Is it possible to fit NEM pockets to locos/rolling stock which dont have them?

[LMS_LNER_SR_GWR_fan2004]

Hello all

 

I was wondering if it is possible to fit NEM pockets to older coaches (Hornby mk4s and various others) and locomotives as I really hate the large gap that is caused from the large old couplings. If someone could give me a step to step guide on how to do it it would be very much appreciated.

 

Here's the list of locos and coaches that I am looking to modify:

 

Hornby class 90 (with new skirts from MGR Hooper's shapeways shop)

 

Hornby class 91

 

Hornby Mk4 coaches

 

Lima class 87

 

Hornby class 86

 

Hornby/Triang class 37

 

Triang britannia (iron duke)

 

Hornby 9f (railroad and older version)

 

Apologies for such a large list I have inherited a lot of older locomotives

 

Best regards, Matthew

[steve1]

It is possible to buy screw in NEM-type coupler mounts from Bachmann. They appear to be a replacement unit for their older style of coupler. You unscrew the old sort and add the replacements. Well, that's what I have done with some of their wagons. No idea about coaches as I don't run any.

 

Looking at your list, my suggestion would be to try and fit Kadee's own coupler pockets and then add one their normal couplers, probably a No 5. I have done this successfully on both Hornby and older Bachmann wagons. There have been articles in the modelling press on how to do this.

 

Something that is ESSENTIAL for Kadee fitting is their coupler height gauge. https://kadee.com/htmbord/page205.htm

 

steve

[The Johnster]

Everything, and hence anything, is possible, Matthew, and standardising your couplings will improve their performance as well as their appearance, but it is not as simple a process as one might like it to be.  NEMs are handy because they fit into pockets; mounting them is a matter of mounting the pockets securely and at exactly the right height above the rail and the right 'set' in from the buffer beam of the vehicle.  Simples, as the meerkat says, but don't believe him, he's only a meerkat and doesn't know diddly about model railways.

 

There are, sadly, no step by step instructions because each model is different and presents different challenges, or problems as I call them, which require different solutions, all of which will, if we are honest, be some sort of home made cobbled together lashup, or modelling as I call it...

 

Fitting NEM pockets is relatively (though I've encountered problems enough when I've done it; trying to stick something on to something not designed for it originally always generated problems) simple in the case of short wheelbased 4 wheeled wagons, but all the locos and coaches you list have bogies,  except for the steam loco tenders which could easily turn out to be the easiest to modify.  Couplings of RTR models are mounted incorrectly* on the bogies where there are bogies because a bogie vehicle is already by definition a longer one and there is not enough sideplay in the coupling for it to be mounted on the vehicle's body or main chassis because the model is designed to go around much sharper radius curves than the prototype.  So, you must first determine what the sharpest curve or turnout your stock normally negotiates is, and you are perhaps not going to like what I say next, but I'm going ahead anyway.

 

If you are using set track, even at 4th radius, or even flexi at radii below about 30", you are going to have a lot of problems if you attempt to mount the NEM pockets directly to the bodies or chassis.   To have even a fighting chance of the couplings having enough sideplay and avoid buffer locking (even when hauling)  you are going to have to attempt to mount the pockets on the bogies, which have been designed before the days of NEM and will not easily accept them without your having to build up complex, and probably structurally unsound, mounting blocks for them.

 

Step back and assess the situation holistically.  I recommend going up the pub and sitting in a quiet corner to think about it, but then I recommend that anyway, whatever the situation.  It may be more effective to replace the Mk3s with current NEM fitted production, these are the longest vehicles and going to present the most problems.  Depending on how deep your pockets (the ones you keep your credit cards, not the NEM ones) are, you may consider it time to retire and replace some of your older stuff with current NEM fitted versions, which will run better and be better detailed, and your 90 is probably not going to be a practicable proposition in any case with the skirts.  Lima and Triang Hornby locos are a good few decades past their best now!

