Tommy Day

John Birch’s article about buffer springing in the last Gazette reminded me of an article I drafted out some time ago on the same subject, to assess some different buffer springing arrangements, to see if any were really better than the others.

Buffers/buffing gear can be solid or sprung on models but have always been sprung on the rail network except in very early days. The simplest model form is solid buffers. This is fine if the couplings between vehicles hold them apart, but if the couplings are flexible and the buffers are to serve their actual purpose, especially when the train is being pushed, then some form of buffer springing is preferred.

I had available a couple of basic wagons with no buffers fitted, so decided to try some common springing arrangements for comparison. There are many self-contained sprung buffers commercially available, and many bespoke methods of springing buffers. The following photos show a few examples that I’ve tried.

Figure 1 shows independent commercially available self-contained sprung buffers and sprung three-link coupling. They are very simple to fit and fine on examples where the buffer back is concealed by the vehicle bodywork.

Figure 2 shows simple spring wire (0.7mm) linked buffers and couplings. In its simplest form, a slotted piece of tube is glued to the buffer spindles. Once fitted the buffer heads cannot be removed. Some form of stops or flanges would be useful on the spring wire, to keep the coupling central. Many rolling stock kits provide variations on this system.

Figure 3 shows a more complex buffer springing, with simple coupling springing. A small hole (0.6mm) is drilled through the buffer shanks and 0.5mm brass wire is bent to loop around the coupling. Then the ends are bent at right angles through the buffer shanks. This system allows the buffers to be removed, and also is useful for stopping oval etc buffers from rotating. I first came across this system in David Jenkinson’s book Carriage Modelling Made Easy (Wild Swan Publications, 1996.) I’ve use this on a couple of Thompson coach kits with oval buffers, and it works fine.

Figure 4 shows independent buffer and coupling springing, ideal when a detailed vehicle underframe is modelled. A small angle is made, to glue to the underframe. A spigot is made on one face of the angle, aligning with the buffer shank, and the spring is trapped between them. I first saw this method in an Alan Brackenborough article in Model Railway Journal, with an adaptation for oval buffers where the vehicle underframe design precluded other methods.

Figure 5 shows the system used in Kemilway coach kits with oval buffers. It looks quite complicated, but as all the parts are in the kit it is quite a simple system to construct.

These are just examples, there are many more methods, and modellers have their own favourite methods. I could actually see no discernible advantage in any system but all are a big improvement on fixed couplings and solid buffers. None of them took over one hour to produce so I suppose its really down to personal preference and the most suitable application for the vehicle.

John’s proposal is ideal for buffers fitted to loco tenders or anywhere that the back of the buffer beam is exposed, and I will try it next time I have that situation.

Most ready to run models, fitted with sprung buffers, are of the type similar to Figure 1, above. In some cases the springs may be very weak so can be replaced by stronger springs from the trade.