Kadee Couplers

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

The T/L at the bunker end of the Std 4 tank has a larger crank in it that normally provided by Bachmann.

Is that like the ones on the first wagons with a dovetail NEM pocket?

They were miles out and have about a 3mm crank as the pocket was mounted directly under the floor of the wagons

The ones on the the GWR 45XX are about 1-1.5mm too high so have a smaller crank.

[Butler Henderson]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

Is that like the ones on the first wagons with a dovetail NEM pocket?

They were miles out and have about a 3mm crank as the pocket was mounted directly under the floor of the wagons

The ones on the the GWR 45XX are about 1-1.5mm too high so have a smaller crank.

Not sure - its the only Bachmann model I have with such a deep crank. On the wagons is it not possible to slide the mount out of its chassis fixing slightly  and fix a bit of plastic card in place to keep the appropriate separation.

[melmerby]

I've found a problem with using Kadees on the 45XX, I don't whether the Std 4 tank has the same arrangement.

The pony truck is quite narrow compared to the back to back of the wheelset and (especially when pushing) there is a tendency for the truck to swing to the side a few mm meaning the Kadee won't couple with another as it is too far off centre.

With T/L couplings this wasn't a problem as it was within the side play tolerance.

Looks like I need some spacers to limit the axle side-play.

Edited March 2, 2019 by melmerby

[DutyDruid]

5 hours ago, melmerby said:

I don't whether the Std 4 tank has the same arrangement.

Sorry, can't answer that at the moment as I am at a Great Missenden weekend so can't look at mine.  When I get home tomorrow I will photograph the underside and post.

[Jeff Smith]

It is definitely a problem with Kadees, or any similar knuckle coupler, that there is very little tolerance for being off centre.  Trying to couple, on even a slight curve is very problematic.

[45125]

1 hour ago, Jeff Smith said:

It is definitely a problem with Kadees, or any similar knuckle coupler, that there is very little tolerance for being off centre.  Trying to couple, on even a slight curve is very problematic.

Just like the real thing............

 

 

[25901]

49 minutes ago, 45125 said:

Just like the real thing............

 

 

 

They don't hurt like the bl@@dy real thing 

[DutyDruid]

On 02/03/2019 at 13:59, melmerby said:

I've found a problem with using Kadees on the 45XX, I don't whether the Std 4 tank has the same arrangement.

The pony truck is quite narrow compared to the back to back of the wheelset and (especially when pushing) there is a tendency for the truck to swing to the side a few mm meaning the Kadee won't couple with another as it is too far off centre.

With T/L couplings this wasn't a problem as it was within the side play tolerance.

Looks like I need some spacers to limit the axle side-play.

 

I said I would put a photo of the 4MT rear pony truck up:  Herewith.

 

The NEM pocket is clearly a separate entity from the pony truck.  It's a non-standard pocket and it only takes 3 insertion/removal cycles to wear out whatever is in the pocket that holds the coupling in place.  I started to build the new coupling mount but got too distracted so that's now become a job for next week's session.

[47137]

I've stumbled upon a possible solution for installing Kadee couplers into Bachmann stock with the NEM pockets at a non-standard height.

 

1) The Roco universal coupler in the height-adjustable version. Roco part number 40396:

https://www.roco.cc/en/product/22611-0-0-0-0-0-0-003005-0/products.html

 

This is the Roco "engineered" version of a tension lock coupler, not their similarly-named "close coupling head". Keep the NEM 363 slot part, and put the "head" to one side.

 

2) The AMF87 adaptor fret to fit a Kadee NEM head to a NEM 363 slot:

https://www.aandhmodels.co.uk/amf-a265--interface-nem363kadee-for-coupling-locomotives-ree-models-36738-p.asp

 

If anyone does this and it helps, I would gladly buy your unwanted Roco "head" parts, I can use these on some of my Continental models.

 

- Richard.

[ejstubbs]

Looks elegant, but at another £2.50-odd per coupling might be a bit daunting.  (Kadees are expensive enough as it is!)

[Butler Henderson]

39 minutes ago, 47137 said:

I've stumbled upon a possible solution for installing Kadee couplers into Bachmann stock with the NEM pockets at a non-standard height.

 

1) The Roco universal coupler in the height-adjustable version. Roco part number 40396:

https://www.roco.cc/en/product/22611-0-0-0-0-0-0-003005-0/products.html

 

How is the coupling held at the right height? If it works okay maybe someone (thinks Gaugemaster) should commission Roco  to produce packs of the mount only and supply them with a template for reshaping the NEM362 Kadee to a NEM363 as an option to buying  the adaptor fret as well.

