Kadee Couplers

[melmerby]

34 minutes ago, josh_will said:

 

What’s with the 12k SMT resistor on the axle?

Occupancy on DCC.

I connected a variable resistor across the track and it proved it worked reliably with 14k so I used a resistor a bit less. I suppose I could have used 10k.

Edit: Silver paint to complete circuit. That wheelset needs changing as it is a split axle, early Bachmann.

Edited October 18, 2019 by melmerby

[josh_will]

Kadee purists look away now...

Here’s an old Bachmann grain wagon with Kadee 148s fitted with screws into the existing holes for the T/L. Yes I know the gear box extends out a mile from the buffer beam but it’s a quick and convenient conversion, and in my view looks no worse than an NEM-type Kadee fitting, and it also sets the knuckle at an ideal distance from the buffer beam for my needs.

[Sir TophamHatt]

Can you purchase step up / step down connectors?

 

Thinking something that would fit into the pocket, then raise a little, then provide another pocket for you to slot your kadee into.

 

I have a BR218 (Peco Piko) class loco that has an NEM pocket, but the kadee sits too low. Because of how the pocket is, I don't think there's any opportunity to raise or lower it. 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Sir TophamHatt

[DutyDruid]

On 09/04/2019 at 11:49, DutyDruid said:

 

Done, works - in principle at least.  

 

My original lash-up:

 

The completed "new" assembly:

 

Against the height gauge:

 

All I need to do now is get the time to put it on the Club layout that is set up for Kadee couplers and try it out...  (job for Thursday I think)

 

On 27/03/2019 at 16:18, DutyDruid said:

 

So, I've just been on the phone with Gaugemaster and asked that very question and they drew my attention to this variation on the theme - Roco 40287 - which in itself is an interesting concept given that that's the coupler Hornby use to close couple coaches.

 

I have to go up the M40 next week and have arranged to collect the coupler head to NEM363 adapter from Brackley, now need to organise to go to Gaugemaster to collect the ROCO 40287 thingy.

 

Not having come across the NEM363 standard before but seeing that several manufacturers whose names I recognise as big in the continental world seem to use it, I wonder if Kadee could be persuaded to make a head with an NEM363 adaptor ready fitted?

 

Elliott

 

11 minutes ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

Can you purchase step up / step down connectors?

 

Thinking something that would fit into the pocket, then raise a little, then provide another pocket for you to slot your kadee into.

 

I have a 218 (Peco) class loco that has an NEM pocket, but the kadee sits too low. Because of how the pocket is, I don't think there's any opportunity to raise or lower it. 

 

Hi, Don't think I have assembled this multiquote too well but I'm working on a borrowed machine (Mac) which doesn't respond the same was as my PC does.

 

Sounds like you might want to take a look back at the posts that were exchanged around late March/early April, some given above including a couple of pictures of my Bachmann 4MT.  The answer is "Yes, you can adjust the height" .

 

Elliott

[melmerby]

41 minutes ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

Can you purchase step up / step down connectors?

 

Thinking something that would fit into the pocket, then raise a little, then provide another pocket for you to slot your kadee into.

 

I have a 218 (Peco) class loco that has an NEM pocket, but the kadee sits too low. Because of how the pocket is, I don't think there's any opportunity to raise or lower it. 

I assume you mean Piko 57508 BR218 H0 loco?

If so the coupling used appears to the same as on a Liliput loco I bought recently and the pocket was the correct height for a #18.

The pockets should be to the NEM H0 specification which is what the Kadee couplers are actually designed for, else there would be no interoperability between different makers using the same couplings.

 

N.B. For the record there is/was no actual spec for 00 but the recommendation is to use the same height as H0 (unfortunately not always observed)

[Sol]

I was led to believe DOGO  settled on the NEM standard as the H0 & S scales  standards are the same and as 00 fits in between the two H0 & S, it seemed a logical step

http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/couplings.htm     https://www.buffersmodelrailways.com/image/data/couplings.pdf

[melmerby]

48 minutes ago, Sol said:

I was led to believe DOGO  settled on the NEM standard as the H0 & S scales  standards are the same and as 00 fits in between the two H0 & S, it seemed a logical step

http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/couplings.htm     https://www.buffersmodelrailways.com/image/data/couplings.pdf

But we do not have an "official" organisation like the NEM, it is just a recommendation and manufacturers don't seem to recognize DOGA and do their own thing.

[ejstubbs]

8 hours ago, melmerby said:

But we do not have an "official" organisation like the NEM

 

For clarity: "the NEM" is not an organisation, it is the set of standards defined by MOROP:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normen_Europäischer_Modellbahnen

 

Note that, as stated in the Wiki article linked above, the NEM standards "are defined and maintained by the Technical Commission of the MOROP in collaboration with model railroad manufacturers."  MOROP itself is a European federation of national railway and model railway enthusiasts.  AIUI then, in that sense DOGA is effectively the UK equivalent of MOROP - both organisations work with/liaise with manufacturers, but the organisations themselves consist of/represent enthusiasts.

