What kadees to use.

[crazynitwit]

What kadees couplers should I use for shunter locomotives. I have a sentinel (diesel) and am getting a class 08 would I be fine to use No.17,18,19. Or not.

[Paul-H]

As long as the sockets are at the correct height then 17 to 19 should be fine, try the shorter ones first and only go longer if needed or your radius is small.

[dolydd]

Hi,CNW

 

Asssuming that the locos have NEM pockets, I would go for a #18 and if you get buffer lock try a #19 and then if necessary a #20. When fitted the jaw of the coupling should be level with the buffers when viewed from above.

[brossard]

It's down to min radius I believe.  Dolydd is right, buy a pack of each and do some experiments.  With NEM pockets couplers are easy enough to swap out.  I suggest you try reversing through a crossing - that should be the acid test.  I always used a bamboo skewer for uncoupling, not having the patience to faff about with magnets.  I never liked the look of the trip pin, especially on unfitted wagons, so usually cut them off.

 

John

[BR60103]

With a pack of each (you'll probably use all of them, eventually), try a loco and wagon or two wagons through your tightest and trickyest track with various combinations. When you have something that works and is close enough for you, see how far beyond the buffers the knuckle is. Hope that it is close to the same for both. Then use that as a sample for the rest of your stock. Find which Kadee sicks out that distance.

 

I have a supply of 17s as they are usually to short for anything with buffers. Years ago I found an extra long Bachmann clone that I used on my Q1; I can't find them anymore.

[FPH 603]

I'm also considering using Kadees for my trains on Kingsborough. I guess it comes down to what sort of train your looking at converting (most of mine are DMU's) and how realistic they look, plus how closely coupled you want the carriages (or wagons) together, without derailing them Although some people don't look at realism too much and end up putting Kadees on the front of an LNER class J50. Personally I don't like this as most (if nearly all) steam locomotives never had Buckeye couplings. The different lengths is the thing you have to look for, as you don't want your train derailing, but at the same time you don't want them unrealistically too far apart. You've also got to look at how high the couplers sit and make sure they are consistent, otherwise they are prominent to coming out of place and making your trains roll apart, particularly on hills and gradients.

 

Hope this helps, and I'll be watching this thread too with interest.

[brossard]

I put a #17 and #18 between the two cars of my Class 108 DMU.  This was perfect, giving good close coupling (although I usually ran the train with the power car propelling to keep the distance closed up).  A problem I have found with Kadees is that there is a lot of fore and aft slop meaning it is near impossible to get close coupling with coach rakes.  My solution was to make a hook and bar coupling out of wire and copper clad strip and put Kadees on the ends next to the locomotive..

 

John

[Phatbob]

Just to add to the sound advice above to experiment, I would suggest that you always start with a #18.  About 50% of my NEM box fitted stock has ended-up with #18s.  You will end up using all 4 sizes, so it's not wasted money to have all 4 "in stock" for every time you acquire some new rolling stock.

[knitpick]

Can I suggest that you measure the distance from the front of the NEM pocket to level with the buffers?  Test measuring No17s the distance from the front of the NEM mount to the buffing part of the knuckle is around 7mm - quoted as 7.1mm on the packet.  Thus if the distance you measure on the shunter is around 7mm use No17s.  Much bigger (say above 7.5mm) use No 18s quoted as 8.63mm up to around 9mm.  No 19s are quoted as 10.61mm and should suffice for up to 11mm.  Finally there are No 20s.

 

Yes OK with these dimensions the buffers won't touch - nor will you get buffer lock.

[1ngram]

This may sound like what we call a "daft laddie" question in this neck of he woods but I'm genuinely puzzled.  I've just bought my first r-t-r loco, a Hornby J15 for my projexted ROD layout, (all my existing locos are kit or scratch built) and I want to use kadees.  In the pack with the loco I find a NEM pocket which clearly goes on the rear of the tender.  What about the front end?  There is plastic slot/cut-out which might takes a NEM pocket)(?) or perhaps just a  kadee 18?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The J15 has the locator for a coupler pocket moulded in, right between the front lifeguards. There should be an NEM coupler pocket supplied in the detail pack

 

There is a problem, and this is probably the reason why Hornby don't supply this loco with the coupler pocket installed. Unusually for Hornby, the pocket is positioned too far forward to conform to the NEM specification, the front face of the pocket is only 3mm behind the buffer faces. Even a no17 Kadee is going to project further forward than is desireable or necessary. There are work arounds, my choice is to crop the pocket short, crop the 'tails' of the coupler mounting to match, and then use a dab of cyano to hold the short tails in the short pocket, to get decently close coupling.  

[1ngram]

Only one coupler pocket supplied with my model so I wasn't sure about the front end.  But yes, as you say, too far out once fitted.  But also far too low.  The easiest solution may be to omit the pocket altogather and put the 17 directly into the locator with a touch of glue to hold it.  That seems to give the right height and puts the kadee jaw much closer to the  front.

[melmerby]

I put a #17 and #18 between the two cars of my Class 108 DMU.  This was perfect, giving good close coupling (although I usually ran the train with the power car propelling to keep the distance closed up).  A problem I have found with Kadees is that there is a lot of fore and aft slop meaning it is near impossible to get close coupling with coach rakes.  My solution was to make a hook and bar coupling out of wire and copper clad strip and put Kadees on the ends next to the locomotive..

 

John

 

Do the DMUs have these cam type devices to vary the coupling distance when going around curves?

If so use a combination of Hornby & Roco close couplers, they dont have fore & aft play so keep the coaches a constant distance whether pushing or pulling.

Better than Kadees for inter-coach use.

 

Keith

 

EDIT Just looked at the Baccy class 108 and the pockets are mounted on the bogie, as there are no buffers the Hornby & Roco couplers should be ideal

Edited July 25, 2018 by melmerby

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Beg to differ, 108s have buffers, but that's not the problem. The lack of a camming mechanism is a sad omission from all Bach's early BR DMU's. The coupler pocket front faces are only 4mm behind the gangway faceplates so any NEM conforming close coupler like the Fleischmann profi or Roco leaves a very visible gap between the gangways. The best that can be said is that at least there is no risk of fouling when on curve transitions.

 

Obviously this can be fiddled with, and since DMU's are permanently coupled in operation I have repurposed some of Bachmann's 'pipes' connectors from their mk 1 coaches to good effect in bringing them closer. These pipes connectors are thermally reset for the closest coupling possible but the limit is a 1mm gap between the gangway faceplates on straight track. Any closer and the faceplates can catch leading to derailment on curve transitions (layout minima 30" minimum radius plain track curves, Peco medium radius points). I place a fold of black paper trapped inside the gangways to block the light.

[melmerby]

Beg to differ, 108s have buffers,

I stand corrected.

I don't have any "modern" DMUs and was going by a picture I found on the net, maybe they had been removed? Not sure why because the real things AFAIK all had them.

Ones for sale by the big box shifters all show the buffers.

 

Keith