Clagsniffer Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Ive been trawling the many threads written about fitting kadee couplings to the over height pockets on the Bachmann mk1 coaches, what i was wondering is would there be any benefit in fitting a kadee to the body of the coach? If so which would be the number coupling of choice? Ive read about jamming #5 couplings into the original pocket, and the construction of cranked kadees. I have getting close to 50 odd Bachmann mk1's of different vehicle types, BG, SK and buffet etc, and was wondering what the best route was to go down? I run trains up to 8 vehicles in length and do shunting movements at the terminus station. The tightest curve on the layout is 3rd radius and i use peco medium radius points. Any help much appreciated! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonhall Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Body mount would probably be OK if you used a long version, even if the space could be bridged with a medium length coupler I would still use a long, but move the box further inboard, so that you get the widest arc of swing. I've used longs with the head set lower (I can't remember which is overset and which is underset) on Bachmann 159 DMU's which are longer, but they have the advantage of having no buffers to lock. Hattons are selling the long versions of Bachman 'easy mate' couplings in sheets of 12 pairs for £6 at the moment - it brings the cost per vehicle down to a reasonable level, but you will need to buy the boxes seperately, and I found adding shims to the box was required to stop them being droopy. Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium BR60103 Posted February 24, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 24, 2013 The problem is, as usual, the buffers. Best bet is to put 2 coaches together on your sharpest curve so that the inside buffers touch then measure the gap in the outside buffers. Half this gap plus a hair is how far your couplers need to extend. Now you need to find the Kadee that: --mounts at the right height --will extend far enough while mounted on a firm platform behind the buffer beam --doesn't interfere with the bogie The gap may have to be checked with different length vehicles. I might go with the extendible coupler mounts that are available (that's a lot of work). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sulzer27jd Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Bachmann Mk 1's have the NEM pockets on the Bogies. I would use the #17/18 or 19 (I think) depending on how tight your curve is. If it is just too tight on any one size you can put one type in one end and a longer type in the other and buy just a little extra. I converted Lima Mk3's and used body mounted #5's in the draft box and they work fine but are in a fixed rake. The thing to watch if you mix and match stock is the couple head height. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted February 28, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2013 The problem is, as usual, the buffers. Best bet is to put 2 coaches together on your sharpest curve so that the inside buffers touch then measure the gap in the outside buffers. Half this gap plus a hair is how far your couplers need to extend. Now you need to find the Kadee that: --mounts at the right height --will extend far enough while mounted on a firm platform behind the buffer beam --doesn't interfere with the bogie The gap may have to be checked with different length vehicles. I might go with the extendible coupler mounts that are available (that's a lot of work). Bear in mind that real BR Mk.1 coaches couple to each other using buckeye couplers and run with the buffers retracted - there should be a gap of about 3mm in 4mm scale; it is the corridors that need to touch. NEM links on Bachmann coaches are quite 'springy' and tend to distort vertically under load once train-length exceeds five coaches. With tension lock couplers, the hook can rise to compensate; if adjacent Kadees are pulled out of line, they sometimes separate. A Bachmann CCU + NEM Kadee combination will also interact with the undersides of deep BR Mk.1 buffer beams as coaches negotiate changes of curve or gradient; this can and does cause derailments. You will have gathered from the foregoing that I have encountered (and attempted to fix) most of the tribulations that can arise from these coaches. I subsequently discovered a quick, effective alternative cure which I prefer to body-mounting Kadees though it does add a few pounds to the cost of each coach. Keen Systems make stiffer replacement links that are a straight swap for the originals and provide mountings conforming properly to the NEM standard. With appropriate heads fitted, they provide dead-scale gaps between coaches (on straight track) whilst extending to permit the negotiation of 'train-set' curves. (Usual disclaimer). I now fit them to any new Bachmann coaches as a matter of course and am gradually working through my older ones. However, when making up a set of coaches, it is important to remember that CCUs are intended to work in pairs with