Kadee height problem

[blanman27]

Hi all

 

I have been trying to fit all my stock with Kadee couplings as I  think they look better and they also are great for uncoupling with the magnet system they use. The problem is the differences in height with RTR stock, even with items from the same manufacturer. For instance A Bachmann class 47 and Bachmann MK1 coaches. The NEM pocket on the coach is set higher than the locomotive which results in the coaches becoming uncoupled frequently. It would be good if Kadee supplied a step up/down coupling like tension lock couplings do. Its about time the industry sorted this out and standardised the height of the NEM pocket. 

 

If anyone has any suggestions how to fix this problem I would greatly appreciate them.

 

Frustrated!!

 

Cheers, Paul

[jonhall]

The problem is that the NEM standard defines the coupler box height, Kadee don't supply different heights because nobody in their right mind would manufacture a train with a NEM box at the wrong height... would they?

 

Jon

[ejstubbs]

This is a known problem due, as jonhall has said, to some manufacturers (primarily Bachmann) not following the complete NEM standard (or the DOGA standard, which is exactly the same as NEM) which does indeed specify the height of the NEM pocket.  It's not Kadee's fault, and there is zero chance that they're ever going to make a special range of couplers to fix someone else's foul-up.  (Bachmann had to make 'stepped' NEM tension lock couplings to fix their own mistake.)

 

Googling "nem kadee height rmweb" should turn up a goodly number of threads where this issue, and various remedies, are discussed.

 

You might also find this useful: https://www.buffersmodelrailways.com/image/data/couplings.pdf

[The Johnster]

That about sums it up for tension lock couplings as well, and with t/ls you also have several different hook and bar profiles to consider.  The standard is the box height and position (distance of front face of box from buffer beam) only.  Kaydees are originally designed for US stock where everything is mounted on bogies, and that they can be adapted for use on European or British 4 wheeled vehicles is a testament to their versatility, and NEMs were also not originally designed with British stock foremost in the specification.

 

The answer is to set a standard box height for your layout (the most common existing one would be the obvious choice) take the mounts off models whose boxes do not comply where you can and replace them with Parkside mounts.  These are plastic dovetail blocks that glue to the floor of the vehicle.  If the coupling is going to be too high, a spacer between the block and the floor can pack it to the correct height, and if too low you can cut the top of the block down to specification.  Don't make the mistake I did of assuming that the correct height is standard as measured from the vehicle floor, measure it from the rail head.

 

This will be much harder for bogie vehicles; you mention mk1 coaches, but for any coupling system to work properly the height must be a specified standard for all vehicles on the layout.  Ride height of vehicles may be affected by wheel changes as well.  Your couplings should ideally be a standard projection from the buffer beam and have a standard lateral play as well, but on a layout where both bogie and rigid framed vehicles with a range of different sized and shaped buffers are used this cannot be done and a compromise must be achieved.  

[naugytrax]

In the specific case of Bachmann Mk.I and Mk.2 coaches, a simple fix is to replace the coupler arms with the correct-shaped (cranked) ones available from Keen Systems.

I've always suspected that when Bachmann designed their close-coupling system, they simply copied the parts from Roco's HO coaches, not realizing until too late that OO coaches have higher floors!

[blanman27]

Thanks for all your comments. Much to consider I think cheers all

[D9020 Nimbus]

Kadee also make a coupler height gauge that can be used to check the positioning of the coupler (and also the position of the trip arm—sometimes this might need to be adjusted). Stockists of US prototype models may have this.

Adapters have been made in the past (may still be available) to provide NEM362 mounts with a close coupling facility for non-NEM fitted stock—the name of Symoba comes to mind—though these are intended for HO, though.

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Kadee also make a coupler height gauge that can be used to check the positioning of the coupler (and also the position of the trip arm—sometimes this might need to be adjusted). Stockists of US prototype models may have this.

Adapters have been made in the past (may still be available) to provide NEM362 mounts with a close coupling facility for non-NEM fitted stock—the name of Symoba comes to mind—though these are intended for HO, though.

Symoba mounts work with pretty much anything in HO or OO that has the modest amount of room needed to accommodate them underneath as the height of the pocket is adjustable. I get mine from DCC Supplies. There is a Symoba gauge intended for setting the height of their pockets which is also very useful for checking the height of those on models made by others.

 

I wholeheartedly agree on the necessity of owning a Kadee height gauge. Check out the on-line catalogue at www.Kadee.com for details of the full range of couplers, accessories and tools.

 

Can't help with the Bachmann 47 as I don't have one but the likelihood is that, unless you can move the pocket upwards you may need to de-NEM it and fit (probably) a Kadee #141 or 146 or a Symoba CCU mount to the main chassis. Best advice is to find somebody who has done one and  pick their brains. The optimum solution will be decided by the minimum radius your loco is required to negotiate. 

 

John 

Edited June 15, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[BR60103]

The neighbour of our club president is into 3D printing and did a version of the NEM box to replace the Bachmann ones. I don't think they are doing them commercially.

 

Kadee's other couplings have a range of heights that they can be fixed to. The website has tables of these.

 

[Phil Mc]

For Bachmann's mk1's I just glued the kadee coupling to the bottom of the existing NEM pocket, crude but effective !!

 

Cheers,

Phil.

