G Scale Model Train Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Anyone running sprung buffers and chain couplers?

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

riderdan

· Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
I'll be running pre-war German locos and rolling stock and am interested in switching out the solid plastic buffers on the Piko freight and passenger cars for sprung brass buffers, and changing out the hook and loop couplers for chain, as it's more prototypical for the location/era. Is there anyone who's made this transition who can comment on potential pitfalls or things to look out for?

I've searched MLS but haven't found anything about anyone running sprung buffers with chain.

Dan
 
Discussion starter · #3 ·
Running 8' radius curves, mostly

The sprung buffers I've seen have about 3/8" of travel, so a total buffer compression of 3/4 inch on the inside pair of buffers--which seems like it might work for 8' curves. However, if there's not enough buffer travel, my plan was to chain up the cars just tightly enough to have the buffers near full travel on the curves--probably that means that the cars wouldn't be buffer-to-buffer on the straights except when slowing. And my track plan isn't finalized, so I'd have to test with R1 curves if I wind up needing one (I think there's one spot I can't get away with an 8' curve, so it's either R1 or flex in one place)

I've got a whole slew of questions about running sprung buffers. For instance, with the light weight of unloaded cars, I expect that there might be some accordioning when decelerating/accelerating. How do you overcome that? Also, how much additional work is it to couple cars when the buffers tend to push the cars away from each other? Since you can't realistically chain cars together and then tighten a G scale turnbuckle, do you need three hands? One to hold each car and one to hook up the chain?

Questions, questions :)

Probably I should just order a couple sets and try them out, but a $16 a pop, I was hoping to hear from a current user first.
 
#4 ·
Continental stock, including German, typicaly uses screw couplings and not the three link chains common to much of the British freight stock. I believe Marklin still sells them as a separate part in multipacks, These were previously made for Marklin by Hubner.
 
#5 ·
Dan,
I know what you are trying to do, and I wish you good luck.
However it is not something that I would try!
I assume that all your cars will be of the four wheeled variety, some with a longer wheelbase.
On the straight track, probably no problem, but when it comes to curves, and especially 'S' bends, like in a crossover, you will have problems.
If the heads of the buffers are not large enough, there is the chance of them sliding off each other, and then they might slip behind each other.
The actual springing of the buffers needs to be so light as to be nearly non-existant, so that there is very little friction between the buffer heads to allow for slippage between them.
But then, what's the point of having springs if they are so weak!
When backing up a train there can also be problems going around curves with buffer locking.
These problems become more noticeable when using longer coaches with bogies.
On my freight and passenger cars where I have hook and chain, I make no attempt to have them tight coupled, and there is always a gap between the buffers.
I do my best never to back those trains up, unless on a straight, or very large radius curve.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada
 
Discussion starter · #6 ·
Thanks guys

That's the kind of info I'm looking for.

David,
My current track plan includes no S-curves, as I've heard that those are worse than R1s :) I am planning on running all two-axle era III cars, which are generally only about 14 inches long. I was hoping that the steel buffer ends would slide smoothly, but I hadn't thought through what might happen if they ever overlapped.

Dr, Rivet, I've seen photos of German steam-era trains coupled using chains, but I guess I'll have to look into this more. What I really should do is go over there and visit some DR railroad museums ;) Actual on-site research would definitely be best.
 
#7 ·
been there done that, don't want to any more.

I tried that with the two axle LGB / Piko cars a few years back. Did not have much luck and found it more of a hassle to retrofit the coupler and buffer to the car & to deal with the technicalities of running "Schraubenkupplung" in the garden. IE broad curves of 10' radius or larger, with easements, and longer switches ( LGB #18000 )
You will soon find where all your S-curves are lurking too. If you really want to try this I would recommend you go this route, try Balancier- Kupplungen. At one time in the past I used the Balancier type. They work well on the longer 4 axle cars. But if I remember; I had to remove the buffer moulded into the frame of the LGB 2 axle cars to get the clearance right. Also the couplers are brass castings, which added a lot of weight to the “tongue” of the axle and caused some running and tracking issues. I tried the scharfenburg once they needed a lot of work to get the hight and alignment right.
The main reason I got away from the Balancier and the Schrfenberg was:
Firstly they cost a lot more than I wanted to spend per car.
Secondly the hassle of fitting them. (hope your not squeamish about doing “surgery” on the cars)
And thirdly I did not really look forward to the likely hood that in order to limit most running problems; I would need to redo a majority of my track work and switches to smooth out and kinks, s-curves, or abrupt elevation changes.That don 't usually bother the hook and loop type.
Just my thoughts, if you have any questions let me know.


The place I got the Balancier Couplers was Feld, Grartenbahn, Grossbahn
Email:kontakt@feld-grossbahn.de
Tel.: 0211 33998288
Fax.: 0211 17803139
Per Post: Feld, Garten- und Großbahn, Morsestr. 40215 Düsseldorf, DE


Image
 
Discussion starter · #10 ·
Thanks for the addition info

I've done a little more research which of course raises more questions.

