Kadee Couplers

[DutyDruid]

Morning all

 

Somewhere back up this thread there was a discussion about "creating" NEM pockets so that the older stock could be fitted up with push-fit kadees and we did indeed find a couple of sources of suitable materials.  Well, these have just popped up on my newsfeed on another social media platform and I thought it worth sharing with this august assembly.

 

https://www.steeldragongames.co.uk/store#!/00-Gauge/c/118269339

[Dunsignalling]

15 minutes ago, DutyDruid said:

Morning all

 

Somewhere back up this thread there was a discussion about "creating" NEM pockets so that the older stock could be fitted up with push-fit kadees and we did indeed find a couple of sources of suitable materials.  Well, these have just popped up on my newsfeed on another social media platform and I thought it worth sharing with this august assembly.

 

https://www.steeldragongames.co.uk/store#!/00-Gauge/c/118269339

I once tried making such pockets (though only for wagons), but found it was much more difficult/time-consuming than fitting the #146 whisker coupler, which just needs a large enough flat area to accommodate the draft box and, 99% of the time will be the right height without further action.

 

Unless you want to be able to swap between types of couplers (e.g. Kadees vs tension-locks) there's usually an easier way, though it might sometimes involve a Kadee sub-type you've never encountered before!

 

John 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[DutyDruid]

2 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Unless you want to be able to swap between types of couplers (e.g. Kadees vs tension-locks) there's usually an easier way, though it might sometimes involve a Kadee sub-type you've never encountered before!

 

 

Unfortunately John, that's my particular problem.  I provide freight stock to a large exhibition layout.  When I take the smaller layouts out (for example Nictun Borrud) to show I use the Kadees and we have set that layout up with electromagnetic uncoupling.  When the big layout (Soberton) goes out I have to refit the tension lock couplers to be compatible with the rest of the stock on the layout.  

 

I would post links to the layouts but the Club's website is "undergoing maintenance"

[Dunsignalling]

22 minutes ago, DutyDruid said:

 

Unfortunately John, that's my particular problem.  I provide freight stock to a large exhibition layout.  When I take the smaller layouts out (for example Nictun Borrud) to show I use the Kadees and we have set that layout up with electromagnetic uncoupling.  When the big layout (Soberton) goes out I have to refit the tension lock couplers to be compatible with the rest of the stock on the layout.  

 

I would post links to the layouts but the Club's website is "undergoing maintenance"

Maybe you need to exercise some Kadee Evangelism....

[DutyDruid]

4 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Maybe you need to exercise some Kadee Evangelism....

 

Oh trust me, it isn't for the want of trying...

[47137]

2 hours ago, DutyDruid said:

Morning all

 

Somewhere back up this thread there was a discussion about "creating" NEM pockets so that the older stock could be fitted up with push-fit kadees and we did indeed find a couple of sources of suitable materials.  Well, these have just popped up on my newsfeed on another social media platform and I thought it worth sharing with this august assembly.

 

https://www.steeldragongames.co.uk/store#!/00-Gauge/c/118269339

 

I suggest some caution.

 

The NEM pocket is half of a coupling system devised by the major European manufacturers to bring interoperability to their ranges. They had problems with couplers on a scale comparable to our 00/EM/P4 debates. The other half of the system is the close coupling cam. The cam lets you put the pocket pretty much out of sight on stock with a buffer beam.

 

Virtually all Continental stock with an NEM pocket has the cam as well. When they don't, as with the conversion pieces sold for older stock, the pocket protrudes in front of the buffer beam, like this:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/entry/17790-ns-class-500-ee-350hp-shunter-roco/

 

Bringing the pocket forward lets you use close coupler heads (Fleishmann, Roco, Marklin, they still all have their own) on train set curves.

 

The plastic "fish tail" arrangement chosen by Bachmann and Hornby is, I think, cheap and nasty. I don't know why they chose this route, except of course for the cheapness. These installations won't let you use popular close coupler heads except on very relaxed curves.

 

If (for H0) you put the NEM pocket in its proper place, stock without buffers needs a #17. If there are buffers there is a cam, and stock with buffers needs a #18. If you have tight curves (I do), then bogie stock needs a #19. It is as though Kadee worked this out as a range with defined purposes. But for British models, the fitments are a lottery because the major manufacturers didn't install the pockets according to established NEM standards and practice.

