Kadee Couplers

[Dunsignalling]

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. 

Which is because Kadee have read, understood and implemented the full NEM specification, not just the width of the slot in the pocket.

 

Almost everybody else moves things around to suit their own purposes and claims, falsely in my opinion, that their models have NEM coupler mounts. 

 

The specification is not just about fitting the coupling to the mount, it's about where you put the mount.

 

Bachmann failed to understand any of this from the get-go and have produced models with pockets on at least three different levels. They should have spotted what was wrong when they had to make several different tension-lock couplers in order to be able to hook their own models together successfully, let alone couple to anyone else's.

 

If anyone should be making corrective knuckle couplers to fit in non-compliant pockets, it's Bachmann, who created the problem in the first place.

 

John

Edited January 17, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[47137]

Here's a copy of NEM 362. This copy is in German but the important parts are independent of language.

nem362-d coupler socket.pdf

 

- Richard.

[Dungrange]

Interestingly the NEM specification for 'S' is the same as H0, which implies that the same standard should apply to 00 (1:76), which lies between these two scales (1:64 and 1:87). It is therefore unsurprising that the 00 Gauge Association (DOGA) chose to adopt the H0 standard.

 

I suppose the only case for a stepped NEM Kadee would therefore be in 'S' where the height of the Kadee knuckle in 'S' is higher than in H0.  Of course, those that work in 'S' generally don't buy models with NEM sockets, so I suppose that market must be tiny.

 

Anyway, thanks for all the answers to my question about the need to permanently fit the magnets.  It appears to be unanimous that simply placing the Kadee magnets between the rails won't work.  I may just have to set up a test bench - ie nothing more than a plank to test operation. 

[Richard Lee]

...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.

Bachmann Branchline make shorter versions of their small NEM pocket and screw-on tension locks....sometimes.  I understand that they can be unavailable for several years at a time.  When mixed types of tension locks were beginning to annoy me, I did consider switching to all Bachmann tension locks, and going for the shorter versions where possible.  Unavailability put me off. 

 

Some of the kit couplings (such as Dinghams) looked interesting to me, but as I have a 30" radius curve, I thought that my main layout might be a bit dicey for kit couplings.  Have a feeling that 3-link couplings with OO would be too big a challenge for my dexterity when routinely shunting.

 

I had already decided to try Kadees for my smaller layout where I have to lift stock up to rearrange the train in the fiddle yard.  I tried them, liked them (even though some items of stock required a bit of bodging), and decided to go for Kadees throughout.  They are a bit dear though, which could be a factor against them for someone with a lot of stock

Edited January 18, 2016 by Richard Lee

[orford]

We seem to be going round in circles now. All this talk about varying NEM pocket heights is precisely why I recommend cutting the NEM pockets/mounts off completely and substituting 'standard' Kadee shank-knuckle type 146's and/or 141's in preference. The Kadee NEM couplers are in my own personal opinion not worth the effort, except where there is absolutely no alternative - AND they are much bulkier and therefore look much uglier than the standard knuckle/shank types. FInally, because there is no shank 'swing' with the NEM types (only knuckle swing), I find them much less reliable in operation.

 

I do occasionally use NEM types - but only where there is absolutely no alternative...and there usually is with the large range of 'standard' coupler types which are available. With that in mind, Kadee certainly used to do a trial pack containing one of every different type of coupler available - which makes selection very much easier. Whether or not this is still available, I am not sure. I will hae to check their web site.

[ejstubbs]

Kadee certainly used to do a trial pack containing one of every different type of coupler available - which makes selection very much easier. Whether or not this is still available, I am not sure.

 

You're probably thinking of the Kadee 13 Magne-Matic Coupler Sample Test Kit - actually includes a pair of each type (which kind of makes sense when you think about it!)  Doesn't include the NEM ones, though.

[brian777999]

Orford :

 

1. Do you have a photo comparing the 141/146 with the NEM couplers ? I was not aware that they were different size knuckles.

 

2. Have you found that either the 141 or 146 will cover most wagons, coaches and locos ?

 

NOTE : what happened to the ''reply to this post'' function ? It never reprints the original post anymore.

Edited January 19, 2016 by brian777999

[kevinlms]

Orford :

 

1. Do you have a photo comparing the 141/146 with the NEM couplers ? I was not aware that they were different size knuckles.

