Bachmann Couplers

I tried to post yesterday (didn't appear on my PC!) about the varying height Bachmann use for their NEM coupler pockets - anybody know why they do this?

Also, I'm trying to fir Kadess to a 45xx tank - any ideas?

Nick

Reply to
Nick Palette
Loading thread data ...

"Nick Palette" wrote

I assume for much the same reason that the USA manufacturers do - it's down to convenience on the particular prototype - and is why Kadee produce so many different couplers to fit different types of stock.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

In message , John Turner writes

Yes, but American manufacturers don't use NEM pockets, and Kadee only do one height of coupler (in 4 lengths) to fit those pockets.

To answer the original question, I fitted a NEM No. 20 _under_ the NEM pocket on my 45XX, having first drilled the appropriate holes (2.2 mm through the coupler shank, 1.8 mm drilled and tapped through the NEM pocket) and fixed them with an 8 BA bolt (to carry the weight) and my usual liguid poly.

Reply to
John Sullivan

"John Sullivan" wrote

The problem is, if I understand correctly, there is not actual recommended NEM pocket height, and in any event it's an HO standard and not an OO one.

I suppose the provision of an NEM socket is a first step, but it's time that the hobby came up with a proper set of standards.

I've no doubt the time will come when they start producing cranked coupler arms to suit the different NEM socket heights in much the same way that they do for USA products.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

The Bachmann 'short' coupling packs 36-025, featured on their site for some while, seem to be taking a long time being released. Shame, as they'd certainly enhance the 'close coupling' options!

Cheers Robt P.

Reply to
robert.pollard2

"robert.pollard2" wrote

In reality they were no closer than the standard *larger* Bachmann (as originally fitted to the Mainline range) coupling, and these were available around 2-3 years ago. I suspect it is the provision of the NEM socket which has resulted in 36-025 not being needed for standard production models and consequently I don't see these being manufactured in the forseeable future.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

Surely as they considerably shorter in overall length than their 'standard' coupling, they remain more visually effective.

They are fitted onto my A1's, and seem to be attached to most of their new loco releases.

Cheers Robt P.

Reply to
robert.pollard2

"robert.pollard2" wrote

Maybe my ruler lies?

Compare hook rather than loop length.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

In message , John Turner writes

We can but hope.

Reply to
John Sullivan

Oh yes there is:

formatting link

8.5mm to the top of the inside of the socket.

neil.

Reply to
mumbles

but thats an HO standard not OO as John pointed out !

Reply to
Jeff McGhie

But that is the whole point, to be a NEM box it must follow the standard and be 8.5mm The standard is for the NEM box, not HO or OO, if Bachmann fit at the wrong height, it should not really be called a NEM box.

Reply to
Jon Biglowe

"Jon Biglowe" wrote

Have Bachmann actually called it an NEM box?

John.

Reply to
John Turner

=>

=>"Jon Biglowe" wrote =>

=>> The standard is for the NEM box, not HO or OO, if Bachmann fit at the =>> wrong height, it =>> should not really be called a NEM box. =>

=>Have Bachmann actually called it an NEM box? =>

=>John.

OK, let's quibble. I love quibbling. :-0

There are three standards involved here:

a) the dimensions of the box; b) the coupler mounting inside the box; c) the height above rail of the centre line of the coupler.

As you can see, only two of them refer to the box, and they are designed for consumer convenience, not for scale fidelity. But coupler height is a matter of scale fidelity. IMO it should be exactly the same as on the prototype. OTOH, it has no direct bearing on coupler box dimensions as such.

Fact is, many S scale modelers in N. America use Kadee's HO couplers, since these scale out to almost exactly scale size for 1:64 scale; but of course they mount them at S scale height, not HO. Bachmann's On30 line uses HO knuckle couplers for the same reason - they scale our pretty close to scale for this size. There is ongoing controversy about coupler height for this scale/gauge combo (which is kind of funny, since different protoypes used different standards, and most were either 3ft or 2ft anyhow.)

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

Reply to
Wolf Kirchmeir

NEM362 is a standard for coupler boxes for H0, a similar box used for

00 could only be described as compliant with the standard if it is at the height defined in the standard. But since there is no standards body for 00 compliance or otherwise is irrelevant. Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

Reply to
Keith Norgrove

OK, since you want to quibble, there is one standard here, NEM362, covering coupler boxes for H0 European models.

