Preferred height for Kadee couplers on UK 4mm scale models

[47137]

A nice result of today's network problem is I done all my 28 Kadee conversions (56 pairs). I am testing them merely in pairs over a Kadee uncoupler, I think the complete set of permutations is now untestable (2^55?). But my wheels have varied a lot ...

... I think this all reflects the greater influence of the NMRA. If you're a manufacturer selling into the US market and don't follow their standards you probably won't be in business for long.

I would like to think this is so. Here are some of my wagon wheels: Bachmann (left), then Markits, Hornby, Dapol:

The Bachmann ones have nearly cylindrical not conical treads (a bit like old Hornby Dublo wheels), the Hornby ones are commendably thin but eccentric on their axles, and the Dapol ones look good to me, if a bit broad. (I think I have caught all the Bachmann and Hornby ones, they are now either Gibson or Markits).

On a Kadee leaflet supplied with the NEM couplers it states the 9.9mm centre height is subject to a tolerance of +/-0.4mm ... the Hornby ones would use up at least half of this just turning round; and the Bachmann ones are more likely to be slopped sideways. Do Bachmann use a better profile on models for their home market?

 

[Pacific231G]

A nice result of today's network problem is I done all my 28 Kadee conversions (56 pairs). I am testing them merely in pairs over a Kadee uncoupler, I think the complete set of permutations is now untestable (2^55?). But my wheels have varied a lot ...

I would like to think this is so. Here are some of my wagon wheels: Bachmann (left), then Markits, Hornby, Dapol:

DSCF9886.jpg

The Bachmann ones have nearly cylindrical not conical treads (a bit like old Hornby Dublo wheels), the Hornby ones are commendably thin but eccentric on their axles, and the Dapol ones look good to me, if a bit broad. (I think I have caught all the Bachmann and Hornby ones, they are now either Gibson or Markits).

 

On a Kadee leaflet supplied with the NEM couplers it states the 9.9mm centre height is subject to a tolerance of +/-0.4mm ... the Hornby ones would use up at least half of this just turning round; and the Bachmann ones are more likely to be slopped sideways. Do Bachmann use a better profile on models for their home market?

According to Bachmann's US website "virtually all their equipment" is now fitted with RP25 profile wheels so I'd say that's a yes!

 

It's actually a bit more complicated than that and it's taken me a while to get my head round it.

So far as I can make out, RP25 http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp25.html isn't a single set of dimensions for each gauge but a specification that defines the profile of the wheel based on its overall width. This is gauge independent and as with rail there is a code based on the overall width in thousandths of an inch. Proprietary H0 wheels in the US are usually to code 110. RP25/110 is what manufacturers generally mean when they say their wheels are "RP25". That's a lot wider than prototype though without the "pizza cutter" flanges that we've all seen. In the US market finer scale wheelsets such as RP25/88 are available but that's still some way from dead scale. In H0 scale would be equivalent to code 64 (0.064 inch) but for "dead scale" the NMRA has adopted "proto" standards drawn from P87 which they acknowledge came from work in this country. There's more on this in an NMRA technical note http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/TN_1_1_2.pdf

Edited June 16, 2013 by Pacific231G

[BR60103]

If I remember from umpty-dump decades ago when RP25 first came out, one of the main features/requirements was a lot of curved transitions -- between the tread and flange and then on the flange itself. The idea was that the curves would let the wheel roll off some of the worst irregularities in the track, unlike the rather sharp flanges that were often provided (codename: pizza cutter) which would catch in rail joints.

[Dunsignalling]

A nice result of today's network problem is I done all my 28 Kadee conversions (56 pairs). I am testing them merely in pairs over a Kadee uncoupler, I think the complete set of permutations is now untestable (2^55?). But my wheels have varied a lot ...

I would like to think this is so. Here are some of my wagon wheels: Bachmann (left), then Markits, Hornby, Dapol:

DSCF9886.jpg

The Bachmann ones have nearly cylindrical not conical treads (a bit like old Hornby Dublo wheels), the Hornby ones are commendably thin but eccentric on their axles, and the Dapol ones look good to me, if a bit broad. (I think I have caught all the Bachmann and Hornby ones, they are now either Gibson or Markits).