 

2. Have you found that either the 141 or 146 will cover most wagons, coaches and locos ?

 

NOTE : what happened to the ''reply to this post'' function ? It never reprints the original post anymore.

There are two 'reply' functions, none of them called  'Reply to this post'. One at the top, just replies without quoting & the one at the bottom of each post replies with the original message included.

[47137]

Bending Kadee Couplers

 

Sorry if this is a bit out of sequence but it seems better here than in a new topic.

 

I have discovered, I can put an offset bend into the shaft of a "long" Kadee coupler. This example is a 146, but the idea should be extremely useful if you have a problematic installation of a "scale head" coupler, these are only supplied with centre-set heads.

 

Put two-thirds of the shank into the vice, and put the first bend close to the knuckle with a centre punch, you can see the mark from the punch in the second photo. Then put only the pivot part of the shank into the vice and make the second bend. Trim back the lid of the gear box to clear the offset and assemble as usual.

 

 

Many thanks to John (Allegheny1600) for giving me the idea when he put a comment on my blog.

 

- Richard.

[47137]

1. Do you have a photo comparing the 141/146 with the NEM couplers ? I was not aware that they were different size knuckles.

Here is a 146, with its gear box and lid, and a 20. The knuckles are the same size.

 

It is worthwhile buying a packet of each of these. If the 20s are too long you can use them somewhere else and buy some shorter versions. Have a go at fitting a 146 to an old wagon, you will learn far more by doing than asking here ;-)

 

You will end up with a collection of the sizes which suit you, but you will most likely use them all up as soon as you commit.

 

Edit:

There is a "scale size" coupler for H0 (158 series), but it looks a bit undernourished for 4mm scale. So standard Kadees are better looking for 00 than H0.

 

- Richard.

Edited January 19, 2016 by 47137

[Matt]

Richard's (47137) photo above illustrates Orford's point perfectly. Whilst knuckle size is the same for NEM vs 146, on an NEM coupling there is a protruding plate that the knuckle head rotates off which is much more visible/intrusive than the narrow shaft of the 146. As a result the visible part of the NEM is much more bulky than the 146 even though actual knuckle is the same size. I would wholly agree with Orford in saying I would only use NEMs where I have to going forward (locos being classic example where finding suitable mounting point for a 146 or similar is challenging). Unfortunately I have a LOT of NEMs already installed which are gradually being replaced as they give me problems. Already all my Bachmann long wheelbase vans and opens(vda, vaa, oba, oba) are fitted with 14x series couplers as are bulk of tta tank wagons. Overall my view is the NEMs don't look as good, are a fiddle to get height right and actually don't work quite as well as a well set 14x coupler.

M

[brian777999]

Orford : what size of metric screw do you use  with the kadee 146 ?

[Ray H]

I can definitely see the potential problems with the NEM Kadees. Even trying to pack out the socket to prevent vertical movement still seems to have failed to prevent the trip pin's fatal attraction to the magnets on some of the wagons that I've test fitted.

 

My 22mm x 11mm x 2mm N35 Neodymium magnets arrived today. These are supposed to be weaker than the N52 types suggested above but still seem to cause wheels/axles to stop over them and the trip pins on some wagons to lock onto the magnets. Although the wagons are not permanently weighted at present, the problem still seems to persist if I temporarily place reasonably heavy weights on the wagons.

 

I've ordered the test pack which I should be able to collect from my local shop on or before Saturday week. In the meantime I have a few questions.

 

I've used the shortest two NEM coupling so far - Nos. 17 & 18 - and don't see a requirement at present for the two longer versions as those that I've used offer the close coupling that I'm looking for. The suggested Nos. 141 and 146 appear to be long(er) versions. Is this an individual user preference or is there a reason to use the longer ones when fitting couplings with draft boxes?

 

The NEM sockets on the wagons that I've "converted" so far are secured into a block that has the NEM mount 2-2.5mm below the underside of  the wagon floor. Will the 14x series need a spacer between floor and draft box? The NEM couplings look as though they may be overset (if that's the correct terminology).

 

Gluing the draft boxes in place avoids the need to drill into the wagon floor. Am I correct in thinking that there is unlikely to be a need to remove the draft box even is the coupling itself fails?

