Kadee Couplers

[Norm81]

Orford, I have to disagree with your assertion "Do not use No5s with UK stock."

 

I have done so with, I feel, success.  OK, I did use them with modern image DMUs - and they don't have buffers.  More to the point, they didn't have couplings either.  And also for some, I did have to use longer reach 40 series couplings (Yeah - I know but the 140 series didn't exist then). 

 

Units given Kaydee couplings include Hornby Cl 142; Bachmann Classes 158, 159, 166, 168, 170 and 171; Dapol classes 150 and 155.  For Hornby Class 153, I use NEM style, as I did for Lima Class 156. 

 

Note that the Lima pocket is really too low and the Class 142s were adjusted to couple with the Lima 156s.  I have since been replacing the Lima NEM style Kaydees with series 5 / 40s so they can couple to correct height Kaydees - But the Hornby Class 142s are still too low.

 

Note also that for the low height couplings, I bent the trip pin to clear running rails.  The point here being that I did have my own standard that worked even if it wasn't interoperable with correct height Kaydees.  I now have two standards which are not interoperable - which in turn is annoying.

 

I also need to consider how to fit Kaydees to Realtrack class 143s

 

Hi,

 

Any chance of some photos of the Hornby 142's with Kadees fitted please?

 

Thanks.

 

[tender]

Ray

 

Thanks. I thought they could be closely coupled but the earlier pictures tended to suggest that they couldn't. Have you set yours further back - or, conversely, were the earlier images set further forward?

 

Those in posts 110 & 115 above seem much further forward.

 

Excuse it if I have missed it, what determines the positioning (and why would it be varied)?

Hi Ray.

I always select a Kadee so that the base of the knuckle is inline with the buffer heads. I would say that 95% of my stock is fitted with a Kadee 17,18,19 or 20 the majority being a 18 and some being modified as in post 102. On rare occasions I've had to resort to a 'whisker' type kadee with draft box but follow the same principal - base of knuckle inline with buffer heads (and the right height of course).

[knitpick]

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 . . .

 

Suzie - I agree that Kaydees are more forgiving than the small tension lock style of coupling when propelling.  However, Kaydees too can be difficult to couple on a curve - but probably not as bad as some tension lock couplings in some NEM pockets.  It does depend on radius of the curve.

 

Norm81 - I can but try to upload a picture of a Kaydee fitted Hornby 142.  But as noted, this coupling sits too low.  However I might try an Underset Kaydee and see if that raises the knuckle enough.  Now where did I put my camera?

[roundhouse]

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 . . .

 

Suzie - I agree that Kaydees are more forgiving than the small tension lock style of coupling when propelling.  However, Kaydees too can be difficult to couple on a curve - but probably not as bad as some tension lock couplings in some NEM pockets.  It does depend on radius of the curve.

 

Norm81 - I can but try to upload a picture of a Kaydee fitted Hornby 142.  But as noted, this coupling sits too low.  However I might try an Underset Kaydee and see if that raises the knuckle enough.  Now where did I put my camera?

Yes sorry, Realtrack.  Didnt realise they had been set at a different height as I dont intend to run them in multiple, assuming I ever build a layout to run them on.

[orford]

How do you get on with the magnets and steel tyres & axles, especially on 4-wheel wagons?

 

Kevin - That is the whole point of adding the weight to NMRA standards. It removes that problem completely.

[orford]

Orford, I have to disagree with your assertion "Do not use No5s with UK stock."

 

I have done so with, I feel, success.  OK, I did use them with modern image DMUs - and they don't have buffers.  More to the point, they didn't have couplings either.  And also for some, I did have to use longer reach 40 series couplings (Yeah - I know but the 140 series didn't exist then). 

 

Units given Kaydee couplings include Hornby Cl 142; Bachmann Classes 158, 159, 166, 168, 170 and 171; Dapol classes 150 and 155.  For Hornby Class 153, I use NEM style, as I did for Lima Class 156. 

 

Note that the Lima pocket is really too low and the Class 142s were adjusted to couple with the Lima 156s.  I have since been replacing the Lima NEM style Kaydees with series 5 / 40s so they can couple to correct height Kaydees - But the Hornby Class 142s are still too low.

 

Note also that for the low height couplings, I bent the trip pin to clear running rails.  The point here being that I did have my own standard that worked even if it wasn't interoperable with correct height Kaydees.  I now have two standards which are not interoperable - which in turn is annoying.