 

Steve has just posted about Kaydees and this may be a way to go, but the limiting factor is still going to be the curves if you have sharp ones.  Kaydees have to be mounted in NEM pockets as well, but have the advantage in your situation that different lengths and profiles are available to suit your varying demands.  Kaydees were developed in the US to use on their stock, traditionally more 'bogiefied' than ours and where prototype couplers are traditionally mounted on bogies.

 

Tension locks are purported to be a standard coupling which is compatible between makes and relies on standardisation to operate, but in the real world are anything but standardised; different profiles, some sprung some gravity, plastic, steel pressings, different hook profiles, and too much variation in the height above the rail, the most important dimension for reliable operation.   Your old Lima will couple to a modern NEM but it is not as reliable as it should be; only one hook will engage.  The best possible solution is large radius curves and points so that you can use scale couplings at the correct distance between the vehicles, but this assumes that all your buffers are correctly sprung and that you do not regularly split trains and shunt; scale couplings are very faffy to handle and I had to give up a couple of years ago because my poor old eyesight and hand/eye co-ordination are no longer up to it; it's a young man's game.  It also assumes you have room for that sort of layout!

 

Keep in touch and let us know how you're getting on with it!

 

 

*Ok, correctly on Class 40/44/45/46 and the prototype 1-Co Co-1s they were developed from, also Leader IIRC.

Edited August 12, 2018 by The Johnster

[BR60103]

I would like to change that line about "where prototype couplers are traditionally mounted on bogies". I can't think of any North American stock with couplers mounted on bogies' The usual mount is right under the floor and often as part of the centerbeam.

I would not add NEM mounts to a car unless you plan to change coupler types freqently.

[BWsTrains]

Everything, and hence anything, is possible, Matthew, and standardising your couplings will improve their performance as well as their appearance, but it is not as simple a process as one might like it to be.  NEMs are handy because they fit into pockets; mounting them is a matter of mounting the pockets securely and at exactly the right height above the rail and the right 'set' in from the buffer beam of the vehicle.  Simples, as the meerkat says, but don't believe him, he's only a meerkat and doesn't know diddly about model railways.

 

There are, sadly, no step by step instructions because each model is different and presents different challenges, or problems as I call them, which require different solutions, all of which will, if we are honest, be some sort of home made cobbled together lashup, or modelling as I call it...

 

Fitting NEM pockets is relatively (though I've encountered problems enough when I've done it; trying to stick something on to something not designed for it originally always generated problems) simple in the case of short wheelbased 4 wheeled wagons, but all the locos and coaches you list have bogies,  except for the steam loco tenders which could easily turn out to be the easiest to modify.  Couplings of RTR models are mounted incorrectly* on the bogies where there are bogies because a bogie vehicle is already by definition a longer one and there is not enough sideplay in the coupling for it to be mounted on the vehicle's body or main chassis because the model is designed to go around much sharper radius curves than the prototype.  So, you must first determine what the sharpest curve or turnout your stock normally negotiates is, and you are perhaps not going to like what I say next, but I'm going ahead anyway.

 

If you are using set track, even at 4th radius, or even flexi at radii below about 30", you are going to have a lot of problems if you attempt to mount the NEM pockets directly to the bodies or chassis.   To have even a fighting chance of the couplings having enough sideplay and avoid buffer locking (even when hauling)  you are going to have to attempt to mount the pockets on the bogies, which have been designed before the days of NEM and will not easily accept them without your having to build up complex, and probably structurally unsound, mounting blocks for them.

 

Step back and assess the situation holistically.  I recommend going up the pub and sitting in a quiet corner to think about it, but then I recommend that anyway, whatever the situation.  It may be more effective to replace the Mk3s with current NEM fitted production, these are the longest vehicles and going to present the most problems.  Depending on how deep your pockets (the ones you keep your credit cards, not the NEM ones) are, you may consider it time to retire and replace some of your older stuff with current NEM fitted versions, which will run better and be better detailed, and your 90 is probably not going to be a practicable proposition in any case with the skirts.  Lima and Triang Hornby locos are a good few decades past their best now!

