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

[Gilbert]

So far so good - I don't run my coaches on long trains over long distances - mainly shuttles and shunts.

[Yardman]

The truth is there is nothing right about the NEM box with regard to KD couplers. It is best avoided like the plague. One of the problems is the little rubber spring that allows the box to move in all directions creating more slop in an already loose coupler mounting. KD’s operate in a horizontal plane which means any vertical movement is BAD as you can get drooping couplers, misaligned heads and magnetic attraction to uncouplers. Also, not all NEM boxes are in the same location, even from the same rolling stock manufacturer. If you really are desperate you can use the 17, 18, 19, 20 KD’s, but These are best avoided unless nothing else can be applied. 17, 18, 19, 20 only have a swivelling coupler head so have limited movement unlike a “normal” KD where the whole coupler moves horizontally within the draft box. My preference is the No. 146, 147, 148 KD’s in their own boxes, which aren’t quite the same as a No. 5 box. These boxes should be mounted rigidly to the vehicle body as per KD’s instructions and shown in Gilbert’s photo’s on this thread. Don’t forget there is the 20 and 30 series of KD’s that can be used if vehicle end space is very tight. Bogie mounted couplers should be avoided. The prototype (with a few exceptions) don’t bogie mount couplers. All buffing and traction forces should be transmitted through the body, not the bogies. I have extensive experience with KD’s on American stock in both HO and G and all have body mounts on bogie vehicles, even up to 90ft vehicles. Unless you have ridiculously tight S curves it’s not usually a problem. Propelling a long rake of bogie vehicles with bogie mounted couplers is a recipe for disaster. KD’s work great if applied as KD intended. If you really must use the NEM box, lock it up rigidly and use some shim plasticard to remove play within the box.

[tomparryharry]

3 hours ago, PMP said:

 

Cutting to the chase, (as you mention) there is no agreed UK standard, legal or otherwise for UK tension lock couplings.

 

There’s no point in reviewers mentioning a non applicable standard, they may as well quote an equally inappropriate NMRA standard. 

 

Most RTR purchasers stick with tension locks and  the percentage of those who change their couplings and want to retain the existing RTR mount is very small. As @Gilbert says if you want to fit Kadee etc, you’re on your own. UK modellers wanted manufacturers to up their game and provide good looking and functional models, which they did, but there were requirements to be able to match legacy TL couplings. The big issue people forget is that US stock ‘generally’ has the RTR knuckle coupling in the same place as the prototype, which obviously isn’t the case with UK/Euro stock.

 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. 

 

However, there is a model with a front coupling which resides in a different postcode! 

[jonhall]

3 hours ago, frobisher said:

 

Er nope.  Bachmann, for instance only make claim for NEM coupling pockets and no adherence to any standard for those pockets or indeed what NEM stands for, so I would suggest that in a legal sense they are using NEM in it's accepted meaning for the public to mean plug in couplings using a certain type of plug.

 

But the whole point is that NEM is the standard, and its not a standard about couplings, its a standard about coupling boxes, and their location above rail, from front face of buffer and the size of the box. If its not compliant with these parameters then its not a NEM box.

 

I wonder if we could approach MOROP to get them to send a cease & desist to the non compliant manufacturers, to at least stop using the term NEM pocket for a non-NEM compliant location?

 

Jon

 

[Ravenser]

6 hours ago, PMP said:

 

Cutting to the chase, (as you mention) there is no agreed UK standard, legal or otherwise for UK tension lock couplings.

 

There’s no point in reviewers mentioning a non applicable standard, they may as well quote an equally inappropriate NMRA standard. 

 

Most RTR purchasers stick with tension locks and  the percentage of those who change their couplings and want to retain the existing RTR mount is very small. As @Gilbert says if you want to fit Kadee etc, you’re on your own. UK modellers wanted manufacturers to up their game and provide good looking and functional models, which they did, but there were requirements to be able to match legacy TL couplings. The big issue people forget is that US stock ‘generally’ has the RTR knuckle coupling in the same place as the prototype, which obviously isn’t the case with UK/Euro stock.

