Hornby couplings (Close Coupling) NEM pocket

[RFS]

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.

 

 

They do work with non-bogied stock provided that you're using the flexible NEM pockets with "butterfly" attachment.  I have a number of close-coupled freight trains using this method. 

[The Johnster]

Last year, I gave up using 'scale' couplings, mostly Smith's but a few other in there as you had to buy what was available when it was available in this part of the world in the old days, because my eyesight and steadiness of hand were no longer up the task of reliably coupling up with them, and, the final straw, my local shop told me that they were overdue a delivery of Smith's by 6 months and weren't expecting any in the forseeable future.  I considered Kaydess, but rejected them because of my confusion over the plethora of different numbers and their appearance, and plumped for tension locks.  Before anyone comments that t/ls are just as unsightly as Kaydees, the difference is that t/ls do not convey to my mind that an American coupling has been put on to British steam age stock (I do not model the Southern or LNER and have none of their buckeye fitted main line coaches, though I have since purchased a mk1 BG).  On stock without buffers, which includes much modern image British stuff, I have less objection to them.

 

Expecting all my problems to be over now that I had accepted the use of a train set coupler that should be bombproof, I hit trouble straight away!  Everything's easy nowadays, isn't it, I reasoned (I shouldn't reason except under supervision, it's not my strongest point), with all these NEM mountings and whatnot.  Ah, that first fine careless rapture, more like rupture... Firstly, of course, any stock I wished to continue to use from prior to this coupling decision had been fitted with scale couplings, and that meant in some cases that the original t/l mountings had been cut off and binned years ago, so I had to make up new mountings to accept the new couplings.  I made the rather silly mistake, which I should have known better than to do because I'm not exactly a rookie, of assuming that all the couplings had to be the same height as measured below the solebars; they have to be the same height all right, but as measured above the railhead!

 

Then there were a couple of months when NEM pockets were not available locally; in fact at no time have I been able to buy sufficient quantities of the same type of coupling to standardise.  So, I have several different makes and profiles of t/l coupler, some on wagons glued straight to home made mounts, and some of different types on different ends of the same vehicle, which is ok because those particular two couplings never have to couple to each other...

 

I have managed to get the bars all the same height, but of course they are of several shapes, sizes, and cross section, and each does not like accepting a different type of hook.  The droppers are a similar eclecticism of shapes, sizes, and heights from the railhead, and the distance between headstocks differs by type as well, so my trains are not only not properly close coupled, but vehicles are coupled at different distances from each other within trains.  I've decided that life is too short to let it bother me and am living with it.

 

My passenger stock runs in permanent rakes, as does my coal train, but pickup and parcels traffic has to be shunted properly and for this I have had to build two different shunting poles of different shapes to be able to cope with all eventualities.  Coupling up is pretty good, but it is wise to check that the hooks are horizontal and engaged with the bars before moving off, but uncoupling varies, and is not yet perfect; occasionally I give up and the Hand Of God is called upon.  I tried to buy NEM pockets again last week; out of stock again locally.

 

But it's mostly reliable, in fact coupling up is 100% reliable if you check first, and I enjoy shunting.  But it took a lot more faff than it should have to get to this state, and some of the problems have been with new rtr stock bought since the t/l conversion; several of the dovetail type have broken and the ones on a Baccy parcel van had to be glued in to stop them falling out with the train in motion.

 

I am impressed by modern CCM for rakes of express passenger stock, but it has little application for my 1950s blt!

[ejstubbs]

They do work with non-bogied stock provided that you're using the flexible NEM pockets with "butterfly" attachment.  I have a number of close-coupled freight trains using this method.

 

But is that any different to using eg a Kadee coupling of the correct length ie so that the inner face of the knuckle is in line with the buffer faces? As far as I'm concerned, unless the stock is fitted with close coupling cams (and I'll admit that I was not aware of the continental manufacturers’ application of CCM to non-bogied stock) all you're doing is tweaking the coupling distance to be "as close as possible without risking buffer lock" which IMO is very much *not* the same as true "close coupling".

[RFS]

But is that any different to using eg a Kadee coupling of the correct length ie so that the inner face of the knuckle is in line with the buffer faces? As far as I'm concerned, unless the stock is fitted with close coupling cams (and I'll admit that I was not aware of the continental manufacturers’ application of CCM to non-bogied stock) all you're doing is tweaking the coupling distance to be "as close as possible without risking buffer lock" which IMO is very much *not* the same as true "close coupling".

