Jump to content
 

Invernevis based on Fort William in N Gauge


David41283
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am thinking of adding a few more uncoupling magnets to Invernevis in order to have a greater degree of hands-free operation. I had more-or-less hands-free shunting on Poldeen using the Dapol system which worked really well, but I have never really managed to get the "delayed coupling" aspect to work properly.

 

I set up a test track with some spare flex-track and a magnet.

IMG_20210205_200348.jpg.f0aa241ae6922938e3cdadadbb6dc512.jpg

 

To push the uncoupled vehicles while remaining uncoupled the knuckle has to open as wide as possible, and the coupling itself needs to deflect to the side in order for the couplings to mesh without recoupling, like this:

 

IMG_20210205_194935.jpg.1f59db43e0d48bf86f9ec5662789c8a6.jpg 

 

However, the reality is that more often than not this happens:

IMG_20210205_194846.jpg.875de4c1b0ffb6c122f2dcf4b3168fa1.jpg

The couplings just don't move out far enough to allow the loco to push stock away from the magnet without re-engaging again.

Through a few experiments I found that very few items of rolling stock have enough play in the coupling mount to permit the degree of deflection necessary for the delayed uncoupling to work, and where there is a degree of swing in the coupling mount, the Dapol magnet is either not wide enough or not strong enough to pull it far enough away from the centre.

 

I have ordered some small strong magnets to try locating them outside of the rails to see if this can pull the couplings further apart in order to enable them to work as intended.  

Edited by David41283
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 06/02/2021 at 00:09, David41283 said:

I am thinking of adding a few more uncoupling magnets to Invernevis in order to have a greater degree of hands-free operation. I had more-or-less hands-free shunting on Poldeen using the Dapol system which worked really well, but I have never really managed to get the "delayed coupling" aspect to work properly.

 

I set up a test track with some spare flex-track and a magnet.

IMG_20210205_200348.jpg.f0aa241ae6922938e3cdadadbb6dc512.jpg

 

To push the uncoupled vehicles while remaining uncoupled the knuckle has to open as wide as possible, and the coupling itself needs to deflect to the side in order for the couplings to mesh without recoupling, like this:

 

IMG_20210205_194935.jpg.1f59db43e0d48bf86f9ec5662789c8a6.jpg 

 

However, the reality is that more often than not this happens:

IMG_20210205_194846.jpg.875de4c1b0ffb6c122f2dcf4b3168fa1.jpg

The couplings just don't move out far enough to allow the loco to push stock away from the magnet without re-engaging again.

Through a few experiments I found that very few items of rolling stock have enough play in the coupling mount to permit the degree of deflection necessary for the delayed uncoupling to work, and where there is a degree of swing in the coupling mount, the Dapol magnet is either not wide enough or not strong enough to pull it far enough away from the centre.

 

I have ordered some small strong magnets to try locating them outside of the rails to see if this can pull the couplings further apart in order to enable them to work as intended.  

Thanks for sharing! I've tried magnets on the side of the rails. They work fairly well with Kadee couplings on US rolling stock and short couplings on Continental stock, yet with Dapol couplings on UK wagons, they tend to pull over the whole wagon, depending on its weight and wheelbase. I guess the attaching point of the coupler is essential in this case. US cars have theirs mounted to the bogie, which in itself rests firmly on the track and can withstand a pull to the side. Continental stock usually bears kinematic couplers, that can swing to the side, away from the wagon's body, and allow for more clearance. Most UK stock has the coupler mounted directly to the body, so the tendency to tip over is natural given. But maybe I've just chosen the wrong magnets and wrong location. ;)

Edited by westhighlandline
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had no success with a variety of approaches to the delayed re-recoupling. But I find simple uncoupling to be very reliable with either the Dapol magnets or small neodymium ones which are cheap enough that I’ve just added loads around where I may wish to uncouple. 

