Jump to content
 
  • entries
    15
  • comments
    73
  • views
    25,038

Now...do I go with DGs or do I go with the Dapol system?


RobboPetes

1,143 views

Dilemma! Which way do I go?

 

I used DGs on Clive Road Sidings at a 2mm Scale Area Group meeting back in the late 80s and was impressed how well they worked. Standard N gauge couplings at that time were unreliable and inconsistent across the manufacturers. A friend advised me to look at the Kadee system, but I considered this too American in appearance. With nothing else available in N gauge at the time as far as I was aware it seemed the logical way to go.

 

I have made some DGs up and started to put them on to my stock. The problem I have now is how do I fit these to the Dapol Ferryvans and Telescopic hoods? I am also trying to work out how best to fit the to to Bach/Far Peaks? Any vehicle that uses a close-coupling system might prove to be problematic where DGs are concerned. Virtually anything else is straightforward enough. I've also read recently you have to continually adjust these couplings if you exhibit your stock a lot???

 

Enter Dapol, who have now introduced their own automatic uncoupling system. I saw Horseley Fields at the Hoddesdon exhibition in the middle of last year and was mildly interested in the Dapol couplings in use; they worked well and none of the trains I saw uncoupled at any time whilst being run. This has left a somewhat lasting impression which has now brought me to the crossroads of decision...which way to go?

 

DGs are less obtrusive in appearance but will prove to be more problematic to fit. Dapol will be the complete opposite. The only problem I foresee with the Dapol system is the modifications to the older Farish and PECO chassis', let alone the 2mm Scale Association chassis'. I am certainly erring on the side of Dapol the more I look into these systems. I wonder what other modellers think, or what experience they have had with these systems? After all, this might prove to be more beneficial than to just myself?! What do YOU think?

10 Comments


Recommended Comments

Dapol are producing a conversion kit which is supposed to allow you to retro-fit older models and non-Dapol stock with NEM pockets (and, by extension, with their couplers). This looks like a very well thought-out product, from what I've seen. I was planning to standardise on MicroTrains' couplers, but I'm now leaning towards Dapol instead, simply because this product is available and I think that Dapol couplers will work out cheaper than MT.

 

Jim

Link to comment

I don't know about the Dapol system but I have used DG couplings for some time on P4 and HO and I'm very happy with them. I find they are very efficient and the occasional tweak on setting up usually ensures they retain their settings. They work well with both fixed and electro-magnets. I modify them so that the hook is at one end and the loop at the other which means they have to remain the same way round and thus not possible if you have return loops. Locos that need to run in either direction would carry normal couplings both ends. I'm sure you would find some way to fit them even on the difficult vehicles. They can easily be fitted fixed to body or to bogies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I have to say I think the Dapol couplings are far larger and obtrusive than they need to be. Not only that but often provide a final spacing that is nothing like close-coupling. If I were going for a buckeye style coupling I would certainly use the Microtrains ones if I could - preferably the Z Gauge versions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I agree with you Jim in that this system has been well thought out.

 

Most people who use them will agree with P4Frank, myself included. The tweaking is probably, and this is only a guess, due to the stock being carried in an upright position in a stock box (my problem). During transit the stock may move back and forth and thus may get damaged this way. If they are laying on their sides there is less chance of movement. The vehicles that I have that use a close-coupling system have the couplings attached to the bodies and not the bogies. They might not be as bad to modify as I assume, but I would not look forward to dismantling the units concerned!!! Because of the hook one end/loop the other, the coupling are well suited to the end-to-end type layout. Agreed, you can't turn the units round once you have attached the coupling (someone will no doubt prove us wrong here).

 

You certainly have a point Chris, as the pictures in Argos' blog http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1220/entry-11097-mr-thompsons-finest-brake-third-part-i-and-the-first-loco/ show the couplings side by side. The points you have made about size and distance show up well on his site. I hope there is an alternative to the coupling displayed on Argos' site?! I must admit, when I saw Horseley Fields at Hoddesdon last year I didn't notice the size of the couplings from normal viewing distance. If this is the case about size then a look at the Microtrains Z gauge version might just happen.

Link to comment

I have converted a fixed rake formation of new Farish mark ones recently to DGs by aralditing the cut down DG to the stub of the old rapido, so that the coupler still swings with curves as Farish intended. It was not too difficult. This also men's if I ever wanted to change back I could buy a coupler loose and away we go... The big plus for DG couplers is that there are negligible horizontal coupling forces involved, so lightweight four wheeled stock couples easily instead of being pushed away as MT and similar systems are wont to do. Doesn't happen with US rolling stock as it's all bogie stock with more inertia.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Thanks to all those who responded.

 

Yes Silurian, you are right. Even if you add some wieght, it might not be enough to stop the movement of the vehicle you are trying to couple up to if using the MT or Dapol systems.

 

What I am going to do is to dismantle a ferrywaggon and see if it is as difficult as I think. This might mean dismantling the spring and seeing if the coupling will come away from the wagon itself. It might mean more work but this might outwiegh any disadvantages of the Dapol system.

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Have to say for me its DG couplings all the way. I find them a lot less visually intrusive, much more reliable and versatile in operation and avoid the 'Kadee shuffle' which is necessary with all the microtrains type couplings.

I put loops on both ends of all stock which means they can be used either way round and has the added benefit of not having to put loops or droppers on locos where space is at much more of a premium.

 

Jerry

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Right, research done!

 

If I was gonig to use DGs on the ferrywaggons I would do the same as Silurian above - thanks for the advice. This would work out much easier than I thought. The telescopic hood is a different matter altogether.

 

The bogies on these vehicles have both lateral as well as longtitudinal movement?! The pegs that hold the bogies in place are a relatively loose fit. There are also some handrails moulded to the underside of the bufferbeam. Although they should be there they tend to foul the bogie. These handrails would be removed. I would plug the pivot hole with the appropriate sized rod with a piece of plasticard on the end to keep the bogie in place. The DG would be glued to the underside of the bogie on the end that currently sits at the inner ends of the wagon. If I was to use the Dapol system I would still plug the pivot hole to reduce all movement apart from rotation.

 

All I need to do now is to find out how best to deal with the Bach?Far Peaks?!

Link to comment

Thanks for that Andy. At least with this method you don't have to dismantle the bogie to get to the coupling...and it works! I was thinking of folding the flaps of the coupling that you would normally glue the the vehicle to go through the area vacated by the coupling on the Peak bogie. The flaps of the coupling would be straightened again, then either folded down and secured behind the bufferbeam or somehow secured to the bogie??? The only problem here is how to secure the coupling without fouling the sideframe being re-attached to the bogie.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...