 

Steve has just posted about Kaydees and this may be a way to go, but the limiting factor is still going to be the curves if you have sharp ones.  Kaydees have to be mounted in NEM pockets as well, but have the advantage in your situation that different lengths and profiles are available to suit your varying demands.  Kaydees were developed in the US to use on their stock, traditionally more 'bogiefied' than ours and where prototype couplers are traditionally mounted on bogies.

 

Tension locks are purported to be a standard coupling which is compatible between makes and relies on standardisation to operate, but in the real world are anything but standardised; different profiles, some sprung some gravity, plastic, steel pressings, different hook profiles, and too much variation in the height above the rail, the most important dimension for reliable operation.   Your old Lima will couple to a modern NEM but it is not as reliable as it should be; only one hook will engage.  The best possible solution is large radius curves and points so that you can use scale couplings at the correct distance between the vehicles, but this assumes that all your buffers are correctly sprung and that you do not regularly split trains and shunt; scale couplings are very faffy to handle and I had to give up a couple of years ago because my poor old eyesight and hand/eye co-ordination are no longer up to it; it's a young man's game.  It also assumes you have room for that sort of layout!

 

Keep in touch and let us know how you're getting on with it!

 

 

*Ok, correctly on Class 40/44/45/46 and the prototype 1-Co Co-1s they were developed from, also Leader IIRC.

To echo your feedback words

..."Now, that is seriously good information and very useful; thank you "Johnster".

 

Pity I can't join you to think about it further as per your normal modus!

 

I have the same conversion project to manage and now will rethink the coach bogie cases that I'd thought about tackling. Fixed 4 wheels should be ok though.

 

Colin

Edited August 13, 2018 by BWsTrains

[LMS_LNER_SR_GWR_fan2004]

Hello everyone,

 

I have been taking a look at my Mk4 coaches first and have got them stripped of their valances (easy job). I will attach a photo of where I am as I would like some more suggestions. By the way thanks The Johnster for the informative post.

 

Best regards, Matthew

[Dunsignalling]

If all you want is to have the newer "mini" tension lock couplers, Bachmann do straight replacements for vehicles that have the original ones mounted via a screw.

 

36-025 (short) or 36-026 (long), in packets of 10. The long ones stick out roughly as far as the big Hornby type. 

 

John

Edited August 13, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Joseph_Pestell]

Just fitting NEM boxes is not going to help you with closer coupling. You need a mechanism that will cause the box to move in and out as the coach transitions between straights and curves.

 

Various kits are available on the market for these, with different ones for each type of vehicle.

[ejstubbs]

Kaydees have to be mounted in NEM pockets as well, but have the advantage in your situation that different lengths and profiles are available to suit your varying demands.

 

This is not completely accurate.  Kadee (please note the correct spelling - nobody ever refers to "Hornbee" or "Backman" on this forum, why does Keith & Dale's choice of name for their company cause people such problems?) do make a version of their couplings to fit in NEM pockets, and these are available in four lengths.  However, they also a offer a large range of couplings which mount to stock via Kadee's proprietary gear boxes, which come in a number of different versions.  My personal preference is for the "whisker couplers" since they avoid the separate spring within the gear box and offer a short and narrow variant of the gear box for this type, as well as the standard version, which gives more options when fitting the couplers to stock designed around the all-too-ubiquitous TLC.  With nine coupler length & height variants and three different gear boxes, I have yet to find a coach, wagon or loco which can't be converted to Kadees using a suitable combination of gear box and coupler, though the work required on the chassis of a vehicle can vary from practically nothing to rather delicate and complex surgery.

 

As steve1 observed, the key thing with Kadees is get the height right - and they make a useful gauge for checking this.  As you point out, though, height and position on the vehicle is equally as critical for NEM pockets (and no-one makes a gauge for that AFAIK - you're reliant on a good ruler and Mk 1 eyeball).

