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

[Pacific231G]

On 31/03/2021 at 15:09, D9020 Nimbus said:

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

 

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

Indeed and if Hornby really are describing coupling pockets at a different height as "NEM coupling pockets" they (or the retailer) probably are violating consumer protection legislation. The NEM itself has no legal force (and applies specifically to H0 and S scale) but it is a published standard and does specify height above rail so, if you say you're conforming to it and you're not,  then your product description is misleading.  

 

FWIW The actual N gauge coupler head specified in NEM 356 is indeed the Arnold Rapido type but the TT coupler  specified in NEM 359 is not one I've ever come across . When I modelled in H0e I did use Microtrains couplers (same principle as Kadees and used to be Kadee until the two brothers split the business between them) but just bought them with their draft bozes and fitted them accordingly.   

Edited April 1, 2021 by Pacific231G

[brossard]

24 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

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

 

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

 

I mentioned above that Kadees were frustrating because of the fore and aft slop.  Not so bad for goods stock maybe but terrible if you are trying to get your coaches to have a reasonable gap.

 

John

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

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

 

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

I couldn't agree more. I came to the conclusion many years ago that the only virtue of the NEM 360 hinged loop coupler (referred to by Australian modellers as the "dunny seat" coupler) is to make tension lock couplers look good in comparison. They don't want to couple, when they are they don't want to be separated and have a nasty habit of jamming in a way that threatens every detail at the ends of vehicles when you try to twist them apart. Also, every manufacturer seemed to have their own "interpretation" of the NEM standard with (pre HJ) Jouef's being about the crudest

 

Having previously modelled N. American Railways, in the form of a switching layout, and being very amused by the standard  "horn-hook" couplers that were always instantly replaced. I went over to Keith and Dale Edwards' patent couplers for my French layout and, though they're not perfect, I have never regretted it. You really do need to get the heights right though  

 

When I was a child I lived about a mile away from a railway yard and the weird bouncing back and forth of loose coupled  goods wagons , mostly coal, meant that at night I often heard "the sound of shunting trains, ringing and rumbling, softened almost into melody by the distance" in H.G. Wells lovely description. 

 

Edited April 1, 2021 by Pacific231G

[Robert John Davis]

As an American modeling US and British railroads, I would love to see a global universal NEM-type of solution. It's an easier system for swapping couplers, but it would need to be adopted with strict height standards. The NMRA standards aren't the end all, be all, but they help. For many years, the NMRA's complete refusal to make knuckle couplers the standard kept us bound to the awful X2F coupler. It held the hobby back for a very long time.

[Dungrange]

11 hours ago, Ravenser said:

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

 

The problem with that is it could get complicated.  As an example, I have acquired numerous Bachmann PNA wagons (the green spoil wagons with 'Railtrack' branding).  The bodies are mounted on the Bachmann TTA chassis.  This means that all of the older releases have the 'NEM' coupling pocket at the wrong height (it's too high).  However, the more recent versions of this same wagon have the NEM coupling pocket at the correct height - ie Bachmann have retooled the chassis to correct their earlier sloppy interpretation of the NEM standard, so this wagon would sit in both the 'good' and the 'bad' categories depending on the catalogue number.  I think they've done the same with their MFA wagons as well. 

[Pacific231G]

5 hours ago, Robert John Davis said:

As an American modeling US and British railroads, I would love to see a global universal NEM-type of solution. It's an easier system for swapping couplers, but it would need to be adopted with strict height standards. The NMRA standards aren't the end all, be all, but they help. For many years, the NMRA's complete refusal to make knuckle couplers the standard kept us bound to the awful X2F coupler. It held the hobby back for a very long time.

But how could the NMRA have made a patented product the standard? That would have given Kadee a monopoly. As the only working knuckle type coupler available (until the Sergent  coupler appeared far more recently) Kadees did become the de facto standard for almost everyone modelling N. American RRs. and I remember when I  was modelling them that it was a complete no brainer to use them.   Now that the principle is out of patent they probably could be specified as standard but where would that leave say Sergent couplers which are actually more authentic as scale working models of AAR couplers (a trapped magnetic ball replaces the coupling pin) though, like the real thing , only semi automatic  and not hands off (see http://www.sergentengineering.com/  for details, they are fascinating) 

The X2F coupler was never actually adopted as an NMRA standard, the members refused to,  though it was adopted by the RTR manufacturers. The NMRA did specify a standard for dummy knuckle couplers in RP-21.1 issued in 1957. It was though about 25% larger than an actual scaled down version of the prototype as were the original Kadees.