 

 

Although there is no formal "tension lock standard", it is generally accepted by all British RTR manufacturers nowadays that  a) all new RTR models should have NEM pockets and b] they should be set to the height specified . There's a formal standard here , NEM pockets  which can be regarded as a formal public definition of a de-facto industry standard.

 

The days of idiocies like the Lima 156 where the NEM pockets were set close to rail level are over, though that particular late 1980s tooling isn't quite history 

 

There are a number of significant "legacy tooling " RTR models dating from the early stages of NEM pocket adoption where the pocket was set at the wrong height. It's the wrong height because, as the OP found, it doesn't match the level of the vast majority of RTR models (which adhere to the HO height standard) 

 

The most annoying and prominent of these cases is the Bachmann Mk1 range... 

[Ravenser]

On 28/03/2021 at 19:08, steved99 said:

I'm going slowly insane trying to get my locos and rolling stock fitted with NEM tail Kadees 17, 18 and 19,   It appears that all the blasted Bachmann coaches are at one height whilst Hornby and Dapol appear to use assorted heights for their coupling pockets.   My Hornby Adams Radials NEM sockets apear to be far to low even for Hornby coaches  ????   only attaching about 50% of the coupler head, and Bachmann are even worse with only about 30% contact .     If the yanks can and do stick within NEM specs why cannot our manufacturers.  I've got ONE steam loco the Adams Radial fitted with #18s and I own 8 coaches NONE of which will couple properly ( same height) with the Loco.

 

I'm seriously beginning regretting coming over from 0-16.5 to 00 as 00 is even more messed up than the piecemeal standards of 0-16.5.

 

 

As all the replies have tended to the abstract and general , some practical comments.

 

The least painful way of sorting out Bachmann Mk1s with Kadees is to jam a Number 5 coupling head (or at least it's back end)  in the pocket. To do this, in my experience, you need to file down the spade at the back of the coupler and hack away at the (outer end of) the sides of the NEM pocket with a craft knife . You then superglue the business piece of the Kadee in place and it will be at the right height. As you will gather, this is effectively a one way irreversable action. I'm indebted to 34B of this forum for this one

 

Option 2 is to do business with Keen Systems:  Keen Systems couplings  They will sell you a resplacement close coupling mount cam unit - they call it a draw bar - made of resin. This can be fitted by removing the bogie (unscrew the screw underneath) and swapping it for the plastic one fitted by Bachmann. This gives you an NEM pocket at the correct height.

 

You need a height gauge. I think the large Kadee Starter Pack includes one, if you can source that : it's a useful range of bits. 

 

The "Roco close coupler" which is also available from Hornby (Hornby's varient gives a slightly wider gap than the genuine Roco item) is relatively forgiving of slight variations in height. It will , just about, auto-couple but it's difficult to manually uncouple. It's best used within coach sets. As it's a rigid coupling bar, it really needs a Close Coupling Mechanism (CCM) on at least one if not both vehicles . Bachmann Mk1s and modern Hornby (not sure about Railroad) have this - the principle is adopted by Keen Systems , who provide a means of retrofitting most RTR coaches with them

 

Where there is no CCM on either vehicle, then Roco coupling bars are not really an option - they will drag the stock off on curves . Best to stick to Kadees in that situation . MJT etched bogies with the etched NEM pocket tongue come to mind as an example.

 

I have no direct experience of the Hornby Adams Radial. I'm surprised the problem has arisen, but I can see no solution other than to remove the NEM pocket and mount, and hard fit a traditional Kadee in a draft box , in conformity with the height gauge. It's one vehicle, and not the end of the world. That will get you up and running

 

As a general comment, the back face of the buckeye head on a Kadee needs to be slightly forward of the buffer heads to avoid buffer locking

 

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Ravenser
hat-tip moved to Option 1

[PMP]

53 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Although there is no formal "tension lock standard", it is generally accepted by all British RTR manufacturers nowadays that  a) all new RTR models should have NEM pockets and b] they should be set to the height specified . There's a formal standard here , NEM pockets  which can be regarded as a formal public definition of a de-facto industry standard.