 

As for the OP's actual question, he appears to be looking for closer coupling.  NEM pockets aren't necessarily the answer to that, although they do make it easier to swap couplings to try to achieve the desired effect.  There is also, of course, the option of looking at close coupling systems such as that offered by Keen Systems.  I'm not aware of the Bachmann NEM mount offerings that steve1 refers to but I do know that Parkside Dundas used to sell mounting blocks which accepted the 'fishtail' wedge on the rear of Bachmann NEM pockets, which could then be used to mount ones NEM coupler of choice.  Unfortunately the only way to get the Bachmann fishtail NEM pockets seems to be to buy Bachmann couplings (supply of which seems to be somewhat sporadic).  Fine if you're happy to standardise on Bachmann small TLCs, but you get a lot of redundant TLCs left over otherwise.  I'm also unsure of what's happened to the Parkside Dundas product now that part of their business has gone to Peco (EDIT: they're listed in Peco's Parkside Models catalogue, part number PA34).

 

My own view is that choice of couplings is more important than choice of mount.  For reliability of operation in coupling, staying coupled when you want them to, uncoupling where you want them to, and being compatible with the tightest curves on your layout it is IMO best to standardise on one manufacturer's couplings that do the job for you, and mount them to your stock in a way that is appropriate for each stock item (Bachmann, as an example, do screw-on versions of their small TLCs as well as NEM ones).  The one exception to this would be couplings for close-coupling mechanisms, which work much better with a suitable rigid coupler such as the Hornby/Roco style, or the Bachmann pipe couplings (choice of couplings for this purpose is generally predicated on the assumption that the coaching stock concerned will generally be used in fixed rakes, at least on the scenic area of the layout).  In this case standardisation is less important - and the NEM pocket does seem to offer a useful way to mix'n'match the options available so as to get the stock to couple as close as possible while still being able to be hauled and propelled through model railway radius curves (even Keen Systems CCUs are NEM compatible.)

Edited August 13, 2018 by ejstubbs

[Andymsa]

T

 

As steve1 observed, the key thing with Kadees is get the height right - and they make a useful gauge for checking this.  As you point out, though, height and position on the vehicle is equally as critical for NEM pockets (and no-one makes a gauge for that AFAIK - you're reliant on a good ruler and Mk 1 eyeball).

 

le.)

There is the fleischmann 6570 for getting the height right and I have also used it for getting it centered

[LMS_LNER_SR_GWR_fan2004]

Just fitting NEM boxes is not going to help you with closer coupling. You need a mechanism that will cause the box to move in and out as the coach transitions between straights and curves.

 

Various kits are available on the market for these, with different ones for each type of vehicle.

 

Hi Joseph,

 

Could you possibly give me some options to take a look at?

[Dungrange]

You might want to look at https://www.dccsupplies.com/item-p-103641/symoba-120-coupling-conversion-start-set

 

I haven't used these, but looked at them when considering fitting NEM pockets to some stock.  However, cost put me off as I couldn't see sufficient benefits over simply using a different type of Kadee coupling. 

[ejstubbs]

You might want to look at https://www.dccsupplies.com/item-p-103641/symoba-120-coupling-conversion-start-set

 

I haven't used these, but looked at them when considering fitting NEM pockets to some stock.  However, cost put me off as I couldn't see sufficient benefits over simply using a different type of Kadee coupling. 

 

The Keen Systems CCUs that I linked to in my post #9 are another possible option, and cost less than the Symoba offering (although if you want to use NEM couplings rather than the ones that are supplied with the CCUs then you have to factor in the cost of your preferred rigid NEM couplers as well).

 

I've no idea how easy or otherwise it might be to fit the Keen CCUs to Hornby Mk4s.  The same goes for the Symoba ones, come to that.

 

I'm not convinced of the wisdom of trying to fit CCUs to locomotives.  It should be possible to achieve closer coupling to older locomotives by judicious use of whichever more modern coupling (Bachmann short TLC, Kadee or whatever) you choose to standardise on.

Edited August 13, 2018 by ejstubbs

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Joseph,

 

Could you possibly give me some options to take a look at?

 

Someone else has already mentioned Keen Systems. As a UK supplier, they have done a lot of work on making kits that fit various UK prototype models.

