Large Scale Central

Link and Pin verses ????

OK so staring at my Bachmann 10 wheeler trucks as I begin chopping the tender up for my 2-6-0 project I happened to notice the couplers. Something I hand not given much thought to. In HO I despised truck mounted couplers for no other reason than I think they are ugly and unnatural. I always had wide enough curves in HO that body mounted couplers were fine. Now with my first large scale build I wonder. My layout design has min 8 foot diameter curves. I can’t go much larger and do what I intend to do. I have been told I will be fine with my little locos and short rolling stock but what about couplers? I was originally going to go with prototypical link and pin style body mounted but now I am afraid that I will have issues when it comes to corners?

Am I worried for nothing or should I consider an alternative?

I think with short stock you will be OK with body mount. I can get 1:20.3 Bachmann 2-Bay Hoppers through a single R1 (4Ft Dia) switch with a short engine (Porter). They both have bodu mount Accucraft couplers.

You could always make a test rig; two sticks of wood the length of your proposed cars with couplers attached and trucks under. Then couple them together and test on your curves.

For your link-and-pin you can always make a longer link to help on tight curves.

Daktah John said:

I think with short stock you will be OK with body mount. I can get 1:20.3 Bachmann 2-Bay Hoppers through a single R1 (4Ft Dia) switch with a short engine (Porter). They both have bodu mount Accucraft couplers.

You could always make a test rig; two sticks of wood the length of your proposed cars with couplers attached and trucks under. Then couple them together and test on your curves.

For your link-and-pin you can always make a longer link to help on tight curves.

Good advice on both counts. Never even thought about longer links. And that’s why I asked

This is body mount link and pin with a standard link testing on an R1 switch…

(http://lsc.cvsry.com/LogCars/LogCarBuild-20_800.jpg)

It did have a little trouble getting through, but made it even though the wheels lifted…

(http://lsc.cvsry.com/LogCars/LogCarBuild-21_800.jpg)

That’s a great idea for testing the couplers.

I added a second photo after you posted.

And - Both test cars together…

(http://lsc.cvsry.com/LogCars/LogCarBuild-22_800.jpg)

Devon, I rather like the look of link and pin couplers, and on my prototype they may have been the appropriate coupler (they probably were). But I opted for knuckle couplers for the ease of use. I cant see me fiddling with little links and pins just so I can run trains.

As a tight turn cheater open the sides of the link head or use rubber links… :wink:

John

Yeah John I came across a site by a guy here “Korm” that did some cool link and pin couplers out of a computer heat sink that is open sided i think they looked good and would do exactly what your suggesting. The rubber link idea is good also. Some rubber O-rings perhaps.

I have been using body mounted link and pin couplers on my 1860’s era indoor RR. The minimum diameter curves are 8’ (4’ radius).

For links I use a single loop of a paper clip or the Accucraft links on their cars.

For pins I like using a #3 hardened nail that I cut just long enough to connect with a little extra, about 5/8".

To make it easier for handling the pins a rare earth magnet glued to the end of a 10" dowel really makes it easy. (That’s why I use the steel nails for pins.)

The only problem I have is with a Conductor’s Car I built from scratch when going through one switch, the car in front of it will pull it up a bit on the windward side. I solved this by using the paper clip idea for the extra length.

FWIW

What a disappointment. I was expecting poems about links.

You were not the only one Dick!

Joined by link and pin

By D. Sinsley

Once there was a day when there was nothin’ much to do.

the loco looked at the tender with a grin

“what should we do under a sky so blue?”

well I will grab some coal and you can grab a pin

together we will join with a link

we will light the furnace and stock the fire

and we will be gone in a blink

we will head down the rail for all to admire

billowing smoke and cinder

the conductor announces their departure

full of water and coal there was a wink from the tender

they ease forward off on an adventure

Rolling down the rail

a boiler with a full head of steam

the tender says to the loco with a hail

“together you and I, we are living a dream”

First you have to know why you’re building your railroad. If it’s just for watching trains go 'round and 'round (shudder) then be my guest and use body mounted link and pins if that is true to your taste/prototype.

However, if you want to actually operate a railroad in something like a prototype manner with switching, car spotting, and all that, then rethink your choice of couplers.

Some couplers are much better than others for this.

