Kadee Couplers

[tender]

This is how i mount a kadee 18 to my Bachmann wagons, just drill a 2mm hole in the shank of the Kadee and use the same fixing post and screw that held the Bachmann tension lock, comes out at just the right height.

 

 

Also notice the foam under the axel, to stop the wagon being dragged by the magnets.

 

[Dunsignalling]

Bachmann coaches mk1 and mK2 are particularly frustrating as they seem to vary just enough to cause problems. The bogie type on the mk1 affects the ride height (commonwealth vs br4) but even then enough variation to matter. The cam mechanism seems to ride up and down in service too which doesn't help... I've resorted to fixed bars in some rakes and still trying to solve others.

 

 

The answer to the Bachmann coach issue (original type CCU) is Keen Systems resin replacement links.

 

These are stiffer and produce the correct NEM alignment - at least with BR1 bogies on Mk 1's.

 

Getting the height dead right with others may need some adjustment to the bogie mounting, though the Keen links can be "adjusted" by dunking them in very hot water.

 

They also do a version for the Mk 2's; I have some but haven't yet fitted them. I don't anticipate any problems.

 

Once they are on, Kadee #18s on the outer ends (#19s if you run with gangway covers in place) and Rocos within set give very reliable running. 

 

John

Edited January 9, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Matt]

Thanks for the tip. i had seen the keen links and enquired about them at their exhibition stand - however I was informed only good within rakes and not good for outer ends (which is where a lot of my problem lie). Sounds like you've got them working well on outer ends? They must stick out further than std arrangement since normally I find I need #20s to clear the buffer beam but sounds like you've got working with #18s. Will pick some of these up and give them a try. M

[Butler Henderson]

This is how i mount a kadee 18 to my Bachmann wagons, just drill a 2mm hole in the shank of the Kadee and use the same fixing post and screw that held the Bachmann tension lock, comes out at just the right height.

 

That method along with other useful tricks was described by Chris Ellis in an issue of Model Trains International - the article is available online

http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/other/mti_article.php

[Dunsignalling]

Thanks for the tip. i had seen the keen links and enquired about them at their exhibition stand - however I was informed only good within rakes and not good for outer ends (which is where a lot of my problem lie). Sounds like you've got them working well on outer ends? They must stick out further than std arrangement since normally I find I need #20s to clear the buffer beam but sounds like you've got working with #18s. Will pick some of these up and give them a try. M

In my experience, they are fine for outer ends though, as you will have found with the Bachmann set-up, Kadees won't uncouple/uncouple as designed without some gap to the buffers of the loco, loose coach or whatever else you might want to attach. About 3mm does the trick, certainly a lot less slack than you get with tension-locks.

 

Really tight close coupling needs a rigid bar, Keen solid buckeye heads or a locking coupler as used by various European manufacturers. Within sets, I employ Roco 40271 heads as recommended by Roger Keen. They couple when you push two vehicles together and can be separated by simply lifting the end of one by about a quarter inch.

 

They also work well in Hornby CCUs which don't have the "foibles" of Bachmann's though, on LMS non-corridors (possibly others) they are a tad short, requiring the use of one Roco head and one of Hornby's (slightly longer) lookalikes to obtain buffer-to-buffer contact.  

 

John

Edited January 9, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[br-nse-fan]

Thanks for the tip. i had seen the keen links and inquired about them at their exhibition stand - however I was informed only good within rakes and not good for outer ends (which is where a lot of my problem lie). Sounds like you've got them working well on outer ends?

 

Hi Matt

 

I also use the Keen replacement draw bars only on the ends of my rakes in order to bring the NEM pocket to the correct height / location, as I find the Bachmann CCM more than adequate for the length (4-5 coaches) of trains I run.

I also use the Bachmann EZ Mate knuckle coupler instead of a Kadee due to it's rigid knuckle. I've found it gives a more reliable connection than Kadee's in this situation. The knuckle on Kadee couplers swivel as it is designed to fit into a NEM pocket that is for the most part stationary, thus allowing some movement while stock is going through curves.   The Bachmann EZ Mate coupler does not have a swivel, and as such needs to be used in a situation where the NEM pocket moves.

 

I have had to add a couple to one or two of my rakes where I am mixing Hornby (correct NEM pocket position) and Bachmann in order to get them to couple nice & close without the use of tension locks.

[Butler Henderson]

It is possible given that NEM Kadee are plastic to make up a stepped shank NEM Kadee to account for the height issue on poorly sited NEM boxes, cut the progs off the Kadee, and glue/bolt it to a spare tension lock NEM coupling that you have cut down to be just the prongs and shank. Add between them as necessary plastic card to make up the stepped offset that is needed.

[Matt]

It is possible given that NEM Kadee are plastic to make up a stepped shank NEM Kadee to account for the height issue on poorly sited NEM boxes, cut the progs off the Kadee, and glue/bolt it to a spare tension lock NEM coupling that you have cut down to be just the prongs and shank. Add between them as necessary plastic card to make up the stepped offset that is needed.

