Kadee Couplers

[Dunsignalling]

A couple of quick questions for existing users:

 

1. Those who use the between the rail magnets - do they have to be glued down, or do they still work if simply placed between the rails (and held in place by gravity)?

 

I ask because although I intend to use electromagnetic un-couplers on my home layout (when I eventually get it built), the only place where I can try out Kadee couplers is on one of my club's layouts, which are not equipped for Kadee operation.  The tension lock still reigns supreme in my club.  As such, I'd be interested in whether the between the rail magnets can simply be placed on the sleepers for in the club operation and then removed when the layout is exhibited?

 

2. The NEM couplings all come with spare springs in the pack.  I assume these are all the same and I do not need to keep the #18 springs separate from the #20 etc.  They certainly look the same to me and I'd prefer to store them all in the one place rather than keeping each individual packet.

 

What I have found from the few wagons that I have tried to convert for a trial is that whilst a stepped tension lock coupling is a give away that the NEM pocket is at the wrong height, a straight tension lock coupling doesn't appear to be a guarantee that the NEM pocket with a NEM Kadee matches the Kadee height gauge.

Hi David,

 

Double sided tape is your best bet, ideally the 50mm wide sort used for sticking carpets down; it will generally hang on well enough for long enough but allow you to take it up when you want. I once used it on a mate's exhibition layout and it was certainly good enough for a weekend. The domestic/office variety is thinner and tends not to stay put. 

 

Yes to all your other points, though the NEM couplers come with spare knuckle springs (the coiled ones) AND spare centering springs, almost invisible L-shaped bits of wire, not one of which have I successfully fitted in over 20 years of using Kadees. Both are standard to their respective applications.

 

If you decide to go the Kadee route, you will find the long term solution to wrong height NEM couplers on wagons is a pair of Xuron track cutters, a file and a packet of #146 couplers.  

 

Regards

 

John

Edited January 16, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[tender]

A couple of quick questions for existing users:

 

1. Those who use the between the rail magnets - do they have to be glued down, or do they still work if simply placed between the rails (and held in place by gravity)?

 

I ask because although I intend to use electromagnetic un-couplers on my home layout (when I eventually get it built), the only place where I can try out Kadee couplers is on one of my club's layouts, which are not equipped for Kadee operation.  The tension lock still reigns supreme in my club.  As such, I'd be interested in whether the between the rail magnets can simply be placed on the sleepers for in the club operation and then removed when the layout is exhibited?

 

2. The NEM couplings all come with spare springs in the pack.  I assume these are all the same and I do not need to keep the #18 springs separate from the #20 etc.  They certainly look the same to me and I'd prefer to store them all in the one place rather than keeping each individual packet.

 

What I have found from the few wagons that I have tried to convert for a trial is that whilst a stepped tension lock coupling is a give away that the NEM pocket is at the wrong height, a straight tension lock coupling doesn't appear to be a guarantee that the NEM pocket with a NEM Kadee matches the Kadee height gauge.

1. I doubt just laying the magnet between track will work but you could try using double sided tape to temporary hold it down.

 

2. The spare Spring is common across the range.

[Removed a/c]

To pick up on some of the points raised in response to my earlier post:

 

Roundhouse - I think you mean Realtrack 143.  The issue here is that the NEM pocket is a little low.  As a result, the supplied tension lock coupling is stepped.  The surrounding air dam (or whatever its correct name is) makes adjustment to get to the common height for a Kaydee 17 or 18 a non trivial task.  Now if I could get an Underset version of an 18 . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had contacted Kadees regarding over & underset NEM couplings. He wasn't sure what I was talking about and as such said there probably isn't a market for them. Perhaps if enough dropped them an email? 

Edited January 16, 2016 by thebritfarmer

[Dungrange]

I had contacted Kadees regarding over & underset NEM couplings. He wasn't sure what I was talking about and as such said there probably isn't a market for them. Perhaps if enough dropped them an email? 