 

 

It’s not a de facto standard as it clearly isn’t used, some recent releases demonstrate that, as does your first sentence.
 

I’ve asked your good self before, (and you’ve never answered), when you’ve provided that link, which manufacturer’s has the OO gauge society liased with on a standard coupling?, who was the society officer representing the OO gauge community?,  and which manufacturers agreed to adopt that specific coupling standard, and when?

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by PMP

[PMP]

3 hours ago, 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. 

As someone who uses three link couplings, most releases since the 90’s appear to meet that criteria There’s some legacy tooling in the Hornby range that doesn’t, but coupling and buffer heights today are very consistent on RTR 

Edited March 30, 2021 by PMP
Unpredictable text

[tomparryharry]

2 minutes ago, PMP said:

As someone who uses three link couplings, most releases since the 90’s appear to meet that criteria There’s some legacy tooling in the Hornby range that doesn’t, but coupling and buffer heights today are very consistent on RTR 

 A bit of a minefield. I also prefer 3-links. The take-up on 3-links is most prototypical. With my diminishing eyesight, I've been using 3's on a rake, with a barrier wagon with 3's on the one, and something else (Bach, Hornby/Dapo/KD on the other end.

 

Sad to say some people won't agree with you, hence the original post at the top of this subject. 

[brossard]

I can offer a partial solution to coupling NEM fitted coaching stock.  Hunt couplings:

 

https://www.westhillwagonworks.co.uk/hunt-couplings-new-c-2/hunt-couplings-original-oo-gauge-c-15/hunt-couplings-close-coupling-10-pairs-for-nem-sockets-oo-gauge-p-23

 

provide a reliable, quick and easy method to replace Kadees on passenger rakes.  There is an added advantage in that there is no fore and aft slop.  There are a number of configurations.  It is quick and easy to install into a NEM fitted loco and can be swapped for a regular Kadee if needed.

 

I've seen these in action and I and my club members were astounded.

 

I'm doing 7mm these days and can cope with screw/3 link couplings in that scale.  I couldn't in 4mm.

 

John

[Ravenser]

5 minutes ago, PMP said:

It’s not a de facto standard as it clearly isn’t used, some recent releases demonstrate that, as does your first sentence.
 

I’ve asked your good self before, (and you’ve never answered), when you’ve provided that link, which manufacturer’s has the OO gauge society liased with on a standard coupling?, who was the society officer representing the OO gauge community?,  and which manufacturers agreed to adopt that specific coupling standard, and when?

 

 

It's a pretty universal consensus amongst British Kadee users. It is the only defined standard - as regards height placement of Kadees  - (defined by Kadee and their user-base internationally, and accepted by MOROP) 

 

As far as the placement height of NEM pockets, the MOROP definition is emphatically an official standard, and accepted by Kadee , because they make NEM plug in Kadees, which are designed to align with their height gauge ...

 

That, I think, is a pretty universal consensus. Nobody - but nobody - uses the NMRA S-2 standard for knuckle  height on US OO  in connection with British OO. They use the HO height

 

Please provide evidence of  British outline 4mm Kadee users who have adopted a height placement for Kadees other than that defined by NMRA S-2 HO / NEM 362  (and Kadee's own gauge). You can't. There is nobody , or almost nobody, doing that

 

And , as noted , the great majority of OO RTR with NEM pockets have them set at the NEM 362 height. The main exceptions - Bachmann Mk1s - are 20 years old or more, and date from the early days of NEM pockets on British RTR. Bachmann got it wrong at the start. They got it right on their Mk2s and they got it right on their LMS Portholes. How does that constitute "Bachmann do not accept or work to NEM 362 height"??. Hornby got it right on their Gresleys. Etc Etc...

