RTR OO9 Locos and Rolling Stock: Compatibility (physically and prototypically)

[steveNCB7754]

Hi all, just looking for some guidance here, although I almost started this with, "I have friend who thinks he might want to model in OO9" (LOL).

 

Am starting a 'scoping exercise' for a possible layout, combining OO scale (Standard) gauge running on a secondary line, that also interfaces with a small OO9 narrow gauge 'feeder'.  All this is/will be largely fictional, but based on a location (or a combination of locations) that I am familiar with here in Mid-Wales.  All my previous experience has been with standard gauge modelling (OO, plus a small amount of O Gauge).

 

We are now in an era, blessed with a proliferation of RTR OO9 locomotives and rolling stock, with more to come it seems.  Whilst I am not ignorant of full-size narrow gauge practise, my knowledge of the OO9 RTR stuff is certainly much less than for OO.

 

Q1. Are all RTR OO9 locos and rolling stock physically compatible with each other (not withstanding whether the real prototypes would have run together)?  So do they share a common ('standard') coupling and even if 'Yes', do they work well enough to undertake shunting operations (without intervention from 'The great hand in the sky')?

 

Q2. Following on from that: Would it be reasonable to say that, despite whether it is physically possible to run any particular item with another, that in reality, certain coaches, wagons, etc., would only have been seen behind certain types/sizes of loco?  As an example: my gut tells me that deciding to run a (relatively large) PECO OO9 L&B coach, behind a (relatively small) Bachmann Baldwin 10-12-D Tank loco, is a mis-match (even if physically possible), but equally, a small OO9 box van behind a Heljan L&B 2-6-2T, is going to look silly?

 

 

Would appreciate your thoughts, before I stupidly start buying things I cannot (in the present 'crisis') physically go and see/compare.

 

TIA

Steve

 

[Sir Madog]

IMHO, OO9 is a kind of generic gauge, which summarizes British NG from 11´ 11 1/2`` up to 2` 3`` (Talyllyn) railway. All available RTR models run on 9mm track and use the same type of coupler at just about the same hight. Technically, there is no reason you could not operate Peco stock with a Bachmann or Heljan engine. Looking at the prototype, that´s a different story. FR bug boxes from Peco behing a converted Douglas from Bachmann may look odd to the trained eye.

[steveNCB7754]

11 minutes ago, Sir Madog said:

IMHO, OO9 is a kind of generic gauge, which summarizes British NG from 11´ 11 1/2`` up to 2` 3`` (Talyllyn) railway. All available RTR models run on 9mm track and use the same type of coupler at just about the same hight. Technically, there is no reason you could not operate Peco stock with a Bachmann or Heljan engine. Looking at the prototype, that´s a different story. FR bug boxes from Peco behing a converted Douglas from Bachmann may look odd to the trained eye.

 

Thank you 'Sir'.

 

So it probably makes sense to decide in advance, 'My narrow gauge feeder is a 'Glyn Valley Tramway clone' (for instance) and only employ locos and rolling stock pertaining to that operation or 'scale' of business.

 

 

[mcowgill]

Steve,

 

As far as operational compatibility is concerned you shouldn't have any problems, there is a standard coupler that all the manufacturers of UK 009 (and European H0e) stock use with a hinged loop dropping over a fixed hook.  There  can be minor compatibility issues between different manufacturer implementations of the coupler (not always coupling or remaining coupled when pushed together) but most recent models have NEM sockets so troublesome couplings can be easily changed to an alternative. 

 

Narrow gauge stock encompasses a wide range of sizes, remember that some were built as horse drawn tramways and then gained locomotives with a restricted loading gauge, many later lines were built to use larger stock that can look a little odd alongside older/smaller lines rolling stock.  Generally the older the line the smaller it's rolling stock.

 

However there's always a prototype for anything...   The Vale of Rheidol used large stock as it wasn't built until the turn of the century and had no need to restrict it's loading gauge, the carriages are similar in size to the Lynton & Barnstaple and the GWR built locos (009 RTR coming from Model-Rail) are over 8 feet wide, the same width as the SR Hastings Line.  On several occasions the VofR borrowed the Ffestiniog's much smaller Palmerston as seen here https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/media/images/77701000/jpg/_77701883_hr_pal1913.jpg

 

The WD Baldwins are a little different, these were acquired by a number of lines as cheap war surplus locos with little use so could potentially have appeared anywhere.

