Oo couplings

[BachelorBoy]

16 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

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.

 

Which one is correct?

 

[ELTEL]

Interesting as it is the colour variations, why have you posted it under 00 couplings.

[Darius43]

29 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

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

And of course the full size railway was/is not…

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[BachelorBoy]

13 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

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.

 

Which supports my point really. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

3 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

Which supports my point really. 

Indeed. Does anybody want the 'O be joyful' job of herding cats, pushing jelly uphill with a stick, <insert  purgatorial task of choice> rather than simply shrugging and getting on with 'making it work'?

[BachelorBoy]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&amp;D said:

Indeed. Does anybody want the 'O be joyful' job of herding cats, pushing jelly uphill with a stick, <insert  purgatorial task of choice> rather than simply shrugging and getting on with 'making it work'?

 

The NMRA are pretty good at kicking arse. I'm wondering if UK modellers should join to give it more oomph with makers of UK models. 

 

[andyman7]

On 17/10/2023 at 00:39, Guardian said:

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

 

On 17/10/2023 at 14:16, markw said:

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.

It is more challenging to fit a CCM to a traditional short wheelbase UK 4 wheel wagon chassis - the examples noted above are (I think) all LWB or bogie modern freight stock. Has there been a 00 short wheelbase traditional wagon so-fitted?

[96701]

I have read through this thread and am quite surprised that nobody has mentioned the Double O Gauge Association (DOGA) They have plenty of standards including NEM pockets and their positions.

 

https://doubleogauge.com/nem-coupling-pockets/

[BachelorBoy]

If anyone is feeling saintly/brave/mad then here is the page on the British Standards Institution's on how to suggest ideas for standards.

 

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/Proposals#:~:text=Proposal guidance%3A,who would use the standard%3F

 

[BachelorBoy]

2 minutes ago, 96701 said:

I have read through this thread and am quite surprised that nobody has mentioned the Double O Gauge Association (DOGA) They have plenty of standards including NEM pockets and their positions.

 

https://doubleogauge.com/nem-coupling-pockets/

 

I had a brief look. My impression is that it's not really a DOGA standard, it's more of an "I agree with MOROP/NEM" copycat.

 

 

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

Which one is correct?

 

They both are, the red stripe above the cab was added about a year after.

otherwise you can put a hair between them.

 

i’m awaiting another one of the 5 companies making vectron in HO to do this livery to have a hat trick.
 

having standards makes for better modelling experiences.

 

back on topic, they may have adopted an NEM pocket, does it match the height and dimensions or it is just an exercise in reducing cost by having less tooling parts* / bodies and time by moulding it on, and having a butterfly ?

 

(* current model is a pocket, screw, hook, loop & retainer guide - 5 pieces requiring a screw driver and drilling, the new process looks like 3 parts- Butterfly, loop and hook, all push fit).

Edited October 22, 2023 by adb968008

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, ELTEL said:

Interesting as it is the colour variations, why have you posted it under 00 couplings.

different problem, but relates back to the same underlying root cause…

 

lack of standards.

 

solving this, at a non partisan / inclusive level would have benefits not just to couplings.

Edited October 22, 2023 by adb968008

[BachelorBoy]

15 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

They both are, the red stripe above the cab was added about a year after.

otherwise you can put a hair between them.

 

i’m awaiting another one of the 5 companies making vectron in HO to do this livery to have a hat trick.
 

having standards makes for better modelling experiences.

 

back on topic, they may have adopted an NEM pocket, does it match the height and dimensions or it is just an exercise in reducing cost by having less tooling parts* / bodies and time by moulding it on, and having a butterfly ?

 

(current model is a coupling, pocket, screw, hook and plastic guide - 5 pieces requiring a screw driver and drilling, the new process looks like 3 parts, all push fit).

 

No I meant which BR blue is the right one?

 

[D9020 Nimbus]

3 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&amp;D said:

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.)

What?

 

The point about NEM sockets is that you can change the couplings for another type. By fitting non-standard pockets, you make the use of the Kadee coupler (IMHO the most popular alternative) impossible — it is very height sensitive — and make compatibility with other brands that do use the standard impossible. Far from being sound, it was arrogant and totally mis-conceived.