 

A nearly universal consensus amongst users and on RTR items constitutes a de-facto standard . An attempt to deny that reality , in the pursuit of clouding the issue , apparently to encourage incompatibilities in RTR , seemingly because you don't think people should use couplings other than tension locks , and disapprove of Kadees (I can make no other sense of the logic behind the apparent line of reasoning here) is rather unhelpful to OO modellers in general.

 

It's about as constructive as saying that 16.5mm is not a standard for OO track gauge because "there is no standard" and you won't accept as evidence anything other than production of an email exchange with all track manufacturers in which they formally sign off on 16.5mm gauge....

 

This standard for height exists, and is very widely adhered to. No other standard exists. A standard here is a practical necessity for any user. 

 

As for your questions - the data sheet does not define a standard coupling , but a standard for placement on OO stock of an NEM pocket . It mirrors NEM362. My understanding as a member of the society concerned is that the data sheet was circulated to the then major manufacturers - certainly Hornby and Bachmann, probably Dapol, possibly Replica - at about the time it is dated. They indicated their support for it as a standard . (There was no reason for them not to - as they were already de facto working to NEM 362 HO on current projects, and whatever they've produced since. ) Heljan and Vi-Trains were somewhat difficult to contact I gather . However I am not aware of any suggestion that Heljan NEM pockets differ from those specified by NDEM 362. Why would a Continental HO manufacturer differ from that, when the major Britsh manufactures were making models compatible with it . (And both Hornby and Bachmann also make Continental HO)

 

A list of OO RTR where the pocket does not adhere to NEM362 HO height might be useful. The bulk of the items listed would doubtless have been tooled before 2005 , in some cases well before 2005

 

But I don't see what possible benefit is achieved by claiming that there isn't an accepted standard for height placement of NEM 362 on OO stock. It obscures and confuses the reality on the ground, and it seems to promote and encourage undesirable incompatibilities between produits that need to work together.  Why???

[D9020 Nimbus]

44 minutes ago, PMP said:

I've asked your good self before, (and you’ve never answered), when you’ve provided that link, which manufacturer’s has the OO gauge society liased with on a standard coupling?, who was the society officer representing the OO gauge community?,  and which manufacturers agreed to adopt that specific coupling standard, and when?

Why is this relevant? If manufacturers claim to fit an NEM 362 coupling box, then they should meet the standard. Otherwise, it's an incorrect trade description since it isn't an NEM 362 pocket if it doesn't meet the standard. There's nothing to say manufacturers have to meet the standard, just that if they say they do, then they should be telling the truth.

 

Since you use three-link couplings, I'm not even sure why you've posted a comment here anyway…

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

On 28/03/2021 at 19:08, steved99 said:

I'm seriously beginning regretting coming over from 0-16.5 to 00 as 00 is even more messed up than the piecemeal standards of 0-16.5.

 

Yep, this is one of the reasons I've gone back to HO.  I could not tolerate the shoddy build quality and the lack of 'standards' of the OO manufacturers...   

 

I won't name names, but several Big Names and even some Cool Upstarts serially disappointed me.

[Ravenser]

10 minutes ago, brossard said:

I can offer a partial solution to coupling NEM fitted coaching stock.  Hunt couplings:

 

https://www.westhillwagonworks.co.uk/hunt-couplings-new-c-2/hunt-couplings-original-oo-gauge-c-15/hunt-couplings-close-coupling-10-pairs-for-nem-sockets-oo-gauge-p-23

 

provide a reliable, quick and easy method to replace Kadees on passenger rakes.  There is an added advantage in that there is no fore and aft slop.  There are a number of configurations.  It is quick and easy to install into a NEM fitted loco and can be swapped for a regular Kadee if needed.

 

I've seen these in action and I and my club members were astounded.

 

I'm doing 7mm these days and can cope with screw/3 link couplings in that scale.  I couldn't in 4mm.

