Kadee Couplers

[freightliner_bond]

Hi,

I'm looking to close couple some MK1 coaches. I've seen from the Mostyn thread that they use #35.

 

However, on this info from the Scalefour society #711/#714 is suggested:

http://www.scalefour.org/forum/download/file.php?id=3735

 

This is presumably based on the #711 seemingly being very close to scale:

http://www.norgrove.me.uk/buckeye.htm

 

They seemingly even share the same instruction leaflet? The dimensions are the same except the mounting height:

https://kadee.com/htmbord/page711.htm

https://kadee.com/htmbord/page714.htm

 

Any thoughts on #35 vs #711/#714 please.

 

And has anyone used #711/#714 and is there a difference between the two? Are they effectively the same just marketed differently as HO and HOn3 respectively?

 

Cheers

Alan

 

Edit - link not working correctly

Edited May 17, 2018 by freightliner_bond

[melmerby]

After some disastrous failures causing derailments I don't use Kadees inter-coach if they have close coupling cams fitted.

With Kadees the cams don't operate properly and can cause wheel lift coming out of bends. Reading on RMWeb it seems I'm not alone finding this problem.

 

I now keep my coaches in "flexible" fixed rakes using Hornby & Roco close couplers with Kadees only on the outer coach ends.

I found a Hornby one end and a Roco the other kept them close enough. As long as they are always on the same ends I can remove or add coaches in the middle of a rake.

(Two Hornby's leave the coaches too far apart and two Roco's are usually too close and cause the corridor connections to bind.)

 

The Kaddes on an outer coach end would usually be # 18, sometimes #17, sometimes #19, assuming NEM pockets of suitable height else it's cut & shut

 

Keith

[ejstubbs]

Good point.  Close coupling mechanisms really need a fairly rigid connection between the bogies to activate properly.  The pivoting coupler head on NEM Kadees means that they are much less effective at getting the CCM to engage.  Like you, for me it's Hornby/Roco between coaches in the rake, and Kadees at the ends.

 

Checking my notes, I find that I fitted the end vehicles of my Hornby superdetailed LMS period 3 corridor coach rake (brake 3rd and 50ft full brake) with #20 NEM Kadees, wheres the non-corridor rake is OK with #19s.  None of which is much help to ISW, who has Bachmann coaches.  Sorry.

 

The minimum radius on the user's layout will also make a difference.  Mine goes down to setrack 2nd radius (so shoot me) which probably explains why I needed the longest couplings for some of my stock.  So even one person's experience won't necessarily translate directly to another's.  (IMO it's still a fairly small excess cost to have a few NEM Kadees left over, but other people may legitimately be more cost-sensitive than me.)

[melmerby]

Here's how I coped with a couple of rather aged coaches:

 

Airfix. I reversed the bogie then affixed a stretcher from the pivot boss to the end of the bogie. Then I mounted an NEM Kadee by screw:

 

Lima: I chopped off the old coupling, cut a slot to take a shortened Dapol NEM mount and glued in place with something that will stick it!:

Again an NEM Kadee.

(Not pretty but it does the job)

 

 

 

Keith

 

With both these finding an adhesive to stick to the original plastic wasn't easy.

The Airfix stretcher is an interference fit on the boss which helps. The Lima bogie has plenty of Wilco copycat Bostik.

Edited May 17, 2018 by melmerby

[Phatbob]

I've been happily modifying old stock to Kadees for a year or so now, commonly with Kadee #5, #18, #147 & #156.

 

However, I'm a bit stumped by some Bachmann coaches with NEM pockets. The #18 I have are way too short and I'm not sure if #19 (long) or #20 (extra long) is the correct option.

 

Before I go out and buy, please can anyone tell me which Kadee I need to suit the Bachmann coach below (model 39-371):

 

Coach view (Mk2 - predating the Mk2a -  BSO)

20180517_192321.jpg

 

NEM coupling view

20180517_192420.jpg

 

Thanks

Ian

 

I recommend you to get some of these http://www.keen-systems.com/Couplings.html

and fit #18s to them.  Job done!

[Jaggzuk]

I am intrigued on the Keen/Kadee mix for coaches.  

 

My understanding on how the Keen close coupling work is that the tie bar forms a rigid link between the two sliding parts of the coaches couplings which opens up the gap between the coach ends.  How does this wok with a Kadee which has a flexible head?

 

Could you expand on the working solution please Phatbob?  Any photos would be much appreciated.

[NoelG]

I've been happily modifying old stock to Kadees for a year or so now, commonly with Kadee #5, #18, #147 & #156.

 

However, I'm a bit stumped by some Bachmann coaches with NEM pockets. The #18 I have are way too short and I'm not sure if #19 (long) or #20 (extra long) is the correct option.

