dapol buckeye coupler

[Mike Parkes]

The buckeye is similar in terms of the action form of coupling together as a normal n gauge coupling (rapido) so I would doubt that it would resove uncoupling - this occurs because one vehicle raises or lowers in height in comparison to the other sufficiently for the couplings to part. You need to inspect what is actually the problem with the track where it happens.

[Karhedron]

Dapol have posted a clip of their new couplers in operation on their Facebook page. I must say that they look very impressive. Smooth and trouble-free uncoupling and I notice that fly-shunting is supported as well.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dapol-Ltd/214563285228094

[Grahame]

Would anyone know if these new couplings mean carriages will be less likely to become unattached in transit at randon places on the track. here are a couple of places on my layout where certain carriages sometimes but not always do this.

If uncoupling occurs at the same places the cause is usually the track rather than the couplings. A small kink or unlevel bit of track/rail can cause the couplings to 'bounce' (particularly the unsprung Peco Elsie type) and uncouple. Check the track and re-lay it as smooth and as flat as possible.

Even uncoupling at random places can be caused by the track as the bouncing effect gets strung out around the layout and any undue strain on the coupling (too tight bends, etc) can be cumulative causing uncoupling away from the original cause. Also changes in speed (slowing down or speeding up) can add to the problem as stock bunches up or the strain on the coupling increases.

It's best to get your eye down to track level and observe what happens and then fix that. However, I would assume that the new couplings are less likely to 'bounce'.

G.

[locoworks]

Dapol have posted a clip of their new couplers in operation on their Facebook page. I must say that they look very impressive. Smooth and trouble-free uncoupling and I notice that fly-shunting is supported as well.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dapol-Ltd/214563285228094

i think they should have zoomed out a bit to take the footage, you are just too close to the action to see whats going on!! that sarcastically said, the space shuttle eye view of the motions looked good. ( doen it again ) when can we get them????

[Essex2Visuvesi]

Still means you have to uncouple at certain points tho

[Karhedron]

Still means you have to uncouple at certain points tho

That is a restriction of pretty much every hands-off uncoupling system I can think of (in any scale). The only exception is an experimental DCC system I have seen involving memory wire.

[THE CHIEF]

Ive ordered a couple of pairs of these along with some magnets from dapol today. Ill post up some photos of them fitted to some wagons when they arrive.

[Deltic1981]

Apparently MT and dapols kuckles arent compatible with each other any suggestions on how i can use my MT stock without butchering a loco.

[Grahame]

Butcher a wagon instead and make a translator wagon fitted with a Dapol coupler at one end and an MT at the other. AFAIA the difference is in the height of the shank; the level at which the knuckles engage. Presumably you have American stock fitted with MTs while the British stock has a NEM socket fitted lower for the new Dapol coupler to plug in to.

However, I'm not sure why you want to mix American and British stock as not only is there the differnce in couling height, but they are different scales as well. Plus the British stuff has buffing gear while the American doesn't and they also probably have prototypically incompatible brake systems.

G.

[Zunnan]

Or maybe he has British stuff fitted with MTs, like a few other people do. IBISIRAIL applies in any case, it isn't your layout to dictate what to run.

The Dapol knuckles look like a McHenry clone, so it may be a case of fitting a McHenry (or MT if the knuckles themselves are compatible) coupler with a modified trip pin to one end of a translator vehicle at the lower height. I do know that MT couplers are perfectly happy coupling to the Dapol dummy NEM knuckles when the mount heights are matched, so the likelyhood is that if you mount a MT low it should work. Otherwise it may be worth seeing what Farish bring to the table with their own NEM knuckle coupler. You never know, that one may yet mount at the NMRA height, so could possibly do the job with no messing around needing to use translator vehicles.

edit~ just watched the vid on their facebook page, the 'delayed' uncoupling looks a bit problematic and the knuckles look absolutely massive, so thats probably why they're not MT compatible. Maybe a Kadee #5 will do the trick

[Grahame]

Or maybe he has British stuff fitted with MTs, like a few other people do.