  Specifying  a standard "draft box" was possible and more useful. The NMRA did that at the same height (to scale) as the real equivalent.  Given that the NEM box is designed to sit under the buffer beam of a UIC standard buffer and drawbar to take non-prototypical couplers, the height has to be different (which is why the Kadee NEM couplers are cranked)  so  I don't think a global universal solution would be possible, any more than it is on the big railway. 

(There is a less well known NEM for fitting authentic draw gear between the buffers though I don't think I've ever come across it in practice)

Edited April 2, 2021 by Pacific231G

[BR60103]

The X2f was developed by an NMRS engineering committee. X was eXperimental; second type; variation f. It was offered to the world with no licencing fees and was supposed to be a one-piece molding with integral spring. Variations followed and I read that none of the manufactured units matched the specs (I never checked). The farthest out were those on the Airfix kits. 

Because it was sprung sideways, it was blamed for pushing wheels into the sides of the rails and causing sharp flanges to pick at the rail joints. This was extra bad with truck-mounted couplers.

NMRA also designed a "universal" mounting box that could be assembled 3 ways (IIRC) to take Mantua, Kadee (#4)  and possibly the X2f. Mantua was like a reversed tension-lock but the hook was very far inside the loop.

 

 

[melmerby]

21 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

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

 

Wrong height pocket- 

- Bachmann Mk1s (including GUV/BG)

- Hornby 61xx Praire -rear pony

- Hornby Adams Radial 

- Hachette Mk1 SK

 

 

 

 

It's the other way around.

The rear truck is fine, the front is too high and is also too far back, necessitating an extra long cranked tension lock.

 

Dapol's Mogul looks like it's fine, although I haven't got a Kadee in mine.

 

AFAIK All Bachmann wagons from the "Blue Riband" range were wrong, (this was when Bachmann re-tooled the old Mainline range with a finer chassis and other improvements) many have since been re-tooled with a lower mounting but some may be still on the market with the original position (confirm?)

 

Again AFAIK Any Bachmann wagon still in the 33-XXX series, China Clay, Salt, Toad etc. will have either screwed on Mainline fit T/L on 4-wheelers, or moulded in T/L  on bogie vehicles. (unless this has changed recently. The photos on the website suggest otherwise.)

 

The Bachmann 45XX is wrong, both too high.

Edited April 2, 2021 by melmerby

[Ravenser]

11 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

The problem with that is it could get complicated.  As an example, I have acquired numerous Bachmann PNA wagons (the green spoil wagons with 'Railtrack' branding).  The bodies are mounted on the Bachmann TTA chassis.  This means that all of the older releases have the 'NEM' coupling pocket at the wrong height (it's too high).  However, the more recent versions of this same wagon have the NEM coupling pocket at the correct height - ie Bachmann have retooled the chassis to correct their earlier sloppy interpretation of the NEM standard, so this wagon would sit in both the 'good' and the 'bad' categories depending on the catalogue number.  I think they've done the same with their MFA wagons as well. 

 

 

I update the list to incorporate points raised:

 

Wrong height pocket- 

- Bachmann Mk1s (including GUV/BG)

- Bachmann 45xx

- Hornby 61xx Praire - front pony

- Hornby Adams Radial 

- Hachette Mk1 SK

- Early release Bachmann TTA/PNA

- Lima/Hornby 156

 

 

The following have been found to be fine:

- Hornby Gresleys , corridor and non-corridor

- Bachmann Mk2s

- Bachmann Portholes

- Hornby Shark, LMS 4 wheel CCT

- Late release Bachmann TTA/PNA

- Dapol FEA

 

Diesels fitted with pockets :

- Hornby 31, 60

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

- Heljan 05

 

Some kettles:

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

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

- Hattons 14" Barclay

- Dapol GW Mogul ?

