Anyone Else Using Kadee 58's?

Is anyone else using Kadee's #58 scale couplers? I have been using
them for a year now and they are great. I like the appearance of them
and they operate very well. I also like the fact they are metal
instead of plastic.
Reply to
Salinas McGee
Loading thread data ...
I am too, Salinas, I am putting them on all new rolling stock, along with metal wheelsets.
All my motive power will be fitted with them too.
-- From the computer of Frank A. Rosenbaum
Reply to
Frank A. Rosenbaum
I stuck with #5s. Cheaper and they work fine and look fine to me. If 58s came in the same bulk packs for the same price........
Reply to
I've been using them exclusively since they were introduced. I especially like the way they look on the pilots of engines and on my cabeese. I've gone so far as to start retrofitting some of my better 'old' equipment (ie, #5s) with them. I've found that they have no operational problems with #5s (except excessive short-distance vertical track differences, which is bad trackwork and not bad the coupler's fault), but they don't operate worth squat with any plastic couplers, except the Accurail scale couplers. Even then they're hesitant. In short: I love 'em. I wish they were offered in bulk (especially since I've still got around 200 unbuilt kits), but that's only a small consideration compared to their pluses. 'till later....
-- Andrew Cummings
Reply to
Andrew Cummings
Me too....using them since a year....never had a problem and they look GREAT Cheers Peter
Reply to
I was lucky, they just came out when I made my switch from N to HO, thus I put them on everything.
Reply to
Kevin Brant
I've been using them since they were introduced. Like them much. I do not use centering springs and I cut off the little magnetic Bobbits so that they look and work even better.
Reply to
Nope, not I. And I'll probably never use them. I do not like the look of the "knuckle gap" they put in to mate with older designs, and I don't like the decreased dependability of the smaller knuckle. Not that I think it will break, just that I have hard enough time keeping cars together both on my layout and my club's due to mis-aligned couplers. Sure, I could go out and spend tons of time on hundreds of cars to get them to the perfect height, but I'd rather run my trains. So, my trains aren't 100% realistic, but then if I wanted that, I'd use Sargeant couplers and be done with it. Throw in the fact that the new Kadee couplers are like twice the price of the #5's, and, well, you get the idea. Personally, I'd rather spend the money on a re-tooled #5. The #5 coupler is showing it's age in the detail (or lack thereof) it has. IOW, I like the larger #5 couplers; I just wish they had the detail of the #58 (without the "knuckle gap").
Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven *************
Reply to
Pac Man
Definitely. They are the standard on the Flint Hills Northern - all new equipment is fitted with them, and all existing equipment is being upgraded.
Reply to
Gary M. Collins
They came out about a year after my switch. Luckilly, most of the equipment that I had before the 58 introduction was junk equipment that I bought the experiment with, aside from a few 'nice' pieces.
-- Andrew Cummings
Reply to
Andrew Cummings
All of my new power has 58s, and like someone else said I'm surprised at how well they work on my hilly tracks given the smaller facing area. Pretty darned good stuff. I still use the cheaper 5s on most stock.
Reply to
Greg Forestieri
I am not favorably disposed to the #58s. Don't get me wrong, I love Kadee products, and will I replace all of the clones of the #5s with Kadees upon failure in service.
My disappointment with the #58s stems from installation on my 10 car Empire Builder (85 foot cars). I installed them last spring, and after getting "most" of the mismatch out of the couplers, I was able to have the train negotiate my entire appx. 200 ft. mainline without uncoupling.
Then winter came, the humidity dropped, and what I consider darn well built benchwork has some slight changes in dimension (3/4 plywood subroadbed, with 1/2 homasote, unsealed, glued to it. "L" girder support),and the train started uncoupling. Total piss-off. Given that I didn't have time to redo the entire train with #5s, I parked the train on a siding, and didn't run it for a couple of months.
This May, I had a group of friends over for an operating session, and we ran the Builder. Ran around the track flawlessly.
Suffice it to say that by the time you stack up the tolerances in the Kadee coupler pocket, variability in coupler pad height from car to car, and throw in benchwork variability, with 85 foot cars, they haven't worked out well for me. Installations on 40' cars haven't caused me any problems, as the mismatch isn't magnified like it is on the longer cars.
In conclusion, unless the car comes equipped with #58s (new Kadee releases, which I don't buy many of), I'll stick with the old reliable #5s and it's siblings. I personally don't find the size a big turn-off for me.
regards, Jerry Zeman
Reply to
Jerry Zeman
I haven't tried 58s on passenger cars yet. Well maybe one or two, I can't remember. The brass cars are problematic enough, so I just use 5s. Except for the Overland cars - their high level ATSF cars are the best running brass passenger cars I've ever encountered, bar none. I've had to replacing the lighting in them, but otherwise just added couplers and a couple drops of oil on the journals. They run incredibly well - no wobble at all, and they glide by with the presence of an O scale car. I wish I could say the same for all my bra$$ pa$$enger cars, but unfortunately.... ain't happenin.
formatting link
- Pre-Interstate Urban Archaeology -----------------------------------------------------------
Reply to
Andy Harman
It's my standard for most equipment... But I do wish Kadee would come out with a "#58-equivalent" for their 20- 30- & 40-series couplers. I still use those for special mounting situations.
Reply to
Mark Mathu

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.