 

Indeed, I agree it's not a CCM with the freight stock that I use.  The Roco coupling allows me to reduce the distance between vehicles and to provide a neater coupling than the tension lock, which is not easy to uncouple. Having quite a few Maunsell coaches which come with a pair of the Hornby version, I had a lot of spare couplings.  The Maunsells need the real Roco coupling to get proper close coupling. At around £1 a pair the Roco ones are half the price of Kadees.  Also with the varying heights of NEM pockets on Hornby and Bachmann wagons fitting Kadees can be problematic, especially making sure the forward-facing pin does not strike point rails. I've used a mixture of spare Hornby and bulk-bought Roco couplings for all the freight stock depending on pocket position. They have the added advantages of being slightly more tolerant of varying pocket heights, plus I don't get unwanted uncoupling when the trains pass over Kadee uncoupling magnets.

[phil_sutters]

I never understood why the unsightly, difficult to uncouple manually, Triang tension lock was selected over the Hornby-Dublo / Peco style hooks. It was probably because it was Triang/Rovex that was doing the taking over, I guess. Most of my 50 year-old stock still have the original Peco hooks and if I were to build or convert more and plan to run them, rather than sit them in a diorama, I would still use them. I believe that they are still available.

Edited June 7, 2017 by phil_sutters

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I never understood why the unsightly, difficult to uncouple manually, Triang tension lock was selected over the Hornby-Dublo / Peco style hooks...

 I do. As a child I had access to both in use on layouts. For all its faults the TL stayed coupled up, the Peco Simplex didn't. In metal form it isn't robust enough to withstand play, and getting it trued up to work reliably was near impossible, and the later plastic type is incompatible with it, if vehicles are expected to autocouple and stay coupled up. An inadequate design.

 

 

...Then there were a couple of months when NEM pockets were not available locally; in fact at no time have I been able to buy sufficient quantities of the same type of coupling to standardise.  So, I have several different makes and profiles of t/l coupler, ...I have managed to get the bars all the same height, but of course they are of several shapes, sizes, and cross section, and each does not like accepting a different type of hook.  The droppers are a similar eclecticism of shapes, sizes, and heights from the railhead, ...Coupling up is pretty good, but it is wise to check that the hooks are horizontal and engaged with the bars before moving off, but uncoupling varies, and is not yet perfect; occasionally I give up and the Hand Of God is called upon...!

 As your observations extracted here demonstrate, if at all possible standardise on a single maker's design. They are not truly compatible if complete reliability is desired, because there is no single standard design in use.

[Dunsignalling]

I've always been convinced that the weakness of the Peco-HD coupler was that it didn't self-centre.

 

All my wagons get Kadee 141 or 146 couplers (which do) as required and give no trouble whatsoever. The draft boxes are much less bulky than the NEM mount/pocket, which I remove, and there is much more daylight under the ends of wagons as a consequence. I do this on lwb Bachmann passenger rated vans, too because the CCUs droop so much. My previous solution would have been Gutzold 1170 CCUs, which have disappeared from the market but I notice the Symoba unit is similar.

 

I only use the NEM mount Kadees in CCUs and where fitting the Whisker type just involves too much work. My rebuilt LSWR 2-set has Kadees (18s) throughout so I can run the BCL alone as per prototype when the mood takes me. I'll try disabling the inner pivot if I get problems, but they keep the buffers in contact and haven't given any trouble so far.

 

Otherwise, carriage sets get the trusty combination of Roco/Hornby inside  with Kadees just at the ends (+ Keen replacement links on Bachmann Mk.1s).

 

John

Edited June 8, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I see the Kadee design as the fulfillment of the underlying promise of the Peco Simplex: the good principle developed into a satisfactory solution. (Remains too delicate for children's play though I should think. Our idea of coupling up was a scale 50mph and up...)

 

Odd thing I have about the Kadee, and its clones. Completely happy with it on Pullman gangwayed coaches; what could be better, an efficient  autocoupler that looks decently close to what the prototype carried? But on 4W 'steam era' wagons, no go for me. The miniature tension lock not only looks a lot better, but functions in a superior manner for loose coupled stock: when appropriately positioned (not as the mfrs do it!) allowing buffering up when pushing, and pulling out to scale separation between bufferheads.

[31A]

I've always been convinced that the weakness of the Peco-HD coupler was that it didn't self-centre.