 

On a Kadee leaflet supplied with the NEM couplers it states the 9.9mm centre height is subject to a tolerance of +/-0.4mm ... the Hornby ones would use up at least half of this just turning round; and the Bachmann ones are more likely to be slopped sideways. Do Bachmann use a better profile on models for their home market?

I, too replace most r-t-r wagon wheels with Gibson or Markits (before fitting Kadees, as they slightly lower ride-height). Dapol wheels are made from a lighter metal (aluminium?) that picks up dirt more readily than most; I usually substitute them with surplus Bachmann items.

 

Gibson 3-holes, in particular, look so much better than what comes as standard, as well as offering improved running.

 

R-t-r coach wheels are usually OK, though the very obtrusive "chrome" look is a pet hate of mine which creates extra work on everything I buy. I just paint recent Hornby wheels but I found by chance that Bachmann Mk.1s seem to run more freely on Markits wheels.

 

I recycle the ex-Mk.1 wheels onto older models, including Bachmann stock originally fitted with tubular plastic axles, quite a few of which have been coming loose of late; probably a symptom of old age. The newer Bachmann wheels often seem to run better on these older models than they did on their vehicles of origin!  

 

I naturally re-gauge the Kadees on any vehicles so altered to make sure the ride-height hasn't changed.

 

John

[47137]

Ah-ha! Pacific231's last post above has taken me to the NMRA web site, where I found their specifications for the heights of couplers: http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-2_2010.07.pdf

 

I think they are showing scale heights for US prototypes. For 00 scale (but admittedly, not 00 gauge), they specify a height of 11.50 mm, as opposed to 9.93 mm for HO. Remarkably (given models use the same coupler), they give a larger tolerance on the height: +/- 0.5 mm instead of 0.4 mm. This could point to many of the doubts which people have found and resolved on this thread.

[bazza.]

Some contributors to this discussion have asked how many UK modellers use Kadee couplers and I asked Kadee how many they sell in the UK. The answer to the question remains an unknown, but their response does give me a fresh idea, which goes back to the title of the thread ...

I asked:

"I have started an interesting discussion at www.rmweb.co.uk entitled "Preferred height for Kadee couplers on UK 4mm scale models", there have been over sixty messages so far. The contributors agree the best height is the HO height (25/64"), and there is a lot of constructive input about how to modify UK ready to run models to fit Kadees. There is one nagging question: "what proportion of UK modellers use Kadee couplers?" If (for example) you could tell me how many couplers you sell in the UK each year, I could offer this to the forum and we could try some arithmetic, for example suppose a total of 50 wagons and locos per average user, then estimate the number of users. I believe all Kadee installations on UK models are done by modellers themselves, there is no ready to run equipment already fitted. Regards etc"

 

And Kadee replied:

"Very interesting and informative discussion you started. We have to deal with the coupler height difference between HO scale (25/64" 9.9 mm ) and OO scale (29/64" 12 mm) especially using the NEM coupler pockets.

 

We have no way of measuring the market share for the UK or anywhere else. Even if we could we'd keep that info to ourselves as proprietary info. As far as our sales lines up it goes about like this, USA/Canada is the largest of course, the UK and Australia are about even, mainland Europe next, then the rest of the world has the last share of our sales.

 

We do find that most of the modelers we help from the UK with coupler conversions are individuals and not shops or clubs.

 

We do sell to certain manufactures that use our couplers on their models. ExactRail, Intermoutain, BLMA, Tangent, MTH, (some) Broadway Limited, and various others (smaller)".

 

- - - 

 

I had not read about the 29/64” / 12 mm height for 00, but I get the feeling most 00 modellers who use Kadees as general-purpose couplers (meaning as a resource, not within a fixed rake) try to put them at the HO height of 25/64” / 9.9 mm. I think I have learnt at least four reasons for this in this thread: to fit below UK buffer beams; to work with NEM pockets; to use delayed uncoupling; to use the HO standard. I wonder ... should we ask Kadee to set their recommended height for 00 to match their standard for HO?

 

As I paste in this text, I am wondering, by ‘00’ do they mean ‘American 00’, but I think this is worth sharing.

 

 

Hi Richard 1962'

 

In answer to your question! My preferred height for Kadee couplers on my UK 4mm scale models is 14 mm.