Defined in the standard.

Not defined in the standard.

Not defined in the standard, the height of the inside top surface of the box is defined. The box is intended to accept various designs of coupler the heights of the various couplers are not part of the standard.

Scale fidelity does not enter into this as none of the couplers that can be used in the boxes bear any relationship to the prototype couplers used in Europe. The height is deliberately well below the prototype so that the totally unrealistic and out of scale couplers keep clear of the buffers and coupling hook that may be correctly modelled on the vehicles.

You want a coupling of prototypical height anf form you first remove both original coupling and the NEM box. In fact many of the NEM boxes including those on Bachmann wagons just pull off for this very purpose.

Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

Reply to
Keith Norgrove

=>Scale fidelity does not enter into this as none of the couplers that =>can be used in the boxes bear any relationship to the prototype =>couplers used in Europe.

? Well, that's a design issue. The box doesn't have much too do with it, since it has only two jobs: a) to accept a standardised coupler shank; and b) to mount easily on the car (or talgo truck, or close coupling cam) at the correct height (or such that the coupler head is at the correct height.)

=> The height is deliberately well below the =>prototype so that the totally unrealistic and out of scale couplers =>keep clear of the buffers and coupling hook that may be correctly =>modelled on the vehicles.

So we have a correctly modelled coupling hopok, and coupler below that. Wierd. I'd rather dump the coupling hook and install a coupler that works, at the correct height, _even if the working coupler doesn't look like the prototype_. As to the size of the coupler, that's a design issue - smaller couplers that work reliably are possible, but may too fiddly for toys.

=>You want a coupling of prototypical height and form you first remove =>both original coupling and the NEM box. In fact many of the NEM boxes =>including those on Bachmann wagons just pull off for this very =>purpose.

That seems a bit weird, but I guess I'm speaking from the perspective of a world in which coupler boxes and knuckle couplers are not too far off scale in size or appearance. All the same, I think better solutions are possible, and NEM should take the lead in searching for the and promoting them. NEM can do this, because all it needs to do is standardise the coupler mounting, which of necessity will be non-prototypical, the European coupler being what it is. And it can promote mounting the couplers between the buffers, where they belong.

I'm not talking a scale protoypical couplers here, those will always be the province of a minority of modellers. I'm talking smaller, less obtrusive bit still reliable couplers. It seems to me that if NEM were to promote the standard use of close-coupling cams on which to mount the box, remarkably small versions of hook-and-loop, hook, and prong type couplers should be possible. The close-coupling cam's real virtue is that it reduces the coupling range, that is, the amount that couplers may be mutually off centre and still couple. IMO, coupler designers should take advantage of this feature, and NEM should promote standards that encourage them to do so.

And this isn't quibbling anymore. :-)

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

Reply to
Wolf Kirchmeir

In message , Wolf Kirchmeir writes

What's a "talgo truck"

I thought Talgo trains were a Spanish thing, that had short coaches with one axle , where the other end of the coach was supported by the next coach.

Reply to
John Sullivan

"John Sullivan"

In model railway terms, a bogie with a coupler attached.

Not considered good practice. Body mounting is best so that pulling and buffing forces are transmitted directly through the body, not first via the trucks/bogies which will tend to derail when being pushed.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

formatting link

Reply to
Roger T.

=>In message , =>Wolf Kirchmeir writes =>>? Well, that's a design issue. The box doesn't have much too do with it, =>>since it has only two jobs: a) to accept a standardised coupler shank; and b) =>>to mount easily on the car (or talgo truck, or close coupling cam) at the =>>correct height (or such that the coupler head is at the correct height.) =>

=>What's a "talgo truck" =>

=>I thought Talgo trains were a Spanish thing, that had short coaches with =>one axle , where the other end of the coach was supported by the next =>coach.

If you mount the coupler on an arm attached to the truck (bopgie), the result is a talgo truck. The analogy is with the Sp. Talgo train, where the cars were connected via the wheel assembly (rather like a wagon or carriage tongue) so that the wheel assembly turned under the cars as the train rounded a curve.

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

Reply to
Wolf Kirchmeir

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.