Jump to content


Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

Kadee Couplers





  • Please log in to reply
433 replies to this topic

#426 Dunsignalling

Dunsignalling

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,905 posts
  • LocationMilepost 154 3/4

Posted 13 October 2017 - 07:33

Most Bachmann short wagon NEM mountings can be removed by undoing the screw below the axle. A standard whisker in a KD box can usually be fitted to the underside of the frame - there is a raised line which coincidentally often means the standard KD head is correctly positioned relative to the face of the buffers - if it is later removed you just leave either a small glue mark or a hole where it was screwed on. Boxed couplings work much better so it is worth the faff. In addition on my shunting plank I use a Brake van with a boxed coupling with any locos where the NEM mounted version is at all compromised..this give virtually 100% success.

On older Bachmann wagons, the NEM mount is integral and has to be cut off.

 

John



Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

#427 ejstubbs

ejstubbs

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 930 posts

Posted 13 October 2017 - 08:11

Is there a check tool for tension lock couplings?

 

Not really, largely because there is no standard for OO tension locks.  See this recent thread.

 

You can standardise on a single manufacturer's TLC eg the Bachmann one, which is fairly readily available.  This can often mean taking a knife to other manufacturers' stock, though, which some folks don't like doing.

 

Or you can just fettle the couplings on each item of stock until they work well with the other stock they'll be coupled up to.  Droopy couplings can often be fixed with a shim of plasticard (see my post #415 above regarding a similar issue that sometimes arises with NEM Kadees).

 

Or you can throw the blasted things away and fit something better.


Edited by ejstubbs, 13 October 2017 - 08:11 .

  • Like x 2

#428 BR60103

BR60103

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,580 posts
  • LocationHoneysuckle Cottage, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Posted 14 October 2017 - 02:43

My query was inspired by droopy Kadee NEMs -- wodering whether the original couplng was also drooping.

I often see pictures in reviews of new products where the coupler is going downhill.

#429 Gilbert

Gilbert

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,252 posts

Posted 14 October 2017 - 06:30

On older Bachmann wagons, the NEM mount is integral and has to be cut off.

 

John

and quite often at the wrong height....



#430 Dunsignalling

Dunsignalling

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,905 posts
  • LocationMilepost 154 3/4

Posted 14 October 2017 - 06:59

and quite often at the wrong height....

Always.

 

They didn't even match the established height for tension locks as used on the Mainline range they absorbed - hence the need for the stepped couplers.

 

John


Edited by Dunsignalling, 14 October 2017 - 07:03 .

  • Agree x 1

#431 tomparryharry

tomparryharry

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,179 posts

Posted 14 October 2017 - 20:07

I'd suggest that you establish which height works for you, and stick with that. If you intend to cut or remove the Kadee, your concerns about whether the coupling is drooping is purely academic: Your intention is to replace the coupling.

I've been running a shunting plank for a number years, and all fitting a selection of Kadees. These run from No.5, to No.19. Once you follow the basics, they run very well. Naturally, there are variations, but knuckle height is important. As we all know, the operation of the layout is only as good as the constituent parts.

If you want to enjoy Kadee, try using the web pages. There is a lot of information on the site.

Some UK-ish modellers don't like Kadees: I can understand that. They run clear across any aesthetic notion you have of British models. I'd respectfully suggest that the cornerstone of 'cutting off the coupling' is rooted in it's alien origin. For my uses, the Kadee is just right.

Now, if I can find a Kadee/3-link combination, I'm in.

I don't have any connection with Kadee, and I've never met them. I need the coupling to do an exacting job, and it works.

Happy modelling Peeps!

Ian.
  • Like x 1

#432 ejstubbs

ejstubbs

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 930 posts

Posted 14 October 2017 - 20:41

Some UK-ish modellers don't like Kadees: I can understand that. They run clear across any aesthetic notion you have of British models.

 

Whereas, of course, tension locks look so prototypical on British stock!

 

The way I see it is that Kadees are a vast improvement on tension locks in terms of reliability and automatic operation.  Part of that is because they are made to a common standard (albeit a proprietary one) and the manufacturer provides a range of ancillary tools and components to help get them fitted and working on just about anything that runs on model rails.  Yes, they aren't prototypical for much British stock, but at least they do look like a railway coupling, which no tension lock could ever do IMO.

 

For those who do want something that looks more prototypical there are other options, like Spratt and Winkle through to full three-link couplings. S+W are again proprietary, and for those who run rtr stock involve removing whatever coupling was fitted out-of-the-box - so, little different to a lot of Kadee fitments in that regard, then (although unlike Kadees there's no NEM S+W!)  Three-link couplings should obviously look the business but are entirely manual in operation, and out of the question for many modellers with less then perfect eyesight or dexterity.

