Whats what and whats RIGHT with NEM couplings and Kadee's.

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, steved99 said:

So guys thanks one and all for the numerous informative replies about my coupling height issues.  I think i will just have to avoid buying any more Bachmann gear, The bulk of Hornby and Dapol stock when I fit with Kadees 17 to 20 do line up quite well with the Kadee height gauge, only some OLDER stuff appears to be a " bit" out where as Bachmann go no where near.   I dont have the skills that many of you folks have for chopping up stock and fitting draft boxes so I'll go the easy route , no more Bachmann

 

I would add that though UK 00 models have massively improved since the 1980s  I now believe they are still behind many European, American and Japanese manufacturers when it comes to standards (and price)

 

I think your solution is a little too drastic. Bachmann's Mk1 range certainly has an issue here, but their other ranges do not , so far as I'm aware. Mk2s are not likely to be relevant to you, but I would be pretty confident their new Bulleid stock should have the pockets at the right height. Check before you buy, but they should be fine. The LMS portholes certainly are.

[newbryford]

5 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Please provide evidence of  British outline 4mm Kadee users who have adopted a height placement for Kadees other than that defined by NMRA S-2 HO / NEM 362  (and Kadee's own gauge). You can't. There is nobody , or almost nobody, doing that

 

And , as noted , the great majority of OO RTR with NEM pockets have them set at the NEM 362 height. The main exceptions - Bachmann Mk1s - are 20 years old or more, and date from the early days of NEM pockets on British RTR. Bachmann got it wrong at the start. They got it right on their Mk2s and they got it right on their LMS Portholes. How does that constitute "Bachmann do not accept or work to NEM 362 height"??. Hornby got it right on their Gresleys. Etc Etc...

 

 

 

 

Have you seen Bachmann HTA hoppers and BYA/BRA steel carriers?

They were supplied with body mounted E-Z mate (Kadee clone)  at UK buffer beam height.

With an optional NEM box and T/L on the bogie.

 

I think the MBA monster box wagons are the same.

 

The body/buffer beam mounted EZs caused a bit of confusion as they obviously don't match the Kadee height gauge and the trip pin is miles away from any track magnet, making them ineffectual for uncoupling

 

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by newbryford

[letterspider]

Sounds like it's time for some conscious uncoupling...?

[Jeff Smith]

A number of good points have been made in this thread regarding the desirability, or not, of using Kadee type couplings on UK stock.

- Most UK stock has magnetic wheels or axles or ballast which is affected by under-track magnets,

- The NEM coupling does not swing from side to side like the regular Kadees so does not work as well.

- On HO bogie stock the couplings are mounted on the body not the bogies.

- HO stock does not have side buffers to get in the way.

TLCs are ugly but Kadees, although looking like a prototype coupling, are not generally used on UK stock (except perhaps on modern coach rakes) so are just as preposterous as TLCs.

However, if you can live with or overcome some of these, the advantages may warrant converting to them.

- Stock can be lifted vertically from a train.

- Stock can be uncoupled using an under-track magnet and then pushed back without re- coupling.

Personally I think they are great for O-16.5 as most used centre buffing couplings anyway!

[Ravenser]

10 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

A number of good points have been made in this thread regarding the desirability, or not, of using Kadee type couplings on UK stock.

- Most UK stock has magnetic wheels or axles or ballast which is affected by under-track magnets,

- The NEM coupling does not swing from side to side like the regular Kadees so does not work as well.

- On HO bogie stock the couplings are mounted on the body not the bogies.

- HO stock does not have side buffers to get in the way.

TLCs are ugly but Kadees, although looking like a prototype coupling, are not generally used on UK stock (except perhaps on modern coach rakes) so are just as preposterous as TLCs.

However, if you can live with or overcome some of these, the advantages may warrant converting to them.

- Stock can be lifted vertically from a train.

- Stock can be uncoupled using an under-track magnet and then pushed back without re- coupling.

Personally I think they are great for O-16.5 as most used centre buffing couplings anyway!

