# kadee couplers



## pete (Jan 2, 2008)

It has been a couple of years since a purchased any kaydee couplers. How i need a few sets for my lgb four axel stock cars. I also have lgb ri curves i know i need truck mount couplers but i forget what model number. Also a place to get a good price. Thanks for any help.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The Kadee site has a conversion list that is the best place to start. 

You should always start there, you can see the conversions and conversion list under products. I would recommend the G scale ones. 

There are tons of places to buy Kadee's, I'm an RLD Hobbies fan. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Fred (Jan 2, 2008)

Probably the KD#831 which is used on truck mounted Aristocraft, Bachman and LGB cars I own.


----------



## pete (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Greg and Fred for the information. I will send a order to rld in a few days.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

For the benefit of others reading this thread, you may also consider the #1831 coupler, which has the same truck-mounted coupler box (draft gear) as the #831, but has the smaller #1 scale coupler. (Kadee makes a number of couplers with identical draft gears available with either the G scale or #1 scale coupler). Operationally, the #1 and G scale couplers are identical and compatible with one another. It's mostly an aesthetic choice. Some folks like the look of the smaller coupler--it's more prototypical with the 1:29 and 1:32 standard gauge equipment, and also works well for the smaller prototype coupler used on some narrow gauge lines if you're modeling 1:24 - 1:20 narrow gauge. The G scale couplers are prototypically oversized for the 1:29 stuff, but in line with the 1:24 - 1:20 narrow gauge lines that used a standard-sized coupler. Most folks using truck-mounted couplers opt for the G scale coupler, but there's no reason why the #1 scale coupler won't work. 

From a practical side, the commonly stated advantage of the larger "G" coupler is that the coupler face is taller, thus more tolerant of uneven track as one coupler slides up relative to the other. That sounds well and good, but if your track is that uneven, you really need to consider taking a fresh look at how you're laying your track. Most of the success of a coupler lies in the track over which it's running. The smaller #1 scale coupler is tolerant of some fairly dubious track geometry in its own right. Taking the time to lay your track properly (and keep it that way in later years) will eliminate a host of potential problems down the line, freeing you up to choose your coupler on cosmetic merits. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 03 Sep 2009 09:27 AM 
...Operationally, the #1 and G scale couplers are identical and compatible with one another... 
They will couple automatically, but they will not uncouple, when using the uncoupling magnet.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Given all other things equal, the G scale will tolerate more track variations that the #1. Itis not opinion, it's proven fact. 

If you have great trackwork, and do not pull long trains, pick whatever you want. 

Long trains can be problematic with the #1's without perfect mounting and very good trackwork. I'm talking trains in excess of 40 cars. 

There are "tweaks" to the knuckle casting that can make either size work better in extreme conditions. 

I regularly run trains in excess of 40 cars and have a 3.4% and a 5.5% grade that I have run these trains through, so I'm pretty darn sure of this information from my own experiences besides all the other data from many users. 

Regards, Greg 

p.s. be sure you read the "can be", "can make" caveats in the post above...


----------



## San Juan (Jan 3, 2008)

For truck mounted Kadees on LGB stockcars you need #831.

This is what I use on practically all of my rolling stock. The #831 is kind of the universal truck mount for LGB style cars. 


I also like to use "G" scale couplers instead of "#1" because the larger "G" couplers are more to scale for D&RGW narrow gauge 1:22.5 trains, which the LGB stockcars you have roughly scale to. The LGB stockcar is based off of a D&RGW narrow gauge prototype.


The 831 truck mounted coupler should easily handle R1 curves. Our layout curves are much wider, but I like having truck mounted couplers just in case I bring my trains to a place that has tight curves. 


This is the best image I could find showing a coupler on the LGB stockcars. Note they all use Kadee 831s:


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...Given all other things equal, the G scale will tolerate more track variations that the #1. Itis not opinion, it's proven fact... 
That's not in dispute, that's the laws of physics. The point of my argument is that if your track is that bad to where you're relying on added coupler height to keep your trains together, perhaps you're misdiagonsing the disease. 

