Easi-shunt Dapol Easi-shunt magnetic couplings in N

[csiedmo]

I had been wondering if the Dapol supplied magnets would work under the sleepers. As the magnets are a similar thickness to the woodland scenes underlay, it would be fairly simple to cut a slot in the underlay, fit the magnet, and place the track on top.

I conducted some experiments to that effect yesterday, and am sad to say that the couplers do not move when the magnet is underneath the (peco set-track) sleepers.

So if anyone else was thinking along those lines, hopefully I've saved you a job.

Cheers,

Ed

[Vanders]

I had been wondering if the Dapol supplied magnets would work under the sleepers. As the magnets are a similar thickness to the woodland scenes underlay, it would be fairly simple to cut a slot in the underlay, fit the magnet, and place the track on top.

I conducted some experiments to that effect yesterday, and am sad to say that the couplers do not move when the magnet is underneath the (peco set-track) sleepers.

So if anyone else was thinking along those lines, hopefully I've saved you a job.

Although they MAY work under PCB (hand built) or fiNescale sleepers, as the sleepers are thinner and the rail section smaller so the magnet & the coupling are closer together. I have some beneath the sleepers that work, but some that were less reliable when it came to the delayed-action uncoupling, so my layout has a mix of "under" & "between".

[csiedmo]

Although they MAY work under PCB (hand built) or fiNescale sleepers, as the sleepers are thinner and the rail section smaller so the magnet & the coupling are closer together. I have some beneath the sleepers that work, but some that were less reliable when it came to the delayed-action uncoupling, so my layout has a mix of "under" & "between".

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I've had another go with a piece of peco code-55 flexitrack and the uncoupling now seems to work fairly reliably. (In fact the shunting is working well for me too - the difficulty is recoupling, which requires a fairly violent clash of couplers). The question now is whether the magnet will still do its job if I ballast over it? I see that you ballasted with chinchilla dust. Did you ballast over your (working) magnets?

Cheers,

Ed

[Vanders]

I haven't ballasted the layout itself yet; just a test piece (I work slowly!). In theory I don't think it'd make a huge difference but reality may choose to disagree with me. 

[NZmodeller]

Hi Everyone,

 

With Peco code 55 it is possible to slice the sleepers off flush with the bottom of the rail which leaves a "ladder" of sleepers about .5mm thick between the rails. Do this with a spare piece of track and make a jig to save your fingers.  You then remove 7 or 8 sleepers from the track where you want the magnet to be (or 4 if you have cut it in half). it can be packed with styrene underneath to bring it to the same height as the bottom of the rails. The ladder can then be slotted into the grooves at the bottom of the rails and the track re-ballasted so the magnet is completely concealed.  This works perfectly, however, any delayed uncoupling will be dependent on the approaches to the uncoupler being straight. On my layout none of the approaches are straight enough to allow reliable delayed coupling so I have abandoned it as part of normal operations. In place of this, I have just added more magnets and hidden them and this is more than satisfactory.

 

Peter

[csiedmo]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've had another go with a piece of peco code-55 flexitrack and the uncoupling now seems to work fairly reliably. (In fact the shunting is working well for me too - the difficulty is recoupling, which requires a fairly violent clash of couplers). The question now is whether the magnet will still do its job if I ballast over it? I see that you ballasted with chinchilla dust. Did you ballast over your (working) magnets?

Cheers,

Ed

 

Further to my post above, I have now tested the Dapol couplers with the Dapol magnets under peco code-55 track that has been sand ballasted. The effect seems to be slightly dulled, insofaras if I am only shunting one wagon the uncoupling with not work. If I add another three wagons then the uncoupling works perfectly every time and the loco will shunt the the wagons without recoupling (it is a straight track, maybe a curve would affect this). The problem remains as before that I cannot then get the loco and wagon to couple up again without the hand the god - sometimes this is because the knuckes stay open and sometimes because because they remain closed.

 

Personally I'm finding it a bit too hit and miss, so I'm going to try out the gaugemaster/seep electromagnetic uncouplers and see if they're a bit more reliable.

