Oo couplings

[PeterStiles]

I see that Dapol are changing their tension locks:

 

https://www.Dapol.co.uk/blogs/news/new-oo-gauge-coupling-design

 

Supposedly "some people" have experienced some Droop...

[The Johnster]

Well, at my age, you know...

 

This is Good News; an alternatives source of NEM couplings with dovetail pockets will relieve reliance on Bachmann, who tend to produce theirs in batches that you sometimes have to wait for.  Dapol have a reputation for value in this area which I hope they can continue.

[Guardian]

I wonder when UK manufacturers start to introduce close coupling mechanisms to  wagons... 

[markw]

13 hours ago, Guardian said:

I wonder when UK manufacturers start to introduce close coupling mechanisms to  wagons... 

Heljan were probably the first to fit a close coupling mechanism to a OO wagon (2008 ish), since then Hornby, Bachmann, Dapol, Oxford, Accurascale, Cavalex and probably others have introduced wagons with close coupling mechanisms.

[The Johnster]

Standard NEM tension locks are not far off with regard to buffer spacing for goods wagons in 'loose coupled' trains, i.e. with instanter couplings in the 'long' position.  For steam-age branch line and mineral work this is fine, and a big improvement on the 'good' old days when Lima couplings held stock about scale 6' or so apart!

[Mike Harvey]

18 hours ago, Guardian said:

I wonder when UK manufacturers start to introduce close coupling mechanisms to  wagons... 

Worth looking at Revolution Trains and others for that in 00. A high proportion of Revolution's N gauge output has kinematic couplers to facilitate close coupling.

[The Johnster]

To my view, the best automatic coupling  for UK outline stock in 4mm is the Spratt & Winkle, which is effective, unobtrusive, and can be used on stock with scale couplings, be they for appearance or required to be used as scale couplings if required.  The big RTR players will never go for this as long as they are producing setrack, as it is necessary for them to produce models that can be run on such track

 

I have a suggested solution; S&Ws with antlers to fit in NEM pockets.  This would eliminate one of the fiddly aspects of S&Ws, the fine adjustment needed to ensure compatibility with the adjoining vehicle which is faffy to set up and off-putting to anyone with a large amount of stock to be fitted with them.   They could be sold made up and ready to plug into the NEM pocket, and the compatibility adjustment would catered for by the use of something like Parkside PA34 dovetail mounts if the model's pocket was not in a position conducive to the best performance.  PA34s can be trimmed or packed (never had to pack one yet) to achieve the correct height and there is some positioning leeway for glueing the mount to the wagon floor in order to achieve the best distance that the coupling hook is allowed to protrude beyond the buffer heads; this will be the minimum distance that will allow reliable operation on your sharpest curves.

 

Those using setrack would of course still need to use the provided tension-locks, but those of us able to use larger radii would be more easily able to take advantage of the benefits, operational and visual, of S&W and similar couplings with an easy and adaptable installation method.  The S&Ws would be able to exploit the side-to-side movement offered by the pocket 'wagglers'.  One would still have the difficulty of mounting pockets on bogie stock or locos where there is either no pocket (older RTR and kit/scratchbuilds) but one would have this difficulty whatever the coupling being used.

 

There must be many modellers like me who dislike t/ls, and Kadees, as visually obtrusive and unrealistic but have layout that do not use setrack and are capable of exploiting 'better' couplings.  I don't feel that I am quite competent to install S&Ws reliably and consistently over a (fairly small fleet of stock, but would be able to do so without problem if they were NEM-pocket compatible; the problem is instantly reduced to one of pocket installation!  Scale couplings are too fiddly for me in my dotage, hand/eye co-ordination and steadyness not up to the job any more.  Poor old me...

 

For setrack users, I'd like to see a HD/Peco type buckeye with NEM antlers available.  These are a very outdated idea, but still have I believe some potential.  They were unreliable in service and prone to embarrassing uncouplings in motion, but these were mainly the result of uneven tracklaying and they should not give that sort of trouble on a well-laid layout.  They have a major advantage over other types, that of allowing a vehicle to be lifted vertically out of a train without it having to be uncoupled.  Magnetising them would be a good idea, allowing automatic or semi-manual wand uncoupling by magentic repulsion, and NEM pocket compatibility would allow similar flexibility of installation and mounting to my S&W idea.

 

Just sayin'.

[Flying Pig]

The de facto 00 implementation of the NEM standard is bonkers anyway.  Why does it combine NEM 362 and something like to NEM 363 (documents here) in the same mounting when they were intended to be alternatives?  Two interfaces where only one is needed is always going to be more bulky and obtrusive.  Also we lose the benefit of NEM 363 where space is tight and end up with couplings that stick out too far.

[Railpassion]

I bought 8 4-wheel vans recently. The hooks drop off, some droop and ride under, others are too rigid. Derailments galore. Quite shoddy work, really, when the actual van is such good quality.

