Jump to content

Andy Y

Hornby - New tooling - Large Prairie

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

You just don't get it do you?

Because Hornby have not put the coupling pocket in the same plane as usual it needs a special coupling (supplied)

The one on the back wont fit on the front and the one one the front is wrong on the back.

So fitting NEM pockets is a waste of time, the coupling might just as well be permanently fitted.

 

Claiming something has an NEM pocket implies that it is to a standard else it is not an NEM pocket.

In which case UK manufacturers should stop claiming they fit NEM pockets because they don't.

Edited by melmerby
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like a hair-splitting exercise. The NEM pocket has a particular shape and proportions to enable it to take a wide range of couplings fitted with the appropriate fork-shape to plug into the socket. IF NEM has a standard position for the socket, then it should be 'specced' as an NEM pocket fitted at NEM height. It may well have been a difficult exercise to fit a coupling of any sort - other than a scale screw-link - to this loco and at the end of the day the only requirement - from the manufacturer's view point - is that the loco should couple correctly to Hornby rolling stock, which it does. (CJL)

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

This sounds like a hair-splitting exercise. The NEM pocket has a particular shape and proportions to enable it to take a wide range of couplings fitted with the appropriate fork-shape to plug into the socket. IF NEM has a standard position for the socket, then it should be 'specced' as an NEM pocket fitted at NEM height. It may well have been a difficult exercise to fit a coupling of any sort - other than a scale screw-link - to this loco and at the end of the day the only requirement - from the manufacturer's view point - is that the loco should couple correctly to Hornby rolling stock, which it does. (CJL)

OK I'll split hairs.

Say I've decided to fit Hornby's own NEM fitting "close couplers" as all my previous Hornby stock is fitted with them.

Problem. Hornby's own NEM close coupler is no good on this loco as it doesn't fit at the right position at the front.

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dibber25 said:

This sounds like a hair-splitting exercise. The NEM pocket has a particular shape and proportions to enable it to take a wide range of couplings fitted with the appropriate fork-shape to plug into the socket. IF NEM has a standard position for the socket, then it should be 'specced' as an NEM pocket fitted at NEM height.

It's not hair splitting at all. It's an NEM coupler pocket when fully conforming to the NEM requirement for this item, and that includes the specified position on the vehicle. There's no difficulty with conformance on this subject, the over height increases the chance of fouling compared to the correct position.

 

Handy English language version of the standard. It's conformance to all those measurements, or a non-conformance, therefore not an NEM coupler pocket.

 http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/couplings.htm

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, melmerby said:

You just don't get it do you?

Because Hornby have not put the coupling pocket in the same plane as usual it needs a special coupling (supplied)


Oh I do get it. I’ve just actually looked at the model and it’s easy to see why the coupling is designed as it is. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its relatively easy to make a stepped Kadee - NEM plug and plastic shank section from a discarded tension lock  (ie. the loop cut off and tension lock removed) and a suitable Kadee (by the sounds of it this case a 20) with the NEM plug cut off glued togetehr (with plastic card packing if necessary) to make the required step and if preferred then drilled and a small nut and bolt added to ensure it stays together,

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To balance the view on this, Bachmann have done exactly the same on the 45XX front pony truck, however they have ensured the rear truck's pocket is in the same relative position so the same stepped/elongated tension lock can be used in either.

 

That's the think I find most perplexing with the Hornby loco is that they have made the front and rear plug in couplings different.

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, melmerby said:

That's the think I find most perplexing with the Hornby loco is that they have made the front and rear plug in couplings different.


 

They need to be different because of the design of their chassis’. The 45xx has a rigid length wheelbase chassis with conventional pony trucks. The 61xx not only has a physically longer chassis, the rear pony wheels are in a radial truck giving a variable length wheelbase (1mm), to allow it to work 2nd radius, and retain an authentic look under the bunker.

 

The ‘standards’ thing comes up regularly on a variety of topics. I’m not aware of a definitive declaration to conform to those standards by any UK RTR manufacturer. If there are, can someone provide a link/reference to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I find most perplexing with the Hornby loco is that they have made the front and rear plug in couplings different.

Bachmann did that with the Std 4 tank. Front coupling NEM mount correct, rear NEM mount coupling ultra steeped, needing a lot of packing to make up the requisite stepped Kadee as described in my previous posting.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

 

The ‘standards’ thing comes up regularly on a variety of topics. I’m not aware of a definitive declaration to conform to those standards by any UK RTR manufacturer. If there are, can someone provide a link/reference to them.

The standard is NEM 362, it defines the size, shape and location of a "standard" coupling pocket.

If you call it an NEM pocket it should be to that standard. If it's not to the standard by definition it can't be NEM.

It's nothing to do with declaration to adhere to  the standard. It's either to NEM 362 or it's not, it can't be half.

 

It's no different to BS/EN standards, you either meet them or you don't

You can't call a 13A plug a BS1363A plug if it doesn't meet the standard even if it's physically the same size.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a very simple question.

 

Where have any RTR manufacturers stated they’ve adopted and utilise a particular standard? Whichever standard it is. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, PMP said:

It’s a very simple question.

 

Where have any RTR manufacturers stated they’ve adopted and utilise a particular standard? Whichever standard it is. 

 

 

I think, as Hornby-Dublo, they may have adopted BRMSB standard, but whether that included couplings, I'm not sure, and it would have been about 70 years ago. (CJL)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

With the Bachmann small prairies, I have rebuilt the coupling mountings to conform with the Kadee height gauge when fitted with NEM Kadees. It's about 1-2 mm difference.

 

I've also used various Kadee couplings, not just NEM, and parts of NEM couplings to make stepped couplings.

