Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,305 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I maybe wrong & will stand to be corrected.
Bachmann all have NEM pockets & have different heights between locos, coaches & goods. Why the difference in heights?
Dapol none fitted - why not?
Heljan- I think the locos are OK for a defacto standard height.

Hornby - when fitted are at least the same height - why are they missing off most of , if not all of the goods & coaches?

It appears uniformity in UK regarding couplings is a swear word.

That is one thing Australian models in HO from the various manufacturers have agreed to - use the NMRA standard height for coupler boxes & use Kadee or the clones so mix & match between brands is normally no problems
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,592 Posts
QUOTE Bachmann all have NEM pockets & have different heights between locos, coaches & goods. Why the difference in heights?
Dapol none fitted - why not?

The Digital Vernier has still to be discovered in Barnwood and certain areas of North Wales.

QUOTE That is one thing Australian models in HO from the various manufacturers have agreed to - use the NMRA standard height for coupler boxes & use Kadee or the clones so mix & match between brands is normally no problems

thats because common sence prevailed. Here we still have idiots claiming HO height is wrong and mounting them at their own designated heights. Its a sickness caused by too many Marshmallows as a kid.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
285 Posts
QUOTE (Makemineadouble @ 13 Jul 2007, 10:50) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The Digital Vernier has still to be discovered in Barnwood and certain areas of North Wales.
thats because common sence prevailed. Here we still have idiots claiming HO height is wrong and mounting them at their own designated heights. Its a sickness caused by too many Marshmallows as a kid.



If you look at the NEM standards - there seem to be two relevant ones - 362/362...

http://www.morop.org/de/normes/

(sorry I can't find a translation)

the 363 one seems to be something like the fish tail type of connections seen on some british OO stock - when we talk 'nem couple pockets' though we seem to mean the 362 box type version....

Can anyone explain if the fish tail type is meant to be some pathetic attempt at 363 standard, if so is there a colloquial way of refering to the different types.

Confused of Ross-Shire

My Blog
Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
QUOTE (Sol @ 13 Jul 2007, 07:26) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I maybe wrong & will stand to be corrected.
Bachmann all have NEM pockets & have different heights between locos, coaches & goods. Why the difference in heights?
Dapol none fitted - why not?
Heljan- I think the locos are OK for a defacto standard height.

Hornby - when fitted are at least the same height - why are they missing off most of , if not all of the goods & coaches?

It appears uniformity in UK regarding couplings is a swear word.
That is one thing Australian models in HO from the various manufacturers have agreed to - use the NMRA standard height for coupler boxes & use Kadee or the clones so mix & match between brands is normally no problems

Hornby with NEM pockets not compatable with Bachmann for sure.

Hornby [NMRA I think] is correct I beleive as they will couple with Liliput etc.
You would think that Bachmann having links with Liliput would get their act together and opt for the NMRA standards.

ROCO make adjustable height couplers that fit into the NEM pockets to compensate for Bachmann's ineptitude if one wants to go to the trouble.

I have converted all my rolling stock [non-continental] with ROCO couplers [adjustable/standard types] as I was sick to death of all various UK makers couplers non-compatability with each other and I wanted to standardize.

I have found that the Hornby ROCO style couplers still leave a space between buffers unlike the true ROCO versions which give buffer to buffer coupling.
The Hornby versions work well with Bachmann Mark 1 and Pullmans almost if Hornby designed them for Bachmann coaching stock products!
In both cases you have to firmly bang the coaches together to latch the couplers whearas all continental stock requires just a gentle push together.

Rolling stock has to have the close coupling mechanism.The earliest rolling stock with close coupling mechanism I have encountered is the '70's ROWA coaching stock.
I like the idea of being able to lift out an individual coach from a rake.Quite unlike hook and latch types.

Again the Bachmanns couplers are all over the place.

There are other coupler threads I'm sure so I am probably rehashing everything all over again.

Cheers,

Bryan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
QUOTE (Sol @ 13 Jul 2007, 08:26) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Bachmann all have NEM pockets & have different heights between locos, coaches & goods. Why the difference in heights?
No good excuse, I don't think. Mainly two different ways of putting a chasis together. It's just annoying they do this.