 

Martin

Edited January 4, 2021 by mcowgill

[steveNCB7754]

3 minutes ago, mcowgill said:

Steve,

 

As far as operational compatibility is concerned you shouldn't have any problems, there is a standard coupler that all the manufacturers of UK 009 (and European H0e) stock use with a hinged loop dropping over a fixed hook.  There  can be minor compatibility issues between different manufacturer implementations of the coupler (not always coupling or remaining coupled when pushed together) but most recent models have NEM sockets so troublesome couplings can be easily changed to an alternative. 

 

Narrow gauge stock encompasses a wide range of sizes, remember that some were built as horse drawn tramways and then gained locomotives with a restricted loading gauge, many later lines were built to use larger stock that can look a little odd alongside older/smaller lines rolling stock.  Generally the older the line the smaller it's rolling stock.

 

However there's always a prototype for anything...   The Vale of Rheidol used large stock as it wasn't built until the turn of the century and had no need to restrict it's loading gauge, the carriages are similar in size to the Lynton & Barnstaple and the GWR built locos (009 RTR coming from Model-Rail) are over 8 feet wide, the same width as the SR Hastings Line.  On several occasions the VofR borrowed the Ffestiniog's much smaller Palmerston as seen here https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/media/images/77701000/jpg/_77701883_hr_pal1913.jpg

 

The WD Baldwins are a little different, these were acquired by a number of lines as cheap war surplus locos with little use so could potentially have appeared anywhere.

 

Martin

 

Thanks Martin,

 

My 'gut feeling' (and I say this having just suffered a tummy bug myself!), is that my fictional narrow gauge 'feeder', will be more of the Welshpool & Llanfair, rather than a Vale of Rheidol.  Perhaps something that started life (as 'Sir Madog' mentions) as a horse-drawn tramway, serving lead-mining operations (with a bit of timber and the odd, sparse, community), that later went 'steam' and obliging decided to run the occasional passenger coach on market days/'high days & holidays'.  So probably at the smaller size range -  I really have taken a shine to the Bachmann Baldwin 10-12-D Tanks, but I wouldn't want it to look like they were pulling stock from a larger scale.

 

Steve

 

[cp409067]

*

 

If some sort of visual uniformity and compatibility is desired I would offer the following advice.

 

You might be inclined to think that RTR items from Peco will look "right" together. As you have specifically mentioned the GVT you might be considering the carriages. They are delightful models whether in prototype or freelance liveries. The same might be said of the L&B 4 wheel vans.

 

However, put the two together and in my opinion they look odd. The reason is simple. The prototype L&B vans are physically quite small as are the models. The result is that when the van is placed next to a GVT carriage the latter is noticeably taller and wider (and incidentally longer).

 

 

CP

Edited January 5, 2021 by cp409067

[009 micro modeller]

1 - yes they do, however the exact coupling height can be slightly different on different manufacturers’ items. Some people advise using Roco/Minitrains skip wagons (if you have these, which a lot of people do) to set the coupling height as the couplings on these cannot be altered easily. The ease with which they can be coupled and uncoupled is somewhat dependent on the method employed to do this, although remote (ramp or magnet) uncoupling is possible.

 

2 - This is correct - as well as slight variations in prototype track gauge for some 009 models, loading gauge is more variable for NG stock than it is for standard gauge. For instance, the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland features the very restrictive loading gauge and small locos (England 0-4-0s etc.) used on the FR, while the WHR uses huge ex-South African Garratts. This is a rare example of where they are seen together but usually this is not the case. Differing width is especially likely to cause issues for passenger stock if a platform is included on the layout.

[BernardTPM]

Wagon sizes can vary a lot according to what they carry, how they are used and the track (determining the axle load). Even in the 19th Century you can see a big disparity on the Festiniog Railway between the small slate wagons (which were, in effect, mobile slate pallets) and the big bogie ballast wagon.

If you're looking at a more general purpose Light Railway Act style line the Welshpool is probably the best guide.

As for coaches, very early ones could be very low slung because of concerns over the centre of gravity. This proved less of a problem than anticipated so anything later than the mid-1870s would be conventionally built (i.e. wheels below floor level rather than sticking through it) unless there was a seriously restricted loading gauge.

[Steven B]

The Bachmann, Peco and I think Heljan models (including the Thomas range) are fitted with the same NEM coupling pocket as used in N Gauge which means you can swap them for the Dapol "Easy-Shunt" couplings if the standard 009 type don't work well enough for hands free shunting.

