Jump to content
 

Parkside Kit - Fitting Couplings


Recommended Posts

Hi! Me again.

Thanks to everyone for your help regarding my other parkside kit where I've messed up on the solebars!

 

This post is about finishing off my first Parkside build, which is another PMV converted to a coach:

IMG_4952.jpg.1f51cd26fc85d8d7d5f7c27ea9b7569c.jpgIMG_4951.jpg.8eda41b917b628c8e2cc3dc15416a834.jpg

 

I've finished the coach except for actually glueing the roof on.. and the couplings.

I read somewhere that Bachmann coupling mount + NEMs are the best thing to use, so I've trial-fitted one at one end using a bit of white tack squished as flat as possible, but the coupling sits too low (here's my J52 for comparison, but it's even low against my Terrier which has very low couplings).

IMG_4945.jpg.3ef4dc6ad6e6777a3fd91c6f2fe63549.jpg

 

And as you can see, the coupling I've used is bent up slightly anyway.

 

Is there a better solution? And if not, how am I meant to attach the Bachmann coupling mounts to the chassis, given that the chassis has two support lines down the middle, which don't quite fit between the gap in the Bachmann Coupling block?

 

IMG_4949.jpg.a5ada4a7cfadd1f156e8bee57a9cef8e.jpgIMG_4947.jpg.579aeda3a97d3eb3d687d2074227012b.jpg

 

Thanks in advance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, alexl102 said:

Hi! Me again.

Thanks to everyone for your help regarding my other parkside kit where I've messed up on the solebars!

 

This post is about finishing off my first Parkside build, which is another PMV converted to a coach:

IMG_4952.jpg.1f51cd26fc85d8d7d5f7c27ea9b7569c.jpgIMG_4951.jpg.8eda41b917b628c8e2cc3dc15416a834.jpg

 

I've finished the coach except for actually glueing the roof on.. and the couplings.

I read somewhere that Bachmann coupling mount + NEMs are the best thing to use, so I've trial-fitted one at one end using a bit of white tack squished as flat as possible, but the coupling sits too low (here's my J52 for comparison, but it's even low against my Terrier which has very low couplings).

IMG_4945.jpg.3ef4dc6ad6e6777a3fd91c6f2fe63549.jpg

 

And as you can see, the coupling I've used is bent up slightly anyway.

 

Is there a better solution? And if not, how am I meant to attach the Bachmann coupling mounts to the chassis, given that the chassis has two support lines down the middle, which don't quite fit between the gap in the Bachmann Coupling block?

 

IMG_4949.jpg.a5ada4a7cfadd1f156e8bee57a9cef8e.jpgIMG_4947.jpg.579aeda3a97d3eb3d687d2074227012b.jpg

 

Thanks in advance!

 

You are using a cranked coupling which is placing the coupling too low - get straight ones.

 

Cut away the two ridges on the floor where you need to glue the coupling blocks.

 

CJI.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

You are using a cranked coupling which is placing the coupling too low - get straight ones.

 

Cut away the two ridges on the floor where you need to glue the coupling blocks.

 

CJI.

Ah ok. So I've checked and the ones I've got are specifically Parkside mounting blocks for Bachmann Couplings.

Would I be looking for Bachmann mounting blocks instead?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are two parts to this

 

1) have a look at this thread which shows the various options for straight and cranked, and long and short 

 

2) the Parkside block can also be adjusted by filing the 'feet' to move it closer to the floor of the wagon (raising the coupling height).

 

Jon

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alexl102 said:

Ah ok. So I've checked and the ones I've got are specifically Parkside mounting blocks for Bachmann Couplings.

Would I be looking for Bachmann mounting blocks instead?

 

The Parkside blocks are correct - it's the Bachmann couplings that are the wrong ones.

 

Yours have a crank in the shaft; you need straight ones; Bachmann make quite a few different sorts.