 

I also need to consider how to fit Kaydees to Realtrack class 143s

 

Sorry - Maybe I didn't make it clrear. In my post I was referring to the use of Kadees exclusively with steam-era stock, which is my only experience. I couldn't comment on their use with diseasels because I wouldn't be seen dead with any of them on my layouts. Ever. But let's not go there. That would be a different discussion altogether (!)  No.5's might well be perfectly good for fitting to those.

[47137]

Kevin - That is the whole point of adding the weight to NMRA standards. It removes that problem completely.

I'm having grief with early Roco and Lima steel axles over neodymium magnets and the Kadee under-track magnet - they bounce onto the magnet and stick.

 

Is the solution of adding weight to NMRA standards only qualified for the relatively weak Kadee magnets which go between the rails?

 

(Personally, I'm looking at taking some over-length but non-magnetic axles, and cutting them and sleeving to length, but fortunately I've only got four problem wagons)

 

- Richard.

[roundhouse]

I have fitted small pieces of foam between one axle and bogie on my HO Roco wagons. This does appear to reduce the magentic rolling effect. I am using the Kadee under track magnets though.

[kevinlms]

I have fitted small pieces of foam between one axle and bogie on my HO Roco wagons. This does appear to reduce the magentic rolling effect. I am using the Kadee under track magnets though.

Well that was my thought on stopping the 'Road Runner' effect of steel axles & magnets. I fail to see how adding the weight as Orford has mentioned makes any difference. I've certainly added weight to my wagons and it hasn't made the slightest difference.

[Ray H]

I have now read this thread (and a number of the linked website threads) through twice and thank those who have gone to some trouble to detail their experience and offer their guidance. As a result I've finally decided to buy a few packets of Kadees to see how I get on with them. I shall limit my experiments initially to (mainly modern) Bachmann four wheel freight stock and a couple of locos.

Several of the retailers mentioned earlier in this thread, the start of which is now over 2 years old, appear to either have ceased to stock Kadees (or be selling off the few remaining ones they have) or have ceased to trade. Likewise some of the other websites which have been linked to also seem to have departed.

 

I have managed to track a local trader whose website implies they have a stock of the packs of two pairs of all four of the NEM couplers and the insulated height gauge.

DC kits are the only supplier that I can find who advertises the larger packs and also has a range of the 14x range.

 

Should I limit my experimentation to the NEM couplers to start with or should I pitch in with the 14x series from the outset? Has anyone a suggestion for the minimum number of wagons that I should experiment with? My average train length is between 8 and 12 vehicles.

 

There has been mention of using a specific draftbox with the 14x couplings. The Kadee catalogue seems to imply that the 14x series coupling come with a draft box. Is this the draft box referenced previously?

[Smiffy2]

I get mine - no connection - from these ebay sellers

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/252246070170?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&var=551073201202&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

 

Always prompt. Hattons also stock couplers.

 

I've just ordered some whiskered #5s to fit in the old, pre-NEM Mainline coupler boxes. I'll let you know how I get on.

[ejstubbs]

Gaugemaster seemed to have most of the coupler range in stock when I checked last week. Unless I completely misunderstood their web site...

[Allegheny1600]

I'm having grief with early Roco and Lima steel axles over neodymium magnets and the Kadee under-track magnet - they bounce onto the magnet and stick.

 

Is the solution of adding weight to NMRA standards only qualified for the relatively weak Kadee magnets which go between the rails?

 

(Personally, I'm looking at taking some over-length but non-magnetic axles, and cutting them and sleeving to length, but fortunately I've only got four problem wagons)

 

- Richard.

Hi Richard,

In your case, I would be inclined to change the axles to non ferrous materials. Only having four vehicles to do for now, I think that would be your best solution.

Cheers,

John.

[Dunsignalling]

 

There has been mention of using a specific draftbox with the 14x couplings. The Kadee catalogue seems to imply that the 14x series coupling come with a draft box. Is this the draft box referenced previously?

The 14x couplers do come with a draft box (#242) as standard but there are alternatives, #252 (shorter) and #262 (narrower) which are sometimes helpful when trying to fit Kadees in a restricted space.

 

You mention that you look at the Kadee website, so check out those numbers and you will see how they differ from the square-ish standard item. Both come in packs of 20 and I use the #252 quite often, the #262 less so.

 

Regards

 

John

[orford]

I'm having grief with early Roco and Lima steel axles over neodymium magnets and the Kadee under-track magnet - they bounce onto the magnet and stick.

 

Is the solution of adding weight to NMRA standards only qualified for the relatively weak Kadee magnets which go between the rails?

 

(Personally, I'm looking at taking some over-length but non-magnetic axles, and cutting them and sleeving to length, but fortunately I've only got four problem wagons)

 

- Richard.