...Long trains can be problematic with the #1's without perfect mounting and very good trackwork. I'm talking trains in excess of 40 cars... 
Long trains are problematic with _any_ coupler--even on the prototype. The forces induced by long trains introduce an entirely new set of variables on coupler performance. Knuckle strength (not so much an issue on Kadees due to their operation), shank and mounting all get taxed heavily as loads increase. If you're truck mounting your couplers, long trains are particulary problematic due to the simple fact that the coupler is not attached rigidly to the carbody, but to an arm that extends from the truck. This makes the coupler prone to sliding up or down due to the weight of the train (commonly called "tongue droop"). This phenomenon also introduces vertical forces on the wheels, potentially causing derailments in addition to uncoupling. 

Yes, the larger coupler has a slight advantage due to its size. Physics favors the more substantial. But to imply that the smaller of the two inherently needs "perfect" mounting to function under extreme circumstances is a bit off the mark. It needs a mounting no more nor less substantial or accurate than its larger counterpart. As for the trackwork, if you're routinely running 40 car trains, you're going to want very good trackwork regardless of what's holding your train together. It's my opinion that good trackwork and solid coupler mounts are such an inherent part of reliable operation that they really aren't variables in the coupler equation at all. They're something you need, period. 

...so I'm pretty darn sure of this information from my own experiences besides all the other data from many users. .. 
I'm not doubting the G-scale coupler's performance in the least. I've had equally great results using Kadee's #1 couplers for the past 20-something years. I've not seen anything that the G-scale Kadees can do which the #1 scale couplers cannot, _with the stipulation that they're all operating on good trackwork._ (Not "perfect" but reasonably smooth and even.) Now, the sad fact is that even "good" trackwork seems to be something of a rarity on many garden railroads. As such, the "average" railroad would likely benefit from the larger coupler. But again--does that cure the disease or just the symptom? Yes, you do want better track with the smaller couplers, but you _should_ be building your track to where that doesn't enter the discussion. 

Later, 

K


----------



## pete (Jan 2, 2008)

Matt those are the same stock cars that i have. I put a sound unit in one and now they sound and look great. Thanks to all for the advise and help.


----------



## San Juan (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By pete on 23 Sep 2009 06:29 PM 
Matt those are the same stock cars that i have. I put a sound unit in one and now they sound and look great. Thanks to all for the advise and help.

What sound did you put in your stock car? I put a sheep sound module in the one I modified as a double deck stock car. Runs off of a 9 volt battery.


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Another thing about Kadee couplers. 

typically out of the box, they will screw right on in place of the hook and loop couplers. But, in many cases, this leaves a large distance between cars. Over three inches on my MDC hoppers. So, you may want to modify the coupler and the coupler mount on the truck. This means doing some trimming and drilling a new hole. But your frt consist will look a lot better with the cars coupled closer together. 

Randy


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

If you body mount them you will have better luck.......


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Nicholas Savatgy on 24 Sep 2009 05:56 PM 
If you body mount them you will have better luck.......








Nick, Is that better luck as in winning the lottery?


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By rlvette on 24 Sep 2009 06:03 PM 
Posted By Nicholas Savatgy on 24 Sep 2009 05:56 PM 
If you body mount them you will have better luck.......








Nick, Is that better luck as in winning the lottery?



HE HE HE HE ........


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually, Kadee typically recommends on the documentation on their site that you trim the coupler tang shorter for closer coupling. 

Many of the detailed conversion documents on the site also address methods for closer coupling. 

Be sure to read up on that site, many people ask questions that Kadee has addressed and addressed in detail. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Chucks_Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

I've not seen anything that the G-scale Kadees can do which the #1 scale couplers cannot, with the stipulation that they're all operating on good trackwork. 

Well for one the #1 scale couplers won't work with a MTH Proto-Coupler, Only the G-Scale Kadees will work and quite nicely I might add! 


with the stipulation that they're all operating on good trackwork. (Not "perfect" but reasonably smooth and even.) 

