Large Scale Central

Kadee Couplers.....why hate them....?

General Discussion
#21

Fred Mills said:

The statement was made, that the HO Kadee couplers are true to the HO scale…are they ?

The LS Kadees are supposedly (#!'s) 1:32 scale and (G) 1:22.5…?

It’s funny that the 1:29 gang seem to favour the largest (Oversized) couplers…

Why are the Kadee couplers called #1, and G… #1 what…?..G sometimes means 1:22.5 scale.

OK…this is where panties get wadded up tight…are we discussing scale and gauge or operational and ease of use capabilities with them or just Kadee couplers?

I see two different directions in this thread…For me I like them and hate nothing but dislike certain aspects of the coupler.

#22

Shawn Viggiano said:

I love my link and pin best. Then Bachmann couplers because I tend to get them for free, from everyone that switches them out to kadees hehe. I cant say I have an issue with Kadee other then that silly thing that hangs low and hits the turnouts but that can be cut off. Oh and the price ouch… Did I say I love link and pin?

Put me in the L&P Love Boat with Shawn. My L&Ps are absolutely reliable. I also use Bmann knuckles mostly because they work and they are affordable. If I had any beef with Kadees, its that they are a bit pricey if you have a large roster.

#23

Vic Smith said:

Put me in the L&P Love Boat with Shawn.

Shawn probably didn’t even know what Issac’s job was ?

The Love Boat was recently dismantled

#24

Fred Mills said:

The statement was made, that the HO Kadee couplers are true to the HO scale…are they ?

The LS Kadees are supposedly (#!'s) 1:32 scale and (G) 1:22.5…?

It’s funny that the 1:29 gang seem to favour the largest (Oversized) couplers…

Why are the Kadee couplers called #1, and G… #1 what…?..G sometimes means 1:22.5 scale.

No Fred, the Kadee HO couplers #5’s (the long time standard) are no where near the prototype size. The “new” #58’s are slightly better but the only coupler I’ve seen in any scale that is close to the prototype is Sergent Engineering Couplers (and they actually offer a Type E, F, double shelf, lower shelf, and type H). http://www.sergentengineering.com/

#25

After nearly 25+ years of using Kadee #1s on all my stuff, I’ve switched to Accucraft’s 1:32 couplers. That move is purely for aesthetic reasons. For the models I build, I want as prototypically-accurate appearance as possible, and the Accucraft couplers give me that final bit of detail that I just didn’t have with the Kadees. The shape of the knuckle itself on the Kadee is too thin compared to the prototype, and really jumps out in photos (at least to me). But then I’m particularly OC about the appearance of my models.

From an operational standpoint, I’ve got nothing against the Kadees. They served me well (and still do). In fact, operationally, I prefer the Kadees over the Accucraft couplers by a comfortable margin. The knuckles on the Accucraft couplers are sometimes stiff and hard to open, and you’ve got to be very careful when you paint them as they get even stiffer if the paint makes its way into knuckle mechanism. That, and I’ve had groundcovers snag on the cut levers and uncouple the train. That doesn’t happen with the Kadees. It takes very little effort when switching cars to couple two cars together. Uncoupling can be done with a flat-bladed screwdriver or the oft-lampooned “lift and separate” method.

If I were to put operations above aesthetics, I’d go with the new “Type E” Kadee couplers. They have a more prototypical look than the original couplers, and are every bit as reliable. The knuckle is still a touch thin compared to the prototype, but for ease of operations, that’s a compromise I could live with. (And–quite honestly–why I haven’t retrofitted my existing Kadee-equipped cars yet.)

Later,

K

#26

I have nothing against KDs except cost. I used them in my days with H-O trains,and with proper installation they work fine.

I have found that Aristo couplers work well for me, once they are fine tuned. By this I mean that I take all my Aristo couplers apart as I used to do with my KDs and I burnish and clean up the working surfaces.

I work on a limited budget and have learned to accept some discrepancies, in favor of cost.Of course this also means that I sometimes do a little work to what I have to make it work better.

Trucks are another item that I also find it necessary to fine tune if I want to reduce problems out on the pike.

#27

I’ve been using Kadees for over 15 years. I started from the beginning to convert every car I purchased. The cost never bothered me since it was spread out over such a long period of time. I use the “G” size just to be sure to minimize the ‘slim’ chance of uncoupling.

However, since I started purchasing Accucraft rolling stock, I elected not to convert them to Kadees since they look great and line up very nicely with my Kadees set with my coupler gauge.