each coupled quite rigidly to its neighbour. Kadees do not provide this rigidity so I use Kadees (#18 or #19) only on the outer ends of each set with Roco heads (which do) 'inside'. Edited to remove red herring! John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted February 28, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2013 In the market for which Kadees were first designed - US HO, the given wisdom is that you should always mount the couplers on the body, not the bogie (they call 'em trucks) and even with 85'-long passenger cars, almost a foot in length in HO, this works pretty well. But, and it is a very big but, US locos and rolling stock do not use side buffers, with buffing forces being exchanged by the coupler alone. My Hornby Maunsells work fine with Kadee 18s - but they have the swivelling cam mechanism, and I would certainly endorse any suggestions, as above, to include some comparable elasticity for curves, especially when propelling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br-nse-fan Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Thought I would add my two cents to this discussion... I run my Bachmann MK1 & MK2 coaches in fixed rakes, the only shunting that occours is to remove the coaches from the train when they come to a stop in the terminus. Since the longest train I run is 5 coaches, the supplied Bachmann 'hose' coupler is fine for intercoach coupling: The only exception to this is the train that has the Hornby ex-LNER buffet car. For this, I have used the smallest 'standard' couplers I could find. A straight one for the Hornby coach, and cranked couplers for each of the Bachmann's. This actually gives a closer couple than the Bachmann 'hose', but due to the fact that it is not ridgid, I have to be careful when pushing the rake through reverse point work: For at the end of rakes, I was going to invest in some of Mr Keen's replacement coupler arms, but have opted to simply glue a Bachmann EZ-Mate coupler to the underside of the existing Bachmann NEM pocket. This places the knuckle at the correct NEM height for Kadee operation. I don't have a photo of this handy, but I can take a shot when I get home from work this evening if anyone is interested. Hope this helps! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 So far experience suggests body mounting is best- longer trains with bogie mounted couplings-what Kadee refers to as "talgo" mounting* seem far more prone to derailments especially when a train is being backed. I think it's because bogie mounted couplings tend to apply side forces to the bogies that cause them to derail whereas with body mounting the forces should just be downward with the bogies free to swivel to follow the track. You simply need to ensure that- as with the prototype- the side buffers are far enough apart to not interfere with the kadee coupling which as Oldudders says should be transmitting both buffing and coupling forces on its own. * I've no idea why Kadee call this "talgo" mounting as it seems to have nothing in common with the the principles used for the the Talgo trains developed in Spain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br-nse-fan Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 So far experience suggests body mounting is best- longer trains with bogie mounted couplings-what Kadee refers to as "talgo" mounting* seem far more prone to derailments especially when a train is being backed. I could not agree more. Unfortunatly, there is some stock that need to have the Kadee mounted on the bogie / truck due to clearance problems. A couple of examples thus far would be the Bachmann Queen Mary and the Lima Pallet Vans*. *if someone has managed to mount these on the body, please let us know! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted February 28, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2013 I could not agree more. Unfortunatly, there is some stock that need to have the Kadee mounted on the bogie / truck due to clearance problems. A couple of examples thus far would be the Bachmann Queen Mary and the Lima Pallet Vans*. *if someone has managed to mount these on the body, please let us know! Umm - #5s? My Queen Mary brake has #5s in their boxes glued below the buffer beam. I have removed the end bolster(?) from the bogie, and I suppose it wouldn't like tight bends, but it certainly negotiates 2' radius without problems in my limited layout operations to date. Furthermore, it is quite feasible to remove the back portion of a #5 box to increase clearances, so that might offer a little more easement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted February 28, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2013 I could not agree more. Unfortunatly, there is some stock that need to have the Kadee mounted on the bogie / truck due to clearance problems. A couple of examples thus far would be the Bachmann Queen Mary and the Lima Pallet Vans*. *if someone has managed to mount these on the body, please let us know! Depending on the tightest radius on your layout there are a couple of possibilities for mainframe mounting couplers on the Queen Mary brake. My original one has bogie mounted #26s but my second one will receive one or the other. I have successfully used both on other models. 