Hornby NEM POCKETS. DUMB IDEA.

[melvin]

I expect some of you have come across the way the coupling pocket is attached to the Loco/Coach.

If this mount fails what do you do.

On a Hornby Loco the socket is not a separate part. 

I suppose I could glue it in, but then there's a problem should you have to replace it.  So as I have said a Dumb idea, no thought what so ever given to what can and does happen.

[HExpressD]

I can't think of a single loco off the top of my head that doesn't have a separately fitted NEM pocket, after all, that's the point. What loco would you be referring too? 

[Hilux5972]

47 minutes ago, melvin said:

I expect some of you have come across the way the coupling pocket is attached to the Loco/Coach.

If this mount fails what do you do.

On a Hornby Loco the socket is not a separate part. 

I suppose I could glue it in, but then there's a problem should you have to replace it.  So as I have said a Dumb idea, no thought what so ever given to what can and does happen.

The NEM pocket IS a seperate fitting on locos. What loco do you have that isn’t?

[HExpressD]

I wonder if we'll ever find out...

[melvin]

Did not explain myself properly did i 

What i meant was. The removable pocket with a triangular bit on the end that fits into a matching socket on a Loco/Coach that the tension lock fits into.  I have two  items of stock that the pocket keeps falling out.

[Johan DC]

24 minutes ago, melvin said:

Did not explain myself properly did i 

What i meant was. The removable pocket with a triangular bit on the end that fits into a matching socket on a Loco/Coach that the tension lock fits into.  I have two  items of stock that the pocket keeps falling out.

I had the same on a Bachmann and an Oxford loc. I painted the triangle (black) so when dry it wouldn't fall out anymore.

[31A]

I've had one or two like that.  I put a dab of Evo Stik on the end of the triangular bit and then push it back in again.

[Fireline]

I use Humbrol Clearfix to paint them in. It acts as a glue, but has the added advantage of snapping if you actually want to take them out, meaning that the coupling doesn't break.

[MikeParkin65]

Black tack for me :)

 

[Trevor Hammond]

I have used Tacky Wax in the past. 

[phil-b259]

On 03/08/2022 at 12:16, HExpressD said:

I can't think of a single loco off the top of my head that doesn't have a separately fitted NEM pocket, after all, that's the point. What loco would you be referring too? 

 

Actually a large number of steam locos have the pocket moulded into the pony / bogie!

 

The N15s bogie and H tank being two examples where the bogie at the front / rear does not have a separate pocket.....

 

NEM mounts for separately fitted NEM pockets are only usually found where the loco lacks a pony / bogie and there is space to incorporate such a feature into the main chassis.

[5Dublo2]

That's not specifically just a Hornby issue, it is generic to the NEM design itself as the 'dove tail' including the slot it fits into is part of the NEM standard.

Yes some manufacturers elect to screw fit their pockets and some elect to have the pockets be a fixed part of the chassis

This article discusses some of the issues with NEM sockets (and page 4 mentions the dovetails on the pockets falling out)

https://www.buffersmodelrailways.com/image/data/couplings.pdf

[Flying Pig]

6 hours ago, 5Dublo2 said:

That's not specifically just a Hornby issue, it is generic to the NEM design itself as the 'dove tail' including the slot it fits into is part of the NEM standard.

 

Yes and no, apparently.  There is a standard for a dovetail attachment (NEM363) but as far as I can tell it is meant to be an alternative way of attaching the coupling where space is tight and not a way to attach the rectangular coupling pocket (itself covered by NEM362) - see here for the standards.  The dovetail used to attach NEM362 pockets on 00 models is not covered by either standard and may not be to the dimensions specified in NEM363 (see for example this post by @jonhall).

 

So there's no actual requirement to make the pocket a clip fit to the vehicle.  Indeed the NEM362 plus dovetail arrangement is quite bulky which has led to the couplings extending much too far on some models where the designers haven't been able to fit it all in and the compact NEM363 would have been more suitable.

[No Decorum]

ViTrains used NEM363. At the time I thought it was odd, not realising it was a standard. It would be grand if NEM363 tension lock couplers were available on the market.

[ellocoloco]

@Flying Pig Brilliantly explained, and I thought I was the only one who read the NEM standards. 

 

I really don't know why OO manufacturers find this so difficult. Once of the reasons I ditched OO over 30 years ago was discovering NEM362 mounts on Roco coaches along with the Roco close coupler and seeing what a scale model could look like. It could actually look like a train! Buffer to buffer.

