>>>>>>>>

[steam-driven boy]

Hi,

...the crucial difference was that the lateral movement needed for uncoupling was made only by the (sprung) hook, and not the entire hook/shaft assembly as with Microtrains.

 

...to make it compatible with NEM pockets without creating an unsightly gap between vehicles.

Ahhh, very interesting!

I hope I've not introduced a corrupted meaning with the above edit, but it serves my observation (and posted comment at the time) of the image on the Bachmann website, that it appeared quite 'chunky' compared to the m-t couplers I have on my US stock.

It's the first mention I've seen posted of this difference in how it functions and I'm wondering if it accounts for my perception of it at the time. It will be very interesting to see it 'for real', one of the attractions for me was not only the operational aspect with at last an NEM fitting, but the hoped for visual improvement - I'm wondering if it's going to be a trade-off between 'unsightly gap/unsightly bulk'.

It was one photo, and presumeably of a prototype, so I'll await the introduction with great interest

 

Regards, Gerry.

[oreamnos]

Actually, now that the question has been raised, I think that yes, the Micro Trains patent might have expired by now. If that is the case then there would be nothing to prevent another firm from manufacturing copies - apart from the the obvious costs, of course.

 

From my examination of a Farish Warship, 37/0 and 24, the NEM pockets snap onto the bogies. In other words, the NEM pockets are not part of the bogie mouldings but are separate parts. Wouldn't it make more sense to design a snap in pocket to replace the NEM one, a pocket that could hold a MT coupling? It might not, but it just sounds to me like Bachmann are trying to better amortize coupler tooling it developed for US outline by trying to make it work with its Farish line of models, and selling it to British modelers as a new "feature."

 

-Matt

[Edwin_m]

Since I don't think they use NEM pockets in the States, this must mean that Bachmann is producing a new tooling rather than cross-selling what they have in their range already.

 

The big advantage in using a NEM pocket is that the couplings will also fit recent models from Dapol and many/most models from European suppliers. If they made the coupling to replace the NEM pocket then they'd have to produce alternative couplers for however many ways they (and potentially other suppliers) have invented to mount the pocket itself.

 

I suspect the slight increase in coupler size is a price that most would find worth paying for a smaller gap between vehicles and a standardised coupler that works and looks better than the Rapido (always assuming there is a way of fitting something compatible to the older Farish pockets). Anyone who is not happy still has the option of cutting the coupling boxes off and fitting MT or whatever other type they prefer.

[Adrian Wintle]

Bachmann in North America have only just started selling stock with this coupler installed. They went through a short period of supplying stock with a non-automatic knuckle coupler, but mostly they have been one of the manufacturers who has resisted the change from Rapidos to MT/Accumate/McHenry knuckles (the other being Walthers).

 

Nothing I've seen over here has NEM pockets.

 

Adrian

[Butler Henderson]

Photo of the new coupling - whisker type with a tiny fixing screw and a mounting plate

[oldshutterbug]

I doubt the Bachmann couplers will be compatible with Micro Trains, as a long time American N scale modeller that has used various makes of rolling stock I have found that trying to mate an Atlas "Accumate" coupler to a Kato Coupler to a Micro Trains coupler is a recipe for disaster, the principle of all these couplers is the same and on normal viewing the look pretty much the same, that also includes the Bachmann type.

 

The only way to get round the problem is to convert every piece of rolling stock to ONE brand of coupler, it cost me over $500 au to convert what rolling stock I had to Micro Trains all my problems were solved, I suggest that those interested in swapping couplers use only the Bachmann version, they will do a great job and cost far less than Micro Trains but don't mix brands.

[Edwin_m]

I doubt the Bachmann couplers will be compatible with Micro Trains, as a long time American N scale modeller that has used various makes of rolling stock I have found that trying to mate an Atlas "Accumate" coupler to a Kato Coupler to a Micro Trains coupler is a recipe for disaster, the principle of all these couplers is the same and on normal viewing the look pretty much the same, that also includes the Bachmann type.

