Sorry if this has been asked elsewhere,
I'm looking at my options for couplings on my stock, I don't mind upgrading stock to NEM pockets but I'd like to avoid butchering stock incase I sell on and change stuff about later.
I'm aware of DG couplings but haven't worked out how I can fit them without cutting and gluing, I've also tried the Dapol Easi Shunt ones but couldn't get the delayed action to work reliably.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
Do you want uncoupling in any location on the layout, or specific locations?
If your layout is unidirectional and trucks don't get turned around by an end to end layout then the likes of B&B, MBM's etc work reliably with delayed action providing you only fit the locking mechanism on one end and the other the plain hook. I tried them but as my layout is mainly run as an end to end fitting the full mechanism to both ends causes problems.
I did try the Microtrains couplers, they are reliable for delayed uncoupling IF fitted correctly and are free moving but constant supply problems prevented me converting all my stock to use them.
I have now reverted to the Dapol Easishunt and have sited my uncoupling magnets in strategic places so the I don't need delayed uncoupling and all seems to be working very well at the moment.
There are lots of discussions about this subject in this part of the forum:
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?board=138.0 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?board=138.0)
I hope this helps (Being a bit of a Dapol easi-shunt fan-boy convert, I won't wade in here!)
see http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=6670.0 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=6670.0) for some useful discussion including a link to my instructions for assembling B&Bs...
:thankyousign: to everyone who has replied so far, I'm not a regular contributed on this forum due to a house renovation, an 11 month old, working full time and fixing my motorbike (which is also daily transport)
I have, or will have, two layouts, one is a shunting layout in a coffee table and is the one in which I'm trying the easy shunts by Dapol, the other is still in the planning stage and I don't know if it will be reverse loops at each end or continuous loop.
I'm going to try adding ballast to the wagons with the dapol couplings on and see if that makes a difference, I'll also have a look through the options people have suggested and linked to.
I've been continuing to try and get Dapol E-Z-Shunt couplings to work reliably with 1940's 1950's size stock for the past two years and decided, armed with some liquid gravity and a test plank to have another try.
I can have coupling up, I can have un-coupling, but the one thing that I can not get to work is delayed uncoupling, it's as though the couplings simply will not move aside enough, if I manage to get it working then I need a good bump from the loco to get uncoupling to occur.
During this time the coffee table layout has been disassembled as the child has learnt to climb and a glass topped coffee table isn't a great idea, it's being re-built onto a bookshelf.
Still not happy with them, going to have a look through suggestions from earlier in this thread
To be honest, I don't think I've read anyone on the forum commenting on consistent delayed uncoupling so you're not on your own :no:
The Dapol knuckles are simply too big to make reliable delayed shunting possible, they're as big as H0 Kadees so need to swing particularly far. Factor in that a good number of NEM pockets have no lateral movement at all other than the entire wagon twisting, or oversprung NEM pockets that won't budge before the wagon does, and generally speaking they're not particularly brilliant. A vast improvement over Rapidos, granted, but still far wide of what should have been possible with them. Tried them, gone back to slowly working through fitting MT 1015 and 1016s to my fleet and have relegated the Dapol knuckles to being temporary fits to couple up to MT fitted stock. The one concession I do now make with fitting MTs is that I mount them at the same height as Dapol knuckles mount at, this saves me having to convert NEM close coupling mechanisms such as is found on coaches. MTs certainly do have their downsides though.
A bit more of a faff? Yes, assembling them can be a chore sometimes.
Just as much butchery needed as to fit Dapol knuckles to non NEM models? You bet! Sometimes considerably more work is needed. But then sometimes all you need to do is pull off the Rapido, drill a 1mm hole and screw on the MT draft gear box.
NEM fitted stock can be a royal pain in the backside to fit MTs to. CCM fitted models are near impossible if you want to retain the mechanism, and because of the lateral movement in the MT they actually pretty much make the CCM useless...sometimes to the point where the mechanism stops bogies from turning smoothly and has caused me one or two derailments as a result.
Just like the Dapol knuckles, they aren't brilliant at coupling/uncoupling on curved track either.