 

CJI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

The Parkside blocks are correct - it's the Bachmann couplings that are the wrong ones.

 

It's not too surprising that folks might get confused when the Parkside product is described on the Peco web site as being for "...for 36-027 Mk2 Couplings, NEM shaft (cranked) with pocket".  What's worse is that, as noted above, you quite often have to shave the 'feet' of the Parkside mounting block to get the NEM pocket at the correct height i.e. in their unmodified form they often put the NEM pocket too low for the straight couplings, so the cranked coupling is going to be even worse.

 

Bachmann don't help matters by (for hysterical reasons) having multiple variants of what should be a straightforward NEM TLC, many of which seem to be mis-described or have a misleading photo on Bachmann's own web site - in particular 36-061 is described as "Short Straight NEM Coupling with Pocket" but the photo shows it without the pocket: https://www.Bachmann.co.uk/product/short-straight-nem-coupling-with-pocket-(x10)/36-061.  Whereas Rails of Sheffield describe 36-061 as "MK2 NEM COUPLING SHORT STRAIGHT" - no mention of the NEM pocket, and indeed the listing includes a photo of a packet of the things apparently without pockets.  So maybe they're right and Bachmann's description is actually wrong.  It's a bit much if the only way for an unsuspecting modeller to discover the error (whatever/wherever it may be) is by coughing up £10 to buy the darned things.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

Or, if they are using Kadees, then the Kadee height gauge is the appropriate device.

 

Yours, Mike.

Indeed and preferably the double ended version which shows both bottom of buffer beam and the actually coupler height. I assume the platform height end will help with NEMs as well?

https://www.hobbies.co.uk/kadee-ho-scale-insulated-coupler-height-gauge?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaignid=6727975578&utm_campaign=Shopping-Research_Campaign&utm_term=&adid=388174523725&addisttype=gpla&matchtype=&gclid=CjwKCAjwzaSLBhBJEiwAJSRoktUObmD1Dker7Gxb_QgcVUafEaupW-zx4G2-6Iu1CD-ipCuHFzFw_hoCFzAQAvD_BwE

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

Or, if they are using Kadees, then the Kadee height gauge is the appropriate device.

 

Yours, Mike.

 

Yes but the OP clearly isn't which is why I didn't muddy the water mentioning it.

 

19 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

Indeed and preferably the double ended version which shows both bottom of buffer beam and the actually coupler height. I assume the platform height end will help with NEMs as well?

 

What a NEM pocket needs to truly be a NEM pocket, is height from the railhead, and distance from the buffer faces, the kadee gauge only addresses the first, because buffers aren't really catered for in America, and the Europeans who use NEM standards actually seem to follow the standard.

 

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found that a selection of  couplings to go with the pockets is best ( not necessarily cheapest) option

 

I  line up with a RTR wagon when I've used the pockets as I've yet to find an Bachmann coupling at the wrong height for the rest of their range.

I use this as a standard height for kit built wagons where I am using the pockets. 

 

It can take a bit of fettling of the wagon floor or coupling  pocket to get them to mount at the right height for any given coupling.

 

I find it easier to file the pocket legs to go over the wagon  floor ribs when retro fitting.

Be careful with centering the pocket on the wagon floor after doing this.

Removing the floor ribs before construction would be better. 

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
50 minutes ago, jonhall said:

 

Yes but the OP clearly isn't which is why I didn't muddy the water mentioning it.

 

 

What a NEM pocket needs to truly be a NEM pocket, is height from the railhead, and distance from the buffer faces, the kadee gauge only addresses the first, because buffers aren't really catered for in America, and the Europeans who use NEM standards actually seem to follow the standard.

 

Jon

I was careful to say "help" in the context on NEMs and KDs

C

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jonhall said:

Yes but the OP clearly isn't

The topic title is about fitting couplings to Parkside kits and I took this as being more general than the particular TL couplings shown previously, especially as the installation is using NEM pockets, which permit the use of a wide range of couplings.