[laurenceb]

I did something similar fixing the coupling wit heatsrink

[blanman27]

1 hour ago, Phil Mc said:

For Bachmann's mk1's I just glued the kadee coupling to the bottom of the existing NEM pocket, crude but effective !!

 

Cheers,

Phil.

The answer to a problem is usually very simple. Perfect! Cheers Phil.

[friscopete]

MJT make some etched brass NEM coupler boxes with a long bars  to fit just about anything with the right method.I agree it is stupid to make the wrong height  boxes . I mainly use US stock which usually comes the right height .

[ejstubbs]

22 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Kadee also make a coupler height gauge that can be used to check the positioning of the coupler (and also the position of the trip arm—sometimes this might need to be adjusted). Stockists of US prototype models may have this.

 

It's the Kadee #206 (don't get the #205, which is metal and will create a short circuit if you use it on track with power applied).  Gaugemaster do it: http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=KDE206&style=main&strType=&Mcode=Kadee+206 for one.

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

It's the Kadee #206 (don't get the #205, which is metal and will create a short circuit if you use it on track with power applied).  Gaugemaster do it: http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=KDE206&style=main&strType=&Mcode=Kadee+206 for one.

You can quite easily use the #205. Just use it at the end of a siding, where you can cut a gap in both rails a bit longer than the uncoupler, so effectively it is a buffer stop. Turn your vehicle end for end to check both ends.

[blanman27]

I have the plastic height gauge and the special pliers for bending the trip pin. Essential tools for Kadee. 

 

The glue method as suggested by Phil above is as he says 'crude but effective' for solving the NEM height problem. 

 

Cheers for all your replies to this thread, some valuable info gleaned from it.

 

Paul

[ejstubbs]

18 hours ago, kevinlms said:

You can quite easily use the #205. Just use it at the end of a siding, where you can cut a gap in both rails a bit longer than the uncoupler, so effectively it is a buffer stop. Turn your vehicle end for end to check both ends.

 

You can, but it's more expensive than the #206 and just as effective so there doesn't seem to be much point.  You can also move it easily from one end of a vehicle to the other without having to worry about isolating sections, rather than turning the vehicle.

 

But each to their own.

[sorabain]

There are kadees similar to step-up/step-down. The terminology they use is "underset" "overset" and "centreset" (regular). 

[D9020 Nimbus]

2 hours ago, sorabain said:

There are kadees similar to step-up/step-down. The terminology they use is "underset" "overset" and "centreset" (regular). 

But not in NEM fittings...

I think there might be other brands of NEM fitting Kadee couplers. McHenry and Bachmann's EZ-mate perhaps? But I don't know whether they do underset or overset couplers.

[ejstubbs]

4 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

But I don't know whether they do underset or overset couplers.

 

Again, if the NEM pocket meets the the standard which includes the height above the railhead, why would they need to?  If a particular  NEM pocket doesn't meet the standard, how would they know how much to underset/overset - and how would they know whether the next non-standard one wouldn't need a different amount of underset/overset?

 

Basically why should anyone bother making products that don't meet a defined standard just as a sticking plaster for another manufacturer's mistake?

[kevinlms]

13 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

You can, but it's more expensive than the #206 and just as effective so there doesn't seem to be much point.  You can also move it easily from one end of a vehicle to the other without having to worry about isolating sections, rather than turning the vehicle.

 

But each to their own.

But perhaps someone (like me), already has a #205, just gave some info on how it can be used!

 

Or maybe it's the only one in stock at the time.

Edited June 17, 2019 by kevinlms

[BR60103]

I keep my height gauge mounted on a separate piece of track on length of 1x2 board with a rerailer at the other end.

 

Remember that if the drop pin strikes the gauge, the coupler is probably low. Check this before bending the wire. Lifting the wire onto the shelf may raise the coupler to the right height but it will fall back after.

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by BR60103

[roythebus]

I've modified quite a few Kadee NEM couplers by melting across the arm with a soldering iron in 2 places to make a Z shaped joggle. that works quite well.

 

I'd like to know what glue sticks Kadees to anything that doesn't fall off under tension. 

[melmerby]

On 15/06/2019 at 09:07, blanman27 said:

Hi all

 

 For instance A Bachmann class 47

 

On 15/06/2019 at 17:14, Dunsignalling said:

Can't help with the Bachmann 47 as I don't have one but the likelihood is that, unless you can move the pocket upwards you may need to de-NEM it and fit (probably) a Kadee #141 or 146

 

No need, the NEM pocket is at the correct height, the coaches however.................

[Dunsignalling]

5 hours ago, melmerby said:

 

No need, the NEM pocket is at the correct height, the coaches however.................

I've not yet encountered the revised CCUs on newer Mk1s as I have as many as I'll ever need in the original form, all fitted with Keen Systems replacement links that rectify the height and reach discrepancies in one fell swoop. My Birdcages are correct though, so hopefully Bachmann have finally got a grip on the issue.

 

I'm not entirely optimistic, however, as all but one of the CCUs fitted to my SR 4-wheel utility vans, BR CCT and Horsebox, were "droopy" - I've removed them from all of the aforementioned in favour of non-NEM Kadees, 141 on both BR vehicles, and 146 on the SR vans. That said, the similar units on my pair of Bachmann-for-TMC Double Bolsters seem to be OK though. 

 

Thanks for the encouraging info on the 47, as I am contemplating getting one.

 

John

Edited June 22, 2019 by Dunsignalling