Are there any published standards for the normal 009 coupling/coupler as originated by Eggerbahn and used by Bemo and others ?
I am thinking of starting to make my own and would prefer to get it right . The alternative is just to fit NEM pockets and let people buy Peco ones.
Tom
Good luck finding a single specification for all Tom!
I think I have only seen a single specification given for the Bemo couplings.
This is 6.3mm + or
Perhaps we should publish a standard?
And maybe the lack of such a standard is why we have so much problems with them.
I'm sure this has been discussed before and at length. I can't really see a "standard" taking off - we'd all fall out with it! :)
One of the things that holds us together is our diversity - and that includes couplings and coupling heights.
I suggest you find a coupling you feel comfortable using and keep to it - and set your own height. Do, however, have a look around what others do and (if they use the same type of couplings - or a compatible one) find out what they use as a coupling height. You'll then reach your own conclusion as to what will work for you.
(I have settled on Greenwich couplings and use the coupling height gauge they make. But there are numerous other couplings in use around the hobby) Oh, and no, not all my efforts are at exactly the same height, but by and large I have no problems.
Sorry if that sounds negative; it's not meant to be...
I know hights have been discussed ( though I can't find that discussion now - Any one remember if it was on here or NGRM-Online?)
What I am talking about here is the shape and size of the various parts of the coupling E.G. how wide the loop should be or how high the pin.
I know us narrow gauge modelers and 009 ons in particular, tend to be free and independent souls who like to do their own thing - indeed it's one of the reasons I like doing Narrow gauge models. But there are times when standards are a good thing. How would we manage if each manufacturer decided independently what voltage their locos ran at and in which direction ? ( Yes I'm looking at you Eggerbahn)
I'm thinking of making couplings to sell, and as a manufacturer I would feel much more reassured if there was a standard, rather than I have to go round, measuring existing couplings and trying to work out what will work with all of them.
Tom
I've just found out that we can run opinion polls here. Shall we do one on coupling preferences? (This is frighteningly close to what I do for a living.)
I do not think another version of the 009 coupling would be the answer. We already have two Bemos, stepped and straight, and the Windle both of comparable size. The Greenwich is favoured by many as there is no soldering required in their make up and the new Peco couplings off their rtr stock are comparable in size to the Greenwich. The older Peco couplings are still available. The DG Couplings come in 2mm scale, 3mm scale, 4mm and 7mm scales. The designer of the DG's recommended the 3mm couplings for 009 use to me personally at an exhibition many years ago. I know some members prefer one of the other size DG's. Only recently this year Robert Thompson (RT Models) has begun producing his version of the coupling with options. He produces a separate 'wider' loop to go on the Greenwich shank. Greenwich and RT Models make coupling height gauges and both are set at 6mm for 009 though the Greenwich gauge has another height specifically for 12mm gauge Irish/IoM models.
Having been an 009 modeller almost from the start I have built up a wide range of rolling stock over the years. During which time I have used probably all or tried each coupling on my model collection. Long ago I came to the conclusion that certain couplings suit certain size or types of rolling stock. For the most part for my small slate wagons cum quarry type stock the DG's are fine. Bemos fitted to slate wagons make them look ridiculous. I fit Bemos and Windles to the larger pieces and the rest which is the vast majority have the Greenwich. I do not run my Welsh quarry wagons alongside with and try to couple up to stock that would look out of place on my Welsh layout.
Regarding coupling height I set all mine whatever the type to 6mm from the rail top to the top of the buffing plate. I also fit loops at one end only primarily to prevent the different loops from interlocking and for hands off uncoupling. Two loops of the same type will also lock together on occasion like being propelled through a reverse curve across points. True there is no set standard for height but the means of achieving it is by using one of the gauges already available.
Roger
By the way, you can't blame Eggerbahn for wrong polarity and voltage difference. Eggerbahn went out of business decades ago. Probably most if not all Egger locos are second hand, third or more so, it is more likely someone has tinkered with it. They were not all that reliable when they were new. Those I had always needed attention and have not owned one for decades. I keep wondering why 009ers keep running them. I will now put my tin hat on and retire to the bomb shelter.
Roger
Quote from: Krizzy on December 15, 2013, 21:20
By the way, you can't blame Eggerbahn for wrong polarity and voltage difference. Eggerbahn went out of business decades ago. Probably most if not all Egger locos are second hand, third or more so, it is more likely someone has tinkered with it. They were not all that reliable when they were new. Those I had always needed attention and have not owned one for decades. I keep wondering why 009ers keep running them. I will now put my tin hat on and retire to the bomb shelter.
Roger
Well Roger all the early Egger-bahn locos with the Microperm motor run in the opposite direction to all other N gauge and H0e locos from new.
In other words the left hand rail fed with positive from a controller will give forward motion.
So did the tram locos with the so called
Quote from: B.Meldon on December 16, 2013, 11:34
Quote from: Krizzy on December 15, 2013, 21:20
By the way, you can't blame Eggerbahn for wrong polarity and voltage difference. Eggerbahn went out of business decades ago. Probably most if not all Egger locos are second hand, third or more so, it is more likely someone has tinkered with it. They were not all that reliable when they were new. Those I had always needed attention and have not owned one for decades. I keep wondering why 009ers keep running them. I will now put my tin hat on and retire to the bomb shelter.