So would you call a 1/8" dip in the track "reasonably smooth"?? Good luck running say USA 36" passenger car thru that with a #1 coupler on it as it won't stay coupled..1/8" dip in the track will cause the opposite end of the car to raise enough to uncouple itself by riding up over the coupler that it's pulling. 

Those of us on here that run say 100' + trains all too well know that only the G-Scale Kd's will work esp. with all the variables that pulling a big heavy train will can produce such as draft gear deflection, floor & frame deflection, truck compression with sprung trucks and then the opposite effects such as compression is another whole bunch of problems such as coupler bunching. Then again if you're only pulling a dozen cars around #1 Scale Kd's would be just fine.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...the #1 scale couplers won't work with a MTH Proto-Coupler... 
Hmm, a "proto-coupler" done to 1:32 won't mate with another coupler designed to the same scale, but it will mate with one that's 140% larger. So much for "proto."  Seriously, compatibility is a completely different can of worms. As soon as you throw that into the mix, you change the search criteria. 

... So would you call a 1/8" dip in the track "reasonably smooth"?? Good luck running say USA 36" passenger car thru that with a #1 coupler on it as it won't stay coupled..1/8" dip in the track will cause the opposite end of the car to raise enough to uncouple itself by riding up over the coupler that it's pulling. ... 
The length of the car isn't the critical dimension so much as the distance between the bolster and the coupler face. The bolster is the fulcrum. The coupler face one end of the lever, the bolster on the other end of the car the other end of the lever. From a geometric standpoint, assuming the distance from bolster to coupler face is equal, the longer car actually has less vertical offset at the coupler than the shorter car because the ratio of the lever from one side of the fulcrum to the other is greater. The closer the coupler face to the bolster, the less dips and bumps affect your trains' abilities to stay coupled. Let me be clear: _if your trackwork is uneven enough to where your cars come uncoupled, that is not the fault of the coupler._ My trackwork isn't perfect--it has its share of bumps and dips--yet I'm able to run my 1:20 passenger cars over it without issue. The distance between the bolsters and coupler faces on those cars are on par with the USA stuff, and I have every confidence a string of USA cars could make it around my railroad without any trouble. It'd look silly in front of my passenger stations, though.  

... Those of us on here that run say 100' + trains all too well know that only the G-Scale Kd's will work ... 
Evidently the folks who run 100' trains using #1 scale Kadees didn't get that memo. You _have_ to build your railroad to accommodate the trains you're going to be running. Look at the prototype. High-speed mainlines are built to a far more precise standard than branchlines. You're not going to get 100 car coal drags down the Livonia, Avon, & Lakeville tracks that ran behind my old house in Rochester. If running 100' long trains is your thing, put your track on a solid foundation so you don't get the dips and twists that can cause problems. You'd no sooner introduce those bumps and twists than you would 4% grades or 4' diameter curves into the mix. Track geometry has everything to do with how our trains run over them. The larger couplers do allow your trackwork to be a bit "sloppier," but to say you cannot run 100' long trains with #1 Kadees is simply not accurate. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, I deleted my first response to your post above... 

Here is something more diplomatic: 


1. Do not pick on the proto-coupler, and pick on the name. I have been accused of giving MTH a hard time, now you are a moderator, you should not either. They have remote controlled couplers, I am envious! They work. 

2. With body mounts, you damn betcha the length of the car is important! it magnifies the effects of vertical curves. I have a layout "smoother" than any other one I have seen in San Diego, and it's STILL difficult!!! 

3. I'm not sure what your last paragraph says, I see you are attacking the statement about running 100' trains. That statement is not made to brag, it's well known that longer trains "magnify" any problems that might not be seen in shorter trains. 

Why do I run 45 car trains on my tiny layout (only 450 feet total)? Because it tests the **** out of stuff, and then running a 20 car train is dead reliable. 

Dips and twists can occur on a solid foundation, wood warps, concrete heaves, free ballast shifts. 

Now your last statement: Have you run a 100' long train?, I think Chuck and I have more experience here.... Maybe you can use #1, but it's one whole **** of a lot easier and more practical with the G couplers... I don't see any big clubs trying this with the #1... 

