Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi All
I have just been checking some packets of R8219 described as 'NEM close couplings' which to me look like NEM small tension lock couplings and also R8220 described as 'NEM Hornby couplings' which to me look very much like close couplings almost identical to Fleischmann. ie to me it looks as if they are wrongly described/numbered or packaged.
However, Hornby show the same thing on their website as well!

Or is it me???????????????

David Y
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,683 Posts
David,

You are on planet normal, it is Hornby who appear to have no clue about appropriate descriptions for some of the products they are offering.

R8219 is their version of the miniaure tension lock with an NEM mounting.

R8220 is very similar to a Roco coupler design, also NEM mounting (haven't taken a butcher's at the Fleischmann range for some while, but it is possible they have a similar design) and a very neat product. It works best in Bachmann mk1 coaches ironically...

Someone credible in the industry needs to talk to both Bachmann and Hornby about their respective close coupler mechanisms (CCM). Neither company seems to understand or properly promote what they do, and the one really suitable interchangeable coupler offered works best on the competitors product. Both their CCM mechanisms work best if used with a coupler which forms a near rigid bar. Offer a coupler of R8220 form with a choice of shank lengths to suit the CCM fits currently offered, and there are sales to be had. Once people see coaches with corridor faceplates in contact on straights, but still able to get through a second radius reverse curve such as formed by set-track points arranged as a crossover, they are won over. Instead we have a horrible mess where the CCM on the Hornby diesels actually causes derailments, because Hornby are not promoting the appropriate coupler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
QUOTE (Dinwiddy @ 15 Feb 2008, 11:11) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi All
I have just been checking some packets of R8219 described as 'NEM close couplings' which to me look like NEM small tension lock couplings and also R8220 described as 'NEM Hornby couplings' which to me look very much like close couplings almost identical to Fleischmann. ie to me it looks as if they are wrongly described/numbered or packaged.
However, Hornby show the same thing on their website as well!

Or is it me???????????????

David Y

Hi David,

Have a look at the Maunsell coach thread last posts re the CCM and Hornby Roco type couplers.

Cheers,

Bryan.
 

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (34C @ 15 Feb 2008, 12:28) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Both their CCM mechanisms work best if used with a coupler which forms a near rigid bar.

Flesichmann produce a number of rigid bars (if anyone is interested I will look up the numbers) - Marklin used to produce a "rigid" bar that looked like a tightened screw link coupling - it looked very effective when used with goods stock - alas AFAIK no-longer available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
34C mentioned the derailing effects of the CCM on the new Hornby diesels which I find most irritating to the point that I have to leave them sat in sidings or running light engine. This all seems rather pointless to me when the idea is to use them to haul trains. I can get away with using the diesels on coaching stock but the little china clay wagons get flicked off the track. So what are the options? Well I have recently acquired a second hand Lima class 50, having sold mine ages ago to buy Hornby ones, to haul my china clay wagons.

So Hornby, what are we to do please? there must be hundresd of similarly frustrated modellers out there particularly the younger and inexperienced ones
 

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (Western Sultan @ 22 Feb 2008, 07:53) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So what are the options?

Although I'm not familier with the Hornby CCM you could try the following ;

1) Make sure the CCM is moving without undue effort - if it it too stiff then (if it has a spring) reduce the spring effect or try a little silicon lubricant on the sliding part (some aerosol polishes have silicone content). The latter did the trick on some used Bachmann Liliput wagons we have.

2) Put a little weight in the wagons.

3) Send or take the locos back for a refund as "not fit for purpose" - the sooner the manufactures start to get more faulty goods back the sooner the buyer will get less faulty models & have to spend less time doing the manufactures quality control.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,683 Posts
QUOTE (Western Sultan @ 22 Feb 2008, 07:53) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So what are the options?
Brian's third suggestion is definitely the winner in terms of getting the manufacturer to comprehend their marketing shortcomings.

