Jump to content
  • 0
Noel

Shorter couplings for MM Cravens and Mk2s?

Question

Hi Folks

Being a relatively recent returnee to the hobby I am well out of date on model technology like couplings. As I understand it most products nowadays including Murphy models use an NEM type coupling. My questions is are there shorter versions one can purchase for use on coaches that will run on large radius curves? It would get the coaches a lot closer to get there.

Cheers

Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

47 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Posted (edited)
Threads merged.

 

Thanks Patrick. I had searched a few times using advanced search, but as word 'kadee' was not in the thread title I didn't find this.

 

 

Thanks Eoin

That great. We did indeed two years ago. :) I couldn't remember if it was here it was discussed before or over on RMweb. By chance I was just using the razor saw to do as you have recommended in that thread. With the 'play' in kadees I'm beginning to wonder if they are worth the hassle, and with so many suppliers incorrect heights.

Thanks again. Noel

 

Bizarre that the IE/IR livery have different size pockets to the CIE livery cravens.

IMG_2373.jpg

 

Photo from RMweb Kadee Resources page

Align-with-buffers.jpg

Edited by Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Bizarre that the IE/IR livery have different size pockets to the CIE livery cravens.

 

That's model trains Noel

 

I reckon mistakes were made and then later made good!

 

Just do the one connecting to the loco and the last one- much easier

 

Eoin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
That's model trains Noel

 

I reckon mistakes were made and then later made good!

 

Just do the one connecting to the loco and the last one- much easier

 

Eoin

 

Exactly Eoin. The IE Cravens came first and the couplings were modified for the second run in CIE due to customer feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Exactly Eoin. The IE Cravens came first and the couplings were modified for the second run in CIE due to customer feedback.

 

I didn't know that! Worthy of publication indeed......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Reading the resources on kadees , I don't believe the NEM versions are a solution

 

I have to agree. Body mount a draft box Kadee would be the ideal solution. I don't own any MM Cravens so I can't comment on the amount of work required to get the couple sitting at the right height but anything would be better than faffing around with NEM pockets!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Exactly Eoin. The IE Cravens came first and the couplings were modified for the second run in CIE due to customer feedback.
Ah, thanks for that info. Nice to hear consumer feedback resulted in subsequent changes, but perhaps a pity the modification didn't also correct the height and reach. I had mistakenly assumed the whole idea of NEM pockets was so consumers could easily change coupling types without needing tools and without having to cut or glue anything. From reading RMweb it seems the NEM 362 issue has also been a problem for manufacturers of British outline stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Just to look at this from alternative position, Nigel Burkin, well known modeller and contributor to magazines, advocates attaching couplings to the body of bogie vehicles so that they behave just like the real things, with the bogies simply carrying the body. I guess this would fall down if the curves are too sharp, a position many will find themselves in.

 

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi

 

If one does mount to the bogie or the body, bare in mind that you are then removing the close coupling device that widens out the gap for going around the bends!

 

Eoin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The main issues around NEM pockets is two fold

 

One is it's a HO standard and this has lead to 4mmmanufacturers making incorrect assumptions.

 

Secondly ,00 rtr manufactures have either by error or by wilfull decision have misplaced the pocket

 

In the US No manufacturer would buck the NMRA standards without good reason. But 00 rtr has suffered from weak standards. Even though the Double O Gauge Association has issued a NEM pockets standard for 00, this organisation is largely ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Just to look at this from alternative position, Nigel Burkin, well known modeller and contributor to magazines, advocates attaching couplings to the body of bogie vehicles so that they behave just like the real things, with the bogies simply carrying the body. I guess this would fall down if the curves are too sharp, a position many will find themselves in.

 

Stephen

Mounting couplings to the body is dependant on the curvature of your layout. I have body mounted Kadee's on some MK 3 coaches which negotiate a 30" radius curve, any tighter then you would get buffer lock (unless using HST MK 3's) MK1 & MK2 stock you could get away with slightly smaller radius, however some stock would foul on the buffers at 24".

Not sure how the MM Cravens would work, but some modellers (I have a rake of Bachmann MK1's that I fitted with the Hornby (Roco) close couplings and these seem to work fine, I have run these on 2nd radius curves. May be worth a try with the cravens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×

Important Information

Terms of Use