 

Kadees are a reasonable representation of a buckeye coupling. Buckeyes were fitted to virtually all LNER built coaches, most SR coaches and all BR Marks. LNER corridor tenders had , in at least some cases , buckeyes to couple to the coaches

 

And they are pretty similar to the BSI Tightlock couplers used on second generation DMUs and EMUs. I think some big post privatisation wagons have knuckle couplings

 

So Kadees are actually the only couplings that resemble anything found on British prototype vehicles, and vehicles fitted with something similar were and are common , from the inter-war period to the present day.

 

I must admit that I've not come across suggestions of "magnetic ballast" before. I've used a couple of between-the-rails permanent magnets in the fiddle yard, where they serve to release the loco from an incoming train, and there are a couple of electromagnets installed under platform roads. I haven't had any problems.

 

I also have quite a bit of experience of Sprat and Winkle couplings, and I find Kadees - though much more expensive - far quicker and easier to install, easier to set up, and more reliable in operation

 

The fact that there  are at least 3 types of "cottage industry" couplings in use in 4mm scale (Sprat and Winkle, Alex Jackson, B+B) plus 3 links,  and a variety of commercial couplings  (tension lock, Kadees, Roco close couplers), ignoring the very different couplings used in N and 7mm, suggests strongly that "the perfect universal coupler" has not been invented , and never will be.

 

I don't want to veer into the sort of "no excuses will be accepted" evangelism associated with some DCC advocates when it comes to couplings. Different people have different preferences in differing circumstances. In the case of my main layout - a more or less purely passenger operation with lots of DMUs - Kadees are moderately authentic, very effective, and much more convenient than the alternatives

[Jeff Smith]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

Kadees are a reasonable representation of a buckeye coupling. Buckeyes were fitted to virtually all LNER built coaches, most SR coaches and all BR Marks. LNER corridor tenders had , in at least some cases , buckeyes to couple to the coaches

 

And they are pretty similar to the BSI Tightlock couplers used on second generation DMUs and EMUs. I think some big post privatisation wagons have knuckle couplings

 

So Kadees are actually the only couplings that resemble anything found on British prototype vehicles, and vehicles fitted with something similar were and are common , from the inter-war period to the present day.

Presumably the side buffers were (are) removed from these vehicles?

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

must admit that I've not come across suggestions of "magnetic ballast" before.

I took that to mean the metal weight in the rolling stock.

[brossard]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

Kadees are a reasonable representation of a buckeye coupling. Buckeyes were fitted to virtually all LNER built coaches, most SR coaches and all BR Marks. LNER corridor tenders had , in at least some cases , buckeyes to couple to the coaches

 

And they are pretty similar to the BSI Tightlock couplers used on second generation DMUs and EMUs. I think some big post privatisation wagons have knuckle couplings

 

So Kadees are actually the only couplings that resemble anything found on British prototype vehicles, and vehicles fitted with something similar were and are common , from the inter-war period to the present day.

 

I must admit that I've not come across suggestions of "magnetic ballast" before. I've used a couple of between-the-rails permanent magnets in the fiddle yard, where they serve to release the loco from an incoming train, and there are a couple of electromagnets installed under platform roads. I haven't had any problems.

 

I also have quite a bit of experience of Sprat and Winkle couplings, and I find Kadees - though much more expensive - far quicker and easier to install, easier to set up, and more reliable in operation

 

The fact that there  are at least 3 types of "cottage industry" couplings in use in 4mm scale (Sprat and Winkle, Alex Jackson, B+B) plus 3 links,  and a variety of commercial couplings  (tension lock, Kadees, Roco close couplers), ignoring the very different couplings used in N and 7mm, suggests strongly that "the perfect universal coupler" has not been invented , and never will be.

 

I don't want to veer into the sort of "no excuses will be accepted" evangelism associated with some DCC advocates when it comes to couplings. Different people have different preferences in differing circumstances. In the case of my main layout - a more or less purely passenger operation with lots of DMUs - Kadees are moderately authentic, very effective, and much more convenient than the alternatives

 

I think I agree with most of what you say.