I'm probably going to get a complaint about harassing moderators for this, but this is not the first time I feel you have really pushed an argument and do not have direct experience, only your theories. You do not run long trains or SG as I understand it, correct me if I am wrong. 

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, 

1) It was a joke. There was a smiley in there, followed by the word "seriously." Sorry if you missed that. 

2) It's a combination of the overall length of the car, but the critical dimension is the distance between the bolster and the coupler face. The longer that distance is, the more the variations in height between the two bolsters are amplified. Take two cars - one with 24" between bolsters and 6" between the bolster and the coupler (a 1:4 lever), one 18" between bolsters, the same 6" between bolster and coupler (1:3). Now, put a 1/2" difference between the two bolsters. The longer car's coupler will be offset 1/8" (1/2 ÷ 4), while the shorter car's coupler will be offset 1/6" (1/2 ÷ 3). The shorter car has the greater offset. 

Now, dips in our track are seldom so clear cut, they're more often along the lines of vertical curves, in which case the longer car takes up a greater segment of the arc of the curve, which can lead to large offsets depending on the severity of the vertical curve. If you've got a train going over undulating track, where one coupler is at the bottom of a curve and the adjacent one is near the top of the next one, then you have problems, and longer cars are more susceptible to that kind of variation. Again--if you're running long cars/long trains, build your track without the vertical curves. It's not the coupler's fault. 

... Dips and twists can occur on a solid foundation, wood warps, concrete heaves, free ballast shifts. 
That's the joy of being outdoors. I make small adjustments to my track pretty much every other time I run due to those delightful forces of nature. It's the trade-off I make for using a more scale-sized coupler. If you don't want to do the maintenance, then you limit your choices of couplers to those that can compensate for the more uneven track. It's not that the smaller ones won't work, it's just that they won't work given the restraints you yourself are putting on the situation. 

3) I'm rebutting Chuck's statement that "..._only_ the G-scale Kds will work."[/i] (emphasis mine) If you go back to my earlier post, I readily acknowledge that long trains bring with them their own set of issues that have to be taken into consideration. My argument is that while the G-scale couplers give you a decided advantage due to the increased height of the coupler face, they are in no uncertain terms the "only" Kadee coupler that will work. 

...this is not the first time I feel you have really pushed an argument and do not have direct experience, only your theories. ... 
You are correct in that I do not run long trains or standard gauge on my own railroad. That _does not_ mean I do not have experience doing so at exhibits or on other railroads. My experience is not limited to garden railroading as it occurs on the 300' of track on the TRR. Rather quite the opposite. My experience on the TRR is significantly shaped by the things I have learned on others' railroads over the past 33 years. The fact that my experiences run contrary to yours do not render either of our experiences invalid. They are our individual experiences. I respect yours, and I would presume you to pay me the same courtesy. I can't program a DCC decoder to save my behind, but I don't tell people it can't be done. (I generally tell them to call you.  ) 

I think you will find that when I don't have direct experience with something, I'm very up front about qualifying my statements to that effect. (Or, I don't respond because I haven't a clue what they're talking about.) There have also been occasions where I have stated something I believed to be true which was proven not to be, and have expressed appreciation when corrected on the matter. That is a different situation than when someone posts something contrary to my personal experience, then goes on to suggest my experience is wrong. I will defend my experiences. I welcome and respect others' experience as it adds to the collective, but I will not--under any circumstances--discount my own as invalid. 

Later, 

K


----------



## pete (Jan 2, 2008)

Matt i put the cattle sound in mine. So your one of those sheep ranchers.


----------



## San Juan (Jan 3, 2008)

Not a sheep rancher myself. 

But there was and still are a lot of sheep in our area (Southwest Colorado). I like reading stories about long D&RGW trains hauling sheep. I recall one mentioning how "great" sheep trains smell










I should get a cattle sound module for one of our other stock cars since there are cows in the livestock pens on the layout too:


----------



## pete (Jan 2, 2008)

The sound board that i used was from itt sounds. George the owner i think was very heipful. I will be buying some other sounds from him in the furture.


----------

