Kadee.148 couplers


Armand Premo
 

I have mounted several pair of Kadee 148 couplers and like the close coupling.I have yet to try them on a layout.Has anyone had any experience with them?.If so.please tell me what you think of their appearance and operation.Armand Premo


Spen Kellogg <spninetynine@...>
 

On 1/4/2017 6:55 AM, Armand Premo arm.p.prem@... [STMFC] wrote:
 
I have mounted several pair of Kadee 148 couplers and like the close coupling.I have yet to try them on a layout.Has anyone had any experience with them?.If so.please tell me what you think of their appearance and operation.Armand Premo


Armand,

I like their appearance. However, they are a little more prone to uncoupling on vertical curves. While not banned at the Colorado Model Railroad Museum, they are discouraged.

Spen Kellogg


SamClarke
 

Hello group,  are you talking about the smaller scale head #158 whisker coupler rather than the standard head (#5 size) #148 coupler?  The scale head couplers have a smaller pulling face (gathering area) and thus do not handle rough track and sharp grade transitions as well as the larger standard head couplers.

Sam Clarke
Kadee Quality Products


Jim Betz
 

Armand and all,

I have found the #148s to be very good. My biggest 'complaint'
is that they are a little bit more prone to drooping. That is easily
fixed by adding a small shim to the underside of the opening
of the coupler box. I'm not certain of what size I use for the
shim ... it is approximately 1/16th" wide and probably .010"
thick ... more or less the size of a scale 2x6?

===> I certainly wish I had a supply of dark colored styrene
to do that shim - painting the white is ... well, a pain(t).
Black, charcoal, even a light grey would be better than
the white - because sooner or later the paint wears off
and has to be renewed.

I love how well they center compared to Kadees with the
copper springs for centering.

****

I have a love hate relationship with the semi-scale heads
on the #158s. I love how they look. I hate how they are
so much harder to couple/uncouple (usually with a pick),
how -poorly- they inter operate with #5 size couplers, and
how they tend to uncouple when running on less than
stellar track due to vertical motion of two adjacent cars
(the shim mentioned above helps that but doesn't fix it
forever because of the reduced "gather".
- Jim B.


Denny Anspach <danspachmd@...>
 

My standards for many years have been the close coupling semi scale Accumates and short shank scale Kadee's exclusively. I am pretty meticulous about assembly and mounting, and I have virtually no operational problems, none, zip, zero, nada. The close coupling just adds another striking dimension to prototype modeling.

Denny

(From sunny Cocoa Beach)

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Craig Zeni
 

On Jan 5, 2017, at 3:46 AM, STMFC@... wrote:

2a. Kadee.148 couplers
Posted by: "Armand Premo" arm.p.prem@...
Date: Wed Jan 4, 2017 5:55 am ((PST))

I have mounted several pair of Kadee 148 couplers and like the close
coupling.I have yet to try them on a layout.Has anyone had any experience
with them?.If so.please tell me what you think of their appearance and
operation.Armand Premo
If you're referring to the 158 scale head couplers (pipe down over there, Sergent users!) I've found them to be quite reliable provided your track isn't just awful. We run 100 cars trains on our modular layout using the 158s with no more issues than with #5 sized head.


Craig Zeni
Cary NC


Tony Thompson
 

I simply have to disagree with Jim Betz on scale-head Kadees. I find they work fine with no. 5s, but it's more important than ever to make sure all work very smoothly. And if you have vertical separations, fix your track. 'Nuf said.
Tony Thompson


On Jan 5, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Denny Anspach danspachmd@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

 

My standards for many years have been the close coupling semi scale Accumates and short shank scale Kadee's exclusively. I am pretty meticulous about assembly and mounting, and I have virtually no operational problems, none, zip, zero, nada. The close coupling just adds another striking dimension to prototype modeling.

Denny

(From sunny Cocoa Beach)

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Steve SANDIFER
 

When I place a car on the track, I make sure it has Kadees. I will not accept any other brand. The plastic ones break. Some compatibles are not compatible. Kadee only. I have about half with the old larger head and half with the scale head and they work together extremely well. All of the new stuff gets scale and whiskers. If an old car starts giving me trouble, I replace the coupler with whisker. The only cars that I have not "mastered" are the resin tank cars with the very narrow pockets that require those coil centering springs. Horrid things, but I understand why they are necessary.