Since I operate outdoors and have tignt curves (4’ diameter on the spurs) and unskilled operating crews, I have decided on hooks and loops. I know these couplers seem sacriligious to most guys, but for me they work very well in my particular circumstance.

In addition, my tight curves mean that truck mounts work best for me, a further sacrilige, I know.

At this point some may say this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and that’s your privilege.

But if you’re still with me despite my eccentricities, then I would suggest to Devon that he move the trucks on those log cars closer to the ends of his cars. They seem to me to be awfully far from the ends, which creates an exaggerated end overhang.

There are trade offs in everything. The farther apart your trucks are, the greater the overhang in the middle of the car.

The usual compromise is to shorten the car.

There is a great difference between museum-quality models and an operating model railroad.

Museum quality models are very admirable for their authenticity and adherance to prototype, but I wouldn’t want them on my operating garden railroad. They simply wouldn’t be able to take it. There, I want ruggedness and reliability.

Here the ten foot rule applies. I only want a good impression of real trains doing real work, sometime soon within my own life span. A properly functioning backyard railroad may lack in detail, but for the pleasure its operation brings it can be far more admirable than the finest static display.

My 2c.

John,

Great advice again. And honestly that is something that is yet determined. I do lean toward authenticity verses functionality, maybe more like the 3 foot rule. I don’t need every rivet in its proper location but I like attention to detail. But I also want a working railroad and not a room full of static displays. There will be a trade off but what.

I consider myself more of a builder of trains than a runner of trains but cant see building them if I cant runn them if that makes sense

Well, if you want a working layout then you need to lay track PDQ. after that you’ll be able to quit agonizing because all the other questions will fall into line and pretty well answer themselves, or else they’ll just cease to matter any more.

If you concentrate on your working railroad you may find yourself putting some treasured modelling projects on hold, or even abandoning them eventually. All you’ll really be doing is cutting your losses, learning from experience, and getting on with the main event.

Before you lay tracks, however, I recommend that you experience both kinds of railroads, the roundy roundies and the operations focussed. If you haven’t done so, get out and visit both kinds! My own railroad is strictly point to point, and I can’t imagine ever going back to tail-chasers, no matter how twisted and convoluted. I quickly find them impossibly boring, but that’s just me. I have seen some beautiful tail chasers, but the operation on such pikes is severely limited, and for me operation is the most intriguing part of the hobby these days.

I used to be primarily a scratch builder myself. Nowadays if I want something in particular for the railroad I’ll still scratchbuild it, and it’ll fit where & what I build it for. So nowadays my scratchbuilding is focussed, too, y’see… I raise my tankard to your good results!

John,

In my case what would be the point of track if I have nothing to run on it. Have to get that first loco done then I can run it on Chuck’s track (that’s a hint chuck). I also have another motive. The 2016 Northern Pacific convention is in Wallace, Id. One of the focuses of that show will be the Coeur d’Alene Railway and Navigation Company as it was the predecessor and eventually a subsidiary of NPRR and then NPR. So I am giving a talk on the equipment they used and modeling it. The mixed train will be a static display for the convention.

In HO I always designed my layouts to be both roundy round and point to point operational. I have the same design idea for my Garden layout as well. It will be able to run with two separate loops or cross over into on big loop. But it will also have some sidings and a WYE for operation. I like both aspects.

But at the end of the day i would rather build trains than run them. I was that way in HO, N and now F. I get bored with running trains but never get bored building them.

And there again is why I love this hobby and the people in it. Its a big hobby with room for all. I get great advice form so many different perspectives that help me make it what I want it to be.

Did a indoor last winter, with my 2 axle accucraft, flat cars, nothing but 4’ Dia. some “S” which was toughest.
Used -113. O Rings 70 duro. For the link (112 or 114) would also work eliminated the problems in the “S” curves.
Local rivet counter never noticed.
Remarked “LINK & PIN IS PERIOD CORRECT”, carry on, as he strutted out with my last beer.

Devon, I am a builder, but lately I have been spending more time running trains. I like to build a fair representation of what I want, but I don’t put all the delicate, breakable details on my models.

You can go with the 3 foot rule if you like, but you can also get so immersed in being 100% accurate that you cannot run your trains. This hobby is all about compromises. I would like to see what you eventually come up with. And yes, there is room enough in this hobby for everyone. :slight_smile: