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 ...

I printed out the order form on the WLA web site, filled it in and posted it with a cheque for the deposit to the address on the form. I received an acknowledgement by return from a person 'John' who uses the mailbox t.hallowes015@btinternet.com, and later an email from Paul Davies of the WLA, who told me he is hoping the day draws closer when the models will arrive on these shores! Perhaps your contact is just away for a few days, and they don't have enough people to cover.

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?

I wrote to Dapol to ask them if they could send me the missing sandboxes, and they referred me to DCC Supplies. I wrote to DCC Supplies; they replied by return of email with a request for my address; and the missing sandboxes arrived in the post today - complete with an invoice with the relevant details and a discount of 100% applied! I have fitted the parts, and so my blue 'Western', which I shall probably call 'Western Lugs' until I decide on a proper name for it or fit the parts supplied for 1005 Venturer, is now complete. So again, top marks to Dapol and to DCC Supplies. I have one tiny doubt. Effectively, I bought a RTR model railway locomotive, which happens to come with an pack of unspecified extra parts. The pack is not described in the manufacturer's literature. If the supplier had not been Dapol / DCC Supplies, could the supplier have reasonably told me I had no right to expect particular accessory parts? As it happens, they are illustrated for the 'Western' in one of Andy Y's posts here; but this whole thread and the approach to a new RTR model it represents is in a class of its own.

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.

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.

Yes, "Sand box 2". (The narrower version beside the speedo cables being "Sand box 1"). The spares page is quite informative about all the hoses too!. Many thanks.

I am working my way through my accessory bag. There are four tension lock couplers in there instead of two, but the two "broad fluid fillers" which go into the sole bars on the opposite side to the speedo cables are missing. What do these represent, so I know what to ask Dapol for? (The other contents of the bag are complete and correct).

At my step number 2, I put a finger over the top of the blade before cutting so the loose lug can only stay where it is on the post card. Then I pick up the sprue using the scalpel, move it away from the lug, and go on to step 3. You need to keep a "dry finger" for step 2, separate from the one you keep wetting to pick up the lug in the step 3. (This could have been another photo at position 2.5, but it would have shown only a collection of fingers). I found the needle helpful because the taper means the lug always stops in the same place and the process becomes quite consistent from one lug to the next. However someone might like to blend the two techniques together: hold the lug on the needle and then cut it off with the side cutters. If the carpet monster is a problem, you could try working inside a clear plastic bag. I did cheat a bit, I put two or three lugs in 'dry' and then added the solvent. This would be impossible using super glue, so perhaps the solvent approach is a bit quicker. "To lose one lug may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose any of The Macallan looks like carelessness".

I haven't seen much about fixing the roof lugs, this is my approach in case anyone finds it useful: 1. Tools required are a scalpel, a clean white post card, a needle and a pencil rubber. Push the needle through the rubber to make a handle for it. 2. Place the edge of the scalpel against the moulding. I am not using an 'Optivisor' or equivalent, it is easy to feel when the blade is in the right place. Cut out the lug, keeping it on the post card. 3. Lick a finger on your "secondary hand", touch the lug and pick it up. Then put the needle through the lug. My needle goes through about 2mm. 4. Turn the lug so it is pointing downwards. Place a finger over the lug and put it into its recess on the roof. It seems best to work along the roof in the same direction as if you were putting emulsion paint on a wall, I should go left to right. 5. Holding the lug in place with the needle, slide off your finger. 6. Pull out the needle. 7. Add a droplet of Mekpak or equivalent, let capilliary action draw it into the joint. As an optional extra, place a glass of The Macallan (12 year old) (substitutes possible) beside you when you start. Small doses seem to bring confidence and act as little rewards along the way. There are no spares provided, but if you are methodical then this seems to work well. Edit: all 32 done, no losses, about two hours in all including writing this post. Be careful to keep the droplets of solvent really tiny. If it runs onto the painted roof it is best to leave it alone to evaporate; if you touch it you may damage the painted finish.

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/

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.

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: 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?

