Jump to content
 

Preferred height for Kadee couplers on UK 4mm scale models


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

I've been wondering what the #146 looks like. Very much like a #5, which is my standard. The difference appears to be a longer shank so the gearbox can be set back and is a bit less obvious.

 

John

Spot on. There are also two other long versions, # 141 and # 149 with the heads offset upward and downward, respectively.

 

The # 141 is especially useful for stock (often tenders) where a deep buffer beam makes it difficult to mount a # 5 or # 146 high enough without cutting into it. There are others offering these offsets but in the same length as a # 5; the direct equivalent is # 148.

 

Geometrically, they are nothing new; the dimensions date back to the 20-Series introduced around two decades ago via the more recent (and short-lived) 40-series which were a range of couplers just like the # 5 but produced in a variety of lengths and heights.

 

Where the whisker-sprung couplers vary from the arrangement familiar to you, is their ability to be used in alternative draft boxes. This extra versatility makes it simpler to cover most requirements using a relatively small range of couplers. In the past, Kadee might well have marketed a separate range of couplers in each type of draft box.

 

The Kadee website/on-line catalogue includes diagrams and dimensions of all types similar to those included in each packet of couplers.

 

John

 

Edit: Richard's photo covers nearly everything I was driving at and demonstrates how much neater it looks than the NEM set-up.

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Here are five photos to show a conversion of a Bachmann wagon with their newer design of NEM pocket ...

 

Here is a no. 18 coupler in the NEM socket:

post-14389-0-64929000-1373799908.jpg

 

post-14389-0-29402300-1373799910.jpg

 

Remove the wheels and then the screw holding the support for the NEM socket. Shorten the screw by about 2 mm and replace it. Assemble a no. 146 coupler into its draft gear box and cement the box onto the chassis. The box lid clips into place, I have left this unglued so I can remove the coupler.

post-14389-0-41946800-1373799911.jpg

 

Put a scrap of microstrip or some other shim material under the shank to lift the coupler to the correct height.

post-14389-0-61941400-1373799912.jpg

 

The result is a lot tidier.

post-14389-0-91990900-1373799914.jpg

 

I think we have the best of both worlds; we can use the NEM socket (very quick and easy to go back to a tension lock), or fit a standard coupler instead.

 

I am relying on cement to hold the gear box, but I will leave it to set overnight and I only run short trains. It would be wise to add an M2 / 8BA screw.

 

Richard.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Here are five photos to show a conversion of a Bachmann wagon with their newer design of NEM pocket ...

 

Here is a no. 18 coupler in the NEM socket:

attachicon.gifDSCF0101.jpg

 

attachicon.gifDSCF0106.jpg

 

Remove the wheels and then the screw holding the support for the NEM socket. Shorten the screw by about 2 mm and replace it. Assemble a no. 146 coupler into its draft gear box and cement the box onto the chassis. The box lid clips into place, I have left this unglued so I can remove the coupler.

attachicon.gifDSCF0107.jpg

 

Put a scrap of microstrip or some other shim material under the shank to lift the coupler to the correct height.

attachicon.gifDSCF0110.jpg

 

The result is a lot tidier.

attachicon.gifDSCF0111.jpg

 

I think we have the best of both worlds; we can use the NEM socket (very quick and easy to go back to a tension lock), or fit a standard coupler instead.

 

I am relying on cement to hold the gear box, but I will leave it to set overnight and I only run short trains. It would be wise to add an M2 / 8BA screw.

 

Richard.

Doing without a screw is probably OK until the lid has been off and on a few times, but it fits a little more loosely each time. You can probably guess how I know this. :O

 

John

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I have found this topic to have been really useful and informative with regards to the conversion and fitting of Kadee couplers; but as I have a more general question on Kadee Couplings rather than on the height standards, have posted it on this topic - link

 

 

Paul

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I run long rakes of wagons, using Kadee's to couple them, but rather than weight the wagons out of the box, I cut a 1.5mm square of black paper, and insert it over the end of the axle into the axlebox, spiking it onto the axle before re-inserting it. This provides a very cheap way of adding a small amount of resistance. If the wagon is still too free-wheeling I put a paper square on the second axle of the wagon.