 

DMUs -

- Bachmann 108 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Early release Bachmann Blue Riband wagons - reported to be wrong height. Many understood to have subsequently been retooled. Further details required 

Edited April 2, 2021 by Ravenser

[Pacific231G]

13 hours ago, BR60103 said:

The X2f was developed by an NMRS engineering committee. X was eXperimental; second type; variation f. It was offered to the world with no licencing fees and was supposed to be a one-piece molding with integral spring. Variations followed and I read that none of the manufactured units matched the specs (I never checked). The farthest out were those on the Airfix kits. 

Because it was sprung sideways, it was blamed for pushing wheels into the sides of the rails and causing sharp flanges to pick at the rail joints. This was extra bad with truck-mounted couplers.

NMRA also designed a "universal" mounting box that could be assembled 3 ways (IIRC) to take Mantua, Kadee (#4)  and possibly the X2f. Mantua was like a reversed tension-lock but the hook was very far inside the loop.

 

 

It was one of several designs from an NMRA committee led by Paul Mallory charged with developing  a standard coupler in the 1950s when every manufacturer had their own mainly incompatible types.  The version with an integral plastic spring (which I believe was the X21 though commonly known as the X2F) was easy to manufacture so taken up by most manufacturers. It was though never accepted by the Association's members  (I don't blame them!)  so was never an NMRA standard leaving plenty of scope for manufacturers to adopt their own specs . Most RTR and shake-the-box "kits"  were supplied with them but fortunately mainly in a draft-gear pocket, which is standard, into which a Kadee no. 5 shank could be fitted instead.  Fitting Kadee's own draft-gear pockets to "craftsman" kits was straightfoward with the height gauge. The problem I do recall was the manufacturers' habit of fitting either a purely cosmetic dummy coupler, or nothing at all, to the front of steam locos. For a switching layout that was not helpful and filing out the mazak to fit a Kadee pocket was not my favourite task mainly because I've always been fundamentally incapable of filing a flat. 

[RobinofLoxley]

18 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

But how could the NMRA have made a patented product the standard? That would have given Kadee a monopoly. As the only working knuckle type coupler available (until the Sergent  coupler appeared far more recently) Kadees did become the de facto standard for almost everyone modelling N. American RRs. and I remember when I  was modelling them that it was a complete no brainer to use them.   Now that the principle is out of patent they probably could be specified as standard but where would that leave say Sergent couplers which are actually more authentic as scale working models of AAR couplers (a trapped magnetic ball replaces the coupling pin) though, like the real thing , only semi automatic  and not hands off (see http://www.sergentengineering.com/  for details, they are fascinating) 

The X2F coupler was never actually adopted as an NMRA standard, the members refused to,  though it was adopted by the RTR manufacturers. The NMRA did specify a standard for dummy knuckle couplers in RP-21.1 issued in 1957. It was though about 25% larger than an actual scaled down version of the prototype as were the original Kadees.

  Specifying  a standard "draft box" was possible and more useful. The NMRA did that at the same height (to scale) as the real equivalent.  Given that the NEM box is designed to sit under the buffer beam of a UIC standard buffer and drawbar to take non-prototypical couplers, the height has to be different (which is why the Kadee NEM couplers are cranked)  so  I don't think a global universal solution would be possible, any more than it is on the big railway. 

(There is a less well known NEM for fitting authentic draw gear between the buffers though I don't think I've ever come across it in practice)

While I don't know stuff about couplings, I do about patents. Drafting a standard where a known item complies with the standard is not the same as giving the manufacturer of the known item a monopoly. Secondly, unless the drafting of the patent was wonderful, its unlikely it is without loopholes. In this particular case I smell a strong possibility that some thing included in the patent as new art was actually pre-existing. If so, the patent holder wont risk a legal challenge.

[Pacific231G]

On 02/04/2021 at 19:58, RobinofLoxley said:

While I don't know stuff about couplings, I do about patents. Drafting a standard where a known item complies with the standard is not the same as giving the manufacturer of the known item a monopoly. Secondly, unless the drafting of the patent was wonderful, its unlikely it is without loopholes. In this particular case I smell a strong possibility that some thing included in the patent as new art was actually pre-existing. If so, the patent holder wont risk a legal challenge.

