Kadee couplers?

[Anonymous]

I wondering after looking at Kadee's web site what the difference is in #1 and G scale couplers. I need to order some for my boxcars. I'm looking for body mount couplers.

[Anonymous]

Matt

I have always gone G.
For my stock I used either #830, #831, #832.


William

[cacole]

I changed the stock truck-mounted couplers on all of my rolling stock to Kadee body mount using either the 830 or 920. I cut the tongue off of the trucks where the previous couplers were mounted, or, in some cases, simply turned the trucks around with the tongue pointed toward the center of the car. The difference between these two Kadee couplers is that the 830, noted on the package as being for #1 and G scale, is black plastic and has a larger knuckle than the 920, which is rust colored plastic. Both are good choices for replacing couplers, and will couple with each other just fine. The biggest challenge in using Kadees is that you must either cut away or build up areas under the cars in order to get the couplers at the same height. G scale is worse than other scales for differences in coupler height and under-body details. Kadee's packaging lists the following as body mount couplers:
819: Couplers and flex brackets to allow operation on shorter track.
820, 920: Standard coupler used on all applications where room and space permit.
821, 921: A shorter coupler used primarily on locomotives or other cars where room is too restrictive for the 820 and 920.
822: A long straight shank coupler without draft gear box.
823: A long thicker straight shank coupler without draft gear box.
824: Couplers and brackets for mounting on cars such as and similar to the Aster caboose which uses existing screws on the underbody for mounting.
825: Couplers and brackets for mounting on cars such as and similar to the J&M Model Pullman passenger cars which have high mounting surfaces.
825: Couplers and brackets for mounting on the Aster Pennsylvania K-4 loco and tender and similar adaptations.
828: Couplers and long flex brackets to allow operation on shorter radius track.
830: Coupler, body mount, with standard draft gear box.

If you look at Kadee's Web site, there must be close to 20 different G-scale coupler types. This is more confusing than HO scale choices. As a general rule, the 830 and 920 are equivalent to the HO scale #5 and their new semi-scale coupler, if you're familiar with them.

[Anonymous]

cacole, Not that familar with them I just know I want prototypical looking or scale like. Mine are for my scratch built boxcars, eventually I plan on getting two LGB 2-6-0 moguls, will kadee's easily adapt?

[Anonymous]

Matt,

This is what I found on there site.
2-6-0 Mogul W/Coupler pilot 20192, 21190, 22192, 23191, 25182, 25192, 26192, 27192, 24194, 29192, ........#1791
2-6-0 Mogul "Bear Trap" w/Plow 23192, 25192, 26182........#1831
2-6-0 Mogul Draw Bar Pilot (Tender Only) 20281, 21181, 22182, 23182, 24182........#1831
Under LGB, Steam
http://www.kadee.com/conv/page-c3.htm
Would not hurt to call and get a diagram for them!

[Anonymous]

Thank ya kindly BB71, I looked at there site and got confused[D)][X-)][banghead]
I gave up there and posted here for real answers!

[kstrong]

Matt,

Size is the "biggest" difference, pardon the pun. The #1 scale couplers are about 33% smaller than the G scale couplers. The G-scale couplers measure 3/4" across the face, the #1 scale couplers measure 1/2". Beyond that, they are identical in terms of operation, application, and the number of variations of draft gears to meet specailized applications.

I use the #1 scale couplers, as they measure out to 10" wide in 1:20.3, coincidendally the exact size of a 3/4 size coupler used by the East Broad Top and many other narrow gauge railroads. I'm not sure what the W&W used. If they used a full size coupler, the G scale coupler will work very well.

With only a handful of exceptions, I use the #820 coupler and draft gear. Since I scratchbuild virtually all of my equipment, I don't have to worry about shimming anything, I just design the frame of what I'm building around the draft gear.

Here, I just cut the draft gear timbers back so they wrap around the draft gear.

Two things I do to modify the coupler. First, I cut off that ugly pin. I don't use automatic uncouplers, so it serves no purpose. To do this, I just lightly tap on the pin from above, pushing it out around 1/16". I take a pair of electricians wire cutters (the large ones for household wire, not the small ones for electronic circuits) and snip it off as close to the underside of the coupler as possible. Then, I tap what's left hanging out back in place so the top of the pin is again even with the top of the coupler.

Here, I've milled a slot into the end beam of a Forney, and slid the coupler pocket through. I also removed the top cover plate, so the coupler would sit the correct height when placed under the floor.

The second thing I do is "stiffen" the centering springs by doubling them up. I use the copper-colored spring originally intended for that purpose, then I place one of the spare side springs inside that, so I have two concentric springs. You could probably stretch the copper spring to achieve a similar result. The upshot of all this is that the coupler is less prone to "catepillaring" as the train rolls around the line. The 1:20.3 equipment is typically much heavier than the average Bachmann or LGB car, so this keeps the train a bit tighter. The weight of the train will cause some of the slack to be run out, as it's designed to do, but not to the extent that it would with only one spring.