 

Steven B.

[steveNCB7754]

14 hours ago, cp409067 said:

*

 

If some sort of visual uniformity and compatibility is desired I would offer the following advice.

 

You might be inclined to think that RTR items from Peco will look "right" together. As you have specifically mentioned the GVT you might be considering the carriages. They are delightful models whether in prototype or freelance liveries. The same might be said of the L&B 4 wheel vans.

 

However, put the two together and in my opinion they look odd. The reason is simple. The prototype L&B vans are physically quite small as are the models. The result is that when the van is placed next to a GVT carriage the latter is noticeably taller and wider (and incidentally longer).

 

 

CP

 

Thanks Christopher,

 

Useful information there and does illustrate the potential 'problem' I am worried about.  On the other hand, I can appreciate the position other modellers take, that 'Rule #1 Applies' (i.e. its your layout, so do whatever you want).

 

Steve

 

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, Steven B said:

The Bachmann, Peco and I think Heljan models (including the Thomas range) are fitted with the same NEM coupling pocket as used in N Gauge which means you can swap them for the Dapol "Easy-Shunt" couplings if the standard 009 type don't work well enough for hands free shunting.

 

Steven B.

 

These? https://www.jadlamracingmodels.com/Dapol-magnetic-coupler-medium-arm-5-pairs-n-gauge-da2a-000-008/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIk_HxhfiE7gIVuxoGAB1w4wjyEAQYASABEgKuW_D_BwE

 

They look a bit like Microtrains/Kadee couplings (though probably not compatible). I’ve never seen them used in 009 though, and changing the couplings on some of the smaller skips I mentioned above is virtually impossible as the coupling is integral to the frame. Greenwich couplings would give delayed hands-free uncoupling (with magnets) but they only have the loop on one end (so stock must be a certain way round).

[steveNCB7754]

13 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

1 - yes they do, however the exact coupling height can be slightly different on different manufacturers’ items. Some people advise using Roco/Minitrains skip wagons (if you have these, which a lot of people do) to set the coupling height as the couplings on these cannot be altered easily. The ease with which they can be coupled and uncoupled is somewhat dependent on the method employed to do this, although remote (ramp or magnet) uncoupling is possible.

 

2 - This is correct - as well as slight variations in prototype track gauge for some 009 models, loading gauge is more variable for NG stock than it is for standard gauge. For instance, the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland features the very restrictive loading gauge and small locos (England 0-4-0s etc.) used on the FR, while the WHR uses huge ex-South African Garratts. This is a rare example of where they are seen together but usually this is not the case. Differing width is especially likely to cause issues for passenger stock if a platform is included on the layout.

 

Hi OO9 micro modeller,

 

Thanks for your feedback.  Yes, I imagine there will be a (narrow gauge) platform, built up against the 'rear' of my fictional location's standard gauge one.  So in practical terms, it probably is going to be sensible to choose a coach type first, and let that set the track-to-platform distance, always assuming that any (prototypical) associated wagons are not any wider of course.  Although thinking about it, that also depends on whether you allow mixed trains (so wagons have to be accommodated in the platform road).

 

Steve

 

[BernardTPM]

A lot of narrow gague lines used rail level 'platforms'. The Welshpool used both level and raised ones with steps on the balcony ends for ground level access.

[steveNCB7754]

4 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

Wagon sizes can vary a lot according to what they carry, how they are used and the track (determining the axle load). Even in the 19th Century you can see a big disparity on the Festiniog Railway between the small slate wagons (which were, in effect, mobile slate pallets) and the big bogie ballast wagon.

If you're looking at a more general purpose Light Railway Act style line the Welshpool is probably the best guide.

As for coaches, very early ones could be very low slung because of concerns over the centre of gravity. This proved less of a problem than anticipated so anything later than the mid-1870s would be conventionally built (i.e. wheels below floor level rather than sticking through it) unless there was a seriously restricted loading gauge.

