Dapol wagon coupling problems?

[IamDaniel]

Hello all,

 

Over the last few months, I've bought 10 or so of Dapol's wagons - mainly the Burnham Model Club limited editions - and while the models are nicely finished, the couplings are - quite frankly - terrible. I've lost count of how many hooks have been dragged off and lost and they can't go a single lap of my track without something uncoupling from the rest of the rake, which uses the older bars. Most wagons now have at least one hook missing which only magnifies the problem at hand.

 

It's getting to the point where I (a) don't run any Dapol wagons in the rake or (b) get fed up very quickly, neither of which is ideal.

 

They tend to come uncoupled when travelling down a slight slope and/or over an uncoupling rail.

 

I understand they have been built on the cheap, but I wonder if anyone has any solutions? Are there any couplings that will fit in the slots that might actually do the job? The rest of my stock runs fine on my layout on the whole and I have too much stock to convert to the likes of magnets etc - I'd just like the Dapol wagons to actually couple up and remain coupled.

 

Thanks.

[Paul80]

Hi

 

If these are the current type that uses NEM pockets you could try a different make of coupling, both Bachmann and Hornby sell there couplings so you could give them ago, Although to be honest I think they all suffer from losing the odd hook.

[ColHut]

I have noticed too that some of the Dapol ones in particular drop hooks. In general I finf the Hornby NEM small the more robust, and slightly longer than the Dapol/Bachmann ones which is better on tight corners.

 

regards

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...without something uncoupling from the rest of the rake, which uses the older bars...

This caught my eye. Not knowing what 'the older bars' might mean, my best suggestion is that you equip all your vehicles that you want to operate together with a single version of a manufacturer's design of coupler. The tension lock coupler is made to no uniformly standardised design. The result is that they are unreliable when versions are mixed, even a single manufacturer's various versions of different sizes.

[JSpencer]

The most reliable couplings out there are ROCO style ones. Such as these: https://www.hattons.co.uk/17740/Hornby_R8220_NEM_pocket_close_coupling_x_10/StockDetail.aspx

But they are probably not practical for shunting wagons. I say probably because I've not really investigated how to have automatic uncoupling on the layout for these. Equally they require a fair whack to couple together. I restrict use of these to rakes of modern (i:e recently made) coaches which have close coupling systems which only get broken up when I need to transport them or take them off the layout. The NEM socket on the wagon also needs to move/swivel side to side though as once coupled, it is like a solid bar between vehicles.

 

If you are running with older wagons (early Bachmann, Mainline, Replica, Airfix etc) that use bigger tension locks than today's stock, then you have these that can replace the small tension locks used today: https://www.hattons.co.uk/24660/Hornby_R8267_NEM_pocket_couplings_Medium_x10/StockDetail.aspx

or these: https://www.hattons.co.uk/23637/Bachmann_Branchline_36_053_Mk1_couplings_on_NEM_shafts_Pack_of_10/StockDetail.aspx

 

And if you running with old Hornby or Lima stock that used big tension locks then you have these: https://www.hattons.co.uk/24661/Hornby_R8268_NEM_pocket_couplings_Wide_x_10/StockDetail.aspx

 

One common problem is that the couplings are not at the same height so a stepped tension lock exists (albeit small size only) :  

https://www.hattons.co.uk/19635/Bachmann_Branchline_36_027_10_x_Mk2_Couplings_NEM_Shaft_Cranked_with_pocket/StockDetail.aspx

 

If the hook comes off, I always take a pair of pliers and make the hook part which clips onto the loop part a little (and I mean a little) tighter. It then needs a little push to clip home but won't come off after (if it requires a big push, then its too tight).

[ejstubbs]

In my experience the Dapol NEM pocket setup is not very reliable.  The tiny screw that is used to attach the pocket and its centring spring to the soft plastic underframe seems particularly prone to stripping the (miniscule) thread inside the mounting boss.  I received a brand new Dapol wagon the other day on which oe ofn the NEM pockets had a significant droop, to the point that the 'tail' of the TLC was catching in the sleepers.  As expected, it was not possible to tighten the mounting screw because it had stripped its thread.

 

As it happens, I don't use TLCs, preferring Kadees.  On many of the Dapol wagons I've got, I've quickly given up trying to use a NEM Kadee in the flaky Dapol NEM pocket and resorted to surgery, removing the Dapol NEM equipment and installed whisker Kadees in gear boxes.

 

I recognise that Kadees aren't everyone's cup of tea, though.  In that case I would suggest looking at using screw-on TLCs in place of the rather poor Dapol NEM implementation.  The Bachmann ones (36-025 or 36-026) might fit - and IMO the Bachmann TLCs are better quality then the Dapol ones anyway (as others have pointed out, the Dapol TLCs have a tendency to fall apart.)

[The Johnster]

Tension locks date back to Triang's takeover of Rovex in the 50s.  They were crude and toylike, but performed much more reliably than the Peco/Hornby Dublo buckeyes that were the alternative.  They have at least got smaller and less intrusive and couple a bit closer since then, and perform well, but you will not achieve 100% reliability with them whatever make you use; incidentally, replacing your Dapol ones with Hornby or Bachmann may well improve things if the materials used are better quality.