But at least every single wagon and loco that I convert has a knuckle coupler that is lightly sprung laterally so the wagons don't twist on the uncoupler, doesn't rise vertically (because there is no NEM profile on the coupler shanks with the compromise to shape needed for Rapidos to move as needed) and are almost half the size of the Dapol knuckle so are a bit more discreet. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the Dapol couplers; I use them and will continue to where needed. I just prefer the MT couplers which have been around for a long time and are very well developed. Granted a good many people will baulk at the work needed to fit them sometimes, in which case other options are probably better to explore.
When you have a working knuckle (or any other magnetic uncoupling), you also want to make sure you remove as much ferrous material from the wagon as possible. The axles on Dapol are plastic and the newer Farish releases don't seem particularly attracted to magnets, but the weights within them certainly are! Self adhesive lead strip meant for windows is a good substitute, being both thin enough to get into the original space allocated for the metal strip, heavier and non ferrous. A 1.5mm thick 10m roll goes for miles! I've found from experience that Deluxe Materials 'Liquid Lead' is just as attracted to uncoupling magnets as the original steel weight so is best avoided...
Quote from: Zunnan on January 29, 2015, 09:58:57 PM
I've found from experience that Deluxe Materials 'Liquid Lead' is just as attracted to uncoupling magnets as the original steel weight so is best avoided...
Probably because IIRC it's steel and not lead! Thank you for your interesting post, lots of good points in there. I use dapol easi-shunts and have never got the delayed shunting feature to work. The no lateral movement on certain wagons can be a factor in reliable uncoupling too. Time spent tweaking and setting up the tail height and position helps, but doesn't cure every wagon.
I had some issues initially with the delayed uncoupling but I maanged to get it work by adjusting the coupling pins (i am also using rare earth magnets). Here is a link to my experimentation.
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48728-dapol-easi-shunt-magnetic-couplings-in-n/?p=569182 (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48728-dapol-easi-shunt-magnetic-couplings-in-n/?p=569182)
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48728-dapol-easi-shunt-magnetic-couplings-in-n/?p=570075 (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48728-dapol-easi-shunt-magnetic-couplings-in-n/?p=570075)
Quote from: Karhedron on January 30, 2015, 09:05:41 AM
I had some issues initially with the delayed uncoupling but I maanged to get it work by adjusting the coupling pins (i am also using rare earth magnets). Here is a link to my experimentation.
Thanks Karhedron,
Where did you get the magnets you use from, they look as though they could be the answer in key points around the layout.
I think I bought them in bulk on eBay. From memory they are 3mm diameter and 2mm thick.
Got some magnets on order to have another go with the dapol couplings going to ignore delayed shunting and will report back.
Should have posted this last week, but got side tracked. Black Sheep, a couple of thoughts if you do decide to give MY couplers another go.
I used body mounted MT couplers for years for my US N scale rolling stock. I bought then in kit form, much less expensive, and assembled them in batches. I strongly suggest getting the assembly fixture out out by Micro Trains, it works the charm.
When each coupler was assembled, I would touch 2 corners ever so lightly with a fine tipped soldering iron, sealing the edges together. This avoids glue, or relying on them to stay just snapped together.
I have seen a couple of comments in threads, from folks who have tried them, and found cars flying off the track during shunting. It is usually because the freight cars (wagons) are too light. They have a tendency to bounce back and forth, causing the open couplers to close again, and the closed couplers bumping each other, pushing the wagons to one side. MT sells small springs to correct this. A single spring is placed on the needle point of one axle, before being placed in the journal box. This creates a very tiny bit of drag, but eliminates the bounce.
There was discussion years ago on either the yahoo N scale egroup or a forum, about how much the springs would effect train length. Several modelers did tests on their layouts, and the general result was that a 25 car train without springs would lose 2 or 3 cars at most. So the drag is negligible, INHO.
Jim F
Quote from: JimF on February 03, 2015, 10:47:54 PM
I have seen a couple of comments in threads, from folks who have tried them, and found cars flying off the track during shunting. It is usually because the freight cars (wagons) are too light. They have a tendency to bounce back and forth, causing the open couplers to close again, and the closed couplers bumping each other, pushing the wagons to one side. MT sells small springs to correct this. A single spring is placed on the needle point of one axle, before being placed in the journal box. This creates a very tiny bit of drag, but eliminates the bounce.
Jim F
I found that Dapol EasiShunts can sometimes be let down by stock that's too free-running.
My preferred solution is a small piece of foam glued between the body/bogie and the axle. This is just enough to keep the couplings tight and stops stock from running away when attempting to couple up.