 

There's quite a lot about how I have fitted NEM pockets, not just for Kadee Couplings, to various models on this thread...

 

 

Edited by Sarahagain
more added with link
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 link couplings are the answer....

 

Taking cover.....

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PMP said:

It’s a very simple question.

 

Where have any RTR manufacturers stated they’ve adopted and utilise a particular standard? Whichever standard it is. 

 

 

It's a very simple answer, the standard is NEM it's in their literature.

 

A standard is a standard.

If you don't meet the criteria, it is not to that standard.

You cannot quote something is to a standard if it doesn't meet certain criteria.

The manufacturers say they are using NEM coupling pockets. By quoting NEM that means there is a specification to be met.

They do not meet the specification therefore they are not by defintion NEM coupling pockets.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, melmerby said:

It's a very simple answer, the standard is NEM it's in their literature.

 

A standard is a standard.

If you don't meet the criteria, it is not to that standard.

You cannot quote something is to a standard if it doesn't meet certain criteria.

The manufacturers say they are using NEM coupling pockets. By quoting NEM that means there is a specification to be met.

They do not meet the specification therefore they are not by defintion NEM coupling pockets.

 

And is plainly not enforceable by anyone as this issue has arisen with Bachmann and Heljan. It is fixable/bodgeable as set out in the thread and if that is not acceptable to you then you could always try returning the model as not fit for purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, melmerby said:

It's a very simple answer, the standard is NEM it's in their literature.

 

A standard is a standard.

If you don't meet the criteria, it is not to that standard.

You cannot quote something is to a standard if it doesn't meet certain criteria.

The manufacturers say they are using NEM coupling pockets. By quoting NEM that means there is a specification to be met.

They do not meet the specification therefore they are not by defintion NEM coupling pockets.

 

 

This reminds me of the old adage: The wonderful thing about standards is, there's so many to choose from.

 

Can you remind us if the NEM standard says where the coupling pocket should be fitted? i.e. the location. If that isn't part of of the standard, then nobody can be blamed for putting the socket wherever they like, and they are still using a standard.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PMP said:

...Where have any RTR manufacturers stated they’ve adopted and utilise a particular standard?

That is something of weakness in the suppliers to the UK RTR market.

 

But since they have chosen to use the term 'NEM' regarding this aspect of their product, the expectation is created that

they will conform.

 

5 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

This reminds me of the old adage: The wonderful thing about standards is, there's so many to choose from.

 

Can you remind us if the NEM standard says where the coupling pocket should be fitted? i.e. the location. If that isn't part of of the standard, then nobody can be blamed for putting the socket wherever they like, and they are still using a standard.

And again, it surely does specify location, the standard conveniently rendered into English with a link to source:

 

http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/couplings.htm

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

That is something of weakness in the suppliers to the UK RTR market.

 

But since they have chosen to use the term 'NEM' regarding this aspect of their product, the expectation is created that

they will conform.

 

And again, it surely does specify location, the standard conveniently rendered into English with a link to source:

 

http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/couplings.htm

From what I can see from the source document there is no 'OO' standard - taking the source document as NEM363 rather than a third party extension of it.

Edited by spamcan61

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

From what I can see from the source document there is no 'OO' standard - taking the source document as NEM363 rather than a third party extension of it.

Quite so, like practically everything else the standards work has been done for HO, and RTR OO manufacturers simply 'borrow' the standards, more or less, with or without acknowledgement.

 

But any such manufacturer choosing to use the term 'NEM coupler pocket' is referencing that standard, and it is a reasonable customer expectation that they will comply. I can fix this in a heartbeat: 'Continental style coupler pocket'. And with that, anything goes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tomparryharry said:

3 link couplings are the answer....

 

Taking cover.....

Keep your head down.  Or did you forget to type 'screw couplings'?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Keep your head down.  Or did you forget to type 'screw couplings'?

 

Yes Mike: Screw couplings......

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Keep your head down.  Or did you forget to type 'screw couplings'?

You beat me to it, Mike! I still think this debate is splitting hairs but I guess we're probably all to blame, as 'NEM pocket' is a simple way to describe the thing, much like 'tarmac' road surfaces that aren't laid by Tarmac, vacuum cleaners that aren't all Hoovers, and portable buildings that aren't all Portacabins. I guess we should refer to them as 'NEM-style' coupler pockets to be strictly correct but when you're trying to save a word here and there to make an over-long review fit on a page, short-cuts are inevitable, and the fact is, most modellers know what an NEM pocket is, and so long as the loco couples to other tension-lock-fitted stock that's really all that matters. Personally, I think any inappropriate coupling spoils the front of a loco, so I discard them whenever possible, but with a tank loco designed to spend half its life running backwards, that's not an option. (CJL)

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

And is plainly not enforceable by anyone as this issue has arisen with Bachmann and Heljan. It is fixable/bodgeable as set out in the thread and if that is not acceptable to you then you could always try returning the model as not fit for purpose.

Perfectly true as none are obliged to adhere to the standard

However if you say it is an NEM pocket you are implying you have made to the specification.

 

One could argue why not just do your own thing and use anyway you like to fix the coupling as it used to be. (screw, rivet etc.)

The NEM spec brought the possibility of everybody falling in line with a common standard, unfortunately the only thing that seems to be common is the fishtail and it's housing.

The actual couplers have spawned loads of different variations due to the variable position of the housing.

I have at least 4 different heights and possibly 3 different lengths of Tension locks on the stuff I have.

At least the non-european Kadee NEM couplings are made to the NEM standard!:)

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/07/2020 at 02:29, PMP said:


What’s really interesting is that the bogies don’t have a piece of metal for a spring.

img_1532.jpg

 

 

 

 

Oh I’m sure one one said further back that it did have that. Maybe I misread that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.