Also if you’re a tight Yorkshireman like me it’s worth noting that the Dapol magnets work fine cut in half! I bury mine in the cork a little bit and add thin micro strip to represent sleepers. Once painted and ballasted they are almost invisible. To the extent that I can’t remember where to stop the trains!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My small magnets arrived this morning, so I tried a few tests.

 

IMG_20210210_095917.jpg.38bd98e919239c80c92190f9fc962cf1.jpgThis was my first option. 4 x 3mm magnets between the sleeper ends. This did absolutely nothing. It wouldn't even make the coupler arms twitch, and i tried multiple items of rolling stock.

 

IMG_20210210_101827.jpg.04a72f517aa2c8948247cb78d3db5cd8.jpg

So I doubled up the magnets and turned the poles in towards the track. This achieved an odd mix of either doing nothing, or pulling the whole wagon off the track. It did get a couple of long wheel-base vehicles to perform the delayed action, but certainly no more frequently than the "official" Dapol magnets.

 

After trying a few combinations, I concluded that the best thing for the job is the proper Dapol magnets. My experience with these so far is that the basic uncoupling function is pretty faultless, but I cannot rely on the delayed option. I wonder if a 00 scale Kadee magnet buried beneath the track may be a good option, but this is impossible to retro-fit.

 

I am still thinking of adding some more magnets to the layout, but I have also ordered a pack of DG couplings to see how I get on with them before I make any changes.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 09/02/2021 at 11:34, TomJ said:

I have had no success with a variety of approaches to the delayed re-recoupling. But I find simple uncoupling to be very reliable

 

Yes - this is exactly what I have found too.

 

On 09/02/2021 at 11:34, TomJ said:

it’s worth noting that the Dapol magnets work fine cut in half

 

I agree again - this is what I do too. I have also tried cutting them into thirds, but this is too small to activate both couplings at once.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This week I have been experimenting with alternative couplings. I ordered a set each of DGs and MBDs. Having searched the internet I also found Electra Couplings and Lin-Cups both of which are home made from wire. I discounted Sprat and Winkle and MBMs as these don't offer a delayed function.

Information seems patchy and thinly spread around the internet. 

IMG_20210218_125505.jpg.d9c731ed17cf2260b2d0e6926cc91eeb.jpg

 

My thoughts:

 

DG couplings

  • Appear finer and less obtrusive than MBDs.
  • Easier to fold up the etch than the MBDs.
  • Making the wire loop is actually easier than I had been led to believe. However it is really annoying when you un-bend your perfect loop in order to fit it to the coupler and you can't ever get it back in shape quite as well again.
  • I am finding that the tiny feet of the latch are in extremely close proximity to the join of the loop and in some cases interfere causing either the loop or the latch to stick.
  • I really wanted to like these, as the option of fitting just the latch (no loop) to locos is very appealing, but I am finding them harder to make work consistently.

MBD couplings

  • MBD couplings are one-ended. i.e. you fit a loop to one end of each vehicle and a latch to the other, which means locos have to be treated the same way.
  • Trickier than the DG to fold up. The double fold on the buffing plate is a particular pain.
  • The etched loop is far more visible than the wire loop of the DG, but is easier to fit as a result.
  • I find an MDB has to be fitted slightly further forward than a DG which makes it a little more unsightly.
  • I am not 100% happy with the interference fit of the wire to the loop. I am looking to find a way to solder this joint next time.

IMG_20210219_110609.jpg.c643f20c41fa86d4c233329f0cd39774.jpg

So far I have a rake of 3 wagons with working MBDs, which demonstrate the delayed uncoupling beautifully. I have not consistently managed to get the DGs working as well yet. I have found the MBDs considerably easier to set up, but I don't like the one-ended design, or the overall look.

I am going to persevere with my trial set of DGs a little longer.

 

So far, I am leaning far more towards sticking with the Dapol couplings and making the best of them. The benefits I've seen from these systems so far, don't make me want to begin a mass conversion just yet!