 

 

 

It doesn't need to, as long as the side to side travel is limited correctly - in fact it needs to be able to swing very freely in order to work reliably.  I've found versions of it with self centring devices (such as some HD stock with a rubber tube extension acting as a centring spring) to be less reliable than freely swinging ones.  I used HD and Peco couplings for years and still have them on my 1930s period rolling stock; if only there was an NEM version I'd change the modern BR period RTR stock straight away.  But we have been here before ...

[Budgie]

Similarly to other people here, I use these couplers within my coach sets, with Kadees on the ends. However, I had a problem today when coupling two sets of Colletts together; the NEM pockets seem not to be at the same height on the brake vehicles, and the weight of the train behind the coupling caused a large number of separations. So to get this to work, I replaced the Kadees between the two sets with another pair of these couplings, and all was well.

[retiredoperator]

Hi Modellers.  I, in my haste fitted the standard NEM Couplings, as you do? To one coach without realising that I had got it wrong , until that is I found the “Close Couplings “ . Now I am stuck, with my fat arthritic fingers, I cannot change the Couplings, I tried with tweezers, long nose pliers, if I had long nails I may have a chance. Is there perhaps someone out there that could suggest how to remove the standard NEM Coupling to the end so that I can have the close Couplings in the centre?   Happy modelling Kev 

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, retiredoperator said:

Hi Modellers.  I, in my haste fitted the standard NEM Couplings, as you do? To one coach without realising that I had got it wrong , until that is I found the “Close Couplings “ . Now I am stuck, with my fat arthritic fingers, I cannot change the Couplings, I tried with tweezers, long nose pliers, if I had long nails I may have a chance. Is there perhaps someone out there that could suggest how to remove the standard NEM Coupling to the end so that I can have the close Couplings in the centre?   Happy modelling Kev 

Hi Kev

This is a perennial problem. The trick is to use a pair of fine tweezers to push together the two parts of the swallow tail behind the NEM socket and while doing so apply just enough force to pull the coupler free. It's always a bit tense as you're applying force in a part of the model that usually has a number of fairly fragile bits like brake pipes and buffers so it can feel a bit like pulling out a bee sting without killing the bee. With second hand vehicles I'm always a bit nervous that the previous owner may have "just used a dab of glue" to secure a loose coupler. I use Kadee couplers and they're made tofine tolerances but a frequent problem is when the the NEM socket is a bit too long so the swallow tail can never open up properly to secure the coupler.

It really annoys me that tirty yeas or more since NEM 362 was agreed some manufacturers don't seem able to follow it.

1) This dimension may be varied where kinetic coupler sockets (close coupler units) are used so long as buffers don't foul one another

 

 

There's nothing here that even the dimmest production manager should find difficult to follow.

[Pacific231G]

On 07/06/2017 at 23:39, phil_sutters said:

I never understood why the unsightly, difficult to uncouple manually, Triang tension lock was selected over the Hornby-Dublo / Peco style hooks. It was probably because it was Triang/Rovex that was doing the taking over, I guess. Most of my 50 year-old stock still have the original Peco hooks and if I were to build or convert more and plan to run them, rather than sit them in a diorama, I would still use them. I believe that they are still available.

That's simple Phil. Though it's mostly associated with Hornby Dublo the Simplex coupler was patented by Sidney Pritchard in the mid-late 1940s (the US patent was granted in 1952) and I undertand that the licence that Meccano Ltd. bought from him provided much of the capital he used to set up the Pritichard Patent Products Company aka Peco. Trix tried to use a similar coupler but were found (or agreed out of court) to be in breach of Pritchard's patent  so also paid him.

 

The Lines brothers wanted to produce  a far cheaper model railway range  than H-D so for Tri-ang adopted a rather coarse version of the hook and bar coupler that had been used (unpatented) since before the war. A.R.Walkley used an early  version of it on his 3.5mm/ft  scale "portable goods yard" layout in 1925 but may not have been the first.   

