Dapol turbot ballast wagon

[GWR_fan]

I was interested in a few of these in Dutch livery, however, looking at the images it seems that the entire coupler body is forward of the buffers. This would indicate around two centimetres distance between coupled buffer faces. This is taking trainset curves to the max!!!!!!!!

I wonder if provision is made for a fixed length coupling bar to minimise buffer distance to the adjacent wagon.

[Bigmet]

Apparently there is a coupler bar with them, but it is limited in effect because the coupler pockets are simply mounted way too far forward (so they are not NEM specified coupler pockets, as the position is out of specification.) The alternative RTR Turbot is a commission from Kernow Model Centre. It isn't identical to the Dapol, probably less accurate in some respects, debate ongoing. But the coupling distance is much more reasonable. Pays your money, makes your choice

[Mike Parkes]

The yellow, the yellow, ouch my eyes ache.

[GWR_fan]

The more I look at the Turbot the more I think do Dapol really have any idea these days. Although in hindsight Dapol are no worse than many recent Hornby offerings with couplers extending way forward of the buffer faces. This may be important for those using radius 1 and maybe radius 2 curves, but Bachmann have used "recessed" coupers on many of their products for a generation or more and seem to have satisfied the unique requirements of the toy trainset curves many inexplicably still use. Radius 1 curves may have been popular in Rev. Audrey's day but then exposed motors, clunky valve gear and three rails were also popular. Some even had clockwork springs and winding keys. The toy trains of yesterday are not the highly detailed models we have today and yet the track mindset of getting as much track in a given space as possible still exists. The hobby has moved on but the toy train mentality still holds us back.

Why build a highly detailed model and then subject it to a toy trainset mentality? The underframe no doubt will be utilised for the bolster "E"(?) model sometime in the future so it also will be compromised by the stupid decision to extend the couplers further forward than I believe most other manufacturers (Lima did this on basically all its diesel models but then it was building toys, not models and most were tooled back in the 1970's).

I have a liking for ballast trains in Dutch livery and do like the Turbot, however, unless a compromise may be made to limit the buffer distance then my wallet stays in my pocket.

[Mountain]

I habe to say GWRfan that one doesn't neccesserily need the couplings set too far forward to negotiate 1st radius curves. The RTR manufacturers are likely to need the length to enable inflexible narrow couplings to work. For me Mainline got it about right. A medium width coupling that is set back a bit so it isn't so visible. To be honest the most hidden version I have seen as they blend in well are the wide Triang/Hornby thin metal couplings. If these were made to a medium width they would be ideal.
There isn't a huge amount of extra give to a design to enable them to negotiate sharp curves without looking wierd. I had an idea about mounting buffers on springy wire (Or even a thin diameter lightly sprung coil spring something like a guitar string) as a buffershaft so the buffers would less likely cause bufferlock issues, and therefore be coupled closer without concern.

[Bigmet]

...Why build a highly detailed model and then subject it to a toy trainset mentality?...

I don't like it either, but UK retailers I have talked to over the years are pretty consistent in estimating their layout owner customer base that actually run their purchases as 75%+ (some go as high as 90%) using set track, and R1 still very much in use, there's good s/h demand for R1 track pieces apparently. The end effect is that a large chunk of the customer base probably won't buy unless R2 capability is guaranteed.

All that said, because of the lack of standards in OO, I suspect product designers don't get much guidance. Whoever designed that Dapol wagon coupler position simply 'played safe' in my opinion. Same problem on view in another new release, the Oxford Rail N7; and these won't be the last. Those of us who would like better are a minority voice, so are accustomed to making DIY fixes...

[Mountain]

As it has nem pockets, isn't there an option of a shorter coupling to buy? Otherwise what is the point of having nem pockets in the first place?

[Bigmet]

Ah, but it doesn't have NEM coupler pockets. To truly qualify for that term they must be correctly positioned, and they surely are not, way too far forward. That negates a principal advantage of the concept, that any of the couplers with the NEM fitting will be in a standardised positon relative to whatever protrudes furthest from the vehicle end, provided that the coupler pocket is correctly positioned per the NEM diagram.