 

First, I did try to mount my #4 Kadee couplers at the height recommended by Kadee. At first I cound not find any any old rulers in my houshold, when I finally found one I nearly went cross-eyed trying to work out 25/64", seriously do people still use fractions of an inch?  I gave up trying to mount the coupler at 25/64" and mounted it instead at 10mm which is only 0.0781mm higher than the recommended height, confident that the coupled would silll work at that height.

 

Suprise, suprise, the coupler It did work at a height of 10mm, but while a Kadee coupler looks right at that height on North American stock, visibly it looked wrong on my UK 4mm scale coaches, and even more so when not in the droped position on a Bachmann 4CEP or 2EPB.

 

Instead of being out of sight below the coach corridor conections, the kadee coupler when mounted at 10mm seemed to dangle below the corridor conections like they had fallen off the model.

 

As the drop-buckeye coupler is mounted on the buffer beam at the same height on the buffer beam as the side buffers on real UK coaching stock at a height of

3'-5 1/2" (1054mm), I cut into the coach buffer beam and remounted my #4 Kadee couplers at a 4mm/ft scale height of 14mm.

 

Result, they work well and most importantly they look correct when mounted on a model coach, and when coupled to other coaches.

 

Bazza

[47137]

In answer to your question! My preferred height for Kadee couplers on my UK 4mm scale models is 14 mm.

Thanks for this. Most of this thread has talked about using Kadees as a general purpose resource where 9.9 mm puts the coupler below a three-link hook, rather than as a representation of a real UK coupler, so here is a link in case people come back in the months to come:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/68619-body-mount-or-bogie-mount-for-kadee-couplings/

[47137]

I bought a rolling road last weekend and soon discovered that most of my rtr locos waddle, the buffer beams (and couplings) move sideways as the wheels turn, usually one 'kick' at the same part of each revolution of the wheels. Naturally enough, the longer the overhang (like the front of a 4-6-0), the worse the movement is. Looking at a Bachmann 03, a Hornby 08 and two of their J94s, the usual moverment is up to +/- 1mm.

 

Given much uncoupling is between a loco and its train, this could be why many people regard Kadees as a fiddle or unreliable. It is probably a lot more significant than wheel profile or sideways slop; and of, course, the tension lock coupler just soaks it up unnoticed. Actually, one of my J94's was waddling nearly +1 mm / -2mm - this was a tight coupling rod pulling the wheels and axles in their bearings. I solved it with a droplet of oil on each crankpin, perhaps I was lucky. For the others, I guess the cause is wheels crooked on their axles, wrong quartering or tight crankpins. All of these locos have coupling rods ... my Dapol Sentinel is fine.

 

I have always used an oval of Setrack for running in locos; but a rolling road shows mechanical problems much better.

[Dunsignalling]

I bought a rolling road last weekend and soon discovered that most of my rtr locos waddle, the buffer beams (and couplings) move sideways as the wheels turn, usually one 'kick' at the same part of each revolution of the wheels. Naturally enough, the longer the overhang (like the front of a 4-6-0), the worse the movement is. Looking at a Bachmann 03, a Hornby 08 and two of their J94s, the usual moverment is up to +/- 1mm.

 

Given much uncoupling is between a loco and its train, this could be why many people regard Kadees as a fiddle or unreliable. It is probably a lot more significant than wheel profile or sideways slop; and of, course, the tension lock coupler just soaks it up unnoticed. Actually, one of my J94's was waddling nearly +1 mm / -2mm - this was a tight coupling rod pulling the wheels and axles in their bearings. I solved it with a droplet of oil on each crankpin, perhaps I was lucky. For the others, I guess the cause is wheels crooked on their axles, wrong quartering or tight crankpins. All of these locos have coupling rods ... my Dapol Sentinel is fine.

 

I have always used an oval of Setrack for running in locos; but a rolling road shows mechanical problems much better.

Sideways 'waddling' doesn't cause problems for Kadees in my experience but any vertical movement in excess of a millimetre or so can.