[47137]

25 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said:

How is the coupling held at the right height? If it works okay maybe someone (thinks Gaugemaster) should commission Roco  to produce packs of the mount only and supply them with a template for reshaping the NEM362 Kadee to a NEM363 as an option to buying  the adaptor fret as well.

 

The NEM363 slot relies on friction to hold the coupler at the proper height. I've got a few - engines by REE and Roco, and some add-on close coupler mounts by Fleischmann, and they've never moved out of alignment.

[DutyDruid]

2 hours ago, 47137 said:

I've stumbled upon a possible solution for installing Kadee couplers into Bachmann stock with the NEM pockets at a non-standard height.

 

1) The Roco universal coupler

2) The AMF87 adaptor fret

 

If this works it looks like it's "problem solved".  Have you tried it Richard or have you just noticed its potential as a solution?

 

2 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

Looks elegant, but at another £2.50-odd per coupling might be a bit daunting.  (Kadees are expensive enough as it is!)

 

Yes, but I would only look to use this system in "difficult" situations like the rear end of the 4MT Tank.  On wagons &c where a cranked coupling is used I think I would be looking to pack the whole mount down on 3 x strips of 0.040" plastic strip; the Parkside Coupling Mount PA34 is designed with the Bachmann cranked coupler in mind and that's all I have ever done to convert them to straight couplings.

[melmerby]

13 minutes ago, DutyDruid said:

  On wagons &c where a cranked coupling is used I think I would be looking to pack the whole mount down on 3 x strips of 0.040" plastic strip; the Parkside Coupling Mount PA34 is designed with the Bachmann cranked coupler in mind and that's all I have ever done to convert them to straight couplings.

Most with cranked couplings have the NEM mount as part of the underframe moulding so not an option.

(that's all the wagons with cranked couplings I have/had)

The later "upgrades" which have straight T/Ls do have a screw on mount and a #18 is a straight replacement so no need for surgery anyway.

[woodenhead]

I am thinking this is great for the Bachmann coaches, as noted it's quite an expensive option but if you just want one at either end of a rake of coaches then not so bad - wagons I cannot stick a Kadee straight into go in the middle of wagon rakes.

[JZ]

37 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I am thinking this is great for the Bachmann coaches, as noted it's quite an expensive option but if you just want one at either end of a rake of coaches then not so bad - wagons I cannot stick a Kadee straight into go in the middle of wagon rakes.

For my rakes of older Bachmann Mk1s, I've used The Keen Systems replacement drawbar fitted with a Kadee at rake ends

[JZ]

With older wagons with the wrong height pocket, I have removed the mount completely and used #5.

As for the problem with the 45xx and 4MT tank, I've used a bit of surgery on a #5 arm and glued it directly into the pocket. Not had any issues, but I have a minimum radius of 36".

[47137]

2 hours ago, DutyDruid said:

 

If this works it looks like it's "problem solved".  Have you tried it Richard or have you just noticed its potential as a solution?

 

 

Yes, but I would only look to use this system in "difficult" situations like the rear end of the 4MT Tank.  On wagons &c where a cranked coupling is used I think I would be looking to pack the whole mount down on 3 x strips of 0.040" plastic strip; the Parkside Coupling Mount PA34 is designed with the Bachmann cranked coupler in mind and that's all I have ever done to convert them to straight couplings.

 

No I haven't tried it, but I would give it a go if I still had any applicable stock.

 

As it happens, this topic has gone full circle for me. I entered here asking about the correct height of a Kadee for 00 (answer: same as H0) because by misfortune I began with the NEM versions on British RTR. I've since sold on most of my 00 stock (swapping all the Kadees back to tension locks!) and committed to H0, where the Continental manufacturers put a cam on everything, and put it in the right place. And this has led me to start removing my Kadees from here too, to plug in Roco universals and Fleischmann profi's, to let the close coupling mechanisms work.

 

So I haven't got any stock to try out the idea. But someone can give it a go and report back. Even if it fails, they have an entry to NEM 363, which can come in handy one day. It is a non-destructive approach, you would not be making a permanent alteration to the model.

 

I posted photos of some of my Kadee installs for British H0 on my blog, the NEM363 is the last but one in the post.

 

- Richard.

Edited March 26, 2019 by 47137

[DutyDruid]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Most with cranked couplings have the NEM mount as part of the underframe moulding so not an option.