 

Hope this helps as its very cheap and easy to do :)

 

Chris

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for an informative debate / forum.

 

I mainly model HO US outline so have used Kadees for a long time.

 

For my '2 cents' here goes:

 

Free running is no good, you just end up chasing the car you want to couple to.

Light weight cars are no good, when nice and heavy cars have nice inertia.

Kadee clones in my opinion are poor substitutes.

In the thread the Kadee #4 got a mention.  Clunky and all metal, but has a nice action, worth a try, just for the experience.

If you want to uncouple by hand you can straighten to trip pin and bend it until it's horizontal and parallel with the headstock.  Useful for passenger cars (oops coaches).

Don't let them droop.

Get a Kadee set of drills and 2/56 tap.  Useful to mount coupler boxes and for assembly stock (nice to be able to take things apart by just unscrewing)

The couplers benefit from a little fettling, removal of any flash etc.

 

I have moved to the Kadee semi-scale version for HO, so luckily have a source to cascade for my next venture into OO.  (I think the smaller heads have a nicer action)

 

I think I will go for mounting boxes straight to the underneath of the wagon underframe (I have mostly Bachmann so seems easiest)

 

Regarding uncoupling I prefer 'drop down' magnets or the electromagnets (I have a phobia for un-solicited uncoupling)

 

====================================

 

Has anyone mentioned the auto couplers tried out by BR (I might have missed a thread), I've seen pictures somewhere of them fitted to 16 ton minfits, the vacuum pipe coupled to the back of the cast steel coupling.  Dowty rings a very feint bell.....

 

A lot of UIC freight stock (ferry wagons) have the capability of taking an automatic coupling, hence the drawhook being supported by a bolted on 'letter box' with a big void behind.

 

I will start a blog when new layout construction starts.

 

All the best

 

Ernie Puddick

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Thanks for an informative debate / forum.

It has grown far more than I ever imagined when I made the first post!

 

Free running is no good, you just end up chasing the car you want to couple to.

Light weight cars are no good, when nice and heavy cars have nice inertia.

The springs on the Kadee 'Whisker' range seem to have the lightest action, and I am choosing the no. 146 (occasionally a 141) for new conversions to UK RTR wherever possible.

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Premium

I spent this afternoon at the Mangapps railway museum near Burnham-on-Crouch. Here are two photos of the coupler on their Canadian Pacific caboose, as a reminder of the inspiration of the original Kadee design. It is (of course) 87 x 25 / 64 inches above rail height, rather lower than a similar British coupler. The flange on the top of the mounting reminds me of a Kadee draw gear box, and a penny has dropped for me here; while I have sought to hide the gear box on British stock, it can be prominent on a North American vehicle.

 

- Richard.

 

post-14389-0-40256100-1378067257.jpg

post-14389-0-51586700-1378067259.jpg

 

Edited to add this third photo to show the size of the thing ...

post-14389-0-19739200-1378244130.jpg

Edited by 47137
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Richard:

That coupler is attached to some sort of cushioned (anti-shock) underframe. I think that with enough force the whole contraption of two couplers mounted on a steel beam (or something) will slide in the centre sill. And there's a spring on it to center it again.  Single cars like this can be dangerous as the mechanism can sit pushed in for a while and then spring back to position.

 

This car doesn't show up in my Canadian Trackside Guide -- there doesn't seem to be a section for "units preserved overseas".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Money where my mouth is time...

 

Still waiting to move house, but found a box with a few bits in...

 

Take two Bachmann BR Fruit vans and some Kadee #5 couplers.  The first attempt was to fix the box under the headstock.  I was able to use the Bachmann bracket to clamp the Kadee Box into position.  I used the #242 coupler box that snaps together  http://www.kadee.com/htmbord/page242.htm

 

The results were promising, They would couple easily on a 24" radius curve and would run on 18" radius curves.  The gap between vehicles was much improved over the hook and bar coupler.