 

The only way to get round the problem is to convert every piece of rolling stock to ONE brand of coupler, it cost me over $500 au to convert what rolling stock I had to Micro Trains all my problems were solved, I suggest that those interested in swapping couplers use only the Bachmann version, they will do a great job and cost far less than Micro Trains but don't mix brands.

 

I tend to agree, there are subtle differences between the different types and the Bachmann looks to be the only one that will be available in both NEM and traditional pocket fittings. However there is still a place for the types that don't automatically uncouple for use within fixed rakes, not only because they are cheaper but also to reduce the chances of unwanted uncoupling if one of these stops over a magnet.

[D1059]

Any clues on dates for availability yet ?

 

I'm getting ready to build a new shunting layout over the winter. I have some MBD couplings on order from the N Gauge Society shop, and a bunch of Microtrains stuff on back order from Sharp Models to evaluate them, but would like to consider the new Farish couplers as well before deciding.

 

Most of my stock is kit built on Peco underframes and the loco stud is increasingly fitted with NEM pockets so each of these options has advantages and disadvantages.

 

STEVE

[Calmack]

If these Bachmann E-Z mate couplings require a licence from MT then Bachmann will already have it as the E-Z Mate couplings are already made for HO scale, and also this is the mk II version of the E-Z Mate coupling. According to Wikipedia, Atlas and Kato are now making couplings that mate with MT *¹ so why not Bachmann? MT also has coupling conversions for several manufacturers including Arnold's Rapido system (I believe also known as T-shank) - look on MT website under N scale, Conversions. It may be possible that Bachmann do a Rapido sprung-pocket conversion, otherwise there are the MT ones (providing there is compatability between the two makes).

 

The only recent Bachmann mention of the E-Z Mate coupling is on the recently announced (website): Original Class 08 loco - 'Option to fit EZ Mate II magnetic buckeye couplings'. No other mention. Have they forgotten or not bothered to mention it with the other announced locos or is there going to be a different fitting for the new 08 ? Will the new coupling be released when the 08 is released? No mention of the couplings in the spares/accessories. It was supposed to be available last year according to the Sept. '09 press release.

 

Calmack.

 

*¹ unless these are the ones Olshutterbug mentioned, which he found to be incompatible despite them supposed to being compatible. I seem to have the same problem between Kato and Tomix Scharfenberg couplings, though I do not know if these are supposed to be compatible. Even different makes of Rapido couplings have problems - uncoupling when running trains. Admittedly, sticking to one make and doing conversions seems the safest option.

[Adrian Wintle]

If these Bachmann E-Z mate couplings require a licence from MT then Bachmann will already have it as the E-Z Mate couplings are already made for HO scale, and also this is the mk II version of the E-Z Mate coupling.

 

No they won't, as Kadee and Microtrains are separate companies. However, I believe the patents have expired (hence the variety of knuckle couplers in both scales).

 

According to Wikipedia, Atlas and Kato are now making couplings that mate with MT *¹ so why not Bachmann? MT also has coupling conversions for several manufacturers including Arnold's Rapido system (I believe also known as T-shank) - look on MT website under N scale, Conversions. It may be possible that Bachmann do a Rapido sprung-pocket conversion, otherwise there are the MT ones (providing there is compatability between the two makes).

 

There is a sort-of compatibility between Microtrains, Accumate (Atlas), McHenry (Athearn), Kato, and Bachmann knuckle couplers. They will couple together and, in most cases, will stay coupled to each other. They tend not to work well when trying to use automatic uncoupling between different types.

 

I have standardized on MT couplers on my North American stock for this reason (except on fixed rakes).

 

*¹ unless these are the ones Olshutterbug mentioned, which he found to be incompatible despite them supposed to being compatible. I seem to have the same problem between Kato and Tomix Scharfenberg couplings, though I do not know if these are supposed to be compatible. Even different makes of Rapido couplings have problems - uncoupling when running trains. Admittedly, sticking to one make and doing conversions seems the safest option.

 

They are, and this is the crux of the problem.

 

Adrian

[justin1985]

Apologies for resurrecting an ancient thread ... but have these been totally abandoned now? I remember hearing they were meant to debut with the green\black livery 08s - but no appearance as far as I've seen