 

For what its worth, this led me to turn away from Kadees for most of my British H0 stock; I prefer the cams.

 

So this is bit of a ramble but hopefully I have explained why I would never want to fit an NEM pocket without a cam. If the model had no space for a cam I would look to the NEM 363 wedge, this is less obtrusive.

 

Thanks for the link all the same, sometimes nothing else will fit :-)

 

- Richard.

[friscopete]

MJT make some ecthed brass NEM boxes that take Kadees .Very useful .Also brass channel can be used .

[DutyDruid]

So good people, a new year having passed since the last post here I thought to share something I have just discovered.

 

The accepted wisdom I have always been given when using NEM Kadees is "Don't bother buying any No 17s as they are way too short for use on UK stock with buffers.  Well, I have just found an item of Hornby stock that takes No 17s - the SR Bogie Luggage Van (aka Churchill's Funeral Van).

 

I have recently purchased a heap of 3-D printed "Drawbar Couplers" from James' Train Parts and have now spent an entertaining evening down at the Club fitting and testing them, along with putting Kadees on the end of each set.  

 

I started by fitting up a Maunsell 4-set with James' No 3 couplers and Kadee No 19s which gives reasonably good close coupling both within and between sets, and allows the set to be propelled backwards through a trailing crossover of 2nd radius points.  I then turned my attention to the luggage van to go with the set, I tried No 19s and was far from satisfied with the closeness obtained, next the 18s, better but...  It can't possibly use No 17s can it?  I've got a packet here somewhere, let's try.  Surprise surprise! 

 

 

What you're looking at here is the luggage van sandwiched between the two Maunsell brake coaches, the Maunsell coaches have No 19s and they provide reasonably close coupling, the baggage van has No 17s and in a bench test on the Club test track everything seems to work.  The only thing I haven't been able to test two identical vans together - because I only have one.

 

Anybody want to have a play and see if they can validate my results?

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by DutyDruid
corrected a clumsy phrase in the first sentence

[Dunsignalling]

A couple of points. 

 

Are you running your Maunsells with the covers on the gangways? It looks like it from the photo.

 

I remove them so I can join and split multi-portioned trains and that allows the use of #18 couplers, which I have also fitted to the Luggage van (I only have one also, at present). 

 

It's not just the shortness that makes me wary of the #17, the back of the brass pivot tends to foul the front of the pocket and can cause the coupler to stick off-centre. Remedy is to put a shallow recess into the top and bottom of the pocket with a few strokes of a round needle file. Not necessary on #18 or longer.

 

Inside sets I use Roco coupler heads (like the Hornby "alternative coupler" but shorter). I remove the metal loops and use the couplers upside down which looks much neater. I also retract the buffers within sets as the Pullman gangways do the buffing on the real thing when coupled to others of their kind. Advantage with these compared to the fixed links is that they couple just by pushing them together - handy in the confined space of most fiddle yards. Uncoupling is by lifting the end of one coach a few mm until it releases. 

 

Photo attached showing what they look like, though I can't find the one of them fitted to Hornby Maunsells. 

 

John

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Dunsignalling
Photos reinstated

[DutyDruid]

All prefaced with the caveat that this is all "on the bench" experimentation at the moment, it has yet to be tried on a real world layout.

 

7 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Are you running your Maunsells with the covers on the gangways? It looks like it from the photo.

 

I am Sir.  Truthfully, it hadn't occurred to me to remove the gangway covers (must try harder).  I will look into that.

 

7 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I remove them so I can join and split multi-portioned trains and that allows the use of #18 couplers, which I have also fitted to the Luggage van (I only have one also, at present). 

 

That's what's actually driving this for me.  Traditionally when the big layout (Soberton) goes out we run a couple of what we term "Boat Trains" - typically a Merchant Navy and 10 or 12 coaches - but I want to experiment with dividing and recombining some prototypical trains in the station.  My experience is that the #19 couplers work with the end plates fitted.  

 

7 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Inside sets I use Roco coupler heads (like the Hornby "alternative coupler" but shorter). I remove the metal loops and use the couplers upside down which looks much neater.

 

That's more or less where I was too before I discovered these James' Train Parts drawbar couplers.  What has driven me towards their use is that the fiddle yards on a couple of layouts I provide stock for have gone over to cassettes and stock boxes that hold the trains on those cassettes.  A couple of times I've had near misses with Roco style couplers parting for no adequately explained reason allowing the odd coach to run away if the cassette isn't held properly; with JTP drawbars this can't happen.