 

Part of the problem is that most modellers have absolutely no idea what a NEM coupler actually is, and for 16.5mm standard gauge models there is only one standard - NEM 360 - which is the European style hook n loop. There are no tension lock/knuckle/magnetic/close couplers etc that conform to a NEM standard. Only an assortment of couplers that are designed to fit a box mount built to NEM dimensions.

 

Hornby and Bachmann have no excuse for messing this up. Both have European operations and I have certainly had no issues with the Hornby International models I have. Only the older ones don't have a NEM362 on a kinematic mount. A couple have a NEM 363 for a short coupler head. The Bachmann Liliput coach I have uses a perfect NEM 362 kinematic mount. When I looked at the otherwise excellent looking Bachmann 47 and 37 and saw a bogie mounted coupler, I just thought  - Nooooooooooooooooooo! Do OO modellers not demand close coupling!!!!!

 

Back to the OP. @melvin Try rotating the removable pocket with a triangular bit on the end that fits into a matching socket through 180 degrees. They fit one way better than the other. If that doesn't work, try painting/varnish/PVA as suggested above as the coupling can still be 'cracked' apart if need be at a later date. If still no good, cut the whole thing off and mount a Kadee #5.

 

 

 

 

[melvin]

Thanks Guys for the response. With the adhesives I have to hand. One was fixed in with Tacky Wax That ran for 30 minuets with out falling out. 

The other i used Deluxe Materials Glue & Glaze. Left that to dry. Wait & see on that one.

[KymN]

On 06/08/2022 at 11:28, Flying Pig said:

 

There is a standard for a dovetail attachment (NEM363) but as far as I can tell it is meant to be an alternative way of attaching the coupling where space is tight and not a way to attach the rectangular coupling pocket (itself covered by NEM362) - see here for the standards. 

 

Rapido UK has several forthcoming items (Lion and the 6-wheel Brake) that use the NEM363.  I use Kadees (#18 and similar) that use the NEM362 receptacle.  I contacted Kadee, who said that they had never heard of the 363.  I reported this in the Rapido pages. 

[Flying Pig]

1 minute ago, KymN said:

 

Rapido UK has several forthcoming items (Lion and the 6-wheel Brake) that use the NEM363.  I use Kadees (#18 and similar) that use the NEM362 receptacle.  I contacted Kadee, who said that they had never heard of the 363.  I reported this in the Rapido pages. 

 

Clearly Kadee don't read the NEM standards either 😉 

[Bucoops]

Oxford used it on their N7, but as it sticks out far too far it was the first thing to come off anyway.

[Pacific231G]

On 06/08/2022 at 10:47, ellocoloco said:

@Flying Pig Brilliantly explained, and I thought I was the only one who read the NEM standards. 

 

I really don't know why OO manufacturers find this so difficult. Once of the reasons I ditched OO over 30 years ago was discovering NEM362 mounts on Roco coaches along with the Roco close coupler and seeing what a scale model could look like. It could actually look like a train! Buffer to buffer.

 

Part of the problem is that most modellers have absolutely no idea what a NEM coupler actually is, and for 16.5mm standard gauge models there is only one standard - NEM 360 - which is the European style hook n loop. There are no tension lock/knuckle/magnetic/close couplers etc that conform to a NEM standard. Only an assortment of couplers that are designed to fit a box mount built to NEM dimensions.

 

Hornby and Bachmann have no excuse for messing this up. Both have European operations and I have certainly had no issues with the Hornby International models I have. Only the older ones don't have a NEM362 on a kinematic mount. A couple have a NEM 363 for a short coupler head. The Bachmann Liliput coach I have uses a perfect NEM 362 kinematic mount. When I looked at the otherwise excellent looking Bachmann 47 and 37 and saw a bogie mounted coupler, I just thought  - Nooooooooooooooooooo! Do OO modellers not demand close coupling!!!!!

 

Back to the OP. @melvin Try rotating the removable pocket with a triangular bit on the end that fits into a matching socket through 180 degrees. They fit one way better than the other. If that doesn't work, try painting/varnish/PVA as suggested above as the coupling can still be 'cracked' apart if need be at a later date. If still no good, cut the whole thing off and mount a Kadee #5.

 

 

 

 

There is quite alot of confusion between the NEM standard 360 coupler and the NEM362 box which came much later. The purpose of the latter is to ensure that you can replace the former with something better. I've long been convinced that the main purpose of the NEM 360 hinged loop coupler was to make tension lock couplers look good by comparison. Both make it impossible to simply lift a vehicle clear of a train, both have a nasty habit of tangling themselves up if the hooks end up on the wrong sde of one another and both are fairly obtrusive.

[melvin]

Since starting this topic I have so far not been successful in getting the pocket to stay fixed in the socket.

However i have just noticed one ebay to other options.