 

Richard - I cannot vouch for anything but the Kadee magnets.  The Kadee system was designed for USA stock, which is generally weighted to NMRA standards, either as it comes, or by the modellers - and for use with Kadee magnets. In that combination, it works but I can't comment on other magnets.

 

I am a little mystified why anyone would want to use other kinds of magnets anyway rather than those specifically designed for the job. Presumably they will not operate the 'delayed' function, which is an integral part of Kadee use - or will they? 

 

However I fully accept that everyone has the right to use whatever works for them..

Edited January 14, 2016 by orford

[orford]

Well that was my thought on stopping the 'Road Runner' effect of steel axles & magnets. I fail to see how adding the weight as Orford has mentioned makes any difference. I've certainly added weight to my wagons and it hasn't made the slightest difference.

 

But have you just added 'some' ad-hoc weight - or weighted them to strict NMRA standards? 

 

I can only repeat that when weighted to NMRA standards and with standard Kadee between the rails magnets I do NOT get any problems with steel axles - and every single piece of my rolling stock has them.  I cannot explain WHY it works - but it does. Probably because the NMRA weight standards are actually surprisingly heavy (in the eyes of most UK modellers) and I'm guessing that it is simply the sheer heft of a correctly weighted wagon which is sufficient to outweigh the attraction of the magnet to the axles. In other words - it settles for the path of least resistance. Also, as mentioned earlier, I do NOT get accidental uncoupling either. Ever.

 

Those are simple facts as established over many years on my OWN layouts but I cannot vouch for anyone else's experience because there are a dozen and one things you need to take into account with Kadees and all of them have to be spot-on for absolutely flawless operation. Such as: Coupler height, Coupler alignment (to centre), freedom of knuckle movement, trip-pin setting, type of mount, weight of vehicle, position of magnets, correct centering of magnets, magnets at correct height in relation to the tops of the rails, minimum radii....and so on. Sure - they wil probably still work if one or more of these things are a bit out....but you will likely get problems of one sort or another sooner or later if they are. 

 

These are all things which I learned the hard way during 30+ years of modelling the railways of the USA, in at least five different scales from 'N' to 'G', including narrow gauge, but mostly in 'HO' - all with Kadees - and I just applied the same logic to my OO gauge stock when I returned to modelling the railways of Britain. And it works. Perfectly.

 

If anyone really wants me to I would be quite happy to make a video clip for You Tube to demonstrate that exactly what I claim, is indeed the case. 

 

I'm not for one moment suggesting that anyone else has to do the same as I do - merely stating what works for me personally.....and suggesting that it might at least be worth considering/experimenting.

 

In my opinion, American modellers are extremely lucky to have the NMRA Standards to work to, which are nationwide, written down, generally considered sacrosanct and cover just about EVERY aspect of railroad modelling in the USA - and which have been continuously developed and upgraded since the 1950's. The vast majority of serious USA modellers work to those standards and the vast majority of model train manufacturers in the USA supply their models produced to those standards (the cheap 'toy' end of the market excepted of course). It is actually a great shame that here in the UK we have never developed anything similar over the years. If we had done, we wouldn't be forever talking on forums about changing 'RTR' wheels, varying lengths of axles, wheel profile differences between Hornby, Bachmann, et-al - or indeed couplings. But that's another story.  

 

   

Edited January 14, 2016 by orford

[BR60103]

Ray

I agree with a packet of each of the NEM couplers. I use a lot of the longer ones - 19 & 20 - but not so many of the shorter ones. You may find that which one works depends on how sharp your curves are.

Kadee also have packs with one or two each of a variety. Some of them you may never use. One of the packs has some tools as well.

Orford

There are some little cylindrical magnets that can be installed in holes drilled in the roadbed. They are less visible than the Kadee magnets.

[Dunsignalling]

Hi, Richard,

 

Weighting to NMRA standards does the trick largely because it adds rolling resistance (friction) to the wagon. The other thing this achieves is to prevent "bounce" between wagons; it keeps the couplings tight and thereby cures the problem of unwanted separation when pulling a train over permanent magnet uncouplers. 

 

However, I wouldn't advocate it as a starting point if you are new to using Kadees on UK stock and have a lot of models; you have to do them all !

 

Depending on the nature of your layout, you might find that the extra weight (which is substantial) may limit the length of train some locos will pull. In the long term (especially if your layout is a continuous run where mileage will be higher) it can also cause increased wear on bearing surfaces in plastic r-t-r underframes or bowing outwards of axleguards on kit-built wagons.