(that's all the wagons with cranked couplings I have/had)

The later "upgrades" which have straight T/Ls do have a screw on mount and a #18 is a straight replacement so no need for surgery anyway.

 

Ok, my observation of the wagons I've butchered in the project to convert Nictun Borrud to use Kadees is the opposite, all the mounting blocks on those wagons that are designed to take cranked couplings can be unscrewed and replaced.  (In fact, the Bachmann rep came into the shop where I work part-time one day and I was able to strip two LOWFITs down to show him the problem and ask him if he could get me the deeper blocks as a spare - sadly he wasn't impressed...)

 

 

[Sir TophamHatt]

Are Kadees quite reliable?

I've fitted one (admittedly without the height gauge) to Dapol's 68 to pull a CMX rail cleaner (also fitted).

It pulls fine, although the height on the 68 is slightly higher.

But when pulling round a corner, the height difference seems to become greater and the CMX comes off.

 

Is it purely because there's a mm or so difference?

Or is the 68 encouraging the problem?

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

Are Kadees quite reliable?

I've fitted one (admittedly without the height gauge) to Dapol's 68 to pull a CMX rail cleaner (also fitted).

It pulls fine, although the height on the 68 is slightly higher.

But when pulling round a corner, the height difference seems to become greater and the CMX comes off.

 

Is it purely because there's a mm or so difference?

Or is the 68 encouraging the problem?

I have a CMX with the #5 as supplied pulled by a Bachmann Cl 47 with a plug-in #18 and it works perfectly.

It will pull or push at flat out speeds without derailing or decoupling.

Incidentally it's the only loco I have that will pull the CMX reliably without copious slipping (and the only post WW2 loco on the layout)

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

Are Kadees quite reliable?

Near perfectly so if installed correctly, in a suitable mounting.

 

1 hour ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

...Is it purely because there's a mm or so difference?

Or is the 68 encouraging the problem?

You are in a forcing condition here, which is finding out weaknesses.

 

Like most centre motor models, the 68 has potent traction. Which is required for this application because the CMX is very draggy! So there's some force being applied. (That said, Kadees are certainly good for 100g force, greater than what this combination will exert.)

 

The slight height mismatch may be contributing, because the force will be off the horizontal centrelines of the coupler heads. That in turn may lead the mountings to deflect enough for the overlap of the heads to reduce, and there's your unwanted uncouple.

 

Further to Keith's (Melmerby) post, the only pre-WWII subject RTR OO model in as supplied condition that I have seen drag a CMX without slip is the Heljan 02, which is good and heavy. (I imagine the weighty construction of the Heljan manufacture 47xx and LMS Beyer-Garratt will ensure the same result with these.) Stuffing a Hornby A4 with lead for 550g on the driven wheels makes this equal to the task too.

Edited March 27, 2019 by 34theletterbetweenB&D
added information

[DutyDruid]

On 26/03/2019 at 12:24, Butler Henderson said:

How is the coupling held at the right height? If it works okay maybe someone (thinks Gaugemaster) should commission Roco  to produce packs of the mount only and supply them with a template for reshaping the NEM362 Kadee to a NEM363 as an option to buying  the adaptor fret as well.

 

So, I've just been on the phone with Gaugemaster and asked that very question and they drew my attention to this variation on the theme - Roco 40287 - which in itself is an interesting concept given that that's the coupler Hornby use to close couple coaches.

 

I have to go up the M40 next week and have arranged to collect the coupler head to NEM363 adapter from Brackley, now need to organise to go to Gaugemaster to collect the ROCO 40287 thingy.

 

Not having come across the NEM363 standard before but seeing that several manufacturers whose names I recognise as big in the continental world seem to use it, I wonder if Kadee could be persuaded to make a head with an NEM363 adaptor ready fitted?

 

Elliott

Edited March 27, 2019 by DutyDruid
Added missing word

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, DutyDruid said:

 

So, I've just been on the phone with Gaugemaster and asked that very question and they drew my attention to this variation on the theme - Roco 40287 - which in itself is an interesting concept given that that's the coupler Hornby use to close couple coaches.

 

Elliott

Being pedantic the Hornby one is slightly longer in the mount than the true Roco one.

However Hornby have changed on some stock and now supply the inverted hook & loop (X10632) as also used by Electrotren:

 

[Sir TophamHatt]

Can anyone suggest a long coupler for the Bachmann 170?

 

I put a number 19 on mine but as the unit turned, some corners forced the coupling to catch on the door sticking out bit.

 

I only need another mm, which is a shame.