[bridgiesimon]

Apologies if I am wrong but as far as I can understand the Dapol magnets have their poles across the magnet side to side to pull the coupling apart across the track so the seep electroagnets despite being myuch stringer will not work with them.

 

I do use these electromagnets with the MBD etched couplings and are very reliable and work well but these couplings require a downwards pulling magnetic force to pull the dropper wire and thus lift the coupling loop, very different movement to the Dapol ones.

 

best wishes

Simon

[roundhouse]

Yes, as per Microtrains and Kadee couplers the poles are either side of the centre line of the track so you do require different magnets.

Edited June 12, 2015 by roundhouse

[csiedmo]

Apologies if I am wrong but as far as I can understand the Dapol magnets have their poles across the magnet side to side to pull the coupling apart across the track so the seep electroagnets despite being myuch stringer will not work with them.

 

I do use these electromagnets with the MBD etched couplings and are very reliable and work well but these couplings require a downwards pulling magnetic force to pull the dropper wire and thus lift the coupling loop, very different movement to the Dapol ones.

 

best wishes

Simon

 

Hello Simon,

 

I meant that I would try the seep electromatic system as a complete alternative to the Dapol system, not combining the two in any way. I believe you are correct that they are incompatable.

Cheers,

 

Ed

[bridgiesimon]

Cool, that was the same conclusion I can to after trialing the Dapol couplings for my Hobbiton End layout on which I now use  Greenwich couplings (designed for 009).

 

On that basis, may I suggest the MBD couplings then, they are available from the n gauge society shop should you be a member or from N Brass if you are not (no connection just happy customer). I find them simple to make up, easy to fit and reliable in operation.

 

Best wishes

Simon

[Revolution Ben]

 

Hi there,

 

I'm surprised you've found the Dapol couplers to be unreliable. On our exhibition layout, operating them pretty intensively, we have found them to combine robustness and reliability better than any other type we have used.

 

We tried DG/MBM types and they work well when they are set up right, but seemed to require a lot of fettling for different vehicles, and seemed to easily get knocked out of alignment, though if you are not transporting your stock this probably won't be an issue.

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

[Roy L S]

I agree with Ben, I have found Easi-Shunts very reliable and certainly plan to use them on any future layouts.

 

Roy

[csiedmo]

Further to my post above, I have now tested the Dapol couplers with the Dapol magnets under peco code-55 track that has been sand ballasted. The effect seems to be slightly dulled, insofaras if I am only shunting one wagon the uncoupling with not work. If I add another three wagons then the uncoupling works perfectly every time and the loco will shunt the the wagons without recoupling (it is a straight track, maybe a curve would affect this). The problem remains as before that I cannot then get the loco and wagon to couple up again without the hand the god - sometimes this is because the knuckes stay open and sometimes because because they remain closed.

 

Personally I'm finding it a bit too hit and miss, so I'm going to try out the gaugemaster/seep electromagnetic uncouplers and see if they're a bit more reliable.

 

 

Hi there,

 

I'm surprised you've found the Dapol couplers to be unreliable. On our exhibition layout, operating them pretty intensively, we have found them to combine robustness and reliability better than any other type we have used.

 

We tried DG/MBM types and they work well when they are set up right, but seemed to require a lot of fettling for different vehicles, and seemed to easily get knocked out of alignment, though if you are not transporting your stock this probably won't be an issue.

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

 

To qualify my previous post, the issue I have with failing to get the Dapol couplers to couple up involved the loco traveling at the slowest possible speed. At this speed I get the same problem when using rapido couplers. If I give the loco bit more juice then the coupling works fine with both the dapols and the rapidos. I'm not sure if this is down to the couplers being new or my inexperience at train driving?!

 

On reflection, I think that I can get the dapols to work well enough for me to use them on the passenger and NPCS side of the layout where I won't have to shunt individual vehicles. By the time I get around to building the goods yard I will have had enough experience with them to determine whether they're a goer on that side of the layout or if the Seep EMs will be a bit easier to use.

