1. Home
  2. Model railroading in the UK
  3. NEM pocket standardization
  4. Page 2

NEM pocket standardization

Not intentially disingenuous, more a way of saying think your being a bit casual in condeming Hornby. But wanted to be polite cos I respect your opinions and agree with many of your posts.

Am just a simple end user as far as engineering is concerned - have neither the aptitude nor the interest for such details. However by coincidence .... yesterday took brand new Hornby Stanier tank out of box. Placed on curvy development/test track of Peco points, Hornby and Peco flexitrack, some Hornby settrack curves. Added a few bachmann and dapol wagons. Switched on guagemaster controller. Loco ran round sweet as a nut at a range of speeds.

It seems to work.

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon
Loading thread data ...

simon wrote: [...]

Yes, Hornby has improved a lot lately. I've heard rumours that they are actually retooling some old models. I'd like to know if that's true.

HTH

Reply to
Wolf K.

That dimension is going to affect how easy/difficult the coupler is to install and ditto remove. The "correct" dimension is a matter of opinion and has to be set by the disigner with several variables that can only be guessed at before the coupler id produced.

Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg Procter

[[...]

Once the interior dimensions of the pocket are set, max coupler shank dimensions are also set. The designer will specify a min clearance of X thou, and the toolmaker will translate that into a manufacturing spec that guarantees that the clearance will be at least that much. No guesswork whatsoever.

OTOH, the OP was in fact talking about how the pocket itself is mounted, as mentioned in a later post. That mount is not standardised. From OP's comment/question, I infer that Bachmann and Hornby use nearly mounts, and that "nearly identical" causes problems. Obviously, it should be standardised, but since that entails several mfrs retooling their dies, it ain't gonna happen.

HTH

Reply to
Wolf K.

Hi Wolf, I was assuming the item being discussed was the tail of the prongs of the plug in coupler itself. There are a number of variables involved as the tails spring inwards as the coupler tail is slid throug the coupler pocket. The center slit width, shape etc etc all are relevant. My mistake.

Ahh, I tend to read posts in the order they are posted, and being situated on the other side of the world I'm 12 hours + DST out of sync.

Yes, that's a rigid tail, so has no real spring to it. "Standardization" would require Hornby and Bachmann to communicate, reach agreement and then pass on their agreement to MOROP for acceptance. It ain't gonna happen. FWIW Maerklin messed up their coupler design back around 1985 - even though the correction is relatively simple and they've sold probably many millions of those couplers, they have never bothered to adjust the disign.

Reply to
Greg Procter

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.