Coupling confusion

[Steven B]

Backing up to release the tension is something the real railway has to do. You can't uncouple a three link coupling unless the tension has been removed.

 

The Kadee shuffle comes into play when you want to uncouple, then push the wagons further down the siding. You need to stop the train, reverse slightly to release the tension. The couplers then part over the magnet. The loco pulls forward, then reverses with the couplings positioned such that they don't mate. This is little different to many home-brew coupling systems.

 

Steven B.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

20 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 ... defeated by UK outline modelling...

This is the heart of the problem. Our various manufacturers over the years have essentially ignored the use of 4mm scale - with all that goes with that - and borrowed developed ideas from HO. The logical location for a coupler pocket is at bufferbeam height, behind a gap in the bufferbeam.  Then you could plug in the missing bufferbeam section with a three link/screwlink mounted on it, or any other coupler head, whether rigidly mounted with a bufferbeam section, or able to swing in the bufferbeam gap.

 

Unfortunately, no manufacturer has ever done such basic thinking, let alone managed to sell it as a general concept. The nearest approach is what Bachmann have done on some of their contemporary bogie stock by mounting EZ-mates in the bufferbeam. There's everything to like in appearance, much as having three links on older wagons: a coupler that bears a decent resemblance to the knuckle coupler the prototype has, mounted in the right location. It proved very easy to put an EZ-mate coupler in the right place on the class 66 traction, which of course enabled a full airdam and pipe fit with no interference from the coupler. All so very simple when the coupler is mounted where it should be...

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

The main way you'll incur wrath is by spelling Kadee incorrectly as noted by Sol earlier.

Kadee, no y, my apologies and I'll try to get it right next time...

 

3 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Surely, NEM is a European (MOROP) standard, not American?

 

NEM 362

 

Normen europäischer Modelleisenbahnen (NEM)

I stand corrected, though I'm actually sitting at the moment.

 

3 hours ago, Sol said:

nd that is a valid point.... one has to back up the train to release tension on the T/L's anyway to uncouple.

Easing up to release tension on t/ls or any model coupling is realistic and proper operating practice, and to be encouraged.  You do it in real life with a brake applied on the vehicle to be uncoupled and call the loco back about a foot, and if you are sensible you do not remain in between vehicles while the move is carried out.  Tight couplings cannot be uncoupled and must be eased.  3 link and instanter couplings can be uncoupled from the side with the shunting pole, but you have to go in between to tighten screws anyway, and usually to connect brake and steam heating bags (hoses) as well.  Screw couplings should be tightened so that 2 threads are showing between the shackle and the bottle screw; this will mean that the buffer faces are correctly 'kissing' on straight track.  Before anyone mentions that there's only one thread and it's helical, you know what I mean...

 

I have no problem with the Hand Of God (I'm an atheist and don't believe in it), and use it myself, but I do not exhibit my layout.  I don't mind it for appropriate operations such as using couplings but it incurs my wrath if it is used to poke locos into action, or push stock around.  There are a whole load of exhibition operating practices that I disapprove of, so we won't go into all that here!

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

This is the heart of the problem. Our various manufacturers over the years have essentially ignored the use of 4mm scale - with all that goes with that - and borrowed developed ideas from HO. The logical location for a coupler pocket is at bufferbeam height, behind a gap in the bufferbeam.  Then you could plug in the missing bufferbeam section with a three link/screwlink mounted on it, or any other coupler head, whether rigidly mounted with a bufferbeam section, or able to swing in the bufferbeam gap.

 

Unfortunately, no manufacturer has ever done such basic thinking, let alone managed to sell it as a general concept. The nearest approach is what Bachmann have done on some of their contemporary bogie stock by mounting EZ-mates in the bufferbeam. There's everything to like in appearance, much as having three links on older wagons: a coupler that bears a decent resemblance to the knuckle coupler the prototype has, mounted in the right location. It proved very easy to put an EZ-mate coupler in the right place on the class 66 traction, which of course enabled a full airdam and pipe fit with no interference from the coupler. All so very simple when the coupler is mounted where it should be...