 

Cheers,

Ed

Edited June 16, 2015 by csiedmo

[D1059]

To qualify my previous post, the issue I have with failing to get the Dapol couplers to couple up involved the loco traveling at the slowest possible speed. At this speed I get the same problem when using rapido couplers. If I give the loco bit more juice then the coupling works fine with both the dapols and the rapidos. I'm not sure if this is down to the couplers being new or my inexperience at train driving?!

 

On reflection, I think that I can get the dapols to work well enough for me to use them on the passenger and NPCS side of the layout where I won't have to shunt individual vehicles. By the time I get around to building the goods yard I will have had enough experience with them to determine whether they're a goer on that side of the layout or if the Seep EMs will be a bit easier to use.

 

Cheers,

Ed

 

I use MBDs on City Basin Goods. If adjusted correctly coupling can be achieved, even to a just a single wagon without moving it, and uncoupling can be done on the move as the rake of wagons passes over the electromagnet

[Benn]

Easi-Shunt couplers are excellent, Barton Road wouldn't of been built/continue to exist if they hadn't of been available and actually worked. But they are like anything else in model railways, they will work okay out of the box, but their optimum performance (which is virtually 100% reliability I've found) is only obtained after a bit of messing about with the variables... A bit of weight and drag on wagons is essential, (just one axle on one wagon is enough if you've got a fixed rake of up to, say 5 vehicles), getting the pin in the right place helps etc. A bit of messing and you'll have hours of fun, I can't recommend them highly enough!

 

I've found no need for electro-magents, I just use 3mm x 3mm rare earth barrel magnets, 2 pushed between the sleepers where I want to uncouple. I don't bother with the propelling and all that, that I've found doesn't work very well anyway.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Benn

[Adoyle]

Hello I am new to this blog but wanted to share some thoughts about these couplers (and a few other things too).

 

I live in Brazil and have mainly modelled brazilian prototype in N gauge for the last 20 years or so. This I do using US and japanese rolling stock ( all repainted and custom decaled) on Atlas code 55 track ( which beyond being cheaper, imho looks more realistic than Peco 55). Having converted over 900 coaches and wagons to Microtrains couplers, I have a pretty good understand of the conversion process, although it is a time consuming chore

 

However, I am now building a pretty large new layout ( 12 x 2 meters) on which I have decided to run both my Brazilian stock and Uk prototype during different operating sessions ( certain parts of the layout wil be interchangable like the buildings, towns and level crossings)

 

The brazilian stock runs absolutely perfectly on the atlas track and the MT couplers are flawless ( I typically run 60 wagon ore trains with 3 locos upfront, 2 in the middle and sometimes a helper or two on the other end, to get over the 2.5% gradients )

 

As I am converting my Uk stock to Dapol couplers I obviously make comparisons to the aforementioned stock and wanted to share a few thoughts. Granted, the US market is vastly larger than the UK but I am very happy that the Uk industry is finally catching up with our cousins over the pond. The rapido couplers fail systematically in both US and Uk stock and need to be phased out. I think atlas and other manufacturers in the US have adopted MT on all their stock nowadays and I hope the UK goes that route soon. And Rapidos look horrible! I am suprised atbthe amount of amazing modelling I see on youtube that is spoilt with the grossely un prototypical rapidos

 

 

But visually, the MT couplers look so much better than the Dapol ones ( basiically because they are smaller). Also while not an issue for me! They are not compatable even when the hight is adjusted so it is either on or the other. As some of my Dapol locos like the class 52s came with the easy shunts and most of my UK stock has NEM sockets, I decided to go with them on the Uk stock. Which brings me to the price- I have the disadvantage of having to pay 60% import tax on cost of goods and shipping, but still I think the price bit steep. Ultimately I am happy that the easy shunt exist and are very, very easy to swap with the rapidos when the NEMs are present ( After doing all those MT conversions, I am enjoying the light work of the UK stock)

 

Talking of which, the UK stock does not run well over the atlas turnouts ( points). As the UK wheel gauge is slightly smaller, I have had to mill out about 0.3 mm of the guide rails oposite the frog on every turnout on the layout ( about 60 once finished). On other blogs, I have read modellers just adjusting the gauge of the wheels on the axles but I just ruined a couple of locos that way.