 

This is the crux of the problem; NEM tension locks are supposed to be a standard and compatible design, but they're not.  Materials, size and shapes of hooks and bars, length of hooks, hook profiles, bar cross section profiles, weighting, and quality are not standard, and neither, in my experience, is the crucial height of the bar above the railhead.  At least with the pockets they are interchangeable, but you should not have to do this to achieve a decent standard of performance, and some modellers may not be comfortable with messing around with their models in this way.  

 

Sorry Daniel, I know this isn't what you want to read, and if your layout has tighter curves, or heavier trains, than mine, or gradients, you may have problems I have not had to deal with, even if your track is perfectly laid and aligned.

 

I have achieved very close to 100% reliability with them, on a flat level BLT layout with Peco Streamline 'medium radius' turnouts (small radius in the loco release) and a 4th to 3rd radius curved Hornby turnout in the fiddle yard, the layout's tightest curvature.  But this was not achieved 'out of the box'; height adjustments and all sorts of faffing have had to be indulged in to get them to work properly, and every new acquisition of stock means it all has to be looked at again.  My brief is that all stock couples together and can be hauled or propelled anywhere on the layout by any locomotive.  

 

I have installed them on older stock with non-NEM fittings, but this requires faffing and bodgery of a higher degree of complication.  Only this morning one has dropped out of it's dovetail, an occasional fault with some Hornby stock I've found.  The answer is to glue them in, but on a loco this prevents you being able to unscrew the body for cleaning and maintenance.  They are fundamentally a clever and well designed idea, but are let down by lack of proper standardisation.  

 

There is a standard height above the rail head for the bars, but actual RTR models vary a little.  The most important thing is to set them all at the same height, followed by ensuring that they move freely on their wibbly bit.  When you are removing them from the dovetail, or uncoupling in general, be careful not to twist or stress this wibbly bit (I don't know what else to call it; you know, the thing between the dovetail and the pocket that allows it sideway play) as it is reasonably robust in tension but not in any other way.  If it breaks, the coupling has to be replaced.  I remove mine by supporting them underneath (I mean on top because of course the vehicle is upside down) with a flat bladed screwdriver; I have not broken one since I started doing this.  

 

If you have to glue one into the dovetail, make sure no glue gets on the wibbler.  I don't use uncouping ramps, and have made an uncoupling hook out of a penlight with some stiff wire attached to the business end.  Another approach is to use a 'spade' which you insert between the vehicles under the couplings and beneath the droppers, another variable that should be standard, which you then push up; IIRC Hornby make one but they are not difficult to fabricate yourself.  Problem I've found with these is that you can't use them everywhere on the layout because you need space at the side of the track to get them into position, and the different lengths and positions of the droppers even within the same company's stock makes it very difficult to devise one that will fit between the vehicles and be wide enough to lift both the hooks.  But you may have to use this method if you use stock with corridor connections, especially if it's bow ended.  

 

Tension lock couplings are one of those things that should be simple to install and use, but aren't.  Partly, this is a result of British and European type railways in general using 4 wheeled stock and buffers; the American insistence on bogies and Janney buckeye coupler/buffers on all vehicles has given their modellers a very significant advantage in this respect, and led directly to the Kaydee system.  My impression of these is that they are no better than tension locks and suffer from similar issues when they are applied to British type stock with buffers.

[tomparryharry]

A bit off-topic, but I find the Dapol wagons far easier to convert to 3-link. Usually the headstock has a hole ready moulded to install the drawhook.

 

There's nothing to beat seeing a rake of wagons taking up the slack, regardless of gauge.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[ColHut]

Interesting too that the slack and compression of loose coupled wagons is rather nicely simulated with tension lock couplings. Not as nice as three link but I do like watching them bunch up and spread out on longer trains.

 

regards

[The Johnster]

A bit off-topic, but I find the Dapol wagons far easier to convert to 3-link. Usually the headstock has a hole ready moulded to install the drawhook.

 

There's nothing to beat seeing a rake of wagons taking up the slack, regardless of gauge.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

 

Preaching to the choir, Ian; nothing beats the look, feel, and prototype operation of scale 3-link, instanter, or screw couplings.  But they are too much for my current state of hand/eye co-ordination or eyesight; I am, as my GP who has clearly been on a course for this sort of thing, 'advancing from youth'.  And my fiddle yard contains a no.3 curve, so tension locks are essential.

[mikesndbs]

I have issues with Dapol wagon couplings also, not any NEM pocket I can see just a screw hardly holding some flimsy bits of plastic with a droopy loop on the end.

As above I've lost dozens of hooks off these.

 

Is there an answer out there?

[JST]

I too had this issue with the tension lock couplings but as I use Kadees it has become less of a problem.  With fixed rakes of wagons I now use magnetic NEM couplings which work well and give the "squeeze up/stretch out" effect. I had one wagon that had the wobbly NEM pocket syndrome so glued it solid to the wagon. It has given no problems since, but my tightest curve is 4th radius.

[Halvarras]

Somehow I have ended up with just one Dapol wagon with NEM pockets - a quaint rectank in "BR black" (??) - with the usual droopy couplings and after fruitless fiddling the approach I adopted was.....er.....brute force and ignorance! I took the pockets off, gripped the 'tail' end (with the pivot hole) in a pair of pliers and bent the NEM pockets into horizontal alignment. It seems to have worked - they are still bent and the wagon will now couple to other stuff.

[MG 7305]

Switch to Kadee couplings, you won't regret it.  Less obtrusive, closer coupling and far more flexible uncoupling and shunting.  Use the electro-magnet uncouplers.