QUOTE (Sol @ 13 Jul 2007, 08:26) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Dapol none fitted - why not?
OO is not Dapol's core business any more, but they keep it going with mainly special-order private owner wagons and repeats of the same bodies in different liveries. I guess in that low-cost strategy, there is no room to retool their chasis.

It's quite astonishing that no retooling of non-standard chasis is done, especially if you consider how very little different coach bogies and wagon chasis there actually are.

I'm sure it's continually reported to them too - but they must have decided it's not a good return on investment.

I guess unless they have proof that it will up their sales, they're not going to move.

Walter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
QUOTE (Nozomi @ 17 Jul 2007, 18:42) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I have converted all my rolling stock [non-continental] with ROCO couplers [adjustable/standard types] as I was sick to death of all various UK makers couplers non-compatability with each other and I wanted to standardize.

Cheers,

Bryan.

Hi Bryan,

I'd quite like to see a couple of photos of how you've done this.

I guess the UK makers assume that either you are happy with the hotch-potch of couplings and won't change anything, or you're a keen DIY-er who is going to hack them all off anyway and fit Kadee No5s, Sprat & Winkle, etc... Rightly or wrongly, they seem to think there is no middle ground and no-one who wants to swap one NEM compatible coupling with another NEM compatible coupling.

Bachmann on occasion use something else - they have a continental style coupling between the units of their 108 DMU for instance, and I think they look a lot better than the tension lock ones.

Thx,

Walter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
QUOTE (Walter @ 17 Jul 2007, 19:09) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi Bryan,

I'd quite like to see a couple of photos of how you've done this.

I guess the UK makers assume that either you are happy with the hotch-potch of couplings and won't change anything, or you're a keen DIY-er who is going to hack them all off anyway and fit Kadee No5s, Sprat & Winkle, etc... Rightly or wrongly, they seem to think there is no middle ground and no-one who wants to swap one NEM compatible coupling with another NEM compatible coupling.

Bachmann on occasion use something else - they have a continental style coupling between the units of their 108 DMU for instance, and I think they look a lot better than the tension lock ones.

Thx,

Walter

Hi Walter,

The problem is that there are so many makes of rolling stock to convert all having unique custom modifications required to adapt for the ROCO couplers.
You kind of have to play it by ear.
Airfix/GMR some old Dapol have to be done one way.Old Hornby,Bachmann,Graham Farish [oo],Lima etc all have to be modified differently.
I use a ROCO coach as the standard for all measurements.

It has been pretty time consuming but worth it to have the standard coupling method.Now all my stuff is non-collectable!!Who cares it was ment to be used anyway.

The ROCO adjustable NEM pocket type coupler was invaluable.I am not even sure if they are still available or not these days.
Now if you came to Victoria I could show you!

With all the continental stuff it just meant plugging in the ROCO NEM coupler in whatever maker concerened and it all works out fine.
Quite unlike the mishmash of UK makers.

If you could possibly pick up a Jan 2005 Model Rail you can see in the Q&A section you can see how I converted the then new Hornby Pullmans models prior to their issuing the bogey with the NEM pocket in situ to give an idea.
That is only one example as I said each maker had to be custom fitted.It was all trial and error.

Here is a link to photo bucket showing the Hornby Gresleys with ROCO couplers.

See Hornby 4mm album

There are other train albums i.e. LT in 4mm etc.

If the NMRA NEM pockets and standards were used by all UK makers for all items it would solve a lot of problems.
The contnentals did it why can the UK.

Cheers,

Bryan.
 

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (Nozomi @ 17 Jul 2007, 21:58) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The ROCO adjustable NEM pocket type coupler was invaluable.I am not even sure if they are still available or not these days.

The conversion kits are still available - we stock them (anyone interested please send me a PM.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
QUOTE (dbclass50 @ 17 Jul 2007, 22:17) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The conversion kits are still available - we stock them (anyone interested please send me a PM.)