 

The problem of getting the NEM pocket height right applies to any type of coupling that you might choose to use. I was just pointing out that if you happen to be using Kadees, then the Kadee tool is appropriate. It was your use of the word "anyone" that prompted my posting, since that could be taken to mean any type of coupling.

 

It would be good for everyone if Parkside made it easier to fit NEM pockets in the correct location according to the standard, rather than having to fiddle around as at present.

 

Yours,  Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

It would be good for everyone if Parkside made it easier to fit NEM pockets in the correct location according to the standard, rather than having to fiddle around as at present.

 

 

I think Parkside have probably been as helpful as they could be, in supplying a block that appears to have been designed to be easy to adjust by filing the 'legs' to height (it being easier to take away material than add) - there will be no 'perfect' solution because it will depend on the floor height, buffer length, proximity to the axle, and diameter of wheels fitted, and whilst intended for Parkside, it would be applicable to all non-NEM wagons regardless of manufacturer. I suspect these started out as from the Roger Chivers design, as this is where I first saw this style of mounting block?  They certainly weren't included when the vast majority of Parkside kits were developed, because the NEM pocket is a relatively recent introduction to UK rtr (and was appallingly implemented by the RTR big boys)

 

Where Peco have made things a bit more confusing is to reference "...for 36-027 Mk2 Couplings, NEM shaft (cranked) with pocket" which is probably possible to use, but would involve filing the whole of the legs away and possibly the lower edge of the bufferbeam. It would be helpful for someone to point that out to Peco  suggesting 36-061 Short Straight NEM Coupling with Pocket (x10) or 36-030 Long Straight NEM Coupling with Pocket (x10) would be more sensible recommendations.

 

As a Kadee user, what I would like to see is Parkside/Peco supply the mount AND the pocket together, because if bought separately for 1 wagon, the mount (x2) only costs 68p, but I then need £2.19 of Bachmann couplers, where I put the couplers aside and only use the pocket, and put £4.25 of Kadee in it! I suspect this needs to be moulded in a different type of plastic to get the 'flex', which Parkside under its original ownership might not have been able to do, but which Peco should already be using in other products.

 

Jon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jonhall said:

As a Kadee user, what I would like to see is Parkside/Peco supply the mount AND the pocket together

 

Agree - or alternatively, it surely couldn't hurt Bachmann to sell their 'fishtail' NEM pockets (the ones that fit in the Parkside mounts) separately i.e. without any actual couplings.

 

Hornby spare part number X6354 is a pack of 10 fishtail NEM pockets - if you can find them in stock anywhere.  They look very similar to the Bachmann ones but I don't recall ever experimenting with their interchangeability so I can't say whether they'd be a good match for the Parkside mount.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Agree - or alternatively, it surely couldn't hurt Bachmann to sell their 'fishtail' NEM pockets (the ones that fit in the Parkside mounts) separately i.e. without any actual couplings.

 

Hornby spare part number X6354 is a pack of 10 fishtail NEM pockets - if you can find them in stock anywhere.  They look very similar to the Bachmann ones but I don't recall ever experimenting with their interchangeability so I can't say whether they'd be a good match for the Parkside mount.

 

If a NEM pocket fishtail is a little loose in a Parkside bracket, gently squeeze the socket for the fishtail in the bracket with a pair of pliers. This will tighten the fishtail socket so that it grips the fishtail of the NEM pocket.

 

Gently does it - you can always repeat the operation, but an over-squeezed socket is useless!

 

CJI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

If a NEM pocket fishtail is a little loose in a Parkside bracket, gently squeeze the socket for the fishtail in the bracket with a pair of pliers. This will tighten the fishtail socket so that it grips the fishtail of the NEM pocket.

 

Gently does it - you can always repeat the operation, but an over-squeezed socket is useless!

 

CJI.