 

Before I go out and buy, please can anyone tell me which Kadee I need to suit the Bachmann coach below (model 39-371):

 

Coach view (Mk2 - predating the Mk2a -  BSO)

20180517_192321.jpg

 

NEM coupling view

20180517_192420.jpg

 

Thanks

Ian

 

Hi Ian

Have a browse through the post link below which is early in this thread. There may be a solution in there that may work for you assuming your Bachmann coaches have the NEM pockets attached to the usual swivelling drawbar and not the bogies. In some cases you may be able to glue kadee no 19 or 20 to the underside of the NEM pockets to get the correct height, or you may be able to create your own stepped kadee no 19 or 20 using a 12mm x 3mm piece of plastic card to make a shank to plug into the NEM pocket that you then glue the kadee with tongs snipped shorter (see detailed pics in the link below). Like you I didn't want to use close couplings like Hornby R8220 or Roco as I needed to mix'n'match stock and marshal rakes, so wanted every item of my rolling stock to adhere to correct kadee height. In any event I found a kadee no 19 and no 20 alternating at each end of the coach worked for my Murphy Model mk2d coaches which also had incorrect NEM pockets, but this may not work for you depending on the NEM pocket error.  BTW, switching from TLCs to kadee's greatly reduced the gap between coaches and the stock runs perfectly without any derailments nor unplanned uncoupling.

 

Noel

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/24427-kadee-couplers/?p=3154648

 

PS: I do have one fixed rake of mk2d using the Hornby R8220 close couplers with kadees on the outside of the two end coaches and this runs really well and the coaches are close coupled.  R8220 and Roco only work with coaches fitted with a NEM pocket on an independently swivelling drawbar.  

 

One option:

 

 

Another option:

Edited May 18, 2018 by NoelG

[dj_crisp]

If you don't have tight curves I abandon the close coupling mech and mount the kadee on the body rather than the bogie.

[melmerby]

If you don't have tight curves I abandon the close coupling mech and mount the kadee on the body rather than the bogie.

What do you call tight curves?

Even with 4' curves to stop buffer fouling they need to be an inordinate distance apart.

 

Keith

[ISW]

What do you call tight curves?

Even with 4' curves to stop buffer fouling they need to be an inordinate distance apart.

 

Keith

I agree. I initially fitted Kadees to the underframe of my Lima coaches. It 'worked' I suppose, but it was not happy on 572mm (4th radii) curves and close coupling was much more difficult to achieve.

 

In the end, I moved all the Kadees onto the bogies.

 

Ian

[ISW]

Hi Ian

Have a browse through the post link below which is early in this thread. There may be a solution in there that may work for you assuming your Bachmann coaches have the NEM pockets attached to the usual swivelling drawbar and not the bogies. In some cases you may be able to glue kadee no 19 or 20 to the underside of the NEM pockets to get the correct height, or you may be able to create your own stepped kadee no 19 or 20 using a 12mm x 3mm piece of plastic card to make a shank to plug into the NEM pocket that you then glue the kadee with tongs snipped shorter (see detailed pics in the link below). Like you I didn't want to use close couplings like Hornby R8220 or Roco as I needed to mix'n'match stock and marshal rakes, so wanted every item of my rolling stock to adhere to correct kadee height. In any event I found a kadee no 19 and no 20 alternating at each end of the coach worked for my Murphy Model mk2d coaches which also had incorrect NEM pockets, but this may not work for you depending on the NEM pocket error.  BTW, switching from TLCs to kadee's greatly reduced the gap between coaches and the stock runs perfectly without any derailments nor unplanned uncoupling.

 

Noel

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/24427-kadee-couplers/?p=3154648

 

PS: I do have one fixed rake of mk2d using the Hornby R8220 close couplers with kadees on the outside of the two end coaches and this runs really well and the coaches are close coupled.  R8220 and Roco only work with coaches fitted with a NEM pocket on an independently swivelling drawbar.  

 

One option:

 

 

 

Another option:

 

Keith,

 

My humble apologies  . How did I miss your previous (linked) posting  , especially as it contains such a wealth of useful information! 

 

I really like Option 2, but will probably replace the glue with a small self-tapping screw - for easy of modification / disassembly at a future date. It looks like I'll be able to use a #18 with this method too, just by amending the plastic card bit. At a push, I'm thinking that even a #5 will work (using a screw attachment) although any automatic uncoupling might be out of the question (something that I can live with [1]).

 

[1] - how many times have you seen a shunting / re-consisting a rake of coaches happening on a model?

 

Ian

[ejstubbs]

I am intrigued on the Keen/Kadee mix for coaches.

