Kadee Couplers

[Dunsignalling]

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 October 14, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[tomparryharry]

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.

[ejstubbs]

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   so I'll shut up now.

Edited October 14, 2017 by ejstubbs

[Dunsignalling]

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.  . 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.

 

John

Edited October 15, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[BR60103]

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).

[shaun666]

Could anyone advise which Kadee coupler is best suited to the Hornby Class 08 R2417, which has NEM pockets?

 

TIA

 

Shaun

[JZ]

Depend on the radius of your curves. I have #18s in mine.

 

Could anyone advise which Kadee coupler is best suited to the Hornby Class 08 R2417, which has NEM pockets?

 

TIA

 

Shaun

[Phatbob]

Could anyone advise which Kadee coupler is best suited to the Hornby Class 08 R2417, which has NEM pockets?

 

TIA

 

Shaun

I have #18s in mine too.

HTH

[shaun666]

Is it possible to fit Kadee's to a 1971 Hornby R52 Jinty? I do have some 1st radius curves to contend with..

 

Any recommendations?

 

Many thanks to all those who responded to my earlier question

[Butler Henderson]

Is it possible to fit Kadee's to a 1971 Hornby R52 Jinty? I do have some 1st radius curves to contend with..

 

Any recommendations?

There is a simple way of Kadeeing any Hornby production of that age as the couplings are invariably screw fitted in place. Simply drill a suitable hole in the shank of a NEM Kadee and use that screw to fix the Kadee in place of the tension lock. Snag is there is no side play so the chances of it working with 1st radius curves is very very unlikely. Any draft box fitted Kadee will require lot of milling of the diecast chassis block. Edited November 5, 2017 by Butler Henderson

[brian777999]

Fitting Kadees to Hornby coaches : Is it possible to fit Kadees to the bogies and how would this be done ? If anybody has done it then some photos would be helpful.

[Dunsignalling]

Fitting Kadees to Hornby coaches : Is it possible to fit Kadees to the bogies and how would this be done ? If anybody has done it then some photos would be helpful.

Which Hornby coaches?

[Suzie]

Most screw-on tension lock couplers from Triang days can just be replaced with #46 using the same screw in my experience. I suspect that any of the #x6 couplers will work.

[Dunsignalling]

Most screw-on tension lock couplers from Triang days can just be replaced with #46 using the same screw in my experience. I suspect that any of the #x6 couplers will work.

Is that with or without the draft box?

 

John

[Suzie]

With the draft box.

[crazynitwit]

How would I fit kadees to a Lima class 37

[Stevelewis]

How would I fit kadees to a Lima class 37

 

Kadee  do  several  options,  not  having   any  lima  items I cannot  be  specific,  but   probably  a  Kadee  number  5 would be  an  option  some  modification  may be  necessary on  the  loco underside  to  gain the correct  height##Check out  Kadee  website   kadee.com

[Suzie]

Kadee #5 is rarely a good choice for any stock with buffers. You will normally need to start with a #46 or similar long shank.

 

My answer to a Lima 37 was to replace the chassis with a Vitrains one. Then #18 can be cut off and glued to the cut off shank of the supplied tension lock.

[shaun666]

Somewhat off topic, but I have to say this is, without doubt, the most helpful forum ever..

 

Thanks so much all

 

S

[brian777999]

Which Hornby coaches?

 

The longer clerestory roof coaches : the tension lock couplers form part of the bogie and have to be cut off. I am just curious as to how others have attached Kadees to the bogies.

[john flann]

I have been modelling now for getting on for sixty years and using Kadees for many of them, so may I join this conversation.

 

Being fed up in the 1970s with all the disparate couplings offered by the trade for British OO stock I first experimented with Kadee # 5's but it was not a success so I turned to the Alec Jackson couplings. Much better but not entirely satisfactory. I also became attracted to American HO and went that way. What a revelation, standard coupling height and easy adaption for Kadees.

 

I then went back to modelling British outline and again immediately hit the problem of the lack of a common standard so virtually back to square one. (This was before the introduction by Kadee of the NEM mounting.) I tried using the common #5 and again it wasn't always satisfactory. When the NEM mounting came along I heaved a sigh of relief, but it was too soon and many of the old problems remained.

 

What have I learned; be persistent and use my ingenuity. Three lessons in particular:

 

1, don't use the Kadee height gauge, it's made to American standards not UK.

 

2. apply your own standard of the most common height among your stock.

 

3. match locos to particular stock.

 

Below are two images of coaching stock to which I have added Kadees (20's I think) and later today I will photo how I dun it.

 

 

 

Both are Hornby vehicles and I've successfully used the same method(s) on Bachmann.