 

It is also damn near impossible to get any 4-wheel open wagons that you may want to run empty up to the prescribed weight; there simply isn't room. I resorted to scribing planking onto 1mm lead sheet and using it as a floor overlay because I couldn't get enough into and under the chassis.

 

Initially, I suggest using foam to add some drag to your wagons, as illustrated in post 102 of this thread. It is easy to do and suitable foam comes free in much packaging these days. It's simple to vary the thickness to adjust the resistance and dead easy to remove if you don't find the method satisfactory. Best of all, you need only do it to those wagons that "play up".

 

If you don't get on with foam, then consider weighting your stock but, for now, enjoy a bit of experimentation. You will soon find what best suits you and your layout.

 

Regards

 

John   

Edited January 14, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[The Bigbee Line]

It also helps to remove as much magnetic material from the wagon.

[roundhouse]

Oddly some US freight car manufacturers have gone back to using steel axles on some of their items (eg Inter mountain). Even with the correct weight they will roll towards the magnet, so these wheelsets get changed. You can sometimes get away with changing just the outer axle in each truck. I used to do this with Athearn vehicles when I first started modelling US stuff in the early 90's, swapping them with the inner axles on Walther fright cars till I could afford Kadee wheelset replacements.

 

Athearn also used steel weights so those weights than spanned the vehicle to each end were also replaced as they could be a bigger problem than the steel axles.

Edited January 14, 2016 by roundhouse

[orford]

Just for clarity, do you apply the NMRA formula of 3 to 4 ounces per vehicle plus 3/8 oz per inch of length to 4-wheeled stock?

 

The NMRA figures are calculated around US prototypes, and must assume a four-axle car mounted on trucks. One that is six inches long should therefore weigh between 5.25 and 6.25 ounces.

 

I work on the basis that two 2-axle wagons, each three inches long (give or take), should weigh that together, roughly 2.5 to 3 ounces each, then apply 50% of the additional allowance for longer items like CCTs, again adjusting for having only half the axles. In practice, I find that the lower starting weight is ample, being roughly two thirds more than the "bought weight" of a typical r-t-r wagon.

 

John

 

Hi John,

 

I base all my weights on the NMRA table reproduced below, which (for HO - and therefore 'OO') states: 1 ounce initial weight plus half an ounce for each inch of body length.

 

The formula works equally well for short 4-wheeled UK outline wagons and I work out each individual wagon precisely. So the standard Bachmann van shown, which is 2 3/4 inches in length over buffer beams, using this formula, is weighted to a total of  2.375 ounces (including the car itself). Note that it is sitting immediately next to a magnet with NO tendency to be pulled over it via its axles.

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2016 by orford

[Dunsignalling]

Hi John,

 

I base all my weights on the NMRA table reproduced below, which (for HO - and therefore 'OO') states: 1 ounce initial weight plus half an ounce for each inch of body length.

 

The formula works equally well for short 4-wheeled UK outline wagons and I work out each individual wagon precisely. So the standard Bachmann van shown, which is 2 3/4 inches in length over buffer beams, using this formula, is weighted to a total of  2.375 ounces (including the car itself). Note that it is sitting immediately next to a magnet with NO tendency to be pulled over it via its axles.

 

 

nmra.jpg

 

DSCF7249.JPG

I only Googled it this morning as I couldn't find my printed copy. I evidently misread the HOn3 line then recalculated to come up with half-sensible numbers.

 

I am actually due a visit to Specsavers!

 

The figures in "your" table are more familiar and tally with what I have done in the past.

 

I haven't done any lately because the layout I have been contributing to uses Sprat & Winkles which create whole other issues if you are accustomed to Kadees!

 

 

John

 

EDIT: I've deleted my previous post to avoid confusing anybody......

Edited January 15, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[knitpick]

Two images of a Hornby 142 with Kaydee no5s (if I can get the copying to work):

 

One of the 142 and one of it coupled to a Lima 156.  Note that these couplings are LOW and the trip pins are bent up and flat at the bottom to clear rails height.  The whit plasticard packing on the 142 is 3x 60 thou.

[Dungrange]

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.

[TonyA]

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)?

 

 

In my experience, you have to align them carefully and then glue down. The exact alignment, both vertical and horizontal, is critical and the only way to ensure this is to use the alignment jig to glue the uncoupler. A possible alternative might be to use double sided tape but I have not tried this.

 

A few years ago, I added uncouplers after installing a roadway up to the track, which prevented use of the alignment jig. Although I was very careful with the installation, these uncouplers were never completely reliable. It was only when I used the jig on another layout that everything worked properly.

 

Tony