 

I fooled around with coach couplings for quite a long time.  I used #20 Kadee but my BIG issue with these is the fore and aft slop.  I wanted to control the between the coach gap, but the slop defeated these efforts.  Very frustrating.

 

My solution was to adopt Tony Wrights system.  It is homemade using NS wire and copper clad glued under the coach:

 

 

This method does use, gasp, soldering, so perhaps not for everyone.  Note the Kadees are still used for the loco end.  Bent soft wire is used to represent vaccum and steam hoses.  The length of hook needs to be tuned to suit curve radii.

 

The final result:

 

 

I found the system to work really well and my gaps were constant.

 

If I were doing this today, I might be using Hunt couplings, much quicker and easier.

 

John

 

[D9020 Nimbus]

21 hours ago, PMP said:

That’s just it, I can’t recall a single UK manufacturer saying their products confirm to standard ‘x’ for either couplings or coupling mounts. Some sell replacement pockets as NEM pockets. So the manufacturers are being quite clear about it.

Incorrect. The Hornby catalogue has a list of symbols at the front, one of which means (in Hornby's own words) "has NEM coupling pockets". To be an accurate description, therefore, the pockets would have to meet some NEM coupling pocket standard, though not necessarily NEM 362: there is NEM 363 as well (plus NEM 355 (N) and NEM 358 (TT) — these are actually identical).

 

Bachmann have a similar symbol which is said to mean "has NEM couplings" which is actually untrue for any OO model it appears against (I assume the Arnold-type N gauge coupling is a standard, but don't know). There are NEM standards for couplings — 359 for TT and 360 — the hook-loop design — for HO.

[jonhall]

1 hour ago, Jeff Smith said:

Presumably the side buffers were (are) removed from these vehicles?

 

They tended to have a collar that extended the buffer for conventional use, and the collar removed and the buffer head pushed back when coupled with buckeyes.

 

Modern (EWS era) BRA/BTA/MBA/MCA/MDA wagons and some 66's have a drop head buckeye, and there are bulk carriers that have 'outer' wagons that are converters by only having buckeyes one end, and 'inners' that are only buckeye.

 

Jon

[brossard]

On my 0 gauge (OK a bit off topic) Hattons/Heljan Gresley coaches I have tried to represent the prototypical coupling arrangements:

 

 

This shows the dropped buckeye coupling.  I cut away the bottom of the gangway in order to gain access for the loco screw link.

 

 

Buckeye represented by an 0 gauge Kadee.

 

John

[Ravenser]

3 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Presumably the side buffers were (are) removed from these vehicles?

 

No . On Mk1 and 2 stock (and I presume also Mk3a stock) the buffers are  too short to engage, unless they are pulled out and held in the extended position by a collar dropped over the shank (Info from Parkin - those who actually work with Mk1s on preserved lines will be able tpo comment in detail)

 

Second generation DMUs and EMUs don't have buffers 

Edited March 31, 2021 by Ravenser
hadn't spotted Jon Hall's reply

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, brossard said:

 

I think I agree with most of what you say.

 

I fooled around with coach couplings for quite a long time.  I used #20 Kadee but my BIG issue with these is the fore and aft slop.  I wanted to control the between the coach gap, but the slop defeated these efforts.  Very frustrating.

 

My solution was to adopt Tony Wrights system.  It is homemade using NS wire and copper clad glued under the coach:

 

 

This method does use, gasp, soldering, so perhaps not for everyone.  Note the Kadees are still used for the loco end.  Bent soft wire is used to represent vaccum and steam hoses.  The length of hook needs to be tuned to suit curve radii.

 

The final result:

 

 

I found the system to work really well and my gaps were constant.

 

If I were doing this today, I might be using Hunt couplings, much quicker and easier.