 

Per my post #536, my experience is that Kadees and CCUs don't work together very well - certainly not as well as a proper semi-rigid coupling between the CCUs.

 

I am also not a fan of glueing or screwing NEM Kadees on to vehicles or bogies.  The original Kadee couplers (like the classic #5) were designed to pivot at the point they are attached to the vehicle/bogie, around the pin inside the draft box.  The later whisker couplers are the same, just with a different self-centering spring arrangement.  Similarly, NEM Kadees work best when fitted in to a pivoting NEM pocket - the kind with the "fishtail" that fits in to a wedge-shaped slot on the vehicle chassis.  The knuckles aren't really intended to provide much in the way of flex: their job is to couple vehicles together.  If you watch stock with rigidly-attached Kadees going around curves you can see the knuckle of one of the couplers being prised open as the couplers try to accommodate the displacement between the vehicles.  Although that usually works, IMO it compromises the effectiveness of the coupler pair in doing the job of keeping the train together.  That's not how the couplers are designed to work, and I doubt it does much to help CCUs - which have a rigid, non-pivoting NEM pocket - do their thing properly, either.

 

Basically, I regard attaching Kadees rigidly as being a rather lazy bodge which risks compromising the effectiveness of what is is generally accepted to be premium-priced coupler.  I believe that if you're going to pay that money for a coupler, you might as well take the trouble to install it so that it can do its job properly.

 

I'll try to post some photos later to show how I have fitted Kadee whisker couplers to the old Airfix LMS non-corridor coach bogies, and the later Bachmann LMS bogies (which I used in place of the original Lima BR bogies on my LMS 42' GUV, as well as for my Hornby clerestory coaches).

Edited May 18, 2018 by ejstubbs

[ISW]

Here's how I coped with a couple of rather aged coaches:

 

Airfix. I reversed the bogie then affixed a stretcher from the pivot boss to the end of the bogie. Then I mounted an NEM Kadee by screw:

 

 

Lima: I chopped off the old coupling, cut a slot to take a shortened Dapol NEM mount and glued in place with something that will stick it!:

Again an NEM Kadee.

(Not pretty but it does the job)

 

Keith

 

With both these finding an adhesive to stick to the original plastic wasn't easy.

The Airfix stretcher is an interference fit on the boss which helps. The Lima bogie has plenty of Wilco copycat Bostik.

Keith,

 

You did really well to find a glue that worked on Lima bogies   . If I had a few to convert, I think I might have used glue. but with a 'fleet' to modify I came up with a solution using a 80-thou (1.5mm) styrene 'packer' screwed to the bogie end with a #156 screwed to the styrene as shown in the following link:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/112980-signaller69s-projects-the-class-126-saga-continues/?p=2999278

 

The longitudinal offset of the 2 screws turned out to locate the #156 in line with the buffers, as required. 

 

For the Airfix bogies, I found that a #156 (with the draft box shortened) screwed directly to the round protuberance of the existing coupler was a perfect match with a 20-thou styrene packer underneath. It just needs a bit of care making the pilot hole into the protuberance 

 

The bits laid out ...

 

Bogie assembled ...

 

Close coupling ...

 

Ian

[melmerby]

Keith,

 

You did really well to find a glue that worked on Lima bogies   . If I had a few to convert, I think I might have used glue. but with a 'fleet' to modify I came up with a solution using a 80-thou (1.5mm) styrene 'packer' screwed to the bogie end with a #156 screwed to the styrene as shown in the following link:

Ian

The only Lima bogies I have are on a couple of GWR Siphons and a GWR Railcar

 

I notice with your coaches the buffers are an awful way back from the corridor ends making them impossible to get really close together.

Fortunately the manufacturers have upped their game a bit and most of my modern stock sits with the buffers touching on straight track.

I need to try and do something with my Bachmann Collett coaches as they sit about 10mm apart with the standard rigid tension locks.

 

Keith

[Dunsignalling]

What do you call tight curves?

Even with 4' curves to stop buffer fouling they need to be an inordinate distance apart.

 

Keith

That's why CCUs were invented.

[Dunsignalling]

The only Lima bogies I have are on a couple of GWR Siphons and a GWR Railcar

 

I notice with your coaches the buffers are an awful way back from the corridor ends making them impossible to get really close together.

Fortunately the manufacturers have upped their game a bit and most of my modern stock sits with the buffers touching on straight track.

I need to try and do something with my Bachmann Collett coaches as they sit about 10mm apart with the standard rigid tension locks.

 

Keith

On modern stock (Mk.1 onwards), also SR and LNER corridors plus most Pullmans, the buffing force goes through the gangways. The bottom bit actually is a buffer which exists independently on the ends of Class 33/1 and 73 locos. Side-buffers are retracted except when coupling to other locos, a GUV etc. via a screw coupling. Mk3s in HSTs never do that so have no side buffers at all. 

