easier to use alternative is the cast resin gauge sold by RT Models, and finally you can make one yourself quite easily by fixing a short length of track (N or 009 is fine) to a piece of wood (2" by 1" works well) with track pins. At one end of the track in between the rails screw into the wood a large flat-topped screw - a countersunk head one is ideal - but don't screw it all the way into the wood but just far enough so that the flat top of the screw head is level with the flat top of the coupling on your loco.
I'll finish this off later as dinner is on the table!
Edit: I realised something that I forgot to mention about the height gauge. Any of the ones I've mentioned should allow you to mark on the wagon where the coupling should end up, so you can mark the chassis (or measure up the gap above the chassis) before removing the wheels (if you need to) to fit the couplings.
Right, now I've filled my face....
Secondly some thoughts on fitting a Greenwich coupling to a Dubdas tipper. The 'tail' on both types of coupling are quite thin so it should be possible to lay it on top,of or underneath the central 'spine' of the chassis without anything rubbing on the backs of the wheels, and the brass used to make the couplings should be easy to file away if there's is any rubbing on the wheels. When you mount the coupling don't set it so that it is hard against the end of the tipper chassis as you'll need to clear the loop on the coupling so it can lift up on its pivot but also to allow you to 'crank' the coupling to allow it to sit at the correct height.
It's difficult to know wether to suggest mounting the coupling on top - you wouldn't need to take the wheels out to do the job, but on may need to remove the ridges on the end cross members to allow the coupling tail to lie flat - or underneath the central spine - you will probably need to take the wheels out to fix the coupling in place - but my instinct would be to go for mounting on top as you'll need to put in less of a crank to drop the coupling downwards as it's probably going to end up not much different to the top surface of the skip chassis.
Don't forget that you'll also need to cut off the tiny bump at whichever end you fit the coupling whichever side (top or bottom) you attach the coupling.
Hope that helps
Quote from: Hobby on November 13, 2019, 17:08
Isn't that what it is for? I thought you only put a coupling at one end of these things. So you have a hook one end and the stump for the next wagon's hook at the other end.
Thanks, but it's the same both ends. The instruction recommend using them in rakes connected by a bit of chain, which they provide. I wanted to use it by itself as part of a maintenance train, and could do with it being a bit more flexible. Not to mention that I want to be able to un-couple it remotely :(
Quote from: JulienW on November 13, 2019, 18:15
First off some kind of height gauge is going to be useful, and better to sort something out at the start of your 009 carear rather than having to continually adjust couplings depending on what they are couloir get up to. Greenwich sell at etched gauge, but this has the disadvantage (in my view) of being a flat etch that need to be held vertically to mark the height.
Thanks, yes I bought the Greenwich one and it is currently fixed to a lego block with double sided tape to hold it upright :-)
Quote from: JulienW on November 13, 2019, 18:54
..my instinct would be to go for mounting on top as you'll need to put in less of a crank to drop the coupling downwards as it's probably going to end up not much different to the top surface of the skip chassis.
Thanks, I agree that will be the best way to go, I want to have the option of filled in track sections and the coupling would be too low to go underneath.
I need to grit my teeth and get on with making up some Greenwich couplings to see how they work. Hopefully this cold will be gone the weekend so I can give it a go.
Yes it is the coupling pin that is built onto the chassis that is too low for my couplings. I use Bemo/Egger type couplings that have a height of 5.8mm from the rail head to the underside of the loop, that is also where the slope on the pin needs to start.
This is the same height as used by Roco, 1960's Minitrains, Egger-bahn, Liliput, Bemo and the new Minitrains wagons and coaches. (Most of the new Minitrains locos sadly have higher couplings!)
The dundas V skip is too low for my use, so I do not use them.
I'm not sure if it has been mentioned, something that is sometimes done is to connect skips into permanent or semi-permanent rakes with couplings added only at the ends of the rake. I may be imagining it but I think the Dundas kit - perhaps just the 5-pack - mentions using a link or three of fine chain, with perhaps a shortened dress-making or track pin glued into a hole drilled in the chassis.
Something I still need to get round to doing is mounting a short length of track on a firm base and attaching a "step" permanently to it at the right height for couplings. There is a little etched jig/template for Greenwich couplings that does the job but something fixed in place would be better I think. I understand some people use a screw between two sleepers and screwed down to the correct height for the purpose. I think similar contrivances are used elsewhere - for Kaydee/Microtrains knuckle couplers springs to mind.
Photos of Dundas skip fitted with Peco couplings. Modified as in the photos.
Quote from: Leprechaun on November 15, 2019, 10:36
'Coupler-pockets'... do not need the coupler pocket.
I didn't realize that when I started, I have dropped that idea since posting this.
But, if you use those on the V-skip you have 2 problems to solve:
1. You need the coupler to swivel, but the centre draw bar is too thin to drill for a swivel pin.
The coupling is not prototypical so I don't have a problem putting a small section of something between the two uprights to act as a pivot.
2. You need a centring spring for the swivelling coupler, but nowhere to hide it.
I don't really understand the need for a swiveling pivot. I like your idea for fitting hoops were they able to move or fixed?