 

In theory, there should be no need for over or under-set NEM couplings.  If the manufacturers of UK outline stock simply designed their NEM pockets to the NEM standard there would literally be no market for Kadee to fill, and I doubt that Kadee want to be in a relatively small market of correcting other manufacturer's incompetence.  Are the European manufacturers as poor at following the NEM standards, because the NEM Kadee couplings are aimed at them as much as at the UK market?

 

We'd probably be more successful lobbying UK manufacturers in the importance of following standards.

[Butler Henderson]

I've used a number of underset Kadees as they allow mounting without having to cut away the bufferbeam on many kit built items of rolling stock.

[laurenceb]

A couple of quick questions for existing users:

 

1. Those who use the between the rail magnets - do they have to be glued down, or do they still work if simply placed between the rails (and held in place by gravity)?

 

I was testing couplings using a Lima 47 when the magnet went awol - it turned up some time later stuck to the locos fuel tank. The magnet had been fastened down with double sided tape which was obviously not strong enough

[roundhouse]

1. I doubt just laying the magnet between track will work but you could try using double sided tape to temporary hold it down.

2. The spare Spring is common across the range.

PVA or Canopy glue is best as holds magnets well but let's you peel them out if you do need to alter them unlike superglue

[RFS]

I used PVA to glue mine down using the alignment jig.  It's important not only to get the magnet at the right height but also centrally aligned between the rails.  If the magnet is slightly too high, it can be struck by passing vehicles: with the forward-facing coupling pins this can cause derailments. Likewise if it's not straight between the rails, the magnet sides can be hit by vehicle flanges.

Edited January 16, 2016 by RFS

[47137]

I used PVA to glue mine down using the alignment jig.  It's important not only to get the magnet at the right height but also centrally aligned between the rails.  If the magnet is slightly too high, it can be struck by passing vehicles: with the forward-facing coupling pins this can cause derailments. Likewise if it's not straight between the rails, the magnet sides can be hit by vehicle flanges.

I used No More Nails with the alignment jig holding everything overnight. This works nicely if you have to chop out the sleepers e.g. fitting the thicker magnet on code 75 Peco track.

 

There is a manual uncoupling tool from Kadee which would be suitable for temporary use, it's a length of plastic with a flat point on one end, you put it between the couplers and twiddle it to uncouple.

 

- Richard.

Edited January 16, 2016 by 47137

[Ray H]

I've bought a packet of each of Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 (and the insulated height gauge) to experiment with as these were the only ones my local shop had.

 

I've fitted the Nos. 17 & 18 ones to a few reasonably new Bachmann wagons and run them around the layout. I had one derailment where one of the NEM pocket mounts was slightly loose in it's socket causing the trip pin to catch on a rail of a point, I managed to wedge the pocket mount into the socket and all is now in order.

 

I'd prefer to keep the magnets as less obvious as I can but I'm not too worried about the "pre-" uncoupling - I'm content to stop the vehicles and uncouple them where I want to position them. Access to the underside of the layout is all but impossible so any uncoupling method has to be introduced from above.

 

I've tried sticking some small round (and shallow) rare earth magnets to the foam underlay on the inside of the rails between the sleepers on one of the fiddle yard (SMP) tracks as part of my experiments. The first goes down easily but the subsequent ones take a very passionate liking to the first so I can't get two down to try them. Has anyone else used this type of magnet and how did they fix them? Is the only benefit of having more than one (small) magnet on the same side of the rail that of providing more tolerance when it comes to stopping over the magnet?

[47137]

I've bought a packet of each of Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 (and the insulated height gauge) to experiment with as these were the only ones my local shop had.

 

I've fitted the Nos. 17 & 18 ones to a few reasonably new Bachmann wagons and run them around the layout. I had one derailment where one of the NEM pocket mounts was slightly loose in it's socket causing the trip pin to catch on a rail of a point, I managed to wedge the pocket mount into the socket and all is now in order.

 

I'd prefer to keep the magnets as less obvious as I can but I'm not too worried about the "pre-" uncoupling - I'm content to stop the vehicles and uncouple them where I want to position them. Access to the underside of the layout is all but impossible so any uncoupling method has to be introduced from above.