Kadee's patent was for the method of coupling and uncoupling which, though it resembles it in appearance, is very different from how a real AAR coupler works and relies on a horizontal hooking and unhooking system. A standard that covered centre height and the shape of the coupler head and knuckle was already established. The profile was defined by the NMRA's RP-21.1 issued in 1957 though it was about 25% overscale and this was followed by Kadee (their couplers will couple to dummies) . But, while that was fine for dummy couplers - where the head is a single casting so the knuckle doesn't hinge open. a working coupler needed a way of geting the knuckles to mate, to stay locked in tension, and to be released for uncoupling. A 1/87 coupling pin that dropped into position when the knuckles closed as they came togather, together with a working lifting lever to uncouple wasn't a practical proposition for a mass produced item (I wonder if anyone made their own)*  Kadee came up with a practical way of doing that could be completely automatic and that was what they patented. 

 

It's worth remebering that Peco was partly, possibly largely, developed on the back of the royalties that they got from Hornby who adopted Sydney Pritchard's patented Simplex coupler. That is actually far simpler than Kadee but was still patentable and Pritchard did mount a successful legal challenge against Trix who made their own coupler working on the same principle.

 

* Sergent Engineering's couplers do work in the same way as the real thing so, if they are patented, it would be their use of a steel ball to replace the coupling pin that drops into a hole to lock the knuckles closed when they mate and the magnetic  method of "liftng the pin" to allow the knucle to hinge open and so uncouple. Their development probably relied on the arrival of Neomydium magnets to enable the uncoupling "wand" to lift the steel ball. However, just like AAR couplers,  Sergent couplers are not automatic, as they make clear in their website.  They will couple with scale dummy couplers (only one of the knuckles has to be open for an AAR coupler to work) but not with Kadees and their clones.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Pacific231G

[Jeff Smith]

The plastic version from Bachmann works identically to Kadees, the later versions have a wound metal spring for the jaw instead of a plastic leaf spring.  They do work seamlessly with Kadee couplers.

[Pacific231G]

Hi Jeff 

Are you referring to the Bachmann  Ezmate 'clones' for use on N. American cars in a standard draft gear box or the type designed for use in NEM coupler boxes. 

My own experience with the latter has not been positive. I picked up  a load of unused ones for next to nowt at a show and tried them  on several vehicles but they've all since been replaced by proper Kadees. Because the heads are rigid they do rely on the coupler pocket being able to move from side to side. but that movement seems less conducive to magnetic uncoupling than the swing of a coupler shank within an American type draft gear box.   

 

While sorting out  some MRNs from the 1950s and 60s I found an article from Feb 1965 about Kadee Couplers. What I hadn't realised is that at that stage they were making two types of coupler- Magne-Matic, which is the sort we're now all used to, and Magne-Action which was a magnetic version of the X2F, described in the article as "similar to the couplings on Airfix OO freight trucks" . This used the same uncoupling magnet as the Magne-Matic. Basically, a fairly heavy looking steel pin- much heavier than that  on Magnematic couplers was mounted beneath and to one side of the coupler head. This also offered delayed uncoupling but looks even more ungainly than the normal X2F.

I assume that Kadee dropped this type of coupler when the more realistic looking Magnematics became a de facto standard amongst  "serious" American modellers. 

 

[Jeff Smith]

David, yes, the HO/On30 'Whisker' clone.  The latest type have a metal coil spring for jaw movement but plastic whiskers.

[Covkid]

On 30/03/2021 at 12:23, tomparryharry said:

 Quite.  Perhaps the first step is to arrive at an appropriate  'standard', as such.  The first standard might be drawbar height, by which the coupling drawbar hook is either effective, or not.  It happens on the Big Railway as well, with headstock height all over the place. 

 

 

Haha yes. I recall a certain member of this parish taking a 1:1 scale Virgin class 57/3 from New St up to Soho to trial coupling to a Central Trains class 323.  They didn't match and that was when we operators discovered that Virgin dellner couplers on 220 221 and 390 were designed to be at a different height to other operator's dellners.

 

I am assuming "Supaned" remembers this.   

[BR60103]

We toured the GM (EMD) works in London, Ont when they were building locos for EWS.  To be tested with North American loads or be hauled (I forget which) they took off the buffers and mounted (in the same boltholes) a \_/ shaped beam with a knuckle coupling at the bottom. 

So even in the same scale, N.A. couplers come out below the bufferbeam.