If you dismantle the wagon you can trim the steel weight at each end, I think this is easier than drilling it. I have just done a couple of wagons like the one below ... these are #146 couplers, assembled the night before (and left to dry out), fixed up with an M2 bolt and nut, adjusted and tried out, and finally cemented to stop the boxes turning. I have discovered if I cut the right amount off the moulded-on mounts for the original NEM pockets, the standard #242 box fits without having to trim it down. I did try putting washers below the M2 nuts but there wasn't quite enough room to have the bolt long enough to fill the nut and get the body moulding back on.

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.

No. I just plugged in a #18 or #19. Maybe I have been lucky or you have been unlucky. My two wagons and two locos are new or nearly new, so I will find out soon enough if they do sag. The NEM sockets I have removed have been mostly Bachmann ones, but other contributors have suggested removing them all. This does get rid of one third of this marriage of convenience of US coupler, Euro mount and UK stock. The NEM sockets on my two Roco 4-wheel coaches (German prototypes) are engineered differently to all the UK models I have, and have a moulded support bar below the pocket. This would stop any sag, and makes me think of a length of piano wire to lift sagging pockets. I haven't tried this yet. I want to keep an open mind on using these pockets with Kadees. The "inboard" ones on locos like the Dapol Western, and the rigid ones on bogies on the Bachmann 2-EPB are useful and and (to my mind) an integral part of the model and I wouldn't want to try a conversion to remove them. The thread has shown that only some pockets are downright "wrong", e.g. the Bachmann wagons early on from post number 1, and there are solutions for these with lowered pockets and without them. I have one wagon with its Bachmann pockets held rigid and at the right height by Peco track pins, this seems to work (the Kadee has its own pivot of course) but the pocket is usually on a flexible mount and I am reluctant to recommend it. I think you must take each model on a case by case basis.

Thinking about it, I am probably managing nearer two vehicles per evening not per hour. Dapol locos and wagons with NEM pockets have been straightforward to set up, and without these my average would be a lot slower. Tonight I shall assemble some 146s into their boxes, and do something/anything else while they set :-).

All the locos I have converted have the manufacturer's wheels, and about half of the rolling stock too. The manufacturer's wheels I have kept have worked with Kadees; the converted ones are the remains of a foray into EM gauge rather than problems with the originals. So for me, I do mean 'good enough'; but I realise this is not universal. I am describing what has worked for me. I ran three locos and four wagons on a club layout last night and they worked. I am hopeful I have found the level of precision of alignment I need to get the performance I want, but I want many months of use and lots of delayed uncoupling to be confident of this. Nothing I have written has meant to imply a particularly quick conversion. Some vehicles are easier than others, some have needed two or three goes, but practice (especially when it goes wrong) helps a lot. I am averaging about two vehicles per hour.

Logically the sideways play ought to be a problem but like John I could not point a finger at it. I suspect most modern 00 wheels are as good as the wheels on the HO models the Kadees are designed to work with, and this means "good enough". One way to find out would be to set up a vehicle with some old fashioned coarse Tri-ang wheels and see what happens ... but these wheels won't go through modern pointwork and maybe hit the sleepers too. Perhaps a good practice would be to require a wheel back to back of 14.5 mm for 00, and replace wheels which won't meet this standard. When my Kadees fail to couple it seems to be because the wheels on the loose wagons are too free running, and they just trundle away!

Wheel diameters and buffers are important. I didn't mention wheels because I thought it would confuse the issue with facts ... I was lucky in that I had converted a lot of this stock to EM, and then regauged it to 00, and I knew I didn't want to change the wheels again. Sometimes scale wheels are a little larger than the originals, e.g. Limby 121 Bubblecar and this could play havoc if you decide to rewheel and/or reset the bogie mounts. There is an unwritten rule, "don't make too many permanent changes", I am thinking especially of the huge moulded-on Lima couplings, where there may be a temptation to saw the whole thing off when you really want to keep part of it as a mount for the Kadee. I have a Mainline J72 I converted to scale 3-links many years ago and I removed all traces of the original coupler mounts. I am now stuck with the 3-links. It may be prudent to run some vehicles with a "converter wagon" until you know what you want to improve. Do the couplings last. I am not sure where this thread can go now, but perhaps it is worth posting a few of shots of fairly ancient and modern implementations of the real thing, a BR Mk1 (retracting buffers) and a class 170 DMU (no buffers). My feeling is, buffers will always make us compromise; any idea of a commercial 4mm scale coupler is a non-starter; and actually, the Kadee looks quite neat.