1 Is a screw on pocket. 2. Is a glue on , both it seems replace the moulded one. Any one experience of either of this method.

[Flying Pig]

On 12/08/2022 at 21:44, Pacific231G said:

There is quite alot of confusion between the NEM standard 360 coupler and the NEM362 box which came much later. The purpose of the latter is to ensure that you can replace the former with something better. I've long been convinced that the main purpose of the NEM 360 hinged loop coupler was to make tension lock couplers look good by comparison. Both make it impossible to simply lift a vehicle clear of a train, both have a nasty habit of tangling themselves up if the hooks end up on the wrong sde of one another and both are fairly obtrusive.

 

I don't see how the hook can get in the wrong place on a lifting loop coupler as it is located centrally on the buffer.  The problem most often reported by users of the finescale equivalent DG and BB types is that the hoops tend to clash - some resolve this by removing the loop at one end of the vehicle though of course this means it must always run the same way round.

 

An advantage of this general design is that it can be fitted with a latch that prevents the loop falling back onto the hook once lifted, thus giving delay mode without the unrealistic shuffle required by Kadees and similar.  This replicates the action of a full size link type coupling and shunter's pole, which makes realistic loose shunting possible, something that can otherwise only be done with Alex Jackson or scale three link couplings.

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I don't see how the hook can get in the wrong place on a lifting loop coupler as it is located centrally on the buffer.  The problem most often reported by users of the finescale equivalent DG and BB types is that the hoops tend to clash - some resolve this by removing the loop at one end of the vehicle though of course this means it must always run the same way round.

 

An advantage of this general design is that it can be fitted with a latch that prevents the loop falling back onto the hook once lifted, thus giving delay mode without the unrealistic shuffle required by Kadees and similar.  This replicates the action of a full size link type coupling and shunter's pole, which makes realistic loose shunting possible, something that can otherwise only be done with Alex Jackson or scale three link couplings.

Yet they do get into the wrong position. Typical commercial rolling stock on the track we most commonly use does have a degree of slop (to allow them to negotiate 400mm curves)  that can be enough to allow this. This was something i noticed- or rather its absence was- when I built a North American themed layout.  Wheelsets, trucks (bogies) and track built to NMRA specs, simply seemed to match one another and rolled smoothly with the no. 5 Kadee couplers almost invariably doing what they were supposed to.

 

Yesterday, I had my French H0 BLT running at an exhibtion and there was, as usual, enough variation in how individual vehicles - all four and six wheel apart from locos- tracked through pointwork and curves that the Kadee coupler pins were often attracted to the wrong pole of the track magnet.  I have though operated the same layout with lifting loop couplers and also still use them with H0m and have had plenty of experience of them  jamming.  The other problem is that the "standard " NEM 360 lifting loop coupler (originally I believe a Märklin design) depends on variations in the height of the the two loops to work at all so they do often fail to couple. You can as you say remove the loop at one end of each vehicle , just as you can with tensiion locks, but that tends to give spurious uncoupling and in both cases can be a real problem with locomotives either because they come without loops or because- with steam locos- you want to turn them.

 

in the end I've alway returned to Kadees which I see as being  a bit like democracy. The worst possible type of commercial coupler- with the exception of all the others, though they'd be a lot better if manufacturers would only set the NEM 362 boxes at the correct height and, with close coupling units, without the usual droop.

Were I starting again I think I might be quite tempted by the AJ coupler. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Pacific231G

[Dunsignalling]

On 12/08/2022 at 19:49, Flying Pig said:

 

Clearly Kadee don't read the NEM standards either 😉 

The 363 standard is the one that has been adopted for UK outline, with the sole (and defunct) exception of ViTrains. The only example of 362 I've encountered is the sliding interface in the height-adjustable version of Roco's coupler, and they have 363 clips for fitting to the vehicle.

 

Having used them for near on 30 years, I'd assert that Kadee NEM coupler heads are more compliant than anything into which I've ever attempted to insert them!

 

That said, I dislike the mounts/pockets on RTR stock and, unless it's unduly difficult, I chop them off and fit "proper" Kadees, usually #141 or 146.

 

John

Edited August 22, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Phil Parker]

7 hours ago, melvin said:

Since starting this topic I have so far not been successful in getting the pocket to stay fixed in the socket.

However i have just noticed one ebay to other options.

1 Is a screw on pocket. 2. Is a glue on , both it seems replace the moulded one. Any one experience of either of this method.

 

You've also been unsucessful in posting without turning bold text on. Knock it off, there's no need to shout. We're here to help.

 

It would help us if you could say which specific items of rolling stock you are having trouble with. That way people can be more specific in their replies. Thanks.