 

I've tried sticking some small round (and shallow) rare earth magnets to the foam underlay on the inside of the rails between the sleepers on one of the fiddle yard (SMP) tracks as part of my experiments. The first goes down easily but the subsequent ones take a very passionate liking to the first so I can't get two down to try them. Has anyone else used this type of magnet and how did they fix them? Is the only benefit of having more than one (small) magnet on the same side of the rail that of providing more tolerance when it comes to stopping over the magnet?

I used quick setting epoxy to hold small magnets with a block of balsa as a spacer while the glue set, write-up on my blog. These magnets are more powerful than I would like and are causing trouble with some steel axles, this is my weekend project to sort out.

 

If you uncouple over a magnet then you cannot recouple until you push the wagons away from the magnet. So the shorter the magnets are, the less you have to move the wagons; but you need good slow speed control to achieve the uncoupling.

 

- Richard.

[BR60103]

I have put Kadee magnets down with spikes or nails at the ends. Placing without fixing means that it will take off on the first vehicle with an iron axle or underframe.

Positioning would have two considerations. Enough space for the flanges. Proper height relative to the running surface of the rails.

 

I have managed to replace a couple of the fine wire springs. Not easy. Any tweezers tend to add an extra bend to the wire. Look at an example to see where and how the spring should go.

[knitpick]

Sorry -0 I tried to quote Dungrange's post from 15:47 on 16th - but I'm clearly doing it wrong - please refer back to understand context.

 

Having started this hare running - I feel the urge to add another two pennyworth.

 

thebritfarmer - My comment was wishful thinking; as Dungrange implies, the market is likely to be too small to justify the cost. 

 

And I agree that the fault lies with suppliers to the UK market not using an established standard.  But as Bachmann pointed out when they first introduced NEM coupling pockets, there is no OO scale standard height specified; the NEM standards are for HO scale.  And we don't want to see HO standards being introduced in place of all existing OO scale standards.  Lima tried it with their original (HO scale) class 33 - and (allegedly) it's why their class 55 bogie and wheels were wrong.

 

In my view, where there isn't an established OO standard and use of an NEM standard would improve operability and interchange of spares then the NEM standard should be considered.  This was done with the NEM coupling mount box and should also have been done with NEM mount heights.  Hornby, Heljan, Dapol, and DJM / Kernow have done it where they provide the boxes and newer Bachmann models too comply.  At the same time I don't expect these manufacturers to undertake urgent retooling of all existing models due to cost considerations; they need to consider the benefits of increased sales against the cost of retooling.

 

Slightly off topic and another area of variable standards is OO official standards for wheel back to back vs NEM standards.  A single common standard would be good but at least everything generally runs on commercial Settrack and Peco Streamline apart from really old Triang/Hornby.

 

Unfortunately this does leave us with the need to "fudge" things where the NEM coupling mout is at the wrong height

Edited January 17, 2016 by knitpick

[JZ]

My solution. Remove three sleepers, cut corresponding hole in underlay*, replace sleeper on hole in underlay, place a strip of four 3mm x3mm neodymium magnets where the sleepers where. I have epoxied mine in, fixing the outer strips first and the inner one once the others are set. Tuft of grass show the position.

 

 

*I use 3mm Depron™ foam for underlay.

Edited January 18, 2016 by JZ

[tender]

Regarding alternative to Kadee magnets, i copied Cambriancoaster  http://www.rmweb.co....-stop/?p=950234 with some neodymium magnets on Camel Quay.

http://www.rmweb.co....-4mm/?p=1264232

http://www.rmweb.co....-4mm/?p=1265432

[kevinlms]

Sorry -0 I tried to quote Dungrange's post from 15:47 on 16th - but I'm clearly doing it wrong - please refer back to understand context.

 

Having started this hare running - I feel the urge to add another two pennyworth.

 

thebritfarmer - My comment was wishful thinking; as Dungrange implies, the market is likely to be too small to justify the cost. 

 

And I agree that the fault lies with suppliers to the UK market not using an established standard.  But as Bachmann pointed out when they first introduced NEM coupling pockets, there is no OO scale standard height specified; the NEM standards are for HO scale.  And we don't want to see HO standards being introduced in place of all existing OO scale standards.  Lima tried it with their original (HO scale) class 33 - and (allegedly) it's why their class 55 bogie and wheels were wrong.