 

The first (?) company to sell this sort of kit was a German firm called Symoba (or Simoba). Don't know if they are still in business but their kits were very easy to fit.

 

Edit: somewhere, I know that I have some of the spares units that were used on Jouef Corail coaches. They might well work on the Mk4.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell

[Dunsignalling]

Availability of the Symoba CCUs seems to be somewhat erratic. I've had some on pre-order with DCC Supplies since May, at which time they were hoping for a delivery "in a month or so".

 

I'm still using up my rapidly dwindling stocks of the similar Gutzold product, which I think pre-dated Symoba but I understand that Gutzold has gone out of business. I was hoping that someone else would acquire the rights/tooling and revive their units.

 

Most of my close-coupling projects use the excellent, (and considerably cheaper) Keen Systems products but the Gutzold/Symoba ones self-centre, which makes them more convenient to use on the ends of rakes. Their smaller size can also reduce the amount of surgery required on certain "awkward" models.

 

John

Edited August 13, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[The Johnster]

This is not completely accurate.  Kadee (please note the correct spelling - nobody ever refers to "Hornbee" or "Backman" on this forum, why does Keith & Dale's choice of name for their company cause people such problems?) do make a version of their couplings to fit in NEM pockets, and these are available in four lengths.  However, they also a offer a large range of couplings which mount to stock via Kadee's proprietary gear boxes, which come in a number of different versions.  My personal preference is for the "whisker couplers" since they avoid the separate spring within the gear box and offer a short and narrow variant of the gear box for this type, as well as the standard version, which gives more options when fitting the couplers to stock designed around the all-too-ubiquitous TLC.  With nine coupler length & height variants and three different gear boxes, I have yet to find a coach, wagon or loco which can't be converted to Kadees using a suitable combination of gear box and coupler, though the work required on the chassis of a vehicle can vary from practically nothing to rather delicate and complex surgery.

 

As steve1 observed, the key thing with Kadees is get the height right - and they make a useful gauge for checking this.  As you point out, though, height and position on the vehicle is equally as critical for NEM pockets (and no-one makes a gauge for that AFAIK - you're reliant on a good ruler and Mk 1 eyeball).

 

As for the OP's actual question, he appears to be looking for closer coupling.  NEM pockets aren't necessarily the answer to that, although they do make it easier to swap couplings to try to achieve the desired effect.  There is also, of course, the option of looking at close coupling systems such as that offered by Keen Systems.  I'm not aware of the Bachmann NEM mount offerings that steve1 refers to but I do know that Parkside Dundas used to sell mounting blocks which accepted the 'fishtail' wedge on the rear of Bachmann NEM pockets, which could then be used to mount ones NEM coupler of choice.  Unfortunately the only way to get the Bachmann fishtail NEM pockets seems to be to buy Bachmann couplings (supply of which seems to be somewhat sporadic).  Fine if you're happy to standardise on Bachmann small TLCs, but you get a lot of redundant TLCs left over otherwise.  I'm also unsure of what's happened to the Parkside Dundas product now that part of their business has gone to Peco (EDIT: they're listed in Peco's Parkside Models catalogue, part number PA34).

 

My own view is that choice of couplings is more important than choice of mount.  For reliability of operation in coupling, staying coupled when you want them to, uncoupling where you want them to, and being compatible with the tightest curves on your layout it is IMO best to standardise on one manufacturer's couplings that do the job for you, and mount them to your stock in a way that is appropriate for each stock item (Bachmann, as an example, do screw-on versions of their small TLCs as well as NEM ones).  The one exception to this would be couplings for close-coupling mechanisms, which work much better with a suitable rigid coupler such as the Hornby/Roco style, or the Bachmann pipe couplings (choice of couplings for this purpose is generally predicated on the assumption that the coaching stock concerned will generally be used in fixed rakes, at least on the scenic area of the layout).  In this case standardisation is less important - and the NEM pocket does seem to offer a useful way to mix'n'match the options available so as to get the stock to couple as close as possible while still being able to be hauled and propelled through model railway radius curves (even Keen Systems CCUs are NEM compatible.)