 

Hi BernardTPM,

 

Thanks for that insight.  Yes, I don't think (at this stage anyway) I envision operations are going to require the larger capacity/heavier rolling stock types (think, 'Oh Mr Porter' starring Will Hay, rather than the Festiniog 'Roofing The World').  On the other hand, having casually suggested lead mining as a source of trade (an activity which was historically common in the district), that I had better investigate what was actually 'exported'.  One local farm I have known for many years, has the remains of such a mining operation (which I understand, was often a Winter/supplementary activity on such properties).  There appears to have been a wooden 'leat' on the main stream nearby, leading to what looks like a waterwheel 'pit', suggesting ore processing of some sort on-site.  So presumably, only the finished product (actual lead, in ingot form?) left the site, probably on pack animals.  Whether that would be true of such operations, if a railway was to hand, I'm not sure at the moment.  Obviously, from a rolling stock/operational perspective, there is a difference between hauling out just the 'finished' lead, as opposed to shifting relatively large quantities of lead-bearing rock (to be processed elsewhere).

 

Steve

 

[steveNCB7754]

1 hour ago, Steven B said:

The Bachmann, Peco and I think Heljan models (including the Thomas range) are fitted with the same NEM coupling pocket as used in N Gauge which means you can swap them for the Dapol "Easy-Shunt" couplings if the standard 009 type don't work well enough for hands free shunting.

 

Steven B.

 

Hi Steven B.

 

That's good to know, thanks.

 

Steve

[009 micro modeller]

19 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

A lot of narrow gague lines used rail level 'platforms'. The Welshpool used both level and raised ones with steps on the balcony ends for ground level access.

 

Of course, but there can still be width issues if using stock built to vastly different loading gauges. It also means making sure that any steps fitted to the stock are appropriate for the low platform level.

[PaulRhB]

Ok compatibility is well dealt with above but also note the wide variety of stock run together on real ng lines. The FR has Victorian bug boxes running alongside modern large bogie stock and while the GVT coaches are indeed bigger than the L&B 4whl goods stock the same goods stock ran behind the much longer L&B coaches. 009 covers from small 2ft gauge to large and up to 2ft 6in prototypes so the vehicle size can vary a lot. 
 

Manufacturers

Peco do an excellent range of L&B, GVT and increasing range of Festiniog stock. 
These look great with the Heljan Manning Wardles, (the MW’s are probably the most troublesome 009 rtr loco due to not liking 12” radius or below without minor mods, see the thread on them in Heljan), the Fourdees GVT locos and the Kato FR England & Fairlies are sure to be a fine runners too. 
The Bachmann Baldwin is superb and available in several prototype and a couple of freelance liveries such as Southern to match L&B stock. 
The Minitrains range offers some nice European prototypes plus a nice Bagnall that look good with most Peco stock. 
Also see Bachmann’s 009 Thomas range as the Talyllyn coaches and slate wagons are lovely models although the other  goods stock is just reboxed Peco models at a slightly higher price!

 

[D9020 Nimbus]

3 hours ago, Steven B said:

The Bachmann, Peco and I think Heljan models (including the Thomas range) are fitted with the same NEM coupling pocket as used in N Gauge which means you can swap them for the Dapol "Easy-Shunt" couplings if the standard 009 type don't work well enough for hands free shunting.

 

Steven B.

Have you actually tried this, I wonder? Yes, you can fit Dapol Easi-Shunt couplings in the pockets on Peco 009 stock (which you can't do on Farish stock fitted with NEM pockets,  but that's another story) but they don't work. I found that the two Dapol couplings just butted up against one another and would not couple. I presume they rely on there being some side-to-side movement being allowed by the coupling box, but the Peco ones are totally rigid.

 

Clearly the Dapol couplings don't work in the same way as the Kadee NEM 362 couplings do.

 

The Peco 009 wagons also can't work with Fleischmann 'N' Profi-Couplings which form a rigid connection as NEM close couplers are supposed to, if you want your wagons to go round any curves at all that is…

 

There's more to NEM fittings than just the dimensions of the box, though most UK manufacturers don't seem to realise this.

[PaulRhB]

I managed it as the video below and I use them on all my HOm Harz stuff too. They certainly aren’t as good as the Microtrains couplers but more hands off than hook and loop. 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by PaulRhB

[009 micro modeller]

3 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

The Minitrains range offers some nice European prototypes plus a nice Bagnall that look good with most Peco stock. 

 

Based on Charlie Insley’s winning design in the competition held at the 009 Society 40th anniversary convention of course.

 

I have a couple of Minitrains Gmeinder diesels. The slow running is superb, and thanks to a flywheel they are very smooth. However they are perhaps a bit overscale and not as detailed as some people might like. Despite the supposedly German influence they fit in well on British outline layouts in my opinion.