 

Finally, all my track is down and ballasted so the magnets that I use are liable to require surgery to the (SMP) track and the ballast. My limited experiments with the 22 x 11 x 2mm magnets suggest that something like a 10 x 5 x 1.5mm would work - I've turned the magnets that arrived today so that they're across the underside of the rails rather than along them and the wagons seem to uncouple OK. What are the benefits of using the longer magnets - the trip pins happily swing almost as soon as they approach the magnets positioned as shown below. Please excuse the positioning of the magnets. They are in the fiddle yard and have avoided the need to remove any sleepers or parts thereof. The tests were only carried out on the left hand (M9) track in the picture.

 

[Oldddudders]

No recent mention of the Kadee trip-pin pliers. These resemble circlip pliers in having a round jaw, but it is partnered with a concave jaw. Simply by bending the trip-pin to a tighter radius you can lift the pin end above point rails etc. The jaws are designed with radii for N, HO and O scales.A great way to ease coupling height woes at little cost and with little delay.

[Ian Abel]

No recent mention of the Kadee trip-pin pliers. These resemble circlip pliers in having a round jaw, but it is partnered with a concave jaw. Simply by bending the trip-pin to a tighter radius you can lift the pin end above point rails etc. The jaws are designed with radii for N, HO and O scales.A great way to ease coupling height woes at little cost and with little delay.

Agreed. and coupled (pun DEFINATELY intended!!) with one of the two available height gauges, you should not have to worry about trip pins fouling track. Even some of the vehicles I've got that have sloppy NEM boxes, with a little packing to help and an appropriate amount of adjustment with aforementioned pliers they will still provide for correct running IMHO. With the use of the height gauge you can work your stock to assure that ALL the vehicles meet the same standard, and then will couple/uncouple without issue.

 

I'm often quite surprised by the number of folks using/working with Kadees that don't own either of these almost required tools! They're not even that pricey.

Also, for those struggling with replacing the knuckle springs, there's even a tool for that too, though I admit those ARE very fiddly even with the tool. I've actually just thrown away a couple of couplers needing the spring - well, assigned them to the bit box for later review at least, as trying to replace them demands a LOT of patience.

[kevinlms]

 

 

I'm often quite surprised by the number of folks using/working with Kadees that don't own either of these almost required tools! They're not even that pricey.

Also, for those struggling with replacing the knuckle springs, there's even a tool for that too, though I admit those ARE very fiddly even with the tool. I've actually just thrown away a couple of couplers needing the spring - well, assigned them to the bit box for later review at least, as trying to replace them demands a LOT of patience.

The trick is to not pick up the spring in the centre, but about 2/3rds of the way along. Then put the long end in first, followed by the shorter end. The longer end works best on the body end, then the moveable jaw.

[Norm81]

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.

Brilliant, I have a thin steel rule and forget the height gauge this is a much easier way to set them up intially. Then try and couple up to the height gauge.

 

It appears my Bachmann 37's have the NEM pocket at exactly the right height, quite a few other locos may be a challenge though. I may be going against the grain by trying to use the NEM kadees where others recommend the opposite, but I want the ability to switch back to tension locks if needs be. Chopping the NEM pocket off is past the point of no return. If I find a NEM pocket at completely the wrong height I'll probably cut it off but then fit one at the right height.

 

I tried a Bachmann 12t van over the permanent, under-the-rails magnet and the weight was causing it to centre on the magnet, was a lot better with it out but I think the axles are magnetic, hard to tell as the pull wasn't as strong. Next step is to correctly weight it and try again.

[tender]

I can definitely see the potential problems with the NEM Kadees. Even trying to pack out the socket to prevent vertical movement still seems to have failed to prevent the trip pin's fatal attraction to the magnets on some of the wagons that I've test fitted.

 

My 22mm x 11mm x 2mm N35 Neodymium magnets arrived today. These are supposed to be weaker than the N52 types suggested above but still seem to cause wheels/axles to stop over them and the trip pins on some wagons to lock onto the magnets. Although the wagons are not permanently weighted at present, the problem still seems to persist if I temporarily place reasonably heavy weights on the wagons.

 

I've ordered the test pack which I should be able to collect from my local shop on or before Saturday week. In the meantime I have a few questions.