Preaching to the choir, 34, but it's not as easy as that for RTR.  The need to run around sharp curves means that the mount, behind the buffer beam or fairing, must have side play, which means an unacceptably large elongated hole in the buffer beam.  In any case, RTR is as firmly wedded to the t/l and similar under the beam mounted devices as it is to the deeply flawed incorrect 00 gauge in 4mm scale.  Compatibility with other makes' stock and with older stock, which has already been discussed on this thread, must be maintained even if it is a flawed concept in practice itself.  

 

Can you imagine the reaction if anyone introduced a different type of coupling mount completely incompatible with the others to the RTR game?  Back to the days of Triang vs Hornby Dublo, and adaptor wagons.  Never gonna fly...  

 

I don't like t/l couplings, but live with them because I am too shaky to work with scale couplings, and there is a bonus in that stock comes already fitted, sometimes even to the correct specs (!) and I am able to employ setrack curves in my fiddle yard, resulting in there being 7 roads instead of 4.  I don't like 00 compromises, but live with them because I want to get on with running trains and not spend all my time building track and altering gauges.  I don't like not having a million pounds, something else I've learned to live with, I mean without.  The NEM tension lock is probably the best compromise of practicality, reliable operation, and minimal horror in terms of appearance (compare it to a Lima) we're going to get, but I'd prefer it proper standards and specifications were used, because all to often they aren't.  I bought a brand new Hornby 42xx that had different couplers on each end!

[RogerBfastlane]

As the Osbornes  lasercut wooden version looks rather roughly finished  I am designing an n-gauge 6-wheel toad brake van in CAD for 3D printing (a WIP  so needs some changes yet!) and want to add NEM  pockets to this. I have tried to track down the defined dimensions and locations for the these on a chassis , but am struggling to find anything definitive.

 

I hear/see that Dapol supply ready made pockets so may use these to get the right materials/clipping action, but what dimensions must the mounting be to fit correctly?

 

Can anyone help me with a link to this data please?

 

Thanks 

 

[ejstubbs]

On 25/11/2019 at 19:39, The Johnster said:

Manufacturers claim that all tension lock couplings are standard and are compatible with each other

 

Do they?  I can't say I've ever seen such a claim, and I've certainly never seen anything like a published standard for tension locks on UK railway models.  If any such thing does exist it would be of passing interest to see it.

 

I get the impression that the situation regarding tension locks is much looser than that: the manufacturers all fit their stock with one or more variants* on the general tension lock theme, and people blithely assume that because they all appear to be intended to function in the same way then they will all happily interoperate.  Given that at least one of those manufacturers couldn't even get their NEM pockets - which are supposed to be based on a published standard - in the right place when they first tried it, the grounds for such an assumption seem weak.  And as you point out, the reality is very different.  Even within a single manufacturer's range I'd say that you can't necessarily expect reliable interoperation of the different TLC variants.

 

* For example, Hornby are still selling stock fitted with the big RailRoad-style TLCs - with both screw-on and NEM mounts - alongside the slimmer NEM TLCs they fit to their more modern "super detailed" items.  And I believe Bachmann still do a few items fitted with screw-on small TLCs, as well as the NEM mount ones they have adopted for most of their catalogue (and for which they do now seem to have managed to produce standard-compliant pockets).

[The Johnster]

They certainly did back in the late 70s and the 80s, when new kids on the block like LIma, Palitoy Mainline, and Airfix were keen to state that their couplings were compatible with other RTR British makes, which was stretching the definition of 'compatible' a bit and a charitable view might have been that it was a spelling mistake and they really meant 'combatible'.  The unspoken thought was of the divergence between Triang's, by then Triang Hornby and now Hornby, tension lock coupling and what had at one time been regarded as the industry standard, the Peco 'buckeye', different forms of which were back in the 50s and 60s used by Hornby Dublo, Trix Twin, and Kitmaster/Airfix construction kits (in fact they are still on the sprues of some of these.  Some forms of Peco buckeyes were arguably compatible with each other, but not with tension locks, not that that stopped us hooking the tension lock hooks over the buckeyes, a thing marginally less doomed to failure with the bigger hooks of the older type of 'stamped pressing folded up' Triang tension lock, the one that suceeded the Rovex one-way-round hook and pin. 