I have tried this on an old style Bachmann 40. In principle no probs but I struggled to find a glue/solvent that would join the kadee slippery plastic with the nem mount slippery plastic. I got it to hold for a little while but didn't have any strength. Consequently my Bach 40 only ever runs light loco! Tried butanone, superglue, plastic magic and even a small screw but no success. Any suggestions for anything else to try? TBH this loco may go to eBay as am not happy with on several levels anyway... M

[Suzie]

Here is one of my ZKA Limpets with a No16 Kadee fitted. This is an example of a Bachmann wagon with an incorrect height NEM pocket:-

 

 

The No16 makes for a neat installation on these wagons because there is no need for surgery:-

 

 

You just unclip the NEM pocket, drill and tap a hole for the 2-56 screw, and then assemble (a bit of a fiddly task) and screw on the No16 with a cut down 2-56 screw.

 

The nice thing is it leaves the wagon to be easily returned to its original condition with the NEM pocket at the wrong height should you want tension locks again.

[Butler Henderson]

I have tried this on an old style Bachmann 40. In principle no probs but I struggled to find a glue/solvent that would join the kadee slippery plastic with the nem mount slippery plastic. I got it to hold for a little while but didn't have any strength. Consequently my Bach 40 only ever runs light loco! Tried butanone, superglue, plastic magic and even a small screw but no success. Any suggestions for anything else to try? TBH this loco may go to eBay as am not happy with on several levels anyway... M

I have always also bolted the parts together (M2 nut and bolt) , makes it a bit clumsy visually but the important thing is it gives it the necessary strength

[Matt]

Here is one of my ZKA Limpets with a No16 Kadee fitted. This is an example of a Bachmann wagon with an incorrect height NEM pocket:-

 

SNB15023 - Crop.JPG

 

The No16 makes for a neat installation on these wagons because there is no need for surgery:-

 

SNB16091 - Crop.JPG

 

You just unclip the NEM pocket, drill and tap a hole for the 2-56 screw, and then assemble (a bit of a fiddly task) and screw on the No16 with a cut down 2-56 screw.

 

The nice thing is it leaves the wagon to be easily returned to its original condition with the NEM pocket at the wrong height should you want tension locks again.

Neat job. It's just that I really struggled to get these gearboxes and springs to assemble and work correctly. As result gave up with this series and stick with 40 series and 140 series. For same wagon I take a pair of snips to the wings of the nem mount and shave a tiny bit off the face - this gives enough space for the larger gearbox. Disadvantage as you say is that you can't go back... But given number of conversions I've done I would say I am all in and never going back to tension locks!

[Removed a/c]

#16 has been discontinued, they recommend either #146 with a 252 gearbox or a #36. 

Edited January 11, 2016 by thebritfarmer

[ColinK]

I've finally fitted Kadees to my old Bachmann class 24 and Vitrains 37.  Many thanks to everyone who has helped with advice on how to achieve this.

 

For the Vitrains 37, I pulled out the tension lock from the unusual mounting.  A Kadee number 20 had its 'legs' cut off, being careful to make the cut at 90 degrees.  A file was then used to make a small fishtail in the Kadee, similar to that on the tension lock previously removed. It took me three attempts to get two couplers that fitted.   Fit the modified Kadee into the coupler mounting, checking with a height gauge that it is at the right height, superglue in position.  Once sure it was OK, I strengthened the joint by adding some more superglue and sprinkled on some 'Rocket Powder' which makes a sort of superglue filler. PS I've lost two of the class 37 buffer heads, any idea where I can get replacements?

 

For the class 24, I removed the long coupling plate by undoing the crosshead screw.  I then pulled off the tension lock hook and cut off the tension lock loop.  A Kadee number 19 coupling was simply superglued on top of the coupling plate.  By pure luck, the coupling is the right height without any adjustment needed.  I did remove a mm or two from the underside of the buffer beam to allow for gradient changes.  Again I strengthened the join with 'Rocket Powder'. When dry I refitted the coupling plate,  That's my two 'difficult loco' coupling conversions done.

 

 

 

[Ray H]

Is it me or the way that I'm looking at the various images in the last few posts? The Kadees may look neater than tension lock but the ones in the pictures don't seem to provide much closer coupling than tension locks.

 

I've recently experimented with cutting 2 or 3mm off the outer end of NEM sockets (and off the inner end of the couplers themselves and gluing them in the socket) fitted to Bachmann 4-wheeled wagons and managed to get the buffers much closer and able to traverse 3rd radius curves.

 

Humble apologies if I'm wrong.

[roundhouse]

Kadees can provide closer coupling but some things like the class 37 are very hard to get much closer as there is no space for the Kadees shank and fixings.

 

The big thing to remember with Kadees is the the back of the inside of the knuckle should be in line or further out than the buffers otherwise it can make coupling up to another Kadee very difficult.

[ColinK]

The reason I use Kadees is not for close coupling, but for hands off uncoupling.

[knitpick]

Orford, I have to disagree with your assertion "Do not use No5s with UK stock."

 

I have done so with, I feel, success.  OK, I did use them with modern image DMUs - and they don't have buffers.  More to the point, they didn't have couplings either.  And also for some, I did have to use longer reach 40 series couplings (Yeah - I know but the 140 series didn't exist then). 