 

Pictures were forbidden on the tour.

 

[roythebus1]

I use Roco/Hornby close couplers on bogie stock with Kadees on the outer ends. On some of the Bachmann stock I've replaced their KK mountings with the Kean systems units which brings the NEm box out at nearly the right height, more nearly than the Bachy offering.

 

I've just been online to stock up on Kadees and it seems they're in very short supply in the UK at the moment. Hattons no stock, Gaugemaster no stock...Express Trains had a few in stock and I've probably wiped out their stock! Another vicrim of the B word that we shouldn't mention on here.

 

[Gilbert]

On 01/04/2021 at 12:12, Ravenser said:

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

My own experience on a small layout which requires constant shunting and uncoupling is that the boxed versions are more reliable.

Chris

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, Gilbert said:

My own experience on a small layout which requires constant shunting and uncoupling is that the boxed versions are more reliable.

Chris

By boxed I assume you mean those with Kadee draft gear boxes? I have about a dozen wagons with those but, having been bought from the GRS, they're not the ones I normally use  on my French layout. However, I've got that up now in its shunting layout mode (i.e. without the fiddle yard) for a bit of wagon bashing so it might be worth fishing them out.  

[Gilbert]

10 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

By boxed I assume you mean those with Kadee draft gear boxes? I have about a dozen wagons with those but, having been bought from the GRS, they're not the ones I normally use  on my French layout. However, I've got that up now in its shunting layout mode (i.e. without the fiddle yard) for a bit of wagon bashing so it might be worth fishing them out.  

Yes - it also allows me to use the overset and underset versions if necessary although 148s are my go to coupler. The scale heads (158) are easier on the eye but I find they are a little less reliable in use.

[ejstubbs]

21 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

I've just been online to stock up on Kadees and it seems they're in very short supply in the UK at the moment. Hattons no stock, Gaugemaster no stock...Express Trains had a few in stock and I've probably wiped out their stock! Another vicrim of the B word that we shouldn't mention on here.

 

Since Kadee is a U.S. company I doubt that "the B word" has anything to do with it directly.  More likely a combination of:

a) A step increase in railway modelling activity as a result of lockdown.  A lot of items are in short/no supply.  Many Peco products are especially hard to come by, and they're made in the UK (though I believe that Peco themselves have also said that they've been affected by restrictions on their production capacity due to "the C word").

b) A change in the rules/processes around collection/payment of VAT and customs duty*, instituted by HMRC in the latter part of 2020.  This may have been peripherally due to "B" but it was affecting shipments of all sorts of goods from U.S. and Canadian suppliers amongst others before 31/12/2020, which was when the transition period with the EU ended.  Some have stated that they will no longer ship retail orders to the U.K as a result.  The issues have been widely reported in the press since 01/01/2021 (e.g. here and here) although, as I say, the problem had existed for shipments from non-EU countries prior to that date.

 

There is some discussion about the impact on Kadee prices in the UK of the new process for ordering from overseas on this thread.  It wouldn't surprise me if this is also affecting supply levels, at least while suppliers and importers (and maybe even HMRC) get properly to grips with the new process.

 

* Although model railway items should be zero-rated for import duties (but note also Charlie's reference to being charged import duties on his last Kadee order).

[roythebus1]

Gaugemaster used to list something line 199 Kadee items in stock, now they have just 3 in stock. Just saying'.

[Jeff Smith]

Doesn't include anything about NEM Kadees but still may be useful.

 

https://www.kadee.com///email/announcement_apr21_a5se2.htm

[Derekl]

On 02/04/2021 at 11:13, Ravenser said:

I update the list to incorporate points raised:

 

I don't want to throw a spanner in the works, but I have just acquired a number of Bachmann Mk1s. I have fitted Kadees to the NEM pockets on two of them and they are correct height (checked against the Kadee gauge). I have yet to do the rest (happy to use the fitted couplings within the rakes temporarily). It is possible that I have picked the two coaches that are correct height.

 

I also have some Hachette Mk1s (remarkably similar in some respects to the Bachmann offerings). The pockets on these are too low, but a paper or very thin card shim seems to have sorted that. They certainly remain coupled on my flat (and, if I say so myself) reasonably smooth track.

 

Locos: the Bachmann Crab is correct height front and rear.