HOw do you use 3 link coupling

[GSR 800]

I want to use a realistic coupling , and have been told that the 3 link is best but I am unsure how to use them.

[Glenderg]

I want to use a realistic coupling , and have been told that the 3 link is best but I am unsure how to use them.

 

I'd say that unless you are working in the bigger gauge or getting something published, 3 link is over the top. A cosmetic one on the front of a steam loco is fine, but to the rear I'd use a conventional slim line coupler, or even a small brass bar for the wagons/coaches to couple up to.

 

Choices here. Photos should self explanitory.

 

http://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Smiths_couplings_for__OO_.html

Edited May 16, 2015 by Glenderg

[GSR 800]

Ok thanks. Do you have any pics of some of those couplers?

[Broithe]

3-link can give great trouble on model track - buffer-locking, etc....

[Junctionmad]

I want to use a realistic coupling , and have been told that the 3 link is best but I am unsure how to use them.

 

If you have radius under 36", very difficult to do reverse propelling. And then you have so many types depending on era, instantor, screw etc.

 

As a compromise have a look at the Dingham coupler. At least it uses an oversize buffer beam hook the uncoupling dropper can be a rigid three link iron coupler . ( even if it's in the wrong place and both sides hang down.

 

Unlike TL couplings , it's also capable of delayed uncoupling , so realistic shunting is possible

Edited May 16, 2015 by Junctionmad

[GSR 800]

If you have radius under 36", very difficult to do reverse propelling. And then you have so many types depending on era, instantor, screw etc.

 

As a compromise have a look at the Dingham coupler. At least it uses an oversize buffer beam hook the uncoupling dropper can be a rigid three link iron coupler . ( even if it's in the wrong place and both sides hang down.

 

Unlike TL couplings , it's also capable of delayed uncoupling , so realistic shunting is possible

 

Thanks JM, after looking at the dingham coupler it looks pretty good, It looks right:)

[Junctionmad]

Thanks JM, after looking at the dingham coupler it looks pretty good, It looks right:)

 

I have a fret of them , ( they are quite cheap )

 

The main disadvantage is the coupler is " handed" While that causes little issues on most rolling stock , it does bring up issues with locomotive and run rounds etc. personally I always want the latch on the loco only , to allow for DCC uncoupling , ie the loco can uncouple anywhere .

 

You can in theory couple up with two latches. But then it's electromagnetic layout uncoupling only , since you have to lift two latches. I have been experimenting with the concept of extending the loco latch in length and hence recessing the buffer hook so it never catches the wagon latch. The loco latch then sits under the wagon latch connected to the wagon hook ( if you follow me )

 

This does mean that in reverse propelling , the loco tends to push on the latch rather then by the buffers, and won't uncouple on the fly ( but then that never happened except in rare fly coupling moves

 

Note that while the dinghams when normally set up , push via the buffers , so buffer lock remains a potential issue , there is some prevention, in the if you install them right, the outer edge of the latch will bear against inner edge of the corresponding hook , and prevent ( in theory) the two buffers from intersecting . Crossovers and short reverse curves are the worst.

 

They do need to be looked at carefully for long bogie stock.( cause they are affixed to the buffer beam and not the bogie like TL couplings) This is an area I'm going to test when I build a bogie container flat or two. I have my concerns . I'm currently just about to build two 00-SF points arranged as a crossover to create the worst case trial track

 

The other one to look at is the sprat and wrinkle coupling. After that you could consider the Alex Jackson bent wire coupling. I had these previously , a long tine ago , brilliant when perfect , but very easy to get out of alignment and fragile

Edited May 16, 2015 by Junctionmad

[irishthump]

Have to mention Kadees, even though they are not prototypical but then they're no less prototypical than the Dingham couplers!

 

Delayed uncoupling is easily accomplished with magnets and on layouts with generous curves they can be set close enough so as to give the impression of the stock being pushed by the buffers. Smaller, scale-sized Kadees are also available which are less noticeable.

[Junctionmad]

Have to mention Kadees, even though they are not prototypical but then they're no less prototypical than the Dingham couplers!

 

Delayed uncoupling is easily accomplished with magnets and on layouts with generous curves they can be set close enough so as to give the impression of the stock being pushed by the buffers. Smaller, scale-sized Kadees are also available which are less noticeable.

 

The beauty about dinghams is they work with an over sized smiths hook. If you dangle some three links from there, that end ( without the latch ) looks virtually prototypical. The other big issue with kadees is the cost. That put me completely off them

 

Unfortunately all couplers are compromises, but the tension lock , is easily the worst

[irishthump]

The beauty about dinghams is they work with an over sized smiths hook. If you dangle some three links from there, that end ( without the latch ) looks virtually prototypical. The other big issue with kadees is the cost. That put me completely off them

 

Unfortunately all couplers are compromises, but the tension lock , is easily the worst

 

I had a look at a few different couplers before settling on Kadees, and the Dingham ones seemed the best of them to be honest. Certainly a bit cheaper than Kadees but I dod'nt fancy the assembly involved and they can't be painted. Also, the "handedness" was an issue for me.

But like you say, anything is better than a tension lock coupler!

[GSR 800]

One problem then with the dinghams. Crossovers. I plan to have about 3-4 on my layout

[DiveController]

Photo of the Dingham coupler flipping to the uncouple position when the track magnet is energized

From Dingham website here

http://www.dingham.co.uk/how_it_works4.htm

[Junctionmad]

One problem then with the dinghams. Crossovers. I plan to have about 3-4 on my layout

 

It all depends. F you can propel n reverse by buffers only, then the dinghams will be fine.

[Mayner]

Originally developed for N gauge B&B coupler is reasonably un-obtrusive, relatively easy to set up and a reasonably priced alternative to Kadee. http://modelrailmusings.weebly.com/bb-couplings.html.

 

Another alternative is to use the Bemo coupler http://www.parksidedundas.co.uk/cgi-bin/sh000001.pl?REFPAGE=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2eparksidedundas%2eco%2euk%2facatalog%2fPARKSIDE_DUNDAS_ROLLING_STOCK_WHEELS%2ehtml&WD=bemo&PN=copy_of_PARKSIDE_DUNDAS__ACCESSORIES_%2ehtml%23a3255#a3255

 

The Bemo coupler is compatible with the B&B and can be converted to magnetic & delayed action.