 

Apologies for the misspelling, ej, Kadees it is and I'll try to remember in future.  It sort of doesn't matter which couplers are used but the important thing in my view is that they are all the same, and tension locks are not all the same, sometimes even within a given manufacturer's range.  Retrofitting different types to older stock, the OP's basic problem, is not as easy as I'd like it to be.  NEM offers the opportunity to retrofit easily, and change couplers, but retrofitting NEM pockets to stock that does not have the fittings for it is a problem; he was looking for step by step instructions, and there aren't any; you have to make it up as you go along, a sure recipe for bodging,  especially in my case!

Edited August 13, 2018 by The Johnster

[LMS_LNER_SR_GWR_fan2004]

Hi,

 

Having just browsing around the Keen systems website I noticed an image with Hornby mk4s with the roco type coupler. Is that one a good choice as it looks relatively simple to use?

 

Best regards, Matthew

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The Roco pattern coupler works well at forming the rigid bar that close coupling systems need. Movement performance on the layout very good.

A version of it can be cheaply got in the UK thanks to Hornby packing a clone with their coaches. (Personal cheapskate appeal.)

(The overlength mounting of the Hornby clone means positioning the NEM coupler pockets a couple of millimetres inboard of spec position, up to you whether you like this approach or not, and if you don't the proper length Roco version is available.)

It is not the world's greatest autocoupler for coupling up, uncouplng I haven't tested. Whatever, in this respect well shy of what the Kadee provides in reliable coupling, and reliable uncoupling by fully concealed under track magnet. I would use nothing but Kadee if only it also formed a rigid bar between coupler mounts when coupled up.

The Roco pattern is good for 'lift out' train rearrangement in fiddle yards.

I use the Roco pattern coupler within fixed formation sets, Kadees on the set ends.

[LMS_LNER_SR_GWR_fan2004]

The Roco pattern coupler works well at forming the rigid bar that close coupling systems need. Movement performance on the layout very good.

A version of it can be cheaply got in the UK thanks to Hornby packing a clone with their coaches. (Personal cheapskate appeal.)

(The overlength mounting of the Hornby clone means positioning the NEM coupler pockets a couple of millimetres inboard of spec position, up to you whether you like this approach or not, and if you don't the proper length Roco version is available.)

It is not the world's greatest autocoupler for coupling up, uncouplng I haven't tested. Whatever, in this respect well shy of what the Kadee provides in reliable coupling, and reliable uncoupling by fully concealed under track magnet. I would use nothing but Kadee if only it also formed a rigid bar between coupler mounts when coupled up.

The Roco pattern is good for 'lift out' train rearrangement in fiddle yards.

I use the Roco pattern coupler within fixed formation sets, Kadees on the set ends.

 

My new layout which I am planning is an electrified terminus with a left curve and them a fiddle yard so I will be lifting a lot of locos so like you said it should work for now. But either way, it still needs a NEM socket so if I wish to I can use the Kadees if needed or even Bachmann's coach piping.

 

Best reagrds, Matthew

[ejstubbs]

I wouldn't fit the Roco/Hornby rigid couplers to an item of stock that doesn't actually have a close coupling mechanism, if that's what you were thinking of.  That's not what they're designed for, and the rigid nature of the link that it creates could well be problematic when negotiating curves or more complex track formations.  As 34theletterbetweenB&D suggests, the rigid couplers should be reserved for use within fixed or semi-fixed rakes, with Kadees/TLCs on the outer ends of the rake and fitted to locos.

 

Although the Roco/Hornby rigid couplers can supposedly couple automatically, and uncouple over a ramp, I strongly suspect that at least the latter function is rarely if ever used.  Some people deliberately remove the loops from the undersides of those couplers on the grounds that they serve no useful purpose on their layout, and the couplers look better without them.  See for example this thread started by Dunsignalling (who has also posted useful information on this thread).

[woodenhead]

I find the Hornby Roco style coupling only good for fixed elements of coach rakes, they are a PITA to couple.  All coaches that require uncoupling I use Kadees.