 

John

[Pacific231G]

Ah-ha! Pacific231's last post above has taken me to the NMRA web site, where I found their specifications for the heights of couplers: http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-2_2010.07.pdf

 

I think they are showing scale heights for US prototypes. For 00 scale (but admittedly, not 00 gauge), they specify a height of 11.50 mm, as opposed to 9.93 mm for HO. Remarkably (given models use the same coupler), they give a larger tolerance on the height: +/- 0.5 mm instead of 0.4 mm. This could point to many of the doubts which people have found and resolved on this thread.

 

Thanks for finding the NMRA standard document. I've checked the maths and they are both based on US prototype coupler height. The NMRA's tolerances are based on the prototype tolerance of + or - 1.5 inches so they will increase with scale. The difference between a tolerance of 0.5 mm and 0.4 mm is, to the nearest tenth of a mm,  the same as the difference between 4mm/ft and 3.5mm/ft. 

In practice most modellers probably would use the same couplers for H0 and 00 despite the difference in scale - standard Kadee H0 couplers are a bit overscale anyway even for 00 scale- but the standard is scale based 

 

However, there are anomalies in the NMRA standards for coupler heights. For standard gauge American railroads coupler height is 33 inches + or - 1.5 inches*   However, if you multiply the NMRA standard height by the scale you often get a different height. For American 0 scale of 1:48 it is 33 inches but for both H0 and 00 it scales and the other smaller scales it comes out as 34 inches + or - 1.5 inches. I don't know if there's a reason for this or if it's just an error that crept in many years ago.  

 

 

* AAR rule16 E12 gives an allowable range of 31.5-33.5 fully loaded and 32.5-34.5 unloaded from the top of the rail to the centre of the knuckle face.

[298]

I bought a rolling road last weekend and soon discovered that most of my rtr locos waddle, the buffer beams (and couplings) move sideways as the wheels turn, usually one 'kick' at the same part of each revolution of the wheels. Naturally enough, the longer the overhang (like the front of a 4-6-0), the worse the movement is. Looking at a Bachmann 03, a Hornby 08 and two of their J94s, the usual moverment is up to +/- 1mm.

 

Given much uncoupling is between a loco and its train, this could be why many people regard Kadees as a fiddle or unreliable. It is probably a lot more significant than wheel profile or sideways slop; and of, course, the tension lock coupler just soaks it up unnoticed. Actually, one of my J94's was waddling nearly +1 mm / -2mm - this was a tight coupling rod pulling the wheels and axles in their bearings. I solved it with a droplet of oil on each crankpin, perhaps I was lucky. For the others, I guess the cause is wheels crooked on their axles, wrong quartering or tight crankpins. All of these locos have coupling rods ... my Dapol Sentinel is fine.

 

I have always used an oval of Setrack for running in locos; but a rolling road shows mechanical problems much better.

 

I approve of your methods for running in, although I do use a mix of temporary setrack and Baycrus rollers. But taking a general view of points made throughout this thread, I doubt Kadee's are a fiddle and certainly aren't unreliable, providing they are used within their tolerances. Any issues that occur are different to those that happen and are attempted to be engineered out in their home market- certain Kadee clones are even advertised for their ability to hold a long train together and their abilities to align vertically to prevent uncoupling through height abnormalities. I've seen Kadee's on their limit on a US HO layout, and that was when the drag from the train must have been in excess of anything a 4mm scale modeller would call a realistic train length.

 

I can only conclude that alot of issues are caused by those damn NEM boxes and a "That'll do" atitude that often prevails in the hobby in an attempt to make things look easy by brushing issues under the carpet, a bit like assuming you can wire a layout for DCC by simply disconnecting the old controller and wiring the new one in, because if something worked fine before then it'll still be OK.

 

I can only see "waddle" as an issue where sharp  or "S" curves have already limited the coupler's sideways travel, although other issues may occur due to the vehicle dynamics because of shorter and more varied stock lengths, and unfeasable changes in vertical transition on a gradient. 

[Dunsignalling]

I approve of your methods for running in, although I do use a mix of temporary setrack and Baycrus rollers. But taking a general view of points made throughout this thread, I doubt Kadee's are a fiddle and certainly aren't unreliable, providing they are used within their tolerances. Any issues that occur are different to those that happen and are attempted to be engineered out in their home market- certain Kadee clones are even advertised for their ability to hold a long train together and their abilities to align vertically to prevent uncoupling through height abnormalities. I've seen Kadee's on their limit on a US HO layout, and that was when the drag from the train must have been in excess of anything a 4mm scale modeller would call a realistic train length.