On occasion, I'll use the #821 couplers. These have a much shorter draft gear, and are better suited for locomotive front pilots and other applications where you don't have a great deal of "back" room for the rest of the draft gear.

This is the front of the Forney model I'm working on. The coupler draft gear is only the black portion. It's held to the beam via a brass strip that runs underneath the draft gear and then bolted onto the end beam.

The only disadvantage of the short draft gear is the reduced side to side motion of the coupler. In most cases, this shouldn't cause a problem, but if the car has unusually long overhangs (such as passenger cars or the rear of the Forney) this can cause problems on tighter curves.

The rest of the Kadee couplers are designed for specific applications, such as the pilot of "X" locomotive, or for truck mounting on "Z" trucks, etc. The scratchbuilder needn't worry about any of that nonsense.

Kadee also makes a #822 coupler, which is a regular coupler on a simple straight shank with no draft gear. I used to use this, but found that the various mechanisms I used to center them always fell somewhat short of expectations. The extra $2/set for 100% reliable couplers, I found, was money well spent. Then I discovered "online discounting," and it became a no brainer. ( Ridge Road Station in Holley, NY has some great prices on Kadee couplers. www.rrstation.com --no connection beyond an all-too-frequent customer and friend of the owner.)

The G scale equivalents of the couplers I use:
830 - standard draft gear
779 - short draft gear (This one's cool, because they actually modeled a beam-mounted draft gear case!) You can get a #1 scale version of this one--#1779. The draft gear is the same, they just include a #1 size coupler instead of a G scale coupler.

Hope this helps a bit.

Later,

K

[Anonymous]

Not to be rude but I "can not stand" kadee couplers,Why? Because of the spring that holds in the nuckle always pops out,those couplers are worthless.HO scale type.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

Not to be rude but I "can not stand" kadee couplers,Why? Because of the spring that holds in the nuckle always pops out,those couplers are worthless.HO scale type.

Good point! This is G Scale not HO.....[#offtopic]

[kstrong]

BNSF -

I've been using #1scale Kadees for the better part of 20 years with nary a lost spring. A coat of paint, and they disappear into the coupler quite well. A larger coupler has its advantages over the small HO couplers. The spikes that hold the springs in place are large enough to handle the daily abuse.

Unlike HO, though, there are alternatives to Kadee, the most popular among narrow gauge folks is the Accucraft coupler. This one operates prototypically, and has a very scale appearance.

If you're doing standard gauge, your options for a scale prototypically operating coupler are significantly smaller. There is a white metal one available for a significant sum. Accucraft thusfar has not offered their 1:32 coupler as an aftermarket accessory the way they have their 1:20.3 coupler. Your "affordible" alternatives to the Kadee #1 coupler, then, are the stock Aristocraft or USA couplers. USA couplers have operating lift pins, but are slightly oversized for a "scale" coupler. Aristo's couplers do not have lift pins, rather a trip lever on the bottom of the coupler.

Garden Railways ran a comparison of the couplers used in large scale trains in the August 2003 issue, which should still be available from Kalmbach. They included most major manufacturers. If you're looking to figure out which works best for you, I'd recommend reading that comparison.

Later,

K

[grandpopswalt]

I use the # 830 couplers primarily but also use a few other G scale models as well. I intend to do a LOT of switching and therefore keep the pins in my Kadee couplers. However, I have not been able to achieve 100% reliable uncoupling. I've done all the recommended procedures, filed and sanded all the surfaces, burnished all surfaces with graphite, and mounted all couplers exactly 1 5/16" above the railhead. The trip pins are exactly 1/8" above railhead. Still, 1 out of every 5 uncoupling attempts fails to seperate the couplers. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Walt

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by grandpopswalt

I use the # 830 couplers primarily but also use a few other G scale models as well. I intend to do a LOT of switching and therefore keep the pins in my Kadee couplers. However, I have not been able to achieve 100% reliable uncoupling. I've done all the recommended procedures, filed and sanded all the surfaces, burnished all surfaces with graphite, and mounted all couplers exactly 1 5/16" above the railhead. The trip pins are exactly 1/8" above railhead. Still, 1 out of every 5 uncoupling attempts fails to seperate the couplers. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Walt

Walt, are you rolling slowly over the magnet or stopping? I remember from my HO set as a kid the tension from the weight of cars trailing will keep the slack non existant and tension on. Have you tried backing over the coupler slowly to release the tension ansd increase the slack? I haven't used Kadee's since that layout my Dad built me so I'm unsure if the info I just gave you is helpful, let me know.

[grandpopswalt]

Matt,

Thanks for the input. Yes, I do back up over the ramp which generates total slack. Still, 1 out of every 5 or 6 attemtpts fails to seperate the couplers.

Walt