Hornby couplings (Close Coupling) NEM pocket

[bertiedog]

Coming with the Southern LSWR Coaches from Hornby are two extra close couplings, which are offered as an alternative to the standard, nice of Hornby.

 

 

But no instructions or description of them supplied, they are obviously NEM pocket compatible, and look like Roco or Lilliput use.

 

Ever helpful Hornby make no mention is made of whether this type can be use on other stock, what locos they would fit, part numbers, compatibility, or any effort to explain them to the customer.

 

I tried on line for greater information, but there is very little, and was unable to get on to Hornby on the phone for details today.

 

Has anybody used these as an alternative to the standard couplings?

 

Will they work with any Loco with NEM pockets?

 

Will different "cranked arms versions" be needed with some locos?

 

Basically would it be worthwhile to change the lot to these as they seem to work very well, and where can they be bought in bulk amounts if needed.

 

Stephen

[phil-b259]

Coming with the Southern LSWR Coaches from Hornby are two extra close couplings, which are offered as an alternative to the standard, nice of Hornby.

 

P1019143.JPG

 

But no instructions or description of them supplied, they are obviously NEM pocket compatible, and look like Roco or Lilliput use.

 

Ever helpful Hornby make no mention is made of whether this type can be use on other stock, what locos they would fit, part numbers, compatibility, or any effort to explain them to the customer.

 

I tried on line for greater information, but there is very little, and was unable to get on to Hornby on the phone for details today.

 

Has anybody used these as an alternative to the standard couplings?

 

Will they work with any Loco with NEM pockets?

 

Will different "cranked arms versions" be needed with some locos?

 

Basically would it be worthwhile to change the lot to these as they seem to work very well, and where can they be bought in bulk amounts if needed.

 

Stephen

 

These are clones of the Roco close couplers - albut slightly longer in the shank than the genuine ones. When coupling Hornby Maunsell, Gresley (gangwayed) or Pullman coaches together you are better off using the genuine Roco article as the Hornby ones still leave a gap.

 

When coupling Stainer or Collet or the various suburban types (including the rebuilt ex LSWR stock) you will find the combination of one Roco and one Hornby works well.

 

Back to back Hornby couplers work with Bachmanns original Mk1 designs (they ones supplied with a cranked tension lock coupler).

 

I cannot comment on locos or wagons as I still use tension locks for these.

[Butler Henderson]

Need to watch buffer locking with the Roco ones on 2ft (and below) curves. If this does arise use a Hornby one for one half of the coupling between two vehciles. Also have found the Roco ones to be more fragile with part of the coupling breaking off.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Butler Henderson

[vitalspark]

The kadee range also works superbly and in the case of Bachmann DMUs closes the gap completely.

 

I use them on my Thompson and Gresley suburbans and much prefer them to the supplied Hornby/Roco type remember though for certain coaches including these you do need to

 

mix two sizes on the same coach for optimum results.

 

Dave. 

[loickebros]

Available in packs of 10 Hornby part No R8220

Dave

[bertiedog]

They appear on experiment not to engage as well as the Roco, but are included in the box, so might as well use on the fixed rake coaching stock, or fixed wagon sets. The Roco do look a bit better made overall,

 

Stephen

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Further to all the above, I have used these inside sets of coaches with CCM in combination with the Roco 40270 for some years now and the performance available - with some care at installation - is 'perfect'. Because it forms a rigid link between the mechanisms it far outperforms Kadee in the matter of holding the train with gangways in contact on straight track, and opening up correctly for curves in all circumstances. I retain Kadee on set ends for its peerless autocoupler performance combined with decent likeness in appearance to a coupler the prototype employs; an unequalled package in these respects.

 

Things that have to be seen to:

 

Free movement of the mechanisms. I work them before use, and add a little graphite powder as long term insurance.

 

Elimination of anything that can snag on vehicle ends, gangway covers have to come off, sprung buffers usually need to be held retracted; a piece of wire insulation slipped onto the inside end of the buffer shaft achieves this reversibly. A wipe of graphite powder on gangway faceplates is a good plan, contact is usually at the bottom, (a happy accident rather than any aim at replicating the prototype?).