 

A bit of tacky wax is an alternative solution

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see that my decision to not use tension locks was correct. :)

 

The relevant NEM standard (362) is here: https://www.morop.org/index.php/fr/nem-normes.html

 

NEM 363 the fishtail type is available in English. (7utghy,,,gv*) I'm not 100% convinced  by this quote,

"Through the elasticity of the receiver, the coupler is held in place, but remains height adjustable".

 

There appears to be a snag in that the top of the (H0) pocket is at 8.5mm above railhead whereas 00 tension locks require 9.5mm. (From measurement - almost certainly 3/8" originally, but we won't argue over 0.1mm.)

 

* Typed by the dog requesting, "Walkies".

Edited by Il Grifone
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 14/10/2021 at 19:29, alexl102 said:

Ah ok. So I've checked and the ones I've got are specifically Parkside mounting blocks for Bachmann Couplings.

Would I be looking for Bachmann mounting blocks instead?

 

No, despite what others have said, you have got the correct couplings. The Parkside blocks are specifically designed for the cranked couplings and are designed to sit on a flat underside, so the mistake here is leaving the ribs on. If you can trim them away then you'll be fine. Otherwise, trim the feet of the block to bring the coupling to the right height. Every one of the dozens of my kits uses these blocks with the cranked coupling and they are all at the right height. Different kits from different manufacturers may require some tweaking, e.g. a little bit of packing here and there or filing the blocks down a shade, but a straight coupling would never be correct unless you used a LOT of packing under the block.

 

This is the only pic I have at the moment showing where they should sit. I tend to move them further back from the bufferbeam these days to get closer coupling, but basically, get the flat desk of the block level with the bottom of the bufferbeam and you are sorted.

 

1840923631_O11Underframe.jpg.45f1a6d8601efc21f2f49f21c05da416.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/10/2021 at 17:00, alexl102 said:

Hi! Me again.

Thanks to everyone for your help regarding my other parkside kit where I've messed up on the solebars!

 

This post is about finishing off my first Parkside build, which is another PMV converted to a coach:

IMG_4952.jpg.1f51cd26fc85d8d7d5f7c27ea9b7569c.jpg

 

 

 

Yep, it's definitely easier to fit couplings with the vehicle upside down, but I usually find it helps to remove it from the layout too!  ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 57xx said:

 

No, despite what others have said, you have got the correct couplings. The Parkside blocks are specifically designed for the cranked couplings and are designed to sit on a flat underside, so the mistake here is leaving the ribs on. If you can trim them away then you'll be fine. Otherwise, trim the feet of the block to bring the coupling to the right height. Every one of the dozens of my kits uses these blocks with the cranked coupling and they are all at the right height. Different kits from different manufacturers may require some tweaking, e.g. a little bit of packing here and there or filing the blocks down a shade, but a straight coupling would never be correct unless you used a LOT of packing under the block.

 

Where I do agree with you is that filing the floor flat to make things easier to mount, but the difficulty I have, is that if the pocket is right for a cranked coupler, then it won't be right for any other NEM coupler you might later want to swap to.

 

Jon

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jonhall said:

 

Where I do agree with you is that filing the floor flat to make things easier to mount, but the difficulty I have, is that if the pocket is right for a cranked coupler, then it won't be right for any other NEM coupler you might later want to swap to.

 

Jon

 

Exactly - the aim should be to get the NEM pocket at the correct height as specified by NEM - if that is achieved, a straight couoler will be at the correct height.

 

Using a cranked coupler is simply using one error to correct another error.

 

CJI.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 hours ago, jonhall said:

 

Where I do agree with you is that filing the floor flat to make things easier to mount, but the difficulty I have, is that if the pocket is right for a cranked coupler, then it won't be right for any other NEM coupler you might later want to swap to.

 

 

Thankfully, I don't want to swap to any other type of coupler, so I'm using the right tool for the right job. I don't care what the NEM spec for pocket height is, as long as the coupler I have is at the right height.

  • Like 1
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...