 

I presume that one reason DOGA isn't a member of MOROP is because OO is largely unknown/ignored elsewhere in Europe, so it would be a bit of lone voice.  Maybe MOROP wouldn't have them, or maybe they didn't want to part of MOROP.  Or maybe the question has never come up?

[Sir TophamHatt]

17 hours ago, melmerby said:

I assume you mean Piko 57508 BR218 H0 loco?

If so the coupling used appears to the same as on a Liliput loco I bought recently and the pocket was the correct height for a #18.

 

Yes, that's right - my bad!

 

Hmm.  Maybe my height gauge is wrong, or the CMX track cleaner is wrong.

I'll go away and check what's what.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

Hmm.  Maybe my height gauge is wrong, or the CMX track cleaner is wrong.

I'll go away and check what's what.

The CMX track cleaner is a near spot on H0 Kadee position so should line up with any other Kadees and the gauge (which cannot be wrong?)

If your Piko loco is indeed incorrect I suppose it's possible they have done a Bachmann and put the pocket at the wrong height and use cranked couplers.

Is you loco an old example? The picture I was looking at was a recent one and the coupler looked exactly like my Liliput one.

 

Any chance of a picture?

Edited October 30, 2019 by melmerby

[Sir TophamHatt]

4 hours ago, melmerby said:

The CMX track cleaner is a near spot on H0 Kadee position so should line up with any other Kadees and the gauge (which cannot be wrong?)

If your Piko loco is indeed incorrect I suppose it's possible they have done a Bachmann and put the pocket at the wrong height and use cranked couplers.

Is you loco an old example? The picture I was looking at was a recent one and the coupler looked exactly like my Liliput one.

 

Any chance of a picture?

 

Well clearly overnight, someone has swapped my Piko with another!

 

 

More like I probably put the coupler in upside down.

How did I decide this? I put a number 19 on my new Dapol IOA wagon and it too was far too low for the measurer.... until I realised it was upside down. Cue the cogs whirring and boom! Now the Piko is great too!

 

However the CMX is low. I don't know exactly what I've used (it has whisks (?)) but it's screwed to the CMX but if I tighten the screw any further it raises a little, but then becomes difficult to turn.

 

[melmerby]

How can it be upside down?

Then the jaw would face the wrong way and the operating pin would be up instead of down

[melmerby]

How is the Kadee fixed to the CMX?

The #5 should be on the fixing post first then the spring unit with the tongues facing up over the coupling, then a washer and finally a screw.

 

On mine the screw is tight and the natural slop allows the coupling to sag slightly I can't lock the coupling solid.

This is what it looks like:

[ISW]

Am I doing something wrong?

 

I'm using quite a variety of Kadee couplings (#5, #18/19/20, #144/147, #156/158) but am having an issue with the Whisker type Kadees. These work perfectly when in tension, but have a habit of taking up a /\ or \/ shape when being propelled. If they stay -- shape then they are okay.

 

Once they take up the /\ or \/ shape, this obviously reduces the gap between adjacent vehicles, and this leads to bufferlock when propelling in curves.

 

This doesn't happen with non-Whisker couplings.

 

Any guidance much appreciated.

 

[Sol]

58 minutes ago, ISW said:

Am I doing something wrong?

 

I'm using quite a variety of Kadee couplings (#5, #18/19/20, #144/147, #156/158) but am having an issue with the Whisker type Kadees. These work perfectly when in tension, but have a habit of taking up a /\ or \/ shape when being propelled. If they stay -- shape then they are okay.

 

Once they take up the /\ or \/ shape, this obviously reduces the gap between adjacent vehicles, and this leads to bufferlock when propelling in curves.

 

This doesn't happen with non-Whisker couplings.

 

Any guidance much appreciated.

 

 

I use a lot of whisker Kadees and have no problems in pushing back thru  19" curves.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, ISW said:

Am I doing something wrong?

 

I'm using quite a variety of Kadee couplings (#5, #18/19/20, #144/147, #156/158) but am having an issue with the Whisker type Kadees. These work perfectly when in tension, but have a habit of taking up a /\ or \/ shape when being propelled. If they stay -- shape then they are okay.

 

Once they take up the /\ or \/ shape, this obviously reduces the gap between adjacent vehicles, and this leads to bufferlock when propelling in curves.

 

This doesn't happen with non-Whisker couplings.

 

Any guidance much appreciated.

 

Are they perfectly straight when not coupled to another vehicle?

If they were sitting at an angle it might do what you are seeing.

As Sol says mine (mainly #146s and similar) are fine

[Jeff Smith]

3 hours ago, ISW said:

Am I doing something wrong?

 

I'm using quite a variety of Kadee couplings (#5, #18/19/20, #144/147, #156/158) but am having an issue with the Whisker type Kadees. These work perfectly when in tension, but have a habit of taking up a /\ or \/ shape when being propelled. If they stay -- shape then they are okay.