 

So far so good.  The only thing I didn't like was the slightly droopy coupler head.  I experimented with a small strip at the front of the coupler box under the shank.  It was difficult to get it tight enough to stop the droop, but at the same time keep the easy action for uncoupling.  I then had a brain wave (steady on now).  I glued the same strip to the top of the box at the rear.  Then when glued under the headstock the coupler box slopes up slightly towards the buffers.  The coupler head sits nice and square, plus the side to side action is unimpaired.

 

See the coupler box stuck directly to the underframe with a slightly droopy head

Kadee 5 Flat Box

 

Now with the rear of the box packed slightly to slope the box, note the nice square coupler head

Kadee 5 Slope Box

 

This is the view from above when on a Roco 888mm radius curve

Kadee 888mm Radius

 

The tilting of the coupler box also sets the trip pin just clear of the rail heads, as per kadee specifications.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Retains the slack space inside the box intended by Kadee, but reduces the contact area between gear box and underframe. Hmmm. Having seen how easily one of my glued boxes fell off a wagon (and disregarding how easily I glued it back on) I would like to add a screw to hold it in place.

 

Looking at your third photo (888 mm radius) I wonder if there is scope for a sprung Kadee mount? Best of all worlds, if you accept restricting coupling to straights.

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Retains the slack space inside the box intended by Kadee, but reduces the contact area between gear box and underframe. Hmmm. Having seen how easily one of my glued boxes fell off a wagon (and disregarding how easily I glued it back on) I would like to add a screw to hold it in place.

 

Looking at your third photo (888 mm radius) I wonder if there is scope for a sprung Kadee mount? Best of all worlds, if you accept restricting coupling to straights.

 

- Richard.

The vans coupled on the 24" curve easily, Not on the 18", I can live with that as the 18" is only really a test. 

My next mini project is a test track with some reverse curves with and without transitions (a bit of straight between them)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Money where my mouth is time...

 

Still waiting to move house, but found a box with a few bits in...

 

Take two Bachmann BR Fruit vans and some Kadee #5 couplers.  The first attempt was to fix the box under the headstock.  I was able to use the Bachmann bracket to clamp the Kadee Box into position.  I used the #242 coupler box that snaps together  http://www.kadee.com/htmbord/page242.htm

 

The results were promising, They would couple easily on a 24" radius curve and would run on 18" radius curves.  The gap between vehicles was much improved over the hook and bar coupler.

 

So far so good.  The only thing I didn't like was the slightly droopy coupler head.  I experimented with a small strip at the front of the coupler box under the shank.  It was difficult to get it tight enough to stop the droop, but at the same time keep the easy action for uncoupling.  I then had a brain wave (steady on now).  I glued the same strip to the top of the box at the rear.  Then when glued under the headstock the coupler box slopes up slightly towards the buffers.  The coupler head sits nice and square, plus the side to side action is unimpaired.

 

See the coupler box stuck directly to the underframe with a slightly droopy head

 

Now with the rear of the box packed slightly to slope the box, note the nice square coupler head

 

This is the view from above when on a Roco 888mm radius curve

 

The tilting of the coupler box also sets the trip pin just clear of the rail heads, as per kadee specifications.

You can get a similar effect by GENTLY bending the shaft of the Kadee just behind the head. That allows the full contact area between the box and underframe to be maintained. That is important if you are relying solely on glue to hold everything together. 

 

I accept no responsibility for any broken ones but I have only snapped a couple!

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

   -- For those of you who can obtain/look-at the American & railroad magazine Model Railroader for october 2013. will see several articles about Kadee couplers;  also one correspondent has replaced all the Kadee couplers on his American & HO. layout, being dissatisfied with them and thinking them OUT of scale,  with the Sergent type.

 - Web site: > http://www.modelrailroader.com <

 - A British model shop advertises therein: MODEL JUNCTION, SLOUGH;  tel.: 017535 28860..