 

John

 

 

Noted . But these still require the NEM pockets to be set at the same height on each vehicle. Which seems to be the issue here

[brossard]

10 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Noted . But these still require the NEM pockets to be set at the same height on each vehicle. Which seems to be the issue here

 

I would suggest you check the website.  IIRC there are a number of crank configurations that may compensate for out of spec height.  There is a normal and stepped version shown on the home page.

 

BTW, when my friend told me about these I was skeptical.  He put his money where his mouth is and bought a couple of packs to see what's what.  As I said above, these are brilliant and possibly a game changer.

 

I suggest that people buy some to try and see how they do.

 

John

Edited March 30, 2021 by brossard

[letterspider]

Doesn't Kadde do cranked couplings both up and down?

[brossard]

Not for the range of #17 - #20 designed for NEM.

 

John

[Ravenser]

6 minutes ago, letterspider said:

Doesn't Kadde do cranked couplings both up and down?

 

Kadee? No.  They do over- and under-set couplings for their traditional hardfit draftbox couplers. But the NEM plug couplers #17, #18, #19, #20 , come in one height only

 

The bulk of their market for the NEM plug Kadees is HO. They quite reasonably assume pocket height complies with NEM 362

[PMP]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Why is this relevant? If manufacturers claim to fit an NEM 362 coupling box, then they should meet the standard. Otherwise, it's an incorrect trade description since it isn't an NEM 362 pocket if it doesn't meet the standard. There's nothing to say manufacturers have to meet the standard, just that if they say they do, then they should be telling the truth.

 

Since you use three-link couplings, I'm not even sure why you've posted a comment here anyway…

That’s just it, I can’t recall a single UK manufacturer saying their products confirm to standard ‘x’ for either couplings or coupling mounts. Some sell replacement pockets as NEM pockets. So the manufacturers are being quite clear about it.

 

Mention of Kadees and their suitability for UK stock whilst the OP’s concern, isn’t relevant to the UK manufacturing program. They design for tension lock, as that is the standard type for UK RTR, so those that want to use alternative style products in those coupling pockets aren’t catered for, it’s that simple.

 

I do use three link couplings, what of it? I write reviews both for myself and others on occasion, if a product is supplied with tension locks then if there’s an issue with them, I’d flag it up, so far, none. For most RTR the contemporary fit of TL’s work fine between different manufacturers. So they’re getting it right for their core market.
 

 

[Pacific231G]

On 29/03/2021 at 09:46, frobisher said:

 

But the height would then be scale height for US practice (hence the note about AAR tolerances in the document linked) rather than something relevant for British practice, which is not what is being aimed at in any case. 

 

 

With coaching stock, I've found the Bachmann EZ-Mate NEM couplings to be a help in the mix in association with close coupling mechanisms.  They don't have the swivel-ly head which causes Kadees to be less than cooperative with CCMs sometimes.

That also means that the EZ-mate couplers will only work if the NEM box can move horizontally, generally in a close coupling mechanism, and fairly freely but not all stock fitted with NEM boxes will do that.

Kadee's coupling principle (now out of patent so the principle can be used by other manufacturers)  relies on the head being able to move laterally. That's inherent for an NMRA standard draft box as they're fitted with a swivel pin, but the NEM standard doesn't require lateral movement. Kadee therefore designed their couplers to work without it by fitting a swivelling head. It might be useful if Kadee did make a range of NEM couplers designed for "kinematic" NEM boxes as, in my experience, their products work better than the clones but that would likely just add confusuon.

In practice I've been using Kadee couplers with NEM boxes for about twenty years - some of the boxes have been retrofitted to older stock that didn't have them- and have never had problems with the extra degree of movement that comes with a Kadee NEM coupler fitted into a "kinematic" NEM box. However, my train lengths are quite short.