 

Finally, living in Brazil, where model railways are not popular, espcially in N gauge, discovering this blog is a god send. Thanks for all the great tips from all of you!

[roundhouse]

I have been using the Easi Shunt couplers for a while now and find them very reliable.

 

I am also using them on Czech TT scale stock where NEM pockets are now being fitted. Earlier TT stock had Microtrains couplers fitted and whilst they won't couple and uncoupled between the two on the layout, if they are manually coupled then they do appear to work together most of the time.

 

Yes the Easi Shunt are larger but much better IMHO than Rapidos.

[dpgibbons]

This link allow you to calculate the pull strength of a magnet: https://www.kjmagnetics.com/calculator.asp?calcType=block

 

Assuming the Dapol magnets are made of one of the grades listed here, entering its dimensions and assuming a distance of 3mm between magnet and coupler pin (ie with the magnet between the sleepers) gives a pull strength of 0.42-0.63lb.

 

As the chart produced by the calculator illustrates, pull strength falls off exponentially with distance which explains why placing the magnet other than in the recommended position gives poor results. Increasing the magnet-coupler distance by only 3mm decreases pull by two-thirds.

 

Using the calculator it should be possible to guesstimate what combination of alternative magnet grade and dimensions will give a comparable pull to the Dapol at a greater distance. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by dpgibbons

[McRuss]

I converted today one of my Farish VGAs to Dapol magnetic knuckle couplers. This is a little more effort than on the Farish VBA or OBA.
Since the car has a relatively long wheelbase and also a longer overhang, I decided to use the Peho short coupler mechanism for the conversion.
This is available here http://peho-kkk.de/
First the chassis must be separated from the bodyshell. This is quite easy because the shell is only screwed with two small screws to the chassis. When it is removed,
remove the original coupler mount. Now go on with a scalpel or similar sharp cutter.
So that the new short coupling mechanism does not sit too low and the coupling is also too low, you have to let it into the carriage floor. To this cut an opening into the
chassis floor. I have first cut along the original coupler mounting pad and then expanded the hole with a scalpel and file that fits the coupling mechanism.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4231/35873715026_7c01c5c939_c.jpg[/img]DSCI3772 by mcruss1, on Flickr

DSCI3773 by mcruss1, on Flickr

Next, I have glued in a 0.5mm thick polysterol plate from above to close the hole. When the glue is dried, the coupling mechanism can be installed.

DSCI3774 by mcruss1, on Flickr

Before I installed the coupling mechanism, I removed the protruding small piece at the front of the coupling mechanism.

DSCI3777 by mcruss1, on Flickr

DSCI3775 by mcruss1, on Flickr

Now glue the coupling mechanism with super glue in the opening, before the glues sets, aling the mechanism as good as it can. And make sure that no super glue creeps in the
mechanism.

DSCI3776 by mcruss1, on Flickr

DSCI3779 by mcruss1, on Flickr

Before I inserted the couplers, I widened the small recess for the coupler on the buffer beam, so that the coupler can clear it.
I hope this can be seen in the next two pictures.

DSCI3780 by mcruss1, on Flickr

DSCI3781 by mcruss1, on Flickr

Now put the coupler pocket on the small pin (this I had already made at the beginning in order to be able to handle the coupling mechanism better), and adjust the height.
If this fits, cut off the overstanding pin and secure it with superglue.
And here the result.

DSCI3782 by mcruss1, on Flickr

I have spoken to the owner of Peho, and he told me that payment could be send with Paypal.

Markus

[d9002]

I've been poring through this thread with great interest, as I picked up a few packs of the "easi-shunt" couplings a while ago but never had the courage (or a proper layout !) to use them.