Another point, I like the Bachmann Spectrum cars and have purchased a number of them. I do convert them to Kadees since their couplers are not set to the Kadee height standard.

Doc Watson

#28

Ah, the great coupler debate!

I’ve played around with Kadees, but never settled on them. Mostly due to cost, and I was just never able to master that screwdriver twist to uncouple them!

On my 1:29 stock I mostly run Aristo/Delton couplers because early on almost all of my rolling stock was Aristo/Delton and I liked the way they looked and worked. A few 1:29 locos and one of my plows have Aristo knuckles, but I am definitely not a fan of them. I don’t like the look of the big uncoupling lever on the bottom, and I tend to have a lot of trouble getting them to couple.

On my Fn3 stock I am running mostly Accucraft. I love the way they look and with a little TLC they can be made to perform very well. I have some of the Bachmann metal couplers on a few of my Fn3 locos. They couple well with the Accucraft if you close the Bachmann coupler first.

#29

David Russell said:

Vic Smith said:

Put me in the L&P Love Boat with Shawn.

Shawn probably didn’t even know what Issac’s job was ?

The Love Boat was recently dismantled

Killjoy

#30

Vic Smith said:

The Love Boat was recently dismantled

Killjoy

Sic Transit Gloria. Requiescat in pace.

#31

MY 2Cents
I use Kadee’s and that’s a fact jack!

#32

I use Kadee,s. But, I have reversed the trip pin. I fettled it to a right angle, then refitted it. Easier to get at between the car,s for uncoupling.

#33

Price point

And looking at the ones I acquired via contest and recently $5 a pkg (4) for a grand total 6 pkg of k’d’s, i just don’t see how they can be so reliable in pulling saaaay 20+ car trains if you chooose to … I’ll stik with my H’n’Ls thank you

But I do retain the ones I do have for mounting on items that maybe for show or as is the case of the RDC unit do not forecast lashing up to something else.

BTW anyone have a link for kadee mounting to the RDC3 ?

I might as well do a body mount, eh !?

thanks for any info,

doug c

#34

I body mount my KD #1 couplers because otherwise I’d have six different couplers which only might stay coupled. I use the #1’s because they are smaller and look better to me. I buy them one or two pair at a time maybe five or six times a year, or when I find a good sale.

They couple easily for me. I do like “taking up the slack” when I start up my train. I’ve used both the brown and the black ones. I prefer the black, but it’s not a big deal for me.

The uncoupling levers still look like airhoses to me. Yes I’ve needed to bend a few of them up from time to time, but again, not a deal breaker.

I started using Kadee couplers in N-scale, building them up from kits. Now it’s hard to even see that size.

#35

I have to say that when I started in this scale I did what I did in HO. I originally set the standard for every piece of equipment will be fitted with a Kadee #5 coupler. When Kadee came out with the #58. I converted all my equipment over to it because I liked the look of it better.

Moving over to Large Scale I looked at the Kadee and the Accucraft coupler as my standard. After evaluating each one I decided on the Accucraft. It looked a little closer to prototype to me and so I went that route.

I’m lucky in that my roster is still pretty small, so converting everything to one coupler is not as expensive as some.

#36

Back in the mid70s I participated in a layout-build at the LHS. While I was unimpressed by some of the concepts and the workmanship, I sure liked the Kadees right off the bat. So much that I started converting all my “Eurocrap” (HO SG) to Kadees. This was years before Kadee came out with couplers that readily fit the Euro stuff i.e. it took some fiddling and diddling!

As far as I’m concerned they are the most reliable of any couplers I’ve ever used in N, HOn3, HOm, HO and 2m.

#37

as a long time HO scaler, like everyone else Kadee’s were mandatory, and you bought Number 5’s in bulk.

When LGB came out with red/green Mogul, I was sold on moving to large scale and bought the locomotive and a bunch of LGB D&RGW coaches and automatically bought the “G” Kadees…I considered moving to #1’s but ehhhh got too used to the larger couplers.

I have noticed on the large display layouts in SoCal, Aristo and hook/loop are very popular couplers…

#38

The main reason you’ll find h&l couplers on modular or large layouts is because they tend to stay coupled better when pulling long trains, and you don’t have to do anything to them unless you want body mounts.

I’ve had good luck with Kadees and good luck with the h&ls I’ve continued to use. Except for those on my Napa Valley Wine Train. One pair won’t stay coupled, and tend to derail on our modules.