If you're sure that you're never going to use anything other than Kadees (or clones) and that you won't be passing any stock onto other modellers then fitting NMRA draft boxes and using standard Kadee couplers might make sense (I have a number of wagons and coaches so fitted- though not by me)  but it loses the basic feature of NEM boxes which is interchangeabiity of coupler types. If I want to sell a vehicle second hand (or use it on someone else's layout) then I merely have to extract the Kadees and replace them with their original NEM hinged loop couplers. (for 00 that would be tension locks) but equally important for me. If I decide to run some coaches as a rake then I can use a coupler bar or magnetic couplers between them.   

 

The other problem I've found with EZ-mate couplers is that they don't come in enough different lengths so the distance between the buffers of coupled  vehicles is usually excessive.   That depends on the curves you're using (I normally reckon to have the buffing face of the coupler slightly in front of the face of the buffers) and whether the box is fitted the standard distance behind the buffer faces. I simply keep a stock of different length Kadees couplers and use the one that best fits. 

The nightmare, which has fortunately only happened to me a couple of times,  is to buy a very tasty second hand vehicle  only to discover that the original owner has decide to glue their chosen coupler into the NEM box!

Edited April 7, 2021 by Pacific231G

[steved99]

2 hours ago, letterspider said:

Doesn't Kadde do cranked couplings both up and down?

 Yes but not with NEM Swallow tail connections.  In NEM there is only 17 18 19 and 20 NEM tailed coupling which are different lengths, but not different head heights.

[steved99]

So guys thanks one and all for the numerous informative replies about my coupling height issues.  I think i will just have to avoid buying any more Bachmann gear, The bulk of Hornby and Dapol stock when I fit with Kadees 17 to 20 do line up quite well with the Kadee height gauge, only some OLDER stuff appears to be a " bit" out where as Bachmann go no where near.   I dont have the skills that many of you folks have for chopping up stock and fitting draft boxes so I'll go the easy route , no more Bachmann

 

I would add that though UK 00 models have massively improved since the 1980s  I now believe they are still behind many European, American and Japanese manufacturers when it comes to standards (and price)

Edited March 30, 2021 by steved99

[Gilbert]

8 minutes ago, steved99 said:

So guys thanks one and all for the numerous informative replies about my coupling height issues.  I think i will just have to avoid buying any more Bachmann gear, The bulk of Hornby and Dapol stock when I fit with Kadees 17 to 20 do line up quite well with the Kadee height gauge, only some OLDER stuff appears to be a " bit" out where as Bachmann go no where near.   I dont have the skills that many of you folks have for chopping up stock and fitting draft boxes so I'll go the easy route , no more Bachmann

 

I would add that though UK 00 models have massively improved since the 1980s  I now believe they are still behind many European, American and Japanese manufacturers when it comes to standards (and price)

It would be worth buying a small Bachmann wagon or coach and trying with a box. Once you've cracked it you'll be fine - but get a gauge - preferably the newer dual ended one  plastic one which sets both coupler and mounting height. No affiliation to this supplier - it just came up first on a search.

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

I've moved over to boxes for 80-90% of my stock as I need operational reliability..

[letterspider]

Maybe Bachmann should be asked to produce a cranked NEM Kadee type coupling to deal with this problem - they already fit straight buck eye couplings  to their MBA wagons...

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, PMP said:

That’s just it, I can’t recall a single UK manufacturer saying their products confirm to standard ‘x’ for either couplings or coupling mounts. Some sell replacement pockets as NEM pockets. So the manufacturers are being quite clear about it.

 

Mention of Kadees and their suitability for UK stock whilst the OP’s concern, isn’t relevant to the UK manufacturing program. They design for tension lock, as that is the standard type for UK RTR, so those that want to use alternative style products in those coupling pockets aren’t catered for, it’s that simple.

 

I do use three link couplings, what of it? I write reviews both for myself and others on occasion, if a product is supplied with tension locks then if there’s an issue with them, I’d flag it up, so far, none. For most RTR the contemporary fit of TL’s work fine between different manufacturers. So they’re getting it right for their core market.
 