In that case simply stick with fitting MTs. If anyone has gone to that bother presumably they've already butchered locos and stock to fit them at the American height (and therefore wouldn't be worried at futher butchery) or they've been set lower and in which case the knuckles may be persuaded to engage at that level. Apparently 'modifying' the trip pin is only a matter of bending it flatter and/or snippng a bit off. And, of course, there is the rumour that the Farish version will have an off-set/cranked shank to make the knuckle engage heigher while plugging in a lower set NEM socket.

G.

[locoworks]

Or maybe he has British stuff fitted with MTs, like a few other people do.

In that case simply stick with fitting MTs.
G.

the problem with Mt's is that loco's like the 04 and 08 and maybe the terrier don't have room to fit the MT coupling box on them. it is like fitting a lego brick. something that just clips into the 'standard' NEM type N gauge pockety clip thing solves the fitting problem. it is a bit daft to design it not to work with MT stuff but thats marketing for you, eg. sony memory sticks. how much sense would all different non compatible tension locks be in OO?. IF the farish version ( wait 10 years to find out ) isn't compatible with either it's a urine theft. farish and dapol should atleast be compatible on UK stock out the box. it would also be nice if farish produced a proper retrofit ( without butchery ) to their original pockets pre NEM stuff.

[Karhedron]

it is a bit daft to design it not to work with MT stuff but thats marketing for you

It is not marketing or anything else. MTs are designed to work with american stock which usually has no buffers. Putting a coupler at the same height on british stock would apparently lead to buffer lock problems.

I am not an expert on coupling designs, I am just quoting what Dapol said. It is worth noting that Ben Ando of the NGS reported the same issue when they were looking into coupling designs a few years ago.

IF the farish version ( wait 10 years to find out ) isn't compatible with either it's a urine theft. farish and dapol should atleast be compatible on UK stock out the box. it would also be nice if farish produced a proper retrofit ( without butchery ) to their original pockets pre NEM stuff.

We will have to wait and see what happens there. Dapol have announced that they will include NEM rapido arms with their stock for anyone who does not wish to use the new couplers and I suspect Farish will do the same.

How Farish handle the issue of converting old stock remains to be seen. If they manage to create a wariant that fits into old Rapido boxes as well then they will probably capture the market, regardless of whether their stuff is compatible with Dapol's or not. However it remains to be seen whether Farish can actually come up with a technical solution to the problem of height.

The issue is this. Old rapido boxes were not made to particular well defined standards or tight manufacturing tolerances and usually have a fair degree of vertical slop in them. The worked because the big chunky rapido on the end was sufficiently large that a bit of height difference did not matter. Now the magnetic knuckles are a bit more height sensitive and the resultant slop can be enough to stop them working.

This is why Dapol opted to manufacture separate NEM pockets in order to convert older stock. Perhaps they could have made a version that would fit into a Rapido box but whether it would work reliably is open to debate.

[locoworks]

the height isn't really the issue, the problem with MT's is some spring inward, and some spring outward. with NO buffers it isn't an issue, but with buffers if you get 2 that spring inward with realistic distances between buffered stock and you push, the buffers can lock. you could mount an MT coupler at any height really, they just have a set standard like out OO tension locks. the trip pin can be adjusted up and down. MT do make a conversion for minitrix pockets which are similar to farish. i converted some farish wagons years ago as a test. i contacted MT directly and received one of every conversion set they did except the loco specific versions with buffer beam or cow catcher mouldings on them. you had to use medium or long shanked couplers with give a BIG gap between stock so you don't get buffer lock when pushing more than a few wagons. an idea would be to put a small tube or rod in side the coil spring in the pocket to limit the amount of 'push' movement but not affect the necessary lateral movement. if MT had shrunk the kadee design which has little or no fore and aft movement they would be ok for buffered stock but maybe that design won't shrink and work reliably. there have been some people use the Z gauge couplings in N as the knuckle size is more scale, but there is a very limited choice in Z.

[Benn]

Has anyone managed to get their hands on any of these couplers yet and have a mess about?