  -- Usual disclaimers, of course.

Edited by unclebobkt
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The Sergent coupler is a 1:87 scale model of a US pattern coupler and it sounds to me as though it is intended for the US equivalent of our 'P4' market. It doesn't couple to the Kadee.

 

Standard Kadees are useful as couplers on UK stock because you can pick a model up off the track or uncouple it more easily than a tension lock, and the thing is visually neater. They are widely sold too. The 4mm scale of 1:76 makes the Kadee knuckle a bit closer to a 'prototypical size' too but major other factors like the preferred height above the rails, and the fact we put them on stock which always used three-link or screw couplers in real life, means there is no real need for a 'scale' coupler.

 

Perhaps the Sergent coupler would be useful within some sets of British multiple unit stock? Someone here will have the knowledge of a suitable prototype ...

 

Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 -- Right,  as starting points:

#1.- I have no first hand experience of either Kadee or of Sergent couplers;

#2.- I live overseas in a country where model railways' modellers are v. thin on the ground;

#3.- It's a ######'s age since I did any serious & railway's modelling,  hence my views might well be out-of-date with current practice and thinking.

  - However, chatting with the man in the local railways' hobby/supply shop, (mainly American & Euro. HO. scale, also PECO. track.),  I've come to the following and initial conclusions -

>A.- Kadees are uncoupled by intra-rail electro-magnets, whereas Sergents need an Hand of God & magnetically tipped wand from above;

>B.- Following-on from the above It appears difficult to uncouple Sergents with corridor-stock, whereas no problem for Kadees;

>C.- However, a Kadee does have this magnetic & uncoupling tail handing down and with its end overlapping that of its neighbour thus it's a bit difficult to pretend that these tails are vacuum-brake pipes;  equally a bit difficult to justify a Kadee visually on non-fitted stock, whereas a Sergent with no tail looks better;  although in the real world of 12":1'. couple together two unfitted wagons and one will see the the unused 3 link coupling hanging down quite visibly;

>D.- With many baseboards being built so that viewers an helicopter's view, rather than a more protypical eye-level,  I darewrite that Kadee tails are less visible, which might justify their greater usage.

  -- :smileclear:

Edited by unclebobkt
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The Sergent coupler is a 1:87 scale model of a US pattern coupler and it sounds to me as though it is intended for the US equivalent of our 'P4' market. It doesn't couple to the Kadee.

 

Standard Kadees are useful as couplers on UK stock because you can pick a model up off the track or uncouple it more easily than a tension lock, and the thing is visually neater. They are widely sold too. The 4mm scale of 1:76 makes the Kadee knuckle a bit closer to a 'prototypical size' too but major other factors like the preferred height above the rails, and the fact we put them on stock which always used three-link or screw couplers in real life, means there is no real need for a 'scale' coupler.

 

Perhaps the Sergent coupler would be useful within some sets of British multiple unit stock? Someone here will have the knowledge of a suitable prototype ...

 

Richard.

Having had a shufty at the Sergent video on You Tube and stills on a US forum, the knuckle did look more convincing than a Kadee when fitted to US outline freight stock. However, they don't appear to be significantly smaller than the Kadees with 'scale' knuckles (150 Series).

 

Knuckle couplers are generally applied to UK-outline models for operational convenience, rather than representational purposes. Smaller ones look less obtrusive, but that's about it.

 

The Sergents look interesting but, as the wand is the sole method of uncoupling, they wouldn't be suitable for gangwayed passenger stock, uncoupling under any sort of cover, or anywhere beyond the operator's reach. Similar limitations apply when using 3-links on UK models.