 

The coaches are seen at Port Bredy on my Hintock Branch of which details are below.

Edited November 5, 2017 by john flann

[ejstubbs]

1, don't use the Kadee height gauge, it's made to American standards not UK.

 

I'm a little puzzled by this advice.  My understanding is that the job of the Kadee #206 height gauge is to help you get the coupler mounted at the correct height so as to couple up reliably, and so that the trip pin is at the correct height to uncouple reliably without catching on turnouts or crossings, or on a between-the-rails uncoupling magnet.  The dimensions are standardised by Kadee, and they produce between-the-rails uncoupling magnets of appropriate thicknesses for code 100 and code 83 track.  I've used the Kadee height gauge for setting up the couplers on my UK stock running on code 100 track with no problems to date.

 

Do you mean that it won't work with code 75 track?  I can certainly imagine that using either of the Kadee between-the-rails uncoupling magnets on unmodified code 75 track would lead to problems if you've used the Kadee height gauge to set up your couplings.  But that's because they don't make a between-the-rails magnet specifically for that track standard.  What they do provide is some basic guidance as to how to use the Code 83 between-the-rails magnet with other, lower rail profile track standards: https://kadee.com/htmbord/page322.htm

 

I'm pretty sure - though I'm more than happy to be corrected - that if you're using the "under-the-ties" uncoupling magnet, or rolling your own using neodymium magnets, then the Kadee gauge will do the job regardless of the track standard you're using.  That's because it's all about getting the trip pin height correct relative to the top of the rail, not the sleepers.

Edited November 5, 2017 by ejstubbs

[john flann]

EJS, fair enough.

 

I only make suggestions based on my own experiences. There I've not found the height gauge useful for my UK stock (it's fine for my American.)

 

Perhaps too I should  have added, though it's not strictly relevant to this immediate point, that I cut off the trip pin. Stock couples readily without it, stock looks better too and magnets are never, in my experience quite where you need them. For uncoupling I use a shunting pole.

 

But I retain the pin on the stock I use for my shunting plank, Hintock Town Quay where I use between the code 100 rails, magnets.

Edited November 5, 2017 by john flann

[Dunsignalling]

I'm a little puzzled by this advice.  My understanding is that the job of the Kadee #206 height gauge is to help you get the coupler mounted at the correct height so as to couple up reliably, and so that the trip pin is at the correct height to uncouple reliably without catching on turnouts or crossings, or on a between-the-rails uncoupling magnet.  The dimensions are standardised by Kadee, and they produce between-the-rails uncoupling magnets of appropriate thicknesses for code 100 and code 83 track.  I've used the Kadee height gauge for setting up the couplers on my UK stock running on code 100 track with no problems to date.

 

Do you mean that it won't work with code 75 track?  I can certainly imagine that using either of the Kadee between-the-rails uncoupling magnets on unmodified code 75 track would lead to problems if you've used the Kadee height gauge to set up your couplings.  But that's because they don't make a between-the-rails magnet specifically for that track standard.  What they do provide is some basic guidance as to how to use the Code 83 between-the-rails magnet with other, lower rail profile track standards: https://kadee.com/htmbord/page322.htm

 

I'm pretty sure - though I'm more than happy to be corrected - that if you're using the "under-the-ties" uncoupling magnet, or rolling your own using neodymium magnets, then the Kadee gauge will do the job regardless of the track standard you're using.  That's because it's all about getting the trip pin height correct relative to the top of the rail, not the sleepers.

I certainly work to the height gauge and have done so since adopting Kadees around 25 years ago, One needs a standard and that laid down by the manufacturer is likely to work better than anything I can dream up. My only deviation is to set the trip pins a little higher than recommended to avoid them clouting anything.

 

The various "Long Centerset" couplers (#26, 36 or 146) which are the most widely useful Kadees for use on UK stock (particularly wagons) generally gauge perfectly when fitted directly to wagon underframes so diverging from the recommended height will surely create extra work.

 

Now, I am completely ruthless about NEM mounts and/or pockets. Any that don't conform to the NEM standard (i.e. when fitted with NEM-fit Kadees #17/18/19 or 20, the coupler should gauge correctly) get replaced with  #146s; no messing. The Kadee couplers and #205/206 gauges are fully compliant so if there is any misalignment, it will be the model that is wrong.

 

If most of ones wagons have incorrectly aligned mounts, it might seem easiest to adjust the correct standard to fit the incorrect model rather than the other way around. However messing about with one dimension is likely to throw up other anomalies so it may be best to stick with the known quantity IMHO.

 

John

Edited November 6, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Butler Henderson]

Never had a problem with the Kadee height gauge with UK sock