[adb968008]

25 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

No I meant which BR blue is the right one?

 

Each manufacturer will tell you theirs is.

Same for the font size.

[markw]

4 hours ago, andyman7 said:

 

It is more challenging to fit a CCM to a traditional short wheelbase UK 4 wheel wagon chassis - the examples noted above are (I think) all LWB or bogie modern freight stock. Has there been a 00 short wheelbase traditional wagon so-fitted?

The Accurascale HAA is probably the shortest so far, the cam from this would easily fit a typical 16'6" wagon.

[96701]

1 hour ago, markw said:

The Accurascale HAA is probably the shortest so far, the cam from this would easily fit a typical 16'6" wagon.

Oddly enough, Cavalex HAAs are similarly positioned.

[markw]

35 minutes ago, 96701 said:

Oddly enough, Cavalex HAAs are similarly positioned.

Of course the NEM pocket is similarly positioned as this is specified in the NEM standards, But the Cavalex HAA doesn't have a ccu  so I don't see how this is relavent to the claim that it is difficult to design a ccu to fit a short wheelbase wagon.

[frobisher]

20 minutes ago, markw said:

Of course the NEM pocket is similarly positioned as this is specified in the NEM standards, But the Cavalex HAA doesn't have a ccu  so I don't see how this is relavent to the claim that it is difficult to design a ccu to fit a short wheelbase wagon.

 

Hornby are also fitting them to their TT wagons so it's mostly down to appetite to do so I would say, regardless of scale.

[96701]

1 hour ago, markw said:

Of course the NEM pocket is similarly positioned as this is specified in the NEM standards, But the Cavalex HAA doesn't have a ccu  so I don't see how this is relavent to the claim that it is difficult to design a ccu to fit a short wheelbase wagon.

Apologies, I hadn’t made the connection with close coupling. Pun intended. 

[Michael Hodgson]

12 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

The NMRA are pretty good at kicking arse. I'm wondering if UK modellers should join to give it more oomph with makers of UK models. 

 

Not joining an American standards body.  An American pint is only about 80% of the real thng!

[Michael Hodgson]

5 hours ago, 96701 said:

Oddly enough, Cavalex HAAs are similarly positioned.

Maybe an optical effect of the lens, but that axle does not look parallel to the headstock.

[Halvarras]

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Each manufacturer will tell you theirs is.

Same for the font size.

 

Top and bottom Peaks are a little dark and murky for my taste but I live with a few Bachmann locos I have like this rather than respray - life's too short.

 

Standard Rail Alphabet loco numbers were 6" high so anything above or below 2mm is incorrect - shouldn't be any confusion about this......🙄!

[BachelorBoy]

8 hours ago, Halvarras said:

 

Top and bottom Peaks are a little dark and murky for my taste but I live with a few Bachmann locos I have like this rather than respray - life's too short.

 

 

Perhaps your taste needs to be recalibrated ?

 

(The screen grab of BR Blue is from the website Hextoral.com)

 

Mind you, the lighting on this picture is all over the shop. The "white" light on the left is actually yellow, and the white light on the right is probably daylight. Not ideal for comparing colours. 

 

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On 22/10/2023 at 14:11, D9020 Nimbus said:

...By fitting non-standard pockets, you make the use of the Kadee coupler (IMHO the most popular alternative) impossible — it is very height sensitive... 

I use Kadee, and of course it is height sensitive in terms of identical position above rail top on each vehicle for maximum reliability. 

 

But that doesn't mean it has to be mounted at Kadee's height specification. And having tried it out mounted higher than specification - joy unbounded! - it still works on Kadee's magnetic uncouplers; when first trying this I thought it might be necessary to straighten out the tails a little to obtain reliable magnetic uncoupling, but not so.

 

Roco pattern, fixed link and  and magnetic couplers also work, it's no problem.

On 22/10/2023 at 14:11, D9020 Nimbus said:

Far from being sound, it was arrogant and totally mis-conceived.

That's your opinion. Mine would be that it was a sensible adaption for use with OO, which Bachmann sadly failed to properly explain: and had they put the effort into communicating this, possibly there might have been greater design focus on consistent placement on their product.