Thanks again for the input. This one I don't want in a fixed rake, I have a photo of a maintenance train that uses uses one for ballast and I liked the look of it all. I just need 4 blokes in high-vis jackets drinking tea to compete that scenario.
Dear Stephen,
If you use a bent wire aka ROCO (better than Eggerbahn as it is wider) and let the frame act as 'buffer' (as the prototype does) you're reasonably close to the nearest axle with your buffer face, and unless you have extremely tight radii this should work just fine, the width of the hoop will allow for enough side-play to avoid derailment.
If you add a coupler, e.g. Greenwich, you're pushing the buffer face away from the nearest axle, i.e. create more 'overhang', which means the coupling will swing away from the centre of the track, - the more overhang the worse. That's not a problem if the overhang is about the same on all your rolling stock, but it will cause derailment if the overhang varies. Practically all commercial rolling stock, including the prototype, have swivelling couplers for that reason alone!
Without swivelling point a fixed coupler can push or drag its vehicle or the connected one sideways of the track causing derailment as on larger overhang (>~7mm; depends on radius as well) there is not enough leeway in the width of the hoop to compensate for the side-ways movement caused by the overhang.
Being a very small vehicle you will struggle to manually centre a swivelling coupler, i.e. if swivelling coupler, than you need the centring spring too, otherwise you have to fiddle around every time you want to couple up.
To see this in action get yourself A ROCO or Eggerbahn industrial truck (anyone with oblong frame) and a ROCO mine tub (inside frame), which has a substantial overhang. If you put those on a curved (flexi-)track you will see that if the radius is tight enough one is forced off the track. :laugh:
Hope this helps
Waldschrat
Thanks Gents, I can see both sides there so I think I am going to try it just to see what happens and understand it better for future models :-)
The key, I believe, in fitting couplings to the Dundas tippers, and any other short wheelbase wagon come to that, is to do so in such a way as to minimise the amount the business end of the coupling (the buffer and peg) overhangs the end of the wagon - that's partly why the Dundas kits (and other kit skips from Nigel Lawton and Saltford Models) have the peg molded onto the chassis and ready to run skips of a similar size (Peco, the european makers) have the coupling integrated into the chassis molding.
The photos of Alec Hudson's conversion - using the Peco couplings in his example - is the sort of thing to aim for, and has probably been the most useful addition to this discussion. Fitting the Greenwich couplings that you would like to use may be easier, as being etched it should be possible to lay them on top of the central spine (once the upper surface detail is removed to give a flat surface) with the 'lugs' for the loop pivots bent downwards either side of the spine and the back face of the buffer hard up against the outside of the curved chassis end.
I haven't been able to find my skips with the DG couplings yet but the principle is much the same as shown in Alec's photos, and with the minimum amount of coupling overhang there is no need for any of the complications of fitting pivots and centering springs, even for use on tight (around 6") radius curves that might be prototypical in an industrial setting where any coupling overhang is most likely to cause issues.
Best of luck with your experimentation.
Julien
Quote from: JulienW on November 17, 2019, 10:04
... (Peco, the european makers) have the coupling integrated into the chassis molding.
... Fitting the Greenwich couplings that you would like to use may be easier, as being etched it should be possible to lay them on top of the central spine (once the upper surface detail is removed to give a flat surface) with the 'lugs' for the loop pivots bent downwards either side of the spine and the back face of the buffer hard up against the outside of the curved chassis end.
Thanks, I have been experimenting with several trucks and am starting to get a better feel for the issue. I haven't hacked the truck yet (getting over cold and feel rough) but I think I am going to chop down the ends of the truck so the tab on the Greenwich coupling will be in exactly the same place as the original one on the truck, and see how it goes from there.
I still haven't actually made one up yet, I feel so knackered that I just know I will mess it up :-)
I can sympathise about the cold, as I seem to get 'knocks me out for 3 weeks' colds rather than a minor sniffle with the odd cough and sneeze that lasts a week.
It's probably worth leaving it for now until you can breath properly (and I always find trying to think with a head full of goop difficult) and tackling the job when you feel up to it.
Get well soon!
Two suggestions either of which require you to drill a hole through the central part of the chassis
1) Purchase a packet of the original Peco couplings-the ones that require you to cement the two halves together .Use the wire loop from these and slot in the hole you have drilled in the chassis member.The plastic part of the coupling can be used on locos
2)Use the loop from Greenwich couplings or super glue an assembled coupling either under or above main central part (whichever height lines up with your other couplings )
Quote from: Alan Feldon on November 19, 2019, 21:48
Two suggestions either of which require you to drill a hole through the central part of the chassis
No problem chopping bits out of the frame, its freelance anyway :)
2)Use the loop from Greenwich couplings or super glue an assembled coupling either under or above main central part (whichever height lines up with your other couplings )
I was starting to think that way too, but somebody from FB sent me an article they had written about making Greenwich couplings fit. I am going to need a new Swiss saw to make incisions so that I can bend the tabs a bit closer than default, although I think now that I might have worked out how to use the Greenwich loops, as you suggested, but keep the original Dundas peg.
Thanks Alan.