 

I'm not sure when Pritchard's patents would have expired but presumably after Lines brothers absorbed Hornby Dublo as Tri-ang Hornby. but in any case Tri-ang Hornby was effectively Tri-ang so carried out using the same tension lock couplers that have become the defacto "standard" British couple. I can't quite decide whether it's more or less horrible than the wretched hinged loop coupler that's effectively the standard in the rest of Europe

 

It's interesting that the American "Baker" coupler worked on the same principle bur was much neater and these were used until the end of his life by John Allen for the famous Gorre and Daphetid. Keith and Dale Edwards' invention  of an automatic and later magnetic coupler that looked like the standard American AAR coupler (even though it works rather differently) swept aside couplers like the Baker and the  awful NMRA X2F "Horn Hook" coupler that probably still comes with "shake the box" freight car kits (and that modellers have been throwing away for decades)

Edited March 11, 2019 by Pacific231G

[retiredoperator]

Hi Pacific 123 G.  Thank you. I also use Kadee on my Inglenook wagons. But I don’t intend to uncouple the coaches, just to have them running up and down a short branch line. I also agree with comments made about the tension lock Couplings, they are like a large fishing hook that has been straightened on the front, or rear of a train, looking nothing like any prototype Coupling . They were presumably made for convenience .  Happy modelling Kev 

[Oldddudders]

Kev - have you tried simply pulling the coupler? It sometimes does the trick. Hold the NEM sleeve down with the thumb of one hand and give a good tug with the other. I find long-nose pliers do work at the far end, but getting onsite to those two little plastic nubs can be tricky. If all else fails, can you cut the coupler head off the shaft with side-cutters? The shaft can then be pushed out of the nub end.

 

I hope you have a success, whatever the route!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

...There's nothing here that even the dimmest production manager should find difficult to follow.

It is simple, but it is typically the designer that introduces the problem. If the design doesn't conform to spec. then faithful execution of the design by those in tooling and manufacturing delivers the error. Classic GIGO.

 

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

...tension lock couplers that have become the defacto "standard" British couple. I can't quite decide whether it's more or less horrible than the wretched hinged loop coupler that's effectively the standard in the rest of Europe...

In its present miniature form there is parity. Nothing like the prototype but at least fairly neat and unobtrusive, and if a Kadee level of attention is given to correct installation it performs reliably.

 

On ‎07‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 21:12, ejstubbs said:

...all you're doing is tweaking the coupling distance to be "as close as possible without risking buffer lock" which IMO is very much *not* the same as true "close coupling".

Coming back to this aspect. I truly prefer the best miniature tension lock that I have encountered over Kadee for UK steam operation of four wheel wagons. That's because for the dominant loose coupled train they can be set to deliver a loose coupled effect, buffering up when pushed, pulling out to scale for 6" between buffer faces when pulled.

 

So far so good. 'The problem' is the close coupled fitted freight train. There is at present no RTR coupler available to deliver the all buffered up capability that the CCM produces so nicely on bogie coaches when on straight or nearly so track. Unless I have overlooked something there is no RTR solution in HO either. I am going to have to go back to the old DIY sprung drawbar and buffers rig. That'll be something to keep me busy then...

 

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, retiredoperator said:

Hi Pacific 123 G.  Thank you. I also use Kadee on my Inglenook wagons. But I don’t intend to uncouple the coaches, just to have them running up and down a short branch line. I also agree with comments made about the tension lock Couplings, they are like a large fishing hook that has been straightened on the front, or rear of a train, looking nothing like any prototype Coupling . They were presumably made for convenience .  Happy modelling Kev 

Hi Kev

For coaches run as sets have you looked at the coupling bars designed for NEM sockets?  Some are simple bars but others are designed to look like screw link couplers (I have them within a rake of four non-corridor local/suburban coaches) Unless someone has done a more elastic type (whioch ought to be possible they do need the sockets to have sideways movement but few if any manufacturers now use fixed sockets.

[Pacific231G]

55 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

It is simple, but it is typically the designer that introduces the problem. If the design doesn't conform to spec. then faithful execution of the design by those in tooling and manufacturing delivers the error. Classic GIGO.

 

In its present miniature form there is parity. Nothing like the prototype but at least fairly neat and unobtrusive, and if a Kadee level of attention is given to correct installation it performs reliably.

 

Coming back to this aspect. I truly prefer the best miniature tension lock that I have encountered over Kadee for UK steam operation of four wheel wagons. That's because for the dominant loose coupled train they can be set to deliver a loose coupled effect, buffering up when pushed, pulling out to scale for 6" between buffer faces when pulled.

 

So far so good. 'The problem' is the close coupled fitted freight train. There is at present no RTR coupler available to deliver the all buffered up capability that the CCM produces so nicely on bogie coaches when on straight or nearly so track. Unless I have overlooked something there is no RTR solution in HO either. I am going to have to go back to the old DIY sprung drawbar and buffers rig. That'll be something to keep me busy then...