 

Units given Kaydee couplings include Hornby Cl 142; Bachmann Classes 158, 159, 166, 168, 170 and 171; Dapol classes 150 and 155.  For Hornby Class 153, I use NEM style, as I did for Lima Class 156. 

 

Note that the Lima pocket is really too low and the Class 142s were adjusted to couple with the Lima 156s.  I have since been replacing the Lima NEM style Kaydees with series 5 / 40s so they can couple to correct height Kaydees - But the Hornby Class 142s are still too low.

 

Note also that for the low height couplings, I bent the trip pin to clear running rails.  The point here being that I did have my own standard that worked even if it wasn't interoperable with correct height Kaydees.  I now have two standards which are not interoperable - which in turn is annoying.

 

I also need to consider how to fit Kaydees to Realtrack class 143s

[roundhouse]

Orford, I have to disagree with your assertion "Do not use No5s with UK stock."

 

I have done so with, I feel, success.  OK, I did use them with modern image DMUs - and they don't have buffers.  More to the point, they didn't have couplings either.  And also for some, I did have to use longer reach 40 series couplings (Yeah - I know but the 140 series didn't exist then). 

 

Units given Kaydee couplings include Hornby Cl 142; Bachmann Classes 158, 159, 166, 168, 170 and 171; Dapol classes 150 and 155.  For Hornby Class 153, I use NEM style, as I did for Lima Class 156. 

 

Note that the Lima pocket is really too low and the Class 142s were adjusted to couple with the Lima 156s.  I have since been replacing the Lima NEM style Kaydees with series 5 / 40s so they can couple to correct height Kaydees - But the Hornby Class 142s are still too low.

 

Note also that for the low height couplings, I bent the trip pin to clear running rails.  The point here being that I did have my own standard that worked even if it wasn't interoperable with correct height Kaydees.  I now have two standards which are not interoperable - which in turn is annoying.

 

I also need to consider how to fit Kaydees to Realtrack class 143s

IIRC the Realtraxck 142's have a dummy prototype coupling plugged into an NEM socket. Will have to check though to be certain.

[Suzie]

#16 has been discontinued, they recommend either #146 with a 252 gearbox or a #36. 

 

I did sign up to the Kaydee forum and ask what the replacement was when I first heard that No16 were discontinued, but Kaydee banned me from the forum for being foreign before I got an answer! I understand that the No16 was intended for bogie mounting where space is tight, so I will have to look at the alternatives for future conversions.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Suzie

[Suzie]

Is it me or the way that I'm looking at the various images in the last few posts? The Kadees may look neater than tension lock but the ones in the pictures don't seem to provide much closer coupling than tension locks...

 

I converted for two reasons:-

 

1. The small tension locks supplied with the wagons do not work properly (because they are small). Tension lock system is designed to be rigid and rigidly fixed to the stock to work reliably, and the 'D' needs to be wide to cope with coupling on curves. They had to be replaced anyway to get the coupling performance I was used to with rigid big 'D' tension locks.

 

2. Appearance. If I have to change the couplings I might as well change them for something that looks nicer than the tension locks.

 

Kadees might not be prototypical for these wagons, but they do look a lot better than the tension locks. How close you can couple is all about the buffers. I am not keen on replacing the buffers with sprung ones to get closer coupling as it is not too important to me (I am used to seeing wagons a long way apart because I only ever see model ones!)

[Ray H]

I would like the simplicity of the Kadee automatic uncoupling but the ability to do so in advance is not too advantageous to me as I plan to have several spots on a siding where I aim to leave stock and as I have to go to the furthest location first I'd end up with all the other wagons being left there as well.

 

What I feel is probably more critical is the space saved between wagons when they're more closely coupled because that offers the potential to have one or more extra wagons in the same length of train and I thought that Kadees were supposed to offer that close coupling.

[roundhouse]

Kadees can get reasonably close coupling but bear in mind that they wer developed force American market where rolling stock doesn't have buffers.

[tender]

How close do you want to go.....

 

 

Any closer and it won't go around any bends (or uncouple)

Edited January 11, 2016 by tender

[Ray H]

Ray

 

Thanks. I thought they could be closely coupled but the earlier pictures tended to suggest that they couldn't. Have you set yours further back - or, conversely, were the earlier images set further forward?

 

Those in posts 110 & 115 above seem much further forward.

 

Excuse it if I have missed it, what determines the positioning (and why would it be varied)?

[Butler Henderson]

Its not just the positioning of the gearbox but the length of the shank on the actual coupling that inflences the coupling distance between wagons etc - see http://www.kadee.com/htmbord/HO-Scale%20Couplers.htm - short, medium or long for the non NEM couplings, different gearboxes and underset , centreset or overset coupling heads. NEMs come in 4 lengths. The only golden rule on UK stock is the position the coupling as stated above by Roundhouse so that the back of the inside of the knuckle is in line with, or further out than, the buffers. As to the actual position that is dependent on your curves and what works for one person may not work for another, the one thing I always try for with non NEM Kadees is to site the gearbox so that it does not protrude beyond the bufferbeam and also avoid if possible cutting the bufferbeam.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Butler Henderson