Here's the type of buffer/coupling setup I was thinking of using:

Image


The couplings themselves I can get from Williams Models. I believe that they're white metal castings, but are actually functional (hinged at the pins, etc). I think that if correctly installed (body mounted), these would handle backing up fine, though I don't have a solution for making the trucks track the curves--since the trucks have centering springs, straights are less an issue.

The full buffer travel would be just a hair over 3/4 inch. When coupled with the hook and loops on a straight section of track, the buffers are that distance apart. Even on an R1, they never actually come in contact, leading me to believe that if the cars were closer coupled and the buffers had 3/4" travel, it might work.

Anyone want to add more comments?
 
#11 ·
Dan,
You have to do what you have to do.
I really think that it will be more trouble than it is worth, but I'm not you!!!
I think that until you actually convert two car ends, and then try them over all track types that you will know for sure if it works well without causing trouble.
Williams Models? Is this the Gauge 3 outfit in the UK?
If so, I think that their couplings may be far too large, but then I don't know what scale you are working to.
There are Gauge 1 screw couplings available too from various sources.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada
 
#12 · (Edited)
All of my LGB rolling stock is of the center buffer type, and with the standard couplers the corners of cars can get quite close on the inside of the curve.

This picture is two of the RhB container cars, relatively long two axle cars. One is fully on R1, the adjacent car on straight track.

The cars are laterally misaligned by roughly 20mm; unless your buffer faces are quite wide, or your curves shallower than R1, I think you'll be getting the buffers caught together (like David said.) And this is R1 to straight track, not even addressing S bends or switching between parallel tracks.

If you plan to only run forward, and have no deceleration or downgrades where your cars overtake the train, and / or drag on the cars is sufficient to extend the coupler slack, then I suppose it will work.

I like the idea and appearance of prototypical couples, and would try them if I had Gauge 1 and large radius. For now, and definitely on tight curves, I'm sticking with the factory couplers.

I think the limiting factor is a function of the distance between the buffer face and pivot point of the bogie or axle, the distance between each bogie or axle on the car, and presence of any track irregularities (especially S bends.)

Seems easy enough to try one set, on half of two adjacent cars, and give it a try.




Couplers-1 by BigRedOne45mm, on Flickr
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
Discussion starter · #15 ·
Very nice

John Galt Line said:
hi,

I got to looking around and found this post on Contenintal Garden Trains fourm
might be a workable soution for you..
http://www.cgtrains.com/t44-advice-needed-replacing-lgb-hook-loops-with-more-realistic-couplings
I saw this and had a "why din't I think of that" moment,
Click to expand...
It's mentioned there, but I don't see any evidence that anyone from that thread ever decided to put springs on the hooks to keep the cars closer on the straights but allow for them to get further apart on the curves. That's definitely an idea for getting close coupling that won't have (as many) problems on the curves. I guess getting the spring length/tension right will be a trial and error thing.

Thanks for digging this up--it's a direction I'll probably pursue depending on the results of my experiments with the buffers. Luckily the Piko cars come with swapable single- and dual-buffer ends, so if I hack something up and don't like it, I could switch back.
 
#16 ·
riderdan said:
It's mentioned there, but I don't see any evidence that anyone from that thread ever decided to put springs on the hooks to keep the cars closer on the straights but allow for them to get further apart on the curves. That's definitely an idea for getting close coupling that won't have (as many) problems on the curves. I guess getting the spring length/tension right will be a trial and error thing.

Thanks for digging this up--it's a direction I'll probably pursue depending on the results of my experiments with the buffers. Luckily the Piko cars come with swapable single- and dual-buffer ends, so if I hack something up and don't like it, I could switch back.
Click to expand...
I have some of the ROCO HO scale cars the have the setup for the close coupling. I used them as a "study piece" when I was messing around with the idea of the prototype buffer and chain couplers for my large scale stuff.
A couple of things I noticed: The buffers are not sprung and if you look closely the buffers are shaped differently. Looking top down; the right side buffer is a con-vexed in shape ( like the disk type snow sled is ) and the left is flat. I have seen this on the older prototypes but not so much on the modern rolling stock. When you couple 2 cars and then run them through curves you will notice that one pair of buffers separates (the out side of the curve). and the inside curve pair stays touching. The convex buffer rolls on the flat buffer...also the mounting shank that the coupler fits into is sprung to expand in curves and the shank is self centering. The coupler is mounted to the body, the pivot point is slightly ahead of the fixed axle.