 

Distance and height matching of couplers to cope with vagaries in pocket positions and droopiness, by whatever means you choose. Screwing the Hornby coupler on the underside of Bach's overheight mk1 pockets is a favoured ruse. (Roco and other HO manufacturers produce some coupler heads on vertical slides, don't know if this is available on this format coupler).

 

Finally, the aspect that I enjoy most is that all close coupled prototype length gangwayed trains generate slip in the loco starting the train very nicely, as they cannot pick up one vehicle at a time; the train 'moves as a piece' as it should. After a few years operation the gangway faceplates show nice witness marks of the contact.

[Dunsignalling]

 

 

 

 

Distance and height matching of couplers to cope with vagaries in pocket positions and droopiness, by whatever means you choose. Screwing the Hornby coupler on the underside of Bach's overheight mk1 pockets is a favoured ruse. (Roco and other HO manufacturers produce some coupler heads on vertical slides, don't know if this is available on this format coupler).

 

 

Roco part numbers 40286 and 40287. Adjustable height, two different lengths.

 

Not cheap so only used if really necessary. Keen replacement links with the standard ones are the cheaper way to correct Bachmann Mk.1s with the older style CCUs..

 

John

[Bernard Lamb]

I agree with vitalspark the kadee range of couplers is far better for bringing vehicles closer together.

 

 

In the case of the coaches under discussion here I would go along with that comment. At the expense of visual compromise of course.

When it comes to corridor stock a more rigid coupling is far better, as others have pointed out.

Which is what Roco invented them for in the first place.

Why Hornby bother to include them with any stock other than corridor types with close coupling cams I fail to understand. Especially in these times of tight margins.

Bernard

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Hornby's understanding of CCM appears to be very limited indeed. My key piece of evidence: they put CCM on several diesel locos (30/31, 50, 56, 60) where it is mostly a nuisance and especially so with freight stock. Then when they got around to a new HST power car, a locomotive with a gangway for connection to passenger stock, they didn't install CCM. ( I suppose it may have been to forestall demands from purchasers for CCM then logically to be provided on the mk3s.)

[Dunsignalling]

In the case of the coaches under discussion here I would go along with that comment. At the expense of visual compromise of course.

When it comes to corridor stock a more rigid coupling is far better, as others have pointed out.

Which is what Roco invented them for in the first place.

Why Hornby bother to include them with any stock other than corridor types with close coupling cams I fail to understand. Especially in these times of tight margins.

Bernard

In the case of non-corridor stock, which also has close-coupling cams, it brings them closer together, too.

 

However, using two of Hornby's still leaves a gap but one Hornby + one Roco usually gives a nice gentle buffer contact on straight track.

 

The benefits of rigid links apply equally to anything fitted with a CCU.

 

John

[ejstubbs]

I have started using the Roco/Hornby mix within a rake of Hornby Stanier corridor coaches.  At the ends of the rake I've use Kadees to match the loco (a Hornby Black Five).

 

I have found that it is possible to make the Kadees work the CCU mechanism more effectively by immobilising the rotation of the knuckle coupling head with a drop of superglue on the pivot between the coupling head and the body of the coupler ie the bit with the NEM 'fork' on it.  This makes the Kadee coupling that bit more rigid, and means that the CCU will operate so as to avoid buffer lock between the loco and coach when propelling the coach round second radius curves.  The coupling will still uncouple because the trip pin operates the "fingers" part of the knuckle so, provided that you are careful to keep the superglue off the coupler head itself, the coupling will still open when propelled over an uncoupling magnet.

 

I use a Kadee #19 on the end coaches, and a Kadee #5 screwed on the rear of the tender.  When screwed on to the tender, rather than fitted in to a gear box, the #5 coupler does not swing but is exactly the right height for the knuckle to open over a magnet.  This setup provides an adequately rigid coupling to the coach to make the CCU work properly while still uncoupling over a magnet.