I have in the past used a dab of cyano in the axle bearing to add friction to the rear of a train to keep the couplers taut, and I still use this to reduce the bounce on close coupling mechs fitted to my kit built LMS suburban coaches. British wagons however are on the very light side, and the factory applied steel weight makes matters so much worse in literally dragging vehicles (I had a magnet pull 12 wagons) over an uncoupling site. I haven't had a wagon thrown from the rails using MTs as the spring isn't really strong enough laterally to push anything over, gentle buffering up barely nudges them when coupling if you dry lubricate them on assembly (graphite, not oil or grease). Dapol knuckles however, I've had them refuse to couple unless roughly shunted into, and it has been the rough shunting that has derailed vehicles. Adding weight does help, as does adding some drag. I prefer to add weight personally as it helps the general trackholding of a light wagon where drag makes no difference in this respect.
Farish vans are easy to reweight (I don't own any Dapol vans, so can't say in relation to them), just open them up and discard the steel and you're left with plenty of room to add whatever non ferrous material you like. Opens are harder, the steel weight is between the chassis and wagon floor so they need some quite delicate disassembly to get the steel out. Farish 16 tonners have the door drop springs held in place simply by fitting between body and chassis for example, and you need to remove the axles in order to get at the screws holding them together. Replacing the weight is harder, especially if you want to keep the wagon unloaded. You need a thin non ferrous material in a narrow strip to replace the steel, preferably denser so that you can increase the models weight. I've seen solder used for this, short lengths cut to fit and glued into the void in the chassis, I prefer to use self adhesive window lead, it takes a bit of trimming to get it to fit but you can use the original weight as a template. Alternatively you strip the steel and load the wagons, with the load hiding the weight. This is necessary for Dapol 21t hoppers as there is no weight in them, the 'load' in them is glued in though and makes a right mess getting it out to be able to get at the cavity to drop some fishing shot in.
resurrecting an old thread, but continuing the debate.
So, Dapol couplings are a no go due partly to cost, I can't get them working reliably and don't want to spend that much.
DG couplings I can not get a decent soldered joint between the coupling loop and the dropper, it simply falls apart again with handling (primarily bending the dropper) and I have now lost one entire coupling to the floor along with about half the loops that were made.
I need to be able to couple up to either end of stock, the layout is a loop but also has a terminus and reverse loop so single ended is unfortunately not an option.
number of couplings required is easily over 100 so being able to reliably produce them at reasonable cost is key.
B&Bs...
Work on exactly the same principle as DGs but so much easier to assemble... The loop including the dropper tail is a preformed etch and you can just wrap iron wire around the tail (no bending your own loops and no soldering required) and the latch piece has proper pivots (none of that fiddly tweaking the three prongs to fit it)
In operation, so long as they are mounted squarely, no problems running with them double ended.
Where does one get B&B couplings from?
I could do with just 5 to trial (3 to build and test, two for the inevitable first one not as good as the rest :D ) but happy to buy a full fret / sprue of them if needs be.
One thing that concerns me about the B&B is that you have to adjust the height of the latch instead of it being straight on the DG, but I presume this is fairly standard?
Hello;
see this thread in the 'Couplings' section of the Forum;
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=36632.0 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=36632.0)
The address of the maker, and prices, are on it. Somewhere on the Forum, Paul PLD has written an illustrated 'how to' for these. We use them on James St and find them quite reliable; I found it best to make a 'standard ' for the height, then adjust all rolling stock to the standard. There are other articles on B+Bs in the 'Couplings' section of the Forum.
HTH
Martyn
Quote from: martyn on December 19, 2017, 04:16:27 PM
Hello;
see this thread in the 'Couplings' section of the Forum;
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=36632.0 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=36632.0)
The address of the maker, and prices, are on it. Somewhere on the Forum, Paul PLD has written an illustrated 'how to' for these. We use them on James St and find them quite reliable; I found it best to make a 'standard ' for the height, then adjust all rolling stock to the standard. There are other articles on B+Bs in the 'Couplings' section of the Forum.
HTH
Martyn
Thanks, that's a great help, had hoped there was a supplier online as I have bank cards and paypal etc but no cheque book to make payment by post!