[emphasis added when quoting]

 

The whole point of NEM pockets is to facilitate changing the couplings if the user wishes . That is why MOROP came up with them, and both Hornby and Bachmann explicitly recognise that fact by supplying alternative couplers in the box with their British coaching stock - the "NEM plastic steam pipe" in the case of Bachmann and "Roco close couplers" in the case of Hornby.

 

I should perhaps have said that I've used the "NEM steam pipe " as an internal coupling within a 2 car set to adjust for height between a Bachmann Mk1 and a Bachmann Mk2, and also between a Hachette Mk1 SK and a Hornby Gresley BCK. It's another approach to the OP's problem, though I'm not sure I'd like to hang more than a couple of vehicles on the back on them.

 

And perhaps I should also note that Bachmann also use and supply as a spare plastic bar couplings with NEM ends , both plain and as a conductive bar , between multiple unit vehicles. Some Bachmann DMUS (the old 158, 170 and 108 from memory) came with continental style loop+bar couplings between the vehicles, plugged into NEM sockets. These can be substituted by NEM Kadees to close up the gangways , though not if conductive couplings are required to power lights (The 150 being a case in point)

 

So it's not the case that tensionlocks are the only couplings found on RTR OO

 

And modellers wanted - and got - NEM pockets on RTR models solely in order to be able change the couplings easily. There is no other reason for them to be there. They aren't some curious private convenience of the manufacturers that don't concern modellers.

 

Your claim "so those that want to use alternative style products in those coupling pockets aren’t catered for" is simply wrong. That's the main reason the pockets exist, and everyone knows it. We just want implementation to be 100%, not 95% with 5% discrepant.

 

Your position that users of British OO RTR should not want to use couplings other than tension locks and that the manufacturers should not pander to or support such deviant habits is more than a little odd. There has been considerable discontent with tensionlocks , over many years - and the ready availability of Kadees, Hoernby's "Roco close couplers" and the like in model shops up and down the land points to that fact. Of course the manufacturers cater for it. It's a noticeable slice of their customer base . It's absurd to claim that Kadees aren't relevant to British outline OO RTR

 

 

Quote

 I can’t recall a single UK manufacturer saying their products confirm to standard ‘x’ for either couplings or coupling mounts. Some sell replacement pockets as NEM pockets.

 

To sell something as an NEM pocket IS to say that it conforms to the Normes Européennes de Modélisme ferroviaires issued by MOROP , which Wikipedia translates - perfectly accurately - as "European Standards for Model Railways"

 

And the relevant standard is NEM 362 - which includes a height above the rail. The pockets themselves certainly conform to the dimensions in that document , as do the dovetail mounting blocks

 

And to play devil's advocate for a moment - 

 

You claim that "tension lock...is the standard type for UK RTR" . It isn't for N or 7mm....

 

And to adopt your own criteria:

 

Quote

which manufacturers and which society(s) have liased with on a standard coupling?, who was the society officer representing the OO gauge community?,  and which manufacturers agreed to adopt that specific coupling standard, and when?

 

in respect of tension locks as "the standard [coupling] type for UK RTR" .

 

You cannot produce any such agreement, or discussions, or dates. You can't even produce a datasheet from anyone, anywhere in the world, defining a tensionlock or any of its details or dimensions. So by your own criteria - tensionlocks cannot be"the standard type for UK RTR" .

 

Even better - I've listed above quite a few cases where tension locks are not used , or alternatives supplied - so by your own argument , tensionlocks are also "not a de facto standard as it clearly isn’t used, some recent releases demonstrate that"

 

Every argument you make against the existence of a de facto  standard for NEM pockets is equally an argument against your own claim that tension locks are "the standard [coupling] type for UK RTR" , (and therefore that alternative couplings are not supported and should not be )

 

The only real difference is that I can produce far more documentation and modellers' organisations to support my claim than you can produce to support yours.....