 

Once they take up the /\ or \/ shape, this obviously reduces the gap between adjacent vehicles, and this leads to bufferlock when propelling in curves.

 

This doesn't happen with non-Whisker couplings.

 

Any guidance much appreciated.

 

Are the Whisker couplings mounted in the correct gear boxes #242 or#252?

[ISW]

 

11 hours ago, melmerby said:

Are they perfectly straight when not coupled to another vehicle?

If they were sitting at an angle it might do what you are seeing.

As Sol says mine (mainly #146s and similar) are fine

 

Yes, they are aligned and work fine in a straight line, and the couplers are 'centralised' when inactive.

 

8 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Are the Whisker couplings mounted in the correct gear boxes #242 or#252?

 

Yep, the couplings are mounted in #242 draft boxes.

 

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

I was wondering if the 'whiskers' were not strong enough to maintain the centralised position, and was considering bending them outwards a bit. However, not done that yet as I thought I'd check with RMWeb first. Now I'm thinking that's a bad idea.

 

So, all I can do is:

1. Re-check to ensure centralised alignment.
2. Make sure the height is correct (they were installed with reference to the Kadee buffer).

Anything else I could try??

 

[Sir TophamHatt]

19 hours ago, melmerby said:

How can it be upside down?

Then the jaw would face the wrong way and the operating pin would be up instead of down

Sorry, I should have explained

With a few of my kadees, I took the operating pin off so on first look, it's not as easy to see which way it should be (I haven't learnt which way the claw should face yet).

[Sir TophamHatt]

On 30/10/2019 at 16:04, melmerby said:

How is the Kadee fixed to the CMX?

The #5 should be on the fixing post first then the spring unit with the tongues facing up over the coupling, then a washer and finally a screw.

 

So mine had two washers, then the coupling - no wonder it was low!

 

So now I have the Kadee coupler, a washer and the screw.

 

Not too sure which bit is the tongue but the claw fits the right way to connect to the height gauge.

[melmerby]

46 minutes ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

 

Not too sure which bit is the tongue but the claw fits the right way to connect to the height gauge.

There should be a phosphor bronze thingy looking like a small tray, except the sides act as springs against the flats on the coupling to centre it.

It goes on after the coupling but before any washers.*

The mount is like many North American vehicles in that it is for a standard #5 coupler

 

* or maybe not:

https://www.kadee.com/documents/standardcouplersins.pdf

Edited October 31, 2019 by melmerby

[BR60103]

The couper is the right way up if you can shake hands with it (Boy Scouts ignore this rule.)

 

[BWsTrains]

On 03/09/2019 at 03:04, john new said:

Thanks for the answers above. My background to this query:-

 

On 03/09/2019 at 03:04, john new said:

 

Buckeye styles - Having grown up with the H-Dublo (Peco patent) couplings the Kadee looks the nearest to that type. The HD/Peco  design works well as a coupling up device, is easy to lift stock off compared with  t/ls but has snags for auto-uncoupling. However, when I designed the current shunting plank I wasn't aware of the problem regarding curves on Kadees but it will only affect one place where I will want to cut a rake..

 

However, my intent is to try it out on a few wagons hence asking what the best starter option is to move from zero experience with them to a trial. I think my mind is definitely made up to go for a Kadee trial as the best option, with the magnets (now bought) fitted as per Signaller69's method on his Dunnington layout.

 

Regarding the above, see my reply to Signaller69 here:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/143582-dunnington-dvlr-scenics-begin/&do=findComment&comment=3718133

 

you might find it of use.

 

Colin

[kevinlms]

19 hours ago, ISW said:

 

 

Yes, they are aligned and work fine in a straight line, and the couplers are 'centralised' when inactive.

 

 

Yep, the couplings are mounted in #242 draft boxes.

 

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

I was wondering if the 'whiskers' were not strong enough to maintain the centralised position, and was considering bending them outwards a bit. However, not done that yet as I thought I'd check with RMWeb first. Now I'm thinking that's a bad idea.

 

So, all I can do is:

1. Re-check to ensure centralised alignment.
2. Make sure the height is correct (they were installed with reference to the Kadee buffer).

Anything else I could try??

 

Are they 100% aligned down the centre (perhaps center, since it's a US product!) line of the vehicle? Even a slight offset, will cause a coupler to go the wrong way. The centring springs are finely made to make then centre and if not mounted correctly, will dause all sorts of trouble.

[Sir TophamHatt]

16 hours ago, melmerby said:

There should be a phosphor bronze thingy looking like a small tray, except the sides act as springs against the flats on the coupling to centre it.

It goes on after the coupling but before any washers.*

The mount is like many North American vehicles in that it is for a standard #5 coupler

 

* or maybe not:

https://www.kadee.com/documents/standardcouplersins.pdf

 

I am using the wrong type of coupler I think.
I have something that looks like this:

 

But no box or anything.

It's just what came with the cleaner - didn't think that it should have a mounting box...  Hmm.
I'll take a photo after work and edit it into this post.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Sir TophamHatt