The real problem is that this mechanism is not designed to be used with the tension lock coupler; on its' own it is poorly self centering, and this tendency increases with load. Making the mechanism more free acting, and increasing the weight of vehicles, will actually tend to increase the problem; unless one substitutes a rigid bar design coupler (like Hornby's R8220) in which case the mechanism will then work very well indeed. This is the great irony: Hornby have actually fitted something quite sophisticated, but have not marketed it effectively. There does now appear to be some movement on this front: coaches fitted with the same mechanism are now supplied with the alternative R8220 coupler. The problem remains though that many items in Hornby's range do not have NEM pockets, so R8220 as a universal alternative to the tension lock is not possible.

In the meantime there are also these options:

4. Crop off the post on which the NEM pocket is mounted, glue a metal strip to the bogie base protruding toward the bufferbeam and bent to an appropriate height, glue on NEM pocket, fit coupler of choice. Best option for radii under 30".

5. Remove coupler from pocket, fit coupler of choice on bufferbeam. Needs 30"+ minimum radius.

My one Hornby bogie diesel is a hybrid: Kadee no 5 secured under bufferbeam one end, tension lock bogie mounted at other end. (I use kadee on coaches, tension lock on wagons, and since most of my operation is steam have a turntable to spin the diesel round as required.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
I have been following this subject (not only on this website) for some time and have noticed that a lot of errors are creeping in, both physical (wrong dimensions being used) and also wrong terminology. This only clouds the issue more and gives people wrong impressions. Therefore, may I point out one of the most wrongly used descriptions.

"NEM Close Couplings"

There is no such thing. There are NEM Close Coupling Mountings (see NEMs 362 and 363), but there are NO NEM Close Couplings.

Indeed, for HO, the only Coupling which is to an NEM Standard is the Marklin type of coupling, (NEM 360).

For anyone interested, I would refer them to the Standards Sheet put out by DOGA, in agreement with MOROP, the European organisation responsible for agreeing and publishing all NEMs (European Modelling Standards).

The actual Couplings are NOT laid down in any NEMs, and therefore manufacturers are not compelled to standardise their Couplings. However, they ARE required to adhere to the dimensions and positioning of the Coupling Mounts in accordance with the above quoted NEMs, which are MANDATORY.
If they do not do so, then they should not use the term "NEM", which is then misleading.

gresley
 

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (Doug @ 24 Feb 2008, 11:11) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Pity they are not all at the right height though.

This only seems to be a "UK" problem - I have never come across it with mainland european stock - however, I do find that when using FLM Profi Couplings with Roco Freight stock the buffers are just a tad too close together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
One thing that does bug me about the new Hornby Pullmans and LNER Gresley coaches is that the cams, on which the NEM sockets are mounted, tend to not re-centre after coming off 2nd and 3rd radius curves, with the most common result being a derailment. Does the rigid bar fix that problem?

I am pleased to note that the Staniers and Maunsells do not suffer from this problem unless the train is exceptionally long.

Regards,

Dan
 

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (Dan Hamblin @ 24 Feb 2008, 13:22) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>One thing that does bug me about the new Hornby Pullmans and LNER Gresley coaches is that the cams, on which the NEM sockets are mounted, tend to not re-centre after coming off 2nd and 3rd radius curves, with the most common result being a derailment. Does the rigid bar fix that problem?

I am pleased to note that the Staniers and Maunsells do not suffer from this problem unless the train is exceptionally long.

Regards,

Dan

Unless there is a problem with QC or the design then they should recentre without problems. As I have said elseware a touch of silicone lube on the mech may help, as will rigid bars.

If this is a general problem, then maybe the offending coaches out to be returned - when manufactures keep getting stuff returned they will get their act together & stop using the customer for QC and/or development.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Right, I've fixed the Pullmans - it was the weight of the brass Devon Belle observation car on the back end causing all the problems. Incidentally, these are from the first production batch and do not have an NEM poeckt for the couplers, just a screw on slim-line tension lock.