1. #36 or the equivalent #146 whisker type fitted into the optional (smaller) #252 draft box. 2. One of the NEM heads (probably #18 or #19) mounted on a Gutzold 1170 close coupler unit (or the similar Symoba product). Either method will require removal of the centre portion of the bogie end (the bit on which the tension lock coupler is mounted) but should allow retention of the portion on each side. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Bachmann Mk 1's have the NEM pockets on the Bogies. Um, no they dont - the couplings are mounted in their extender thingie which isnt attached to the bogie at all HTH Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted February 28, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 28, 2013 Thought I would add my two cents to this discussion... I run my Bachmann MK1 & MK2 coaches in fixed rakes, the only shunting that occours is to remove the coaches from the train when they come to a stop in the terminus. Since the longest train I run is 5 coaches, the supplied Bachmann 'hose' coupler is fine for intercoach coupling: IMG-20121210-00018-edit.jpg The only exception to this is the train that has the Hornby ex-LNER buffet car. For this, I have used the smallest 'standard' couplers I could find. A straight one for the Hornby coach, and cranked couplers for each of the Bachmann's. This actually gives a closer couple than the Bachmann 'hose', but due to the fact that it is not ridgid, I have to be careful when pushing the rake through reverse point work: IMG-20121210-00017-edit.jpg For at the end of rakes, I was going to invest in some of Mr Keen's replacement coupler arms, but have opted to simply glue a Bachmann EZ-Mate coupler to the underside of the existing Bachmann NEM pocket. This places the knuckle at the correct NEM height for Kadee operation. I don't have a photo of this handy, but I can take a shot when I get home from work this evening if anyone is interested. Hope this helps! You should be able to overcome the propelling issue by using Hornby R8220 heads. Because of the height mismatch between Hornby and Bachmann pockets, they will probably need to be mounted like your EZ-Mates on the Bachmann coaches. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Tomlinson Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 You could take the thought process a step further and dispense with the box altogether. I've used a top hat bearing, along with a few washers, to hold the Kadee couplings, attached to the coach end undersides with a self tap screw. This allows the coupling to pivot, and with a bit of planning/ trial and error the position can be set to give the closest coach to coach distance to allow free running on your layout's curves. The idea of attachment to the body is far sounder in any case than attaching to the bogie, which introduces turning forces on to the bogie where they shouldn't be. I've found the 30g coach weight in Bachmann Mk1's to be redundant under my system, which is more stable, and this is quite useful if your layout has hills. John. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted March 1, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 1, 2013 I was asked for a snap of my QM. I've whipped the bogies off for easy reference. Basically, I use a spare #5 box glued behind the buffer-beam as support, then glue the coupling in its box on top, over(under)lapping the buffer beam by the required distance. I find if the inner coupler face is slightly beyond the buffer faces, all is reasonably well on my curves, which don't really go below 2' radius. The bogies do need to have the end-bolster removed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br-nse-fan Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Thanks for the photo Ian! After looking at your QM, I think I will re-try fitting a 146 w/ 252 box. I had previously tried with a 16, but found I did not have enough clearance. I personally try to avoid the 5's due to the fact that I hate seeing the box sticking out from behind the buffer beam! Derek Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazza. Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 Hi, As the Southern ran most of their coaching stock in fixed sets, all my Bachmann Buleid coaches are in 3 and 4 car sets. I mounted screw couplings and sprung buffers on the outer ends of the coaches in the sets and mounted Kadee #4 couplers which have a coil centering spring, on all the other coach ends in the set. First I cut the buffer shanks off, then I drilled and filled out the buffer shank housings and re-fitted the buffers in the retracted position on each coach. And like Oldddudders above, I glued, this time a #4 metal draft gear box to the underside of the coach so that like the prototype, the buckeye coupler is on the same centre line as the now retracted buffers. This setup works for me, and I hope that is a help to you. Regards Bazza Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.