 

The incompatibility led to comment and a desire for a universal coupling, and was touted as one of the reasons for the downfall of Hornby Dublo (the real reason was rising costs and the attempt to keep a 3-rail range going alongside the 2-rail).  Wrenn, when they re-introduced some of the Hornby Dublo range under their own banner, replaced the Peco buckeyes and fitted Triang Hornby type rivetted tension locks, in order to be 'compatible'.

 

It is accepted without question these days that UK RTR has tension lock couplings, and the NEM standard has more or less established itself universally on new toolings and has for at least a decade, but there was a time when compatibility could not be an accepted 'given' in this way, with couplings, wheel profiles, flangeways and similar issues preventing running one company's stock on another's track or through their turnouts and crossings, and of course there was the 2-rail/3-rail thing at the back of everyone's minds as well.  When 2 rail was first brought on to the market by Rovex in 1949? there were plenty of experienced and respected modellers who claimed that it was impossible, and this was only 15 years in the past when HD collapsed.  At least you can more or less be certain that your Heljan or Dapol loco will perform perfectly well on Hornby or Bachmann setrack as well as Peco down to code 75.  There is no reason why anyone who has entered the hobby later than, say 1978, would need to be aware of this compatibility issue.

 

But, while NEM tension locks are the nearest thing we've ever had to a standard 00 coupling, they are not the perfect solution and if  there is a perfect solution to the problem of automatically coupling and uncoupling 00 stock running on train set curves while looking realistic and maintaining a sensible distance between buffer heads, it needs a completely fresh approach and nobody's done this yet (it may well be actually impossible; I'm not going to give myself brainache thinking about it anyway!) .  NEMs were originally designed, and designed very well indeed I might add, for US H0 railroading, and were not concieved with the problems of UK stock in mind.  Typically, a US layout will feature 100% bogie stock with the coupling pockets mounted on or moulded in to the bogies, with the only exception to this being the rare 0-6-0 or 0-8-0 steam loco which has to have the pocket mounted in to the frames.

 

Here, we have 4 and 6 wheeled vehicles, and 8 wheeled rigid framed Gresley tenders, and some of these are quite lengthy for 4 wheelers (Hornby LNER long CCT for instance).  Even standard lenght 4 wheelers have buffers, and the coupling must prevent locking or overpulling of these on setrack curves.  Bogies are set at different distances in from the headstock, and bogie vehicles still have buffers to consider.  And the customers want a realistic gap between the buffer heads, not the scale 6' that Lima RTR had...

 

So, largely because we are not modellers of American practice (and this being one of the main reasons some of us are), we do not have a standard place to mount our pockets.  Bachmann, with the best of intentions, ran into so much trouble with this that they market 4 different couplers to cope with their different pocket positions, long or short, and straight or downcranked in an attempt to standardise the height above the railhead of the bar and it's distance from the buffer beam, hence the extent to which it is allowed to protrude beyond the buffers.  Some locos, small prairies for example, do not use the standard dovetail pocket, which means that the couplings do not have the specified NEM sideplay. 

 

This means that NEM UK style tension locks are not standard in terms of shape, material, weight, or position relative to the buffer beams.  Bar and hook profiles differ as well, so while one might claim  them to be compatible, my experience on a small BLT with well laid level track and a minimum 3rd radius curve is that they are not compatible.  You can pull a train in a straight line with them, but curvature, turnouts, and propelling are going to lead to problems either with buffer locking when you are propelling and/or parting when hauling, or bar override when propelling, all of which will affect the reliability of your running sessions.  I will not accept unreliable running, and do not have it; derailments or heavy shunts are the fault of the control knob operating mechanism, or Johnster as it is otherwise known.  Taking my time, being methodical, checking the set of the road before a move, and driving sensibly results in virtually 100% perfect running, and any problems can be rapidly identified and dealt with. 