Because I had Aristo, Bachman, USA trains, LGB, Lionel, Hartman, and maybe more cars, I needed a standard coupler; I wanted body mount couplers, so I was already committed to working on each car. So I just bought one or two packs at a time and saved them until I had time to put at least one Kadee on each car. All my passenger cars have Kadee No. 1’s on both ends; most freight cars have at least one Kadee.

#39

One thing to consider in this debate: the difference between truck-mounted and body-mounted Kadees. There’s a notable difference in performance between the two.

Truck-mounted couplers are great for “quick and easy” conversion of rolling stock that comes standard with truck-mounted couplers. However, because the coupler is an extension of the truck itself, it’s subject to a number of forces that body-mounted couplers are not, hence you get a lot more vertical movement at the coupler face that can lead to unwanted uncoupling, especially with long trains and/or uneven track. (That’s why the “G” sized coupler has been so popular–the larger profile allows for more reliability on “less than average” track.)

Body-mounted Kadees don’t suffer such a degree of vertical movement since they’re solidly mounted to the car itself, and the car movement is typically much less dynamic than the trucks underneath it. So long as your couplers are solidly mounted at a specified height (or within 1/16" or so either way), then there’s no reason why you wouldn’t be able to pull very long trains reliably around your railroad.

Having said that, body mounted couplers aren’t fond of tight curves, and even less fond of tight–or even moderate–“S” curves. For instance, my 1:20 passenger cars (on par in length with a 1:29 Heavyweight or similar) will run around a 5’ radius curve without any trouble, but will not negotiate a back-to-back 5’ radius switch. There’s not enough side-to-side play in the coupler mount, and the car will derail. (I’m using Kadee #1s) Likewise, I’ve got an LGB “R3” reverse curve leading to the second track in my storage shed that I’ve got to be careful when I move longer freight cars over. I try to park the longer ones on the first track which is a straight shot into the shed, and my shorter cars (23’ - 28’) on the second track.

The one “nice” thing about the Kadees–even if you don’t use them–is that their coupler boxes have themselves become something of a de-facto standard. Accucraft and Bachmann both use draft gear boxes on their couplers which are virtual twins of Kadee’s. And other manufacturers are including pads on their equipment to facilitate the installation of Kadee (or similar) draft gear boxes. It makes changing from one to the other a little easier

I don’t think we’ll ever see a “standard” coupler in this scale (or two “standards” or…), but I think with Kadee being a driving force–like them or not–they’re ultimately making it easier for us as modelers to choose whichever “standard” we choose for ourselves.

Later,

K

#40

I also converted to KaDees early on. I have a supply of them in my spares, for when I acquire more rolling stock. I purchase them at train shows or on-line sales, when I can get them at a decent price.

I went with truck mounted, because I have such a variety of manufacturer’s equipment. The older equipment didn’t have mounting pads to body mount the couplers, and I didn’t want to engineer my own pads. I also have smaller curves then some railroads, and truck mounted couplers work better on smaller curves.

As for the uncoupling pins, they need to be 1/8 inch above the railheads. I have a piece of 1/8 inch thick strip-wood that I keep with my KaDee height gauge, to properly adjust the pins. Most of them are lower then that out of the package. By setting the uncoupling pins to the proper height, I have eliminated the issue of them snagging on turnouts and such.

As for scale, I am not sure I have ever actually seen a true scale coupler in any scale. The closest I have seen, was the gentleman who mounted N scale KaDees on his HO equipment. But a true scale coupler would be even less tolerant of uneven trackage, grade changes, and other forces that cause the rolling stock to bounce or wobble.

I had converted to KaDees back when I had an N scale layout, and back then they were still KaDees. KaDee hadn’t spun that line off yet. So when I found out that KaDee made “G” couplers, its was a simple decision for me to make. It was a bit harder to pitch the idea to the railroad’s CFO. But after having a cut of USA cars uncouple, and come rocketing down from the summit, the decision was made that all stock on the P&CS WILL be upgraded as funds permit.

As for the spring on the side, and unprototypical profile, that was something I had gotten used to in HO, so having that in G didn’t bother as much as it used to. Reliability is more important then true scale to me. So I tolerate the look of the KaDees, over-sized grab irons and many other oversized details on my rolling stock. I want to enjoy running my trains, not fretting about details too much, and not dealing with unplanned uncoupling.