 

I know that in theory you don't really need CCU operation between the loco and the first coach, as there's no corridor connection between the two vehicles.  Nonetheless, I still think it looks better not to have to leave a yawning gap between them if there's a way to avoid it.

[Dunsignalling]

They appear on experiment not to engage as well as the Roco, but are included in the box, so might as well use on the fixed rake coaching stock, or fixed wagon sets. The Roco do look a bit better made overall,

 

Stephen

The Hornby ones do improve with use.

 

As has already been pointed out, on some stock they still leave quite a gap and the Roco item or one of each is the solution.

 

Kadees, which I've been using for over 20 years, are excellent but, when used in Close Coupling linkages, don't turn adjacent pairs into rigid units which is how they work best.

 

I use Roco couplers and/or the Hornby version within sets of coaches because they do and keep Kadees for the outer ends and only use them on both ends of NPCCS vehicles etc. that will be attached /detached individually.

 

Whether that is convenient will depend on how frequently one re-forms passenger trains but it's prototypical for me because I model BR Southern Region.

 

John

Edited September 28, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Traingabbler]

Have been experimenting with close coupling using the Roco - Hornby types. I find they are potentially excellent in operation and in end close-coupling results.

However two points arise.

1) I was informed by someone here that the Roco 40270  is shorter (closer coupled) than the 40271- which latter is almost exactly the same as the Hornby version. Having bought both the 40270 and 40271 however, they look exactly of the same length, even under a magnifying glass ! Why so ? Has there been a packaging mistake by Roco or something ?. Are there really supposed to be two length versions of the Roco ?

2) It isn't clear whether either coupling, in its NEM pocket, is supposed to be able to swivel from side to side. I am having to glue the coupling in place without a swivel and note that on radius below about 24" there is a tendency for the resulting rigid coupling to derail the next bogie. But it seems to me that even slotting the forks into a standard NEM pocket would not allow swivelling. 

Has anyone more experience of these ?  There don't seem to be as many recent posts as one would expect if close coupling is really of interest

[RFS]

The couplings are different: look at the picture at the top of the post and there's a solid black square of plastic in the middle on the Hornby version that is absent from the shorter Roco one. 40270 simply refers to a pack of 4 couplings, and 40271 to a pack of 50.  Both are the shorter Roco-version. Hornby's R8220 is a pack of their longer version.

 

These couplings are designed to be fitted to an NEM pocket that is part of a close-coupling mechanism, or to one that swivels. You cannot glue them rigidly in position or you will get the problems you are experiencing. 

 

I use the true Roco ones in Hornby Maunsell and Pullman coaches, and the supplied Hornby-Roco ones in Bachmann MK1 coaches where the NEM pocket is further back. The coaches are close-coupled in sets with a Kadee on the outer ends to couple to locos. I also use both types on wagons which have the "butterfly" type of swivelling NEM pocket.  Which I use depends on how far back the NEM pocket is, and hence allows vehicles to traverse the curves on my layout.

Edited June 6, 2017 by RFS

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Has anyone more experience of these ?  There don't seem to be as many recent posts as one would expect if close coupling is really of interest

 It's a minority sport is my conclusion. Neither of the OO manufacturers who have for over a dozen years been supplying vehicles fitted with CCM actually promote its use and how to get the best from it! (The only UK business I have seen promoting its use is Keen Systems, whose after-market product enables bogie vehicles without CCM to be built or retrofitted with their equivalent mechanism.)

 

However the postings in this thread from those few of us who are interested provide the essential information. It is necessary to invest a little time and effort in optimising the set up of the CCM systems and couplers, but once this has been done they work very reliably in my accumulated experience  - that's well over ten years with trains of up to 12 coaches - and provide far and away the best appearance of gangwayed stock on straight or nearly so track.

