Dodgy Couplings

[New2N]

I am very new to N gauge, giving it a go after many years of OO.
So far, the only 'train I have is a Dapol four coach (including traction units) class 43. The problem is that the standard couplings just do not hold and the coaches are continually uncoupling whilst the train is in motion.
Is there a simple solution to this problem.

[Byegad]

First.
Is the track smooth? A bad joint will cause N gauge stock to jump and decouple.
Second.
Are all of the couplings letting go or just some/one?
Third.
For standard N gauge couplings, that look like a ? from above Tacky Wax is fantastic. Well worth buying IMHO.

[Byegad]

First.
Is the track smooth? A bad joint will cause N gauge stock to jump and decouple.
Second.
Are all of the couplings letting go or just some/one? If it's just one is it properly seated in the NEM pocket?
Third.
For standard N gauge couplings, that look like a ? from above Tacky Wax is fantastic. Well worth buying IMHO.

[Bigmet]

...Is there a simple solution to this problem.

Simplest? Return to OO!

It is very simple indeed, N demands considerably more care and developed skill in the matter of stable baseboards, tracklaying and optimisation of the set up of locos and stock to achieve equivalent results to OO in running reliability. If you can patiently work at that, very good results can be yours. I for one don't possess the patience, because I can practically throw together OO (RTR and hand built from kits and scratch) with great reliability, and just cannot do this in N gauge. But, YMMV, and you can only find this out by trying. All the best with it!

[Mountain]

...Is there a simple solution to this problem.

Simplest? Return to OO!

It is very simple indeed, N demands considerably more care and developed skill in the matter of stable baseboards, tracklaying and optimisation of the set up of locos and stock to achieve equivalent results to OO in running reliability. If you can patiently work at that, very good results can be yours. I for one don't possess the patience, because I can practically throw together OO (RTR and hand built from kits and scratch) with great reliability, and just cannot do this in N gauge. But, YMMV, and you can only find this out by trying. All the best with it!

The funny thing is, that one if the reasons that I abandoned 00 was because of the same issue that the origional poster is having in N. There were other reasons, but when they started to use the sloppy nem pockets with the close coupling systems on coaches in 00, it gave me soo many issues... And when I saw the whole 00 gauge market turning to nem pockets and close coupling mechanisms it was the nail in the coffin for me. Why I went out of my way when I changed to 7mm narrow gauge to design and make a reliable coupling of my own. It may be a manual coupling, but it is easy to use and it works.

When I tried N gauge, I did not have issues with the way the couplings worked. It was more their very noticeable size! But with 00 I did which was caused by the different standards. This was tollerable if one ran ones stock in a certain order! But it was nothing compared to when the nem pocket issues added to the coupling woes.
Something I never did understand were 00 gauge modellers who wanted to convert their old stock to have nem pockets, but then go and put tension lock couplings in the sockets? To me that would be a giant leap backwards and hardly an upgrade at all! If they wanted to plug in a different coupling design and the nem pockets were the only say to do this it would make some logical sense, but to convert to something that will result in giving you more issues from a design that gave one few issues makes no logical sense.
If i stayed in 00 and I could only get nem pocket couplings as spares, I would take them out of their sockets, and using spacer pieces if necessary screw and glue the things direct to my stock without using the nem pocket part. Years ago I used to have a few Airfix wagons which used to have "Fall apart" couplings and I ended up just glueing them in place to form a rigid coupling and they worked ok like that even on 1st radius curves.

Now my thoughts on this N gauge dilemma. As it is a HST which runs in a fixed formation, one is not confined to needing a specific type of coupling, so one can either make the couplings fixed, or convert to another type. If the HST is to be left on ones layout and not put back in its box, then I am wondering if glueing the couplings together may work! Haha! Though thought is needed before trying this as once glued, one is stuck with a fixed formation.
I would rather make some simple wire loop and a wire bar system to couple them if it were me.

I have not seen Dapols N gauge couplings so I can't comment on their couplings. When I had N gauge, it was Graham Farish and was inthe days before Bachmann took them over.

[Bufferstop]

The gaps berween wagons or coaches in N totally destroys the appearance of a train and the knuckle version is even worse, looking (to my eyes) live a crab's oversize claw. Now even 00 is going down the oversized gap route. I can understand how it happens KDs and the continental centre buffer and loop are both quite compact compared to Tensionlock, but with most of the designs using a plug in, or screwed on NEM pocket why not a shorter one for use with Tensionlocks. I have a number of wagons from Mainline and Bachman with the 3 hole coupler mounting which couple quite closely whilst the later droopy NEM versions didn't, as received couple well or anywhere near close.
How many European H0 modelers buy UK 00 rolling stock? Also with the plethora of KD coupler lengths and offsets would the need for a slightly longer one be any problem?

[Mountain]

The gaps berween wagons or coaches in N totally destroys the appearance of a train and the knuckle version is even worse, looking (to my eyes) live a crab's oversize claw. Now even 00 is going down the oversized gap route. I can understand how it happens KDs and the continental centre buffer and loop are both quite compact compared to Tensionlock, but with most of the designs using a plug in, or screwed on NEM pocket why not a shorter one for use with Tensionlocks. I have a number of wagons from Mainline and Bachman with the 3 hole coupler mounting which couple quite closely whilst the later droopy NEM versions didn't, as received couple well or anywhere near close.
How many European H0 modelers buy UK 00 rolling stock? Also with the plethora of KD coupler lengths and offsets would the need for a slightly longer one be any problem?