 

I look upon it as a continuum from cheap & cheerful automatic albeit not particularly reliable and completely unprototyical (TLCs) through varying levels of functionality and increasing prototypical-ness (what is the word for that?) until you get to three-link couplings.  Everyone is free to pick the point on the spectrum that meets their personal preferences in terms of operational requirements, reliability, cost, effort involved, and visual realism.

 

As it happens, this thread is mainly aimed at people who have chosen the Kadee point on the spectrum.  Wibbling on for too long about TLCs is taking it seriously  :offtopic: so I'll shut up now.


Edited by ejstubbs, 14 October 2017 - 20:41 .

  • Like x 2

#433 Dunsignalling

Dunsignalling

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,905 posts
  • LocationMilepost 154 3/4

Posted 14 October 2017 - 21:48

I'd suggest that you establish which height works for you, and stick with that. If you intend to cut or remove the Kadee, your concerns about whether the coupling is drooping is purely academic: Your intention is to replace the coupling.

I've been running a shunting plank for a number years, and all fitting a selection of Kadees. These run from No.5, to No.19. Once you follow the basics, they run very well. Naturally, there are variations, but knuckle height is important. As we all know, the operation of the layout is only as good as the constituent parts.

If you want to enjoy Kadee, try using the web pages. There is a lot of information on the site.

Some UK-ish modellers don't like Kadees: I can understand that. They run clear across any aesthetic notion you have of British models. I'd respectfully suggest that the cornerstone of 'cutting off the coupling' is rooted in it's alien origin. For my uses, the Kadee is just right.

Now, if I can find a Kadee/3-link combination, I'm in.

I don't have any connection with Kadee, and I've never met them. I need the coupling to do an exacting job, and it works.

Happy modelling Peeps!

Ian.

There isn't an automatic coupling made that looks good, the best you can hope for is unobtrusive and the master at that is the Alex Jackson. They are excellent if you model in P4 but just don't work in OO. The slack in the rail/wheel interface allows stock to waddle so the couplers don't line up accurately enough to couple reliably. (Voice of experience, I tried them many years ago, despite having that spelled out to me. 20-something me thought he knew better!).

 

The Kadee, possibly uniquely, is at least based on real railway practice, even if it's not been UK railway practice until quite recently. Presumably, if foreign railways didn't use knuckle couplers, there'd be no objection.........

 

I've been using Kadees for 25+ years and consider their overall combination of functionality, reliability and (once you get the hang of it) ease of fitment to the vast majority of models is beyond equal for OO. They aren't quite "fit and forget" but if you get the fitting bit right, and your layout room/shed doesn't suffer from damp, they get pretty darn close to it. The real godsend is being able to effortlessly separate vehicles simply by lifting as in the old days of the Peco Simplex/Hornby Dublo couplers, neither of which I ever recall being referred to as un-British in appearance. :angel: . Kadees don't look radically different from those but are smaller (a lot smaller in the case of the plastic HD coupler). 

 

I also fit and maintain Sprat & Winkles as part of my involvement in a layout with an awful lot of stock. I've no complaints whatever about their performance and they are fairly invisible so long as one fits goalposts rather than a hideous wire stuck or soldered across the buffers. However, they are MUCH more labour-intensive than Kadees. In essence, S&Ws are upside-down tension locks with all the aggro that entails in the fiddle yard, followed by regular gauging/adjustment necessitated by (even fairly gentle) handling.

 

The slightly irritating thing is that the layout has few viewpoints closer than about 30" from the trains and you really have to squint to see if the stock being observed has 3-links, S&Ws, Kadees, or even small-head TLCs. :jester:

 

John


Edited by Dunsignalling, 15 October 2017 - 07:28 .

  • Agree x 1
  • Like x 1

#434 BR60103

BR60103

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,580 posts
  • LocationHoneysuckle Cottage, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Posted 15 October 2017 - 03:18

I'd suggest that you establish which height works for you, and stick with that. If you intend to cut or remove the Kadee, your concerns about whether the coupling is drooping is purely academic: Your intention is to replace the coupling.I've been running a shunting plank for a number years, and all fitting a selection of Kadees. These run from No.5, to No.19. Once you follow the basics, they run very well. Naturally, there are variations, but knuckle height is important. As we all know, the operation of the layout is only as good as the constituent parts.If you want to enjoy Kadee, try using the web pages. There is a lot of information on the site.Some UK-ish modellers don't like Kadees: I can understand that. They run clear across any aesthetic notion you have of British models. I'd respectfully suggest that the cornerstone of 'cutting off the coupling' is rooted in it's alien origin. For my uses, the Kadee is just right.Now, if I can find a Kadee/3-link combination, I'm in.I don't have any connection with Kadee, and I've never met them. I need the coupling to do an exacting job, and it works.Happy modelling Peeps!Ian.


When I was in my early teens I coupled 3-links to Kadees by removing the pin that holds the knuckle and replacing it with a spike or nail. This let me put a link in and pin it in place (like a link and pin).
  • Informative/Useful x 1







Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.