 

I can only conclude that alot of issues are caused by those damn NEM boxes and a "That'll do" atitude that often prevails in the hobby in an attempt to make things look easy by brushing issues under the carpet, a bit like assuming you can wire a layout for DCC by simply disconnecting the old controller and wiring the new one in, because if something worked fine before then it'll still be OK.

 

I can only see "waddle" as an issue where sharp or "S" curves have already limited the coupler's sideways travel, although other issues may occur due to the vehicle dynamics because of shorter and more varied stock lengths, and unfeasable changes in vertical transition on a gradient.

The issue is not that Kadees are problematic, which they certainly are not. Rather that OO modellers have been used to the old (large) tension lock couplings, which allowed them to get away with all manner of sins relating to track alignment, changes of gradient, warped baseboards etc.

 

It is interesting that many users of the new mini tension-locks have similar issues to many of those raised in this thread.

 

Perhaps it just needs to be pointed out that small couplers (of any design) inevitably involve tighter tolerances than large ones and will be less forgiving of any geometrical shortcomings they encounter in their working environment.

 

John

 

Edit to add missing "to"

Edited June 22, 2013 by Dunsignalling

[BR60103]

On my just dismantled layout I had a rather severe vertical curve obtuse angle at the top of a grade.  I often found that carriages would disconnect when the leading car reached the flat position while the trailer was still on the grade.

 

I think that NMRA specs for OO should be ignored as OO has had no American presence since WW 2.  I don't believe that there are any commercial products available -- certainly less than British HO.

Edited June 23, 2013 by BR60103

[Dunsignalling]

I bought a rolling road last weekend and soon discovered that most of my rtr locos waddle, the buffer beams (and couplings) move sideways as the wheels turn, usually one 'kick' at the same part of each revolution of the wheels. 

 

Actually, one of my J94's was waddling nearly +1 mm / -2mm - this was a tight coupling rod pulling the wheels and axles in their bearings. I solved it with a droplet of oil on each crankpin, perhaps I was lucky. .

 

I have always used an oval of Setrack for running in locos; but a rolling road shows mechanical problems much better.

Rolling roads are a real boon, they let you analyse what is going on in a way that is impossible on a layout and usually inconclusive running a loco up and down a yard of track.

 

Lubrication of valve gear on new r-t-r locos is a pre-requisite for decent running. Since the introduction of transparent packaging, I have noticed that the amount of factory-applied lubrication is much reduced and valve gear doesn't seem to get any at all. I would guess this is to avoid any getting onto the box liner and spoiling its appearance.  

 

One of my Bachmann 3MT tanks waddled very badly out of the box but went into full 'sewing machine' mode as soon as I oiled the motion.

 

John

[47137]

...

I can only see "waddle" as an issue where sharp  or "S" curves have already limited the coupler's sideways travel, although other issues may occur due to the vehicle dynamics because of shorter and more varied stock lengths, and unfeasable changes in vertical transition on a gradient.

This photograph is an attempt to show a slightly contrived example. Imagine the loco approaching from the right intending to collect the wagon. The combination of a fairly gentle curve (about 4' 6" radius) and an exaggerated 'waddle' put the couplers out of alignment. When the loco meets the wagon, it pushes it away.

 

 

If this is any help, at the moment (Kadee beginner, four week's use) I have never seen a train divide itself (two hours on club layout) and uncoupling with a magnet between the rails works perfectly on most of the stock, and hardly ever on a couple of wagons. If I have a 'problem' it is that the stock runs so freely then it sometimes just rolls away from the approaching coupler. There is a lot of useful guidance about adding weight to wagons in this thread, but I have put off doing this until I have an '00' layout of my own. The sharp-eyed will see evidence that the track in the photo is glued down; I made a start yesterday.

[Pacific231G]

 

 

I think that NMRA specs for OO should be ignored as OO has had no American presence since WW 2. I don't believe that there are any commercial products available -- certainly less than British HO.