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Robert,

 

I am vaguely aware of the BB coupling, but obtaining them seems to be the issue.

 

The only source I can find online seems to be the original designer, and the only method of reaching him is via a postal address, dated 3 years ago. Given the events of the last year or so, it feels a little strange sending a speculative letter to someone's home address from an obscure internet link, several years out of date. Also, if he is OK, and still trading and I receive a positive reply and a price list, I'm not sure I even possess a chequebook anymore! 

 

Unless anyone has any alternative contact details or suppliers of BB couplings.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work so far, I use MBD coupings on my Polpendra layout and have found them to be superb and yes, I do solder the wire dropper in place though I do not use the wire provided. I cut a length and bend a short bit at the end to 90 degrees and slide it through the coupling the solder it into the side of the loop which has the longer tab. Will try to sort a few piccies tomorrow if you want me to. They are fiddly to get the hang of assembling but I found that once I got in my stride I can assemble a surprisingly big batch in only one evening.

 

I use them on the layout with electromagnets as permanent magnets will cause unwanted uncoupling.

 

The biggest advantage of these is the delayed action, with my layout I can uncouple and shunt a wagon or several to the end of the siding and leave them there without recoupling.

 

One other thing to keep an eye out for is that over time, they may adjust themselves as they get knocked etc, especially during exhibiting - lots of vibrations during travel etc.

 

Despite all the issues, I wholly recommend them.

 

Best wishes

Simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I did what you are doing about 15 or so years ago.

I couldn't get those with the etched loops to work reliably, getting them to couple up was an issue, especially the MBDs.

Sounds like you have managed to succeed where I didn't!!

 

I persevered with DG's, they work well but need to be handled gently to avoid any knocks to the couplings especially in stock boxes traveling to and from shows. Though a quick bend back into place usually has them back in service again!

To avoid completely making the fitting of DGs irreversible I have cut the base plate to fit in the coupling pockets on locos, both the older style and NEM pockets.

 

Persevere with the DG's they will be worth it in the end.

 

Keith.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/02/2021 at 23:10, David41283 said:

My small magnets arrived this morning, so I tried a few tests.

 

IMG_20210210_095917.jpg.38bd98e919239c80c92190f9fc962cf1.jpgThis was my first option. 4 x

 

I have used the rare earth magents successfully in the past, but using the microtrains uncouplers. To get them to work, I mounted the magnets on a small peice of steel ( the metal weights used in wagons are ideal) and placed the assembly under the track with the magnets just inside the rails rather than outside as shown the picture. The metal plate enhances the power of the magnets and don't forget the have the north pole up on one side and the south pole on the other side. Someone, I can't reacall whom, used to sell kits with the magents and metal plate which is where I got the idea from. These days much cheaper ot buy the magnets directly and find a piece of steel. 

 

Nick 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/02/2021 at 23:32, bridgiesimon said:

Great work so far, I use MBD coupings on my Polpendra layout and have found them to be superb and yes, I do solder the wire dropper in place though I do not use the wire provided. I cut a length and bend a short bit at the end to 90 degrees and slide it through the coupling the solder it into the side of the loop which has the longer tab. Will try to sort a few piccies tomorrow if you want me to. They are fiddly to get the hang of assembling but I found that once I got in my stride I can assemble a surprisingly big batch in only one evening.

 

I use them on the layout with electromagnets as permanent magnets will cause unwanted uncoupling.

 

The biggest advantage of these is the delayed action, with my layout I can uncouple and shunt a wagon or several to the end of the siding and leave them there without recoupling.

 

One other thing to keep an eye out for is that over time, they may adjust themselves as they get knocked etc, especially during exhibiting - lots of vibrations during travel etc.

 

Despite all the issues, I wholly recommend them.

 

Best wishes

Simon

 

Hi Simon,

 

I've seen Polpendra at an exhibition, and they do look very good. 

 

When you refer to soldering the wire, do you solder to the extra bit of etch on the loop (the rectangular tab which the instructions tell you to cut off.)?