Roger
Well Roger all the early Egger-bahn locos with the Microperm motor run in the opposite direction to all other N gauge and H0e locos from new.
In other words the left hand rail fed with positive from a controller will give forward motion.
So did the tram locos with the so called
Quote from: Retiarius on December 16, 2013, 11:56
Or in fact convert them to DCC control, as I have done with the Eggerbahn steamcoach. You just then programme the decoder to reverse direction :)
Also if it has a Microperm chassis the motor is only rated at 9v, I think DCC programing can be set to cope with this.
The later Minitrix, Jouef and Mabuchi motors are however 12v.
Brian Meldon
Quote from: Retiarius on December 16, 2013, 11:56
..........
Or in fact convert them to DCC control, as I have done with the Eggerbahn steamcoach. You just then programme the decoder to reverse direction :)
That's cheating !
Quote from: tebee on December 16, 2013, 12:12
Quote from: Retiarius on December 16, 2013, 11:56
..........
Or in fact convert them to DCC control, as I have done with the Eggerbahn steamcoach. You just then programme the decoder to reverse direction :)
That's cheating !
That evolution ..... computers make things better .... or so they tell us!
As I can't find a design or standard for the coupling what I think I will do is design one I think will work and publish that design openly asking for comments and ideas for improvement - rather like the open-source way of programming.
Does this seem like a good idea? If we pool our collective ideas we might end up with better coupling or even a standard !
Tom
I agree, perhaps a good place to start would be an exact copy of the Bemo coupling.
However many consider these are too large and obtrusive on 009 models, but making them smaller will involve a compromise in their operation, or at the very least how they are mounted for use on sharper curves relative to the overhang on the vehicle.
Basicaly the narrower the loop the wider the curve needs to be or the more swing will be needed in the coupling depending on the overhang.
This is fine if the way the coupling is mounted takes this into account, but it will not be possible to say it is fully compatible in every situation.
For example the new Peco NEM coupling is different to the Bemo coupling. Obviously it will couple up on a straight bit of track but depending on the coupling overhang and the curves in use it will not be fully compatible in every situation.
Brian Meldon
I like your thinking teebee. I have been in 009 for a year, and the thing that irritates most is ...couplings! Some work beautifully, some don't. Some good ones of different types won't work together. But you've discovered this! I haven't yet decided what is the right way to go on my own developong layout so I am interested to see what you do. I have sympathy with the view that NG is by nature very 'freelance' so does not encourage standardisation, in fact that's often the last thing we want in my opinion. But to be able to run carriages or wagons of different makes together is a nice thought!
There, that moved the debate forward didn't it! I am going to buy some Bemo ones next and see how that fits in.
I will keep watching for any eureka moments you may have!
Regards
Geo
I can fully understand your frustrations George.
As I previously mentioned even the H0e ready to run manufactures have varying heights within their own ranges!
I have quite a lot of locos and items of rolling stock and every one is fully compatible with all the others in any order. I use Bemo and the later wider Egger couplings as well as lots of the Roco bolters as bogies, Liliput rolling stock, Greenwich couplings without the hoops on locos and many others.
The way I have made them all work together is to adjust, modify and even change the couplings as necessary on each new item that I get.
Some need no work at all, others need minor adjustments, but some need the coupling mounting arrangement completely replaced.
I use the small Roco wagons as coupling guide and I just make sure every new item I get works with one of these on the curves I have on the layouts. It is very difficult to change the height of the couplings on these Roco wagons so setting everything else to work with them is probably a good idea as Ii use them extensively as bogies.
The same goes for any kits I build each one is made with couplings that work with the Roco wagons
Doing one vehicle at a time is no problem at all, what would be hard is to change them all at once!
Brian Meldon
Thanks Brian, changing all couplings to one style would work (if rolling stock heights etc allow) and he bundles of work! Now, this might be a naive idea but...advice is given to have the hook on one end of a piece of rolling stock only, and I can understand the reasoning for that. But in my (limited) experience sometimes the buffer bar with the hook can be the problem...buffer bars touching each other while a hook is too short to drop over. When mixing two makes of coupling most often I suppose. So...how about cutting off the buffer bar / hook on one end so there's just the hook (leaving enough of the bar to support the hook of course). I am not at my layout to try it just now. There might be an obvious reason for not doing it, in which case I'm sure someone will soon tell me....
Just a thought.
Regards
Geo[/size][/size]
I have the loops on both ends of all items of rolling stock and no loops on all the locos. (But there are exceptions to that as some locos have the loops as well.)
I found the main reason that both loops lifted at the same time was because they were not set absolutely level relative to the track. The ones that cause the problems were all found to be sloping slightly to one side or another.
If they are all absolutely level then I have found that the problem of both lifting at once is virtually eliminated. So again I make sure that with every new item of stock the coupling loop is not only at the correct height but absolutely level relative to the track. Once again I have found several ready to run items that need some work to make the hoops level.
If you do only have loops on one end it limits the direction of the locos and rolling stock on your layout, you can not have any reverse loops or turntables as these will turn the stock and then they will not couple up.
Brian Meldon