 

Most of my relatively modern H0 goods wagons came fitted with close coupling units. I keep a variety of Kadee NEM couplers and it's sometimes a bit trial and error to choose the one that gives the closest possible coupling without buffers actually touching so preventing the couplers from working but that's no different from my coaches.

Loose coupling disappeared in the rest of Europe a lot earlier than it did here. Four wheel wagons were generally longer than the typical British 10ft WB so there is a bit more room to fit the unit but this wagon made by Lilliput quite some time ago is a fairly typical example 

 

Because of its need for an extra hinge for the coupler head the Kadee coupler for NEM sockets is noticeably more obtrusive than the standard solid shank version for NMRA draft boxes. I'd have though with modern materials that it should be possible for them to come up with a similar unit to fit in the narrower NEM socket with enough sideways movement to function properly. but that's maybe something they researched ansd found impracticable.   I know that some people who use Kadees with European stock discard the NEM sockets and fit standard Kadee draft boxes directly to the vehicle but that means butchering what have become rather expensive models.

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

'The problem' is the close coupled fitted freight train. There is at present no RTR coupler available to deliver the all buffered up capability that the CCM produces so nicely on bogie coaches when on straight or nearly so track...

One mug of coffee later and a potential solution has lurched into my mind. I am going to experiment with miniature magnets using the currently redundant heap of Hornby MTL's which have steel hooks. Should be possible to arrange so that the bumper bars are drawn into contact by magnetic attraction of the hooks to magnets mounted on the other coupler frame.  With the NEM pocket shortened in my usual fashion to place the centre of the bumper bar face in the plane of the buffers, the buffers will be in contact on straight track but able to space out on curves. Worth some tinkering time.

[retiredoperator]

3 hours ago, retiredoperator said:

Hi Pacific 123 G.  Thank you. I also use Kadee on my Inglenook wagons. But I don’t intend to uncouple the coaches, just to have them running up and down a short branch line. I also agree with comments made about the tension lock Couplings, they are like a large fishing hook that has been straightened on the front, or rear of a train, looking nothing like any prototype Coupling . They were presumably made for convenience .  Happy modelling Kev 

 

[retiredoperator]

Oldddudders. As I said “ Fat arthritic fingers “, I do realise that the Couplings could Pull out, but knowing my luck, I don’t want to wreck it.

Happy Modelling   Kev 

 

Hi David.  Thank you for the info. I will jot that in my Model Railway Notebook for future reference. For now though I will have another go, carefully, at removing the Couplings in the Hornby Set. Happy Modelling Kev 

[The Johnster]

Having commented last year that CCM has no real application on my tension lock equipped BLT with no gangwayed stock, I have bought a pair of the new Hornby Collett suburbans which come with these in the box.  I had fitted the 'inside' coupling of my 2 coach set with the CCMs, to see how they look and perform.  

 

Early days yet.  The improvement in appearance is noticeable with the couplings coupled, but they are just as ugly as t/ls or Kaydees when there is a full view of the end of an uncoupled vehicle, so no great improvement over t/ls at the end of rakes or where shunting is required, and t/ls are easer to uncouple.  They don't make the the distance between the buffer heads radically closer, either; I doubt there's a millimetre in it!  I like them in principle though, a clever and well thought out design; kudos Roco!

 

But I might consider using them in my mineral rakes, retaining t/ls at the outer ends.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

...They don't make the the distance between the buffer heads radically closer, either; I doubt there's a millimetre in it!  I like them in principle though, a clever and well thought out design; kudos Roco!...

If you can get hold of the Roco original which has a shorter mount, then assuming Hornby have done their usual decent job of coupler pocket placement, the buffers should just be in contact on straight track.

[The Johnster]

So far, the main advantage is the lack of coupling slack and smooth pull, the correct appearance for a passenger train with the screw couplings correctly tightened.  It is for this reason that I will not, in the event, be using them on the mineral wagons, where a bit of slack looks more correct.

[DCB]

Seems like the major advantage is for coaches which had buckeye couplers in full size where the buffer heads don't get anywhere near each other.  The only coaches I have experience of with these couplers are Hornby Hawksworths and to be honest they just work and | tend to forget about them.  I don't think they are any closer coupled than our Lima and Hornby coaches which have a mix of H./D Simplex and Tension lock couplers, Mainline and Triang mainly which have been repositioned to close the corridor connections as much as possible and the buffers pushed into the retracted position whether prototypically correct or not.