Bachmann 45XX Couplings (NEM)

[Trev1073]

Hi,

 

I have 4 of the Bachmann 45XX which I normally operate with B Sets (Hornby / Airfix). I seem to get lots of issues with coupling up as there appears to be a height difference between the stock. I had assumed that this was because of the Ex Airfix tooling on the B Sets but today I have checked the stock against a Bachmann 82XXX and they are spot on. The 45XX uses stepped Bachmann Couplings but they still seem to be set too high. Has anyone else noticed this problem? Is there a solution which does not involve changing to an alternative coupling method (love to go to Kadee's but far too much stock to even think about!).

 

Trev

[Hilux5972]

Hi,

 

I have 4 of the Bachmann 45XX which I normally operate with B Sets (Hornby / Airfix). I seem to get lots of issues with coupling up as there appears to be a height difference between the stock. I had assumed that this was because of the Ex Airfix tooling on the B Sets but today I have checked the stock against a Bachmann 82XXX and they are spot on. The 45XX uses stepped Bachmann Couplings but they still seem to be set too high. Has anyone else noticed this problem? Is there a solution which does not involve changing to an alternative coupling method (love to go to Kadee's but far too much stock to even think about!).

 

Trev

Bachmann do several variations of the stepped couplings. The class 40 ones seem to have a deeper step than the 45xx ones I have had in the past.

[Dunsignalling]

Hi,

 

I have 4 of the Bachmann 45XX which I normally operate with B Sets (Hornby / Airfix). I seem to get lots of issues with coupling up as there appears to be a height difference between the stock. I had assumed that this was because of the Ex Airfix tooling on the B Sets but today I have checked the stock against a Bachmann 82XXX and they are spot on. The 45XX uses stepped Bachmann Couplings but they still seem to be set too high. Has anyone else noticed this problem? Is there a solution which does not involve changing to an alternative coupling method (love to go to Kadee's but far too much stock to even think about!).

 

Trev

Bachmann's random coupler pocket location becomes even more annoying when using Kadees or any other coupler properly constructed to the NEM Standard !

 

Bachmann evidently adopted NEM pockets and ignored the rest of the specification.

 

I've lost count of the hours I've spent fitting couplers that would have been operational in ten seconds flat if Bachmann had done the job properly.

 

If you are sticking with tension locks, I'd suggest ignoring the pockets and fitting wire goalposts to hang your stock on. 

 

John

Edited January 9, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Trev520]

Bachmann do several variations of the stepped couplings. The class 40 ones seem to have a deeper step than the 45xx ones I have had in the past.

I had another look through my box of couplings and found some alternative stepped couplings. Not sure of the origin but they do seem to create a better match with the stock. Hopefully be able to test them on the layout tomorrow.

[sigtech]

Trev

 

I hope your coupling replacement is a success,  I have two Bachmann 45xx/4575 tanks, and like you have similar problems when trying to couple reliably to a Hornby 'b' set, I have retro fitted medium sized tension locks to all my locos, (and removed the hooks on them)  to improve coupling reliability, as the layout has  22" radius curves, - all that is, except for the two prairies for which I have not found a replacement for the stepped nem unit.

Not keen on slicing off the fitted mountings, as I like to keep stock in a "possible to be restored to as bought" condition.

Does anyone know if it's possible to obtain replacement (class 40 ) stepped ones from Bachmann??

Regards

SIGTECH

( Steve.)

[Butler Henderson]

Bachmann's random coupler pocket location becomes even more annoying when using Kadees or any other coupler properly constructed to the NEM Standard !

Not just Bachmann, some Heljan models are as problematic, the 33/1 for example which I have tackled with my usual back two-thirds of a NEM coupling fitted on top of the front two -thirds of another with packing adding as appropriate (2 washers one end, 3 washers the other)

[Trev1073]

Well I have managed to test the couplings that I located and they seem to work. I am not sure of their origin however I have hopefully attached a couple of images to this post to show you what they look like. They do have a deeper step down and match the B Sets couplings pretty much dead on. I have changed the couplings on the B Sets to Hornby R8099 which are a direct replacement but resemble the slim tension lock rather than the original wide tension lock.

 

Trev

[sigtech]

Hello Trevor - that was a good result! -  so they must be exactly the type I need to replace those fitted to my Bachmann 45xx and 4575 tanks, I wonder what they come from?  I have Bachmann standard slimline tension locks fitted to my Hornby 'B' set at the outer ends, the inner are the same - only cut short and glued on to close-couple. I did think about using a fixed coupling bar as per the real thing, but I need to separate the coaches occasionally.

Regards,

 

Steve

(SIGTECH).

[Trev520]

Hello Trevor - that was a good result! -  so they must be exactly the type I need to replace those fitted to my Bachmann 45xx and 4575 tanks, I wonder what they come from?  I have Bachmann standard slimline tension locks fitted to my Hornby 'B' set at the outer ends, the inner are the same - only cut short and glued on to close-couple. I did think about using a fixed coupling bar as per the real thing, but I need to separate the coaches occasionally.

Regards,

 

Steve

(SIGTECH).

Steve, I dropped you a pm

[sigtech]

Thanks Trev - have replied.

Steve.

