Does European N scale operate on North American track and power?

[VonRyan]

British RTR is 1.:148

Finescale is 1:152  http://www.2mm.org.uk/about2mm.htm

Availability of the British RTR market is comparable to European N these days

There is also a small Proto148 movement in the UK now. I'm fairly certain that it is mainly to create a more prototypical track standard so that the equipment has less of a narrow gauge look like it can have on 9mm gauge track.

-Cody F.

[nkalanaga]

It isn't surprising that European N scale still uses Rapido couplers.  Unlike our knuckle couplers, there is no practical way to make an operating screw-link coupler in N scale.  Since there are no royalties on Rapido couplers, and nothing else is likely to look more prototypical, it makes sense to keep them as the standard.  And, in their defense, they do work.

[ljudice]

It isn't surprising that European N scale still uses Rapido couplers.  Unlike our knuckle couplers, there is no practical way to make an operating screw-link coupler in N scale.  Since there are no royalties on Rapido couplers, and nothing else is likely to look more prototypical, it makes sense to keep them as the standard.  And, in their defense, they do work.

Agreed, although - since they have moved to the NEM coupler sockets, there ARE some drawbars you can buy that look almost perfect - with air connections too.  The problem is it's for semi permanent coupling.  As I said, for an intermodal train
it might not be a bad idea.

[babbo_enzo]

I read on a forum that Dapol have available a new "Microtrain-like" coupler that fit into the NEM poket:
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/68401-modifying-stock-to-take-dapol-easy-shunt-magnetic-couplings/
-
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=185264551562974&set=vb.214563285228094&type=2&theater

https://www.model-railways-live.co.uk/News/214/Dapol_New_Releases_in_N_Gauge_Include_Gresley_Pacific_Steam_Locomotive/

[VonRyan]

The Dapol coupler is indeed like a micro-trains/kadee coupler.
The reason Dapol created such a coupler is so that there would be a direct conversion for stock equipped with NEM coupler boxes as there are a good many OO modellers who use Kadees, and some N gauge modellers who use MT couplers, but in N more modellers lean towards DG Autocouplings, which are an etched kit that requires a good bit of folding and fiddling, and the same goes for the "Sprat & Winkel" autocouplings which I have adopted for use on my UK stock as the coupling hook allows for cosmetic 3-link couplings.


-Cody F.

[ljudice]

I don't know, to me,  an AAR type knuckle is almost as disconcerting as the Rapidos...

[babbo_enzo]

I don't know, to me,  an AAR type knuckle is almost as disconcerting as the Rapidos...

YEP: I agree, but ... always a compromise 
Image that in Fremo Italy the "standard" coupler on italian branchline freigth cars is .... Micro Trains!

I've see on some German Fremo meetings a Fine Scale link-and-pin coupler activated by a "man-of-god" magnet.
Well, I'm lucky : I model ESPEE!

[peteski]

The Dapol coupler seems to be constructed more like a McHenry than a Micro-Trains knuckle coupler. It is also quite large.  My gut feeling is that is somehow is related to the Bachmann new giant knuckle coupler.

[nkalanaga]

The McHenry would be fairly easy to fit into an NEM socket, since all of the moving parts are on the knuckle. 

Many of the European narrow gauge modelers (Nm) use MTs, as the center-buffer couplers are about the same size.  The other option is Marklin's Z couplers, which simply look hideous, although they seem to work well enough.

I agree that drawbars would be a good solution for intermodal, or any other unit train.  I could see them on a North American coal, grain, or ethanol train.

[christoph]

There were European studies about the use of knuckle couplers since a long time, but so far they are rarely used.  The Deutsche Bahn uses special ore trains which are so heavy that they need knuckle couplers that can bear the load.  The cars don't have buffers and must run as a unit train, the locomotives have both buffers plus knuckle couplers.  All normal equipment uses buffers and link couplers.