American 00 (4mm/ft scale with 19mm gauge track) does still have a sufficient following for an NMRA SIG http://www.nmra.org/national/sig/AmericanOO.htm For them, just as with other niche scales such as S, the NMRA standards are relevant. However, though the standards allow for it, I doubt whether modellers in American 00 actually use looser tolerances than those working in H0. As there's more scratchbuilding involved it's probably the other way round.

 

I'd agree though that the standards for American 00 are irrelevant to the use of Kadees in British 00. Here they're either used as a non-protoypical automatic coupler, set beneath the buffer beam of vehicles that would in reality use 3-link or screw coupling, or to represent the British use of AAR "Buckeye" couplers on coaches and other vehicles. As these are normally at 39 inches rather than the American 33 inch height it's really up to individual modellers how to use them. Has anyone come up with a working drophead coupler using a Kadee head or does the need to retract the buffers make that impossible?

Edited June 23, 2013 by Pacific231G

[Dunsignalling]

This photograph is an attempt to show a slightly contrived example. Imagine the loco approaching from the right intending to collect the wagon. The combination of a fairly gentle curve (about 4' 6" radius) and an exaggerated 'waddle' put the couplers out of alignment. When the loco meets the wagon, it pushes it away.

 

DSCF9901.jpg

 

If this is any help, at the moment (Kadee beginner, four week's use) I have never seen a train divide itself (two hours on club layout) and uncoupling with a magnet between the rails works perfectly on most of the stock, and hardly ever on a couple of wagons. If I have a 'problem' it is that the stock runs so freely then it sometimes just rolls away from the approaching coupler. There is a lot of useful guidance about adding weight to wagons in this thread, but I have put off doing this until I have an '00' layout of my own. The sharp-eyed will see evidence that the track in the photo is glued down; I made a start yesterday.

Successful coupling up on curves is very unpredictable - sometimes it works but often it doesn't..

 

As you can see from your photo, the two couplers often meet at the angle you want them to when using the delay facility that allows vehicles to be propelled without re-coupling!

 

If the two vehicles were similar wagons, they might couple but the major factor here is the distance between the leading axle and the coupler on the shunting loco. An 03 is not much longer, overall, than a 6-wheel tanker but the displacement of its coupler toward the outer rail is much greater than that on the wagon.

 

John

Edited June 23, 2013 by Dunsignalling

[47137]

I have built a test track with one of Kadee's #308 'under the track' uncouplers. Free-running wagons with a steel weight inside them will accelerate towards it, overshoot a tad and then sort of 'boing' their way back to sit squarely over the top of it. Am I the only person this happens to?

[BR60103]

Kadee make non-magnetic axles because of this.  Don't know of any non-magnetic weights.  This factor may also cause accidental uncoupling.

 

Kadee's wheelsets, unfortunately, are 33" and 36" in HO -- 9.625 and 10,5 mm

[Dunsignalling]

I have built a test track with one of Kadee's #308 'under the track' uncouplers. Free-running wagons with a steel weight inside them will accelerate towards it, overshoot a tad and then sort of 'boing' their way back to sit squarely over the top of it. Am I the only person this happens to?

No, you definitely aren't alone, Richard; those 308s are seriously strong!

 

This is one reason I take out the steel weights and replace them with a bit of lead flashing (as used on house roofs). This makes my wagons a bit heavier, which helps too (I covered vehicle weight more fully in post 57 of this thread).

 

Non-magnetic axles would also be a great help but the only UK products I have come across with them have been Chivers O-16.5 wagon kits. Does anybody out there know of a source of such axles in 2mm x 26.5mm pinpoint format?

 

I once modified over twenty of the old 'through-the track' electric uncouplers for a well-known exhibition layout to make them almost invisible, only for Kadee to introduce an 'under-the-ties' version, #309, which does it better, straight from the packet! I will definitely be using these on the scenic parts of my next layout!

 

John

Edited June 28, 2013 by Dunsignalling

[47137]

Well, I must do something! In this photo, the loco is pulling the wagon using the magnetic attraction of the two trip pins, after leaving the wagon after a delayed uncoupling. More weight in the wagon should sort this one out. Unfortunately I read post no. 57 as "add some extra weight using sheet lead" (my mistake), concluded my wagons didn't have enough room to add anything significant, and let it pass. On the bright side, only one of my wagons is glued together, so it should be straightforward to dismantle them, remove the steel plates and add some lead in their place. Somewhere I have a bag of liquid lead (about 'rat size' lead shot) and this would be ideal. Unfortunately I had a tidy up a few months ago ...

