Realistic coupling for OO scale

[Arunit]

I have created a video showcasing Accurascale screw link coupling for OO gauge. Those interested may view it in my youtube channel

 

[Wickham Green too]

Make up a 'proper' shunters pole for coupling ...... a length of plastic sprue or old paintbrush handle with a length of stiff-ish wire glued in and a little 'pigtail' hook twisted on the end .................................... far, far easier to use than tweezers !

[LMS2968]

23 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Make up a 'proper' shunters pole for coupling ...... a length of plastic sprue or old paintbrush handle with a length of stiff-ish wire glued in and a little 'pigtail' hook twisted on the end .................................... far, far easier to use than tweezers !

True, but with a pole it's all in the wrist action.

[Enterprisingwestern]

8 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

True, but with a pole it's all in the wrist action.

 

As long as you change hands at 99 you'll be ok.

 

Mike.

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Pedantically, the locomotive coupling should be used.

 

Mike.

[micklner]

Did'nt go around any sort of curve in either direction.

[LMS2968]

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Pedantically, the locomotive coupling should be used.

 

Mike.

With vacuum stock, yes, but not three link.

[Michael Hodgson]

You also have to give more consideration to the minimum radius of your curves with 3-link or screw couplings.  Buffer locking is an issue when the radius befomes too tight (especially on propelling moves and/or reverse curves).  Less of a problem with the large buffers of that particular loco than it would be if used between vehicles with the smaller buffers of the wagon.

 

It definitely looks much more realistic than tension locks or similar widely used alternatives once it's all coupled up, although the hoses should also be connected.  The downside remains the need for the Hand of God for coupling/uncoupling and the time it takes to do so.  A question of preference.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

20 minutes ago, micklner said:

Didn't go around any sort of curve in either direction.

Minimum radius of 4 feet required with RTR OO in my experience, especially when propelling a full trainload of short wheelbase 4W wagons . 

 

I'll stick with shortening the mount and 'tail' of Bachmann's NEM mount miniature tension locks, to place the bumper bar face in the same vertical plane as the buffer faces. That allows the wagons to buffer up when propelled, and pull out with 2mm between buffer faces, ideal for representation of a loose coupled freight. Same spacing with magnetic couplings for continuously braked freight. Works down to 24" centre line radius,

 

Neither looks as well as three link loose coupled, or sprung buffers in contact with screwlink, but it works reliably with no risk of bufferlocking

[Wickham Green too]

My minimum of 3' was chosen pretty arbitrarily but I'm happy propelling thirty or forty wagons - so long as wheel back to back is consistent AND everything has spring buffers.

[Flying Pig]

18 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

AND everything has spring buffers

 

That's quite a big AND.

[brossard]

When I did 00, couplings were always a bugbear for me.  I took a stab at 3 link et al, a couple of times but never pursued.  I settled for Kadee which work well but don't look right obviously.

 

Now that I'm doing 0 gauge things have changed.  I can (fairly) happily use 3 link, instanter and screw link for operation.

 

I made these for coupling and uncoupling:

 

 

LED torch.  Make sure you can depress the button one handed.  I had one make that needed two hands to turn the torch on.

 

Wooden dowel and steel wire (0.032" or 0.9mm) with a hook on the end.

 

These have been in use for several years and for many shows.

 

I was speaking to an operator at a show about 6 weeks ago.  He had a quite nice small EM layout but was moaning about how difficult coupling was.  He let me have a go and I was able to couple without too much drama.  Maybe I should have persevered in 00.

 

My suspicion for why 00 stock has problems with realistic coupling lies with the narrow gauge nature of the track.  This causes wagon overhangs to be excessive and loss of contact with buffers.  I think EM and P4 will likely work better because of reduced overhang.

 

John

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

That's quite a big AND.

Only one thing has defeated me so far ..... there's no aftermarket match for the buffers on Rapido's SECR 6-wheel goods brake - and the bodies are too fine to drill out for MJT ( etc.) heads.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

22 hours ago, brossard said:

My suspicion for why 00 stock has problems with realistic coupling lies with the narrow gauge nature of the track.  This causes wagon overhangs to be excessive and loss of contact with buffers.  I think EM and P4 will likely work better because of reduced overhang.

It's the typical lateral slack in RTR OO wheel to gauge interaction that's the killer, not the gauge as such. Take a good RTR OO wagon - such as from Rapido - with an accurately gauged wheelset on a pinpoint axle running in brass insert bearings with minimal end float, and you are in with a chance. But the coarse point crossings and out of gauge closure rails of RTL track may yet do for your chances...

 

P4 - and equivalent standards in other scales - exert far better lateral control, which is what is required.

 

Try twisting an OO wagon about its vertical axis and compare to a P4 wagon (gently) treated the same way. There's so much slack in OO that it's only the tyre coning that makes it work at all. There was an incident of RTR OO cylindrical tyre wheelsets some years ago, and wagons fitted with these could 'walk themselves' off straight track unpredictably.

 

 

Edited June 21 by 34theletterbetweenB&D
vital word omitted