 

Thanks

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Crompton Power said:

To avoid completely making the fitting of DGs irreversible I have cut the base plate to fit in the coupling pockets on locos, both the older style and NEM pockets.

 

Hi Keith,

 

I saw a photo online somewhere of a modified DG with a piece of brass rod soldered across the base plate at right angles in order to clip into an NEM pocket. How do you get them to fit into the pockets?

 

Thanks

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/02/2021 at 12:29, David41283 said:

 

Hi Keith,

 

I saw a photo online somewhere of a modified DG with a piece of brass rod soldered across the base plate at right angles in order to clip into an NEM pocket. How do you get them to fit into the pockets?

 

Thanks

 

David

Hi David,

 

Yes I have also seen that somewhere.

 

I cut down the base plate to make it a finger the same width as the inside of the pocket. Then I pack it in with strips of plasticard. A few pictures to hopefully show what I’m trying to explain. The Pannier is the old style coupling with a spring. Base plate was slimmed down to fit the size of the opening where the coupling and spring would fit, plasticard added to fix in place then chassis and body reunited.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Keith.

29D6412A-9F24-49A0-9EC4-8B91ED476A31.jpeg

E7052D5E-DCFE-4638-86E3-BB4BDF241E49.jpeg

6ABE32D1-2D3C-4E86-A5AC-5F59B986F7D6.jpeg

EDFB3B5A-2CEA-4AF7-BE54-F645C149F224.jpeg

43B3D7AC-2BC5-4E9C-922A-74F37440CB0C.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 21/02/2021 at 12:29, David41283 said:

 

Hi Keith,

 

I saw a photo online somewhere of a modified DG with a piece of brass rod soldered across the base plate at right angles in order to clip into an NEM pocket. How do you get them to fit into the pockets?

 

Thanks

 

David

 

Hi,

 

That might have been me:

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Crompton Power said:

Hi David,

 

Yes I have also seen that somewhere.

 

I cut down the base plate to make it a finger the same width as the inside of the pocket. Then I pack it in with strips of plasticard. A few pictures to hopefully show what I’m trying to explain. The Pannier is the old style coupling with a spring. Base plate was slimmed down to fit the size of the opening where the coupling and spring would fit, plasticard added to fix in place then chassis and body reunited.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Keith.

 

 

Hi Keith,

 

Those photos are super, thank you.

 

Can I ask, I know that most only fit a latch (no loop) to locos, but on some of your photos of wagons it appears there is no latch, just a loop. Is this done on purpose or are the photos just mid-way through installation? This would certainly avoid the issue I am finding with the latch feet interfering with the loop join.

 

I also note that you aren't soldering together the two ends of the loop - phew! I was really struggling with this, and to be honest, I couldn't imagine a scenario in which the forces involved were great enough to necessitate this anyway.

 

One thing I am really struggling with, is soldering the two different wires together to make the dropper. Is there a trick I'm missing here? 

 

Thanks

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, David41283 said:

 

Hi Keith,

 

Those photos are super, thank you.

 

Can I ask, I know that most only fit a latch (no loop) to locos, but on some of your photos of wagons it appears there is no latch, just a loop. Is this done on purpose or are the photos just mid-way through installation? This would certainly avoid the issue I am finding with the latch feet interfering with the loop join.

 

I also note that you aren't soldering together the two ends of the loop - phew! I was really struggling with this, and to be honest, I couldn't imagine a scenario in which the forces involved were great enough to necessitate this anyway.

 

One thing I am really struggling with, is soldering the two different wires together to make the dropper. Is there a trick I'm missing here? 

 

Thanks

 

David


David,

 

You can avoid soldering the two wires to make a dropper by extending the loop down to form the dropper.

 

My soldering iron skills are shocking but this is how I did all mine on my 2FS Kyle of Lochalsh layout.

 

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, David41283 said:

 

Hi Keith,

 

Those photos are super, thank you.