 

John

 

 

 

Noted. How well dopes this work when propelling - not something I would expect Tony's ECML formations to need to do?

 

The background to this is that I have two Kirk kits in stock , for a Gresley non-corridor push/pull set . I'm intending to use up some of my unwise purchase of MJT coach compensation bogies - which are not compatible with Kadees - on these , as I only need to fit a Kadee to one end of the set.

 

So Tony's approach  is an option for the couplings within the set : but the set will spend half it's life being propelled

[brossard]

The corridor coaches propel very well.  I used folded paper gangways that act as shock absorbers and prevent buffer lock.

 

For NC coaches, you need to add an extra bar soldered to the loop to keep the hook from being pushed backwards.

 

You can just make it out here:

 

 

The two rightmost underframes show the extra bar.  It makes slots for the hooks to ride in.  These are two LMS Pull Push sets converted from the Hornby LMS NC coaches.

 

John

[Jeff Smith]

Yes, magnetic ballast is the weight fitted to many wagons, especially the 4 wheel ones.

 

Buckeye couplers obviously are in use in post war coaches, EMUs and DMUs but these tend to remain together and not individually shunted.  The Kadees however really come into their own for shunting, if that's your passion, but buckeyes on a 1930s branch line do look a bit odd, but so do TLCs!

[brossard]

As for wagons, apart from 3 link, all the others look pretty absurd IMO.  It comes down to what works for you.  I always used Kadee on my wagons.  I never liked magnets for uncoupling and used a bamboo skewer for that.

 

#18 couplers were about the right length as I recall, but they are clunky.  I much prefer the #5 style draft gearbox, it is much less obtrusive and not that hard to install.  Because I used a skewer for uncoupling I could dispense with that ridiculous looking trip pin.

 

John

[Oldddudders]

21 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

Buckeye couplers obviously are in use in post war coaches, EMUs and DMUs but these tend to remain together and not individually shunted.  The Kadees however really come into their own for shunting, if that's your passion, but buckeyes on a 1930s branch line do look a bit odd, but so do TLCs!

As Ravenser noted earlier "Buckeyes were fitted to virtually all LNER built coaches, most SR coaches and all BR Marks.". Certainly Southern Railway standardised on buckeyes for new-builds in 1924, so the entire Maunsell and Bulleid ranges sold by Hornby should have buckeyes. 

[newbryford]

3 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Second generation DMUs and EMUs don't have buffers 

 

Not quite for EMUs:

Class 325s and 442s for starters...

[letterspider]

On 30/03/2021 at 22:04, newbryford said:

 

Have you seen Bachmann HTA hoppers and BYA/BRA steel carriers?

They were supplied with body mounted E-Z mate (Kadee clone)  at UK buffer beam height.

With an optional NEM box and T/L on the bogie.

 

I think the MBA monster box

 

The body/buffer beam mounted EZs caused a bit of confusion as they obviously don't match the Kadee height gauge and the trip pin is miles away from any track magnet, making them ineffectual for uncoupling

 

 

At least with those you could put in a cranked Kadee version to lower the height and recycle the ez mates somewhere else.

I have 17 MBA rake and those EZ mates couplings are very good but you are right they slip when coupled to a (lower) Kadee

[melmerby]

Going back to the original concerns about the height of the "NEM" pockets.

Even newly tooled items are being released with incorrect heights. It's not a problem just with older stock.

e.g. The newly tooled Hornby Praries have straight shanks at the back and cranked shanks at the front.

When trying to put Kadees on such stock with pony trucks it's usually a cobble job with a #17 - #19 fixed other than in the pocket, or a home made stepped adaptor

 

Over the years since the pockets were introduced in the UK I have found at least three different heights and three different lengths of T/L coupling, so trying to use just the 4 NEM shank Kadees is impossible.

Best option in most cases is to completely remove all vestiges of the old mounting and use a Kadee from the #141-#149 range with draft boxes mounted on the underside of the floor of the vehicle or occasionally on the bogie

Edited April 1, 2021 by melmerby

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, letterspider said:

At least with those you could put in a cranked Kadee version to lower the height and recycle the ez mates somewhere else.