 

I've used the shortest two NEM coupling so far - Nos. 17 & 18 - and don't see a requirement at present for the two longer versions as those that I've used offer the close coupling that I'm looking for. The suggested Nos. 141 and 146 appear to be long(er) versions. Is this an individual user preference or is there a reason to use the longer ones when fitting couplings with draft boxes?

 

The NEM sockets on the wagons that I've "converted" so far are secured into a block that has the NEM mount 2-2.5mm below the underside of  the wagon floor. Will the 14x series need a spacer between floor and draft box? The NEM couplings look as though they may be overset (if that's the correct terminology).

 

Gluing the draft boxes in place avoids the need to drill into the wagon floor. Am I correct in thinking that there is unlikely to be a need to remove the draft box even is the coupling itself fails?

 

Finally, all my track is down and ballasted so the magnets that I use are liable to require surgery to the (SMP) track and the ballast. My limited experiments with the 22 x 11 x 2mm magnets suggest that something like a 10 x 5 x 1.5mm would work - I've turned the magnets that arrived today so that they're across the underside of the rails rather than along them and the wagons seem to uncouple OK. What are the benefits of using the longer magnets - the trip pins happily swing almost as soon as they approach the magnets positioned as shown below. Please excuse the positioning of the magnets. They are in the fiddle yard and have avoided the need to remove any sleepers or parts thereof. The tests were only carried out on the left hand (M9) track in the picture.

 

kadee magnet 1.jpg

 

Hi Ray.

Did you have a look at this post

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60560-pwllheli-next-stop/?p=950234

 

This is how i did mine on CQ, but as my track was already laid and ballasted i just cut off the outer ends of the sleepers and ballast enough to just get the edge of the magnets under the rail. A bit of ballast and weathering after disguises them quite well.

[Suzie]

...The suggested Nos. 141 and 146 appear to be long(er) versions. Is this an individual user preference or is there a reason to use the longer ones when fitting couplings with draft boxes?

 

A couple of reasons:-

 

1. When your stock has buffers, the longer the shank of the coupler (and effectively the larger the turning radius of the coupler) the tighter the track radius that can be accommodated for a given closeness of coupling on the straight.

 

As the coupler moves from side to side in its draft box it gets closer to the buffer beam at the extremes of travel and therefore the buffers will touch. A longer shank means that this effect is reduced.

 

2. You usually need a long shank to get the draft box to sit flush with the buffer beam and not protrude beyond it and have the coupler head suitably in front of the buffer faces.

[Dunsignalling]

 

Also, for those struggling with replacing the knuckle springs, there's even a tool for that too, though I admit those ARE very fiddly even with the tool. I've actually just thrown away a couple of couplers needing the spring - well, assigned them to the bit box for later review at least, as trying to replace them demands a LOT of patience.

I don't get on with the current, all-plastic tool for changing knuckle springs but I'm lucky in having one of the ancient (discontinued) #235 type which was much better IMHO.

 

A good alternative is a long pointy scalpel blade with a bit of dried glue near the tip to add a rough area for the coils to grip. 

 

Whatever tool you are using, I find the trick is to insert it about 2/3rds of the way along the spring and push the long end onto the moving part of the knuckle first whilst keeping it closed and hard against the side of the draft box with a spare finger of the hand holding the vehicle (push against the tail to avoid blocking your view).

 

It sounds a lot harder than it is; the essential thing is just to keep everything still while you attach the spring, which then becomes much easier.

 

John

 

Edit: I seem to differ about which end to go for first with Kevin's post above so try both ways and see which you get on with best.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

Bending Kadee Couplers

 

Sorry if this is a bit out of sequence but it seems better here than in a new topic.

 

I have discovered, I can put an offset bend into the shaft of a "long" Kadee coupler. This example is a 146, but the idea should be extremely useful if you have a problematic installation of a "scale head" coupler, these are only supplied with centre-set heads.

 

Put two-thirds of the shank into the vice, and put the first bend close to the knuckle with a centre punch, you can see the mark from the punch in the second photo. Then put only the pivot part of the shank into the vice and make the second bend. Trim back the lid of the gear box to clear the offset and assemble as usual.

 

DSCF3822.jpg

DSCF3821.jpg

 

Many thanks to John (Allegheny1600) for giving me the idea when he put a comment on my blog.

