# Kadee question



## jedxsa (Dec 29, 2011)

I read through some old topics and I have a question for the large scale veterans for 1:29 scale is it the Kadee G scale or #1 scale ?
I know it's a matter of opinion but I'd like to know what y'all think.


Thanks 
Jed


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

The main thing you need to know is this. 

If you use the #1 scale couplers. 1/32 

Your track has to be laid in near perfect levelness. (Is that a word) 

If you have dips in your track here and there, the cars are apt to uncouple. 

Other than that, it's all in how much you want your equipment to look to scale. 

For me, I use the G scale. 

I think they are more forgiving.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

What he said. 

I think if you are asking what scale they actually are, the "G" scale ones are too big for 1:29, the #1 scale ones are closer to actual scale. 

Use the G scale ones. 

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I'm going to offer a different opinion and say you'll have no troubles at all with the #1 scale couplers. I've been using them for 25 or more years with zero issues. A few things to consider.... 

1) All my couplers are body mounted. 

2) All my couplers are mounted to within 1/16" of a standard height. 

3) All my coupler mounts are solid, screwed into the frame of the car. The couplers don't have a lot (any) vertical flexibility to ride up over one another due to the weight of a long train. 

Do that, and you'll have a good recipe for success. Yes, the larger "G-scale" couplers are more foregiving of rough track. What the heck are you doing laying rough track in the first place? Couplers are the least of your worries if you've got rough track. Lay your track right, and you'll eliminate many issues that hamper reliable operation. And by "right," that doesn't mean "smooth as glass." Your track can have bumps and dips, so long as they're mild. This photo's from my railroad: 










Heck, even if you lay your track on a bed of loose mulch (typical of temporary display railroads), I've found the #1 scale couplers no less reliable than Aristo, USA, or any other brand in that same environment. 

If you're going to be truck-mounting your couplers, then I'd go with the larger ones, but if you're body mounting them, there's no reason why you can't have primo performance with the smaller ones. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

If you are running short trains and slow like Kevin, listen to him... 

If you run longer trains like most of us 1:29 people,closer to prototype mainline freight, and listen to Randy and I. 

Greg


----------



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree with what Kevin said, if you're having uncoupling problems, you've got a track problem.


----------



## jedxsa (Dec 29, 2011)

Thanks for the input everyone. Due to my being in the Army we really cant have any kind of permanent layout so a g scale coupler that can deal with a "rough track surface" is far better for us. 
So my next question is just get or make a g scale height gauge too which is 1 1/8 from the top of the rail.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Stick with the recommended height by Kadee... buy the gauge, it's much easier to use. The 1:29 cars that have Kadee mounting pads, like Aristo, AML and USAT will put the coupler at the "Kadee" height. 

By the way if you use the #1 couplers on those 1:29 cars you will have to add shims (which are available) 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

The pad on the USAT Beer Can Tank Car that I received at Christmas was too low by about .030. Not a problem with the #1 Kadee, since Kadee includes both .060 and .030 shims in the shim package. If you're going to use the "G" coupler, you're going to have to add a .030 washer to the bolster.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

As an alternative to shimming the bolster, you may be able to file down the very tops of the Kadee coupler box (the parts that extend into the lid of the box) and just use the pad as the lid. I can't speak to the specific car in question as to whether that's an option, but if the pad is flat, it should work well. I've done that on my Bachmann 1:20 cars. (I install my couplers to a scale 24" centerline, which is higher than Kadee's "standard.") 

Later, 

K


----------



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

Good point Kevin, the lid of the "G" coupler is about .070 thick, so you could probably replace it with one of the .030 thick shims.


----------



## Dick Friedman (Aug 19, 2008)

I've been using Kadee Number 1's for at least ten years. I've had no trouble with them uncoupling indoors or outdoors. I do body mount them, using two screws into the floor of the car. I like the look of the smaller couplers. If I buy a car with the big kadees, I change them out to the #1.


----------



## W3NZL (Jan 2, 2008)

*As a long time K-D user, 55+ years, 20+ years in LS, I too will come out in favor of *
*the **more correct size #1 coupler... If U correctly body mount them using the the K-D *
*height guage an U **have uncoupling problems, U NEED to DO some TRACKWORK.... *
*Or **U can do as lot of people do, install the oversized "G" coupler an avoid the issue... *
*This is commonly **referred to as "Treating the symptoms, an ignoring **the disease"....*
*U've been given the info, its now up to U to decide which route to go....*
*Paul R...*


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

If changing wheels/axles, be sure to add Kadee after the change as many wheels are different sizes than the originals that come with the rolling stock.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

There are other factors that are not trackwork related. For example, if you have a number of truck mounted couplers, many of the "suspensions" on trucks will be biased to tilt down or up under load. One example is Aristo heavyweights, where the truck is not even pivoted in the center, so weight puts uneven pressure on the outer axles, and the long coupler tang helps promote coupler offset. 