 

Can I ask, I know that most only fit a latch (no loop) to locos, but on some of your photos of wagons it appears there is no latch, just a loop. Is this done on purpose or are the photos just mid-way through installation? This would certainly avoid the issue I am finding with the latch feet interfering with the loop join.

 

I also note that you aren't soldering together the two ends of the loop - phew! I was really struggling with this, and to be honest, I couldn't imagine a scenario in which the forces involved were great enough to necessitate this anyway.

 

One thing I am really struggling with, is soldering the two different wires together to make the dropper. Is there a trick I'm missing here? 

 

Thanks

 

David

 

Hi David,

 

I started off with having a latch on all couplings but soon realised that having a latch on the coupling with the loop was not required as the coupling that hooked up to it didn't have a loop itself so there was no need for the latch.

You have to keep your stock all the same way round but you will be doing that if only have one loop per wagon.

 

Yep I've never soldered the loop together, never come across that from those I know who also use DGs. The loops can pop out in the stock box but it's easy to put them back into the little holes.

 

Soldering wise, no real trick, just take my time tin both parts and then a quick dab to join them.

You can form the loop and dropper in one piece from the steel wire as Pete points out, I have heard that the loop could become magnetised over time, not sure if that would be an issue?

 

Cheers,

 

Keith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/02/2021 at 12:25, David41283 said:

 

Hi Simon,

 

I've seen Polpendra at an exhibition, and they do look very good. 

 

When you refer to soldering the wire, do you solder to the extra bit of etch on the loop (the rectangular tab which the instructions tell you to cut off.)?

 

Thanks

 

David

yes, that is correct, I solder the dropper to that rectangular tab that they suggest you cut off. gives a nice area to solder the wire to for strength.

 

Best wishes

Simon

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/06/2018 at 23:21, David41283 said:

Hi everyone,

 

Just a couple of phone pics from the Plymouth show on Saturday. We had a great day at the exhibition and the layout performed well. 

 

post-16405-0-08147800-1529878651_thumb.jpg

 

post-16405-0-44012800-1529878660_thumb.jpg

 

post-16405-0-38775600-1529878665_thumb.jpg

 

post-16405-0-17782500-1529878670_thumb.jpg

 

post-16405-0-97509200-1529878675_thumb.jpg

 

The next exhibition for Invernevis (and now the only confirmed booking in the diary) is a small show just outside Plymouth at Yealmpton on 13th October.

 

Cheers

 

David

 

 

 

It’s a fantastic layout David. If it ever wants rehoming I’d happily export it North of the Border.

 

All the best. 

 

Tom 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to complete the experiment, today I received a set of BB couplings, a 3rd different take on the same principle.

 

I really like the design of the BBs - there are some strong points - they come ready blackened, there are separate pivots for the loop and latch, and I much prefer the practice of wrapping a small amount of magnetic soft iron wire around the foot of an etched dropper. However I feel they are somewhat let down by the lack of half-etched fold lines. On something so small it is very hard to make the couplings exactly the same when you are bending the metal without an etched fold. I have been using a proper "hold and fold" tool for these, and even then it is difficult to get sharp bends in the same place each time.

 

I have made up a few and attached them to some old peco tanks. My first few tests seem to find that the loops appear to clash more than the other two types. I will continue to adjust and test.

 

IMG_20210224_170747.jpg.814155f61e4a808e546d627ac1667d53.jpg 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 01/02/2021 at 23:55, David41283 said:

Regards the width of Invernevis station, 

589888192_InvernevisOverview1.jpg.60f7c921c7eb60d6ec081ec2c528f547.jpg

The loch is more than 2" wide on the right, and there is more than 1" space behind the station wall on the left. The whole thing is only 12" wide so the station area comfortably fits in 9" width, while appearing surprisingly spacious.

 

Beautiful layout, looking at the photos up thread I didn't realise how small it was! :good:

  • Thanks 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...