 

In my view, where there isn't an established OO standard and use of an NEM standard would improve operability and interchange of spares then the NEM standard should be considered.  This was done with the NEM coupling mount box and should also have been done with NEM mount heights.  Hornby, Heljan, Dapol, and DJM / Kernow have done it where they provide the boxes and newer Bachmann models too comply.  At the same time I don't expect these manufacturers to undertake urgent retooling of all existing models due to cost considerations; they need to consider the benefits of increased sales against the cost of retooling.

 

Slightly off topic and another area of variable standards is OO official standards for wheel back to back vs NEM standards.  A single common standard would be good but at least everything generally runs on commercial Settrack and Peco Streamline apart from really old Triang/Hornby.

 

Unfortunately this does leave us with the need to "fudge" things where the NEM coupling mout is at the wrong height

But therein lies the problem. If it is intended to use Kadee couplings, then the standard height of the boxes MUST be to the HO standard, unless Kadee can be persuaded to introduce a OO version of the coupler, which would seem most unlikely, as per the reason given by Dungrange & yourself. The British OO market would be too small for Kadee to bother.

[Removed a/c]

But therein lies the problem. If it is intended to use Kadee couplings, then the standard height of the boxes MUST be to the HO standard, unless Kadee can be persuaded to introduce a OO version of the coupler, which would seem most unlikely, as per the reason given by Dungrange & yourself. The British OO market would be too small for Kadee to bother.

Maybe I am being dense but why? it isn't like we are coupling them to HO stock? The NEM Kadees fit into the pocket, my issue is that I now have NEM pockets at different heights depending on age of model and manufacturer. 

[naugytrax]

Hi, Knitpick: the OO standards for the height of NEM362 coupler pockets and wheel/axle dimensions are maintained by the Double O Gauge Association: see www.doubleogauge.com

Bachmann's excuse for fitting NEM362-like coupler pockets at a different height from what NEM362 specifies was lame, at best.

Edited January 17, 2016 by naugytrax

[Norm81]

My initial investigations into fitting these have been less than satisfactory to say the least. I have a lot of newer freight stock and all seem to have the pocket with a fraction too deep a slot in which allows vertical movement. This means they almost all sit approx 1mm too low. Locos with close coupling mechanisms look as if they will never work, as nevermind the nem pocket slot allowing droop, the mechanism has vertical movement and as the knuckle pushes against another to couple up, the whole nem pocket moves down.

 

Then there's the trip pins all being too low as supplied, needing so much force to try and bend I'm convinced I'll break a coupling or mount. There's nothing to lever against but the top of the knuckle. Just using normal small pliers. I've already almost broke a centering spring. Haven't been able to adjust any yet.

 

I didn't expect everything to be plug and play, but it looks as if every single item of stock is going to need a bespoke solution involving butchery and glueing. This is a significant investment in time also negating the ability to return stock to tension locks if you later decide to sell.

 

I now understand why the majority still use tension lock couplings, I can't understand how anyone can get kadees to work at all. Really disappointed as I was all set to convert my entire stock and enthusiastic about it, not any more.

[brian777999]

Norm : I would have to agree. I initially thought Kadees would be a good idea using the NEM pockets but things are never that simple as you have pointed out. My main gripe with tension lock couplers is the huge gap between the wagons and coaches. Can the existing small tension lock couplers in NEM pockets be exchanged for something smaller ? Does anybody make shorter couplers ? It is either that or I will be using three link couplers.

[47137]

My initial investigations into fitting these have been less than satisfactory to say the least. I have a lot of newer freight stock and all seem to have the pocket with a fraction too deep a slot in which allows vertical movement. This means they almost all sit approx 1mm too low. Locos with close coupling mechanisms look as if they will never work, as nevermind the nem pocket slot allowing droop, the mechanism has vertical movement and as the knuckle pushes against another to couple up, the whole nem pocket moves down.

 

Then there's the trip pins all being too low as supplied, needing so much force to try and bend I'm convinced I'll break a coupling or mount. There's nothing to lever against but the top of the knuckle. Just using normal small pliers. I've already almost broke a centering spring. Haven't been able to adjust any yet.