 

I have achieved this by careful attention to track laying and keepin wiring (DC) as simple as possible, but also by a) standardising on one make of coupling in order to establish a common profile, material, and weight of as many couplings on the layout as possible and b) establishing a standard bar height above the railhead.  It doesn't matter whose coupling you choose, I chose Bachmann NEM because that's what the majority of my stock happened to come with, or what bar height you choose, so long as the standard is established across all the stock to be used on the layout.  There are some older vehicles which have Mainline or Hornby pre-NEM couplings, but these have been made to conform to standard as far as possible and will eventually be replaced. 

 

Note I have not established a standard pocket position.  A combination of the different heights and lengths of Bachmann NEM t/ls and Parkside NEM mounts, which can be packed or trimmed to hold the pocket in a suitable position, has enabled me to establish my standards across all rigid framed vehicles and most locos.  My bogie vehicles are GW types mostly, and these have Stafford Road/Shapeways 3D bogies with NEM pockets printed in.  Southern and LMS bogie vehicles have Mainline and Dapol couplings (a Lima 42' GUV has bogies off a Dapol 57' suburban donor), and a Hornby 2721 and Triang Dock Authority used as a colliery shunting loco have the Triang/Triang Hornby tension lock.  All general merchandise goods vehicles have been fitted with Bachmann NEMs, on Parkside mounts where no NEM mount existed, and the one bogie goods wagon, an ancient Mainline bogie bolster D, has has NEMs grafted to the bogies.

 

Minerals are different; they are in permacoupled rakes with Bachmann NEM fitted to the outer ends of the rakes, and can be considered as a long articulated single vehicle for coupling and shunting purposes.  Between wagons within the rake they use 3D printed NEM fitting instanter couplings from James' Trains/Shapeway, which depend on the pockets being at the same height, which has meant re-fitting them to my standard on some older wagons and Dapol wagons.  I replace all wheels and couplings on any Dapol stock as a matter of course, as I find they are a very effective way of destroying any semblence of reliable running, sorry Dapol, speaking as I have found.

[F-UnitMad]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Typically, a US layout will feature 100% bogie stock with the coupling pockets mounted on or moulded in to the bogies, with the only exception to this being the rare 0-6-0 or 0-8-0 steam loco which has to have the pocket mounted in to the frames.

Pardon??

Yes the stock is almost 100% on trucks (stupid word, "bogie", anyway!! sounds like extraneous nostril matter) as per the prototype, but 'best practice' in all the scales from N to O is for the couplers to be body mounted, again as per the prototype. I know truck-mounted couplers exist especially in N, but having the train's weight and coupler forces put through the trucks rather than the frame can create problems of their own.

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

NEMs were originally designed, and designed very well indeed I might add, for US H0 railroading,

Is Sir getting his NEM - a European standard, mixed up with his NMRA, which set all sorts of standards for US modelling a long time ago, which still work well to this day.?

The NEM pocket & swallow-tail as applied to Kadees was to allow modellers of European outline to use Kadee couplers more easily. The NEM standard is also applied to other EU couplers, such as Roco. I don't think any American-outline models have NEM pockets; they are designed to take Kadee draftgear boxes.

 

Edit - having re-read page 1 of this thread to refresh my memory, I appear in this post to be repeating myself from just under a year ago. *sigh*   

Edited November 17, 2020 by F-UnitMad

[Butler Henderson]

My solution when using tension locks was where possible have a few wagons with different 

couplings styles either end and marshall trains together matching couplings. On locos used for shunting I would remove the hook, preferring if possible to use the metal Triang Hornby type whose loop was thin enough for all hooks to engage with.