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Have you actually tried this, I wonder? Yes, you can fit Dapol Easi-Shunt couplings in the pockets on Peco 009 stock (which you can't do on Farish stock fitted with NEM pockets,  but that's another story) but they don't work. I found that the two Dapol couplings just butted up against one another and would not couple. I presume they rely on there being some side-to-side movement being allowed by the coupling box, but the Peco ones are totally rigid.

 

Clearly the Dapol couplings don't work in the same way as the Kadee NEM 362 couplings do.

 

The Peco 009 wagons also can't work with Fleischmann 'N' Profi-Couplings which form a rigid connection as NEM close couplers are supposed to, if you want your wagons to go round any curves at all that is…

 

There's more to NEM fittings than just the dimensions of the box, though most UK manufacturers don't seem to realise this.

 

I haven’t actually seen the Dapol couplings in real life, however I’m confused as to why they would be seen as a better option than the standard 009 coupling. My Kadee mention was just because they appear to be a form of knuckle coupler, although obviously with a lot of differences. I think the fact that I’ve never seen them suggested or used for 009 (as opposed to Microtrains, Greenwich, Bemo, Rapido/Elsie, among others) might suggest that they aren’t particularly suitable. I’m willing to be told otherwise though.

[PaulRhB]

32 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I think the fact that I’ve never seen them suggested or used for 009 (as opposed to Microtrains, Greenwich, Bemo, Rapido/Elsie, among others) might suggest that they aren’t particularly suitable. I’m willing to be told otherwise though.

Er, two posts up uploaded 4 years ago  

 

Also I use them on my Südharz show layout quite successfully. While not 100% reliable and don’t have the delayed uncoupling option of Microtrains ones they do fit NEM pockets which is the main reason I use them instead of Microtrains. It would need quite a lot of modification to fit the Microtrains ones to some locos. 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by PaulRhB

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

Er, two posts up uploaded 4 years ago  

 

Also I use them on my Südharz show layout quite successfully. While not 100% reliable and don’t have the delayed uncoupling option of Microtrains ones they do fit NEM pockets which is the main reason I use them instead of Microtrains. It would need quite a lot of modification to fit the Microtrains ones to some locos. 

 

 

 

Do you find that they work better than Bemo-type couplers?

[PaulRhB]

4 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Do you find that they work better than Bemo-type couplers?

Well I use the Bemo style ones within fixed rakes still as I made a boo boo on the first section of the layout and fixed the magnets permanently, this meant any slight stutter from the loco caused uncoupling mid train. On the next two sections I put the magnets on drop flaps which solved the problem. 
Bemo ramp uncouplers work but are visually too unrealistic in the track. The Dapol couplers couple well, even with free rolling stock, and stay together well in running as long with only fixed magnets in the track causing potential issues as above. 
Uncoupling generally works well with a decent sized magnet under the track, I use kadee 308’s on a simple hinge pulled up into position with cord. Very free rolling stock can recouple rather easily so some had a cube of foam added, glued to the chassis, rubbing the axle. 
For hands off I’ve been happy with them and was going that way with 009 but as a group of us built modules and we wanted operation based it was decided to stick to hook n loop. Most of the groups existing stock didn’t have NEM pockets and was already fitted with Bemo, Peco or Greenwich 009 loops so we stuck with manual uncoupling. 
So overall the Dapol ones have advantages if you want hands off uncoupling but the Bemo style hook n loop are reliable and generally supplied on stock so cheaper. 

[009 micro modeller]

19 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Bemo ramp uncouplers work but are visually too unrealistic in the track.

 

I found this, but used ramps anyway. However, Greenwich couplings can be used with magnetic uncoupling, and in theory it should be possible to get normal Bemo-type couplings to also uncouple magnetically. I just decided that for my purposes I wanted to avoid any issues with small, light wagons and powerful magnets, though I might try them in future.

 

However, I did have a slight issue with the ramps, and I think that a similar issue would exist with “standard” (non-Greenwich) couplings of this type if using magnets. The problem is that both couplings have a loop, so the ramp (or magnet) needs to lift both of them at the same time, even though the bottom of each loop is in a different position. With small skip wagons this is very difficult, though I think it would be slightly easier with larger and heavier vehicles. My very crude solution was to remove one loop from each wagon, so that on one end they only had a hook. This worked OK for a single-ended shunting layout; anything involving run-round loops would need to have a loop fitted to one end of the loco (as with Greenwich couplings).

Edited January 6, 2021 by 009 micro modeller