 

For freight-only switching on a layout of suitable design, they look brilliant. However, for general use on stock where they are not prototypical, the disadvantages would appear to outweigh the benefits.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 I've come to the following and initial conclusions -

>A.- Kadees are uncoupled by intra-rail electro-magnets, whereas Sergents need an Hand of God & magnetically tipped wand from above;

 

Kadees will uncouple with permanent magnets. Kadee also do a splined plastic stick which separates the knuckles when inserted from above and twiddled. This is  convenient for operation, and the coupler is neater to look at than a tension lock. I like Kadees and prefer them over tension locks, but I also loathe operation using three-link couplers ... the choice is for the individual modeller.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

This is my most difficult loco conversion so far - a Hornby Barclay class 06 diesel. The coupler is a no. 141 'whisker' coupler which is a long underset shank, the gear box is seated into a slot I cut into the plastic chassis. The coupler is fixed with an M2 screw through the existing hole in the chassis opened out a bit. This is the cab end. The bonnet end is less tidy so I won't offer it as a suggested solution!

 

One day I could cut off the buffers and dummy coupling hooks and fit some plain plastic sheet over the buffer beams, this would cover up most of the cut out put there for the original tension lock coupler.

 

- Richard.

 

post-14389-0-65831100-1383685672_thumb.jpg

post-14389-0-66409700-1383686160_thumb.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Nice job Richard. You will be amazed how much better it will look with the gap filled in, though. Worth doing asap.

 

I've done it on an old-type Bachmann 03 currently on loan to a mate's layout (I'll be visiting to have a drive tomorrow).

 

No photos I'm afraid - 3 reasons, it's an obsolete model, I used #7 couplers which are no longer made and my creaky old laptop is still refusing to upload anything to anywhere.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • RMweb Premium

Here is my installation onto a Hornby 2-BIL, which is a bit "different" so seems worth posting. The central buffer will foul the head of the coupler, so I cut off the trip pins and fitted the couplers upside down. These are Kadee number 17, the shortest available for an NEM socket. The two photos show the behaviour near the middle of a reverse curve (no sweat), and at the top of 1 in 20 gradient (very close to uncoupling).

 

I like having a detachable coupling because I want to run my trains on the local club layout (reasons are fairly evident!) - but it is also easy to go back to the original bar supplied by Hornby, which will give a closer coupling.

 

- Richard.

 

post-14389-0-30599100-1427301382_thumb.jpg

post-14389-0-15266000-1427301401_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • RMweb Gold

Having looked today at Bristol Victoria and its Kadees I did a little digging around thinking I could simply swap out the standard NEM couplings for Kadees on my layout but having tried to read all this thread I have been put off.

 

It seems nothing is simple!

It should be, but unfortunately most Bachmann coupler pockets (and, increasingly, Hornby, too) accept NEM-Fit couplers but don't adhere to the standard laid down for correct alignment.  

 

There are, in all but a few cases, fairly straightforward "work arounds", most of which will have been described in this or other threads, but it is daunting for the newcomer and really shouldn't be necessary.

 

Regards

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Here is my installation onto a Hornby 2-BIL, which is a bit "different" so seems worth posting. The central buffer will foul the head of the coupler, so I cut off the trip pins and fitted the couplers upside down. These are Kadee number 17, the shortest available for an NEM socket. The two photos show the behaviour near the middle of a reverse curve (no sweat), and at the top of 1 in 20 gradient (very close to uncoupling).

 

I like having a detachable coupling because I want to run my trains on the local club layout (reasons are fairly evident!) - but it is also easy to go back to the original bar supplied by Hornby, which will give a closer coupling.

 

- Richard.

 

attachicon.gifDSCF2615.jpg

attachicon.gifDSCF2617.jpg

I've just come across this by chance, and it seems to answer the question I asked earlier today in the Hornby 2-HAL thread.

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if anyone makes a generic swallow tail with no coupler, just a place for the user to attach their own coupling device. 

 

One might then adapt the generic swallow tail to a Kadee 15x series "scale head" coupler which is smaller than that used on the NEM 17-20 series. Also there are over and under mount Kadees available in the 14x and 15x series.

 

Also Bachmann makes a swallow tale knuckle coupler with no "wings" like the Kadee 17-20.  However it only seems to come in one size.  I have used it on some wagons and loco's to minimize the look of the Kadee NEM wings.

Edited by autocoach
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...