Thanks Brian,

I used ROCO 40351 units boxes of 12 gleaned off ebay yonks ago at ten boxes for $9.99.I was luckily able to aquire enough to do all my stuff.
It was a bargain I'm sure will never be repeated.I know what they actually cost.
I had to adapt everything to use them.They had what I think was called the standard coupler unlike the long type Hornby/ROCO couplers.
It would very expensive for me [just a poor ole pensioner] to buy conversion kits but would be nice to have the close coupling mechanism as ilustrated in the ROCO catalogues.

Cheers,
Bryan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Having followed this discussion, I feel that I must add my ha'peth of comment and information, just to put everything right. The NEMs are European Standards, and whilst they may be accepted by NMRA, have nothing whatever to do with NMRA. Further, regarding the hotch-potch of British models and manufacturers, I must state that if the manufacturers would only adhere to the measurements laid down in NEM 362, which clearly deals with the size and the positioning of the NEM coupling pocket/socket, there would be NO problems. Finally, I would also say that for those who do not know, the NEM 362 is a COMPULSORY Standard, and not merely a Recommendation, and has been in use in Europe for at least 15 years.

woolwinder
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
QUOTE (woolwinder @ 18 Jul 2007, 09:42) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Having followed this discussion, I feel that I must add my ha'peth of comment and information, just to put everything right. The NEMs are European Standards, and whilst they may be accepted by NMRA, have nothing whatever to do with NMRA. Further, regarding the hotch-potch of British models and manufacturers, I must state that if the manufacturers would only adhere to the measurements laid down in NEM 362, which clearly deals with the size and the positioning of the NEM coupling pocket/socket, there would be NO problems. Finally, I would also say that for those who do not know, the NEM 362 is a COMPULSORY Standard, and not merely a Recommendation, and has been in use in Europe for at least 15 years.

woolwinder

Hello Woolwinder


Thank you for clearing up the NEM saga with your information.I was always under the impression NMRA was the standard setter.
Since you explained that the NEM standards were European it explains why I have not had and difficulty with my European stock.
NEM 362 is the norm.Too bad Bachmann did not use this standard.I think Hornby does.

I wish all the UK manufacturers would get their act together.If the European makers can do it why can't they?
Is there some sort of rivalry between them preventing their getting together on this.

As I said before I am and have been sick to death with all the as you say "hotch-potch" of the various coupler systems on the market in the UK.

The close coupling buffer to buffer appeal of the European models is what turned me on to them.

After all this time as far as I can see Hornby is the only one that can do it but there again their "ROCO" style couplers still give a gap between buffers whearas the true ROCO versions give true buffer to buffer realism.

I purchased some Hornby ROCO style couplers to try as an experiment and this is what I found not so hot for Hornby but.......Gold darn it they work a treat with Bachmann Mk 1's even though the Bachmann pockets are at a lower level so you can't mix and match!

Cheers and thanks,

Bryan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
Given that Bachmann don't even adhere to a single standard height for the NEM pockets on their own stuff , the thought processes are a little difficult to follow.

The Hornby 156 is non-standard (way too low) but here the blame lies with Lima who really should have got it right, being Continentals. On the stuff they've tooled themselves, to the best of my knowledge , the height is accurate. However they've only been doing this in the last couple of years - hence earlier models don't have pockets and won't have till they are eventually retooled

So far as I'm aware the fishtail mounting is NEM363 - the Bachmann Turbostar carries these internally , with Roco style couplings , and I strongly suspect they are Roco couplings , from the Lilliput part of Bachmann, fitted into a suitable socket. The NEM pockets on the 108 external ends seem to be accurate - at least they align with my Kadee height gauge

Really we need the standard formally set out , for 4mm. The wheel doesn't nedd to be reinvented - it merely needs a picture on the wall labeled "This is a wheel"
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,397 Posts
QUOTE (Ravenser @ 19 Jul 2007, 07:15) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So far as I'm aware the fishtail mounting is NEM363 - the Bachmann Turbostar carries these internally , with Roco style couplings , and I strongly suspect they are Roco couplings , from the Lilliput part of Bachmann, fitted into a suitable socket.
I've got two of these and neither of them have sockets like the continental models do. They are attached directly to the coach. I know because one of them snapped off on the flexi bit an I had to repair it. They are European style couplers as used on Lilliput Roco etc though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Without wishing to steal anyone's thunder, may I ask you all to watch out for, and read, the statement issued today by Stephen Siddell, Treasurer of DOGA, in which he makes an official statement regarding NEM Coupling pockets/sockets, (ie NEM 362). This statement is/has been sent to various UK model magazines as well as to at least 2 model railway websites, for publication. I understand that both Hornby and Bachmann have already responded, at least to one website.