[Dunsignalling]

I also use the #19 on the outer ends of sets with the covers in place, but this is confined to a Maunsell  "Somerset & Dorset" (more properly "Torrington") 3-set and a Bulleid 59' set designated for stopping trains. The latter didn't come with covers but has acquired some removed from my other Maunsells. These don't get coupled to other sets so the covers are appropriate. 

 

On SR lines where a lot of joining and splitting occurred, the covers often seem to have been unused altogether in summer. With no water troughs, they were less necessary than elsewhere anyway.  I think there were clips provided to store them in brake vehicles and they could often be seen leant against platform lamp posts ready for use if required.  

 

With the covers off, the #18 is long enough. Getting the covers off can be a bit of a "nail-breaker" though. I haven't gone to #17s on the luggage van because most of them carried Pullman adaptors (not represented by Hornby) which I intend to add as soon as I can source or make a pair. Mine also gets run with a Van B and Stanier/Gresley BGs (also fitted with #18s) and I think a #17 might get them a bit too close for comfort.

 

John

Edited March 6, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Tallpaul69]

Good Afternoon All, pardon me for hijacking this thread, but I can't find one for Kadee related queries so here goes....

 

Has anyone tried using a Loco mounted actuator marketed by Precimodels.com?

This, being loco mounted(it looks very small!), allows you to uncouple from a loco, but not between wagons or coaches, anywhere on a layout via your DCC loco drive. It sounds a good idea for certain locations??

There is a u tube clip on it in operation and it looks to work ok.

 

Any thoughts??

Cheers

Paul  

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Good Afternoon All, pardon me for hijacking this thread, but I can't find one for Kadee related queries so here goes....

 

Has anyone tried using a Loco mounted actuator marketed by Precimodels.com?

This, being loco mounted(it looks very small!), allows you to uncouple from a loco, but not between wagons or coaches, anywhere on a layout via your DCC loco drive. It sounds a good idea for certain locations??

There is a u tube clip on it in operation and it looks to work ok.

 

Any thoughts??

Cheers

Paul  

There's quite a bit about these scattered around the Web but probably sufficiently scattered to make it fairly time-consuming to find exactly what you seek.

 

However, the builders of the Bournemouth West layout used them to good effect on their station pilots so they do stand up to exhibition use. There might be something about it on their thread but it's quite a big one so again, what you are looking for may take a while to find (if it's there at all).

 

Sorry I can't be more helpful.

 

John

[Tallpaul69]

Thanks John,

I don't mind spending time going through a particular thread, it was the prospect of going through who knows how many threads that was a bit daunting!

Cheers

Paul

[john new]

On 07/09/2021 at 10:01, DutyDruid said:

 

Unfortunately John, that's my particular problem.  I provide freight stock to a large exhibition layout.  When I take the smaller layouts out (for example Nictun Borrud) to show I use the Kadees and we have set that layout up with electromagnetic uncoupling.  When the big layout (Soberton) goes out I have to refit the tension lock couplers to be compatible with the rest of the stock on the layout.  

 

I would post links to the layouts but the Club's website is "undergoing maintenance"

Can you not just have two converter wagons so the in between block of stock is either kadees or t/ls? (Reverse the pair to suit) Just a thought passed on as it will be my solution for the interim period as a I slowly plough the removal of the t/ls and adding S&Ws.  I will also have a PECO to t/ls wagon as I have some TRIX wagons that for the shunting plank I won't bother converting just have a barrier wagon in front of the shunting loco.

 

The idea isn't a new one! See https://themodeltrainshop.co.uk/product/triang-r577-triang-converter-wagon/ 

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by john new
Added an extra note.

[DutyDruid]

48 minutes ago, john new said:

Can you not just have two converter wagons so the in between block of stock is either kadees or t/ls? (Reverse the pair to suit)

Hi John.

 

That's more or less what I do anyway, I tend to run sets of 3 wagons with James Train Parts 3D printed instanters in the middle and Kadees at the outer ends of each set.  The problem WAS the other operators who didn't want to explore the possibilities that coupling swaps had to offer in terms of hands free shunting and so on.  However, that problem has gone away because (drum roll) I've moved to the West Country and in doing so I bought both Nictun Borrud and Soberton from the Fareham Club, so what happens now is largely my decision...