 

After quite a bit of fiddling they now behave, when watched, but once my back is turned and I nip out of the garage to get a cuppa, I often return to find the train has mysteriously divided.

 

[BachelorBoy]

1 hour ago, Railpassion said:

I bought 8 4-wheel vans recently. The hooks drop off, some droop and ride under, others are too rigid. Derailments galore. Quite shoddy work, really, when the actual van is such good quality.

 

After quite a bit of fiddling they now behave, when watched, but once my back is turned and I nip out of the garage to get a cuppa, I often return to find the train has mysteriously divided.

 

 

Do you have cats?

[The Johnster]

I rarely buy Dapol wagons, as too many of them are hangovers from HD & Wrenn, with inferior chassis that have moulded handbrake levers and crude underframe details; many are dimensionally inaccurate as well.  For those I have bought, I have learned that it is essential to good running to replace wheelsets and couplings, and to destroy the originals with extreme prejudice so that you are never tempted into mistakenly using them again!   Dapol’s wagons have well detailed and finished bodies and are keenly priced, so it is a shame that they are so often let down by inferior components.  Factor in the price of replacement couplings & pockets, Parkside PA34 mounts for them, and wheelsets if you are buying them.  
 

Recent toolings are much better, it is the old HD/Wrenn models with Dapol 1980s chassis that cause trouble.  

Edited October 18, 2023 by The Johnster

[Rhydgaled]

On 17/10/2023 at 21:16, The Johnster said:

the compatibility adjustment would catered for by the use of something like Parkside PA34 dovetail mounts if the model's pocket was not in a position conducive to the best performance.  PA34s can be trimmed or packed (never had to pack one yet) to achieve the correct height and there is some positioning leeway for glueing the mount to the wagon floor in order to achieve the best distance that the coupling hook is allowed to protrude beyond the buffer heads; this will be the minimum distance that will allow reliable operation on your sharpest curves.

Do you have some sort of jig for ensuring correct height/alignment of PA34s? I have a pack I bought for my kit-built wagons but have yet to fit them as I'm worried I'd glue them in the wrong place.

 

On 17/10/2023 at 23:13, Flying Pig said:

The de facto 00 implementation of the NEM standard is bonkers anyway.  Why does it combine NEM 362 and something like to NEM 363 (documents here) in the same mounting when they were intended to be alternatives?  Two interfaces where only one is needed is always going to be more bulky and obtrusive.  Also we lose the benefit of NEM 363 where space is tight and end up with couplings that stick out too far.

This is quite noticeable on the Model Rail / Rapido 16xx - I once downloaded Autodesk Fusion 360 and started trying to design a version of the tension lock which would fit directly into the NEM 363 / PA34 interface and avoid the NEM 362 pocket but it's yet another of those projects I've never managed to finish. Not sure how I'd get the couplings made either or what material would be best.

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Rhydgaled said:

Do you have some sort of jig for ensuring correct height/alignment of PA34s? I have a pack I bought for my kit-built wagons but have yet to fit them as I'm worried I'd glue them in the wrong place.

 

I made a very crude jig by pressing a wagon into a piece of expanded polystyrene that was sitting over the rails, but while this is useful you can manage without one simply by matcing the coupling bar height to that on a model you know is correct.  'Stickyoutedness' is a little harder because the length of buffers varies and you need to establish a minimum distance between vehicles which is constant, the smallest gap you can get away with determined by the sharpest curvature on your layout.  There is no 'correct' gap, and once you've established a layout standard you can work to that.

 

Measure bar height from the railhead up, not from the floor down, and I position my PA34s by eye.  Height is ascertained by dry-fitting the coupling temporarily with Blutac, trimming the PA34 (they are made of quite soft plastic and can be cut easily and accurately), then finally fitting with superglue.  More recently tooled Peco/Parkside kits have marked positions for the PA34s which will be correct with straight Bachmann couplings.  Use cheapo pound shop superglue as the PA34 can be broken off with pliers if needed to reposition.  Further flexibility is offered by Bachmann NEM tension locks which come in four varieties, long and short straight and long and short cranked, so you have some wobble room, though sometimes not all the varieties are available all the time...

 

NEM is bonkers because it was not orignally designed to be used on UK-outline models wth buffers, and mounting NEM tension locks on bogies or locomotive ponies, diesel fairings, and long rigid-framed vehicles can be a problem especially if your curvature is sharp. 

[adb968008]

On 17/10/2023 at 23:13, Flying Pig said:

The de facto 00 implementation of the NEM standard is bonkers anyway.  Why does it combine NEM 362 and something like to NEM 363 (documents here) in the same mounting when they were intended to be alternatives?  Two interfaces where only one is needed is always going to be more bulky and obtrusive.  Also we lose the benefit of NEM 363 where space is tight and end up with couplings that stick out too far.

its worth pointing out that Morop, who defined the standards does not have the UK as a member.