 

I didn't expect everything to be plug and play, but it looks as if every single item of stock is going to need a bespoke solution involving butchery and glueing. This is a significant investment in time also negating the ability to return stock to tension locks if you later decide to sell.

 

I now understand why the majority still use tension lock couplings, I can't understand how anyone can get kadees to work at all. Really disappointed as I was all set to convert my entire stock and enthusiastic about it, not any more.

In the sloppy NEM sockets, put a shim of styrene below the coupler.

If there is going to be an error on the height, aim high not low because a low trip pin will cause a derailment.

To adjust trip pins, use a pair of the Kadee pliers.

 

The dimensions published by Kadee are difficult to interpret because they don't give tolerances. If you aim to have coupler pins 1/32 inch above rail tops they will work well with magnets 1/64 inch above rail tops. If the NEM mount is sloppy and dropping when propelling a train, set the coupler and pin for the lower position.

 

The NEM socket is a European standard designed for users of the major coupler designs used in Europe: tension lock, hook and loop, Roco. The Kadee 17-20 range is something of an afterthought and is asking quite a lot of the NEM mount, and a rework using a draft gear box will be more satisfying visually and often mechanically in the long run.

 

Kadee couplers do work well, honest, but you have got to give them a chance.

 

- Richard.

[mcowgill]

Maybe I am being dense but why? it isn't like we are coupling them to HO stock? The NEM Kadees fit into the pocket, my issue is that I now have NEM pockets at different heights depending on age of model and manufacturer. 

 

There are two critical dimensions with a Kadee coupler, the height of the knuckle so it can couple to other vehicles and the height of the trip pin above the rails to allow the magnets to open the knuckle.  If the NEM pocket was at a different height to the existing standard Kadee would have to tool up a duplicate range for 00 with different length trip pins.

 

Martin

[tender]

Converting stock with NEM sockets is pretty straightforward. Just stick a no 17,18,19 or 20 in depending how much space you want between buffers. If the pin hits the switch blade of a turnout (due to droop in the socket) put a piece of 10thou plasticard under the kadee shank. If it still hits it's probably a Dapol wagon/loco which mostly have droopy NEM sockets in which case I just superglue the socket in place. You can check the height with a kadee height gauge but I never bother, if the pin clears the rail it's probably near enough.

[47137]

I learnt this the hard way, but brand new Kadee couplers do come with the trip pin in the right place. So if you can find a shim about 1/32 inch thick and lay this across the rails - I use a thin steel rule - you can see straight away where the coupler needs to end up in a sloppy NEM socket.

 

- Richard.

[Dunsignalling]

But therein lies the problem. If it is intended to use Kadee couplings, then the standard height of the boxes MUST be to the HO standard, unless Kadee can be persuaded to introduce a OO version of the coupler, which would seem most unlikely, as per the reason given by Dungrange & yourself. The British OO market would be too small for Kadee to bother.

As someone has already pointed out, there would be no advantage for Kadee in making special "non-NEM, NEM"  couplers to correct the errors of others.

 

If you only want to run your stock on your own layout, there's nothing to stop you fitting couplers at any height you fancy and modifying the tails to suit. That might be a solution if the mounts on all OO models were wrong by the same amount but Bachmann (in particular) seem to stick the darn things on almost at random and hardly anyone is 100% consistent. 

 

Whatever height you chose, you'd have to modify some models; exactly as we already have to do, so there's no advantage in straying from the NEM and Kadee specifications.

 

In practical terms, the vehicles that need to be done in the greatest numbers are wagons and the dominant manufacturer of wagons is Bachmann who are also the worst offenders when it comes to misplaced and sloppy NEM pockets. The easiest solution is to chop the ruddy things off, file the underside of the chassis flat, and fit "proper" Kadees in boxes (usually #146).

 

AFAIK, DOGA are the only organisation to issue a specification for NEM mounts on OO models and they have chosen, wisely in my opinion, to stick with that already laid down for HO rather than create further scope for confusion.

 

John

Edited January 17, 2016 by Dunsignalling