Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FollowUp Question about Kadee (style) couplers

2355 views
6 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2008
  • From: Northern VA
  • 3,050 posts
FollowUp Question about Kadee (style) couplers
Posted by jwhitten on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:15 PM

 

I read in a forum somewhere that using Kadee couplers made for N scale will result in a more prototypical appearance in HO. Has anybody tried this and if so, what are your results?

Modeling the South Pennsylvania Railroad ("The Hilltop Route") in the late 50's
  • Member since
    January 2007
  • From: NYC
  • 551 posts
Posted by corsair7 on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:34 PM

I've heard that too but I can't tell you whether this is true or not from personal experience. I can tell you that the Micro Trains couplers (they used to be Kadee before they split into two companies) are a bit overscale in N-Scale but they might look great in HO-Scale. They would certainly be an improvement over the horn a hook couplers used to be standard on HO-Scale equipment. You'ld probably need to get longer shanks than the standard ones or the cars could ened up closer coupled than you'ld like.

Irv

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: Amish country Tenn.
  • 10,027 posts
Posted by loathar on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:25 PM
KD doesn't make N scale couplers. They probably meant Kadee "Scale" HO couplers. They have a smaller, more prototypical size head. #58, #158.
  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: Colorado
  • 4,075 posts
Posted by fwright on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:15 PM

There are several options for HO in pursuit of better-looking (more accurately scaled) couplers:

1.  Getting rid of everything else for standard Kadee couplers (or clones).  Kadee #5 (or new whisker version) are the gold standard.  Knuckles are over-sized, but have some resemblance to prototype.  Automatic coupling requires coupler centering.  Trip pins (remotely resemble a prototype air brake hose) required for magnetic uncoupling.  Delayed uncoupling possible but requires smooth low-speed engines, reasonable car weights, trucks that are not too free-rolling, and non-sloppy coupler installations.

2.  Scale size automatic knuckle couplers available from Kadee and Accumate (and possibly others).  Coupler knuckle is approximately scale size for modern couplers.  Will mate with Kadee #5 and similar.  Part numbers have been given by other posters.  Require greater conformance to coupler mounting height and gentler grade transitions to avoid over-/under-rides.  Otherwise, they have the same performance as their larger cousins.

3.  Kadee #714 and #711 (#714 is for HOn3).  These were the original "scale size" knuckle couplers, and use a scissors design similar to their N scale cousins.  Approximately scale for modern couplers in knuckle bulk.  Disadvantage is the "slinky" effect caused by the centering spring in longer trains with very free-rolling cars.  Will mate with larger cousins.

4.  Sergent couplers.  An almost exact scale replica of modern (non-shelf) prototype couplers.  Knuckle opens by pulling internal ball upwards with magnetic wand.  No centering spring, will only couple when couplers are lined up and at least one knuckle is open.  No remote uncoupling available so far.  May or may not (mostly not) couple with Kadee and other magnetic knuckle couplers.

5.  Prototype couplers were not always their present size.  When first required by Safety Act of 1893, knuckles were smaller.  Bruce Metcalf has some thorough research on his web site (http://home.comcast.net/~brmetcalf/rr/couplerp.htm).  Some narrow gauge lines used even smaller knuckles.  MicroTrains N couplers best represent these smaller knuckles, and are used on MicroTrains HOn3 rolling stock and by some HOn3 modelers.  Even greater attention must be paid to accurate mounting height and grade transitions.  The 1015/1016 series reportedly have less of a slinky effect, and require less force to couple than the 1023 series.  the couplers will mate with the Kadee 711/714s, from which they descended.

hope this helps

Fred W

...modeling foggy coastal Oregon, where it's always 1900...

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Orig: Tyler Texas. Lived in seven countries, now live in Sundown, Louisiana
  • 25,640 posts
Posted by jeffrey-wimberly on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:26 PM
My track has some dips and rises in it that cause the couplers to slide up and down against each other. The scale couplers are so small that they slide apart in one of these areas. I find the Kadee #5 to be the best coupler in this situation as they don't slide apart from each other.

Running Bear, Sundown, Louisiana
          Joined June, 2004

Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running Bear
Space Mouse for president!
15 year veteran fire fighter
Collector of Apple //e's
Running Bear Enterprises
History Channel Club life member.
beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam


  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Bedford, MA, USA
  • 21,481 posts
Posted by MisterBeasley on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:47 PM
I have both Kadee #5's and #58's on my layout.  They really do work together interchangeably, with no problems.  I'm not terribly fussy about this issue, but I'll admit that the #58's look nicer, and that's what I'm using now for all my replacements as cars pass through the shop.

It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse. 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Southern California
  • 47 posts
Posted by BurbankAV on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:50 PM

Kadee used to sell N scale couplers, before they split off MicroTrains as a separate line.  In olden days (early '90s...Whistling [:-^]) I had a friend who had equipped his HO equipment with Kadee N scale couplers.  They looked great and operated really smoothly.  During op sessions, we never had an issue with them.  But then, his construction was absolutely bulletproof -- everything was really tight to spec, with supersolid trackwork (I don't think we ever had a derailment, come to think of it...)

So I'd say, if you're willing to take on the challenge of even smaller margins of error, then go for it!

Peter 

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!