[Il Grifone]

Using plastic for any working parts is asking for trouble....*

 

Saying that I prefer the Mainline type tension lock (for the limited quantity of stock I have with them - BR TOPS era). Its smaller size makes it less conspicuous and holds the vehicles nearer together. (I don't require stock to go around Tri-ang 13½" curves!). The metal spring ensures that it operates correctly.

 

*Plenty of other examples! Mainline split axles for one.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Il Grifone

[Broadway Clive]

On 17/11/2020 at 21:35, F-UnitMad said:

Yes the stock is almost 100% on trucks (stupid word, "bogie", anyway!! sounds like extraneous nostril matter) as per the prototype, but 'best practice' in all the scales from N to O is for the couplers to be body mounted, again as per the prototype. I know truck-mounted couplers exist especially in N, but having the train's weight and coupler forces put through the trucks rather than the frame can create problems of their own.

I've had trouble with body mounted couplings on London Transport Q stock (EMUs with two trucks) as they make the cars lean inwards when rounding curves. In this case the couplings are simply a short straight wire bent at each end to locate into holes in the car rubbing plates. It made me think that having the train's weight and coupler forces put through the trucks as is usually done with models was maybe preferable.

[Sol]

You trying shunting bogie stock with bogie mounted couplers ( I think they get called Talgo trucks in USA     )  they tend to derail being pushed as they twist.

[F-UnitMad]

10 hours ago, Broadway Clive said:

I've had trouble with body mounted couplings on London Transport Q stock (EMUs with two trucks) as they make the cars lean inwards when rounding curves. In this case the couplings are simply a short straight wire bent at each end to locate into holes in the car rubbing plates. It made me think that having the train's weight and coupler forces put through the trucks as is usually done with models was maybe preferable.

Sounds like there isn't enough sideways slack in the holes your wires drop into; the coupling is too rigid.

[DaveSmith]

Well, here i am, 3 1/2 years later having just resumed my attempt to have a layout with functioning coupling. I have bought a few more wagons and a Bachmann 64xx, all of which miraculously have NEM pocket tension lock couplings at the same height. 

I have replaced a few of these couplings with Kadee #18 which I had in hand from my previous efforts and they were a direct fit and work as advertised.

I still have my older wagons with TLCs mounted directly to the body moulding which I hope I replace with one or another variety of Kadee couplings.

The trickiest ones to adapt would seem to be the earlier Heljen & Bachmann locos which have NEM 362 pockets at the wrong height. The Bachmann uses a cranked TLC and the Heljen simply uses a straight one at the wrong height so it doesn't work with anything. I'm planning to experiment with new NEM pockets mounted at the right height so I can use straight Kadees. 

All adds to the fun, hopefully.

[Bluebell Model Railway]

Standards have certainly changed over the years, even more recently pockets being put too high... or just a dove tail joint... to take I have no idea what... back in the 90's or later there was a whole array of various types, old Airfix, old lima, old Triang...there is a mish mash of couplings... I have been over the years trying to help those who want to standardize old wagons, carriages, which fall outside of the OO standard.. some more easier than others... some need more cutting or drastic action...

Been quite popular so far....  but of course the job is never finished as there are so many varieties out there.
Think there's a link in my signature.

[DaveSmith]

Thanks for the link, I've just ordered some of the Bachmann cranked link converters.

[Butler Henderson]

On most wagons with a too high NEM socket I find easing the socket down the neccessary amount checked with the coupling against a height gauge and fiiting a suitable spacer of plastic card in the space above works

[moore43grm]

I try to follow prototype examples

 

[ISW]

7 hours ago, DaveSmith said:

The trickiest ones to adapt would seem to be the earlier Heljen & Bachmann locos which have NEM 362 pockets at the wrong height. The Bachmann uses a cranked TLC ...

Here's how I converted my Bachmann cranked TLC to Kadee #18.

 

I cut the crank off the old TLC (here before cutting):

 

and glued the crank onto the 'body' of a Kadee #18 (ie: with the 'tail' cut off). Here's the result (top; upside down, bottom; right side up):

 

I had to reinforce the glue with some baking powder, but it's still working years later.