I agree. Both Hornby, Mainline and then Bachmann along with Dapol and Replica and maybe a few others had already come up with this 3 point solution where the centre point was a screw and the outer points were stabilizing pins (Usually plastic). It worked well. The only snag was that all UK makes needed to work together to make this standard and it was not made a common standard.
There was no need for nem pockets on UK 00 gauge stock because the simple 3 point fixed coupling mount was superior in that it was very simple, rigid (Rigid is very important with tension lock) and very easy to change couplings with if they had standardized this 3 point design.
Standardizing this would have then given the odeller the choice to mount small, medium or large tension lock couplings or maybe even a different design like Kadee or others as they would soon design devices for their couplings to work with this 3 point system.

The couplings themselves could be made to couple quite close with rolling stock so the cam systems with coaches were not neccessary. Take a look at older Hornby silver seal wheeled Mk2 coaches and how close they coupled, and how well they ran! And add modern metal wheels, brass bearings and flush glazing and they would be better then most of todays more expensive coaches in my oppinion! I know they did not have the 3 point design as they had moulded in coupling loops into the bogies, but still, they ran well. Their only downside was that they tended to loose coupling hooks on occasions and many of my coaches ended up with just the one hook!

I was going to write about close coupling and I wrote a new thread about 20 minutes ago but the site timed me out and logged me out and I lost what I wrote before I managed to post it.

[Bigmet]

...The funny thing is, that one if the reasons that I abandoned 00 was because of the same issue that the origional poster is having in N. There were other reasons, but when they started to use the sloppy nem pockets with the close coupling systems on coaches in 00, it gave me so many issues...

That's the fault of the RTR OO manufacturers, none of which have ever explained to their customers that the 'tension lock' coupler is not suited to this mounting. They needed to be brave and propose an entirely different coupler from among types long used in HO for this very reason. (Hornby now supply an incorrectly implemented version of a suitable Roco coupler with their coaches, but still no explanation!)

Used as intended, these systems are exceedingly good and fully reliable...

[Ironduke]

New2N,
Can you post a photo of the N scale couplings you're having trouble with? Have you tried getting down to eye level to see what's going on?

[Bigmet]

...I was going to write about close coupling and I wrote a new thread about 20 minutes ago but the site timed me out and logged me out and I lost what I wrote before I managed to post it.

To avoid cluttering up what should be an N gauge thread, I will write a piece on this subject to post in 'general' based on my very positive experience in exploitating these systems on Bachmann and Hornby coaches.

[New2N]

Thanks for all the replies guys, both constructive and facetious.

It's a steep learning curve but I have realised that intricacy is critical in N gauge and I am working on that basis.

On saying that, I have today bought some 'twin set' bogie wagons which, obviously, come in pairs but instead of normal couplings, they come with rigid connecting rods between each pair. These do a great job, it's just a shame they are way too long. Something like this would be ideal for a rake of HST units and I guess I was rather hoping someone would tell me that some were available, but apparently not.

Oh well, on with the reading glasses and time to dig out the magnifying glass.

[Ironduke]

Do keep us posted, New2N

[New2N]

I'm still getting frustrated by the couplings. I have bought eight double bogie wagons (Dapol) which come in semi permanently coupled pairs. Where the standard Dapol couplings are deployed between the wagons they work perfectly. The problems arise when coupling to the locomotives, classes 66 and 68, both Dapol. On a perfectly level and smooth piece of track the couplings just do not hold. This is because the couplings on the locos are noticeably lower than those on the wagons. Is there a simple/known fix for this?

[Bigmet]

I'm still getting frustrated by the couplings. I have bought eight double bogie wagons (Dapol) which come in semi permanently coupled pairs. Where the standard Dapol couplings are deployed between the wagons they work perfectly. The problems arise when coupling to the locomotives, classes 66 and 68, both Dapol. On a perfectly level and smooth piece of track the couplings just do not hold. This is because the couplings on the locos are noticeably lower than those on the wagons. Is there a simple/known fix for this?

Set all couplers at the same - ideally standard - height would be my choice. Sadly I don't know of a height standard for the Arnold Rapido coupler that comes fitted on N gauge kit: if anyone knows do say.

Lacking that answer, then pragmatically, I would suggest that you inspect all your stock for coupler height, and either go for the average (arithmetic mean) height, and reset as required, or select the most frequently occurring height that works really well and reset as required. The latter may well be least work.

[Mike Parkes]

Being relatively recent models that you are talking about I would take it that the couplings are of the clip in place into a mount type allowing other types of couplings to be readily fitted - now it might be there is some slop in the fitment which is causing some couplings to drop below normal height;
certainly this can be an issue in OO and the solution there is to slip a thin piece of suitable material in the mount underneath the coupling to support it at around the correct height. Maybe something similar is needed. If some couplings look slightly too high then it could be they are at the other end of tolerances and it would be worth trying swopping the over high coupling with an under height coupling.