A way shall be found, going to go for another attempt with DG couplings (might as well destroy what I've already got) and look at B&B in the new year as nothing's going to get through the post before then anyway :)
Hi;
Yes, I'm afraid it is snail mail and cheque book, but he does supply by 'return of post'.
Martyn
Quote from: martyn on December 19, 2017, 04:27:20 PM
Hi;
Yes, I'm afraid it is snail mail and cheque book, but he does supply by 'return of post'.
Martyn
Anyone know if he accepts postal orders?
Cashed in the same way as a cheque (can be done at the PO if not crossed)
I've asked for a cheque book before and been told no even though the account used to have one.
I wouldn't recommend sending an uncrossed PO in the post - as risky as sending cash. :uneasy:
Quote from: Black Sheep on December 18, 2017, 10:07:38 PM
DG couplings I can not get a decent soldered joint between the coupling loop and the dropper, it simply falls apart again with handling (primarily bending the dropper) and I have now lost one entire coupling to the floor along with about half the loops that were made.
I need to be able to couple up to either end of stock, the layout is a loop but also has a terminus and reverse loop so single ended is unfortunately not an option.
number of couplings required is easily over 100 so being able to reliably produce them at reasonable cost is key.
I am planning on using DG couplings and have been making the loops out of one piece, and have been able to adapt the coupling to fit the NEM pockets.
(https://i.imgur.com/06gAdxv.jpg)
See this thread for more information and a video of my success so far.
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=38772.msg477434#msg477434 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=38772.msg477434#msg477434)
Dan
Quote from: danmk1 on December 19, 2017, 07:41:21 PM
I am planning on using DG couplings and have been making the loops out of one piece, and have been able to adapt the coupling to fit the NEM pockets.
(https://i.imgur.com/06gAdxv.jpg)
See this thread for more information and a video of my success so far.
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=38772.msg477434#msg477434 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=38772.msg477434#msg477434)
Thanks for that, I'll take a look at your thread, my worry with the one piece loops is the loop opening over time in long trains, have you much experience of this?
I know someone posted earlier their method of bending the wire that hopefully resolves this, but I'm not sure I can accurately make enough of their design.
Dan
I have started work again on the coupler design I was working on in 2015, have redesigned the etched hooks to deal with its worst fault (a tendency to lift the first couple of vehicles off the rails with heavy trains) and should have the revised etch back early in the New Year. This time I am going to try electromagnets, as I am fed up with all the issues caused by under-track permanent magnets. I'll update my own topic when I have done a bit of testing. Last time I got so close to having a good reliable design, it would be a shame not to put a bit more work in and fix the bugs:
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=22058.180 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=22058.180)
Richard
Quote from: belstone on December 20, 2017, 07:33:20 AM
Last time I got so close to having a good reliable design, it would be a shame not to put a bit more work in and fix the bugs:
That's good to hear, Richard.
Quote from: belstone on December 20, 2017, 07:33:20 AM
I have started work again on the coupler design I was working on in 2015, have redesigned the etched hooks to deal with its worst fault (a tendency to lift the first couple of vehicles off the rails with heavy trains) and should have the revised etch back early in the New Year. This time I am going to try electromagnets, as I am fed up with all the issues caused by under-track permanent magnets. I'll update my own topic when I have done a bit of testing. Last time I got so close to having a good reliable design, it would be a shame not to put a bit more work in and fix the bugs:
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=22058.180 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=22058.180)
Richard
Thanks, read the entire topic and commented offering to be a test pilot if required, looks promising :D
Quote from: belstone on December 20, 2017, 07:33:20 AM
I have started work again on the coupler design I was working on in 2015, have redesigned the etched hooks to deal with its worst fault (a tendency to lift the first couple of vehicles off the rails with heavy trains) and should have the revised etch back early in the New Year. This time I am going to try electromagnets, as I am fed up with all the issues caused by under-track permanent magnets. I'll update my own topic when I have done a bit of testing. Last time I got so close to having a good reliable design, it would be a shame not to put a bit more work in and fix the bugs:
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=22058.180 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=22058.180)
Richard
+
I followed your previous experiments with interest and am pleased that you are now continuing. I look forward to reading about your latest findings.
Dave
It will be interesting to see how Richard gets on with his project. I myself am still experimenting with D & G couplings so will watch for this project with interest. I have managed to make a one piece loop for the D & G coupling out of florist wire but have yet to find out how reliable they will be.