 

 

Steve, I dropped you a pm

Edited January 12, 2018 by sigtech

[Guest 47107]

Well I have managed to test the couplings that I located and they seem to work. I am not sure of their origin however I have hopefully attached a couple of images to this post to show you what they look like. They do have a deeper step down and match the B Sets couplings pretty much dead on. I have changed the couplings on the B Sets to Hornby R8099 which are a direct replacement but resemble the slim tension lock rather than the original wide tension lock.

 

TrevIMG_0594.JPGIMG_0593.JPG

 

They look like Heljan couplings.      https://www.howesmodels.co.uk/product/Heljan%20standard%20plug-in%20coupling

[The Johnster]

I have had many a moan here about tension lock couplers; RTR manufacturers seem unable to manage the task of standardising the bar height above the rail, never mind standardising a profile for the bar section or the shape of the hook.  I have a plethora of types on my layout, and have not kept track with replacements to the extent that I can say for certainty whose couplers are on which vehicles. My Baccy 4575 couples to my B set quite happily, but I have an insulated vanfit from the same firm that doesn't seem to want to couple to anything else, problems in the coal train between Baccy and Oxford couplers, and a Hornby 42xx which has couplers of differing heights at each end, the smokebox end being too low and the bunker end being much too low!

 

NEM pockets are merely a standard mounting, but the couplers themselves are not and even standardising on one make throughout the fleet will not solve all your problems, as NEMs end up at different heights on different models and cranked versions have to be employed.  Where couplers are too high (new Hornby toad), one can solve the issue by glueing the coupler in place but not quite all the way home in the NEM dovetail, but if they are too low there is little that can be done about it.

 

I have achieved reliability of couplings on my layout, but only after a good bit of faffing that should not have been necessary.  I have had, as well as the height issue which is the main problem, trouble with hooks which do not engage full on bars of different makes, hooks which engage too well and will not release easily (this on the same make), and hooks which will not fall back under their own weight and have to be pushed down.   I am trying to standardise on Bachmann couplers if only because they represent the majority of the stock.

 

Before someone suggests Kaydees, no thanks; I am unconvinced that they are 100% reliable and confused by the plethora of types.  I am wondering if some sort of adaptation of N gauge couplers, which would also give closer coupling between stock, can be achieved with NRM pockets?

[Dunsignalling]

I have had many a moan here about tension lock couplers; RTR manufacturers seem unable to manage the task of standardising the bar height above the rail, never mind standardising a profile for the bar section or the shape of the hook.  I have a plethora of types on my layout, and have not kept track with replacements to the extent that I can say for certainty whose couplers are on which vehicles. My Baccy 4575 couples to my B set quite happily, but I have an insulated vanfit from the same firm that doesn't seem to want to couple to anything else, problems in the coal train between Baccy and Oxford couplers, and a Hornby 42xx which has couplers of differing heights at each end, the smokebox end being too low and the bunker end being much too low!

 

NEM pockets are merely a standard mounting, but the couplers themselves are not and even standardising on one make throughout the fleet will not solve all your problems, as NEMs end up at different heights on different models and cranked versions have to be employed.  Where couplers are too high (new Hornby toad), one can solve the issue by glueing the coupler in place but not quite all the way home in the NEM dovetail, but if they are too low there is little that can be done about it.

 

I have achieved reliability of couplings on my layout, but only after a good bit of faffing that should not have been necessary.  I have had, as well as the height issue which is the main problem, trouble with hooks which do not engage full on bars of different makes, hooks which engage too well and will not release easily (this on the same make), and hooks which will not fall back under their own weight and have to be pushed down.   I am trying to standardise on Bachmann couplers if only because they represent the majority of the stock.

 

Before someone suggests Kaydees, no thanks; I am unconvinced that they are 100% reliable and confused by the plethora of types.  I am wondering if some sort of adaptation of N gauge couplers, which would also give closer coupling between stock, can be achieved with NRM pockets?

It doesn't matter what couplers you use, the root of the problem is that, contrary to the NEM standard, the position of the pocket (especially the height above rail) wanders about all over the place. Cure that, fit everything with straight mini-tension-locks (of one brand) and all the other issues will disappear.

 

For what you already have, Bachmann make tension-locks with various offsets and the others don't. For consistency and reliability, bin everybody else's and fit whichever Bachmann one lines up best to each pocket-fitted model.

 

Me? I'm sticking with the Xuron method and non-NEM Kadees for any UK outline model which is non-compliant.

 

As for Kadees, I've been using them for 25 years and, if fitted properly they are very reliable. Nothing's 100% but very high nineties, better than anything else I've ever tried and on a different planet to tension locks.

 

The different NEM ones just offer longer or shorter reach and can be swapped at will if ones first choice proves less than ideal. Of the non-NEM ones, modellers of UK-outline very seldom need to consider anything other than the long types #146 and (to a lesser extent) #141 unless the model itself presents unusual difficulties for mounting.   

 

John

Edited January 13, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[sigtech]

Trevor kindly sent me 4 of the Heljan stepped couplings as direct replacements for the original couplings on my 45xx and 4575 Bachmann Prairie tanks, I have now fitted them (removing the hooks as I do for all my locomotives) and have to agree with him - they work very well, matching up the bar heights with both my Bachmann and Hornby coaches (including 'B' set)  exactly, and as a bonus they reduce the gap between loco and coach to the point where the buffers are just touching. This is good news, and as both the locos and the coaches are fitted with sprung buffers I have true close coupling!! a result indeed..

Regards

 

(SIGTECH)

Steve.

Edited January 19, 2018 by sigtech