The Dapol magnets DO look rather large for N gauge and I can see that hiding them may well be problematic.

 

Would the cylindrical "rare earth" magnets - say of 2mm diameter and length 3mm, positioned vertically into the baseboard between sleepers at 1 o'clock and 7 o'clock position, do the trick ?

Easier to disguise, I would guess ......

[Karhedron]

Would the cylindrical "rare earth" magnets - say of 2mm diameter and length 3mm, positioned vertically into the baseboard between sleepers at 1 o'clock and 7 o'clock position, do the trick ?

Check out page 5 of this very thread.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48728-Dapol-easi-shunt-magnetic-couplings-in-n/?p=569182

[d9002]

Thanks Karhedron - I had actually bookmarked that very page without realising it ! I got the feeling that the magnets you used were 3mm diameter and 2mm deep ? I wondered if longer but thinner magnets would work as well ?

Been "playing" with the Dapol magnets in a piece of test track - so far the uncoupling seems a doddle, but I haven't mastered the delayed uncoupling yet - despite reading the instructions from Dapol, the knuckles seem to spring back together once the couplings clear the magnet.

I'm thinking more on the lines of magnets in each siding, rather than my first plan of a magnet at the entrance to the "fan" of sidings. 

I've acquired an N gauge layout which is based on Calne (Wiltshire) and is now being "revamped".

[Karhedron]

Been "playing" with the Dapol magnets in a piece of test track - so far the uncoupling seems a doddle, but I haven't mastered the delayed uncoupling yet - despite reading the instructions from Dapol, the knuckles seem to spring back together once the couplings clear the magnet.

I found I had to adjust the trip pins to get this feature working on mine. Out of the packet, they only deflect far enough to open the jaws. What you need is for them to deflect far enough so that the arms of the couplers behind swing sideways. This is what causes them to "lock" in the open position allowing you to propel your coach/wagon elsewhere and then leave it parked.

 

However given that the small magnets can be had for pennies, scattering them around at strategic locations will not cost you much and may be easier.

[Number Six]

I've just been reading through this thread as I have recently obtained a multipack of Easi-shunts and I have been experimenting with them. As many here have mentioned, the Dapol magnets are both LARGE and rather expensive. Others have tried using small neodymium magnets in various arrangements so I bought a pack of fifty 3mm wide by 2mm thick disc magnets (0.27kg pull). Now four of these in a stack, lying down, will just fit neatly between the tracks of Peco N gauge code 80 track and between the sleepers! In other words, no cutting of sleepers required! Of course, being 3mm across, the magnets are proud of the sleepers which are about 2.5mm thick, but all you need to do is to cut out a bit of cork underlay (my track happens to be on 1mm mount card) and the magnets can be pushed down between the sleepers and made flush with them (perhaps with a bit of packing). There's enough of a gap at the ends of the stack to ensure it doesn't short the track out. Four magnets in a row across the track gives plenty of oomph to move the pins and I find this works 100% reliably. Even without painting they don't stand out, but a touch of mucky track colour and they should disappear almost completely. The only downside is that the effective uncoupling area is rather small so you have to be quite accurate with your shunting. But the cost is a fraction of the Dapol magnets. A stack of four magnets costs less than 70p! You can't argue with that!

[HLT 0109]

4 hours ago, Number Six said:

The only downside is that the effective uncoupling area is rather small so you have to be quite accurate with your shunting. 

 

Having watched an earlier post from Karhedron, I have just been placing one of the small neodymium magnets each side of a sleeper and against opposite rails .  This should reduce the problem of precision in shunting as each magnet attracts the pin in one of the couplings - I have yet to test it with wagons attached since only my locos have the Easi-shunt attached as yet., but it worked in Karhedron's video  The magnets are so strong that thee is no need for a strip of four between the sleepers.  The problem I have had is that the strength of the magnets overcame the glue while it was wet and the magnets sprang together - so I fixed one in place and let the glue dry before fixing the other.

 

Harold.