I have 17 MBA rake and those EZ mates couplings are very good but you are right they slip when coupled to a (lower) Kadee

 

 

I'm not too familiar with these - I don't have space to run this sort of train - but what happens if you extract the EZ coupler and plug it into the NEM pocket?

 

(I'm assuming Bachmann have done the sensible thing and fitted NEM EZ couplers at a higher height....)

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Going back to the original concerns about the height of the "NEM" pockets.

Even newly tooled items are being released with incorrect heights. It's not a problem just with older stock.

e.g. The newly tooled Hornby Praries have straight shanks at the back and cranked shanks at the front.

When trying to put Kadees on such stock with pony trucks it's usually a cobble job with a #17 - #19 fixed other than in the pocket, or a home made stepped adaptor

 

Over the years since the pockets were introduced in the UK I have found at least three different heights and three different lengths of T/L coupling, so trying to use just the 4 NEM shank Kadees is impossible.

Best option in most cases is to completely remove all vestiges of the old mounting and use a Kadee from the #141-#149 range with draft boxes mounted on the underside of the floor of the vehicle or occasionally on the bogie

 

 

I think we need a list of discrepant stock. So far we have:

 

Wrong height pocket- 

- Bachmann Mk1s (including GUV/BG)

- Hornby 61xx Praire -rear pony

- Hornby Adams Radial 

- Hachette Mk1 SK

 

 

 

(For the sake of good order I've found the following to be fine:

- Hornby Gresleys , corridor and non-corridor

- Bachmann Mk2s

- Bachmann Portholes

- Hornby Shark, LMS 4 wheel CCT

All diesels so far fitted with pockets :

- Hornby 31, 60

- Bachmann 08, 57, 66, 4 wheel PW vehicle

Some kettles:

- Bachmann J11, ROD -O4, Ivatt 2MT 2-6-2T

- Hornby Fowler 2-6-4T, L1, J50

- Hattons 14" Barclay

DMUs -

- Bachmann 108 

- Hornby 101 - power car only (as this is the only vehicle with NEMs..)

- Hornby 153 (fractionally high, but entirely within the height gauge)

The Bachmann 150 is mechanically incompatible with a 153, but seems ok for height

 

Hornby 6 wheeler appears gto be fractionally low, but still couples very effectively with the Kadee gauge

 

I think removing the NEM pockets and mounts completely and installing a hardfit Kadee in all cases is too drastic when a large majority of NEM pockets seem to be fine

[newbryford]

54 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

I'm not too familiar with these - I don't have space to run this sort of train - but what happens if you extract the EZ coupler and plug it into the NEM pocket?

 

(I'm assuming Bachmann have done the sensible thing and fitted NEM EZ couplers at a higher height....)

 

The EZ mate is in a US style draft box - it doesn't have NEM "horns" so won't fit in a NEM pocket.

(The EZ mate can be swapped with a better Kadee - such as a #5 head.)

The draft box is narrower than a NEM pocket.

 

As noted in one of my previous posts about Bachmann wagons - they are mounted at Uk bufferbeam height, so useless with track mounted magnets.

 

The wagons do have a bogie mounted NEM pocket that is near the NEM standard height - supplied with a T/L

[laurenceb]

Heljan are another who fit NEMs at the wrong hight

[D9020 Nimbus]

Are you sure? My Heljan 05 was fitted with cranked couplings which it didn't actually need, and it’s NEM pockets appear to be at the correct height.

 

One issue I've noticed with NEM Kadee is that, when starting a train, there appears to be some weird bouncing back and forth between wagons. I'm not sure TBH whether Kadees are better than TLs or not. I do use Kadees on European H0 stock where there is no de facto standard, even though there is a de jure one (NEM 360 "hook and loop" — they are at least as variable in size and mounting as tension-locks and more problematical, in my experience, in getting them to couple).