There is one point that is easy to overlook:  European modelers love short coupling, and this requires some extra effort.  The problem are the buffers which should be at a minimum distance, but must manage the (often sharp) curves.  So in the curves the distance between two cars must become larger to keep the buffers from locking.  This is the reason for the short coupling mechanisms that are built in newer models, and for which there is the NEM norm coupler. This mechanism needs a kind of straight link between the two cars in order to work properly, so either a fixed drawbar or a special coupler (like the Fleischmann short coupler) is needed, which also gives a straight link between the two cars.  The Rapido couplers seem to be also quite rigid when coupled (at least the short coupling mechanisms work quite well with them, but not optimal), but I assume that knuckle couplers will not give this rigid link.  So I am not sure whether these knuckle couplers would work with short coupling.

I have bought some of the Dapol couplers but so far never used them and have not done any tests, because I do not intend to use these couplers for European stock.  On my layout there is the strict sparation: US equipment uses knuckle couplers, the European equipment (with buffers) still uses Rapidos.

I hope you do not consider this as pure nitpicking  , but some fundamentals might help 

[peteski]

I hope you do not consider this as pure nitpicking  , but some fundamentals might help 

Not at all - it was an excellent explanation!

Many US modelers, in the last decade or so, became knuckle-coupler snobs.  Ever since the MT coupler patent expired and manufacturers of US-prototype models started slowly to replace the Rapidos with one of the many versions of N scale knuckle couplers, US modelers started turning their noses up at Rapidos.

However the fact that they ignore is that the knuckle couplers are only a realistic representation of couplers used in relatively few countries, and that the rest of the N scale world is still quite happily using Rapidos (for all the reasons mentioned earlier in the thread).

I also find it ironic that the very advanced and highly-utilized rail systems in Europe still use an ancient (over 100 years old) manual coupling system!  The buffer-hook-and-link system is so antiquated.  It still requires a person to go in between the cars to couple or uncouple them.  I guess that the system is so entrenched in the rail system, and there is so much rolling stock in use that a wide-spread conversion is not really feasible.

Since on the 1:1 trains the sprung buffers are a part of the connection between the cars (they actually touch each other when the cars are coupled), this would be very difficult to accurately model in N scale (the N scale buffers would have to have much longer travel to allow for sharp curves used in N scale, and the buffer springs would have to be very soft not to force cars off the rail on curves).

So just as the antiquated coupling system lives on in the 1:1 scale trains, long live Rapidos in the model world! 

[ljudice]

Funny thing is the "english" coupler system contributes to making European trains more model-able...  Shorter trains, lots of helpers [or banking locos] (on some of the steep grades), etc...

My understanding was that there are studies in Europe regarding a switch over to either the AAR or the Russian coupler sometime this decade.  You have to figure it has to come at some point, since the infrastructure can only support SO many trains, so consequently they need to be longer.

BTW those buffers can sometimes ride around each other on tight curves with predictably unfortunate consequences.

[u36b]

It was planed to replace the buffers and chain coupler in the early 70 by the Unicoupler aka AK69e (western Europe http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UIC-Mittelpufferkupplung) and/or the compatible eastern-European counterpart, the Intermat coupler.
Locos and cars build in the late 60s were designed to be easily converted to the new couplers, which were a bit more advanced then the US-knuckle couplers: they' d make also air brake and electrical connections.

It did not happen by the reason peteski mentioned:
"I guess that the system is so entrenched in the rail system, and there is so much rolling stock in use that a wide-spread conversion is not really feasible."

The "C"-day in the early 70´s failed because of the involved massive logistic difficulties and financial problems of eastern European Roads. When the dust settled, cars and locos build in the late 70s + were not designed to accept automatic couplers any more.

So, the outdated buffers and chain coupler, dangerous and unproductive, will likely stay for ever.


... and YES, I use the Rapidos for my European equipment

Stephan

 

[eja]

The town I am in has three LHS devoted to trains (150 000 people), and I don't have time to see all to possibilities in Berlin.  One of these units caught my eye on the shelf the other day:

http://www.reynaulds.com/products/Piko/40202.aspx

That model looks very much like a San Diego trolley.

[ljudice]

So, the outdated buffers and chain coupler, dangerous and unproductive, will likely stay for ever.


... and YES, I use the Rapidos for my European equipment

Stephan

Interesting!!!