[RFS]

 It's a minority sport is my conclusion. Neither of the OO manufacturers who have for over a dozen years been supplying vehicles fitted with CCM actually promote its use and how to get the best from it! (The only UK business I have seen promoting its use is Keen Systems, whose after-market product enables bogie vehicles without CCM to be built or retrofitted with their equivalent mechanism.)

 

However the postings in this thread from those few of us who are interested provide the essential information. It is necessary to invest a little time and effort in optimising the set up of the CCM systems and couplers, but once this has been done they work very reliably in my accumulated experience  - that's well over ten years with trains of up to 12 coaches - and provide far and away the best appearance of gangwayed stock on straight or nearly so track.

 

There are also the close-couplings provided by Symoba which I have successfully used on my Bachmann Bulleid coaches.

 

http://www.dccsupplies.com/search/results/?search=symoba

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

That's handy, hadn't spotted that they now had a UK distributor.

[Traingabbler]

Thanks. But that still leaves the question what exactly do the close couple manufacturers intend ?  Once inserted in the NEM pocket, the coupler has no sideplay - ie can't swivel. So the only means to swivel is if the pocket itself does - but there appear to be no fixings that allow that ! Drilling through the pocket  might be possible, but I haven't tried.

Before converting my 45 top-line (mostly) Hornby coaches I'm experimenting with the excellent (for what they are) Airfix coach kits whose bogies have a sort of pocket in the right place and a spigot which will - just - hold the coupler fork AND allow it to swivel. But to hold in place requires glueng - for which I am using copydex which dries to a certain flexibility. But I don't know how it will stand up to wear and tear.

The result allows close coupling almost to the buffers on 25" radius or on Hornby express points as reverse curves. But I'm still puzzled as to what the designers intended !

[RFS]

Couplings can be rigid​ (Roco, Bachmann "twin-pipe") or flexible (tension locks, Kadees). NEM pockets can be rigid​ (eg moulded as part of bogie) or flexible​ (eg CCM that is completely separate from the bogie).  To couple effectively, at least one component must be flexible - eg Roco coupling + CCM, or tension lock/Kadee + fixed NEM pocket. Both components can be flexible too, but both must not be rigid. 

 

Modern coaches with flexible CCMs allow any coupling to be used - rigid or flexible - but work best with a rigid coupling. 

 

If your coaches do not have this independent CCM then you can either use the Keen or Symoba conversions, or else use a flexible coupling such as Kadee or tension lock. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Thanks. But that still leaves the question what exactly do the close couple manufacturers intend ?  Once inserted in the NEM pocket, the coupler has no sideplay - ie can't swivel. So the only means to swivel is if the pocket itself does - but there appear to be no fixings that allow that !

 What is intended is that these couplers go in an NEM pocket, and have no sideplay in the pocket.

 

The necessary sideplay for curves is provided by the mounting of the NEM pocket, in two forms:

 

On bogie vehicles, as the bogies swivel the NEM pocket mounting both swings and extends proportionately to give extra clearance for the vehicle ends on the curve; this is the 'close coupling mechanism' mentioned in earlier posts The couplers form a rigid bar between the pockets, and this is necessary to restore the coupling position to centreline as the vehicle moves back onto the straight.

 

On non bogie vehicles, the NEM pocket must have a flexible mounting, allowing side to side swing for curves. (I have not used this coupler system on such vehicles, so no experience to report.)

 

 

...Before converting my 45 top-line (mostly) Hornby coaches...

 Might be helpful to identify what these are. Any of the coaches newly tooled since Hornby's move to China I believe have the CCM fitted (all the Pullman cars* with lights, Gresley, Stanier, Maunsell, Hawksworth gangwayed; Gresley, Thompson, Stanier, non-gangwayed) and the  same applies to Bachmann's mk1 and Mk2 gangwayed coach ranges. (The Bach mk1 non-gangwayed do not have CCM.) The sprung buffers of the Hornby coaches typically need to be retracted for curves below 30" radius if buffer locking is to be avoided when pushing: test and retract them as required.