 

[kevinlms]

Kadee make non-magnetic axles because of this.  Don't know of any non-magnetic weights.  This factor may also cause accidental uncoupling.

 

Kadee's wheelsets, unfortunately, are 33" and 36" in HO -- 9.625 and 10,5 mm

While the wheels are useless, what about axles only? What is needed is non-steel (brass?) axles of 26mm long & 2mm diameter. I can't see any such item in Kadee's price list. North West Short Line, have axles of that length (1.015"), but doesn't mention the material made of.

Someone must make them, then its a case of taking the axles off the steel ones & replacing them.

[Dunsignalling]

Well, I must do something! In this photo, the loco is pulling the wagon using the magnetic attraction of the two trip pins, after leaving the wagon after a delayed uncoupling. More weight in the wagon should sort this one out. Unfortunately I read post no. 57 as "add some extra weight using sheet lead" (my mistake), concluded my wagons didn't have enough room to add anything significant, and let it pass. On the bright side, only one of my wagons is glued together, so it should be straightforward to dismantle them, remove the steel plates and add some lead in their place. Somewhere I have a bag of liquid lead (about 'rat size' lead shot) and this would be ideal. Unfortunately I had a tidy up a few months ago ...

 

DSCF9911.jpg

Wow! I've never had that happen, your wagon must be very free running indeed.

 

As your photo shows, problems can arise when shunting a single wagon; two or more usually have enough resistance to overcome it.

 

With open wagons, I really recommend using lead flashing rather than shot - there are no air gaps so you can get more weight in a given space. I'm still recycling old stuff that came off my roof when it was re-done a few years ago but Builders Merchants sell it off rolls about 6" wide so it shouldn't be too expensive to get a foot or so that will do lots of wagons.

 

Open wagons without loads can be a real problem - I make the new weight to fill as much of the chassis as possible without interfering with the wheels. It is easily cut with a small pair of snips (or even a large pair!). Cut away any unnecessary part of the moulding to make room (e.g. the little tubes that are often provided to accommodate the ends of straining rods if the chassis is used under a tank wagon but are otherwise superfluous. 

 

Another way to add resistance is to add a small cube of high density foam (the dark grey stuff) to the underside of the wagon, cut a slit half way through; this slips over the axle from above and holds the cube in place without glue.

 

If you have purchased any of those stock storage inserts for Really Useful Boxes or similar at shows, the spare bits you take out are an ideal source of the right sort of foam.

 

John   

[47137]

Edit: WARNING do not use PVA with lead, this can create corrosion and white lead, a toxic heavy metal dust. See next post number 101 by Ravenser on next page of this thread.

 

I haven't got any lead sheet (and the builder's merchants are shut) but I have found my bag of lead shot, it is marketed as 'Fluid Lead' with a spec. diameter of 0,5 to 1,0 mm. Still wanting to try this (instead of lead strip), I stripped the grey open wagon in my last post, took out the steel weight and put a puddle of dilute pva into the underframe. For this particular moulding (Bachmann), there is nowhere for it to run out. Then I filled it level with the lead shot, and used a cocktail stick to clear the area around the fixing holes for the bosses on the underneath of the body (photo).

 

The result is quite dramatic: the original wagon (with shortened steel weight) weighed 21 g; it now weighs 31 g. The steel weight weighs 5 g, so the lead must be three times as much, 15 g. Above all, the wagon now 'feels' a whole lot better, tho' I suppose it will now wear out its axle bearings more quickly and someone will tell me I will have to fit brass ones. I am very pleased so far. (The wagon is probably the one in my post number 73 on 15th June, but I'm not sure).

 

 

(Edited to add warning notice above)

Edited June 30, 2013 by Richard1962

[kevpeo]

I found these while ''browsing'' -

 

http://www.dckits-devideos.co.uk/shop/blk_beetle_motors_wheels/new_nickle_silver_high_quality_wheels_sets_on_hardened_non_magnetic_brass_axles_pack_of_2_.php

 

Brass axles and 10.5, 12 & 14mm Dia. Not cheap though! Kev.