The initial reaction from readers seems to be quite positive, and one can only hope that this is the first step in a real move towards acceptance of a standard from which ALL, manufacturers as well as users, will benefit.

woolwinder
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,305 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Below is a comment from DOGA ( Double 0 Gauge Association) concerning Coupler standards:-

As you may recall , we DOGA, formally adopted some standards for coupler
mountings at the AGM, following discussion on the forum. I've now actually
got round to sending something out to notify the rest of the world:

Quote

In recent years there has been ongoing internet discussion about coupling
compatibility in OO , and in particular about the implementation of NEM
coupler pockets . At the moment the height at which they are fitted (when
they are fitted) varies on diffferent items of RTR stock, which means they
fail to meet their objective of allowing an alternative type of coupling to
be substituted by a simple swap. There have been calls for a standard to be
set , to ensure consistancy and compatibility.

At our AGM a few weeks ago , The Double O Gauge Association formally
adopted standards for coupler pockets and sockets. These are taken directly
from the standards for HO established by the Continental "Federation of
Federations" , MOROP, in its Normes Europeennes de Modelisme (NEM), under
data sheets NEM362 (coupler pockets) and NEM363 (swallow tail socket)

The figures are:

NEM362 ("NEM pocket")

A (width of pocket) 3.2mm
B (height of pocket) 1.75mm
E (depth behind buffer face) 7.5mm
F (depth of pocket) 7.1mm
n (height from rail to top of pocket void) 8.5mm

It is of course value "n" , the height at which the pocket is set, which
has been the big issue with OO RTR.

NEM363 ("Fishtail socket")

Values of data sheet NEM363 adopted.

Given that some OO RTR vehicles now carry this type of coupling mount (eg
Bachmann 16T minerals, inner ends of Bachmann Turbostars) it seems sensible
to adopt a standard to cover this in 4mm before any problems arise

At the same time it was agreed to adopt a standard for axle length of 26mm
over pin points . The difference in axle lengths between Lima and Heljan
stock and everything else available in Britain has been a source of
inconvenience for some years

These standards were adopted by unanimous vote at the meeting following
consultation with members

There has been previous debate on the internet as to whether it would be
appropriate to adopt the HO values or whether some other figure should be
chosen for the height of the pocket. A number of factors have led DOGA to
adopt the HO mounting height of 8.5mm.

Firstly , a large majority of the British outline OO models fitted with NEM
pockets have them set to a height of 8.5mm above the rail. To adopt this
value means the fewest possible existing models are incompatible with the
standard. To have chosen any other value would have made most models
currently fitted with NEM pockets incompatible.

Secondly, probably the most popular alternative coupling likely to be used
in an NEM socket is a Kadee. The great majority of those using Kadees on
4mm stock set them to the same height as for HO - if only because the best
and easiest way to get a consistant height is to use the readily available
Kadee height gauge for HO

Thirdly NEM362 lays down the same height of 8.5mm for pockets in both HO
and S scales. Since 4mm scale lies between the two , the same height of 8.5
mm should logically be chosen

DOGA is in the process of generating datasheets covering these standards ,
which will be placed on our website in due course. These will set out the
full details including tolerances.

Thanks are due to one of our members resident in Germany, for
establishing contact with MOROP via the main German Federation , the BDEF,
in order to gain permission to clone the standards and borrow the artwork
from the datasheets for use in our own data sheets. I understand NEM362 was
originally a project of the German Federation.

We hope these new standards will help resolve this issue

Stephen Siddle, Treasurer DOGA
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top