It is therefore free for the UK to define its own standard, instead of following that of another.

 

 

 

[frobisher]

9 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

This is quite noticeable on the Model Rail / Rapido 16xx - I once downloaded Autodesk Fusion 360 and started trying to design a version of the tension lock which would fit directly into the NEM 363 / PA34 interface and avoid the NEM 362 pocket but it's yet another of those projects I've never managed to finish. Not sure how I'd get the couplings made either or what material would be best.

 

What you want are the ViTrains couplings as used on their 37 and 47 surely?

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

It is therefore free for the UK to define its own standard, instead of following that of another.

The one OO brand that has made a significant step in this direction (AFAIK) is Bachmann,

mounting their knuckle coupler in the bufferbeam of bufferless bogie freight stock.  A model autocoupler that looks much like the real coupler, in the right location, that's the way to do it. (It was very simple to mount the same couplers through the bufferbeam of the traction, and that makes possible  full end detail, both ends of the loco.) The couplers are overheight by Kadee standard but still work on their track magnets, so there's no loss of functionality for what is a 'one-off' train on my layout, that requires no general compatability.

 

The advent of very compact magnetic couplers invites a bufferbeam socket mounting. Will a RTR brand management be brave and think to offer this on their product?

 

Past track record suggests not, but it is easy enough by DIY.

[BachelorBoy]

4 hours ago, adb968008 said:

It is therefore free for the UK to define its own standard, instead of following that of another.

 

 

Who would actually define it?

 

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

Who would actually define it?

 

We could all contribute on here, and in around a decade the colour of the coupling might get agreement.

 

But seriously though some kind of standards maybe worthwhile.

 

I cannot believe we have so many shades of BR blue on our models, a livery which is still among us six decades since introduced.

 

Europe has no issues getting matching liveries, between manufacturers, located on different continents, even modern complex ones.

 

if we cant get that right what chance anything technical ?

Edited October 21, 2023 by adb968008

[atom3624]

OK, if you saw 5 BR blue diesels side-by-side, at the time, it would be a rare occasion for them to all look the same.

Putting a B&Q tester on them would show quite a few variations I'm sure.

Al.

[D9020 Nimbus]

What about the different versions of the "blood and custard" livery on coaches? Even within one manufacturer’s range (Dapol N gauge) there are big differences between the orange-red appearance of the Collet coaches with the much darker red on their Gresley coaches. Possibly they are going by colour photographs at a time when colour rendering between different brands of film varied considerably — and the most stable film of the time (Kodachrome) would be too slow for much train photography (it was originally ISO 10, and eventually made it to ISO 25).

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, atom3624 said:

OK, if you saw 5 BR blue diesels side-by-side, at the time, it would be a rare occasion for them to all look the same.

Putting a B&Q tester on them would show quite a few variations I'm sure.

Al.

Thats just a lazy excuse.

Majority of Variations are mostly down to weathering.

most models are made unweathered.

 

BR wasnt without standards on paint, obviously exceptions apply.

Europe is no different, trains get weathered there too, but yet they seem able to agree on a common starting point.

Edited October 21, 2023 by adb968008

[BachelorBoy]

8 hours ago, adb968008 said:

BR wasnt without standards on paint, obviously exceptions apply.

Europe is no different, trains get weathered there too, but yet they seem able to agree on a common starting point.

You have to take into account optical illusions.

 

Small patches of a colour appear darker than larger patches of the same colour.

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

15 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Thats just a lazy excuse.

Majority of Variations are mostly down to weathering.

 

or Exmover

[adb968008]

I’m not sure why people are defending, what is ultimately something wrong…

here is two near idential PKP EU46’s…

 

They sit perfectly well next to each other, as models just as they do on the mainline.

The paint shades are barely a whisker apart.

 

Yet one is made in China, the other in Romania. (piko and roco).

 

So why in the UK do we have to defend and accept this…

We cant event get the number font size in agreement.

 

its not even a recent thing, Ive 30 year old DB double deck stock from Roco, Piko and Sachsenmodelle.. and those shades perfectly match to.

 

We are wild west when it comes to standards…. Couplings, is nothing.

Edited October 22, 2023 by adb968008

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

21 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

Who would actually define it?

In the absence of any recognised body, it will be down to a brand 'doing it', and others copying.

 

Did Bachmann consult the only other significant player when they started putting coupler pockets ( and for that matter close coupling mechanisms) on their OO product? I rather doubt it, as Hornby didn't copy Bachmann's sound idea of mounting the coupler pocket higher than the NEM standard, which concealed it somewhat. (OO doesn't need compatability with HO coupling position.)

 

Here in the wild west I am marshall of my own Dodge city. At least with a neat clip in coupler system defined by an effective standards body, it is now simple to adopt the most suitable couplers, and to adjust coupler positions to the optimum standardised for my own layout.