 

*One small complication, the first of the Pullman cars do not have NEM pockets on the CCM, so DIY required on these.

 

 

 

...I'm experimenting with the excellent (for what they are) Airfix coach kits whose bogies have a sort of pocket in the right place and a spigot which will - just - hold the coupler fork AND allow it to swivel. But to hold in place requires glueng - for which I am using copydex which dries to a certain flexibility. But I don't know how it will stand up to wear and tear.

The result allows close coupling almost to the buffers on 25" radius or on Hornby express points as reverse curves. But I'm still puzzled as to what the designers intended !

 The designers of this coupler system never intended it for the adaption you are proposing, but if you can make it work, that's great.

[Traingabbler]

Couplings can be rigid​ (Roco, Bachmann "twin-pipe") or flexible (tension locks, Kadees). NEM pockets can be rigid​ (eg moulded as part of bogie) or flexible​ (eg CCM that is completely separate from the bogie).  To couple effectively, at least one component must be flexible - eg Roco coupling + CCM, or tension lock/Kadee + fixed NEM pocket. Both components can be flexible too, but both must not be rigid. 

 

Modern coaches with flexible CCMs allow any coupling to be used - rigid or flexible - but work best with a rigid coupling. 

 

If your coaches do not have this independent CCM then you can either use the Keen or Symoba conversions, or else use a flexible coupling such as Kadee or tension lock. 

I don't want to use Kadees more than necessary (on ends of rakes) - not just because of price - but because they are still unsightly !

[ejstubbs]

If you think Kadees are unsightly there's always tension locks...

 

Seriously though, the point of the Hornby/Roco couplings is to form a rigid connection between bogied stock - specifically passenger coaches - in order to engage the close coupling cams which increase the distance between vehicles on tight curves. They're not meant to be used as a general coupling precisely because they don't have the sideplay necessary to work with non-bogied stock.

 

If you want something other than Kadees for rake ends and non-bogied stock then (assuming that TLCs are also ruled out) you may need to investigate more esoteric offerings such as Spratt and Winkle (which are really just upside-down TLCs) or the automatic coupler which was being discussed on here a few months back: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/120488-auto-couplings-inexpensive-and-work/

Edited June 7, 2017 by ejstubbs

[Traingabbler]

If you think Kadees are unsightly there's always tension locks...

 

Seriously though, the point of the Hornby/Roco couplings is to form a rigid connection between bogied stock - specifically passenger coaches - in order to engage the close coupling cams which increase the distance between vehicles on tight curves. They're not meant to be used as a general coupling precisely because they don't have the sideplay necessary to work with non-bogied stock.

 

If you want something other than Kadees for rake ends and non-bogied stock then (assuming that TLCs are also ruled out) you may need to investigate more esoteric offerings such as Spratt and Winkle (which are really just upside-down TLCs) or the automatic coupler which was being discussed on here a few months back: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/120488-auto-couplings-inexpensive-and-work/

I've looked at all of them - including Alex Jackson (Made my own hook & wire system many years ago before giving up trains for a few decades). But theyre too fiddly ! The Hornby/Roco look best compromise. Kadees have to do for rake ends. But I think theyre too unsighly for UK stock unless absolutely necessary

[Bernard Lamb]

If you think Kadees are unsightly there's always tension locks...

 

Seriously though, the point of the Hornby/Roco couplings is to form a rigid connection between bogied stock - specifically passenger coaches - in order to engage the close coupling cams which increase the distance between vehicles on tight curves. They're not meant to be used as a general coupling precisely because they don't have the sideplay necessary to work with non-bogied stock.

 

If you want something other than Kadees for rake ends and non-bogied stock then (assuming that TLCs are also ruled out) you may need to investigate more esoteric offerings such as Spratt and Winkle (which are really just upside-down TLCs) or the automatic coupler which was being discussed on here a few months back: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/120488-auto-couplings-inexpensive-and-work/

They are if you model continental stock, where all four wheel wagons and vans have been fitted with close coupling cam devices for around the last twenty years.

Bernard