There are locomotives where the coupler mounting is not very secure and flexes under tension, helping cause coupler offset. 

All of this can be improved and fixed, but not everyone wants to go to the trouble of doing this on all their cars and locomotives. 

So the larger, more tolerant coupler might be a better choice for many people, especially people running long trains. It's easy to tell someone with 2 locos and 10 cars to "work them over" to be right, but people with a lot more rolling stock might want to take an easier route. 

Greg


----------



## Tom Lapointe (Jan 2, 2008)

I've got to put my 2 cents in on this; I run the larger G-gauge size couplers on *both *1:20.3 & 1:29th scale equipment. Except for a few of my earlier conversions (a couple of the Bacmann "skeleton" short log cars come to mind, & some of my earlier locomotive conversions), everything I've done in recent years has been *body-mounted. *A couple of reasons here: my mainline has a 3% ruling grade. On longer trains, particularly with heavier cars, the tension of pulling a heavy train upgrade would cause the coupler-mounting tangs on *truck-mounted *couplers to flex downward, letting the couplers slip past one another vertically (& resulting in occasional runaways!







). By far, most of the time I run 1:20.3 narrow-gauge prototypes, mostly geared logging locos (including some live steam







).

I cycle a lot for exercise, primarily on local rail-trails which, in my area, are all *abandoned ex-new Haven RR *branch lines. This has gotten me 'into"







New Haven history a bit, so occasionally I switch time period & scale to 1:29th standard gauge New Haven prototypes, mostly 1950's-era diesels. One of the most *gorgeous *







trains I own is my Alco-PA powered USA Trains "Merchant's Limited" streamliner...



















...But initially after I acquired it (which was around when those photos were taken), I ran into quite a few unexpected problems running it.







As you can see from the picture above, even though I usually run *relatively short *narrow gauge prototypes @ 90 % of the time, I built the railroad with nice *wide, sweeping *curves







to allow for operating larger equipment if desired. I've also been careful to make the trackwork as *smooth as possible, *& can usually operate for hours without derailments. However, those *long USA streamlined passenger cars *caused another issue to raise it's ugly head







- I had *substantial problems with vertical coupler "slip-by" *causing unwanted uncouplings







& runaways, *especially between the lead coach & nose coupler on the trailing Alco PA*, at points on the mainline where I had *vertical curve transitions, especially at a point where the upgrade leveled off. *







I suspect one of the main reasons I had problems between the trailing PA & lead coach was that the USA coaches have very nice fully sprung & equalized trucks, where the PA's do not (although I've also had occasional problems between individual coaches as well). The worst problem spot was adjacent to my Aristo switch tower, where the main curves to the right (69" radius, Aristo 11.5-foot diameter curve) as the grade levels off somewhat. To try to address this, I raised the elevation of the upgrade portion of the mainline *over 1" *for @ 10 feet or so prior to where the grade lessens. The "Watuppa Railway" is built elevated an average of @ 2 feet off the ground, the track is supported by HDPE as a roadbed. Elevation was further increased on the troublesome upgrade stretch by first loosening the track from the roadbed & slipping another length of HDPE decking (@ an inch thick) directly underneath the track; the "benchwork" *itself *(which by that time had gotten to be *quite heavy in that area *due to some formerly open areas I decked over to build the little town area & a nearby yard / engine terminal) was loosened from its supports & *jacked up with an automotive "screw" jack slipped underneath *







the supporting angle iron framework. Once I got the height in the range I wanted, I slipped cinder blocks underneath to support the heavier areas. This has cured probably about 90 ~ 95% of the unwanted uncouplings, although I've seen the problem occasionally recur on hot summer days (probably due to track expansion causing the vertical curvature to increase slightly).







Something else that doesn't help either is the comparatively *great weight *of the aluminum-bodied USA cars; at @ 20 lbs. or so a car, if I run the full 5-car consist, the USA Alcos are struggling to *pull a 100 lb. train *







up that 3% (another reason to use the *larger couplers). *A related problem (although not to the couplers) is repeated stripping of the axle drive gears in the PA's; anyone know of any *more substantial after-market replacements *for the origimal USA gearsets









OK, just looking back at my diatribe here, think I've put in *lot more than 2 cents worth. *







*Tom*


----------



## Dick Friedman (Aug 19, 2008)

It's not a matter of opinion. Kadee makes two sizes of couplers. The 1:32 scale coupler is called Number 1 gauge; the other one in called G-scale. I'm not sure what scale that is, but most folks who don't mind that it's too big prefer it.

I use the 1:32 ones because I like the smaller size.

Kadees work fine for me, and are a welcome release from the problems of five cars and five kinds of couplers.


----------