Just the Gresleys to fix then...

Regards,

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
QUOTE (Dan Hamblin @ 24 Feb 2008, 13:22) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>One thing that does bug me about the new Hornby Pullmans and LNER Gresley coaches is that the cams, on which the NEM sockets are mounted, tend to not re-centre after coming off 2nd and 3rd radius curves, with the most common result being a derailment. Does the rigid bar fix that problem?

I am pleased to note that the Staniers and Maunsells do not suffer from this problem unless the train is exceptionally long.

Regards,

Dan

I have to say a few words that as with my Roco Trix Lilliput Fleishmann and old Rowa rolling stock I have had absolutely no problems running my CCM equipped Hornby Pullmans Gresley and lately the SR Maunsells though various radius curves and point work and at various speeds.

I use the Roco #40270 close coupling device with delayed uncoupling for standard coupling pockets according to NEM 362.[catalogue description] for the Hornby rolling stock.
I use the Hornby R8220 which work well with Bachmann stock albeit the pocket height is different and the cam springs separate the coaches.
I have mixed the Hornby and Bachmann stock ok despite the pocket height difference.

I have not had any re-centre problems at all.
The Hornby CCM equipped stock works as well and the same as the European CCM equipped stock as was the original intention.QED.

As to the rigid bar I don't like the idea of loosing the convenience of being able to lift a coach out of a rake of coaches at will.
That has to be an individual decision.

The UK media to date [not had the Feb issues here as yet] never mentions in pictures and words the possibility of being able to have the added realism of buffer to buffer coupling as the Europeans have had for years in their descriptions of the latest SR Maunsells and previous reviews Pullmans and Gresleys.

Oh well,

Regards
Bryan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
Hi Brian,

I think they look better as the Marklin ones were literally a bar whereas the Brawa one has quite defined hooks.

One thing that annoys me with Marklin close couplers is their annoying habit of not connecting all the time.

I run 2.5 meter freight trains on my layout (basic track plan is a lollipop) with 2 % grades on it. I can run a freight train up and down the line several times, just changing the loco from end to end (well the Pwg gets moved as well) and occasionally the train will uncouple somewhere along it length. No rhyme no reason, most annoying!

My problem is that I have so many wagons with Marklin close couplers that they are my standard. To replace them with Fleischmann ones would be an expensive undertaking!

John
 

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (john woodall @ 26 Feb 2008, 07:58) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi Brian,

I think they look better as the Marklin ones were literally a bar whereas the Brawa one has quite defined hooks.

One thing that annoys me with Marklin close couplers is their annoying habit of not connecting all the time.

I run 2.5 meter freight trains on my layout (basic track plan is a lollipop) with 2 % grades on it. I can run a freight train up and down the line several times, just changing the loco from end to end (well the Pwg gets moved as well) and occasionally the train will uncouple somewhere along it length. No rhyme no reason, most annoying!

My problem is that I have so many wagons with Marklin close couplers that they are my standard. To replace them with Fleischmann ones would be an expensive undertaking!

John

Hi John,

Thanks for that info' - nice to be able to run decent length freights. The Marklin solid bars we have do have the "hooks" like the Brawa ones shown & they are just a little "bendy", we also have some of the FLM ones which are literally a plain bar, so maybe MarTrix did different ones.

We occasionally get a wagon become uncoupled with the FLM Profi as well for no apparent reason, usually with load of people watching ! The FLM are ideal for us as when we do get the occasional derailment it is easier to remove the offending wagon from under the OHL equipment. We also use the Veissmann Conductive Coupling which is based on the FLM.

I have thought about trying some KayDees, but am put off a little because a rake of container wagons I bought some time ago had them & they were nothing but trouble - however, they had be retro-fitted so maybe it was not the best job. Could be worth a try as 99% of all our stock has NEM pockets.

Could be expensive for us if we decide to change !
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top