 

- Richard.

Brave man. I find it risky enough putting a single upward bend into the occasional #146 that comes with a bit of unwanted droop.

 

You need to get the amount of offset right first time because the metal Kadee use seems very prone to snapping if you try to bend it back the way it came.

 

I seldom find in necessary (or even possible) to mount the box higher than will give the correct alignment with a #146 but, if you do, the #149 should give the required amount of drop. 

 

John

Edited January 21, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Budgie]

With all this talk of problems using permanent magnets for uncoupling, I'm surprised nobody has used electromagnets. Kadee does one which is big and unsightly; there must be a way of making something a lot smaller that would work.

[Dunsignalling]

With all this talk of problems using permanent magnets for uncoupling, I'm surprised nobody has used electromagnets. Kadee does one which is big and unsightly; there must be a way of making something a lot smaller that would work.

Check out what Rapido have in the pipeline. Not much smaller but should be easier to install because it fits into a round hole (44mm hole-saw).

 

I modified twenty-odd of the older Kadee ones to make them less visible on TMRG's Bath Green Park layout but the current version is sufficiently powerful to work from below sleeper level.

 

They aren't difficult to install, though you really need a jig saw to cut the necessary rectangular holes neatly. The provision for securing to the baseboard is somewhat half-hearted so a hot glue gun from underneath is probably easier if you can work with the baseboard inverted or on edge.

 

John  

Edited January 21, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Ray H]

Hi Ray.

Did you have a look at this post

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60560-pwllheli-next-stop/?p=950234

 

This is how i did mine on CQ, but as my track was already laid and ballasted i just cut off the outer ends of the sleepers and ballast enough to just get the edge of the magnets under the rail. A bit of ballast and weathering after disguises them quite well.

 

Ray

 

Yes, I did see your original post & link. Thank you for providing them. Indeed I bought the magnets that arrived yesterday because of that. However, as I only have the NEM Kadees to experiment with for the time being I'm loathe to do anything too permanent. Consequently, I didn't want to attack an otherwise good length of SMP track - which is only lightly fixed with the occasional track pins - so I looked for a section of track where I could trial the magnets with minimal adjustments (if any) to the track for the time being.

 

I tried one magnet either side of the track in the fashion shown in the link you posted. It worked (with the usual fatal attraction between magnets and axles/wheels not to mention the Kadee trip pins on some wagons). However, mindful of the amount of sleepering that will need to be removed to accommodate these relatively long magnets, I thought that I'd experiment with the magnets turned by 90º. I posted my question about the magnet's size when I discovered that the smaller area seemed to work as well as the larger area and I wondered if I had missed something.

 

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I'd ignored your post.

 

The smaller magnets are available with a thickness of 1.5mm instead of 2mm and I was contemplating experimenting with those as I think that would avoid me having to remove anything other than the surface ballast.

 

I don't want to do anything to the trip pins until the magnets research is further advanced.

 

I wouldn't say no to using electro magnets if I was starting from scratch which I'm not (and access to the underside of the baseboards on parts of the layout is bordering on the impossible), hence the experimentation with the permanent magnets. The inference is that it may be possible to limit the interaction between wheels/axles and by reducing the strength of the magnets - the lower the "N" number, the less strength the magnet has if the weaker magnets are available..

[Ray H]

A couple of reasons:-

 

1. When your stock has buffers, the longer the shank of the coupler (and effectively the larger the turning radius of the coupler) the tighter the track radius that can be accommodated for a given closeness of coupling on the straight.

 

As the coupler moves from side to side in its draft box it gets closer to the buffer beam at the extremes of travel and therefore the buffers will touch. A longer shank means that this effect is reduced.

 

2. You usually need a long shank to get the draft box to sit flush with the buffer beam and not protrude beyond it and have the coupler head suitably in front of the buffer faces.

 

Many thanks for that. I'm hopeful that the radii of the curves on my layout aren't too tight - to avoid the use of the long shanks - as one of the prime reasons for switching to Kadees is to reduce the inter-vehicle gap normally found with tension lock couplings.

 

One further question if I may regarding the fixing of couplings. I've previously indicated that I hope to use adhesive (solvent) to secure the draft boxes. How does one assess the amount of packing required, if any, prior to gluing the draft boxes to the chassis?