 

Here it is fitted and adjacent to a Kadee height measurement bufferstop:

 

Ian

[DaveSmith]

That's a clever idea, and it obviously works, but I'd be concerned about the strength of the glue join.

[Butler Henderson]

I've done similar overlapping a chopped down straight tension lock on top of the Kadee but typically reinforce the joint with a small bolt/nut

Edited March 25, 2023 by Butler Henderson

[DCB]

I don't see the point of the NEM socket.    I use Hornby Dublo or Peco couplers, some I shove into NEM pockets and on my Heljan 1366 I then snapped half the pocket off.   So I drilled and tapped the chassis and used a wrenn shouldered boss and a 6BA bolt to secure the slightly trimmed H/D nylon coupler. There is no reason a Kadee 20 series can't be used in exactly the same way, Screwed to the chassis.   Instead of using the NEM compatible and twice as expensive "european" version.  One day I will change to Kadee, when I run out of Peco / H/D couplings as I only have about a 20 year supply left.

The NEM looks really awful on UK wagons , look at a pair of NEM equipped Bachmann wagon vs a Peco wonderful wagon on Peco (H/D type) couplings  at eye level when coupled,  Its a real step backwards  over the past 60 years

 

 

[Il Grifone]

Being in a permanent state of impecunity, I have very few items with NEM coupling pockets, but any out of spec. would get their marching orders!

My personal preferences (probably listed already) are:

EM -  (Late 20s GWR) -3 links or screw as appropriate, On hold due to lack of space (and the eyesight isn't what it was!*)

H0 - US (ATSF/UP)  Kadees no 5 preferred

H0 - (DSB) Lima Continental Loop - Ugly but it works (the height situation is critical Lima is different from everybody else!

H0 (1/80) - (FS) Rivarossi version of above. (different height -uncouples magnetically with delay)

00 - BR (c1960) Peco The Dublo version couples perfectly but is chunkier (toy - 15" curves) with too much slop

Anything else e.g. (vintage/collectibles) Leave well alone apart from adjustment.

 

Talgo strictly means an articulated train  with two wheeled vehicles articulated onto the adjoining one.

I've even seen one - there used to be a direct link to Spain when we lived in Turin.

Our American friends hi-jacked the term for bogie** mounted couplings.

 

*I recall that when I was in school, one of my teachers said that short=sighted peaople were lucky as they wouldn't need glasses for close work. I can testify that this is nonsense as I need glasses both close and distant (I was told I was borderline for the Italian driving licence - all I can say is that the requirement is too slack. (A specified letter chart at three metres - no car number plate at 20 metres nonsense - It was 25 yards when I took the British test and I was surprised how easy it was - I had been a bit worried!

**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogie

They were bogies before they were trucks! I liked that the photo captioned 'bogie' appears to be something from across the pond and hence a 'truck''.

As children, we called the wooden carts 'bogies' and I didn't live in Scotland though I am part Scottish.

Waffled on as usual - Sorry!

[Butler Henderson]

On 26/03/2023 at 05:29, DCB said:

I don't see the point of the NEM socket.

Its the point of providing a simple to use standard system to allow for different coupling types to be fitted - there is bound to be a compromsie. Where it has gone wrong with UK models is the failure to use the NEM363 pocket on models which have restricted space like Dapols Bogie Bolster and a greater taake of which beyond Vi Ttrains would no doubt have led to greater number of NEM363 coupling types.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Butler Henderson

[DaveSmith]

I received the 3D printed converters for my Bachmann Small Prairie from Matt at Bluebell Model Rail today. Very nicely designed and printed, my fears about them being brittle proved to be unfounded, they were an excellent snug fit in the NEM pockets on the loco, and Kadee 18s were an equally good fit fit into the NEM pockets on the converters.

Conversion took little more time than it's taken me to write this, and when checked with a Kadee height gauge, they were spot-on and work perfectly with my other converted stock.