 

There should be a gap of 2-3mm (in OO).

 

It's only on prehistoric (LMS, GWR and non-corridor) stock that the buffers should be in contact. 

 

 

John

Edited May 18, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[ISW]

On modern stock (Mk.1 onwards), also SR and LNER corridors plus most Pullmans, the buffing force goes through the gangways. The bottom bit actually is a buffer which exists independently on the ends of Class 33/1 and 73 locos. Side-buffers are retracted except when coupling to other locos, a GUV etc. via a screw coupling. Mk3s in HSTs never do that so have no side buffers at all. 

 

There should be a gap of 2-3mm (in OO).

 

It's only on prehistoric (LMS, GWR and non-corridor) stock that the buffers should be in contact. 

 

 

John

Some of my coaches (old as they are) have separately moulded / attached buffers, so it is possible to move them the odd millimetre. They are probably 'pushed home' due to my poor handling while I was re-glazing the windows with SE Finecast windows. I'll see about getting them moved a bit to be more prototypical.

 

Ian

[frobisher]

However, I'm a bit stumped by some Bachmann coaches with NEM pockets. The #18 I have are way too short and I'm not sure if #19 (long) or #20 (extra long) is the correct option.

I found the right "Kadee" for those was the Bachmann NEM EZ-Mate. The lack of a swivelly-head on the coupling allowed coupling up on curves which the #20 did not.

[ISW]

I found the right "Kadee" for those was the Bachmann NEM EZ-Mate. The lack of a swivelly-head on the coupling allowed coupling up on curves which the #20 did not.

Paddy,

 

Thanks for that. I've got a pair of those couplings so I'll give them a try. If they are a 'direct replacement' for the existing NEM (cranked) couplings I will be well happy.

 

Ian

[melmerby]

There should be a gap of 2-3mm (in OO).

 

 

John

Which is close.

6, 7 or 8mm isn't

The buffers in the picture I commented on are at least 2-3mm back from the corridor ends, not each other.

 

BTW My "modern" stock is modern as in manufacture not modern as in post 1948!

No coaches newer than 1939 prototypes apart from Airfix autocoach and a Lima railcar.

 

Keith

Edited May 19, 2018 by melmerby

[Phatbob]

I am intrigued on the Keen/Kadee mix for coaches.  

 

My understanding on how the Keen close coupling work is that the tie bar forms a rigid link between the two sliding parts of the coaches couplings which opens up the gap between the coach ends.  How does this wok with a Kadee which has a flexible head?

 

Could you expand on the working solution please Phatbob?  Any photos would be much appreciated.

The OP concerned problems with Kadees and Bachmann MK IIs.  Keen systems produce replacement parts for the Bachmann close-coupling mechanism that positions the NEM box in the right place.  THe Bachmann NEM  boxes on their MK I and MK II coaches are too high and set too far back.  So the geometry of the CCM is wrong and there are consequent problems.  Using the Keen system replacements sorts it all out.

[melmerby]

The OP concerned problems with Kadees and Bachmann MK IIs.  Keen systems produce replacement parts for the Bachmann close-coupling mechanism that positions the NEM box in the right place.  THe Bachmann NEM  boxes on their MK I and MK II coaches are too high and set too far back.  So the geometry of the CCM is wrong and there are consequent problems.  Using the Keen system replacements sorts it all out.

The Keen is not that much different from the CCU used on more up to date coaches and they really need a rigid link to work properly hence the recommended Roco/Hornby close couplings.

Surely you will get the same problems with Kadees on the Keen system as you do on the Hornby & later Bachmann coaches.

I've tried Kadees inter-coach on Maunsells, Pullmans, Gresleys & Staniers all with correct height/postion NEM pockets & close couplers and the Kadees were far from ideal.

They all now have the Hornby/Roco combination.

 

Keith

Edited May 19, 2018 by melmerby

[BR60103]

I'm experimenting with Kadees in CCUs (Hornby Pullmen) by gluing the knuckle solid at the end. The pair I've done so far seem to operate better than before.  I don't use the delayed uncoupling feature.

[melmerby]

 I don't use the delayed uncoupling feature.

So why use Kadees?

 

Keith

[Butler Henderson]

So why use Kadees?

 

Keith

The only advantage I could think of would be the ease of lifting a coach from the track but then the Bachmann Ezmate would work equally well- the Roco/Hornby type do take a bit of fiddling to part and in the case of the Roco ones they do have a easily broken part IME. I bought the Roco ones in bulk and then having found they were really only suitable for coaches thankfully have a large number of spares.