Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,698 Posts
The fundamental problem is the tension lock coupler that is 'standard' for RTR OO product. It simply doesn't have the capability to work these cammed swinging linkages: what is required is a coupler system that links the NEM pockets as a rigid bar; that then 'works' the mechanisms correctly so that they recentre immediately as the vehicles exit curves. (I have been using the Roco pattern within sets of Bachmann and Hornby coaches with complete satisfaction for over 15 years, and plan to trial magnetic types.)

Of the Hornby diesels which exhibited the same problem - back in the day there were many threads on the subject - I have been able to test both the 30/31 and 50: substituting a Roco pattern coupler for the tension lock produced a reliable result with the coaches buffered up to the loco on straight track, and moved apart proportionally to the curve radius to prevent bufferlocking. I would expect the same to apply to the Accurascale implementation. It will be Accurascale's call whether they suggest a more suitable coupler; that would be the winning plan in my opinion.
I must admit that I find all this 'frothing' about NEM pockets rather amusing!

Some of us fit screw/chain couplings to all our stock (although I do use Kadee where the prototype used buckeyes), so if anything, the NEM pocket is actually a nuisance because invariably, it and its attachment (often a screw which holds a whole vehicle together) conflicts with threading a coupling hook through and accomodating a spring behind a buffer beam.
In most cases, the pocket is plastic, so normally easy to remove.

But I agree with 34C's point that to be effective, a ridged coupling between NEM pockets is necessary. Sadly, I think the Roco coupling looks appalling!
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top