[DutyDruid]

4 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Has anyone tried using a Loco mounted actuator marketed by Precimodels.com?

Not personally, but it's on the radar for when I eventually get to go DCC (see previous post re buying two ex-Fareham Club layouts)

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

However, the builders of the Bournemouth West layout used them to good effect on their station pilots so they do stand up to exhibition use. There might be something about it on their thread but it's quite a big one so again, what you are looking for may take a while to find (if it's there at all).

Agree with John, BOMO West use them and I think Charlie Bishop of Chadwick Model Railway did a piece about the layout including these devices on his YouTube channel.  That might be a good starting point for you.

 

Elliott

[cages_cage]

Though I am "merely" someone who presently only has the capacity to run a "toy train set," my biggest piece of advice regarding Kadee couplings on UK stock: do not convert everything to Kadees. Way too expensive, for one. Two, most freight and passenger stock do not run optimally with NEM Kadees. NEM Kadees 19/20 give far too much slack within a rake and are not close coupled enough, 17s are too short for many curves, and 18s couple almost as closely as the short Bachmann tension locks anyway. NEM Kadees are, IMHO, a non-starter the inner couplings of most passenger stock without major modification.

 

I follow the basic mindset of those who do small, fixed sets or fixed sets: Kadees on the outer ends, optimal couplings in the middle.

 

For freight, the small Bachmann tension lock (NEM or otherwise) is my preferred coupling. This also allows me to easily stick older wagons with Mainline couplings/Bachmann stepped couplings in a rake without any modifications.

 

For passenger stock, I prefer the mixing the Roco-style couplings (Hornby R8220 and the genuine Roco article) within rakes. Well, when they can be used easily... cursed awkward stepped couplings!!! Roco have the adjustable height NEM coupling, but it is imperfect as a solution; it has to slide very far down

[Dunsignalling]

4 hours ago, cages_cage said:

Though I am "merely" someone who presently only has the capacity to run a "toy train set," my biggest piece of advice regarding Kadee couplings on UK stock: do not convert everything to Kadees. Way too expensive, for one. Two, most freight and passenger stock do not run optimally with NEM Kadees. NEM Kadees 19/20 give far too much slack within a rake and are not close coupled enough, 17s are too short for many curves, and 18s couple almost as closely as the short Bachmann tension locks anyway. NEM Kadees are, IMHO, a non-starter the inner couplings of most passenger stock without major modification.

 

I follow the basic mindset of those who do small, fixed sets or fixed sets: Kadees on the outer ends, optimal couplings in the middle.

 

For freight, the small Bachmann tension lock (NEM or otherwise) is my preferred coupling. This also allows me to easily stick older wagons with Mainline couplings/Bachmann stepped couplings in a rake without any modifications.

 

For passenger stock, I prefer the mixing the Roco-style couplings (Hornby R8220 and the genuine Roco article) within rakes. Well, when they can be used easily... cursed awkward stepped couplings!!! Roco have the adjustable height NEM coupling, but it is imperfect as a solution; it has to slide very far down

I've been using Kadees for about 30 years, and my mantra regarding the NEM-fit heads is only to use them at the ends of CCU-fitted rakes/loose bogie vans or if fitting "proper" Kadees is too much like hard work. My experience is that, the more you have of them, the greater the chances of negative interaction!

 

By "proper", in a UK-outline context I nowadays means the 14x-series "whisker" couplers (usually #141 or #146), but these are perfectly compatible with the 21/26 and 41/46 variants that preceded them. However, be warned, fitting them is a one-way-street. Doing so usually involves cutting off whatever the r-t-r manufacturer has provided. Collectors and those focussed on trade-in value of models should therefore stop reading here.

 

My attitude is that, subsequent to my demise, there are enough committed Kadee users around to (eventually) soak up models that have had them installed to the standard I do it. Note the lack of false modesty, I have had lots of practice! 

 

The NEM system was designed for easy interchangeability of couplers when mixing r-t-r brands, and suits folk who habitually chop and change their interests and want to restore models to original specification for disposal. In that aim it largely succeeds but, to my eyes it looks "clunky" on most goods stock and the pocket almost always has a load of slop requiring shimming to stop coupler droop. Some even have non-standard pockets requiring the heads to be glued in! Both rather negate the simple plug-and-play principle underpinning the original idea, which is followed rather more assiduously on the other side of the channel.