 

__________________________________________________

J. Stephen Sandifer

 

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 10:27 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Kadee.148 couplers

 

 

I simply have to disagree with Jim Betz on scale-head Kadees. I find they work fine with no. 5s, but it's more important than ever to make sure all work very smoothly. And if you have vertical separations, fix your track. 'Nuf said.

Tony Thompson


On Jan 5, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Denny Anspach danspachmd@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

 

My standards for many years have been the close coupling semi scale Accumates and short shank scale Kadee's exclusively. I am pretty meticulous about assembly and mounting, and I have virtually no operational problems, none, zip, zero, nada. The close coupling just adds another striking dimension to prototype modeling.

Denny

(From sunny Cocoa Beach)

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Tim O'Connor
 


I have found that "scale" Kadees & Accurails, and #5-size Kadees all interoperate
reliably. None of them work very well at all with the giant-size Accurails, which
Atlas unfortunately includes with their models. I have been installing scale Kadees
almost exclusively - and mostly with "whisker" couplers - except when I want to use
one of the scale-size Accurail pockets, which do not accept Kadees.

Tim O'Connor




I simply have to disagree with Jim Betz on scale-head Kadees. I find they work fine with no. 5s, but it's more important than ever to make sure all work very smoothly. And if you have vertical separations, fix your track. 'Nuf said.
Tony Thompson


mopacfirst
 

I think my proportion of Kadee 5 to newer Kadees is about the same as Steve's.  I'm not so disciplined as to change the couplers before they go on the track, which is why I know how truly underperforming some of those couplers are.  There are some truly hideously oversized ones, for instance on some Walthers cars.


There are a few that have #0 or #00 Phillips attachment screws that have defied my attempts to remove them.  The Chinese ladies must have air wrenches to apply those screws.  For cars which have self-driving truck screws instead of a proper 2-56, I'd rather not remove the trucks if I can avoid it (and if the trucks are any good).  It's actually possible to snake the coupler pocket cover off, remove the coupler and spring, and insert a whisker coupler, if you're dexterous enough, and on good days I can do it.


Everything else gets Kadee 148 if possible, and there are some which have long enough projection or short enough box that they get the short shank ones.


One bad actor, which is my fault for not working diligently enough to adjust them, are Branchline cars which are otherwise pretty admirable, for the most part.  I stuck those glued-on boxes on somewhere between fifty and a hundred of them between the late nineties and 2005 or so, so now when I find one sticking, it comes off the railroad and I do a hack job to replace box and all with a Kadee 178.  In some cases, I'll use a 262 with 158, but the 262 is sometimes hard to find on the shelf as opposed to the 178.  Maybe I'll just order a dozen packages on-line and be done with it.


Did I mention that virtually all my cars have uncoupling levers glued to the bottom of the pocket cover?  If you're careful, that lever doesn't get in the way because it's glued more solidly to the cover than to the eyebolt that holds the other end to the car.  If not, no big loss.


Ron Merrick


Tim O'Connor
 


That's how I've always done it as well, but lately I've thought that I
should install an inexpensive brass eyebolt (from one of the several brands
of etched parts) on the coupler lid and just use that to hold it in place
without adhesive - Just use adhesive on the bracket or eyebolt on the car.
That way if the coupler needs maintenance I should be able to detach the
uncoupling lever from the pocket without having to re-glue everything. Plus
the glue messes up the appearance of pockets.

Tim O'




Did I mention that virtually all my cars have uncoupling levers glued to the bottom of the pocket cover?  If you're careful, that lever doesn't get in the way because it's glued more solidly to the cover than to the eyebolt that holds the other end to the car.  If not, no big loss.

Ron Merrick


Clark Propst
 

When I started to operate my layout it quickly became apparent I was going to have to change/standardize a couple items. I only keep about 100 cars on hand so I gave up a trip to CCB to buy KD small couplers with whiskers and IM wheel sets. Operating problems solved. It did take awhile for the crew to get use to the smaller couplers, they all use #5s. I did build a Speedwitch low sided gon and used the recommended Accumate couplers. There was a big derailment which was caused by one of the Accumate things separating and half pulling out of box. Where as we could push a dozen or more cars around an 18” R curve without any difficulties. I have found that car sustain more end damage when short shanked couples are installed.
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Mark Vinski
 

   Evergreen sells sheets of black styrene in various thicknesses.


http://www.evergreenscalemodels.com/Sheets.htm


 Mark Vinski