I have now fitted Kadee couplings to 21 vehicles (42 couplings), which probably means I should get out more, but I offer my conclusions so far: 1. The most difficult part of the conversion is wading through the Kadee marketing speak. When you have a whisker coupler you will know it is just like their earlier models but with a built-in hair spring, but it is hard to work this out from the literature .. sometimes it seems to only make sense when you know what it is talking about ... 2. If there is a NEM 362 socket in the right place and the vehicle has buffers then I use a #18. If the socket is too far back, e.g. some locos with fairings, then a #19. (I guess a #17 would suit something like a Freightliner chassis with no buffers). 3. Most NEM socket housings seem to be a bit too tall internally, I put a scrap of 0.015" styrene shaved down to fit below the coupler. This stops it drooping in the socket. I have a Roco HO coach with a built-in phosphor-bronze spring in its sockets, which does this properly, but this coach is a one-off for me. 4. If the NEM socket is at the wrong height then get rid of it and put a #146 or possibly a #149, trim down the gear box to fit. You can bend the metal coupler shanks a bit to trim the height of the knuckle. 5. If a loco has screwed-on tension lock couplers, drill out the shank of a #20 and screw it in the place of the original coupler (same as post no. 8). This installation omits the pivot usually present on the shank or the NEM socket and relies on the pivot behind the coupler head ... this seems ok for a loco, I have doubts whether it is suitable for a two similarly equipped vehicles coupled together (Hornby J94): 6. If the model has Hornby-Dublo type couplings screwed onto a bogie chassis from above (e.g. the HD Co-Bo!) then use an M3 nut and bolt with a #5 (or better a slightly longer shank), this will be the right height. 7. It is a lot better to use a height gauge than a chosen 'good wagon'. I could not find a Kadee gauge to buy so I made one from a #5 coupling, an M3 screw and a lock nut: 8. If you can slip a 0.030" thick steel rule above the rails below the trip pin, its height is pretty close to 1/32". Having cleared my back log, I think if I stock up on some #146, #18 and a few #20 this will cover most installations.

You can also trim down the #242 box which comes with the #146 and similar 'Whisker' couplers. I assembled the coupler and glued up the box, and the next evening cut about 1.5 mm off the back edge of it. This let me line up the inner face of the coupler knuckle with the front of the buffers, and the coupler box is nicely recessed behind the buffer beam. This is another Bachmann wagon, I used a cut-off disc in a mini drill to remove the mount for the NEM362 socket but keep the body retaining screw. This installation puts the coupler shank pivot in about the same location as the flexible mounting of the original socket. (Ignore the use of an overset #149 coupler, this is just a personal experiment).

I will hazard a guess (always a bit reckless in these forums!) that the RTR manufacturers wanted to give purchasers of locomotives the opportunity to fit scale couplings (usually screw couplings) and brake pipes/hoses instead of tension locks, for example on the 'front' of a loco or on both ends of a model in a display case. The pocket lets people install a standardised working coupling (though not remove it) without the use of tool.

Well ... I chose mine because they look so much neater than a tension lock coupler, and a brief personal foray into scale three-link ones told me I needed something automatic. As a bonus, the closer coupling between wagons is better too. I always rather liked the coupling used by Hornby Dublo, but I believe the designer or patent holder wanted royalties from users and so it faded away. If not I would have happily gone for HD. I've not used the Kadee delayed uncoupling feature yet (no layout ...), but I do think it is nice to have it there.

The whole point of starting this thread was to try to find out what standard the majority use; and the resulting discussion has revealed a reasonable 'best practice', all from the point of view of interoperability and ease of use. There is no need to create new standards where a useful one already exists; and here we already have the same standard for NEM pockets for 1:87 and 1:64. Surely, it is only sensible for 1:76 to use the same.