I looked at a mess of photos of the prototypes to try and work out the best method to do this in large scale. I notice that some of the prototypes the hook and chain were attached to the end frame and on some the hook and chain was mounted to a interior part of the frame with lateral play and springs for centering the hook and chain and maybe shock absorption. Some of the prototypes had linkages between the buffers so that if one side pushed in the opposite pushed out. The set-up looked like steering linkages from a auto. I not sure if they did this in practice on all cars ( most photos were of passenger rolling stock so no concern about humping the cars in the yard ie no violent sudden stops or it was a one off test to see what happens... I had a hard time figuring out how they would not bend all the internal links up if both buffers where compressed at the same time..:confused: like when the cars come together in a hump yard.( most photos were of passenger rolling stock so no concern about humping the cars in the yard ie no violent sudden stops to bend up the inner workings.)

I will try and find the pictures I amassed in my research and post them so you may see.


In the end I had enough of fooling around with the whole project and set everything aside. I'm one of those people that if i get frustrated with a project; I walk away for a bit so I don't lose my $^%-ing mind in the process.
Your post the other day sort of brought everything back up to the front burner so to speak.
I have some of the Piko 2 axle cars and I was looking at them just now, the buffer heads detach and the buffer mounts are hollow. Don't know if the plastic is strong enough to hold up if you figured out how to put springs in side them. ( beats cutting them off to install brass ones... maybe?)
on the plus side the axles a sprung to be self centering not floppy like LGB ones.. that is actually a slight plus because you will not to be worried the axles be out of whack going through a switch, pick the points and cause a mess of a derailment...

Any how I’ve rambled on (hopefully coherently) for long enough...
Best of Luck...
SS.
 
#17 ·
riderdan said:
I've done a little more research which of course raises more questions.

Here's the type of buffer/coupling setup I was thinking of using:
Click to expand...
These are the couplers that are widely used on European standard gauge railways. Scharfenberg couplers I have seen on railcars and you find them also on NG lines, as well as the balancier type.

My guess is that in order to run twin buffers with prototypical couplers you will need to have prototypical track as far as curves are concerned. Why don't you temporarily remove some couplers and try pushing the wagons around the track. You will soon find out how well it works. If it doesn't you will probably get an idea of what you need to change on your track work.

Regards,
Peter.
 
Discussion starter · #18 ·
Just to close this out...

In case someone comes across this thread later...

It looks like this won't work as I'd originally planned. The car will push through even R1 curves on their buffers, and the plastic buffers are large/smooth enough that I didn't have a buffer lock problem in my test. So steel buffer pads would, I think, be fine. But on an R1 the max difference in extension between the inner and outer buffer is very close to two-and-a-half inches, which means that each buffer would have to have an inch of travel--which looks like a six foot piece of pipe, instead of a buffer :) It probably would work for someone who had all 20' curves, but even on my 8'ers it wouldn't look amazingly better than unsprung. And at $25 per car (some of which I bought for $30) it's not going to be worth it.

So, I may be able to couple closer than hook and loop, and I probably will switch to chains eventually, but sprung buffers aren't going to be able to do what I was hoping (keep the buffers touching on both sides)
 
#19 ·
The problem with running with continental hook and chain + buffers is that of curves and worse: Counter curves (or S curves). Most European equipment is designed to operate on 90 meter radius curves or at worse 120 meter radius curves. These were often found in engine terminals, yards or industries.This in 1/32 scale boils down to 3 meters radius minimum or about ten to 11 feet radius. If you respect that you are OK. My layout has 3 meters 35 radius on one end and 4.50 on the other and everything can run on it. The enemy is play: sideplay is indispensible between wheel flanges and rails, axles and journals and bolsters too. The problem is that real side play is hardly any more than that in models this makes running with these couplers say in HO scale becomes a nightmare, in gauge one this is significantly reduced. The only real problem is with "buffer locking" that is when buffers on one car slip behind the buffers from anothe car, this will happen on S curves that are too tight such as a crossover with number 4 switches. Another problem particularly in non radio controled live steam is couplings uncoupling; either because of a jump in the track (rare ) or more comonly if the chain links are stiff, this can be very dangerous if it happens near a powerfull loco which could just fly off at the next curve! Otherwise it works finealthough it is a bit tedious to couple up.
 
#20 ·
Buffer locking isn't a problem if you use 11' radius curves and over, including pointwork. On reverse curves such as entrance to a siding next to a main you must ajust the countercurve untill everything passes ok in reverse. I have been using chain and buffer couplers for years and the only problem with them is it is often a pain to couple up especially under diaphragms. But it does work. even Maerklin six wheelers which have considerable potential to rotate around a vertical axis work fine in reverse.
there are many manufacturers of these try to stick to ones in metal as some plastic hooks (great for insulation though) are too weak and bend so that the chain unhooks itself creating automatic uncoupling which is not wanted. The J&M ones are notorious for this and I have replaced one hook out of every car with a steel one scratchbuilt to prevent this from happening. I have used this coupling on trains of over 16 continental coaches.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
About this Discussion
24 Replies
8 Participants
Last post:
derPeter
G Scale Model Train Forum
posts
460K
members
32K
Since
2007
A forum community dedicated to G scale model train owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, displays, models, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Live Steam General G Scale Discussions Beginner's Forum Model Making Track, Trestles, Bridges and Roadbed