 

If I have to faff about getting what's provided to fit properly, I may as well reach for my screwdriver (or, in some cases, notably anything Bachmann with stepped T/Ls, Xuron track cutters) and do things my way, knowing that the result will look and work better!  

 

Photo of recent example attached for illustration (vents raised, couplings fitted, but I haven't yet got round to the brake lever on the other side). Note the open space under the end of the wagon that is usually full of black plastic. TBF, Oxford Rail wagons are less obstructed than many others "down there" but their pockets are under-length....

 

Plus, a before-and-after of a tank wagon I did a while ago, taken after I'd done one end. 

 

John

Edited September 13, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[DutyDruid]

11 hours ago, DutyDruid said:

Agree with John, BOMO West use them and I think Charlie Bishop of Chadwick Model Railway did a piece about the layout including these devices on his YouTube channel.  That might be a good starting point for you.

 

Here, set to where they talk about the Preci gadget: 

 

[melmerby]

6 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

my mantra regarding the NEM-fit heads is only to use them at the ends of CCU-fitted rakes/loose bogie vans

I found that on UK CCU fitted coaches, using Kadees was a disaster, they regular derailed mid rake coming off a curve. Type/Make of coach was irrelevant.

So all my coaches stick with the Hornby/Roco close couplings in the rake, with Kadees only on the end.

Edited September 13, 2023 by melmerby

[Dunsignalling]

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

I found that on UK CCU fitted coaches, using Kadees was a disaster, they regular derailed mid rake coming off a curve. Type/Make of coach was irrelevant.

So all my coaches stick with the Hornby/Roco close couplings in the rake, with Kadees only on the end.

Pretty much the conclusion we all settle on, the only variance seems to be how quickly we lose patience! It's vital that intermediate pairs of CCUs are rigidly linked if changes of direction are to be performed correctly. 

 

Before I finally bit the Roco bullet, I did experiment with super-gluing the pivots on a pair of Kadee #18s which improved matters quite a lot but didn't prove a complete solution. 

 

I've been using Rocos ever since I got bored with trying to make my Bachmann Mk.1s behave and replaced their CCU links with the properly NEM-compliant replacements from Keen Systems. That done, they can be mixed and matched with other makes with complete confidence.

 

I don't have any recent examples, but I understand later Bachmann Mk1's have compatible links. Those on their new Thompsons and Bulleids seem just fine for alignment.

 

For future rakes I contemplated switching to magnetics, but I have much of a bulk pack of Rocos as yet unused, and keeping to one type is probably more sensible anyway!

 

The cheapest solution (by far) is to fit the original Keen Systems overlapping "blades" or their buckeye-style lift-off heads, but they have to be glued into the pockets and you don't get the "push-together" convenience offered by Rocos or magnetics.

 

John

[frobisher]

20 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The cheapest solution (by far) is to fit the original Keen Systems overlapping "blades" or their buckeye-style lift-off heads, but they have to be glued into the pockets and you don't get the "push-together" convenience offered by Rocos or magnetics.

 

I've probably already mentioned it up the thread, but the Bachmann NEM EZ-Mate couplings don't have the swivelly head (only in one length though :( ) and are compatible with Kadees which work a little better with some CCUs.

[Dunsignalling]

19 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

I've probably already mentioned it up the thread, but the Bachmann NEM EZ-Mate couplings don't have the swivelly head (only in one length though :( ) and are compatible with Kadees which work a little better with some CCUs.

I've worked through most of the possibilities over the years, and I tried a pair of those alongside (and mixed with) the "glued-up" Kadees, obtaining pretty-much uniform results. One of each seemed to behave slightly better than two of either, but there was very little in it.

 

However, I had to shorten the EZ-Mates and glue them into the pockets to get the right spacing, so there was no real saving in effort. When the time came, though, swapping the Kadees for Rocos was a good deal easier! 

 

John

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

And here's another using the Roco pattern heads within CCU fitted bogie stock trains, but body mounted Kadee on the train ends and traction for the autocoupling performance, and benefit in appearance.

 

The Kadees are completely reliable, but there is an improvement I am looking for, and that's eliminating the slack between the Kadee coupler heads, ideally by a central buffer acting as knuckle coupler plus Gould gangway works. Has anyone demonstrated this (in HO or 4mm) by some ingenious mechanism that doesn't impair the Kadee autocoupling and magnetic uncoupling?